Special to USAfrica magazine (Houston) and USAfricaonline.com, the first African-owned, US-based newspaper published on the Internet.
Prof. Chris Uchenna Agbedọ
It is no longer news that Rev. Fr. Paul Obayi (a.k.a. Father Ọkụnerere), the Spiritual Director of Ọkụnerere Adoration Ministry Nsukka, has threatened to leave the Catholic Church over alleged oppression by the Church hierarchy of Nsukka Catholic Diocese. The allegations, which bordered mainly on ‘heretic preaching,’ and dispossession of landed properties, on the basis of which the Catholic Church was served the quit notice, have elicited a wide range of reactions and differing perspectives mostly on the social media space by parishioners, non-parishioners, and even non-Christians alike. From the tone and tenor of such perspectives I have come across so far, it is easy to discern a distinct line between two ‘combatants’ – those who have ‘raised an army for an undeclared war’ and those spoiling for a ‘final solution’ to the ‘man and his army’. The metaphorical entailment of ‘combatants’ in this context derives from the admonition of Rev. Fr. Jude Okechukwu to his dear beloved brothers and sisters of the Catholic faith to avoid ‘raising armies for a man who has not declared war’. On his Meta (Facebook) wall, Fr. Okechukwu took his readers down memory lane, recounting the regrettable face-offs between many Catholic priests and their local Ordinaries, but who left their followers sourly ‘hurting and divided in faith and devotion’ even long after they have reconciled their differences. Worse still, the father-son face-off and reconciliation process, according to the cleric, hardly reckoned with the opinions of the self-appointed combatants, who ran the high risk of licking self-inflicted wounds of a lifetime.
For me as a catholic lay faithful and parishioner of the Nsukka Diocese, the cleric’s advice is quite instructive. Beyond resisting the allurement of willful recruitment or conscription into an army for the ‘undeclared war between Bishop Onah and Father Obayi,’ it is important to navigate the current situation with care, tact, wisdom, and understanding. The Catholic Church, built on the foundation of faith, love, and unity, is dear to me, and my intent is to contribute positively to its well-being during these challenging times. This brings me to the thrust of our discussion here, which is unpacking the concept of loyal dissent within the context of Bishop-Father face-off. In addition, I shall leverage the didacticism of two traditional Ezikeọba proverbs – (i) Kpụtagbo kpụrụ laarẹ na-arə ẹhọ (Taking back spittle meant to be spat out causes belly ache.); (ii) Ọgẹrẹnyị nyụkwụ gə ẹhə n’azə, ị kəle ye, Ọlụọha (It behooves one to greet an elder, who farts in one’s presence.) – to undergird my perspective of the rights and limits to loyal dissent, and lastly underspin the imperative of prayers in crisis situation. Perhaps then, the task of underscoring the overriding need of both the clergy and laity to double down on loyal dissent as a legitimate means of raising concerns and discussing issues within the context of faith and respect for the Church’s hierarchical structure would be less challenging. This is more so when the Church values the diversity of perspectives and encourages a climate of respectful dialogues and meaningful engagements.
The concept of loyal dissent in the Catholic Church doctrine acknowledges that, within the context of a hierarchical and tradition-bound institution, there can be a reasonable space for respectful disagreement or differing opinions while still maintaining loyalty to the teachings and authority of the Church. Given this premise, it may be necessary to ascertain the extent to which Father Obayi’s allegations against His Lord Bishop constitute a loyal dissent. Although loyal dissent is a complex concept, which its boundaries can be a matter of debate within the Church, there seems to be a consensus on its key elements, namely: freedom of conscience, respect for core doctrine, legitimate differences, established channels, respect for authority, dialogue and understanding, influence on policy, unity and faithfulness.
In specific terms, freedom of conscience implies that loyal dissent recognises that individuals have the right to form their own conscience and hold personal beliefs, even if these beliefs are not in complete alignment with all aspects of Church doctrine. Closely related to this key element is legitimate differences, which acknowledges that there can be legitimate differences of opinion on certain issues or practices (such as pastoral or disciplinary matters) that are not central to core Catholic dogma. Respect for core doctrine suggests that loyal dissent does not extend to rejecting or challenging core doctrinal beliefs of the Catholic Church. It is generally reserved for issues that are not considered infallible or immutable teachings. A related key element is respect for authority, which implies that loyal dissent respects the authority of the Church hierarchy, including the Pope, bishops, and the Magisterium; and hardly seeks to undermine their authority or positions. The key element of established channels indicates that the Mother Church provides established channels for individuals, including clergy and laity, to express their concerns or disagreements and those channels ensure that dissent is expressed in a respectful and organised manner. Dialogue and mutual understanding as a key element of loyal dissent encourages constructive dialogue between those who dissent and the Church authorities. It creates an elbow room for individuals to explain their positions and seek common ground. The element of influence on policy indicates the propensity of loyal dissent to influence the development of Church policies or practices over time as it encourages reflection and discussion within the Church. Lastly, the element of unity and faithfulness reckons with the immutable fact that even in the worst-case scenario of extreme disagreements (as instantiated by the Father-Bishop face-off), loyal dissent maintains a commitment to the unity of the Church and fidelity to its teachings as an irreducible minimum. This salient feature of loyal dissent is one rooted in an unwavering desire to see the Church grow and evolve while staying true to its core mission.
The two related key elements – freedom of conscience and legitimate differences – tend to justify Rev. Father Obayi’s right to loyal dissent and which by extension underpins the didactic import of the first proverb – ‘Kpụtagbo kpụrụ laarẹ na-arə ẹhọ.’ For so long, Father Obayi had cupped the spittle until it fermented and got at the seams. Even when he managed to take the inconveniences of the attendant belly ache in his strides, the abdominal discomfort wouldn’t abet. Instead, it matched its throttle, revving up the malignant engine. Expectedly, the malignancy gained intractable dimension until the patience, endurance, perseverance, and resilience of his fallible human nature exhausted its elasticity and eventually snapped. And when the Camerounian Lagdo Dam of the spittle bursted its seams during a Holy Mass at the Adoration Ministry ground on Sunday, the gushing flood was one of no-holds-barred and torrential in its intensity. A deeply aggrieved Father Obayi accused the Church of serial oppression even though he built several structures and transferred ownership of his numerous properties to the Church. “The Church refused to give me land for my adoration, and yet the one given to me, the Church wants to take it from me. Since the Church doesn’t want me again, I am leaving the Catholic church any moment from now,” an enraged Father announced poignantly to hundreds of Adoration congregants, who bellowed ‘no! no!!’ in return. “Will I kill myself? I have noticed that I am hated and not wanted. I am disliked to the point that fellow priests broke my gate, saying I don’t have right here,” the beleaguered cleric bemoaned his fate. From the hurricane of restiveness that swept through the congregation, it was obvious that Father had succeeded in striking a resonating chord of emotions, which provided the crest he rode to whip up sentiments. It took less than almost a split second for the conjured sentiments that rippled through the lay faithful to take on wings and find convoluted expressions in audio and video formats in both mainstream newspapers and social media platforms.
Generally, loyal dissent within the Catholic Church, as with any other organised institution, has limits that align with the Church’s core teachings, doctrine, and hierarchical structure. These limits touch specifically on a number of basic issues including but not limited to doctrinal and dogmatic beliefs, Papal authority, respect for clerical hierarchy, moral teachings, sacraments, unity and peace, legal frameworks, spirit of reconciliation, humble submission, and final authority. In specific terms, loyal dissent does not extend to the rejection of core doctrinal or dogmatic beliefs of the Catholic Church as they are considered non-negotiable and form the foundation of the faith. Loyal dissent should respect the supreme authority of the Pope and the Magisterium, the Church’s teaching authority and refrain from undermining their authority or positions. Loyal dissent respects the clerical hierarchy, including bishops and other leaders and hardly involves insubordination or disregard for legitimate authority. Loyal dissent should not disrupt the celebration of the sacraments or deviate from established liturgical practices, for instance, the principled stance of Bishop Onah on the use and/or misuse of anointing oil in Nsukka Diocese. Loyal dissent hardly forecloses disagreements, which explains why it recognises that Catholic Church has a legal framework for addressing disputes and disagreements. Accordingly, dissenters for whatever reason(s) are expected to operate within these established channels and procedures. The foregoing tends to suggest that the limits of loyal dissent in the Catholic Church are designed to maintain the Church’s theological and hierarchical integrity while allowing for respectful dialogue and the potential for the development of doctrine over time. When disagreements occur, individuals are encouraged to engage in discussions with an attitude of humility, respect, and a commitment to the faith’s core principles.
Even though Father Obayi had effectively exercised his rights to freedom of conscience and legitimate differences by spitting out the malignant saliva that had caused him chronic belly ache for so long, the choice and manner of delivery hardly reckoned with the limits of loyal dissent as well as key ecclesiastical rights of the Bishop to exercise his authority over the clergy and laity in accordance with the Church’s doctrine, which is fundamental within the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Within the Nsukka Catholic Diocese, Bishop Onah holds a divinely ordained authority as established by the Church’s doctrine and tradition. Canon law, the Church’s legal system, provides the framework for the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, and as the shepherd of Nsukka Diocese, Bishop Onah is inalienably responsible for ensuring that the teachings of the Church are faithfully transmitted to the faithful. He is entrusted with the spiritual leadership of his diocese, guiding the clergy and laity in matters of faith, morals, and Church practice. And given that upholding the authority of a bishop is essential for maintaining unity and doctrinal integrity within the Church, members of clergy and laity are encouraged to trust and support their bishop’s pastoral leadership, recognizing that the bishop acts as a guardian of the faith and a servant of the Church. Within the Catholic tradition, there is an expectation of obedience and submission to the legitimate authority of the bishop. This ensures order and harmony within the diocese. Although the Church gives room for respectful and loyal dissent in certain matters, clerics and parishioners may voice concerns or disagreements through proper channels while maintaining respect for the bishop’s authority. Bishop Onah, like all other bishops, was called to be a shepherd who guides, protects, and nurtures his flock, always keeping the spiritual well-being of the Church at the forefront of his actions. Upholding the rights of a bishop to exercise his authority is part of the broader commitment to maintaining the teachings and traditions of the Catholic faith. The magisterial profile of his Lordship invests him with powers of an elder in the second proverb, whose farting prowess should naturally elicit praises from the younger one in the rear. Like Ceasar, who does no wrong, the Bishop enjoys ecclesiastical prerogative by which the Body of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, immune from liability to error or failure in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of Catholic faith. Nonetheless, the Bishop’s authority exercised from the heights of magisterium, should be observed within the context of service and pastoral care. Even when the right of the elder to fart at will is inalienable in Ezikeoba tradition, a certain caveat makes provision for gbẹpị, which the elder leverages as a repair mechanism to mitigate and deodorize the sting.
In summary, it seems tenable to aver that while the concept of loyal dissent allows for a degree of flexibility and adaptability within the Catholic tradition, it is always exercised with respect for the fundamental tenets of the faith and the hierarchical structure of the Church. In other words, in the event of disagreements within the clergy for instance, loyal dissent encourages individuals to engage in discussions with an attitude of humility, respect, and a commitment to the faith’s core principles. It provides the ecclesiastical compass to navigate the tension between individual conscience and the communal nature of the Church.
Finally, it is necessary to underscore the point that as a lay faithful, the foregoing discussion was not intended to transcend the bounds of mere dialectics. The key parties to the ‘dispute’ are too knowledgeable in Church doctrine and its hierarchical structure to need an ordinary lay faithful’s intervention. Fr Okechukwu’s advice against taking sides as ‘combatants’ in an ‘undeclared war,’ remains valid. I am constrained by these considerations to align with the position of a parishioner, which should be one of responsibility, prayer, and support for a peaceful resolution. In the face of Rev. Father Obayi’s allegations of unfair treatment against His Lordship and the ensuing crisis, I firmly believe that our guiding principles should be love, prayer, and a commitment to resolving issues through peaceful dialogue and understanding. It is essential to remember that both Father Obayi and Bishop Onah are dedicated servants of our faith community, and we should hold them in our prayers. The allegations raised by Reverend Father Obayi are a matter of concern. A transparent and just investigation to ascertain the truth and dispel insinuations and twisted narratives of spin doctors may not be a bad idea. Frank dialogue, conducted in a spirit of respect and humility, is crucial for the resolution of such issues. Interestingly, the Catholic Church has a strong tradition of reconciliation, and should be upheld in these current circumstances. In these times, when unity is tested, it behooves all parishioners to continue praying for the peace and well-being of our beloved Nsukka Catholic Diocese. We should remain steadfast in our faith and strive to be instruments of reconciliation and love within our faith community. Let us demonstrate to the world the power of faith, forgiveness, and unity. One has faith that the Church will emerge from this period of disagreement and crisis even stronger and more united if we allow our actions to be guided by our faith and our unwavering commitment to the teachings of Christ.
