As reported in Variety, the Catholic League has moved to "Defcon 3" in its war with Bob and Harvey Weinstein over the as yet unreleased film "Dogma."

I reviewed this pic earlier, based on reading the script. Follow the link to the review, by all means if you like, but let's just say, my enthusiasm is under control.

Charges are being flung back and forth between the Catholic League and the Weinsteins' attorney, Daniel Petrocelli. The irony is so thick here, you can ladle it on with a trowel. Petrocelli's son attends the Catholic high school from which my sons graduated, yet he is perfectly comfortable shilling for the Weinsteins in their battle against the Catholic League. A slight difference between the public and private personas of Mr. Petrocelli, don't you think?

Petrocelli is also famous as the attorney who got Fred Goldman his huge settlement against O. J. Simpson. The PR was terrific, but so far, all Fred has to show for it is a Heisman Trophy worth about $400.

The League, when under the direction of its late founder, Fr. Virgil Blum, was a great organization, and would have handled this whole matter in a much classier way. Duking it out in the popular press reflects poorly on both sides, and gives unnecessary publicity to the very entity that the league is supposedly trying to suppress.

Dogma star Ben Affleck admits that the film is "definitely meant to push buttons." "The Catholic League has a few buttons of its own to push, and it will not hold back," League president William Donahue said.

Then Petrocelli chimes in with, "Statements like these may be interpreted to announce or imply an intention by the League to go beyond the bounds of legitimate and peaceful dissent or protest, and to stimulate, motivate or incite danger or violence," the letter read. "We intend to hold the League fully accountable for any wrongdoing, injury or damage it causes."

Calling Petrocelli's claims both "ridiculous" and "evil," Donahue says, "What I meant by my statement was that we are going to whip up a media storm about this. This is a fascistic attempt to muzzle our free speech. It will backfire."

This time, spokespeople at Miramax are keeping quiet. For his part, Petrocelli responded in a prepared statement that addressed the irony that a group trying to limit the public's chances of watching a film was now claiming to have its free speech infringed upon.

Is that as ironic as a Catholic fighting the Catholic League?

But this is not really a matter of free speech, at all. It is a matter of pop culture, and what is acceptable. If someone made a film portraying Martin Luther King, Jr. as an alien instead of a minister, African-American groups would rightly protest, and the movie would never get distribution. If I made a WWII film entitled Saving Private Von Schmidt, and told the story from Hitler's point of view, there would be a massive negative reaction.

This is hardly a first amendment question. The Weinsteins have a right to attempt to get distribution for this pic, and the League can say the movie is trash. So what?

Indeed, a movie which blasphemed any religion other than Catholicism to the extent that Dogma does, would probably never even be made, let alone be looking for distribution. There are many reasons why this society hates the Catholic Church, but that is a subject for its own column.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of hearing about "free speech." In fact, there are all kinds of limitations on speech, beyond the famous not being able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Thousands of employees obtain security clearance, which prevents them from talking about aspects of their jobs. If someone were to attempt to market a drink and call it Coca-Cola, he would be in all kinds of trouble. The legal system, too, has various "gag" orders that prevent completely free speech.

And let's not forget the recent U. S. Supreme Court decision in Davis v. Monroe. A fifth-grade boy attempting to kiss a female classmate, and exercising what he thought were his "free speech" rights, was said to have created a "hostile environment" to learning. God forbid that the problem could have been worked out between the respective parents.

In any event, in this case, political correctness was more important than free speech. Anyone care to speculate how this case would have gone if the fifth-grade boy had attempted to kiss another boy?

I guess it was much easier during the time the Framers lived. In a time when morality and decency actually existed, so many things would simply never see the light of day, let alone litigation. Isn't it great that we're not so old-fashioned anymore?