OPINION: Catholics, Jews, and the Abortion Debate

By Arthur Hertzberg

As a Jew and rabbi, I would add that we are commanded to defend all human beings and the diversity of their beliefs. My disagreement comes not from the outlook of the secular liberals or agnostics but from the sacred teachings of Judaism.

The classic Jewish position on the status of the fetus appears in the Mishnah, compiled by our talmudic sages in the middle of the second century: "If a woman has (life-threatening) difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. Once its head (or its "greater part") has emerged, it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another." (Oholoth 7:6)

In his commentary on this passage, Rashi explains that the fetus is sacrificed in order to spare the life of the mother because, even though the fetus has a claim to life and is sufficiently human to render its destruction a moral offense, neither this claim nor its status as a human life is equal to that of the mother: "As long as it (the fetus) has not emerged into the light of the world, it is not a human life"; that is, the fetus is not yet endowed with rights equal to those of its mother.

In contrast, writing at about the same time, late in the second century, the Church Father Tertullian ruled that the act of procreation produces both soul and body and that life, therefore, begins at conception: "You read the word of God, spoken to Jeremias: 'Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee.' If God forms us in the womb, He also breathes on us as He did in the beginning: 'And God formed man and breathed into him the breath of life.'" Therefore, to kill a fetus is to kill a human being: "Murder being once and for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb....To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p.46 et seq.)

Tertullian's teaching is the doctrine of the Catholic Church, reiterated in our own time by each of the twentieth-century popes. John XXIII wrote regarding abortion: "Human life is sacred--all men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God. Those who violate His laws not only offend the divine majesty and degrade themselves and humanity, they also sap the vitality of the political community of which they are members" (Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961). In 1965, The Second Vatican Council again underlined the fact that in Catholic doctrine "abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes."

In the light of this teaching, the American Church hierarchy issued a statement denouncing the Supreme Court decision of 1973 in Roe v. Wade: "No court, no legislative body, no leader of government, can legitimately assign less value to some human life. Thus, the laws that conform to the opinion of the Court are immoral laws, in opposition to God's plan of creation and to the Divine Law which prohibits destruction of human life at any point of its existence. Whenever a conflict arises between the law of God and any human law, we are held to follow God's law."

The basic Roman Catholic assertion is that the fetus is fully a human being from the moment of conception on the basis of natural law, valid therefore not only for the faithful but for all humankind. It follows that the leaders of the Church have the right and the duty to use every legal means available to make the total banning of abortion the law of the land for all citizens.

The Church's passionate position is not consistent with Jewish law on abortion, which holds that it is neither totally forbidden nor totally permitted. Each case must be decided by religious authorities, acting on medical information and its own judgment of what Jewish law requires. The core principle is that the fetus is not some inconvenient growth in the mother's body. It is a potential life and must be protected unless there is provable danger to the life of the mother. As a rabbi, I cannot turn away a pregnant woman in mortal danger, leaving her and the fetus to God's mercy. I must command her to have an abortion to save her life.

Should the Roman Catholic position be enacted into the law of the land, then my religious liberty as a believing Jew would be curtailed. By civil law, I would be ordered to follow Tertullian's understanding of the Bible and not the view that Rabbi Judah the Prince summarized in the name of the rabbinic tradition. As an American, my religious freedom would be diminished.

I do not contest the right and duty of the bishops to teach their belief and to try to persuade the rest of us; I object to their right to use the law of the state to enact policies which flow from their beliefs. It is a profound moral issue, and I share the pain they feel in the knowledge that a million or more abortions are performed each year in the U.S.; it is an indictment of our society. The number must be lessened dramatically by rebuilding the family and putting an end to the permissiveness of our day.

As for Catholic-Jewish relations, we must not allow our differences over abortion to turn back the clock on the deep friendship that has grown between us in the last thirty years since Vatican II. We agree totally on the great questions of social justice. Even on abortion, despite the differences in our fundamental premises, we agree de facto in wanting to reduce the number drastically. Our great task, together, is to defend the poor and, yes, the unborn, whom no one has the right to treat simply as unwanted flesh. Let us celebrate our unity and work to strengthen it further by respecting and protecting each other's beliefs. The truest proof of how deep the friendship between Catholics and Jews has become is that we have learned and are still learning to live with differences.

Back to Winter 1996

Back to UAHC home page