Denouncing Pope Pius IX

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ammonius_Saccus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ammonius_Saccus said:
I still don’t understand the issue. I have consistently been given conflicting information on what the Catholic position is on this issue.
Click to expand...
I suggest that you contact the Vatican or perhaps post this in the Ask An apologist forum. Opinions on this are going to vary, but all you are getting right now is just that…opinions, and they are largely worth precisely what you are paying for them.
Ammonius_Saccus said:
How can the Catholic Church hold the postion that kidnapping is always wrong and the position that a man who was in charge of the Catholic Church and who orchestrated a kidnapping using the power of the Catholic Church is heroic in virtue? Are these positions in conflict?
Click to expand...
Like I said, there is more to this than we have so far brought to light, and frankly I don’t think this discussion is going to go very far without more fact sources.

My question still remains, what is your point?

None of us have the authority to deal with this issue regardless of whether it is right or wrong. What do you want from us?

Let’s put this in another light.

The current war in Iraq is controversial.

Should we condemn the president for leading us into it or is he a great hero and virtuous patriot?

I think it’s the same sort of value judgment…
 
Catholig said:
Well, I don’t think I’d condemn Pius for this. And I think that he did what he felt was right. He brought the child up to be Catholic - as he was baptised. He didn’t kidnap a 1,000 or 10,000 Jewish children - he took one ethnic Jew who had entered the body of Christ, and the Catholic Church. He didn’t condon forced baptisms, either.

Catholig
Click to expand...
…and, would you feel the same way if it was YOUR child and he was taken away by the Moonies (Unification Church) on some legal mumble jumbo pretext?
 
Catholig said:
Well, I don’t think I’d condemn Pius for this. And I think that he did what he felt was right.
Click to expand...
It does not matter if he thought it was right. As Michael Francis pointed out to me, kidnapping is always wrong in the Catholic Church.
 
Church_Militant said:
I suggest that you contact the Vatican or perhaps post this in the Ask An apologist forum. Opinions on this are going to vary, but all you are getting right now is just that…opinions, and they are largely worth precisely what you are paying for them.Like I said, there is more to this than we have so far brought to light, and frankly I don’t think this discussion is going to go very far without more fact sources.

I did post a question in the ask the apologist thread. But I have already been informed by Michael Francis that kidnapping is always wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Church_Militant said:
My question still remains, what is your point?
Click to expand...
I want to understand how a kidnapper can be heroic in virtue if kidnapping is always wrong.

I don’t understand why there is so much discussion of whether a certain kidnapping is OK since Michael Francis has already pointed out that kidnapping is always wrong and he had to close previous threads because people were arguing that it is not always wrong.

Since kidnapping is always wrong, why did the Cahtolic Church declare a kidnapper heroic in virtue? Why doesn’t the Catholic Chuch just take this back and denounce the kidnapper?
 
I’d bet real money that the answer, Ammonius Saccus, is that while “kidnapping” is always wrong, the Catholic Church does not believe that what happened in this case constituted “kidnapping”…hence, in the eyes of the Church it was not wrong and there is no need to confess that it was error. More often than not it’s a definitional game that is being played.
 
rr1213 said:
I’d bet real money that the answer, Ammonius Saccus, is that while “kidnapping” is always wrong, the Catholic Church does not believe that what happened in this case constituted “kidnapping”…hence, in the eyes of the Church it was not wrong and there is no need to confess that it was error. More often than not it’s a definitional game that is being played.
Click to expand...
How is not kidnapping through the state? There is no other way to look at it. This boy was not being abused or neglected. He was stolen away because of religion.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Who care what he considered it? It was kidnapping.

He could have changed the law. He had the authority. He was not forced to kidnap the child. He had the authority and was not forced to do anything. He was free to change the law.
Click to expand...
Kidnapping ordinarily implies exploitation of the victim in some way. The situation would have been more easily exploited had Pius IX returned the child, as it would have given him more favorable publicity considering the political turmoil during the time of his pontificate. As history has shown, Pius IX made a decision that has done just the opposite for him during his own time, and on into today nearly 150 years later. And no, he could not have changed the law. Apostasy is still a mortal sin today. You consider it kidnapping, he considered it saving the soul of a baptized Christian. Since he was the one in authority at the time, you unfortunately are the one who’s opinion doesn’t mean anything in this case. I’m not saying that to you to be snide or anything really, but if you started this thread to come to an understanding of what happened, and then you say, “who cares what he considered it?” That’s not very sensible is it?
rr1213 said:
And would this be your response if it was YOUR child who was taken from you? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If you’re asking me to put myself in the shoes of Edgardo’s parents, I would be completely distraught. The incident occurred from flawed politics. It was a tyrannical decision on the part of Pius IX, but one which he was religiously compelled to make. Popes should not be heads of state, and Pius IX was the last pope to have state authority.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
Pope Pius IX could have renounced his civil authority instead of kidnapping a boy away from his parents.
Click to expand...
It was a time of terrible revolutions, Italy was not even unified at the time. Ultimately papal state authority was ended with Pius IX’s pontificate, but since what happened to Edgardo was not unique, it had been done in the past, why would he use that incident as the impetus for abdicating political authority? To do so would have been irresponsible, since there was no other entity to whom he could pass that authority.
 
From Zenit:
Saga of Edgardo Levi Montara (Scroll down)
Click to expand...
Last month, Italian journalist/author Vittorio Messori published for the first time Montara’s own account of his life, written by the priest when he was 37 years old. Messori found this document in the archives of the Lateran Canons, where it had been overlooked by all the other “scholars” who took an interest in this case with an eye to vilifying Pius IX, and translated it from Spanish to Italian.

It is a fascinating account, filled with love and gratitude for “Divine Providence” which brought him into the Church and the “protector and father” who kept him in.

Edgardo Levi Montara was born in Bologna (then part of the Papal States) to Jewish parents in 1851. The family hired a Catholic nanny for the child, which was explicitly against the civil laws of the country. When Edgardo was 1 year old, he fell deathly ill and was declared by doctors to be on the point of death. When the parents had given up all hope, the nanny baptized the baby she had grown to love.
…
What provoked Father Montara to write these pages was the way the press manipulated the case to create an uproar around Pope Pius IX. He was astounded to hear that his “case” had earned his beloved mentor the nickname of “the kidnapper pope.”

He had no sympathy with the cause of the Unification of Italy and when the Italian forces entered the city and went to San Pietro in Vincoli to “liberate” the boy “kidnapped” by the Pope, Father Montara fled Rome.This might well be worth the read and consideration. It’s probably about as objective account as one is likely to find.
 
I dont care what anyone says about children being impressionable and all that. Edgardo Mortara was six years old at the time, yet still old enough to know that he was being taken from his parents. Any other child of that age taken from their parents is not likely to look back on the event fondly later on in life. Yet Mortara early on showed contentment with his situation, and later on did nothing but defend the actions of Pope Pius IX. There was clearly, as Fr. Mortara later said himself, a great amount of God’s Grace at work in him at the time.

Think about it this way- Blessed Pope Pius IX, that great defender of the Church, quite possibly saved this child’s soul.

Even if you disagree with his actions, I cannot possibly see how anyone could find fault with Pope Pius. He stood up to foreign governments, unrest in his own country, and general opposition to the issue of Edgardo Mortara. Many historians will attribute, at least partially, the fall of the Papal States to the Mortara case. It would have in his best interest politically to return Mortara to his parents, yet the Pope stood firm and lost so much because he believed that the salvation of a single soul was far more important then his own image and temporal power. Consider all that Pope Pius IX and his successors lost because he wouldnt surrender a single young boy because he believed that his soul was of far more concern then politics. Whatever opinions you might have of the actions of Pius IX in this case, it must still be acknowledged that this Pope was a great hero of the Church who lived what he taught, defying enormous pressure and lossing so much for his faith in the salvation of that single soul.
 
I have read the story of Edgardo and it was a different period of time in those days. Jewish families were not to hire Catholics yet that family did. I understand the reasons why the boy was baptized Catholic. It is understandable.

Pope Pius IX did not kidnap the boy but heard about the baptism. He did what he thought was right. The boy was now Catholic and should be raised Catholic.according to the Pope. We don’t know what discussions were done with the family. We don’t know what it was like in those days.

What is astounding is that Edgardo loved the Catholic faith and became a Priest. He also dearly loved Pope Pius IX.

We don’t know all the facts. I feel Pope Pius did what he thought was right trying to save the soul of this little boy.
 
Since all sides points have been discussed, this thread is now closed.

I do not believe that the OP will get a definitive answer on these forums.
MF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top