 |
| The Bishop of Monmouth, Richard Pain, celebrating Petertide 2018 ordinations in the unaccustomed manner Source: Monmouth DCO |
Martin Shipton stirred up a hornets' nest when he published his article in the Western Mail, Unholy row in Diocese of Monmouth. It was short on facts so readers were left in the dark about the cause of the row but that has not prevented people from taking their chosen side.
Save for the select few observers are still in the dark:
From Provincial News:
"The Bench of Bishops and the Representative Body, which commissioned the Monmouth Enquiry and Review, thanked the panel for their work and said a period of consultation was now underway which was expected to take until the autumn.
"The panel, which began its work in May 2020, was chaired by Bishop Graham James and the other members were Lucinda Herklots and Patricia Russell. Bishop Richard retired in May 2019 due to ill health. He had been Bishop of Monmouth since 2013."
The following statement was added:
"Dear Friends,
We are writing to inform you that the Reviewers, commissioned by the Bench of Bishops and Representative Body to consider the matters which occurred prior to Bishop Richard Pain’s retirement, have now completed their work. Mr James Turner, Chairman of the Representative Body and I are immensely grateful to them for their meticulous work and considered judgements.
It is important that we now agree the next steps and we are therefore consulting those most closely associated with these events in order to determine what these should be. We expect to make progress quickly over the summer period and to complete our work in the autumn. We are grateful to Bishop Cherry with whom we are working closely and continue to hold the diocese in our prayers following its recent sadness and bereavement.
+Andrew Bangor, on behalf of the Bench of Bishops
Mr James Turner, chair of the Representative Body "
Taking the flack at the time were the Dean of Monmouth, the Archdeacon of Monmouth and the Archdeacon of Newport. Following retirements, including that of archbishop John Davies, only the Archdeacon of Newport remains in post.
The Review panel made 'considered judgements' after 'meticulous work'. Now it seems the reviewers' judgements are to be reviewed in consultation with those most closely associated with the events, conveniently kicking the issue into the long grass until after the 'gay blessings' meeting of the Governing Body while prompting further speculation that there is something to hide.
The Church in Wales doesn't half love its consultations. It usually means that a decision has already been made. Since only the archdeacon of Newport is left, it probably means that the archdeacon's pension will be enhanced, and he will be encouraged to go and spend a lot of time with his family. If not that, the plank sitters will try and find him a bishopric. That will sort out their little problem. I wonder if there is somewhere vacant? Please Note, I did say "somewhere vacant", not someone vacant!!
ReplyDeleteSeymour
There will be no whitewash in this white washed tomb
ReplyDeleteI recall being present at several ordinations at St Woolos Cathedral from 1969 and on into the 1970s. The notion that Bishop Eryl Stephen Thomas - in full pontificals! - might have consented to be upended by a bunch of exuberant newly ordained priesta and deacons would, back then, have been wholly inconceivable.
ReplyDeleteNo less inconceivable in that era would have been the notion that the newly ordained would have thought of initiating such a frolic. The descent into vacuoous frivolity which seems to have descended on the Church in Wales in the intervening years is surely an indication of the comprehensive decay of the entire institution.
Eryl would have enjoyed being picked up and tossed around by a bunch of young men, perhaps not in daylight though.
DeleteAnd in precincts other than a Cathedral!
DeleteWhatajoke
Worse till, he was a Tory. Come back +Joanna - looks as if history has proven you to be correct, or as we say on this blog 'a friend of Ruth'.
DeleteRoghtyTufty
History has nothing to do with DodoJo being a spiteful discriminatory nasty bit of work. The silent majority can't wait to hear of her already long-overdue departure.
DeleteTrue, true; most true: a change wholly for the worse.
ReplyDeleteDom
@ Subversive Canon & Whatajoke:
ReplyDeleteYes, I remember it well - and you're both quite conceivably correct!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYes I think so - Bisexual Bishops - and we make a fuss about a Bishop in a committed relationship of many years. We've got our morals in a twist, for suree.
DeleteWhatajoke
It's not our morals in question WaJ (appropriate nom-de-plume by the way) but of those who are or have sat on the plank of Bishops in Wales and who have the effrontery to preach to the rest of us from the pulpit how we should live our lives.
DeleteI have no problem with anyone being in a committed and consenting relationship with another adult by I certainly take exception to a lesbian masquerading as a cleric in episcopal purple.
Surely, we are missing the point here. From its earliest days, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has insisted that homosexuality is a disordered act. It runs contrary to the purposes of God in creation. Put bluntly, homosexuality is a sin. To say that a bishop has been in a committed homosexual relationship for many years is to ignore the scandal of the sin and to see it as a cause for celebration. It is an issue which everyone who is loyal to the Lord should make a fuss about. Didn't St Paul ask the Romans, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Definitely not!" At least the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome had the courage of its convictions to state bluntly, "God does not bless sin; and God will not bless sin". Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church will not be performing the blessing of same sex marriages because they cannot be blessed. Here in Wales, Bishops Noo-noo, Tinky-Winky, Dipsy, Laa-laa and Po (You decide which one is which!), who haven't got a theological brain cell between them congratulate themselves on being hip and trendy as they pursue the spirit of the age and accelerate the demise of the Church.
DeleteSeymour
@ Seymour:
DeleteYou make a solid point: the actual phrase 'disordered act' may be relatively modern, but its underlying meaning has been the Church's view from the very earliest times. That's the plain implication underlying I John 3:4: 'Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness'. The Church is the recipient of the Gospel, and - if you take seriously the notion of the Church Universal as the Spirit-filled community - the interpreter of the Gospel. What it can't ever with integrity be is the fabricator of the Gospel. Your quote from Paul to the Romans hammers home the point.
But I'm still uneasy about defining 'sin' wholly and solely in terms of 'lawlessness' if lawlessless be understood solely in terms of personal transgression - and that even when 'personal transgression' is understood more broadly as including dishonesty, uncharity and cruelty and not just narrowly focused on matters sexual.
Because that's not a true reflection of the complete Christian tradition around the reality and impact of sin in the world - a reality which, for example, is expressed in Psalm 82:5, which Myles Coverdale's translation used in the Book of Common Prayer renders: 'They will not be learned nor understand, but walk on still in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course'. The psalmist starts with the personal in the first half of the verse, but in the second he recognizes that the impact of sin isn't merely personal; it has a cosmic aspect.
The concept of a *cosmic fall* reaches out beyond matters of personal conduct and morality to comprehend other facets of human experience which can hardly have been part of the divine plan of 'a good God who loves mankind' in creation: volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, genetic deformities, &c.
I'm in my seventies now, and inevitably I've known quite a few people with homosexual inclinations over the years - some pretty well, although I didn't have that degree of closeness to a certain former bishop of Monmouth! Most were committed Christians, mainly Anglican. Not one of them expressed the slightest enthusiasm about their homosexual inclinations: one even went out of his way, as a young man, to cultivate a girlfriend to see if he could somehow 'turn' himself, until it struck him that although he liked her as a person, he didn't at all desire her as a woman. And once he'd pondered that, continuing the relationship struck him as exploitative, and therefore necessarily essentially sinful.
All of which has long left me wondering whether Christians would be on sounder moral ground if they viewed homosexual inclination rather in the same way as they view, say, people born with physical deformities. They don't - as our more distant ancestors might have done - now stigmatize people because they're born with a physical defect which is no choice of their own. To judge at least from the homosexually inclined people whom I've known, their instinctive sexual inclinations are no more matters of their own choosing than is the case with people born with physical handicaps.
It seems to me that having inclinations are not a sin but translating them into actions can be.
DeleteAn inclination to own a desirable item one cannot afford to purchase is not a sin but resorting to stealing it is.
Likewise for inclinations for pre-marital sex, homosexuality, rape and murder.
How many at some time or other have muttered in anger 'I could kill him/her' but don't go through with the act itself?
Feelings, emotions or inclinations are not the issue therefore but perhaps the real sin is a failure to exercise restraint, self-discipline, sound judgement and maintain Godly order by failing to resist temptation.
Contrary to what PP claims elsewhere, Jesus did make the appropriate comment, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
So straightforward that one would think even the plank perching Bishops in Wales might understand, but hey ho!
@ Our Father:
DeleteI think that's a fair summary - at least, it reflects pretty much how I'd approach the issue.
Even so, we should not be celebrating their condition and practice. And, there is something abhorrent and repulsive about some of the militant ones. Nature can be faulty sometimes. Did God intend to depart from his norm of heterosexuality?
ReplyDeleteRob
'Did God intend to depart from his norm of heterosexuality?'
DeleteI doubt that he did; but then if the world wasn't fallen it would have no need of a redeemer.
But my own experience suggests that you're right that 'there is something abhorrent and repulsive about some of the militant ones'. Well over thirty years ago I came to know a non-stipendiary deaconess attached to a parish in the same deanery in the English diocese where I then lived. She was an ardent advocate of the ordination of women to the priesthood. And naturally, once it was possible, she proceeded to ordination to the priesthood,
I subsequently heard that she'd been appointed as a stipendiary incumbent in a parish not far away, but in a neighbouring diocese; and by chance, after her retirement and deployment as an honorary assistant, I happened to meet her again at a funeral at which she officiated.
She told me that she knew of more than one instance in her time in that neighbouring diocese where female incumbents had requested an appointment with the bishop, and had bluntly informed him that the said incumbents were intending to set up a household with their lesbian lovers. And that if the bishop raised any objections, they would unhesitatingly resort to the media with accusations that the bishop was homophobic.
According to her, the bishop concerned was duly intimidated and said and did nothing! The woman priest who conveyed this story to me was a pretty conventional heterosexual woman, and she was clearly quite appalled by it. Sadly, contemporary Anglicanism is beset by the proverbial 'can of worms' around this issue.
I perceive the can of worms to which you refer not to be the issue of homosexuality but rather the spineless Bishop you describe. Contrary to being bullied and blackmailed, he should have called their bluff, sacked them on the spot for gross misconduct in making such threats and gone to the press himself with the story.
DeleteThank you, John, for your comprehensive answer on homosexuality and sin. When we begin to put personalities into the mix, the danger is that we end up in a cul-de-sac of moral relativism. We don't want not be unkind, especially to people we know personally, so some things can be excused whilst other things can't. As I see it, sin is sin. There is no catalogue of lesser sins and greater sins - there is simply sin. When I go to confession, I go as a sinner. I don't go to confession telling the priest that I have read some learned article that excuses my sin, or that the plank of bishops don't believe in sin any more, so people in Wales are excused the Sacrament of Penance. I am a sinner; and I hope that by the grace of God I am forgiven my sin through our Lord Jesus Christ because I have owned up to it and taken responsibility for it. The plank of bishops should be teaching the people of this nation that, rather than jumping into bed with the world.
DeleteSeymour
@ Cymru'r Groes:
DeleteCertainly the bishop concerned comes out with no credit, at least as the story was told to me. But that bishops can be easily intimidated by the possibility of scandalous tabloid press attention is no recent phenomenon: forty years ago and long before the controversy which we're now discussing had energed, I recall a Welsh priest effectively hounded out of his parish by his bishop for ne better reason than that his wife had left him to live with a colleague of hers at work. The priest had no inkling that the affair was going on until the day that she left him.
But the 'Sun' at that time was running a sequence of vicarage marital stories, and the bishop appeared to fear that his diocese might be at the receiving end of one. You'd hope that the values of the redeemed community would prevail over distinctly secular fears around 'reputational damage' - but apparently not always!
@ Seymour:
You're surely right that putting personalities into the mix risk a drift into fuzzy moral relativism, but I don't see how that can be can avoided: putting personalities into the mix, that is, not a drift into moral relativism!
Because Christiam morality isn't an abstruse and abstract catalogue of theoretical assertions, but has substance and meaning only in the context of real human lives and real human predicaments. For sure, sin is sin, but not all sin is the same, either in terms of impact or degree of culpability.
Otherwise there would have been no call for casuistry - in its original sense of weighing the nature and seriousness of a sin. Robbing your employer of a few pounds by falsifying your expenses and robbing him of his previously contented wife by dazzling her with your irresistible charms aren't exactly moral equivalents when it comes to weighing culpability! Which is why - once upon a time at least, at least - penances imposed by a confessor varied in their severity, dependent on the nature and impact of the sin.
But you're right, of course: in the end sin is sin, be it great or small, and it does seem to me, as it does to you, that the current tendency among British Anglican bishops as a whole neglect of the Apostle Paul's exhortation to the church at Rome expressed in Romans 12:2.
The biggest favour the Church could do itself is say that homosexuality is sin, and gay marriage will never be accepted. Instead it will continue to chase votes and drive itself into further irrelevance and inconsequence.
DeleteLW
Concerns about "reputational damage" are still the over-riding consideration in Llandaff and probably always will be.
DeleteWhy else do the real reasons for Janet Henderson's departure remain concealed, along with the communicant numbers, organ appeal accounts, quinquennial reports,the disappearance of curate Ceirion Gilbert and the whereabouts of the present dud in the Deanery?
PP. The vitriol is certainly heated towards LGBT in this posting comments. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, Paul was abhorrent towards what he knew at that time a "behaviour". But with the advance of science, it is completely proven that their is a human gene sequence present in each of us that determines our sexuality. Gay men and Lesbian women are born, not conditioned by domineering mother's, too soft father's etc. It's, neither a sickness, disability or a sin. It is only a sin like many examples of heterosexuals who cause harm, break marital vows and other known traits in the human condition.
ReplyDeleteI have known bishops, priests,deacons and other churchmen who are in same sex relationships, which instead of recriminations, the couple are welcomed, loved and accepted. Monmouth which seems to be the crux of this argument, I can't see why?
How many clergy have had,down the years, mistresses, extra marital affairs, sex outside of a committed union, and at worse download porn - (recent case in Llandaff), that is sin! Being in a committed same sex relationship is not. If God was 100% enraged by same sex commitment, surly, His anointing would be withdrawn from those individuals. Their a many excellent examples of Gay men and Lesbian women, who are remarkable ordained servants' of Christ.
It so saddens me to hear the heat of scorn and vitriol in the posting, surely, some modicum of agree to disagree, both views for or against can be seen as paltry in the vastness of grappling with God's wisdom in creating such diversity in the human condition.
I understand that to some homosexuality is a sin, sickness and behavioural trait; but to others it is not a sin (too many theologians state this) nor is it a sickness (scientific knowledge, prove it) and neither is it as suggested above, a behaviour, learned or ingrained trait (Behaviourists Skinner and Kinsey note this). If you want to take the sexuality sociological view, there is a whole raft of academic scholars: Jeffrey Weeks, Leo Bersani, Elizabeth Stuart or Michel Foucault or Stevie Jackson).
Making judgement, is a very precarious task we need discernment. Personally, I have no issue with the sexuality debate, what I do take issue with is overwhelming hurt caused by the debate on both sides. Consigning the LGBT person to heterosexual judgement, using scripture as our defence, then indeed we have to accept the "whole" and in doing so, the LGBT person could equally use the scriptures as given heterosexual ritualistic practices towards women and husbands, singleness etc.
God has to be the judge and jury in these matters otherwise, we place ourselves in a precarious quagmire.
Modern moral relativism! Eyewash!
DeleteMale friendship: yes! Anal penetration, disgusting. How can you justify it PP?
Rob
What a lot of drivel PP.
DeleteAre you a lesbian Bishop?
Where do you draw the line?
Do you even have any lines?
Are paedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality acceptable to you too?
PP, I am not any of the labels that have been stated. Neither do I describe myself "lesbian" and I am not a "bishop".
ReplyDeleteThat out of the way - how and why mention "anal penetration" ? Is that the sum totally of the argument, the physical sexual act? No! In passing it is a well know fact that such activity also takes place in a heterosexual relationship that does not distinguish between either sex.
Speaking drivel, interesting point, no doubt a view that is liberal is often castigated. But, I digress. The simple truth is some of us have understood that we have a diverse Christian family across the Church and right or wrongly, we show God love to the whosoever period!
There are several well known priests of former years whom it has been proven that were in loving same sex relationships, counted amongst whom we find Newman. We might argue the celebrate gay argument all we want, but none of us knows what actually goes on beyond the bedroom door. So what business is it of ours?
I do not speak, teach or preach drivel, my superior accepts my views as I there's,agreeing to differ is part of life's rich tapestry.
I would not offer any defense on behalf of the lesbian bishop, she is more than capable to do so herself. But I will add, that the proof of her election is in the visible positive actions, new top team, and thriving. Her healing strategy after the known difficulties is paying off. We have a listening, learning and sharing bishop, whose pastoral care is beyond reproach. Her clergy, respect her, vacancies attract excellent priests and are filled and vocations rise. Her sexuality is not questioned in the See, nor is it rediculous or cruelly derided. She is well received,as is her partner, both, respected and welcomed. Why judge? At least from what has been posted across the topics in this blog, she is not like her heterosexual female colleagues,who have been cited as caustic, power crazed and divisive.
Final point if in any given Sunday, all LGBT clergy failed to attend their churches, the void would be felt widely. I for one, could not imagine the CiW without its diversity. Time will tell the outcome for this liberalism but, in the meantime I'm satisfied to leave the judgement where it belongs - in the hands of the Almighty
Ian Kerr, the world expert on Newman, thinks that JHN was not a homosexual.
DeleteRob
@PP
DeleteIn your humble opinion, sodomy (heterosexual or homosexual) is not a sin is it?
I understood Sodom and Gomorrah to have been condemned for practising both, so as far as that goes I agree with you, God did not distinguish between the sexes and all sodomites were treated equally and met the same fate.
And that's the point, surely?
Whether lay person, lay preacher, Deacon, Priest, Canon, Dean, Bishop, Cardinal or Pope, all will meet the same fate.
My objection is to the hypocrisy of those who speak their liberal views from the pulpit, trying to persuade others to follow their lead in the current permissive "anything goes 'cos we know better, are more enlightened and more civilised than all those who went before us, it's no longer a sin because we do it ourselves".
PP. Who am I to decide what is or, what is not a sin? The theological debate concerning the translation of the Sodom and Gomorrah textual exegesis as also the other references to homosexuality, often noted as eunuchs is a fairly complex argument in understanding scriptures. It's not a matter of watering down text to suite a moral liberalism, but, as academic understanding has evolved and new early church letters are found and revealed, the understanding changes.
DeleteAs for the marriage argument I am not so happy, the civil partnership was enough but now we find both institutions are watered down and either sexual orientation couple can choose. As for the blessing of the Church I'm not comfortable with this,much more understanding needs to happen before such a huge decision is made.
But, a loving monogamous same sex commitment is not wrong.
I accept everyone's views are vastly different and respect that, but, militant LGBT do a huge disservice to their cause, as do heterosexual conservatives. The key has to be understanding, learning, agreeing to disagree, but certainly not crashing through the Church like a bull in a China shop, demanding change. The Church has always moved slowly, painfully for some, but its final solution you can bet has been arrived at through debate, contemplation, decernment and a vast amount of prayer.
On the terms of what is sin, is another argument protracted argument.
I "stated" nothing P but I did pose you questions which for the most part you evade.
DeleteEnough said.
I am feeling uncomfortable with some of the exchanges between commentators while trying to allow as much freedom of expression as appears reasonable in adult discussions. Perhaps if the militant gay lobby were less aggressive in their desire to use holy matrimony as a tool to justify their particular preferences some of the heat would subside.
ReplyDeleteWhen do you anticipate witnessing that AB?
DeleteNot any time soon Gabriel.
DeleteAB, if you wish to avoid difficult conversations stop posting. It never ceases to amaze me that after blogging for so long ( and so ineffectively) you still haven't grasped it's basic principles. Once a blog is published it is available for ALL to view and pass comment. Stop being such a snowflake. WWA.
DeleteI am not going to get into this discussion as it isn't (as AB says) going in a direction I feel comfortable with. However, I am tired of hearing, "Jesus didn't say anything about this subject." The Law of Judaism did and Jesus proclaimed that He had not come to abolish the Law and that until He came again to us, not a jot or tittle of the Law would be changed.
ReplyDeletePP. I have to agree that Holy Matrimony is a universal state for one man and one women. This is why the Civil Partnership was enacted for same sex couples. I do agree that the gay militant groups will stop at nothing to gain complete parity.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Jesus saying nothing about homosexuality, as fact He did not. But, he did say that he came to "fulfil" the law, not abolish it. If a law is "fulfilled", it's complete. If we accept that Jewish law remains Insitu then we would have to accept that the Levitical law, remains Insitu too, would that not mean we would be following the legalistic rules of His earthly day? Thorny subject indeed -.
Clearly the Levitical law ceases to apply, especially to Gentile Christians (cf. Acts 15). However, the moral law does not. Jesus didn't say a lot of things but that doesn't mean we cannot deduce his views on those matters. It is clear as the sky is blue and the grass is green that he had a traditional Jewish view of family life.
ReplyDeleteThe matter was so settled in the minds of our forebears they never felt the need to clarify it in the creeds or founding statements such as the 39 Articles. Oh would that they had!
Not as though that would've made any difference to some.
WHAMAB
Oh, well put, WHAMAB. For Jews, family life was sacred. This is overwhelmingly overlooked by the gay defenders.
DeleteDom
It is a dangerous thing to make an argument from silence, PP. By so doing, any situation can be justified. It is a pity that Father David ended his quotation from Matthew's Gospel where he did. The Gospel passage continues: Anyone therefore, who sets aside even the least of the Law's demands, and teaches others to do the same, will have the lowest place in the Kingdom of Heaven; whereas anyone who keeps the Law, and teaches others to do likewise will rank highly in the Kingdom of Heaven. I tell you, unless you show yourselves far better than the scribes and Pharisees, you can never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The Gospel then portrays Jesus taking the tenets of the Ten Commandments, and not simply affirming them, but going further than them.
ReplyDeleteWhat amuses me is that you are prepared to make an argument from the silence of Jesus, but you do not want people to quote the Bible. This means that Traditionalists cannot quote what Jesus or the Early Church actually said, but you can make an argument to suit your perspective from what they did not say.
I want to make it clear that I am not looking down my nose at sexual sins whilst ignoring my own sins. I am not taking the log out of someone else's eye whilst being unable to see the speck in my own. I come to the Lord as a sinner and there times when I have let him down badly. The difference is that I do not pressure the plank of Bishops to get Governing Body to approve or to negate my sin.
Seymour
I think you will find it is more removing the log from one's own eye before attempting to remove the speck from someone else's eye.
DeleteA minor detail for sure but one that is rather important, don't you think?
One would think Father David should have spotted that.
Thank you, Episkopos, for correcting the quotation, but I did invert it deliberately. Some might think that I am bigging up one sin whilst diminishing my own sin. Those of us who value the Church's tradition and Scripture are often accused of this.
DeleteSeymour
I'm afraid your intent was lost on me Seymour so thank you for the clarification.
DeleteThanks Seymour, you're spot on. We have come to a place where The Church's "Leaders" are indeed teaching others to set aside Biblical teaching. Worse still they claim to do it in the name of Jesus and from a place of "love".
ReplyDeletePP. The debate in this realm of sexuality does become a tad tense. I have no axe to grind with the respected Rev Fr. Being late to answer comments made, unfortunately I do have other duties, that we all do, so a time-gap can happen
ReplyDeleteThe silence of Jesus is interesting, not what was not said, but inferred because it was not specifically said. The context of using the Word to battle arguments has its own difficulties, I am wise enough to know that the "agree to disagree" mantra can be useful, but not alway beneficial.
If the Word is taken literally, without clarity of theological understanding, we do the text and the writer an injustice. Some have a more liberal view others less so, but the traditionalist voice is often in a modern Church is silenced or derided, I do neither. It is unfortunate that the words of Jesus are not specific on this topic, but that said, the Hebraic law that Jesus indeed fulfilled is a slight indicator of the practicalities. But, if we take that view, do we not tie ourselves into upholding not partially the parts of the law that govern this topic and discard the less palatable, like the role of women, food, arranged marriages, finance etc.
Respecting various viewpoints I accept and note as a foundation. I will also add that Traditionalists have and are now marginalised for their conservative stance, which has allowed the clarion voice in the Church to be one of liberalism as the secular views taint the wider Church in its understanding of the complexity of sexuality.
I would note that in recent decades the fundamentalists have equally marginalised Traditionalists and so the quiet passionate discernment in this rich body of learning, has itself been significantly silenced.
Personally I despair of secularists agenda in the Church to court the populist demands. Agreeing to disagree is not a sufficient way forward, although I like many have tried that middle path.
Is there an answer?
My comments are certainly not made to pour oil on troubled water no offense is deliberately made to other contributors. The sexuality debate will continue with or, without one.
Hi Episkopos - I did notice the error but life is too short to correct everyone's unintentional mistakes as the intention was clear.
ReplyDeleteNot to me it seems.
Delete