Comments Posted By Carl Kraeff

Displaying 181 To 210 Of 1,741 Comments

Another Response to Myself (Wink, Wink)

Father Deacon Mitchell says: “The priests just showed no initiative in taking action, so, when they handed me a chalice after 11 months of me trying to get them to do the right thing, I took the initiative and did it.”

I do not think that he had the authority to take such an initiative. No wonder that he got booted off. I also wonder how any other jurisdiction can put up with such a self-important and arrogant deacon.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 19, 2013 @ 6:29 pm

The Orthodox Wiki article on Bishop Varnava, while indicative of grave problems in ROCOR, does not have a same-sex union allegation.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Varnava_(Prokofiev)_of_Cannes

The same-sex allegation seems to have come from Bishop Agafangel, another former ROCOR bishop.

“Situation in Cannes
From Vladyka Agafangel’s blog

Situation in Cannes http://agafa-angel.livejournal.com/55251.html

The current delay is due to the need to convene a meeting of the association that governs the Church of Archangel Michael in Cannes, France. The bylaws state such a meeting can only be called by the association’s Chairman, Bishop Varnava, who has been Chairman since 1996. Since Bishop Varnava has joined the MP and has also committed a series of actions which frankly place him outside of Christianity (he entered into a same-sex union with a male and was convicted of fraud for his financial wrongdoing), he clearly cannot head the association. In order to convene a legitimate meeting, the court must appoint a representative who can attend the meeting.

The court had a hearing on May 2, 2012, where representatives of the MP asked the hearing be postponed to the end of December of this year. The court agreed to a postponement, but only to May 30.

We hope a date for the meeting of the association will be set on May 30. At that meeting the married couple of Varnava Prokofiev and Seraphim Baranchikov (as they are called in the court case as representatives of the MP) will be voted out of the association and order can be restored in the parish.

It is amazing that ROCOR(MP) has fallen so low that it reaffirmed the title of bishop to Varnava (Prokofiev) after taking it away earlier, only for the sake of having him be the rector of the parish and blesses his serving there and even ordinations performed by him (these are being done quickly to increase the number of “defendants” in the parish), while this person is in a same-sex union and was convicted of fraud! One could not even imagine this in one’s worst nightmares. What other proof do the blind need of how far the ROCOR(MP) Synod has fallen in order to finally see?”
http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2012/05/situation-in-cannes.html

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

No debate from me. I just wanted you to know that Iwas most impressed with the candor and detail in your post.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 7, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

I am perplexed; why would anyone give a thumbs down to this post that only related a fact? It is not as if she criticized the move.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 7, 2013 @ 10:16 am

Sure. We are of the same mind as long as we understand that it is not the laity’s function.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 5, 2013 @ 12:28 pm

The important paragraph for me was:

“If the Church is going to respond to the legalization of same sex marriage/union it seems
that it should begin by considering how to minister to those same sex couples who being
legally married come with their children and knock on the doors of our parishes seeking
Christ. Do we ignore them? Do we, prima facie, turn them away? Do we, under the rubric
of repentance, encourage them to divorce and dismantle their family? Or, do we offer
them, as we offer anyone desiring Christ, pastoral care, love and a spiritual home?”

I think that he is right that we need to figure out how to respond. I would think that we would not ignore them or turn them away. I would think that we would provide pastoral care, love and a spiritual home–but not to them as a couple. That would not be something that is according to the Holy Scriptures, Canons or Tradition–in short, it would not be the approach of any Orthodox Church that I can think of.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 10:45 am

Lessons from the Enthronement of Metroplitan [sic] Tikhon

George–Surely you do not suggest that folks have the right to disrespect the Holy Synod in the ugliest of terms and to be the judge, jury and executioner in the matter of +Jonah and that letter. Have you submitted your interpretations of the Holy Canons and the OCA Statute to the Holy Synod?

Anyway, enough of my feeble attempt to channel Professor Siewers. The answer to your question is simple: I believe that the Synodal letter is not a stinkbomb and that it does stand on its own merits. I do not believe that neither Christine’s timeline nor Professor Kalveskami’s essays prove that it does otherwise. I will continue to show how your appreciation of that letter is wrong. But, I will have to beg off for a week or so due to work and travel.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 11, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

Now you want me to answer rhetorical questions… You know that I cannot refuse you George; here they are:

Dear Collette–I do not know how many times your husband wrote to the Holy Synod. Would you care to tell us how many times? Also, I believe that the letter from the Orthodox scholars was signed by the following scholars. (I added some information on Professors Bradshaw and Kenworthy to make sure that I have the right person). Were there others?:

David Bradshaw, Ph.D., University of Kentucky (St. Athanasius Orthodox Church, Nicholasville, KY)–Chair of the Department of Philosophy, focuses on the history of philosophy, specifically looking at science, technology, and society. His research incorporates a variety of disciplines to address the social, ethical, and technological significance of scientific advances.)

Joel Kalvesmaki, Ph.D., Dumbarton Oaks (St. Nicholas Cathedral, Washington, DC).

Scott Kenworthy, Ph.D., Miami University (Christ the Savior-Holy Spirit Church, Cincinnati, OH)–Associate Professor, Miami University (Oxford, OH), 2010- , Department of Comparative Religion, Associate of the Russia, East European and Eurasian Studies, and Affiliate of the History Department

Alfred Kentigern Siewers, Ph.D., Bucknell University (Chapel of the Holy Spirit, Beavertown, PA)

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 9, 2013 @ 10:27 am

George–You are trying to eat your cake and eat it too:

Good: George uses Christine’s timeline that reveals parts of the confidential SMPAC report.
Bad: Carl uses Christine’s timeline that reveals parts of the confidential SMPAC report.

Good: George uses Christine’s timeline, a detailed and magisterial report to attack the Holy Synod, even though it “has no probity in a court of law.”
Bad: George uses Christine’s timeline, a detailed and magisterial report to defend the Holy Synod, even though it “has no probity in a court of law.”

Good: George uses the Kalvesmaki Essays that contain the confidential SMPAC Report.
Bad: Carl will cite the Kalvesmaki Essays that contain the confidential SMPAC Report.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 9, 2013 @ 9:00 am

Regarding legalese, please contact Christine Fevronia. Those words are hers.

Regarding the SMPAC report, I do not have a copy, i have only cited the report by Christine Fevronia that you published on this blog. See http://www.monomakhos.com/an-open-letter-to-the-orthodox-church-of-america/

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 5:35 pm

Take a deep breath Colette. I know that he is your husband and I do admire your obvious love and esteem for him. If I am wrong in saying that his research was limited to publicly available official documents, i will take you and him both to Raku next time I am in DC.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

“On Saturday, July 7, the letter was presented to the Holy Synod in the course of a conference call in which all of the hierarchs participated, except His Eminence, Archbishop Alejo of Mexico City.”
http://oca.org/news/headline-news/metropolitan-jonah-tenders-resignation

Here is an instance of an extraordinary meeting of the Holy Synod. i am one of those who thinks that a Synod can meet telephonically, particularly in extraordinary circumstances. Now, we do know from the OCA Statute and the Canons that a Synod must meet twice a year at a minimum. Obviously, the conference call here is an extraordinary meeting, extraordinary for two reasons. First, it is not a regularly scheduled one, and second, it cannot be presided by the statutory chairman (the Metropolitan) since the meeting is about him. On the latter point, I did not research the OCA Statute but I was curious how the ROD handled it. See Article V. Section 21 of the ROC Statute at http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/15.aspx,

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 4:55 pm

George–There is no gap, Fr Kharon was received by +Jonah. Per Christine Fevronia’s account published on Monomakhos:

The asking: “Our Abbot and Elder Archimandrite Dionysios was present at the enthronement of Metropolitan Jonah of OCA. Metropolitan asked him to send some monks and nuns from our monasteries in order to develop monastic life in USA.” Later, Ms Fevronia writes “As to “unilaterally accepted”, Metropolitan Jonah entered into an inter-jurisdictional agreement with Greek Elder Dionysios. It had already been pointed out to His Beatitude that the SIC did not agree that the transfer was canonical, but there was no deceit involved with the release documents. Metropolitan Jonah was informed that the transfer was not acceptable to the OCA, and Fr. Simeon was released from the OCA.”
Carl: Is it usual for a release to be made into thin air? I would think that there must be a receiving bishop.

The releasing: “We release the beloved to us great schema brother, the all-venerable Archimandrite Lord Seraphim, theologian, in the world George Starkof, son of Leonid and Aria, who has the Greek visa/passport number [] for the establishment of Sacred Monasteries in Dallas, TX, USA; and also his colleague, our most-venerable Hieromonk John Kharon, theologian and iconographer, son of Alexander and Ludmilla, who has an American passport number [], to the jurisdiction of His Beatitude, also the locum tenens of Dallas, with the blessing of His Eminence, our Metropolitan of Thessaliotida and Phanariophersalon, Kirillos II.”
Carl: The release is specifically to +Jonah. The transfer is complete when the cleric is received.

The bodily reception: ” Fr. Simeon arrived in America in December 2009. He initially stayed at the Chancery. Several nuns (headed by Abbess Aemiliane) came from Elder Dionysios’ monasteries, and settled in Washington, D.C. at the St. Nicholas Cathedral Rectory.” “In March 2010, Metropolitan Jonah welcomed Fr. Simeon to live in the basement of the house next to St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington, D.C., and he stayed there briefly.”
Carl: Here Fr. Kharon is received at least physically.

The suspending: (+Jonah to Fr. Kharon): “Until that matter is legally resolved, you are suspended from all priestly functions.” Ms. Fevronia reports that +Jonah later “lifted the suspension’ though the exact nature of what Fr. Simeon was blessed to do is unclear.”
Carl; SMPAC report does state that +Jonah blessed Fr. Kharon to hear confessions. Can a bishop do that unless the father confessor is under his omophorion?

The SMPAC conclusions: “The possibility of the OCA canonically receiving Fr. Simeon is out of the question, until such time as long-term sobriety is manifested and after a thorough psychological examination. In this case His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah’s pastoral judgment was questionable; the Holy Synod should encourage His Beatitude to regularly consult and brief his Chancellor and Chancery staff about pastoral issues (receptions, assignments, inter-jurisdictional transfers, etc.). Abbess Ameliane’s conduct has compromised her desire to found a monastic community within the Orthodox Church in America. There is also the issue of her unusual and nonsensical allegiance: simultaneously to the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America and to Elder Dionysios, who lives in Greece. The Holy Synod should not endorse any monastic community that is associated with the Elder Dionysios.”
Carl: It is clear to my feeble mind that +Jonah wanted to receive this hieromonk and that because of problems he was not canonically accepted into the OCA. This is thanks to the courageous work SMPAC members, particularly Chancellor Garklavs, who persevered to protect the Church from +Jonah’s misconduct. It is equally clear that +Jonah did not consult with folks who are charged with such matters. The word “unilateral” comes to mind.

Transfer of the nuns: “Metropolitan Jonah, at the request of the Synod who agreed with the SIC members that the OCA should not be associated with “any monastic community that is associated with the Elder Dionysios”, transferred the Elevation of the Theotokos Monastery into the hands of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in early 2011.”
Carl: This is another instance of transfers out without formal reception in. It is clear however that these nuns, along with Fr Kharon, were under the omophor of Metropolitan Jonah who had unilaterally received them

Postscript: There is a telling communication from Bishop Gorge (ROCOR) to Abbess Aemiliane that asks for a copy of their formal release from their bishop in Greece. I would have thought that when +Jonah made the deal with +Hilarion to transfer the nuns to ROCOR, poor +Hilarion thought that the papers were in order and that +Jonah would provide him with a copy. May be +Jonah lost the Greek bishop’s letter of release or may be he never got one? Or may be the whole thing followed a now familiar pattern of lax, unruly and capricious behavior by HE?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 4:32 pm

Your Grace–If you mean a continuously meeting Holy Synod, no we do not. That does not mean, however, that they cannot read reports, propose actions and coordinate proposals amongst themselves between formal meetings. That said, I would think that Fr Jillions would not have told +Jonah that he had a choice between resigning and rehab without at least having the absolute conviction that +Jonah’s fellow bishops on the Synod had agreed on this course of action. One can quibble whether this came from the entire Synod membership, the Lesser Synod or a “conventicle.” The point is that in a matter of such significance there had to be unanimity. Even if +Jonah believed that all of his other bishops wanted him to resign or go to rehab, he could have simply refused to do one or the other (Indeed, his letter of resignation indicates that he believed that the rest of the Holy Synod wanted this). It was with his assent that unanimity was achieved and this significant action was taken.

It may be that somebody usurped the prerogatives of the Metropolitan related to meetings of the Lesser Synod. Please note that I am not the one who claimed that it was the Lesser Synod sent the “resign or go-to-rehab” demand to +Jonah (We need to ask the Team Jonah member who made that allegation). In any case, if this was a conspiracy by three bishops (who happened to be members of the Lesser Synod along with +Jonah), +Jonah has not claimed that it was a conspiracy nor has he fought it. His letter starts with ““As per your unanimous request, as conveyed to me by Chancellor Fr. John Jillions…” As the Presiding Bishop of both the Holy Synod and the Lesser Synod, +Jonah was uniquely positioned to know if this demand truly represented the views of his fellow bishops. That he accepted Fr. Jillions’ presentation at face value is telling. The fact is that he resigned and the Holy Synod accepted his resignation. I just do not see where there were any canonical screw up that would annul his resignation and acceptance.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

George–Nobody has given me talking points. I have no idea why you are saying that except perhaps you cannot believe that I can use my little ole head all by myself. That is very careless of you. So, let’s get back to your answer.

You say “Does it rise to the level of “lie”? Only if they knew it to be false. We learned subsequently that not only did Jonah not accept him into the OCA but that Syosset knew this was not the case.”

What you are saying is not true. +Jonah asked for him as well as the DC nuns; brought them in and put them under his omophor. +Jonah tried to have them formally accepted into the OCA but was thwarted. +Jonah thus accepted him and the nuns unilaterally. Thank God that the Holy Synod did not let him have his way. I remember that you, among others, were making the argument that +Jonah could have brought in anybody, both as a diocesan bishop and as a Metropolitan, without the agreement of the Holy Synod (that means unilaterally, no?). Thus, I find your sudden objection puzzling. I suppose a better statement could have been: “Metropolitan Jonah tried to bring the priest into the OCA, having obtained canonical release from his elder, and, in spite of objections from the Holy Synod, unilaterally kept him under his omophorion until we forced him to behave.” Happy now?

As for my critique of Kalvesmaki’s approach, I merely pointed out that it was very limited and implied that it could not justify the conclusions that you derived from his essays. I could have gone and talked about the letter from the four savants to the Holy Synod that muddied the waters, wherein they claimed that the Synodal letter “…led national news media to report that our then-First Hierarch, Metropolitan Jonah, knowingly shielded a rapist priest.” They went on to claim “Those statements have gone unsupported for months, while the news reports, uncorrected, have become part of His Eminence Jonah’s public reputation, and have divided members of our Church as a result.” This was turned around in your forum, without correction from you, to the calumny that the Holy Synod and not the national media had accused +Jonah of knowingly shielding a rapist priest. This slander is also on your head George.

I think that Kalvesmaki is guilty not only of shoddy research but also arrogance approaching hubris; he seems to assume that the Holy Synod owes him an explanation for the contradictions that he has found and published. Did he ever try to get input other than official documents? I know that he is a researcher in Byzantine studies and he is used to dealing with old manuscripts. However, in this instance, all of the protagonists are alive and could have contributed on- or off-record comments that would have filled the picture for him. He could have sent his essays directly to the Holy Synod before he published them and asked for further clarification. I do not see where he did that. Instead, he used his scholarly credentials to produce a document that provides part of the picture to support his man and to damn his opponents. You do remember his first essay that he splashed on the OCL site: “Did the OCA bishops lie about Metropolitan Jonah?” Disinformation/propaganda/misinformation are most effective when they contain some element of truth in them. And, that is exactly what he did by publishing his badly researched accusations. And, that was his contribution to the Big Lie perpetrated by you and other members of Team Jonah.

I have to say that the Holy Synod erred on the side of liberality when choosing the words that went into this particular charge. The letter bent over backwards to spare +Jonah more embarrassment and the thanks they got was slander. But, I think that they could have laid it all on the table, the whole ugly truth, and you would still scream “lies!”

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 2:51 pm

George–If you do not mind, I will address your reply a piece at a time. First, I want to be clear about the terms that we are using.

Slander: Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In common law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Lie:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
A general comment: You offer conclusions with nothing to justify them. However, since I know that you have published detailed analyses (especially from Professor Joel Kalvesmaki), I will consider your conclusions to have derived from Kalvesmaki’s analysis at http://www.kalvesmaki.com/OCA/2012-11-07-disbelieve-2.html. I hope that is OK with you. Otherwise, I am afraid that I cannot proceed as you yourself are not giving me anything to respond to except personal opinion.
———————————————————————————————————————-
First point of contention.

You wrote “1. The letter clearly stated that Jonah “recieved the priest into the OCA under his omorphor unilaterally.” The lies begin there. Jonah never received this priest “into the OCA” unilaterally or multilaterally.”

First, I hope you realize that your allegation is slanderous per se (see definition above). The only defense that you have is to prove that the writer made “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive” in this case. If your conclusion was that the statement is untrue, then that is what you should have said. There is another complication here, you have slandered the Holy Synod of the OCA. I am not going to research what canons you might have violated by slandering hierarchs, but suffice it to say that you have made a grave charge and you should produce evidence (no opinions please) that the Holy Synod knew the above statement to be false and made it anyway.

Second, if you go to the Kalvesmaki article, you find the following recitation of what happened:

“First, a bit of background. On 8 April 2009, Metropolitan Jonah requested from the Monastery of Petra the release of a Fr. Seraphim (Starkhof) and with him other monks for the establishment of a monastic community in the Dallas or Oklahoma area (source II). The only one released with Fr. Seraphim was Fr. Symeon Kharon (sources III–V).” Please note that (a) Fr Kharon is the priest that is alluded to in the Synodal letter according to Kalveskami and others (most famously Abbess Aemiliane).

Kalveskami then analyzes publicly available documents (my emphasis) and makes the following claim: “Claim B (and part of E): +Jonah unilaterally accepted the AP into the OCA.
This is contradicted by the same report (source VIII), which states that Fr. Symeon “is not now, nor has ever been a cleric of the Orthodox Church in America” [p. 1] and “Fr. Simeon was never formally received into the OCA” [p. 8]. An email from +Jonah to a bishop from the Antiochian Archdiocese (source IXa) concurs: “He applied to the OCA, but we have declined to accept him.” A search of the pastoral changes posted on the OCA’s website from January 2010 to the present shows no record of Fr. Symeon entering or leaving the OCA.”

My problem with his analysis is that it is incomplete. He has not interviewed anybody that I can see, let alone the principal protoganists in this drama. That is why he does not say that the Synodal statement is a lie; he merely says that “…more than 40% of the claims made by the bishops about this affair contradict key, publicly available sources.” Again, what we have here is at best an initial assessment and nothing conclusive, let alone an analysis which would support charges of lying and slander.

However, Kalvesmaki’s analysis is not terribly rigorous in any case. To say that this claim is contradicted by publicly available document x and y, is hardly determinative, especially because Kalvesmaki himself gives us evidence that Fr. Kharon was released to +Jonah to serve in the OCA. The minutes of the Monastery of Petra even specify that the requested monks would serve in the Diocese of the South, as +Jonah is (was) the locum tenens at the time. This did not happen as Fr. Kharon served in the Diocese of Washington at St Nicholas Cathedral. Interestingly, the reason for +Jonah’s request was for them “to found Sacred Monasteries” in the DOS. More interesting is that these monks were followers of not an ordinary abbot but of Elder Dionysios who is said to be in disfavor with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I would have thought that Kalvesmaki would have considered this when he gave such a great weight to official statements that do contradict the letter. For one thing, the Constantinople complication elevates this request for transfer to the competency of the Holy Synod: “OCA Statute, Article II, Section 7i. Solution of problems arising in the administration of individual dioceses and requiring the judgment of the entire episcopate.” Surely, this is an indication of unilateral action by +Jonah, but Kalvesmaki is silent. The question then becomes whether he has been following his academic standards of research (and he is a very good one indeed in his day job) or Whether he is picking and choosing to make a point. I think that you should ask him for clarification.

I suspect what happened is that +Jonah did unilaterally receive Fr Kharon to serve under him and placed him under his supervision at the St Nicholas Cathedral. The Holy Synod resisted and prevented Fr Kharon from being formally recognized as a cleric of the OCA. They did their job and short-circuited yet another blunder by +Jonah. That is my analysis and I made it in good faith. I am not lying to you.

Now, let’s get to the “lie” part. Kalvesmaki never says that the Holy Synod lied regarding this charge. You may disagree with the Holy Synod’s conclusion that +Jonah received this priest unilaterally, but you have no grounds for calling it a lie. I am not in the Holy Synod, and I believe and say that +Jonah received Fr Kharon unilaterally based on the public record. Am I a liar too?

Common George, it is time to start acting as adults and address these issues soberly and with respect for each other and the truth. I will address your other slanderous allegations at a later time.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 8, 2013 @ 10:37 am

You want me to stop saying positive things about +Jonah or the foundation?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 7, 2013 @ 2:16 pm

Michael–I expected you to choose your words more carefully. You wrote “The evident slander of the chief hierach of the Church.” If you are talking about +Jonah, the slander, if any, is by no means evident. You know of course that truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander. You should also know that in this instance, the charge is made in connection with the alleged rape by a priest that was invited to the United States by +Jonah. Although Team Jonah keeps on saying that slander occurred because rape was never proven, you will notice that the “stinkbomb” letter never said anything of the sort; +Jonah’s malfeasance was related to his mishandling of the allegation. Some folks, like our esteemed Bishop Tikhon, thinks that the letter was a stinkbomb because it was unwise. Other folks have criticized the letter because it resulted in newspapers misrepresenting it. None of these accusations rise to the level of slander.

Let’s look over the record, if you don’t mind. It comes in the form of a Synodal letter in pdf format at http://oca.org/PDF/NEWS/2012/2012-0716-holy-synod-statement.pdf. I am reproducing only those parts of the letter that have been contested by Team and used to base their accusation of slander.

“At some point after his enthronement as our Primate, Metropolitan Jonah unilaterally accepted into the OCA a priest known to him and to others to be actively and severely abusing alcohol, which more than once was coupled with episodes of violence and threats toward women. One of these episodes involved the brandishing of a knife, and the other the discharge of a firearm, the former resulting in the man’s arrest. The man was also incarcerated for three days in yet another incident, shortly after he was accepted into the OCA by Metropolitan Jonah. While under Metropolitan Jonah’s omophorion, this priest is alleged to have committed a rape against a woman in 2010.

Metropolitan Jonah was later told of this allegation in February 2012, yet he neither investigated, nor told his brother bishops, nor notified the Church’s lawyers, nor reported the matter to the police, nor in any other way followed the mandatory, non-discretionary PSPs of the OCA. The alleged victim, however, did report the rape to the police. We know, too, that the alleged victim and a relative were encouraged by certain others not to mention the incident, and were told by them that their salvation depended on their silence. As recently as last week Metropolitan Jonah was regularly communicating with one of those who tried to discourage the reporting of this crime by the alleged victim and her relative. In addition, the Metropolitan counseled the priest to pursue a military chaplaincy, without informing the military recruiter of any of the priest’s problems. Finally, the Metropolitan attempted to transfer the priest to other Orthodox jurisdictions, and ultimately did permit him to transfer to another jurisdiction, in each case telling those jurisdictions there were no canonical impediments to a transfer.

We have started an investigation into the rape allegation, and cannot assume whether the allegation is true or not. We only know that earlier allegations of misconduct by this priest were handled by Metropolitan Jonah in a manner at a complete variance with the required standards of our Church.”

I invite you to tell me which word, phrase or sentence is not true and the proof that it is not so.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 7, 2013 @ 1:35 pm

George, Helga, Colette, et al–You all have disputed my methodology and interpretation. Surely you must have had a reason for it. Would it be fair to ask you to justify your criticism of my interpretation? IAW, is there some substance to your objection other than your personal opinion? If your objection is based on the text, which text have you used? If it is based on the interpretation of others, who are they?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 7, 2013 @ 12:50 pm

Indeed, everybody who is interested in supporting +Jonah financially or otherwise could explore the work of the Holy Archangels Orthodox Foundation.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 6, 2013 @ 4:51 pm

Colette–You said “Currently I do not see your interpretation of this canon played out with the Greeks, Antiochian, or Russians.” Let me ask you in turn: How do the Greeks, Antiochians or Russians interpret Canon 34?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 6, 2013 @ 10:46 am

You were certainly correct when you said “Oh, the efforts the people would exert to deny the obvious!” See, a broken clock is right at least once a day.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 6, 2013 @ 10:40 am

Helga–I guess you read my post very fast and missed “Am I using a bad translation?” So, the answer to you is, yes I am aware that Apostolic Canon 34 was not written in English. modern or otherwise.Since it is highly improbable for you to think that I am not aware of that fact, I will take your comment as a petty and nasty retort. Now, are you aware that resorting to such petty and nasty retorts is a sign of weakness, of losing the argument? Are you aware that your comment was the rhetorical equivalent of a belch or a fart?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 6, 2013 @ 10:39 am

Dear Disgusted with It–If I infer anything, it is that there is certain partisanship/ideology that drives many posters here, not yellow journalism.

You are making a good point about the substance of the post being important, even when posted anonymously. However, there is also a lot to be said about the poster, whose identity can shed light on the substance. To take an extreme example hypothetical example, we have seen many anonymous posts that allege that +Jonah has asked for a transfer to ROCOR. Don’t you think that such a post would be so much more believable if it came from +Jonah himself, his lawyer, or someone who is authorized to speak for him? Take another example, I am embroiled in a debate on Canon 34 and of the accusations against me is that I should not be attempting to interpret Canons as a lay person, an amateur. Helga has made this accusation and may well be right, but she is a phantom to me. Now, if Helga was in reality a canonist like Father Rentzel or a Bishop, you must agree that the accusation would then acquire certain cachet that would make it much more serious.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 5, 2013 @ 4:36 pm

I am reading the canons and interpreting them on the basis of their plain English meaning. Does anybody dispute the plain English meaning of them? Am I using a bad translation? Doe the various commentators hint at anything other than the plain English meaning? Does anybody have case law precedents?

I have indicated that my approach to interpreting them is based on “The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church” by Dr. Lewis J. Patsavos, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Canon Law and former Director of Field Education at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA. What is the basis of the interpretations made by yourself, George, Helga, Professor AKS and others who have condemned my interpretation?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 5, 2013 @ 12:44 pm

George–I am afraid that we hold diametrically opposed views on this. However, I remember a time in the past when you would have agreed with me. Now, you have cast your lot with proponents of a strong primate, such as +Jonah, Professor AKS and others. It is the Brum Doctrine Redux (see http://ocanews.org/news/ThePRimateoftheOCA-Brum12.02.06.html).

May be there is another difference between you and I; I have not given up hope on you.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 9:31 pm

But, there rae critical differences. First, the name of the reporter is always published. Second, most news outlets have rules regarding using unnamed sources. Third, they also have the requirement to have at least two sources. Fourth, there are codes that are used to indicate the level of the source, such as \White House official, Senior Official, on background, etc…Fifth, it is the job of editors to make sure that the rules are followed Now, it is also true that these rules are often not followed by news outlet with ideological bent or those who practice yellow journalism.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 9:13 pm

Here are some questions that occur to me:

Are the negotiations still going on? Did his lawyer desert him? What sort of lawyer is he to let his client end up destitute?

Although according to you he does not have a paycheck, does he have any other source of income, such as donations from those who love him? If not, why aren’t those who love him put their money where their mouth/heart is? What sort of supporters are they to let him end up destitute?

Any answers?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 5:28 pm

You do not cease to disappoint funny man and furnish disgusting examples of disrespect towards clergy that vie in their ugliness as any produced by the most ardent Jacobin.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

Authorization or not, you seem to try nonetheless. So, to use an old Japanese military analogy, you are not a samurai but a ronin? But, as the tale of the 47 Ronin shows us, please take care that your zeal defense of your non-master does not end up hurting you.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 5:20 pm