Monday, February 25. 2008
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
May God bless the people and clergy from Ansonia. Your love and passion for Christ and the Truth, and your humble and steadfast witness and stand in the face of the chaos and corruption destroying the OCA is inspiring and reassuring.
May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be with you and guide you in your efforts to help our wounded Church. May the Holy Spirit continue to comfort you and lead you in doing what it right, loving, just, and Christian.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for shining your light into the darkness and being an example to many. You are all in our hearts and prayers.
Good for Ansonia!
Good for expressing your views and standing your ground and doing it in atmosphere of love and respect for your hierarch.
Has the mid-west agreed to release all funds? I certainly missed that news, and don't think there has been a decision to that effect.
Also, outside of the mid-west there are many individual parishes withholding assessments. The chancellor of NY/NJ is gently, not forcefully, nudging several parishes in the Metropolitan's own diocese that are quietly withholding.
Ansonia is not alone!
#2 Rebecca Matovic on 2008-02-25 13:54
I am glad to see that Syosset is still moving forward on the release of all the investigative work that has been done, and that they are moving towards full financial transparency. The proof will be in the pudding once all these documents are released, when the monthly financial reports will be made available and after fully completed external audits will be submitted. Bravo. I am also very happy that Bp Nikon seemed so even-keeled and paternal in his care for the worries in Ansonia.
The part that seems to be missing in what Syosset has agreed to reveal and act on is the "other misconduct". I am less disturbed by financial mismanagement than I am with the seemingly flagrant moral lapses on the part of our bishops and clergy, and the fact that these lapses were allowed to be swept under the table. Any and every Christian must be given the opportunity to repent and to receive forgiveness, but not every sinner is allowed to be ordained or to remain in Holy Orders. I would suggest that homosexuality and other sexual sins are grounds for defrocking, in parallel with confession and forgiveness should the clergyman be repentent, otherwise, excommunication. I think the canons are clear on this score and cannot be argued away on the basis of economia. A holy loss of autocephaly for the salvation of our souls is better than unholy autocephaly to our own damnation. Or, have we placed the 'good name' of hierarchs, priests and deacons above their salvation? above the holiness of the Church? above our witness to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our Church as The Church?
Perhaps Fr. Meyendorff's suggestion calling for the mass resignation of the Synod may be appropriate, maybe not. ... Perhaps what really needs to happen is that we ordain only monastics that have lived as monks to the episcopacy; those that have 'prooved' their own committment to Orthodox Christian morality in deeds, fasting and other ascetic endeavors. I want bishops and clergy I can strive after, not ones that are as sinful and weak as I am in my own struggles against the passions - I want spiritual heros, ascetic champions, Olympic atheletes of Orthodox Christianity.
At the end of the day, it will be these religious lapses that will bring down the Church. Financial mismanagement will be seen merely as the tip of the iceberg that brought our attention to the danger the ship of the Church was facing.
#3 Christopher Orr on 2008-02-25 14:15
I agree with you,Christopher,economia can be used, but it can also be abused.Sexual sins among the clergy CAN'T be tolerated.I speak as a sinful and unworthy priest who has served over 30 years.I may not have been the best priest during our 30 year marriage and I certainly wasn't the best husband,BUT I never cheated on my wife,not even for one night.Now she has passed from this world to the next and should I ever have to re-marry,I would step down from the priesthood first, and be called,"Mr." rather than "Fr." the rest of my days.As for those unfortunate clergy who get caught up in the "gay lifestyle",they should step down and work out their salvation as laymen,if they are monastic clergy(Bishops,Archimandrites,Priestmonks,etc),they should step down too, and struggle as simple monks.It is not the Church that needs us,WE NEED THE CHURCH FOR OUR SALVATION,just like the laity placed in our care.
#3.1 Anonymous on 2008-02-25 18:28
Not, I did not say it would be these 'sexual' lapses, but these 'religious lapses that will bring down the Church.' I should clarify, that they may bring down the OCA, not that the will bring down the Church.
The religious lapses include sexual sins, but more importantly include not the covering of our fathers' nakedness but the enabling of hypocrisy and continued sinful actions. It is not the 'cover up' alone but the alleged hypocrisy, a divorcing of faith, morality, asectic endeavor from Holy Orders as service to the servants of God (Cf., St. Gregory the Great); seeing Holy Orders as a career or an 'earned' place of honor somehow immune from our lapses, a kind of ecclesiastical once saved, always saved. 'Religious lapses' such as this easily move into the financial and managerial sphere thus turning a shepherd and father into a manager and despot. Sin does not stay put, especially when attached with shame - and there is nothing more 'shameful' in our culture than sexual sins in a religious context - and it is human nature for us to then "protest too much" in the name of our innocence when we are most guilty.
All that being said, I think it is well worth noting that the spiritual trials and attacked that clergy of all ranks, not to mention monastics living without the support of monasticism, come under immense spiritual attack. Simply being tonsure Reader taught me this lesson. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback, it is quite another thing to perform under pressure in the middle of the fray. Such is the podvig that our clergy and hierarchs have been given and undertaken. if it is no wonder that we laymen sin daily in ways we like to think are not seen and are not 'as bad' as others' sins, it is also not shocking to me that those with greater targets on their backs are tempted more, and perhaps succumb more - I know I could do little or no better, or I would find new and better ways to sin in far more flagrant and disgraceful ways. to say less of ourselves is to deny that we "are the chief[s] of sinners" instead proclaiming that he, they, whomever "is the chief of sinners".
#3.1.1 Christopher Orr on 2008-02-27 09:42
Thank you for that clarification. Even when I don't agree with your comments, I find them cogent and stimulating.
#188.8.131.52 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2008-02-28 06:48
And thank you for your thoughtful response. These are difficult issues and it is hard to discern not only the right, but also the wisest course of action. I have many opinions of my own that may be quite different were I in a position of authority directly responsible for oversight, but I am not. Because I am not, I also do not have all of the information that may be available. In all my comments along the way, I have simply sought to encourage people not to mistake gossip for fact and not allow emotion or other non-Orthodox influences to derail the patient, humble and Orthodox actions that are required when face with situations such as we have seen over the past years.
#184.108.40.206.1 Christopher Orr on 2008-02-29 08:04
"It will be these religious lapses that bring down the Church." I think not, if by that you mean sexual sins. To paraphrase our Lord in a somewhat different context, the sins of the flesh are always with us--that goes for the clergy as well as the laity. I don't disagree that reasonable sexual morality standards must be upheld, especially in those who are set aside to lead us, but obsession on this point misses a larger one.
What could bring down the Church, or part of the Church more accurately, is a misunderstanding of the Church's true ecclesiology and the proper exercise of the bishops' authority--a misunderstanding, based on your previous comments, to which I fear you are prey. We all share a common humanity, which some seem to think disappears upon ordination or consecration. It is the bishops' misuse of their authority and office (perhaps "to cover" other sins) that is at the heart of this crisis--not financial, sexual or other assorted shortcomings.
#3.2 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2008-02-26 09:17
As an example of spiritual heroes I offer the following from St. John Moschus' "The Spiritual Meadow".
"There was going to be holy communion in a community but when the deacons came in to put on their stoles, one of them could not be found. After much searching, they told the abba. He said to them: “Search again.” When it was still not found, moved by the irregularity of the matter, the abba said: “We are cohabiting with thieves. As the Lord lives, there will be no communion, nor will we take a morsel of food until the thief is found.”
"While the abba, together with the deacons, was searching the brother’s cells, the brothers were all sitting in church. The one who stole it said to his neighbor, who was a pious soul: “I am in deep trouble! How I am going to suffer!” The other said: “What for?” He replied: “I am the one who took the stole; it is in my cell, down in a wine-jar.” The other said: “Do not upset yourself; go and put it in my cell.” So he went and put the wine-jar in the brother’s cell."
"When the abba and the deacons came searching where the brother’s wine-jar lay, one of the deacons put his hand down into it and brought up the stole. He began to cry: “This pious man turns out to be a thief!”
"They came into church, laid their hands on him and gave him many wounds. They dragged him forth and threw him out of the community. He begged them saying: “Let me repent and I will never do it again,” but they threw him out saying: “We cannot have a thief with us.” Then they went in to celebrate the holy communion.
"When the deacon came to draw the curtain, it would not move. They were at great pains to see if anything was obstructing it but they found nothing. The abba reasoned with himself: “Perhaps it is because we threw out the brother that this happened to us. Go and bring him in, and we will find out.” When the brother entered, they drew the curtain and it followed the cord easily."
"Now behold: that is laying down one’s life for one’s neighbor. If we do not measure up to this standard, even though we neither speak ill of our neighbor nor condemn him, we shall be alienated from the joy in which the saints are going to delight."
Dcn Yousuf Rassam
#3.3 Anonymous on 2008-02-26 11:49
"He claimed that the bishops of the Synod are loving and caring men who are deeply concerned about their flocks."
If they are so concerned, why have they let + Herman bury the full report from the OCA? If they are so concerned, why do they continue to allow one of their own, + Nicolai, to abuse the faithful in Alaska and destroy the church? If they are so concerned, why haven't they insist that + Herman step down and RSK and + Theodosius be brought up on criminal charges? Just what kind of "deeply loving" men do we have here?
#4 Anonymous on 2008-02-25 14:47
Perhaps he is describing his own thoughts and feelings and projecting them upon the other bishops, even those who demonstrate otherwise by their own silence, lack of loving response, and lack of decisive action...
#4.1 Anonymous on 2008-02-25 20:51
Yes. A "deeply loving" bishop ordained a convicted sex offender to the clergy. A "deeply loving" bishop attacked Greg Nescott. A "deeply loving" bishop refused to release the IC report.
However a "deeply loving" bishop rushed to Ansonia when the money spigot was turned off.
I guess we can see what the bishops "deeply love!"
#5 Anonymous on 2008-02-25 15:27
Pathetic Your Grace, pathetic. While I may be willing to cut you a little slack, the rest of the SOB's must go, caring men? Horsexxxx! They can't even lay claim to the title; men. Real men don't drop the ball when it comes to compassion and resolution. If they cared, Nikolai would be suspended from duties until such time as he can be cleared, or the charges are confirmed. Alaska, its about the people! Frankly I'd like to see a little more guts from the good bishop of NE and fewer platitudes.
To the good people of Ansonia, its time for a 'living church' again. Remember? Thank you for reminding us. We need married bishops, sadly this can only be resolved by the entire world body of the Orthodox Church, but don't give in, don't give up, don't give ground! And don't give a dime. No matter what you heard Sunday, other parishes are witholding.
No money for the national administration. Not a dime. Starve the infection.
#6 none on 2008-02-25 15:52
"We need married bishops, sadly this can only be resolved by the entire world body of the Orthodox Church..."
This seems to be a belief held by many, yet it simply is not true.
There is a very long posting on the subject of married bishops on the previous thread. It clearly shows that the New Testament and the Apostolic canons were not overruled by the canon that started this whole business of monastic bishops. Furthermore, this canon (Canon 12 of the 56th Council) was not enacted by an ecumenical council.
The move away from married bishops occurred to stop nepotism because during that era of the imperial church some bishops were passing their office to their sons. That is, the married bishop system was not working AT THAT TIME; it created too many problems and the Church decided to use economia to TEMPORARILY deviate from the Holy Bible and the Holy Canons of the Apostles.
Thus, there is no theological, scriptural or canonical (Holy Tradition with a capital T) impediment for a local church to go back to married bishops. The only impediments seem to be inertia, fear of change and simple ignorance of the Canons. However, using the same reasoning as Canon 12 of the 56th Council, a local Church, such as the OCA, could invoke economia and go back to the earlier practice. It should be noted that the Greek Archdiocese proposed precisely this approach to the Ecumenical Patriarchate about 13 years ago. It did not go anywhere I imagine because the Greek Archdiocese is not autonomous, the Patriarchate has other concerns and may be because monastic bishops were reluctant to let go of their monopoly on power.
Folks, it would take the clergy and laity (particularly the laity) to lead this change. Just remember that this is nothing new but merely the true Orthodox way. Keeping in mind Apostle Paul's exhortation for believers to remain in their current status (single, married, or widowed), this proposal would not do away with monastic bishops; it would merely add married and widowed clergy to the pool of eligible candidates.
#6.1 Carl on 2008-02-26 09:30
Yeah,right,you need married bishops so that you can use their wives and children as vehicles for manipulating them,just as you do with priests right now.I'm as upset about Episcopal misuse of power as anyone else,but some of you are using the scandal as an excuse to bring on even more Congregationalism.
#6.2 Anonymous on 2008-02-26 15:28
No sir, it is not congregationalism. It is the Church of the Holy Apostles; the Holy Orthodox Church.
#6.2.1 Carl on 2008-02-27 15:35
Furthermore, "congregationalism" is a word and concept often misused on this site. No one, that I'm aware of on this site, is proposing that we abolish bishops, which is what you have in congregationalism, as well as religious authority residing in individual congregations (parishes) as opposed to the Church as a whole. It is Protestantism carried to its logical extreme.
"Democracy" is another abused word used by some here as an epithet, when seeking to defend "traditional" Orthodoxy. No one is proposing "one person one vote" as an ecclesiology for the OCA. We don't even use pure democracy to govern ourselves in the secular world--thank God!
We can debate what it means to be a conciliar Church, but let's at least use the right word.
#220.127.116.11 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2008-02-28 07:13
Is this a typo? I'm wondering if the "collective failure" was of the Bishops' (pleural meaning the Synod) or the Bishop's (meaning Nikon). I suspect from inference it was Bishops'.
"Nescott expressed disappointment for the Bishop's collective failure to take action against those,..."
#7 Brent on 2008-02-25 16:39
You know folks. The OCA Assessment is not on the parish but on the Diocese. So if a parish or parishes in a given diocese do not pay the OCA assessment, it is the responsibility of that diocese to make up the difference. So who is hurt? The diocese not the OCA. The diocese has to use diocesan funds to make up the difference.
So, all this talk about withholding, now passe in the Midwest because they have rolled over, it is really a rather empty gesture. When you consider that in New England $37 stays in the diocese while $105 goes to New York, it would not take too many NE parishes to bankrupt their own diocese. Is that what people in NE really want? It's bad enough that the negative cash flow in NE and the Midwest and any other diocese that sends more money to NY then they keep for themselves reveal a formula for diocesan fiscal disaster.
I only know of one OCA diocese where more money stays in the diocese then goes to NY, that being the Diocese of the South.
The problem is that Syosset now must use $105 not to run the Office of the Metropolitan but to pay off stupid loans to pay back internal debt, and no amount of firing OCA staff can make up the difference, not to mention the sky-rocketing legal expenses.
Nope, we have a totally incompetent leader in Herman who must go before anything can be solved. And forget a real SIC investigation. Do you think Bishop Benjamin will call for Herman's retirement? No chance.
Sorry to be so bleak, but withholding from a parish here or there do not hurt Syosset, it hurts your diocese, so another tactic is needed. Any suggestions?
#8 Anonymous on 2008-02-25 16:41
Dear Anonymous: You and I may be the sole holders of this opinion, but I agreee with you. While I support Ansonia's reasoning, they obviously did not consider the end result: the Diocese has to make up the difference.
#8.1 Michael Strelka on 2008-02-26 10:03
I also hold this opinion. The membership assessment is in fact a diocesan obligation that most, and probably all, will ultimately honor. Every diocese in the OCA almost certainly has churches that advocate diocesan withholding, and we know of one case where they constitute a simple majority. But a majority is not the same thing as a consensus, and a diocesan assembly is unlikely to take up an important matter that strongly opposed by a significant minority. In the end, churches that unilaterally withhold do harm to their diocese, without ultimate advantage to the cause they are seeking to advance.
My review of the diocesan financial reports that are posted on the internet indicates that there in fact two cases "where more money stays in the diocese than goes to NY" namely, the Diocese of the West and the Diocese of the South. In 2007 DOW received $567,732 from its churches, or $225.24 per member; DOS received $716,831, or $311.12 per member. It is no coincidence that these are the only dioceses in the OCA where the tithe, rather that a per capita assessment, constitutes the basis of its financial support from their churches. The financials of the other dioceses that I've seen are woeful.
The report of Fr. Phillip Reese, the MC Clergy Representative of DOS, given at the last diocesan assembly (posted on this site) concludes with the thought that the current crisis has given us a "target of opportunity" to replace the membership assessment with a percentage-based method as the basis of diocesan support for the OCA central administration. May it be so.
One last plug for DOS. In 2007 DOS spent $181,142 in direct financial support to its parishes and mission. I believe this is more than the combined spending of the rest of the OCA for this purpose.
Milos Konjevich, Treasurer
Diocese of the South
#8.1.1 Milos Konjevich on 2008-02-27 21:08
I suggest to you that at this point only the SOB can make the necessary changes in Syosset.
If your diocesan bishop starts to feel pain in his purse, he might be motivated into getting off his duff and resolving this mess we're in.
#8.2 Sergei on 2008-02-26 10:17
“So who is hurt? The diocese not the OCA. The diocese has to use diocesan funds to make up the difference.”
We have been constantly harping on the fact that the bishops are the real problem. They don’t seem to want to act on any issue however gross and evil. How quickly did +Nikon arrange a meeting with Ansonia when he heard they were withholding!!! He said he did not come to that meeting for the few thousand dollars from that parish but to hear what they had to say. Later he mentions, falsely, that he knows no other parish in the entire OCA that is withholding!!! There are 17 parishes in my diocese alone that are behind in their assessments. I’m sure all the bishops are fully aware of what is happening in the parish level.
The pressure is directed at the proper point! The bishops will Have to listen to their flock if they want the money to keep coming in. After all, they are the bishops for their flock, not for Slyosset! Keeping money away from Syosset alone has done nothing to eliminate the pain felt by the faithful in this awful situation but keeping the money away from your bishop will eventually tip the scales to make the bishops take the proper action. Starve your diocese and feed your priest. Give him the backing he needs to help conquer the evil in our church and chase all the money changers away from our temples.
#8.3 No pain no gain! on 2008-02-26 10:47
I have had no report from the Archbishop that the Midwest has "rolled over". I know that a portion was released when Abp. Job humbled himself before Bp. Nikolai, but we were told quite clearly that it was NOT "all".
Until I am told by my archbishop that we have stopped with-holding, I will persist in believing that you and others who have reported the "fact" are incorrect.
As for with-holding by a parish...all a member has to do is notate on his check "ONLY FOR the DIocese, NOT for the Central Admin" or some other such formulary and those receiving the charitable giving are liable for legal action if they do not follow the instructions of the donor.
The donor holds all the power in that regard and there are some serious laws that protect those who give from having their money used in a way contrary to their stated intentions.
#8.4 Anonymous on 2008-02-26 16:19
You post is interesting. I was told that we could not stipulate in our giving that none of it could go to Syosset. Based upon the understanding this understanding, we made some serious decisions regarding our future involvement at the parish.
What kind of laws are you referring to concerning the designation of gifts? Thanks.
#8.4.1 Rich on 2008-02-26 21:10
This OCA "leadership" deceives itself into an appalling false piety that sincerely believes its flowery words, is impressed by its ornate facades, and practices a unique form of self-justification that allows it to abjure accountability. They have no intention of and are not committed to "practicing what they preach." That is one of the reasons they remain so aloof and irrelevant.
One of America's gifts to the world is a plain speaking and unpretentiousness that these leaders have not yet learned and do not embrace. Until they learn them and choose to embrace them as traits worthy of incarnation, they will continue to be silent to American culture and out of touch.
#9 Anon. on 2008-02-25 17:32
I applaud Ansonia's courage in asking the OCA administration for accountability.
However, much has fallen on the shoulders of Fr. Michael Tassos to clean up the mess of the last decade or so.
I know his dilegence and honesty will pay off to help restore trust.
Trust will probably slowly return.
But perhaps one question remains: how do you get someone to resign for the good of the system? We seem to have a few bishops to have fallen into that category.
The road ahead of us may continue to be arduous, but also healing. Hopefully the OCA will be able to brave these types of questions.
#10 Patty Schellbach on 2008-02-25 20:14
Congratulations, Ansonia! Thank you for standing up for all of us.
Ansonia, your name will go down in the history books of the OCA and of the whole Orthodox Church.
Congratualtions! All of us who would have liked to be with you but couldn't, congratulate you. Stand firm! We are truly with you in spirit! We are so very proud of you.
#11 anonymous on 2008-02-25 21:03
Remember the lies start from the top. The hierarchs are to blame for this neverending scandal. From the hierarchs on down to their puppets , give us our church back.
#12 savik on 2008-02-26 04:21
Not a comment, but a question - How far does the author of this comment extend his definition of 'puppets?' Just curious, because there are plenty of us among the clergy who seek the truth as well.
#12.1 Proto-Deacon Anthony Kruge on 2008-02-26 18:09
It is especially vital the church receive a report prior to the AAC in July.
I support those parishes who have elected to withhold out of this specific concern.
I believe the Synod and the Preconciliar Commission need to make this a requirement of the second and politically inferior SIC.
#13 Daniel E. Fall on 2008-02-26 06:51
I say you made the right decision Ansonia. I think other churchs sould follow suit. The only way the bishops and h will leave is if the money stops going to Syosset. They always understand MONEY. It is and always has been about money and power. Prior Metropolitans were really humble and money was not a big concern to them. Then came along the NEW leadership and MONEY and POWER were FIRST and FORMOST. Living OVER THE TOP and IMPRESSING OTHERS with their lifestyle was number one on their adjenda.
I implore other churchs to support Ansonia and put their assessments in escrow.
With the Great Lent coming lets hope the leaders of the chruch do some reflection and do the right thing and step down.
#14 John Macenka on 2008-02-26 07:28
I think you have a misplaced apostrophe which causes the reader to stumble: "Nescott expressed disappointment for the Bishop's collective failure..."---how can one bishop have a "collective failure"?
It probably should be "the bishops' collective failure..." (no need to capitalize either)
(Editor's note: Thanks for the correction. I shall flog my typist. Ouch, ouch, ouch!)
#15 Robert Allen on 2008-02-26 08:30
Congratulations to Ansonia! Instead of the bishops using flowery words to cover deceit and deception of the misspent monies the bishops should deal with the theft, the lies etc and be forthcoming with the facts and not block the investigations and have the investigations results publicly released. Then resign from their offices. Allow the AAC to present appropriate measures to be voted upon and put in a new slate of bishops to run the Church. It is no wonder that the fastest growing christian denominations in the US are the non-denominational whose structure is not hierarchial and is sola scriptures. Those on this website have only asked that our Bishops rule with love, honesty and forthrightness. But all over America, the christian people without regard to denomination want leaders who lead and are truthful. Not leaders who cover up their sins with lies and deception and then blame others for their failings. Our bishops are silent and then one (who should be investigated) accuses another bishop of interference into his diocese and brings charges against his "brother in Christ". Thank you Ansonia for speaking the truth on Sunday.
#16 anonymous on 2008-02-26 10:22
Just to add some specific information in regard to how many parishes may be withholding - As reported today on the Orthodox Forum by our pastor, Fr John Shimchick, the Orthodox Church of the Holy Cross, in Medford, NJ, a parish of the Diocese of New York and Washington, voted last November 11 to withhold the Central Administration portion of its diocesan assessment pending the attainment of certain conditions. The resolution can be read on the parish web site at http://www.holycrossmedford.org/parish_resolution_financial_crisis.htm.
Trustee, Holy Cross Parish Council
#17 Robert A Flanagan on 2008-02-26 14:15
Yes, bravo to Ansonia and to all of the other parishes and Dioceses that have the loving integrity to withhold! The Diocese does not have to subsidize your assessment to Syosset. It is only their choice to do so. Stand firm and be a beacon to others to stop the money until we receive a fair, honest assessment and report of the scandal.
I found it interesting that while we had been told earlier last year that all of the financial controls, software and record-keeping was in place and working properly (Good old Best Practices), we now hear a report that Fr. Tassos cited the following reasons for the delay in delivering the 2007 financial report: "incomplete books and records for the first half of the year(2007), a staff not trained for assisting in making journal entries, and a new software program was not fully implemented prior his arrival." Tassos indicated that when he arrived in Syosset on November 12, 2007, he found the financial records were a mess, the situation chaotic.
Somehow, I tend to believe the new Treasurer on this one!
Finally, unlike the recent annual parish meeting that I attended where we were told that the devil had entered the church, and similarly the report of the Western PA Diocese meeting last fall where it was reported that MH also claimed the entrance of the devil, it is indeed heartening to see a leader of the church listening and apparently encouraging dialogue with his people. I'm saddened that the response was only after the withholding vote was announced, but perhaps Bishop Nikon will move off dead center and work with true fervor to expedite an honest, unbiased report of the crisis. I pray that Bishop Nikon not only listened, but heard his people and will no longer have to again admit the continuing "failure of the Church to address the terrible scandal more quickly".
#18 Ken Kozak on 2008-02-26 17:04
#19 We are not alone on 2008-02-27 21:00
The author does not allow comments to this entry