- Ashford Kimani argues that the Lodwar fake-priest case raises questions beyond the alleged actions of one impostor.
- He says Church authorities must explain how existing verification systems failed to prevent unauthorised access to ministry.
- The case, he argues, should trigger stronger safeguards, transparency and accountability within Catholic institutions.
The most disturbing part of the alleged fake-priest scandal is not that a man decided to deceive the Catholic Church. There will always be dishonest people willing to exploit institutions and unsuspecting communities. The truly disturbing question is this: How did he get close enough to the altar to conduct Mass in the first place?
That is the question Catholic Church leadership must answer, and it cannot be answered by simply pointing a finger at the alleged impostor and declaring him a fraud. A fraudster can lie. That is what fraudsters do. Institutions are supposed to have systems that expose the lie.
The Catholic Church is not a loosely organised social club. It is one of the most structured institutions in the world, with bishops, dioceses, parishes, religious orders, seminaries, canon law, clergy registers and layers of ecclesiastical authority. Priesthood is not something one acquires by claiming to have been ordained. It follows years of formation and culminates in formal ordination by a legitimate Church authority.
A priest is supposed to be identifiable, traceable and accountable. There should be no mystery about who ordained him, where he serves, who his bishop is and whether he is authorised to exercise ministry.
So how could an individual who allegedly was not a priest gain sufficient confidence and credibility to stand before Catholics and perform the duties of one?
That question goes straight to the door of Church leadership.
Questions of verification and accountability
The bishops cannot simply say that the man was deceptive. The relevant authorities must explain why their verification mechanisms failed to detect the deception before he reached the sanctuary. Who checked his credentials? Who authorised him? Who introduced him to the parish? Who verified his claimed ordination? Were the documents he presented genuine? If they appeared genuine, why were they not independently confirmed? Was anyone responsible for checking his ecclesiastical status? If somebody was responsible, did that person actually do the job?
These are not malicious questions. They are basic questions of institutional accountability.
The danger of failing to ask them is that the Church could turn an extraordinary warning into an isolated embarrassment. The scandal should instead trigger a serious internal investigation. Not an investigation designed merely to establish whether one man lied, but an investigation into how the system permitted the lie to become believable.
The ordinary Catholic is entitled to demand this investigation.
A parishioner walking into Mass has every reason to assume that the person standing at the altar is a legitimate priest. The worshipper is not expected to ask for an ordination certificate, telephone the bishop and verify the priest’s identity before receiving Communion. The congregation relies on the Church to perform that due diligence.
That trust is precisely what makes the alleged impersonation so serious.
A fake priest is not merely pretending to be an employee of an institution. He is assuming spiritual authority over people. He may hear confessions. He may counsel troubled families. He may interact with children and young people. He may conduct baptisms, weddings and funerals. He may receive private information from vulnerable people. He may collect money. He may enter people’s homes because the Church’s reputation gives him credibility.
If an impostor can obtain that access, then the issue becomes one of safeguarding, not merely deception.
And that is where Church leadership should be particularly uncomfortable.
What if the man had abused someone? What if he had exploited a grieving family financially? What if he had obtained sensitive information during confession or counselling? What if he had targeted children? What if he had used his assumed position to manipulate a vulnerable person? Would the Church then still describe the problem simply as an individual’s dishonesty?
Institutions must anticipate risks before disaster occurs. Waiting for harm to happen before strengthening controls is not responsible leadership.
There is also a troubling culture that sometimes develops within powerful religious institutions: excessive deference. People hesitate to question clergy because they regard priests as God’s representatives and bishops as senior spiritual authorities. That reverence can become an institutional weakness when it discourages scrutiny.
The Catholic Church must be careful not to confuse obedience with unquestioning acceptance.
A bishop should be respected. A priest should be respected. But respect does not exempt anyone from verification and accountability. In fact, the greater the authority, the greater the obligation to be transparent.
Stronger safeguards
The Church’s elaborate hierarchy should make verification easier, not harder. A visiting priest should be easily traceable to a diocese or religious order. A phone call to the relevant authority should establish whether he is legitimate and in good standing. In an era of instant communication, there should be no reason for a parish to rely solely on someone’s word.
The question therefore becomes: Are the Church’s systems modern enough for the risks it faces today?
Fraud has changed. Fake documents can be created with sophisticated technology. Digital identities can be manipulated. People can construct convincing histories online. Someone can learn enough religious language and ritual to appear authentic to people who are not trained to recognise inconsistencies.
The Church must respond with equally sophisticated verification.
Every diocese should have a central, reliable mechanism for authenticating clergy. Parish administrators should know precisely what documentation is required before an unfamiliar priest is allowed to minister. Visiting clergy should be formally introduced and their status independently confirmed. Parishioners and clergy who become suspicious should have an easy channel through which they can report concerns without fear of retaliation.
And when such systems fail, somebody must be accountable.
This is where the leadership question becomes unavoidable. Who takes responsibility when institutional controls fail? Does responsibility disappear because the person who exploited the weakness was a fraudster? Surely not.
If a bank is defrauded because of a security failure, the criminal is responsible for the crime, but the institution still examines how its controls were defeated. If an airport security system is breached, authorities do not simply say, “The intruder was dishonest,” and close the investigation. They ask how the breach happened and what must change.
The Catholic Church should apply the same standard to itself.
Transparency can protect trust
There is also a danger in protecting institutional reputation at the expense of truth. Church leaders may be tempted to contain the story, minimise it or treat it as an unfortunate anomaly. That would be a mistake. The Church’s credibility will not be restored by silence. It will be strengthened by transparency.
Catholics deserve a detailed account of what happened.
They deserve to know how the alleged impostor presented himself, who interacted with him, what verification was undertaken, how long he was able to operate and what safeguards will now be introduced. If individuals within the Church failed in their responsibilities, the institution should have the courage to acknowledge those failures.
Leadership is not about never making mistakes. It is about taking responsibility when mistakes occur.
The alleged fake priest must face the consequences of his own actions if the allegations are proven. But Church leadership must also examine its own house. Otherwise, it risks sending a dangerous message: that ordinary believers must protect themselves against deception while the institution responsible for safeguarding their faith escapes scrutiny.
That cannot be acceptable.
The Catholic Church demands high standards from its priests. It should demand equally high standards from the systems that appoint, identify, supervise and authorise them. Sacred authority requires serious institutional protection.
This scandal should therefore become a moment of reckoning. The bishops and diocesan administrators should not merely ask, “How did this man deceive us?” They should ask the harder question: “What did we fail to verify?”
That is the question that matters.
Because a dishonest man standing outside the Church is a criminal problem. A dishonest man getting behind the altar is an institutional problem.
And when the institution is as powerful, structured and influential as the Catholic Church, institutional problems require institutional accountability.
READ ALSO: From classroom to cockpit: Captain Kerubo returns to Londiani Girls by helicopter 15 years later
The faithful deserve nothing less.
Ashford is a teacher of English and Literature and writes about education and social affairs.
By Ashford Kimani
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
