OCA Truth

This is even more clear when one listens to the rest of His Beatitude’s speech.  In the speech he advocates a vision for the OCA the enables and empowers the dioceses, not the Central Administration.  This vision has been lauded by his fellow bishops.  He expounds on how things are run successfully in Diocese of the West and the Diocese of the South. His vision is not narrow, worldly, or self-serving.  It is apparent that his focus is to serve, not to be served.  Those who have meet him in person cannot be surprised.

Supposing, however, that every claim levied at the Metropolitan is true and that he in fact is a power-hungry, unilateral administrator that terrorizes his staff, it still would be unseemly and unproductive to throw him under the bus.  What would be the Christ-like way forward (for “worst-case scenario” +Jonah and the OCA) if they were true?  Surely it would not be to demonstrate the Primate’s sin and failure for all to see.  That is an indefensible way for Christians to handle such a situation. It is a sin to uncover your father’s nakedness.

And in this case, what would it accomplish?  What reasons — other than petty and defensive ones –could one have to insist that no one else has a problem except this one person who has publicly admitted fault and is selflessly inviting humiliation and slander by seeking a way forward? What does such insistent finger pointing accomplish?  What is accomplished by purposefully and publicly laying out a litany of the mistakes of one person over the past three years (even if it is qualified as “not meant to embarrass anyone”)? How could it be that such things are done for the good of the Church, and not for the sake of the individual’s personality conflicts? How is this a way forward?

Moreover, the claim that the only mistakes that have been made over the past three years belong to His Beatitude is absurd; and the claim that His Beatitude’s leadership is solely responsible for the OCA’s missteps and the current state of distrust and anxiety is patently false. What was the Synod like before His Beatitude arrived in 2008? Oh yes, there were several lawsuits, embarrassment centering around the former Chancellor, financial scandal, and (it was admitted) a group of bishops that were either afraid or unable to speak to the faithful and put their mind at ease.

The insistent finger pointing only makes +Jonah look like a real and selfless leader, and suggests that the water in his well was poisoned long before he got there.

There are a number of common factors to the past unsatisfactory (to put it mildly) decades of OCA administration; it seems incredible for those factors to expect us to believe the new guy is both the root and the extent of the problem. Just like drafty ol’ Syosset, which they have talked about getting rid of for over twenty years, the Metropolitan inherited a mixed bag. The legacy of the OCA, good and bad, is something you cannot claim to be your mansion when it is convenient and someone else’s decrepit money pit when it is not.  ”Their” legacy contains the termites in the walls of the showroom: It’s as crazy to blame the new guy for the termites as it is to only take ownership for the contents of the showroom.

His Beatitude has made mistakes, and his missteps have hurt the OCA, but it is patently false to claim that his missteps have been the only and most embarrassing ones. Anyone making that claim is either incredibly self-deceived or brazenly trying to sell you something. I would suggest it is another decade of the same ol’ OCA.

– Jesse Cone

After the fireworks following Santa Fe some are expecting this week to be the “Showdown in Seattle”.  It is safe to say that such a showdown would in no way benefit the OCA, regardless of who you might like and what policy you support. However, as we look through the reams of reports that are due to be delivered we see the same old passionate potshotting at His Beatitude rearing its ugly head, but to what purpose?  He has problems, but it is hard to clearly see where his problems are worse in kind or severity to those exhibited by the other members of leadership, and especially by the Metropolitan Council.  Moreover it has become clear that +Jonah will continue to be the Metropolitan despite the canons of the Orthodox Church failing to do their job by providing a reason to remove him.

The whining over Metropolitan Jonah’s nondescript failings — and no, I don’t think failing to rubber stamp everything a non-binding advisory committee suggests is a failing — is just a painful distraction to those bodies that have work to do.  Committees and individuals that have the time to whine about the behavior of a Metropolitan who does not report to them suggest to me that they (A) don’t have actual work within their realm of responsibility to do and hence are unnecessary, (B) don’t have the maturity to look beyond their personality issues to do their work, or (C) have ulterior motives similar to those who previously obsessively whined about him. Personality conflicts and office relationship issues will not be made better by dragging the rest of the OCA into it.

The most that the potshotting can hope to accomplish in Seattle is to keep us reminded how damaging and painful the past 10 months have been so we can keep from perpetuating the problem.

Yet as I read the reports, I still see some of the same distracted and futile +Jonah whining. The initial bishop bad-mouthing that got us into this embarrassing mess started out with reasonable, almost mild, complaints.  Many remember the end of 2010 when OCANews employed the slow wear-down technique, posting that some the actions of the Metropolitan did not offer the change that was expected.  This, while pointed and strident, did not suffice as the Metropolitan chose not to sit idly by.  By February he had pushed strongly and loudly for the sale of Syosset, authorized an investigation of member of the Holy Synod, and had fired a Chancellor who had been working against him at every turn. It was time to up the ante.

Some claimed he was chemically dependent.  Some claimed he was crazy or otherwise “gravely troubled”. Members of the Metropolitan Council planned on scaring the rest of the OCA into thinking that he was single-handedly threatening to bring lawsuits down upon the OCA because of his manner of handling sexual misconduct complaints.  Therefore it was said that the Metropolitan, due to his “actions and inactions” defied reason, common sense, and “Best Practices”.  A telling line from Mark Stokoe’s version of the last Metropolitan Council meeting voiced his disappointment that the Metropolitan “would not be shamed”, letting us know how far some people were willing to go.  What was the Metropolitan’s response to such audacity? Stokoe “accused” him of sitting there calmly while people whose attacked him.

Many of the things that they accuse him of are not novel or isolated to Met. Jonah.  He wants to move Syosset?  That’s been talked about for decades.  There are lawsuits?  They were there before +Jonah, and an investigation of them reflects poorer on other bishops than they do on +Jonah. He’s frustrated with the fruits of a body of governance that isn’t canonical support for?  So are a lot of people, and saying that Metropolitan Councils aren’t something you will see in the canons is simply accurate.

One can very well attack Metropolitan Jonah by saying that there are people who dislike him. You can also say that he has not done a good job supervising the Central Administration. You may even say his vision for the OCA is different than that of some of the other people in leadership.  Is there dissention?  Yes.  Does it center around Metropolitan Jonah?   Yes.  One does not have to say, however, that the problem is him, or that the only solution is to call for his removal.

What one does have to say however, is that the last AAC acted by electing this man as our Metropolitan.  This election was confirmed by the Holy Synod of Bishops who, along with the Holy Spirit, made this decision.  Let him be Metropolitan, and let us go back to embodying the Kingdom of God in our fellowship so that we can preach the Gospel with our words and our lives.

For the past several months I have stopped reading Stokoe’s comboxes, but every now and again things in it are brought to my attention.  This rant of Stokoe’s (a nine paragraph response to a one paragraph comment) is yet another clear example that Stokoe is recycling the same recipe that didn’t work in Sata Fe.  The first thing to notice is the tone: condescending, self-congratulatory, dismissive, and always correct.

Editor’s note: How come it is every time people like you ( and OCAT) don’t like the facts they accuse everyone else of “editorializing” on them? I did ask several questions at the end of my story, all of which followed directly and reasonably from the chronology of Moguntov. And unlike OCAT, I at least ask my questions openly and honestly, and sign my name to them.

As for the OCAT story, I read it, because you claimed I got the story wrong somehow, and I wanted to learn how. Imagine my pleasure to read anonymous” parishioner” confirming it is the practice for the OCA to announce leaves and suspensions — as he points out on a regular basis — on the clergy changes list! He then gives three examples of more recent press releases for high profile leaves or suspensions ( i.e. +Seraphim, +Jonah and now Fr. Zacchaeus) in just the last year. Thanks for confirming what I wrote.

I found it extremely funny, however, that the writer suggests Mr. Berezansky did not or does not know Mr. Wojick. This only confirms that when it comes to OCAT, it contains very little truth amid very little knowledge of the OCA. The gentlemen know each other, friend. This is just sand Mr. Berzansky was throwing, which if the writer knew either man, he would know sand throwing can be one of his styles. He is a good and cratfy lawyer. In his ignorance, thoug, anonymous parishioner now picks up the sand and throws it into his readers eyes.

Well now, that is interesting. Partly because I didn’t say anything about Mr. Wojcik  and Mr. Berezansky knowing each other as Stokoe claims, and partly because he’s wrong. I received the following email from Mr. Berezansky:

Dear Jesse –

I am amazed at Mark Stokoe’s inability to maintain the slightest veil of journalistic objectivity.  He is now impersonating the Wicked Witch of the West. ‘I’m melting … melting!’  For the record, I’ve never met Thaddeus Wojcik.  I may have met his father many, many years ago at some OCA function, but I honestly can’t remember.  Sand?

But this, I have discovered, is OCAT’s usual style. It is all a gambit by OCAT to distract people from the real issue and the real problem – which is +Jonah and his actions.

This is the second point I want to make: that what Stokoe is serving up is what he helped cook up for Santa Fe with Faith Skordinksi and Fr. Garklavs. Here it is, again, the same game plan spelled out by Skordinski – the way to get +Jonah out is to scare people by telling them that we will have the same lawsuits in the OCA that hit the Roman Catholic Church so hard in the hip-pocket.

Back to the combox, wherein Stokoe makes and handful of tip-less darts at me, forgets we know the integrity of the SMPAC report is dubious, and that (though it was received), it failed to oust the Metropolitan.

And so we get the gratuitious aspersions on the SMPAC and staff at Syosset for “leaks” are just more sand in the eyes of readers. Like all good lies there is just enough truth in his aspersions ( like the reference to the conference call) to make his aspersions plausible. However, the truth is much simpler. In matters of concern to the Metropolitan OCAT is often informed, because “certain factions” wearing a white hat have been known to disclose things right and left; and often to both right and left simultaneously. Denials notwithstanding.

I am shocked though that the writer would actually disclose details of the case, such as the fact that one was over two years old. I am even more shocked that he seems be dismissive of them because of this. In this he betrays a serious lack of knowledge about the realities of such misconduct allegations.

As for the writer’s conclusion, well, I would only point out that if the same questions that were raised in Santa Fe about Jonah’s poor handling of misconduct cases (as contained, reportedly, in the SMPAC report) are raised again at the next MC meeting because of his poor handling of this most recent case, why should this be a surprise to anyone? Or evidence of a sinister plot? It is the reasonable, responsible response of reasonable men to irresponsible and unreasonable actions.

Let me go OCAT one better in predictions. Such questions will keep on happening, not just at the next MC meeting, but at all MC meetings into the foreseeable future, because nothing is going to change, if things don’t. That is, until that eventual sexual misconduct lawsuit that brings the OCA down like they have 9 bankrupt Roman Catholic dioceses. There are already 2.4 billion reasons why things need to change.

This is not a canonical question, friends, but a reality check. And on this score, like so much special pleading for +Jonah on the basis of inexperience, lack of training, misinterpretation,
the canons, supposed cabals, Moscow’s wrath, culture wars, and so forth and such and, ad nauseum, it all comes down to so much sand being thrown in people’s eyes to obscure the real problem, which are the actions and attitudes of the guy in the white hat. That is not editorializing, that is a fact. +Jonah’s defenders want you and the OCA to overlook his actions, ignore his decisions, or lack of same, and the real, growing and fatal danger they ocassion to our autocephalous Church. They will throw up most anything, any sand they can find lying around, to obscure that fact. They will disparage people, priests, cathedrals, bishops, dioceses to obscure reality – and have. But reality obscured is not reality changed. And in the end, reality wins.

That’s right, it’s Metropolitan Jonah and his Stokoe-stylized “Team” against reality.  I guess that means there is a whole slew of us that are “gravely troubled”.

It took me a second look, but I had to go back into that last paragraph to trace down the “fact” which I am supposedly obscuring by “throwing sand in people’s eyes”.  The fact of which we are so graciously “reality checked” into, the fact that “is not editorializing”, the fact that brings with it the inevitable prospect of bankruptcy and billions of dollars is — and I quote — “the actions and attitudes of the guy in the white hat”.

Funny, that “fact” looked an awful like a “prediction” a paragraph earlier.

I also found it ironic that he is heralding legal doom and gloom when less than two weeks earlier (August 25th) he disagreed with commentator in his comboxes about the same thing. It seems it was the anti-Jonah thing to do.

Editor’s note: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The OCA has not “had its ears pinned back by lawsuits.” That would be an overstatement by half.

So one week Mark is trying to allay fears of lawsuits and another he is trying to ratchet up to terror of the pocketbook.  Sure he could say that he’s warning about the future while speaking factually about the past, but the fact of the matter is that he waffles back and forth himself.  Didn’t he claim +Jonah was disregarding procedure, while encouraging the SMPAC and other bishops to disregard policy and the canons by telling him what to do?  Isn’t he the one who says “The Synod” thinks and feels a certain way against Metropolitan Jonah, while he own bishop removed him from two councils and emphatically stated he does not bless Stokoe’s site and wants him to take it down? Wobble, waffle, bob and weave.

Reality wins.

–Jesse Cone

I believe the Fr. Zacchaeus case is a great example of how, um,  a “certain faction” of the OCA does character assassinations on people they don’t like.  The nice thing about this situation (if one can say there is such a thing) is that it has been more obvious this time, and because of all the attention everyone is under, it’s a bit more out there for people to see.  The problem, as we have seen for the past couple weeks, is that the spin doctors spin first, and then the truth has to come out correctively.  It forces the people who want to treat the case appropriately to be reactive rather than proactive.

So let me clear up some technical issues regarding Fr. Zacchaeus.

1. He is a direct report to the Metropolitan.  The Metropolitan is his bishop.  The Synod’s canonical relationship to him is the same as any regular diocesan priest.  What is different about him is his parish’s relationship with Moscow.  It would look exceedingly bad for the OCA if the other bishops or priests attempted to meddle in affairs outside of their jurisdiction as it pertained to a representational parish on foreign soil.

This is not just canonical, it within the OCA’s Sexual Misconduct Policies, Standards, and Procedures.  From 7.01a, (emphasis mine):

Diocesan Bishops have full hierarchical authority for all Church activities within the diocese, including all matters concerning allegations of sexual misconduct.  Bishops may fully exercise that authority in accordance with these Policies, Standards, and Procedures, and may impose any clergy discipline not requiring action of a Church court.

2. The Sexual Misconduct Policy Advisory Committee (SMPAC) has no role in this specific case. Their role is described clearly in their charter:

The Committee is under the authority of the Metropolitan, and is chaired by the Chancellor of the Church, who is the day-to-day supervisor of the Office. The Committee operates in an advisory capacity only and does not assume any responsibility for the handling of sexual misconduct allegations, because that responsibility properly belongs to the Diocesan Hierarchs and the Office, according to the Policies, Standards, and Procedures on Sexual Misconduct.

Note that the explicitly defined “Duties” of the SMPAC does not give them a voice in this matter. Their tasks are much more general, and they (being also lay people) do not need access to every claim and report of Sexual Misconduct.  (And yet the Metropolitan Council have been recently demanding these files.)

DUTIES

1. Provide advice on how to improve both the content and effectiveness of the Church’s Policies, Standards, and Procedures on Sexual Misconduct.
2. Assist in reviews of the extent to which the Church’s Policies, Standards, and Procedures on Sexual Misconduct are implemented in practice and how compliance with them is ensured.
3. Assist in finding and nominating qualified professionals, who would be called on to do investigations when occasions arise.
4. Assist in developing increased and improved training for clergy, Church employees, and applicable laypersons to enable a better understanding of their duties under the Policies, Standards and Procedures on Sexual Misconduct, including their mandatory reporting obligations under various state laws.
5. Assist in any other requests for advice made by the Metropolitan and the Office.

3. He was never suspended.  On July 21st he received a letter from Interim Chancellor Bishop Melchisedeck, on behalf of Metropolitan Jonah, informing him he was named as a “subject of allegations of misconduct.”  That letter informed him that he was immediately placed on a “leave of absence”, which is — as we have very much seen over the past several months — is NOT the same thing as a suspension.  We also have seen it has a history of being abused as a punitive tool when suspension was not available.

As much as I shudder to agree with the “Bishop” at Credo.ru, it is not the practice of the OCA to issue a news post on the jurisdictional website when a clergyman is placed on leave.  While clergy are frequently placed on leave throughout the OCA, the only ones to merit a news release are Archbishop Seraphim, Metropolitan Jonah, and (now) Fr. Zacchaeus. The standard practice is for it to appear on the clergy changes list, like this one. Search for yourself.

4. He has not yet been presented formally with the allegations against him. If this is such an important and timely matter, why would the priest and his lawyer be forced to sit there, on their hands, without knowing who their accuser is and of what they are accused?

5. The alleged misconduct is more than two years old.

6. The reason that I know this, as well as several others, is due to “certain factions” in the OCA who talk all too freely about the situation.  This group does not include Metropolitan Jonah, who told me multiple times to get lost when I asked him even the most basic questions about the case. It does include some of the people who were responsible for the indefensible act of publicizing Fr. Zacchaeus’ “leave of absence” and the fact that he was “prohibited from exercising any liturgical or sacramental ministry” on oca.org.  It also includes some of the people (more than a dozen!) who were on the a Syosset conference call in order to plan how to deal with the Fr. Zacchaeus  situation.

7. Some of the same people are currently accusing Metropolitan Jonah of  ineptitude and failure to execute his fiduciary responsibility. They are also demanding he turn over all his communication regarding the case to Holy Synod, something he is refusing to do: thereby protecting canonical practice and maintaining compliance with the OCA’s Sexual Misconduct Policy, Standards, and Procedures.

8. It is not policy to recall Fr. Zacchaeus to the States at this stage in the investigation.  Really, this makes very little sense unless it was felt that Fr. Zacchaeus ’ presence caused imminent harm.  That claim is not found anywhere in the numerous documents that have been leaked to me. In one such document, Fr. Zacchaeus ‘ lawyer, Vlad Berezansky, explains to Thaddeus Wojcik, counsel for the OCA, why the recall does not make legal sense.

I’ve been trying with little success to educate your client as to what we know as stare decisis – ancient, hoary law. There’s something known as lex loci delicti. “The place of the crime.” Your client – the OCA, I’m presuming, and not the accuser by implicit adoption of [their] claims (but we’ll get to that bit later) – is trying to draw my client into participating in a hastily slapped together star chamber where: (a) there is no relevant evidence to consider; (b) there are no witnesses to examine and cross-examine; and (c) no jurisdiction over the alleged criminal misconduct. But they certainly want my client to get to New
York in a hurry.

The way it should have worked, is that the response team should have sent someone(s) over to the place where a thorough, quiet, and non-litigious investigation could have been done.  As far as I can tell, there are many people to blame for this one, including Met. Jonah. He should have overridden the suggested plans of action presented to him and made sure the right thing was done: both for the accuser and the accused. Instead he accepted the suggestion that he recuse himself (see 7.01b), and watch the clunky machanations of the Character Assassination Squad from the sidelines. That he has been forced to intervene is unfortunate but necessary.

9. Though he has not been formally presented with the allegations of misconduct or a good reason as to why he should be recalled, Fr. Zacchaeus  has been informed that as of September 1st he will no longer receive his paycheck. This has propelled the situation towards the legal avenue rather than the quiet, inexpensive ecclesiastical one. This was not communicated to Fr. Zacchaeus  by His Beatitude, and it is unclear whether he had a say in that decision.

10. The position of the legal counsel for the OCA in this matter is confusing and strange.  It appears as though Mr. Berezansky was not aware of who, if anyone, was representing the OCA.  Finally, he received a communication from Thaddeus Wojcik identifying himself as “Outside General Counsel”.  On Friday, August 19th, Mr. Berezansky responds,

Well, finally! Welcome to the fun and games. It took your client long enough to get around to retaining counsel. (But you are appearing as ‘Outside’ General Counsel – whatever that means.) Thank you, Your Graces, for finally allowing an adult into the room.
…
So who or what exactly is your client? The OCA Synod of Bishops? The Metropolitan Council? The entire OCA? Even if your scope of representation is limited to the Synod of Bishops you’ve got some serious conflict issues to deal with.

All this looks way too familiar; and I, for one, am tired of this old, sad tune.  A sham (or at least questionable) investigation, coupled with internet publication of the investigation feeding into rabid gossip. Allegations of failure to follow the Almighty Policy by those whose actions do not remotely track with the policy. “Leave of Absence” and premature punitive action. For years this has been the MO of an overly confident group that judges and assassinates those clergy they choose. Now it seems to be a desperate attempt at the same tired old game of Policy Purloin that they tried with His Beatitude this past February in Santa Fe.  Any of this sound familiar?

One can easily imagine the same, pre-Santa Fe emails being recycled again.

* The Sexual Misconduct Committee (SMC) takes +Jonah to task in its report to the Holy Synod
* the Holy Synod will meet shortly to decide, once again, what to do about
+Jonah , and the possible next steps. Either: 

1. the Holy Synod finds a way to retire or remove Jonah
2. the Holy Synod does not do this and then, at the next Metropolitan Council meeting:

•  we call on the SMC to present its report
• we ask +Jonah for his response
• we ask +Jonah about his Violation of policy
• I introduce a motion of no confidence in the Met.
• we pray. yes?

-- Jesse Cone

by Subdeacon Joseph Wynn, St. Seraphim Cathedral, Dallas TX

Vladika Dmitri wasn’t my Spiritual Father, at least not in any formal or officially acknowledged understanding. But he was the most influential Spiritual Father that wasn’t, in my life. To have spent the past 8 years with this man, seeing him every single week (sometimes 3 and 4 times a week) was a blessing that only now am I truly realizing.

Sometimes our interaction ranged from nothing more than me asking for his blessing, to private talks in his home. And regardless of the time we were together, I always knew that Vladika cared. Vladika made the simplest interaction seem as important as the not so simple.

Not being a writer, it’s not easy for me to fluently express myself and to describe the relationship we had, but if not for him I wouldn’t be where I am today. In February of 2007 Vladika had just completed our house blessing and I told him that I wanted to speak privately with him. We went into my office and I told him that I feeling a “pull” from the Church towards clerical responsibilities. We talked about that for quite a while and in the end Vladika said, “Well, let’s just let this simmer a while and see what God does with it.” Three and a half years later, Met. Jonah ordained me to the Sub-deaconate. And now as I continue my studies for the Diaconate I am still guided by what Vladika said back then, “…let’s just let this simmer and see what God does with it.”

We had a private dinner this past Thursday evening, the day Vladika was buried and it’s this thought that I would most like people to remember. We discussed how when Vladika the Archbishop was among us, he was our Shepherd, and under his wing we were protected. He nurtured us in his wisdom and in his character and now he has returned to our Lord. In doing so, he has left us with the understanding that it is now our turn to do as he did. It is our turn to lead, whereas before we only had to follow. It is now our turn to step up and out from under shadow of his wing and live according to the examples he gave to us.

At Divine Liturgy today, I so much felt Vladika’s spirit with us. I looked out across the Sanctuary and it was filled by a Priest performing his priestly duties, two Deacons leading the service, four Sub-deacons directing the traffic, and a host of servers. The Sanctuary was full and there too was Vladika. The only evidence of last week are leftover flowers scattered around the Nave. Everything was back to as it should be and Vladika is there, praying and watching over his flock in a way that is so much beyond our mortal understanding.

The last words he spoke to me, the Wednesday before he reposed was “keep on going; never give up.” This was in response to him asking me “how is your Diaconate program going?” This man who was about to give up the spirit to the Father, was more concerned about me than his own situation, but then, that’s who Vladika Dmitri was and forever will be.

May his Memory be forever Eternal. I love you Vladika!

Sdn Joseph

September 4th, 2011

Katherine, who blogs at Evlogia, offers a mother’s memories of the late Archbishop Dmitri.

Little Moments of Grace

(Evlogia)

Ithink it must be going on 15 years.

That Saturday morning when a young mother sat reading the paper, stumbled across words written by an archbishop named Dmitri. She knew nothing of the archbishop, and not a thing about his Church. But his words spoke truth, imparted life.

Those words changed me.

And I remember scrambling for pen and paper and writing in a hurried scrawl, words of thanks. Realizing that I had no idea where to find this archbishop named Dmitri. So I did the only thing I could think to do. Addressed my letter of thanks to the editor of that paper and prayed. Prayed the words written from a heart overflowing would somehow find their way to this man, Dmitri.

Whoever he was.

Weeks went by. I forgot about that letter. And then one day the phone rang. I answered to the voice of that editor.

He told me how he received my letter, how he called Archbishop Dmitri, told him how a Roman Catholic woman wrote him a letter of thanks…read it aloud to him. “The Archbishop asked me to tell you…to let you know that you’re in his prayers.” Continue reading →

From Texas Baptist to Orthodox saint?

(The Republic)

Wherever bishops travel, churches plan lavish banquets and other solemn tributes to honor their hierarchs.

Visitations by Archbishop Dmitri Royster of the Orthodox Church in America were different, since the faithful in the 14-state Diocese of the South knew that one memorable event would take care of itself. All they had to do was take their leader to a children’s Sunday-school class and let him answer questions.

During a 1999 visit to Knoxville, Tenn., the lanky Texan folded down onto a kid-sized chair and faced a circle of preschool and elementary children. With his long white hair and flowing white beard, he resembled an icon of St. Nicholas — as in St. Nicholas, the monk and fourth-century bishop of Myra.

As snacks were served, a child asked if Dmitri liked his doughnuts plain or with sprinkles. With a straight face, the scholarly archbishop explained that he had theological reasons — based on centuries of church tradition — for preferring doughnuts with icing and sprinkles.

A parent in the back of the room whispered: “Here we go.” Some of the children giggled, amused at the sight of the bemused bishop holding up a colorful pastry as if he were performing a ritual.

“In Orthodoxy, there are seasons in which we fast from many of the foods we love,” he said. “When we fast, we should fast. But when we feast, we should truly feast and be thankful.” Thus, he reasoned, with a smile, that doughnuts with sprinkles and icing were “more Orthodox” than plain doughnuts. Continue reading →

Former OCAT contributor Rod Dreher shares his memories of the beloved evangelist to the South, His Eminence Dmitri.  Having known the man, sat in his kitchen, tasted his flan, and attended his parties, Rod’s experience rings true to me.  While reading through this, in the distance I could hear Vladyka’s good-natured laugh.

We’ll miss you Vladyka.

(from Real Clear Religion)

——————————————————————————————-

Death of the Richest Man in Dallas

by Rod Dreher

We stood at the parsonage door in the rain, worrying that we were at the wrong place — could this ramshackle house in Oak Lawn really be where the archbishop lives? — and that we were underdressed for the dinner to which we had been invited.

We had seen Archbishop Dmitri in his church, St. Seraphim’s Orthodox Cathedral, on the Sunday we visited, and found the very sight of him — tall, gaunt, his long white beard resting against his black cassock — thoroughly impressive, but thoroughly intimidating.

The man looked like an Old Testament prophet. Julie and I didn’t dare turn his invitation down.

We knocked. Someone opened the door. The house was jammed with people, food, and conversation. Everyone was there to celebrate the Orthodox Feast of the Dormition, which Julie and I as Catholics knew as the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Seated there in the middle of the scrum was the austere archbishop, laughing and chattering, the happy genius of his household.

We didn’t know it then, but Dmitri’s party would change our lives. The old man died last weekend in that same house, surrounded by many of the Orthodox Christians we first met on that rainy August evening. Continue reading →

This was sent to me from a dear friend, a parishioner of St. Seraphim’s Cathedral, who was with Vladyka when he reposed. I am very grateful that he was willing and able to put down on paper his memories and share them with us. 

————————————————————————

The liturgy today, August 28th, 2011, at St Seraphim’s Cathedral in Dallas culminated for me an amazing and transformative week in which I was blessed to be able to witness the repose of Archbishop Dmitri, who having set an example to all Christians on how to live a godly life, remained true to form and showed us how to fall asleep with happiness and peace in the sureness of his faith.  This time was a remarkable blessing to all those who were able to witness it or hear about it.

Having spent nights with him in his room and hospital over the past weeks I often saw and heard him late at night in his semi-consciousness pray aloud for those he knew.  Many who spent time with him in these last days will attest to this fact.  This was a constant prayer that went through the night when he had the strength to speak.  He was never seen to show despair despite enduring an exhausting and sometimes painful deterioration in his health.  When he had the strength and alertness to speak he wanted his spiritual children around him and took great joy in telling stories and listening to what others wanted to tell him.  By God’s grace his loving and jovial manner remained with him to the end. Continue reading →

My wife and I moved to Dallas towards the end of the summer of 2007. The day before we arrived – it was a Sunday – we went to Liturgy in a small little Antiochian parish in San Antonio.  As we chatted with the good folks afterwards, the folks chimed in about possible parishes we might find in Dallas.  Though we were coming from an Antiochian parish, and though these people were at an Antiochian parish themselves, they pointed us in the direction of the OCA cathedral.   ‘’I’ve heard good things about Ss. Constantine and Helen’’, said one parishioner to me, ‘’ but you should also check out St. Seraphim.  Archbishop Dmitri is a kind of Gandalf figure for the South.’’

That is the kind of endorsement one just cannot ignore. The following Saturday, on a late August evening, we found ourselves in a vigil service within the sanctified walls of the cathedral Vladyka Dmitri had built. I remember that the hot, evening air was quiet outside, but inside the cathedral people were worshiping and offering themselves as living sacrifices in the concentrated way that comes about from standing on stubborn Texas clay. After the reading of the gospel, Vladyka inauspiciously emerged from behind the kliros to give blessings to the faithful. I remember, before even receiving that first blessing from Christ by the hand of Vladyka, being struck by his presence.  It was an odd thing: powerful and soft, graceful and magnetic, discernibly personable and discernibly heavenly, full of unique personality whilst also being an empty conduit of Christ. The ancient virtue the Greeks called megalopsuchia, and what St. John the Forerunner meant when he said ‘’He must increase, but I must decrease’’ was exemplified in the person of Vladyka Dmitri. He was truly magnanimous– ‘’ large souled’’ – because he was filled with the love of God, and the light of the Diocese of the South was the Divine Light reflecting with bright gentleness from this man, beloved of God.

I count it an unworthy gift of God that He blessed me to have this man in my life for the past four years. I was his parishioner, and he my Despota. I do not claim to have a privileged relationship to him: like so many others I drank gallons of coffee with him, both in the parish hall and in his kitchen, heard the same stories over and over, laughed at his jokes, and took questions to him as they arose. It was impossible to treat him like a legend or a celebrity. This, the occasional traveler would find out when, upon bringing Vladyka some dogmatic, academic, or formal conversation, he would break it off in favor of a pleasant story or to talk to an infant or toddler. I have often wondered if this was Vladyka’s favorite sermon – breaking off idle theologic in order to remind us that one must be like a child to enter the Kingdom.

These things everyone saw; But that this is not a privileged perspective only reinforces the greatness of the man. Continue reading →

At 2 am today, in the presence of many of his faithful spiritual children, Archbishop Dmitri fell asleep in the Lord. His passing was, by all accounts, as peaceful and beautiful as his life.  He was blessed to receive the painless, blameless, peaceful end for which we all pray.

Metropolitan Jonah has been by his side the past several days. He had originally cut short his trip to Prauge, and then cancelled it altogether when he ascertained that the end was near.

The remarkable Vladyka Dmitri will always be my dear father in Christ, and he is already greatly missed.  Further reflections and information are upcoming.

Despite the unfortunate beginnings of this site, I must say I am no fan of sensational news stories about the Church.  It often does harm to the people involved in them, and they are members of the same Body I am.  In that way it is self-destructive.  The things on this site I most regret are usually related to some sensational piece of “news”. That is why I have often refused to post news/ information pertaining to the more (ahem) homely side of the OCA, as many of you who send me information can attest.

My thoughts and criticisms however, I am much more comfortable sharing.  This site largely exists to provide a counterbalance to the agenda of Mark Stokoe, but I am not interested in blog-wars or scooping a news story from him.  I’m here because of my love of the Church, not because of an unrealized penchant for journalism.

So when OCAT and OCAN were both leaked the same email containing documents regarding Fr. Zacchaeus Wood’s recall to the United States, I was in no hurry to share it with you all.  Truth be told, I don’t think it is really our business. He was recalled in reference to an investigation, and I don’t see it as my place to audit their investigation and invite the world-wide public to tag along. Fr. Zacchaeus was publically shamed and defamed by the OCA release  as the investigation was just getting started — why should I contribute to this embarrassing and shameful behavior? This is fundamentally a pastoral issue and as such does not involve me.  But, one might argue, it is not merely a pastoral issue.   It is an ongoing investigation that public attention can only impede, and there exists the very real possibility of litigation — all of which are good reasons for an online “journalist” to avoid jumping into the middle of the fray. Oh, and it has been found to be the case that not all the information being passed around was accurate.

These reasons, while good enough reason for me to keep a lid on the story, offered no qualms to Mark Stokoe, who seemed desperate to prove right those who claim his position on the Metropolitan Council and his tabloid-esque website were a conflict of interest. Because I knew that some of the information I had was also sent to Stokoe, I wondered what Mark could possibly use to help him with the axe he’s grinding, and came up blank. Clearly I underestimated his MacGyver-like ability to drum up accusations against his Metropolitan out of nothing but a paper clip and a stick of gum.

For instance, he complains that the Metropolitan, after recusing himself from the investigation regarding Fr. Wood’s alleged misconduct, might have had communication with him after  HB  withdrew.  As Stokoe mentioned, the letter says he removed himself because of the “close, confessional” nature of the relationship, but an investigation does not destroy the pastoral relationship between a man and his confessor.  One might wonder if Stokoe played by the same rules when his priest recused himself from the MC Ethics Committee investigation against him?  During that time did Fr. Ted Bobosh and Mark Stokoe refrain from all contact? Stokoe is accusing Metropolitan Jonah of something that he does not expect of himself — having no contact between a man and his confessor just because the confessor had to recuse himself from an investigation.  Again, this is just Stokoe failing to see the pastoral side in any of this.

It is, of course doubtful that Stokoe and Bobosh practiced the overzealous standard to which they are holding the Metropolitan.  After all, it was Fr. Bobosh who informed the Holy Synod that OCANews.org and OCATruth.com had received the leaked emails and that they should expect to see them on the internet.  (They don’t even keep up the farce that OCAN is not a instrument of a small group within the MC and Central Administration.) Yet none of Stokoe’s critics thought to rail against him with that argument, because it does not matter.  It’s just a twisted paperclip and some chewed up gum.

Then there’s the fact that Stokoe ignores the main and obvious targets of the leaked information (who, I will merely say, are members of the Central Administration).  He dismisses the very interesting claim with a disingenuous argument: ”The question is not whether +Jonah authorized the letter – his signature is clearly visible”, knowing full well that it was an automated signature. He also knows there are some discrepancies and that, claims the attorney Mr. Berezansky, “exposes your unrestricted use of the Metropolitan’s automated signature on communications such as this letter, written by you (or someone assisting you) and purporting to speak in the Metropolitan’s name”. Now, while I don’t think that there should be a whole lot of hullaballoo made about forgeries or what-not (if it’s the case, the Metropolitan or Synod can work it out) I do think Stokoe’s disingenuous argument to the public is positively incredible.

Keep in mind the Berezansky letter both Stokoe and I are quoting is from a lawyer defending his client: we should assume he is highlighting the facts as advantageous ly as possible. Stokoe is building his agenda upon the dubious agenda of another. For Stokoe to quote Berezansky as he does and then infer that the Metropolitan is “working against the OCA’s Synod, policies and his own administration” is stretching that old gum pretty thin.

The most astounding aspect of this lackluster attempt against the Metropolitan is the chocolate-rich irony of Mark Stokoe sharing confidential information in order to decry the sharing of confidential information.  In fact, the irony is so good we have to recap: The Chair of the Metropolitan Council (the Metropolitan) is being unreservedly attacked for every possible reason by a member of the Council who chairs the Internal Governance Committee, who has published a priest’s private emails from parishioners, internal documents of the Holy Synod, and information that interferes with a current investigation of a clergy member.  He attacks the Metropolitan for not following policies and working against those with whom he is supposed to be working.  He accuses him of passing on sensitive information intentionally, evidencing it by passing on sensitive information intentionally. He describes this as “news” and champions “accountability” and “transparency” while refusing to be straightforward about his own lifestyle and only publishing articles that espouse his agenda ; ignoring even his own bishops’ public statement to the contrary.

One more quibble: while Stokoe complains about Metropolitan Jonah’s lack of email discretion, the letter he uses to do so chides another member of the Central Administration much more directly. In said letter, Berezansky says to a member of the Central Administration (not Metropolitan Jonah),

You’ve chosen to cc the entire OCA Synod, together with two priests having only tangential relationships to the OCA Synod, being employees of the OCA Administration.  In this same spirit of discretion, I am cc’ing all parties in my reply to your letter to Father Zacchaeus, written and sent on behalf of the Metropolitan.  It is precisely this sort of public pre-trial shaming of Father Zacchaeus – this calculated denigration of his reputation – that is going to derail your plans for a show trial in New York (at Syosset or elsewhere).

Oddly enough, Stokoe fails to mention any of that.

After toning down for a while, our intrepid advocate and accountability and transparency is once again twisting facts into barbs to aim at the Metropolitan. Like the ancient alchemists, he continues his attempt to transform the ordinary into the extraordinary.

In his post “Mischief in Moscow”, Stokoe posits that Fr. Zacchaus Wood’s restored ability to serve liturgical services is reason to think Metropolitan Jonah is an unstable rogue. He had previously presented the story using only the most selective facts, shaping it in order to cast as much skepticism as possible on the Metropolitan. (I had thought about letting it go, since I didn’t want to argue Stokoe into credibility, but I might change my mind.) Rather than mentioning oca.org’s unprecedented publicizing information surrounding the investigation surrounding Fr. Zacchaeus including some of the terms and conditions of his leave of absence, he focused on what he could present as Metropolitan Jonah’s incompetencies and “unilateral” behavior. We’ve heard this song before, and the noise pollution continues.

This latest piece once again demonstrates that +Jonah has problems in the Central Administration.  ”They” are feeding information directly to Stokoe so that he can air their own personal grievances to the world wide web. One astute reader confirmed my first thoughts upon reading the article, “[T]he article sounds word for word out of [name of particular person in the Central Administration]‘s mouth”. Behavior like this is petty, embarrassing, and tragic for the OCA. If this common suspicion is in fact true, it is disgustingly malicious behavior of the most juvenile sort.

Now, let’s tell the story with a bit more facts, the ones Stokoe doesn’t want to tell you.

The circumstances of Fr. Zacchaeus’ suspension are subject to speculation because of part of situation being made public knowledge.  The CA received serious heat for this for several days, and not just from critics online. It seems as if the CA has had some bumps on the road while trying to handle this particular situation, which precipitated some interesting documents being forwarded to OCAT and OCAN. (Despite Stokoe’s claims, the situation’s — ahem– idiosyncratic handling is not the fault of His Beatitude.  Quite frankly, it seems that Metropolitan Jonah’s taking charge of situation is more a sadly needed mop-up job.) According to these documents Fr. Zacchaeus was ordered to return to the US  because he was “named as a subject of allegations of misconduct”. No other reason was given for him leaving St. Catherine’s and being forbidden to “preside or concelebrate at any liturgical services” and being able to “perform any sacramental or pastoral services”.

While one may wonder at the propriety of these directives being levied at a priest who has only been named as a subject of allegations, this is not a question we can responsibly answer, and one we should not put ourselves in place to have the information to responsibly answer. Clergy throughout the OCA understand and appreciate that fact. That being the case, it is entirely the responsibility of the priest’s bishop (+Jonah) to what extent he blesses the priest to serve as his vicar.  ”Unilateral” here is the appropriate and canonical behavior. As for the “Synod’s” Sexual Misconduct Panel Advisory Committee and Legal Affairs Committee, they are not and have not been given the right or responsibility to preside on such pastoral issues. They exist by the blessing of the Metropolitan Council chair (Metropolitan Jonah) and function in order to advise on issues of policy and standard procedure.  (Note the “A” in SMPAC.) Moreover, this is not a Synodal issue as Stokoe implies — the canons of the Church are clear that a bishop is not to be interfered with in issues related to his own diocese. St. Catherine’s and Fr. Zacchaeus are directly the responsibilty of the Metropolitan and therefore any bishop who wants to have any more involvement than advising him is overstepping their bounds. My sources in Syosset  say that it is one (1) bishop who has spoken up about the Metropolitan’s actions in regard to this affair, and the Synod has decided not to act. This is of course, not surprising since it is unclear what actions they could canonically do if they all felt strongly enough that His Beatitude was out of line.  As it so happens, there does not appear to be any such consensus and it is highly unfortunate that inter-Synodal disagreements have been shared with the public. Considering this, it is obviously not the  Metropolitan who is guilty of acting in an inappropriately unilateral manner or against the wishes of a governmental body, but rather whoever decided to act on this information by collaborating with Stokoe.

The most +Jonah can be accused of is of not taking certain people’s advice. Yet again the real monster here is not The Man in the White Hat, but those who cannot bear to have their advice ignored. They decide to use Stokoe as their recourse, and he decides to indulge them. It is exactly that kind of behavior that reveals the identity of culprit who has, “once again acted unilaterally and secretly, against the decisions of his Synod, the counsel of the OCA’s professional and legal advisors, ignored the concerns of alleged victims and overturned the established policies and procedures of the OCA”.

Multiple sources have confirmed that Bp. Matthias has removed Mark Stokoe from the Diocesan Council of the Midwest and the Metropolitan Council of the OCA. It is expected that Mark Stokoe will publish the letter from Bp. Matthias informing him of the removal on his website in the near future. News of the removal first appeared on the Orthodox Forum on Yahoo last night.

Stokoe has been the subject of much debate recently following the publication of Fr. Alexander Webster’s complaints to the Metropolitan Council Ethics Committee.  Additionally, Stokoe’s most recent posting on the Fr. Zacchaeus Wood situation released sensitive information about the case and makes some quite impressive stretches to try to cast doubt (again) on Metropolitan Jonah. It is unclear what exactly precipitated the move.

- Jesse Cone

Today both Monomakhos and the AOI’s blog published Fr. Webster’s interaction with the Metropolitan Council’s Ethics Committee. His complaint, which did not address Mark Stokoe’s personal life, concerns the emails taken from Fr. Joseph Fester’s personal Gmail account by Bp. Mark Maymon and distributed by Metropolitan Council member Mark Stokoe on his OCANews.org website. Despite Fr. Webster’s assiduous efforts the MC Ethics Committee has dismissed his complaint against their most (in)famous member.

There’s a lot to chew on in what has been published. I will save most of that for a later date. For now I just want to make a couple of observations that may assist in the discussion. First, it is of note that the EC says that “It seems to us that the ethical violation occurred at their transfer, not their destination, and thus the guilty party would be one who accessed them in the first place, without the consent of the authors.” And again,

He has only published what he has been given by a third party we do not know. Once again, it seems this is the person who has behaved without a regard for ethics.

This not only opens the door for a similar complaint to be filed against Bp. Mark, but also ushers him through it and closes it behind him. Yet in this regard the Committee not only claims ignorance; it uses it as an argument on behalf of their beleaguered colleague.

This begs the question: what does the EC mean when they say to Fr. Alexander “we have decided to accept and investigate your complaint”. Continue reading →

Amid heightened concerns that factions in the OCA want to follow in the footsteps of The Episcopal Church by catering to social trends, Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky, the OCA’s Director of External Affairs and Interchurch Relations, put his name and the OCA’s alongside The Episcopal Church USA’s Presiding Bishop, Katherine Schori, on the Circle of Protection.  The Circle of Protection is an ecumenical statement attempting to support governmental social programs whose funding is being threatened by the current debt crisis.  It is supported by the National Council of Churches, and receives a large part of its funding by the leftish billionaire George Soros. You can see Fr. Leonid’s name under that of the General Secretary of the NCC, Michael Kinnamon.

The Circle describes says that,

As Christians, we believe the moral measure of the debate is how the most poor and vulnerable people fare. We look at every budget proposal from the bottom up—how it treats those Jesus called “the least of these” (Matthew 25:45). They do not have powerful lobbies, but they have the most compelling claim on our consciences and common resources. The Christian community has an obligation to help them be heard, to join with others to insist that programs that serve the most vulnerable in our nation and around the world are protected.

There is no disagreement among Christians that we should minister to the poor and needy, though there is plenty of disagreement about the Circle and Church’s role in the governmental programs it is supporting.  On the basic level it is an issue of who should actually be doing the ministering: individual and organizations of Christians directly, or intermediaries; in this case the government. Should it be the Church that ministers to the fatherless and the widows, or should the Church support ministering programs? While these questions are not simply either/or, the polarities — and the consequent tensions – are real. Nevertheless it is ironic then that the Circle defends the government backed social programs they wish to protect by appealing to the signatories’ own experience of ministering directly to the poor and needy.

We know from our experience serving hungry and homeless people that these programs meet basic human needs and protect the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable. We believe that God is calling us to pray, fast, give alms, and to speak out for justice.

So what justice is the Circle of Protection crying out for, and what programs are they trying to protect? Programs like SNAP (formerly food stamps), Medicaid, Head Start, CHIP, as well as general support for areas of Low-Income Education and Training, Shelter and Homelessness, Peacekeeping, and Sustainable International Development Programs.  While these programs may not espouse explicitly debatable agendas, this does seem to be part and parcel with the agenda of the NCC. That agenda has definite leftist leanings, as witnessed by George Soros’ contributions, which make explicit use for lobbying in Washington, especially in regards to his proposed Criminal Justice reform.

The Circle’s claim that budgets “are moral documents” is disturbing to traditional Christians who consider the moral significance of supporting Medicaid. Medicaid provides some funding for abortions in almost every state.  What situations allow for Medicaid funds to be used to pay for abortion varies by state, but there 17 states in the Union that have 1/3 of their abortions paid for by Medicaid.

The Metropolitan, who took heat on Mark Stokoe’s website  for his “unilateral” and “political” involvement in the March for Life and the Manhattan Declaration has now been outshone by Fr. Leonid.  However political and right-leaning one views Metropolitan Jonah’s actions, Fr. Leonid’s provide a far more obvious move in the opposite direction. Acton Institute president and co-founder Fr. Robert Sirico called the Circle “hyper-political” in a piece for The National Review .

The actions of Wallis and the co-signers of the Circle of Protection are only understandable in light of political, not primarily religious, aims. Wallis, after all, has been serving as self-appointed chaplain to the Democratic National Committee and recently met with administration officials to help them craft faith-friendly talking points for the 2012 election. And when Wallis emerged from that White House meeting, he crowed that “almost every pulpit in America is linked to the Circle of Protection … so it would be a powerful thing if our pulpits could be linked to the bully pulpit here.”

Think about that for a moment. Imagine if a pastor had emerged from a meeting with President George W. Bush and made the same statement. I can just imagine the howls of “Theocracy!” and “Christian dominionism!” that would echo from the mobs of Birkenstock-shod, tie-dyed, and graying church activists who would immediately assemble at the White House fence to protest such a blurring of Church and State.

Once again it seems that the criticisms don’t always cut both ways, and not just in Washington but also in Syosset.  This is not to say that the Circle’s statement that “budgets are moral documents” is without merit. Christians who share that view but do not support the financial stances of the Circle have formed a response to the Circle, Christians for a Sustainable Economy (CASE). Orthodox priest Fr. Hans Jacobse played a role in CASE’s creation, and he reports on CASE and offers a critique of the Circle of Protection uber-supporter Jim Wallis and his liberal Sojourners group. It appears that the budget morality the Circle espouses is not Orthodox, and may in fact be at odds with the Faith.

 Regardless of where one stands politically – whether you are incensed by this or not — it is the case that Fr. Leonid’s signature on the Circle of Protection is a political action, and one he is taking for the OCA. Some members of the OCA were shocked to hear of Fr. Leonid’s action, though it is not yet known whether the Metropolitan or the Acting Chancellor were consulted or apprised of his action before it appeared publically. It is doubtful he received such a blessing, considering his strong disagreement with the OCA’s involvement with the Manhattan Declaration. Indeed, the OCA’s very involvement with the NCC and the WCC is questionable, considering the Antiochians withdrawal from both bodies back in 2005.

Interestingly enough, the trigger for the Antiochian’s withdrawel was a controversy that’s recently been the subject of much talk in the OCA of recent.  From the 2005 article,

Reasons given for the withdrawal include the general liberalism of the NCC, whose General Secretary, Bob Edgar, withdrew his signature from a statement defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

While I appreciate Fr. Leonid’s position in the OCA, I am curious to see how his participation profits the OCA’s relationships with the other Orthodox jurisdictions.  It seems hard to believe that the Mother Churches are smiling blithely at what can easily be described as a unilateral political move in opposition to the Metropolitan’s public endorsements of traditional morality. I cannot state whether Fr. Leonid’s act was a conscious push-back against the Metropolitan, but the act is certainly a move in the opposite direction — and a move that is ostensibly without support.  Those who lauded the Metropolitan’s involvement in the March for Life and Manhattan Declaration have already voiced their opposition to this progressive agenda, and those critical of the Metropolitan have called for non-involvement in such political hot-button affairs. Fr. Leonid’s actions do not correspond to either demographic.

I don’t believe, nor have I ever heard that the Office of External Affairs and Interchurch Relations exists to make statements about the federal budget and government programs. A case could be made for it, and I would look forward to being persuaded should the Holy Synod of bishops decide to present such a case.  Till then, Fr. Leonid’s volunteering the OCA for such a tendentious initiative — especially considering our the current context – can be seen as an ill advised personal political endorsement at best; or a not-so-subtle act of rebellion against Metropolitan Jonah at worst. 

Our reputation in the Orthodox world has suffered enough during the past year to keep Fr. Leonid busy, why add to the perception of the OCA’s establishment being a fractured group of in-fighters?  One hopes our relationship within the Orthodox community matters more to us in the OCA than our status in the National Council of Churches.

Shortly after the first couple dominoes fell regarding the Same Sex Attraction advocates I fell off the grid (camping — far enough away so that my cell phone couldn’t find me), and returned to find that I had to play a bit of catch up. I don’t fancy OCAT as being the forum for these sorts of discussions — AOI and Monomakhos have been hosting those issues well before OCAT was around, and will continue to do long after we’re gone. (God speed the day!) We are here largely as a counterbalance to the OCAN machine that so recently had dominated the internet presence, and whose machinations had reached significant influence over the Synod and several tenured priests. We desire — as we always have — that the OCA follow its due process, free from the personality based agendas that have been so thuggish enforced through the cudgels of gossip and spin the OCA editors affectionately term “accountability” and “transparency”.

The Same Sex Attraction issue isn’t just about culture wars (a term that has suffered mighty abuse recently) or about Biblical and ecclesiastical interpretation, but about one of the salient topics that birthed this website — the need for bishops to be bishops. Let’s take stock of the past couple of weeks, and hopefully this will be made clear.

Ever since attention was drawn to the “Breaking the Silence” Facebook group there’s been a moth-resisting-flame tension on several of the Orthodox blogs.  For the most part the Traditionalists try to temper their shock that such agendas for change exist. They do this in an effort to avoid coming off as stodgey and uncaring towards those struggling with Same Sex Attraction (SSA). Yet, many of the Traditionalists — ex-Episcopalians especially — realize that if they capitulate to the idea that a discussion on this topic can change the Church’s stance on the issue, than they have already consigned the historical Orthodox position to the flames. If we acknowledge that this part of Church teaching is not set in stone, then the Traditionalists have already lost. If ever the pro-SSA and pro-Same Sex Marriage (SSM) get the Traditionalists to say that the product of their conversation today has the ability to overwrite the judgements of millenia of bishops, Church teachings, Holy Scripture, and our current bishops then, as they say, it’s all over except the proverbial shouting.

So the pro-SSA/SSM crowd dangle arguments in front of the Traditionists, knowing that once the Traditionalists take the bait and start rebutting their argument they start winning.  Even if the Traditionalists win that particular argument. Moth. Flame. Sometimes they cloud the topic (“Should SSA and activities be considered sin?”) with other associated but less monumental topics that have always been part of the discussion of pastoral ministry (“How do we minister to those struggling with SSA?”) and interesting hypothetical questions that do not inform the central question (“Should a priest baptize a child whose parents are partnered homosexuals?”).

The debate is really this: Is the question of the acceptability of SSA a question that already has an answer?

According to Bp. Michael, Met. Jonah,  and the deans of the Diocese of NY it is not. This simply confirms what the OCA has said about this topic before. The 1992 OCA Encyclical ”Synodal Affirmations on Marriage, Family, Sexuality, and the Sanctity of Life” addresses the issue with the utmost clarity. Continue reading →

Just about an hour after posting a letter from our mailbox about the shameful public humiliation of Fr. Zacchaeus Wood by OCA.org, we received the following love note.  Pay special attention to the ip information at the bottom of the note.

From:
anon
a@yahoo.com

Message:
You ever stop to think that the latest piece of news goes on top?
EVERY. SINGLE. WEBSITE DOES THAT! Latest news goes on top! DUH! The next news release that comes in will go on top and move the Fr Z release down. ANYone with half a brain would figure this out.

Also, anyone with half a brain knows Fr Z’s place in the
church…people do need to know this has happened. First everyone yells they want transparency and accountability. The OCA gives it (Fr Z). Then when they give it they get yelled at.

What is WRONG with you people that you’re filled with this much hate, pride and animosity?! If I were you, I’d go find something more important to do with your life than needling and ripping apart the Church you belong to. If you’re that unhappy, go become a Protestant. You’d fit right in perfectly as they enjoy protesting away at the most idiotic things.

Sent from (ip address): 96.56.xx.xxx (oca.org)

Of course, we understand the frustration expressed in this letter. Yes, the mechanics of modern websites display the headlines “above the fold”, at the top of the scroll. OCAT does the same. The response mailed from our critic at OCA.org has missed the boat, though. The problem, perhaps not expressed concisely enough, is that what OCA.org has deemed a “news release” in reality has no place in the newsfeed at all. This is because the news release was crafted in a manner that makes the priest in question guilty of everything. In reality, the matter could have been dealt with quietly. A news release on this matter, in reality, is not even necessary. This is why it smacks of yet another character assassination in the making, and this time from the official .org.

While I take no delight that this site and the postings on it cause some people anger, these kinds of notes are easy to dismiss.  I can neither confirm or deny that I have a brain, or even half a brain,  but I do think that our anonymous writer here is not just taking issue with me and my mailbox. Several bishops have recently reinforced to me personally — that pastoral correction and discipline is not news.  As a pastoral issue it is largely between the priest and his bishop, and somewhat involving the folks to whom the pastor directly ministers.  It must be handled in a manner that promotes healing and restoration.  Public humiliation doesn’t really have a place in the process.

Remember the last time a leave of absence was announced, how well that went? Making it public did how much good?

But just as our critic thinks we are attacking (through our mailbox?) the organization of news listings on the website: and this seems to be a projection of our critic’s own concerns, likewise with the bit about “everyone yells about accountability and transparency”. As most readers of this blog agree, the mantra of “accountability and transparency” has been nothing but a cudgel used by bullies to keep bishops in line.  While this has done some good, it has also forwarded a more secular agenda that puts the corporate sensibilities in front of the pastoral.

To our Syosset critic I would also say that I also found the recent “outing” of a priest as homosexual to be embarrassing, and was planning a comment on that as well.  Likewise, I applaud the fact that Metropolitan Jonah has not taken the opportunity to make a political stance of a hard-liner on homosexuality at the pastoral expense of his cathedral.  I’ve been crying out for our bishops to prioritize their pastoral responsibilities, so I applaud HB for his discretion in DC and I urge him to make sure this embarrassment doesn’t happen again. Likewise I encourage our acting Chancellor, His Grace Melchizedek to maintain order in Syosset by working with HB so we can have faith and trust in our Central Administration.

As usual, the same people who advocate a more democratic process in the Church are offended when another disagrees.  What our Syosset critic sees as “hate” and “animosity” is in fact just reasoned disagreement.  I think the news realease was out of line, insensitive, unhelpful, and (ultimately) slander. I said I was embarrassed by the posting, and it seems that our mailbox agreed with me. One may disagree with this assessment, but name calling and cyber shouting is not a response one should expect from the Central Administration when the inevitable criticism comes.

By far the most telling part of our critic’s response is the section suggesting we go become Protestants.  Before this I would not think that anyone would suggest that those who disagree with their Central Administration (particularly regarding tactless press releases) should leave their Orthodox Faith.  This has nothing to do with the teachings or practice of the Orthodox Church, and yet our critic tells me to jump ship.  I might be able to understand if they wrote, “If you are this critical of the Central Administration you might be happier with another jurisdiction that didn’t operate by the same principles.” But to tell me to leave the Faith? That misses the boat entirely on why one should be Orthodox, and in a rather disturbing way for someone with OCA.org computer access.

Perhaps I am entirely wrong reading this much into an letter that is obviously born of reactionary anger.  But this is not the first time I have been told by the Syosset circle that my opinion is not welcome in the OCA, and those who share similar opinions are not welcome in their jurisdiction of democratic transparency and accountability.

I bet they say the same thing to Metropolitan Jonah.

A reader is incensed at the poor judgment of the official OCA website yesterday. I had a similar reaction: namely,  that gossip and character assassination have become official occupation of the Central Administration. It’s hard to see how the announcement does any good to anyone other than those who would wish Fr. Zacchaeus Wood permanently out of his role and themselves in it. I, for one, am truly embarrassed.

——————————————————————————-

When I loaded up OCA.org mid-day today, I was greeted with the following:

Dean of St. Catherine’s on Leave of Absence

SYOSSET, NY [OCA]

Archimandrite Zacchaeus (Wood), Dean of St. Catherine the Great Martyr-in-the-Fields Church in Moscow and representative of the Orthodox Church in America to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia has been placed on a leave of absence and recalled to the United States by His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah.  He is prohibited from exercising any liturgical or sacramental ministry.  Priest John Kechkin, who is attached to St. Catherine Church, will provide pastoral services for the time being.  Archpriest Leonid Kishkovsky, Director of External Affairs of the Orthodox Church in America, will assume duties as the representative of the OCA to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

Let’s dissect this post for a minute. Immediately we notice that this news clipping is displayed prominently as the first article on the official website of the Orthodox Church in America, so we assume that the content of this particular article is of real value to both the laity and the clergy of the OCA, as well as to those who wish to obtain information about the Orthodox church generally or the OCA in particular. Perhaps visitors have arrived just to read about the lives of the saints, or to download liturgical texts. Either way, visitors to the website are steered towards this headline when they arrive. The OCA thinks it is really important that visitors read this headline.

So, having arrived at the most recent and certainly very important headline, we come to realize that the headline concerns some sort of punishment or correction. We deduce this from the second sentence, as it seems reasonable to assume that a priests’ sacramental privileges are not limited for any other reason other than correction. And, following from this conclusion, we come to believe that, because the notification of this punishment or correction is the headline on the OCA website, the reason for the correction to have been administered must be very great. After all, it is reasonable to assume that the only discipline issues that would be dealt with on such a large scale are those issues which would affect the vast majority of those who come to the official OCA website, such as laity and priests and choir directors and seekers. Many of them were hoping to find saints and liturgical music, or the local parish phone number. It is reasonable to assume that this must have been a very big ordeal if we are willing to trump the Gospel message in order to draw attention to this headline.

We then are notified of the staffing change at St Catherine’s, the OCA’s representation church in Moscow, and in the External Affairs department of the OCA. Again, though it is completely reasonable to assume that insofar as St Catherine’s and the External Affairs department are branches or ministries of the OCA that affect each and every member of the church, and there is no other central clearing house for information concerning these ministries outside of the OCA.org website (well, aside from st-catherine.ru), we are also reasonable in assuming that for the fact of a notification being given concerning the corrective action applied, there must be something here of great importance for the faithful of the church in North America. Otherwise, we might assume, the faithful would simply be notified of the changes–ie, such a priest will substitute for such a priest until a date in the future. However, it seems that the faithful of North America need to know that the priest is currently not welcome to liturgize, and because we are being told this information we assume that it holds a great bearing on our day-to-day lives. We, the readers of OCA.org, are left to assume that this headline is just as important as the visit of the Kursk-root icon, or preparations for the All-American Council. Because the posting about this particular priest doesn’t seem to follow any precedent concerning issues of clergy correction, we are reasonable in concluding that this is an anomaly, presented to us for a special or unique reason.

The thing is, this where a logical analysis of the publication of this particular article in this particular fashion seems to break down. The reasoning in this regard is as follows:

1.) If the matter concerning this particular member of clergy, who has been prescribed a course of treatment equal to that of a clergyman who has been suspended, were to have committed an action worthy of suspension then his suspension would have occurred in a pastoral manner, discretely and in line with the precedent established in the OCA. Such a course of action preserves the dignity of all involved, and offers in an atmosphere tantamount to confession the possibility of repentance and healing.

Or, 2.) the matter concerning this particular member of clergy is so great that it effects the Orthodox church at large, including even those who seek the faith–ie, corporate corruption-, and should be dealt with in a very public manner so as to reassure the faithful and direct them back to a focus on God. Such a scenario demands concise and thoughtful doses of information concerning the corrective measures being taken that are released prescriptively to heal the wounds of human fallenness.

Knowing of the likelihood that what has happened falls within these two very reasonable scenarios, we are left to conclude that: If 1) is the case, the OCA has failed to award those affected in the case the appropriate dignity and respect offered to all members of the Orthodox church, both lay and clerical. If 2) is the case, the OCA has failed to administer informational appropriately, and failing details of what has actually happened, has only caused the entirety of the church, and all of those who access the OCA.org website, to focus on something that is as of yet inconclusive. In either scenario, and this is perhaps the most important point, the OCA has awarded visitors to its website nothing but the possibility of heresy, gossip, and slander.

This is no small claim, but easily supported. As has been seen, if either of the two scenarios discussed were actually the case–and the OCA has like all world Orthodox churches had its share of both- then the OCA could have fairly easily dealt with the issue at hand in a reasonable and pastoral approach. However, for some reason the OCA has chosen to deal with the issue at hand in an accusatory sense, with no regard for what such official headlines might do to the individuals involved.

What seems to bother me personally the most, however, is that this type of tabloid-style journalism seems to be the growing trend for the official website of the Orthodox Church in America. For instance, the official OCA website has jumped the gun two times in a row to post the names of candidates of recent episcopal elections. I’m sure such postings were meant in a spirit of “accountability and transparency”. What this type of posting consists of in reality, though, is nothing more than an act of obeisance to the mob mentality. To release the names of episcopal candidates ahead of the electing diocese itself, let alone to release them at all, is to circumvent the process of episcopal election laid down in the tradition of the Orthodox church. This tradition is formulated to discretely discern and interview candidates, and to not punish those who are found to be unfit for the incredible responsibility of the episcopacy. It is odd enough for an entire diocese to take part in an election process somewhat similar to American Idol when electing a new bishop. But for the official OCA website to support such insensitive group-think by proclaiming that an individual has been named a candidate (i.e., advanced to the next round!) is downright appalling.

The two sets of posts that I have focused on may not at first seem to be related, but they are linked by an insensitivity that is rooted outside of the Orthodox spiritual tradition. In the OCA, this has manifested itself with a love of oligarchy over tradition, placing the desires of certain groups over the desires of those whom God has ordained to offer us guidance. I am convinced that the Bishops of the OCA, who are responsible for the sheep to whom they have been entrusted, would not treat one of their own in such an insensitive manner. Nor do I believe they would hope such public scrutiny on anyone. For this reason, I’m quite disappointed in the OCA website, whose advisors can so easily curb the intrusion of gossip and presumption into the lives of all those who visit OCA.org. Of all websites, the official website of the church should be measured and take precaution when preparing food for the masses. Such things can so easily become poison, and harm those whom the church had intended to protect.

Since attention has been drawn to Inga Leonova’s FB group, Listening: Breaking the Silence on Sexuality within the Orthodox Church, the group’s claim to be about discussion where “all points of view are welcome” has been largely considered to be disingenuous.  Most of the contributions, particularly by the administrators, are geared towards a politicization– namely the acceptance of homosexuality by the Orthodox Church.  That is not, however the only issue. Says one contributor:

If the orthodox church is to be theologically whole, it needs to ordain women. The arguments for the contrary are really very hollow and tend to rely on “well, patriarchy is tradition” more than anything that has substance.

And so on.  While I disagree with that opinion, I am not upset as long as there is real dialog going happening.  Is it?  Well, this just showed up in our mailbox.

—————————————————————————–

I’ve read your article referring to the FB group regarding a discussion of homosexuality and Orthodoxy. As someone that serves in ministry as a pastoral counselor, my spiritual father had suggested my checking the group out since two clients of mine are homosexual and were dealing with serious spiritual conflicts. This group on FB lists the need “to be a forum for broader discussion on sexuality within the Orthodox Church”, and that “membership is open to all who are interested in honest, respectful, non-polemical conversation”, but that is not what I have experienced.  In an attempt to actually discuss the difference between Orthodoxy and that of innovative heresy, I have been labeled “objective” and accused of attempting to develop consensus, among other things. My words have been twisted by a small minority of group leadership in order to suggest concepts or attitudes that I have not introduced, suggested, or personally represented; and this for the express purpose of targeting anything that is not in lock-step with the idea that Orthodoxy is need of a sexual reformation is labeled as bigotry. There are in fact some posters that actually are Orthodox Christians, and some who are struggling with their same sex attraction and how they main remain followers of Christ, as well as including some who have left Orthodoxy for churches that simply have redefined their teachings. However, the group’s navigation appears be directed towards being more of a support group for people that have already chosen a lifestyle of gay/lesbian relationships rather than discerning what the Orthodox Church actually teaches. They act as if having the same objections and keeping the same conversation going will somehow conclude with a different truth and result in a paradigm shift.

This includes the concept of Orthodox teaching being outdated since somehow the teaching of being a sexually active homosexual has evolved through universal general revelation beyond what Christ, the Apostles, or Church Father’s have taught.  When in fact articles on what leaders of the Church are posted that continue to teach the incompatibility of the gay/lesbian/transgendered lifestyle and the Orthodox role of marriage and sex, the reactions are often petty, personally insulting, and highly emotional. Any personal attack on bishops and metropolitans for defending the Faith is hardly Christian in spirit, and sets a terrible example for those inside and outside of Orthodoxy in terms of the sacrifice and dedication these men offer in the attempt to lead others towards salvation.  The leadership of the group is not providing any form of dialog other than suggesting that homosexual attraction is present at birth (as in being genetic), that homosexuals are a race, and that acting on those impulses should be acceptable in the Church of Christ. It’s impossible to break the barriers of that style of a subjective science belief system, especially if your contribution based on Church teachings is targeted as bigoted.

This is a seriously important and immediate topic, and one that Orthodox clergy need to understand and reflect upon historically, scientifically, psychologically and scripturally in order to serve as apologists for the Church while not turning away those who are truly searching for answers, peace, and eternal salvation within a relationship with Christ. Most members of this FB group are highly intelligent, loving, and Christ-centered people that are looking for leadership to help their fulfillment as Christians, but what they are experiencing as far as direction from the group’s leadership is a path away from the leadership of the Holy Spirit.  The Orthodox Church needs to fill that position of shepherd and dialog towards the truth honestly, and lovingly address the outside cries of bigotry and claims that her divine teachings are antiquated for a radically post-modern world.

In Christ,

Subdeacon Michael Heningham