Anglican Christians Divided over Execution of Gays
Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams told the worldwide Anglican Communion that the “infamous legislation” now being discussed in Uganda was rightly received with “repugnance.”
Meanwhile, the Anglican Church of Uganda released an official statement on the same Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. Its verdict? The Church supports the death penalty for “serial offenders” (practicing homosexuals) and sentences of up to life imprisonment for a variety of lesser offenses, including failure to report homosexuality. Its suggestions for the bill were all designed to make its aims clearer.
It would appear that gay bishops, priests and communicants are a minor issue. The most timely issue for Anglicans worldwide at the moment is whether you and I deserve death.
[Edit: Mea culpa. The actual position of the Church of Uganda is more complicated than I first understood. Contrary to the report by Christianity Today, it appears what the Church is suggesting is an amended version of the already-existing Penal Code Act, incorporating revisions to reflect the general aims of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The Church's statement explicitly affirms some aspects of the Bill (in particular, stating that sexual orientation must never become a "protected human right"), but it does not explicitly affirm the death penalty for homosexual offenses.]
I will wait to see if there is an outcry from other “conservative” Anglican provinces to this statement from Uganda. For the sake of Anglicanism, I can only hope so. There ought to be at least as strong a cry against this as there was against the Episcopal Church with the direction it took.
I would hate to be ++Rowan Williams right now.
Reading the Church of Uganda’s position paper (PDF), it’s not clear to me that they are endorsing the death penalty. That said, they don’t exactly condemn the death penalty, either.
They seem to be saying, “We support the overall aims of this Bill but don’t think it’s necessary – all that’s necessary is a more limited amendment to the existing law”. The amendments they propose to the existing law do not appear to include the penalties from the new Bill (i.e. mandatory death sentence). But as I say, it’s not terribly clear.
I’m not saying I agree with their statement – large parts of it left me reeling – but I don’t think it represents a defence of the death penalty for homosexuality. But they should have made that clearer, and I suspect the decision not to make that clearer was a deliberate one. I detect a certain tacit condoning of the proposed penalty, perhaps reminiscent of the medieval church handing over heretics to the “secular arm” (“It’s regrettable that such punishments are imposed, but – *heavy sigh* – it’s not us who are imposing them…”)
How backwards! The Anglican Communion might split over who gets to be ordained but not over genocide!
This makes me wonder, if the bill is passed and Bishop Robinson travels to Uganda, will the local Anglican diocese support his death?!
Meanwhile, one of Britain’s best-known old-fashioned right-wingers, Lord (Norman) Tebbit, wants to make sure it’s quite clear that being gay and Ugandan is no excuse for seeking refuge in the UK.
Yes, John, I’m a bit unsure of what the Church of Uganda are saying. My misunderstanding came from Christianity Today, who (it now seems erroneously) reported that the Church wanted to keep the bill, but amend it.
After reading the full statement (I’m not sure that was available on the CT site yesterday, as I’m sure I’d have seen it), it seems they want to amend another bill in lieu of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
As you say, they have yet to stand explicitly for or against the death penalty.
What the protestant church is saying is to reconcile the existing law on immoral sexual offence committed by straights, to similar proposed law when committed by homosexual, instead of passing new law. The current penal cod reads thus:
129. Defilement of girl under the age of eighteen.
(1) Any person who unlawfully has sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is liable to suffer death.
This law was passed before homosexuality became a problem in Uganda. Now that it is becoming a very serious problem, how can they be treated differently? Are they above the law? Protect the girl child and protect the boy child equally!!!!!!!
The fact that the Archbishop didn’t clearly condemn the death sentence or directly address it tells us all that he is unwilling to oppose the death penalty for gay people. He ultimately is being complicit with the proposed genocide.
Gowon: Your existing law already deals with aggravated defilement in Section 129 of the Uganda Penal Code. Please look it up. After the Penal Code Amendment Act of 2007, the section was changed to protect children, not just girls. See this link for evidence.
The Penal Code Amendment Act of 2007 changed the law to treat girls and boys the same. Here is the text of it:
There is some question about when this act was assented to by the President but it was in force at least by early 2008, according child abuse groups in Uganda. Please review the post for much more on this.
Claims that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is needed to protect the “boy child” ignore, perhaps on purpose, perhaps not, the current law in Uganda.