CAFOD and the Catholic Church in the mission

By Nik Bredholt, prepared based on discussions with Matthew Wingate and
Lesley-Ann Knight

Changes in the wider Catholic environment of the dioceses that we support might change
the role of CAFOD. To what extend can an agency like CAFOD be seen to sustain the
Church?

Since the 1970s, there has been a development within the Catholic Church in the missionary
areas of the Global South to become more indigenous and leave the leadership to local
clergy rather than having the white missionaries as Bishops. This has led to a situation
where nearly all newly ordained Bishops are locals. At the same time and parallel to this, the
Catholic Church has created more dioceses in an attempt to create manageable areas that
could be overseen by one Bishop.

When missionaries’ leave, they have often left behind huge structures with schools, health
clinics, and social institutions that are managed by the Church, and that require funds.
Where the missionaries usually had a funding source in their homeland or within the order
they belonged to, frequently the local Bishops don’t have the same links. The situation in
many dioceses in Kenya is that they used to have close relations to Italian, Dutch or Spanish
dioceses and supporter groups, and although many of these might have kept some
connection, the relationship changes when the Bishop changes from a European origin to
local origin. This development inevitably leads to financial challenges for the dioceses. With
more and smaller dioceses in which each Bishop is trying to establish and maintain full
diocesan structures, the funding requirements are put under further strain.

Another element that changes when missionaries leave is the expertise in sectors other than
theology that these people brought into the communities where they lived. It must be
recognised that long before the concept of a development worker or an aid-worker became
common, religious sisters and male missionaries performed tasks with similar ends, and
often to a high standard. The “old time” missionaries were often the best partners for
external groups like CAFOD that wanted to support activities in the diocese, and the
missionaries themselves were cheap project staff, who could speak the local language and
stay for extended periods in environments that we would describe as tough.

All these developments are internal Church question and not CAFOD’s basic
business. However, it is a cause for reflection, as we are also stakeholders and partners of
these dioceses, and our involvement cannot be seen in isolation from the wider Church
perspective. We bring in resources to the development and humanitarian projects and
although the funds come in through the development office, it is still an integrated part of the
diocese and the Bishop is expected to also oversee these activities. In many ways, we
provide the funds that used to come from the European constituencies that the Bishops or
Missionaries belonged to. Whether or not we pay all the costs that others did before, it
remains that with less funding coming overall from other sources, CAFOD and other Catholic
agencies become important partners for the dioceses and indeed more essential for the very
sustainability of the local Church.

As to the actual work that we do, we might end up doing the job the missionaries did outside
their direct pastoral functions, and we will do it at a much higher salary and not stay as long.
Where the missionaries had a holistic approach to evangelisation that often encompassed
bringing Christianity and practical support to the communities they worked in at the same
time, CAFOD pretends to have a clear distinction between the two, which is based in part on
the humanitarian principles that we strive to uphold e.g. the Red Cross and NGO Code of
Conduct.

It is a question however, how clear that distinction is, and whether we tend to overlook the
importance we have in a diocese, when we focus narrowly on the work that we want them to
do.

CAFOD is a signatory to the NGO Code of Conduct (CoC), which spells out that aid shall
be given according to need alone not any other criteria e.g. religious affiliation, and that no
conditionality can be put on the receiver of aid. However, the CoC does not restrict CAFOD
from sustaining the Church if that is what we want, but it is another activity or a side effect of
the humanitarian assistance we give.

On the CoC and the Church, we also need to be aware that with a local Church with an
indigenous leadership, the Church will inevitably have local agendas. In Africa this means
some involvement in local politics and that tribal issues play a role. This cannot but cause
some frustration, as we would like to see the partner as totally impartial. However, such links
to local circumstances comes with whichever local organisation we would approach if we
truly want to be working with locally rooted structures.

CAFOD needs to be aware of the importance we might play in the life of a diocese and
the side effects this might have. We have chosen to work in a particular environment, but we
should do it with open eyes.

The following short anecdotal conversation reveals the dilemma. Father Tobolino is now
retired and above 80. He lived many years among the Gabra community in Northern Kenya
where he learned about their language and culture, and wrote several books about this tribe
and their way to Christianity. His books are remarkable for the in-depth understanding of the
culture and he has produced what is probably the best dictionary for the Gabra language.

The assistant development coordinator in Isiolo who comes from North Horr where Father
Tabolino lived, overhead a conversation between a local youth and a new African priest who
has come to replace Father Tabolino: “Why do you only bring us the bible? Father Tabolino
always came with other books also”.

Today, CAFOD brings in some capacity to North Horr although we cannot in any way
replace what Father Tabolino did. We also make sure that the Diocese of Marsabit has
resources for the work that it does among the poor in these dry areas of Kenya. Are we
knowingly or not, replacing such missionaries?