Another Catholic Demands Theocratic Censorship

Walter Olson messaged me Thursday afternoon with a link to this article, which he said was “worse than Bill Donohue.” I shudder at the thought that someone could actually be worse than Donohue, but he was right. The author, who uses the name Modestinus, is a Catholic blogger who thinks there should be no protection for “blasphemy.” Whatever he thinks that is.

If CH deserves to be shut down (and it does), it is because of its numerous acts of blasphemy against God and His Holy Church. Of course, there may be other good reasons to curtail CH’s falsely sacrosanct right to “free expression.” Public order, especially in a country with the largest Muslim population in Europe, might call for putting a clamp on inflammatory speech, especially when such speech is devoid of artistic and/or intellectual merit. (Determining merit, I admit, is sometimes a fraught task, though not, as American courts of law would have it, impossible.) However, that responsibility fell to French officials and they failed. CH, for its part, was simply “playing by the rules” of a secular-liberal society, and not a single cartoon or story it ran in any way, shape, or form justifies yesterday’s appalling violence.

That hasn’t stopped some from trying, or at least coming up to the line of victim blaming. Matthew Schmitz, writing over at the First Things web-log, observes a couple of instances of this happening online. Shame on them. Shame on Schmitz, too, for suggesting that “[o]ur principles will be tested in defense of unsympathetic victims” if by “our principles” he means “Catholic principles.” For there is no principle, that is to say there is no right, to commit blasphemy, which is exactly what CH did in those instances when it tastelessly mocked Christianity. “Our principles,” that is to say, “Catholic principles” do not hold either the right of CH or any other publication to print whatever it feels like, either. Defending the “unsympathetic victims” of the CH attack is defending their right to not have their lives arbitrarily taken away by murderers in service to a false religion, not their “right” to “free speech.”

Ladies and gentlemen, the Catholic Taliban.

"But even so they keep -- mainly -- losing the culture wars. Homos are getting ..."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"Carries on to East German paradeI am well aware of European historyLooks like germany is ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • tubi

    Where’s Torquemada when you need him? I suspect Donohue or this clown would step forward if they thought they could get away with it.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Should be simple. They just need to revitalize the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (aka the “Roman Inquisition”.) I’d bet that they have a supply of stakes stored up for just such an occasion.

    Eppur si muoveJe suis Galileo?

  • erichoug

    Why does he have so many words in quotes?

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @erichoug

    Give him a break. He just graduated from using crayon to write his screeds.

  • John Pieret

    What could be greater blasphemy against God and His Holy Church than: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet”? I guess it is a two-fer … shut up Charlie Hebdo and Muslims too!

  • theguy

    The screed sounds similar to the fundies who demand “ordered liberty.” I’ve always interpreted that to mean that everybody has the freedom to do as the church commands them, but nothing else.

    Freedom of speech does cover, and indeed should cover, blasphemy and insult, even when there’s absolutely no redeeming artistic or other value. The only speech that isn’t covered are threats. Even then, the law is very lenient, considering the number of fundies who’ve called for “God’s wrath” against anybody they hate.

  • eric

    For there is no principle, that is to say there is no right, to commit blasphemy

    Right to commit blasphemy -> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

  • raven

    I’m not worried.

    My Protestant ancestors fought the Catholics during the Reformation Wars. And won.

    Watch out Modestinus, we can do it again if we have to. The days when Catholics could kill whoever they wanted are long gone.

    (Of course, some of those Catholics my Protestant ancestors fought, were…my other ancestors. Half of my extended family is or was…Catholic.)

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    My favorite part of Free Speech is that I get to read stuff from all the people who advocate its abolishment.

  • Big Boppa

    Mr. ModusIntestines,

    Only one logical rebuttal comes to mind:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @Modusoperandi

    That was beautiful!

  • Big Boppa

    BTW

    Just in case anyone is confused. My rebuttal above is not intended for our friend Modusoperandi @9.

  • Peter the Mediocre

    I seem to recall someone pointing out that the only speech that needs to be protected is offensive speech. Things that offend nobody are not going to be censored. The fact that freedom of speech and the press were included in the first amendment suggests that the writers of the Bill of Rights had a clear understanding of the concept.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1017276335 Strewth

    I can’t even make heads or tails of what this guy is saying. CH’s cartoons don’t justify ‘appalling violence’ but ‘shouldn’t be allowed’? How does he intend to enforce that disallowing, if not through violence? Whining?

  • wreck

    I find that preaching the concept that those who don’t believe in a magical Jewish zombie deserve an eternity of unimaginable torture to be highly offensive, therefore it should be prohibited. Cuts both ways, don’t it?

  • eric

    I seem to recall someone pointing out that the only speech that needs to be protected is offensive speech. Things that offend nobody are not going to be censored.

    I used to believe that but now I don’t. I think there are many politicians who would happly ban speech nobody really thought was offensive, if they either thought doing so would make them look “tough,” or if they thought they could first create an outrage machine and then feed it for votes. And then there’s the outrage machine itself – people who just seem to like to get angry about something, and it really doesn’t matter what it is. They could pretty much target anything on any given day. So now, I’m pretty much of the opinion that no speech is safe, and it all must be protected.

  • bmiller

    I find that preaching the concept that those who don’t believe in a magical Jewish zombie deserve an eternity of unimaginable torture to be highly offensive, therefore it should be prohibited. Cuts both ways, don’t it?

    This!

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @bmiller

    I find that preaching the concept that those who don’t believe in a magical Jewish zombie deserve an eternity of unimaginable torture to be highly offensive, therefore it should be prohibited. Cuts both ways, don’t it?

    Not in the least. You see you are a worthless, God-denying atheist whose opinion doesn’t matter. Modestinus is a righteous Catholic and so his opinion outweighs anything else. He is offended, you’re just whining. Because God.

  • anubisprime

    Religion rots everything is contaminates. and the greatest rot occurs in the ‘faithful’ and their ability to actually think.

    These people must require stabilizer wheels just to walk to church.

    Mostly they are more a burden on society then a whole army of psychopaths with an attitude problem, they are the terrorists of humanity.

    I pity the folk that have to interact with this sad abomination of a human being on a daily basis.

  • dingojack

    Anubis – well just as long as you’re not going to go over the top, there. @@

    Dingo

  • anubisprime

    Dingo fear not…for I have far to go before ‘going over the top’ compared to a moron that cannot even wait for the bodies of murdered folk to cool before claiming they prove some utterly vacuous and inane point he thinks deserves consideration.