Archimandrite Touma's Reflection

This is for the anonymous poster of comment #2.0 as well as the editor's comment.

I'm sorry, but I think both of you are way out of line in criticizing SVS for their relative silence during the crisis. What do you think they could have possibly said or done that would have helped the situation? I can't think of anything that they could have said, that wouldn't have somehow complicated the situation, as well as made SVS a target for Met Herman's cronies.

Furthermore, if SVS had come out with guns blazing, any retaliation from Met Herman would have meant catastrophic consequences for the school. They don't have a huge endowment to cover themselves, and Met. Herman was their president as long as he was Metropolitan. Imagine if they had spoken out, and all of a sudden they find all of the Diocese of WaNY seminarians' ordination applications have been "misplaced", or denied altogether. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

And no, Met Herman did not buy their silence, either. Very little of SVS's funding comes from the OCA itself - it mostly comes from benefactors and working stiffs who send individual donations.

SVS wasn't silent out of cowardice or complacency with the corrupt administration. They were silent because there was nothing that they could say that could help the situation without hurting their students. You realize that seminarians, including those at SVS, are the future of Orthodoxy in America. Wounding them wounds the whole Church. The task of protecting the seminarians and guiding them towards fulfilling their callings despite the crisis fell to the SVS administration. It was not only because it is already SVS's responsibility to prepare them for service in the Church, but because they could not rely on Met. Herman and his cronies to leave the seminarians out of the debacle. So I not only understand, I respect their decision to stay out of the fight.

Public silence does not mean they ignored or condoned what was going on. Far from it. If you want proof of SVS's integrity, look at the clergy and lay leaders who have been formed there over the years. For every alumnus they might be somewhat less proud of, like those involved in recent crises, there are Fr. Oliver Herbels and Met. Jonahs all around the OCA and elsewhere.

And if that doesn't help, look at the several years' worth of financial reports available on the svots.edu website. Look at the report from the board of trustees meeting this past May, which was reacting to the financial crisis, which has had a severely adverse affect on the seminary's investments (i.e. the endowment) as well as donations. Notice that there are fewer faculty members now, due to lay-offs and retiring faculty that SVS cannot afford to replace. They will be taking on even heavier teaching loads in the fall, and doing it for substantially reduced salaries. Notice that they have not increased tuition or fees for the seminarians, not even to cover inflation.

Now, it's time to address the allegation of financial impropriety leveled at SVS. Anonymous person, I'm calling you out. You have made an allegation of financial impropriety against SVS. This is very serious because it undermines SVS's assertion of financial transparency, as well as its relationship with its donors (who, as I stated above, give most of the funds that keep the lights on and toilets working in Crestwood.) If you have proof of impropriety at SVS, produce it. If you have no such proof, please withdraw your allegation.

But please, keep scandal-mongering and innuendo to yourself. False allegations do serious damage to innocent people, and if you look at SVS's publicly-posted financial reports, you will know they can't afford to be slandered unfairly. I'm just really flabbergasted at the idea that someone would deliberately try to hurt SVS by leveling this kind of false allegation. They have enough to deal with!

Although I can't say that I support every little thing that SVS does or has ever done (their buddy-buddy relationship with an anti-Chalcedonian seminary, and certain opinionated faculty members, being a substantial chunk of this!), I will say that SVS has NEVER let me down or lost my trust. I think that any way that SVS can raise its profile, especially for good reasons like their honesty and financial accountability, is ultimately a good thing.

I do want to thank Mr. Stokoe for reserving judgment on the current administration. Disagreements aside, I think he will find that this administration is a substantial improvement over past administrations. Frs John Behr and Chad Hatfield are wonderful people, and I couldn't imagine better people to have in charge of SVS. May God bless them and keep them right where they are.

You can read St. Vladimir's Seminary's independently audited financial reports here: http://www.svots.edu/governance/financials.html/

And the news blurb detailing their budget cuts here: http://www.svots.edu/News/Recent/2009-0518-board-trustees-financial-situation/

Gasp! All this financial information! You'd almost think they were trying to be open and honest or something!

SVS doesn't need me or anybody else to speak for them. I'll admit my explanation for their silence is nothing more than a guess, but I think it contains valid, sensible reasons for what they did. It's at least as likely as anything else, and I thought it might help people give them the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming that SVS either didn't care or was complicit in the former OCA administration's wrongdoing. And I argued for their financial accountability on the basis of publicly-available information. But I'm not sure if the folks who run SVS read this website, at least not in a way where they could leave an official comment, so they may not even be aware of your concerns.

If you want to get their attention, maybe you can drop them a line and ask for the clarification you want: http://www.svots.edu/Staff/index.html/ You'd probably have to identify yourself and stop slandering them behind their backs, but surely that's a worthy price for the answers you seek, right?

Has it occurred to you that they may not even be aware of your allegations? Not everybody in the OCA reads this website. That's why I gave you their contact information, so you could pose all the questions you like directly to them and be assured of a response.

But somehow, I get the feeling you prefer to hurl damaging, baseless allegations from behind your anonymity. And then you scurry back under the rock, while the lies do their damage against innocent people. That being the case, you have no right to lecture St. Vlad's on when to be silent and when to speak.

"Although we are all accountable to one another before God, the high vocation of oversight pertains in a unique way to you, the bishops. Our sincere hope is that you will not neglect the gift granted to you, the calling to preserve the body and lead the faithful, listening attentively to the needs and concerns of the whole people of God — clergy and laity alike — in the spirit of love and gentleness. We implore you to be diligent in these matters, since, as the Apostle teaches, you will thereby save both yourself and your flock." - excerpt from the Statement of the Faculty Council of St Vladimir's Seminary, March 2008

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty tough to me, considering Met Herman was in the process of flushing St Tikhon's down the toilet (it's a monastery, a seminary, a breath mint, whatever.)

You state over and over that the faculty "kept their jobs in their silence". Are you under some impression that St Vlad's is a particularly glamorous and luxurious place of employment? I think that would come as a surprise to the faculty. Sure, SVS is fairly well-regarded among people who have actually heard of it, and I'm not trying to cast aspersions upon their reputation at all. But, for the most part, I think it is a sacrifice to work there as opposed to working at a wealthier or more well-known institution.

I think you are right in the sense that working at an Orthodox seminary, versus a purely academic institution, is its own position of responsibility in the Church. But who says that everyone who works at SVS is supposed to police Syosset, even when they might be somewhat occupied already by running a seminary and keeping it solvent? Who are you to tell them what their responsibilities are? How can you tell them how to define that position? Who made you their judge?

And what is the deal with this five million dollars at Syosset? Do you think SVS has it? Do they have a treasure chest at the bottom of Crestwood Lake or something?

Where I was at the start of the OCA scandal, I didn't know who or what to believe. I just tried to stay out of it and I hoped that it would resolve itself. I may be biased but I don't think that was a dishonorable way of dealing with a crisis that I had nothing to do with and knew very little about. SVS's admittedly sparse commentary on the crisis bears some of the same sentiment. They are much more savvy than I am with regard to OCA internal politicking, but their above-quoted statement is a stern, if carefully-worded, rebuke of the complicit hierarchs, and certainly reaches further than the Alaska scandal at which it was overtly aimed.

I really don't understand how you can expect your accusations to be taken seriously when you bounce between accusing SVS of being part of the theft, and merely criticizing SVS as being morally deficient for not saying enough. If any accusation had any merit, I think you would have presented some sort of evidence by now instead of rehashing the same idle speculation, and throwing around moral judgments you are not qualified to make.

I'm tired of seeing unfounded allegations being thrown around. The OCA and Antiochians have enough to deal with without rumor-mongering. This goes for everybody!