@Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun (Two and a Half Inches of Fun) posted a new topic, subject "Questions for Catholics - Heroism Virtue in Kidnapping/Brain-washing a Jewish child.". It read:

   > In a speech in 1871 he called the Jews of Rome “dogs” and said: “of these dogs, there are too many of them at present in Rome, and we hear them howling in the streets, and they are disturbing us in all places.”
    > 
    > In 1858, in a highly publicized case, a six-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, was taken from his parents by the police of the Papal States. He had reportedly been baptized by a Christian servant girl of the family while he was ill, because she feared that otherwise he would go to Hell if he died. At that time, the law did not permit Christians to be raised by Jews, even their own parents. Pius IX steadfastly refused calls from numerous heads of state including Emperor Franz Josef (1848–1916) of Austria-Hungary and Emperor Napoleon III of France (1852–70) to return the child to his parents.
    
    > The process for his beatification was begun on February 11, 1907, and recommenced three times. Pope John Paul II (1978–2005) declared him venerable on July 6, 1985, and beatified him on September 3, 2000.
    
    > In the Catholic Church's Latin rite, venerable is the title of a person who has been posthumously declared “heroic in virtue”
    
    Why do you choose to be a part of an organization that says that a man who ordered the kidnapping and brain-washing of a Jewish child is “heroic in virtue”? This man also called Jews dogs, but the organization that you choose to be a member of says he is “heroic in virtue.” I do not understand why someone would choose to be a part of an organization that calls a kidnapper and brain-washer “heroic in virtue,” can you explain your choice?
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_IX

To which @Inner_Stickler (Inner Stickler) replied

    Because my efforts to affect history from the present have so far met with failure.
    
    But seriously, the Catholic Church is a human institution that is prey to human failings. It has done evil in its time and it has done much good. I hope to live a life that is a credit to my church and faith and help the Church as a whole live as Christ intends for us to live and prevent further wrongs from occurring. That is why I continue to be a member of it. It's the same reason why people who disagree with the path the U.S government takes continue to live in the US rather than emigrate somewhere else. One can be a voice of change.

Then @jsc1953 (jsc1953) said

    (assuming you're an American) why do you choose to be part of an organization that committed genocide against the native population and imported slaves from Africa? I expect you to renounce your citizenship immediately. It's the only ethical thing to do.
    
    :rolleyes:

@Justin_Bailey (Justin_Bailey) replied

    Two and a Half Inches of Fun:
    
    > Why do you choose to be a part of an organization that says that a man who ordered the kidnapping and brain-washing of a Jewish child is “heroic in virtue”? This man also called Jews dogs, but the organization that you choose to be a member of says he is “heroic in virtue.” I do not understand why someone would choose to be a part of an organization that calls a kidnapper and brain-washer “heroic in virtue,” can you explain your choice?
    
    You do realize that the awarding of beatifications is something 99% of Catholics don't even know or think about?
    
    Do you also realize that Pope John Paul II pushed for Catholics and Jews to start getting along better because it is ridiculous for there to be some kind of rivalry?
    
    Or are you just trolling?

After which, @Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun (Two and a Half Inches of Fun) added

    jsc1953:
    
    > (assuming you're an American) why do you choose to be part of an organization that committed genocide against the native population and imported slaves from Africa? I expect you to renounce your citizenship immediately. It's the only ethical thing to do.
    > 
    > :rolleyes:
    
    That is not a valid comparison.
    
      1. The US does not claim to be a moral institution. The Catholic Church does.
    
      2. It is necessary in the modern world to be a part of a nation. Being a member of a church is totally voluntary.
    
      3. Leaving the US would require a complete change in a person's life. Leaving the CC does not require anything of the sort.
    
    
    
    
    The CC is just a club. A nation is nothing like a club.

After which, @Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun (Two and a Half Inches of Fun) added

    Justin_Bailey:
    
    > Do you also realize that Pope John Paul II pushed for Catholics and Jews to start getting along better because it is ridiculous for there to be some kind of rivalry?
    
    He also was a part of declaring a man that kidnapped and brain-washed a Jewish child “heroic in virtue.”

To which @Inner_Stickler (Inner Stickler) replied

    Two and a Half Inches of Fun:
    
    >   3. Leaving the US would require a complete change in a person's life. Leaving the CC does not require anything of the sort.
    > 
    
    
    No, it wouldn't but leaving the Catholic Church is usually the result of a complete change in a person's life. Most people who are comfortable and happy in their religion don't just up and leave it.

@the_PC_apeman (the PC apeman) replied

    A long overdue response.

To which @Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun (Two and a Half Inches of Fun) replied

    Inner Stickler:
    
    > No, it wouldn't but leaving the Catholic Church is usually the result of a complete change in a person's life. Most people who are comfortable and happy in their religion don't just up and leave it.
    
    Why be happy about being a part of an organization that calls a kidnapper and brain-washer “heroic in virtue”?

After which, @Inner_Stickler (Inner Stickler) added

    It's not really on the radar of anyone other than those who go trawling for things to get outraged about.

Then @Boyo_Jim (Boyo Jim) said

    Popes push earlier Popes along he sainthood path so they in turn will get pushed when they get the dirt sleep. Maybe they get a cushier spot in heaven, or 72 altar boys to “serve” them.

After which, @Autumn_Almanac (Autumn Almanac) added

    Two and a Half Inches of Fun:
    
    >   3. Leaving the US would require a complete change in a person's life. Leaving the CC does not require anything of the sort.
    > 
    
    > 
    > The CC is just a club.
    
    Maybe you don't see it this way, but for a serious Catholic it defines a huge part of their life and who they are as a person-- in fact many Catholics probably consider their religion many times more important than their national affiliation. As **Inner Stickler** says, it is possible to abhor _some_ things an organization does, while remaining a part of it and working to change the negative and promote the positive.

So @Wee_Bairn (Wee Bairn) replied

    You didn't get enough of a response withthis thread so you repackaged it and reposted?

To which @Napier (Napier) replied

    Logically, if you accept that gaining eternal salvation for somebody else is the greatest gift you could bestow on an individual, wouldn't you be obligated to do so? In fact, if you accept that, then killing as many innocent babies as possible would be the greatest gift possible, wouldn't it?
    
    I think that would be a terrible thing, but I also don't think there's any such thing as eternal salvation, so I can't even start down that path. But I've always wondered how this question would be considered by people who believe eternal salvation is possible.
    
    One of the intriguing features of religion is that it can place arbitrarily high priorities on things that aren't part of the natural, physical world around us, and therefore could in principle provide motivation for some very strong actions.

So @jsc1953 (jsc1953) replied

    Napier:
    
    > Logically, if you accept that gaining eternal salvation for somebody else is the greatest gift you could bestow on an individual, wouldn't you be obligated to do so? In fact, if you accept that, then killing as many innocent babies as possible would be the greatest gift possible, wouldn't it?
    
    No, that's not savannah59@example.org. That's just stupid. Even for believers who think eternal salvation = good, murder still = bad.

Then @begbert2 (begbert2) said

    jsc1953:
    
    > No, that's not savannah59@example.org. That's just stupid. Even for believers who think eternal salvation = good, murder still = bad.
    
    That **clearly** varies based on the believer. I mean, obviously.

So @jsc1953 (jsc1953) replied

    begbert2:
    
    > That **clearly** varies based on the believer. I mean, obviously.
    
    Murder is, by definition, bad. “Obviously”, circumstances dictate what forms of homicide constitute murder. But there is no faith that advocates ushering people unwillingly into eternal salvation; and there is no faith that _doesn't_ consider infanticide to be murder…which is why napier's logical conclusion was anything but.

So @JohnnieEnigma (JohnnieEnigma) replied

    the PC apeman:
    
    > A long overdue response.
    
    agreed.

Then @JohnnieEnigma (JohnnieEnigma) said

    I had a conversation with former catholics who now belong to the Assembly of God. They had much criticism of the Catholic Church, and I didn't argue with them because I knew they weren't really looking to understand the catholic doctrine, but only to criticize it. Some people just want to be haters and there's just no rationalizing with them, so I simply don't bother.
    
    If you want to know why this or that about the Catholic church, or can't understand just how terrible they are well just wait and see how right or wrong you were after you're dead… I'm sure you'll know the truth at that point.

After which, @begbert2 (begbert2) added

    jsc1953:
    
    > Murder is, by definition, bad. “Obviously”, circumstances dictate what forms of homicide constitute murder. But there is no faith that advocates ushering people unwillingly into eternal salvation; and there is no faith that _doesn't_ consider infanticide to be murder…which is why napier's logical conclusion was anything but.
    
    There are **obviously** people who think their faiths allow them to slaughter infidels, innocents, children, and babies; or do you deny the existence of suicide bombers? Do you think they carefully vett their explosion radii for children and infants first?
    
    Now, things get a little less obvious when you specialize your killing down to killing babies for the purpose of the babies' salvation. Do I know of a scripture of any religion that _explicitly_ advocates killing babies to save them? No. (I _do_ know of one that explicitly advocates killing one guy to keep a bunch of other guys faithful, in the mormon scriptures, but that's different.)
    
    However, in any religion where babies who are killed are assured a place in heaven, it _naturally follows_ that the moral course would be to kill as many babies as possible. Sure, it might be a sin, but if it's a sin, only _you_ go to hell. The babies go to heaven. So, if you manage to kill at least two babies, then that's a net profit, justifying your murderous crusade.
    
    In fact, this would be the _ultimate_ sacrifice; your own eternal happiness for another's. Much more noble than any of the pantywaist milquetoast ‘sacrifices' that Jesus guy made.
    
    Isn't it great, what you can get when you truly accept religious assumptions?

To which @Inner_Stickler (Inner Stickler) replied

    JohnnieEnigma:
    
    > If you want to know why this or that about the Catholic church, or can't understand just how terrible they are well just wait and see how right or wrong you were after you're dead… I'm sure you'll know the truth at that point.
    
    Historically, this has not been an effective argument.

To which @jsc1953 (jsc1953) replied

    begbert2:
    
    > There are **obviously** people who think their faiths allow them to slaughter infidels, innocents, children, and babies; or do you deny the existence of suicide bombers? Do you think they carefully vett their explosion radii for children and infants first?
    
    I think suicide bombers tend to think of the death of babies and other innocents as collateral damage, not an end in itself.
    
    > However, in any religion where babies who are killed are assured a place in heaven, it _naturally follows_ that the moral course would be to kill as many babies as possible. …Isn't it great, what you can get when you truly accept religious assumptions?
    
    If it naturally follows, then you would think that in the course of human history, some sect, cult, religion etc would have gone on a baby-killing spree. And yet, here we are – it's never happened. So either (a) no religious adherent in human history has ever been as logical as you; or (b) you're not half as clever as you think you are.

@begbert2 (begbert2) replied

    jsc1953:
    
    > I think suicide bombers tend to think of the death of babies and other innocents as collateral damage, not an end in itself.
    
    Not being much of a mind-reader, I couldn't say, though I don't think it's all _unlikely_ that killing a baby infidel could be seen as a good thing to those murderous a-holes. Clearly it's _acceptable_ collateral damage, at any rate.
    
    jsc1953:
    
    > If it naturally follows, then you would think that in the course of human history, some sect, cult, religion etc would have gone on a baby-killing spree. And yet, here we are – it's never happened. So either (a) no religious adherent in human history has ever been as logical as you; or (b) you're not half as clever as you think you are.
    
    Actually, it appears that people tend to reconcile conflicts in their religion in favor of their personal preferences - which one presumes does not commonly include the killing of babies. I think that alone is enough to explain why your typical religious adherent doesn't go on killing sprees. Though I'm not as sure as you are that it's _never_ happened. If it ever did, their fellow religious adherents would think they were just nuts anyway, deny the religious line of thinking, and report it accordingly. Also, I most religious I've seen put obedience on a higher pedestal than altruism anyway, so the ‘no killing' rule would win out in that respect as well.
    
    Also, I think that a lot of religious people don't extrapolate much beyond what their scriptures and preachers tell them to think about their religion, and as noted, there's apparently no scripture telling them to kill babies, at least not for _that_ reason. (I don't imagine a preacher would keep his job long if he preached infanticide, either.) And given the very idea is pretty reprehensible, I don't imagine it crosses most of their minds even once without being immidiately discarded.
    
    (That's me saying that, yes, I **am** more logical than most religious people - though heck, as I'm a non-religious person I should get ‘logical' by default. Plus of course I _had_ to be more logical, since the alternate option of your false dillema is _clearly_ false.)

After which, @Mr.Moto (Mr. Moto) added

    According to Catholic doctrine, a saint is someone for whom we have some proof of their salvation and presence in heaven (the miracles come into play here.) Technically anyone in heaven is a saint, it is just that many of these people remain unrecognized.
    
    Now, salvation admits one into heaven and cleanses one of his earthly sins - it does not make those sins disappear, nor does it make the consequences of them vanish.
    
    Therefore, you can find numberless bad things many of the saints did. And all of these are only important to us, not to a God who has already forgiven them.

@tomndebb (tomndebb) replied

    Justin_Bailey:
    
    > Or are you just trolling?
    
    Please keep accusations of trolling out of GD.
    
    [ /Moderating ]

@Larry_Borgia (Larry Borgia) replied

    JohnnieEnigma:
    
    > If you want to know why this or that about the Catholic church, or can't understand just how terrible they are well just wait and see how right or wrong you were after you're dead… I'm sure you'll know the truth at that point.
    
    That's when you find out that the one true faith is…Mormonism
    
    That's right…Mormonism

After which, @tomndebb (tomndebb) added

    Larry Borgia:
    
    > That's when you find out that the one true faith is…Mormonism
    
    The papal phone rings and when the pope answers it, it is Jesus. The pope says, i don't understand, why are you using a telephone to talk to me. Jesus says, "Well, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I have now returned to Earth. . . "  
    “Thats GREAT!” exclaims the pope.  
    Jesus continues, “The bad news is I'm calling from Salt lake City.”
    
    * * *
    
    With that out of the way, I am closing this thread.  
    **Two and a Half Inches of Fun** , you are welcome to open a new thread on this topic that is phrased as a genuine debate. Setting up a scenario to demand that a limited number of posters respond to specific accusations might fly in the Pit, but it is not a Great Debate. (A discussion of the propriety of canonizing Pius IX or the actions of the RCC is a legitimate topic, but you have poisoned the well for this thread.)
    
    [ /Moderating ]


{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-for-catholics-heroism-virtue-in-kidnapping-brain-washing-a-jewish-child/441272', 'title': 'Questions for Catholics - Heroism Virtue in Kidnapping/Brain-washing a Jewish child.', 'views': 3260, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 2884, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 26, 'participant_count': 14, 'posts': 27, 'tags': '', 'author': '@Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun (Two and a Half Inches of Fun)', 'participants': '@Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun (Two and a Half Inches of Fun), @Inner_Stickler (Inner Stickler), @jsc1953 (jsc1953), @Justin_Bailey (Justin_Bailey), @the_PC_apeman (the PC apeman), @Boyo_Jim (Boyo Jim), @Autumn_Almanac (Autumn Almanac), @Wee_Bairn (Wee Bairn), @Napier (Napier), @begbert2 (begbert2), @JohnnieEnigma (JohnnieEnigma), @Mr.Moto (Mr. Moto), @tomndebb (tomndebb), @Larry_Borgia (Larry Borgia)', 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2008-03-13T20:11:18.000Z', 'last_posted_at': '2008-03-14T04:11:12.000Z'}