Human Life Threatened!

From the Window of the Ark’s column of the Catholic Times, we hear about the Weight of Truth that Overcomes the Majority.

Human life today is particularly threatened at its beginning and end—the moments when it is most vulnerable. While abortion and euthanasia have a long history, the intensity of this threat is growing ever greater, especially amid advances in life sciences and a climate that maximizes individual freedom.

In particular, “self-determination” has recently emerged as the primary justification for the legalization of abortion and euthanasia (physician-assisted suicide). In the context of euthanasia, self-determination manifests as the “right to die”—the ability to end one’s own life—while in the context of abortion, it appears as a right to determine not only one’s own life but also the lives of others. 

In this context, the fetus is no longer recognized as a human being but is distorted into merely a clump of cells or a part of a woman’s uterus. If we add the issue of suicide to this, South Korea can be described as a unique country where human life is constantly threatened not by external forces but in the name of “self-determination.”

The fact that individual “freedom”—and no other important value—is emphasized to such an extent indicates that, despite the tremendous progress South Korean society has made in many ways, it is currently experiencing a crisis of values. It can be said that our country has lost the precious values we must uphold together. 

The loss of objective values that everyone recognizes and agrees upon leads to a loss of direction for both individuals and society, causing people to simply follow the majority's opinion. It is becoming increasingly difficult to proclaim the dignity of human life, which remains unchanged under any circumstances. A common response is the question, “Is there really anyone who lives that way?”

However, Father Paolo Benanti, a member of the Pontifical Council for the Family and a recent recipient of the Archdiocese of Seoul’s Mystery of Life Award, warned against the era of artificial intelligence in his acceptance speech and clearly stated his conviction that “the majority is not necessarily the truth.” He cited the Korean martyrs as a prime example. The Korean martyrs firmly held onto the truth they had come to realize on their own, demonstrating an unshakable faith even amidst a crowd of non-believers and in the face of the threat of death.

The historic decision of a soldier who stood alone to proclaim the truth—defying the majority opinion, going against the prevailing trends, and standing up to a massive system that suppressed human life—was recently reported in the media. This refers to the story of Major General Xu Qixian, commander of the 38th Army Group, who outright refused orders to use force against his own people during the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident. 

In recently declassified footage from his 1990 military trial, he stood tall and unwavering, stating his convictions even under intense pressure. His cry—“I would rather have my head cut off than become a criminal in the eyes of history”—shows that “truth” shines brightly no matter the circumstances.

North Korea and South Korea Peace Initiaitives

The Catholic Church observes June as a month of prayer for national reconciliation and unity. However, inter-Korean relations are currently so frozen that the very words “reconciliation” or “unity” seem out of place. The harsh reality is that there is no sign of even minor exchanges or cooperation at either the civilian or government level. Reported in the Catholic Times. 

Amid this situation, two developments have emerged that offer insights into the future of inter-Korean relations and national reconciliation. North Korea amended its constitution, and South Korea’s Ministry of Unification published its first “White Paper on Unification” since the Lee Jae-myung administration took office. We will examine the contents of North Korea’s amended constitution and the Ministry of Unification’s “White Paper on Unification” to explore what efforts the Church should make despite the strained inter-Korean relations.

Immediately after taking office, the government took preemptive measures to ease tensions by practicing peace first, such as preventing the distribution of leaflets in border areas and suspending loudspeaker broadcasts directed at North Korea. The “White Paper on Unification” details the government’s efforts to lay the institutional and structural foundations for restoring inter-Korean relations—including a reorganization of the Ministry of Unification to fully restore inter-Korean dialogue, exchange, and cooperation—based on its unwavering commitment to pursuing a policy of peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula.

The South Korean Minister of Unification stated in his foreword to the “White Paper on Unification”: “We have firmly proclaimed the three principles of peaceful coexistence: respecting the North’s system, not pursuing absorption-style unification, and refraining from any hostile acts.” President Lee Jae-myung also emphasized during his press conference marking his first anniversary in office on June 8, “From a historical perspective, 70 or 80 years of division is not a long time,” adding, “We cannot abandon the goal of peaceful unification.” However, he noted, “For now, I believe we should proceed down the path of communication, dialogue, and mutual respect while coexisting peacefully.”

An expert on North Korea’s political and leadership systems said, “It is necessary for the Ministry of Unification—the agency responsible for managing relations with North Korea—to proceed with inter-Korean relations in line with North Korea’s position in order to maintain coexistence and peaceful relations with North Korea.” She added, “Since a unified Korean Peninsula will have a very positive impact on South Korea’s national interests, it is clear that the process of pursuing unification must be peaceful and seek the consent of the North Korean people.”

The director of the “Peace Education Institute for Life,” emphasized, “The most striking aspect of the ‘White Paper on Unification’ is that it prioritizes peaceful coexistence over the goal of unification itself,” adding, “As Catholic social teaching instructs, peace begins with our own efforts to break the vicious cycle of hostility, rather than waiting for the other side to change.”

Let's Meet for Just one Hour!

A Professor in the Department of English Literature and Culture at a Korean University, in an article in the Catholic Times, offers a meditation on a day spent with a friend.              

On the day I had finally arranged to meet a friend, the scorching summer heat made me waver for a moment. "It’s so hot—should I just stay in?" I had been diligently tackling a backlog of tasks at my desk, yet there was still more to do. Wouldn't it be better to just stay put and finish today's work? Despite these thoughts, I found myself putting on my shoes before I knew it.

It’s not just that I rarely break plans; it seems my body wanted to get moving before my mind could object. As we set off, I casually suggested, "Let's turn off our phones and walk for just one hour." My friend readily agreed.

The summer mountain wasn't as hot as I’d expected. I had anticipated high humidity, but the air in the forest's shade was pleasantly moist, allowing us to breathe deeply. Having both just recovered from a nasty bout of the flu, we kept our conversation to a minimum; with our phones tucked away in our pockets, we simply walked steadily onward. What was it that we saw and shared during that time?

Strolling through the summer forest—deepened to a lush, vibrant green in the afternoon sunlight—felt like a true blessing. We didn't need a map for the familiar path, nor did we stop to take photos of the scenery; we simply walked on in quiet contemplation.

"It’s wonderful having a mountain like this right behind the house." "It really is."

"We’re enjoying this blessing for free, without having done a thing to earn it." 

"Not really. I do work diligently when the moment demands it, but sometimes I wonder what it all means." "Yeah, I know the feeling. There are times I wonder what I’ve actually done with my life."

To have a friendship spanning over forty years—what a remarkable bond! We understand each other's worries so well that no explanation is ever needed. We walked along, taking turns leading the way, without any particularly special conversation, before eventually parting ways.

I had a lot of work to do, and my friend had to head home to prepare dinner. My friend, who had taken on the role of caregiver after her mother was injured in an accident, spoke of the sorrow of witnessing an aging body and the lessons learned through daily patience; meanwhile, I—having lost my father last winter—spoke of how that parting, which I had initially viewed solely as a loss, turned out to be neither a loss nor a true farewell.

On that walk—undertaken with the simple thought, "Let's meet for just one hour"—we received a gift of healing and comfort far greater than what an ordinary hour usually offers. My friend told me she had hesitated about coming out at all, but that the decision to meet for "just one hour" had saved her. She said she intended to share this mystery with her child, who was currently struggling with burnout.

Not long ago, on the Solemnity of Pentecost, my friend drew the gift of "Piety" (Reverence) from the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, while I drew "Wisdom." As we parted, we shared the gifts we had received.

"Between caring for your parents and your volunteer work, 'Piety' is already your way of life—and yet you drew it again? Here, take mine."

"You’re always studying, reading, listening, and sharing wisdom—and you drew 'Wisdom' again? Want to swap? Though I suppose this one is actually quite challenging."

We returned home promising that whenever we felt exhausted in the future, we wouldn't hesitate to give ourselves that empty space—not just "let's meet for an hour," but even if we couldn't meet in person, simply "taking an hour for myself." This piece of writing is a gift born of that time.

For everyone who has will be given more---

 The Matthew Effect 

There is an economic term called the “Matthew Effect.” It refers to the phenomenon in which the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. This was the subject of a column in the Catholic Times.

It originates from the Gospel passage: “For all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. (Matthew 25:29). 

In 1969, American sociologist Robert Merton first used this term to describe the reality where, even for the same research achievements, renowned scientists are rewarded far more than unknown scientists.

While reporting on a free meal program, the reporter witnessed the Matthew Effect unfolding today. After the war broke out between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, expectations for rising stock prices among defense contractors grew. In fact, the stock prices of major defense companies did surge immediately after the outbreak of war. On the other hand, the inflation caused by the war cost someone a single meal. It even took away that from those who make do with a single packet of instant noodles or a slice of bread for dinner. One patron the reporter met at the soup kitchen had scooped up a large portion of plain rice in anticipation of not being able to eat dinner.

At the same time, he witnessed hope. There were people who rolled up their sleeves to provide a meal for others. Some offered what they had, whether money or goods. Others carefully prepared and served meals. They were the ones bringing to life the miracle of Jesus Christ feeding the five thousand, as described in the Gospel of Matthew (see Matthew 14:13-21).

He dreams that the “Matthew Effect” might take on a different meaning. Just as the saying, “The last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matthew 20:16), implies that the standards of the Kingdom of God differ from those of the world. He hopes for a world where the term “the warmth of another person” is used naturally to describe how it generates greater benefits, not money or power.

Korean President's Visit to the Vatican

On June 15th, President Lee Jae-myung met with Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican to confirm the Pope’s support for peace on the Korean Peninsula and discuss key issues related to the 2027 World Youth Day to be held in Seoul next year. This meeting was reported in the recent Catholic Peace Weekly.

This meeting between Pope Leo XIV and President Lee Jae-myung is the first since the Pope’s election and the President’s inauguration.

President Lee is touring Europe from the 9th to the 18th, starting with Belgium, followed by visits to Italy and the Vatican, and will attend the G7 Summit in Evian, France. He will visit the Vatican on the 14th and 15th. On the 14th, he is scheduled to participate in and deliver a speech at the “Special Mass for Peace and Solidarity” held at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls in Rome. On the 15th, he will have an audience with the Pope and subsequently meet with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See.

National Security Advisor Wi Seong-rak stated during a briefing with the press corps at the Blue House on the 5th, “We are approaching the 2027 Seoul World Youth Day (WYD), which will be the second such event held in an Asian country and the first in a nation where Catholicism is not the majority religion.” He added, “Through this visit, we will firmly establish a cooperative framework between South Korea and the Holy See to ensure that next year’s event becomes a venue for solidarity among young people worldwide.”

Director Wi continued, “During his meeting with the Pope, a symbol of world peace, and in his speech at the special Mass at St. Paul’s Basilica, President Lee will express Korea’s commitment to global peace and solidarity amid rapidly changing international circumstances,” adding, “We hope to secure the Holy See’s support for this.” He further noted, “This will serve as an opportunity to reaffirm the Holy See’s continued support and interest in peace on the Korean Peninsula.”

The meeting between the Pope and President Lee comes exactly one year after their respective inaugurations. It marks the earliest meeting with a Pope by any South Korean president since their inauguration. President Lee will visit Brussels, Belgium, on the 9th and 10th to commemorate the 125th anniversary of diplomatic relations between South Korea and Belgium, where he will hold summit meetings with Belgian and European Union (EU) officials.

He will then pay a state visit to Rome and Florence, Italy, from the 11th to the 13th, where he will hold a summit with Italian President Sergio Mattarella. In line with his Vatican schedule, he will attend the G7 Summit as an invited guest on the 16th and 17th. Director Wi said, “We expect this to contribute to establishing our status as a globally responsible power aiming for a ‘G7 Plus’ by expanding our participation in major issues facing the international community.”

'Life Sustaining Treatment'

Discussions in Korea are gaining momentum to bring forward the timing for discontinuing life-sustaining treatment from the current “terminal phase” to the “end-stage,” under the banner of a “dignified death.” The church is concerned that this trend could lead to a weakening of protections for the lives of terminally ill patients. This was the report in the recent Catholic Times.

On June 5, the Ministry of Health and Welfare held a workshop for civilian members of the 7th National Bioethics Committee and presented the issue of expanding the timing for discontinuing life-sustaining treatment as a key agenda item. The intent is to allow the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment—currently limited to patients in the terminal phase—to be applied to terminally ill patients as well. Previously, the Minister of Health and Welfare had also stated in media interviews that she would bring forward the issue of accelerating the timing for discontinuing life-sustaining treatment into public discourse.

Similar trends are emerging within the medical community and the National Assembly. On May 14, the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences and the Korea Medical and Bio Journalists Association held the 5th Media Forum on the Act on Decisions Regarding Life-Sustaining Treatment. At the forum, participants argued that the current restriction of life-sustaining treatment withdrawal to the terminal phase is causing confusion in clinical settings and that the system should be revised to allow such decisions to begin earlier. An amendment to allow the implementation of decisions to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for terminally ill patients is also pending in the National Assembly.

These developments have raised concerns within the Church. At a meeting held on May 30, the Bioethics Advisory Committee of the Archdiocese of Seoul addressed the proposal to expand the timing for implementing decisions to discontinue life-sustaining treatment to include the terminal stage as a key agenda item and highlighted the issues involved.

The Church’s objection is not to the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment itself. The Church teaches that medical care which causes excessive suffering or burden to the patient, or which is disproportionate to the expected outcome, may be withheld or discontinued.

However, this does not imply recognition of an individual’s right to choose death. The Church believes that if the timing for discontinuing life-sustaining treatment is brought forward, even balanced medical care necessary to save the patient’s life could be discontinued. Furthermore, the Church cautions against the possibility that this trend could lead to the exercise of self-determination—such as the notion that “one can choose death”—and ultimately to discussions on assisted suicide.

Current law limits the scope of decisions to discontinue life-sustaining treatment to “patients in the terminal stage.” Since continuing active treatment for patients in the terminal stage is generally considered disproportionate care, significant ethical issues regarding the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment have not been prominently highlighted until now.

A workshop for civilian members of the 7th National Bioethics Committee is being held on June 5. Courtesy of the Ministry of Health and Welfare

In contrast, the prognosis for terminally ill patients varies depending on their disease and condition, making it difficult to make medical judgments regarding the appropriateness of treatment. In particular, for non-cancerous diseases, there are cases where patients survive for several years even after a terminal diagnosis has been made, further increasing the uncertainty of such judgments. Furthermore, expanding the scope of application could place greater emphasis on the patient’s right to self-determination than on the medical judgment of healthcare professionals.

The director of the Catholic Institute of Bioethics) stated at a meeting of the Bioethics Advisory Committee, “Current law applies life-sustaining treatment to patients in the terminal stage and includes judgments regarding disproportionate treatment.” He added, “However, if the scope of application is expanded to include the terminal stage, would medical interventions such as mechanical ventilation—which merely prolong the process of dying without providing therapeutic benefit—truly be considered life-sustaining treatment?”

Birthrate In Korea

South Korea, currently riding high as a powerhouse in both industry and culture, has been ranking at the very bottom of the world in one particular area for decades. That area is the total fertility rate. In the Peace Column of the Catholic Peace Weekly, a reporter offers some insight into the present situation.

Whenever I look at statistics on the total fertility rate—which represents the average number of children a woman of childbearing age (15–49) is expected to have in her lifetime—I feel a twinge of guilt as a female citizen. Now that I’ve turned 50 this year and am finally exempt from the “duty” of childbirth, I feel incredibly relieved.

The low birthrate crisis is palpable even here in Seoul, where I live. As the school-age population shrinks, the elementary and middle schools near my home have closed one after another over the past three years. Every May, the annual “Blessing of the Unborn” ceremony at my parish—part of Life Sunday—is on the verge of being canceled due to a lack of participants.

Looking around me, the situation becomes even clearer. My longtime friends are prime examples of this low birthrate phenomenon. Of my five friends I’ve known for 20 years, four are married, but only one is a parent. That means the nine of us—including our husbands—have produced only two children. 

In a world where it’s hard enough to take care of ourselves, we couldn’t bring ourselves to be so reckless as to invite someone else into it, so marriage and childbirth were delayed. By the time we were finally ready, we were already on the express train to infertility.

At the newspaper where I worked for 25 years, women made up just over 30% of the total staff. Even though the percentage of women joining the company increased every year, the proportion of women on the payroll always hovered around 30%. This was because it was a recurring pattern: senior and junior colleagues at the peak of their careers would struggle to balance being “working moms” and would eventually leave the company.

There were a few rare senior colleagues who managed to juggle childcare, housework, and their jobs with seemingly superhuman ease. They were the type who literally worked themselves to the bone. Faced with the extreme choice between quitting or becoming a “superwoman,” my friends and I chose “not to choose.” We opted for a life of singlehood or childlessness.

Meanwhile, the “working moms”—the backbone of the total fertility rate—who were barely holding on became worn out. If they continued working, they were lectured that “a mother should raise her own child”; if they quit, people worried, “It’s a tight squeeze even with two incomes.” They said “giving birth is patriotic,” yet every extreme survival struggle afterward fell solely on the mother’s shoulders.

Despite the chronic low birth rate, which has led to theories of national extinction, the church’s stance is subtly different. Whenever I hear the “Universal Prayer for Couples Struggling with Infertility,” a corner of my heart feels uneasy. The problematic passage reads: “May they resist the temptation of unethical assisted reproductive technologies at the moment of choice and be guided toward the path of respecting life.”

The church prohibits any artificial intervention in the process of conception, including artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF). When I was first recommended IVF at a fertility clinic, I was more terrified by the daily injections into my abdomen, the egg retrieval and implantation procedures, and the terrible side effects caused by hormonal disruption than I was by the church’s ban on assisted reproductive technology.

Those who undergo IVF are brave women willing to endure risks and immense physical pain in their quest to become mothers. It is not a choice anyone would dare to make simply because they were pushed into it. Their journey toward life is marked by far too many tears.

As of last year, South Korea’s total fertility rate stands at 0.80. It has been below 1.0 for eight years now. With policy and social infrastructure designed to support work-life balance failing to function properly, who could feel at ease having a child? The total fertility rate can only rise again in a society where marriage and childbirth are not seen as challenges that jeopardize one’s career.

The Church must also show thoughtful consideration for those who earnestly desire to become mothers. We must comfort their hearts so they do not undergo fertility treatments with a fearful sense of guilt, and we must actively proclaim God’s mercy. For God, the Lord of life, will rejoice more than anyone else in a world where the laughter of children never ceases.