Montara affair

[Kaninchen]

Danger to the soul is far more dangerous and serious than danger to the body.

The Ottoman Turks and 19th Century American Protestants would have agreed with you wholeheartedly about the soul-saving business.

 

[Birdmanman]

The Ottoman Turks and 19th Century American Protestants would have agreed with you wholeheartedly about the soul-saving business.

Yes, and if their religion was true, and they made the same claims as the Catholic Church did in this scenario, then they would be justified in ‘taking’ the child, which would be their child, their son, and not just simply the son of the biological parents, and they would be doing it out of compassion. Because the action of the Pope is based both on a combination of Divine Revelation and Natural Law, the morality or justification of the Pope’s action rises and falls with the truth of the Divine Revelation it is based on. It only makes sense that someone who does not accept Catholic Divine Revelation would see this action as immoral. The debate should then turn to the veracity of each religion to determine the morality of this kind of action, which may or may not be able to be fully determined by human reason alone in some cases.

For an Old Testament example that you might better relate to, some would say that some of the killings in the Old Testament were immoral, perhaps if they believe some religion that says that has a morality based on absolute pacifism and that they say is Divinely revealed; the morality of the killings in the Old Testament would then rise and fall with the truth or falsehood of this absolute-pacifist religion and the legitimacy of its supposedly ‘Divinely revealed’ stance (at least in the area of its absolute pacifism).

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, and if their religion was true, and they made the same claims as the Catholic Church did in this scenario, then they would be justified in ‘taking’ the child, which would be their child, their son, and not just simply the son of the biological parents, and they would be doing it out of compassion. Because the action of the Pope is based both on a combination of Divine Revelation and Natural Law, the morality or justification of the Pope’s action rises and falls with the truth of the Divine Revelation it is based on. It only makes sense that someone who does not accept Catholic Divine Revelation would see this action as immoral. The debate should then turn to the veracity of each religion to determine the morality of the action, which may or may not be able to be full determined by human reason alone in some cases.

I’m not quite clear on this, are you saying that kidnapping children is OK if you believe your religion is the right one? Or are you saying that Catholicism is the only true religion and that kidnapping is only OK if Catholics do it?

 

[Birdmanman]

I’m not quite clear on this, are you saying that kidnapping children is OK if you believe your religion is the right one? Or are you saying that Catholicism is the only true religion and that kidnapping is only OK if Catholics do it?

I am saying that if Catholicism is true, then this is not kidnapping, if kidnapping is the unjust removal of children who are not yours. Please read my earlier posts to see my argument to this effect. If Catholicism is not true, then this is a kidnapping and is thus immoral (although the parties involved may have good intentions). You believe Catholicism is not true, so it follows quite logically that you see this as a kidnapping.

 

[Kaninchen]

I am saying that if Catholicism is true, then this is not kidnapping, if kidnapping is the unjust removal of children who are not yours. Please read my earlier posts to see my argument to this effect. If Catholicism is not true, then this is a kidnapping and is thus immoral (although the parties involved may have good intentions).

Oh, I’ve been around Mortara threads on CAF for years and years and have just about heard it all in terms of explanations/excuses.

As I said in my post, Pio Nono did it because he could do it. Partly because he did it, he soon was in no position to do any such thing ever again - what goes around …

 

[Birdmanman]

Oh, I’ve been around Mortara threads on CAF for years and years and have just about heard it all in terms of explanations/excuses.

As I said in my post, Pio Nono did it because he could do it. Partly because he did it, he soon was in no position to do any such thing ever again - what goes around …

I disagree, and think that the Pope at the time was in earnest when he gave his reasons for carrying out this action (which reasons or points I think I quoted from a book earlier in this thread). I do not think he did this willy nilly or out of some greed for Jewish children, and I think he understood the consequences and reaction that ensued, evinced by him saying to Edgardo, “You are very dear to me, my little son, for I acquired you for Jesus Christ at a high price.”

 

[Kaninchen]

I disagree, and think that the Pope at the time was in earnest when he gave his reasons for carrying out this action (which reasons or points I think I quoted from a book earlier in this thread). I do not think he particularly wanted this to happen, or did it willy nilly or out of some greed for Jewish children, and I think he understood the consequences and reaction that ensued, evinced by him saying to Edgardo, “You are very dear to me, my little son, for I acquired you for Jesus Christ at a high price.”

Oh, I think Pio Nono knew exactly what he was doing and why.

 

[Birdmanman]

Oh, I think Pio Nono knew exactly what he was doing and why.

Yes, and I believe he had theologians assist him on the matter to help determine why. And I think the reasons why were just because I accept the realities of baptism and salvation and it follows as a logical conclusion for me from these premises, and you think they were unjust as a logical conclusion from your non-Christian premises (our disagreement should be about the premises, which cannot both be right if they exclude one another, which they do). I appreciate conversation and argument, so thank you for your participation so far!

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes, and I believe he had theologians assist him on the matter to help determine why. And I think the reasons why were just because I accept the realities of baptism and salvation and it follows as a logical conclusion for me from these premises, and you think they were unjust as a logical conclusion from your non-Christian premises (our disagreement should be about the premises, which cannot both be right if they exclude one another, which they do). I appreciate conversation and argument, so thank you for your participation so far!

While I think that Pio Nono knew what he was doing, I think he misjudged the situation quite significantly - particularly about just how much the French (who were protecting the Papal States from its own anti-clericals and the forces of the Kingdom of Italy) could put up with.

 

[mek42]

So, back then, anyone could make a valid baptism without consent of parents? The emergency clause for doing this is a modern limitation?

 

[Birdmanman]

So, back then, anyone could make a valid baptism without consent of parents? The emergency clause for doing this is a modern limitation?

The ‘emergency’ clause existed then as it did now, as the Pope at the time had the following points:

"-by the laws of the Church it is forbidden to baptise an infidel by force, and consequently it is forbidden to baptise a child against the will of both his parents.

-However, if the child is in danger of his life, then it is permitted to baptise him even against the will of his parents. The baptism then imparts to the infant not the faith of his parents but that of the Church, making him a Christian ex opere operato without the need for any consent."

But I retract something I said earlier: I said, “even if the maid lied about the boy’s dire illness and so illicitly baptized the boy against the laws of the Papal States and the Church, the baptism would still be valid and be a real baptism if it was done as a real baptism is (Trinitarian formula, water, and so forth).”
Because The Catechism states that the person has to “will to do what the Church does when she baptizes”, if the maid lied about the boy’s dire illness, and also (note, I said “ALSO”, not “THEREFORE”) did not will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, then she did not perform a baptism. However, if she lied about the dire illness, and still willed to do what the Church does when she baptizes, then maybe the Baptism would still be valid. I do not understand clearly whether willing to perform a known illicit baptism means that the person does not “will to do what the Church does when she baptizes” and so implies an invalid baptism. **Perhaps someone with a better understanding of what makes a baptism valid, even if the baptism is illicit (if this is possible), should chime in.
**
**If **a baptism can be done illicitly and still validly, then it would seem that anyone then, as now, could baptize a child against the will of the parents and still cause a valid baptism to occur; but the baptism would be illicit and the baptizer would be committing a sin by performing such an illicit baptism. (**If **this is the case, then an analogy can be made like this: a man steals and changes a rare piece of artwork before the police catch him, he is guilty of a crime, but because the rare piece of artwork would be damaged if the change was removed, the artwork is forever changed and what the man did cannot be taken back even though he did it illegally and is punished for it)

 

[mek42]

If the baptism was invalid, was the child’s soul placed in peril by depriving him of the education regarding the mitzvot needed to be followed by Jews to be right with God?

 

[Birdmanman]

If the baptism was invalid, was the child’s soul placed in peril by depriving him of the education regarding the mitzvot needed to be followed by Jews to be right with God?

If the validity was really in question, he should have received a conditional baptism to remove the question of validity. Even in the event that both the maid did not baptize the child, and (if the baptism was really found to be in question) the child was not conditionally baptized, the child would have benefited from learning of and from the assent to the Catholic Faith that led him to be a priest. His lack of learning the mitzvot would not endanger his soul. I assume that a Jewish person would say otherwise, since they would think it beneficial for the boy to learn and follow the mitzvot rather than the Catholic Faith, whereas a Catholic would not think so. I disagree with a Jewish person who would say his lack of learning the mitzvot would harm the boy or put him at greater risk or peril.

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

**If **a baptism can be done illicitly and still validly, then it would seem that anyone then, as now, could baptize a child against the will of the parents and still cause a valid baptism to occur…

That’s the first thing that popped into my head when you wrote that post. If a baptism can be valid (legally and spiritually binding) even if it was illicit in every way, then why even have rules regarding licitness/illicitness? I too would like someone with some expertise in canon law to weigh in on that question.

If the validity was really in question, he should have received a conditional baptism to remove the question of validity.

…]

If he was not in danger of death and still below the age of reason/competence, then the church would need the consent of at least one parent which, I presume, it would not have obtained.

 

[devoutchristian]

The ‘emergency’ clause existed then as it did now, as the Pope at the time had the following points:

But I retract something I said earlier: I said, “even if the maid lied about the boy’s dire illness and so illicitly baptized the boy against the laws of the Papal States and the Church, the baptism would still be valid and be a real baptism if it was done as a real baptism is (Trinitarian formula, water, and so forth).”
Because The Catechism states that the person has to “will to do what the Church does when she baptizes”, if the maid lied about the boy’s dire illness, and also (note, I said “ALSO”, not “THEREFORE”) did not will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, then she did not perform a baptism. However, if she lied about the dire illness, and still willed to do what the Church does when she baptizes, then maybe the Baptism would still be valid. I do not understand clearly whether willing to perform a known illicit baptism means that the person does not “will to do what the Church does when she baptizes” and so implies an invalid baptism. **Perhaps someone with a better understanding of what makes a baptism valid, even if the baptism is illicit (if this is possible), should chime in.
**
**If **a baptism can be done illicitly and still validly, then it would seem that anyone then, as now, could baptize a child against the will of the parents and still cause a valid baptism to occur; but the baptism would be illicit and the baptizer would be committing a sin by performing such an illicit baptism. (**If **this is the case, then an analogy can be made like this: a man steals and changes a rare piece of artwork before the police catch him, he is guilty of a crime, but because the rare piece of artwork would be damaged if the change was removed, the artwork is forever changed and what the man did cannot be taken back even though he did it illegally and is punished for it)

Protestant baptisms are valid even though they are clearly against Church law. As long as one understands the essential aspects of what the words “baptize”, “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” mean, and so long as they intend to perform a baptism, it is valid.

 

[devoutchristian]

That’s the first thing that popped into my head when you wrote that post. If a baptism can be valid (legally and spiritually binding) even if it was illicit in every way, then why even have rules regarding licitness/illicitness? I too would like someone with some expertise in canon law to weigh in on that question.

If he was not in danger of death and still below the age of reason/competence, then the church would need the consent of at least one parent which, I presume, it would not have obtained.

I’m not sure whether or not an illicit baptism can make one Catholic, but it would imprint the indelible mark of baptism on the soul.

 

[Kaninchen]

From a Jewish perspective, it’s really a question of consequences.

The action of baptizing is insulting, of course, but, when it comes down to it, it’s just a minor assault on a Jewish child.

The important thing is keeping the child out of the clutches of the people who have inflicted the assault. The Mortara family were unfortunate but their misfortune did play its part in ending the miserable history of the House of the Catechumens.

 

[Birdmanman]

That’s the first thing that popped into my head when you wrote that post. If a baptism can be valid (legally and spiritually binding) even if it was illicit in every way, then why even have rules regarding licitness/illicitness? I too would like someone with some expertise in canon law to weigh in on that question.

Well I could see a very good reason for having the rules regarding licitness and illicitness being that it would defy natural law, and so would be immoral, to unjustly take away a child from their parents to be baptized (except in a near-death situation). The reason the case of Edgardo is moral and does not defy natural law is because either the baptism created an actual familial relationship between Edgardo and The Church, making him a legitimate son of The Church and so nothing against natural law was done with a parent removing her own son to be brought up with better contact with important truths, or because the baptism created a real obligation to prevent the child from being spiritually/intellectually neglected on the part of the Church members which they did not have before. (I realize this will sound offensive to someone who does not believe in Catholicism, since for me to say “better contact with important truths” or to call being raised apart from The Church as spiritual or intellectual neglect assumes the truth of the Catholic Faith, which the non-Catholic clearly does not. I acknowledge the anger or annoyance these words might draw up, but do not apologize for calling something that is true, true).

If he was not in danger of death and still below the age of reason/competence, then the church would need the consent of at least one parent which, I presume, it would not have obtained.

I did not think of this before, thank you for pointing it out! Well, if the baptism can be valid without being licit, which I am leaning toward saying it can (that is, if you perform the baptism, even on a child who is not near-death, against the will of the parents, I and devoutchristian seem to think it is still valid, but is not licit), then the priests who might have given conditional baptism to Edgardo would be committing a sin and doing an illicit act since the parent’s consent was not had, but the conditional baptism would (presumably) still mean a valid baptism if the maid’s alleged baptism was fake. But I do not think the maid’s baptism of the child was fake or invalid, and neither did the authorities at the time, and I think the maid’s testimony alone is sufficient to justify belief in the boy’s baptism.
At this point, though, we are (or at least I am) moving closer or already in speculation over what might have happened.

 

[Birdmanman]

From a Jewish perspective, it’s really a question of consequences.

The action of baptizing is insulting, of course, but, when it comes down to it, it’s just a minor assault on a Jewish child.

The important thing is keeping the child out of the clutches of the people who have inflicted the assault. The Mortara family were unfortunate but their misfortune did play its part in ending the miserable history of the House of the Catechumens.

In a Jewish perspective, I can see how you would think those things and make those considerations. Of course, I hold and know with certainty (though not alone through arguments from reason alone) Catholicism to be true, and so see baptism done to a non-Christian who is in danger of death as an amazingly great gift, not an insult or assault, and an expression of care or concern for the ultimate well-being of the person who was baptized.

If anything that was done in the House of Catechumens would amount to coercing (through force) Jews to believe/convert against their will, such actions would be condemned by the Catechism, and (Wikipedia says…) the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Toledo (a series of councils in the 5th to 7th century, although I do not know if they are ecumenical (which is a big deal for practicing Catholics)).

 

[Kaninchen]

In a Jewish perspective, I can see how you would think those things and make those considerations. Of course, I hold and know with certainty (though not through arguments from reason alone) Catholicism to be true, and so see baptism done to a non-Christian who is in danger of death as an amazingly great gift, not an insult or assault, and an expression of care or concern for the ultimate well-being of the person who was baptized.

If anything that was done in the House of Catechumens would amount to coercing (through force) Jews to believe/convert against their will, such actions would be condemned by the Catechism, and (Wikipedia says…) the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Toledo (a series of councils in the 5th to 7th century, although I do not know if they are ecumenical (which is a big deal for practicing Catholics)).

The excuses/explanations are really not important, the important thing is ‘never again’.