Gigantic Pro-Family Demonstration in Paris

Gigantic Pro-Family Demonstration in Paris October 18, 2014

A reader writes:

I just had to drop you a line to share this with you. Last week, my wife and I were in France on a business trip and, on our last day, happened to run into a massive protest in Paris by La Manif Pour Tous, the French group which stands up for families and marriage between a man and a woman. With our recent Supreme Court non-decision, it can be easy to get discouraged, but witnessing this march gave us hope. It was huge, boisterous, intensely patriotic, largely secular, and full of joy.

I’m sure it didn’t make the news here, but as Americans in Paris, we were deeply moved and encouraged. Please feel free to share this little video we made!

It’s fascinating to watch Europeans trying to save what we are busy trying to destroy. God bless them!

"Perhaps read the piece on hell by Avery Cardinal Dulles. A quick sound bite simply ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Please see my accidental response to Neko."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Sorry--this was meant for Othobide."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Mother Teresa blessed the dying with water from the river Ganges, because in the Hindu ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Thibaud313

    I was one of the half-million demonstrating that day ! And thank you 😉

  • Paxton Reis

    I was in Zurich last weekend following a business trip and came upon a a pro-life group in a public area speaking out against abortion.
    Praise be God.

  • Guest

    at the very least, these demonstrations are public reminders of what marriage is and its vital relevance in a society. whether they achieve any positive legislative end is probably not as important.

    the latin mass traditionalist movement is much more important in france than elsewhere in europe. i would bet that many of these people attend the latin mass exclusively.

  • kirthigdon

    I attended a Mass and meeting of about 30 pro-lifers in Corpus
    Christi this morning. After years of publicly praying the rosary at
    abortion mills, we’ve seen off the last of these death factories in
    Corpus Christi and there are only seven left in the entire state of
    Texas, approximately the same land area as France with about 35% of
    France’s population. I think public witness in conjunction with prayer
    is important, but I am doubtful of the utility of mass demonstrations,
    especially if these are “largely secular”. Our battle is against evil
    spiritual forces and secularism just won’t cut it; it is a tool of the
    enemy.

    Kirt Higdon

    • Athelstane

      Perhaps not always; but in situations where one is beleaguered, such demonstrations can be an encouragement to others to reassure them that they are not alone, or very few in number. This was certainly the effect in Poland, for example, when around 1/4 of the entire population of the country came out to see John Paul II in person on his June 1979 pilgrimage to the country. “The Communists have lied to us. We are not alone. There are many of us.”

      And given the relentless drumbeat for sexual hedonism in western media – France included – such a reassurance has value to those who still have a proper understanding of what the family is.

      • kirthigdon

        True, but a huge turnout to see the pope would not be described as “largely secular”.

        Kirt Higdon

  • Willard

    Off topic but I just have to say that Mark is going to absolutely love the speech made by the Holy Father after the synod. He called out “so called traditionalists” who are rigid and hostile but also so-called “progressives and liberals that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them.” It is positively Sheaian.

    • Mike
      • Paxton Reis

        Mike- Thank you for the link. Quite beautiful and humble.

    • Jared Clark

      Alright, so he condemns the false mercy that helps with the effects of sin while ignoring the sin itself, and the idea of rejecting the Father’s will in order to please the world, and the idea of neglecting the deposit of faith and viewing as something owned rather than something guarded and passed on to the next generation…

      But what we REALLY need from the Pope is a clear defense of orthodoxy! He is just being *so* vague here

      • Willard

        I know…what a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Already Rorate Caeli is referring to the speech as ”
        Via Media or Laodicea” Sigh:(

        • Jared Clark

          Let me guess, all because he mentioned the temptation towards inflexibility? I’m a traditionalist, and I’m glad the Holy Father is inviting me to a deeper love of Christ and His Church. When I’m stuck in a rut and focus too much on apologetics and complaints, the last thing I need is for the Church to say “Good job, keep focusing on what is wrong and do not spend time on what is right.”

  • Mark R

    Marriage is an institution enshrined in the French Republic by Napoleon when he was consul. He wisely saw that most ordinary people, especially the poor, have little recourse to maintain a seemly and orderly life and a stable marriage and family life was the best solution to keep their lives at least fron getting worse. This is why countries with the Napoleonic code in their histories have civil marriages. A good bio. of Napoleon is by a good Catholic, Vincent Cronin, son of A. J. Say what you will about Napoleon, every place he ruled he managed to improve, even balancing budgets, which seems impossible today. Heck, he even made improvements in Elba. His method was to appoint the best people to run things.

  • Donalbain

    French group which stands up for [SOME] families

    • Bill

      Donalbain – with humbleness, I often wonder about the reasoning you seem to be offering, which I often hear. The position essentially is, “if you don’t affirm my okay-ness, you stand against me”. My experience, though, is that, nearly universally, those who oppose SSM laws love their SSA brothers and sisters. I would submit to you that support for traditional marriage is not a fight *against* anyone, but *for* the institution of marriage. This institution preceded the state, preceded Christianity, and is the best way to raise children, bond them to their biological parents, and build society. That’s the public purpose of marriage. Society often discriminates between people for access to certain privileges to ensure the public purpose is upheld. Let’s not attempt to redefine marriage (which we really can’t do, but can only use power to enforce an untruth) through the courts to serve private purposes, like affirmation.

      • Donalbain

        This institution preceded the state, preceded Christianity, and is the best way to raise children

        Citation needed. Please provide some evidence that straight marriage is better than gay marriage for raising children.

        I would submit to you that support for traditional marriage is not a fight *against* anyone, but *for* the institution of marriage.

        No. It is a fight AGAINST the marriage of my friends Ian and David. And against the marriage of my friends Sarah and Pamela. It is not a fight FOR my marriage to my wife, since nothing they do actually helps that particular marriage.

        • LFM

          Actually, it harms any and all potential heterosexual marriages greatly and actively encourages heterosexuals not to marry, since it implies (and in the law, requires) that children do not need mothers-and-fathers, but can get by nicely with mothers-or-fathers, only some, or none, of whom, may be biologically related to their children. (And who will be obtained, in many cases by economic coercion, from poorer women around the world, via adoption or ART.)

          Under those conditions, heterosexual men who do not incline to marriage (as many do not) and heterosexual women who want babies so badly that they don’t care whether those babies have a father (as many do not), will feel even more free to indulge these feelings than they already do. And we won’t even be able to scold these parties for it, because to say in public that children need mothers-and-fathers, preferably married, is to commit an insult against gay couples. Result: ever-falling rates of marriage, ever-falling numbers of children, and more of those children essentially to grow up feral.

          So Donalbain, you are wrong and you will be proven wrong. The feral children of the massive underclass whose growth these ideas are encouraging will administer their punishment to all of us.

          • Donalbain

            That is a whole lot of unsupported claims. Come back to me when you have some actual evidence.

            • LFM

              The assertions in my first paragraphs do not require the support of statistics because they are a description of the present state of the law in many (most?) states, and for that matter in Canada. Have you not been following the news regarding all the people who have faced lawsuits because they won’t help to celebrate gay marriages? Do you really doubt that a Grade 9 family studies or sex education teacher who said “children need a mother and father” in class would find herself in similar trouble? Or a child who made such a comment in all innocence in the schoolyard? And do you doubt that this refusal to refer to or even to acknowledge “norms” of acceptable heterosexual behavior will wreak further havoc on the declining marriage rates, declining birth rates (but increasing “illegitimate” birth rates) and the general sexual and social chaos into which Western culture is descending?

              So – the claims in my first paragraph are not “unsupported.” As for the claims in my second paragraph, and in the last line of this comment, above, have you not watched, read or listened to the news at all recently? Have you heard of Charles Murray, who wrote a book about the collapse of the American family in the white working classes in the United States, a book whose statistics are so convincing (apparently) that it has been favorably reviewed by the New York Times? Here are a couple of paragraphs, quoting Murray, from one such review:

              Murray flips the script … the white working class, he argues, is no longer part of a virtuous silent majority. Instead, beginning in the early 1960s, it has become increasingly alienated from what Murray calls “the founding virtues” of civic life. “Our nation is coming apart at the seams,” Murray warns — “not ethnic seams, but the seams of class.”

              Using a statistical construct he calls Fishtown — inspired by an actual white, blue-collar neighborhood of the same name in Philadelphia — Murray sorts through demographic data to present a startling picture. Women in Fishtown now routinely have children outside of marriage. Less than a third of its children grow up in households that include both biological parents. The men claim physical disability at astounding rates and are less likely to hold down jobs than in the past. Churchgoing among the white working class has declined, eroding the social capital that organized religion once provided.

              Illegitimacy, crime, joblessness — these are not merely the much debated pathologies of a black underclass, Murray finds. They are white people problems too.

              These problems were not, of course, caused by gay marriage and/or child-rearing, and I am not attempting to suggest anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the furious defensiveness of gay marriage advocates and the gay rights movement in general makes it impossible to do anything about illegitimacy and family breakdown, which are certainly a large part of the problem, although they are not the whole of it.

              To repeat: you cannot convince heterosexual people that it is important for children to be raised by their (married) biological fathers and mothers if the law simultaneously insists that they may also be raised by two men, two women, single parents, or polyamorous trios (this is coming soon enough); that biological parenthood is only important to parents, not to children (this is what ART effectively suggests); and that children will certainly turn out just as well whichever of these paths their “social” and/or “legal” parents follows.

            • Mary Kilderry

              People like you drive me nuts. Homosexuality is wrong end of story. If you want a ‘logical’ explanation of why it is wrong and why the Church regards it as a ‘disordered’ and sinful state, read Robert Ryan’s ‘Making Gay Okay’. Ryan sets out the classical and rational case against gay marriage and gay sex brilliantly.

              • Donalbain

                That’s lovely. Just keep yelling that. Meanwhile, I will keep sharing in the joy of my friends as they get married. And as a bonus, I get cake!

        • Bill

          Donalbain – thank you very much for the reply. Out of the many studies that show that it is best for children to be raised by their biological parents, here’s one I like : http://cardi.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cardi/publications/upload/04-2009-RNYM.pdf

          And we simply don’t have enough data to claim that gay couple parenting is just as good. It’s just too new as a modern construct and most of the studies suffer from the common, fatal flaw of many social science research studies: selection bias.

          But I would also say to you that, more than comparing studies, it is just simply natural to think biological parents are the best to raise their children. In the long run, it makes the most evolutionary sense. Apart from adoption, every single time a gay couple wants to have a child, they must remove that child from their biological parents to have him or her. This is, I would submit to you, a terrible violation of that child’s rights. Adoption is different, of course, because the child’s biological parents, for one reason or another, cannot or will not raise them. It presupposes the benefit of being raised by one’s actual parents. This is why, for example, European countries are outlawing gamete donation. That’s one of the things La Manif Pour Tous protests against.

          I’m sure the love between your friends Ian and Dave, and Sarah and Pamela is real and valuable. However, their relationships are not nor cannot be marriage. Just because the courts have attempted to redefine marriage they have not redefined it. The courts have made decisions many times that are in violation of the truth. Just look at Korematsu v. U.S. or Dred Scott v. Sandford. Marriage is the institution that bonds a wife and husband to each other and any children that come from them. Using the power of the state to enforce an untruth is just, well, still not true. In the short term, redefining and enforcing a redefinitition of marriage using the courts and police powers of the state might not affect your marriage, but it sure will affect my children’s. It may soon be illegal to assert that marriage is between a man and woman, and, yet, we will still need that institution for our society to prosper.

          • Donalbain

            1) You didn’t read the study you linked to, did you? There was nothing in that article about the gender of parents. Nothing at all. And it actually stated that children of high conflict couples are no worse off than children of divorced parents. Not sure what you believe that has to do with allowing gay people to marry..

            2) You then say that adoption is a violation of children’s rights, but then in the very next sentence say that adoption is different.

            3) Which European country is banning sperm and egg donation? None that I know of.

            4) And yes, my gay friends ARE married. You can pretend otherwise, but they just are. And when you compare that fact to the use of internment and slavery, I stop being interested in anything you have to say. We are done.

            • Bill

              Donalbain – I hope I haven’t offended you and apologize if I have. I definitely wasn’t my intent to do that. I hope that you will read this, but doubt you will since you have said we ‘are done’. In any case, I’d like to respond to your points in case you or anyone else is still reading this comment page.

              1. The purpose of including that study link was to share a piece of evidence that points to the benefits children receive by being raised by their biological parents. The link to gay marriage is that whenever a same sex couple wants to have a child, except for adoption, the child must be removed from at least one of her or his biological parents. I would argue that this is not good for the child or society in the long run.

              2. I did not mean to say, if I did, that adoption is a violation of childrens’ rights. It most certainly isn’t. Instead, it is a highly advantageous response to a situation when a child is unable to be raised, for whatever reason, by her or his parents. My point was that adoption can be different, in the sense that when a same sex couple adopts a child, they don’t have to *remove* the child from their parents, as in sperm or egg donation. The child has, unfortunately, already been removed, for various reasons.

              3. I believe that Italy, Germany, and Austria ban egg donation.

              4. My purpose in using the examples of internment and slavery were intended to show that courts can make mistakes. In other words, just because a court says
              that gays can marry, does not necessarily make it so. For that, we need to appeal to reason. I think the reason they can’t, in fact, marry, is that they can’t fulfill the essential public purpose I mentioned earlier: to unite wife and husband to each other and any children that they produce. In essence, marriage is fundamentally about children, and raising the next generation of people in the best way, not about the private interests of adults. The private interests of adults can be important, but they don’t comprise the essential public purpose.

              That’s not to say, of course, that your gay friends aren’t
              wonderful people and their love is false. I’m sure they are wonderful and genuinely love each other. However, it is false to say they are married, except in the legal sense. Ultimately, enshrining into law an untr

          • Guest

            Donalbain – I hope I haven’t offended you and apologize if I have. I definitely wasn’t my intent to do that. I hope that you will read this, but doubt you will since you have said we ‘are done’. In any case, I’d like to respond to your points in case you or anyone else is still reading this comment page.

            1. The purpose of including that study link was to share a piece of evidence that points to the benefits children receive by being raised by their biological parents. The link to gay marriage is that whenever a same sex couple wants to have a child, except for adoption, the child must be removed from at least one of her or his biological parents. I would argue that this is not good for the child or society in the long run.

            2. I did not mean to say, if I did, that adoption is a violation of childrens’ rights. It most certainly isn’t. Instead, it is a highly advantageous response to a situation when a child is unable to be raised, for whatever reason, by her or his parents. My point was that adoption can be different, in the sense that when a same sex couple adopts a child, they don’t have to *remove* the child from their parents, as in sperm or egg donation. The child has, unfortunately, already been removed, for various reasons.

            3. I believe that Italy, Germany, and Austria ban egg donation.

            4. My purpose in using the examples of internment and slavery were intended to show that courts can make mistakes. In other words, just because a court says
            that gays can marry, does not necessarily make it so. For that, we need to appeal to reason. I think the reason they can’t, in fact, marry, is that they can’t fulfill the essential public purpose I mentioned earlier: to unite wife and husband to each other and any children that they produce. In essence, marriage is fundamentally about children, and raising the next generation of people in the best way, not about the private interests of adults. The private interests of adults can be important, but they don’t comprise the essential public purpose.

            That’s not to say, of course, that your gay friends aren’t
            wonderful people and their love is false. I’m sure they are wonderful and genuinely love each other. However, it is false to say they are married, except in the legal sense. Ultimately, enshrining into law an untruth is doomed to fail, because it isn’t true.