On the Person and Office of the Seminary Rector: The Legacy of Onayekan and Aniagwu

On the Person and Office of the SeminaryRector:

The Legacy of Onaiyekan and Aniagwu1

Anthony A. Akinwale, O.P.Professor and PresidentDominican Institute

Ibadan

Standing on the shoulders of giants, great men of excellenceto whom we are indebted, to them we must render homage. Andit is a privilege to be called upon to do just that in nameof all who have benefitted from their generosity. It is arare honour to be called upon to render public homage, notto one, but to two great men. For this, I would like tobegin by expressing my humble gratitude to the Staff andStudents of the prestigious Seminary of Saints Peter andPaul, Bodija, Ibadan, for inviting me to deliver thislecture in honour of two men who were and will continue tobe our teachers, our mentors and Rectors, John CardinalOnaiyekan and the Right Reverend John Aniagwu.

The two men we intend to honour by this interventionattained the age of 70 earlier this year, Cardinal Onaiyekanon January 29, and Monsignor Aniagwu on March 15. It isright and fitting, and it is to our benefit, that wecelebrate them by reflecting on the person and office of the

1 Lecture in honour of John Cardinal Onaiyekan and Right Reverend JohnAniagwu as part of celebrations marking their 70th birthday at theSeminary of Saints Peter and Paul, Bodija, Ibadan, November 29, 2014.The central idea of this paper was first presented at the meeting of theSeminary Commission of the Association of Episcopal Conferences ofAnglophone West Africa (AECAWA) at the National Missionary Seminary ofSt Paul, Gwagwalada-Abuja, FCT, March 14, 2006.

Anthony A. Akinwale, O.P.

Seminary Rector. For, by so doing, we would be in a betterposition to appreciate their legacies.

The Seminary is under the guidance of the Rector

According to the Second Vatican Council, while the seminaryis under the authority of the bishop it is “under theguidance of the rector”.

Under the guidance of the rector they [seminary superiors andprofessors] should cultivate the closest harmony ofspirit and action, and should form with one another andwith the students such a family as corresponds to ourdivine Lord’s prayer: “that they may be one” (cf. Jn17:11), and quickens in the students’ hearts a sense ofjoy in their vocation.2

There is also the statement of 1983 Code of Canon Law whichsays:

In all seminaries there is to be a rector who presides overit….3

Earlier, in the preceding Canon, it is written:

Seminaries which are lawfully established havejuridical personality in the Church by virtue of thelaw itself.

2 Vatican II, Optatam Totius, 5.3 CIC, 239.

2

On the Person and Office of the Rector

In the conduct of all its affairs, the rector acts in theperson of the seminary, unless for certain matters thecompetent authority has prescribed otherwise.4

In the fulfillment of their duties, all [in the seminary] mustobey the rector, who is responsible for the day to day direction of theseminary, in accordance with the norms of the Charter ofPriestly Formation and the rule of the seminary.5

In each of these quotations, I have laid emphasis onsome phrases indicating (i) that the seminary is under theguidance of the rector; (ii) it is under his presidence;(iii) he acts in the person of the seminary; (iv) he isresponsible for the day to day direction of the seminary;and (v) all in the seminary must obey him. With thesewords, one can safely assert that the Seminary Rector is theleader of the seminary community. Considering what has beensaid about the authority of the Bishop vis-à-vis theseminary, there is need to point out that while the Rectoris not answerable to the seminary staff, he is, at least,prudentially obliged to consult the members of staff withwhom he must relate as colleagues, he is juridicallyanswerable to the Bishop and eschatologically answerable toGod. There is therefore need for further reflection on theway and manner in which his leadership is to be conceivedand exercised. The question is: what kind of leader is theSeminary Rector? The proximate purpose of this lecture isto find an answer to that question.

But a reasonable attempt to answer that question is notpossible without a word on the nature and purpose of theseminary itself.6 For the leadership of a community is

4 CIC, 238.5 CIC, 260.6 On this read John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, 60-62.

3


shaped by and must be consistent with the nature of thecommunity. Leadership must reflect and be at the service ofthe vocation of the community. More will be said on thisshortly. But we must say right away that, because no humanbeing in the Church has absolute authority, the authority ofthe Seminary Rector is not absolute even when it is saidthat all in the seminary must obey the Rector. Every humanauthority is subject to the law, and the greatest law iscaritas. Authority is at the service of the community andsubject to charity. Now, if every human authority haslimits, obedience to such authority is not absolute. It hasits own limits too. That is why the one who exercisesauthority in a way that exceeds the limits of its properjurisdiction is not to be obeyed. Here are useful excerptsfrom Thomas Aquinas, which, without further commentary,speak for themselves on the matter:

It is written (Acts 5:29): We ought to obey God rather thanmen. Now sometimes the things commanded by a superiorare against God. Therefore superiors are not obeyed in allthings.7

There are two reasons, for which a subject may not bebound to obey his superior in all things. First onaccount of the command of a higher power....Secondly, asubject is not bound to obey his superior, if thelatter command him to do something wherein he is notsubject to him....Consequently, in matters touching theinternal movement of the will man is not bound to obeyhis fellow-man, but God alone....In matters concerningthe disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject isbound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority8

7Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. II-II, 104.5 sed contra. Emphasis mine.8Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. II-II, 104.5 respondeo. Emphasis mine.

4


When the Apostle says [subjects are bound to obey their superiors]in all things, he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’sor master’s authority.9

Man is subject to God simply as regards all things,both internal and external, wherefore he is bound toobey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors arenot subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and ina particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God andhis subjects, whereas in respect of other matters thesubject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taughteither by the natural or by the written law.10

Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience;one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting inobeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfectobedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly,indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.11

The Seminary and the Leadership of Its Rector

The objective in this part of the lecture is to understandthe leadership of the Rector by relating it to the vocationof the seminary itself. If, as was said above, leadershipmust reflect and serve the vocation of the community, thenwe must know the purpose of the seminary, that is, its9 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. II-II, 104.5 ad 1. Second emphasis mine.10 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. II-II, 104.5 ad 2. Emphasis mine.

11 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theol. II-II, 104.5 ad 3. Emphases mine.

5


vocation, if we are to understand the office and person ofthe Rector. For the purpose of leadership is not thedisplay of power but intelligent regulation of common lifefor the sake of the common good, and the common good is theattainment of the vocation of the community. A leadershipthat promotes neither common life nor the common good is adictatorship, and it would be unwise to place someone in aposition of leadership if he were to be ignorant of orunwilling to work for the vocation of the community.

The seminary is for the formation of priests andpriests derive their identity from Christ through theChurch. Theoretically, if any adequate understanding of thenature and purpose of the seminary is to be derived, theidentity of the priest to be formed must be referred to theperson of Christ and must be consistent with the identity ofthe Church. In practical terms, the seminary is at theservice of formation in priestly identity, and priestlyidentity must mirror the person of Christ and the nature ofthe Church. Here I begin with the identity of the Church.Even if the Church, which is pilgrim here on earth andthreatened by the distractions and deviations of her earthlypilgrimage, cannot be said to be a replica of Christ, she isfundamentally identical with Christ.12

The Church is the body nourished by the pastoral careof Christ her head. The priest, for his part, issacramental configuration of Christ teaching, feeding andshepherding his body the Church. He is sacramental presenceof the one who, on the cross, demonstrated that “The Son ofman came, not to be served but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). The priest acts inthe person of the one whose gesture of teaching at thewashing of feet, as the hour approached when he who always

12 On the fundamental identification read Jean-Marie Tillard, Flesh of Christ,Flesh of the Church

6


loved his own would love them to the fullest (Jn 13), gavethe supreme demonstration of his service of his brothers andsisters. The seminary exists to make of the priest aservant of communion through a life and ministrysacramentally configured to represent the munus triplex Christi.13

All this is summed up by the words of the Second VaticanCouncil:

Major seminaries are necessary for priestly training.In them the whole training of the students should haveas its object to make them true shepherds of soulsafter the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, teacher,priest and shepherd.

The pastoral objective outlined in what has just beenquoted—the formation of true shepherds—is attained when “allthe elements of their training, spiritual, intellectual,disciplinary” are coordinated and when all who carry out theprogramme of priestly formation cooperate with each otherand carry out the programme in loyal obedience to theauthority of the bishop.14 Presupposed here is a dioceseanseminary under the authority of one bishop even though, inmany cases, we are dealing with inter-diocesan seminariesunder the direction of a group of bishops. Whatever thecase may be, the principle of subsidiarity must be

13 The priest represents Christ in what the author of the First Letterof Peter described as “the chosen race, the royal priesthood, the holynation, a people set apart to sing the praises of God” (1 Pet 2:9-10).These words refer to the collective sacerdotal vocation of the entireChurch. They do not imply that the Church is an aggregate of priests.Interpreting these words as describing the Church as an aggregate ofpriests can be used to elaborate a theology of the priesthood thatignores the Conciliar distinction between the common priesthood and theministerial priesthood. According to Vatican II, the two “differessentially and not only in degree” (Lumen Gentium, 10. Understandingand explaining this assertion is a double task for the theologian.14 Vatican II, Optatam totius, n. 4.

7


faithfully and respectfully adhered to in the relationshipbetween the Bishop and the Rector, and in the relationshipbetween the Rector and the seminary staff. By virtue ofthis principle, no higher authority is to take the place ofa lower authority in matters which fall under thejurisdiction and competence of the latter. A higherauthority should support and not weaken a lower authoritywhen the latter carries out its legitimate duty throughlegitimate means. That is why, for example, as the Rite ofOrdination indicates, a Bishop may not ordain a seminarianwithout the recommendation of those in charge of histraining. And that is why neither the Bishop nor the Rectorshould engage in acts or take decisions that inspire,encourage, promote, justify and reward acts ofinsubordination towards those who occupy lower rungs ofauthority in the seminary.

Considering what has been said about leadership and thevocation of the seminary, the office and person of theRector, as one who has been appointed to provide leadershipin and for the seminary, must reflect the munus triplex Christifor which the seminarians are formed and into which, aspriests, they are to be sacramentally configured. Inconcrete terms, attainment of the office of Rector does notmean he no longer has to study and learn. He must showhimself as a student ready to learn from all. He mustprovide intellectual leadership by being seen not only inhis office but also in the library and lecture halls. Hemust make his presence felt in the larger community ofintellectuals by his presence at conferences and by hispublications in reputable academic journals. Attainment ofthe office of Rector does not mean he is not to strive forholiness of life. It means instead that he must become morecommitted to answering the universal call to holiness bybeing a man of prayer and good morals. Attainment and

8


occupation of the office of Rector do not necessarilysignify attainment of competence. They rather signify achallenge to acquire greater competence by learning, and todemonstrate such competence by prudential leadership. TheRector is to teach, to govern, and to sanctify by his officeand person. As teacher, he must be intelligent. As priest,he must be holy. And as shepherd, he must be competent.Yet, he ought to see members of the seminary staff more ascolleagues than as subordinates, and the seminarians asadults, as children, may be, but never as infants.

Since leadership is not about attainment andmaintenance of power through any means but about theintelligent regulation of common life for the sake of thecommon good, the leader exists, not to govern the communityaccording to his whims and caprices, fancies and fantasies,but to direct the community to the fulfillment of itsvocation. In this respect, if the vocation of the seminaryis to form priests who act in the person of Christ, Christwho came to serve and not to be served, the leadership ofthe Seminary Rector, informed by this understanding of thevocation of the seminary community, must be a leadership ofservice. It must mirror the leadership of Christ. TheSeminary Rector is to lead by being first in the imitationof Christ among his colleagues. Since Christ led byserving, the prestige of the Seminary Rector is not found inthe trappings and privileges of his office but in hisimitation of the self-sacrificing three-fold office ofChrist. That is why the quality of his leadership will bejudged, by the norms of intellectual and professionalcompetence surely, but not without the criterion ofconformity with Christ’s model of leadership which he taughtthe Church in and through the Paschal event. By virtue ofthe example of Christ in the Paschal event, the SeminaryRector is one who washes the feet of the seminary community

9


and lays down his life for the seminary by giving his entiretime and energy to the work. Among all who live in theseminary community, therefore, he is the first addressee ofthe words of the first letter of Peter 5:1-4:

To the elders among you, I, a fellow elder, a witnessof Christ’s sufferings and sharer in the glory that isto be revealed, make an appeal. God’s flock is in yourmidst; give it a shepherd’s care. Watch over itwillingly as God would have you do, not underconstraint; and not for shameful profit either, butgenerously. Be examples to the flock, not lording itover those assigned to you, so that when the chiefShepherd appears you will win for yourselves theunfading crown of glory.

The Church has invested supreme authority over theseminary on the Seminary Rector. But, as I indicated in thefirst part of this lecture, this supreme authority is notabsolute authority. It is circumscribed by the law ofcommonsense which stipulates that no human authority isabsolute, and by the law of the Paschal event, the law ofthe cross, which stipulates that a leader’s authority findsits limits at the foot of the cross. And because it belongsto him to serve and not to lord it over the seminarycommunity, because the supreme authority conferred on himdoes not by any means constitute supreme sagacity oromniscience he must respectfully dialogue with the seminarycommunity. Such dialogue, rather than compromise hisauthority, enhances it by adding a moral component to it.The Rector is not to hold the seminary hostage by histyranny. Those who make up the seminary community are notto hold the Rector hostage by any attitude that portraysrebellion as fashionable.

10


Remarks such as these challenge us to take a deeperlook at the nature and necessity of dialogue in therelationship between the seminary and its Rector even as welook at the office and person of the Rector.

Dialogue as a Necessary Component of Leadership

Our inquiry into the nature and role of dialogue in therelationship between the seminary and its Rector begins witha play on words by the great Pope John Paul II who, oncewhile reflecting on dialogue, said what we want is dialogosand not diabolos. The English word “dialogue” originates fromthe Greek dialogos which means a conversation. The differencebetween this and diabolos will no doubt arrest the attentionof any perceptive mind. By way of differentiation, diabolosmeans slander or backbiting, and it is the name given to theDevil. The Devil is the Slanderer, or one who falselyaccuses. From this we can conclude that to dialogue is toconverse with someone, which is different from slandering orbackbiting the person. It can be said that to dialogue isto converse with God, and one is able to see God in thehuman interlocutor who is made in the image and likeness ofGod. To slander is to converse with the Devil thusdemonizing one’s human interlocutor.

What is expected of people of good will is what isexpected in the relationship between the seminary and itsRector, that is, to converse with one another not to slanderone another. What we should be doing is dialogos and notdiabolos. For in the absence of dialogue the seminary groundis fertilized by hatred and resentment, misrepresentationand maliciously false accusations. But in the presence ofdialogue there is the possibility of speaking with sinceritywith one another in the promotion of mutual understanding as

11


our mutually desired goal. Not to dialogue, or, to pretendto dialogue when in fact what one is doing is to manipulatethe other; not to say what one means and not to mean whatone says is to leave room for calumny and quarrels.

I find my model of dialogue in two sources: in theDominican tradition, more specifically in the example of St.Dominic, of whom it is said that he seldom spoke except withGod and to others about God; and in Martin Buber’sinspirational writing on dialogue, I and Thou.

12


From St. Dominic one is able to learn that to dialogueis to speak with God and to others about God. Dialogos isconversation with God and with one’s brothers and sisters.That is why it is different from diabolos, backbiting throughmalicious and hateful statements, which is conversation withthe Devil himself. On further reflection, one discoversthat dialogue is an act of charity. Charity is love of Godabove all things and love of God’s creatures because oneloves God. Charity is different from philanthropy in thesense that it is primarily love of God and secondarily loveof neighbour. Yet, one must be careful not to misunderstandthis differentiation. For the one who truly loves God, loveof neighbour is secondary but necessary. It is the truesign that one really loves God. As the writer of the firstletter of John rightly puts it: “If anyone says, ‘I loveGod,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever doesnot love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom hehas not seen” (1 Jn 4:20). The one who possesses charityloves God first, and, because he loves God, he cannot butlove all those whom God has created. The one who possessescharity is the one who has fallen in love with God. In theexperience of falling in love, two lovers want to be in eachother’s company and speak with each other in a very intimateway. Two real lovers unveil the depths of their beingbefore one another. Nothing is kept secret in theirrelationship. To use Nigerian parlance, there is no “hiddenagenda” of any kind in their relationship and in theirconversations. When they are not with each other, and orwhen they are not speaking with each other, they arespeaking about each other to other people.

13


To those who are conversant with the beehive ofunwholesome struggle for influence that a seminary cansometimes be this may sound naïve. But the very fact of notliving up to imperatives of one’s vocation does not nullifythe nobility of the same vocation. The challenge is tolearn to see the seminary as a place of love since no onecan dialogue who does not love, and no one loves who doesnot dialogue. The one who has made dialogue impossibleeither out of ignorance of what dialogue really is, or outof the dirty desire to manipulate the other person throughlies and or true statements presented in a way thatmisleads, cannot be rightly described as a loving person.To manipulate or to seek to manipulate the other person isto deceive. It is to treat that person as a thing, as a toyor machine to be used and discarded and not as a human beingcreated in the image and likeness of God.

Going by Martin Buber’s differentiation, to manipulatethe other is to treat him/her like an It and not a Thou. Ishall return to this differentiation shortly. For now, itis necessary to restate that charity is the starting pointof dialogue. We converse because we love and we lovebecause we converse. The human being has been created witha deep desire to love and to be loved. To love is to standout of oneself to reach out to another self. It is to longto be joined to another self. God created the human personwith the desire and the capacity to love God. .

The one who loves God speaks with God. The one whotruly converses with God converses with his/her neighbour.And the one who speaks with his/her brother/sister is theone who has begun to love. But one cannot begin to loveunless one begins to recognize the image and likeness of Godin the other person. Our common humanity is in the imageand likeness of God in each of us. What makes me human isthe image and likeness of God in me, and what makes the

14


other person human is the image and likeness of God inhim/her. We cannot dialogue unless we recognize the imageof God in each other. We can only engage in a war to be wonby the most effective manipulator. But the triumph ofmanipulation is the defeat of common good. Here I return toBuber’s differentiation.

In the book I and Thou, Martin Buber paints an intriguingportrait of the dialogical character of the human person.He refers to the twofold attitude of the human person to theworld—the I-It attitude and the I-Thou attitude. This enables himto distinguish between the realm of It and the realm of Thou.Here is a passage in the book that sums it up.

I perceive something. I am sensible of something. Iimagine something. I will something. I feel something.I think something. The life of human beings does notconsist of all this and the like alone.

This and the like together establish the realm ofIt.

But the realm of Thou has a different basis.When Thou is spoken, the speaker has no thing for

his object. For where there is a thing there is anotherthing. Every It is bounded by others; It exists onlythrough being bounded by others. But when Thou isspoken, there is no thing. Thou has no bounds.

When Thou is spoken, the speaker has no thing; hehas indeed nothing. But he takes his stand in relation…

As experience, the world belongs to the primaryword I-It.

The primary word I-Thou establishes the world ofrelation.

We can speak here of the world of objects as the world ofIt, and of the world of subjects as the world of Thou. It

15


refers to objects I can manipulate. The human being is notreducible to an object to be perceived, imagined, willed,felt, thought. The human being is a subject to be relatedwith. And I am able to relate with my fellow human beingswhen I see in them the images of the Thou, the Divine Thouthat God is. In the seminary, or in any Christiancommunity, what matters is not whether or not I call theshots. What matters is whether I love and converse withGod, whether, seeing God in others I love them and conversewith them. The leader and the led are not to see each otheras things to be used, abused and manipulated. When I seethe image and likeness of God in them then I relate withthem without deceit, that is, without insulting theirintelligence. Unless human beings stop seeing and using oneanother as things, as tools and toys, they cannot dialogue.They can only compete in the ability to outwit and outfoxone another.

If I face a human being as my Thou, and say the primaryword I-Thou to him, he is not a thing among other things,and does not consist of things.15

We cannot dialogue with the human person if we do notdialogue with God, and we cannot dialogue with God if we donot dialogue with the human person. In concrete terms, wecannot dialogue if we do not pray, we cannot pray if we donot love, so we cannot dialogue if we do not love. Youcannot enter into dialogue with someone you hate.

Hate is by nature blind. Only a part of a being can behated. He who sees a whole being and is compelled toreject it is no longer in the kingdom of hate, but is inthat of human restriction of the power to say Thou. He

15 Martin Buber, I and Thou, 8.

16


finds himself unable to say the primary word to theother human being confronting him.16

The explanation of the author of the first letter of Johncomes to mind again. We cannot love God if we do not lovethe human person, and we cannot love the human person if donot love God. Every violation of human rights is rooted inthe violation of God’s own rights. We cannot respect therights of the human person when we do not respect the rightsof God, and we cannot claim to respect the rights of Godwhen we do not respect the rights of the human person. Wecannot recognize the humanity in others when we simply donot give God any recognition.

When we truly recognize our common humanity that iswhen we learn to listen to one another instead of talking toone another. For where there is no listening there is nodialogue but monologue. And monologue is the absurdity, thedramatic foolishness of conversing with myself and listeningto myself with rapt attention. Failure to listen comes fromthe desire to win over the other person at all costs by wayof deceit and manipulation. A profound recognition of ourcommon humanity leads us to admit with Buber that the humanbeing is a dialogical being. Dialogue is not somethingimposed on him from outside, by the constitutionalprovisions of a republic or the canonical stipulations of anecclesial community, it is an act of his being. And that iswhy, the one who, rather than dialogue chooses to manipulatethe other person’s intelligence does a grave harm to thecommon good by inflicting a greater harm to himself. Not todialogue is to inflict a wound on oneself. We become trulyhuman when we dialogue. Buber explains this when he affirmsthat the fulfillment of our being is in dialoguing with God,the eternal Thou. This dialogue takes place through the


17


medium of our dialogue with our fellow human beings insofaras our inter-personal relationship enables us to enter intorelationship with God. Our fulfillment is in God. But weneed others to get to God. We cannot relate with Godwithout others. Even a personal relationship with God takesplace within a network of relationships with fellow humanbeings. While relating with others may impede ourrelationship with God, as is the case with a relationshipmarked by sin, not to relate with others is to barricade theway to communion with God. Buber’s words deserve to bequoted for their poignancy:

Every particular Thou is a glimpse through to theeternal Thou; by means of every particular Thou theprimary word addresses the eternal Thou. Through themediation of the Thou of all beings fulfillment, andnon-fulfillment, of relations comes to them: the inbornThou is realized in each relation and consummated innone. It is consummated only in the direct relationwith the Thou that by its nature cannot become It.17

The relationship between the Rector and the seminarycommunity calls for a true recognition of our commonhumanity which expresses itself in the readiness to listento others in a conversation without a hidden agenda. Toexclude any hidden agenda is to be willing to allow oneselfto be freed from the chains of biases and prejudices. It isto freely choose to broaden one’s horizon in a conversionthat is a radical turn to the truth, to the good, to loveand to God. It is to allow my biases to die so that thecommunity might live.

In the open conversation for conversion that dialogueis, there will be differences of opinion, and the one who is


18


committed to the path of dialogue must be ready to put upwith such differences and idiosyncrasies. That may be thepersonal sacrifice one needs to make for the sake of thecommunity. But the problem is not in our differences.Neither is it in the fact that we do have conflictingopinions. The problem is in the fact that we either fail tomanage or we mismanage our differences. Disagreements arenot in themselves intolerable. What is intolerable iswhatever threatens common life. For it is one thing todisagree, it is another thing to become disagreeable. Ifthe Rector’s style of leadership does not augur well for thegood of seminary formation his attention should be called toit in a manner that shows respect for his person and office.And if the conduct of anyone in the seminary community fallsshort of reasonable expectation, the Rector has the rightand duty to seek to rectify the situation—he is Rector torectify—by calling the attention of the person in question.The Rector may even fire a member of staff if he was the onewho hired him. Where he was hired by a higher body, theRector needs to bring the matter up with the body who hired.

Dialogue in the Dynamics of Authority and Obedience

In the dynamics of authority and obedience in a Christiancommunity, and we must always keep in focus the character ofthe seminary as a Christian community, the purpose ofdialogue is not necessarily to win over the other person butto walk together in the quest for the will of God. It is toarrive at a seminary community whose life corresponds to ourdivine Lord’s prayer: “that they may be one” ( cf. Jn17:11).18 Authority and obedience make sense when theleader and the led work together to discern the will of God.

18 Cf. Vatican II, Optatam totius, 5, quoted on the first page of this essay.

19


Authority exists not to stifle but to discern the spirit.Occupation of a position of authority, such as the Rector’s,is no excuse for intolerance of divergent opinions or thepersecution, humiliation or elimination of civil opposition.In fact, a Rector must know that opposition is not a vice.When it is in the interest of the common good it is avirtue. In the same way, on the part of those who are led,the existence of legitimate differences is no excuse forinsubordination and incivility. For incivility works againstthe common good and may cast a shroud on the legitimacy ofopposing views.

The Rector, like any human being in authority, carrieswithin himself wounds of the sinful human condition that weall carry. Prone, like any human being, to bias, prejudice,malice and error, he does not monopolize possession of thewisdom of the Holy Spirit. Like every human being he is inneed of conversion. He may be tempted to use his will toreplace the will of God. If he does not board the transportof conversion that the grace of God is, he may even telllies, privately and openly, “in the name of God”. Thisgrace is at work in the process of dialogue andconsultation. Consequently, even as, and precisely becausethe Rector has primary responsibility for the seminary, hemust listen and consult if he is to exercise his officeresponsibly. For leadership fails by failing to promotedialogue.

History shows that the very purpose of leadership,authority and obedience is radically questioned in acts offlagrant rebellion by some of those who are led, and in themisuse of authority by some of those who lead. All whoengage in seminary formation must keep in mind that theRector has the final say on matters which relate to theexercise of his office. The Rector, for his part, mustdemonstrate the practical understanding that, with dialogue,

20


he acquires moral authority; without dialogue his becomesthe authority of tyranny, and that will be inimical to thegoals of priestly formation.

The Seminary, like any community of Christians, has theTrinity as its model. The three divine Persons are in love,and their love found its most concrete expression on thecross where the Son died because he loved the Father and hisbrothers and sisters. The authority of the leader findsits limits at the foot of the cross. Since Christianleadership is defined in terms of the Christian communalidentity as mirror of Trinitarian communion, and sinceTrinitarian love finds its most eloquent historicalexpression on the cross where the Son died because he lovedthe Father and his brothers and sisters, leadership,obedience and authority take both the leader and the ledthrough the way of the cross to the glory of theresurrection.

To lead and to be led is to dialogue at the foot of thecross. At the foot of the cross the leader and the ledstand, look and see the one who was pierced because hesought to do the will of the Father. At the foot of thecross both are able to see the one who led his brothers andsisters to salvation by assuming powerlessness. There theSpirit is breathed into them by the crucified one breathinghis last. At the foot of the cross of dialogue, where theleader and the led listen to one another and pray for oneanother, both receive the Spirit and minister the sameSpirit to each other. Conflicts between the leader and theled in the seminary, and indeed in the Church, can teach usthat it is at the foot of the cross that the conspiracy—thecon-spiration—between the leader and led that John Henry Newmantalks about takes place.19 19 Cf. Anthony Akinwale, “Newman’s Position on Consultation Within theChurch: A Challenge for Our Time” in Journal of Inculturation Theology 4:2(October 1997) 172-191. The essay is based on John Henry Newman, On

21


Leadership without the cross makes a tyrant of theleader. Obedience without the cross makes a slave of theled. The cross invites the leader and the led to humility.Such humility requires recognition of the limits ofauthority and obedience, and to recognize the limits ofauthority and obedience is to avoid a mutual crucifixion ofthe leader and the led. That explains Aquinas’ answer tothe question: “whether subjects are bound to obey theirsuperiors in all things?”

In praise of Onaiyekan and Aniagwu

If these are the things to look for in a Seminary Rector,could one say that we have found these qualities in the twomen we honour in this lecture? My response is unequivocallyaffirmative, and that, for a number of reasons.

By the time Onaiyekan and Aniagwu left the saddle ofleadership at the Seminary of Saints Peter and Paul, theyleft a legacy of exemplary administration, of prudentregulation of the affairs of the seminary, and of promotinga culture of excellence in every facet of priestlyformation. These two men worked tirelessly with a rock-solid conviction that only the best seminarians weresuitable for priestly ministry. Excellence was what theypreached, excellence was what they practiced, and excellencewas what they personified. Excellence is the antithesis ofmediocrity. Yet, it is not uncommon today to want topromote mediocrity by hiding under a canopy constructed bytwo contrived dichotomies—one is the dichotomy between thepastor and the intellectual, the other is the dichotomybetween faith and reason.

Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine edited with an introduction by JohnCoulson (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967).

22


The first dichotomy—the dichotomy between the pastorand the intellectual—is found mainly within the Church. Inmatters of priestly formation and ministry, it is promotedby presenting a caricature of the Curé d’Ars, St JohnVianney. History has it that his performance in his studiesfor the priesthood was not sterling. And quite often, hisexample is cited to plead for a candidate for the priesthoodwho is not particularly brilliant in the seminary. Thereal John Vianney was a pastor. He was not an intellectual.But he was intelligent. When it is said that the whole ofFrance went to him for confession, it is to point to hispossession of a rare habitus confessoris, which is an incredibleability to be listen to and to be in touch with God and withone’s fellow human beings. An intelligent pastor of soulssees the need to be in touch with God and with his fellowhuman beings. A devoted priest is attentive to God and tohuman beings.

To assert, as we are tempted to do in our time, that ifyou are a pastor you cannot be an intellectual, and if youare an intellectual you cannot nor need not be a pastor; andto use St John Vianney as justification for speech in suchexclusive terms is to conscript him into facilitating thepassage of an anti-intellectualist current in the priesthoodtoday. It is to find it convenient to forget that St. JohnVianney was an apparition, an appearance, an image on whichwe cannot permanently fix our gaze. It is to ignore thefact that an apparition is an exception. John Vianney as anapparition was an exception.

In his weekly audience on February 3, 2010, during theYear for Priests, Pope Benedict XVI reflected on the personof St Dominic de Guzman, founder of the Order of Preachers.He pointed to the fact that one of the means used by Dominicto make “a fundamental contribution to the renewal of theChurch of his time” was his insistence on study, on sound

23


theological formation as a necessary preparation, on thepart of his friar preachers. Pope Benedict XVI rightlyremarked that in preparation for their pastoral ministry,“Dominic wanted his Friars to devote themselves to itwithout reserve, with diligence and with piety; a studybased on the soul of all theological knowledge, that is, onSacred Scripture, and respectful of the questions asked byreason. The development of culture requires those who carryout the ministry of the Word at various levels to be welltrained.” He then made a plea, saying: “I therefore urgeall those, pastors and lay people alike, to cultivate this“cultural dimension” of faith, so that the beauty of theChristian truth may be better understood and faith may betruly nourished, reinforced and also defended. In this Yearfor Priests, I ask seminarians and priests to esteem thespiritual value of study. The quality of the priestlyministry also depends on the generosity with which oneapplies oneself to the study of the revealed truths.” Hecontinued: “Dominic, who wished to found a religious Orderof theologian-preachers, reminds us that theology has aspiritual and pastoral dimension that enriches the soul andlife. Priests, the consecrated and also all the faithful mayfind profound ‘inner joy’ in contemplating the beauty of thetruth that comes from God, a truth that is ever timely andever alive. Moreover the motto of the Friars Preacherscontemplata aliis tradere helps us to discover a pastoralyearning in the contemplative study of this truth because ofthe need to communicate to others the fruit of one's owncontemplation.”

The legacy of Onaiyekan and Aniagwu is to have taughtus what Pope Benedict XVI later confirmed, namely, that apastor is not dispensed from the cultivation of hisintellect; that the pastoral zeal of the pastor is in hisdesire for the beauty of the truth that comes from God; that

24


a priest is to direct others to God, to a God he himself islonging for, to a God who has found him; that the priestmust be a seeker who guides others , a pilgrim leading andaccompanying other pilgrims; that a priest must be animatedby a spiritual quest which is an intellectual quest, and anintellectual quest which is a spiritual quest. To be a goodpastor, a priest must desire the truth about God, about ourhuman condition, about the whole of creation. He mustdesire to be in touch with God, with himself, with creation,and with the people of God. Here too, we must avoidpromoting a false dichotomy between the prayerful priest andthe studious priest. For a truly knowledgeable priestdesires holiness. True knowledge brings him in touch withGod, and, being in touch with God, he comes to see hissinfulness and radical dependence on the mercy of God. Themore knowledgeable he becomes the more prayerful and themore penitent. If he is neither prayerful not penitent heis not knowledgeable.

The pastoral ministry of the priest is like breathing.The human being breathes with two lungs. We breathe in andwe breathe out. To be a pastor of souls is to inhale andexhale the love of God. It is the love of God that inspiresand sustains our pastoral work. As it happens in therespiratory process, our pastoral ministry involves thefunction of two lungs. The two lungs that sustain therespiratory process that pastoral ministry is are thespiritual life and the intellectual life of the priest. Thequality of pastoral work of a priest is very much areflection of how he cultivates and updates his intellect,just as it is very much a reflection of how the priestcultivates and nourishes a rich interior life. The Fathersof the early Church serve as excellent role models in thisrespect. The life and ministry of the early Church Fathers

25


can be described as a confluence of spiritual, intellectualand pastoral concerns.

We would betray the legacy of Onaiyekan and Aniagwu ifwe were to fall into the temptation of contriving adichotomy between the priest as pastor and the priest asintellectual. Such a dichotomy is an unfortunatemischaracterization of the Catholic priest. For incorrespondence with the munus triplex Christi, the priest must beone who cultivates priestly holiness, prophetic intelligenceand pastoral competence. He does not have to be anintellectual. But he must be intelligent. A Catholic priestis not just one who has passed through a seminary but onewho has internalized priestly formation in all itsdimensions—spiritual, intellectual, pastoral—on the groundsof human formation. Since catholicity is the idea ofwholeness, to be found wanting in one of these dimensions isto lack a holistic formation. In the life of a Catholicpriest, a holistically formed priest, holiness is necessarybut of itself insufficient, intelligence is necessary but ofitself insufficient and pastoral competence is necessary butinsufficient. It would be un-catholic to seek pastoralcompetence outside the realm of intelligence in holiness.And that brings me to the second dichotomy, that of faithand reason, which is not unrelated to the first dichotomy.For the first dichotomy unwittingly plays into it.

I shall illustrate the second dichotomy by recalling astory. Sometime in the mid-1990s, I was listening to “FreshAir”, a famous radio programme compered by Terry Gross andbroadcast on the National Public Radio in America. In thisparticular edition of the programme, she interviewed thewriter John Dominic Crossan. Crossan is prolific author anda former Catholic priest. Gross had asked him why and whenhe left the priesthood. He responded by saying he left thepriesthood when he realized no intelligent person could be a

26


priest. There is something more to that statement, and thatis, if you are a priest you are not intelligent, and if youare not, but allow yourself to be guided by one, you areeven less intelligent.

By promoting priestly formation in all its facets,Onaiyekan and Aniagwu responded to this dichotomy betweenfaith and reason, and this offers us another perspective oftheir legacy. Between the sola fides of the Reformation, whichrepudiated reason on the grounds of faith, and the sola ratioof the Enlightenment, which repudiated faith on the groundsof reason, Onaiyekan and Aniagwu labored to for the Catholicfides et ratio in their approach to priestly formation. Theirmanifest desire was to form Catholic priests who combinethese qualities in a Nigerian society characterized byreligious and intellectual pluralism.

Their respect for other religions was clearlydemonstrated in the way they planned the two courses we tookon Islam. We were made to encounter the religion of Islamfrom the perspective of a Muslim. Hence, we had anintroductory course taught by a Muslim scholar, Dr. Noibi,before benefitting from the perspective of Father JosephKenny, O.P. Onaiyekan and Aniagwu also ensured that thepriests they were forming were prepared for pastoralministry in an environment of intellectual pluralism. LikeJustin Martyr, the Cappadocian Father, Augustine of Hippoand other fathers of the early Church, and like ThomasAquinas who imitated them in bringing Athens and Jerusalemtogether, they demonstrated magnanimity in engaging peopleof diverse religious and intellectual tendencies to teach uswhile they, as Rectors and in collaboration with theseminary staff, vigilantly sharpened our Catholicperspectives. The result was that we were able to receivewith differentiated docility what such non-Catholiclecturers had to offer. If my memory is correct, the

27


Seminary of Saints Peter and Paul, under their leadership,was the first Seminary in Nigeria to offer a course onSymbolic Logic, first taught by Professor Peter Bodunrin, adevout Catholic philosopher, and then by Dr. Bello, aMuslim. I remember also being taught rudiments of BiblicalHebrew by then Father Onaiyekan. And how can we forget thatit was during their tenure that the process of affiliatingthe Seminary to the University of Ibadan was begun andcompleted?

How were they able to accomplish these feats?Certainly, by relating with the seminary staff in acollegial fashion, and with seminarians as adults, withoutcompromising requisite discipline. But above all, they ledby way of self-sacrifice. Given their excellentintellectual and leadership qualities, they could have optedfor teaching employment in any of the secular universities.They could have risen up the ladder to occupy the veryheights. But they chose to devote their time and talents,their energy and prime to the formation of priests. This isnot to say that those priests who opted for teaching in thesecular universities are selfish. In fact, we need many ofour priests to teach in our secular universities if theChurch is to be a major player in university education inNigeria.

Perhaps one might ask: if their legacy were such as hasbeen described, why is it that today, a significant numberof priests they formed can be said to be directly orindirectly responsible for deviating from the Catholictradition and for facilitating the irruption ofPentecostalism within Catholicism in Nigeria? To this Ishall respond by saying that if we had remained faithful totheir culture of excellence things would have beendifferent. We will be able to stem the tide of de-Catholicisation and Pentecostalisation that seems to be

28


engulfing us, the increasing difficulty of differentiatingbetween a Catholic priest and a Pentecostal Pastor, if weremain faithful to their legacy of holistic formation ofCatholic priests. These two former Rectors have set abenchmark which we have to struggle to meet. But we canstruggle to meet that benchmark if we resist the temptationto copy.

And so, our mentors their names we must mention withreverence and homage. Long shall their legacies becelebrated by this and by generations yet unborn. Thestandard they bear we must follow, and, why not, improveupon? For not to do so would be ungrateful, andingratitude, as a Yoruba saying goes, is a synonym fortheft. But to do so would be a lasting honour due to twomen who placed, and continue to place, their skills at ourservice, at the service of the Church, two men who gavetheir all to form us—John Cardinal Olorunfemi Onaiyekan andJohn Kanebi Asuquo Aniagwu. Long may they live in goodhealth of mind and body.

29

On the Person and Office of the Seminary Rector: The Legacy of Onayekan and Aniagwu

Documents

Transcript of On the Person and Office of the Seminary Rector: The Legacy of Onayekan and Aniagwu