Archbishop of Canterbury meets The Pope

This is one for the photo album. A historic meeting between the two leaders after the Pope had invited disaffected Anglicans to the Catholic Church. But it's positive to see these two great men talking in the face of increasing secularism in our societies despite of their differences (think women bishops and same sex marriages). King Henry VIII and Martin Luther must be rolling in their graves. Hah.

===========================================================================
The Archbishop of Canterbury has held his first talks with Pope Benedict XVI since the Roman Catholic Church's unprecedented invitation to disaffected Anglicans, with the Vatican saying the two sides still want to press ahead for closer relations.

Archbishop Rowan Williams and Benedict met privately for 20 minutes on Saturday in what the Vatican called "cordial discussions" as part of what has clearly been a difficult visit by the Anglican leader.

The Vatican said in a brief statement that the two leaders "turned to the challenges facing all Christian communities" and the need "to promote forms of collaboration and shared witness in facing these challenges".

Referring to the recent overture for traditional Anglicans upset over the ordination of women and gay bishops to become Catholics, it said the talks reiterated "the shared will to continue and to consolidate the ecumenical relationship between Catholics and Anglicans".

Pope gifts Archbishop gold cross and denies 'poaching' converts

The Vatican said the Pope presented the Archbishop with a gold bishop's cross as a gift.

There was no immediate comment from the Anglican side and the Vatican declined to elaborate.

Since coming to Rome on Thursday, Williams has sought to downplay the implications of the Vatican's unprecedented invitation.

The Vatican says it was merely responding to the many Anglican requests to join the Catholic Church and has denied it was poaching converts in the Anglican pond.

But the move has already strained Catholic-Anglican relations and is sure to affect Williams' 77-million worldwide Anglican Communion, which was already on the verge of schism over homosexuality and women's ordination before the Vatican intervened.

Williams refers to 'elephant in the room'

In a speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Williams was gracious in referring to the Vatican's new policy, which he called the "elephant in the room". The policy was an "imaginative pastoral response" to requests by some Anglicans but broke no new doctrinal ground, Williams said.

He spent the bulk of his speech describing the progress that had been achieved so far in decades of Vatican-Anglican ecumenical talks and questioning whether the outstanding issues were really all that great.

Anglicans split from Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment. For decades, the two churches have held theological discussions on trying to reunite, part of the Vatican's broader, long-term ecumenical effort to unify all Christians.

But differences remain and the ecumenical talks were going nowhere as divisions mounted between liberals and traditionalists within the Anglican Communion itself.

The new policy allows Anglicans to convert to Catholicism but retain many of their Anglican liturgical traditions, including married priests. The Vatican will create the equivalent of new dioceses, so-called personal ordinariates, for these former Anglicans to be headed by a former Anglican priest or bishop.

Estimates on the number of possible converts has ranged from a few hundred to thousands.

Williams - the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion - wasn't informed of the change until right before it was announced.

It remains to be seen how the new policy will affect Pope Benedict XVI's planned trip to Britain next year. Saturday's Vatican statement did not mention it.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1137362/Pope-meets-Archbishop-of-Canterbury

New Video from Notorape.com

A Petition: No To Rape

This petition have been floating around for some time and somehow can't seem to gather much moss like the debates we had with the attempted repeals of Section 377A (or anal sex acts between consenting males). I have signed the petition as a Singaporean and as Christian; it is the right thing to do as women should not be expose to the fear of unpunished domestic violence and God had urged man and wife to treat one another with equal respect.

I will not attempt to rephrase the intention of this petition. It has been clearly and adequately put across by www.notorape.com and reproduced here:

The Penal Code currently provides loopholes to the offence of rape if the perpetrator and victim are married.

Section 375(4), known as the “marital rape exemption”, provides that non-consensual penetration by a man of his wife’s vagina, using his penis (“marital rape”), will not constitute the offence of “rape” except in limited circumstances.

Section 376A(5) provides a “marital rape exemption” whereby this offence is not committed by a man who uses his penis to penetrate the vagina of a girl who is under the age of 16, provided they are married to each other.

Every human being deserves the protection of the law from violence.

We propose the repeal of both Section 375(4) and Section 376A(5) so that the same penalties will be available to a court upon conviction of a perpetrator of marital rape, as with any other kind of rape.

Abolishing these exemptions will make the law consistent with criminalising violence to protect all individuals in Singapore society.

If like me, you agree with the advocators of this movement, please lend your voice by signing the petition. I believe that we can make a positive contribution here.

On a related note, Terence Lee of www.irreligiously.blogspot.com has questioned the Christian community on their involvement in the movement. Specifically, the involvement of certain personalities who have been rather forceful in their attempt to keep 377A. By and large, they have remained rather quiet in this discussion, perhaps not as important and perhaps not as sensational, but I think Terence Lee raised a valid by questioning their silence. He termed it "blatant hypocrisy"; I call it an obession on their part (with gays of course).

In any case, their silence notwithstanding, I hope fellow Christians will at least give the case of the petitioners a read and judge for themselves. It's only with the participation of fellow believers in such social issues that we can shape a better Singapore. The petition ends on 30th Nov 09. To God be the Glory.

Between a Cathedral and a Club

Haven't got much inspiration to write these few days, am feeling lethargic, maybe the crazy weather is getting into my bones. This article below caught my eye, a minor disagreement between a Cathedral and a dance club in KL, Malaysia. In land-locked, it won't be surprising if we had a similar problem. Fair enough, St John's Cathedral did raise some valid on how the club would disrupt the activities of church-goers, but this could also be an opportunity for the church to involve their church members and recruit more members. If this happened in Singapore, I hope we can solve it amicably and capitalise on the situation.


Club too close for church's comfort

They fear that the new club will disrupt their activities and also the serenity of the church. -NST

Wed, Oct 14, 2009
New Straits Times

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Parishioners of St John's Cathedral in the city are not pleased that a new entertainment club is set to open in front of their cathedral.

They fear that the new club, which is located in Jalan Gereja, will disrupt their activities and also the serenity of the church.

The parishioners are also afraid that there will be a repeat of what happened several years ago when another club was operating at the same place.

The new club is located at the same lot where the popular 11 LA and Boom Boom Room used to operate in the 1990s.

The parishioners claimed that previously, some of the patrons were rowdy and they drank and urinated in public. Fights also broke out between patrons.

A member of the St John's Cathedral parish pastoral council, Leonard Teoh, 68, said the cathedral and its parishioners were against the idea of having a club in their vicinity.

"What we were told was that there was an application put in for a restaurant. We had no idea that there was going to be a club. This is our place of worship and there should not be a club here," he said.

"The location of the club is too close to the church. We have prayer meetings on weekdays and we are afraid that the din from the club will disrupt our activities."

Teoh said club patrons had also inconvenienced churchgoers when they parked their vehicles in front of the cathedral's entrance.

"There is also a grotto of Our Lady near the entrance of the cathedral where parishioners come to light candles and pray. We don't want people parking their vehicles there," he said.

Parishioner S. A. Fernandez said that activities at the cathedral would be disrupted if the club was allowed to operate.

"The main road leading into Bukit Nanas is very narrow. An entertainment club in Lorong Gereja will add to the massive congestion in Bukit Nanas."

One of the club owners, Brian Suresh, 34, said he and his partners were willing to sit down and work things out with the cathedral's committee members.

Suresh, who is a Catholic, said he understood the plight of the parishioners.

"We understand that previously some of the patrons were unruly but we can reassure the parishioners that they have nothing to worry about. We will adjust the volume of the music when there are church activities, especially during the midnight mass on Christmas and New Year's eve. We will also deploy our security guards outside the church to ensure our patrons don't park in front of the cathedral," he said.

Suresh said that the club's operating hours would be between 9pm to 3am.

"We will not exceed the stipulated time that was given by the local authority," he said.

Suresh said that he had sought a meeting with the cathedral members but they had refused to meet him.

"We have contacted the cathedral office to ask for an appointment, but they refused to entertain us. We just want to explain to them that our operations will not interfere with their programmes," he said.

In a statement to Streets, City Hall said that the club had been given a licence for its premises but it had not been issued an entertainment licence.

NEW STRAITS TIMES