Letter to an Abbot
regarding Obedience
May 6, 2009
Abbot Joseph
xxxxxx Monastery
xxx, U. S. A.
Dear Abbot Joseph,
With much joy and respect, I write
this letter to you, the reverend Abbot of a holy monastery, at the
suggestion of Ms. xxxxx, who recently came back from a pilgrimage to Naju,
Korea. She sent me a copy of your letter to her dated April 24, 2009, in
which you emphasized the need for obedience to the local Bishop in the
Naju area.
Below, I write my thoughts about
OBEDIENCE, especially, in relation to the situation in Naju, Korea for
your review and guidance, as it was the main subject in your letter to Ms.
xxxxx.
THE IMPORTANCE OF OBEDIENCE IN THE
CATHOLIC LIFE
I fully accept your emphasis on the
importance of obedience in our Catholic life. The main fault of the
fallen angels was disobedience and rebellion against God. The essence of
our first parents’ sin was also disobedience. In contrast, Our Lord was
totally obedient to the Father’s Will to the extent of offering up His
Life in reparation for all human sins and taught His disciples to carry
their own crosses in imitation of His obedience and self-denial. I also
believe that what is causing disorder in the Church and leading the world
to more corruption and destruction is the spirit of disobedience and
rebellion against God and His Laws. I believe that it is of paramount
importance for all the members of the Church to be truly and totally
obedient to God’s supreme authority and His Will as well as to His
teachings and authority entrusted to the Church for the goal of restoring
order and peace in this world. This means that, even when we, the
individual members of the Church, do not fully understand or agree with
the shepherds of the Church regarding their teachings and examples, we
must not make rash judgments but remain obedient to and respectful of the
shepherds until it becomes objectively and abundantly clear that their
teachings and examples seriously deviate from the authentic Church
teachings and, thus, our obeying them will make us disobedient to the
higher authorities in the Church as well as to God Himself. It must be
recognized, especially in this age of widespread errors and lack of
discipline in the Church, that, even though the ministers in the Church
are entrusted with the divine mission of and authority for teaching the
truths and administering the Sacraments to the faithful and, therefore,
surely deserve genuine obedience and respect from the faithful, they are
not automatically free from errors and injustice, as they also have their
free will and are in the process of working on the difficult task of the
sanctification of their souls. Just as they can reach lofty levels of
sanctity by properly cooperating with the special and abundant graces from
the Lord, they can become infected with errors if they are not humble and
are negligent in cooperating with the graces from the Lord. When the
errors and injustice in the shepherds’ teachings and orders seem serious
and persistent based on our consciences and the Faith which we received
from the Church, we can seek their corrections, first by communicating
directly and quietly with those who are responsible for the problems and,
if this does not work, by seeking help from the higher authorities in the
Church. Also, as a major cause of the widespread errors and lack of
discipline in the Church has been the faithful’s ignorance about the true
Church teachings, a substantial reinforcement of the catechetical
education would be essential. The Church teaches us that we must always
be faithful to the truths as follows:
This presence of Christ in the
minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all
human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church #1550)
We cannot do anything against the
truth, but only for the truth. (2 Corinthians 13:8)
A human being must always obey
the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act
against it, he would condemn himself. (Catechism #1790)
Yet the Magisterium is not
superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has
been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy
Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and
expounds it faithfully. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #86)
Thus, if our shepherds clearly
mislead us with their teachings and examples that are contrary to the
Lord’s teachings, we do not owe obedience to them regarding such teachings
and examples. If we do obey them in such cases, we would contradict our
consciences and God’s teachings and thus commit sin. Nestorius of
Constantinople in the 5th Century rejected the doctrine of Our
Lady’s Divine Motherhood, because he did not believe in the hypostatic
union of the Lord’s divine nature and human nature under His one Divine
Person. Should the faithful in Constantinople have obeyed their Bishop
(or Patriarch) on this issue? In the 16th Century, the kings of the local
lands in Germany chose either Catholicism or Protestantism and required
all their subjects to accept the religion they chose. In England, the
whole nation was ordered by its King or Queen to follow them. In those
cases where the local kings chose to accept the Protestant faith,
rejecting the supremacy of the Pope, should the people have obeyed them?
Numerous individuals remained loyal to the Pope and were martyred. Many
of them have been elevated to the Sainthood.
Of course, I am not suggesting that
we should develop a habit of doubting every word we hear from our priests
and even our Bishops or making an issue of even a minor problem, a slip of
tongue, or a temporary confusion that can happen to anyone. Before we can
deal with a certain problem concerning the clergy at the public level, we
must first discern if the problem is a truly serious violation of the
Church teachings and if the problem is persistent.
SOME ELABORATIONS ON THE
SITUATION IN NAJU
1.
In the Kwangju Archbishop’s Decree issued on
January 21, 2008, there is no mention of the excommunication of Julia
Kim. The Decree only said: “The clergy, religious or lay
people who hold or participate in the administration of the Sacraments or
the celebrations of the Sacramentals, which I have prohibited, at the
unauthorized ‘chapel’ or ‘the Blessed Mother’s Mountain’ incur the penalty
of automatic excommunication. . . This (penalty) applies not only to the
faithful who belong to the Kwangju Archdiocese but also to any of the
clergy, religious, and lay people in the Catholic Church.” The
Kwangju Archbishop issued this Decree to discourage people inside
Korea and abroad from making pilgrimages to Naju. It is questionable,
however, that a local bishop has the authority to excommunicate people
(including the Bishops and priests) from other dioceses.
2.
The Kwangju Archbishop’s Decree of January
21, 2008 was only one of the documents he issued for the purpose of
defending the Declaration which had also been issued by the same
diocese on January 1, 1998. In this Declaration, the Kwangju
Archbishop condemned the messages and signs in Naju on the ground that
they violated the official teachings of the Catholic Church. For example,
(1) he said that the alleged changes in the Eucharistic species of
bread and wine into flesh and blood were in conflict with the Church
teaching that says that the species of bread and wine must remain
unchanged even after the consecration by a priest. This statement in
the Declaration, however, is itself an error, because the authentic
Church teaching only says that the priest’s consecration has the effect of
changing the substances of bread and wine into the substances of Our
Lord’s Body and Blood but does not have the effect of changing the species
of bread and wine into the species of body and blood. This Church
teaching only explains what normally happens during the Eucharistic
consecration and is not intended to explain what can or cannot happen
after the consecration is completed. The Kwangju Archbishop’s
Declaration rejects the possibility of miracles by saying that the
Eucharistic species must remain unchanged after the consecration, which
would violate the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the miracles
(DS #3009 and #3034) and distorts the Church teaching on the Eucharist by
adding a meaning that the species of bread and wine must remain unchanged
even after the consecration, which is not contained in the Church
teaching. (2) Secondly, the Declaration also says that the alleged
descents of the Eucharist from above are in conflict with the Church
teaching that says that the Eucharist can begin to exist only through
the consecration by a validly-ordained priest. This statement is also
an error, because, what the Fourth Lateran Council taught was that the
validly-ordained priests only, not the lay people, the clericals of the
reformed churches, and others, have received the power of Eucharistic
consecration. The Council teaching was never intended to preclude the
miraculous Communions administered by Our Lord Himself or angels. If the
Kwangju Archbishop’s teachings were correct, all of the miraculous changes
of the Eucharistic species and all of the miraculous Communions in Church
history, many of which have already been officially approved by the
Church, would have to be rejected.
Since the doctrinal bases for
condemning the events in Naju in the Declaration and for the
penalties declared in the Decree are the same and incorrect, both
the condemnation of the events in Naju in the Declaration and the
penalties stated in the Decree can be considered invalid for the
same reasons. It is unthinkable that any laws in the Church that violate
the official Church teachings are binding. Of course, this judgment is,
at this stage, a private one. Nevertheless, this private discernment has
been repeatedly presented to the Holy See. If it is wrong, the Holy See
must have cracked it down long ago. When it is confirmed as the official
position of the Holy See, the question of Naju will be resolved.
3.
On February 14, 2008, three weeks after the
Decree was issued on January 21, 2008, Fr. Aloysius Hong-Bin Chang
(the priest who was excardinated by the Decree from the Kwangju
Archdiocese for his continuing belief in the truthfulness of the events in
Naju) and myself (as Fr. Chang’s interpreter) visited the Holy See and
presented Fr. Chang’s Appeal documents to the three Congregations for the
Evangelization of Peoples, for the Doctrine of the Faith, and for the
Clergy. We were warmly received by the monsignors and priests in all three
Congregations, who mentioned that they were familiar with the situation in
Naju. We were also informed that the Holy See office that has the
competence of handling the Naju case would be the Congregation for the
Evangelization of Peoples, as this Congregation is primarily responsible
for overseeing and guiding the Church in Korea, which is still considered
a mission territory. On February 16, 2008, Fr. Aloysius Chang and I had
an audience with His Eminence Ivan Cardinal Dias, Prefect of the
Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, who had just returned from
China. His Eminence was most kind and encouraging, saying, “Do not
worry but be patient. Keep praying that the Blessed Mother may remove
the remaining obstacles.” His Eminence also said that the issue
concerning Fr. Chang would be resolved quite promptly, while the general
question of Naju would take more time. On February 18, our last day
in Rome, we received an urgent phone call from Naju informing us that the
liberal Bishops and priests in Korea were pushing a proposal in the Korean
Bishops’ Conference, which was in session at that time, to make the
Bishops’ Conference issue a declaration in support of the Kwangju
Archbishop’s Decree. After learning about this through the
Apostolic Nunciature in Seoul, Cardinal Dias sent an urgent message to the
President of the Korean Bishops’ Conference not to issue any document to
support the Decree. This was an important victory for the Blessed
Mother. A few months later, His Eminence sent a letter to the Kwangju
Archbishop informing him that the restrictions could not apply to the
pilgrims in Naju, because the events in Naju were considered “private
revelations” and also that the penalties on Fr. Aloysius Chang should be
lifted and Fr. Chang could celebrate Mass. This was another victory
for the Blessed Mother of Naju. Below, I quote from the Canon Laws:
When there is a doubt of law,
laws do not bind even if they be nullifying and disqualifying ones.
(Canon Law: #14)
An appeal suspends
the execution of a sentence. (Canon Law #1638)
Despite these, many false rumors are
still rampantly circulating inside and outside Korea and numerous people
hesitate to visit Naju in fear of excommunication.
4.
Julia Kim has been obedient to the Church in the
past 24 years since 1985 when the messages and miraculous signs began.
When signs such as tears and tears of blood from the Blessed Mother’s
statue are observed and the Eucharistic species of bread and wine turning
into visible flesh and blood, these need to be promptly reported to the
local church authority and scientific tests need to be conducted without
delay, because the miraculous evidence may not last long—tears may dry up,
for example. Throughout the 24 year period, the Kwangju Archdiocese has
not ordered a single scientific test, which is a grave neglect and even a
despise of the possibility of divine intervention. The diocesan
investigation committee was hurriedly organized at the end of 1994, ten
years after the beginning of the messages and signs, after the Apostolic
Nuncio made a visit to Naju on November 24, 1994. The testimonies and
opinions of countless witnesses including those of the Holy Father, Pope
John Paul II, several Bishops, and many priests and lay people have been
ignored. Even so, Julia patiently and obediently waited for the objective
and sincere investigation by the local diocese. The investigation
committee was dominated by several radically liberal priests and made a
negative recommendation to the Archbishop at the end of 1997, but Julia
continued to be obedient to the local Bishop, confining herself to a small
private room on the second floor of her home and not meeting the pilgrims
for five years until 2003. Only when it became clear beyond any doubt
that the local Bishop and priests were not interested in an objective
discernment of Naju at all but were only determined to crush and bury Naju,
she resumed giving testimonies to the pilgrims. She thought that keeping
her mouth closed further would be to ignore and neglect the call from Our
Lord and Our Lady. Also knowing that the Holy See was strongly inclined
to see Naju approved and was seriously disturbed by the negligence and
irresponsibility of the Church leaders in Korea, Julia decided that she
should be more obedient to the Holy See than to the opposing local
clergy. In 2001, Julia learned that Pope John Paul II had recognized the
Eucharistic miracle during the Mass in his private chapel on October 31,
1995 (as explained below). This does not mean that there were no
supporters for Naju among the Bishops and priests in Korea. Most of the
supporting Bishops, however, have retired and those priests loyal to the
traditional and authentic Church teachings remain silent, overwhelmed by
the younger, secularized priests.
5.
Evidence of support from the Holy See:
a.
During the Korean Bishops’ ad limina visit to
the Holy See in 1991, Archbishop Victorinus Youn of Kwangju said to Pope
John Paul II, “In my diocese, a statue of the Blessed Mother is
shedding tears.” The Holy Father answered, “In such cases, it is
important to observe the fruits.” Archbishop Youn was friendly to
Julia and, even though he never visited Naju, did not forbid others’
visits to Naju. Eventually, however, he was forced by the liberal priests
to accept the Declaration on Naju. He was succeeded by Archbishop
Andrew Chang-Mu Choi as the Ordinary of Kwangju in 2001. The new
Archbishop has repeatedly issued official documents to support his
predecessor’s Declaration and imposed more restrictions on Naju.
He also appointed a new Pastor in Naju (Fr. Luke Hong-Chul Song), who
vowed to put an end to Naju.
b.
During the Korean Bishops’ ad limina visit in
1996, the Holy Father asked the Korean Bishops to “share the wonderful
graces (in Naju) with others in Asia.”
c.
During the Korean Bishops’ ad limina visit in
2001, the Holy Father asked Bishop William McNaughton of the Incheon
Diocese in Korea what he thought about Naju. Bishop McNaughton answered
that he believed in the truthfulness of Naju. The Holy Father answered, “I
also saw the change of the Eucharist in Julia’s mouth,” referring to
what he witnessed on October 31, 1995.
d.
On March 31, 2001, I received a phone call from
Bishop Paul Kim of the Cheju Diocese in Korea. He had just returned from
the ad limina visit in early March 2001. His Excellency explained
to me for over 30 minutes on the phone describing what had happened during
the ad limina visit. During a lunch meeting with the Korean
Bishops, the Holy Father asked, “What is the situation in Naju?”
It was obvious that the Holy Father was asking the Korean Bishops what
they had done to carry out his earlier request in 1996 to share the
graces in Naju with others in Asia. A long, uncomfortable silence
continued. What could the Bishops say to the Holy Father after they had
condemned Naju (with the Declaration of January 1, 1998), which was
a complete opposite of what the Holy Father had asked them to do five
years earlier? Archbishop Victorinus Youn of Kwangju was there, too, with
an uncomfortable expression on his face and not saying a word. Finally,
Bishop Paul Kim, sitting next to the Holy Father, broke the silence, “Your
Holiness, may I make a detailed report after the lunch.” So, after
the lunch, Bishop Kim spent about an hour informing the Holy Father about
the situation in Naju and the Church in Korea as a whole. After hearing
the Bishop’s report, the Holy Father expressed a great joy and
satisfaction, making a big smile (despite some difficulty because of his
illness) and embracing the Bishop. The Holy Father said that he would
give instructions to the proper office, which probably was the
Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. This information through
Bishop Paul Kim gave a powerful joy and encouragement to many of the
faithful in Korea, as it was a clear sign that the official approval of
Naju was not far off. In May of the same year, the photographs of the
Eucharistic miracle through Julia on October 31, 1995 during the Mass
celebrated by the Holy Father were displayed in St. Michael’s Church,
located several miles north of San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, the shrine of
St. Padre Pio, along with the photographs of the miracle in Lanciano in
the 8th Century and other approved Eucharistic miracles in
Church history. Simultaneously, a major Catholic TV station in Italy
aired a program called “Miracoli” all over Italy, which included
many photographs and explanations of Naju. The Italian pilgrimage guide
said that such a public display and TV broadcasting involving the Holy
Father would be impossible without a prior permission from the Holy See.
We understood these as clear signs from the Holy See especially to the
Church leaders in Korea to accept and recognize Naju as soon as possible.
Now, we are in 2009, eight years have passed since the powerful signal
from the Holy See, but we still see the Church in Korea adamantly opposed
to Naju and defiant to the guidance from the Holy See. This is really
difficult to believe, especially in Korea which had been a shining example
for the whole world of fervent and authentic faith as well as overflowing
priestly and religious vocations and the home of twenty thousand martyrs
in the 18th and 19th Centuries. A few months after the Kwangju
Archdiocese’s Declaration was announced on January 1, 1998, the
Holy See (the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples) issued a
letter to the Korean Bishops’ Conference with a warning to three priests
in Korea for their doctrinal errors. These priests have not repented at
all and are still actively spreading their errors. One of them was a
leading member of the Kwangju Archdiocese’s Naju Investigating Committee
and played a key role in the Committee’s reaching a negative decision on
Naju. Especially since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church in
Korea has implemented numerous reforms in theology, liturgy, and more, to
make the Church more acceptable to the Protestant brethren. Especially,
the radically liberal priests, many of whom were educated in Germany and
studied the Liberation Theology, have the dominant influence on the
Church in Korea. These priests consider the traditional Church teachings
and traditions obsolete and are driven by a spirit quite different than
that of the Holy Spirit. They have criticized The Catechism of the
Catholic Church and vowed that Naju would not be approved as long as
they live. These priests are not humble before the Holy Father and even
their Bishops, but are demanding blind obedience from the lay people.
They are destroying the Church from the inside with their human agenda and
are even proud of what they are doing.
e.
Another Eucharistic miracle through Julia at Sacred
Heart Cathedral in Sibu, Malaysia, on September 17, 1996, was formally
approved by the local bishop, Bishop Dominic Su, in his letter to the
Apostolic Nuncio in Korea. This has also been totally ignored by the
Kwangju Archdiocese. Instead, the Kwangju Archdiocese has been sending
letters to many Bishops in other countries asking them to discourage
pilgrimages to Naju
I am enclosing two articles: (1)
A BATTLE FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN KOREA between
the Blessed Mother and Satan; and (2) A
CHRONOLOGY OF THE CHURCH RESPONSES THE CHURCH RESPONSES TO THE REPORTED
SUPERNATURAL EVENTS IN NAJU, which were among the documents submitted
to the Holy See.
Since April 2008, the main responsibility of
handling the Naju question was transferred from the Congregation for the
Evangelization of Peoples to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, as it has been recognized by the Holy See that the key issues
concerning Naju are doctrinal. It has also become clear that the Korean
Church leaders are resistant and even defiant to the guidance and
instructions from their immediate superior in the Holy See, the Prefect of
the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. So, we are waiting
for the official announcement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith. The Holy See has waited for the Korean Church to voluntarily
correct the doctrinal problems, but has not done so. The only remaining
option is a correction by the Holy See. We believe that the approval of
Naju will be an enormous stimulus to the genuine renewal of the universal
Church and the revitalization of her worldwide missionary efforts.
Thank you so much.
Sincerely yours,
Benedict Sang M. Lee
Enclosures