Pope abducted child?

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnityofTrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UnityofTrinity

Guest
I read about a priest name Edgardo Mortara who was taken away by Papal State and adopted by Pope Pius IX. What was the reason behind it and is the event justified?
 
UnityofTrinity said:
I read about a priest name Edgardo Mortara who was taken away by Papal State and adopted by Pope Pius IX. What was the reason behind it and is the event justified?
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of this and am not inclined to spend a lot of time trying to find it. If you want answers, your going to have to provide some links and supporting information.If it’s not worth your time to provide it, it’s not worth ours to read it.
 
J.R.R. Tolkien was adopted by a Catholic priest after he was left an orphan… It happens.
 
UnityofTrinity said:
I read about a priest name Edgardo Mortara who was taken away by Papal State and adopted by Pope Pius IX. What was the reason behind it and is the event justified?
Click to expand...
He was a Jewish child that was baptized by a Catholic servant I believe…or so the story goes if I have it right. It is very unusual and strange, perhaps it was an illegitimate child of the Popes. Or maybe he really just thought it was unbearable for the child to be raised by Jews. Anyways, the Pope was greatly criticized for abducting the child and he refused to return the child to his parents.
 
He was not “abducted.”

He was a Jewish boy who was dying of an illness, and his Catholic nurse, with his salvation in mind, baptized him on his deathbed. However, he recovered. At this point in Rome the Church had the problem of a baptized Christian child who was now going to be raised in Judaism - so he would technically be in apostasy. This is really complicated and requires a lot of appreciation for history to understand in the proper light.

The boy grew up in the Vatican, became a priest, and regarded the Pope as his father - regarding that Pope all his life as a saint. Edgardo Mortara (the boy) took the name “Pius” at his ordination.

The Pope involved was Pius IX, who is now beatified. Somebody wrote a book about it a few years ago, but it was very critical.
 
The link above did not work, but this one will: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara. Short version: the child of a Jewish family, six-year-old Edgardo was given an emergency baptism by a maid, making him a Catholic. Law in the Papal States, of which the Pope was temporal head, did not permit a Catholic child to be raised by a non-Catholic family. The police therefore removed Edgardo from the family home, and he was brought up in a religious house in Rome. He was ordained a priest in the Augustinian order, and served the Church for the next 65 years.
 
The raising of Jewish children as Catholics is not uncommon, especially in Europe during WW II and afterwards. In fact, the late Archbishop Cardinal of Paris, France was adopted and saved by a Catholic family. He converted, became a priest, and ultimately a Cardinal.
Who knows, if the Holy Ghost had willed it, we could have had a Jewish Pope!
 
UnityofTrinity said:
I read about a priest name Edgardo Mortara who was taken away by Papal State and adopted by Pope Pius IX. What was the reason behind it and is the event justified?
Click to expand...
This can be found with little research. Edgardo Montara was a Jewish boy of Jewish parents. He became ill. His Catholic, and a servant in the home, Baptised him during his illness, believing that he might die. This was reported to the Vatican. Catholic children could not be raised by non-Catholics.

The papal police removed the child, he was raised by the Papacy, adopted by Pius IX, and became a priest.

IMO, it’s not a happy moment in Church history but which was driven by a Catholic woman who decided for reasons of illness to Baptise the boy. And because the Catholic Church was now in a dilemma with a ruling that Catholics could not be raised in non-Catholic homes. And a Baptism is a Baptism, and cannot be removed.

If anything, the servant caused the controversy. I can understand her reasons (Catholic and fearful that the boy may die), but he had parents and she went ahead on her own to decide to perform a Baptism. As the boy quickly recovered, she may have acted in hastily.
 
Leegal said:
[snip]

If anything, the servant caused the controversy. I can understand her reasons (Catholic and fearful that the boy may die), but he had parents and she went ahead on her own to decide to perform a Baptism. As the boy quickly recovered, she may have acted in hastily.
Click to expand...
Pius IX could have declined to enforce the law, or questioned the validity of the baptism, or doubted the servant’s story entirely. Instead though, he chose to forcibly remove a child from his home and family in what I regard as a final, feeble attempt to exert the diminishing temporal power of the Papal States in an increasingly democratic Europe.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
Pius IX could have declined to enforce the law, or questioned the validity of the baptism, or doubted the servant’s story entirely. Instead though, he chose to forcibly remove a child from his home and family in what I regard as a final, feeble attempt to exert the diminishing temporal power of the Papal States in an increasingly democratic Europe.
Click to expand...
I think if she had done the Baptism, it could not be invalidated. From my recollection, a Baptism is a Baptism and once undertaken, it is never invalid. On the other hand, not knowing anything about this servant, she certainly undertook to perform a ceremony without use of discretion.

Whether the Pope could ignore the law is another story, because it was civil law in the Papal states. He refused to return the boy unless the parents converted to Catholicism too, which they refused to convert. The sad part of this is that the family tried practically forever to get the boy returned. Jewish organizations and entire countries protested. When Rome was captured in 1970 and incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, the parents tried again. The invasion of Rome may have been an indirect result of this taking of a Jewish boy from his home. But by this time the boy was 19 and wanted to remain Catholic. But he made contact with his mother and siblings and attended his mother’s funeral.

As I said, it’s not a happy moment in Church history. Certainly, there should have been another way. The controversey raged on even until today. Decendents of the Montara family protested the Beatification of Pius IX in 2000.
 
Leegal said:
… When Rome was captured in 1970 and incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy…
Click to expand...
Dang! I was in Rome attending middle school at the time but I do not remember any battle, or any kingdom. I guess that my memory is not as good as it used to be. 😛
 
Cristiano said:
Dang! I was in Rome attending middle school at the time but I do not remember any battle, or any kingdom. I guess that my memory is not as good as it used to be. 😛
Click to expand...
He meant 1870. But anyway, yes, its not a happy moment in Church history but its not a case of Pope=evil, Jewish family=good. Its more of a case of good vs good. The family, understandbly, was sad and tried tog et their boy back but the Pope had the intentions of heaven in mind and wanted to save the boy from hell as he was too young to make a decision all by himself in this regards. However, the boy wasn’t mistreated and later on became a Priest, missionary and loved Pius IX. However, I don’t see how this forced removal would have been a feeble attempt by Pius IX to enforce his government more strongly; the Papacy’s authority (sadly:() was weakened as a result and later, Rome was captured, not because the Italians cared for the boy but ebcause of power. If they did, they would have stormed the Popes palace and executed him for this ‘crime’.
 
Leegal said:
I think if she had done the Baptism, it could not be invalidated. From my recollection, a Baptism is a Baptism and once undertaken, it is never invalid. On the other hand, not knowing anything about this servant, she certainly undertook to perform a ceremony without use of discretion.

Whether the Pope could ignore the law is another story, because it was civil law in the Papal states. He refused to return the boy unless the parents converted to Catholicism too, which they refused to convert. The sad part of this is that the family tried practically forever to get the boy returned. Jewish organizations and entire countries protested. When Rome was captured in 1970 and incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, the parents tried again. The invasion of Rome may have been an indirect result of this taking of a Jewish boy from his home. But by this time the boy was 19 and wanted to remain Catholic. But he made contact with his mother and siblings and attended his mother’s funeral.

As I said, it’s not a happy moment in Church history. Certainly, there should have been another way. The controversey raged on even until today. Decendents of the Montara family protested the Beatification of Pius IX in 2000.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, even though the form of the rite of baptism is fairly simple, it still has to be performed precisely or the sacrament is invalid. If any of the words are missing, or the word order is improper, or the water isn’t poured correctly, then the recipient isn’t validly baptized. As there were apparently no witnesses to this lay-performed baptism, I would think it would be incredibly easy – if one were so motivated – to call into question the validity of Mortada’s baptism on procedural grounds. Of course, it would be even easier – if one were so motivated – to question the veracity of the entire story since the alleged event was uncorroborated.

I don’t know if the rule was civil or criminal, but I’d be shocked if the Pope, as de facto head of the Papal States, couldn’t summarily dismiss any proceeding he wished to in any court within his jurisdiction.

Under identical circumstances, I cannot imagine this rule being enforced against, say, a wealthy, influential Lutheran family living in the Papal States at the time.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
As I understand it, even though the form of the rite of baptism is fairly simple, it still has to be performed precisely or the sacrament is invalid. If any of the words are missing, or the word order is improper, or the water isn’t poured correctly, then the recipient isn’t validly baptized. As there were apparently no witnesses to this lay-performed baptism, I would think it would be incredibly easy – if one were so motivated – to call into question the validity of Mortada’s baptism on procedural grounds. Of course, it would be even easier – if one were so motivated – to question the veracity of the entire story since the alleged event was uncorroborated.

I don’t know if the rule was civil or criminal, but I’d be shocked if the Pope, as de facto head of the Papal States, couldn’t summarily dismiss any proceeding he wished to in any court within his jurisdiction.

Under identical circumstances, I cannot imagine this rule being enforced against, say, a wealthy, influential Lutheran family living in the Papal States at the time.
Click to expand...
If the water isn’t poured properly? You do know that if two atheists were shipwrecked, one could baptize the other and it would be valid, right?
 
cornbread_r2 said:
As I understand it, even though the form of the rite of baptism is fairly simple, it still has to be performed precisely or the sacrament is invalid. If any of the words are missing, or the word order is improper, or the water isn’t poured correctly, then the recipient isn’t validly baptized. As there were apparently no witnesses to this lay-performed baptism, I would think it would be incredibly easy – if one were so motivated – to call into question the validity of Mortada’s baptism on procedural grounds. Of course, it would be even easier – if one were so motivated – to question the veracity of the entire story since the alleged event was uncorroborated.

I don’t know if the rule was civil or criminal, but I’d be shocked if the Pope, as de facto head of the Papal States, couldn’t summarily dismiss any proceeding he wished to in any court within his jurisdiction.

Under identical circumstances, I cannot imagine this rule being enforced against, say, a wealthy, influential Lutheran family living in the Papal States at the time.
Click to expand...
To question the validity on procedural grounds first you would have to show that something was done incorrectly and not that something could have been done incorrectly. Second, the requirements to perform a valid baptism are so minimal that it would take real intention and creativity to mess it up.
Of course that there is the clear possibility that a Lutheran family could have been treated differently, Lutherans are Christians with valid baptism.
 
MrSylvester said:
He meant 1870. But anyway, yes, its not a happy moment in Church history but its not a case of Pope=evil, Jewish family=good. Its more of a case of good vs good. The family, understandbly, was sad and tried tog et their boy back but the Pope had the intentions of heaven in mind and wanted to save the boy from hell as he was too young to make a decision all by himself in this regards. However, the boy wasn’t mistreated and later on became a Priest, missionary and loved Pius IX. However, I don’t see how this forced removal would have been a feeble attempt by Pius IX to enforce his government more strongly; the Papacy’s authority (sadly:() was weakened as a result and later, Rome was captured, not because the Italians cared for the boy but ebcause of power. If they did, they would have stormed the Popes palace and executed him for this ‘crime’.
Click to expand...
If the Pope’s intentions were so good and noble, why not send out hoards of baptizers – Ninja-style – and save all the Jewish babies from hell?

It’s not mistreatment to forcibly remove children from their families for theological reasons? Really?

Apparently the popular assertion that children are best raised in a home with a mother and father didn’t apply to Jewish families in the 19th century Papal States.
 
maryjk said:
If the water isn’t poured properly? You do know that if two atheists were shipwrecked, one could baptize the other and it would be valid, right?
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of that.

My point about the validity of the baptism in question was that if someone wanted to find some – any – excuse not to take that boy from his family they could have. Instead, they accepted the uncorroborated word of a servant, years after the event, and ran with it. The only thing that amazes me more about this incident is that anyone would attempt to defend it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top