Andrew, I do not think that what +Jonah did constituted “mistakes.” Was he overworked and doing too many things? Yes. But none of the things he’s being accused of –and in reality he hasn’t been accused of anytjhing but “maybe having ADD”–are mistakes.

When all is said and done, the “mistakes” that he supposedly made will be seen in light of what Orthodoxy in America has devolved into, which are the bitter fruits of our disunity.

Examples will include navigating the treacherous waters in order to get the Holy Synod of the OCA to be invited to the Episcopal Assembly. Personally, I think that +Jonah and the bishops gave too much in being allowed to sit there. When it was obvious that +Jonah would not have been chairman, then they should have gotten up and left en masse. But they stuck it out and now the Phanar has to deal with them. (It’s all probably moot at this point as it seems the Russians are going to pull the plug on the EAs.)

It is now clear that the OCA had an incredibly weak hand to play. Beinig in the DOS, I wasn’t aware how decrepit the OCA is on the East Coast (which outside of Alaska is its other major population center). That +Jonah was able to navigate his way onto it is a major feather in his cap as far as those who see some future in the EA.

As to having +Jonah give a speech a la Michael Douglas in that insipid film, I’d rather not. The last time an American President sermonized to the people about getting off the stick was during Carter’s infamous “malaise” speech.

Andrew,

You’d think leadership in an institution that is all about second chances for minor stumbles would find a way to manage at least what’s publicly known so far regarding this fuss.

I know this: there are plenty of folk, many not interested in a good future for this or any church, mostly overseas, some domestic having gotten away with $$ in the past, who see the OCA’s ability to order its own affairs in the USA as something between an obstacle to an inconvenience for their agenda. These are not interested in the church as a community of people trying to better themselves and their communities, but as a career vehicle, screen for tax and finance shenanigans, a foreign policy tool, intelligence cover, or– a way to be male, wear dresses and get paid while people kiss you alot. These people will try to broaden every controversy, impute political or national origin passions to polarize and divide people, while purposefully avoiding to resolve any issue that if actually addressed would restore balance.

Their desired outcome is to leave the target either broken or reduced into factions which can’t exist on their own, or at least in charge of some cult/chard with polarized unquestioning backers only big enough to provide them personal security for as long as they are in their working years.

And, these people really like anonymity.

I’ve often thought in the long game, the right path to autocephaly in the USA is for the various national groups, once gaining defacto freedom from foreign shenanigans or no longer requiring honest foreign launch assistance themselves, would be to merge. The idea that the overseas folk have of banding together to consolidate foreign control there of those here, sort of a ‘room of popes’– lots of words to describe that but none that I think would attract folk looking to match the ‘Orthodox’ in the title out front of the building to what they see going on inside.

Harry, this takes us all back to the question. Is the Metropolitan able to correct his mistakes? I have not seen anything yet that shows me his is able to or even wants to. Does he even think he made mistakes?

Can anyone show me how Metropolitan Jonah has corrected his mistakes?

George, do you really think it is illegal for a metropolitan to call a few of his brothers on the synod? Hello?

Harry,

there is/was nothing “wrong” with the group that the nun was a “part” of. That’s a monastic community. We’ve had them in Orthodoxy going all e way back to St Pachomius.

As to “giving a phone call” to the HS –which I think is acting illegaly in retrospect–that would be highly irregular. Has Bishop +Nikon, the locum tenens of the South informed the HS about what he intends to do about Dn Burke?

At the risk of sticking my snout in . . .

A distinction arises in my mind between managing an organization suffering from the sinfulness of its members, including its bishops, on the one hand, and on the other hand such unseemly things as open schism and open endorsement of h*resy or immorality.

The first seems to be something that can and probably should be settled in private. While transparency regarding finances may be a good idea, transparency in how one deals with private sins (setting aside clergy sexual abuse for a moment) is probably a very bad idea. There’s a reason we don’t shout out our sins during services the way early Christians did.

Now, some people do not like the fact that Jonah failed to remove or discipline this or that cleric sufficiently. That’s fine and well. If there was a question of a cleric abusing someone or doing something illegal, perhaps it is a matter of public concern. But there is private sin versus notorious sin. Whatever the truth at the bottom of these matters, people, including clerics, have sinned, are sinning and will continue to sin. The only question is when to make a circus of it. If it’s a matter of doctrine then it needs to come out to see the light of day. However, unless a cleric has broken some law and the Church intends to report them to the authorities, especially regarding sexual abuse, then much of the rest of this might be better resolved outside the limelight.

Frankly, I can guess what Met. Hilarion Alfeyev said to the OCA synod and to Met. Jonah in his recent “irregular” visit. I refer to it as an “if-then-will” statement: “If you want the ROC to continue to defend the autocephaly of the OCA, then you will settle this business outside of the spotlight and commit to not airing your dirty laundy in public in the future.”

Or something like that.

Was it your intention George to write that Met. Jonah has an upcoming agenda to ‘clean house’– but just a few paragraphs upstream writing he did not do so when having the direct authority so to do over some in the south?

‘Sides of a fence’ now? Beating the drums of schism in an already small space– who benefits, eh George?

George, knowing that his synod had strong feelings about larger issues to do with the group of which that nun was a part, do you know whether he made a few phone calls to explain the compassionate basis and get consensus from the synod members first?

Is it not essential to model that being ‘first among equals’ is different from ‘leading subordinates’?

No light comes from avoiding coming to grips with the answers to hard questions– instead substituting talk-radio style speculations about the whether some shared motivation might or might not exist among some unknown fraction of those asking.

The hard questions need real answers or they won’t get better.. No matter the results of the various speculations.

Andrew, to say that “+Dmitri failed miserably” is true as far as it goes. However let us look at the context. First of all, +Dmitri did tell the deacon in question that he should resign from the diaconate “for the good of his own salvation.” He didn’t do it. Should +Dmitri have suspended him?

Yes. Why didn’t he?

Well, maybe he was too old and feeble, or maybe he saw the entire situation and said “what’s the use”? Let’s not forget who the deacon’s companion was (and is): the former Bishop of Boston. In my posts on The Dumping Ground, I’ve commented on the existence of the institutional rot in the Church. This rot didn’t arise from the ground like a fungus, it arose because deeply mediocre men became priests and the most corrupt among them became bishops.

Had +Dmitri suspended Burke (the deacon in question) –which he did btw–Burke had recourse to canonical remedies. Instead, he used his buddies to strong-arm +Dmitri into lifting his suspension. Should +Dmitri have buckled? No. But neither should Burke have been able to rely on a corrupt cabal of buddies to do his bidding.

As for +Jonah, he failed in not doing what +Dmitri attempted to do. There’s no getting around that. But make no mistake: the hatred towards +Jonah does not come from those who wish he had removed all homosexuals from the priesthood. Far from it. The SMPAC report (to the extent that we know anything about it at all) only names those miscreants who have run afoul of the Episcopalian Wing of the OCA. It makes no mention at all of Burke or others who don’t make +Jonah look bad.

At the end of the day Andrew, we are going to have to come to some resolution. The question is: are those who hate institutional corruption in toto going to be cheering for +Jonah when he attempts to clean house? Or are they going to be standing in the peanut gallery screaming “sobornost! How dare he!”? If you are an honest man (and I believe you are), I’m pretty sure I know which side of the fence you’ll be standing on.

George, your points 1, 2 and 3 are 100% correct. Returning to this discussion, do we know who the 27 of 25 bishops who applied to Turkish Citizenship are? I looked at the patriarchal website and I see far more than 35 bishops? I think if you work through the list you can narrow the field significantly but the question remains as to who the 27 are? We know some but not all of them.

AOI should run a link on the front page listing each bishops who is or wants to be a Turkish citizen.

Andrew, I’d like to address this further afield if you don’t mind. Right now, the original question that I brought up has not been answered. And that is: why are those who are slinging mud on +Jonah for supposedly being soft on autocephaly, are not outraged by this offer of Turkish citizenship to ONLY Greek-American bishops?

The implications for pan-jurisdictional unity are enormous should this be allowed to take place. In fact, it means that unity could only proceed under these conditions:

1. all jurisdictions will be subject to Istanbul,
2. only Greek-American bishops will be eligible for election to the patriarchate of Constantinople,
3. therefore Greek-American bishops will be the “elite” among all American bishops.

It goes without saying that the OCA, should it agree to merging with the GOA, would therefore lose its autocaphly. As far as “accountability and transparency,” you’ll have just as much as we got in the GOA right now. Which is nothing.

Please excuse my sarcasm (it’s not directed to you) but it is directed to the Agent of Accountability, Transparency, and Autocephaly. I await his guidance on this matter. [crickets chirping.]

Sarcasm aside, I think you can now see why I consider OCANews to be hypocrites of the first order. They are nothing but liberals and secularists (the “Episcopalian Wing of the OCA”) who are seething mad at +Jonah because he stands athwart the locomotive of homosexualism and immorality.

George, I hear you…… but honestly how has the Metropolitan shown that he is able to correct his mistakes?

Andrew, thank you for your kind compliments. Did +Jonah make mistakes? Yes. Were they egregious? No. More importantly: why didn’t he? It is my contention that the mistakes he made were in conforming to the old boys club and the old way of doing things at Syosset. Mistake, yes, but correctable. The question is, will the OCA and its “crusaders” want +Jonah to do the right thing? (I mean, get rid of the homosexualist liberals?) I doubt it. But they’ve put themselves in the “outrage” box. OK, I’m outraged too. Go after them Big Guy!

As to him not “speaking out.” Well, just 2 weeks ago he ordained a dying woman in a hospice to the Great Schema. His “conciliarist” critics called him everything but a wild man.

He’s playing by their rules –for now.