Pope Francis
After his death in 2010 it took three years for Pope Benedict to appoint a successor, an Igbo. “There was no consultation or dialogue with the priests or the people of the diocese as to what kind of bishop was needed to continue the legacy of the much-loved Bishop Chikwe.” (Stan Chu Ilo, Tablet 29 July 2017). Rome had reasons for the decision made but we can only guess what they were. The Mbaise people are “among the most highly educated in Nigeria” and had developed a strong sense of identity over against the dominant culture that surrounded them. Chu Ilo proposes they picked this up by imbibing the mind-set of their Irish missionaries who came from a country dominated and exploited by the English for 700 years. Rome may have been nervous of encouraging the progress of this self-affirmation which the people enjoyed under Bishop Chikwe. To remind them they belonged to a universal Church Rome may have felt it necessary to appoint an outsider.
In the middle ages Archbishops of Canterbury were sometimes from France and at least one of them, Theodore of Tarsus (St Paul’s birth place), came from what is now Turkey. But we are not in the middle ages, a time when people had not yet developed a sense of identity linked to a particular culture and place. Today people are much more aware of themselves as belonging to a nation or – within a nation – a tribe. They want their leaders to be “one of them.” Tribalism may be affirmative but it can also be divisive. And this is what makes Rome nervous.
So here we have a clash; a clash between universalism and localism, between imposition from outside and listening to the people inside and between a fixed mind-set of centralised authority over against determined resistance at the local level. It is revealing that the local priests protest; “We are not disobeying the pope. What we are saying is that we should not be suppressed. They (presumably the people round the pope) are subverting the truth.”
To judge by news media sound bites it looks like the pope calling to heel some recalcitrant priests. But the more we go into it the more we see this is an issue that cannot be solved by the weight of authority alone. There will have to be dialogue – in this and other cases that are bound to come.
Post published in: Africa News
The Roman Catholic Church is guilty of a far worse crime. There is a clear Biblical responsibility on Christians to fight oppression and poverty. Yet, although there are a few shining individuals standing up and some have been martyred, the Church as a whole is making no real, unified attempt to fight any of Africa’s many oppressive governments, including Zimbabwe’s.
Catholicism is not alone in this. All Christian Churches of all
denominations are just as bad. Most hypocritical are the evangelical churches who are fond of telling every other Christian they are not “real” Christians because they are not following the Bible. Yet they don’t do it themselves.
Just by themselves, the Christian Churches are powerful enough to overcome Mugabe and ZANU PF.
Robert Mugabe is a roman catholic, so are many other african leaders, most of africas colonizers were protestant, methodist, capitalist & jewish.
Why would rome succumb to the other side who have only exploited africa ?
In order for africa to work the people should be catholic & the money powers, which is not the case.
Thank you for your comment, Owen. I, too, am from a Catholic/Christian background, which is why the attitude of all the Churches upsets me. You are right about the religious background of colonisers, and they played a big part in the oppression of Africans.
You are correct that probably most African leaders are Christian, but they are the ones who are oppressing the great majority of ordinary Africans, and keeping them in extreme poverty. and that is Anti-Christ action. I don’t know why Rome is not prepared to not fight them, and I cannot understand it.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are trying to say your last sentence. Could you clarify it for me, please?
I told you why Rome will never fight them, Rome is anti Imperialist.
Rome will only work with the capitalists if they are Catholic, anybody else & they WILL resist.
This is why socialism is often promoted by the catholics in South America, a continent dominated by jewish, american (protestant), German capitalists who often exploit locals for cheap labor.
Thank you, Owen. Actually, you could hardly have more “imperialist” governments than most African ones, which are very close to dictatorships – Zimbabwe and some actually are dictatorships – and work to line their own pockets, not to help ordinary citizens.
So I think we agree that Rome is not fighting to free ordinary Africans from oppression and poverty?
I can’t comment about South America because I don’t know it. But in Africa, capitalists only exploit locals for cheap labour because their own governments let them. They could stop them at any time.
Thank you, David. Actually the locals prefer local rule rather than foreign “imperialist” rule.
You are absolutely right, Owen! The sad thing is, however, that in reality, ordinary Africans (as opposed to those at the top of the heap), have little or no more freedom than under colonialism, and are actually no better off since colonialism ended. But we are working on it!
Locals are also working & have worked to rid themselves of the white colonialists.
The french, Portuguese & British colonials have all but left africa in the 60’s- 80’s & 90’s.
It is only their conglomerates left behind, but the locals are working on them too.