As could be expected, Dr Howard Gregory, diocesan bishop of the Anglican Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, has stirred up a hornet’s nest by stating his personal views with regard to the decriminalisation of buggery, and on marital rape. He was careful to point out that his views were his and were not those of the denomination he represents. I have always found it curious how a prominent leader of any organisation can make a clear line of demarcation between his or her personal views and those of the organisation he or she represents. It is always a tricky road to walk, especially when, in the instance of the bishop, you bear responsibility for the integrity of the church to preserve its unity. At what point does your view as a person end and that of being bishop of Jamaica begin?

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the bishop. He is bold in stating his position, given the very strong views held by most Jamaicans, including no doubt, many in his church, about keeping the buggery law. Against the background of the pernicious fear and contempt for homosexuals that afflicts many Jamaicans, one would not even be surprised if some members leave the church because of his stance.

Already, the Reverend Garnett Roper has come under attack by the Jamaica Evangelical Alliance for holding and supporting similar views by the bishop.

But the bishop and Dr Roper are right in applying cool rationality, intellectual vigour, and reasonable arguments to what can be a volatile issue. I applaud them wholeheartedly for doing so. A cardinal principle avowed by the two gentlemen is the right of individuals to exercise their sexuality within the privacy of their bedrooms. The Church may and does have a position on sexual morality, as it should, but it ought to be careful that in promulgating laws and policies it is mindful of what life in a pluralistic society is about. There are many, as is abundantly clear, who will not necessarily be constrained by the views of the Church.

With the liberation and independence that have come through the proliferation of social media, this resentment of the State’s intrusion into people’s private lives have become even more axiomatic. Consenting adults between their bed sheets should not have a voyeuristic State becoming a peeping tom trying to ascertain what sexual positions are right and which wrong. The Church must preach its morality and seek to persuade people to its way of seeing things, and to this I am committed as a priest. But my mandate does not extend to that of a moral policeman deciding what people should do within the confines of their personal space when this is not injurious to another person or the good order of society.

Jesus, in his wisdom, was acutely aware of the distance between those who expressed belief in God and the legitimate spheres and authority of the State. It is for good reason that in his famous dictum he urged his listeners to render to Caesar (political/ governmental authority) the things that belong to him, and to God (moral/theological/spiritual realms) the things that belong to him. Those in the Church who believe that God has given them an evangelical mandate to forcefully get people to conform to their way of thinking are paving the road for which the horrors of the era of the Crusades are reminiscent.

The Church must persuade people to its way of thinking and doing things, but this cannot be legislated in a free society. This is also the position that I take to gambling. Apart from the time when my older brother created a “crown and anchor” board and encouraged his younger siblings to part with their measly cents, I have never gambled. As an investor in the stock market, I am so implacably opposed to gambling that I do not even purchase shares in companies that are gambling outfits, even when they show promising returns on investment. My opposition is rooted in my strong work ethic and having been grown up on the philosophy that nothing worthwhile is possible without hard work and fixity of purpose.

But I respect other people’s right to gamble and do not believe that the State should proscribe those rights because a moral majority may demand it. Again, like sexual preferences, gambling is a moral problem and the church must do its best to persuade others to its side of thinking. There can be no theocratic insistence that the laws of the land must bend to its wishes, even though it must seek to influence legislation that may capture some of its concerns.

In the case of the buggery law, which is a relic of the colonial past, the present Government would be spreading red herrings across the trail if it sought to get a referendum of Jamaicans’ views concerning this. I agree with those who believe that this would be time-wasting and a colossal misuse of scarce resources. Poll after poll has demonstrated Jamaicans’ opposition to homosexuality and support for the retention of the buggery law. One can be sure that such sentiments have not changed, so the outcome of a referendum from a logical point of view is almost assuredly against it. By my non-scientific assessment I would hazard a guess of by about 65 per cent being against.

In the matter of marital rape, rape is just that — to have sexual intercourse, whether homosexual or heterosexual, with someone without their consent. The law must make clear that there is no selectivity in its application and that the terms equally apply to male and female victims. Those who are arguing that there can be no rape in marriage miss the point that if a person says no, or is not in a position to say yes (to consent, for example, on the basis of cognitive impairment due to excessive drinking), you cannot impose yourself on such a person. By forcefully taking that to which you were not invited should invite the appropriate penalty.

My wife maintains sovereignty over her own body, and as her husband I do not get to do with her body whatever I wish. To do so is not just to insult her but to carry out a travesty against her dignity as a human being. She did not lose that dignity when I married her, and neither did she lose her sovereignty as a person. If anything, the preservation of such concepts and respect for the person make the sexual act even more enjoyable for there is an essential spiritual complement that binds those thus engaged. Again, the Church must inform the debate with cogent and rational arguments and not go off the cliff with any fundamentalist views that can only muddy the waters.

I see that the Jamaica Council of Churches is calling a meeting of its members to deliberate on the latest “sexual” scandal. If this were not so tragic it would be quite laughable. I have been around long enough to know that this is a straight exercise of sheer hypocrisy. Where were the hastily called meetings when Tivoli was under assault with the horrific loss of lives? When was a hastily called meeting arranged to address the horrendous violence against our children? Where is the outrage against the corruption that has become so endemic in our national life? The existential angst in which many Jamaicans live does not seem to obsess church leaders, but when it comes to sex, it does. I wonder why?

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the Observer or stead6655@aol.com.