Time and time again, ROCOR has provided spiritual refuge to those unfortunate Christians who ended up alienated from modernistic ecumenist New Calendar jurisdictions in the US. Glory to God!
]]>Overlooking the youthful snarky-sneer factor in your text, there’s some substance worth exploring.
The official line put to the press and the media about JP, such as we’ve seen in recent newspaper accounts, does not highlight the phrase you’ve picked out, but rather that JP was guilty of covering up a rape juxtaposed in the mode of the convicted felons recently seen in PA. However the basis for the rape coverup allegation, according to the timelines I’ve been given to read is an assertion of the alleged victim’s godmother two years after the fact, after police investigation no charges came, though the police were involved contemporaneously and arrest records created. In the case of those convicted there were multiple victims, no police involvement nor reportage at the time of events, no general awareness by the police at the time in those cases. Quite a major distinction over against this case: here we’ve seen by the police records of the arrest of the alleged rapist priest, and documentation by the prosecutor’s office (posted on Pokrov) that such records would appear on future employment searches (smashing to bits the allegation there could possibly be employment deception potential via silence).
Plainly there is neither honor nor merit in such an undue juxtaposition of felons vs. JP based upon these facts (unless the documented timeline is incomplete or in error in some as yet unknown way). The timeline as set forth I think in a neutral party’s eyes couldn’t possibly support morally lumping JP in with such severe felons, nothing even close to it.
Now to the text you’ve quoted, taken in the light of the footnoted timeline, what remains? Clearly the many interpretations apropos unstated facts, save one, must be rejected even demolished, as incompatible when the given details in the timeline are explored. What then of the willingness to juxtapose JP with felons of severe criminality in the civil media by some in church leadership who write as if in full possession of relevant detail? Detail that can’t be supported by the revealed presented facts?
The one matter the above does detail, about which the offered timeline doesn’t offer much light at all (it is long I could have missed it): the matter of the agreement to treatment in the Roman Catholic facility best known for treating sexual offenders. Here it must be noted that particular facility was chosen specifically at the insistence of the same folk willing to group JP with sexual offenders of the worst rank, no other facility or doctor would suffice in the eyes of whoever was capable of projecting his insistence upon the synod. Who was that and why? I don’t know. If something awful transpired and remains hidden about which the synod knows– well, given the exhaustive detail the public has received about these minor events, that appears hard to credit.
The above text goes on to explain their assessment that JP did not follow Roman Catholic institutions psycho-medical advice, or at least not to their satisfaction, and on that basis he had to go.
We do not have anywhere in the record what that advice was, on what basis it might be seen to have merit, in what specific instances it was in fact chronically overlooked or not followed, and so no means to measure whether the synod’s statement ought properly be credited. Ordinarily one would allow that a group of folk all engaged in the detail would if unanimous probably have got it correct. But in this instance, how to morally overlook the willingness of the same folk synod to juxtapose JP with the most severe of sexual offenders in the public media? This while the timeline really only leaves the basis as the assertion of a godmother two years post events which the police previously investigated. Tough one.
Given that seems hardly the standard a Christian body ought recognize as due, well, all that’s left is that the synod was badly mislead, and ought not have done as it did. Or, there is some important error or omission in the given footnoted timelines.
I do think it is fair to conclude a sense of dislike drives the official narrative above, overlooking detail unhelpful to JP’s removal as relates to the actual decisions and actual events. Unless, unless– there is some major omission or error. But where does the preponderance of the evidence point?
It remains beyond creepy to me that such an active sexual misconduct committee could suffer the alleged continuance of pressure upon monks to engage in homosexual conduct in a SF monastery, while suspending a different bishop for no conduct beyond a small group of text messages, or removing a Metropolitan on the facts noted in the timelines and released documentation. There is a distinct feeling of selectivity in activity about the facts the faithful are given to read.
So, given the balance of the footnoted facts and statements revealed to this point, there exists reasonable evidence to support that the synod was misled in seeking JP’s resignation. At the least there is a need to explain how it comes to pass the apparent alleged exploitation of monastics leads to nothing for bishop supervising that institution, while some text messages cause a another to be suspended immediately. Visible strictness in some cases, inexplicable ‘zippo’ in what appears to be much worse other instances.
The faithful and the public has a right to ask that the church resolve whether its rules are just for disliked offenders.
]]>Mr. Coin,
You have decisively, though imaginatively, gone on to answer the question, “How many sleuths does it take to miss the forest for the trees? ONE” That would be you, señor.:
We knew already from past experience with Metropolitan Jonah that something had to change; we haqd hoped that we had hoped that change would come about as a result of Metropolitan Jonah fulfilling his promise to comply with the recommendation given him by the medical facility to which he was admitted for evaluation and treatment last November, as he assured us he would do at our last All-American Council in Seattle. That promise having gone unfulfilled, when the last problem came to our attention at the end of June, we felt we had no choice but to ask him to take a leave or to submit his resignation. The moral, human, canonical and legal stakes were simply too high… Our request for ‘s resignation, or that he take a leave of absence for treatment, came at the end of a rather long list of questionable unilateral decisions and actions, demonstrating the inability of the Metropolitan to always be truthful and accountable to his peers.
Would it seem fair, Mr. Coin, that the Synod is insisting this is not a “single-issue-driven” matter, but a culmination of the fundamental lack of leadership over the course of his term between All-American Councils? Remove the issue of sexual misconduct from the argument, Mr. Coin, totally remove it. What have you got? As I noted above: You cannot provide direction when you have none; you cannot draw upon experience when you have none; and you cannot lead when you are not a leader.
Was that fast enough for you?
]]>http://www.christinefevronia.blogspot.com/
It is the best and most complete, footnoted timeline of events I’ve seen to date.
Here we see the OCA’s Sexual Misconduct committee and synod acting with great speed to remove the OCA’s leader and Chicago bishop on the basis of allegations from women (two years after the events of concern in one case), while apparently doing nothing in the case of allegations of subtly coerced hypnosis under color of church authority leading to male-male sexual activity at a monastery under Bishop Benjamin.
The events detailed and footnoted give rise to tremendous concern and evidence of highly selective and suspiciously agenda-driven focus regarding the work of the OCA’s sexual misconduct committee. Public comparison of the OCA’s Metropolitan’s choices to Roman Catholic rape coverups and civil prosecutions of misdoers in PA on the basis of allegations of a godmother two years after the fact?
Unless there is some very important omission of fact or big error in this document (if so those who know ought respond and right soon) — I can see no other conclusion than that the OCA synod was greatly misled and ought not have asked Met. Jonah to resign.
]]>M. Stankovich,
Being a firebrand is one of my faults, not Jonah’s. Jonah was kind and patient and never spoke ill of his detractors, even (especially) behind their backs, and I was there at St Nick’s during all of the attacks against Jonah by other bishops so I would know if he was trashing them. Look back at the AAC last year, bishop after bishop used classless personal attacks and jabs against Jonah from the platform, but whenever Jonah spoke, he never fought back or attacked the other bishops; instead, he calmly presented a very positive vision for the church. Never has the contrast between Jonah’s character and that of the bishops who waged a mutli-year campagn to oust Jonah.
In fact, it was Jonah who was infinitely patient to work with the other bishops, not the other way around, but they wanted to control Jonah and couldn’t tolerate a visionary leader. You talk about them trying to implement his programs. Hang the programs! The power of Jonah’s message was not that it could be packaged up into a program. The message was one of humility, purity, overcoming our passions, renouncing earthly distractions and seeking the pearl of great price, inner communion with God. That cannot be implemented in a program, but Jonah was effective at delivering that message through homilies and lectures.
You suggest that I “take the meds.” Not to read too much into your own hyperbole, but this is exactly what they said to Jonah, and Jonah wasn’t nearly as much as a firebrand as I. He wanted to work within the leadership, not take pot shots at it. I assure you I am quite sane. If my hyperbole was over the top, it is rooted in heartfelt frustration that the most spiritual leader we have ever had in the OCA was treated the way Jonah was. I don’t personally know the other bishops, but I have been around Jonah enough to know what he was about, and he is a visionary spiritual leader. “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country.”
]]>Mr. Miller,
From the dead of night at the emergency unit, M. Stankovich, your friend, here, looking at this wonky bit of your “cascade” – and directly below my comment, for heaven’s sake – and I want to dial in a righteous order asking for something to chill you out. Seriously, you have managed to riff off every trite phrase from the “Don’t step on the Mantia, son, it’s silk” handbook. Holy Cow!
Mr. Miller (and may I call you Mr. Miller?), what I cannot figure out, if I am to believe you, is why this man, who had the ear of the righteous, the support of the faithful, the respect of world Orthodoxy, and the inner strength and discipline of the monastic tradition of spirituality did not stand before the All-American Council, the Acton Institute, the conservative Anglicans, the Washington Post, whomever, and declare in courageous & righteousness indignation: “These are corrupt, power-hungry, self-absorbed, egotistically self-important bishops who will destroy the OCA, and I will resign before I will be a part of it.” “His flock loved him,” Mr. Miller! He would have been hailed “defender of the faith,” another Mark of Ephesus. The Synod of Bishops would have been humiliated into resignation. Unless…
The fact is, Mr. Miller, you have created a myth that works for you. I could suggest that the Synod extended themselves, even unto seventy times seven; offering professional help and a plan for mutual “commitment”; waiting, begging, hoping for a leader to provide a sense of direction, to be true to his promises, and to initiate his many ideas and plans. To actually do something. And they offered “lifelines” and assistance and more “lifelines,” and in the end – perhaps irresponsibly – allowed him to implode and burn the brides back. And the fact is, Mr. Miller, my “suggestion” is as viable and logical as your fairy tale, and you have absolutely no information to prove me wrong.
Take the meds, don’t take the meds. The NFL season is upon us. You know, men brutally banging their heads against one another for no particularly good reason I can see. I do, however, appreciate the analogy. Flip a coin for me – turn cable TV back on (heads). Let me know what you got.
]]>I agree with what Mr. Baumann says; the prospect ofr a nativizing Orthodox Church gets more untrnable with each passing year. The OCA is crippled by ‘grandfathered’ ethnic dioceses (4, 5? I lose count) that are exempt from not just financial support of Syosset (maybe neutral value) but the whole ‘vision thing’ to quote GHW Bush. As a seminarian ay SVS I heard that few students and none of the Bps ‘get it’ about the Schmemannic vision of a Local American Church and continue to reference Old World ‘Mother Church’ precedent – as though afraid to face the challenge of reaching out to just plain old Americans.
What I see is a Church mired in reference to the recent past and dedicated to a ministry directed solely at those already within the fold: i.e. Ethnic Orthodox Communities. Parishes are aging and dying all over the country with no leadership to prevent it. Pastors are not equipped to cater to the sentimental desires of aging emigres while simultaneoudsly making a church life that interest newcomers. There has to be a sacrifice of the less essential features of the former in order to give the latter a fighting chance. We desperately need episcopal leadership willing to challenge ‘ethnic notions’ by giving pastors needed support to grow their parishes in new directions:like toward the Americans.
I don’t see it as a failure of morals, just lack of creative enterprise. A spirit of entrepreneurship is encumbent, though, upon the mission priest. I just have not seen it on any level above parish clergy.
Let’s see John – Girls enter a private sanctuary/entity without granted permission, and they proceed to act obscenely. The same group organized an orgy in a public library right in front of children, and had a women walk into a grocery store and masturbate with a frozen chicken, in front of everyone. This is free speech? But it’s not really the girls’ fault. They are pawns and the monies come from “non-profit” ngos from outside governments. They were used. And seeing just out photogenic they are, I wouldn’t be surprised that they were precisely chosen to fulfill this role by the powers with the money. But Putin and the ROC are authoritarian and scandalous…. sure.
There was nothing spiteful or scandalous about the way the ROC or the State handled this situation. That is unless, we no longer believe in sacred spots and, the historical aspect that society has always protected these spaces with the understanding that these spaces are the source of our liberty and freedoms.
]]>It was a wonderful thing, but I wouldn’t characterize it as “representing” the OCA. That would make it seem that OCA leadership appointed him to represent the OCA in that event. It is much more likely that the Russians, who are not fooled by the slander against Jonah, invited him to participate in the liturgy.
]]>Jonah did not have an inability to lead and his flock loved him. It was only some corrupt, power-hungry, self-absorbed, egotistically self-important bishops around him that had any problem with him. On moral and spiritual issues, Jonah had leadership ability in spades, as his many homilies and speeches attest. However, the entrenched, politically correct, morally compromised bishops around him didn’t want moral purity or deeper spirituality because it makes them look bad and hindered their politically correct agenda to be like the apostate Episcopal church. On administrative issues, Jonah’s approach was simple–delegate. Let others involved in administration do their job without hindrance from him, and that’s how he administered the church, and that’s how a good spiritual leader should lead the church. The problem is that wasn’t enough for the bishops. They wanted control of Jonah’s message, not just the freedom to administer the day to day affairs of the church. Since when has any committee ever produced an inspiring message for the flock – that always comes from the pure soul of an individual spiritual leader.
Modern American Orthodoxy is light years away from reaching its spiritual potential. Luminaries such as St Gregory Palamas rightly taught us that Orthodoxy is about achieving inner communion with God. American Orthodoxy resembles Barlaamistic rationalism much more than Orthodox mysticism. Jonah understood this, and his message was slowly but surely trying to set the church on path to deeper spirituality and communion with God. If you read Palamas, two of the things that are necessary to achieve communion with God are purity and heart-felt prayer. On the purity issue, Jonah taught patristic morality, but that didn’t sit well with the rationalistic politically-correct agenda of the Lavender Mafia. On prayer, it was well known that Jonah was one of the few American Orthodox leaders who had actually devoted a lot of time and effort toward hesychasm and heart-felt repetitive prayer.
Lord have mercy on American Orthodoxy. Replace our cold stone hearts with the warmth of Your love, our rational arguments with the immediate perception of Your truth, and our outward legalism with inner purity!
]]>Holy cow! Is everyone – as certain ethnic women on the streets are wont to say – “on their last nerve?” Benzodiazepines for all my friends! Pardon me, mon pere, for mistaking flowery speech for ego strength. The owner of this house directs traffic, not me. My only “rebuke” was to suggest a man can be handed his hat for a number of reasons: head’s too big or head’s too small. But you knew that.
I am fascinated by the theories of communication – notably information cascades – that suggest “truth” can be rapidly derivative by accepting what others are accepting, without a concern for whether it might actually be the correct. The internet, unexpectedly, is the perfect medium for this phenomenon. At the same time, cascades do not occur in communities where there is cohesion, concern, and mutual respect. This would seem to suggest that a cascade would be an impossibility in the Church. Hmm. Many sides, long on rhetoric and short on “the money.” My thought: it’s diagnostic of a specific pathogen, lack of moral authority.
Somehow, I had imagined that the quotations from St. Chrysostom emphasized that the shepherd cannot blame the flock (or any other entity, for that matter) for his inability to lead. Even that “saintly Moses, ” paid a big price, says our Father John. Our God is a jealous God, indeed, and I do not mean to imply the OCA does not need an evangelist; I do not believe it needs one now.
I am deeply saddened to contemplate not living to see an actual American Orthodox Church, forty-two years after I was promised, and knowing the architects have passed. On the other hand, I somehow imagine that someone like Fr. John Peck will rise at the Parma, OH All-American Council, to remind the Synod of Bishops of the words of St. Chrysostom Commentary on the Ephesians: “For forty years the Jews wandered in the desert. At this moment, how many scorpions, how many snakes are in this wilderness, how many serpents, how many ‘offspring of vipers’ (Matt. 3:7) must we, at an instant pass? But do not fear, for the leader of our Exodos is not Moses, but Jesus Christ.”
Be sure to put something on that cut. A lot of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus going around. I read about a man who actually lost his sharp tongue.
]]>