His Eminence Metropolitan Jonah, then Primate of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) in St Catherine’s, the OCA podvorie in Moscow, with His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate.
While we celebrate this momentous occasion, a special shout-out must be given to certain people who helped make this possible. You know who you are and may the Lord grant you increase.
One person who deserves special mention however is Fr Charles Nalls, Canon-lawyer, Anglican priest, and all-around great guy. He offered his services over these last three years pro bono and he deserves all of our gratitude. Without his direction, prayers and solicitude, it’s doubtful whether we would have arrived at this blessed point. Please feel free to drop him a note of thanks.
Source: Ryan Hunter
Dear friends in Christ,
It is with a glad heart full of rejoicing that I share with you that earlier today Metropolitan Jonah received a signed letter of official release from Metropolitan Tikhon and the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) releasing him to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral), First Hierarch of ROCOR, has been notified that the OCA Synod has, at long last, made good on their promise to release Metropolitan Jonah. Vladyka Jonah is thus received into ROCOR’s jurisdiction as a retired Metropolitan.
This means that, at long last, Metropolitan Jonah will be free to serve wherever he is blessed to do so by the Synod of the ROCOR and Metropolitan Hilarion. He will be free to serve unhindered at St John the Baptist ROCOR Cathedral (where he has been serving for most of the past three years) and wherever else he is invited to do so, with the blessing of the ROCOR Synod. He will continue his teaching ministry at St John’s (including regular sermons and lectures which may be found here), continue to speak at conferences and symposia and other academic events, and, above all else, continue to serve weekly Liturgies at the Holy Archangels Chapel in Washington, DC. He ultimately plans to begin a monastery, but in the meantime looks forward to living and teaching the Orthodox Faith and serving his spiritual children.
Now that he is no longer in the OCA, Metropolitan Jonah will lose his modest stipend which he has, until now, received from the OCA in his capacity as one of their several retired Metropolitans. ROCOR cannot afford to grant Metropolitan Jonah a stipend, so he will rely on the charitable support of the Holy Archangels Orthodox Foundation to meet his basic living needs. You may donate to the Holy Archangels Foundation and subscribe to receive e-mails here.
In terms of his recent activities, Metropolitan Jonah met this past weekend with His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, who is visiting for the upcoming Washington, DC Orientale Lumen conference this week. Time allowing, Metropolitan Kallistos will join Metropolitan Jonah in con-celebrating Liturgy at the Holy Archangels Chapel this coming Friday, June 19.
….
Does anyone really care? You folks make + Jonah out to be some sort of great saintly saviour for the Russians in America. He is not. Look at his background; he is a delusional convert Russophile. He will be a shot in the arm to ROCOR since he is at least educated. Those who have known + Jonah for years find nothing exceptional here. Would someone please make him a salad.
Basil, while it is true that HB was a “Russophile” and close to Moscow, I can assure you that he was beloved by all who believed that the OCA in particular (and Orthodoxy in general) had a serious mission to evangelize all in America. Go back and listen to the Lenten sermon he gave in Dallas when he proclaimed the sovereignty of the OCA. He didn’t mince any words.
And having completed a listening of his Dallas Lenten Sermon, turn your attention to his disingenuous address to the 16th All-American Council where he did nothing but “mince words” as to his intentions of healing the disaster of his “leadership.” And to what end shall I send a note of thanks to his heterodox “canon lawyer?” For facilitating a bishop to never having to answer as to his abetting of a gun-toting, drunk-on-his-ass, rape-accused monk, for one thing (and hat tip to the cowardly lionesses of Pokrov.org – who will deem anyone guilty by the vaguest of associations – for never touching Jonah), and for offering to “concede” autocephaly for autonomy on the sly, as long as he could be “the” Metropolitan over those more senior and more worthy (read that as ROCOR’s Hilarion) choices.
What, then, has his “freedom” brought him? Apparently the ability to do what he has been doing since his voluntary resignation, with the notable exception that ROCOR “cannot afford a stipend,” so he is dependent upon the hospitality of strangers to remain in “Belle Reve.” As always, there is the talk of “starting a monastery” – which begs the question, what is Jordanville? – but his tastes run in the tradition of La Jolla, not Kazan. A full eighteen choices with Ephraim, but do they have wifi?
In any case, he is now a ROCOR footnote.
As always, there is the talk of “starting a monastery” – which begs the question, what is Jordanville? – but his tastes run in the tradition of La Jolla, not Kazan.
Ha! My thoughts exactly. I remember visiting that crazy “Christ of the Hills” monastery down in Texas that was in the ROCOR until they ran away before the bishops could investigate allegations of wrongdoing. While there, I was introduced to an unassuming little old ascetic looking monk, and learned that it was Bp. Constantine, whom the brothers there had taken in to live in retirement. (His body has, incidentally, been exhumed for reburial at Jordanville, and found to be incorrupt.) Conditions were pretty primitive there, and maybe only one monk knew a little Russian. His cell was humble, to say the least. In spite of the fact that his English was minimal, he stood through every service (which were all in English), praying. Even though we didn’t really speak, I felt I had met a real monk.
I am sure that there are any number of monastic institutions, large or small, that would be willing to give Metr. Jonah room and board, and where he could get up in the wee hours every morning to keep the full monastic cycle of services. Somehow, I get the impression that this has never been his cup of tea. When he was in the OCA DOW, he always seemed to be everywhere but his monastery.
Easy now, fellas. Monks are people too and come in all different types of personalities.
LOL Stankovich. The OCA should have kept Jonah as retired Met. and tried to get rid of the train wreck retired A. Lazar Puhalo. But that is unlikely to happen, as ROCOR rightly got rid of that guy years ago. Honestly, Jonah is not the biggest embarrassment to the OCA–it is Puhalo. BTW, if Archbishop Michael were Metropolitan, all of this mess would have been cleaned up years ago.
Yeah, Archbishop Michael is a no-nonsense “hunky”. But the gaylibbers in our ranks would have tried to railroad him out, too.
BTW, a Serbian priest friend, who has degrees from both Belgrade and St. Vladimir’s, claims that Metropolitan Jonah had Canon Law on his side. What the priest meant is that the Metropolitan’s brother bishops met behind his back to overthrow him. It’s a moot point now.
I do think it a bit naïve on Metropolitan Jonah’s part, to expect an assignment to a diocese in the OCA, after having resigned as Primate. I’m not sure there is a precedent for that in church history.
Goods one, M. Stankovich!
Estonian Slovak, the closest thing to a historic precedent for resignation was Pope Callixtus immortalized by Dante as being assigned to HELL and by the modern Greek poet Cavafy in his poem “The Great No.”
By resignong any educated Orthodox Hierarch should know he’s done biggest “no-no” possible for a hierarch. I’m afraid, though, that poor Metropolitan HABITUALLY acted and spoke without sufficient, if ANY, forethought!
“I’m afraid, though, that poor Metropolitan HABITUALLY acted and spoke without sufficient, if ANY, forethought!”
Like you speak otherwise? You’re the poster-child for such speech. What a piker.
Piker: one who does things in a small way; small-minded.
Oh, Michael Stankovich, you really need to stop beating these poor dead horses!
Metropolitan Jonah did not go back on his word because it wasn’t even his word. They told him to read the statement they wrote. He read it out of brotherly love and a desire to reconcile with them. He put his foot down when they demanded that he go to “therapy” for mental illness that he doesn’t have.
Metropolitan Jonah did not “abet” Fr. S, not that you care. Fr. Charles Nalls worked very hard, pro bono, to help Metropolitan Jonah through the crisis the OCA had forced him into.
Your Pokrov ladies did promote the slander of Metropolitan Jonah as a means of smearing Fr. Gerasim Eliel a few months ago, so that’s something for you.
Did it never occur to you that Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR actually know perfectly well what Metropolitan Jonah actually proposed and wanted?
It means Metropolitan Hilarion is now free to assign Metropolitan Jonah as he pleases, instead of having to deal with the OCA’s silly bureaucracy.
It’s not that ROCOR can’t afford a stipend, it’s that they don’t have any paid positions available at the moment. Metropolitan Jonah is living in a modest house, and his expenses are covered by kind friends who care about him.
Metropolitan Jonah may not be as dry-toast as some people are used to, but he is an excellent abbot and spiritual father. There is no need for ROCOR to lock him away just to save the OCA’s ego.
Which would still be more significant than the “autocephalous” OCA.
Now this is exactly the defense any man of character would desire: a man, who for years has been posing as a woman, makes ignorant, and even enablingly dangerous assertions as to the lack of pathology, despite the conclusions reached by a multi-disciplinary treatment in one of the most respected facilities in the country after five full days of examination. How? By qualification, training, or experience? Hell no. Just because. Brilliant.
Next, Mr. Michalopulos would dismiss this pioneering, JCAHO accredited hospital because… the director was a homosexual. WAT! Was he systematically abusing the renowned researchers acknowledged for their contribution to the specialized body of the evidence-base for rehabilitation church leaders? No. For affecting those men & women involved in treating incompetent, and addicted church leaders? No. He was discovered to be involved in a private affair having nothing to do with the hospital staff; unfortunate, but inconsequential. Soviet psychiatry, indeed. And Met. Jonah’s commitment to do “whatever it takes to restore his relationship with brother bishops out of his love for the faithful & the Church?” The resignation letter said it all.
And finally, Mr. Cone. “Stankovich slant.” As we read in Psalm 3, Mr Cone. Met. Jonah dug a hole for others, and fell in himself. You simply cannot stand before the assembled Church and lie as a “ploy” to “meet them half-way.” You cannot “repent” for disaster, claim, “they made me say it” and then claim obedience and humility. Trust is not earned by falsification & placation. Where was his “inner-Saliba?” In Saliba, obviously. Is it possible, Mr. Cone, that you purposely exclude the story of Julie Drehr, the only person to effectively humiliate Jonah to take action? Where is your unmitigated outrage at her, Mr. Coin? Apparently I am a “sinister” target than she.
I have never, ever said he is a bad person. He is simply a lame hero.
You have never obtained any authentic results of such an examination of Metropolitan Jonah.
It goes to Arsenault’s character, since he violated his vow of celibacy. If you intended to have any consistency in your criticisms, you would have to say Arsenault was dishonest, as you claim Metropolitan Jonah to be.
You consistently misrepresent Metropolitan Jonah’s words. He didn’t call himself a disaster, he said he was taking responsibility for his part in the disaster. Despite the Synod’s underhandedness, he kept his agreement as long as necessary to prove his sound mind and good faith. No agreement would ever obligate him to submit to an abuse of psychiatry, and you know it.
Fr. Chad Hatfield told the Synod that very night to take responsibility for their own parts in the disaster. They never have.
As reported by Mark Stokoe, here is exactly what Metropolitan Jonah told the 16th AAC: “….These last three years have been the three most difficult years of my life. I have been under a relentless barrage of criticism for most of this time for every forum I am meant to oversee: the chancery officers and staff, the Metropolitan Council and most troubling to me, the Holy Synod of Bishops.
I admit that I have very little experience of administration and it was a risk for the 2008 Council to elect me, the newest and most inexperienced of bishops. I have worked very hard to fulfill your expectations. But this is not an excuse.
These three years have been an administrative disaster. And I need to accept full responsibility for that and for my part in it. I did not understand the depths of the breakdown with the bishops. I thought we had a good working relationship but obviously there is something very broken. I need to regain the confidence of my brother bishops and of many others in leadership positions in our Church. I tell you all here and now that I am deeply sorry for that and I ask your forgiveness.
How to get to the root of this breakdown in trust and repair it, if possible, is the real challenge for me and I am willing to do whatever is necessary, working in close collaboration with the Holy Synod. As a first step I have agreed to begin a process of discernment that will include a complete evaluation in a program that specializes in assisting clergy, starting the week of November 14th. I have chosen to do this out love for you, the people of the Church, and for my brother bishops…”
Mark Stokoe’s report continues: “The Metropolitan’s address was followed by a brief Response by the Synod, which featured remarks by Bishops Tikhon, Benjamin, Matthias, Melchisedek, and Michael. All the hieararchs thanked +Jonah for his agreement to participate in an evaluation. (The Synod has previously asked and had agreement for an evaluation in February in Santa Fe. Upon leaving Santa Fe, however, the Metropolitan refused.)” (my emphasis)
http://www.ocanews.org/news/16thAACJonahToBeEvaluated11.1.11.html
+Jonah somehow could not understand that his fellow bishops could possibly be upset that he broke his word almost as soon as his aircraft left Santa Fe. I do not know about y’all but I was raised to believe that a man’s word is his bond. OTOH, I am older and I do not know if +Jonah’s generation was brought up to believe in personal integrity. Perhaps, the fault lies with his pastors and arch-pastors at St Vladimir’s, Valaam and DOW?
Carl, you don’t get it: this ain’t the Soviet Union (well, not yet anyway) and we don’t force men to remand themselves to psychiatric wards because of policy disagreements.
Mr. Michalopulos,
You are absolutely correct that in the employee assistance model of intervention – which, let’s be perfectly clear, had Met. Jonah followed as he promised “out his love for the faithful and the Church,” he would still be Metropolitan today – no one is ever remanded to treatment over policy disagreements. They are offered treatment over demanding their resignation over documented incompetence, dysfunction, and fundamental lack of leadership. You are being truly disingenuous when you simply refer to St. Luke’s as a psychiatric hospital because the program was specifically intended to evaluate and rehabilitate church leaders, and it has an excellent national reputation. When Met. Jonah refused to accept the recommendations of the referring agency, he should have been removed immediately, and I believe the synod made a grave error in allowing him to play them for as long as he did. His rule & leadership was fundamentally impaired, they offered him a compassionate alternative that would have preserved him as Metropolitan, and he rejected it. Move on or be dragged down with him.. What the Synod offered him is unprecedented. Had it been in Moscow, you simply would have read of his “retirement” to some distant region, never to be heard from again.
Dear M. Stankovich,
Well, on the one hand you seem to indicate that this was an employee assistance model, and on the other that it was a program for Church leaders. I doubt that the Moscow Patriarchate would have anything to do with the use of psychiatry in this way, or the kind of corporate management models that seem to be involved, which is why many in world Orthodoxy seemed aghast at what they perceived as a bad process. St. Luke’s is a Catholic psychiatric program for Church leaders, and neither of those two adjectives describing their programs means Orthodox here or elsewhere. But you still seem to be assuming a lot about the nature of the recommendations and the nature of Metropolitan Jonah’s alleged problems. I’m still puzzled about whether you are making a diagnosis or indicating details you know about a confidential case, or if neither, why you are not maintaining a merciful silence? After a while, loudly chastizing others for not being quiet gets old, when you’re not being quiet yourself.
With love in Christ,
Kentigern
Michael, Michael, Michael… Your hypothetical about how +Jonah could have remained metropolitan is all well and good, but let’s play a little game here. I’m thinking of a probable diagnosis — you think of one, too. OK, ready? I’ll bet that if it isn’t exactly the same, it is at least in the same cluster.
Now, what are the chances that any intervention with that diagnosis are going to succeed? Exactly. So your hypothetical is a wee bit disingenuous. Not saying that the SOB didn’t need to do through the motions, but their expert counsel had to be telling them all along what the end result was going to be. Which raises the question of just why they allowed the ducking and juking and jiving to go on as long as they did. The SOB needed to put everyone out of their misery, and eventually did, but much later than was necessary. Nicht wahr?
The reader on the sideline will be hollering, “but this is the Orthodox Church, and things are spiritually and ontologically different here!” True enough, and that is why all of the questions about +Jonah’s monastic formation, traditional instincts, adherence to ascetic and liturgical discipline, etc. are not nitpicks, but highly relevant and key points of information, ones that have direct implications for what the ROCOR might experience.
After all, the future St. Seraphim of Platina was able to overcome grave sins and temptations through obedience, mortification of the flesh, rigorous liturgical and ascetic discipline, etc. Some years ago, I had the privilege of visiting Platina. I expected to be moved at the site of St. Seraphim’s relics, but wasn’t, particularly. But when, nearly on an afterthought, one of the brothers offered to take me to Fr. Seraphim’s cell, I went, expecting nothing. When I entered it, I was overwhelmed to the point where I broke down and wept. I don’t remember whether I fell on my knees, but in my mind, I always am falling down in a prostration, in tears. I knew I was in the place of a spiritual struggle that was akin to any known by the Desert Fathers. I was humbled.
The Christian life, fully lived, can overcome absolutely every failing and weakness. But the demons (whether our inner psychological ones or external evil angels) do not play around. Without that kind of discipline and determination, they will more often than not have their way, and the day, more often than not, will belong to them.
I know I am pointing a finger, but I also know that 3 fingers are pointing back at me, as the cliche goes. We live in an absolutely awful time where the forces arrayed against us are terrifying. We all go into the battle already wounded and weakened. We have no reason to expect victory whatsoever, as a result of those wounds and weaknesses. Any temptation to boil the struggle down to black hats and white hats and a few simplistic issues is just that — a temptation. Michael, I know I’m preaching to the choir in saying that to you.
I question why I feel compelled to offer these musings on this forum. But I do. I know that I may be perceived as someone who just feels compelled to snipe at Metropolitan Jonah. But the truth is, as I have stated before, I prayed for his election to the Metropolitan position before delegates were even leaving for that AAC. I was convinced that for whatever his shortcomings, he was the man that at least had a chance to turn things around. I am grieved and furious that he was less prepared than I thought, and that he had not done the groundwork necessary to make him ready for the job. He could have been transformative. But the reason that he was not was not that evil men in Syosset and Crestwood did him in. The reason that he was not ready, it is now clear, is that he had not done the hard inner work necessary to spiritually survive what was coming. Have I done that work? Clearly not. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t be bitterly disappointed that this rare, rare opportunity was lost…
Had they simply retired him instead of dragging his name through the mud publicly-on Stokoe’s web site-which they should have stopped immediately and not published a twisted story on him in several newspapers and not told us the faithful, so many twisted and contradictory stories as pointed out here -http://kalvesmaki.com/OCA/2012-09-18-ocl-op-ed.html-
Maybe so many would not have lost respect for the leaders of the OCA and left.
George–The man gave his word at Santa Fe; he broke it. I don’t think that you and I disagree that he was persuaded to give his word. Where I am coming from is an ethical and moral stance that expects men to keep their word, that does not encourage men to act like children, that does not accept excuses like “they made me do it.” If you do not agree with these principles of manly conduct, perhaps you should also consider the promise of every bishop at his ordination, made to his fellow bishops and to God, that he will no let anybody nor any duress force him to act contrary to his beliefs. As His Grace has so aptly put it, he let go of the reins in spite of his ordination oath, and he has broken promises that he had made.
So when Metropolitan Jonah stood up for himself, he was disobedient and dishonest. When Metropolitan Jonah did as his brother bishops demanded of him, he was capitulating to duress and violating the vows he made at consecration. Well, that’s a fascinating dispatch from the Ninth Circle of Hell.
Claiming that the head of the facility in Maryland should not be discounted because of his moral/character because he it had nothing to do with his professional credentials and yet holding any person to that standard is disingenuous. Yes, Dr. Stankovich, I am speaking to you.
Mr. Stasi,
Just in case you did not actually understand what I wrote, I said dismiss the hospital, an inanimate object, hopefully incapable of no sexuality whatsoever. I personally was under the employ of a major medical center in NYC whose director I could not begin to identify if you paid me. If s/he were caught in a compromising ethical situation – or worse – would you find it somehow reasonable to associate my integrity, professionalism, or capability with his/hers? Seriously? And more convoluted is the logic that would suggest that if the director of St. Luke’s “broke his vow of celibacy,” I am then “hypocritical” in suggesting that the chief hierarch of the OCA failed to keep his word to the All-American Council. At least I am heartened to be informed that the new litmus test will be homosexuality and not honesty.
Metropolitan Jonah took too much bad advice.
And that became perfectly clear to third party idiots (moi).
Be your own man and when faced with hard decisions, take a more Lincolnesque approach. Invite your ‘enemies’ if you must call them that to opine. Then realize praying for your enemies does not mean identify people as enemies. You have few or none as I have said before.
As for the three year state of limbo, not one person has given a reason.
LOL. This is too funny a comment to pass up. Jonah never took any advice given to him by anyone. He made his own choices, bad ones and got himself into trouble all by himself.
Hey what’s wrong with the like/dislike buttons? I’ve noticed they haven’t been working the last few times I’ve visited here . . . .
Oh! Father Helga wrote (with jealousy, apparently): “Oh, Michael Stankovich, you really need to stop beating these poor dead horses!” And then proceeded to trot out a multitude of such nags from his OWN stable and proceed to beat away!
M. Stankovich slants,
Right. So he was “disobedient” while speaking with conviction and boldness, but disingenuous while trying to placate and humbling himself on the OCA’s most public stage, according to his brother bishops’ requests? And he put his money where his mouth was, subjecting himself to all manner of inspection…to what end? The trust he placed in those he tried to meet half way was met with years of harassment, false-witness, pain, threats, and injustice.
The man, once on the outs of the (real) Inner Circle, was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
Now, at last, most of the threats and harassment can be consigned to the rubbish heap.
Now who’s being disingenuous? The aforementioned monk was never accepted into the OCA and the shameful, smearing letter was riddled with lies that have been exposed. It remains to this day a public sin; demanding the OCA’s repentance.
This is one way to look at it, but I prefer to celebrate the end of injustice as a God-pleasing good for its own sake.
The only part of Dr. S’s post that is on the money, IMO.
M. Stankovich wrote: “hat tip to the cowardly lionesses of Pokrov.org – who will deem anyone guilty by the vaguest of associations – for never touching Jonah….”
I’m not sure that an examination of the links on this page, especially
http://www.pokrov.org/church-removes-top-official-over-sex-cases-snap-responds/
http://www.pokrov.org/ca-snap-statement-on-the-resignation-of-oca-metropolitan/
http://www.pokrov.org/top-canadian-orthodox-bishop-steps-aside/
would support M. Stankovich’s assertion. However, I thank him for alerting me to the fact that the text on the metropolitan’s page needed to be updated and that documents needed to be linked directly to it.
Don’t play me, Ms. Sakoda. Rent Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing”. Boycott Sal’s Pizza. Put him where he belongs: Education and Prevention>Individuals>Public Allegations. Your courage is selective and diminishes your mission.
Metropolitan Jonah has never been publicly accused of sexual abuse or sexual misconduct, AFAIK, so he does not meet the criteria for inclusion on that page.
That’s right. +Jonah was not publicly or privately (by the individual) blamed or accused of sexual abuse or misconduct.
What did Jonah do wrong regarding Storheim?
Why would you link him?
This I gotta see..
The problem with pokrip is they put people on their pages which insinuates they are abusive. But when you read the find print, you realize that person was assoiated in some way, shape, or form with an abuser or accused abuser. And their mission, which at heart is great, is diminished. And they are unwilling to self critique that aspect.
Furthermore, they allow other matters such as the Susan case to convolute their greater mission , while failing to ‘read between the lines’.
I admire their main mission, and wish they would avoid putting pictures of those not accused of abuse on their site. Really at some point, litigation will resolve it.
Jonah, for example, is pictured, forever in infamy, for ?administrative errors?.
Exactly.
Daniel E Fall writes: “The problem with pokrip is they put people on their pages which insinuates they are abusive. But when you read the find print, you realize that person was assoiated in some way, shape, or form with an abuser or accused abuser.”
If you are talking about Pokrov.org, you are mistaken:
“People who are on the site, but do not fall into any of the 4 categories [convicted, sanctioned, sued or publicly accused] listed above, are included in our list of all persons. Other individuals on the site are people advocating for survivors, victims, people who are mentioned in articles on the site, etc. Why these individuals have a place on the site can be discovered by the text on his/her page and/or by the items linked to his/her name.” (Emphasis added.)
http://www.pokrov.org/individuals/
I myself have a page on our site.
Why should Jonah be pictured?
And if I’m so wrong why does even Dr S find you to be a bit over the top?
And why does the Susan case get print?
Simple questions.
The Dallas speech did not mince words. But he didn’t give much thought to his words either. The Dallas speech put the OCA on the outside of the Assembly of Bishops. The Dallas speech caused the invitation to the Phanar for the traditional visit of a new Primate to be rescinded. So, let’s not give to much credit to this speech.
I know this will fall on deaf years, but let’s remember the trail of human wreckage that Metropolitan Jonah left in his path. The number of people he threw under the bus to save himself, and to cover up the plethora of white-lies is shameful for someone who made his name preaching Discipleship.
Metropolitan Jonah has many wonderful skills that make his an excellent servant of the Church. Unfortunately self-reflection is not one of them.
And Mr Cone, of all people how can you sing his praises. Look what he did to your former pastor!
With all respect, George, he was not “beloved by all who believed that the OCA in particular (and Orthodoxy in general) had a serious mission to evangelize all in America.” It is true that most had great hopes in him but he, Metropolitan Jonah himself, was not up to the job.
Metropolitan Jonah has a degree from St. Vlad’s and started a doctoral program that he never finished. That makes him more educated than ROCOR bishops?
Abp Kyrill has a degree from St. Vlad’s, too. Bp. Theodosy graduated from seminary in Kiev, Bp Peter graduated from both Norwich University and the Belgrade theological academy. I may be forgetting someone, but I think that it is true that the other bishops “only” graduated from Holy Trinity in Jordanville and were mere monastics before becoming bishops — I will take them any day over any number of the other bishops to be found on this continent.
The truth is that education, while important, is merely one part of a good bishop’s formation, and pieces of paper do not guarantee that one is actually educated, nor does a lack of said piece of paper mean that someone isn’t highly educated.
A good bishop also needs deep formation in a life of prayer (I have no idea about Metr. Jonah’s discipline on this score) and asceticism (I therefore agree with you about the salad), he needs to have a very rock-solid personality makeup (Metr. Jonah’s inability to navigate the waters of the OCA raise questions in my mind on that point), and he needs to have a spirit of humble obedience in preserving and passing on Holy Orthodoxy as received from the Fathers (his record is stellar on some points, questionable on others in this regard).
Half of me remains concerned about Metropolitan Jonah’s reception into the ROCOR, half of me is cautiously optimistic. I hope it will be a better fit for him than the OCA was, and pray that he will do well. I trust our ROCOR bishops to make good decisions, and they presumably have the true, full story about any clergyman they receive.
But one also has to be honest and admit that when it comes to receiving “troubled” clergy from the other, neither the OCA nor the ROCOR has a particularly stellar record of exercising good judgment. It seems that all too often the fact that someone has had trouble in the ROCOR is the only calling card one needs to get into the OCA (Puhalo, for example), and that if someone has had trouble in the OCA and especially if they claim that they had those troubles because of their supposed traditionalism, ROCOR bishops in the past welcomed them with open arms (only to discover that it wasn’t traditionalism that got them into hot water).
As to being a Russophile, for someone who supposedly lived at Valaam and has all of these Russian connections, +Jonah’s Slavonic and Russian seem, at first glance, to be rather underwhelming. Maybe that will change, too.
The ROCOR bishops know exactly why the OCA got rid of Metropolitan Jonah. Thanks to the OCA’s obstinacy, ROCOR even had the benefit of a three-year free trial period.
Actually, Metropolitan Jonah is conversant in Russian, and he sometimes serves in Slavonic.
Metropolitan Jonah regularly prays the services, whether at church or at home.
Nobody survives in the Syosset shark tank unless he is a more vicious shark than others.
As for humble obedience, Metropolitan Jonah could not have endured his ordeal without a strong spirit of humility and obedience. His move to ROCOR is for the good of all involved.
As Gus Portokalos might say, it is your lucky day to receive Metropolitan Jonah into the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia!
Helga,
Your desire to defend Metropolitan Jonah is admirable however you are a little bit off base with some of your arguments. First, language does matter. Metropolitan Jonah does not speak Russian fluently, i.e. to the point where he can express himself and Orthodox theology in a manner that is above a junior high school level. It’s one thing to express yourself at a coffee hour, it’s another to preach effectively to a group of people whose first language is Russian, not English. And let us not even go down the path of Church Slavonic which contains an extensive number of idioms and expressions that are markedly different than modern Russian.
As to formation, let us not forget Metropolitan Jonah’s “extensive” monastic formation, all of what two or three years? He did not stay at Valaam for any extended period of time, he did not complete his PhD, he did not even stay as Metropolitan in the OCA for any extended period of time. The truth is that he was always on the move when he was in Manton as well. I have nothing against him and I truly wish him well, But we shouldn’t canonize the man either. It took the public stage to reveal that he has issues, and the honest truth is that he will probably have some issues while he is with ROCOR as well. You claim that ROCOR had three years to know him. Time will tell.
Nick, as my own Russian is lamentable, I cannot speak to the issue of his fluency. For my money, he seems to get along very well in that language and has many friends and supporters in Russia, especially among the ROC administration. I guess that’s all that matters.
I’d like to address your critique about his peripatetic admninistrative style while Abbott at Manton. One of the beefs that certain critics of Elder Ephraim have is that his monasteries are insular, there’s “no evangelism,” etc. I guess what they’re trying to say is that Elder Ephraim doesn’t travel, set up missions, etc. I don’t agree with this critique (of Ephraim) but I’ll bring it out for the sake of argument.
Consider the former Abbott Jonah on the other hand: he receives monastic formation while in Russia, comes to America and sets up an English-speaking monastery, which in time becomes a place of pilgrimage and spiritual refuge (I know people who have been helped there), but still finds time to travel up and down the West setting up missions. Is there something wrong with that?
I realize it’s irregular for an Abbott to travel hither and yon setting up missions, speaking at venues on Orthodox spirituality, and so on, but is it wrong? Irregular is one thing, uncanonical is another. I mean, let’s face it: everything about Orthodoxy in America is irregular (and I’m being charitable here). When the story about American Orthodoxy during the early 21st century is written, I seriously doubt that Jonah’s evangelistic efforts as well as his monastic career is going to be viewed in a negative light.
Vladyka Tikhon would know what +Jonah’s Russian and Slavonic are like. In the meantime, George, if you can provide a single link of +Jonah giving a sermon in Russian and a single link of him serving a service in Slavonic, I will apologize for my statement. Maybe the man is proficient in Russian and Slavonic and I just haven’t seen it.
I have known many Anglos who for their own reasons have learned to serve or chant on kliros in Slavonic as well as any Russian can. I personally know at least 4 priests who didn’t grow up speaking Russian who can preach vèry well in Russian (according to their Russian parishioners). Things like this are simply unremarkable among converts who are active in church life in the ROCOR, and certainly among clergy. If you want to drink from the well, it helps to have a pail, and all it requires is some self-discipline.
Most of them learned those skills in America without the benefit of three years of immersion in Russia (let alone at Valaam), I would note. There is absolutely no crime in being in the ROCOR without knowing those languages. Many fine ROCOR priests do not. (Although being a bishop without such abilities would be unprecedented and a hindrance to ministry.)
But if, as I understand, +Jonah’s abilities are minimal at best, one has to ask what form this deep monastic formation at Valaam actually took. It simply raises questions in my mind about the authenticity of his back story, just as I have raised questions here before about how much of a traditionalist he actually is. The reason these things are relevant is that the ROCOR has had more than its share of bad experiences with clergy seeking refuge. I can’t help but have an instinctive and self-protective worry.
I again hope that my optimistic half will be filled with joy and that my skeptical half will end up feeling foolish and chastened. Time will tell.
No, Bishop Tikhon wouldn’t know very much about that, since he hasn’t seen or spoken to Metropolitan Jonah in a long time.
I wouldn’t say that Metropolitan Jonah is proficient in either language. However, he can serve in Slavonic, and he can carry on a conversation in Russian. Your information is inaccurate.
Nonsense. Vladyka Tikhon would have had plenty of contact right not long after +Jonah had returned from Valaam, when he should have been at the height of his Russian and Slavonic abilities. Vladyka would be in excellent position to render an assessment regarding the results of his abbot’s language immersion at the Athos of the north.
You confuse me — on the one hand you say that +Jonah isn’t proficient in Slavonic, and yet you say he can serve in Slavonic. Which is it? Serving in Slavonic implies quite a bit more than being able to throw around a “Blagosloven Bog Nash…” or a “Iako tvoe est tsartvo…” or two and call it good. In order to read the priest’s/bishop’s secret prayers in Slavonic at Vigil or Liturgy, the celebrant has to be quite proficient — and many of the prayers at Divine Liturgy need to be basically memorized because they are said while censing or while involved in other liturgical actions. I’m happy to have my information corrected — there are scads of +Jonah YouTube videos online. LInk me to one of him serving in Slavonic.
And as someone has pointed out, the question isn’t whether +Jonah knows enough Russian to chat a little at coffee hour. I’m sure he can speak Russian well enough to ask someone at the head table to pass him another plate of pirogis. The question is whether he can express himself on matters of the faith. As I have said before, I know numerous convert priests who can preach in Russian without notes — someone who has lived at Valaam for 3 years and paid attention should at least be able to read a pre-prepared sermon in Russian from a podium. Again — feel free to correct my misinformation and send me a link to a video of him giving a sermon or lecture in Russian.
Again, these are hardly impossible tasks, but I repeat that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a ROCOR priest not knowing Russian or Slavonic — many good ones don’t. It would be unprecedented for a bishop in the ROCOR, but then he wasn’t elected a bishop in the ROCOR (and would never have been elected by them). The point, again, is the authenticity of his backstory. Highly educated? Dropped out of his doctorate. Deep monastic formation in the Russian spiritual tradition at Valaam? 3 years there and yet his language abilities are marginal. Experienced monastic and abbot? Turns out he often spent more time out of his monastery than in it. Traditionalist Russophile? Read the article he chose to publish in Divine Ascent about Metropolitan Anthony K. Moral hardliner? Others have pointed out the situations in which he had to be shamed into action in his own cathedral where he had complete and unquestioned authority.
Why does backstory matter? Because it is a window into the possible future. I am grateful that Fr. Victor P is on scene — he is a sharp one, and will hopefully keep things under control.
At St. Nicholas Cathedral he gave a homily in English and then in Russian quite regularly-without notes.
And then stopped the practice when at a ROCOR cathedral? Interesting… Still waiting for YouTube links so I can apologize…
Don’t know if gives homilies or serves in Russian at St. John’s-don’t go there. . . .
ok, well I just visited St. John’s Russian Orthodox Church on facebook and there was +Jonah doing the Russian liturgy . . . .
I don’t do Facebook, so wouldn’t be able to look at it, but I will take your word for it. I apologize for questioning +Jonah’s command of Russian and Slavonic.
Archbishop James Toombs did not know Russian.
See http://orthodoxwiki.org/James_%28Toombs%29_of_Manhattan
Interesting story about Toombs — bizzare, actually, and one which I hadn’t heard. I certainly hope you aren’t putting him forth as a worthy precedent for +Jonah. For whatever his faults, +Jonah doesn’t deserve to be associated with this, if that wiki entry is at all accurate.
The article certainly does back up what I have said before — namely that the ROCOR has not always had the best of luck exercising good judgment in whom they receive as clergy from outside their ranks. Fortunately, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has decreed that no further episcopal transfers into the ROCOR are to take place without approval from the full Synod of Bishops in Russia.
George, Nick is mostly right. You, however are mistaken. P{lease, inform us of the missions that the man set up EVER. The historic and traditional monastic became so in order to FLEE society. Monasticism experienced its greatest flowering after the unbaptized unanointed Emperor Constantine made it advantageous to all citizens to frequent Church precincts which had previously been territory secret, DISGUSTED at the influx of slack-jawed newcomers, not unlike many patriotic and unbelieving Russians after perestroika, the pious FLED to the deserts and mountaintops, while those who remained behind had to be mollified with iconostases and secret prayers.
St Sergius and others were responsible for founding new monasteries UNWILLINGLY.No matter where they fled they were PURSUED. St Sergius would probably react quite negatively to any suggestion he RECRUIT monks!!!! Father Jonah (Paffhausen) ran away only from any idea of BELONGING to ant monastic community of which HE was not the abbot. I call it the American Convert Monk Syndrome_—-I need a monastery of which I am the Abbot. Metropolitan Tikhon, however, was always a humble and obedient MEMBER of a monastic community who had NOT made any reputation for himself by building a lecture and teaching network.
TRAVELLING AROUND FOUNDING MISSIONS!!!!!!! What a misinformed idea!
Oh, Father Helga, Father Helga! You’re getting more sloppy than usual. Try to think before uttering such howlers as these:”Metropolitan Jonah regularly prays the services, whether at church or at home.”
and:
“As for humble obedience, Metropolitan Jonah could not have endured his ordeal without a strong spirit of humility and obedience. His move to ROCOR is for the good of all involved.”
My father of blessed memory attended Church “REGULARLY once year, at Christmas!
Metropolitan has NEVER undergone any “ordeal.” Cowardice, Greed, incompetence, dishonesty are but a FEW of the motivations available to excuse Metropolitan Jonah’s IMAGE and determination to endure living in one of the most prosperous and prestigious (compared to San Diego or Point Reyesm or Manton, or South Canaan, or Jordanville) areas, supported by the encouragement of Fr Potapov and Mme Sweezy among others. HUMILITY!!!!…….. Just the opposite, Helga, just the opposite!
In reply to the retired OCA bishop of California’s latest shocking calumnies against his fellow Orthodox bishop, His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah, I would cite, mutatis mutandis and with an apology to the memory of the original author, the memorable appeal of attorney Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy during the infamous Army – McCarthy hearing in 1954:
“Until this moment, Vladyka, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. . . . Vladyka, may we not drop this? . . . Let us not assassinate this bishop further, Vladyka. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Bulls-eye.
And the answer to the question is no, he does not.
I care, Basil. He was railroaded in a very underhanded, un-Orthodox way. They should have let him go a long time ago. Whether or not he is a saint (only God knows!) is immaterial! What IS known is that he could inspire. He raised the bar with regard to what we need from our leaders to *believe* again. – May God bless you for that, Your Eminence. I wish you the very best.
It is nice to see Metropolitan Jonah happy, however I must confess that I am disappointed in his not trying to work out his differences with the jurisdiction that gave him the title of Metropolitan. The office of Metropolitan is not something that should be taken lightly. He was duly elected to be the leader of the Orthodox Church in America. While he had obvious differences of opinion with his brother bishops, the fact remains that the laity put an enormous amount of trust in him. How said it is that he walked away from his own people.
I am of Russian background myself, and with all respect, the Russian Church Outside of Russia is a predominantly Russian-speaking community. It exists primarily for Russian-speaking people, as does the Romanian Orthodox Church exist for Romanian-speaking, the Greek Archdiocese for Greek-speaking, etc. I rejoice that there is an Orthodox Church in America to bring Holy Orthodoxy to Americans, especially English-speaking Americans. To leave the church that he was elected to be the leader of us is not something I rejoice in. To go to a jurisdiction where he does not speak the language fluently is also something I don’t rejoice in.
In the recent post by the chancellor of the OCA, he mentions strength in weakness. I am only one person, whose opinion hardly matters, but for what it’s worth, it seems to me that Metropolitan Jonah would have shown considerably more strength in standing up proudly for the OCA and trying to start a monastery with them than running to another jurisdiction. Yes, the Holy Synod did not treat him well, but the laity did. He was loved and well regarded despite what some of the bishops may have thought of him. Nonetheless, he has decided to walk away from them. I hope that somewhere, and at some time, he will think back with fondness on the people who loved him and supported him as Metropolitan.
Alexander, like you, I wish His Beatitude had summoned his inner Philip Saliba and wrapped his pastoral staff around the Chancellor’s neck when he barged in on his house demanding his resignation. Alas, it was not in Jonah’s nature to be confrontational. I think we all would have been spared the nightmare of the last three years had he had the fortitude to do so. That’s all water under the bridge however. We must now pray for healing for all involved, even the miscreants who so damaged the OCA with their uncanonical and egregious actions.
George–It was also not in his nature to remember and not break his word. Sorry to rehash the old wounds but his fans, like you, cannot keep from letting bygones by bygones. It is mighty two-faced of you to put your last two sentences together. I do not believe you when you say that you will pray for healing for all concerned. But, I will try.
Well, pay attention to adjectives Carl. George was done with the comment after he penned them.
Blaming Stokoe for Kondratick’s games is just silly.
George,
Somehow I don’t see Metropolitan Jonah TAKING A CROW BAR TO A WOMAN’S PATIO DOOR, BREAKING INTO HER CAR, PLANTING AN OPEN BOTTLE OF WINE AND TERRORIZING HER DAUGHTER, AS SHE WENT TO AND FROM SCHOOL.
YOUR hero, Metropolitan Philip, did, George. A big, strong, cigar smoking wheeler dealer, with a corrupt Board of Trustees backing him up . . . documented felons, some of them. Even WE are embarrassed this. People shoving and pushing other people to the ground, during a “Church” convention, THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HAD WORKED TIRELESSLY ON BEHALF OF THE ARCHDIOCESES FOR DECADES.
Guess you had to be there. You clearly weren’t.
I wish I could still lived in fantasy land.
Source?
I am the source. It happened to me, Ages.
Crickets…
You rock on this one Gail!
very few people will still talk about Palm Desert. It was very scary and very sad.The rift between the converts and the Arabs was very noticeable an dis becoming even more noticeable in the Antiochian Archdiocese these days..
Spot on observation. One Arab and one convert parish within my locality – and never the twain shall meet (despite the one having been started as a mission launched by the other a few decades ago).
StephenD says, “The rift between the converts and the Arabs was very noticeable and is becoming even more noticeable in the Antiochian Archdiocese these days..”
There was a rift in the Archdiocese at the time of the Palm Desert convention, but it had nothing to do with the alleged differences between the convert and MIddle Eastern parishes. That is NOT how the lines broke.
Anyway, as far as I can discern, that rift is all over now. Indeed, it has been over for the past several years.
No it is not..In fact the rift is very rapidly becoming a chasm…Did you read what Heracleides wrote ?
George, the reality is this, that Jonah is gone, and that was HIS will to be gone. The matter of his delayed release is a bit suspicious, but the larger issue for the present is at hand. Once again, the OCA Synod allowed a vote that meant nothing (remember the whole Demetri thing decades ago when he was elected and the Synod ignored it?). The same thing has happened in the recent past, when the OCA wanted +Michael but the Synod (beginning with Benjamin) would rather have a weak puppet. Why even have a “general vote” when the people’s vote really does not matter at all? The same Synod that did not want Jonah as Met. did not want Michael to be his successor. They are both outspoken about the same values, and that is why. Met. Tikhon is a good guy, but he is “tamable” by the worst elements in the Synod. Why are you NOT calling them out on this?
About what “same values” are +Michael and +Jonah ‘outspoken’?? When presented with opportunities to impose discipline on liberal interpretations of church teaching, +J regularly passed them up. +M coninues to do likewise. Those situations have been well documented on this blog and involve entire parishes as well as clergy who don’t follow the supposed norm.
The OCA Statute follows the Moscow Sobor of 1917-18 on this score. The input of the people and lower clergy is inquired after but the canons of the Church require a synod of bishops to actually elect the Primate of their local church. Nomination and election are two different things. Should a single candidate receive a minimum % of the vote, the Synod must either confirm that nomination by his election or explain themselves to the delegates. If a single candidate does not meet that threshold, the Synod simply elects as it sees fit since the church at large did not have an significant enough preference for any one potential Primate. It thus behooves delegates voting to nominate a Metropolitan to coalesce around a single nominee.
The parishes of the Russian Church were not represented by any parish clergy and did NOT elect any lay representation for the 1917 Council. DIOCESES, NOT PARISHES were represented at tyhe All Russian Council. The OCA’s Statute is equivalent to the bylaws of a DIOCESE of the Russian Church. Thr “Metropolitan Councils is but an anomalous LEFTOVER of a diocesan council of the old missionary DIOCESE!
howver the world and the OCA membership has had to submit to unremitting, relentless HYPE created by cosmopolitan emigres, mostly from France. HYPE— dogmaticand relentless HYPE. The autocephaly, however, is authentic…
Whether the laity and lower clergy represented parishes or dioceses would seem to be beside the point. The fact is 299 of the 564 delegates to the 1917-18 Moscow Sobor were laity. The remaining 265 included all levels of clergy, too, from bishops to priests, deacons, and sacristans. The division that became most important, though, was that between Synod/episcopacy and all others. This is because the canons of the Church reserve to bishops certain acts and responsibilities, e.g., the election of bishops, including the Patriarch/Metropolitan/Archbishop of a local church. At the same time, the Church itself wished to give the lower clergy and laity more of a voice in the Church. The Sobor’s balanced solution to the canonical and pastoral issues is reflected in the OCA Statute: the lower clergy and laity’s voice is heard in their (non-binding) nominations, the Synod then elects (with or without explanation, depending on the size vote the leading nominee receives).
I seem to remember reading that non-bishops are allowed in the actual election of the Primate in other local Orthodox churches. (Bulgaria, if memory serves.)
Alexander, if you had been at the All American Council in Parma to see the shift away from Jonah that was orchestrated, the way he was treated, and even casual mocking in conversation that took place between the laity, clergy and bishops, I think you could more rightly say that Jonah’s own people walked wait from him. I was one of the 6 who voted (on both ballots) to keep him as our Metropolitan.
You must not know the ROCOR people and churches I know. English liturgy with a little Russian thrown in, and chock full of converts.
Indeed. And I am told that in several dioceses, the number of clergy who are converts and speak little if any Russian is approaching (if not exceeding) half the total number now.
Things will change. It takes time and patience.
If only it was that simple.. . .
According to no less than St. John of Shanghai and SF, the mission of the ROCOR (and I would imagine he would say the same of other “diaspora” Orthodox churches) is to bring the Gospel to the world. He also castigated his fellow churchmen for failing to fulfill that mission to the degree that he thought they should be doing.
The huge influx of recent émigrés into the ROCOR parishes after the fall of the Soviet Union did unquestionably “Russify” many parishes, but that only lasts for a generation. No matter what jurisdiction of Orthodoxy one is in, the mission is the same — raise children (who will all be American) in the faith so they will remain close to Christ and stay involved in the Church, and welcome new converts. In my own years in the faith, I can’t say that I’ve seen that any one jurisdiction does any better than others in that regard. I have seen dramatic differences between individual parishes and priests — but not jurisdictions.
Both reaching the non-Christians and retaining young people are big challenges, and are harder now than they have ever been. I was just chatting this morning with a colleague who is part of what appears from the outside to be a thriving conservative evangelical church. She is deeply concerned about how they just aren’t keeping their youth. They are in a position of largely writing off one generation in hopes of figuring out how to do a better job of keeping the next wave of kids engaged.
Her story was eerily the same as what I was hearing from another friend who pastors a very “ethnic” Orthodox church. My friend is concerned that ethnic and language issues are the culprits in his parish — but after listening to her, in a church with no ethnic or language issues whatsoever, I am convinced that the problem is simply endemic to this modern/post-modern world we are in. Those who home school and co-op seem to be doing better, and families with clergy in the extended family seem to do better in the Orthodox Church when it comes to keeping their kids involved, in my observation.
Regardless, if +Jonah can contribute to bringing and keeping people close to God, he will find that there is as much potential to do good in the ROCOR as there was for him in the OCA — maybe more.
“Keeping the youth” has always been a worry, and the young leaving the church around college-age is a very old phenomenon– as is their return in due course, with families of their own.
I followed this well-worn path myself. Active in my church youth group, during college and professional school I don’t think I thought of church once. I certainly never went to one!
Then about age 30, with 5 kids, I thought I’d better drop by the old place to give the kids a taste of Western civ. Of course, as a young family man, I found myself a veritable pillar of the church within a couple of years!
I agree there are more problems nowadays…..
No one could be happier Than I, his Mother! Bless You Fr Nalls.
God bless you Mrs Paffhausen and may He comfort you for all that you and your family have been through.
Many blessings to you !! You both deserve it!!
I’m happy for you, Louise! God bless you and God bless Fr. Nalls!
So happy for you!
Hallelujah!
May God bless his ministry during his “retirement”!
I too sing out “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty: free at last!”
lots of “retired” hierarchs around eh?
Too many, especially Metropolitans of the OCA. Especially for a job the has been joking referred to as a ‘life sentence’…
is retired another way of saying, they should be laymen but we do not have the intestinal fortitude nor ethics to do what is correct – terrible example for our youth and no wonder they are choosing with their feet and we continue to wither as a result
some russian dressing on my salad please and do not forget the cavair
rocor has been known to make great decisions, first is james toombs, from which they learned nothing and created the orthodox american church which still exists with its metropolitan ( married) residing in waterford ct,, and then james bondi and his rag tag western rite bunch, which caused them to retire a bishop, and now johah and what will be his legacy ( do not forget blanco and brookline) – it boggles the mind – why not really clean house in the oca, offer them herman, theodosius, varlaam, lazar, nikon, tikhon, and nathaniel – i bet they will be scoffed up rocor in a heart beat – and why not
oh where, oh where, has out common sense, ethics, and dignity gone? leonty, anastassy, and macary must be spinning in their graves —- a tear must be shed and a prayer must be said, the sky is falling and we think it is dandruff
Laicization is a punishment, not a matter of course.
Hmmm, congats, computer lingo. I would definitely check out his new monetary, Platina and Manton didn’t want me. But, I am sure he feels relieved to be out of the jaws of the OCA chancellery . I was in Kodiak Ala. with Fr. Trucker at the seminary, resting from the Spruce Island ordeal. The joy of his election was real and universal to those there. Divine Justice Rules, and there is even an Archangel of Divine Justice. He’s awesome .The simple wisdom of, nobody ever gets away with anything, to the last jot and title of the Royal Law .sums up this Being’s duty. Don ‘t do the evil in the first place is the only way to avoid his intervention ,which makes all liars tremble when He is sent to pay them a visit .I read a book an all the angelic appearance in the bible.
June 16, 2015
Holy Synod concludes annual retreat
SYOSSET, NY [OCA]
Synod
The annual retreat of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America concluded on June 11, 2015. [See related story.]
In addition to participating in the daily cycle of services at Holy Dormition Monastery, Rives Junction, MI, retreat site, and reflecting on a number of spiritual themes, including that of the forthcoming 18th All-American Council, the hierarchs engaged in sessions of a practical nature.
Highlights of these sessions include the following.
In his opening report, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon, reflected on the positive role of the OCA in the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops and beyond. He noted that he would be visiting the Ecumenical Patriarchate on Tuesday, June 16, with the members of the Assembly’s Executive Committee. [See related story.]
It was decided to issue a letter releasing the Former Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan Jonah, to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. His release becomes official with his receipt of said letter.
The hierarchs reaffirmed their full support for the Statute revision slated to be presented at the 18th All-American Council. Parishes are encouraged to share and review proposed revisions prior to the AAC. They also expressed support for the revised resolution on Finances.
The hierarchs decided that all monastics are to be formally enrolled in their respective monasteries with appropriate records to be kept by the monasteries and diocesan hierarchs. Monastics not in residence at a monastery are to be enrolled in the diocese in which they reside. Diocesan bishops will see to the spiritual care of monastics. Likewise, it was decided that all retired military chaplains, upon their release from military service, will be transferred from the omophorion of the Metropolitan to the omophorion of the bishop in whose diocese they reside.
The members of the Holy Synod heard a report from Archpriest Leonid Kishkovsky on current events in world Orthodoxy.
Yes, this is confirmed…
In case you are wanting more confirmation:
From the OCA web site article reporting the conclusion of the Holy Synod annual retreat…
“It was decided to issue a letter releasing the Former Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan Jonah, to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. His release becomes official with his receipt of said letter.”
Source: http://oca.org/news/headline-news/holy-synod-concludes-annual-retreat
For those of you wanting confirmation from the OCA – they slid this into a release about their annual retreat.
It is official.
There is a little line in the gospel of Matthew, chapter 10 verse 14, that says to shake the dust from your feet, when you depart a house or city, that will not receive you or hear your words. Does that apply here? As mentioned above, God has the last word in all of this.
Also see psalms 1, 2,37. to mention a few.
The OCA website.
What I can’t fathom is WHY the Syosset goons held His Beatitude +Jonah for three years, against his will. What was the advantage they accrued by so doing, other than the sadistic pleasure of torturing their Hierarch, whom they had defenestrated? Why did they need to control His Beatitude any further, after they had plotted, revolted and destroyed him?
I would also like to know specifically WHO, in Syosset (or Sea Cliff,) engineered this ugly, rotten maneuver. Precisely who, among our dress-up-in-fine-clothes-and-put-on-high-ministerial-airs “leaders,” is responsible for this three-year torture intrigue?
How nice it must be to have the convenient anonymity of “Oh, it was the Synod’s decision…” as a cloak for malevolent doings.
Every time I read the imprecatory Psalms, the word “Syosset” rings in my head like a very loud bell. The whole gang should be divested of their sinecures, turned out and made to work for their livings.
I will give the answer to you in barely-hidden code, Kirill: OCA Bishops B, T (yes, MT), and N, along with Frs JJ and ET.
Confirmation directly from the orifice of the OCA’s Unholy Synod.
Glory Be To God!
We will never truly know all the details of what transpired between Metropolitan Jonah and the OCA Synod. It is best that we do not know the details. His Beatitude, in his humility, did not reveal all the details….a testament to his character. We do know that he was not treated well. I cannot see where he would get anything accomplished by attempting to work with the Synod that had a hand in forcing his resignation. God has placed him where he needs to be….and where he can teach the Holy Orthodox faith.
Many years Metropolitan Jonah!
perhaps we do need to know the details, otherwise we are in the dark and inuendo rules — i am on the side of transparency — if johah was a bad actor – tell the gory details it will act as a future deterrent, if the syosset bunch were culpable, again bring it out and let the chips fall as they may – the problem is that we sweep too much under the rug and as such we feed malfiesence – and in this case too much is being concealed so how can anyone have confidence in the system
God knows the details.
For me, the fact that ROCOR has accepted him into their fold, speaks volumes and is a great blessing for ROCOR.
http://oca.org/news/headline-news/holy-synod-concludes-annual-retreat
Congratulations to Metropolitan Jonah! May God grant him many, many blessed years.
OCA website
Ryan Hunter:
ROCOR can’t afford a stipend for him ?!?
Ryan Hunter:
Why won’t he rely on WORKING to meet his basic living needs? Is that beneath his dignity? PLEASE don’t tell me he’s on some kind of government dole.
OOM, a Bishop, whether ruling hierarch or retired, is by orthodox definition a monk (monastic). As such, a Bishop is not usually (or any other monk) in a position to take on a worldly ‘day job’ flipping burgers or working as a Walmart greeter as the rest of us laity, and even some clergy, might tend to do as needs dictate.
Now, that said, +Jonah could possibly take on things such as teaching, speaking and writing engagements to help make ends meet. I’m sure that in due time his needs will be met.
There’s always tent- and awning-making. Tough on the hands, though; bad for the handwriting.
There is nothing to prevent +Jonah from going to live in an existing ROCOR monastery (at Jordanville he could work in the print shop or bookstore and could teach at the seminary.) There is nothing to prevent him from serving as rector of a ROCOR parish that needs one. There is nothing to prevent him from serving as a supply priest to fill in for priests in the ROCOR who are sick or need a vacation. He could go to live at the monastery in WV and help milk goats.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but OOM is right on target this time. The only thing I will add is that perhaps +Jonah will do one or more of those things to earn his keep, and perhaps these criticisms will prove to be premature and unfair. He has only now been released.
But past history plus the fact that we have already been informed of the vehicle by which he intends to raise donations to fund his “retirement” are reasons for suspecting that he has no intention of doing any of the above.
I am hoping for the best, but I worry that the ROCOR bishops may one day come to regret their largesse. But maybe skilled minds in the ROCOR or MP have a master plan to which they will ensure +Jonah adheres. I certainly hope so — for his sake as much as anyone’s.
I understand that there is a rather nice house (kellia?) in West Virginia available to the right inhabitant now that Bishop George is going to Australia!
And they have a monastic diet which might be of therapeutic help to one who appears to be rather large.
I might add that I went to confession with +Jonah once (before he was ordained bishop, and spent a week years ago at Pt. Reyes before they moved to Manton, and he was very helpful to me. I encountered him in the hallway at the AAC in Bellevue (east of Seattle) and he looked like a hunted deer. Poor man! My prayers for him always..
While Russian (and perhaps other Slavic churches) bishops are by definition monastics, it seems this is not typically true of Greek and Antiochian bishops. There are a handful of GOA bishops who are also monastics, but not most, and I know the Antiochian Bishop of Toledo is not a monastics (even as an Archimandrite prior to his consecration to the episcopate).
Tom Jeffrey says (June 17, 2015 at 9:41 pm):
OOM, a Bishop, whether ruling hierarch or retired, is by orthodox definition a monk (monastic). As such, a Bishop is not usually (or any other monk) in a position to take on a worldly ‘day job’ SNIP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The operative concept here is NOT USUALLY, perhaps a subset of ‘ideally’. But reality has a way of crowding in our ideals, and — especially in new communities — monks and nuns often take outside jobs until enough economic momentum is built up to make the monastery self-sufficient from work done on the inside.
Sometimes that doesn’t happen, and other times it’s just a good idea for some of us to hold down secular jobs to enable others of us to work within the community.
I do wish that the laity would refrain from defining monastic life and allow us to work it out for ourselves with our bishops.
The “Carrie Bradshaw,” “Monk in the City,” with your epic drive-by-style of scurrilous accusations of all manner of sinfulness against both the hierarchs of the Church and the laity, is suddenly outraged that a layman would impose himself into the sacred realm of the “monastics.” A realm apparently so sacred, in fact, that you do nothing by way of humility to correct those referring to you – despite the gaudy affectations of plumage – as “Father,” that you are a layman, nothing more, nothing less.
Now, if there were available bishops prepared to “work things out with you” plural (and I presume you refer to similar undisciplined “monks-at-larger” who answer to no one) as you would suggest, you would be at St. Tikhon’s, not concerning yourself in the least with what those on the internet read in Orthodox Monasticism for Dummies, because you would be too busy writing cards to all the people you had offended, asking for forgiveness. In gratitude, I would, in return, be sending savory crackers (one per day, please!) made from the original cardboard cover of the Louis Armstrong record, “What a Wonderful Word.” Live & let live, I say. After 2-3 years, you will be thanking me for the opportunity, you will have earned the We Are Their Legacy skoufia, and it’s all good! Imagine all the people, living life in peace. Now was that so hard?
Wowie! Pure nuée ardente.
I note that the OCA Holy Synod’s recent decisions indicate that they have become concerned about monks running about without accountability, in part, one imagines, because of the liability they can incur on behalf of the OCA. Who knows? Perhaps such “monks at large” will be supervised a bit more — perhaps even end up in (gasp) monasteries, of which there is no shortage. I am not, of course, speaking about priest-monks who have been, by necessity, assigned by a bishop to pastor a parish. While an irregularity, there is yet accountability.
M. Stankovich wrote:
Dear Mr. Stankovich. I cannot vouch for the standard practice of Orthodox monastics in North America, if there is such a thing. However, my wife and I have numerous friends among the Orthodox monastics and clergy in Georgia. The practice within the Georgian Orthodox Patriarchate (hardly a bastion of modernity or innovation) is to address tonsured monks as “Mama” (Father), just as one would address an ordained priest. Tonsured nuns are addressed “Deda” (Mother). Those who are not tonsured are simply addressed by their first names.
I was present at the Sunday of Orthodoxy Vespers at Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Kansas City some forty years ago, when Monk James was tonsured as a monastic. I do hope this will alleviate just one of your concerns.
Professed Monks professed poverty, chastity, and stability. ” stability” refers to swearing not to leave the monastery until death. Monk James obviously follows an ecumenist’s model of Free” or “independent” monasticism…like many Roman Catholic, Eiscopalian “orders.” “How could I subordinate myself to an INFERIOR?” is the model, I think. Monk Jame was once obedient to a famously (now departed). Permissive man who conveniently died, and has since mainly relied on the indifference of this or that bishop or metropolitan who can be trusted to avoid his company if at all possible. Pray for him that he will turn out to saved through a genuine monasticism!
Again, Your Grace, I can only reiterate that the entire Orthodox situation here in America is irregular at best.
George, that is a cop out. What you are basically saying is that because things are jurisdictionally and administratively irregular in America, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the cracks in the jurisdictional sidewalk in order to do whatever one wants. Arida is taking advantage of the chaos. Metropolitan Philip took advantage of the chaos in breaking multiple marital and other canons for one of his pet priests.
I remember a priest I knew who upheld OCA and diocesan guidelines (and Orthodox tradiiton) by not doing a funeral for an Orthodox Christian who had been cremated — in spite of the family having been warned, even before the person’s death, by the priest that he could and would not do a funeral in that situation, asking them to please not have the body cremated. The family had the body cremated anyway, then when their request for a funeral was declined, went to another priest from another jurisdiction in a nearby town who drove to our community and served some sort of service (and, I”m sure, collected a nice Treby envelope for his troubles). I am not going to get into the issue of whether the diocesan guidelines were too strict — they were what they were, and the priest followed them, as he should. The jurisdictional chaos was taken advantage of by both the family and the other priest, and the OCA priest was left looking heartless and foolish — and more importantly, the Orthodox Church’s witness looked confused and arbitary.
I am not, as I have made clear, someone who thinks that we must attain “unity at all costs.” On a purely selfish basis, I think the ROCOR has more to lose than to gain at this juncture in history by unifying with any of the major jurisdictions in the US, and I imagine that right now, few jurisdictions are anxious to unify with the OCA. But I still find it very off-putting for clergy, monastic, or laity to abuse that situation to shop around for whatever special treatment they want — or for jurisdictions to abuse the situation by granting favors for political or financial gain.
The reality is that if a man callously leaves his wife for someone new, if his priest and bishop won’t let him marry his new squeeze in the church or take communion, he would probably be able to shop around and find another jurisdiction who would accommodate him, especially if he gave some nice donations in the right places. Active homosexuals know what jurisdictions and parishes they can hang out in, and even commune in, with impunity, as has been documented here.
If someone rightly criticized such behavior, would you really, truly respond to them by shrugging your shoulders and just saying “well, the whole Orthodox situation here in America is irregular”? You sure as hell don’t when it has anything to do with homosexuality.
It is absolutely no different from “monks” avoiding any kind of real monastic obedience (it is, after all, their discipline that is equivalent to marriage) or clergy who seek refuge from the consequences of their own actions by fleeing to jurisdictions who are willing not to ask too many questions (either without a canonical release or with a “thank God he’s not my problem anymore and I won’t have to go through the pain of defrocking him” release…)
If there were zero monasteries in the U.S., the phenomenon of “monks” running around doing their own thing could be justifiably be explained away by “irregularity.” But you of all people, a fan of Fr. Ephraim’s monasteries, should be one of the last people to claim that jurisdictional irregularities have created a situation where such “monks” have no monastic institutions that would be willing to take them and in which they could find a place to live in obedience.
It would seem that Vladyka Tikhon is trying to impute guilt by association.
It is indeed true that Monk James was under monastic obedience to the Hegumen of the Our Lady of Tikhvin monastery. It is also true that said Hegumen, now deceased, was a hopeless alcoholic who acted out sexually when deep into one of his binges.
What Vladyka Tikhon conveniently omits from this comment, is that when the monks came home from work (yes they did work in a factory to support their monastery) and found said Hegumen in a compromising position, it was Monk James who reported the matter to the late Bishop Boris. That action resulted in the dissolution of the monastery.
Said Hegumen was enrolled in what is now called “rehab” for a number of months. Following that, said Hegumen was kept under close scrutiny in the Hinsdale chancery for the remained of Bishop Boris’ tenure in Chicago. After bishop Boris’ retirement, said Hegumen was transferred to the Diocese of the West, and served there. I have no doubt that Vladyka Tikhon could detail “the rest of the story” far more completely and accurately than I.
After the dissolution of the Tikhvin monastery, Monk James pursued undergraduate and graduate studies at the University of Kansas while supporting himself by working nights in a convenience store. Monk James is still remembered fondly by those few of us who remain from the “old church” in Kansas City.
Personally, I have multiple disagreements with Monk James; even concerning the matter at discussion here. Some of these personal attacks on Monk James, however, are both unfounded and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
On a number of occasions, various know-it-alls have implied that “the church” aided and condoned the deceased Hegumen’s bad behavior. As an eyewitness, I can testify that this is not so. There were many, both clergy and laity, who did everything possible to prevent Fr. H. from endangering himself and others. Monk James is one of those who acted in good faith to prevent and mitigate the havoc that always attends an alcoholic priest.
Those people who tried their best to prevent damage to the church and to the community, most of whom are now long dead, do not deserve the sly insinuations of others who were not there and who themselves did nothing in similar circumstances.
It is bad enough when you engage in the usual snide personal attacks; but you are also besmirching the memory of our beloved forebears in the faith.
May God rest their simple and good souls.
May that same Lord rebuke you !
Francis Frost wrote: “After bishop Boris’ retirement, said Hegumen was transferred to the Diocese of the West, and served there.”
I believe that you are mistaken. In the 1990s when Archimandrite Hilary Madison was living at the monastery in Calistoga, California, it was a stavropegial institution. It was not until some years later that the monastery was transferred to the Diocese of the West.
BTW, the archimandrite was listed was the “priest-in-charge” of Holy Assumption Monastery in the 1994 OCA yearbook that I have.
It seems odd to me that there are nearly as many ‘dislike’ votes here as ‘like’ for these words of mine — not that I’m running in a popularity contest.
Personally, I’d be very grateful for some disclosure on the part of the dislikers.
What have I written here (at least in this post) with which any of you disagree?
Please be specific. I’ll respond as best I can.
Don’t sweat the thumbs-down, Fr. James. Someone is obviously messing with the votes here.
It seems odd to me that, while I support your right to accuse me of the vilest of heresy – in this case the promotion of the normalization of homosexuality in the Orthodox anthropology – you would deny me the Scriptural and Patristic tradition of confronting me with evidence, or apologizing. I will not put words in his mouth, but I would like to believe that Fr. Alexander Webster’s “men of muscle” are also men of courage and humility, quick to admit their error and apologize. I believe you lack the character to do this. Perhaps you could your best to explain this.
OOM! you should have added to your bold-faced quotes: “Aslways, all donations gratefully accepted.” That was the POINT of referring to ROCOR’s finances. He’ll NEVER leave the environs of DC to live in any remote monastery. What an idea! By the way, what kind of car does he have? Bishop Basil used to have a Kelleinik or flunkey around to do his driving. Does M. Jonah not have one?
Glory to God! Let us all rejoice that justice has at last been made manifest!
In the meantime, Stan Drezhlo/”Barbs” picked up on the news, and he isn’t happy.
Lord have mercy on that man!
https://02varvara.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/17-june-2015-the-joys-of-people-not-reading-things-and-throwing-bricks/
Yeah, but he ain’t happy he is a guy either, so who cares?
I do know of one OCA bishop who is retired and works as a librarian. He is Seraphim of Sendai.
“… works as a librarian. He is Seraphim of Sendai.”
Doubtless in the Children & Adolescent section of the library.
Wrong Seraphim.
Bishop Seraphim is well respected by Metropolitan Jonah and many others.
There is a Wikipedia article on Bp. Seraphim of Japan for those who have forgotten this wonderful servant of God
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seraphim_%28Sigrist%29_of_Sendai
And then, there is Vladyka Seraphim’s own blog at http://seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com/
Surprising — at least to me — how vitriolic — and long-winded — some of these criticisms are!
Yes, J. Clivas , the vitriol is astounding and sad . “Idle words” for which we will be held accountable are not just those that are spoken , but also written on internet forums and comment boxes.
Our Lord said :
“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” (St.Matthew 12:36)
which reiterates the wisdom from Ecclesiastes:
“For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:14)
I find the years it took to be revealing of vindictiveness.
As a person that likes to see the good in people, the time it took is unsettling.
The irony is Jonah was vindictive with Garklavs and the Synod in turn seemed vindictive toward Jonah in demanding resignation and then spending three years messing around.
Sorry, not a Jonah fan, but if the Synod et al were going to lead by example; they did not.
If the release had taken three years for statutes to run out or legal matters, then state it.
Any educated person that throws away bias regarding Jonah must answer why three years.
Buehler?
Buehler is gonna win here? A Hollywood joksters intent is easier to understand.
Mr Fall, neither Jonah nor the Synod were “vindictive” with Fr Garklavs. (And we would do good to remember that it was the Synod which fired him, not just Jonah.) Why? Because he was clearly insubordinate. In the normal course of events it is meet and right to fire/remove/retire/get rid of any subordinate who has acted in a rebellious fashion. This happens in the secular sphere as well as in the spiritual sphere.
Mind you, it’s not ideal, it’s certainly not pleasant, but it’s always necessary.
Sorry George, Fr. Garklavs was not “insubordinate.” What Fr. Garklavs did was bring Met. Jonah’s secret agenda to the knowledge of the OCA Synod. Fr. Garklavs knew that he could no longer work for Met. Jonah with his “secret agenda” and doing end-runs around the OCA Met. Council and the OCA Synod. Fr. Garklavs submitted his own resignation, not that anyone demanded it, to move on. He wasn’t fired as you may want all to believe.
Mr Lewis, what exactly was Jonah’s “secret agenda”? To this day I’d like to know. Mainly because I’m in the OCA and it has sustained tremendous damage because of Garklavs, Stokoe, and others. Especially in regards to their treatment of Jonah during his primacy and after.
Mr. Lewis,
It is certainly not uncommon for people to try and rewrite history, goodness, there are plenty trying to rewrite the history of Jonah’s tenure, it happens all the time, but for you to suggest that Fr. Garklavs wasn’t fired but resigned is simply a falsehood. His mistake was thinking that the Synod would save him when he was doing their bidding to undermine, sorry, investigate Metropolitan Jonah. In the end, the proof is that the could not allow an act of disloyalty to publicly be rewarded (it could happen to them next.) So they let him go, but they also made sure he would be taken care by continuing his financial welfare until they could put him into a plum parish in Parma. And, it isn’t any coincidence that the full circle of their thanks was having Parma host the AAC in his parish. To the untrained eye this could go unnoticed, but the irony of it was not lost on those who made sure that Parma would not be another Pittsburgh. Anyway, Jonah is gone from the OCA for better or worse but please don’t try and pass a falsehood as a truth in trying to rewrite that little chapter in the OCA history. Garklavs was terminated with a handsome golden parachute.
That is one way of looking at it. I suggest to you that Fr, Garklavs would have stayed on as Chancellor if Metropolitan Jonah had not agreed to be evaluated/treated. Because he finally agreed to keep his word that he had given at Santa Fe, the Holy Synod could not keep both Garklavs and Jonah. Ergo, Garklavs was let go, but with honors.
I’d like to know about +Jonah’s secret agenda as well. I wasn’t paying much attention at the time, but even with the benefit of hindsight, reading about things later, it seems to me that +Jonah’s “vision,” such as it was, was a haphazard mixture of St. Vlad’s mumbo-jumbo, OCA jurisdictional triumphalism, nods of the head in quasi-traditional directions, an affinity for the secular spotlight, and who knows what else.
I frankly don’t think the man had a clear and coherent vision of where the church should go and how it should be. As I have said before, I think he stumbled accidentally into being a “traditionalist” because the people he happened to tick off first were in the “liberal” camp.
If you are referring to the supposed secret plans to give up autocephaly, etc., and playing secret footsie with the MP — keep in mind that all of that stuff started after he was in hot water, both inside and outside of the OCA. Everything he did after he had incurred the wrath of the movers and shakers at Syosset and Crestwood has to be completely disregarded as any sort of window into his true leanings, instincts, and beliefs. At that point, he was in a purely reactive mode.
Because the liberals were attacking him, the more conservative sorts in the OCA rallied behind him — and you play to your base. I submit that had he first incurred the ire of traditional sorts in the OCA to the point where it threatened his position, he would have reacted by going all SVS modernist on us with a vengeance. I can even see a scenario in which he was playing footsie with the Phanar rather than Moscow, and where we’d be hearing all about his deep Hellenophile leanings.
Purely reactive. Which is why I keep asking annoying questions about his supposed traditionalism, his supposedly deeply Russophile makeup, and all of that stuff. He supposedly has found his long-lost home in the ROCOR. I hope with every fiber of my being that it’s true, but I have yet to be convinced. As someone whose time in the Church has involved almost equal time in the OCA and ROCOR, I like to think I have a pretty good nose for this sort of thing.
He was insubordinate?
He was boneheadedly asked to investigate his superior which he did to the dismay of his superior.
The Synod would never challenge the Metropolitan’s decision up front, so they reinstated Garklavs as a consultant, no?
You cannot defend Jonah on this matter. It would be like you asking your assistant to investigate a prescription error you did. Both the ask and subsequent anger would be wrong.
The point is Jonah was mad at Garklavs for putting him in a no win and the Synod was mad at Jonah amd let him hang in limbo for too long. Neither action was good from my outsider’s view.
Garklav’s only true mistake was doing his job too well and not sugar coating the classic coverups done by hierarchs wishing to avoid problems.
Despite my own criticisms of Jonah, I can and will defend him on this matter. It is not up to a subordinate to “investigate” his superior: he works for his superior. If he cannot, in good conscience work for his superior then he should have the integrity to resign. At the very least, he owes it to his superior to tell him that he’s been asked to “investigate” him.
I challenge you to find me an example in the secular world where a subordinate is asked to judge his superior.
I never said it wasn’t a problem. It happened. If Jonah wasn’t aware, then he wasn’t in charge.
if this was such a good move and such an historic move, why has it not appeared on the rocor web site? is perhaps something a miss here? leads one to wonder
The difficulty is in the details. When was a release requested? Was the receiving synod willing to take him? And then the matter than +Jonah by all reports was insisting on receiving a stipend from the OCA even if he departed the jurisdiction. If he were insistent about the stipend, and the OCA Synod insistent on him remaining if they paid it, that’s certainly an impasse.
Barring other information, it always seemed obvious to me that +Jonah wanted to keep receiving his stipend from the OCA even after he had left it. The Synod’s position seems to have been that +Jonah had to choose between the money and a release. It also seemed obvious to me that +Jonah wasn’t keeping the original terms of getting his stipend — being restricted to serving at a certain OCA parish, etc. There was no way that the OCA was going to pay him for working for their long-time nemesis, and you can’t blame them, given the long-time history of bad blood. If this bad blood could unhinge the OCA Synod, including otherwise sensible men like +Dimitri, enough to take Puhalo, you know it is pretty bad. (As I have noted before, +Jonah himself has changed his tune significantly regarding the ROCOR compared to his younger days.). It seems +Jonah finally was willing to give up the money, and hence finally got his release. A
Sorry Edward,
The most charitable thing I could say at that point is that you are making things up.
Mt. Jonah was NOT insisting that the OCA continue the stipend, a princely sum of $12,000/year.
No, this delay was a result of the vindictive actions of some very small people.
I said it was speculation, barring further information, which is quite different from making things up and claiming it to be factual. You are making an assertion of fact, on the other hand, but do not state the source of your information, nor do you gIve a credible explanation of the sequence of events.
I will add that I find it hard to believe that the fact that +Jonah began serving in a very busy and active ministry in a ROCOR parish, while he was still drawing an OCA stipend, and before he actually had a canonical release to do so, had nothing to do with the glacial pace at which the formal canonical release was forthcoming. But I am a simplistic guy who thinks clergy need to abide by canonical order.
If +Jonah had a formal blessing from the OCA to serve permanently as a full time cleric in the ROCOR, that sounds an awful lot like a canonical release, yet one was withheld. Why? And what exactly was being withheld from him by not releasing him?
RE: “Barring other information, it always seemed obvious to me . . . ”
Edward, my most charitable reply to that topic sentence of your unfounded and uncharitable speculations about the OCA’s “Jonah crisis” is to suggest that you–and some others on this website–refrain from commenting until you learn the depth of the complexities of the situation.
Father, I appreciate your refraining from offering uncharitable comments. I do not believe my own speculations were particularly uncharitable by Monomakhos standards. They certainly pale beside personal slurs casually aimed at OCA bishops.
In spite of all my years there, I never felt at home in the OCA as a jurisdiction and I never trusted many of its higher ups (especially the powers behind the scenes who were so clearly at work). I was in good parishes in good dioceses, and was grateful for a place to worship. I stayed as far away from church politics as I could, and trusted Vladykas Tikhon and Dimitri to keep nonsense out of our liturgics and sermons, and they did.
Perhaps because of the fact that it was never really home to me (in my heart, that has been ROCOR for 30 years), neither have I ever been shocked or felt betrayed by anything done by those OCA movers and shakers.
Almost all of the venom directed at the OCA bishops over the +Jonah affair comes from bitter OCA members and former OCA members who clearly bought into the whole OCA mythos and then were crushed and disappointed when they discovered that Crestwood and Syosset have real problems, and that there are inner circles with real power who are neither particularly nice nor particularly Orthodox, and that for all the strengths of the OCA at the parish level, the institution itself is barely capable of maintaining Christian faith and morals, let alone capable of being the center around which an American Orthodox Church could form.
I never bought into it so I was never disappointed. While I may not be aware of the complex details of the +Jonah affair, I can certainly think I can tell when only one side of a story is being told. I was wrong to speculate based on circumstantial evidence, and for that I am sorry, but I am not ashamed to be a voice who raised questions here when things seemed to get one-sided and particularly personal. It is unreasonable to believe that the only parties at fault here are in the OCA. Perhaps because I am so naturally prone to think the worst of Syosset, I force myself to try to be objective and fair — and I think the OCA bishops don’t always get a fair shake here.
You telephoned me and we discussed at length and “depth of the complexities of the situation,” and while I respect the confidentiality of our discussion, Edward has apologized for an assumption, making mine an essentially clarifying question: whose signature was on the Antimension he used to serve the Liturgy in his home in the Diocese of Metropolitan Tikhon?
No, Edward. It wasn’t just about the money. There were other conditions attached to his release, including the very unreasonable condition that ROCOR accept him only as a retired bishop.
And +Jonah did not himself cause the OCA any trouble while waiting for his release. Nor is he causing trouble now. Whatever his faults, he is not a vindictive person.
I stand corrected and apologize for unwarranted speculation. I did not realize that the OCA was fine with him serving in the ROCOR before receiving a canonical release.
Edward,
Being a simplistic guy who thinks clergy need to abide by canonical order, charitably ask them whose signature was on the the Antimension he used to serve the liturgy in his home.
Michael, when a protodeacon assures me that +Jonah caused no trouble for the OCA while waiting for his canonical release, when my questions were clearly about canonical order, I have to assume that everything was strictly in canonical order, including the proper antimension.
I replied to Pdn Mitchell that I didn’t realize the OCA was fine with +Jonah serving full-time in the ROCOR without a canonical release. Pdn Mitchell had a chance to correct the record if full adherence to normal canonical procedures wasn’t what he meant — and he didn’t.
I must therefore conclude that the signature on the Antimension used by +Jonah, as an OCA bishop who had not been released, while in the territory of the OCA Diocese of Washington, was the one that should have been on it. If I had been communicating with a layman, I might have had more questions, but this is a protodeacon at a cathedral, who I assume would be knowledgeable about, say, what permissions he as a deacon would need to serve in another jurisdiction’s parishes, and who I assume would not misrepresent these matters.
Likewise, when he says the delay wasn’t “just about the money” I believe him that there were numerous points at issue, one of which was indeed the money (unlike what was claimed by others who are presumably less informed).
Pdn Mitchell gave me a courteous response, unlike some others on this forum, and I thank him for that. The real reason I want to extricate myself from this topic is that there are far too many who are unwilling to concede so much as the most minor point regarding +Jonah (e.g. the patently ridiculous charge of insubordination directed at bishops who were +Jonah’s equals). I have, at numerous points here on Monomakhos, voiced my many points of agreement with +Jonah’s supporters, and I have apologized when I was wrong or when I have not had ironclad certainty about what I have said or asked. More often than not, that behavior had not been reciprocated, and points that I know are valid — and questions that I know are valid — are simply ignored, while the “responses” focus on a side-issue. Dialogue is not possible when people are so emotionally invested in a subject or person that they feel they cannot even grant tentative legitimacy to the questions or arguments of others. I will henceforth try to stick more to matters where I find agreement, of which there are many.
Edward,
I salute your integrity – naive – is, indeed refreshing. In the interim, I asked two members of the Synod if they could answer the question. They could not. They both said they would like to know. Thus, I re-posed the question separately from any connection to you. You expressed a reasonable concern as to canonical order, and were spoken to with disrespect and without your fundamental concern of canonical order being addressed. The answer to this question transcends your particular interaction and speaks to reality of the history of what was tolerated in the name of accommodating dysfunction. While I respect your decision, I believe we deserve an answer.
We do indeed deserve answers Dr Stankovich. I for one will compile a list of questions for the Synod. Any of this blog’s readers who is so inclined can submit them to me either on this blog or via e-mail.
And Michael, I salute your persistence, although I must say that it is a bit curious that members of the OCA Synod would like to know the answer. Why would they not have thought to ask that question during all the time prior to +Jonah’s release? I admit I would never have thought to ask whether a retired diocesan bishop needs an antimension signed by the current diocesan bishop rather than one he signed himself. I certainly don’t know the answer to that question. But then I am not a bishop.
Fr. Alexander is right that I don’t know the complexities of all of this. Probably just as well, since I really am just a simple guy who liked to see good order observed. Like the proverbial making of laws and sausages, perhaps it is better not to watch the process. I just hope that, in the end, the sausage is tasty and nourishing…
Well, my friend, I believe St. Paul, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” (1 Cor. 14:40), “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace–as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.” (1 Cor 4:33) regarding the Church, and the FDA regarding the sausage. In both cases, it is generally willful disobedience that spoils both the taste and nourishment.
Edward, I’d like to think my responses to you have been polite. If not, I apologize. But I don’t like to waste time. A lot of your language leaves some respect to be desired:
All this gives me the impression that you have been acting as a provocateur, not interested in information so much as declamation.
You keep harping on Metropolitan Jonah’s language skills not being good enough. He learned Russian as an adult, a stage where it is much more difficult to achieve fluency than if he had started earlier. He doesn’t always use Russian and Slavonic during services at St. John’s because he has a very heavy American accent in both languages, and it makes more sense to leave the Russian and Slavonic to the clergy who have better facility and can speak it with less of an accent. But here’s one of his homilies at St. Nicholas where he can be heard breaking into Russian for a few minutes at various points. He appears to have notes on this occasion, but I have heard him preach in Russian without them.
He also didn’t spend three whole years in Russia, but I avoided pointing that out because I figured that then you’d start complaining about an insufficient monastic formation. Well, that may have been a good point in 1995. However inexperienced as he may have been back then, he has been a Stavrophore for 20 years now.
He didn’t finish his doctorate, but he did complete a bachelor’s and two master’s degrees. Dropping out of his doctorate had a lot more to do with the environment in Berserkley than his ability to do the work, and he has been considering finishing at another institution.
It’s true that he traveled a lot as Abbot of St. John’s, but what the critics consistently fail to mention was that he did that to earn money to support the brotherhood. In Manton, the mortgage alone is $4,000 per month, plus, there’s food, utilities, and so forth.
Don’t even get me started on the cracks about his weight, the antimension, and so forth. You would be wise to contemplate the story of St Paisios and a monk who caused scandal on Mount Athos before laying judgment on anyone else’s ascetic abilities. As for the antimension, perhaps he did use an antimension issued and signed by Tikhon, and Stankovich raised the issue simply to create scandal and confusion. Perhaps Metropolitan Jonah kept the old one. If the latter, it’s interesting that Stankovich would raise the issue, since it’s been his contention that “silence means consent” regarding Jonah’s acceptance of the actions taken to remove him. In theory, Metropolitan Jonah using an old antimension might indicate the contrary. But this is purely theoretical, because I don’t know that Metropolitan Jonah served the Divine Liturgy in his own home during that period. If he didn’t, the question of what antimension he would have used there is moot.
The crack about the “donations” funding his “retirement” is completely repulsive, honestly. The Holy Archangels Foundation funds a housing allowance for Metropolitan Jonah so that he can continue his ministry in Washington, DC, including serving, preaching, and offering classes. The Foundation stepped in after Metropolitan Jonah lost the severance from the OCA. His release to ROCOR makes it more likely he will be able to get a paying position at some point, which would lessen or eliminate the need for philanthropic support.
So, I do hope you’ll keep your word and leave the subject alone.
Provocateurs don’t apologize, Father. I have apologized at multiple points before, and I will now apologize for each and every one of the quotations you list above, in spite of the fact that some of them were wrenched from their context with no little violence, and in spite of the fact that most of them were themselves provoked by attitudes that I describe in the second sentence of the last paragraph of the post you just responded to. I still shouldn’t have said them, and I apologize.
Scorched earth tactics and rational discourse don’t mix, as far as I am concerned. So don’t fear — I will keep my word.
Did the OCA keep Jonah in limbo for statutes of limitations to pass? That is, so if he sued them they’d never canonical release? An idiot like me sees the lawyers in the room.
As for Edward ‘s wisecrack on the pieroghis. I think noone gives a darn about Jonah’s weight, save perhaps the man himself. I think he has a Santa like appearance. And I think if all he had done was eat pierogis at church dinners after Liturgy; he’d be Metropolitan still.
He had to have Met. Tikhon’s ok, of course . . .
Ted and Edward,
A release was requested 3 times by ROCOR/Russia. Yes, all ROCOR agreed and wanted him. No-it was never about the $. I have no idea where you get your info. . . .
Garklavs was fired by the Synod, the Synod had no choice, but they did have a choice in making sure that Garklavs was “taken care of” after his dismissal, providing a salary and eventually giving him a plum of a parish, which reveals, once again, how disingenuous the Synod was in the Jonah situation. They protect their friends and punish their enemies. Great bunch of fellas, ain’t they?
You hit the nail right on the head: Garklavs was indeed “fired” by the Synod because they had no choice. His insubordination was that severe. The question to my mind is who played whom?
Sorry guys, you have it wrong. Call him in Parma and ask him exactly what happened. Met. Jonah was making unilateral decisions without the Met. Council or OCA Synod’s knowledge. Fr. Garklavs questioned what he was doing and kept the Met. Council and OCA Synod informed. This was his job. Met. Jonah sealed his own fate by trying to operate outside the statutes of the OCA in a unilateral fashion.
Mr Lewis, you make the speciousness of the case against Jonah even clearer with your circuitous response. Earlier, I asked you clearly what exactly was Jonah’s “secret agenda” and why Garklavs felt he had the right to undermine it.
First, you ignored my question, what exactly was his “secret agenda.” This leads me to believe that there was no secret agenda or that there was nothing scandalous about it. (Close ties to Moscow? Katy! bar the door!)
However, because of your evasiveness regarding this, you let the cat slip out of the bag: we can now be sure (thanks to you) that Garklavs was working at the behest of the Syosset Apparat (and undoubtedly some of the episcopate) to undermine Jonah.
This of course brings us full circle, doesn’t it? That Jonah was in fact undermined and conspired against. Not very canonical, is it?
And since you recommended that we contact Fr Garklavs personally, here’s his phone number: 216-524-4589. If I’m not too busy tomorrow I’ll give him a call myself.
You don’t get it, do you George? Fr. Garklavs had certain “job responsibilities” as Chancellor. One of those was to keep the OCA Synod and Met. Council informed of what was going on at Syosset and with the Metropolitan. He did his job. No spying or anything under-handed as you wish to paint. Get it right, Met. Jonah over-stepped his authority time and time again. This is why he is no longer the Metropolitan of the OCA; no other reason. Whatever his personal, “secret agenda” may have been, he wasn’t sharing it with the OCA Synod.
Nice try, Todd. First you say that Jonah had a “secret agenda” and we should all thank Gaklavs for saving the OCA from his nefarious schemes. Now it’s just “pish-posh, don’t you know the Chancellor had other duties as well, blah, blah, blah…”
And if there was “nothing underhanded” then why was he fired?
Which is it?
Well, what did Garklavs say?
He was not fired. He was let go with honors, to a better job than having to deal with a dysfunctional, self-centered and capricious boss, who had an agenda of his own and did not give a fig about obeying Canon 34 or honoring the OCA Statutes or autocephaly or his own sexual misconduct policy or the legal and financial welfare of the OCA. As I wrote elsewhere, Fr Garklavs did nothing wrong but had to go when +Jonah was given another chance to live up to his word and seek evaluation/treatment.
Soviet-style enforced psychiatry never solved anything Carl. It’s just the modern Enlightenment equivalent of persecution. That Syosset still believes in it covers them in no glory. And, as we have seen from a posting regarding the declining numbers of the OCA from a few days ago, even our beloved Chancellor has seen the handwriting on the wall. Chances are however that he can’t make the correlation between the failed Syosset paradigm (which includes psychiatric punishment) and the decline.
Ultimately, that’s what I mean by “institutional rot”: enforced mediocrity coupled with intellectual inbreeding. The inability to break out of a rut because the paychecks are still able to be cashed can dull the wits if only for a while.
You still do not get it. The core issue not whether Metropolitan Jonah was coerced, the core issue is that he is not a serious man and cannot keep his word. He promised to God and to his fellow bishops that nothing will force him to do or say anything–he broke that promise when he chose to resign. I think we can safely conclude that he does not disagree with your writings and his other supporters’ writings since he has not publicly rebuked or disowned them. Thus, we see a self-centered, weak (not humble), capricious man who agrees to go for evaluation/treatment at Santa Fe and reneges a day later. He promises the entire world at the AAC, taking the blame for his own screw ups, and yet he allows his surrogates and supporters to obfuscate and misrepresent what had happened. Finally, when faced with a clear choice, he chooses retirement rather than treatment. I cannot imagine that he forgot he had promised God he would not be moved by threats, duress or even torture.
Mr. Kraeff,
You castigate others when they offer criticism of members of the clergy, yet you allow your inner beast to run riot when attacking Jonah. Study your petrous heart, if you will, and share with us how this is permitted for you, but is a nearly inexpiable transgression for the rest of us.
George:
Once again you have presented us with a veritable monument of dissimulation.
First, Metropolitan Jonah was neither a hostage nor a captive. No-one restricted his movements or his personal actions. His inability to function as a bishop is a consequence of his voluntary retirement. A bishop without a diocese has no function.
You repeatedly claim that Metropolitan Jonah was coerced into his resignation; yet he has never said so. He, himself, described his tenure as Metropolitan as a “disaster”. Are you calling him a liar for saying so?
Your claim of “captivity” is a grave disservice to those Orthodox hierarchs, who actually are captives. Greek Orthodox Metroplitan Boulos (Paul) and Syrian Orthodox Archbishop Youhanna of Aleppo are now into their third year of captivity after being kidnapped by Chechen Jihadists in Syria while on a mission of mercy to the many refugees from their city.
Archbishop Jovan of Ochrid and Skopje of the Serbian Orthodox Church was recently released from several years imprisonment by the FYROM government.
Metropolitan Isaiah of Tskhinvali and Nikazi is well into his second year trapped behind the occupation demarcation line with his beleaguered flock in Akholgori, unable to return to his Diocesan cathedral or the rest of his suffering flock.
Comparing Jonah’s situation to those who really are captives is a disservice to the church and inherently dishonest.
You complain about the three year delay in Jonah’s release while ignoring the fact that it was Jonah’s ongoing campaign to extract a “better deal” that delayed his release to the ROCOR.
First you engaged in relentless vilification of Jonah’s fellow bishops and accusations that he was ousted over his opposition to gays and abortion. You, however, have never once demonstrated any evidence that the other bishops hold any different opinionon the issues of public morality.
Indeed, I find it richly ironic that Jonah’s supporters harangue on the subject of ‘traditional’ values while hiding under transgendered aliases. This is nothing less than polemical cross dressing. And somehow, you all expect us to take you seriously.
As my 8 year old says: ” Seriously?????” As if.
Father Joseph, are you listening?
When your public relations campaign failed; you resorted to threats of a DOS secession. Of course, the inimitable Father Webster, PhD did defect. Imagine his chagrin when the rest of your diocese failed to join the contemporary exodus to Russia!
And last, but not least, we have the spectacle of an Orthodox hierarch and his mother publicly thanking a heterodox Protestant canon lawyer for making the best retirement deal possible!
Absolutely shameless.
What is more, the very idea that a retired bishop is entitled to anything is ridiculous. As others have pointed out, other retired bishops and clergy manage to support themselves. Normally, retired bishops retire to a monastery. As others have noted, His Beatitude has a multiplicity of options in that regard.
As for the ROCOR, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff has several times pointed out on the Orthodox Forum that many if not most ROCOR clergy are paid less than $1,000 per month with no benefits. Many OCA clergy are no better off.
It is a sad fact that many of our serving clergy are required to hold secular jobs to support their families, because the parishes are unable or unwilling to do so. And you expect the church to expend the donations of hard working people to support one man’s indolence and his taste for the high life? Incredible.
Metropolitan Jonah is neither elderly nor infirm. There is no reason that he cannot support himself. The fact that he has set up a pay pal charity to support himself, speaks volumes as to his character.
The sad fact is that the church has all too often served as a refuge for those who simply cannot make it in the real world. The Orthodox church, including every jurisdiction, is in desperate straits. This entire episode is simple execrable and sickening. As one old clergyman once said: “Eto Vechnii Ya” – The eternal ‘Me’
You have endlessly complained that Metropolitan Jonah was treated “unjustly” while you call “shrill” the call for justice on behalf of the victims of mass murder, deliberate attacks on innocent civilians, ethnic cleansing and the destruction of Orthodox holy places – all committed by your heroes in the Kremlin and publicly documented.
Your sense of “justice” is simply warped and demented. Get real.
Francis, in your never-ending quest to bring Georgia into every issue (including yesterday’s weather), you continue to compare apples and oranges as it were regarding the clear insubordination that Jonah experienced from Day One with the very real captivity of those Christian bishops which you named.
Your talking points become even more strained when we take into account the fact that I never mentioned anywhere that Jonah was “in captivity.”
GeorgeM., just for an old man’s sake, please provide examples of ANY CLEAR INSUBORDINATION on the part of any OCA Bishops towards METROPOLITAN Jonah. NO ONE is obligated to be SUBORDINATE to the First Hierarch of the Holy Synod; however ALL members of the Holy Synod, including the First Hierarch, must be subordinate TO THE SYNOD. It was HIS OWN DECISION to resign his post as First Hierarch. Whether or not the comfort or security of his FAMILY was threatened would be IRRELEVANT to a monastic: after all, it was precisely in order to deliver the episcopacy from all family concerns that monastics were made candidates for that episcopacy! This is Elementary Knowledge that might be part of ANY catechesis prior to conversion. It should not be too deep for someone with an MDiv and MTeol., let alone a travelling salesman for monasticism! Further egregious conduct of any kind by aember or members of the Holy Synod does not make their acceptance of his resignation egregious. I believe a core element of the Synod realized they’d made a horrible mistake in electing Metropolitan Jonah to ANYTHING. They have never been men enough to come out and say, We made a mistake.” That is just as bads looking back from the plough, IMHO.
Your Grace, respectfully, I believe you are confused about the order of things. It was you after all who created the entire “Stinkbomb” meme that caused a lot of furor on this site. It was you who showed how uncanonical and insubordinate this action was.
Are you now trying to say that bishops meeting in secret to conspire against their primate is somehow not insubordinate?
Mr. Michalopulos,
For as many attempts as I have made to explain the process of employee assistance intervention, it seems to me you redouble your intention to undo and invalidate my effort. I reiterate that such attempts at affecting change are voluntary, are compassionate, are demonstratedly successful, and are proven to be cost-effective for assisting valued “employees/leaders” who are struggling. When it comes to churches – and Orthodox Churches in particular – it is extraordinary. I could be wrong, but I am unaware of any Orthodox jurisdiction in the US that has utilized this now universal technique of saving the careers and vocations in the business community as a parallel for impaired leaders in the hierarchy of the Church. I find your continued reference to this process in the pejorative as uninformed, shortsighted, paranoiac, and disappointing for a professional employed in the healthcare industry. The OCA was under no obligation to offer assistance; the Synod could have demanded Met. Jonah’s resignation pursuant to the identical criteria without ever raising the issue. As a practicing clinician, it is, indeed a lamentable day when, in the words of Irvin Yalom, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Stamford Universty, the “gift of therapy” is seen as punishment and cruelty.
Secondly, the initiation of this process was not conducted in secret; and it is insignificant if his speech was written by himself or the easter bunny, the choice to deliver the words and promise to do “whatever is necessary” to heal the divisions in the OCA – among the hierarchs & the faithful – belonged to the chief hierarch who delivered them. The issue of integrity is never a dead horse! And this leads us to the questions of “conspiracy,” “canonicity,” and “insubordination.” By nature, employee assistance intervention must be meticulously planned and without the knowledge of the person being intervened upon. Why? To purposely limit their ability to sabotage and be pathologically defended against the process. There is a single goal in the intervention process: not to diagnose or judge, but by hearing a documented, meticulous presentation of impaired behaviour, they will accept the help being offered. In fact, it is extraordinary that the consequences for not accepting help are even mentioned. And the fact is, the vast majority of people will accept.
I strongly object to to the interpretation of “meeting in secret” as “conspiracy” and “insubordination” when the ethical imperative is to render assistance. And having trained with real pioneers in a very new field, I can tell you of the disaster of a subordinate – misguidedly informing the one being intervened upon ahead of time – only to have them walk into the room enraged, firing people who really cared about them, and ultimately destroying their business. It is ultimately an ethically supportable decision.
George, Vladyka was pretty clear. No diocesan bishop in the OCA structure is subordinate to the Metropolitan, while all diocesan bishops, including the Metropolitan, are subordinate to the Synod as a whole. This is, in theory, Orthodox polity 101 that distinguishes us from the Roman model, even if some churches are structured in a model where the primate has direct authority over diocesan bishops.
You can thus call the bishops meeting to decide what to do about +Jonah many things, but insubordination is not one of them. Or at least I think that is Vladyka’s point. This does not take anything away from his proper disgust at the Stinkbomb letter or at the Synod’s failure to acknowledge publicly that they bore responsibility for electing someone to that position who wasn’t capable of doing the job.
I assumed that when you were referring to insubordination, you meant chancery employees. I agree that any chancery employees who were answerable directly to the Metropolitan would be insubordinate if they worked to undermine him. But the other bishops? On the contrary, it is the duty of the Synod as a whole to deal with problems related to their own member bishops. Whether such discipline is meted out to all who need it is another issue…
Edward, yes you can in fact call a secret conventicle many things: like uncanonical, irregular and illegal among them. And insubordinate too. Although I would have to admit that in comparison to the first three adjectives, insubordination is a lesser evil.
I don’t think George M. MEANS to wriggle out of being corrected: it just LOOKS LIKE that.
This was the request that George tried not to answe or FACE: “GeorgeM., just for an old man’s sake, please provide examples of ANY CLEAR INSUBORDINATION on the part of any OCA Bishops towards METROPOLITAN Jonah.”
(George openly accused them of that crime.) The OCA Synod has a lot to be held accountable for; however INDISCRIMINATE PILING ON seriously dilutes and weakens the actual case against them. It looks even like fearfulness
Vladyka Tikhon,
83 is the new 63. Sprightliness is a state of mind.
I attended an OCA church for ten years until recently moving. Thank you for your post. The fact that the OCA has 3 living ex metropolitans speaks volumes of the sick state of affairs the OCA has mired itself with. The potrayal of Jonah as a victim is truly pathetic. Focus your attention to the true victims overseas.
do not forget the greeks with spyridon and anthimos – they have not been defrocked either
Anthimos was defrocked.
that is not what his recent obit says, he was retired
Spyridon never did anything wrong. Metropolitan Jonah didn’t do anything wrong. So neither of them would be defrocked. the only thing they did wrong was get on the wrong side of a political agenda that crushed them. Let it go and move on.
As for Anthimos I have no clue as to his current state.
Peter
George, maybe you didn’t use the word “captivity,” but by quoting a spiritual associated with slavery and segregation, I think that for once Francis has a legitimate point — regarding, that is, the overblown (and often flat-out inaccurate) rhetoric that has surrounded this sad episode. It is true that his post would have been more effective without strained and specious reference to his tiresome anti-Russian political rants. I almost didn’t read this particular post of Mr. Frost simply because his posts are so tiresome in that regard that I rarely read them anymore — but actually he made legitimate point after legitimate point in this particular post. It’s OK if no-one bothers to respond to those points, but they are legitimate nonetheless.
In 1972, noting that “it became clear that I could no longer endure and be responsible for the new direction in church life,” Archbishop Amvrossy (Merezhko, +1974) of the OCA Diocese of Pittsburgh & West Virginia, approached Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR, to be accepted into ROCOR. Archbishop Amvrossy was accepted as a retired Bishop. He served in various parishes. This will most probably be, basically, what Metropolitan Jonah does. Which is a satisfactory resolution. While ROCOR has undoubtedly had its share of “clergy acceptance disasters,” our Bishops are much more careful in appointing Bishops …
but why accept damaged good in the first place??????? this just does not pass the sanity test