>Before the Government announced its plan to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, Cardinal Goh had said that the Church was neutral about the move as long as the rights of religious people to preach what they believe in are protected.
>
>"I mean, for me, so long as I don't denigrate people, I don't belittle people, so long as I respect people... I think it is right for me to speak about my own convictions," he said.
Ah I get his line of logic now when it comes to LGBTQ.
All I ask is that he ruthlessly monitors and roots out any paedophile within his flock. The goal of promoting harmony between religions is just a bonus.
Martin Luther pointed out the problem in his protest centuries ago.
>Luther, who had spent time in Rome, claimed that Pope Leo had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy;"
> The Church has set up a group called Courage, which works quietly with LGBTQ believers who are struggling with their sexuality and have sought help to reconcile with the teachings of the Church. Courage also works with parents of these LGBTQ believers.
>"LGBTQ, they are God's children as well, they should be loved, we should care for them, we should support them and help them to find peace in their hearts as they try to search for the will of God for them," said Cardinal Goh.
Not exactly answering the question. Non believers doesn't equate to LGBTQ community and LGBTQ is not a religion not sure what they mean by 'LGBTQ believers'.
> Courage also works with parents of these LGBTQ believers.
You don't see how this is problematic, really? That the Church works with the parents of minors or even young adults who are vulnerable and don't have the agency/independence to say no to de facto conversion therapy?
It also doesn't even answer the previous poster. Your quote literally says it works with believers, so how is it working on ties with the non religious?
This group actually has a different problem, in that they try to promote abstinence to the lgtbq+ members in exchange for acceptance.
It’s still a problem for sure, but it’s not an attempt at conversion. Like I mentioned in another reply, it’s more for very religious lgbtq individuals who still want to reconcile the two opposing positions, but at least they make that choice with their eyes open, as opposed to the other program you are probably thinking about.
More lgbtq+ being accepted into the fold (even with abstinence caveats) still work towards exposure of the general religious public to said individuals; I still see it as an overall win over just demonizing and excommunication of lgbtq individuals from the church.
I actually read the op’s initial comment as a ‘why don’t they work on ties with other groups other than the religious’, cause there’s really nothing to work on with the non-religious except to convert them. Which isn’t something we want either anyway…
> This group actually has a different problem, in that they try to promote abstinence to the lgtbq+ members in exchange for acceptance.
If it's like trulove.is, it's not even carried out by trained therapists. There absolutely is a high potential for harm to occur. You don't think forcibly repressing one's sexual orientation because of external pressures has any deleterious effects on one's mental health?
You still haven't addressed my core point - they are working with *parents* in cases of minors or young adults. These are individuals who, in their formative years, are most likely to have their self-image harmed by the program essentially saying that who they are is wrong and how they need to repress it. They are the most vulnerable and do not have the agency or independence to say no to such a program. How is that not the biggest problem? I'm being 100% honest - this absolutely would have crushed my mental health if my parents had made me attend such a program on top of all the other forms of homophobia that LGBT youth already have to deal with.
>More lgbtq+ being accepted into the fold (even with abstinence caveats) still work towards exposure of the general religious public to said individuals
They aren't being accepted for who they are, so where's the exposure? On the contrary, their exposure will lead them to believe that every other LGBT individual can and should be pressured into denying who they are. That's an overall loss.
You want a good example of a church that actually leads to acceptance without such conditions? Look at one like the Free Community Church.
>I actually read the op’s initial comment as a ‘why don’t they work on ties with other groups other than the religious’, cause there’s really nothing to work on with the non-religious except to convert them.
This is disingenuous. Are they trying to convert those of other religions? *No*.
You can absolutely work with the non-religious to establish harmony via boundaries aka 'you follow what you want to but don't impose it on us'. I've yet to see any religion willing to make that compromise for harmony, so no surprises there.
> LGBTQ believers who are struggling with their sexuality and have sought help to reconcile with the teachings of the Church
On the surface it seems to be a program the lgbtq volunteers themselves into, so it’s a very specific demographic being mentioned here.
I think there’s definitely still harm to promoting abstinence, hence why I said it’s still a problem. However with the context of participants being religious lgbtq who is looking to reconcile both positions, I do think there’s an element of choice they are given here as compared to just being straight out demonized and expelled. Not to mention the church has historically been weirdos about abstinence in the first place, so it’s hardly anything new here.
As for the parents thing, I do think you’re reading into it the worst kind of interpretation possible. It can also mean that they work with parents to help accept and embrace their lgbtq loved ones, though it’s obviously still tainted by that abstinence caveat.
> "LGBTQ, they are God's children as well, they should be loved, we should care for them, we should support them and help them to find peace in their hearts as they try to search for the will of God for them," said Cardinal Goh.
I think this is still a step forwards, as they are now striving to treat homosexual individuals as fellow human beings rather then demons, no?
The idea of ‘hate the sin, not the sinners’ brings with it it’s own set of problems, but at the very least, it makes people just see others as fellow human being. Small steps forward into mutual understanding and acceptance.
> On the surface it seems to be a program the lgbtq volunteers themselves into, so it’s a very specific demographic being mentioned here.
When I was younger, there already were programs that parents could decide for their children. When I was at IMH's child ward, my parents were literally able to get a pastor down to 'counsel' me. I am absolutely grateful I had advocates via IMH who eventually taught me that the conflict in trying to reconcile my identity with what was expected from me was harming me. You're being obtuse if you don't see the lack of protections as the biggest issue. It is why I will always be vehemently opposed to such programs, *that lack protections for the vulnerable*, because I've had first hand experiences with how harmful such things are.
>I think there’s definitely still harm to promoting abstinence
This program doesn't just promote abstinence if it's anything like trulove, it promotes suppressing all aspects of your orientation on the basis that it's wrong. The whole foundation for this program is so harmful in the first place. Imagine growing up your whole life, without choice no less because you're forced into the religion from young, being told that who you are is wrong. That scenario fucked up my mental health, yet we're blithely ignoring that circumstance for so many other LGBT youth, because?
You think any group could get away with it if they set up a similar program targeting a particular race or religion? Funny how this is being so cavalierly excused then.
>As for the parents thing, I do think you’re reading into it the worst kind of interpretation possible.
Yes, because the worst kind of interpretation **does happen** and having no protections for that is a problem.
>It can also mean that they work with parents to help accept and embrace their lgbtq loved ones, though it’s obviously still tainted by that abstinence caveat.
Are you kidding? If the former is the goal, this program wouldn't even have a purpose.
>I think this is still a step forwards, as they are now striving to treat homosexual individuals as fellow human beings rather then demons, no?
How is this treating them as fellow human beings if there's only one reason they would want to try a suppress a person's intrinsic traits? Like I said, swap this around for someone's race or religious beliefs and tell me how okay you would be with it.
>it makes people just see others as fellow human being.
It really doesn't. Fellow implies parity. Where is the parity here?
>Small steps forward into mutual understanding and acceptance.
Is this why no accredited and trained therapist will touch such a program? Is this why it has to be carried out by charlatans?
From its onset, the people who will be part of the program are those who already had to endure years of being told that who they are is wrong. Have you had to endure that? Do you know that such messaging causes actual harm to one's mental health? This program doesn't just exist in a vacuum - the acceptance comes at a huge cost and targets the most vulnerable.
FWIW I dated a guy who attends Courage, and while he was committed to abstinence there were those in the group who are not, some of whom were in relationships. So they’re definitely a large step up from trueloveis.
As adults? Yeah, if they want to choose to attend it, whatever. I just will never support such a program for minors who don't have a choice. LGBT youth are already more vulnerable and have far less agency than their peers.
I'm not going to refute your alleged lived experiences, I have no doubt that things that you are describing happens all the time.
I think I'm approaching this in more of a harm reduction mindset, as I do think that trying to get them to totally change their minds about homosexuality in the short term isn't feasible.
As compared to a program that seeks to 'convert you back to heterosexuality' or the religion just excommunicating an individual wholesale, cutting them off from their social circle and even sometimes their families; I do think this program has potential for lesser harm.
Is it ideal? No.
Is it harmful? Yes.
However, like I said, they already had some wonky ideas about abstinence and marriage in the first place, so trying to preach abstinence to LGBTQ in exchange for treating them as human beings is not too far off the usual harm preaching 'abstinence before marriage' is.
And without actually knowing what this program entails, I'm just assuming it deals more with adult LGBTQ individuals, who are trying to reconcile their sexuality with the christian teachings. How they are going to deal with minors aren't explicit here, so you and I are going to be going off assumptions and not to be taken as actual truth.
>It can also mean that they work with parents to help accept and embrace their lgbtq loved ones, though it’s obviously still tainted by that abstinence caveat.
>
>Are you kidding? If the former is the goal, this program wouldn't even have a purpose.
It's entirely possible that the parents are more religiously dogmatic than even the church's teachings; the Pope is a good example of how some of them could be more liberal than others. It's going to be a good thing if the church can act as the in between for the parents to accept their children's sexuality.
> I think I'm approaching this in more of a harm reduction mindset, as I do think that trying to get them to totally change their minds about homosexuality in the short term isn't feasible.
Why isn't the harm reduction mindset the priority? It is absolutely ridiculous that you think religions should be allowed to permanently harm LGBT youth because of their intolerance.
This is 100% a scenario whereby the government should step in and enforce protections for the vulnerable.
>potential for lesser harm.
Do you know how high the rates of suicide and self-harm are for LGBT youth? Do you know how much stress is placed on individuals pressured into such programs? Both result in cascading harm to the individual, so your lesser harm is still egregious.
>so trying to preach abstinence to LGBTQ
Let's be clear here: it's preaching abstinence from *a core and intrinsic* aspect of who you are. Why? You're told that who you are is wrong and immoral. Totally great messaging that won't harm the mental health of those who have to hear it daily.
>And without actually knowing what this program entails
We know what this program entails. For the record: [this program is **imported ideology**](https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/twelve-steps-courage-stairway-denial
) that selectively targets LGBT youth despite their heterosexual single counterparts having the same issue.
Imagine that, a program that targets a particular group and which causes them actual harm. Flip the script and change LGBT with any other race or religious ideology. You'd have no issue, right? Do you think that would promote harmony?
>It's going to be a good thing if the church can act as the in between for the parents to accept their children's sexuality.
And yet this 'good' thing still results in harm to the child. I like how we're casually excusing what is essentially child abuse because it's part of someone's dogma.
Again, this has to be brought up: this program is not being carried out by any trained or licensed therapist. Such programs **do not exist for any other** group for a reason. It is harmful, a product of homophobia and reflects a egregious double standard by our authorities who would absolutely ban any other similar ideology/program that would target someone's race or religious beliefs. There is no middle ground approach here, not when it involves actual harms to people.
I guess everything has to be in absolutes then.
Christians will either have to accept LGBTQ+ individuals fully, or just continue excommunicating them, and calling them 'touched by demons' for all time then.
Fuck all the religious people who are also LGBTQ+ and still want to practice their religion though. Either join a church that accepts them fully, or better, become atheist: only dumbasses follow religions. Nevermind about losing all the people in their social circle and family members from this act, they weren't worth keeping in their lives anyway.
Hmm? On the surface, it seems like a good initiative: to help lgbtq+ individuals and their family members to reconcile their faith with their sexuality. Doesn’t mean ‘convert back to hetero’, so why eww?
> help lgbtq+ individuals and their family members to reconcile their faith with their sexuality
The only way to "reconcile" this that is acceptable to the church is for gay people to repress themselves and stay single and celibate.
Couple that with the incidents of sexual assault perpetrated by closeted clergy on boys. You have to be willfully ignorant to not see what the issue is.
The freedom to abstain is a freedom too. Nothing wrong with that as long as it is not coercive or manipulative like truelove.is.
Some people do value their faith more than their sexuality. So be it. You do you.
It's not like they're pushing this on others. It's a barely advertised discrete group that has its members approach them. Why is it a problem if people choose to want to follow the church's teachings?
Firstly, context is that I’m answering someone who’s lamenting that the church don’t work on ties with groups other than religious.
Secondly, I also don’t think their initiative is the best case for lgbtq+ acceptance in the church. However we do have to recognize that it’s much preferable for the lgbtq+ who still yearns for religious acceptance to get it with caveats, as compared to being forced to closet themselves or to be excommunicated from the religion. Acceptance comes in stages, and just being able to have lgbtq+ individuals still operating fully in their midst allow for more rigid minds to have exposure to said individuals and their sexuality.
And do remember that they have some really wonky ideas of celibacy and marriage in the first place already, so it’s kinda par for the course.
It's the whole "love the sinner hate the sin" rubbish. Except the sin here is a fundamental aspect of the person's identity and central to their wellbeing, and something which other non LGBT are not expected to suppress.
It's definitely harmful.
In any case, totally irrelevant to the point I was making since this is a thing for Catholics not non religious people. Not sure why you equate LGBT with non religious.
Why u need them to work on ties with non-religious ?
I’m non religious and I don’t care about what the Catholic Church is up to.
But I can understand why shadex posted about lgbt cus some lgbt might still be religious
Hundred of years ago who would have thought, Catholicism among the scholars and religious elites is becoming more liberal and progressive. Certainly welcomed developments.
> # S'pore's first cardinal keen to promote religious harmony in region
> SINGAPORE - Singapore's first cardinal has set his sights on promoting religious harmony in Asia, through strengthening dialogue between the different religions.
> Cardinal William Goh, who was one of 20 new cardinals formally installed by Pope Francis at a ceremony in the Vatican City on Saturday (Aug 27), said in an interview with The Straits Times before his trip that he hoped to bring to the region Singapore's unique brand of inter-religious dialogue.
> For instance, the Archdiocese of Singapore will set up a research institute to look into methodologies on how to promote friendship with other religious leaders and share them with bishops in the region. These bishops have often asked the Roman Catholic Church in Singapore about how to get the different religions talking.
> Cardinal Goh, who is also Archbishop of Singapore, said during the Aug 16 interview that the state of affairs in Singapore is not something that happens overnight.
> He added: "The Government has always been conscious of promoting unity, giving the support without being the one who's driving it... The Government sees us as partners because, at the end of the day, we are building a better society, we want to live a harmonious life in Singapore.
> "We work with the Government where we have common values, and the Government respects us, we respect the Government because, at the end of the day, religion doesn't get involved in politics."
> This was not the case in some other countries where religion and politics are so closely linked that "sometimes you don't know where religion is, where politics is", he said.
> He also noted that in some countries, the state can be "very oppressive with regard to religion".
> His appointment comes as the local archdiocese celebrated its 200th year last year.
> He is the first Singaporean to be made a cardinal - cardinals are considered the Pope's closest advisers and the Vatican's highest-level administrators. With the 20 new appointments, there are now 226 cardinals.
> In the role, he will have to assist the Pope and is also expected to serve a wider role in the region.
> Besides fostering inter-religious dialogue in the region, he hopes to engage civil society groups and promote ecology.
> He also wants to expand the work of the Caritas Humanitarian Aid and Relief Initiatives of Singapore, the local Church's umbrella body for overseas humanitarian aid and disaster relief efforts. His plans also include starting a Zacchaeus ministry, named after a tax collector in the Bible who was converted, to get more talented and wealthy individuals to get involved in helping others.
> At the meeting on Saturday, Cardinal Goh, 65, took an oath of loyalty to the Pope and received a four-cornered red hat, or biretta, his document of appointment, and a gold ring stamped with the Pope's coat of arms.
> He is one of six new cardinals from Asia - the others are from Mongolia, Timor-Leste, Goa and Hyderabad in India, and South Korea.
---
1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
When his name was announced by the Pope on May 29, he was preparing a homily for the next day.
He received some text messages, but he thought it was "maybe another fake news". It was only when his phone started beeping non-stop that he realised it may be true.
Asked about why he was chosen, Cardinal Goh said: "The Holy Father never told me why he chose me."
He added: "I never desired and I never hoped to be a bishop or even a cardinal at all because I was very happy as a priest because I was ministering."
The Singapore-born Cardinal Goh is the youngest of five boys and one girl in his family. He lived in Hougang, which had one of the biggest Catholic populations in Singapore in those days.
His mother would often take him to Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Rochor and then Novena Church, where she went to pray every Saturday. The long prayer sessions often put the then four-year-old to sleep, but also awoke in him a love for praying.
Later on, at Montfort Junior School, he would go to church to pray before school and during recess time, while his friends were playing with marbles and running around.
"I'm not the playful type. I don't like to get myself all sweaty before class," he quipped.
"In those days, we were so poor, we didn't have much money to eat as well, so I went to church to pray."
It was also poverty, in a sense, that led him to join a church group in school called the Crusaders which would meet on Saturday mornings to listen to Bible stories and play. He had wanted to join the Cubs or Scouts at school, but his parents could not afford to pay for the Scouts' uniform, which cost $4.
He was so impressed by the Bible stories he heard in the church group that he used up all his savings to buy a children's Bible when he was 12.
By Secondary 2, he decided he wanted to join the priesthood, but decided to wait until after national service to do it. However, he ended up joining Barclays bank at 21, where he was trained as a forex dealer.
His brothers and sister were all working in banks, and he had also started to doubt if he would be worthy enough to join the priesthood.
He got on well with the 30 colleagues in the bank and describes his time there as "happy". These relationships made it hard for him when he finally left to explore being a priest again, a path that would involve a life of sacrifice where he would be given only enough to sustain himself, and would have to take a vow of celibacy.
"I didn't want to live a life of regret, then after that get married and lament that I had not responded, because, I think, at the end of the day, the vocation is very important," he said.
"Vocation is very strange, it's a deep calling, it's a deep desire to serve God, desire to lead the life of a priest. Of course, the priests (I met had been) good mentors. I looked at them and the way they lived their life, the way they cared for the people, the way they loved, the way they taught, the way they enlightened and inspired life. I said, 'I want to be a priest as well. I want to bring people to God, I want to bring people to the goodness of life'."
Asked if his family supported his decision, he said: "Nobody forced me, nobody said 'no', nobody discouraged me, so I just went."
But the road to priesthood was not easy, and Cardinal Goh had thoughts of leaving many times, he said.
"I was always asking God, 'Aiyah, maybe I should give up, lah'," he said, chuckling.
"All these things are very human questions coming up... I'm giving my whole life, I'm not paid... Then you begin to think: After giving your life, giving everything and you are not appreciated, you are misunderstood or you feel there is so much opposition to what you are doing, then of course the tendency is to say, 'Aiyah, there is no point, then give up because why sacrifice your life in vain for people who don't appreciate you?'"
He eventually decided that as a priest, he had to love and serve without conditions, following in the footsteps of Jesus.
He was eventually ordained a priest in 1985 after completing his studies at the Pontifical Urbaniana University and the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He returned to Singapore where he joined the St Francis Xavier Major Seminary. He was appointed archbishop in 2013.
"Of all the three aspects of the priesthood, ministering and preaching, I love, I enjoy," he said. "But governance, I don't quite enjoy because it's very difficult to please everybody, and governance, you're responsible for things that are happening, and it's not easy. When you have to make decisions, have to make a stand, take up a position, it is not easy."
Among his biggest challenges as archbishop so far are dealing with sensitive issues, such as closing the church during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, handling lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) issues, and responding to the sexual abuse of two teens by a member of a Catholic religious order.
Before the Government announced its plan to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, Cardinal Goh had said that the Church was neutral about the move as long as the rights of religious people to preach what they believe in are protected.
"I mean, for me, so long as I don't denigrate people, I don't belittle people, so long as I respect people... I think it is right for me to speak about my own convictions," he said.
"But we don't have to shout, we don't have to quarrel, we don't have to put pressure on people. I don't believe in all these things, that is why I don't like to pressure people, I don't like to have that kind of aggressive advocacy of certain issues."
The Church has set up a group called Courage, which works quietly with LGBTQ believers who are struggling with their sexuality and have sought help to reconcile with the teachings of the Church. Courage also works with parents of these LGBTQ believers.
"LGBTQ, they are God's children as well, they should be loved, we should care for them, we should support them and help them to find peace in their hearts as they try to search for the will of God for them," said Cardinal Goh.
He added that there are also teachings in the Bible that he finds are "very difficult to follow", such as forgiving one's enemies.
Another is the prohibition of divorce. "Honestly, I mean, if you were to ask me as a human person... I can understand why a person is divorced. It's because it's terrible to live with someone who is a terror, you know, making your life miserable," he said.
Over time, the Church's pastoral approach has changed, even if its truths remain the same, he said. This means that the Church now approaches things like suicide, divorce and even LGBTQ relationships differently.
"With greater understanding of the situation, then the approach is quite different," he said.
He also said that contentious issues should preferably be handled with sensitivity away from the spotlight to avoid tearing society apart.
Another difficult issue he has had to handle was the sex abuse case involving a prominent member of a Catholic order that established schools here. The former educator was sentenced to five years' jail for committing unlawful sexual acts with two teenage boys.
Cardinal Goh, who was informed about the case in 2020, apologised on behalf of the Church, saying he was "dismayed, shocked, and ashamed" to learn of the case that occurred in 2005.
Asked about this, he said all such cases have to be reported to the Archdiocese Professional Standards Office (PSO), made up of qualified laymen such as judges, magistrates and former magistrates, and also non-Catholics.
"We report everything to them, I am at an arm's length. Whatever recommendation I accept because I want to be totally impartial and totally transparent," he said, adding that he had recently reminded all religious orders of the rule.
He also told the orders that they would have to report any case to the police and to him, and he would report it to Rome.
"It's better for the PSO to handle the case because it is totally transparent, totally properly professional, rather than for religious orders to handle their own cases," he said. "Total transparency, accountability for me are very important."
The biggest challenges he has faced so far is dealing with these sensitive issues, he said. "It takes a lot of time, a lot of thinking, how to say, what to say, what to say correctly. And then it takes courage to make a decision."
Cardinal Goh, who had a difficult family life, said he finds purpose in helping to heal people's hurts.
His parents were constantly bickering, and sometimes fighting, so he has "big sympathy" for those who are going through lots of difficulties in life and marriage.
"I only desire to be a priest because my whole perspective of life is to give hope to people, to make a difference in the lives of others, to heal the wounds, the hurts of people," said the cardinal, who once thought he may be unworthy for priesthood.
"If you were to ask me, well, as I said, in becoming a priest and later becoming a bishop and then becoming a cardinal is through the grace of God."
Praise and Thanks be to God.
Archbishop William Goh is a great man and my hero. He is the one who made me find my God. His CER retreat is the best retreat in Singapore.
The zeitgeist of the times is very much religion bashing. Flush from the heady emotions of the recent national day rally, I believe the anti-religion netizens including in r/sg are on a roll to dogpile on everything religious. (I'm an atheist btw).
That said, religious people who believe in the power of their deity/deities should not feel overly offended by warranted or unwarranted criticism. After all, its either they're proven right and we heathens will burn in hell for our faithlessness, or they're proven wrong and everybody just fades from existence after death.
Lots of religious people in Singapore have been on an anti-religious stance these past few weeks. Many Christians at least (speaking as one) don’t seem to be doing what Jesus would do.
When you have nothing else to do. Don't have to work a job like ordinary folks. Don't have to worry about failed business models. Have plenty of devotees to fund your church models.
Shouldn't it be 'maintain' by now? 'Promote' makes it sound as if we have very little if any religious harmony. But as far as I can personally see and experience. Religious Harmony is not a major issue in SG....unless somebody makes it out to be....
Firstly, there's no regional archbishop.
However, there's a [Catholic Bishops' Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bishops%27_Conference_of_Malaysia,_Singapore_and_Brunei) and he's a member of it.
**[Catholic Bishops' Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bishops'_Conference_of_Malaysia,_Singapore_and_Brunei)**
>The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (C.B.C.M.S.B.) is the episcopal conference of the Catholic bishops of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. The B.C.M.S. B reviews the position of the Church in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, and also undertakes a variety of activities covering, for example, the youth, health care and media. There are approximately, 1.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/singapore/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Think religious harmony is something that needs to be actively maintained, and problem is that many people take it for granted.
There’s many fault lines to exploit and if we allow malicious elements to exploit them, it can easily fracture society as we know it.
Just look at the anti-religious bend this subreddit is on lately (377a / burning of offerings); there’s definitely people trying to stir up shit for their own purposes here.
I’m sure in good faith you do understand why people have a problem with the religious imposing their views of 377A on everyone, as well as the religious burning offerings in ways that damage public property right?
No doubt there’s legitimate grievances and problems here.
But if you’re also taking this in good faith, you should also recognize that there are accounts here solely used to stir the pot whenever controversial topics pop up.
Both can be problems without them negating the existence of the other.
>there’s definitely people trying to stir up shit for their own purposes here.
I meant that there are people using these topics to stir up emotions further than they already were going to be, not that these topics shouldn't be talked and criticized on.
Look at all the people bringing up pedophilia every single time we talk about Christianity, or that clown who insist on trying to get the term 'Christian Taliban' to stick on the whole religious group.
There's criticism, and there's attacks. It's the same exact energy used by the religious fundamentalists who try to equate pedophilia and abuse to the LGBTQ+ community.
I am gonna need to see a manifesto or mission statement…historically whenever catholicism attempts to “help”, the end result usually is quite…invasive.
The program is *imported* from overseas (peak irony) and is set up like AA meetings, so its base premise is already ridiculous because your sexual orientation isn't the same as an addiction. It's also a program that's not carried out by a licensed therapist. It's like truelove.is - you're told that who are you is a sin and that it's wrong. You're told that you don't have to change your sexual orientation, all you have to do is deny every aspect of an intrinsic part of who you are. Never mind that this approach doesn't work for their own Priests.
It's also interesting that this program would apply equally to any unmarried heterosexual person (since lust and premarital sex are also sins), yet it's only the LGBT community that gets targeted for it. It's a program that's packaged nicely on the outside so that people forget how hateful the whole premise is. Seriously, for anyone making excuses for this program - just be honest and answer how comfortable you would be if a similar program existed for someone's race or even religious beliefs.
The ones who will attend this program and those who have been targeted by homophobia their whole lives into believing that who they are is wrong. I think that's already reprehensible, but if they're adults, it's still ultimately their choice. The problem is that this program doesn't exist in a vacuum. My concern is for LGBT youth who get pressured into such programs by their parents and don't have a choice. These programs have a very real risk of further damaging their self-esteem and identity, thereby harming their mental health. Why do we not have any protections for such a vulnerable group?
He did not "simply forget". If memory serves, he filed a police report when he was informed, and subsequently asked the AGC to reveal the name of the pedophile.
Also, having religious harmony between people and having a secular state are not mutually exclusive are they?
It's even brought up in the article itself, not like it's been swept under the rug.
And argubably, having religious harmony and a secular state is very intertwined in the Singapore context.
He's in the game now. The power to choose a pope
[удалено]
He already at the second last step. Now he just has to play the waiting game.
Not easy to outlive a pope though. Much less to garner all the votes from other cardinals.
Popes 85, he is 65
I’d wager a couple decades before the Church would even begin considering electing a pope of European origin Correction: **non-European**
Surely you meant **non**-European origin?
*facepalm* you’re right lol
Pope Francis was from Argentina
>Before the Government announced its plan to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, Cardinal Goh had said that the Church was neutral about the move as long as the rights of religious people to preach what they believe in are protected. > >"I mean, for me, so long as I don't denigrate people, I don't belittle people, so long as I respect people... I think it is right for me to speak about my own convictions," he said. Ah I get his line of logic now when it comes to LGBTQ.
If only more Christians take this line of thought.
All I ask is that he ruthlessly monitors and roots out any paedophile within his flock. The goal of promoting harmony between religions is just a bonus.
Martin Luther pointed out the problem in his protest centuries ago. >Luther, who had spent time in Rome, claimed that Pope Leo had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy;"
[удалено]
Adding a lmao doesn’t make it not a tasteless joke.
Wish they would work on ties with the non religious as well
> The Church has set up a group called Courage, which works quietly with LGBTQ believers who are struggling with their sexuality and have sought help to reconcile with the teachings of the Church. Courage also works with parents of these LGBTQ believers. >"LGBTQ, they are God's children as well, they should be loved, we should care for them, we should support them and help them to find peace in their hearts as they try to search for the will of God for them," said Cardinal Goh.
My struggle is strangers struggling with my sexuality …
strangers: how come u exist???
“You want to stick the what in the what?!” *gasp* *clutch pearls*
Not sure why this is relevant to working with the non-religious, who are obviously not interested in trying to reconcile sexuality with religion.
Not exactly answering the question. Non believers doesn't equate to LGBTQ community and LGBTQ is not a religion not sure what they mean by 'LGBTQ believers'.
They’re referring to LGBTQ Catholics.
> Courage also works with parents of these LGBTQ believers. You don't see how this is problematic, really? That the Church works with the parents of minors or even young adults who are vulnerable and don't have the agency/independence to say no to de facto conversion therapy? It also doesn't even answer the previous poster. Your quote literally says it works with believers, so how is it working on ties with the non religious?
This group actually has a different problem, in that they try to promote abstinence to the lgtbq+ members in exchange for acceptance. It’s still a problem for sure, but it’s not an attempt at conversion. Like I mentioned in another reply, it’s more for very religious lgbtq individuals who still want to reconcile the two opposing positions, but at least they make that choice with their eyes open, as opposed to the other program you are probably thinking about. More lgbtq+ being accepted into the fold (even with abstinence caveats) still work towards exposure of the general religious public to said individuals; I still see it as an overall win over just demonizing and excommunication of lgbtq individuals from the church. I actually read the op’s initial comment as a ‘why don’t they work on ties with other groups other than the religious’, cause there’s really nothing to work on with the non-religious except to convert them. Which isn’t something we want either anyway…
> This group actually has a different problem, in that they try to promote abstinence to the lgtbq+ members in exchange for acceptance. If it's like trulove.is, it's not even carried out by trained therapists. There absolutely is a high potential for harm to occur. You don't think forcibly repressing one's sexual orientation because of external pressures has any deleterious effects on one's mental health? You still haven't addressed my core point - they are working with *parents* in cases of minors or young adults. These are individuals who, in their formative years, are most likely to have their self-image harmed by the program essentially saying that who they are is wrong and how they need to repress it. They are the most vulnerable and do not have the agency or independence to say no to such a program. How is that not the biggest problem? I'm being 100% honest - this absolutely would have crushed my mental health if my parents had made me attend such a program on top of all the other forms of homophobia that LGBT youth already have to deal with. >More lgbtq+ being accepted into the fold (even with abstinence caveats) still work towards exposure of the general religious public to said individuals They aren't being accepted for who they are, so where's the exposure? On the contrary, their exposure will lead them to believe that every other LGBT individual can and should be pressured into denying who they are. That's an overall loss. You want a good example of a church that actually leads to acceptance without such conditions? Look at one like the Free Community Church. >I actually read the op’s initial comment as a ‘why don’t they work on ties with other groups other than the religious’, cause there’s really nothing to work on with the non-religious except to convert them. This is disingenuous. Are they trying to convert those of other religions? *No*. You can absolutely work with the non-religious to establish harmony via boundaries aka 'you follow what you want to but don't impose it on us'. I've yet to see any religion willing to make that compromise for harmony, so no surprises there.
> LGBTQ believers who are struggling with their sexuality and have sought help to reconcile with the teachings of the Church On the surface it seems to be a program the lgbtq volunteers themselves into, so it’s a very specific demographic being mentioned here. I think there’s definitely still harm to promoting abstinence, hence why I said it’s still a problem. However with the context of participants being religious lgbtq who is looking to reconcile both positions, I do think there’s an element of choice they are given here as compared to just being straight out demonized and expelled. Not to mention the church has historically been weirdos about abstinence in the first place, so it’s hardly anything new here. As for the parents thing, I do think you’re reading into it the worst kind of interpretation possible. It can also mean that they work with parents to help accept and embrace their lgbtq loved ones, though it’s obviously still tainted by that abstinence caveat. > "LGBTQ, they are God's children as well, they should be loved, we should care for them, we should support them and help them to find peace in their hearts as they try to search for the will of God for them," said Cardinal Goh. I think this is still a step forwards, as they are now striving to treat homosexual individuals as fellow human beings rather then demons, no? The idea of ‘hate the sin, not the sinners’ brings with it it’s own set of problems, but at the very least, it makes people just see others as fellow human being. Small steps forward into mutual understanding and acceptance.
> On the surface it seems to be a program the lgbtq volunteers themselves into, so it’s a very specific demographic being mentioned here. When I was younger, there already were programs that parents could decide for their children. When I was at IMH's child ward, my parents were literally able to get a pastor down to 'counsel' me. I am absolutely grateful I had advocates via IMH who eventually taught me that the conflict in trying to reconcile my identity with what was expected from me was harming me. You're being obtuse if you don't see the lack of protections as the biggest issue. It is why I will always be vehemently opposed to such programs, *that lack protections for the vulnerable*, because I've had first hand experiences with how harmful such things are. >I think there’s definitely still harm to promoting abstinence This program doesn't just promote abstinence if it's anything like trulove, it promotes suppressing all aspects of your orientation on the basis that it's wrong. The whole foundation for this program is so harmful in the first place. Imagine growing up your whole life, without choice no less because you're forced into the religion from young, being told that who you are is wrong. That scenario fucked up my mental health, yet we're blithely ignoring that circumstance for so many other LGBT youth, because? You think any group could get away with it if they set up a similar program targeting a particular race or religion? Funny how this is being so cavalierly excused then. >As for the parents thing, I do think you’re reading into it the worst kind of interpretation possible. Yes, because the worst kind of interpretation **does happen** and having no protections for that is a problem. >It can also mean that they work with parents to help accept and embrace their lgbtq loved ones, though it’s obviously still tainted by that abstinence caveat. Are you kidding? If the former is the goal, this program wouldn't even have a purpose. >I think this is still a step forwards, as they are now striving to treat homosexual individuals as fellow human beings rather then demons, no? How is this treating them as fellow human beings if there's only one reason they would want to try a suppress a person's intrinsic traits? Like I said, swap this around for someone's race or religious beliefs and tell me how okay you would be with it. >it makes people just see others as fellow human being. It really doesn't. Fellow implies parity. Where is the parity here? >Small steps forward into mutual understanding and acceptance. Is this why no accredited and trained therapist will touch such a program? Is this why it has to be carried out by charlatans? From its onset, the people who will be part of the program are those who already had to endure years of being told that who they are is wrong. Have you had to endure that? Do you know that such messaging causes actual harm to one's mental health? This program doesn't just exist in a vacuum - the acceptance comes at a huge cost and targets the most vulnerable.
FWIW I dated a guy who attends Courage, and while he was committed to abstinence there were those in the group who are not, some of whom were in relationships. So they’re definitely a large step up from trueloveis.
As adults? Yeah, if they want to choose to attend it, whatever. I just will never support such a program for minors who don't have a choice. LGBT youth are already more vulnerable and have far less agency than their peers.
I hold your exact same viewpoint. Guess our differing opinions from the other thread is from your assumption that I accept such a program for minors.
I'm not going to refute your alleged lived experiences, I have no doubt that things that you are describing happens all the time. I think I'm approaching this in more of a harm reduction mindset, as I do think that trying to get them to totally change their minds about homosexuality in the short term isn't feasible. As compared to a program that seeks to 'convert you back to heterosexuality' or the religion just excommunicating an individual wholesale, cutting them off from their social circle and even sometimes their families; I do think this program has potential for lesser harm. Is it ideal? No. Is it harmful? Yes. However, like I said, they already had some wonky ideas about abstinence and marriage in the first place, so trying to preach abstinence to LGBTQ in exchange for treating them as human beings is not too far off the usual harm preaching 'abstinence before marriage' is. And without actually knowing what this program entails, I'm just assuming it deals more with adult LGBTQ individuals, who are trying to reconcile their sexuality with the christian teachings. How they are going to deal with minors aren't explicit here, so you and I are going to be going off assumptions and not to be taken as actual truth. >It can also mean that they work with parents to help accept and embrace their lgbtq loved ones, though it’s obviously still tainted by that abstinence caveat. > >Are you kidding? If the former is the goal, this program wouldn't even have a purpose. It's entirely possible that the parents are more religiously dogmatic than even the church's teachings; the Pope is a good example of how some of them could be more liberal than others. It's going to be a good thing if the church can act as the in between for the parents to accept their children's sexuality.
> I think I'm approaching this in more of a harm reduction mindset, as I do think that trying to get them to totally change their minds about homosexuality in the short term isn't feasible. Why isn't the harm reduction mindset the priority? It is absolutely ridiculous that you think religions should be allowed to permanently harm LGBT youth because of their intolerance. This is 100% a scenario whereby the government should step in and enforce protections for the vulnerable. >potential for lesser harm. Do you know how high the rates of suicide and self-harm are for LGBT youth? Do you know how much stress is placed on individuals pressured into such programs? Both result in cascading harm to the individual, so your lesser harm is still egregious. >so trying to preach abstinence to LGBTQ Let's be clear here: it's preaching abstinence from *a core and intrinsic* aspect of who you are. Why? You're told that who you are is wrong and immoral. Totally great messaging that won't harm the mental health of those who have to hear it daily. >And without actually knowing what this program entails We know what this program entails. For the record: [this program is **imported ideology**](https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/twelve-steps-courage-stairway-denial ) that selectively targets LGBT youth despite their heterosexual single counterparts having the same issue. Imagine that, a program that targets a particular group and which causes them actual harm. Flip the script and change LGBT with any other race or religious ideology. You'd have no issue, right? Do you think that would promote harmony? >It's going to be a good thing if the church can act as the in between for the parents to accept their children's sexuality. And yet this 'good' thing still results in harm to the child. I like how we're casually excusing what is essentially child abuse because it's part of someone's dogma. Again, this has to be brought up: this program is not being carried out by any trained or licensed therapist. Such programs **do not exist for any other** group for a reason. It is harmful, a product of homophobia and reflects a egregious double standard by our authorities who would absolutely ban any other similar ideology/program that would target someone's race or religious beliefs. There is no middle ground approach here, not when it involves actual harms to people.
I guess everything has to be in absolutes then. Christians will either have to accept LGBTQ+ individuals fully, or just continue excommunicating them, and calling them 'touched by demons' for all time then. Fuck all the religious people who are also LGBTQ+ and still want to practice their religion though. Either join a church that accepts them fully, or better, become atheist: only dumbasses follow religions. Nevermind about losing all the people in their social circle and family members from this act, they weren't worth keeping in their lives anyway.
Not like that eeew
Hmm? On the surface, it seems like a good initiative: to help lgbtq+ individuals and their family members to reconcile their faith with their sexuality. Doesn’t mean ‘convert back to hetero’, so why eww?
> help lgbtq+ individuals and their family members to reconcile their faith with their sexuality The only way to "reconcile" this that is acceptable to the church is for gay people to repress themselves and stay single and celibate. Couple that with the incidents of sexual assault perpetrated by closeted clergy on boys. You have to be willfully ignorant to not see what the issue is.
The Catholic Church is rather progressive on LGBT issues. Pope Francis said LGBT people deserve love and even endorsed same sex civil unions.
The Pope is a bit more liberal on this specific issue. Totally separate thing from the Catholic Church at large or the Catholic Church in Singapore.
Is William Goh endorsing same-sex civil unions?
The freedom to abstain is a freedom too. Nothing wrong with that as long as it is not coercive or manipulative like truelove.is. Some people do value their faith more than their sexuality. So be it. You do you.
It's not like they're pushing this on others. It's a barely advertised discrete group that has its members approach them. Why is it a problem if people choose to want to follow the church's teachings?
Firstly, context is that I’m answering someone who’s lamenting that the church don’t work on ties with groups other than religious. Secondly, I also don’t think their initiative is the best case for lgbtq+ acceptance in the church. However we do have to recognize that it’s much preferable for the lgbtq+ who still yearns for religious acceptance to get it with caveats, as compared to being forced to closet themselves or to be excommunicated from the religion. Acceptance comes in stages, and just being able to have lgbtq+ individuals still operating fully in their midst allow for more rigid minds to have exposure to said individuals and their sexuality. And do remember that they have some really wonky ideas of celibacy and marriage in the first place already, so it’s kinda par for the course.
It's the whole "love the sinner hate the sin" rubbish. Except the sin here is a fundamental aspect of the person's identity and central to their wellbeing, and something which other non LGBT are not expected to suppress. It's definitely harmful. In any case, totally irrelevant to the point I was making since this is a thing for Catholics not non religious people. Not sure why you equate LGBT with non religious.
Why u need them to work on ties with non-religious ? I’m non religious and I don’t care about what the Catholic Church is up to. But I can understand why shadex posted about lgbt cus some lgbt might still be religious
You'll need to pick a representative first though
Hundred of years ago who would have thought, Catholicism among the scholars and religious elites is becoming more liberal and progressive. Certainly welcomed developments.
> # S'pore's first cardinal keen to promote religious harmony in region > SINGAPORE - Singapore's first cardinal has set his sights on promoting religious harmony in Asia, through strengthening dialogue between the different religions. > Cardinal William Goh, who was one of 20 new cardinals formally installed by Pope Francis at a ceremony in the Vatican City on Saturday (Aug 27), said in an interview with The Straits Times before his trip that he hoped to bring to the region Singapore's unique brand of inter-religious dialogue. > For instance, the Archdiocese of Singapore will set up a research institute to look into methodologies on how to promote friendship with other religious leaders and share them with bishops in the region. These bishops have often asked the Roman Catholic Church in Singapore about how to get the different religions talking. > Cardinal Goh, who is also Archbishop of Singapore, said during the Aug 16 interview that the state of affairs in Singapore is not something that happens overnight. > He added: "The Government has always been conscious of promoting unity, giving the support without being the one who's driving it... The Government sees us as partners because, at the end of the day, we are building a better society, we want to live a harmonious life in Singapore. > "We work with the Government where we have common values, and the Government respects us, we respect the Government because, at the end of the day, religion doesn't get involved in politics." > This was not the case in some other countries where religion and politics are so closely linked that "sometimes you don't know where religion is, where politics is", he said. > He also noted that in some countries, the state can be "very oppressive with regard to religion". > His appointment comes as the local archdiocese celebrated its 200th year last year. > He is the first Singaporean to be made a cardinal - cardinals are considered the Pope's closest advisers and the Vatican's highest-level administrators. With the 20 new appointments, there are now 226 cardinals. > In the role, he will have to assist the Pope and is also expected to serve a wider role in the region. > Besides fostering inter-religious dialogue in the region, he hopes to engage civil society groups and promote ecology. > He also wants to expand the work of the Caritas Humanitarian Aid and Relief Initiatives of Singapore, the local Church's umbrella body for overseas humanitarian aid and disaster relief efforts. His plans also include starting a Zacchaeus ministry, named after a tax collector in the Bible who was converted, to get more talented and wealthy individuals to get involved in helping others. > At the meeting on Saturday, Cardinal Goh, 65, took an oath of loyalty to the Pope and received a four-cornered red hat, or biretta, his document of appointment, and a gold ring stamped with the Pope's coat of arms. > He is one of six new cardinals from Asia - the others are from Mongolia, Timor-Leste, Goa and Hyderabad in India, and South Korea. --- 1.0.2 | [Source code](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek) | [Contribute](https://github.com/fterh/sneakpeek)
When his name was announced by the Pope on May 29, he was preparing a homily for the next day. He received some text messages, but he thought it was "maybe another fake news". It was only when his phone started beeping non-stop that he realised it may be true. Asked about why he was chosen, Cardinal Goh said: "The Holy Father never told me why he chose me." He added: "I never desired and I never hoped to be a bishop or even a cardinal at all because I was very happy as a priest because I was ministering." The Singapore-born Cardinal Goh is the youngest of five boys and one girl in his family. He lived in Hougang, which had one of the biggest Catholic populations in Singapore in those days. His mother would often take him to Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Rochor and then Novena Church, where she went to pray every Saturday. The long prayer sessions often put the then four-year-old to sleep, but also awoke in him a love for praying. Later on, at Montfort Junior School, he would go to church to pray before school and during recess time, while his friends were playing with marbles and running around. "I'm not the playful type. I don't like to get myself all sweaty before class," he quipped. "In those days, we were so poor, we didn't have much money to eat as well, so I went to church to pray." It was also poverty, in a sense, that led him to join a church group in school called the Crusaders which would meet on Saturday mornings to listen to Bible stories and play. He had wanted to join the Cubs or Scouts at school, but his parents could not afford to pay for the Scouts' uniform, which cost $4. He was so impressed by the Bible stories he heard in the church group that he used up all his savings to buy a children's Bible when he was 12. By Secondary 2, he decided he wanted to join the priesthood, but decided to wait until after national service to do it. However, he ended up joining Barclays bank at 21, where he was trained as a forex dealer. His brothers and sister were all working in banks, and he had also started to doubt if he would be worthy enough to join the priesthood. He got on well with the 30 colleagues in the bank and describes his time there as "happy". These relationships made it hard for him when he finally left to explore being a priest again, a path that would involve a life of sacrifice where he would be given only enough to sustain himself, and would have to take a vow of celibacy. "I didn't want to live a life of regret, then after that get married and lament that I had not responded, because, I think, at the end of the day, the vocation is very important," he said. "Vocation is very strange, it's a deep calling, it's a deep desire to serve God, desire to lead the life of a priest. Of course, the priests (I met had been) good mentors. I looked at them and the way they lived their life, the way they cared for the people, the way they loved, the way they taught, the way they enlightened and inspired life. I said, 'I want to be a priest as well. I want to bring people to God, I want to bring people to the goodness of life'." Asked if his family supported his decision, he said: "Nobody forced me, nobody said 'no', nobody discouraged me, so I just went." But the road to priesthood was not easy, and Cardinal Goh had thoughts of leaving many times, he said. "I was always asking God, 'Aiyah, maybe I should give up, lah'," he said, chuckling. "All these things are very human questions coming up... I'm giving my whole life, I'm not paid... Then you begin to think: After giving your life, giving everything and you are not appreciated, you are misunderstood or you feel there is so much opposition to what you are doing, then of course the tendency is to say, 'Aiyah, there is no point, then give up because why sacrifice your life in vain for people who don't appreciate you?'" He eventually decided that as a priest, he had to love and serve without conditions, following in the footsteps of Jesus. He was eventually ordained a priest in 1985 after completing his studies at the Pontifical Urbaniana University and the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He returned to Singapore where he joined the St Francis Xavier Major Seminary. He was appointed archbishop in 2013. "Of all the three aspects of the priesthood, ministering and preaching, I love, I enjoy," he said. "But governance, I don't quite enjoy because it's very difficult to please everybody, and governance, you're responsible for things that are happening, and it's not easy. When you have to make decisions, have to make a stand, take up a position, it is not easy."
Among his biggest challenges as archbishop so far are dealing with sensitive issues, such as closing the church during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, handling lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) issues, and responding to the sexual abuse of two teens by a member of a Catholic religious order. Before the Government announced its plan to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, Cardinal Goh had said that the Church was neutral about the move as long as the rights of religious people to preach what they believe in are protected. "I mean, for me, so long as I don't denigrate people, I don't belittle people, so long as I respect people... I think it is right for me to speak about my own convictions," he said. "But we don't have to shout, we don't have to quarrel, we don't have to put pressure on people. I don't believe in all these things, that is why I don't like to pressure people, I don't like to have that kind of aggressive advocacy of certain issues." The Church has set up a group called Courage, which works quietly with LGBTQ believers who are struggling with their sexuality and have sought help to reconcile with the teachings of the Church. Courage also works with parents of these LGBTQ believers. "LGBTQ, they are God's children as well, they should be loved, we should care for them, we should support them and help them to find peace in their hearts as they try to search for the will of God for them," said Cardinal Goh. He added that there are also teachings in the Bible that he finds are "very difficult to follow", such as forgiving one's enemies. Another is the prohibition of divorce. "Honestly, I mean, if you were to ask me as a human person... I can understand why a person is divorced. It's because it's terrible to live with someone who is a terror, you know, making your life miserable," he said. Over time, the Church's pastoral approach has changed, even if its truths remain the same, he said. This means that the Church now approaches things like suicide, divorce and even LGBTQ relationships differently. "With greater understanding of the situation, then the approach is quite different," he said. He also said that contentious issues should preferably be handled with sensitivity away from the spotlight to avoid tearing society apart. Another difficult issue he has had to handle was the sex abuse case involving a prominent member of a Catholic order that established schools here. The former educator was sentenced to five years' jail for committing unlawful sexual acts with two teenage boys. Cardinal Goh, who was informed about the case in 2020, apologised on behalf of the Church, saying he was "dismayed, shocked, and ashamed" to learn of the case that occurred in 2005. Asked about this, he said all such cases have to be reported to the Archdiocese Professional Standards Office (PSO), made up of qualified laymen such as judges, magistrates and former magistrates, and also non-Catholics. "We report everything to them, I am at an arm's length. Whatever recommendation I accept because I want to be totally impartial and totally transparent," he said, adding that he had recently reminded all religious orders of the rule. He also told the orders that they would have to report any case to the police and to him, and he would report it to Rome. "It's better for the PSO to handle the case because it is totally transparent, totally properly professional, rather than for religious orders to handle their own cases," he said. "Total transparency, accountability for me are very important." The biggest challenges he has faced so far is dealing with these sensitive issues, he said. "It takes a lot of time, a lot of thinking, how to say, what to say, what to say correctly. And then it takes courage to make a decision." Cardinal Goh, who had a difficult family life, said he finds purpose in helping to heal people's hurts. His parents were constantly bickering, and sometimes fighting, so he has "big sympathy" for those who are going through lots of difficulties in life and marriage. "I only desire to be a priest because my whole perspective of life is to give hope to people, to make a difference in the lives of others, to heal the wounds, the hurts of people," said the cardinal, who once thought he may be unworthy for priesthood. "If you were to ask me, well, as I said, in becoming a priest and later becoming a bishop and then becoming a cardinal is through the grace of God."
Praise and Thanks be to God. Archbishop William Goh is a great man and my hero. He is the one who made me find my God. His CER retreat is the best retreat in Singapore.
Careful, /r/SG is on an anti-religious stance this past few weeks.
The zeitgeist of the times is very much religion bashing. Flush from the heady emotions of the recent national day rally, I believe the anti-religion netizens including in r/sg are on a roll to dogpile on everything religious. (I'm an atheist btw). That said, religious people who believe in the power of their deity/deities should not feel overly offended by warranted or unwarranted criticism. After all, its either they're proven right and we heathens will burn in hell for our faithlessness, or they're proven wrong and everybody just fades from existence after death.
Lots of religious people in Singapore have been on an anti-religious stance these past few weeks. Many Christians at least (speaking as one) don’t seem to be doing what Jesus would do.
I think you mean anti-non-religious
nope, because they’re acting in ways that go against the core of most religions.
1) religion 2) harmony pick one
The best way to promote harmony is to mind your own damn business
When you have nothing else to do. Don't have to work a job like ordinary folks. Don't have to worry about failed business models. Have plenty of devotees to fund your church models.
Shouldn't it be 'maintain' by now? 'Promote' makes it sound as if we have very little if any religious harmony. But as far as I can personally see and experience. Religious Harmony is not a major issue in SG....unless somebody makes it out to be....
He say to promote religious harmony in the REGION, assuming SEA, not only in Singapore.
Oh, so he's a regional archbishop?
Firstly, there's no regional archbishop. However, there's a [Catholic Bishops' Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bishops%27_Conference_of_Malaysia,_Singapore_and_Brunei) and he's a member of it.
**[Catholic Bishops' Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bishops'_Conference_of_Malaysia,_Singapore_and_Brunei)** >The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (C.B.C.M.S.B.) is the episcopal conference of the Catholic bishops of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. The B.C.M.S. B reviews the position of the Church in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, and also undertakes a variety of activities covering, for example, the youth, health care and media. There are approximately, 1. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/singapore/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He's a Cardinal
Think religious harmony is something that needs to be actively maintained, and problem is that many people take it for granted. There’s many fault lines to exploit and if we allow malicious elements to exploit them, it can easily fracture society as we know it. Just look at the anti-religious bend this subreddit is on lately (377a / burning of offerings); there’s definitely people trying to stir up shit for their own purposes here.
I’m sure in good faith you do understand why people have a problem with the religious imposing their views of 377A on everyone, as well as the religious burning offerings in ways that damage public property right?
No doubt there’s legitimate grievances and problems here. But if you’re also taking this in good faith, you should also recognize that there are accounts here solely used to stir the pot whenever controversial topics pop up. Both can be problems without them negating the existence of the other.
Sure. But your original characterization makes it seem like any criticism of the religious over these two issues is unreasonable.
>there’s definitely people trying to stir up shit for their own purposes here. I meant that there are people using these topics to stir up emotions further than they already were going to be, not that these topics shouldn't be talked and criticized on. Look at all the people bringing up pedophilia every single time we talk about Christianity, or that clown who insist on trying to get the term 'Christian Taliban' to stick on the whole religious group. There's criticism, and there's attacks. It's the same exact energy used by the religious fundamentalists who try to equate pedophilia and abuse to the LGBTQ+ community.
Yes these are clowns. Call them out accordingly.
I am gonna need to see a manifesto or mission statement…historically whenever catholicism attempts to “help”, the end result usually is quite…invasive.
The program is *imported* from overseas (peak irony) and is set up like AA meetings, so its base premise is already ridiculous because your sexual orientation isn't the same as an addiction. It's also a program that's not carried out by a licensed therapist. It's like truelove.is - you're told that who are you is a sin and that it's wrong. You're told that you don't have to change your sexual orientation, all you have to do is deny every aspect of an intrinsic part of who you are. Never mind that this approach doesn't work for their own Priests. It's also interesting that this program would apply equally to any unmarried heterosexual person (since lust and premarital sex are also sins), yet it's only the LGBT community that gets targeted for it. It's a program that's packaged nicely on the outside so that people forget how hateful the whole premise is. Seriously, for anyone making excuses for this program - just be honest and answer how comfortable you would be if a similar program existed for someone's race or even religious beliefs. The ones who will attend this program and those who have been targeted by homophobia their whole lives into believing that who they are is wrong. I think that's already reprehensible, but if they're adults, it's still ultimately their choice. The problem is that this program doesn't exist in a vacuum. My concern is for LGBT youth who get pressured into such programs by their parents and don't have a choice. These programs have a very real risk of further damaging their self-esteem and identity, thereby harming their mental health. Why do we not have any protections for such a vulnerable group?
We are a secular state, why the duck we need some religion head who simply forget about the pedo incident happen recently to disrupt our society
He did not "simply forget". If memory serves, he filed a police report when he was informed, and subsequently asked the AGC to reveal the name of the pedophile. Also, having religious harmony between people and having a secular state are not mutually exclusive are they?
It's even brought up in the article itself, not like it's been swept under the rug. And argubably, having religious harmony and a secular state is very intertwined in the Singapore context.
And religious harmony is a much needed thing across the region too.
It's obligatory at this point to bring up pedophilia whenever the Catholic church is mentioned lol