|
Now, one of the prevailing views in the
Church in Korea is that the miracles recorded in the Holy Scriptures are mere
fictions made up by the authors to make the Lord's messages more easily
understood.
For example, we hear in some homilies that
Jesus did not work the miracle of feeding five thousand men with five loaves of
bread and two fishes; instead, when the crowd saw a boy part with his own food,
they felt ashamed and began sharing with others the food that they had brought
and been hiding until all ate to their full and fragments of the bread filled
twelve baskets. They say that this
miracle was concocted by the author to emphasize the importance of sharing.
In defiance of the warnings from the
Vatican in
1997 and 1998, Fr. Je-Min Ri, who was a member of the Naju Investigating Committee,
continue spreading ideas verbally and in
writing that many of the faithful find drastically different from the authentic
Faith.
In March 2003, one of the major Catholic
publishers in Korea
called The Daughters of St. Paul published a book titled: DID JESUS
REALLY RESURRECT? written by Fr. Je-Min Ri.
In this book, Fr. Ri denied the resurrection of the body of Jesus. So many heresies and errors are found
throughout this book, but only some are excerpted below.
Excerpts from Fr. Je-Min
Ri's
heretical book: DID JESUS REALLY
RESURRECT?
- In
order to live the (life of) resurrection, we must first free ourselves from our
old preconception and realize that this resurrection does not mean at all that
the corpse comes back to life. The story
about resurrection is not a story being told in the biological dimension
regarding whether humans come back to life after their death or not (p. 19).
- Some
people talk about the resurrection of the soul, meaning that, when we die, our
souls leave our bodies and enjoy eternal life.
This, however, is not the same as resurrection. Eternal life after resurrection is not a life
that the soul alone enjoys after leaving the body. When we pray before a corpse for the eternal
life of the dead person, we are not just praying for happiness of the soul.
Frequently,
we misunderstand resurrection.
Furthermore, we often try to infuse our wrong ideas about resurrection
into others' minds. We have the habit of
not correcting what have already entered our heads, as if they were absolute
truths. When it is pointed out that an
error is an error, we think that it is a denial of the truth and a challenge
against the truth and close our ears.
When one says, "There is no such resurrection as you
imagine. Jesus did not resurrect like
that; neither will we," he is treated like a major heretic. People refuse to change their ways of
thinking and continue to remain in errors.
For this reason, it is not easy to realize the truth and accept it into
one's whole body. The life of
resurrection sought after in Christianity is not the life in the dimension that
the ordinary people talk about at all.
That's
right. Jesus did not resurrect in the
way that the ordinary people think. Most
of the Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus and profess that they
will also resurrect like him and, thus, think that the Christian resurrection
means the life after death: that is, the end of the current life, but this is
different from the resurrection of Jesus.
He did not resurrect in that manner.
Resurrection does not mean coming back to life after our life comes to
its end. Until now, billions of people
lived and died, but there has been no record of anyone coming back to life (p.
20-21).
- Resurrection of the corpse is not an idea that began in
Christianity. In Christianity,
resurrection of the mummy has not been believed. Christianity is not a religion that believes
in the resurrection of corpses (p. 22, p. 57).
- Even in heaven which humans aspire to enter, all lives are
born and die. As in this world, heaven
also changes. There is no "eternity"
that does not change as the ordinary people think. Heaven is not a place of imagination. Humans do not live in imaginations. What does this mean? This means that heaven where we shall go
after resurrection is no more than this very world where we live now. Apart from this world where flowers blossom,
birds sing, people experience joy, anger, sorrow, and pleasure, there is no
other place we can go to. Resurrection
exists within this world only (p. 25-26).
- So, we resurrect within the
current world where all kinds of animals live.
We resurrect in the reality that looks dirty and messy and smells bad on
its surface but contains beauty hidden in it.
The world where the dead people open
their graves and walk out is in the midst of this world where their graves also
are. The world where they open their
graves and come out is this real world where birds sing and flowers blossom and
where they lived and their friends and descendents live. The world where they opened their graves and
came out is not a different world apart from the world where they had
lived. This world is the place of
resurrection.
If
one understands the faith in resurrection as the corpse coming back to life and
enjoying happiness with God and, thus, living the life of resurrection after
the end of the current life in a different world, it would be the same as
believing in dogs, cows, and pigs also coming back to life after their
death. This is truly a misunderstanding
about the faith in resurrection. After
one dies, he will never come back to life.
This is a natural law that applies to all lives. In the whole universe, there is no place
where dead corpses gather and live together (p. 26-27).
- If one understands Jesus' resurrection in the biological
sense and tries to prove this mobilizing all of human thinking ability and
knowledge, he will not be able to come closer to the truth of resurrection but
will miss it. When we say that Jesus
died, resurrected and is with us, this is different from my mother going out
for a while and coming back and reappearing before us. Jesus being near us and with us physically
has nothing to do with the contents of the faith. The resurrection of Jesus belongs to the
contents of the faith. It is not a faith
in coming back to life; it is a fruit of the faith that the God of Life is in
the midst of death (p. 30-31).
- The Christians believe in resurrection not to come back to
life after death but to live with a resurrected body before they die (p. 38).
- When we look back at the past history, we can see that the
Church has truly planted (in the minds of the faithful) an incorrect concept of
resurrection. For this reason, many
people have become brainwashed with the incorrect concept of resurrection. The Church should have explained with the
light of the Gospels that the event of Jesus' resurrection was more than what
the ordinary people think ─ namely, the corpses coming back to life, but
didn't. Over the centuries, the Church
has repeated the myth-like story and planted the faith that the corpses will
come back to life again. However, it is
obvious that, if Jesus resurrected as the ordinary people think, Christianity
that has proclaimed that kind of resurrection must have already disappeared
from the stage of history. The reason is
that humans are not foolish enough to entrust their whole beings to the
myth-like story. For this reason, we should
not blame the Church for not being able to explain resurrection only to a
limited extent. Even if the Church had
explained it correctly, people would only have thought that it was a dogma too
hard to understand (p. 40-41).
- As it is impossible for dead dogs and cows to come back to
life, humans will never come back to life, either. Resurrection is not that kind of coming back
to life. That humans alone can
participate in the glory of resurrection and enjoy the joy of resurrection is
because humans alone can live the life worthy of humans. Resurrection enables us to live the life
worthy of humans (p. 42).
- The teaching of resurrection is not difficult, but our life
in which we fail to die to ourselves makes resurrection difficult. Our life in which we are not dying to
ourselves for the sake of others makes the teaching of resurrection
difficult. This also gives rise to a
misunderstanding regarding resurrection.
The best example of this misunderstanding is the thinking that
resurrection means the corpses coming back to life. The corpses coming back to life would be
terrifying instead of being joyful (p. 86).
- When the disciples of Jesus saw the resurrected Jesus,
their faith in resurrection strengthened.
However, we should not perceive this as appearance of a ghost. Jesus who appeared after his resurrection was
not a vengeful ghost. The resurrected
Jesus was not a ghost that appeared after an unjust execution and was seeking
vengeance. His apparition should not be
thought of as a visitation by the corpse that came back to life, either.
The
disciples' faith in the resurrection of Jesus did not begin by seeing the
corpse of Jesus transcend time and appear before them or by confirming that the
person who appeared was their teacher.
The disciples did not meet the resurrected Jesus in the same manner that
we meet an ordinary person in our daily lives.
This is obvious from the testimony in the Bible that the disciples did
not immediately recognize the resurrected Jesus. On the road to Emmaus, the disciples who met
the resurrected Jesus did not recognize him; nor did the women at the graveyard
recognize the resurrected Jesus.
The
fact that they did not recognize their teacher whom they had been together with
just until just a few days earlier means that he did not come back to his
earlier life. If Jesus resurrected as a
corpse coming back to life, the disciples must have recognized him at their
first glance. If Jesus had resurrected
in that manner, the story of his resurrection would have become a myth. The resurrection of Jesus is not his corpse
coming back to life; nor his apparition as a ghost. The resurrected Jesus was not a ghost.
Now, we reflect on the stories in the Bible
regarding the resurrection experience as told by the Church during the Easter
season. Some people insist that the
resurrection of Jesus was certain, because the resurrected Jesus first appeared
to the women who were not able to give testimony that can be publicly
recognized. They mean that, if the
disciples really wanted to prove the resurrection of Jesus, they could have
relied on the more persuasive men instead of the women so that they may have
presented more logical and concrete explanations, but, as they did not, the
resurrection of Jesus was undoubtedly a true fact and not a fiction made up by
the authors of the Bible. This, however,
is an illogical assertion. The resurrection
of Jesus cannot be a fruit of such an illogical assertion.
Some
people have tried to prove the resurrection of Jesus on the philosophical
ground, appealing to the human intellect.
However, Jesus who resurrected can never be experienced through questions
in the dimension of natural science or philosophical contemplations concerning
how a dead person can come back to life again.
As they have found out, the resurrection of Jesus cannot be proven. Their efforts will only remain in the sphere
of speculation.
There
have been many wild conjectures regarding the resurrection of Jesus, because
nobody actually witnessed the scene of his resurrection. If someone was able to witness his
resurrection, it must have been nothing more than resurrection of a
corpse. The Gospels do not tell us about
the scene of Jesus' resurrection, in which he became alive again enwrapped in a
brilliant light and walking out of the grave.
However, most people try to perceive his resurrection in that
context. That is because they perceive
resurrection as a life after death (p. 97-99).
- The biblical scholars have tried to prove the resurrection
of Jesus by referring to the "empty tomb." The assertion that Jesus must have
resurrected because his tomb was empty is a jump in logic (p. 100).
- Saying to the person buried in a tomb, "You are
buried in a tomb now, but you will come back to life someday. At the time of the General Judgment, you will
open your tomb and become alive again," can be tantamount to denying
resurrection. Such a thing will never
happen (p. 103).
- The life of resurrection is a life that is to be lived in
the relationship between one and other people.
It is a life that I live in others and that I let others in me and give
life to others in me. Humans begin their
resurrection in their relationship with others (parents, relatives, and
friends) and the world (all that I have achieved using my efforts, skills,
character, leisure, etc.). My
relationship with other people and the world (in other words, my life) attains
resurrection through the powerful force that originates from a being other than
myself – the living Christ – but is experienced as though it were my own.
We
can read in Luke 7:11-17
a story about Jesus restoring life to the only son of a widow in the town
called Naim, which was the kind of resurrection explained above. In this Gospel reading, we see not the dead
son but the widow who had lost her only son begin living the life of
resurrection by meeting Jesus. Jesus
resurrected the son in the mind of the widow and, thus, resurrected the life of
the widow. Let us review the story.
When
Jesus came near a town called Naim, he came across a funeral procession. The dead person was the only son of a
widow. When Jesus saw the widow, he was
touched with pity for her. Being a widow
alone was sorrowful enough. Her only son
was hope itself to her and her everything.
When this son was dead, she lost all her hope. Now, her life was nothing but despair. A situation of despair that could not change
by anybody's consoling words – this was the situation of the widow. Then, Jesus gave a new hope to this widow who
was in despair and enabled her to start a new life.
Jesus
said, "Do not weep. Your son is
not dead but is alive." "Young
man, rise." Then, the young man
who had been dead sat up and began speaking.
This does not mean that the young man broke the coffin and jumped out
but that Jesus resurrected the dead son in the mind of the widow. Jesus restored the son to the mother. That all the people present there were filled
with fear was not because they saw the young man break the coffin and jump out
but because they saw the mother who had been in despair receive consolation
from Jesus and begin a new life (p. 143-144).
- The resurrected Jesus is not one who is glorified after
leaving the reality governed by suffering and death but one who invigorates the
life that is in suffering (p. 154).
- Humans must become born again as free beings while they
live by freeing themselves from the chains of dualism of life and death. In other words, they must not try to be born
again after the biological life ends (which is not possible in the first place)
but must be born again within the reality before their biological life comes to
its end. Resurrection is a question that
concerns the life that we live now. The
Egyptian mummies do not know resurrection; they cannot even dream about
resurrection. If they dreamed about
resurrection, they only did so before their death. The disciples of Jesus did not perceive the
resurrection of their teacher as the corpse coming back to life and returning
to the life in this world (p. 163).
- Those who seek answers while remaining in the biological
dimension asking how a dead person can become alive again are not qualified to
discuss resurrection. What they discuss
is a biological resurrection, but, even if a biological resurrection occurs, it
will end up in death again. It cannot
bring any answer to the question of human existence (p.
167).
- It is only the still-living people who think about "living
again after death"; those who
died already cannot think about it. They
may die hoping for resurrection, but, once they are buried in the graves, they
can no longer think about resurrection.
Only those who are still alive can talk about resurrection (p. 175).
- When Christians profess their faith in "the
resurrection of the body" in The Apostles' Creed, "the
body" here means the human being itself. A human being does not have a body but is the
body itself. The body itself is the
human being. The resurrection of the
body means the resurrection of this human life.
Therefore, when we say that we believe in the resurrection of the body,
"the body" refers not to the corpse but the living human being
and "the resurrection of the body" means the resurrection of
the body before it becomes a corpse.
Humans must arrive at eternal life while they still have their bodies,
before they become corpses – corpses are no longer bodies (p. 180).
- Seen through the eyes of those who have resurrected, this
world is by no means a vain land of banishment which we pass through or a place
of reparation where we need to lead a life of penance to gain eternal life, as
we often sing. He who thinks of this
world as a passing land of banishment or a place of reparation and, thus,
denies the true meaning of the world cannot enjoy the life of
resurrection. This is because he denies
the space of life after resurrection, which is this very world where he lives
now. He himself is erasing the space
where he is supposed to be reborn (p. 182).
-
Eternal life of the resurrected according to the resurrection of the
body is not the life of some spiritual monster transformed from the human
conditions but the life of the human being who lives in this world – in other
words, my own life. Resurrection is an
event that is to be experienced. A soul
without the body cannot experience anything (p.
184).
- The profession of our belief in the resurrection of the
body in The Apostles' Creed should be understood in the same
context. In order to correctly
understand this profession of faith, we need to know that this profession has a
history. We need to be aware under what
circumstances this profession began.
Many of the early Christians were influenced by the dualistic Greek
philosophy (Neo-Platonism) and believed that, after death, the human body is
buried in the ground and the soul resurrects and enjoys eternal life (or
receives eternal punishment). "The
resurrection of the body" was an outright rejection of the idea that
overemphasized the soul and recognized the resurrection of the soul only. In other words, this profession is a
profession about the resurrection of the "whole" human being
instead of the corpse that was buried in the ground and decayed. It was also a rejection of the idea that,
when a human person dies, his body is buried in the ground and decays and his
soul resurrects and is embraced in the bosom of God. This kind of thinking about resurrection is a
product of the Greek philosophy and not of the Christianity.
The
idea that the soul becomes liberated from the body through resurrection is not
a Christian thinking. Jesus did not
resurrect in that manner. The
resurrected Christ did not shake off his body, as if it were worthless dusts,
as this body had sustained him for more than 30 years as a companion in his
life. Resurrection is not a theory that
insists on the immortality of the soul.
According to the Christian belief regarding resurrection, the body
separated from the soul has nothing to do with the human; and likewise the soul
separated from the body is no longer a human.
Without the body, there is no human being. Humans must experience resurrection while
they can feel their bodies (p. 185).
- The resurrected body is a spiritual body. A spiritual body is a term that describes a
human being who has reached freedom.
Becoming a free human means dying to all things that are not love . . .
. That the resurrected body of Jesus was
a free body means that his body has freed itself from the bonds of the dualism
of life and death. Those who live the
life of resurrection, the life of freedom — freedom from the dualism of life
and death, sanctity and worldliness, love and hatred, and heaven and hell —
live the life of forgiveness (p. 186).
- Does the resurrected Jesus know about me
who lives 2,000 years after he did? Does
he know about me who became a priest, is writing about his resurrection before
a computer, and is praying to him? Does
he know about the Church in Korea
and its problems? As I cannot foresee at
all under what conditions the people of 2,000 years from now will live or what
kind of problems they will have, Jesus must not have known in what
circumstances my life would unfold or that this world has become so advanced
like ours. If he appears before us
today, he must be a computer illiterate (p. 193).
- It is possible that Jesus does not know about me who is
praying to him (p. 194).
- Jesus ascended into heaven forty days after his
resurrection. He resurrected and
ascended into heaven. If so, to which
heaven did he ascend? To the moon, a
star, or the Milky Way? We often think
that the heavenly kingdom to which Jesus ascended to or the Kingdom of God
where we will go in the future is a beautiful dreamland. We think that, as soon as we enter the
beautiful dreamlike garden, all our wishes will come true. However, Jesus did not ascend to a kingdom
like that. That kind of kingdom does not
exist and, even if it did exist, we cannot get there with our human bodies. Jesus did not go to a place that is
unreachable by us. He cannot exist at a
place where humans cannot live. There is
no difference to God (p. 199).
- Only those who die now and become born
again can enter the heavenly kingdom.
Unless we die for the sake of others — in other words, unless we make
all others our friends, we can never enter that place. It is not a place where we can go only after
the end of our earthly life but a place where only those who offer up their
lives for others can enter (p. 202-203).
As seen
above, Fr. Je-Min Ri is presenting a heretical interpretation of resurrection
that is different from the teachings of the Catholic Church and is also denying
the divinity of Jesus. His views are in
conflict with our faith in "the resurrection of the body"
professed whenever we recite The Apostles' Creed and also with the
explanations in The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#645-646 and
#997-999).
The above
book written by Fr. Je-Min Ri, however, is widely available in Korea
without any restriction from the Church authority and is rather being
recommended to the faithful for spiritual reading. Also, every year, Fr. Ri is invited to the
annual retreat for the catechetical teachers (many of whom are Sisters) from
all over Korea
as the main speaker. He continues to
enjoy a strong following among many young priests, seminarians, religious, and
lay people in Korea.
One Catholic
lay person read the above book and wrote in the official website of the Korean
Bishops' Conference on December 13, 2004 as follows:
"I have been confused from reading the
book: DID JESUS REALLY RESURRECT? The resurrection explained in this book is
very different from the resurrection that I have been taught. I am shocked.
I bought several books to read in November, the month of all souls
including this book. I can understand
that we should experience resurrection while living in this world, but he seems
to deny heaven, purgatory, and hell after death. If he is right, what use is there to pray for
my deceased father? Also, what is the
use for obtaining indulgences? The
harder I try to learn and know, the harder it becomes. Have I been off the right track all along my
religious life so far?"
There are
many of the faithful who point out the serious heresies in Fr. Ri's book, but,
instead of being listened to, they are criticized and alienated as "people
who are behind the times", "conservatives and fundamentalists
whose minds are closed to the new interpretations that are in tune with the
times", and so on. It seems
that the Church authority in Korea is either incapable of disciplining those
who spread heretical errors or is not willing.
In some parishes,
the so-called band Mass is being introduced under the pretext that this will
attract more of the young Catholics back to the church. In such a Mass, loud music is played with drums
and electric guitars instead of organs.
The church statistics show that the number of fallen-away Catholics is
steadily increasing. Many of the pastors
seem to think that this problem has been caused by the boring Liturgy and
conservative dogmas that are too strict and not in tune with the modern
times. They try to make the Mass more
entertaining and to relax the Church teachings and Commandments.
The real reason
for the increase in the fallen-away Catholics is that many people are losing
the true Faith because of the modernist errors.
The solution is not a more entertaining Mass or relaxation of the dogmas
but a strong re-confirmation of the authentic Church dogmas and a
revitalization of the Eucharistic and Marian devotions. Then, the fallen-away Catholics will come
back to the Church on their own.
|
|
The following is a translation of an article by Fr. Je Min Ri published
in the May/June 1998 issue of The Common Good magazine in
Korea. Fr. Je Min Ri was formerly a
theology professor at Kwangju Catholic University (which is actually the major
seminary in the Kwangju Archdiocese), but has been banned from teaching in that
university because of the warnings issued by the Vatican regarding his
heretical views. Fr. Ri has also been a
leading member of the Naju Investigating Committee. He has been known to have played a key role
in reaching a negative judgment on Naju by the Kwangju Archdiocese. The fact that the Declaration on Naju was
composed by Fr. Ri and other priests who have similar views as Fr. Ri’s
severely weakens the credibility of the Declaration.
IS
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CATHOLIC?
By Rev. Edward Je Min Ri
The Masan Diocese, Korea
I
would like to begin by quoting from The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
(Lumen Gentium), Article 8, of the Second Vatican Council:
This Church, constituted and organized as a society
in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the
successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.
The Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church went beyond the previous claim that the Church is the Catholic Church and
made it clear that the Church subsists in
the Catholic Church and, thereby, admitted that there was a substantial
difference between the present Catholic Church and the original Catholic
Church. It represented a call for a
broader communion among people transcending different denominations and sects
and an emphasis that the Church can also exist outside the Catholic Church and
the Catholic Church must strive to become more and more of the Church of Jesus
Christ. We must incessantly ask
ourselves if we are now catholic so that the courageous admonition by the
Council that we must become more catholic
may not be futile. By turning her face
away from this question, the Catholic Church has been projecting an image of
hostility and division within herself because of disagreements between
progressivism and conservatism.
A
STORY ABOUT US, NOT BY US
On May 16, 1997,
Archbishop Bulaitis, the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in Korea, sent a letter to Bishop
Jin Suk Cheong, Chairman of the Bishops’ Council in Korea, informing him that
there had been a warning from the Congregation for the Evangelization of
Peoples in the Holy See about Fr. Yang Mo Cheong of Sogang University (Andong
Diocese), Fr. Kong Suk Suh (Pusan Diocese), and myself teaching at Kwangju
Catholic University (Masan Diocese).
This letter pointed out that the ideas promoted by the above-mentioned
three priests regarding the relationship between Rome and the local churches,
about female priesthood, about the celibacy of priests and about the issue of
adjusting the Church to the indigenous culture were not in conformity with the
Church teachings. Bishop Jin Suk Cheong
immediately notified the bishops of the dioceses to which the three priests belonged. On July 1, 1997, the standing committee of
the Bishops’ Council in Korea was convened and took an action, prohibiting the
three priests from publishing in the magazine of the Bishops’ Council without
even examining the facts and based only
on Rome’s pointing out the problems.
The committee did not even notify the three priests. Later, Fr. Jung Soo Kim, secretary general of
the Bishops’ Council, made photocopies of Archbishop Bulaitis’ letter to Bishop
Jin Suk Cheong and sent them to the three priests. This is the reality in the Korean Catholic
Church, in which an action is taken based only on a letter from Rome, without
any effort to find out about what those priests actually said and wrote or to
defend and protect them. What I fear is
such an unpastoral action rather than
the decisions made by Rome and the standing committee of the Korean Bishops’
Council. This is sad. Even sadder is the fact that
ultra-conservative fundamentalist forces, which are the behind-the-scenes
forces that control the Vatican and overpower our bishops, are wielding power
in the Church in the name of Catholic and drive out those who disagree with
them as progressives and anti-Catholics. They categorize the talks of reformation in
the Church as sleep-talking by the progressives, and argue that those who oppose
them are progressives and what the progressives do are against the authentic
doctrines of the Church.
On January 15, 1998, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Holy See sent the following
letter to Bishop Jung Il Park of the Masan Diocese, to which I belong:
Some of the contents of the publications by Fr.
Edward Je Min Ri of your diocese have been noticed by the inquiry commission of
this Congregation. While introducing the
encylical: Redemptoris Missio in Issue No. 103 (1993) of The Theological Outlook magazine, Fr. Ri made positive comments on some
aspects of the teaching authority, but criticized other aspects. Fr. Ri said: to insist that missionary
work cannot be replaced by dialogues between religions and that the Church
alone is the “normal way of salvation” will lead to treating people in other
religions as atheists or pagans and also lead to conflicts, misunderstandings,
ambiguities and discomforts.
Also
in his book: The Church — A
Pure Prostitute (published by the Benedictine
Press, 1995), Fr. Ri expressed an inadequate idea about the Church by
perceiving the Church as a human society formed as a democratic
organization. Under such a perception,
there is the danger that the proper values of the communicative functions of
the Church based on the Paschal event and the activities of the Holy Spirit can
be ignored. Based on such an
insufficient ground, the Church can be vainly perceived only as a community and
the teaching authority can be viewed as an exercise of “absolutist power.” This will lead to rejection of the teaching
authority. For example, Fr. Ri expresses
an opinion about the female priesthood, which is different from what is stated
in the Inter Insigniores.
With
respect to the above-mentioned subjects, this Congregation wishes that Your
Excellency will meet with Fr. Ri, give him a clear explanation and correct the
problems.
Looking
forward to a response by Your Excellency and thanking for the cooperation so
far.
With sincere
and respectful regards.
In its February
15, 1998 issue, The Catholic Newspaper reported that the Bishops’ Council in
Korea decided to take substantial measures regarding several theologians who
were contradicting the authentic faith of the Church. The paper reported:
The bishops of the whole nation gathered and decided
to take substantial measures regarding some of the theologians who were taking
issue with the origin of the Church and rejecting the teaching authority,
saying, “The Church was not established by Jesus,” and “The Church is a society
just like the general society.” The
standing committee of the Bishops’ Council was convened on February 9 and
expressed concern about the views held by these theologians. The committee decided that this issue would
be discussed further during the annual meeting of the Bishops’ Council in the
spring (of 1998). It has also been
reported that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent
another letter to Bishop Jin Suk Cheong, Chairman of the Bishops’ Council in
Korea, as a formal warning regarding the views of some theologians in Korea in
addition to its warning last year.
The report in
this newspaper is a story about us. Especially, the person who reportedly said, “The
Church is a society just like the general society,” was myself. On the other hand, this is not a story about us, because I cannot find any sentence
like that in any of my books. I have
never perceived the Church as a human society formed as a democratic
organization, ignored the proper values of the communicative functions of the
Church based on the Paschal event and the activities of the Holy Spirit, or
rejected the teaching authority. (The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will have to clarify the grounds for
its criticisms, quoting from my books.)
Instead, I had pointed out problems
in perceiving the Church as a society and behaving as if her functions and
hierarchy were not based on the Holy Spirit.
As in July of last year, a measure
was again taken, prohibiting my traveling abroad for the purpose of publishing
until this issue is resolved just because of a letter from the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith. I can take
this matter merely as another happening in the course of life. So many tasks are awaiting us. What I want is to say that the Church must
return to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council and to warn about a
terrifying shadow that is devouring the spirit of the Council. I would like to clarify my position briefly
regarding the above-mentioned two letters.
A
BRIEF EXPLANATION REGARDING THE
GROUNDLESS CRITISMS
In the letter
from Archbishop Bulaitis dated May 16, 1997, and the letter from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated January 15, 1998, there is no
mention of how I had dealt with the subject matters in question. Nor are there any quotes or evidences. I would like to present a brief explanation.
(1)
The relationship between Rome and the local
churches: The Second Vatican Council
emphasized the importance of the local churches. It stressed that the local churches were
already the reality and image of Christ’s Church and that the Church of God was
to be accomplished within the local churches. (See The Church — A Pure Prostitute,
p. 120; The Bishops’ Decree, Article 11) Would it have been right, if I rejected (what
the Council taught?)
(2)
Female priesthood: The letters from the Vatican did not contain
any quotes or evidences on this subject, but were correct (in describing my
views). However, I still think that the
door must be opened to the possibility of female priesthood. The reason is that no one can stop the
development of the dogmas. (See the above book, pp. 194-198)
(3)
Celibacy of priests: I insisted on the spiritual meaning of
celibacy, saying that celibacy and not marrying are not the same thing (See the
above book, p. 220). Even if priests get
married, the spirit of celibacy can remain alive. Is there any error in my saying this?
(4)
Accommodation of the local churches to the
indigenous cultures, and the missionary work: I do not understand what part of my view on
this subject was pointed out as an error.
I trust that I am not being told to say that accommodating the Church to
the indigenous culture is wrong.
(5)
The relationship between the Church and the society: In the letter from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith to my bishop, I was said to have understood the Church as
a human society organized in a democratic form, to have ignored the proper
values of the communicative functions of the Church based on the Paschal event
and the activities of the Holy Spirit, and to have rejected the teaching
authority. Where in my book did I say
these? In the above-mentioned book, I
stressed that the Church is more than a society and more than an organization
and is the Church of the Holy Spirit.
This book has been chosen as a required reading by the Council of the
Mother Superiors in Korea and is being used for spiritual reading in many
monasteries. There cannot be a measure
that can be more irresponsible than forming a distorted understanding and
making groundless criticisms under such circumstances.
IS
THE CATHOLIC (CHURCH) ILLITERATE?
The Vatican’s
letter to our bishops is making all of us illiterate. It turns us into people who cannot even
understand their own writings. Or aren’t
they the real illiterates? Cardinal
Tomko of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and (those) at the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of course, must be illiterate in
Korean. The members of the standing
committee of our Bishops’ Council must also be practically illiterate, if they
did not actually read, even though they can read. The behind-the-scenes forces which sent
information to Rome and made Rome and our bishops illiterate are also
illiterate, because they read but cannot understand. It is the same as those who hear loud
readings in Latin but do not understand the meaning and, therefore, are
illiterate. In order to conduct
theological discussions, one has to be sensitive about theological
terminology. The language of theology leads us to humans’ original experiences
(traditions) and enables us to live a life directed toward the end time. Therefore, the language of theology must be
continuously reinterpreted. Those who do
not know the science of interpretation are naturally ignorant about the
historical progress of theology (dogmas).
Their belief is tied to theological expressions formulated at particular
points in time. The language that
ignores interpretation and progress is a dead language. A dead language kills dogmas, kills the
Church, kills God, and kills humans. It
is our duty as the Church to liberate the Church from the dead language. The Church is a living language and is the Holy
Spirit’s Church. Illiteracy relies on rumors.
It forces others to be obedient and makes them illiterate. What I fear before the Vatican and our
bishops is such a violence of illiteracy.
Therefore, what I criticize is neither the Vatican nor our bishops but
the reality of violence that makes all of us and the Church illiterate. It is important to unveil the true reality of
this terrifying force. This force
rejects the spirit of the Council and, by nature, feels resistant against every
mentioning of the word reformation. This force comes from the mouths of the
ultra-conservative fundamentalists.
Those who deserve warnings are not we
but these fundamentalist ultra-conservatives.
A
CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
Some people call
me a progressive. But, strictly
speaking, I am closer to conservatism, because I am a person who strives to
believe by returning to the origin of the language of the faith. I can also be called a progressive, because I
am trying to live a life directed toward the end time, which forms the last
part of this origin. More precisely
speaking, I am a realistic person who lives in the middle of a tension between
conservatism and progressivism. The
Church that is faithful to the origin can also be faithful to the future and
faithful to the present reality. The
Church should be conservative and, at the same time, progressive. This is because the Church is a living language that connects the origin with
the end.
The fundamentalist conservatives
cannot stand the evangelical tension
between conservatism and progressivism.
They cannot draw the Church traditions from the origin called
Jesus. Therefore, they become deprived
of the ability to read the future or the present reality. Overcoming this tension is the task for the
Church. If people do not overcome this
tension, they are not expected to make progress that is faithful to the
origin. They instead cling to -isms and ideologies. They become
unable to make progress that is faithful to the origin and become hostile to
different opinions. Thus, we see the
emergence of fundamentalism that clings to dogmas, systems, organization and
hierarchy (Bible fundamentalists, dogma
fundamentalists, and hierarchy fundamentalists). We see people closed to openness, dialogues
and self-reformation. They focus on
fanatical devotions instead of spirituality.
They distort the relationship between the society and religion and can
neither clearly see the changes through time nor the present reality. Accordingly, they judge negatively and
condemn the values that people deem highly such as freedom, self-reliance,
individuality, the primacy of conscience, and the creativity of moral judgment
as individualism, materialism, hedonism and a loss of supernaturality.
The Second Vatican Council intended
to overcome the conservative forces and all kinds of fundamentalism by
emphasizing openness, dialogues and self-reformation. Now, the old-fashioned forces of the
pre-First Vatican Council of a hundred years ago are coming back to life. The First Vatican Council (1869-1870) can be
credited for having resolved the conflict between intellectualism and faith,
but is under criticism of being too defensive toward the changes through
time. The concept of Church reformation
(ecclesia reformanda) was not even mentioned or discussed during the First
Vatican Council. Gregory XVI even
considered such a concept contrary to the essence of the Church, because saying
that the Church needed to be reformed would imply that the Church had
defects. The only thing that needed
reformation was the world and the Church was in a position to urge the world to
reform itself. The First Vatican
Council, which had a defensive attitude toward the spirit of the time, forced
the clergy to make an oath of disavowal against modernism.
The Second Vatican Council
(1962-1965), on the other hand, called for overcoming such a barrier and for
reading the spirit of the time and stressed that the Church should open
dialogues with the society and reform herself.
It demanded that the relationship be re-established between the Church
and the society (the world) and between the Church and other churches and
religions based on the relationship between pastoral care and doctrines. It enabled people to talk about the unity
between being the Church and being the world within the Church and
the unity between spirituality and secular spirit in the world. By this, it presented a new image of the
Church that is open to the world. It
clarified that the Church had duties toward the world according to her
spiritual mission and should be able to talk about herself from the perspective
of the world. It stressed that the
difficulties of the present age result from worldly as well as spiritual
challenges. It clarified that the pains
of this age are the Church’s pains. The
Council declared in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern World (Gaudium et Spes):
The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties
of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted,
these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of
Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts.
For theirs is a community composed of men.
CONSERVATISM
SPREADS IN
THE CHURCH
A strong movement
of conservatism that equates openness and reformation with loss of the Church’s
identity and her secularization is emerging.
It is deplorable that this is occurring in the name of the Council. The main characteristic of the Second Vatican
Council, which stressed reformation, openness and dialogues, was that it did
not condemn others as heretical for lack of conformity to its teachings. This condemning act is now reviving. Leonardo Boff(?) of Brazil received a warning
and Bishop Gaieux (?) of France was relieved of his position as the Ordinary in
his diocese. Such a phenomenon of
conservatism was already foreseen during the Second Vatican Council. To the extent the Second Vatican Council
displayed a will for openness, dialogues and reformation and, thus, gave us joy
and hope, the conservatives lost their ground.
To them, openness and dialogues with the world meant secularization of
the Church. The current Pope, John Paul
II, who entered on the stage after the end of the Council, has strengthened
centralization of power and imposed restrictions. He has made collegialitas espiscoporum invalid and revived the oath of loyalty
that had disappeared. Numerous braking
systems have suddenly reappeared. Old
dogmas and systems have been drawn out.
Dogmas and prohibitions have been forced upon (people) and power has
been exercised in the name of God and of
the Church. The theologians who were
not conforming were attacked. After the
end of the Council, Karl Rahner left the Committee at the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith and the names of other influential Council theologians
began being deleted from the list. (B.
Haering, The Church Also Is Changing, For A New Communion in the Church,
the Benedictine Press, 1997, p.78)
The Second Vatican Council put an
end to this kind of power and advocated dialogues and self-reformation, but the
current reality is that the order of the good old days is being missed and
obedience to the existing order only is being stressed. People talk about unity of the Church and
dialogues between religions, but, internally, put all their energy into a
stubborn defense and consider the unity of the Church and dialogues between
religions a loss of the Catholicity. We
need to examine our current situation to understand why Pannenberg, a
Protestant theologian, so vehemently complained about The Catechism of the Catholic
Church published in 1994.
The reactionary attitude of the
Church can also be found in her limiting the role of women, prohibiting female
priesthood, and blocking the progress of the history and of the doctrines.
I deplore the reality that the
action taken by the Second Vatican Council that emphasized the collegiality of
bishops, restored the status of the local bishops, and handed over heavy
responsibilities to them is being neutralized.
Now the local bishops are only listening to the voice of Rome instead of
seeking to regain their own position.
They believe that the ears of Rome can hear everything in the whole
world, but how can Rome hear the voices that even they (the local bishops)
cannot hear? One can easily understand
why there is so much noise in the Church in Europe regarding the Pope’s right
to appoint local bishops. Let’s hear
Haering’s story: How can one man simultaneously look after the Parish of Rome, take care
of the duties as the Pope, and stay on top of the tasks of the Archbishops
outside Rome, in Italy, in Europe, and in Africa? How can he appoint almost 5,000 bishops and
supervise the appointment of so many seminary professors? (Haering, p.
70)
The Vatican’s hard-line attitude
reveals itself with respect to morality and dogmas, issuing warnings even when
only a slightly progressive opinion is expressed and sometimes even when the
opinion is not progressive at all. This
attitude reveals itself more forcefully toward the Third World. The Third World is on the Pope’s
high-priority watch list. Subjects like the relationship between Rome
and the local churches, female priesthood, celibacy of priests, and
accommodation of the Church to the indigenous culture have been
commonly-discussed not only in Korea but in any local churches. But only when such subjects are discussed in
the Third World, (the Vatican) makes an issue of it. The warning to us was possible, because the
Catholic Church of Korea is in the Third World.
How can a good news come from Galilee?
The bishops of the Third World are not aware of their churches being
Galilee despite the fact that they are no Romans. The Second Vatican Council emphasized the
importance of the local churches, restoring the true identity of the churches
in the Third World and making them feel their dignity. However, they (the local churches in the
Third World) turn their eyes away from it.
When can we be Catholics as Koreans?
OPUS DEI, A
FORCE THAT REFUSES REFORMATION
Opus Dei is a typical
conservative group in the Church that emerged after the Second Vatican Council.
(M. Walsh, The Secret World of Opus Dei,
An Investigation into the Secret Society Struggling for Power within the Roman
Catholic Church, the Benedictine Press, 1995, from p. 31)
Opus Dei was established
in 1930 by a Spaniard by the name of Escriva (1902-1975). It is a large
organization with enormous political power and financial resources. It has a strong influence among the
bureaucrats in the Vatican. In 1982,
John Paul II recognized Opus Dei as a special diocese as the
basis for penetrating anywhere on the five continents. In Korea also, it is known to have members
among prelates, priests and lay people. Opus
Dei calls itself a lay organization, but is a secret organization that
is ultra-conservative and thoroughly centered around clergy.
Above all, Opus Dei is by nature
opposed to reformation. Opus
Dei is the group that expressed the greatest disappointment over the
conclusions of the Second Vatican Council that emphasized religious tolerance,
reformulation of the relationship between the Church and the world, structural
changes and reformation in the Church, and the roles of lay people. (p.
139) It resists openness and dialogues
and asks others to convert. Its members are like friends and a family
(among themselves), but others cannot be colleagues but only objects to win over to their side or objects of
animosity. They do not recognize
diversity but are exclusive and fundamentalist.
They refuse openness and dialogues and only emphasize conversion and
loyalty. They are borrowing the name of
Catholic but are no different from the newly-emerging cults which have so many secrets. (from p. 196 and from p.
209) We need to listen to the warning by
Panicka (?), a theologian who had been a member of Opus Dei but later left
it, about the anti-cultural movement
of Opus
Dei. (p. 34) The members of Opus
Dei do not enter into people’s culture, but consider it their duty to
implant the traditional model of Christianity that they have familiarized themselves
with into the newcomers. (from p. 213)
This force is now penetrating the Church in our country. For example, a while back, a bishop tried to
introduce the rules of Opus Dei into a monastery in his
diocese, but made several Sisters give up their vocations in the process.
AN
INSULT TO THE
SPIRIT OF THE COUNCIL
I want to quote
parts of an article by Professor Jong Hew Cheong of Jeonnam University carried
in the January 25, 1998 issue of The Peace Weekly Newspaper. The purpose is to protect the readers of this
newspaper, which is printed in over 100,000 copies. In his article, Prof. Cheong deplores the
acceleration of the secularization of the Church in the name of reformation:
There is a good example of misapplication of the
spirit of the Council. It is the
Catholic Church in the Netherlands. From
the latter part of 1960s, a reformation movement was unfolded, citing the
spirit of the Council at every step of its move. It aimed at an open Church and a Church of
the laity and branded the Church prior to this movement as a closed Church, a
Church centered around priests and a Church centered around God. Their norm was the society (the world) and their slogan was a Church centered
around humans who walk with the society. ….. To them, the Church that is united with
common dogmas and commandments, the Church that respects the teaching
authority, the Church that cherishes and preserves the heritage of the Faith is
only an object of overthrow. The
hierarchy has lost its place to the ideology of classless basic community
and representative democracy. In short, the Catholic Church that is one,
holy, universal and apostolic becomes disintegrated and replaced by a new
monstrous church that is characterized by secular spirit, nationalism and
utopianism. This kind of reformation has
not remained as a spiritual movement but has gradually attained a certain
framework and become systematized. In
the Netherlands, large-scale revisions of the dogmas, reformation of
Catechesis, re-structuring of seminaries, reformation of the curriculum in
seminaries, and changes in the Liturgy were implemented. It was a secularization by the name of
reformation. The Dutch Catechism, which
has been translated into Korean also, was a product of that time ….. What has
been the consequence of the Dutch Catholic Church loudly screaming in favor of
the spirit of the Council and, as its concrete implementation,
reformation? It has been a thorough
destruction of the Catholic Church and a secularization and Protestantization
of the Catholic Church. Is this the
fruit of the spirit of the Council?
Prof. Cheong
displays resistance to the word: reformation, as typical among
members of Opus Dei and concludes that the Catholic Church is being
destroyed in the name of reformation.
However, what in the world is the Catholic (Church) that is being
destroyed? Moreover, the last sentence
(in the above quote) is an insult to Protestantism and is an outright rejection
of the Ecumenical movement called for by the Council. In the February 8, 1998 issue of The
Peace Weekly Newspaper, Prof. Cheong again attacked the Church in the
Netherlands in the same way, saying that it brandished the sword of reformation
in the name of the spirit of the Council.
He mentioned as examples that minor seminaries were closed, major
seminaries accepted female students, who accounted for over 40 percent of all
lay students, some of the students were against the celibacy of priests, the
percentage of lay professors increased substantially, some of the female
professors were anti-Catholic Church, and the number of professors who had deep
faith decreased. (Prof. Cheong still
said in the preface that it was a happy experience for him to have taught at a
seminary.) He concluded that such
changes were anti-Church tendencies. According to him, anti-Church tendencies mean
being critical of the hierarchy, dogmas, morals, traditions, Marian devotion,
and the teaching authority of Rome.
Prof. Cheong continued his description of the seminaries in the
Netherlands:
The opportunities to learn the authentic faith are
disappearing and all of the classes are taught in questionable ways ….. Those
few students who pursue the authentic faith and spiritual exercise are despised
as fundamentalists and fools. The
required studies and participation in the Liturgy are being minimized. “Minimum efforts” are becoming a principle ….. It is okay not to get up at a prescribed
time; it is okay not to attend Mass; and it is okay to have meals
anywhere. Students are free to go out
any time, free about the confession and free about everything. In seminaries where everything is free except
the official teachings of the Church, one can feel a general pagan atmosphere.
Prof. Cheong did
not study in the Netherlands or in any other European country, but is writing
as if he personally experienced the Church in the Netherlands. I wish to know who was the power behind his
writing. He is plagiarizing a certain
fundamentalist’s writing.
His article in the March 8, 1998
issue of the same newspaper is more outspoken:
There are people who are trying to make a church
that is built up from the bottom, a church as the people of God, in the name of
the spirit of the Council. They either
despise or do not read The Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church of the Council. To them, it is enough to mention “the spirit”
of The Constitution.
This kind of talk
is an outright rejection of the Church proclaimed by the Vatican Council and
its main spirit. The Council is to be
credited for restoring the Church as the people of God, but Prof. Cheong says
that it was a mistake caused by those who despise or do not read the documents
of the Council. How will The
Peace Weekly Newspaper take responsibility for this? The newspaper states that the contents of the
article do not necessarily reflect its position. Can it be exempted from the responsibility by
making such a trite statement? The
newspaper may insist that it is its duty to respect diverse opinions, pros and
cons. But this is a neglect of duty to
defend the truth, which arises from forgetting its mission. It is especially deplorable that such
articles were carried more than once.
The above-mentioned is only one
example. I do not think that the
Catholic Church in Korea is being controlled by the conservative forces. However, their preposterous opinions are
shamelessly appearing in a newspaper
This means that the forces that reject the spirit of the Council are
penetrating deeply into our Church in various forms.
THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH IS CATHOLIC
It is not a
correct attitude for a religious man to wish that the world alone will change,
without changing himself. It is a task
facing the Catholic Church that she break away from the standardized and
fundamentalist image of herself of the past history and thus become open to the
world and reborn as a religion for the
world and humans. It would be okay
to try to restore religiosity in the society that has become secularized. However, it should not mean a return to the
society prior to the age of enlightenment and secularization. Restoration of religiosity (spirituality) is
possible by accomplishing a unity between the society and the religion through
mutual penetration.
At the beginning of this writing, I
asked if the Catholic Church is catholic.
The answer to that question is “The
Catholic Church is catholic despite all difficulties,” and “The Catholic Church must become catholic.” The reason is that catholicity is the basis
for a religion. What gave rise to the
present Catholic Church was actually this catholicity. On the surface, it may appear that the
organized church, the clergy-based church, has been leading the Catholic
Church. However, if that has been all,
the Church must have disappeared long ago in history. The Church has continued until today, because
she has been the Catholic Church as the Church of the Holy Spirit. Catholicity is what describes our current
status and is also a task that we need to accomplish.
As Catholics, we need to be able to
hear the original sound of the words: You
are Peter. I will build my Church on
this rock. These words can be
correctly understood only in the context of Jesus gathering the people of God
and, after his resurrection, conferring the
pastoral authority upon Peter. The
Church built on Peter is characterized by being the people of God and by
pastoral work. And the Church as the
people of God has the nature of Peter.
Not only the Pope, bishops and priests but all of God’s people including
the clergy has the duty to carry out the task of pastoral work.
Despite all that, as we move in
time farther and farther away from the end of the Council (1965), it is being
emphasized that the Church be perceived only as an organization. Peter is not perceived as a person but as a
system. The people of God and Peter are
becoming separated from each other again.
The Church continues to be identified with the clergy, especially,
bishops, the Pope and the Vatican. They
are being perceived as domineering over the people of God. The lay people do not realize their identity
in the Church because of their perception of the Church that oppresses
them. We all still fail to realize that
we ourselves are the Church. We are the
Church and Petrine. The Pope is the
successor of Peter and is among the people of God. (Accommodating Pastoral Work and the Life in
the Church to the Indigenous Culture is the Basis for the Life in the Church,
Je Min Ri, Theological Outlook, Issue No. 120, pp. 20-22)
Under such circumstances, our bishops
cannot stand criticisms against them, because they equate these criticisms with
criticisms against the Church herself.
They are correct in a way, because they are also the Church. However, before displaying aggressiveness and
displeasure about criticisms against them, they should also be able to ask
themselves if they are truly the Church.
They must recognize that the priests who are criticizing them and the
lay people who are listening to them are also the Church. This is the spirit of the Council. Authority also originates from such
listening. As we, the lower-ranking
people, see the Church in them (the bishops and the Pope), they must also treat
us, the priests, and the lay people, as the Church. Peter’s Church is the people of God; and the Church
as the people of God is Petrine. Peter
refers to all of us. As you are the
Church, priests also are the Church and the lay people are also the Church.
I,
TOO, AM THE CHURCH
As I was
finishing this writing, my mother called me probably after hearing some
rumor. She was worried as though I
committed a serious treason against the Church.
In fact, I had not informed her at all about this. She is in her 70’s and, feeling so proud that
her son is a priest, does not miss a single daily Mass and derives a great joy
from offering the Divine Office and the rosary prayer. She is also untiringly active in Legio Mariae
and more. To her, the Church is
everything. She loves the Church more
because of her son and, because of the Church, she feel proud of her son. She could not believe the rumor that I was
anti-Church. What could I say? I only told her that it was nothing. Actually, it was nothing. It was only an overly sensitive reaction by
the Vatican and the bishops.
I love the Church of my mother. Because of my mother, I will love the Church
more and will not betray it. The Church
of my mother (a lay person) is the Church of this writer (a clergy) and is the
Catholic Church. This Church cannot be theirs only. As bishops are the Church, I and my mother
are also the Church.
There is one thing that I fear, as
I write this article. It is not the
Vatican’s or our bishops’ warnings, but the realization that I also am not
faithful in living the Church that I described, which is the Church of the Holy
Spirit. Am I faithfully living as a
person of this Church? Can I be
recognized by the people in the world as living faithfully as a person of the
Church? I am afraid that my words and my
writings may lose weight, because I feel guilty after finding myself having
committed numerous mistakes knowingly and unknowingly. Isn’t it an inconsistency to wish others to
become more Churchlike, while I do not live the Church well? How ridiculous it would be, if one says, Lord, my conduct has been filled with errors
and disappointed my friends, but what I have said about you and the Church has
been correct.
Lord, let me not do harm to your Church. Let me live more Churchlike. Let me live a good and honest life.
Criticisms
against the Church are criticisms against me.
I, who deserves to be criticized, am also the Church.
(Translated
by Mary’s Touch By Mail,
P.O.
Box 1668, Gresham, OR 97030, U.S.A.,
June
8, 1998)
|
