Peter Mullen should have his bottom spanked!

We've been friends for a long time, but as he wouldn't talk to me at all - 'not even you Ruth' he said - I've no choice but to bloggy him without the enlightenment that might have been gained from understanding. The Rev Peter Mullen, former member of the Prayer Book Society and staunch traditionalists, has had to take his website down after rather unwisely writing this bit of doggerell, a poem on the recent St Bartholomew's blessing service for two gay priests, celebrated by the Rev Martin Dudley. You can read our story on it at The Times website.

Mullen wrote:

The Bishop of London is in a high huff,

Because Dr Dudley has married a puff;

And not just one puff - he's married another:

Two priests, two puffs and either to other.'

He also said gay men should have cigarette-style warnings tattoed on their backsides, along the lines of 'sodomy can seriously damage your health' and 'fellatio kills'.

(Update: for more on the gay issue, specifically the ex-gay movement, read Lucy Bannerman's undercover investigation in today's T2, for which I wrote a short accompanying commentary.)

I must confess I went along to his annual New Year sermon as usual in January, and was rather startled then at the style of his humour against another of his favourite targets, Rowan Williams. You can read the sermon here. At the Drapers' Hall reception afterwards, quite a few extremely senior City chaps voiced their grave reservations to me about that sermon.

In another recent sermon at St Michael's, on Trinity VIII, he preached on women bishops. This is what he said:

'There is a female ascendancy in the church and it has a certain character. It is broadly feminist, left-wing in politics and obsessed with environmental issues. Let me give a couple of examples. On Ascension Day last year a sermon was preached in the City of London – and broadcast on the BBC - by a woman priest very widely tipped to be one of the first of the new bishops. She said the original Apostles of Jesus thought the world was about to end. They were wrong, she said. But we today know the world is coming to an end – because of global warming.

'I was speaking with another likely candidate on Lord Mayor’s Day in Guildhall. She was standing alone so I went up to make conversation. I asked her how she was finding life in the City. She complained, Oh it’s all so white, upper class and male! I felt like answering, This is the City on one of its days of traditional high ceremonial.

'What did you expect – the lumpen proletariat, black section, with bongo drums?

'Ms Vivienne Faull, Provost of Leicester is one of the front-runners to be made bishop. She seems to want women priests to be sex objects. She complains: Dangly earrings, nail varnish and heels are seen as inappropriate – even the slightly erotic is not normally thought acceptable, Ms Faull declares, What I love is watching the new generation who feel freer to express themselves. I hope the rules get loosened a bit.

'I have attended services where the worship was devised by this female ascendancy. We were asked to place little nightlights in the sanctuary, then prance around them as if we were part of the anglo-catholic daisy chain. Sentimental choruses instead of robust hymns.

'On another occasion the suggestion was: What about a worshipful line dance or a Christian conga or a jive-for Jesus? I was relieved though to see the further advice: The aim is not to shock people…be modest in what you wear so that people can focus on God and not be distracted by the dancers’ attire. The old pagan religion is back: the howling women from the Scottish play; candles and magic; stultifyingly boring incantations; the desire to bring female eroticism to the altar; worship of the earth: what else is global warming except a pagan myth? Fair is foul and foul is fair: hover through the fog and filthy air…

'I don’t object to the presence of lefties, feminists, excitable environmentalists, gay-libbers and not-too-erotic dancers in the church’s senior ranks but when so many members of this particular clique rise to positions of high authority, the longstanding and warmly tolerant tradition that the church should be a home to wide variations in character and opinion among bishops and clergy will be eroded. The church will be a meaner, narrower institution. The church will become dominated by a single party – the politically-correct party. There will be demands for equality between traditional views of marriage and gay partnerships.

'We shall hear – indeed are already hearing – a lot more about light bulbs and carbon footprints. An obsession with global warming and with the whole repertoire of trendy social policies. There will be a corresponding dearth of doctrine and theology. For the people who will assume control of the church are generally uneducated: they attended dumbed-down theological colleges where little was taught except about diversity, feminism, environmentalism and institutional racism.

'Really we are seeing the growth of a paganised, feminised, secularised and trivialised church in which those who profess traditional faith are ridiculed and marginalized.

'But if, as seems likely, there will be women bishops in due course, then the church will become a harsh and disagreeable place, over-feminised, out of balance, angry and inhospitable to anyone who will not toe the party line. I will not toe the party line. I will never accept the authority of a woman bishop. I will not accommodate myself to the paganised, feminised, modernised church. I will not accept the authority of this politically-correct coven. So what can we do, those of us who try to teach and practise traditional Christianity? For the first time in thirty-eight years as a priest, I am dejected. The bishops who were appointed to care for us have abandoned us. I look out over the church I have loved for and now I see only darkness visible.'

Peter is chaplain to the Stock Exchange, but perhaps for not much longer.

Comments

[Les Goodwin]

Why has nobody mentioned that the Rev Mullen was previously suspended for adultery with a parishioner?

[j]

actually I thought the pentacostalist cortoon was quite funny (ducks below parapet)

[andrew holden]

"Not all Christians are miserable by any means but I wish we had better jokes..."

Many Christians sing the old chorus: "I've got the joy, joy, joy of the Lord - down in my heart, down in my heart.... " Unfortunately some of them have it so deep it obviously never gets a public airing!

[Theo Dexter]

J Pearce

I agree with you that there never has been a “perfect society”. My argument though was not that but that our ancestors did not lack intelligence or understanding of the human condition.

Not all Christians are miserable by any means but I wish we had better jokes – jokes as good as those in the Jewish Community.

“Want to know what hell is like – then come and hear the Vicar’s sermon this Sunday”.

Surely we can do better?

[J Pearce]

Mr Dexter,

Your argument is a variation on one I've seen proposed innumerable times on these threads - that somehow, there existed at some always unspecified point in past history, an idyllic society where everyone was Christian; and they were good people; and there was no crime etc etc.

Its utter garbage, of course. And the obvious counter-argument - notwithstanding all the positive points I could propose about modern society - is something along the lines of: "two thousand years of Christianity and nothing gets better - so whats the point of it, then?".

Christians have an amazing propensity for miserablilism. It must be something to do with this unquestioning acceptance that we must all suffer and then die. No wonder you all believe in Armageddon!

However, I do concede that if there is anything on this planet that might make me believe that Satan actually exists, then its Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway.

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew

The grass is rarely greener but boy is it much easier to breathe the fresh air at last.

[j]

Theo

and to you

[andrew holden]

Alongside Thomas a Kempis possibly a cautionary note from Horace:

coelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt

(those who cross the sea change the sky not their spirits)

A cautionary note to those who would jump the fence in search of greener grass.....!

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew

I understand your sadness at the current situation.

Two quotes

In necessasariis, unitas; In dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.

No sound ought to be heard in the church but the healing voice of Christian charity.

[Theo Dexter]

J

Life is so precious.

Let us love our neighbour as ourselves.

“If I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

Peace to you.

[andrew holden]

Theo reminded us that Jesus said:

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Indeed. The Pharisees were good at ticking all the boxes. When it came to rules they kept them all and made up extra ones to boot! So perhaps Jesus is saying that the really important matter is righteousness of the heart rather than the Pharisaism of rule keeping. That's not to say that the rules don't matter just that the real focus of the Christian life is elsewhere.

[andrew holden]

Theo, I have a great respect for the evangelicals within the CofE - indeed I began my adult Christian life amongst them.

Neverthless it seems to me that there are some (but clearly not all) evangelicals who would elevate their understanding of the faith and their desire for doctrinal 'purity' above the command to love their brothers and sisters in Christ and they are the ones who are starting to head for the door. If they voluntarily leave the CofE then it is they who have chosen to a sectarian way - not I who who have excluded them. There is no loathing here - just a sadness at what is being done to the body of Christ within the CofE and ini the wider communion.

Incidentally it is just as possible for a liberal to be sectarian - and it might be argued, with some justification, that there are schismatics on both wings of the church. Obviously not all liberals and evengelicals should be tarred with the same brush!

Sadly I agree with your comments about the politicisation of positions within the church, on both sides of the fence, and very much regret it.

[j]

Theo, I love the way we agree on the birdie song ;)

But life is not as grim as all that. And it was grim in our ancestors' day, in other ways.

Some of this grimness is due to moral degradation, some due to religious fanaticism (such as many wars past and present) and some due to bad luck or fate, depending on your POV.

I think it is a shame when people argue that the modern world is depraved and therefore god is good. I am quite prepared to believe that faith is precious and real to those who have it, they dont help to justify themselves by using the not very robust argument that all modern life is worse than in the good old days of stronger faith.

Couldnt we just agree that life has always been precious and difficult together, and we have to do our best to behave well to one another, according to our moral code, whatever that is?

[Theo Dexter]

Ooops

Correction - I am a celebrity.

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew

“I try to be a faithful follower of Christ - and I'm sure that many others who take a different line on many of these issues do so as well.”

Including the evangelicals?

Then why use the term “evangelical sect”, it indicates you loathe these particular Anglicans who have a different line and do not really want them in your church.

The history of the Church of England indicates that it is not that tolerant. Even today the FIF guys believe that the liberals want them out as well.

“Finally the Church is NOT like a political party”

After the last Synod and continued factional infighting, many would say that is exactly what the Church of England is like.

[Theo Dexter]

J Pearce

“the modern comforts provided to by a largely secular, democratic, technologised society.”

I have been reflecting on these comforts – rampant knife crime, teenage shootings, baying crowds encouraging the suicidal to jump, town centres decorated with urine and vomit, eighty year olds beaten and raped in their own homes, greedy bankers with obscene payments, nobody saying they are sorry, billions to bail out banks but we cannot increase pensions and meet millennium goals, ipod isolation, X Factor, I’m a celebratory, Ant and Dec, the Birdie song, waste of resources, global warming and destruction of the environment.

Perhaps our ancestors were not as dumb as you think.

[Theo Dexter]

Jesus said

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

See also Ephesians 5 v 3, Colossians 3 v 5, 1Thessalonians 4 v 3, Jude 1v 7.

[Kate]

Rob Roy: "The denomination won't survive ..."

Au contraire - vanity and narcissism, those who believe themselves more 'favoured' by God; more righteous in OT legalisms than Christ, these are "bent on destroying" Anglicanism. But they will not succeed.

Compassion, inclusive 'love' (for all God's children) and genuine vocation, articulated by Andrew Holden and Fr Mark, these, together with the ordinary pew-dwellers, are the bulwark against wreckers.

Anglicanism is NOT American, Australian or African. It is the Church of England. It is quietude. We gather to worship God, we do not expose our failings and 'hang out' our 'redemption' to the embarrassment of our neighbours. We are not called to histrionics. The essence of the Anglican faith is embodied in the liturgy.

Andrew Holden's writing brings to mind 'dolmens around my childhood' - clergy with a 'special' (for a child) aura; kindly guides, teachers, 'men of letters', imbued with integrity and the charity Christ taught.

I was lucky but, with a very few exceptions, this is how I know Anglicanism. It is a perception of my Church and those 'called', that has sustained a simple faith.

Hectoring egotists demanding conformity, despising difference, calling for a Church in their own image; these are anathema. Anglicanism 'washed', returned, revised, split? From what source is such arrogance presumed? Certainly NOT Christ. It is indeed HIS church, not the possession of any here or the plotters of Gafcon.

To attribute literal, contemporary, definition to language in an ancient text is, quite apart from variations in translation, to ignore the evolution of language. Few languages have evolved as thoroughly as English. The beginning was Johnston's dictionary (1755) which codified a disparate and crude mishmash called 'English' into a prescriptive "purity" of "grammar and meaning".

Add to that borrowings - French, Latin, Indian, etc etc - the advent of Sunday schools and literacy; regional vernacular, Americanisms, all these and more gradually incorporated into the language, yet, biblical literalists require we accept THEIR personal interpretation of a 2,000 year text as definitive and immutable.

I'll stick with the King James, a thing of beauty and allegorical significance.

Semantic intransigence ignores, not just linguistic but ALL evolution; philosophical, theological, scientific, anthropological, etcetera. It seeks to impose conformity and deny the 'dappled beauty', the glorious eccentricity that has informed and sustained the Anglican Church in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

For post-colonial biblical literalists the solution is simple: form your own church or join the Baptist, Pentecostal, Adventist, Brethren et al - last time I counted there were something like 87 different Protestant sects.

We Anglicans are baptised, confirmed, in communion AND community. We do not require ranters, shakers or dissenters. Historically we have held the Faith and survived. Here in Ireland, we attract; there is no 'hard sell'. The only denomination in this country enjoying an increase in numbers is the Church of Ireland.

[andrew holden]

Theo, on the charge of hypocrisy. I think we can all be hypocritical from time to time and where I am occasionally guilty I repent of it. However, hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another - so I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

If the CofE is transformed into a Evangelical sect with no room for dissenters on matters of sexuality then, of course, I should have no option but to leave. At the moment, however, it has restated the traditional line, which I accept it has the right to do even if I think it should be changed, but also committed itself to listening to the experiences and opinions of Gay Christians. Should it give up on that latter committment I think I would have to interpret that move as a sign from God that my call to stay in the CofE was coming to an end.

Frankly I don't see that this is hypocritical - Indeed I hope it is a sign of my integrity.

Finally the Church is NOT like a political party so your metaphor is flawed to a degree NEVERTHLESS even in politics (at least in healthy political parties anyway) people are allowed their own personal views on how policies need to change. We don't yet try to control what people think, nor do we stiffle expression of opinion. Yes there is often a policy line that politicians must support whether they fully believe in the policies or not - and yes there are sometimes matters of integrity where a politician must give up fighting for change and join another party.

If we get to a similar point in the church over the sexuality issue then I would have to choose integrity over loyalty - but I don't think we are there just yet.

[andrew holden]

Theo, as I hoped I had made clear I think the Bible has to be allowed to speak on its own terms and not have our understanding imprinted over it. Not surprisingly perhaps, I don't think that a fundamentalist/ conservative interpretation takes the Bible seriously in this regard - nor, at times does an extreme liberal one. Whatever you may think I do try to stand apart from labels and I'm not happy to wear them myself - at times I can be rather conservative in my attitudes but at other times much more liberal. I try to be a faithful follower of Christ - and I'm sure that many others who take a different line on many of these issues do so as well.

What isn't helpful is either to excomunicate those who disagree or to insist on schism for the sake of some nebulous 'purity' of doctrine.

The Church is not perfect and so it does have elements of homophobia and misogyny just as it used to have lots of institutional racism. As one who loves the church leaving it is not an option (so long as God calls me to stay) so the sins must be opposed and the structures changed. This has happened already (largely) with institutional racism and, I firmly believe, will happen with other forms of prejudice also.

If I thought reform was a lost cause AND/OR God was calling me elsewhere then of course I'd go - but until then its about both love for the church (and in particular the Church of England as it has traditionally been, ie a tolerant and diverse broad church rather than an evangelical sect) and obedience to our Lord.

[J Pearce]

Mr Dexter,

If you are so enamoured of the iron age meanings of the Bible and so supportive of its iron age morality, would you do us all a favour and go away and live an iron age lifestyle?!

You know, huts, no running water, no toilets, hunting for food and all that?

It’s a little ironic that you call Mr Holden a hypocrit, when you take advantage of the modern comforts provided to by a largely secular, democratic, technologised society.

A society which has been opposed by the Christian Church all the way, I should note - we'd still be in the Dark Ages now, if it weren't for people like Andrew, who challenge the orthodoxy which allows human progress to be made.

You do know what "progress" is, don't you? Its not living in huts and not swallowing the Bible hook, line and sinker, like some sort of religious automaton.

[andrew holden]

"The denomination won't survive and the greater church will be purified of the revisionists."

Wishful thinking I believe.

First Christianity is a revisionist faith - otherwise we'd all still be Jewish, or Roman Catholic.

Secondly, even what you probably think of as faithful, orthodox denominations have their 'revisionists'.

There is, for example, a growing RC grassroots movement both for the ordination of women to the priesthood and in favour of married priests. I've also met many liberally minded laity and even priests in the church - so these issues, which are primarily issues of justice and equality, will not go away.

If Anglicanism didn't survive (which I very much doubt) we'd all find other homes within the 'greater church', paradoxically you might think, I'd probably return home to Roman Catholicism and rejoin the swelling ranks for change in that church.

[andrew holden]

"This one of the most silly arguments being presented. Let's rewrite the Bible for extenuating circumstances: Thou shalt not commit murder..."

Of course what you haven't done is quoted that famous crystal clear Biblical command, "thou shat not have homosexual relationships."

The Bible says NOTHING clearly about sex between people who are, by the modern understanding of the word, by nature homosexual, and in particular about sex in the context of committed loving gay relationships.

If its does may we please have reference(s) - preferrably from Jesus, the founder of Christianity and rejector of religious humbug everywhere.

Every single verse that is frequently quoted as relevant is about a different context, and is less than clear when it comes to translation and interpretation. If this issue is such an abomination to God I would have expected Him to express himself with crystal clear clarity!

[robroy]

"Silent...as indeed it is on homosexual sex within loving and committed relationships"

This one of the most silly arguments being presented. Let's rewrite the Bible for extenuating circumstances: Thou shalt not commit murder...unless you are really ticked off. Thou shalt not commit adultery...unless your wife is a real shrew and your secretary is a hottie, etc. Go ahead readers! It's kind of fun.

"The church is bigger then all of us. It will survive and become more and more the spotless bride of Christ that is her calling!"

I definitely agree with this statement. Here in the states (and coming soon to the CoE!) revisionists are beginning a multifront legal conflagration that even Napoleon at the height of his power did not have the arrogance to take on. It promises years of bad PR. The denomination won't survive and the greater church will be purified of the revisionists.

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew

Clarification - by “spirit of the age” I meant the “spirit of this present age” on the text. I consider the biblical writers knew exactly what they were writing about. Further there is in fact little evidence to make the leaps from the original meaning that liberals do.

Rowan is wrong about so many things so that it does not help your case to use him in your support.

You testify that your organisation is institutionally, homophobic, misogynistic and racist. I do not doubt your calling but feel that belonging to such an institution undermines your arguments and opens you up to the charge of hypocrisy. I feel sure that you would not join a political party with these sentiments.

The Bride will only become spotless by the “washing of the Word” not by bitter infighting and unpleasant labelling.

[andrew holden]

Theo, several points:

I believe that you have to allow the 'spirit of the age' of the bible documents to speak for themselves NOT impose upon them. There is no evidence that the Biblical writers understood what we mean by a homosexuality - so there is little of direct relevance. There is plenty of evidence that the relevant passages are addressing other issues such as male prostitution and religious sex cults and still challenge a casual, selfish and unloving approach to sexuality. Allowing the passages to speak for themselves shows that they do not say what the traditionalists claim - our good Archbishop of Canterbury shares this view.

Furthermore I accuse no-one directly of being a "sex obsessed homophobe" - though I challenge anyone to prove that such people don't exist in the church and in society. If the cap fits then wear it, if not then good.

As for the organisation, well it has institutional homophobia and misogyny just as it has institutional racism - that needs to be faced and addressed. Discriminatory and unjust structures MUST be dismantled and prejudiced individuals need to be called to repent of their sinful and unloving actions. Why do I stay in? Simple - because I didn't choose to join it! I was called to be a member, and indeed a priest and minister, in the church. I'll stay in and try to change it for the better so long as God continues to call me. It's HIS church - not mine or yours!

The church is bigger then all of us. It will survive and become more and more the spotless bride of Christ that is her calling!

[Theo Dexter]

Andrew your posts indicate that it is you that has the biased approach to scripture. You try to force the spirit of the age on to biblical passages.

Further the weakness of your argument is revealed when you attribute base motives to those who disagree with you e.g. “sex obsessed homophobes” etc.

To the outsider all you appear to be doing is creating an irrelevant institution, free of love and harmony bent on destroying itself and all that it stood for.

If the organisation is as you believe homophobic and misogynistic why should you or anyone else join it in the first place or stay in it for one moment longer?

It is not change that you are bringing but disintegration. A house divided will not stand,

[andrew holden]

David, no it isn't! With respect please try doing some unbiased (ie not already made up your mind what it means) biblical study before making assertions such as this.

As I already said I doubt that we'll agree over this. I used to have a very straight down the line Evo approach to this issue until I started to take an unbiased approach to Bible study.

[David Cohen]

Andrew,

The biblical text is perfectly clear in its meaning. It's only problematic if you decide not to accept it before you read it.

[andrew holden]

"'Organised' Christianity contains more religious committees, discussion forums, self-important toxic groups, grandiose institutional frameworks and abstruse formulaic mechanisms than any simple soul can shake a stick at. Etc, etc..."

Seems to me, sadly, that it rather reflects society instead of transforming it. There are indeed many sex-obsessed homophobes in the church - but there are also, still, many in society generally with little or nothing to do with religion. The church may, naturally, be a rather conservative organisation but, like society it can change, has changed, and will change. Sometimes, as on this issue, it lags behind - on others, eg slavery, it goes out in front.

[andrew holden]

"The Bible is quite explicit in teaching that any kind of homosexual practice is strongly to be condemned."

Now who is being self-delusional?

Every single relevant verse is problematic in translation and interpretation and we are never likely to agree about them.

So perhaps we need other grounds on which to decide. The health issue might help but is hardly determinative since all sex involves an element of risk - and many other dangerous to health activities are at least tolerated if not encouraged in church.

[andrew holden]

I haven't counted, but I reckon that at least three-quarters of postings on the Times faith-site are about sex.
Maybe even more.
I wonder why ...

Simple - there is a major issue of justice and equality here which must be fixed.

[j]

dont blame me, Alan, I keep trying to get them to debate obesity, poverty, greed, witchcraft... but nobody ever replies...

[George Parr]

All sexual practices carry with them an element of risk. And as J quite rightly points out, there are numerous examples of intrinsic 'deadliness' associated with a vast range of human activities, both those biblically defined as 'sins' for Christians to worry over, together with many which are not. Since this is the case it does seem unbalanced to a degree to focus on this one issue in almost pious isolation.

What is inescapable within the unbending religious obsession with homosexuality, is the ancient prejudice transferred from the writers of medieval texts to some 'traditional' contemporary Christians for whom, in almost every other respect, unscientific medievalist thinking and cultural attitudes are regarded as woefully uninformed if not mildly amusing. Consequently the attendant prejudice over specific types of sexuality, intolerance over some aspects of human relationships and even, in some cases, women still being treated as ignorant, unqualified, unworthy objects, remains non-negotiable. Amazingly, for some, these things are wholly justified through self-righteous, selective interpretation.

'Organised' Christianity contains more religious committees, discussion forums, self-important toxic groups, grandiose institutional frameworks and abstruse formulaic mechanisms than any simple soul can shake a stick at. The theological vocabulary is massive, esoteric, unduly complicated and archaic. It disguises a system in which all manner of verbal twists, turns and abuses are shrouded in opacity and this system also provides numerous corners for a privileged army of academics to take refuge from issues surrounding human rights.

Not unlike the monarchy and its inegalitarian system of peerage, this top-heavy circus has established itself through rabid self-interest and notions of longevity within the western psyche. It has internalised itself to such an extent it has been inconceivable that society in general or gentle Christians at one with their God can operate without it.

However, things are changing. A measure of how much may be seen in the way in which a more rational, enlightened society is reflected within the Anglican Church itself - giving rise to division and rancour over hierarchies and its own shaky governance.

[alan]

I haven't counted, but I reckon that at least three-quarters of postings on the Times faith-site are about sex.
Maybe even more.
I wonder why ...

[andrew holden]

"But I am ethically bound to point out behaviors that are unhealthy."

Reminds me of one of my first mentors who said "just remember that there isn't a vice in the world that's worth giving up for an extra couple of years in a Brighton nursing home!"

As I said, lots of things are unhealthy but that's not the primary concern for most of us - and even things which are healthy can be very bad for your prospects for living a long life. What matters is what benefit (loosely interpreted) we get from something - and indeed everyone's mileage varies on these things.

Sky diving is done because it is life enhancing despite, even because of, the danger. Drinking wine or malt whisky may not be the best way to extend your lifespan but is the enjoyment worth the risk?

It's good (even thoroughly ethical) that doctors point out the risks of certain actions - but the decisions belong with those who can evaluate the risks against possible enhancements to the quality of life.

Strange as it may seem to many homophobes, gay and lesbian people find life enhancing fulfilment in the same sort of loving, committed relationships that most of the rest of us do. Whatever they get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms (and maybe the homophobic make far too many assumptions there as well!) is entirely their own affair, particularly if it nurtures their relationship - just as good sex does in a straight relationship.

[David Cohen]

How self-deluding can anyone become?

The Bible is quite explicit in teaching that any kind of homosexual practice is strongly to be condemned.

Whatever the relationship, sexual acts between people of the same gender is intrinsically sinful according to both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

And modern medicine reveals that many of the sexual practices concerned are indeed seriously dangerous to the health of the participants.

[andrew holden]

"A much less prideful approach is to state with uncertainty, "I am not sure whether or not this will endanger your soul. Best to avoid it and live either in celibacy or Christian (male/female) marriage."

Surely where we are uncertain about actions the way of humility is to encourage people to act in love. Jesus rejected the Pharisaical approach to religion which had a huge rulebook but managed to neglected love and justice.

A rule of principle has application far beyond detailed rulebooks which can't cover each and every situation. Where the Bible is silent (as indeed it is on homosexual sex within loving and committed relationships) then principles like justice and love are the only things we are left with. In fact, even where the Bible is not silent those self-same Biblical principles are the best guide to interpetation - they are certainly the only place where I would found any moral certainty.

[KM]

Oral sex, dare I say it, is something most heterosexual men are quite fond of. I don't think it is just a gay thing...

Also, sex in general prolongs life, or at least the species' life, I think that is worth bearing in mind when we get into the theological repercussions of all this...

[j]

I see what you are aiming for, RobRoy and I think you can also see my point, which is that if we want to invoke the prestige of the medical issues of health, we should do a proper job and start with the big killers first.

I'm glad we can agree on the medical point that fellatio may kill but it wouldnt kill gay people as much as straight.

Endangering your soul is another matter, one on which we will disagree, but not the point we are debating, which was the physcial health issues, and the role of a church in teaching on them.

I'm serious, though, that I would have respect for a church that taught the obese, smoking, drinking public to consider gluttony and sloth. Interestingly, not drinking is commonly accepted in some churches, but not the dangers of over-eating- political dynamite I expect given the close match in many US states between obesity and faith rates. But seriously, the church could make a real difference to health and happiness if it taught, gently, that selfindulgence is not in accordance with the teaching of the christian faith.

[robroy]

I certainly don't approach patient care with the goal of maximizing quantity of life. But I am ethically bound to point out behaviors that are unhealthy. If I told my patients that they were eventually all going to die so go ahead and smoke, I would have my license yanked. My point is that the truth of Father Mullen's satire is being circumvented to score political points.

Pontificating with moral certainty? Who does this? St. Paul states that homosexuality can endanger your soul (1 Cor 6:9). Gene Robinson and others pontificate with certainty: "Oh don't worry, that was just meant male prostitutes." I find this incredible when our good Lord states emphatically that "it would be better for a millstone...then to lead a little one astray." A much less prideful approach is to state with uncertainty, "I am not sure whether or not this will endanger your soul. Best to avoid it and live either in celibacy or Christian (male/female) marriage."

[j]

Hi Robroy

Happy to explain my point better.

What I see is an argument from you that starts by saying that oral sex does kill people, and that this is therefore an argument against allowing anyone to do it, and specifically against gay love.

To take one section at a time:

If the church is to take on a public health role, that could be very valuable. As a medic I am sure you agree that other lifestyle choices kill more people, so the Church ought to start with obesity and addictive behaviours such as smoking and then perhaps driving. The link of at least the first two with gluttony is at least as good as the link between oral sex and gay love, and far more people die of the associated conditions.

Once the whole of the chich has near-perfect health, tarnished only by the oral sex rate, then perhaps the pulpit would on to this.

At that point, we might need to consider whether we tell everyone to stop doing it- but on what grounds? the public health mission is not one that most people would accept. Its not biblical in itself. Gay women dont go in for fellatio, for obvious reasons, and gay men may prefer sodomy. Fellatio is much more common in hetero couples. At which point, it stops being obvious that there is even a small excuse for the church to intervene.

[andrew holden]

"I hope that I am misreading this for it seems to say that because all will die, go ahead and engage in unsafe sexual practices. "

Everything we do entails risk of some sort and life is terminal whatever we do. As a clergyman I'd reject the suggestion that prolonging life is some sort of absolute value against which every act should be judged.

People generally live their lives by assessing risks against possible gains - and the greatest gain of all is a 4 letter word.

Sexual activity, regardless of sexuality, within the context of a loving, non-abusive and committed relationship is much less riskly than predatory, abusive casual sex. I suspect that anal sex is much less common in the former kind of relationship, less sure about oral sex, but in the end I don't think its for me as a clergyman, nor you as a doctor, to pontificate with moral certainty about actions.

"Man looks on the outward appearance, the Lord looks on the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7

[robroy]

"Robroy: Presumably it kills a lot more straight people than gay ones, then?"

Hmmm, I don't see any gender specificity in 'sodomy can seriously damage your health' and 'fellatio kills'. I take it that you and I are in agreement that both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy and fellatio should be condemned by physicians and clergy?

But unlike heterosexual couples, non-platonic homosexual couples have no choice but to engage in these sexually risky practices.

To Mr. J ("Robroy, life kills, if it comes to that."): I hope that I am misreading this for it seems to say that because all will die, go ahead and engage in unsafe sexual practices. As a physician, I must condemn as reprehensible promulgators of this point of view.

[andrew holden]

Stephen Marsden asked: "Of course! An incarnational faith REQUIRES change!! .... Just one question: Who, precisely, defined incarnational faith in this way?"

Well how about St Athanasius for a start?

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

Drawing, of course, on the Biblical exchange that God became human in the person of Jesus in order that we might become divine. See "sharers in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4)

I think that deals with the when question as well.

[j]

Robroy, life kills, if it comes to that.

On that basis we should ban the obese and the smokers from our churches.

And fellatio is by no means only or even mainly a gay practice. Everyone is doing that, up to and including the (married) Bishopric I have no doubt. So really, linking it to gay sex is dishonest.

[j]

Robroy, life kills, if it comes to that.

On that basis we should ban the obese and the smokers from our churches.

And fellatio is by no means only or even mainly a gay practice. Everyone is doing that, up to and including the (married) Bishopric I have no doubt. So really, linking it to gay sex is dishonest.

[Fr Mark]

Robroy: Presumably it kills a lot more straight people than gay ones, then?

[robroy]

Godwin's law certainly was invoked quickly to score political points by the homosexualists.

And, of course, what is being avoided is the truth behind the parody. The term gay bowel disease has become a major politically incorrect faux pas and yet the list of GI manifestations of anal sex is long and serious. I am seeing in my own practice oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers in young, non-smokers that are most certainly human papilloma virus related. Disfiguring surgeries, chemoradiation therapy are necessary. There have been deaths reported in the literature, so the line "fellatio kills" is absolutely true.

[KM]

Wow. I've never been censored on the Times website before.