What follows is a contemporaneous accounts of the 16th All-American Council which is being held as we speak in Seattle. The blog will be updated as conditions warrant. Please forgive the episodic nature of the reportage as we will be reporting events from several different locations. Monomakhos will only publish those incidents which we witnessed, heard, or have been verified by independent sources. Some editorial comment will accompany.
Part I: The Same Old Same Old?
The dearth of vision and tone-deafness of the Syosset Set were telegraphed to the entire OCA when they released their Strategic Plan in anticipation of the AAC. I can only say that Syosset’s torpid embarrassemnt of riches is clearly on display. First of all, they envision an increased centralization of power in Syosset –to the detriment of the Dioceses and parishes. Secondly, to handle this increased “workload,” they want to hire four additional apparatchiks even though the percentage spent presently on administration is almost 50 percent. Where the additional funding for them will come from is anybody’s guess.
On a positive note (I say this with a hint of sarcasm), a pall seems to permeate the air among the majority of delegates. This is good insofar as it bespeaks a seriousness that is absent from the pie-in-the-sky assessment of the Strategic Plan. People are saying things like “this AAC isn’t like the previous ones,” and “I wonder if this is going to be the last one.” The number of delegates is also at an all-time low.
Part II: The Diocesan Assemblies
Three Dioceses met today: the West, the South, and the Midwest. Things were even more positive at the Diocesan level. Fr John Jillions (the presumptive Chancellor) made appearances at all the Diocesan Assemblies held that day (the South and the West). He was accompanied by Bishop +Melchizedek at the Diocese of the South Assembly because the locum tenens for the South, Bishop +Nikon is gravely ill and cannot attend.
The Diocese of the South voted overwhelmingly for The New York Plan. In fact, a budget for the DOS based on the $50 assessment was created with a proviso for money set aside for Syosset in an escrow account. This amount would be predicated on Syosset coming up with a transition for decentralization. They also voted to withdraw from the National Council of Churches. Jillions gave an equivocal answer stating something to the effect that the NCC in Canada is not as leftist as it is in the United States.
The Diocese of the West also voted to withdraw from the National Council of Churches.
As of now, we have no information to relate from the proceedings of the Diocese of the Midwest.
CORRECTION: We just learned that the tone of the speech was not nearly as dire as earlier reported. He is NOT –repeat NOT–going to check into a “rehabilitation unit” and he is only taking responsibility for “administrative failures.” Acccording to other sources, the speech was quite positive and was well-received. The speech will soon be posted on this website as well as www.oca.org. Monomakhos regrets the error.
Met. Jonah’s Address
[audio:http://audio.ancientfaith.com/specials/aac16/aac_2011-plenary1_metjonah.mp3]
They may wound Metropolitan Jonah, but they cannot touch his life.
Indeed. The irony is that it if this is true, it is not +Jonah who is going to be finished, but the OCA.
So let’s give Syosset a raise and keep the head tax at $105 since we lowly and stupid laity can’t possibly understand the machinations of the Synod. Just pray, pay and obey. If you vote to lower the head tax to $50 we will simply overrule you and keep it at $105 and demand you pay it.
The Synod pinned every ill on Jonah, like they did Herman, like they did Kondratick, and even like they did Schmemann when they kicked him out.
So who will be the next leader of the OCA? Oh wait, we already know. A rotating series of Temporary Administrators. Stokoe told us that before and Kishkovsky also told us before when he planned the ouster of Jonah based on the Rodizanko Plan. – “call him gravely troubled and keep telling people that and eventually we will wear our victim down.”
But remember kids, we are a bunch of conspiracy wackos. Yeah. Right!
Was this announced by +MJ on the floor or by a statement? What else did he say?
Yes.
The Metropolitan was on the schedule to address the AAC this evening, per the schedule published on the OCA website.
AFR is recording the plenary sessions, such as this evening’s, which was supposed to end at 8:30 pm Seattle time, per the schedule. The OCA website noted that recordings would be posted within an hour of the session ending.
The AAC podcasts will be posted on this AFR page:
http://ancientfaith.com/specials/oca_aac16
THIS JUST IN: It looks like Monomakhos has put a more depressing spin on His Beatittude’s speech than was warranted. He will not take a leave of absence, he only apologized for “administrative failures,” and he will not check into a “rehabilitation unit” as was earlier reported. Instead, he will get administrative training. The text of the entire speech will be published on the OCA’s website and this blog as soon as we receive it.
We regret the error.
That makes sense. I kept looking up “St. Luke’s” and “pastoral care unit” to try to figure out what the heck was going on, and didn’t find anything that looked “rehabby”, just a lot of Episcopal churches that do CPE training. 🙂
George, in all fairness, I can see how you got that impression. I’m up to Bishop Matthias, and everyone’s been talking about how courageous Metropolitan Jonah is for seeking help, and frankly it does make it sound like he’s going to rehab or something. From the information in your revision, it sounds more like he’s taking night classes at the business school.
Good, good. I’d strongly, suggest, insist, even, that he sit down with Michael Hyatt for a few hours. Michael Hyatt helps people live and lead on purpose (see http://michaelhyatt.com/) and he’s a deacon at one of the churches in Tennessee – don’t know which parish, though. Somebody please get a message to Met. Jonah about this.
An excellent suggestion.
First sentence of the “about” page for Michael Hyatt.
“I am the Chairman of Thomas Nelson Publishers, the largest Christian publishing company in the world and the seventh largest trade book publishing company in the U.S.”
He is a deacon at St. Ignatius Antiochian Orthodox Church in Franklin, TN.
He’s retired from active day-today operations at the company and is now focusing on consulting and speaking.
Has anyone else read Solodow’s indictment of +Jonah in the DOW Delegate Handbook on pages 3-4? Stokoe’s MC dance-partner(s) prove to be up-to-form as usual. The Metropolitan is in my prayers as he walks amidst serpents this week. May angels guide & guard his steps.
Herc, Solodow’s report is nothing short of rank insubordination.
Speaking of which, I noticed a lot of self-serving rhetoric in Bishop Benjamin’s speech. That whole monkey butt thing was ridiculous. “Some in white hats, some in black hats” – Metropolitan Jonah’s the only one up there in a white hat.
Solodow’s basically a creep. I think we can all agree on that.
Metropolitan Jonah continues to press for the sale of the Syosset chancery because it is an expensive albatross. It is a large, old house on a large parcel of land, and it is hideously expensive to maintain. Much of that maintenance is for landscaping and other ornamental needs that do not further the mission of the Church by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the chancery is larger than any amount of office space that the OCA can use, yet it does not meet all of the needs of the central administration, as they still have to use a local hotel for large meetings. Most of the people who were tasked for looking into this issue would have to either move with the chancery, or lose their jobs.
Metropolitan Jonah fired the chancellor because it was his prerogative to do so under the human resources policies that were in effect at the time. Solodow is being deliberately misleading in claiming “common practice would be for the appointing authority to be the dismissing authority.” Whether it’s common sense or not, the policy at the time was for the national chancery to be primarily the domain of the primate, and that the primate had direct oversight (including the ability to fire) over the staff. This changed with the resolutions adopted in May, which Metropolitan Jonah voiced (likely diplomatic) support for in his speech last night.
Solodow’s criticism of the Metropolitan’s draft budget is perhaps the most galling of all the criticisms, as Metropolitan Jonah did not formally prepare a budget for the contingency (that’s not his job), he only threw out some ideas to show that the idea of reducing the assessment is feasible. Solodow leaves out two vital considerations – the fact that most of the ministries cut from the national church’s budget would be moved to the dioceses (which would be the primary financial beneficiaries of cutting the central administration assessment), and the fact that other fundraising would make up for the loss of the assessment, for things like the external audits. Moving the chancery to a less expensive part of the country is an essential part of this plan, for the simple reason that it is terribly expensive to live and operate in that part of Long Island. The total annual budget of the OCA is about two million dollars. $450,000 of that, nearly one quarter of that annual budget, is to pay the salaries of three full-time employees and one half-time employee in the chancery. There are numerous other examples of this kind of wanton waste due in large part to the chancery itself and its location, some of which I have already mentioned.
As for the talk of “maximal autonomy”, the Metropolitan only countenanced this possibility as a method of reconciling the OCA to the rest of the Orthodox world in order to facilitate a unified, autocephalous jurisdiction in America. Metropolitan Jonah has been exceptionally brave and kenotic in openly discussing how this would occur without using the triumphalist dogma that has caused so much acrimony over the years.
The Metropolitan voices opposition to the Metropolitan Council because it *is* an uncanonical entity, unprecedented in the canons and Holy Tradition. It’s not necessarily wrong to have that happen in the interest of conciliarity, but one must be cautious when pressing the edges of boundaries like this. The Metropolitan Council, historically, has not been that way. It has repeatedly overstepped its boundaries even under the statute that Solodow exalts, all to no good end. Furthermore, as Solodow serves on this council, he cannot be considered a neutral judge in the matter.
Once Metropolitan Jonah had recused himself from the investigation of Fr. Zacchaeus (Wood), his communications with Fr. Zacchaeus ought to be considered entirely personal. I cannot prove Solodow wrong about the supposed legal risk this may have occasioned to the OCA, but considering Solodow’s track record within this document alone, he is hardly credible on this or any other matter pertaining to the governance of the OCA.
I sincerely hope the members of his diocese pays attention to the offenses against good order that Solodow is committing in their name, and that they act accordingly.
Wow . . . that’s a pretty high administrative cost. That might be sustainable were OCA of a size like GOA or Antiochian, but it just isn’t sustainable at the rate OCA is growing (shrinking?). If even a portion of that were redirected toward missions and projects aimed at growing OCA, that brings in more people contributing financially, and thus growing the financial base of the church as well.
I do not agree; please quit assassinating anyone and everyone who is critical of the Metropolitan. Dr. Solodow has served the Church well and certainly does not deserve the potshots taken at him. BTW, I thought that his critique of Metropolitan Jonah was restrained and free of the histrionics I read on this site. Furthermore, I do not see how he can be “insubordinate” in any way; unless one is inclined to characterize any criticism of a bishop by a sub-deacon to constitute insubordination. Correct me if I am wrong, but Dr Solodow is not under Metropolitan Jonah; for one thing there are those 2000 miles that separate the two. Look: the Metropolitan himself reportedly owned up to mistakes, so why are y’all vilifying a faithful servant of the Lord who is not saying anything that the Metr4opolitan has not implicitly agreed with?
Time will tell Carl. Time will tell. My bet is that Jonah will be put into this “clergy assistance program” where he will then be tagged as “gravely troubled ” again with Bps. Tikhon and Michael being his episcopal guards who will then deliver to him the news that he is being retired.
Solodow was and still is part of the movement to rid the OCA of Jonah. Remember the Stokoe emails?He has always, and continues to carry Benjamin’s water. He did on the SIC, and he still does now on the MC.
I have no doubt that Jonah was told, “you either say it was your fault or you will be out of a job.” It is a redux of Santa Fe – and another fight because Jonah was able to fight off his loving and faithful brothers then because he had people fighting for him. Thank God for this website which the Synod members and Syosset staffers read daily because those loyal to the Metropolitan were disposed of by Benjamin.
Remember this Carl, Benjamin had three people from his diocese on the SIC. Talk about being objective. Not. Benjamin positioned himself to be the successor of Herman. It was supposed to be between him and Job. Benjamin never saw Jonah coming, who did, out of the blue to be elected. From that moment, Benjamin kept his SIC team, minus one, who got the hell out of OCA life on that level after the SIC charade, she also being a lawyer. But he kept Solodow and WIlson close and both now have OCA roles that put them in positions to keep Jonah boxed in for Benjamin.
As I said, time will tell and we should know pretty soon, by the end of the year, if Jonah survives as an empty suit Metropolitan or is retired, “for the good of the Church” of course.
Carl, if you think that events on this level of Church life just happen, you are very naive. These manuevers are well planned and calculating. The entire week of the AAC is scripted. It has always been that way. New faces, same goal – control the outcome. Jonah threw a big monkey wrench in their plans and they still don’t like it.
Solodow played his role. Benjamin is playing his role, the bully on the block. His time will come, it always does with bullies. I just hope I am still around to see it.
Keep a sharp eye folks. This is just the beginning.
Carl reflects, “I do not see how he can be “insubordinate” in any way; unless one is inclined to characterize any criticism of a bishop by a sub-deacon to constitute insubordination.”
I am trying to imagine the subdeacon who would take on Cyprian or Chrysostom.
And I am trying to imagine a bishop in memory to whom you would draw such an analogy.
George, I believe I know him as well as or better than anyone else contributing to this site. I tend to agree with your assessment of him.
It’s a hit piece. The careerists want a compliant figurehead like Theodosios who was so compromised by his homosexuality that he was basically useless. They propped him up. It’s the only way to secure their salaries ($8 million wasted in the last three years alone).
The careerists use the homosexuals, the homosexuals use the careerists. Kishkovsky needs Stokoe, Stokoe needs Kishkovsky. Your money keeps their sordid affair alive. Their sin will strangle this Church.
Ian, I agree with you. What we’re suffering from today is the effects of the original Dumping Ground. It’s still with us. Personally, the institutional rot may be so entrenched that there is no choice but for the OCA to continue its implosion.
The good news is that Metropolitan Jonah is still alive, well, and the active primate of the OCA.
Why is this “good news”? I’m not trying to be snarky, and you know that I put a lot on the line to defend Jonah’s primacy, so I’m not eager to see him go. But after listening to the first part of that speech last night, I kept thinking that Winston loved Big Brother. Please explain to me why it’s “good news” that the Metropolitan now appears to have entirely internalized the Synod’s critique from the beginning. Fulsome praise for Alexander Garklavs? Unless this is some kind of Orthodox judo, it sounds to me like he’s throwing in the towel, and doing what he thinks he has to do to hold on to the position.
Are you sure, Helga, that you’re not engaged in wishful thinking? Again, please understand that I’m not asking in a sarcastic or combative tone. I agree that it looks as if the only thing pro-Jonah forces have left is the fact that he hasn’t been deposed. But from the tone and content of the first part of that speech, there’s no need to depose him now. He’s not an obstacle to anything they want to do.
I think the next card to be played will determine how subsequent hands are played. Where Jonah is going to “get help” will speak volumes. Let’s be frank, the Synod is not sending him to some Dale Carneige school. Benjamin was the one who wanted him to go to an alcohol and drug rehab center in February. Jonah said he is going into a “clergy care” program. Clergy care for what? Anybody know of a clergy care program for clergy who have a hard time organizing their time? For being a bad administrator? Does he have to take the fall for everything bad in the OCA in public just because he can’t get his calendar in order? No, where Jonah goes for help will tell the rest of the story.
I have to agree with Rod. Jonah has been beaten down. Stripped of people who tried to protect him from people like Benjamin and Solodow, Jonah fought this fight with no one in his corner. Jonah may have a persecution complex, that is, he loves to be beaten up, somehow understands the abuse as some sort of podvig, or the cost of leadership. He may be too selfish in that view of his role and thus does not take advice easily. I sure hope his loving brother bishops have his back.
But, it is also clear that the Synod was put in a corner by Moscow. They set the rules by making it very clear back in March and April that if Jonah goes for any reason other than a canonical infraction, the MP will not recognize his removal. But this is why the location of Jonah’s rehab is so critical.
Whatever the outcome, Jonah’s speech or at least that section of the speech where he falls on his sword sounded like an insert from the Synod playing to Moscow but also keeping the door open to keep their options open to remove Jonah sooner or later. Thus, Jonah keeps his job for this week but I really believe that the real future of Jonah will be written after the AAC.
This week, the Synod papers over Jonah so that they can move on to the issue of the Assessment. It is of paramount importance for the Syosset staffers to leave Seattle with their $105 in hand, even if the AAC votes for the $50, the Synod will overturn that vote. They will pull out all the stops, even a 2 minute video by Matushka Schememann to recall an “era of OCA good feelings” with the sole purpose to keep the assessment money flowing under the guise of the OCA vision not yet fulfilled.
Jonah is now either a short-term figurehead or a long-term one. He is a kept man who will further be limited in his role. It really is the same old same OCA. Old style, new actors. Theodosius was a kept man by Schememann, then by subsequent chancellors, a victim of his own weaknesses. Today, Jonah is a kept man by the Synod, MC, and Syosset staffers with the stigma of “needing help” and that always being held over his head.
And, in the meantime, the OCA is whistling by the graveyard. It continues to lose members, lose prestige and more of a Potemkin Village than ever. This AAC is the worst attended since 1980. I look now at those who are charged with turning this ship around, and frankly, I don’t see anyone except Jonah, but he will only be a mouthpiece for what others expect him to say. Not too inspiring, but we can hope, I guess.
Jacob, a lot of what you say is true. There are differences between the old era in which a corrupt cabal of proto-Stokovites ran the show. For one thing, there’s this blog. If I may take some credit, people and priests have told me personally that we’ve (and that means all of you correspondents as well) have made a significant difference.
Consider how we used to lazily accept the Stokovite narrative. I myself did so up until about March of this year. Oh sure, we always had our suspicions, sometimes the narrative was too overwrought, or biased, or even passive in its insouciount way it stated “everybody knows ‘X’,” etc. But it was still the best thing around for getting information out, a lot of which was true.
What we didn’t know was that it was good for keeping information from getting out. That OCAN was/is a stooge for the Old Regime.
+Jonah keeps the white hat, that’s the good news. The New York Plan grows in popularity. yeah, I know that the Old Guard will pull out all the stops to keep the $105 head tax. They’ll even hire the extra flunkies in Syosset. But you know what? It ain’t gonna matter. The New York Plan will pass de facto when the 22,000 number goes to 18K, then 15K. What will the critical mass be? I’m thinking in the 15K range. Regardless, the Strategic Plan is going to be dead in the water because the $$$ ain’t there now.
So why is it good that +Jonah remains to captain this sinking ship? Because when the time comes for the OCA to close its doors (and barring massive repentance by the Syosset Set and their Stokovite handmaidens), it can only do so if there’s a legitimate primate. Otherwise, with a “rotating metropolitan,” it’ll be every man for himself and chaos will ensue. Some parishes will close, most will attrit members, others will sue to join ROCOR. Personally, if just 10-20 parishes sued to join ROCOR/MP/whoever that would accelerate the death-pangs as Syosset doesn’t have the funds to fight a class-action in the courts. And even if they win, it will deplete their resources even further.
George,
This website has brought balance to the cyber wars against the OCA launched by Stokoe and Wheeler back in 2006. I pray that it will continue to do so. The OCAN assaults will not cease and the fact that Stokoe has held back, even at this hour, proves to me that he was in on this speech and told to stay quiet until after the speech was over.
If Stokoe comes out with an olive branch or at least not a gun, it tells me that there is something bigger down the road that he knows of which will be the real end game against Jonah. Given that this website is now a constant counter to every word he writes and to the com box remarks on OCAN, Stokoe now may be “leading from behind.” But it should be noted that the difference in his tactics before the Pittsburgh Council and this one are like night and day.
Stay alert. This fight is far from over.
I agree, Jacob. I think George has done an unmatched service to the OCA in commenting on the situation in his blog entries and allowing others to use it as a forum for dissenting against Stokoe’s take on things. The OCA owes a great debt to him and Jesse Cone.
Bishop Benjamin must be investigated. Are the things written by Bishop Nikolai in a letter to Bishop Benjamin true or are they false?
Added two minutes later: This is an impossible situation. It cannot be, and yet, it is. What is he doing giving speeches?
Rod, it is much more than the fact that Metropolitan Jonah hasn’t been deposed. I didn’t hear Winston loving Big Brother. I heard the Metropolitan speak in incredibly forthright terms about what’s been going on. All this year I thought back to his speech at the last AAC where he excused the Synod’s leadership failures, and I thought of how incredibly naive that was. Last night he said that he had underestimated the level of dysfunction within the Synod. His tone of voice is the closest I’ve ever heard to him expressing anger. If it was anger, it was righteous anger.
Yes, Metropolitan Jonah took a lot of the blame, much of it undeserved. But his only alternatives would have been to blame the others openly, or pretend the problem didn’t exist, neither of which is an acceptable option for a dedicated monastic like himself. The problem is, people – least of all his brother bishops – are not supposed to see that kenotic humility and say, “Yeah, it is all his fault” when it truly is not.
From the last three questions in the session, it seems clear that people know it is NOT just a problem with Metropolitan Jonah. All of them, starting with the lady who spoke before Fr. Hatfield, seemed to see right through that. God bless them all.
The Synod was asked by Fr. Hatfield what they planned to do to participate in this healing, and Bishop Benjamin used the opportunity to dump on Met. Jonah some more, comparing him to an alcoholic and the Synod to people needing Al Anon. Notice that Bishop Benjamin put the kibosh on questions right after Fr. Hatfield’s. Then a priest came up and asked them to address the issue of leaks. Bishop Benjamin’s response was basically, “Well, what do you want us to do, frisk each other?”
They were repeatedly challenged on the issue of the Synod’s working relationship, and every time that happened, Bishop Benjamin’s weak explanation, “There is no strife, everything’s fine!” failed to obtain.
People are not falling for the crap anymore. Those last three questions from the plenary session show that much. And Metropolitan Jonah’s and Bishop Michael(?)’s advice was dead on, telling people to help by reducing the market for the pornography.
You and I both know Metropolitan Jonah has nothing to fear from a legitimate, unbiased evaluation of his mental state. As long as whatever facility they are using is ethical and qualified, I don’t think it will cause any harm. It will just be a waste of time and money to point out the obvious.
What I am wondering is, when the doctors come back with the obvious diagnosis of sanity, who’s going to be the next scapegoat?
Helga,
I like your read on the Metropolitan’s address and the subsequent Q & A session. The key will be what type of “rehab” or “clergy care” facility we are talking about. Benjamin is the loud mouth on the Synod. He is the alcoholic on the Synod and acts out in public like the dry drunk that he is. He is not a nice person and when cornered he attacks. Jonah on the other hand when attacked accepts, but accepts too quickly in my opinion, and not with proper discernment for his role as Metropolitan. If he can learn how to accept responsibility when appropriate and when he is getting blamed for things that are not his fault, not to just accept the blame but direct and lead to a solution, then he has a chance. I don’t know if he can learn that. He has not shown the ability to do that up to now.
Not one of the other bishops on the Synod right now is better than Jonah as Metropolitan. Jonah has his faults but so do they and the Church elected him BY THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (you listening Hopko?) in Pittsburgh. If this Synod continues to beat him up going forward, the scapegoat will be them, the Synod, and rightly so.
You are right, in a perfect world, Jonah has nothing to fear from a legitimate, unbiased evaluation. But he got that back in April and the Synod did not buy it. Why? Because they were not looking for that, they were looking for ammo to remove him. I don’t think that has changed. The only difference now is that they must do it without raising the anger of Moscow.
Sorry to be so jaded on this, but I still see a Synod being bullied by Benjamin, working with his inside men, Tosi, Garklavs, Kishkovsky, Solodow and Mechesedek out flanking the Metropolitan and until I see the Synod change its tune, I will continue to raise the red flag.
Helga, re: Benjamin, talk about the biggest black kettle in the room. Some of the “hype” that is being ‘said?’ Get rid of Syosset, period and all that work there, period. All this PC is a bit much. If I were the Met, I’d throw in the hat and start calling spades a spade.
Madam, you have more brains than most of our bishops. Syosset is not just a money pit physically, it’s a cesspool of moral and spiritual corruption. If I were sorry that we elected Metropolitan Jonah, it’s only because I would be sorry we put him into that terrible mess. He’s the only one who can clean it up.
You are correct with one tiny exception: It should be “it was a cesspool…” And, the cesspool was exposed and was in the process of being drained by the time of his election. Thanks to the good folks of the MC and the HS, we are steadily making progress.
NO, Carl, Syosset absolutely IS a cesspool. It burns Metropolitan Jonah because he’s clean.
Yes, let him throw in the hat and call a spade a spade. I’m so disgusted after reading Ms. Matovic’s commentary, I could myself puke. Let them go, let them go. Integrity awaits. Imagine, a job where the vipers don’t spit, a job where you don’t have to say words you don’t want to say. A job where there is peace.
If it can be fixed, fix it. But tell the truth.
Judging just by his recorded remarks, I’d say the “good news” is that they aren’t yet writing his speeches for him. Real powers behind thrones do that for real figureheads, like the queen of England. They didn’t do that for +Jonah in Seattle.
Sure, he said nice things about his enemies, he pledged allegiance to autocephaly, he took the blame for all the trouble, confessed his administrative incompetence, and announced he would be getting some kind of help. But let’s face it: He needs help to be an effective leader, and most of his speech was actually an attack on Syosset under the banner of parish and diocesan power, with supporting assaults on the OCA Old Guard’s progressive morality.
Overall, as a speechwriter who has tried to advise him on what to say publicly in the past, I think this time he said just the right things, given the circumstances. And I don’t think he sounded angry. (The closest I’ve heard him sounding angry was his first public statement immediately after Santa Fe. Those remarks made me cringe.)
I got that, too, as gentle as it was.
I am looking forward to reading his speech and not just the spoken word. Knowing your background in speech writing, Deacon Patrick, I value your opinion of his address.
Time will tell as to how this all plays out. Hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst!
With the exception of the one sentence on his supposed attack on CCA, I agree with your analysis. One of the things that had been problematic had been his inability to accept responsibility for his mistakes and he took a good first step in overcoming that leadership flaw. I am actually encouraged by this development. I have said it before and I will say it again: I do want him to succeed and I hope and pray that this is the beginning of his comeback. If he does not listen to the wrong folks (hint for George, Helga, Amos, Mark, Jacob and Ian), he may well have a good chance to become what folks were hoping for three years ago.
Carl, someday you’re going to have to fess up and realize that there’s more than enough blame to go around. Let’s face it, Syosset is hopelessly corrupt. All an honest man at the helm can do now is try to stop the inexorable rot and that in 5 years (if we have 5 years) economic forces will take care of Syosset and Garklavs and his ilk.
You go George!
You just can’t help yourself, can you Kraeff. Never a critical word except for +Jonah.
Carl,
The Synod is dysfunctional. Jonah as the First Hierarch like the captain of a ship, takes responsibility and does so sincerely. But then you get “monkey butt” comments from Benjamin. Come one, you are suppose to comport yourself with so sort of dignity. Benjamin is a real problem inside that Synod and he has run rough shot over Jonah since Day 1.
Jonah has accepted responsibility TOO MUCH, in my opinion. Sure he has screwed up. You would too if you were one against the many. He has tried, sincerely. But it is never good enough, and this time will be no different.
When in the Plenary I podcast did Bp. Benjamin make the “monkey butt” remark? (Context is everything.)
DM, it’s in the “Synodal reflections” after Metropolitan Jonah’s speech.
You go, too, Jacob!
Oh, I will reserve one ad hominem remark, because of that whole monkey butt thing. I think Bishop Benjamin is the last person who should be remarking on the size of anyone else’s butt.
I did not like the monkey’s butt story either. But, +Benjamin’s point was that not one but many bishops has issues. It will be interesting to find out which two other bishops will accompany +Jonah and why. If I may make an analogy to substance abuse treatment (not to imply that that is the reason for the evaluation), the best approach is to involve the family and thus it would make sense for any therapy to involve fellow bishops. But, I am just speculating here. Let the words stand on their own and the actions speak for themselves.
Thanks, Helga. I heard the monkey story. It was worth a chuckle.
RE Theodosios who was so compromised by his homosexuality…
Oh, my. (!?!?!?!?)
Listening to Metropolitan Jonah’s speech (25 minutes into the Plenary I recording). Wow. I’m surprised the paint didn’t peel off the walls.
I’ve listened to Jonah’s speech, and it sounds to me like they broke him. I can’t see any other way to interpret it.
On another Monomakhos thread, Amos, reporting from the AAC, says that Jonah is going into “St. Luke’s” for treatment. Is this the St. Luke’s Institute in Silver Spring, Md., in suburban Washington? I would be surprised if it were, because SLI is Catholic. Still, I deeply, deeply hope not, for reasons I’ll get into if that, in fact, is where he’s being sent.
Somebody please post when we have clear confirmation of where Jonah is going to get “rehabilitated.” It sounds like exactly what the Synod tried to get him to do back in February.
From the St. Luke’s website … “Our treatment approach is tailored to the individual and is designed to assist him or her in healing from anxiety, addictions, depression, substance abuse, interpersonal problems, sexual issues or other challenges. ”
Not being there, what’s really going on out there in Seattle?
Here is text from the St. Luke’s Institute website:
“Our treatment approach is tailored to the individual and is designed to assist him or her in healing from anxiety, addictions, depression, substance abuse, interpersonal problems, sexual issues or other challenges. ”
Stratergery aside, if the Metropolitan can get help dealing with personal issues–whether they be fear of standing up for himself or others, or making more progress on weight loss, or whatever they may be–then where’s the harm? Perhaps his sense of self-worth, or more precesely the sense of worth he should have as God’s creature, needs bolstering. Big people usually have big sadness and big fears, and they carry deep scars. It takes a toll. I wish His Beatitude well, so that he finds peace and so that he will, with God’s help and hard work, become the metropolitan the OCA needs if it or some part of it is to survive.
Perfectly sane, sober people benefit from counseling, too. Would that others on the Synod and in Syosset follow his lead.
That Silver Springs place, in the end, is run by Rome.
And who are the other one or two bishops that are also going there?
I can’t believe they are sending the bishops to a place primarily noted for clergy with zipper issues run by Rome. Rome? Seriously? Like they’ve got a handle on it?
If it was booze there are plenty of places that don’t carry that interpretation.
What exactly is the elephant in the room that is the cause of sending the high leadership to the same place that ‘saw’ or ‘treated’ the worst of Rome’s and the GOA’s homosexually active people in black?
You cannot say you’re sending high leadership to such a place and not explain why that is to people!
One that Fr. Ted Bobosh (Mark Stokoe’s pastor) thinks is this one week visit is the first of many visits.
You’ve got to wonder whether if the correct decisions from a special point of view don’t get made, the evaluations will not turn out, or will turn out, the ‘right’ way.
And what of these other two bishops? Going along for the ride, see the fall colors? What?
Harry, commentary from Bobosh is not rational.
Has this story been edited from an earlier version? I see nothing in the story to warrant the note of correction at the bottom. If the Metropolitan is admitting to administrative problems he is certainly not the first hierarch in history to suffer from this. In any case there are plenty of resources available in the DC area for administrative training. Ideally a well matched chancellor and metropolitan could compliment each other’s shortcomings.
I am as confused as you Pravoslavie. I did not check the website lastnight so I don’t know what was there previously.
The correction refers to Amos’s initial report on the “More Misbehavior” thread.
Thanks, I see it there now. I am listening to the speech now. Its not so dire but I would say its weighed a bit heavily on the overly-apologetic side. Overly-apologetic is not necessarily a “bad” thing, to humbly apologize even in the face of baseless or exaggerated charges can be a good thing. I am very curious to find out more about this “St. Luke’s” though.
George,
Looking back through the comments above and seeing the confusion and angst on display there, and considering that the audio is being posted on Ancient Faith Radio, why not avoid the intermediary commentary? Folks can listen for themselves to what is being said.
BTW: I heard classic Met. Jonah on display in his speech. He was firm on not changing the Church to fit the whims of the zeitgeist. He was also genuinely contrite for any problems he has caused, and seems willing to move on for the better of the Church. I don’t see that he was “broken” or otherwise compromised. I see a humble monastic sincerely wanting to serve as he’s been called. This man deserves our prayers. I hope the Synod (and the Metropolitan Council, which somehow forms a Bishop-like entity….”Voltron” leaps to mind 🙂 ) reciprocates this act; not just in words, but in deed.
Rdr. Thomas
I agree with Reader Thomas that Jonah is not broken.
Jonah’s core beliefs will always originate from the ancient doctrine and practice and discipline of the church, and no amount of mea culpa should be interpreted as him capitulating to the more modernistic politically correct bureacratic elements in the church.
The only way to understand Jonah’s mea culpas and praise for his detractors is to understand the ancient monastic mindset which has molded Jonah (to his credit, by the way). Read the Ladder of Divine Ascent. It is part of monastic discipline to remain silent when falsely accused. It is the way of humility to magnify one’s own faults and minimize those of others. As a parishioner at St Nicholas Cathedral, I have heard Jonah speak many times, and I can attest that he is both one of the greatest men I have ever encountered and the most humble, which actually is part of his greatness. The purer and holier one gets, the more one becomes aware of one’s own failures and sins. I believe this is the case with Jonah. The OCA has never known a leader as pure and humble as Jonah, and many don’t know what to make of him. Definitely don’t count him out. He is genuinely there as a servant of Christ, and his strength comes from God, so the attacks that would destroy most men because of their egos and vainglory will not destroy Jonah because to the pure, suffering for Christ is a privilege and makes him stronger, IMHO.
Thank you, Ken and Reader Thomas. All I heard in that speech was the Metropolitan Jonah we know and love. It was an example of humility and piety that all would do well to emulate. I praise the Holy Spirit for allowing him to be our Metropolitan.
What bothered me was the complete abdication of responsibility by the other members of the Holy Synod, particularly represented in this instance by the documented statements of Bishop Benjamin:
When a question was asked about whether they would take up their part in this, Bishop Benjamin denied that they had any.
When it was asked whether the other Synod members would take up the same cross they were handing to the Metropolitan, Bishop Benjamin compared the Metropolitan to an alcoholic and to Bishop Nikolai, implying that the other bishops are somehow victims of the Metropolitan through some pathology of the Metropolitan’s.
When it was asked whether the Synod would do anything about leaks, Bishop Benjamin mocked the question, asking the priest who asked it if he wanted the bishops to frisk each other before meetings.
And nobody really challenged him on this, which is ridiculous.
I think that when this sad chapter in the book of the OCA is written, Jonah will be remembered and Benjamin forgotten. When you put the two side by side, it is obvious which one is lacking and troubled. If those who are working the levers of power permit Jonah to survive he can become the new example to follow and not the old guard who want only the status quo. If the OCA has a chance to regain its place here in the USA it will be under under the patient humble model of Jonah and not the arrogant angry example of Benjamin.
There is a sense of longing for the days when the OCA meant something positive. It must be more than mere nostalgia but a reset of our priorities. Jonah has tried that, but the push back of those seeking the status quo has been forceful. I think Hopko’s push back against Jonah is rooted in Hopko’s sense that the days of blind acceptance of all things Schememann and Meyendorf, all things SVS, are at hand. Jonah has a very healthy balance of what these men and institution were but also what they were not. To speak against Fr Alexander in anyway is anathema to Hopko. Hence the attempt to stir up Fr. Alexander’s memory by using Matushka Julianna. Indeed it was a nice warm and fuzzy video, but Frs Alexander, John and those halcyon days of SVS are also over.
Sadly, the immaturity of people like Benjamin, so quick to judge and condemn and so slow to forgive, is where the OCA finds itself today. Benjamin has been a major player in the demise of the OCA as a positive force for Orthodoxy in this land to one that shoots her wounded. His anger has fed so much of that unsettled sense we have today. His displays of dismissive contempt mirror how he leads his diocese where clergy are afraid to speak up for fear of retribution. Hence clergy signed those ridiculous DOW resolutions that were mean-spirited against Jonah. Benjamin surrounds himself with willing cohorts like Solodow and Wilson who feed into that uncharitable spirit.
Two bishops will accompany Jonah for his evaluation, Michael and Tikhon, probably the two who need the least to be with him. It seems so clear that so much of the anger that Benjamin has for Jonah is a projection onto Jonah of Benjamin’s own demons. If this Synod had any sense of balance they would insist that Benjamin also undergo an evaluation with Jonah since he, Benjamin was the one who cast the first stone against his brother.
We all have flaws but those who would aspire to leadership, Orthodox bishops, need to set the example. In the end, if given a chance, Jonah can be that better example when compared to his chief rival, Benjamin. The question is, will Jonah survive? Can one conclude that if Jonah has a chance at surviving but if Jonah goes down, so to the OCA?
Ken, thank you for this brilliant reply. You highlight something that we all have missed, myself especially. And that is we are dealing for the first time in a long time (perhaps the first time ever?) with a true monastic as primate. We in America have become so secularized that we forget that their is another piety that is more important than our rules & regs, corporate laws or even Robert’s Rules of Order. And that piety is love. It is true monastics who internalize this and manifest it for us. +Jonah did that the other day.
Perhaps we can say that the old OCA is dying and deservedly so and we saw the birth of a new OCA, one which can serve as the late Venerable +Dmitri said, the “servant of autocephaly? I certainly hope so. The present worldly model of eparchial grandstanding that characterizes American Orthodoxy almost in toto will never sanctify this continent.
So, exactly which part of his mea culpa was 100% truthful and which part was occasioned by the laudatory monastic traits?
Is this part true?: “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 from 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.”
How about this?: “I admit that I have very little experience in 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.” Does he really believe in this?
This one?: “I did not understand the depth 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 ask for your forgiveness.” Is he accepting the blame falsely?
Does he really mean the following or is this a manner of displaying humility: “How to get at the root of this breakdown in trust and repair it, if at all 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. I have chose to do this out of love for you, the people of this Church.”
Is he sincere here?: “I ask you all for your forgiveness, understanding, prayers and support.”
Is his monastic impulse working here or does he really believe this?: “At this point, I wish to commend the staff in Syosset for their work for the Church. They strive to serve the Church as well as they are able. In particular, I wish to thank Fr. Alexander Garklavs for his work as Chancellor during this very difficult time, with the transition from Metropolitan Herman to myself, and the conflicts we have had. What is very sad to me is that the job gets in the way of a good friendship. While we found it increasingly difficult to work together, it is my hope that our mutual forgiveness will bear much fruit through our respective continued service to the Church.”
You should know that he had admitted to shortcomings many times before, he had said he would do what was asked from him, and yet with the passage of time and growth of physical distance, his “monastic” inner core beliefs seemed to have forgotten his previous agreements and promises. What makes this promise (I should add, beautifully composed and delivered) different from previous ones?
Mr Ken Miller–I am eagerly awaiting your response.
Carl, sorry I just noticed your response to my post. Thank you for your response.
Monastic humility is not a trick or a gimmick or strategy. That would be false humility. True humility, such as +Jonah has, is a way of life. It comes from the heart, and is always sincere. It is compassionate and understanding towards all, even in the face of relentless personal attacks, just as our Lord prayed for those who crucified him. Nothing any of us ever does is perfect, and it could always have been done better, and I think the metropolitan is keenly aware of that. The metropolitan takes responsibility for administrative failures, and I think he is sincere in that. His monastic values do not allow him to try to justify and defend himself, or blame others, or to say anything uncomplimentary about his detractors. However, I am not a monk, so I will say more.
Spiritual leadership is a million times more important for a metropolitan than administrative leadership, and this is where the metropolitan really shines. Read his book. Listen to any of his homilies or talks, many of which are available online. The depth is amazing, and it shows that he has fully internalized “the patristic mind.” I don’t think I have ever heard him speak when he does not talk about subduing our “passions”. How often do you hear that from other bishops, or from anyone in the 21st century. You cannot read the holy fathers, monastics, or the Philokalia very long without understanding that dispassion is necessarily at the heart of working out our salvation. I couldn’t care less if he is a great administrator. We have a group of bishops who in their own minds are fabulous administrators, and look where that has gotten us. Weren’t these same people at the helm during the whole financial scandal? Wasn’t the church in paralysis with very little church planting even in the years before +Jonah took over? Has the metropolitan spent even a penny that is not authorized by Syosset, yet the OCA is bankrupt and +Jonah is the one who supposedly doesn’t understand administration? So what if +Jonah made some mistakes administratively. If you really analyze the accusations, they really don’t amount to a hill of beans. They easily could have been handled in a private meeting without using them as a battering ram to try to oust the metropolitan. Over the past year or two, +Jonah has hardly been able to tie his shoes without consulting the other bishops due to the unprecedented (and many would say uncanonical) restrictions placed on him, yet he has never complained, and he always kept a good attitude toward the other bishops.
Jonah has reached out and bent over backwards to try to get along with his detractors, but since they have an agenda, no amount of olive branches will ever satisfy them. +Jonah is an extremely accessible, humble, and down to earth person. If any of his detractors were to call him on the phone to discuss an issue, they can be confident that he will hear them out, that he will be quiet and polite and respectful, and that he will not use what they say as ammunition to smear them in order to discredit them, yet his detractors keep repeating the mantra that +Jonah is causing all the disharmony and they are the peacemakers. Any objective observer can see that exactly the opposite is the case. What more can +Jonah do that he has not already done – he apolgizes, he takes all the blame, he always speaks complimentarily about those who attack him, yet he is the trouble maker and the others are the peacemakers! The blindness that comes from his detractor’s arrogance and political ambition is amazing!
If you look at the areas in which +Jonah has supposedly been renegade and had conflict with other bishops really reveals a lot about +Jonah and about his detractors. I believe that in all of these cases, +Jonah is revealed to be the more spiritual and visionary leader. Let’s take a look at a few examples:
1. Jonah wanted to move the HS to DC: This is still an amazingly good idea. How can the Holy Synod claim that +Jonah doesn’t want to work with them when he invited them to work with him every day at the same location. The metropolitan is also the bishop of the diocese of DC, so he has to live in DC, even though his predecessor chose to break the rules in order to live in New York. It is well known that the Syosset is extremely expensive to maintain and costs a lot much money. Right next to St Nicholas Cathedral (our Primatial cathedral) in DC, where the metropolitan lives, there are multiple adjacent properties available right now on the market. The OCA has severe financial problems, yet the HS who want to maintain the Syosset albatross are the administrative aces and +Jonah is the idiot that needs administrative rehab. Amazing!
2. Jonah was gung ho to promote new monasteries, but the HS pulled him back. Answer me this: which one was really showing spiritual leadership and which one was playing power politics? Syosset and their minions tried to force the nuns who were attending St Nicholas to leave the country, and disparaged the reputations of the nuns and of +Jonah. The nuns were loved by everyone at St Nicholas, and they were an important part of our church family. Yet, the administrative aces in Synosset showed the love of Christ by giving these holy sisters the boot in the back side. Fortunately, ROCOR took them into their jurisdiction, but there is a stark contrast here between the spiritual mind of +Jonah and the bean-counting power politics mind of Syosset.
3. Jonah spoke out on the moral issues of our day, particularly homosexual activity, stating the simple and clear Orthodox doctrine that has been taught since the time of the apostles. Those statements were fully consistent with the SCOBA statement from just a few years ago on the topic. This is the one action that I think made his detractors go rabid and resolve that he had to go at all costs. It is a well known fact that the OCA has for decades quietly allowed homosexual sin to commune without discipline or requiring repentance, renunciation of sin, and commitment to live in celibacy. I had been attending my own parish for at least 7 years before I became aware that practicing homosexuals were communing. The power structures in the OCA had decided that it was acceptable to quietly behave one way while maintaining a public stance the other way. Webster has a term for this, and that is hypocrisy. Clearly, the enlightened elitists in the OCA had decided that orthodoxy could be revised to be more liberal and politically correct, and Jonah threw a wrench into the scheme they had been working on for decades. I’m sorry to break the news to them, but if that’s their goal, there’s a name for it and that is called the Episcopal Church. If one wants to be Orthodox, one has to embrace the ancient faith of the apostles and fathers without innovation. That is our solemn responsibility. So in conclusion, the question I would ask is: who would you entrust preparing your soul for the dread judgment seat of Christ – the one with a spiritual mind who teaches the true ancient faith in its entirety, or the ones who would rather jeopardize your soul by revising the faith in order not to offend? I know which one I would choose, and I thank God for Metropolitan +Jonah!
I disagree with your examples but accept your estimation that the Metropolitan has great ideas (I especially like his stance on tithing), solidly Orthodox positions (his stance on homosexual behavior and same sex marriage), and is a very approachable person (personal experience). The problem has never been his strengths but his weaknesses. He did acknowledge that his tenure had been an administrative disaster (something everybody agrees with) and that he is primarily responsible that (and here is where folks differ). There is something else however, and that goes to something deeper than mere administrative incompetence (that can be addressed with some seminars and special programs for executives). Instead, he has agreed to go to a clinic that addresses personal dysfunctions. The most readily identifiable dysfunction his inability to hold to a steady course. He may be too readily influenced by the last person he talks to or may have memory issues–the outcome being in not holding a steady course. As a result, he comes across as someone who is egocentric (perhaps even narcissist), not reliable and perhaps eccentric. I submit to you that those are not traits that we would want for ourselves, and certainly not for our pastors and arch-pastors. Indeed, I may be totally wrong but we are not going to find out until after the evaluation, and most importantly, by +Jonah’s actions themselves. If we see any more “I only agreed to a rest period and not to a leave of absence” type of action, we will know that we indeed have a huge problem. +Jonah can very easily convince all of us that you are right; he only needs to keep his promises and do the two things that he must do without fail as Metropolitan: (a) Be the consensus building leader of the Holy Synod and (b) actually lead the CCA and the MC instead of fight them.
You mean these parts of the speech that were written for him,
“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 from 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 in 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.” Does he really believe in this?
“I did not understand the depth 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 ask for your forgiveness.” Is he accepting the blame falsely?
“How to get at the root of this breakdown in trust and repair it, if at all 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. I have chose to do this out of love for you, the people of this Church.”
“At this point, I wish to commend the staff in Syosset for their work for the Church. They strive to serve the Church as well as they are able. In particular, I wish to thank Fr. Alexander Garklavs for his work as Chancellor during this very difficult time, with the transition from Metropolitan Herman to myself, and the conflicts we have had. What is very sad to me is that the job gets in the way of a good friendship. While we found it increasingly difficult to work together, it is my hope that our mutual forgiveness will bear much fruit through our respective continued service to the Church.”
or the parts he wrote “I ask you all for your forgiveness, understanding, prayers and support.”and the rest of the speech!
Folks I have been no fan of some of Metropolitan Jonah’s choices but please don’t wave the flag of surrender to Syosett. The need to defund the OCA welfare state is the key to genuine renewal. It needs to happen in the OCA and throughout every jurisdiction in America.
Here is a video to keep things in perspective.
Thanks, Andrew. New York Plan or bust!
Indeed, Andrew, indeed. I think economic circumstances will ultimately force the closure of Syosset
Here are the the questions posed to the Bishops at the end of the Plenary session. I was impressed with the anticipation I heard in the questioners, and the sincerity I heard in the replys. (The questions are not verbatim.)
1:54.18. To Met Jonah. What are the remaining obstacles of a dysfunctional Synod that you all have to deal with?
2:03.40. What are the safeguards to keep us focused on our goal, and not get into personal agendas?
2:10.10. To Met Jonah. Is the idea of working with the MP to provide Russian speaking priests to help in NY still viable?
2:14.00. What will the Bishops of the Synod do to fix the broken trust on both sides?
2:17.28. Are the rest of the Bishops willing to go through a psychological work-up (like HB did)?
2:23.13. Will you as a Synod commit to us to address transparently leaks (in your meetings)?
For Lola: Rebecca Matovic is liveblogging the AAC. http://rebeccaam.livejournal.com/
Thanks!
HA! I had a good belly-laugh at Matovic’s comment below as she reported on +Benjamin’s opening address (emphasis mine):
Benjamin: A quite pointed address. It’s been challenging three years. We’re here to work together. Salvation/church = union, communion, conciliarity; devil is division. If you’re here with an agenda, go home; if you’re wearing a button, take it off. (Apparently there’s some group with buttons of some kind identifying them as part of a faction – I haven’t seen.) His sharp, clear direction was met with enthusiasm and sustained applause.
Dare I hope that some brave folks had the audacity to wear the buttons I designed, which simply depict +Jonah & his signature, and nothing more? My-oh-my… +Benjamin is certainly a touchy fellow when even an image of our Metropolitan offends his pompous ass. I’d advise him to chill out with a drink in the hotel lounge, but wouldn’t want the drunk (to be P.C. I suppose it would have been better to say ‘recovering-alcoholic’) to fall off the wagon. It is nice, however, to see that +Benjamin has requested all those present “with an agenda” go home; doubtless he and a good portion of the HS & MC will be leaving on the next few flights out of SeaTac.
LOL, Herc. He is obviously scared of the lay support for His Beatitude.
Helga, did you see Matovic’s closing observations on other remarks by +Benjamin at the opening session (again, emphasis mine)?
Then questions — a couple of nonsensical grandstanding ones (which people were confronted about), 2 people from St. Seraphim (along with Fr. Chad Hatfield) asked variations of “MJ has owned his part in this, what about the rest of you?” Came out that 2 other bishops will participate with MJ in whatever this evaluation is. Benjamin firm that the problem in the HS is of leadership (i.e., we’ll all work to fix this but MJ is owning the problem because he is the problem and don’t kid yourself into thinking otherwise).
Big headline — Jonah agrees to some kind of intervention, acknowledges he’s made a mess. Most telling comment: Bp. Benjamin in response to a question saying something to the effect of if this doesn’t work, the HS will take further action.
While it is prudent to read Matovic’s commentary with the knowledge that she is a Stokovite and one of Leonova’s coven, I did find her words credible. To be honest, this putsch isn’t over by a long shot and the next few month’s are going to be telling (and I fear saddening as well).
Well, it should give you hope that Fr. Chad Hatfield and others have seen right through the deception. They obviously see this as more than “Metropolitan Jonah is nuts” issue, and that there’s fault with how members of the Synod have treated him as well.
Metropolitan Jonah’s speech was very clear about the nature of intra-Synodal relations: “I thought we had a good working relationship but obviously there is something very broken.” Bishop Benjamin whistling the “oh, everything’s fine” tune contradicts that, but the very fact that there’s an open contradiction shows that Bishop Benjamin’s claim is not true.
I’m re-listening to that part of the Q&A, and a further issue is Bishop Benjamin’s telling comparison of Metropolitan Jonah to Bishop Nikolai. Regardless of what one thinks of Bishop Nikolai, we all know what happened to him.
Matovic is part of the coven?
Yep. Matovic not only participates frequently, but is also sympathetic ‘to the cause’ judging by the tenor of her posts on Leonova’s site.
And who will determine when the patient (Jonah) is cured? If it is up to Benjamin, he will never be cured. That is the setup. What bar is being set for Jonah? What are the pre-determined benchmarks he is suppose to achieve? With this group you will get down to the 1 yard line, and suddenly they will add 50 more yards to the field.
If Jonah goes into this without knowing what these yahoos want, he ain’t every gonna cross the goal line. I said it before and I will say it again, the fix is in. They get through this week and then out of sight, they bring the knife.
Benjamin can’t fix anything not until he deals with his alcoholism. Did he enter treatment after his DUI?
+Benjamin was on the lam from the alcohol rehab center where he was ostensibly undergoing treatment when he had his 2004 DUI accident and subsequent drunk & disorderly arrest. (He also puked in the squad car to such a degree that it had to be taken out of service and professionally cleansed.)
On the average, it takes seven years and four relapses before alcoholics stay on the wagon. Alcoholism, like drug dependence, is a chronic illness and it serves no purpose whatsoever to make fun of sick people. What’s next, making fun of folks with diabetes, cardiovascular issues, or other chronic diseases? I have seen backwoods yahoos make fun of folks who suffer from addictions but certainly did not expect it in an ostensibly Orthodox Christian setting.
Carl, tell that to the people who make fun of Metropolitan Jonah for being on the chubby side.
Sure enough sister; I’ll tell it to anyone who displays such insensitivity. That said, as a heart transplantee, I have been known to talk to even complete strangers about the horrible consequences of obesity,stress, high cholesterol and inactivity. I don’t get punched in the face because folks know I do this because I care. If they think that I am being less than caring, I make sure they know that I detest folks who make fun of people because of their condition or ailments. It just is not right.
I know! Let’s tell the truth!
Who is making fun? I’m simply stating the FACTS (you know, something you shysters love to carp about only when it suits you).
The point, Carl, is that +Benjamin fails one of the cardinal qualifications for actually being a bishop. Given his history of alcohol abuse going back to seminary days, he should never have been ordained a deacon or priest much less bishop. +Benjamin should be sent packing, but we all know that is not going to happen; not with this Unholy Synod.
P.S. Wait until you see the +Benjamin ‘monkey-butt’ image I am working on Carl – then you might have some grounds for complaint.
Who is making fun of +Benjamin, Carl?
So on average, we can expect 3 more outburst and another couple of years for + Benjamin to “stay on the wagon”. Neat, looking forward to the show!
No, we don’t have to make fun of people who have disorders, Carl. I completely agree with you. At the same time, we don’t have to make these people bishops.
Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football come to mind. Funnier in the comics than in real life.
We really need to find out if they’re sending Jonah to the St. Luke’s Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland. That place has a notorious reputation among activists and others involved in the Catholic sex abuse scandal as a mill where Catholic dioceses sent their pervert clerics to be recycled and redeployed. Father John Geoghan, the notorious Boston molester, was sent through there twice before he was finally arrested. Why does Jonah need (“need”) to be in a place like this? Is it really the case that being poorly organized is the kind of thing that gets you sent to rehab?
I’m telling you, this is not going to end well. It’s not going to end well at all.
Rod, they could have sent Metropolitan Jonah to Fr. John Breck’s retreat center. It specializes in helping clergy, and it’s Orthodox. It’s in South Carolina, so it’s a ways from DC, but it would certainly be better than this place that sounds like it’s the “Molester Dry Cleaners”.
If it is St. Luke’s, and I believe it is, Jonah will have the stigma of being a “graduate” of that place and that is nothing you put on your CV. It is all part of the plan to outsource him.
If he goes ROCOR, I’ll follow him. And I’ll take my head’s $105 tax with me.
Helga,
Not as easy as in the good old days when ROCOR was schismatic. Then if you came, they would accept you. Now, with them being reunited with the MP, it is a much different proposition. Jonah would have to be released from the OCA, by the Synod before he could be accepted into ROCOR. I do not think there is anyway that they would let Jonah go to ROCOR or the MP. Heck, if they are not willing to let him just go back to the DOS as a diocesan bishop, they sure won’t let him go outside the OCA.
Nope, he either tows the line and is a good boy, and that might not be enough, or he is sent out to pasture, “for the good of the Church” and the rest of us are left with who to lead the OCA?
Somehow, I suspect MP would have something to say about that, being as to his unique relationships with some of the higher ranks over there.
Jacob, that is assuming Moscow makes good on its threat to not recognize uncanonical actions against Met. Jonah. They probably won’t have a problem with a lack of a release if they’re dealing with a robber-synod situation.
It’s not going to end well. They are trying to destroy +Jonah and will kill the OCA. Evil triumphs.
No, evil does not triumph. This was made perfectly clear by Jesus rising from the dead. Have faith.
Lola, you’re completely correct. The Story will end well because we know that our Lord has already triumphed over death. That does not mean that we won’t suffer in the interim, after all, Christ suffered during His Passion. What we are witnessing is bigger than the OCA, but the bifurcation of the Church into two camps, one is the Church the other is the Episcopagans.
The fault line is evident in the GOA between the Traditionalists who are shocked by the wild ramblings of a neophyte handservant of Franky in a book that will set the gold standard for mockery and the homosexualist/ecumenist/feminist wing within that jurisdiction.
As Boenhoeffer said in a sermon to his congregation in 1934, “we are being churned in the tempter’s sieve.” In other words, the wheat is being separated from the chaff. This happened to the Russian Orthodox Church which because it had succumbed to the Petrine reforms, was made a compliant handmaiden to the Ruling Class. Without a patriarch, its moral authority became slowly eroded until it was riddled with corruption.
What happened? The Lord allowed the satanic Bolshevists to almost destroy it in much the same way that He allowed the Assyrians, Babylonians, and the finally the Romans to destroy Israel/Judah. As St Peter said, “Judgment begins in the House of the Lord.” This means that corruption of the Episcopagans is going to destroy the corrupt wings of the various Orthodox jurisdictions but only after they have driven the Believers into the catacombs.
Make no mistake, there will be bishops, priests, monastics and laymen on each side of the divide.
Thank you Lola. Actually I do have faith. It pains me however to see the self-destruction of the OCA at the hands of lumbering men short of vision — men without chests as C.S. Lewis put it.
They take their lead from disgruntled homosexuals, small-minded careerists and other miscreants to savage a man who is leagues ahead in understanding how the Church that they claim to serve could bring healing into the world.
Ahh . . . thank you for confirming my suspicions. I did sense a bit of bias in the blog.
He is just hacked off because no one is wearing a button of him! Too bad. So sad!!
The only ones who can have an agenda at this so called Council is Benjamin and his coven. The man is a train-wreck. What a total hypocrite. The whole bunch sitting up there really can’t be taken seriously. “If you here with an agenda………” The man is not all there.
I have been trying not to say anything that might be construed as an ad hominem attack against Bishop Benjamin, but that’s really hard after last night. His call for leaving behind agendas is base and hypocritical in the light of his false claims about Metropolitan Jonah and the intra-Synodal relationship.
He was sent by me to the same rehab where Metropolitan Theodosius and Matushka Kucynda had been treated.. It is on the East Coast and, though RC has the highest reputation in that area among professionals. He was my Vicar at the time and I was unaware of his lack of moral compass. I wanted to give him a 2nd chance, while Metropolitan Herman thought he should have been removed. In many respects, bitter pill to swallow though it is, if anyone is responsible his position of authority it is I. I was badly mistaken in him.
I thought he was very Jonah-esque for a long time. But I couldn’t ignore petty cruelties like Bishop Benjamin’s refusal to allow Metropolitan Jonah to visit St. John’s this past Lent.
Your blessing,
It is a terrible reflection on Benjamin the way he has treated you, Your Grace since your retirement. You who gave him many chances not just a second one. He now treats you like a leper even to the point of making up things when he thought you were going to attend the AAC by fabricating that retired bishops sit with the other retired clerics of the Church. That is just not true, retired bishops always sat on the main podium. But I guess Benjamin makes it up as he goes along to suit his many agendas.
Sad to say that I have to agree, Herman was right and you and Fr. Kondratick were wrong in advocating to give Benjamin another chance. Live and learn.
I think the critical lesson here is that bishops need to be much more circumspect in general about who they ordain, and ESPECIALLY about who they nominate for the episcopacy.
Amen!
Yeah, I guess we could go back to the NT and the canons which are based on it. You know, circumspect men, not given to drink, husbands of one wife, children who don’t run riot, not given to anger, etc. I guess the canons would say something about not breaking the Ten Commandments (scratch two renowned archpriests from the list because of the false witness they bore against a sitting bishop.) Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Only on Monomakhos do Archpriests get accused of bearing false witness for speaking the truth about a sitting bishop ( I assume we are talking about +Jonah). Incidentally, +Jonah just vindicated the whole covenly cabal (cabalistic coven?) by admitting to be a failure in many ways, so much so that he must be evaluated for being, to quote a venerable Archpriest, “gravely troubled.”
Carl, what color is the sky in your world? “Gravely troubled” –REALLY?!? I’d like to see these archpriests psychological credentials. And as if this wasn’t enough, for both of them to laud OCAN as a completely truthful news-source? REALLY?????
If that’s not bearing false witness, I’d hate to see how you define perjury.
In the OCA, but not only in the OCA, Bishops fairly often ordain men they’ve never met before.
SVS LOvES to commandeer a visiting Hierarch to ordain this or that man whom SVS judges to be totally qualified. The guest bishop then ordains a man that may have even been refused ordination by hisOWN bishop. After all, SVS faculty is superior in its judgments. On the other hand, I have myself ordained at least one man who was NOT recommended by the Dean at the time, the Protopresbyter Hopko. That Priest, whom I considered to be an excellent candidate academically, canonically and morally, was recently awarded the Jewelled Cross in recognition of farily long service in the NY diocese and, before that in the Midwest and West Dioceses. What I’m saying is that Bishops should not ordain anyone they’ve never met, and should ordain, rather, only those men known to them personally.
Its interesting that Professor Gregory Freeze, in his very good book, “The Russian Levites” discusses the institution of the Moscow Academy and its reception by the Faithful. He said that the common folk in the diocese were used to electing a candidate in their town, village, or other community and sending the man off to the Bishop in the see city. There the Bishop would see to his education at the palace or other diocesan headquarters and later return him to his own community, ordained. When the Academy was founded, Professor Freeze remarks, some of the people were heard to complain, “Now we’re going to get Priests we’ve never even met WHOSE ONLY QUALIFICATION IS THAT THEY’VE GONE TO SOME SCHOOL IN THE CAPITAL!”
I feel that this book is probably not on the reading list at SVS.
Your Grace, that’s pretty scary, not to mention crazy. I like to follow their stuff because I like to know where my priests come from and where my money goes, and I noticed that sometimes different bishops will ordain the same seminarian to the diaconate and priesthood.
Do notice they’ve come full circle about certain things, though. I hear they even let people wear prayer ropes now.
Your Grace, it’s big of you to admit this mistake. You know, the main reason +Jonah and the entire OCA for that matter has suffered this past year was because he decided to launch a discreet investigation into Benjamin’s past. This bishop fought well, knowing the maxim that “the best defense is a good offense.” I am trying to pray for him because he could turn out to be a really good bishop. I think we should all do so. I know His Beatitude does.
This does bring up a point that has been sticking in my craw for several months now. For years, the pokrov ladies have enjoyed a marvelous reputation for going after miscreant priests and bishops, deservedly so. However they’ve been notoriously silent about certain, obvious cases.
George, if I remember correctly, Bishop Benjamin’s case allegedly involved his own teenage nephew. For me, that really put paid to Pokrov’s selective outrage over child sexual abuse.
Helga, I was thinking along the lines of His Grace wrapping his car around a tree while in a drunken state. That’s not technically “abuse” as the Pokrov ladies would understand it but it’s just as dangerous to life and limb of innocent bystanders. We’re still dealing with victims, aren’t we?
Yes, that is true, George. From the rhetoric that comes out of Pokrov, it sometimes sounds like child sexual abuse is the only crime ever, and every clergyman ever likes to cover it up. From practical experience, though, we know Pokrov is very selective about the kinds of crimes they get outraged about, and even about sexual abuse cases themselves.
From the rhetoric that comes out of Rod Dreher, it sometimes sounds like child sexual abuse is the only CATHOLIC crime ever, and every CATHOLIC clergyman ever likes to cover it up.
Fixed it for you.
Dreher re Met Jonah, the suppression of SMPAC, OCA lack of transparency, and OCA coverups: Whitewash, rinse, repeat.
RUKM, well then since you accuse +Jonah of whitewashing, was he wrong to order an investigation into Benjamin? A simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Helga, where did you read or hear that there is an actual case that could be investigated? And where did you read or hear that it might involve his nephew? (How I hate talking about this, but if these things are true, what is he doing making speeches? It’s OUR CHURCH! Bishop Benjamin doesn’t need to be making speeches, getting lauded, working on deals with high political figures. He needs help before he dies alone in a parking lot somewhere, of guilt, shame, heart attack, or whatever.
WORSE: Or kills someone in a drunk driving accident.
Listen. I have seen pornography (not ME! I didn’t look at it, but I saw it had been looked at, okay? And it totally floored me) on an Orthodox big shot’s computer. I have personally known a Big Shot Orthodox priest who almost killed two people with his car because of his addiction to pain pills. I have personally had my life devastated by these Orthodox leaders who think they can mess with little people’s lives and nothing will happen. Still, I love. I really care. I have no agenda. Except this: want to see honesty and integrity in the leaders so the Church can be herself again.
Too upset right now. Must go to bed.
It was Stokoe himself who talked about the investigation. Of course, when it was against Stokoe’s pal, Stokoe has to find fault with it. I believe Bishop Nikolai was the one who mentioned the part about the bishop’s nephew allegedly being the object of this, and the hours of pornography watched on diocesan computers.
I need to go get a shower now.
I am absolutely outraged by your fundamental lack of boundary, outrageous pride, and “self-will run riot” in shamelessly promoting mean-spirited, and scurrilous gossip as truth; and far worse, you do not seem to be interested in whether what you say is truth. In heaven’s name, who do you think you are? Seriously? And Bishop Tikhon, out of simple charity directed at you, could easily put this single outrageousness to rest, but he will not because it might provide you a very different perspective, and does not abet his systematic process of vilifying of Bishop Benjamin. Let others evaluate the sorrowful motivation, divisiveness, and consequence of silence.
Do you have any idea under what circumstances and for what reason Vladyka’s nephew came into his custody, why he took him under his care, or what his care entailed? Or do you have any appreciation for events and history that impacted Vladyka Benjamin’s decision, or how he acutely knew how such a decision – as did similar decisions – would ultimately impact his life? Of course you do not, because if you did, you would see the abject foolishness of to what you allude as the “license of a buffoon.”
It seems to me that charity – the simple charity that the Scripture demands we extend to even the most loathsome – would give you pause before you engage in the accusation of heinous behaviour without the slightest reasonable cause. I am ashamed, embarrassed, and saddened at this choice.
Mr Stankovich, I am sure that there are mitigating circumstances involved. But doesn’t Accountability and Transparency mandate that we are aware of these things before a man is elected to the Episcopate? Anyway, that’s true of most any tragedy.
While the ladies of Pokrov have provided a singular service, there are other cases out there for which they make no mention. For example, the late Gregory Solak, who died of alcohol poisoning while visiting Alaska.
Mr. Michalopulos,
Let me be absolutely clear here: my intention is not to provide “mitigation,” rationale, excuse, or assistance in “understanding” any situation or individual. My point is very simple: I am outraged that anyone would be “alleged” to have perpetrated predatory child sexual abuse – against their own flesh-and-blood, no less – as to be one of the most despicable, loathsome acts one human can commit against another human being, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Are you able to comprehend the enormity of what this “alleges” about a man? This is not simply a suggestion of “felony crime,” but crime that cries out to heaven itself! And you would answer, “Anyway, that’s true of most any tragedy.” This is the extent of your moral reaction?
And I repeat myself: Bishop Tikhon is capable of settling this single issue, by stating before men and Almighty God what he knows to be the truth.
Stankovich, the allegations do NOT rise to that level. You jumped to conclusions.
If you want to be outraged, be outraged at this:
Bishop Nikolai (Soraich) wrote to Bishop Benjamin:
“… here you are, a man who watched pornography on a diocesan computer for hours. I wanted to download all files from the Diocese of the West from the hard drive of that computer, and boy were we surprised during that process! A report came back saying you watched pornography 171 hours one month! There were other months almost as bad but you had to have been watching this on diocesan time.”
This is not gossip. Bishop Nikolai admits he wrote the letter. I believe Bishop Nikolai DID try to get this dealt with, and also other bishops, including Archbishop Job, investigated, that is, until they tied his hands behind his back and threw him over a cliff. Bishop Tikhon has written about these things over and over, like a broken record, online, for years.
Read the rest of his letter here: http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/nikolai-soraich-speaks-on-homosexual-clergy-serving-on-the-altar-and-the-further-adventures-of-benjamin-peterson/
As far as facts go, it is very, very likely Bishop Nikolai is not lying. This means what he’s saying is true. I believe it. Since I believe it, I am obligated by my own inner conscience not to keep quiet about it. If true, Bishop Benjamin has a serious problem with more than one addiction. Successful recovery will not happen while he remains a bishop, and it is not helping the Church to keep a man with these kind of addictions in power. Ask the experts about what constitutes sexual misconduct and what successful recovery from addiction requires.
Let us make another call for an investigation. I am not sure there is anyone in leadership capable of making a difference. We can scream and yell on George’s blog until the cows come home, and it doesn’t seem to do any good except to get the truth out in cyberland.
Too bad. I’m sick of corruption that hides behind false calls for charity and outrage that obfuscates.
Mr. Stankovich, what should outrage you is that sexual misconduct is the OCA’s newest assassination method. I’m not doing that against Vladyka Benjamin, I’m simply pointing out that there is a huge difference between the way his allegations have been handled and how Metropolitan Jonah’s opponents supposedly want sexual misconduct handled.
There were allegations, Stankovich. The nature of things means I can’t possibly know whether they are true or not, but there were allegations. The very morally outraged crusaders over sexual misconduct in the Orthodox Church, however, instead of investigating these allegations, these very same crusaders have ignored them and covered them up, and punished and persecuted Metropolitan Jonah for attempting to investigate.
I am not attempting to make Bishop Benjamin look like a molester or something. (The allegations as I am aware do not rise to that level anyway.) I sincerely hope the allegations are not true. But they have been made. And it is an offense against the integrity of the Church to punish one bishop for supposedly failing to investigate all credible sexual misconduct allegations, while allowing another bishop to escape being investigated.
Mr. Stankovich, these are the responses I heard from the big shots when I brought it to their attention that another big shot was watching pornography on “Orthodox” time (and child pornography at that): “ANYONE could have been looking at that computer!!! Even Father _______ had access to that computer!!” “What are you talking about? I know _____ and he would NEVER do something like that! You didn’t see that!” “You are wrong!” “You know how men are…. ” “I asked him about that and he said he had no idea how those sites got on his computer.” Like a puff of wind, the problem was solved. Not quite. It was still true.
My point in using this example is that I know what was there. I was treated as the bad guy, and I didn’t do it. Now, that is over and done with. But my hackles are raised to the highest level. If Bishop Benjamin is innocent of this one thing (watching pornography on an Orthodox computer for hundreds of hours within the past five years), I would like to read this reply to my question: “Jane Rachel, Bishop Benjamin is innocent. The hard drive was examined and we found that the sites had been accessed by so-and-so, who was cleaning the church at the time, and he admitted to it. So shut up.”
Let’s not get incensed about the nephew, we don’t know anything about that. Let’s just be rightfully concerned about the accusation by another bishop, in a private letter to that bishop, that the acting bishop was viewing pornography on a diocesan computer on diocesan time paid for by the good people of the Diocese of the West.
I just don’t buy these excuses. Somebody deliberately entered these website addresses into the browser – these just don’t appear miraculously, at least, I’ve never seen that to happen as a web developer who knows the tricks and keeps track of what possible security issues there may be out there.
But if the computer contained child pornography, the case becomes a criminal matter — a federal criminal matter. Were the appropriate authorities informed?
Bishop Nikolai also danced around an allegation that Bishop Benjamin looked at that pornography with the aforementioned relative. If true and said relative was a minor at the time, that’s also a crime.
Let’s ask my priest: “Father _____, were the appropriate authorities informed?”
No. They were not informed.
Lola, you are right.
Helga, you are right.
As the Stomach Churns.
P.S. Deacon Brian, it is indeed over in terms of pursuing the situation any further. As for me, well, it is helpful enough that I finally said something, and someone finally heard me.
But, Jane, if you yourself saw this child pornography on the computer, you could and should have made the call to the authorities. And even if no one made the call, any actions by others to dispose of the evidence would have been obstruction of justice, and that also could and should have been reported to law enforcement.
Mind you, I’m not trying to shame you for not doing the right thing; I’m just trying to understand the alleged misdeed. Pornography on a computer is one thing; child pornography on a computer is a whole nother level of offense. If that’s what we’re talking about, then somebody may still need to be talking to the police.
Your Grace, I am so glad to hear you on this. I’m so glad you told us about what happened with Bishop Benjamin.
“Coven”? Is this not a libelous statement? Should you not back it up with facts and verifiable sources? But forget about legality, how about the appropriateness of calling an Orthodox bishop a leader of a coven, or to even imply that there is a coven in the Church? I don’t even have to crack open law books, the Rudder or the Holy Scriptures to know that it was plainly wrong for you to have written your libelous statement. I understand how in moments of anger or high emotion we all make misstatements, to put the best face on this as possible, but I urge you reconsider and take the appropriate follow up action.
From Merriam-Webster…
Coven: 1. A collection of individuals with similar interests or activities (example: a coven of intellectuals). 2. An assembly or band of usually 13 witches.
+Benjamin, +Melchisedek, Mrs. Stokoe-Brown, Ms. Leonova, etc. along with their MC & Syosset flunkies and assorted hangers-on & apologists (include yourself where appropriate Carl) certainly qualify for definition #1 above. Deal with it.
I was not addressing you funny man: if I was writing to you, I would not have urged you to reconsider.
Touchy there Carl. Come on now. We here on Monomahkos have each other’s back. Unlike a group of bishops on display in Seattle right now.
Coven is one of those words like gay. You can’t use it because it has been co-opted. So no matter who answered, we are all one big happy family here. Hey you can say we are a gay (happy) coven (collection of individuals with similar interests or activities.) 😉
You know, if we’re going to dust off the Canonicon, then there’s a whole passel of people in Syosset and elsewhere who could have their ranks in the clergy revoked. Best leave that one alone.
I, too, was a little surprised at the use of the word “coven.” It’s most notable use in my experience was by the ever-memorable Archpriest Joseph Hirsch of Denver who, in apparent exasperation, more than once referred to the Holy Synod during this or that meeting as ‘that coven of queers,” as in, “We’ll pray that Your Grace and His Grace Nikolai will not be utterly destroyed by that coven of queers.”
It seems to me that the better word in the current context would be “cabal”, although I’m sure Monsieur Kraeff would find it as objectionable as “coven.”
Non, Monseigneur–not as objectionable, “cabal’ would merely be the wrong word. I was thinking about the “Holy Synod”–the body that has lovingly tried to salvage one of its own.
Carl, your eyeballs must not be screwed in straight.
Monsieur Kraeff forget to put one of his “winkies” at the end of that sentence. At any rate, none of them is trying to salvage anyone; however, a cabal among them may be intent on moving His Beatitude to the salvage yard, it’s true.
Is that a typo, Carl? Did you mean salvage, or savage?
Whoa.
Can I have a button — a BIG ONE????
You most certainly may. In case you missed it the first time around, here is the information once more:
P.S. The ‘illness’ in the family (a very difficult pregnancy for one of my sisters) resolved itself quite happily yesterday afternoon – I am once again the proud uncle of another niece!
Congratulations, Uncle Herc! Happy birthday to your niece!
INDEED! Na sas zeisei! (idiomatic, loses something in the translation but “congratulations for a new baby” will do just fine.
Congrats, Herc! I’m glad Mom and the wee baby made it through okay.
Since Ms. Matovic has disabled comments on her journal, I thought I would post here a word of gratitude: Thank you for reporting events and sharing your impressions.
I’m glad for Ms. Matovic’s blogging, too, DM, and I don’t mean that sarcastically or anything. It is nice to see with a glance an outline of what’s happened so far.
‘Spose I should apologize. I just think she’s biased. But I need to calm down, too.
George, please try to interview Fr. Jillions for Monomakhos.com.
You might get a better picture by interviewing Denise.
Fr. Jillions’ speech during the second plenary session told me all I need to know, and also drove me to use an Alka-Seltzer. I can’t believe I listened to the whooooole thiiiiing.
Helga, can you provide the timestamp for the beginning of Fr. Jillion’s speech?
19:30 on the Plenary II recording. I greatly did not appreciate Fr. Jillions’ swipe at Metropolitan Jonah when he said how “everybody” had warned him against applying for the position. This does not bode well.
I also want to commend Father John Parker for openly questioning Fr. Jillions about his views on “sexual minorities”. As a position of pastoral ministry, the position of OCA chancellor carries a tremendous amount of responsibility for upholding the moral precepts of the Church.
Too bad you did not appreciate Father John’s excellent presentation. His honest reporting of how everybody had blamed +Jonah for the OCA mess was only one bookend (or a prelude) to his entire presentation. The other bookend or the conclusion of his presentation was that even though there were/are problems, +Jonah and his brother bishops are working things out in a servant-leader manner (my terminology) and likened +Jonah to Saint Paul. So, overall his short presentation was greatly complimentary towards everybody, to include +Jonah.
Another thing that was remarkable was the subject of Father Alexander Garklavs. I had not known that +Jonah and the HS had given their blessing for Father Alexander to work as a consultant to +Melchisedek ; reading about +Melchisedek and Fr Alexander here I had thought that it was the unilateral decision of the Interim Chancellor to use Father Alexander. I also did not know that Father Alexander had been working mostly on clergy misconduct cases; reading about him here I had thought that he was plotting and cabaling away in that coven!. Nonetheless, it was most impressive and touching that Father Garklavs received such a long round of applause.
Just because they blamed Metropolitan Jonah doesn’t mean it’s true. He is a scapegoat.
The only reason Fr. Garklavs gets so much applause is because no one is telling the truth about him. Metropolitan Jonah can’t, and others won’t, but the speech Stokoe leaked in February tells plenty about him, and none of it good. Metropolitan Jonah was right when he said he should have simply fired him. That Metropolitan Jonah didn’t fire him while he could is his real management problem.
I guess this means that Jillions is a graceless man as well. He’ll fit right into the cesspool of Syosset.
Thanks, Helga.
Carl has a point. Fr. Jillions’s brief presentation concluded with a reference to “the sign of the Prophet Jonah,” an allusion that could not have been other than intentional. He anticipates a resurrection, of sorts.
However, Met. Jonah’s self-confessed mistakes are repeatedly hammered by many speakers and no one else (so far as I have heard) is named. Dysfunctional families, to use Bp. Benjamin’s favorite image, are seldom dysfunctional due to the maladaptive coping mechanisms of one member alone. Met. Jonah is a willing scapegoat.
I agree with George (below). Fr. Jillions inspires no confidence that the Christian moral tradition of the Church will be upheld in the OCA. “If you don’t find what you need, lower your expectations.” Or take your business elsewhere.
Up to the present, I have withheld opinion on Fr Jillions as I didn’t know anything about him. However, I think we can safely put him in the Stokovite liberal/ecumenist camp of worldly time-servers. Pity. But yet another nail in the coffin of the OCA.
What are you (not so subtly) hinting at, Your Grace?
What are you inferring, DM?
By “You might get a better picture by interviewing Denise,” I took you to mean that she would be the power behind the chancellorship. Was I mistaken?
I am going to pray for him.
Who’s making a fuss about buttons? I still have somewhere a button with my picture on it that was distributed from our diocesan booth at an All-American Council. I was surprised but did not think there was anything that reprehsible in them. Whoever’s objecting to buttons with Metropolitan Jonah’s photo on them should be clearly told, “Get a life, for crying out loud!” And by “a life” I mean a life with Christ.
I understand why buttons and t-shirts are discouraged at the AAC. While I would love to show my support for Metropolitan Jonah in as many ways as possible I believe these things could possibly be divisive, and certainly would be distracting.
This is a time for sober unity and humble work: not a political convention.
Jesse, you make a good point. However, I thought of it as a way of showing affection for Metropolitan Jonah in a way that is tangible. One of Stokoe’s tactics has been to make it appear that Metropolitan Jonah is alone with all sensible people ranged against him.
What do you mean by “tactics” in your last sentence. That is straight and honest reportage, unless one inexplicably deems Monomakhos and crew to be sensible. 😉
Nice personal attack, Carl. But Metropolitan Jonah is still loved and cherished by many, including myself.
I am sure he is. I am also sure that, with the exception of a few, many of y’all are sensible people. How did you miss my “wink’ at the end or is it too early in the day?
Carl, I wear your scurrilous attacks as a badge of honor. That’s one reason I keep you on this site. You’re a great barometer of common sense. If you’re against it, it must be right. Cheerio!
I’ll keep watching for the sober unity and humble work, then? Yes, not only “these” things, but almost any “thing” could be divisive. Putting things up for vote is definitely divisive! But the OCA is dedicated to the American Way: deciding everything by voting. They even take out an old respectable word, conciliarity, and find its fulfillment if not apotheosis in voting. I think it began with the idea that the Church Calendar was subject to voting. Very very divisive, but no one is decrying the process. They used to have voting in the Soviet Union and other states behind the iron curtain, as well as in the Comintern, but they knew how to keep divisiveness out of their processes, did they not? In fact, the slightest hint of “divisiveness” was strangled in the cradle, if not successfully aborted. God forbid a Church Council should have any divisions!!!!!!!
Zing!
Your Grace, I do expect to see some sober unity and humble work in some corners of the AAC. Listening to the questions from the floor at the end of Plenary I reinforced that belief.
I fully grant that there are some who will be distracted, bitter, and petty as well. Reading some of the reports reinforce that belief. But what would you have those who earnestly desire to “get over themselves” do? Doesn’t the way forward involve OCAT being as silent as possible? That’s why I decided not to publish many of the things I’ve written the past several months. Stokoe was way out of hand when he covered the last MC meeting, but it didn’t matter much because his words condemn him more than I could. Most people get it at this point. Hallelujah!
There’s a time for speaking up, and there’s a time for shutting up. Obviously I don’t mind speaking up (well, a little) and being “divisive” when I see a good man being treated abominably, but neither do I want to Monday-morning quarterback our bishops.
The fact that the retired Bishop of the Internet is now anparticipant here, with acolades aplenty, sums up the situation for both the site and the hierarch. The same bishop who neglected his diocese and insulted his own clergy for years now presumes to spread his special brand of misery far and wide, with the help of George, Rod, and Jesse. I’m waiting for Nikolai Soraich and Bob Kondratick to show up any moment, to make the joy complete.
I guess the motto is “Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.”
Killing the messenger never works Ted.
for the record: I have always welcomed (and will continue to welcome) opposing points of vew on Monomakhos. I will even post without comment essays from those opposed. And it goes without saying that I would welcome an honest debate between myself and those who oppose +Jonah. Oxford rules or NFL (National Forensic League) will apply. But, since most of them are cowards, I don’t suppose that will ever happen.
In every Orthodox diocese in the world you may find at least one person who charges the bishop with neglect of the diocese and with insulting clergy. It’s the reverse side of the old Moscow story that one may go far out into the forest and find a tree stump. Put a kamilavka on the tree stump and go away, Come back in a week and the tree stump will be surrounded by hysterically enthusiastic followers.
I’m sorry if any clergy in the Diocese of the West feel I have insulted them at any time. I myself have been graciously delivered from the curse of ever feeling insulted. I’d like to know, if possible, the name of any Priest in the Diocese of the West whom I’ve ever insulted: then I will apologize to him, here, if you like. I hope Mister Ted Logan will not feel insulted, but I’d like to remind him that His Grace, Bishop Nikolai (Soraich) is still an Orthodox Bishop, has not been suspended or deposed, although he humbly submitted to egregious demands from His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman. He is not “Nikolai Soraich” to you or me, Mr. Logan, assuming you are an Orthodox Christian. If that motto works for you, Mr. Logan, go for it! By the way, God Almighty reigns in hell and in heaven,,so, good luck!
Ted speaks the truth. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) neglected his own parishes and by his own inaction shown himself not to be a real shepherd. His failure to fulfill his sacramental duties caused a great deal of pain and suffering of the sheep he had a duty to protect and defend. He is not worthy of the office he claims. He is not to be trusted.
Regarding Bishop Nikolai, Bishop Tikhon conveniently has forgotten some key facts about the “fruits of his labors”:
+Nikolai Sues OCA for $11 Million – 1.16.2009
Joint Letter From Former Church Workers in the Diocese of Alaska – 4.8.2008
More Alaskan Clergy Speak Out, Recounting Abuse – 2.28.2008
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it!!
Mr Banescu,
Would you please name those clergy that His Grace Bishop Tikhon harmed? Your opinions of both Bishop Tikhon and Nikolai are well known. I have my opinion about the men too. And you know what, mine cancels out yours. So lets get beyond opinions.
Give the names and incidents of how Bishop Tikhon harmed parishes in the DOW. As a good lawyer you should be able to back up those charges. But before you do, are you speaking for yourself, your own opinion, or are you speaking on behalf of parishes and clergy who have filed formal complaints against Bishop Tikhon?
This is not OCAN where comboxes are censored by Stokoe who gave you free reign to say whatever you wanted because it suited his purposes. This is an open blog and cut and paste tactics don’t impress us.
Looks scary, ;no? Aside from Hiss Grace Bishop Nikolai doing what any Orthodox bishop might do when a service is interrupted for any reason whatsoever save an emergency, Monsieur Banescu (he’s the one that still can’t forgive me for not recognizing the “fact” that Fr. Gregory Safchuk once told him “The Church NEEDS (sic) people like you, Chris,” I told him I thought such a remark was reprehensible on the part of any Priest, and Chris has never forgotten it) charges me with neglect.
A letter from clergy not of the diocese of Alaska…. Well, there’s Father Arida again….As for the Harris’s, Bishop Nikolai did change a lot of things instituted by him and Bishop Gregory, like the living-room style drapes over the windows in the St. Innocent Cathedral and the fifteen-minute long ad lib commemorations as the Great Entrance.. He no longer permitted anyone like ever-memorable Fr. I. Fryntzko to BEAT “the natives” who drank too much, and so on. These veterans seem to have tolerated the antics of Bishop Nikolai’s predecessor with impunity.
Chris Banescu! Don’t you get any release or relief from the bile you spew on the Orthodox Forum? From your lock-step march alongside Mrs. Steve Brown on ocanews.org? My suggestion to you remains what it has always been: “Chris! Get a life–a life with Jesus Christ!” Do you still maintain your Hopko blog?
Thinking this through… If Bishop Nikolai is innocent…. if his predecessor was not innocent, if the clergy did not protest that bishop but protest this one… the stories from Alaska are vague and not convincing… don’t trust Stokoe or those connected to him…. sexual misconduct… Bishop Nikolai is against homosexuality and writes letters to members of the Holy Synod to try and stop the sexual misconduct… Archbishop Job begs forgiveness from Bishop Nikolai on his knees… people who love Stokoe say it should have been the other way around… I don’t trust Archbishop Job… manipulation of the masses… agendas…Met Herman takes over after Met Theo even though Bishops Seraphim and Job got a lot of popular votes…
Question: Did the the Alaskan clergy speak out against Bishop Nikolai because they didn’t like the changes Bishop Nikolai was making?
Speaking of Robert Kondratick and Company, the same Bob Kondratick whom Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) insists was completely innocent of all financial malfeasance and abuses, and who was just “framed” by a giant conspiracy of many members of the OCA via the Special Investigative Committee (SIC) report, may not have heard that Robert Kondractick the son was recently arrested by the FBI for his active role in a $26 MILLION “Green” Ponzi Caper.
Looks like the apple did not fall very far from the tree….
SEC Complaint: http://sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2011/comp-pr2011-201.pdf
Feds Make 3 Arrests In New York In Alleged “Green” Ponzi Caper
A bizarre case featuring spectacular allegations of Ponzi fraud coupled with verbal strong-arming of victims is unfolding in New York. Three people have been arrested by federal agents, and the SEC has filed an emergency action in federal court to halt what it described as a “green-product themed Ponzi scheme” involving stone pavers imported from Australia.
Arrested by federal agents were Eric Aronson, 43, of Syosset, N.Y.; Vincent Buonauro Jr., 40, of West Islip, N.Y.; and Robert Kondratick, 41, of Syosset. All three men are executives of a Long Island group of firms known as “PermaPave Companies,” investigators said.
Kondratick is Aronson’s brother-in-law, investigators said.
Aronson is a convicted felon who used proceeds from the emerging scheme to pay restitution to victims of a scheme to which “he pleaded guilty to conducting in 2000″ and was sentenced to 40 months in prison, the SEC said.
The allegation against Aronson that he used fraud proceeds from a new scam to pay restitution to victims of a previous swindle marked the second time today that the SEC made such a claim. This morning, the SEC accused Roger D. Shearer, who is implicated in a separate New York scam, of doing the same thing.
And a separate allegation in the Aronson complaint against an attorney marked the second time today that a member of the bar had been accused of helping fleece investors. In the SEC’s Aronson complaint, attorney Fredric Aaron, 47, of Port Washington, N.Y., is accused of helping Aronson and other co-defendants dupe investors.
“Aaron drafted the agreements used to defraud investors, participated in the solicitations conducted by Aronson, repeated during his extensive dealings with investors many of the misleading statements made by Aronson, and developed strategies for concealing the fraud,” the SEC charged.
Earlier today, the SEC accused Miami attorney Stewart A. Merkin of aiding the alleged Shearer fraud.
In the case against Aronson, Buonauro, Kondratick, Aaron and the PermaPave firms, the SEC said 140 individuals from the construction and landscaping trades became investors between 2006 and 2010 and were bilked out of $26 million.
“Aronson and his associates operated the PermaPave Companies as a classic Ponzi scheme,” said George S. Canellos, director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “They created the façade of a profitable business, promised investors extraordinary rates of return, and used much of their investors’ money to fund their own lavish lifestyle.”
Aronson, Buonauro and Kondratick “used new investments to make payments to earlier investors and then siphoned off much of the rest for themselves, buying luxury cars, gambling trips to Las Vegas, and jewelry,” the SEC charged.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff froze the assets of the defendants and eight relief defendants.
“Investors were told that PermaPave Companies had a tremendous backlog of orders for pavers imported from Australia, which could be sold in the U.S. at a substantial mark-up, yielding monthly returns to investors of 7.8% to 33%,” the SEC said. “In reality, the complaint states that there was little demand for the product, and the cost of the pavers far exceeded the revenue from sales.”
Moreover, the SEC said, Aronson tried to turn the table on investors by accusing them of felonies when they asked for their money.
“Aronson accused them of committing a felony by lending the PermaPave Companies money at the interest rates he promised them, which he suddenly claimed were usurious,” the SEC charged. “Aronson and . . . Aaron then allegedly made false statements to persuade investors to convert their securities into ones that deferred payments owed them for several years.”
Most of the investors “had little or no prior investment experience” and were told that “they were purchasing high-yield instruments that were free of risk,” the SEC charged.
“The PermaPave Entities operated from the same offices, shared the same employees, commingled assets, and purported to sell PermaPave pavers, which are squares comprised of small rocks glued together that purportedly assist with storm drainage,” the SEC charged.
Of the $26 million raised in the scheme, only $600,000 was used to purchase pavers, the SEC charged.
SEC CHARGES OPERATORS OF GREEN PRODUCT-THEMED PONZI SCHEME
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2011/lr22117.htm
Chris, that’s completely unfair. I’ve long presented myself as agnostic on the affair of the former chancellor, but what you just did –bringing in the name of his son–is beyond the pale.
Ignorance of truth is not a good approach to these long-term festering issues in the OCA, especially when someone like Bishop Tikhon (Fitzegarld) continually spreads wild accusations and BS regarding the past, and strives to rehabilitate a malfeasor like Robert Kondratick, despite the thorough investigation and documentation that was done.
Chris, you didn’t answer my arguments.
What does his son have to do with any of that? Just another pot shot and petty demagoguery. I’ve seen nothing that suggests the former chancellor didn’t do the things identified in the SIC report. However, seeing the incredible ongoing attempt at Orthodox Forum to bolster the anti-Kondratick position by reference to his son’s legal troubles, I am more than a little disgusted. Whatever, Robert Kondratick did or did not do, like any father, I am sure he is horribly grieved by his son’s predicament. The way it is now being bandied about against him by Chris and others on the Orthodox Forum is simply disgusting and mean spirited — and bears no relevance to the scandal that led to his deposition.
Oh dear, it seems the “victim” is now one of the three alleged ring leaders who were arrested and charged by the Feds with defrauding innocent people of $26 Million. Let’s all cry for him and forget about the real and genuine victims in this travesty, the folks who lost their homes, retirement accounts, and who knows what else so Robert Kondratick the son could indulge in, and I quote from the SEC complaint:
See screenshot here:
http://www.orthodoxnet.com/archives/oca/SEC_Complaint_49-50.gif
Classy family those Kondraticks, real classy!
Kondraticks = the Bernie Madoffs of the OCA!
Chris Banescu wrote to say: ‘Classy family those Kondraticks, real classy!
Kondraticks = the Bernie Madoffs of the OCA!’
Mr Banescu ought to know better than to write something like this in public. Or maybe he slept through his courses in libel law.
Chris, let’s not forget that Fr Oleksa thought Bernie Madoff was a really swell guy and that that billionaire in Alaska was just what the OCA needed.
Here, for efficiency’s sake, I’m quoting myself from a 22.x.11 response to another question. It seems that the repetition is necessary because some people just don’t seem to get the message unless it’s repeated over and over again. I’ll add something more at the end. Please bear with me.
BEGIN QUOTE
Just to take one example (Exodus 34:6-7 — there are others), when the Lord condescended to give
Moses the Law a second time, He proclaimed: ‘The LORD! The LORD! God, merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in mercy and faithfulness, keeping His mercy for a thousand generations, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet in no way acquitting the guilty but rather visiting the iniquity of parents upon children and grandchildren for three and even four generations.’
Here, the only problem is that Fr Robert Kondratick wasn’t/isn’t guilty of the allegations falsely brought against him by his own fellow Christians, laity and clergy, Judases all. May the Lord forgive them.
So, if FrRK is innocent, then maybe his son is innocent as well. Maybe Bobby was caught up in a web spun by others and couldn’t escape before the law came down on them all. I don’t know.
This will all come out in the legal wash eventually, so let’s reserve judgement until the court can make its rulings.
In the meantime, though, I have to say that it’s pretty low of people to take one man’s misery and use it to smear that man’s father with it. Is there not enough trouble in the world, that Stan/Barbara Drezhlo, Nina Dimas, Melanie Sakoda and Nicholas Skovran, Sr must stir it up and magnify it and spread it around?
And that Drezhlo! What Stan/Barbara wrote on this matter is actionable in law. We all know that truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel, but VFR carries libel against FrRK — among other people.
Who asked Stan/Barbara Drezhlo’s opinion about anything, anyway?!
END QUOTE
Obviously, we can now include Chris Banescu among the muckrakers. I knew his grandfather, Fr Basil, and I have to say that CB’s apple has fallen very far from that particularly good tree.
Mr Banescu should realize that it’s NOT just Bp Tikhon Fitzgerald who affirms and insists on Fr Robert Kondratick’s innocence. As I’m sure he remembers, he and I had a fairly blunt exchange on the ‘Orthodox Forum’ list about FrRK, because I also assert and insist on FrRK’s innocence. And it’s not just us two crotchety old monks who disagree with and defy Mr Banescu and others who continue to believe The Big Lie.
So, once again, repetitio mater studiorum being what it is, I’ll just have to remind Mr Banescu that the Nassau County NY district attorney said nolo prosequi, and — once all the D&D and depositions were in — a judge of the superior court of NY told the OCA’s incompetent attorneys that they had no case. It was the legal authorities of the State of New York who determined that FrRK was innocent, and that proceeding to trial would be a colossal waste of the state’s time and money.
The judge further recommended that the OCA enter an omnibus settlement agreement with FrRK in the amount of $250k, a number which by mere coincidence happens to be the same as the promissory note generated by the executive committee of the Metropolitan Council several years earlier, but never yet paid to the Kondraticks.
It’s long been my contention that our OCA will not be healed unless and until the injustices — all of them — done to FrRK by his own colleagues and superiors in the church are redressed. This includes his reinstatement as a priest of the OCA.
Honestly! Just take a look around and see for yourselves: Nothing has gone right in the OCA since Met. Herman sacked FrRK on 16 March 2006. NOTHING!
“Nothing,” Fr. James? I wouldn’t go that far. But perhaps the worst thing was that it heralded an age where the MC got used to telling the Metropolitan what to do, and the Metropolitan capitulated. Especially in matters of staffing.
This started putting the notion to some who belonged to this body, designed to be responsible for financial matters like fundraising, that the Metropolitan worked for them. Now we have a canonical anomaly, a power struggle, and no fundraising.
Yes. The Metroplitan Council has somehow come to believe that they are at least equal to, and maybe even superior to, the bishops.
The MC is indeed a canonical anomaly now that we have functional eparchies instead of a single North American exarchate.
The OCA’s ‘Statute’ is a seriously outdated document in need of complete revision.
I volunteer to help revise it!
Ted,
I’m afraid you are quite mistaken. I have never met Bp. Tikhon can in no way be considered his acolyte. This is not to say I dislike the man; I don’t have a relationship with him. I believe the same goes with Rod.
Whatever you think is going on here, just isn’t.
Yeah, I’ve never met Bp Tikhon, corresponded with him, or anything. And I quit writing on OCA Truth months ago, after Bishop Mark’s theft of my personal letters resulted in my outing. I don’t have much to say about any of this OCA business anymore, though Jesse certainly has my friendship and my confidence. Whatever happens, happens. The caravan moves on.
And your point, Mr. Banescu? You really just shot yourself in the foot here. Your quick action here leads one to conclude that the any attempt to discuss RSK will be met with Stokoevite shock troops ready to unleash a “shock and awe” attack.
Such visceral reactions and ugly insinuations are sub-christian, and you the son of a priest. You should be ashamed.
I agree with you, Amos. The only possible motivation for publishing that article about Protopresbyter and Mrs. Rodion S. Kondratick’s son is M-A-L-I-C-E, since it is relevant to nothing in the Church or our life in Christ whatsoever.
Can’t you hear Chris and the hosts of the air around him shrieking should the son be welcomed home for Christmas dinner? What an “altar boy”!!!
No, it’s called a pattern of behavior. Anyone who can still claim that Robert Kondratick was innocent and did nothing to undermine the OCA and perpetuate a culture of corruption, abuses, and malfeasance needs to have their head examined.
Pattern of Behavior, Like Father, Like Son:
Chris, in any court proceeding, “pattern of behavior” applies only to the alleged perpetrator. I’m not a lawyer and even I know that.
True, but the old adage that “the apple does not fall very far from the tree” is quite applicable also.
That being the case then Chris, your malice says exactly what about your father?
This is not just wishy washy ad hominem by maxim, it is a complete distraction that turns people away from what they were talking about to the issue of your particular bitterness Chris. As one who doesn’t have any desire to defend or prosecute Bp. Tikhon or RSK, please stop.
Chris, you are really a sick person. Your hatred is so transparent. I don’t know what happened to you growing up, but why don’t to get some professional help. Maybe check into the same facility that Benjamin should and Jonah will. Whatever happened to you in Tarzana, or in your youth, work it out somewhere else.
I pray the apple does not fall from from the tree because if it does it does not speak well for your father!
Like Bp. Tikhon said, “get a life.”
My, my!!! Y’all can dish it out but squeal like a stuck pig when someone returns the favor. And, what is with the endless, steady projection? Carl out–you may return to your circle jerk, or may be circular firing squad?
Carl, what with you being an acolyte of Mrs. Stokoe-Brown, I am quite certain you’re well acquainted with participation in circle-jerks.
Yes, it’s a vulgar observation, but it mirrors your own.
One:
Would those who proclaim FrRSK guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt please address this statement by Monk James:
Two:
Would those who proclaim FrRSK to be innocent kindly address the so-called evidence we read in the SIC report, which for some proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty, regardless of what the legal authorities of the State of New York concluded.
Kids, kids, settle this down, or NOBODY is getting milk and cookies!
Seriously, I think we need to all spend some time in prayer this week for the whole OCA, and for the Holy Synod including the Metropolitan, not hashing out the great wars of the past.
Amen. Let’s let the appropriate authorities work this out.
I apologize. No doubt, Chris heard I was posting here and it provided new energy for his established pattern of behavior: malign, malign, and malign. Only one person has fallen out of the pattern: the doughty Dalai Lama of Protopresbyters.
Amos says, “Chris, you are really a sick person. Your hatred is so transparent. I don’t know what happened to you growing up, but why don’t to get some professional help.”
Way our of line, Amos.
Ah, the council of the Scribes & Pharisees gathers to proclaim a righteous “offence” at the impropriety of the clear violations of the evidence code – “beyond the pale,” inadmissible, ill-gotten, & inappropriate! – and all the while crying, “Tactics!” like Shakespeare’s Caesar would cry, “havoc.” And who leads this righteously indignant rabble but the “Johnny Cochran” of monastics, as baldfaced as any “Dream Team,” insisting “if it doesn’t fit…,” while the cops haul away the bodies. Nice touch. Indeed, nice touch.
I have simply pointed out that a, now rationalizing and unapologetic “anonymous” internet-emboldened coward, finds it proper to “allege” that a Bishop of the Orthodox Church “may” have perpetrated heinous child sexual abuse against his own flesh and blood, with absolutely no evidence. And not one solitary commentator even questions the propriety. But what should tear at your collective “conscience” is that the Bishop deemed “worthy of respect,” who could dismiss these allegations as “beyond the pale” and unfounded, cannot find it in his heart to set aside his pride and do what is right. That, dear hypocrites, is what is mournful here.
Michael,
Are you a member of the OCA? Do you commune and confess in an OCA parish?
Yes or No.
For me, it is more important that I know who my interlocutors are. I appreciate that a few folks here use their real names. I have no idea who you are, or Helga, Jane, Amos, Herc…, etc. So, you, for instance may commune and confess in an OCA parish; but, does that make you righteous, give your postings more moral weight, make them sager and more truthful?
Carl Kraeff says:
November 2, 2011 at 2:53 pm
And what real difference does that make here?
Your name (if it is your real name, I have no way of knowing) means nothing to me since it tells me nothing at all about you personally.
Only what you say, how you say it, and how relevant it is, does.
If you think using your real name makes your postings more trustworthy and truthful than those that don’t, you are “gravely” mistaken and causes me to believe that you have a “superiority complex.”
(I for one don’t give my full name in order to “protect” someone “high up” in the OCA who bears my same last name from “getting into trouble” because of me.)
No.
It just means that only we of the OCA have “a dog in this [particular] fight” and others should consider themselves as “on lookers” whose comments or opinions we may or may not consider.
Your “dog(s)” in this fight are people who have been my friends, brothers, and confidants for perhaps more years than many commentators here have been alive. I was, in effect, “raised” with them; studied with them; prayed, sang, and served with them – at least twice daily – for years; and I knew and loved their families, and they mine.
Further, I have witnessed the history and activities of your OCA from the very day it became the OCA, in “real time.” I was there, and I knew the players and the “players.” I have been trained in my line of work to be a “keen observer,” and that I have been. Pal, I have earned an “opinion” because I have participated in the history, and the individuals that are so easily scorned here are men whose hearts are known to me.
St. Kornelius (Stankovich) was a renowned composer of Serbian Orthodox liturgical music. It is my joy to share his name.
Move to the back, you’re in my seat.
In short then, you are not in an OCA parish, and do not commune.
Carl, the anonymous train dun’ left the station months ago. I don’t know who you are and you don’t know who I am. Just deal with the assertions and arguments.
These quotes from the seriously skewed SIC report are meaningless beacuse Fr Robert Kondratick was never afforded an opportunity to explain and/or refute what appeared to be irregularities in financial matters.
I can tell you for a fact, though, that all those Brooks Brothers expenses were OCA ‘gifts’ to dignitaries of other orthodox churches while they were visiting New York. None of that extravagance accrued to the benefit of the Kondraticks.
So, even at this remove, if I can say just that one statement as a point in fact, something unassailably true, then how much of the rest of that very confused and confusing SIC report could be dismissed with just a dollop of truth and a smidgen of reality?!
Does anyone remember that Bp Benjamin and the SIC issued their first report BEFORE they interviewed ANYBODY or saw any records? Those jokers merely regurgitated the false and perjured testimony offered in the ‘spiritual court’ convened to try FrRK. I don’t want to tarnish the reputation of kangaroos, but I can’t avoid using the term ‘spiritual’ because that’s what they call such proceedings. But the moving spirit in that trial was not of God.
Anyway, after I and some others objected to that particular hatchet job, the SIC did finally begin to interview people including myself, and some of them perjured themselves there, too, as emerged in the depositions leading up to the judge’s decision to direct a settlement between FrRK and the OCA.
But, as I say, FrRK was deprived of every opportunity to explain himself against these spurious charges.
Now that FrRK and the OCA have settled, he’s somewhat limited in what he can say in public, as is the OCA. FrRK has faithfully upheld his part of the agreement.
The slimy muckrakers ought to leave his family out of their shameful posturings, and just admit that they were wrong. Perhaps not intentionally or maliciously, but wrong just the same.
Then they should apologize to FrRK and to us all.
Hear, hear! from the peanut gallery!! Thank you for that extra info, Monk James. And now…. back to work for this old artist.
I saw bunch of records–at least those that had not been shredded by Mr Kondratick. Nevertheless, would you please tell us what the relationship (if any) is between the Kondratick suit for the house improvement expenses for $250,000 and the SIC Report.
The accusation that Fr Robert Kondratick spent his last hours in the OCA Chancellor’s office shredding files in order to ‘destroy evidence’ is pure fantasy and fiction. It didn’t happen. I was there on his last day, 17 March 2006 — the saddest St Patrick Day of my life.
I’ve already explained, just a post or two ago, why there is no relationship between the SIC report, the $250k promissory note and the $250k settlement amount.
I did not say that Mr Kondratick was shredding records on the last day.
In any case, there were over a dozen specific charges that the Spiritual Court considered. There have been no answers presented by the Kondratick side to any of them.
Instead, we have a drum beat of process violations: no minutes were to be taken, the members of the Spiritual Court would not be changed, and appeal of the first two to the HS would not be permitted. Monk James should know that at least the third process “violation” is completely supported by the OCA Statute, and that vague accusations of impartiality would not have been upheld. That leaves only the “no minutes” decision. Bad as that may have been, it need not have resulted in Mr Kondratick’s decision to therefore leave the proceedings.
In any case, Kondratick’s appeal of the final decision was carefully considered and rejected by the Holy Synod. So, we have two separate bodies finding him guilty and we are still burdened with Monk James’ quixotic attempts to defend Mr Kondratick. I rather admire Monk James’ loyalty but it is about time that Mr Kondratick start answering specific charges.
Oy,
Carl and Bogdan,
Must we go over this again and again. Let me simplify this for you.
Carl and Bogdan, would you be part of a trial in which no written or audio record of the proceedings would be taken?
That is the first question. Would you? Do either of you have the balls to answer this most fundamental question of justice, whether church or state?
So says a coward who hides behind a pseudonym and offers nothing in evidence to contradict the mountain of information and audit reviews the OCA produced to document the abuses, greed, and malfeasance of Robert Kondratick. Got it!
I never hid my comments, nor do I have a dog in this fight. However, seeing what I have seen and read what I have read, especially from OCNews. This smells and smacks of a smear job and in making RK a fall guy.
Furthermore, as a lawyer, and as a person of pure commen sense, I would never allow my client into an arena where full and complete due process was not allowed. RK did the right thing. The District Atty. saw that this was politically motivated and BS and dropped it.
When all is said and done this story and the injustice committed to RK will be exposed. The OCA has gone down and continues to go down because of the RK matter and it does not seem to me, nor to the D.A., that it was of RK making but of the pure propaganda of Mr. Mark Stoke.
Be very careful Chris you may be on the wrong side of this. I do not believe RK was a saint, but it does not seem to me that he was the sinner that the HS made him out to be.
Also, Monk James’ loyalty aside, the RK case itself just stinks to high heaven the way it was handled and if there was no actual railroading, a very strong appearance of railroading does seem to have occurred.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Chris, you’re a lawyer. I’m not. But I know that invective is not a legal argument. Pound on the facts, not the table.
Carl Kraeff is mistaken here on several points, but I’ll address just two.
First, we did NOT leave the ‘spiritual court’. Attorney James Perry told us to gather our belongings and go, because we could not proceed without a record’s being made.
Second, Fr Robert Kondratick NEVER GOT TO MAKE AN APPEAL. His detailed request to be heard on appeal was refused by Met. Herman and Abp Nathaniel, and the other bishops behaved like deer caught in the headlights.
So, from what novel does Mr Kraeff get ‘In any case, Kondratick’s appeal of the final decision was carefully considered and rejected by the Holy Synod.’ ???!
Ultimately Monk James, what is going on here is:
1. The OCA has no real due process, because
2. It’s central chancery is corrupt, because
3. It’s episcopate is morally compromised –at least during the time in question.
That’s why the other bishops were “caught like a deer in the headlights.” They couldn’t rise to the occasion because any objectively neutral investigative mechanism could compromise them.
4. Ergo, The Dumping Ground.
Shredded? What records were shredded? Do you know this first hand? Who said that records were shredded?
This is how stupid the new OCA is. They could have settled the home improvements for $112,000 but because they were so “righteous” in their outrage it cost us $750,000 in settlement costs and lawyer fees.
Carl and Chris, you are both neophyte SHILLS in these things. Best you just stop trying to keep pushing the Stokovite baloney.
The OCA got screwed because they lost perspective on what is really important. People like Banescu and you won’t even think in the minuscule that the OCA blew it in going after RSK.
The shredding of documents was confirmed by former OCA secretary Paul Hunchak who witnessed it first hand:
I guess he is also part of the vast conspiracy to “get” the “innocent” and “saintly” Robert Kondratick.
Was there a filing of an affidavit under oath? Was a deposition had to cross-examine? Where documents produced? where computer hard drives subpoenaed? No, no, and no. The accussed what not allowed to create a record. No paper trail, no nothing.
CYA!
Peter
Chris. Here ya go. Poked around the Listserv Orthodox archives and found this. Hope His Grace doesn’t mind if I cut-and-pasted his response in Jan, 2006.
Listserv Orthodox, Jan, 2006:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Former Secretary Of OCA, Paul Hunchak Confirms Wheeler Allegations
From: Bishop Tikhon
Reply-To: Orthodox Christianity
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:14:02 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments
text/plain (97 lines)
Cappy Larson wrote:
>———————- Information from the mail header ———————–
>Sender: Orthodox Christianity
>Poster: Cappy Larson
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Former Secretary Of OCA, Paul Hunchak Confirms Wheeler
> Allegations
>——————————————————————————-
>
>I wonder what Bishop Tikhon has to say about the character of this
>Former Secretary of the OCA.
>
>
Sometimes happy to accommodatge one of my wilder-eyed fans!
I shred documents every day, especially those which would aid in
identity theft. I feel that the banks can be trusted to keep the records
that they are required to keep by statute, just as I am required to keep
my own personal records pertinent my taxes (but not necessarily as hard
copies.
As far as “smuggling funds,’ If anyone has any experience at all, as I
most certainly do, with conveying money to any one or any institution in
Russia, but especially back in the latter days of Brezhnev and Gorbachev
and Yeltsin (and some say it’s just as bad today) whenever we had
thousands of dollars from this or that orgainization in the parish that
we wanted to give to an orphanage, a Priest, a Bishop, especially for
books, clothing, etc., we had to find a trustworthy person to take in in
person in cash. If some laws had to be circumvented, we did not require
it, but we allowed it. I’m sure even Paul, however he’s disaffected for
whatever reason, knows that to send funds to anyone in Russia by check,
bank draft, money order, wire, etc., was to risk if not outright
diversion of the money, then all kinds of statutory or KGB “taxes” and
so forth, so that the amount collected for good purposes just lined
bureacrats’ and others’ pockets, if, I repeat, it ever got the intended
person. “Why are those Americans sending you all that money? Are you
avoiding income tax by pretending the money is for others?”
Once again, we are being connected with very loud HUFF and PUFF,but no
evidence of anything, WHAT documents, exactly were shredded? Does Paul
have copies?
Evidence, evidence, evidence. Even if Bush et all have flouted habeas
corpus and other constitutional guarantees and ignore actual evidence of
their crimes and torts known to all the world, this does not grant a
license to malcontents in our Church to freely and most maliciously
malign anyone at all without evidence. It’s bad enough that men and
women have gone to jail for “suppressed” (as far as they can tell)
memories, but when someone accuses a clergyman of very, very modest
means, considering that he and matushka both work and have, I think, one
car, etc., someone who has hired, contrary to conventional wisdom, the
inexperienced in whom he saw potentiality and therefor did not make use
of older people of experience and seniority for positions of trust, but
which tyros began to think that their positions and “perqs” were
something to which he and especially his wife, were permanently
entitled, not to mention living in expensive low-crime areas, even if
they might turn out to be a bungler or self-seeker, to accuse this
clergyman of “enriching himself” is so ludicrous as to inspire, were it
not at the same time so hurtful, great mirth.
I’ve never heard, by the way, that anyone in the Chancery is afraid of
the appearance of any IRS agents. Anyone?
However, I don’t think you can hire them to prove your innocence. After
all, even under this administration, those who are of non-Middle-eastern
ethnic origin or appearance are considered innocent until proven guilty.
There seem to be some in our Church who consider that Protopresbyters,
for example, are as suspect as Arabs, and guilty until proved innocent,
correction, until they allow someone to come in and examine files which
it is the responsibility of church officers to keep from random access
by the public and look for something to prove them guilty, or unless
they themselves can prove, to the satisfaction of this Hierarch, that
Sacred Servitor, that Biznizzmen with the longest resume of failed
employment in history,, that Cub (or is it “cubby?”) Reporter, that
Attorney who, despite being a public employee, makes rash threats. etc.,
that they are innocent! I don’t see the Christianity at all in some
actions irresponsibly bruited as being good for the Church.
Poor Cappy, I had no idea you were so far on the sidelines. I think you
asked me what Gay Mafia meant. Find out yourself, it’s current idiom. I
think if you do a Google on it you’ll get a pretty long list back.
Must be quiet at Pokrov these days: discouraging times for someone who
held the conviction that child sexual abuse in the Orthodox Church was a
problem comparable to the same problem in the Roman Catholic Church!
Best keep at it. Everyone needs a little niche in life.
Commending all to Christ’s love,
+Tikhon, The Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West; The
Orthodox Church in America
“She’s the sort of woman who lives for others–you can always tell the
others by their hunted expression.” (C.S. Lewis)
Chris, maybe you’re right about RSK, but right here on this thread we have someone who claims to have personally seen child pornography on the computer of a currently active OCA “big shot.” That’s a whole lot more distressing to me than anything alleged about RSK.
Deacon Brian, let me be more clear. He is not a “currently active OCA big shot.” About eight years ago I saw, by inadvertently visiting “history” on his computer, that child pornography web sites had been visited many times that morning. He was using the computer for important Orthodox business, and he was not particularly well known outside his circle. He is not a priest. And he is not a “big shot” now, but “big shots” protected him when I blew the whistle. I am not going to say more, and I’m not going to do anything else about it because I don’t want to be hurt any more.
Then I related a bit of my own nightmarish experience, which resulted from what I saw (cheeks burning), to what Bishop Nikolai wrote to Bishop Benjamin. He wrote that Bishop Benjamin spent 117 hours in one month looking at pornography on a DOW diocesan computer on diocesan time. He said this was revealed when a worker looked at the hard drive of the computer. I don’t know the type of pornography that was found on the DOW computer. My case and this case are unrelated legally, but morally identical in my opinion. If true, were Bishop Benjamin’s actions illegal, and if not by law, then morally corrupt? If true, should he remain a bishop to this day, wielding power and influence?
If you have not read that letter, you might want to read it.
Thank you for the clarification. I’m relieved to hear it. Sorry for the confusion.
Are we supposed to believe that Paul Hunchak was familiar with the contents of Fr Robert Kondratick’s ‘private filing cabinet’, as Chris Banescu quotes PH here as saying: ‘As an aside, I recall that Fr. Kondratick spent hours that summer shredding documents from his private filing cabinet that held, among others things, the only records of bequests given to the OCA.’
Really? So, then, that wasn’t a ‘private filing cabinet’ but open to PH?! I mean, really?!
Spent what Summer?
I myself regularly shred anything with personal identifiers, as do many of us. FrRK did the same on a regular basis, since there were often some very embarrassing papers crossing his desk. Once he’d assessed the information conveyed in those papers, he destroyed them so as to protect people from crazy and false accusations.
He had no reason to shred those papers to protect himself, since there were no such papers, at least no credible papers.
Paul Hunchak’s assertions wouldn’t have survived two minutes of questioning during the depositions collected during the run-up to the OCA’s incompetent lawyers’ (for whose services we paid dearly — we deserve a refund) suit against FrRK.
Paul Hunchak was a cheerful, plump, rosy-faced office boy at Syosset, not the Secretary of the OCA. After testifying that he saw Father Rodion in the awful, abominable act of shredding documents with his shredder, he became an employee of Protodeacon Eros Wheeler at his funeral flowers or whatever business. Maybe he still does work for that person.
Paul Hunchak was not Secretary of the OCA but more or less a flunky who could do secretarial work in a pinch. I think Father Bob gave him a job when he really needed it, on the recommendation of an Archpriest in Western PA.
What was highly suspect relative to the OCA files was that the very day after the Chancellor was rushed out of the Chancery after surrendering his keys, the files were open to anybody in the whole world BUT the Chancellor. The Chancellor had, a day or two before that, announced that a security firm had inspected the file system at Syosset and pronounced it a security nightmare: files which were completely open to hacking and viruses. As soon as he was out the door, access was given to FORMER employees of the Chancery. You can be sure that any files containing less than positive information about “the gang” and at least one Archbishop are gone with the wind. No one reported on such shredding, of course.
The stink of Hunchak’s red herring is still nauseating when Monsieur Banescu fishes it out of the dumpster.
Dear BT,
There ya’ go again. Spewing out falsehoods to serve your own agenda when you know the truth. Evil! Recorded in the minutes of the Holy Synod, when you were a member, is the awarding of a Synodal Gramota, given to Paul Hunchak for his years of service to the Orthodox Church in America as its Secretary.
-Deacon Eric
Chris Banescu really hit the nail on the head in his last sentence. Many thanks!
Bogdan,
Such “evidence” was certainly good enough for the OCA Kangaroo Spiritual Court, however it does not appear to have been enough for the District Attorney for Nassau County to pursue. And that DA has pursued cases for much less money. Makes one think that there might have been markedly different standards for evidence in the OCA than in the State of New York?
Sorry, but many here just have a wider view of things living in the post-Stokoe Soviet Pravda OCA news world.
Nice try Barrister Bogdan in your efforts to try and take us off the scent of Bishop Benjamin. Motion denied.
“hear, hear!” from the peanut gallery. And now…. back to work!
Would you please throw a peanut out to me in the lobby?
Here, here!
I have just been reminded of the scene where Homer offers Apu’s god a peanut. It is funny:
(Homer buys a crate of Duff beer and a packet of cigars at the Kwik-E-Mart)
Homer: Apu! I see you’re not in church!
Apu: Oh, but I am! I have a shrine to Ganesha, the god of worldly wisdom, located in the employee lounge!
Homer: (approaching the shrine) Hey, Ganesha, want a peanut?
Apu: Please do not offer my god a peanut.
Homer: No offense Apu, but when they were handing out religions, you must have been out taking a whiz.
Apu: (angrily) Mr. Simpson, please pay for your purchases and get out and (cheerfully) come again!
Source(s):
http://www.tv.com/the-simpsons/homer-the…
SYOSSET, NY [OCA Communications] — In the fall of 2005, allegations were made about financial misconduct within the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). To investigate the allegations, the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP was retained on behalf of the OCA. The accounting firm of Lambrides Lamos & Moulthrop LLP also was retained to audit the OCA’s financial accounts for 2004 and to examine the disposition of monies collected through OCA appeals from 2001 through 2005.
In December 2006, during the joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan HERMAN appointed a Special Committee “to work . . . with the attorneys from Proskauer Rose and to bring the investigation to a conclusion in the most appropriate way.” The Special Committee was composed of Archbishop Job, Bishop Benjamin, Fr. Vladimir Berzonsky, Fr. John Reeves, Gregory Nescott and Dr. Faith Skordinski.
In March 2007, the Special Committee presented its preliminary report to both the Holy Synod of Bishops and the Metropolitan Council. Having worked with the attorneys at Proskauer Rose LLP and the accountants at Lambrides Lamos & Moulthrop LLP, the Special Committee reported those professionals’ observations, provided below, which became the basis of the accusations against the former Chancellor, Robert S. Kondratick.
• Between 2001 through 2005, over $1,000,000.00 was withdrawn in cash from the operating checking account of the OCA and given directly to Robert Kondratick. The OCA records lack any supporting documentation to indicate how the cash was spent and for what purposes.
• $575,300 of the approximately one million dollars withdrawn in cash was taken from the special appeals funds and given to Robert Kondratick, who has been unable to provide the name of one person or parish who received any of this cash.
• Despite meeting face-to-face five or six times with the accountants from Lambrides, Robert Kondratick could not provide them with the name of one 9/11 victim or parish who received any of the $176,500 allegedly distributed.
• An audit of the check and wire disbursement from the special appeals funds, from 2001 through 2005, shows American Express charges of some $5,600.00 for a member of the Kondratick family, designated by Robert Kondratick as a charitable distribution.
• In December 2004, Robert Kondratick used for travel expenses in Russia $12,000 that was raised and intended for the Christmas Stocking Project.
• From 1999 through 2005, the OCA paid not less than $1.2 million in Kondratick family members’ credit card charges, which covered no less than 22 credit cards. The majority of the credit card charges lack any documentation or original receipts to support the purchases by the OCA. To date, Robert Kondratick has failed to provide the OCA with receipts of any kind to support the expenditures of more than $1,100,000. [1]
• Credit card charges for which the OCA paid Robert Kondratick include personal travel to and lodging expenses for places including Aruba and Las Vegas, tanning and hair salon charges, jewelry store purchases, and his family members’ ordinary monthly living expenses such as groceries, wine, newspaper and magazine subscriptions, cable bills, clothes, and shoes.
• Robert Kondratick still owes the OCA at least $137,000 in acknowledged personal credit card charges.
• From at least February 1996 through August 2002, Metropolitan Theodosius and Robert Kondratick controlled three discretionary accounts under the name of the OCA, into which at least $1,077,000 was deposited; the Metropolitan’s account, a joint account whose signatories were Robert Kondratick and Metropolitan Theodosius, and an account for which Robert Kondratick was the signatory. Other than the Metropolitan’s account, the very existence of the discretionary accounts was undisclosed to internal and external auditors.
• $227,943 was deposited into Robert Kondratick’s discretionary account from the operating account of the OCA and was spent almost entirely between February 1996 and February 1997.
• No less than $850,000 was deposited into the two other discretionary accounts and spent on such things as Metropolitan Theodosius’ and Robert Kondratick’s personal lawyers, accountants, and other consultants relating to their opposition of auditing the discretionary funds in 1999 ($125,000), Robert Kondratick’s personal credit cards ($50,000), and withdrawals in cash ($195,000).
• In 1999, when the accountants from Lambrides were attempting to complete the audit of the financial statements of the OCA for 1998, they learned of the unreported discretionary accounts and wrote to officers and internal auditors of the OCA that the financial report could not be completed because (1) the financial statements prepared by the Church for audit were not presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and did not include all assets and liabilities under the organization’s control; (2) the OCA had not made available all financial records and related data; and (3) there were material transactions that had not been properly recorded in the accounting records underlying the financial statements. Because the OCA central administration officers failed to cooperate with Lambrides, the audit was never certified. Then, from 1999 through 2004, a different accounting firm, Konsen & Hostelly LLP, located in Independence, Ohio provided the OCA with compilation reports, which are nothing more than a listing of expenses and deposits to the accounts as represented by the officers of the OCA.
• On June 12, 2006, the lawyers for the OCA unsuccessfully attempted to obtain answers relating to these discretionary accounts by questioning Robert Kondratick, who refused to answer the questions on canonical grounds.
• In September 2006, Robert Kondratick and his wife sued the OCA and other individuals, alleging that they were owed $250,000, plus interest, for renovations allegedly costing $110,000 they made to a house deeded to the OCA, but in which they lived while receiving a housing allowance. The renovations were made shortly after the purchase, but apparently were not approved by the Metropolitan Council. The files provided by Father Kondratick did not indicate how or by whom these improvements were paid.
Upon hearing and discussing the report of the Special Committee, the Metropolitan Council and Holy Synod of Bishops endorsed several recommendations on how to proceed. The first recommendation was the following:
Immediate suspension of Father Kondratick by his bishop. Based upon the facts established thus far, failure to remove him immediately from access to any and all sources of Church funds demonstrates irresponsibility with regard to fiduciary duties on behalf of the Holy Synod and Metropolitan Council and significantly increases the liability risks of the OCA.
In April 2007, Faith Skordinski, as a member of both the Metropolitan Council and the Special Committee, submitted written accusations against Father Kondratick. As the OCA Statute allows, Metropolitan HERMAN temporarily suspended Robert Kondratick and selected a spiritual court composed of the following people: Archbishop Nathaniel, presiding as a non-voting member; Fr. Michael Dahulich; Fr. John Erickson; Fr. David Garretson; and Fr. Joseph Lickwar (“Spiritual Court”).
The Spiritual Court unanimously determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to justify a trial where Robert Kondratick would have to answer the charges against him. The Spiritual Court informed Metropolitan HERMAN of its finding and he promptly issued and had served on Robert Kondratick a summons for his appearance at a spiritual court trial. On April 30, 2007, Robert Kondratick requested an extension of time to prepare for the trial, which the Spiritual Court granted.
On June 11, 2007, the trial commenced. Robert Kondratick was present and represented by his attorney, Harry Kutner, and Monk James Silver. The Spiritual Court did not report to Metropolitan HERMAN the events that unfolded that day until it presented its formal report of the trial.
The report stated the following:
The Court granted Mr. Kutner’s request to be heard on objections by the Accused to certain preliminary matters. Mr. Kutner objected to Rule 3 of the Procedural Guidelines which did not permit a transcript of the proceedings. In addition, Mr. Kutner mentioned other issues of concern such as the fact that the Court was comprised of judges who were in the Accused’s opinion, biased. After hearing substantial arguments from the Accused and his attorney, the Court denied the Accused’s demand that a transcript be kept and denied his request to have the Court reconstituted. After nearly one hour of continued discussions, the Accused requested that the Trial be suspended and that he be given the right to appeal the denial of his requests and other procedural issues, to the Holy Synod at its next regular session in the fall of 2007. The Court denied the Accused’s request since it was not a statutorily permitted right of the Accused, was viewed as an improper attempt to delay the proceedings, and would, if granted, violate Article XI, § 6(e) of the Statute [“The Holy Synod shall never act as a court of first instance in cases which are within the competence of Diocesan Courts.”]. The Accused informed the Court that he would not proceed with his defense unless his demands were met. The Court requested the Accused to reconsider his position and warned him that the trial had been convened, that leaving would be viewed by the Court as a default and that the Court could proceed in his absence. The Accused refused to continue his defense and he and his representatives left the proceedings.
After due deliberation, the Spiritual Court found Robert Kondratick to be in default and proceeded with the trial, which included over 18 hours of live testimony over two days (June 11, 2007 and July 6, 2007) from ten witnesses (Helen Cavounis, Father Paul Kucynda, Mr. Stephen Lamos, CPA, Fr. Dimitri Oselinsky, Fr. Steven Strikis, Mr. Robert H. Taylor, CPA, Metropolitan Theodosius, Deacon Eric Wheeler, Fr. Zacchaeus (Wood), and Deacon John Zarras), as well as documentary evidence. The proceedings closed on July 6, 2007.
On July 19, 2007 the Spiritual Court issued the following judgment with a written report:
[I]t is the Judgment of the Court that the Accused, Protopresbyter Robert S. Kondratick, committed theft of Church funds, alienated Church funds for his personal use, repeatedly refused to cooperate with those who were charged with giving an accounting of Church funds, actively concealed his actions, refused to cooperate with this Court and thus has brought shame and reproach to the priesthood all in violation of the cited canons, scriptural commands, and the oath that he took upon being ordained into the priesthood.
The Court recommended that the suspended priest, Fr. Robert Kondratick, be permanently deposed from all sacred functions of the priesthood and that his name be removed immediately from the rolls of the clergy of the OCA.
On July 31, 2007, the Holy Synod of Bishops, after being presented with the report of the Court, accepted the recommendation and confirmed the final deposition (defrocking) of Fr. Kondratick, which was in conformance with the Statute of the OCA.
Kondratick still has the opportunity to answer the above charges. As it is, he stands convicted of the following charges: “It is the Judgment of the Court that the Accused, Protopresbyter Robert S. Kondratick, committed theft of Church funds, alienated Church funds for his personal use, repeatedly refused to cooperate with those who were charged with giving an accounting of Church funds, actively concealed his actions, refused to cooperate with this Court and thus has brought shame and reproach to the priesthood all in violation of the cited canons, scriptural commands, and the oath that he took upon being ordained into the priesthood.”
In terms of the canons which we all accept as normative, Fr Robert Kondratick was convicted by an illegally constituted court and illegally convicted in absentia of offenses which he did not commit, and was illegally deprived of any opportunity to reconstitute the court, and further deprived of any opportunity to appeal the verdict of that illegitimate ‘spiritual court’.
Because of the terms of the omnibus settlement to which both the OCA and FrRK agreed, he may NOT speak in public about the false charges brought against him by putative ‘Christians’.
I’m under no such restrictions, and I say that FrRK is NOT GUILTY of the charges falsely brought against him.
Look to Met. Theodosius and Met. Herman if you want someone to blame.
Fair enough; you answer the specific charges then. Please refer to the OCA document that Chris posted above.
Monk James: One small correction, Protopresbyter Rodion was not convicted of anything at all. He was, however, PRONOUNCED guilty by the ad hoc, kangaroo court assembled with no other purpose but to pronounce him guilty. That pronouncement was as meaningful and sane as, e.g., Stash Drezhlo’s stuff
I am somewhat surprised that a bishop of the Church can with such ease disrespect the Church, her bishops and her priests. His Grace does not seem to be full of grace as he says that not an Orthodox spiritual court but a “kangaroo court” found Mr K. guilty (who was nonetheless “not convicted of anything at all’). I have a couple of issues with this, starting with common sense, logic and basic language skills. To say that someone was pronounced guilty but not convicted of anything is nonsensical. However, to say that Mr K was not convicted of anything is simply a lie:. Again, he was convicted of “(a) committed theft of Church funds, (a) alienated Church funds for his personal use, (c) repeatedly refused to cooperate with those who were charged with giving an accounting of Church funds, (d) actively concealed his actions, (e) refused to cooperate with this Court and thus has brought shame and reproach to the priesthood all in violation of the cited canons, scriptural commands, and the oath that he took upon being ordained into the priesthood.”
I know that my words are very critical of a bishop. However, as a son of a priest, I am really angry that His Grace is slandering one bishop and four priests of the Church–Archbishop Nathaniel, presiding as a non-voting member; Fr. Michael Dahulich; Fr. John Erickson; Fr. David Garretson; and Fr. Joseph Lickwar.” If His Grace is so disdainful of the OCA, the Holy Synod, Central Administration, priests, etc.., why does he insist upon remaining as a retired bishop of the OCA?
Monk James proclaims: “I’m under no such restrictions, and I say that FrRK is NOT GUILTY of the charges falsely brought against him.”
I would love to hear more along this line.
Monk James and Bishop Tikhon, a lot of us who have only been able to keep quiet before are now speaking out, saying we don’t trust the SIC reports. (I have never trusted the SIC reports. It always smelled fishy to me.) We don’t want to “blame” anyone but we do need to know who is responsible for the mess in order to get past these blasted road blocks. If Met Herman and Met Theodosius are responsible, what did they do? Would you be able to draw some connecting lines, facts that will help us past the confusion created by these reported money expenditures? Were bank and visa records accessed to prove that “this money was spent here instead of here,” and “this money that was supposed to go to orphans went to tanning salons”? There is no evidence to support the expenditures, but are they total fabrications, were the words twisted, was the money spent by others, or what?
It would be unhelpful for us here to go through the SIC’s false accusations against Fr Robert Kondratick.
Thank Heaven, FrRK’s attorney did just that. When he and the OCA’s attorney went through all that material in the process of discovery and disclosure and ascertained just exactly what the allegations were based on and what they meant, they then, as officers of the court, went on together to depose principal witnesses and other well informed people.
In the course of the depositions, it became clear that several of the witnesses interviewed by the SIC — including at least one priest and one bishop — had lied to the SIC. They were advised that they were under oath and subject to penalties in law if they perjured themselves again in their depositions or in court, should the matter come to trial. so they cleared the air and told the truth.
This exhaustive process pretty much demolished the SIC’s accusations and led both the prosecutor and the judge to determine that the OCA had no case against FrRK. The judge then directed an omnibus settlement which was paid to FrRK.
Clearly, he was exonerated. And that should be enough to motivate the Holy Synod to rescind their decision to depose FrRK from the priesthood, and reinstate him as a priest of the OCA.
Naturally, this leaves us wondering: What about the missing money?
The answer is: There really ISN’T any money missing — it’s just poorly accounted for. This came out in the pretrial depositions to such an extent that the competent legal authorities awarded a settlement sum to FrRK.
The OCA lost this case because of lies and cowardice on the part of churchmen trying to save their own hides no matter how much human wreckage they left in their wake.
While I don’t blame the four priests who served as judges in that farce of a spiritual court (they were just as deceived by The Big Lie as were most other people), it’s my personal opinion that Faith Skordinski, Alexandra Makoski, Met. Theodosius, Met. Herman, Abp Nathaniel and Bp Benjamin ought to be held accountable for this saga of terrible sins and crimes.
I have some thoughts on the matter which I won’t share here, but I’m confident that, once the bishops actually make sense of this whole mess, they’ll man up and do the right thing. I’m seeing some signs of hope in the words and actions of some of the bishops even now during AAC 16.
It bears repeating: our OCA will not be healed unless and until we repudiate this travesty of justice and correct it, and FrRK is reinstated as a priest of the OCA.
Thank you for this, Monk James. Whew. Let anyone try to dispute these facts stated above. There are records, so the proof exists.
Cheerleading section, throwing peanut shells: RAH RAH! SHISH BOOM BAH!
Two words: He settled. Robert Kondratick chose, with advice of council, his manner of defense; was rightfully convicted by Statute; and was subsequently defrocked. And then, he settled. To the tune of $250,000, he settled. It is over. No Synod will ever go back to “reconsider” anything. He settled, and it makes no difference how you might interpret his decision to do so, it is irrelevant. Robert Kondratick has his justice: He settled.
For three years your Metropolitan has committed to an accountable, transparent Central Administration. And if the Treasurer’s report at this AAC is any indication, “darkness” has been lifted. Whatever shortcomings your Metropolitan might have, it seems reasonable to conclude that vanity, greed, and thievery are not among them. And again, whatever his shortcomings, Met. Jonah appeared when he did for a reason. Let the memory of Kondratick & Soriach fade away as the historically insignificant people they will be proved to have been, despite the promise of their “sword bearer,” Bishop Tikhon, who demonstrates his lack of character, a spot on his headstone as “happy to have been my friends.”
The “real healing” in the OCA began when Robert Kondratick settled and Nikolai Soraich was retired; the arrogant defiance – “You can’t touch me” – of order & correction has run its course. While I agree with Mr. Banescu’s sentiment, these forms of “victory,” without specifically serving as catalysts, are, indeed, hollow. The OCA has moved on, the ultimate result of which remains to be seen, but your “contingency” to “real healing” is as a misguided, self-serving, and pitiful conclusion as I have ever seen written.
He settled, he has his justice, it’s over.
M. Stankovich states:
Two words: He settled. Robert Kondratick chose, with advice of council, his manner of defense; was rightfully convicted by Statute; and was subsequently defrocked. And then, he settled. To the tune of $250,000, he settled. It is over. No Synod will ever go back to “reconsider” anything. He settled, and it makes no difference how you might interpret his decision to do so, it is irrelevant. Robert Kondratick has his justice: He settled.
For three years your Metropolitan has committed to an accountable, transparent Central Administration. And if the Treasurer’s report at this AAC is any indication, “darkness” has been lifted. Whatever shortcomings your Metropolitan might have, it seems reasonable to conclude that vanity, greed, and thievery are not among them. And again, whatever his shortcomings, Met. Jonah appeared when he did for a reason. Let the memory of Kondratick & Soriach fade away as the historically insignificant people they will be proved to have been, despite the promise of their “sword bearer,” Bishop Tikhon, who demonstrates his lack of character, a spot on his headstone as “happy to have been my friends.”
The “real healing” in the OCA began when Robert Kondratick settled and Nikolai Soraich was retired; the arrogant defiance – “You can’t touch me” – of order & correction has run its course. While I agree with Mr. Banescu’s sentiment, these forms of “victory,” without specifically serving as catalysts, are, indeed, hollow. The OCA has moved on, the ultimate result of which remains to be seen, but your “contingency” to “real healing” is as a misguided, self-serving, and pitiful conclusion as I have ever seen written.
He settled, he has his justice, it’s over.
If there was injustice done the settlement does nothing to heal. Our own history of Justice denied in this country among African-Americans tells us just because certain things were resolved does NOT mean justice was done or that healing can occur UNTIL the RK matter is properly settled. It was never properly settled NOT BY A LONG SHOT!
Ask your self this? Would you want what happend to him to happen to you? This is why brave men and women on and off the field of battle have sacrificed themselves for our way of life. Common Law principles of fairness and due process.
How can you ever have a truly American Orthodox Church can not even follow or at least respect basic due process and the protection of one’s personal rights and liberties. Justice? Settled? Healing? No, no, and no. Try again.
Peter A. Papoutsis
In the course of the depositions, it became clear that several of the witnesses interviewed by the SIC — including at least one priest and one bishop — had lied to the SIC. They were advised that they were under oath and subject to penalties in law if they perjured themselves again in their depositions or in court, should the matter come to trial. so they cleared the air and told the truth.
LIED. Lied, Chris. Lied, Carl, Lied, Eric. Lied, M. LIED.
Mr Papoutsis,
Yes, let me try this again: He settled.
Apparently this “American Hero” & “Orthodox Champion” did not believe that justice, vindication, principle, or healing was more important than money. He settled for $250,000. He had retained counsel of his choice – and I am presuming competent counsel – whom I am sure explained to him the terms of the proposed settlement, and Robert Kondratick accepted a payment of $250,000. He settled. Any argument that transpires after he signed and deposited that check is moot: there is no right to appeal because he settled for $250,000. The case is finished because of Robert Kondraticks’s choice.
As to your question, “Would you want what happened to him to happen to you?” I have worked in state prisons long enough to know that if I were to engage in the behaviour for which he was convicted, I should rightfully expect to get caught. Obviously, criminals don’t think that way. I would also like to believe that, if I was innocent, I would not compromise my integrity for any amount of money.
Lastly, the OCA Statues have been directly challenged and subsequently upheld in the civil courts. The last case I am aware of occurred in PA, where the court found (after testimony that included Frs. John Meyendorff & John Erickson) the OCA Statutes to be sufficient, in and of themselves, and refused to hear the case. I find it disingenuous and troubling to see you posturing as if you would be the first lawyer to examine the Statutes for “sufficiency,” when both “due process” and innocence are moot. He settled. Now it is an “academic” issue only, and in my estimation, not a particularly interesting one at that.
Jane Rachel: Robert Kondratick says he is innocent; claims that witnesses perjured themselves; and that he was denied fundamental “due process.” He settled for $250,000. He gave up his right to appeal, to reconsideration, to reinterpretation, and any further interest. It doesn’t matter if every single witness entered with their very pants aflame, or the judges were known “jackals.” He settled for $250,000 and it is over, done, complete and the Synod will never return to this issue. Shut up.
It is a fault of mine to want the OCA leaders to have integrity. I don’t know who is innocent and who is guilty, but religious leaders are notorious for using their power in evil ways. What should lead me to believe this misuse of power has stopped in the OCA? Since I don’t know these men, I don’t personally care whether Fr. Kondratick is guilty or innocent, or whether he settled. I don’t care whether Bishop Nikolai is guilty or innocent. I want to know IF they are innocent, because if so they have been falsely accused of very serious wrongs, and THAT is something I have experienced first hand, and also why I can’t let it go.
Monk James—You just proclaim illegalities were committed by Church officials, bishops, priests, etc. You do not say action (a) was illegal because of x, y and z, you say just take my word for it. Are we living in a world where everything is upside down? Rubbish! It is incumbent upon you to justify your libelous accusations against the Church, Her bishops and priests.
Regarding appeals, you asked from which “novel” I appropriated the idea that the Holy Synod had denied Mr K’s appeal. It was from the horses mouth, the official organ of the Church–OCA.ORG, and I quote:
” SYOSSET, NY [OCA Communications] — The following is an extract from the Minutes of the Holy Synod of Bishops of The Orthodox Church in America:
“The Holy Synod of Bishops of The Orthodox Church in America, meeting at is regular Session on October 16, 2007, at the Chancery, in Oyster Bay Cove, New York, heard the written appeal, orally presented, by Robert S Kondratick, concerning the conclusions of the Diocesan Court of the Diocese of Washington, New York, and New Jersey. These conclusions were received by the Holy Synod of Bishops at its Special Session on July 31-August 1, 2007, The Holy Synod of Bishops is considering this appeal, in accordance with the Statute of The Orthodox Church in America. The decision will be communicated to Robert S Kondratick in due time.”
The decision was made by the Holy Synod and communicated to Mr. K in due time. BTW, I was not in the room and did not see bishops acting like deers in the headlight as you reported. You apparently were but I hope you will forgive me for not giving your testimony more credence.
Carl Kraeff adduces this statement:
‘” SYOSSET, NY [OCA Communications] — The following is an extract from the Minutes of the Holy Synod of Bishops of The Orthodox Church in America:
“The Holy Synod of Bishops of The Orthodox Church in America, meeting at is regular Session on October 16, 2007, at the Chancery, in Oyster Bay Cove, New York, heard the written appeal, orally presented, by Robert S Kondratick, concerning the conclusions of the Diocesan Court of the Diocese of Washington, New York, and New Jersey. These conclusions were received by the Holy Synod of Bishops at its Special Session on July 31-August 1, 2007, The Holy Synod of Bishops is considering this appeal, in accordance with the Statute of The Orthodox Church in America. The decision will be communicated to Robert S Kondratick in due time.”
The statement is false.
What the bishops heard (after Met. Herman made me leave the room — contrary to the arrangements we had made earlier) was Fr Robert Kondratick’s REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL.
It was FrRK’s REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL which was denied by Met. Herman and Abp Nathaniel while the other bishops behaved like deer caught in the headlights.
And, yes, I assert that there were illegal acts, crimes and even sins committed against FrRK, cruel misdeeds typified by the bishops’ immoral, unstatutory, uncanonical and contrived refusal to allow him to appeal his immoral, unstatutory,uncanonical and contrived ‘conviction’ by their immoral, unstatutory, uncanonical and contrived ‘spiritual court’.
Clear enough?
STOP BELIEVING THE BIG LIE!
— NOTE To ALL Kondratick Apologists on this Forum —
Posting in a public forum that all professionals who worked and created the SIC Report were involved in a “conspiracy” and thus conducted a sham investigation and falsely accused the “innocent” Robert Kondratick is LIBEL per se since you are accusing all these professionals of committing improprieties in their professional roles and defaming their character.
What is “Libel Per Se”?
When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. Libel per se involves statements so outrageous that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.
Regarding Professionals, a statement that falsely tends to directly injure someone in respect to his/her office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him/her general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his/her office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; is considered LIBEL per se.
This takes time to sink in:
1. Fact: The official statement reads: “The Holy Synod of Bishops…. heard the written appeal, orally presented by Robert S. Kondratick …”
2. Fact: They did NOT hear the appeal by Robert S. Kondratick.
3. CONCLUSION: They LIED.
They lied. The Holy Synod lied.
Right?
Whoa.
Do I think for one minute, basing my thinking on the way Monk James writes his words, that HE is lying? NO. How do I know? Since I believe him when he says Fr. RSK did not make his appeal, I am convinced the Holy Synod LIED. Everything they say after that point is not to be taken seriously because they are liars. God forgive us.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
– Sir Walter Scott
Chris Banescu’s comment about libel is scaring me. But if Fr. Kondratick was not allowed to make his appeal, and the Holy Synod stated he did make his appeal, then they lied. I am simply talking about it. WE NEED TO KNOW.
Chris, speaking for myself, I am not now, nor was I ever, a “Kondratick apologist.” As and attorney however, you have not presented anything that could be defended in a criminal court. Personally, I wish the judge had not dismissed it out of hand (which itself is a damning indictment of the case against him) and it had gone to court for a real resolution, one way or the other.
I am still waiting for answers to the questions of the other correspondents if you won’t answer mine.
George, I never said you were one of the apologists, not sure why you thought so. 🙂
You have this backwards. The attorneys, professionals, and individuals who worked on an created the SIC report have already documented their information, the burden is on RSK and his passionate defenders to document and explain why and how the SIC Report got it wrong. The canard that no criminal charges were followed through is NOT a defense. The State of New York may have not proceeded for a variety of reasons, one reason being that reckless and negligent management of funds is not a crime in NY (not familiar with NY state law so I can’t give you a legal explanation). That does not mean that therefore RSK was innocent and all the CHURCH’s money was not squandered for luxuries and personal reasons instead of their intended purpose. To this day Robert Kondratick has NEVER explained why he used Church money for personal purposes and who got all the Cash?
Jane–There is no hope for you if you think that an official statement is of equal weight as one monk’s undocumented and uncorroborated claim.
Chris, sorry for the imputation that you were accusing me of being an apologist. As for the mitigating circumstances, do you know any New York laywer who could answer these questions for us. To my mind, Martha Stewart was sent to the pokey for an infinitely less amount of tax-withholding and i though she lived in NY state.
George, no apology needed, I was just clarifying. I don’t personally know a New York attorney who specializes in criminal law. Hopefully there may be some attorneys from New York reading this blog who have prosecutorial or defense counsel experience and knowledge of New York State Penal Law and can weigh in.
Thank Chris. Anybody know any NY lawyers?
It warmed the cockles of my heart to read Chris Banescu’s characterization of his remarks about and to me on this and other Internet fora!!!
Liber per se! What next?
Right and well. NOT!
This precis of the proceedings against Fr Robert Kondratick is nothing more than a catalog of canards.
Without getting into all the details, which would detain us longer than most of us can endure, I’d like to point out that the citations of the ‘spiritual court’ which Chris Banescu adduces here are the clearest proof that FrRK was railroaded and scape-goated and otherwise made to take the fall for the misdeeds of Met. Theodosius and Met. Herman.
I mean: If that ‘spiritual court’ intended not to make a record of its proceedings, whence then come these reports?
Can anyone be so blind as not to see that Abp Nathaniel and Attorney James Perry intended all along to make a record at the same time as they insisted that no such record would be made, and then threw us out under false pretenses?
Wake up, people!!!
Monk James writes: “I’d like to point out that the citations of the ‘spiritual court’ which Chris Banescu adduces here are the clearest proof that FrRK was railroaded and scape-goated and otherwise made to take the fall for the misdeeds of Met. Theodosius and Met. Herman.”
It is certainly beginning to look this way.
Fr. Patrick, Think about this logically for just one second. If any of the wild accusations, speculation, and libelous comments made by “Monk James” and Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) are true why has Metropolitan Jonah not addressed any of it, has not said anything publicly, or demanded an investigation to expose such “conspirators” and professionals who are accused of violating their professional qualifications and wrongly accusing an innocent man? Don’t forget +Jonah himself publicly acknowledged that “Yes, we were betrayed. Yes, we were raped.” who exactly did all that?
For years “Monk James”, the mouthpiece for RSK has made these claims and offered as evidence NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, except more of the same BS. On the Orthodox Forum on Yahoo he said the same things years ago and promised that proof and documentation will be released to prove Kondratick’s innocence and indict the real wrongdoers. Nothing was ever produced! The same song and dance routine is now being spread here.
Yeah, and I am an attorney in Chicago and have been involved in Church politics first with my mon and them with myself on my local parish council. If you think for one minute that setting someone up and scapegoating does not occur then you are wrong.
Again, I am disinterested I do not care one lick about RK or what happend in the OCA. What I do care about is the law, due process and the honest resolution of conflicts. I have read the information of this blog, OCANews, and other sites and the more I read the more questions pop up that something definitely wrong happend to RK.
Was there as conspiracy? Well, what do you mean by conspiracy? If you mean that the HS needed a scapegoat and a fall guy then yes there was a conspiracy. The entire hierarchy of the RCC hide and was activily participatory in covering up Child sexual abuse for decades, again FOR DECADES!
Are you telling me that the few members of Syosset and the HS with the direct hepl and support of Mark Stoke’s continuous propaganda machine could NOT do what it did? Wow that’s just Amazing!
Again, the DA dropped the case, again the DA did NOTHING! If the DA has a case, even just a decent and good case it could just plea bargain and get somekind of conviction I would agree that RK was somewhat culpable. But as it stands it was DROPPED!! Hello, do you understand what that means? The District Attorney believed after looking at the evidence that it HAD NO CASE!
With all due respect to the HS and others on their side, a DA has alot more to lose than the HS and a DA would go forward if it could. Look at the U.S. Atty here in Chicago. Good old Blago basically won the first time because the Govt. could not make its case, and what happend? They went after him again! The government does NOT let go if it believes it has a good case. That was NOT the case with the DA with RK.
Again, I do not know the man, but do not expect him to talk when he cannot. There is a confidentiality agreement. Republican hopeful Herman Cain’s accusers cannot talk about their sexual harassment cases with Mr. Cain because of a confidentiality agreement. If you violate it you get sanctioned.
So basically you want RK, who has a Gag over his mouth, to start talking. Really? That is just such a red herring its unbelievable. If true injustice occurred to RK it is STILL IN THE OCA! Its NOT going away, there will be NO healing and NOTHING has ever truly been SETTLED!
THIS IS THE REAL LEGACY OF THE OCA, AND IT STINKS! So if you want a vibrant and alive OCA you better start righting some wrongs or the OCA will always be stained as the “Good ‘ol boy” club,” and the “Gotcha Gang.” This is the type of crap that goes on in the “Old World” Jurisdiction. Its good to see the “New World” OCA is just the same.
Peter A. Papoutsis
First of all, where it the evidence of any “gag order” being part of the settlement?
http://oca.org/news/archived/kondraticks-reach-settlement-with-oca
Second of all, what gag order was RSK under BEFORE this settlement?
Chris you absolutely correct that there is no evidence of a confidentiality agreement as such agreements never get filed with the court, unless someone breaks them and a motion for sanctions is filed with the court and the settlement agreement, with the confidentiality clause are attached as exhibits (i.e. predicates that the sanctions are based upon).
However, monk james made a comment that strongly leads me to believe a confidentiality agreement was part of the settlement and its this:
“The judge then directed an omnibus settlement which was paid to FrRK.” Now, unless Monk James is a lawyer non-lawyers know nothing about omnibus settlements, and omnibus settlement, because of the multiple claims involved, and the desire to end litigation without admitting liability, always involve confidentiality agreements.
In fact, a regualr run of the mill breach of contract case even has a confidentiality agreement. Why? because if you are going to flap your yap there is no incentive to settle! the liable statue that you yourself raised would be invoked and the people involed would have ended their main cause in chief, but an ancilary “Liable” suit would arise from the proceedings stating that so and so went to the media or blogs and called me a murderer even though he knows I am not.”
In other words, without the confidentiality clause a settlement agreement, especially an omnibus settlement agreement, would never stop all the litigation.
So when Monk James uses that phrase Omnibus Settlement, which would definitely be recommended by a judge, and any attorney worth their weight in gold would definitely place a confidentiality agreement in there to protect his client, I side with general practice and knowledge that a confidentiality agreement exists.
Oh and BTW you are surprised the RK has not said anything, why are you not equally surprised that the HS has not rebutted Monk James’ accusations? Its because Confidentiality agreements run both ways.
In fact, that’s why one of the sexually harassed women involved with Mr. Herman Cain is now considering petitioning the court to release her from her confidentiality agreement because Mr. Cain may have violated it himself. Maybe.
Second, as for not commenting DURING a pending case is very common place, VERY COMMON, especially if you are under the belief that you will have your day and say in court, which RK never did.
Third, citing to the official OCA release is like me citing to the Orthodox Observer to get the truth about the Katinas affair in the GOA.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Also, I am no apologists for anybody. I do not know and have never known Robert Kondratick. I really do not care so say what you want. But when you think that denying a man his day in Court, spiritual or Secular, is your idea of justice then that’s when I get involved.
NOT for the man, but for the priciple that if it can happen to him it can happen to any one of us. This is why our Bill of Rights, and before that, the Magna Carta, exist. Those are OUR rights that protect us and secure for us a fair hearing and to due process under the law.
This is the only reason I even care.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Chris Banescue, we need a response from you directly related to this statement made by Monk James:
I’d like to point out that the citations of the ‘spiritual court’ which Chris Banescu adduces here are the clearest proof that FrRK was railroaded and scape-goated and otherwise made to take the fall for the misdeeds of Met. Theodosius and Met. Herman.
I mean: If that ‘spiritual court’ intended not to make a record of its proceedings, whence then come these reports?
Can anyone be so blind as not to see that Abp Nathaniel and Attorney James Perry intended all along to make a record at the same time as they insisted that no such record would be made, and then threw us out under false pretenses?
– Jane (my real middle name. I’m not a coward.)
Oops, I misspelled your last name, Chris. Correction: Banescu.
Jane, I would address your concerns to the Holy Synod of the OCA, which includes Metropolitan Jonah by the way, and several of the attorneys and other professionals who were directly involved in that process.
— NOTE — FYI to the other Kondratick Apologists on this Forum:
Posting in a public forum that all professionals who worked and created the SIC Report were involved in a “conspiracy” and thus conducted a sham investigation and falsely accused the “innocent” Robert Kondratick is LIBEL per se since you are accusing all these professionals of committing improprieties in their professional roles and defaming their character.
What is “Libel Per Se”?
When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. Libel per se involves statements so outrageous that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages.
Regarding Professionals, a statement that falsely tends to directly injure someone in respect to his/her office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him/her general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his/her office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; is considered LIBEL per se.
Right.
But truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel, and I’m confident that no such charge against me, personally, would stand the test of truth.
Talk is cheap Monk James. You have not offered one iota of evidence beyond your own testimony. You have not advanced not one iota of credible evidence that the charges against Mr K are wrong, that the procedures of the Holy Synod and the Spiritual Court were wrong, and that anyone conspired to do anything against Mr K. Well, excuse me for not deferring to your unblemished, unbiased and saintly testimony. By the way, the real onus for establishing the truth lays at Mr K himself. He needs to lay it all on the table; no more insinuations that the previous two Mets were the culprits.
I feel Chris is describing his attacks on me on this site and others over the years. Or?
That is hilarious!
First of all, you are not a “professional” in the legal sense.
Second of all, you are a public figure, much stricter standard applies.
Third of all, personal opinions based on reasonable information regarding public figures are not “defamation”.
Fourth of all, truth is an absolute defense in all instances. (Even “Monk James” knows that one.)
Better stick to gossip and comedy and such, ’cause clearly law is not your thing.
C’mon Chris. You want to attack his opinion you go right ahead, but do not be disrespectful. This is coming from me who at times is disrespectful and I have to come on here and say I’m sorry. So, please let’s calm down. I’ll do the same.
Peter
Jane Rachel–There are reports and there are reports. Take a meeting attended by a number of folks. Any handout would be part of a record, as would individual attendee’s annotations on the handouts and notes. The official record of the meeting, however, would be the official minutes that are coordinated and approved before finalization. So, that one meeting has the potential of resulting in a number of records, one official and others that may be called personal notes or working products.
In the context of a spiritual court, we need to consider whether a transcript of the proceedings (something that is absolutely required in a criminal court) is absolutely required during a spiritual court for due process to occur. The Official report of the OCA tells us that the following happened (I m going to break it up into its elements):
Record: The Court granted Mr. Kutner’s request to be heard on objections by the Accused to certain preliminary matters. Mr. Kutner objected to Rule 3 of the Procedural Guidelines which did not permit a transcript of the proceedings.
Me: The rights of the accused are spelled out in the OCA Statute, which is the governing document in this instance and not civil or criminal law. It says in Article XI, Section 4: “d. The accused is entitled to request that a third party act as his defense. Both the accuser and the accused may request the testimony of experts and witnesses acceptable to the court.” Obviously, there is no right for a transcript. But, please observe the audacity of the lawyer: he objects to a procedural guideline, in spite of the fact that clergy are to abide by Clergy Guidelines (see at http://oca.org/PDF/official/clergyguidelines.pdf), which among other things call for a priest to obey his bishop; respect other members of the clergy; strictly to observe the teachings of The Church, regarding Christ, the Sacred Scriptures and Holy Traditions; and, to be examples to the flock. What kind of example did Mr K set when he demanded through his lawyer changes to procedural guidelines? It seems to me that protecting his hide was more important. I cannot blame him as a regular Joe, but that is not how a priest is supposed to behave.
Record: In addition, Mr. Kutner mentioned other issues of concern such as the fact that the Court was comprised of judges who were in the Accused’s opinion, biased.
Me: No grounds at all in Holy Tradition, OCA Statute, or Procedural Guidelines to ask the priests who are assigned by the bishop to recuse themselves or for the Court to be reconstituted. Please note that Mr K shows complete disrespect toward the convener of the Court (a bishop) as well as the voting members of the Court (four archpriests).
Record: After hearing substantial arguments from the Accused and his attorney, the Court denied the accused’s demand that a transcript be kept and denied his request to have the Court reconstituted.
Me: The Court did not err in this instance. It seems to me that the accused’s objections were to establish an record for appeal.
Record: After nearly one hour of continued discussions, the Accused requested that the Trial be suspended and that he be given the right to appeal the denial of his requests and other procedural issues, to the Holy Synod at its next regular session in the fall of 2007. The Court denied the Accused’s request since it was not a statutorily permitted right of the Accused, was viewed as an improper attempt to delay the proceedings, and would, if granted, violate Article XI, § 6(e) of the Statute [“The Holy Synod shall never act as a court of first instance in cases which are within the competence of Diocesan Courts.”].
Me: The Court was right and Mr K was wrong. I continue to marvel at Mr K’s attitude but I guess no one can blame him for assuming that he was somehow above the Church, Her officials and official procediures, After all, he ran the Church for so many years! (PS: THis is sometimes called hubris. I am being gentle here because the only other explanation is that he was an audacious crook).
Record: The Accused informed the Court that he would not proceed with his defense unless his demands were met. The Court requested the Accused to reconsider his position and warned him that the trial had been convened, that leaving would be viewed by the Court as a default and that the Court could proceed in his absence. The Accused refused to continue his defense and he and his representatives left the proceedings.
Me: The size of Mr K’s ego (or cojones if you will) astonish me: his majesty’s demands are not met, so he just packs up and leaves. And, please spare me Monk Jamers’ claim that the lawyer made him leave.
Record: After due deliberation, the Spiritual Court found Robert Kondratick to be in default and proceeded with the trial.
Me: Completely in accord with the OCA Statute. Unobjectionable.
To Chris, Carl, and any like-minded instances who reproach Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick for failing to produce testimony counter to the SIC report, and the declarations of the so-called Spiritual Court, would like to reply that whenever Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick has shown the slightest inclination to do so, he has been prevented from doing so. My personal testimony is this: Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick offered to appear before the Holy Synod, then in session, WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT, and answer to the best of his ability to any and all allegations previously made about him. Metropolitan Herman agreed to his appearance and he was invited to appear. The evening following this agreement, Archbishop Job (of blessed memory) and Archbishop Nathaniel together with Bishop Seraphim met and Bishop Seraphim was delegated to contact Metropolitan Herman immediately and see that the appearance would be cancelled. None of the other bishops was contacted to see if there was any “consensus” on the action. Therefore, the next day, when the business session of the Holy Synod appeared to be winding down, I turned to Metropolitan and asked, “Where is Father
Bob?’ Metropolitan Herman said, we decided not to invite him.” I asked, in some agitation, “Why not?” Archbishop Nathaniel snapped at me that if he appeared his lawyer would stop him from answering any of the main questions. I got even more agitated at that: “But he agreed to appear WITHOUT ANY LAWYER PRESENT!” Archbishop Nathaniel, “Oh, he wouldn’t have told us anything ANYWAY!” Metropolitan Herman nodded; Archbishop Job nodded emphatically, and the rest sat there, although Vladyka Dimitri seemed to have dozed off.
I’m willing to state the above before the Holy Gospel and the Precious Cross.
Please note, Chris et al, i am not declaring or insinuating anything about the characters of Archbishop Nathaniel,
Archbishop Job of blessed memory or Archbishop Seraphim or about their motivation.
Then he should have presented his case and his documented evidence to the Church at large and cleared his name. Instead he has relied on the comments of “Monk James” and yourself to make excuses why he has not come clean on what happened to all that cash and why he spent tens of thousands of dollars on personal luxuries, trips, jewelry, clothes, etc..
Twenty-two (22) credit cards with $1.2 million in personal expenses (1999 through 2005) and some $137,000 of personal expenses still left on them (that RSK acknowledged) that were paid by the OCA, including trips to Aruba, Las Vegas, and tanning salons? Come on! Who are we kidding here?
Well, I’ve already provided the information which Chris Banescu seeks, both here and on the ‘Orthodox Forum’ list, particularly in the form of a dozen or so affidavits which (I think) are still in the OF list’s archives.
It’s just that he stubbornly refuses to accept the true testimony I’ve offered.
And he stubbornly persists in believing The Big Lie.
Why? What sort of khrabka (roughly the russian word for vendetta, but it’s worse) does he have against Fr Robert Kondratick, or even me?
What’s with the quotation marks around (Monk James), anyway?
Well, last I checked this is what happened to your status as a “monk”:
In a January 16th letter to Fr. David Vernak, his [Monk James Silver] parish priest, copied to the deans of the Washington – New York Diocese, Metropolitan Herman wrote:
In response to a query from OCANews.org [Monk James] Silver confirmed the letter and stated:
The documentation you posted on OF did NOT address all the substantive findings by the SIC report or present explanations to the numerous instances of personal expenses of RSK and his family that were uncovered. While he offered some explanation regarding the Beslan fund disbursements, nothing was said regarding the many other cash transaction, irregularities, and luxurious personal expenses on the OCA dime.
The “Request for Appeal” by RSK was primarily on procedural grounds challenging the OCA Statute and the HS process. I believe Carl Kraeff covered this issue at length. See his detailed analysis.
It was a failure of communication (for reasons unknown to me) that my putative ‘reinstatement’ was not made as public as my putative (and uncanonical) ‘release’ was. Met. Herman did a great deal of harm to me and other individuals and communities during his reign as a local bishop and as primate of the OCA. For that he was forced to leave office.
Please rest assured that — in spite of myself and my sins — I am a monk in good standing in the OCA. Met. Jonah is my direct superior, but he’s been busy putting out fires and dealing with issues far more important than his relationship with me to address my own unusual situation.
I expect that to be remedied soon, no thanks to Chris Banescu.
Oh, it’s hard not to enjoy Chris’s quoting Metropolitan Herman! Oh, you know, “principles” and all that!
ROTFLOL!
Oh, that is so easy to reply to….Protopresbyter Rodion and Elizabeth Kondratick are putting the devil to shame. Unlike so many of US, they do not speak evil of anyone, nor do they uncover anyone’s nakedness, nor do they lash out at anyone, nor do they do anything which could be characterized as returning an eye for an eye. Why, they don’t even COMPLAIN to the “Church at large”, which I take to be,”Me and Mark, and Father Ted and
Father Vladimir and Subdeacon Dimitri Solodow and Mrs. Julia Azrael and Ms Faith Skordinski and Archpriest John Tkachuk, if such somplaining and testimony to ‘the Church at large would cause harm to ANYONE. The only thing they they have not found duty-bound is protect with their lives is the Financial well-being of the OCA corporation. The Church to them is so much MORE than its cash and its programs: that’s how they were able to sue the corporation. If there were any way that Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick could detail IN PUBLIC the answers to these questions without revealing what he may know about the those responsible for the crimes/irregularities/puzzles he could do it. He has given his whole life to this Church and he has never attacked any individual member of the Church IN PUBLIC, lest he harm the Church, that is the Faithful Flock.
It is not that he thinks miscreants and malefactors need his protection. What an idea! He was willing, according to my statement above, to reveal EVERYTHING to the “supreme canonical authority in the
Church”, i.e, the Holy Synod. The “church at large” is not that authority and it is relatively powerless. Try to imagine what the revelations of, oh, i don’t know, the hypothetical secret sins and vices of Metropolitan Theodosius or Metropolitan Herman or Archbishop Job of blessed memory or Archbishop Nathaniel or Archbishop Seraphim or Archbishop Kiril of blessed memory or Archimandrite Zacchaeus or Vladimir Berezansky… Then, indeed, the demons who eat that sort of thing up and are crying out even louder than Chris Banescu to hear it all broadcasted “to the church at large, would achieve their ends. They would finally have got to Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick’s pure soul.
So, according to your public witness to the facts and the truth, “saint” Kondratick, by his moral fortitude, infinite love, and continuing SILENCE has thus PROTECTED and continues to protect the very people who, in the words of Metropolitan Jonah, have repeatedly “raped the Church” and plundered GOD’s house and squandered the Church’s funds. Wow!
PS – Who says that RSK in bringing his case to the Church needed to reveal every single detail of the corruption, perversion, and abuses he was privy to? Just a general “sanitized” version would have been sufficient.
Interestingly enough, “saint” Kondratick somehow failed to make this an issue and sat by silently for years while all this was going on. Suddenly the SIC Report comes out and he is ready to talk, but only if he can change the OCA Statutes and procedures. Come again?
Baloney!
Who ever called Fr Robert Kondratick a saint? Who ever said that Fr Robert Kondratick is ‘ready to talk’?
His mother raised him right, and he’s too much a christian gentleman to let go of any of this.
Be advised, though, that he knows where the bodies are buried. And so do I and a good many others.
Chris Banescu might well heed the advice of the Good Witch of the North, ‘Be gone before a house falls on you, too!’
Deep, real deep “Monk James.” Did you learn that from the Sopranos School of Theology or the Kondratick College of Ethics?
PS – Thanks for confirming that your silence also has helped to protect the evildoers, malfeasors, and impostors who undermined the Church and squandered Her Talents.
Non sequitur, and I’ve been far from silent, with God’s help.
What sort of universe is Chris Banescu from?
Clearly, they don’t understand English there.
Ah, that good old Iron Guard! “Die Hitler fahnen flattern ueber allen
Strassen….”
Chris, Ithere’s more than enough blame to go around for the past. Who were the metropolitans then? How did they elect mediocre men as bishops? Where were Wheeler, Stokoe, and others during the Iron Age of Kondratick? Do they bear no responsibility for the corruption that “undermined the Church and squandered Her talents”?
To all: the OCA had a chance when it started to be the premier Orthodox jurisdiciton in America. It had three seminaries, one of which (SVS) is the premier Orthodox seminary in the Anglosphere. Its luminaries included Schmemann, Meyendorff, Hopko, and shortly before his death, Yaroslav Pelikan. That’s not small beans. No other jurisdiction had that kind of brain power. None. And now who has taken their place? Arida, Vinogradsky, Bobosh? Gimme a break.
And yet what was going on during the time when the OCA was sending Stokoe jet-setting around the world on our dime? Or Kishkovsky hobnobbing with the ultra-libs on the NCC/WCC spending all those nights at fancy-schmancy hotels? Or electing mediocre men such as Lazor and Swaiko instead of Royster because they were of the right blood while the latter was a good ole’ boy from East Texas?
Y’all talk about the bishops of the recent past, but who elected them? Who bailed out miscreant priests from jail and later mitres on their heads?
Did +Jonah do ANY of these things? No. OK, blame Kondratick all you want, but know this: the rot began before RSK, during RSK, and continues to this day. Only an incorrupt man and true monastic such as +Jonah, together with a united people on fire for evangelism can turn this thing around.
Bishop Tikhon,
And having written all this, you lack the fundamental decency to lay to rest these outright lies that would suggest Bishop Benjamin perpetrated sexual abuse against his own flesh and blood. Who would wish you as a defender of their integrity except someone with less integrity than you?
M. Stankovich. On what basis do you characterize allegations about Bishop Benjamin as “outright lies?” Are you speaking about stuff told “to the church at large” by some or lies relayed to the Holy Synod?
A falsehood is an untrue statement. A lie is a falsehood told with the intent to deceive. You CLAIM to want to hear people put up or shut up. Please tell us all what falsehood was told about Bishop Benjamin with the intent to deceive anyone. if you have proof of any lies written here, let’s hear it!!!!
Tell me, Monsieur Stankowich what makes you think I can lay any lies to rest about Bishop Benjamin?
You mean that appealing to me is the only way you have of laying lies to rest? Thanks for imputing this great moral authority to me which I have never claimed. All I claim is to have told the truth. If you are concerned about Bishop Benjamin’s nephews, you should appeal to them, no? One is a champion computer geek and gamer in Alaska. I think he works for Best Buy on their Geek squad or whatever they call it. I don’t know where the other one is. How well do you know Bishop Benjamin? How well do you know Metropolitan Jonah? I’ve known Bishop Benjamin for close to forty years. I’ve known Metropolitan Jonah for oh, twenty-five, thirty years. How well do you know Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick? Mrs. Steve Brown? Fr. Alexander Garklaus? Fr. John & Denise Jillions? Monk James?
Chris Banescu knows me and I have a great impact on him, mostly emotional. I don’t know you at all.
i’ve known Mrs. Steve Brown since the 1980s at least. I got to know him when he was working in our diocesan office out here as kind of cheerleader for all who wanted to get rid of Bishop Basil (Rodzianko). He’s always had a “nose” for a certain kind of news. I served my country as an enlisted man in the U.S. Army, 1954-1957 honorably and, if I may say so, well. I served my country as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, 1960-65, and 1966-71. My last years I served on the Air Staff at HQS USAF in the Pentagon, 5D410 (fifth floor, fourth ring), as Deputy Chief, Personnel Security Group. When I left active duty in 1971, May, before being ordained Deacon at St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church, Washington, DC, in December by the then Bishop of Washington, Dmitri, I received the Air Force Commendation Medal. My record in the Orthodox Church is likewise spotless and I am grateful for the great undeserved love I was always shown by the clergy and Faithful of the Diocese of the West. I admit that that love was not unanimous, but it was the usual. I was given a wonderful retirement ‘kick-off” in Las Vegas by the Diocese. I could make your ears curl over if I related to you all I know about His Grace Bishop Benjamin, but what would be the point? I’ll answer for him at the judgment. The clergy, Monsieur, are not what the Church is all about. What an idea! I’m ashamed for my part in allowing so many good people think that by the Faithful’s attention to clergy morality the purposes of Christ’s Holy Church are being fulfilled in any way. You know, the commandment, “Honor thy father and they mother…” has no footnote reading, “unless they sin.” I agree with those souls who say, ” What’s the point in resurrecting all that stuff about Metropolitan Theodosius, or Archbishop Job, etc?” By the way, there’s been much blabbering about Metropolitan Theodosius’s alleged homosexuality. Who has come forward and confirmed it? I am neither affirming it or denying it. I’m just asking someone who claims to need ***proof**** about someone else. And, you know, there were additional points in Bishop Nikolai’s letter to Bishop Benjamin. Are we in denial about all of them as well? The only reaction i’ve heard reported relative to that letter was, ‘Oh, Bishop Nikolai is an angry man; don’t pay attention to all that.” No doubt this caused a great sigh of relief from all who wanted nothing whatsoever to do with pursuing the matter, no matter how irrelevant any anger imputed to Bishop Nikolai was to the matter of facts.
Bishop Tikhon,
You are absolutely correct, you know nothing about me. The irony is that, while I have never been formally introduced to you, whatever respect I might have for you is directly derived from the mouth of Vladyka Benjamin himself over the years. If I am to believe him, you loved this man as a brother and he loved you. If I am to believe you are a pastor, a man of compassion and understanding, it is because he told me. If I am to believe you are wise and thoughtful, it is because he described you as such. If I had anything good to say of you, it would be in the words of Vladyka Benjamin alone. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you seem hell-bent on convincing me otherwise.
I do not appreciate being played with rhetoric as if it were “sly” or an exercise in “gamesmanship.” You know exactly why I stated what I did to you. Christian charity tells me that, even if my worst enemy is wrongly accused, I am bound to defend the truth. But that’s me. I’ll not raise the issue again.
Stankowich, I wasted too many words on you. I don’t KNOW the truth about Bishop Benjamin relative to homosexuality. period. What makes you think I do?
Your Grace, you bring up some very valid points. There’s much wisdom in what you say about resurrecting the past and the Judgment.
to all: unfortunately, this is where the private sins of some in the past have now come to fruition in the present. We are now at the point where the shibboleths of Accountability and Transparency which OCAN supposedly trumpet are actually being put to use. We can’t unring the bell. The truth will continue to seep out and at its base, we will find out more things that we wish we never would have known.
For this we can inadvertently thank Mark Stokoe even though he never really believed in that stuff (T&A) but only used them for his own personal vendettas (and those of his coterie in Syosset).
They are giving themselves away. All we have to do is let them talk.
We here in boondocks, northern Minnesota have been talking, trying to understand the top power here, the power and the agenda behind everything else, and we are thinking it is getting homosexuality accepted in the Orthodox Church.
Ah, northern Sanford country!!!!
Jane Rachel! Did you know ever-memorable Fr Peter Pritza of Hibbing? Maybe you’re too young to have known him. Send me an email or send me a message on Facebook. How he’d enjoy learning of the Orthodox bikers in Russia, some of the Archpriests if he were still around!
Battle in Seattle? — Part 1 One — Monomakhos tvcslw qnuslah suazjm abercrombie pas cher hqxtnke qxnovuby louboutin zltpclq bwxit