Had we done so, we would have acted on the encouragement given by the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution to listen to the experience of lesbian and gay people, and would have heard the views of others affected. At the very least, we would then know what their reaction would be to what we were proposing to say.

My suggestion was rejected on the grounds that, as the proposed document represented no change in the Church's teaching, there was no need to consult in that way. At the level of words on the page, it may be true that it represents no change in the Church's stance on homosexual relationships. The document is based on Issues in Human Sexuality (Church House Publishing, 1991), reiterating the main points of its teaching, and in particular making its well-known distinction between the responsibility of lay Christians who are gay and that of those who are ordained.

However, contexts affect meanings profoundly, and, even if the document is based on Issues in Human Sexuality, it is specifically produced to take account of the new Civil Partnerships Act. That Act has the purpose of enabling people of the same gender to order many of the practical and financial aspects of their life together along lines that follow automatically for those who are married.

The fact that the bishops deem it necessary to respond to that new context by reiterating (as they see it) the teaching of Issues is itself a message that was bound to be heard negatively by those affected, and has been.

The message being sent is that entry into a civil partnership will arouse the suspicion that the teaching of Issues is being contravened, and those who decide on that course must be ready to give assurances that it is not. This will not only affect those who are gay, but will also lead many who are not gay and who choose to share their lives to refrain from exercising their rights under the Act, for fear of the interpretation that would be put on their doing so.

THOSE WHO put this statement together are certainly not seeking to be oppressive or to add to people's burdens: there are plenty of sentences in the document that show how much struggle went into putting it together, and I believe that in many, if not most, dioceses, it will be interpreted with gentleness and compassion.

Yet this pastoral sensitivity runs up against the dominant force that drives the bishops' response to the social reality of the increased public recognition of lesbian and gay relationships, and to the availability of civil partnerships in particular: what they fear is that marriages, and the institution of marriage, are somehow threatened by this development.

I find this fear difficult to understand, since nobody has ever been prepared to tell me that their own marriage was threatened by the public recognition of gay relationships. My experience of lesbian and gay friends in relation to my own marriage is only of support and insight. There is room, surely, for a much more hopeful response.

It should be a source not of fear, but of delight, that many who do not aspire to matrimony, or to whose circumstances it is inappropriate, wish none the less to order their lives by means of as many of the aspects of the married state as are made available to them.

Is it not a vindication of all that has been revealed to us about the contribution of marriage to human flourishing that, often in the face of sustained public and ecclesiastical disapproval, and the presence of some very destructive lifestyles within the "gay scene", many gay and lesbian people have aspired to order their lives in the kind of faithfulness and responsibility that civil partnerships involve?

I am aware that the decisions of such Christians represent a challenge to our received understanding, and I am personally committed to continuing to sustain respectful conversation about the biblical and interpretative issues involved. But we must surely find ways of continuing that conversation, however difficult it is, without at the same time making such a grudging and fearful response to those who have made conscientious decisions in relation to their lives, and believe that they are best ordered within the new context of civil partnership.

I remember meeting two priests, one of whom was having to nurse the other in the final stages of an AIDS-related illness. Had it been possible for them at that time, I imagine they might have considered entering a civil partnership. Whether they did so or not, they (like many I have known since, in less distressing circumstances) certainly threatened nobody, and offered an enriching inspiration of what it means to be in relationship - for better, for worse.

I dare to hope that bishops will find better ways of relating to such couples than seeking assurances, and I believe many of us will. But, sorry as I am to need to say so, the words we have uttered on this topic will not help either bishops or those to whom they minister. For the desire of people to enter civil partnerships, and the willingness of the Government to make that possible, represent something far more hopeful than this document makes it appear.

Sustaining the Church's doctrine of marriage is a challenging task at this time, almost entirely for reasons that have (if we are honest) little to do with homosexuality. If our difficulty as Church with particular life-choices means that we cannot speak hopefully about what are clearly signs of commitment and responsibility, perhaps it would have been better to say nothing.

--Dr Peter Selby is the Bishop of Worcester. The Diocese of Worcester is one of 44 dioceses in the Church of England. It covers an area of 671 square miles and includes parishes in the County of Worcestershire, the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, and a few parishes in northern Gloucestershire, south east Wolverhampton and Sandwell.