Church prohibition of same-sex relations

The Church prohibition of same-sex relations appears as both a religious rule and a source of immediate political danger. In two conversations, it frames intimate love between men as forbidden, exposes the unequal protection afforded by rank, and reveals how little Marie-Josèphe understands about forms of love that do not promise children. The rule is not presented through a legal document or formal ruling; instead, its force emerges in what characters say could happen to those who violate it, and in the protection that keeps the threat at bay.

The prohibition and its stated consequences

In explaining the danger, Lucien de Barenton, Count de Chrétien identifies the Church as the authority that forbids physical love between people of the same sex. His explanation encompasses both men and women, although the immediate example is the relationship between Monsieur and the Chevalier de Lorraine. He describes not merely a disfavored attachment but a prohibited form of physical love, making the rule relevant to intimate relations rather than to love or affection in the abstract.

The conversation also gives the prohibition a severe consequence: Lucien says that without the protection of His Majesty, Monsieur and the Chevalier de Lorraine might both be burned. The claim establishes the danger as more than social disapproval, but the evidence does not provide a statute, a trial, or the procedure by which such a punishment would be imposed. The rule’s operation is therefore conveyed through the characters’ understanding of its stakes, not through a detailed account of church or state law.

Royal protection and unequal exposure

The scene involving Monsieur shows the practical importance of that protection. The people present have witnessed the Chevalier de Lorraine taunt Monsieur by directing public attention to each new mistress, and they have also witnessed Monsieur’s episodes of jealousy and despair. Yet no one contradicts the claim that the Chevalier de Lorraine is the only person who loves him. The relationship is thus surrounded by public knowledge and painful conflict, rather than kept wholly out of view.

The Marquise de Maintenon answers by condemning Monsieur’s conduct as sinful and disgraceful, then invokes the protection he continually receives from the King. Her rebuke makes rank decisive: she asserts that, were Monsieur not who he is, he and his partner would have been burned. Monsieur responds by throwing up his arms, pushing his brother away, and glaring at the Marquise de Maintenon with hatred and despair. The exchange shows the rule not as an evenly applied restraint, but as a threat whose consequences depend on access to royal favor. Protection does not remove condemnation; it places the condemned relationship in a politically exceptional position.

Marie-Josèphe’s encounter with the rule

Lucien’s explanation reaches Marie-Josèphe through questions rather than instruction. She first compares the love under discussion with that of Achilleus and Patroklos; Lucien redirects her to Alexander and Hephaestion. Her response makes clear that she had thought passionate love between men in the modern age was almost mythical, and she is surprised to learn that it is dangerous. The historical comparisons initially give her a way to imagine such attachment, but they do not prepare her for its present-day consequences.

When Lucien explains that the Church forbids the relationship, Marie-Josèphe asks why people would choose physical love without the promise of children. Her question registers the assumptions shaping her knowledge: she has little understanding of sexual relations between a man and a woman and has been taught that she should not possess such knowledge. Lucien answers by naming love, passion, and pleasure as reasons in themselves. Marie-Josèphe laughs in disbelief. The conversation therefore exposes both the prohibition and the limits of the education through which she encounters it: she is not simply learning that a rule exists, but confronting a model of desire that does not fit her expectation that intimacy must be oriented toward having children.

Condemnation, desire, and the limits of the evidence

Together, the exchanges distinguish the Church’s prohibition from the feelings it is used to judge. The relationship between Monsieur and the Chevalier de Lorraine is described amid jealousy, despair, and public provocation, while Lucien’s explanation gives same-sex love motives of affection and pleasure. The prohibition does not erase those feelings; it makes their expression dangerous and leaves their security dependent on royal protection.

The rule is consequently revealed through contrasting voices rather than treated as a neutral statement of doctrine. The Marquise de Maintenon uses religious condemnation to rebuke Monsieur, while Lucien explains the prohibition to Marie-Josèphe as the reason the love can bring a lethal danger. Neither conversation supplies the Church’s formal reasoning or a full account of enforcement. What the narrative establishes is narrower and more immediate: same-sex physical love is described as forbidden by the Church, its potential punishment is severe, and the protection available to a royal person can alter whether that threat is carried out.