Synodal Commission Established

Where do you ever get the idea that the alleged victims have not come forward?

It has been claimed that the alleged victims had previously refused to come forward to either the OCA or the police thus tying the hands of the Church administration and the police. However, this line of reasoning states this refusal to come forward changed recently and the alleged victims made a formal complaint against Abp. Seraphim. These first-person allegations commenced a police investigation that then allowed/required the OCA to begin its investigation. That is, the OCA's sexual misconduct policies (and perhaps even Candadian or provincial law?) require an allegation by an alleged victim him/herself or a pertient party (e.g., a guardian, teacher, etc.), not a third party's report of an allegation which could be simply gossip or hearsay. I would be surprised if an advocacy group such as Pokrov would be seen, legally, as an organization with 'standing' or first hand knowledge to make such an allegation.

Anyway, this is one line of thought that is out there. Answering the question "What did the Church know, and when did it know it?" is important in understanding whether "the response of the Church [was] timely" - and appropriate, and according to both the spirit and letter of the law and its own policies.

(Editor's note: This one line of thought is in error. Moreover, even if a "third party" ( like a school teacher, or a priest, or doctor) brought forward an allegation, don't you think it beholden on the Church, let alone a school, hospital) to then investigate the allegation, whether than waiting because the " victim" themselves did not contact the principal, hospital administrator or in this case, a chancery directly? Anyway, this is what the the OCA investigation is for...)

I meant to make clear that certain 'third parties', e.g., teachers, doctors, priest, do have a duty to come forward and their direct knowledge or suspicion of sexual misconduct should be grounds for investigation. However, an advocacy group may not be considered objective enough, unless they are speaking on behalf of a victim or one with direct knowledge (e.g., teacher, etc.) That is, if an organization such as Pokrov had only second-hand knowledge of sexual abuse (i.e., hearsay), that information alone might not necessarily be enough to trip either a legal, canonical or administrative investigation.

Again, this is the line of thinking. I have no way of knowing, personally, what Pokrov (or any other person or organization) knew, what its source was, what it communicated to the OCA or to the police, etc.

Personally, I think the Church should not require allegations or proof that rise to a legal standard before action is taken. That is, the police shouldn't act first unless the police were informed first. The Church should act to investigate even a whiff of sexual misconduct, especially when it involves children, even if it took place decades ago - though our canons require investigation of sexual misconduct between consenting adults, too, i.e., adultery and fornication are grounds for discipline and defrocking. Knee-jerk investigations of sexual misconduct rumors should be seen as being done out of an abundance of caution, not as a witch hunt, and done in such a way so as to protect the innocent accused as well as the innocent abused.

(Editor's note: I don't think anyone in this instance thinks the reaction was "knee-jerk". Unhappily, the question seems to be whether these knees have arthritis, preventing any movement....)

The Church should respond in a knee jerk fashion to allegations of sexual misconduct. There's no shame in an excess of care when protecting children - not to mention our own canons regarding sexual fidelity and chastity in the clergy (and the people).