CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times
Bernard
F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us
Sacred cows
Often I find myself helping clients
with what I call ÒIceberg issuesÓ – where the problem they present turns out to be just a small part of the
real issue, most of which is hidden beneath the surface of things. The Mohammed
cartoon story may just be the greatest Òiceberg issueÓ of the year.
Obviously, this story will not go away.
What started as an obscure publicationÕs nearly prankish statement about free
expression has exploded into something symbolic of the entire tense climate
between the East and West. As reactions on both sides harden, we can see
underlying issues that are at stake not only in Christian-Islamic relations, but
even in the so-called Òwar on terror.Ó
These issues are tough to sort because
they are so intertwined in a simple strip of cartoons and the various reactions
to them. The former ombudsperson of the Washington Post says itÕs the most
complex case of clashing issues sheÕs ever seen. To understand why these cartoons have unleashed such
controversy, itÕs necessary to explore several questions about which most
people remain terribly ignorant.
Many western media commentators, for
example, initially reacted with a glib response: telling offended Muslims to
Òget over it.Ó They felt Muslims were na•ve to ignore the criticism organized
religion gets in the West, and even more na•ve if they expected a double
standard in which only Islam would be exempt from such criticism. But the media
demonstrated their own ignorance by treating the offense as though it were the
equivalent of spoofing the Pope, or Moses, or even Jesus.
None of the offended reaction, of course,
justifies the violence that has threatened both property and lives. Nor does it justify governments playing
politics with the issue. That said, the controversy has rapidly played into the
hands of extremists, fundamentalists, and even terrorists, since they would
love to see a sharper polarization between East and West, between the Christian
and Muslim worlds – exactly what this controversy threatens to produce.
So if, instead, we are to make this
controversy an opportunity to better understand the challenges before us in a
rapidly changing world, we will need to get past glib reactions and explore the
real issues beneath the surface of this raging storm.
Most American Catholics can understand
that Moslems would be offended if their founder is depicted in an insulting way,
but they may have a harder time understanding how serious the offense is unless
they realize that such depictions are really a double violation of Islamic beliefs: blasphemy and idolatry.
Blasphemy: The clash between Òfree expressionÓ and Òsacred
valuesÓ deserves equal treatment compared to similar cases. Without even raising the question of
censorship, we know this simple fact: no one publishes everything without
limits. Media outlets routinely exercise restraint to avoid offending the
public: they generally do not print profane language, or explicitly gory or
sexual imagery, or the names of victimized minors.
If they fail to exercise similar restraint
in dealing with offensive religious images or ideas, is this not a double
standard? Does it not suggest that media sensitivity stops at the door of the
church, mosque, or synagogue?
To insult something any religion holds in
honor is a clear offense. Each religion defines blasphemy its own way---but our
media seems to accept only some of those definitions. When Jewish graves are
desecrated by swastikas, we do not call it Òprovocative expressionÓ– we
call it hate. If someone throws consecrated hosts to the ground and stomps on
them, we Catholics do not regard that as merely provocative – we are
deeply offended by such threatening behavior. So the challenge is to give Islam
the same consideration.
But the story is not merely about free
expression versus sensitivity. For even if the images had not been insulting
ones, there is a second problem.
Idolatry: Traveling through Europe, itÕs not all that difficult
to find churches and shrines where the heads of statues have been
systematically lopped off. In most cases, this destruction dates from the wars
of religion when Protestants and Catholics battled for control of European
terrain. One main difference dividing them was a difference about the use of
images.
There is a long history of what historians
call ÒiconoclasmÓ (Òimage-smashingÓ). The Jewish tradition, for example, has
always opposed pictorial images of revered or holy characters or of sacred
realities. And while orthodox and Catholic Christianity took a different
direction and embraced pictorial imagery as powerful tools in communicating the
faith, Protestantism retrieved the old Jewish opposition to images. So, while Catholic
cathedrals were full of stained glass windows, statues, icons, paintings and
mosaics, Protestant churches featured plain glass, geometric-designed dŽcor,
and even crosses rather than crucifixes. For them, even the body of Jesus impaled
on the cross crossed the line into offensive imagery.
Why?
Underlying all iconoclast traditions (Jewish,
Protestant, or Muslim) is the problem of idolatry. These three traditions share a deep and profound
conviction that true religion must focus on the worship of one God and must at
all costs avoid creating false, competing gods. And since so much of polytheism
was built around Ògraven imagesÓ – that is, idols – these
traditions came to see images as a dangerous temptation, and even a threat to
the monotheism that they all share. Whether they worshipped Yahweh, or the Trinity,
or Allah, they all agreed that images endangered their core beliefs.
With this history in mind, itÕs not very
surprising to learn that Islam generally prohibits not only images of the
prophet Mohammed, but also images of Moses, and Jesus, and other prophets of God.
In most Moslem countries, for example, even movies like The Ten Commandments or Jesus of Nazareth are not allowed public viewing for this very reason.
This history transforms the issue of
Òfreedom of expressionÓ versus Òsensitivity.Ó If Westerners insist that Òfreedom
of expressionÓ trumps any Muslim fear of idolatry, is it any wonder some Muslims
might conclude that Òfreedom of expressionÓ has itself become the WestÕs own
sacred idol, an absolute value, a rival
to God? And would this not reinforce the extremist view, still growing in the Muslim
world, that the West poses an unholy and idolatrous threat to their faith as
well as to their way of life?
The simple fact is, all religious
traditions have their sacred cows. And of course, itÕs now clear that sacred
cows are not the monopoly of religion alone. This controversy shows that Òfreedom of expressionÓ has
become something of a sacred cow for western culture itself.
What this means, in simplest terms, is
that we face a world of clashing values. Peaceful and civilized resolution of
such clashes will demand that we appreciate why others value what they do; it
will require us tolerate and affirm their values even when they are not our
own.
For Catholics, ingrained deeply in a long
tradition of rich religious imagery (which accepts even the abused body of
Jesus), it may be difficult to understand how images in and of themselves would be offensive to someoneÕs faith. Only charity (the
kind of love Jesus meant when he said Òlove your enemiesÓ) can give us the
concentration and imagination to understand why even moderate Muslims are so
deeply aggrieved by such images.
If we fail in that charity, this ÒIceberg
issueÓ could swamp the fragile state of East-West (and Christian-Muslim)
relations. But if our charity drives us to a deeper understanding, this moment
could lead to a more generous reconciliation between the values of the West and
the values of those who feel threatened by it.
In this sense, we Catholics are called to
be brokers of such reconciliation, bridge-builders across a gap which we allow
to widen at our peril—and even our shame.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006
Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com
Dr. SwainÕs
opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.
Bernie Swain has
devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US,
Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer,
teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious
organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy
Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.
His writings include Liberating
Leadership (Harper & Row,
1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic
Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot,
Harvard Theological Review, and
Liturgy.
A lifelong layperson,
he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:
CrossCurrents
Is a weekly subscription
service for parish websites.
Individual Subscriptions
are also available.
For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183