It was clear almost from the outset that Dr Mohammed Haneef had no case to answer when arrested last year. Now, the Australian Federal Police have announced that he is no longer a 'person of interest', despite an investigation costing more than $8million. Unsurprisingly, his lawyer says that though he is delighted at the AFP's announcement, Dr Haneef has no immediate plans to return to Australia, and will continue working as a general practitioner in Dubai.

Haneef became embroiled in a anti-terrorist witch-hunt after a mobile phone SIM card he gave to a relative in Britain was found at the scene of a terrorist incident in Liverpool. He was held in detention in Brisbane on 2 July last year. Two weeks later he was charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation. He was given bail, but the then immigration minister Kevin Andrews disgracefully revoked his visa on the flimsiest of evidence (provided by the AFP) putting Dr Haneef in immigration detention. He was released on 27 July and allowed to leave Australia as the case against him collapsed. It was later revealed that ASIO and the Queensland Police did not believe there was any substance to the charges, although the AFP continued its investigations for 13 more months.

The matter is now the subject of a federal inquiry by retired judge John Clarke QC. The Australian Federal Police have much explaining to do, but has refused to give evidence to the inquiry.

Dr Haneef is entitled to an apology and compensation. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown rightly said Australia should formally invite Dr Haneef to continue his medical career and offer him a full apology. Whatever could be done to have him return should be done. Australians would welcome him but it would be understandable if he did not want to risk it a second time, Brown said.

Former Prime Minister John Howard should apologise, and take responsibility for the debacle. Howard's former Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews and the former Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock are also culpable in this appalling shambolic affair.

Over and over, my appreciation of Dr Rowan Williams as theologian and preacher is enhanced, but my view of Archbishop Rowan Williams as a leader worsens. This from Jim Naugton (10 Aug 08)

The archbishop's hands are tied, not ours. The politics of the church make Rowan Williams act against his beliefs on gay marriage. We don't have to do the same.

Extensive research has proven that I am not the Archbishop of Canterbury. Neither, in all likelihood, are you. These facts, in hand for some time now, acquired new significance yesterday with the revelation that Rowan Williams, who is the Archbishop of Canterbury, believes, what a great many Anglicans believe, namely: "that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness."

As archbishop, Williams might feel that the proper execution of his office requires that he puts aside his personal convictions. Juggling numerous concerns and multiple constituencies, he may have reason not to speak out boldly on behalf of one marginalised audience for fear of alienating another. Equipped with a variety of subtle ways to move the Anglican Communion toward a fuller understanding of human sexuality, he can initiate imperceptible advances on one front while publicly taking a hard line on the other. There are wheels within wheels, and he can make them all spin. He is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

But I am not. And neither are you. We can either speak our truth--which as it turns out is also his truth (and more important, we believe, His truth) and organize ourselves to reform the Churches we love, or we can sit back, beg our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to be patient, and hope that somehow the Communion will arrive at a new consensus on homosexuality without anyone seeming to have so much as nudged it in that direction.

Err . . . I think I would interpose that if 'our truth' differs from 'His truth' it is cannot be 'The Truth'.

I can just barely imagine embracing the latter of these two strategies if I were the Archbishop of Canterbury and privy to the secrets of Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion office.

Were I the archbishop, though, I would have to acknowledge that the nature of my dispute with liberal Anglicans--particularly those in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada--must now be understood in a new light. We do not differ over essential matters such as the nature of Jesus or the mechanics of salvation. We do not differ over sexual ethics, or the interpretation of Scripture. Rather, we differ over the proper response to a belief we hold in common.

What is most objectionable about Williams' recent machinations are his efforts to construct a Communion in which only one response is permissible. He has sacrificed his opportunity to act on his convictions because he believes that his office demands it. One may disagree with that choice, but one can respect it. What one cannot respect, and must not accept, are his efforts to impose a similar sacrifice on those who believe that their offices--as pastors, as friends, as Christians--demand a different conclusion.

And that's the nub of this matter.

Under Williams's leadership, an elitist view of history is acquiring the force of doctrine. One may believe that the world needs examples of gay and lesbian couples living in what he refers as "covenanted" relationships before it will readily adapt to the notion of gay marriage, but those who act on this belief face consequences. One may believe that social movements are driven from the bottom, by the men and women affected by existing discrimination, but one must behave as though such change is legitimised by ecclesial elites.

As Anglicans, we have fallen into the habit, lately, of holding lengthy meetings, from which prelates emerge with fresh pronouncements about how we are to regard people we have lived with and loved for our entire lives. We are to abide by these pronouncements or accept that whatever happens next is on our heads.

. . .which is the evil of spiritual blackmail and abuse.

Through these meetings, Williams is gently, adroitly, yet unmistakably coercing people who wield none of his power to make his compromise with conscience their own. He is asking Churches and their members to pay a price--in lost relationships, lost vocations, lost credibility, lost integrity--that he has deemed acceptable, with the promise that it will facilitate some greater, slowly-materialising good. I might do the same thing if I were the Archbishop of Canterbury.

But I am not, and neither are you. And we must do what we must do.

Among other papers, The Independent reports that the Roman Catholic church is under pressure to abandon the allegedly "homophobic" exhumation and reburial of the body of Cardinal John Henry Newman, in defiance of his wish for burial next to the man he loved.

There is no certain evidence that the relationship between Cardinal Newman (who died in 1890) and Father Ambrose St John was other than platonic. Fine relationships are possible without sex--indeed they can be destroyed by sex. Yet Newman and Ambrose lived together and wanted to be buried together. They had a relationship expressed as deep and abiding love and affection. Gay rights campaigners have accused the Vatican of attempting to cover up Newman's sexuality, Cardinal Newman and Ambrose St John share a memorial stone and are buried side by side in the same grave in Rednal, Worcestershire. Newman wrote shortly before his death: "I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Father Ambrose St John's grave--and I give this as my last, my imperative will."

The British Government has granted a licence for the removal of the Newman's into a sarcophagus to stand in the Birmingham Oratory, a place associated with Newman. Pope Benedict is likely to declare Newman as 'blessed' in November, which could lead to canonisation. Apparently the reburial is part of the process to canonisation, enabling his remains can be in a suitable place for veneration. The Roman Catholics took the corpse of an Italian man (who died in the 1920s), and two other people to Australia for World Youth Day for veneration.

Be all that as it may, the veneration of the bones of saints is at best a silly superstition and at worst, idolatrous.

The Olympics are done and dusted. One reason I found it hard to sustain any interest was the appalling quality of Network 7's coverage. But two achievements among the many will stick in my memory. The first was Jared Tallent's achievement of bronze in the 20km walk and silver in the 50km, with astonishing stamina, a smile, and no self aggrandising fuss. A true Olympian. The second memory to last was, of course, Matthew Mitcham's thrilling gold in the 10m platform diving.

By far the best report of Mitcham's win and all that contributed to it was by Jessica Halloran in the Sydney Morning Herald (25 Aug 08>

He kissed him briefly in the stands and gave him his Olympic bouquet. Later, outside the glowing blue Water Cube, Matthew Mitcham and his partner, Lachlan Fletcher, firmly embraced, both shedding tears. Next it was his mother Vivien's turn to hold her golden boy, and more tears fell.

A stunning final dive that was awarded the highest score in Olympic history gave Mitcham the gold. She proudly said her son was a man of "firsts".

"Coming out publicly, that was a first," said Vivien. "The highest score awarded to an Olympic dive ever, another first. How many more firsts can this child get? Can you find something else to be first in? He's just done so well. He deserves it."

Just as he has shown flipping around at 10 metres high, Mitcham has shown no fear about disclosing his sexuality. He was the first Australian athlete to go to an Olympics openly gay.

Carefully nursing Mitcham's Olympic bouquet, Fletcher spoke of the incredible journey that the diver had taken to the top. Fletcher has been the one constant over the past two years. He was his rock when Mitcham retired in his late teenage years suffering anxiety and depression. He watched him become a stunt diver at the Sydney Royal Easter show, supported his fight back into the sport and now to win Olympic gold.

"It's been so up and down," Fletcher said. "When I first met him, he was pretty unhappy, he wasn't liking the diving in Brisbane at all, he didn't want to do it, wasn't happy being there. It took a lot for him to retire and stop doing it because it had been his life for so long. He wanted to try and be happy again. He took time to do normal things that people do. Then after five or six months he started to really miss it again and he had the opportunity to dive with Chava [Sobrino, his coach]. He started that and loved it ever since, every second of it, which is great to see him happy all the time."

Gay website Outsports.com said he was the only man among 10,500 Olympic athletes to publicly say he is gay. But his mother said while he has always been proud of his sexuality, Mitcham was initially concerned that coming out would affect him financially. "He was only hesitant because he was worried about that factor of sponsorship," Vivien said. "It was a bit of a worry. But I think everybody has caught up now."

Fletcher said that Mitcham, 20, was concerned that his sexuality would overshadow his diving achievements. He has become a pin-up boy gracing the covers of national gay magazines here and overseas. Gossip blogger Perez Hilton featured a shirtless Mitcham accompanied by the tagline: "Yum. Yum. Yum! Can we have a piece of that????"

But the almost perfectly executed back two-and-a-half somersault with one-and-a-half twists and a 3.8 degree of difficulty, earning 112.10 points, made sure people would be talking about his final dive that gave him gold. The Chinese home crowd gasped as Mitcham nailed the breathtaking dive.

"The biggest thing he was worried about was people paying more attention to that than his actually diving," Fletcher said. "And I suppose that kind of did happen a little bit. Hopefully, now it won't be so much of an issue any more."

Mitcham was 30 points behind top Chinese favourite Zhou Luxin before the last attempt. Fletcher said he felt "stupidly nervous" as Mitcham went for his final dive.

Sobrino, who was instrumental in reviving Mitcham's career, was gobsmacked by the final dive. "It was his best dive and that's why we put it at the end," Sobrino said. "The expectancy of that dive was around 106 to 108 points. But not 112, never. He did it at the right time, at the right moment, in the right pool with the right crowd, so I'm pretty happy and we got the right medal."

It was the eighth and last medal in a sport that China dominates and was expected to sweep. Mitcham cried and bounced around the pool deck before climbing up to the stands to embrace Fletcher. "It's going to take a while to sink in," Mitcham said. "My cheeks hurt from smiling. My face hurts from the chlorine. My legs are sore from jumping up and down. I'm in pain and I'm tired. But I'm so happy."

Hearing Awareness Week (24–30 August) aims to raise community awareness of hearing impairment and ways to protect your hearing. Gillian Bouras has written a superb piece in Eureka Street (25 Aug 08). Do read it all.

Hearing loss occurs for various reasons. There may have been an injury; there are the effects of aging. Genetics and disease have a part. Over all, 11 per cent of Australians suffer from either partial or complete deafness. As well, quite a number have tinnitus. I have tinnitus and a mild hereditary hearing loss that is worsening with age. So far, they are mostly just a nuisance.

Bouras says:

Those who suffer from creeping deafness may be slow to realise it, and to accept it, for communication is of such vital importance to work, social situations and personal relationships. I long refused to accept my own hearing loss, upbraiding myself for lack of concentration, and telling myself good hearing was a matter of willpower.

Hearing loss is a blow to self-esteem. It leads to a strong temptation to become anti-social. It becomes too much of a strain to listen: hearing loss means stress. And sufferers do not like to think about, let alone hear, jokes about the deaf. Nor do we wish people to assume we are so deaf that we cannot hear personal remarks.

[. . .] People with normal hearing often assume that hearing aids are a replacement. They are not, despite recent advances in digital technology. The brain has to retrain itself after hearing aids are fitted, and this process takes time. Hearing aids are also situation-specific, so that, for example, they are not very good in crowded restaurants or at Greek wedding parties: never wear a hearing-aid when a bouzouki is playing.

Strategies are called for. The person who has hearing loss accomplishes little if he/she merely says things like: 'Sorry?' 'Come again?'

The deaf person needs to make requests: 'Would you mind talking more slowly/facing me/raising your voice a little?' It is also helpful to issue a tactful reminder. 'Remember I'm aurally challenged, won't you?'

Lip-reading is a useful skill to acquire, and formal lessons are not usually necessary. Beards and moustaches can provide difficulty for lip-readers, however.

Kind friends and relations need to be conscious of the problems involved. Even people who are only partially deaf cannot hear round corners or through walls, nor can they hear when somebody is looking in a cupboard, rattling plates or banging cutlery. Music at a dinner-party can be a nightmare, and most sufferers need a telephone with a volume control.

Nor should people with normal hearing believe that not hearing is the same as mishearing; they should also understand that some people can be heard much better than others. In short, a general heightening of awareness is needed.

And part of this heightening of awareness is the knowledge of people who have not let hearing problems stand in the way of a full life and notable achievements.

Choson Shinbo a Japan-based pro-North Korea newspaper reports that North Korean scientists have developed a new kind of noodle, made from corn and soybeans, that leaves people feeling fuller longer and has twice as much protein and fives times as much fat as ordinary noodles.

"When you consume ordinary noodles (made from wheat or corn), you may soon feel your stomach empty. But this soybean noodle delays such a feeling of hunger," the paper says.

The noodles would be available soon across North Korea, the newspaper says. Sadly, this seems unlikely. An estimated one million people starved to death in North Korea in the late 1990s. In July, the World Food Programme warned that six million people were in urgent need of food aid, following severe flooding last year. Most households have cut their food intake. North Korea is dependent on foreign food aid, but is unwilling to allow assessment of its needs or to allow aid agencies adequate access.

The courts have dismissed legal protests, but it remains the case that the World Youth Day was very expensive for the taxpayers of New South Wales. Reported spending by the New South Wales government was $86 million mostly on policing, traffic management, security and other crowd-related matters. The Federal Government contributed a further $42 million (largely in fulfilment of a promise made by the former Howard Government) . A state and federal package for the racing industry included at least $3.5 million to compensate for the use of Randwick racecourse.

Thus, direct costs to the taxpayer were about $131.5 million, offset by $10 million paid to the State for the use of venues. So, lets be generous and say the cost to the taxpayer was $120 million. (The Roman Catholic church spent a further $115 million on the event of its own money and raised about $75 million in pilgrim fees.)

400,000 people filled Randwick Racecourse for the Final Mass. About 125,000 people visited from overseas joining an estimated 100,000 registered Australian participants--that's 225,000.

So, by my reckoning, the governments spent at least $120,000,000/225,000 = $533 per pilgrim. That is an extraordinary amount of money for taxpayer support of attendance at a sectarian religios event.

Greens MP Lee Rhiannon has welcomed the NSW Auditor-General's decisions, at her request, to conduct a preliminary investigation into World Youth Day costs to ensure proper scrutiny of the government's role in organising and funding the event. Ms Rhiannon reckons the NSW Government's contribution is four times more than the contribution made by equivalent state governments to the past two World Youth Days in Toronto and Cologne, which attracted a greater number of pilgrims.

Amid the fuss about publication of the Archbishop of Canterbury's private correspondence about same-sex couples, an article (16 Aug 08) by Martin Shipton in The Western Mail, a newspaper from Cardiff in Dr William's native Wales, has included a clear summary of what Dr William's actually wrote.

The letters were written to psychiatrist Dr Deborah Pitt, of Penarth, by Dr Rowan Williams when he was Archbishop of Wales. In the letters, which date from 2000 and 2001, Dr Williams said he believes that gay sexual relationships can "reflect the love of God" in a way that is comparable to marriage. He wrote that gay partnerships pose the same ethical questions as those between men and women, and the key issue for Christians is that they are faithful and lifelong. [. . .]

[I]n the letters to Dr Pitt, he expressed his personal view that Biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature. Instead, he argued, the passages were aimed at heterosexuals seeking sexual variety. He wrote: "I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness."

At the time of writing the letters to Dr Pitt, Dr Williams described his view as his "definitive conclusion" reached after 20 years of study and prayer. He nevertheless drew a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian and his position as a church leader, for which he had to take account of the traditionalist view.

Replying to Dr Pitt, who had asked him to explain his views, Dr Williams described how his view began to change from that of opposing gay relationships in 1980. His mind became "unsettled" by contact as a university teacher with Christian students who believed the Bible forbade promiscuity rather than gay sex. He told Dr Pitt that by the end of the 1980s he had "definitely come to the conclusion" that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay.

Dr Williams said he had been influenced by two academics, one of whom was Jeffrey John, the celibate homosexual whom he later forced not to become Bishop of Reading after an outcry from traditionalists.

In an essay written in 1989, Dr Williams argued that the Church's acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of non-procreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex. In his correspondence with Dr Pitt, Dr Williams wrote of his regret that the acceptance or otherwise of homosexuality had become "very much politicised" and was treated by many as "the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy".

Congratulations to the ACT Government which has brought in laws to cut stamp duty on environmentally friendly cars, the first of their kind in Australia. Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says people who buy low-emission or hybrid cars will save about $1000 in stamp duty. Under the laws, the cost of hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius will come down by about $500, while the price of less-efficient vehicles such as SUVs and utes will increase by $200 to $450. The green rating of vehicles will be based on the Commonwealth Government's Green Vehicle Guide. But, as someone said to me, "Does this mean we have to sell our red car?"

News is that the number of same-sex couples registering their partnerships under new ACT laws has exceeded the Territory government's expectation. Twenty five couples have registered since the Civil Partnerships Act 2008 was passed in May (including two couples who chose to have a non-legal commitment ceremony). Only 15 registrations per year were anticipated.

The 2001 census identified 11,000 male same-sex couples and 9,000 female same-sex couples in Australia. Nationally, same-sex couples were 0.5% of all 'couple families'. In the Australian Capital Territory, the number was 1% of all couple families. The ACT has about 1.6% of Australia's population. If there were 20,000 same-sex 'couple families' in Australia (certainly an underestimate) there would have been about 162 couples in the ACT in 2001, or about 185 or so by 2008. It's hardly a surprise that 25 of them have chosen to register themselves as civil partners so far. I would have though there would have been rather more!

If the ACT government was anticipating only registrations per year 15 year, it is all the more commendable that it has fought so strongly for the equality of that small number of people.

In the 2000 and 2004 Olympics, the two Koreas marched together in the same uniform and under the blue and white "unification flag" (pictured) as a symbol of their common nationality and heritage. Not so this time in Beijing, as relationships between the North and the South have been even more chilly that usual.

Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, said negotiations for a joint march failed and that it was a setback for peace and reunification efforts on the divided peninsula. "We've tried to have this in Beijing," Rogge said. "Unfortunately, it was not possible." He said there had been a "great willingness" between the two national Olympic committees for a joint march. "Unfortunately the political powers--both on the South and the North--did not agree," he said.

The flag was first used in 1991 when the two countries competed as a single team in the 41st World Table Tennis Championship in Japan and the 6th World Youth Football Championship in Portugal. The two countries' teams marched together under the flag in the opening ceremonies of the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, and the 2006 Asian Games in Doha, but competed separately.

Pyongyang suspended all inter-Korean dialogue after President Lee Myung-bak took office in February. The Kim Jong-il regime is angered by Lee's policy of linking South-North cooperation and reconciliation with Pyongyang's progress in denuclearization. Pyongyang refused even to accept food aid from the South. The North wants the unconditional aid made available by Lee's predecessors, Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Dae-jung. Pyongyang reportedly refused to accept China's invitation arrangement for Kim Yong-nam of the North and President Lee to sit at the same table during Friday's luncheon hosted by Chinese President Hu Jintao.

The Economist of 7 Aug 08 has no less than three perceptive items following on from the Lambeth Conference. While arguing that "The writhings of worldwide Anglicanism are another reason to disestablish the Church of England,", it notes that Anglicanism lacks the "glue" that binds some churches together: the power of the pope to impose discipline on straying Catholics; the body of undisputed theology that unites Orthodox believers even when they quarrel. "Anglicanism works through relationships, a sense of belonging to a family with a shared inheritance. That now has waned. Despite the apparent reprieve, this year's Lambeth conference could well be the last of its kind."

The Economist suggests that as a matter of "simple realism"schism may not be such a bad thing.

Too many angels have danced on too many pins as prelates struggle to embrace mutually incompatible beliefs. The rock on which the Anglican Communion is breaking is ostensibly the consecration of openly gay clergy, especially bishops, and blessings for same-sex unions. Only a small minority in America's well-groomed Episcopal churches or the Church of England's underpopulated pews finds clerical homosexuality non-negotiably bad nowadays. Many in Africa and other parts of the "global South" do--and they see efforts to enforce liberal values as "colonial".

Attempting to find a way to square this circle has not been an inspiring task. Some argue that liberals must hang in there to rein in the homophobes and misogynists. In fact, too often it is the high ground that gives. The gay American bishop whose promotion launched the latest round of internecine bitterness was not invited to Lambeth. Conservative rebels refused to come anyway. If someone did manage to bury this bone of contention, another would emerge.

In another piece, The Economist says that the Anglican Communion pays a "high price" for its togetherness--weeks of discussion at an expensive conference with limited results, years of prospective debate about a covenant, and so on; distractions through which "the thorny issues facing the church were artfully concealed by euphemism and arcane procedures that will unfold over several years."

Finally, The Economist observes that

One reason why senior Catholic clerics view a possible schism with dismay is personal and emotional. As the Second Vatican Council's decree on ecumenicism noted, the Anglican Communion occupies a "special place" in relation to the Catholic church. In the 44 years since then, many Catholics have invested time, effort and prayer in trying to reunite with the Church of England, and there have been moments when they dared to hope it was possible. [. . .] No one likes to hear a row in a friend's house.

But there are other, less sentimental reasons why the Catholic hierarchy dreads a split. In particular, the acceptance into the Catholic church of large numbers of married Anglican clerics would make it harder for the Vatican to hold its already shaky line on priestly celibacy. [. . .] The refugees from any future schism could prove far more numerous than the trickle who have eloped to Rome to date, however. So those Roman Catholics who would welcome a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuality, or the greater involvement of women, could see their cause set back by the arrival of the rebels. "High" Anglicans can be more papist than the pope.

We would do well to pay heed. There is wisdom in much that The Economist writes. We must separate now or learn, somehow, to live together despite disagreement.

Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, writes on leaving the Lambeth Conference for a preaching engagement in Scotland, that:

Lots of people, including journalists, were asking what I thought the Lambeth Conference had accomplished. Most of them, I suspect, thought the answer is "nothing!" But I disagree. I have said all along, publicly and privately, that this is the part that the Archbishop of Canterbury got exactly right. That while the Conference would produce no legislation, no definitive statements and no decisions, its real "product" would be the deepening of the bonds of affection that MAKE us the Anglican Communion. That won't be enough for those who want to bring all this difficulty to a rapid conclusion, declaring winners on one side and losers on the other. That won't satisfy those who seek a way to punish those who are pushing the boundaries of God's inclusive love. But it's enough for me.

I have frequently recalled Desmond Tutu's simple and wise description of the Anglican Communion. "We meet," he said. Full stop. That's what we do. We hold a common belief and hope in the Risen Christ, and because we care for one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, we meet. We meet, and let God's Holy Spirit work among us, to allow us to see our common humanity, and to discover the Christ in "the other." While that might not look like much to the rest of the world, it is an amazing "product." It is precisely what we need during this difficult time. We don't need -- perhaps cannot possibly discern -- the answers right now. What we DO need and CAN discern, is that we are all in this together. That God IS working God's purposes out, even if we can't always see it. Even if we are in the midst of conflict and pain.

Bishop Robinson is right, to a point. And the Conference has shown Canterbury's Archbishop to have been wise in much and foolish in a little. Nevertheless, I hold to my conclusion of many months ago that this Lambeth was going to be an enormously expensive event that posed huge risks of doing more harm than good. It's pleasing indeed that many of the bishop participating found each other to be genuine, sincere and God-fearing. Yet, if had been otherwise, they ought not to have been bishops. Perhaps that's why Lambeth 1998 went so wrong; too many participants forgot to be bishops. At this Conference, at least the bishops were . . . bishops, for which we may be properly grateful.

And I was happy to see these photographs (from Melbourne Anglicans of two Australian bishops, Kay Goldsworthy and Barbara Darling.

Bishop Gene is wrong on another score, too. He says, "Cricket is a game with impenetrable rules and played solely for the purpose of confirming that Brits are superior to the rest of the world." Rather, cricket is a highly intelligent game, devoted to confirming that Australians are superior to the English.

Today, 2 August, is the fourth anniversary of the death of my mother June. Whatever is foreseen in joy Must be lived out from day to day. Vision held open in the dark By our ten thousand days of work. Harvest will fill the barn; for that The hand must ache, the face must sweat. And yet no leaf or grain is filled By work of ours; the field is tilled And left to grace. That we may reap, Great work is done while we're asleep. When we work well, a Sabbath mood Rests on our day, and finds it good. -- Wendell Berry. A timbered choir: the Sabbath poems 1979-1997. NY: Counterpoint, 1998, p.18 .

The draft of the Lambeth Conference's 'reflection' on questions of sexuality is widely available. Nick Baines, Bishop of Croydon, said: "Anyway, Sex Day was a bit of a disappointment for the thrill-seekers. There were no fall-outs, no hissy fits and no demonstrations of outrageous behaviour on the part of bishops or their spouses. In other words, a media disaster."

I thank God for that.