Free speech is not free

"It's the symbol of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, of democracy, and secularism," Charlie Hebdo’s editor said. Makes one wonder, “What is free speech?”

It protects spoken or written words or acts like the burning of an American flag. But it doesn’t include burning your draft card. It includes a students right not to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. But doesn’t permit the student to write a story for the school newspaper when the administration disagrees.  It does not justify the distribution of obscene materials but does permit politicians to tell obscene lies about one another.

It’s easy to judge the terrorists who raided the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. It’s not so simple to judge Charlie Hebdo.

For most commentators Charlie exercises “freedom of speech.” Pope Francis cautioned, "If my good friend 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."

In contrast, Salman Rushdie, the controversial writer whose life was threatened by radical Muslims because of his book "The Satanic Verses" said the right to free speech is absolute or else it isn't free.I’m inclined to agree most with the Pope. Rushdie is clearly incorrect. The right to free speech is not absolute.

Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated the most recognized limitation in a 1919 Supreme Court decision. A man was convicted for inciting violence by publicly opposing the draft during World War I. The Court said he should go to jail despite his “free speech” defense. This is the case that gave rise to the adage that “one cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

The iconic phrase emanates from Holmes’ opinion. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

Charlie Hebdo makes its point by shouting “fire” in a “public theater.” The theater is crowded with more than their own cartoonists. It includes policemen, bystanders, and innocent Muslims who are then targeted by those who seek to avenge Charlie.

Conflicts between radical Islamists and Westerners have converted the earth into a powder keg. The violence didn’t end in Paris. Last week, 45 Christian churches in Niger were burned in that Muslim nation protesting the French cartoonists lampooning of Islam.

Radicals on each side believe if they kill more of the other side, they’ll win. Win what? Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Blindness is the least of today’s problems.

Free speech isn’t a meaningful in isolation. Its exercise demands accompanying exercise of self-restraint, accountability, and personal responsibility.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, (French version of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution reads, “The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man.”

Precious rights should be cherished, not used as fuses for indiscriminate firebombs. Speech is a tool for reaching understanding. Truth telling can cause divisions, even anger but if that is the sole purpose of using it, the “speaker” degrades the very notion.

The purpose of the attack on Charlie Hebdo was to inhibit the magazine’s use of satire, i.e. to limit Charlie’s use of speech. But the purpose of the doctrine of free speech is not to permit its unrestrained use. If speech was an unlimited right, as Rushdie advocates, one could cry “fire” in a crowded theater even though it may cause the deaths of dozens or hundreds.

Charlie Hebdo isn’t making the world better but rather more dangerous as it insists on getting its way using a self-indulgent tool to create anger. It’s the resulting anger and the predictable destruction accompanying it that is unrestrained, not free speech.

A book recommended by Pope Francis

Read any good books lately? I just finished one recommended by Pope Francis to the millions who read the interview in which he said the church shouldn’t be a “small nest” protecting its mediocrity and must focus on issues that matter.

During the interview, the pope was asked about writers who inspired him. Francis spoke about an 1827 novel written by Allesandro Manzoni, “The Betrothed.” He’s read it three times. If this pope read it three times, we should read it at least once. By the time I ordered the book, it was a best seller; seems having the pope mention your book is good for sales.

“The Betrothed” opens with a delightfully written description of the story’s setting in Northern Italy. Readers learn the central event in the book’s plot is the planned wedding of an innocent, loving couple Lucia and Renzo. However, a local villain has designs on Lucia and sends his “bravoes” (thugs) to threaten the priest, Father Abbondio, about what would become of him if he performed the wedding.

Edgar Allan Poe reviewed Manzoni’s book in 1835. Poe said Manzoni was “as alive as Luther himself” to the abuses of the church. “We knew that something was wrong, but what that something might be, was never certainly known. The author has unveiled the mystery. He has withdrawn a curtain, behind which we had never been permitted to look.” That very curtain has, over time, covered the failures of protestant and Catholic churches alike.

A fearful, compromising priest, Father Abbondio is the novel’s metaphor for what Pope Francis called, “a small chapel” holding “only a small group of selected people.” Abbondio represents Christians led by fear, aligning with the powerful to the detriment of the weak. “Don Abbondio did not come into the world,” writes Manzoni, “with the heart of a lion.” Abbondio complies with the villain’s demands, leaving Lucia and Renzo only one alternative.  They must flee for their safety.

But the church Francis calls to “heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful” is established through the lives of Christ-like priests who demonstrate the courage born of their own faith. Father Christoforo and Cardinal Borromeo represent the church at its best. In one deeply moving scene, the Cardinal meets with a man so evil that villagers refer to him only as “the unnamed.” The Cardinal greets the villain with these words, “Well, this is a happy and precious occasion...though there is an element of reproof in it for me.”

He who is unnamed is stunned. “Reproof for you? Do you know who I am? Do you know what awful things I have done in my life?”

The Cardinal says, “Do you think that the pleasure I feel at seeing you could have been inspired by the visit of a man of whom I had never heard? I feel that pleasure for you whom I have so long loved, for whom I have spent so many tears and prayers. So…you have good news for me?”

“Good news?” Me? What good news could I have for you?” asked the unnamed.   “The news that God has touched your heart,” said the cardinal, “and wants to make you his own.”

In those few words, the villain is gracefully transformed. Readers grasp how this book inspired a Pope to challenge us to think, “This church with which we should be thinking should be the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people.”

The Cardinal later sacrifices his life in service to those suffering from the plague. With assistance of others who are led by faith rather than fear, Lucia and Renzo triumph and the story becomes one of victory of the better angels of the church and humankind.

Apparently God is big enough to inspire more than one book and through
“The Betrothed,” God has inspired a pope who is on his way to changing the world by making the universal church relevant again. Blessings!

Pope Francis...a fresh breeze

I have a “love-hate” relationship with religion, particularly Christianity. I know that’s weird for an ordained minster but, truthfully, there are days when I believe it all and there are days when I don’t believe a word of it. I haven’t hidden this from my congregation at Highlands Presbyterian Church. They know.

For so long I have not felt as deeply moved by a voice from the church as I am today by Pope Francis. For the first time in my life, I see this Catholic as the leader of our church, Christ’s representative on earth.

"This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity." The words of Pope Francis!

St. Catherine of Siena said, “Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.” Pope Francis has lighted the fire.

One can hear the voice of Jesus of Nazareth saying, “Amen. That’s what I’m talkin’ about!” In the words of my favorite hymn, “I scarce can take it in.” Did you hear that confession, that prayer for pardon? “This church…the home of all” cannot be “a nest protecting our mediocrity.”

Over time the church has gotten so small that it easily fit into the pockets of those who think they have God right where they want God. A God made in their image became so mediocre that they were justified in engaging in quality control. The church became irrelevant as it shot its wounded from a circular firing squad.

I was ten years old when Pastor Jack issued his usual altar. I was moved. I went forward. Pastor Jack prayed over me, talked about being reborn. My parents smiled. I don’t remember precisely why I did it, but I remember the excitement of believing God wanted to have a relationship with me. It’s been a long time since I felt that. Like Mother Theresa I have since felt “such deep longing for God.” But, like her, I have often felt “empty, no faith, no zeal.”

I have no way of knowing why Mother Theresa felt that way but for me it began when I had to reconcile the God Brother Jack and others taught me about with the smallness and the mediocrity of the church. God, it seemed, got smaller as the church denied a relationship with people of color, women, and gays and lesbians. The church got smaller as it made God smaller. The “good news” or Gospel had no place in a diminishing church and was necessarily cast aside, replaced by dogma that, as Pope Francis confessed, elevated “moral doctrines over serving the poor and marginalized.”

Today a fresh breeze is blowing through the church. A Pope has reopened the stale pages of the Gospels. “We have to find a new balance,” Francis proclaimed. “Otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

The moral of the Gospel story is fundamentally about the urgency of exchanging a “house of cards” church of small things for a Moses-like experience of a “the pillar of cloud (that) would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship.”

The defenders of the small church are quickly denying the impact of the Pope’s words. They are assuring those who have a stake in the smallness of the church that Francis did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. But there is no denying the evidence. This Pope is now “eating with tax collectors and sinners.” There was a time when that kind of boldness changed the world.

The Bishop's responds

Catholic Church's teachings still oppose homosexuality

By The Most Rev. Paul D. Etienne

In response to the recent column by Rodger McDaniel (Aug. 24) about Pope Francis and his non-judgmental stance regarding our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction, I would offer the following:

First, the Catholic Church loves all of God’s people. Pope Francis with his clear priority and personal witness to put our love into concrete expression is providing wonderful leadership for the faith and winning the hearts of many, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

His recent comment that Mr. McDaniel cited reveals that judgment does not belong to him as pope, nor does it belong to anyone other than Christ. Our holy father’s emphasis regarding the pastoral love for all the people of God serves as a good reminder to us all.

While our holy father is helping to set a great example of pastoral outreach, he has made no changes in church teaching. He is simply reiterating the teaching as outlined in section 2358 of the catechism in which chastity and homosexuality are addressed.

In referring to people with homosexual tendencies, it states, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

In section 2360 of the Catechism, it says clearly, “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage, the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.”

Pope Francis did not change this teaching. Reading anything into his statement that would suggest otherwise is inaccurate.

Finally, speculation by Mr. McDaniel in regard to what “most likely got the bishop’s ire” in regard to the Wyoming Association of Churches was interesting indeed.

When the writer questioned my reasons for withdrawing from the association, he did not list the obvious, such as the lack of support for the unborn or any kind of defense for traditional marriage.

Most problematic regarding the Catholic Church’s affiliation with the association is that when a Catholic legislator would defend the unborn, he or she would be challenged that the Catholic Church was not genuine in its support of life precisely because it was affiliated with the Wyoming Association of Churches.

Once again, the writer irresponsibly concluded that it must certainly be my desire as bishop to keep “employment-related discrimination against homosexuals” alive and well.

Happily, we as Catholics share a number of beliefs in common with other Christian denominations. Sadly, we still have strong disagreements regarding the application of our belief in Christ and his teachings to the social issues of our day.

I will not argue those differences in a forum such as this. The dignity of our faith is above such public banter.

In closing, I also express my deep disappointment in the WTE’s lack of discretion and disrespect in printing the offensive cartoon that appeared above Mr. McDaniel’s article.

The Most Rev. Paul D. Etienne is the bishop of Cheyenne.

Judge not lest ye be judged

Jesus said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” Pope Francis asked, “Who am I to judge?”

By reconnecting the church to Jesus’ words, this Pope has moved his church inexorably toward justice for gays and lesbians. Francis stressed homosexuals should be treated with dignity (unlike the treatment they endure from the pen of some WTE letter writers) and not marginalized.

“If someone is gay,” said the Vicar of Christ, “and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

Peter’s denied knowing Jesus three times. Jesus forgave him but asked Peter three times, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Assured Peter loves him, Jesus entrusted Peter with the care of his flock. Thus Peter is considered the first Pope.

Gays and lesbians wish they had only needed to ask three times whether the church loves them. After decades in which the church has shamefully rejected homosexuals, opposed efforts to protect their rights to be an integral part of society, and marginalized them, at long last Christ’s representative on earth has made it clear to the flock. "The Gospel is for everyone, not just for some," Francis said.

The Pope’s words must have shocked the Catholic hierarchy. In 2005, during the reign of the resigned Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican issued directives barring from the priesthood men "who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture."

While the Pope said he wouldn’t judge gay priests, he did judge those in the Vatican whom he said “lobby” for gay rights. Hopefully he’ll be equally critical of the lobbying in which the Church engages to deny gays and lesbians basic civil rights.

While the Catholic Church has not yet made a complete 180-degree turn, the weight of the Pope’s promise to neither judge nor marginalize homosexuals is earthshaking. Pope Francis’ words are a departure from earlier Vatican directives and even a departure from his own earlier thinking. When the Argentine government legalized gay marriage, then Bishop Bergoglio was opposed, calling it "a destructive attack on God's plan."

It would be a mistake to think that the Catholic Church will immediately support marriage equality. Yet, if the Pope were serious when he says homosexuals should not be marginalized, it would seem that at the very least the church should support legislation protecting gays and lesbians from job related discrimination.

Today most states, including Wyoming, allow sexual-orientation-based discrimination. Good workers can be fired, denied a promotion, and be otherwise marginalized simply for being who God made them to be. Earlier this year the Wyoming legislature endorsed this form of discrimination when it defeated legislation which would have protected LGBT workers from discrimination.

Pope Francis’ words are at odds with the position taken last month by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. In a letter setting forth their reasons to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Bishops said that while they’re against “unjust discrimination” against people with “a homosexual inclination” they believed that protecting them from job-based discrimination was tantamount to protecting sexual conduct outside of marriage.

Of course, the bill doesn’t do that. It simply provides protections to homosexual and transgender workers similar to protections afforded to other minority groups under the Civil Rights and Americans with Disabilities Acts.

In Wyoming, the Bishop withdrew his church from the Wyoming Association of Churches this year complaining about positions taken by the Association in the legislature. WAC lobbied against the lottery, for prohibiting sex-trafficking, for Medicaid expansion and for a tax increase on cigarettes. But what most likely got the Bishop’s ire was WAC’s work to end employment related discrimination against homosexuals.

In large organizations it takes time for decisions made at the top to reach the bottom. Catholic or not, Christian or not, like it or not…what the Pope says matters. While, for now, the Bishops continue to judge homosexuals, the Pope and Jesus are, alas, of one accord. What is it about “judge not” that’s so hard to understand?