One word spoken from the stillness of God can change everything.

“Here, sports fans, is Conflicts 101: You rob a bank; as you are fleeing, there’s a woman at the door who sees you, but you point your gun at her, she ducks to the floor, and you skip around her and make your escape. You are arrested and brought to trial. When you get to the courtroom and glimpse up at the bench, who do you see wearing a black robe? Why, it’s the woman who witnessed the bank robbery. No way, you say–and you’d be right–the court will find you another judge because this one is an actor in the facts that are the subject matter of the case.

It doesn’t matter that the judge happens to be the hardest working, best, most accomplished jurist in the land. It doesn’t matter that she is so apolitical no one knows whether she even votes, let alone for whom. Most of all, it doesn’t matter that she may not have done anything wrong or anything to be ashamed of. Her conflict does not lie in her work ethic, her political views, or what we might think of her conduct. It is strictly a matter of perception. We have reason to think that she will render judgment based on what she saw in the bank that day rather than what gets presented in the courtroom; we have reason to think she may rule against you not on the merits of your legal arguments but because you pointed a gun at her. Of course, she may not actually do any of those inappropriate things; she may be the very epitome of rectitude. But even if she is, we will always wonder. And if we are left to wonder, the court’s rulings lack integrity and legitimacy. If you get convicted, we’ll think you might have been railroaded; if acquitted, we’ll think you may have intimidated the judge. But one way or the other, we will never be confident that we know what happened in the bank that day.”

…. And so avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, so emphasized in the New Testament. To survive, much less grow: we need those who’ve known successful marriage among our bishops who oversee parish life.

Events move so much faster now, we can’t afford to be like the church in Galileo’s day, avoiding to deal with the advances and changes the world sees before we do. Now women outlive men for the first time — only in the last 100 years.

(Excerpt above from a 2004 article by A. McCarthey.)

No, Fester was the victim of a mugging, not Maymon.

You must have been watching the ‘Cops’ episode where the police got angry and arrested a person beating up on a mugger in custody.

Here’s a good article that speaks to why this is important for those not personally involved as perp or immediate victim of misdoing.

http://www.ajewishminute.com/2009/07/maarat-ayin-appearance-of-impropriety.html

Andrew, does this include being angry at the Stokovites for what they did to Fr Joseph Fester?

Unfortunately, the supposed quote from Chrysostom appears to be spurious. Here’s a good reflection on the quote and on the general issue of anger. Note the author’s observation that the problem isn’t a lack of anger, but anger over the wrong things.

The Summa Theologica, although not Orthodox, has a good chapter on it and pinpoints the mentioned quotation:

Question 158. Anger
Is it lawful to be angry?
Is anger a sin?
Is it a mortal sin?
Is it the most grievous of sins?
Its species
Is anger a capital vice?
Its daughters
Does it have a contrary vice?

Article 1. Whether it is lawful to be angry?

Objection 1. It would seem that it cannot be lawful to be angry. For Jerome in his exposition on Matthew 5:22, “Whosoever is angry with his brother,” etc. says: “Some codices add ‘without cause.’ However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether.” Therefore it is nowise lawful to be angry.

Objection 2. Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) “The soul’s evil is to be without reason.” Now anger is always without reason: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that “anger does not listen perfectly to reason”; and Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that “when anger sunders the tranquil surface of the soul, it mangles and rends it by its riot”; and Cassian says (De Inst. Caenob. viii, 6): “From whatever cause it arises, the angry passion boils over and blinds the eye of the mind.” Therefore it is always evil to be angry.

Objection 3. Further, anger is “desire for vengeance” [Aristotle, Rhet. ii, 2 according to a gloss on Leviticus 19:17, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart.” Now it would seem unlawful to desire vengeance, since this should be left to God, according to Deuteronomy 32:35, “Revenge is Mine.” Therefore it would seem that to be angry is always an evil.

Objection 4. Further, all that makes us depart from likeness to God is evil. Now anger always makes us depart from likeness to God, since God judges with tranquillity according to Wisdom 12:18. Therefore to be angry is always an evil.

On the contrary, Chrysostom [Hom. xi in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says: “He that is angry without cause, shall be in danger; but he that is angry with cause, shall not be in danger: for without anger, teaching will be useless, judgments unstable, crimes unchecked.” Therefore to be angry is not always an evil.

I answer that, Properly speaking anger is a passion of the sensitive appetite, and gives its name to the irascible power, as stated above (I-II, 46, 1) when we were treating of the passions. Now with regard to the passions of the soul, it is to be observed that evil may be found in them in two ways. First by reason of the passion’s very species, which is derived from the passion’s object. Thus envy, in respect of its species, denotes an evil, since it is displeasure at another’s good, and such displeasure is in itself contrary to reason: wherefore, as the Philosopher remarks (Ethic. ii, 6), “the very mention of envy denotes something evil.” Now this does not apply to anger, which is the desire for revenge, since revenge may be desired both well and ill. Secondly, evil is found in a passion in respect of the passion’s quantity, that is in respect of its excess or deficiency; and thus evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands. But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise.

Reply to Objection 1. The Stoics designated anger and all the other passions as emotions opposed to the order of reason; and accordingly they deemed anger and all other passions to be evil, as stated above (I-II, 24, 2) when we were treating of the passions. It is in this sense that Jerome considers anger; for he speaks of the anger whereby one is angry with one’s neighbor, with the intent of doing him a wrong.–But, according to the Peripatetics, to whose opinion Augustine inclines (De Civ. Dei ix, 4), anger and the other passions of the soul are movements of the sensitive appetite, whether they be moderated or not, according to reason: and in this sense anger is not always evil.

Reply to Objection 2. Anger may stand in a twofold relation to reason. First, antecedently; in this way it withdraws reason from its rectitude, and has therefore the character of evil. Secondly, consequently, inasmuch as the movement of the sensitive appetite is directed against vice and in accordance with reason, this anger is good, and is called “zealous anger.” Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 45): “We must beware lest, when we use anger as an instrument of virtue, it overrule the mind, and go before it as its mistress, instead of following in reason’s train, ever ready, as its handmaid, to obey.” This latter anger, although it hinder somewhat the judgment of reason in the execution of the act, does not destroy the rectitude of reason. Hence Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that “zealous anger troubles the eye of reason, whereas sinful anger blinds it.” Nor is it incompatible with virtue that the deliberation of reason be interrupted in the execution of what reason has deliberated: since art also would be hindered in its act, if it were to deliberate about what has to be done, while having to act.

Reply to Objection 3. It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4.

Reply to Objection 4. We can and ought to be like to God in the desire for good; but we cannot be altogether likened to Him in the mode of our desire, since in God there is no sensitive appetite, as in us, the movement of which has to obey reason. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that “anger is more firmly erect in withstanding vice, when it bows to the command of reason.”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3158.htm

Deacon Brian, I took the quote from the following article which appeared in Touchstone Magazine

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-06-012-v

Looking back I did not see a footnote but my guess is that it is probably not too hard to find the exact citation.

I know we do not share the same views on many issues but I am happy to help out in this regard.

“He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong.”

Andrew, can you tell us where this appears? I may need to use it soon in my own defense. It would help to have the citation. Thanks.

Particularly, I believe this kind of situation is far more common than actual misbehaviour or criminal behaviour of the priesthood. Sometimes for money, sometimes for petty internal politicals, gossip and slander are far more common than actual perversion.

I definitely agree with you. “If you aspire to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for temptation.”
Many believers are on the sidelines because they don’t want to deal with the major spiritual attacks that come from serving the Lord.

…the poor old man died of depression for the social pressure on him and from seeing his name associated with pedophilia and his accuser confessed nothing had happened and he was just trying to get money from the Roman Church.

Patience and Humility

It is necessary always to be patient and to accept everything that happens, no matter what, with gratitude for God’s sake. Our life — is a minute compared to eternity. And for this reason “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).

Bear the insults of your enemy in silence, and open your heart only to the Lord. Try in any way possible to forgive those who humiliate you or take away your honor, by the words of the Gospel: “Of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again” (Lk. 6:30).

When people curse us, we must consider ourselves unworthy of praise, imagining that if we were worthy, everyone would be bowing down to us. We must always, and before everyone, humble ourselves, according to the teachings of St. Isaac the Syrian: “Humble yourself and you will see the glory of God within yourself.”

It is true that in the last century, both in the Orthodox and in the Roman Church hierarchs have been lenient with serious crimes. But we must also remember that although there are patristic and NT examples of righteous anger, they are depicted always as the very last instance and rarely used.

I know that some misguided mercy may be at work sometimes, but I also know how good targets for slander priests and bishops make. A lot of people feel they are the “small people” taking revenge at the “big guys” if they put down an elderly priest. Others know that the times are on their side to put false accusations and make some money of what they suppose to be a wealthy institution.

I too think it is time, everywhere, for some tougher measures from the hierarchy. It’s not the first nor will it be the last time that a worring number of unvocationed men enter the priesthood and lower its respect for their misbehaviour, sometimes criminal. But I *do* get more concerned about the innocent priests and bishops that could be slandered than in demanding secular justice for the guilty ones. I do remember the case of an 80-year-old Roman bishop in the US whose name was dragged in the mud by an accusation of abuse of young boys when he was the principal of a Catholic school decades before. Eventually, the poor old man died of depression for the social pressure on him and from seeing his name associated with pedophilia and his accuser confessed nothing had happened and he was just trying to get money from the Roman Church.

Particularly, I believe this kind of situation is far more common than actual misbehaviour or criminal behaviour of the priesthood. Sometimes for money, sometimes for petty internal politicals, gossip and slander are far more common than actual perversion.

I am glad to hear you say this, Fr. Hans, because reading about the history of these issues in the Church here in the U.S. in the last few weeks and how they have been (mis)handled, I have often thought exactly the same thing. If, God forbid, I were to come upon such a thing occurring with either of my children, I would immediately dial 911 and proceed exactly as you have described. I’m convinced this is the only way to true healing–for ALL involved.

It has also been very disturbing for me to think that some of our hierarchs would abuse the teaching that Met. Jonah presented here by using it as a pretext for leniency for perpetrators of this kind of devastating abuse.

Andrew,

What you say is true and it seems to be a particular shortcoming of hierarchs in general. I saw this happen when a priest who served ten years of probation for fondling a girl was invited back to the altar in a very public venue soon after his probation ended. Needless to say some parents were irate, reported it to Pokrov, and the priest was never seen in public again. (Why he was not defrocked I still don’t understand.)

Frankly, if a priest were ever to fondle my daughter (God forbid!) I would demand full prosecution of the law and that he be defrocked. It’s a reasonable price to pay for his crime. It also helps the victim. If a crime has clear and decisive consequences, the crime is objectively defined as a crime which aids in the victim’s healing.

But abusers are not only abusers, they are still people. That’s what the hierarch’s see (some of them anyway) and on that basis they make their judgments. They view the crime in a broader perspective and it makes a certain sense. I can understand it. When I have dealt with people who have committed crimes I draw on those other things too to help them (if they are willing) come to some sort of reconciliation so their life isn’t frozen in the crime either.

So the weakness you describe includes short-sightedness, inexperience, possibly neglect and probably not having any children of their own. Sometimes however, a genuine and authentic fondness exists for the abuser because they know more about the person than just his abuse. This is where the confusion enters. That’s what happened with the Katinas affair in the GOA for example, and why Abp. Demetrios made the misguided request that Katinas not be defrocked so that he could be buried as a priest. It caused outrage among the laity and justifiably so. His intent was not to diminish the severity of Katinas’ crimes although his request did precisely that in the eyes of almost everyone. Wisely he did not pursue that course.

I’m not justifying the misjudgments here. I’m only explaining the dynamics of why they occur. And the reason they are bad judgments is that they foster a kind of rot. When crimes are not dealt with decisively, if therapeutic concerns muddle the clear right and wrong of certain behaviors, confidence in leadership wanes.

You are calling for a kind of de-Oprahizing of the Church if I read you correctly, putting aside emotional reasoning for a return to dogmatic truth and principle. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and while there is forgiveness, forgiveness does not preclude clear consequences for particular types of acts.

Anger shouldn’t necessarily be the driver here, but it can be an indicator something is seriously wrong and move us to act in clear headed and decisive ways. I agree with your premise, that tolerance of sin and crime under the rubric of humility and other misplaced appeals to virtue is itself sin. And sin has to be rooted out.