Pope abducted child?

[cornbread_r2]

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.

The law as portrayed here and in the Wiki-linked article was that non-Catholics could not raise Catholic children.

 

[Cristiano]

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.

I think that you are intentionally mixing things up and I can see that by your derogatory description of the hypothetical scenario. There is a major difference between a regular baptism and one done in extremis. The imminent danger of death was the gating factor.

Theological reasons could be as valid as medical reasons.

You are also showing ignorance of understanding societal rules in the 1800’s. The popular assertion that you mention is something that really developed in the 1900’s, before that a lot of kids from low income families were sent away from the homes at a very young age to learn a job as apprentices.

 

[Cristiano]

The law as portrayed here and in the Wiki-linked article was that non-Catholics could not raise Catholic children.

So what? Wikipedia and CAF are not the best legal references. Would you use Wikipedia alone to get out of a murder charge?

First you made a statement but you have provided not logic to corroborate your thesis. Second when I said that probably you could be correct and explained why you disagreed with me.
What is your point?

 

[cornbread_r2]

I think that you are intentionally mixing things up and I can see that by your derogatory description of the hypothetical scenario. There is a major difference between a regular baptism and one done in extremis. The imminent danger of death was the gating factor.

Theological reasons could be as valid as medical reasons.

All the more reason to be glad that I live in a secular society.

You are also showing ignorance of understanding societal rules in the 1800’s. The popular assertion that you mention is something that really developed in the 1900’s, before that a lot of kids from low income families were sent away from the homes at a very young age to learn a job as apprentices.

Do you not see the difference between a child being sent away with the parents’ permission and having a child forcibly removed without their consent?

So what? Wikipedia and CAF are not the best legal references. Would you use Wikipedia alone to get out of a murder charge?

First you made a statement but you have provided not logic to corroborate your thesis. Second when I said that probably you could be correct and explained why you disagreed with me.
What is your point?

I looked in the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia too, but oddly it didn’t reference the incident at all.

You seemed to suggest that Lutherans might have been treated differently because they were also Christians. If the Wiki article is correct, then that would seem to be irrelevant.

If you want to read reasons why I think this stunt would never have been pulled on anyone other than a Jewish family please see this article in the aforementioned encyclopedia under the section at the bottom entitled Judaism and Church legislation.

 

[Cristiano]

All the more reason to be glad that I live in a secular society.

Secular societies enforce moral laws on arguable ideological terms (e.g. utilitarianism), thus a secular society is not automatically better than one funded on religious values

Do you not see the difference between a child being sent away with the parents’ permission and having a child forcibly removed without their consent?

From the parent point of view yes I agree with you, from the child point of view there was no difference. They were sent to learn and work as in a position of indentured servitude.

I looked in the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia too, but oddly it didn’t reference the incident at all.

Why is it odd? From the point of view of a Catholic Encyclopedia it would not be a relevant entry, for a legal encyclopedia it would probably be considered relevant.

You seemed to suggest that Lutherans might have been treated differently because they were also Christians. If the Wiki article is correct, then that would seem to be irrelevant.

Just look at the present Code of Canon Law (simply because it is easier to access) you can see that an article of law by itself very often is not sufficient to address a case. You will also see that the specific of the article are of the essence.

If you want to read reasons why I think this stunt would never have been pulled on anyone other than a Jewish family please see this article in the aforementioned encyclopedia under the section at the bottom entitled Judaism and Church legislation.

I agree with you that the event was a very sad one, especially for the parents of the child but I do not follow your logic here. First a relationship with the Jewish people does not define how a relationship with other Christians should be or it was. It is comparing apples to oranges. I think that you conveniently forget the historical and social conditions of the Italian peninsula at the time and you just project the present ones of western culture on the problem.

A final point is that at the time all the protestant would have baptized their children immediately after birth like Catholics do, thus making the whole discussion void.

 

[MrSylvester]

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.

He didn’t send out hoardes of baptizers because then that would be forced conversion and the Church always forbade forced conversion. I’m not saying it was justified, I’m just saying the Pope had a reason. This isn’t some policy of the Church: in world war II, Pius XII ordered children to be returned to their Jewish parents even if they were Baptized Catholic. More on this here: 30giorni.it/articoli_id_7884_l3.htm

 

[brumano]

Something that may be missing is more info about the free decision making competency of the boy himself; both in being baptized and remaining as an adopted son in the papal household. Just because he was young and very ill does not mean he could not make the choice to receive and embrace baptism, I don’t know maybe he himself believed that his baptism saved his life, in total. What was the disposition of the parents toward the boy before he recovered, had they given him up in effect to adoption?

 

[Cristiano]

… What was the disposition of the parents toward the boy before he recovered, had they given him up in effect to adoption?

From my understanding the parents never give up on the boy.

 

[St_Francis]

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?

The “theological reasons” you so easily dismiss relate to the eternal disposition of the child’s soul. Would you rather the boy spent an eternity burning in Hell?

 

[cornbread_r2]

The “theological reasons” you so easily dismiss relate to the eternal disposition of the child’s soul. Would you rather the boy spent an eternity burning in Hell?

Catholic theology stipulates that Edgardo Mortara would have burned in hell for all eternity?

For what reasons?

 

[cornbread_r2]

He didn’t send out hoardes of baptizers because then that would be forced conversion and the Church always forbade forced conversion. I’m not saying it was justified, I’m just saying the Pope had a reason. This isn’t some policy of the Church: in world war II, Pius XII ordered children to be returned to their Jewish parents even if they were Baptized Catholic. More on this here: 30giorni.it/articoli_id_7884_l3.htm

The Pope offered to return the child if his parents converted. Think about that. In my book that amounts to a ransom demand to be satisfied with the coerced conversion of his parents.

Pity Pius IX was not as enlightened as his successor.

Something that may be missing is more info about the free decision making competency of the boy himself; both in being baptized and remaining as an adopted son in the papal household. Just because he was young and very ill does not mean he could not make the choice to receive and embrace baptism, I don’t know maybe he himself believed that his baptism saved his life, in total. What was the disposition of the parents toward the boy before he recovered, had they given him up in effect to adoption?

If your young son informed you that he wanted to leave his family and renounce his faith to go live in an ashram, would you think that he was competent enough to make that decision? If not, at what point should your parental rights be super-ceded in favor of some other religion’s interests?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

For Cornbread_r2…Your basic error is that you cannot judge historical events by contemporary standards. One cannot even understand them fully unless they have a complete understanding of Natural Law, which obviously you don’t. Therefore your arguments are a reducto ad absurbum(i.e. foolishness)

 

[brumano]

The Pope offered to return the child if his parents converted. Think about that. In my book that amounts to a ransom demand to be satisfied with the coerced conversion of his parents.

Pity Pius IX was not as enlightened as his successor.

If your young son informed you that he wanted to leave his family and renounce his faith to go live in an ashram, would you think that he was competent enough to make that decision? If not, at what point should your parental rights be super-ceded in favor of some other religion’s interests?

Well, I don’t know enough about all the particulars that took place in this case, I don’t think we can say automatically that what the Pope did was wrong under all possible scenarios, I’m not saying that because he was the Pope that it was automatically appropriate either. I’m just saying I don’t know.
Let’s say the Pope did act heavy handedly in this, could’nt this be seen as somewhat understandable, it was well known at the time and it propably is still true today in some families that Jewish people are to disown their children if they convert to Catholicism. I know from her biography that this is what happened with bl.Edith Stein.
That’s what I was asking about, the boy’s own decision in all of this, and I think it’s being ignored and Pius IX being painted as the heavy, you can see that what the individual himself wanted and experienced in this has a great deal to do with how we could judge the Pope’s actions on his behalf, can’t you?
What’s an ashram?

 

[Kaninchen]

The Ottomans used to kidnap Christian boys and, after intense training, learning Turkish, religious indoctrination and conversion to Islam, they entered the elite military force known as the Janissaries (composed of others ‘recruited’ in the same way). Thus they gave illiterate peasants a good career and ‘the true’ religion.

Seems just as correct an outcome as the Mortara kidnapping to me.

 

[Cristiano]

The Ottomans used to kidnap Christian boys and, after intense training, learning Turkish, religious indoctrination and conversion to Islam, they entered the elite military force known as the Janissaries (composed of others ‘recruited’ in the same way). Thus they gave illiterate peasants a good career and ‘the true’ religion.

Seems just as correct an outcome as the Mortara kidnapping to me.

This is a reduction to absurd. The Church did not mandate to boy to be baptized and then ordered to have him kidnapped. The Church reacted to something that was done by people that broke her laws.

 

[Kaninchen]

This is a reduction to absurd. The Church did not mandate to boy to be baptized and then ordered to have him kidnapped. The Church reacted to something that was done by people that broke her laws.

That rather requires a Christian perspective which I (obviously) don’t share.

To me the boy got (briefly) wet so the Church kidnapped him, trained him to reject his family and religion, indoctrinated him into a new one and turned him into a priest.

 

[St_Francis]

Catholic theology stipulates that Edgardo Mortara would have burned in hell for all eternity?

For what reasons?

Catholoc theology holds that someone who is baptized is judged by different standards than those whonare not, and that someone who is not raised Catholic is less likely to to fulfill the requirements by which he will be judged than someone who is raised Catholic.

If God is going to judge the person by certain standards, naturally that person should be given as good a chance as possible to learn and live by those standards.

This was also an issue during WW2, when Catholics cared for many Jewish children. They were forbidden to baptize the children precisely because if they were returned to their parents, they would not be raised Catholic. There were a few children who were baptized, for various reasons, and these few cases caused problems after the war.

 

[cornbread_r2]

For Cornbread_r2…Your basic error is that you cannot judge historical events by contemporary standards.

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…)

One cannot even understand them fully unless they have a complete understanding of Natural Law, which obviously you don’t.

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.

Therefore your arguments are a reducto ad absurbum(i.e. foolishness)

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

Well, I don’t know enough about all the particulars that took place in this case, I don’t think we can say automatically that what the Pope did was wrong under all possible scenarios, I’m not saying that because he was the Pope that it was automatically appropriate either. I’m just saying I don’t know.
Let’s say the Pope did act heavy handedly in this, could’nt this be seen as somewhat understandable, it was well known at the time and it propably is still true today in some families that Jewish people are to disown their children if they convert to Catholicism. I know from her biography that this is what happened with bl.Edith Stein.
That’s what I was asking about, the boy’s own decision in all of this, and I think it’s being ignored and Pius IX being painted as the heavy, you can see that what the individual himself wanted and experienced in this has a great deal to do with how we could judge the Pope’s actions on his behalf, can’t you?
What’s an ashram?

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

There’s no evidence that the boy wanted to be taken away from his family to be raised Catholic. That’s just more speculation on your part. But even if he did (and I repeat my previous question to you), if your six-year old son informed you that he wanted to leave his family and renounce his faith to go live in a Hindu hermitage, would you think that he was competent enough to make that decision?

 

[cornbread_r2]

Catholoc theology holds that someone who is baptized is judged by different standards than those whonare not, and that someone who is not raised Catholic is less likely to to fulfill the requirements by which he will be judged than someone who is raised Catholic.

This seems substantially different than what you stated before, which was:

The “theological reasons” you so easily dismiss relate to the eternal disposition of the child’s soul. Would you rather the boy spent an eternity burning in Hell?

Here you made it seem as though Mortara’s eternal damnation was assured.

If God is going to judge the person by certain standards, naturally that person should be given as good a chance as possible to learn and live by those standards.

In isolation that statement seems reasonable. In the context of the case in question, it’s scarey. If the forcible removal of a child from his home, family, culture and religion can be justified using this rationale, what can’t?

 

[cornbread_r2]

This is a reduction to absurd. The Church did not mandate to boy to be baptized and then ordered to have him kidnapped.

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.

The Church reacted to something that was done by people that broke her laws.

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.