Comments Posted By Rod Dreher

Displaying 1 To 30 Of 163 Comments

First, Do No Harm

Good overview, George. I want to comment on this:

Laymen as well have moved on or stopped coming to church. Evangelism has come to a screaching halt. Honest inquirers have quietly dropped out of sight. It is impossible for decent people to not be scandalized. Why go to Church after all? Why pray, pay for, and obey bishops who acted in such a sinful manner? Why fast? Why honor the Church’s moral strictures if in the end might really make right? It is hard to see how the OCA can recover from this debacle. It is hard to see how a layman can listen with enthusiasm to the homilies delivered in liturgies, knowing that they are authorized by an episcopate that is morally compromised. Of such things scandals are made.

I see your point, but in the end, the answer is: “Because that’s all we have.” The rottenness of the bishops does not obviate the validity of the sacraments, nor does it eliminate our need for them. In Soviet times, believers continued going to church and praying and participating in the mysteries, even though their bishops were KGB. They held on. If you’re in a good parish situation, hold on. Our ROCOR mission in our town starts next month, but if weren’t coming, I would remain at my OCA parish in Baton Rouge. Good pastor, good people. Syosset is a long way away from Baton Rouge, thank God.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On December 5, 2012 @ 11:47 pm

Extra! Syosset Reports of Deal Struck with Met. Jonah Not True

Keep your donuts, Chester. I’m not complaining about OCA.org. Of course it makes sense to lead with the new Metropolitan’s first liturgy at his cathedral. My point is that the juxtaposition of those two stories tells a tragic tale.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 19, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

Thanks, Rebecca, for your generous remarks. I found myself grieving last night for the Paffhausen family in the loss of Met. Jonah’s sister, and thinking about the crosses that family has had to bear in these last two years, especially in these past few months. Even if one concedes that Met. Jonah at some point brought some of these troubles onto himself, it seems perfectly clear to me that he is far more sinned against than sinning. Whatever the case, he is no longer a threat to any of those people in the Synod. They’ve broken his power and influence; he is at their mercy. I have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes in negotiations between his representatives and the Synod, but I am sure many will be watching closely to the way the Synod treats him now as a sign of whether or not to stay in the OCA. This, because it will be a bellwether for whether or not the OCA is worth saving.

I cringed last night when I looked on the OCA.org site and saw a big headline and photo celebrating the new metropolitan’s appearance at the DC cathedral, and below it a short notice about Met. Jonah’s sister’s death. It didn’t escape my notice that while Met. Tikhon was celebrating liturgy in the cathedral that used to be Jonah’s (and in which he is forbidden to set foot, if memory serves), Jonah was at the bedside of his sister as she died.

The thing that I remain skeptical over is that any of this will matter to the Russians. I’ve been hearing for two years now that Moscow is getting mad about all this, and they’ll come over and get the OCA sorted. But nothing happens. Seems to me that the OCA Synod is poking the bear, confident that the bear is not going to get riled up, no matter what. It’s a dangerous game to play, but who’s to say the Synod’s calculations are wrong? They haven’t been so far.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 19, 2012 @ 11:22 am

I want to add, George, that from what I’m hearing — your experience, and that of various readers, may differ — is that this weary disgust is not simply the legacy of the turmoil surrounding Metropolitan Jonah, but weary disgust over the last 10 years or so in the life of the OCA: the moral rot at senior levels of the Church, and the inability of the Church to deal effectively with this chronic sickness within its own administrative body.

You and I, George, have come to somewhat different conclusions about the fitness of Met. Jonah for the white hat, but we both agree that the way he was treated by the Synod was and is disgraceful. Whatever Jonah’s failings — and I believe they were significant — he stood for reform, and for a renewal of evangelical zeal. That was so appealing to many people. Orthodox from other jurisdictions would tell me how much they envied us having a leader like him. I would have conversations with non-Orthodox who had become curious about Orthodoxy after hearing him, or reading something about him.

Now that’s gone, and it’s not coming back, because the Synod does not want that sort of thing. I accept that, but I am completely confident it will in time prove to have been a fateful — and fatal — decision. In rejecting the person of Jonah, the OCA’s Synod and apparat also rejected a vision of the Orthodox future. Many ordinary Orthodox Christians grasp this, and despair that the patient can be saved. One reason our small Orthodox community in the small town where I’m living didn’t consider appealing to the OCA for a mission (or rather, a full-time priest for the mission we have here), even though we’d gotten together the money to pay for a full-time priest, is because in light of the way things have gone in the OCA at the Synodal level these past couple of years, we don’t have any faith that there will even be an OCA five or 10 years from now. We are all making a huge investment of our time, talents, and money into establishing this ROCOR mission, and we’re doing so with confidence because we believe that whatever ROCOR’s own problems (and no church is without them), the Church’s leadership can be trusted, and the Church itself is stable.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 18, 2012 @ 10:29 am

Maybe so, George, but I’ve spent some time tonight going over statistics for American Orthodoxy (from Fr. Jonathan Ivanoff, and from the Patriarch Athenagoras Institute), and the demographic situation is pretty grim all around. Inasmuch as this blog focuses on the travails of the OCA, it has been a real education to see how critical the situation in the OCA is. You posted a working document from the Spring 2012 meeting of the Metropolitan Council, in which the imperative of evangelization and parish revitalization was discussed, in light of the near-catastrophic demographics facing the OCA.

I find myself wondering how on earth any of this is going to amount to anything in light of the leadership crisis. I know I live in something of a bubble, but here in the Diocese of the South, where most of my Orthodox friends and contacts live, the people I talk to are walking wounded in the worst way. They are clinging to their own parishes, but faith in the church leadership is nil. And that frightens people about the future. Even folks who didn’t involve themselves in the politics of all this when Jonah was the Metropolitan are worn out. Again, I don’t presume to speak for everyone in the DOS; I’m just reporting what I’m hearing. It’s not even anger any longer; it’s just numbness and weary disgust.

How do you evangelize as an OCA parish when many people doubt that there will be any such thing as an OCA in five to 10 years? Serious question. Granted, nobody becomes Orthodox so they can join the OCA (or the Greeks, or the Antiochians, et al.), but rather to know Christ through Orthodoxy. Still, there’s the matter of parish stability and faith in the corporate future…

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 17, 2012 @ 10:20 pm

Carl is right, but more importantly, look at the dog that did not bark in the Miami meeting.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 15, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

Sure, people like him personally, but no one would charge the San Juan Hill for his sake: esp. priests and laity with jobs, parishes, kids, loans, mortgages etc.

You’re right, but it wasn’t always that way. Uncertain trumpet, and all that.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 15, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

I think it’s time for the pro-Jonah people to face the fact that they (we) have been thoroughly defeated. Four people showed up to protest on Jonah’s behalf in Parma? No way to spin that in a positive direction. The sobor elected a metropolitan who may be a fine man (I don’t know one way or the other), but who almost certainly won’t do anything to challenge the status quo in Syosset. That’s how it’s going to be. The OCA as a corporate body has used its procedures to decide the way it wants to proceed, and the manner in which it wants to proceed. The struggle is over, and our side lost. All that remains to be decided now is how Met. Jonah will be treated by the OCA. There is no reason to expect anything decent, though it would be a nice surprise if it turned out otherwise.

I don’t see any point in continuing to wail and gnash our teeth online. The OCA has chosen. We now know what to expect. We have to choose too: either get with the program, or find some other jurisdiction. I absolutely understand the anger, the hurt, and the intense frustration, having shared it all myself. But at this point, I can’t see any reason to carry it on. All avenues have been exhausted. It’s love it or leave it time.

I could be wrong.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 14, 2012 @ 8:27 am

Defining Deviancy Down

And yet again, just when you think that you’ve seen it all in the OCA…. Is this Hollywood or is this real life? Sometimes I forget.

Me too. I’ve been out of the country, and not reading the blogs. You can’t make this stuff up anymore. It used to be tragedy. Now it’s just farce.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On November 5, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

Scandal in Chicago: the Initial Story is No Longer “Operative”

Where is Mark Maymon?

» Posted By Rod Dreher On September 6, 2012 @ 10:12 pm

So they lie. They flat-out lie. This is not exactly a surprise, but it’s useful to be reminded of it.

I hope that the accuser will release the e-mails and texts that Matthias sent her and let the rest of us judge for ourselves.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On September 6, 2012 @ 8:59 am

Here We Go Again?

You are under no obligation to believe it, and it won’t bother me one bit if you disbelieve me. Skepticism is a virtue in these matters! I will say, however, that I am not going to put my name on a statement I don’t believe to be true, though. I acquired this information from people in a position to know directly what’s going on, and whom I trust.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On September 1, 2012 @ 11:37 am

I was given quotes by someone who claims to have seen them. If the quotes are accurate, then there is no ambiguity in these things. None. I suspect the accuser will end up having to produce the documents in public to prove the claim, if the bishop insists that she has misinterpreted his words. I hope she will do so.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 31, 2012 @ 10:43 pm

Well, here’s some news. As we know, Fr. Eric Tos told George Michalopulos that +Matthias has taken a “leave of absence” pending the outcome of an investigation. George later published something attributed to an unnamed priest who said he was told by Fr. Tosi that the case is about +Matthias failing to investigate a charge of sexual impropriety against another priest.

This is not true, according to two sources close to the investigation with whom I spoke today. According to my sources, both of whom have direct knowledge of the situation, the allegation involves Bishop Matthias directly, and has to do with sexually aggressive letters and texts he sent to a young Orthodox woman, including one in which he said he had a “crush” on her. My sources say that these are not mere he-said/she-said allegations, but that there is written evidence.

One of my sources alleges that Syosset is pulling out all the stops to keep this thing quiet, and to keep Matthias in power in Chicago.

One of my two sources alleges that the three-person team tasked by the last All American Council to investigate these things is expected to rule that nothing about this controversy rises to the level of disciplinary action against Matthias — this, even though the young woman who allegedly received the unwanted letters and texts has not been interviewed by them.

N., one of the two sources, said he has come to believe that the Synod of Bishops is so personally corrupt that it’s covering for the sexual sins (and other sins) of each other — and that what you need to be part of that OCA Bishop’s Club is some grave failing that can be used to control you. There is, he alleged, more to drop on other bishops.

“This is a group of men who cannot cast any light on themselves, and who are defining the episcopacy downward,” he said. “Not one of them has ever repented.”

He talked about other cases known to us both (and to many others), and some other cases that we might soon be hearing about. “Did you see that Seraphim [Storheim] has disappeared very quietly off the OCA website?” he said. “When you have a 50 percent failure rate in the episcopacy, maybe at some point you have to say maybe our vetting process is contaminated. But I think it might be working just like they want it to.”

N. told me his faith in the Orthodox Church “has never been stronger;” his faith in the integrity of the OCA bishops? Gone.

“They’ve made the episcopacy into something that is no longer in the likeness of Christ,” he said. “I know people who have left Orthodoxy over the actions of bishops. The episcopacy is constantly driving people away from the OCA. Can you imagine? Have we seen any hierarch repent of anything? The whole corruption of the episcopacy is that if we have something on you, if we can control you, you’re the perfect man to be a bishop. They had nothing on Jonah. He had problems as an administrator, but he wasn’t corrupt, and they couldn’t control him. He was doomed from the start. The only reason they made him Metropolitan was because they were scared of the crowd in Pittsburgh.”

Those are the allegations I heard from two well-informed source — sources I trust — this afternoon. Personally, if there is any attempt at a Syosset cover-up, I look for these documents to be publicly released, and I certainly hope they will be. It’s time for Syosset to stop spinning. If these are the allegations against Matthias, then that should be made public. Get it all out, let’s talk about this transparently, with facts, not spin. We don’t know if he’s guilty or not, but this is very serious stuff, a hierarch having to take a leave of absence because he has allegedly sexually harassed someone, especially someone under his spiritual authority.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 30, 2012 @ 7:35 pm

Thanks George. I can’t believe I’m able to write you here — the hurricane is upon us here in south Louisiana, but we haven’t lost power yet. I’ll be brief, because we’ll probably go dark any second.

The bishop is Matthias Moriak of the Midwest. As I indicated in my comment last night, if he is guilty of wrongdoing, then by all means let’s punish him. But this should be done with as much openness as possible. Syosset might be acting prudently in this case, but how do we know? We don’t even officially know the name of the bishop, even though he is no longer administrating his own diocese!

I don’t trust Syosset or the Synod on this. We know Matthias forced Stokoe off the Metropolitan Council. Is this payback? I think it’s possible that Matthias could be guilty of whatever they’re accusing him of, but is being “prosecuted” in a selective way because he is seen as politically unreliable by the powers within the Synod. Somebody should ask Fr. Vasile Susan about how aggressive our locum tenens, Abp Nathaniel, has been about looking into reports of clerical sexual misconduct.

As I’ve said on your site before, I think it’s entirely possible — even at this point, very likely — that Jonah mishandled the DC case involving the nuns and Father X. If he did, then he needed to face consequences for that. But is the Synod going to hold its own members to the same standards that they held Jonah, and that they seem to be holding Matthias?

Again and again, I see no reason to have confidence in the senior leadership class of our church. Don’t get me wrong: I absolutely believe in the episcopacy, and recognize that they all hold legitimate authority (I am not a Donatist). I just don’t believe in the credibility of this hapless bench of bishops. And I am finding it hard to imagine what could restore their credibility.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 29, 2012 @ 11:01 am

George, why not name this bishop? You know his name. I know his name. This is your blog, so I’m going to follow your protocol, but good grief, a bishop of the OCA has been suspended from office over his role in a case of alleged sexual misconduct. The Church has a right to know who this is, and that the allegations are against him. I can’t believe Syosset hasn’t learned from the way they crapped up the handling of the Jonah case that transparency is the standard today. You get the news out there to the people. Give them the facts. Who, exactly, benefits by Syosset admitting that Bishop X. has been placed on administrative leave, but not saying who the bishop is?

Like you, I hope Bishop X. is cleared in this matter, but if he’s guilty, then he needs to pay the penalty, whatever it is. But at this point, who has faith that he will get a fair hearing? A couple of people who have been following this story have told me that they have anticipated charges like this would be leveled at this particular bishop in an effort to sideline him because he disciplined a powerful and well-connected member of the Metropolitan Council. That may or may not be true, but the Church (and the church is more than the clergy) is entitled to the facts — perhaps not all the facts, not yet, but enough to know what, precisely, the allegations are, and why the Synod believed they were serious enough to merit placing a bishop on administrative leave.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 28, 2012 @ 11:20 pm

The Fires of Manton

Oh, it’s terrible with me. I cuss, I drink, and sometimes I even leave the toilet seat up. But I have not bobbed my todger and put on a frock, nor do I post crazypants things I know to be untrue. So there’s that.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 24, 2012 @ 11:55 pm

George, you only did that because Gleb Podmoshensky and the HOOMies told you to!

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 22, 2012 @ 10:15 pm

Barbara Drezhlo Stan the Tran The Overcircumcised Troll could tell me the sky is blue and the earth is round, and I’d doubt it until I heard it from someone with two functioning, er, brain cells to rub together. Seriously, that is one deeply disturbed person, someone who repeatedly says things that I know for a fact aren’t true. He is obsessed with the conviction that Frederica Mathewes-Green and I are “disciples” of one Gleb Podmoshensky, and once published a statement that one of his informants had seen us speeding away from GP’s monastery together in a car. In fact, neither one of us had any idea who Gleb Podmoshensky was until someone sent me a link to the Overcircumcised Troll’s website where the claim was made. I had to look it up.

This may be 100 percent true, the claim about Benjamin, but I wouldn’t believe it on the Tran’s say-so. If it’s not true, I hope Benjamin, whom I consider to be an odious person, sues the maxi-pad off him for libel.

One thing I do like about Stan-Barbara-OT: he/she is an original. There aren’t many transsexual neo-Bolshevik religious hysteric bag ladies with blogs in this world.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 22, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

I spoke to Stepan Hatting on the phone a few weeks ago, and encouraged him to go forward with what he saw, if it was truthful and he was prepared to stand by his words in public. I found him to be credible in conversation, but I had, and do have, no way of verifying his allegations. I know too that he checked his impressions with some of the monks who fled, to make sure he was telling the story accurately.

I applaud Stepan for having the courage to speak out. I hope that once the fire crisis passes, that Abbot Meletios and/or Abp Benjamin will answer these very serious allegations.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 20, 2012 @ 11:33 pm

Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Live Not by Lies

Well, like Bp Tikhon, I received the SMPAC Report the other day in a long e-mail sent out by a Romanian priest. I mean, I had it a long time ago, but another copy is going around now.

The apparent reason the Romanian priest included it was to show that two troubling cases of clerical sexual misconduct — that of Fr. Gregory Becker of the Romanian Archdiocese, and Archdeacon Gregory Burke of Miami — were not mentioned in the SMPAC Report. Why were those two instances left out of a report that was supposed to be evenhanded?

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 12, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

Of course I’m not anti-Pokrov, though I’m not necessarily pro-Pokrov; I’m for defending victims of sexual abuse, but I don’t know enough about Pokrov to make a judgment about that particular organization. Nor am I against the public release of the SMPAC Report. I find it instructive that Syosset had its knickers in a knot over me having a copy, even though I did not make it public, but Pokrov actually publishes the damn thing, and … crickets.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 12, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

The timing of this leak to Pokrov — on the eve of the Synod’s meeting to decide Jonah’s fate — should not escape anyone’s notice.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 12, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

I won’t provide the whole of Jonah’s response (which I did not get from Jonah, btw, but from someone who had a copy), but I will say that the response, while not (in my view) entirely exonerative of Jonah’s behavior, does make it clear that the SMPAC Report is a political document. That is, it takes some valid issues with the Metropolitan’s actions, and twists them into an indictment of him. The most telling part of it, I think, is how it blasts Jonah for the way he handled Fr. Isidore Brittain — and Jonah deserved to be blasted!, but doesn’t mention Bishop Benjamin at all, even though Benjamin agreed to receive Fr. Isidore. But Bishop Benjamin wasn’t in the Apparat’s crosshairs. Let this be your guide as to whether the SMPACkers were really about tightening up the ship in the OCA — a worthy, important goal — or doing whatever they could to get rid of Jonah.

Jonah’s concluding statement from his response is here:

What is evident here is that there is a constant pattern of mutual mistrust. I my reading of the SMPAC Memo, there is actually no instance of factual disregard by me of the policies or Sexual Misconduct Guidelines. There are certainly areas which I do and have questioned. I have disagreed about timing (Abp Seraphim [Storheim] investigation, in conversation with Bp Nikon). I have disagreed about whether something is in the purvue [sic] of the diocese or central administration (Symeon). There are areas in which I have indeed disagreed with the advice given me by the Synod (in regards to the nuns in DC) and senior staff. But I have never disregarded the advice gien me by the Sexual Misconduct Committee, but have taken it and them seriously; however few and far between are the times that they have bothered to contact me.

Is it not my role and prerogative as Metropolitan to weigh the advice and information given to me, to be able to experess and work out my opinions with the Synod (as in the above correspondence), or with other advisors, and make a decision based on that? Or am I bound by the committees and the church’s officers?

Are these committees advisory, or are they in control of the Metropolitan and Synod. I think advisory.
Never have I intended to deceive or mislead anyone about anything. Undoubtedly I have omitted pieces of stories, which may not have come to mind, given the context of a particular conversation. But neither have I always been given a full picture of what is going on. Had I been asked about a missing piece, I would of course have given it. I believe this is simply part of normal human behavior, and without malice.

There is one area, 7.02, of the Sexual Misconduct Guidelines that has proven to be extremely problematic: the day to day oversight by the Chancellor. I have previously expressed my view that this is a problem. But the personalities involved have made it a far greater problem than it should have been.

Is not the role of the Chancellor [who was, at this writing, Alexander Garklavs – RD] to keep the Metropolitan informed, and when he makes a mistake, to help him correct it, for the good of the Church; rather than to throw all of his mistakes back in his face? Is it the role of the Metropolitan to have to pry information out of the Chancellor, or the Chancellor’s role to constantly keep the Metropolitan informed of whatever is going on, regardless of the personal presence of the Metropolitan or not? Is it the role of the chancellor to oversee such a project as this Memorandum, entirely behind the back and secretly, and not even giving the Metropolitan a copy of the product? Is this not complete insubordination?

It is repeated that I do not like the work of administration. I do, however, have an administrative style: I delegate great amounts of authority to those whom I give particular areas of work, and then hold them accountable. It is based on trust. I am not hands-on, and I am not in any way a micromanager. I should not have to be.

I expect that those to whom such authority is delegated will be able to handle it, and be accountable. I admit freely administration is not my gift, and that is why we hire administrators. That is what a chancellor is hired to do: to do the day to day work of administration, to keep the Metropolitan informed, and give him the necessary information to make decisions. The chancellor’s work is to support the work of the Metropolitan’s office, and make up the deficits in his abilities. It remains, however, the responsibility of the Metropolitan to make all final decisions. It should be a team, along with the rest of the staff, which is built on the foundation of trust. However, that trust was not earned, but rather squandered and betrayed. It had been before this report; now the damage is irreparable. Forgiveness, yes; trust, no.

In almost every case of the instances in this memo, the sole contact between the Sexual Misconduct Committee and myself was the chancellor. Every piece of information went through him, and it is his interpretation that was given to them for their own consideration. Almost everything in this document is twisted to put a negative perspective on me. I am not claiming to be without error. However, what is presented here is a grave travesty, and is a malicious caricature of the truth, not to mention mortal sin, if not also a canonical infraction.

Over the past year, I have had very little personal contact with the members of the Sexual Misconduct committee. In no way did I want to interfere in their work, and it was my understanding, based on good advice by the chancellor and several others, such as [name of priest], that I and my office should be at arms’ length from any investigations. On the Seraphim matter, I was also told by Garklavs to “not be involved.” Am I to be condemned for paying attention to their advice?

There are several underlying issues. What is the role of these committees in relation to the Metropolitan and Synod? Are they advisory, or are the Met and Synod subject to their decision? What is the role of the Chancellor? Is he the one to whom the Metropolitan and Synod owe obedience and accountability? Or is the Chancellor accountable to the Metropolitan, and through the Metropolitan to the Synod? For whom does the chancellor work: the Metropolitan, or the Metropolitan Council? Is a bishop compelled to go through the central Sexual Misconduct Committee, or can things be handled on a diocesan basis? Can the central administration intervene in such an investigation without being so requested by the Diocesan Bishop?

Ultimately, who is in charge of this Church: the Bishops or the Metropolitan Council and/or the Chancellor? For the past few years, since Met. Herman abrogated his responsibility, it has been the Metropolitan Council. Before that, with a dysfunctional metropolitan, it was the Chancellor. Do we want that? Are we going to be an Orthodox Church, or some kind of Byzantine rite episcopalianism, where the bishops are present by have no authority?

This Committee was under my authority, and this report was compiled secretly, behind my back. That is insubordination. Transparency? Accountability? Absolutely none. It was the responsibility of the Chancellor to not only let me know how my actions were being interpreted, but to inform me of the necessary steps to explain my actions. Would you demand anything different of our chancellors? He failed in that, and in fact nurtured these misperceptions for his own reasons, and to his own perceived benefit. This is a complete betrayal of trust, and of his basic responsibility to upbuild the Church, rather than tear it down.

The SMPAC Memo is not about sexual misconduct, but is about the relationship of the Metropolitan and the Chancellor. The Chancellor, in the name of the committee, does not like the Metropolitan’s style of administration. Their document presents opinion and impressions, not facts. There is nothing documented. There are no canonical breaches, and in fact no breaches of policy or the Misconduct Guidelines that can be cited. This memorandum is politics, nothing else. Their judgments are insulting, and I demand an apology. While this report is a grievous canonical breach, for the peace of the Church I would prefer not to take action.

As Metropolitan, I reject this report, and seeking the support of the Holy Synod, demand its retraction and consign it to permanent confidentiality.

—

End of statement. Good luck to anybody who has to work within this cutthroat system. Uneasy rests the head that wears the white klobuk.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 12, 2012 @ 10:15 am

I know of no proof of that and the one person who admits having it denies receiving it from Met. Jonah. What I do know is this: since August 1, Pokrov.org has received and published the November 2010 SIC report, the Feb. 2011 SMPAC report, and internal OCA e-mails attempting to implicate Met. Jonah in transferring Fr. Simeon. I am unaware of any outcry from the Synod over these leaks, nor efforts to remove any priest or bishop complicit in those leaks, nor do I expect a word will ever be said. Leaking of internal/confidential information is acceptable to the Synod when it serves its goals, and grounds for removing an bishop from active service when it doesn’t. Are these men of God?

That’s true. I presume you’re talking about me, re: having the SMPAC report. I’m not going to say from whom I received it, of course, but it absolutely was not Met. Jonah.

In Animal Farm Syosset, some leaks are more objectionable than others.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 11, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

More Evidence that Jonah Was Railroaded

I don’t know why he would need to, since apparently the two of you have managed to somehow discover my ip address and are stalking me about the internet as well as bullying me in this online forum. I may choose to inform INTERPOL, fYI.

A hysterical overreaction to mild public criticism, and a threat to launch legal proceedings against one’s critics? Gosh, where have we heard this before?

Funny, you claim that you are being “bullied” and “stalked,” but you are an (officially) anonymous person on the Internet. How could anyone know how to find you? Perhaps “bullied” is a synonym for “contradicted” in your world, but I don’t believe that’s how most people see things. Perhaps too you are being stalked by your own conscience.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 18, 2012 @ 10:33 am

Let’s just say yer wimple is showing.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 17, 2012 @ 8:33 pm

Because “George P.“, the lack of perspective here is comical. If you want to sue your bishop, and anybody anywhere who has said anything negative about you, ever, I suppose that is your legal right. But please don’t flatter yourself that you are assuming the mantle of the martyrs, least of all Jesus. The arrogance of that pose pretty much drives away any sympathizers except for the epistemically closed hardcore.

Eleni Palmos: Dear Rod, I am sorry that you have taken such a dislike to the Sisterhood.

I don’t know the sisterhood. I am only judging by the abbess’s public actions in this matter, which look and smell awful. I regret that Metropolitan Jonah allowed himself to get mixed up with this bunch. My belief is that he was, in the main, taken down by a group of bad actors within the OCA establishment. But I cannot avoid the conclusion that he made it fatally easy for them to do so by his consistently weak judgment. This embarrassing episode with the abbess getting her group kicked out of ROCOR is a good example, I’m afraid. I wish it weren’t so, but I’m not going to close my eyes to apparent facts, simply because they are inconvenient to what I wish was true.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 16, 2012 @ 11:48 am

George P., by your comments you are revealing a lot more about your true identity than you may realize. I don’t wish to discourage you, because I’m kind of enjoying this. Still, though…

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 15, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

Yes, and just like Christ, they’re threatening to sue the cassock off of anybody and everybody.

» Posted By Rod Dreher On August 15, 2012 @ 4:58 pm