THE FUTURE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN IGBOLAND BY FR CORNELIUS OKEKE CRITIQUE The author seems to lay too much

h emphasis on the Igbo culture as if to say the Igbo culture were intrinsically antithetical to the Catholic priesthood. After all, the Igbo African Traditional religion had priests who were also enjoying the generosity and reverence of the Igbos like the Catholic priests do today, but the Igbo traditional priests were not known to be as acquisitive and flamboyant as the Igbo Catholic priests are today. Yes, we acknowledge the strong influence of culture on people, but not to the point of nearexaggeration as the author almost makes us believe. Also, while the author blames ineffective formation for the difference between the religious and the diocesan seminarians, he appears to neglect an important factor, i.e., the concrete circumstances surrounding their life and work, in fact, their different missions. The diocesan takes care of his own bills and daily expenses to a very large extent, while the religious is taken care of by his congregation, to a very large extent as well. So judging them both on the basis of acquisitiveness and condemning this as a defect in one may not be fair after all, because the other is practically meant to be less acquisitive because he is being totally taken care of. In the same vein, he talks of the two types of formation in vogue in Nigeria the institutional/conformity and the progressive models; the former witnessed more in the seminaries, the latter found more in congregations. A formation model is drawn based on the intended mission of those to be formed in it. He criticizes the diocesan formation as being too intellectualistic while the religious is more relaxed, so to say. Nevertheless, one may give him an instance with the Jesuits, who are of course religious, known to have education as their primary apostolate. Would we suppose that their formation would not be rather intellectualistic? Different congregations have different apostolates, ranging from orphanages, the sick, aged, youths, etc. Of course, one would not expect to find too much intellectualistic emphasis in their own formation. Now, the secular priest has a different apostolate, and therefore, has to be well-equipped to function optimally in the environment he finds himself. Christ himself forewarns: Behold, I send you out into the world as sheep amidst wolves. Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves (Mat. 10:16). Here, the author again overlooks the fundamental differences in the apostolates of diocesans and religious, which the formation model tries to prepare them for. He critiques them at face value rather than the underlying factors. In addition, the formation model he proposes has some issues unresolved. First, he does not state whether it is for diocesans or for religious or for both. If it is for both, it does not put into consideration the differences in their apostolates and orientations. Second, he is not clear on how to fit perfectly the cultural traits of the seminarians into their seminary formation and priestly life. Third, he insists on reducing the number of seminarians for his formation blueprint to be effective, instead of stipulating how it could be effectively applied in the current existential situation of our over-crowded seminaries. So, in fact, it

cannot work as long as there is vocation boom. Fourth, his insistence on reduction of numbers is difficult to reconcile with his appreciation of the vocation boom in Igboland. This apparent contradiction could be due to either lack of consistency or lack of clarity. If you reduce the number of those in the seminaries, I strongly believe most of the currentlyperceived defects of the current formation systems would be resolved. What is really needed right now is not as much as a new utopian formation system as ways of making the existing ones more effective in spite of the stiff challenges facing it like number and so on. On the issue of most of the shadows of the priests like their acquisitiveness, highhandedness in exercising authority, seeing themselves as above all else, etc, I dare say that the problem ought not be seen from an excessive cultural angle but also to a large extent, from the historical angle, particularly the effects of colonialism and the white missionaries. These whites then were seen as a special or superhuman class. They were accorded utmost respect, nay, fear, like gods. Generousity to them was an honour to the benefactor. Our people subsequently attached this deference for the whites to the priesthood as wel. This mentality made the indigenous priests who came after them and who also inherited the tradition of subservience to the priests, take it for granted as their right. Now, the tension is because the people now want to expunge that mentality of the priests superiority because the whites have left. It is not because the priests today have put up any new attitudes, but that the people are now seeing them as fellow blacks, fellow Igbos and so, fellow men or equals. An Igbo adage says: John ulo bu nwa John; John mba bu De John (i.e., the John at home is little John; the John that is a strange is Mr John). Christ suffered this fraternal disregard also, not because H e had any shadows, but simply because they knew His origin. Furthermore, as a formator himself, he does not say whether he has put into practice the formation method he prescribed, or how successful he was with it, or how long he has practised it so we can be sure it does not degenerate over time and circumstances into a more sordid state than the present one he set out to extirpate. Things are easier said than done. What if we discard our current formation models and adopt his model, only to find ourselves in a worse state of affairs? What is the assurance or proof that his model is the panacea to the ills which bedevil our formation system? He empirically studied and researched the current formation models, but has he done same to critically evaluate his own techniques? Vocation boom is not poverty but parents religiousity. They send their favourite children to the minor seminaries as a gift to God, or to gain the honour of Mama Fada, Papa Fada, or to get good education. Teachers and churchious parents are fond of this. Also, some ex-seminarians do it to make reparation for leaving the seminary. They enter at the age of 10-12 years, nave. Like in infant baptism, their faith is the faith of theie parents. Like the author said, long years of formation will not improve the seminarian. For me, it makes them over-familiar with the sacred. It corrupts them. Over-formation, like the law of diminishing returns, now results in mal-formation. Seminarians who used to attend daily masses as mass servers hardly do so now.

Here lies another explanation for the difference between diocesans and religious. The diocesan, like in infant baptism, is a family/community vocation; the religious, like in adult baptism, is a personalized vocation. This has many implications in formation. Despite the harsh conditions in the seminary, the numbers hardly decrease much because although many would have loved to leave, but concerns about the feelings of family, friends, relatives, benefactors, etc, hold most seminarians back. Even in the bible, Samuels vocation was not due to his mothers poverty, but her faith and promise to offer this offspring of her prayers to God (cf. I Sam. chs 1-3). Thus, he endured the concomitant hardships like sleeping on the floor while Elis sons lounged about and fed themselves fat. That is why if you grant many seminarians U.S.A. visa, many would gladly take it and travel abroad to escape the anger and disappointments of parents, family; to to overcome the guilt of refusing to serve God by changing environment, like Jonah; to overcome the feeling of being a failure; to seek greener pastures; to improve is status and that of his family; to appease his disappointed family. So in this case the visa vs his desire to comply with the wishes of his family the seminarian chooses the former. Therefore, it is not really out of poverty that he stayed in the seminary. Also, the shorter the formation, the more serious, focused and enthusiastic the minister is. For a case study, observe these three groups: protestant pastors who merely attend a brief theological program; religious who mainly enter the seminary from secondary school or university; and diocesans who mainly enter from the minor seminaries. There is no gainsaying that their zeal, spirituality and effectiveness is also in that order. So, it is seen more where the duration of formation is less, and vice versa. Ironically, if minor seminaries were removed, infant vocations, which mainly produce immature priests would be reduced. This increase in the quantity of our seminarians would be an opportunity for increase in the quality of seminarians and priests. What we would then have is adult vocation, which tends to produce more mature vocationers. We would then have those who have been called and know how to answer the call rather than those who were thrown into it at a tender age and are still straining their ears to hear the call, just like Samuel and Eli when Samuel heard the call which was discerned by Eli. If they had been many there, it is not very likely that Samuel would have traced the source of the call to Eli. They would have thought one of the many others also receiving formation with him was making noise after lights-out. Thus, the fewer number, the more effective the action of the Holy Spirit in initiating, discerning, responding to, and living out the vocation.