EPA Assembly votes to Audit

Father Alexander is certainly right when he says that it is "just not in the nature of the church to discuss every sordid detail in public." But isn't there a higher standard when it comes to the actions of clergy and hierarchs, particularly when their actions (or failure to take action) affect the entire Church, and particularly when they have failed for years to address the issues discreetly, and particularly when they have wrongfully terminated people who tried to do the right thing?

What do the Church Fathers say? Is it ever proper that the misconduct of clergy or hierarchs be exposed? When evil is exposed, what is the proper response?

St. Gregory Diologus (Gregory the Great) says: "The conduct of a prelate ought so far to be superior to the conduct of the people as the life of a shepherd is accustomed to exalt him above the flock. For one whose position is such that the people are called his flock ought anxiously to consider how great a necessity is laid upon him to maintain uprightness."

In a letter to his brother bishop Januarius, St. Gregory wrote: “The preacher of Almighty God, Paul the Apostle, says ‘Rebuke not an elder.’ But this rule of his is to be observed in cases where the fault of an elder does not draw through his example the hearts of the younger into ruin. But when the elder sets an example to the young for their ruin, he is to be smitten with severe rebuke.”

In another letter to the same bishop Januarius, St. Gregory outlined the proper response to accusation of financial mismanagement and embezzlement in the Church: “We have learned also that a certain widow left her substance to the monastery of St. Julian, and that this substance has been plundered by one of your clerks who used to direct the actions of the deceased woman while she lived, and that he now evades making restitution. We therefore exhort thee that, if what is said should prove to be true, you cause him to be constrained by strict proceedings, to the end that he may make haste to restore without diminution the property left to the monastery, and be compelled to give up, even with the loss of his reputation, that which, preserving the purity of his honour, he ought not to have dared to take . . . . We have also been informed that, you having committed the care of your patrimony to certain laymen, they, after having been detected in depredations on your peasants and flight in consequence, both refuse to restore the property which, as not being subject to your control, they indecently retain as though it were in their own power, and also scorn to render you an account of their doings. If this be so, it is fitting that the matter be strictly investigated by you, and the case between them and the peasants of your Church be thoroughly examined. And whatever fraud may be discovered in them let them be compelled to make restitution for with the penalty appointed by the laws.”

When St. Basil the Great believed he has been slandered with false accusation, how did he react? Did he stonewall? Did he accuse his accusers of being agents of Satan? Did he categorically refuse to submit to any inquiry on the matter? On the contrary, he wrote to the Neocaesareans: “But there are bishops; let appeal be made to them. There is a clergy in each of God’s dioceses; let the most eminent be assembled. Let whoso will, speak freely, that I may have to deal with a charge, not a slander. Let my secret wickedness be brought into full view; let me no longer be hated, but admonished as a brother. It is more just that we sinners should be pitied by the blessed and the sinless, than that we should be treated angrily . . . . If, therefore, my gifts are spiritual, he who wishes to judge them must show proof of his own possession of the gift of ‘discerning of spirits.’ If, on the contrary, as he calumniously contends, my gifts are of the wisdom of this world, let him show that he is an adept in this world’s wisdom, and I will submit myself to his verdict. And let no one suppose that I am making excuses to evade the charge. I put it into your hands, dearest brethren, to investigate for yourselves the points alleged against me.”

Several OCA bishops have suggested that the laity needs some special education on the proper use of the internet. I am curious to know how they would ground any such teaching in the writings of the Fathers. Do we really need any new internet-specific teachings? Isn't it sufficient to return to the Fathers and study the teachings we already have?

When I read that several of the bishops believe that the laity need some special instruction on how to properly use the internet, I knew that it was time to go back to the Church Fathers. George, you are right – scandals like this were not uncommon in the history of the Church. Anyone tempted to despair over the OCA crisis might find comfort by reading how the Fathers addressed these issues in the past.

I am searching for answers to the following types of questions: When a scandal affects the entire church and goes all the way to the top, is it right for the laity to speak out? Is stealing church funds an issue that affects the entire church and should be addressed publicly? Or is it a matter of private confession? When do bishops have the exclusive authority to resolve a church dispute, and when is it proper to submit a dispute to civil authorities? When does a bishop abuse his authority by demanding obedience from his clergy? When is it proper to oppose a bishop, and when is it proper to submit to him?

Although I have not found specific answers to all of these questions, what I have found has been both comforting and eye-opening. I already posted a few excerpts from St. Basil and St. Gregory Dialogus. Here are a few more from St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Jerome.

St. Jerome on misappropriating church funds: “To wrest a thing from a friend is theft but to cheat the Church is sacrilege. When you have received money to be doled out to the poor, to be cautious or to hesitate while crowds are starving is to be worse than a robber; and to subtract a portion for yourself is to commit a crime of the deepest dye.” (Letter to Nepotian)

St. Jerome on the relationship between the bishop and his clergy: “In your case the bishop combines in himself many titles to your respect. He is at once a monk, a prelate, and an uncle who has before now instructed you in all holy things. This also I say that the bishops should know themselves to be priests not lords. Let them render to the clergy the honour which is their due that the clergy may offer to them the respect which belongs to bishops. There is a witty saying of the orator Domitius which is here to the point: ‘Why am I to recognize you as leader of the Senate when you will not recognize my rights as a private member?’” (Letter to Nepotian)

St. Athanasius on when to oppose a bishop and when to submit to him: “But whereas you have also told me of the monks at Cæsarea, and I have learned from our beloved Dianius that they are vexed, and are opposing our beloved bishop Basil, I am glad you have informed me, and I have pointed out to them what is fitting, namely that as children they should obey their father, and not oppose what he approves. For if he were suspected as touching the truth, they would do well to combat him. But if they are confident, as we all are, that he is a glory to the Church, contending rather on behalf of the truth and teaching those who require it, it is not right to combat such an one, but rather to accept with thanks his good conscience.” (Letter to the Presbyter Palladius)

St. Ambrose on the exclusive right of bishops to resolve doctrinal matters, and the right of civil authorities to resolve disputes: “When have you heard, most gracious Emperor, that laymen gave judgment concerning a bishop in a matter of faith? Are we so prostrate through the flattery of some as to be unmindful of the rights of the priesthood, and do I think that I can entrust to others what God has given me? If a bishop is to be taught by a layman, what will follow? Let the layman argue, and the bishop listen, let the bishop learn of the layman. But undoubtedly, whether we go through the series of the holy Scriptures, or the times of old, who is there who can deny that, in a matter of faith,—in a matter I say of faith,—bishops are wont to judge of Christian emperors, not emperors of bishops.” (Letter to the Emperor Valentinian II)