Between Sycophancy and Loyalty in the Church

Between Sycophancy and Loyalty in the Church

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) is currently in turbulent waters following the controversial proposal of its president, Gianni Infantino, to sell stakes in FIFA competitions to private investors. This initiative, known as the FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), has faced widespread opposition from national, regional, and continental football federations. UEFA, where Infantino previously served as Secretary General, is now leading calls for his resignation.

While football enthusiasts watch this unfolding drama with no clear sense of how it will end, one figure has emerged from the controversy as a compelling witness to the true meaning of loyalty. He is Kevin Lamour, until recently FIFA’s Chief Operating Officer, who publicly and strongly opposed Infantino’s FFE proposal. 

Lamour was dismissed because he refused to support a plan he described as “the project of one man,” arguing that the FIFA administration had been misled about its implications. He urged football leaders to ask themselves whether they were truly making decisions that served the good of the game.

In a prophetic statement that captures a principle relevant for distinguishing between loyalty and sychophancy, Lamour reflected on his dismissal, noting that he owed a duty of loyalty to both his employer, FIFA, and his superior, Infantino. 

However, he added that he had a higher loyalty to “certain values.” This commitment, he explained, required him to stand with colleagues who might otherwise be silenced. Even if it cost him his job, he was confident he would “sleep well” on the night of his firing.

Many senior FIFA officials lacked the courage that Lamour displayed. Some remained silent to preserve their positions; others simply lacked the conviction to speak out. There were undoubtedly some who privately recognized the flaws in the proposal but publicly praised it. Such is the logic of sycophancy. Those who inhabit the corridors of power often know their leaders’ weaknesses but choose the path of flattery, hero worship, and self-preservation instead, in the hope of securing a place at the master’s table.

Many people assume that such destructive habits are confined to secular organizations and governments. The reality, however, is that sycophancy and blind loyalty are vices that continue to undermine the Church’s mission in various contexts. 

Pope Francis frequently criticized hypocrisy in the Church, especially among those who flatter those in authority to gain favor. He warned against the use of exaggerated praise and sugary words that inflate vanity and encourage corruption within the ecclesial community. For Francis, sycophancy is closely linked to clerical careerism and the pursuit of power.

This same concern has been echoed by Pope Leo, who in his Epiphany message at the closing of the Holy Door on January 6, 2026, called upon those in positions of ecclesial authority to resist “the flattery and seduction of power” so as to help bring about a new dawn in the life of the Church.

The Church has long recognized the destructive effects of sycophancy. Indeed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly condemns it: “Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct” (CCC, 2480).

The wisdom behind this teaching is evident. Throughout her long history, the Church has witnessed the damage caused by sycophancy and the falsehoods that often accompany it. Such behavior pollutes the ecclesial environment, misleads those in authority, and undermines sound decision-making. Church leaders necessarily rely upon trusted collaborators for advice concerning policies, pastoral priorities, and governance. When those collaborators substitute honesty with flattery, both leaders and communities suffer.

The critical question, therefore, is whether we truly understand the difference between loyalty and sycophancy in the Church. Those in authority sometimes demand unquestioning loyalty and absolute obedience from those under their care. For example, some bishops expect priests simply to comply with directives without raising concerns or offering alternative perspectives. Likewise, some leaders wrongly assume that those who always agree with them are faithful collaborators, while those who respectfully disagree are enemies. 

Appointments and promotions may then become conditioned by this loyalty test. The logic is simple: surround oneself with “yes-men” who guarantee affirmation and compliance. In my own thinking, such an approach often undermines rather than strengthens leadership. It secures conformity but not wisdom. It ensures obedience but not truth. 

The Church today continues to suffer from sycophants and timid collaborators who lack either the courage or the spiritual depth to speak the truth respectfully and lovingly to those in authority.

One principle of good leadership remains universally valid: if everyone in the room always agrees with the leader, the leader is already in danger. Effective leaders surround themselves with people of diverse gifts, perspectives, and competencies. They welcome constructive disagreement and recognize that others may possess greater expertise in particular areas of ministry and governance. Good leaders surround themselves with gifted collaborators who may have competencies they lack. This should be a source of joy rather than insecurity.

If a lay executive could lose his position at FIFA because he chose fidelity to conscience over blind submission to a president leading the organization down a questionable path, why do many clerics find it so difficult to follow their conscience and exercise authentic agency by honestly communicating their perspectives and disagreement to their superiors? 

The issue here is not opposition for its own sake. Rather, it is the responsibility to communicate sincerely what one understands to be true or false, beneficial or harmful, in order to help leaders remain grounded in reality.  

Our churches are not immune to poorly conceived white elephant projects—the projects of one bishop, priest, religious superior, or wealthy patron—that consume scarce resources but escape serious scrutiny because those around the initiator are unwilling to question them. Sycophancy is therefore not merely a defect of character; it can become an institutional pathology with pastoral and financial consequences.

It must be stated clearly that Christian obedience is not the surrender of conscience but the disciplined submission of freedom to truth, discerned within the communion and mission of the Church. Canon 212 recognizes a legitimate place for speaking one’s judgment concerning the good of the Church. Thus, authentic loyalty in the Church is possible only when rooted in prior obedience to God. 

God reveals truth to the mind and enlightens the conscience, enabling us to discern rightly amid the complexities of daily life. Our ultimate loyalty is not to particular personalities but to Jesus Christ, the founder of the Church, and to the mission he entrusted to her. Every leader and every disciple is called to submit mind, will, and heart to that mission.

The challenge arises when those in authority forget the mediating character of their office and begin to confuse their personal preferences with the will of God. In such situations, leaders risk forgetting both the limitations of their office and the fragility of their humanity, which always stands in need of grace.

Often, God’s grace does not come through extraordinary revelations but through the voices of those around us. Advisors, collaborators, and friends may become the instruments through whom God speaks. When leaders reduce these people to mere instruments of praise or tools for consolidating power, ecclesial life becomes distorted, and the movement of grace is obstructed.

As I conclude this reflection, I recall the testimony of a priest from the Archdiocese of Benin who was a close friend of the late Archbishop Augustine Akubueze. Speaking of the archbishop, he simply remarked, “He was my loyal friend.” Those words stayed with me.

These experiences lead me to what I believe is the heart of the matter. One of the most illuminating ways to distinguish loyalty from sycophancy is through the lens of authentic friendship. Aristotle wrote, (as did Cicero in De Amicitia), that a friend is “another self” (allos autos) because of how deeply a good friend shares in your character, values, goals, and general well-being. 

St. Ambrose in De Officiis (Book III) taught that friendship should be one of the defining characteristics of the clerical vocation and faithful friends are like medicines for life and a guard against pride and remedy against vain glory. The loyal friend seeks your good; but the sycophant seeks your favor. Genuine friends do not deceive one another. 

Friendships built on lies and manipulation cannot endure. This is one reason why deception can invalidate marital consent in Catholic doctrine. Jesus also modeled friendship in his relationship with his disciples (John 15:14-15). 

Fidelity, friendship, and loyalty belong together. Loyalty remains faithful to the ideals of friendship and transcends immediate personal advantage. Sycophancy, by contrast, is imprisoned by present gratifications. Loyalty is rooted in enduring values that stand above individual personalities. Sycophancy seeks primarily to please a particular person, regardless of whether God is pleased. 

Loyalty is sustained by principles that endure through changing circumstances. Sycophancy is temporary and opportunistic, shifting with the fortunes of those in power.

Loyalty is transformational; sycophancy is transactional. Loyalty is mutual; sycophancy is one-directional. The sycophant rarely receives genuine friendship in return. Instead, rewards are dispensed in proportion to continued submission and flattery.

The Church cannot be built on sycophancy. It can only be built on loyalty:  to God, to truth, to one another, and to the mission of Christ. Such loyalty will sometimes require agreement and sometimes courageous disagreement. But it will always seek the good of the Church and of the other. 

Those who serve God’s people must learn again to kneel before God rather than before power. Only then will our obedience be free, our friendship truthful, and our loyalty worthy of the Gospel, and only then can those who serve in the Church become credible witnesses to the grace and glory of God in the world and in the Church