At Easter, the Pope baptized an Egyptian-born Muslim man named Magdi Allam, who is a newspaper columnist in Italy.
Baptism for adults is normally done at the Easter vigil; new catechumens are prepared through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. Generally speaking, these catechumens have said their first confession, and after baptism, receive the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive the Eucharist. They are, at that point, full adult members of the Catholic church.
Italy has freedom of religion; although it has a special relationship with the Catholic church due to its history, one can freely practice religion in the Italian state, be it Catholic, Protestant, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, or any other generally recognized sect. The vast majority of the population are Catholic. It is not unusual that a person interested in becoming a Christian would be baptized by a Catholic bishop at an Easter liturgy; as Confirmation is normally done by a bishop (a priest can only do it with explicit permission), it is not uncommon for a bishop to officiate at the entire ceremony.
The Pope, it goes without saying, is a Bishop. He is the Bishop of Rome. It is not unusual or extraordinary for him to perform any of the sacraments; though by the nature of his office he is busy overseeing the entire church and protecting the church’s doctrine through his teaching office, so he doesn’t perform them publicly very often (as a priest he is required to say mass every day, but other than that, he is not, strictly speaking, required to do any of the others). He usually makes a point of doing them at some point in the liturgical year. John Paul II used to hear confessions during Lent, for instance. For a Pope to baptize a man at Easter, though not always done, is certainly not unusual, and can be seen as a very normal part of his office.
So why the outrage?
A Muslim scholar who participated in recent Vatican talks to improve Catholic-Muslim relations yesterday criticised Pope Benedict XVI's baptism of a convert from Islam as a “provocative act”. In an Easter vigil service on Saturday night in St Peter's Basilica, the Pope baptised Egyptian-born Magdi Allam, a TV and newspaper commentator in Italy who has denounced what he calls the inherent violence in Islam. Aref Ali Nayed, the director of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Amman, Jordan, denounced what he called “the Vatican's deliberate and provocative act of baptising Mr Allam on such a special occasion and in such a spectacular way.” Mr Nayed said: “It is sad that the personal act of a religious conversion is made into a triumphalist tool for scoring points.” He added that the baptism came “at a most unfortunate time when sincere Muslims and Catholics are working very hard to mend ruptures between the two communities.”
I don’t know what is “spectacular” about pouring water over a man’s head. There were no fireworks, no public announcements of the act, and as far as I can tell, the Vatican didn’t sell tickets. Mr. Allam was a Muslim, but the very act of being baptized as an adult requires that one have been something else beforehand – a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Sikh, an atheist, and so on. One gives up what one was, and becomes something else. The act, while personally a great leap, actually is visually not that impressive at all – a priest pours water on the man’s head, baptizes him in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the man is now a Christian.
So why is it spectacular? Why is it provocative? Is there not freedom of religion in Italy? A few years from now Mr. Allam might decide that Catholicism is in error and might ask to become a Presbyterian. He might encounter the writings of Joseph Smith and become a Mormon. He might meet the Dalai Lama and become a Buddhist. There is no law that prevents it, and as a Catholic, while I would view the actions as regrettable, and privately would believe them to be putting Mr. Allam’s soul in peril, these actions would not outrage me.
Madonna, very publicly, went from her native Catholicism to believing in Kabbalistic Judaism. I do not remember the Archbishop of Detroit muttering darkly about the provocations of the Rabbi who instructed Madonna, or speaking of Kabbalistic triumphalism. Richard Gere has been a Buddhist for a number of years, but I do not remember any pastor of any Christian denomination complaining about it at all. Quite simply, even though the act may be spiritually ill-advised, there is nothing to prevent it. We in the west have generally embraced the idea of religious freedom – if a person’s conscience moves them to a belief, we do not condemn them for it. We recognize that they have the dignity granted them by God to approach God in the way they see fit, and do not see compulsion as being a helpful or valid argument in a discussion of faith.
My question for Mr. Nayed is this – why is it any of your business at all? Were you Mr. Allam’s spiritual director? Are you a family member? Do you even know the man?
If not, it seems that you are advancing the notion that no Muslim can ever change his mind about Islam. That may well be a matter of Muslim doctrine, but it is hardly an argument for the five billion people on this Earth who are not Muslims. Egypt was once a Christian nation; the see of Alexandria was one of the great bishoprics of the early church. Mr. Allam’s ancestors were not always Muslims; before 700 A.D. or so, there was no Islam. Had Mr. Allam been born a Buddhist, would you think to criticize his baptism? If not, then why is the Buddhist whom you do not criticize more free than the Muslim whom you do? Who is being the triumphalist here – the Pope, who is simply doing what is required of a Catholic bishop in accordance with the great commission, or the Muslim scholar, who is publicly criticizing an act of conscience of a man who, by accident of birth, was born in Egypt? Once the Prophets soldiers have taken a land by force, are its people, down to the thousandth generation, obligated to face Mecca when they pray?
What is this man to you and why do you presume to dictate to his conscience?