Where does Orombi stand on this bill?

About 100 years ago, the king of Uganda imposed the death penalty on people who resisted homosexual behavior.  Every year both the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans celebrate the feast day of the Uganda Martyrs.  The history and culture there is different from ours.  Uganda is also painfully aware that sex outside a truly life-long, genuinely monogamous marriage is the primary cause of the spread of AIDS which is killing their people at a terrible rate.

If we justify our attitudes, choices and laws based on our culture, can we then deny others the same right?  Or does this situation invite us all to take stock of the real limitations on appealing to mere culture as justification for moral choices.

Christians always knew—until very recently—that there is a universal moral standard given by God.  When that fact is ignored, anything can—and will—happen.

Thank you, Kendall.

Thanks, Kendall.  Really appreciate this.

Amen to all of the above.

So far the Church of Uganda appears only to have said that the employment of the death penalty is inappropriate and that it is studying the other provisions. Nevertheless, the implications for pastoral care are, as Reynolds points out, immense.   

As LumenChristie suggests, this is the flip side of the adjurations from African bishops at Hope and a Future four years ago for Americans not to surrender to the prevailing culture. It is bothersome that one of Archbishop Orombi’s subordinates can make a statement like this and yet in some quarters be described as merely a maverick. In the absence of at least an archepiscopal rebuke, how is this different from the days when Bishop Spong was so described? Either there are some universal values for catholic Christianity - ethical as well as doctrinal - or we have ceased to be catholic.

The only way this legislation could begin to be “fair” is if the same penalties applied to premarital and extramarital heterosexual relations. As it is, it is class legislation with, I fear, a strong degree of pan-African anti-Westernism. And for that reason, alone, the Church of Uganda should shun it.

Catholic and Reformed

I think the author’s response to Adam in the first comment on the original post in First Things, was woefully inadequate.  It is the argument I’ve heard used by revisionists to justify wholesale rejection of Biblical standards.

Evan,

Don’t stop there. Is the original post wrong or merely the author’s response to the first comment? And if the latter, what should the response have been (there are some other responses further down that further explore this).

Jeremy,

I think Mr. Reynolds overstates the case for objecting to the proposed law.  I’ve not read the text of the proposed law , so I can’t speak intelligently about its specifics, only about Mr. Reynolds’ objections in this post.  His argument that unqualified support of the law is bad publicity for the Church makes sense, and I applaud his distaste for growing state intrusiveness.  But his outrage at a proposed law that, however out of step with the times, cannot be shown to be essentially unsupported by Scripture, leaves me unmoved.  Up until the 20th century, I suspect similar laws would have been found on the books in many countries of Christendom. As to his reply to Adam, as I said earlier, it is completely unconvincing and, sounds exactly like arguments revisionists use to advance acceptance of homosexual practice.  I also reject his assertions of the “evils” of colonialism.  However out of fashion colonialism may be these days, it brought far more good than ill.

Evan,

As far as colonialism goes, I don’t disagree.

The law - and it might be worth looking at the specifics - would essentially require a priest to violate the confessional (and that has never been part of the Christian code).

Moreover, most similar laws in times past were matched by comparable penalties for extramarital sexual activity (even if not always vigorously enforced). This legislation explicitly does not. It is therefore class legislation (which I assumed a conservative such as yourself would abhor).

Jeremy,
I certainly strongly object to any requirement that a priest violate the confessional.
As to class legislation, I think there are instances where it is appropriate such as the restrictions on released sex offenders.  Such restrictions are not placed on other released felons but that doesn’t make them, in my opinion, unfair or unreasonable.  Others may disagree.  I really am not particularly interested in the pros and cons of the proposed law.  It may, in its specifics (such as the violation of the confessional), be bad law, but I haven’t heard anyting so far that would cause me to object to a law penalizing certain, in this case homosexual, behavior on principal.  It may indeed seem ill-advised, but I really think it’s for the Ugandans to decide.  I don’t see it as something that will damage my respect for ++Orombi or my former bishop in the Church of Uganda, should they give qualified support to some version of the proposed law.

So does that mean - in effect - that extramarital activity (adulterous or otherwise) by heterosexuals falls into a less heinous category (of sin and civil offense) than the sexual activity of homosexuals?

It is heterosexually transmitted AIDS (for the most part) that is ravaging Uganda - hence the ABC program. Aside from the public policy aspect, it seems profoundly unChristian to have anything other than a blanket approach - punitive or otherwise - to consensual sexual sin. Again, if the same penalties for rape, abuse of minors etc. were applied then your argument for class categories would stand, but every indication is that they are’t.

Perhaps I’m uncharitable, but one suspects it’s because the sponsors know such legislation would be unenforceable.

Jeremy,
You may be right that those who framed the proposed law have made a pragmatic judgment that such a law would be enforceable whereas applying the same penalties across the board would not be.  I don’t know.  I would suspect, however, that their view is that while extramarital heterosexual activity is sinful, heterosexual activity per se is not, and since homosexual activity, period, is explicitly proscribed in Scripture, criminal activities in which it plays a role are inherently graver crimes than similar crimes of a hetersexual nature.  Just a guess.

“I would suspect, however, that their view is that while extramarital heterosexual activity is sinful, heterosexual activity per se is not, and since homosexual activity, period, is explicitly proscribed in Scripture, criminal activities in which it plays a role are inherently graver crimes than similar crimes of a hetersexual nature. ” The scriptural and traditional view (long held) is that any heterosexual activity that is outside of a monogomous marriage and is not open to procreation is gravely sinful.  There are viewpoints that heterosexual activity is more sinful because it can result in the birth of a child outside of the bonds of marriage and hence involves 3 souls not two.  Lets not rewrite theological history to conform to our cultural norms.  That would be very bad.

evan miller:

This is a law that proposes the death penalty for homosexuals.

Let’s strive for that “clarity” so beloved of reasserters.  The Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool, recently elected by the Diocese of Los Angeles, is openly gay.  Is it your contention that, for engaging in behavior “explicitly proscribed in Scripture,” she should be subject to the death penalty?

Ross,
Would the proposed Ugandan law subject Mary Glasspool to the death penalty?  If so, I would oppose it. 
I also believe she is utterly unfit matter for ordination, much less elevation to the episcopate.
Clear enough?

Ross, in return, I have a question for you: is it your contention that no state may legitimately regulate and/or proscribe consenting seual behavior?

Ross (#14),

A point of clarification:

The death penalty is prescribed for “aggravated homosexuality” (Clause 3) which occurs where the offence is committed against a minor, someone in the offender’s care or someone with a disability or where the offender is living with HIV, a serial offender or drugs their victim.

Otherwise, the penalty is life imprisonment, which is an equally flawed response in my opinion. Obviously the offenses listed above need to be punished (except, perhaps, being a serial offender, if that means what I think it does), but this would hold for heterosexual offenders also. 

Andrew Goddard, who, interestingly, was active in the campaign against Jeffrey John, has a briefing paper on the issue here.

Phil (#16),

Yes, if it addresses all extramarital sexual activity.

It’s interesting.

Would those opposed to the death penalty for same-gender sexual assault of a minor, the disabled, a drugged victim, etc, etc, also be opposed to the death penalty for opposite gender sexual activity with a minor, the disabled, a drugged victim, or whatever?

Would it help those opposed to the death penalty in this legislation to have it equally applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals for sexual assault of minors, disabled persons, etc?

Sarah,

Not sure if you were addressing me specifically or the thread generally.

Assuming the former, I (and apparently the Church of Uganda) oppose use of the death penalty on principle.

My response to Phil had more to do with the general principle of whether the state can regulate consenting sexual behavior in any way. However, even if the death penalty provision were struck, I would still consider this bill a case of overreach.

Then, Jeremy #18 (and, perhaps, Ross), you have a problem in your own country, where you have more direct influence, because we prohibit consenting, free adults from conducting such relations for money, as well as based on their ages and the nature of their familial relationships.  The penalties for violating some of these statutes are severe.  On the other hand, other types of consenting relations are ignored by the law.  I read your #18 as a call for consistency across the board.  If that’s right, you need to be on the phone to your local, state and federal representatives about a whole panoply of U.S. statutes.

[Comment deleted by Elf - please would commenters be careful not to make unsubstantiated insinuations about what particular individuals are or are not doing]

RE: “Assuming the former, I (and apparently the Church of Uganda) oppose use of the death penalty on principle.”

It wasn’t addressed to anyone in particular.  As it happens I oppose the death penalty as well.  But I completely understand why a country that practices and believes in the death penalty would decide that sexual assault of a minor will mean the death penalty.

I in fact believe that, with very few exceptions [ie, it can be proven that the minor offered a forged id card that proclaimed he or she was at or over the age of consent] sexual assault of a minor should mean life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

But as I said, if a country believes the death penalty to be moral and just, I can certainly understand applying that penalty to those guilty of committing sexual assault on a minor, the disabled, etc.

Phil,

Not my own country, actually, since as a resident alien I don’t enjoy the right to vote.

From a secular perspective, monetary and age restrictions aim at avoiding exploitation of the weak; they don’t necessarily speak to what is a morally appropriate sexual relationship. 

Familial exemptions, as far as I know, don’t apply to homosexual relationships (is it even considered incest, as secular law defines it between adult siblings?), so actually they’re already class legislation.

You don’t have to oppose any of these restrictions - and I don’t - to think a proposed statute of this sort to be unbalanced. It’s very different, in kind, from even the Nigerian legislation.

Sarah

I would still be opposed to the death penalty.

As to your second question, I don’t believe it would help.  Rather than making the law more just, it would simply spread what is unjust to a far greater number of people.

Jeremy, thanks for the clarification.

As to this:
From a secular perspective, monetary and age restrictions aim at avoiding exploitation of the weak; they don’t necessarily speak to what is a morally appropriate sexual relationship.

I totally disagree.  That is an after-the-fact rationalization for why SS behavior should now be normed, whereas other behaviors should continue to be prohibited.  You should know that you are making the same argument as many of the lefty Episcopalian bloggers - literally.  That doesn’t mean the argument is wrong, but it ought to give one cause for concern.

But the modern state - not the Church - cares little about the promiscuous twenty-year old who sleeps around, provided no money changes hands. Or do you mean that when many of these laws were first drafted, the authors did care?

I think the authors thought that exchanging money for such purposes was immoral, so they prohibited it.  Not only that, in many societies in the past, including parts of America, I believe that 20 year old would also have been running afoul of the law.  In fact, she still would be, in some cases; see here: http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-184.html.

You are making my case that these laws are the result of, and change with, societal mores, in which case other countries can certainly have mores not shared by the West.  Not that I support this law.  I do not.

Hi Sarah.  In answer to your question, I oppose death and/or life in prison for what you describe.  The reason is that it treats all those actions the same in terms of punishment.  For example, it treats the brutal vaginal rape of a terrified six year old girl by a man as a crime worthy of the same sentence as sex between an 18-year old male and his 17-year old female girlfriend (where the female is eager to have sex and does not claim later to have been hurt).  Personally I don’t think the latter should even be a crime—but even people who do think it should be illegal typically feel it should be punished far less severely then the case of the six year old girl.

My own view is that sexual assault should punished in gradually increasing severity depending on age of the minor, whether the minor claims to have wanted the sex, whether the sex involved pain or suffering, whether the sex involved betrayal of a trusted guardian relationship (parent, stepfather, teacher, priest, coach, etc.), and whether the sex was between two people of close age.

All those factors should be considered, and its not that hard to write law that takes them all into account.  That said, I believe that the scale should definitely be designed so that not a whole lot is required before you reach fairly severe sentences.

The proposed legislation is heinous and unjust, both absolutely (it contradicts the conception of divinely protected human rights that all major Christian churches have accepted over the past century and have upheld within the community of nations) and relatively (in that it singles out one group of people for particularly savage treatment). 

There is little doubt in my mind, furthermore, that the occasion for the proposal is informed by debates about sexuality that in Uganda in particular have taken on a particular shape as bound up with Christian controversies, including the Communion’s.  Needless to say, that is unfortunate;  and probably shameful to all of us.  It ought to be possible for conservative or traditional Christians openly to voice their unequivocal opposition to such proposed legislation without qualification, and for gay inclusivists to put away the score cards as the former do so.  The spectacle of people tallying up who has spoken out against this or that, and measuring integrity accordingly—e.g. Canterbury said something in November against the 3 million slaughtered in eastern Congo, but not Uganda, or vice versa;  and what about Iran?  etc. etc..—is not only unedifying but deeply hypocritical.  Not everything is about everything.

Well said, Ephraim Radner.

RE: “I would still be opposed to the death penalty.”

Thanks for the response.  Obviously, then, it’s going to be challenging for those opposed to the death penalty to be taken very seriously in their “cries about injustice” for gay people.  You and I are not even on the same planet with Uganda justice which country, obviously, does believe in the death penalty.  Ugandans will—rightly—believe that your outcry is largely to do with general resistance to harsh punishment of pretty much anything—like murder.

RE: “In answer to your question, I oppose death and/or life in prison for what you describe.  . . . sex between an 18-year old male and his 17-year old female girlfriend (where the female is eager to have sex and does not claim later to have been hurt).”

Jon, the age of consent laws are made—rightly—to promote the idea that in a civilized society certain ages are “not ready” emotionally or psychologically to give consent to *adults*, whether they mouth the words or not.  Of course, as you and I know, those who abuse children heinously point out that in many instances such children “give consent”—and rightly the law points out that such “consent” is not offerable.  Arbitrarily, ages have been assigned to those two categorizations of human beings—those who are unable to give consent by virtue of their maturity, and adults who most certainly are.  I’m not for in any way softening or lowering the age of consent laws—[one of the sneaky little goals of many gay activists, it should be noted]—and I’m for stricter enforcement of our current laws. 

Be that as it may, the same applies to you as to Brian as to me.

A Ugandan reading this thread would roll his eyes and point out that in general and very broadly we’ve decided to weaken, not strengthen, punishments and laws.

That’s fine of course.  But as a result, whether you like it or not, your protests are pretty much irrelevant, since you don’t hold to the same foundational values as the Ugandans [and nor, apparently, do I].

Moving on . . . of course the other issue is that we don’t have a leg to stand on anyway with our moral indignation since the Ugandans recognize that Episcopalians in the US think gay is a-ok and gay sex is holy and blessed and to be affirmed and lauded. 

So all of us can squeak all we want about the horrors of capital punishment in general, or punishment in particular of those who participate in gay sex, but actions have consequences, and as far as they’re concerned, by our actions we’ve proven that we’re laughably amoral and irrelevant in regards to their laws about something that we think is just peachy keen anyway.  We’ve lost what influence we might have had due to our own immoral corrupt actions.

Why should they care what we think?

Bringing the comment down to a personal level, as I’ve said on another thread, I’ve no intention of weighing in on this legislation, and am quite proud and happy not to.  I have my own reasons which are most excellent. 

It’s possible that libs believe it’s because I am really a Wicked Homophobic Primitivist Neanderthal.  And—like the Ugandans with us—I couldn’t give a flying fig if libs think that and have no interest in winning their approval or respect.  Instead, I smile and move on.

You and I are not even on the same planet with Uganda justice which country, obviously, does believe in the death penalty.

Just a thought. I presume that your opposition to the death penalty is grounded not in cultural conditioning but in a universal world view, as valid for Ugandans as for Americans (with whose majority view we also seem to be out of step on the death penalty). Does that make our opposition to the death penalty any less valid or the obligation to express it any the less?

If members of ACNA (I appreciate you are not - and don’t intend to be - a member) were to speak out, then the charge of being lax on moral issues could hardly be leveled; after all they did what Henry Orombi and others asked of them. Perhaps this is a moment for the Church of Uganda, as much as anyone else, to think about the implications of a catholic world view, as Ephraim+ suggested above.

RE: “Does that make our opposition to the death penalty any less valid or the obligation to express it any the less?”

Not at all.  But all of us saying “You Ugandans, cease and desist with your plans to enact this law, because we all do not support the death penalty for anything—even though you do support the death penalty, you should not” somehow does not have quite the same ring as “this law is evil because barbaric Ugandans are oppressing innocent gay persons.”

Not to mention that it rather brings up the question as to why ya’ll aren’t out there marching against the death penalty in all the other countries.

Of course, we all know why, really.

RE: “If members of ACNA (I appreciate you are not - and don’t intend to be - a member) were to speak out, then the charge of being lax on moral issues could hardly be leveled; after all they did what Henry Orombi and others asked of them.”

Out of all the thousands of wicked laws out there in hundreds of countries, why should ACNA folks wish to use up one of their few Law Protest Cards on this particular one law, Jeremy?

If I were them I’d use up one of my rare Law Protest Cards on any number of other wicked and barbaric laws that apply to far greater masses of people.

But again . . . this particular teensy segment is, of course, manifestly More Important, More Valuable, More Worthy than all the far larger masses of people suffering under equal or worse laws.

The hypocrisy of the progressive activists attempting to pull such a political stunt—the crassness and the rankness of it—turns my stomach and fills me with revulsion.

Well, I can think of two obvious ones:

1. The state’s challenge to the integrity of the confessional, a Church issue if ever there was one.

2. The fact that the Church is sometimes called to defend minorities with whose way of life it fundamentally disagrees from state overreach. 

Its hard to see how the legislation proposed is being introduced to counter a clear and present danger (the Lord’s Resistance Army is a far more clear and present danger if you live in northern Uganda).

The ABC program is more directly relevant to the moral and physical condition of Uganda and yet it incorporates a moral concession, since, if I recall correctly, President Museveni said that the “use a condom” portion of the program is directed at sex workers. From a strictly Christian point of view, the program ought simply to be about “abstinence and be faithful,” which I’m sure is what the Church of Uganda is trying to promote.

So the fact that the Church calls people to be something doesn’t automatically give the state a license to prescribe or proscribe conduct, even when it coincides with the prevailing cultural mores.

I think we come smack up against real differences of culture here. 
I remember when a young Nigerian priest spending a few years here,  told us in a sermon at daily mass about being taken as a seminarian to witness the public execution of a thief.  The setting was merely the backdrop for a point he was making, and he completely failed to understand the looks on the faces of the people in the small daily mass chapel.  I tried to explain to him at breakfast afterwards, that we don’t execute people for stealing here, that we don’t have public executions…-he interrupted me “You don’t have public executions?”  He was really quite amazed. 
I told him Catholic seminarians in this country were more likely to be taken to PROTEST the death penalty even of a horrible murderer.  I could tell he thought maybe I was a bit mentally off by that point!  I wasn’t talking sense, and skepticism was on his face. 
The use of dire penalties which so shocks us appears to be not unusual in Africa.  It wasn’t unusual in Europe just a few centuries ago, after all.  There were lots of capital crimes. 

Personally, I believe that the state has the right to use the death penalty if that is the only way it can protect society.  There is a dominant opinion right now that our society has the resources to protect itself without the use of the death penalty and that it therefore should be abolished.  I don’t have a strong objection to this view, although I admit to feeling that there was something above the level of mere brutality in the scenes of confession on the scaffold, and the formal offering of forgiveness to the hangman. Devoid of the spiritual context however there isn’t much inspiring about a modern execution!  I am willing to say that our society is ready to do without the death penalty.  But, no, I do not think this is a universal which can be applied to every society,  and in this case, particularly to some African countries.  And I don’t think we ought to be demanding that Africans act according to our sensibilities on the matter.
Susan Peterson

Now with respect to Mr. Bonner’s insistence that all sexual sin should be treated equally by the law, if it is treated by the law at all, or at least that heterosexual sins be considered the equivalent of homosexual ones,  this is hardly axiomatic.  Even within Christendom there have been various ways of viewing such things.  Deacon Mark says “there have been views that heterosexual activity outside of marriage is more serious because it can result in the birth of a child outside of marriage”.  He does not say when and where there have been such views.  I can’t think of a
time in Christian history which proscribed fornication and adultery but looked with indulgence on homosexual behavior, but perhaps he can enlighten me.  There is a very strong thread in moral theology which looked upon natural procreative sex as a good which was only properly used in marriage.  When it was used outside of marriage it was seriously sinful. but not ‘unnatural’. 
All non-procreative uses of sex were considered much worse. Masturbation and contraception were both considered worse than fornication by this way of thinking.  Homosexual behavior was considered a complete perversion of sexuality,  misusing the sexual organs only for gratification, misusing the organs of another person,  without any life creating potential whatsoever.  Within this way of thinking, it is utterly clear that homosexual behavior is far worse, and far more harmful to society, than fornication and adultery.  I am not sure Africans are natural law theologians,  but they seem to share this intuition of the malice of homosexual behavior.  Do we have any valid ground for insisting that they abandon this intuition? 
As for the statement that this is “class” legislation, this assumes the existence of a “class” of people defined by their sexual temptations.  The whole idea that there is such a thing as “a lesbian” or “a gay man”  is a social construct which other cultures need not share.  So long as the law punishes behaviors,  rather than someone’s perception that a man is effeminate or a woman mannish,  it isn’t directed against a “class” of people but against a behavior.  If some people are more tempted by this behavior than others,  well,  some people are more tempted by anger and more likely to be violent,  and some people are more tempted by greed and laziness and therefore more likely to steal.  The law proscribes murder, assault, and theft,  not being of an irascible or covetous nature.  I see no grounds that we have to insist that Africans adopt our social construct of the homosexual identity as almost a third gender of human being. 

For better or worse I can’t entirely share the way the Africans (I know even using the term African is a false obscuring of many different cultures) intuit this subject and wince at the thought of people in jail for life over this issue, or at the thought of execution for anything short of some form of rape.  But I don’t think that what makes me wince is an absolute rule for the world! 

What should be an absolute rule, however, is the secrecy of the confessional, or even of pastoral counseling.  Our Lord forgives every sin which is truly repented,  and every sinner should be able to confess his sin and receive counsel from his priest or pastor without fear.  There should not be a law requiring clergy to report sinners who confess to them, and no matter what such a law says,  clergy shouldn’t do it.  Certainly no Catholic priest could obey such a law.  It isn’t a matter over which civil law (whether in the US or Europe, or in Africa) has any jurisdiction.
Susan Peterson

Susan,

I take your point up to a point. However, you do note:

So long as the law punishes behaviors, rather than someone’s perception that a man is effeminate or a woman mannish, it isn’t directed against a “class” of people but against a behavior.

I’m not sure I’m convinced that that distinction will always be made. Nor am I convinced that the legislation is being proposed out of a disinterested concern for the moral well-being of the nation. Perhaps “class” was the wrong word, since I agree that the law ostensibly targets only behavior, but I couldn’t think of another term that adequately conveyed its selective quality.

Frankly, I am concerned that over this issue some seem to feel that it is an acceptable response to say “well we wouldn’t do it here, but Africans have different moral values.” I seem to recall some impolite remarks at Lambeth 1998 - but from our worthy opponents - about which the African bishops took umbrage and with good reason. But now, apparently, there need be no reciprocity. We’ve gone from a certain type of nineteenth century European missionary (by no means all) declaring that Africa has nothing to teach the West to a situation in the twenty-first where the West has nothing to teach Africa. I don’t think the past thirty years are that good a testimonial. 

Your story of the African seminarian I found most revealing. Do you happen to know whether Roman Catholic African priests would adopt a similar approach to the death penalty, or would they, at least in public, conform to the stance of recent popes on that issue?

#38
Thank you for stating so clearly what I clumsily attempted to say way up the thread.  Amen to every point you make.