By Prof. Januarius Asongu

Abstract

Fear has received remarkably little sustained scholarly attention as a formative dimension of Catholic priestly education despite its potential influence on institutional culture, leadership, and ecclesial life. This article examines the psychological and sociological role of fear in the formation of priests within Cameroon's Bamenda Ecclesiastical Province through the interdisciplinary lens of Critical Synthetic Realism (CSR). Integrating organizational psychology, sociology of religion, ecclesiology, and qualitative autobiographical reflection, the study argues that fear often functions as a hidden curriculum that shapes patterns of obedience, self-censorship, leadership, and vocational identity beyond the official curriculum of theological and spiritual formation. Personal experiences are analyzed not as memoir but as qualitative data illustrating broader institutional dynamics, including anticipatory conformity, organizational silence, and the reproduction of authority across generations. The article introduces epistemic fracture as a conceptual framework for understanding how fear distorts institutional truth-seeking by influencing perception, interpretation, communication, and discernment. It concludes that authentic synodality requires not merely structural reform but the cultivation of ecclesial cultures characterized by psychological safety, reciprocal listening, and servant leadership, where obedience and intellectual honesty reinforce rather than undermine one another.

Keywords: priestly formation, fear, synodality, organizational culture, organizational silence, psychological safety, Cameroon, Critical Synthetic Realism, epistemic fracture

1. Introduction

Fear is among the most powerful forces shaping human behavior. It influences cognition, relationships, institutions, and ultimately the ways communities understand truth itself. Psychologists have long demonstrated that fear narrows cognitive flexibility, increases conformity, heightens vigilance toward authority, and encourages behavioral adaptation designed primarily for survival rather than creativity or authentic self-expression (Bandura, 1977; Janis, 1972; LeDoux, 1996). Organizational scholars have similarly shown that institutions governed through implicit or explicit fear frequently produce cultures of silence in which members withhold information, avoid constructive disagreement, and gradually internalize patterns of self-censorship (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Edmondson, 1999; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Yet despite an extensive literature on organizational behavior, relatively little scholarly attention has been devoted to fear as a formative force within Catholic priestly education.

The relative absence of this discussion is surprising. Seminaries occupy a unique position within the life of the Catholic Church. They are not merely educational institutions but communities charged with forming future spiritual leaders whose ministry will influence countless believers. Formation therefore extends beyond intellectual competence or pastoral skill. It encompasses habits of discernment, attitudes toward authority, moral courage, patterns of communication, and the capacity to distinguish faithful obedience from passive conformity. These qualities are acquired not only through formal instruction but also through what educational theorists describe as the hidden curriculum—the implicit values, assumptions, expectations, and behavioral norms transmitted through institutional culture rather than official teaching (Jackson, 1968).

This hidden curriculum often exerts greater influence than formal theological education because it teaches seminarians how institutions actually function. Officially, the Church teaches that authority exists for service, communion, and the building up of the Body of Christ. Seminarians, however, also learn through observation how authority is exercised in practice, how disagreement is received, what kinds of personalities are rewarded, and which forms of initiative are encouraged or discouraged. These lessons, although seldom articulated in formation manuals, become deeply embedded in vocational identity.

The present article examines this hidden curriculum through the particular context of priestly formation within Cameroon's Bamenda Ecclesiastical Province during the late twentieth century. While grounded in that historical setting, the article addresses questions extending far beyond Cameroon. It asks how organizational cultures of fear emerge, how they become internalized by members, how they reproduce themselves across successive generations of leadership, and how they may ultimately impede the realization of the Church's contemporary vision of synodality.

The concept of synodality has assumed increasing prominence within Catholic ecclesiology. The Second Vatican Council's recovery of the Church as the People of God (Lumen Gentium) and its renewed emphasis on collegiality provided an important theological foundation for later developments. Under Pope Francis, synodality has become a central paradigm for ecclesial renewal, emphasizing mutual listening, discernment, participation, and co-responsibility throughout the Church. Yet synodality is not merely a structural arrangement. It presupposes particular psychological and cultural conditions. Genuine dialogue cannot flourish where members fear speaking honestly. Reciprocal listening becomes difficult where disagreement is habitually interpreted as disloyalty. Institutional discernment cannot reach maturity where conformity consistently takes precedence over truth-seeking.

The central argument of this article is therefore that one of the most significant yet least examined obstacles to synodality is institutional fear. Fear should not be understood simply as an emotional response to individual acts of discipline. Rather, it constitutes an organizational phenomenon that gradually shapes cognition, communication, identity, and leadership. When fear becomes embedded within institutional culture, members begin anticipating sanctions before they occur. They regulate themselves without explicit instruction. Eventually they transmit these expectations to newcomers, thereby reproducing organizational culture independently of formal authority.

This article proposes that the psychology of fear and the sociology of organizational culture together help explain why synodal aspirations often encounter practical resistance even where theological commitment appears sincere. Institutional cultures are remarkably durable because they reproduce themselves through habits of interpretation rather than merely through written regulations. Leaders frequently inherit assumptions from those who formed them, while new members quickly learn the unwritten expectations governing acceptable behavior. Organizational continuity thus depends less upon official policy than upon shared understandings concerning authority, obedience, initiative, and risk.

To explore these dynamics, the article adopts the interdisciplinary framework of Critical Synthetic Realism (CSR). CSR understands reality as layered, relational, and partially accessible through multiple complementary disciplines. It rejects both naïve realism, which assumes transparent access to truth, and radical constructivism, which dissolves truth into competing narratives. Instead, CSR argues that human beings genuinely seek truth while simultaneously encountering distortions arising from psychological, social, institutional, and cultural conditions.

Central to this analysis is the concept of epistemic fracture, developed within CSR to describe the structural distortion of human knowing. Epistemic fracture refers to those conditions under which persons or institutions become progressively less capable of perceiving, communicating, or receiving truth because their interpretive processes have been shaped by competing interests, ideological commitments, social pressures, or fear. Importantly, epistemic fracture does not imply deliberate dishonesty. Rather, it recognizes that human perception is mediated by psychological and institutional realities that frequently operate beneath conscious awareness.

Fear constitutes one of the most powerful generators of epistemic fracture. Individuals experiencing fear often reinterpret actions according to anticipated consequences rather than intrinsic intentions. Organizations similarly develop interpretive frameworks in which behaviors become classified primarily according to perceived implications for institutional stability. Under such conditions, initiative may be interpreted as ambition, explanation as defensiveness, disagreement as disobedience, and prophetic witness as institutional threat. Truth gradually becomes subordinated to organizational self-preservation.

The article therefore argues that fear does not merely silence speech. It reshapes meaning itself. The most enduring consequences of fear are epistemic rather than behavioral. Institutions influenced by fear become progressively less capable of distinguishing between faithful obedience and passive conformity, between constructive criticism and rebellion, or between institutional stability and authentic ecclesial communion.

Methodologically, this article employs qualitative autobiographical reflection not as memoir but as interpretive data. Personal experiences are analyzed within broader psychological, sociological, theological, and philosophical frameworks. Such an approach reflects the growing recognition within qualitative research that lived experience, critically interpreted and theoretically situated, constitutes a legitimate source of knowledge concerning organizational life (Ellis et al., 2011). The purpose is neither to evaluate individual personalities nor to revisit historical grievances. Rather, it is to illuminate enduring organizational processes through concrete human experience.

Several autobiographical episodes form the empirical basis for the discussion that follows. These include early encounters with ecclesial authority before entering the major seminary, experiences within St. Thomas Aquinas Major Seminary (STAMS), observations concerning informal organizational culture, warnings from fellow seminarians regarding public intellectual engagement, missionary aspirations inspired by the witness of Venerable Baba Simon and the writings of Jean-Marc Ela, and subsequent reflections informed by decades of work in philosophy, psychology, organizational leadership, cybersecurity governance, and theology. Each episode illustrates a recurring organizational pattern: actions motivated by service or dialogue were frequently interpreted primarily through the institutional lens of authority and control.

These experiences do not constitute the argument itself. Rather, they provide qualitative illustrations through which broader theoretical questions may be explored. Throughout the article, they will be interpreted alongside contemporary research in organizational psychology, sociology of religion, ecclesiology, and leadership studies.

Ultimately, this article seeks to contribute to three scholarly conversations simultaneously. First, it contributes to the psychology of organizational fear by examining religious institutions as environments of identity formation. Second, it contributes to ecclesiology by exploring the relationship between institutional culture and synodality. Third, it extends Critical Synthetic Realism by demonstrating how epistemic fracture operates not merely at the level of individual cognition but also within organizational systems.

The broader question underlying the discussion is both theological and organizational. What kind of institutional culture best forms priests capable of proclaiming the Gospel with intellectual honesty, pastoral courage, and spiritual maturity? If synodality is to become more than an ecclesial aspiration, then understanding the psychology and sociology of fear within priestly formation becomes not simply an academic exercise but an essential task for the future life of the Church.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Fear as a Psychological Force in Human Development

Fear is among the most extensively studied emotions in psychology because of its profound influence on perception, learning, identity formation, and social behavior. While fear performs an indispensable adaptive function by alerting individuals to danger, chronic or institutionalized fear can produce psychological consequences that extend well beyond immediate survival. Rather than simply protecting individuals from harm, persistent fear reshapes cognition, narrows behavioral possibilities, influences moral reasoning, and ultimately alters how reality itself is interpreted (LeDoux, 1996; Lazarus, 1991).

Contemporary neuroscience has demonstrated that fear involves complex interactions among the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex. Acute fear activates neurological systems designed for rapid threat detection, often prioritizing survival over reflective judgment (LeDoux, 1996). Although highly adaptive in genuinely dangerous environments, prolonged activation of these mechanisms may reduce cognitive flexibility, discourage creativity, and increase reliance upon familiar authority structures. Individuals experiencing chronic institutional anxiety frequently become more concerned with avoiding punishment than pursuing excellence.

Albert Bandura's (1977, 1986) social cognitive theory further demonstrates that human beings acquire patterns of fear not only through direct experience but also through observation. Individuals learn what behaviors are considered dangerous by watching the consequences experienced by others. In organizational settings, therefore, explicit punishment is not always necessary. Witnessing sanctions imposed upon colleagues—or even believing that sanctions are likely—may sufficiently influence subsequent behavior. Fear thus becomes socially transmitted.

Similarly, Lazarus' (1991) cognitive theory of emotion emphasizes that emotional responses depend upon individual appraisal rather than objective circumstances alone. The same organizational event may produce entirely different psychological responses depending upon how members interpret institutional expectations. This insight becomes particularly significant within seminary formation, where many of the behaviors shaping institutional culture arise not from formal regulations but from shared interpretations concerning what authority values, rewards, or discourages.

More recently, Stephen Porges' (2011) Polyvagal Theory has further enriched understanding of fear by demonstrating how perceived safety profoundly influences human communication, relational openness, and learning. Individuals who experience psychological safety demonstrate greater willingness to engage in dialogue, creativity, and collaborative problem solving. Conversely, persistent experiences of threat encourage defensive behaviors, withdrawal, conformity, or hypervigilance. Although Porges developed his theory primarily within clinical neuroscience, its implications extend naturally into educational and organizational contexts.

These psychological perspectives suggest an important distinction often overlooked in discussions of ecclesial obedience. Obedience rooted in trust differs fundamentally from obedience rooted in fear. The former reflects secure attachment, confidence in legitimate authority, and freedom to cooperate. The latter frequently represents adaptive behavior designed primarily to avoid negative consequences. Outwardly, the behaviors may appear similar. Internally, however, they arise from profoundly different psychological processes.

This distinction is particularly relevant during early adulthood, the developmental period in which most seminarians begin priestly formation. Developmental psychologists have consistently observed that identity formation, moral reasoning, vocational commitment, and interpersonal autonomy continue developing well into early adulthood (Erikson, 1968; Kohlberg, 1981). Seminary formation therefore occurs precisely during a period when individuals remain especially sensitive to authority, belonging, evaluation, and institutional acceptance.

Fear introduced during these formative years may consequently influence not only immediate behavior but enduring vocational identity. Seminarians gradually learn what kinds of questions may safely be asked, what forms of initiative appear welcome, and which behaviors carry perceived institutional risks. Such learning frequently occurs below conscious awareness through repeated interaction with organizational culture rather than explicit instruction.

These observations resonate with the growing literature concerning psychological safety, a concept developed most extensively by Amy Edmondson (1999). Psychological safety refers to shared beliefs that individuals may speak honestly, acknowledge mistakes, ask difficult questions, and respectfully disagree without fear of humiliation or punishment. Research consistently demonstrates that psychologically safe organizations exhibit greater learning capacity, innovation, adaptability, and resilience (Edmondson, 2019).

Although psychological safety has been widely studied in healthcare, education, military organizations, and business leadership, remarkably little scholarship has explored its relevance to priestly formation. Yet seminaries arguably depend upon precisely those conditions. Genuine discernment presupposes honest communication. Spiritual direction requires vulnerability. Intellectual formation requires freedom to question, investigate, and critically evaluate theological arguments. Pastoral maturity requires the capacity to distinguish faithful obedience from passive conformity.

The absence of psychological safety does not necessarily produce open rebellion. More frequently, it produces silence.

2.2 Organizational Silence and the Sociology of Fear

If psychology explains how fear shapes individuals, organizational sociology explains how fear becomes institutionalized.

One of the most influential developments within organizational studies over the past three decades has been the concept of organizational silence. Morrison and Milliken (2000) define organizational silence as the collective phenomenon in which members intentionally withhold information, concerns, or opinions because they believe speaking openly carries unacceptable personal risk. Such silence does not imply agreement. Rather, it reflects calculated adaptation to organizational expectations.

Organizational silence emerges gradually. Employees—or members of any institution—observe which behaviors are rewarded, which individuals receive promotions, how leaders respond to disagreement, and what consequences accompany dissent. Over time, they develop implicit theories regarding organizational safety. These theories subsequently influence communication more powerfully than formal mission statements.

Detert and Edmondson (2011) describe this process as one of implicit voice theories—deeply held assumptions regarding whether speaking honestly is wise, safe, or beneficial. These assumptions often originate through organizational experience rather than explicit instruction. Members begin anticipating negative consequences before any actual sanctions occur. Eventually silence becomes habitual.

This phenomenon has obvious relevance for religious institutions.

Seminaries function not merely as educational organizations but as communities preparing individuals for lifelong vocational service. Consequently, organizational norms acquired during formation often remain influential throughout priestly ministry. If seminarians conclude that initiative, intellectual independence, or respectful disagreement carries significant institutional risk, these expectations may persist long after ordination.

Edgar Schein's (2017) work on organizational culture provides additional insight into this process. Schein distinguishes among artifacts, espoused values, and underlying assumptions. Organizations frequently proclaim values such as openness, collaboration, and participation while simultaneously operating according to unspoken assumptions discouraging critical dialogue. It is these underlying assumptions—the deepest layer of organizational culture—that ultimately determine institutional behavior.

Within religious institutions, such assumptions frequently become sacralized. Organizational expectations may gradually acquire theological legitimacy even when they originate primarily from historical practice rather than doctrinal necessity. Consequently, institutional culture becomes remarkably resistant to change because challenges appear directed not merely toward leadership but toward the institution's perceived identity itself.

Pierre Bourdieu's (1977, 1990) concepts of habitus and symbolic power further illuminate this dynamic. Habitus refers to durable dispositions acquired through prolonged participation within particular social environments. Individuals gradually embody institutional expectations until those expectations appear natural rather than socially constructed. Leadership styles, communication patterns, and understandings of authority become internalized as ordinary ways of being.

Applied to seminary formation, habitus suggests that future priests often acquire implicit understandings of ecclesial authority without consciously reflecting upon them. They learn not simply theological doctrines concerning obedience but practical assumptions concerning how authority operates within everyday institutional life.

Michel Foucault's (1977) analysis of disciplinary institutions offers a complementary perspective. Although Foucault's conclusions frequently differ from Catholic theological anthropology, his observations concerning surveillance, normalization, and self-regulation remain sociologically valuable. Modern institutions increasingly govern not through continuous coercion but through internalized discipline. Individuals begin monitoring themselves because they anticipate being observed. External control gradually becomes internal self-regulation.

Importantly, organizational sociology distinguishes between discipline and fear.

Healthy organizations require discipline. Standards, accountability, evaluation, and correction remain essential for professional and moral development. Fear becomes problematic only when anticipated sanctions consistently overshadow trust, dialogue, learning, and collaborative discernment. Under such conditions, institutions may achieve behavioral conformity while simultaneously diminishing intellectual vitality and organizational learning.

These observations have significant implications for seminary education.

Priestly formation necessarily involves evaluation of candidates' maturity, character, doctrine, and pastoral suitability. Yet organizational research suggests that institutions maximizing fear often receive less accurate information because members increasingly conceal uncertainty, suppress disagreement, and avoid difficult conversations. Leaders themselves consequently become vulnerable to distorted organizational knowledge because the information reaching them has already undergone extensive informal filtering.

This insight closely anticipates the concept of epistemic fracture developed later within Critical Synthetic Realism. Institutions governed primarily through fear do not merely regulate conduct. They alter the flow of knowledge itself.

2.3 The Hidden Curriculum in Educational Formation

Educational research has long recognized that students learn considerably more than official curricula intend.

Philip Jackson's (1968) seminal concept of the hidden curriculum refers to those implicit lessons transmitted through institutional life beyond formal teaching. Schools communicate expectations regarding authority, competition, conformity, cooperation, gender roles, and social hierarchy without explicitly including such topics in syllabi.

Subsequent scholars expanded Jackson's insight by demonstrating that hidden curricula profoundly influence identity formation, professional socialization, and moral development (Giroux & Penna, 1979; Snyder, 1971). Students frequently remember institutional culture more vividly than classroom instruction because culture shapes daily experience.

Seminaries represent especially significant environments of hidden curriculum because formation intentionally encompasses the whole person. Future priests live, study, worship, recreate, and work together within institutional communities. Consequently, every aspect of community life communicates lessons concerning authority, conflict resolution, communication, and leadership.

Official documents governing priestly formation strongly emphasize human formation alongside intellectual, spiritual, and pastoral development. The Church's Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (Congregation for the Clergy, 2016) repeatedly stresses mature freedom, affective integration, discernment, pastoral charity, and authentic human relationships. Similarly, the Second Vatican Council's Optatam Totius envisioned seminaries as communities cultivating responsible maturity rather than mechanical conformity.

These ecclesial documents reveal an important theological principle often overlooked within practical formation. The Church consistently distinguishes authentic obedience from servility. Christian obedience presupposes mature freedom because only free persons can genuinely offer themselves in service to God and the Church. Formation therefore seeks not passive dependence but responsible discipleship.

The hidden curriculum may either reinforce or undermine these official goals.

If seminarians repeatedly observe dialogue, mutual respect, humility among leaders, intellectual openness, and servant leadership, the hidden curriculum strengthens formal theological teaching. If, however, they primarily experience fear, silence, excessive centralization, or discouragement of respectful disagreement, institutional culture may gradually contradict official ecclesiology.

The literature concerning hidden curriculum therefore provides an essential bridge between psychology and ecclesiology. It explains how organizational culture becomes pedagogically powerful even when never formally acknowledged.

The following section develops this bridge further by examining authority, servant leadership, liberation theology, and synodality within contemporary Catholic thought.

2.4 Authority, Servant Leadership, and Priestly Formation

The Catholic understanding of authority differs fundamentally from many secular models of leadership. Authority (auctoritas) is not principally domination but service ordered toward the flourishing of persons and the building up of ecclesial communion. Christ himself redefined leadership through the paradox of service: "Whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant" (Mark 10:42–45, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition [NRSVue]). The washing of the disciples' feet (John 13:1–17) remains perhaps the Church's most enduring icon of authority exercised through humility rather than coercion.

The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed this Christological understanding. Lumen Gentium (1964) presents episcopal authority not as absolute sovereignty but as pastoral service exercised within communion. Bishops are described as shepherds who govern "by counsel, persuasion, and example" while recognizing the dignity and vocation of all the faithful (Vatican Council II, 1964). Similarly, Gaudium et Spes (1965) calls the Church to engage the modern world through dialogue rather than domination, emphasizing that truth emerges through respectful encounter and mutual listening. These documents collectively shifted Catholic ecclesiology away from excessively juridical models toward a more relational and communional vision of authority.

The Council's Decree on Priestly Training, Optatam Totius (1965), is equally significant for the present study. It repeatedly emphasizes the integral formation of seminarians as mature persons capable of exercising prudent judgment, responsible freedom, and pastoral charity. Formation is therefore intended to cultivate not merely external conformity but interior transformation. Priests are expected to become collaborators in the Church's mission rather than passive functionaries. This distinction is crucial because authentic obedience presupposes mature discernment rather than psychological dependency.

Subsequent ecclesial documents have reinforced this trajectory. Congregation for the Clergy, in the Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (2016), identifies human formation as "the basis of all priestly formation." Seminarians are expected to develop emotional maturity, relational competence, intellectual freedom, and the capacity for collaborative ministry. Such objectives implicitly require educational environments characterized by trust, dialogue, and psychological safety.

These ecclesial developments parallel important insights within leadership studies. Robert Greenleaf's (1977) theory of servant leadership argues that authentic leaders measure their success not by institutional control but by the growth and flourishing of those they lead. Servant leaders cultivate environments in which followers increasingly become capable of independent judgment, responsible initiative, and service to others. Greenleaf's framework, although developed within organizational studies, resonates profoundly with the Gospel's understanding of pastoral leadership.

Contemporary leadership research likewise demonstrates that organizations characterized by participatory leadership consistently outperform highly authoritarian organizations in innovation, learning, adaptability, and resilience (Northouse, 2022). Participatory leadership does not eliminate authority. Rather, it transforms authority from a mechanism of control into a catalyst for collaborative discernment.

Theological anthropology offers an additional reason why fear-based leadership remains problematic. Human beings created in the image of God possess inherent dignity, rationality, and moral agency. Formation that unintentionally suppresses these capacities risks undermining precisely those qualities necessary for effective priestly ministry. Priests are called to accompany complex human situations requiring discernment, courage, empathy, and prudent judgment. Such qualities cannot develop fully where fear consistently narrows intellectual and emotional freedom.

The challenge, therefore, is not whether seminaries should exercise authority—they necessarily must—but what kind of authority best reflects the Gospel and best prepares future priests for pastoral leadership. Organizational psychology suggests that fear produces compliance. Christian theology, however, seeks transformation. The difference between the two may determine whether priestly formation produces administrators of institutions or shepherds of God's people.

2.5 Liberation Theology, Prophetic Witness, and the African Church

The relationship between authority and prophecy has occupied a central place within modern Catholic theology, particularly following the emergence of liberation theology in Latin America and its subsequent reception within Africa.

Gustavo Gutiérrez (1973) argued that theology must emerge from lived historical experience rather than abstract doctrinal reflection alone. The Church's mission includes not only preserving orthodoxy but participating actively in the liberation of persons from every form of dehumanization. Theology therefore requires critical engagement with institutional structures whenever those structures impede human flourishing.

Leonardo Boff (1985) extended this analysis by examining authority, ecclesiology, and the participation of the People of God within the life of the Church. Although some of Boff's ecclesiological proposals generated controversy, his work raised enduring questions concerning participation, dialogue, and the relationship between institutional authority and prophetic renewal.

Within Africa, Jean-Marc Ela provided perhaps the most penetrating theological analysis of the relationship between the Gospel, culture, poverty, and ecclesial responsibility. Ela consistently challenged the Church to recover its missionary identity among marginalized communities while resisting forms of clericalism that insulated ecclesial institutions from the lived realities of ordinary believers (Ela, 1986, 1994). Rather than opposing authority itself, Ela sought an authority rooted in solidarity, listening, and prophetic service.

The influence of Ela upon the present study is both intellectual and personal. Long before entering the major seminary, I encountered his writings on the Church in northern Cameroon and became deeply inspired by his portrayal of the missionary ministry of Simon Mpeke, now recognized as Cameroon's first Venerable. Baba Simon's ministry among the peoples of northern Cameroon represented an ecclesiology of presence rather than privilege, accompaniment rather than domination. As a leader of the Young Christian Students (YCS) movement, I had the opportunity to visit Tokombéré before entering the seminary. That experience left a lasting impression upon my understanding of missionary vocation.

Consequently, when the opportunity later arose to volunteer for pastoral ministry in the Diocese of Yagoua, my motivation was not primarily personal preference but a desire to walk, however imperfectly, in the footsteps of Baba Simon. This autobiographical detail, discussed later in the article, illustrates the importance of interpreting institutional actions within their wider theological and vocational contexts.

The prophetic tradition represented by Ela and embodied by Baba Simon also provides an important interpretive lens for understanding contemporary ecclesial leadership. Prophetic witness frequently requires speaking uncomfortable truths while remaining deeply committed to the Church. Historically, such witness has often generated institutional tension precisely because prophecy challenges established assumptions while remaining rooted in ecclesial fidelity.

This tension has informed several of my previous studies. In Beyond Doctrine (Asongu, 2026), I argued that theology becomes distorted whenever institutional self-preservation eclipses the liberating truth of the Gospel. Similarly, my essays on Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe and on the sociology of prophets and apologists within the Catholic Church examined recurring patterns whereby institutions frequently reward managerial conformity more consistently than prophetic courage. These works did not reject ecclesial authority; rather, they questioned organizational conditions that may unintentionally discourage authentic prophetic witness.

The present article extends those earlier analyses by asking a prior question. Before examining the fate of prophets within ecclesial institutions, one must first ask how seminarians are formed to understand authority itself. If fear constitutes part of the hidden curriculum of formation, then later patterns of leadership become considerably more understandable.

2.6 Synodality and the Problem of Institutional Culture

The contemporary Catholic Church increasingly identifies synodality as a constitutive dimension of ecclesial life. Pope Francis has repeatedly described the synodal Church as one characterized by listening, participation, discernment, and co-responsibility. The final documents of the Synod on Synodality similarly emphasize that authentic ecclesial communion requires reciprocal listening among bishops, clergy, religious, and laity.

Much of the current literature on synodality has understandably focused upon theological foundations, ecclesial structures, canonical implications, and pastoral implementation (Faggioli, 2023; Rush, 2022). Comparatively less attention has been devoted to the psychological and organizational conditions necessary for synodality to flourish in practice.

This omission is significant.

Synodality presupposes more than procedural reform. Listening is not merely a technique but a cultural disposition. Institutions cannot simply instruct members to speak honestly if organizational experience has taught them that honesty carries unacceptable risk. Likewise, bishops cannot effectively listen if institutional cultures have already filtered out alternative perspectives before they reach episcopal leadership.

Organizational psychology therefore complements ecclesiology by identifying conditions under which authentic dialogue becomes possible. Psychological safety, mutual trust, transparent communication, and respect for responsible disagreement are not secular alternatives to Catholic obedience. Properly understood, they constitute practical expressions of the Church's own theological commitment to communion.

Recent scholarship on African Catholicism has likewise begun examining challenges associated with authority, participation, and ecclesial governance. George Nchumbonga Lekelefac's work on priestly experience within Cameroon raises important questions concerning communication between bishops, clergy, and the faithful. Although addressing different questions, his research points toward the broader organizational dynamics explored in the present study.

The central claim advanced here is therefore not that synodality has failed. Rather, it is that synodality cannot succeed merely through structural reform while inherited organizational cultures remain unchanged. Institutions reproduce themselves psychologically before they reproduce themselves administratively. Consequently, ecclesial renewal requires not only theological reflection but cultural transformation.

2.7 Literature Gap

The preceding review reveals several important gaps within existing scholarship.

First, while psychology has extensively examined fear, relatively little research has explored fear as a formative mechanism within Catholic priestly education.

Second, organizational studies have produced a substantial literature concerning organizational silence, psychological safety, and hidden curriculum, yet these concepts remain largely absent from discussions of seminary formation and ecclesiology.

Third, theological scholarship on synodality has generally emphasized doctrinal, canonical, and pastoral questions while paying comparatively limited attention to the psychological and sociological conditions necessary for authentic listening.

Finally, no existing study, to the best of this author's knowledge, has integrated organizational psychology, sociology of religion, liberation theology, and ecclesiology through the philosophical framework of Critical Synthetic Realism. The concept of epistemic fracture provides a new interpretive category for understanding how institutional fear influences not merely behavior but the production, communication, and reception of truth within ecclesial communities.

It is precisely this interdisciplinary gap that the present study seeks to address.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design

This study employs the Critical Synthetic Realist Methodology (CSRM), an interdisciplinary qualitative methodology derived from Critical Synthetic Realism. Unlike approaches that privilege either subjective experience or objective institutional analysis, CSRM proceeds from the assumption that reality is simultaneously objective, interpreted, relational, and historically situated. Human experience therefore neither exhausts reality nor becomes irrelevant to it. Instead, lived experience functions as an important epistemic window through which broader social, psychological, theological, and organizational structures may be critically examined.

CSRM rejects the false dichotomy between autobiography and scholarship. Properly interpreted, personal experience constitutes qualitative evidence capable of illuminating institutional processes that remain inaccessible through quantitative methods alone. The purpose of autobiographical reflection within CSRM is not self-disclosure for its own sake but critical interpretation of experience within wider theoretical frameworks.

Accordingly, the autobiographical episodes presented in this article are treated neither as isolated memories nor as definitive historical judgments concerning particular individuals. Rather, they function as critical incidents through which broader organizational dynamics may be examined. Each episode is interpreted alongside established scholarship in psychology, organizational sociology, ecclesiology, and leadership studies.

The following section introduces the conceptual framework of Critical Synthetic Realism and explains the central analytical category of epistemic fracture, which guides the interpretation of the empirical narratives that follow.

3.2 Critical Synthetic Realist Methodology (CSRM)

Critical Synthetic Realist Methodology (CSRM) emerges from the philosophical framework of Critical Synthetic Realism (CSR), which seeks to overcome the fragmentation that has increasingly characterized contemporary scholarship. Rather than isolating psychology from sociology, theology from philosophy, or lived experience from empirical inquiry, CSR proceeds from the conviction that reality is multilayered and therefore requires interdisciplinary synthesis. Human beings encounter reality simultaneously as biological, psychological, social, moral, spiritual, and institutional beings. Any methodology that isolates one dimension at the expense of others inevitably produces partial explanations.

CSR therefore rejects both positivistic reductionism and postmodern relativism. Positivism often assumes that reality can be adequately understood through objective observation detached from the observer, while radical postmodern approaches frequently dissolve reality into competing narratives in which truth becomes little more than social construction. CSR proposes a mediating alternative. Reality exists independently of human perception, yet human access to reality is always mediated by historical experience, culture, institutional structures, cognitive limitations, and moral dispositions (Asongu, 2026a). Consequently, scholarship requires both critical awareness of epistemic limitations and synthetic integration across disciplines.

CSRM operationalizes this philosophical commitment through four methodological principles.

First, ontological realism affirms that institutional realities exist independently of individual perception. Organizational cultures are not merely subjective experiences but objective social structures that shape human behavior. Although individuals may interpret institutional life differently, institutions themselves possess enduring patterns capable of systematic investigation.

Second, epistemic fallibilism recognizes that human understanding remains incomplete and corrigible. Neither autobiographical experience nor official institutional narratives provide exhaustive accounts of reality. Consequently, personal recollections presented in this article are interpreted critically rather than treated as unquestionable historical evidence. Likewise, institutional self-descriptions are examined alongside lived experience rather than accepted uncritically.

Third, interdisciplinary synthesis rejects disciplinary isolation. Organizational behavior cannot be fully understood through psychology alone, nor through theology alone. Seminary formation simultaneously involves cognitive development, emotional maturation, organizational socialization, theological education, spiritual formation, and ecclesial identity. Understanding fear within priestly formation therefore requires integrating insights from multiple academic traditions.

Finally, ethical orientation toward human flourishing distinguishes CSR from purely descriptive methodologies. Scholarship is not merely concerned with explaining institutional realities but evaluating whether those realities contribute to authentic human flourishing. Institutions are therefore examined not only according to their effectiveness but also according to their capacity to promote truth, justice, dignity, freedom, and communion.

These principles make CSRM particularly suitable for examining ecclesial institutions because the Church itself understands human beings as integrated persons rather than fragmented collections of psychological, social, or spiritual functions.

3.3 Epistemic Fracture as the Analytical Framework

The principal analytical concept employed throughout this article is epistemic fracture.

Epistemic fracture refers to the progressive distortion of human knowing arising from psychological, moral, institutional, ideological, or cultural conditions that interfere with the pursuit, communication, and reception of truth (Asongu, 2026b). Unlike traditional epistemology, which frequently focuses upon individual cognition, epistemic fracture recognizes that institutions themselves may become epistemically impaired.

Institutions rarely abandon truth explicitly. More commonly, they develop interpretive habits that unintentionally privilege institutional preservation over honest discernment. Over time, organizational incentives begin influencing not merely behavior but perception itself. Members gradually learn which truths appear welcome, which questions appear dangerous, and which conversations are best avoided altogether.

Fear represents one of the most significant generators of epistemic fracture.

Psychologically, fear narrows attention toward perceived threats while reducing openness to novelty and uncertainty (LeDoux, 1996). Sociologically, fear encourages conformity, silence, and organizational self-protection (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Theologically, fear may gradually replace trust as the operative principle governing relationships within ecclesial communities. Philosophically, fear distorts interpretation because actions increasingly become evaluated according to anticipated institutional consequences rather than intrinsic moral intentions.

The result is not necessarily deliberate falsehood.

Rather, institutions become progressively less capable of recognizing truth when it appears in unexpected forms. Honest explanation may be interpreted as insubordination. Initiative may be interpreted as ambition. Prophetic criticism may be interpreted as disloyalty. Conversely, silence may be mistaken for agreement, conformity for obedience, and institutional stability for ecclesial communion.

The distinction is subtle but profound.

Fear therefore operates primarily as an epistemic phenomenon rather than merely an emotional one. It changes not simply what people do but what they believe is possible, prudent, or permissible to know and communicate.

3.4 Autobiographical Narrative as Qualitative Evidence

The empirical material presented in this study consists primarily of autobiographical narratives drawn from the author's experiences before and during priestly formation in Cameroon.

Within conventional empirical research, autobiographical evidence is sometimes dismissed as excessively subjective. Such criticism overlooks an important distinction between autobiography as memoir and autobiography as qualitative data.

Contemporary qualitative research increasingly recognizes that lived experience provides privileged access to organizational processes that frequently remain invisible within official institutional documentation (Ellis et al., 2011). Personal narratives allow researchers to examine how individuals interpret institutional expectations, negotiate authority, construct vocational identity, and experience organizational culture from within.

The purpose of the autobiographical narratives presented here is therefore analytical rather than confessional.

The article does not seek to evaluate individual bishops, seminary rectors, or formators. Nor does it attempt to revisit historical disputes concerning particular disciplinary decisions. Such questions would require substantially broader historical evidence than is available here.

Instead, individual episodes are examined because they reveal recurring organizational patterns.

Several experiences described later in the article illustrate this analytical strategy.

An early encounter at Bishop Rogan College reveals how attempts at explanation may be interpreted as indiscipline.

Experiences within St. Thomas Aquinas Major Seminary demonstrate how unofficial organizational culture frequently communicates expectations more powerfully than formal regulations.

Warnings from senior seminarians concerning public writing illustrate the phenomenon organizational psychologists describe as anticipatory conformity and organizational silence.

The adoption of a pseudonym demonstrates the emergence of self-censorship without explicit institutional prohibition.

The author's desire to undertake missionary work in Yagoua, inspired by the witness of Baba Simon and the writings of Jean-Marc Ela, illustrates how identical actions may receive radically different institutional interpretations depending upon prevailing assumptions concerning authority.

Collectively, these episodes reveal an important methodological principle.

Individual experiences become sociologically significant not because they are unique but because they exemplify broader organizational dynamics repeatedly identified within psychology and organizational studies.

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1 The Hidden Curriculum Begins Before Seminary

One of the most important insights emerging from this study is that the hidden curriculum of priestly formation begins before entry into the major seminary itself.

My first significant encounter with ecclesial authority occurred while teaching at Bishop Rogan College in Buea as I prepared to enter St. Thomas Aquinas Major Seminary. During that period, I expressed dissatisfaction concerning a decision made by one of the priests responsible for the institution. My purpose was neither rebellion nor rejection of authority. Rather, I sought to explain what I believed had been misunderstood and to clarify my own role in the matter.

The issue eventually reached Bishop Pius Awa.

As I remember the encounter, he concluded that my response demonstrated that I was "indocile," or, more precisely, unteachable.

The experience remained with me for decades, not because correction itself surprised me. Every educational institution requires correction, and priestly formation necessarily demands humility. What struck me instead was the interpretive framework through which my explanation was understood. In my own mind, I was attempting clarification. Institutionally, the same behavior was interpreted as evidence of resistance to formation.

Psychologically, this episode illustrates the phenomenon Lazarus (1991) describes as cognitive appraisal. The event itself was relatively simple. What mattered were the meanings assigned to it by different participants. Organizationally, identical behavior acquired radically different significance depending upon one's institutional role.

Looking back through the lens of Critical Synthetic Realism, this episode became my earliest experience of epistemic fracture within organizational life. The issue was not whether authority possessed the right to correct me. Rather, it concerned how institutions interpret the intentions underlying human behavior.

This distinction would later become one of the defining themes throughout my subsequent experiences of priestly formation.

The incident also revealed an important feature of institutional learning.

Young adults entering formation rarely arrive with fully developed theories of organizational behavior. Instead, they gradually construct such theories from experience. Every interaction with authority contributes to implicit assumptions concerning what kinds of behavior are considered safe, risky, desirable, or dangerous.

Educational psychologists frequently describe this process as social learning (Bandura, 1977).

Without any formal lecture concerning obedience, I had already begun learning the hidden curriculum.

The lesson extended beyond the immediate incident itself.

It suggested that explanation might sometimes be interpreted as self-justification, dialogue as resistance, and clarification as unwillingness to submit.

Whether such interpretations accurately reflected institutional intentions is, for the purposes of this study, less important than the fact that they shaped subsequent expectations.

The hidden curriculum had begun.

The significance of this observation becomes clearer when considered alongside organizational psychology.

Members entering any institution seek to understand unwritten rules. Rarely are these rules communicated explicitly. Instead, newcomers infer them through observation, correction, stories, symbols, and interaction with authority.

By the time I entered STAMS, therefore, I had already acquired an initial understanding—however incomplete—of the organizational culture within which priestly formation would unfold.

4.2 Learning the Hidden Curriculum: Fear, Authority, and Seminary Culture

When I entered St. Thomas Aquinas Major Seminary (STAMS), I expected to study philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, spirituality, and pastoral ministry. Those expectations were fulfilled. Yet I soon discovered that another curriculum operated alongside the official one. It was never written in formation manuals, rarely discussed explicitly, and certainly never examined in classrooms. Nevertheless, it shaped seminarians as profoundly as any formal course. It was the hidden curriculum of institutional culture.

At the time, STAMS served three dioceses within Cameroon's Bamenda Ecclesiastical Province: Buea, Bamenda, and the newly established Diocese of Kumbo. The bishops who most visibly shaped the seminary's institutional climate were Bishop Pius Awa of Buea and Archbishop Paul Verdzekov of Bamenda. Bishop Cornelius Fontem Esua of Kumbo had only recently become bishop, and I do not recall that he had yet become associated with the kinds of institutional narratives that circulated among seminarians regarding the bishops of the two older dioceses.

Like most organizations, the seminary possessed its own oral tradition. Stories circulated among students. Nicknames emerged. Institutional legends were passed from one generation to another. These narratives constituted an important component of the hidden curriculum because they communicated expectations concerning authority long before individual seminarians encountered bishops personally.

Among seminarians, Bishop Pius Awa was commonly referred to as Pantocratos. Borrowed from the Greek Pantokratōr, the title traditionally refers to Christ as "Ruler of All" or "Almighty." Applied to a bishop, however, the nickname carried a different sociological meaning. It reflected the widespread perception that authority within the Diocese of Buea was highly centralized and that episcopal decisions were neither easily questioned nor ordinarily open to discussion.

Archbishop Paul Verdzekov was known by a very different nickname: Pa Danger.

Within Cameroonian Pidgin English, the expression literally means "Dangerous Father." It was not intended as a compliment. Rather, it reflected the widespread perception among seminarians that the Archbishop exercised authority with exceptional strictness and that disciplinary sanctions could be severe. Whether such perceptions were entirely justified is not the primary question addressed here. Organizational sociology teaches that shared perceptions often shape institutional behavior regardless of their objective accuracy (Schein, 2017). Seminarians responded not simply to official regulations but to what they collectively believed authority expected.

The stories surrounding Archbishop Verdzekov reinforced these perceptions. It was commonly understood that relatively minor infractions could result in dismissal from the seminary. Indeed, after I had left STAMS, I learned that an entire class of seminarians had reportedly been dismissed. I was not present and therefore make no judgment concerning the circumstances or appropriateness of that decision. What matters analytically is the effect such stories produced within institutional consciousness. Dismissal was no longer an abstract possibility. It became an ever-present reference point shaping how seminarians interpreted daily life.

Psychologists frequently distinguish between actual punishment and anticipated punishment. The latter often exerts greater influence because it continuously shapes decision-making before any disciplinary action becomes necessary (Bandura, 1977; LeDoux, 1996). Within STAMS, fear did not primarily function through constant disciplinary intervention. It operated through anticipation.

The hidden curriculum therefore taught an important lesson: survival required caution.

From the perspective of organizational sociology, this represents the emergence of anticipatory conformity. Individuals gradually adapt behavior not because they have personally experienced sanctions but because they anticipate how authority might respond. The possibility of punishment becomes sufficient to regulate conduct.

This insight also illuminates an important distinction between formal and informal authority.

Official seminary regulations were available to everyone.

The hidden curriculum, however, consisted of unwritten expectations transmitted through stories, observations, humor, and institutional memory.

The nicknames Pantocratos and Pa Danger therefore deserve sociological attention not because they accurately summarized episcopal personalities but because they revealed how institutional authority had become embedded within the collective imagination of seminarians.

Organizational cultures are sustained less by official documents than by shared narratives.

4.3 Self-Censorship and the Internalization of Fear

One experience during my earliest days at STAMS profoundly illustrated the extent to which fear had already become internalized among seminarians themselves.

The week before entering the seminary, I had published an opinion article in the Cameroon Tribune, Cameroon's national newspaper. Writing had long interested me. The article reflected neither ecclesiastical controversy nor institutional criticism. I had not even identified myself as a seminarian because classes had not yet begun.

Nevertheless, shortly after arriving at STAMS, several senior seminarians approached me privately.

They had somehow learned that I was the author of the article. Perhaps my relatively uncommon first name—Januarius—made identification easier than I had anticipated.

What followed surprised me far more than any official reaction.

The senior seminarians advised me to stop writing for newspapers altogether.

Their warning was unequivocal.

Publishing articles, they insisted, represented a dangerous path for anyone preparing for the priesthood. If I wished to complete seminary formation successfully, I should abandon public writing.

The advice was offered sincerely.

They believed they were protecting me.

I remember being genuinely astonished.

Until that moment, it had never occurred to me that thoughtful engagement in public intellectual life might be considered incompatible with priestly formation. Writing represented, in my own understanding, a legitimate contribution to society. I regarded intellectual engagement as compatible with Christian vocation rather than opposed to it.

The significance of this episode lies not in whether the warning accurately reflected institutional policy.

To my knowledge, no written regulation prohibited seminarians from publishing thoughtful articles in national newspapers.

The importance of the incident lies elsewhere.

The warning came not from bishops.

It came not from seminary formators.

It came from fellow seminarians.

Fear had become self-reproducing.

Organizational psychologists describe precisely this phenomenon.

Morrison and Milliken (2000) argue that organizational silence becomes self-sustaining once members internalize assumptions concerning acceptable speech. Explicit censorship gradually becomes unnecessary because individuals begin censoring themselves and encouraging others to do likewise.

The seminary no longer needed continually to enforce conformity.

The students had already begun transmitting the hidden curriculum among themselves.

The institution had become, in effect, self-policing.

Yet another dimension of this story deserves equal attention because it demonstrates that institutional cultures are rarely monolithic.

Our rector, Fr. Immanuel Bushu, had also read the Cameroon Tribune article.

His response differed completely.

Rather than criticizing my writing, he complimented the article and expressed genuine appreciation for it.

Throughout my years at STAMS, he appointed me to serve on the editorial team of the seminary magazine, Searchlight.

This contrasting response is analytically important.

It reveals that the organizational culture surrounding fear was neither universal nor uniformly imposed.

Individual leaders exercised authority differently.

Some perceived intellectual initiative primarily as a gift to be cultivated.

Others were perceived as emphasizing institutional caution.

This complexity strengthens rather than weakens the present analysis.

The article does not argue that every ecclesiastical leader promoted fear.

Rather, it argues that institutional cultures emerge from the interaction of formal authority, informal expectations, shared narratives, and collective interpretation.

Even where individual leaders encouraged openness, broader institutional assumptions could continue shaping behavior.

The reactions of Fr. Bushu and the senior seminarians therefore illustrate two competing organizational cultures existing simultaneously within the same institution.

One encouraged intellectual development.

The other encouraged caution.

The existence of both cultures also explains my own response.

I continued writing.

I believed that public intellectual engagement formed part of my Christian vocation.

Nevertheless, I adopted a pseudonym unknown to seminary authorities.

Looking back, that decision now appears psychologically revealing.

Fear had not silenced me.

But it had changed my behavior.

Rather than expressing my ideas openly under my own name, I learned to conceal my identity.

This is precisely how institutional fear frequently operates.

It rarely eliminates thought.

Instead, it relocates thought into safer spaces.

People continue thinking.

They continue writing.

They continue questioning.

But increasingly they do so anonymously, privately, or only within carefully selected circles of trust.

The cost is borne not merely by individuals but by institutions themselves.

Organizations deprived of open intellectual engagement lose opportunities for self-correction.

Ideas continue existing.

They simply no longer circulate where institutional learning most requires them.

From the perspective of Critical Synthetic Realism, this represents a particularly significant manifestation of epistemic fracture.

Fear alters the ecology of knowledge.

It influences not only what individuals know but where they are willing to communicate that knowledge.

Truth does not disappear.

It becomes hidden.

Ironically, the institution most committed to proclaiming truth may gradually receive less of it from its own members because the conditions necessary for truthful communication have become increasingly fragile.

The phenomenon is therefore considerably deeper than censorship.

It concerns the social conditions under which truth itself becomes speakable.

4.4 Missionary Zeal, Institutional Interpretation, and the Psychology of Fear

One of the recurring themes emerging from the preceding discussion is that institutional fear rarely announces itself explicitly. Rather, it reveals itself through the interpretation of human motives. The same action may be understood as generosity, ambition, obedience, or insubordination depending less upon the action itself than upon the institutional lens through which it is viewed.

A defining experience illustrating this phenomenon occurred during my years at STAMS when our rector, Fr. Immanuel Bushu, was appointed Bishop of Yagoua. Shortly before his departure, he invited seminarians to volunteer for pastoral ministry in his new diocese.

Among my fourteen classmates, I was the only one who volunteered.

At first glance, this may appear to have been a simple decision concerning pastoral placement. In reality, however, it reflected convictions that had been developing within me for several years.

Long before entering the major seminary, I had become fascinated by the missionary witness of Baba Simon (Simon Mpeke) through the writings of Jean-Marc Ela. Ela portrayed Baba Simon not merely as an extraordinary missionary but as an embodiment of a Church willing to abandon privilege in order to accompany those living on society's margins (Ela, 1986, 1994). His ministry among the peoples of northern Cameroon represented a radical commitment to presence, solidarity, and human dignity.

As a leader in the Young Christian Students (YCS) movement, I had earlier visited Tokombéré, where Baba Simon's influence remained deeply visible. That visit profoundly shaped my imagination of priesthood. It convinced me that authentic ministry often flourishes furthest from prestige, where the Church identifies itself with those who have been forgotten.

Consequently, when Bishop Bushu invited volunteers for Yagoua, my decision arose naturally.

I did not regard the invitation as an opportunity to choose my preferred assignment.

Rather, I saw it as an opportunity to embrace one of the Church's most demanding missionary fields.

In my own understanding, volunteering represented availability rather than preference.

The subsequent response surprised me.

When news reached Bishop Pius Awa, he summoned me and gave me a stern warning. As I remember the conversation, his concern was not whether I was prepared for missionary work. Rather, he questioned the very fact that I had volunteered for a particular assignment. His reasoning, as I understood it, was straightforward. If I possessed sufficient confidence as a seminarian to request a particular placement, what might prevent me from attempting to direct my own assignments after ordination?

The incident has remained with me because it represented two entirely different interpretations of the same action.

From my perspective, volunteering reflected missionary generosity.

From the institutional perspective I encountered, volunteering appeared to signify excessive independence.

Neither interpretation necessarily arose from bad faith.

Both reflected different assumptions concerning authority.

Looking back after many years of leadership experience in academia, government, and organizational governance, I now understand more clearly that institutions often evaluate actions according to what they symbolize for organizational order rather than solely according to the intentions motivating them.

This insight resonates strongly with organizational psychology.

Karl Weick (1995) argues that organizations continuously engage in sensemaking—the process through which members assign meaning to ambiguous events. Institutional responses therefore depend not simply upon objective behavior but upon shared interpretive frameworks.

The Yagoua episode illustrates precisely such a process.

The objective action remained constant.

Its meaning changed.

From the perspective of Critical Synthetic Realism, this represents another manifestation of epistemic fracture.

The distortion occurred not because anyone deliberately rejected truth.

Rather, institutional assumptions concerning authority influenced how intentions themselves were interpreted.

The deeper question therefore becomes theological.

How should institutions distinguish between initiative and ambition?

Between availability and independence?

Between vocation and self-assertion?

These questions remain relevant far beyond my own experience.

They concern the very nature of Christian leadership.

The Gospels repeatedly portray Christ welcoming voluntary generosity.

When Isaiah hears God's call, he freely responds, "Here am I; send me!" (Isaiah 6:8, NRSVue).

Similarly, missionary discipleship throughout Christian history has often depended upon individuals voluntarily embracing difficult missions rather than awaiting personal advantage.

The tension therefore lies not between obedience and initiative but between different understandings of obedience itself.

Healthy institutions recognize that mature obedience frequently expresses itself through generous initiative.

Fearful institutions may interpret the same initiative as potential loss of control.

The distinction has profound implications for priestly formation.

4.5 Learning Silence: Conversations with a Future Archbishop

Another experience from seminary years illustrates how organizational cultures are transmitted not only by bishops but also by those preparing eventually to become bishops themselves.

Among the senior seminarians during my years at STAMS was the future Archbishop Andrew Nkea Fuanya. Although he was ahead of me in formation, we had several memorable conversations concerning the Church, theology, and ecclesial life.

I have often reflected upon one conversation in particular.

I was expressing concerns regarding various aspects of ecclesial life and speaking with the idealism characteristic of many young seminarians. He listened attentively.

His response surprised me.

He told me that he agreed with virtually everything I had said.

Yet he immediately added that he would never express those opinions publicly.

He then offered advice that has remained with me throughout my life.

If I wished to succeed as a priest, he suggested, I needed to learn to keep many of my thoughts private.

Being publicly critical, he believed, would not lead to a successful ecclesiastical vocation.

The conversation was remarkable for another reason.

Far from discouraging intellectual inquiry, he introduced me to authors who had themselves become associated with critical theological reflection.

It was through him that I first encountered many of the writings of Gustavo Gutiérrez and Leonardo Boff.

He also generously lent me his personal copies of David Yallop's In God's Name and John Cornwell's A Thief in the Night.

The paradox fascinated me.

Privately, critical theological engagement was welcomed.

Publicly, such engagement required extraordinary caution.

This distinction profoundly shaped my later understanding of institutional culture.

It demonstrated that fear often operates less by suppressing ideas than by regulating where those ideas may safely be expressed.

Critical reflection remained possible.

Its public expression became problematic.

Years later, reflecting upon that conversation, I no longer interpret Archbishop Nkea's advice primarily as personal counsel.

Rather, I understand it as an expression of organizational adaptation.

He was explaining the institution as he understood it.

His advice reflected not necessarily what the Church ought to be but what he believed ecclesiastical life actually required.

Indeed, his subsequent rise through the hierarchy appears entirely consistent with organizational sociology.

Organizations frequently promote individuals who have successfully learned to navigate existing institutional cultures.

This observation is not intended as criticism.

It represents a well-established sociological phenomenon.

Leaders often embody the cultures within which they themselves were formed.

Consequently, institutions frequently reproduce continuity across generations not because formal policies remain unchanged but because formative assumptions concerning authority, communication, and organizational survival continue being transmitted.

This realization has profoundly influenced my later reflections on ecclesial leadership.

The issue extends beyond particular bishops.

The more fundamental question concerns whether organizational cultures themselves undergo sufficient transformation to permit genuinely new ways of exercising authority.

If formation remains substantially unchanged, one should not be surprised when subsequent leadership displays significant continuity with previous generations.

The sociology of organizations predicts precisely such outcomes.

Institutional culture tends to reproduce itself.

Theologically, however, this raises an important ecclesiological question.

Can a Church genuinely become synodal if those responsible for leading synodality were themselves formed within institutional cultures where caution, silence, and self-censorship constituted important conditions for survival?

The question is not rhetorical.

It strikes at the heart of contemporary ecclesiology.

Synodality requires listening.

Listening requires trust.

Trust requires freedom.

Freedom cannot flourish where fear consistently shapes communication.

Consequently, synodality cannot be reduced to structural reform alone.

It also requires cultural conversion.

This observation does not imply that synodality is impossible.

Rather, it suggests that its greatest obstacles may be psychological and organizational before they become theological.

Institutions rarely resist reform simply because they reject new ideas.

More often, they struggle because inherited patterns of communication continue shaping how new ideas are interpreted.

Fear therefore becomes intergenerational.

Unless consciously addressed, it passes quietly from teachers to students, from bishops to priests, and eventually from priests to the faithful entrusted to their pastoral care.

The challenge confronting the contemporary Church is therefore not merely to teach synodality.

It is to cultivate institutional conditions in which synodality becomes psychologically possible.

4.6 The Reproduction of Fear Across Generations

Perhaps the most sobering conclusion emerging from this study is that institutional cultures rarely disappear simply because individual leaders retire or die. Organizations possess memories. They transmit values, expectations, and behavioral norms from one generation to another through processes of formation, mentorship, and leadership succession. Consequently, cultures frequently survive the individuals who originally embodied them.

This observation appears particularly relevant within the Bamenda Ecclesiastical Province.

The generation of bishops under whom I was formed has now largely passed from active leadership. Archbishop Paul Verdzekov and Bishop Pius Awa have both died. Bishop Cornelius Fontem Esua has retired after many years of distinguished service. One might reasonably expect that a new generation of bishops would naturally produce a substantially different institutional culture.

Organizational sociology, however, suggests otherwise.

Institutions tend to reproduce themselves through those individuals who have successfully learned to function within existing organizational expectations (Bourdieu, 1990; Schein, 2017). Leadership succession therefore often preserves institutional continuity more effectively than organizational transformation. New leaders frequently inherit not only offices but also assumptions concerning authority, communication, and institutional survival.

The memories discussed earlier concerning Archbishop Andrew Nkea illustrate this broader sociological principle. During our seminary years, he privately encouraged serious theological reflection while simultaneously advising caution regarding public criticism. His counsel reflected what he understood to be the practical realities of ecclesiastical life. Whether consciously or unconsciously, such advice communicates an important lesson to younger clergy: thoughtful disagreement may be intellectually legitimate while remaining institutionally hazardous.

The issue extends beyond any individual leader.

Indeed, one of the most important insights emerging from this study is that institutional fear often survives independently of those who originally embodied it. Members internalize organizational expectations until they eventually become formators, pastors, bishops, and mentors themselves. Without deliberate reflection, they frequently reproduce the same patterns under which they themselves were formed.

Educational theorists have long recognized this phenomenon.

The hidden curriculum eventually becomes the explicit curriculum of the next generation.

Seminarians who learn caution may later teach caution.

Priests formed within organizational silence may unintentionally normalize silence in parish life.

Bishops shaped by cultures emphasizing institutional control may understandably continue exercising authority through familiar patterns that once ensured their own survival within the institution.

The reproduction of organizational culture is therefore seldom malicious.

It is usually unconscious.

This insight helps explain why institutional reform often proves considerably more difficult than structural reform.

Changing constitutions, pastoral plans, or formation manuals is comparatively straightforward.

Transforming deeply embedded organizational assumptions requires generational conversion.

4.7 Synodality at Risk: Beyond Structural Reform

These observations inevitably raise questions concerning the future of synodality within the Church.

Pope Francis has consistently described synodality as "the path which God expects of the Church in the third millennium" (Francis, 2015). The Final Document of the Synod on Synodality likewise emphasizes listening, participation, discernment, transparency, accountability, and co-responsibility as constitutive dimensions of ecclesial life rather than optional pastoral strategies.

The challenge, however, lies in translating theological vision into institutional practice.

Listening cannot be legislated.

Trust cannot be decreed.

Dialogue cannot flourish merely because official documents encourage it.

Each depends upon organizational culture.

If members of an institution have learned over many years that honesty carries personal risk, formal invitations to speak openly may produce limited results. Organizational psychology repeatedly demonstrates that historical experience exerts greater influence upon communication than official policy (Edmondson, 1999; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

This observation has particular relevance for the Church.

Synodality presupposes reciprocal listening.

Yet reciprocal listening requires more than procedural opportunity.

It requires confidence that one's contributions will be received respectfully even when they challenge prevailing assumptions.

Without such confidence, consultation risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.

Throughout my own scholarly work, I have expressed concern that synodality may remain largely aspirational unless ecclesial institutions deliberately address inherited cultures of fear. Similar concerns emerge within recent Cameroonian scholarship. George Nchumbonga Lekelefac's research points toward persistent tensions in communication between bishops, priests, and the wider ecclesial community. Although approaching the issue from different perspectives, such studies collectively suggest that organizational culture deserves considerably greater theological attention than it has thus far received.

The concern extends beyond episcopal leadership.

Several priests within the Bamenda Ecclesiastical Province have privately expressed frustration that bishops often appear reluctant to listen attentively to their presbyterates. Equally, many lay Catholics have voiced similar concerns regarding communication within parish life. Whether such perceptions are universally accurate is ultimately less important than the fact that they influence organizational relationships.

The pattern is revealing.

When priests experience insufficient listening from bishops, and parishioners experience insufficient listening from priests, one begins observing not isolated communication failures but the reproduction of institutional culture across successive levels of ecclesial life.

The hidden curriculum has become pastoral practice.

This observation should not be interpreted as pessimism regarding synodality.

Rather, it highlights the depth of transformation required.

Synodality is not primarily threatened by theological disagreement.

It is threatened by organizational cultures that unintentionally discourage the free exchange of truth necessary for genuine communal discernment.

4.8 From Epistemic Fracture to Epistemic Healing

Critical Synthetic Realism offers a constructive framework for addressing these challenges.

Throughout this article, fear has been interpreted as a significant source of epistemic fracture. Fear narrows perception, encourages anticipatory conformity, promotes organizational silence, and gradually alters the meanings institutions assign to human actions. Over time, organizations become less capable of distinguishing between loyalty and silence, obedience and dependency, initiative and ambition, or prophecy and rebellion.

The appropriate response, however, is not the abandonment of authority.

Nor is it unrestricted individualism.

Both extremes misunderstand the nature of ecclesial communion.

Critical Synthetic Realism instead proposes what may be described as epistemic healing.

Epistemic healing involves restoring institutional conditions under which truth may once again circulate freely without fear.

Several principles follow.

First, authority should increasingly be evaluated according to its capacity to cultivate truthful communication rather than merely institutional compliance.

Second, seminary formation should distinguish carefully between mature obedience and psychological dependency. Genuine obedience arises from freedom, trust, and love rather than anxiety.

Third, institutions should intentionally cultivate psychological safety—not in the sense of eliminating accountability or discipline—but by ensuring that respectful disagreement, honest explanation, and responsible initiative are not automatically interpreted as threats to authority.

Fourth, discernment should become reciprocal.

Just as seminarians must learn to listen to bishops, bishops must remain genuinely open to learning from seminarians, priests, religious, theologians, and the lay faithful.

Finally, prophetic witness should be recognized as an indispensable dimension of ecclesial health rather than an unfortunate institutional inconvenience.

The Church has historically renewed itself through saints, missionaries, reformers, and prophets who loved the Church deeply enough to speak uncomfortable truths. Figures such as Catherine of Siena, John Henry Newman, Óscar Romero, Charles de Foucauld, and, within the Cameroonian context, Baba Simon demonstrate that fidelity and prophetic courage are not opposing virtues. They belong together.

The purpose of priestly formation is therefore not merely to produce compliant clergy.

It is to form mature disciples capable of proclaiming the Gospel courageously while remaining deeply rooted within ecclesial communion.

Such formation requires authority.

But it also requires trust.

5. Conclusion

This article has argued that fear constitutes one of the least examined yet potentially most influential dimensions of priestly formation.

Drawing upon psychology, organizational sociology, ecclesiology, liberation theology, and the interdisciplinary framework of Critical Synthetic Realism, it has suggested that fear often functions as part of the hidden curriculum of seminary education. Beyond official formation programs, seminarians gradually learn unwritten assumptions concerning authority, communication, institutional survival, and acceptable public behavior. These assumptions frequently become more influential than formal theological instruction because they shape vocational identity itself.

The autobiographical narratives presented throughout this study were not intended as personal grievances or historical judgments concerning individual bishops and formators. Rather, they have been interpreted as qualitative illustrations of broader organizational dynamics repeatedly identified within contemporary psychology and organizational theory. The experiences described—being cautioned against public writing, adopting a pseudonym, volunteering for missionary service, and observing contrasting models of leadership—demonstrate how institutional culture shapes the interpretation of motives long before explicit disciplinary action becomes necessary.

The concept of epistemic fracture has provided the principal theoretical contribution of this study. Fear distorts institutions not simply by suppressing speech but by altering the conditions under which truth is perceived, communicated, and received. Organizations gradually become less capable of distinguishing constructive criticism from disloyalty, prophetic initiative from institutional ambition, or mature obedience from passive conformity. Such distortions diminish the Church's capacity for authentic discernment.

The implications extend directly to synodality.

Synodality cannot be reduced to ecclesiastical procedure.

Nor can it be achieved solely through revised structures or pastoral programs.

Its success depends fundamentally upon organizational culture.

Communities characterized by fear cannot sustain genuine listening.

Communities characterized by psychological safety, servant leadership, and reciprocal trust are considerably better positioned to embody the ecclesiology envisioned by the Second Vatican Council and developed by Pope Francis.

The argument advanced here ultimately concerns hope rather than criticism.

Fear may become institutionalized.

But institutional cultures can also be transformed.

Such transformation begins when authority no longer regards truth as a threat but as its deepest ally.

Only then will priestly formation produce leaders whose obedience is rooted not in fear but in freedom, whose authority is exercised not through domination but through service, and whose fidelity to the Church strengthens rather than suppresses the courageous search for truth.

References

Asongu, J. (2026a). Beyond doctrine: A critical-liberative theology of faith and emancipation. Wipf & Stock.

Asongu, J. (2026b). The splendor of truth: A critical philosophy of knowledge and global agency. Wipf & Stock.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Boff, L. (1985). Church: Charism and power: Liberation theology and the institutional church (J. W. Diercksmeier, Trans.). Crossroad. (Original work published 1981)

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford University Press.

Congregation for the Clergy. (2016). The gift of the priestly vocation (Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis). Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Ela, J.-M. (1986). Ma foi d'Africain. Karthala.

Ela, J.-M. (1994). African cry. Orbis Books.

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1).

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.

Faggioli, M. (2023). The Cambridge companion to Vatican II (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books.

Francis. (2015, October 17). Commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the institution of the Synod of Bishops. Vatican. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/october/documents/papa-francesco_20151017_50-anniversario-sinodo.html

Giroux, H. A., & Penna, A. N. (1979). Social education in the classroom: The dynamics of the hidden curriculum. Theory & Research in Social Education, 7(1), 21–42.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

Gutiérrez, G. (1973). A theology of liberation: History, politics, and salvation (S. C. Inda & J. Eagleson, Trans.). Orbis Books.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1. The philosophy of moral development. Harper & Row.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.

LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon & Schuster.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage.

Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton.

Rush, O. (2022). Synodality: A new way of proceeding in the church. Paulist Press.

Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.

Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. MIT Press.

Vatican Council II. (1964). Lumen gentium (Dogmatic constitution on the Church).

Vatican Council II. (1965a). Gaudium et spes (Pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world).

Vatican Council II. (1965b). Optatam totius (Decree on priestly training).

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.