Mortara: Movie, Not. Book, Yes.

kidnapped mortara

Steven Spielberg had his script; he had chosen his locations and had begun to build his sets. He had cast almost all his parts. He just needed a boy to play Edgardo Mortara, the six-year-old that Pope Pius IX had taken away from his Jewish family in 1858, because the boy was Catholic. (A maid had baptized him when he lingered at death’s door as an infant, but he did not die.)

Spielberg, however, could not find the right child actor. The director searched in vain for the boy he needed “to carry the movie.” A little over a year ago, Spielberg gave up. We apparently won’t see a blockbuster Edgardo-Mortara movie anytime soon. (Harvey Weinstein had the idea of making a movie about Mortara, too. But…)

Spielberg had wanted to recount the early life of the Jewish-born Catholic priest who once enjoyed international fame. During his childhood and teenage years, Edgardo Mortara’s name passed the lips of practically every king, queen, prime-minister, and president on earth. And it appeared in the editorials of practically every newspaper, as the world lurched into the political alignments that eventually led to World War I.

Napoleon III
Napoleon III

But Spielberg had made a bad choice about the book upon which to base his script. David Kertzer wrote The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara without reading one highly significant document: Father Mortara’s own memoirs.

Kertzer has since raised quibbles about the reliability of the text of Mortara’s memoirs, originally written in Spanish. But the disputed passages do not change anything fundamental about the book. The Atlantic called the final Italian (and English) text “heavily doctored.” But close analysis does not support that charge. The real problem is that the anti-Pope-Pius side of the debate regards Mortara as having been “brainwashed.” But, by that logic, all Catholics who believe in Christ and His Gospel have been brainwashed.

So, back to our task at hand: a consideration of Mortara’s words. As an adult, Father Mortara wrote his story, in order to defend Pope Pius IX from the charge of malicious kidnapping. In so doing, Mortara told the tale of a beautiful, holy life. He thought he was praising Pope Pius’ holiness. But he was in fact unwittingly revealing his own.

Maybe Spielberg couldn’t find the “right” actor, thereby dooming his movie, because the story, as he intended to tell it, only included half of the facts. How can you tell a good story on film, while neglecting the point-of-view of the protagonist himself?

(Let’s let Spielberg concern himself with projects like Indiana Jones XVII, or whatever he’s up to, and focus on whether Mortara rightly concludes that Pope Pius rightly ordered his “sequestration” from his family.)

Italian scholar Vittorio Messori unearthed Mortara’s memoir. In spite of all the controversy that surrounded Mortara’s life, his own book had never been published for the general public. Messori wrote a lengthy introduction and published the book in Italian. Now Ignatius Press has published an English translation.

“The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara” by Moritz Oppenheim

Earlier this year, Father Romanus Cessario “reviewed” Kidnapped by the Vatican? for First Things magazine. But Father Cessario paid scant attention to anything about Mortara’s life after age six. Indeed, Messori himself, in his introduction, apologizes to the reader for Mortara’s supposedly inartful and unconvincing prose. (Ironically enough, Messori’s prose requires a lot of concentration to grasp; Mortara’s, by contrast, flows smoothly.)

In his introduction, Messori belabors the following point: Pope Pius IX’s 19th-century critics were hypocrites. In other Christian lands, baptized children were removed somewhat routinely from non-Christian homes. And in the Muslim world, Christian children could be castrated and enslaved.

Okay, but this argumentation does not resolve the moral question about Pope Pius’ decision to remove Mortara from his family home. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Anyway, it’s as if Cessario and Messori, intent on defending Pope Pius IX’s decision, fall into the same trap as Kertzer and Spielberg–and everyone else intent on demonizing the pope: All of them treat Father Mortara’s own point-of-view as an unnecessary afterthought.

The Pope was obviously terribly, grievously wrong to take Edgardo from his parents! It was crass anti-Semitism!


The Pope had good reason and basically did the right thing, according to solid 19th-century logic!

It’s as if the polemicists consider these the only options, and what Mortara himself has to say–that doesn’t really matter.

But actually sitting down and reading Mortara’s words forces you to take him seriously. I picked up the book to test my own conclusions about the affair against what the man himself says. (I’ll come back to that shortly.)  Once I started reading Mortara’s own narrative, I couldn’t put the book down. He tells the gripping story of his early life.

For example:

The Risorgimento took control of Rome during Edgardo’s teenage years, and the pope no longer had any governing power. The new Italian government had a mind to return the young man, now a seminarian, to his family home–by force if necessary, against Edgardo’s own will and strenuous objections.

So Edgardo and his seminary professors enacted a plan for the young man to escape the city on a midnight train to Austria, disguised and accompanied by a similarly disguised seminary priest.

Pius IX
Blessed Pio Nono

As the two of them waited anxiously to board the train, the priest saw Edgardo’s father, also at the train station that very same night. The companion informed Edgardo of his father’s presence; they sat motionless to avoid his glance.

Edgardo marvels that his father did not see him. I wonder myself if perhaps the father actually did recognize the son, but loved him enough to keep quiet and allow him to escape, so he could live the life he wanted to lead.

Anyway, Father Mortara wrote a vivid, eminently readable book. He narrates the facts of his early life, including his “removal” from the family home by order of Pope Pius, so that the boy could receive the proper Catholic education to which his baptism entitled him.

Mortara offers not only a narration of facts, but also a moral defense of the pope. Father Mortara argues as follows: His parents had employed a Christian shabbos goy (non-Jewish sabbath servant) in defiance of the law. The law prohibited Christian servants in Jewish households precisely to avoid cases like Mortara’s, where a baptism at the point of death produced a Catholic who wound up surviving and required a Christian education. The Mortaras broke that law.

According to Mortara’s moral reasoning, the responsibility for his removal from his family therefore lies with his parents.

Everyone involved regarded the removal as highly regrettable. The Pope had offered a compromise alternative: Edgardo could attend a Catholic boarding school in Bologna (his hometown), and his family could see him every week. But the Mortaras rejected this proposal.

So, according to Mortara, and according to Pope Pius himself, the Pope had no choice. He had an obligation to see to it that Edgardo received a Catholic education.

Now, let’s pause for a moment and acknowledge this: Both the Pope and the parents recognized something very important: Every child has a right to a thorough education in religion.

The idea of “waiting till he grows up, so he can decide” did not appeal to either party in the dispute. Because both sides recognized that no such option really exists. Children will grow up with the religion of the adults they live with. If that religion = “none,” then the adults have failed to provide the religious education that the child deserves by right.

Back to Mortara’s argument: His parents had broken the law. He was a Catholic six-year-old, with a right to a Catholic education. His parents would not co-operate with the Pope’s humane compromise proposal. Therefore, Pope Pio had no choice, and his parents were to blame for the pain.

The Pope himself echoed this logic in his repeated response to the critics who demanded that he return the child to the parents. Non possumus. We cannot.

Now, you don’t have to be an anti-clerical, anti-Catholic worldling to see the hypocrisy in such a statement. As I mentioned, in the book’s introduction, Messori points out the hypocrisy of the Pope’s critics. Fair enough. But:

How many baptized children living in the papal states in the 1860’s did not receive the proper Catholic education that they deserved? It is staggering to imagine the number of Catholic children who languished in religious ignorance because of parental inattention–inattention by Catholic parents. In every generation, we face this problem. And the Pope never claimed to have an irrevocable divine mandate to remove these children from their homes.

No. The non possumus; the laying of the responsibility on the parents for the “sequestration” of the child: not credible, not accurate, not true.

The pope could have offered the compromise; he could have received the refusal; then he could have said: We strongly urge you to educate your child as the Catholic that he is. You owe him that. We stand ready to help you.

And then the pope could have left it at that, trusting in God, and His Providence, and His unfathomable wisdom in the care of souls.

Mortara praises Pope Pius for “saving him from hell.” If the boy or young man had had to return to his Jewish parents, he thinks that he would certainly have wound up damned. In his mind, a black-or-white alternative presented itself: 1. The reprobate world outside the perfect society of the Church. 2. Salvation under the aegis of the Successor of St. Peter.

But this distinction does not altogether harmonize with the New Testament.

First of all, as Pope Paul VI pointed out on the 100th anniversary of the fall of the Papal States, St. Peter never received a mission to govern everything. Christ made Peter and his successors the chief shepherds, the pastors of the world.

Some authority must possess the power to remove children from their homes, if necessary. Parents can and do commit crimes against their children. (The great Roy Schoeman, in his forward to the English edition of Mortara’s memoirs, points this out. Parents do not have absolute power over their children.)

We would say that failing to give a Catholic child a Catholic education is a crime, a grave dereliction of duty. But can we honestly argue that, all other things being equal–the child safe and fed and protected from danger–that under such circumstances, such a crime should be punished by removing the child from the home? Can we honestly argue that such a punishment would serve the cause of building up the Catholic religion?

And could anyone ever apply such a punishment consistently? Or supply the parental care that such children would need? Hardly.

No, let’s say this: Parents of Catholic children, you owe your children an education in the Catholic religion! If you fail to provide it, you stand guilty of a grave crime, for which God will punish you (not us; we don’t have the authority to mete out punishments for such crimes of negligence). We stand ready to help you avoid such a punishment.

Second mistake of Mortara’s: A Christian cannot regard the culture and society of Jews as equally spiritually dangerous as the culture and society of pagans. I’m not saying that Mortara was “brainwashed” to think that way. But we can’t regard his prediction as infallible, that he would have wound-up damned if he had been forced to return home. He might yet have found the way to heaven.

So, to conclude:

Mortara’s memoirs reward the reader. The book leaves you admiring the author’s earnestness, his intelligence, his narrative skill, his theological insight, and his holiness.

Pope Pius IX enjoys heaven–of that we can be sure, because Pope St. John Paul II beatified him in the year 2000.

Saints can and do make blameworthy mistakes. In my book, the holy pope made a blindly stubborn mistake in 1858–a mistake with excruciatingly painful consequences for a Jewish family that did not deserve such pain.

Their pain, however, is not the whole story. The parents and siblings came to love and admire their priest son and brother (not without some misgivings, to be sure). God had a plan. Mortara’s book shows us how beautiful that plan was, in spite of everything.



The Truth is a Confusing Thing

Did Blessed Pope Pius IX weave a crown of thorns and send it to Jefferson Davis’ post-war prison cell as a gesture of sympathy?

–Keeping the anniversary of Virginia’s secession by caressing the Davis’ wartime home with my eyes, I eagerly anticipated the sight of the relic.

To my chagrin, I learned that the crown had only been temporarily displayed in Richmond. The crown resides permanently in New Orleans.

Not only that: A thoroughly well-educated young man told me that Mrs. Varina Davis wove the crown, not the Pope.

Buzzkill. (I did lay eyes on the Holy Father’s 1863 letter to East Clay Street!)

My opinion: The arguments for Varina’s having woven the crown do not convince. Could have been the Pope…

…For our meditation: the Pontifical prayer for the consecration of the Holy Chrism, used to anoint in Holy Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders…

God our maker, source of all growth in holiness, accept the joyful thanks and praise we offer in the name of your Church. In the beginning, at your command, the earth produced fruit-bearing trees.

From the fruit of the olive tree you have provided us with oil for holy chrism. The prophet David sang of the life and joy that the oil would bring us in the sacraments of your love.

After the avenging flood, the dove returning to Noah with an olive branch announced your gift of peace. This was a sign of a greater gift to come. Now the waters of baptism wash away the sins of men, and by the anointing with olive oil you make us radiant with your joy.

At your command, Aaron was washed with water, and your servant Moses, his brother, anointed him priest. This too foreshadowed greater things to come. After your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, asked John for baptism in the waters of Jordan, you sent the Spirit upon him in the form of a dove and by the witness of your own voice you declared him to be your only, well-beloved Son. In this you clearly fulfilled the prophecy of David, that Christ would be anointed with the oil of gladness beyond his fellow men.

And so, Father, we ask you to bless + this oil you have created. Fill it with the power of your Holy Spirit through Christ your Son. It is from him that chrism takes its name and with chrism you have anointed for yourself priests and kings, prophets and martyrs.

Your Freight

Daniel Dunglas Home
Your servant enjoys the privilege of living in the nether reaches of the Albemarle Sound watershed, far away from any recognizable center of the universe.

But, in these parts, we do have very heavy shipping traffic. The rumble of fifty-car Norfolk & Southern freight trains and the constant hum of semis on the nation’s busiest trucking corridor are the sounds that keep me company day and night.

Think of all the countless consumables which you consume, dear reader: Granola bars, blank cds, coal, chassis lubricants, etc. If you are reading this on the East Coast or in the South, chances are pretty good that I heard a few of your consumables rumble by on their way to you…

The Religious Range

…I had the day off today, so I headed up the Appalachian Trail and hiked The Priest, The Little Priest, The Friar, The Little Friar, and The Cardinal. Beautiful day!

While I was cresting these summits, I meditated some more about ecclesiastical censures. Here is an interesting case:

Blessed Pio Nono
Daniel D. Home was a Scotch-American spiritualist who performed seances for the rich and famous of Europe in the 1850’s and 60’s. He married into Russian nobility. Robert Browning wrote a long poem about Home called “Mr. Sludge, the Medium.”

During a visit to Italy, Home decided to convert to Catholicism and enter a monastery. Blessed Pope Pius IX personally received him into the Church. Shortly thereafter, Home recanted and left for France.

Nine years later, Home returned to Rome to study sculpting. The papal government arrested him and expelled him from the country as a dangerous spiritualist.

The American Thomas More?

APTOPIX Obama Bulls Wizards Basketball

John Salmons
John Salmons
Discussion Question #1: Are the Georgetown Hoyas the most disappointing ballclub in the nation this season?

President and Bulls fan Barack Obama was at the Verizon Center this evening, as was Moses-beard-wearing Bull John Salmons.

Both were disappointed. The Wizards managed to beat the Bulls by 23 points. (Not a typo.) Let’s hope the President comes to more Wizards games!

…Not long ago, the Bishop of Wilimington, Delaware, sent his people a pastoral letter about Abraham Lincoln. The title of the letter is a quote from President Lincoln’s first inaugural address. The quote concludes with the famous phrase, “the better angels of our nature.”

Continue reading “The American Thomas More?”