Fr. Glenn: Warning … Possible Danger Ahead

By Fr. Glenn Jones:

Almost every week of the year the Catholic Church has memorials of various saints—the apostles, notable pastors, notable scholars of the past ("doctors" of the Church), and particularly charitable and self-sacrificing individuals such as Elizabeth of Hungary. And, almost every week, there are memorials of martyrs—various men and women of the very early days of faith prior to the Roman emperor Constantine granting recognition to (and eventually converting to) Christianity.

But before Constantine the Romans held a number of persecutions of Christianity, no doubt using some similar rhetoric we see in various politicians today. Those ancient Romans censored "hate speech" which denied their traditional gods, and prohibited, persecuted and even killed those who spread "misinformation" about the Christian Way—Nero scapegoating them to the point of hanging them up and lighting them afire.

So, when modern politicians speak about censoring "hate speech" and "misinformation", it can't help but raise red flags not only in secular arenas, but perhaps even more so in religious circles. From ancient times to today there have been partisans of various religions who try to silence—often by killing—those of the "wrong" religions. Tragically, Catholics and Protestants persecuted one another for centuries even though both fall under the Christian faith umbrella.

Even here in America, sections of the early colonies and other European settlements might outlaw the "other". Catholics could not hold office in New England and the Carolinas, and priests were arrested in Virginia. Some Quakers were hanged. Native Americans were forced to abandon their traditional religions. We might think of how Islam, too, is separated into factions—Shi'ite and Sunni the ones we hear of the most, often one persecuting the other. And, of course, the Jews have tended to be beaten up by just about everyone at sometime in the past ... and often in the present.

So much did the founders of this nation realize the importance of the rights of religion and speech that the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." The founders knew (and had experienced) that when a certain speech or religion is persecuted or prohibited, then those in power can prohibit—under pain of imprisonment or worse—any speech which criticizes them, or even any speech/information (or religion) which they dislike. We've seen that in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba and other dictatorships.

So how ironic it is, then, that even some news outlets are jumping on the "limit speech" and "misinformation" bandwagon, because upon them the shackles will close first should such censorship come to pass. And then there's the likelihood (virtual certainty) that when powerbrokers have a de facto monopoly on speech, they themselves can (will) put out misinformation favorable to themselves to deflect from any criminal, persecutory or simply evil behaviors on their own part used to amass more control ... more power. This is the M.O. of dictatorship: demonize one's opponents and deflect criticism by accusing them of what they themselves are doing, while simultaneously preventing those opponents from responding or presenting their case. Truth is labeled "misinformation" and suppressed.

Of course, no one likes that we are hammered by true misinformation—that which is highly slanted, or bald-faced lies, to further selfish agendas. Wouldn't it be lovely it everyone simply were truthful. Yet artificial intelligence (A.I.) increases the likelihood of misinformation manifold, creating the ability to weave whole fictitious narratives with ease.

But who would one put in charge of censoring "misinformation"? As is taught in every high school science class, everyone has innate bias in some way, even those who sincerely guard against it. In science, these particular data points be used and these apparent outliers be discarded, or do the outliers themselves point to some other conclusion? Each researcher may interpret data in the way he thinks is most likely, or—as happens not infrequently—the unscrupulous may interpret (or manipulate) data in a way that is simply advantageous for himself.

Politics by its very nature attracts many who are self-serving, narcissistic, etc.; this has long been recognized even from ancient times. In our increasingly secularist society, religious speech is already under attack even in ostensibly "free" countries. In Britain, for example, people have been arrested even for simply praying silently near abortion clinics, much less vocally expressing their opinion. Even those who support abortion can easily see the danger of such creeping precedents against "thought crimes". Will public expressions of faith eventually become outlawed? We shouldn't dismiss the possibility; we need only remember the persecutions of religion in many countries in the past—almost all of them dictatorships. But countries become so when people give up (or it is taken) the ability to speak freely, often in naïve trust of, and hope in, some charismatic leader. We can think of those countries mentioned above with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, etc.—all controlling the narrative via censored media.

So, why is a Catholic priest writing about this? Because of the danger to faith and to the faithful, and to all who seek truth. Yes, Christians believe in Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life, and we long to assist those seeking truth and the ability to explore the faith freely. But if faith and expressions of faith are censored, is the "censoring" of Christians themselves—or anyone else who falls out of favor—far behind? Suppression of faith itself may loom—just as experienced in only a hundred years ago—priests and faithful executed simply for attending Catholic Mass.

Freedom of speech should not be a partisan issue; it should be protected vigorously by all, because conservative or liberal ... Republican, Democrat or other, it affects all. Without it freedom itself dies.

The motto of the Washington Post is "Democracy Dies in Darkness". When is it darker than when the light of truth can be shut out?

Editor's note: Rev. Glenn Jones is the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and former pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church in Los Alamos.