Is it double standards or about correcting past mistakes?
Nairobi, Kenya — November 2024
The Catholic Church has come under fire from some groups and clergy members for declining a donation from President William Ruto, calling it a move marked by double standards. Critics have pointed out that the Church has previously accepted monetary gifts from other politicians, raising questions about consistency in its decision-making.
The controversy began after the Church declined the President’s contributions, which had been requested by the institution itself. A section of the clergy from Kisii has even gone as far as to challenge the Catholic Church to return all funds previously “donated” by the government.
Despite the backlash, the Catholic Church has defended its stance, emphasizing its commitment to remaining an impartial and neutral entity dedicated to spiritual guidance and the welfare of its congregation. The Archdiocese of Nairobi released a statement reiterating that the decision to stop accepting political donations was made to ensure the Church’s independence and credibility in holding the government accountable.
“This decision is not about double standards but about correcting past mistakes and ensuring the Church remains uncompromised,” the statement read.
Supporters of the Church’s decision argue that continuing to accept political donations, even after recognizing their potential to undermine the Church’s moral authority, would have been a greater mistake.
By rejecting these contributions, the Catholic Church seeks to uphold its mission of truth, justice, and righteousness while remaining a strong moral compass for society. The decision underscores the Church’s resolve to distance itself from political influence and maintain its credibility in addressing social and governance issues.
The Archdiocese has further clarified that the rejection of political funds is aimed at fostering trust among congregants and the wider public, ensuring that the Church can fulfill its spiritual mission without interference.
The debate highlights the delicate balance religious institutions must strike between engaging with political leaders for the good of their communities and preserving their autonomy to speak out against wrongdoing.
