The Editor Zambia
Bishop Peter K. Nsama’s open pastoral letter raises an important question about the relationship between faith, politics, and public morality.
However, in attempting to defend the Catholic Church and the Office of the Archbishop of Lusaka, the letter risks creating a dangerous impression that Catholics in public life must surrender their independent judgment whenever a church leader comes under criticism. 
That cannot be the meaning of Christian citizenship.
Catholics who serve in government, parliament, business, or the professions do not cease to be citizens when they enter the public service.
Nor do they surrender their constitutional rights, including freedom of conscience and expression. A Catholic politician can respect the Church deeply while disagreeing with an individual bishop, just as a Catholic can disagree with a priest without rejecting Christianity.
The argument that criticism of an Archbishop is automatically an attack on the Catholic Church is therefore fundamentally flawed.
An Archbishop is both a religious leader and a human being. The office deserves respect, but occupying an office does not make its holder infallible in every political, social, or administrative judgment.
Indeed, the Catholic tradition itself has a long history of debate, correction, and examination of conscience. Christianity was never intended to produce unthinking followers who applaud everything said by a religious leader. The Gospel repeatedly calls believers to discernment, truth, and accountability.
The letter also invokes the biblical story of Esau selling his birthright to suggest that Catholics who disagree with church leaders are trading their faith for political favours.
That is an unnecessarily harsh and divisive comparison. A person may disagree with an Archbishop precisely because his or her conscience demands it. Disagreement is not betrayal, and political service is not automatically evidence of moral compromise.
It is equally misleading to suggest that former seminarians or priests who participate in public debate are somehow prostituting their conscience merely because their views differ from those of a bishop. Such language demeans people and substitutes personal attacks for serious argument.
There is no question that the Catholic Church has made an enormous contribution to Zambia. Its schools, hospitals, charitable institutions, and social programmes have touched generations of Zambians.
Many national leaders were educated in Catholic institutions. That contribution deserves recognition and gratitude. But historical contribution cannot become a licence for immunity from criticism.
The assertion that because the Catholic Church played a major role in the development of Christianity and helped shape the biblical canon, therefore, Christians must never criticise its contemporary leaders, does not follow logically.
Historical importance does not confer permanent political authority.
The same applies to other Christian denominations. Protestants, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Baptists, and others do not owe automatic political allegiance to Catholic bishops simply because the Catholic Church predates their denominations.
Zambia is a plural Christian society, not a theocracy administered by one denomination.
Most importantly, the distinction between criticism of a person and criticism of an institution should not be dismissed as a “trick of Satan”. Institutions are strengthened, not weakened, when their leaders can be questioned.
A police officer may enjoy legal protection in the execution of his duties, but that does not mean the officer becomes immune from legitimate complaints or scrutiny. Similarly, an Archbishop’s ecclesiastical office deserves respect, but it cannot place him beyond public accountability where his public statements or conduct enter the national political arena.
There is also a danger in demanding that Catholic politicians publicly defend an Archbishop simply because he is their “Shepherd”.
Their first obligation in public office is to the Constitution, the law, and the people they serve. Their Catholic faith informs their conscience, but it does not require them to become political representatives of a bishop.
The better Christian response is not to demand silence from those who disagree but to encourage respectful dialogue. If politicians have crossed the line into personal abuse, that should be condemned.
If church leaders have made political interventions that attract criticism, those interventions should equally be open to discussion.
Zambia needs neither political clericalism nor religious intimidation. It needs churches that can speak truth to power and governments that can tolerate criticism without treating every critic as an enemy.
The Catholic Church is too important to Zambia to be reduced to the personality of any one Archbishop. Its schools, hospitals, priests, religious communities, and millions of faithful constitute a much larger institution than any individual office-holder.
To defend the Church, therefore, is not necessarily to defend every statement made by its leaders. Sometimes, the most responsible defence of an institution is to insist that its leaders, like politicians, journalists, and every other citizen, must remain accountable.
Respect for the Church does not require surrender of conscience.
Respect for an Archbishop does not require unquestioning obedience in political matters.
And, respect for Christianity does not require silence.
The Christian duty is to seek truth, defend justice, reject personal abuse, and preserve peace. Those principles should apply equally to politicians and priests, government and opposition, bishops, and ordinary citizens.
That is not an attack on the Church.
It is precisely what accountability requires.
