For years, the Korean bishops have been trying to stop the activities of would-be mystic Julia Kim (now Julia Youn) at Naju, Korea. She claimed to have a weeping statue of Our Lady; she claimed to suffer the stigmata; she claimed that the Eucharist turned into visible, bloody flesh in her mouth, including in 1995 when she received the Sacred Host from Pope John Paul II.
The Archdiocese of Kwangju issued several declarations against the claims of supernatural miracles in the case, and on January 21 of this year, the confrontation reached a decisive point when the Archbishop of Kwangju declared Youn and those who participate in her activities excommunicated for grave disobedience.
Although my sympathies are with the bishop, parts of the canonical decree seem odd: e.g., I’m not sure that canon law allows for a latae sententiae excommunication for the sort of disobedience the Archbishop cites. (E.g., see the SJF’s discussion of c1371.) On the other hand, the decree seems to treat adherence to Mrs. Youn’s claims as a matter of schism. Perhaps Pete Vere or Ed Peters (keeper of the “Excommunication Blotter“) will be able to clarify this for the good of the faithful.
A press report is on-line at Mirifica, and also follows after the jump…
Category: Canonical
Much ado about Bishops
I must disagree with Deal Hudson’s latest column attempting to interpret Bishop Paprocki squeaking out Archbishop Burke for chair of the USCCB’s canon law committee.
I have nothing but respect for Archbishop Burke. Back when he was bishop of Lacrosse, WI, his chancellor Ben Nygen and I often consulted on canonical issues that would prove controversial in the media. Archbishop Burke would have been an excellent candidate for the position.
But Bishop Paprocki is also an excellent candidate. He may not be as visible in media, but he is extremely respected in canon law circles for his orthodoxy and his knowledge of the law. He too has given me excellent advice when approaching the media with controversial points touching upon canon law, and I have been the recipient of his hospitality at canon law conventions or when visiting Chicago. And like Archbishop Burke, he too is not scared to publicly correct politicians who pass legislation at odds with Church teaching. This was the case here.
It was during my last visit to Chicago that Bishop Paprocki invited Michael Trueman and I to breakfast, and urged us to begin writing Surprised by Canon Law volume 2. The book, which was released by Servant last week, is available by clicking here. Bishop Paprocki is one of the individuals who encouraged us to write it.
This is one of the reasons I’m happy to be a lay canonist and not a bishop. Both men were strong, orthodox, knowledgeable candidates for the chair. I don’t know which one I would have voted for.
Which is why I disagree with Deal that this is a sign of the USCCB giving Archbishop Burke the shaft. Given the caliber and orthodoxy of these two bishops, I think the real sign here is that the USCCB is committed to moving in the right direction with regards to canonical issues.
Update on Holy Trinity parish
I wasn’t able to live-blog this afternoon’s meeting about the future of Boston’s Latin Mass parish, but I did send the news to Dom Bettinelli, who posted the info on his site.
Fr. Maciel Accusations
Some of you have been asking me to comment on Ed Peters’ reflection on Fr. Maciel’s penance. As usual, I agree with Ed on some things but disagree with him on others. That being said, my perspective is going to be coloured.
Although I was never formally involved in the case, some of Fr. Maciel’s more recent accusers approached me a few years ago for canonical advice. I heard their stories and I offered what canonical advice I could at the time.
I won’t deny this experience shook my faith in the Church. I thank God for His sustaining grace during this time.
Yet there’s an old expression in canon law that the petitioner’s case seems overwhelming until the respondent opens his mouth. I never spoke to Fr. Maciel for his side of the story. Nor was I appointed to adjudicate this case.
Therefore, I don’t feel that it would be appropriate to engage Ed in a public debate. I would, however, ask everyone to please keep both Fr. Maciel and his alleged victims, whose stories I found believable, in prayer.
The accusations have been found credible
Now the Fr. Maciel has been “invited” to relinquish all public ministry as a result of CDF’s investigations into sixth-commandment violations, what will happen in the religious community he founded? Will the Legion of Christ continue to speak of him reverently as “our father”? Will it remain an order that appears to select its seminarians in part for their pretty-boy looks?
One has to have some sympathy for members of the LC and the Regnum Christi lay group; they’re good Catholic folks, sound in faith, who do many good things. Yet the founder of those groups misled them about himself, and they have to come to terms with the fact that he apparently committed some heinous crimes. His personality, with its defects, shaped the culture of those groups, giving them some dysfunctional aspects, so those communities will need their own efforts at truth, reconciliation, and reform. Alas, the LC’s spokesmen seem to be circling the wagons so far.
The canonical accusers deserve credit for telling their story against a popular figure praised by thousands, including Pope John Paul II. God bless them for their courage, and may He bring healing to whatever harm Maciel caused them.
(The VIS announcement follows, and John Allen’s NCR report is on-line.)
Update: Ed Peters has a commentary.
Update 2: Here’s a link to the Legion press release. Reader Michael Gorman spotted that the URL I cited earlier went to an old press release instead of today’s. Thanks! While today’s release does not deny the charges outright, it still maintains the idea of Maciel as a Suffering Servant, choosing “not to defend himself in any way”. Perhaps it’s too early to expect an expression of regret from Maciel for his actions, or from the LC for its erroneous defenses of him.