Singapore Archbishop William Goh, the head of the Catholic Church here, has told Catholics in Singapore that Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men, "should not be repealed under the present circumstances".

In a pastoral letter ("To Repeal or not To Repeal"), one that is sent by a bishop to his own congregation on directions for behaviour, published on the Archdiocese website on Tuesday, Sept. 18 night, Goh also said that he would in fact not object to a repeal of 377A.

A repeal of 377A, he wrote, can be considered if two conditions are met:

1) The repeal is "aimed at removing all potential criminal penalties against homosexuals", and

2) There is a new legislation that captures "the spirit of the law".

In other words, the new law should guarantee the protection of the rights of those who favour the traditional family, and that no further demands be made to legalise same-sex unions, adoption of babies by same sex couples, surrogacy, or to criminalise those who do not support the homosexual lifestyle or agree with the sexual act.

[related_story]

"A delicate dilemma"

Goh wrote that he was faced with a "delicate dilemma", after receiving many appeals from both camps to support their position.

He said all Catholics are important to him, "regardless whether they have same- or opposite-sex attraction". He added that he feels the struggles and pains of those with same sex attraction when they are ostracised by society, as they deserve to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.

However, he also shared the anxieties of those with traditional and scriptural views of marriage and family who believe that repealing 377A will lead Singapore down a slippery slope.

National Council of Churches of Singapore: Retain 377A

Goh's 2,181-word letter is the longest exposition on the 2018 debate on 377A so far.

It comes five days after a statement by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS).

The NCCS said it does not support the repeal of 377A.

It agrees with the 2014 Court of Appeal ruling concerning the constitutionality of 377A, while stating its support for the government’s decision to retain it.

The NCCS added that its repeal would result in the normalisation and promotion of homosexual behaviour, which in turn would lead to undesirable moral and social consequences.

DJ files new legal challenge to 377A

Meanwhile, Sep. 12 saw a 43-year-old DJ filing a new court challenge against 377A that aims to use new arguments to make the case that the law is unconstitutional.

According to The Straits Times, Johnson Ong Ming is being represented by lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, who is acting pro bono for the case.

ST reported that Ong, who is in a relationship with another man, said that he was aware of the previous 2014 Court of Appeal decision.

However, he argued the court should depart from that precedent, given international judicial developments since 2014, such as the Indian Supreme Court's decision to strike down 377.

In the public and online, this issue has generated much attention over the past two weeks.

More than 150,000 people have signed online petitions to either repeal or retain 377A:

Thus far, though, the government has adopted a neutral stance on the legislation, with at least two ministers stating its position. You can read further about it here:

Top photo from Archbishop William Goh Facebook page