Talk:Mortara case/Archive 1

Hiding behind the cassock?

Can someone clarify what's going on with the last sentence in the second paragraph? It seems to be saying that Edgardo was hiding behind the cassock rather than "under" it, but fails to cite a source other than Cornwell, which apparently "fails to mention" anything along these lines. It seems like splitting hairs here anyway. Several Times (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the incident referred to is that of the relation paragraph 1656. There it says he hid "under the chasuble" of a priest, not the Pope himself. Under the chasuble, of course, the priest would be fully clothed. 151.13.16.18 (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Hopkins

Anthony Hopkins was to appear in the role of the pope in a movie about this case. Some web sites suggest it may have been cancelled. What's going on? Michael Hardy 23:38, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

ummm, Elian Gonzalez stole the show and is now old hat? :) 204.52.215.107 13:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Mortara's date of birth

I wonder about the assertion that 1852 was his date of birth. In June of 1858 he was kidnapped at the age of six, according to Kertzer's book. If his seventh birthday were later that same calendar year, then that and Kertzer's assertion would both be consistent with his having been born in 1851. I seem to recall having read this -- I check on it some time soon, I hope. Michael Hardy 00:25, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Kertzer's book says he was 19 years old when Garibaldi's forces took Rome in 1870, and that he was 23 years old when he was ordained in 1874, and also that he was six years old when he was abducted in June 1858. That implies that he was born later than that date in June 1851 but not later than the end of 1851. "Six years old in June 1858" does not imply he was born in 1852, if, as is conventional, we take "six years old" to mean that his sixth birthday has arrived and his seventh birthday has not. Michael Hardy 21:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

... and one of the external links quotes Edgardo Mortara as saying that he was born on August 27th, 1851. Michael Hardy 01:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correction to this old comment of mine

Above I said "when Garibaldi's forces took Rome". In fact by that time, Garibaldi was no longer an officer in the Italian army. He wasn't there that day (September 20th, 1870.) Michael Hardy 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Baptism

I removed the reference to jews a ssecond class citizens.

The Church has always held baptism to signify a person is a christian, and does not require baptism by a priest. And it is not illogical to require a christian to be brought up by a christian -- in the same way that the child of a Jewish mother would be jewish because the mother was responsible for the upbringing of the child.

The child of a Jewish mother would be Jewish because in Judaism the measure of Jewishness is whether one's mother or father was also a Jew. If one had a Gentile mother and a Jewish father, one might still be ethnically half-Jewish, and even brought up in a Jewish household, but not considered intrinsically Jewish unless one had actually converted. By contrast, the child of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is considered completely Jewish, even if he never practises or learns anything about his mother's faith.

Nuttyskin 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The references in the article seem NPOV. Excesively anti-catholic. the late 1840s were a time of political upheaval in Europe and all governments reacted including the Papal States, which was probably the most reactionary to start with.

Recognition that Roman government was one of the most extreme in Europe and not unique would help balance. garryq 23:42, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph. I agree that "second-class citizens" was not a very helpful phrase, since no-one had the rights of "citizens" in the Papal States. But it is a simple fact that the 19th century Church was anti-Semitic in doctrine and practice, and that the child baptism rule applied and was intended to apply to Jews - there were no other religious minorities in the Papal States. It is not "anti-Catholic" to say these things. The Church itself has acknowledged and apologised for its history of anti-Semitism - though not so far in this case. Adam 04:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To baptise and then kidnap a child to change its religion against the wishes of its parents is undoubtedly wrong - I really despair at the 1st para of Garryq's contribution above - and it's hardly anti-catholic to say so. The involvement of the Pope would seem to indicate this was not purely an act by the civil authorities.

I'd have to argue that the NPOV article is anti-catholic, as it completely disregards the context of the times; implying that no other civilized nation would even consider employing a similar strategy as the Papal states. By today's standards, this is offensive and bigoted, and I'm sure the Catholics would agree. But please remember this was the 1800s not the 2000s Example? Despite the fact that England is known historically to be extremely(often violently) anti-catholic (which somehow is neglected to be mentioned), it is cited in the article as being a voice of reason which "allow(ed) Piedmont to go to war with the Papal States in 1859”, therefore it will be used as an example. Starting in 1869, the British and Australian governments(the Americans had programs for their own native populace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_boarding_schools) had a policy of abducting Aboriginal children http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/stolen/stolen13.html from their homes, ostensibly to remove them from unsafe households where they were being abused or neglected (A peculiar claim, as some children were even snatched from the hospitals they were born in.) In reality, they were stealing mixed race children (also known as "half-caste" children) and bringing them to live in white society in the hopes that their ethnicity would eventually be bred out of them. But as I’ve already typed, 1869 was a different time, and certainly this policy didn't continue into the 20th century? Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations the 1970s. The Papal States’ actions are immoral by any modernist’s standards, but there is historical precedence, and it is a basic tenet of the practice of History not to judge the past by present-day standards. I believe there is value in understanding the context in which events take place and which people strategize about and respond to. This does not necessarily equate to a judgment, just an understanding. This allows us to understand what went on, and recognize knowledge limitations that constantly surround us. This should not be an exception. Also, France withdrew it's troops in order to engage in the Franco-Prussian war(also known as the war of 1870), a conflict which France lost, marking the downfall of Napoleon III and the end of the Second French Empire. They had important problems of their own to deal with at the time, it wasn't out of disgust like the article suggests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.215.89 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 

Exile 21:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question. "Edgardo's baptism, even though illegal, was valid, and made him a Christian." In what way was the baptism illegal? Was it in violation of some sort of civil statute of the Papal States? I don't understand, and I trust (hope? :P) I'm not the only one. If someone could clarify, that would be great. :) --User:Jenmoa 23:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read Kertzer's book. But I think it was illegal because the parents did not consent to it. If he'd been an adult, he himself would have to have consented. Michael Hardy 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a specious argument: if he'd been an adult, the servant girl would not have baptised him. As it is, Edgardo Mortara was spoonfed both Catholic doctrine and Papal political propaganda, and brought up in a "veal crate" of all-enveloping religious devotion, designed to make him what he in fact became: a virtual clone of Pius IX, and an apologist for his actions.

Nuttyskin 01:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Canon law distinguishes whether an act is illicit (it's forbidden, it shouldn't have been done) from whether it is invalid (it has no effect whatever). As baptism of infants without parental consent was illicit, the baptism of Mortara was illicit but not invalid. It's like the distinction in Jewish law between lechatechillah and be-di-avad. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All of this discussion of baptism and religious justification in general is absurd: the essence of the case is that a young child was forcibly separated from parents who loved him and there is simply nothing more to it.--Jrm2007 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotations sources

May I ask for more or less specific sources for Pius IX quotations? Not that I distrust their truth, just to be able to read them. Thanks in advance. Pfortuny 09:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The first reference should not be valid. Much of what's on this page is a summary of a PBS (American "public" broadcasting system)"documentary". It does not contain the original references. This TV station is mostly supported by donations from leftist individuals and organizations, and has produced other series before with a clear anti-Catholic content, such as their series on protestantism (Luther, Henry VIII) and about Islam (with comments such as, I quote "their conquest was peaceful" and also "Constantinople was a ripe fruit awaiting to be picked"). Their stories always tend to portray Catholicism as an intolerant, torturing organization. They forget to include the historical context in which the stories take place, and what is more, they justify violence and intolerance of other religions. In summary, I believe the whole story is extremely subjective and lacks historical rigor beyond the testimony of the parts involved: Edgardo made a choice in favor of Catholicism and his father was upset because he was a Hebrew. I would like to see another documentary on how easy it was to profess Christianity in Jerusalem at the time the Jews had power over the region, but of course I won't.

"Edgardo made a choice in favor of Catholicism" at the age of six? Excuse me? A six year old doesn't get to choose his own clothes, for goodness sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.215.227 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Italian antisemitism

Should it be mentioned that antisemitism was to be remarkablily lower in unified Italy than in other European countries?

If that's a fact, it could be quite appropriate for this article. Michael Hardy 21:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see a problem in properly assessing the "remarkably lower" -unless it is extraordinarily clear, which I may doubt-. Pfortuny 07:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I read something to that tune in Farewell España, a book on Sephardi history. The author compared the antisemitism in Papal States (with the Roman Ghetto and a child whose name I forgot but probably Mortara) with the later situation of Jews in unified Italy, where they were ordinary citizens, but there weren't enormous fortunes as in France, Germany or Britain, hence Christian Italians (in general) didn't felt envy for them.

One of David Kertzer's books The Popes Against the Jews, points out that in other predominantly Catholic countries, nationalist movements were pro-Catholic and anti-Semitic, but in Italy, the nationalist movement was against the church, because the church maintained the Papal States and after their overthrow by the Italian kingdom, tried to re-establish them. Michael Hardy 22:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

in Italy, the nationalist movement was against the church

I can't shake the suspicion that one of the reasons Garibaldi was so championed in Britain especially was his (political) opposition to the Papacy, which seemed to mirror British (religious) opposition to Catholicism, and the Establishment dislike of Catholics in general.

Nuttyskin 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't provide a source, but I have read in several places that there was very little antisemitism in Italy from the time of unification onwards, because antisemitism was identified with the Church, and the dominant Italian liberals (despite being Catholics) hated the Church. I read somewhere that there were 10 Jewish generals in the Italian Army in World War I, which since there were only 10,000 Jews in the country at the time means that 0.1% of all Italian Jews were Army generals. Mussolini's fascism was not antisemitic until it was infected with German Nazi ideas in the 1930s. Several of the movements founders were Jews, who were later pensioned off with Mussolini's apologies. Despite the discriminatory legislation of the 1930s (which was widely ignored) Italian Jews were physically quite safe until 1943 when Mussolini fell and the Germans took over. I think it is well known that Italian forces protected Jews in their zone of occupation in France from not only the Germans but also the Vichy antisemites. Adam 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Elian Gonzalez

This spectacle reminds me of the Elian Gonzalez dispute a few years back. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

...Was a six-year-old Jewish boy...

Was he six years old his entire life?

He was six years old (actually, about two months before his seventh birthday) at the time of the event that made him famous. But for that event, we have no indication that any of us would ever have heard of him. Michael Hardy 15:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Died in Paris?

I seem to recall that Kertzer's book says Mortara died in Belgium in 1940, not in Paris. Which (if either) is right? Michael Hardy 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Now I've checked it against the book. It says he died in Belgium about two months before that country was invaded by the nazis. 24.118.11.194 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Date of Edgardo Mortara's testimony in favor of Pius IX's beatification?

This external link appears in the article:

http://www.zenit.org/english/archive/documents/Mortara-PioIX.html

It contains Edgardo Mortara's testimony in favor of Pius IX's beatification. But it does not say when and where he testified. I sent an email more than a year ago to the maintainers of that web site and have received no reply. Can anyone supply that information? Michael Hardy 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sad

His nieces and nephews, as adults, sadly recalled the frequent visits from the priest.

Does this mean that they disliked his visits or that they missed them? --Error 00:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pio Maria

His religious name was Pio Maria. I have added a redirect page and a sentence in the main article. I have also deleted a redirect to a main article on the Mortaro Affair, which apparently does not exist anymore. Bill Jefferys 02:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

editorial opinion in introduction

The last sentence in the introduction both sounds like a subjective opinion, rather than an objective fact:"The source for these allegations, Cornwell fails to mention that Edgardo himself hid from his angry parents behind Pius IX's cassock." How do we know that's what happened if the source fails to mention it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.240.204 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What would have happened to him If he lived a bit longer?

If Edgardo Mortara lived longer, would the Nazis spared him because he was a Christian Raised By the pope? If he was alive during the Nazi occupation of Belgium would he be spared by the Nazis because he was a Baptized Christian raised by The Pope? (La convivencia (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

While the nazi laws were in theory "race"-based, there were not infrequent exceptions made, allowing half-jews to even serve in the German army, for example. I would guess that especially because he was an old man and a prominent catholic, Mortara might well have been left alone.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

My issues with this article are as follows: 1. Some claims in the article are supported by nothing but the "citation" tag.[citation needed]. Could someone fill them in? 2. David Kertzer is a known opponent of the Catholic Church, presenting his views as fact without other sources to back him up incites bias. Many scholars dispute Kertzer's findings on his various works. Jose Sanchez, history professor at St. Louis University criticized Kertzer's work as polemical and exaggerating the papacy's role in anti-Semitism. Scholar of Jewish-Christian relations Rabbi David G. Dalin criticized Kertzer for selectively using evidence. Ronald J. Rychlak, lawyer and author of Hitler, the War, and the Pope, also decried Kertzer's work "The Popes Against the Jews" for omitting strong evidence that the Church was not anti-Semitic (during the second World War). His opinions should should be labeled under a section called "Historical views and perspectives". 3. Please mention why various countries acted the way they did. From this article's prospective it suggests they did so in response to this incident. This is inaccurate. 4. Please give a brief mentioning to other major power mentioned in this article's seizure of minority children from their family homes, as it would discredit the idea this article implies, namely that the Papal States was a fringe extremist in an age of enlightened liberalism. Once again this is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heta4me (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the singling out of Kertzer, who is backed well enough and is not heavily used as a source for this article. And I'd like to see who can find another biography of Edgardo. Anything arguing about the Church not being anti-Semitic at any time is not on target. One of the most anti-Semitic documents was written by the present pope, back in 2000: Dominus Iesus. The Church has not altered its stance too much! Djathinkimacowboy 21:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The article as it existed in July 2011 was non-neutral. Thanks for fixing it. In the meantime, I have a request for clarification: how did he get ordained when there is doubt as to whether he was even baptized or not? Bwrs (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, he was accepted not just by the Church but by the pope. Thus there was no question of his being ordained, since the pope planned for him to grow up to be a priest all along. Oh: there has never been any question of his being baptised. The servant claimed she did it and it was a common practice but not supposed to be done with Jews. That was something like what was done to my ancestors back in the Middle Ages.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Date of book

The date of David's book is said to be 1997 and 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Parallel

See the article on Barnardo's. This is a parallel case, which does not seem to worry Dawkins and David so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.76.14 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to David Kertzer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.76.14 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhry might be interested in the case of Barnardo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.76.14 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox

"Orthodox doctrine" is mentioned in the article, although not relevant. No one involved subscribed to the Greek denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.39.72 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem

At this diff [1] I see "(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)". Is there a reason edits are hidden in this way? Or am I missing something as usual? I'd like to know if someone's editing and then somehow hiding edits. Djathinkimacowboy 01:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you delete “&oldid=465526666” from the URL, then you will see just the last revision in the diff. Three of the “intermediate” revisions are automated edits to inter-language links, and the first one is a minor correction. Bwrs (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the tip, it'll come in handy. I also noted that it was a stupid question on my part.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)