Sunday, March 18. 2007
Mr. Nescott has spoken to the Metropolitan Council. What would you say to the Synod of Bishops as they meet this week?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Thank you for this copy of Nescott's address..............question is: Is Mr Joe Swaiko's humble birthday affair on Central Park South, overlooking a magnificent view of Central Park, still on?
#1 Vow Of Poverty Monastery on 2007-03-18 16:31
How vaiid are Mr Nescott's comments to the Metrpolitan Council, and the work of "his" special commission, when they have not interviewed Kondratick? Why did they not interview him?
Now, it is only the Holy Synod can speak to Kondratick, who has been willing to speak to them since last year. Since the Metropolitan Council has demanded his suspension it would appear that they have cut themselves off from any further action. Seems like they made a big mistake. They missed their chance to talk to the one person who could shed the most light on this matter.
Thus, whatever comments Mr. Nescott has to make are about truth and what is best for the Church, is, at best, the offerings of a botched closing argument from a botched "investigation."
#2 Anonymous on 2007-03-18 16:36
I am a seventy five year old, cradle Orthodox, and my first posting, I used the phrase, for the GOOD OF THE CHURCH. I said that those responsibe, should be force to leave their positions.
This commission should continue it's work, until all is completed, and ALL the information made public to ALL members of OUR CHURCH.
This is by far, the best article on this site
Thank you , Mr. Nescott.
St. James--Brother of the Lord
Kansas City, MO
Has the Special Commission made a formal request to have Fr. Kondratick, Met. Theodosious, answer questions? Wouldn't they at least attempt to speak to them before they make a recommendation to the Holy Synod?
#4 Michael Simpko on 2007-03-18 16:42
This report is a summary of allegations. After 500,000 in lawyers and 3 audits what will be proven? Please let me know. Whether Fr. Bob is suspended or not what will happen? Is eveyone going to understand if you want change , CLEAR HOUSE !!! MH,KUCYNDA, and everyone at the OCA.
#5 Jon S. on 2007-03-18 16:55
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Glory be to God that we still have men of such courage and integrity in the OCA!
We will all see this week when Fr. Bob tells all !!!!!!!
#7 James on 2007-03-18 17:36
Thanks from all us tired, poor, huddled and discouraged parishioners (we are certainly not masses) of the OCA. Someone once told me that when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one which yelps is the one you hit: apparently there are a lot of dogs that this commission has hit, and they don't wish anyone to know what they have been up to. I imagine there are others who read this list who can fill in the names better than I can, but sunlight, or better, the light of Christ, shall illumine all, and bring all of this to a conclusion. Only then can we start speaking about "the good of the church" again.
Thank you and all on the commission for being valiant for the truth.
Your brother in Christ,
#8 Cyril Jenkins on 2007-03-18 17:52
With what is inferred in Mr. Nescott’s speech, the OCA, through the Synod, this week has to decide whether they want to have memorialized in pictures the culprits being taken away in handcuffs in cassocks or civilian clothes. When that occurs do they want in print that they allowed them to continue in the face of overwhelming evidence that should have resulted in immediate suspensions and further discipline? If the Synod is not able to look evil in the face, recognize it, and deal with it, then the OCA is doomed.
The Synod needs to, as a group, before they sit down to consider all that has occurred, perform that profession of faith they did before their consecrations. A little refresher course in what they are in these positions to do might be in order. It’s been a while for some of them.
The meetings this week are a moment in time that will define each of them individually, let alone collectively. If they decide to do nothing, or worse to terminate any further investigation and discipline and the OCA collapses as a result, can they in all truth to themselves live with that? WHAT is more important than the collapse of the OCA? Their own viability as bishops hang in the balance along with the future of the OCA. This week, they have to do a lot more than wear beards to show us that they belong in their roles and have the best interests of the Church in mind.
#9 Bob Czech on 2007-03-18 18:33
The Holy Synod will not be bullied by such disrespectful comments as yours, Mr Czech. Without speaking directly to Kondratick, which they only have the right to, since they are the only one body with the responsibility to discipline him, if Archbishop DMITRI sees any merit in it AFTER the Holy Synod has heard from him, any and all opinions here are just empty sound in a vacuum.
Stop with the self-serving comments folks. It has always been the Holly Synod who will decide this matter and as long as Joe is in charge and he attempts to hang it all on Kondratick, the truth that you all so long for, will be hearsay and the offerings of others. Let Kondratick speak to the Holy Synod. Let them lead. Let Job ask Kondratick any question he likes. I just hope that when he hears the answers he will accept them.
#10 Anonymous on 2007-03-18 19:02
I am not sure this is entirely accurate. According to the original news post on this website, the Commission made several recommendations: (1) that the Commission be empowered by the Council to continue its investigation, (2) that the report be sent on to the Synod and later be made public to the Church, and (3) that the Synod suspend former Chancellor Fr. Robert Kondratick from all priestly duties, pending a church trial.
In other words, these are preliminary findings based on the evidence that has been assembled so far. The Commission has not yet completed its investigation.
I don't understand how this can be a "botched investigation" when it only purports to be a preliminary assessment of the evidence. How can anyone question the reliability of the findings without knowing what that evidence shows?
I do not understand how Mr. Nescott's remarks can be considered a "botched closing argument" if the commission only recommended a temporary suspension pending a Church trial.
I do not understand how this recommendation, based on the assembled evidence, prevents the commission from asking questions of anyone as it continues its investigation, including Fr. Kondratick. How have they cut themselves off from further action if in fact they have asked to be empowered to continue?
#11 Robert Vasilios Wachter on 2007-03-18 20:15
Bravo Mr. Nescott!
Thank you for your tremendous courage to stand up for the truth.
I would also like to address a point brought up by a few critics posting on this site: why hasn't Fr. Bob been asked to speak to these "issues."
As a CPA and a former audit manager who investigated a number of frauds, sometimes the documents do speak for themselves. To be fair, I have not personally examined any of the documents in this case, however I have seen numerous examples in my lifetime of people writing unauthorized checks to themselves, to friends, to bogus companies, to cash, to credit card companies, and others.
I have seen people be prosecuted on tax evasion because of what they stole from companies. And in almost all of the cases the evidence was pretty much incontrivertible.
To those that say that Fr. Bob hasn't had the opportunity to speak do you really think it is going to change the facts? Again, I haven't seen the documents in this case but given the people that are investigating and their years of experience, if you think it's going to make some sort of difference if Fr. Bob speaks out and says it's all a "misunderstanding" I think you're probably a bit delusional.
I have to think that the members of the commission that are investigating this as well as the law firm wouldn't be making any statements that they felt would be slanderous unless the documents spoke for themselves.
I now wonder if the commission has the courage and determination to follow the documents to all of the parties involved. Hmm... will this include those with white hats or not?
May God grant Bishop Job, Mr. Nescott and all of the members of the commission and the Metropolitan Council the strength and wisdom to see this through.
#12 A concerned Orthodox Christian on 2007-03-18 20:40
It would be good for Mr. Nescott to let us know the two people mentioned as Treasurers and admin committee members.
It isn't fair for us to make those leaps. The leaps would be Fr. Kucynda and Metroplitan Herman, but the admin committee?
Further, Mr. Nescott's remarks included what I consider to be a gross verbage error.
A compilation report is never an audit. It is never properly referred to as a compilation audit.
The church believed the compilations were audits. The mistake is a grave one.
The heart of Mr. Nescott's message was solid. Thank you and sorry for being a nit.
Pray for Fr. K, and the people he tricked.
#13 Daniel E Fall on 2007-03-18 22:17
I wonder what information the Special Commission requested from PR that wasn't turned over?
#14 matt karnes on 2007-03-19 00:10
From the day it was created, and its members named, I have had confidence that the Special Commission would find out the TRUTH, and reveal it to the entire OCA and Orthodox World, for that matter! I have not been disappointed, and Mr. Nescott's comments assure me I never will be.
As for the continued nonsense that pours forth on this site from Kondratickites about "hearing from poor Fr. Bob," I say ENOUGH! He has had every opportunity, in every conceivable forum, to speak his mind and hasn't for fear of criminal liability--pure and simple. While I hope the Special Commisssion formally invites him to testify and answer questions so that the lie can be put to his purported desire to cooperate, I can understand that they have been spending all their time pouring through a mountain of evidence (i.e. filth!) before they are prepared to speak with various and sundry individuals including Metropolitans Theodosius and Herman.
Let's give them time to do their work throughly, completely and most importantly accurately. We should all have reason to have every confidence in them.
#15 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2007-03-19 05:24
Mark asked what we would each say to the Holy Synod --
I would say that they are facing a choice. A choice between acting decisively and getting this mess behind us on the one hand, or ensuring that this drags on longer and longer and longer on the other. They all are aware that they face this choice, but some of them are probably mistaken about which action corresponds to which consequence.
The thing that some of them instinctually want to do to end it [squash the commission, bury the report] will, in fact, have absolutely the opposite effect -- that is the path to prolonging the pain.
The only way to end this is to face it, for everyone to face it in all it's ugliness. For the good of the Church ... the time has come to confront the truth.
#16 Rebecca Matovic on 2007-03-19 09:30
I'm a little bit confused about Anonymous' usage in Mr. Czech's post. Asking the Synod to remember their duty is disrespectful? Isn't this the same post in which Anonymous refers to our current primate as "Joe"? I guess the solution is that we should only respect people that Anonymous says we should. If only we knew who Anonymous was so that we could more accurately judge who to respect!
At any rate, I hope that the Synod was listening carefully to the epistle on St. John Climacus Sunday (Ephesians 5:9-19). I started to highlight portions relevant to the topic at hand, but then I realized that I would just be highlighting the whole reading:
Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord.
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.
But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light.
Therefore He says: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light."
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.
#17 Zach Borichevsky on 2007-03-19 10:23
If Fr. Kondractik refused to speak with Proskauer Rose, why would he speak to the special commission?
Sdn. John Martin
Martin D. Watt, CPA (Inactive)
#18 Marty Watt on 2007-03-19 11:20
If it has always been the "Holly" Synod who will decide this matter, why is it that they have done nothing but obstruct all efforts to determine the truth?
Does anyone trust them to now "decide this matter"?
#19 Name withheld on 2007-03-19 11:51
I believe the question related to what we would want the Holy Synod to do when it met this week, or what would we say to the Synod. While I do not have all the information at hand, and always try to be respectful and careful in addressing our Hierarchs, I will try to answer the question.
I would first pray that the Holy Spirit be ever present in their meetings as always. I would hope that the Synod completed steps to correct any problems that occurred. I also would trust that they implement procedures to avoid similar problems as best as they can be in the future. I would further hope that the Synod would act in a spirit of forgiveness, reflecting Christ’s teachings and actions and words, which were free of malice, revenge, hostility and were full of love and caring. It is time to, having corrected any problems that occurred, move on. Some may not want to hear this, but just look at what is being done to our Church, how persons are speaking to and about each other, how much animosity is being expressed, how much pain is revealed. I do not doubt that there are many respectable and sincere persons on different “sides” of the issues, and have known some of them, and spoken well about many of them, but we need now to come together as One in Christ and end this for the good of ourselves and each other, and our Holy Orthodox Church. Finally, before some hurl accusations of persons who agree with these thoughts seeking a whitewash or whatever, I would add that it is not what is being sought for we see the problems being addressed and corrected. Was not that the original goal of those who first spoke on these matters?
#20 Archpriest William DuBovik on 2007-03-19 11:52
The process which we must go through to deal with the ongoing financial, moral and leadership crisis in the OCA includes the open discussion of all the issues. Metropolitan Council has understood this and affirmed its commitment to this holy Orthodox tradition. Now it is time for the Synod of Bishops to also guide our church through this same open and comunal discussion. Debate does not mean democracy. Debate is discernment. Debate is part of the orderly way in which the Church deals with crises. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, the Fifth Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 553 defined debate as the necessary means for dealing with church problems in council:
"The holy fathers... dealt with heresies and current problems in debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadow of lying. The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about quetions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbor." The Holy Fathers of the 5th Ecumenical Council declared as essential to the Church's search for and declaration of the Truth, the use of open debate. We need our bishops to enter into this process which the rest of the OCA is already engaged. We also need them to open their minds and their meeting to the wisdom, discernment and recommendations which have already been offered up through the Special Commission, the Metropolitan Council and OCAnews.org!
#21 Fr. Ted Bobosh on 2007-03-19 12:10
Sometimes I feel like my bishop is the king and I'm just one of his peasants. I would like to party in the city that is known the world over but my birthday occasions are simple. How can you justify such an elaborate affair ? I thought monastics celebrate their name day, not their birthday?
All that Mr. Nescott said in his letter is right on the mark.
He says what we all feel. MH please do the right thing, resign, retire for the sake of our church.
Love in Christ,
#22 Lillian Blome on 2007-03-19 12:12
What guts, what spiritual fortitude, by +Job, Gregg Nescott and Fr. Reeves! This is the type of stuff that makes Orthodoxy, those who are willing to sacrifice and bleed for the truth, as opposed to time servers and mercenaries, hirelings as our Lord called them, who seemingly think godliness is gain. For many on the outside these latter is now sadly what the OCA looks like. I realize that the OCA is possessed of numerous priests and monks who are willing to defend the faith and stand up for righteousness (I think we can name 70 of them almost off the top of our heads), but it is grand to see those who have thought about the price of salvation and the narrow gate stand up and be counted. Gentlemen, I commend you.
Just a note for Daniel Fall, I think there may be someone else whom Gregg Nescott might have been alluding to in regard to the treasurers: was not Fr. Dimitry Oselinski treasurer when the 9/11 and Beslan funds, inter alia, disappeared?
#23 Guillaume on 2007-03-19 12:49
Priests in Alaska have been defrocked for MUCH less.
#24 Anonymous on 2007-03-19 13:02
Well tomorrow Fr. Bob gets his chance to tell his side of the story. MH can't silence him anymore.
(editor's note: "Stan" is unusually well-informed today. OCANews.org has confirmed that Fr.Kondratick will indeed appear before the Synod of Bishops on Tuesday, just as "Stan" suggests – and as Mike Geeza, another unusually well-informed source hinted earlier today in his post.
This will be the first time Fr. Kondratick appears before the Synod following his dismissal. He was requested to appear before them in March 2006, shortly before his dismissal. At that time both Bishop Tikhon and Bishop Nikolai objected, stating that to request the then-chancellor to appear before the Synod to answer questions would be "demeaning". The Synod acquiesed to their demand. The Metropolitan dismissed Fr. Bob the following week.
Fr. Kondratick has also spoken with Proskauer Rose. According to reports from both sides, meeting did not go well, or last long. Proskauer Rose has refused all requests to comment on this or any other aspect of their investigation. An anonymous email purporting to relate the events as Fr. Kondratick saw them was sent to OCANews.org, but attempts to verify its authenticity with his attorney were unsuccessful.
Fr. Kondratick was not asked to appear before the Special Commission as interviewing him was not in their original charge. That is, they had no authority to ask him to do so, even if he would have been amenable.
Given this history, tommorrow should be quite interesting, no?)
#25 Stan on 2007-03-19 15:26
I would hope that the Holy Synod of Bishops would according to St. Paul do the following: "Those (presbyters) who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that all may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe this without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. (1 Timothy 5:20 & 21)
St. Paul does not care if the presbyter has risen to the rank of Metropolitan or Patriarch for that matter, he commands no partiality. Further, Paul's Words are not mere suggestion but have the force of the command of God. This is to be done with God, Jesus Christ, and the elect angles standing as witnesses and all of the Church observing. Only if this is done publicly and in the light will it be "for the good of the Holy Church", "that all may fear". If these things (financial misconduct, coverup, blaming others etc) had been done by a lowly parish priest of no regard none of this fallout would have transpired. Such a lowly sinning priest would have already been rightly rebuked and deposed and we would have read months ago (maybe years) of such action in an official OCA publication.
If the metropolitan, Fr. Bob or any other "elder" of the Church has sinned (which seems now indisputable), then an impartial, without prejudice, public rebuke will be necessary. Paul's words are not filled with revenge, malice, or hostility and are full of love and caring. Since these words are the Word of the Lord we should not think ourselves more wise and look for reasons to excuse ourselves from them, rather we should endeavor to do them. Holy Synod has an opportunity to act soon without partiality, without prejudice, and I pray that they will take it.
#26 fr andrew on 2007-03-19 15:38
There is a profound misunderstanding of "Best Practices" floating about. It is not another club. It is not policy. It is a set of guidelines intended to help and improve an organization by illustrating systems and procedures that have been found to work in other similar orgnazations toward the fulfillment of that organization's vision. The fact that it is being bandied about as another means of control means that a lot of people don't get it.
#27 Name Withheld by Request on 2007-03-19 15:51
Bishop Job has yet another chance at strengthening his position for the Special Commission to continue to find out the truth. I hope he has been greatly encouraged this week by all the positive support he received! I would hope that his own concern and energies of wanting to find out the truth and showing great courage in this regard will carry him. I hope other bishops stand with him. I hope this will be an historic week to step closer toward the truth. Do we get to see any minutes or hear or read of any speeches in the Synod's meeting?
#28 Patty Schellbach on 2007-03-19 16:24
One last time, Fr. Bob gets his chance to read the Synod the riot act and keep them inline.
#29 Publius on 2007-03-19 17:49
Having read the latest revelations, I remain puzzled
(though not surprised) by the obsession with secrecy,
silencing of clergy, and the near silencing of the
Metropolitan Council's deliberations.
Without comment, let me quote the holy gospel: "...
everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not
come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."
On the other hand, "... he who does the truth comes to
the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that
they have been done in God." (John 3:20-21).
So Christ says that evil deeds should be exposed, and
that one who is doing good deeds does not resist this
but welcomes it. (His commandment elsewhere to "let
not the left hand know what the right hand is doing"
applies to good deeds, not evil deeds.)
Exposure of misdeeds is the only way to prevent their
recurrence. If they are covered up, there will be no
correction of the arrangement that enabled them to
In America, every charitable organization's finances
are an open book. A financial report is published.
Transparency is the rule. Otherwise abuses will
happen. Why would the fact that we are Orthodox mean
that secrecy would be the rule for us? Secrecy at the
heart of Church administration seems inimical to the
nature of what the Church is.
As to the argument that sins of individuals against
the Church should be covered up: if so, then tell us
why are the actions of Ananias and Sapphira recorded
for all posterity to read? If secrecy were the correct
approach, we would never have read about the actions
of those two, nor of the actions of Judas in betraying
the Lord for 30 pieces of silver, nor of the sins of
David, nor of the actions of Saul (Paul) before his
conversion. These things would have been concealed
"for the good of the church." Rather they were
revealed for the good of the church. Of course - for
we are to "... have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Ephes. 5:11).
#30 Anonymous Orthodox Christian on 2007-03-19 18:22
Sorry, I don't "get it." Mark's article about last week's Council meeting, and tomorrow's opening of the Synod's meeting, is interesting, but what exactly would be the connection between Best Practices as a set of guidelines to be adopted, and the Metropolitan's/Fr. Kucynda's intended distribution of statements to be signed by Council members, intended to globally silence them? How would adoption of Best Practice guidelines open the door to Met. Herman's scheme to make them agree to be silenced?
In any case, everyone on the Council could simply say, "Thanks, but no thanks," and refuse to sign any such document. Neither Met. Herman nor Fr. Kucynda have the authority to remove them, for refusing to sign such a document. The spectacle +Herman would create in making any such attempt, to remove virtually the entire membership of the Council, would be hugely counterproductive for him. What would he have to gain by the attempt? Cate
(Editor's Note: He would not need "everyone" to sign - only a majority, thereby compelling the minority to agree – or risk being excluded from all future deliberations.)
#31 Cate on 2007-03-19 19:34
Read Fr. Hopko's reflection, again. The leadership of the OCA has been operating under a false ecclesiology for a long time.
#32 Name withheld on 2007-03-19 19:48
Does anyone trust (the Holy Synod) to now "decide this matter"?
The Synod's response to the MC is critical to the survival of the OCA. Of course, the MC's proposals are by no means the complete solution. However, I have yet to see ANYTHING proposed by the Synod that would solve the OCA's problems.
An open letter to the Holy Synod:
Forget for the moment, my dear Bishops, that some of you may be beholden to the Met, former Chancellor, or someone else in the administration for past or future favors.
Forget that you may be criticized for past actions or inactions.
At this critical point in OCA history, you really have no reasonable choice but to recognize reality by ratifying the MC's recommendations -- that is if you want the OCA to continue to be viable.
If you choose not to approve the recommendations of the MC, it is the OCA, not the Othodox Church, that will go down in flames.
From a pragmatic point of view, I expect that means that you all will have to find new jobs with different employers.
The MC has shown its courage and now it is your turn. Only you, as Synodal Bishops, now have the power to save the OCA.
There is no one else, above or below, who has the ultimate responsibility for the earthly church. If you fail, the Synod, and only the Synod, will bear the consequences of destroying the OCA.
Such malfeasance, which would certainly be archived on the internet, will be permanently recorded in our history by our modern day biblical scribes.
Nevertheless,, if you, as our Bishops, choose to allow the OCA to die, please understand that we the survivors will form a new and better organization.
And, of course, we will choose a new, more responsive, religious leadership.
#33 Anonymous on 2007-03-19 20:30
Today could be the beginning of a historical moment in the life of our church. Here is a message for our leaders to deliberate on and guide their actions over the next few days.
"God grant them the serenity to accept what they cannot change, the courage to change the things they can. And the wisdom to know the difference." They can either lead this church back to Christ or wallow in the sinful actions of the evil one. We must all pray for ArchBishop Job and the entire Synod, that they have the Holy Spirit's guidance and grace to make the God-like decisions that so desparately need to be made and made now.
#34 Mike McGregor on 2007-03-20 06:04
It is both frightening and sickening that MH continues to maneuver in every way he can to perpetuate the culture of silence, fear, and intimidation.
As several have said, all this goes against the clear teaching of the Apostles and Holy Scripture. His actions cannot even be considered Christian.
I pray the Holy Synod will act to force an end to this culture, but all my experience tells me it won't happen.
#35 Name withheld on 2007-03-20 07:40
Let Christ protect and keep His Church. THAT ALONE is "for the good of the Church." And that protection and keeping comes through openness and honesty, letting our yes be yes and our no be no. No coverup, no subterfuge, no protecting people "for the good of the Church."
#36 Another Anonymous Orthodox Christian on 2007-03-20 08:06
OK, Mark, regarding the plan to have Council members sign away their right to discuss openly and reveal to the laity what was discussed, I concede your point, that if a majority of the Council members could have been induced to sign such a paper, then the central administration would have won.
BUT I still do not understand how the distribution of such a paper to the members of the Council is tied to the adoption of Best Practices. Is there some language inserted into the new version of Best Practices that would have authorized a gag rule? Will the same maneuver likely raise it's feeble head again, at such time when the Best Practices is finally adopted?
What is/was keeping +Herman from passing out such a paper and exhorting the Council members to sign it even AFTER the Best Practices document was tabled? Cate
Editor's note: #1 Yes. #2 Let us hope that it is not attempted now that it has been exposed. #3 Nothing, but having lost the fig leaf of a "Best Practice" no one will be caught off-guard. They must pass this in the light of day.
#37 Cate on 2007-03-20 13:00
You, of course, are correct. I misspoke when I referred to "compilation audits", which are merely "compilation reports".
The willingness by the Metropolitan Council, the Holy
Synod, and the All American Councils to accept these reports --- which are simply based on numbers provided by management, and are not audits, in any meaningful sense --- as a substitute for the unqualified audits produced by Lambrides through 1996, appears to represent a serious failure in the very controls that were supposed to have protected the OCA.
#38 Gregg Nescott on 2007-03-20 13:15
Amazing! Simply amazing!! A beautiful Trojan Horse housing the iron fist of authoritarian contol. Do "these people" have no shame? Obviously not, and are never to be trusted without careful and thorough verification.
Kudos to Faith for shooting this down!
#39 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2007-03-20 14:09
In the words of the ever-immortal Peter Brady...
"When it's time to change, you've got to rearrange who you are and what you're gonna do!"
#40 K.K. on 2007-03-20 15:00
My family and I have been watching this for the past year and to hear what is happening is both disheartening and hopeful, at best. Disheartening in that I know personally the major "players" in this from childhood and it is heart breaking to see this happening. These are/were friends. Close ones. And now, all of this. Many times I have started to post and changed my mind - because words can not adequately describe how I feel. Ashamed for the Church that I grew up in and loved to see it become mocked and derided by those inside and out. Proud of the the way that there are those who are willing to stand up and say "This is not right. This is not what Our Lord taught us. This is not what St. Paul taught us. This is not what being Orthodox is."
Most of all saddened. Saddened that there are people out there who still believe and feel that to sweep things under the rug is the way to go. Saddened that it is taking sites and discussion boards such as these for the Church leaders to do something. Saddened that I can't go into an OCA Church anywhere without someone asking what my family thinks. Saddened that those I held in high regard as a youth and that I looked up to are behaving as they are.
I pray for all involved that this comes to a resolution with a clear and concise understanding of what occured and that those who were involved in any misdeeds are held accountable for their actions. At the end of the day I will not pass judgement on those for I am unworthy to do so. I will be saddened and disappointed.
#41 A.G. on 2007-03-21 10:51
The author does not allow comments to this entry