Over at the First Things blog First Thoughts there is a post in which a (necesssarily) unnamed missionary in the Middle East is quoted as follows:
In August of 2008 a young lady named Fatima al-Mutayri, age 26, was martyred in Saudi Arabia. She is from that country and became a Christian there by means of internet and satellite TV ministries, and was martyred there—she had her tongue cut out and was burned to death by her brother, who was carrying out the command of the Prophet who said, “who changes his religion, kill him” (man badala diinahu faqataluuhu).
This is, of course, horiffic. Words cannot convey the emotions that such an incident calls forth.
The missionary goes on to as some thought provoking questions, and I was asked for an opinion on them, so I'll do my best.
The missionary continues:
She was most certainly a Christian. I suspect that she was baptized but do not know for certain. And here is my two-part question: first, was she in full communion with Rome? I believe that she knew nothing of the debates between Catholics and Protestants. Moreover, I don’t think she ever had access to becoming a Catholic because the Catholic Church does not evangelize in Saudi Arabia and, of course, there no actual church buildings in that country.
The Catholic Church doesn't evangelize openly in Saudi Arabia, for obvious reasons, but there are certainly Catholics there who share their faith in an underground way, and these are able to baptize people, so the absence of above-ground evangelization and the lack of church buildings would be a practical impediment to a Catholic baptism but not something that would have made it altogether impossible.
So if she was baptized, it was at least possible that she was secretly baptized in an explicitly Catholic ceremony. If so, she would have by that fact been placed in full communion with the Catholic Church.
But let's suppose, as is likely, that if she was baptized that it was not in a Catholic ceremony. What then?
My understanding is that in former centuries it was common to regard any baptism as a Catholic one unless there was an express intent otherwise. On this view a person who was baptized with no specific knowledge of the Catholic Church would be regarded as a Catholic up until such time as the person might learn of and repudiate the Catholic understanding of the Christian faith.
Apart from very usual circumstances–especially in the Internet age–this kind of situation would be unlikely to arise, and current canon law seems to handle the situation differently.
The Code does not spell it out in the detail I would like, but the Green Commentary on the Code summarizes what I take to be common canonical opinion on the matter, which is that a person receiving baptism from a non-Catholic is held to be a non-Catholic unless there is a conscious intent for the person to be Catholic–for example, you are on a desert island and, before you die, you want to be baptized Catholic and the only person there is a Methodist, but he is willing to baptize you so you can be Catholic. (See the paragraph starting on the botton of the first column and its continuation in the second column, here.)
We don't have any evidence (so far as I know) that Fatima specifically intended to be Catholic if she was baptized, so it would be presumed that she wouldn't have been–that she would have been reckoned as a member of whatever specific church she was baptised into (if any) or just as a "generic Christian" if she was baptized non-denominationally.
At least the way such matters would be handled now, mere ignorance of disputes between Protestants and Catholics would not result in a baptism performed by a non-Catholic putting the baptizand in full communion with the Catholic Church.
I also wouldn't be quick to underestimate Fatima's awareness of the fact that there are different kinds of Christians. She was, it is reported, a Arabic-language blogger, and any amount of poking around on the Internet will reveal that there are different kinds of Christians. The pope being in the news on al-Jazeera and other Arabic news stations will result in awareness of the same thing. Fatima is supposed to have watched al-Haya (a Christian Arabic channel) and seen the programs of Fr. Zakaria Botros, who is Coptic. She also was involved with a significant variety of Christians on the Internet, and I strongly suspect she knew about Christian differences.
Does that mean she intended to join a specific Christian group upon her baptism? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she just wanted to be a Christian and would figure out the who-to-affiliate-with question later (or never). No one can really say unless someone who knew her were to come forth and shed light on the subject.
On the other hand, maybe she wasn't sacramentally baptized at all. (We've been making a lot of assumptions thus far.)
In that case she could be described as having "baptism of desire"–either implicitly or explicitly–by virtue of her adopting the Christian faith. She also could be described as having "baptism of blood" by virtue of her death for the faith.
These would suffice for salvation (nothing else standing in the way), praise God!
But they would not place her in full communion with the Catholic Church in this life.
The missionary then asks another ques
tion:
And second: given this information, is it possible for her to be canonized? The canonization of an ex-Muslim woman who was born, lived, and died in Saudi Arabia, and who was martyred by her own family, would be perhaps the single most powerful statement that the Church has made on Islam since Vatican II (hardly a clear statement, and one that led many Catholics to believe, incorrectly, that the Church no longer was interested in evangelizing Muslims).
Vatican II's statement regarding Islam could definitely have been better phrased, and canonizing Fatima would indeed be a powerful statement. And if the circumstances were different, it could even be a possibility. It would not, however, be done as a statement on Islam. Instead, it would be a statement about the heroic virtues of this young woman who accepted martyrdom for her love of Jesus.
Pope Benedict certainly has the wherewithal to do such a canonization. He personally–as pope, at Easter Vigil–baptized the notorious Muslim apostate Maghdi Allam. Allam is a firebrand and a controversialist who repeatedly got into disputes with Muslims in Italy long before his conversion to Catholicism, and now there are pictures of the pope baptizing him and everything.
Pope Benedict did this not as a statement about Islam but as an illustration of the Church's willingness to accept everyone, regardless of their background, and of the right of everyone to embrace the gospel.
Given his willingness to do this, I have little doubt that he would be willing to canonize a former Muslim who was martyred for the faith. (Providing it was a genuine martyrdom; early in his papacy Pope Benedict notably clarified what martyrdom is to prevent the concept from being used sloppily.)
I can easily imagine Benedict asking, "Should we deny canonization to someone who died for the faith simply because the person who killed them was Muslim? Why should Muslims be an exception? If we do not deny canonization to one who was martyred by atheists or polytheists or any other group, why should we do so in this situation? Is their heroic witness to Christ worth less because their killers were Muslim?"
So I don't doubt that Benedict would be willing to do this . . . if the circumstances were different.
But they are what they are.
At least at this time, we don't have evidence that Fatima entered full commmunion with the Catholic Church in her life or that he had embraced the Catholic faith specifically at the time of her baptism by blood. Consequently, I don't see grounds for her canonization.
That's not to say that she's not in heaven and is not, in fact, a saint. If the facts are as described, I am very, very hopeful of her salvation and thus her objective sainthood (I can't say I'm certain, because in this life we can never be certain), but the Church tends only to canonize those who were members of it or who were intending to be members of it at the time of their martyrdom.
If evidence were to emerge that overcame this hurdle, there would still be many others, of a practical nature, that would have to be overcome before canonization could occur.
There would have to be someone petitioning for her canonization, and the relevant local bishop would have to oversee the initial phase of the process. That would be tricky since there are no bishops in Saudia Arabia.
Investigating the case would also prove difficult since, so far as we know, there were no witnesses outside the family. Unless one or more of them decided to speak freely on the subject and describe what happened at the end, investigators would not be able to distinguish evidentially between a scenario in which she maintained her faith to the end and a scenario in which she renounced her faith at the last moment but was too injured to survive (or was killed anyway out of rage).
Given the sensitivity of the subject in Saudi society, getting any people with knowlege of the situation–even non-family members who weren't eyewitnesses–to speak freely could be very difficult.
Internet hearsay is not enough, given the difficulties of verifying it.
One of the first things I did in preparing to write this post was to do some checking to see if I could verify that Fatima al-Martayri even existed. I don't want to be overly skeptical, but there is a reason God created Snopes.com.
While I wasn't able to find the kind of evidence I would have liked (perhaps because it's largely in the Arabic-language Internet), I was eventually able to find and verify enough pieces of the story that it looks like it's real.
(I also verified that Mutayri is real clan and thus "al-Mutayri" is not simply an Arabic term for "the Martyr.")
Even then, though, details of the story diverge. Some sources say that it was her father who killed her. Others (who seem to be the majority) say that it was her brother (though it may only have been him who exposed her). Details also differ over whether she was 23 or 26 and whether the murder occurred in Qassim Province or in the Eastern Province. (One source, which claims to be a Muslim friend of Fatima but who nevertheless disapproved of the killing, tries to set the record straight; I'll link the source below
).
These facts aren't to say that the matter couldn't be sorted out, but they illustrate the problems of fact-finding in such a situation.
I thus don't see a plausible path to canonization for Fatima.
But we may still pray for her and all in similar situations–and there are many of those. (I know; I've dealt with delicate situations like this, with people behind the Muslim curtain who wish to be Christian. Fortunately, none of the ones I've dealt with have suffered Fatima's fate–yet.)
(And if anyone wonders why one might pray for a martyr–it may be a common and pious belief that martyrs go straight to heaven, but this isn't a doctrine of the Church; I'd rather pray on the safe side, trusting God at least to apply the prayers to the person cross-temporally in their final moments of life.)
READ MORE ABOUT FATIMA–INCLUDING HER WRITINGS AND INTERNET MESSAGES–HERE. (.pdf)
A further note about Fatima: If she is in heaven, as an uncanonized saint, then her feast day is November 1st–All Saints Day.
At the First Thoughts blog, Joseph Bottum–who authored the post–has some additional insightful things to say, but he doesn't go into it at this length. (I'm long winded–at least if you don't give me a word count. Sorry.)
Oh, and as Lt. Columbo would say, there's one more thing . . .
If Fatima's case doesn't present a good instance for the canonization of a former Muslim who was martyred for faith in Christ, it should be pointed out that the Church actually does have saints who were former Muslims, such as St. Josephine Bakhita and St. Casilda of Toledo.
Furthermore, the Church also has saints who were former Muslims who were martyred by Muslims for their Christian faith. These include St. Abo the Perfumer, St.s Nunilo and Alodia of Huesca, and St.s Aurelius, Natalia, and Felix of Cordoba.
They may not be modern, contemporary individuals like Fatima, but they trod the same path, suffered the same fate, and may serve as inspiring examples for the many, many people today who yearn for Christ while being forced to live in the Islamic world.
May those in such situations look to them, and may their intercession guide us all.
After reading some of the links, it would appear that Fatima was heavily influenced by the Copts and (I’m guessing) would have wanted to be baptized into that Church.
Anyway you look at it, in my view, it’s time to quit coddling Saudi Arabia and the other Moslem nations on this sort of thing. We’re open to Moslem’s practicing their faith throughout the world, and its time for them to do the same. I don’t care what the excuse for not allowing it is. And we need not tolerate it.
The alternative being…? Just wondering.
Something about the “non-Catholic baptism” discussion just doesn’t jive well with me… specifically the commentary.
We believe (as Catholics) that baptism creates an indelible mark on the soul (to borrow vocabulary from Holy Orders). And this mark cannot be created twice… if it’s there, it’s there already. Anyone going through RCIA or reading the catechism will readily point out that anyone coming from a non-Catholic Christianity that has been baptised according to the appropriate formula (Trinitarian, etc., etc.) does not need to revisit baptism when coming into full communion with the Church. Because they already have been baptised. Except that these individuals, more often than not, had not expressly wanted to be a Catholic at the time of their initial baptism. My wife, for example, was 5 years old at her Southern Baptist baptism. Her formerly Catholic father was “rebaptised” the same day into the Southern Baptist community expressly because he believed that infant baptism wasn’t legitimate. So a 5 year old was part of a baptism the expressly denied the Catholic Church (so to speak).
So when she joined the Catholic church, was the fullness of the Catholic concept of baptism transmitted retroactively to her initial baptism? Now that she wants in, does something occur within her that didn’t happen 30 years prior? The church claims no. But the above commentary would appear to say yes… or that she needs to be “rebaptized”. Baptism is baptism. It’s efficacy cannot be removed just because someone later learns about Catholicism. If that’s true, then baptism is just as fleeting as any other relativistic view.
As a missionary in the Middle East I agree with Bill. Does the Catholic Church really operate along the lines of non-Catholic until proven Catholic? This seems like guilty until proven innocent to me.
Finding a Catholic in Saudi that will baptize a Muslim (even a lay person) is, to my knowledge, entirely impossible.
In order to be validly baptized, one needs four things: matter, form, minister, and recipient. For a baptism to be valid, the matter is water (preferably, holy water); the form is the Trinitarian formula naming Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Ghost), explicitly; the minister is, ordinarily ordained clergy, but anyone will do (even a pagan), in necessitas; the recipient must be an non-validly baptized or unbaptized individual. In order for the Sacrament to be valid, the minister must also have the intent of doing what the Church does by the Sacrament.
If these conditions are met, the sacrament is efficacious. One is baptized into Christ (which, technically, means the Catholic Church, since it is his Body), but often, immediately after, the baptized person is claimed into the body of another ecclesial group, if Protestant, or Church, if from the Eastern or Russian Orthodox.
It is my understanding (Jimmy can correct me), that if no group claims them, they are Catholic in a technical sense, since only the Church properly confers the Sacrament (through whatever individual baptizes). I do not know the status of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood, explicitly, but would assume this follows the same thing and they would have some connection with the Catholic Church, but more tenuous.
The Chicken
” “And we need not tolerate it.”
The alternative being…? Just wondering.”
Acknowledging that it occurs would be a good start.
Saudi Arabia is treated as a major US ally. It’s a medieval kingdom in the 21st Century, which is effectively propped up by petro-dollars. Admittedly, if it wasn’t propped up, the alternatives in that region might be worse, but conduct that we would regard as entirely intolerable for a modern nation is winked at in regards to this one.
Put another way, if any European nation determined to prohibit Islam, would the US simply regard that as protecting a traditional culture? I doubt it.
Ok guys, I will head over to some of the Arab-language forums that Fatima was involved with and try to get information on her baptism.
On the whole I agree with Chicken though. But thank you Jimmy for your sensible and insightful comments on this topic.
When I get some info I will post it at my blog (in English).
Abu Daoud sent me the pdf with all the information on Fatima. She had contact with a rather eclectic group of Christians: she participated in an Evangelical forum, learned about the Holy Trinity from a book written by a Jesuit priest, and mentions the Coptic Orthodox priest-evangelist Fr. Boutros as a source as well. A few other references are made to the Copts also, particularly the website Free Copts. I think there’s very good reason to hope that Fatima is in heaven with Jesus right now, but the evidence seems to point more toward (Coptic) Orthodoxy than Catholicism, if she ever formally joined a church at all.
Hi Salome, yes, but being influenced is not the same as being part of one church. I have been influenced by Orthodox thought a great deal, but I’m Anglican, not Orthodox. I’m guessing you could say something similar for yourself.
My point is that unless she specifically joined a given church (and I don’t think she did, but am looking into it), being in KSA and all, she should be considered to have been baptized in the Church. And for Catholics that means the Catholic Church. That she was influenced by +Botros doesn’t say much, the guy is all about the Bible and the Church Fathers, hardly un-Catholic.
When we lived there, we were only able to go to mass maybe twice as it was very hard and dangerous but it is available. Bahrain also has a beautiful Catholic Church. If I remember correctly, Saudi’s were not required to have a exit/reentry visa as we were.
There are many ways this could be true. And it is very hard and dangerous to be a Christian there.
I’ll give you one more possible scenario.
It is not uncommon for Saudi’s to have servants from other countries; India, Philippines, etc.
The one we had working part time for us was a Christian.
But we also know that anyone can baptize (whether Christian or not) in case of necessity.
I could see this young woman having such a servant especially if she had access to satellite (meaning they would/could afford servants).
Wouldn’t it be awesome if she was watching Mother Angelica?
Abu Daoud, you’re right, she need not have been Coptic just because she was influenced by the Copts. I myself rely quite a bit on Fr. Boutros’s materials. What I meant to say is that since she learned about Christianity from such a wide range of Christians, it’s possible that she held some beliefs that were at odds with Catholic teaching. On the other hand, she was so isolated that this ignorance was definitely not her fault. At this point I agree it’s reasonable to believe that her baptism (whether by water, desire, or blood) was Catholic. Of course, any information on an actual baptism would be very helpful. There are actually Catholic missionaries in Saudi: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9811fea2.asp
Dear Salome,
I agree with you entirely. Certainly she was influenced by Abouna Zakaria Botros (I just write a review on his biography and it will be appearing in the next issue of st francis magainze [www.stfrancismagazine.info]). Will be in touch with you and let you know what I turn up about her baptism.
On the whole, my belief is that–barring information to the contrary–one is baptized into the Catholic Church, everywhere and always. Id and only if there is compelling evidence to the contrary is one NOT Catholic.
I would find it hard to believe that Fatima could be beatified or canonized by the Catholic Church.
We can’t even beatify or canonize Pius XII.
I think maybe we’re talking at cross purposes here. While in principle all valid baptisms are Catholic, there is a question of whether Fatima intended full communion with the Church or something less, though it would seem she has that now in any event. This ‘technicality’ would seem to be a difficulty toward canonization.
As usual, TMC says it better and before I do.
“Saudi Arabia is […] a medieval kingdom in the 21st Century.”
As an amateur student of the Middle Ages, Yeoman, I can tell you that’s a slight against Medieval kingdoms. Don’t believe all the hype generated starting in the Renaissance and (particularly) by various Protestant partisans. You can consult Régine Pernoud for an entertaining rebuttal.
Dear Hans,
Regine Pernoud wrote one of the best books on the trial of Joan of Arc.
The Chicken
“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church”. ~Tertullian (Apologeticum, 50)
May her blood sow the seeds of faith in her fellow Muslims.
BTW,
.pdf link above would not open.
There is the special case of anthony Neyrot, dominican converted to islam and reverted to christianity before dying : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Neyrot
Indeed, TMC, she did.
I think where Jimmy goes somewhat wrong is in the idea that there are, in the fundamental sense, “other churches” into which a person can be baptized.
When you are baptized, you are baptized into the ‘one, holy, catholic Church” which subsists in what is popularly known as “the Roman Catholic” or “the Catholic Church”.
There just isn’t anything else to be baptized into.
This is a different question from the question of full, external communion. That requires an informed consent on the part of the baptized or his sponsor and an understand, commensurate with the capacities of the candidate.
Now, for those who have a belief or a loyalty which separates them from the full unity of the Church, there is an additional problem.
But for those who do not have any particular belief which separates them from the Catholic Church, I think the question of full communion only arises as a matter of governance: Would you give such a person communion, would you marry such a person, without and overt acceptance of all Catholic teaching?
Nothing like this arises in Fatima’s case.
We don’t know whether she was Catholic in the full sense of the term, of course. It’s very unlikely.
But it seems from her writing that Fatima simply wanted the fullness of Jesus Christ and took it as she could find it.
Msgr. Ronald Knox once famously said, “All the identity tags in heaven read ‘RC'”. And you don’t get those tags when you enter. You have them because you were ‘RC’ before you got there…
“I think where Jimmy goes somewhat wrong is in the idea that there are, in the fundamental sense, “other churches” into which a person can be baptized.
When you are baptized, you are baptized into the ‘one, holy, catholic Church” which subsists in what is popularly known as “the Roman Catholic” or “the Catholic Church”.
There just isn’t anything else to be baptized into.”
If you will look at the language Jimmy is using, he does not seem to be giving his opinion, but states “The Code does not spell it out in the detail I would like, but the Green Commentary on the Code summarizes what I take to be common canonical opinion on the matter”.
Apparently the “common canonical opinion” is somewhat in flux.
In the most fundamental sense I think you are right, of course, that Christ has only one body, and that any valid baptism must be a baptism into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I have said before to my Protestant brethren (and sistren) that anyone who is truly a Christian is a Catholic, whether they realize it or not.
I looked up the word “catholic” on thesaurus.com the other day. It was defined as;
“all-embracing, general…”
with synonyms that include,
“…all-inclusive, broad-minded, charitable, comprehensive, cosmic, cosmopolitan, diffuse, eclectic, ecumenical, extensive, generic, global, inclusive, indeterminate, large-scale, liberal, open-minded, planetary, receptive, tolerant, unbigoted, universal, unprejudiced, unsectarian, whole, wide, world-wide ”
The Catholic Church is simply the broad basin in which every other kind of ecclesial body – if it is Christian at all – floats, knowingly or unknowingly. This is the only reason why the term “catholic” was ever applied to the Church in the first place.
Non-Catholics, please keep in mind that faithful Catholics are among the most vocal critics of the Catholic Church, and are under no illusions about the shortcomings and failings of her members, or of her bureaucratic structures.
As Hilair Belloc so pithily stated (or even overstated), the Catholic Church is “…an institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God it would not last a fortnight.”.
And that is true.
The authority and holiness of the Church is not derived from from her members, but from the God and King who’s bride she is. What authority and holiness subsists in the Church flows downward, as it were, from the eternal spring that is the spirit of Christ. That we obstruct and adulterate this flow of grace is, well, a disgrace and a scandal, but it doesn’t un-make the Church.
Gandhi had his problems, but I am sensitive to his critique of Christendom;
“I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”.
*Zing*