Pope Francis on Paris Attack - "one who throws insults can expect a 'punch'"

[Alcon]

I'm going to address afleitch's question first here because I have a ready answer to it. I'm not quite sure what to make of Alcon's point yet. I might have a coherent counterargument. I might lack a coherent counterargument but hold to my original position anyway for emotive reasons, or because we lack a common ethical frame of reference for the value of challenging beliefs, or something. I might also retract 'and raucous mockery' and just limit myself to saying that there's a responsibility to avoid defamatory innuendo, or reverse my position entirely (more sincerely than the last time I claimed to do that). Give me time.

No problem.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I highly doubt that censorship would have been his preferred solution to this, except maybe some kind of voluntary prior restraint, like the Comics Code but for Islamophobia or something. To whatever extent he's calling for that, I'm not sure I agree with him (the Comics Code was flagrantly ludicrous, after all), but I don't think it's an inherently inappropriate or callous or cruel position to take, I think some of our more anti-clerical and/or European* posters are reacting to this as if he'd said that these people deserved to die when that's clearly not the case, and that's all I was really trying to argue in this thread to begin with.

Just out of interest, would this be a two way street? I mean, if I show restraint, should religious figures be required to show restraint and not for example caricature gay people as either being sinful, possessed, threats to society, purveyors of vice or have veiled innuendoes made about them comparing them to paedophiles or pedarasts? (all of which the RC has done - we are after all guilty of a 'moral evil')

Yeah. Of course. They really, really, really should stop doing that, and I dearly hope I would still think so even I were cis and/or straight. I think both religious and non- or antireligious people should avoid resorting to defamatory innuendo and raucous mockery on these kinds of issues.

The problem is what constitutes mockery? If 'mockery' is what is to be restrained. Because mockery isn't always just a devolved form of discussion. Sometimes it has nothing to do with discussion or position taking at all. A real life and surreal example of this would be a school child taken aside for eating a ham sandwich at Ramadan in a school with a large Muslim population. Eating and what was being eaten was perceived as 'mockery' when all it really was was simply having a sandwich. Why should the person who considers it 'mockery' be empowered because we consider mockery to be a step too far. That argument requires that the 'step before' is actually meant to be an acceptable 'action' against a person. Often that is not the case at all.

A very common argument against SSM for example (and one made by the subject of this thread) is that allowing it 'mocks' religion, or religious beliefs about marriage and what marriage means and who marriage is for. I'm sure for some people it is mockery, but that's only in the view of the person who perceives it. And it makes an assumption that the person who perceives mockery has a reasoned insight into what mockery is.

Eating the ham sandwich (assuming the kid wasn't taunting Muslim kids as ey ate it, and was just eating it) certainly should never have been considered mocking.  Nor should someone wearing religious clothing should never be considered a mock of or insult to secularism, tho some secularists seem to think so.  As for SSM, so long as those choosing to be in one don't try to force private persons in providing wedding facilities or services to do so for SSM, I don't see anything that should be considered to be a mock of certain religions in extending legal recognition to SSMs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Without wishing to wade too far into the rather fraught debate here, isn't there an element of 'shock as Pope is Catholic' to this? Or, rather, 'shock as Pope is the Pope'? It would be very, very surprising if the leader of the largest religious institution on earth was anything other than down on anti-religious satire.

[politicus]

Without wishing to wade too far into the rather fraught debate here, isn't there an element of 'shock as Pope is Catholic' to this? Or, rather, 'shock as Pope is the Pope'? It would be very, very surprising if the leader of the largest religious institution on earth was anything other than down on anti-religious satire.

1) At least half the people discussing here don't give a damn about the Pope. It is the principal aspect that generated the "fraught" debate.

2) There is the question why Francis felt the need to comment on this at all. The Vatican comments on a wide range of topics and he probably felt he had to have an opinion of something this big. Still, his advisers should have told this was a topic he better stay away from. It will only damage the church and there is no way he can play a constructive role. In the present situation there is no room for compromise on this issue in Europe.

[patrick1]

Without wishing to wade too far into the rather fraught debate here, isn't there an element of 'shock as Pope is Catholic' to this? Or, rather, 'shock as Pope is the Pope'? It would be very, very surprising if the leader of the largest religious institution on earth was anything other than down on anti-religious satire.

2) There is the question why Francis felt the need to comment on this at all. The Vatican comments on a wide range of topics and he probably felt he had to have an opinion of something this big. Still, his advisers should have told this was a topic he better stay away from. It will only damage the church and there is no way he can play a constructive role. In the present situation there is no room for compromise on this issue in Europe.

The Pope should not be some politician who is afraid to speak out for public relations purposes. It is his role to weigh in.

Good point Al, sometimes it is important to restate the obvious.

[politicus]

Without wishing to wade too far into the rather fraught debate here, isn't there an element of 'shock as Pope is Catholic' to this? Or, rather, 'shock as Pope is the Pope'? It would be very, very surprising if the leader of the largest religious institution on earth was anything other than down on anti-religious satire.

2) There is the question why Francis felt the need to comment on this at all. The Vatican comments on a wide range of topics and he probably felt he had to have an opinion of something this big. Still, his advisers should have told this was a topic he better stay away from. It will only damage the church and there is no way he can play a constructive role. In the present situation there is no room for compromise on this issue in Europe.

The Pope should not be some politician who is afraid to speak out for public relations purposes. It is his role to weigh in.

Good point Al, sometimes it is important to restate the obvious.

Perhaps he shouldn't, but the Vatican is also political institution and they do lay low on issues from time to time. With the church near collapse in many European countries this will be yet another nail to the coffin for the Catholic church in Europe. 

[politicus]

Anyway, the backtracking has started:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Brad-Miner-Charlie-Hebdo-Vatican/2015/01/16/id/619111/

"One of the things that happens with this pope, that really didn't happen very often with Benedict XVI or John Paul II, are those follow-up memos from the Vatican to the press saying, 'Well, he didn't really say what he said,' or 'He didn't really mean what you thought he meant"

[bore]

It's worth pointing out the remarks in question were a direct response to a journalist's question, it's not like the pope decided with no prompting to draft a speech on his opinion about the attacks.

Also, some random Catholic saying the pope misspoke doesn't count as the Vatican backtracking.

[Oakvale]

I'm really bemused as to why some people are shocked that the Pope didn't tweet an obscene cartoon of Mohammed or whatever. What did you expect his opinion to be?

[politicus]

I'm really bemused as to why some people are shocked that the Pope didn't tweet an obscene cartoon of Mohammed or whatever. What did you expect his opinion to be?

Rubbish. No one was shocked by it.

Anyway: "that's the character of this man. He believes in spontaneity …  and he's trusting that the spirit will guide him to say the right thing."

[politicus]

Also, some random Catholic saying the pope misspoke doesn't count as the Vatican backtracking.

Backtracking may be too strong a word, but there was a lot of "he didn't really mean it" from their press people afterwards.

[memphis]

What did you expect his opinion to be?

This is a very telling statement. Sounds like something I would say. That this is exactly what one would expect the Pope to say is the problem.

[patrick1]

Without wishing to wade too far into the rather fraught debate here, isn't there an element of 'shock as Pope is Catholic' to this? Or, rather, 'shock as Pope is the Pope'? It would be very, very surprising if the leader of the largest religious institution on earth was anything other than down on anti-religious satire.

2) There is the question why Francis felt the need to comment on this at all. The Vatican comments on a wide range of topics and he probably felt he had to have an opinion of something this big. Still, his advisers should have told this was a topic he better stay away from. It will only damage the church and there is no way he can play a constructive role. In the present situation there is no room for compromise on this issue in Europe.

The Pope should not be some politician who is afraid to speak out for public relations purposes. It is his role to weigh in.

Good point Al, sometimes it is important to restate the obvious.

Perhaps he shouldn't, but the Vatican is also political institution and they do lay low on issues from time to time. With the church near collapse in many European countries this will be yet another nail to the coffin for the Catholic church in Europe. 

This manufactured controversy is not going to make anyone leave their church....this forum and the media makes a big deal out of minor things.

[politicus]

Without wishing to wade too far into the rather fraught debate here, isn't there an element of 'shock as Pope is Catholic' to this? Or, rather, 'shock as Pope is the Pope'? It would be very, very surprising if the leader of the largest religious institution on earth was anything other than down on anti-religious satire.

2) There is the question why Francis felt the need to comment on this at all. The Vatican comments on a wide range of topics and he probably felt he had to have an opinion of something this big. Still, his advisers should have told this was a topic he better stay away from. It will only damage the church and there is no way he can play a constructive role. In the present situation there is no room for compromise on this issue in Europe.

The Pope should not be some politician who is afraid to speak out for public relations purposes. It is his role to weigh in.

Good point Al, sometimes it is important to restate the obvious.

Perhaps he shouldn't, but the Vatican is also political institution and they do lay low on issues from time to time. With the church near collapse in many European countries this will be yet another nail to the coffin for the Catholic church in Europe.  

This manufactured controversy is not going to make anyone leave their church....this forum and the media makes a big deal out of minor things.

Maybe not per se, but it becomes part of a larger narrative of the church not "standing up" to Islamism and following what many perceive as an anti-Western foreign policy combined with it being left wing on economics this is alienating people who see it as being too political and on "the wrong side".

Charlie Hebdo is huge in Europe. It is the closest we have been to a 9/11. Bigger than the attacks in London and Madrid (outside UK and Spain at least) because of the symbolism of it all. There isn't that much room for being in the middle on this issue. It is "Western values" or pro-Islam/pro-terrorism for many people and the church can ill afford to be seen as too complacent.

I will admit the Catholics I know are German, Dutch, Danish, Irish and Polish (half my dad family are Catholics and I worked on a Jesuit school and a lot of my network are Catholics) and not from southern Europe and they may not be representative in general so I may weigh their opinion too much. Still, I think it is important to realize this is not your average terrorist act. The anger and fear is real and not a media invention. There will be a before and after Charlie Hebdo, just as there was a before and after 9/11 in the US.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Charlie Hebdo is huge in Europe. It is the closest we have been to a 9/11. Bigger than the attacks in London and Madrid (outside UK and Spain at least) because of the symbolism of it all. There isn't that much room for being in the middle on this issue. It is "Western values" or pro-Islam/pro-terrorism for many people and the church can ill afford to be seen as too complacent.

The problem is that for many "Western values" are the same as "secularism" and they don't handle it well when people tell them they aren't.  While Charlie Hedbo was certainly not a promoter of violence, in their aggressive secularism, they certainly haven't been a model of religious toleration either.