The Lead

Evidence continues to accumulate that the Church of Uganda supports the anti-homosexuals bill before parliament.

The latest news is the key role in support of the bill taken by Joshua Kitakule. Mr. Kitakule is Inter-religious Council of Uganda Secretary General, [irony alert] "Head of Peace and Justice Division, Church of Uganda Planning, Development and Rehabilitation Department, responsible for designing, developing and implementing peace and human rights activities," and has served as a member of the Economic Empowerment Track Committee for the Global South Primates.

Five weeks ago the Church of Uganda announced it was "studying the proposed 'Anti-homosexuality bill' and, therefore, does not yet have an official position on the bill." But why would it not flatly oppose the bill if, as it also said, it "upholds the sanctity of life" and "is committed at all levels to offer counseling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning." From George Pitcher's reporting of his recent interview with Rowan Williams, it might appear the Church of Uganda and the Archbishop of Canterbury are in agreement about the bill:

“Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades,” says Dr Williams. “Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.” He adds that the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty but, tellingly, he notes that its archbishop, Henry Orombi, who boycotted the Lambeth Conference last year, “has not taken a position on this bill”.

Telling or not, Williams didn't make a simple declarative statement, "I oppose/support this bill", either.

There is very good reason to believe the Church of Uganda and Archbishop Orombi support the bill, or would support the bill if the death penalty was reduced to life imprisonment. Its "no official position statement" also reiterated a statement by Orombi made earlier in the year. As observed by Church Times,

It also quotes a comment made in April this year by the Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Revd Henry Orombi: “I am appalled to learn that the rumours we have heard for a long time about homosexual recruiting in our schools and among our youth are true. I am even more concerned that the practice is more widespread than we originally thought. It is the duty of the Church and the government to be watchmen on the wall and to warn and protect our people from harmful and deceitful agendas.”

He made the remarks in the wake of the right-wing Family Life Network conference in Uganda in March, addressed by Christian speakers from the United States. Participants publicly “confessed” to bribing schoolchildren to become gay, and the Network petitioned the Ugandan government for new laws against homosexuals. [Emphasis added]

In short, Orombi stirring support for new laws against homosexuals early on. There is more recent evidence that Orombi and the Church of Uganda support the bill that resulted.

First, immediately after the Church of Uganda released its "no position" statement its provincial secretary who issued the statement clarified for the press that,

"It is an important law, but the provision related to the death penalty may prevent this law from being passed, because death should not be accepted as a punishment. Therefore propose another form of punishment instead of death."

Second, Orombi has nothing to say about the position by one of his bishops who recently wrote in Spero News,

Ugandan Parliament, the watch dog of our laws, please go ahead and put the anti-Gay laws in place.

Finally, earlier this month the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda held

its biennial Consultative Assembly on the 3rd and 4th December, 2009, at Imperial Resort Beach Hotel, Entebbe.

The consultative Assembly brings together all Bishops of the Uganda Catholic Church, Bishops of the Province of the Church of Uganda, District Khadis of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council, Deans of the Uganda Orthodox Church and the Fields and Presidents of the Seventh Day Adventist Uganda Union Church.

[36% of Ugandans are Anglican, second only to Catholics at 42 percent. Christians of all denominations make up 85% of Uganda's population.]

The Monitor reported on the IRCU meeting:

[T]he spiritual leaders came up with several recommendations that are opposed to homosexuals.

“Government should cut ties with donor communities and other groups which support ungodly values such as homosexuality and abortion,” one of the resolutions reads.
...
The Secretary General of IRC, Mr Joshua Kitakule told Daily Monitor that development partners should not interfere in the process of legislation in Uganda.

“Those countries should respect our spiritual values. They shouldn’t interfere,” he said. “All senior religious leaders have been given copies of the Bill to read and educate people in the churches and mosques,” he added. Mr Kitakule said the Bill, which was tabled last month by Ndorwa West MP David Bahati, has not been understood by human rights activists and homosexuals.

“The Bill is ok. But it has been misunderstood. We need to educate people on this proposed law,” he said.

Bishops from the Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist churches as well as Muslim kadhis agreed to defend the Bill in their centres of worship.

Mr. Kitakule is also "Head of Peace and Justice Division, Church of Uganda Planning, Development and Rehabilitation Department, responsible for designing, developing and implementing peace and human rights activities."

On the IRCU homepage Archbishop Orombi appears prominently.

If the Church of Uganda does not oppose the bill it appears destined to pass. The head of the opposition in parliament predicts, "

These are our social values, these are our beliefs," says Wadri. "The idea of homosexuality in Uganda is absolutely inconceivable." If Uganda was to be expelled from the British Commonwealth, Wadri argues, "then let us go."

"As for this matter, there will be no dissenting voice," says Wadri. He claims not a single member of parliament will vote against the bill. "It has the overwhelming support of the population."

Being expelled from the Commonwealth appears more likely than being expelled from the Communion.

Comments (8)

Participants publicly “confessed” to bribing schoolchildren to [engage in sexual activity w/ an adult, who MAY happen to be of the same sex].

That's called "pedophiles grooming" their intended victims, and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do w/ being "gay." >:-(

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | December 14, 2009 3:56 PM

Williams may talk in circles and with whispered understatement but it turns the plain sense of his remark on its head to say,

"...the Church of Uganda and the Archbishop of Canterbury are in agreement about the bill."

Years of university and theological teaching may be bad preparation for leading. Williams nudges, pushes, questions, and waits for his listener to draw conclusions. In the House unAmerican Activities era U.S., I had a superb high school teacher who'd been blacklisted from teaching at the University of Chicago. You had to listen for what he was saying, but every day he offered something challenging political repression in the U.S.

What we've come to expect from leaders is soundbytes, not nuance or reflection, and giving Rowan the benefit of the doubt after his long silence may seem unduly generous, but what he says is worth hearing and it gives me hope for more from him -
"Shocking severity...invoking the death penalty...makes pastoral care impossible...turns pastors into informers." And then Williams, for the first time I can recall since he came to office points a prophetic finger and (in a louder whisper) names the cruel inconsistency of a GAFCON archbishop, a Lambeth-boycotter, a self-appointed keeper of righteousness, consistency, and purity, saying [even though the Ugandan church he leads officially claims to oppose capital punishment --- yes all implied but also, yes, there] that Henry Orombi, "has not taken a position on this bill."

Williams has - finally - said that 'he can't see how' Orombi, one of the GAFCON bishops, can claim to be "committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades." And clearly what Williams refers to there isn't (again AT LAST and thank God) Windsor and the like, but genuine pastoral care, listening process and a place in the church for LGBT people.

No, he's not done. No, it's not a ringing condemnation. No, it's not moving or impressive. Yes, we want more. More clarity, more breadth of vision, real acknowledgment that the American, Canadian, Swedish,and Scottish churches, Desmond Tutu, Gene Robinson, Mary Glasspool, the Diocese of L.A. and all are speaking conscientiously and making their best effort to listen to the Spirit and live faithfully. He's not acknowledging conscience, discernment and courage where we feel it. He's not calling a press conference and making a statement or preaching from the pulpit at Canterbury and publishing what he said requesting that his sermon be posted throughout the communion. But he IS naming a specific crisis, a specific country and province, and a bishop where integrity appears sorely lacking. I'm grateful for that beginning.

Posted by Donald Schell | December 14, 2009 7:00 PM

Williams has - finally - said that 'he can't see how' Orombi, one of the GAFCON bishops, can claim to be "committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades."

No, Williams avoids saying just that, and by doing so makes no clear demarcation between himself and Orombi. And he goes on to say why Orombi dodges it: because he has not taken a position on the bill.

The point of my post is that the weight of the evidence is that Orombi supports the bill. And that implies that Archbishop of Canterbury should not be mincing words about Orombi or the Church of Uganda. This is much too serious for a tiptoe through the tulips.

Posted by John B. Chilton | December 14, 2009 8:32 PM

I am speculating here, but I'm sure there are many people who are more knowledgeable about Ugandan history than I and who can correct me if I am off track.

Anglicans and Roman Catholics remember and celebrate with veneration the Martyrs of Uganda of the 1880's, including English missionary bishop James Hannington, whose last words were "Go, tell Mwanga I have purchased the road to Uganda with my blood." It is my understanding that dozens of Ugandan Christian young men died for their faith because they refused to submit to King Mwanga's sexual terror. By all accounts Mwanga was a morally degenerate tyrant, but was he what we would now understand to be a "homosexual"? ("Gay" seems particularly inappropriate in this context.) My suspicion is that Mwanga's use of sexual terror for power and humiliation had nothing whatever in common with loving committed relationships between two people of the same sex, and much in common with what we refer to as "prison rape" for power and control among prisoners. Might the failure to see this distinction underlie the pathological fear of homosexuality that seems to pervade the Ugandan Church, which in other ways seems to be so vital? Is it possible that in their devotion to the witness of the Martyrs of Uganda they are unwittingly betraying that witness to the Gospel of Christ?

Posted by Bill Moorhead | December 15, 2009 8:45 PM

Posted by Bill Moorhead | December 15, 2009 8:47 PM

(My apologies -- I think my ISP burped!)

Posted by Bill Moorhead | December 15, 2009 8:50 PM

I think that link for Mr Kitakule's title should go to this page now:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2007_103-suppl/rc_pc_migrants_pom103-suppl_tavola-rotonda.html

Posted by Simon Sarmiento | December 23, 2009 3:37 AM

Simon - Thank you. The change has been made.

Posted by John B. Chilton | December 23, 2009 9:25 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations