A failed attempt to enforce priestly celibacy?

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Jan 03, 2025

Back when ‘Diogenes’ was writing regularly for CatholicCulture, he made the point (in a private email, I’m sorry to say; not on this site) that when we say that an institution is thoroughly corrupt, we do not necessarily mean that the corruption extends to every member of the institution. I used his insight in a comment on corruption in the Catholic hierarchy:

In a corrupt police department—as seen in countless action movies—the problem is not simply that some cops take bribes from criminals. The problem is that honest cops cannot clean up the force, because whenever they report one venal colleague, they run into a superior who is also on the Mafia payroll, and will suppress the evidence. So the system rewards behavior that is at odds with the purposes of law enforcement. That sort of institutional corruption can be changed only by a thorough, dramatic, and probably painful house-cleaning.

Those thoughts on institutional corruption come to mind again as I read today’s CWN headline about the Diocese of Man in the Ivory Coast. Although I know nothing about the situation in that diocese, beyond what is contained in the reports to which CWN has linked in the past year, it seems fair to say that something is seriously wrong.

Let’s review.

Almost exactly one year ago, Bishop Gaspard Béby Gneba issued a very strong statement denouncing sexual and financial corruption among the diocesan clergy. Evidently appalled by the number of priests who were living with concubines and often with the children they had sired, and supporting these families with church funds, the bishop demanded that these wayward priests resign from ministry. Then he raised the stakes:

Any lay faithful who knows that a priest is not faithful to his celibacy, has a wife or child, has committed sexual abuse or economic crimes, must have the courage to denounce him to the bishop, otherwise he commits a sin of complicity before God, the Pope and the Church.

In that statement last January, Bishop Gneba indicated that he was following the wishes of Pope Francis, who had called for “zero tolerance” of clerical misconduct. But did he really need that papal encouragement to root out the corruption? The Church’s discipline of clerical celibacy is not a new development, nor is the laws that prohibit the use of charitable donations for personal enrichment. Bishop Gneba had held office in Man since 2008. Had it really taken him fifteen years to recognize these problems?

(A friendly American bishop, now deceased, revealed that after he was appointed to head his first diocese, he learned that two priests in outlying rural parishes were living with women. As soon as he was installed, he called those two priests and let them know that they had 24 hours to move the women out of their rectories.)

Still, better late than never. The problem of priests living with concubines is reportedly widespread in parts of Africa, and while perhaps Bishop Gneba should have taken action sooner, at least he was taking action now.

The clergy of the Man diocese, however, strongly objected to the bishop’s public statement—and particularly to his invitation for lay people to denounce their pastors. The angry priests did not argue with their bishop’s defense of celibacy, but insisted that he as going about it the wrong way. His leadership style was abrupt and authoritarian, they charged. He was not a collegial leader; he lacked an understanding of the “synodal” Church.

There were complaints, too, that the bishop was a poor administrator. Perhaps he was. But haven’t we heard those complaints often in recent years, in cases involving bishops who take a strong stand on a moral principle? Is it pure coincidence that the bishops cited for incompetence in management seem to come exclusively from one end of the theological spectrum?

And by the way, if we question why Bishop Gneba waited fifteen years to act against corrupt clerics, shouldn’t we also question why the unhappy priests took fifteen years to notice his administrative deficiencies and his authoritarian governing style?

The ruckus in the Diocese of Man came to the attention of the Vatican, and an apostolic visitation was arranged. Of course that investigation was conducted quietly, and the findings of the inquiry were not made public. But we do know the final results. Pope Francis—who, remember, got this ball rolling with his “zero tolerance” demand—has appointed an apostolic administrator to replace Bishop Gneba in his administrative role.

Bishop Gneba will retain his title as head of the Man diocese, Archbishop Mauricio Rueda Beltz, the apostolic nuncio in Ivory Coast, assures us. But he will “refrain from making administrative decisions” during an indefinite period of time devoted to his own “spiritual renewal.”

The appointment of an apostolic administrator, Archbishop Beltz explains, is “to restore peace and unity to the Church in Man, ensuring is proper functioning.” The Vatican’s action shows a “commitment to reconciliation and spiritual restoration.”

Which we can only applaud. But one question remains unanswered: What will the Diocese of Man do about the priests who are living with concubines?