Insight with Bishop Osei-Bonsu : Are Catholics betraying their faith by turning to shrines in “duabɔ” cases?

Question by Alfred Kwasi Effah Opoku:

My Lord, syncretism has increasingly emerged as a serious pastoral concern, particularly in relation to Duabɔ practices. There are reported instances in which certain religious ministers advise both alleged victims and accused perpetrators to seek recourse first at the shrine of the deity associated with the curse before any form of Christian spiritual intervention is undertaken.

In light of this situation, I humbly seek your guidance on an appropriate pastoral response. What would you recommend for Christians who find themselves either as victims or as those accused in matters of Duabɔ? How might the Church best accompany and minister to them in a manner that remains faithful to Catholic teaching while also responding sensitively to the complexities of their lived cultural context?

Answer by Most Rev. Joseph Osei-Bonsu:

Dear Alfred, thank you for raising this important pastoral issue. The  growing phenomenon of syncretism, particularly in relation to the practice of Duabɔ, is one of real concern. It calls for both doctrinal clarity and prudent pastoral guidance, especially within contexts where traditional religious practices continue to influence the lives of the faithful.

1. Syncretism and the Practice of Duabɔ: A Pastoral and Theological Challenge

Syncretism, understood as the mixing of the Christian faith with elements drawn from other religious traditions, poses a serious challenge to the integrity of Catholic faith in Ghana. At its core, syncretism compromises the uniqueness and sufficiency of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. In the present context, it provides the background to Duabɔ, a term in Akan (Twi) traditional religion that refers to the act of invoking a curse or swearing a solemn oath by calling upon abosom as witnesses.

Abosom are spiritual beings traditionally understood as deriving their power from the Supreme God (Onyame or Onyankopɔn) and acting as intermediaries between God and human beings. In this practice, a person appeals to a spiritual force—often at a shrine—to affirm truth, seek justice, or address a perceived wrongdoing, with the understanding that harm or misfortune will befall anyone who lies or violates the oath. Duabɔ is therefore both a religious and juridical act within traditional contexts, commonly used for dispute resolution, protection, or the enforcement of truth.

It is typically accompanied by specific rituals, offerings, and the mediation of shrine priests or priestesses. The practice of directing either victims or alleged culprits to shrines for deliverance risks blending the truth of the Gospel with non-Christian religious practices, something the Church firmly rejects (cf. Gaudium et Spes 57; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2110–2117).

From a Christian perspective, however, such practices are fundamentally incompatible with faith in Christ, who alone is confessed as Lord of heaven and earth. The Church teaches unequivocally that God alone is the source of protection, justice, and healing. Consequently, any recourse to other spiritual powers like abosom constitutes a violation of the First Commandment.

These practices fall under what the Church traditionally identifies as superstition, divination, or recourse to occult powers, all of which are incompatible with authentic Christian belief and life. For this reason, directing either victims or alleged perpetrators to seek remedy at a shrine cannot be considered acceptable within Catholic teaching, regardless of the intention involved.

2. Understanding the Practice of Duabɔ in a Pastoral Context

From a Christian standpoint, the invocation of such powers in Duabɔ is spiritually dangerous. It places individuals in bondage to forces contrary to the Gospel. It undermines trust in divine providence and justice. Even when motivated by a desire for justice, the means employed are not morally legitimate. Furthermore, the power of Duabɔ lies largely in fear.

When a person believes that a curse has power, that belief itself becomes a source of anxiety and spiritual bondage. The curse works not because the bosom (singular of abosom) has genuine authority over a baptised Christian, but because the victim fears that it does. As Scripture says, ‘Perfect love casts out fear’ (1 Jn 4:18). The most effective deliverance is often a renewed act of faith in Christ’s lordship and the refusal to give the curse any more attention than it deserves.

3. The Fundamental Principle: Christ Is Sufficient

The Church teaches clearly that Jesus Christ has defeated all powers of evil, including any spiritual forces that may be invoked in Duabɔ. Col 2:15 states that Christ ‘disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them by the cross.’ No shrine, no bosom, no curse has any authority over a baptised Christian unless that Christian, through sin or fear, grants it authority by returning to those practices.

Therefore, the guidance for any Christian, whether considered a culprit or a victim, is clear: one must not return to the shrine. To seek deliverance from the very spiritual power that was invoked is to concede authority to that power over Christ. Such an action constitutes apostasy—that is, the deliberate and formal rejection or abandonment of the Christian faith by one who has been baptised. The Christian response cannot be to commit a further wrong in an attempt to remedy the first.

4. Guidance for Victims of Duabɔ

For those who believe they are victims of Duabɔ, the Church offers a clear and grace-filled path.

First, have absolute trust in God’s sovereignty. The faithful must be reminded that no spiritual force can prevail against God. Christ has conquered all powers of evil, and the believer shares in this victory. Do not let fear drive you back to the shrine.

Your baptism has already freed you from all such powers. As Saint John writes, ‘He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world’ (1 Jn 4:4). Second, have recourse to the sacraments. The ordinary and most effective means of spiritual protection are the Sacrament of Reconciliation (for healing and liberation from sin) and the Holy Eucharist (as the source of strength and union with Christ). Even if you are not aware of personal sin, Confession can bring peace and spiritual strengthening.

Third, make use of prayer and sacramentals. The Church encourages personal and communal prayer, as well as the use of sacramentals such as holy water, blessed objects, and approved prayers. Employ the Rite of Blessing for protection. Pray the Rosary and novenas to Saint Michael or Our Lady of Fatima. Pray Ps 91 daily. Fourth, have recourse to pastoral and spiritual intervention.

In cases of serious distress or perceived spiritual oppression, the faithful should seek guidance from a priest. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is also available for spiritual healing. Fifth, the avoidance of fear-driven responses must be firmly upheld.

Turning to shrines out of fear does not resolve spiritual difficulties but rather deepens confusion and compromises the integrity of Christian faith. Fear, while a natural human reaction, must not be allowed to dictate spiritual decisions. Instead, the appropriate response for a Christian is one rooted in faith—faith in the sovereignty of God, in the saving power of Christ, and in the protection of divine grace. It is through trust in God, rather than recourse to alternative spiritual powers, that the believer remains steadfast and truly free.

5. Guidance for Culprits Involved in Duabɔ

For Christians who have invoked a bosom to curse another, this is grave matter. It is a sin against the First Commandment and against charity. For those who have participated in such practices, the Church calls for the following:

First, genuine repentance. The individual must acknowledge that such actions are gravely contrary to the Christian faith. Second, a firm renunciation of all involvement. This entails a clear rejection of any association with shrines or rituals connected with Duabɔ and abosom. The penitent should make an explicit renunciation, for example: ‘In the name of Jesus Christ, I renounce the curse I invoked. I declare that it has no power over me or over any person, for Christ has disarmed all powers.’

Third, there must be immediate cessation of any further involvement with the shrine or its ministers: one must neither return nor seek their counsel, but instead avoid such places entirely, since they lead the faithful away from Christ, the sole Liberator (cf. Jn 8:36).

Fourth, one should approach the Sacrament of Reconciliation, through which forgiveness and spiritual restoration are granted. In confession, the sin should be stated clearly, particularly as idolatry and as the willing of harm against one’s neighbour.

Fifth, restitution and reconciliation with others must be earnestly pursued. Where possible, one should humbly seek forgiveness from those who have been harmed, acknowledging the wrong done and expressing sincere contrition.

If injury—whether spiritual, moral, or material—has been caused, every reasonable effort should be made to repair that harm and restore justice. True repentance is not complete without this outward dimension of making amends.

At the same time, it must be clearly understood that if a curse or harmful act has been invoked through a shrine, and revoking it there would require engaging again in practices contrary to the Christian faith, such a course must be firmly rejected.

One must not commit a further sin in an attempt to undo the first. Rather, the act must be openly renounced before God in prayer, with confidence in his mercy and power. It is to God alone that the matter is entrusted, trusting that his grace is sufficient to heal, to restore, and to bring about justice in ways that remain faithful to the Gospel.

Sixth, deliverance prayers may still be necessary. Consult a priest for the Ministry of Deliverance, which invokes Christ’s authority (cf. Rituale Romanum). Seventh, receive the Eucharist for strengthening. After Confession, receive Holy Communion with faith. Eighth, destroy any objects from the shrine, such as charms or amulets. Acts 19:19 records that new Christians in Ephesus publicly burned their magic books. Do the same.

6. On the Practice of Directing Christians to Shrines

The suggestion that individuals should first seek deliverance at the shrine of a bosom raises serious theological concerns. Such guidance contradicts the Church’s teaching on the uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator. It risks legitimising non-Christian religious practices. No pastoral circumstance justifies directing a Christian to engage in rites that invoke the abosom.

Any priest or cleric who directs the faithful to a shrine for deliverance is acting outside the teaching and discipline of the Catholic Church. This is gravely wrong.

It is a betrayal of the Gospel. The Church does not recognise any spiritual power in a shrine that is superior to the power of Christ. To send a Christian to a shrine is to teach that Christ is insufficient. Canon 1365 provides penalties for the sin of sacrilege. If such cases occur, they should be reported to the Chancery so that proper fraternal correction and, if needed, canonical action can be taken.

Indeed, in the Konongo-Mampong Diocese, communicants who engage in such practices and are unwilling to renounce them are suspended from the reception of Holy Communion for a period of one year. Following this period, they may be readmitted to the Eucharist provided they have demonstrated genuine repentance and have been duly reconciled through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

7. Pastoral Recommendations for Dioceses

In addressing this issue, a balanced pastoral approach is required.

First, there is a clear and urgent need for sound catechesis. The faithful must be carefully instructed on the fundamental incompatibility between such practices and the Christian faith. Many who resort to shrines do so out of ignorance of the spiritual riches already bestowed upon them in Baptism.

They must therefore be helped to rediscover and appreciate the power of the name of Jesus, the abiding presence and assistance of the guardian angels, and the safeguarding grace of the Holy Eucharist. When a Christian truly grasps that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend (Philippians 2:10), the perceived attraction of the shrine is greatly diminished.

Second, there must be genuine pastoral accompaniment. Those who have become involved in such practices should be guided with patience and compassion, avoiding harsh condemnation while maintaining doctrinal clarity. They should be encouraged and supported through the life of the Christian community, particularly through participation in prayer groups and other forms of communal intercession.

Third, there is a clear and pressing need for a proper understanding of inculturation. While the Church rightly esteems and values authentic cultural expressions as part of the richness of human life, such expressions must always be purified and elevated in the light of the Gospel. Cultural practices cannot be permitted to stand in contradiction to the truths of the Christian faith; rather, they must be transformed so as to harmonise with it and to reflect its saving message. In this way, culture becomes not an obstacle to the Gospel, but a vessel through which the Gospel is more deeply embodied and lived.

Fourth, there is the necessity of practising justice. The persistence of Duabɔ is often rooted in a perception that civil judicial systems are slow, ineffective, or inaccessible, and that God appears silent in the face of wrongdoing. In such circumstances, individuals may turn to shrines in search of immediate vindication or redress. For this reason, Parish Justice and Peace Committees have a vital role to play.

They should assist victims of theft, adultery, land disputes, and other injustices in pursuing lawful and ethical means of resolution. When the Church is visibly committed to justice and actively supports those who suffer wrong, the perceived need to seek recourse in shrines diminishes significantly.

Fifth, there must be a strong and credible witness of faith. Both clergy and lay leaders are called to embody and demonstrate an unwavering trust in Christ as the sole and sufficient source of protection and deliverance. Their lives should reflect a deep confidence in the power of God, expressed not only in words but also in actions. Such witness strengthens the faith of the community and provides a compelling alternative to practices that are incompatible with Christian belief.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Church’s position is clear: Christians are not to seek recourse to shrines, abosom associated with practices such as Duabɔ, whether as victims or as culprits. Instead, they are called to place their full trust in God, to seek grace through the sacraments, and to live in the freedom won by Christ. Pastoral sensitivity must be exercised, but never at the expense of doctrinal truth.