Pius IX

[krokal]

I try searching about this topic, so I apologize if it has been covered before. I was doing a little research on some Popes and I saw that Pope Pius IX, did in fact kidnap a young, baptized Jewish boy. Apparently the law did not allow Christians to be raised by Jews.

I guess I’m wondering the Church’s stance in this kidnapping…is there one? Why was Pius IX beatified with this lingering in his background?

p.s. I’m Catholic…so I’m not trying dis the Church.

 

[krokal]

bump

 

[puzzleannie]

since you have posted no worthwhile authoritative citation for this remarkable accusation, no one is going to respond, we are happy to debate truths, doctrines, teachings, and actual historic events, but this is not the science fiction forum

 

[Hesychios]

bump

When I first read about this a few years ago, I thought it was a fallacy. I figured it was just another anti-Catholic piece of fiction.

It happens to be true, the Pope was the law of the land and the police abducted a boy named Edgar Mortara from his Jewish parents in Bologna. The Pope raised him in Rome in his own household.

I never realized that the boy was Christian before the abduction, but it makes the story more logical (if true). (In which case I would like to know how he became a Christian, whether baptized through the efforts of a housemaid or if he converted as a boy.) The whole episode provoked an international outcry that was covered by all the newspapers outside of Rome, and and it was a scandal of huge proportions that divided the Roman Catholic community to some extent. I believe it was one of the reasons the international community had little interest in protecting the Papal States, so soured they were on the whole political concept.

I don’t know that the Roman Catholic church has anything official to state on the matter. Usually the unpleasant stories are not dwelt upon. The public apologies of JP II were vaguely worded, and did not specifically address actions of earlier Popes. Interestingly, the Pope made a general apology to the Jews in March of 2000, and Beatified Pope Pio in September.

As far as Pio Nonno is concerned, he was a very complex personality, rather arrogant. When his cause for beatification first came up the Melkite Catholic church publicly opposed it, for their own reasons. It actually took more than 100 years for the church to Beatify him, probably because there have always been unpleasant associations with the man. It is possible he may never be formally canonized, although the reasons for canonizing him have a lot less to do with him as a man and more to do with the fact that his historical place as the initiator of three infallible dogmas makes it seem almost necessary. In other words it is a form of ecclesiastical politics.

 

[Hesychios]

since you have posted no worthwhile authoritative citation for this remarkable accusation, no one is going to respond, we are happy to debate truths, doctrines, teachings, and actual historic events, but this is not the science fiction forum

I can assure you the story is true, and if no one else does so I will post information or links.

Michael

 

[FCEGM]

I try searching about this topic, so I apologize if it has been covered before. I was doing a little research on some Popes and I saw that Pope Pius IX, did in fact kidnap a young, baptized Jewish boy. Apparently the law did not allow Christians to be raised by Jews.

I guess I’m wondering the Church’s stance in this kidnapping…is there one? Why was Pius IX beatified with this lingering in his background?

p.s. I’m Catholic…so I’m not trying dis the Church.

The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara

In recent years, no event more surprised Catholics than the story of a young Jewish boy taken from the home of his parents during the papacy of Pius IX to be raised as a Catholic. Though it caused an international furor in its time, the story had been generally forgotten until resurrected in David Kertzer’s, “The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara” published in 1997.20 Kertzer theorizes that the story had disappeared because Jews were embarrassed that the young boy would eventually become a priest, and Catholics were simply embarrassed by the whole affair.21

      Kertzer, however, makes the additional argument that the Mortara affair was also a sign of the roots of racial anti-Semitism that would emerge in Italian Fascism, and as such the Church played a role in establishing the framework for the Italian racial laws of 1938.22 This misunderstands the motivations involved in the Mortara affair at the time, and forgets that it was the Church that protested vehemently the 1938 laws and was the single greatest protector of Italian Jews during the war years.23

      Pius IX was considered a friend and protector of the Jews during the early years of his pontificate. Rome had its own Jewish ghetto in 1846, established in the late 16th century. (Most other cities in Europe with Jewish populations had similar ghettos.) The ghettos existed both to “protect” Christians from possible apostasy in contact with Jews, and to protect Jews from mob attack. Jews were allowed outside the ghetto during the day, but were expected to return in the evening. Four synagogues existed within the Jewish ghetto in Rome, the only non-Catholic religious facilities allowed to function within the city. Upon becoming Pope, Pius IX ordered the end to various insulting traditions aimed at the Jewish community in Rome: anti-Jewish comedies, parading of rabbis in costume during Carnival, and the necessity that representatives of the community be forced to hear sermons once a year exhorting them to conversion. The walls enclosing the ghetto were torn down. To the Jews, “the liberal regime of Pius IX felt to them like a miracle.”24

More of this event and the life of Pope Pius IX can be read here:

catholicleague.org/research/pionono.html

 

[Other_Eric]

I think the case of the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara and the subsequent beatification of Pope Pius IX is meant to teach the Christian faithful a lesson about the purpose of the family. Nowadays, it is not hard to find idealistic portrayals of the family based on nothing more than sentiment. The welfare of the children in a family is gauged merely in terms of materialism and pop psychology. This has left the door ajar for all sorts of “alternative” forms of family that may appear to make the grade on both of these axes.

In this “kidnapping” case, the Church reminds us that the primary role of the family is the proper spiritual formation of children. Since charity and respect for human dignity both demand concern for these children’s salvation, any type of family environment that would stunt or stifle the spiritual progression of the child is an environment that Christians should seek to use whatever means at their disposal to remove the child from. This may seem harsh, but it is an ethic demanded by any coherent concern for the child’s true welfare.

Suggestions that if this policy were to be carried out that it would lead to inescapable trauma for the child are neatly contradicted by Edgardo Mortara’s own testimony in favor of the beatification of Pope Pius IX wherein he states:

I never showed the slightest desire to return to my family, a fact which I do not understand myself, except by looking at the power of supernatural grace. (1

) To fear for the welfare of the child under these circumstances is to betray a lack of faith in the Grace of God.

At the end of the day, the goodness of a child’s family can only be as good as the religious instruction the child will receive. When that instruction is lacking, heretical or completely fails to provide the child with the tools he or she will need to obtain salvation, then the child needs to be put somewhere where he or she will no longer be subject to such spiritual neglect.

“Edgardo Levi-Mortara’s Testimony for Beatification of Pius IX.” Zenit News Agency. (2000): §1656. Available online at: zenit.org/english/archive/documents/Mortara-PioIX.html

 

[Hesychios]

Sounds like a possible case of Stockholm syndrome.

Anyway, I fail to see how abducting a child from his natural parents is any kind of support for family values. The case is complex and I think none of us has much first-hand information about it, so we might all tend to speculate. But to the public of the day it was definitely a shocker when it happened.

I suppose these days it would qualify for an Amber alert.

 

[krokal]

since you have posted no worthwhile authoritative citation for this remarkable accusation, no one is going to respond, we are happy to debate truths, doctrines, teachings, and actual historic events, but this is not the science fiction forum

You really shouldn’t have been so dismissive of what I said. I didn’t post links because more or less it’s known that Pope Pius IX took the child from his home…it’s just that the exact motivation isn’t quite clear.

To everyone else:

Thank you for the replies and the links.

 

[Kaninchen]

I think the case of the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara and the subsequent beatification of Pope Pius IX is meant to teach the Christian faithful a lesson about the purpose of the family.

It certainly sent a message to the Jewish, non-Catholic Christians and many Catholic Christians of the time and lost the Church a lot of the political support it needed at a critical time.

As a Jewish mother myself, the Mortara affair has always made me shudder and be thankful that it couldn’t happen now.

Or could it?

From your post I can’t quite make out whether you think that it would be the right thing (rather than the legal thing) to do in similar circumstances (somebody taking it into their heads to baptize a Jewish child in a life-threatening situation) today.

I don’t want to argue about it, it just would be interesting to know.

 

[LilyM]

It certainly sent a message to the Jewish, non-Catholic Christians and many Catholic Christians of the time and lost the Church a lot of the political support it needed at a critical time.

As a Jewish mother myself, the Mortara affair has always made me shudder and be thankful that it couldn’t happen now.

Or could it?

From your post I can’t quite make out whether you think that it would be the right thing (rather than the legal thing) to do in similar circumstances (somebody taking it into their heads to baptize a Jewish child in a life-threatening situation) today.

I don’t want to argue about it, it just would be interesting to know.

No I don’t believe anything similar could happen today.

I don’t know that much about the Mortara affair - but I know two things that were drilled into most every Catholic of the time and up to my parents day.

The first was the absolute necessity of baptising a child immediately if their life looked to be in danger at any time. It is still taught to us that baptised children will certianly go to heaven in the event of their sudden death, whereas we take our chances if they’re unbaptised.

In those days of high infant mortality the importance of the issue would have been drilled into even to the least conscientious Catholic. But as I said even my father, a doctor, is absolutely crestfallen if he is called to a sick child and they die without him having the opportunity to baptise them. Of course the parents’ permission is normally required, but if they’re not around it can be done even without.

The second was the fact that baptism of a child into the Catholic faith carried with it a grave responsibility on the part of every conscientious Catholic to ensure that they were raised in the Catholic faith. Certainly to be baptised into Catholicism and then reject the faith is a serious matter at all times.

Baptism sets an indelible identifying mark on the soul of those who are baptised. And for even for a child to reject that, even if they did so simply because those around them were not Catholic, placed their soul in peril as well as the soul of anyone who knew they were baptised and was able to assist in their raising in the faith.

Having said all that, the way the Mortara case was handled (according to my limited recollection of it) was absolutely scandalous certainly, whatever the thoughts or motives may have been of those who removed the child.

 

[Kaninchen]

As you may appreciate, from a Jewish perspective, the baptism would be a form of assault but, since I’d view it as merely that the child got wet, I guess what I was really asking Other Eric was whether he thought it morally defensible to enforce what to the Catholic mind would be seen as the consequences of the action.

 

[Other_Eric]

It certainly sent a message to the Jewish, non-Catholic Christians and many Catholic Christians of the time and lost the Church a lot of the political support it needed at a critical time.

As a Jewish mother myself, the Mortara affair has always made me shudder and be thankful that it couldn’t happen now.

Or could it?

From your post I can’t quite make out whether you think that it would be the right thing (rather than the legal thing) to do in similar circumstances (somebody taking it into their heads to baptize a Jewish child in a life-threatening situation) today.

I don’t want to argue about it, it just would be interesting to know.

As you may appreciate, from a Jewish perspective, the baptism would be a form of assault but, since I’d view it as merely that the child got wet, I guess what I was really asking Other Eric was whether he thought it morally defensible to enforce what to the Catholic mind would be seen as the consequences of the action.

As it stands now, to baptize an infant without the consent of the child’s parents is an affront to Canon Law.(1) While such a baptism may be illicit, it remains valid. As such the Christian community has an obligation to see to it that the child is brought up in the Christian faith regardless of the circumstances. Since Catholics must believe that a baptism is more than the child simply getting wet, opinions to the contrary are best disregarded. In my view it is best for the child that he be removed from any environment that would allow the graces he has received through the sacrament of baptism to atrophy.

(1) Code of Canon Law. Can. 868, §1, 1°. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

 

[Kaninchen]

Wow!

Thank goodness we live in different times. The whole non-Catholic world having to make sure their children were never near the clutches of a Catholic and ones Catholic neighbors becoming a threat.

 

[chosen_people]

I think the case of the kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara and the subsequent beatification of Pope Pius IX is meant to teach the Christian faithful a lesson about the purpose of the family. Nowadays, it is not hard to find idealistic portrayals of the family based on nothing more than sentiment. The welfare of the children in a family is gauged merely in terms of materialism and pop psychology. This has left the door ajar for all sorts of “alternative” forms of family that may appear to make the grade on both of these axes.

In this “kidnapping” case, the Church reminds us that the primary role of the family is the proper spiritual formation of children. Since charity and respect for human dignity both demand concern for these children’s salvation, any type of family environment that would stunt or stifle the spiritual progression of the child is an environment that Christians should seek to use whatever means at their disposal to remove the child from. This may seem harsh, but it is an ethic demanded by any coherent concern for the child’s true welfare.

Suggestions that if this policy were to be carried out that it would lead to inescapable trauma for the child are neatly contradicted by Edgardo Mortara’s own testimony in favor of the beatification of Pope Pius IX wherein he states: To fear for the welfare of the child under these circumstances is to betray a lack of faith in the Grace of God.

At the end of the day, the goodness of a child’s family can only be as good as the religious instruction the child will receive. When that instruction is lacking, heretical or completely fails to provide the child with the tools he or she will need to obtain salvation, then the child needs to be put somewhere where he or she will no longer be subject to such spiritual neglect.

“Edgardo Levi-Mortara’s Testimony for Beatification of Pius IX.” Zenit News Agency. (2000): §1656. Available online at: zenit.org/english/archive/documents/Mortara-PioIX.html

Please help me understand. Charity and respect for human dignity require the removal of Jewish children from their families in order to find salvation? Before you answer please read about the finaly case
isurvived.org/2Postings/Finaly-affair.html
What is the Catholic churches stand on this issue?. Isn’t the baptising of minor non Christian children against their parents consent children tantaumont to forced conversion? Isn’t forced conversion contrary to accepted Catholic principles?

 

[Other_Eric]

Please help me understand. Charity and respect for human dignity require the removal of Jewish children from their families in order to find salvation? Before you answer please read about the finaly case
isurvived.org/2Postings/Finaly-affair.html
What is the Catholic churches stand on this issue?. Isn’t the baptising of minor non Christian children against their parents consent children tantaumont to forced conversion? Isn’t forced conversion contrary to accepted Catholic principles?

I have already pointed out that the baptism of any child against the will of the parents is against the norms of canon law. Beyond that, you wish me to make a judgment about this new situation based solely on an unsubstantiated article with an obvious bias that uses hearsay and wild assumptions to advance its point?

 

[chosen_people]

I have already pointed out that the baptism of any child against the will of the parents is against the norms of canon law. Beyond that, you wish me to make a judgment about this new situation based solely on an unsubstantiated article with an obvious bias that uses hearsay and wild assumptions to advance its point?

The finaly affair is well documented and caused quite a stir in its day. It was appealed up to the French Supreme Court, The article is written by a family member but many other articles may be found on the internet. There is no question that the Finaly brothers were baptized by the Catholic women who was intrusted to care for them. Nor is their any question as to the knowing involvement of Church officials not only in the baptism but also in the attempt to thwart efforts to return the children to their surviving relatives. On the positive side, brave and caring Catholics with the help of the Catholic Church saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jewish Children during the holocaust.

 

[john_h_1]

A better source for verified information on Edgardo Mortara is wikipedia.

This case is very simple, as the policy on minors in the church is that nothing is to be done with children without the full consent and oversight of parents.

There has been much moral revisionism on this case. The treatment of Jews in the Papal States relegated them to a slave status of citizenship. Pius may have done much to alleviate this, but in the end it has no bearing on this case.

Pius had no question Edgardo’s parents were good people. They had 9 other children, and he offered to allow Edgardo to return, if they converted to Catholocism. This very act shows he had no reservations about the parents. His justification was based on civil laws, enacted to empower the Catholic Heiarchy in the Papal States.

There is also no question that from the prospective of any father or mother, that taking away children by religious zealots using religious based civil law is no different than criminal kidnapping. No complex moralization because this man was a Pope is proper. The facts are very simple.

A blind test of logic, requires a juxtaposition of the involved parties. If today in Israel, the law said no Jewish child could be raised in a Christian home, and children were being taken away at gunpoint, the world would condemn this. And, at that time the world did condemn this. The reason actions were limited to diplomatic efforts, is because it was only one child. If this had been done on a regular basis, it would have met with absolute reistance.

Pius IX was an arrogant zealot. And he had regular raging fits and epilepsy. He never showed any remorse for his actions. And justified them by saying ‘he didn’t care what the world thought’.

The idea that a 6 year old, raised in an all celebate male environment without a loving mother is better off is out of touch with sociology, and Catholic theology. A reexamination of this case needs to be done by non-Catholic Psychologists, to show that in fact this little boy was brainwashed by his captors, and suffered from Stockholm Syndrome. His life was totally surrounded by constant religious ideaology, and he was not allowed to play with other children.

The policies of the Church on Restorative Justice, demand an admission of guilt from the perpetrator to allow those offended to heal. This took place just before and during the American Civil War. It was not that long ago.

Justice is not served by the Church being vague. Especially in issues involving children, where we have seen today the effects of clerics thinking they are immune from review.

I would submit, that the Church has shown historically that it always suppresses any form of criticism, and thus hides its sins. Edgardo was kidnapped. His parents suffered, and so did the world. And so will families until an clear, unconditional and humble apology is made.

John H.