By Professor Januarius Asongu
Part I: The Problem of Prophetic Memory
Introduction
"At last, O powerful Master, you give leave to your servant to go in peace according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation" (Luke 2:29–30, NRSV).
The death of Rev. Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe, CMF, in March 2026 prompted an unexpected theological question. It was not merely the death of a priest, scholar, educator, and pioneer. Priests die every day. The Church buries them, remembers them briefly, and moves forward. What made Galabe's death striking was the relative silence that accompanied it. One of the first Cameroonian members of the Claretian Missionaries, a gifted intellectual, an accomplished teacher, and a respected theological voice passed from this life with little institutional recognition and limited public acknowledgment of his contribution to the Church and society.
Such a death is not unique. History is replete with theologians, reformers, intellectuals, and prophetic figures whose contributions were recognized by students, colleagues, and future generations but whose institutions offered them little recognition during their lifetimes. The question raised by Galabe's death is therefore not fundamentally biographical. It is ecclesiological, sociological, and epistemological.
Why do some voices rise to prominence within ecclesial institutions while others disappear into relative obscurity?
More specifically, why do critics of ecclesial structures, practices, and assumptions frequently experience marginalization while defenders of institutional continuity often ascend to positions of authority?
The question emerges repeatedly throughout modern Catholic history. Hans Küng lost his canonical authorization to teach Catholic theology after challenging papal infallibility (Küng, 1971, 2002). Leonardo Boff faced disciplinary action because of his critique of ecclesiastical structures and his advocacy of liberation theology (Boff, 1985, 1987). Bernard Häring experienced repeated scrutiny because of his innovative moral theology (Häring, 1978, 1981). Edward Schillebeeckx spent years responding to investigations by doctrinal authorities (Schillebeeckx, 1981). Charles Curran lost ecclesiastical approval to teach Catholic theology because of disagreements regarding official moral teaching (Curran, 2006).
Conversely, Joseph Ratzinger, one of the twentieth century's most influential defenders of doctrinal continuity, rose from professor to archbishop, cardinal, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and eventually Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger, 1987, 2005). Similar patterns can be observed at national and local levels throughout the Catholic world.
The contrast does not imply that every critic is correct or that every institutional leader lacks courage. Such binaries are historically naïve and intellectually unsustainable. Rather, the recurring pattern raises a deeper question concerning the relationship between truth, authority, institutional preservation, and theological development.
This chapter argues that the phenomenon cannot be adequately explained through conventional ecclesiological categories alone. Nor can it be understood merely as a struggle between orthodoxy and dissent. Instead, it reflects a more fundamental tension inherent in all institutions: the tension between continuity and correction, stability and transformation, management and prophecy.
To explore this tension, the chapter employs Critical Synthetic Realism (CSR), a philosophical framework that integrates metaphysical realism, epistemic fallibilism, institutional analysis, and human flourishing (Asongu, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c). CSR provides a unique lens through which to examine the relationship between ecclesial authority and prophetic criticism because it recognizes both the necessity of institutions and their vulnerability to distortion.
Unlike approaches that romanticize dissent or absolutize authority, CSR insists that all human knowing occurs under conditions of what it terms Epistemic Fracture—the tendency of persons, groups, and institutions to distort reality through ideology, fear, self-interest, tribal loyalties, and structures of power (Asongu, 2026a). Because institutions are composed of fallible human beings, they inevitably participate in this fractured condition. Yet institutions remain indispensable because they preserve memory, continuity, identity, and communal meaning.
The resulting paradox lies at the heart of ecclesial life.
The Church is both guardian of truth and participant in humanity's fallibility.
It is simultaneously a custodian of revelation and a historical institution subject to the limitations of human perception and judgment.
Consequently, tensions between critics and authorities should not be understood merely as political conflicts. They are manifestations of a deeper struggle concerning the discernment of truth under conditions of epistemic limitation.
The death of Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe therefore serves as more than a personal occasion for remembrance. It functions as a point of departure for a broader investigation into the sociology of ecclesial advancement, the fate of prophetic voices, and the contemporary challenges facing Catholic synodality.
Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe and the Question of Ecclesial Memory
The significance of Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe cannot be reduced to ecclesiastical titles, administrative responsibilities, or institutional achievements. Those who knew him often describe a man of unusual intellectual depth, remarkable linguistic ability, and profound commitment to truth. His vocation itself embodied a form of intellectual courage. At a time when university education remained a privilege available to relatively few Cameroonians, Galabe first pursued higher education and subsequently embraced religious life. Such a trajectory was uncommon within his generation and reflected an unusual synthesis of intellectual ambition and spiritual commitment.
More importantly, Galabe belonged to a category of ecclesiastical thinkers who viewed theology not primarily as the defense of settled conclusions but as an ongoing search for truth. His intellectual posture reflected confidence that faith could withstand scrutiny and that authentic theology required engagement with difficult questions rather than avoidance of them.
Such figures frequently occupy ambiguous positions within institutional contexts.
Institutions generally value intelligence.
They often celebrate scholarship.
Yet institutions can become uncomfortable when intellectual inquiry begins challenging established assumptions or exposing contradictions embedded within existing structures.
The history of Christianity repeatedly demonstrates this tension. Many of the Church's most influential thinkers experienced suspicion during their lifetimes only to receive recognition after their deaths. John Henry Newman was viewed with considerable suspicion by many ecclesiastical authorities before eventually being recognized as one of Catholicism's most important theologians (Ker, 1988). Yves Congar spent years under ecclesiastical restrictions before becoming one of the principal architects of Vatican II (Congar, 2012). Henri de Lubac similarly endured periods of marginalization before receiving widespread recognition (de Lubac, 1994).
The pattern suggests that ecclesial memory often operates retrospectively.
Institutions frequently recognize prophetic voices only after those voices no longer pose immediate challenges to existing arrangements.
This observation does not imply deliberate malice.
Rather, it points toward structural characteristics of institutional life itself.
Institutions possess strong incentives to preserve continuity, minimize uncertainty, and maintain internal cohesion. Consequently, they often respond cautiously to individuals whose insights require substantial adaptation or self-critique.
Galabe's death invites reflection upon this broader phenomenon.
How does the Church remember its prophets?
How does it distinguish between loyalty and conformity?
How does it preserve unity without suppressing necessary criticism?
These questions become particularly urgent in the context of contemporary discussions surrounding synodality, participation, and ecclesial reform.
Yet before examining synodality directly, it is necessary to consider a more concrete illustration of the tension between prophecy and institutional advancement.
The contrast between Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe and Archbishop Andrew Nkea provides such an illustration.
The comparison should not be understood as a judgment on either individual. Rather, it functions as a case study through which broader structural dynamics become visible.
It is to that comparison that we now turn.
References for Part I
Asongu, J. (2026a). The Splendor of Truth: A Critical Philosophy of Knowledge and Global Agency. Wipf & Stock.
Asongu, J. (2026b). Beyond Doctrine: A Critical-Liberative Theology of Faith and Emancipation. Wipf & Stock.
Asongu, J. (2026c). Critical Synthetic Realism: A Systematic Philosophy of Truth, Personhood, and Human Flourishing. Generis Publishing.
Boff, L. (1985). Church: Charism and Power. Crossroad.
Boff, L. (1987). Ecclesiogenesis. Orbis.
Congar, Y. (2012). True and False Reform in the Church. Liturgical Press.
Curran, C. (2006). The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II. Georgetown University Press.
de Lubac, H. (1994). At the Service of the Church. Ignatius Press.
Häring, B. (1978). Free and Faithful in Christ (Vol. 1). Seabury Press.
Häring, B. (1981). Free and Faithful in Christ (Vol. 3). Seabury Press.
Ker, I. (1988). John Henry Newman: A Biography. Oxford University Press.
Küng, H. (1971). Infallible? An Inquiry. Doubleday.
Küng, H. (2002). My Struggle for Freedom. Eerdmans.
Ratzinger, J. (1987). The Nature and Mission of Theology. Ignatius Press.
Ratzinger, J. (2005). Values in a Time of Upheaval. Ignatius Press.
Schillebeeckx, E. (1981). Ministry: Leadership in the Community of Jesus Christ. Crossroad.