French Card. Barbarin says same-sex ‘marriage’ opens door to other deviant acts

From CNA:

French cardinal says ‘gay marriage’ opens door to incest, polygamy

Lyon, France, Sep 18, 2012 / 04:06 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon said government approval of gay “marriage” in France could pave the way for the legalization of incest and polygamy. [Yes, indeed, Your Eminence.  But that's not all it will lead to.]

The cardinal made his statements on Sept.14 after a meeting with France’s Interior Minister, Manuel Valls.

In an interview on French radio, Cardinal Barbarin said that same-sex unions constitute “a breakdown in society.”

“This will lead to unspeakable consequences. Next they will want unions between three or four people. One day, perhaps, the prohibition against incest will fall,” the cardinal warned.

French President Francois Hollande promised during his campaign that if elected he would push for the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

A bill that would allow such practices is currently under debate in France and is expected to come before the Council of Ministers on Oct. 24.

“Marriage is a word that represents a wall, in order to ensure that in the most fragile place of society, that is, in a woman who gives life to a child, all of the stable conditions are present to ensure that this takes place under the best of possibilities,” the cardinal said.

You just watch.

The breaking down of this barrier, God’s own barrier, will lead to all manner of group-unions, “marriages” with critters, and, eventually, the barrier some of them really want to bust down, the age taboo.

Mark my word, they will also try to eliminate the age barrier.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Dogs and Fleas, One Man & One Woman, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to French Card. Barbarin says same-sex ‘marriage’ opens door to other deviant acts

  1. wmeyer says:

    Fr. Z, I am afraid they will knock down the age barrier long before they knock down the barrier to bestiality. Though it may be much sooner, on both counts, than I fear.

  2. Dr. K says:

    The what it will lead to argument shouldn’t even be necessary. Gay marriage is heinous enough as it is.

  3. FXR2 says:

    Father,
    One would do well to remember that all of this proceeds from contraception. Once the marital act and it’s pleasures were separated from procreation and raising children the logical conclusion is anything goes. The slope is slippery and we are on a 70 degree slope with out a mogul in sight.
    Fxr2

  4. anilwang says:

    The key problem is that such talk seems like fear mongering to most people. It did back at Humanae Vitae and it still does today. Never mind that it’s true, people don’t listen to slippery slope arguments.

    I think the key reason the message is lost is from most people’s experience slippery slopes rarely are as slippery as we make them out to be. There’s nearly always a counterbalancing force. If a child steal 1 dollar from his parents, it does not automatically mean that they will eventually rob a bank. If someone on a diet eats a few potatoe chips, it doesn’t automatically mean he’ll go on a life long bing.

    IMO, the way to address this is to cut slippery slope examples and explicitly state that it is not a slippery slow, it is a fundamental shift in logic.

    Either sex purely for pleasure is okay or it isn’t. If it is, that there is no reason other than discomfort with changing the status quo for disallowing any sexual act with anyone or any group anything.

    Either marriage is a man made contract (i.e. exchange of services) or a God made covenant (i.e. exchange of people). If it is a man made contract, , that there is no reason other than discomfort with changing the status quo for disallowing any contract relations with anyone or any group or anything.

  5. Dr Guinness says:

    Lucky he’s not an Australian politician… He would have been forced to resign!

    http://bit.ly/OYmtql

  6. JARay says:

    Yes Dr. Guinness!
    For those of you who don’t know (and I suspect that includes the vast majority of you), one of our politicians, Cori Bernadi, has been forced into offering his resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to our Opposition Leader , Tony Abbott, over his remarks that same sex- marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality! Exactly what the Cardinal Phillipe Barbaran of Lyons was saying!
    Tony Abbott has accepted the resignation of Cory Bernadi, and I’m quite sure that it was with a great deal of reluctance because those views would also be Tony Abbott’s views but he is a Catholic politician who gets all sorts of attacks hurled at him because of his Catholicity, and he dearly wants to defeat Julia Gillard at the next election but he must be careful not to upset too many people.
    Already, WITH THE DEFEAT OF AN ATTEMPT AT LEGISLATING FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE here in Australia, the howl is up that Tony Abbott insisted that all his Party voted down this attempt, whereas the Government Party allowed a “conscience vote”. Oddly enough, Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister, voted the Bill down and she, herself, is in a de-facto relationship, but it is heterosexual not homosexual.

  7. VexillaRegis says:

    Yes, they want access to children for different. In some cases children will be forced to have more than max. two custodians – imagine to have to live in five places every month after the split up of a polygamous “”marriage”"? I don’t even want to think about what will happen if the age barrier is removed. Children are seen comodities for grown ups. They are the new slaves.

  8. VexillaRegis says:

    Edit: …for different purposes.

  9. jflare says:

    By the “age taboo”, I assume you mean that older men will wish to marry teen-age girls? Or something else? [I don't mean just teens. I mean also children.]

    anilwang, I’m pretty sure we’ve already tried the argument about sex for pleasure being OK or not. No matter how you phrase it, it comes down to an argument about morals. We’ve already seen how society has happily skipped and danced all over it.

    Again, secular interests do not wish to admit to any possibility that any religious precept might have value in the public square or in law.

  10. Supertradmum says:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/31/world/americas/brazil-polyfaithful-union/index.html

    Happened in Brazil already-polygamy

    and gay rights people have been campaigning for lowering the age of consent through the UN and in the EU as well as in the States. Some Muslim nations also want a lowering of the age of consent in some nations to 12. One can google these movements

  11. Elodie says:

    There’s also in France a growing portion of the population that would like to see sharia law in place. Thus, no resistance from those quarters, should attempts be made to introduce laws in favor of child marriage or polygamy.

  12. Sissy says:

    jflare said: “By the “age taboo”, I assume you mean that older men will wish to marry teen-age girls? Or something else?” [Fr Z said: I don't mean just teens. I mean also children.]

    Let us not forget that there are certain groups claiming that their founder married a girl of 9 (following a three-year-betrothal). Will it become “discrimination” to force them to marry adult women if they decide that following their leader requires them to emulate him in this manner?

    anilwang, if you don’t believe that the “slippery slope” actually exists, then I presume you never read a case law book. The development of law is nothing more than one long slippery slope as the holdings of cases are “extended” year by year. Let’s consider contraception. Griswold lead inexorably to Roe. In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (which overruled Bowers), Associate Justice Scalia made this very point:

    “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by todayís decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”

  13. Sissy: For a view of the nexus of the political/cultural left and radicals of the religion of peace, try Andrew McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

  14. Sissy says:

    Thank you very much, Father Zuhlsdorf. I’ll take a look today. McCarthy also has an important new book out debunking the “Arab Spring” called “Spring Fever”.

  15. anilwang says:

    Sissy, granted laws devolve gradually. But my premise is that at some point the assumptions behind the law change fundamentally. After that point, existing laws are inconsistent with those assumptions, so in time those laws fall in line. It takes time to change laws and society doesn’t like radical change, even if it accepts the new assumptions, so it may happen over decades. But the cause of those changes is not the slippery slope.

    Take the Reformation idea of giving marriage to the state rather than the Church. Since the state cannot sanctify marriages, all it can do is treat it as a contract. Once we accept this, we accept that everything that can be done with a contract can be done with a marriage. So dissolution of the contract is valid (divorce), as is multi-person contracts (polygamy), and contracts between any sex (same sex (simulated) marriage). Its only a matter of time before the laws catch up to those fundamental changes in assumptions and society eventually stops saying one thing with their mouths while believing exactly the opposite.

    Take the assumption that abortion is okay (but tragic) in the case of rape or incest. Your fundamental assumption is that life is expendable if it is unwanted. So one has already accepted euthanasia, abortion/infanticide, and ethnic cleansing of “undesirables”. Its only a matter of time before the laws catch up to those fundamental changes in assumptions and society eventually stops saying one thing with their mouths while believing exactly the opposite.

    If we want to change the laws, we need to change the fundamental assumptions. If we don’t, any victory we get will be at great cost and will ultimately only be a stop gap.

    In the case of the child stealing a dollar and breaking the diet by eating some potato chips, there usually isn’t a change of assumption. The child and the dieter know they are wrong, so usually they repent (or are forced to face the consequences and repent out of shame).

  16. AvantiBev says:

    Sissy: I second Father Z’s recommendation of Andrew McCarthy’s book THE GRAND JIHAD. If you are an American, may I suggest Mark Steyn’s book AFTER AMERICA which has just be issued in soft cover. He is a brilliant writer who can make you laugh as you cry over the moral/cultural/economic decline of America.
    I read both a while ago but just finished Dennis Prager’s STILL THE BEST HOPE which I highly recommend for understanding how and why the Left succeeds and why and how they partner with Islamic fundamentalists while reviling Christians.

  17. AvantiBev says:

    Bestiality? Already here in some circles. But anyone eyeing my sweet little dachsie will be in need of Last Rites (and be bleeding badly from their ankles). I know Catholics are taught that bestiality is wrong only for what it does to us and our souls, but I believe it is a violation of our stewardship and an affront to God the Father’s handiwork. Watch for those on the Left who champion every environmental cause to remain mum on this form of animal abuse or even rally to the side of sexual libertines.

  18. AvantiBev says:

    Why or why didn’t our bishops, priests, nuns and laypeople not fight no fault divorce and shack ups with this kind of force?

  19. Charles says:

    I actually see polygamy as less of an evil than “gay marriage”, for at least it is somewhat ordered to the propagation of the species – it is contrary to a secondary precept of the natural law, and so its immorality is less obvious than gay marriage. You can only marry a member of the opposite sex, but you can “gay marry” whatever the h-e-double hockey sticks you want; a fish, the fishbowl, Lamp! The homosexualists have succeeded lowering the age of consent in Canada and elsewhere – the end-game is to be able to copulate anyone, anytime, anywhere. Anyhoo, I’m off to “gay marry” another cup of coffee. Have a good day all!

  20. LisaP. says:

    anilwang is absolutely right — it’s either right or wrong, and since 40% of 15 to 17 year old Americans are sexually active (both genders) that’s what needs to get stated, because we’re already down the slope. It’s very hard to sell the “I did it / am doing it / he can do it / is doing it but you can’t / they can’t” on essential morality. You can swing it with things that aren’t inherently wrong — e.g. drinking alcohol is not wrong, so may be fine for some and not for others. But murder is not o.k. for him, her, me, you, teenagers, anyone to do.

    Vexilla is brilliant — children *are* the new slaves. This says so much, and is apparent in so many directions.

    AvantiBev, I’m so with you on that one. I’m strongly in line with the Church on homosexual behavior and marriage, etc., but I really wish Church leaders would come out just as strongly about sexual sins that more than 10% (at most) of the population are tempted to. I’m sure there are priests out there that tell people from the pulpit that they shouldn’t divorce and remarry, or use contraception or IVF, or have sex outside of marriage, but I think in 40 years of Sundays (granted, with gaps) I have heard it once. Abortion, a couple three times, and from one guy! But don’t have sex unless you’re married? Either priests figure everyone already knows that one or they figure it’ll hurt everyone’s feelings if they say it?

  21. Johnno says:

    Pedophilia and pederasty are actually the next targets on the list.

    The whole gay tolerance and sex change issues and abortion is taking away parental rights.

    With Parental rights out the window, schools will be required to promote homosexual tolerance in the same way they promote racial tolerance.

    But unlike different cultures or ‘races’, homosexual are defined purely on sexual behavior.

    Thus children will need to be taught about what sex is in order to understand what a homosexual is.

    Already exposure to sex on TV, the internet etc. has slowly been creating a climate where more and more children are becoming ‘sexually active.’ Thus further education and safe-sex ed for younger children is seen as ‘necessary.’

    With children educated about sex an further exposed to sex, more children will logically seek out ‘sex’. An argument will be put fort (and already has been many times) that perhaps children should be introduced to and experience sexual pleasure with a caring and knowledgeable adult. Maybe even with their own parents! Services for contraceptives and abortions will also be there for your little ones, so don’t worry!

    Now with children being granted ‘knowledge of sex,’ they can no longer be considered ‘victims’ that are taken advantage of… and have a ‘right’ to experience sex with ‘responsible’ adults. Parents can’t say anything on the matter. The child has knowledge to fully ‘consent.’

    This is where it’s heading folks. And the fools will use arguments like “Oh, back in Biblical times, girls got married at a really young age.” Yeah… but that was under a responsible patriarchal system out of necessity and also they sure as heck weren’t per-pubescent because the primary purpose was the begetting of children after all. This monster that the homosexual and abortion and other liberal groups are creating is an abomination. If we can kill children in the womb, and harvested for stem cells, then it seems they’re good enough to be used as sex toys too.

    Oh, and you have no right to deny these people and kids this beautiful ‘love’ for each other you hateful pedophobe! You hate children! See you in court!

  22. norancor says:

    Children became the new slaves when procreation became an option. Once parenthood is an option, and not part of your fundamental character as a human being, to have children became something of an act of the will, because abortion is treating the unborn like a slave that can be gotten rid of, at will. Since it is your body, you can do with it whatever you want. Abortion is the new face of slavery.

  23. Sissy says:

    norancor said: “Abortion is the new face of slavery.”

    Very good insight, norancor. Roe v. Wade is the Dred Scott decision of our time. In the words of Yeats, “Our children’s children will say they lied”. 100 years from now (if we’re still here), civilized people will look back on this era with horror.

  24. APX says:

    @Charles
    The age of consent in Canada was actually raised a few years ago. It used to be 14, but now it’s 16. It’s not stopping teenagers from fornicating, it seems. It just gives the justice system another tool for prosecuting. Personally, I’m pushing for it being raised to 18.

    On a more positive note, I think I just found a rough idea of my thesis statement for my philosophy term paper.

  25. VexillaRegis says:

    More on Children are the new slaves:
    People today think that the purpose of having children is to make the parents happy. If the baby in your womb is malformed it can’t make you happy – get an abortion! Children should have a plight to perform well in beauty contests, sports and be able to count to ten before they can sit.

    Now you can even buy your self a infant if you want to. (I’m not talking about adoption, which of course is a very laudable thing.) No, you just order eggs and some sperm and hire a surrogate mother. Then you have a slave.

    Some perverted grown ups think that children and youth should be sexually availiable too. If it feels good to the adult person it can’t be wrong, can it? The perpetrator ties the victim to him- or herself – and has a slave.

    Millstones come to mind.
    Saint Nicholas, pray for all the children of the world!
    Save us all, sweet Jesus!

  26. Michelle F says:

    @ Johnno

    You are right. NAMBLA met in Baltimore in August of last year to work on a way to have pedophilia removed from the DSM, and to have pedophilic relationships accepted by society. I wondered how they, anyone, could argue in support of pedophilic relationships, but you provided an excellent argument. As far as I can tell, it’s nearly air-tight if one accepts a few new assumptions (a nod to anilwang for making that observation regarding slippery slopes!).

    Most of the articles that reported on the NAMBLA meeting are no longer on the Internet, but the University of Maryland, Baltimore County still has one located here: http://my.umbc.edu/news/8601.

    Oh, and if anyone here doesn’t know what the acronym “NAMBLA” stands for, it is “North American Man-Boy Love Association.”

    As for bestiality…

    Peter Singer, who is a professor of Bioethics at Princeton among other things, has already provided an argument that supports bestial relationships. Even though he claims that he does not support bestiality, his argument against what he calls “speciesism,” the belief that mankind is somehow significantly different from other “animals,” makes it impossible to claim that sexual relationships with animals is wrong because we are just another “animal.”

    Most people in the US still are capable of seeing bestiality as disgusting and unnatural, but Singer’s argument and its implication for bestiality is, in my opinion, the perfectly logical conclusion of belief in Evolution.

    For anyone who is interested, a short article from the Journal of Social Philosophy which addresses Singer’s philosophy and how it relates to bestiality is available from the College of Charleston, South Carolina here: http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/teaching/PHIL3000/what%20is%20wrong%20with%20bestiality%20levy.pdf

    I’m afraid that we’re going to be living in Hell on Earth before long.

  27. Sissy says:

    Johnno and Michelle F: you’re right on the money. The first step has already been taken. Some in the APA are arguing that the terms “pedophila” and “ephebeophilia” should be replaced with the more generic and innocuous term “chronophilia” to indicate a person who has a preference for someone of a different age. It sounds so harmless. My husband is older than I, so I guess I’m a chronophile, too. There is also a move to have this new terminology – chronophilia – reclassified so that it will not be listed as a paraphilia. Instead of being a “disorder”, it will just be regarded a normal variation in sexual attraction. The left uses our language to lull us into gradual acceptance of their deviant behaviors.

  28. Indulgentiam says:

    There is no question that humans in the earliest stages of development, i.e children, are the culture of deaths target. If they can’t kill them early then they will pervert and poison as many as they can. Case in point obamas “safe school Czar” Kevin Jennings. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house. “GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN.”(Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) Jennings has strong ties to nambla.
    “The latest hit against Jennings is a report at Gateway Pundit.   This report details the way in which Jennings’ gay/education/political activism group, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), actively pushes schools to include in their reading lists extremely sexually explicit books aimed at kids in the 7th through 12th grades.  And when I say sexually explicit, I’m not talking about coy allusions to hand-holding, kissing and warm fuzzy feelings.  Gateway Pundit carefully documents precisely the kind of material Jennings’ organization wants your children to read. It is graphic.  No child — gay, straight, confused, whatever — should be reading this kind of material.  The listed books include pornographic pictures, descriptions of sado-masochistic acts, graphic descriptions of sexual acts, etc.”. Read the rest here—http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2401119/posts. Eye opening stuff

    Our Lady Queen of Victory pray for us!

  29. wmeyer says:

    Sissy, they cannot win the argument, so they change the definition, effectively pulling the rug from under us. These behaviors cease to be aberrant, and become matters of preference. This is the rot in our society.