"Now the plain meaning of this statement is that sexual union should take place for the sole purpose of procreation, that sexual union as _an_ end in itself--not, mind you, _the_ only end--(there we should all agree), but sexual union as _an_ end in itself is to be condemned. "That means that sexual intercourse should rightly take place _only_ for the purpose of procreation. "Quite a large family could easily result from quite a few sexual unions. For the rest the couple should be celibate. Any intercourse not having procreation as its intention is 'sexual union as an end in itself,' and therefore by inference condemned by the Lambeth Conference. "Think of the facts of life. Let us recall our own love--our marriage, our honeymoon. Has not sexual union over and over again been the physical expression of our love without thought or intention of procreation? Have we all been wrong? Or is it that the Church lacks that vital contact with the realities of life which accounts for the gulf between her and the people? "The love envisaged by the Lambeth Conference is an invertebrate, joyless thing--not worth the having. Fortunately it is in contrast to the real thing as practised by clergy and laity. "Fancy an ardent lover (and what respect have you for a lover who is not ardent?)--the type you would like your daughter to marry--virile, ambitious, chivalrous--a man who means to work hard and love hard. Fancy putting before these lovers--eager and expectant of the joys before them--the Lambeth picture of marriage. Do you expect to gain their confidence?" [117] That sort of appeal is not very effective, even as rhetoric; but it is very easy to give an exact parallel. Fancy a fond father (and what respect have you for a father who is not fond?) being told by his daughter's suitor that he, his prospective son-in-law, looked forward to the physical joys of marriage, but intended to insist on his wife using contraceptives. Would any father regard such a one as the type he would like his daughter to marry? There is, unfortunately, another answer to Lord Dawson, and I put it in the form of a question. Can any intelligent man or woman, Catholic, Protestant, or rationalist, maintain that Lord Dawson has given a fair, a true, or an honest statement of the teaching of the Church of England? Moreover, it is past all understanding how a gross libel on Anglican doctrine has been overlooked by those most concerned. The address is actually hailed as "wise, bold, and humane in the highest sense of the word" by _The Spectator_, [118] and that amazing journal, "expert as ever in making the worse appear the better cause in a way that appeals to clergymen," goes on to say: "Lord Dawson fearlessly and plainly opposed the teachings of the Roman Church and the alleged teachings of the Anglican."