January 15th, 2015
One of the post-Charlie Hebdo flare ups last week was an on-air argument between Hugh Hewitt and William Donohue. You can listen to the whole thing here, but the short version is that Hewitt attacked Donohue’s position on the duties of free speech; Donohue insisted that he had been supported, privately, by plenty of people high up in the Catholic Church; Hewitt asked for some examples; Donohue refused to name names. And then it got even more heated.
Well, in Donohue’s defense, he can now add the name of one very prominent Catholic: Pope Francis, whose position–that people who provoke shouldn’t be surprised when there’s a reaction–seems to be even more equivocal than Donohue’s. Here’s Francis on the Charlie Hebdo massacre:
“If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,” Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. “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.”
From God’s lips to the Holy Father’s ears.
-
I think the Holy Father is speaking out of a tradition in which the provoked response is the aforementioned poke in the snoot or something along those lines, rather than a hail of gunfire to the face. His point breaks down when the offended judge themselves licensed not only to rebuke, correct or chastise offenders but to execute them.
-
The Pope is wrong, of course. In a free society you can provoke — you can “speak badly about religions or other religions” you can “make fun of them”, and you can even “make a game out of the religions of others.” The appropriate response to such provocation is to correct or chastise the offenders as Brett says — anything else is to be condemned and punished.
What everyone seems to ignore is the distinction between satire and mockery and obscenity. Some of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were simple satire — but some were obscene (the ones involving sex). I would have no problem cracking down, with the force of law, against obscenity because to me it is not a free speech issue. We want to protect ideas not pornography.
-
Oh yes, I think his statement isn’t Donohue’s at all. It’s hard to tell completely, but I think Francis’ statement carries much more of a weight of blaming those who react with violence. In his own hypothetical, for example, I didn’t get the sense that he believed his pop in the nose was justified, just perhaps to be expected.
-
It would sure be nice of the Holy Father could stop speaking off the cuff, when he does it so poorly and creates so much confusion. Makes me want to give him a fraternal punch.
-
It’s almost exactly like turning the other cheek! Almost.
-
[…] As did his remarks following the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. Francis held forth saying, “Every religion has its dignity. I cannot mock a religion that respects human life and the human person.” And then he went somewhat further: […]
-
[…] As did his remarks following the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. Francis held forth saying, “Every religion has its dignity. I cannot mock a religion that respects human life and the human person.” And then he went somewhat further: […]
Tony January 15, 2015 at 3:51 pm
Pointing out the normal response to provocation — saying there is a limit — isn’t really the same as condoning the response or justifying the limit. And the point doesn’t break down when the response is excessive — a hail of bullets–, it just becomes less relevant advice. It’s not Donohue’s “Muslims are right to be angry,” but maybe the difference isn’t worth articulating.