My Beloved Sinners: there are so many matters in urgent in need of my attention that it seems remiss of my to devote yet another homily to the Rev. Peter Ould’s proctological ponderings, but since you’ve all raised so many questions in response to my last post this old pastorally tireless heart of mine demands I address these before moving on to less important subjects, such as the Democrats’ appalling victory over those of us committed to ensuring the majority of Americans continue receiving the very best in unaffordable third-world health-care. Or perhaps even the ruling-which-my-brethren-cannot-mention - although then again, perhaps it’s best I leave at least one scoop for little David Virtue.
So with no further ado, and because answering your questions in a post rather than in the comments field where they were asked is a great way of keeping the traffic rolling in on a topic that’s certainly brought some interesting visitors (just what exactly the person who arrived as a result of Googling “anal bible sex teacher animal” was hoping to find is probably best not explored) let us proceed:
Dr. Harrisburg, the pioneering nuclear psychiatrist who visits here often, but never leaves comments for reasons of professional ethics (either that or because he’s afraid they’ll enable the Atomic Energy Commission to trace him), is convinced the piece is in imminent danger of removal in a wave of remorse, embarrassment at what it reveals about the author’s obsessions, and because his employers at Christ Church, Ware might be less than delighted to learn of the parish’s international fame as the home of .British Evangelical bum-fun. This may prove correct, but as I explained to the good doctor over a refreshing glass of Radithor on ice, Google’s cache facility has ensured Prostate Pete’s prose of pleasure will remain forever available here.
Meanwhile Dr. Harrisburg’s colleague on the other side, Professor Sigmund, has been drenching their consulting rooms with ectoplasm in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that Peter has now terminated the discussion, closing at the entirely unsymbolic figure of 69 comments. As Professor Sigmund said (spelling his words through the receptionist’s Ouija board): “Not even I could make this stuff up”.
Fr. Orsen Carte emphasized the fact that Peter Ould’s Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Alan Smith strictly adheres to God's Regulations requiring celibacy outside Holy Wedlock. This is, of course, something of which there can be absolutely no doubt: with a nosey little curate like Prostate Pete in his Diocese the poor Bishop risks being reported if he so much as dares to pee sitting down. Anything more than three shakes and His Grace will be facing charges of conduct unbecoming a Clerk in Holy Orders. But how comforting indeed must it for +St. Albans to know if he should find himself called to marriage the Curate of Ware will be standing right behind him, ready to show Mrs. St.Albans everything she needs to know.
Apropos of nothing which could possibly be related to Peter Ould (a point Consuella insists I need to make for legal reasons), Fr. MadPriest, was reminded of Ted Haggard, who recently announced that if it wasn't for "his faith he would be a bisexual" and wondered if by batting for both teams one can in fact double the chances of hitting a homer. This is an interesting question and one that a certain very handsome friend of mine explored at length when he was a much younger man – purely for the purpose of Biblical research, you must understand. Unfortunately my friend – who was, of course, undertaking this research purely out of academic charity, and in an unquestionably Orthodox spirit of prayer - found that rather than increasing his chances it merely doubled the number of rejections. And now please don’t ever mention this research again, or else my friend will be forced to go “post-gay” on you with his attorneys.
Finally, Fr. Tobias observed that, like Peter Ould’s preferred conversation starter, heterosexual intercourse has also not infrequently throughout history resulted in a very risky and potentially damaging and deadly outcome, namely childbirth. Whilst this may indeed be a valid point, one can hardly criticize Rev. Ould – or, for that matter, any Conservative Bible-based Evangelical, for ignoring it. After all, the associated perils only apply to women. So it’s not as if anyone of any value in the Communion needs to take them all that seriously, is it?
I’m Father Christian and I teach the Bible.