The argument on this reading is half won

The argument, on this reading, is half won.But it is clear that the argument is not half won at all. The Church disapproves of same-sex sex, and that's that.Oh no, people have said, what the Cardinal explained represented a significant advance, because it acknowledged the matter of sexual orientation There is nothing wrong with the orientation. But then Cardinal Hume says that the only thing the Church cannot be expected to approve of is a bloke loving a bloke and doing something about it This takes us back to square one. He explains that the experience of love in this world is a foretaste of our union with God in the next.

This is gibberish, but we let it pass.He further explains that, given its high opinion of love, the Church could hardly be expected to disapprove of a bloke loving a bloke This is intriguing, and perhaps even rather fresh. Why should he be expected to endorse some sophisticated variant of a thing he doesn't begin to understand?But the pestering has its effect and in the end Cardinal Hume decides to clarify a few points He explains that the Church approves of love This is promising. A bishop in the bedroom, sexual sanctification, a blessing for a boffing - that's what these people want.It seems odd to be so insistent - odd, for instance, to find people pestering Cardinal Hume for his approval of same-sex sex This is a man who barely approves of sex itself. If they are crossing the road, they want a bishop on hand to say, "Yes, you may cross the road".

If they are choosing a tie, they want a bishop to advise them: "Not the aubergine stripe, my child, not the aubergine stripe". And if they are falling in love, these people find it handy, as it were, to bring the bishop along to supervise. This is no manner in which to renew our acquaintance with consciousness. I want a radio with a Thought-for-the-Day inhibitor, a radio that will turn down the volume automatically at the first mention of their god-slot, but which will monitor the silent broadcast and turn the volume up again as soon as the voice says, "That was Thought for the Day." I want a radio with a bishop-filter, a cardinal-canceller, a vicar's voice-vanisher, a radio programmed to replace these two minutes of tosh with some rare item from the repertoire of short piano pieces. Other people are not like this, it seems They want as much bishop-input as they can get. This jumping out of bed in irritation, this urge to do anything to create a noise, whether by running a bath or a shower, or by grinding the coffee for much longer than necessary, this desperate attempt, in short, to drown out Thought for the Day - this is no way to begin the morning afresh. But first sign a contract with me in return for not writing your memoirs, and take my advice on how to remain in the public eye."The rest, I think you will agree, is history. Mr Lamont has remained in the public eye, but he has spared us his memoirs.

If history is grateful to me for nothing else, that is probably service enough.Tomorrow: Why Mark Thatcher has never written his memoirs.. Keep them wondering.""But then how can I avoid being forgotten?" he asked plaintively."That's easy Become a thorn in the side of your own government Be a rebel Be remembered as Lamont the Troublemaker Be the only Tory to vote against your own party. And one day you will be able to write your memoirs and make a real fortune.""How shall I survive till then?""Get a good job in the City Directorships, consultancies, etc. But if he keeps quiet, he becomes a seven-year wonder: the man who never sold his story, the man who kept mum."You can be that man," I explained to him "Maintain a dignified silence.

You will accept my down-payment not to write your memoirs."Of course, Mr Lamont was startled It is not every day that a politician is paid to keep quiet So I explained my strategy If a politician rushes into print, he is a seven-day wonder He is read, disbelieved and forgotten. For the last few years Mr Lamont has been under a lucrative contract to this column not to write his memoirs. It all started when, fresh out of office, Mr Lamont came to us to discuss serialising his memoirs."I have been advised," he said, "to get them into print as soon as possible in order to give my eye-witness account of history as it is being made.""You mean, in order to cash in on your current controversial status before it all fades?""Well, I ...""I take it you have been round all the publishers and Sunday papers looking for the best deal?""Well, I ...""And they have all offered you a great deal of money to rush into print?""Well, I ...""If you are wise, you will ignore them You will take my advice. He has been described by those who understand these things better than I do as the Nick Leeson of modern economics, whatever that may mean.He has also often hinted that he would like to put his side of the affair, and that there is much more to it than Mr Major or anyone else has ever let on.So why has he never written the book, which would let us into his mind and show us history from his side? Why, alone among politicians, has he shown the strength and dignified determination to keep silent? Why are there no Lamont Diaries?Today, at last, I can reveal the truth This column can take all the credit. And yet Mr Lamont has been at the centre of some of the most sensational moments in modern British politics.He was there when Black Wednesday came along. He was here when we tumbled out of the exchange-rate mechanism.