I am (this) Charlie!

The murder of Charlie Kirk on September 10th deeply shocked the United States, as well as all those who defend freedom of expression. Kirk expounded Christian principles with the intelligent gallantry of an apostle who, more than conquering, seeks to convince, through rational arguments presented with extraordinary lucidity and charity.

Charlie's firm convictions were striking, especially in a world that favors skeptical and relativistic discourse, but no less surprising was his ability to engage in dialogue with anyone, no matter how antagonistic their views. He did so not in the fanatical manner of fundamentalists, nor with the violence typical of defenders of totalitarian thought, but in a reasonable and kind manner: no matter how aggressive the person questioning him might be, Kirk displayed a genuine attitude of appreciation for that person, even when the ideological disagreement was complete. He enjoyed those conversations, many of which are available online, and genuinely respected the young people he spoke with: he was so cordial that, even if they disagreed with him, no one remained indifferent to his captivating personality.

Although Charlie was not Catholic, he was a genuinely Christian thinker, because his discourse reflected the principles of the Gospel. In this sense, Kirk was the antithesis of politicians who, like Joe Biden, formally claim to be Catholic but then deny this status by promoting and enacting anti-Christian laws, such as those legalizing abortion and euthanasia. Faced with the complicit silence of 'Catholic' politicians who compromise with anti-Christian gender ideology, Charlie was unafraid to confront and deconstruct it, not through arguments of authority, but through reason, highlighting the contradiction of its core axioms, which lack scientific legitimacy.

Charlie Kirk's consistency was dubbed by many as fanatical, fundamentalist, and even associated with omnipresent hate speech, in a desperate attempt to silence, if not outright criminalize, a voice that, after all, was nothing more than the sensible expression of Christian thought, Western philosophical scholarship, and the humanist tradition. Lacking arguments capable of effectively contradicting his rational discourse, supported by irrefutable evidence, the only option was to resort to violence and crime: against the force of reason, the reason of force prevailed, once again.

It is true that Kirk also defended opinionated political theses, as he had no difficulty in asserting himself as a conservative, but his most important legacy lies, above all, in the firmness of his Christian convictions and his extraordinary ability to express them in any environment, even before audiences clearly hostile to his religious Christianity and his philosophical humanism.

Young Charlie's style recalls Saint Paul's speech in Athens. While waiting for Silas and Timothy, the apostle "was troubled within himself, seeing the city full of idols. He reasoned daily in the synagogue with the Jews and with the proselytes, and in the forum with those he met. Some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some said, 'What does this babbler mean?' and others, 'He seems to be preaching foreign gods,' because he was proclaiming Jesus and his resurrection to them" (Acts 17:16-18). Alone, in an adverse environment, Paul fulfills an impossible mission: "Jews demand miracles, but Greeks seek wisdom," but he preaches "Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Chronicles 1:22-23). Despite the difficulty of converting or convincing them, the doctor of the people did not give up and, through wise argumentation, managed to capture their attention.

Saint Luke relates that “Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: 'Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed by and considered your sacred things, I found an altar with this inscription: To an unknown God. Therefore whom you worship without knowing, him I proclaim to you.'” (Acts 17:22-23).

In reality, the inhabitants of Athens, more than religious, were superstitious: being polytheists, they feared the omission of some divinity and, therefore, thought it prudent to raise that altar to the unknown God, lest the said God react with fury against Athenian impiety, since the pagan divinities, known for their bad temper, were prodigal in terrible curses, especially when despised.

It is absurd, of course, to worship what one does not know, but Paul, to win over his audience, instead of lashing out at them with merciless criticism, was able to praise them through a skillful interpretation of that ominous attitude of his. This is how Jesus of Nazareth reacted to the Samaritan woman's statement that she had no husband, even though she had had five, and the man she was then living with was not even her husband... (John 4:18).

Charlie Kirk managed to gather around him many thousands, if not millions, of listeners, mostly young people, who, even if they disagreed with his opinions, listened attentively. He was neither a traditionalist nor an anachronistic nostalgic for other times and eras, as if he were some rare bird, a unicorn, or a singular dinosaur that had surprisingly escaped the extinction of its species. Charlie was the first of a new generation of citizens of the United States of America, the voice of a youth that no longer believes in the outdated principles of "wokism." He brilliantly refuted the defenders of racism, as well as vehemently rejected those who assumed he hated the so-called LGBT community, when in reality he loved them, without approving of their lifestyle.

Because he was young, he was generous and even reckless: he gave himself completely to the crowds and confronted anyone who wanted to discuss any topic with him. His youth also revealed itself in the manifest folly of not taking precautions against a possible attack: he fell victim to his belief in the goodness of humankind, for he assumed that all people, even those who fought him so fiercely, possessed the same goodness that abounded in his heart, completely free from prejudice and malice.

When the Charlie Hebdo journalists were brutally murdered on January 7, 2015, I had no difficulty condemning this vile attack, siding with the victims, as I did with the deeply painful pedophilia scandal in the Church. But I never identified with the aggressive style of this supposedly humorous weekly, nor with its persistent disrespect for Christian and Muslim religious identities, nor with its vile blasphemies, nor with the vulgarity of its caricatures of the sacred, nor with its detestable slander, and above all, with its abject offense against God's holy name. Therefore, although I absolutely condemn, now as then, the vile attack to which these journalists were subjected, I have never been, nor will I ever be, with the grace of God, that secular and decadent Charlie Hebdo. But I identify with this other Charlie, who is firm in his convictions and kind in his dealings with everyone, without exception, in his unfailing testimony of the certainty and beauty of the reasons for Christian hope (1 Pet 3:15).