Global Church

Illustrations depicting Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Vatican’s Inter-dicasterial Committee on Artificial Intelligence, established in May of this year, recently held its first meeting in Rome to discuss the direction of its activities. 

Vatican News reported on June 27 that representatives from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Dicastery for Culture and Education, the Dicastery for Communication, the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, as well as the Pontifical Academies for Life, Sciences, and Social Sciences, attended the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to share the Committee's ongoing plans, identify shared priorities, and promote a vision for AI that serves human dignity, the common good, and the mission of the Church. Cardinal Michael Czerny, Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development—who is coordinating the committee's work during its inaugural year—highlighted four particularly significant aspects of current AI development in his opening remarks: the unprecedented speed of advancement, the impact on human dignity, the need for expanded dialogue between the Church and the technology sector, and the profound resonance of Pope Leo XIII’s first encyclical, *Magnifica Humanitas*.

During the committee's first meeting, special attention was paid to the need for careful discernment regarding AI, which presents both immense opportunities and increasingly significant ethical, social, cultural, and environmental risks and challenges.

Regarding the committee's role, discussions focused on the need to foster internal coordination, information sharing, and reflection on AI use within Holy See institutions, as well as to serve as a reference point for discerning and supporting various AI-related initiatives. Participants also emphasized the importance of promoting open dialogue with national episcopal conferences, as well as with the academic, scientific, and industrial sectors. In this context, the committee reached a consensus on the need to create a dedicated website to share relevant initiatives and facilitate information flow.

Air Conditioner

In the Window of the Ark column of the Catholic Times, the director of the Jesuit Human Rights Research Center asks: Do we turn on the Air Conditioner or not?

In mid-June, a chaotic scene reminiscent of a looting spree unfolded at an appliance store in Paris, France, as citizens flocked to purchase air conditioners. France typically has little need for air conditioning due to its mild summer climate and strict installation regulations; consequently, the penetration rate of air conditioners stands at a mere 25%.

However, as relentless heatwaves pushed temperatures above 40°C, forcing schools to close and casualties to mount, the issue of air-conditioning use escalated from a matter of daily personal choice to a national political controversy. Seizing the opportunity, far-right factions considered air conditioning a "fundamental right for survival." They incited public sentiment by claiming that "climate dictators" were driving people to their deaths by imposing guilt on those who use air conditioners. This narrative is gaining significant traction and spreading rapidly.

Two main arguments have long competed regarding how to address the climate crisis. "Climate adaptation" refers to measures that protect lives—such as turning on air conditioners—for those immediately suffering from heatwaves. In contrast, "climate mitigation" involves transforming the energy systems that power those air conditioners to run on renewable energy and remodeling urban infrastructure. Yet "adaptation" and "mitigation" should not be pitted against each other in this manner. 

The greater problem, however, is that such a distinction obscures the true nature of the climate crisis. The choice to turn on the air conditioner places the entire burden of guilt or discomfort on the individual, regardless of the decision made. We need a different kind of language—one that advocates changing the societal mechanisms that endanger our ecosystem while simultaneously protecting the lives of those who bear the consequences first.

The question we must ask regarding the climate crisis is not whether to use air conditioning, but why we have built cities and societies in which survival is difficult without it. The climate crisis is not caused by individuals indiscriminately consuming electricity. Its root causes lie in an economic system that equates endless production and consumption with growth, industrial policies centered on fossil fuels, and an industrial system that has offloaded the costs of carbon emissions onto society at large to maximize profits. Recently, corporations have also begun to take an active lead in implementing "carbon neutrality" policies, such as reducing emissions and adopting renewable energy; they, too, recognize the climate crisis as a serious threat to their capital. This has given rise to concepts like "green growth" and "sustainable development."

Avoiding disposable products out of concern for the environment is certainly a worthwhile practice. However, such actions alone cannot address the root of the problem. In fact, the satisfaction derived from "eco-friendly consumption" can hinder the more fundamental actions required—namely, holding politicians and corporations accountable and demanding alternatives. 

Our sense of relief can serve to uphold the status quo. Corporations leverage an "eco-friendly" image to appease consumers' consciences while maintaining business models that drive mass production and excessive consumption. Ultimately, our good intentions should serve as a starting point for societal change, not as an absolution that masks structural problems. 

Through the concept of "integral ecology," Pope Francis proposed a fundamental solution in which ecological conversion and the transformation of social structures go hand in hand. For those of us accustomed to excessive convenience and endless consumerism, willingly embracing "ecological inconvenience" is not merely an act of patience or sacrifice. It is akin to a declaration of spiritual independence—breaking free from the shackles of the "fake happiness" promoted by capital and reclaiming sovereignty over our own lives. It represents a beautiful form of resistance: preserving the dignity of life and redefining "true happiness" on our own terms amidst a capitalist system racing toward catastrophe. The ecological sensibility cultivated through small, everyday actions forms a solid emotional foundation for the "climate politics" that transforms structures.

To overcome the crises of climate, labor, and life itself, we need not merely "another form of growth," but "another world." Those who must bear the brunt of the climate crisis are always real people with distinct faces. This sense of solidarity—knowing that our ecological choices alleviate the suffering of vulnerable groups plagued by climate disasters and contribute to the life of the global community—imbues our lives with an existential depth that the material abundance provided by capital can never fill. It is also a process of cultivating, from within, the "good life" that we can envision.

Earth Our Common Home

“Let’s Stop Building Nuclear Power Plants That Stake Residents’ Lives” Posted in The Korean Times.

Street Mass and National Rally to Oppose New Nuclear Power Plants by Catholic Climate Action, Catholic Solidarity for the Preservation of Creation, and others participating in the national rally to oppose new nuclear power plants marched to the Blue House on June 27. 

After Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) selected sites for new nuclear power plants and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), the Diocese of Andong and various Catholic environmental groups immediately voiced their opposition and demanded the withdrawal of the site selections. They urged a halt to the construction plans, citing concerns about nuclear waste, SMR safety, and the hasty nature of the site selection process.

On June 27, Catholic environmental groups—including Catholic Climate Action and the Catholic Solidarity for the Preservation of Creation—held a “Street Mass to Oppose New Nuclear Power Plants” in Seoul. 

In his homily, Father Yang pointed out that the government is acting as a mouthpiece for the nuclear power industry. He stated, “Despite historical evidence confirming that the risks of nuclear power plants and the management of high-level nuclear waste are beyond human technological control, the government is pushing ahead with the construction of new nuclear power plants under the pretext of carbon-free energy to combat the climate crisis.” He further urged the faithful to join the transition toward a nuclear-free society as apostles of ecology.

Following the Mass, a nationwide rally organized by the "National Emergency Action to Stop New Nuclear Power Plants" was held. Participants marched to the Blue House, chanting, “Stop building nuclear power plants; withdraw the site selection!” A married couple who participated in the march—an environmental activist and their two children —said, “My children already know that nuclear power plants are dangerous from reading books about the Fukushima disaster.” She added, “I joined this march to show them just how dangerous it is to build additional nuclear power plants.”

Meanwhile, on June 22, the Social Pastoral Council of the Diocese of Andong (comprising the Catholic Farmers Movement and committees for Ecology and Environment, Justice and Peace, National Reconciliation, and Migrant Pastoral Care) celebrated a “Mass for Life and Peace in a Nuclear-Free World” at Yeongdeok Catholic Church, presided over by the Chairperson of the Diocese of Andong’s Ecology and Environment Committee).

Addressing current issues—such as the hastily conducted site selection process, the lack of alternatives for nuclear waste disposal, and the unverified safety of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)—“I cannot understand how the current government has simply adopted the previous administration’s nuclear power plant construction plans without correcting them.” During the Mass, the Council for Social Pastoral Care issued a statement titled "Immediately Withdraw the Selection of Sites for New Large-Scale Nuclear Power Plants and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) That Hold Residents' Lives Hostage." They criticized the move, stating, "Introducing SMR technology—whose economic viability and safety remain unproven—alongside existing nuclear plants is nothing short of cruel violence that tramples on local democracy and disregards safety." They further urged, "The present administration must break away from past misguided practices and establish a just energy policy that prioritizes life above all else."

Permeating Each Other

Love Is the Act of Willingly Permeating Each Other’s Lives. This was an article in the Korean Catholic Times by the Co-director of the Family Humanities Institute.

Clara grows plants. Upon waking in the morning, tending to her plants is the first thing she does. She checks whether their leaves have drooped overnight or if any pests have appeared. She touches the soil surrounding the plants; if it is bone-dry, they need water. When watering, she must soak the soil thoroughly and then wait for the excess water to drain away completely. The timing of watering matters, too; early morning or evening is best. Even if the plants look thirsty or overheated under the blazing sun, one should not water them in the middle of the day. Doing so causes the water temperature inside the pot to rise rapidly, which can rot the roots and turn the tips of the leaves black.

Air circulation is also crucial. Ventilating the room at least once a day is essential; windows should be left open while cleaning or cooking. Without proper air circulation, the leaves quickly wither. Temperature and humidity levels matter as well—conditions should be neither too hot nor too cold, neither too dry nor too humid. By nurturing these delicate living things, Clara has developed a keen, sensitive awareness. It would be fair to say that the plants are nurturing Clara, too, as she draws vitality and energy from them.

When she looks at the short trees in the apartment complex garden or the tall trees along the main road, she feels the presence of God, the Creator of all things. There is something truly wondrous about trees that radiate such vibrant green life, even without anyone specifically tending to their air, water, temperature, and humidity. One cannot help but marvel at the natural phenomena—the alternation of day and night, the blowing winds, and the timely rains—that align perfectly to provide exactly what these trees need. A tree, firmly rooted in the ground yet growing toward the sky, resembles a monk at prayer.

In the redwood forests of California—home to the world’s tallest trees—it is said that the trees grow with their roots intertwined. Some of them are as old as two thousand years. Because their roots touch and support one another, they do not stand alone against fierce winds and heavy rains; instead, they lean upon each other’s roots to remain standing.

Like those trees, the couple Clara and Augustino feel a deep connection. Augustino’s strong roots support Clara’s more fragile ones. Clara, having honed a delicate sensibility through tending to plants, never forgets to care for the precious, everyday essentials—air, water, temperature, and humidity—that healthy individuals might easily overlook. I reflect on the meaning of togetherness. Two distinct individuals spent a quarter-century side by side; though they faced trials, they endured them because their roots were intertwined.

Yet the Lord said, "You have received my grace in abundance. My power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore, I will most gladly boast of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell within me (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:9).

I reflect on weakness. Love is the act of willingly permeating one another’s weaknesses. In doing so, we come to sense the presence of God, the Creator. I, Clara, wish to live a vibrant, flourishing life alongside my spouse, Augustino, like a monastic in prayer, with our roots deeply intertwined.

Language: the Root of Misunderstanding

In the "Window of the Ark" column of the Korean Catholic Times, a scholar of Religious Peace Studies at The Catholic University of Korea sheds light on the phrase: "Language is the root of all misunderstanding."  

While language points to external events and internal emotions, it cannot convey them exactly as they are. Language possesses concepts and boundaries, and meaning is transmitted only partially within those limits. Moreover, the "edges"—or boundaries—of the language envisioned by the speaker differ from those envisioned by the listener.

People speak and listen only to the extent of their own experiences, situations, interests, and intentions. Consequently, the content contained within language becomes further restricted, and the speaking mouth and listening ear often fail to align. Consider, for instance, the differing interpretations and reactions of the Democratic Party of Korea and the People Power Party regarding statements made by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Language points to certain content while simultaneously obscuring what lies "outside" that content. For example, if one focuses on the full moon in the night sky, the surrounding stars fade from view. One person might recall literary language upon seeing the full moon, another might engage in astronomical speculation, and yet another might share a romantic conversation. In this way, language functions by aligning with individual interests while inevitably masking other aspects.

Imagining a vast world often places the smaller world within parentheses. For instance, the statement "Jesus is the Savior" evokes God’s eternal and universal providence, yet this association often obscures the humble, everyday details of Jesus's life. The Jesus of everyday life—walking through desert sandstorms, subsisting on bread given in charity, and occasionally relieving himself in solitude—is often pushed into the background by the grand concept of eternal salvation.

Yet, salvation that excludes the everyday is a contradiction. After all, a full moon shines brightest against a dark backdrop. There is no light without darkness, no resurrection without death. One must look at the hidden aspects of the world to truly perceive reality.

Religious people, in particular, ought to reflect more deeply on the meaning of their own words. For instance, when an atheist claims "there is no God," a Christian counters that "there is a God." However, the assertion "there is a God" implies a background—a specific "place" where God resides. If God exists, 'where' is He? Questioning that "place" reveals how human imagination diminishes God; a God located "somewhere" inevitably becomes smaller than that "somewhere." Christians, too, often encounter this paradox.

Take, for example, the verse "God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1); one might imagine God somewhere in the heavens, fashioning light, animals, and humans. Yet, the moment one does so, the heavens become an entity greater and more primary than God Himself. It reduces God to a small being dwelling within a vast space. The notion that God is in the heavens elevates the heavens above God, while the idea that God resides within the human heart implies His absence from the human body.

The moment we conceive of God as existing "somewhere," the space *outside* that location becomes a realm devoid of God. We must constantly ask ourselves whether we have unwittingly grown accustomed to imagining God in ways that contradict the fundamental confession that He is the Creator of heaven and earth.

To avoid the contradiction where the statement "God exists" presupposes a space larger than God or a time preceding Him, we must perceive God within all space and time. The space that exists must be God, and the time that changes must be God. If such a perspective feels dangerous, it is evidence that one has not seriously probed the depths of the concept of "God."

Of course, a God who transmits revelations—like radio waves—from a point in the universe to humans (who are smaller than grains of sand) on Earth (which is smaller than a speck of dust) is also God. Yet such a God is imagined in human terms, confined by the limitations of language. To avoid the error of objectifying God in an egocentric manner, we must repeatedly question the concepts, backgrounds, and contexts of the language we use and delve into their depths.

We must not confine God within our existing self-conceptions, nor fall into the delusion that often masquerades as faith. Only then can we encounter God, who dwells in the depths of all things and reveals Himself through their very forms. Does the scripture not say, "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Romans 11:36)? We must not remain trapped within the ark of language; instead, we must look out the window of that ark and move forward.

Longing and Thirst

There is both spiritual thirst and physical thirst. While traveling from the region of Judea toward Galilee, Jesus arrived at a Samaritan town called Sychar and sat down to rest by Jacob’s Well. Around noon, when the sun was blazing, a Samaritan woman came out to draw water. She was living a difficult life, struggling daily to quench her physical thirst.  A professor emeritus of  Scriptural Studies, in his column in the Catholic Times, helps us understand the incident.

Jesus asked the woman for water: "Give me a drink" (John 4:7). Surprised, the woman replied, "How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?" (John 4:9). The Evangelist John briefly explains the situation: "For Jews do not associate with Samaritans" (John 4:9).

At that time, Jews viewed the Samaritans—a mixed-race people—as religiously impure and were extremely reluctant to have any contact with them. One day, when Jesus sent out the Twelve Apostles, He said... “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.” (Matthew 10:5)

Jesus continues with a profound statement, suggesting that had the woman known who was asking her for water, she would have been the one to receive living water: “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst.” (John 4:13–14)

Hearing Jesus’s words of revelation, the woman replies, “I know that the Messiah—called Christ—is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” (John 4:25) In response, Jesus clearly declares his identity: “I, the one speaking to you, am he (*ego eimi*—‘I am the one’ or ‘I exist’).” (John 4:26)

Here, Jesus’s revelation reaches its climax. He applies to himself the very form of revelation God used when revealing Himself to Moses: “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14).

Leaving her water jar behind, the Samaritan woman runs to the village and cries out, “There is a man who told me everything I have ever done. Come and see! Could this be the Christ?” (John 4:29) A joy greater than the burden of daily survival—the joy of encountering the Lord—has begun to move her. Thanks to her proclamation, “many Samaritans from that town came to believe in Jesus.” (John 4:39) Sychar is evangelized.

The Samaritan woman becomes a proclaimer of the Gospel, and the Samaritans, having met Jesus, find their perspective on the world completely transformed. We have come to possess the "living water" that instantly satisfies the longing for eternity—as well as all the regrets and yearnings of the world.

The human soul originates from the Lord in heaven, journeys toward Him, and finds its fulfillment in Him. Thus, the thirst of our souls cannot be quenched by anything in this world. If we, too, listen to Jesus’ words—just as the Samaritan woman did—will not that persistent inner longing and thirst finally be satisfied?

War Cannot Be Blessed by God

 

Pope Leo XIV reaffirmed the Church’s mission of peace while discussing issues such as war, polarization, human dignity in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), and the implementation of synodality with cardinals from around the world.

The Pope convened a special consistory at the Vatican on June 26–27 to discuss current issues facing the Church and the world with cardinals gathered from across the globe. This marked the second special consistory of his pontificate, following the one held in January of this year.

War and peace were the most prominent topics addressed during the meeting. In his homily at the opening Mass held at St. Peter's Basilica on June 26, the Pope stated, “War is never worthy of humanity, and it can never be blessed by God.” He emphasized that even in an era of advanced weaponry, human beings have been endowed with intellect and free will to resolve conflicts as humans, not as beasts. He further declared that peace is not merely an optional ideal but a “duty of justice.” During the meeting, a view was raised that the language of "Just War Theory"—a concept long debated within the Catholic tradition—needs to be re-examined. According to the Holy See Press Office, various discussion groups emphasized that the Gospel cannot be imposed by force; they reached a consensus that, moving beyond the logic of "Just War," the focus should shift to the "right to proportionate self-defense."

This reflects an awareness of the changing nature of modern warfare. In today’s reality—characterized by a combination of AI, advanced weaponry, the logic of preemptive strikes, and mass civilian casualties—it is increasingly difficult to deter or even define war using only traditional "Just War" criteria.

The Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed the issues of war and legitimate self-defense as outlined in the encyclical 'Laudate Deum'. He pointed out that if the concept of legitimate self-defense is interpreted too broadly, it can be misused to justify unjust wars. He particularly emphasized that self-defense must not be invoked to legitimize preemptive strikes or excessive military intervention.

The meeting also addressed issues such as deepening social polarization, distrust in institutions, disinformation, religious violence, loneliness, and the breakdown of relationships across the globe. The cardinals expressed concern that these social fissures inflict greater suffering on the poor, the marginalized, and the youth. Some participants highlighted the despair, suicide, and substance abuse affecting young people, stressing that the Church must listen to their suffering and walk alongside them.

AI was also a key agenda item. The cardinals stated that steps must be taken to ensure AI does not reduce human beings to mere numbers and statistics, and that the Church should provide criteria for discernment to ensure technological advancements do not undermine human dignity or the value of labor. Discussions also highlighted that acknowledging human limitations is, in fact, the starting point for upholding human dignity.

The Pope urged the cardinals not to merely criticize the world's wounds but to propose paths toward healing and the common good rooted in the Gospel. In his opening remarks, he noted, "We have not gathered primarily to reflect on the internal life of the Church," explaining that the core focus of the discussion was "how we can help our churches today proclaim the Gospel more faithfully, freely, and credibly."

The meeting also demonstrated the Pope's leadership style, which prioritizes listening and communal discernment. He told the cardinals that "the papacy cannot exist in isolation" and asked them to share their experiences, pastoral wisdom, and knowledge of their local churches. He also stated, "I need your freedom, candor, and faithfulness," welcoming honest differences of opinion expressed within the spirit of communion.

The meeting was conducted through a combination of round-table discussions, plenary sessions, and open floor discussions. Sharing the realities of their respective local churches, the cardinals engaged in communal discernment regarding global crises and the Church's response. This reflects a broader trend of the Pope convening the College of Cardinals more frequently to discuss the mission of the universal Church together.

In his closing address, the Pope remarked that synodality is not merely a meeting format or a working method, but a "spiritual way of proceeding." He explained that synodality arises from encounters, grows through listening, and matures through discernment. He also urged the cardinals to faithfully accompany the Synod implementation process within their respective local churches.

The Pope expressed his intention to continue holding consistories. He emphasized that what matters is not increasing the number of meetings, but learning to listen to one another and to the will of the Lord together.

Helping Unmarried Mothers in Korea

The childbirth-support single-parent family welfare facility “Maeumjari” has opened “Soul Bloom,” a workshop designed to help unmarried mothers achieve economic independence, as it celebrates its 20th anniversary. This was an article in the  Catholic Peace Weekly.

Maeumjari has provided a safe environment for single-parent families caring for children under the age of three, as well as for pregnant women in crisis and those needing support due to domestic violence. It has served as a parental home for unmarried mothers who had nowhere else to turn.

Having spent the past 20 years supporting numerous single-parent families through crisis pregnancies, childbirth, and child-rearing, Maeumjari is now taking active steps to help them become self-sufficient. In response to the steady increase in single-parent families over the past five years, it established the workshop to help them maintain stable daily lives even after achieving independence.

According to the National Data Agency in 2023, there were approximately 1.53 million single-parent households in Korea, accounting for 8% of all households. Among them, 84% were female-headed households, many of whom faced difficulties becoming self-reliant due to low-income and non-regular employment. An analysis of 35 families that Maeumjari had supported through follow-up care over the past five years found that 29 households (83%) were recipients of basic livelihood assistance. Only one household had regular full-time employment.

To provide more than one-time assistance, Maeumjari opened “Soul Bloom,” a self-reliance support workshop that offers vocational training. Funding from the charitable foundation Babo Nanum played a significant role in making the project possible.

At a press conference on June 11 marking the opening of Soul Bloom, Maeumjari announced, “We have selected five mothers from single-parent families as the first class of ‘Bloomies,’ who will participate in the single-parent self-reliance support project.” It explained that these women face not only the challenges of raising children alone as unmarried mothers but also career interruptions and depression, making it difficult for them to enter the workforce immediately. Maeumjari added, “Just like the name Bloomie suggests, we hope these mothers discover their own potential and blossom again.”

Soul Bloom is equipped with facilities for coffee preparation, baking, and cooking. Maeumjari plans to continue promotional and networking activities to promote single-parent family self-reliance across 10 parishes and to sell a variety of products made by participants.

One mother selected as a Bloomie said, “My heart races at the thought of being able to work again. I want to become a mother who sets a positive example for my child and helps change society’s prejudice against single-parent families.” 

Christian Prayer

“Forget it. There’s no point in talking about it.”On the surface, these sound like complaints, irritation, or even criticism. So we immediately become defensive.“I’m having a hard time too.” “What’s with that tone?” Words quickly clash with more words, and hearts retreat even deeper into hiding.

Marshall B. Rosenberg, the founder of Nonviolent Communication, believed that beneath most speech lie two things: a request and gratitude. Even in rough or awkward words, there are hidden messages, such as “Thank you for listening to me.” An article in the Korean Catholic Newspaper introduces us to these words.

Christian prayer is not very different. We thank God. We give thanks for allowing us to live another day, and we ask for the strength to rise again. During Mass, we say “Lord, we thank You.” “Lord, have mercy.”The language of faith moves back and forth between gratitude and petition.

Family conversations are much the same. The difference is that within families, this simple language often becomes distorted. Under the words “It’s fine, I’ll take care of it myself,” there may be the feeling, “Thank you for looking after me.” Beneath “Why are you late again?” lies the request, “I was waiting for you.”

Under “Why do I always have to do everything?” there may be the plea, “I’d like some rest too.”The problem is that we judge one another’s words too quickly. As we divide right from wrong and calculate each person’s share, we hear only the surface of what is said and miss the feelings underneath.

Loving one’s family means recognizing the requests and gratitude of those who remain by our side, even amid rough and disorderly words. Jesus listened to people in this way. When blind Bartimaeus cried out by the roadside, begging for mercy, many people rebuked him and told him to be quiet. But Jesus stopped. Others heard only a disturbance; Jesus heard the plea within the noise.

A small change is needed within families as well. When words that sound like criticism reach us, we can pause and ask: “What is this person asking of me right now?” And when the day ends, we can quietly ask ourselves: “Whom was I grateful to today, but never told?”

Gratitude is the language that transforms a relationship from something taken for granted back into a gift. Preparing a meal, waiting for someone, quietly staying by another person’s side—these things become so familiar that they easily disappear from view.

That is why sometimes we must speak first: “Thank you for today.”Those few words open a closed heart just a little. The gratitude I offer first can draw out gratitude from the other person as well.

Concerns Over Emcouraging Euthanasia

Moving Life-Sustaining Treatment Withdrawal to the 'Terminal Stage'? Concerns Over Encouraging Euthanasia was an article in the Catholic Peace Weekly.

The government has recently initiated public discussion on a plan to move the timing for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from the "imminent death phase" to the "terminal stage."

However, the Catholic Church is voicing concerns, warning that this could lead to euthanasia. Under current law, the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is permitted only during the "imminent death phase"—that is, a state where death is immediately impending.

The government has recently launched a public discussion to pursue institutional changes that would extend this practice to the "terminal stage."

While both the imminent death phase and the terminal stage involve conditions with no possibility of recovery, the former refers to cases where death is expected within days, whereas the latter refers to cases where death is expected within months.

The issue lies in the difficulty of determining the "terminal stage" for severe non-cancerous illnesses—such as diabetes, dementia, or cerebral infarction—as opposed to cancer.

A Professor in the Department of Pulmonology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital"(In non-cancer cases,) when there is an acute exacerbation, the patient might appear to be in the terminal stage or the imminent death phase, yet their condition could improve with treatment. Therefore, distinguishing the terminal stage is extremely difficult. The biggest problem is the high likelihood that the terminal stage or imminent death phase will be judged arbitrarily in non-cancer cases."

There are other concerns regarding the proposal to shift the timing of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from the imminent death phase to the terminal stage.

The Director, of Catholic Institute of Bioethics: "Rather than prioritizing the patient's right to self-determination or their own judgment and decisions, the focus shifts to medical judgment, effectively offloading all responsibility onto the patient..." From the patient's perspective, one cannot rule out the possibility that this could lead to "passive euthanasia"—where a patient dies because they are denied treatment they ought to receive.

"The greatest concern is the tendency that, once a doctor confirms a patient is in the terminal stage, necessary and appropriate medical care could be discontinued based on the patient's wishes. Furthermore, if the patient is unable to express their own will and such decisions are instead made by guardians or family members, it could effectively be viewed as euthanasia or assisted suicide."

There are concerns that expanding the scope of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment to include terminal-stage patients—without first establishing a care infrastructure that upholds human dignity—could drive vulnerable populations toward what amounts to "socially induced death." A Professor in the Department of Pulmonology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital.

"It could effectively force death upon those who lack the financial means to pay for medical care or the support system to look after them—people who might say, 'I won't get treated' or 'I'm a terminal patient; I don't want life-sustaining treatment' simply because they feel they have no other choice..."

Critics also point out that misunderstandings and misconceptions regarding the right to self-determination are fueling the push to accelerate the implementation of decisions on life-sustaining treatment.

"I believe the right to self-determination entails the right and duty to care for and enhance one's life by choosing the best available options; it is not the right to do whatever one pleases with one's own life."

South Korea has the highest suicide rate among the elderly (aged 65 and older) in the OECD. Behind the concept of a "death with dignity" lies a life devoid of dignity.

This is why we must not become a society that emphasizes only the "right to die" under the banner of "death with dignity."

"Ultimately, the move to halt life-sustaining treatment for terminal patients carries a significant risk: it could transform our society into one that encourages death rather than one that cherishes and nurtures life."

What is the Gospel?

Theologically speaking, what is the Gospel? The Gospel is the fact that those who could not be saved by following their conscience, keeping the Law, or through their own enlightenment alone—that is, sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and thieves—have been saved. The good news is that those at the bottom of society—the outcasts, the poor, and the marginalized—have been saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

Before Christianity, sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and thieves were considered utterly beyond salvation—those excluded from it. However, the fact that they have been saved through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ—and that they have been saved not by their own strength or ability, but solely through faith in Jesus Christ—is precisely the Gospel.

The history of Christianity did not begin with the elite, scholars, nobles, or the wealthy. Rather, it began with the poor, the uneducated, and the marginalized. It began with Simon Peter and Andrew, uneducated fishermen; with Matthew, a sinner and tax collector; with Simon, a revolutionary who dreamed of a new world; and with Mary Magdalene, who had been possessed by seven demons.

The history of Christianity is the very story of how these people, through repentance and faith in Christ, lived such great lives—lives filled with truth and happiness. No matter how lowly one’s life may be, no matter how great a sinner one may be, if one repents and believes in Christ, one will be saved. This is the Gospel.

Human beings cannot be completely good. Human beings cannot be perfectly righteous. However, if one repents while turning toward God—who is “Goodness” itself—and believes in Jesus Christ, one will be saved. Human beings cannot love perfectly. Yet those who continue to practice love—loving God and their neighbors with this small heart—will be saved.

Those who fall again and again but get back up, believe in Jesus as their Savior, and begin a life of love anew will be saved. Though we may close the door to love when we are hurt, all who resolve to love again—remembering the passionate love of Jesus Christ, the supreme love on the cross, and that perfect love that gave His life for our salvation—will be saved. This is the Gospel.

It is not that one must be a blameless, righteous person or practice perfect love like the saints to be saved; rather, a person is saved when they acknowledge before Jesus that they are a sinner, that they are a human being with weaknesses and wounds, repent deeply before Him, and believe in Him. This is the Gospel.

We are saved when we confess that we are creatures before God the Creator, sinners before Jesus the Savior, and fragile human beings like clay pots before the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier. This is the Gospel.

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.

Place of Natural Law in Catholicism

Asking St. Thomas Aquinas About the Path to Happiness. The Foundation of Just Laws That Guarantee Human Happiness: Natural Law. This was the topic addressed by the professor of philosophy at the  Catholic University, reported in the Korean Catholic Times.

Only ‘Just Laws’ That Follow Natural Law Serve as the Foundation for Realizing True Good and Happiness

St. Thomas Aquinas viewed law as a protective barrier that enables humans to realize their rational nature and achieve happiness within the community.

However, he never agreed with the claim that “an unjust law is still a law,” a notion widely misinterpreted and disseminated based on Socrates’ words. Rather, he argued that an unjust law is “not a law but a corruption of the law” (I-II, 95, 2) or “violence” (96, 4). If a law does not aim for the common good but operates for the benefit of a specific group or the desires of those in power, it has lost its true nature. In such cases, it goes beyond a crisis of the rule of law to become a serious threat to human dignity. Therefore, the legitimacy of a law is not determined solely by form or procedure but by whether its content aligns with justice and the good.

In fact, throughout history, there have been many instances where rules took the form of law but destroyed human dignity. Laws that institutionalized racial discrimination, laws that deprived specific religious or ethnic groups of their rights, and emergency measures enacted to silence political opponents may all appear to be laws on the surface. However, by Thomas’s standards, they are not an order of reason aimed at the common good, but rather closer to the institutionalization of a distorted will of power. The racial laws of Nazi Germany and the apartheid legislation of South Africa are prime examples illustrating this point.

Particularly amid the crisis of positivism facing modern society, laws lacking a moral foundation do nothing but cause social chaos, let alone guide human conscience. To resolve the tension between the protective function of law and its potential for corruption, it is essential to clearly establish the criteria for a “just law.” This raises a fundamental question: What, exactly, makes a law just? Thomas’s answer is presented in terms of the relationship between natural law and eternal law.

Every just human legal system must be understood as part of the grand order of eternal law;  human law possesses the authority of true law only when it reflects the objective truth indicated by eternal law. 

The First Principle of Natural Law: “Do Good and Avoid Evil”

Thomas argues that just as the law of non-contradiction is the first principle of reason in the realm of speculative science, so too is there a first principle of ethics in the realm of morality: “Do good and pursue it, and avoid evil” (I-II, 94, 2). Thomas seeks the objective good presented in this seemingly simple principle within the concept of “natural law (lex naturalis).”

Crisis Of Human Freedom

The Ark's Window Column in the Korean Catholic Times, by the Director of the Jesuit Human Rights Solidarity Center, offers his reflections on the World We Are Building Now.

Rock musician and writer Nick Cave was shocked when he heard a “Nick Cave-style” song created by a fan using artificial intelligence (AI). It was so sophisticated that it was indistinguishable from his own music. But he soon realized something: the “river of life” that had flowed through his entire existence was missing from that song. On the surface, it seemed plausible, but inside, there was no lived time, no waiting, no loss, no breath. 

Cave says algorithms cannot create real songs. Songs come from “pain.” Pain refers to the complex, internal human struggle of creation. Algorithms do not feel, and data does not suffer. Writing a song is not about replication or hybrid imitation; rather, it is the exact opposite. Artistic creation and expression are possible only through humans. That is the structure of the soul.

The word “soul” sounds utterly foreign in today’s digital age. Only when we view humans not merely as biological entities but as “unique and irreplaceable personal beings” does that word resonate within us. 

In contrast, the countless data centers now blanketing the globe are like “ghosts within machines”—entities we have never seen before. They comb through someone’s entire world in response to a single simple question and deliver an answer in an instant. These ghosts tell us that our reality is ultimately nothing more than a matter of perception. Meanwhile, AI will always have further ground to cover, and its speed will only increase. It is not unique; not depth but a drifting surface. 

Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, *Magnifica Humanitas*, is a profound reflection on what constitutes a “full and authentic life” for us in this era of AI, which is overwhelming the world. AI is not merely a technological shift but a “new reality” that compels us to reexamine the very essence of human existence. However, this encyclical is not a neutral reflection. Just as the technologies that create “new forms of assets”—such as algorithms, digital platforms, and data—do not embody a neutral worldview, the encyclical approaches the issue of AI through the lens of the Gospel.

Viewed through this lens, the ideologies revered in our time conceal countless false idols: complete autonomy, radical automation, the realization of artificial consciousness, and the overcoming of human limitations. Yet these illusions give rise to “new forms of dependence, exclusion, manipulation, and inequality,” transforming the way we perceive the human condition. Above all, behind the forces reshaping our labor, families, education, and politics lies a formidable “culture of power”. When power and technology combine to pursue profit alone, reducing humans to mere tools, this is not progress but a new form of domination.

The real issue in the AI era is not technological progress, but the crisis of human freedom. 

Viewed through this lens, the ideologies revered in our time conceal countless false idols: complete autonomy, radical automation, the realization of artificial consciousness, and the overcoming of human limitations. However, these illusions give rise to “new forms of dependence, exclusion, manipulation, and inequality,” transforming the way we view the human condition. Above all, behind the forces reshaping our labor, families, education, and politics lies a formidable “culture of power.” When power and technology combine to pursue profit alone, reducing humans to mere tools, this is not progress but a new form of domination.

The real problem of the AI era is not technological progress, but the crisis of human freedom. The power of data tames us into beings who are guided to be chosen, rather than beings who “choose.” Yet human freedom is not the “ability to do what one wants,” but the ability to shape oneself toward “truth and goodness.” Within this lies the truth of life: that we are beings with limitations and vulnerabilities. Through this, we learn compassion, generosity, and healthy interdependence. Through ways of life such as care, labor, nurturing, prayer, suffering, and friendship, we are gradually transformed into “knowledge and love” that resemble Christ.

Therefore, the most important question of our time is not “What is technically possible?” but “What makes us more human?” The age of AI is not a threat to humanity, but an opportunity to reaffirm just how “noble” we are. Rather than remaining passive, it has become an inescapable task of life for each of us to “fulfill our respective roles”.