☞ 한국어
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope John Paul II confirmed with Apostolic Authority as “a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium … a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith,”1 teaches that: “the institution of marriage, in which a man and a woman form an intimate communion of life and love, is instituted by the Creator and has received from him its own law.”2 It also affirms the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that: “by its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”3
The Catechism further teaches that: “sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. … For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.’”4 Accordingly, the Catechism defines homosexuality as follows:
“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”5
It is clear that these teachings include “everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals,” and, moreover, “everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”6 This means that every Catholic is required to have “full and irrevocable character of the assent”7 to these teachings, and that “whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”8 Not only that, but because these teachings reflect the deposit of faith, they can also fall “under the censure of heresy.”9
For all those who call themselves Catholics, who believe, hope and love the Our Lord, breaking communion with the Church and becoming a heretic must be a frightening and terrifying thing, right?
…Well, I guess that’s not necessarily true for some people.
The rise of LGBT ministry in Korea
On May 2, 2021, Cardinal Andrew Yeom Soo-jung’s homily for Life Sunday (Fifth Sunday of Easter), which followed the issue of anti-discrimination laws, was controversial. It spoke out against gender ideology, homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and reaffirmed the sexual ethics of the Catholic Church. This was criticized by progressive figures, most notably leftist politician Jang Hye-young, who said, “The church should be the light and salt of society, but instead it is the salt that rubs salt on the wounds of minorities caused by discrimination and hatred.” The backlash was not small and even politicians reacted. Even politicians have spoken out against the Church, so it can be said that the backlash has not been small.
Since then, a number of apologizing priests have appeared, mainly Jesuits. Just two days later, Rev. Luke Sim Jong-hyeok, S. J., president of Sogang University, introduced a translation of Building a Bridge, a book by Rev. James Martin, S. J., an American Jesuit known for his ministry for LGBT people. Shortly thereafter, Rev. Alexander Pak Sang-hun, S. J., chief of the Jesuit Research Center for Advocacy and Solidarity, also commented on the cardinal’s speech, saying, “I thought about how LGBT faithfuls, their families and friends would feel hurt, their dignity undermined and their values violated.”
There was also criticism from within the Church, but since the official position of the Catholic Church was nonetheless clear, it seemed to be a storm in a teacup. However, the tide turned in late 2021 when Abp. Peter Chung Soon-taick was installed as Metropolitan Archbishop of the Seoul Archdiocese and a kind of “Synodal excitement” took place. One notable event was the meating with LGBT people led by the Synodal process of the Seoul Archdiocese.
With the help of the archbishop, a meeting was organized in March 2022 between priests, including the aforementioned Rev. Alexander Pak, and LGBT people and their parents, where LGBT people complained homophobia in the Church, but also the Catholic Church’s condemnation and opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Some of the comments directly targeted the cardinal’s statement, saying, “It was deeply hurtful to LGBT people in the Catholic Church when Cardinal Yeom said last April that ‘opposing unjust discrimination on the basis of human dignity should not be misunderstood as tolerating same-sex marriage.’”
As a result of this meeting, LGBT ministry has become increasingly visible in the Korean Church. In July 2022, a group of Catholic priests, religious and lay people actively participated in the Seoul Pride Parade.
Since September 2022, a Pride Mass people has been celebrated regularly in Seoul, led by the lay organization ARCUS, for the first time in the history of the Korean Church. Rev. Pak and Rev. Louis Hyun Dai-il, who participated in the aforementioned LGBT Synodal meeting, concelebrate the Mass, with Rev. Louis Hyun noting the connection between the Synodal meeting and the Pride Mass: “During the Synodal meeting, I said that we would like to have a meeting like today once a month, and I am so grateful that it was organized.”
An example of this movement at the local parish level is the LGBT Invitational Lecture held at the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church of Incheon Diocese on May 28 last year, Pentecost. The speaker, an LGBT person, spoke about the practical difficulties of hiding his sexuality at first, but eventually expressed his negative perception of the Catholic Church’s doctrine itself. He or she objected to the teaching that “LGBT people are abnormal, against natural law, and sinners.” Rev. Francisco Kim Chong-dae, S.J., who participated in the event, said: “Our society sees sexuality as an act. And when we attack LGBT people, we are attacking them for that sexual act.”
Pastoral care for those who are unwilling to follow the Church
While at first glance these LGBT parties may appear to oppose unjust discrimination, physical or verbal violence, and unwarranted Church and societal bias against LGBT people, in reality they attack and oppose the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality itself and have no intention of practicing the Church’s moral teachings. Rather, they publicly propagandize against clergy who faithfully follow Church teaching, falsely accusing them of departing from Church teaching.
ARCUS, the “Catholic” LGBTQ+ ally group that organizes the regular monthly Pride Masses mentioned above, released a statement on its official social media accounts in response to an op-ed by Rev. Gregory Park Eun-ho, of the Catholic University of Korea’s Nicholas Cardinal Cheong Graduate School for Life, that appeared in the Seoul Archdiocese’s bulletin on the First Sunday of Advent last December.
Blow is the full version of Rev. Gregory Park’s article:
COLUMN
Can a transsexual be baptized?
Fr. Gregory Park Eun-ho | Catholic University of Korea’s Nicholas Cardinal Cheong Graduate School for Life
Recently, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document regarding the possible participation in the sacraments of baptism and marriage by transgender and homoaffective persons. The document has received a great deal of media attention, with headlines such as “Transgender People Can Be Baptized”, and the media response seems to be causing some confusion. For this reason, it is worth explaining the document in more detail.
The document takes the form of a response to six questions posed by Bishop José Negri of Brazil, the first of which is: “Can a transsexual be baptized?” In this regard, the document first states that transsexuals are those “who had also undergone hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery.” Typically, transgender people are those who have a male body but consider themselves female, or vice versa, those who have a female body but consider themselves male. However, the document refers to people who not only have this consideration, but “who had also undergone hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery” to actually change their sex.
The situation of transsexuals is certainly extraordinary because our human souls and bodies are one. We are identified as male or female through our bodies, but we are also male and female in every way, not just physically, but in our emotions, our mindset, and our ability to relate to others. In fact, being created as male and female is a call to live a life of communion, especially when men and women give themselves to each other in marriage, creating communion and giving birth to new life.
In this sense, the situation of a transsexual who is unable to accept the sex he or she has been given is a very confusing one, and it must be a great difficulty for the person himself or herself. Nevertheless, it can never be said that it is right to undergo hormone treatment or sex reassignment surgery to alleviate the anxiety or depression caused by such a situation, since such treatment not only validates a disordered situation, but also undermines the integrity of the body without any therapeutic purpose.
For this reason, the document establishes a condition for the Baptism of transsexuals: “there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal or disorientation among the faithful.” This means that their baptism must not appear to authorize the above-mentioned wrongdoings. To achieve this, transsexuals must clearly acknowledge and accept that hormone treatment or sex reassignment surgery is incompatible with the Christian faith, and their attitudes and actions must be known within the Church community.
Baptism does not confer rights but is for salvation, and salvation comes when we “repent, and believe in the gospel”, and this repentance and belief should be evidenced by our actions.
Below is the full statement from ARCUS:
Catholic LGBTQ+ Ally ARCUS responds
to op-ed published in the Seoul Archdiocesan bulletin of the First Week of Advent
Jesus asks: “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” Jesus continues: “For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (cf. Matt. 12:46-50).
“Transgender people can receive Baptism in the Catholic Church and can be godparents in the Sacrament of Baptism,” the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith said in a document released last November. At the same time, the Vatican clarified the conditions required for a transgender person to receive the Sacrament of Baptism or to be a godparent in the Sacrament of Baptism. Transgender people can receive the Sacrament of Baptism or be godparents “if there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal or disorientation among the faithful.”
An article published in the bulletin of the Archdiocese of Seoul for the First Week of Advent, 2023, justifies hatred and discrimination against transgender people as Church teaching. The claim that the Sacrament of Baptism for transgender people in the Church community should not be seen as an authorizaton of “the doctrinal unjust of hormone treatment or sex reassignment surgery” is clearly hateful and discriminatory against LGBTQ+ people. The conscience of a transgender person who wishes to live out their Catholic faith through the Sacrament of Baptism is a different matter from their choice of hormone treatment or sex reassignment surgery, and the predictability of any cases does not undermine “the authenticity of the purpose”. In the same document, the Vatican DDF, citing St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo, makes clear that the sacrament of baptism for transgender people does not constitute such an authorization, "even if a person falls into sin."
The Vatican’s DDF cited the teaching of both church fathers, as well as that of Pope Francis: “Not even the doors of the Sacraments should be closed for any reason. This is especially true when it comes to that sacrament which is ‘the door,’ Baptism, the Church is not a customs house, it is the paternal home where there is room for each person with his or her labored life” (cf. Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 47).
Hatred and discrimination cannot be the language of God, and the Church should not use clever rhetoric to justify hatred and discrimination by pretending it is Church teaching. This argument is dangerous because it leaves open the possibility that anyone in the Church community, even non-transgender people, could be excluded for any reason.
What LGBT people who seek the Church’s blessing need is pastoral care, based on their good conscience, which the Church can provide to the extent possible. LGBTQ+ people are also precious human beings created by God, whose creation is infallible. Transgender people who believe in God and seek to live out his will should be welcomed into the Church community through the Sacrament of Baptism. We reflect in our faith that the consequences of a good conscience to live out the words of Jesus will not manifest themselves in the risk of public scandal or of confusion in the Church.
Therefore, we, the laity of the Catholic Church in solidarity with LGBTQ+ people, are deeply concerned by this article in the bulletin of the Archdiocese of Seoul. At the same time, we call on priests who administer the sacraments in the Church to examine the conscience of transgender people who seek the Sacrament of Baptism to determine whether or not to give it to them.
On the occasion of Human Rights Sunday and Social Doctrine Week, Second Week of Advent, 2023
Catholic LGBTQ+ Ally ARCUS
I'll start with the conclusion of ARCUS’: it's a truly muddleheaded, and in some ways, despicable statement.
The ARCUS’ statement accuses Fr. Park’s article of “[justifying] hatred and discrimination against transgender people as Church teaching.” Their position is that Fr. Park's argument “that the Sacrament of Baptism for transgender people in the Church community should not be seen as an authorizaton of ‘the doctrinal unjust of hormone treatment or sex reassignment surgery’” is clearly hateful and discriminatory against LGBTQ+ people.
In their rebuttal, they cite the documents of the DDF. It is clear that Fr. Park is attempting to mislead the teaching of the Holy See and to impose his own hatred and discrimination as Church teaching.
“The authenticity of the purpose” of ARCUS’ statement is a quote from DDF’s document, question 1: “Can a transsexual be baptized?”
The text reads: if there is no risk of public scandal or disorientation, transsexuals may be baptized. However, “when doubts remain about a person's objective moral situation or about his or her subjective dispositions toward grace,” the text mentions the following points to consider:
“In the case of Baptism, the Church teaches that when the sacrament is received without repentance for grave sins, the subject does not receive sanctifying grace, although he or she does receive sacramental character. … St. Thomas Aquinas taught, in fact, that when the impediment to grace disappears, in someone who has received Baptism without the right dispositions, the character itself "is an immediate cause that disposes one to receive grace." St. Augustine of Hippo recalled this situation by saying that even if a man falls into sin, Christ does not destroy the character received by him in Baptism and seeks (quaerit) the sinner, in whom this character is imprinted that identifies him as his property.”
The above is what ARCUS’ statement quotes St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. DDF then quotes Pope Francis directly, which also appears in ARCUS’ statement. Question 1 concludes with the following:
“Then, even when doubts remain about a person's objective moral situation or about his or her subjective dispositions toward grace, one should never forget this aspect of the faithfulness of God's unconditional love, which is capable of generating even with the sinner an irrevocable covenant, always open to development, also unpredictable. This is true even when a purpose of amendment does not appear in a fully manifest way in the penitent, because often the predictability of a new fall "does not undermine the authenticity of the purpose." In any case, the Church should always call to live out fully all the implications of baptism received, which must always be understood and deployed within the entire journey of Christian initiation.”
To summarize:
I. If an individual is baptised without repentance, they do not receive the sanctifying grace of baptism; however, they do receive the sacramental character.
II. The likelihood of a person about to be baptised falling back into sin does not render their amendment uncertain.
III. Even in the absence of immediate reception of the sanctifying grace of Baptism, the individual retains the sacramental character and may subsequently receive the sanctifying grace of Baptism if they repent in a proper manner.
IV. Consequently, exclusion from Baptism on hasty grounds is unwarranted (of course, pastoral prudence is required, and there are still cases where Baptism cannot be given).
And all these are just ‘considerations’. It is also obvious that this does not contradict Fr. Park’s article.
The ARCUS statement asserts that “the Church should not use clever rhetoric to justify hatred and discrimination by pretending it is Church teaching” However, it is worth questioning whether it is Fr. Park who is "[uses] clever rhetoric to justify hatred and discrimination by pretending it is Church teaching" as the statement suggests, or rather, it is ARCUS itself.
That sex change is never acceptable is self-evident, even according to the teaching of Pope Francis, whom ARCUS proudly quotes. It’s also clear that it is what the DDF calls “scandal and disorientation” to mislead the faithful into believing that the Church tolerate sex change.
Is “the conscience of a transgender person who wishes to live out their Catholic faith through the Sacrament of Baptism is a different matter from their choice of hormone treatment or sex reassignment surgery”? No. The Catholic faith does not justify sex change. While this may be a trial and difficulty for a transgender person who wishes to live out their Catholic faith, “It is one thing to be understanding of human weakness and the complexities of life, and another to accept ideologies that attempt to sunder what are inseparable aspects of reality.”10
This, of course, does not preclude the broader pastoral consideration of individual pastors who may be more attentive to transgender persons seeking Baptism, according to the considerations set forth by the DDF. Nevertheless, the Church cannot and should not give the faithful the impression that it justifies sex change. This is a clear teaching of the magisterium, approved by Pope Francis. “Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”11
And Fr. Park did a great job of explaining it in plain language.
When ARCUS says, “We reflect in our faith that the consequences of a good conscience to live out the words of Jesus will not manifest themselves in the risk of public scandal or of confusion in the Church”, this is certainly a good thing. But what could be more scandalous than the fact that even ARCUS, which represent the Korean Catholic’s call for a deeper pastoral consideration of LGBT people and contribute to its practice, use all kinds of rhetoric to tear apart the Church’s teachings, confuse faithfuls, and criticize the teachings of priest who has no problem with Catholic Church teaching?
Furthermore, ARCUS engages in the active participation in queer parades that serve to advance the moral legitimacy of homosexuality and gender ideology. Additionally, they create and disseminate a series of shoddy illustrations that incorporate LGBT flags into images of the Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and other saints. Among these illustrations is one that depicts a cat with a halo. (????)
However, while many priests are reluctant to offer support and defend their colleague priest who are facing attacks, others have been actively collaborating with them, including celebrating Mass together.
On February 12, Rev. Raphael Lee Seung-bok, C. M. F., performed the blessing of two lesbian couples after celebrating Mass for them. ARCUS made it an issue.
One of the couples had a same-sex marriage in Canada in 2013. One of them, Christine (Korean), founder of the “Catholic” lesbian organization ALPHA OMEGA and co-founder of ARCUS, was “married” in 2013 in Canada by a former Jesuit priest who performed a “wedding ceremony” in a Canadian chapel that mimicked the Sacrament of Marriage. “It's unfortunate,” she says of Cardinal Yeom’s above-mentioned statement, “and I want to ask if it’s God’s will that only heterosexual marriage is sacred and that same-sex marriage is sinful.”
Moreover, they assert that the Church’s stance on marriage as a union between a man and a woman and the exclusion of same-sex couples from the Sacrament of Marriage represents a "Vatican’s wall of clericalism." (Don’t ask which of these positions is clericalism. It seems we shouldn’t use reason when we encounter their arguments….) The argue continues: “How long will the Catholic Church adhere to its tradition of marriage and exclude same-sex couples from sacramental marriage? It is contradictory to say that gay people are children of God and should not be discriminated against, but not to allow same-sex marriage.”
DDF’s Declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the Pastoral Meaning of the Blessings, on the blessing of couples in irregular situations and of couples of the same-sex, states that: “In such cases, a blessing may be imparted … upon those who … do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.”12 It teaches that “pastoral prudence and wisdom—avoiding all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful—may suggest that the ordained minister join in the prayer of those persons who, although in a union that cannot be compared in any way to a marriage, desire to entrust themselves to the Lord and his mercy, to invoke his help, and to be guided to a greater understanding of his plan of love and of truth.”13
Were they “those who … do not claim a legitimation of their own status”? Did it avoid “all serious forms of scandal and confusion among the faithful”? Was there “pastoral prudence and wisdom”?
Remeber the Words of Our Lord: “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37)….
Development and corruption of doctrine
The biggest problem with this kind of LGBT ministry is that it is completely devoid of Catholic theological reflection and foundation. The overwhelming majority of those involved in LGBT ministry simply listen to and accept the opinions of LGBT people (even contrary to Church teaching) and then advocate for a change in Church teaching. This is the case with most of the active LGBT clergy in Korea and abroad, including abovementioned Rev. Luke Sim and Rev. Alexander Pak.
Citing the Catholic Church teaching that condemns homosexual behavior, Rev. Pak says, “It is contradictory for the Church to do something that harms or violates human rights … In reality, there is a lot of new data on homosexuality, and the Catholic Church teaching is backward and pre-modern.”
Overseas, Bp. Georg Bätzing of Germany says of the Church teaching that sexual love should take place only within marriage: “Wwe have to somewhat change the Catechism on this matter. Sexuality is a gift from God. And not a sin.” Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, president of the European Bishops’ Conference, rejected Church teaching condemning homosexuality, saying, “I believe that this is wrong.” (However, he seems to have changed his position.) Cardinal Reinhard Marx affirms that “homosexuality is not a sin.” All have called for a change in Church teaching.
To be sure, the doctrines of the Catholic Church do not remain fixed and immutable forever; they develop. But development does not mean that whatever it is, it can be dismantled and discarded at will. The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation Dei Verbum declares that: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit,”14 but at the same time, that teaching is a footnote to Chapter 4 of Dei Filius, the Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council.
“But, although faith is above reason, nevertheless, between faith and reason no true dissension can ever exist, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed on the human soul the light of reason; moreover, God cannot deny Himself, nor ever contradict truth with truth. But, a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this, that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church, or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations of reason. Therefore, ‘every assertion contrary to the truth illuminated by faith, we define to be altogether false’ [Lateran Council V].
Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine Providence, the right and duty of proscribing ‘knowledge falsely so called’ [1Tim 6:20], ‘lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit’ [cf. Col 2:8]. Wherefore, all faithful Christians not only are forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.
And, not only can faith and reason never be at variance with one another, but they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illumined by its light, perfects the knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge. Wherefore, the Church is so far from objecting to the culture of the human arts and sciences, that it aids and promotes this cultivation in many ways. For, it is not ignorant of, nor does it despise the advantages flowing therefrom into human life; nay, it confesses that, just as they have come forth from ‘God, the Lord of knowledge’ [1Sam 2:3], so, if rightly handled, they lead to God by the aid of His grace. And it (the Church) does not forbid disciplines of this kind, each in its own sphere, to use its own principles and its own method; but, although recognizing this freedom, it continually warns them not to fall into errors by opposition to divine doctrine, nor, having transgressed their own proper limits, to be busy with and to disturb those matters which belong to faith.
For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding ‘Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'’ [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”15
The First Vatican Council proclaimed that reason perfects (i.e., develops) our knowledge of the faith, but it devoted more space to warning us that false opinions and faulty reasoning can lead to falsehood and error.
For example, if we compare the Apostle Paul’s profession: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, … and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6), to Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed’s profession: “one Lord Jesus Christ … God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God … consubstantial with the Father”, the latter is hundreds of years later, is obviously not literally identical, but it is the result of a legitimate development and sound rational reasoning, with no contradiction between them, only continuity. But it would be a grave error to claim, as the ancient heretic Arius did, that Jesus Christ was merely a creature.
The proposal of the LGBT pastoral camp to revise the term “objective disorder” to refer to homosexual orientation in paragraph 2358 of the Catechism, has some merit. This is because the word “disorder”, used in a strictly philosophical sense, can easily be misunderstood in the modern world to refer to a mental illness or ‘disorder’, in which case, as St. Vincent of Lerins said, development can be made “in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.”
However, there is no Catholic theological reflection on how the moral justification for homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is in continuity with existing Catholic teaching, which unequivocally condemns and strongly opposes it, and how it can be more clearly explained. This is a problem that LGBT ministry abroad also faces. It is neither rational nor reasonable to assume that doctrines should change just because the zeitgeist has changed or because someone doesn’t like it.
Furthermore, it is essential to examine the methods of passive listening and acceptance. The overarching objective of pastoral care is to facilitate the spiritual salvation of the individual. To this end, it is vital to provide guidance that encourages the cessation of sinful behavior and the pursuit of a more complete life.
Negative outlook
One of the primary sources of discord within the Catholic Church is the recognition of homosexuality, including the role of LGBT ministry. The recent controversy surrounding Fiducia Supplicans has also been a prominent topic of discussion. In contrast, the issue of LGBT ministry has been quiet within the context of the Korean Church. Despite the fact that some believers have voiced their discontent and presented objections, it is notable that criticism of LGBT ministry is relatively infrequent in comparison to the gradual visibility and expansion of LGBT ministry.
In order to evaluate this situation, it is pertinent to cite the remarks of Cardinal Stephen Kim Sou-hwan, Servant of God, regarding the liturgical changes in Korea in 1967, a short period following the Second Vatican Council.
“Moreover, our pastors have been consistently reiterating since the [Second Vatican] Council that ‘the Church must be renewed,’ invariably prefacing it with the phrase ‘in accordance with the spirit of the Council.’ However, if one were to inquire about ‘what is this so-called spirit of the Council,’ it is evident that they lack an understanding of the concept itself, to the extent that they are unable to provide a coherent response.
... The Church in our country was also influenced by the councils, particularly in the realm of liturgy, where recent years have witnessed significant changes that are almost unfamiliar. These changes will continue to expand. And it can be asserted that the implementation of the new liturgy in our country is mild, which has the effect of preventing our country from lagging behind other churches in other industrialized countries. In our country, the implementation of the new liturgy has not been without challenges, including difficulties in translating terminology. However, it is noteworthy that the backlash like Una Voce (those who insist on using the Latin liturgy) that still exists in the West has not been encountered. Nevertheless, it is also accurate to conclude that this is not a consequence of the Korean Church undergoing renewal in accordance with the spirit of the Council.
On the contrary, the fact that the new liturgy was implemented relatively smoothly and without much friction in the Korean Church could be seen as a reflection of the below-average level of spirit and knowledge in the Korean Church members, and therefore blind conformity.”16
This is a sagacious observation worthy of a servant of God. Similarly, at the time of the Second Vatican Council, pastors discussed the “spirit of the Second Vatican Council,” yet there was no consensus on its precise meaning. This phenomenon persists to the present. Similarly, the “spirit of the Synod” is a concept that lacks a clear definition. Since this is the situation, they say that the spirit of the Synod is to listen and accept whatever is said, whether it accord with dogmas and doctrines or not.
And inevitably, the laity follow it unquestioningly, without any discernment of whether it is right or wrong, because of thinking it must be good. Why? Let me quote Cardinal Stephen Kim’s comment again.
“A reflection of the below-average level of spirit and knowledge in the Korean Church members, and therefore blind conformity.”
How to improve
Few would deny the need for special pastoral care for LGBT people. They are still subject to undue prejudice in Korean society and, in some cases, face discrimination and violence, so the fact that they are unable to openly discuss their status with their parish priest is certainly a point of reflection for the Church.
We must recognize, however, that there are limits to pastoral care. No pastoral care is possible for those who refuse to live out their call to “the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.”17 Those who insist on remaining in sexual unions and relationships that can never be justified cannot be pastored.
Furthermore, the criticism of Rev. Francisco Kim’s statement that “our society sees sexuality as an act. And when we attack LGBT people, we are attacking them for that sexual act” is a valid criticism of the Church, but it should also be pointed out that it should be directed at LGBT people themselves. Sexual orientation, even if it has a special historical and social context, is still an individual’s sexual preference and behavior. If people take opposition to such sexual preference and behavior as an opposition to their own human dignity, they should reflect on whether they are defining their existence only through sexual behavior.
For example, the Church’s condemnation of extramarital relationships, masturbation, and lust is a challenge for many young faithfuls, but none of them feel their human dignity is violated because of it. It is surprising that no clergy who claim to minister to LGBT people actually reflect on these matters.
The Church's pastors should not make it the purpose of their ministry to affirm them as they are (it may be important in the process, but it can never be the end). The church must lead them to a new existence in Christ, or it will not be pastoral, but merely neglectful.
It is interesting to note that the Bible says that God has neglected unrepentant homosexuals:
“Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. … Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.” (Rom. 1:20-28)
Fiducia Supplicans explains that the blessings granted to same-sex couples confer an actual grace (gratia actualis).18 This is divine intervention to begin conversion.19 Unfortunately, we are not Calvinists who believe in “irresistible grace.” Even if such grace is granted, what good is it if people are free to reject it?
If God’s curse is neglect, how is a blessing different from a curse for those who choose to reject grace on their own?
“And now, O priests, this commandment is for you: If you do not listen, And if you do not lay it to heart, to give glory to my name, says the LORD of hosts, I will send a curse upon you and of your blessing I will make a curse. Yes, I have already cursed it, because you do not lay it to heart.” (Mal. 2:1-2)
We’re not atheists; we believe in a living God, so we can’t afford to put off a problem of this magnitude, or delay in finding a solution.
When the inevitable day of regret comes, it will all be too late….
- St. John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, 11 October 1992, IV. [본문으로]
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1660. [본문으로]
- Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, n. 48, quoted by The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1652. [본문으로]
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2351-2352. [본문으로]
- Ibid., n. 2357. [본문으로]
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Professio Fidei, 13 March 1989. [본문으로]
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei, 29 June 1998, n. 8. [본문으로]
- Ibid., n. 6. [본문으로]
- Ibid., n. 5. [본문으로]
- Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, 19 March 2016, n. 56. [본문으로]
- Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25. [본문으로]
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, 18 December 2023, n. 31. [본문으로]
- Ibid., n. 30. [본문으로]
- Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, n. 8. [본문으로]
- First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, ch. 4. [본문으로]
- 「사목」, 제2호, 김수환, 1967.8., p. 8. [본문으로]
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2013. [본문으로]
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, 18 December 2023, n. 31. [본문으로]
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2000. [본문으로]