There's a transcript of the interview on the Changing Attitude blog:

http://changingattitude-england.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-humphries-interviewed-archbishop.html

He is hiding behind formulas. Sometimes there are issues of basic humanity and conditions that should transcend bureaucracy speak and all the 'we passed this resolution in year this' and 'we decided that in year that'. You just say something is completely wrong, and inhuman.

When a Diarmaid MacCulloch surveys modern Church history and adds that then the Church lost the ethical argument, here has been a demonstration of the reason why. They are lost in their own world of formulas. These prelates are useless and should be ashamed of themselves.

I see he's trying to pass this off as the result of colonial influence and to pass off his and Canterbury's silence as working quietly to understand the situation - at least that's what this mealy-mouthed statement sounds like to me. What's to 'understand' about bigotry and hatred and the proposal to murder gays for 'aggravated' gayness?

I know our naming customs differ across the pond, but every time I read something like 'that's why Canterbury and I...' I think about how silly it would sound in America, as in, "That's why Southwestern Virginia and Southern Virginia and I have ..."

So, the Abp of York thinks the bill is bad, ... I think. But he also seems to think it's a mere tuning up or re-ordering of the Ugandan penal code. Hmmmm ...
He talks about the listening process. A process that I think in Uganda and other countries is a myth. When Ugandans and others seek to demonize, imprison, and execute people who are thought of as evil incarnate, listening to what the demonized, imprisoned, and dead evil ones is rather difficult, isn't it?

Timid and mealy mouthed.

He was asked open questions which gave him ample opportunity to make a clear statement. He did not want to make a clear statement. Is that because he is ashamed of what he thinks or because he is afraid to say what he thinks? Is it because he is closer to the Ugandan view than to the average Today listener's view and wants to fudge it? Or because he is more concerned about Anglican politics than speaking clearly to the English about a point of clear moral evil and failure?

I don't know but it doesn't matter.

It's a new low for Sentamu on any view.

As Christ is made flesh, already we taste the bitterness of the passion as good men betray God.

I agree it was a bit Jesuitical. Nevertheless, he managed to articulate decency.

More important: Happy Christmas, everyone here.

After listening to Sentamu, I think he sounds a good bit clearer and a good bit stronger than Rowan Williams. Sentamu clearly makes the point that the bill fails to distinguish between violent forms of sexuality and ordinary sexuality in queer folks living daily life in Uganda or elsewhere. He does quote the neglected bits of bureaucratic church documents, when I would much have preferred him to reference scripture and empirical reasons for a positive changed attitude towards queer folks as neighbors.

Sentamu talks strongly about Listening; and then works that bit into saying how criminalization contradicts listening, let alone pastoral care of any sort that tries to go beyond policing-punishment.

A mixed, fuzzy interview deal somewhat then; but at least something muddling along in better directions than the pending bill itself, and the Status Quo in Uganda law and public policy.

Yet. I would NOT stake my citizenship, safety, or basic human rights on Sentamu, let alone the safety of my partner, children, friends, family.
He cannot champion the practical and ethical goods of most queer folks at work, at home, in the local neighborhood, in the public square. He certainly is no champion for queer folks in church life.

Sentamu at his best will chime in after those facts if at all, rather as Rowan Williams will prefer to do. He will not stop the bully in the front yard, or intercept the bully on the sidewalk. He cannot directly engage the bully in church life ethics or theology. He cannot be counted in that way.

Is there such a thing as a weaker ally, after the fact?

The Uganda law current, the Uganda law pending, and the comments of Sentamu and Rowan Williams offer plentiful evidence for why strong, clear law and public policy are seriously needed to protect queer folks - for none of these other things and church leaders can be trusted to do so. Without considerable outcry and pressuring, one indeed puzzles about whether Sentamu or Rowan Williams would have bothered to speak up at all. Queer folks seem little on their minds in any effective, caring way; even less in their prayerful hearts.

Archbishop John, despite the idiosycratic and sometimes hazy delivery of his responses to questions in this article, at least admits that Uganda has not entered into even 20th century thinking on the issue of the LGBT community in Uganda - or anywhere else in the world.

His excuse for the Anglican Church of Uganda's negativity on homosexuality and related sexual-orientation matters, is that Uganda's Government and Church culture on matters of morality have remained unchaged since the colonial missionary era, when such things were generally not spoken about in polite society - much less, understood.

This excuse for the A.C.of U., is just not good enough. If Uganda hopes to be part of world-wide Anglicanism, it will have to come into the 21st century, it will need a completely new under-standing of the modern world, with all that implies in the way of gender and sexuality research and development. It is no longer right for the Church to remain in the Dark Ages. Any thought of homosexuality as being a satanic cult -rather than the natural God-given orientation of at least 5 per cent of the world's population - is simply contrary to the reality, and hardly a fit understanding of the relevance of a modern Christian outlook.

No doubt politics have a great deal to do with the archbishop's reticence on this subject, but in the meanwhile the very lives of homosexuals in Uganda and elswhere are at stake. Not only this, but the freedom of their families an friends is also at stake, too - not to mention any clergy who, in all conscience, seek to help them in any way, pastorally and spiritually.

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Revelation 3:15-16

"Yes Minister" poltico speech might be pleasing to those who preserve a church institution, but that does not make them righteous? "Yes, it's all rather sad that people might be murdered because they are gay" or "Yes, it's all rather sad that children are molested by Christian "leaders"". Examples of whitewashing, and justice is denied in both instances.

The Australian Prime Minister recently apologized to the "forgotten" generation, those who had been put into foster care or orphanages. His apology speech included the regret that the victims had been literally left with no one they could trust.

So too for the women, children and GLBTs who have been left with no one they could trust.

At least the Irish Catholic leader finally had the grace to apologise for his role in aiding and abetting pedophiles and abusers. Would that Canterbury would do the same.

Sentamu is just as self serving as Williams. The CofE is disgraced. Do they plan to condone the barbarism of the Anglican Church of Uganda? The answer seems to be yes.

I am confounded by these utterances from Abp Sentamu. I am shocked to see him lost in such a morass of moral ambiguity and cowardly weasel words. Some kind of twisted national loyalty and, worse, some sort of deep inarticulate homophobia have trumped the Gospel here.

Friends:

Don't forget that Archbishop Sentamu has a brother who is an Evangelical (Pentecostal?) minister in Uganda.

I would guess that he may have his brother's welfare in mind when he hesitates to be more forward, more specific and more condemnatory of Uganda's political moves.

Just a thought experiment: Contrast MLKingJr's Letter from Birmingham Jail with recent statements by either archbishop, York or Canterbury.

For a time, I'll put aside Uganda and Sentamu and my reaction, and just wish everyone, including Sentamu, Williams, Orombi, et al, a Merry Christmas.

What the Lord of York and ALL Anglicans need remember is that we´ve heard not a peep of regret or amends from Archbishop Henri Orombi of Uganda...Bishop Orombi EXCOMMUNICATED retired Bishop Christopher Senyonjo for serving the spiritual, physical and emotional needs of desperate LGBT ANGLICANS in Uganda...so much for any ¨listening¨ +Henri is capable of...the WORLD would be glad to see a crumb of WILLINESS=WELLNESS from Bishop Orombi if, in fact, he intends to learn then educate the Anglicans of Uganda on human sexuality and basic TRUTH (and not continue to eradicate Christian of Integrity)...where is Bishop Orombi as the World speaks out against the vile and castigating religious=political anti-Homosexuality mess? BISHOP OROMBI, you´re up next and I would hope you´ll start loving/understanding your brothers and sisters WITHIN the fellowship=experience of The Lambeth Conference and ALL the provinces=experience of The Anglican Communion.

Regarding Leonardo's comment about Ugandan Abp. Orombi's failure to defend the cause of Gospel inclusivity towards the LGBT community in his Province of the Communion; this sort of behaviour from certain Primates of the Communion can only be regarded as a negative mark to all who value the justice and truth of Jesus in the Gospel.

Such inaction on behalf of the marginalised is the direct antithesis of the holiness required of bishops, priest, deacons and the faithful laity of our Church. As we celebrate the reality of Christ's Incarnation, how can we view such un-Christian disdain for the outcast and poor of the Church - never mind of the world outside?

God show your mercy in Uganda - that place where your Church so sadly lets you down. Amen

"Don't forget that Archbishop Sentamu has a brother who is an Evangelical (Pentecostal?) minister in Uganda.

I would guess that he may have his brother's welfare in mind when he hesitates to be more forward, more specific and more condemnatory of Uganda's political moves."

Posted by: John-JulIAN, OJN

Then, with the utmost respect for Fr. John-Julian, Sentamu should step down. Or do ethics count for nothing in the Anglican Communion?

Sentamu, himself, knows too well the capacity of government to manipulate the people of Uganda into turning against each other in murderous violence. If Sentamu has nothing but excuses and vague expressions of personal disfavor to offer, what good is he? From whence will he now derive his moral authority? From his office? Not good enough in the real world of fear and intimidation that LGBT persons live under in much of the Communion, with the active collusion of the Primates of their Churches.

Nothing could be clearer than that RW has carried out his plan to bring the Anglican Communion closer to reunion with Rome by centralizing authority in the Anglican Communion. This means that LGBT persons must be marginalized in the Church and given no rerpresentative (ordained) function. If Primates support legislation in their countries that would imprison and execute gay people, RW cannot be seen to be too public in expressing polite disfavor, lest he alienate these large and growing Churches from his scheme for the Communion.

RW has been so bold as to invite LGBT persons in the Communion to sacrifice themselves for the unity of the Communion, during an interview in Kingston, Jamaica. The utter lack of ethics in his thinking is evident in the fact that RW did this in the capital of the country with the worst record in the western hemisphere for officially supported violence and murder against LGBT persons.

Now comes his Covenant, sealed with the blood of innocent and very unwilling victims. No more of this! Dear God, no more of this betrayal of the Gospel!

Karen writes well and sadly all she concludes is true. I was deeply moved as I read it and traced the hope and betrayal I have felt over the years.

In conversations with Pope Benedict the question was asked if Anglicanism could achieve any real unity without a Magisterium - Rowan said that this was possible, His Holiness, not unsurprisingly, demured.

RW has been so bold as to invite LGBT persons in the Communion to sacrifice themselves for the unity of the Communion, during an interview in Kingston, Jamaica. The utter lack of ethics in his thinking is evident in the fact that RW did this in the capital of the country with the worst record in the western hemisphere for officially supported violence and murder against LGBT persons.¨ Karen Mcqueen+

+Rowan knew it too. He knew there was a boycott of Jamaica during the ACC Meeting. ++He knew there was fresh ¨Gay¨ blood in the streets of Kingston. ++He knew there was a Gay murder in Liverpool at the time of the Lambeth Conference.

+Rowan knows the ¨anti-Homosexuality¨ Genocide law in Urganda is ¨shocking¨...what he doesn´t know, apparently, is that he, Rowan Williams, no longer can matter to those of us who defend the innocent, take in the marginalized and grieve for the victims of hate preached at some Gafcon parts of The Anglican Communion.

The Archbishop of York has proven himself to be a completely self-centered religious circus act as he ¨defends,¨ with all respect, his ¨faith healing¨ brother who has been accused, then suddenly not accused, of purchasing young men for ¨Sodomy¨ acts in Uganda.

Not only does the CoE need honorable leadership, so does the rest of The Anglican Communion...we have overfollowed your lead.

Few amongst us would deceive ourselves further into thinking +Drexel Gomez of Jamaica/West Indies was/is worthy of writing/chairing a Anglican Covenant for well-intentioned Christians who demand that we STOP the murderous persecution and demonization of LGBT Anglicans.

We NEED to clean-out the Communion out-house as it has a contagious disease.

The problem with appealing to the Dromantine 2004 Communique is that the same language could be applied to prisoners and those convicted of offences:

eg. 'we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral care and support of prisoners; the victimisation or diminishment of human beings is anathema to us. We assure prisoners that they are children of God, loved and regarded by him and deserving the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship.'

So it might be argued that there is nothing the Primates have actually said which could be construed as being against the Bill.