(Being
a Paper Presented to the Okigwe Diocesan Clergy on the occasion of their annual
Theological Conference/Seminar at the Conference Hall of the Cathedral of Immaculate
Conception, Okigwe,)
THE DIOCESAN CHURCH AND CLERGY PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
1.
INTRODUCTION
I wish to
thank the Bishop and organizers and you the clergy for invitation and
disposition towards me. I was requested
to talk on Harnessing Talents in the Presbyterium: A Road map to the objective
Development and Growth of the Local Church in Okigwe Diocese. However in
consultation with the organizers I decided to expand the topic to what we have
which is: The Diocesan Church and Clergy Personnel Administration.
Talents or what in spiritual arena called charisms are treated in church as
social organization under personnel administration or human resources
management.
The Nigerian
Church like other Churches is still in the process of reception of the
dispositions of the Second Vatican Council and the 1983 Code of Canon Law that
made far reaching legislations on personnel administration especially in
determining the personnel needed in the Church, their qualities, the procedures
for their appointments/placements, resignations, transfers,
removal/deprivations, maintenance, training, and coordination etc.
Our approach is to address
these problems while setting out in form of recommendations roadmap for genuine
harnessing of talents of the priests within the local Church. We shall first
expose the preliminaries n clergy personnel administration, expose the
predicaments and conclude with a recommendation.
2.
PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATIONS IN DIOCESAN CLERGY PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
The Diocesan Church and Legitimate Authority
The Fathers of Vatican II see the Church as threandric
(i.e. divine and human).[1] They described the Church rather
than defined it in images drawn from the
scriptures.[2]
However, John Paul II was to affirm clearly that, “Foremost among the elements
which express the true and authentic image of the Church are the teaching
whereby the Church is presented as the People of God (LG 2) and its
hierarchical authority as service (ibid. 3); and further teaching which portrays
the Church as a communion….”[3] In the m d of the Africans, the Church is the
family of God (see EIA).
Furthermore, as the legislator stated, the Church,
for the Fathers of Vatican II,[4] the concept of
‘particular’ and ‘local’ Churches are used for dioceses or for the same region
of culture or of the same rite. The 1983 new Code of Canon Law employed the
term ‘particular Church’ only for the diocese[5]. According to the new Code
therefore, “A diocese is a portion of the people of God, which is entrusted to
a Bishop to be nurtured by him, with the cooperation of the presbyterium, in such a way that,
remaining close to its pastor and gathered by him through the Gospel and the
Eucharist in the Holy Spirit, it constitutes a particular Church. In this
Church, the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church of Christ truly exist and
functions”[6].
In this
Diocese/local Church/particular Church, the diocesan Bishop (can 376) competent
authority and legal representative (can 393). In this particular Church the
diocesan Bishop “represents his Church and indeed sums it up”[7]; he is the center of the
apostolate[8], successor of apostles in
the local Church community[9]; he becomes the presence
of the universal Church in the particular Church, sponsors of the universal
Church and all Churches[10], and prelate of the
people whom he governs etc.
In the
exercise of his pastoral office, Bishop’s power[11] is ordinary (attached to the office), proper (exercised in his name) and immediate (directly exercised over those entrusted to his care
without intermediary or hindrance).
The diocesan
Bishop is personally empowered by Episcopal consecration to exercise the three
functions (munera) of teaching,
sanctifying and governing or ruling[12], that is they are
uniquely constituted “Pastors in the Church, to be teachers of doctrine, the
priests of sacred worship and the ministers of governance”[13].
In this Church
the Bishop enjoys the power of jurisdiction which in canonical tradition is
also called the power of governance (cann 129; 135). The legislator states
that: “The diocesan Bishop governs the particular Church entrusted to him with
legislative, executive and judicial power, in accordance with the law”[14]. By this power, he is
“responsible for that corporations personnel, financial and property administration,
public communication and other policies. He has become the chief judge in the
diocese, the chief teacher and catechist, the chief pastor”[15]. Unlike in the political
community[16],
there is no true separation of powers[17] in the Church. These
powers in the diocese resides with the Bishop who exercises legislative power
solely (cann 391, §2; 466) and executive and judicial powers personally or
through the Vicars (cann 391, §2; 479; 419, 1; 1420, §1).
In summary,
therefore, the diocesan Bishop is uniquely constituted a pastor and minister of
governance (can 375, §1), prelate of the community of faith and shepherds of
the God’s flock. Hence the weight of pastoral responsibility to govern the
diocese “falls squarely on the Bishop”. [18] It is the Bishops
responsibility to coordinate all apostolic activities in the diocese (can 394),
entire curia (can 473, §1; CD 27) and the “pastoral action of the Vicars
general and Episcopal Vicars” (can 473, §2). In the Decree, Christus Dominus, the Fathers exhorted:
In exercising his office of
father and pastor the bishop should be with his people as one who serves, as a
good shepherd who knows his sheep and whose sheep know him, as a true father
who excels in his love and solicitude for all, to whose divinely conferred
authority all readily submit. He should so unite and mold his flock into one
family that all, conscious of their duties, may live and act in the communion
of charity”; Cf. also LG 27 where the Bishop is also exhorted to imitate the
good shepherd who came to serve and not to be served. Therefore, “He should not
refuse to listen to his subjects whose welfare he promotes as of his own
children and whom he urges to collaborate readily with him. Destined to render
account for their souls to God (cf. Heb. 13:17), by prayer, preaching and all
good works of charity he should be solicitous both for their welfare and for
that too of those who do not belong to the unique flock, but whom he should
regard as entrusted to him in the Lord [19].
For the flock, we are obliged to
obey the Bishop (cann 212; 273; 590; 601), that is for us clergy to accept his
actions in appointments/placements, in opportunities to study and what to
study, in requests to return, in support of Bishop with constructive criticism
rather than divisive/diversionary agenda
The Diocesan Clergy and Bond with
the Diocesan Church
The canonical
status of the diocesan clergy shows that he is a Christian, a priest that is
bonded with the diocesan Church for his presence, ministry, and maintenance.
As a Christian, by virtue
of baptismal rebirth, the diocesan clergy is incorporated into Christ and
constituted a member of the people of God (can 204, §1, LG 9) and a person in
the Church (can 96). With the reception of the sacraments of baptism,
confirmation and Eucharist, the diocesan clergy is a fully initiated Christian
(can 842, §2). He enjoys full communion with the Church (cann 205; 96; LG 13),
and is endowed with rights (cann 208-222): and obligations (cann 223, 212) open
to all faithful. One of these obligation is that of obedience.
As a Priest, the diocesan
clergy enjoys the clerical state (can 207, §1; LG 31) and is designated as a
sacred minister or belongs to the ministerial priesthood (cann 1008; 207, §1;
LG 28), or ministers of apostolic mission (can 276, §1)[20] effected by the
imposition of hands and prayers of consecration which transforms the individual
with the imprint of unrepeatable and indelible character (cann 1008; 1009, §2;
845, §1).
On the one
hand, the liturgical act of ordination produces the juridical effect of a
unique identity of the diocesan clergy, that is, it configures him to trinity[21] and makes him represent
Christ sacramentally as alter Christus.[22] This implies in essence
as Cornelius U. Okeke indicated, that “the priesthood is not a career or a job
or an occupation that one chooses in order to advance one’s interests,
actualize one’s potentialities or an opportunity to satisfy one’s private
ambitions. It is a vocation to serve God and humanity in total gift of
oneself.”[23]
On the other
hand, the juridic effect of ordination apart from the jurisdiction of teaching,
sanctifying and ruling in the name and person of Christ (cann 129; 1012,; 1013;
1382), places one also in hierarchical communion.[24] As such one so designated
and chosen from among the People of God[25] becomes a priest,
consecrated and set apart to mediate between the people and God, and to
represent them before God.[26] By this act he is also
the ambassador of the divine redeemer[27] and consecrated to the universal mission of the Church.[28]
Finally, the priest as a diocesan clergy
is different from the clerical Religious who take the sacred vows of obedience,
poverty and chastity (cann 573, §2; 598-601; 607, §2).
The Church’s
legal tradition disposes that every cleric must be inscribed in that community
or diocesan Church for whose services he was ordained. This is called incardination which comes with diaconate
ordination for diocesan priests (can 266, §1). Incardination is a juridical
institution which gives the cleric a juridic title of rights and obligations in
the local Church apart from that secured with baptism (can 96). It is also a
means by which “a concrete pastoral relationship of service and discipline is
established between the cleric and the Church….Therefore unattached or
transient clerics are not admitted….”[29] Hence, priests
incardinated in particular Church or diocese (cann 368; 369) maintains
ecclesial communion and canonical relationship with the diocese and to the
personnel structure of authority of the Church, i.e. the diocesan Bishop under
whose authority he exercises his ministry and enjoys the right of maintenance
(cann 269, 1°; 519).
In this
particular Church, the diocesan clergy apart from rights open to him as members
of the Christ’s faithful people, has in addition,[30] Right to belong to the
diocese; Right to autonomy of life (with attendant obligation to common
life-cann 280; 550; belonging to the priestly family-the diocesan presbyterium,
LG 28); Right to Ecclesiastical Office (cann 274; 129; 150), Right to adequate
maintenance and social security (cann 281; 1254, §1; 1274), and of course the
obligation to obedience (cann 273; 212).
Ecclesiastical Offices and
Personnel Dynamics
Nature
of Ecclesiastical Office
The legislator
drawing from the Second Vatican Council states: “An ecclesiastical office is
any post which by divine or ecclesiastical disposition is established in a
stable manner to further a spiritual purpose”[31]. The elements discernable
from this disposition include: It is an office (not honorific title); It is
constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance and as such independent of
interference from every political community (can 145, §1); It is stable both
objectively in relation to the office and subjectively in relation to the
titulary or the person so designated (this stability may be indefinite,
definite or at the prudent discretion of the competent authority who provides
for the office-cf. cann 193; 148; 157); It has a unique finality, which is both
the finality of the Church, which is salvation of souls (can 1752) that of the
diocesan curia (CD 27) and juridic persons (can 114, §2); It is exercised always
in communion with the Church (can 149, §1), individually, collegially through
designated organs of consultation.The person so designated should have
delineated rights and obligations or job description (can 145, §2) and where it
is delegated power should have the necessary ingredients for its exercise (can
138).
Authority
for Placement
In the diocesan Church, the Bishop is the
competent authority that provides for offices by free conferral (cann 148; 157;
470). However, in some cases, the law requires that certain organs be consulted
under the pain of invalidity according to canon 127 (e.g. consultation of the
college of consultors and the Finance Council for the appointment of the
financial administrator, can 494, §1) or certain persons recommended to be
consulted as in the case of Dean for the appointment of parish priest (can
524), parish priest for the appointment of the parish vicar (can 547), priest
within the deanery for the appointment of the dean (can 553, §2), etc.
Procedures
in Personnel Placement
The legislator
made both general and specific provisions for the requirements of different
ecclesiastical offices in the diocesan Church. It is always obtained by
canonical provision (can 146), which is a valid administrative juridical act
that provides an established office with an incumbent.[32] It should normally be
made in writing (can 156)[33], notarized (can 474) with
a specification of the competences or job description i.e. rights and
obligations incumbent on the office holder (can 145, §2).
Personnel
Motivation and Discipline
The issue of
personnel motivation calls for equal treatment, reward of outstanding
contribution, trust, support, recognition and respect for initiatives, talents
and legitimate competences, responsible cooperation and frequent contacts among
priests themselves. The officials should be motivated with enough delegated
authority necessary to accomplish the demands of the office held (can 138).
Motivation
also concerns adequate maintenance,
that is, enough time for rest, off days, holidays and sabbatical leave as
provided in law (can 283, §2). It calls for remuneration for services[34] rendered to the Church
for the provision of necessities of life, honest livelihood and payment of
needed services (can 281, §1; 231, §2) and social assistance and security at
illness, incapacity, old age, resignation (cann 281, §2; 402, §2; 538, §3; 384)
or even removal (can 195) or imposed penalties (can 1350). This calls for the
immediate establishment of the Institute for the Maintenance and Security of
Priests (can 1274, §§1 & 2).The Bishop has the responsibility to draw the
attention of the faithful in this regard and to be aware that the goods of the
Church is directed to the maintenance of ecclesiastical workers (cann 1254;
222; 281; 1261; 1262)[35]. Establishing a common
fund for this purpose is not out place in this project (can 1274; §§3 & 4).
The workers should be paid just wage for their maintenance and their dependents
(cann 1286; 231)[36].
Furthermore,
the need for motivation calls for the formation
and training which may be formal or informal. It involves a healthy
introduction of the workers into the system of administration and a sort of
apprenticeship or on the job training. Ongoing formation[37] is a
right and a responsibility to clerics (can 279)[38],
Religious (can 661; 724) and for some other workers like catechists (can 780)
and even for the Bishops[39]. In
spite of this right, the legislator and other dispositions of the Magisterium
disposed that formal education should not be for all but for selected few and
for those “outstanding in character, intelligence and virtue” (can 819) and
under the authority of the Bishop. This was the position of Blessed John Paul
II in 1982 to us Nigerian priests:
Nigerians love
to study. This is good. Learned priests are required in order to answer the
needs of Church and society. Every priest should continue to improve himself by
the private study of theology, catechetics and other such sacred sciences.
Strive to make time for some such study frequently. When you are ordained and
it is a question of going to universities or similar institutes inside or
outside Nigeria, this is an assignment to be given only to a certain number of
priests, according to diocesan needs and planning, for which the Bishops take
ultimate responsibility. Do nothing without your Bishop or worse still against
him, especially on this point. Priests who have already put themselves into
such irregular positions can now retrace their steps and find peace of
conscience. In the same way, you will resist the temptation to seek employment
anywhere without or against your Bishop. We all share in Christ’s one
priesthood. Let us maintain its unity and love[40].
The officials
of the diocesan Church are obliged to make promise
of discharging their duties in fidelity to the diocesan Bishop and
according to law (can 471, 1°). However, while most are obliged to make promise
others like the Vicars, members of diocesan Synod, administrators of
temporalities, (and for some also the members of the college of consultors) are
obliged to take oath of fidelity and make profession of faith (cann 833, 1°,
5°; 1283, 1°)[41].
The oath must also be taken by all who constitute or assist in tribunal (can
1454).
The diocesan
personnel are also bound by confidentiality
within the limits and according to the manner determined by law and the
diocesan Bishop (can 471, 2°). This obligation is highly demanded for all
officials and in special mode those involved with diocesan archives and in
general judicial officials (cann 1455; 1457). It is also demanded of consulting
organs i.e. not to make public matters decided in the meetings as this is the
prerogative of the Bishop (cann 514, §1; 500, §3; 466 etc). This is highly
demanded for confessors, Canon Penitentiary, Interpreter of the seal of the
sacrament of Reconciliation which is inviolable (can 983) at the risk of
censure (can 1388).
The obligation to enforce laws within the
local Church is the responsibility of the diocesan Bishop (cann 392; 384)[42]. He should therefore be
vigilant to see that order, discipline and serenity reign in the curia/diocesan
environment. This calls for prompt action and intervention with charity, yet
firmly and decisively: whether through admonition or correction, or taking
steps towards removal (cann 192-195; 477; 485; 538; 552; 563; 682§2; 1740-1747
etc) or transfer (cann 190-191; 1748-1752); and in some cases loss of juridical
status (cann 290; 694-696; 703), deprivation (cann 196; 84; 1389), suspension
(cann 468, §1; 1386), dissolution (can 501, §3; 468, §1) or even inflicting
just penalty (cann 1375; 1381; 1386) and or in extreme circumstances initiating
process of dismissal (cann 1333; 290)[43].
To provide
effective channels and means of resolving
conflicts either amicably (cann 1446; 1676; 1659; 1695; 1713; 1733) or
through arbitration (cann 1713-1716) or Committee (can 1733), or through
administrative procedures and hierarchical recourse (cann 1400, §2; 1445, §2;
1732-1739). Thus the “credibility of diocesan governance may well rest on the
extent to which it is sensitive to the rights of people in the diocese and is
able to provide adequate protection for them not only within the diocese but
within the wider Catholic communion”[44].
Personnel
Coordination
The
coordination of the curia will never become effective if the chains of command
and channels of communication are not properly determined. This involves
determining the required offices and organs; their competences and the
communication links and interrelationships. This is called designing the
organization diagram (i.e. ORGANIGRAM). On this William Orchin said: “The
organization of a society is determined by the form of its government, i.e. by
the composition and functioning of the organs and persons which are entrusted
with assuring of its direction”[45]. The Bishop therefore
should establish these offices and organs with their proper titles, competences
(i.e. Job descriptions), and terms of offices. This should normally be
articulated in a decree (can 145, §2); in writing (can 156) and notarized (can
474). It is good that all structures of the administration be assembled in a
well articulated Statutes (cann 94-95) and Diocesan Handbook of Administration.
This serves a lot of purposes for and in the local Church:
This serves
effective function of enhanced
communication in the diocese. Good communication is “the glue that holds
structures and human relations together” and it is “organization in action”.
Poor communication destroys the organization; it incapacitates it. Some Church
administrators specialize in secrecy that is irrelevant and uncalled for. They
hoard essential information to subordinates creating network of suspicion and
red-tapism. On this Abel Ubeku said, “the workers do not become suspicious
because they misunderstand the language in which the information is passed to
them; they become suspicious because they are not told what is happening and
therefore gather scraps of information through the grape vine”[46]. And Hilary Okeke added:
The administrator should always
adopt the most effective means of passing relevant information to other members
of the organization in such a way that the information is clear, precise and
intelligent. Important information should be communicated in writing.
Information should be given well ahead of time. Information delayed is
information denied and ‘sitting on the file’ when a person has applied for
something is a form of administrative unkindness. This may breed frustration
and resentment. Note the provisions of can. 57 and the obligations to repair
any harm done by administrative silence[47].
The
communication we mean here can be formal or informal but should follow the
required hierarchy in the Church organization. In addition, it is not in order
to get a situation whereby subordinates are empowered to direct professionals
or those in the high offices of the Church. These demand that the required
chains of command and channels of communications should be properly established
and respected[48].
3.
PREDICAMENTS
IN CLERGY PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
Aberrations in Personnel
Placement
Often times
relationships are strained either because of the conclave nature of
administrative operations, appointment of certain persons with questionable
integrity to exalted offices in the Church, nonexistent of personnel department
and neglect in utilization of better qualified persons in areas of competence,
unhealthy criticisms, sycophancy, jealousy and worst still presence of
unproductive and under-utilized academic degrees and distracted concentration
on wealth. [49]
The principle
of appointing the right persons in office[50] should guide his
executive appointments i.e. ensuring that skilled, experienced, outstanding
persons distinguished for their piety and pastoral zeal are nominated for
offices[51]. The Bishop should
endeavor to know his priests i.e. their character, their aptitudes, their
aspirations, the depth of their spiritual life, their zeal, their ideals, their
state of health, their financial situation, their families and everything which
concerns them. And he should know them not just in groups…or through pastoral
bodies, but also individually and, as far as possible, in their place of
ministry. This is the purpose of his pastoral visits, when as much time as
possible should be given to personal matters….[52].
This knowledge
draws on the Bishop the charisms of discernment, discretion and prudence devoid
of arbitrariness, prejudice and suspicion of favoritism or undue pressures,
private interests or ethnic considerations in making ecclesiastical
appointments[53].
And worse still to fill the curia with people who are not responsible or
suitable (can 149). The Bishop should
not burden an individual with many responsibilities especially where there are
presences of many qualified personnel. This approach even helps the spiritual
and interior life of the office holder so designated[54]. Besides, when one person
is invested with many responsibilities, there is always the risk of ending up
not doing neither well i.e. “Jack of all trade and master of none”
The other is
multiplication and duplication of offices/commissions without sharp terms of
references. Sometimes we see conflicts of competences. Hence offices should not
be multiplied unnecessarily without purpose of both the apostolate and mission
at heart as one principle directed: entia non sunt multiplicanda sine
necessitate and an author added, “Today so many Bishops are hiding behind
anonymous structures, committees, sub committees, all kinds of groups and
offices” [55]
Lack of Healthy Further Education
Policy
A healthy
further studies policy (involving the presbyterium in its formulation), and
fidelity to its implementation is a necessity now in our local Churches. This
policy should endeavour to determine what to study and the extent the
individual can contribute to the local Church. An earlier plan and information
of what one will do before going or on return will enhance better diocesan
personnel management. The idea of “if you get opportunity you can go” is
directly against the formal nature for further studies as directed by the
Church. This is because if individual undertakes the arrangement of sponsorship
it may tantamount to declaration of independence on the part of the priest. The
normal thing should be that such arrangement should go through the diocesan
bishop.
An existent
policy calls for fidelity to its implementation. In addition, there is also
need to reconsider the former practice of referring and requesting
recommendations from the formators in the Major seminary who actually know the
capability of their students for quite a long period of time. This is indeed a
healthy ancilla for the diocesan Bishops’ decisions for the priests among other
considerations. Again, the collaborators in the ministry of diocesan Bishop
(i.e. Further Education Commission etc)
should endeavour to give their sincere advice (can 127, §3) based on the
above principles so that the Bishop will not make costly mistakes in handling
any of his priests that later leave bitter and lasting effects.
Refusal to return after Further
Education
We have
experienced in the midst of immense flourishing indigenous vocations to the
priesthood, a corresponding increase in the number of diocesan priests that go
for further studies either within the country or outside. This is made possible
by the diocesan Church, the Missionary Decastery, and other local and foreign
funding agencies and of course our families, communities and friends that have
sustained the local Church in trained personnel.
However, the
stories surrounding further education have been that of mixed feelings. Thus,
when you calculate the enormous number of Nigerian Priests in some places like
USA, Germany, Austria (the countries notable for permanent stay of priests),
Rome, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Holland, Nigeria etc. and the percentage of
their return back home to assume and help the local Church one need to stop and
reflect. The situation of longer stay is now creeping into those priests who
study in Rome, Belgium, and even in Nigeria etc. What then could be the reasons
for the refusal to return back to our country prevalent among some of us? Let
us attempt a presentation of list to which you may add others:[56] Problem with research
that is, in relation to materials, language and the Professors especially those
who are known to make life difficult for their students; Problem with our
families and the economic demands on the priests as new family breadwinners
today; Problem with funding and the necessity to take up appointment or work in
order to sustain the high standard of living and expensive education in some
places; Avowed interest in commerce and money since the environment offers
better opportunity especially in the context of foreign exchange (The Council
Fathers decreed: “So they are not to
regard an ecclesiastical office as a source of profit, and are not to spend the
income accruing from it for increasing their own private fortunes. Hence
priests, far from setting their hearts on riches, must always avoid all avarice
and carefully refrain from all appearance of trafficking”)[57];
One prefers periodic home visitation rather than permanent return home with
the impression that there is nothing to do at home especially in the midst of
the so called “vocation boom” or unreceptive environment; Overstay and loss of bearing from ones root
and local Church where he is incardinated and brought up breed alienation (For
some with “Green Card”, “Carta Soggiorno”
or “Citizenship”, the loss of one’s roots and independence from the local ordinaries
is declared); One may be annoyed either with the system who has failed to
understand and consent to his agenda which in most cases is contrary to the
mission of the Church or the fact that he was not earlier allowed to go for
studies on time, or do the course or go to the place of his choice or receive
the necessary documents (like Bishop’s authority letters, celebret etc) and
financial support or stories of woes, of victimizations or perceived injustice
received on the part of their Bishops before they finally “escaped for “
studies: punitive transfers, lack of appreciation of sincere pastoral efforts
etc; the scandalous waste of time and fund especially where the individual do
no struggle for his sponsorship; The diocesan Bishop could give tacit endorsement
to this long stay not solely on the bases of reconciling the individual to the
local Church but because the individual in question makes financial
contribution to the Bishop, who stays in his place always while in trips
overseas. The person believes this is the way through which the local Church
can give him little peace to live his life as he has projected. Furthermore,
experiences showed that the originators of this unhealthy attitude of not
returning on schedule were among the group considered to be among the best. But
it was all disappointment calling for serious review of the statutes and
fidelity to its genuine implementation. This is equally unfortunate.
Strained Relationship between
Bishops and Priests
This is seen
in areas of placements, transfers and deprivation of offices, further studies[58] and recalls; in
exhortations and reprimands and in maintenance/social security. As
the numbers of the diocesan presbyterium are daily on increase, the Bishop is
also daily challenged to discernment and attention to the growth of his
priests. The talents which are gifts from God should be “identified,
appreciated, willingly acknowledged (not grudgingly tolerated) and given every
opportunity for constructive uses… for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.”[59] The Bishop, in exercising
his ministry should try to relate with his priests,
not
merely as a ruler towards his subjects, but rather as a father and a friend. He
should devote himself wholeheartedly to creating a climate of affection and
trust such that his priests may respond with a convinced, pleasing and firm
obedience. The practice of obedience is strengthened rather than weakened if
the Bishop, as far as possibly and without prejudice to justice and charity,
explains to the interested parties the reasons for his decisions. He should
show equal care and attention to every priest, because all of them, while their
gifts will be many and varied, are engaged in the service of the Lord as
members of a single prebyterate.[60]
The priest on the other hand should acknowledge the
authority of the Bishop and accept him not merely as the chief executive but
more as a father and mentor.
Failed Priestly Fraternity/
Solidarity
We observe within the
diocesan Church different levels of strained relationships or failed
fraternities or conflicts among clergy. These include: Priests and Priests
(i.e. curial officials and priests; parish Priests and Parish Vicars; Parish
Priests and Priests in Residence); Priests and Religious; Priests and Laity or
Parish Publics/communities etc.
Reasons for such include unhealthy image of one
another i.e. unhealthy images and misconceptions that affect the identity,
status, attitudes towards one another; evidences of pride, ambition, greed,
envy, hatred, lack of respect; presence of emotional immaturity and complexes
or exhibition of wounded self; connection with the powers that be or struggle
over power; display of materialism, fame, money, cars; ministerial activities
beyond one’s territory i.e. intrusion without permission; observed conflicts in
competences especially in demands related to rights and benefits; evidence of
growing discord, conflicts and litigations among priests living together as the
noble edifice of fraternity is eroded by fight of personal
egos/individualism/selfishness and as some engage in intrigues and character
assassination that remain a scandal to the people of God in the parish and
beyond; or unhealthy and irresponsible
relationship with women in the rectory or flooding of the rectory with friends
and family relatives at the neglect of other priests;[61] and generation gaps.
Some parish priests adopt either a laissez fair or
despotic/high handed style of leadership. For some there
is no forum for communication, pastoral planning/programming/schedules and dialogue
for fraternity/common life in some rectories. There is no division of labour
and trust among priests living together. The Parish Vicars should not be seen
as glorified houseboys at the hands of the parish priests. They are priests in
their own standing and part and parcel of the mission and ministry of the
Church. We also observed that some parish priests when they have cause to go on
leave or stay outside the parish for a while normally hand over the parish
administration to a visiting priest other than the other priests with them. In
some cases such visiting priests are highly remunerated and attended to more
than those directly involved in parish ministry or residing in the rectory.
There is need for on the job training and opportunity at all levels.
What do we say of those who
are unconcerned with the welfare of their
brother priests, i.e. his feeding, Medicare, car maintenance, house
equipments, gifts etc?; or one that feel threatened because his colleagues preaches
better homilies or appreciated by the community; or one that exhibits
intimidating character that does not accommodate or tolerate the other?; or one
soaked with jealousies against the achievements and progress of the other?; or
exhibits insincerity in making monetary demands etc? In effect how do we manage
the differences in our personality and character? How do we accommodate one
another in the spirit of the gospel and as a reflection of our true identity as
servants of the gospel?
4.
CONCLUSION:
BROTHERS WHAT MUST WE DO? (Acts 2:37)
Preamble
The question
of the first converts to faith on Pentecost will be the point of departure for
the conclusion of our presentation. As priests consecrated for the Lord and the
Church, we should readjust ourselves and comportment so that it will correspond
to our identity and our invitation to service for the good of our local Church
since administrative office and power is ministerial, imitating Christ who came
not to be served but to serve and to give his life as ransom for many (Mark
10,45; Matt 20, 25-28; Luke 22,27; John 10, 1-17; 13, 1-17; 21, 15-17).[62] There is no place for absolutism or
dictatorship but rather solicitude and service (1 Pet 5, 1-4; Matt 20, 25-28;
1Cor 4, 1-6)[63].
The Fathers of the Council advised that the “office, however which the Lord
committed to pastors of his people is in strict sense of the term, a service
which is called in sacred scripture a ‘diakonia’ or ministry (Acts 1, 17; 21,
19; Rom 11, 13; 1 Tim 1, 12)”[64]. It is on this note that
we present these challenges necessary for the good of the diocese.
The Challenge
of Internalized/Personalized Priestly Identity
In our desire
to accomplish the challenges of priestly service, we believe that priests
should make a journey through the self by appreciating our identity and personalizing
our vocation, i.e. by asking and responding to basic questions on our vocation,
status and mission in the Church. According to Collins Okeke,
To be responsible for one’s vocation entails
personalizing one’s vocation. Personalization is a continuous process and
entails having a clearer vision of the vocation itself, the dismantling of
false expectations associated with it, and the overcoming of illusions about
oneself. But the ground of that personalization remains the rediscovery and
acceptance of God’s unconditional love for us as individuals and as a Church.[65]
St Paul exhorted the Romans thus:
And if you are sure that you are
a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the
foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge
and truth-you then who teach others, will you not teach yourself? While you
preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit
adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You
who boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law? For, as it is
written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[66]
The challenges
to personal integration and openness to the demands of our call is necessary
since “modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if
he listens to teachers, it is because they are witnesses”[67] and the “faithful draw
great encouragement from the example and witness of the priest.”[68] Continuing the Bishops of
Nigeria advised: “Priests should strive earnestly to always match their words
with their actions. Their lives should be gospels that people can read. An
individual priest’s life may well turn out to be the first gospel that some
people will read or may be even the only gospel that they will ever read.”[69]
We should
readdress our attitude to further education and make it reflect the vision and
mission of the Church. For us diocesan priests, we are called in obedience to
collaborate with the bishops in a spirit of loyal and sincere communion, being
ready always to accept transfers, and the invitation to return to take up
assignments at home. The local Church has concern for us, and she waits for our
prompt return to continue the mission of Christ the redeemer, which is “far
from being completed” [70].
Our contribution is required in the area of both the society and the Church, in
our seminaries, diocesan curia and parishes etc.
The Challenge
of Healthy Interpersonal Relationship/ Community life
The priests
should reach out in healthy interpersonal relationships with both his bishops
and other priests. Reminding the priests of the need for a sense of the
Presbyterium and friendship the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
added:
Priests should try to have relations of real
friendship with their fellow priests, being able in this way to help each other
more easily to develop their spiritual and intellectual live, to give
assistance in material needs, and to live more fully and more serenely. This
type of friendship between priests, developed in Christ as a consequence of
each one’s personal communion with Him, is of great help in overcoming the
difficulties of loneliness.[71]
There should be time for dialogue and review of
pastoral programmes; time for common prayers/con-celebrations at Masses; at
least one common meal; effective communications of feelings and sentiments etc.
(cf. cann 280; 550, §2). In essence, there is obligatory need to have regular
and formal business meetings (discussions during meals or during recreations
are inadequate).
Community life means not merely living physically
together but sharing on the spiritual, pastoral and human levels. Thus, priests
who form a community should pray together; they should exchange useful
information and plan and evaluate together their apostolic activities; they
should help each other in cultural updating; they should help each other
financially, even having to some extent their goods in common, according to the
bishop’s guidelines; they should willingly take recreation together; they
should help and encourage each other in difficult situations, in times of
weariness or illness, and especially when problems with one’s vocation arise;
when necessary, they should not be afraid to give fraternal advice.[72]
We should learn to appreciate the
talents inherent in others.
The Challenge to Diocesan
Leadership
It is a simple
truth that no organization can function effectively without good leadership. In
our context as already presented, the diocesan leadership rests squarely on the
diocesan Bishop.[73]
It is his responsibility to coordinate and direct the affairs of this portion
of the people of God (cann 394; 473, §§ 1 & 2) towards the finality of the
Church- salvation of souls (can 1752). The way and manner he directs the
affairs of the local Church remain desiderata to the amount of loyalty and
cooperation he will get from both the faithful and especially his immediate
cooperators-the diocesan clergy. On this note his exercise of authority as
service becomes paramount.[74] The diocesan bishop is
bound to create the enabling environment that will foster this relationship
among priests in his leadership styles especially in personnel placement,
further studies, maintenance etc.
On this note
he should exercise his authority,[75] and show charisms of
discernment, discretion and prudence in his dealings and especially in his
personal knowledge of his priests. As
the number of priests in each diocesan presbyterium increases, the Bishop is
also challenged to see that their talents which are gifts from God should be
“identified, appreciated, willingly acknowledged (not grudgingly tolerated) and
given every opportunity for constructive uses… for the glory of God and the
salvation of souls.”[76]
In addition to
this his discerning charisma, discretion and prudence should be manifested in
his personal knowledge of his priests, that is,
their character, their aptitudes,
their aspirations, the dept of their spiritual life, their zeal, their ideals,
their state of health, their financial situation, their families and everything
which concerns them. And he should know them not just in groups…or through
pastoral bodies, but also individually and, as far as possible, in their place
of ministry. This is the purpose of his pastoral visits, when as much time as
possible should be given to personal matters….[77].
The fact that these sons (i.e.
diocesan priests) of the Bishops are not returning early or not interested in
returning or eager to move out, call for deeper self-examination on the part of
the diocesan leadership. The legislator called the Bishop’s attention to
solicitude to the welfare and predicaments of his priests in these words:
He is to have a special concern
for the priests, to whom he is to listen as his helpers and counselors. He is
to defend their rights and ensure that they fulfill the obligations proper to
their state. He is to see that they have the means and the institutions needed
for the development of their spiritual and intellectual life. He is to ensure
that they are provided with adequate means of livelihood and social welfare, in
accordance with the law[78].
There is need
to establish the Personnel Department directed be a Vicar; establish Handbook
of Priests continuing Education specifying and expanding what to study to
include not only core ecclesiastical courses but also secular courses (eg.
Management sciences, animal husbandry, community/Adult Education, engineering,
architecture, Hospital administration, building technology etc), non
multiplication and duplication of offices/commissions; establish Handbook of
Diocesan Administration; expanding areas of apostolate to include not only
tertiary institutions but also Schools, ministries etc.
In conclusion,
brother priests, “fill your minds with whatever is truthful, holy, just, pure,
lovely and noble. Be mindful of whatever deserves praise and admiration” (Phil
4, 8), and
If our life in Christ means
anything to you, if love can persuade at all, or the spirit that we have in
common, or any tenderness and sympathy, then be united in your conviction and
united in your love, with a common purpose and a common mind. That is the one
thing which would make one completely happy. There must be no competition among
you, no conceit, but everybody is to be self-effacing. Always consider the other
person to be better than yourself, so that nobody thinks of his own interests
first but everybody thinks of other people’s interests instead. In your minds,
you must be the same as Christ Jesus.[79]
[1] Cf. LG
1, 8, 21; CCC 771.
[2] Cf LG 6,
9, 1, 7, 13, 48.
[3] John
Paul II, Apostolic Constitution, Sacra
Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983, p. xiv.
[4] Cf. CD
11; AG 22; OE 2; LG 23 & 26.
[5] Cf.
CIC/83, can 368: “Particular Churches, in which and from which the one and only
catholic Church exists are principally dioceses”. (See also can 369).
[6] CIC/83,
can 369; this repeats the dispositions of the Fathers of Second Vatican Council
in CD 11. The decree Christus Dominus
followed LG 23 and 28.
[7] PB 3; LG
23.
[8] PB 4.
[9]Apostolorum Successores, p.5; LG
27; CD 8; CIC/83, can 330.
[10] CIC/83,
can 782, §2; 1271.
[11] CIC/83,
can 381, §1.
[12] LG 21;
CIC/83, can 375, §2; Cf. P. Erdo, “Ministerium, munus et officium in Codice
Iuris Canonici,” in Periodica 78
(1989), pp. 411-436; B. F. Griffin, “Three-fold Munera of Christ and teh Church,” in Code, Community, Ministry, E.G. Pfnauch ed., CLSA Washinghton,
1982.
[13] CIC/83,
can 375, §1.
[14] CIC/83,
can 391, §1.
[15]James H.
Provost, “Canonical Reflections on Selected Issues of Diocesan Governance,”
cit., p. 237; T. M. Monroe, “The Rhetoric
and Reality of Collaboration,” in CLSA
Proceedings 54 (1992), pp. 147-161.
[16] The
Church addresses the State as political community (GS 76).
[17] Cf.
Julian Herranz, “The Personal Power of Governance of the Diocesan Bishop,”
cit., p. 24; Thomas J. Green, “The Pastoral Governance Role of the Diocesan
Bishop…,” cit., p. 483.
[18] Apostolorum Successores 160, p. 178; see
also LG 24.
[19] CD 16.
[20] Cf.
Congregation For Bishops, Directory on Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, Apostolorum Successores 75.
[21] Pastores Dabo Vobis, no. 12; Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Pastoral Guide for Diocesan Priests in Churches Dependent on the Congregation
for the Evangelization of Peoples, October 1, 1989,p. 7 (henceforth Pastoral Guide) ; Congregation for the
Clergy, Directory on the Ministry and
Life of Priests, January 31, 1994, no. 3, Vatican City, Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, 1994 (henceforth, Directory).
[22] PO 12;
SC 33; John Paul II, Encyclical on the Holy Eucharist, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003, no. 29, in AAS, 95 (2003),
pp. 436-485; Directory, nos 6, 7; Pastores
Dabo Vobis, nos. 15, 19; Congregation for the Clergy, The Priest, Pastor and Leader of the Parish Community, August 4,
2002, no. 8, Vatican City Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002.
[23]
Cornelius U. Okeke, “Priestly Identity and Life-Situation as a Priest,” A Paper
presented to the Awka Diocesan Clergy at the Diocesan Theological Seminar held
at REPACCO, Okpuno on November 24, 2004, p. 10; also Pastores Dabo Vobis, no. 36.
[24] Cf. PO
7; John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, On the Bishop, Servant of
Jesus Christ for the Hope of World, Pastores
Gregis, October 16, 2003, no. 47, Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
2003 (henceforth Pastores Gregis).
[25] Cf. PO 3.
[26] Cf. Leo
XIII, Encyclical letter on the Education of the Clergy, Fin dal Principio, 8 December 1902, No 3, 4; R. Abba, “Priests
& Levites,” in The Interpreters
Dictionary of the Bible, vol 3, New York: Abigdon Press, 1962, pp. 877-878;
Ik. B. Ngwoke, “Ordained to Preach Christ,” in Bigard Theological Studies 8/1 (Jan-Jun 1988), pp. 4-9; F.C.
Okafor, “The Role of Priest Intellectual,” in Pastoral Management & Communication, Jerome I. Okonkwo ed.,
Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd., 1994, p.1.
[27] Cf. Pius
XI, Encyclical on the Catholic Priesthood, Ad
Catholici Sacerdoti 20 December 1935, No 12; Pius XII, Encyclical on the
sacred Liturgy, Mediator Dei, 1947,
No 20; PO 1, 2, 28, 32; LG 10, 11, 21, 28; SC 7; CD 15.
[28] Cf. PO
10; John Paul II, Encyclical on Permanent Validity of Church’s Missionary
Activity, Redemptoris Missio, 7
December 1990, Nos 67-68; AG 39; CIC/1983, cann 257; 271; 792; Acts 1,8; Matt
28, 18-20; Mark 16, 15; Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction on Sending Abroad and Sojourn of
Diocesan Priests from Mission Territories,
1, 6; John Paul II, Post- Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the formation
of Priests in the Present Circumstances, Pastores
Dabo Vobis, 1992 No 58.
[29] Joseph
Martin De Agar, The Handbook of Canon Law, p. 56
; Cf. also CD 28 ; Juan I. Arrieta, Governance
Structures within the Catholic Church, cit., p. 203; see CIC/83, can 265:
“accordingly acephalous or wandering clergy are in no way to be allowed”. In
addition this incardination gives him right of maintenance (cf. can 281).
[30] See Hilary O. Okeke, Rights of
Diocesan Priests in Nigeria, Paper to CLCN Professionals at Okpuno,
February 1997, pp. 15-18.
[31] CIC/83,
can 145, §1; see also PO 20.
[32] Cf. Juan
Ignacio Arrieta, “Commentary on Can
146,” in Annotated 2004, p.
127.
[33] Cf.
Garcia Martin, Il norme generalis,
cit., p. 507, argues that this is necessary for the validity, but the general
opinion is that it is required for liceity.
[34] We
remember that this is also the ground for incardination of clerics in the
Church (can 269, 1°).
[35] This may
be accomplished through collections, moderate tax, almsgiving and offering of
the faithful (cann 1262; 1263; 1265, §2; 1266; Apostolorum Successores 191, pp. 209-210.
[36] Cf. H.J.
Donald, “The Code of Canon Law Provisions on Labour Relations,” in The Jurist 44 (1984), pp. 153-193; T. T.
Grant, “Social Justice in the 1983 Code of Canon Law: An Examination of
Selected Canons,” in The Jurist 49
(1989), pp. 112-145.
[37] Cf. Pastores Dabo Vobis 76; Apostolorum Successores 83, p. 93); Directory on Ministry and Life of Priests
Nos 87-89.
[38]CIC/83 can 279: §1, Clerics are to
continue their sacred studies even after ordination to the priesthood….
§2, Priests are to
attend pastoral courses to be arranged for them after their ordination, in
accordance with the provisions of particular law. At times determined by the
same law, they are to attend other courses, theological meetings or
conferences, which offer them an occasion to acquire further knowledge of the
sacred sciences and of pastoral methods.
[39] Cf. Apostolorum Successores 33-54, pp.
47-60.
[40] John Paul II, “Address
to Nigerian Clergy and Seminarians”, February 13, 1982, Bigard Memorial
Seminary, Enugu.
[41] Oath is
a sacred duty and involves the invocation of the divine name as a witness to
truth (can 1199, §1) with the attendant obligation by virtue of religion to
fulfill that accepted in oath (can 1200, §1); for the formula see that provided
by the CDF.
[42] Also
Deans of deaneries (can 555, §§1&2, 2°) and Religious Superiors (cann
618-619) in their areas of jurisdiction.
[43] Cf. Apostolorum Successores 81, p. 92 ; See also John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, motu
proprio datae, Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela, quibus Normae de gravioribus
delicts Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei reservatis promulgator, 30 Apri. 2001,
in AAS 93 (2001), pp 737-739 (hereafter referred to as Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela).
[44] James H.
Provost, “Canonical Reflections on Selected Issues of Diocesan Governance…,”
cit., p. 217, & 216, 248; James H. Provost, “Rights in Canon Law: Real,
Ideal, or Fluff,” in CLSA Proceedings
61 (1999), pp. 317-342; see also can 221 on due process.
[45] Willaim
H. Orchin, “The Church society & Organization of its Powers,” in Readings, Cases & Materials in Canonc
Law, ed Jordan F. Hite et al, Minnesota Collegevile, The liturgical Press;
see also Ben E. Etafo, “Ecclesiastical Administration in the Nigerian Church:
An Overview,” cit., p. 3.
[46] Abel
Ubeku, Personnel Management in Nigeria:
Principles and Practice, London, Macmillian Pub. 1984, p. 178.
[47] Hilary
Okeke, “The Structures and Dynamics of Church Administration”, cit., p. 13.
[48] see for
general readings James H. Provost, “The working Together of Consultative
Bodies…,” cit., pp. 257-281; Robert T. Kennedy, “Shared Responsibility in
Ecclesial Decision Making,” cit., p. ; Betran F. Griffin “Diocesan Church
Structures”, in Code, Community and
Ministry, de. James H. Provost, Washington, CLSA, 1983, pp. 53-62.
[49] Simon A.
Okafor, Catholic Diocese of Awka: The
Handbook on Priests’ Continuing Education, 2 December 1998, Okpuno, Fides
Communicatioons, 1998; Bishops of Onitsha & Owerri Ecclesiastical Provinces, The Igbo catholic Priest at the Threshold of the Third Millennium,
6 August, 1999, No. 40, Enugu: Snaap Press (Nig.) Ltd, 1999; See also Cornelius
U. Okeke, “Personalising One’s Vocation: The Great Challenges to Nigerian
Priests and Religious of the 3rd Millennium,” in Encounter 5 (2001/2002), pp.16-33, here
in pp. 18-19 & Expectations of Life
as a Priest: A Comparative Study of Igbo Catholic Diocesan and Religious
Seminarians, Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University, 2003, p. 246; Chukwudum
B. Okolo, “Justice in the Nigerian Church: A Theological Prologomenon to the
Forthcoming African Synod,” in Bigard
Theological Studies 11/2 (July-Dec 1991), pp. 4-20, here in pp. 13-14
[50] Cf. Apostolorum Successores 61, p. 70.
[51] Cf.
Leonardo Z. Legaspi, “Munus Regendi:
The Government of the Diocese, cit., p. 113; cann 521; 1435.
[52] Apostolorum Successores 77, pp. 85-86.
[53] Cf. Apostolorum Successores, p. 87; He
should be aware of the provision that restricts appointing relatives to offices
or making the beneficiaries of Church properties or change of foreign currency
(cann 478, §2; 492, §3; 1298 etc); Gerard Nwagwu, “Elements of Personnel
Administration,” being a paper presented at the seminar for Church
Administrators organized by CBCN 13-14
May, 1997 at REPACCO, Awka, p. 3.
[54] Cf. Apostolorum Successores 78, p. 87: The
Directory called for pastoral work for curial officials so as to reduce
bureaucracy.
[55] Episcopal Conferences, ed. Thomas J.
Reesel, Georgetown University Press, 1989, p. 9; see also James H. Provost,
“Diocesan Administration: Reflections on Recent Developments,” cit., p. 85 ;
Charles Torpey, “Offices of the Diocesan Curia…,” cit., p. 124.
[56] Chiegboka, ABC, Diocesan
Priests and Further Studies, Rex Charles & Patrick Ltd, 2009.
[57] Second
Vatican Council, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorium
Ordinis, No 17; see also can. 286.
[58] Hilary
O. Okeke, “Dynamics & Organs of Consultation in Diocesan Administration,”
being a paper presented at the seminar organized by the Canon Law Society of
Nigeria, at REPACCO, Okpuno Awka, 1999, p. 9.
[59]
Chukwudum B. Okolo, “Justice in the Nigerian Church…,” cit., p. 13.
[60] Apostolorum Successores p. 85; can 384;
John Paul in other places still repeated: “Before being the superior and judge
of your priests be their masters, fathers, friends, their good and kind
brothers, always ready to understand, to sympathize and to help. In every
possible way encourage your priests to be your personal friends and to be very
open to you. This will not weaken the relation of juridical obedience; rather
it will transform it into pastoral love so that they will obey more willingly,
sincerely and securely” (Address to a group of Nigerian Bishops during Ad Limina Visit, in L’Osservatore romano,
English edition, 5 October 1987, p. 19); “The Bishop will always strive to
relate to his priests as a father and brother who loves them, listens to them,
welcomes them, corrects them, supports them, seeks their cooperation and, as
much as possible, is concerned for their human, spiritual, ministerial and
financial well-being” (Pastores Gregis
47, p. 123); Cf. also LG 28; Ecclesia
Imago 107,108 p. 55; Apostolorum
Successores 75, p. 84; PO 10; Paul
VI Encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, Nos 92, 93, 24 June 1962 in AAS,
59 (1967), pp. 693-694; CBCN, A Priest Forever, pp 13-14,: “Bishops to
foster and encourage a spirit of unity and harmony between themselves and
priests so that obedience is elicited and not only commanded”.
[61] Simon A.
Okafor, “Pastoral Exhortation: Awka Diocese in the Third Millennium of
Christianity,” Message at Location, September 3, 2001, p. 2.
[62] Cf. also
CIC/83, can 618 ; Ladislaus Orsy, Theology
and Canon Law, p. 30: “In looking at the structures of the Church we see a
need for the horizon of service, as distinct from the horizon of power. The new
Code stresses the ‘sacred power’ in the form of the potestas regiminis, but for such power to be well placed and to
operate satisfactorily, in the practical life of the Church it must be
consistently balanced by the duty to serve”.
[63] Some
authors have supported this view by holding that power is not for domination
but for service (Cf. John Paul II, Apostolos
Suos, No. 12; Edmund Hill, Ministry
and Authority in the Catholic Church, London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1988, pp.
11-31.
[64] LG 24,
27; and quoting Lumen Gentium No. 3
John Paul II sees the expression of hierarchical authority as service as
foremost among the constitutional image of the Church (Cf. Sacra disciplinae leges, cit., p. xiv).
[65] Collins
Okeke,” Personalizing One’s Vocation: THE Great Challenge to the Nigerian
Priests and Religious of the 3rd Millennium” paper to Nigerian
Priests and Religious in Rom, Sunday March 18, 2001, p. 21.
[66] Rom 2:
19-24.
[67] Paul VI,
Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii
Nuntiandi, no 43; Congregation for the Clergy, The Priest, Pastor and
Leader of the Parish Community, no. 27, p. 45: “This pastoral renewal will not
be possible unless inspired, sustained and activated by priests imbued by this
same spirit.”
[68] John
Paul II, Address to the Parish Priests and Clergy of Rome, 1 March 2001, n. 3;
see also John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, Novo
Millennio inuente, 6 January 2001, no. 33.
[69] CBCN, I chose You: The Nigerian Priest in the Third
Millennium, cit., no. 19, p. 17, also p. 13.
[70] Redemptoris Missio, No 1.
[71]
Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Pastoral Guide for Diocesan Priests in Churches Dependent on the Congregation for the Evangelization of
Peoples, no. 6.
[72] Congregation
for the Evangelization of Peoples, Pastoral
Guide for Diocesan Priests in
Churches Dependent on the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples,
no26, p. 65; PO 8; CBCN, I chose You: The
Nigerian Priest in the Third Millennium, no 21, p. 21; EIA no 97;
[73] Cf. Apostolorum Successores 160
[74] See John
Paul II, Sacra Disciplinae leges; Pastores Gregis 42, 43 and Apostolorum Successores, 2, 158
[75] See John
Paul II, Sacra Disciplinae leges; Pastores Gregis 42, 43 and Apostolorum Successores, 2, 158
[76] Chukwudum
B. Okolo, “Justice in the Nigerian Church…,” cit., p. 13.
[77] Apostolorum Successores 77, pp. 85-86.
[78]
CIC/1983, can 384; see also cann 281; 1274.
[79] Phil 2, 1-5.