It's nice that the representatives of Changing Attitude could find no report of the statements in question by anyone.

It would be nicer, straightforward and an easy resolution for the good bishop to repudiate these putative remarks as strongly as, e.g. Canon Kendall Harmon has done. Surely there is no lack of media outlets to do so in this day and age.

The report in the The Sensor on Friday September 7 written by Absima Urua indicates that Bishop Orama included remarks about the Communion and homosexuality in his address to the Fourth Synod of the Diocese. The report says his theme was chosen "in response to the increasing rebellion against God and the expansion of false doctrines." The bishop "lamented that there is a deliberate attempt to exclude God from this world, by the distortion of truth through false doctrines even within the church."

The reporter concerned with the original report offered a verbal apology and promised to publish a retraction. I don't think he has. UPI removed the story from their web site. Archdeacon Akintunde Popoola, Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) told The Living Church the quote attributed to the Bishop of Uyo was false.

Tunde hasn't published a defense of, denial of, or correction of the bishop's alleged deeply homophobic and abusive remarks. He has only emailed the Living Church. We expect to see a formal correction or denial on the Church of Nigeria web site.

Bishop Martyn Minns has made no comment about these remarks.

The silence of the Church of Nigeria about remarks which led to the Archbishop of Canterbury issuing a devastatingly critical comment is deafening.

We know Tunde has spoken to Bishop Orama. Perhaps Bishop Orama can't quite remember what he actually did say at the Synod.

Unless and until the Church of Nigeria publishes a formal retraction and apology, Changing Attitude Nigeria and England will maintain that the alleged comments of the bishop accurately reflect what he said. The Anglican Communion will know that the Church of Nigeria, by its silence, agrees with the bishop's attitude.

The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has published a report on their web site - http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=12&d=101&p_t=index.php?

"Also, speaking on the recent publication in some dailies on homosexual issue in the North America as he expressed in the last synod of Uyo Diocese, Rt. Revd. Isaac Orama lamented over what he called a false statement published on the internet and called on the media to desist from publishing wrong statements for public consumption.
"According to him, what he said was that CANA is the offshoot of the Church of Nigeria’s response to the unbiblical agenda of the Episcopal Church of United States of America in supporting same sex marriage and consecrating in the year 2003 the publicly acknowledged gay priest V. Gene Robinson as bishop."

The bishop laments over the false statement. He does not deny nor correct. One week after this story first became public, the bishop has remembered enough to enable Kayode Oyedare to write this item for the web site. What has happened to Tunde? Still no text, no denial, no correction, no apology.

Slowly, further pieces of information are being added to this jigsaw. We now know, since my last comment, that the bishop did indeed refer to homosexuality. The bishop might have been helped to remember what he actually said if he had checked the report already published in The Sensor written by Absima Urua and published on Friday September 7, 2007. I am sure Changing Attitude Nigeria members will continue to help Tunde and the bishops remember with accuracy what they say.

This story has been effectively buried by Akinola. Get UPI to take it down and Orama to deny he said it at the synod and you're done. - nevermind that the report never said the statements were at the synod, or that a transcript of what was said was never provided. Nevermind that the name of the original reporter was ever disclosed, or that he never retracted the story as he "promised" There's no one with whom to do a follow-up so nevermind about the whole thing. I just hope Rowan isn't buying what they are selling. It's pretty cheap goods.

So Orama maintains that he was only making comments in his synod address about CANA. But the original report states

"Orama told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) today in Uyo, that the practice, which has worsened over the years, was “unbiblical and against God’s purpose for creating man”. “Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man,” the Bishop said."

Again nowhere does the original report speak about the synod address. Rather it states that the statement was made directly to the reporter and quite explicit.

Orama asks "the media to desist from publishing wrong statements for public consumption." As Jim Naughton points out at The Lead, if Orama is right the reporter did not just misstate Orama's address, he made up a story out of whole cloth.

In such a case, a written retraction should be demanded by Orama, The Church of Nigeria and AC. Of course, a complete transcript of Orama's address would also suffice.

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/media/misfeasance_malfeasance.html

Only one person in the world admits publicly to hearing Isaac Orama speak The Sentence, and it was not at the synod, and she is anonymous and likely to remain so. What is the opposite of schadenfreude?

So....what??? We are supposed to take an unnamed reporter's word against the word of the people who actually spoke???

Goodness gracious people - haven't you ever heard "innocent until proven guilty"? In this case there is simply no evidence that would stand up anywhere that Bishop Orama made the statements that one unnamed reporter attributed to him.

I realize you have a marketing campaign to push, but perhaps you could at least stick to the verifiable truth in your victim campaigns.

If Orama did not make the statements alleged to have been made, there is nothing to retract, repudiate or apologize for.

If Bishop Orama didn't exist, we would have to invent him.

JameW - Tunde says he spoke to the "reporter." Tunde then knows who the reporter is. This is in part about Orama, but it is also about how you can say vile things and get away with it. If Tunde was REALLY interested in countering the statement he would give up the name of the reporter. He hasn't and won't. Further he has gone to great lengths to set up a false context. Of course Orama denies that he said any such thing in his address. But it never was proposed that he ever did say it in his address. It is so duplicitous for reasserters to insist that we accept as truth, the kind of denial they would never accept if it was a statement coming from the PB that was in question and Jan Nunely was doing to this kind of damage control.

I'm sorry...in this case, I think the onus is on Orama, not the reporter. Orama must demonstrate that the reporter made the quote up...and just pointing to his official speech is not enough, because the reporter never said it was in the speech.

Why would the reporter make it up? What was his motivation for doing so?

Oh for clarity - oh for a reporter who had a simple tape recorder! Without evidence one can only work from probabilities and preconceptions. After all without DNA on her dress Monica Lewinsky would no doubt have been branded as a liar - she was in the "process" until the existence of her dress came out. Could it be that a formal denial is unwise until the existence of a tape becomes less and less likely? Or until no one else steps forward to support the reporter? I can only imagine but assume there is fairly strong societal pressure to keep any such possible evidence buried.

The fact that the reported so-called 'comments' of Bp Orama occasioned such swift condemnation from the likes of Kendal Harmon and others before the words could be verified illustrate the fact that they believe Nigerian Bishops are more than capable of spouting such hateful and loathsome words. They didn't wait for the comments to be verified. They assumed the likes of Bp Orama to be more than capable of saying such things. No one said, 'It is impossible that this was said'. It was only too believable. Is this not shameful in itself? Does this not illustrate what we are dealing with?

I can imagine that the reporter is being told by his editor, his publisher, "You didn't hear what you think you heard."

"I realize you have a marketing campaign to push, but perhaps you could at least stick to the verifiable truth in your victim campaigns."

Oh, please! If anyone is pushing a marketing campaign, it is those who have constructed a romantic little fantasy about the Faithful Remnant being persecuted by the Faithless Pagans who control TEC and are seeking to bring it under the authority of society.

I remain deeply suspicious. We have seen a lot of official, and selfrighteous, pronouncements from Akintunde Popoola, but nothing any more documentable than the original report. Not exactly the most reliable of sources. Then there is this delightful little quip:

"Many others need to do something similar for name calling."

Does anyone believe that the conservatives who fell over themselves to get distance from Bp. Uyo are included in this group? Like Alaninlondon, I find their rush to condemn one of their own shows they think him to be capable of such a thing.

But, like I said, what we have is a report that may or may not be true, and, despite Tunde's high dudgeon, we haven't got anything more reliable saying the report is false. I don't know, though I admit it is easy to believe that the remarks were actually made. But ease doesn't justify believing in this instance. Suspicion of all of it is justified, but I suspect Tunde has won this one by generating enough fog to obscure whatever the truth might be.

I just twigged to this. The original report said the comments were made to UPI. Why then has Fr. Popoola made reference to Bp. Uyo's statements at Synod? He wasn't alleged to have made the statements at Synod, unless I miss my guess. That's like saying someone didn't get married in a church on Friday because they can be proven not to have made their vows in a bar on Saturday. Still, Changing Attitude Nigeria sees no reason to accept the story whole. So, we wait for the promised retraction, from a reporter who is nameless. If (s)he is guilty of such a thing, I don't understand the reluctance to name him/her.

These sorts of comments are not only rooted in the person, time, and place where they get specifically repeated; they are also clearly rooted in the larger negative heritage we receive from our traditionalistic readings of scripture and tradition.

Realignment believers are probably just whistling dixie when they talk as if we all could pretend otherwise. Can there be a circumspect traditionalistic and roundly negative view of queer folks, which nevertheless does not slowly but surely pressure to spill over to embarrassing trash talk and mistreatment? That does not sooner or later seek to deny or abridge the basic human rights of the queer folks thus targeted?

The proof of that lies entirely with those who say that queer folks need to repent of their embodied sexual orientation while straight folks do not.

Whatever Orama really said to the journalist, if we ever know - Queer folks are ostracized and mistreated, because believers think scripture supports the fear, disgust, and mistreatment which is so frequently directed towards them - either directly (God gave them up? Why should not we abandon all notion of their prior humanity?) - or by common sense inferences from how terribly filthy, dangerous, or unnatural all forms of same sex human being are preached to be. By definition, innately.

The 12:58 BST comment is priceless. By condemning the reported statement, they tacitly admit the statement was made or could have been made? And if they hadn't promptly responded, they would have been complicit in them. Heads I win, tails you lose! No wonder no one trusts anyone else!

Oh come off it, people! If an unnamed reporter had quoted Jefforts-Schori as saying "Mark Lawrence and those conservative are vile, evil people and unfit to live", if KJS then denied ever saying this, and if the media outlet retracted the statement, would you all then declare it was up to KJS to prove she didn't say it? No, I think that you would all say that the reporter was clearly a plant by the conservatives who meant to plant a false quote.

Why did Kendall and others dissassociate themselves from the alleged statement so quickly? Because they were shocked and would strongly disagree with such a statement! The initial report was that the bishop had been quoted by a reporter and consevative folks were shocked and outraged. StandFirm even called for the bishop's removal from office if the quote was verified.

And finally, what world are you folks living in to think that journalists don't have agendas they want to push? Hmmm....let's see, what was it that caused Dan Rather to lose his credibility as a TV news anchorman? A fabricated report! How many reporters innocently screw up quotes.

Just because you don't like Nigerian bishops doesn't mean that you can judge them guilty without evidence.

From: Emeka Samuel
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 AM
To: nanabuja@nannigeria.org
Subject: REJOINDER

FROM: EMEKA OGENYI, NAN, UYO

REJOINDER: HOMOSEXUALS, LESBIANS ARE INSANE- BISHOP

This is to inform the agency and the general public that the report on the above subject credited to the Anglican Bishop of Uyo Rt. Rev. Isaac Orama was untrue.

I wish to state here that the report was not a true reflection of what the interview he granted journalists while Bishop Orama never made any statement at any time to condemn perpetuators of such unbiblical acts to such an extent as was reflected in the report.

The Bishop was wrongly misrepresented and misquoted and I hereby render my apologies to him, the Anglican Diocese of Uyo and the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) for embarrassment caused them by the report.

While I apologize for the mistake and to state that the report was not written in bad faith I wish to express my commitment to the evangelization of the gospel through this medium.

Heck - I don't even care if we establish that the bishop said it or didn't.

If it is a statement he disagrees with, then he should publicly repudiate it, regardless of whether he said it or not. Not just call it unfortunate or lamentable or even protest that he did not say it.

Just say flat out that such a statement is heinous and I'll be satisfied.

JameW - The reporter clearly wasn't a plant was he? UPI never "retracted the statement" it merely withdrew publication and said it would publish a retraction if one was ever issued. We are waiting for UPI or NAN to publish the reporter's "retraction." And hope the reporter will answer questions as to what was actually said in the interview while other journalists were present. All of which every reasserter would do in the same circumstances.

Hey - You now have the reporter's retraction. How about retracting the bile directed at Bishop Orama and the other Nigerian bishops? This has been a near lynching of the good Bishop.

[Leaving aside the provenance of "George's" source]

"I wish to state here that the report was not a true reflection of what the interview he granted journalists while Bishop Orama never made any statement at any time to condemn ***perpetuators of such unbiblical acts*** to such an extent as was reflected in the report."

Ooops! I guess the cat is out-of-the-bag re the (lack of) journalistic neutrality of "EMEKA OGENYI, NAN, UYO".

Knowing how Mr. Ogenyi feels about LGBTs---not to mention that apparently Mr. Ogenyi was NOT the journalist to whom Bp. Orama spoke (who was it?)---how the heck are we supposed to accept the *credibility* of his denial?

If Bp. Orama did NOT make the statements alleged, he is being ill-served by these half-hearted, poorly thought-out (so-called) denials...

Lord have mercy!

"While I apologize for the mistake and to state that the report was not written in bad faith I wish to express my commitment to the evangelization of the gospel through this medium."

Huh? Why is a reporter committing himself to the "evangelization of the gospel"? That's not his job, nor should it be....particularly when reporting on something like the current situation in the Anglican Communion. Whose version of the gospel is he committed to spreading--Orama's?

Reporter's retraction?

I have no such thing.

I have an incoherent thingummy posted by one of the arch-conservatives who wanders by from time to time.

"No, I think that you would all say that the reporter was clearly a plant by the conservatives who meant to plant a false quote."

Well, as far as I'm concerned, you'd be thinking wrongly. I would certainly want +KJS to publically deny that she hadn't said such things. I would want the reporter to apologize. I would want him to explain why anyone with the obvious attitude he has towards gay people ("unBiblical acts") would be interested in smearing a bishop with whom he agrees. Or was he trying to inflame the situation further and justify something a lot more nasty than slander and used bishop's name and status to further his own agenda? That is, is this guy actually further right than the bishop and violently homophobic? Then I'd consider how the rhetoric of the Nigerian Church had contributed to him believing he could say this in the press, falsely attribute it to the bishop, and get away with it. I still want to know the answer to those last. I am willing to chaulk the odd evangelistic tone of the retraction to a culture that views hierarchical power differently than the West does, and where the Church's mission is seen at least as something socially advantageous to latch onto, if not actually valuable. I would want an explanation as to why he things the Press is a medium for evangelism.

I am willing to accept that NAN, as UPI suggested, is speaking officially on behalf of an as yet unnamed reporter. Now do you have any inkling why people here don't trust these official sounding statements?

"what world are you folks living in to think that journalists don't have agendas they want to push?"

I am a Newfoundlander. For the past forty years the animal rights industry has co-opted the media to push it's agenda of making money off our backs. They have lied about and slandered us relentlessly. Two years ago, the Boston Globe published a report from a freelance "journalist", employed by some animal rights company or other, that described her "eyewitness" account of events that did not take place until three days after the report was published! The Globe subsequently published a retraction and claimed they would not use her work again. I have no need of a lecture from you about how the media spins things to sell papers or get ratings!

What world do you live in that you cannot see the political machinations of the "reasserters" and the ominous situation developing in some parts of Africa? Do you realize that in some Muslim countries, people like me might very well have a truckload of rocks dumped on them a little after lunchtime today? Do you realize that, while this has not, as far as I am aware, happened anywhere in Nigeria, there IS Sharia Law in the north of that country, and the Anglican Church in Nigeria has repeatedly stated that it is concerned about maintaining peace with Muslims, and so much as said that they are prepared to see us jailed for five years to maintain that peace? The story on bishop Uyo appears not to be true, but we CAN document some pretty nasty anti-gay rhetoric coming from the Church in Nigeria, do you not worry how that inflames the situation? I'm not saying the Church, or anyone else in Nigeria, is calling for our blood.....yet. Do we actually need to get to that situation before you will stand up against the rhetoric? Or do you think this is so much hysteria?

"Or do you think this is so much hysteria?" - Ford Elms

I do think it is so much hysteria, but at the same time, I am not going to go to Nigeria anytime soon.

Anthony,
My wording might have sounded hysterical, in which case I need to find a better way to express myself. All the same, the road to genocide begins with the identification of a group and the subsequent dehumanizing of that group. Jews were "vermin", Tutsis were "cockroaches", etc. Of course, the suggestion that because one bishop is accused, perhaps falsely, of making Nazi sounding statements doesn't mean people in Nigeria are going to start dragging gay people off to the camps any time soon, just because something is the first step in a process doesn't mean that process must unfold once the first step has been taken. The intent of my statement was that this bears watching, and that perhaps such statements should be countered swiftly and firmly before they have the chance to lead to something else. I also have no intention of going to Nigeria any time soon. Not only would I likely end up in jail, I have been personally assured the Church would approve of jailing me.

As a heterosexual, I'm a trifle reluctant to go to Nigeria, since my coreligionists there apparently believe I should be jailed for asking that they be nice to gay people.

After all, homosexual offences are already criminal offences in Nigeria. The new law that Peter of Abuja was pushing would have made it a criminal offence to say that perhaps homosexuals should be treated with a modicum of respect.