He, if anyone, was well aware that people fall short of the ideal. And that, I think, is the true meaning of sin (the Greek word means literally 'missing the target'). The connotation of 'wickedness' is something which was introduced by the Church later.

And so the only and sufficient guide which a Christian has in the sphere of personal relationships is that he should exercise integrity and charity. This must apply as much to sexual relationships as to others. If he is homosexual, he is lacking in both qualities if he marries as a sort of 'cover-up'. Whether he is homosexual or heterosexual, he is failing if he 'uses' another person for selfish ends. This applies equally to the heterosexual who marries for money or who breaks up an already existing and happy marriage, or to the homosexual who marries when he ought not to do so or who enters on a homosexual relationship by giving his partner to understand that he means it to last when he has no intention of entering on anything more than a transitory affair. It is not what is done or what is not done in the course of a relationship which makes it good or bad, but the basis of the relationship itself. If both partners are sincerely concerned for the welfare of the other, and if their relationship is not causing suffering to anyone else, then it is good. It is of course seldom that any human contact is completely good or completely bad, and one sometimes has to choose between a number of second bests. But in general I would say that this principle holds. As a social institution, I would say that marriage must have a permanence and a recognition which a homosexual partnership has not. There are often children to consider, and a man and woman can be complementary in a way which is almost impossible for two members of the same sex. The tension between home life and careers is

likely to more acute in the latter case, and the situation can be complicated by a number of emotional, social and economic factors. But on the purely personal level a homosexual relationship can be thoroughly good, and is often the best possible answer to two people's individual problems.

A life of complete chastity, deliberately undertaken for a good reason, can also be the right answer for some individuals, both homosexual and heterosexual. If a man or woman has a vocation to a particular job to which they think it right to devote all their energies, they may wish to free themselves from emotional entanglements. But it does seem to me most frightfully wrong for a man to think he must have no sexual life just because he is homosexual. I have known young men to go downhill and become morally useless simply because they are highly sexed and homosexual, and yet regard their desires as sinful. This is torture: and if they cannot conscientiously remain within a church without thinking of themselves as evil, then the best thing they can do is to leave the church. No one can change his nature. But I should not myself be able to believe in a God who condemns people for being the way he has made them, or for expressing their love for another in the way which is natural to them.

I do think that Christian morality is important in personal relationships, and that it enriches them immensely. It does call for self-sacrifice and selfcontrol. But it does not call for abstinence from what is good. Provided that the criteria of integrity and charity are applied, no one can go far wrong. And if a relationship is good in itself, then any contact within that relationship can only increase the partners' capacity for love, which is the very essence of communion with God.

H. S.

23