I wonder if these words praising +Jonah were written by the same Bishop +Benjamin who our Fearless Correspondent (and recently deposed ober-procurator of the OCA) assures us is baby-siting the Metropolitan while on his trip to Prague?
HT: Eastern Orthodox Librarian
Reflections on a Spiritual Journey by Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen
“Metropolitan Jonah graduated from St Vladimir’s Seminary, spent several years in Russia and at Valaam monastery, then returned to the United States. After his tonsure as a monk and ordination to the priesthood, he cared for several small parishes, and was given a blessing to found a monastery in California. The monastery grew, and needed to find a new site to continue to grow. After the move, as before, the monastery saw a constant stream of pilgrims seeking spiritual guidance. It was also becoming known for its publications. Much seemed to depend on Abbot Jonah’s vision.
In the midst of all this, the Diocese of the South needed an auxiliary bishop, and the choice fell on Abbot Jonah, who became Bishop of Fort Worth. Just days afterward, the 15th All American Council met in Pittsburgh, at a critical time for the OCA, and amid much turmoil. The Metropolitan See was vacant, and a new Metropolitan had to be elected. One evening, Bishop Jonah addressed a restive audience about the situation in the church, and as he spoke, the mood changed. And the next morning, the newly ordained Bishop Jonah was elected Primate of the Orthodox Church in America.
“A miracle had somehow quietly taken place. The last had indeed become the first. The abbot of that struggling monastery was elected by the hierarchs, clergy and faithful who had gathered in Pittsburgh to be the Archbishop of Washington and New York, Metropolitan of All America and Canada. His Beatitude’s words inspired the Council on that October night and this book presents a few of his thoughts and writings. May they be a blessing to the reader.”
–Bishop Benjamin, from the Foreword
The Orthodox Christian Profiles Series acquaints the reader on an intimate level with Orthodox figures that have shaped the direction of the Orthodox Church in areas of mission, ascetical and liturgical theology, scholarly and pastoral endeavors, and various other professional disciplines. The people featured in the series are mostly our contemporaries and most remain active in shaping the life of the Church today. A few will have fallen asleep in the Lord, but their influence remains strong and worthy of historical record. The mission of this series is to introduce inspirational Orthodox Christian leaders in various ministries and callings that build up the Body of Christ.”
Pathetic. His friends should have given him his gold watch and retirement dinner three years ago once Herman was gone. Now he’s just a has-been who can’t even get his story straight.
Interesting piece ( “Stokoe’s at it Again” ) just posted on OCAT in response to Stokoe’s latest “Mischief in Moscow” non-event article.
Something strikes me as odd about immediate suspension of clergy as soon as allegations are made. They first need to make sure the allegations are credible on their face (e.g. the accuser is not a known pathological liar, there is no incontrovertible proof that the clergyman is innocent, etc.). Otherwise, they are opening the door to all kinds of abuse against the clergy, like that South Park episode where the kids get rid of all the adults in town by accusing the adults of “melestering” them.
OCAT’s analysis includes this gem:
“…this is not a Synodal issue as Stokoe implies — the canons of the Church are clear that a bishop is not to be interfered with in issues related to his own diocese. St. Catherine’s and Fr. Zacchaeus are directly the responsibilty of the Metropolitan and therefore any bishop who wants to have any more involvement than advising him is overstepping their bounds.”
I am surprised that the representational Church of the Orthodox Church of America is considered to be a part of the Diocese of Washington. Or, perhaps OCAT means that the ruling bishop of the OCA is Metropolitan Jonah. Can anybody help me with these logical impossibilities?
The Representation Church is stavropegial. That puts it under the jurisdiction of the Primate alone.
Carl,
The Representation Church in Moscow is directly under the Metropolitan. As a matter of course, they pray for the Russian Patriarch and Metropolitan Jonah since it is a parish of the Moscow Patriarchate and a Representation Church of the OCA to the MP.
Thus, it is like SVS, STS, St. Sergius Chapel in Syosset, being under the protection of the ruling Metropolitan. Archimandrite Zacchaeus would thus be a priest of the Diocese of Washington since the See of the primate is Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada. But, of course, since the Metropolitan can’t chew gum and walk at the same time, according to Stokoe-Brown, he needs all the help he can get from his “friends.”
I understand that the representation church is under the primate,something that is provided for in the OCA Statute and has the additonal virtue of being a standard practice in the Orthodox world. My problem is with the application to this case of only the canons that forbid a diocesan bishop from interfering in another’s diocese. It seems to me that there are other canons and provisions of the OCA Statute that may have to be considered–canons and statutory provisions that would indicate that the primate should not do anything that affects the entire local church without the consent of his fellow bishops. I have no idea what exactly happened in the case of the good archimandrite and I am not at all certain that the OCAN piece is on the mark. I am just disputing the right of any OCA primate to make decisions that affect the entire OCA as if he is making a decision about his own diocese. What I mean by this is that obviously a primate has the power to make decisions that affect those institutions and functions entrusted to his care. For example, if +Jonah had told his representative to quite drinking so much (whatever), I doubt that it would have affected the entire church. So, the powers of the primate must be tempered not only by the canons and the statute, but also by common sense.
So if the metropolitan’s actions may cause others to talk (i.e. Stokoe and his ilk) then the Metropolitan may not act without the consent of the Synod? How does that work? Majority vote? Unanimous consent? How is this concept limited Carl? If a popular priest in the Diocese is suspended or reinstated, does that require Synod consent? At the same time no such restrictions attach to any other bishop? Bishop Benjamin can go to Alaska and kick up a fuss about oil drilling or bay pollution or whatever, and he is answerable to no one, but the Metropolitan cannot decide who serves in a parish under his direct supervision? Honestly, the reaches that people will go to to tar and feather Metropolitan Jonah are appalling. Stokoe’s article is a hit piece that would be torn to shreds by any respectable journalistic critique. Who are the victims? What are the allegations? What specific legal threat exists? Why is that threat magnified by the Metropolitan’s actions? You won’t find a single word of that from Stokoe — just spin and innuendo and the Stokoe-philes come running rabidly out of their caves and crevices unabashedly parroting his nonsense without a single bit of critical insight.
Forgive me for speaking harshly, but this is enough. God bless +Matthias for seeing what a force of darkness OCA News has become.
Carl,
What is lacking in all of this is trust. Without trust, every action taken by Jonah or anyone else, will be questioned. The OCA has lost the trust factor and all of the institutional changes it has made have not restored basic trust. I am not really sure that trust is even considered that important any longer. The de facto starting point in the OCA these days is “don’t trust anyone or anything” or “don’t trust and verify.”
We still appear to be in the “over-correction” phase as we work things out coming to grips with what we were told our bad old past was, and what it actually was. Too many people with too many agendas have been writing that history and one fallout of this is no one trusts anyone.
Stokoe wants Jonah out. Benjamin called for Jonah’s resignation on Monday. Benjamin is sent to Prague with Jonah to “babysit” him. No trust and too many agendas just right there. Add on top of that the current Moscow Representation Church situation and you have additional manifestations of no trust.
I don’t believe that Jonah has done much to quell the movement to remove him but certainly his actions can be easily turned into additional fodder by his detractors.
Until trust returns, the OCA will be rudderless and her stock will continue to sink. Just look at the tragic numbers of new students to SVS and STS this year. If young men don’t see trust in their leaders, why would they want to risk investing their lives for the work of the OCA? I know of at least 6 men who have said “No” to going to seminary whereas a couple of years ago they were all ready to go. Hopefully things will improve and their confidence to make such a sacrifice will return.
Powers of the primate, decisions of the primate, the primate and the Synod, the Synod and the Primate, all of these relationships can be well documented in Statues and Canons, but without trust, they are just words on paper.
When and where did that happen?
Yes, I’d be interested in that information as well. If accurate, I will be burning up the phone lines to all Synod members calling for Bp. Benjamin’s resignation. That Bp. Benjamin succeeded in squelching the sexual misconduct investigation of himself is bad enough, but to continue his vendetta against Met. Jonah after that “victory” is beyond the pale.
Think back to Stokoe’s whining about “retaliation” against Fr. Garklavs and the OCA’s whistleblower protections. Funny how he didn’t seem to notice the retaliation against Metropolitan Jonah for blowing the whistle on Bishop Benjamin.
On the subject of Bishop Benjamin’s glowing words about Met. Jonah, they were probably written several months to a year ago. This book has probably been in the works for at least that long. It’s part of a planned series. So I am sorry to say it may not reflect Bishop Benjamin’s feelings or character any more.
However, if I’m not mistaken, they didn’t really publicize this series ahead of time, and SVS Press surely could have spiked it at some point after all this anti-Jonah stuff came to a head if they didn’t want to publish it.
He probably calls for his resignation every Monday.
Literally LOL’d at this.
You are misreading me. I am not talking about any one individual but process, which is infinitely more important. However, since you brought up Stokoe’s piece, let’s talk about it.
Assumption: St Catherine’s is the representation church of the OCA, something akin to an embassy. However, unlike an US ambassador who represents the Executive Branch of the government and the State–that is, the person of the President, the cleric assigned to head the representation church represents three entities; The OCA as a whole, the Holy Synod that is the supreme canonical authority, and the Metropolitan, who is the bishop designated to be the face and voice of the Church in relations with other heads of churches.
Fact: the official news outlet of the OCA announced that the Metropolitan had recalled the Archimandrite. There seems to have been no objections by anybody, so the presumption here is that the Metropolitan did not act alone but represented the will of the Holy Synod.
Fact: The Archimandrite did not do as ordered. He seemed to have had a good excuse as he was hospitalized. No need to speculate about this.
Fact: Russian web site reported that the Archimandrite had served a liturgy with the blessing of the Metropolitan. Again, I have no idea if this report is true and what the circumstances were. There may have been a good reason, after all, for the Archimandrite to have served one last time before reporting to his superior in the United States in accordance with the order of his superior, the Metropolitan.
Speculation in OCAT: That there was at least one bishop who did not like what had happened.
Speculation in OCAN: That the Metropolitan had not held a steady course in accordance with the previous decree.
Interpretation in OCAT and here: The homosexual lobby is out to get the Metropolitan again.
Interpretation in OCAN: The Metropolitan is flying solo again.
Let’s just stick to facts and principles and not to principals, no matter how much we like them.
Unfortunately Carl, It’s hard to make a judgment on principles if the facts are incorrect or at least very suspect.
True. Are you having an issue with the facts as I laid them out? I am ready to be corrected.
Yes, Carl, as usual, your ‘facts’ are not facts at all, but rather your take on minimizing the role of the Metropolitan. The ‘fact’ is that the Metropolitan needs no permission to discipline one of his priests. The dean of the representation church is under the authority of the Metropolitan. Every priest is under the authority of one (and only one) bishop and the dean of the representation church is no different in this respect. There is no reason at all to assume that the Metropolitan needed anyone’s permission to discipline one of his priests. However, if he did indeed consult with the Holy Synod, he would have done so out of propriety but not out of canonical necessity.
Fact: Mark Stokoe is a homosexual.
Fact: Mark Stokoe is out to get Metropolitan Jonah.
Fact: Mark Stokoe is out to get Metropolitan Jonah again.
Fact: The homosexual lobby is out to get Metropolitan Jonah.
Fact: Some bishops in the OCA have been and are homosexuals.
Fact: Some bishops in the OCA are out to get Metropolitan Jonah.
Fact: 1 + 1=2
Are they “card carrying” homosexuals, or just homosexuals?
I dare say you are fortunate that Frs. Schmemman & Meyendorff and Prof. S.S. Verhosvskoy are not alive to witness your ill-gotten “authority” and obsessive penchant for nothing short of cheap, self-serving gossip; idle talk at best, childish tattle-tale prattle at its worst. While their own church politics were undeniably “Byzantine”, they were intelligent enough, and being men of character and integrity, they were keenly aware that simply because something is fact does not mean it is prudent, wise, or acceptable to be mean-spirited, disrespectful, or capricious (Well.. there was the one time Fr. Alexander said in class, “Alexander Tcherepnin died, and hope to God they bury his music with him,” but I digress). The first words out of Fr. Alexander’s mouth would be, “And who are you?” You know nothing of real tribulation, of the trials of the Church after the Russian Revolution, the World War, or about surviving in a godless State. You have no perspective. Go ahead, squeak it out to them from behind your wall of anonymity: “We are defenders of Orthodoxy.” No, you are poseurs. Trust the Patristic Fathers: gossip and power are the road to despair
I, for one, would feel deeply saddened to image that Metropolitan Jonah goes to bed feeling “vindicated” or “defended” by the bluster he might read here. In fact, I would be sad to think he even reads it.
If we were in the schoolyard and you said that to me at recess, you bully, I would like to push you right down in the sand and point my finger in your face but I just don’t care. I wouldn’t bother. Grrrr….. don’t you judge me. You have no clue. No clue at all…
Now, to address your points. I know tribulation and my American ancestors also know tribulation, hunger, homelessness and hardship. I know what it is to go hungry, to nearly die from sickness in the heart of a godless country, to minister to orphans, prostitutes, drug addicts, criminals. I know what it is to live in third world countries and hold dying children in my arms. I know what it is to give my life away for the Church. Even so, I would hesitate to put my experiences in the same sentence with those faithful saints down through the centuries who have truly suffered and remained faithful. If Father Alexander Schmemann came to visit me he might say, “Hello, and thanks for all your hard work.” So don’t judge when you don’t know.
It’s maddening to be shoved into a pile of your judgment, with your high-minded wording and your quotations. First you say we are gossips and then you say we are stating fact but are mean-spirited in the way we state it. Which is it? You had better stick with the fact that facts are being stated and address those facts. The facts are that the leadership in the Orthodox Church, not only the OCA, but the Antiochians and the GOA, has been and is corrupt and destroys lives.
If you reply with another insulting comment, you won’t hear back from me.
Signed,
Jane Rachel
Jane Rachel, don’t let Michael Stankovich get under your skin. He is just another long-term OCA insider (nearly 20 years) with strong ties to St. Vlad’s (interestingly enough, this during Mrs. Stokoe-Brown’s seminarian days – wonder if they are acquainted? – rhetorical question). As with many ‘professional academics’ he appears quite adept at looking down his nose at others (I do, however, find his continued name dropping somewhat humorous – yes, Michael, we are all sooooo impressed). Like I said, don’t give him the satisfaction.
Jane,
Stanky is an old classmate and friend of Stokoe. He is his latest shill along with Carl. What they won’t allow themselves to believe is that here, they can spew and pontificate, but try and do that on the Open and Transparent Site of Markey and you won’t get posted.
Let me say that if “Prof” Verhovskoy were alive today, he would say to Arida and Vinogradov, in his cute accent,
“And so, my dear, you are a heretic” and give them a big fat “H” on their papers.
It is also interesting that during their days at SVS, Fr Alexander made his famous “I will not be the Dean of a pot-smoking homosexual seminary” speech. Oh, it might have been before their time, let’s be fair, but you get my point.
The now discredited Mark Stokoe is not what he cracked himself up to be. We all know that now. His agenda was exposed and you can’t put that Genie back in the bottle. Full Stop!
How dare you invoke the legacy of Frs Schmemann and Meyendorff! If they have seen what you and Stokoe have done to the OCA, and to their student Jim Paffhausen, they will surely have turned in their graves.
I am the legacy of Frs. Schmemman & Meyendorff, Prof. S. S. Verhovskoy, and I would add Fr. Thomas Hopko as well. These are the four most formative and influential individuals in my life. I make no apologies. What you call “name dropping,” I call invoking the wisdom of my teachers. Fr. Alexander once quoted Bernard Shaw to me: “in the presence of great art, it is best to simply remove one’s hat and shut up.” I listened when they spoke. And you should be “sooooo impressed” because those were extraordinary times and these are extraordinary men to whom I refer.
While, I have never trained as a shill, judging by your reactions, I apparently demonstrate some talent. Frankly, if you are going to name-call, I prefer “stooge.”
And for the record, Fr. Alexander did not say, “I will not be the Dean of a pot-smoking, homosexual seminary.” He said, “I will not be the Dean of a pot-smoking homosexual joint.” While he did not intend the pun, it was the mid-1970’s, after all, and was not lost on us.
Well, at least it’s clear now.
Stanky,
You ain’t the only one who was trained by them and we all have our favorite Fr AS stories. We all have our particular memories of these men. And your point?
And you are correct, it was “joint.” But he told me he did intend the pun!!!
😉
Just wondering, who was Metropolitan at the time, Ireney or Theodosius?
M. Stankovich says:
August 26, 2011 at 11:46 am
pompous |ˈpämpəs|
adjective
affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important : a pompous ass who pretends he knows everything.
Great. I willingly accept your imprimatur, “pompous ass,” and accept that you don’t like my attitude. Let us proceed, shall we?
As Salt-N-Pepa once said: “Straight up, wait up, hold up – let me bring it back to the subject.” Does someone actually intend to defend this unseemly thread of disrespectful and disparaging (different than castigating or correcting – perhaps Nikos could look it up) comments directed against the God-chosen, anointed, and consecrated bishops of the Church? Has the “Grace Divine” vacated them, and the Church is no longer “where the Bishop is?” I suppose you could begin by explaining why the Bishop/Priest would pray that God would not “withhold Grace” because of their own sinfulness. Even the dead, incapable of defense in this world, are not exempt: “I don’t want to spread rumor, but…” “Where do I find that link?” And Σοφία· Ὀρθοί: wisdom and discernment is knowing when “fact” should be used to resolve conflict, rather than to malign and create conflict. Yours is logic and rationalization born of cowardly internet anonymity, that allows you to throw rocks over the fence without personal responsibility.
I am an OCA insider “of longstanding,” and you would ascribe responsibility and loathe me for the mess that is your OCA administration? You have crossed the line into fantasy. I was not a part of the OCA while I was at SVS, and I am not a part of the OCA now. Sleep now in your own fire. “Strong ties to SVS?” I ignore their funding campaigns and instead send money to a former classmate, a priest abandoned by your OCA, who lives in obscurity, paralyzed by Multiple Sclerosis. I will happily provide his contact information should you be so moved to help.
Ichabod.
Good for you Stanky. You help Fr. Michael. Good for you, you don’t support SVS. Anything else we should know about you?
Seriously, the whole point here is that folks on this website, and others like OCAT, many of whom drank the Stokoe kool aid, now realize that his reporting and motives were and are not as noble as once thought.
You will notice that good old George lets you post whatever you want. I would doubt if he monitors your comments. You write, they get posted. You won’t find that on the “Accountable and Transparent” site. Stokoe’s site is tightly controlled by carefully posting comments that serve his purpose. I guess because it is his website and he can and does do with it whatever he wants – and he does in a proactive manner to promote his agenda
George, and I think almost everyone here, is not afraid of the give and take of such a forum. I hope you are not. Some may get testy, like yourself, some enjoy baiting, one is free not to bite, some could be a bit “Beckian” in seeing folks with guns on “grassy knolls” but after years of undiluted and unchallenged Stokoe, there are now places where his view of things is not only being countered but refuted. Heck, his own bishop considers him to be counterproductive. That is a far cry from his days of total protection under Archbishop Job. The playing field has shifted.
So, let’s get back to basics and the whole point of this tread, Stokoe, by his own admission, wants Jonah out. He has “conspired” with bishops, clergy and laity to put pressure on Jonah to quit or be removed. He has exposed himself as the ultimate insider. Stokoe was at the center of the attempted Santa Fe coup. He failed because people spoke up and exposed him. Many here want Jonah to stay as Metropolitan, and others don’t care one way or the other. So why not take a deep breath, decide if you want to keep wading in these waters and have a nice weekend.
BTW, in that famous Fr AS SVS speech, wasn’t there a crab infestation too that hacked him off and the place had to be fumigated? Dang, that place was colorful back then! Maybe too colorful?
Actually, Ignatius, from a largely lurker’s point of view this forum seems a feeding zone where prey verbally torn asunder by predators. There’s no real “give and take,” there’s mostly “grip and rip.”
This is a site that has confused winning political battles with winning spiritual ones, and having the sharpest tongue with being right.
It’s not surprising that many here were allies of Stokoe at one time, they’ve changed their alliances but nothing else. And the sharp tongues and intellectual posturing here is in every way as banal and tiresome as what I’ve witnessed among homosexuals. From “Mrs. Brown” to “Stokovites,” this site is a mirror of catty homosexual banter.
It’s a disheartening place.
I know what real legacies of Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorff, and Professor Verhovskoy, look like. Senator, you are NO Jack Kennedy.
The irony of your vapid “sarcasm” is that Sen. Benson stood within feet of Dan Quayle, looked him squarely in the eyes – taking complete ownership & responsibility for his confrontation – and made this remarkable statement. You have determined it appropriate to anonymously employ this quotation as a cheap convention. And more ironic is the fact that, based solely on several “reports” above, filed by correspondents of “Jackass: The Movie,” you feel confident to express your mortification at what I have done to the OCA. The truth is that you don’t know the first thing about me, and I am saddened and embarrassed for your lack of discernment. Apparently I am undeserving of the simple charity that suggests truth precede castigation. By contrast, my comments are based solely on your words.
I came to this site as an educated scientist – not with the prideful presumptuous assertion that I am a theologian – interested in the discussion of homosexuality and same-sex attraction, with the expressed “agenda” of delineating the fundamental distinction between same-sex attraction and same-sex sexual activity. Click on Read all comments if you don’t know what I have said. I have sincerely invited correction of any factual error I have made, fully believing the integrity of data is paramount to discussion. To date, no one has corrected me as to factual error.
Only secondarily have I strongly taken exception to scurrilous, mean-spirited remarks from anonymous “stone casters” who process and re-process (or as the Fathers say, “like dogs returning to their own vomit”) the same lame information for the next batch of would-be “scandalists.” I find all this despicable and cowardly. And yet, no one – not one – has assumed contrived “internet boldness” to defend this behaviour as other than I have described it.
“Ignatius” asks if there is anything else you should know about me. Hmm… did I mention I believe that anonymous “stone casting” is cowardly and despicable?
Tell that to Stokoe since you’re so perturbed about “anonymous stone casting.” Unless he attended the Holy Synod meeting in Santa Fe, he owes it to his readers to tell us who the bishop was who leaked +Jonah’s speech. You know, in the interest of Accountability and Transparency.
Stanky,
“The truth is that you don’t know the first thing about me, and I am saddened and embarrassed for your lack of discernment.”
A complete biographical and professional CV is not necessary to post here and I don’t doubt your many years of work in NY and CA. Your resume is a credit to you. You post. You make your points. You present your arguments. People either accept them, reject them or consider them. As you well know, you can’t force anyone to change or even listen. Your comments here have been helpful to the discussion, no need to take it so personal. Go lightly and sorry about the shill crack. We don’t choose our parents but we do choose our friends and so be it.
Kudos for your achievements Mr. Stankovich from a fellow MSW, LCSW, QCSW, etc., etc. Now, can we move on?
You increasingly sound like the former “Anonymous Because It’s All The Rage.” I’d ask it there were any connection, but that would likely trigger yet another screed so I’ll forgo the query.
Stanky,
I think most of us on this blog know the difference between same-sex attraction and same-sex sex. I guess it is sort of like wanting to rob a bank and robbing a bank.
Actually Jesus said that if we even think lust, we are sinning. Matthew 5:27-28. ” You have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not commit adultery, but I say unto you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ”
From this example, I gather that Jesus is very interested in how, what we think. From my reading of the text he seems to be equating thinking about doing something with doing it. God is very interested in what goes on in our hearts. And all of us have stuff stored away in our hearts that is not to the liking of God. We have lots to wrestle with.
St. Macarius on the Heart
The heart itself is but a small vessel, yet dragons are there, and there are also lions; there are poisonous beasts and all the treasures of evil. But there too is God, the angels, the life and the kingdom, the light and the apostles, the heavenly cities and the treasuries of grace—all things are there. (H.43.7)
So what’s your point? And btw, do you honestly think that Schmemand, Meyendorff, et al would approve of the way Syosset has treated HB? Would he also approve of the attempts to engage in “dialogue” with those who want the Church to sanction homosexual couplings?
Even though I’ve never met these men I rather doubt it.
You hit it right on the nail! What we have here is bunch of vigilantes, who get high from hate and fear. That is, they feel important and sanctified by their fear mongering and hatred that blinds them and darkens their soul.
pretentious |priˈten ch əs|
adjective
attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed
Carl, would you please specifically point out what you consider “fear’ and “hate-mongering”?
While I will grant a certain lack of taste in some of the comments on both sides of the issues. Fear and hate-mongering I don’t see except on Stokoe’s site which I have avoided since early in the contest. I avoided it because I have gone through too much pain from the scapegoating that was/is clearly going on there.
Those who call for unity for unity’s sake are fooling themselves.
+Jonah probably doesn’t read the web much . . .
There was a song called “Blinded by the Light.” In your case, as with others, I cannot figure out if you are blinded by the fear of rampant homosexuality or by your love for Metropolitan Jonah.
You confuse what you see as “love for Metropolitan Jonah” with what it really is, love for the canonical ordering of the church. It seems that the recent breathless popularity of conciliarity (a la Stokoe and his ilk) is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at weakening a particular individual office. First it was the office of the Chancellor (how’s that working out?) and now it’s the office of the Metropolitan. Soon we’ll see the real ‘synod’ of the OCA (Stokoe and his ilk) get their way: Browbeat Metropolitan Jonah into resignation from the office of Metropolitan, then put in a series of pliable rotating dupes to be temporary administrators for months at a time so that no one can can gain a foothold, relying on the powers-behind-the-scenes to run the show. It’s truly diabolical.
Fact: Almost every move by anyone in this case has been disputed by somebody. That comes with the territory when lawyers are involved. Also, an official representation (even not one that is a Church) is not the same thing as an embassy. The facts of the case show your first assumption and fact listing to be off base.
Fact: This whole thing would have been a LOT less distracting, embarrassing and cumbersome for the right people to deal with if oca.org and ocanews.org had been more restrained.
Interpretation: Stokoe and Co. have been in the business of character assassination from day one. This seems to be just another go-round. And funny how the people they keep picking on are those who didn’t fully cooperate with the Kondratick SIC.
Fact: I did not speculate that the “homosexual cabal” is again out to get HB. Just “those whose advice HB did not follow”.
BTW, I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear in stating that though St. Catherine’s and her priest are not located within the Metropolitan’s diocese the same canons apply They are not the Synod’s responsibility, and any move to make it such serves to make the office of Metropolitan idiosyncratically powerless. Thanks to all who helped clear that up on my behalf.
Thanks, Jesse. Can you clear up the statement “The Synod decided not to act”? Does that mean they are simply not interested in getting involved, or do they actively disagree with the one complaining bishop?
Also, one issue that I think has not been adequately dealt with by anyone is Stokoe’s source on the Synod. This is a bishop who is actively and anonymously undermining the Metropolitan’s rightful leadership, using a layman as a proxy. This violates every precept of canonical order in the Church.
It seems clear to me that the purpose of this proxy war is not to fight for truth and accountability or whatever, but to simply manipulate public opinion to serve certain interests. Those interests include, but are likely not limited to, the shameful acceptance of homosexual activity as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” so-called pastoral issue.
I agree, that person, whoever it may be, needs to just stop doing this. All this does is cause harm with no good outcome.
Lola, Helga, et al: I agree with you, this rogue bishop (whoever he is) should stop feeding confidential info to Stokoe. The question is: why doesn’t he? Perhaps he’s so morally compromised himself that he’s being blackmailed by Stokoe (and the Syosset crew).
Remember what I said last March about The Dumping Ground? The laity of the various jurisdictions have decided to make a virtue out of necessity. Since there are several miscreant priests/losers within the ranks, then promote them to bishop and control the jurisdiction through them.
It’s the only thing that makes sense. In Stokoe’s case, he couldn’t make the cut to be priest (and if the bar was low back then, what with Theodosius as primate,). So what’s he do? get a job at Syosset as some muckety-muck, getting paid for traveling here and there, but otherwise not really doing anything of substance. He gets fired but having smelled the incense, can’t cut loose, so he agitates to be on the MC. Get’s fired once, starts a blog, gets back on, evens some scores, makes more of a ruckus, then gets fired again.
This is not a track record to be proud of. It’s just a long trail of destruction and gossip.
It would have been nipped in the bud had we had moral men in the priesthood and episcopate. Instead we didn’t. We had men who were morally compromised and others who used people like Stokoe (and Drezhlo) for their own purposes.
George,
It is a known and proven fact that Bishop Mark (Maymon) was the direct conduit for information to Mark Stokoe during his Antiochian and discredited days as the Administrator of the DOS. He is part of the episcopacy of the OCA and thus privy to episcopal conversations and information. Rogue bishop?
I’m not sure that he was at Santa Fe though. I fear another bishop fed MS the info.
Bishop Mark was very much there.
I stand corrected.
Bishop Mark was in Santa Fe, but I have my doubts that he is the only one who has been leaking to Stokoe. In February, he simply hadn’t been around long enough to develop the deep-seated hatred of Met. Jonah that would drive a person to do this.
My guess is that it’s both Bishop Melchisedek and Bishop Benjamin. Both have possible skeletons in their closets. Both could be defrocked if the rumors turned out to be fact. And both stood to lose everything if Met. Jonah continued with the women’s monastery and the complaint against Bp. Benjamin.
That should teach me to write comments while I’m literally falling asleep. What I meant was that both of these bishops stood to lose everything if either Met. Jonah had been allowed to accept those nuns from Greece, thus putting Bishop Melchisedek in a vise, or if Met. Jonah had been able to proceed with the investigation of the complaint against Bishop Benjamin.
In other words, Bishops Melchisedek and Benjamin each had a problem, and both problems could be solved by removing or discrediting Met. Jonah.
Helga, I know for a fact that as of late 2010, Bp Mark and the Metropolitan had a high regard for each other. We in the South were elated at the possibility that Mark was going to be elected as our bishop. +Jonah was looking forward to it as well. So this observation very much buttresses your point. Hence I’d agree with you and put my money on another bishop being the leaker.
Will it suffice to say that (a) they have been presented with an objection to the Metropolitan’s actions/ inactions and that (b) there has been no serious dialog (or any dialog at all to my knowledge) upon hearing the objection and (c) they certainly not made any statement or action as a body about the situation? It was never even a serious candidate for them to decided/ vote not to act on it. Therefore the collective actions of each individual bishop precipitated my comment.
I don’t want to presume to know or be able to encapsulate every bishop’s thoughts and feelings about the situation, so I’ll stop there.
I would encourage people not to get too fired up about a bishop having a problem with the actions of another bishop and bringing it to his brothers. If he has a point, they’ll handle it; and if he doesn’t, they won’t. What we should be fired up about is that internal Synodal actions are being leaked and discussed online, as you pointed out. I know I share some of what I know, but I try to keep it to just what is corrective to the lies and politicking the existing leaks create.
When the leaks stop, I should be useless. The “game” I play is a game of catch-up — because my ultimate goal it is to see the Synod be able to act like a Synod.
That means that they are transparent and accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, not to Mark Stokoe.
Thanks for that. It seems like if Met. Jonah’s actions really posed the threat to the OCA that Stokoe claims, the other bishops would be all over this. What I was hoping for, though, was that one of them had told the complainer where to step off. I guess one can’t have everything in life.
I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately, I think the very existence of leak(s) within the Synod compromise its ability to ever work effectively, even if the leaker(s) somehow stopped giving information to Stokoe. A good bishop should be repulsed by the idea of undermining and abusing the primate like this, even if they have serious disagreements with one another. A good bishop would work out his differences with the primate face to face. And faithful Christians should be repulsed by a bishop who would launch such a vicious attack on the primate, even if the primate did turn out to be in the wrong about whatever issue it was that precipitated the disagreement.
It is my sincere hope that all parties will be able to repent and forgive one another. But if we are to keep this ship from sinking, we can’t just keep bailing water out of it. We have to go down deep and find the source of the problem. Otherwise, the problem will eventually get so bad that we will have to gather up who we can and head to the lifeboats, and hope another ship in our convoy will pick up the survivors.
My personal aim is to at least put a lifejacket on Met. Jonah, by preserving his reputation and livelihood, in case the Dread Pirate Stookey makes him walk the plank.
It is a pity. I had thought you were going to do a bit more than offer a declarative sentence, a mere conclusion that is not backed by any analysis. You did not address the fact of the OCA org announcement about the Archimandrite; are you implying that Metropolitan Jonah did not suspend him and ordered him to the United States? Is this some kind of post facto justification for the events since then? Is this yet another smoke and mirrors ploy that turns ordinary meanings of words and concepts (like leave of absence) on their heads?
There is plenty of smoke and dozens of mirrors being set up all around this situation. (Lawyers are involved after all.) Your accusation of turning the ordinary into something extraordinary applies, but not because of me. It is because of the sad, sad fact that this was handled so publicly from the get go.
The fact is that several people made very bad decisions, and I believe some of them were utterly malicious. It is also the fact that the CA’s part in bungling all this happened on Met. Jonah’s watch. If they are his staff (and I think they are, and that it only makes sense that they should be) than the buck should stop with him — regardless if it was an underling’s malicious or idiotic mistake.
Jesse is right enough when he writes “Stokoe and Company have been in the business of character assassination from day one.” However, I think it’s a little more serous than that. They claim to be Orthodox Christians while bearing false witness against their neighbor daily. Of course to someone who thinks he is the heritage of Protopresbyter Hopko, who bore false witness against a brother priest, Fr. Joseph Fester, on Day One of the Great Fast: the morning after Vespers with the Office of Forgiveness and recommended listening to what Mrs. Steve Brown had to say, false witness is no big thing at all.
One wrote of an ancient connection between Mrs. Steve Brown and another contributor here. The most ancient, enduring friendships of Mrs. Steve Brown are with Bishop Benjamin and Eric Wheeler, going back to SVS days. Are there any SVS grads who studied whilst Frs. Schmeman and Meyendorff were teaching there, who is not the direct and infallible channel of what they taught? It was such dogmatic ‘heirs” of Father Alexander Schmeman who, when ordained, were the source of much provocation and aggravation for him.
I often think of him when I hear the word “conciliarity” mouthed like a one-word mantra. On one visit to St. Innocent Church, Tarzana, he remarked impatiently (not a rare occurrence); “We seem to have entered an age of slogans. You can make a slogan out of ANYTHING, even the Eucharist!!!”
Then he followed that up with a non-apologetic apology.
And, on top of that Your Grace, would you believe that Pp Hopko has podcast series on Ancient Faith Radio titled “Speaking the Truth in Love,” and “Worship in Spirit and Truth”? That galls me!
Your grace–I had visited St. Innocent at Tarzana before you had become the diocesan bishop. It was a beacon for Orthodoxy and a vibrant community of believers. Sadly, during your oversight, St. Innocent had become a shadow of itself. I am not saying that you caused that decline, but I do want to point out that I find it curious that you should even mention that Church even in passing.
Regarding Father Fester, Father Fester’s letter to the DOS priests and his attempt to get Bishop Mark to lie on behalf of Metropolitan Jonah amply justify Father Hopko’s rightful condemnation of him. There was no false witness there at all on the part of Father Hopko. I am actually surprised that you have and are condemning Father Hopko when your ire should be directed towards Father Fester whose conduct was conduct unbecoming of an Orthodox person, let alone an Archpriest.
While I am sure that Carl’s compliment is much to be appreciated, and I certainly appreciate his prayerful best wishes, I really, really don’t think that the parish of St. Innocent in Tarzana is germane in any way to this discussion. Rest assured, the majority (nearly all) of the flock entrusted to my care don’t follow Monomakhos, OCAnews, or OCATruth. They ought to be left out of this. Thank you.
Kraeff, this is a serious charge. Evidence?
You are kidding me, right? Are you insinuating that you have not read neither of those leaked communications? I am just flabbergasted. Aren’t you the person who posted the following inJune of this year, a posting that shows you actively following the events as they were covered by both OCAN and OCAT?
” Mark Stokoe broke the Romfea story just a few hours after it was posted too. This smells like the stolen emails scam. Stokoe and Bp Mark were in bed together while Stokoe made it look like the emails came over the transom. Was Stokoe in bed with the person who leaked to Romfea?
We know Stokoe’s story was pre-written and ready to go even though he made it seem he whipped it up in a couple of hours. He scammed his readers. We also know that he collaborated with others in a plot as the email leaked to Bp. Tikhon shows.
How come Stokoe keeps popping up? First Stokoe and the plotters, then +Mayman, and now the Santa Fe leaker. Who is it? Who else is Stokoe in bed with?
The leaker better be worried. The first two were revealed. He will be too. Divine justice at work.
» Posted By Ian James On June 22, 2011 @ 9:06 pm”
I do not intend to play games with you Mr. James.
Carl,
You didn’t answer his reasonable question.
So you are playing games. But they are pretty serious games. One might say gravely troubled games.
I asked for evidence. Where is it?
Not that anything will change with this information, but I submit: No one is admitting or telling just ‘+Who’ gave the misinformation to Romfea of the demise of +JONAH, but the best guess is that it was the +Bishop with closest ties to Greece – who; a.) was in the meeting in Santa Fe, and b.) was a major player in the conspiracy to remove +JONAH (see note below) and c.) then maneuvered himself into a position to do serious rummaging thorough files in the central administration offices of the OCA. The story printed in Romfea follows the exact outline of the plan hatched, and thankfully bungled, by the conspirators. He/She who immediately published this manufactured and yet bungled story, was part of the conspiracy. How could it be otherwise? One other thing is clear – Romfea is much more careful now about printing missives from +sources in America.
NOTE: (as evidenced by the documents of Garklavs outlining the entire plan, and the names of those associated with it – this particular evidence being in the hands of the Metropolitan, it is his prerogative alone to publish it or not)
Anon, excellent detective work. Perhaps the time is coming soon for a rehash of the entire Romfea angle and how we got to here from there.
I like your overall narrative however, how the Garklavs/Mel/Ben/Syosste/Stokovite bunch were carefully coordinating their plans with Romfea. I also like how you mentioned that they “bungled” the entire plot.
I’ve been watching that particular bishop since February, and there’s just something about the way he and people in his diocese have been reacting to this that makes me think this bishop and his entourage have probably been plotting to undermine Met. Jonah for a long time.
Also, notice who’s on the Lesser Synod: three quarters of the Appalled Four, and poor Met. Jonah.
Anon says: this particular evidence being in the hands of the Metropolitan, it is his prerogative alone to publish it or not)
And he probably won’t publish it if he is the kind of person I think he is. Just an observation that persons living in Christ won’t fan the flames even when being mercilessly persecuted. Everyone who’s been attacked by Stokoe and his team without benefit of scriptural process and order, and did not respond like Met. Jonah deserves a rehash.
Of course you’re right, Moose. I think it is not at all insignificant that, unlike everyone else in the OCA who’s been fishing around other people’s emails lately, Met. Jonah has never published the emails he took from Fr. Garklavs, only used them within his capacity as employer.
I agree with you. We should also consider that there is a world of difference between formal and personal authority. When a leader starts to order folks around, he is well underway to reliance on formal authority alone. Another thing, personal authority cannot be maintained by tearing other people down, either by the leader’s supporters or by himself.
I take it you’ll be phoning Bp. Benjamin to inform him of this?
No, I was thinking of you and other folks here, on OCAT, and elsewhere whose protective instincts are on overdrive. In fact, this protectionism has gotten so bad that those who criticize Stokoe for underhanded, skewed rumor mongering are guilty themselves of the same behavior. Almost like a scorched earth approach.
Didn’t think so. The good Lord only knows where the OCA would be if we hadn’t engaged in this overblown “protectionism” when our Metropolitan was (apparently *not*) targeted for elimination by one means or another. Thankfully we have folk like you, Mrs. Stokoe-Brown, and good ‘ole Bp. Benjamin to keep us in check. (Yes, the sounds you hear are my eyeballs rolling on the floor.)
Herc, you’ve forgotten the first rule of the Stokovites: they can criticize, we can’t. It’s really that simple.
I’ll take the appellation “Stokovite” with pride and gratitude, if you mean someone who takes seriously the important things in Church life: the Holy Canons, the Holy Scriptures, the OCA Statute, and healthy respect for one’s leaders. I am puzzled that I have offended y’all by agreeing with Stokoe at times. I have news for you: Metropolitan Jonah is not perfect and that’s not a big deal. A Metropolitan is also not what many of you think it is: he is not a super bishop. When you disrespect the national officers and bishops, you are disrespecting the Church and the Holy Spirit. You must quit being partisans of one person, no matter how right and great he may be, and start being a force for unity. Otherwise, you are in danger of becoming members of the Cult of Jonah rather than the Holy Orthodox Church.
Carl, you’re accusing us of things we don’t believe.
1. We don’t believe +Jonah is perfet.
2. Stokoe no more believes in the canons and protocols of the Church than does the man on the moon.
3. He certainly has no “healthy respect for church leaders.” His obsession with +Jonah requires pharmacotherapy.
4. Nobody here, and I mean NOBODY believes that the office of Metropolitan is that of “super-bishop.”
5. Are incapable of seeing the irony of your 3rd-to-the-last sentence?
6. Unity is simply impossible where there is no love. Clearly the Syosset Stooges have had, nor have, no love for +Jonah and have made his day miserable from day one. As have two of the bishops, one of which recently wrote a laudatory introduction published by SVS. Either he’s lying through his teeth or he’s trying to make nice.
Carl, would the “serious things in church life” also be the sanction of gay “marriage” in the Church?
Would it also be bearing false witness against other priests, bishops, and the primate?
1. Never.
2. Never again. So why is it being done here on this site as it is alleged to be done elsewhere? Is the Orthodox way to return fire by fire? To listen to the (fill in your choice adjective) babblings of a vindictive Internet Bishop?
I’m looking in my bible for the term National Officers and I don’t see it at all. Help me out here. Are you saying that the Metropolitan Council and all of these ‘officers’ are somehow connected to the organic life of the church?
Here’s a little exercise for you:
Q: What would the OCA be without bishops? A: Not a church.
Q: What would the OCA be without the Metropolitan Council. A: A church.
Just one more question.
Q: What would the OCA be without Syossett and all its perks? A: $105/member richer at the diocese level. See NY resolution for more detail.
This definately bears some looking into. Personally, I think a lot of what Syosset does can be subcontracted out to other institutions. The central archives for instance –because they are historical material–should go to an institution of higher learning like SVS. Which I think is about 40 miles away.
The only problem with moving the archives to SVS is that SVS probably doesn’t have room to store the archives. I’ve been there and they actually have compact shelving in their library. That is, the shelves move around on a track to allow people to access the books they want, but out of every four or five shelves, only one aisle can be accessed at a time. It’s a great library, but crammed into a very small space.
However, I very much agree that the assessment money could be much better used for the seminaries. SVS is really struggling right now. The OCA doesn’t give them any money, and I heard that the recent strife has scared away a lot of their prospective students. Did you see how small their incoming class is?
And yet we are paying $105 per year to support this moribund institution in Syosset, that treats Metropolitan Jonah like garbage. A seminarian posted on here a while back that they made fun of Met. Jonah behind his back and to his face.
What would the OCA be without corrupt bishops? A better Church for the people. What are people here saying about the corrupt bishops? Get a life in Christ. If it were gossip I would have linked to the gossip, not to one bishop writing to other bishops. The bishops in questions can, have been and continue to disregard the warnings but it isn’t healthy. Look what happened to Eli’s fat, slovenly, priestly sons, Hophni and Phineas.
Sorry, I had to post that hastily so didn’t have time to explain. This is in response to M. Stankovich’s question about “dissing” bishops online and what he thinks is disrespect towards their office. What the OT passage makes clear enough is that corrupt bishops don’t have an excuse to remain corrupt just because God puts His Holy Spirit on them at ordination. Their Grace is for the people, so that the Eucharist cannot be turned into a “slogan” when the people approach, whether the person who serves is corrupt or not.
I believe corruption is described in Isaiah as “sick from head to toe.” Not just sinful, but rotten. IF a bishop or priest practices sin, or has practiced sin, then that shepherd should not be leading. So, if a bishop or other clergy “has repented,” it doesn’t mean he gets to continue leading. It shows a lack of ability to lead. Why we are in the mess we are in today. Corruption was allowed to continue.
We on this list are blamed for all kinds of things we didn’t do. But the blamers are totally and completely ignoring the FACT that the people we are concerned about, our leaders, are the ones who are corrupt. They are the ones who cover up their sins and their corporate sins, out of fear. Hophi and Phineas were corrupt in much the same way that is so obvious in our Church today. Read God’s warning through a prophet. The words are the same as what we are saying. God WILL remove the corrupt leaders and replace them with godly men. It has happened before and will happen again.
We cry out for justice and for our leaders to repent and be replaced if that’s what’s needed. It is meaningless to attack the sheep when it is the shepherds who are corrupt. Not all, but some. For sure. We know this for sure.
Men (mankind) think that they can control what is happening. Nope. Eventually, after all avenues have been explored and every opportunity for repentance has been offered, God just takes over and BOINK! BONK! Thinking now of Ananias and Sapphira. God is still God, after all. Merciful and slow to anger, abounding in mercy, and just.
“If You, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?” (Ps. 130:3) Where is the Church teaching that “Divine Grace” is contingent upon the personal “worthiness” of a bishop or priest? Following this logic, if a bishop or priest were unquestionably proved to be the foulest of heretics, should we, then, re-baptize, re-chrismate, re-ordain, re-bury, re-sanctify, or ultimately conclude that the Eucharist over which he presided was, I don’t know exactly what, “null,” “ineffectual,” or a “slogan” for those faithful who “unknowingly” participated? No one could stand, and no one could lead. This is absurd.
Cry out for justice as you will – the parable of the unrighteous judge and the widow (Lk. 18:3ff) suggests that the judge rules favorably on account of sheer repetition. But the parable concludes with the words of the Lord Himself: ποιήσει [He – the Lord] τὴν ἐκδίκησιν αὐτῶν [will get their justice] ἐν τάχει [and swiftly] (Lk. 18:8). Likewise, the lesson of the Book of Job would seem to be that justice & vindication come as God wishes, the reasoning for which is beyond our comprehension. And I would recommend a reading or re-reading of St. Chrysostom’s No One Can the Man Who does Not Harm Himself:
The disparaging and disrespect of the Hierarchs of the Church is a lack of foresight and a claim to a “justice” that does not belong to you. Likewise, it is the path of disobedience, opposes the direction of St. Paul that “all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40), and the knowledge that our God “is not a God of disorder but of peace.” (1 Cor. 14:33).
Helga, with the extra money they could build an additional wing at SVS. If they sell Syosset (and I’m hearing it’s worth $7-8 million) they could definately build an archive at SVS, plus return a hefty portion back to the dioceses so they can build more missions.
either way, it’s a dinosaur. BTW, does anybody know how many people work at Syosseet and how much they get paid?
Your question reminds me of a similar one asked of Pope John 23rd, as to how many people work at the Vatican? His answer: “About half.”
Personally, it’s the ones at Syosset who do work that worry me.
There’s a list of the chancery staff on the OCA website. Notice they don’t mention Fr. Alexander Garklavs.
As far as I know, some of them are okay people. And I certainly wouldn’t think Fr. James Stevens would be guilty of any treachery against the Metropolitan.
Santa Fe was far too close a call for my taste. What could have happened to Met. Jonah if he really had been forced on a leave of absence? What if Met. Hilarion hadn’t been able to intervene?
Oh, stop it.
DM,
LOL.
Herc, you can go to the bank on this one.
Does that mean Bishop Benjamin was our mystery bishop from the OCAT article? My money was on Bishop Melchisedek.
mark stokoes pipeline to syosset is rev. kishkovsky. every word sounds like one he would utter….
Bingo. I’ve long sense the grovelling spirit of Kishkovsky behind a lot of Mark’s pronouncements. It’s been confirmed to me from my own sources in Syosset and the MC. What a lot of us don’t know (and I myself didn’t until recently) is that Syosset also leaks the same info to S/He Who Must Not Be Named. They do this knowing that this channeler who hears voices from Russia will immediately go all hysterical. Stokoe’s more restrained telling then looks credible in comparison.
It’s a case of bad cop/worse cop. (Although I must say that Drezhlo’s graphics are quite funny.)
Anyway, Kishkovsky screwed the pooch when he tried to get rid of Zacchaeus Wood. He thought that Wood would be yanked immediately back to the States while Kishkovsky would be welcomed in Moscow by cheering throngs. Looks like +Jonah called his bluff aa he’s still here in States while Wood is busy continuing to serve in Moscow while he’s getting his lawyers ready to lay the hammer down on the Stooges of Syosset.
Ouch . . . what a mess. People shouldn’t be acting like this. They just, well, shouldn’t. Maybe I’m naïve.
Or are my expectations too high for people who’re supposed to guide us spirtually?
No Lola, they shouldn’t be acting like this. But we are eating from the bitter fruits of liberalism and until those trees are uprooted root and branch we will have to wait until they wither and die of their own accord.
I have known him since 1969. When he does not get his way. You are a marked man and I say this not lightly. I have seen first hand what happens when a bishop corrects him…..
He’s connected to all of the intelligence agencies, and his salaries are paid by outside organizations (NCC, etc.) He’s the elephant in the room. I heard a talk from him about how Jonah bungled the relationships with the other Heirarchs, and he acted like he needed to smooth these relationships back out as if he was in charge of them and not the Met. Remember he was (and might still be) a member of the uber-secret council of foreign relations at the same time Dwayne Andreas was also a member – the source of the OCA millions – and at the same time those monies changes hands. He’s the power behind the scenes, folkes. I remember clearly at the AAC how Met. Jonah talked about how the OCA is free of outside interference and as an American Church we are beholden to no one…and how all of the old regime was swept away. He’s the one that never changed. He’s the one that in all the pictures is always in the background. There is an intersection between the Church and “the world” powers that is uneasy and unspoken. These issues have never been discussed during the scandal, as the real truth is hidden and should probably remain so.
Wow. Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky is starting to sound very similar to Robert Kondratick.
This is an interesting observation.
In the meantime does anybody know if archbishop Dmitri is ok and or has passed away. He tonsured me reader in 1969. the oca website is mute.
As of this evening he was still here, but not doing well.
Keep him in your prayers!
Is Met. Jonah still in Dallas? There’s a hurricane about to hit the East Coast, and that could complicate his flight plans to Prague if he doesn’t leave today. On the other hand, I would totally understand if he skipped Prague altogether and stayed with Vladyka Dmitri.
Vladyka Dmitri died tonight at around 2 am Dallas time. God bless his soul.
Eternal be his memory..,,Archbishop Dmitri’s legacy is a vibrant Diocese of the South with many new missions and parishes and many who have found the Church..
Stephen
Additional information & insight into Stokoe’s current tempest-in-a-teapot endeavor on OCAT: Why I Am a Lousy Internet Journalist
From Fr. Gregory Jensen’s website. He makes some good points on how we think (or pretend to think) about moral issues.
The passing of Bp Dimitri and the sorrow it entails has led me to wonder:
If we mourned for our own sins and the death of our own soul with the same depth for which we mourn for those we love who die, might we not avoid much of the troubles we have and perpetuate.
“Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.”
When we seek to justify our own sins we are not mourning. Whether those sins be lust of the flesh that leads to fornication; lust of power that leads to denial of Christ’s authority; or simple sniping because someone disagrees with us and irritates us.
Simply admitting the reality of sin in our life (a pretty inescapable conclusion to anyone with an iota of self-awareness) is not enough.
The Church’s genius in the face of death is to always remind us that the death of the soul is far worse and deserves much deeper sorrow. As we voluntarily accept the journey into the sorrow of our own life, we shall be comforted, purified, and made whole.
When I read the words of those who seek to make the sinful syndrome of SSA-homoerotic behvior-gay identity normative, It makes me sorrowful for them and for myself and the similar thinking in my own life that binds me to death.
That is not to say that because I am full of unrepented sins that I should follow without objection the path of self-justification. Quite the contrary. I will stand against that path precisely because I know how weak I am. Without the standards of the Church calling me to repentance, I would be lost.
Speaking of Syosset
D-Day (August 30th) is coming for publishing resolutions and statute amendments for the upcoming All American Council.
Let us see what is proposed to or hidden from the laity and clergy.
George M. It seems that the recent hurricane has caused enough damage to put much of Long Island New York out of electricity and brought many trees to the ground, including one tree blocking the entrance way to the OCA Chancery Offices at Oyster Bay Cove.
Though the office building is closed, all business of the OCA continues including its web site. The exception is no one can access the archive materials. If someone needs a Orthodox Chapel, I would guess one could likely find a church somewhere.
So, my question is, or would you agree with me, this is some convincing evidence we could operate just fine with out the Syosset Mansion?
DC, this reminds way back in the late 70s, when the ER doctors in LA went on strike. The death rate went down for the duration of the strike.
You make a good point, DC Indexman. Even if a central office for the OCA is useful, there certainly isn’t any reason to think that they couldn’t do their work just as well in a commercial office building in DC. What’s the point in keeping that expensive estate?
Stokoe whined about Met. Jonah overspending his travel budget, but if you look at the actual 2010 numbers, the OCA budgets nearly as much for lawn care as it does for the Metropolitan’s travel, and the lawn line item went even further over budget that year. The reason was that a big storm damaged a lot of trees that had to be removed on an emergency basis to keep them from falling and killing someone, or damaging the chancery. It appears they have the same problem now. My question is, what does a church adminstration really need with a lawn to begin with, much less one that costs $30,000 per year to maintain?
excellent point!
It might be more advantageous to turn that lawn into an organic farm. After all, there are are hundreds and hundreds of gourmet restaurants in NYC that would pay top dollar for pesticide-free produce.
Given all the manure that comes out of the mansion, an organic garden in the lawn makes perfect sense!
I reiterate:
” It costs ~$18,000.00 per month to maintain Syossot, and this mansion is only 1/2 used, crumbling and unnecessary, since any office complex floor would suffice much better – and at a lesser cost! Among those on the committee to decide if the OCA office should be moved was: Fr. Eric Tossi – can anyone say ‘conflict of interest’??? Not DC? OK. Where….??? The conditions under which the Oyster Bay 15 acre mansion was given to the OCA (must be kept for 50 years) have expired. It’s past time to get out of that mansion and into reality, and this is what was proposed. Why aren’t people asking. “What’s the hold up?”??? There is money tied up in that building and property that are needed by the OCA. What is the hold up???”
» Posted By Anon On May 22, 2011 @ 10:45 pm
What Is The Hold Up???
Maybe it’s the fact that OCA is incorporated in NY?
The OCA as a corporation just needs an agent in NY. It could easily sell Syosset and move HQ anywhere. An agent is simply a nominee who is available to receive official mail and court summons, and it could nominate any OCA clergyman in NY.
Maybe we can let a fired former chancellor be the agent, at least it would then be out in the open. We can continue to pay him his current $140,000 year for being a former chancellor. I mean, we should compensate our agents accordingly. Sorry. Just kidding. Post Irene humor? 😉
Fr. Garklavs gets $140,000 per year?! Ridiculous! I know that’s inflated by the Syosset area’s exorbitant cost of living, but that’s all the more reason to move the chancery somewhere else.
I remember that in Metropolitan Jonah’s speech to the Synod at Santa Fe, he accused Fr. Garklavs of withholding his (Met. Jonah’s) salary, and because of their salary disparity, the officers acted as if they had authority above the Metropolitan. Mark Stokoe kind of played this off by saying that Met. Jonah was talking about a $20,000 payment given to him on top of his regular salary for his moving expenses. Stokoe claimed that Met. Jonah was complaining that his salary was being withheld when in fact it was just a one-time line item that was no longer necessary. Well, I have never found any evidence that any such $20,000 payment was ever actually paid to Met. Jonah for any reason. There was a line item in a preliminary budget for “Washington DC Transition” for $50,000, which was taken out by the Metropolitan Council and never used. In other words, either the Metropolitan Council is in the habit of approving massive secret line items, or Stokoe was just flat out lying.
The only possible justification for paying the Metropolitan less is because he is a monastic. Met. Jonah has no particular need for an excess of material wealth, obviously, but that doesn’t mean the central administration should feel free to value his work any less. And Met. Jonah may very well have dependents, like his kellenik or his parents.
Kellenik???
A kellenik is a kind of monastic personal assistant for abbots and abbesses.
The Antiochian Archdiocese is incorporated in New York, but its headquarters are elsewhere. Pravoslavnie explained that the OCA would only need an agent in New York and could move outside the state if they wanted. The Syosset property is depreciating in value every year, so even if the real estate market doesn’t pick up very soon (and it likely won’t), it’s still advantageous to sell the chancery sooner rather than later.
Imagine an OCA headquarters that were located in a city, where common people can come and go, so that the headquarters themselves could be a tool for evangelizing and helping people. But nooo, we have to let the big important people in New York play “Great Gatsby” in their lofty Long Island estate.
The biggest problem with Syosset is that it is on an island. Most people reach Long Island only by flying there, or by driving through congested New York City. If you approach from the north, you can take the Whitestone or Throgs Neck bridges over Long Island Sound onto the Island, but it still dumps you into Queens where you have to fight traffic on two-lane highways or the congested LI Expressway to get out to Syosset.
Metropolitan Jonah’s proposal to relocate the Chancery to DC made a lot of sense from the standpoint that the last three Metropolitan’s have all been archbishop of Washington. Having the Chancery adjacent to the OCA’s primary cathedral makes a lot of sense, and DC has good major interstate highway access from the north, south, and west. There are also three major airports serving the area, including one less than 5-miles away. Even if the Chancery were to be located in the northern VA suburbs out by Dulles Airport, it would still make sense economically because land is less expensive to the west, highway access is very good between DC and that area, and the airport would allow for easy access in and out of the area for Chancery staff and visiting VIP’s. It makes too much sense which is why it won’t happen.
I should have written ‘primatial cathedral’.
There you go, making sense again. Stop it!
Like maybe a bishop? I understand the OCA has a bishop in NY. And priests as well. Who’da thunk it?
Are you sure they really own it? And if they do, is the property mortgaged? Was it used as collateral for something? Are there liens on it?
It was “sold” to the OCA for a dollar a long time ago. There was a stipulation that it be kept for fifty years, which have passed. I don’t think it is mortgaged. I am not aware of any liens against the property. I am sure that Metropolitan Jonah would not have advocated moving the chancery without any plan or ability to dispense of the Syosset estate in some way.
Mark Stokoe’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s wish to move the chancery to DC did not include any restrictions against selling the chancery, only that Stokoe felt it was a bad idea to try to sell it in the present real estate market.
I think Met. Jonah proposed turning the property into a Monastery.
I think he proposed using monastics as chancery staff. It’s a cost-cutting measure. They don’t eat as much. 🙂
It’s pretty smart if you think about it, but I can see why it went over like a lead balloon with the current Syosset staff.
That’s very funny as I recall hearing Met. Jonah refer to the prodigous eating abilities of young men while he was discussing the monthly costs associated with running his former monastery in CA. Somehow I don’t think he could get them to live off the the land in Syosset, but I smile at the thought of challenging the Chancery’s very existence, and that it ought to become self-sustaining.
In all seriousness I know that there are personality problems in the central administration, but that there are also several long-serving and dedicated staff up there as well. For example, the archivist Alexis Liberovsky who has struggled valiantly for years to maintain and protect the OCA archives. The archives is located in a basement, and I remember him recounting how both he and his equally dedicated wife have had to haul portions of the collection upstairs to escape bursting pipes. That includes original documents written in St. Tikhon’s own hand.
Mr. Liberovsky and his wife deserve the thanks of all American Orthodox — this is our common inheritance no matter the jurisdiction.
I’d like to think that they had some help from other staff, because saving those irreplaceable documents was the most important job anyone had that day, apart from securing their chapel.
Are you sure, Helga, that Metropolitan Jonah would have access to transactions about the Syosset property? With all the strange goings-on in the past decade or more, don’t you wonder what the title documents say? Are the real estate holdings of a non-profit religious organization a matter of public record?
I’m not implying anything, just pointing out that this might be a good place to exercise the Reagan dictum, “Trust but verify.”
If I may interject here, an audit was performed shortly after Met. Jonah was elected in order to unweave the tangled mess of property titles held by various corporate entities, and mortgages that had become OCA’s responsibility under the two previous Metropolitans. Metropolitan Jonah summarized the findings in an address quite a while ago, so it seems he is aware of the OCA’s real estate holdings and encumbrances.
I am sure Metropolitan Jonah would know if anything official had happened to the property. As head of the OCA he is on the hook for everything done in its name.
However, now that you mention it, it’s not hard to think they could have done something behind his back. According to Fr. Zacchaeus’s lawyer, at least one Syosset staffer has used Met. Jonah’s “automated signature” (I don’t know what that means) without Met. Jonah’s consent. I assume Berezansky copied Met. Jonah on that email, so he would know about this. If Met. Jonah is as savvy as I think he is, he would start checking to see what else his signature has been applied to.
Mr & Mrs Liberovsky do indeed deserve our thanks and I’m sure that they’ve performed above and beyond the call of duty on many an occasion.
You bring up a good point which leads me to several questions:
1. how many papers and how much space are we talking about?
2. can these papers be scanned for permanent electronic shorage to protect against any possible future catastrophes?
3. can these papers be stored at Crestwood?
4. can Mr Liberovsky be given an office at SVS?
5. can students be used as interns to assist Mr Liberovsky in scanning the documents?
I think the prodigious eating abilities belonged to the summer novices, the 20-somethings they would have come stay for the summer and participate in monastery life. “All we had to do was feed them… which was a challenge.”
I was thinking of the Metropolitan’s remarks which were well received at the Acton Institute a few months ago. No matter, I’m sure he could get quite creative, and running a monastery requires knowing how to stretch a dollar.
What is so difficult about this – all arguments (and common sense) say sell Syossot.
I know that Metropolitan Jonah is a licensed real estate agent in California. I’m quite sure he understands perfectly what can and cannot be done legally with this property. If enough pressure is put on at the upcoming conference, this property could be sold. P.S.: There has already been an expressed interest in buying it.
I don’t know why some people in the OCA seem so attached to the place. If they like it so much, maybe they should go in together and buy it so they can all live there.
that sounds too “cenobitic” don’t you think? Seriously though, if the Diocese of NY/NJ wants to think about a monastery, that’d be just as good a place as any.
Well, I didn’t think anyone who works for the OCA would have the means to buy the property outright all by themselves. But their attachment to the estate borders on the pathological. I’m starting to wonder if maybe there’s a horde of pirate treasure somewhere on the property, and they had to let fifty years pass in order to start looking for it. I’m gonna go to Syosset and start digging.
lololol–funny!
and who has already expressed interest in buying syosset?
Ask your recent “+Acting Chancellor” or his “acting assistant – AKA formerly removed from office Chancellor”…they, and the OCS’s Secretary, know full well – IF they will tell you. Just remember folks, that’s a conservative $7 mil. just crumbling away.
Anon, is that mansion’s “crumbling away” what the “depreciation” in the OCA’s financial reports refers to?
I noticed that this “depreciation” costs the OCA a substantial chunk of change every year.
Tell us.
Here’s a thought: maybe the Agent of Accountability and Transparency can look into this! I imagine he’s been doing so because he has yet to comment on the death of the former Archbishop of Dallas, the OCA’s most vibrant diocese.
Unless some circumstance has arisen that prevents Stokoe from posting on his blog, this is further evidence that “OCA News” is nothing of the sort.