An Effective Resolution

Ah, but Fr. Paul specifically cites ordaining clergy as something each bishop can do independently. Bp. Basil — through Fr. Paul's essay, which he forwarded to all his clergy — has laid out how he intends to exercise his office, namely, in full fashion. I bet Met. Philip is going to be asked about this piece at his meeting with the LA Diocese clergy. What will he say?

But ultimately Mark's right: the proof of the pudding is in the Manual-drafting. Unfortunately, Bp. Joseph has no particular reason to resist +Philip, except for the good publicity. Consider that, if he inherits the throne, a win by +Philip on the Manual issue would mean additional authority in his new station. On the other hand, if +Basil is chosen, +Joseph knows that he will get maximum autonomy as a diocesan whether +Philip wins on the Manual or not, because that's what +Basil believes in. In short, +Joseph just needs to show a bit of independence so as not to come off looking like +Antoun.

Of course, there is always the possibility he is going to be Orthodox about it and stand with +Basil, +Alexander, and +Mark on principle alone.

If not, matters may come down largely to +Thomas. I wonder why he has been so compliant? I know nothing about him — can anyone enlighten me?

I don't see how the Patriarchate would come into play regarding his position on the Manual-drafting. It is one thing for +Philip to seize power and demote bishops, and another thing for the bishops to voluntarily hand it to him during the drafting process. As to the kind of man Bp. Joseph is, I do not know either. I can only repeat an earlier posting of mine — submitted too late to be seen by most.

I think of my perspective as caution, but perhaps cynicism has gotten the better of me. If anyone can provide an apologia for Bp. Joseph's actions, I would sincerely like to hear it.


Frankly, I find Met. Joseph's behavior to be consistent, not with an extension of Met. Philip, but with someone who knows how to play politics for his own advantage.

When he was an auxiliary — when he developed his reputation for belonging to Met. Philip — doing his the will of the Met. was the smart move. Once he gained diocesan statue, the risks of bucking the Met. in minor ways became minute in comparison to the gains: distance from the incumbent and a reputation for independence. But when it looked like Met. Philip had won back his old power, Bp. Joseph did not stand up for Orthodoxy, but abandoned his bolder brothers and signed on the dotted line.

Now, though — now that the outcome is in question — silence is the shrewd move, because it can be interpreted as prudence or modesty, and it avoids a direct challenge to either party. Personally, I think silence unconscionable, and no speechwriter will convince me otherwise. ...

Bp. Joseph is the favorite, by far, of Met. Philip's old guard cronies. For an example of this, you may visit The Antiochian , where a drooling endorsement of Bp. Joseph's ascendancy to the Metropolitan's throne is on grotesque display. These men may know little of canons or ecclesiology, but they are not stupid, and they know what is in their interest and what is not.

Let him repudiate this cast of characters, stand up now for the tradition of the Church, and bring into the light of truth the events he has witnessed. Otherwise, let us rather repose our confidence in those who have risked themselves to support what is right.

Now, you see, that is the sort of thing I am looking for.

To a point, you are right. After all, if the Klan endorsed a candidate for office, I would not take that as proof that the candidate was a violent racist. But if I then realized that I had no idea what he thought about race, and that they knew a lot more about him than I did — I'd feel justified in wondering.

Again, the Detroit crowd did not get to be rich by being stupid. Frankly, I trust their judgment as to what is good for them. Yes, perhaps they were just kissing up. Perhaps he would rather not, through criticism, draw attention to their combination of praise and bashing. Could be: I didn't and don't deny it. But I feel that now is not the time for closing our eyes to the other possibility — and can you be surprised that, these days, the trust of some must be earned?

What is not speculation is his signing and his silence. You write, "Bishop Joseph told us he signed to signify his willingness to obey the Holy Synod, not because he himself felt any change in diocesan status was needed." But whether it was "needed" or not, by his calculations, is moot . The point is that it was wrong — a frontal assault on our canonical tradition in letter and spirit and on the ecclesiology this tradition reflects. He simply never should have assented to such a thing — full stop. The other bishops would not believe that Met. Philip's will reflected a decision of our Holy Synod: would the patriarchate, they asked, really have said such a thing? If I assume that Bp. Joseph was acting on principle, I must conclude that he found the scenario perfectly plausible, and Met. Philip's claim Orthodox. That does not much soothe me.


You speak of his preference for "public silence as the best basic stance when there is friction - a position that spiritual writers advocate pretty uniformly too." Well, we are thinking of different spiritual writers! Surely you have seen the hundreds of letters that Bishop-Saints like St. Basil wrote on issues of every kind? St. John Chrysostom got himself martyred for speaking out against the Emperor's remarriage. The fathers often praise silence — in a personal context. A bishop has neither an obligation nor a right to remain silent in the midst of serious scandal. The obligation of those who hold teaching offices is to teach .

I could multiply patristic exhortations to Christians, and even bishops particularly, to speak out at such times as this. Wasn't this among the reasons St. Gregory Nazianzen fled, and later resigned, the episcopacy — because he preferred silence and peace, a silence and peace which his office did not permit him? Yet he himself says:

"[The most eminent men] are openly at war with the priests, and their piety is an aid to their powers of persuasion. And indeed, provided that it be on behalf of the faith, and of the highest and most important questions, let them be thus disposed, and I blame them not; nay, to say the truth, I go so far as to praise and congratulate them. Yea! would that I were one of those who contend and incur hatred for the truth's sake: or rather, I can boast of being one of them. For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God: and therefore it is that the Spirit arms the gentle warrior, as one who is able to wage war in a good cause" (Oration 2, 82).

It is certainly possible that Bp. Joseph's silence is not from any base considerations, but owes to his not knowing, not believing, or not facing this principle. Or I could give him the benefit of the doubt on both counts, and posit that he simply does not think this a "good cause." After all, as St. Gregory continues:

"[T]here are some who go to war even about small matters and to no purpose, and, with great ignorance and audacity, accept, as an associate in their ill-doing, anyone whoever he may be. Then everyone makes the faith his pretext, and this venerable name is dragged into their private quarrels" (83).

Such is the position of those who claim this was all just a "minor administrative matter" and of no fundamental importance. But, if this is what Bp. Joseph believes, then he does not understand something vital to the life of the Church, and especially of a nascent Church such as ours in America.


So, no, he need not be focused on power. I emphasized this possibility largely because of a couple of red flags: the fear among his clergy that some report and a couple of incidents in which he chose to "correct" clergy by means of public humiliation. (I do not know the clergymen themselves, but the whole point of such exercises is that there should be eyewitnesses, which there were.) Of course, these fragments are not a solid basis for judgment. I am only pointing out the possibilities — because I feel that now is a time to exercise the greatest caution and not to assume loyalty to the faith without cause. After all, who would have imagined six months ago that Met. Philip would suddenly overthrow the genuine accomplishment to which he had previously seemed so devoted?

To conclude: I ought to have made more clear that I was , as you say, projecting a picture — one of several, and one that presented Bp. Joseph in the worst of lights. My failure to do so was inexcusably careless, especially in light of his office. I do not know his true character, nor do I claim the right or ability to draw conclusions about it. I only offer speculations — and I look forward to the time, hopefully soon, when I will no longer have any reason for doing so.

"St. John Chrysostom got himself martyred for speaking out against the Emperor's remarriage."

Sorry — a little tired there. That was St. Theodore the Studite, who wasn't martyred and also wasn't a bishop.

The person St. John Chrysostom spoke out against was Empress Eudoxia.

Please: we must stay on topic. Anglicans have nothing to do with this article, nor do Ms Merritt's street address or local, toll-free, and fax numbers, however admirable her work.

Bp. Demetri was removed from duty immediately after he offended. Then he was inappropriately sent out of the country to serve, which lasted until recently. The problem right now is the possibility of his serving next in America.

To stop that, and more, from happening we need to stay on target as the convention approaches.