By Professor Januarius Asongu

Part II: Ecclesial Advancement, Institutional Logic, and the Preference for Managers

The Galabe–Nkea Contrast as an Ecclesial Case Study

The questions raised by the life and death of Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe become more concrete when placed alongside the ecclesial trajectory of Archbishop Andrew Nkea Fuanya. The comparison is not intended as a moral judgment upon either man. Nor does it seek to diminish the genuine pastoral and administrative accomplishments associated with Archbishop Nkea's ministry. Rather, the contrast serves as an analytical lens through which broader institutional patterns become visible.

Both men emerged from the same ecclesial environment. Both devoted their lives to the Catholic Church. Both possessed significant gifts. Yet their trajectories diverged dramatically.

Galabe became known primarily as a scholar, intellectual, educator, and critical thinker. His influence was exercised through ideas, teaching, intellectual formation, and theological reflection. Although respected within many circles, he never occupied the highest levels of ecclesiastical authority.

Nkea, by contrast, followed a trajectory more characteristic of ecclesiastical leadership. His path moved through increasingly significant positions of institutional responsibility, culminating in his appointment as Archbishop of Bamenda and President of the National Episcopal Conference of Cameroon.

The contrast raises a question that transcends the individuals themselves.

Why do certain forms of ecclesial contribution become pathways to advancement while others do not?

Why do institutions frequently elevate administrators while leaving intellectual critics and prophetic thinkers at the margins?

The question is not unique to Cameroon. Similar dynamics can be observed throughout Catholic history and, indeed, throughout most large institutions.

The Church has produced countless scholars whose intellectual influence exceeded that of many bishops. Yet intellectual influence and institutional advancement frequently operate according to different logics.

The distinction becomes particularly important when examining the relationship between theology and power.

A theologian's primary responsibility is the pursuit of truth.

A bishop's primary responsibility is the preservation of communion.

Although these goals are not inherently contradictory, they can become so when truth appears disruptive to established structures or when institutional stability appears threatened by critical inquiry.

This tension becomes one of the defining characteristics of ecclesial life.

Critical Synthetic Realism interprets this tension as the result of competing institutional necessities rather than individual moral failures.

Institutions require continuity.

Truth requires correction.

Institutions seek stability.

The pursuit of truth often generates instability.

The resulting conflict is structural rather than merely personal.

To understand this dynamic more fully, it is necessary to examine the sociology of institutional advancement.

The Sociology of Ecclesial Advancement: Why Institutions Prefer Managers to Prophets

One of the most enduring insights of sociology is that institutions do not simply reward competence. They reward the kinds of competence most necessary for institutional survival.

This observation applies as much to churches as it does to governments, corporations, universities, and international organizations.

The issue was explored with particular clarity by Max Weber (1947), whose distinction between charismatic authority and bureaucratic authority remains foundational for understanding organizational life.

Charismatic authority derives legitimacy from extraordinary personal qualities, visionary leadership, intellectual originality, moral courage, or prophetic insight.

Bureaucratic authority derives legitimacy from office, procedure, hierarchy, and institutional continuity.

The prophet embodies charismatic authority.

The manager embodies bureaucratic authority.

Religious movements frequently originate through prophets but survive through managers.

The history of Christianity itself illustrates this pattern.

Jesus exercised charismatic authority.

The Apostles initially operated through charismatic authority.

The prophets of Israel exercised charismatic authority.

Yet Christianity's survival required organizational structures capable of preserving doctrine, regulating leadership, managing resources, and maintaining communal identity.

Over time, charismatic movements become institutionalized.

What Weber famously called the "routinization of charisma" transforms prophetic movements into bureaucratic organizations (Weber, 1947).

This transformation is neither accidental nor necessarily undesirable.

Without institutionalization, movements rarely survive.

Without administration, communities fragment.

Without continuity, traditions disappear.

The problem emerges when bureaucratic logic becomes so dominant that it suppresses the prophetic energies that originally gave rise to the institution.

This danger is particularly acute within religious communities because their founding narratives frequently celebrate prophets while their organizational structures frequently reward administrators.

The paradox is striking.

The Church reveres Jeremiah but often promotes the chief steward.

It celebrates Francis of Assisi but frequently advances ecclesiastical diplomats.

It honors reformers retrospectively while often resisting them contemporaneously.

This phenomenon is not evidence of hypocrisy alone.

Rather, it reflects deeper structural realities.

Organizations require predictability.

Prophets create uncertainty.

Organizations require stability.

Prophets introduce tension.

Organizations require consensus.

Prophets expose conflict.

Consequently, institutions naturally develop mechanisms that favor managerial personalities over prophetic personalities.

Symbolic Capital and Ecclesial Promotion

Pierre Bourdieu's theory of symbolic capital provides a second layer of explanation (Bourdieu, 1991).

According to Bourdieu, every social field develops implicit rules governing recognition, legitimacy, and advancement. Success within a field depends not merely upon objective achievement but upon possessing forms of capital recognized by the field itself.

Within ecclesial structures, symbolic capital often includes:

• Demonstrated loyalty to ecclesiastical authority.
• Administrative competence.
• Diplomatic skill.
• Theological reliability.
• Institutional trustworthiness.
• Capacity for consensus-building.
• Ability to avoid unnecessary controversy.

These qualities are not inherently problematic.

Indeed, many are indispensable for effective leadership.

The difficulty arises when these become the primary criteria for advancement.

At that point, qualities essential for institutional promotion may diverge from qualities essential for theological innovation.

Theologians often acquire intellectual capital.

Institutions often reward administrative capital.

Prophets frequently possess moral capital.

Organizations often reward organizational capital.

The result is a recurring disconnect between influence and advancement.

Hans Küng became one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the twentieth century, yet his institutional relationship with ecclesiastical authority deteriorated significantly (Küng, 2002).

Leonardo Boff transformed global discussions concerning liberation theology, poverty, and social justice, yet he encountered disciplinary action and eventual marginalization (Boff, 1985).

Bernard Häring helped reshape Catholic moral theology after Vatican II, yet his innovations generated suspicion and repeated scrutiny (Häring, 1978).

By contrast, Joseph Ratzinger combined extraordinary intellectual gifts with institutional reliability, making him both an influential theologian and a successful ecclesiastical leader (Ratzinger, 1987).

The comparison is instructive.

Küng and Ratzinger were arguably comparable intellectuals.

Yet their relationships to institutional authority differed dramatically.

One increasingly embodied critique.

The other increasingly embodied continuity.

The Church rewarded continuity with authority.

Critique received influence but not power.

This pattern appears repeatedly throughout Catholic history.

Power, Discourse, and Ecclesial Legitimacy

Michel Foucault's analysis of power introduces an additional dimension to the discussion (Foucault, 1980).

Power, according to Foucault, operates not merely through coercion but through the construction of legitimate discourse.

Institutions determine which questions may be asked.

They determine who may ask them.

They determine which answers are considered acceptable.

Power therefore shapes not only behavior but also knowledge itself.

Within ecclesial contexts, this insight helps explain why some theological perspectives become dominant while others remain marginal.

The issue is not always formal censorship.

More often, it involves the creation of implicit boundaries governing what can be said without consequence.

Those who operate within accepted frameworks receive opportunities, appointments, and influence.

Those who challenge foundational assumptions often encounter resistance.

Again, the process is frequently unconscious.

Institutions rarely perceive themselves as suppressing truth.

They usually understand themselves as protecting unity, preserving orthodoxy, or safeguarding tradition.

Yet the practical effect can be similar.

The range of acceptable discourse narrows.

Alternative perspectives become increasingly difficult to articulate.

Criticism becomes associated with disloyalty.

Conformity becomes associated with faithfulness.

At this point, institutions become vulnerable to what Critical Synthetic Realism describes as institutional epistemic fracture.

Institutional Epistemic Fracture

The central explanatory concept of Critical Synthetic Realism is Epistemic Fracture.

Epistemic Fracture refers to the tendency of individuals and communities to distort reality through fear, ideology, tribal loyalty, self-interest, and structures of power (Asongu, 2026a).

Importantly, CSR insists that no institution is exempt from this condition.

The Church is not exempt.

Universities are not exempt.

Governments are not exempt.

Theologians themselves are not exempt.

The significance of this insight lies in its rejection of simplistic narratives.

Critics are not automatically correct.

Authorities are not automatically wrong.

Both are susceptible to distortion.

Both require correction.

Nevertheless, institutions possess distinctive vulnerabilities.

Because institutions depend upon continuity for survival, they often develop incentives that privilege stability over truth.

What begins as a legitimate concern for unity can gradually become resistance to reform.

What begins as protection of doctrine can gradually become protection of established interests.

What begins as fidelity to tradition can gradually become attachment to inherited assumptions.

The institution may sincerely believe it is defending truth while unconsciously defending familiarity.

It may believe it is preserving unity while actually preserving comfort.

It may believe it is safeguarding orthodoxy while unintentionally resisting legitimate development.

This is institutional epistemic fracture.

The phenomenon does not require corruption.

It does not require bad intentions.

It requires only the ordinary human tendency to confuse what is familiar with what is true.

From a CSR perspective, the recurring marginalization of prophetic voices is often a symptom of this deeper condition.

The institution's difficulty is not that it rejects truth.

Its difficulty is that it sometimes struggles to recognize truth when truth arrives in disruptive forms.

This observation brings us directly to the global pattern evident in the experiences of Küng, Boff, Häring, Schillebeeckx, Curran, and numerous others.

The pattern suggests that the tension between prophecy and institutional advancement is not an isolated phenomenon but a recurring feature of modern Catholicism itself.

It is to this broader historical pattern that we now turn.

Additional References for Part II

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Pantheon Books.

Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Oxford University Press.