Death Penalty Afront to Human Dignity

Pope: “The Death Penalty Is an Affront to Human Dignity… It Cannot Be Tolerated”

Call for abolition of the death penalty on World Day Against the Death Penalty; Holy See and US Bishops’ Conference strongly oppose US government’s plan to livestream an execution.

On October 10—World Day Against the Death Penalty—the Pope emphasized in a post on the social media platform X that justice can be realized and the common good of humanity protected without resorting to the death penalty.

In a post on the official social media platform X marking "World Day Against the Death Penalty" on October 10, the Pope emphasized, "The death penalty is an affront to the inviolability of the individual and to human dignity; therefore, it cannot be tolerated."

The Pope stated that justice can be achieved and the common good of humanity upheld without relying on the death penalty. He further explained that effective incarceration systems exist to protect citizens, allowing for the isolation of offenders from society while simultaneously keeping the door open for their atonement. The Pope stated, “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an affront to the inviolability of the person and to human dignity,” adding that “it is possible to protect the common good and satisfy the demands of justice without resorting to the death penalty.” He emphasized that “effective detention systems exist that protect citizens without completely depriving offenders of the possibility of atonement.” The Pope also included the hashtag #NoDeathPenalty in his post.

The Pope’s message came as the U.S. government announced plans to broadcast the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan live to the public. Earlier, on October 9, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin and the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued separate statements strongly criticizing the U.S. government's plan.

On October 8, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in an interview with 'Real America’s Voice News'—a pro-Trump media outlet—that Hasan’s execution is scheduled for December 3 at Fort Hood and that the event would be made public.

On October 9, Cardinal Parolin criticized the plan to broadcast executions live, calling it unacceptable.

"It is truly difficult to understand why someone would want to use such a method in this day and age," he said. "I do not know the purpose behind it. Turning death into a spectacle is absolutely unacceptable. No matter how grave the crime committed, there are other ways." He went on to emphasize that "the death penalty is incompatible with human dignity and has no deterrent effect on crime."

Archbishop Paul Coakley, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, also expressed "shock and deep sorrow" regarding the U.S. government's plan on October 9 and urged a reconsideration. Archbishop Coakley told Vatican News, "Hasan's actions cannot be justified in any way," but added, "However, this decision barbarically promotes a culture of death and must be reconsidered." Warning that public executions would undermine the moral foundation of American society, he said he prays that the American people will always choose life. In a statement released that day, Archbishop Coakley—who also serves as the Archbishop of Oklahoma City—criticized the move, stating, "Even for someone who has committed grave harm, a public execution serves only to further erode the moral foundation of our society and stain the conscience of the public."

He went on to emphasize, "Our God is a God of life," adding, "While Hasan’s actions cannot be justified in any way, this decision must be reconsidered, as it barbarically promotes a culture of death."

The Church opposes the death penalty because it violates the inherent sanctity of human life and advocates for its abolition worldwide. In 2018, Pope Francis revised Article 2267 of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* to clarify the Church's teaching that the death penalty is morally inadmissible in modern society. The revised Catechism states, "The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person."

In his 2020 encyclical *Fratelli Tutti*, Pope Francis also cited the teachings of Pope Saint John Paul II, emphasizing that the death penalty is "inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice."

Earlier this year, Pope Francis also sent a video message to Catholic activists campaigning against the death penalty to mark the 15th anniversary of its abolition in his home state of Illinois, USA. If the U.S. government proceeds with the live broadcast of Hassan’s execution as planned, it will mark the first time the government has broadcast an execution live to the general public. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), the last public execution in the United States took place in Missouri in 1937.

The Lie of Growth First

Article taken from the Window of the Ark column of the Catholic Times.

I went camping with friends. Some brought tents, others brought cooking gear, while some went fishing or prepared the food. Then, one friend said, "Since I started the fire that allowed us to eat, I should get half the meat today, right? That way, I’ll be motivated to start the fire again tomorrow." While his fire-starting skills made the camping trip more comfortable, we all felt uneasy.

Where does this discomfort come from? Political philosopher G.A. Cohen raises this question while explaining the principles of equality and community. The friends on the trip did not believe that one person deserved a larger share simply because they possessed more talent. Furthermore, it was hard to agree that doing so would benefit everyone. We came camping to share and have a good time together, not to pay a fee for starting a fire. Underlying this is an innate sense of equality and reciprocity that we naturally accept within a community.

The problem is that this sense tends to fade as society grows. When vast numbers of people live amidst anonymous relationships, it becomes difficult to see who is creating what, who is bearing what burdens, and who is taking what share. Yet, a city is no different from a giant campsite. Social infrastructure—such as roads, railways, power grids, and water supply systems—are built through public finances, citizens' taxes, and extensive social cooperation. Corporate activities, the labor of workers, and the daily lives of local communities all contribute to the process of creating new value.

However, when the value of land and housing rises as a result of such public investment and social cooperation, what happens if the benefits translate into increased assets for property owners while resulting in higher rents for tenants? At that very moment, a distributional gap is already emerging within the growth process. Simply collecting taxes after growth has occurred and redistributing them through welfare programs does not automatically resolve this issue. This is because the very method of growth is, in itself, a method of distribution.

Therefore, we must first examine who reaps the greater benefits and who bears the heavier burden from growth and development. Producing more and living together fairly are not the same issue. A society’s wealth does not equate to its equality. Social equality—essential for a "better life"—is not merely a matter of dividing up the spoils after growth is complete; it is also a matter of the process by which people create wealth together and the social relationships formed during that process.

Pope Francis views housing not as a mere commodity, but as a fundamental condition linked to human dignity and the common good (*World Popular Movements and Our Social Doctrine*). What matters is not the intention behind growth, but the choices made during the growth process, the opportunities provided to whom, and how people's actual lives change as a result.

At a press conference at the Blue House last month, President Lee Jae-myung remarked, "I failed to provide a more proactive answer to the question: 'They say economic indicators are improving, so why isn't my life changing—or rather, why is it getting worse?'" The President also stated, “We will continuously pursue recovery and growth, while ensuring that everyone shares in the opportunities and fruits of that growth.” I hope to find one of the answers to this here. To mark the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty on October 17, a conference themed “Poverty and Inequality in Asia” is being held at the Catholic Center in Myeong-dong, Seoul. It is an occasion to examine the realities of poverty across Asian nations and propose alternatives for social security and public assistance.

Good policies are not created merely through intentions or declarations. What matters is the social attitudes and practices within which a system operates, and what the policy actually enables in people's lives. Without this, no matter how much growth indicators improve, the question “Why isn’t my life getting any better?” will persist. An increasing number of people are questioning the true nature of the President’s good intentions. I hope the administration does not align itself with those who claim half the meat simply because they lit the fire. 

The Life of Faith

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

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

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

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

The widow grapples with these fundamental questions of existence. Through them, she gains her own insights into life and God, ultimately arriving at some form of belief. Whether she believes that “life ends with physical death” or that “there is an afterlife and eternal life,” she inevitably embraces a conviction. Likewise, whether she believes that “God exists” or that “God does not exist,” she chooses her own path of faith.

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

Furthermore, faith proclaims that “for those who believe in Christ, death is not an end but a transition to new life; when this earthly dwelling is destroyed, an eternal home is prepared in heaven.” This message wipes away the widow’s tears, and by believing in this truth, she finds the courage to rise again. Ultimately, faith is a fundamental human act—a response to the pivotal questions and experiences of life that erupt from within situations of extreme limitation—and it is the path to salvation in both life and death. While objective knowledge proves powerless in the face of suffering and death, faith leads us beyond them toward a life of eternal existence and a new way of living within this world.

Thus, objective knowledge marks the limit of finitude when confronted with life’s extreme situations and the abyss of suffering. It is precisely where knowledge ceases that one begins to question the true meaning of life and steps into the realm of faith—a realm that transcends the limits of reason. Ultimately, the point where knowledge ends becomes the very place where God’s saving grace and authentic human faith begin.

Pope Leo XIV Visit to Peru

Pope Leo XIV to Visit Peru, His "Second Home" Article taken from the Korean Catholic Times.

Pastoral visit to South America (Uruguay, Argentina, Peru) scheduled for Nov. 6–16; preparations in full swing in Lima, including the creation of a large statue of the Pope.

Peruvian sculptors Rafael Gutiérrez (left) and Guillermo Chávez Valentín work on a large statue of Pope Leo XIV at a workshop in Lima, Peru, on September 28. The statue is being created ahead of the Pope's visit to Peru this coming November. The Pope will make pastoral visits to Peru, Argentina, and Uruguay in November. The tour marks his first pastoral visit to South America since his accession and his longest overseas pastoral visit to date. 

Expectations are running high within the local church and society, particularly as he returns to Peru, where he served for a long time as a missionary and bishop.

Preparations to welcome the Pope are already well underway in Peru. At a workshop in the capital, Lima, sculptors Rafael Gutiérrez and Guillermo Chávez Valentín are creating a massive statue of the Pope, standing approximately 14 meters tall. Eight workers are involved in the project, which was designed using artificial intelligence (AI) and 3D modeling technology. Once completed, the statue will be installed in a park in Callao—a city with which the Pope shares a special connection—and unveiled before his arrival.

The Pope will embark on a pastoral visit to Uruguay, Argentina, and Peru from November 6 to 16, returning to Rome on the 17th. It marks his first visit to South America during his papacy and his longest overseas pastoral trip to date. He will visit Uruguay from the 6th to the 8th and Argentina from the 8th to the 11th, then arrive in Peru on the 11th and stay until the 16th.

Among the three nations, Peru holds a particularly special significance for the Pope. Originally from Chicago, USA, he first began missionary work in Peru in 1985 while serving as Father Robert Prevost. He subsequently served as a missionary in the country on multiple occasions, dedicating himself to parish ministry and the formation of seminarians. In 2014, he was appointed Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Chiclayo, and he served as the Bishop of Chiclayo from the following year until 2023. He also obtained Peruvian citizenship in 2015.

From 2020 to 2021, he served as the Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Callao. Callao, the site where the large statue is being erected, is another location deeply connected to the Pope's pastoral journey. This special connection is also evident in the itinerary for the visit to Peru. The Pope will visit the capital, Lima, as well as Chiclayo, Cusco, and Pucallpa. Notably, on the 13th and 14th, he will stay in Chiclayo—where he served as the head of the diocese for eight years—to celebrate Mass with the faithful and meet with clergy, religious, and seminarians. He also plans to visit the Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo Catholic University to meet with the university community.

The Pope will then visit Cusco in the Andes region and Pucallpa in the Amazon region. In Cusco, he will meet with the faithful and groups dedicated to popular piety, while in Pucallpa, he will meet with missionaries and representatives of Amazonian indigenous peoples. The itinerary covers not only the capital, Lima, but also the coastal city of Chiclayo, the Andes, and the Amazon. On the 16th, after celebrating Mass in Lima, the Pope will attend a farewell ceremony at Callao Air Force Base before departing for Rome.

This visit holds special significance for the Pope. Although born in the United States, he spent many years serving the Church in Peru as a missionary and bishop; now, he returns to the land where he once ministered, this time as the shepherd of the universal Church. With the visit just over a month away, preparations to welcome back their former shepherd are intensifying across Peru.

Pope Leo XIV only Confirmed Trip Next Year is Seoul Korea”

During a press conference held on the papal plane while returning to Rome after his pastoral visit to France on September 28, the Pope addressed plans for overseas visits next year, stating, “The schedule has not yet been finalized; we are preparing the itinerary for next year, and the only trip currently confirmed is the Seoul WYD in Korea.”

The remarks came in response to a question from a reporter with the German Catholic news agency KNA regarding plans to visit Germany. The Pope explained that while he had received an invitation to visit Germany and wished to visit various countries—not just Germany—no specific schedule had been set yet. During a 23-minute in-flight press conference, the Pope answered questions on a wide range of topics—including his 2027 overseas travel plans, artificial intelligence (AI), sexual abuse within the Church, the rise of the far-right in Europe, the housing crisis, and the issue of assisted dying in France.

Notably, when asked if he feared that AI might pose a serious threat to humanity or even lead to its destruction, the Pope replied, "If you ask whether I am in a state of panic over it, the answer is no; I sleep well at night."

However, he emphasized the need to take seriously the risks raised by AI experts. "We must take the concerns raised by many AI experts seriously; I do not view them as 'fake news' fabricated for financial gain or other motives, as some claim," he stated.

The Pope mentioned recent reports that the CEO of Nvidia had found a way to implement safety measures for AI. However, he pointed out, "At the same time, he is the very person who has argued against placing limits on AI or having governments regulate it."

He added, "I believe this is an issue we need to discuss by putting our heads together," expressing his hope that political leaders, figures from the AI ​​industry, and civil society organizations would collaborate to discuss the changes and risks associated with AI.

When asked what the United States and China should do to ensure AI technology develops in a way that is safe for humanity, he emphasized—without explicitly naming the two nations—that the risks posed by AI must not be ignored. The Pope stated, “The Holy See has formed its own committee, and we have been receiving numerous inquiries from people across various sectors following the release of the encyclical *Nobis Humanitas*.” He added, “We are continuing dialogue and research to find ways to ensure that AI does not lead to the destruction of humanity or a situation where humans are excluded.”

He also addressed the issue of sexual violence within the Church. On September 27, during his visit to France, the Pope held a private meeting lasting about two hours with seven victims of sexual violence in Lourdes. Following the meeting, Jérôme Guillemant, one of the victims, remarked that he gained the impression the Pope views sexual violence within the Church as a “systemic” issue.

Regarding this, the Pope explained that while it is true several victims used the term “systemic abuse,” he personally prefers to express the matter differently.

The Pope said, “Sexual violence is, above all, a human issue; however, when it occurs within the Church, it takes on a different dimension, as it leaves deep wounds in people’s lives of faith and can sometimes even shatter their faith entirely.”

He continued, “The Church bears a special responsibility to walk alongside victims and help them find healing. While the Church has been perceived as bearing some responsibility in this regard, it must simultaneously play a crucial role in assisting victims on their path to healing.”

Reflecting on his four-day pastoral visit to France, the Pope cited the pilgrimage to Lourdes and the overnight prayer vigil with 80,000 young people near Paris as the most memorable moments. The Pope remarked, “The four days were literally filled with abundant blessings—so much so that I would almost call it a miracle—especially the time spent walking alongside the many sick and suffering people in Lourdes.”

He continued, “I witnessed the grace of God’s presence manifesting in various ways, touching hearts and transforming lives; this restores the dignity of the sick, the elderly, and those cast aside by society.”

Migrants and Refugees

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pragmatism and Bioethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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