Pope Francis was today quoted in the news as having this to say about the Charlie Hebdo attack:
“One cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion — that is, in the name of God,” Francis said. “To kill in the name of God is an aberration. If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch.” It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.
[…]
“There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others,” he said. “They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit. One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith. There is a limit, Every religion has its dignity.”
When you realize that Pope Francis is a progressive pope it makes sense. He's not John Paul. Pope John Paul didn't mince words and disliked communists. He took a strong stand against them. He didn't try to appease them. What a vast difference.
I see a couple of inconsistencies with Francis's remarks. First, he joked “he can expect a punch.”
Not “turn the other cheek?” Secondly, Francis says “there is a limt” with regards to expression.
What is the limit? He, like Donohue, cannot provide one. First, let's identify the limit: Is the limit vulgarity, decency? It's a presupposition that vulgarity was the provocation for Hebdo. Many of their cartoons were simple renderings of Mohammed that involved no indecency. But wait—Theo Van Gogh wasn't killed over an issue of vulgarity. He made a simple short film with Ayaan Hirsi Ali about the abuse of women in Islam. It cost him his life. Molly Norris didn't even actually draw Mohammed. She's still in hiding after a fatwa was placed on hear head simply because she drew a happy-looking teacup, domino, cherry, spool, and pasta box all arguing over who is the real likeness of Mohammed.
Ok, so then it becomes an issue of definition: what is or is not vulgar or indecent? Any rendering of Mohammed is vulgar, indecent—but wait—sharing the Christian faith is also considered vulgar and indecent by Islamists. The act of a woman showing her ankles is considered vulgar and indecent. Existing as a nonbeliever is considered vulgar and indecent. Which is it: is their definition of vulgarity the limit or is our definition of vulgarity the limit? Neither Pope Francis nor Bill Donohue have ever made an effort to answer that. If we're appeasing Islamists and their definition of vulgar and indecency are the estab limit, then both men may want to hang up their hats as their proselytizing is considered a vulgar provocation by Islamists. So what about enforcing that limit? Are we now to pass laws that judge whether or not speech or expression is acceptable to Islamist standards so as not to provoke them to violence? There is already an established legal system that does just this. A few countries have it exclusively. It's called sharia. Islamic jurisprudence which regulates life according to Allah. I cannot believe that either Francis or Donohue are actively calling for even a modest implementation of sharia law, yet when they call for limits on our free speech and expression so as to satisfy Islamist censors, that is what they are requesting, intentional or not. Thankfully, I can question the Pope's logic and disagree with his conslusion without fear of a Catholic fatwa. There lies the difference.
