Blasphemy

In June 2011 there was a three-day presentation on Hispanic Studies at University College Cork (UCC). The authorities saw fit to invite one Alma Lopez, a self-avowed lesbian who makes a selling-point of a computer-generated parody of Our Lady of Guadalupe as a woman in a bikini of roses, with a bare-breasted angel at her feet. She was to talk about "Our Lady and Other Queer Santas", and was offering to sign copies of her book entitled "Our Lady of Controversy: Alma Lopez's 'Irreverent' Apparition", which features that same blasphemous collage of Our Lady of Guadalupe on its cover.

UCC were doing no favour, either to Ms Lopez or to the name of UCC, to pander to her mischief. Other kinds of sin offend Our Lord through His creatures, but blasphemy is a direct insult in His Face. And to do this through His Mother is, to put it mildly, highly imprudent. "Be not deceived: God is not mocked".

There were a number of protests asking UCC to cancel her talks, to avoid such grave blasphemy against Our Lady’s spotless purity, and to disassociate UCC from such puerility. When UCC did not do so, a formal Garda complaint was filed under the Defamation Act (2009).

There was a spontaneous 3-day gathering outside the gates of UCC, protesting against this blasphemy, with the Rosary being said in Reparation, and a leaflet distributed. The text of the leaflet is given at the bottom of this page. On the second day, a group staged a counter-protest, declaring they were supporting the Right of Free Speech.

As far as I can tell (not being legally-trained), there is in fact a prima facie case that the law was broken, & that UCC faces prosecution. An Garda Síochána have proceeded wih a formal investigation.

I was one of the Anti-Blasphemy protesters who had a few moment's talk with the “Free Speech” placard-carriers. We had not much time for talk, being occupied with trying to dish out leaflets (often to the same passer-by). I liked some of the things on their leaflet, especially the invitation to contact them via Facebook, and I thought we had an amicable and positive conversation.

I wanted to remind them just how the draconian 2009 Blasphemy Law actually came about. One of them was incensed (as was I) that it was just quietly sneaked in. Actually, it quietly got slipped into the agenda just after a trade Mission to Saudi Arabia, and was rushed through the Dáil a month or so later, in the last week (or maybe it was the very last day) before the Dáil closed for the elections. Why the urgency? Or am I the only cynical person here? I’ll say nothing and go on thinking.

As I said to the demonstrators, it’s not what you read in the papers that you should take especial note of, but what has demonstrably happened, yet which DOESN’T get reported in the papers. We discussed some examples. My further advice was to be careful you know who your real friends and enemies are. One comment made was that it would have been too expensive to hold a referendum on the passage in Bunreacht na hÉireann, and so the simpler procedure of Dáil legislation was carried out. I reminded them that it wasn’t too expensive to make us sit the re-take for the Nice/Lisbon Referenda after we had Got The Answer Wrong….

I commended their dedication in standing out in the rain, but I felt that we were not tackling exactly the same target.

I told them I concede that, in a pluralist society, we can't have just a simple-minded Law Against Blasphemy. That is an issue worthy at least of further discussion, especially over an agreed definition of blasphemy.

Just for a start: is ‘Blasphemy’ to be defined as a gratuitous insult against a holy person, or is it ‘blasphemy’ simply to make a bald statement such as “Jesus Christ is not God” or “Mohammed was not God’s specially-chosen prophet who ascended into Heaven from Jerusalem”? Or are we to strangle in the new totalitarian PC jungle of "Blasphemy is what could conceivably offend someone, anywhere, any time"?

Their leaflet said: “ We believe that religious and non-religious people alike should be protected from harm and incitement to harm, but religion just like economics and politics should be open to criticism.” Agreed. As a boy I was taught, ‘there are only two types of criticism: justified and unjustified”. If we believe we are subject to the latter, we should be able to say, “I believe you are wrong, for the following reasons…”

But ... Alma Lopez’s pastiche (was it photoshop?) was not criticism but crude insult. That is why I was there. If those responsible at UCC find themselves in hot water for inviting her – knowing her track record – it serves them right.

+++ Leaflet:

+++

“At University College Cork, in June 2011, there will be a presentation featuring a picture of Our Lady of Guadelupe in a bikini”.

Dear friends,

blasphemy is not a joke.

If we reject Him in this life, we have

His promise that He will reject us at the Judgment.

‘God is not mocked’ (Gal 6:7).

‘He who acknowledges Me before men, him shall I acknowledge before My Father in Heaven’. ‘But he who rejects Me before men, him also will I reject before My Father in Heaven’. ‘And he that denies Me before men shall be denied before the Angels of God.’ [Mt 10, Lk12]

We must take sides.

Other sins offend God by ignoring the wise and good commandments He has instituted at the price of His Blood on the Cross. But blasphemy is a direct and personal insult to Himself or to His loved ones.

But doesn’t a protest only give the thing publicity?

Did Saint Veronica worry about publicity when she wiped Our Lord’s Face on the way to Calvary? ‘Even dogs come to the defence of their masters. For my part, I would rather die than remain silent as God is blasphemed’. (S. Jerome)

Are you not making a big issue of a harmless piece of cultural research?

Are we not a little tired of these insults in the name of Art? Would our speaker, one can wonder, have dared to show a picture of Mohammed’s favourite daughter in a bikini, or of the Queen of England in the bath, on any pretext whatever?

Is not religion a private matter of opinion?

When Our Lady of Guadelupe first appeared to the humble farmer in Mexico, a dead man was raised to life in front of thousands.

Their previous religions had involved providing a constant stream of fresh human blood to keep the sun shining. Whole tribes were plundered to keep up the supply. Children were ritually tormented and sacrificed to keep the rains coming. The more they cried, it was believed, the more it would rain that year. The High Priest wore a fresh human skin as a cloak for several weeks, allowing it to decay on his back. Since they believed that this was how to keep the world going round, this is what they did. The sacrifices were highly public. There was no private opinion in it. Yes, religion counts very much.

That is why God the Father sent His Son to teach us the Way to Eternal Life, and to take our punishment on Himself: born of the Virgin Mary to be our Queen and Mother.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ” (John 3:18). After all this, are we going to mock our Lord and Saviour, not to mention His Holy Mother?

One of their gods was the winged serpent Quetzalcoatl. Our Lady of Guadelupe declared herself in the Aztec language as “Coatlaxopeuh” – “She who Crushes the Serpent”. What an apt and strange correspondence with the ancient prophecy in the very first Book of the Bible: “To the Serpent He said: ‘I will set an enmity between thee and The Woman, between thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel”. (Gen 3:15, Vulgate).

When the dead man was raised, there was a huge explosion of joy. Whole tribes presented themselves for Baptism, to place themselves under the True God and the Queen of Heaven.

We must take sides.