Confusion and deep division have taken root within the Sri Lankan Catholic Church following a fiery and unprecedented statement by Father Jude Krishantha Fernando, who stunned the nation by publicly demanding the death penalty for former SIS Director Senior DIG Nilantha Jayawardena the top official sacked over his failure to act on intelligence that could have prevented the 2019 Easter Sunday massacre.
While Father Jude’s impassioned plea echoed the Old Testament’s uncompromising justice “a life for a life” the reaction it triggered within and beyond the Church now raises urgent questions:
Whose voice speaks for Sri Lanka’s Catholics?
And how did a tragedy that demanded justice descend into a theatre of political opportunism and doctrinal confusion?
Father Jude’s Fury: Justice Demands Blood
Speaking as the Director of Public Communications for the Archdiocese of Colombo, Father Jude addressed a press conference organized by the Catholic Council with unfiltered outrage. His central claim was clear: Life imprisonment isn’t enough. Nilantha Jayawardena deserves to die.
“Judicial action must be taken against this man. Life imprisonment is not enough. He deserves the death penalty,” he thundered.
In his view, the gravity of the crime failing to act on credible intelligence that could have saved more than 260 lives was so immense that only the maximum punishment would suffice. He then broadened his accusations, implicating three successive presidents—Maithripala Sirisena, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, and Ranil Wickremesinghe in shielding Jayawardena for six years, suggesting a cover-up of even deeper truths.
“We believe there was a power greater than Saharan. All three presidents protected this official—why? What were they hiding?”
Father Cyril’s Rebuke: A Voice of Restraint
But just as Father Jude’s statement began gaining momentum and backlash across Sri Lankan communities both at home and abroad, another voice emerged. That of Father Cyril Gamini Fernando, the official Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of Colombo.
His message? Caution. Decency. Distance.
Father Cyril denounced Father Jude’s demand, clarifying that his views did not represent the Catholic Church, nor the Archdiocese, nor Sri Lankan Catholics at large.
While his statement was more measured, the implications were profound. In tone and substance, Father Cyril seemed to be invoking the teachings of Christ compassion, due process, and moral accountability rather than vengeance.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” was the subtext, and it stood in stark contrast to Father Jude’s blunt invocation of retributive justice.
Old Testament vs. New Testament: Two Gospels, One Church?
What we’re witnessing is a profound theological and moral split one that mirrors the ancient tension between the Mosaic Law of justice and the Gospel of grace.
Father Jude channels the Old Testament spirit of Moses’ law “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
Father Cyril appears rooted in the New Testament teachings of Christ “Love your enemies… Do not repay evil for evil.”
This contrast isn’t merely philosophical. It’s explosive in political and public perception, especially when it comes to a national tragedy as sensitive and unresolved as the Easter Sunday bombings.
Blood as Political Capital: A Nation’s Ongoing Shame
Since the day of the massacre, April 21, 2019, a day meant to celebrate resurrection and lifeover 260 innocent lives were lost in coordinated attacks across churches and hotels. In the years that followed, not a single high-level figure has been held criminally accountable.
Instead, what Sri Lankans have received is a revolving door of promises:
- Governments appointing commissions that produce reports…
- Reports that lead to silence…
- Silence interrupted only by election campaigns, where politicians recycle the tragedy as a campaign tool, vowing justice “if we’re voted in.”
The blood of the dead has become currency, traded in power bids by both state and religious figures. And now, priests appear divided, not just on justice but on which gospel to preach.
To the Layman: A Circus, Not a Church
For the everyday Catholic, the message is confusing and humiliating.
How can one Church speak with two voices? One demanding execution, the other urging restraint?
Where is unity in doctrine? Where is the clarity in conscience?
What’s worse, the Church’s public division is feeding into the very politicization it should resist. Political parties now pick and choose which priest to echo, depending on what suits the moment. The victims of the Easter tragedy are no longer just mourned they’re being weaponized.
The Moral Cost of Delay
Six years on, justice for the Easter Sunday attacks remains elusive. Instead, what we now have is a divided Church, a public angry and confused, and a political class capitalizing on both.
In the name of the 261 lives lost on Easter morning, this circus must end.
The question is no longer who speaks loudest, or who quotes scripture better, but:
Who will finally speak for the dead?
