"Equally deplorable"?

A few days ago, in response to my complaints about the reponse of "the Vatican" to the outbursts of violent hysteria brought on by some anti-radical-Muslim cartoons, Fr. Araujo quite rightly pointed out to me that the Holy See's diplomatic corps has to take into account many things -- including the religious freedom and welfare of Christians in countries that are inhospitable to Christianity -- when crafting its statements and stances.  Fair enough. 

Still, this -- from the Vatican press office -- is infuriating, offensive (rg:  No, I'm not going to burn anything), and shockingly misguided.  After stating that "the right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers" (rg:  actually, the "right to freedom of thought and expression" does imply the legal right to say many things that cause offense), the statement continues:

[It] must be said immediately that the offenses caused by an individual or an organ of the press cannot be imputed to the public institutions of the corresponding country, [RG:  so far, so good] whose authorities might and should intervene eventually according to the principles of national legislation.  [RG:  Bad.  The public authority should not intervene merely because political expression "offend[s]" the "religious sentiments of believers.] Therefore, violent actions of protest are equally deplorable. [What?  The "violent actions of protest" -- e.g., killing people, burning buildings, threatening beheadings, etc. -- is "equally deplorable" to cartoons that "offend[]" "religious sentiments"?]  Reaction in the face of offense cannot fail the true spirit of all religion. Real or verbal intolerance, no matter where it comes from, as action or reaction, is always a serious threat to peace.

I am simply not able to imagine what felt diplomatic or political needs could justify such a ridiculous claim of equivalence.