On Romanus Cessario, Non Possumus, and Theological Marxism

Last updated on: January 29, 2018 at 9:57 am by Andrew

On Romanus Cessario, Non Possumus, and Theological Marxism 2018-01-29T09:57:26-05:00 Andrew

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

To defend the Catholic Church’s kidnapping of a six year old child is certainly a brave move; ridiculous, but certainly brave. But hey, what else would you do when a Jewish child is baptized in secret by his Christian nanny when he was sick (for fear of eternal damnation should he have died)? Why, knock on the parent’s door, and take him of course. This is precisely what Pope Pius IX and the Catholic Church did in the case of Edgardo Mortara in 1858. And this, according to Father Romanus Cessario, was “divine providence“.

Cessario is a professor of systematic theology at St. John’s Seminary, associate editor of The Thomist, senior editor of Magnificat, and general editor of the Catholic Moral Thought, so I’m acutely interested in how this idea will be received in these circles, as well as the Catholic Church at large. I, for one, agree with Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter that such a defense is “inexcusable”. The kidnapping (yes kidnapping), of Edgardo was certainly sad according to Cessario, but there is an infinitely higher calling at play:

“No one who considers the Mortara affair can fail to be moved by its natural dimensions. It is a grievous thing to sever familial bonds. But the honor we give to mother and father will be imperfect if we do not render a higher honor to God above. Christ’s authority perfects all natural institutions—the family as well as the state. This is why he said that he came bearing a sword that would sunder father and son. One’s judgment of Pius will depend on one’s acceptance of Christ’s claim.”

And the finale of Cessario’s logic? “Those examining the Mortara case today are left with a final question: Should putative civil liberties trump the requirements of faith?” At this point, we’d have to take to recap some of his definitions. “Putative civil liberties”, of course, would be smallish things like not kidnapping children from their parents. “Faith”, of course, would be Cessario’s particular flavor of Catholicism (I’ll label “Cessario-ism”) to which such an action represents the beatific vision of Christ. I’m careful to separate “Cessario-ism” from Catholicism, as I have a hunch most Catholics would repulsed by Cessario’s 1850’s papal logic – that such an action represents the Christ-filled actualization of the Church.

Perhaps Cessario would find such liberals unChristlike in their repulsion of his proposition. After all, “one’s judgment of Pius will depend on one’s acceptance of Christ claim.” One not need be so imaginative to be repulsed, whether it be Catholic, Christian, or irreligious thinkers like my friend Adam Lee. After all, it’s a familiar idea found in Marxism; in this case, a theological marxism where the end justifies the means, because the kidnapping of Edgardo ensured eternal salvation.

Go figure, a theology of throwing kids in the baptismal fount against their or their parent’s will/knowledge to ensure salvation; and of course, a salvation that only Catholic servitude would offer. But wait! Edgardo later became and priest and was immensely grateful of the Catholic Church and specifically Pope Pius IX, whom he felt should be a saint. And so rests the apologia of Cessario’s theological marxism.

As Adam correctly notes, it’s quite common for victims to adopt the ideology of their kidnappers. Brainwashing, guilt, and indoctrination are powerful psychological forces. The majority of victims of human trafficking return to their perpetrators. Should their embrace of their captivity be suggestive of anything but brainwashing, guilt, and indoctrination? Now, for Cessario, Catholic trafficking is just plain good theology (one that Christ demands); his apologia proudly embraces the forced baptism and human trafficking that ensued. And we can rest assured in the apologia, the means and the end – for it was only through such actions that Edgardo would achieve salvation for which he was later grateful. If this theology or rationality sounds repulsive, have no fear, it repulsed the world back in 1858. For the international outcry to return Edgardo, non possumus, Latin for “we cannot”, was Pope Pius IX’s reply. For Cessario, this was “piety, not stubbornness” as there was much more than the “human element” to consider.

In keeping with the theme of defending human trafficking, let’s return to Cessario’s logical finale: “should putative civil liberties trump the requirements of faith?” As Cesario is from Boston, I’m sure he’s quite familiar with the Catholic Church’s active cover-up of priest pedophilia; Boston and Archbishop Bernard Francis Law the eye of the storm. In the famous Boston Globe’s Spotlight team’s report, we see the archdiocese appealed having to release the Church’s inner workings. Even further, we see how the law afforded cover-up with clergy being exempt from laws to report incidence of sex abuse to police for prosecution. Raping children, as the Spotlight team reported, could simply be viewed “as a sin for which priests could repent rather than as a compulsion they might be unable to control.” And so the logic goes (and went), don’t prosecute the priests, just have them repent and transfer them to another parish. Then, when pressed for records, just grease the Appeals Court. I’m sure many of these priests and bishops held the same logic that there was more than the “human element” to consider. After all, when weighing out things like rationality, honesty, and the basic human right not to be raped, why should “putative civil liberties trump the requirements of faith”? Just silence victims, shuffle the priests to other parishes, and keep the baptisms coming. Amen?

Perhaps Cessario should take look closer at Aquinas that reason is the “preamble” to faith (ST, Ia, q. 2, a. 2). Certainly, faith ultimately “surpasses the capacity of reason” (like trust in anything without certainty), but “truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith” (Contra Gentiles). With Edgardo’s forced baptism and kidnapping, the higher calling, and Cessario’s apologia, on what does such a Christology like rest I’d like to know? Common sense? Definitely not there. The greater Catholic Church? Doubtful. Aquinas? Even more doubtful. Mere Christianity? Definitely no solace here. In Christ Himself? Forced baptisms and human servitude in His name – blasphemy.

And so Cessario’s apologia, in reason or in Christ? Non possums, we cannot.

Musings

Previous Post

January 23, 2018

Rollins on the Existential Denial of the Resurrection

Next Post

February 4, 2018 Rosenberg on Reality

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Deep Scene Breakdown Deep Song Breakdown Events with Adam Lee Iron Heart Musings Podcast Quote Bank

Select a Month January 2026 September 2025 August 2025 June 2025 March 2025 February 2025 November 2024 August 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 September 2023 August 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 December 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 August 2020 June 2020 March 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 May 2016 April 2016 November 2015 October 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I was only seven years old when I became king and reigned for forty years in Jerusalem. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Joash (or Jehoash) Manasseh Josiah Hezekiah