I hardly know where to start. That this ill-informed drivel makes it into a reputable national newspaper is alarming.

Its bishops have announced [...] that gay men can now be accepted as candidates for the episcopacy

That is not what was announced. They always could become bishops, many already are, and everyone is perfectly content with that. The issue being clarified is status of civil partnerships. Or is the Independent unable to distinguish between sexual orientation and its untrammeled expression?

This is the opposite of the line taken 10 years ago when the furore broke over the appointment of Jeffrey John

In actual fact, it is not; if anything, that line has now been reinforced. The major issue with Jeffrey John was never his being gay, and not even so much him being in a partnership - although we needed careful reflection on how the perception of a civil partnership would mesh with the very public role of a bishop. The big issue was that his relationship had been a sexual one; that he had in the past advocated that God had no problem with that; and that he had not changed his mind on the matter. In the eyes of many, that made him a poor choice to teach and guard the faith once delivered. It certainly put him at tension with the formal position of the CofE.

To the secular world there is something profoundly unconvincing about the Catholic Church insisting on loving pastoral care for gay people while simultaneously describing homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered”.

There are many aspects of the human condition that are clearly disordered and also ask for loving pastoral care. It is interesting that nobody finds this position unconvincing for, say, marital breakdown, but in the case of homosexuality it is suddenly a sign of hypocrisy. Or something.

Thankfully secular society has led the way on sexuality as it did on the place of women, anti-Semitism and racial discrimination

He forgot slavery. Yawn.

Oh dear, I missed the zingers towards the end.

It is not for ecclesiastical police to probe into men’s souls.

Appointing a bishop is different from appointing a bookkeeper. Whether the person supposed to defend the faith actually lives a life consistent with that faith is an entirely appropriate question to ask.

All this is the more ironic since it is done in the name of a faith whose founder suggested [...] that no one should be excluded, and that all should be welcomed.

“He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” Is this the same founder we are talking about? I think not. There is a clear way and an open door for each and every one of us, yes. But that does not mean that any broad way or wide gate is fine.