IN DEFENSE OF THE TRUTH
AND TEACHING AUTHORITY
IN THE CHURCH

As many of our readers know already, the local Archbishop in the Naju area made it official on January 1, 1998, that the events in Naju contradicted the Church doctrines and, therefore, could not be recognized as true revelations from God.

Serious questions remain, however, because it has become clear that the Naju Investigating Committee in the Kwangju Archdiocese did not conduct any substantive investigation and based its negative recommendation on an incorrect presentation of the Church teaching (See our Special Issues, 1998 #1, #2 and #3 for more details). No one is questioning the legitimacy of the teaching and pastoral authority of the bishop in Kwangju in his diocese and his responsibility to the universal Church. Regardless of the current situation, we have a deep respect and love for him as a true successor of Our Lord’s Apostles. However, we cannot keep our consciences closed, when we see the Lord’s truth misrepresented and the facts ignored. When Our Lord was condemned by the religious and civil authorities two thousand years ago, most of His followers ran away, which caused more pain to Our Lord. We must not fear criticism, because the truth comes from God and must be defended at all costs.

By seeking conformity between the exercise of the teaching authority and the authentic teachings of the Church, we can truly defend the teaching authority in the Church, because deviation from the true teachings of God is so harmful to the integrity of the teaching authority. The Church teaches that the role of the teaching authority in the Church is to guarantee the faithful the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #890) and that the teaching authority is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant; it teaches only what has been handed on to it (#86). The Church also states that the faithful have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful (Code of Canon Law, Article 212, #2 and #3).

The subject of Naju still is the responsibility of the bishop in Kwangju and also the Korean Bishops’ Conference under the guidance of the Holy See. Of course, the episcopal authority is always subject to the supreme authority of the Pope. Through several channels, we have learned that the Holy See is very well informed of the situation in Korea and is deeply concerned. We have no doubt that the current problems will be corrected with the unfailing help of Our Lady.

However, this does not mean that we can relax and just wait for the official action to be taken by the Church. It is essential that we continue responding to the Blessed Mother’s requests, practicing and spreading her messages. Without devoted work and fervent prayers by the faithful, God’s blessings through His signs as well as the official recognition by the Church can be delayed. Active participation in this work is needed not only in Korea but in all parts of the world. On July 13, 1997, the Blessed Mother made it clear that the signs in Naju are for the whole Church. In fact, until now, the Blessed Mother’s messages and signs in Naju have been better accepted outside Korea.

As explained in our recent Special Issues, the Kwangju Declaration states that the species of bread and wine must remain unchanged even after the consecration of bread and wine by priests and, therefore, that the Eucharistic miracles in Naju do not conform to the Church doctrine. By distorting the authentic Church teaching, this assertion precludes the possibility of divine intervention to reveal the true reality of the Blessed Sacrament, which is the substantial presence of the Lord’s Body and Blood together with His Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist and, therefore, in effect rejects all of the Eucharistic miracles in Church history. If all the Eucharistic miracles are rejected, people’s faith in the Church teaching on the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist will also weaken. Thus, the Kwangju Declaration on Naju contains an encroachment on the Church teaching on the Eucharist itself.

In fact, the leading theologian of the Naju Investigating Committee revealed the true motive behind the Committee’s rejection of the Eucharistic miracles in Naju in an article published soon after the Declaration (See our Special Issues - 1998, #1, #2 and #3). He did not reject the term: "the Real Presence," but interpreted it only as a personal and spiritual presence. He defended his view saying that it would promote unity between Catholics and Protestants. This kind of assertion clearly contradicts the authentic Church teaching on the Eucharist, which explains Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Eucharist as a substantial and total presence of Our Lord including His true Body and Blood. Pope Paul VI stated that Our Lord’s presence in the Eucharist is a "physical reality" and a "bodily presence" (Mysterium Fidei, September 3, 1965). Through the Eucharist in the Church, the awesome reality of God the Son’s substantial presence with us in our physical world, which began at the moment of His Incarnation through the Virgin Mary, still continues.

Also, on January 26, 1996, when Julia was summoned to the Committee in Kwangju, a leading member of the Committee questioned her, "To come down to earth, the Blessed Mother will have to come through the sky. But how can she, when it is so cold up there?" It sounds like he does not accept any of Our Lady’s apparitions. The Kwangju Declaration states that the "strange" phenomena (such as shedding tears and tears of blood and oozing the fragrant oil) that happened to the Blessed Mother’s statue were "perhaps by some preternatural power." The Committee could say the same thing about all other similar miracles in Church history, some of which have already been officially approved. Of course, we should not forget that several priests in the Kwangju Committee remain firmly loyal to the Church teachings and positive on Naju, but their views were overridden by the liberal priests in the Committee.

— From Mary's Touch, January 1999 Newsletter