Migrant Children

 

. 

A Vietnamese child born in Korea, developed pneumonia after a cold went untreated in time. He required hospitalization three to four times a year, incurring medical costs exceeding 10 million won. This was because his family, being undocumented migrants, lacked legal residency status and could not enroll in the national health insurance system. Consequently, even minor illnesses can escalate into life-threatening situations due to the difficulty of accessing proper care. Falling into a blind spot of the health insurance system, these families must shoulder the full cost of outpatient care, hospitalization, and rehabilitation, often leading to delayed treatment.

Like "A," undocumented migrant children are treated as if they do not exist—not only in healthcare but also in education, culture, and legal status.

According to the "2026 Youth Statistics" released on May 21 by the National Data Agency and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, there were 202,208 multicultural students in elementary and secondary schools as of 2025. However, these statistics cover only children from international marriages and foreign families currently enrolled in school; they exclude children whose births have not been officially recorded, such as those outside the school system and undocumented migrant children.

The reason for their exclusion is simply that the state lacks an accurate grasp of how many undocumented children are living in specific regions. As a result, they are often labeled with terms like "children who exist yet do not" or "shadows."

The First Step to Guaranteeing Rights for Migrant Children: "Discovering" Them.

It is not impossible to rescue migrant children from these welfare blind spots. The starting point for guaranteeing their basic rights is acknowledging their existence. Potential measures include official verification systems or a national birth registration system. On August 27, the Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly’s failure to enact legislation regarding a universal birth registration system was unconstitutional. In its ruling, the Court stated, “The ‘right to have one’s birth registered’ immediately upon birth cannot be guaranteed differently based on whether a child is a national or a foreigner.” It further explained, “Considering that children cannot choose their place of birth, country, or parents, the official recording of a child’s existence by the state with jurisdiction over the place of birth—immediately after the child is born—serves as a minimum safeguard for the child as a human being.”

Some local governments have already implemented such alternatives. Gyeonggi Province introduced an “Official Verification System for Unregistered Foreign Children” in February of this year. In collaboration with organizations such as the Migrant Pastoral Committee of the Archdiocese of Seoul and Save the Children, the province had issued 144 child verification certificates across 10 cities and counties by the end of June. While this system differs from formal birth registration—meaning it does not grant nationality or legal residency status—it provides a crucial starting point by administratively verifying the child's existence, enabling access to medical care, protection, and support systems.

However, this system is limited to Gyeonggi Province. Father Yoo Sang-hyuk (John the Baptist), head of the Migrant Pastoral Committee of the Archdiocese of Seoul, remarked, “While this demonstrates the potential of a model based on identifying, verifying, and connecting migrant children with services, it does not fully resolve regional disparities in rights or the gap in birth registration.”

Migrants and Refugees

 

 

[Special Feature: World Day of Migrants and Refugees] “Undocumented Migrant Children Are Our Neighbors, Too” 

"Shadow Children" Unable to Access Schools or Hospitals... We Must First Acknowledge Their Existence to Ensure Basic Protection

Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, States are obligated to guarantee rights to children regardless of their or their parents' status—such as race, language, or nationality—and must prioritize the "best interests of the child" in all decisions concerning them. However, some children's very existence goes unrecognized, let alone their universal rights. These are the so-called "undocumented migrant children." On the occasion of the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, we examine the reality faced by undocumented migrant children in Korea, the challenges in guaranteeing their rights, and the role of the Church. Children Whose Very Existence Goes Unacknowledged

Child A, a Vietnamese boy born in Korea, developed pneumonia after a cold went untreated in time. He required hospitalization three to four times a year for treatment, resulting in medical expenses exceeding 10 million won. This was because his family, being undocumented migrants, lacked legal residency status and could not enroll in the national health insurance system. Consequently, even minor illnesses can escalate into life-threatening situations due to the difficulty of obtaining proper care. Falling into the blind spots of the health insurance system, these families must bear the full cost of outpatient care, hospitalization, and rehabilitation, often leading to delayed treatment. As seen in the case of Child A, undocumented migrant children are treated as if they do not exist across nearly every aspect of life—including healthcare, education, culture, and legal status.

According to the "2026 Youth Statistics" released on May 21 by the National Data Agency and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the number of multicultural students in elementary, middle, and high schools was 202,208 in 2025. However, this figure covers only children from international marriages and foreign families who are currently enrolled in school; it excludes children whose births have not been officially recorded, such as those outside the school system and undocumented migrant children.

The reason they are excluded from these statistics is simply that the state lacks an accurate count of how many undocumented children are living in specific regions. Consequently, they are often labeled as "children who exist yet do not" or referred to as "shadows."

The First Step Toward Guaranteeing Rights for Migrant Children: "Discovering" Them

It is not impossible to rescue migrant children from the blind spots of the welfare system. The starting point for guaranteeing their basic rights is acknowledging their existence. Potential measures include official verification systems or a national birth registration system.

On August 27, in a case concerning the legislature's failure to enact laws on birth registration for foreign children, the Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly's inaction regarding a universal birth registration system was unconstitutional. In its ruling, the Constitutional Court explained, “The guarantee of the ‘right to have one’s birth registered’ immediately upon birth should not differ based on whether a child is a national or a foreigner.” The Court further noted, “Considering that children cannot choose their place of birth, country, or parents, the official recording of a child’s existence by the jurisdiction where they were born serves as a minimum safeguard for the child as a human being.”

Some local governments have already implemented such alternatives. In February of this year, Gyeonggi Province introduced an “Official Verification System for Unregistered Foreign Children.” Through collaborations with organizations such as the Migrant Pastoral Committee of the Archdiocese of Seoul and Save the Children, the province had issued 144 child verification certificates across 10 cities and counties by the end of June. While this system is distinct from formal birth registration—meaning it does not grant nationality or legal residency status—it serves as a crucial starting point by administratively verifying the child's existence, thereby enabling access to medical care, protection, and support systems.

However, this system is limited to Gyeonggi Province. Father Yoo Sang-hyuk (John the Baptist), head of the Migrant Pastoral Committee of the Archdiocese of Seoul, remarked, “While this demonstrates the potential of a model based on identifying, verifying, and connecting migrant children with services, it does not fully resolve regional disparities in rights or the gaps in birth registration.”

Pragmatism and Bioethics

Father Park Eun-ho (Gregorio) – Archdiocese of Seoul; Professor, Graduate School of Life Sciences at the Catholic University of Korea, gives us information on Pragmatism and Bioethics in his Window of the Ark column in the Catholic Times.                                                                     

"Pragmatism" is undoubtedly the defining term for the current Korean administration. The pledge to become a "president for all"—transcending the divides of progressive versus conservative, ideology, and partisan factionalism—is rooted precisely in this pragmatism. In particular, concepts championed as core ideologies (prioritizing livelihood) and (prioritizing prosperity)—focus on public welfare in a way that few citizens would oppose; consequently, pragmatism appears to offer a new foundation for national unity. Indeed, the administration has achieved remarkable results through this pragmatic approach to governance, including a rising KOSPI, strengthened AI competitiveness, diplomatic successes, and exceptional crisis management during periods of soaring global oil prices.

However, it is difficult to view this pragmatic course in an entirely positive light. While pragmatism can help alleviate social conflict and foster unity, it may also simply be a re-emphasis—in a new guise—of the "developmentalist mindset" centered on growth and efficiency that has long dominated South Korea. The nation’s economic development, which has reached world-class levels, is largely the result of a strictly pragmatic, results-oriented mindset. Yet, we cannot overlook the fundamental values we have lost in the shadow of such dazzling growth.

The most concerning issue is the serious erosion of respect for human life. The trend in our society of disregarding the value of life goes beyond mere cliché; it reveals a callous reality where the worth of the powerless and vulnerable—those unable to defend themselves—is excluded from the very discourse on the matter. Pragmatic thinking reveals its dangerous nature when dealing with the most vulnerable beings at the beginning and end of life. Proposals offering financial incentives to families who decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, or attempts to introduce abortion pills—thereby shifting the burden of decision-making solely onto women and doctors without deeply considering the right to life of the fetus—vividly demonstrate how easily the value of vulnerable lives, such as those of terminally ill patients or fetuses, can be devalued.

By nature, pragmatism—like utilitarianism—prioritizes outcomes and utility as its core criteria. While it may offer the advantages of situational flexibility and realistic alternatives, it suffers from a fatal limitation: a failure to recognize the "absolute value of human life," a principle that cannot be compromised. When all moral judgments are reduced to situational contexts and efficient outcomes, the inherent dignity of life—which should remain inviolable under any circumstances—loses its ground.

What constitutes the true suffering of patients facing their final moments? What does genuine care that upholds their dignity look like? For a woman struggling alone with a crisis pregnancy, is the need really for a means to easily give up a life, or is it for a substantive social safety net that fully protects both the baby and the mother?

To the pragmatic eye, such questions may appear as unproductive, tedious, and merely academic—precisely because they do not lend themselves to immediate answers or efficient solutions. However, a society that pursues only efficiency and speed—trading the value of life for short-term utility—is bound to be shaken to its very roots. While immediate operational efficiency might increase, we risk losing the dignified meaning of human life and the fundamental value that upholds our national community: respect for human life.

For whom, then, does this developed Republic of Korea exist if it is built by undermining the value of human life? What does it mean to "live well" in a society that has discarded the precious values ​​that give human life its meaning? Despite widespread concern, the current government is rushing to introduce abortion pills. I urge the President and high-ranking government officials, even at this late stage, to look beyond pragmatism, reflect once more on the meaning and value of human life, and halt the introduction of these drugs.

The Life of Faith

[Tuning into Faith] Where Does Objective Knowledge End? Text by Fr. Peter Kim Seok-tae (Pastor, Doryong-dong Parish, Diocese of Daejeon)

"What is life?" "What is death?" "Where do humans come from and where do they go?" "In the face of such bitter betrayal and pain, does life truly hold meaning?" Confronted with these pivotal questions of existence and situations of ultimate limit—such as death, suffering, war, and responsibility—human objective knowledge reaches its end, and each individual must face their own choices and beliefs.

A widow’s only son suddenly passed away in a traffic accident. As she rushed to the scene, the widow was already beside herself with grief. After wailing at the accident site, she later held her son’s body at the hospital, shedding tears of heart-wrenching sorrow. Objective knowledge can offer nothing to a widow in such deep mourning; it cannot bring her dead son back to life, nor can it wipe away her tears. Even the doctor can do nothing more than confirm the fact that her only son has died.

After the funeral for her only son had concluded and everyone else had departed, the widow asked, with a hollow heart... “Why is life so sorrowful? What, after all, is life?” “Why must I endure this bitter pain? Is it because I have not believed in God faithfully enough?” “I, too, will die someday; where do human beings come from, and where do they go?” “Does God truly exist? If He does, how could He allow such suffering to befall me?”

The widow poses these pivotal questions of life. In grappling with them, a person gains their own insights into life and God, eventually arriving at some form of belief. Whether one believes that “life ends with physical death” or that “there is an afterlife and eternal life,” a choice of faith is made. Likewise, whether one believes “God exists” or “God does not exist,” each person chooses their own path of belief.

Faith, however, tells us that life does not end with physical death. It affirms that human suffering never concludes without meaning. It teaches that when we unite ourselves with the Passion and suffering of Christ and offer that pain to God, it becomes a foundation for salvation.

Furthermore, faith proclaims that “for those who believe in Christ, death is not an end but a transition to new life; when this earthly dwelling collapses, an eternal home is prepared in heaven.” This message wipes away the widow’s tears, and by believing in this truth, she finds the courage to rise again.

Ultimately, faith is a fundamental human response to the pivotal questions and experiences of life that erupt in moments of extreme crisis; it is the path that saves us, both in life and in death. While objective knowledge is powerless in the face of suffering and death, faith leads us beyond them—guiding us toward a life of eternal existence and a new way of living within this world.

Thus, objective knowledge reaches the limit of finitude when confronted with the boundary situations of life and the abyss of suffering. It is precisely where knowledge ceases that human beings begin to question the true meaning of life, stepping into the realm of faith that transcends the limits of reason. Ultimately, the point where knowledge ends becomes the very place where God’s saving grace and genuine human faith begin.

Climate Justice

 

“Let the Earth Breathe”… Calls for Climate Justice Ring Out. 

Street Mass for the ‘919 Climate Justice March’ being celebrated in Seoul, Korea. 

The desperate cries of the faithful, urging action to avert the climate crisis, rang out in Jongno, Seoul.

The ‘919 Climate Justice March Street Mass’ was celebrated on September 19 in Seoul, presided over by Bishop Kang Woo-il (Peter), former Bishop of the Diocese of Jeju.

Approximately 500 people participated in the Mass, including members of co-hosting organizations.

In his opening remarks, Bishop Kang Woo-il stated, “Our small acts of participation can save the Earth, our only home,” adding that [we must not] destroy the Earth... ...let us ask for forgiveness for the wrongs humanity has inflicted.” In his subsequent homily, Bishop Kang criticized the situation, stating, “The massive floods in Nepal were a foreseeable disaster caused by the climate crisis, and there is no telling when such a calamity might strike again.” He added, “I cannot help but express concern over our government’s policies—such as constructing transmission towers and persisting with nuclear power generation—in this era of climate crisis.”

He continued, “As the climate crisis is now being termed a ‘climate disaster’ or ‘climate collapse,’ we realize that the material growth envisioned by capitalism has reached a dead end.” He predicted, “With shrinking arable land and intensifying competition for resources, nations will likely emerge that disregard international law and fuel nationalistic selfishness by rejecting climate refugees.” Furthermore, Bishop Kang urged South Korea’s political leaders to “look a century ahead and pave the way for universal human values and the future of the planet.”

Justice the 'Magnificent Virtue'

What Understanding of Justice Brings Happiness to Humans?

Justice That Restores Community: From Beyond Legal Logic to Fulfillment Through True Love.

Aquinas regards justice as a "magnificent virtue" directed toward the common good rather than the individual good. 

In modern Korean history, the word "justice" (*justitia*) has been a value that was simultaneously most tainted and most desperately sought after. Paradoxically, the "new military" forces—who seized power by violently suppressing the May 18 Democratic Uprising in 1980—adopted "realizing a just society" as their national slogan.

At that time, the Servant of God Cardinal Stephen Kim Sou-hwan proclaimed in his homilies: "Let justice flow like a river" (Amos 5:24). While the "justice" invoked by those in power to justify unjust rule was merely a "hollow pretext," the justice presented by Cardinal Kim was a "living order"—one that reclaimed what belonged to the oppressed and restored universal values.

In the philosophical system of Thomas Aquinas, justice transcends mere personal virtue; it serves as the personal foundation for the rule of law and a core principle maintaining the order of the community. In the *Summa Theologica*, Thomas classifies justice as one of the four cardinal virtues—alongside prudence, fortitude, and temperance—yet accords it the highest status among them. This is because justice does not remain confined to an individual's inner cultivation but strives toward the universal value of the "common good" (*bonum commune*) within the context of relationships with others. 

Thomas defines justice as "the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due". The most notable aspect of this classical definition is that the subject of justice is the "will," not the intellect. Justice is not merely an intellectual activity of recognizing what is right; it signifies a steadfast habit of according others their due rights. In particular, Thomas held that a sensitive appetite cannot be the subject of justice because it lacks the capacity for comparison or analogy. In other words, justice is a volitional decision and a personal habit that presupposes a high degree of intellectual deliberation.

Furthermore, Thomas regards justice as a "magnificent virtue" directed toward the common good rather than the "individual good" (*bonum singularis*). Justice directs the acts of all virtues toward the benefit of the community; in this sense, it is identified with "legal justice" (*justitia legalis*). This essential definition of justice is concretized within the social order through the objective standard of law. Having established that the subject of justice is a right will directed toward others.

Reflecting on these distinctions, restoring the truth and rehabilitating the honor of the victims of the May 18 Democratic Uprising is not merely an act of charitable compensation. It represents the realization of distributive justice, correcting distorted social proportions by allocating a fair share commensurate with the value of the contributions individuals have made to the community.

Furthermore, for Aquinas, justice serves a dual purpose: it safeguards the equality and rights that form the foundation of human society while simultaneously acknowledging inherent human limitations and acting as a steppingstone toward higher virtues—namely, religion and true love. Viewed through the lens of contemporary ethical practice, Aquinas’s insights emphasize that justice must not be subsumed by the cold logic of the law; instead, it must evolve into a "justice perfected in love," grounded in the dignity of the human person.

Thus, the May 18 Democratic Uprising was a massive, willful outpouring of the community’s resolve to restore a sense of justice that had been violated. The unlawful massacre perpetrated by the state at that time constituted a clear act of injustice—a usurpation of the "due share" belonging to others, namely their lives and dignity—and a grave sin against true love, which is the life of the soul.

Today, the process of restoring the honor of the May 18 movement is an act of reparation aimed at re-establishing the arithmetic and geometric equality that had been destroyed. Reconciliation and peace achieved hastily, without justice, easily devolve into deceptive falsehoods. Restoring the moral health of the community by thoroughly responding to the demands of justice is the essential prerequisite for Korean society to enjoy true happiness. 

Text by Park Seung-chan Elijah (Professor, Department of Philosophy, The Catholic University of Korea) (This article was shortened.)

Cardinal Stephen Kim of Korea

On-site Investigation for Cardinal Kim Stephen appeared in the Korean Catholic Times.  Confirmation of ‘No Public Veneration’ was made.

Archdiocese of Seoul’s Committee for the Causes of Saints visited the Archdiocese of Seoul and Daegu to verify facts for the preliminary inquiry.

The Archdiocese of Seoul’s Committee for the Causes of Saints conducted on-site investigations regarding the beatification cause of the Servant of God Cardinal Kim Sou-hwan (Stephen) on August 26 and 27—spending one day each at the Archdioceses of Seoul and Daegu—and confirmed the absence of "public veneration."

Unlike saints or the blessed, a "Servant of God" cannot be the object of public veneration; therefore, those involved in the diocesan tribunal for beatification visit sites associated with the Servant of God to verify that no such public veneration has taken place.

The on-site investigation in the Archdiocese of Seoul, held as the 12th session of the tribunal for Cardinal Kim’s beatification, began on August 26 at the diocesan chancery with a declaration of the opening of the session by the bishop judge, chairman of the Diocesan Committee for the Causes of Saints. 

In his opening remarks, Bishop Gu Yo-bi stated, "We will be able to share the history of martyrdom in the Korean Church—as well as the fact that a figure like Cardinal Kim existed in Korea's modern history—with the young people and international delegations attending next year's World Youth Day (WYD) in Seoul."