"Dialogue the Soul of the World"

An article on the opinion page of the Catholic Times by a university professor dreams of a world where dialogue was its soul.

Dialogue, is probably a key word to express the lives and activities of local churches in Korea and around the world. And at the end of next year's synod of local churches and the World Bishops Synod, we may be asking—feeling "the silence after the feast"— 'Is this the end of the conversation?' 'Now we just have to wait for the result to come down from the top?'

Is that really the situation? The conversation the professor experienced was actually not just a process of gathering opinions, but a  church beginning to live the life of Sinodalitas. Isn't dialogue a way of life that we should continue into the future in each local church and church community to which we belong?

In his opening speech of the second session of the Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI called the council's goal "the self-awareness of the church, the reform of the church, the unity of all Christians, and dialogue with the church and the modern world." The conversation was the basis of the topics covered by the Council and their activities. In dealing with the relationship of church members, the relationship with non-Catholic Christians, and the relationship with the church and the world, the teachings of the Council were established within a two-way perspective, not one-way.

 

While declaring the unique roles of priests, laymen, and religious, it was understood in their relationships with others and the world. In addition, the Council literature was formed in the process of free, intense, and orderly dialogue. Dialogue of the church is a way of life and its activities that the Second Vatican Council has vigorously proposed.
 

What is important to us living in the post-Vatican II era is the  spirit of Sinodalitas— how to talk 'well'. It is not easy to talk 'well' to people  familiar with traditional Korean culture. This is not about the 'skills' of conversation. Of course, technology is helpful, but more fundamental changes in outlook are needed to become a 'true' dialogue (conversation). Perhaps Pope Francis' suggestion in Joy of Love will help.
 

"Develop the habit of giving real importance to the other person. This means appreciating them and recognizing their right to exist, to think as they do and to be happy. Never downplay what they say or think, even if you need to express your own point of view. Everyone has something to contribute, because they have their life experiences, they look at things from a different standpoint and they have their own concerns, abilities and insights." (#138)
 

Keep an open mind. Don’t get bogged down in your own limited ideas and opinions, but be prepared to change or expand them. The combination of two different ways of thinking can lead to a synthesis that enriches both.(#139)

 

No one has a 'perfect' grasp of the world's affairs, or a 'perfect' solution. The word 'absolute' is reserved for  God. We talk and move forward together with our strengths and weaknesses, and when we do this, we can do things together that we cannot do alone. Don't people in the world  use the word 'synergy effect' derived from the Greek word "working-together"? Wouldn't our synergy as Christians be greater and more noble than that? The Holy Spirit is always leading us to a new future.

Is Just War Possible?

 

It is difficult to justify war. The Catholic Times in the column for Reconciliation and Unification the priest writer gives the readers his thoughts on the subject.

In the New Testament and in the writings of the early church fathers, the 'pacifism' that rejects the violence of the 'secular' is evident. Despite the persecution of the Roman Empire, Christians who faithfully followed the teachings of Jesus chose nonviolent resistance, martyrdom. However, the fast-growing church was recognized as the state religion of the empire, and the church's teachings about war and the use of force began to change.

Instead of giving up violence, the church, which became part of the “world,” began to think about how to  justify and conduct a just war. Since then, the theory of 'just war', derived from St. Augustine, has long represented the church's position on war. 

At the turn of the 20th century, the church, which suffered the ravages of two world wars, had to reflect more deeply on the justification for war. And with the advent of nuclear weapons capable of destroying mankind, the perception that war could be “controlled” changed.

Pope Pius XII's "On Public Prayers for Peace" (Summi Maeroris) is an encyclical made against this background. This encyclical, published on July 19, 1950, during the Korean War, urges the church,  to “pray for peace,” and reminds us of the horrors of war. The Encyclical made it clear that the new weapons introduced by the advancement of technology destroyed not only soldiers but also civilians and the weak. References to those who suppress religious freedom in China and Eastern European countries are also noteworthy. “Not through the use of force, but through the truth.” 

 Despite reports of persecution and physical clashes with communism around the world, the Holy See reaffirmed the Church's mission for peace. In an interview with the press on July 4, Pope Francis revealed that Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's Prime Minister, met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He also expressed his will, "if the president of Russia gives me a small window to serve for peace, he can go to Russia before Ukraine." Together with the pilgrim Pope who humbles himself for peace, let us pray more earnestly for the cessation of this evil war that can't be  justified. 

The just war theory needs six conditions to be justified and in most cases are never tried: 1)Just cause, 2)lawfully declared by lawful authority, 3) good intention, 4) all others methods to solve the problem have been tried, 5)reasonable chance for success, 6) proportionate to the end the war seeks to achieve. 

Using means appropriate, the innocents should not be harmed  and international agreed conventions regulating war observed.

In July first of this year Pope Francis said: "I believe it is time to rethink the concept of a ‘just war.’ A war may be just, there is the right to defend oneself. But we need to rethink the way that the concept is used nowadays,I have said that the use and possession of nuclear weapons are immoral. Resolving conflicts through war is saying no to verbal reasoning, to being constructive … War is essentially a lack of dialogue."

 

 

 

 

Normalness of Evil: Structures of Evil

In the Catholic Times, one of the shades of evil is visited in the column: We see as much as we know. The author uses the words in the title of the book by Hannah Arendt on the trial of Adolph Eichmann—The Banality of Evil.

Sin leads to sin. Personal evil becomes a habit and proliferates to form a structure. Eve handed Adam some forbidden fruit, making himself guilty and ordinary. In this way, sin breeds and multiplies. So it constitutes "social sin". When the consequences of the sins committed by individuals are gathered, "the structures of sin" are formed, creating a system that attracts others to commit the same evil.

The Church teaches that you should be responsible for how we act in this system of evil and the Nazis are a case in point, and so are those who followed bin, Laden. Being part of the system itself is a sin. # 1868 Catechism of the Church: "A sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate with them: by participating directly and voluntarily in them; by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; by not disclosing or not hindering them when we should do so; by protecting evil-doers."

 

Adolf Eichmann is a man who contributed to establishing an efficient system to find as many as 6 million Jews in Europe, confiscating their assets, and sending them to camps. After the defeat of Germany, he fled to Argentina, was arrested by Israeli intelligence agency Mossad in 1960, and tried and executed in Jerusalem.

The Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt compiled an account of the trial and published a book titled "Eichmann of Jerusalem." Arendt initially imagined that Eichmann would look like a cool-headed Germanic warrior, but was surprised he was a very small, weak-minded, ordinary figure.

Eichmann was charged with 15 counts during the trial. But he didn't admit a single sin during the whole trial. He said he was not in a position to take responsibility and therefore did not feel guilty. He said he was just a low-ranking government official who faithfully fulfilled the duties given to him so he could feed and take care of his family. And that was the case. He did what the state asked him to do as best he could, not because he hated the Jews. So, Arendt sub-titled the book, "Report on the Banality of Evil" (Normalness of Evil). Maybe he wanted to say: "If you were in the same situation as me, wouldn’t you have done the same?" 

 

But he was convicted and executed. Why did you do that? His biggest sin that Hannah Arendt saw was his uncritical acceptance of the evil system. No matter how zealous and normal you live, a person always belongs to a system and is governed by it. But if you can't tell whether it's an evil or a good system, that's the biggest sin. A sailor worked hard all his life on a ship. But in the end, he was arrested by the police and sentenced to death. Why? Because the ship was a pirate ship. 

You have to distinguish whether your hard work is not a sin and whether your social system leads you to good or evil.

The only way out of the structure of evil is to stay in a community where good is common. The "church" is a community that Christ established in contrast to the system of the world. The world hated Christ and crucified him. St. Teresa of Avila, just before her death, repeats: "After all, I am a daughter of the Church", she hoped she was not a sinner

'World On Fire' Needs Peace

In the Catholic Peace Weekly, diagnosis of the times column, a Catholic University professor is reminded of the popular British TV drama 'World On Fire' which aired several years ago, seeing the present  world situation.  

It was a war drama set in England and Poland during World War I. As the first season ended, the second season was announced, but production and airing were delayed, and in the meantime, as the title of the drama, the world began to burn.

The war in Ukraine, which began with the Russian invasion in late February, has been going on for five months and shows no sign of ending soon. A few days ago, Russian President Putin emphasized the will to continue the war, saying that the war is only the beginning. Ukraine's will to resist the war has not been broken, and the West continues to provide arms support to Ukraine. The Ukrainian War seems to have entered the stage of attrition. It has become a battle of who can last longer.

Ukraine urges the West to provide more weapons quickly, but the West is limiting the weapons it provides because of fears of an escalation with Russia. Because of the fear of nuclear war raised by Russia. A bigger problem is that public opinion in major Western countries is slowly losing interest in the war in Ukraine. In the aftermath of the war, inflation and recession are deepening.

It is difficult for political leaders to oppose public opinion. As resolving economic problems in one's own country becomes a priority, helping other countries is likely to be pushed back slowly. Immediately after the military coup in Myanmar in February of last year, the world was outraged by the violent suppression of protesters by the military. But the anger soon cooled, and support for Myanmar's insurgents declined. With the final withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August of last year, it became under the control of the Taliban. The international community's attention was drawn to the plight of the people of Afghanistan, but this did not last long either. There was news that a powerful earthquake in the country at the end of June had killed a lot of people, but few are paying attention.

In retrospect, about 30 years after the end of the Cold War with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 all was relatively peaceful. Post-Cold War peace depended on three pillars. First, the international leadership of the United States, which remained the only superpower, was important. The second was the progress of economic interdependence following globalization. Finally, the global spread of democracy also contributed to post-Cold War peace.
However, the three pillars are all shaking to some degree. Although the US is still strong, it has been weakening since the 2008 Wall Street financial crisis. The soil of isolationism has also strengthened. As President Biden struggles to restore traditional American leadership, his approval rating is hitting an all-time low.

Economic interdependence between countries is gradually starting to be recognized as a geopolitical risk factor rather than a factor conducive to improving economic efficiency. Countries are now starting to segregate supply chains in key industries. Democracy is also declining rather than spreading. Even in major democracies, political polarization is so intense that politicians based on rational discussion and compromise lose their place. The rise of authoritarian forces such as Russia and China is also a threat.

In times of crisis, the mind shrinks. The age of individual self-help begins. However, as soon as everyone becomes concerned with their own problems the world's crisis intensifies. Paradoxically, in times of crisis, we must think not only about ourselves but also about the safety and interests of the world community. If you can't expect a superhero role from any country, joint cooperation is the only answer. And for this, it is first necessary for all of us to feel and recover the brotherhood of mankind. This may be the biggest peace mission we have now.
 
 
.

Korea's Farmers Sunday July 17

This Sunday is the 27th Farmers Sunday in the Korean Church. The Eyes of the Believer column of the Catholic Times and editorial addressed the issue.

Presently  Korea does not focus on food self-sufficiency but takes care of the demand with imports. Farmers would like to see the focus on food self-sufficiency and the editorial sees no problem in having both as a focus and continuing to meet the demand with imports.

The columnist mentions her maternal uncles and aunts who are farmers. She buys and eats agricultural products such as rice, grains, garlic, and red pepper powder directly from her family in the countryside. It is heartbreaking to see elderly people in their 80s plowing paddy fields and farming in the scorching sun. Her aunt strives to do Eco-friendly farming using almost no pesticides or chemical fertilizers following the teachings of the church.
 
Even if you work diligently, weeds and insects are rampant in their fields, which have not been sprayed with pesticides, so there is not much produce that can be sold. Most of her cousins ​​live in cities or rural areas like the writer, but they do other work, sometimes helping their parents, with the farming. Life is difficult on the farms and the children opt for an easier and better-paying lifestyle in the cities.
 
According to data released by the National Statistical Office, the number of farm households in Korea is about 4.3% of the total population, and the percentage is rapidly decreasing every year. The aging of the rural areas has also become more severe, with 17.1% of the population aged 65 and over in Korea accounting for 46.8% of the elderly population in farm households. The average age of farm owners is 67.2 as of 2021, with 77.3% of owners over 60 years old. As the number of farmers in Korean society is gradually decreasing and aging, concerns about the disappearance of rural areas are growing.
 
As the number of people engaged in agriculture decreases, the food situation in our country continues to deteriorate. Korea's food self-sufficiency rate, which averaged 73.3% in the 1970s and 1980s, has dropped to 45.8% as of 2020. The self-sufficiency rate of wheat, which Koreans enjoy eating, is only 0.8%. If we are highly dependent on imports for food, we will inevitably take a hit when there is a problem in the international food supply chain. which is being experienced now.
 
 Recently around the world, warnings about a large-scale food crisis are increasing due to climate crises, war, drought, and heat waves. Russia, which invaded Ukraine this year, is the world's number one wheat exporter. It weaponized food, banned the export of major grains, and blocked the ports of Ukraine, the world's granary, blocking grain exports and destroying farmland with war. India, the world's second-largest wheat producer, has restricted wheat exports as production has declined due to heatwaves reaching 50 degrees Celsius. In addition, many countries are restricting grain exports for domestic supply. They are promoting food security for reasons such as reduced grain yields due to abnormal weather and instability in the grain supply chain due to war, which will further worsen the food shortage.
 
Farmers in Korea do hard work and suffer great damage to their crops due to climate crises such as drought and heatwave. Recently, as the government is pushing to join the Comprehensive and Gradual Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which requires opening up tariffs on agricultural, fishery, and livestock products, there is concern that the number of imported agricultural and fishery products will increase and the Korean agricultural and fishery industry will be devastated.
 

In an era when food became a weapon, 4.3% of the peasants, a small minority, worked hard to plow the land and grow crops like the prophets of old, and thanks to their struggle to protect agriculture sacrificed by the government policy that prioritizes export industries, we show our thanks on the 27th Farmers' Day. Let's remember with gratitude that they are protecting our food. Our interest and solidarity are desperately needed so that the struggle of the peasants does not become their own private battle.

Did the Universe Appear By Chance?

 

In the Catholic Times column knowing God with Science, a university priest professor discusses the Human Principle [human life is one piece of evidence which cannot, in and of itself, be completely discounted].
 
The Human Principle refers to the assertion that these 'fine-tuned necessary conditions for the survival of life' must be met for living things, especially human beings, to survive in the universe. Since the human principle was first named by Australian physicist Brandon Carter (1942-) in 1974, there have been various versions of the human principle, but at least until now, no one has scientifically refuted the 'principle'. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the importance of the human principle in modern cosmology.
 
The works of scientists are widely accepted as theistic interpretations of the human principle: 'It is no coincidence that human beings and living things survive only on the Earth, it is due to the intentional plan of the Creator and meticulous design of the designer'. In the end, it became an opportunity for many theistic scientists and believers to use it as a decisive tool in defending their faith.
 
One example of the theists' fervent welcome of human principles is the John Templeton Foundation's annual Templeton Prize, called the Religious Nobel Prize for people who have contributed greatly to the field of religion. Paul Davis (1995), John Barrow (2006), and Martin Rees (2011), major figures in publicizing fine-tuning and human principles.
 
Richard Dawkins once ridiculed Paul Davis for winning the Templeton Award: "Most physicists use religious metaphors from time to time. Paul Davis' book The Mind of God seems to wander between Einsteinian pantheism and vague deism. The book earned him the Templeton Prize (a fairly large annual prize awarded by the Templeton Foundation, usually awarded to a scientist who has said a good thing about religion)".
 
These works of scientists are widely accepted as a theistic interpretation of the human principle: 'It is no coincidence that human beings and living things survive only on the Earth. It became an opportunity for many theistic scientists and believers to use it as a decisive tool in defending their faith.
 
Circumstances being what they are, scientific atheists must prepare their theoretical grounds to support the truth of their atheism by using this human principle, which has not been scientifically refuted. The ‘atheistic cosmology’ that was born from this background is the ‘multiverse theory’ that is widely known these days.
 
There are many different versions of the multiverse but in common, it starts with the idea there is not one universe, but there are countless universes, and one of them is the universe that we live in. Each universe is created by rapidly expanding through a process called the Big Bang, just like soap bubbles made by children in amusement parks, which later disappear.
 
This multiverse idea arose by combining the widely accepted human principle with the conventional concept of the rapid expansion of the universe right after the Big Bang. Some theoretical physicists at the time believed that the concept of the inevitable creator or designer of the universe would be unavoidable if only our universe existed and assumed there were infinitely many universes  to avoid the inevitability of the creation of the universe.
 
The argument for multiple worlds starts from the same fact. There may be many such universes. And the characteristics of the universes are thought to be very different from each other. One or more of these universes will have life-permitting properties. Our universe looks as if it was designed. But in fact, the universe is just the kind of thing to be expected over time. Canadian philosopher John Leslie said: "Give him a typewriter and give him enough time, and even a monkey will compose a sonnet."
 
In this way, if we argue that one of our universes, which satisfies human principles, was born accidentally, we can explain the human principles of our universe based on coincidence. Can we say that the multiverse theory is scientific and persuasive?                  
 

Death With Dignity Pitfalls

 

 

In the Eyes of the Believer column of the Catholic Times a parish priest revisits the issue of death with dignity and the trap it creates with its different meanings.

 

He begins with a story of a daughter who lives with her 97-year-old mother at home. The mother suffers from dementia; communication is difficult since she doesn't even recognize the daughter. The daughter has to take care of everything from meals to bowel movements. When asked why she didn't take her to a nursing home, she thought the mother would die soon if she went to such a facility, so took care of her at home. Of course, there is a medical care provider who comes, and other brothers and sisters come to take care of her when necessary. The daughter is in her late 70s, and not in the best of health. It's like seeing a saint practicing the spirituality of giving and caring. 

However, it is regrettable that the reality of our society is gradually moving away from the idea that we should respect and care for life. This is because life is divided into 'useful' and 'useless' based on economic measures of efficiency and productivity. Therefore, there is no question that the anti-life value, judged only by material abundance, health, and pleasure, is prevalent in the culture of death. 

 

As if to reflect this, a poll last year showed that 76.3% of the people were in favor of legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. The fact that the approval rate has increased by 1.5 times compared to the survey five years ago indicates that the perception of euthanasia has changed considerably. The atmosphere calling for the introduction of euthanasia is asking: "Will you just watch over a family who suffers from an irreversible disease and then watch the family break down and eventually lead to caring homicide?" 

 

Not only well-being but also claims for well-dying can be seen at the same time. Taking advantage of this atmosphere, a bill to introduce suicide by assisting doctors was also proposed by the National Assembly for the first time, and its pros and cons are mixed. Unlike the current law, the patients can decide their own death with dignity even in a "non-terminal process" and lead to death through drug administration. Is "dignified death" with the help of a doctor really dying like a human being?

The Bishops' Council's bioethics committee issued a statement strongly against the recent National Assembly bill, which calls for restoring a culture of  interest and care, which is actually suicide and involvement with it. It is against right reason when medicine is used to kill people rather than save them. 

 

A typical example of medicine being abused to kill people can be found in the movie: You Don't Know Jack (2010). Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the real protagonist of the film, is a doctor who advocates euthanasia and was a hot topic in the United States some years ago. He helped 130 people commit suicide, and for that reason was eventually jailed for second-degree murder and released on parole.

Patients with incurable diseases, such as Lou Gehrig's disease, terminal cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and paralyzed persons with no possibility of recovery, do not want to be a burden on their families anymore and want death. 

 

However, human life is dignified, and as God says, "I am the one who kills, I am the one who gives life" (Deuteronomy 32:39), euthanasia as a human choice cannot but be ungodly and unethical because God is the ruler of life. Euthanasia is the act aimed at eliminating pain, pain is meaningless and should be eliminated. However, if you realize that there is a dimension of mystery and grace that pain brings, the consideration of caring for the end of life will follow, like the daughter who takes care of her elderly mother at home.