Pope abducted child?

[MrSylvester]

Cornbread, I don’t mean to insult my fellow Catholics here but essentially you’re right: what the Pope did was just plain bad or excessive. I consider this event worse than any thing ever done by a Catholic country. Even Catholic countries at that time condemned the action and were flabbergasted. The thing is, no Catholic wants to kidnap a child and rear it as Catholic without it’s parents knowledge; people are just making excuses for Pius IX to have acted the way he acted because admittedly, Pius is very much revered among Catholics, and it wasn’t a case of Pius XII being more enlightened than his predecessor, it was a case of Pius XII being more prudent and Pius IX being more rash in his judgement. And before anyone says anything, it wasn’t a case of anti-semitism because the Pope recently had abolished the ghetto of Rome and gave some rights which the Jews didn’t have in the Papal States before. Paul IV was anti-semitic; the other Popes were not.

The thing is, the only contemporary standard that came into action there was the age of Edgardo: he was only six years at the time of kidnapping and society at that time held children under the age of seven years to not be in a position of reasoning. It didn’t say they were mentally handicapped or anything, it merely said that they couldn’t make meaningful decisions of their own.

Note also this was only one case: the Church forbade baptism of children if their parents didn’t consent, and whats so ironic is that the girl who conferred baptism was probably guilty of at most a venial sin. Tour of the Summa summarizes Thomas Aquinas’ teachings thus:

Children of Jews and other unbelievers are not to be baptized without their parents’ consent. By natural justice,young children are under the rule and control of their parents.Besides, baptism is not conferred, according to the usage of the Church, on those who will have no normal opportunity of living the Christian life in conformity with the obligation imposed in baptism.

Kidnapping was a far too excessive action for the Pope to take. Could there have been a different course of action? Couldn’t the Pope tell the parents to send their child to a Catholic school instead of what they sent their other children to, or to let him attend catechism? Maybe:blush:.

However, I felt insulted by your comment saying that this is the reason you prefer living in a secular society. I’m not a fan comparing the actions of one group to that of another to show the other group is much worse, because thats like saying ‘hey, he killed 500 people, but at least he ain’t Hitler.’ Doesn’t make much sense does it? However, bad things happen in all governments and secular societies are no exception, especially when a senator form Georgia admits that CPS is so corrupt: docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UXw4m3gQi14J:www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/TheCorruptBusinessOfChildProtectiveServices.pdf?docID%3D1961+The+Corrupt+Business+of+Child+Protective+Services&hl=pl&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg2SzTUnDmvX5xD4H6ADTzw8e59XvDKnazib62o6hIu4MBT_s7HH1av61G54IuFdn26JvlDfbB82mrr6wm20l56ay_xrchfAzmN3etGW_-PnCYAzC-OJSWCol_P-YDry2iMW2NX&sig=AHIEtbTM6i0kf9f-M_MjTGZhx08AF_AZaQ
If you still don’t buy it, consider this: When Vanessa Shanks’ child was taken away and she fought the decision in court, CPS responded rationally by taking away children of her relatives, and after Shanks finally won in court, they took away her attorney’s children. And to think they could have saved themselves so much time by simply offering Shanks "child insurance’.’

To my fellow Catholics… we can defend the crusades; we can defend even Innocent III’s actions on the Jews despite doing nothing to actually harm them; but this we cannot defend. All we can say is that Pius had one reason and one reason alone to do it and that was to make sure that Edgardo would be reared as Catholic and there were other ways to do it other than taking him away from his parents. Kaninchen, I may disagree with the Popes actions severely but it doesn’t mean that he mistreated the child. Edgardo left at age 19 and actually became a successful missionary but he also regularly visited his relatives and attended one of his parent’s funeral which was Jewish. There is no evidence that he was mistreated or beaten in order to ‘break’ his spirit. He was simply raised Catholic at a young age but the fact that he was raised without his parents is still bad. But at least the Pope was honest: he didn’t send Edgardo to some distant country, change his name and what not: he actually told him about what really happened and other things.

 

[Kaninchen]

Kaninchen, I may disagree with the Popes actions severely but it doesn’t mean that he mistreated the child. Edgardo left at age 19 and actually became a successful missionary but he also regularly visited his relatives and attended one of his parent’s funeral which was Jewish. There is no evidence that he was mistreated or beaten in order to ‘break’ his spirit. He was simply raised Catholic at a young age but the fact that he was raised without his parents is still bad. But at least the Pope was honest: he didn’t send Edgardo to some distant country, change his name and what not: he actually told him about what really happened and other things.

Janissaries were very good soldiers.

It wouldn’t have taken that much to work on the mind of a frightened 6 year-old: 'Your parents want to take you to hell but I, Mr Rich Man living in a palace with lots of servants and stuff, am going to look after you and here, have a lovely ham sandwich . . . ." and, if a kidnapper appears in court, he doesn’t get off with a defence of 'he didn’t actually physically/sexually abuse the child."

You see, either kidnapping kids to bring them up in whatever religion the kidnapper wishes is either ok, or it isn’t - it was right in the case of the Janissaries, right in the case of lifting Irish Catholic children off the streets of New York to be raised by proper, Protestant, Americans in the West and right in the case of Mortara - or it wasn’t right in any of those cases.

Pio Nono did it because he could, it was an assertion of Papal power - like the doctrines of Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception - in the face of the threatened end of the Papal States. The international scandal aroused by the Mortara Affair was, of course, one of the reasons the Papacy was without powerful friends to prevent that loss of temporal power.

 

[Cristiano]

The Church didn’t order that he be baptized, but they taught that’s it’s a really, really, REALLY good idea to baptize children in danger of death and after someone took that advise to heart then they ordered that he be forcibly removed from his family.

I’ve read nothing that indicates that the parents were even aware that their son had been baptized until Papal authorities showed up on their doorstep. Please tell me that you’re not trying to claim that the Mortara’s brought this upon themselves.

They broke the law by hiring a Christian to work in their house and the girl broke the law by accepting work in the house plus she broke the law because she performed an illegal baptism.

 

[cornbread_r2]

And before anyone says anything, it wasn’t a case of anti-semitism because the Pope recently had abolished the ghetto of Rome and gave some rights which the Jews didn’t have in the Papal States before. Paul IV was anti-semitic; the other Popes were not.

According to this article, he also re-established it a year or so later. The Roman ghetto was first established in 1555. That’s 300+ years worth of popes – some 32 by my count – who endorsed, enforced, and sometimes expanded upon, the policies of Paul IV. I disagree with the conclusions you apparently draw from that.

Kidnapping was a far too excessive action for the Pope to take. Could there have been a different course of action? Couldn’t the Pope tell the parents to send their child to a Catholic school instead of what they sent their other children to, or to let him attend catechism? Maybe:blush:.

Again, according to the article, Roman Jews were already being forced to attend Catholic sermons on the sabbath. IMO, that’s already more than enough compulsory instruction.

However, I felt insulted by your comment saying that this is the reason you prefer living in a secular society.

No offense intended, but what an odd thing to feel insulted about. Our secular government protects all religions by not allowing a state-sponsored religion. Back in the days when Catholicism was a persecuted minority religion in this country Catholics thought that was a pretty good idea. I really do appreciate you sticking your neck out in defense of my position. In 19th century Rome that’s something you very likely would not have been able to do.

Shalom.

 

[MarcoPolo]

From blogger Joe Heschmeyer at catholicdefense:*FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2010

Edgardo Mortara, Revisited
In the Papal States in 1852, a teenaged Catholic housekeeper named Anna Morisi baptized a seriously ill Jewish baby who she feared would soon die. In fact, that child, Edgardo Mortara, quickly recovered, but was now a baptized Catholic. Unfortuantely, Mortara’s parents were Jewish, and under civil law in the Papal States, were forbidden to raise Christian children.

Since this was in the Papal States, both the Church and State faced a serious crisis. Should they separate the family, causing serious pain and international outrage? Or permit a Baptized Catholic to be raised in ignorance of both his Baptism and Catholicism?

Pope Piux IX decided on the former course of action. In the face of international outrage, the Church decided that the boy should be separated from his family and given a proper Catholic upbringing, and sent in civil authorities to enforce the order. Edgardo, by this point nearly seven years old, was entrusted to Canon Enrico Sarra, rector of the Institute of Neophytes at Saint Mary of the Mountains. Sarra, in turn, ensured that young Edgardo recieved the best Catholic education available. Meanwhile, Edgardo’s biological parents were permitted to see him, but not to take him home with them. Edgardo was warm to them, but as he recounts it, never expressed a desire to go back with them. He felt called by the Holy Spirit. In a somewhat remarkable turn, young Edgardo grew up to be Fr. Pio Maria, a Catholic priest and scholar. He would later present his life story as a witness to advocate for the canonization of the Holy Father, Pope Piux IX.

I’ve always found this case sort of fascinating, because it has so many hard questions. Breaking up a family seems obviously wrong. Lots of those questions are being asked once again, given this recent case. Here are the facts you need to know: Joseph Reyes married Rebecca, and the two had a kid. He converted to Judaism when his daughter was born, and according to Rebecca, promised to raise their child Jewish (although Joseph denies making the claim). Then, the two split up. Joseph reverted to Catholicism, and had their daughter Baptized. He then sent his estranged wife photos of the Baptism, seemingly out of spite. She went to the court.

As with the Edgardo Morara case, the state stepped in. But here, the state stepped in to declare that Joseph couldn’t expose his daughter to any religion but Judaism. He’s since disobeyed the order. He took his now three year-old daughter to Holy Name Cathedral, and was arraigned on charges of violating a court order.

I’ve actually been pretty shocked at the Reyes case. I realize that Joseph Reyes seems like sort of a jerk from the facts, and probably is exposing his daughter to Christianity to (a) spite his soon to be ex-wife, and (b) challenge the legality of the judge’s totally insane order (Joseph’s a 2L at John Marshall Law School). Still… a court order forcing you to raise the daughter Jewish or atheist is just in no way Constitutional. What a strange age we live in!*Regarding the last story Joe links to, I wonder if in 100 years, our future descendants will speak of the barbaric acts of the secular state forbidding a parent to expose his child to Christianity? It’s always important to read history in its own context.

 

[cornbread_r2]

They broke the law by hiring a Christian to work in their house and the girl broke the law by accepting work in the house plus she broke the law because she performed an illegal baptism.

From what I’ve read, aside from the baptism, those were not uncommon practices. In any case, I see nothing here that warrants the permanent removal of a child from his family.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

confused…the housekeeper baptised the baby.

Wouldn’t that be a conditional baptism, if the baby had died it would be valid, if the baby had not died he would have needed to be baptized by a Priest.

Since he survived, isn’t it presumed that the baptism was not valid?

We were explained this by the priest when we wanted emergency baptism for our baby. He said we could do it ourselves, but it would be conditional. Our son was baptised by the Chaplain, so it was valid.

 

[cornbread_r2]

MarcoPolo:

In the Reyes case the state seems to be enforcing the terms of a contract freely entered into by the parties involved.

 

[Cristiano]

From what I’ve read, aside from the baptism, those were not uncommon practices. In any case, I see nothing here that warrants the permanent removal of a child from his family.

Again breaking of the law it is still common today and some of the direct or indirect consequences result in children ending up in foster care. In the Mortara’s scenario we can clearly see an example of unintended consequences.

 

[Cristiano]

confused…the housekeeper baptised the baby.

Wouldn’t that be a conditional baptism, if the baby had died it would be valid, if the baby had not died he would have needed to be baptized by a Priest.

Since he survived, isn’t it presumed that the baptism was not valid?

We were explained this by the priest when we wanted emergency baptism for our baby. He said we could do it ourselves, but it would be conditional. Our son was baptised by the Chaplain, so it was valid.

Your statement about what you were told might be right but the information about the baptism is wrong. A conditional baptism is one performed in case when the officiant is not sure that the person was already baptized. There is no room in sacramental theology for something conditional in relation to the future. Once you baptize a person it is an ontological change and it is not conditional on something that could happen in the future.

 

[MrSylvester]

According to this article, he also re-established it a year or so later. The Roman ghetto was first established in 1555. That’s 300+ years worth of popes – some 32 by my count – who endorsed, enforced, and sometimes expanded upon, the policies of Paul IV. I disagree with the conclusions you apparently draw from that.

Again, according to the article, Roman Jews were already being forced to attend Catholic sermons on the sabbath. IMO, that’s already more than enough compulsory instruction.

No offense intended, but what an odd thing to feel insulted about. Our secular government protects all religions by not allowing a state-sponsored religion. Back in the days when Catholicism was a persecuted minority religion in this country Catholics thought that was a pretty good idea. I really do appreciate you sticking your neck out in defense of my position. In 19th century Rome that’s something you very likely would not have been able to do.

Shalom.

Paul IV instituted the ghetto, Pope Sixtus V removed it and let the Jews have proper jobs again, and while the following Popes did enforce the ghetto, they removed the ridiculous laws which forbade Jews to have proper jobs and Pius IX only re-instituted the ghetto after he was exiled and the Jews sided with the liberal governments that came instead of him. The relationship of the Popes to the Jews is complicated: I made many posts in this regards and Pius IX’s case, the re-institution of the ghetto was made for political reasons and not for anti-semitism. Pius hardly was anti-semitic if he removed it at first and allowed ethnic Jewish but religiously Catholic people to hold offices in government.

Additionally, while I don’t support putting any group in any ghetto, the ghettos in the Papal States weren’t prisons but a separate quarter of a city where the Jews were allowed to live so that they wouldn’t mix in with the Christians and spread heresy. Conditions varied: the one in Rome was poor (like alot of other places) while the one in Venice was affluent. Also, there were Rabbis who actually encouraged the building of the ghettos so that the Jews would live as a society within a society and they also had their own court houses.

Secondly, the Papal States forbade public manifestations of ALL false religions because it was a theocratic state. However, it didn’t forbid private practice of religion (even though Judaism was legal under the Papal States). Yes, we Catholics wouldn’t like it if we were under Muslim rule and weren’t allowed to practice our religion publicly but those were older times and the Popes forbade false religions from being spread publicly because of the heresies of the enlightenment and the times.

I am aware on this subject corn bread, and I’ve read alot about it and I am also aware that the Jews were forced to listen to a sermon three times a year. That was a step too far even though the Jews were only forced to listen to the sermons for their conversion; they could leave as nothing happened and the only repercussion they would suffer would be the fact that they (and Muslims, and Protestants, and Russian Orthodox, and every other false religion in existence) could have positions in office because they, religiously were Jews.

 

[MrSylvester]

Janissaries were very good soldiers.

It wouldn’t have taken that much to work on the mind of a frightened 6 year-old: 'Your parents want to take you to hell but I, Mr Rich Man living in a palace with lots of servants and stuff, am going to look after you and here, have a lovely ham sandwich . . . ." and, if a kidnapper appears in court, he doesn’t get off with a defence of 'he didn’t actually physically/sexually abuse the child."

You see, either kidnapping kids to bring them up in whatever religion the kidnapper wishes is either ok, or it isn’t - it was right in the case of the Janissaries, right in the case of lifting Irish Catholic children off the streets of New York to be raised by proper, Protestant, Americans in the West and right in the case of Mortara - or it wasn’t right in any of those cases.

Pio Nono did it because he could, it was an assertion of Papal power - like the doctrines of Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception - in the face of the threatened end of the Papal States. The international scandal aroused by the Mortara Affair was, of course, one of the reasons the Papacy was without powerful friends to prevent that loss of temporal power.

I doubt Pius declared those two doctrines because of the Papal States. A that time, alot of the States had been stolen and when Rome was under attack, he surrendered it instead of putting up a fight. But to show that he didn’t recognize the ‘power’ of the new anti-catholic government which banned religion, the Pope refused to leave the Papal Palace and remained a prisoner of the Vatican. And no, it isn’t OK to kidnap children to bring them up in whatever religion one wishes, even if that religion is true. We just want people to know that no Catholic thinks that it is OK to do so and that they’re only defending Pius IX because he is greatly revered by them.

The only thing I’m saying is that I doubt very, very much Pius tried to have the boy to hate his parents. Eventually, the Pope relented and let the parents visit the boy. Under supervision mind you, but he did let them visit him.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In the Reyes case the state seems to be enforcing the terms of a contract freely entered into by the parties involved.

The father denies that, according to the post.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Your statement about what you were told might be right but the information about the baptism is wrong. A conditional baptism is one performed in case when the officiant is not sure that the person was already baptized. There is no room in sacramental theology for something conditional in relation to the future. Once you baptize a person it is an ontological change and it is not conditional on something that could happen in the future.

Thank you, I think I understand.

In the case of my own child does it mean that if we had baptised him on our own then the susbsequant Baptism by a priest would be the “conditional” baptism? I was under the impression that the lay Baptism was conditional, depending on the survivial of the child.

I guess we misunderstood, it was a traumatic event.

 

[brumano]

Considering the significant international condemnation of the Pope’s actions by his contemporaries, I’d say I was on pretty solid ground. (Cue attack on the liberal 19th century MSM in 3, 2, 1…)

So now I have to be a time traveler and a Catholic theologian to have an opinion? Since you’re the expert on Natural Law, at least relative to me, why don’t you explain how Natural Law makes all of this acceptable. I’ll be particularly interested in how it squares with the notion of the inherent sanctity of the family unit.

Reductio ad absurdum doesn’t mean what you apparently thinks it means, i.e. it’s not a logical fallacy.

Nothing I’ve read about this affair even remotely suggests that Mortara’a parents ever disowned him, even after he became a priest.

Well, no there’s nothing you’ve read to this affect because in any event he did not go back with them the question was more would they have accepted his baptism into the true faith, would they have allowed him to grow and be nurtured in the Catholicism that he himself, it strongly seems he was destined for, or would they have attempted to destroy what God had sown in his heart? He later became a priest, doesn’t that tell you a little something about what he himself chose for his own life?

 

[cornbread_r2]

The father denies that, according to the post.

I don’t doubt he did. Apparently the court didn’t believe him. That doesn’t change the fact that Reyes v Reyes was a contract dispute and irrelevant to the matter of Mortara v Papal States.

Well, no there’s nothing you’ve read to this affect because in any event he did not go back with them

Initially he wasn’t allowed to leave or even to see his parents. Later he was only allowed to visit with them – on Church grounds – under supervision. Still later, after he had been thoroughly “catechized”, was he allowed anything like I’d regard as freedom of movement.

the question was more would they have accepted his baptism into the true faith, would they have allowed him to grow and be nurtured in the Catholicism that he himself, it strongly seems he was destined for, or would they have attempted to destroy what God had sown in his heart?

I don’t know. Would you accept the baptism of your child against your wishes? Would you discourage your child from following a religion that you thought was false? Would you, perhaps, harbor a tiny bit of resentment against a religion that forcibly removed your child from you?

He later became a priest, doesn’t that tell you a little something about what he himself chose for his own life?

All it tells me is that he was raised and educated – in isolation – by priests.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Paul IV instituted the ghetto, Pope Sixtus V removed it and let the Jews have proper jobs again, and while the following Popes did enforce the ghetto, they removed the ridiculous laws which forbade Jews to have proper jobs and Pius IX only re-instituted the ghetto after he was exiled and the Jews sided with the liberal governments that came instead of him. The relationship of the Popes to the Jews is complicated: I made many posts in this regards and Pius IX’s case, the re-institution of the ghetto was made for political reasons and not for anti-semitism. Pius hardly was anti-semitic if he removed it at first and allowed ethnic Jewish but religiously Catholic people to hold offices in government.

In other words, there were really only two rules for Jews living in Rome – arbitrary and capricious.

Confinement of an entire religious community for political reasons is no more acceptable than confining them for religious reasons IMO.

While I understand your point about anti-semitism being technically different than anti-Judaism, that seems like one of those distinctions without a difference. In my neck of the woods, if you accused an Arab hater of being anti-semitic they’d likely deny it.

Additionally, while I don’t support putting any group in any ghetto, the ghettos in the Papal States weren’t prisons but a separate quarter of a city where the Jews were allowed to live so that they wouldn’t mix in with the Christians and spread heresy. Conditions varied: the one in Rome was poor (like alot of other places) while the one in Venice was affluent. Also, there were Rabbis who actually encouraged the building of the ghettos so that the Jews would live as a society within a society and they also had their own court houses.

From your perspective then, if I force my dog to live in a closet I’ve “allowed” her to live in a closet? Again, that seems like a tortuous use of language.

As I understand it, Jews aren’t heretics. In any case, if Jews were necessarily confined to prevent the spread of heresy, why weren’t Lutherans and other Protestants also confined to ghettos? Didn’t they historically pose a far, far greater doctrinal risk to Catholics than Jews?

People who work in shark-infested waters love their cages too.

[snip]

 

[Cristiano]

In other words, there were really only two rules for Jews living in Rome – arbitrary and capricious.

Confinement of an entire religious community for political reasons is no more acceptable than confining them for religious reasons IMO.

While I understand your point about anti-semitism being technically different than anti-Judaism, that seems like one of those distinctions without a difference. In my neck of the woods, if you accused an Arab hater of being anti-semitic they’d likely deny it.

From your perspective then, if I force my dog to live in a closet I’ve “allowed” her to live in a closet? Again, that seems like a tortuous use of language.

As I understand it, Jews aren’t heretics. In any case, if Jews were necessarily confined to prevent the spread of heresy, why weren’t Lutherans and other Protestants also confined to ghettos? Didn’t they historically pose a far, far greater doctrinal risk to Catholics than Jews?

People who work in shark-infested waters love their cages too.

[snip]

Why don’t you get a couple of history books and start studying the socio-political situation of Europe at the time and then come back to address to issue under the proper light? Do you know that a couple of decade later the Italian government that replaced the Papal states debated in a court of law if a black women could be allowed to become a nun according to her wishes or to be kept into the slavery of an Italian master because she was not a human being? BTW t that time slavery was illegal in Italy.

 

[MrSylvester]

I don’t doubt he did. Apparently the court didn’t believe him. That doesn’t change the fact that Reyes v Reyes was a contract dispute and irrelevant to the matter of Mortara v Papal States.

Initially he wasn’t allowed to leave or even to see his parents. Later he was only allowed to visit with them – on Church grounds – under supervision. Still later, after he had been thoroughly “catechized”, was he allowed anything like I’d regard as freedom of movement.

I don’t know. Would you accept the baptism of your child against your wishes? Would you discourage your child from following a religion that you thought was false? Would you, perhaps, harbor a tiny bit of resentment against a religion that forcibly removed your child from you?

All it tells me is that he was raised and educated – in isolation – by priests.

Actually, by his own testimony, his parents were the ones allowed to visit him, under supervision yes, but they were the ones allowed to visit him.

Secondly, anti-judaism and anti-semitic are not the same at all. If the Church was anti-semitic, then not only would be be racist against Jesus and Mary, it wouldn’t allow Jews to become Catholic EVER. Apperantly, Teresa of Avila, Father Avila, Thomas de Torquemada and John of the Cross never existed. In fact, the fiercest critics of the Jews were the ones who were actually Jewish, although Torquemada to be fair was far more lenient in his fight against the conversos and marranos.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Actually, by his own testimony, his parents were the ones allowed to visit him, under supervision yes, but they were the ones allowed to visit him.

Initially he wasn’t allowed to leave or even to see his parents. Later he was only allowed to visit with them – on Church grounds – under supervision. Still later, after he had been thoroughly “catechized”, was he allowed anything like I’d regard as freedom of movement.

How is that any different from what I wrote?

Why don’t you get a couple of history books and start studying the socio-political situation of Europe at the time and then come back to address to issue under the proper light?

Until these boards are restricted to scholars, I’ll contribute when and where I choose.