> I have to say that from my position on the picket fence, the very idea of all these learned folk discussing, analysing, agonising over a scrap of ancient papyrus (genuine or not), and over the question of whether a man whose life story we cannot possibly trace with even the slightest degree of certainty did or did not have sex, makes me wonder if theology is not a form of collective madness.-Theology can only know what is archeologically proven. Faith is not collective madness, unless the faithful recognize their beliefs are only that, beliefs.

More tragicomic reaction to the fragment of papyrus, as reported in yesterday's Sunday Times:-Quote: The Rev. Robin Griffiths-Jones, master of the Temple Church in London: "If evidence were taken seriously that Jesus was married, vast tranches of Christian thought would....just evaporate."-Since no-one can possibly know whether Jesus was married or not, had sex or not, what are these vast tranches based on? (More in a moment.) The power of the Church has always rested on the need to instil a feeling of guilt in its members. We are all sinners, and God will punish us unless we do as Papa tells us. Sex is sinful, although it's OK if the purpose is to create children. So we must assume that Jesus never had sex. Oh and by the way, if priests sexually abuse children, we'd better cover it up, because otherwise the Church might lose some of its power, let alone its credibility.-Quote: Garry O'Connor, papal biographer: the fragment "brings into the open once more the conflict between the spiritual side of Jesus, and the human side. It opens from a new perspective the debate on marriage, gay priests, female sexuality." (Why not male sexuality?)-Has the debate ever been closed? (More in a moment.) Why should there be a conflict between the spiritual side and the human side of a man whose life story was reconstructed decades after his death, and has been embellished for centuries by the imagination of those purporting to represent him? If Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, whether they were married or not, does this change the value of his (reconstructed) philosophy? Do Muslims disregard what they believe to be Muhammad's messages because he had multiple wives and children? The only thing it changes is the role of sex in the Church's teachings, which are based on an obsessive and repressive preoccupation with words written, translated and interpreted by generations of fallible humans, not one of whom was a witness to Jesus's life, let alone his sex life if he had one.-Quote: The Roman Catholic Church, however, has dismissed the idea that the fragment might throw doubt over two millennia of Christian tradition or influence doctrine. "This does not change anything in the position of the Church, which rests on an enormous tradition, which is very clear and unanimous" that Jesus was not married, said Father Federico Lombardi, a spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI.-And there you have it. The Church established its own traditions ... by no means unanimous, but in the early days you would be chucked out if you disagreed ... and these became canon. It doesn't matter whether they are based on truth or not ... any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed ... or even on what is best for humankind (since the Church's attitude towards all matters sexual is the cause of so much suffering). The fragment of papyrus may be fraud or fiction, just as the various accounts of Jesus's life may be fraud or fiction, but what seems to matter most to the Church is the preservation of its authority. Ah well, if God exists (and cares), let's hope that he too sees the funny side of this tragedy.