Or you know, maybe headline hungry press are misrepresenting statements.
Because that is what they did. Misrepresented statements and a flawed translation.
Are you going to tell me religious violence doesn't stem from misrepresenting statements from figures of the religion as advocation of violent solutions? He gave enough of a baseless statement that it can be ran with now. He's saying the right to free speech is not absolute. You should not insult Allah, or Jesus. If you do, then retribution isn't all that bad, right guys?
Okay, got it. The pope is not allowed to call for mutual respect because extremists might utilize it to justify actions against people insulting them.
I must say, you got this thinking like an extremist down to perfection. Ignoring large part of statements, drawing conclusions that are diametrically opposed to what is being said.
Thing is though, that with such a mindset any statement becomes dangerous.
More context:
But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.
"Should" or "Can" makes no difference. He outright supports violent responses to being insulted, whether through religion or personally.
Even more context:
It's true that you cannot react violently. But, if Dr. Gasbarri, my great friend, says something against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. It's normal. You cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others, you cannot make fun of the faith.
How you can read that and conclude violence is supported is beyond my understanding. Especially knowing the more correct translationEven more so when reading the entire text before and after it. Violence is not justified, as stated litterally. However, it can be expected to happen.
This statement is not directed to those who are insulted, it's directed to those who insult. It's a cautionary statement, telling people to be tactfull around others.