Montara affair

[devoutchristian]

I need clarification in view of some statements made in this tread.

If Edgardo Mortara had been baptized by his maid and she had never revealed that information to the Papal State authorities (which she apparently did not for a period of six years) and if he subsequently had learned nothing about Catholic teachings and had been raised Jewish, then is there anything in Catholic doctrine that holds that his soul would have necessarily been in jeopardy merely because he had been baptized but not raised as a Catholic?

He was at least objectively bound by Catholic canon law, so he was in need of education regarding these obligations.

 

[cornbread_r2]

He was at least objectively bound by Catholic canon law, so he was in need of education regarding these obligations.

This doesn’t seem to answer my question.

 

[Birdmanman]

I need clarification in view of some statements made in this tread.

If Edgardo Mortara had been baptized by his maid and she had never revealed that information to the Papal State authorities (which she apparently did not for a period of six years) and if he subsequently had learned nothing about Catholic teachings and had been raised Jewish, then is there anything in Catholic doctrine that holds that his soul would have necessarily been in jeopardy merely because he had been baptized but not raised as a Catholic?

The following seems relevant to your question, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

847: …Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders,77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79
1270 “Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church” and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.80

(emphasis added)

It seems Edgardo would have responsibilities that arise out of his Baptism. but I think perhaps his ignorance of them in the scenario you gave may alleviate at least some of his culpability. If he meets the requirements of paragraphs 847 & 848, perhaps he would have salvation, although to be frank I do not know how likely (or possible) this is when growing up in a Catholic country. Of course, his Original Sin is forgiven by the baptism he received, so if he died before the age of reason, before he had the ability to reject The Catholic Faith, and his Original Sin had been removed by the baptism, then he would have salvation.

Nevertheless, I think it an obligation on the part of the Catholic maid to educate the child in the Catholic faith, or cause him to be educated in it, or at least to not let him or his parents be mislead when he grew up that he had never been baptized; for this she may be sinful. (I can be wrong on this of course).

In short, yes; his soul would be in jeopardy like the souls of his parents or other Jews if they do not meet paragraphs 847 & 848, but I do not know if any jeopardy was “added” because of his baptism. Certainly new actual obligations were added (such as following Canon Law), culpability for which I think can be reduced or removed because of his ignorance of these obligations. (Again, please take my words at face value, I am not an expert or teacher on these matters; reading up on it in the Catechism is probably better than listening to me).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

By your definition, our own government “abducts” plenty of children.

Again, I’m concerned about the morality of what was done and not the legality. Taking a child because a ritual was performed that the parents did not believe in is not the same as the county removing a 9-year-old that doesn’t go to school and lives in abject squalor.

Mortara agreed from the Getgo, if he hadn’t he would have been able to return and we probably wouldn’t have even heard of him, the idea that you can brainwash someone in that length of time is patently absurd. The Liberals, in opposing the Pope’s actions, were ironically opposing the very thing that they claimed to support, namely the freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice.

Edgardo was six. If you look at stories of foster kids some go all-in with their new family and some obssess over their original ones. It’s not surprising that in this case Edgardo took to his new family well. I still stand by my statement that if a christian child was stolen and then later as an adult he said he was happy to be a follower of Islam, people would be crying “brainwashing”.

Also the only thing ironic is your use of the opposite of ironic as the definition of ironic. In no way, shape, or form is extorting the parents by telling them to convert or lose their kid can be considered freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice.

Christians are those who decided to accept the authority of Christ due to the extraordinary level of witness of those who claimed to have seen the risen Christ. So this is essentially a matter of one group saying they want to believe Bob and his friends who saw X while one group saying that they don’t trust Bob and his friends. Any interested person can question the sincerity of Bob and his friends and arrive at a reasonable conclusion whether they were lying or telling the truth.

Now while it is possible that you may not feel the same conviction from the level of witness given by Bob and his pals and feel it good to reject, this leaves you in a position of limbo on the question of spiritual truths. This is why I said that you are undecided while we have reason to act.

Non-christians don’t just doubt the claims made by christians, but also note flaws, absurdaties, and contradictions within those statements. Now christians will then address those counter-claims, and back and forth from both parties. To paint a picture of non-christians as people who say “That doesn’t make sense,” and little else would be highly inaccurate. Non-christians have just as much conviction as christians.

First is the issue of Islam and its claims as reasons to think it true. The problem with Islam is that even if claims were given to be true, it does not give us actual reasons to think Islam is actually true. So we would hold that it is problematic that anyone adheres to Islam in the first place. This is after all why the Church has missionary activities aimed at non-Christians.

So strictly speaking, to convert someone to Islam is not a charitable act because it is to convert someone to something that even the Muslims cannot be certain of to be true.

You may want to check out sites other than CAF. There are plenty of Islamic apologists who feel they can show their religion to be true and christianity to be false. Obviously nothing can be proven with certainty on either side; but again you’re trying to undercut the folks on the opposite side of the argument as not being as vigorous in defending their position without actually addressing the opposing position.

Second issue is with respect to maintaining order and good relations in society. This is where the idea of religious toleration comes in to play. So the Catholics may have to respect non-Catholic believers out or respect. Similarly, even those of other religions will have to respect others.

There is a difference between respecting someone of a different religion and imposing it on a family. It’s like the old saying, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Your right to your religion stops well short of taking my kid.

The circumstance discussed here is special in that the child happened to be baptized. So in one sense you have the problem of taking the child away from the parents. On the other hand, you have the problem of leaving him with the parents who will certainly raise him with Jewish teachings.

So you have a situation where one has to pick between two goods.

1. the good of being with parents
2. the good of salvation

The Pope picked the 2nd and I think in his place I would have too.

Well I know who I’m not letting babysit my nieces and nephews

-The Jewish family was wealthy enough to hire a servant, and yet (presumably) chose to live or remain in a state with a state religion contrary to their own, and laws based around that state religion. If the U.S. adopted a state religion contrary to your own, and began implementing laws around that religion, would you move if you had the resources?

It seems like you’re blaming the victims here. That guy wouldn’t have gotten his car stolen if he didn’t park in that neighborhood. That girl wouldn’t have been assualted if she waited for the next elevator. The Mortaras were not at fault here. Also you seem to be greatly overestimating the areas that tolerated Jews at that time, as well as the ease with which to move. And there are Catholics and other christians right now in areas that are not fond of their type. To stand and be counted and resist intolerance is noble. To blame them for falling victim to bias and thinks like blasphemy charges is a swipe at their heroism.

 

[Birdmanman]

It seems like you’re blaming the victims here. That guy wouldn’t have gotten his car stolen if he didn’t park in that neighborhood. That girl wouldn’t have been assualted if she waited for the next elevator. The Mortaras were not at fault here. Also you seem to be greatly overestimating the areas that tolerated Jews at that time, as well as the ease with which to move. And there are Catholics and other christians right now in areas that are not fond of their type.

Negligence is a fault, although not as severe a fault as the wrong action done to the negligent person. The girl was not negligent in taking an elevator, she had no knowledge and should not have been expected to have knowledge of the person who was in the elevator. However, the girl was negligent in tipsily holding money in her hand while walking down a dark alley alone in the inner city after midnight (assuming nothing forced her into those circumstances and there are no other mitigating circumstances). The man who assaulted and robbed her in the alley is at seemingly greater and direct fault, but she herself is not without fault in putting herself in a situation that prudence would demand she not put herself in, although this is a different kind of fault. Sometimes the victim is at fault; not for the action itself that made them the victim, but for negligent lack of prudence and forethought that they should have had.

The Montara family was obviously not being as imprudent (if they were imprudent) as the girl I mentioned in my example, nor would their imprudence in any way justify an action that is inherently wrong (although I do not think that the Pope’s raising of Edgardo was wrong).

“To stand and be counted and resist intolerance is noble.”

This seems to assume an objective morality, which is not tenable under strictly naturalist atheism (this may or may not apply to you, as not all atheists are naturalists). While I think the tolerance of persons in themselves is good, I do not think that resisting the intolerance of ideas and ideologies is noble, especially if there is reason, and justified reason, for not tolerating or for condemning the idea or ideology defended. Naziism is a good example of an idea or ideology which it is not noble to tolerate. To ‘stand and be counted’ when it is against prudence to do so is also ignoble rather than a good example of courage.

However, I simply do not know enough about the Montara’s family situation (or the situation of those Catholics and other christians in Islamic countries; although a significant difference in this situation is that at least Orthodox Jews do not or are not under orders to propagate their religion by conversion, while Catholics are under orders to ‘spread the gospel’, which may be a factor to take into account when thinking about the prudence of living in a dangerous area) to determine whether or not their staying in the Papal states was prudent; perhaps as you say the ability or cost to travel was too much for them, or there were other factors to consider. My point here may be something to consider, but is only speculative without more information on the family’s reasons for remaining or leaving (if any). That is, I concede this point to you as not a serious one. In any case, it was not meant to justify the action of the Pope. (Which I think is justifiable in the first place).

 

[devoutchristian]

Again, I’m concerned about the morality of what was done and not the legality. Taking a child because a ritual was performed that the parents did not believe in is not the same as the county removing a 9-year-old that doesn’t go to school and lives in abject squalor.

Our government removes children that it regards as being educationally neglected. The government of the Papal States removed children that it regarded as being educationally neglected. It’s not that different really.

Edgardo was six. If you look at stories of foster kids some go all-in with their new family and some obssess over their original ones. It’s not surprising that in this case Edgardo took to his new family well. I still stand by my statement that if a christian child was stolen and then later as an adult he said he was happy to be a follower of Islam, people would be crying “brainwashing”.

Edgardo didn’t just agree fifty years later, he agreed then. Hardly brainwashing.

Also the only thing ironic is your use of the opposite of ironic as the definition of ironic. In no way, shape, or form is extorting the parents by telling them to convert or lose their kid can be considered freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice.

There were other cases in which deals were worked out whereby baptized children remained with their families who agreed not to interfere with their education as Catholics. My claim of irony stands since it was the State’s protection of his ability to practice Catholicism (the religion he desired to practice) that drew the ire of the world’s Liberals, whose ideological system is practically centered on the idea that one should be able to practice the religion of one’s choice.

The Mortaras were not at fault here.

Except for when they broke the law and brought the whole mess on themselves.

 

[Birdmanman]

I will now openly call myself in support of Pope Pius IX’s actions. I think the anger or horror we feel at them comes from our intuitive understanding of natural law, we see it as in keeping with human nature and “good” that a child’s own family raises and educates its children, whether that family be adoptive or genetic. We see something that deprives the child of the raising and education of it by its genetic or adoptive family as bad, or at least questionable (I myself am wary of calling parents ‘unfit’).
I think, in fact, that anger or a negative judgment of Pope Pius IX’s actions follows quite logically from someone who does not see The Church and baptism into the Church as the creation of an actual, familial relationship.
However, if you do see baptism into the Church as the creation of an actual, familial relationship, making you a son or daughter of The Church, with the same rights as the familial relationship to education and rearing, then it no longer follows logically that Pope Pius IX’s actions violate natural law, but rather take part in it and cooperate under it. When he was baptized, Edgardo actually became a (non-biological) son of the Church, in addition to being a son of his parents.

So, I see the moral principle at question here as: “It is not good to educate and raise children apart from their family.” I see two defenses that can be made in the case of Pope Pius IX’s case:

1. This moral principle is not absolute, in that there are exceptions in which it is good to educate and raise children apart from their families, as in the case of abuse; whether that abuse be mental or physical. Under this defense, the Montara’s situation would fall under one of these exceptions.
2. Baptism actually makes you a son or daughter of the Church, and so, as Edgardo was educated under the Church, he was educated and raised by a member of his family, and thus his situation does not violate the moral principle at question.

But, if one does not accept 2, then I can certainly see why they would find Pope Pius IX’s behavior immoral. Without accepting the reality of the familial relationship made at Baptism, it is the more logical answer that this is a violation of natural Law. A non-Christian who only follows natural law seems to me to be almost bound to call this action evil, as it only makes sense when the reality of Baptism is accepted. This is, unless of course they accept defense 1, which a non-Christian probably wouldn’t since they wouldn’t think of a lack of Christian education for a baptized Catholic a deprivation on par with being educationally neglected, as devoutchristian argues.

 

[Birdmanman]

I will now openly call myself in support of Pope Pius IX’s actions. I think the anger or horror we feel at them comes from our intuitive understanding of natural law, we see it as in keeping with human nature and “good” that a child’s own family raises and educates its children, whether that family be adoptive or genetic. We see something that deprives the child of the raising and education of it by its genetic or adoptive family as bad, or at least questionable (I myself am wary of calling parents ‘unfit’).
I think, in fact, that anger or a negative judgment of Pope Pius IX’s actions follows quite logically from someone who does not see The Church and baptism into the Church as the creation of an actual, familial relationship.
However, if you do see baptism into the Church as the creation of an actual, familial relationship, making you a son or daughter of The Church, with the same rights as the familial relationship to education and rearing, then it no longer follows logically that Pope Pius IX’s actions violate natural law, but rather take part in it and cooperate under it. When he was baptized, Edgardo actually became a (non-biological) son of the Church, in addition to being a son of his parents.

So, I see the moral principle at question here as: “It is not good to educate and raise children apart from their family.” I see two defenses that can be made in the case of Pope Pius IX’s case:

1. This moral principle is not absolute, in that there are exceptions in which it is good to educate and raise children apart from their families, as in the case of abuse; whether that abuse be mental or physical. Under this defense, the Montara’s situation would fall under one of these exceptions.
2. Baptism actually makes you a son or daughter of the Church, and so, as Edgardo was educated under the Church, he was educated and raised by a member of his family, and thus his situation does not violate the moral principle at question.

But, if one does not accept 2, then I can certainly see why they would find Pope Pius IX’s behavior immoral. Without accepting the reality of the familial relationship made at Baptism, it is the more logical answer that this is a violation of natural Law. A non-Christian who only follows natural law seems to me to be almost bound to call this action evil, as it only makes sense when the reality of Baptism is accepted. This is, unless of course they accept defense 1, which a non-Christian probably wouldn’t since they wouldn’t think of a lack of Christian education for a baptized Catholic a deprivation on par with being educationally neglected, as devoutchristian argues.

The same reasoning I gave here can apply to any faith that holds that some initiation right makes an actual familial relation, or that the deprivation of their religious teaching to someone initiated into the faith is on par with educational neglect.
To me it seems that the morality of the Pope’s actions in the Montara affair are dependent upon the truth of Christianity (or, at least, the reality of Baptism, which may be held by other ‘christians’ (writ large)). If Christianity is untrue, then the Pope’s actions contradicted natural law, and were immoral. Anyone who thinks Christianity is untrue almost necessarily holds that the Pope’s actions are immoral, because they accept the moral tenants of natural law but do not have those tenants informed by the reality of baptism. (This applies to other faiths with equivalent teachings who have people who performed the same actions, if there are any; come to think of it, I do not think Islam qualifies as a faith with an ‘equivalent teaching’ to this).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Montara family was obviously not being as imprudent (if they were imprudent) as the girl I mentioned in my example, nor would their imprudence in any way justify an action that is inherently wrong (although I do not think that the Pope’s raising of Edgardo was wrong).

We agree that what the Mortaras did wouldn’t justify wrong acts against them. Obviously we disagree on the Pope’s actions.

Naziism is a good example of an idea or ideology which it is not noble to tolerate. To ‘stand and be counted’ when it is against prudence to do so is also ignoble rather than a good example of courage.

I feel that child theft is an idea, like Naziism, that people should stand up against. I disagree, as standing up for ones rights is quite noble. Depending on the time and place though, yes it could also be very imprudent.

My point here may be something to consider, but is only speculative without more information on the family’s reasons for remaining or leaving (if any).

I understand. I disagree but I understand.

Our government removes children that it regards as being educationally neglected. The government of the Papal States removed children that it regarded as being educationally neglected. It’s not that different really.

It’s quite different. The Papal States did not require all children (christian or non-christian) to get the same level of education. Edgar Mortara did not have the same educational requirements that other Jewish children did, because he was the recipient of a mystical ceremony. Each U.S. state, on the other hand, sets a minimum level of education for each of its young citizens.

Edgardo didn’t just agree fifty years later, he agreed then. Hardly brainwashing.

I’ll say it for a third time. I am not saying that he was brainwashed; but if there was a situation where a christian/Catholic child was taken away then in adulthood said he was happy to have been taken and raised in Islam there would be a major outcry by christians/Catholics of “brainwashing”.

There were other cases in which deals were worked out whereby baptized children remained with their families who agreed not to interfere with their education as Catholics. My claim of irony stands since it was the State’s protection of his ability to practice Catholicism (the religion he desired to practice) that drew the ire of the world’s Liberals, whose ideological system is practically centered on the idea that one should be able to practice the religion of one’s choice.

I have a seven-year-old nephew who if he could do what he wants would eat chicken nuggets and play Minecraft all day. Even those who, like myself, are fervent in the defense of religious liberty and the ability to practice freely realize that there is only so much of said freedom available to a 6-year-old. The state is saying he can no longer be trained in Judaism under penalty of human theft.

Except for when they broke the law and brought the whole mess on themselves.

Again we’re blaming the victim. Their only crime was assuming the people that were set to provide security for the land’s citizen were humane at all.

 

[Birdmanman]

I feel that child theft is an idea, like Naziism, that people should stand up against.

I agree that child theft is wrong. My two defenses are like two cases in which taking a child is okay or justifiable;
one case is when the parents, through neglect, have proven themselves unfit to raise the child and keeping the child with the parents would seriously harm the child.
The second case is when the child you are taking is yours, is your son, is your family.
If baptism really makes a family relation with The Church, then the child was the Church’s son, and the second case or second defense justifies the taking of the child. If one of the parents knows something the other parent is doing is very harmful to the child, a parent can intervene in the child’s best interest.

As a non-Christian, you do not believe that the lack of Christian education for a baptized child is a serious deprivation, and you do not believe that the act of baptizing a child actually makes it a son or daughter of The Church. It only makes sense* that you do not see either of these 2 defenses as applying here, and that you see what the Pope did as wrong. Could I ask if you see how a Christian would accept my defenses, and so find the Pope’s actions justified?

*This only makes sense if you accept natural law, at least implicitly or explicitly, or some other kind of objective morality. You should explore this, as it does not agree with naturalist atheism, and logically mandates your belief in free will and a physical and nonphysical reality related to man. You are logically not allowed to be a naturalist if you believe in objective morality.

 

[devoutchristian]

I feel that child theft is an idea, like Naziism, that people should stand up against. I disagree, as standing up for ones rights is quite noble. Depending on the time and place though, yes it could also be very imprudent.

You’re misconstruing Birdman’s post. His point is that standing up for erroneous principles like Nazism is not noble.

It’s quite different. The Papal States did not require all children (christian or non-christian) to get the same level of education. Edgar Mortara did not have the same educational requirements that other Jewish children did, because he was the recipient of a mystical ceremony. Each U.S. state, on the other hand, sets a minimum level of education for each of its young citizens.

Obviously they’re not exactly the same, but in each case the state had educational standards that were interfered with by the parents.

I’ll say it for a third time. I am not saying that he was brainwashed; but if there was a situation where a christian/Catholic child was taken away then in adulthood said he was happy to have been taken and raised in Islam there would be a major outcry by christians/Catholics of “brainwashing”.

If the child was on board from the Getgo then I wouldn’t say that he had been brainwashed, I would disagree since Islam is a false religion, but I wouldn’t sacrifice my logical faculty in order to express moral outrage.

I have a seven-year-old nephew who if he could do what he wants would eat chicken nuggets and play Minecraft all day. Even those who, like myself, are fervent in the defense of religious liberty and the ability to practice freely realize that there is only so much of said freedom available to a 6-year-old. The state is saying he can no longer be trained in Judaism under penalty of human theft.

The general immaturity of seven year olds aside, the fact remains that Mortara did have the ability to choose, and if his parents had complied with the law and respected his choice, then this case wouldn’t have become an international outrage. My point was not to analyze the boundaries of the Liberal concept of freedom, but simply to point out the irony that the Liberals were opposing inis case the very thing that they claimed to so dearly cherish.

Their only crime was assuming the people that were set to provide security for the land’s citizen were humane at all.

And their illegal hiring of a servant, which as I said before, was the cause of the whole mess.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Non-christians don’t just doubt the claims made by christians, but also note flaws, absurdaties, and contradictions within those statements. Now christians will then address those counter-claims, and back and forth from both parties. To paint a picture of non-christians as people who say “That doesn’t make sense,” and little else would be highly inaccurate. Non-christians have just as much conviction as christians.

I think you may perhaps be unfamiliar with what is being said here.

Non-Christians, including you, probably have problems with Christian doctrine and what you may perceive as difficult to reconcile concepts. But since all of these doctrine claim things that you cannot verify, that is not the basis for assent or rejection.

As far as anyone is concerned, all the witnesses claim that Christ rose from the dead. There is no contradiction in that matter. So I fail to see what conviction non-Christians have against Christianity.

You may want to check out sites other than CAF. There are plenty of Islamic apologists who feel they can show their religion to be true and christianity to be false. Obviously nothing can be proven with certainty on either side; but again you’re trying to undercut the folks on the opposite side of the argument as not being as vigorous in defending their position without actually addressing the opposing position.

I am not saying the other side does not make claims. I was pointing out to you how even if we grant the claims to be true, it still does not logically follow that Islam or any other non-Catholic religion is true.

To give you an example, one of the major claims for the truth of Islam is the uniqueness and literary superiority of the Quran. Now even if we grant the claim to be true, it still does not logically follow that the Quran is true regarding transcendent truths. It could just be that the Quran was written by a middle-eastern version of a William Shakespeare.

It is this point that I was making to you.

There is a difference between respecting someone of a different religion and imposing it on a family. It’s like the old saying, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Your right to your religion stops well short of taking my kid.

There is no imposing since here we have a special case where the child was baptized. For all purposes, it is an unfortunate sequence of unforeseeable events that lead to the dilemma. But the answer to the dilemma is much clearer as I pointed out to you between two options.

So it was already unfortunate that the law of not having Catholic workers in Jewish households was broken. Then it was unforeseeable to the Catholic servant that the boy would recover from what seemed to be a near death scenario. The Pope had nothing to do with what lead to the dilemma.

The Pope simply made the correct choice once the dilemma was presented.

In this sense, your idea that Catholicism was imposed is incorrect, yes?

Well I know who I’m not letting babysit my nieces and nephews

Are your nephews baptized? If no, then don’t worry about who babysits them.

 

[chosen_people]

While it is easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get into the World to Come as they have only to follow the Naoahide commandments, a Jew who breaks the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people and adopts Gentile beliefs will be caught off forever from God and the Jewish people. This was the fate of Edgardo, a five year old boy whose maid reportedly sprinkled bath water on him when he was a one and a half year old toddler and spoke words that only have effect and meaning to those who reject the eternal Jewish God. Not that there was ever any proof that she had actually done what she had claimed. She was a disgruntled ex-employee when she told her tale and caused untold irreparable grief to the Mortara family. Not that bathwater and non Jewish prayers can break the eternal covenant with God and the Jewish people. If this non Jewish ceremony had even an iota of efficacy, presumably young Edgardo would suddenly have wanted to go to Church or declared an affinity to the Christian leader. Since no such “miracle” (sic!) occurred the only thing that could be done was to complete a forced conversion by removing this small helpless child forever from his family, inundating him for years with non Jewish doctrine and convincing him that Jews and his Jewish family were detrimental. Jews apparently have no right to be Jews, growing up Jewish is a defect, ignorant Catholic maids and autocratic Catholic Church leaders should apparently decide their religion. There is nothing new in this. Under the Papal State Jew were forced to attend Saturday (Sabbath) classes on Catholic doctrine. For centuries Jews had been subjected to the cries of wild Catholic mobs screaming “convert or die” - most chose God and death.

Of course, we should be able to put this to rest as past history, along with the Catholic Church making Jews wear yellow badges marking them as Jews, placing them in ghettos, burning Jewish books. After Vatican II, one would think that Mortara was a thing of the past. That any good rational person today can sees this for the immoral horrifying act that it was. Then you read some of the posts here. Maybe we’ve been too optimistic.

 

[Ion]

I was wondering, are the jewish people bounded to the same covenant that God made with Moses? Were they allowed to make some changes?

 

[devoutchristian]

While it is easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get into the World to Come as they have only to follow the Naoahide commandments, a Jew who breaks the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people and adopts Gentile beliefs will be caught off forever from God and the Jewish people. This was the fate of Edgardo, a five year old boy whose maid reportedly sprinkled bath water on him when he was a one and a half year old toddler and spoke words that only have effect and meaning to those who reject the eternal Jewish God. Not that there was ever any proof that she had actually done what she had claimed. She was a disgruntled ex-employee when she told her tale and caused untold irreparable grief to the Mortara family. Not that bathwater and non Jewish prayers can break the eternal covenant with God and the Jewish people. If this non Jewish ceremony had even an iota of efficacy, presumably young Edgardo would suddenly have wanted to go to Church or declared an affinity to the Christian leader. Since no such “miracle” (sic!) occurred the only thing that could be done was to complete a forced conversion by removing this small helpless child forever from his family, inundating him for years with non Jewish doctrine and convincing him that Jews and his Jewish family were detrimental. Jews apparently have no right to be Jews, growing up Jewish is a defect, ignorant Catholic maids and autocratic Catholic Church leaders should apparently decide their religion. There is nothing new in this. Under the Papal State Jew were forced to attend Saturday (Sabbath) classes on Catholic doctrine. For centuries Jews had been subjected to the cries of wild Catholic mobs screaming “convert or die” - most chose God and death.

Of course, we should be able to put this to rest as past history, along with the Catholic Church making Jews wear yellow badges marking them as Jews, placing them in ghettos, burning Jewish books. After Vatican II, one would think that Mortara was a thing of the past. That any good rational person today can sees this for the immoral horrifying act that it was. Then you read some of the posts here. Maybe we’ve been too optimistic.

I really don’t see what Vatican II has to do with it, the provision of canon law in question was in force until 1983.

 

[Birdmanman]

While it is easier for the Gentile than for the Jew to get into the World to Come as they have only to follow the Naoahide commandments, a Jew who breaks the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people and adopts Gentile beliefs will be caught off forever from God and the Jewish people. This was the fate of Edgardo, a five year old boy whose maid reportedly sprinkled bath water on him when he was a one and a half year old toddler and spoke words that only have effect and meaning to those who reject the eternal Jewish God. Not that there was ever any proof that she had actually done what she had claimed. She was a disgruntled ex-employee when she told her tale and caused untold irreparable grief to the Mortara family. Not that bathwater and non Jewish prayers can break the eternal covenant with God and the Jewish people. If this non Jewish ceremony had even an iota of efficacy, presumably young Edgardo would suddenly have wanted to go to Church or declared an affinity to the Christian leader. Since no such “miracle” (sic!) occurred the only thing that could be done was to complete a forced conversion by removing this small helpless child forever from his family, inundating him for years with non Jewish doctrine and convincing him that Jews and his Jewish family were detrimental. Jews apparently have no right to be Jews, growing up Jewish is a defect, ignorant Catholic maids and autocratic Catholic Church leaders should apparently decide their religion. There is nothing new in this. Under the Papal State Jew were forced to attend Saturday (Sabbath) classes on Catholic doctrine. For centuries Jews had been subjected to the cries of wild Catholic mobs screaming “convert or die” - most chose God and death.

Of course, we should be able to put this to rest as past history, along with the Catholic Church making Jews wear yellow badges marking them as Jews, placing them in ghettos, burning Jewish books. After Vatican II, one would think that Mortara was a thing of the past. That any good rational person today can sees this for the immoral horrifying act that it was. Then you read some of the posts here. Maybe we’ve been too optimistic.

Hello Chosen People. I understand this topic can be emotional to talk about, and I want to let you know that before I begin I do, and am commanded to, love God, you, and the Jewish people (as well as all other people).
That being said, we are reasoning from two different premises. You do not accept the reality of Baptism (except that it is a physical process) or the truth of the Catholic Faith, and I clearly do not agree that all that happens at Baptism is a sprinkling of water and a saying of words, and I do not agree that the Jewish faith is true but rather I accept Catholicism as true.

I do agree that if your premise is true that Baptism is not real and that no actual familial relation or new obligation is made when Baptism is done, then the Pope’s actions are immoral.
But do you see from my previous posts how, if you accept the reality of baptism and the truth of Christianity, then the action can be justified?

We are both being logical in our analysis of this situation, we are just approaching it from different premises. We should be arguing about the premises, as at least one of us must be wrong on them.

Also, and these are more questions about surrounding, rather than direct, issues (and feel no need to answer all of these) but did the Pope’s or maid’s or police officer’s action break the Noahide laws? Were the Montara’s being immoral in hiring the Catholic maid and so violating the civil law at the time? Did Edgardo himself break his ‘covenant’ between God and the Jewish people, or did someone else break it for him? Could Edgardo have broken this covenant even when raised by his parents?
Also, as a Jew, do you not think that (according to your faith) being misinformed about God is a defect, and so would you not say that growing up in a non-Jewish household is a defect or lack?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I agree that child theft is wrong. My two defenses are like two cases in which taking a child is okay or justifiable;
one case is when the parents, through neglect, have proven themselves unfit to raise the child and keeping the child with the parents would seriously harm the child.

Agreed, although we will not agree on what “serious harm” means.

The second case is when the child you are taking is yours, is your son, is your family.
If baptism really makes a family relation with The Church, then the child was the Church’s son, and the second case or second defense justifies the taking of the child. If one of the parents knows something the other parent is doing is very harmful to the child, a parent can intervene in the child’s best interest.

I have to give you points for originality in giving a new meaning to the word child to try and equate with that of an actual parent-child relationship.

As a non-Christian, you do not believe that the lack of Christian education for a baptized child is a serious deprivation, and you do not believe that the act of baptizing a child actually makes it a son or daughter of The Church. It only makes sense* that you do not see either of these 2 defenses as applying here, and that you see what the Pope did as wrong. Could I ask if you see how a Christian would accept my defenses, and so find the Pope’s actions justified?

I do see how a christian could accept those defenses. To be frank, it requires not only a knowledge and belief in the Church and its teachings but also a stripping away of that which makes us human: compassion. Another thing it requires is limiting God to a being that believes in love and the bonds of family yet is incapable of finding any middle ground wherein the boy could stay with his family and hunger for the christian’s version of the word of God.

You’re misconstruing Birdman’s post. His point is that standing up for erroneous principles like Nazism is not noble.

Then allow me to amend my statement. I believe the principle that a government has a right to remove a child from his home based solely on his religion and a ceremony for which his family does not believe is erroneous.

Obviously they’re not exactly the same, but in each case the state had educational standards that were interfered with by the parents.

Right but you’re focusing on the innocuous similarities and not on the major difference which dismantles your comparison.

If the child was on board from the Getgo then I wouldn’t say that he had been brainwashed, I would disagree since Islam is a false religion, but I wouldn’t sacrifice my logical faculty in order to express moral outrage.

Let me try a fourth time. I believe that in the scenario I’ve thrice given there would be an outcry by christians of “brainwashing”. As I mentioned I wouldn’t call it brainwashing, and you’ve now stated that you would not call it brainwashing. But I am steadfast that such an outcry would exist, including among many of those christians who do not see the Edgardo Mortara situation as equally amoral.

The general immaturity of seven year olds aside, the fact remains that Mortara did have the ability to choose, and if his parents had complied with the law and respected his choice, then this case wouldn’t have become an international outrage. My point was not to analyze the boundaries of the Liberal concept of freedom, but simply to point out the irony that the Liberals were opposing inis case the very thing that they claimed to so dearly cherish.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “Irony. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
The people who cherish religious freedom feel it is important that people get to make their own decisions in matters of faith. You set aside the immaturity of seven year olds despite the fact that this is crucial to the notion that such liberty is necessarily limited by one’s age. As chosenpeople noted in his impassioned plea, those Jews living in the Papal States were already exposed to Catholic doctrine (by force) in weekly Saturday sessions. If he had stayed with his parents all of the Mortaras had and would continue to have study in both Judaism and Catholicism. When Edgardo reached adulthood he could then decide for himself how he wanted to worship. There was no need to break up this family.

And their illegal hiring of a servant, which as I said before, was the cause of the whole mess.

Does the hiring of an illegal as a servant warrant removal of a child from the hold? Does the punishment fit the “crime”? A few years back there was a spate of government officials in the U.S. who hired illegal aliens (as opposed to legal citizen of a different faith). Why was there no call for a punishment on the level of losing one’s children? Because the crime is minor while a child is a precious thing not to be taken lightly.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think you may perhaps be unfamiliar with what is being said here.

Non-Christians, including you, probably have problems with Christian doctrine and what you may perceive as difficult to reconcile concepts. But since all of these doctrine claim things that you cannot verify, that is not the basis for assent or rejection.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you make a claim that is both unprovable and unfalsifiable that doesn’t mean those who reject that claim have no recourse simply because it is unfalsifiable.

As far as anyone is concerned, all the witnesses claim that Christ rose from the dead. There is no contradiction in that matter. So I fail to see what conviction non-Christians have against Christianity.

I really don’t want to start debating the accuracy of christianity in this thread, as it’s cluttered enough as is; but I think if you fail to see what conviction non-Christians have against Christianity, you’re not looking very hard. Even if you disagree with every claim made by a non-Christian against the accuracy of christian claims, you can’t be so blind as to see that their claims are no more provable or disprovable than the claims of christians.

With all things being equal in terms of verifiability, any action on one side against the children of the other side is completely unconscionable.

I am not saying the other side does not make claims. I was pointing out to you how even if we grant the claims to be true, it still does not logically follow that Islam or any other non-Catholic religion is true.

By the same token, it does not follow that Catholicism is true. Period. I can in no way disprove it just as you can not prove it.

There is no imposing since here we have a special case where the child was baptized. For all purposes, it is an unfortunate sequence of unforeseeable events that lead to the dilemma. But the answer to the dilemma is much clearer as I pointed out to you between two options.

So it was already unfortunate that the law of not having Catholic workers in Jewish households was broken. Then it was unforeseeable to the Catholic servant that the boy would recover from what seemed to be a near death scenario. The Pope had nothing to do with what lead to the dilemma.

The Pope simply made the correct choice once the dilemma was presented.

In this sense, your idea that Catholicism was imposed is incorrect, yes?

Absolutely not, and in the strongest possible terms. All you are doing is again blaming the victim and excusing the perpatrators. You act as though these weren’t real people involved or that one party did a considerable measure of force over the other.

Are your nephews baptized? If no, then don’t worry about who babysits them.

They are Catholic but that’s not what I was referring to. I was talking about the incredibly low bar by which someone who defends the Mortara kidnapping accepts its goodness and apporpriateness. If that is acceptable who knows what would be done to my nieces and nephews?

 

[devoutchristian]

But I am steadfast that such an outcry would exist, including among many of those christians who do not see the Edgardo Mortara situation as equally amoral.

So?

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “Irony. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
The people who cherish religious freedom feel it is important that people get to make their own decisions in matters of faith. You set aside the immaturity of seven year olds despite the fact that this is crucial to the notion that such liberty is necessarily limited by one’s age. As chosenpeople noted in his impassioned plea, those Jews living in the Papal States were already exposed to Catholic doctrine (by force) in weekly Saturday sessions. If he had stayed with his parents all of the Mortaras had and would continue to have study in both Judaism and Catholicism. When Edgardo reached adulthood he could then decide for himself how he wanted to worship. There was no need to break up this family.

orestesbrownson.com/178.html

That article explains why Mortara’s rights trumped his parents’ rights.

Does the hiring of an illegal as a servant warrant removal of a child from the hold?

No, but refusal to comply with the educational laws does.

 

[Eufrosnia]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, if you make a claim that is both unprovable and unfalsifiable that doesn’t mean those who reject that claim have no recourse simply because it is unfalsifiable.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying now. The issue is that you cannot hold a position regarding an unverifiable truth without reason. You simply do not know would be the only valid position.

So if I were to say I believe in Christianity because of the resurrection of Christ. We can only look at the evidence for it. At one point, you have to decide to reject or accept it. If you reject it, you cannot then claim that therefore you are going to hold to some view that the Christian world view is false. Why? Because you lack any reason to claim the views themselves are false.

At best, you can say that you lack sufficient reason to believe the resurrection.

I really don’t want to start debating the accuracy of christianity in this thread, as it’s cluttered enough as is; but I think if you fail to see what conviction non-Christians have against Christianity, you’re not looking very hard. Even if you disagree with every claim made by a non-Christian against the accuracy of christian claims, you can’t be so blind as to see that their claims are no more provable or disprovable than the claims of christians.

With all things being equal in terms of verifiability, any action on one side against the children of the other side is completely unconscionable.

As I said before, you convolution religions claims with claims that are reasons to believe the religion. Those are different things.

By the same token, it does not follow that Catholicism is true. Period. I can in no way disprove it just as you can not prove it.

I think this is again stemming from the same confusion. I can indeed prove that Catholicism is the only reasonable position to hold regarding Transcendent truths. So this does not mean I will be proving Dogma and Doctrine to you. What this means is that I can show you that Christianity has the only claims to suggest it has the truths.

Absolutely not, and in the strongest possible terms. All you are doing is again blaming the victim and excusing the perpatrators. You act as though these weren’t real people involved or that one party did a considerable measure of force over the other.

Oh they are real people alright. It may also do you good to realize that sometimes indeed the victim is to blame.

They are Catholic but that’s not what I was referring to. I was talking about the incredibly low bar by which someone who defends the Mortara kidnapping accepts its goodness and apporpriateness. If that is acceptable who knows what would be done to my nieces and nephews?

Well what exactly is wrong with the Mortara case? Can you perhaps lay it down in propositional form? Because right now it is very vague. As far as we can see, there is a dilemma on having a baptized child lose eternal salvation vs. staying with parents.

As an atheist, I fail to see how you resolve this dilemma because you have no bearing on the concept of eternal salvation. So is it not true that right from the outset, you will always arrive at the wrong conclusion?