CathInfo.com

Cletus--Have you read the book? I believe the case was handled correctly by the Church and you cannot seperate the Pope from the actions of everyone else because it was Pius who who ordered the child resued.

The Christian faith was explained to the boy and it was his own free will to stay with the Pope--period. How this can be described as a tragedy is beyond me.

It is my recommendation that all read mr Kertzers books. His father was a friend of rabbi Zoli's and defended him against other judaics when Zolli converted to Catholicism. The twist here is that I suspect Zolli to have been a Marrano.

I don't remember if I read a book on this subject. I think I did. It's hard to keep track.

I'm using the word tragedy in a loose, old softie sense. There was obviously a lot of heartbreak involved on all sides.

I agree that the case was handled properly as to the bottom line. What I object to is bringing in dubious statements about infantile theologizing and subsequent bloody murder in order to demonize the Jєωιѕн side and attribute an unlikely purity to the Catholic side.

Did the Lord Pope's trusty knights come a calling at a decent hour? Did they brandish swords at screaming brothers and sisters?

Do we know? Do we care?

Even Jєωιѕн mothers have the right to want to be with their kids. I don't see the point in showing a dogmatic callousness towards a mother's anguish. The general tragedy is the unbelief of the Jєωιѕн people. And whose fault is that? JUST the Jews'? I doubt it.

I hope that no one is going to start putting Signor Mortara's name up there with the Duke of Clarence's on the Jack the Ripper suspect short list.

What I would expect if I were to read about this case is to find some enterprising cardinal toting the kid around Italy giving speeches against Liberalism, with the cardinal's ambitious brother, in the role of agent and promoter, realizing a tidy little profit from the whole deal.

Maybe it seems perverse to say that I don't know what the case was, but presuppose the worst, and would be happy to be shown otherwise. I would say that someone who comes out with something like that, someone who is that confident about his ability to toss out a likely "mutatis mutandis", (the way it was with A was probably the way it was with B and C and D and E etc...) had better have a wide experience with delving into the nitty-gritty of Church History. I think that I do: It has given me what I consider a holy cynicism about the "human side of the Church."

Generally, the behavior of Catholic clerics and prelates in this world has stunk. Notably.

That's Wisdom of the Saints 101.

The general orders of superiors are one thing. The way in which their flunkeys execute them are often very much another.

The names of Msg Jouin and Mrs Martinez have to be added to those confused over the Card Rampolla case--although some of the v2ers are more than likely a little more complicit than simply being confused.

And the names of the Catholic authors who do understand the Card Rampolla case have to be noted; Francis McNutt, Francis Sugrue and Robert Sencourt.

Cletus--there were never any heavy handed tactics involved in taking the child. Edgardo's mother did indeed want to be with her son but the child made the decision on his own when he was of the age of consent. He could have returned to his family at any time but never did.

Your statement about expecting to find 'some enterprising cardinal toting the child around giving speeches on liberalism' is based on speculation and I do not agree with your unqualified statement that the behaviour of Catholic clerics in this world has stunk notably; are you talking about the entire last 2000 yrs?

If little Edgaro was spirited off with all due decorum and consideration I'm glad to hear it.

You said almost seven.

Six is not the "age of consent."

It's a commonplace in all kinds of Catholic writing over the centuries that "most priests and bishops lose their souls." (Of course, according to a related commonplace most people in general lose their souls.)

I concede that it may be unwise and in bad taste to invent a colorful scenario of misbehavior in the Mortara case when I have no reason to believe that there was any.

What makes me think that the above is a legitimate rhetorical exercise is that I am confessing my ignorance of the details of this particular case and saying that no matter WHAT they were Pope Pius IX cannot be faulted for the bottom line of what he did in the case. He had the Christian child raised by Christians.

If I concede to the critics of Pope Pius IX that the worst of what they say about the Mortara case may be true, and yet insist on the Catholic principle involved, it's a way of cutting to the chase and getting to the eternal essentials.

What is the worst that they say? It's not what they think it is. If what they are saying is that the pope saw that a baptized Jєωιѕн child was raised by Catholics, they are not saying anything bad at all.

My sarcastic statements about what this or that cardinal may have done in the Mortara case are not based on pure speculation. Using the Church to gain money and power for one's family is as commonly Catholic among clerical muckety-mucks as holy water. I would not be rash and claim that it was ever as common as clerical concubinage.