Thanks for the update. That helps clear things up. You are right, baptism isn't meant to be a political tool.

Keep on writing.

Peace.

I really do. I'm thrilled that Mr. Allam has been baptized and welcome him with open arms to the flock.

Having said that, I can't condone any Christian fanning the flames of religious extremism, which the Pope was clearly doing--whether he and his admit to knowing "how it would look" ahead of time. If they didn't, why not? If they did, why be disingenuous about it? Caesar's wife, and all that.

Regarding your previous post, all I can say is that I guess satire is well and truly dead as an art form when so many people don't get it, even when it's slathered all over with obviousness like this one is/was. To me, at least.

Anyway...that's my keyboard pounding for tonight. I'm taking my jelly-bean OD'd self offline. ;-)

Well you can't really say ANYTHING without offending someone. But usually the person who takes offense lacks.. an understanding of the situation or position. Or they aren't at peace with themselves or their opinions. Something like that.

But sometimes it is hard to get past your immediate reaction of "Oh my God, how could he say that?!?" to see the meaning or intent behind it. So that's another part.

But I think it's mostly about maturity. Intellectual, emotional, spiritual.

I think it's interesting that in trying to illustrate the foolishness of the pope's actions, you essentially duplicated them on a smaller scale.

None of us know what the pope's intent was when he set up the public baptism. For all we know it was intended as an inspirational event or a show of unity between the religions. In the same way, your readers didn't know what you intended in your writing, we only know what we take it to mean. Obviously your actions have far less reaching consequences than those of the pope, but it seems you've offended people because you made a public display of something you believed. It's not an easy thing to make sure what you intend to present to others and what they perceive line up.

It's interesting and frustrating to catch our reflection every once in a while and notice we look a little like what we've been criticizing.

Hmm. I think explaining or apologizing for satire is like putting chocolate syrup in a diet Coke. Sure, you can DO it...

It's customary for Catholics to baptize adult converts on Easter. I'm surprised at how few people seemed to know this fact.

It's customary for CHRISTIANS to baptize converts at Easter. It marks the end of a long preparation process and welcoming new members at the most sacred time of the year. It is a wonderful tradition.

That does not negate the intentionally inflammatory nature of the events at the Vatican this weekend. And I don't care if the man did request it. The Pope, out of Christian Charity, should have said, "No, my son, that would not be appropriate. Come into my chapel and I will welcome you to the Body of Christ in private."

I absolutely agree with Hattar's comments above: it is often the messages that poke us in the tender spots and make us look into our own hearts of darkness that do us the most good.

Thanks, Gordon! One piece of cooking advice I got from a TV show that I think should apply to writing satire also: "Never explain, never apologise."

NewInWonderland (fka ITW)
http://newinwonderland.blogspot.com/

-
As a non-practitioner of any faith, this all came as news to me. From reading the first post, its comments, and now this follow-up and its comments, it's been a very enlightening morning for me.

The tone of the comments in the first post are markedly different than for this one too. Perhaps I should have left a note there first, just to provide a bit of a jarring tone contrary to the sentiment that permeated the rest of it. "Hello. My name is Simon, and I approve of this message." Seems sort of moot, now.

There is no touchier subject I can think of than religion. Especially when it comes to any sort of public criticism of acts made by an authority figure in the name of one. By baptizing a (non-practising) Muslim on Easter Sunday in front of a global audience, Pope Palpatine, er... Benny opened himself up to a whole raft of vitriolic tirades, condemnation, head shaking and eye rolling. I think it's pretty naive to think all of that is entirely undeserved.

My first thought after reading through all of the last two posts to this point was a reminder of the cartoons of Mohammad first published in a Dutch newspaper that have raised such ire in the world of Islam. A seemingly universal trait of any organised religion is a near complete inability to laugh at itself. Especially when that humour - in nearly any form - bears a resemblance to criticism.

I love satire (especially when well done, like this) mostly because of its ability to entertain and comment. I think this was all well done, RLP.

Chin up, rlp. No one is beyond reproach, not even the Pope. You're a brave and honest man for raising the issue.

 
A writer can write a satire about the pope and it doesn't actually say anything about you or your religion?
 
Oh my god! Cognitive dissonance!
 
Maybe I should blame the general decline of literacy and critical thinking instead of religious intolerance.
 
This was my second version too. The first had dead puppies in it.

As a Catholic, I didn't mind the essay (although I thought the lead-in about the fantasy of dragging the pope down the steps wasn't RLP's best moment). I think it's horrible that the Papacy has swelled to such a bureaucratic, empire-like size that the Pope is now thoroughly unable to be like Jesus -- unable to have a simple meal with people on the fringes of society and unable to just walk somewhere and meet someone. He's not able to live like us regular folks in any real way, so he's not a role model for what it means to us to be a Christian. However, for all its faults, I'm not so sure the Papacy doesn't serve at least one good purpose -- it provides direction. While the Catholic Church is famously slow-moving when it comes to change, it at least has a mechanism for pronouncing its beliefs. I think the Muslim world would be better, not worse, if it had one leader who could pronounce its views on crucial issues, such as whether suicide bombing is consistent with its teachings. Even if the leader were (in my view) dangerously wrong, there would still be a mechanism for change in place.

I agree with RLP that we should not be in the business of converting people to our particular religion. Rather, that we should believe that Jesus' teachings are a revelation of God's true, loving nature and that, as such, they are a gift for seekers of any faith who are trying to understand God or to understand what unconditional love means. I think that other religions have gifts to bestow upon Christians in a similar fashion. However, I also believe that the Koran is not like the Gospels -- it's more like some of the harsher sections of the Old Testament. It is not kind to nonbelievers, but it is even more harsh when it comes to believers who criticize the faith. I think reform-minded Muslims have a long and difficult road ahead. Their challenge is even greater because the Koran blends government with religion and doesn't have the crucial teaching of "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's."

I think the best thing Christians can do with respect to the Muslim struggles ahead is to lovingly support the reformers. Instead of doing that, I think the Pope smacked the extremists with a 2X4. That doesn't do any good.

Finally, let me mention one of the tenets of Catholicism that I really like. There is something called the "baptism of desire" that holds that "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved." (see 1260 of the Catholic Catechism) Although there is a split as to how broadly this should be interpreted, the bottom line is that the Catholic Church allows for some wiggle room(and reveals some humility) as to how God would treat someone of other faiths. Although this might not seem like much, there are plenty of Christians and Muslims and others who take a more exclusive view.

As naive as it sounds, if we'd all just try to love each other as God loves us, theological differences would begin to fade away.

My only comment regarding the whole issue is that I don't necessarily think that the pope did anything wrong in baptizing the man publicly. Maybe its my pentecostal background, but I was under the impression that baptism was a public confession. People do get baptized secretly, out of fear of reprisal, but if the man wanted to be baptized publicly, that was his choice. I hope he sticks to that public declaration and doesn't recant under the pressure. That would be sad.

Oh, and on proselytizing... I'll just point to romans 10:14,15 and leave it at that. I don't think anyone should be forced to convert, but we do have an obligation to "preach the gospel" ( yes, i know... some of us think our lives should do the preaching.)

One of the things we love about you, Gordon, is that you are so open. You live publically, write publically, preach publically, and are open about your personal life to the public. You are vulnerable about your personal struggles and celebrations to anyone who wants to tune in. I’ve learned a lot from your courage.
I was surprised at your anger at other religious leaders who baptize in front of their entire congregation and who also live in the eye of the public.
Perhaps you could do a piece someday that would help me understand the difference between Matthew 5:14 and Matthew 6:1. Perhaps that same piece would explain why it’s so important to stop trying to convert people.
Thanks again for your courage.

you're a pretty classy guy. I mean it.

I understand well about the Scylla and Charybdis of speaking and talking about the hot button issues of religious studies and practice (I teach biblical studies part-time at a local community college). But sometimes you have to call 'em as you see 'em, and your point was very well taken, and I thought, well-written. Conversions are real, and at the same time, they are highly sensitive matters to the faith traditions involved (the one that 'loses' a member, and the one that 'gains' a member). It's never just about one person's change of heart, but of families and entire communities. Yes, of course it's a Christian tradition to baptize the catechumens at Easter. It might be also a nice new tradition not to treat conversions as symbols of The Cosmic Battle For Hearts and Minds.

This is my first reading, and subsequently my first comment, on this site. I agree with rlp that what the pope did was more antagonizing that encouraging. It seems to me that since the man wasn't practicing a different faith, if the Pope meant it to be a "spiritual victory" - a sort of 'in your face' - it becomes even more hollow. As if any practicing muslim could come along and say, "That's it? That's all you can do is baptize a non-practicing muslim?" As a pastor in a 'low church' protestant tradition, I find it encouraging to know that there are other clergy, laity, involved people, etc desiring to see a platform of commonality as a means of unity among, not only these three Abrahamic faiths, but all religions that strive for Justice and Mercy.

I enjoyed the satire about the pope. Reading the comments made me step back and digest everything a little more. Sometimes I hate trying to understand both sides.

Regardless I think RLP would be a good writter for the TV series "South Park".

Gravellizard

Dear RLP,
I'm a catholic, and adult baptism at the Easter Vigil is the entire focus of the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults). It is a long-established process leading through the liturgical year, winding down with the purification and enlightenment of Lent and climaxing in the beautiful night-time service of the Easter Vigil. It really has to be seen to be believed. The service of Light. The Liturgy of the Word, with 9 readings from scripture, from Adam to Christ. And then the blessing of the water and the Rite of Baptism. It it heartbreaking to see a candidate who has to postpone or miss this night and be baptised another day. It's like having your Christmas party in February. It might still be a party, but it's not Christmas.

Allam had been a candidate, a catechumen, and had the right to baptism at the Vigil. What catholic (or wannabe) would turn down the opportunity to be baptised by the Pope?

I think you give His Holiness (to give him the polite address) too much credit -- I don't think he's as machiavellian as you infer. Since his election, he has set aside his role as God's Rottweiler and has truly behaved as a Father to his people. I was dead set against his election and was appalled when he won, but have come around to see the action of the Holy Spirit in his Papacy.

JPII was mystic, was policitian, was beloved. Benedict is not the same at all. He is a scholar. He is teacher. He writes of love, of hope, of faith and reason coexisting.

And he teaches us to keep the faith. Not to give in to secular society, but to maintain a catholic christian identity in the face of a hostile world. To love, in other words, the way the Lord taught us to. He is not biased in favour of Americans or Europeans or Africans or Asians. He is Christian, first last and always.

I don't doubt that he was full of joy to see a reporter at an Italian paper write about his conversion experience. It was an act of kindness to invite him to the Vatican for baptism.

Your post really disappointed me. I never expected that from you.

Here's an interesting take on the subject:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341008,00.html

The post and responces are very interesting to me. I have known many catholics and met some very interesting priests. I talked with one last week who gave the feeling that I was in the presence of a holy man.

That said when I see the pope as an outsider I do not see a religious leader primarily. I see a political leader. For catholics he may be a regious leader but for most outside the tradition we see the pope more as a political leader then a religious one. (That could simply be a matter of perspective.) The last pope was credited with helping bring down communism. In the past popes were the ones who crowned kings. Even the reformation was as much political as it was religious. (some would argue more so).

As an outsider I see the popes actions as completely 100% political. He wanted to make a point. My problem with his point is that I disagree with his point. I don't know what the popes theology is but I scares me that he is taking us back to pre vatican II. There are a great many catholics who I can celebrate our shared faith with. I wonder would the pope share in that?

I just dream of an inclusive religion where we do not use personal choices as a means to fan political flames.

All that said I thought Gordon's piece was a good piece of satire. But then again I love the Daily Show. If religious and political leaders are ever untouchable by satire or comedy it will be a sad day.

Blessing,

Bill
bill.finley@gmail.

even popes make poor judgement calls - and so does rlp. It shows you are both human.

'nuff said.

I feel I have to respond to Meg. This pope has, since his election stated that Anglicans weren't really Christians as they haven't been baptised as Catholics. He refuses the use of condoms even between married couples in aids ridden africa, despite the proven preventative that their use provides. he refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem with sexual abuse from clergy in the Catholic church.

before anyone says it - as the head of the Catholic church he has to take responsibility for these and many other issues.

'he writes of love, of hope, of faith and reason co-existing'? really? Don't see it myself.

I agree with Gordon. It was completely and totally unnecessary to publicise this in this way. this baptism could have taken place elsewhere with as many of this man's supporters present as was wanted. It was totally and completely unnecessary to announce that he was a 'muslim convert'. why not just say that he was coming to faith? why make a big issue out the of the fact that he was a (non practising) muslim? is this a relevant issue to his baptism? only if you want to antagonise fanatical islamists. (not ordinary muslims).