*CALL FOR ADHOC RECONCILIATION WITH BISHOP OKPALEKE, A DISTURBING ENIGMA IN TIMING*

In the event of his mission of salvation, the Jews rejected Jesus and the Canaanites denied him access road to Jerusalem. That was easily let go, and the mission of salvation and not his rejection overshadowed and superceded the rejection. But in the case of the saga of Ahiara diocese, bishop Peter Okpaleke and the Nigerian bishops, his rejection has rather superceded, overshadowed and stagnated the mission of the gospel, the salvation of soul and message of faith in Ahiara. In fact in the mind of religious purists and pharisaic fascists, Ahiara has done worse than the Jews and Peter Okpaleke is rated more than Jesus, and given more attention than the faith of Jesus. If Jesus symbolized the one person that must die as ransom for many, Peter Okpaleke is the one person for whom many, including the Church must bend, suffer, stoop for or die for his power. But this is the play of Nigerian mentality in its religious perspective, where for the religious elite, the many and the Church, matter for nothing just for the interest and pleasure of one or a group of "the elect". In this sodomic anomaly, what concerns the whole Church is subsumed under the intensive and extensive avarice of the few.
On Saturday, 26th of March, 2022, the Administrator of Ahiara, having, and after receiving his multiples of paraphenenials of ecclesial elavation and transformation of power and authority, regally used his first meeting of Ahiara pastoral council to put another puzzle for Ahiara, with the rider, "Mending the relationship between Ahiara Diocese and Most Rev. Peter Ebere Okpaleke". Nothing was on the agenda for Ahiara substantive bishop. The title, "Most Rev., is of utmost important than the whole Church of Christ in Ahiara.
In his sensitivity, it is sensed that that bishop Okpaleke would not feel comfortable to attend anything in this part of the Church, perhaps, including the whole of the province, giving the extant situation. Besides, it is not proper to allow the unfriendly relationship between him and Ahiara to remain as it is. It is therefore proper to invite him to celebrate mass of fence mending and reconciliation with Ahiara Diocese, to settle the old wounds. It was suggested that he would either be invited to Ahiara for mass, or a delegation of Ahiara be sent to visit him.
Perhaps, the summit of all this prank is the forthcoming installation of Owerri provincial Archibishop. It would be proper to create a jolly atmosphere for the bishop in question to attend, after all, the present archbishop preached his Ulakwo seminary ordination. He needs to attend in reciprocity or in collegeality. As for Ahiara Diocese, they can decide to attend or be absent from the installation as moody, disgruntled fringe and the deprived of the Church without a bishop. But then, who expects Ahiara to attend such a ceremony as a weeping boy of the Church? Besides, they need not be given any happy enabler to attend. It is the bishops, the princes of the Church that are the Church and only them matter. What they may need is Ahiara money in proxy and abstentia and with executive order without their consent.
We appreciate the Ahiara Administrator for his thoughtful step for reconciliation and fence mending with Okpaleke. But permit my feeling, that the idea is lopsidedly emotional, hypocritical, hurting, insensitive, unsavory, anachronistic, untimely and unsolicited. Was he the one who broke the fence with Okpaleke or the people of Ahiara? It is true that Ahiara Diocese did not fight Okpaleke or rejected him out of personal hatred, but fought and rejected his manner of ultra imposition and authority as the face of ecclesial injustice and infraction. The same would have been the case if any other person other than Okpaleke was rudely flung at Ahiara in similar manner. Neither did Okpaleke fight Ahiara as his natural enemies, but only tried to wrestle for his power. He too did not succeed in exercising his authority over Ahiara, but nevertheless retained it in a more proper and appropriate place. The Pope, having settled the matter in his wisdom, bishop Okpaleke is satisfied, and Ahiara reserves no further grudges or malice whatsoever for him. Neither should he bear grudges for Ahiara. His ambition was ultimately to be a bishop, and not Ahiara bishop, and in disguise, Ahiara scenario facilitated his ambition, without acceding to his bishop of Ahiara. The Pope's definitive resolution of the matter should have capped all other skirmishes, but his resolution does not go down well with the Nigerian fashion, hence the fixation and obsession for revenge and seeking for pounds of flesh in Ahiara for over ten years. Otherwise, there is no question of reconciliation with one you did not quarrel with, but only asked him not to excercise unjust authority over you.
There is no gainsaying that the crisis created serious scuffles and left some mental scars in all the parties. But that is human. There is still no doubt that it would be christianly commendable to reach for restoration of friendly and fraternal relationship between Ahiara and all that were psychologically and mutually bruised, including Okpaleke. That is Christianity. But the manner and timing of the Administrator's officious solicitation is both suspect, sinister, and leaves many unanswered questions of bad blood. Both Ahiara and bishop Okpaleke are principal actors and victims in the saga. Bishop Okpaleke has been since placated and rehabilitated with a new diocese, adding more dioceses to his province. Ahiara is still left in punitive abeyance. The Administrator himself, has, riding on the back of the crisis and the cowed Ahiara, been decorated with "all powers in heaven and on Earth has been given to me", while a whole people of God of Ahiara are left to farmish. Thanks to Ahiara rejection of Okpaleke, Ahiara administrator is the greatest beneficiary of the crisis and Okpaleke lose, as he is now enjoying the seat an emeritus Cardinal would have schemed Okpaleke into, if he was allowed to triumph over Ahiara.
Does the call to talk of Okpaleke after the Administrator's decoration with ultimate powers suggest that, for Ahiara, it is accomplished and finished? What remains is to palliate the only one person perceived to have been hurt in the course and on the path to his present agglomeration of multiple powers? It is now left with Mbaise people in Owerri and elsewhere to smash him with money to fortify his province, while he treats them as vassals. Is the mending of fence and reconciliation with bishop Okpaleke a prerequisite for Ahiara bishop? Was this a mandate to the Administrator as Archibishop and as condition to give Ahiara a substantive bishop? But whose fence was actually broken, and by who? Is the suppression of Ahiara and ripping it of for over ten years not enough atonement to mend the fence? Is the planned visit or invitation another ploy to scheme Ahiara into an implicating and incriminating apology, even after the papal resolution? Or is this another prank to devise excuse, find fault and achieve a goal? Are we tempted to question, if we are actually dealing with conscientious Christians?
Would the present fishing in troubled waters and waking a sleeping dog not be hurting, embarrassing and a diservice to bishop Okpaleke, to renew and refresh in him a tasking and disturbing feeling? If those suggesting the visit, or invitating him to Ahiara were to be in his shoes, and they are normal, how comfortable would they be, given historical antecedents? As our people would put it, "pitch yourself to know how it would be to pitch another person". How would the proponents of this sanctimoniousness of fence mending feel, if being in the present mood and condition of unsettled Ahiara, they are asked to embark on an uncharted and indiscernible mission, whose interpretation and implication is not envisaged while they are still held on the ground? Or, is this all about insensitivity and ridiculing a people because of religion and faith?
Bishop Okpaleke is a fellow Christian and our kin. We and himself are matured enough to understand that people and individuals, even in the same family can have skirmishes, disagreement and mutual grievances on issues. This is human and at times, inevitable. But it does not make us permanent and eternal enemies. Though the memory and history be there, we can outgrow the malice. Either collectively or individually, Ahiara Diocesan people, or Owerri Province would have no reason to interfere in his intention to attend any ceremony in Ahiara or Owerri as a bishop of Ekwuluobia. He also has the freedom to choose to come or abstain without inducement, even in the provincial installation.
It is very upsetting and nuseating for the Administrator to agglomerate all powers, only to use it to make Ahiara feel that the leaders of the Church, like their Nigerian political counterparts, are insensitive and self-centric, elit-centric and can suppress a whole people and church while consolidating and satisfying their thirst for power and position. If this is not the case, they would have been thoughtful enough to know that it will be much more proper for the substantive bishop of Ahiara, appointed in the manner the others were, to be the one to lead a fence mending mission between Ahiara and Okpaleke. Or, is the Administrator telling us that he now remains the archbishop of Owerri, the president of the Nigerian bishops, the Administrator of Umuahia, and Ahiara permanent substantive Administrator, to oversee Ahiara from Owerri? Or, is the invitation or visit to Okpaleke under his supervision is conditionally interweaved with the settlement of Ahiara?
There is more than the eyes and mind can percieve in this latest seeming rat trap, but since it is better not to act when in doubt, the zealots of fence mending committe should look before they leap and ask themselves why it is not better for Ahiara substantive bishop, chosen among his people that had issue with bishop Okpaleke, to lead the fence mending, and even better fortify the fence than the Administrator who is his Allie. Perhaps, this is why he seems to have in proxy, set the ball rolling with puppet and headless committee that might comprise mostly their camp, to execute the plan in the name of Ahiara. This group are excellent in sychophantic quackery and treachery. There seems to be a driving ulterior motive and clandestine behind the project, and it is most insensitive and they are susceptible to it.
Being a bishop apart, Okpaleke is a human being with flesh and blood and endowed with natural psychology. Being the opponent of Ahiara in the past does not make us insensitive to his human psychology and how he would feel for a sudden invitation for mass at Ahiara, or a visit to his house. Could it be a palliative to placade him to intercede in the settlement of Ahiara? Could it be seen as a flattery or penitential, and how would he feel in each perception?
Nobody needs to profer an apology to anyone for refusing to accept authority that was arbitrarily conceived and considered inimical and humiliating. Nevertheless, at the appropriate time, Ahiara, Ekwuluobia, bishop Okpaleke and the bishop of Ahiara, will need to hug each other in restoration of Christian fraternity. There is no question of reconciliation and nothing more to reconcile beyond what the Pope has done. There can only be a kiss of peace to revive fraternal the feeling lost in disagreement. That can only be best done, when Ahiara has been put in the right mood and frame of happy mind, and not be dragged into a treaty as conquered and depressed bondmen, crawling before slave masters. Both parties would meet in a Christian joyful encounter and celebration, not as the vanquished or the triumphant over the other. Except the administrator wants to tell us that Ahiara case is closed, in line with the Cardinal's prescription, not to give Ahiara a bishop from among themselves like others, even if they qualify. Otherwise, the present clamour for committee for fence mending would be putting the cart before the horse or cleaning the anus before going to toilet.
The arrangement would not be edifying or dignifying for either of the parties and especially Ahiara, as the problem created by the bishopric crisis needs to be resolved holistically and not in parts or in negligence of one party. The resolution is not a matter of adhoc and isolated committee for mass celebration and attendance of ceremony. It is an entire Ahiara collective issue with their bishop at a more appropriate time. If bishop Okpaleke's attendance of Owerri installation is a necessity or an imperative, either as reciprocity for his ordination or solidarity with collegeality, it is the onus of Owerri archdiocese or province to arrange for it, rather than putting Ahiara in the eyes of the storm and public speculation again, at a time when they are expecting a treatment like others. Any person planning a visit to bishop Okpaleke or his invitation to Ahiara, without Ahiara substantive bishop, is insensitive and tends to be treacherous.
The Administrator's cohorts and camp men have volunteered to stir another hornet nest and put Ahiara in another mess to achieve their myopic gain. But let them listen to the seething humming of the people around, and remember that the authority they serve is not for their good. One should be wary of any one who has never told him realizable truth before or is reliable or trustworthy, but is always swayed by his interest. We are not against interaction with Okpaleke, but it is presently ill motivated, timely counter productive and bound to provoke another ire that they will use against Ahiara.

Rev. Fr. Ben Ogu.