377A - Phantom Menace 2

Hear, hear, now the Catholic (universal) voice has spoken. 

Archbishop William Goh sounded the clarion call by appealing to all Catholics far and wide to make a “conscientious decision” to reject the repeal of 377A. 

He added that “as individuals and responsible citizens, Catholics had an important role to play in voicing their views to the Government.”

As chief shepherd of the archdiocese, William Goh prayed that “we will not walk the slippery path of no return.”

Here is the overarching rationale and fear in the Christendom in the Archbishop’s own words: -

“Looking at the dire consequences for countries which normalised same-sex unions and the ramification that followed, may we not repeat the mistake that others have made!”

Well, to be honest, the Catholic Church’s stand and the Protestant Church’s stand have not changed. 

On this, there is surely a unity across the pre-Luther and post-Luther faith that is almost unshakeable and unbreakable.

But the chief shepherd of the universal faith did not stop there on the real risk of prying open the potential Pandora's box of cultural contamination, (in other words) the slippery slope that the churches have been warning its members about. 

He however went on with a plea which I found rather out-of-the-ordinary. 

At first, William Goh said that “he would not object to a repeal “if it were merely aimed at removing all potential criminal penalties against homosexuals.””

Obviously, that would be the result of a repeal. That is, there would not be any criminal penalties against homosexuals, just as there is no longer any criminal penalties against heterosexuals when 377 (without the “A”) was removed. 

The impression then (quite naturally) was that while heterosexuals can commit unnatural sex together (in the privacy of their own bedroom of course), the homosexuals cannot. 

377A was therefore reserved to criminally prosecute homosexuals. That was at least the intention of parliament when they did the deliberate amendment from 377 (without the “A”) to 377 (with the “A”). In another world, that “A” may just stand for “Antagonism”. 

However, when the government assured the homosexuals that they would remove the fangs from the viper section (that is, not to prosecute them should they perform unnatural sex in the privacy of their bedroom), 377A became an “uneasy compromise” in a cultural climate that is both fragile and inflammatory; possibly endangered. 

So, returning to the archbishop’s first stand that he would not object to a repeal if it were merely aimed at removing all potential criminal penalties against homosexuals, that is not even an issue since the government has already removed all potential criminal penalties against homosexuals when they pulled out its fangs. 

My concern is that it is no longer about penal sanctions anymore but an uneasy existential anxiety over a possible cultural floodgate should 377A be repealed. 

This fear has seriously shakened the foundation of the Christian faith from the protestants to the charismatics, and now the Catholics. 

And quite surprisingly, it appears like we are running to the government for help (or some assurances) with the archbishop’s next stand. 

He wrote: “However, until and unless Parliament puts in place a formulation that more perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the law, guaranteeing the protection of the rights of the majority who favour the traditional family, and that no further demands be made to legalise same-sex unions, same-sex adoption of babies, surrogacy, or to criminalises those who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, 

I am of the view that 377A should not be repealed under the present circumstances.”

He added: “This is because, by accepting homosexual acts as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common good will be long term and irreversible.”

Lesson? Just one. Are we barking up the wrong tree? 

I mean, repeal if you think it’s right, or stay it for the sake of your belief, or let sleeping dogs lie if you are getting tired of the seemingly endless tug-of-war between the religious and the non-religious on 377A, but issuing what seems like a transactional plea by asking Parliament to come up with a formulation that “no further demands be made to legalise same-sex unions, same-sex adoption of babies, surrogacy, to criminalises those who do not support the homosexual lifestyle” before the Catholic Church would agree to a repeal? 

Have the Church crossed the separation of state and religion line? 

Is this reminiscent of the Catholic Church sleeping with the enemy, thereby repeating the mistakes of their convoluted past with reigning kings, queens and aristocrats? 

Like in the days of old when the people of God cried out for a human king in place of their Creator, is the church then crying out for an alliance with the human government in place of the author and finisher of their faith?

I said this before and let me say it again, we live in a secular democracy with a pragmatic government who has made it crystal clear that whether 377A goes or stay would depend on the majority - believers or otherwise. 

Once the cultural sentiment of the land changes, or when it is expedient to do so for political or economic reasons, the government would repeal it at a legislature’s heartbeat. 

For this reason, my fear is that by relying on our government, or giving the appearance of doing so, have we inadvertently made 377A our faith canary in the Christendom coal mine?

All things thus seems to hinge on that canary not dropping dead at the whiff of the toxic fume coming from carnality’s poisoned well. 

Or worse, we may have unintentionally elevated that canary to such lofty heights that any fume that reeks of carnality’s toxicity would cause a moral pandemonium in the claustrophobic coal mine even though it may just be someone breaking wind. 

Ultimately, levity aside, my point is about giving more thought to the unintended consequences of our actions. 

Mind you, this is not an advocacy of stay or repeal, but a firm urging for more deliberation in our contemplation, and not to be blown from one extreme to the other just because other countries are sinking into a moral cesspool with their successful repeal. There is always more than meets the eye here. 

More relevantly, my overarching point is to never keep our eyes as believers away from the author and finisher of our faith, and never to run around in panic in the center of the storm when the one who calms the storm has never left us. Cheerz.