And on to Musket's sweeping statement, which seems to be in bed with many of the twisted perceptions of Mr. Shaw: whether you like it or not, it has traditionally been the job of churches to raise questions about the morality of human conduct and human decisions.

And who made it "their job?" Not me, that's for sure.


but although I question the morality of abortion

You're a man. Abortion has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. By all means get quietly indignant if you really must, but keep your moralising to yourself. You might consider, instead, the morality of a Church (your Church) that lionises people such as Mother Teresa whose main aim is to keep women in ignorance and poverty. Once you've done that, see then where you abortion-moralising gets you.   


Steve Shaw will no doubt come up with yet another of his amazingly distorted perceptions on this, but the fact of the matter is that most churches don't threaten people with hellfire any more (a possible exception: some of the born-again churches, but I think they mostly condemn only infidels and members of other churches). In fact, threatening parishioners with hellfire was already out of style when I was a Catholic seminary student in the 1960s - because it was poor theology then, and it's poor theology today.

Well I don't give a damn about theology, but your general thrust here is a misrepresentation. I taught in a Catholic faith school for seven years until 1980 (including, as I've been at pains to tell you, my teaching religious instruction), and I can assure you that the the promotion of the fear and hellfire was alive and kicking right up to that point.


For an individual or an organization to merely question the morality of homosexual sex, shouldn't be condemned quite so severely. After all, societal acceptance of homosexuality is still in its infancy, and there are many questions to be answered before acceptance of gay relationships becomes near-universal.

I don't give a toss what society thinks. I do give a toss about what is right and wrong. I don't see why gay people should have to sit around waiting patiently for "societal acceptance" to happen so that we can then condemn properly what is a thoroughly immoral outrage, namely, the lack of acceptance of gay relationships. And, as before, do leave your morals at the door. They don't exactly help. The immorality lies one hundred percent with the lack of acceptance and nil percent with the gay relationships. Gay people are waiting, and you umming and ahhing about their "morality" is a disgrace.


So, what I would like to see, is open, thoughtful discussion of moral issues

Fine, but do try to get your head round what are moral issues and what are practical issues. Your Church does not enjoy a monopoly on making such definitions.

And although Steve Shaw cannot seem to accept this, churches do not consider sexual activity to be among the most important of moral issues. Far more important to most churches, are the issues of compassion: poverty and homelessness, immigration, warfare, capital punishment, peace within families, healthcare, the rights of workers, human trafficking, the environment. To say that churches do not have a right to speak out on such issues, is nonsense.

You have a right to say whatever you like, but on some of these issues your Church provides an embarrassed silence when some of your leading spokespersons, Mother Teresa being the most egregious example, preach ignorance, sexual repression, the subjugation of women, the celebration and tacit acceptance of poverty and injustice - AND YOU DON'T SPEAK OUT. So let's hear it. Not in soft tones. Mother Teresa is going to become a saint. Whaddya gonna say about that then?