Archbishop Rowan: gay sex comparable to 'marriage'

As we report in The Times tonight, a correspondence between Dr Rowan Williams and evangelical churchgoer Dr Deborah Pitt when he was Archbishop of Wales gives a fascinating insight into his theological journey regarding homosexuality. He tells her how he started out firmly on the traditionalist wing, and was persuaded in the 1980s to adopt a liberal view. Then he describes how he holds this in tandem with his role as a church leader, a figure of unity. We'll post pdfs of the correspondence online shortly.  Below is the full text of Dr Williams' letters and also extracts from the second of Dr Pitt's original letters to the Archbishop. See also pdf files of the Archbishop's letters at Times Online. Mary Ann Sieghart, whose columns were influential in his being chosen for Canterbury in the first place, has done a good comment. See also our Times leader on the letters and what they mean for the Archbishop and the Church. I've also written an extra piece inside the paper giving some of the history of this complex debate. Pictures taken by Paul Rogers on the last day at Lambeth.

in

From Archbishop Rowan:

13 March 2001

Dear Dr. Pitt,

I’m sorry not to have written sooner to thank you for responding so fully to my letter and for sending the materials. I wish I had time to reply more fully myself, but must content myself with saying only a couple of things. Most Christian homosexuals I know have no interest in ‘converting’ anyone to their orientation, far from it; nor are they asking for a charter for promiscuity. I should deplore either of those, and I have said publicly that anything that looks like pressure to adopt homosexual behaviour, especially in an educations context, is wrong in my eyes. Again, I know hardly any Christian homosexuals who believe that Jesus was homosexual, or that they are superior to heterosexuals. I have some reservations about LGCM’s agenda; but even they do not claim these things. When they speak of ‘homophobia’, a word I dislike, I admit, they have some perfectly genuine evidence of prejudice I regard as shocking. Scripture can be used and has been used in many ways to license prejudice, and I don’t think they mean any more than this. I must also say that there is real evidence in schools of bullying around this issue and even of suicide among young men particularly, because of attitudes expressed. If Christians could at least unite in condemning this, even when they disagree with the behaviour of some homosexuals, that would be an advance. When I said that I wasn’t campaigning for a new morality, I meant, among other things, that if the Church ever said that homosexual behaviour wasn’t automatically sinful, the same rules of faithfulness and commitment would have to apply as to heterosexual union. Whether that would best be expressed in something like a ceremony of commitment, I don’t know; I am wary of anything that looks like heterosexual marriage being licensed, because marriage has other dimensions to do with children and society. I doubt whether there will be a change in practice in the near future, at the very least.
Sorry I can’t now reply at more length. Again, my thanks for your response and its tone. My prayers for you, and my request for prayers for an averagely muddled bishop!

From Archbishop Rowan

28 September 2000

Dear Dr. Pitt,

I must apologise for leaving your letter on August 9th so long unanswered. I’m afraid that rather a lot was waiting for me when I returned from holiday, and the less urgent letters, as always, sank in the pile!

This will have to be a relatively brief response to your very substantial question, but I hope it may suggest a few avenues. Until about 1980, I fully shared the traditional ethical understanding of homosexuality as a condition of (at best) some sort of ‘privation’, the practice of which was strictly forbidden to Christians by scripture and tradition. My mind was unsettled by contact, as a university teacher, with one of two genuinely serious Christians who had concluded after prayer and reflections that the scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience; but that the Bible does not address the matter of appropriate behaviour for those who are, for whatever reason, homosexual by instinct of nature (I don’t deny that some varieties of homosexuality may be therapeutically altered, by the way, but I don’t believe this is true of all; discernment in this area is very difficult indeed).

So after 1980 I continued to study the issue sporadically, reading what I could on the psychology as well as the theology of it; and by the end of the 80’s I had definitely come to the conclusion that scripture was not dealing with the predicament of persons whom we should recognise as homosexual by nature. And many of the arguments assumed by theologians in the Middle Ages and later increasingly seemed to beg questions or to rest on contested grounds. I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness. Peter Coleman’s book, called, I think, Homosexual Christians, helped here, as later on did Jeffrey John’s pamphlet, Permanent, Stable, Faithful. I was not convinced by the argument that the ethics for homosexual relations should be different from those for heterosexuals (i.e. that they should not be exclusively faithful or lifelong).

The collection of essays called The Way Forward? edited by Tim Bradshaw a few years ago represents a helpful dialogue between Christians of generally doctrinally conservative convictions who have come to different conclusions on this, and I wish the discussion could be as constructive and sympathetic in the wider Church as it was in this group. But it is now a very much politicised question, with many treating it as the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy. I find myself personally in a difficult situation, between the pressures of the clear majority view in my Church, my own theological convictions on this matter (as someone who has no desire at all to overthrow the authority of scripture here, but wants to ask if it has been rightly read on this matter) and the complex needs of individuals for pastoral counsel and support. I don’t see myself as a campaigner for a new morality; but if I’m asked for my views as a theologian rather than a church leader, I have to be honest and admit that they are as I’ve said.

One last point. The Church has shifted its stance on several matters ¬¬– notably the rightness of lending money at interest (condemned outright in the Old Testament and by all theologians before the seventeenth century) and the moral admissibility of contraception (generally denounced by the Anglican Church up to the middle of the twentieth century) so I am bound to ask if this is another such issue. If I am really seriously wrong on this, I can only pray to be shown the truth. I’d ask simply that Christians might be a little more ready than they seem to accept the good faith of those who have to a different conclusion (either way)!

I don’t know if this will be any help to you, but I’m very willing to explain further if you wish (so long as you can be patient with my slowness in answering letters!). Thank you for writing.

Dr Pitt wrote:

Your Grace, Thank you for your letter of 28.09.00., and for your frankness about your views on Homosexuality and how you reached them.  The topic is a huge and diverse one with many ramifications, and has given me quite a bit of food for thought. ..Your letter was very gracious, and I hope the tone of my letter is not affected by the anxiety your views caused me.

I was interested to read that your interest in the subject was piqued by contact with  homosexual professing Christians who were grappling with the morality of the matter. My own perspective has come about largely from personal contacts also, through my work as a medical doctor in both general practice and more recently Psychiatry, and having worked on both sides of the Atlantic. Yes, it is rubbing shoulders with the people personally affected by moral dilemmas that causes one to question and study one’s own presuppositions and the orthodox Christian teaching; with regard to the latter it appears that we both started from the same place...

You used the term ‘homosexual by instinct or nature’, and you make a distinction between homosexual acts done by heterosexuals and those done by those who are exclusively homosexual, the latter being authentic in some way and the former not. I do not know whether the Bible makes such a distinction, but I do not think scientific investigation has yielded precise distinctions about the behaviours or personality traits of these two groups.  Scientific research on any behaviour, especially sexual behaviour, is extremely difficult to do accurately. ...

The Biblical yardstick for sexual behaviour is, I think, the Creation story, in which I trust you and I both believe, either literally or as Myth. It talks of God creating Man and Woman, of the difficulties between them and the introduction of Sin into their relationship and the consequences thereof... Dr. Edward Norman stated in one of his ‘meditations’ (The Times, I think) that homosexuality appears to be a gift from God, ‘an involuntary condition; it is how some are made’.  But God does not seem to have told us how that gift should be exercised. What parameters,  what constraints? There are certainly lots of constraints given us for control of our other sexual, or aggressive or acquisitive instincts. Why has God not endorsed such behaviour by giving instruction?  Why was there no marriage law for such? But there is nothing, no positive endorsement for this trait or behaviour. I think it is dangerous to conclude other than from the Bible that God endorses homosexual behaviour, loving or not....

I agree, the Church has shifted her stance on several matters.  The examples you gave, the admissibility of contraception and the rightness of lending money at interest,  provoked some wry thoughts.  The latter has led to the rise of capitalism and the widespread pursuit of wealth and gain and to the rampant exploitation of the world’s resources.  I have heard that the Amazon rain forest is likely to be the next victim of this rampant greed.  The Anglican Church is caught up in this same mechanism, as are we all to some extent.  ... Personal debts have risen dramatically and there are more illegitimate births than ever.  There is an accompanying tendency to throw money, or birth control pills or morning after pills, at the problems of society that arise, rather than address the deeper issues of personal responsibility and adequate education and warnings.  The darkness can never overcome the light. But if we whom Christ called the light of the world cannot ensure that the light burns on, then it will go out. And the light, the prophetic voice of the Church calling people back to God’s standards no matter how unpopular that voice, seems to get dimmer.

Truly, God loves all sinners; perhaps the greatest sinners are the ones He has the  most compassion for, for they have lost so much.  But we live in a fallen world, so He gave us first the Ten Commandments for, amongst other things, our protection, I believe, and second of all Christ for our redemption.

So, has the Anglican Church been wrong, as you surmise, Archbishop Rowan, about Homosexuality all these years?  No, I don’t think so. I accept that your conclusions have been reached in a spirit of honest and compassionate enquiry.  The idea that the ethics of homosexual relations should be no different from those of heterosexuals, i.e. exclusively faithful or lifelong, is an attractive and plausible one. I am afraid I have not read any of the books (perhaps I should read them) which promote the idea that such relationships are equal qualitatively to heterosexual ones. I don’t see how they can be if there is no possibility of children; how can they be anything but inferior, at least in scope?

Archbishop Rowan, I have written far more than I originally intended....You have shared your thoughts frankly with me, and I appreciate the spirit of goodwill with which you have written...

Yours sincerely

Deborah Pitt

(Note: Dr Pitt was an Anglican at the time of this correspondence but has since left the Church in Wales and is now a member of an evangelical free church.)
   

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

Legend has it that Michelangelo also was said to be of the same disposition. Obviously professional envy.

[Kate]

"Leonardo, incidentally, was not a devout Christian ... He also faced charges of homosexuality"

Yes indeed. Can't resist adding Maurice Merleau-Ponty:

'If we now recall that he was never known
to have a mistress or even to have felt
anything like passion; that he was accused -
but acquitted - of homosexuality;
that his diary, which tells us nothing
abut many other, larger expenses,
notes with meticulous detail the costs
of his mother's burial, as well as the cost
of linen and clothing for two of his students -
then we are on the verge of saying that
Leonardo loved only one woman, his mother.'

(From 'Cezanne's doubt', tr. Hubert L Dreyfus & Patricia Allen Dreyfus, Northwestern Univ Press 1964 p.23)

[George Parr]

Since you asked Geoff, depictions of The Last Supper in fresco were commonly found in monastic refectories and elsewhere in Italy during the fifteenth century - in order to confer an obvious equivalence and sense of piety upon those sitting eating in the illusory presence of Christ.

Whilst numerous examples exist, dated both before and after Leonardo's, in which stereotypical disciples adopt a stiff, formulaic pose - an undifferentiated line typical of earlier ecclesiastical figural painting - Leonardo's late 15thC example, painted for the Milanese Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie and commissioned by the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza, drew praise for its innovatory qualities, from kings, emperors and luminaries, particularly in France.

Leonardo synthesizes in this single work his wide-ranging experiments in the field of optics, visual harmony, anatomy, architecture, colour and single-point perspective. He also experimented with technique and materials - the picture is not true fresco but a mix of tempera and other media including oil, which enabled him to take time over painting, rather than having his skills curtailed by the vagaries of drying plaster. His aim was to demonstrate an illusion of figural animation in a credible architectural space, which he extends into the refectory. His depiction captures the moment when Christ informs the disciples that one of them present will betray him. All disciples are seen to react in a different and psychologically revealing way.

Many myths and theories surround the painting, including the wholly unproven notion that the same model was used for both Christ and Judas. In fact Judas, in shadow, is placed unusually close to Christ, their outstretched hands nearly touching. There is an absence of discursive material; the other saints are identified, not by inscriptions, but by their expressions.

It goes without saying that Leonardo's fictive picture cannot possibly be an 'authentic' reconstruction, any more than the many thousands of retables, tapestries, altarpieces, icons and statuary can feature commonly-agreed portraits of early saints in authentic settings.

Leonardo, incidentally, was not a devout Christian, (today's near-definition might be an agnostic.) He also faced charges of homosexuality.(See Nicholl C. Leonardo da Vinci, the Flights of the Mind pp114-123 Penguin Books. 2004)

His 'Last Supper' transforms what had been previously depicted as an hieratic ritual into a scene of human tragedy, paradoxically emphasising its religious significance.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Now, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not correct that Christians worship the cross and the image of Mary?
- J Pearce, 13 OCT 2008, 10:52:47

Mr P, I'm feeling free! No, squire, they don't worship the cross or any image of Mary. I prefer the OED definition of worship: adore as divine, idolise as a god. Artefacts are artefacts, Mr P, just that. No way are they divine and worthy to be adored.
You seem to be having the same problem as Mr Parr. He, too, has great difficulty in understanding a dictionary definition when it contradicts his pre-conceived ideas about some subject.
No, I hadn't noticed that certain car-driving Christians have an affinity for fish. Couldn't have been St Peter, he didn't have a driving licence. At least, I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[j]

not excoriating, Geoffrey. Merely rude and unChristian.

[J Pearce]

Hi, its you-know-who.

Geoff, you will be pleased to know that I have been looking up definitions of the term idolatry. Here is one such defintion I found online, perhaps item (2) will ring some bells:

1. Worship of idols.
2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.

Now, from the same source, I found the following defintion of the word idol:
1.
a. An image used as an object of worship.
b. A false god.
2. One that is adored, often blindly or excessively.
3. Something visible but without substance.

Now, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not correct that Christians worship the cross and the image of Mary?

Therefore, is it so difficult to concede that Christians engage in idolatry?

As an aside, have you not noticed that certain car-driving Christians have an affinity for fish?

The worship of fish - now that’s something a Pagan would be proud of...

[Kate]

George Parr - "art history" - a wonderful discipline of which I am woefully ignorant. The roots of a robust humanism perhaps? Interesting.

And a coincidence - I'm off to Florence at the end of the month. First visit and huge anticipation - a lot to do with E.M Forster I think!

Re-reading (and enjoying) an old A-level text - Peter and Linda Murray 'Art of the Renaissance'.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Where would you like to start with the 'constructive approach to Catholic teaching' much of which rests in a study of diametric opposites to anything rational?"
- George Parr, 12 OCT 2008, 10:26:14

Posting so early on a Sunday morning, Mr Parr? Goodness, you must have been up all night trying to think of a good response to my post. Pity you failed.
Wrong again, squire! All rhetoric, as usual, without a single example to back up your allegations.
However, to return to the original theme of this thread, whatever Dr Rowan Williams has to say about the subject of gay 'marriage', or CPs for the squeamish, the traditional Christian attitude to this abomination remains unaltered: it is gravely sinful and condemned by God. The PC brigade are trying so hard to convert black into white, but God will not be mocked - certainly not by you.
Incidentally, as an expert on early Renaissance painting, perhaps you would have a word with your fellow-atheist, Mr Steve Grant. Mr Grant seems to be under the impression that Da Vinci's painting 'The Last Supper' is an authentic, historically accurate depiction of the actual event. Would you disabuse him of this strange idea, please?

[George Parr]

Geoff, you have nothing constructive to say about the Catholic attitude to homosexuality. You clearly have missed the ten thousand posts on the subject, in which I have made my own position very clear. The Catholic church has no acceptable, balanced and unproblematic moral teaching on this subject, unless you happen to be someone prepared willingly to convert the available texts and edicts into your own brand of prejudice - making them fit the bill, according to how your view in coloured.

Where would you like to start with the 'constructive approach to Catholic teaching' much of which rests in a study of diametric opposites to anything rational?

Regarding the word-spinning apology for your muddled 'argument' over devotional imagery - since my subject is art history, particularly the early Renaissance, should you require any clarification on the matter, for paintings, statuary or architecture within a social context either North and South of the Alps do let me know.

[Geoffrey Smith]

If you did not put words into my posts which I would never dream of including myself, Mrs J, particularly your sneering remarks about Catholic piety, you would save yourself an excoriating response.

[j]

I am sure I coundlt measure up to your physical beauty, geoffrey.

What an unpleasant and deeply UnChristian comment. What if I were disabled, disfigured, or of a different racial group from you?

I dont remember JC suggesting we all had a good laugh at the leper.

Love indeed, geoffrey. Of self, in your case.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Reading your last post, Mr Parr (10 OCT 2008, 20:01:32), I take it that I have finally got through to you and that you now fully understand and appreciate the Catholic teaching on devotional imagery? That you accept that Catholics do not 'worship' artefacts, in any shape or form? That Catholics do not 'idolise' statues or pictures or representations of the human form? You do? Splendid!
You can now dispense with the rhetoric and move on to a more constructive approach to Catholic teaching. How about the Church's moral teaching on a subject like, for instance, homosexuality? That should cause a flutter in the dovecotes, right? It would also bring us back to the original theme of this thread. No doubt, you know who will chip in with his wikipedia knowledge of the subject, and give us both the full benefit of his vast expertise and experience. Although I don't think he will be kicking any arses this time; more likely, his interest in the area will be rather more cordial.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"But maybe Geoffrey shares the view that all representations of the human frame are equally deserving of worship."
- J, 10 OCT 2008, 14:39:59

Send me a photograph of yourself, Mrs J, and I'll tell you if I am prepared to make an exception in your case.

[George Parr]

So you haven't heard of irony either then Geoffrey!

What a diatribe of crap! (your term). I've actually been called names by sensible people, so I'll leave it to them to decide whether or not they think I'm slow on the uptake. At least I haven't written thirty lines trying to explain what I meant, because I can't recognise levity if it bites me!

Far be it for me to defend David Smith - he's actually one thing we might possibly agree on - but you might ask yourself how sarcasm is generally received in an argument. It normally reveals more about the exponent's base wit, rather than the witlessness of others. And perhaps someone will explain how vegetarianism and animal rights have any equivalence with the 'claims of the Catholic Church' in an argument based on personal beliefs. Perhaps you were just feeling ratty...

I find it significant that you now borrow the description Kate aimed at you, to level at me. Presumably it stems from a dearth of creativity on your part, born of a life of repeating things that others tell you. I certainly agree that JP is extremely quick witted, very knowledgable and argues well. He's certainly been kicking your arse Geoff.

So you are using divide and destroy tactics against your perceived opponents now eh - having run out of sustainable argument and suitable pious codswallop? It won't work Geoff, because you are actually firing duds at a moving target of mutual rationality. Look around. Those with a gentle faith or none have deserted the trench you still occupy long ago. Perhaps you might advertise for like-minded people keen on nostalgia and outdated modes of control?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Personally, I don't kneel before my aunty's photo, or cross myself when a snap of my mother-in-law comes into view."
- J, 10 OCT 2008, 14:39:59

Quite right, too, Mrs J. Neither of them is a saint, particularly your mother-in-law (if she's anything like mine).

[Geoffrey Smith]

Sorry, Mr Parr, once again, you have made a mess of things! Getting quite monotonous, isn't it? I mean, I can't keep on saying 'Wrong again, Mr Parr', can I? Your schoolboy howlers must be boring our fellow-posters rigid! No, you haven't got it right. Catholics don't 'worship parents or friends' or keep photographs of them for devotional purposes. You may have read my post addressed to Mr David Smith, in which I accused him of being so witless that he could not recognise sarcasm when it was staring at him from the monitor. I'm very much afraid that the same charge must now be leveled at you.
I won't go so far as to call you gormless in this respect (I am mellowing with experience), but I really do think you are slow on the uptake. Mr Pearce is far more quick-witted and I am sure he can see the point of my response. May I spell it out for you so that even you will begin to understand the Catholic rationale about devotional imagery? The whole point and purpose of keeping photos, pictures, portraits, mementos, etc is to be a constant reminder to us of our loved ones. We Catholics keep such mementos in the case of the saints, and particularly in the case of the Mother of God, for exactly the same reason: to be a constant reminder of the ones we love. LOVE, Mr Parr. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE.
Have you got it, now? I do hope so.
That's the worst part of posting on a blog like this: trying to communicate with someone like you, a person who is quite willing to 'believe' in any sort of crap, like vegetarianism or animal rights, but refuses point-blank even to consider the claims of the Catholic Church. You have what Kate calls 'rigor mortis of the intellect', and it shows all too clearly in your posts.

[George Parr]

Now have I got this right Geoff? For Catholics it is perfectly normal to worship parents or friends and keep photographs of them at home for devotional purposes, much in the same way as Catholics mumble and fiddle in front of numerous sundry representaions of the Virgin.

Since photography was first discovered in the 1830s it is lucky that our relatives are now instantly recognisable. Otherwise, presumably, numerous portraits of them might have to contain their 'attributes' in order to identify them to future generations e.g. yours might be sharp tongue, a loose screw, or a book on philosophy with some pages missing.

We don't know what most of the saints looked like though, hence all the images vary... Ah, of course, the flaw in the argument!

[j]

Charming though it is to think of the Vatican as my granny's front room (all that lace, there are definitely similarities) the essence of idolatry is not the representation of the human form, but the veneration that man accords to a specific image.

Personally, I dont kneel before my aunty's photo, or cross myself when a snap of my mother-in-law comes into view.

But maybe Geoffrey shares the view that all representations of the human frame are equally deserving of worship. There you are, Geoffrey, now you have something in common with your Islamic fellow-citizens.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"What about all those voluminous paintings in the Vatican, depicting the Apostles and sundry saints, if not a bunch of painted idols?"
- J Pearce, 9 OCT 2008, 16:33:16

I am sure you would never dream of keeping a photograph or a painted portrait of your parents, or any relatives or friends, in your home, Mr P. Don't want the neighbours to accuse us of idol-worship, do we, eh? Quite right, too.

[Kate]

Geoffrey: Whilst you delight in personal insult and 'angels-on-head-of-pin' debates, I haven't the time.

You asked a question (actually two) heroes and Marian devotion. I responded - factually - end of exchange.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Honestly Geoff, there's no deception going on, our moderator du jour merely transcribed my missive word for word."
- J Pearce, 9 OCT 2008, 11:59:57

Ruth, I'm afraid you've been made redundant! Mr Pearce is now doing your job for you. Come back from France and collect your last wages from the Times office and your redundancy notice.
Not to worry, Alan still has his job with the paper, doesn't he?

[J Pearce]

"Yes, I did know that the Church of Ireland doesn't 'do' idolatry. Neither does the Catholic Church, funnily enough."

As they say in my part of the world, "what a load of old c*ck, Geoff".

What are all those statues and pendants of Mary, if not a load of idols? What is JC on the Cross if not an idol? What about all those voluminous paintings in the Vatican, depicting the Apostles and sundry Saints, if not a bunch of painted idols!

Come on, man! Get your facts right!

What you really mean is "the Catholic Church doesn't do idolatry, except for those idols which we do worship, except we don't call them idols, we call them icons, to avoid the obvious charge of being called a bunch of b*******ng hypocrites".

Anyway, I thought the problem was with "false idols", rather than idolatry per se. It appears I actually understand your religion better than you, Geoff!

[George Parr]

"Your own rigor mortis of the intellect, a spiritual death that has killed off any possibility of your understanding the Catholic faith, has finally caught up with you."

Ho! Ho! Ho! I laughed out loud at that one as, mired in his swamp of rhetorical bigotry, Geoff fails to leave the intellectual starting blocks, finding himself attached!

[J Pearce]

Honestly Geoff, there's no deception going on, our moderator du jour merely transcribed my missive word for word.

Its not my fault you felt obliged to insert your expletive of choice, is it?!

But thanks for calling me a hero, all the same. I am indeed a legend. In my own lunchtime, as Rick might say...

[Geoffrey Smith]

Still keeping tabs on me, Kate? Good girl! You certainly know what's good for you, right?
Yes, I did know that the Church of Ireland doesn't 'do' idolatry. Neither does the Catholic Church, funnily enough. But then, no Christian Church I've heard of goes in for that sort of thing. I mean, we all know that a statue is a statue, and an icon is an icon, don't we? Or perhaps the Orthodox haven't heard about that yet? They too have a great devotion to Our Lady, just like us Catholics, but I don't think they would take kindly to your accusation that they 'idolise' her. No, I really don't. But what does that matter, eh? It's only us Catholics who get a lashing from your tongue and pen, right? It's that horrible Roman and his medieval, misogynist, anti-feminist gurgitations who deserves your hectoring fishwifery, not that poor, misinformed Alexei II.
But continue the long and hard battle, Kate my dear. Your own rigor mortis of the intellect, a spiritual death that has killed off any possibility of your understanding the Catholic faith, has finally caught up with you.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Are you seriously suggesting, Mr P, that our scrupulously fair and unbiased moderator would be an accomplice in your deliberate deception? Which does tend to suggest that you are rather less than honest in your commentary, doesn't it, me dear old mucker?
Either that, or Ruth has lost all credibility as a referee - in which case, I think she will have some explaining to do to the Times management.

[Kate]

Geoffrey Smith: "Well, Kate, what do you think of your big hero now?" Gosh Geoff! You're missing me! Sorry; busy time of year.

I don't 'do' heroes. But, I have battled long and hard to instil sceptical vision - rigorous utilisation of the brain - in students and my own children. Rigor mortis of the intellect, as illustrated by control-freak fascists, is unacceptable.

In that context, JPearce is a delight - intellectually vigorous, informed, enquiring and possessed of a wry, confrontational humour. 'No pasarán'!

Perhaps you should examine your conscience Geoffrey. Envy is likely a mortal sin! .

PS: The Church of Ireland doesn't 'do' idolatry. Mary the mother of Jesus is just that; respected but never idolised.

[J Pearce]

Ah Geoff, me dear old mucker...

I censored it myself! I put my own [snip] in! Ask Ruth if you like. It was entirely deliberate! Oh yes!

And you fell for it! You imagined your own rude word of choice where none existed! Which says rather alot more about you, than me...

[George Parr]

"I hope this doesn't sound too much like a ghastly and pompous diatribe ?. FACTS are the basis of my present comment Mr. Parr."

Congratulations Andrew from Venezuela for presenting your interminable FACTS so precisely. Unfortunately not all contributors here are bio-chemists, least of all me, although I am gratified that you found my post enlightening. Unfortunately you appear to have added a degree of sarcasm to the diatribe...

"On considering the effects of the respective modus operandi of oral and anal sexual procedures, neither of these lead to the propagation of the species..."

...And people run marathons simply for the joy it brings, having moved on from their hunter-gatherer status. Of course some peoples' sex lives might be based on FACTS alone...

[George Parr]

"George Parr, thank you for confirming that you have an entirely selfish understanding of marriage: deeply unpleasant and unappealing."

What pompous rubbish and false logic is this Mr Marsh? Are you saying that my list of the marital circumstances you choose to ignore, or other derivatives underpinning notions of human causation cannot possibly apply, or that only 'true' Christians are not subject to human frailty and disruption. Your 'understanding' of marriage is wrapped up in impossible terms, which neither reflect reality nor solve attendant issues. If you wanted to install a freely-flowing conduit of guilt into normal human relationships, one fine method is to describe an ideal and then use it to beat those people who cannot maintain it. 'Sticking it out' even under dire or inhumane conditions is the only option for human beings, with 'sinning' standing outside the door? Rubbish. Life on Mars.

'Marriage' for itself is meaningless, and stands outside of the more valued concepts within personal relationships. Love, patience, tolerance and forbearance. ALL of those things might equally apply on behalf of one party - in letting go of the other.

Your 'guilt and sin' recipe as a means of preserving dignity and love is madness for all but the most mutually screwed-up religious relationships.

And there are also plenty of human unions however, marital or not, or religious or not, which contain enough spiritual regard and love within them, they do not need their capacity for trust enshrined in some ethereal dimension of religious guilt.

It is the Christian 'teaching' which is flawed, deeply unattractive and the antithesis of human mutuality, since it is based on the concept of erring, silence, internal wrenching and divine punishment in place of trust.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

By involuntary omission (far too much of a work load), I have just today been able to read through the comments on this site. With Ruth's kind indulgence, I must therefore apologise to Kate (10/08/08 - 16:20:26), George Parr (10/08/08 - 22:08:40) and J. Pearce (11/08/08 - 13:03:13) for not having replied
previously to their comments to my own comment of 09/08/08 - 16:20:26. Here we go:

1) Kate: I was not writing as a "religious person", but rather as the trained professional bioscientist which I am. In that latter capacity, I was trying to explain some basic facts, without attempting to "pontificate on the rights or wrongs of the matter". Of course I am aware that "large numbers of women" are prescribed diverse types of vaginal lubricants, gels, creams, foams and what have you by their GPs. I have also seen advertisements for such products in a number of "glossy magazines" which appear as "Sunday Supplements" to many respectable newspapers. I can't vouch for what may be advertised and promoted as lubricants for sexual purposes in "Good Health" magazines, since I practise a perfectly normal "health style" myself, without any need to seek possible misguidance from such specialised "glossy" sources. Quite obviously, there may be ladies who require such medically prescribed adjuvants. However, since I have never personally been a member of the "wham, slam, thank you ma'am" brigade, any further comment from me on that question would be superfluous. Your statement: "most readers will be aware of the above", strikes me as being a modernised version of the famous and mythical "Man in the Street" terminology once commonly used in journalistic parlance. In point of fact I have not, nor do I, "preach against heterosexual 'deviants'", so you have obviously completely misread me there. You mention HYPOCRISY", and I would appreciate YOUR OWN definition of that term, in order to provide you with a suitable response to your remarks on my supposedly "uninformed prejudice re civil rights for homosexuals". Having recently visited my own homeland in the last few months, if I were you I would be much more worried about what some form of future "sharia law" might do about the "civil rights" of the group you singled out for specific mention. Please read on:

2) George Parr: Your post was a fount of knowledge to me, and I thank you for having provided me with so much novel information on the sexual mores of certain males and females of the human species. Of course ptyalin is secreted by the salivary glands, and its functions are primordially saccharolytic re predigestion of the ingested food at the bolus stage. As you so correctly state, various types of pathogenic organisms can be transmitted during oral sex via the saliva (e.g. mononucleosis), as well as via the genitalia, both under "normal" and "less than normal" conditions (e.g. certain viral, chlamydial, bacterial, mycotic and protozoan infections): I happen to know of a case in which a leech caused "problems" in a human vagina following oral sex...perhaps I had better not go into too many gory details on that particuloar case !. I do appreciate that certain cultures do not "kiss", but may "rub noses" or similar (transmission of germs by the nasal route ?): "kissing" and "licking" are often considered to be schemes whereby the participants acquired salts for their mutual physiological welfare. On considering the effects of the respective modus operandi of oral and anal sexual procedures, neither of these lead to the propagation of the species, so that the "aficionados" of those arts are complying fully with the precepts of natural selection in the sense of their not being the "fittest of the species to ensure survival of that same species". On leaving you with your personal thoughts, I might explain that I live in a Latin culture where embracing between men is a perfectly acceptable social form of greeting - watch out, however, lest this "embrace" be misinterpreted, since loss of teeth and heaven only knows what else might ensue from any "misunderstandings". In some parts of the world, thankfully, men are still men and women are still women (as the old saying goes). I hope this doesn't sound too much like a ghastly and pompous diatribe ?. FACTS are the basis of my present comment Mr. Parr.

3. J. Pearce: I do understand that anal sex has been practised for pleasure for thousands of years. It was known not only in the Inca culture (which I mentioned), but also in Greek, Roman, Indian and other cultures (indeed, anal sex in many Latin American countries is openly offered as "Greek sex" by fee-charging prostitutes in this present age).
It may well have been that the "ancients" who practised anal sex had discovered the lubricating properties of natural oils (e.g. fish oil, butter, olive oil etc.) prior to the discovery of more modern "petro-chemical lubricants": I have no means of verifying or documenting my suspicions. With respect to oral sex, where this is nothing more than a "lead up" to normal sexual intercourse, then it poses no more or no less infecto-contagious hazards than those mentioned previously in this comment. I would not question the practice per se, save where it may be intended to constitute the sole "be all and end all" of the entire encounter. This latter alternative might better respond to the overall definition of "hedonism".

It would be possible to argue that if, as some correspondents have suggested, oral and anal sex were to be considered "normal" in human sexual behaviour then, since this same sort of activity has been recorded in certain types of monkeys, we should now concentrate some serious attention to discovering whether the common ancestor of Man and the apes may have held such practices in such high esteem as some specimens of "Homo sapiens" seem to do at present. What a fascinating line of enquiry that could make. Any sensible comments would be welcome !.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I mean, you can't get much more idolatrous than the RCC, really, can you? It makes paganism look positively bereft. Blessed Mary my [snip]."
- J Pearce, 1 OCT 2008, 15:59:19

Well, Kate, what do you think of your big hero now? He can't even talk about the Mother of our Saviour without getting himself censored! Do you, as a member of the Church of Ireland, really wish to ally yourself with this sort of person?

[andrew holden]

"Or else, as, for example, in the case of homosex, redefining it as OK so that you don't have to confront it at all?"

Not at all - definitions are irrelevant. Homosexual people are just as capable of sinning as the rest of us - and any activity can be sinful done without love or in the wrong context. Yes that's situational ethics to a point but it was Jesus himself who said that it was what was going on in the heart that was the key to discriminating right from wrong.

'Heterosex' can also be very, very wrong depending on the circumstances and the intent. What help definitions there - original or redefined?

[Geoffrey Smith]

"You have a mighty plank in your own eye which prevents you from thinking rationally - your hatred for the Roman Catholic Church."
- David Cohen, 30 SEP 2008, 22:29:45

Thank you for defending us, Mr Cohen, but I think you have overlooked an even bigger plank in someone else's eye. You are allowed one guess as to who I mean.

[J Pearce]

Mr David Smith, for once I take great pleasure in defending you. The point about worshipping idols is adroitly made - it seems that in some sections of Christianity, bowing down to objects with no intrinsic value is de rigeur. But then, it appears to be a case of "my idol beats your idol", especially with Catholicism.

I mean, you can't get much more idolatrous than the RCC, really, can you? It makes Paganism look positively bereft. Blessed Mary my [snip].

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'I believe in DIRECTLY confronting sin where I find it.. '

Or else, as, for example, in the case of homosex, redefining it as OK so that you don't have to confront it at all?

[David Cohen]

David Smith

You have a mighty plank in your own eye which prevents you from thinking rationally - your hatred for the Roman Catholic Church.

Of which I am certainly not a member - but would like to point out that they use the same Greek New Testament as Evangelicals. It would be helpful if you read it without prejudice.

[Geoffrey Smith]

They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, Mr David Smith, but some people are so witless that they can't recognise sarcasm when it's staring at them from the monitor! My post of 24 SEP 2008, 21:20;09 was a sarcastic reference to the Protestant notion that Catholics 'worship' the Blessed Virgin. You have denied that you are a Protestant, but your words have betrayed your true feelings on this matter, as on others. You are no less a Protestant than Dr Rowan Williams.

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
'There is, however, one Protestant who...is in Lourdes worshipping the Virgin Mary.
I'm sure His Grace will take the opportunity to bow down and adore the statue of Mary in the grotto, together with all the Anglican pilgrims who are accompanying him.
Looks like the kingdom of historical deep, dark secrets has acquired a few more brainwashed well-wishers, wouldn't you say?'

Whatever Protestants who visit Lourdes may or may not do, I can't think of a better way than yours of describing anyone who bows down to a stone representation of a long dead (albeit uniquely used), simple human-being - believing (just because the Vatican says it is so) that she is now a living god!

[j]

"As Mrs J has admitted, they need to be stopped and helped, but not only that, society has to take steps to prevent any repetition of the criminal disorder, and that means choking off the supply of potential villains"

And you accuse me of putting words into your mouth, Geoffrey!
I do not agree that repeal of divorce law is the way to do this, not do I accept your phrase of "choking off" the supply, which has most unpleasant overtones of eugenics.

I do not "admit" that they need to be stopped and helped, I believe that they should be stopped- and also helped- as the clear duty of both Christian and non-Christian people who wish to build a decent and stable society, faith-based or secular.

You take what seems to me to be a simple expression of human charity and you abuse it to argue your position which is so opposite to my own.

[David Smith]

David Cohen:
' ..the whole passage is predicated upon the injunction I quoted from verse 10: quoted above. And this is given as a teaching from the Lord, rather than Paul's own opinion.'

As I have said, in I Cor 7:10 and 11 Paul is not talking about divorce at all, but separation. The Greek word often translated 'divorce' here is actually 'aphiemi' - to dismiss. (The Greek word used in the New Testament to describe a proper full divorce is 'apostasion', and that is not used here.)

But, as I have said, if you are interested in taking a genuine discussion on this forward, as opposed to simply clinging to the age-old (actually Roman Catholic Church-old) mindset on this subject, then you should read the booklet I have pointed you to above, or something similar. I think you will find this quite an eye-opener.

[andrew holden]

"...divorce is roundly condemned by Christ and St Paul. "

Condemned certainly - but also allowed by both!

[andrew holden]

Geoffrey wrote:

"Mr Holden.... rejects the very idea that divorce IS the root cause of the sickness in our society. When you try to live without God, you are bound to fail in your effort."

Well I believe tha it is the teaching of the Bible and of all the mainstream churches that trying to live without God is itself the root cause of sickness and suffering in our society. Divorce, whilst it causes sickness of its own is itself caused by the systemic sickness we call sin.

And since you know nothing of how I counsel people kindly keep your 'words without knowledge' to yourself. I believe in DIRECTLY confronting sin where I find it and that includes challenging some of the ignorance that masquerades as knowledge round these parts.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"...saying that social problems are caused by non-Christians is poppycock."
- Fr Mark, 25 SEP 2008, 12:14:53

Yet one more example of your interpolation in my post!
I never said any such bloody thing, and I am getting sick and tired of reading your damned nonsense!
I am opposed to the practice of divorce, whether by 'Christians' or non-Christians. In this respect, I have the backing of Holy Writ, in which divorce is roundly condemned by Christ and St Paul.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"You seem to be revelling in all this gore. Etc".
- J Pearce, 25 SEP 2008, 12:51:50

You think so, Mr P? That shows you how much you abhor and detest Christians, doesn't it? We point out the reason and the cause for 'all this gore' and that is what we get in reply: an accusation that we want, nay, even provoke, such an atrocity! Can a bad tree produce good fruit? Can secularism produce a happy society?
Mr Holden thinks this is a chicken and egg situation. Like the Rev Mark, he too will blame anything except the true cause of the disaster. Perhaps he doesn't want to upset his loose-living parishioners, or the couples he 'counsels', some of whom will be on their second or third 'spouse'. He rejects the very idea that divorce IS the root cause of the sickness in our society. When you try to live without God, you are bound to fail in your effort, and calamity results, as the Finns are now discovering to their cost.
Oh no, Mr Pearce, I don't wish any more tragedies like Kauhajoki to occur, but I know that they will, and I know that you know they will -because the secular life can never give mankind what we all desire: perfect happiness. Only Our Lord can do that.

[andrew holden]

"I agree that marriage does not guarantee living happily ever after; I deny that divorce does not cause disorder and criminality."

This is a rather silly chicken and egg debate. Divorce is both a symptom and a cause of sickness in society. Simply banning divorce would change little - in fact without dealing with the root cause it would be more likely to add to the problems. Build the Kingdom of God (which isn't just about spreading religion) and divorce rates and criminality will fall.

[J Pearce]

"We have yet to experience our second Dunblane - but we will."

I am amazed you've forgotten Hungerford, Geoff.

You seem to be revelling in all this gore. Its rather disturbing. Its almost as if you are wanting further bloodshed to occur, in order to vindicate (in your head) your opinions on society.

Apparently, Maati Saari left a note saying "he hated mankind and the human race". I don't see much difference between that and your extremist opinions, Geoff, to be honest.

[Fr Mark]

Geoffrey Sm: "I urge you to change your profession. You are definitely in the wrong job."

What a ray of sunlight you are, sharing your kind advice about how everyone else should live! Your comments are a very good example of how Christianity often doesn't make people behave any better than anyone else, I'm afraid: so, saying that social problems are caused by non-Christians is poppycock.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It[Finland]is one of the most trouble-free societies on the planet...."
- J Pearce, 25 SEP 2008, 09:42:03

Not now it isn't. That was before Aukinen and Saari appeared on the scene. They will be followed by many others, in Finland and elsewhere. We have yet to experience our second Dunblane - but we will.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"It's far too simplistic to say that marriage makes for happiness and divorce causes disorder and criminality."
- Andrew Holden, 25 SEP 2008, 10:08:55

I agree that marriage does not guarantee living happily ever after; I deny that divorce does not cause disorder and criminality.
I refer you to my previous post in reply to Rev Mark.