When did you stop ****ing your wife?
I don’t know how to put this politely, so I’ll follow The Times and use a lot of asterisks.
My attention has been caught by a recent news item (£) in which a vicar was taken to task for describing the Archbishop of Canterbury as a w****r.
Fair enough. Taking the vicar to task, I mean, not the original use of the epithet. But the Rev Arun Arora, director of communications at the Church’s headquarters in Westminster, justified his criticism by saying: “I think any right minded person would find a priest calling his archbishop an onanist to be utterly outrageous.”
Now it’s true that “onanism” is an acceptably polite term which embraces the sexual act of a w****r. But isn’t the Church’s communications director rather missing the point here? We object to certain terms because they have a vulgarity to them, not because of the activity they describe. Or is he suggesting that it would have been OK if the vicar had, instead, called his archbishop a ******? The Archbishop is, after all, married (with children).
One thing is clear from all this. The Church allows respectful dissent, but it draws the line at vicars bashing the bishop.
Posted: 10 June 2013 under Topics: Communication