[ Home ] [ Messages and Signs ] [ In Defense of the Truth ] [ Saints ] [ Testimonies ] [ Ordering ]

Response to some questions on the negative rumors about Naju

October 15, 2014

Dear Mrs. ***,

Thank you for your recent letter with some questions about Naju.  Such questions give us an opportunity to clarify the true facts and to expose the falsehood of the rumors and fabrications. 

I also admire your unshaking faithful devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, which is a precious example and encouragement to us and others. 

The organization: “CatholicNews”, which had printed the pages you sent me, is located in Singapore and has its website named: www.catholicnews.sq.  I have seen their several reports in the past and noticed that they have been consistently and briskly critical on Naju.  It is a sad and deplorable situation where this organization, which also has public responsibility to consciously discern the correctness of the information before sending it out to the public, is neglectful about this responsibility.  As a result, many priests and countless lay people especially in the South-East Asian countries have been absorbing the negative incorrect information about Naju and have been giving up their hopes and plans to explore the facts of Naju. 

Actually, we need not be shocked or depressed by this difficult reality, as the critical spiritual war between Our Lady and Satan, which will decide the fate of the world and the humanity has been going on throughout the Church history (cf. Genesis 3:15) and is rapidly intensifying in the current end time (“end” here does not mean the final end of the world, but the conclusion of the spiritual war between Our Lady and Satan).  According to the vision seen by St. John the Evangelist, “The serpent spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.  But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.  Then the dragon become angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (Apocalypse 12: 15-17).  Here “the torrent of water” means the lies and incorrect rumors that Satan spreads to confuse people and make their discernment between truths and untruths more difficult.  As long as we are humble, firmly loyal and devoted to Our Lord and Our Lady, and constantly learn from the teachings and examples of the Saints, we will not be derailed from the right way leading us to the eternal salvation.   

The following are our responses to the problematic reports by CatholicNews regarding Naju:

1.      “Archbishop Andreas Choi Chang-mou of Kwangju had declared in January 2008 that Youn (Julia) and her followers had incurred latae sententiae excommunication.”

Archbishop Andrew Choi of the Gwangju Archdiocese issued a Decree in January of 2008 under strong pressure by the liberal priests in the same Archdiocese.  The main contents of this Decree were (1) that Fr. Aloysius Chang, who had been supportive of Naju since 1991, was expelled from the Gwangju Archdiocese, which also meant that he could not function as a priest any longer and (2) that any person, regardless of nationality or position, will be automatically excommunicated, if he or she visits Naju. This implies that even a Bishop or the Pope will also be excommunicated if he visits Naju. 

Expelled from the Archdiocese, Fr. Aloysius Chang soon visited Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples at the Holy See, who had the highest authority over the Catholic Church in Korea regarding the pastoral issues.  Even before he heard Fr. Chang’s appeal, His Eminence already knew what was going on in Korea and promised that he would send a letter to the Gwangju Archbishop to fully restore Fr. Chang’s priestly functions.  Also during the same visit to the Holy See, Fr. Chang received an urgent message from Naju that the liberal priests in Korea were pushing the Bishops at the Korean Catholic Bishops’ Conference to pass the motion that condemns Naju in the name of the Korean Bishop’s Conference.  Cardinal Dias also received the same message from the Nunciature in Seoul and immediately sent an order to the Bishops in Korea to stop considering this motion.  Later, in March 2010, Cardinal Ivan Dias said to the visitors from Naju that the Archbishop of Gwangju did not have the authority to excommunicate the pilgrims to Naju.

Thus, the information stated by CatholicNews that Julia and her followers incurred the automatic excommunication is very incorrect.  How could a diocesan Bishop condemn what was still being investigated by the Congregations of the Holy See?  This probably was the main reason why the Gwangju Archdiocese threatened the pilgrims with excommunication but avoided excommunicating Julia and her helpers.  Also, the prompt and decisive reactions by Cardinal Dias, restoring Fr. Chang’s priestly functions and ordering the Korean Bishops to stop passing the motion of condemnation of Naju show us clearly that the Holy See does not approve of the efforts of the Gwangju Archdiocese to destroy Naju. 

2.      “Archbishop Kim (of Gwangju) claimed that the Vatican letter has reconfirmed that “the Vatican has taken the same stand with Kwangju archdiocese” on the alleged Marian visionary.”

Ever since the Gwangju Archdiocese announced the Declaration condemning Naju on January 1, 1998, the Gwangju priests claimed that they were in unity with the Vatican regarding the Declaration and Naju.  This also is untrue. 

In the late 1997, the liberal (Modernist) priests of the Gwangju Archdiocese sent the draft copies of the Declaration for condemning Naju to the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (the CEP) to receive its approval before publicizing it.  The CEP examined the draft and refused to approve it and sent it back to the Gwangju Archdiocese.  The Gwangju priests made a few minor corrections and presented it again to the CEP, but the CEP did not approve it again and asked the Gwangju Archbishop to bring a unanimous agreement by all of the Korean Bishops.  The Gwangju priests knew that this was impossible because several of the Korean Bishops were strongly against the Declaration.  As their final effort, the Gwangju priests sent the draft copies to Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the CDF) instead of sending them to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the CDF, as they knew that Cardinal Ratzinger would not approve their Declaration on Naju.

The Gwangju priests succeeded in receiving Archbishop Bertone’s approval and announced the Declaration to the whole world on January 1, 1998, also claiming that they were in unity with the Holy See.  Certainly, they were in unity with Archbishop Bertone, but not with the Holy See.  Just one Archbishop cannot represent the Holy See, especially when the CDF Prefect, the CEP Prefect, and Pope John Paul II were not positive on the idea or act of condemning Naju.  This means that the Gwangju Archdiocese lied to the world and the CatholicNews reported this lie.  In May 1998, Archbishop Bertone visited Japan to participate in the ceremony of the 81th anniversary of Our Lady’s apparition in Fatima.  After the ceremony, Archbishop Bertone made a side trip to Busan, Korea, to meet Archbishop Victorino Youn of the Gwangju Archdiocese.  Archbishop Bertone obviously was very anxious to make sure that the Archbishop of Gwangju would remain firm in guarding the Declaration on Naju which he approved.  So far, the Gwangju Archdiocese has been very loyal to Archbishop Bertone (later, Cardinal and Secretariat of the Holy See) and his interest. 

There also is another important reason why the information spread by the Gwangju Archdiocese and CatholicNews is false.  The official stance of the CDF and the Holy See in general regarding Naju has been “Non constat de supernaturalitate”, translated as: “Not confirming that it is supernatural”.  This does not mean condemnation but that the investigation is still in progress.  For condemnation, there is a different formal announcement: “Constat de non supernaturalitate”.

Thus, the Holy See’s official stance on Naju is that the investigation has not been completed yet and therefore needs more observation of the evidences, testimonies, and fruits.  During this ongoing investigation, the Holy See will allow free visits, inquiries, and experiences by individual priests and lay people.  If the Gwangju Archdiocese wishes to be truly in unity with the Holy See, they should respect and follow the Holy See’s stance of “Non constat de supernaturalitate” and allow individuals’ visits, studies, and speaking and writing testimonies.  Because the Gwangju Archdiocese has been treating Naju as already condemned since January 1, 1998, they have been contradicting and violating the Holy See’s official stance.  Despite this, the opponents of Naju have been shouting to the whole world that Julia and her followers have been condemned.  Numerous clergy and laypeople have been deceived, misled, and turned their backs against what has been going on in Naju since 1985. 

3.      “The Vatican has reaffirmed that the so-called divine miracles argued by an alleged Marian visionary are not “true Christian teaching.”  Kwangju archdiocese noted yesterday.”

The liberal priests do not acknowledge the continuing intervention by God and His heavenly servants in the human lives.  Most of the time, this intervention is for individuals, but, sometimes, especially when there are serious crises in the world or the Church, God’s intervention can be very clear and powerful.  Many priests in Korea seem to be infected with Modernism of Fr. Teihard Chardin and the like and despise miracles and revelations from God.  Below is the Church Teachings regarding this subject:

a.       Pope St. Pius X requested all clergy and theologians to swear to reject the Modernist errors (September 1, 1910).  One of the required oaths was as follows:  I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.  (The Oath Against Modernism, given by His Holiness St. Pius X, September 1, 1910)  

b.      If anyone shall have said that miracles are not possible, and hence that all accounts of them, even those contained in Sacred Scripture, are to be banished among the fables and myths; or, that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them: let him be anathema.  (The Vatican Council, 1869-1870).

4.  The liberal priests at the Gwangju Archdiocese have strained themselves to make it appear that their Archdiocese is loyal to the Church Teachings whereas Naju is remote from and contradictory to the Church Teachings.  For example, they stated in the Declaration of January 1, 1998 that the alleged Eucharistic miracles in Naju contradict the authentic Church Teaching.  Actually, this could have been the most powerful justification for the Gwangju Archdiocese’s condemning Naju, if there version of the Doctrine were correct.

The Gwangju Declaration distorted and thus insulted the Church Teachings for the purpose of making their condemnation of Naju appear correct.  The Gwangju Declaration stated that “the alleged Eucharistic Miracle in Naju violated the Church Teaching that the species of bread and wine of the Eucharist must remain unchanged even after the consecration”.  If this version of the Doctrine were correct, all of the Eucharistic miracles in the Church history, including those already approved by the Church, must be thrown away as violations of the Church Teachings.  What the Church Teaching really means is that when the priest consecrates bread and wine, the substances of bread and wine completely change into the substances of the Flesh and Blood of Our Lord without concomitant changes in the species of the bread and wine.  This teaching of the Church does not say that the species of the Eucharist must remain unchanged even after the consecration.  This Gwangju Archdiocese’s insistence does not make any sense, as the species of the Eucharist naturally change inside our body soon after Communion.  Several other serious distortions of the Church teachings are explained in the website:  www.marys-touch.com.

According to the Church’s Canon Laws, when the clergy insist on erroneous doctrines, they are automatically excommunicated (cf.: Can. #1364 (1) & #1336 (1)).  The clergy who lead the Gwangju Archdiocese must openly correct the doctrinal errors in their Declaration as soon as possible to avoid the penalties.


Sincerely yours,

Benedict Sang M. Lee

[ Home ] [ Messages and Signs ] [ In Defense of the Truth ] [ Saints ] [ Pilgrimages ] [ Testimonies ] [ Ordering ]

Webmaster: director@marys-touch.com

Copyright © 2018, Mary’s Touch By Mail. All rights reserved.