Nephew,
I don’t have much time so please don’t interrupt me with any questions. Time is of the essence.
It appears that this whole operation is being botched. I shudder to think what our Master is going to do. Keep your head low for the time being. Hopefully he’ll believe me when I tell him that I was just a sub-altern in this latest attempt and he will take his wrath out on Mephistopheles instead. We can only pray but that option is permanently closed to us.
Next time we have got to be more careful. Are you taking notes? Good. Here goes:
1. Always recruit new people. Our Scribe had gotten lazy. He actually believed the praises that so many showered him with. Including their General Officers, who kept giving him information about their Commander-in-Chief. Didn’t he stop to think that he might have been used?
2. About those General Officers. It’s important that they be compromised to be sure, but always make sure that if they are going to be key operatives, that their vices don’t include loss of balance. (I hear right now that one of them is drinking heavily.)
3. Never underestimate the craftiness of their Supreme Leader. Who would have thought that they had a Scribe in the employ of one of the most influential journals of the secular world? And this thing about her being a stalwart Christian bears looking into. (How in our Master’s name did that happen?)
4. Never let our prospective target undertake what they call “repentance.” His daily communications with his Master are immensely hurtful to our cause. This “fasting” that they undergo only makes them stronger. I suspect once this is over he’s going to offer what they call “forgiveness” which will only solidify their ranks. We must make sure that his foes do not accept this! It is imperative that they “stick to their principles” as they say and not accept the olive branch. (We can work on that, if nothing else, our Scribe may “refresh” the memories of some of them about why they joined this battle in the first place.)
5. As for their largest Division, I am at a loss. I thought that after 70 years of persecution, that they would have been thoroughly defeated. Instead, they have only gotten stronger. I simply don’t know what to make of this. I’m at a loss Wormwood.
Well, that’s enough for now. Regroup, retrench, retreat. For now.
Most Dreadful Uncle,
As always, your logic is unassailable. Fortunately, they all fear their largest Division almost as much as they despise one another. The rumors you had us plant about their Supreme Leader’s willingness to had over the shop to foreigners have paid off immensely–just another example of your insight!
I recall your advice from long ago—“never allow humor to intervene; keep them serious at all times, never allow them to laugh at themselves”. Thus far, this seems to be working. I shudder to think what would happen if they were to “lighten up”, which seems to be one of the goals of their “fasting”.
I do not think we have to worry about “forgiveness”. It was a master stroke that you timed this campaign for their season of “repentance” and “forgiveness”. It seems to me that they use these terms as euphemisms for unconditional surrender on the part of their enemies.
Your wisdom is, as always, beneath comprehension.
Your humble unsleeping servant,
WW
Revered Uncle! Despicable Sir!
You know how fickle these creatures are and how difficult it is to keep them in a herd. Like cats, you once said!
However, I believe our latest experiment may be teaching us something important. It seems no matter what thread our Agents are following (on these various blogs and websites) there is a common theme that actually holds together–“anonymity”. They both embrace it and despise it. How like our own passions, Uncle! And, how easy to exploit! Plant an ugly little rumor (or, better, an ugly little truth) in the right place and time “anonymously” and there is no telling how far we can take it!
I suggest that our anonymous (and psuedonymous) Agents plant ever larger and more pointless references to leaked emails, damning obituaries, alcoholic binges and problems of obesity plaguing the chief players in this lovely little farce. At the current pace, they will soon forget precisely what it is they are contending about (that unmentionable horror, “the C___ch”) and we will be left to deal with its carcass.
Meanwhile, I must admit that I have not had such fun since I was a young devil in training managing those little miseries in their sandbox fights!
I credit it all to you, depraved sir–and of course to our Infernal and Demented Master!
As always,
Your obsequious and craven student,
WW
Deplorable Uncle!
The dark brilliance of your long term planning amazes me! My diabolical eyes are being opened ever wider as I consider the perfect malice of your plans!
I often think back to the caterwauling, the moaning, the baying I did (much to your delight!) when you denied me a field position in the C***ch Destruction Corps dedicated to the annihilation of the “Orthodox” entity in the sadly defunct USSR. I recall the resentment and the delicious thoughts of vengeance I entertained during my early years in what was then a painfully “bright” space on the material map of this planet. Oh, how I stewed in the black juices of hatred back then when you made me Agent in Charge of wrecking this pitifully small and pallid outpost of their Largest Division!
But now, Uncle, in the miasma of the utter failure of the Soviet mission (look how the star agents of that miserable piece of work ended below!), I have nothing but gratitude, deep, profound, gratitude for your prescience in placing me here. You saved me from His Abysmal Majesty’s well-deserved wrath by delivering me from an undertaking you knew to be a failure from the start!
Let me explain. In recent weeks, since the start of our “Lenten” campaign (inspired, of course, by you) I have discovered the true meaning of their most favored vocabulary terms and how closely they correspond to our own understanding of how things really work. Ugly, repulsive, terms like “forgiveness” and “repentance” are but euphemisms for “utter and total surrender “to their enemies point of view. Anonymity is embraced as a cloak for character assassination (and beloved by all parties) while causing fits of consternation for the assassins on the opposing side. Best yet, (I have saved this for last because it is the most rancid sauce of all), we have corrupted their understanding of the “C***ch” on this continent so thoroughly that they are willing to see members of their “flock” leave in “droves” for other sects with equanimity! Can you imagine such an attitude developing in their Largest Division (where 70 years of effort went for naught)? Here a family may leave the inept and immoral pastoral care of Father Bezumni for the vapid emptiness of Pastor Sunnyface, and it is considered “understandable”—so much for the pretense that their “sacraments” have “saving” power even when done by “unworthy” priests! Why the leaders of the Largest Division would be mortified by such a development (indeed, they are willing to use the weight of the state to help prevent it! I think we taught them an unintentional lesson, here, Uncle)! And once these wanderers from what that traitor, Paul, named the “pillar and ground of truth”, have gone to Pastor Sunnyface, it will not be long before they find fault with his message and move on to Pastor Honeylips…. And from there, it is only a few steps to the soccer fields, the dance studios, to staying at home to relax and read the Sunday paper (so full of our best work).
Uncle, this is a testimony to you, to your hard, cruel work! And I, your craven student, finally understand why you posted me here. I can see now that this place may well be the most fertile field we have ever plowed—despite its initial lack of promise. Your base wisdom is appalling; your knowledge of the inner workings of these disgusting creatures of flesh, truly gross! You are the superlative teacher and worthy of your post as Chancellor of our vilest university. I salute you as a proud member of your clan!
Yours most basely,
WW
Cc: Grosstina Peti-Rubbish, PhD, Abysmal Department of Lower Education
Bcc: Smertni Podzemnii, Department of Infernal Security, “Orthodox C***ch Division., Slubber Inference, DIS, Department of Suspect Ambitions
Sorry, George. Ivan wins on the style-mimicking. At least to my eye.
But the idea that Screwtape and Wormwood and their various buddies are running this show is real, especially during Lent, which I’ve noted is an especially active time for the little buggers. I see it in the anonymous attacks on Stokoe and Bobosh, the bishops, and the MC, in the conspiracy-mongering about a “coup”, in the made-up-from-whole-cloth accusation of a Soviet-style “psychiatricly unfit” allegation, etc.
These allegations that there is a problem with +Jonah are also so-far unsupported, aside from some known administrative foibles and apparently a too-confrontational management style. (And while I’m personally none-too-thrilled with his jetsetting in a church that is essentially broke, that’s easily handled.) But the recent silence is deafening from that side, and it is the side that is actually engaged in the management of the OCA. I can not help but believe that there is more. Much more. They are not speaking publicly, and I can only presume it is because they do not wish to try this in the court of public opinion. Let them do their job, and we’ll bitch about the outcome when we get there. (Of course we will). The distrust of the bishops evidenced by the OCATruthers is disturbing indeed. If we do not have some trust in the Synod, as a whole, as compared to +Jonah, who is standing alone in his position, then we are not following the Orthodox way of conciliarity and cooperation. It is easily compared to a neo-Papalist view of ecclesiology, and that ain’t us.
We’re all getting harassed by the little buggers this Lent, sadly.
Someone posted this on the Orthodox-Forum (Yahoo group), and it sums up my position better than I ever could. (Don’t ya hate it when people do that?)
When reasonable concerns are raised about moving the chancery to Washington, DC, it proves that no one takes their faith seriously or the “Old Guard” is pulling strings.
When the Holy Synod questions unilateral actions taken by the Metropolitan, it shows that the bishops are petty and don’t care about such issues as abortion.
When a “leaked” email is presented as proof-positive of a conspiracy to get rid of +MJ for nefarious reasons,” any explanation is viewed as a lie.
When Mark Stokoe tries to deny claims that he is the godfather of this supposed conspiracy, he is viewed as a hopelessly-corrupted egomaniac that has gone off the deep-end, and that any means to disgrace him are justified – ANY means.
When the Holy Synod tries to intervene privately and then publicly to address serious concerns, the bishops are viewed as tyrannical and coercive.
When the bishops want privacy to work things out, they are being secretive and manipulative.
When the bishops are not forthcoming with what their real concerns are, it proves there are none.
When the Diocesan Council of the Diocese of the West prepares a unanimous statement highlighting its concerns and suggestions; the motives, maturity and election practices of the Council are questioned.
When bishops, clergy and parishioners who have known Metropolitan Jonah for 10, 15, and 20 years are not on ocatruth’s “side”, they are dismissed as betrayers.
Nothing is legitimate – except for what they believe is legitimate. How do you work with that kind of thinking? Are we not all members of the Body of Christ? Can’t there be a discussion?
Ocatruth.com is now resorting to claims that people are leaving “in droves.” More scare tactics? I would leave too if the OCA was so hopelessly corrupt as these bloggers believe. But it isn’t and we aren’t.
Yes, I too think that’s very well written.
There’s an effort I think worth making in addition: Understanding why do some of the non-anonymous, more sincere folk supportive of ‘OCATruth’ do that?
I think it is because the non-anonymous sincere few are very, very supportive of some few of Met. Jonah’s public initiatives, and believe in the importance of those so greatly as key to a future– they just value as a small thing by comparison the internal personnel administrative bumps highlighted in detail on OCANews.
Those sincere see nothing rising to the level of severe personal misconduct, just the result of someone new to the job who needs to settle in a bit. Moving an office, some folk like it others don’t, details of staff assignments, giving bothersome lavender insiders, ‘monastics’, sort-of onetime and dubious clergy tokens to go away and be quiet, all small beer compared to what they see at stake in the public square and what they see as Jonah’s ability to elevate the church and so retain folk and attract folk.
Some others who are sincere over there recall the joy broadly felt in the speeches surrounding Jonah’s taking over and are just not ready to accept that what appears to be squabbles about what in their view are tiny amounts of money and petty turf stuff to derail what good he might do for the church. That is to say, they are weary of problems at the top in the OCA, and just wonder whether adults are at work here.
Some few sincere worry that those responsible for appointments to the Metropolitan Council are participating in a defacto gay agenda and so did not take due care to investigate the present reality of old press detail about Mark Stokoe’s personal choices, they are convinced there is ongoing impropriety. They don’t care enough to call to check out whether that’s true or not, casting doubt about what really is motivating them. Plainly that needs resolving.
I do think there are many who hide at ‘OCATruth’, prime movers shaping the views there early on, up to their necks in the scandals of the past, who do that on the basis that they think they have very special deals that will leave them sitting quite pretty financially and careerwise with Met. Jonah at the helm, immune to outcry from the bubbas in the parishes (that is to say — us). They don’t want his decisions to be taken in concert with a synod since that won’t work out at all well for them personally, what with there being those on the synod and on the council who have memories that extend longer than Jonah’s arrival on the scene, and for whom attention to detail is not a problem.
Therefore once again I suggest those sincere non-anonymites who value Met. Jonah’s initiatives create a website highlighting what is of value and worth preserving and say so without hiding— and so jettison the anonymites who see value in manipulating the passionate about a future and also need to have a strongman at the helm who in his inexperience might cut private deals with them that cannot stand up in the light on their own. Then, of course, they’ll own him. He doesn’t see that yet. Hope he gets the idea sooner rather than later.
“Some few sincere worry that those responsible for appointments to the Metropolitan Council are participating in a defacto gay agenda and so did not take due care to investigate the present reality of old press detail about Mark Stokoe’s personal choices, they are convinced there is ongoing impropriety. They don’t care enough to call to check out whether that’s true or not, casting doubt about what really is motivating them. Plainly that needs resolving.”
Speaking for someone who recently asked Mark directly if accusations of him living a gay lifestyle were true, Mark never gave a clear answer and instead started investigating the person who asked the question.
View: The Rest of the Story
Well, so long as you (whoever you are) speak for someone (whoever that is), we’ll have to call it settled then.
Harry, #8
My name is Colette-how many Colette’s are there in the OCA. The person who wrote Mark, my husband.
Anon, has it occurred to you that you are complaining about what +Jonah’s supporters SAY because nothing +Jonah has DONE justifies this mess?
Wanting to move the chancery? No.
Speaking plain Christian truths that none of the bishops dare gainsay? No.
Maintaining close relations with the main support of the OCA’s autocephaly? No.
Believing that Christian unity is ultimately more important than OCA independence? No.
Claiming prerogatives of office customary for all Orthodox primates? No.
Having ideas about how to handle sexual conduct that differ from those of the SMPAC? No.
Getting fed up with resistance at Syosset to his efforts at reform? No.
Denying that he was on a “leave of absence” when “leave of absence” was touted as meaning temporary deposition? No.
Visiting New York and Chicago while on his leave of absence? No.
Leading a lenten retreat in his own parish? No.
Tonsuring a nun in his own diocese? No.
Being overworked? No.
Being overweight? No.
Being a diabetic? No.
All of these complaints have been made against the Metropolitan, but none comes close to making the case against him, not even all together. They all fall embarrassingly short.
So not having anything serious to lay against the Metropolitan, you and others here complain about OCATruth and about those of us who argue that the Metropolitan has been treated unfairly. OCATruth is anonymous and sometimes wrong. Some of us on +Jonah’s side are anonymous and sometimes wrong. OK. So what?
Fr. Deacon, I will lay my money on the side with a track record:
I fear you will look the horrible fool when this is over. I hope not, but there is more to this particular mockingbird’s song than you are hearing.
Dear Fr. Deacon,
You have enough straw men and paper tigers there to create a fire hazard. Smokers, please extinguish your cigarettes, pipes, and hookahs immediately, lest we all get caught in the conflagration.
You have, though, piqued my curiosity with something which is, to me, wholly new. What reform of the chancery was resisted? I have not read or heard a thing about chancery reform and resistance there to.
O, by the way, I would say one of my complaints about OCATruth is dealing in straw men as if it were discourse, or dealt with what their opposition says.
I don’t even really think they are on Met. Jonah’s side. They are though, anonymous and sometimes (often) wrong. My primary complaint about OCATruth is that it is divisive and inflammatory, which I think is enough to merit concern, and resistance. That’s what.
I believe your complaint cuts many ways, Fr. Yousef. There is no question that Stokoe was engaged in fanning flames. There is equally no question that the ??? at OCATruth decided the best response was to fight “fire with fire.”
And as James (3:5) tells us: “See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire!”
It seems to me that the Synod and our Metropolitan will resolve their issues. All signs point to that resolution, quite without the aid of OCANews or OCATruth, neither of whom have a seat at that table.
The damage done by our pyrotechnicians, however, will remain.
“The damage done by our pyrotechnicians, however, will remain.”
If you have a prairie fire, it is best to set a counter-fire before the original fire will consume you…
To let Stokoe alone control the fire would be disastrous. Now at least we have an opposition. I for one am glad for OCAT. Without it, I would be stuck with the machinations of one website. One who’s proprietor’s motives I do not trust, …
Chris, I pray you are right. I think that you are being unfair to me and OCAT. We are not “pyrotechnicians.” We did not start this but we intend to end it.
I for one will gladly put down my pen when this is all over and seek reconciliation. I have no agenda save the safeguarding of our Church and enabling it to be the Church. Engaging the culture is a big part of that.
If I have given offense, please forgive me.
“When a “leaked” email is presented as proof-positive of a conspiracy to get rid of +MJ for nefarious reasons,” any explanation is viewed as a lie.”
What explanation? The only thing Sokoe said is that it proves he is against +Jonah. That’s not an explanation. That’s only repeating what we already know. (The Clintons were good at that.) I’m still waiting for the explanation why his name was on all 3 emails, especially the one where the plan to move +Jonah out was spelled out.
These little sayings seem clever, but their purpose is to stop questions from being asked.
Dear Ian,
I think those of us who have ambivalence to the OCATruth spin would not only invite you to question the emails, we would be positively delighted if you did. You don’t need anyone else, just read what exactly they say about whom and on what basis.
I am still unwilling to trade assertions about Mark Stokoe with you.
But there are some simple things which ought to be clear from the plain text, no matter what you make of them and what “side” you are on.
-The authors are all both by date of composition and context re-acting to the crisis in early Feb (SMPAC report, firing the officers, etc. ) and the aftermath of those events. (This statement is true regardless what one makes of the events of early Feb, or of where one wants to place the blame for them).
-The authors of the emails seem agreed that Met. Jonah should be removed.
-One of the authors (Mark Stokoe) asserts, but does not say on what basis, that 4 bishops, after the events of early Feb. had also come to believe that the Metropolitan should be removed.
-Another author, Skordinski expresses very little confidence that the Synod will act as she thinks they ought.
-Another author, Dmitri Solodow discusses what they might do if, repeat, if the Synod does not do what they seem to be agreed the Synod should do.
-We have no direct statement that any bishops are involved in the plan, rather, uncertainty about the bishops, which in the case of the Skordinski email 1 at least borders on contempt.
-We have no knowledge or evidence that any bishop knew of these emails before any of the rest of us. (except retired Bp. Tikhon who leaked them)
Well some questions that I might like to ask is if these emails are a conspiracy, and if email 1 of Mark is proof that the 4 bishops are involved, why would they not have more confidence in the outcome? If they have 4 bishops “in the bag”, that’s 4 out of 7 voting members present in Santa Fe, why would be worried what the bishops would do? Why be making contingency plans for different outcomes of the Santa Fe meeting?
And a bonus question, one that George M never answers: Where in those emails does one get the following, quoting George M. “It was alleged by Skordinski that Garklavs did so in order to make +Jonah look worse than the facts as actually reported. ” Please, some one, find the quote where Skordinski alleges that.
Like I say, I don’t want to trade assertions, but if you want to actually question the text itself, by all means, I hope you will.
Read Skordinki’s e-mail. She takes Garklavs to task. For what exactly? The way he parts his hair?
The way he parts is hair is as much in Skordinski’s text, even by implication as, Skordinski, in your words alleging: “Garklavs did so in order to make +Jonah look worse than the facts as actually reported.”
If I’m wrong about it, quote where she says that. You have said I should just read the email, I have, repeatedly, and I just can’t find her saying that. But it should be easy to quote – unless your reading into rather than out of the text.
So yeah. I proclaim (counter to George) that Skordinski alleges that “Garklavs did so to wreak vengeance on the OCA for the Seinfeld episode about Latvian Orthodox, and for the way he parts his hair.” Go ahead, quote the text and prove me wrong !
Otherwise, I would like you to address the real issue tearing our Church apart: the Latvians and their Finnish fellow travelers, still holding a grudge against Alexander Nevsky. I’ll bet they even want to use Bach chorales. Did you know that Peterson is a Swedish name? Why, if we don’t watch out there will be a veritable outbreak of Baltic Scandinavians! Act now or we’ll all be made to shop at IKEA. Gravlox in Lent, meat balls on pascha instead of Lamb or Kielbasa, and the less said about that weird cracker bread the better. Something must be done.
Fr, it appears that we are talkling about two different e-mails that Faith put out. Could you please post the one that you are talking about so that everybody else can see what she actually wrote when she warned Fr Garklavs about tampering with the report?
Dear George,
There is evidence and then there is the way we interpret evidence. You don’t distinguish between the two.
Evidence, in this matter is mostly in the form of words. We have a few documents, and many more cases of, “somebody said to somebody”. And of course, we have some competing narratives, stories that make sense of the events. You do not distinguish between the story you are using to make sense of the evidence and the evidence itself.
You said “Garklavs did so in order to make +Jonah look worse than the facts as actually reported.” That allegation, whoever made it, is an allegation about Garklavs’ intention and motive. If the allegation about intention and motive is correct, it changes one’s understandings of the deed itself. Skordinski was possibly in place to have some knowledge both of Fr. Alexander Garklavs’ deeds and intentions, so what she says and what she doesn’t say is rather important.
And when she said it. Every one of the leaked emails comes in the period between the attempted dismissal of Fr. Alexander Garklavs and Fr Eric Tosi in response to the SMPAC report and subsequent February meltdown of the chancery administration, and the Santa Fe Synod meeting. That means every one of the leaked emails reflects positions taken in response to those events, and assumptions that the actors were all acting exactly the same prior to the events of early February is just that, only an assumption.
The SMPAC report was made to detail the frustrations & complaints of the SMPAC regarding the Metropolitan. To speak of such a report as “deliberately making the Met. look bad” seems nonsensical. Of course, the very nature of such a report is to detail complaints. Those complaints, whatever they are, stand or fall on their own merits. As the nature of the complaints is sensitive, we do not know, nor may we ever know the precise nature of the complaints. We may not all read such a report, but who should read it an evaluate it on its merits? I would think the Synod would be the appropriate body.
Now, what evidence do we have in Skordinski’s email?
There is a “scenario” that Skordinski opposes “Garklavs BY LAW has no right to make changes and lobby for a complaint to not go in–or to pull the complaint because of his concern about something being embarrassing.”
So what does Skordinski allege?
That Fr. Alexander Garklavs:
wants to make changes. What Changes you ask?
to lobby that a complaint not go in, or to pull a complaint.
Why? Because the complaint is “embarrassing”. That is the only statement about motive made by Skordinski.
Embarrassing to whom, embarrassing how? Embarrassing to Garklavs? The Synod? The chancery? The OCA as a group? Met. Jonah? It doesn’t say.
There is no other statement that speaks to Garklavs motive, or describes the nature of the “changes” Garklavs is said to want to make. Yet you have Skordinski witnessing “Garklavs did so in order to make +Jonah look worse than the facts as actually reported.” Yet Skordinski does not actually witness to any form of the report looking better or worse for the Metropolitan, or that Fr. Alexander Garklavs was motivated to make it better or worse for the Metropolitan.
Then there is the When. When is Fr. Alexander Garklavs attempting to do this? She speaks in the present tense, so the natural reading is some form of the SMPAC report that would be made available (to the public? To the whole MC?) later than her email, which was after the Synod had already seen the report. So her email is not direct evidence that the Synod was given a doctored report. While not the most natural reading of her tense, it could be that Skordinski was being slightly less than precise, and is discussing something left out of the report as seen by the Synod. And it could be that Skordinski simply doesn’t know exactly, she says she is dealing with bits and pieces.
What you make of the Skordinski email is indebted to the basic narrative line which you have adopted as making sense of the situation. But as “proof” that is viciously circular. And you seem unable and unwilling to distinguish between the actual evidence and your interpretive paradigm.
What we have good evidence for in Skordinski’s email is that Fr. Alexander Garklavs desired the SMPAC report to be more discreet, and that he attempted to effect it in this way at some point, though exactly when and for whose consumption isn’t quite clear.
Fr Yousuf, please, I’m not a fool and neither are you. The preponderance of evidence as gathered from the four leaked e-mails clearly shows something nefarious. Votes of “no confidence” and such not do not paint for you or I the picture that we were reading the minutes of the +Jonah fan-club. Far from it.
“The SMPAC report was made to detail the frustrations & complaints of the SMPAC regarding the Metropolitan.”
Father Yousuf, would you clarify this? I thought the “Sexual Misconduct Policy Advisory Committee.” (SMPAC) report was made to deal with sexual misconduct and set policy in the Church.
To my mind, the “elephant in the room” is not Father Garklaav’s motives. What he did was serious and he must have known it, but tried anyway, so it must have been a big thing given his good reputation. What bothers me most is the “complaint” itself, contained in the SMPAC report, that Skordinski talks about. She calls it “a nuclear bomb,” and then points to the Roman Catholic Church. Read that again and realize how serious it is. When I read that, I went, “Whoa,” and cringed, but I wasn’t really surprised given the strange things people are doing lately. Skordinski, a lawyer, says that it should be “stopped.” Father Garklavs apparently tried to make it go away. Metropolitan Jonah apparently doesn’t believe in coverups, at least not any more. Bishop Tikhon, retired, writes here (https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind1103C&L=ORTHODOX&T=0&F=&S=&P=56751), “However, Metropolitan Jonah learned something in his seminary days and he apparently has imposed canonicity on the Holy Synod, showing that he is not an automaton blindly obedient to the majority of the Bishops, but a genuine leader, who must sometimes correct the majority of a synod when they are in violation of the canons and put them on the right path. That’s what a First Hierarch is supposed to do. No one wants him to act like a leader. It must be difficult for a young Metropolitan to have to come to
grips with that.”
What is the difference between a coverup and lies?
This is darkness. Darkness will not go away unless it is brought to light. If the leaders think we can’t handle the truth, they underestimate who we are and what we have been through in our lives. We NEED to know enough to begin to heal. We don’t need to know gossip, but the darkness of coverup is hurting the OCA. (I am reminded of the film “Doubt” with Meryl Streep. Deal with it wisely, O Leaders, but deal with it. And, I say, let us know what “it” is related to. I think I can trust Metropolitan Jonah; certainly more than many others I’ve read about. Wisely is the key, and I think he’s wise. Remember that Christ, His Apostles, and Saints down through the ages did not mince words or pussy-foot around truth. They were not afraid of legal repercussions. They were not afraid of monetary cost. Souls have been damaged, ravaged by darkness. Bring it to the light, and trust God, and let the chips fall where they may.
“The SMPAC report was made to detail the frustrations & complaints of the SMPAC regarding the Metropolitan.”
Father Yousuf, would you clarify this? I thought the SMPAC report was made to deal with (comments doesn’t seem to accept the “s” word) misconduct and set policy in the Church.
To my mind, the “elephant in the room” is not Father Garklav’s motives. What he did was serious and he must have known it, but he tried anyway, so it must have been a big thing given his good reputation.
What bothers me most is the “complaint” itself, contained in the SMPAC report, that Skordinski talks about. She calls it more than “embarrassing.” She calls it “a nuclear bomb,” and then points to the Roman Catholic Church. Read that again and realize how serious it is. When I read it, I went, “Whoa,” and cringed, but I wasn’t really surprised given the strange things people are doing lately. Skordinski, a lawyer, says that it should be “stopped.” Father Garklavs apparently tried to make it go away. Metropolitan Jonah apparently doesn’t believe in coverups, at least not any more.
What is the difference between a coverup and lies?
This is darkness. Darkness will not go away unless it is brought to light. If the leaders think we can’t handle the truth, they underestimate who we are and what we have been through in our lives. We NEED to know enough to begin to heal. We don’t need to know gossip, but the darkness of coverup is hurting the OCA. Deal with it wisely, O Leaders, but deal with it. And, I say, let us know what “it” is related to. I think I can trust Metropolitan Jonah; certainly more than many others I’ve read about. Wisely is the key, and I think he’s wise. Remember that Christ, His Apostles, and Saints down through the ages did not mince words or pussy-foot around truth. They were not afraid of legal repercussions. They were not afraid of monetary cost. Souls have been damaged, ravaged by darkness. Trust God, let the light shine.
Having said that, the other side is reality. Reality says no one wants to lose their job. No one wants to be found out. It’s too big, it will be too damaging, whatever. Whatever. Sigh.
I know I’d rather pay off a huge sexual misconduct lawsuit, and sell off that Syosset chancery, than have an innocent Metropolitan ripped out of office and confined to a monastery for the rest of his life to cover up someone else’s wrongdoing and keep the OCA from going bankrupt.
you said it Helga. The guilty should pay, not the innocent.
For those who criticize OCATruth for anonymity, might I call your your attention to the lists of clergy and laity on that website who openly support what the website is doing and are supportive of our metropolitan. Where, pray tell , is the anonymity ?
That was fun wasn’t it? ‘Who, me? Not anonymous, pshaw, tish-tosh. Except for not saying who has written any of the articles or takes responsibility for the website, not anonymous at all. ‘ Who knows whether those names are or aren’t there properly. It’s nutty. ‘That bishop may have made advances but since I said ‘no’ it’s not important’.
It demonstrates a certain poor judgement that can’t help but carry over to taint any merit the content may have had.
Thank you, brother Ian, for your comment. This kind of spin is cute, but anything but measured and, hence, to that extent in fact dishonest.
Space and time do not permit us to address each point in the clever litany offered, presumably in defense of Mr. Stokoe et al. and those who, at least, allegedly want +Jonah chastised, sidelined or removed (actually its hard to know what the agenda is) and to undermine +Jonah’s supporters at OCA Truth.
Here are a few examples, however:
It is said: “When reasonable concerns are raised about moving the chancery to Washington, DC, it proves that no one takes their faith seriously or the “Old Guard” is pulling strings.”
This is astonishing. As far as I can tell the original complaint had nothing to do with impugning the faith of anyone opposed to moving the chancery from NY to DC; rather the charge was against +Jonah for suggesting it and was grounds for charges that he was “autocratic” as if he had presented the plan as a fait accompli. I have pointed out multiple times to those his opponents to say whatever could be wrong with his suggesting such a thing, or even trying to build up support for it. No one has ever paid heed to my question or tried to answer it. Why, I wonder.
It is said: “When the Holy Synod questions unilateral actions taken by the Metropolitan, it shows that the bishops are petty and don’t care about such issues as abortion.”
I really don’t know if we can assume what this statement asserts. What we have from the Holy Synod is its Minutes, which do NOT question any specific unilateral actions by +Jonah. All we have is a litany of concerns first adduced by Mr. Stokoe, who claims to speak not only for himself but for other on the MC and within the Synod itself.
It is said: “When a ‘leaked’ email is presented as proof-positive of a conspiracy to get rid of +MJ for nefarious reasons,” any explanation is viewed as a lie.”
The leaked emails are probative because they have not been denied or disputed by the parties; in fact, Mr. Stokoe admitted at OCAnews that the first one was his and genuine.
It is said: “When the Holy Synod tries to intervene privately and then publicly to address serious concerns, the bishops are viewed as tyrannical and coercive.”
Beyond the official minutes, apart from anonymous sources claimed by Mr. Stokoe and others, we don’t know how the Synod sought to intervene. There, as I have meticulously pointed out by careful word by word analysis in a number of forums—to the largely deaf ears of those convinced otherwise—that the only leave of absence at issue is one requested by +Jonah and granted by the Synod. As far as public intervention, I am not aware of ANY official public action or statement by the Synod itself of someone speaking by its authority and on its behalf that shows what the specific “serious concerns” are and what actions have been authorized to address them. I don’t know of ANYONE who has accused them of being “tyrannical” or “coercive” as a body—though particular members of the Synod may have been personally criticized as evincing such a tendency.
It is said: “When the bishops are not forthcoming with what their real concerns are, it proves there are none.”
I can’t think of anyone who has suggested this. No one has contended there are no concerns.
It is said: “When the Diocesan Council of the Diocese of the West prepares a unanimous statement highlighting its concerns and suggestions; the motives, maturity and election practices of the Council are questioned.”
I admit I hadn’t noticed that the resolutions were unanimous. If the motives were questioned, it could be because impracticality of the what the resolutions recommended by way of micromanaging the conduct of any Metropolitan and reducing him to a practical non-entity. No wonder +Philip’s over in the AOANA acted the way he did a year or so ago. I was with Mark S. at that time—and Philip’s conduct made it rather easy to be—but now I wonder if I was wrong and Philip sensed valid threats to the Church’s effectiveness and unity of purpose of which I was ignorant.
It is said: “When bishops, clergy and parishioners who have known Metropolitan Jonah for 10, 15, and 20 years are not on ocatruth’s “side”, they are dismissed as betrayers.”
I have no idea who the writer has in mind; nor how many of these person there are, how well they knew and know +Jonah and what their own take on the Church’s mission is and ought to be. Nor do I know anyone who has “dismissed” them, whoever they are, as “betrayers.” I do know that the voices of those who speak in +Jonah’s favor and who have known him in recent years are numerous and mostly favorable—and this goes from California to Texas to DC.
It is said: “Nothing is legitimate – except for what they believe is legitimate. How do you work with that kind of thinking? Are we not all members of the Body of Christ? Can’t there be a discussion?”
I never thought +Jonah wanted anything else. Folks, it is the yellow, muckraking journalism of Mr. Stokoe that brooks discussion casting false aspersion of autocracy, disobedience and going rogue. What he made public should have been discussed in private by the Synod and by the MC. It is Mr. Stokeo, who, for whatever purposes, sought to stir the pot and force the Synod’s hand by making this all public, even naming those whose conduct was (allegedly) questioned by the sexual misconduct report—but without, of course, after libelously naming them, having the honesty to say what it was/is that they are accused of, by whom and on what evidence. No, the fact of the matter is that the criticisms of the Synod’s competency have virtually all come from Mr. Stokoe, Ms. Skordinski and Sbn. Solodow and those who , for whatever reasons, oppose the current Metropolitane—and yet this writer tries to attribute this disdain to OCA Truth. Incredible and dishonest and unworthy of the name of Christ.
Finally, it is said: “Ocatruth.com is now resorting to claims that people are leaving “in droves.” More scare tactics? I would leave too if the OCA was so hopelessly corrupt as these bloggers believe. But it isn’t and we aren’t.”
This is another example of prevaricatious spin. There has been no resort to such claims. OCATruth merely printed a letter from someone who said they were scandalized by this mess. I am, too, because it is objectively scandalous for Orthodox Christians to behave like this. The dark and wicked emotions and words stirred up in the current debate is horrendous—as it was 1 and 2 years ago in the brouhaha over Met. Philip in AOANA. The fact that that correspondent to OCATruth said he/she might represent 12 others is not surprising as Fr. Hans and Fr. Dcn Brian have also attested. It rings true to me.
That the Church could be so corrupt is an awful thought: she is after all to be the Body of Christ, willing to be presented to Him as a Bride, holy, spotless and without blemish or any such thing. St. Pauls us that that many of the things that are occupying our attention, should not even been named among us—not they are there, but we just don’t mention them, but because they are to be unknown among Christians who are called to love one another in mutual submission. That Judas was among the 12 is no excuse, nor that the Church has “always” contained tares among the wheat.
The fact is that based on the accounts in the Acts it was not always so: then, they were of one accord, of one heart and mind, and there was not one in need among them. Then, it was that it could be said that the Holy Spirit was indeed amongst them and His presence was palpably felt, heard and seen, and manifest in their lives.
May it be so again amongst us as we repent and stifle our words and sees purification, illumination and theosis, individually and together. May Christ conform us to His image and may we live into His likeness so that He may be know and glorified now and ever and unto ages of ages.
lexcaritas
Dear lexcaritas,
Greetings from Oregon! I’m the person that wrote the sentences above that have upset you. They were from a longer post on the Orthodox Forum yahoo group. My intention was not to be clever or exacting but to bring up the concerns that are troubling my heart. What I wrote was what I HONESTLY feel about what is implied and, yes, even overtly stated in some of the articles I have read on OCAT (I’ll find the quotes, if need be). It was my flawed attempt to possibly persuade someone to see the situation differently. Interestingly, although I have never posted here before, my words are quoted twice. Look below, I am one of the supposed “Stokoe groupies.” Please, don’t take offense, but I’m going to be absolutely frank. It is my perception that this whole “scandal” has been conjured up in people’s minds. That’s what I think. And I would be more than happy to discuss this with whomever is interested (my email is josleeptein@gmail.com). No one convinced me of this. I thought it up all by myself. You can pity me for my lack of insight, but please don’t disdain me for thinking this. I realize that parishioners in the DOS are upset by what they perceive to be a terrible injustice. I get that and I feel badly for them. However, I still wonder how it came to be that they have these perceptions? Who told them that Metropolitan Jonah is being persecuted? How is it that there is such distrust of the Holy Synod? Is not the real work of theosis in the mind, heart and intellect? To change our thoughts and judgmental attitudes, to treat all with love and respect, to discern the truth, to have the mind of Christ ; these are the quintessential tasks for the Christian, are they not? I’m not your enemy, I’m not anti-Jonah, and I’m not part of a cabal. Nor am I taking “sides.” (Though I caution those who cast aspersions on the Diocese of the West and our beloved Bishop, they’re my peeps, and we’re good people – just like 99.99999% of the OCA is.) Call me naive, but please don’t accuse me of being dishonest. I hold no grudge. Good night.
I’ve had my chuckle for the day – the Stokoe groupies over at OCA News are now speculating that Rod Dreher is behind OCA Truth:
Any ideas why Rod Dreher would want to be associated with OCATruth?
(Editor’s note: Ask him. He is an articulate, intelligent and sincere man.)
#11.3 Ted Logan on 2011-04-01 20:15 (Reply)
I mean “associated with” as in “write under the pseudonym Muzhik for”.
#11.3.1 Ted Logan on 2011-04-03 20:20 (Reply)
Ted,
Is he “Muzhik”? Or is it just your guess? If he is, he should take responsibility for his writings and be honest. The anonymity at ocatruth.com is unsettling; it feels deceitful to me.
#11.3.1.1 Jodie Captein on 2011-04-07 19:16 (Reply)
Source: http://www.ocanews.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/612-Diocese-of-the-West-Weighs-In-on-+Jonah-Crisis.html#comments
I now return you to your regularly scheduled OCA soap opera, As the Synod Dithers.
“It feels deceitful to me.” As opposed to planning a coup against +Jonah? Or trying to manipulate the SMPAC report?
Actually, I asked Rod if he was one of them, and he promptly distracted me with tequila soaked trannies.
And not attractive tequila soaked trannies, either.
Look! A squirrel!!!!
ASIATR,
I am Sparticus.
Hey, and I am not really Joseph, but Cthulu, a cosmic entity. I am really not hideous, actually more on the petite side and have not spread any terror since AD989…
Can I tell you an anonymous story?
I don’t think Rod takes you, or the manhunt for the OCAT’ers seriously. I agree with him, it adds nothing to the discussion, though it does hurt their credibility a little bit. My question is why would anti-OCAT’s want to know? Having OCAT anonymous works in their favor.
Hey, and I heard somewhere that you are in fact Mark Stokoe. Can you confirm or deny this?
It is wasted energy on their part. It seems like it’s all they got. We’ll see; looks like they’re cooking up something for Monday. Maybe they have a photo of +Jonah going hunting with Sarah Palin.
Uncle, we seem to have won some converts in our desperate last stand at Accountability Gulch. By all means, let us entice their minds with the fact that they don’t know who there adversaries are. As they hoist their banner, let them cry: “Death to the Anonymous!” (Hopefully, they will not know the story of Odysseus, who told our servant Polyphemous that his name was “Nobody.” How foolish Polyphemous looked when he cried “Nobody put my eye out!”) Let us praise foolhardy courage, even if it is in vain.
All the “rage” and speculation about who’s behind OCA Truth is misplaced energy, What would happen if Stokoe, who’s already made the claims that it is ONE person from St. Seraphim in Dallas, actually knew who it was? And what if the rest of the blogosphere did too? Then what? Would they be forced to deal with the real issues?
Heaven forbid.
http://dont-tread-on.me/25-rules-of-disinformation/
I recommend to read the “25 Rules of Disinformation” and would speculate that many of +Jonah’s detractors will find some or all of their “arguments” covered under at least one of those rules…
By Jove, Skeptical, I think you’ve got it! There ARE no issues! *Quick Wormwood! more smoke and mirrors! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!)
What i discover difficult is to discover a weblog that can seize me for a minute however your blog is different. Bravo.
Just want to say your article is as amazing. The clearness in your post is simply cool and i could assume you are an expert on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the enjoyable work.
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My website is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would really benefit from some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thanks a lot!
christian louboutin official website
christian louboutin bridal
christian louboutin calypso pumps
not at all!
I agree with your points , superb post.
I am commenting to let you know what a exceptional encounter my friend’s child enjoyed visiting your blog. She came to understand lots of things, not to mention what it is like to possess an ideal coaching nature to have many people without hassle fully understand chosen complex things. You truly did more than our own expectations. Thank you for delivering the essential, trusted, informative as well as unique tips about this topic to Lizeth.
Your weblog appears astounding – complete with good quality posts.. and so forth. I believe you are going to get even greater good results with incorporating some much more movies and pictures. What do you believe. Despite the fact that I’ve bookmarked it. Thank you.
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is excellent blog. An excellent read. I will definitely be back.
merely have to point out you help make many fine points and should put up a handful of recommendations to add in after a day or two.
Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I have truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!
Thank you so much for such great articles. Thanks!