From Mr Zeph Jones and Ms Beth Jones

Sir, — We were both aghast that Archbishop Morgan (News, 25 September) says that the Church in Wales bishops may do nothing, now that the Governing Body has failed to reach a two-thirds consensus on same-sex marriage. He says he fears a schism.

Twenty years ago, his predecessor feared a split, and was persuaded to appoint a traditionalist bishop. In the actual event, however, in 20 years only one Church in Wales cleric left, and during the same period at least five Roman Catholic priests joined the Church in Wales.

In the wake of civil partnerships, the Welsh Bishops sought legal advice, and told gay partnered clergy that they were welcome, as well as gay ordination candidates. A wonderful spring ensued, several clergy came out, and there was no exodus of disgruntled members.

Surely the Bishops need to consult their lawyers again; for, if a person is worthy of ordination or to hold the cure of souls, how can the Church not at least bless his or her union? It would be ludicrous if blessings occurred and clergy were prosecuted after the Church has in effect already given them a blessing and stamp of approval in ordination.

Having put the cart before the horse, the Bishops cannot effectively abandon the clergy and students they previously endorsed. The front door may be temporarily closed, but the back door is still wide open. We would say to Dr Morgan, Please don’t close it or pretend it is not open.

ZEPH JONES, BETH JONES
78 Holt Road
Wrexham LL13 8NG

From Mr Brian Anker

Sir, — I note that, in his article “Freeing sexuality from an either/or model” (Comment, 18 September), Symon Hill states that saying “gay people should be tolerated because they can’t help it” is a degrading statement because it implies that bisexuals can help it. Does the author mean that the degrading statement should apply equally to bisexual and homosexual people? The alternative is that the statement should not apply to either, and, therefore, both can help “it” (whatever “it” is).

If “it” is appreciating the attractiveness of both male and female people, then it is likely that there are few who would deny that. If, however, “it” is translating that appreciation into actual physical sexual activity, then the term bisexual refers to someone who engages in sexual activity with both men and women.

Homosexual behaviour may be tolerated when it is within a committed, exclusive, and faithful relationship. Bisexual behaviour cannot be anything other than promiscuity. Is the author suggesting that the Church should advocate sexual promiscuity?

BRIAN ANKER (LLM)
10 Golding Road
Cambridge CB1 3RP