George, you raise good points all. So you know, I didn’t see your post prior to posting my own comment (owing, no doubt, to the length of my comments). I read your initial comments with interest after submitting my own. At this point I can only agree with both the initial and subsequent points. While I deeply value the depth, treasures and living connections that those oversees relationships can provide, the administrative problems, diffused focus, and different political interests are all problematic, as you point out. The lack of good order (as noted in 3.1.1.) is simply a scandal.

John, one way to do this would be to ordain more real monks as bishops. And let them continue to live in their monasteries, honoring their vows of poverty. You can’t threaten a true monk.

P.S. Chrys, the other point is that there was no bishop to protect Petrides. There was no bishop because Petrides pastored extra-canonical parishes set up in an archdiocese that belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Chrys, your point is well-taken. My point on the other hand is that the extra-canonical jurisdictions which implanted themselves solely through immigration suffered tremendously under this yoke. Not wanting to belabor the point, the idea that “evangelism” and “missionary activity” was taking place in America solely on the basis of priests being given antiminsions from a bishop 4,000 miles away when viewed in light of the reality on the ground, shows the illegitimacy of this argument. This story about Petrides is just one of many. The brings up yet another even more troubling question: for every Petrides who stood up for the faith, how many buckled?

Further, many of the good people in parishes with these problems don’t have the stomach for the conflict that any correction necessarily causes, and appropriately so. That job falls to the priest who, as you say, must have the backing of the bishop. Where bishops back their priests (and some do), the parish ends up healthier and flourishes. Where they don’t, the good parishioners are scandalized, usually by the mistreatment of the priest, and the parish flounders, often for a decade or more.

As the article and the excellent doctoral dissertion of Fr. Nicholas Ferencz both make clear, our parishes were largely built by, paid for and ruled by a handful of influential parishioners. Add to that a long history of financial mismanagement by even well-intentioned leadership, and the result is our current situation: an oddly congregationalist polity that pretends to carry on a hierarchical tradition. And that’s the best case scenario. At worst, it means that the hierarchy is either irrelevant or compliant so that the church is effectively run by a few wealthy donors.

Unfortunately, this problem has not been resolved. The Big Money guys in each parish still know very well that the parish depends on their contributions and, without considerable formation, this will invariably lead to a host of spiritually undesirable consequences – for the donor, the parish and the message of the gospel in that area. This would be like the Apostles letting the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea dictate the shape of their mission. (Of course, such a group wouldn’t have commanded the noble Joseph of Arimathea’s loyalty. What does that tell you about the kind of people that certain practices attract and the kind of people you don’t? Priceless integrity appeals to those who would advance the mission of the Church and bring glory to God – and it would do so for generations.)

The present “deal” with the Big Money donors isn’t as fruitful as many seem to think. This story is a terrific object lesson. Here there was no counter-acting force, no hierarchical authority, to check and humble a wealthy layman who was apparently full of himself. What really came from this? It was more than a moment of “martyrdom” for a worthy priest. It is worth repeating: the acquiescence of the leadership is very dangerous for the wealthy malefactor (who was rewarded for this efforts and reinforced in his pride), the innocent parishioners (what awful lessons must they have taken from this?), the priest (who then knew he was on his own), and the spread of the gospel in the area (which presumably fell to other parishes . . . assuming they took up the calling). God regularly brings good from evil, but one could wish the Church offered fewer opportunities for Him to do so. As I have noted elsewhere, I expect that America’s eventual contribution to the Orthodox Church will come in the area of management and accountability.

To avoid the travesty that occurred in the parish in the article, it is essential to have an authority – a bishop – who can and will stand up for the faith, impose discipline and back up the priest. Whatever short-term loss they would suffer in financial support (and the cost would likely be meaningful), the long-term gain in spiritual vitality would more than make up for it.

Contrast this with the Russian diocese established here in America.

God send us bold priests BACKED UP BY bishops with enough spine to stay out of their way.