Joan of Arc on Trial Again–This Time Not for Heresy, But for Homophobia

Joan of Arc was a courageous young Frenchwoman who lived in the fifteenth century–a hero in her native France, and a Roman Catholic saint.

Nicknamed the “Maid of Orleans,” Joan claimed to receive visions of St. Michael the Archangel, Saint Margaret of Antioch and Saint Catherine of Alexandria, instructing her to support France’s King Charles VII and recover France from English domination in the Hundred Years’ War.

Joan was captured, put on trial for a number of charges including heresy, and convicted by a court heavily weighted with British clergy and supporters.  Joan was burned at the stake at the age of 19, and she was beatified in 1909 and declared a saint by the Catholic Church in 1920.

*     *     *     *     *

From April 29 through May 9, the city of Orleans celebrated the 585th anniversary of Joan’s death with a festival which included medieval dances and historical reenactments.

This year, though, the actress chosen to portray Joan is 17-year-old Felicite Lemaire de Marne.  Felicite is a devout Catholic, and on her Facebook page the young woman had linked to Manif pour tous.  She participated in massive demonstrations organized by Manif pour tous in February.

Call for a Boycott

So on May 6, Christophe Desportes-Guilloux, a member of the French Socialist Party and of the organization HES (Homosexuality and Socialism), wrote an article urging people to boycott the 2014 Joan of Arc festival.

According to Desportes-Guilloux, Felicite is a “homophobe” who cannot effectively “represent all the citizens of Orléans” as she should.

Felicite responded, insisting that she is neither homophobic nor anti-government.  “I condemn all acts of homophobia and violence,” she insists, “but I have my beliefs; and Joan of Arc has no connection with my private life.”

That’s not sufficient for Desportes-Guilloux; and Felicite was forced to remove any reference to Manif pour tous from her Facebook page, and to issue a public apology.

What Is Manif pour tous?

La Manif pour tous is a French organization which is equivalent, perhaps, to America’s National Organization for Marriage.

Manif pour tous argues that the “Mariage pour tous” bill currently under consideration in France wreaks havoc on the Civil Code, replacing the words “husband” and “wife”, “father” and “mother” by unisex, undifferentiated terminology (notable “parents”).  According to the organization’s website:

This bill intends to erase sexual differentiation and complementarity from the law, according to Manif pour tous, and jeopardize the foundation of human identity: sexual difference and the resulting structure of parentage. It paves the way for a new, “social” parentage unrelated to human reality. It creates a framework for a new anthropological order founded not on sex but on gender, that is, sexual preference. 

Additionally, Manif pour tous argues,

With plenary adoption for two men or two women, children will be considered, by law, born of two parents of the same sex, thus willingly deprived of a father or a mother. They will be deprived of half their origins. This is profoundly discriminatory and unjust for children.

And Manif pour tous warns that the “Mariage pour tous” legislation will inevitably lead to assisted reproductive technologies for all:

The number of adoptable children of France is smaller than the number of couples waiting to adopt; hence, same-sex couples will adopt children created by PMA (procréation “médicalement” assistée– medically assisted procreation) for women, and by GPA (gestation pour autrui– surrogacy) for men. Some hundred députés (representatives) have sponsored amendments calling for these developments, and the Prime Minister has announced they would be featured in a “complementary law on the family”. 

Here is a brief video from the February 2014 protest organized by Manif pour tous.

Read the full story about Felicite and the boycott on


Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!


THE O ANTIPHONS and the Beatles: Great Secrets Revealed?
Common Core Architect: Faithful Catholic Schools Shouldn't Fear New SAT
Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow.... My Farewell Tribute to Patheos
He's Coming! The Great O Antiphons
  • BTP

    Look at her, my friends: clearly a threat to the Republic. Never mind; if she hides her viewpoint and apologizes for these crimes, perhaps we will let her go.

  • Manny

    How can the French boycott Joan of Arc? Have they lost their minds? Only the socialists can take a six hundred year national identity and destroy it. But they have picked on the wrong saint. There is no way anyone can think they can fight St. Joan of Arc and win. What a pretty young lady, the actress portraying St. Joan.

  • Ioannes Martialis

    Homosexuals have no future. There are plenty of good Christians around, and if the pagans and unbelievers will not follow their good examples, there are plenty of bad Christians to present to them an alternative for their hardness of heart.

  • ahermit

    Manif pour tous is a hate group:

    “On April 23, the Marriage for All bill passed 331 to 225
    in the French Parliament. Yet an unfortunate externality of the bill’s
    passage is an alarming spike in homophobic hate crimes in France.
    Anti-gay extremists have headed violent and fascist protests against
    police, sent explosive letters to French Parliament, defaced a French
    LGBT center, and randomly attacked gay men in Paris, Bordeaux, Nice, and Lille.

    The anti-gay French movement is spearheaded by a group called Manif pour Tous, led by comedienne Frigide Barjot…. since the passing of
    Marriage for All bill, Bajot was quoted on record on April 12 saying, “Hollande wants blood, and he’s going to get it. Everyone is furious. We live in a dictatorship…”

    • $24660570


    • HenryBowers

      Prophesying blood is not intending blood. Read your Anscombe.

      • ahermit

        Violent speech and violent protests are more than just “prophesying.” If you read the article at that link you’ll find that assaults on homosexuals in France increased by 30% after anti-gay groups like Manif started their protests. Are you going to try and tell me there’s no link?

        • HenryBowers

          I won’t try, I’ll just say it: correlation is not causation. You’re aware that the Church issued this same warning in 1986, while condemning all violence whatsoever?

          “when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

          • ahermit

            Correlation is not causation, but it is often a good indicator of where the cause can be found. When the Church persists in dehumanizing and demonizing the GLBT community it is contributing to the marginalization and hatred and yes to the violence as well.

            And groups like Manif, which don’t shy away from violent rhetoric and even open violence in their demonstrations are clearly part of the problem.

          • HenryBowers

            You’re mistaken on 2 fronts. (1) The Church is the ONLY entity upholding the dignity of homosexual persons, i.e. that they are called to chastity (as are all singles) by supernatural grace. (2) Violence against cops is not violence against homosexuals. Protesters couldn’t care less what homosexual persons have always been able to do: pair up and call themselves ‘married.’ What protestors rightly resist is being forced to call sodomitical acts the same thing as coitus; they will never be the same thing.

          • ahermit

            The Church denigrates, demonizes and dehumanizes homosexuals by reducing their very identity to the status of a sin and by seeking to impose it’s medieval morality on everyone, including non-Catholics.

            And violence against the police is just a the tip of the iceberg. Do you think someone who ill throw flares rocks and bottles at the police would hesitate to attack an unarmed gay person?

            How do you explain the rise in homophobic violence in France if there’s no link here?

          • HenryBowers

            Can you show us an example of what you mean in the 1st paragraph? No one’s identity is their activity; only God can pull that off. Same-sex attraction might deeply color someone’s personality, but so do many negative traits, so I don’t see the point in emphasizing that. I think violence is justifiable only as a last resort. That’s why we are not justified in assassinating abortionists: because the woman still has the freedom to leave the clinic if she wants to. With same-sex “marriage,” however, the citizen is deprived, by the lethal force of the state, of his human right to call coitus its own object. Since he has no avenue for appeal under an SSM tyranny, the free man secures his human rights only by violence.

          • ahermit

            Identity is more than “activity” its about who and how you love; that’s a big part of anyone’s personality. Christians denigrate homosexuals by comparing their love to things like alcoholism or theft or greed.

            You say you think violence is justified as a “last resort…” Do you think violence against homosexuals is justified?

            And you’ll have to explain this one to me..” With same-sex “marriage,” however, the citizen is deprived, by the lethal force of the state, of his human right to call coitus its own object.”

            What does that mean? What exactly are you deprived of if someone else gets to live their life without being persecuted or demeaned just because of who they love? And how does this justify violence?

          • HenryBowers

            I think we need to distinguish love for cookies from love for people, and consider the possibility that true love entails abstinence from non-coital sexual goals. Such goals imply that a person can be fulfilled instrumentally, when in reality the body is not an instrument, but is as intrinsic to the human person as is her mind. Thus, it is unreasonable to conscript another’s body for goals that do not satisfy the rational person, or which are themselves unintelligible. Since friendship, health, and play can be wholly instantiated without sex organs, we can never _know_ that sodomitical acts are reasonable; we can only _feel_ that they are, and thus they are unjustified. I don’t believe any assault is justified, but the violence of breaking up lewd conduct certainly is.

          • ahermit

            Why are you obsessed with other people’s sex lives? Do you really think that’s all that matters here?

            My wife and I have been happily, heterosexually married for thirty years; so yes I think I do know what real love is all about. And I can see that same love andcommitment in the relationships of my gay friends and family.

            That you can reduce that love to nothing more than”lewd conduct” is a good example of the kind of demeaning, insulting, dehumanizing stuff I’m talking about.

            But you haven’t answered my question; what exactly do you think you are being deprived of if my Aunt and her partner of 40 years are given the same legal rights and benefits as any other married couple?

            And if you don’t condone assault what exactly did you mean when you said ” Since he has no avenue for appeal under an SSM tyranny, the free man secures his human rights only by violence”?

            What kind of violence are you suggesting is appropriate here?

          • HenryBowers

            Resisting fascist government goons is not a civil assault, but an act of just war. You’re begging the question that your aunt is granted “rights” at all, for I can’t be granted the right to give birth or wag my tail if I’m a human man. Marriage is older than any government, and so is not granted by any government; it can only be recognized, ignored, or persecuted. Under SSM, your aunt is granted groundless entitlements, a phenomenon not unusual in America, especially among the indigent middle and lower classes. My primary objection, then, concerns not another groundless entitlement (although those are bad too), but my being forced to call non-coital bonds the equivalent of coital bonds. That’s nothing but a naked, raw abuse of state power. Call an apple an orange because we say so. We don’t have to define apples or oranges for you, we don’t have to justify this maneuver with reason, because we simply “love” doing it, and if you oppose us, you’re a bigot. That’s tyranny in its basest form.

          • ahermit

            I was talking about the fact that assaults on homosexuals in France have increased dramatically since the issue of marriage came to a head. Is that what you call “resisting fascist government goons?

            I’m asking about your statement: ” ” Since he has no avenue for appeal under an SSM tyranny, the free man secures his human rights only by violence”?”

            What “tyranny” are you talking about exactly, and how much violence are you prepared to commit?

            You’re not being forced to do anything. You don’t know my Aunt or her partner (not that this stops you from passing judgment n them and the value of their relationship!) so how can their access to the legal rights and benefits attached to marriage affect you at all? What do you lose if they get tax and social security benefits?

          • HenryBowers

            Interesting questions. I think SSM affects the morale of actually married couples, by implying that the latter’s extra risk and sacrifice — the paradigm of fertility — is not worth any special recognition in society above the proclvities of two guys who like to [fill in the blank]. [Knowingly infertile couples are actually married because they can perform coitus, and they don’t lower society’s morale, because at a glance, their fertility status is unknown.] The morale hit caused by SSM reinforces the notion that kids are a disastrous burden, a luxury purse to be worn only by the rich. SSM discourages men from living up to the consequences of their sexual acts, since men are, in the eyes of the SSM state, fundamentally replaceable by a woman, even for the sake of their own kids. It’s all nonsense. It seems a bit callous to ask a victim of intimidation and rape by his elected officials how much violence he’s willing to commit. The better question is how much violence a nominalistic tyranny is willing to commit. The only logical next step is for SSM to call all their own actions ‘love,’ including death camps for the opposition.

          • ahermit

            Well like I said, I’ve been married for thirty years and I can’t imagine something like someone else being able to get married having any affect at all on my relationship with my wife. If someone’s marriage is so weak that it’s morale can be shaken by a misguided perception of someone else’s relationship then I submit that it wasn’t much of a marriage to begin with.

            Someone else’s decision not to have children has absolutely no bearing on how much I value my own And, as I’ve pointed out before, same sex couples are able to have children and raise families as well, which, contrary to your hand-wringing concern, would seem to reinforce the idea that being a parent is a precious and valued role

            There’s nothing here that imposes any kind of burden on anyone else’s marriage. You’re inventing imaginary hurts where none exist.

            And comparing extending the legal rights and benefits of marriage to same sex couples to rape is another good example of the dehumanizing and demonizing attitude I was talking about earlier. Not to mention a vile insult to real rape victims.

            Are you really so shallow and self absorbed that the idea of someone else being happy in their relationship is like being raped to you?

            And death camps!? Where is this nonsense coming from? Are you out of your mind? This is more demonizing and another vile insult, this time to the real victims of the Nazis who suffered far worse than having to see someone else be happily married.

            I pity you, frankly. How sad to go through life with such a fragile delicate sense of your own worth that other people’s happiness seems such a threat to you.

            And you’re still dodging the question; how much violence are you willing to commit to prevent other people from getting married?

          • HenryBowers

            “Seems such a threat.” Yes, tell the disenfranchised cake-chefs, flower-arrangers, teachers, graduate students, religious leaders and bartenders that it’s an imaginary threat. Tell the honest employees of Mozilla, NBA athletes with a shred of freedom and manhood remaining. I choose my analogies carefully, and they aren’t pretty, they’re horrible, just like SSM. Compassion for the same-sex attracted is from Christ. SSM is satanic. The culture wants to humiliate and injure the Church. We can blame protestant fundamentalists for lacking compassion, we can blame less-than-erudite Catholic laity for lacking knowledge, but martyrs call a spade a spade. I know I’m too scared to die for any cause; I just hope to do what I can. [P.S. No violence is required to prevent what can’t happen anyway.]

          • Veronica Jensen

            Henry Bowers you have done a wonderful job of debating ahermit. He wrote of people being obsessed with someone elses sex life, but it would seem to be him. I have observed this type of mentality wherever SSM is discussed. No common sense argument seems to penetrate their willful blindness to the absurdity of SSM. Not the laws of nature or the laws of biology seems to get through to them.
            They tend also to suffer a persecution complex by proxy, since he identified himself as straight, if I read him correctly.
            SSM supporters also have an inability to see that their constant harping about sexual preference is how they are identified by their sexual preference and nothing else.

          • ahermit

            On the contrary, I’m looking forward to the day when two men or two women being together as a married couple is not seen as anything remarkable at all. That’s the whole point of all this; it just shouldn’t matter.

          • Veronica Jensen

            Even if the whole world approved of evil, it would still be evil. Even no one spoke up for the truth that still would not change the truth. Same sex marriage is evil and those that will practice it or those that will approve of it will still have to contend with their own consciences. That is the voice that will never be silenced.

          • ahermit

            Why is it evil for people to love one another?

          • ahermit

            Yes because asking a baker to bake a cake is just like being raped or sent to the gas chambers…

            And you’re still not answering my question.

          • HenryBowers

            I don’t answer questions that have no point. Do you stand outside miltary bases and ask the soldiers: ‘How much force are you willing to use if the enemy violates your God-given dignity?’ You’re fascinated at the spectacle of Christian martyrdom, as were several Roman dictators. Unlike them, I hope you repent.

          • ahermit

            How does someone else’s marriage violate your dignity?

            And are you now saying that the kind of violence we reserve for the military is justified to use against same sex couples?

            When you answer with these vague metaphors it’s hard to get a sense of what you really mean.

            I don’t see any Christian martyrs here, by the way; just a few whiners complaining that their bigoted opinions are being challenged.

  • Tobesograteful

    All VICTORY to Saint Joan!!! She did not COMPROMISE under all possible threats!!

  • Chauffeur

    Oddly, those who demand “tolerance” toward people’s sinful behavior aren’t tolerant of people’s religious beliefs.

    • ahermit

      The difference being that they will happily leave you alone to believe whatever you want while you are fighting to keep the from their lives according to THEIR beliefs…

      • Chauffeur

        Ahermit, this article is about a particular group requiring that an actress adjust her views regarding homosexuality in order to be employed. Is the other side doing that to you? Here in the USA, that would be considered discrimination and it’s considered “intolerant”. But is she preventing someone from employment? Other than having an opinion contrary to yours, what has she done wrong that deserves a sanction? Do you see the inequity, or do you choose not to?

        • ahermit

          This is about someone being criticized for her association with a hate group that advocates and incites violence against others.

          Do you think she should be immune form criticism? Free speech is a two way street; she’s free to express her opinion and others are free to respond to those opinions.

          And isn’t it hypocritical for the anti-gay crowd to complain about discrimination when they are the one’s trying to preserve the discrimination that exists against homosexuals?

          • Chauffeur

            Woah, woah, woah…. what “hate” and “violence” are you alleging? Is SHE guilty of that or is it some isolated incident of a few? (Or is there any at all?) My disagreement with the gay “lifestyle” has nothing to do with hate. (I don’t hate you!) But the gay folks need to label those of us who disagree with them as haters – apparently to justify their hate for us. We don’t hate you. I agree that we’re all allowed to express opinions – but for the gay folks, it goes beyond that. People lose their jobs.

  • Parris

    Well as a gay Catholic man who actually practices the faith – regularly – as well.

    No I am not same sex attracted. I am not fixated upon sex like those of you having issues with us seem to be. Are you not getting any – or just poor quality ? Try a toy occasionally. It’s allowed.

    I think she’d make a lovely Jeanne D’arc. Jeanne was hardly gender conformist when you think about it.. Go for it.

    Love to see a good remake. Last thing on my mind watching it will be who sleeps with whom.

    Catholic voyeurs. So kinky. I know people used to pay me for this stuff – ‘talk durdy’ and beat them with big sticks.

    • $24660570

      toy occasionally? sounds like you have some issues. You need to try and stay on topic : and yes Felicite Lemaire de Marne would indeed make a great Jeanne d’Arc

  • Proteios

    Im just glad that as France falls to the cult of mohommed and that Islamic bullsh#t, that they are distracting the takeover with homophobia, name calling and the the usual Orwellian newspeak. Way to go France…the former Holy Roman Empire. Fall to the saracens

  • $24660570

    crazy that all these folks who want to counter Felicite Lemaire de Marne from portraying Jeanne d’Arc have nothing to do with Catholism. Isn’t that always the way? cafeteria Catholics and ones in name only, agnostics and those who think relativism should be the rule of the day want to make a decision about who plays Jeanne. Isn’t Felicite perfect for the role, a modern day Jeanne, fighting a modern battle.

  • anonymous

    Disgusting Christophobes. No Tolerance for Christians even wanting to force them to accept grave evils just like the Muslim Terrorists!

  • la catholic state

    Why did she apologise?!

  • scholastica

    One of the first consequences of sin is a blinding or dumbing down of the intellect and deadening of the conscience.