He’s France’s top Catholic bishop, André Vingt-Trois, and it sure seems like he threatened, or at the very least condoned, violence today when talking about France’s imminent legalization of gay marriage.

It’s quite a crafty statement from Bishop André Vingt-Trois. He basically talks about how he opposes violence – nudge nudge wink wink – then blames the government for creating a climate that will inevitably lead to violence, by passing this gay marriage law. In my mind, he’s pretty much condoning, and threatening, violence.

The bishop’s statement is especially creepy since his allies in the French political and family-values right have already turned violent, first against the police, then against a gay man, and then against the lead gay rights group in Paris.

Mind you, there was no threat of violence from the Catholic church when they were aiding and abetting the rape of young children. But consenting adults want to marry, and suddenly the Catholic church starts making excuse for violence and hate crimes.

The bishop’s statement coming mere days after the French family values movement threatened even more violence. This is not a coincidence, nor is it an innocent statement from the Catholic church. It’s the Catholic church trying to inflame passions and incite even more violence – and at the very least, use the already-existing violence of the French family-values right as a cudgel to bash even more gay people, and to blackmail the pro-gay French government.

Below is a Google translation of the French bishop’s statement today – it syncs with the statement in French, that I read. (It’s not a bad translation.) Basically the French bishop is saying gay marriage wipes out the differences in the sexes, and suggests that we are all equal. And that by suggesting this, imposing this uniformity on society, the government will force the people to strike out violently.

Again, since the bishop’s allies on the right already are striking out violently – the Catholic church is serving the Mormon role in France, taking the religious lead in bashing gays (Mormonism is officially-considered a cult in France and much of Europe, so they lay low over there) – so when the Catholic church appears to suggest that violence is inevitable, it is a clear statement excusing, and perhaps even welcoming, such violence.

Here’s Bishop’s statement

For us, the new evangelization comes in a changing society and the signs of this change are not lacking. The long months of debate about the same-sex marriage bill revealed divisions that were predictable and announced. These divisions are a good indicator of a mutation cultural references. The invasion organized and militant gender theory particularly in the education sector, and, more simply, the temptation to deny any difference between the sexes is a sign. It is the refusal of the difference as a means of human identification, especially of sexual difference. It is the inability to accept that there are differences between people. We refuse to deal with the fact that people are not identical. They are not identical in their sexual identity, but they are no more similar in their personality, and the essential principle of social life is precisely to people who live together are not identical, manage differences individuals in a peaceful way and not a way of violence. However, if we remove the means of identification of the difference in social relations, this means that a psychological mechanism that we know well, it leads to frustration of personal expression, and compression frustration leads at one time or another on violence to recognize its particular identity against uniformity official. This is a company that prepares violence. What we see already that the failure to accept a number of differences in social life, leads to the crystallization of categorical claims small groups or subsets identity, who think they can not be recognized as by violence. Our society has lost its ability to integrate and especially its ability to homogenize differences in a common project. For my part, I think the law for the marriage of homosexuals is part of this phenomenon is the increase in the focus on making the most indisputable point of difference that is sexual difference, and therefore will cause that I evoked: the concealment of sexual identity as a psychological reality and fermentation, germination of a strong claim for the recognition of sexual differentiation. This simple explanation eludes a number of wise minds, who ought to be concerned about social peace in the coming years.

These people are a real piece of work.