Some are just more equal than others…
Charlie Hebdo vs. Kreuz.Net:
Secular Society’s Anti-Catholic Double Standard
Now that a total of twelve people were killed — including two policemen — in Paris, France, at the editorial offices of the blasphemous and pornographic Charlie Hebdo cartoon newspaper, countless people across Europe are marching in favor of freedom of speech, holding signs that say “Je Suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”), thus expressing their solidarity with the victims of the massacre and their determination to support and enforce people’s rights to believe and express in public whatever they please, regardless of how much it may offend another.
People held demonstrations and candlelight vigils not only in Paris, where a total of 2.5 million was estimated on Sunday, Jan. 11, but also in Amsterdam (Netherlands), Lisbon (Portugal), Cludj (Romania), Stuttgart (Germany), Salzburg (Austria), and Prague (Czech Republic). That is not to say that all those people agreed with the truly disgusting (and often severely anti-Catholic) cartoons printed by the Charlie Hebdo rag, but rather that, even though they might disagree, they clearly support everyone’s right to free speech. That’s always the official reasoning.
At first first sight, this may not seem unusual. After all, isn’t this what European society stands for? Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press?
Indeed, they do stand for this. But what’s remarkable is that although everyone always calls for “equal rights” and “freedom”, when it came to the case of the traditionalist quasi-Catholic Kreuz.Net web site a few years ago, everyone was dancing to a different tune (Kreuz, pronounced “croyts”, is German for “cross”). The popular and influential German-language web site, whose perhaps biggest claim to fame was its relentless denunciation of the vice of sodomy and its promoters in politics and society, was hosted on offsite servers in an undisclosed foreign nation. Often using inflammatory rhetoric to proclaim the Gospel truth regarding the sinfulness of and eternal consequences to perverted sexual practices, gender mainstreaming, feminism, heresy and apostasy, and various other social ills, Kreuz.Net was persecuted not only by Germany’s law enforcement but also its otherwise oh-so-tolerant society at large.
Here is the irony: When Kreuz.Net was under fire, there were no marches in the streets. No demonstrations of solidarity. No candlelight vigils. No “I may not agree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it.” No “Ich Bin Kreuz.Net” (“I am Kreuz.Net”) banners.
All of a sudden, “free speech” was no longer in vogue. German law enforcement, including the secret service, tried feverishly to locate the Kreuz.Net web servers, to no avail. On the internet, petitions were circulated as part of a public “Stoppt Kreuz.Net” campaign to galvanize the masses against the site, various hackers attempted — unsuccessfully — to force the site offline, police reports were filed all over the country, and people suspected of being involved with the site were confronted by journalists. Many other high-profile groups joined in the chorus against the supposed “hate site” as well: Politicians, celebrities, pornographers, the media at large, the sodomite lobby, and — of course — the nation’s Novus Ordo bishops. Somehow everyone seemed to be in agreement: Kreuz.Net had to go.
Of course, we all know that if instead of defending traditional morals and traditional Catholic positions on most issues, Kreuz.Net had used its platform to blaspheme our Lord and our Lady, to make fun of the saints or a real Pope, to promote abortion and euthanasia, or to rail against anything that is normal or decent, no one would have lifted a finger to denounce the web site or to get it shut down.
As the persecution against the quasi-Catholic Kreuz.Net — run by ultra-conservative Novus Ordos friendly towards Sedevacantism (but make no mistake about it: for this battle, secularists do not distinguish the two positions) — became unbearable, the site shut itself down in order to protect the people involved. This was in December 2012. The site has been offline ever since, though a layman in Austria has since created a similar site, which, however, is not nearly as bold or as provocative as the original.
Unlike Charlie Hebdo, Kreuz.Net did not publish offensive, blasphemous, or pornographic cartoons. It did not sell papers in public so that people would have been exposed to the content against their will, as would be the case when approaching a newsstand, for example. No, Kreuz.Net did not impose itself — you could only see its contents if you accessed the site deliberately. Kreuz.Net did not come to you; you had to go to it.
A few weeks before the disappearance of Kreuz.Net, we published a brief article on the persecution of the quasi-Catholic site by German law enforcement. You can find it here:
Kreuz.Net was being accused of “incitement of the people”, a crime under German law, for merely advancing traditional Catholic positions and beliefs, even though often resorting to politically-incorrect, over-the-top rhetoric. But if you’re going to take pride in your country’s supposed endorsement of freedom of speech, then you should know that it is precisely this kind of offensive speech that needs protection (any other speech wouldn’t really need it). The irony is that it was the German media that actually incited the people — incited them to persecute Kreuz.Net, that is.
Welcome to the “free” world of liberal humanism, where people are so tolerant they will seek your imprisonment (or worse) for saying the “wrong” thing, or the right thing in the wrong way. “Tolerance” in this ideology is a one-way street: It exists only to give free reign to its revolutionary agenda — anything that contradicts it will not be tolerated at all but instead denounced as “hate” and made illegal.
In order to give you a better idea of some of the articles put out by Kreuz.Net, see the following links that provide (at times rather rough) English translations:
- German Homo-SS Bites Granite
- Polish Priest Uncovering the Homosexual Mafia in the Church
- David Berger Now Accuses Benedict XVI of Being Homosexual
- Kinsey Belonged Then to the Pederasts We Fight Today
- Graz Bishop Wages Total War on Behalf of Homosexuality
- Austria: Homosexual Counsel Member’s Pastor Resigns
- Victory! Homo-March of Shame Prevented in Belgrade
So, what we saw with Kreuz.Net is essentially a Charlie Hebdo in reverse. Maybe Kreuz.Net can regroup and start publishing its articles again in the columns of Charlie Hebdo. Wonder how that would work out?
But, you may ask, isn’t it wrong to use offensive language?
The answer to this question is, “It depends.” To use insulting language simply in order to offend is indeed wrong. But to use such language is not wrong in and of itself. Holy Scripture says: “…if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers” (2 Mach 15:40). Language that is always nice and kind, regardless of the circumstances, will not be effective, will not attain to its desired end. There are times when people need to be rebuked, and this cannot be done with nice words. There are times when denunciation, ridicule, and satire become an effective tool to communicate an important point. All language must always be uttered within the bounds of charity, to be sure, but charity is not the same as “being nice.”
Our Blessed Lord, who is Charity Incarnate, at times denounced His enemies with “not-so-nice” language when they needed to hear it. We recall His “woes” to the Pharisees in Matthew 23, calling them “foolish” and “blind”, “hypocrites”, “serpents”, “generation of vipers”, “whited sepulchres”, and so on. In the Apocalypse, the apostate Jews are denounced as the “synagogue of Satan” (Apoc 2:9). These words are not nice, but they are charitable, in the true sense of the word, as they aim to bring people to salvation, which is the end for which they were created. Today, charity is all too often confused with mere niceness, and yet one can be very nice but also very uncharitable, as when, for example, one would refuse to evangelize a pagan for fear of offending him.
European and mostly all Western society wants liberty, but it is not the liberty of truth and godliness, which enables and allows us to do what is right and just, but the “liberty of perdition” denounced by St. Augustine and Pope Pius IX (see Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 3). Thus they have made “liberty a cloak for malice”, against the warning of St. Peter (1 Pet 2:16).
As genuine Roman Catholics, we reject the Freemasonic notions of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience per se and as ideals (see Pius IX, Quanta Cura, linked above). Error has no rights. Blasphemy has no rights. False religions have no rights. In a Catholic country, i.e. a country in which the state is indirectly subordinate to the Church and Jesus Christ is rightfully acknowledged as King over society and individuals, there would be no freedom of speech, of the press, or of religion in public (which does not mean that everything that is false, or at odds with Catholicism, in public would forcibly be suppressed — there would certainly be a prudent tolerance — it just means that it would have no rights).
However, no one lives in a Catholic country anymore. In non-Catholic nations, such freedoms of religion, speech, etc., are the highest good, as they are the necessary conditions for the Catholic Church to have the assurance of being allowed to preach the Gospel and thus fulfill her mission to bring salvation to every human being.
So, the Catholic position is summed up in this way: No to freedom of speech per se; no to freedom of speech in a Catholic country. But yes to freedom of speech in non-Catholic countries and societies. This is no contradiction but a consequence of the divine mandate: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:19-20).
The Church must be free. We are not Charlie; we are Kreuz.Net.