Symbolising all that was wrong with the Old Mass for the “reformers” was undoubtedly the use of Latin,²⁰ which, the argument went, smacked of elitism since the priest’s monopoly over the proceedings would be necessary as only he understood the language.

Worse still, parts of the classical liturgy like the Dies Irae²¹ “conveyed wrong ideas of God and sin to young people”²² and should thus be abolished. In a particularly extreme (and sad) example, a letter to The Catholic News expressed “disgust and nausea” upon hearing Latin (still) being sung at a particular church. The writer further declared that he “left the Church nauseated and full of regret upon hearing the familiar tune of the O Salutaris Hostia”²³ and hoped, in no less a call for a revival of an inquisition, that “the authorities will look into the deplorable state of affairs that exist“²⁴. The bitter reactions both for and against these new liturgical reforms amply demonstrated the cultural and spiritual upheaval experienced by Singaporean Catholics.²⁵

Always let your conscience be your guide?

What seemed to have unleashed a torrent of open defiance however, especially around the more developed parts of the Catholic world, was Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae which reiterated the Church’s traditional position of rejecting the use of contraceptives, disappointing those who hoped it would say the opposite.²⁶

Singapore Catholics seemed also to have anticipated a change in teaching. As late as 1965, The Catholic News in its front page still proclaimed that “artificial birth control was not the answer”²⁷. However, by 1967, its editorial was advising Catholics to “follow their conscience” when deciding on the permissibility of contraception.²⁸

The dissent which followed was unprecedented. Within days upon the publication of the encyclical, a group of 200 theologians took out an advertisement in The New York Times calling Pope Paul’s position a mistake which Catholics could (and should) ignore if they so chose to.²⁹