Well, well, well. Looks like the “go-to” place for OCA bishops who run afoul of the Syosset Apparat wasn’t so clean after all. And no, let’s not parse this by interjecting that this was only the director. Old Greek saying: “The fish rots from the head.”
Should I file this under
(a) I told you so, or
(b) I’ll gladly accept the apologies of the Stokovites?
Really, this is getting very boring. Of course, when you’re wedded to a secularist way of doing things, I imagine SLI will continue to the place the Apparat will threaten people with. Old habits die hard.
Source: The Huffington Post
(RNS) A priest who headed a leading treatment center for clergy with sexual and addiction problems has agreed to plead guilty to charges of stealing money from his home diocese in New Hampshire and from a Catholic hospital and the estate of a deceased priest.
Monsignor Edward J. Arsenault, who resigned as head of the St. Luke Institute outside Washington, D.C., when the charges were revealed last year, will spend at least four years in a New Hampshire prison under a plea deal with prosecutors announced on Monday (Feb. 3).
For a decade, Arsenault held a number of senior positions in the Diocese of Manchester and was a top aide to former Bishop John McCormack, who came under intense criticism for his role in the clergy sexual abuse scandals.
In 2009, Arsenault took a $170,000-a-year position as CEO of St. Luke’s, a rehab center in Silver Spring, Md., that became known for treating priests who had sexually abused children. The center deals primarily with priests, nuns and brothers who have a range of other issues, such as depression, anxiety and addictive behaviors. St. Luke’s conducted an internal investigation and found no evidence of fraud while Arsenault was there.
During his time in New Hampshire and for years afterward, prosecutors say, Arsenault was siphoning money from the diocese and through a consulting contract he had with Catholic Medical Center, a leading hospital in the state. Authorities say Arsenault was also stealing from the estate of Monsignor John Molan, a Manchester priest who died in 2010.
Prosecutors did not say how much money Arsenault stole, only that it was in excess of $1,500 from each source, the threshold for a felony charge. More details will be revealed when the priest formally pleads guilty in an April 23 appearance before a judge. Prosecutors said Arsenault cooperated with the investigation.
In an open letter published Tuesday by the Concord Monitor, Arsenault apologized to his bishops, his fellow priests and to New Hampshire Catholics for his failings. “I broke the law and violated the trust of others,” he wrote. “I am prepared to accept the consequences for having done so, to make restitution and to face the penalty for having committed these crimes.”
The diocese and the hospital referred questions about the case to the district attorney because the case is still ongoing.
The Manchester diocese said last May that the investigation began in early 2013 when church officials received a report that Arsenault was involved in a “potentially inappropriate adult relationship.” The diocese’s brief statement this week made no mention of that accusation or whether the current bishop, Peter Libasci, would move to defrock Arsenault.
Wait, George. I don’t see where his conviction has anything to do with St. Luke’s.
Nevertheless, let me ask this: what’s a guy–a celibate priest–like this being paid $170k/year for? Sorry if it sounds like envy, but with lower comp levels in places like DC, NY, LA and SF etc. prices of all kinds of things, including real estate, would be lower there and more in line with the rest of the country where the ordinary folks live.
Surprise that it’s in these very places that the beneficiaries of the inequality gap are always complaining about it. Are they crocodile tears?
lxc
lex,
“Secular” Catholic priests are not required to take a vow of poverty.
More questionable are the high salaries paid to some Orthodox hierarchs who as monks have taken a vow of poverty.
Dear to Christ Basil, I know and I agree.
I just wondered why St. Luke’s is wasting resources paying its Director such a princley sum. Maybe they should have found someone who had taken such a vow and cut their costs to plow more into the work?
Furthermore, as the emblezzlement conviction seems to show that Msgr. was rather drawn to money even though our Lord warned to beware of unrighteous mammon and that one can’t serve God and mammon.
Of course, Msgr. is by no means the only one with this fault in our culture, is he? The allegiance is legion and it breeds an infection that afflicts the bulk of us. It’s in the air we breathe. God help us, since we take it virtually for granted surrounded as we are by envy and greed that is condoned in most contexts.
Christ is in our midst,
lxc
That the OCA powers that be are less than forthcoming with the truth is nothing new. The entire history of the Metropolia/OCA has been fabricated, primarily by very convenient omissions. Met Platon-who “abandoned” his diocese of Odessa to escape the bolsheviks after the fall of the White Army, and who was also a monarchist, participated in the founding and recognized the jurisdiction of ROCOR until 1926, when he left. His appointment to North America was requested from ROCOR by Met Platon himself. It goes from there -from the very beginning, and has been … a work in creation since. No regard for fact, no regard for canonical considerations. A great deal of the … prevarication … from the pens of Fathers Schmemman and Meyendorff. Not much else can be expected at this point.
Dear M. Woerl,
You are quite wrong. The Metropolia was a diocese of the ROC from the 1790’s(?). ROCOR was made up of bishops who ran away from their dioceses and then tried to create a ruling Synod of bishops “Outside of Russia.” They had always hoped to go back. Pat. Tikhon issued two edicts which were very important. One was tell ALL the dioceses of the ROC to run their own affairs until administrative normality could be achieved in Russia; the Metropolia did so. The second was his edict dated March 28/ April 10, 1922 where he says, “I consider that the Synod of Karlovtsy, organized by Russian clergy and laymen abroad, is void of all canonical validity…” By decision of the ROC Holy Synod, April 14/22, 1922, Met. Platon was appointed as the temporary head of the North-American Diocese. Even the Synod-in-Exile recognized this appointment as good and proper in it’s edict – No. 3613 Dec. 28, 1925/ Jan. 10, 1926. Apparently, you have no clue regarding the history of the American Church of which the Synod-in-Exile was never a part; just wannabees.
Tanya,
The Metropolia was part of the ROCOR from 1920-1926 and 1935-1946, accepted that the ROCOR synod was the highest ecclesiastical authority of the ROC, applied to the synod of ROCOR for the permission to consecrate bishops, had bishops that sat on the ROCOR synod, etc.
The history propagated by the OCA is “not entirely accurate”. There is simply too much hard evidence from the period which contradicts it – – documents, publications, court records, statements of Metropolia hierarchs, etc.
Also, and this is also sincere, this is all best swept under the rug and forgotten. It has been about 44 years since the OCA received its tome from the MP. Fr. Alexander in gone. Father John is gone. Few in the OCA or ROCOR are alive today who were responsible for any of the major events surrounding the feud and the highlights of the tortured relationship.
Vechnaya pamyat’ to them all and let’s not bicker about who killed whom. “Hiss less, purr more.”
Misha,
How could the Metropolia be part of ROCOR when Pat. Tikhon ruled ROCOR “non-canonical and without validity?” This is a pure lie. Now, there was a “temporary agreement” to try and bring the Synod in Exile into the Metropolia in the 1930’s – 40’s, but this failed miserably. Further, the Metropolia existed since 1794. The Synod in Exile came into existence in 1922. You’ve been told lies by ROCOR.
” In 1920, a group of bishops found themselves in Constantinople, having been evacuated from Russia together with military and civil populations. With the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople they convened a Council of Russian bishops in the diaspora, and, not yet knowing of Patriarch Tikhon’s order, formed the Higher Ecclesiastical Authority Abroad. This council was not an arbitrary meeting of a few bishops but a conference of a multitude of ruling bishops who left their dioceses along with their flocks. Soon ruling bishops outside of Russia joined them–from Finland , Latvia , Manchuria , China , Japan and North America . There were 34 bishops, all of them separated from Moscow , who deemed it necessary to form a higher ecclesiastical organ for the temporary administration of the dioceses abroad.
The Council in Constantinople chose as its leader Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev and Volyn’, the eldest hierarch of the Russian Church , who was one of the candidates for patriarch, and formed its own executive arm–the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority Abroad. In 1921 this center moved, at the invitation of Patriarch Varnava of Serbia, to Yugoslavia , and that year it convened the 1st All-Diaspora Church Council of Russian Bishops, Clergymen and Laymen. The Council was held in Sremsk-Karlovats with the participation of 155 representatives chosen from all regions outside of Russia , along with 16 bishops. Presided over by Metropolitan Anthony, the Council studied all the questions pertaining to the organization and administration of church life abroad. Questions regarding help for the starving in Russian were also discussed, and an appeal was made to the International Conference in Genoa for aid to Russia , as were appeals to the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church in the diaspora.
It is entirely understandable that the decisions of the 1st All-Diaspora Council provoked the strong disapproval of the Soviet government, which then requested of Patriarch Tikhon the suspension of the activities of the clergy abroad. Under this pressure, the Patriarch, in 1922, was obliged to issue an order decreeing the shutting down of the Supreme Church Authority Abroad. A few days later, the Patriarch was arrested.
In August 1922, a Council of the Bishops of the Church Abroad was held in Yugoslavia , which decreed that the ukase of the Patriarch be executed and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority be disbanded. But subsequently it was decided, on the basis of Patriarch Tikhon’s Decree No. 362, that in light of the impossibility of relations with Moscow , to organize a temporary Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. This decision by the bishops cut off from Moscow became from that moment on the canonical basis for the existence of the ecclesiastical center abroad.
It is worth noting that the Synod Abroad informed Patriarch Tikhon of its activities, and the Patriarch imposed no other suspensions upon the bishops abroad despite the insistence of the bolsheviks. For this reason it follows that Patriarch Tikhon deemed the activities of the clergy abroad as legitimate and in accordance with the interests of the Church. Only in 1928, after the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, did such suspensions resume.” – from A Brief History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia , 1922-1972
(written on her 50th anniversary by Protopriest Sergii Shchukin)
I’m not the one who’s been lied to.
“In 1935, Theophilus traveled to Serbia and met there with the ROCOR hierarchs, signing with them the “Temporary Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,” which divided the ROCOR into four main districts, including North America with Theophilus as its primate. In describing the agreement, Theophilus told his flock in America that “the position of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has been strengthened by the unity and peace which have been obtained. Now we have only one center of Church administration in the Bishops’ Synod in…Karlovci, where the American Metropolitan district [the Metropolia] will be represented by our elected representative” (quoted in Young, p. 36). Thus, from the point of view of the ROCOR, and certainly it would seem from the point of view of Metr. Theophilus, the Metropolia had again been reintegrated as a component part of the ROCOR.
Upon this reintegration, the Metropolia hierarchs made the following declaration to their faithful:
‘With great joy, we inform you, beloved, that at our Bishop’s Sobor in Pittsburgh, the ‘Temporary Statue of the Russian Church Abroad,’ worked out in November 1935 by our Hierarchs at the conference held under the presidency of His Holiness Patriarch of Serbia, Kyr Varnava, was unanimously accepted by all of us…. All of our Archpastors [the Metropolia bishops], headed by our Metropolitan [Theophilus], enter into the make-up of the Bishops’ Council [in Karlovci] of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which is the highest ecclesiastical organ for our whole Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and which remains, at the same time, an inseparable part of the All-Russian Church [in the homeland] (quoted in Young, p. 41).'” – from Orthodoxwiki, ROCOR and OCA
“In 1935 Metr. Theophilus went to Sremsky Karlovits in Yugoslavia at the invitation of the Patriarch of Serbia Barnabas and under his chairmanship an agreement was worked out dividing the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad into four Metropolitan Districts: Eastern European with Metr. Anastassy as the ruling Hierarch, Western European with Metr. Evlogy as ruling Hierarch, North American with Metr. Theophilus as ruling Hierarch, and Far Eastern with Metr. Meletius (in Harbin) as ruling Hierarch… There has long been a debate as to whether Metr. Theophilus subordinated himself and the Metropolia to the Karlovits Synod by this agreement. On the principle that actions speak louder than words, note has to be taken of the fact that Bishops previously under the Exile Synod [in America] accepted the authority of Metr. Theophilus and by the same token Metr. Theophilus was very careful to follow the proper ecclesiastical protocol in asking permission of the Karlovits Synod to give the higher church awards to clergymen as well as in submitting regular reports on the life of the Church in America to Metr. Anastassy and finally in having representation up to World War II in the person of a Hierarch at the regular meetings of the Exile Synod . . . in a letter to Metr. Anastassy dated the 22nd of December 1945, permission was asked to consecrate Archimandrite John (Zlobin) as the new Bishop of Alaska. Permission for the consecration was received and it took place on the 10th of March (Orthodoxy Sunday) and the new Bishop promised obedience both to the Metropolia and to the Synod of Bishops Abroad (ibid., pp. 54-44).” – ibid
“ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: “In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American ‘branch’—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska” (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, “was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he ‘did not wish to go over their heads,’ Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America” (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 “an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon ‘for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'” (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. “To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America ‘temporarily autonomous’—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci” . . .
In 1926 in Karlovtsy, the ROCOR bishops met together. Platon was present and asked to renounce the “temporary autonomy” that had been proclaimed by his council in 1924. Upon his refusal, the assembled bishops condemned the Detroit sobor as “extremely dangerous and harmful for the interests of the Russian Church in America” (quoted in Young, p. 34). Platon responded with another sobor in America in January of 1927 which labelled the ROCOR as “uncanonical.” One of Platon’s bishops, Apollinary (Koshevoy), dissented, proclaiming his loyalty to the ROCOR, and was expelled from the Metropolia.
That the Metropolia was part of the ROCOR during this period is attested to by St. John Maximovitch in his reference to the 1926 split: “Notwithstanding the departure from the Church Abroad — and, one may say, from the Russian Church altogether — of Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon with their followers, the Russian Orthdox [sic] Church Outside of Russia remains the free part of the Russian Church.” – ibid
The timeline on the Orthodoxwiki site reveals a bit more information:
1917 Bolshevik Revolution breaks out in Russia.
1919 Southern Church Council meets in Stavropol at which Higher Church Administration was formed in Southern Russia.
1920 St. Tikhon of Moscow issues Ukaz No. 362; first session of the Higher Church Administration outside borders of Russia.
1921 34 ROCOR bishops meet in synod in Karlovtsy, Serbia, including Metr. Platon and Abp. Alexander, hierarchs of the Metropolia.
1924 4th All-American Sobor of the Metropolia votes to establish “temporary self-government,” breaking administrative ties with Moscow.
1926 Metr. Platon of the Metropolia breaks ties with the ROCOR synod.
1927 ROCOR synod sends epistle to American parishes suspending Platon and his clergy.
1933 Metr. Platon refuses to pledge loyalty to Moscow, which declares the Metropolia to be in schism and establishes an exarchate on American soil.
1934 Death of Metr. Platon; ROCOR lifts ban against Metropolia.
1935 “Temporary Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad” signed by Karlovtsy Synod, including Theophilus of the Metropolia, thus renewing relations.
1937 6th All-American Sobor of the Metropolia declares itself to report to ROCOR in matters of faith.
1946 7th All-American Sobor of the Metropolia breaks all ties with the ROCOR, splitting American Russian Orthodoxy in two.
1970 Metropolia reconciles with and receives autocephaly from Moscow, returning Japanese possessions to its control and becoming known as the OCA.
A couple if points: At least two bishops of the Metropolia were instrumental in the formation of the Karlovtsy Synod. It was not until after the Synod disbanded in obedience to Pat. Tikhon’s later ukase that it reformed on the basis of his earlier one, the latter ukase having been issued under duress with the Patriarch arrested shortly thereafter. Or, to put it another way, ROCOR was not originally formed on the basis of 362. However, after it became clear that the MP was completely compromised, it reconstituted under that ukase. During this period, except for the Platonian schism of 1927-1934, the Metropolia considered itself an integral part of the Church Abroad, made reports to it, considered itself as answering to it in matters of faith, and applying for its approval pursuant to the elevation of bishops, etc. Also, it should be clear that Met. Platon did not seem to be able to get along with anyone.
Now, actually it is more complicated than even this. First, there was the rivalry between Met. Platon and Met. Anthony which dated back to before the Revolution. Second, there was the question of the Ukrainian ex-Uniate presence in the Metropolia which resented the Great Russians and tended to be more sympathetic to the Soviets since they at times stoked the flames of Ukrainian nationalism.
Misha says:
“Second, there was the question of the Ukrainian ex-Uniate presence in the Metropolia which resented the Great Russians and tended to be more sympathetic to the Soviets since they at times stoked the flames of Ukrainian nationalism.”
Surely, you don’t mean Rusyn by Ukrainian, do you? Call one of my ex-Uniate kinsmen a “Ukrainian” and you’d have to deal with one of the most violent convulsive episodes imaginable.
We are and always have been Russians. Not “Great” Russians or Moskali, but Russians nevertheless. “Ukrainians” are Ruthenians who embraced Polonization. We Rusyns played along, but we never forgot our blood ties. The resentment arises from our not being regarded as “real” Russians by many of the so-called “Great” Russians.
How would he react if it was something important?
Johann,
It is an interesting little dynamic, isn’t it? Great Russians thought of Ukrainians as “Little Russians” and their language as a dialect of Russian. Ukrainians thought of Rusyns as Ukrainians and their language as a dialect of Ukrainian. Both Ukrainians and Rusyns wanted to be recognized as distinct ethnic-linguistic groups and were denied by the Great Russians and Ukrainians respectively. On top of that, add the fact that now the Russian Federation’s policy is to recognize Rusyn as a distinct ethno-linguistic group.
How about “Carpatho-Rus ex-Uniate”, that’s a broader term?
Tanya,
Please revisit the documented history. Met. Theophilus successed Met. Platon as first hierarch of the North American Metropolia. In 1935, Met. Theophilus traveled to Serbia and met there with the ROCOR hierarchs, signing with them the “Temporary Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,” which divided the ROCOR into four main districts, including North America with Met. Theophilus as its primate. In describing the agreement, Met. Theophilus told his flock in America that “the position of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has been strengthened by the unity and peace which have been obtained. Now we have only one center of Church administration in the Bishops’ Synod in…Karlovci (Serbia), where the American Metropolitan district [the Metropolia] will be represented by our elected representative.” Thus, from the point of view of the ROCOR, and certainly it would seem from the point of view of the Metropolia’s Met. Theophilus, the Metropolia had again been reintegrated as a component part of the ROCOR.
If you look at the Metropolia’s/OCA’s history, since the early 1900s, it has gone into schism from Moscow, joined the ROCOR, then gone into schism from the ROCOR, then rejoined it, then gone into schism from it again, then eventually to receive canonical approval in 1970 from the church in Communist Russia.
Also, as you probably know, the OCA and ROCOR both claim heritage of the original Alaskan missionaries from Russia in the late 1700s. Both the OCA and the ROCOR glorified St Herman of Alaska on the same date, Aug. 9, 1970 (the OCA performed the canonization service on Kodiak in Alaska, and the ROCOR performed the canonization service at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco).
No one’s been “told lies by ROCOR.” Indeed, we are all in communion once again and should rejoice at that fact. But the waters are much murkier than you suggest.
“Further, the Metropolia existed since 1794.”
Yes and no. The no part doesn’t matter in the case at bar, as it had become a full fledged diocese in 1870, and a full fledge Archdiocese (of the Aleutians and North America) in 1905. Hence it was able to take upon itself on November 20/7, 1920 the authority Pat. St. Tikhon and the Holy Synod of Russia granted by their Ukaz No. 362.
In the case of the OCA, it had been widowed by the departure of Archbishop Platon’s successor, Abp. Evodokim of the Aleutians and North America, for the All Russia Sobor of 1917 (with the future Met. Leonid Turkovich, also of the Aleutians and North America). He had nominated his vicar Bp. Alexander Nemolovsky as administrator, as he had served as Abp. (the future Met.) Platon vicar and the administrator of the Archdiocese before Abp. Evdokim’s arrival in the US. When it was announced the Abp. Evdokim would not return, the Second All American Sobor elected Bp. Alexander as his successor as Archbishop of the Aleutians and All America, which Pat. Tikhon and the Holy Synod confirmed on August 27, 1920. Thus the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and North America/Metropolia/OCA did not depend on ROCOR: The ROCOR synod of Karlovski in Nov 1921 recognized his position. It was not, under the Ukaz 362, empowered to confirm, much less remove him from, his position.
Tanya “Dook,” It is true that Patriarch Tikhon wrote a resolution and sent it to then Archbishop Evlogy, appointing him head of all the Russian Churches in Western Europe and directing him to dissolve the Synod in Exile. When Evlogy consulted with Metropolitan Antony, the latter said the Patriarch must be obeyed. So it was dissolved. The next day, however, Metropolitan Evlogy met with the rest of the Synod in Exile and, as head of all the Russian Churches in Western Europe, signed a document re-creating the Synod in Exile under another name. Dead one day; alive the next and no decrees were violated; however, it must be admitted that the Founding Father of modern ROCOR was none other than Metropolitan Evlogy of Paris!
Archbishop Alexander (Nemolovsky) fled his office as First Hierarch of the North American Missionary Diocese and settled in Europe, where he ended his days as Archbishop in Brussels.
Metropolitan Platon came to America then a second time and was elected First Hierarch. Since he was a Metropolitan (having attained the rank as Exarch of Georgia), the Diocese became a Metropolia and the Diocesan Council became a “Metropolitan’s Council’ (Mitropolichii Soviet). However, Patriarch Tikhon directed he be deposed from that office in 1928. That’s why Metropolitan Platon appealed to ROCOR, to give him legitimacy in the American court system.
Misha, in 1946 at the All American Council, there was a resolution on the floor to recognize Patriarch Alexi (Simansky) as the Spiritual Head of the Russian Church, but not administrative head. The majority of the Bishops of the Metropolia did NOT approve that resolution, but Metropolitan Theodosius and a minority of bishops agreed WHEREUPON the ROCOR Bishops that had been sitting on the Great Council of Bishops of the Metropolia all left, protesting at the taking preference of the popular vote over the vote of the Hierarchy….
Roundward spins my head! Again! (This has been happening a lot since I stumbled upon George’s blog….)
It reminds me of John Vernon to Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Josey Wales: “Tell him the war is over.”
“Tell them the Bolshevik Revolution is over.”
Tim,
Just read the ROCOR and OCA article on Orthodoxwiki. It lays it out pretty well, documented, not just “he said, she said”. As does orthodoxinfo and a few other sources, some of which I’ve quoted here.
As to the Bolshevik Revolution being over, yes, thank God! Please fax John McCain and Lindsay Graham. ROCOR is happily reunited with the MP. Whatever happens to Constantinople, Antioch or the OCA, the MP isn’t going to disappear any time soon.
As to the fate of the OCA, that is up to them. I don’t sense a rivalry anymore except among some OCA folks who don’t like the direction of the recent flow of faithful between the jurisdictions. It just gets touchy when the history is misrepresented.
But who really cares? Documents are documents. Statements of Metropolia hierarchs, minutes of synods, court cases, materials produced by the respective jurisdictions. None of that can be whitewashed. Believe the ones who document, distrust the ones who summarily rationalize.
Or ignore it all. To ROCOR, the Church of Russia is one again, end of story. It only matters if one wants to get into the OCA’s claim to autocephaly. I’d rather just ignore that if possible given its unconventional origin.
Perhaps the most interesting (if depressing) holdover from the Bolshevik Revolution in church matters is the situation with the Armenians in the US. The “Diocese”, under Echmiadzin, and the “Prelacy” under Cilicia. Even the last Catholicos, who was Catholicos of Cilicia and then of Echmiadzin, couldn’t heal the breach.
Everything is the same. Not just the essential theology, as with the Orthodox jurisdictions, but everything: language, details of rite, customs; everything. But for the Bolshevik Revolution, that is; far, far away from Fresno and elsewhere in the US, and now long over.
“However, Patriarch Tikhon directed he be deposed from that office in 1928. That’s why Metropolitan Platon appealed to ROCOR, to give him legitimacy in the American court system.”
how can that be, Your Grace, when Pat. St. Tikhon was martyred in 1925?
There is talk of a decree of 1924 deposing Met. Platon for engaging in anti-revolutionary activity against the Soviets-the question of validity of that should be obvious.
You’re no doubt right on the date, Isa, but I’ll look it up to be sure. You mention the “question of validity” being obvious. It’s just a document signed by St. Tikhon, like the one directing Metropolitan Evlogy to dissolve the Higher Church Administration or “the Synod in Exile’ upon which Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) instructed him to ‘obey the Patriarch.’ …I looked it up. Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukaz firing Metropolitan Platon was issued 16 April 1924.
I can’t help remarking that it has become shamefully customary to pick and choose amongst all Patriarch Tikhon’s acts to decide which are valid, though made while under Soviet control and which are invalid BECAUSE made under Soviet control.
What is good, though, is Patriarch Alexi I’s action, directing in 1946 that panikhidas for the repose of Metropolitan Platon be served, thus lifting all negative Patriarchal actions laid upon the latter. I’m not sure if Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) was even around then…
By the time the deposition Ukaz had been issued, Met. Platon and the All American Sobor had already used Ukaz 362 to proclaim their temporary autonomy, as the Soviets tightened their grip. I say it obvious, as Met. Platon had no moral obligation, being in the US, to support the Soviet State as was demanded, an obvious interference in Church affairs barred by canon.
I basically view all ukazy through Ukaz 362, Your Grace, not only because the Bolsheviks had not yet solidified into the Soviet Union in 1920, but more importantly it is the only Ukaz whose authority all parties involved in the ecclesiastical disputes brought on by the Bolsheviks recognize.
Then it becomes an issue of how the canonical defects were cured retrospectively, pursuant to point 10 of Ukaz 362 , e.g. for the Metropolia through the Tomos of Autocephaly, for ROCOR through the Act of Canonical Communion, etc.
Yes, it was a wise decision on the part of Pat. Alexei I, as was the decision for the AoCC by Pat. Alexei II.
MIsha: “Or ignore it all. To ROCOR, the Church of Russia is one again, end of story. It only matters if one wants to get into the OCA’s claim to autocephaly. I’d rather just ignore that if possible given its unconventional origin.”
You mean, that it was granted by its Mother Church?
Yes, Isa, the Mother Church that was at the time run by the same entity that deposed bishops for “engaging in anti-revolutionary activity” which you said should be disregarded immediately above. Said Mother Church now has an entire autonomous province on the “canonical territory” granted to the Metropolia during the former’s enslavement by militant, atheistic enemies of Christ.
“Said Mother Church now has an entire autonomous province on the “canonical territory” granted to the Metropolia during the former’s enslavement by militant, atheistic enemies of Christ.”
And that would be different from the Patriarchal Council elevating Moscow into a Patriarchate, and the Tomoi of autocephaly for Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, the Church of Greece, Albania, the Czech Lands and Slovakia how? Except, of course, that the OCA hadn’t proclaimed its autocephaly-or do you see a great difference between militant atheist and militant Islamist enemies of Christ.
Not that enslavement of the Church to the Ober-Procurator was a boon to the Church. As for the patriarchal parishes (which, btw, are not autonomous), they aren’t without their parallels (the “New Lands” of Greece, the Romanian Diocese of Dacia Felix in Serbia, the Serbian Diocese of Timisoara in Romania, etc…).
The clock has been running on the 30 year canon of limitations since about 1990, at least. The Patriarch of Moscow has shown no inclination to lodge a complaint, and I expect the time will run out without it doing so.
Isa,
I have no idea what you are talking about. ROCOR is the autonomous province to which I was referring. If you want to defend the OCA’s alleged autocephaly, good luck to you. It is not a task I envy and my sentiments on it can be gleaned from previous posts on this site. No need to regurgitate them here.
MIsha: “I have no idea what you are talking about. ROCOR is the autonomous province to which I was referring.”
The only reference to ROCOR in the Tomos of Autocephaly comes here: “The Moscow Patriarchate shall not receive into its care in North America any clerics without written release or any parishes except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations in Canada”
Given the title of “Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia,” and given the well defined meaning of Russia (i.e., the ROCOR parishes set up inside Russia (Ukraine, etc.) were translated to the Patriarchate with the Act of Canonical Communion), and the reiteration of “in-exile” with the recent invoking of the example of the Church of Cyprus (which went back to Cyprus, leaving not a trace of its jurisdiction in the Dardanelles), ROCOR can’t be factored into the equation, in that it is in many ways, as far as North American jurisdiction goes (I won’t speak to elsewhere), it is a non-entity.
“ROCOR can’t be factored into the equation, in that it is in many ways, as far as North American jurisdiction goes (I won’t speak to elsewhere), it is a non-entity.”
Much like the Phanar considers the OCA, no? Well, ROCOR is quite content to be an autonomous part of the Church of Russia. If it or the ROC took the OCA’s claim of autocephaly seriously, ROCOR would have become part of the OCA. But, of course, that is not on the horizon.
Whatever semantic rationalizations you choose to employ, the plain fact is that the same Mother Church which purported to grant the OCA autocephaly (under duress and compromised in any number of ways) maintains an entire autonomous archdiocese on the same canonical territory allegedly granted to the OCA in flagrant disregard and apparent contempt for its jurisdiction here. I can understand why you would wish to imagine it doesn’t exist. Perhaps it is to Brigadoon that OCA parishioners have been disappearing?
What you will see happen is that ROCOR will continue to expand, spreading the Orthodox faith without regard to anyone else’s claims to jurisdiction in the United States. This, of course, will be the policy of the other jurisdictions here as well. Neither I nor most anyone I know in the Church of Russia, at home or abroad, has much concern at all as to who considers the ROC(OR) a non-entity. We tend to be confirmed navel gazers intent and content merely to build up the ROC, which is the sole thing we have some control over. We leave others to build up their own jurisdictions as they see fit. The bishops can work out the modus vivendi regarding overlap.
“Much like the Phanar considers the OCA, no?”
No. Like the Phanar would like to consider the OCA. The chronic need to attack the OCA, such as the present Metropolitan of Bursa’s speech at Holy Cross a few years back, and the trouble to try not to seat the OCA at the Episcopal Assembly (thwarted by Abp. Demetrios-Many Years!) just reveals such is not the case.
“Well, ROCOR is quite content to be an autonomous part of the Church of Russia.”
The existence of the ROCORettes, and the rumblings of some in the canonical ROCOR, says otherwise.
“If it or the ROC took the OCA’s claim of autocephaly seriously, ROCOR would have become part of the OCA. But, of course, that is not on the horizon.”
The PoM takes its Patriarchal Parishes in North America seriously-their bishop represents Moscow in the ACOBNCA-and yet it did not require ROCOR to go under him, like it did for the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in Russia. The ROC knew what it was doing, not even requiring the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow-which some of ROCOR objected to (though I understand that all parishes now, after the dust has settled and things have jelled, do commemorate the PoM.).
Btw, those bishops of the Patriarchal Parishes commemorate the OCA Primate, although they have no title to a see in North America.
Georgia was autocephalous, and ROC did away with that.
“Whatever semantic rationalizations you choose to employ, the plain fact is that the same Mother Church which purported to grant the OCA autocephaly (under duress and compromised in any number of ways)…”
Duress? Compromise? Like that which Russia applied to the Phanar to make the latter recognize the autocephaly of the Church of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania? Like that applied under Stalin to make void the autocephaly of Poland granted by Constantinople,and annex its Eastern canonical territory to the ROC? Like the autocephaly granted to Czechoslovakia, while annexing part of its canonical territory? Like that applied to the Church of Romania to cede the Metropolis of Bessarabia to the ROC? Like that applied to the Churches of Estonia and Latvia, to annex them to the ROC? That type of duress and compromise?
Well, if we cann’t have duress and compromise, when is the PoM going to give Japan back to the OCA? (btw, I did like the idea of Abp. Daniel being elected Patriarch of Moscow, if for nothing else but to stop this prattling on about duress and collaboration with the Soviets, as His Eminence was never under Soviet control).
Perhaps you should have a little talk with Major Archbishop, er, Patriarch Shevchuk about “duress” and “compromise.”
My response to ROCOR during their complaints about Patriarch Pimen (I just ignored those about Pat. Alexis II) of blessed memory: “yes, I would like him to act differently in many ways, but then I am not living in a communist dictatorship nor have the weight of 100+ million souls on me. And neither do you”
“maintains an entire autonomous archdiocese on the same canonical territory allegedly granted to the OCA in flagrant disregard and apparent contempt for its jurisdiction here. ”
Au contraire, I fully support the PoM’s (and the OCA’s acquiescence) in economia to the max in this regard, knowing full well that it was dealing with the likes of those who would rather have their right arm wretched out of its socket than write a Russian word without a hard sign at the end.
Having his representative, Abp. Justinian, commemorate Met. Tikhon at DL doesn’t sound contemptuous to me.
Btw, application of this “contempt” might help in Ukraine’s canonical situation (if I haven’t stated here before, I fully support an autocephalous Ukrainian Patriarch, but only if he is Met. Volodymyr’s successor. “KP” need not apply).
“I can understand why you would wish to imagine it doesn’t exist. Perhaps it is to Brigadoon that OCA parishioners have been disappearing?”
I don’t know. I went to Antioch, as did the godmother of the present OCA primate (although neither case had anything to do with the OCA’s trials and tribulations).
Btw, I’ve been to the Hellespont: the Church of Cyprus left no trace. In fact, the bishop of the Dardanelles is a native Chicagoan, where he has served all his life.
Wow! when you are failing or lose an argument you sure do like throwing out the “Phanar” card. You know you should have more of the Love of Christ and less hatred for Greeks. I will surely pray for you Isa, you obviously need it.
Peter
Basil (February 6, 2014 at 7:20 pm) says:
lex,
“Secular” Catholic priests are not required to take a vow of poverty.
More questionable are the high salaries paid to some Orthodox hierarchs who as monks have taken a vow of poverty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would be nice if the laity quit making pronouncements about the monastics.
RC religious (friars, sisters, etc. — not monks and nuns) make three vows: obedience, chastity, and poverty. Some, like the Jesuits, add a fourth vow particular to their community’s work.
Orthodox monks and nuns make four vows: obedience, virginity, permanence, and endurance.
As a sort of addendum to the vow of endurance, russian practice adds a promise not to acquire anything for one’s own self.
I made no ‘vow of poverty’ ever, but I have exactly $8.45 to last the month of February. I don’t need a VOW of poverty. I have just barely enough to make expenses and that is how most monastics live.
Monk James, I was thinking that promising to renounce “the world and the things which are of the world” is the Orthodox equivalent of the Catholic vow of poverty. A reasonable interpretation, no? If not, perhaps that explains some of those large episcopal salaries and Mercedes Benz cars?
One doesn’t need to be an OCA bishop to have a Mercedes. One OCA monk (from the Chicago area) once drove his Mercedes down to Delta to visit some of the parishioners whom he had briefly served back in the day. On reflection, it was said by some that he also desired the office of a bishop. Perhaps a Mercedes is part & parcel of an OCA episcopal endowment.
Elias, you are full of misinformation. This is 2014. I drive a 2005 Honda Element. My previous cars were (going backwards) Honda Accord, Honda Accord, VW, Dodge, Corvair convertible, and Corvair sedan. Bishop Victorin and many Russian bishops didn’t own cars. Bishop Victorin travelled all over his territory (Romanian patriachal parishes) by Greyhound bus. YOU tell US what kind of cars GOA and Antiochian hierarchs own!
And what OCA Chicago monk had a parish in Delta, Colorado, or the Mississippi Delta EVER?
No wonder you don’t identify yourself—what an embarrassing piece of ignorant propaganda you produced!
I would have gotten rid of them too; going backwards, indeed!
He was CEO at St. Luke’s. St. Luke’s hired him as the Chief Executive Officer, as in “everyone has to follow his direction.” You don’t see a connection? I sure wouldn’t want to check in there anytime soon. You?
Why does a priest, being paid $170K a year need to embezzle money? Oh, wait, maybe paying someone off to cover his homosexual activity? That makes sense.
So, this is the guy who was going to stand in judgement of Metropolitan Jonah? And who escorted +Jonah to St Luke’s? +Michael and +Tikhon. The OCA Bishops are beyond corrupt.
No wonder Denis Bradley was so effusive to recommend St. Luke’s Institute? Birds of a feather do flock together.
Not sure if anyone else is surprised but I am not. Lest anyone forget, Fr. Denis Bradley, who was well acquainted with Monsignor Edward J. Arsenault from his RC days, is the same “Orthodox” priest at St. Nicholas Cathedral in DC, who made sure that Metropolitan Jonah went to St. Luke’s under the care of Monsignor Edward J. Arsenault.
Bradley worked closely with Kishkovsky, Bishop Michael and now Metropolitan Tikhon to make sure that this indisputably and highly recommended Monsignor Edward J. Arsenault and St. Luke Institute would “help” Metropolitan Jonah.
What a crock of bull have we now been presented by the all too ill-equipped OCA leadership.
Best you release +Jonah to ROCOR and fast because you all are too stupid to get out of your own way.
Mr. Michalopulos,
Does this mean I should petition to delete St. Luke’s world-class contribution to the body of evidence regarding clergy who are child sexual perpetrators, suffering from addictive disorders, and other mental disorders from the National Library of Medicine? Because an administrator, not a clinician was convicted of thievery? St. Luke’s Institute is responsible for providing some of the most accurate, dependable, and insightful evaluative, treatment, and safety prediction data available and you, Mr. Michalopulos – who are qualified how? – would dismiss them as detritus of the “rot.” Déjà vu all over again for issues for which you are unqualified to comment, dredging up a situation that is long closed by Jonah refusing to keep his promise to the All-American Council, and seeking an apology for defending treatment as “torture.” And John Pappas, sorry to say it, but the man looks as well fed as Jonah. Could you possibly go any lower?
Leaving aside their clinical work regarding pedophilia would it not be better if we (a) didn’t ordain miscreants to the priesthood in the first place and, (b) concentrate on Orthodox spirituality, authentic monastic formation?
Mr. Michalopulos,
“Leaving aside their clinical work?” They are a licensed & accredited hospital, for heavens sake, staffed by licensed physicians, mental health professionals, nurses, and ancillary licensed medical professionals including pharmacists. They are not selling watermelons out of the back of a van.
No, Ms. Sheppard, I don’t get the connection. Have you ever worked in a hospital? I was a resident in a Catholic medical center in Lower Manhattan and I never knew if the CEO was alive or dead, male or female. I lived and breathed by the word of the Chief Resident and a pager. “Everyone has to follow his direction,” and he has mommy issues…
And just in case anyone missed the point: Arsenault was an administrator, not a clinician. He had nothing to do with Jonah, and why would he care? Jonah wasn’t a “high profile” patient to begin with. There are close to 600,000 Catholics in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington alone! So who’s impressed with Jonah, Primate of the OCA? But what they did was place him with the evaluation team who spent five full days to help him evaluate and understand what he himself described to those assembled at the All-American Council as a term of “disaster.” They talked, they interviewed, I sure they utilized standardized testing, and they most certainly did not sit in judgment, Michael. And at the end of that period of evaluation, they offered the result of their assessment and a plan of action for him to, in his own promise to All-American Council, “do whatever necessary” to change the situation out of his love for the Church and its people. He never received any “help” nor “care” from St. Luke’s Institute because – not having the integrity to outright reject it – he did nothing, he said nothing, he acknowledged nothing. My only comment to Amazed in the Midwest is that St. Lukes is a hospital renowned for their care and healing of pastors impaired with mental disorders, and your bitter comment is based on pure ignorance. Blame whomever you wish, but not healers who have devoted themselves to removing the pain of others.
Finally, Mr. Michalopulos, I couldn’t agree more that preempting problems is a significant investment, and lest we fly off into yet another memorable discussion of the “masculine look challenge,” I would note that St. Luke’s “Candidate Assessment” program for the Roman Catholic Church has been pioneering in contributing to the literature on the subject. Maybe you owe the dedicated clinicians of St. Luke’s an apology.
Yes, Michael, I’ve worked in and for hospitals and medical groups for 20+ years. I report to a graduate of Harvard Medical School who did his residency at Massachusetts General. I talk to CMOs for a Fortune 500 company on a daily basis. I have more than a little experience with clinicians and it is my experience that they are very much in tune with the vision of their company. Those who are out of step with their CEO don’t tend to last.
Ms. Sheppard,
Excellent. Much respect. Now, explain to me how the criminal behaviour of the CEO would impact my oath to first do no harm, and to provide the best medical care I am able in the most ethical manner possible?
Do you imagine Monsignor Edward J. Arsenault attended shift change conference, where the outgoing staff briefs the incoming staff on developments/issues related to patients? Did he attend staff meetings or treatment team meetings, strategizing patient care or amending individual treatment plans? Would he have sat in on therapy sessions, group therapy? Mr. Pappas commented on his weight; might he have joined patients in activates aimed at recovering a healthy lifestyle? My point, Ms. Sheppard? Arsenault was an administrator, not a clinician, and as such had nothing to do with the clinical aspects of the facility. The Clinical Director is Maria Kereshi, Psy.D. and the Director of Saint Luke Center (out-patient services) is Emily R. Cash, Psy.D.
Your insinuation was, by having a CEO who was engaged in illegal activity, everyone working for this organization is “tainted and untrustworthy.” In my opinion, this is patently unfair an assumption and unfounded; he was arrested and convicted alone. Secondly, it would stand to reason that, in the interest of covering his criminal behaviour, he would be insisting upon scrupulous ethics from his employees, always in the interest of avoiding scrutiny of the facility’s finances. The only interest Mr. Michalopulos has here is a last-ditch effort to connect Arsenault to Jonah, and it it simply does not exist.
Dr Stankovich, even if what you are saying is true –and I’m hearing much offline about the diocese he belonged to that is unsettling–your continued attempts to heroicize the work of this institution is flawed. There is no known “cure” for pedophilia.
That it is a phenomenon worthy of study is one thing but to milk dioceses and churches out of big bucks so they can send their bad boys there is silly on the face of it. Why not just send them to prison? Aren’t there psychiatrists there who can study their dementias? Depending on the state you live in, it costs between $37,000 and $80,000 to incarcerate a criminal. That’s less than what SLI charges per patient per month. And you get more bang for your buck if you send a chicken-hawk to prison in that there, he’ll be isolated from children and other potential victims. At SLI he has much freedom and at the end of his stay he’s sent right back to another parish with the hierarchy being fooled into thinking he’s now “cured.”
So no, I’m not impressed at all with the work that SLI does. And yes, many of the clinicians there are themselves far from clean. The fact that a certain priestly antagonist of Jonah at the DC Cathedral recommended it speaks volumes to anyone willing to hear.
Mr. Michalopulos,
Let me clarify: there are objective ways to determine academic influence (e.g. z-index – the measure by which your research is cited in the later research of your peers), and my “heroizing” is nothing more than reality in stark contrast to your grossly unqualified “demonizing.”
I have written so many times about pedophilia on your site, Mr, Michalopolis, that I do not wish to revisit it. Search my posts. The only correct statement you make is that there is no cure for pedophilia. To suggest they are charging a ton of money to return priest as “factory-refurbished cured” to serve again is simply too dumb to address. The fact of the matter is this: like it or not, by parole or completed terms of incarceration, we return pedophiles to the community every day. The issue becomes predicting and preventing further criminal behaviour and SLI has contributed to the body of evidence. And if you check their z-index for this body of work, it is both significant and impressive. Understand this, Mr. Michalopulos: Jonah would have had no contact with this program. It’s one aspect of their program. I went to the hospital on Thursday for a neurological exam; I was not seen by a gynecologist as well.
For you to say, “And yes, many of the clinicians there are themselves far from clean,” because of a recommendation by an “antagonist of Jonah” speaks volumes about you, Mr. Michalopulos, not SLI. How shameful of you to suggest that dedicated, licensed physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and others are all willing to compromise their professional ethics and jeopardize their livelihood and careers over Jonah. You’re on a roll this week.
A couple of things. First of all, the vast majority of laymen in the various confessional bodies actually do think that a stay at SLI will indeed “cure” a pedophile priest, otherwise, why spend big bucks to send him there.
Secondly, I agree with you that pedophiles are “returned to society,” whether after a stay at SLI or Folsom. But this is disingenuous isn’t it? The ones who went to the state pen are permanently branded as sexual predators and are isolated from society in many and various ways. They can’t vote, buy guns, be within 300 ft of a school, etc. On the other hand, those who are released from SLI go on to another parish in another diocese with nary a word to the faithful about their proclivities. Exhibit A: Archdiocese of Boston which was ground zero for the RCC pedophile scandal. So yes, I do take exception to your assertion that my characterization of the situation is “too dumb to address.”
Third, and I’m not gonna let this go: while there are no doubt many good clinicians at SLI I can honestly say that most have no problem with homosexuality per se. I’ve been told this by people who’ve had previous contact with them. If they had, they would have risen in revolt when Arsenault was assigned to be their boss. How, pray tell does this “speak volumes about me”? I know for a fact that the clerical antagonist in question was positively glowing with joy when Jonah submitted himself to a week-long stay there. He was assuring the people at the DC cathedral that everything was going to be alright and hunky-dory. He was so giddy with delight more than one person who was there told me that he was almost floating on air. This cleric btw is a former RC priest and had extensive contacts with some of the clinicians at SLI. Of course, it’s all moot now, St Nicholas’ is a shadow of its former self, the priest in question is no longer allowed to celebrate liturgy alone, nor to preach.
Mr. Michalopulos,
Let’s see if I have this correct:. You claim that an accredited, licensed, renowned Roman Catholic hospital in the Archdiocese of Washington – with nearly 600.000 members – would jeopardize its licensing & accreditation and the professional reputation and licensing of its professional staff, all to assist the 40,000 member OCA in getting rid of Met. Jonah because a staff member of St. Nicholas Cathedral “is a former RC priest and had extensive contacts with some of the clinicians at SLI.”
This is truly, by far, one of the dumbest things you’ve ever conceived. Truly.
No, I never said that. I firmly believe (based on my own research) that the self-identity of SLI is that it is not a place that seeks to “cure” pedophiles. Moreover, it has no essential quarrel with homosexuality either. That’s their business, they can believe the moon is made of green cheese for that matter. No skin off my back.
My contention is that with such a world-view in place, the question becomes why the Syosset Apparat feels that’s that place to send the people it wants to get rid of. (And don’t tell me because they are worried about certain character defects when they are in the process right now of grooming questionable men for the episcopate as we speak.) Instead we are looking at plain old Soviet psychiatry. Get rid of a guy you don’t like by packing him off to SLI. In true Soviet fashion if he isn’t crazy before he’ll be crazy after he gets out.
Instead, I’m more interested in why we can’t place actual pedophiles in prison, strip them of their priesthood, and study their pathology from that venue. May I suggest a psychiatric wing of a local state pen, one segregated from general population, with less stringent security procedures, and an adequate supply of clinicians who can monitor their behavior and if possible come to some consensus about what causes the urge for pedophilia in the first place?
And yes, the cleric in question was positively giddy with delight at the prospect of Jonah going to SLI.
Mr. Michalopulos,
SLI Clinicians & reseachers G. Thompson, G. Montana, and D. Pulido began investigating the relapse rate of priests treated at SLI during the period of 1985-2005, consisting of 375 priests – which also gives you a sense of how small a number of pedophiles were actually being treated – and found it to be 5.9%, which compared to any forensic model of which I am aware is phenomenal. However, they were absolutely opposed to any priest returning to “ministry with minors or any one-to-one contact with minors,” and this was adopted by SLI in 1997 as a formal recommendation to all referring diocese & religious orders. It was not until 2002 that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops formally adopted SLI’s recommendations and expanded it to include that any priest who had a confirmed history of the sexual abuse of children – despite how well they had done at SLI – was permanently forbidden from public ministry. This study, ““Differences in Relapse Risk Among Priest Child Molesters: Implications for Policy Decisions in the Catholic Church.” was presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, in Chicago in 2006. While the abstract and analysis has been widely available (and pardon my earlier error, it is the H-Index that measures academic influence), and in my own research at the time, I paid for the Sage Press publication in which it is contained. You would have done well to have done likewise. You could have spared us both from me saying you are sorely out of your league by trusting me.
Secondly, there is an abundance of research of research being conducted with incarcerated pedophiles. In fact, CA’s Coalinga State Hospital currently houses 850 sexually violent predators and 100 mentally disordered offenders involuntarily. It opened in late summer of 2009, and to date has released approximately 13 patients back to the community. Treatment is completely volunatry. Pursuant to the last published budget, it costs the State of CA $157,894 per year to house each patient.
If you do the math, the overwhelming number of of individuals coming to SLI are priests and religious with addicition and mental health disorders that are interfering with their ability to function to their capacity and calling. As I have noted, their mission, experience, and skill is to evaluate and determine what might be the problem(s), what course of action to best addresses the problem(s), and to develop with the patient the best concrete course of action in alleviating the problem(s). If that is Soviet psychiatry, Mr. Michalopulos, I am a Soviet as well, day after day. If people knew how to avoid creating “disasters,” they would, and if they knew how to undo “disasters” on their own, they would do it. Met. Jonah knew neither. Your “research” is ridiculous, your “interpretation” is ridiculous, your blaming SLI is misguided, and your inability to allow Met. Jonah – after nearly three years – to accept responsibility for his own words and move on is sad.
You defend this strategy against Jonah being trundled off to SLI by the Apparat but are curiously silent when it comes to your Eminent Houseguest being treated in such a matter. Whatever Jonah’s “disasters” were as Primate pale in comparison to what we know about other bishops and favored priests who’ve escaped the Soviet psychotherapeutic model. Given that Jonah was sandbagged and blindsided almost from the start of his primacy by people low (Hopko) and high (Benjamin) and in-between (the central administration), is it any wonder that “disasters” attended his tenure?
And that is it in a nutshell, Mr. Stankovich, those who forced +Jonah to go to SLI believed he was mentally disordered. What a scandal for them to think such a thing and for you to believe it and make the case for their deed.
And what shall we say if the OCA releases +Jonah to the ROCOR? Are they not saying, “we think he is nuts, but you can have him.” Or, maybe he wasn’t mentally disordered after all? Either way you can take out the preverbal bowl of Pontius Pilate and try and explain away their ugly ways, but they and you will never be fully able to wash off the blood of this innocent man.
+Jonah was far from perfect but mentally disordered, no more than you or me.
Hello friends:
Based on what I knew of Met. Jonah in the old days and what I think I have pieced together from all the internet back and forth of the last few years, I see NO reason to believe that he needed any kind of sex abuse therapy from SLI …. or from anyone else. The fact that many RC priests sent there have had such problems (and gotten or not gotten help) is not in the least probative of what he needed or did not need.
I still tend to believe that the weight of several years of trying to make the best of a multi-faceted disconnect between his many gifts and good qualities on the one hand and certain essential demands of the office which he had real trouble meeting (and frankly the dysfunctions of the system, unrealistic expectations of many and outright undermining by some) on the other hand combined to leave him exhausted ….and knowing that he needed some kind of support, objective advice, and personal insight that he wasn’t getting on the firing line where he found himself. I still like him and hope he is gradually finding the right niche – with the respect and mutually nourishing spiritual relationships he (and all of us) need and deserve in Christ.
That said I find the current efforts of George and others to dump on Met. Jonah’s critics (and support him) by calling our attention to this recent criminal conviction and extrapolating from that about the Metropolitan’s needs to be awfully silly …and quite bereft of any probative value. In fact, George is making his position look silly by this line of argument.
Anybody with some trial experience can recognize in his exchange with Dr. Stankovich the symptoms of grasping at straws. When in the later stages one sees a case he desperately wants or needs to win losing steam, not to say going down the drain, the tendency is to toss anything that comes to hand into the mixer to discredit and opponent or witness. (not to say his neighbors, pets or taste in ice cream and baseball teams) A rule of law is frequently invoked by judges at such a stage of the proceedings: the line of questioning is foreclosed because the possible probative value is so far outweighed by all the effort of adducing the evidence and the potential for wasting time and confusing or annoying the trier of fact.
Here, of course, there is no judge and the only person who might be expected to act like one, George, is really the main proponent of the distracting and unhelpful line of reasoning. In my opinion it calls George’s judgment and the case he argues into question that he keeps hammering at all possible tangents, and suggests that he doesn’t think his readership is very smart either.
love,
Fr. George
Mr. Michaopulos,
This is my last comment on the subject as you have adequately demonstrated your ignorance and lack of qualification to do anything but twist this into so much Jerry Springer.
You are absolutely incorrect as to my being “curiously silent when it comes to [my] Eminent Houseguest being treated in such a manner.” I had confronted him alone, face to face, about his drinking, and dumped his ass cold when he refused my offer of help. I made it clear I wanted no contact with him except for a call for a ride to treatment. And I neither heard about him – including his arrest or rehabilitation – nor from him for several years. And anyone who knows him is aware of what a program of recovery has done to him. He is his best person in recovery.
You and James may jig, amble, and lisp, but what you cannot do is change the words spoken by Met. Jonah himself to the All-American Council and written at his own hand in his resignation: He declared his first four years a “disaster”; he promised to enter an evaluative program and do “whatever was necessary” to correct the problems out of his love for the Church and the brethren; and when he felt he was incapable of keeping his promise, he finally admitted he had “neither the temperament, nor the inclination” to be Metropolitan at all. And that has been his last word for nearly three years. All the continuing BS is from people like you! You both so arrogantly and ignorantly scorn a group of dedicated and professional healers in order to protect yourselves from admitting the truth that Jonah spoke himself. Now go read Checkov’s The Bishop.
Such is the day when help and assistance is seen as torture and Soviet “tactics.” By virtue of simple humility, he would still be Metropolitan.
I’m still not impressed with your assertions.
According to Mr. Stankovich….
“Mr. Michalopulos,
Let’s see if I have this correct:. You claim that an accredited, licensed, renowned Roman Catholic hospital in the Archdiocese of Washington – with nearly 600.000 members – would jeopardize its licensing & accreditation and the professional reputation and licensing of its professional staff, all to assist the 40,000 member OCA in getting rid of Met. Jonah because a staff member of St. Nicholas Cathedral “is a former RC priest and had extensive contacts with some of the clinicians at SLI.”
This is truly, by far, one of the dumbest things you’ve ever conceived. Truly.”
NO.
The retired former RC and teacher at Georgetown University, who was received into the OCA by the very colorful former Primate of the OCA, you know, the one you saw, Mr. Stankovich at gay sites in NYC (why you would be in those neighborhoods is anyone’s guess) the same priest who lived with a former RC doctor, who became Orthodox and even attended to the late ROC Patriarch, and who then left the Orthodox Church because his lifestyle and that of his longtime companion, the same retired St Nicholas priest who was central to +Jonah being referred to St Luke’s, was not accepted enough when it became most obvious…….are you following me, Mr. Stankovich?
If not, let’s be even more clear, Denis Bradley is the linchpin in making sure that +Jonah was out and the gay subculture at St Nicholas Cathedral in DC would be safe for a bit longer.
Now try and refute these obvious facts confirmed by scores of members who have left St. Nicholas. A once proud place with over 300 members now has only 120 and can barely pay their bills. I guess all those folks were wrong, right, Mr. Stankovich?
Okay, perhaps it would be useful to sort out the multiple strands of this set of exchanges regarding SLI.
1. Regarding returning pedophiles to the community. Within the RC context, from what I read, it would be nigh unto impossible to do this in the current context. If you go to “BishopAccountability.com,” you’ll find the court mandated public disclosure of the entire files of pedophile priests in the RC Archdiocese of Chicago. Be forewarned, though: the reading requires a fairly strong stomach. However, it appears that, by the early 2000s, even if offenders were sent to places like SLI, they were done as priests. I wish all Orthodox jurisdictions, in fact, took positions that were remotely as tough-minded.
2. I’ve been involved on several instances in referring clergy to SLI for treatment of stress, depression, chemical dependence, etc. In virtually every instance, I’ve found their evaluations thorough, and their treatment plans appropriate.
3. I don’t always agree with M. Stankovich, but on this one, he’s spot on. The vast majority of clergy whom they treat present with issues unrelated to pedophilia. Most, in fact, aren’t sexually oriented at all.
4. M. Stankovich also is correct in naming SLI as a major center for clinical research on a variety of issue affecting clergy. And that, in the behavioral science community, would be viewed as a serious index of professionalism.
5. I’ve worked in and around health care for a whole lot of years. Currently, I serve on two boards assessing medical research involving human subjects and a bioethics committee, all at a major medical school/university medical center. If the CEO sets the tone, I sure can’t see it. I presume–and hope–that his hand isn’t in the till, but I wouldn’t know if it were, and I doubt that virtually any physicians, nurses, techs, etc., would, either.
6. I think, then, that we need to separate the several strands here, and deal with them individually:
a. The shabby treatment of Metropolitan Jonah by the Holy Synod. And, IMHO, you’d have a hard time pinning the label of “Soviet psychology” on SLI.
b. The positions taken by various people in the behavioral community vis-a-vis homosexual activity.
c. The positions taken by bishops, priests, deacons, theologians, seminarians, etc., vis-a-vis homosexual activity.
d. The moral failings of individuals who lead institutions like SLI.
While there is some relationship among these separate strands, they simply aren’t the same thing. Attempts to conjoin them in an effort to argue for conspiracy and/or “den of iniquity” theories aren’t, I think, plausible. Or as my father, may his memory be eternal, would have said, “that dog won’t hunt.”
Many thanks, Abouna Michel! Such an informed and reasonable approach to anything is a rare treat!
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM I). was issued in 1952 as a military manual. It was followed by DSM-II (1968), DSM-II (1974), DSM-III (1980), DSM-III-R (1987), DSM-IV (1994), DSM-IV-TR (2000), DSM-5 (2013). That to say this: Medically induced perceptions of psycho-pathology and/or abnormality are in constant flux, a.k.a. works in progress. And by now they have acquired some obvious socio-political implications.
Here is one opinion on changes to the DSM III:
In 1987, the DSM-III-R was published as a revision of the DSM-III, under the direction of Spitzer. Categories were renamed and reorganized, and significant changes in criteria were made. Six categories were deleted while others were added. Controversial diagnoses, such as pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder and masochistic personality disorder, were considered and discarded. “Sexual orientation disturbance” was also removed and was largely subsumed under “sexual disorder not otherwise specified”, which can include “persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation.”[23][34] Altogether, the DSM-III-R contained 292 diagnoses and was 567 pages long. Further efforts were made for the diagnoses to be purely descriptive, although the introductory text stated that for at least some disorders, “particularly the Personality Disorders, the criteria require much more inference on the part of the observer” (p. xxiii).
“On the part of the observer” — Subjective. Let’s face it. Each one of us could be diagnosed with *something*. With all of this progressively pseudo-scientific mental “health” criteria floating around how have ANY one of us escaped institutional incarceration? I had a friend, a Russian artist & iconographer, who was committed for 3 years and given various & sundry drugs to adjust his thinking. This is where we are headed. Creeping socialism gives me the creeps.
I find it appalling that fellow-clergy would find it an acceptible option to have their metropolitan COMMITTED. What ever happened to the monastery option? Then again, maybe some of them are just as sick.
Our secular physicians of the soul are only groping in the fog along with the rest of us.
Michael, this isn’t about you or your commitment. I don’t doubt you. I can’t speak to the character of the directors you mentioned, as I don’t know them.
I DO believe that when the CEO is tainted and untrustworthy, practices are allowed within the organization that are tainted and untrustworthy, as well. Yes, he was arrested and convicted alone; however, it is not uncommon to see collateral damage further down the food chain as time progresses. I do not agree with your statement that he would necessarily be insisting upon scrupulous ethics from his employees to avoid scrutiny. He’s not that smart. How do I know? He got caught.
Something very similar is going on in at least one jurisdiction. The Metropolitan (CEO) has taken millions of dollars of the jurisdiction’s money to fund his own interests with little to no oversight. The “spiritual clinicians” of the organization are seemingly innocent, but there are also more than a few unscrupulous men in positions of power who are known felons. Breaking the law and threatening people is very much a part of the culture and everyone feels it, whether they are aware of it or not. This “CEO” surrounds himself with those who support his proclivities, which causes great consternation and anxiety on the part of many. It impedes the ability of the Church to deliver the Truth, as souls have been lost. There can be no greater fallout. This “CEO” chooses to leave the Assembly. IMO, he should be shown the door, per his request. His Bishops, God willing, should be allowed to remain, yet it shows on the webpage that they are temporarily withdrawn, as well. If you read between the lines, Metropolitan Philip is not getting what he wants so he is pulling our enthroned bishops, whom he no longer recognizes as being the heads of their respective Dioceses, out of the Assembly; the ultimate nail in the coffin of the Assembly. They’ve come to a crossroad: Are they truly an Assembly of Canonical Bishops in North America or are they puppets of the Phanar and Metropolitan Philip? Time will tell. It is my hope that the Antiochian Bishops are allowed to remain, whether their “CEO” chooses to participate or not. That would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Christians DIED for the Truth and for the Church. I want to see some of our Bishops put it all on the line. Now is the time. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” We need “more” or we will never have one Church on this continent.
Gail, it was our Patriarch who called for all Antiochians to leave the EA’s around the world. Met. Philip probably had no quarrel with that or he might have found a way to ignore the Patriarch’s directive, but it was still the Patriarch’s directive because, I suspect, the EA process is seen as a creature of the EP to extend his control over everybody else.
That may or may not be true, but it is a widely held perception.
The long predicted day (since before I was received into the Church 27 years ago) that Met. Philip will repose will someday come to pass.
I know that he took actions specifically against you and they were wrong. I know that he refuses to allow an audit of all of the funds he controls, it would be better if he did. I know that he takes capricious actions against those who personally offend him and supports some very questionable people whom I think of as “Friends of Philip”.
Still, he has done many admirable things, not the least of which is to leave Bishop Basil, at least, pretty much alone. I don’t know what kind of bishop his grace Bishop Joseph is, but he is the odds on favorite to be the next Met. and I hear generally positive things about him.
What Bishop Basil told me at the height of the Stokoe stuff was “Don’t loose your peace” . In my attempt to follow that spiritual directive, I have been able to put the actions and personality of Met. Philip into a much better perspective. I have my own things still to forgive, but I am really trying to trust in God on this one.
Quite right, Michael Baumann. I would add only that Metropolitan Philip stands head and shoulders above his peers in charity.
This institute’s data collection is not nearly as good a work as booting out miscreant clerics, to protect the laity. It actually offers an avenue for the continued eventual opportunity to do more harm to the laity., These need to be confined into the honor of the laity, good enough for them.I would much prefer the removal permanently of any opportunity to repeat the offense.What good is data collection, when nothing effective is done to safeguard the laity.? Most people know how to count up what was lost, what is needed is remedy. If your caught once, your history, works really well.100% percent effective.I favor protecting the innocent victim foremost, over moddycoddling the abusers.
I am glad they got him. His proven lack of integrity will cast aspersions upon his vocational endeavors. Mainly, healing recidivist (90%) pedophiles, alcoholic priests, and other sundry miscreant tendencies among Christian clerics. His institute lends credence to the appearance of doing something effective to stop the humiliation of Christianity itself, which each case lends itself. Like a bank robber as a security guard in a bank, it is apparent, his only function was keeping up appearances ( for the concern by the laity) while taking a cut of the spoils. A thief, doing needless theft. These do not know the love of honestly for honesty’s sake. A sorrowful thing as their dishonesty harms many.
Met. Jonah could no longer be the Primate of the OCA because he acted against the statutes of the OCA where it outlines the authority of the Primate. The Primate cannot make unilateral decisions. The entire Synod must be involved. No trumped up charges against RSK. He was a thief in Syosset and has proved to be a thief in Florida. In NY State, he should have been prosecuted. And please understand, the MP is one million more times more corrupt, in all ways, than the OCA. This corruption is well-documented and the OCA is a the only autocephalous church in North America. St. Lukes, medically recommended as a very good institution, has nothing to do with the OCA.
Mr Prboscis: what did he do that was “unilateral”?
Oh George, don’t confuse the poor man asking him to think rather than parrot.
George, the Stokovites will never admit wrong. File it under #1. While others may disagree, I think a good “I told you so” knocks the self-assured down a few pegs, helps keep them humble.
Kondratic has been convicted separately on similar charges of crimes committed in FL. How can you call charges of his crimes at the Chancery trumped up? The fact that he similarly took advantage of a parish in his FL refuge after defrocking pretty well proves the former charges ( which were adjudicated by court of law as beyond reasonable doubt.) Get real.
Pere LaChaise (February 8, 2014 at 4:21 am) says:
Kondratic has been convicted separately on similar charges of crimes committed in FL. How can you call charges of his crimes at the Chancery trumped up? The fact that he similarly took advantage of a parish in his FL refuge after defrocking pretty well proves the former charges ( which were adjudicated by court of law as beyond reasonable doubt.) Get real.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is patent nonsense and not worth a response, but I’d refer interested readers to my previous comments here asserting that the Superior Court of the State of New York found that the OCA’s lawyers had NOTHING with which to charge Fr Robert Kondratick. A subsequent plea bargain tells us nothing except that the situation was resolved for everyone’s convenience, the truth of it notwithstanding.
That was a plea deal not an adjudication. Big difference.
A guilty plea entered as part of a plea agreement IS an adjudication. The court accepts the plea and enters it on the docket, with sentencing to follow.
no dude its an adjudication under the law, but the reason people enter into them is to just end matters and stop fighting and move on with life. practically speaking it means nothing Again, BIG difference.
Peter
The OCA Gang out to rid themselves of Metropolitan Jonah knew exactly what they were doing when they recommended “out of brotherly concern” to send their Primate to SLI. And before we hear another repetition of the “words” that Metropolitan Jonah “recommended” he say to the assembled Church in Seattle, out of “brotherly concern” by the OCA Synod, let’s finally kick that bit of fiction to the curb once and for all……….
The Synod had to double-down with the “gravely troubled” Hopko diagnosis, who was advising the Synod behind the scenes along with Kishkovsky, Stokoe, Nescott, Garklavs, Jillions and Wheeler.
+Jonah didn’t stand a chance, they knew by forcing him into SLI it would cover their tracks because “why else would +Jonah go to SLI unless something gravely was wrong?” Such deceit.
Now, the OCA says all is peaceful? Yes, cemeteries are very quiet and peaceful too. Trying to build your history on the bones of dead men has not proven to be a way to erect a secure structure.
I think the OCA will quietly admit that they screwed up because they will release Jonah to ROCOR, cut their losses and hope that he will fade away. But if they don’t release him and keep their hooks in him, the world will know who small, petty and dangerous the OCA is.
That the OCA powers that be are less than forthcoming with the truth is nothing new. The entire history of the Metropolia/OCA has been fabricated, primarily by very convenient omissions. Met Platon-who “abandoned” his diocese of Odessa to escape the bolsheviks after the fall of the White Army, and who was also a monarchist, participated in the founding and recognized the jurisdiction of ROCOR until 1926, when he left. His appointment to North America was requested from ROCOR by Met Platon himself. It goes from there -from the very beginning, and has been … a work in creation since. No regard for fact, no regard for canonical considerations. A great deal of the … prevarication … from the pens of Fathers Schmemman and Meyendorff. Not much else can be expected at this point.