[Mrs. Don-o]

"You have to read between the lines... in this case, the silences. Failing, within the context of the discussion of homosexuality, to somewhere condemn that act, the propensity, as a perversion of what God intended is as good as silence in the face of murder. It is tantamount to silent assent."

Rubbish. That's just as senseless as saying,

"Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality. (Check out the Gospels: He didn't.) Therefore we'll assume He was for it."

"St. Paul never spoke out against BDSM. Therefore we'll assume he was for it."

"FWDUDE never spoke out against sex-reassignment (transsexual) surgery. Therefore..."

To construe something from silence, especially when you cannot reference the whole collection of their recorded or written words, and can only draw dubious conclusions from the very few direct quotes this RNS interviewer has chosen to cite, does not show sound judgment.

[fwdude]

IF Jesus had the occasion to discuss homosexuality and his apostles and biographers were moved to record it in the cannon, He would have condemned it.

IF Paul had been presented with the issue of sexual perversion of any particular brand, be assured that he would have condemned it in no uncertain terms.

This women, and the others spotlighted in this piece, are plopped down in the midst of this subject, and yet don’t condemn it, except for its practice “in themselves.” They want to be comfortable with it, in the words of the article, but don’t want to engage in the actions.

Who wants to be comfortable with sin?