Problem is: JPII and Pio Nono's problems are apples and oranges. Pio Nono probably would have done the same thing JPII did in JPII's circumstances. The Church respected natural law in the 19th Century too and therefore respected parental rights and did not countenance snatching Jewish kids and baptizing them. But Pio Nono was presented with a fait accompli. I have no idea (and would very much like to know) what JPII would do given Pio Nono's circumstances. It's a *really* thorny problem given the colossal ontological effects of baptism. Anybody who think the solution to this one is easy has not thought about the problem hard enough or simply doesn't believe what the Church teaches about baptism. That's why I tried to make clear what Pio Nono was up against. It's easy to see how wronged the parents were (and they were horribly wronged). It's very difficult for us to grasp what Pio Nono was faced with and to believe that he was trying, by his best lights, to obey God's will.
It's the father talking from his guts on this one.
I'm not saying Pio Nono was evil, nor am I denying the importance of the sacrament. Nor am I arguing that it does not pose a thorny theological/pastoral question for a Christian shepherd.
I simply am unable to get the image of a platoon of cops tearing my son from my grasp in the middle of the night out of my head. Especially on the less than indubitable say-so of a former employee. They would have to beat me into a coma.
I can't get past that.
Quite natural. I feel the same way. A couple of Swiss Guards would have wound up with a pikestaff up their asses before they got to my son.
Kertzer's book isn't all that new. The Catholic League dealt with this incident back in 2000 when Pius IX was beatified. In their report, CL refers to Kertzer's work. See my site for the link to CL's report.
Commenting by HaloScan
