M
mek42
Guest
If an unbeliever reads this thread and decides that an institution that condones kidnapping is not for them, who, if anyone, shares responsibility for the peril of this soul?
- Status
M
mek42
Guest
Conversely, if the abduction of the child on order of the Pope of the time turns out to have been wrong, is this expected to cause damage to the faith of some Catholics?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
He was taken when he was 6 years old, and as far as I know only ‘chose’ or ‘agreed’ in any way to remain Catholic when he was 19. If he had spent those 13 years with his family, it is most probable that he would have ‘chosen’ to remain in the Jewish faith.
B
Birdmanman
Guest
For one who holds Christian premises on this matter, this was not a kidnapping, as I have explained and given reasons for. If it was a kidnapping, then it would be immoral. I do not know exactly who would share culpability for such a situation, perhaps at least the unbeliever himself would have a part. In this situation, the unbeliever decided or has already decided the reality of baptism and salvation (according to Catholicism) are incorrect, if he understands that if these premises are correct, then it follows that this action was moral.
If this turned out to be wrong, then I have made a mistake somewhere in my analysis or reasoning, and it seems the Pope a mistake in his points backing up the action. Just because someone in the Church does something immoral (however, this action was a just removal, not abduction, and not immoral) does not mean that the Magisterium of the Church condones immoral behavior; the very first Pope was guilty of denying Christ 3 times.
Also, I do not know if the just removal of the child occurred “on order of the Pope” as in a direct personal order, although the Pope clearly took an interest in the boy and the boy’s Catholic upbringing.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Perhaps those who deliberately continue to perpetuate an incorrect definition of the word “kidnapping”.
This is contrary to his own account of events.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
I’m a Christian, Birdmanman, and I believe it was a gross miscarriage of justice–a kidnapping, if you will.
You seem to be saying that if this ever happened again, the Pope would need to make the same decision. Do I understand you correctly?
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
I honestly don’t know enough about law to know what would be done by the justice system in your first scenario. I’m guessing a psychological evaluation would be one of the first things to be done to try to determine if a crime was actually committed, or if the man might have some other motive for his confession.
At any rate, a man confessing to a crime, whereby he alone would suffer by the confession if it were deemed sufficient evidence for punishment, can’t be compared to the Mortara case.
B
Birdmanman
Guest
If the same exact situation happened again; the papal states were reinstated with a just law that dictated that a baptized child will not be raised by a family that cannot teach him and/or will him to believe the Catholic Faith, a maid who was hired against a law that helped to prevent situations where a child would be baptized in such circumstances, and so forth, then according to my reasoning here this action would not be immoral because the child would be a true and legitimate son of the Church, the Church members may have an obligation to attempt assisting the child in his Catholic upbringing, and a parental unit (the Church) would be able to raise the child in a manner that did not neglect the child’s spiritual and mental welfare, even though it is separated from its biological other parents. The papal states were a theocracy or a theocracy of sorts, they had a state religion which informed their legal decisions.
B
Birdmanman
Guest
You’re right in that it is not entirely comparable. If there was no one else to give testimony besides the maid on the matter, and no other evidence, I still think the authorities made the right decision, as to make the wrong decision and leave the child with the parents to the child’s presumable intellectual/spiritual neglect would be a great risk.
To be honest, I have not read enough on the matter to answer this question well, and do not know if the authorities used solely her testimony, or even used testimony of others without her direct testimony, or if the boy had spoken on the issue.
M
mek42
Guest
So the law that allowed for the forcible removal of the child from his parents who were doing him no harm was just because the Papal State was a theocracy?
B
Birdmanman
Guest
The law that allowed for the just removal of the baptized child from the parents that could have endangered his salvation through their upbringing to the parent (The Church) who would serve the child for the better existed probably for more than one reason, but one of those reasons is that the Papal States had a state religion which they (lawmakers or lawmaker) held to be true which influenced their laws.
This law was just because the state religion (Catholicism) was true, and the state religion took into account that in this scenario, where there is a baptized child being raised by a family that could endanger the salvation and Christian upbringing of the baptized child because of their lack of Christianity, Divine Positive Law supersedes yet includes Divine Natural Law here, as Pope Pius IX says. I interpret this to mean (as I have said before) that the revealed reality of the duties and/or familial relation that are made at the child’s baptism cooperates with natural law (which would allow for parents to raise their child, and to raise their children in the best way even if one of the other parents would raise their child in a harmful way, and to take their child away from even a biological parent that might harm the child in a serious manner), and in this cooperation The Church takes on the real and actual, though non-genetic, role as the parent of the child at his baptism, and so does not violate natural law in removing her child, even from its biological parents, in order to prevent her child from coming to serious harm, in this case a harm more serious than physical harm.
Someone who denies the truth of the Catholic Faith and the reality of baptism and salvation, but still believes in the moral truths of Natural Law, must, it seems to me, almost necessarily hold that this law and the action of the Pope are morally wrong. (However, this is not the case if someone merely suspends judgment on the truth of the Catholic Faith or the reality of baptism and salvation, if (or where) such a suspension of judgment is possible).
It might just be better to perform a search of the Ask an Apologist thread, as a question about the Edgardo Mortara affair was already asked and answered. (Mek42, I do not think this question you just asked was addressed by the Ask an Apologist answer, but I could be mistaken).
K
Kaninchen
Guest
When reports of Muslims kidnapping Christian children and converting them (Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria for example) turn up in World News, I shall look forward to your stalwart defence of their actions.
Meanwhile what are your reactions to the ‘Montel Affair’?
Briefly, it’s 1840 and a pregnant French Jewish woman arrives in the port of Fiumicino (Rome), has baby, chambermaid claims to have baptized the child, Holy Office orders the child to be seized, parents complain to the French embassy, French get very, very cross, in the end child is returned with everybody pretending that the little girl will be raised Christian (while knowing there’s not a cat in hell’s chance) and everybody saves face.
I mean how does this fit in with the whole ‘natural law’ thing?
B
Birdmanman
Guest
If Islam (or the kidnapper’s denomination/type of Islam) is true, and makes the same claims (except with Islamic precepts) as Pope Pius IX does in this case (switch Baptism for reciting the shahada or something, this is an unrealistic example), then the Muslim taking of Christian children would be moral. Neither of these things are the case, however (the Muslim kidnappers do not make the claims of Pope Pius IX (at least to my knowledge), and Islam or whatever version of Islam the kidnappers are (that they believe justifies their action) is not true).When reports of Muslims kidnapping Christian children and converting them (Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria for example) turn up in World News, I shall look forward to your stalwart defence of their actions.
Meanwhile what are your reactions to the ‘Montel Affair’?
Briefly, it’s 1840 and a pregnant French Jewish woman arrives in the port of Fiumicino (Rome), has baby, chambermaid claims to have baptized the child, Holy Office orders the child to be seized, parents complain to the French embassy, French get very, very cross, in the end child is returned with everybody pretending that the little girl will be raised Christian (while knowing there’s not a cat in hell’s chance) and everybody saves face.
I mean how does this fit in with the whole ‘natural law’ thing?
I’m going to decline to comment any further than this post on the Montel Affair, I think I have sufficiently given the reasons that I believe Pope Pius IX’s actions during the Mortara Affair are justified, and I think I have shown that those reasons are dependent on whether or not the reality of baptism and salvation that Pope Pius IX describes is true. Perhaps a new thread for the Montel Affair would be better than tacking it on to this one, as the circumstances of the Montel Affair, while similar, are distinct (the child was not near-death, the family were French and not citizens of the Papal States, etc…).
[To be frank, I’m a bit fatigued on discussing this topic, as I have participated in each or nearly each page of this 7 page thread. I appreciate your reading my discussion/arguments, Kaninchen (and others), and I hope you remember that I love and want the absolute best for all people, Jewish or otherwise, although we have disagreements about what is good/best
].
M
mek42
Guest
Since it can be agreed that this event has the semblance of evil to non-Catholics, is this event an example of scandal?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
No. Scandal involves the appearance of something that is actually evil.
M
mek42
Guest
The event certainly has the appearance of kidnapping. Are you saying that kidnapping is not evil?
D
devoutchristian
Guest
By that logic Catholic states should abolish all CPS.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I do have to say that you have done far better in defending the indefensible than any other poster in the past several years.
I raised the Montel Affair because it would have taken us back to my ‘did it because he could do it’ argument earlier - I expect that Italian nationalists at the time probably prayed for a British Jewish family to take a holiday in Rome - given that the Brits were the only superpower and had a very, very bad attitude to the Papal States.
Anyway, another time.
M
mek42
Guest
No more than should secular states do so. To cause physical harm to a child is against the vast majority of moral codes the world has seen. This is a near universal offense.By that logic Catholic states should abolish all CPS.
The removal of the child under the circumstances given a new this thread, though, is seen as beneficial only by the Catholic Church, not even all of Christiandom. It has even been stipulated by a Catholic here that a non-Catholic should see the event as kidnapping.
If scandal only applies to the eyes of other catholics and not non-Catholics, then there is no scandal. I am unclear on this.
B
Birdmanman
Guest
From the Catechism:
If there is any scandal in the Pope’s action, it would have been just as, if not more, scandalous for the Pope to all of a sudden disobey the laws put in place before him and perhaps cause Catholics or others to doubt the seriousness and validity of baptism and salvation. By this action, the Pope is not causing a non-Catholic to doubt Catholicism, since the non-Catholic was not Catholic and so doubted Catholicism in the first place.
And if there is anyone who has suspended their judgment of the truth of Catholicism (if this is possible), then, if they follow reason, they must likewise (if they understand it and the Pope’s points) also suspend their judgment on the morality or immorality of the Pope’s action (because its morality rises and falls with the reality of baptism/salvation, which the undecided person has neither confirmed nor denied). If anything, if the Pope did not perform this action, he would have looked inconsistent, and perhaps caused those who were undecided (if possible) on the truth of the Catholic faith to begin to doubt, or would have cause Catholics to start to think they could also become inconsistent in following canon law as well (I do not want to mislead you, though, to think the Pope cannot change disciplinary canon law (which may or may not have applied in this case). To my understanding, the Pope can change or get rid of disciplinary canon law alone if he wishes, although he cannot do something that is contrary to Divine Positive Law and Natural Law).
I do not think the Pope committed scandal here, since I do not think his actions and behavior in this case led another to do evil. For Non-Catholics who may have been upset by the Pope’s action, and who would have done such evils as hate the Pope or curse the Church or so forth, those evils were led by that person being Non-Catholic, or perhaps not understanding or taking the time to understand the Pope’s points on the matter. Or maybe the Pope here had a decision between the “lesser of two evils” and chose the lesser. I need to more clearly think about and understand the sin of scandal in order to address this question better.
A person can commit scandal even if the person who is led to do evil is a non-Christian/non-Catholic.
- Status