Comments Posted By M. Stankovich

Displaying 151 To 180 Of 859 Comments

The Sons of Job vs Syosset

Jane Rachel,

As Albert Collins sang, “I don’t care what you been thinkin’. I ain’t drunk, but I been drinkin’”

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 4, 2013 @ 8:52 pm

Mitrich,

Your comfort & eagerness to comment on “our priests” is subjective polemic, which is your business, but should be properly labeled as such. “Crime” is a term dependent on “evidence,” not conjecture, convolution, rumor, gossip, or hoohah. You have have no more “evidence” of a crime than anyone else. Thus, referring to priests having “willingly jumped on the criminal bandwagon,” is a matter of pure conjecture if you are unable to substantiate a crime. It’s logic. Hmm.

Secondly, your question, “How can we trust many of our priests?” could be issued from the mouth of the Governor himself (Jn. 18:38), certainly unworthy of those St. Chrysostom identifies as an order that

“ranks among heavenly orders; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Comforter Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels… and entrusted [them] with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels.”

So, when when you extend your disrespect to many, did you have a number in mind? Or are you limiting it to those who think/feel/support a crime you cannot substantiate?

I would note that St. Chrysostom likewise speaks the “silence of the priests,” by offering the analogy of Paul, “For he [Paul] had a greater power by far than power of speech, power which brought about greater results too; which was that his bare presence, even though he was silent, was terrible to the demons.” I would be happy, in fact joyous, Mitrich, in giving you the benefit of the doubt as well! But first you must be silent.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 3, 2013 @ 4:49 pm

Seraphim,

I got the point. I mean no pejorative nor insult by saying it is “fool’s gold.” Read Fr. Alexey Karlgut again. I keep reading again & again & again that the “issue” with Jonah was that he was a “poor administrator.” That was not the issue. Fr. Alexey:

The Metropolitan has to accept full responsibility to maintain the unity of the whole, the Holy Synod of Bishops locally, and in relationship with Synods of other Orthodox Churches world-wide. The Metropolitan must be accountable to the Holy Synod of Bishops for his stewardship of the office entrusted to his care.

A courageous, visionary leader, faced with traitorist, defiant, even mutiny-intended subordinates does not just “carry on,” (“You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed” Matt. 25:26) but exposes the miscreants and resigns. That, Seraphim, is a moral champion and bellwether! “Bumbling” is not humility, it is denial and indifference – “magical,” in the sense that if I ignore it, it will resolve itself.

I will say this to you: I certainly share your sentiment. I have been here, present, from the very first day, for 40-years. Each and every time there is an election of a primate, I am again filled with hope and anticipation, and it has never diminished. Not once. Again you will pardon me, but your “prognostications” are silly and naive. Pick any 40-years in the life of Byzantium, in the life of the Church of Russia, long after their 40th year of inception, and we appear as rank “amateurs” in the school of scandal. I have to laugh in recalling Fr. Meyendorff’s passionate recounting of the day the entourage of Met. Isodore returned to Kiev after signing the Union of Florence: “And for three days, there was total silence in Kiev. Isidore had sold the Orthodox Church to the heterodox!” Aye!

“Let not your heart be troubled: you believe in God, believe also in me.” (Jn. 14:1) and as our Father, Blessed Chrysostom comforted, “For 40-years the Jews wandered in the desert. But fear not, for you are no longer led by Moses, but by Jesus Christ.”

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 3, 2013 @ 4:06 pm

Mr. Coin,

Is the fact that you received the $10 smackdown for this on the Orthodox-Forum cause to shop your weeks-old fish here? Perhaps you’ll get a better answer here by “slumming it” down to Monomakhos? What is about Mr. Coin? Are you itching to string somebody up? You looking for an army to rise up for you, even though for more than a full month you don’t seem able to man up and type your “intended’s” name?

The only suitable answer to anything I ever read by you is: Yes, Mr. Coin, you are correct. If Matthias, then Benjamin. If Benjamin, then Nathaniel (the friend of the retired Mark); and if Nathaniel, then Melchisedek (same outfit), blah, blah, blah; Mark got those emails… And hey, if we’re playing pick-up ball, I’ll tack on some old-timers (somebody I saw coming out of the gay showclub at 42nd & 8th). And should I forget your personal favorite, Mr. Coin, any and all celibate male monastics simply on GP because it rubs you the wrong way, which invaribly leads to… monastic bishops in general! And we’re almost finished: Stalin was truly misunderstood, and DRUMROLL ===> Hitler did no wrong!

Let’s be honest, Mr. Coin, even when I have been respectfully respectful, there is no nice way of saying: there is no justice in this life, Mr. Coin. And justice is not yours.

“And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them; and it was said to them, that they should rest yet for a little longer.” (Rev. 6:10-11)

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 2, 2013 @ 7:57 pm

Mr. Michalopulos,

For the record, we have never met, you do not, in fact, “know me,” and have never even heard my voice (Unless you’ve heard me sit in with 3 psychiatrist friends of mine to jam the blues with my 1970 pre-CBS, jumbo-headstock Fender Strat with Clapton-style mid-range boost – cryptic? If you know, my friend,you know!) . I have acquired an appreciation for your ability, sight unseen, to repeatedly reduce me – my basic fund of information, executive functions, ego functions – including analytical examination & perspective – emotions, desires, gender-identification, and masculinity – to a “bot.” To a “water-carrier” and “agenda merchant.” And worse, Mr. Michalopulos, you frequently suggest I may be so ignorant, be so unconscious, and so mezmerized & entranced, I am even unaware! And imagine, I am allowed to operate a motor vehicle… Thankfully, as it appears you have watched a whole lot of TV, you are able to see through the craftily-applied veneer, and cut to the chase. While this is less sophisticated (no pejorative intended) than Fr. Ionnaes “high-handed” dismissals by virtue of “scolding and moralizing does not play here,” you are a solid second.

Thankfully, I am blessed with the ability to conduct my life without the added criterion of “What Would Jonah Paufhausen Do?” (WWJPD) Hmm… Now that’s vaguely familiar… Apparently your way of managing this fact is to continuously attempt to put me in a cage in the public square like Ezra Pound, and whomever comes to “rescue” me will necessarily reveal themselves and the plot. Aha! Monomakhos says: This just in: “J’ACCUSE!” Michalopulos as Zolla, Munchkins of the catacombs, come out! Witch is dead!” George, my friend, wake me when it’s over. It takes a real man to walk past the glaring sign in CA state prisons informing you that, when you pass this point, the state will not negotiate with prisoners for hostages. Gulp.

I know it’s hard for you to imagine, but on those rare occasions when I am able to spend time with my dearest friends & brothers of 40-years who happen to be in town, the last thing I wish to discuss is Jonah Paufhausen, the “Syosset Axis” (including Fr. Kishkovsky whom I have never met), or “Soviet psychiatry.” And by the same token, I am not asked to disclose confidential information regarding my patients. You live for this stuff, Mr. Michalopulos. Mr. Cone is still bitching about being doxed – a “righteous” complaint, however because of his protected “privacy,” not that it revealed that he lives for this stuff! I do not. The answer to your question regarding “cryptic” motivation has already been previously stated several times on this site. I was simply concurring.

In all sincerity, everyday I pray for you, Mr. Cone, & for Jonah Paufhausen, among many – for your well-being & for your salvation. Disagree with my opinion(s) as you will, but unless you have evidence to the contrary – and you do not, and you will not because it is untrue – I would appreciate you ending this personal insult of “collaboration.” It was offensive 18-months ago, and it is offensive now. I have no jihad & no animosity. The Church has moved on.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 2, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

Fr. Ioannes,

Ever hear of these two liturgical examples:

“Therefore, most Holy Master, we also, Your sinful and unworthy servants, whom You have made worthy to serve at Your holy altar, not because of our own righteousness (for we have not done anything good upon the earth), but because of Your mercy and compassion, which You have so richly poured upon us, we dare to approach Your holy altar, and bring forth the symbols of the holy Body and Blood of Your Christ. We pray to You and call upon You, O Holy of Holies, that by the favor of Your goodness, Your Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon the gifts here presented, to bless, sanctify… ” The Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great

“O compassionate and merciful God, who tests the heart and the reins, and who alone knows the secret thoughts of men (for no deeds are hidden from You, but all things are naked and manifest before Your eyes) ; As You know all things concerning me, regard me not with loathing, neither turn Your face from me ; but disregard my iniquities at this present hour, O Lord Who disregards a man’s sins unto his repentance. And wash away the vileness of my body, and the pollution of my soul. And sanctify me wholly by Your all-perfect, invisible might, and by Your spiritual right hand ; lest, while I proclaim liberty unto others, and administer this rite with perfect faith in Your unutterable love toward mankind, I myself may become the base slave of sin. Yes, O Master, alone good and full of love toward mankind, do not let not Your humble servant be led astray ; but send down upon me Your power from on high, and strengthen me in the administration of thine impending Mystery, which is both great and most heavenly : and create the image of Your Christ in him {her) who now desires to be born again through my unworthy ministry.” The Order of Baptism (The first prayer of the blessing of the water).

It would seem evident that the Fathers were concerned in “reminding” the celebrant that Grace, Operation, & Salvation itself were of God, and not the celebrant, as opposed to providing euphemism for “get your BI Business together, pal,” or your church shall not “flourish like the palm tree: [or] grow like a cedar in Lebanon.” (Ps. 192:12) This is all tantamount to suggesting God is dangling meat before hungry dogs, rather than pouring out His “desiring us beyond desire” for Himself for all eternity. Secondly, good reasoning & basic symbolic logic would likewise seem to suggest that believing this “tempering” of the flow of the Divine Spirit is conditional upon the “degree that we are pure” is absurd, kind of like, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Lk. 16:31)

And please, don’t you shoot me in the foot. Most certainly I agree “to make decisions lightly under the belief that “God will work out it in the end” is rash and immature.” My point has been that endlessly bitching & moaning over decisions already made, rather than relying upon the promise that God is a God of Justice & a Just God is arrogant & prideful. Should we ask Mr. Michalopulos to post a new survey as to whether posters believe our Father, Blessed Gregory of Nyssa should be condemned and removed from the list of the Saints for believing & teaching the heresy of apokatastisis? [Mr. Miller, please develop the syllogism: Blessed Church Father held belief; belief is later declared heresy and anathema; Blessed Church Father is a heretic & anathema.] The Fathers… ignored that Blessed Gregory held and openly preached this belief. WAT!

Why again (καὶ ἔτι, καὶ ἔτι, καὶ ἔτι, καὶ ἔτι, καὶ ἔτι) stir the waters with these ludicrous, “Hey, I was just thinking…” moments Met. Anthony (Bloom) referred to as “religiosites,” hearing the music, but missing the words.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 2, 2013 @ 4:45 pm

Mr. Miller,

When has the Church ever depended upon the personal “sanctity” of the leaders for God’s providence & salvation, such that “the Holy Spirit is only present to the degree that we are pure,” and conversely, all of us must necessarily be chastized for the “dirty politics” of individuals chosen to lead us? Am I my keeper’s keeper? (cf. Gen. 4:9) Mr. Miller: “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with You, that You may be feared.” (Ps. 129:3-4)

If what you say is correct, then what are we to make of the parish, last Fall. where the priest of some years was arrested for soliciting sex from boys over the internet, and investigation proved it had gone on for years. Do we tell them “there was no Eucharist here,” or was it a “diminished” Eucharist to the degree the priest was more or less deviant? Do we re-baptize, re-marry, re-chrismate, and re-bury? And Holy Cow, what do we do about the former Soviet Union, with all the suspicion of collaboration of clergy to the highest levels? Actually, nothing because it is all ridiculous.

I suggest you read and/or re-read St. Gregory Palamas, specifically his intolerance for any attempt, any argument, any “supposition” that would foolishly, through inadvertence or ignorance, limit the unstoppable and uncontainable Invigoration, the Movement, and the Power that is the Energy of our God. And secondly, the theological treasure of the “Kneeling Vespers” of Pentecost tasked to detail Fire from Fire, always acting, always moving, always inspiring, and in the end, Mr. Miller, as St. Andrew of Crete tells us, “He goes wherever He wishes.”

I dispute your premise from the outset, Mr. Miller. Likewise, I find it nonsensical that an intelligent man as yourself would attempt to utilize weak scholarship as a “hair extension,” weaving it into some expository on “chastizement.” Oh, and don’t forget to read St. Theophan the Recluse’s advice on what to do if you have a bad priest. Then write.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 2, 2013 @ 7:48 am

James,

“It doesn’t fly,” you say. Your choice of the phrase, “gets a pass” speaks to your grasp of the concept. And by your need to preempt what you predict will be my “superior snide,”you have already handcuffed yourself. Nice touch. It somehow defies good reasoning & basic symbolic logic, but why quibble. Tango: officers, escort this person back to their own “Tartarus.” And leave some crayons, as they apparently are bored. Out

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 2, 2013 @ 5:48 am

Seraphim98,

The Orthodox Church in America has existed in this country for exactly forty years. I do not know how that translates in “dog years,” but I can tell you that according to Erik Erickson, developmentally, a man is not considered an “adult” until after completing the 24th year of life. My point? What, in heaven’s name, is forty years in the life of any local Orthodox Church? Pick any autonomous or autocephalous local Church, examine their primary half-century and what do you find? But wait! Find one that exists(-ed) in the multi-jurisdictional “diasphora” lunacy that is ours, where that local Church is not even acknowledged to exist. You have American born, American seminary trained men serving in ethnic jurisdictions in America, who comment, here & there, with a “respectful” but grateful detachment. I stood with such men in the seminary chapel 6 days a week, for the most part, and somehow never thought it odd that they were absent on Sunday, and Feasts, and Pascha, and for their ordination because they were in their ethnic church. Today I see the lunacy. And somehow, Seraphim, it was the “dis” of covert disrespect that hung over the OCA from its inception that was far worse to endure.

I do not believe I’ve ever read since of the evening Archbishop Iakovos and his entourage, with very little warning, showed up with only minutes to spare to serve the the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts. His photographer crept around in the Φῶς Ἱλαρόν, not so much because he was even interested in us, but rather our ecclesiarch, Elias (Wesley) Jones, a for-real African-American, even directing him to the Communion line of the Archbishop for photos. Fr. Alexander greeted the Archbp. magnanimously – wasn’t it all about tacit acceptance & approval? – and not a single word of support, or encouragement, or nothing from the man who walked the streets of Memphis with Martin Luther King. “Happy to be here.” Did he stay for the meal or even to bless the food? Umm, no. Did he come out with the Cross, distribute antidiron, greet or offer blessings to students, Let me think… that would be no, no, and no. Like today, they would not serve with us, they would not acknowledge us. Why did he come, under cover of darkness? Respect for Fr. Alexander? It wasn’t for the swag.

And finally Seraphim, after enduring at least 35 successive years of lunacy, you’re telling me it all came down to Jonah Paufhausen and his “God-given vision for the OCA?” Mark my word: when his “vision” is made known, and it will be, you will think differently. Forty years is nothing, and this accusation of “squandering” autocephaly is empty and stupid. The Orthodox Church in America has never been allowed to exercise its autocephaly! At the time of the Tomos of Autocephaly, the ROC literally could do nothing to provide foundation,guidance, direction, or support for the OCA, and now they are able, and now they should be called upon.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 1, 2013 @ 4:32 pm

confused,

I am a secular therapist, and I am not looking for a fight. Two points:

If you were to look for St. Luke’s actual contribution to the body of literature, for example, used to assist in criteria determining whether a priest (and they are an institution sponsored by the RCC, though they are by no means a “religious” institution) who has been identified & convicted of a sexual crime (nearly always child sexual abuse) is an acute risk to the community, they are significant. Relying on what is referred to in research as an “h-index rating,” which measures the number of times your research is cited in other research by your colleagues & peers, St. Luke’s is very respected and influential. I will leave the discussion for another time, but in certain situations, where the OCA needs rapid, demonstrated expertise in providing guidance to protect the most vulnerable – not to “cover their behinds,” but driven out of moral courage – I say be led around by the best. If that leaves you “cold,” but on a sweater; eventually you will see the wisdom.

Secondly, not to belabour my argument ad infinitum, but our humanity is “symphonic,” – many sounds (biological, psychological, environmental/social, and spiritual) that result in a single “voice – and addressing “an issue” simply as a matter of spiritual warfare, or “best dealt with” in the realm of spiritual warfare is naive. And before you hastily conclude I am of the “secular minds in the Church,” consider this point: some individuals, consistent with this Patristic notion of a “symphonic” humanity, will greatly benefit from the insight gained from structured psychotherapy and perhaps adjunctive medications, thereby providing them the ability to utilize the fullness of the Church and the Physician. Mental health professionals in all disciplines assess for “protective factors” in an individual’s life, and the love & practice of one’s Faith is one of them.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On March 1, 2013 @ 1:02 pm

James,

If it were to occur today, absolutely, and unhesitatingly that would be my identical expectation. Re-read what I wrote: At the time, and on that day, those responsible before God to make such decisions decided “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Well said you think? It is the way of the Scripture. It is the way of the Patristic & Canonical Fathers. It is the manner by which the Church is governed & directed. Did you devote as much energy to my essay regarding oikonomia & the canons, or re-read Fr. Alexey Kargut on sobornost, conciliarity, & governance? Or perhaps you might undertake a search of my comments to discover just how much I resent statements in the form of questions. Right? If you intend to question my integrity, man up.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 28, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

Soo of Job II,

If you are are actually interested in what I said the day Mr. Michalopulos found fit to release Bishop Matthias’ text messages, you can read it here. If you would like to understand what I actually meant by using the term oikonomia,, you can read it here. You could have asked, you know.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 27, 2013 @ 11:29 pm

Wow. As the only ethical man in town, Arthur Kirkland said, “There’s something very wrong here…” This identical letter appears elsewhere authored by the “Midwest Clergy Wives,” the leverage being that females are intuitively more sensitive to future “dangerousness” than any existing methodology presently known. Finally, I am led to the conclusion that this “trumping-up” and padding of verbiage, blah, blah, blah, get-what-I-want overkill is characteristic of the I’ve-been-Orthodox-5-years, self-anointed мудрецов who don’t have the guts to look Bishop Matthias in the eyes and speak like Barry White. Now Barry was a man.

And still, despite so many efforts, the theology of oikonomia is as foreign to this site as its underlying intention: the salvation of the individual. At the time, and on that day, those responsible before God to made such decisions decide “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Do you disagree with the decision? Read Fr. Alexey Kargut’s postings on hierarchy, authority, sobornost, conciliarity, and that we are not a democracy. Read the Scripture to find that our God is a Just God and a God of Justice, unwilling to accept wrongdoing and oppression of the righteous. Look to our civil law, where we live by aggravation and mitigation: two men commit the identical crime on the same day, yet in applying the rule of law, we look for individual distinctions that might assist us in applying the “spirit” of the law. We refer to this as prudent, we refer to this as wise, and most of all, we refer to this as humane. It respects the offended, it speaks to the offender, and it acknowledges that, ultimately, someone most be responsible for the decision.

It seems to me worth repeating that if there is no satisfaction in knowing that our God will remedy all wrongs and settle all wrongdoings, that He is, indeed, a jealous God for His authority as King & Lord, then something is amiss. St. John Climacus suggests it is pride and arrogance. Who am I to question the Saint?

Mr. Michalopulos, as I recall, people lined up for blocks to dog Mark Stoke for “reporting in the 3rd person” as if ‘da bum waz CNN. There’s a rimshot in there somewhere… ta-da-crash

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 27, 2013 @ 4:45 pm

Extra! Kishkovsky Being “Phased Out” or Fired?

“his sources are not as good as George’s by a long shot”

Mr. Michalopulos,

At the moment you have 17 snarling dogs already bitten – presumably plenty in the “awaiting moderation” wings, including one very important Governor who asks, “Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?” (Jn. 18:38) Boo hoo hell! I’ve been laughing for 15 minutes. You are a P.T. Barnumopulos!

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 24, 2013 @ 4:27 pm

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Fr. George,

εὐλόγειte ὁ κύριος!

Thankfully, I know nothing of the history of which you report, and my knowledge of the details of this situation in specific is limited to the two threads where it has “arisen” on this site. I have entered this discussion for one reason, and one reason alone: I believe I would be remiss, and it would be unconscionable on my part not to correct the inaccuracies regarding child sexual predators and the dynamics of child sexual abuse. Because most incidents of abuse are never disclosed, believed, or reported, studies of prevalence universally concede underestimation, and that as many as 50% of all females will have experienced some form of inappropriate sexual contact before they complete adolescence.

Beyond this instruction, I am an ally of the work of Ms. Larson, and I respect that Vladyka Tikhon is the anointed of God. Tango: out.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 28, 2013 @ 12:46 pm

Vladyka Tikhon,

Quite contrary to your accusation of my issuing “reproaches,” and understanding that I am not defending your decisions and response as the events unfolded, I am apparently the only one to appreciate how you might have reached such conclusions at the time. However, Vladyka, I will insist that your present attempt to maintain your position – notably, “it never happened” – in the context of overwhelming research to the contrary, is indefensible.

At the time, there were a number of significant “infections” in the fields of psychology & forensics (e.g. ritualized, systematic molestation; “repressed” & “false” memories; and manipulative – in fact coercive – interviewing & diagnostic techniques), but these have been thoroughly disproved (though sadly even at my back door). Further, you are relying on the fact that one parent was a pediatrician, suggesting knowledge and authority that was not there. Having personally been in medical school in the same era, I can tell you that the cursory training I received pales by comparison to the yearly mandatory training my wife, a social worker, receives here as an employee of Children’s Hospital. And finally, neither you nor the the dean were prepared for such a situation. Thus, I can appreciate how you arrived at the conclusions you did, and acted in the manner you did. This does not, however, change the fact that both your decisions and your actions were in error, and, in fact, constituted grave error that ultimately has affected the lives of the victims, their respective families, the parish, the OCA, and you.

As I have described previously: children reported sexual contact with an adult; children rarely, if ever make false reports of sexual contact; many victims are “sworn to secrecy” (e.g. “Your mom said this was OK, but you can’t tell anyone, even her!” “You’re so special, only you & I can know…”), or threatened (“Your parents will spank you… – hate you… -send you away…”); this contact was specifically with a known child sexual perpetrator, which is the single greatest predictor for re-offense. Vladyka Tikhon, it happened.

What these victims and their families need and deserve from you is an apology.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 27, 2013 @ 3:06 pm

Damage Control,

The “unquestioning merit” and “special insight” to my memories is truth.

I certainly claim no “monopoly” to relationships, nor have “I alone escaped to tell you.” (Job 1:19) If, in fact, you knew them – and better than me – than all the more shame on you for dragging the names and memories of the Saints and the fathers into your bitterness. You are a poseur. Get on the bus to ROCOR.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 27, 2013 @ 12:11 pm

Mr. Michalopulos,

The only “huge difference” is that an accusation raised today by a child is considered definitive until disproved. How did we reach this conclusion? By protracted comparisons of verified victims of child sexual predation – verified meaning they have been photographed, videotaped or witnessed in the act of being abused, or by confession of the perpetrator. These verified victims rarely, if ever, make false accusations, and are infinitely more likely to deny that abuse occurred, despite documented evidence to the contrary. Further, in protracted examination of children that have withdrawn accusations of sexual abuse – and it was insignificant as to whether the suspected perpetrator was a family member, known assailant, or stranger – researchers found the most likely reason the accusation was withdrawn was pressure from the family against scandal and “consequences” (e.g. loss of primary financial provider), and not that the report was false. The facts as I see it:

1) Saunca is correct: the single greatest predictor of sexual perpetration is a past offense.

2) Saunca is correct: there is no consistently effective model or modality for the treatment of child sexual predation, with the exception of incarceration.

3) In this case, children made accusations of sexual contact with a known child sexual predator; since the research is clear that children rarely, if ever, make false reports of sexual abuse, there is no reason to question the veracity of their report, and they should have clinically engaged as victims.

4) Vladyka Tikhon has previously attempted to make an argument for “iatrogenic introduction,” meaning “over-reactive” parents and professionals introduced or provoked “false impressions” and memories to these children, thereby making their accusations unreliable. He has called attention to the notoriety of “McMartin Daycare Case” in CA in the 1980. I find this unfounded, unqualified, and shameful. Search my comments, as I have addressed this issue previously.

5) My comments are that of a clinician, not a peace officer or officer of the court. That the legal system can or cannot formulate an adequate prosecution and conviction is insignificant. There are major obstacles to overcome when the victims are children and they have been threatened by their perpetrator. Again, Saunca raises the reality of what I have read in most criminal records: histories of accusations, arrests, and the inability of law enforcement to develop an adequate prosecution.

If you have information to the contrary, Mr. Michalopulos, I am interested in seeing it. Otherwise, I stand by my conclusion as accurate.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 25, 2013 @ 12:07 am

Vladyka Tikhon,

I have conducted nearly 450 diagnostic assessments of felony sexual predators. I do not believe them when they tell me their names without photo identification, the presence of their medical record, and their criminal record. And even then I am dubious of anything I cannot independently corroborate. They live and breath by deception, distortion, rationalization, manipulation, and lies. They lie when there is absolutely no reason to lie; they deceive when there is nothing to be gained; and they distort when there is no identifiable benefit. Further, they are notoriously superficially charming, and they are fully capable and completely “fluent” at mimicking emotions they cannot & do not feel – most notably, empathy & love – and they learn by observing others (frequently the clergy and helping professionals).

My point to you is a simple one: neither you nor (then) Fr. Nicholai were qualified, nor adequately prepared to assess and/or manage a serial sexual predator in the cathedral. I imply no pejorative, but when you say you “tend to believe his remark,” you do not appreciate that this is a man who would lie to his own mother about his date of birth! The OCA settled & it is finished. But judging by the fact that you can be repeatedly drawn into into this same argument seems to suggest there are individuals you need to speak with, not shun.

I will say this to you, Vladyka, for as many of these individuals as I have seen – going into the encounter fully knowledgeable of their history and the specifics of the crimes – I have been completely deceived, completely made a fool of by the best of them. My only advantage is that, upon discovery, I have the opportunity to recall them and confront them directly. Then I go home, and in a two-step process, put my clothes in the washer, and thoroughly shower. It is 80% symbolic.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 24, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

PdnNJ,

I most certainly listened to the Fr. Paul’s sermon, and I have know Fr. Paul since he was a freshmen in college. His warmth and enthusiasm are obvious. Perhaps I am missing your point, but it strikes me that what he says is virtually identical to what Fr. Alexander wrote, but suitable for a non-academic audience. Perhaps you could undertake a transcription, as my opinion is that it is an inspiring message. Then, perhaps, you might encourage Mr. Michalopulos to draw attention to such inspirational shepherds such as Fr. Paul, who have encouraging messages to offer the OCA, rather than continuously focusing on contriving scandal.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 22, 2013 @ 9:47 pm

Damage Control,

Clearly I do not understand how you developed this commentary. Where did you derive such a story?

Vladyka Dmitri was the commencement speaker my first year at SVS, 1973, and his entire address was focused on mission, on his desire to focus on the South and on Mexico in particular. This a full five years before he was given this assignment, proving it was nowise connected to disappointment or “retreat” related to not being elected Metropolitan. I remember this so vividly because he began by quoting the verse on the main icon of our Lord on the iconostais at SVS, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring,” (Jn. 15:16) and when I went to thank him & receive his blessing, he held my hand the entire time we spoke. Where was I when he was “the focus of jokes and derision by the SVS gang of that time?” He was a “fixture,” singing bass in the choir at 6:30 am, sitting in on our classes (in the days when a Bishop entered & students spontaneously arose and sang “Eis polla eti, Thespota!”), joining us outside for coffee at the breaks, in the refectory for meals, hearing confessions after Vigil, and openly confessing to Fr. Alexander as I chanted the Psalter. As Bishop of New England, he was warmly received in the community.

I spent countless hours at kitchen tables over tea and various meals doing nothing more than listening to Blessed Vladyka Basil (Rodzianko), a Saint of the Church with the soothing voice of the Archangels. I frequently was his driver in NY, so caught up in his words I missed Thruway exits, turned around, and again so caught up, again missed the exit. I was privileged to know his family on both coasts, to hear, especially his twin sister, tell of their rich history, and their struggles. But at the same time, I must insist to anyone, he was the worst administrator possible, indisputably and unarguably, and eventually he came to realize this. To use the name of this Saint in some fantasy of misdeed is truly lamentable, truly shameful. It was not Vladyka’s calling, and his greatest achievement was to become the “Spiritual Father.” by voice alone, to those who otherwise despaired were it not for his mission on Voice of America. Venerable Bishop Basil, pray to God for us!

If you were at SVS during the time the Former Metropolitan Jonah was a student, then I would say you are entitled to your opinion, but I dispute it with good reason. I have yet to read the opinion of any classmate who has said, “I knew he was destined for leadership.” Not a one. I was a student of Alexander Schmemann twice as long as Jonah, in fact during every moment recorded in his diary. Are you sharing the same “charity” with me, “keeping with the spirit of Fr. Alexander Schmemann who was accused of the very same type of “thinking out loud” which caused him to be a focus of controversy” – perhaps even those who graciously nodded their heads while avoiding the draft of the Viet Nam War – or are you selectively anointing?

If you intend to fashion another “sorrowful epistle,” start by narrowing your own path to the truth, and respecting the Righteous by leaving them from absent from your theatrics.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 22, 2013 @ 8:14 pm

PdnNJ,

As always the kidder! Please, do me a big favor and look up this article by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, published in the SVS Theological Quarterly in 1965 – I’ve already posted the link, but who’s counting – Part 3 of Problems of Orthodoxy in America – The Spiritual Problem. You tell me if it is not infinitely more insightful, infinitely more penetrating, and infinitely more accurate forty-eight years later than any of empty-headed, “I-became-Orthodox–3-years-ago” crap you read in this thread. I am the last person on this earth to put anyone on a pedestal or to “dreamweave” in some fantasy of the past. Read the article. Contemplate. Then you tell me it was “then.”

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 21, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

So, All in the Family, I’m figuring you must be downright steamed-up outraged over the fact that the private conversations of Orthodox priests were publicly displayed on this site without their notification & permission, and worse, used to chastize them as cowards. Holy Cow. Indeed the moral bar is obvious. What was that you said? Oh, was it a silent outrage? Noble of you.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 21, 2013 @ 8:10 am

Mr. Michalopulos,

I have read and re-read this entire thread – and I scold you for allowing someone to refer to the Chancellor of the OCA as “Fr. Jello” in violation of your own policy – and it is very difficult to understand its purpose. Is this a “courtesy call” – I got your backs – to the Synod of Bishops who, to a man, have been castigated & scorned as untrustworthy & unworthy? I’d of thought you were more of the Ali & Gipp school, Let ‘em fight, don’t break it up, let em’ fight!” Or was it a general “heads up,” public service to the OCA faithful to be aware of this “smiling jack” who, though no serial thief (yet), needs more uncorroborated projections of your bitterness to really convince us of his dark character? Hmm. Whatever the case, I do get that you have settled on the “nobility of altruism” as an excuse for shamelessly disparaging without ever exchanging a single word with the man directly.

I will repeat myself: I have known Fr. John Jillions nearly forty years and I love him as my friend and brother. He is gifted, talented, pious, warm, kind, and educated, father, husband, and priest. There is no place in his heart for the motivations you so shamelessly ascribe to him, Mr. Michalopulos. You believe you “know” a man based on murderous, filthy gossip, and it is shameful. And I will add to this, you have gotten tremendous mileage on his “connection” to his brother-in-law, Protodeacon Eric, and now, with no comment, no dramatic “scoop” from you, the “icon” of the Syosset conspiracy “Axis,” the victim-of-victims is being revealed as the psychopath he always was. I sincerely hope you are preparing your apology post to the Protodeacon who no more accused a “righteous,” innocent man than you. Should I suspect that the timing of your “missive” has anything to do with the collapse of the “Axis” house of cards?

I have pointed out to you previously that the tone & character of your posts are increasingly bitter, increasingly mean, and increasingly angry. You say this is, in fact, “disappointment.” In my opinion, disappointment is best addressed by contemplation, refocusing, and solution-oriented action. Apparently, your “solution” is to disparage easy, vulnerable targets, promising to keep your ear in the gutter for further developments.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 21, 2013 @ 4:12 am

Ladder of Divine Ascent,

This is your delineation of the need to abandon the “modernism” of Alexander Schmemann? One single jamoke “expert” who is more vague than you, but is infinitely more deceptive because he tosses in out-of-context quotations to emphasize legitimacy. As I suspected, you are a silly pamphleteer. Had you asked, I could have pointed you to sources of the “Parisian” debates of the 1970′s rather than imagine you at the Google Seminary of Russian Orthodoxy.

Yours is a truly ignorant, truly uninformed, and I suspect truly manipulative statement, “how fringe SVS type theology is considered in the real Orthodox world.” SVS was the most renowned, most influential, most respected center for Orthodox theology in the world. If fact, the world came to SVS, and SVS delivered to the world those who are today the hierarchs and leaders of most jurisdictions. Because of the Voice of America, Alexander Schmemann (identified only as “Fr. Alexander”) was the most recognized voice of any priest in the Soviet Block, such that when the NY Times asked Alexander Solzhenitsyn who he first wanted to meet in the West, he said, “Fr. Alexander.” The books of Frs. Schmemann & Meyendorff have been translated into hundreds of languages, and Fr. Alexander’s For the Life of the World has been reprinted in so many languages so many times, it is staggering. So I ask you, who do you believe will be remembered, respected, and beloved, Schmemann/Meyendoroff/Florovsky/Verhovskoy/SVS or Alexei Ilyich Osipov the expert?

You, my friend, are unworthy of the moniker, and are more appropriately the kitchen steps which approximates the height of your understanding.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 20, 2013 @ 7:32 pm

Mea Minima Culpa

With all due respect, I was not referring to the daily “annoyances” we all encounter. I was specifically referring to bearing the stress, the anxiety, the frustrations, and the accompanying scrutiny that is associated with accountability.

I had a man describe to me how he lured his best friend behind a warehouse, forced him to his knees and made him pray for forgiveness for sexually abusing his 14-year old daughter before emptying his handgun in the man’s head. He presented the story in such a compelling way – broken-hearted that he was unable to protect his own daughter – that, while I certainly do not condone murder, I appreciated a father’s “sentiment.” I asked a man who never made direct eye-contact with me over the course of 30-minutes, if anyone should be concerned that he was leaving on parole, coldly stare at me to say if he ran into “certain people,” he planned to “torture them as I watch them die.” Another meek, geek-looking man told me, “It’s true, I did eat some of my father’s brains after I killed him because he was a smart man.”

As corollaries, a friend of mine had a parishioner call asking to have her daughter visiting from out of town “receive a blessing” before surgery.” He agreed to meet them at the church to anoint her. The surgery? An abortion. He refused to anoint her or “bless” her. The family was outraged and called everyone they knew, leading all the way to the dean & the bishop before it finally ended. Another friend had received a small group of young families from an ethnic parish, and in turn, they influenced similar young families. When he discovered that one couple was having selective abortions by gender, he forbade them to come to the Eucharist and demanded they come for instruction and repentance. They were outraged and left, taking a sizable portion of the group with them

My point: cumulatively, and in isolation, these situations can become overwhelming, particularly under the scrutiny of ignorance and self-appointed “authority.” We depend on the common experience and the common knowledge of our peers for empathy, assurance, correction, guidance, and most importantly, the installation of hope. This entire matter of “it was on the internet so it’s fair game” is a grandiose rationalization to justify the disrespect for violating the confidentiality of these priests, scorning them as “cowards,” and then attempting to use their words in a manner for which they were never intended. This is unethical & despicable.

And to whomever it is who provided this confidential information, you are a rodent.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 19, 2013 @ 4:09 pm

JR,

The point I was making was we all, in times of stress, consternation, anger, frustration, helplessness, etc. are capable, perhaps even need to verbalize sentiments that we do not necessarily mean (e.g. “I hate these people”). If you were simply walking by and saw a cop walking me out and heard me yelling, you could – quite reasonably – ask, “Why would they let someone like him treat patients he hates?” I don’t hate these patients, but they are enormously frustrating. And he spit in my face. The comments were out of context and not intended for public consumption.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 18, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

Ms. Shepherd,

You enjoy the luxury of those who may critique with their feet a safe distance from the fire. Secondly, you further luxuriate in a presupposition that in your more “vulnerable” moments, you neither think nor express feelings or sentiments that are hyperbole; that upon a “return” from those very human moments, you are capable of identifying the exaggerations. And thirdly, in developing “Clergy 101,” you wrongly determine that the Lord has made any distinction between the clergy and the laity.

About 2 months ago I was trying to help the police get an intoxicated “frequent flyer” settled on a gurney, and when I leaned over, he spit in my face. I lost it and started screaming at him – I will not repeat the shameful language – and told the cops, “Take the cuffs off this punk! I’ll show you…” He, of course, was laughing. And a massive cop stepped between me and the patient, calmly backing me away, talking quietly & reassuringly until I was out of the room. I had said things like “I hate these people,” “These people are a waste of my time,” etc. Post up my rageful, out of context comments and what would you conclude? According to you, a failure. According to me, you have misinterpreted my frustration & helplessness at interacting with this fallen world. In 5 minutes and a drink of water my rage had passed, I was standing next to the gurney where he had a “spit bag” over his head, & I was saying, “If you can be quiet for 5 minutes, we’ll talk about taking the bag off.”

Fair Play 102: “For the priestly office is indeed carried out on earth, but it ranks among heavenly orders; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Comforter Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels.” St. John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood (Book III), 4

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 17, 2013 @ 6:09 pm

The issue, Mr. Harrington, is not accessibility, it is discretion, discernment, and respect. Mr. Michalopulos did not know where this discussion was located – a 3rd-party jackass who thought it was appropriate to reveal a confidential site provided it to him. It seems to me that anyone with an iota of common sense and ethics would have immediately determined that this was not intended for a public forum, and out of a sense of decency & simple respect moved on. Am I so naive to imagine, Mr. Harrington, that this is an unreasonable expectation of Orthodox Christians? Or was it instead leaped upon as another rich and succulent bit of wretched vomit to cast at the object, “Syosset,” damn the feelings or wishes of the priests involved?

The reality is that a small group of priest undertook a private discussion on a medium that, yes, is not “secure,” but never believing that their discussion would be compromised for no purpose other than to serve a purely negative polemic. And because research shows that repetition is an effective teaching technique for all ages, Mr. Harrington, let me repeat yet again: it was disrespectful and shameful to publish their private discussion simply because it was accessible.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 17, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

It seems to me that in every vocation, there is a fundamental right to a safe, unencumbered, “undiscoverable” place to ventilate and process the “details” as essential & appropriate to ongoing mental health. Physicians have “Morbidity & Mortality Conference” that is a confidential, closed, discussion, the content of which cannot be revealed even by court order, to process mistakes & errors without judgement, the goal being to prevent it from happening again. The same is true for the clergy. It is most certainly “OK” to grumble, to complain, even to rage in private, among one’s peers; as blessed Bishop Basil (Rodzianko) once told me, God understands the frustration & misery of interaction with this fallen world, and God will bear any righteous indignation with us. And we must rely, depend, and trust our peers to temper and guide us as to the limits of appropriateness.

I, for one, was troubled that you published the “dialog” between brother priests as it gives the impression that, rather than confidentially sharing accumulated frustrations freely without the restraints of the judgement of “outsiders” in the dynamic I have described, they appear as cowards, impotently bitching about matters they refuse to address because they are enslaved. This reference to “the facade of unanimity implied by their silence” is so patently ignorant, so patently offensive and so clearly opposing what Fr. Alexey Kargut yesterday described as “true Orthodox conciliarity and catholicity, and the wholeness and integrity of our church” that it is, frankly, astonishing.

This has arisen because you are a minimally-educated laymen who has arrogantly taken possession of the private thoughts of the clergy, absolutely never intended for your consumption, and imposed an unintended manipulation on their discussion, such that, “maybe then we could start repairing the damage that Syosset has inflicted on our Church.” As I have noted many times, you are not qualified to “start repairing the damage!” You have shamelessly robbed these priests of the private, protected thoughts to which you were never entitled, scolded them as cowards, and in the end still somehow manage to lay the responsibility on “Syosset.” This here is CRAZY TOWN.

Fr. John Peck, I pray for you daily. You stand on the shoulders of the fathers of the our generation and see the future of Orthodoxy in this country. I may never live to see it, but I trust your vision.

» Posted By M. Stankovich On February 17, 2013 @ 6:28 am