Perhaps, before this article is published, the final outcome of the crisis rocking the Ahiara diocese of the Catholic Church following the rejection of Bishop Peter Okpaleke consecrated four years ago, would have become clearer.
By July 9, the deadline by Pope Francis to every priest or ecclesiastic incardinated in that diocese, whether he resides there or works elsewhere, even abroad to write a letter of apology asking for forgiveness would have lapsed. The Catholic pontiff had in the directive warned whoever fails to comply within 30 days will be suspended from divine functions and lose his current office.
Obviously pained by the sad development, the Pope said whoever is opposed to Bishop Okpaleke taking possession of the diocese “wants to destroy the Church” and the measures became necessary because “the people of God are scandalized”.
Pope’s intervention followed the crisis that engulfed the diocese soon after the appointment of Bishop Peter Okpaleke. Then, about 400 priests from the Mbaise clan rose to reject the choice of the Bishop who hails from Anambra State. They alleged irregularities in the nomination of the bishop and also made it unequivocally clear they wanted one of their own to be appointed instead.
Bandying sundry arguments, they claimed the Igbo dialect spoken by Bishop Okpaleke is quite different from the one spoken by people of the diocese and would largely constrain him in the performance of his duties. They further said with over 750 priests from the diocese, they cannot accept a situation where none of theirs is found worthy to be made a bishop.
They swore never to allow the Bishop take charge of the diocese such that law-enforcement agencies had to intervene to restore law and order. The priests in connivance with the laity have since the past four years, made good their threat, rebuffing all appeals and physically disallowing the bishop from taking charge.
Pope’s intervention was therefore to redeem the image of the Catholic Church and put the matter to rest. Curiously, as soon as the order was made public, a delegation of the protesting priests sought audience with the Imo State governor. It is not clear what the objective of such a meeting was or the role they expected the governor to play in an issue of this nature. But the state government was later to advise them in a statement to accept the Pope’s decision as the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church.
But the desperate outing indicated their discomfort with the Pope’s directive. Some of their leaders have even spoken against the Pope’s decision alleging that those who briefed him did not avail him of all the facts. There are claims that the priests have complied with Pope’s directive. But if events of last week in that diocese are anything to go by, it is obvious the crisis is far from being over.
Thousands of Catholic faithful, apparently instigated by priests, stormed the Cathedral in protest against the failure of the Vatican to appoint another bishop to replace Okpaleke whom they still vowed not to allow on their soil. Those who spoke seemed to have modified their position when they indicated a willingness to allow any other bishop from the province but definitely not Okpaleke.
This appears a huge contradiction given that one of the conditions for the letter of apology is that the priests must indicate their willingness to “accept the bishop whom the Pope sends and has appointed”. Could it be that after accepting the conditions enunciated by the Pope, the priests turned around to insist they do not accept the bishop he appointed? What of the army of undertakers masking under garbs alien to the Catholic Church that have been floated to garner support for the dissenting priests?
There does not seem any remorse. Not only have such groups maintained their allegation of sundry misdeeds against the Catholic Church, they insist on not accepting Okpaleke. As if to give credence to the fact that the laity and the phoney groups were being goaded by the priests, one of the priests equally reaffirmed their opposition to Okpaleke. Given unfolding events, would it not amount to a repudiation of their undertaking (if they actually had one) to still insist they would not succumb to the authority of the appointed bishop?
It is getting clearer heads will definitely roll at the expiration of the deadline. There are two sets of priests that are likely to fall victim of the hammer of the supreme pontiff- those who refused to write the letter of apology and those whose letters may not be acceptable to the Pope. There could be a third category of priests who are seen as ringleaders of this huge embarrassment to the Catholic faith.
This can be gleaned from the letter of reminder by the Apostolic Administrator of Ahiara diocese and Archbishop of Abuja, John Cardinal Onaiyekan. He had reminded priests still doubting the authenticity of the Pope’s order that each letter will be given an individual written response in conformity with the instructions of the Supreme Pontiff. For him, “there is no more time for playing games or prevaricating. It is obvious this is a very serious matter”.
It would appear the Pope is going to wield the big stick against priests who flouted his order and others fingered as prime movers in this gross act of disobedience against the authority of the church. The matter is even more disconcerting when it is realized the protesting priests swore to an oath of obedience to the authority of the Church.
By refusing to accept the decision of the Pope in the past four years, preventing a bishop duly appointed from performing his duties, Ahiara priests repudiated their oaths of office. Even then, some of the reasons they adduced for their action gravitate between the ridiculous and the infantile. For one, there is no law of the Catholic Church that says a bishop must be appointed from the area he will be posted.
Most of the serving Catholic bishops are in dioceses other than theirs. The facts are self evident to the protesting priests and they should know better. It was also very ridiculous listening to priests argue that Okpaleke speaks a different Igbo dialect and it will constrain his communication with the faithful. It is a shame such hackneyed arguments are being canvassed by priests.
If we were able to contend with white priests even when the literacy level was abysmally low, it is a big scandal for any person to finger Igbo dialect as a reason for rejecting a consecrated bishop in any part of Igbo land. At any rate, Anambra dialect is understood by every Igbo man and woman. It would seem the lure of office is at the heart of the current crisis. That makes the matter more worrisome for the Catholic institution that depends largely on the goodwill of the faithful for survival.
Nobody has queried why only a few of those admitted into our seminaries are ordained priests. Is it not a maxim in that vocation that many are called but few are chosen? How the few is chosen may soon become an issue of unionism and placard carrying if we allow the Ahiara priests get away with this unmitigated assault to the Catholic faith.
Or, could there be a correlation between the current posturing of Ahiara priests and their serial inability to qualify for the bishopric? The Catholic Church is neither a democratic institution nor does it claim to be one. So flaunting a strength of 750 priests on which basis they demand a fair share of the bishopric, completely lost sight of St Augustine’s allegory of the two cities- the city of God and the city of man. The arguments canvassed to sustain the crisis are of the corporeal rather ecclesiastical. They are clannish and self-serving and cannot stand the rigors of the ecclesiastical order.
The Pope has spoken. Catholics who challenge his authority have no business in the faith. Ahiara diocese is in the news for a very wrong reason. They will have to contend with the backlash of this scandal for a long time to come. Enough of that hot air!
