The Metropolitan Council: What was said, What was not said

(Editor: The Bishop's comments have been edited for brevity.)
.....

Someone has asked, and I really haven't the time to scroll through all the comments columns, why we have not heard from "the culprit", i.e., Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick himself. I have two comments:

One, it is not a Christian virtue, not a Bible virtue, not an Orthodox virtue, to defend oneself against blame, justified blame or not. It would be quite unlike that Protopresbyter to stoop to such unscriptural behavior on his own behalf. His pious, exemplary wife, Elizabeth is likewise reluctant to do something so unbecoming a Christian as to defend herself, ESPECIALLY when the accusations are false. Saint Peter even says that if you have the courage to be still when you are accused RIGHTFULLY, that's not much at all. But, he says, if you keep your mouth shut when you are FALSELY accused, this glorifies God....
It is the accusations against others that require our open testimony and active defense.

TWO. Father Bob wanted to appear before the Holy Synod and answer any questions, but His Beatitude forbade it.
On Wednesday evening, May 24th, 2006, the Secretary of the Holy Synod, Bishop Seraphim, telephoned Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick at home and informed him this. Some Bishops (NOT I and not Bishop Nikolai) had asked if he could not be asked to appear before the Holy Synod at a session the next day, Thursday, May 25th, and answer questions with no conditions. When Protopresbyter Rodion asked if the Metropolitan had blessed this, Bishop Seraphim answered “yes.” (Before calling Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick, the Secretary of the Holy Synod, Bishop Seraphim, had called His Beatitude and informed him that he was calling because some Bishops wanted Father Bob to appear the next day to answer any questions. His Beatitude clearly answered that he had no objections whatsoever.) However, later the same evening, the Secretary of the Holy Synod had to call Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick a second time to tell him that His Beatitude had changed his mind, because “some bishops” did NOT want him to appear, therefore, he was NOT to appear at the Syosset Chancery the next day.

.....

Well, the next day, Thursday, both Bishop Nicholai and I asked to have Protopresbyter called to answer questions. Immediately Archbishop Nathaniel very forcefully objected, saying it would be a useless exercise because “He won’t tell us anything because his lawyer won’t allow him to answer anything.” The rest of the room remained supine. When I asked the Secretary of the Holy Synod if Father Bob had been willing to appear, he answered yes. Bishop Nikolai (or I, I forget) said that he would not even have his lawyer with him and that if he would appear and refuse to answer questions from US, that would, FINALLY, a wrongful act, subject to canonical sanction. His Beatitude interrupted to let us know that Father Bob “will NOT appear. I decided.”

I ask that whoever made the insinuations that the failure to hear from Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick could not be attributed to the will of Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick at all.

Further with reference to the ...expostulations of seven lawyers and many others, from the beginning,... relative to the twin bogey-men of FBI and IRS. It is Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick ... who has said, “IRS? Where are they? Bring them on!” Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick most emphatically has repeated that he fears nothing from the IRS or FBI.

I leave it to others at another time to figure out who it is that might fear the FBI, or the State Department.

Finally, Judge Kalina, like Alice Woog a long-time and faithful member of the Metropolitan Council through several administrations, stated categorically to the Metropolitan Council that The Orthodox Church in America is registered as a “Not-for-profit ASSOCIATION.” Someone has already pointed out that Sarbanes et al applies to those in the business of investments. We need someone to ****clearly****, and not a la Wheeler or, e.g., Banescu... define what the various parameters and implications relative to legal business practices are, for: non-profit religious associations, non-profit associations, non-profit religious corporations, and non-profit corporations, especially relative to taxes and related reporting and accounting.
....

Commending all to the love of our Lord, God, and Saviour, Jesus Christ,
+Tikhon, The Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West. The Orthodox Church in America.
"Marching to a different kettle of fish."

(The Bishops remarks have been edited.)

I must make a correction to a previous message, and I'm not sure whether it was on this topic or another one. Anyhow, I referred to Archpriest Paul Kucynda's time-shares, and I alluded to there being one in the Bahamas.
Actually, I believe that that time-share is on CAYMAN.

...

I deeply object to non-Christian lawyers being invited to investigate a Christian Church: its clergy and Faithful, I deeply object. Non-Christians are outside the Orthodox Church, much more so than are people affected by Christ's Gospel in some way or other, such as Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Episcopalians and Christian Scientists. As such the very first concern for any one who considers himself or herself entitled to the name "Christian" is his or her neighbor and his or her neighbor's salvation. While the Canon against going to a Jewish doctor is well known, the impropriety of going to Jewish or any other non-Christian lawyer, especially in adversarial investigations of Christians should be obvious. How many Orthodox Priests have told us that we have a responsibility to WITNESS? Even the sign of the cross before a restaurant or other public meal, can be that witness, as likewise clearly identifiable Orthodox clergy street clothes. In my opinion, the only reason to invite Jewish or any other non-Christian lawyers to a meeting with leaders of our Church is to introduce them to the Gospel. It's a great opportunity, and it has not only been wasted (except for Father Bob, who suggested that his meeting with Sara Gold acting for His Beatitude begin with a prayer), it is as if someone had taken it upon himself to do the OPPOSITE of the Great Commission, the absolute opposite.

....

Commending all to Christ's love,
+Tikhon, The Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West. The Orthodox Church in America.
"Honk if you like obscene gestures."

I enjoyed, perversely, reading Mark Stokoe's latest essay, sensing that a light was being turned on at last. I couldn't help noting some rather comic things that he reported about the Metropolitan Council meeting goings-on. I think that message should be saved for all those who treat the OCA Statute as a kind of sacred cow, especially relative to that old leftover of Saint Tikhon's Diocesan Council that changed its name to Metropolitan's Council when Metropolitan Platon took over again in the 20s. See for yourself how workable that Statute is.

I wonder if anyone notes any improvements in anything at Syosset? It looks to me, and Mark's essay certainly seems to bear this out, that it's really disorganized and confused. Too bad that after one "mistake", a letter from Mr. Kuchner, the Chancellor's lawyer, and, just in the nick of time (the eve of the meeting of the Administrative Committee), the Chancelloir was fired. None of these awful shenanigans, these convenient losses of documents. would have existed.

I thought the part about the Chancellor/Treasurer/Secretary not having an office was priceless. It's almost like a good British comedy. He seems to have all the documents of little interest at hand, but he hasn't been able to secure anything important because of...well, let's be frank, what he spoke of was well known in my time....GREMLINS at Syosset!

I'm surprised that, while listing several possible locations of the contract engaging Proskauer and Rose, which would reveal the date, etc., that they were hired (I think they're probably in the same place that the pages from Bishop Seraphim's Holy Synod handwritten minutes disappeared to), and other matters that would appear to benefit him by their absence, thus answering the question, "cui bono", in this case, Father Kucynda only listed his car (which one?), his Syosset office, his home office, and his parish office!

I think he forgot about those two or three Time Shares he owns after his long experience in Syosset. Maybe the documents in question: retainer/contracts, promissory notes, Holy Synod minutes are in one of his TimeShares? Too bad that foolish Protopresbyter and his wife hadn't thought of a Bermuda Time Share instead of putting their inherited money into improvement of OCA's property. It seems to me, though, that "the OCA" is reaping further benefits from those repairs, which allowed the Pennsylvnia bank to see a chance for profits when these loans come due and can't be paid off.

I rule out absolutely that the Pennsylvania bank, unlike the NY banks, knew that he had "a live one"on the hook, as some have so nastily and with total meretriciousness opined!

I heard from someone else at that meeting that when it was asked why the General Counsel of The OCA was not consulted (as the Holy Synod's consensus in the Lost-Forever minutes would reflect) prior to consulting with an outside-the-Church law firm, not only was the document with the date of that engagement found to have possibly been taken by Gremlins, but it was answered that the General Counsel of the OCA was not consulted because he is known to be "hostile to Father Zacchaeus." What was that about, I wonder? Anyone?

I'd ask elsewhere, but my letters are almost never answered. For a very brief time, I took the absence of answers to questions in my letters or even a ("received") reply to them as some kind of personal slight; however, probably everyone is in the same boat as I and there's nothing personal about it at all. It's just that since the Chancellor was let go, nobody knows who does what.

There is no "Unity of Authority", there is no observance of proper "Span of Control," and so on. Mention a staff study and you'll probably get a blank stare. When Father Kucynda is caring for his parishioners in his famously-burgeoning Wayne, New Jersey, parish and the Metropolitan is also occupied, who is in charge there? Father Strikis? Is there an organizational chart? Did no one at all ask who has been appointed to fill the Statute function of Chancellor, or when?
Is it possible that someone doesn't want the OCA to have a Chancellor at all? Is it easier to run TWO dioceses at some remove from the Oyster Bay Cove property that Mrs. Griswold so charitably left to the Church? It seems that only one or two people had the gumption to ask a question: the others were and remain completely at sea about everything!

I wonder if any one of the elected delegates who have some experience being on the Metropolitan Council have made a comparison with the Council "then" and the Council now? I seem to remember complaints that "formerly" everyone was kept in the dark and that the MC just rubber-stamped the decisions of the Administrative Committee, who just rubber-stamped the decisions of the Chancellor, who kept the Metropolitan ignorant of everything substantial. How did the most recent meeting measure up?

How did Father Kondratick's MC meetings compare to those of, say, Father Hubiak, or Father Pishtey?

Somehow we in the Holy Synod who ask questions get the feeling that we've been allowed to know that "these questions are for considertion on the agenda of the Metropolitan Council" (which is the Board of Trustees of the New York Non-Profit ASSOCIATION (not Corporation), otherwise known as the Local Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America).
Now, it seems, some of those same questions at a Metropolitan Council meeting have resulted in the MC members learning that "these questions" are for consideration on the agenda of the Holy Synod.

Some days are just too short!

Didn't anybody ask about the letter of Mister Andreas? Didn't anyone ask about the Promissory Note? Didn't anyone ask about the Saint Sergius Chapel account (I know that the Lesser Synod was already answered by His Beatitude; but that's no reason that the Metropolitan Council, TOO, couldn't be told (maybe by Father Kucynda Himself, rather than by His Beatitude) the same thing: "It is understood now, that funds were not apparently passed through the St. Sergius Chapel account, as had been alleged.

Now that is one of Protodeacon Eric Wheeler's allegations. You'd think that, after hiring downtown lawyers and outside auditors and mortgaging properties not wanted, one would want to show that the investigations had shown at least ONE of the allegations to be true or false, no?

There's no need for people to suspect that everybody in the Kondratick-less Chancery is helplessly stalling, when the revelation, or rather, the repetition of the above finding of "false" relative to one of those allegations would show "a dollar well spent!"

Another part of Mark's priceless recounting of the goings-on was when the very verse from Scriptures which would make an outside audit seem to be an act of unremitting evil was recited in order for keeping a good deed secret. Christ said that the left hand should NOT investigate the right hand. But he was speaking of charitable donations, no? How is it that the Church became the RIGHT HAND in this one case?

I also think that the use of that verse to apply to the revelation of Matushka's good deeds to the world is so irrelevant to those words of our Savior as to tempt one to question the qualifications for teaching Scripture of anyone trying to apply it that way.

......

Oh, that reminds me. I understand that when the Protopresbyer and his counsel, Mr. Kuchner, sat down with Sara Rose, Father Bob suggested that they start with a Prayer. The suggestion was not.......understood, so all praying was personal...and Ms Rose only could bear to stay long enough after that to ask when and where and how the CULPRIT had first met Mister Andreas (which I consider to be, as I'm sure Father Bob and Mister Kuchner did, a totally inappropriate and personal question having nothing whatsoever to do with the financial operations of the OCA), and Father Bob or his lawyer objected to the question, Ms Rose hurried from the room.

Has anyone ever seen the text of the notorious, egregious, and threatening letter of Mister Kuchner which ALONE has been given as the reason for terminating the Protopresbyter's service, thus leaving the Chancery in a complete mess without a proper period, say the customary two weeks, in which an ORDERLY, rather than arbitrary and hasty transition could have been made? What was it in that letter that was so evil that it outweighed a lifetime of service to the Church?

What happened, I wonder, to 70 times 7? Is lese majeste a more deadly crime than one against the Ten Commandments or the Beatitude Commandments? Is the proper administration of a Local Church so insignificant that one person could tell himself "it's nothing, I can do it myself?"

Here we are in the middle of June. Aren't any of these hman beings concerned that someone has not had a salary for months and can't get a release to work elsewhere?

How is it that Mark Stokoe can allow filth to be cast in the direction of Arlene Kallaur, Elizabeth Kondratick, and Father Strikis, ANONYMOUS filth, and pretend that his "ocanews.org" is on the side of anything resembling moral accountability?

Yes, I spoke with Father R.S. Kondratick. He had been invited by the Secretary of the Holy Synod, late on Wednesday evening, to attend the Holy Synod meeting on Thursday morning so that any Hierarch who had a question could ask the question. Father Bob agreed with ALACRITY. Now, I was informed that this was to take place. Bishop Seraphim had said that "some of the Bishops" had asked to be able to question Father Bob. He called the Metropolitan and told him that some of the Bishops would like to have Father Bob appear. The Metropolitan said he had no problem. However, during the time when Bishop Seraphim was actually inviting Father Bob on behalf of the Metropolitan and Synod, it seems that some thing occurred, perhaps a thought only, that caused the Metropolitan to call Bishop Seraphim and say he'd changed his mind after talking with some of the Bishops!

No one ever asked me and no one ever asked Bishop Nikolai.

The next day, we learned that Father Bob would NOT be appearing, although he wanted to. I still can only guess why not, although Archbishop Nathaniel said that there was no point to it "since his lawyer won't let him answer anything." Even though it was pointed out that Father Bob had no intention of bringing his lawyer and that he himself was eager to answer question, especially on matters to which, it SEEEMED, no one else had the answers. We had to leave without the benefit of hearing from him. It was the same thing previously at the Administrative Committee meeting with the lawyers from which he found himself suddenly barred!

What is amazing and a wonderful example of Christian behaviour is that in spite of his desire to face questioners, BISHOPS, and answer their questions, a majority of Bishops in the Synod did NOT want to hear from him; nevertheless, he has not dropped letters (with or without His Beatitude's blessing) in anyone's motel room mailbox, started up his own web site, wrote to a Bishop emails characterizing him as a fool and a liar (with CC to His Beatitude), or any of the other apparently blessed procedures open to him.

I was very disappointed. I wanted to hear from Father Bob himself, in front of others, the other Bishops, how he would explain the past and answer questions. No, it seems he may only be so questioned by non-Church lawyers and auditors. God forbid that two Bishops would oppose the majority on such a question!

Commending all to Christ's love (since love is still totally lacking in me who am full of sins), and asking for the Holy Prayers of all, even our lawyers and scribes, I remain,

+Tikhon, The Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West; The Orthodox Church in America.

PS I want to remember for the concluding parts of my memoirs (which I mentioned at the last Holy Synod meeting), that not only am I the only Orthodox Bishop living today who was actually elected in a real election with at least one other VIABLE (even more viable!) candidate, by both my Diocesan Assembly and by and the Holy Synod, but that I am probably (I'll have to look into this and I ask for input) the only Hierarch in History to be mentioned by the First Hierarch of his Synod by name and in a totally accusatory way before the world in an official public address, published for the eons and all posterity on the WWW!!

(It could be noted that a good portion of our Bishops were simply implanted in a diocese without a vote of the Faithful or an Assembly). Whatever my faults and sins (and I am the absolute expert on their high number), I was elected and I've stayed put. I'm still in the Church I was received in, back in 1960, at the Lackland AFB Chapel. I admit that I have had to "swallow" many egregious "goings-on" over these years, but I've never left over those goings-on. The only reason to leave one's Bishop or one's Synod is heresy, and determinations of heresy are not made carelessly, indecently, or in a disorderly way, as so many other determinations, rather, judgements, are.

I'll sign this again, just in case it might be missed and result in the loss of my replies to charges of anti-semitism et al.

In Christ,
+Bishop Tikhon

Monsieur M. Geeza skipped a few things in his reading, obviously.

First, neither I nor Bishop Nikolai initiated any request for Father Bob to come to the Holy Synod meeting until he had been asked BY Bishop Seraphim, with the blessing of Metropolitan Herman, based on the request of "some of the Bishops." None of those Bishops, Monsieur Geeza was Bishop Nikolai nor yours truly. I would never have considered it, being positive that Metropolitan Herman would never allow it and that none of the other Bishops would want to ask for it. I was very pleased when I learned that others had asked and that His Beatitude had agreed and that Father Bob had agreed. It was only the next morning that I learned and Bishop Nikolai learned that "the plan had changed," namely, that His Beatitude had made Bishop Seraphim call Father Bob BACK and tell him not to come, giving the same reason, "Some Bishops" didn't want it. Michael Geeza, did you contact: Bishop Alejo, Bishop Benjamin, Bishop Tikhon of Philadelphia, Bishop Nikon and ask them if they had, perhaps requested, initially, the appearance of Father Bob? If not, your assumption, your hypothesis was based on not just ignorance, but wilfull ignorance.

Yes, at the meeting, then, following all that display of confusion, we did, both of us, ask that Father Bob be invited to appear. Then, Monsieur Geeza, is when Archbishop Nathaniel forcefully intervened to keep it from happening. You, Monsieur Geeza, have you not asked why we have not heard from Father Bob? By the way, some of the Bishops would never ask anything or reveal that they had an opinion, all for different, but understandable, reason. So, Monsieur Geeza, the ***reason ****** I don't admit your peculiar hypothesis is because that hypothesis is not true. Why not check with, say, Bishop Seraphim, if the idea that I might be right and you mistaken causes you to go to pieces!

As for Scott Walker, I am in almost daily contact by email with Father Matthew. I'm sure that if he had something to discuss with me on the order of what you decided to post to the world here, he would have done so. You characterized me as "implying" something. You are free to INFER what you will from the message of, say, Monsieur Stokoe, et al, relative to the "Report" or "Press Release." What I see is that there is no guile in Father Matthew at all; at worst, a couple scoundrels felt they had found a live one and acted accordingly.

I'd appreciate it if you'd check with your Priest before acting as his defender or advocate unbeknownst to him. Some well-wishers are not necessarily helpful when they act unilaterally.

Commending all to Christ's love,
+Tikhon, The Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West; The Orthodox Church in America.

PS I feel that my answers to the oft-asked question, are the allegations (the allegations of Protodeacon Eros Wheeler in his letter of October, 2005), true or false, are unchanged and that nothing has appeared anywhere to change an answer; the only thing is that one answer of "FALSE" has been proved to be correct relative to ONE allegation: the one about funds passing through the Saint Sergius Chapel account.

As for any finding relative to any other allegations, all of them criminal, I feel that that nice man Mr. Stephen, L., who reported to us from the auditing firm... in answering "yes" to my specific question, twice, namely, the question, "Would it be fair to say that your audit report will show no evidence of criminal wrong-doing," did not leave much room for sensible disagreement with the core of what I've been posting at all.

Now, if you or anyone else are going to state that the Protodeacon Eros Wheeler had knowledge and proof of the commission of blackmailing of anyone, e.g., Metropolitan Theodosius and has concealed it until October 2005, then I believe other questions relative to His conduct and that of subsequent TREASURERS might very well have a foundation in fact; but he didn't question his own conduct, or that of his successors as Treasurer at all, in the apparent belief that all of them were ciphers, hypnotized by that veritible Mesmer of a Chancellor, and that the spell he had cast over them was only broken by the good,white magic of Archbishop Job.

Commending all to Christ's love,
+Tikhon, The Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West; The Orthodox Church in America

On the topic of spin and recovery, etc. It's now CLEAR () from the official Minutes, that what was published as a statement of the members of the MC was not such. The new minutes show that during the meeting Father Matthew Tate was appointed to write the official "PRESS RELEASE." Who wouldda thought it? Now, as we know, Press Releases may contain all kinds of errors and you, therefore, can say anything you please in them. Remember the "press release" of Archpriest Kucynda who quoted the Metropolitan as saying he had to do something because people were saying he was incompetent?
So, too, any complaints about the inaccuracy of what was originally bruited as a Report From the members of the Council has now been mooted by the revelation that it was just a press release. I'm sure that makes Monsieur Mark (sorry Marty) and Father Gary feel quite relieved. (Am I imagining things or was that press release item underlined in the minutes? I'm sure Talleyrand or Cardinal Richelieu are turning green with envy at the level of sophisticated tactics of the current denizens of the encumbered Syosset property.)

Commending all to Christ's love,
+Bishop Tikhon
"Vuja De": The feeling that you've never been here.

The replies to some comments are posted here almost immediately; others may have to wait.
That is one obvious means of spin that is almost impossible on the many Orthodox "lists." I posted a reply to Scott Walker before, for example, the message of Subdeacon Basil Sullivan was written.

What I'll have to do is copy Scott's message and reply to it on a list with a copy to Father Matthew.

Scott asked me to enlighten him if he were missing something. He was missing something and I explained it; however, it seems that Fate has determined that he not be enlightened too soon.

I apologize, this must be what Marty calls a diatribe? If not, I hope he can point me at a message posted here that fits the definition of "diatribe" or the other pejorative categories into which he placed my comments, without, apparently being able to reply to anything of substance.

Commending all to Christ's love,
+Tikhon, The Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West; The Orthdodox Church in America.

"The only qualities for real success in journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner, and a little literary ability." (Nicholas Tomalin)