the Interim Report and the Evidence display an excessive leniency toward the homosexual offender

. such criticism is quite unfounded. Granted, they are not disfigured by any studious display of 'moral indignation,' or any rhetorical outbursts against the so-called 'sin of Sodom'.

the attitude of the Church to homosexual practices is well-known; our task in submitting Evidence, however, was neither to condemn nor to condone..

. . . . an enquiry into the law and practice in regard to homosexual offenses involved considerations of justice no less than of morality. . . .no solution to a grave social and moral problem can ultimately prove satisfactory if it creates or perpetuates injustice. . . .the present law. reveals features which cannot but be regarded as inequitable. It was inevitable that our submission should recommend revision of the existing law so as to remove its inequalities and discriminatory clauses. .

"But to plead for justice is not to condone vice -As with homosexual offenses, so with prostitution we unreservedly condemn as sinful all infractions of the Christian teaching on sexual chastity; but we do not consider that what is sinful can always appropriately be treated by the law as criminal, particularly in the realm of venereal behavior. . . ."

They reason that a distinction must be made between the blameless condition of being homosexual and homosexual acts, which are sinful (as are all extra-marital or nongenerative sex acts). But many sinful acts are quite outside the legitimate province of the law

it not being the function of the

state to enforce private morality. Present laws (often encouraging blackmail) are inequitable in singling out the male homosexual for harsh punishment while blinking at many more socially harmful vices. The law also often foolishly expects prison to cure, or deter inversion, a result even therapists seem seldom able to produce. Society, and particularly the Church, ought rather to find ways to help the invert.

"Although reform of the law and education of the public may secure justice and understanding for the invert, they cannot of themselves solve the problem of homosexuality. That problem will remain until better marriages, happier family relationships and more settled and secure conditions of life eliminate some of its chief causes. . .

They specifically and strongly recommend the repeal of sections 51 and 52 of the Offenses Against The Person Act, 1851 ("abominable crime of buggery-penal servitude for life"), section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 ("gross indecency-public or private--two years--hard labour"), section 1 (1) (b) of the Vagrancy Act, 1898 ("persistently soliciting or importuning for immoral purposes"), and the similar section of the Immoral Traffic (Scotland) Act, 1902.

They recommend new legislation "to penalize any male or female" procuring, attempting or committing homosexual acts with persons" "under the legal age of consent" (recommended raised from 15 to 17) or in circumstances "constituting a public nuisance", or "involving assault, violence, fraud or duress", coupling this recommendation with a suggestion for spiritual, medical and psychiatric counsel.