Toledo Blade Story

I guess it all depends on who you mean by "God." Perhaps you've been reading The Word too much.

Oh boy. That one-two punch with the forgery quotes is pretty much a Molotov cocktail. The reporter's doing, obviously, but still ....

It's funny — the stonewalling method really backfires in the world outside of Church politics.

"We heard that Met. Philip promoted forgeries and wants a sex-offender to be a bishop. We asked for his side, but he didn't want to talk about it. Same thing with sex-offender guy. On the other hand, Bp. Mark, who loves people even when they threaten to beat him up, took a firm stand against both forgery and breast-grabbing. Here's an impressive photo of him. We report, you decide!"

And I'd missed that business about Bp. Demitri being back on the Board of Trustees. One can hardly deny him, I suppose, considering Mr. Khalife's presence. Is it possible that Met. Philip is confused and thinking of trusties , like in prison?

He might also have seen that the decision was likely to pass with or without him — and decided it would be better to get in on the ground floor so he would have some "ownership" over the decision.

Notice that he almost immediately distributed a document defining it in strictly Orthodox terms. Now, if Met. Philip tries to move a bishop, +Basil can say — "Hey, that's not what we voted on. If it had been, I'd never have agreed to it!"

Yes, but what's not stale is that he's still on the Board of Trustees. Also the forgery stuff. Plus, what the new titles mean. And the sex-offender bishop thing, too.

So, actually — no.

Sure, George, but — priorities. See, the biggest problem we have right now is that the stuff in the article is true . Other facts don't change that.

If there really are problems with Mr. Royhab, we can get right on it — after we institute regular audits, see those responsible for the forgery punished, get the ex-cons off the Board of Trustees, and get right with the law.

I'm sure you understand.

Perhaps the thing to do is to establish your own website, and make it known to your fellow parishoners

God help us! Even a parish controversy is to spread to the internet?

Can it really be impossible for members and leaders of the same parish — who see each other each week! — to settle their differences face to face? We are spirit and body both, and even modern psychology reports that the internet is a poor substitute for in-the-flesh human interaction. Naturally, there will be more than one site per dispute — because nothing is neutral enough for all — each one recording every bitter accusation and extreme sentiment. These are the concomitants of fracture in a close community, and very often the fruit of subconscious grudges and old wounds. That is why sharp parish disputes often incline toward viciousness to begin with — and we know how much easier it is to devour our brother from behind a keyboard.

Is an archive of this what we want inquirers to find when they google this parish in five years — and in fact unto the ages of ages? (Nothing can ever be reliably "erased" from the internet — nor might the "losers" in a dispute desire it.) And should the children of a parish be exposed to every detail of such things, to accusations against their parents and pastor? "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Mt 18:6). A young person can be lost to the Church forever by learning of a priest's serious faults when their faith is still immature.


OCA News is in a different circumstance. There is simply no other way than this for us to discuss matters as a group in a regular and substantive manner; nor could any one human being witness all the crucial events related to these crises. And there is far less temptation to false motivations here. No one on this site ever quit dating me, ever seemed to let his child bully mine, ever cut in front of me at trapeza, ever dropped me from the choir .... Finally, almost all the figures involved have chosen to be in the national eye. They knew, or should have known, to what public scrutiny they might be exposed, and they have sure means of replying if they wish.

Yet even OCA News, however called-for, is a regrettable phenomenon. What you do here — at present — is in itself rebellion against leaders of the Church. To question someone's probity is to insult him, and to speak openly of a bishop as you do — with skepticism and outright suspicion — would normally be a grave sin even if one had some cause. The scriptures and the saints call on us to cover the nakedness of our fathers, and not to put it on display as did Ham.

Our faith is about real life, and in real life there will be exceptions to most principles of behavior, including that one. But let us not lose our bearings. For such work to be God-pleasing — as I believe yours is — is an extraordinarily exceptional phenomenon. Rarely does wrongdoing need to be uncovered before all. And usually we are supposed to obey decisions by our authorities even when we disagree with them. If it were otherwise, St. Paul would hardly have needed to remind people to submit themselves to their shepherds. Needless to say, we are to use independent judgement when carrying out decision-making administrative duties — but even this is itself a principle established by our Synod, in its approval of our Constitution.


The Council of Florence really did happen, as certain power-worshippers among us prefer to forget. But it does not happen every week. Every third priest is not Nicholas Katinas. Might there be a situation in which the bishop is asked to judge a parish controversy, and he makes a decision that ought to be openly rejected by the people? I never say never, but one could live lifetimes and not come across such a circumstance: such rejection is, so to speak, the nuclear option. And to use the web — well, perhaps we can call that an ICBM.

We are free and we may use extreme means to do our Christian duty — if we must, and after taking the wisest council available. But we had better be right, because these means will tempt and wound others, and we will have this and more to answer for on the day of judgement.

(Editor's note: But, Father, how do you deal with the Katina's and Kondratick's among us? Many argued for years to keep quiet for the "good of the Church", to re-victimize and deny justice to the abused because it might upset the majority of the faithful, to enable the abusers and miscreants - because the alternatives, dealing with the issues openly, honestly, justly, were just too embarassing and costly. Well, that plan didn't work did it?

And so now your solution is to continue to do the same in the AOCA? This site has offered measured, reasonable, consistent and theologically informed perspectives for dealing with these problems for almost four years - and still there are many, like yourself, who live in denial and resistance. Even ICBM's don't seem to work, it seems. All I can assure you is that modernity won't go away, nor will these problems until we all deal with them openly, honestly, accountaby, like the Christians we claim to be.)

Mark,

Really.

First off, I'm not a priest. Second, I think you did not read closely the latter part of my comment.

• "Every third priest is not Nicholas Katinas ... We are free and we may use extreme means to do our Christian duty." Translation: "In the case of a Katinas — hit the internet, mass-mailings, whatever."

• I specified that I think your work here — which is straight rebellion, to be sure — is "God-pleasing." Translation: Sic semper Kondraticks.

• I also opined that the use of the internet, as such, is necessary in the case of "these problems" that you have been dealing with for the past several years. (I've even written you privately to suggest technical improvements to the site!) As to the virtue of this discussion, as such: I don't expect you to remember all my comments, but are you going to insult me, as you have, without even recalling a portion of them?

No, Mark, I don't "live in denial and resistance." I do, however, fear that you're losing your bearings to some degree — as in this response to me, in which you even assume I am a (clericalist, totalitarian) priest. May one now not even qualify our freedom of open rebellion without getting a slap in the face from you for insufficient purity?

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful."

Consider, please, an extended example: I think that "Ecumenism" ( if very carefully defined) is a heresy, and I can demonstrate there are some ( few ) hierarchs who hold it. So also say men better-educated and holier than myself. But before deciding how I will respond — from the array of patristic responses to heresy shown in the history of the Church — I consider all spiritual dangers that I can and look to the holiest, steadiest council I know of.

On point as regards Feb 24th (and Bp. Basil's chief objections thereto) — let us look at canons. Do you know how many canons OCA and AOCA figures have violated in their inter-christian activities? Nor are they open and accountable about it; nor is their related behavior always Christian — and of course there is money involved.

Oh, I could make website after website. I could be measured: no schism, just intensive education and publicity, withholding, perhaps disobedience to reception guidelines, and perhaps non-commemoration one day. I could employ reason and theology. I could, perhaps, split my parish down the middle, or at least in quarters, and knock off a priest or two. Yes! I will quote scripture! I will talk of Florence! I will be right !

But souls will be lost, and the angels will weep, and God, perhaps, will have never known me, and I will be terribly, terribly wrong . I am free in Christ, and this — after prayer, counsel, and study — is my judgment.


Published complaints and active resistance are not normative in Christian community life. They are not called for every time something does not end up according to someone's judgement — even if they are sure they are right. (I know you've read the fathers on this.) There is such a thing as discernment according to circumstances. God has not given us a spirit of fear — but we must still walk in fear and trembling. A new priest must be bold to hold the Lamb in his hands, to hold a soul in his hands in his first Confession — but won't he have Godly fear also? Doesn't he need both? Don't we?

But you — off the bat, without qualifying your words — propose to a writer from a troubled parish that he take radical and exceptional measures. Moreover, these are measures much more dangerous to others in a parish controversy than in a national one. They demand a steady hand, a man of at least some education and experience — and you do not know the writer from Adam. Nor does this even regard a dogmatic error, but is rather to do with administration or pastoral decisions, or so it seems from the comment.

Dn. Wheeler spoke of sexual blackmail payments in his now-famous revelations. But in the beginning of the OCA crisis, you steered discussion in this forum away from sexual matters as such. Later, you did not. Discernment. Hard decisions. You must remember some.

I wish to remind us all that some decisions should be hard for us — and why.

(editor's note: Thoughtful reply, for which I thank you. I did steer this forum away from sexual matters, after Deacon Wheeler raised them, because at that time, apart from Deacon Wheeler's testimony we had no evidence. Later, when such evidence was produced - see the SIC report - I allowed it. You are right to fear angels weeping and souls lost: I fear even more if we do nothing, or too little, than what we can. My comment about websites was not a blanket endorsement of everybody starting websites, but simply this one cannot be reduced to parish problems: rather than complain here, an alternative would be to start their own for that purpose.)