Qui est Charlie? Interpreting the Words of Francis in Light of Charlie Hebdo

“Je Suis Charlie,” a slogan adopted by supporters of free speech and freedom of expression, has been embraced worldwide by journalists, musical artists and a variety of celebrated publications in response to the massacre of twelve people at the headquarters of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The previous issue of Hebdo featured a caricature of Muhammad spouting sardonic commentary on the Muslim faith. In response, Islamic gunmen belonging to Al-Qaeda’s branch in Yemen forced their way into Hebdo offices killing eleven staff members and one police officer.

Pope Francis, in a press conference aboard the papal plane, discussed the recent tragedy. Francis, though deeply sympathetic, said, “one cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faiths, one cannot make fun of faith.” Anger is man’s natural response to mockery. Francis and his predecessors have been the butt of many Hebdo cartoons. The publication is known for its jarring irreverence and strongly anti-religious mockery of far right politics. It makes sense for the Pope to be empathetic with victims of persecution. Such empathy is far from a rationalization of murder, as some news sources have argued.

This is not the first time Hebdo has been attacked by Muslim groups. In 2011, after publishing a nude cartoon of Muhammad, Hebdo’s offices were fire-bombed by Islamic extremists. Following this incident, Hebdo published a string of anti-Islamic cartoons again mocking the religion’s prophet. French embassies throughout the world were shutdown in lieu of further Islamic protests. Hebdo, in the face of Islamic threats, refused to back down.

Supporters of Hebdo have criticized the attackers for lacking a sense of humor. But is humor taken too far when prophets are depicted in pornos, and the Trinity is cast as a homosexual threesome? Or when Cardinals dance naked in Sodom and political leaders make love on the front page? Hebdo has covered up vile hate speech in the guise of satire.

Our generation, of all generations, should know that hate speech is an exception to the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is not absolute. Any sort of freedom comes with rules and limitations. The First Amendment to the American Constitution and Article Eleven of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union come with legal limitations. We no longer find it acceptable to hang signs in barbershop windows with the words: “blacks need not apply.” If the Civil Rights Movement showed us anything it is that certain things should not, and cannot, be said or done.

What does Francis mean?

Francis, in his most recent address, said freedom of speech comes with limitations.

First, it must be said that murder is never justified. We cannot assume that Francis was trying to conjure up some sort of rationalization of Islamic violence. But man is inclined to sin—it is natural for him to be angry when he is made fun of or provoked.

Provoked, given the history of the situation, was an appropriate word for Francis to use. It was not until after public demonstrations and protests that Islamic groups resorted to violence. Violence was surely not an appropriate response but ought to have been expected, especially considering the violent nature of the religion.

Second, freedom and a rule are compatible—complimentary, in fact. A limitation on an amendment or article is not an imposition but a guide. The Catholic Church has a profound understanding of this truth. With a variety of monastic, religious and lay rules of life, the Church recognizes the freedom that lies in a rule. A rule sets man free—it helps him know how to act, when to act and what sort of action is appropriate.

There is something much deeper in this discussion. Differing definitions of freedom have clashed. The debate is not over violence but freedom. We struggle to understand what it is. Francis, in line with the Aristotelian tradition, has told us that individual freedom is not the highest political good. There is, above the individual, a community.

Why did the Muslims respond violently?

First, depicting Muhammad is forbidden in certain Islamic sects. This is something the Early Christians understood. It was inappropriate to paint images of Christ. We are never given a physical description of Christ in the Gospels. There is a certain reverence in submitting to the mysteriousness of God.

Islam is often characterized as a religion of violence. Their religious texts, particularly the Qur’an, encourage the use of violence for defending the faith—at least in some interpretations. The history of Islam is violent. To be sure, whether or not Islamic texts encourage violence is a different debate all together. But powerful Islamic organizations have written a history of blood and tears. The Hebdo attacks are historically consistent.

As Christians, we understand persecution. We can relate to being mocked. We know what it is like—this is what Francis was trying to get at. We certainly cannot, and have not, rationalized Islamic violence. But a violent response is, as Francis pointed out, a human response.