PARIS, July 7 (UPI) — Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's specific instructions to U.S. Catholic bishops to refuse Communion to pro-abortion rights politicians is yet another sign that the Vatican's 77-year old "Enforcer" is a man on the roll, according to senior European prelates. In the last few years Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, seemed exhausted and of ill health. He frequently spoke of his wish to retire and dedicate himself to writing books. Ratzinger, a German, is seen as one of the leading Christian theologians of this era; he enjoys the highest respect even among his Protestant colleagues who view him as an outstanding expert on Martin Luther, the 16th-century reformer. Lately, however, this dean of the College of Cardinals and closest collaborator of Pope John Paul II has shown extraordinary strength, a German monsignor told United Press International Wednesday. His admonition to U.S. bishops on the abortion issue was just one example of Ratzinger's renewed drive. Ratzinger wrote it in English specifically for Americans after the U.S. bishops had asked for guidance on this topic during their recent "ad limina" visits to the Holy See; every bishop undertakes such a visit every three to four years. In Europe, the question of whether Catholic politicians favoring abortion rights should receive Communion is "simply not an issue," according to French, German and other prelates. "There is no inclination here to refuse the sacrament to anybody based on his or her vote in parliament," an influential German theologian said. There are three principal reasons for this, observers say. One is the independent spirit of the Continent's national churches, especially in the German-speaking countries and in France. The other reason is that, although the struggle between pro-lifers and abortion rights activists is fierce, it has by no means reached the American level of intensity. In Germany, for example, the rate of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age is only about one-third of the American figure. In Austria it is only about one quarter, in France more than half. The third reason seems to be that in Europe Ratzinger himself and the rest of the Catholic Church have a different priority — re-Christianization. Here it is intensely engaged in undoing past secular excesses by national socialism, communism and deconstructionist philosophies of the likes of Jacques Derrida who denies reason's ability to find truth. Ratzinger judges this notion harshly: If reason can no longer trust its own categories, it is defenseless against irrational violence. Against this Ratzinger posits a proper balance between faith and reason under the divine logos (Word), which he defines as "creative reason" and the ground of all reality. This, then, is reflected in a concept of the state that rationally performs its temporal duties while drawing the line between reason and ideology. These thoughts Ratzinger expressed last month during the D-Day commemorations in Caen's cathedral in Normandy have prompted commentators to call him "Europe's theoretician." In a larger sense, though, this highest-ranking cardinal resists the age of extremes of both sides on the Atlantic. In North America, these extremes are manifest in the number of abortions — 44 million aborted fetuses since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Western Europe's extremism shows in the mass exodus of its people from the Church. And in this field, Catholic and Protestant clerics say, efforts to turn things around are meeting with some measure of success. Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, the Jewish-born archbishop of Paris, recently advised an audience to look at the large cities, not the countryside, for signs of spiritual renewal. This corresponds to the finding of the eminent Viennese sociologist of religion, Paul M. Zulehner, that throughout Western Europe urbanites are showing an increasing interest in religion. It was Lustiger who first suggested to John Paul II to re-evangelize the Continent by focusing on the youth and especially intellectuals. In France in particular, but also in Germany — especially its formerly communist East — highbrow Christian congregations are emerging. But this follows similar developments in earlier days of church history. For much of Christianity's almost 2,000 years, the intellectual elite served as the locomotive of growth; "regular folks" followed. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that Ratzinger, though approaching an age when he will no longer be allowed to vote in the conclave electing the next pope, is experiencing an intellectual surge. This does not mean that he is without critics in his own church. Even Ratzinger's European admirers, while welcoming his harmony with the pope in defending Catholic orthodoxy, concede that they expect some kind of a backlash against the Roman centralism he promotes. As one theologian told UPI, "The result of the currently high concentration of power in the Vatican might well be the election of a more laissez-faire pope as John Paul's successor."

One constant of Christian history is that persecution rarely, if ever, succeeds. While some Christians may succumb to the unimaginable pressures, many others are, as the Bible puts it, faithful unto death. In turn, their witness, which is what the word martyr means, draws others to the faith. In the second century, the apologist Tertullian wrote, "Go on, rack, torture, grind us to powder: Our numbers increase in proportion as you mow us down. The blood of Christians is their harvest seed." A century ago, twenty-six young African Christians proved Tertullian right. In doing so, they not only set an example for their contemporaries, but for us also. In the late 1800s, Anglican and Catholic missionaries brought Christianity to what is now Uganda. While, at first, people were free to convert to the new faith, conversion created problems for the converts. Becoming a Christian meant adopting new moral and religious standards and suggested that you had turned your back on old allegiances. As a result, Christians were often regarded as rebels of sorts. Mistrust turned to persecution when a new king named Mwanga came to the throne. His court was infamous for its homosexual debauchery. Suddenly, not only were Christians undermining the old religious and political order, they had the temerity to criticize his sexual practices. Events came to a head when the king's pages began to resist his sexual advances. His outrage turned to murderous rage against Christianity when he learned why they had resisted: They had become Christians and were living chastely as their new faith required. Mwanga gave the new converts a choice: complete obedience to his orders, including his sexual demands, or their new faith and death. They chose martyrdom. On June 3, 1886, twenty-six converts between the ages of 13 and 30, Protestants and Catholics, were burnt to death. Their leader, Charles Lwanga, asked to be untied so he could arrange the sticks on his pyre. While few remember the tyrant who martyred these Christians, the Martyrs of Uganda, as they are known, became heroes of the faith. Today, largely because of their witness, Uganda is a mostly Christian nation — one that is offended and scandalized by the easy acceptance of homosexuality that exists in some of our churches. There's a lesson for us as well. Christians in the West face pressure, albeit nothing like Lwanga and his companions, to play down Christianity's moral demands, especially as regards sexual practices. We're told that things will go better for us if we remain quiet about issues like abortion and homosexuality and gay "marriage." Those who do speak out are called "bigots," but if Charles Lwanga could tell his executioner that he was glad to be dying for the faith, being called names, however unfairly, is a small price to pay. Remembering these martyrs, the Church in Uganda and other parts of Africa stands firm in resisting the ordination of homosexuals and same-sex "marriages." It's costing them financial support, and reputations are being hurt, yet they stand with the martyrs in bearing witness to absolute truth and to God's moral law. They are resisting the hostile spirit of the age. And they are a model for us all to follow.

GARDEN CITY, NY — The Dean of the Cathedral of the Incarnation, the Very Rev. James J. Cardone says he was summarily fired by Long Island Bishop Orris Walker and that the letter put out by the bishop saying he resigned was a "gross inaccuracy." In a copy of the Dean's letter obtained by Virtuosity, Cardone wrote that "he [the bishop] never asked for my resignation, either verbally or in writing," and he accused the bishop of having a "convenient memory lapse" or being "a deliberate ruse." "I can assure you that I never tendered it. On June 10 when I was summoned, he continually tried to get me to agree with his position that 'the future of our relationship is untenable'." Cardone said he shared with the bishop his belief that mature adults could disagree on various issues and still have a working relationship. Evidently that does not apply to him. "I made it clear to him then that I did not agree with his position and I would not resign or assist him in any effort to discharge me. He unilaterally concluded that he must do this nonetheless. He never told me a date of discharge, nor did he provide any other details. I left his office telling him that I would await his call with the details." On June 11, Walker wrote a letter to the Clergy and Lay Leadership of the Diocese of Long Island saying that he had requested the resignation of the Dean, and had done so after "considerable self-examination, consultation and prayer." Cardone said he had yet to be contacted by him [the bishop], yet he obviously felt free to inform the Diocese as well as the Cathedral congregation. Never at any time did Bishop Walker say the words, "I request your resignation as Dean." The Dean said that at the Cathedral Chapter meeting on June 10, he never even announced his discharge, but instead meticulously followed the agenda he had prepared until the final agenda item of 'Dean's Report', "when I announced my discharge to the Chapter and Cathedral Council members myself." Cardone said that when he did, Walker flew into a rage and spent the next 45 minutes in various postures of tirade and hand slamming in his refusal to be accountable to anyone, including Chapter, for his actions. "He also showed flagrant and open disregard for the well being of the Cathedral congregation. The minutes of the meeting and those members attending will bear me out." The Dean questioned the bishop's sincerity. He described the bishop's letter to the clergy as "pro forma" and "very touching" especially for everyone to pray "for me and my family." The Dean said that when he and his family were informed of his son's suicide, the bishop showed zero "pastoral care or concern." "Nineteen days after we buried our son he expressed his Christian charity, fine pastoral care, intense humanity and razor sharp judgment by summarily discharging me without so much as an apology either for impact or timing." "Where was he as 'pastor to the clergy and their families'? Where was his prayerful support and care during the most devastating 3 weeks of our lives? He was totally absent and totally silent, until he chose to make matters worse." In a final blast at the bishop, the Dean wrote, "There is, however, one part of his letter to all of you with which Sheryl (Cardone's wife) Tom and I are all in complete agreement. He, [the bishop] needs your prayers. As for me and my household, we will choose the Lord for our protection and care, because it is quite clear that we are not to receive it from his Church."

Ethics and Religion — July 6, 2004 In 1776 government in virtually every nation was based on the inequality of man. The "divine right of kings" elevated them and their cronies, and subjugated all citizens to their rule. The state was of paramount importance, and man subject to the state. From the beginning, however, those who came to this land had a higher view of the role of the individual, a view that stems from Scripture. "Then God said, let us make man in our own image." If that is so, all men are created equal, and should have an equal voice in government. The first permanent settlers arriving in Plymouth in 1620 signed the Mayflower Compact before they even landed. It was America's first written document of representative government: They acknowledged "having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith...to plant the first colony...solemnly and mutually and in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together in a civil body politick for our better ordering and preservation...and frame such just and equal laws...unto which we promise all due submission and obedience." Each Pilgrim had a vote on who would be chosen to administer civil government and the church. Submission and obedience to a government one helped create is no burden. "To understand political power, right, and derive it from the Original, we must consider, what State all Men are naturally in, and that is a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their possessions and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man." "A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is Reciprocal, no one having more than another...This equality of Men by Nature...the Foundation of their Obligation to mutual Love amongst Men," wrote John Locke in "Of Civil Government," a 1689 book that had a profound influence on such founding fathers as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams. However, what is less recognized is Locke's dependence on Scripture for key principles: "My command is this: love each other as I have loved you" (John 15:12). "The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it. No one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions," wrote Locke, revising the Golden Rule of Luke 6:31: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you." "But though this be a State of Liberty, yet it is not a State of License," is a slight paraphrase of Galatians 5:13: "Use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh." What mattered most to Jefferson was Locke's rationale for overthrowing a government. For had not Paul written to the Romans: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there are no authorities except that which God has established." "A Child is born of no Country or Government. He is under his Father's Tuition and Authority, till he comes to Age of Discretion; and then he is a Freeman, at Liberty what Government he will put himself under," writes Locke. St. Paul told the Corinthians, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Locke concluded in 1690, "And tis not without Reason, that he seeks out and is willing to join in Society with others, who are already united, or have a Mind to unite, for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property." Jefferson put these sentiments more eloquently, though clearly inspired by Locke, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men." U.S. history is an effort to extend that liberty first to the slave and then to women. This too is based on Scripture, as Paul wrote to the Galatians (5:28) "You are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Contrast the honor given to American women with how they are treated by Muslims who allow a man to have four wives, or by Buddhists in China and Hindus in India, who often abort female children ironically condemning millions of their sons never to find a wife. Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus

June 30, 2004 — WorldNetDaily reported today that Pennsylvania pastors are thinking about getting liability insurance to protect themselves against prosecution for preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit. They are reacting to Pennsylvania's recent addition of "sexual orientation" to the state's hate crime laws. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has just sent a letter to 9,000 churches to assure them that the law, as currently written, will not criminalize preaching against homosexuality. The Becket Fund also vowed to defend any pastor for free if his religious freedom of speech is threatened. Pastors fear that the definition of "harassment" in the newly-passed law, will eventually be expanded to include speaking critically of homosexuality from the pulpit. According to Becket Fund President Kevin J. Hasson, "Although legislators expressly disavowed the motive at the time, one might be forgiven the impression that one purpose of this legislation was to generate a fear of prosecution among those who would preach and teach in favor of the traditional prohibition on homosexual behavior — a teaching so common to so many faiths." The Slippery Slope Laws adding "sexual orientation" to hate crime laws or laws preventing so-called "discrimination" against homosexuals, have been used in other nations to persecute individuals for speaking out against homosexuality or criticizing other religions. In Canada, for example, a recently-passed hate crimes law (C-250) criminalizes speech if it incites hatred against any identifiable group. This law added "sexual orientation" to its hate crime law and left this term undefined. The New York Post reported on March 2, 2004, that the hate crimes unit of the NYPD had been sent to view Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," to see if it violated any state regulations against inciting hatred against Jewish persons. In Australia, a Pakistani pastor who criticized Islam, is being persecuted for violating Victoria's hate crime law against "vilifying" other religions. In California, under former Governor Gray Davis's administration, liberal school officials were pushing for the institution of thought crime patrols on junior high and high school campuses. These students or faculty members were to report any examples of "hate motivated incidents" that might be used against homosexuals. The individuals were to be punished for exercising freedom of speech on campus. In England, an Anglican Bishop was under investigation for publicly suggesting that homosexuals needed to seek reparative therapy to overcome their same-sex attractions. The Bishop was to be charged under a hate crime statute. These are only a few of many examples that would be cited of hate crime laws being used to stifle freedom of speech and religion around the world. The recently-passed Kennedy/Smith hate crimes bill in the U.S. Senate is a building block that will be used by homosexual activists to expand the definition of what constitutes a hate crime. It will eventually be used to ban speech that is considered critical of homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers, etc. Read and distribute TVC's report, "Hate Crime Legislation: Unequal Protection Under The Law." Distribute the Senate Republican Policy Committee reports on the dangers of hate crime laws. The Kennedy/Hate crimes bill has not yet been signed into law. It must be reconciled in a House version of the defense authorization bill after the July 4th recess. There is still time to defeat this legislation by having it stripped from the joint House/Senate version. Please contact your Representative immediately and ask that he or she vote to strip out the Kennedy/Smith hate crime bill (Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act). ACN MODERATOR APPLAUDS SUBMISSION OF INTER ANGLICAN AND ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMISSION ON UNITY AND MISSION July 6, 2004 The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), today commended a document submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lambeth Commission by a sub-commission of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity and Mission (IARCCUM). The ad hoc sub-commission was initiated by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to address the current crisis in the Anglican Communion and its affect on the ecumenical community. At the center of its report is a repeated call for the national churches of the Anglican Communion to turn away from the "shibboleth of autonomy" and theological "local options" and toward relationships built on real unity and interdependence. "The subcommittee's work is admirable and offers a thorough analysis of the grave ecumenical and inter-Anglican problems caused by ECUSA's decisions at General Convention 2003 as well as the consecration of V. Gene Robinson," said Bishop Duncan. "This document is particularly significant given the continuing unilateral actions of ECUSA leaders, such as the Bishop of North Carolina's recent decision to allow same sex blessings in his diocese," he added. The sub-commission was appointed by Archbishop Williams and Cardinal Kasper of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The group considered and addressed the concept of real "communion" in light of the consecration of V. Gene Robinson. The document strongly asserts that "what one communion does has consequences for the other." It goes on to note that it is not autonomy, but "unity and interdependence" that are the essential building blocks of real communion. Both have been deeply undermined by Robinson's consecration. "How can a bishop whose ordination made him a cause of controversy (leading others to break communion with him and with those who consecrated him) represent the local community in the councils of the church? How can he mediate the unity of the universal Church to his diocese when he is at odds with large segments of the universal church?" While ECUSA leadership claims the right of provincial autonomy, the sub-commission points to church history to refute such arguments. "Recalling the crises, councils and canons of the 4th century helps us to reflect on our current situation: in particular, on the role of the local bishop, and his relationship to the metropolitan and the universal Church, in safeguarding the unity of the Church. The practice of the 4th century, which shows that, in challenging situations, consultation and conciliarity alone are not always sufficient to sustain and protect ecclesial communion, may also suggest models for the Anglican Communion as it seeks to find a way forward." In addition, the paper highlights the fact that actions such as ECUSA's and New Westminster's are destructive to the Church and were therefore ill-advised. "When fundamental changes arise which may impair the communion of the Church, then concern for others, mutual forbearance, deferring to others, putting the interest of others above one's own are marks of the way of communion. We ask whether these attitudes were shown towards all sections of the Anglican Communion and towards the holders of all shades of opinion in the Communion in the recent decisions of New Hampshire and New Westminster." In their conclusion, the sub-commission illustrates the severe problems created by independent, unilateral actions in the name of autonomy that undermine the theological and moral teaching of Christianity. "If Anglican Dioceses or provinces were to embrace the notion of 'local option' for important decisions about the teaching of the Church in matters of faith and morals, and if bonds of communion were weakened in the direction of a federation of autonomous provinces rather than a relationship of mutual responsibility and interdependence, then our consensus on the ecclesiology of communion would be seriously undermined, and perhaps irreparably damaged." Ecumenical fallout was swift following General Convention 2003 and the subsequent consecration of V. Gene Robinson. In the wake of strong criticism and controversy surrounding his support of Robinson, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold resigned his position as Anglican co-chair of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) in November 2003, citing his concern about "not jeopardizing the present and future life and work of the Commission." In addition, the Russian Orthodox Church severed ties with ECUSA and 21 Primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion have declared either impaired or broken communion with the Episcopal Church. In December 2003, IARCCUM dialogue was suspended as a result of the consecration. "The Presiding Bishop and Episcopal News Service continue to present an inaccurate picture of the Episcopal Church as strong, healthy and ecumenically connected. That just isn't true. Not only do the fractures in our church grow larger, but we are also seeing ecumenical relationships, formed over years of painstaking work together, thrown into crisis," Bishop Duncan said. "We cannot and must not practice our faith in a vacuum without regard for the negative impact on the broader church. I would very much like to see a theological response from Bishop Griswold whose statements about the nature of communion in recent months are challenged so directly by this paper." To read the document in its entirety: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenical/documents/200406iarccum.pdf

By Edith M. Humphrey June, 2004 The word "sanctity" has been bandied about rather casually of late, most notably in the approved amendment to General Synod's A-134 resolution, which affirmed "the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships." When asked from the floor what he meant by the word "sanctity," the framer of the amendment replied that it was intended in a "pastoral" not a "theological sense." Now THAT is a strange answer, particularly since the "sanctity" was twinned with "integrity," itself a word derived from the Latin integritas, meaning "wholeness, purity, blamelessness, innocence, integrity and chastity." The answer is rendered even more dubious when we remember that, in the course of debate, an alternate reading (that called more generally for "love and support" of those in a same-sex lifestyle) was defeated. Virtually every word, of course, has a "semantic range" -- that is, a word is somewhat elastic, and means various things in various contexts. What can and does "sanctity" mean? Let's consider how we use the word traditionally in our own English culture. "Sanctity," along with its synonym "holiness" has a quaint air in our postmodern environment. Anyone encountering the word finds himself or herself immediately thinking in terms of religion, cult, and morality. Because of the way that the word has normally been domesticated, that is, applied to the "purity" of human beings, we tend to forget that originally "sanctity" was attached to a sense of awe, or mystery. However, even with this loss of memory, there is a hangover -- we speak of someone who has "the air of sanctity" and imagine, perhaps, a monk or a nun, someone separated out for God's service. So the standard concise oxford offers these synonyms for sanctity: "holiness of life, saintliness, sacredness, being hallowed, right to reverence, inviolability." Sanctity, then, is the state of holiness, and can naturally be applied to anything that the adjective "holy" traditionally describes: "holy water," "holy" altar, a "holy" person, the "Holy Bible," "holy matrimony," the "Holy Spirit," the "holy God," "the holy One of God." In the Latin, the word sanctus is used to translate the Hebrew term Qadosh, and three Greek terms, hieros, hosios (and most commonly) hagios. Greek, then, had several terms, with overlapping meanings, but used in particular ways. Hieros always referred to something or someone divine, or consecrated to the divine: Typically, the word referred to priests, cultic objects, and the like, as well as to the Lord God himself, but it is not a word used often in the Old or New Testaments. Hosios had more to do with the ethical dimension of "holiness," and referred to a duty to worship what is holy, to the quality of reverence or piety in the worshipper. However, the word hagios has the broadest range, and is used to cover the various other meanings, from "holiness" connected directly with worship and cult, to the absolute "holiness" of the Almighty God, to the "holiness" of his people. The Old Testament, of course, with its emphasis on the tabernacle and the Temple (constructed in concentric circles of increasing holiness), considered "holiness" as referring to those things that are set apart, or utterly different from, the profane. One of the revolutions effected by the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, is that the earth, visited by God, is no longer "profane" by its very nature. "This is our Father's world." Concentration upon the Temple as the locus of God's holiness now gives way to the focus upon the "holy One" whose very body was and remains the Temple of God. The visitation of the Son to our world means that nothing is, by the mere fact of being "created," simply "profane" -- all things created can be irradiated with the glory of God, and the breach between the holy and the profane can be healed. But this does not happen automatically, especially where the will of human beings is concerned. Just as God placed Adam and Eve in a care-taking position in the pristine world of Eden, so now the redeemed humanity, in Christ, is called to respond to God's work in us, so that time and space are redeemed for the sake of holiness. This begins with, but does not end with, our own lives and our own relationships. We tread carefully here to avoid the impression that this relies upon us, for all of it comes from the initiative of God. Yet we are called, in a certain sense, to "co-operate" (and I use the word advisedly). Just as the God of the Hebrews said to his own people, "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (and assumed that this required a response), so the rhythm of the Pauline letters says, "God is like this and God has done this in Christ" "therefore present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy... (Romans 12:1)." Jesus said to his listeners, "Be therefore perfect (teleioi, i.e., complete, with integrity, fulfilled) just as your heavenly Father is perfect." Yet it was not Christianity, but the Gnostic movement, that assumed its converts, the spirit-ones to be already perfect. The Incarnation, and God's reclaiming of the cosmos and of humanity, does not mean that we can claim an inner, inalienable "holiness." This is something held for us in trust as we are in Christ, and beginning an ongoing life of transformation in which we are called to participate. The advent of God the Son changed the whole of the fallen created order, so that, in a sense, the distinction between the holy and profane is abolished. This means that nothing is to be, by its inner nature, whether material, emotional, psychic, or spiritual, left outside of God's rule -- but things, people and relationships are not automatically rendered "holy" just because they have some claim to existence. Some 20th century poets have thought this, but it is not a Christian idea. For Christians have an operative word that is matched to the idea of "sanctity" -- it is the verb "sanctification." Things and people need to be "set aside" (hazomai, hagiomai) for God. This work of sanctification began, of course, in Jesus, but it continues. This verb, we must remember, originally meant "to stand in awe of the gods (or one's parents). We are here in the domain of the burning bush, in the atmosphere of Isaiah's trisagion ("Thrice-holy") vision, verging on the realm of angels, into which we are called fully because of what Jesus has done and because of who he is -- truly God and truly human. Sanctitas, in its fullest meaning, covers all the following: sacredness, inviolability, sanctity, moral purity, holiness, virtue, piety, integrity, honor, purity, chastity. How bizarre that the word should now be used to describe activities that are linked with impurity, lack of honour and lack of chastity in the whole of the Bible! Christians, after all, are called "holy" because they are in Christ, incorporated into "the Holy One of God" (Luke 1:35, Acts 4:27). There is, of course, a rational explanation for why the term would have been applied, on June 4, 2004 to a "committed adult same-sex union." It is because the framers have, in the background, the arguments of the likes of Eugene Rogers, who has neutralized the Biblical proscriptions regarding homoerotic behaviour by leashing the meaning of the words used to describe this activity, and by appealing to "experience" as the arbiter of our decision. Rogers, after a skewed interpretation of the various Biblical texts that touch on same-sex activity, clinches his argument by asserting that same-sex couples "find" in their union "a means of grace," so it must be holy. This appeal to experience that contradicts the condemnation of Scripture is the most common revisionist position today. It says that we know better than St. Paul, because he just doesn't recognize the grace that characterizes the loving union of two men or two women. Wasn't Jesus always welcoming outcasts from Israel among his followers? Now God is doing something similar, but new for the church. In that light, the church needs to recognize what is holy, and arrange for membership, ordination to office, the "blessing of unions" or outright "marriage" in order to celebrate the experience of those people who say they already find sanctity in the love they have for one another? The argument sounds like a new "sheet" let down before 21st century doubting Peters: but has God called this novel arrangement "clean"? Douglas Farrow, in his article "Different Gods," explains that such reasoning "is to affirm the integrity and sanctity, the wholeness and holiness, of what he or she already is and has as a sexual being in a sexual relationship." Indeed, the amendment to Resolution A-134 implied that "Synod was being asked to affirm the presence of God that already inheres in every committed (homo)sexual relationship between Christians." In passing it, the ACC followed the tendency in our day to assume "that what we are in ourselves is already (potentially if not actually) whole and holy." Thus, "as sexual beings" (and perhaps not in any other part of our person) we do not "require any special justification, sanctification and transformation in Jesus Christ." Jesus' death tells us otherwise, as do those who know how to follow in his pattern. John 7: 17, 19 and 10:33, 36, declare that the Holy One died a death separated unto God so that we can, in turn, be sanctified. 1 Corinthians 7 speaks of the marriage relationship, and how the sanctity of a believing partner hallows the whole marriage so that the unbelieving spouse may also come into God's holiness. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 tells us that it is God who sanctifies spirit, soul and body -- not our own assertions, our own experience, or our own imaginations. We are called to such holiness by Jesus, who is faithful and, and who has promised to complete what he has begun in us, corporately and personally, through the Holy Spirit. But this he will not do against our wills, and certainly not if we assume that the work need not be done! ("But now that you say, 'we see,' your sin remains," John 9:41). As Hebrews 12:10 reminds us, there is a godly discipline laid down for us, so that we can indeed share in the holiness of the Son. God himself enacted the first marriage covenant, bringing Eve to Adam, her partner. A marriage, like the relation of Christ to the church, is not finally a thing made with human hands. In contrast, homoerotic relations, whether "blessed" or not, point to our human willfulness and brokenness (Romans 1:21-24). By its nature, homoerotic activity cannot bear fruit or fulfill the ecstatic ("going out") role, the picture of Trinitarian life, that marriage is meant to dramatize. What would a same-sex "blessing" or "marriage" supposedly show us? For one, the church would be giving thanks to God for the sexual union of two men, or two women -- and declaring that in themselves they are pictures or icons of God's love, that they display in a certain mode the salvation story, and that they are glorified or taken up into God's own actions and being. It would declare that they have a significant and fruitful part in creation, and that they are symbols of the in-breaking and coming rule of God, in the holiness of Christ, in which the church now shares and in which we will eventually participate fully. It would be to "speak a good word" about this sort of relationship, explicitly declaring it to be a condition in which the way of the cross and the way of new life come together. It would thus claim that the relationship is conducive to repentance, healing, growth and glorification for the two men or the two women involved. Precisely here, the church would be saying, you can see the wholeness, the holiness, the love of God in human form, and the glory of humanity. Here would be a sacrament, an occasion where the holy God meets us. A church doing this in reality is replacing God with an idol, and this before the whole world. It is claiming that God blesses an act for which repentance is required. It is commending to the family of God, and thus to the world, activities that lead to spiritual death. It is praying against its true nature, indeed, it is denying its true nature. Finally, the particular body (congregation or communion) is rending itself from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the creed. As Karl Barth has observed, heresy raises the troubling question of the boundaries of the church. While the church may learn from its conflict with heresy, there is no "middle way" between faithfulness here and the revisionist position on homoerotic relations. It makes little difference whether we create rites to sanctify, or declare these parodic unions already sanctified. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols!" (1 John 5:21) END

Editorial — Sunday Telegraph 7/4/2004 The Archbishop of Canterbury has again been pronouncing on British foreign policy. Last week, it emerged that Dr Rowan Williams had, with Dr David Hope, the Archbishop of York, written to the Prime Minister criticising "recent developments in Iraq and the Middle East." He singled out the "brutal and indecent" treatment of Iraqi detainees, and the alleged influence on the Bush administration of Christian Zionists, whose "interpretations of the Scriptures from outside the mainstream of the tradition" were "fostering an uncritical and one-sided approach to the future of the Holy Land." "Many of us," he wrote, "have been working with Islamic leaders," and "the appearance of double standards inevitably diminishes the credibility of Western governments with the people of Iraq and with the Islamic world generally." The implication of the Archbishop's letter is that the world of Islam is entitled to be exacting because it shares Christendom's values and our tendency to criticise ourselves. In fact, in all of his statements touching Islam (there have been oh so many), Rowan Williams suggests that it is just like Anglican Christianity or Reform Judaism, that it shares their fundamental hostility to imperialism and misrule, and would feel the same shame that "we" do, were it held responsible for prisons like Abu Ghraib, or human tragedies like the plight of the Palestinians. Dr Williams's belief that Christendom and Islam are one was perhaps most apparent on December 21, 2003, when he condemned the detention of Muslim asylum-seekers who, the authorities believed, were planning atrocities against the Britain on whose mercy they had thrust themselves. "There is theological debate here which is real and deep," Williams said on that occasion of his relationship with Islam, "because we share some history and we can discuss it." Can we discuss the fact that the Muslims here, all recent immigrants, enjoy rights — for instance to propagate their religion — that are unavailable to the Christians of the Muslim world? This is despite the fact that these Christians are the original inhabitants and rightful owners of almost every Muslim land, and behave with a humility quite unlike the menacing behaviour we have come to expect from the Muslims who have forced themselves on Christendom, a bullying ingratitude that culminates in a terrorist threat to their unconsulted hosts. Dr Williams has nothing to say about this: but then, Christian passivity in the face of Muslim narcissism and aggression is nothing new. "The history we share" is that Mohammed enjoined his followers to spread Islam by the sword. After his death in 632, Muslim armies poured out of the Arabian peninsula (the only place to which Muslims are native, though even there Islam was imposed by force) and, unprovoked, attacked its neighbours. Christian Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Anatolia, Spain, the Balkans, the Maghreb and Sicily, as well as Buddhist central Asia, Zoroastrian Iran and Hindu India, all became "Muslim" by virtue of naked imperialism. The indigenous non-Muslims were either exterminated (the fate of the Christians of North Africa), or reduced to the status of third-class citizens in their own countries, their fate to this day. The Crusades — for which the Pope has apologised to Islam (he did so again last week), rather as an old lady might apologise to a mugger for trying to retrieve her purse — were simply an attempt by medieval Christians to get their homelands back. Spain, Sicily, and parts of the Balkans were recovered. Palestine wasn't, though the Muslim colonisers there — who are no more "native" to the Holy Land than the European Jews who removed them — were largely ejected in 1948. It goes without saying that today's Muslims — who, unlike today's Westerners, are very proud of their history of imperialism — are highly indignant at being parted from this stolen property. As the Pope's statement shows, Dr Williams's willingness to swallow the camel of Islam's treatment of others while straining at the gnat of Christendom's "sins" against Islam is traditional. What is unprecedented is the theological concession implicit in his remarks, ie that Islam is part of the Judaeo-Christian continuum. This idea naturally lends credence to the Muslim claim that Christ is not God, but just one in a line of Judaeo-Christian "prophets" whose "seal" is Mohammed, a claim which allows Islam to appropriate to itself the greater achievements of the Judaeo-Christian world. As Councillor Fiyaz Mughal of Oxford wrote, in a letter to The Independent of Christmas Eve 2003 supporting Dr Williams, Christianity and Judaism are, to Muslims, "part of their own belief." And are thereby negated: for why bother to remain within Christianity or Judaism when the more "perfect" form of both is Islam? This presumptuous attitude to other faiths is so characteristic of Islam that the philosopher Konrad Elst has called it "jihad negationism." He has pointed out that its physical manifestation is Islam's practice of eradicating older religions by planting mosques on their holiest sites; for instance, the Babri mosque in Ayodhya, the birthplace, to Hindus, of Ram; and the Omar mosque on the platform of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Holy of Holies of the Jewish people for millennia. The endorsement by Dr Williams of the idea of continuity between Christianity and Islam violates the teaching of every Church father since Muslim communities first appeared in the seventh century. These cite Christ's own warning that people would arrive in His wake claiming to bear a message from God superseding the Incarnation's: "Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them." The "fruit" of Islam is all around us: we can draw our own conclusions. It is felt in the presence of the Muslims who have fled to a thriving Christendom from the failure and horror of the Muslim world. (Would Muslims show a similar hospitality? It seems unlikely when they rail against the five million Jews who have settled in Israel, while gloating over the fact that 20 million Muslims in less than 30 years have inundated Europe.) These immigrants seem not to realise that the need they feel to flee Islam negates everything they say in its favour, as well as rendering absurd their constant anti-Western diatribes. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no such excuse. LAMBETH COMMISSION REPORT SET FOR OCTOBER 16 Special Report By David W. Virtue The Archbishop of Canterbury will send the Lambeth Commission report to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and then release it to the public on or about Saturday October 16th when the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is in London, a source has told Virtuosity. The Primates will meet on or around Feb. 21-26 2005, but the venue has not yet been decided, but the Primates meeting is scheduled for Northern Ireland the home turf of liberal Irish Primate Robin Eames. The letter from Canon John Peterson head of the Anglican Communion Office says that the Joint Standing Committee will meet to decide how the report will be used in an attempt to get it out of the hands of the Primates into what he hopes will be the more liberal ACC, said the source. Some of the primates are communicating that they do not want the process handed over to the Joint Standing Committee, said another source. It is THEIR process, they argue, and they don't want it spun by Peterson before the Primates have read it and responded to the whole Communion. Last October it was revealed that Peterson attempted to manipulate the agenda of the Primates meeting by nullifying conservative outcome in the battle raging within the Anglican Communion over homosexuality. A proposed agenda and a strategy memorandum was accidentally given to an American orthodox Dean after being distributed by the ACC at the International Anglican Doctrinal and Theological Commission [IADTC]. The purpose was to "make sure nothing happens" at the emergency meeting called by Archbishop Rowan Williams. The ACC, critics charge, will use financial intimidation and a manipulative agenda to frustrate the will of the majority of the Primates of the Anglican Communion. It was thought at the time that Canon Peterson wrote the memo to Dr. Williams.

Diocese of Central Florida The following letter from the Rt. Rev. John Howe to the Diocesan Board discusses a delay in sending money marked for "alternative giving" from the Diocese of Central Florida to the NACDP: June 23, 2004 Dear Members of the Diocesan Board, Our administrator, Mr. Earl Pickett, advised me last week that he was ready to distribute the monies allocated for "Alternative Giving" and did I consent to his doing so. I told him I saw no reason not to send the monies as they have been designated with the exception of the money designated for The Network. As it was remarked by several of you last week, Father Don Curran's resolution that we support The Network financially came to us at the end of our meeting in May without any advance warning, and several of you expressed a degree of discomfort with making a decision like that and having no chance to reflect or pray about it beforehand. As you also know, the reaction to that decision has been extremely mixed. Some of our people are absolutely outraged that "our hard earned money is going to support The Network." The decision to join The Network passed at our January Annual Convention by about a two-thirds vote. This means that one-third of our clergy and delegates voted against it. Many of them are dismayed that monies given to the Diocese of Central Florida are now finding their way to the work of The Network. Some are choosing to "pay us back" by withholding any of their money from the diocese. As is true in many other areas, it is certainly true that when we begin to use money as a political weapon "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." For over a decade we had a very well thought out balanced formula for supporting ministries around the globe with the monies of those who did not want their contributions going to the support of ECUSA. Now we are suddenly making decisions that seem, at best, arbitrary to me and we have lost a sense of balance and clarity. The decision made last week to support the Church in Uganda is a case in point. Certainly, the Church in Uganda is impoverished and in many ways suffering, but the same could be said for so many other parts of the world. And, the Church in Uganda has made the political decision (moral, theological, as well) to refuse money from ECUSA because of the sexuality decisions made at the last General Convention. That is a costly and courageous decision, but also one with tragic irony since it would be hard to find an Anglican congregation anywhere in Uganda that does not have among its active membership any number of polygamists. The cultural issues we are struggling with in the USA are very different from those in East Africa and yet there is a certain parallel, isn't there? So, I am asking Earl to hold the monies designated for The Network until we have a chance next month to revisit the issue, and I am asking each of you to make it a matter of prayer and discussion with other members of your congregation. I believe we need to have a more thorough discussion before finalizing this kind of a decision. Warmly and gratefully yours in our Lord, John W. Howe, Bishop cc: The Standing Committee

By David W. Virtue Portland, ME The local Bishop of the nation's largest traditional Anglican Church said he would welcome former Episcopalians who have left their church because of the ordination of avowed homosexual ECUSA Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. The Right Rev. George D. Langberg, Bishop of the Diocese of the Northeast, Anglican Church of America (ACA) said, "Our church is always open to those who feel the need to abandon those who have abandoned scripture." He encouraged the parishes in his Diocese, which includes the six New England States and New York, to "reach out to those who are following the same path we have trod in our desire to hold onto our beliefs and stand up for our faith." "There is always a place in the Anglican Church in America for those who hold true to scripture and embrace a traditional way of worship," Bishop Langberg continued. "Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have left the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester, New Hampshire and our hearts and our doors are open to those who seek a church that continues to stand firm in its faith." The bishop's comments followed the visit of his church's primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, head of the largest Continuing traditional Anglican Church body outside the Anglican Communion. The Australian-born Archbishop visited Maine, New Hampshire and New York. Archbishop Hepworth, the highest-ranking cleric in the Church, met with the clergy of the Diocese, attended the annual Blessing of Portland's Fishing Fleet and led worship at the Anglican Cathedral of St. Paul in Portland, Maine and Trinity Church in Rochester, New Hampshire. The Australian-born Archbishop is the spiritual head of the Traditional Anglican Communion. The church has some 300,000 members in 42 countries including Africa, Australia, Europe, New Zealand, Asia and North and South America. The Archbishop is visiting church members on various continents over the next several months. The Traditional Anglican Communion bases its theology and practice on Holy Scripture and the general councils of the undivided Christian Church of the first centuries after Christ, and its liturgy on the Traditional Book of Common Prayer of the historic Church of England.

Cremation Discouraged Because of "Greenhouse Gases" By Christopher Morgan and Sarah Keenlyside The London Times July 5, 2004 The Church of England is to embark on a green reformation. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wants to bring environmentalism into every aspect of its work, ranging from ecological burials to powering churches with solar panels. Clergy are to be asked to discourage cremation because of the greenhouse gases generated, to drive around in electric cars and to urge congregations to wear extra coats to save on heating. Tomorrow Williams will make a keynote speech outlining the church's growing commitment to green causes and emphasising that humans should no longer see themselves as having "dominion" over the earth. Instead they are its stewards, he will say. The archbishop has tried to set an example by taking delivery of an environmentally friendly, semi-electric Honda Civic IMA as his chauffeur-driven official car. As part of the campaign, nine senior bishops recently held a meeting to discuss proposals to encourage "green" funerals. In the ceremonies, designed by the Arbory Trust charity, the dead are placed in biodegradable cardboard coffins or shrouds, and both corpse and container rot quickly without contaminating the soil. Trees or shrubs are also used instead of gravestones. "We talk about ashes to ashes and dust to dust so the green burial is a more appropriate interpretation of what is meant," said Claire Foster, the church's environmental co-ordinator. The church has opened its first green burial site on a 38-acre patch of consecrated ground on a hill west of Cambridge. Existing graveyards will also be made "greener." At the moment most are a conservationist's nightmare because of their gravestones and intensive manicuring to control grass and weeds. Under the proposals, vicars would be encouraged to let graveyards become wildlife reserves, home to butterflies, bees, foxes and rare plants. In another initiative, the church has set up eco-workshops across the country, supported by the environment department and the Conservation Foundation. The foundation has also given the church the idea of finding a designer who will create a wardrobe of warm clothes to go to church in. This would save on fuel use, which could be aided by solar panels on south-facing roofs. David Shreeve, the foundation's director, said: "If you were designing an eco-friendly building today you wouldn't design the sort of buildings the church has. Often there are a very small number of people in a very large building, and that is obviously expensive to heat."

Letter Lets Clergy, Congregations Decide About Offering Blessing By Paul Garber, Reporter Winston-Salem Journal July 3, 2004 The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina sent a letter to area ministers this week telling those who want to bless homosexual unions that they can do so under certain guidelines. The letter from Bishop Michael Curry leaves it up to the ministers and congregations to decide whether to offer the blessings. One local minister said yesterday that he is prepared to offer the blessing. Others said they are not. "From my perspective as Bishop, the blessing of the committed lifelong unions of persons of the same gender is one way our community can live the Gospel through faithful and loving pastoral care and spiritual support for each other," the Curry letter reads. The letter, which was sent Thursday, is meant to offer pastoral guidance to the clergy in the wake of a vote by officials at St. Philip's Episcopal Church in Durham last month to allow the blessing of same-sex unions among its members. The Rev. Hal Hayek of St. Anne's Episcopal Church praised the bishop's letter, saying that it gave clear-cut guidelines on how to proceed should a congregation want to do so. Hayek said that the people of St. Anne's have already held discussions on why the church blesses any union, including those between men and women, and the next step in those discussions would cover whether same-sex unions should be blessed. He said he believes that such blessings can be appropriate. Other local Episcopal leaders are taking a more cautious approach. The Rev. Donald Goodheart of St. Paul's Episcopal Church said he will not move forward on the blessings until a consensus is reached within the congregation on what to do. "At St. Paul's, we have people on both sides," Goodheart said. "Our congregation is sharply divided on that right now." The Rev. Howard Backus of St. Timothy's Episcopal Church said that he would wait until the national Episcopal General Convention votes to approve such blessings. "I just feel like the General Convention is the voice of the church," Backus said. The General Convention meets every three years and has struggled with the issue of homosexuality for several years. So far, it has declined to endorse same-sex unions. In a compromise decision on the issue of same-sex unions, officials at last year's convention determined that local churches offering same-sex blessings were within the bounds of the national church, but they stopped short of authorizing common liturgies for such services. Last year's convention was also notable in its approval of the election of the church's first openly gay bishop, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Those decisions on homosexuality, particularly regarding Robinson, angered many of the more conservative Episcopalians and prompted protests by Anglican leaders in Africa and Asia. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of Anglicanism. The next General Convention is scheduled for 2006. In his letter, Curry said he understands that not all congregations will agree to bless same-sex unions. For those that do, he asked that certain guidelines be followed, including consulting with the bishop first, consulting with the parish community and the local church's leaders, and proceeding with the expectation that the relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy and mutual love and respect. The diocese headed by Curry is one of three Episcopal dioceses in the state. It serves much of the middle of the state, including Episcopal churches in the Triad.

By Colin Russell CEN Newspaper In the last few weeks the diocese of St Albans has been racked by controversy following the appointment of Jeffrey John as new Dean of the Abbey. More heat than light has been generated and many ordinary people are hurt, angry, fed up and confused. So this is an attempt to clarify some of the issues by a parishioner who has no official role at all in the dispute. A worm's-eye view can sometimes be useful, if only because there are an awful lot of worms. So what is at stake? To me it seems that several vital distinctions have got lost in the fog of acrimony and recrimination. We need to clarify these distinctions before the real issues can possibly emerge. For many people the question of homosexuality is what the row is all about, so we begin there. First of all, then, there is confusion between homosexual inclination and homosexual practice. "Homosexuality" can mean two quite different things. An inborn homosexual tendency is not at all the same as homosexual practice. We are all born with tendencies towards this or that, be it inclinations towards same-sex relationships, or towards adultery, football, music, paedophilia, murder, poetry or voting for New Labour. As they say, "it's all in the genes." Except that it isn't, for genetic predisposition is only one factor in determining action, just as it may be in causing disease. Something outside is often needed to trigger the effect. In the case of illness this may well be an invading virus. For social action this might be peer pressure or the demands of a rootless, post-modern society. So a person who calls himself or herself a "homosexual" may well be describing a built-in tendency and no more. A truly Christian response is to show to such a person the love of Christ and to welcome them to the company of sinners that we call the Church. Their natural inclinations are no more blameworthy than the colour of their eyes. The matter of homosexual practice is completely different. For centuries this has been regarded as contrary to God's plan for humanity or (in plain language) sinful. This is true of not only Christian cultures but those of Judaism and Islam as well. There is no evidence in any of these traditions that it is more sinful than (say) adultery, but equally none that it is less sinful. The point is that we humans have freedom to choose to follow our inclinations or not. And in Christ this freedom may be gloriously realised even more. We need not be the captives of either our genes or social pressures to conform. So it is perfectly consistent to love the homosexual and yet to deplore his or her fall into temptation. We must cling to the Christian doctrine of Divine love, a love that wants what is best for His creatures, not a poor substitute. And through the Cross the sinner who repents can always find forgiveness. The tragedy in situations like the present one is when there is no evidence of repentance by the chief actors for either past or present practices and attitudes. There is also a second area of confusion, between scientific and religious views of humankind. In his address to the June Synod the Bishop of St Albans made brief (though sadly inaccurate) reference to 19th and 20th century science, concluding that psychology and genetics play a comparable role to Christian tradition and the Bible in helping us "classify human beings." In fact genetics has almost nothing new to say about (for example) the tendency of some individuals to crave same-sex relationships. We knew all about that long before DNA came on the scene. All genetics does is suggest a general mechanism whereby such tendencies might be inherited. To suppose that this or any other science gives insights comparable with those of religion is completely to misunderstand the nature of the scientific process. On matters of moral and ethical values science is completely silent. It is as irrelevant to the current debate over homosexual practice as it is to appreciation of a Beethoven sonata. It cannot be used in formulating sexual ethics or justifying certain behaviour. Another forgotten difference is that between personal abuse and reasoned debate. In society as a whole homosexuality is a hugely emotive issue, passions run high and logic gets short shrift. To write to Christopher Herbert and accuse him of not being a Christian is utterly indefensible. None of us has any right to make such pronouncements, the prerogative of Almighty God alone. In any case the making of martyrs, even episcopal ones, is not to be commended. However, the Bishop himself has resorted to caricature. His opponents are said to claim "absolute authority" for their views, to be "alone" in their beliefs and to be simply throwing around "proof-texts." This is simply untrue of all discussions I have encountered. Anyone can portray extremists as the norm. Reasoned debate is even harder when decisions are presented as a fait accompli, with the implication "like it or lump it." Finally, there is the immense difference between human and divine authority. If, as Anglicans are supposed to believe, the Bible is our ultimate court of appeal then to confuse it with modish ideas from fashionable society is just crazy. The relativistic notion that "anything goes" is not only incompatible with science, but is also totally subversive for the church. Both are committed to objective truth, revealed in the "two books" of God's works and God's Word. Of course there are many ways to interpret much of the Bible, and we are grateful for all scholarship that helps us to do so. But in the case at issue the Biblical text seems crystal clear and no amount of scholarly wriggling can enable us to evade the conclusion. It is interesting that the Bishop has routinely declined to discuss precisely those parts of Scripture where homosexual practice is strongly condemned. Here, surely, is the core of the St Albans problem: the authority of Scripture. Whether "dispersed" in the lectionary and preaching or focussed in specific credal statements, this authority is vital to the survival of the church. If the diocese now formally repudiates that authority the consequences could be catastrophic. Even the worms will turn. Colin Russell is Emeritus Professor of History of Science at the Open University and Past President of Christians in Science.