Monday, October 22. 2007
Innocence, Neglect - But No Malice.
Your reactions to the Archbishop's comments are welcome.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
"What a twisted tale we weave when we act to deceive."
When will this skata end?
When will this skata end?
#1
Anonymous
on
2007-10-22 15:26
Mark,
The pastoral letter of +Dimitri is actually pretty good. The words and tone of the letter are well considered and show a determination that we had not seen before. Let us hope and pray that +Dimitri will follow up with equally determined action. As they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" or "now that he has talked the talk, let us see if he will walk the walk." +Dimitri and his fellow bishops on the Holy Synod simply must follow up and truly make those hard choices.
However, +Dimitri's reported announcement that in his opinion the troubles were the result of innocence and neglect, not of malice, is deeply troubling. It is as if the pastoral letter and this pronouncement were authored by two different persons. First, presumably the Holy Synod decided to wait a bit further to take action against +Herman in deference to the consideration of the Kondratick appeal. The bishops were given some time to carefully consider the 60-page long appeal. So, why is that +Dimitri is prejudicing his own review of the appeal? Secondly, +Dimitri's statement betrays an overly charitable disposition; if the misuse/misappropriation of such large sums in such persistent fashion is characterized as ignorance (innocence) and neglect, I wonder if he has he fortitude to take any meaningful action, to make those hard choices.
Carl
The pastoral letter of +Dimitri is actually pretty good. The words and tone of the letter are well considered and show a determination that we had not seen before. Let us hope and pray that +Dimitri will follow up with equally determined action. As they say, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" or "now that he has talked the talk, let us see if he will walk the walk." +Dimitri and his fellow bishops on the Holy Synod simply must follow up and truly make those hard choices.
However, +Dimitri's reported announcement that in his opinion the troubles were the result of innocence and neglect, not of malice, is deeply troubling. It is as if the pastoral letter and this pronouncement were authored by two different persons. First, presumably the Holy Synod decided to wait a bit further to take action against +Herman in deference to the consideration of the Kondratick appeal. The bishops were given some time to carefully consider the 60-page long appeal. So, why is that +Dimitri is prejudicing his own review of the appeal? Secondly, +Dimitri's statement betrays an overly charitable disposition; if the misuse/misappropriation of such large sums in such persistent fashion is characterized as ignorance (innocence) and neglect, I wonder if he has he fortitude to take any meaningful action, to make those hard choices.
Carl
#2
Carl
on
2007-10-22 16:18
Every time I turn my computer on and stare at the above Icon of Christ on this cover, and I see the words Orthodox Christians for Accountability I see Jesus's face looking back at me with a blank stare.
I just can't imagine his pain and suffering as he watches over all of his faithful flock waiting, hoping, loving and yearning for some type of peaceful, calming words and sentences to show some type of new beginning out of this devastating time in our church. I have to remind myself.... this suffering is all man, his own sins, his ability to render to the ego, the power loving pride and corruption of earthly treasures.
God I ask you to save your people and bless our inheritance for our Mother Church is suffering. I believe another has fallen victim to the control and chain of command.
While I'm on my knees tonight I will again, Thank you for all of your loving kindness, and the very will to expose this sought out devil so that we can rebuke him, and begin anew. I ask this of you, My Savior. Amen
I just can't imagine his pain and suffering as he watches over all of his faithful flock waiting, hoping, loving and yearning for some type of peaceful, calming words and sentences to show some type of new beginning out of this devastating time in our church. I have to remind myself.... this suffering is all man, his own sins, his ability to render to the ego, the power loving pride and corruption of earthly treasures.
God I ask you to save your people and bless our inheritance for our Mother Church is suffering. I believe another has fallen victim to the control and chain of command.
While I'm on my knees tonight I will again, Thank you for all of your loving kindness, and the very will to expose this sought out devil so that we can rebuke him, and begin anew. I ask this of you, My Savior. Amen
#3
Anonymous
on
2007-10-22 16:29
Although I haven't used the 'drive by' phrase myself, I understand the sad cultural reference and the frustration which informs it.
But let me say and vigorously affirm to you that the 'preliminary report' -- which was 'inadvertently' posted on oca.org and then rapidly removed -- was nothing more than a catena of lies strung together by Proskauer, Rose & Co. at the express direction of Met. Herman, who is their client. PR has never had the OCA as its client through all this: MH hired them and they answer to him alone. He ought to pay them, and not expect the OCA to foot the bill for the damnable 'firewall' they've attempted to build around their client.
In any event, it was PR's report, based on an incomplete and biased 'investigation' (they interviewed only eight people, and deliberately frustrated Fr Robert Kondratick's attempts to offer testimony) which informed the Met. Council's reports, 'preliminary' and otherwise, and that editing of false information was as much investigation as the MetC did, namely none at all. And that was all the information which the Spiritual Court had at their disposal when they condemned FrRK. Some justice, huh?
All of these concerns, among others, were brought up in FrRK's appeal to the Holy Synod of Bishops last Tuesday 16 October 2007, and that appeal has apparently given the bishops pause.
The Holy Synod (at least the Secretary, Abp Seraphim, most likely at MH's direction) had already prepared a press release which they fully intended to release that very day, stating that they had heard FrRK's appeal and that they rejected its validity and would merely reaffirm FrRK's deposition from the priesthood.
But the bishops got surprised by the thorough completeness and irrefutable truth of the appeal (supported by numerous exhibits and appendixes, which clarified beyond all doubt that FrRK is completely innocent of all the fourteen formal accusations brought against him by the Spiritual Court.
Fr Paul Kucynda's dismissal from his post as Acting Treasurer should be the equivalent of pulling the eagle rug right out from under Met. Herman -- if Kucynda is really gone from the chancery and is no longer MH's attack dog. But it's also possible that FrPK will continue in that role since he can't be dismissed from it except by MH himself, who will do everything he can think of to stay in (his perception of) power, but he can persist in that delusion only as long as the bishops enable him.
Let's hope and pray that our Holy Synod is moved to more actively correct our distorted ecclesiology and require MH's retirement or deposition PDQ.
Monk James
But let me say and vigorously affirm to you that the 'preliminary report' -- which was 'inadvertently' posted on oca.org and then rapidly removed -- was nothing more than a catena of lies strung together by Proskauer, Rose & Co. at the express direction of Met. Herman, who is their client. PR has never had the OCA as its client through all this: MH hired them and they answer to him alone. He ought to pay them, and not expect the OCA to foot the bill for the damnable 'firewall' they've attempted to build around their client.
In any event, it was PR's report, based on an incomplete and biased 'investigation' (they interviewed only eight people, and deliberately frustrated Fr Robert Kondratick's attempts to offer testimony) which informed the Met. Council's reports, 'preliminary' and otherwise, and that editing of false information was as much investigation as the MetC did, namely none at all. And that was all the information which the Spiritual Court had at their disposal when they condemned FrRK. Some justice, huh?
All of these concerns, among others, were brought up in FrRK's appeal to the Holy Synod of Bishops last Tuesday 16 October 2007, and that appeal has apparently given the bishops pause.
The Holy Synod (at least the Secretary, Abp Seraphim, most likely at MH's direction) had already prepared a press release which they fully intended to release that very day, stating that they had heard FrRK's appeal and that they rejected its validity and would merely reaffirm FrRK's deposition from the priesthood.
But the bishops got surprised by the thorough completeness and irrefutable truth of the appeal (supported by numerous exhibits and appendixes, which clarified beyond all doubt that FrRK is completely innocent of all the fourteen formal accusations brought against him by the Spiritual Court.
Fr Paul Kucynda's dismissal from his post as Acting Treasurer should be the equivalent of pulling the eagle rug right out from under Met. Herman -- if Kucynda is really gone from the chancery and is no longer MH's attack dog. But it's also possible that FrPK will continue in that role since he can't be dismissed from it except by MH himself, who will do everything he can think of to stay in (his perception of) power, but he can persist in that delusion only as long as the bishops enable him.
Let's hope and pray that our Holy Synod is moved to more actively correct our distorted ecclesiology and require MH's retirement or deposition PDQ.
Monk James
#4
Monk James
on
2007-10-22 17:15
Has Archbishop Dimitri taken leave of his senses? Or does he think the laity has?
#5
K. Carlsen
on
2007-10-22 17:28
No malice??? Innocent misunderstandings??? As one person said on the Orthodox Forum, it is "mindboggling". As a Church, we are in more trouble that one could ever have anticipated. Is this any way to restore trust and integrity to the OCA? Is the dream dead?
Rich
Rich
#6
Rich Kendall
on
2007-10-22 17:32
Unbelievable!
Is spending the Stocking Fund for trips to Russia "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
Is using OCA credit cards for various trips to Vegas and Aruba "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
Is living in an OCA owned house and charging the OCA for upgrades while also drawing a housing allowance "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
We could go on and on, but it should be obvious the aged bishop has a very strange understanding of innocence and neglect!
Is spending the Stocking Fund for trips to Russia "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
Is using OCA credit cards for various trips to Vegas and Aruba "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
Is living in an OCA owned house and charging the OCA for upgrades while also drawing a housing allowance "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
We could go on and on, but it should be obvious the aged bishop has a very strange understanding of innocence and neglect!
#7
Name withheld
on
2007-10-22 18:11
that Kucynda was released is stated as an afterthought.......repeating general knowledge........so who will be placed in OCA's most dishonorable office (Treasurer)?.......the totally-festerized missive of +Dmitri gives no clue.......meanwhile we are to toy around with Fr. Bob, if only to buy another seven weeks for the popette....while the completely sanitized SIC dawdles....
#8
Guileless
on
2007-10-22 18:15
My first comment is a question: why would the OCA dismiss its acting treasurer "several weeks" before appointing a new treasurer? Does that make any sense at all?
Secondly, it is a real relief to know that all that has gone wrong can be attributed to innocence and neglect.
Here's where I am right now: We know for absolute certain, that some really tawdry things have been going on, maybe for two decades, involving misused money in large amounts, and involving various behaviours that are frowned upon in church tradtion. Maybe we don't know every detail, maybe we are mistaken about who did what, or who did not, in this case or that, but the big picture is that these unfortunate events persisted in an ongoing pattern over months, years, perhaps decades. This is not characteristic of mistakes made in innocence.
Whatever went on, and whoever did it, is not good; but, far worse is the way the metropolitan, the bishops, and the council have handled the task of dealing with it. As a result of this compounding of every ill by stonewalling, denial, cover-up, deceitfulness, and belligerent forays against those who brought the messages and asked the question, the OCA at this particular moment seems to me to be pretty much over. Sorry, can't help it, that's what it looks like from here. Cate
Secondly, it is a real relief to know that all that has gone wrong can be attributed to innocence and neglect.
Here's where I am right now: We know for absolute certain, that some really tawdry things have been going on, maybe for two decades, involving misused money in large amounts, and involving various behaviours that are frowned upon in church tradtion. Maybe we don't know every detail, maybe we are mistaken about who did what, or who did not, in this case or that, but the big picture is that these unfortunate events persisted in an ongoing pattern over months, years, perhaps decades. This is not characteristic of mistakes made in innocence.
Whatever went on, and whoever did it, is not good; but, far worse is the way the metropolitan, the bishops, and the council have handled the task of dealing with it. As a result of this compounding of every ill by stonewalling, denial, cover-up, deceitfulness, and belligerent forays against those who brought the messages and asked the question, the OCA at this particular moment seems to me to be pretty much over. Sorry, can't help it, that's what it looks like from here. Cate
#9
Cate
on
2007-10-22 19:03
You persist in rewriting history. Kucynda was never the attack dog you portray. Nice try. FRK always held the leash. You know it. Everyone knows it. Painting FRK the innocent victim is obscene and an insult to our intelligence.
#10
Anon.
on
2007-10-22 19:28
Monk James,
If all that you write is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, why not encourage FrRK to release the contents of his appeal?
In all honesty, I'm not sure that I believe that the former Chancellor is 100% innocent, but I am certain that he is not 100% guilty. I believe that he is somewhat of an ecclesiastical Oliver North. He did what he was told to do, and took the initiative to cover up the actions of +MT when he found himself a victim of his passions as well as +MH and others.
Let the former Chancellor take the lead in being an example to the Holy Synod concerning transparency.
If all that you write is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, why not encourage FrRK to release the contents of his appeal?
In all honesty, I'm not sure that I believe that the former Chancellor is 100% innocent, but I am certain that he is not 100% guilty. I believe that he is somewhat of an ecclesiastical Oliver North. He did what he was told to do, and took the initiative to cover up the actions of +MT when he found himself a victim of his passions as well as +MH and others.
Let the former Chancellor take the lead in being an example to the Holy Synod concerning transparency.
#11
Guy Kogut
on
2007-10-22 22:49
It is hard to imagine that a 11 page statement and 62 page report can scratch the surface to account for $3.25Million in missing funds -- much less confirm "beyond all doubt that FrRK is completely innocent ." I suppose it is conceivably possible, but it seems highly unlikely.
If that money was used for legitimate purposes, I would expect the report to be at least 10 times longer. I prefer to withhold judgment until I see a copy of the report for myself. When will you post a copy to let everyone judge for himself (rather than just take your word for it, which nobody here is inclined to do)?
If that money was used for legitimate purposes, I would expect the report to be at least 10 times longer. I prefer to withhold judgment until I see a copy of the report for myself. When will you post a copy to let everyone judge for himself (rather than just take your word for it, which nobody here is inclined to do)?
#12
Anonymous
on
2007-10-23 02:38
There is one silver lining in all this cloud that I can see. We are beginning to see how much effect the central administration has on parish life. The answer is, not much at all, if any.
With all the budget cuts, personel cuts, not enough cash to do this and that, you would think that the OCA parishes would suffer. They are not. At our church, life goes on just the same as it did when the central administration had money to burn, and was burning it.
This should tell us all that a return to status quo should never happen again. Obviously, we don't need what the central administration was doing in any way shape or form, so why EVER fund it again in the future?
The issue of a central administration "head tax" should never again come up. It is now proven that what they do is not needed anyway.
With all the budget cuts, personel cuts, not enough cash to do this and that, you would think that the OCA parishes would suffer. They are not. At our church, life goes on just the same as it did when the central administration had money to burn, and was burning it.
This should tell us all that a return to status quo should never happen again. Obviously, we don't need what the central administration was doing in any way shape or form, so why EVER fund it again in the future?
The issue of a central administration "head tax" should never again come up. It is now proven that what they do is not needed anyway.
#13
George Kruse
on
2007-10-23 03:53
Dear Monk James:
Can you please state how many people handled the money for the OCA during the 1998-2006 time period. Who had bank signature authority to make withdrawls and/or sign checks? I would guess only three or four people at the most. Am I right?
The Holy Synod admitted in March 2007 that they ignored allegations of financial misdeeds for over a year. Then they finally admitted that money was mishandled and that it was a large amount of money and it had been going on for years.
Each and every person who made deposits and withdrawls had/has responsibility, a duty to keep their eyes open and make sure that not only they, but everyone involved managed the money properly, honestly, and as the money was intended by the donors.
I submit to you that I could identify and document the guilty persons in less than a week, if given the authority to investigate. I would not need to document every single transaction. The fact that money was mishandled has already been established.
Who handled the money that was mis-appropriated? It's a simple question. Name them, please. Or at least tell us how many people controlled the bank accounts.
Can you please state how many people handled the money for the OCA during the 1998-2006 time period. Who had bank signature authority to make withdrawls and/or sign checks? I would guess only three or four people at the most. Am I right?
The Holy Synod admitted in March 2007 that they ignored allegations of financial misdeeds for over a year. Then they finally admitted that money was mishandled and that it was a large amount of money and it had been going on for years.
Each and every person who made deposits and withdrawls had/has responsibility, a duty to keep their eyes open and make sure that not only they, but everyone involved managed the money properly, honestly, and as the money was intended by the donors.
I submit to you that I could identify and document the guilty persons in less than a week, if given the authority to investigate. I would not need to document every single transaction. The fact that money was mishandled has already been established.
Who handled the money that was mis-appropriated? It's a simple question. Name them, please. Or at least tell us how many people controlled the bank accounts.
#14
Lev
on
2007-10-23 05:48
Theft, fraud, misuse of donated funds. Where is the innocence in that. The administration, the Metropolitan, and the Metropolitan Council are responsible for stating the truth and accepting responsibility. All of this could have been done without "legal advice." All are responsible. All should go. If the staff does not have a professional accountant -- third party hired, its time to get one. Audits and accountability. The church is not a theatrical performance with the "actors", but the Church of Christ. Its time to come forth with the truth.
#15
cshinn
on
2007-10-23 06:52
A better petition than the one calling for the resignation of Metropolitan Herman would be thus:
We the undersigned will not be counted as members of the Orthodox Church in America when the next census is taken. This is our pledge until the investigation is complete and Metropolitan Herman resigns and a conciliatory nature is restored to the OCA.
This resolution can be done while still supporting the Local parish all you have to do is designate the gift. It does not require conversation with your priest it is a matter of conscience. While this method of lay involvement is sad in that it effects the diocese the lack of accountability of the little pope to his fellow Bishops necessitates that the Synod of Bishops finally share in the financial pain that their indifference has helped to cause.
Metropolitan Herman can ignore the current resolution calling for him to resign. He can consign us to the devil, condemn us to hell and eternal judgment. Thank God that God and not the Metropolitan despite his recent pronouncement will sort out the saved from the damned. Metropolitan Herman can make his pontifications against the faithful of entire dioceses but he cannot spend what he does not have, neither can he steel that which belongs to widows and children if the local parish is sending it to them directly.
We cannot stop our attendance in the Holy Orthodox Church and we cannot stop in giving those gifts that we have received from God back to Him. A designated gift is a legal and binding contract between the giver and the institution that has received it. What we can and now must do is designate every gift to insure that it is used as Christ would use it!!! People of St. Mark's please write this petition. If as many sign it has has signed the previous petition it will really mean something.
Anon
We the undersigned will not be counted as members of the Orthodox Church in America when the next census is taken. This is our pledge until the investigation is complete and Metropolitan Herman resigns and a conciliatory nature is restored to the OCA.
This resolution can be done while still supporting the Local parish all you have to do is designate the gift. It does not require conversation with your priest it is a matter of conscience. While this method of lay involvement is sad in that it effects the diocese the lack of accountability of the little pope to his fellow Bishops necessitates that the Synod of Bishops finally share in the financial pain that their indifference has helped to cause.
Metropolitan Herman can ignore the current resolution calling for him to resign. He can consign us to the devil, condemn us to hell and eternal judgment. Thank God that God and not the Metropolitan despite his recent pronouncement will sort out the saved from the damned. Metropolitan Herman can make his pontifications against the faithful of entire dioceses but he cannot spend what he does not have, neither can he steel that which belongs to widows and children if the local parish is sending it to them directly.
We cannot stop our attendance in the Holy Orthodox Church and we cannot stop in giving those gifts that we have received from God back to Him. A designated gift is a legal and binding contract between the giver and the institution that has received it. What we can and now must do is designate every gift to insure that it is used as Christ would use it!!! People of St. Mark's please write this petition. If as many sign it has has signed the previous petition it will really mean something.
Anon
#16
anon in the Midwest
on
2007-10-23 08:00
Someone sent me this quote this morning by
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the noted Lutheran theologian executed by the Nazis:
"There is a way of speaking which is . . . entirely correct and
unexceptionable, but which is, nevertheless, a lie . . . . When an
apparently correct statement contains some deliberate ambiguity, or
deliberately omits the essential part of the truth . . . it does not express
the real as it exists in God."
We have been listening to these kind of lies for months and months, if not years from the OCA!
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the noted Lutheran theologian executed by the Nazis:
"There is a way of speaking which is . . . entirely correct and
unexceptionable, but which is, nevertheless, a lie . . . . When an
apparently correct statement contains some deliberate ambiguity, or
deliberately omits the essential part of the truth . . . it does not express
the real as it exists in God."
We have been listening to these kind of lies for months and months, if not years from the OCA!
Did I miss something here? Did Oliver North provide his family with funds like MR. Kondratick did?
#18
Oh Brother
on
2007-10-23 08:46
It is the right of every American to report suspected tax fraud to the IRS (for example, suspected conversion of charitable contributions to personal use and benefit). The process is very simple. Go to the IRS website: www.irs.gov. Search for Form 3949-A ("Information Referral"). The form can be filled in while on-line, printed out, and then mailed to the IRS address given in the form. The instructions for the form are very clear. The subject of the "information referral" may be either an individual or a business/organization. The form explicitly allows (nay, encourages) the attachment of any supporting documentation to the submittal. Such action requires only a postage stamp.
#19
Michael Gregory
on
2007-10-23 09:06
Dear Cate,
The lack of innocence lies precisely in the fact of lying and cover-up which apparently still seeks to rear its ugly head as we see in this latest plea of innocence.
We need to find out what has fed and is feeding the cover-up? Whose reputation/s will be tarnished if the OCA falls? Is it the reputations of the architects?, the reputations of the leaders, the bishops, or the reputation of the governing body (MC)? Probably all of the above and to a much lesser extent the reputations of some of the faithful laity who knew but went along for the sake of their dear OCA. The lying and cover-up based in a false pride have facilitated the theft and immorality; it is not, in my opinion, that the theft and immorality have necessitated the lying and cover-up.
It is a root of pride that needs to be exposed!
Humility alone will save the OCA in my opinion.
The lack of innocence lies precisely in the fact of lying and cover-up which apparently still seeks to rear its ugly head as we see in this latest plea of innocence.
We need to find out what has fed and is feeding the cover-up? Whose reputation/s will be tarnished if the OCA falls? Is it the reputations of the architects?, the reputations of the leaders, the bishops, or the reputation of the governing body (MC)? Probably all of the above and to a much lesser extent the reputations of some of the faithful laity who knew but went along for the sake of their dear OCA. The lying and cover-up based in a false pride have facilitated the theft and immorality; it is not, in my opinion, that the theft and immorality have necessitated the lying and cover-up.
It is a root of pride that needs to be exposed!
Humility alone will save the OCA in my opinion.
#20
Anonymous
on
2007-10-23 09:15
How in God's name can Vladyka +Dimitri possibly claim Robert Kondratick as innocent?
The facts speak for themselves. This man used Church funds like they were his own.
What additional evidence does the Archbishop need? Did he not hear the verbal report of PR months ago? Was he not present when Robert Kondratick could not provide the name of one individual or parish who benefitted from his generosity? What is it that makes the Archbishop so sure that Kondratick is innocent?
This is a complete joke.
I'm sure the FBI isn't laughing and I'm sure the IRS won't be laughing either.
No, Vladyka Dimitri. Robert Kondratick is far from innocent.
He can claim whatever he wants with regarding to dispersing money.
THE FACT REMAINS, HE WASN'T AUTHORIZED TO DO IT AND IT WASN'T HIS TO DISPERSE.
Amazing, simply amazing.
The facts speak for themselves. This man used Church funds like they were his own.
What additional evidence does the Archbishop need? Did he not hear the verbal report of PR months ago? Was he not present when Robert Kondratick could not provide the name of one individual or parish who benefitted from his generosity? What is it that makes the Archbishop so sure that Kondratick is innocent?
This is a complete joke.
I'm sure the FBI isn't laughing and I'm sure the IRS won't be laughing either.
No, Vladyka Dimitri. Robert Kondratick is far from innocent.
He can claim whatever he wants with regarding to dispersing money.
THE FACT REMAINS, HE WASN'T AUTHORIZED TO DO IT AND IT WASN'T HIS TO DISPERSE.
Amazing, simply amazing.
#21
Michael Geeza
on
2007-10-23 10:07
For the good “Archbishop” of Dallas, Bob Royster, the tough choice he had to make last week was probably only whether to have the Dover Sole or the Filet Mignon for dinner, a Sauvignon Blanc or a Merlot, and maybe whether to have a nice Port to end the evening. Then off to meetings where the outcome was a forgone conclusion and they merely had to go through the motions. That is the only thing that comes to mind because the Synod displayed all the impotence of an organization that has lost its direction and has no idea why it exists in the first place. All the while you were heeding his call for prayer and fasting they were playing games and figuring out stories to pass off to mollify us! For everything was long decided by him long before he made the flight to New York. But for us, we got something memorable out of this. The good ole “archbishop” has given us another phrase to add to our list of memorable terminology in this scandal, “innocence and neglect”, much of it courtesy of himself. We put that next to his “unthinkable” in the hall of shame of trying to pass off the bad as good and why the good are bad and must be silenced. My, my, how long did it take him to come up with that one or was that just out of the Kondratick spin machine?
People, don’t buy this garbage. This is akin to him trying to sell you a used car as almost new when it’s up on blocks and one end of the engine is resting on the ground.. They want us to believe that the product never had a problem, and that the main problem here, first spoken of by Swaiko, and now inferred by Royster, is misunderstanding , but we know better. We know that what Royster is trying to peddle is as damaged and broken as it comes. This dog don’t hunt. But just think for a moment because while they appear to be on different sides of this conflict, it’s remarkable that the Swaiko and the Kondratick spin machines basically came out with the same explanation this time around: misunderstanding. Swaiko’s actions have been misunderstood and we have just misunderstood the misappropriation of funds as “innocence and neglect”. We misunderstood because we don’t live in the same reality as them. Kondratick is no longer denying it happened, but merely that it’s been misunderstood. That’s really a giant leap. They no longer say it hasn’t happened, the spin is now why it happened. This is so that their previous decision to defrock is not completely turned on end, but just qualified now as they try so desperately to overturn it. So, while it happened, well, there was no malice, we just couldn’t handle our jobs and that’s why the Synod kept reappointing us to it! But, even with all the neglect, you know, we just don’t know where all that damn money went! Bunk. BS.
Now, it’s no wonder why that drive by posting was made – someone actually did a good thing in Syosset. There was no innocence. There was no neglect. It was a systematic process through 18 years to deceive and defraud the members of the OCA of their church and to pay off the controlling authorities in the Church so that when this hit the fan that all would be taken care of and seen as merely a palpitation in the life of the OCA. What’s “unthinkable” about this is that it took them so long to come up with a story that culminated in the phrase “innocence and neglect”. I guess to admit the neglect took an extraordinary amount of soul searching and self denial. It has been 19 months since the great day of Kondratick’s removal from office. He offered no defense of “innocence and neglect” then. He clammed up and has remained as such since. If it was only innocence and neglect we should expect to hear from him very shortly to ask forgiveness for him being in a job he just wasn’t qualified or suited to handle. Don’t hold your breathe!
We keep coming back time and again to the silence of Kondratick and, viewing this “innocence and neglect” in that context, this rings as hollow as the preaching done by any members of our Synod in front of the Holy Altar. If he knew all this 19 months ago, why didn’t he present this as his defense against firing? If he knew all this 19 months ago, why didn’t he present this as his defense against suspension? If he knew all this 19 months ago, why didn’t he present this as his defense in his initial trial? He didn’t do that because this “innocence and neglect” is a new idea, one borne of going down an unexpected road of having to appeal a defrockment they felt would never come about. Why wasn’t he shouting “innocence and neglect” from the hilltops in March 2006? Why wasn’t he on all the forums telling us “innocence and neglect” since March 2006? Why didn’t all his shills come out and tell us, from the start, all it was was “innocence and neglect”? The reason is that this is a new concept from the never resting Kondratick spin machine. It brings back memories of the Clinton war room and the trash they wanted us to believe for the multitude of scandals they had to manage.
When you can’t, or have no desire to tell the truth, you have to keep coming up with cover stories to explain away reality – this is what lawyers do. You try your best to confuse people not with the facts, but with an endless string of stories, half or no truths, always keeping them off balance and making yourself looking in someway just a victim of the circumstances. Keep trying until there’s something that sticks to the wall and leaves the audience with “reasonable doubt”. After about the third time around the people realize its all bogus and BS because they keep coming up with new ways to explain away something which means nothing prior was the truth and you can count on nothing in the future being the truth either! In this case, Swaiko and Kondratick are victims, but no one did anything to make them so based on the stories! Like with kids, the glass is broken, but Mr. Nobody did it cause no one who owns up to why there’s a ball that went through it!
There was no innocence and there definitely was no neglect. It took time and care to do what they did but they don’t want you to think that way. After over ten years and just around the time that the former Metropolitan resigns, they neglected to sign a promissory note to the tune of about $250,000. They neglected to bring $9500 chunks of money to Russia multiple times. They neglected to use church funds for personal trips to the islands. They neglected and neglected and neglected. And all the while were just innocent about all this neglect! But it was a pattern of neglect and there in lies the fallacy of the argument. You neglect once, maybe twice, but a systematic pattern of neglect is no longer neglect, it’s a way of life, it’s standard operating procedure. It’s laughable if it wasn’t so sad that this is what they are trying to get away with! Someone call Webster and tell them that we’ve redefined “neglect”. Just like Clinton questioned the meaning of “is”, we have to question what “neglect” means now!
“Innocence and neglect” is a new concept that was blown to pieces with the drive by posting of the summary report. They had no idea that was going to happen. Team Kondratick will live with innuendos about what transpired on his watch, but when you attach real numbers to the innuendo then there’s hell to pay. That’s because the innuendo can’t be quantified and therefore always has a muffled impact. It makes it more real when you can say, that, yes, “innocence and neglect” has resulted in an ACKNOWLEGED $137,000 of funds misappropriated to personal credit card charges. Even though, according to the summary, he acknowledged that, meaning both sides accepted that fact, they didn’t want to tell us! Numbers don’t lie, innuendo leaves you with that “reasonable doubt”. Maybe it was just a few bucks, and what’s that between friends, right? But not now because it can be quantified as a number and being used on such luxuries as, yes, TANNING SALONS!
How do we reconcile “innocence and neglect” with $1,200,000 dollars in personal expenses like TANNING SALONS!? TANNING SALONS! This is one of the most explosive two words in that entire summary. The faithful of this Church heed a calling, in great numbers, to aide 9/11 victims, Beslan children, Bibles for Russia, and money gets diverted to TANNING SALONS! No wonder they went ballistic when this came out! We can’t fund the Chaplains in the field in Iraq and people are diverting money that could be used for clergy REALLY under fire, for TANNING SALONS! And the ole “archbishop” wants us to think it was all “innocence and neglect”? Lord have mercy! Is it no surprise that the faithful of this Church have no faith, no confidence, and do not believe the words of its bishops? Sadly to say, they present more and more reasons why they are unfit for the office they hold. Is it NO wonder that the faithful of this Church have said no more and will stand firm in that until this is rectified in a way in accordance with the Gospel inspired by the Holy Spirit, not garbage inspired by people who have only neglected their responsibilities to God.
Not only do we have seriously negligent stewardship of our money, we have people who used that money on PERSONAL VANITY! TANNING SALONS! And Royster wants us to think that using Church money on TANNING SALONS was “innocence and neglect”. Bunk. BS. Call it what you will, but don’t call it a serious defense, or something worthy to come from people who hold the body of Christ in their hands at every liturgy. It’s an affront to the intelligence of the people of the OCA and we’re sick of it! We’re insulted that they would even TRY to justify their misdeeds and try to undo a defrockment using this defense rather than owning up to their own malfeasance. To be honest, its UNTHINKABLE what Royster has put forth! It’s an affront to the Grace of God that was bestowed upon them at their ordinations, THREE times in the case of Royster!
Take heed, Mr. Royster, if that defrockment is overturned, you will have had a great hand in the final implosion of this Church because it will be nothing but a destroying event in an organization that is already teetering on the brink. That will be your legacy after all these years. But, as long as you and your crew get their way, the means justify the end and the end for you is justified… at least until the final judgment. Maybe that complete destruction of this Church is something else that will “please” Mr. Royster!
For those of you who are scandalized by my use of proper names, such as Joe Swaiko and Bob Royster, this is something that will continue until a time in which they live up to their duties, responsibilities, and vows as Orthodox bishops and show us that they act in accordance with the Gospels and the laws laid down by God and are inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Grace bestowed upon them at their ordinations and not examples of the worst of human behavior. Until that time, and while they continue to refuse to do anything but act in ways that are destroying the administrative and spiritual sides of the Church and hiding behind lawyers, they do not deserve to be addressed by the sacramental dignities of the office they, in name only, hold. It does no good and is of no use to facilitate the facades they have constructed and use against the faithful of this Church.
I apologize for the length of this, but again, these guys leave us so much to discuss! So much deceit to make our blood boil for days on end and so little space to talk about it all!
People, don’t buy this garbage. This is akin to him trying to sell you a used car as almost new when it’s up on blocks and one end of the engine is resting on the ground.. They want us to believe that the product never had a problem, and that the main problem here, first spoken of by Swaiko, and now inferred by Royster, is misunderstanding , but we know better. We know that what Royster is trying to peddle is as damaged and broken as it comes. This dog don’t hunt. But just think for a moment because while they appear to be on different sides of this conflict, it’s remarkable that the Swaiko and the Kondratick spin machines basically came out with the same explanation this time around: misunderstanding. Swaiko’s actions have been misunderstood and we have just misunderstood the misappropriation of funds as “innocence and neglect”. We misunderstood because we don’t live in the same reality as them. Kondratick is no longer denying it happened, but merely that it’s been misunderstood. That’s really a giant leap. They no longer say it hasn’t happened, the spin is now why it happened. This is so that their previous decision to defrock is not completely turned on end, but just qualified now as they try so desperately to overturn it. So, while it happened, well, there was no malice, we just couldn’t handle our jobs and that’s why the Synod kept reappointing us to it! But, even with all the neglect, you know, we just don’t know where all that damn money went! Bunk. BS.
Now, it’s no wonder why that drive by posting was made – someone actually did a good thing in Syosset. There was no innocence. There was no neglect. It was a systematic process through 18 years to deceive and defraud the members of the OCA of their church and to pay off the controlling authorities in the Church so that when this hit the fan that all would be taken care of and seen as merely a palpitation in the life of the OCA. What’s “unthinkable” about this is that it took them so long to come up with a story that culminated in the phrase “innocence and neglect”. I guess to admit the neglect took an extraordinary amount of soul searching and self denial. It has been 19 months since the great day of Kondratick’s removal from office. He offered no defense of “innocence and neglect” then. He clammed up and has remained as such since. If it was only innocence and neglect we should expect to hear from him very shortly to ask forgiveness for him being in a job he just wasn’t qualified or suited to handle. Don’t hold your breathe!
We keep coming back time and again to the silence of Kondratick and, viewing this “innocence and neglect” in that context, this rings as hollow as the preaching done by any members of our Synod in front of the Holy Altar. If he knew all this 19 months ago, why didn’t he present this as his defense against firing? If he knew all this 19 months ago, why didn’t he present this as his defense against suspension? If he knew all this 19 months ago, why didn’t he present this as his defense in his initial trial? He didn’t do that because this “innocence and neglect” is a new idea, one borne of going down an unexpected road of having to appeal a defrockment they felt would never come about. Why wasn’t he shouting “innocence and neglect” from the hilltops in March 2006? Why wasn’t he on all the forums telling us “innocence and neglect” since March 2006? Why didn’t all his shills come out and tell us, from the start, all it was was “innocence and neglect”? The reason is that this is a new concept from the never resting Kondratick spin machine. It brings back memories of the Clinton war room and the trash they wanted us to believe for the multitude of scandals they had to manage.
When you can’t, or have no desire to tell the truth, you have to keep coming up with cover stories to explain away reality – this is what lawyers do. You try your best to confuse people not with the facts, but with an endless string of stories, half or no truths, always keeping them off balance and making yourself looking in someway just a victim of the circumstances. Keep trying until there’s something that sticks to the wall and leaves the audience with “reasonable doubt”. After about the third time around the people realize its all bogus and BS because they keep coming up with new ways to explain away something which means nothing prior was the truth and you can count on nothing in the future being the truth either! In this case, Swaiko and Kondratick are victims, but no one did anything to make them so based on the stories! Like with kids, the glass is broken, but Mr. Nobody did it cause no one who owns up to why there’s a ball that went through it!
There was no innocence and there definitely was no neglect. It took time and care to do what they did but they don’t want you to think that way. After over ten years and just around the time that the former Metropolitan resigns, they neglected to sign a promissory note to the tune of about $250,000. They neglected to bring $9500 chunks of money to Russia multiple times. They neglected to use church funds for personal trips to the islands. They neglected and neglected and neglected. And all the while were just innocent about all this neglect! But it was a pattern of neglect and there in lies the fallacy of the argument. You neglect once, maybe twice, but a systematic pattern of neglect is no longer neglect, it’s a way of life, it’s standard operating procedure. It’s laughable if it wasn’t so sad that this is what they are trying to get away with! Someone call Webster and tell them that we’ve redefined “neglect”. Just like Clinton questioned the meaning of “is”, we have to question what “neglect” means now!
“Innocence and neglect” is a new concept that was blown to pieces with the drive by posting of the summary report. They had no idea that was going to happen. Team Kondratick will live with innuendos about what transpired on his watch, but when you attach real numbers to the innuendo then there’s hell to pay. That’s because the innuendo can’t be quantified and therefore always has a muffled impact. It makes it more real when you can say, that, yes, “innocence and neglect” has resulted in an ACKNOWLEGED $137,000 of funds misappropriated to personal credit card charges. Even though, according to the summary, he acknowledged that, meaning both sides accepted that fact, they didn’t want to tell us! Numbers don’t lie, innuendo leaves you with that “reasonable doubt”. Maybe it was just a few bucks, and what’s that between friends, right? But not now because it can be quantified as a number and being used on such luxuries as, yes, TANNING SALONS!
How do we reconcile “innocence and neglect” with $1,200,000 dollars in personal expenses like TANNING SALONS!? TANNING SALONS! This is one of the most explosive two words in that entire summary. The faithful of this Church heed a calling, in great numbers, to aide 9/11 victims, Beslan children, Bibles for Russia, and money gets diverted to TANNING SALONS! No wonder they went ballistic when this came out! We can’t fund the Chaplains in the field in Iraq and people are diverting money that could be used for clergy REALLY under fire, for TANNING SALONS! And the ole “archbishop” wants us to think it was all “innocence and neglect”? Lord have mercy! Is it no surprise that the faithful of this Church have no faith, no confidence, and do not believe the words of its bishops? Sadly to say, they present more and more reasons why they are unfit for the office they hold. Is it NO wonder that the faithful of this Church have said no more and will stand firm in that until this is rectified in a way in accordance with the Gospel inspired by the Holy Spirit, not garbage inspired by people who have only neglected their responsibilities to God.
Not only do we have seriously negligent stewardship of our money, we have people who used that money on PERSONAL VANITY! TANNING SALONS! And Royster wants us to think that using Church money on TANNING SALONS was “innocence and neglect”. Bunk. BS. Call it what you will, but don’t call it a serious defense, or something worthy to come from people who hold the body of Christ in their hands at every liturgy. It’s an affront to the intelligence of the people of the OCA and we’re sick of it! We’re insulted that they would even TRY to justify their misdeeds and try to undo a defrockment using this defense rather than owning up to their own malfeasance. To be honest, its UNTHINKABLE what Royster has put forth! It’s an affront to the Grace of God that was bestowed upon them at their ordinations, THREE times in the case of Royster!
Take heed, Mr. Royster, if that defrockment is overturned, you will have had a great hand in the final implosion of this Church because it will be nothing but a destroying event in an organization that is already teetering on the brink. That will be your legacy after all these years. But, as long as you and your crew get their way, the means justify the end and the end for you is justified… at least until the final judgment. Maybe that complete destruction of this Church is something else that will “please” Mr. Royster!
For those of you who are scandalized by my use of proper names, such as Joe Swaiko and Bob Royster, this is something that will continue until a time in which they live up to their duties, responsibilities, and vows as Orthodox bishops and show us that they act in accordance with the Gospels and the laws laid down by God and are inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Grace bestowed upon them at their ordinations and not examples of the worst of human behavior. Until that time, and while they continue to refuse to do anything but act in ways that are destroying the administrative and spiritual sides of the Church and hiding behind lawyers, they do not deserve to be addressed by the sacramental dignities of the office they, in name only, hold. It does no good and is of no use to facilitate the facades they have constructed and use against the faithful of this Church.
I apologize for the length of this, but again, these guys leave us so much to discuss! So much deceit to make our blood boil for days on end and so little space to talk about it all!
#22
Stonewall
on
2007-10-23 10:13
Rich, the dream isn't dead. Syosset isn't the church, and the Synod isn't the church. (While each has some very special people who in fact think of themselves as such, just not out loud).
There is more health available in one hour in a parish than a month in the bishop's office and 10 years in Syosset.
What we have here is a good house with some old smarmy chicken in an open garage trash can stinking up the place. That's different than the whole thing being nasty top to bottom.
The idea of a papal central administration has proven itself to harm church growth. The idea of a synod incapable of policing its own ranks has proven harmful to church growth. The fact that priests and missionary laity have to make excuses for bishops and higher who are supposed to be more advanced spiritually than they are has proven harmful to church growth--- and there is a reason for all that: None of those things is Orthodox. It is, however, what we do.
So, fix that and we grow. Don't and we die. Waiting for self-protective, self-loving wrongdoers to get that done hasn't worked out so hot. Another committee to do something later, another decision postponed until later. The price? Families leaving parishes who won't be coming back.
The priests need to come together as brothers. Going it alone is a sure way to end up alone.
There is more health available in one hour in a parish than a month in the bishop's office and 10 years in Syosset.
What we have here is a good house with some old smarmy chicken in an open garage trash can stinking up the place. That's different than the whole thing being nasty top to bottom.
The idea of a papal central administration has proven itself to harm church growth. The idea of a synod incapable of policing its own ranks has proven harmful to church growth. The fact that priests and missionary laity have to make excuses for bishops and higher who are supposed to be more advanced spiritually than they are has proven harmful to church growth--- and there is a reason for all that: None of those things is Orthodox. It is, however, what we do.
So, fix that and we grow. Don't and we die. Waiting for self-protective, self-loving wrongdoers to get that done hasn't worked out so hot. Another committee to do something later, another decision postponed until later. The price? Families leaving parishes who won't be coming back.
The priests need to come together as brothers. Going it alone is a sure way to end up alone.
#23
Anonymous
on
2007-10-23 10:21
Dear Mr. Stokoe,
Your zeal for the truth of the matter will no doubt admit the following corrections to what you posted about Archbishop Dmitri from one who knows him, sees him frequently, and has discussed these matters a number of times with him.
First, the quote you attribute to His Eminence from Sunday at the Cathedral in Dallas is dangerously brief and is highly liable to being misunderstood or misconstrued with no context.
Ab Dmitri 'told the assembled worshipers in his cathedral that he "was pleased to report" that "the troubles" were the result of "innocence and neglect, rather than any kind of malice."'
Did you hear this yourself? Do you have a tape recording of his words? Did you verify the words with someone other than your source or make any effort to contact the Diocsesan office to make sure they actually represent the Archbishop's position before posting them? I don't expect you to divulge your source, of course, but is the source credible and accurate?
(Editor's note: Given the length of this posting, I will answer briefly, as the questions are asked.
I had multiple sources. Yes, they were checked.
No, I did not contact the Archbishop's office, because the Archbishop made them in a public setting. )
Again, the key point is that the quote is so short--scarcely even a complete sentence that the meaning you (or your source) attribute to it could easily be far from the Archbishop's position.
(Ed. note: Three days later, no one from the Archbishop's office has "officially" denied that is what the Archbishop said, or meant. )
Second, you write:
"The Archbishop has always been a defender of Kondratick - offering him a parish in Florida when he was under investigation, and then allowing him to continue in place as a 'parish outreach coordinator' after being deposed but while his appeal was pending."
I know the following to be facts which contradict your suppositions: First, when Fr. Rodion first called the Diocese after he was fired from the office of Chancellor exploring the possibility of coming to the South, he was turned down. Only several months later was he accepted into the Diocese. Second, the Archbishop did not offer him a parish when he was under investigation, at least not knowingly. His Eminence explicitly asked His Beatitude whether there were any charges against Fr. Rodion Kondratick. The Metropolitan told him that there were no charges. He was no longer Chancellor, but no charges or pending charges were hanging over his head that might affect his ability to serve. It was only under this representation of Fr. Rodion's standing that he was accepted into the Diocese of the South to serve. His Eminence is scarcely guilty of trying to protect a man of known and demonstrated guilt from justice.
(Editor's note: This is fascinating information, which explains much. Thank you for sharing it with us. It changes nothing, though, for it overlooks the one allegation I made - that the Archbishop is allowing an officially deposed priest to continue to work in his old parish. You must admit that is irregular, at best; and qualifies, I think for the term " defender" to be used regarding his attitude towards RSK, and indeed for all who continue to refer to him as "Father Rodion" instead of his legal name, Robert Kondratick.)
Moreover, His Eminence Dmitri has constantly opposed the encroachments of a papally conceived central Church throughout his tenure in the South, and has frequently come into conflict with Fr. Rodion. The Archbishop has been so far from "always being a defender of Fr. Kondratick" that your saying so without due qualification only serves to undermine your credibility. I for one grant you a considerable measure of credibility, but when I see you write things about someone I know well that are factually incorrect and considerably off the mark in judgment (and this is not the first time you have done so), it causes me to wonder about other things you write about others about whom I personally know considerably less. Should I trust a sloppy journalist? Should any of us?
(Editor's note: Sloppy? Or do you mean "one who disagrees? Everything I say is sourced by 2-3 witnesses, or a document, which I append in full, when such does not compromise a source. I do not think that is sloppy.)
His Eminence Dmitri is not senile. He is not burrying his head in the sand. He may not operate as quickly in the manner that you or other critics of his actions or words would like, but he is deeply concerned about these matters and wants justice done. He is grieved over the scandal and the effect it has on our proclamation of the Gospel in these United States of America, Canada, and Mexico. He will not stand in the way of justice being done. But he would be sure that it is, in fact, justice being done. He will not hand a man over to a crowd clamoring for the man's professional head when he has substantial cause to doubt the accuracy of the charges against that man (and when uncanonical machinations such as "rescinding a canonical transfer" are resorted to), even though that principled stand results in himself being maligned and criticized. He has information at his disposal to lead him to a reasonable doubt about the justice of Fr. Rodion Kondratick's treatment so far. And until he is persuaded otherwise by a preponderance of evidence obtained in an open and impartial investigation, he will continue to take his stand both against a Metropolitan who appears to play fast and loose with the canons (among other things) and against popular cries for the former chancellor's head from those with far less access to relevant information than he.
The reason the report was pulled--and I have this on good authority--was that the numbers in it were never verified.
(Editor's note: This is a fascinating claim. I do not doubt your source. It just makes no sense. Kondratick could not simultaneously claim he was never given the charges - which his defenders have claimed on numerous ocassions, and say they are inaccurate. So who else could make such a claim? Not the judges, prosectutor s or lawyers in his case - or why would they have convicted him, knowing the figures were faulty? Not Proskauer Rose or the Special Commission, all of whom affirm the validity of the figures they presented. So who is doing this? Another Bishop? How could they know, what Proskauer Rose has not shared with anybody?
No, the claim makes no sense. If you can explain otherwise, the entire OCA would love to know.)
Someone in Syosset was so sure that the judgment would be upheld that they had preprogrammed the release of that report Tuesday to put the final nail in Fr. Rodion's coffin. But surprise, surprise. The Synod on hearing Fr. Rodion's appeal and seeing the documents he provided had reason to doubt the veracity of what had been shown them before. The message was posted according to the prearranged plan at the appointed time, but the basis for posting it didn't exist--the Synod did not confirm the judgment as expected, and the publication of unverified data as fact was a grave mistake. They now know that the numbers in that summary report were never verified for accuracy, and may have reason to believe that they have been had by those who prepared the reports and presented the 'data'.
(editor's note: Serious, serious claims Father, against the Metropolitan, the Accuser, and the Metropolitan's legal team. I hope you can back them up. If Bishop Nikolai were to have his way, you would be accused of "smearing"....)
Does this mean Fr. Rodion is innocent of every charge? No. Does it mean he will be reinstated? Not necessarily. But it does mean that the factual basis on which he has been convicted may be reasonably doubted and a rush to confirm a judgment made on a shaky factual basis is not a wise course.
Archbishop Dmitri is not your obstacle either to justice or truth in this matter--unless the justice you seek is not justice or the 'truth' you seek is not truth.
(Editor's note: Did I ever say Archbishop Dmitri was an obstacle? Never. My only comments on the Archbishop was that he was elderly, which is true, and that he has been a constant defender of Kondratick - which is proven by the record. Period.)
Now for a personal postscript on the report temporarily posted on the OCA site which now resides here: the material there as presented looks damning. But then, so did Stalin's show trials. Again and again throughout this sordid affair, as I read and think about everything presented and said, the Proverb comes to mind: "One man's case seems just until another comes and examines him." Think about squabbling children: one comes to tattle on the other. The matter seems very clear until one hears the other side. One or two new facts can dramatically alter one's judgment of the case. As I read the charges against Fr. Rodion, they were damning on the surface. But for each one of them, I could think of other reasonable explanations of the supposed data. Without access to written records of depositions, examination, testimony, cross-examination, it is very difficult to assess the accuracy of those charges. To me as one with no immediate involvement in the case, no indebtedness from past favors, no grudges, no axes to grind, no scores to settle--the matter is not at all clear to me, and given the very suspicious nature of the investigation and the trial to date, I have reasonable doubts about the judgments made so far. My bishop has access to far more information than I, and he has doubts. Now it appears that the other bishops are balking a bit about the quick rush to judgment as they begin to see the other side.
(Editor's note: A $650,000 investigation by a legal firm and 2 accounting firms, a special commission and a trial over 18 months is hardly a quick rush to judgement. )
Meanwhile, God sees the truth and waits. As the Scripture says, "Beware, your sin will find you out" and "God is not mocked, what a man sows, that he will also reap."
If God sees the guilty and has not rushed to strike them down, perhaps I can wait patiently while I go about my primary business of living and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As long as there are even a sprinkling of faithful in the Church who will cultivate repentance, intercede before God, pray, fast, weep, and seek to do God's will in their own spheres, God will hear our cry and deliver us. If we had all spent as much time in repentance for our own sins and interceding for our bishops and our church as we do reading ever scrap about the scandal, talking about it, writing about it, and stewing over it, I dare say God would have delivered us from it by now despite the worst contrary intentions of any of those in authority. But too many of us (myself included when it comes to prayer) pay lipservice to prayer rather than praying, point fingers at others for stealing money when we ourselves rob God regularly by not bringing our full tithes and offerings into God's house, and lament and despair at the "giants in the land" that seem to hold our church captive rather than looking intently to our one Deliverer in faith and waiting on Him.
Our God can remove any unjust or sinful leader at His pleasure in an instant. But so far, He has allowed them to remain. Perhaps one considers the current administration to be like King Saul unjustly oppressing righteous David. But consider how David perservered and would not lift up his hand against the Lord's anointed even when it was in his power twice to strike down the unrighteous Saul but waited on the Lord's just judgment.
God's judgment will come, and in many ways, it is here. Will we perservere like righteous David in waiting on the Lord, or will we take the sword into our own hands to smite our perceived oppressors?
Priest Justin Frederick
St. Maximus, Denton TX
(editor's note: Thank you, Father, for the posting , information, exegisis, and sermon. Each in their own way was enlightening. I hope you will not take umbrage at my inserted comments, but given the length of the posting, it seemed best. I apologize in advance if you feel it was inappropriate. In the end, though, we just disagree about how to approach this matter. You are more comfortable waiting for God to act; I think He is through all of us, including your posting. )
Your zeal for the truth of the matter will no doubt admit the following corrections to what you posted about Archbishop Dmitri from one who knows him, sees him frequently, and has discussed these matters a number of times with him.
First, the quote you attribute to His Eminence from Sunday at the Cathedral in Dallas is dangerously brief and is highly liable to being misunderstood or misconstrued with no context.
Ab Dmitri 'told the assembled worshipers in his cathedral that he "was pleased to report" that "the troubles" were the result of "innocence and neglect, rather than any kind of malice."'
Did you hear this yourself? Do you have a tape recording of his words? Did you verify the words with someone other than your source or make any effort to contact the Diocsesan office to make sure they actually represent the Archbishop's position before posting them? I don't expect you to divulge your source, of course, but is the source credible and accurate?
(Editor's note: Given the length of this posting, I will answer briefly, as the questions are asked.
I had multiple sources. Yes, they were checked.
No, I did not contact the Archbishop's office, because the Archbishop made them in a public setting. )
Again, the key point is that the quote is so short--scarcely even a complete sentence that the meaning you (or your source) attribute to it could easily be far from the Archbishop's position.
(Ed. note: Three days later, no one from the Archbishop's office has "officially" denied that is what the Archbishop said, or meant. )
Second, you write:
"The Archbishop has always been a defender of Kondratick - offering him a parish in Florida when he was under investigation, and then allowing him to continue in place as a 'parish outreach coordinator' after being deposed but while his appeal was pending."
I know the following to be facts which contradict your suppositions: First, when Fr. Rodion first called the Diocese after he was fired from the office of Chancellor exploring the possibility of coming to the South, he was turned down. Only several months later was he accepted into the Diocese. Second, the Archbishop did not offer him a parish when he was under investigation, at least not knowingly. His Eminence explicitly asked His Beatitude whether there were any charges against Fr. Rodion Kondratick. The Metropolitan told him that there were no charges. He was no longer Chancellor, but no charges or pending charges were hanging over his head that might affect his ability to serve. It was only under this representation of Fr. Rodion's standing that he was accepted into the Diocese of the South to serve. His Eminence is scarcely guilty of trying to protect a man of known and demonstrated guilt from justice.
(Editor's note: This is fascinating information, which explains much. Thank you for sharing it with us. It changes nothing, though, for it overlooks the one allegation I made - that the Archbishop is allowing an officially deposed priest to continue to work in his old parish. You must admit that is irregular, at best; and qualifies, I think for the term " defender" to be used regarding his attitude towards RSK, and indeed for all who continue to refer to him as "Father Rodion" instead of his legal name, Robert Kondratick.)
Moreover, His Eminence Dmitri has constantly opposed the encroachments of a papally conceived central Church throughout his tenure in the South, and has frequently come into conflict with Fr. Rodion. The Archbishop has been so far from "always being a defender of Fr. Kondratick" that your saying so without due qualification only serves to undermine your credibility. I for one grant you a considerable measure of credibility, but when I see you write things about someone I know well that are factually incorrect and considerably off the mark in judgment (and this is not the first time you have done so), it causes me to wonder about other things you write about others about whom I personally know considerably less. Should I trust a sloppy journalist? Should any of us?
(Editor's note: Sloppy? Or do you mean "one who disagrees? Everything I say is sourced by 2-3 witnesses, or a document, which I append in full, when such does not compromise a source. I do not think that is sloppy.)
His Eminence Dmitri is not senile. He is not burrying his head in the sand. He may not operate as quickly in the manner that you or other critics of his actions or words would like, but he is deeply concerned about these matters and wants justice done. He is grieved over the scandal and the effect it has on our proclamation of the Gospel in these United States of America, Canada, and Mexico. He will not stand in the way of justice being done. But he would be sure that it is, in fact, justice being done. He will not hand a man over to a crowd clamoring for the man's professional head when he has substantial cause to doubt the accuracy of the charges against that man (and when uncanonical machinations such as "rescinding a canonical transfer" are resorted to), even though that principled stand results in himself being maligned and criticized. He has information at his disposal to lead him to a reasonable doubt about the justice of Fr. Rodion Kondratick's treatment so far. And until he is persuaded otherwise by a preponderance of evidence obtained in an open and impartial investigation, he will continue to take his stand both against a Metropolitan who appears to play fast and loose with the canons (among other things) and against popular cries for the former chancellor's head from those with far less access to relevant information than he.
The reason the report was pulled--and I have this on good authority--was that the numbers in it were never verified.
(Editor's note: This is a fascinating claim. I do not doubt your source. It just makes no sense. Kondratick could not simultaneously claim he was never given the charges - which his defenders have claimed on numerous ocassions, and say they are inaccurate. So who else could make such a claim? Not the judges, prosectutor s or lawyers in his case - or why would they have convicted him, knowing the figures were faulty? Not Proskauer Rose or the Special Commission, all of whom affirm the validity of the figures they presented. So who is doing this? Another Bishop? How could they know, what Proskauer Rose has not shared with anybody?
No, the claim makes no sense. If you can explain otherwise, the entire OCA would love to know.)
Someone in Syosset was so sure that the judgment would be upheld that they had preprogrammed the release of that report Tuesday to put the final nail in Fr. Rodion's coffin. But surprise, surprise. The Synod on hearing Fr. Rodion's appeal and seeing the documents he provided had reason to doubt the veracity of what had been shown them before. The message was posted according to the prearranged plan at the appointed time, but the basis for posting it didn't exist--the Synod did not confirm the judgment as expected, and the publication of unverified data as fact was a grave mistake. They now know that the numbers in that summary report were never verified for accuracy, and may have reason to believe that they have been had by those who prepared the reports and presented the 'data'.
(editor's note: Serious, serious claims Father, against the Metropolitan, the Accuser, and the Metropolitan's legal team. I hope you can back them up. If Bishop Nikolai were to have his way, you would be accused of "smearing"....)
Does this mean Fr. Rodion is innocent of every charge? No. Does it mean he will be reinstated? Not necessarily. But it does mean that the factual basis on which he has been convicted may be reasonably doubted and a rush to confirm a judgment made on a shaky factual basis is not a wise course.
Archbishop Dmitri is not your obstacle either to justice or truth in this matter--unless the justice you seek is not justice or the 'truth' you seek is not truth.
(Editor's note: Did I ever say Archbishop Dmitri was an obstacle? Never. My only comments on the Archbishop was that he was elderly, which is true, and that he has been a constant defender of Kondratick - which is proven by the record. Period.)
Now for a personal postscript on the report temporarily posted on the OCA site which now resides here: the material there as presented looks damning. But then, so did Stalin's show trials. Again and again throughout this sordid affair, as I read and think about everything presented and said, the Proverb comes to mind: "One man's case seems just until another comes and examines him." Think about squabbling children: one comes to tattle on the other. The matter seems very clear until one hears the other side. One or two new facts can dramatically alter one's judgment of the case. As I read the charges against Fr. Rodion, they were damning on the surface. But for each one of them, I could think of other reasonable explanations of the supposed data. Without access to written records of depositions, examination, testimony, cross-examination, it is very difficult to assess the accuracy of those charges. To me as one with no immediate involvement in the case, no indebtedness from past favors, no grudges, no axes to grind, no scores to settle--the matter is not at all clear to me, and given the very suspicious nature of the investigation and the trial to date, I have reasonable doubts about the judgments made so far. My bishop has access to far more information than I, and he has doubts. Now it appears that the other bishops are balking a bit about the quick rush to judgment as they begin to see the other side.
(Editor's note: A $650,000 investigation by a legal firm and 2 accounting firms, a special commission and a trial over 18 months is hardly a quick rush to judgement. )
Meanwhile, God sees the truth and waits. As the Scripture says, "Beware, your sin will find you out" and "God is not mocked, what a man sows, that he will also reap."
If God sees the guilty and has not rushed to strike them down, perhaps I can wait patiently while I go about my primary business of living and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As long as there are even a sprinkling of faithful in the Church who will cultivate repentance, intercede before God, pray, fast, weep, and seek to do God's will in their own spheres, God will hear our cry and deliver us. If we had all spent as much time in repentance for our own sins and interceding for our bishops and our church as we do reading ever scrap about the scandal, talking about it, writing about it, and stewing over it, I dare say God would have delivered us from it by now despite the worst contrary intentions of any of those in authority. But too many of us (myself included when it comes to prayer) pay lipservice to prayer rather than praying, point fingers at others for stealing money when we ourselves rob God regularly by not bringing our full tithes and offerings into God's house, and lament and despair at the "giants in the land" that seem to hold our church captive rather than looking intently to our one Deliverer in faith and waiting on Him.
Our God can remove any unjust or sinful leader at His pleasure in an instant. But so far, He has allowed them to remain. Perhaps one considers the current administration to be like King Saul unjustly oppressing righteous David. But consider how David perservered and would not lift up his hand against the Lord's anointed even when it was in his power twice to strike down the unrighteous Saul but waited on the Lord's just judgment.
God's judgment will come, and in many ways, it is here. Will we perservere like righteous David in waiting on the Lord, or will we take the sword into our own hands to smite our perceived oppressors?
Priest Justin Frederick
St. Maximus, Denton TX
(editor's note: Thank you, Father, for the posting , information, exegisis, and sermon. Each in their own way was enlightening. I hope you will not take umbrage at my inserted comments, but given the length of the posting, it seemed best. I apologize in advance if you feel it was inappropriate. In the end, though, we just disagree about how to approach this matter. You are more comfortable waiting for God to act; I think He is through all of us, including your posting. )
#24
Priest Justin Frederick
on
2007-10-23 10:56
I hope Bautista Cabrera and other Bishop Dimitri defenders will address this, particularly Cate's comments. How do we define "malice", "neglect", and "innocence"? Apparently we don't agree even on the definition of these sorts of terms, because you simply can not assign words like "innocence" to Mr. Kondratick's actions. It's not what those words mean.
As to the line between "neglect" and "malice", I think it is worthwhile to remember what happened in the RC church concerning the pedophile scandal. Many of those involved, who at various times and various ways had the power to 'do the right thing', did not. They failed to act NOT out of "malice", but by simple lack of good sense, "neglect" of the weighing of one Christian duty (say, forgiveness of sins) to another (say, the physical/spiritual health of these children). "neglect", even without overt and obvious "malice", is often a very damaging and sinful thing.
As the first poster said here, I think Bishop Dimitri displays here an over willingness toward "not condemning" Mr. Kondratick, which is not a Christian virtue, as it is an unbalance. Bishop Dmitri’s style through this whole affair has been silence, even encouraging silence (again, the wrong virtue to apply to this case).
I found myself asking this question: If instead of lying, cheating, and stealing (of a few million dollars), what if this scandal was instead about the health and safety of our children (as it was in the RC scandal), would the reaction of these Bishops been markedly different? Would they have reacted with the appropriate urgency and forthrightness, or would they have swept it under the rug, wringing their hands over the "good of the church" and all that (just like the RC)??
I answer this question in the negative. I don’t think this is “despair”, rather it is simply an honest assessment of the quality of the majority of the Bishop’s (and up until recently the quality of the MC) in the OCA today. It is part of the “pattern” Cate and others refer to, it is part of the failure of the OCA to collectively acquire the Holy Spirit.
Bautista Cabrera spoke eloquently (on the other thread) of being Christians “from the ground up”, planting missions, etc. which is allegedly part of Bishop Dmitri’s preferred way of doing things. She asked what is “unchristian” and “unorthodox” about it? Well, I think it is a bit introverted – it fails in the Christian duty towards the rest of the OCA, and even persons like myself who see the organic connection between this scandal, and the local parish. Why do I have to ask myself if the OCA is a church that is in touch with Christian virtue in a minimum sort of way, where they have the habits of mind and “institutional” virtue where something like what happened in the RC would not happen in the OCA?
As to the line between "neglect" and "malice", I think it is worthwhile to remember what happened in the RC church concerning the pedophile scandal. Many of those involved, who at various times and various ways had the power to 'do the right thing', did not. They failed to act NOT out of "malice", but by simple lack of good sense, "neglect" of the weighing of one Christian duty (say, forgiveness of sins) to another (say, the physical/spiritual health of these children). "neglect", even without overt and obvious "malice", is often a very damaging and sinful thing.
As the first poster said here, I think Bishop Dimitri displays here an over willingness toward "not condemning" Mr. Kondratick, which is not a Christian virtue, as it is an unbalance. Bishop Dmitri’s style through this whole affair has been silence, even encouraging silence (again, the wrong virtue to apply to this case).
I found myself asking this question: If instead of lying, cheating, and stealing (of a few million dollars), what if this scandal was instead about the health and safety of our children (as it was in the RC scandal), would the reaction of these Bishops been markedly different? Would they have reacted with the appropriate urgency and forthrightness, or would they have swept it under the rug, wringing their hands over the "good of the church" and all that (just like the RC)??
I answer this question in the negative. I don’t think this is “despair”, rather it is simply an honest assessment of the quality of the majority of the Bishop’s (and up until recently the quality of the MC) in the OCA today. It is part of the “pattern” Cate and others refer to, it is part of the failure of the OCA to collectively acquire the Holy Spirit.
Bautista Cabrera spoke eloquently (on the other thread) of being Christians “from the ground up”, planting missions, etc. which is allegedly part of Bishop Dmitri’s preferred way of doing things. She asked what is “unchristian” and “unorthodox” about it? Well, I think it is a bit introverted – it fails in the Christian duty towards the rest of the OCA, and even persons like myself who see the organic connection between this scandal, and the local parish. Why do I have to ask myself if the OCA is a church that is in touch with Christian virtue in a minimum sort of way, where they have the habits of mind and “institutional” virtue where something like what happened in the RC would not happen in the OCA?
#25
Christopher
on
2007-10-23 10:59
Yet ANOTHER shocking and mind-boggling read on ocanews.org
I don't know which posting is more bone-rattling: the +Dmitri posting that "yes its Kondratick's fault, but it was all done in innocence," or the Monk James posting that "it's all a great lie, and my friend is totally innocent."
Last things first: I don't know Monk James and wouldn't know him if he was standing right next to me on the streetcorner. But I will say this. IF the RKS verdict is upheld, this man has got to be next; to make such bald statements, as this posting is in particular, and to use your ecclesiatical persona to cloak such statements in, if they are not true, and RSK is in fact guilty of the charges, then Brother, you have got to go! You are either (a) a complete and utter liar, or (b) so tightly wrapped around the finger of a defrocked priest, that you shouldn't be allowed to serve as so much as a fly-swatter in the narthex of an Orthodox church! As Jaques Chirac put it in a different context, you Brother have missed many opportunities to shut up! And frankly, if even half of what you say is true, then RSK, who seems to be your friend and confidant, is doing himself a huge dis-service by letting YOU say it; if he's got the "proof" that he's innocent as you claim, then he owes it to this church community -- which paid his salary for so many years and which is in truth suffering in this matter -- to reveal the facts which he apparently has, and cut to the chase, instead of sending you, sir, out to issue such statements! In fact, I would suggest that our editor, Mr. Stokoe, seriously consider that no further postings be allowed by the individual known as "Monk James," unless and until some documentary proof is provided; if he provides it to you, Mark, and you think its got any validity, then I'll accept that. The statements made by this individual are not presented as "opinion" or for debate; he is making definitive statements that RSK IS INNOCENT and that the PR work is false on its face; if that is true, then I DEMAND to see it (or have someone see it, like Mark S. or Faith Skordinski, or Wayne Tatusko). But, frankly, since it's never been denied that RSK spent his final hours in Syosset wearing-out a perfectly good shredder, I'm highly skeptical!
As for +Dmitri, again, I've never met the man. All I can say is, any organization with a budget of $2M per year or so, CANNOT lose over $3.25M (maybe as much as $8M by some accounts) in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER that could be described as "innocent mistakes." You know, back in the days when the Susan B. Anthony Dollar coins were issued, I used to carry some in my car, because I had a $1 toll to pay on the way to work every morning; so, I put $10 worth of the coins in the ashtray. Well, one day I took my car into the shop for a simple oil change, and wouldn't you know that when I looked into the ashtray, not only had the shop crew taken my Susan B.'s, but they actually replaced them all with Quarters! I could take the responsibility for leaving the coins in my car "unprotected," which was stupid, and I could have accepted the simple theft. But, I was so PO'd about the attempt to somehow FOOL ME with the Quarter-replacements, that I did a U-turn, went back to the shop, and raised so much of a stink that I got the shop foreman fired and had the cops brought over to do a search for my Dollar coins! They found them, and that individual was fired, too! I mean, steal from me okay, but don't try to make me out for a fool, man!
Sorry, I just don't buy, "I lost the $3.25M before I had time to steal it." Then, why the shredder marathon? And why stonewall on the -- supposed -- evidence? No, Your Grace, as they say in Dallas, "That dawg don't hunt." With all due respect.
+MH, HS, MC -- Still no money! You think you can kick the can down the road some more? So can we ... it's so simple to just not reach for the check-book. And ditto to Cate#9's final paragraph, too.
I don't know which posting is more bone-rattling: the +Dmitri posting that "yes its Kondratick's fault, but it was all done in innocence," or the Monk James posting that "it's all a great lie, and my friend is totally innocent."
Last things first: I don't know Monk James and wouldn't know him if he was standing right next to me on the streetcorner. But I will say this. IF the RKS verdict is upheld, this man has got to be next; to make such bald statements, as this posting is in particular, and to use your ecclesiatical persona to cloak such statements in, if they are not true, and RSK is in fact guilty of the charges, then Brother, you have got to go! You are either (a) a complete and utter liar, or (b) so tightly wrapped around the finger of a defrocked priest, that you shouldn't be allowed to serve as so much as a fly-swatter in the narthex of an Orthodox church! As Jaques Chirac put it in a different context, you Brother have missed many opportunities to shut up! And frankly, if even half of what you say is true, then RSK, who seems to be your friend and confidant, is doing himself a huge dis-service by letting YOU say it; if he's got the "proof" that he's innocent as you claim, then he owes it to this church community -- which paid his salary for so many years and which is in truth suffering in this matter -- to reveal the facts which he apparently has, and cut to the chase, instead of sending you, sir, out to issue such statements! In fact, I would suggest that our editor, Mr. Stokoe, seriously consider that no further postings be allowed by the individual known as "Monk James," unless and until some documentary proof is provided; if he provides it to you, Mark, and you think its got any validity, then I'll accept that. The statements made by this individual are not presented as "opinion" or for debate; he is making definitive statements that RSK IS INNOCENT and that the PR work is false on its face; if that is true, then I DEMAND to see it (or have someone see it, like Mark S. or Faith Skordinski, or Wayne Tatusko). But, frankly, since it's never been denied that RSK spent his final hours in Syosset wearing-out a perfectly good shredder, I'm highly skeptical!
As for +Dmitri, again, I've never met the man. All I can say is, any organization with a budget of $2M per year or so, CANNOT lose over $3.25M (maybe as much as $8M by some accounts) in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER that could be described as "innocent mistakes." You know, back in the days when the Susan B. Anthony Dollar coins were issued, I used to carry some in my car, because I had a $1 toll to pay on the way to work every morning; so, I put $10 worth of the coins in the ashtray. Well, one day I took my car into the shop for a simple oil change, and wouldn't you know that when I looked into the ashtray, not only had the shop crew taken my Susan B.'s, but they actually replaced them all with Quarters! I could take the responsibility for leaving the coins in my car "unprotected," which was stupid, and I could have accepted the simple theft. But, I was so PO'd about the attempt to somehow FOOL ME with the Quarter-replacements, that I did a U-turn, went back to the shop, and raised so much of a stink that I got the shop foreman fired and had the cops brought over to do a search for my Dollar coins! They found them, and that individual was fired, too! I mean, steal from me okay, but don't try to make me out for a fool, man!
Sorry, I just don't buy, "I lost the $3.25M before I had time to steal it." Then, why the shredder marathon? And why stonewall on the -- supposed -- evidence? No, Your Grace, as they say in Dallas, "That dawg don't hunt." With all due respect.
+MH, HS, MC -- Still no money! You think you can kick the can down the road some more? So can we ... it's so simple to just not reach for the check-book. And ditto to Cate#9's final paragraph, too.
#26
C.C.
on
2007-10-23 12:38
Isn't it obvious what's going on here?
Archbishop Dmitri still has enough of a conscience to feel the hypocrisy of holding the former Chancellor to account for sins that he is equally or similarly guilty of himself. The Metropolitan in contrast is happy to make him a sacrificial goat. The rest of the bishops are conflicted. Mind you, no one is stupid enough to think that revealing the truth would exonerate anyone or lead to compassion, understanding and forgiveness with no real repentance, contrition or consequence for ones actions.
No, the princes of our Church are above such mundane considerations. Let them, i.e. us, eat cake!
Bring back Kondratick.
KRT
Archbishop Dmitri still has enough of a conscience to feel the hypocrisy of holding the former Chancellor to account for sins that he is equally or similarly guilty of himself. The Metropolitan in contrast is happy to make him a sacrificial goat. The rest of the bishops are conflicted. Mind you, no one is stupid enough to think that revealing the truth would exonerate anyone or lead to compassion, understanding and forgiveness with no real repentance, contrition or consequence for ones actions.
No, the princes of our Church are above such mundane considerations. Let them, i.e. us, eat cake!
Bring back Kondratick.
KRT
#27
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2007-10-23 13:08
When I read +Dmitri's proclamation and remarks, I too thought they had been "totally-festerized." I know this Texas archpriest and pray for him and his mentor RSK.
And dear Name withheld in #7, you put things very well. The actions of our fallen nature in a fallen world...
Lord have mercy on us! Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. Lord have mercy on our brothers and sisters threatened by the California fires!
And dear Name withheld in #7, you put things very well. The actions of our fallen nature in a fallen world...
Lord have mercy on us! Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. Lord have mercy on our brothers and sisters threatened by the California fires!
Mr. Kruse,
I would agree the OCA does not need a central administration that collects and disburses donated funds with no transparency and no accountability to those who did the donating.
If adequate transparency and accountable reporting of what use is made of donated funds sent to the central administration cannot be successfully established, continuing the present arrangement to do so would only invite a future repetition of the present disaster.
Setting aside the question of centuries of Orthodox ecclesiatic tradition, I'm not sure that the OCA as the organization could survive without some centralization of at least some specific functions. Ceremonial and ecceliastic functions come to mind first, but it seems to me that some elements of church governance would inevitably need to have national guidance.
At this moment, in the face of the revelations of what has been occuring in Syosset and Alaska and these two years of less than successful endeavors to reveal fully and correct adequately the mismanagement that has been uncovered, it is hard to believe that the quagmire of debt, dishonest stewardship and scandal can be overcome. So much has gone so terribly wrong.
Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of the whole two years of struggle has been the "cover-up" manoeuvering by those under questioning. Nothing is ever so bad as is the attempt to "cover it up" with evasion, stronewalling, lawyering-up and attacking the victims.
Odd, isn't it that that lesson that hasn't been learned from the very public scandals of recent national polititians and of a powerful international church.
I would agree the OCA does not need a central administration that collects and disburses donated funds with no transparency and no accountability to those who did the donating.
If adequate transparency and accountable reporting of what use is made of donated funds sent to the central administration cannot be successfully established, continuing the present arrangement to do so would only invite a future repetition of the present disaster.
Setting aside the question of centuries of Orthodox ecclesiatic tradition, I'm not sure that the OCA as the organization could survive without some centralization of at least some specific functions. Ceremonial and ecceliastic functions come to mind first, but it seems to me that some elements of church governance would inevitably need to have national guidance.
At this moment, in the face of the revelations of what has been occuring in Syosset and Alaska and these two years of less than successful endeavors to reveal fully and correct adequately the mismanagement that has been uncovered, it is hard to believe that the quagmire of debt, dishonest stewardship and scandal can be overcome. So much has gone so terribly wrong.
Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of the whole two years of struggle has been the "cover-up" manoeuvering by those under questioning. Nothing is ever so bad as is the attempt to "cover it up" with evasion, stronewalling, lawyering-up and attacking the victims.
Odd, isn't it that that lesson that hasn't been learned from the very public scandals of recent national polititians and of a powerful international church.
#29
Jean langley sullivan
on
2007-10-23 15:47
Bottom link is interesting reading. It must be a desease that is spreading in New York State.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10232007/postopinion/editorials/feericks_tainted_probe.htm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10232007/postopinion/editorials/feericks_tainted_probe.htm
#30
New Yorker comparing scandals
on
2007-10-23 19:04
I take great offense to comparing bob kondratick to Oliver North, Oliver North is seen as a Hero by many. While he like all of us, is flawed he was never depraved like the bunch we are dealing with. When I think of the Syosset bunch past and present i think of al capone and charles manson.
#31
GH
on
2007-10-23 19:16
Guy,
What you speculate all sounds quite reasonable among reasonable people, but we are dealing with greedy, arrogant people who couldn't give two hoots about doing the right thing. Make no mistake, FRK ran the administration with an iron fist. The Synod, MT, Syosset, the MC, the AAC were all at the end of his leash. How did he achieve this power? Apathy, I believe. Too many Orthodox were/are more concerned with narcissistic form over substance. Too many practiced the art of looking good and stopped asking hard questions about what is right, and good and true. Those of us who dared offer help to fix the problems were eventually labeled trouble-makers and were eventually shone the door. Reasonable people can and do disagree, but there should be no disagreement about immorality and illegal acts. That's what we are/were facing.
What you speculate all sounds quite reasonable among reasonable people, but we are dealing with greedy, arrogant people who couldn't give two hoots about doing the right thing. Make no mistake, FRK ran the administration with an iron fist. The Synod, MT, Syosset, the MC, the AAC were all at the end of his leash. How did he achieve this power? Apathy, I believe. Too many Orthodox were/are more concerned with narcissistic form over substance. Too many practiced the art of looking good and stopped asking hard questions about what is right, and good and true. Those of us who dared offer help to fix the problems were eventually labeled trouble-makers and were eventually shone the door. Reasonable people can and do disagree, but there should be no disagreement about immorality and illegal acts. That's what we are/were facing.
#32
Name withheld
on
2007-10-23 19:23
The Synod's letter posted today was about the first breath of any kind of brotherhood since they first rejected the notion of financial problems in November of 2005.
They accepted and reported PR reports to them and not MH. Curious if Abp. Job has received the reports from PR. If he has, why couldn't he have just released them to his clergy. Withholding could have stopped until the appeal... What am I missing?
Of course, the Metropolitan Council {by my read} is supposed to be in charge of legal affairs per the crappy Statute that noone pays any attention to....
They accepted the removal of Nescott was a decision of the Synod as well. The one problem I have with this is that I don't recall Abp. Job sanctioning the removal of Nescott. If so, the OCA posting is painting Abp. Job as a 'flipper'. The much maligned term given to someone who actually rethought their previous positions in lawmaking and governance.
Is this accurate that Abp. Job is a flipper and the Synod collectively accepted removing Nescott, then reversed his position? If so, it would be pretty frustrating to be +Herman and frankly I'm confused.
Part of the reason I supported a statement calling for the resignation of MH is due to his strong position on Nescott.
What really did happen regarding Nescott, Herman, and Job?
What does Abp. Job have to say about the posting on the OCA website? Now that'd be a good report to have on this website...
We need a timetable of events and a word or two from Abp. Job...
They accepted and reported PR reports to them and not MH. Curious if Abp. Job has received the reports from PR. If he has, why couldn't he have just released them to his clergy. Withholding could have stopped until the appeal... What am I missing?
Of course, the Metropolitan Council {by my read} is supposed to be in charge of legal affairs per the crappy Statute that noone pays any attention to....
They accepted the removal of Nescott was a decision of the Synod as well. The one problem I have with this is that I don't recall Abp. Job sanctioning the removal of Nescott. If so, the OCA posting is painting Abp. Job as a 'flipper'. The much maligned term given to someone who actually rethought their previous positions in lawmaking and governance.
Is this accurate that Abp. Job is a flipper and the Synod collectively accepted removing Nescott, then reversed his position? If so, it would be pretty frustrating to be +Herman and frankly I'm confused.
Part of the reason I supported a statement calling for the resignation of MH is due to his strong position on Nescott.
What really did happen regarding Nescott, Herman, and Job?
What does Abp. Job have to say about the posting on the OCA website? Now that'd be a good report to have on this website...
We need a timetable of events and a word or two from Abp. Job...
#33
Daniel E. Fall
on
2007-10-23 20:15
Neglect; the word is pregnant with meaning. Associated with that term is another word: derreliction. Those accused of wrong doing have indeed neglected their true calling. They have neglected the vows they took at their ordainment; they have neglected the material and spiritual well fare of the church; most tragically, though, they have neglected their own spiritual well fare. Such neglect is not spontaneous, but the result of years of neglecting the most fundemental aspects of the Christian life. Like all vices, they start small, but end up snowballing to an uncontrollable, unforgiving task master.
These negligent, (Vladyko's words) leaders, I believe, got caught in a web that started out innocently. I can imagine those who are accused of using OCA credit cards for personal use had the intention to pay it back, at first. Then it became easy just to pull it out when necessary. And since the necessary checks and balances were absent, they felt free, and even maybe, entitled to such perks. I can imagine that they never meant to hurt any one individual or even the church, just to indulge a vice that had been slowly gaining complete control over them. And like all passions, they never opperate alone, but introduce and nurture new passions and vices.
I can understand Vladyko's words, though at first I was taken aback by them. I don't feel those who neglected their material and spiritual duties meant any malice towards any one person: They didn't consciously set out to defraud the church, at least in the beginning. At some point, I believe those passions so overwhelmed those poor souls and controlled them. That doesn't excuse them of their actions, however. What brought them to that pathetic state was their neglect.
Should they be again raised to the rank of priest? I would just say, I wouldn't want to be in his parish, deanery or maybe diocese. That person has developed at very dangerous pathology that not only puts his own life in danger, but those around him.
The picture of gollum comes to mind. That fatefull day he and his friend found that ring in the river, gollum, Smeagal, never intended to kill his friend. But the power of the ring overpowerd him and enslaved him. The ring's hold squeezed all the life out of him. All that was left of him, was the shell of what once was a happy creature. Smeagal neglected his soul and became gollum.
Then their is Sauron, and we all know his story. The sole purpose of his existance was to anahilate the world of men, and the whole middle earth for that matter. In him, evil and malice is unmistakeable.
There is a world of difference between gollum and Sauron. Those who have tried to make RSK as a Sauron, are like Sam. Sam is well intentioned, looking out for the well being of Frodo and allways suspicious of gollum. He recognized the evil within gollum and is repulsed by it. But Frodo, sees beyond the ugly exterior and into the heartwrenching interior hell gollum lives with. With that vision, Frodo is able to say, "I do pitty him". But, all well-intentioned Sam can see is a evil creature that would be better off dead. It is only by Frodo's kindness and mercy that gollum lives and in the end fullfills his role in the Salvation of Middle Earth, however, tragic that role is.
I see what vladyko means, and I too, pitty him and them.
As my spiritual father reminds me: But by they grace of God, go I.
But, but the grace of God, go we all.
(Editor's note: Great imagery. Thanks for the contribution. Two points, one minor, one major. The "riverfolk" Smeagol murdered was not his friend, but his brother. More importantly, I would disagree with your understanding of the ending. It took both Sam and Frodo to carry out the task of destroying the ring. ( which as you point out correctly, Gollum actually did.) To deny the importance of either is to reduce the story, for it is Sam who writes the ending of it; and Sam too who journeys to Westernesse at the end of his life. We need both Sams and Frodos in our story, if we too are to defeat the evil in our midst.)
These negligent, (Vladyko's words) leaders, I believe, got caught in a web that started out innocently. I can imagine those who are accused of using OCA credit cards for personal use had the intention to pay it back, at first. Then it became easy just to pull it out when necessary. And since the necessary checks and balances were absent, they felt free, and even maybe, entitled to such perks. I can imagine that they never meant to hurt any one individual or even the church, just to indulge a vice that had been slowly gaining complete control over them. And like all passions, they never opperate alone, but introduce and nurture new passions and vices.
I can understand Vladyko's words, though at first I was taken aback by them. I don't feel those who neglected their material and spiritual duties meant any malice towards any one person: They didn't consciously set out to defraud the church, at least in the beginning. At some point, I believe those passions so overwhelmed those poor souls and controlled them. That doesn't excuse them of their actions, however. What brought them to that pathetic state was their neglect.
Should they be again raised to the rank of priest? I would just say, I wouldn't want to be in his parish, deanery or maybe diocese. That person has developed at very dangerous pathology that not only puts his own life in danger, but those around him.
The picture of gollum comes to mind. That fatefull day he and his friend found that ring in the river, gollum, Smeagal, never intended to kill his friend. But the power of the ring overpowerd him and enslaved him. The ring's hold squeezed all the life out of him. All that was left of him, was the shell of what once was a happy creature. Smeagal neglected his soul and became gollum.
Then their is Sauron, and we all know his story. The sole purpose of his existance was to anahilate the world of men, and the whole middle earth for that matter. In him, evil and malice is unmistakeable.
There is a world of difference between gollum and Sauron. Those who have tried to make RSK as a Sauron, are like Sam. Sam is well intentioned, looking out for the well being of Frodo and allways suspicious of gollum. He recognized the evil within gollum and is repulsed by it. But Frodo, sees beyond the ugly exterior and into the heartwrenching interior hell gollum lives with. With that vision, Frodo is able to say, "I do pitty him". But, all well-intentioned Sam can see is a evil creature that would be better off dead. It is only by Frodo's kindness and mercy that gollum lives and in the end fullfills his role in the Salvation of Middle Earth, however, tragic that role is.
I see what vladyko means, and I too, pitty him and them.
As my spiritual father reminds me: But by they grace of God, go I.
But, but the grace of God, go we all.
(Editor's note: Great imagery. Thanks for the contribution. Two points, one minor, one major. The "riverfolk" Smeagol murdered was not his friend, but his brother. More importantly, I would disagree with your understanding of the ending. It took both Sam and Frodo to carry out the task of destroying the ring. ( which as you point out correctly, Gollum actually did.) To deny the importance of either is to reduce the story, for it is Sam who writes the ending of it; and Sam too who journeys to Westernesse at the end of his life. We need both Sams and Frodos in our story, if we too are to defeat the evil in our midst.)
#34
Bautista Cabrera
on
2007-10-24 09:24
Tanning Salon: $200
Hair Salon: $400
Vacation in Aruba: $5,000
Gifts to bishop: $10,000
Having the OCA pay for it all and the bishops cover up and pat you on the back: Priceless
There are some things money can’t buy, for everything else there’s Mastercard.
Accepted wherever Episcopal corruption is rampant.
Hair Salon: $400
Vacation in Aruba: $5,000
Gifts to bishop: $10,000
Having the OCA pay for it all and the bishops cover up and pat you on the back: Priceless
There are some things money can’t buy, for everything else there’s Mastercard.
Accepted wherever Episcopal corruption is rampant.
#35
Stonewall
on
2007-10-24 09:40
Doesn't it seem to anyone that +Benjamin is being set up for receiving credit for definite and widely anticipated resolution of the mess (by heading the new commision), meaning that +Herman is setting up a potential successor? Yeltzin-Putin tactics?
#36
Anonymous
on
2007-10-24 09:41
It looks as if the OCA has a new treasurer, Fr. Michael Tassos. My husband was attached to his mission church, Elevation of the Holy Cross, in the Antiochian Archdiocese, out in Palmdale, CA (about 90 miles north of Los Angeles) before our move out east.
He is very talented and a very good priest! We were happy to get to know him and his wife, Christina and three children. Fr. Michael and Christina both attended St. Vladimir's.
We have a Special Commission trying to find out about the past, but hopefully he can help the OCA guide its present and future! We certainly wish him all the best in helping straighten out this collosal mess that the OCA is in. We hope he does not find it too overwhelming. God's speed!
Patty and Fr. Paul Schellbach
He is very talented and a very good priest! We were happy to get to know him and his wife, Christina and three children. Fr. Michael and Christina both attended St. Vladimir's.
We have a Special Commission trying to find out about the past, but hopefully he can help the OCA guide its present and future! We certainly wish him all the best in helping straighten out this collosal mess that the OCA is in. We hope he does not find it too overwhelming. God's speed!
Patty and Fr. Paul Schellbach
#37
Patty Schellbach
on
2007-10-24 10:06
You, Monk James, are dillussional to insist that Robert Kondratick is innocent of wrong doing.
What will you say when he is finally brought to real justice by the FBI, is handcuffed, and taken to prison?
It's time to get off the Kondratick bandwagon Monk James. The wheels are starting to come off.
I guess it doesn't matter to you that this man used church funds for beauty salons, jewlery stores, newspaper subscriptions, wine, magazines, etc., etc., etc.
Why not ask him just what was the real "deal" with Richard Rock and Mark Torbey of Martinez and Murphy fame?
Why were THEY counseling him on Church matters???
Your defense is getting old, stale and quite comical.
What will you say when he is finally brought to real justice by the FBI, is handcuffed, and taken to prison?
It's time to get off the Kondratick bandwagon Monk James. The wheels are starting to come off.
I guess it doesn't matter to you that this man used church funds for beauty salons, jewlery stores, newspaper subscriptions, wine, magazines, etc., etc., etc.
Why not ask him just what was the real "deal" with Richard Rock and Mark Torbey of Martinez and Murphy fame?
Why were THEY counseling him on Church matters???
Your defense is getting old, stale and quite comical.
#38
Michael Geeza
on
2007-10-24 11:23
Once again, let us dissemble. Hitler is said to have stated, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." Will the OCA prove his point? Or shall we continue to call for Truth?
Fr. Justin:
Thank you.
Thank you.
#40
Eric W
on
2007-10-24 14:42
Your ponderous post shows what a problem we have in the church with other Bishops and Priests like yourself who do not want us to get to the bottom of this. You don't seem to care that millions went missing or that Mr Kondratick was in charge of funds at the time. You point to meaningless details that don't even matter. Oh, and the common one is to point to Mark Stokoe as presening incorrect information. Many of us know that pattern by now. I don't buy any of what you said, even with all the bible references you put in there. Stonewall is right - it's BUNK. Funds were stolen. You should be asking for accountability from those who stole from the church. Stonewall's post shows just how frustrated we all are. The OCA is not getting any of my money until I see the organization is being run by competent people (maybe we need more women in charge...they would care more about widows and orphans). We are not calling for Mr. Kondratick's head, we are calling for accountability. HE HAD ACCESS TO THE FUNDS. Those that go on about him seem to just be making empty excuses (see Monk James absurd posts for example).
Oh, and please tell us all, WHAT IS THE OTHER SIDE? I don't buy that lame excuse either unless you can present us with data about the "other side". Yours is just another empty reference to a non-existant "other side". Those were our funds that we donated that were stolen along with funds from AMD, so I DO have a right to know the "other side", but I doubt it exists, because you and M.James refer to "the other side" but never actually have any real information to offer about it. The "other side" would have been revealed long ago if it did exist.
What a crew.
Oh, and please tell us all, WHAT IS THE OTHER SIDE? I don't buy that lame excuse either unless you can present us with data about the "other side". Yours is just another empty reference to a non-existant "other side". Those were our funds that we donated that were stolen along with funds from AMD, so I DO have a right to know the "other side", but I doubt it exists, because you and M.James refer to "the other side" but never actually have any real information to offer about it. The "other side" would have been revealed long ago if it did exist.
What a crew.
#41
Oh Brother
on
2007-10-24 15:07
Dear Father Justin:
I actually agree with you when you told Mark that "... the quote you attribute to His Eminence from Sunday at the Cathedral in Dallas is dangerously brief and is highly liable to being misunderstood or misconstrued with no context." However, you then proceeded to berate Mark for journalistic shortcomings. I have another take on this.
It is clear that some folks have misused and misappropriated Church funds, among other sundry malfeasances (to put the rosiest interpretation on the scandal).
It is also clear that those people charged by making sure this scandal did not happen and to rapidly take steps to find out what happened and fix it--they did not do their job. It seems to me that of the entire Holy Synod, only +Job has acknowledged this failure.
I don't believe that Mark is a professional journalist (although he has done a brilliant job in this matter).
I do believe, because I take at your word, that you are "one who knows him, sees him frequently, and has discussed these matters a number of times with him." I also believe that +Dimitri is not senile.
So, we have person of authority and insider status (you) criticizing a concerned citizen-journalist (Mark Stokoe) for coming short of journalistic standards. I don't think this criticism is fair or just.
If you are so close to +Dimitri, why haven't you found out if the quote attributed to +Dimitri was correct or not? Instead, you speculate that it may be incorrect or misleading because Mark may or may not have violated a number of journalistic standards.
If +Dimitri is a good shepherd, why hasn't he been more straightforward? Why hasn't he acknowledged his acts of omission, his failure to carry out his duties as a (senior) member of the Holy Synod, and then try do set things right. He or his chancery could have very easily produced a public record of what +Dimitri actually said.
+Dimitri or his office has an affirmative obligation to correct Mark if the quote is inaccurate or misleading. In the meantime, I will say that the silence from Dallas and the oblique critique from you will not dissuade me or anybody else who has been following this scandal from believing in the veracity of Marc's reporting.
Respectfully,
Carl
I actually agree with you when you told Mark that "... the quote you attribute to His Eminence from Sunday at the Cathedral in Dallas is dangerously brief and is highly liable to being misunderstood or misconstrued with no context." However, you then proceeded to berate Mark for journalistic shortcomings. I have another take on this.
It is clear that some folks have misused and misappropriated Church funds, among other sundry malfeasances (to put the rosiest interpretation on the scandal).
It is also clear that those people charged by making sure this scandal did not happen and to rapidly take steps to find out what happened and fix it--they did not do their job. It seems to me that of the entire Holy Synod, only +Job has acknowledged this failure.
I don't believe that Mark is a professional journalist (although he has done a brilliant job in this matter).
I do believe, because I take at your word, that you are "one who knows him, sees him frequently, and has discussed these matters a number of times with him." I also believe that +Dimitri is not senile.
So, we have person of authority and insider status (you) criticizing a concerned citizen-journalist (Mark Stokoe) for coming short of journalistic standards. I don't think this criticism is fair or just.
If you are so close to +Dimitri, why haven't you found out if the quote attributed to +Dimitri was correct or not? Instead, you speculate that it may be incorrect or misleading because Mark may or may not have violated a number of journalistic standards.
If +Dimitri is a good shepherd, why hasn't he been more straightforward? Why hasn't he acknowledged his acts of omission, his failure to carry out his duties as a (senior) member of the Holy Synod, and then try do set things right. He or his chancery could have very easily produced a public record of what +Dimitri actually said.
+Dimitri or his office has an affirmative obligation to correct Mark if the quote is inaccurate or misleading. In the meantime, I will say that the silence from Dallas and the oblique critique from you will not dissuade me or anybody else who has been following this scandal from believing in the veracity of Marc's reporting.
Respectfully,
Carl
#42
Anonymous
on
2007-10-24 15:09
Oh Brave Stonewall,
Who writes from behind the earthly safe stonewall of an even stonier heart
Tell us your name and how we may contact you so that the many who would like to tell you what we think our dear beloved Archpastor, may do so personally.
Your infantile attempts to conjure up the base reveals that your heart is indeed stone in need of the repentance you demand of others.
Take out the log first in your own blind eye and leave the work of the Church to those who care about it, not just rail against it.
(Editor's Note: Point of Order. I allow anonymous and pseudonymous postings to encourage dialogue in the context of a culture of fear. But to rail anonymously against someone else's pseudonymous postings just seems silly, if not absurd. You will have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously, poster.)
Who writes from behind the earthly safe stonewall of an even stonier heart
Tell us your name and how we may contact you so that the many who would like to tell you what we think our dear beloved Archpastor, may do so personally.
Your infantile attempts to conjure up the base reveals that your heart is indeed stone in need of the repentance you demand of others.
Take out the log first in your own blind eye and leave the work of the Church to those who care about it, not just rail against it.
(Editor's Note: Point of Order. I allow anonymous and pseudonymous postings to encourage dialogue in the context of a culture of fear. But to rail anonymously against someone else's pseudonymous postings just seems silly, if not absurd. You will have to do better than this if you want to be taken seriously, poster.)
#43
Anonymous
on
2007-10-24 15:28
Hello friends:
I found Fr. Justin Frederick's signature at the end of his post to be a refreshing departure from the anonymous peddling of bile on this site. I find it difficult to believe that so many people who seem to have such fire in the belly can all be in positions of such vulnerability to reprisal that it is really necessary to identify themselves by initials and pseudonyms. It is really sad to read the remarks of what seem to be ordinary laypeople who are so ready to get off any train driven or conducted by current OCA leadership but don't have the __ to sign their names. Sure, I can allow for the possibility that some could lose a church secretary or choir directling job, but in the number who post anonymously here? I dunno.
Not that I buy some of what Fr. Justin writes, either. For example he has "reasonable doubts" about some of the evidence on some of the charges. And bishops had some doubts after reading the appeal stuff too. Fine, but let's think about that just a little.
First of all the term "reasonable doubt." In our society that is the generally accepted shorthand for the burden of proof that must be sustained by a prosecutor before an accused can be found guilty of and punished for a crime. It's the highest.
Now so far as I know, OCA spiritual courts do not operate on any such burden of proof. In fact I would not be at all surprised to learn that their spiritual courts do not operate by ANY formal definition of the burden which must be carried by the Accuser before one is found guilty of ecclesiatical offenses. Nor do we know if a different burden must be carried for, say, lesser charges as opposed to bigger ones. Anybody else know?
The answer to that question could have a huge impact on the outcome of this case. If the Kondratick appeal team should succeed in convincing the Synod that the case against him must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt," then I would not be surprised to see a reversal of the deposition.
The other burdens of proof that are typically seen in the civil courts are called "preponderance of the evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence." In terms of percentages, if we call "beyond a shadow of a doubt" 99.9% certainty, and the "preponderance of the evidence" 50.01% or more, clear and convincing can be estimated at about 75%. As you can see the question of which burden applies in a court case can be of greatest import.
And you can also see why Fr. Justin's comment about being able to think of other, innocent explanations for the accused's conduct would not be terribly relevant if either of the two lesser burdens should apply. At 50.01% of the burden, lots of alternative explanations (up to 49.99% in persuasive force) can be advanced but the defendant still loses. And even at the clear and convincing level, 75%, there is room for deciding against the accused even if he can come up with SOME facts approaching 25% net weight to support a defense theory.
And as long as I am being, well, being whatever I am being, what about another issue that Fr. Justin's remarks (as well as many others on the prosecution side) should raise in our minds but does not seem to be discussed here, namely "what were the accused's duties?"
Let me suggest two opposite and somewhat exaggerated examples, neither of which is realistic, one hopes, to illustrate the point. Extreme View #1 is that RSK's duties were to do whatever his boss told him to do. If one believes in that dictatorial, authoritarian caricature of Orthodox espiscopacy that people call "papal," then is it possible to discipline the individual if he did what he was told? Bishops might be supposed to buy into something that approaches this extreme view more closely than, say, the lesser clergy who were on the court would believe.
Extreme View #2 is that the person had no obligation to obey his boss at all, but instead was obliged to look to public legal standards, his own conscience, the Bible, the Rudder, good moral sense, the will of the people who gave the money on the representation that it would be used for _, and the OCA's governing documents to decide what his duties were and how to perform them. I would not be surprised to learn that the latter, at least, were less than clear and complete in defining the duties of chancellorhood.
And after informing us of his close contact with the Archbishop Fr. Justin calls into question the version of his oral remarks posted here, but does not provide us with any alternative version. Until someone does why should we disbelieve them?
Now second and third hand reports of what someone said about a hot button issue like this are notoriously unreliable, especially when conveyed by someone with a partisan stance (presumably Mr. Stokoe was called by the Archbishop's critics, as can be inferred from the level of surprise that the hearers experienced) to someone with a partisan stance (sorry Mark)who reports the archbishop's oral remarks to us. Now I am willing to bet that the Archbishop's remarks were far more cautious than most readers of this site would approve, but I do think we have to be careful about holding him to the exact language that made it onto this site after travelling into the ears of the archbishop's hearers, through their brains to their fingers, through the telephone or the computer to Mr. Stokoe's brain.
And I tend to agree with Fr. Justin' challenge to Mark's statement that the archbishop has "always" been a defender of RSK. Not long ago Mark was a little too quick to anoint me a longtime shill for Bishop Tikhon when I had actually had customarily played role of fly buzzing around his episcopal headgear! (I may never have actually stung much, but he sure did love to swat!)
And what about the fact that the RSK team let the case go forward by default with the spiritual "trial court?" In civil law that does not score points, and in fact usually makes the appellant's uphill trek to reversal all the steeper. Will the bishops be willing to do what civil or criminal appellate courts seldom do, namely uphold the decision below if there is any evidence in the record to support it? Or do as appellate courts almost ALWAYS do: refuse to consider evidence or arguments that could have been submitted below but weren't?
I can see how the spiritual court's findings are even at a real disadvantage before the Synod if t their recent meeting there was only someone to argue and submit evidence from the defense side.
So in case I haven't annoyed everyone, perhaps I will be allowed back to try again.
love,
Fr. George
I found Fr. Justin Frederick's signature at the end of his post to be a refreshing departure from the anonymous peddling of bile on this site. I find it difficult to believe that so many people who seem to have such fire in the belly can all be in positions of such vulnerability to reprisal that it is really necessary to identify themselves by initials and pseudonyms. It is really sad to read the remarks of what seem to be ordinary laypeople who are so ready to get off any train driven or conducted by current OCA leadership but don't have the __ to sign their names. Sure, I can allow for the possibility that some could lose a church secretary or choir directling job, but in the number who post anonymously here? I dunno.
Not that I buy some of what Fr. Justin writes, either. For example he has "reasonable doubts" about some of the evidence on some of the charges. And bishops had some doubts after reading the appeal stuff too. Fine, but let's think about that just a little.
First of all the term "reasonable doubt." In our society that is the generally accepted shorthand for the burden of proof that must be sustained by a prosecutor before an accused can be found guilty of and punished for a crime. It's the highest.
Now so far as I know, OCA spiritual courts do not operate on any such burden of proof. In fact I would not be at all surprised to learn that their spiritual courts do not operate by ANY formal definition of the burden which must be carried by the Accuser before one is found guilty of ecclesiatical offenses. Nor do we know if a different burden must be carried for, say, lesser charges as opposed to bigger ones. Anybody else know?
The answer to that question could have a huge impact on the outcome of this case. If the Kondratick appeal team should succeed in convincing the Synod that the case against him must be established "beyond a reasonable doubt," then I would not be surprised to see a reversal of the deposition.
The other burdens of proof that are typically seen in the civil courts are called "preponderance of the evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence." In terms of percentages, if we call "beyond a shadow of a doubt" 99.9% certainty, and the "preponderance of the evidence" 50.01% or more, clear and convincing can be estimated at about 75%. As you can see the question of which burden applies in a court case can be of greatest import.
And you can also see why Fr. Justin's comment about being able to think of other, innocent explanations for the accused's conduct would not be terribly relevant if either of the two lesser burdens should apply. At 50.01% of the burden, lots of alternative explanations (up to 49.99% in persuasive force) can be advanced but the defendant still loses. And even at the clear and convincing level, 75%, there is room for deciding against the accused even if he can come up with SOME facts approaching 25% net weight to support a defense theory.
And as long as I am being, well, being whatever I am being, what about another issue that Fr. Justin's remarks (as well as many others on the prosecution side) should raise in our minds but does not seem to be discussed here, namely "what were the accused's duties?"
Let me suggest two opposite and somewhat exaggerated examples, neither of which is realistic, one hopes, to illustrate the point. Extreme View #1 is that RSK's duties were to do whatever his boss told him to do. If one believes in that dictatorial, authoritarian caricature of Orthodox espiscopacy that people call "papal," then is it possible to discipline the individual if he did what he was told? Bishops might be supposed to buy into something that approaches this extreme view more closely than, say, the lesser clergy who were on the court would believe.
Extreme View #2 is that the person had no obligation to obey his boss at all, but instead was obliged to look to public legal standards, his own conscience, the Bible, the Rudder, good moral sense, the will of the people who gave the money on the representation that it would be used for _, and the OCA's governing documents to decide what his duties were and how to perform them. I would not be surprised to learn that the latter, at least, were less than clear and complete in defining the duties of chancellorhood.
And after informing us of his close contact with the Archbishop Fr. Justin calls into question the version of his oral remarks posted here, but does not provide us with any alternative version. Until someone does why should we disbelieve them?
Now second and third hand reports of what someone said about a hot button issue like this are notoriously unreliable, especially when conveyed by someone with a partisan stance (presumably Mr. Stokoe was called by the Archbishop's critics, as can be inferred from the level of surprise that the hearers experienced) to someone with a partisan stance (sorry Mark)who reports the archbishop's oral remarks to us. Now I am willing to bet that the Archbishop's remarks were far more cautious than most readers of this site would approve, but I do think we have to be careful about holding him to the exact language that made it onto this site after travelling into the ears of the archbishop's hearers, through their brains to their fingers, through the telephone or the computer to Mr. Stokoe's brain.
And I tend to agree with Fr. Justin' challenge to Mark's statement that the archbishop has "always" been a defender of RSK. Not long ago Mark was a little too quick to anoint me a longtime shill for Bishop Tikhon when I had actually had customarily played role of fly buzzing around his episcopal headgear! (I may never have actually stung much, but he sure did love to swat!)
And what about the fact that the RSK team let the case go forward by default with the spiritual "trial court?" In civil law that does not score points, and in fact usually makes the appellant's uphill trek to reversal all the steeper. Will the bishops be willing to do what civil or criminal appellate courts seldom do, namely uphold the decision below if there is any evidence in the record to support it? Or do as appellate courts almost ALWAYS do: refuse to consider evidence or arguments that could have been submitted below but weren't?
I can see how the spiritual court's findings are even at a real disadvantage before the Synod if t their recent meeting there was only someone to argue and submit evidence from the defense side.
So in case I haven't annoyed everyone, perhaps I will be allowed back to try again.
love,
Fr. George
#44
Fr. George Washburn
on
2007-10-24 16:57
"TANNING SALONS" may be the most tame diversion the missing millions was spent on.
#45
anonymous
on
2007-10-24 16:59
Dimitri didn't write all that. Fr. Joseph Fester did. He has been part of the FRK team for a decade or more. He has been carefully crafting the "spin" emanating from the South.
#46
Anon.
on
2007-10-24 17:15
Stonewall, you rock!
#47
Anonymous
on
2007-10-24 18:04
I may have misled some readers with my attempt at sarcasm being taken literally. When I said it was "a relief to know" that all the OCA's troubles can be attributed to innocence and neglect, I did not mean to say that I agree with that proposition. I apologize if I was less than clear about my position. Cate
#48
Cate
on
2007-10-24 19:30
He is also delusional in still calling himself a monk.
James:
You are not a monk. Stop calling yourself "Monk" James.
Kondratick is not a priest. Stop calling him "Father" Kondratick.
You are tarnishing both of the sacred institutions of monasticism and the holy priesthood when you abuse these titles, names, and concepts.
James:
You are not a monk. Stop calling yourself "Monk" James.
Kondratick is not a priest. Stop calling him "Father" Kondratick.
You are tarnishing both of the sacred institutions of monasticism and the holy priesthood when you abuse these titles, names, and concepts.
#49
Anonymous
on
2007-10-24 19:44
Dear Stonewall,
I agree with anonymous #14.1 - you are very brave to insult our Archbishop from far away.
Would you be so kind to name yourself and provide us with your contact information so that we may PERSONALLY tell you what we think about our beloved Vladika Dmitri?
Or, if you prefer, I will be more than happy to pay your airfare to Dallas to give you an opportunity to repeat your words in our Cathedral in person. It will be wonderful occasion for you to know what exactly Vladika said last Sunday. I believe, you well find a lot of interesting about your personality either.
If, by any reason, you cannot do that - please, make an apology to Vladika Dmitri.
Sincerely,
Vladimir Grygorenko,
Dallas, TX
PS
Mr. Stokoe - is that good enough for you?
I agree with anonymous #14.1 - you are very brave to insult our Archbishop from far away.
Would you be so kind to name yourself and provide us with your contact information so that we may PERSONALLY tell you what we think about our beloved Vladika Dmitri?
Or, if you prefer, I will be more than happy to pay your airfare to Dallas to give you an opportunity to repeat your words in our Cathedral in person. It will be wonderful occasion for you to know what exactly Vladika said last Sunday. I believe, you well find a lot of interesting about your personality either.
If, by any reason, you cannot do that - please, make an apology to Vladika Dmitri.
Sincerely,
Vladimir Grygorenko,
Dallas, TX
PS
Mr. Stokoe - is that good enough for you?
#50
Vladimir Grygorenko
on
2007-10-24 20:45
Fester is probably the most manipulative of the old crew. Thats probably why they put him in charge of FOS - I'd put him second on the list next to Mr. Bob. When will his name be brought up for investigation as well?
#51
Anon
on
2007-10-24 21:17
You write:
---
Is spending the Stocking Fund for trips to Russia "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
---
Not only is it not neglect, it shows deep care and thoughtfulness for our long suffering Russian brethren. The money, of course, was spent to spread the Orthodox faith in mother Russia. It was used to teach them how corruption, bribery and nepotism is contrary to Christian faith.
You write:
----
Is using OCA credit cards for various trips to Vegas and Aruba "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
----
It is in fact a great sacrifice for MH to go to Aruba, and spend countless hours on the beach, forcing himself to sip cold Margaritas and trying to spread the Orthodox faith to all those lost, American college students that were just drinking and partying themselves into oblivion. Please, think of the children! There is no deeper sacrifice than that...
You write:
----
Is living in an OCA owned house and charging the OCA for upgrades while also drawing a housing allowance "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
----
Again, not only is it not neglect, it is a great spiritual sacrifice (podvig from Slav.) to have to patiently endure such shame. Imagine yourself being invited to stay as a guest into someone's house and then instead of being grateful, asking them to also pay you money. I personally cannot imagine the degree of shame I would experience.
You write:
----
We could go on and on, but it should be obvious the aged bishop has a very strange understanding of innocence and neglect!
---
Oh no, I am sure it's us who have a distorted view of such things. We should know better, than to question the motives. Don't you know that MH has "superpowers" to excommunicate such disobedient and blasphemous individuals as us. One wave with the "Excomunicator 3000 Wand" and the next thing you know we'll be roasting marshmallows with Saddam Husein in Hell. So, I think we should not question MH's motives, one can never be too careful...
#7 Name withheld on 2007-10-22 18:11 (Reply)
---
Is spending the Stocking Fund for trips to Russia "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
---
Not only is it not neglect, it shows deep care and thoughtfulness for our long suffering Russian brethren. The money, of course, was spent to spread the Orthodox faith in mother Russia. It was used to teach them how corruption, bribery and nepotism is contrary to Christian faith.
You write:
----
Is using OCA credit cards for various trips to Vegas and Aruba "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
----
It is in fact a great sacrifice for MH to go to Aruba, and spend countless hours on the beach, forcing himself to sip cold Margaritas and trying to spread the Orthodox faith to all those lost, American college students that were just drinking and partying themselves into oblivion. Please, think of the children! There is no deeper sacrifice than that...
You write:
----
Is living in an OCA owned house and charging the OCA for upgrades while also drawing a housing allowance "innocence"? Is it "neglect"? Or is it theft?
----
Again, not only is it not neglect, it is a great spiritual sacrifice (podvig from Slav.) to have to patiently endure such shame. Imagine yourself being invited to stay as a guest into someone's house and then instead of being grateful, asking them to also pay you money. I personally cannot imagine the degree of shame I would experience.
You write:
----
We could go on and on, but it should be obvious the aged bishop has a very strange understanding of innocence and neglect!
---
Oh no, I am sure it's us who have a distorted view of such things. We should know better, than to question the motives. Don't you know that MH has "superpowers" to excommunicate such disobedient and blasphemous individuals as us. One wave with the "Excomunicator 3000 Wand" and the next thing you know we'll be roasting marshmallows with Saddam Husein in Hell. So, I think we should not question MH's motives, one can never be too careful...
#7 Name withheld on 2007-10-22 18:11 (Reply)
#52
Withheld
on
2007-10-25 00:01
Dear Father, how are you my friend? I see no evidence that you respect the lay people who have demanded accountability for an ongoing financial scandal which has truly hurt many people, and diminished our ability to bring people into the Church. If you are my friend, then do I need enemies? Peace, Alice
#53
Alice Carter
on
2007-10-25 09:14
Fr. George,
You talk like a lawyer. Oops! You ARE a lawyer. Yes I can follow all your percentages, but that doens't help us through this catastrophe in the OCA. What DOES help is +Job, the courageous priests who speak up, and Mark Stokoe who keeps us informed. God bless them all! They are our only hope.
I wish you too would stand up and say we really need to get to the bottom of this mess so that our laity will have renewed confindence in the OCA. That is SO much more useful that discussing percentages. I just can't donate now because I have NO confidence that my donated funds will be used for what they were intended. Read Stonewall above. He's (she?) a bit long, but he/she expresses the frustration that so many of us feel.
You talk like a lawyer. Oops! You ARE a lawyer. Yes I can follow all your percentages, but that doens't help us through this catastrophe in the OCA. What DOES help is +Job, the courageous priests who speak up, and Mark Stokoe who keeps us informed. God bless them all! They are our only hope.
I wish you too would stand up and say we really need to get to the bottom of this mess so that our laity will have renewed confindence in the OCA. That is SO much more useful that discussing percentages. I just can't donate now because I have NO confidence that my donated funds will be used for what they were intended. Read Stonewall above. He's (she?) a bit long, but he/she expresses the frustration that so many of us feel.
#54
No More Money
on
2007-10-25 10:16
Among the many hundreds of pages generated by Met. Herman's scapegoating of Fr Robert Kondratick, the piles of paper in my files contain two especially important documents.
The first of these signal documents is the list of fourteen co*Accusations* formally brought against FrRK by Dr Faith Skordinski at the request of MetH, once Abp Job stepped back from that role in the Spiritual Court which illegally tried FrRK and recommended that he be deposed from the priesthood.
The second document is FrRK's eleven-page formal *Statement of *Appeal*, accompanied and supported by three exhibits, twelve appendixes, and amply attested statements by eyewitnesses to the events described in it.
In addition to myself, FrRK's Appeal was composed and reviewed by highly respected monks, priests, canonists, attorneys, and other professionals. The Appeal clearly and completely addresses all the fourteen formal Accusations and thoroughly refutes them.
Except to satisfy the curious, it_would_not_be_helpful to publish FrRK's Appeal here or anywhere else on the Internet while it's in process. I'm sure that everyone understands the legal and procedural reasons for this reticence, and will also appreciate that 'trial by Internet' isn't a particularly productive option.
Michael Geeza has no access to any of these materials, but instead chooses to believe the propaganda continually produced by MetH, Fr Paul Kucynda, & Co. Well, and good.
Still, it's always an amazement to me that people who would otherwise offer at least the pretense of intelligence would be so gullible in the absence of attestable and provable evidence.
But, for the record and especially for Mr Geeza's sake, let's allow the possibility that Fr RK isn't perfect, that he's a human being and a sinner like the rest of us. And let's further allow that FrRK wrote an apology to MetH, to the Holy Synod, and to the OCA as a whole for all his faults and failings while serving as Chancellor.
Well, that's precisely what he did. The bishops have this very confession in just about these exact words over FrRK's signature.
It should also be known, though, that FrRK also maintains that he is completely innocent of all those fourteen Accusations brought against him by the Spiritual Court.
I support FrRK in this avowal, and I've never wavered in my support of him. If Mr Geeza has better documentation than I, perhaps he can describe it here.
In the long meantime (since I doubt that Mr Geeza has anything to produce beyond his strong feelings), I suggest that we peacefully await the Holy Synod's rulings on FrRK's Appeal in December, and intensify our heartfelt prayers and sincerest efforts to assist our OCA through this perilous period.
Monk James
The first of these signal documents is the list of fourteen co*Accusations* formally brought against FrRK by Dr Faith Skordinski at the request of MetH, once Abp Job stepped back from that role in the Spiritual Court which illegally tried FrRK and recommended that he be deposed from the priesthood.
The second document is FrRK's eleven-page formal *Statement of *Appeal*, accompanied and supported by three exhibits, twelve appendixes, and amply attested statements by eyewitnesses to the events described in it.
In addition to myself, FrRK's Appeal was composed and reviewed by highly respected monks, priests, canonists, attorneys, and other professionals. The Appeal clearly and completely addresses all the fourteen formal Accusations and thoroughly refutes them.
Except to satisfy the curious, it_would_not_be_helpful to publish FrRK's Appeal here or anywhere else on the Internet while it's in process. I'm sure that everyone understands the legal and procedural reasons for this reticence, and will also appreciate that 'trial by Internet' isn't a particularly productive option.
Michael Geeza has no access to any of these materials, but instead chooses to believe the propaganda continually produced by MetH, Fr Paul Kucynda, & Co. Well, and good.
Still, it's always an amazement to me that people who would otherwise offer at least the pretense of intelligence would be so gullible in the absence of attestable and provable evidence.
But, for the record and especially for Mr Geeza's sake, let's allow the possibility that Fr RK isn't perfect, that he's a human being and a sinner like the rest of us. And let's further allow that FrRK wrote an apology to MetH, to the Holy Synod, and to the OCA as a whole for all his faults and failings while serving as Chancellor.
Well, that's precisely what he did. The bishops have this very confession in just about these exact words over FrRK's signature.
It should also be known, though, that FrRK also maintains that he is completely innocent of all those fourteen Accusations brought against him by the Spiritual Court.
I support FrRK in this avowal, and I've never wavered in my support of him. If Mr Geeza has better documentation than I, perhaps he can describe it here.
In the long meantime (since I doubt that Mr Geeza has anything to produce beyond his strong feelings), I suggest that we peacefully await the Holy Synod's rulings on FrRK's Appeal in December, and intensify our heartfelt prayers and sincerest efforts to assist our OCA through this perilous period.
Monk James
#55
Monk James
on
2007-10-25 16:57
While I have no idea how 'Anonymous' formed the notion that I am not a monk, I'll plead guilty to all his other accusations.
A loathsome sinner, guilty! A poor example of a monk, guilty! A miserable example of a Christian, guilty!
It's just that -- poor sinner as I am -- it never occurred to me to leave the monastic life, and no bishop has ever thrown me out of it. So here I am, warts and pimples and all.
As for Fr Robert Kondratick's not being a priest, I can say for a fact that his attempted deposition was illegal and immoral and unjust, and of no effect. Null and void.
By all standards -- except the false ones employed by the Spiritual Court which condemned him, and by the spineless Synod of Bishops which thought to 'depose' him -- FrRK is still as much the good priest he's been for all these years.
Monk James
A loathsome sinner, guilty! A poor example of a monk, guilty! A miserable example of a Christian, guilty!
It's just that -- poor sinner as I am -- it never occurred to me to leave the monastic life, and no bishop has ever thrown me out of it. So here I am, warts and pimples and all.
As for Fr Robert Kondratick's not being a priest, I can say for a fact that his attempted deposition was illegal and immoral and unjust, and of no effect. Null and void.
By all standards -- except the false ones employed by the Spiritual Court which condemned him, and by the spineless Synod of Bishops which thought to 'depose' him -- FrRK is still as much the good priest he's been for all these years.
Monk James
#56
Monk James
on
2007-10-25 17:15
Mark,
Would it seem unreasonable to ask you to remove two posts, especially the ones that are the most verbally violent towards Vladiko Dimitri. We can handle criticism, but those two posts (Stone walls hour long tirade and Mr. Tobin's drive by) go way beyond criticism, which I think you recognize in the last email you sent me. If it shouldn't have been allowed to be posted in the first place, can we go the next step and remove such devisive posts after the fact? If you are sincere in avoiding a shoot out over Vladiko Dimitri, please consider my request. While you're at it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove the post from the subdeacon from dallas who is basically asking them to come down to Dallas for a "smack down". Such violence is beneath the dignity of even the name Christian.
Bautista
p.s. Now, I know I am asking too much, but surely questions will arise if you remove those posts. Maybe it would help many to restore credability in your work (espeically those who are not necessarily MHers or RSKers, but adamant defender of +Dimitri) if you wrote publically what you wrote to me in private.
(Editor's note: You have answered your own question. What I said to you in private I will say in public: discussing +Dmitri's merits or lack of same is inappropriate at this time. I consider these discussions ended. )
Would it seem unreasonable to ask you to remove two posts, especially the ones that are the most verbally violent towards Vladiko Dimitri. We can handle criticism, but those two posts (Stone walls hour long tirade and Mr. Tobin's drive by) go way beyond criticism, which I think you recognize in the last email you sent me. If it shouldn't have been allowed to be posted in the first place, can we go the next step and remove such devisive posts after the fact? If you are sincere in avoiding a shoot out over Vladiko Dimitri, please consider my request. While you're at it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove the post from the subdeacon from dallas who is basically asking them to come down to Dallas for a "smack down". Such violence is beneath the dignity of even the name Christian.
Bautista
p.s. Now, I know I am asking too much, but surely questions will arise if you remove those posts. Maybe it would help many to restore credability in your work (espeically those who are not necessarily MHers or RSKers, but adamant defender of +Dimitri) if you wrote publically what you wrote to me in private.
(Editor's note: You have answered your own question. What I said to you in private I will say in public: discussing +Dmitri's merits or lack of same is inappropriate at this time. I consider these discussions ended. )
#57
Bautista Cabrera
on
2007-10-26 06:07
m?X?6ere when the ADM funds started sloshing around at Syosset. Did any of it splash on him? It is almost inconceivable that he did not benefit. They were very close. Two peas in a pod. In fact, I believe there is evidence that he formed a company in Las Vegas with the infamous Mr. Rock to import Russian folk art. Can someone help with these facts just so we are accurate?
(Editor's note: There is solid evidence that Fr. Fester, with the knowledge and blessing of Kondratick, ostensibly on behalf of the OCA, sought to create a distribution company with Mr. Rock et. al, to market Russian folk art in conjunction with a proposed project to display Icons from the Moscow Patriarchate at Steve Wynn's Las Vegas casino. The plan was nixed by the Moscow Patriarchate. It is also true that Fr. Fester was serving in Syosset when ADM money was received. Other than that, the writer's allegations of money "splashing" on him, etc., are just that. Speculation. Let's keep the facts people. )
(Editor's note: There is solid evidence that Fr. Fester, with the knowledge and blessing of Kondratick, ostensibly on behalf of the OCA, sought to create a distribution company with Mr. Rock et. al, to market Russian folk art in conjunction with a proposed project to display Icons from the Moscow Patriarchate at Steve Wynn's Las Vegas casino. The plan was nixed by the Moscow Patriarchate. It is also true that Fr. Fester was serving in Syosset when ADM money was received. Other than that, the writer's allegations of money "splashing" on him, etc., are just that. Speculation. Let's keep the facts people. )
#58
Anon.
on
2007-10-26 16:04
I concur. ....I have to say that it was very discouraging to read of his remarks. I simply can't explain it. I had had a higher opinion of him previously, although it had wavered when I heard he placed Kondratick in the parish in Florida.
Sorrowfully,
Sorrowfully,
#59
Matushka
on
2007-10-26 22:08
Hey Mike,
Not to steal your thunder brother, but amazing wasn't the word I thought of when I read this detail.
Despicable was the first thing that came to mind.
I am holding back on my judgement of Abp. Dmitri, but this is really a bizarre Synod.
To go from a claim of graft of a million dollars to innocent, but neglectful is bizarre and despicable.
To accept an assignment for a investigative committee and then condemn the prior person who was thwarted in his efforts and took an action to change the course of the investigation is really backstabbing.
To accept the resignations of the first committee implies something, I'm just not sure what..
Despicable.
Not to steal your thunder brother, but amazing wasn't the word I thought of when I read this detail.
Despicable was the first thing that came to mind.
I am holding back on my judgement of Abp. Dmitri, but this is really a bizarre Synod.
To go from a claim of graft of a million dollars to innocent, but neglectful is bizarre and despicable.
To accept an assignment for a investigative committee and then condemn the prior person who was thwarted in his efforts and took an action to change the course of the investigation is really backstabbing.
To accept the resignations of the first committee implies something, I'm just not sure what..
Despicable.
#60
Daniel E. Fall
on
2007-10-27 20:52
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Calendar
|
May '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||