At Covenant Presbyterian Church in Westchester, dogs like Mr. Booby are welcome congregants at the Sunday night services, where howling and sudden bouts of scratching may interrupt prayers, and the collection plate holds treats for poodles and golden retrievers alike. And the Rev. Tom Eggebeen said he fully understands if some of the congregants need to step outside now and again.

The idea behind the service, Eggebeen said, was to make it more comfortable for people to attend the church, which has 120 members, discounting up to a dozen dogs that generally attend services. Cats and other animals are not permitted, perhaps out of a belief that of God's many creatures, dogs probably need more ministering.

"The heart of the whole thing has been to provide a worship service for the entire family, including the four-footed friends. . . . Their pets are very, very important to them and virtually comprise a member of family," he said. "I wouldn't be in the pulpit on Sunday mornings and say, 'Leave your children home.' "

More than a gimmick or an effort to build attendance, the dog services are part of a growing movement by churches to recognize the emotional bond between humans and their pets.

Animal blessings, memorial services and grief counseling for the loss of a pet are increasingly common in many denominations.

A writer on a religious website blasted Eggebeen, saying people like him "promulgate a false Gospel."

"The first step into church membership or the reason for attending a church service should be conviction and not comfort," he wrote. "If you suddenly feel called to hear the Word of God because Fido can come along, then reconsider the purpose of your trip."

In a section of his New Testament letter to the Romans (1:22-27) dealing with Gods admonitions against same-sex relations, St. Paul was actually writing about heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts and not homosexuals, said  the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church.

So my question is, was St. Paul right inabout engaging in homosexual acts as being against nature? Bishop Robinson answered: The question you ask takes about two days to answer, but Ill try to give you the Cliffs Notes version which is: One of the things we have to understand is that any piece of scripture needs to be understood in its own context.  We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion thats only about 125 years old.

That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts," said Bishop Robinson. "It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.  So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so. 
 
Robinson added, The question is, are there any answers there for what were asking today, which is the rightfulness of faithful, monogamous, lifelong-intentioned relationships between people of the same sex, and the Bible simply does not address that.
 
CNSNews.com asked the follow-up question, So you would say then that St. Paul is incorrect in this passage? Bishop Robinson said, No. I think St. Paul was absolutely correct in his own context given what he knew, and given the behavior which he was describing.  The questions were asking today are about a completely different set of circumstances.