Even if it were true this would be a sin of the Pope, not the Church.I’m reading a new book called “Vatican Conspiracies” by James McCarty. Sounds like he’s trying to be fair about the Church overall, but in one chapter he talks about scandals in the history of the Church. He mentions that a 9 year old Jewish child Edgardo Martara was “kidnapped” by the Church and forcefully converted to Catholicism and adopted by Pope Pius IX. Does anyone know the real story about this?
He was not kidnapped or forced to convert. Why are you reading this book? James McCartyI’m reading a new book called “Vatican Conspiracies” by James McCarty. Sounds like he’s trying to be fair about the Church overall, but in one chapter he talks about scandals in the history of the Church. He mentions that a 9 year old Jewish child Edgardo Martara was “kidnapped” by the Church and forcefully converted to Catholicism and adopted by Pope Pius IX. Does anyone know the real story about this?
We already went through a couple of threads on the topic since the beginning of the year and they have been closed because people were not charitable.I’m reading a new book called “Vatican Conspiracies” by James McCarty. Sounds like he’s trying to be fair about the Church overall, but in one chapter he talks about scandals in the history of the Church. He mentions that a 9 year old Jewish child Edgardo Martara was “kidnapped” by the Church and forcefully converted to Catholicism and adopted by Pope Pius IX. Does anyone know the real story about this?
Michelle Arnold responded to a question Edgardo Mortoro (I edited answer at top because of reference to another question):I’m reading a new book called “Vatican Conspiracies” by James McCarty. Sounds like he’s trying to be fair about the Church overall, but in one chapter he talks about scandals in the history of the Church. He mentions that a 9 year old Jewish child Edgardo Martara was “kidnapped” by the Church and forcefully converted to Catholicism and adopted by Pope Pius IX. Does anyone know the real story about this?
Kidnapping is the illegal abduction of a person. The Church denounces kidnapping in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
).Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong (CCC 2297
Even in the case of Edgardo Mortara, he was not kidnapped from his parents. Because his parents were unable and unwilling to raise him as a Christian, he was legally removed from their home based on the laws of that time and place. It would be analogous to a modern state choosing to remove a child from a home where it was determined that the parents were not fit to raise him. We might argue with whether or not the state made an accurate determination of parental fitness, but we could not justly accuse the state of kidnapping.
In the case of Edgardo Mortara, he was baptized by a Christian servant in his parents’ home when the servant believed he was dying. Because baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation, canon law even today provides that a child in danger of death may be baptized without his parents’ consent:
When Edgardo survived his illness, it became known that the child had been baptized. By law of the papal states, which was the secular authority of the place in Italy in which the Mortara family lived at the time, a baptized child could not be raised by unbaptized people, even his own parents. The concern was that a Christian be raised to believe and practice as a Christian, something unbaptized parents or guardians could not do. In the Mortara case, his parents were told that the child could be returned if they converted to Catholicism, but they chose not to do so.An infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptized even if the parents are opposed to it (canon 868 §2, Code of Canon Law).
Now, the thing to remember is that in the nineteenth century, churchmen were working under a more restricted understanding of sacramental and pastoral theology. They believed sincerely that a baptized child who was not raised Christian was in serious danger of eternal damnation. Their actions in the Mortara case reflected that understanding. They were doing the best they could with the knowledge that they had to protect an innocent child from going to hell. Today, sacramental and pastoral theology has progressed to the point where, with a child in those circumstances today, the Church would not advocate removing the child from his parents. We now understand that so long as the child and his parents acted rightly according to the truth that they understood, we can trust that God will take that into account and act mercifully in their regard.
Today, all that would be done would be that the parents would be notified of the baptism so that if they or their child eventually chose to enter the Church, it would be known that, in the child’s case, a conditional baptism for the sake of establishing a sacramental record would need to be performed.
Recommended reading:
Edgardo Mortara
Pope Pius IX by Robert Lockwood
Well, I’m skeptical of a book with “Conspiracies” in the title. Be it JFK, Alien, etc. Books on conspiracies, unless they are debunking them, tend to be a bit senstationalized to make money and shock people.I’m reading a new book called “Vatican Conspiracies” by James McCarty. Sounds like he’s trying to be fair about the Church overall, but in one chapter he talks about scandals in the history of the Church. He mentions that a 9 year old Jewish child Edgardo Martara was “kidnapped” by the Church and forcefully converted to Catholicism and adopted by Pope Pius IX. Does anyone know the real story about this?
So I’m sure you’ll have no problem when, a few years from now CPS takes children from homes where Christians “indoctrinate” their kids with “homophobia” once that’s made the law. Or when religious instruction in the home is completely banned on the theory that one should be free to choose as an adult rather than brainwashed as a child (I’ve heard people make this case).Even in the case of Edgardo Mortara, he was not kidnapped from his parents. Because his parents were unable and unwilling to raise him as a Christian, he was legally removed from their home based on the laws of that time and place. It would be analogous to a modern state choosing to remove a child from a home where it was determined that the parents were not fit to raise him. We might argue with whether or not the state made an accurate determination of parental fitness, but we could not justly accuse the state of kidnapping.
Who was defending it? The way I read the apologist’s answer, she was merely explaining the difference between “kidnapping” and “the removal of a minor from his parents by the state.” Simply because the Papal States were not guilty of “kidnapping” Edgardo Mortara does not mean that it was correct in removing him from his home. (In fact, the apologists seems to suggest otherwise by explaining how the Church has progressed in its understanding of sacramental and pastoral theology, and what it probably would do differently today in similar circumstances.) Or are you trying to say that a state is always correct in every decision it makes to remove a child from his or her parents?So I’m sure you’ll have no problem when, a few years from now CPS takes children from homes where Christians “indoctrinate” their kids with “homophobia” once that’s made the law. Or when religious instruction in the home is completely banned on the theory that one should be free to choose as an adult rather than brainwashed as a child (I’ve heard people make this case).
The Mortara affair was a disgrace even in the 19th century. We should quit trying to defend it.