On Mohammed, caricatures, and cross-worshipping

Muslims worldwide are protesting the publication in Danish and French newspapers of caricatures of Islam’s revered founder, the prophet Mohammed. I can understand their feelings about it and the emotion these actions elicit from observant Muslims, as well as those who are culturally conditioned to react in this manner. After all, not long ago I decried the tasteless satire that the producers of South Park levied against the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Comedy Channel. Viacom, the channel’s owner, agreed to pull that offensive episode after due and well-deserved pressure was brought to bear on them by Catholic organizations and viewers. I found myself fielding inane attacks against my senses of humor and proportion for a couple of days after the fact. So, on that level, I can relate to them.

What gets me, though, is that the Muslim world lacks a unified, faith-based approach to the right use of the means of social communications. Consider, for example, these words from Vatican II’s Decree on Social Means of Communication, Inter Mirifica:

5. It is essential that all those involved should form a correct conscience on the use of the media, especially with regard to certain issues which are particularly controversial today.

Because of the progress of modern society and the increasing interdependence of its members on one another, it is obvious that information is very useful and, for the most part, essential. If news or facts and happenings are communicated publicly and without delay, every individual will have permanent access to sufficient information and thus will be enabled to contribute effectively to the common good. Further, all of them will more easily be able to contribute in unison to the prosperity and the progress of society as a whole.

There exists, therefore, in human society a right to information on the subjects that are of concern to men either as individuals or as members of society, according to each man's circumstances. The proper exercise of this right demands that the content of the communication be true and-within the limits set by justice and charity-complete. Further, it should be communicated honestly and properly. This means that in the gathering and in the publication of news, the moral law and the legitimate rights and dignity of man should be upheld. All knowledge is not profitable, but on the other hand "love builds" (1Cor.8:1).

We in the Catholic Church are concerned that the means of social communications are not been used to disseminate truthful news. We also read in Inter Mirifica:

11. A special responsibility for the proper use of the means of social communication rests on journalists, writers, actors, designers, producers, exhibitors, distributors, operators, sellers, critics - all those, in a word, who are involved in the making and transmission of communications in any way whatever. It is clear that a very great responsibility rests on all of these people in today's world: they have power to direct mankind along a good path or an evil path by the information they impart and the pressure they exert.

It will be for them to regulate economic, political and artistic values in a way that will not conflict with the common good. To achieve this result more surely, they will do well to form professional organizations capable of imposing on their members-if necessary by a formal pledge to observe a moral code-a respect for the moral law in the problems they encounter and in their activities.

Producers of mass media should always be mindful of the fact that a very large proportion of their readership and audience are young people who are in need of publications and entertainments for wholesome amusement and inspiration. They should ensure that religious features are entrusted to serious and competent persons and are handled with proper respect.

These thoughts form the basis of the Catholic protest against execrable depictions of human beings in general, and sacred persons in particular, of every religion. We don’t think that such depictions deserve the term “art.” Producers cannot hide behind their freedom of expression to inflict their “creations” upon an unsuspecting public.

However, I think that Muslim outrage would be more convincing if the standard-bearers of Islamic doctrine and teaching had similar sentiments when it comes to the global use of the means of social communications, and were consistent in applying a standard of truth, charity, and the common good to their own media. Instead, what we find is a gross inconsistency when we witness blatant falsehoods passed as “truths” in the media in Islamic countries:

- In Egypt, the Protocols of the Elders of Sion, a recognized forgery concocted by febrile anti-Semites, is dramatized in TV;

- The President of Iran publicly denied the existence and the scope of the Holocaust;

- In Azerbaijan, all Catholic priests without distinction are referred to as pedophiles.

- In Islamic publications, it’s common to find Christians referred to as “cross-worshippers. The designation is accepted uncritically by the majority of Muslim believers.

These are just a few examples of what we can see in the media in Muslim countries. Where’s the Muslim anger before these outrages? Don’t look too hard for it, for there is none.

The anger in the Islamic world against the Danish caricatures, an anger I understand, would’ve move me to outright sympathy if that anger hadn’t been so laced with blindness and hypocrisy before the lies and disrespect against Jews and Christians circulating in the Islamic world’s media.

At least, this is what this “cross-worshipper” thinks.

- Read also More on the Muslim Reaction to the Danish Cartoons.