📢Reflections on the 2008 Decree of Automatic Excommunication and the Ecclesial Status of Naju

Reflections on the 2008 Decree of Automatic Excommunication

 and the Ecclesial Status of Naju

1. The 2008 Decree of the Archdiocese of Gwangju

On January 21, 2008, the Archdiocese of Gwangju issued a decree declaring that clergy, religious, and lay faithful who celebrated or participated in the administration of the Sacraments or sacramentals at the chapel and the Blessed Mother's Mountain in Naju, contrary to the directives of the diocesan authority, would incur latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.

The decree stated:

I declare that the clergy, religious and lay people who hold or participate in the administration of the Sacraments or the celebrations of the Sacramentals, which I have prohibited, at the unauthorized ‘chapel’ or ‘the Blessed Mother’s Mountain’ incur the penalty of automatic excommunication (cf. Canon #1336 and 1364).

As these are acts of disobedience against the Ordinary’s pastoral directives and judgments, violations of the Canon Law (cf. Canon #1369, 1371, and 1373), and refusals to form unity as well as inflictions of damage to the fellowship in the Church community, this (penalty) applies not only to the faithful who belong to the Kwangju Archdiocese but also to any of the clergy, religious, and lay people in the Catholic Church.

Particularly noteworthy is the following statement:

This penalty applies not only to the faithful who belong to the Kwangju Archdiocese but also to any of the clergy, religious, and lay people in the Catholic Church.

Accordingly, the decree expressly extended its application beyond the faithful of the Archdiocese of Gwangju to clergy, religious, and lay faithful throughout the Catholic Church.

2. A First Question: Can Such a Penalty Extend to the Faithful of the Universal Church?

The decree naturally raises an important ecclesial and canonical question.

While the diocesan bishop possesses legitimate authority to govern the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral care, the decree explicitly states that the penalty applies not only within the Archdiocese of Gwangju but also to clergy, religious, and lay faithful throughout the Catholic Church.

As a result, many pilgrims have asked whether a disciplinary measure enacted by a particular Church can directly bind members of the faithful throughout the universal Church.

This question is not merely administrative in nature. It concerns the scope of diocesan authority, the relationship between particular law and universal law, and the application of canonical penalties beyond the territorial boundaries of a diocese.

The purpose of raising this question is not to challenge ecclesiastical authority, but to seek a clearer understanding of the canonical implications of the decree itself.

3. A Second Question: Was the Use of Automatic Excommunication Appropriate?

A second question concerns the nature of the penalty imposed.

In the canonical tradition of the Church, excommunication is the most severe ecclesiastical censure and is intended as a medicinal penalty ordered toward repentance, reconciliation, and the restoration of ecclesial communion.

Historically, latae sententiae excommunication has generally been associated with particularly grave offenses, such as apostasy, heresy, schism, and certain other serious delicts specified in canon law.

The 2008 decree, however, attached this penalty to participation in sacramental and para-liturgical celebrations at the sites in Naju.

Many pilgrims came to Naju not with the intention of rejecting the Church, abandoning the Catholic faith, or separating themselves from ecclesial communion, but rather to pray, to deepen their spiritual lives, and to seek the grace of God through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

For this reason, some have questioned whether the application of the Church's most severe medicinal penalty in these circumstances was proportionate to the acts described in the decree.

4. The Holy See's Communication of April 23, 2008

A particularly significant fact is that approximately three months after the decree was issued, an official communication (Prot. N. 112/1993-27066), transmitted following correspondence between the Archdiocese of Gwangju and the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, employed the formula:

📢 Non Constat de Supernaturalitate ✅

Traditionally, this expression signifies:

The supernatural character has not been established.

This formula is distinct from:

🚫 Constat de Non Supernaturalitate ❌

It is established that the phenomenon is not supernatural.

In the Church's traditional discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena, Non Constat de Supernaturalitate indicates that supernaturality has not been demonstrated, but it does not constitute a definitive judgment that the phenomenon is false or certainly non-supernatural.

It is therefore understood as a provisional and cautious formula rather than a final negative determination.

5. Why Is This Significant?

Many people have been led to believe that the case of Naju was definitively closed and fully resolved. Yet the historical record presents a more nuanced picture.

On the one hand, the Archdiocese of Gwangju issued a decree imposing the severe penalty of latae sententiae excommunication. On the other hand, only a few months later, the Holy See employed the formula Non Constat de Supernaturalitate rather than Constat de Non Supernaturalitate.

Certainly, the Holy See did not explicitly address the validity of the decree itself, nor did it formally revoke or nullify the disciplinary measures imposed by the Archdiocese.

At the same time, however, neither did it issue a definitive judgment declaring the alleged phenomena of Naju to be certainly non-supernatural.

Consequently, it may reasonably be observed that, at least in 2008, the discernment of the alleged phenomena had not yet been presented by the Holy See as definitively concluded.

6. What Pilgrims Should Know

Over the years, many faithful have heard statements such as:

• Naju has already been definitively condemned by the Church.

• Anyone who goes to Naju is automatically excommunicated.

• The matter has been completely settled and closed.

However, the actual ecclesiastical documents reveal a more complex situation. The 2008 decree unquestionably imposed serious disciplinary measures. Yet in the same year, the Holy See employed the formula Non Constat de Supernaturalitate regarding the alleged phenomena.

These two facts coexist within the historical record.

For this reason, pilgrims are encouraged to examine the actual documents of the Church and the historical facts themselves rather than relying solely upon summaries, rumors, or incomplete descriptions.

7. The Position of Naju

Naju has consistently professed fidelity to the Holy Father and love for the Catholic Church. The intention of the Naju community is not to oppose ecclesiastical authority, but to remain faithful to the Church while seeking a fuller understanding of the events that have taken place.

At the same time, we believe that the scope and application of the 2008 decree, together with the significance of the Holy See's use of the formula Non Constat de Supernaturalitate, deserve careful consideration.

We therefore encourage all pilgrims to approach these matters not through fear or misunderstanding, but through prayer, study of the relevant ecclesiastical documents, and trust in God's providence.

In a spirit of humility and obedience, we continue to pray that the truth may be fully manifested according to the will of Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

N.B. It is important to note that, based on all publicly available and verifiable ecclesiastical records, there is no known or documented case in which any clergy or lay faithful who visited Naju as pilgrims were ever formally declared to have incurred latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication solely on account of such pilgrimage.