Comments Posted By Harry Coin
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 644 Comments
Tim, you’ve got a a point on the other hand, later will be too late for.most with kids. Wait as long as you suggest and all1 00 remining will totally be ready. Retired, white hair, but ready.
» Posted By Harry Coin On April 20, 2013 @ 10:21 pm
Remember ‘celibate’ in reference to bishops means ‘not presently married’. When there were lots of local / regional widowers those were the diocesan bishops dealing with parishes, not always folks who never were married who left monastic life.
Owing to the spirit being supplanted by the rule, when women started outliving men on average (only the last 100 years or so) we’ve substantially lost the seasoned clergy whose wives died as bishops. Now we have ‘titular’ bishops they are also ‘titular’ monastics, meaning having never spent more than a short time in any monastery.
It’s not to take from those who studied and want to be clergy who do not marry, but it’s ignoring reality to look at the pools of experience we have to draw upon, and then limit our leaders to only those whose wives have neglected to die young.
» Posted By Harry Coin On April 20, 2013 @ 1:05 pm
You’ve got a point there. Following that logic though, why send him for evaluation if he was to be fired anyhow? And noticing he was explicitly cleared by those given all the facts and who do this for a living and so are able to sift it all, (and not just those facts leaked by his detractors) why was he then fired once cleared?
I want to clarify my intention here: I’ve never met the man, though potentially could be in the Midwest diocese of the OCA someday. He apparently went a direction that greatly troubled some parish clergy, and by way of redress the synod wasn’t enlisted and quiet redress attained— but the upset voices amplified by his detractors to oust him.
In the end, what really bothers me is massive bishop screwups don’t lead to any problems “if they like you” and “if they don’t like you” the first pretext is enough to generate noise (beyond felt reality) and then you are ‘out’. For instance:
We see bishops who actually put lives at risk by seriously poor booze control and judgement still called ‘your grace’ and in charge of clergyman’s lives who have managed for decades to not put the lives of others at risk. Yet, this fellow is actually cleared by psychological professionals given to know these things, never put anyone’s health or life at risk, and is out like wash water. And parish clergy can only celebrate with the permission of these? Why can’t parish clergy who’ve served for 30 years with dignity and grace not be bishops? Oh, right, their wives stubbornly refuse to die. There’s a reason for you. Sure. Helping our growth is it?
» Posted By Harry Coin On April 20, 2013 @ 11:05 am
The matter of the psychological testing being first ordered, then apparently having its results ignored troubles me. It gives the impression that the psychological testing is mere PR manipulation — “Submit to these tests or be fired, and no matter the results, you’re fired”. It’s as if the tests are not for the what they say they are for, but rather to suggest to the outside world “he’s guilty– see, he’s in a treatment facility” before the results are in. Given this history, why should future targets of concern agree to seek perhaps needed aid?
» Posted By Harry Coin On April 17, 2013 @ 9:41 pm
Bruce, I feel the same way about a drunk driver bishop. Drunk is the first offense, putting lives at risk by then driving is the second. Just drive past a little cross planted by an ordinary city road where a person was killed because a drunk driver crossed the center and — dead. Not the drunk, the innocent. Just left their home and didn’t make it across town. I suppose the powers at the ‘sacred center national church offices’ don’t care so much because they don’t get sued by drunk driving victims, but do for misconduct.
Morally though, I’ll take bad text messages and mutually denied relations over a drunk driver as bishop any day. Can I forgive him, sure if he tries to stay sober. Can he stay a bishop in charge of clergy who for decades have managed to not drive drunk? A stretch.
Zap the bad text guy and keep the drunk guy who but for police would have probably gotten in a serious wreck often resulting in death? Really?
» Posted By Harry Coin On March 11, 2013 @ 10:56 pm
John, I think so as well. How do we get past noticing whether ‘the rules’ get strictly interpreted, loosely interpreted, or flat out ignored appears to have nothing whatever to do with the facts and the canons/rules and everything to do with whether one is ‘liked’ by ‘friends’.
It wouldnt’ be so bad if this was a country club. But not just a church — but one with ‘Orthodox’ in the title?? Here we see see those in high positions misdo extensively then retain such positions — then go on to make career decisions about of those who have managed these many years to do well without gross misdoing. Perhaps the reason folk join and folk stay is aspirational, we like the vision of what it could be. Plainly what we are given to see has major problem.
Really, so many parish clergy are saints just for showing up and working under such conditions.
» Posted By Harry Coin On March 4, 2013 @ 3:58 pm
Above we see one of the best examples of both ‘projection’ and ‘steering by one’s own wake’ possible.
In what world were Hitler and Stalin bishops?
» Posted By Harry Coin On March 3, 2013 @ 4:18 pm
Are the rules only to be applied when those ‘we don’t like’ have crossed a line?
Assuming all agree no improper relations occurred— How can a person who actually drank booze to the point of impairment, actually chose to drive drunk and so put lives at risk until the police stopped him, sit in judgement of one who sent off color text messages and created the appearance of impropriety?
I’m all for higher standards for those given to be in positions of decision making authority over parish clergy careers. Why should one join a church when clergy who have led stable ministries, who for decades managed to not drive drunk and to not relax sexual restraint, are caused to follow the decisions of those not capable of the same?
Let’s not have double standards here– putting actual lives at risk by drunk driving and even actually drinking to the point of impared judgement makes off-color text messages and the appearance of impropriety seem petty by comparison.
» Posted By Harry Coin On March 2, 2013 @ 2:38 pm
Peter and I don’t often agree, but what he wrote above is spot on.
» Posted By Harry Coin On March 2, 2013 @ 10:46 pm
All this discussion of marriage and its tenure and inner life. You’d think the folks speaking knew the first thing about it, as if they were married for 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years.
» Posted By Harry Coin On March 6, 2013 @ 8:06 pm
That’s where annulment comes from. Obviously, if there is a ‘sundering’ then God must not been the one to have ‘joined them together’.
(The ‘obviously’ part was supposed to be in humorous jesuitical style quotes, but George’s upgrade filter rejected them.)
» Posted By Harry Coin On March 6, 2013 @ 8:01 pm
While there aren’t so many folk named ‘Harry’ these days, the Harry posting here is not me. Just for the few who might not be sure.
» Posted By Harry Coin On February 15, 2013 @ 10:15 am
What is it exactly this ‘representation church’ does tor real people? As I understand it the language used is old Slavonic as the other churches in the town. Clearly they have enough parishes to be getting along with in Russia as it is, what’s this one for?
» Posted By Harry Coin On December 17, 2012 @ 9:53 pm
You’ve hit on one genius of the electoral college… Dead or illegal voters can’t steal more than their state’s votes.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 20, 2012 @ 1:25 pm
What of the roughly 100 million people who could have voted, but did not? Why all this hand wringing about about a difference of 3 million out of 100 million votes cast? The elephant in the room is that every other person you see did not vote, but could have. Had only 4 in 100 such people voted for Romney he would have won. 4 in 100. Why does this question not get answers?
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 18, 2012 @ 7:04 pm
Carl, I admit those $ amounts creeped me out as well. The synod has a problem with one of it’s own and everyone who donates is on the hook for it? Was it everyone who donates who led to the explosions?
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 28, 2012 @ 5:23 pm
Carl, As you know this isn’t my first rodeo. I’ve ignored boatloads of innuendo and invitations to conclusions that seemed to be what was said…. but was not implied if one read carefully.
I am not quick to write off everyone who is upset on the basis they are using the present situation as a proxy for other issues, other ‘axes to grind’. Some people have been injured by those in positions of church trust. We read in the Gospel itself in metaphor warnings about predatory / false church leaders, and others who become overwhelmed by one passion or another and in that moment or stretch of hours generate victims. Those folk, those victims have no idea who to trust. Shall we simply write them off as having ‘axes to grind’? There is no simple way to tell them apart from others who simply wish to gain decision making authority themselves and in that effort say or do whatnot in a way that is not sincere so as to gain supporters with no real dedication or memory later on as to what was said to earn support.
Not to be forgotten also are the metaphorical instructions to reach out to disaffected and determine what’s what so that if there is something there that can be improved and it leads to growth then everyone is better off.
Anyhow a person who has been abused by those in positions of trust, and seen that those abusers themselves face no correction— For those folk to come forward is really quite a brave act. Who will believe them? So long ago, and so on. If a few of them come together they might prevent one from gaining more power who enabled their abuse, and so protect others. How legal ambulance chasers have made it somehow fair for parishioners with no say to cause their donations to be diverted toward paying damages instead of looking only to the resources of the abuser for compensation I don’t know.
In my little world (unpopular though this will be on this website) I put anyone who uses their name, whether or not I agree with their thoughts and without regard to what they think of me, in a league above all anonymous authors. So I can’t write off Joel Kalvesmaki or Christine as they’ve created a serious researched challenge to the official timeline and documented it. It won’t do to shoot them, they’ve created careful work that either is or isn’t of merit. Shooting the messenger is never a good thing.
Do both engage in ‘narrative’ (the omitting of that which does not help the agenda)? I don’t know. But they’ve well and truly poked a few major holes in the story they don’t like.
Carl, in some ways you know fair’s fair. Jonah supported a boozy priest for a while then when it became clearly untenable sent him on his way. Other bishops we read of here and on Pokrov have managed clergy who’ve done greater damage (serial gay affairs) and so forth who remain priests and bishops. Really? We like the people we like, and the rules apply 10000000 x to the ones we don’t. That’s how this appears to work. Jonah is out, they are not. The defacto operating standard is the church is looking to the morality of the civil authority’s laws and where it says ‘no further’ they act. Not so impressive.
All of Jonah’s other offenses were of style and policy disagreements. Whether to move the HQ out of a little town and into Washington DC, whether this or that staff member was working out. Of course there’s the big ‘who knows’ regarding rehab, for what? We see other bishops alleged to drink booze to excess though the conditions for being a bishop are that can’t happen, yet it does and ho-hum.
Anyhow, my sense is that there might be some truth to the overlooking of boozed gay clergy trolling seminary halls because of the affair at Holy Cross Seminary early in the Spyridon years. I myself saw the ferocity of that coverup. What made it stop was the clergy there who stood up against it come what may. And it almost cost them their careers and reputations. From the forcing out of the previous two Mets I think a reasonable person might suppose that any who came forward with complaints of that kind of misdoing were told to shut up and get used to it, told the abuser would be warned to pass by their room in future, or ship out.
As you write— “Destroying one’s enemies” … if that means causing those who fail the requirements relative to moral personal conduct necessary to keep that job or be elevated then such destruction is construction for church growth and for them as well (since their own challenges appear more than enough to be getting along with nevermind the temptations of power).
When ‘destroying one’s enemies’ leaves the realms of truth and goes into slander campaigns, putting just that little twist on a situation to ruin by casting in a false light, then I’m with you 100%.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 15, 2012 @ 9:19 pm
So, is Canada looking for a new person at the top?
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 15, 2012 @ 4:54 pm
That STS thing you mention has me mighty worried, I’ll give you that. I’ve seen nothing but the ‘smoke’ written of in public. Yet, the parallels there to Sandusky / Paterno / Penn State (if true) makes the most feeble comparison suggested by the relevant OCA committee re: met jonah seems so very weak — less than a tea kettle to the Old Faithful Geyser.
Can you imagine if some folk came forward and said ‘These were trolling the youth of an evening, and the leadership did nothing’???
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 15, 2012 @ 3:04 pm
George, you wrote the whole thing is a sham, pre-planned, in the bag and so on— in an article you published giving ‘the white hat’ to ‘bishop Mel’, right? So it wasn’t so pre-planned as you thought.
Moreover, those outside the OCA favored here got almost no votes, and Met. Jonah also got statistically very minor votes.
On the other hand, some seriously favored folk for ‘the ‘big hat’, who according to this website would not be at all models for high leadership, whose problems were ventilated and discussed and otherwise bruted about high, wide and consecutive here — also got very few votes.
So there was / is something about the approach used by the folk here. This website appears to have done well in helping to prevent one who would likely expose the whole church to big problems in short order from doing so. It has not done well in promoting any one person’s cause.
The extent to which all the above is correct I’m sure is a matter for debate. My own analysis is that assertions of misdoing people can check, indirectly or directly, even if posted by mostly anonymous persons here appears to have an effect. However, the same format has not done at all well for championing or promoting those felt to be likely to do well.
A couple lessons there, I think.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 15, 2012 @ 2:14 pm
“+Tikhon will try and be a peacemaker” — not a bad thing in my little world…..
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 14, 2012 @ 8:17 pm
George, something like 700 votes there, and yet you appear to take no solace or relief none of those most feared on these pages owing to conduct and choices you’ve publicized were in the top three. The one who you did ‘give the hat to’ in your article, who James Silver wrote had trifles in paperwork and not so trifles with drink was not among the leading two but third. Neither of the leading two were mentioned here extensively as being problematic in personal conduct that I recall reading (I don’t read everything).
I’m not sure why you aren’t satisfied as your worst fears appear to have been avoided, and probably in part to the comments published here. Now let’s see if some decent future for Met. Jonah doesn’t emerge in due course. How does that go? You can’t always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, you get what you need.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 14, 2012 @ 10:46 am
Rereading the vote, the three names on the second ballot had 161 votes for Bp. Mel, the third highest vote getter. If 100 or more of those who voted for him could reasonably be thought to prefer Bp. Tikhon over the highest vote getter, then the synod did choose the overall most favored. Basically 38 to close the difference between the highest and second highest vote getter, then splitting the balance.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 13, 2012 @ 10:52 pm
When my car still had the old style tape player I listened to several of his lectures. Some more than once! Doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong, I think he’d be the first to admit that. Well many years have passed and people change but still I remember I learned a lot from those talks.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 13, 2012 @ 4:25 pm
In the ballot you mention, where the one not getting the most votes was chosen over the highest vote getter, was that ballot between just the two of them or were votes cast for others too on that ballot?
Second, I take it to be a good thing that the two who did so well in the voting were not on the wrong end of the big troubles mentioned on this website. Certainly those most feared wouldn’t work out on this website so vocally were not favored. I think the fellow who won actually got called ‘a nice guy’– which for this website I think ranks above the Cherubim and Seraphim.
So, basically, overall, it was a good day I think.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 13, 2012 @ 4:19 pm
Mr. Stankovich: If an apology for first-time, words-only misdoing isn’t acceptable in a matter among adults then the word ‘apology’ now has no meaning of importance in church understanding. Is that okay with you all? Really?
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 12, 2012 @ 10:24 pm
P.S. To Mr. Stankovich: I don’t think I would last doing your job as long as you’ve managed it. I had occasion to visit a mental health facility as part of a college course many decades ago, though the sufferers there were not violent the one thing that stuck with me from that day was it takes a special gift to be in the presence of such suffering and misapprehension of reality as a career, anyone with the stuff to do that well has my appreciation.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 12, 2012 @ 2:29 pm
George, all we’ve really been given to know about why Met. Jonah was asked to leave is that he covered for a boozy priest, and mysteriousness as to psychological issues at a treatment center.
The OCA has bishops with DUI’s on their records, and others who’ve enabled time and again gay clergy misconduct even among the nominally married.
Protesting about mishandling one boozy priest by comparison seems awfully selective.
So, it has to be about ‘that which we are not given to know’. Also it appears sending text messages is a very bad idea. You can drink and drive, but don’t text if you want to ordain people as a bishop in the future. Make a note. Also don’t stay married if you want the whole bishop gig. An obstacle, that sacrament. ‘Sacrament’, such a flexible word these days.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 12, 2012 @ 2:20 pm
Will nobody answer whether a Christian is or is not to accept an apology for “trash talking” without anyone alleging physical misconduct?
One writes they know who is a ‘dirty old man’ with nobody alleging more than words, and throw him under the bus though he apologized in public!! This, while a proven convicted drunk gets to decide whom to ordain without outcry, on the basis he says he’ll really work to improve. Though nobody really watches closely, right? This is what you are giving people to see when they think about joining, think about staying.
I’m not having a good week.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 12, 2012 @ 10:56 am
Back To Stats Page
The ‘child’ here was 22…. and to my knowledge claims nothing untoward beyond the messages. And by the bye the parish did vote for Dr. Joel, that’s how he deserves a voice. Just sayin’. Better cool it off before you burn it out.
» Posted By Harry Coin On November 11, 2012 @ 11:35 pm