Thursday, December 13. 2007
Kondratick Appeal Denied: Summary Re-issued
Your comments on events and developments welcome.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Read the Mitchell Report if you want to see a REAL report.
Why was Kondratick NEVER permitted to see ANY of the evidence against him?
The Summary Report is at best, amateur. What a shame that after all this, we can see why the Summary Report was never released, it proves nothing.
And if this Report was really definitive, why will Bishop Benjamin NOT interview Kondratick now?
We have just witnessed the real beginning of the end of the OCA.
What a shame.
Why was Kondratick NEVER permitted to see ANY of the evidence against him?
The Summary Report is at best, amateur. What a shame that after all this, we can see why the Summary Report was never released, it proves nothing.
And if this Report was really definitive, why will Bishop Benjamin NOT interview Kondratick now?
We have just witnessed the real beginning of the end of the OCA.
What a shame.
#1
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 15:16
This is a sad and shameful day in the history of the OCA. Our holy father Herman of Alaska must weep to see his namesake, Met. Herman, quote scripture and then spew forth such lies.
It was especially galling to read MetH's reference to the piety of Noah's sons. Reading between the lines, I see this as merely another false adduction of the scriptures as a way of saying that he thinks it would be a bad idea for us to know about his own financial mismanagement in the OCA and his dishonesty with St Tikhon monastery and seminary, the continuing embarrassment of homosexual indiscretions on his own part and on the part of bishops and other clergy he protects, their alcohol abuse and indifference to their clergy, his inability to deal with the serious moral, theological, and canonical problems affecting the clergy of the New Jersey deanery and elsewhere, his endless persecution of any and all priests who barely disagree with him, let alone oppose him, etc. etc.
And now this.
Perhaps now is the time for me to begin publishing the details of the appeal which I was privileged and greatly blessed to assist Fr Robert Kondratick in composing and presenting. It's a certain fact that FrRK stands to lose nothing by such revelations, which will vindicate him and expose most of the lies which MetH has told us about the former chancellor.
This good man has been scapegoated for MetH's sins and failures, and it does no good for MetH to cry crocodile tears and say how sorry he is if he does nothing to correct himself and repair the damage he's done to FrRK and to our OCA.
He could start by allowing FrRK to see the evidence assembled against him, false evidence which led to his unjust- - and therefore ineffective -- deposition from the priesthood. Perhaps then a real 'spiritual court' could examine that evidence, and an appeal might not even be necessary.
But this sort of persecution is a pattern which has marked MetH's episcopate from the beginning. Forty years? Sure, but not forty years of devout service. Rather, forty destructive years of wandering aimlessly in the desert of his own greed and ambition!
Even now, as MetH tries to conclude his campaign of lies and oppression against FrRK, and thinks that he's finally got FrRK where he wants him, MetH allows Fr Alexis Vinogradov to get off with only a canonical slap on the wrist, a mere two-week suspension for serving -- in his vestments -- at a Protestant wedding. Then it's reported that FrAV served (as second priest, as if that mattered) while under suspension. That offense in itself results in an automatic self-deposition from the priesthood, as if FrAV hadn't already deposed himself by serving with the heterodox.
But MetH & Co. don't know the canons and traditions of the Church. They know only what they want to know. And, canons and statutes be damned, they do what they want -- enabled and empowered by the other bishops to get to do what they want instead of what is right and good and true. This has got to stop.
The time for anonymity has come to an end. I call on all of our Christian people to rise up, resist, and unseat Met. Herman, that malignant tyrant, and rid our OCA of his own and his cronies' poisonous presence and corrosive influence.
Lord, send us bishops!
Holy father Herman, intercede with God for us!
Monk James
(Editor's note: If you have any evidence of wrongdoing you are obligated to share the same with the Special Investigative Committee, or failing that, make it known yourself. To accuse the Metropolitan of sexual indiscretions as you have on the Orthodox Forum, and to a lesser extent here, without any supporting evidence or credible testimony, is simply disreputable. If you don't have any evidence or credible testimony, please stop threatening. Its just so much hot air at this point. )
It was especially galling to read MetH's reference to the piety of Noah's sons. Reading between the lines, I see this as merely another false adduction of the scriptures as a way of saying that he thinks it would be a bad idea for us to know about his own financial mismanagement in the OCA and his dishonesty with St Tikhon monastery and seminary, the continuing embarrassment of homosexual indiscretions on his own part and on the part of bishops and other clergy he protects, their alcohol abuse and indifference to their clergy, his inability to deal with the serious moral, theological, and canonical problems affecting the clergy of the New Jersey deanery and elsewhere, his endless persecution of any and all priests who barely disagree with him, let alone oppose him, etc. etc.
And now this.
Perhaps now is the time for me to begin publishing the details of the appeal which I was privileged and greatly blessed to assist Fr Robert Kondratick in composing and presenting. It's a certain fact that FrRK stands to lose nothing by such revelations, which will vindicate him and expose most of the lies which MetH has told us about the former chancellor.
This good man has been scapegoated for MetH's sins and failures, and it does no good for MetH to cry crocodile tears and say how sorry he is if he does nothing to correct himself and repair the damage he's done to FrRK and to our OCA.
He could start by allowing FrRK to see the evidence assembled against him, false evidence which led to his unjust- - and therefore ineffective -- deposition from the priesthood. Perhaps then a real 'spiritual court' could examine that evidence, and an appeal might not even be necessary.
But this sort of persecution is a pattern which has marked MetH's episcopate from the beginning. Forty years? Sure, but not forty years of devout service. Rather, forty destructive years of wandering aimlessly in the desert of his own greed and ambition!
Even now, as MetH tries to conclude his campaign of lies and oppression against FrRK, and thinks that he's finally got FrRK where he wants him, MetH allows Fr Alexis Vinogradov to get off with only a canonical slap on the wrist, a mere two-week suspension for serving -- in his vestments -- at a Protestant wedding. Then it's reported that FrAV served (as second priest, as if that mattered) while under suspension. That offense in itself results in an automatic self-deposition from the priesthood, as if FrAV hadn't already deposed himself by serving with the heterodox.
But MetH & Co. don't know the canons and traditions of the Church. They know only what they want to know. And, canons and statutes be damned, they do what they want -- enabled and empowered by the other bishops to get to do what they want instead of what is right and good and true. This has got to stop.
The time for anonymity has come to an end. I call on all of our Christian people to rise up, resist, and unseat Met. Herman, that malignant tyrant, and rid our OCA of his own and his cronies' poisonous presence and corrosive influence.
Lord, send us bishops!
Holy father Herman, intercede with God for us!
Monk James
(Editor's note: If you have any evidence of wrongdoing you are obligated to share the same with the Special Investigative Committee, or failing that, make it known yourself. To accuse the Metropolitan of sexual indiscretions as you have on the Orthodox Forum, and to a lesser extent here, without any supporting evidence or credible testimony, is simply disreputable. If you don't have any evidence or credible testimony, please stop threatening. Its just so much hot air at this point. )
#2
Monk James
on
2007-12-13 16:16
I agree. Everything that the OCA has reported is nothing new. And what is worse, is that Metropolitan Herman uses a lengthy "sob story" saying "how difficult this was for me... he was my friend" and "I've been a priest/bishop for 40 years". C'mon Herman... stop playing on the people's sympathies to join you in reestablishing a new church by saying that "there is work to be done and priests to be trained and parishes to be built". If the man cared at ALL for the OCA, he would be lead himself out of South Canaan and into Syosset to take on the role that God chose him for. Yet, he remains hidden in the mountains away from the people and away from his role! These are NOT the Metropolitan's words people... they are of his "writers"... Matusiak, Jarmus, Rental, and a hint of Perry... but not Metropolitan Herman. His parish visitations reveal that the man does not know how to speak, let alone formulate words into a sentence!
#3
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 16:21
This is a repeat , the oca should be ashamed. Once again "one" man is the blame. I give up with this garbage , is anyone believing this. MH that speak made me want to give you every last dime.
If the midwest believes this garbage , I got a bridge to sell ya. MH if this is your plea for cash , Job don't give in. The tanning was classic.
If the midwest believes this garbage , I got a bridge to sell ya. MH if this is your plea for cash , Job don't give in. The tanning was classic.
#4
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 17:48
Exactly what do you mean by the beginning of the end of the OCA? Tell me there is more behind your statement than anger, pessimism and despair!
Also I ask exactly what were you expecting to hear as a result of the recent Synod meetings? The Metropolitan in his address qualified you would get "the findings" of the initial investigative committee and "excerpts" of the proceedings of the spiritual court. You are getting a conclusion and basis upon which the conclusion is drawn, summarizations. What do you want to hear or know for fact that we are not hearing and dissatisfies you?
I wouldn't waste time asking why will Bp. Benjamin NOT interview Kondratick now, later or ever. I would ask what task is he overseeing with the appointed others. I would ask how their charge is related directly to the efforts of conflict resolution sought after at the 2008 AAC.
Also I ask exactly what were you expecting to hear as a result of the recent Synod meetings? The Metropolitan in his address qualified you would get "the findings" of the initial investigative committee and "excerpts" of the proceedings of the spiritual court. You are getting a conclusion and basis upon which the conclusion is drawn, summarizations. What do you want to hear or know for fact that we are not hearing and dissatisfies you?
I wouldn't waste time asking why will Bp. Benjamin NOT interview Kondratick now, later or ever. I would ask what task is he overseeing with the appointed others. I would ask how their charge is related directly to the efforts of conflict resolution sought after at the 2008 AAC.
#5
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 17:52
Where are the receipts for all of these facts ?
#6
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 18:01
The Metropolitan's statement is very well written and sensitive, striking almost exactly the right tone.
Maybe the person who wrote it should be Metropolitan.
It was deficient in one respect -- it needs a section that goes something like ... "therefore recognizing my deficiencies and lapses of judgment, sincerely desiring the healing of the Church, and acknowledging that I have become a divisive figure, I will resign as Metropolitan effective ..."
The combined summary report of SIC I and excerpts of the spiritual court runs to four and half pages. Since we know that the summary report was originally 13 pages, we can assume that there have been omissions. We also know that the members of SIC I considered the report and their work woefully incomplete and inadequate.
Overall, nice try and shows that someone currently close to MH does get it at some level and is trying to some degree.
But we KNOW [the documents are here for everyone to see -- you don't even have to rely on Mark's news reports, just look at the official statements and documents] that the steady march towards resolution presented in the statement is a complete fiction, that at every step the Metropolitan has tried to shut down further investigation, to preserve as much of he old order as he could.
Maybe it's true [and I'm willing to believe] that everyone now employed at Syosset is on the up and up and there really is a new and right direction. But we still have a completely absent, completely out of touch, completely compromised leader -- that has to change.
Rebecca Matovic
Maybe the person who wrote it should be Metropolitan.
It was deficient in one respect -- it needs a section that goes something like ... "therefore recognizing my deficiencies and lapses of judgment, sincerely desiring the healing of the Church, and acknowledging that I have become a divisive figure, I will resign as Metropolitan effective ..."
The combined summary report of SIC I and excerpts of the spiritual court runs to four and half pages. Since we know that the summary report was originally 13 pages, we can assume that there have been omissions. We also know that the members of SIC I considered the report and their work woefully incomplete and inadequate.
Overall, nice try and shows that someone currently close to MH does get it at some level and is trying to some degree.
But we KNOW [the documents are here for everyone to see -- you don't even have to rely on Mark's news reports, just look at the official statements and documents] that the steady march towards resolution presented in the statement is a complete fiction, that at every step the Metropolitan has tried to shut down further investigation, to preserve as much of he old order as he could.
Maybe it's true [and I'm willing to believe] that everyone now employed at Syosset is on the up and up and there really is a new and right direction. But we still have a completely absent, completely out of touch, completely compromised leader -- that has to change.
Rebecca Matovic
#7
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 18:04
. ..
TOOO LITTLE TOOOOO LATE
Eighteen months ago, I might have bought it.
George Bush Sr. got half the job done in the Gulf War, then stopped.
Now where are we?
Lets not do the same thing with this OCA situation. Lets not settle for fixing half of this mess.
NO level of Clergy should have any involvement with the finances. I don't care what the bylaws and statutes say. They were written by clergy to give them power, control, and security. It's a conflict of interest.
I have seen the future.
Ande
TOOO LITTLE TOOOOO LATE
Eighteen months ago, I might have bought it.
George Bush Sr. got half the job done in the Gulf War, then stopped.
Now where are we?
Lets not do the same thing with this OCA situation. Lets not settle for fixing half of this mess.
NO level of Clergy should have any involvement with the finances. I don't care what the bylaws and statutes say. They were written by clergy to give them power, control, and security. It's a conflict of interest.
I have seen the future.
Ande
#8
Ande
on
2007-12-13 18:24
Can you please enlighten us on the "Mitchell" report. What is it and how do we get to access it?
(editor's note: The Mitchell report, named for the former Senate Majority Leader from Maine, concerns the use of steriods, etc., in Major League Baseball during the past 15 years. It too was released today and named some 80 MLB players who purchased or used performance enhancing drugs. It was commissioned by the Commissioner of Baseball, and pulls no punches, including laying blame, in part, on the Commissioner himself. )
(editor's note: The Mitchell report, named for the former Senate Majority Leader from Maine, concerns the use of steriods, etc., in Major League Baseball during the past 15 years. It too was released today and named some 80 MLB players who purchased or used performance enhancing drugs. It was commissioned by the Commissioner of Baseball, and pulls no punches, including laying blame, in part, on the Commissioner himself. )
#9
Harild Pukita
on
2007-12-13 18:25
This is an example of these real men of faith. Instead of dropping to prayer, repentence, and asking for forgiveness, the scorched earth policy begins. They were never men of God. They have reaped what they have sown and now we will see the true character of those today the Synod had the wisdom to remove from sacred responsibilities. We have heard too long that this was all rigged evidence but never shown any evidence to the contrary. We are doubting Thomases, please show us the money!
#10
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 19:22
Once again I see numerous posts about Metropolitan Herman. Hello folks, Metrpolitan Herman did not depose Kondratick by himself, it was the Holy Synod of bishops. Let's try and get the facts straight here. Today is a very positive day in the life of the Orthodox Church in America. It shows that the Holy Synod can, in fact, come together and make a united decision. It shows that whatever some may think about Kondratick, he and his twinkle toes monk legal assistant have a lot of explaining to do. I applaud Metropolitan Herman for his words. They are long overdue but at least he finally came and said something. Obviously despite now a number of people that would prefer the conspiracy theory and mud slinging, the OCA is slowly getting its act together. It isn't entirely fixed yet but today is indeed a very good day.
P.S. for the monk, put up or shut up. Where did the the $170K for the 9/11 funds go? Where's the beef?
P.S. for the monk, put up or shut up. Where did the the $170K for the 9/11 funds go? Where's the beef?
#11
Anon.
on
2007-12-13 19:47
Are you seriously equating the "theft" of millions of dollars with a priest vested at a Protestant wedding? LOL! I think you're going to have to do better than to that. Being vested at a Protestant wedding is not breaking one of the ten commandments, spoken by God Himself, and is not stealing from the Church. He did not handsomely personally profit from this action. We understand you wanting to try to show an injustice, but this one is just too funny.
You can stop using the Fr as a prefix to the RK when referring to Mr. Kondratick or does that Fr now mean "Former"? The bishops have spoken. If you have a problem with the final decision of the Synod maybe you just need to leave this jurisdiction. There is an abbot out there for you somewhere.
You can stop using the Fr as a prefix to the RK when referring to Mr. Kondratick or does that Fr now mean "Former"? The bishops have spoken. If you have a problem with the final decision of the Synod maybe you just need to leave this jurisdiction. There is an abbot out there for you somewhere.
#12
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 19:53
In his explanation as to why he didn't more publicly deal with the scandal and scandalous behavior of the central church administrators, Metropolitan Herman wrote, "In the Biblical spirit of Noah's sons I was taught that the right thing is to not expose the shame of elders, by which I understand my brother bishops and the other clergy. As a priest and later as bishop, I endeavored to preserve the stability and unity of the Church to the best of my abilities, even when doing so may have upset some individuals." I certainly appreciate the Metropolitan's publicly acknowledging his errors in judgment and deeds by which he finally admits even if vaguely how he personally contributed both to the scandal and to how the scandal has been mishandled. I do however question his idea of how a church leader should deal with the scandal caused by church leadership - cover it up. If that is how he responds scandal in the church as the Metropolitan, imagine a priest sexually abusing a parish child. Would the Metropolitan decide not to expose the shame of the elder? Is that what we need or expect from a bishop of the Church in this day and age? His statement turns "cover up" euphemistically into "not exposing the shame of the elder." While that might be the ideal within the confines of a small monastic community, it cannot be the principle governing the situation when public trust has been abused by national church leaders who shamelessly violated the stewardship entrusted to them by God and by the Church. I would also say read the Genesis 11 story of Noah again. Noah's sons, Shem and Japheth, certainly do cover their father's nakedness, but in the story Noah is the VICTIM of Ham's sin. Shem and Ham aren't so much covering the sin of their father (his drunkenness), but rather the victimhood of their father due to the sin of their brother. When Noah awakens he realizes what Ham has done to him - Ham sinned against Noah in some way and not mere voyeurism. It is not Noah's getting drunk that is the focus of the story, but what Ham sinfully does to his unconscious father! Noah's sons are not trying to cover or hide the sin of their brother, but they are ashamed FOR their dad and want to cover the shame their victimized father has suffered by Ham. It would be a misunderstanding of the Noah story to say Shem and Japheth tried not to expose the shame of their brother. By covering their father they were in fact acknowledging the shame of their brother's action. They were ashamed by what their brother had done and they tried to aid the victim, not cover up the shameful deed of the perpetrator of the crime!
#13
Fr. Ted Bobosh
on
2007-12-13 20:05
Andre,
Get a grip. Sure, let's throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's have the pendulum swing back all the way and have the sacred/secular division again. Spiritual is good, material is bad. Nonsense. Everything is called to be sacred, even money. Enron was run by clergy, but look what happened there.
The sin is when ANYONE loses sight of Christ and His Kingdom and all of us must share the blame in getting us to where we are today. Splinter.....eye......log.....?
(Editor's note: Nice try, but 8 million diverted, missing and stolen "splinters" does not just make a log, it makes a log jam, holding back the living water such that we get a trickle, and not the river we need. Let's have some good old confession, repentence,and acceptance of consequences by those whose actions and inactions caused the jam. That, and that alone is the only thing that is going to blow this log jam apart. Until then, it trickles.)
Get a grip. Sure, let's throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's have the pendulum swing back all the way and have the sacred/secular division again. Spiritual is good, material is bad. Nonsense. Everything is called to be sacred, even money. Enron was run by clergy, but look what happened there.
The sin is when ANYONE loses sight of Christ and His Kingdom and all of us must share the blame in getting us to where we are today. Splinter.....eye......log.....?
(Editor's note: Nice try, but 8 million diverted, missing and stolen "splinters" does not just make a log, it makes a log jam, holding back the living water such that we get a trickle, and not the river we need. Let's have some good old confession, repentence,and acceptance of consequences by those whose actions and inactions caused the jam. That, and that alone is the only thing that is going to blow this log jam apart. Until then, it trickles.)
#14
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 20:12
The OCA is giving meaning to a new psychological concept: "PATHOLOGICAL OBFUSCATION" - Definition: keep lying so much and so often that the people will eventually tire and decide its too much bother NOT to believe the lie. This is so antithetical to our calling to seek Truth. We seem so far away from Christ right now that when someone tries to inject pious words into this soup, it is almost embarrassing to read. I feel like a hypocrite for identifying with this sinking moral ship.
#15
Anon.
on
2007-12-13 21:21
"These are NOT the Metropolitan's words people... they are of his "writers"... Matusiak, Jarmus, Rental, and a hint of Perry... but not Metropolitan Herman. His parish visitations reveal that the man does not know how to speak, let alone formulate words into a sentence!"
So are you saying that Jarmus, Matusiak and Rental are just "Yes" men? What on earth do these "Yes men"/writers hope to gain? Certainly their words are not for the Good of the OCA or their own salvation. Is it all about power and staying in power?
L. Kowalyk
So are you saying that Jarmus, Matusiak and Rental are just "Yes" men? What on earth do these "Yes men"/writers hope to gain? Certainly their words are not for the Good of the OCA or their own salvation. Is it all about power and staying in power?
L. Kowalyk
#16
Lidia Kowalyk
on
2007-12-13 21:28
You people are a basket case! Give it up! Why continue to hurt the Church by your rude remarks! As I said in the past this website is good for one thing and that is Gossip! The Author and others will continue to bash the Holy Synod of Bishops! Will it ever stop stokoe???? Will you ever tell the truth? will you continue to take bits of information, twist it, turn it upside down and inside out,and then tell people its the truth! The Met Herman gave an excellent report! your readers can review this on oca news, and decide for them selves what the truth is! May you all rest in peace.
#17
Anonymous
on
2007-12-13 21:48
I was pleased by the Metropolitan's letter. He has finally accepted his errors publicly. Sacking Nescott was unthinkable, and got him zilch. I hope he considers it among his errors. It led to me calling for his resign.
Funny thing I don't get, though. Why won't the OCA tell us how misused restricted funds dating back to 2001 weren't a discussion point in 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005 until a public outcry was made? The only fact I know is that there wasn't time to discuss it and Q&A was thwarted in July 2005.
Further, if the OCA has made budgetary changes (shrink) since Fr. Kondratick left, how was it they could have made it with him around? See, if Kondratick was stealing, but isn't anymore, the church should be rolling in money. Fact is, they had to make cuts, so debt was the only way to keep it going before.. Someone authorized the establishment of the 500k creditline along the way. Who? Why? Was it a gross error?
Intuitively, the Metropolitan should have also announced a reduction in the assessment, right? Or he could have at least said no more borrowing will be needed, etc. I will be the last person to ask for a reduction because frankly 2.7M is a pretty small budget, but facts is facts.
Further, the Metropolitan fails to explain why a priest would be allowed to steal a million dollars and not sit in jail like the rest of us would. This is appalling to me. I don't care how many friends RSK has in the church. Criminals get incarcerated. Bad managers get fired. Bad managers of bad managers get fired, too. Which is it? Bad manager or crook?
So, Metropolitan Herman, here are a few more issues for you to clear up to get on my okay side.
Explain why RSK won't go to jail, explain who got compilation reports and why no action was taken from 1999 to 2005 on misuse of restricted funds, explain how the MC will ever have any authority to stop a wild spending administration in the future. Lay out the debt service plan for the wild spend.
Then what happened to the ADM millions. Was extortion going on? Drug abuse? Murder?
Remove our doubts Metropolitan. You made a good start today. Criminals go to jail, bad managers get fired. Which is it?
Funny thing I don't get, though. Why won't the OCA tell us how misused restricted funds dating back to 2001 weren't a discussion point in 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005 until a public outcry was made? The only fact I know is that there wasn't time to discuss it and Q&A was thwarted in July 2005.
Further, if the OCA has made budgetary changes (shrink) since Fr. Kondratick left, how was it they could have made it with him around? See, if Kondratick was stealing, but isn't anymore, the church should be rolling in money. Fact is, they had to make cuts, so debt was the only way to keep it going before.. Someone authorized the establishment of the 500k creditline along the way. Who? Why? Was it a gross error?
Intuitively, the Metropolitan should have also announced a reduction in the assessment, right? Or he could have at least said no more borrowing will be needed, etc. I will be the last person to ask for a reduction because frankly 2.7M is a pretty small budget, but facts is facts.
Further, the Metropolitan fails to explain why a priest would be allowed to steal a million dollars and not sit in jail like the rest of us would. This is appalling to me. I don't care how many friends RSK has in the church. Criminals get incarcerated. Bad managers get fired. Bad managers of bad managers get fired, too. Which is it? Bad manager or crook?
So, Metropolitan Herman, here are a few more issues for you to clear up to get on my okay side.
Explain why RSK won't go to jail, explain who got compilation reports and why no action was taken from 1999 to 2005 on misuse of restricted funds, explain how the MC will ever have any authority to stop a wild spending administration in the future. Lay out the debt service plan for the wild spend.
Then what happened to the ADM millions. Was extortion going on? Drug abuse? Murder?
Remove our doubts Metropolitan. You made a good start today. Criminals go to jail, bad managers get fired. Which is it?
#18
Daniel E. Fall
on
2007-12-13 23:51
Mark,
I think RSK was part of the money spending but he's taking all the heat for the bishop's. We all know that money would soon run out but they all enjoyed it while it lasted.
Do you think RSK has a great case against this bogus summary?
Chris
(Dear Chris: You do not need to "think" RSK was part of the money spending - he clearly was at the heart of it. Were others involved? Syosset has admitted as such with their comments about "excessive benefits". Otherwise, what is the "Special Investigative Committee" doing? There is nothing in the summary that is "bogus", nor anything to suggest anything in it is "bogus". As for a case by RSK against the OCA - that is hardly likely. Should a lawsuit be brought both sides have to speak under oath. I doubt either side wants to do that. After "forty years of friendship", to quote the Metropolitan, it is not hard to imagine both +H and RSK know way too much about the others public, personal, and private lives to want any of that discussed in open court. - Mark)
I think RSK was part of the money spending but he's taking all the heat for the bishop's. We all know that money would soon run out but they all enjoyed it while it lasted.
Do you think RSK has a great case against this bogus summary?
Chris
(Dear Chris: You do not need to "think" RSK was part of the money spending - he clearly was at the heart of it. Were others involved? Syosset has admitted as such with their comments about "excessive benefits". Otherwise, what is the "Special Investigative Committee" doing? There is nothing in the summary that is "bogus", nor anything to suggest anything in it is "bogus". As for a case by RSK against the OCA - that is hardly likely. Should a lawsuit be brought both sides have to speak under oath. I doubt either side wants to do that. After "forty years of friendship", to quote the Metropolitan, it is not hard to imagine both +H and RSK know way too much about the others public, personal, and private lives to want any of that discussed in open court. - Mark)
#19
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 03:57
To paraphrase the stinging telegram sent from the White House to Admiral Halsey: "Where is your evidence? The world wonders."
#20
Sophia Weisheit
on
2007-12-14 05:41
Herman in 2 years has cost 500,000 in lawyers and 62,000 for a bad hire. No more people to blame MH everyone is gone , where the money go. Audits,lawyers,and special commisions this is what we get ?
#21
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 06:35
Your analysis has just "pinned the tail on the donkey!"
This latest communique is nothing but a more sophisticated public relations campaign to put a coda on the Syosset Sham, so we can boldly go where no one has gone before, i.e. a church living in sin and falsity perpetually. To borrow another poster's word--rubbish.
And it is rubbish to think that we can all go on doing our "good works" and making our ritual observances, while continuing to live in this cesspool. Impossible and immoral!
Take note too that nothing is apparently being done about Bishop Nikolai. The "lower" clergy (what an obnoxious term!) can take a bullet any day of the year, but our bishops, bless them, are immune from any human accountability.
At least the bishops haven't shut down the internet yet. But they would if they could.
KRT
This latest communique is nothing but a more sophisticated public relations campaign to put a coda on the Syosset Sham, so we can boldly go where no one has gone before, i.e. a church living in sin and falsity perpetually. To borrow another poster's word--rubbish.
And it is rubbish to think that we can all go on doing our "good works" and making our ritual observances, while continuing to live in this cesspool. Impossible and immoral!
Take note too that nothing is apparently being done about Bishop Nikolai. The "lower" clergy (what an obnoxious term!) can take a bullet any day of the year, but our bishops, bless them, are immune from any human accountability.
At least the bishops haven't shut down the internet yet. But they would if they could.
KRT
#22
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2007-12-14 06:40
I realize that many are embittered by the ongoing crisis and have become very cynical about anything emanating from Syosset, but I do see this latest statement from Metropolitan Herman as a change in direction in terms of communicating and opening up. I particularly note the following words: “It seemed then that with prayer and good will we would find a way to integrate Orthodox Church Tradition into the prevailing North American culture. That process of integration is still far from complete. There is much to be done as we grapple with fundamental principles of Church order in the context of our times.”
Old ways die hard and maybe someone has the metropolitan’s ear and he is beginning to listen. I suspect that the chief reason the metropolitan has not resigned his primacy is not due to power lust or greed, but a genuine concern of trying to put the OCA ship aright. It would be human nature to leave a legacy of correcting matters rather than a mess under one’s name. Please remember these words come from one who has publicly called for the metropolitan’s resignation in February this year and has signed the petition. I’m not an anti-clerical firebrand (I couldn’t be against myself) nor devoid of hope in this whole mess, though I have had my moments and have been hanging by a thread for a long time before the crisis became widely known. But as Christians, we are not a people without hope and when we see a glimmer of light, as I see in the metropolitan’s recent letter, we ought to encourage rather than shout recriminations.
There is so much work to be done and a huge chasm of mistrust to bridge; it won’t be done overnight, but if “evil” Syosset (my pastor’s words, not mine, with tongue in cheek) could communicate more frequently and in detail, even when it seems ordinary and banal, it would go a long way to regaining the trust of the faithful. If Syosset follows a trajectory of communicating and telling the truth (opening up), then don’t we as Christians have a responsibility of offering our good will even when punctuated with constructive criticism? For example:
1. How about a progress report on the investigation of the Alaskan affair – no findings mind you, just an indication how much work is done and to be done, how many people interviewed and when may we expect a final report?
2. Could the metropolitan redirect most of his diocesan salary to some of the charities that were shortfunded?
3. Could the metropolitan reside at least three or four days each week in Syosset and be more of a hands-on administrator (telephone and fax in South Canaan is a poor substitute)?
4. And when it comes time to release the Special Investigative Committee’s final report, give the faithful a little credit and give it to us straight – warts and all – there will be nothing we haven’t heard of elsewhere in American culture or already rumored.
Old ways die hard and maybe someone has the metropolitan’s ear and he is beginning to listen. I suspect that the chief reason the metropolitan has not resigned his primacy is not due to power lust or greed, but a genuine concern of trying to put the OCA ship aright. It would be human nature to leave a legacy of correcting matters rather than a mess under one’s name. Please remember these words come from one who has publicly called for the metropolitan’s resignation in February this year and has signed the petition. I’m not an anti-clerical firebrand (I couldn’t be against myself) nor devoid of hope in this whole mess, though I have had my moments and have been hanging by a thread for a long time before the crisis became widely known. But as Christians, we are not a people without hope and when we see a glimmer of light, as I see in the metropolitan’s recent letter, we ought to encourage rather than shout recriminations.
There is so much work to be done and a huge chasm of mistrust to bridge; it won’t be done overnight, but if “evil” Syosset (my pastor’s words, not mine, with tongue in cheek) could communicate more frequently and in detail, even when it seems ordinary and banal, it would go a long way to regaining the trust of the faithful. If Syosset follows a trajectory of communicating and telling the truth (opening up), then don’t we as Christians have a responsibility of offering our good will even when punctuated with constructive criticism? For example:
1. How about a progress report on the investigation of the Alaskan affair – no findings mind you, just an indication how much work is done and to be done, how many people interviewed and when may we expect a final report?
2. Could the metropolitan redirect most of his diocesan salary to some of the charities that were shortfunded?
3. Could the metropolitan reside at least three or four days each week in Syosset and be more of a hands-on administrator (telephone and fax in South Canaan is a poor substitute)?
4. And when it comes time to release the Special Investigative Committee’s final report, give the faithful a little credit and give it to us straight – warts and all – there will be nothing we haven’t heard of elsewhere in American culture or already rumored.
#23
Terry C. Peet
on
2007-12-14 07:10
What's even stranger is why the Monk, who was in the middle of all this in the years before 2005 never had the guts to speak out as he does now. While he was enjoying being part of the "in" crowd, he didn't think this was enough to bring to light and save the church he crows so much is going to die because of this scandal? If Cassandra had spoken when he saw this happening he could have saved the Church. But then again, only real monks give themselves for the Church.
#24
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 07:19
+MH's "apology" is so watery and wimpy. I have taught my kids that a real apology has to have the words "I'm sorry for" at the beginning or it is not an apology.
Not "I've trusted where I should not".
I made (vague, general) errors in judgment" NO! What a crock!
Since +MH cant write his own letters, and since all his 40 years as a hieromonk and "bishop" did not teach him the simple words "I'm sorry for", let me write for him:
I'M SORRY FOR lying to you over and over
I'M SORRY FOR not stopping Mr. RK when I saw the videotap but did nothing
I'M SORRY FOR draging Bishop Job's & Dn Eric Wheeler's name through the mud at the Synod meetings and letting other bishops do it too
I'M SORRY FOR blaming Bishop Job for causing disunity when he was chariman of the commite
I'M SORRY FOR taking a lot of trips to Europe on your dime instead of using it for charity and outreach
I'M SORRY FOR trying to silence people who disagree with me
I'M SORRY FOR causing the anger, pain, and mistrust
I'M SORRY FOR not helping the victims in Alaska (ie all the people of Alaska with their cruel bishop)
I'M SORRY FOR taking such a big salary for a monk
I'M SORRY FOR lying to you over and over (did I mention that?)
Also, he says that a lot of people want retribution. NO! We want accountability. He just doesn't get it! He changes the words to make US look bad when he is the one who is bad.
And in 40 years as a hieromonk, how come he never learned sympathy? How come he never says, "I sympathize with everyone who is hurt and angry" No, he just says, "I can't beleve they especially come after the PRIMATE, when all i did was listen to lawyers, when all I did was let Jewish lawyers run the apostolic church!?!
And if he was a real monk, he wouldnt get such a huge salary and have a housekeeper, no he'd live on a small amount of money and be humble and wash his own dishes.
He is no bishop. He is a bad man.
Eddie K. (from the midwest, the only place with a real bishop these days)
Not "I've trusted where I should not".
I made (vague, general) errors in judgment" NO! What a crock!
Since +MH cant write his own letters, and since all his 40 years as a hieromonk and "bishop" did not teach him the simple words "I'm sorry for", let me write for him:
I'M SORRY FOR lying to you over and over
I'M SORRY FOR not stopping Mr. RK when I saw the videotap but did nothing
I'M SORRY FOR draging Bishop Job's & Dn Eric Wheeler's name through the mud at the Synod meetings and letting other bishops do it too
I'M SORRY FOR blaming Bishop Job for causing disunity when he was chariman of the commite
I'M SORRY FOR taking a lot of trips to Europe on your dime instead of using it for charity and outreach
I'M SORRY FOR trying to silence people who disagree with me
I'M SORRY FOR causing the anger, pain, and mistrust
I'M SORRY FOR not helping the victims in Alaska (ie all the people of Alaska with their cruel bishop)
I'M SORRY FOR taking such a big salary for a monk
I'M SORRY FOR lying to you over and over (did I mention that?)
Also, he says that a lot of people want retribution. NO! We want accountability. He just doesn't get it! He changes the words to make US look bad when he is the one who is bad.
And in 40 years as a hieromonk, how come he never learned sympathy? How come he never says, "I sympathize with everyone who is hurt and angry" No, he just says, "I can't beleve they especially come after the PRIMATE, when all i did was listen to lawyers, when all I did was let Jewish lawyers run the apostolic church!?!
And if he was a real monk, he wouldnt get such a huge salary and have a housekeeper, no he'd live on a small amount of money and be humble and wash his own dishes.
He is no bishop. He is a bad man.
Eddie K. (from the midwest, the only place with a real bishop these days)
#25
Eddie Kayeti
on
2007-12-14 07:30
And I call on your Spiritual Father and pastor to try to put a lid on your rambling, idle threats and innuendos. These can't be good for your spirituality and the health of your soul Monk James.
Accept the fact that your friend has done irreputable harm to our church and now faces the harsh consequences of his actions.
Michael
(Editor's Note: Innuendo? I think the monk was pretty explicit on the Orthodox Forum with his accusation of the Metropolitan and "boy prostitutes". I second your comment, Mike. The monk needs to put up, or shut up. )
Accept the fact that your friend has done irreputable harm to our church and now faces the harsh consequences of his actions.
Michael
(Editor's Note: Innuendo? I think the monk was pretty explicit on the Orthodox Forum with his accusation of the Metropolitan and "boy prostitutes". I second your comment, Mike. The monk needs to put up, or shut up. )
#26
Michael Geeza
on
2007-12-14 07:30
Mark, can you explain why no criminal charges have been brought against Kondratick, and is there a possibility that charges will be brought in the future?
(Editor's note: The FBI is currently still investigating the case, which involves 15 years or more of financial misdeeds, etc. It takes time.
Is there a possibility charges will be brought? Yes. They will indict, or not, as they determine, when they determine, how they determine.
But the real question is not what they are going to do. What are we going to do about it? Just wait for them? Is that the Christian response to evil? Sit back and smile in the knowledge that "Jesus saves"? That accountability is something we pay the government to take care of? That lying is OK as long as the Church authorities do it ? St. Paul said: "Redeem the time." The Church is now saying:" Forget the past. Ignore the Present. Focus on the future, so we no longer have to explain the former."
As Dr. Phil would say: "How's that working for you?")
(Editor's note: The FBI is currently still investigating the case, which involves 15 years or more of financial misdeeds, etc. It takes time.
Is there a possibility charges will be brought? Yes. They will indict, or not, as they determine, when they determine, how they determine.
But the real question is not what they are going to do. What are we going to do about it? Just wait for them? Is that the Christian response to evil? Sit back and smile in the knowledge that "Jesus saves"? That accountability is something we pay the government to take care of? That lying is OK as long as the Church authorities do it ? St. Paul said: "Redeem the time." The Church is now saying:" Forget the past. Ignore the Present. Focus on the future, so we no longer have to explain the former."
As Dr. Phil would say: "How's that working for you?")
#27
Jon
on
2007-12-14 07:58
(1) +MH's statement, such as it is, is indicative of severe navel-gazing. To my way of thinking, the "sexual crisis" in the Roman Catholic church was bad enough, but the really "evil" part of it was the attempt by the various bishops to cover it up, rather than deal with it. They are not only paying for it now financially, but they have lost credibility throughout the community, and it will take hundreds of years to get it back - if ever. Under +MH's rule, the same is taking place in the OCA. "He (RSK) was my friend of 40 years ..." That's the whole problem: The leadership of the OCA is an "old-boys" network of friends, incestuously protecting one another, appointing each other to various positions of authority, and then letting the good times roll! It is inconceivable that such a small operation in the secular world would or could tolerate these kind of antics; it is a cynical use of people's God-fearing, loyalty to the Church as an institution, abused so that this small group of "old friends" can get a free ride through life, while masqurading as "Holy Men," "Your Grace," "Your Eminnence," and so forth. Our message to the HS and people like +MH & Co., should be, "Guys, you blew it. We are on to you. God may forgive you in the next world, but you have demonstrated that you are unfit to lead a church organization, and you've got to go now." NO MORE MONEY. Continue withholding. These men are NOT leading God's church, not doing Christ's work - they are playing upon your piety in order to hide the balance sheets and keep the money flowing-in. DON'T BE AN ENABLER! Don't be fooled. And by the way, if you're a "manager," you hide behind your attorneys and their "don't talk about this." If you are a leader, esp. a leader answerable to God - otherwise known as a Bishop - then you take swift action, full-disclosure, and truth, and let the lawyers sort it out later. So, +MH has demonstrated that he's not a leader, and with what's left of the books, he's not much of a manager either. So, why does he still have a job here?
(2) Comment to Mark Stokoe: Mark, thank you for keeping the spotlight shining, and for enduring what you have endured and must continue to endure. I have only one piece of advice for you at this point. You are the editor of this Website, and I just want you to know that, if you'd like to "edit," and not just pass-through, that would be fine with me. Specifically, I'm talking about this individual refered to as "Monk James." He apparently showed-up at the RSK trial, so I presume that he is a real personnage and not some anonymous made-up name on the Web. But it is time now for him to be editted out of this discussion, and to allow us all to get to the bottom of what really did happen. The kind of posts he is making, slanderous statements, and so forth, need to now be backed-up with some testimony under oath, documented, with witnesses, etc. Unless the entire staff of PR, LLL, and all of the other professional organizations who've reviewed the evidence are completely and utterly incompetent, paid-off, corrupt, and controlled directly by Satan himself, then RSK was NOT rail-roaded and is not a "scape-goat." The millions of dollars "gone missing," with up to 22 credit cards issued in family members' names on the OCA account, "discretionary accounts," and so forth, which was done, by all accounts - he is guilty beyond ANY shadow of doubt. He may not (and probably did not) act alone, or without anyone else's knowledge, which means he's not the only guilty party. But to try to say that he's been made a scape-goat, and oh by the way, +MH is a pervert - well that's just not good enough anymore. I would suggest that, in the interest of maintaining the credibility of this Website, you need to suppress any further garbage from this individual (Monk James) unless he's got some sworn depositions, photos, or tapes, regarding his "charges," or he can't play in this sandbox anymore! We all get the fact that +Herman is a scheming, self-serving, liar and a thief already; Okay! But, "the poor scape-goat" whose family members had 22 credit cards on the company dime? Give me a break! +Herman should be fired just for allowing that to happen, much less RSK! 22 credit cards, and, "I've been scape-goated"?!!! You really do think that we OCA members are completely stupid, don't you? 22 credit cards?! As a business executive, I'm here to tell you that having 22 credit cards for LEGITIMATE purposes is unmanageable, and just having that many issued means that you're trying to hide something! So enough with the sanctimony and counter-allegations (gossip, actually) from Monk James and the RSK crowd, already. File your legal papers if you've got a different story, because you're just talking trash now. And anyway, aren't monks supposed to sit around and pray all day? You can't possibly have the time to be a monk AND to assure us all that there's not malfeasance associated with another man's 22 credit cards! This entire "Monk James" thing is straight out of a bad episode of the Twighlight Zone!!! Mark, please spare us! Edit, already! This guy is Spam. If the Church recovered just the Annual Fees from each of RSK's credit cards, much less the spending, we could probably fund five new mission churches! Anybody with 22 credit cards for any reason is GUILTY of something. So, shut up already! And if you want to pray for someone, pray for the postman who had to deliver all of those credit card bills for all of those years.
(2) Comment to Mark Stokoe: Mark, thank you for keeping the spotlight shining, and for enduring what you have endured and must continue to endure. I have only one piece of advice for you at this point. You are the editor of this Website, and I just want you to know that, if you'd like to "edit," and not just pass-through, that would be fine with me. Specifically, I'm talking about this individual refered to as "Monk James." He apparently showed-up at the RSK trial, so I presume that he is a real personnage and not some anonymous made-up name on the Web. But it is time now for him to be editted out of this discussion, and to allow us all to get to the bottom of what really did happen. The kind of posts he is making, slanderous statements, and so forth, need to now be backed-up with some testimony under oath, documented, with witnesses, etc. Unless the entire staff of PR, LLL, and all of the other professional organizations who've reviewed the evidence are completely and utterly incompetent, paid-off, corrupt, and controlled directly by Satan himself, then RSK was NOT rail-roaded and is not a "scape-goat." The millions of dollars "gone missing," with up to 22 credit cards issued in family members' names on the OCA account, "discretionary accounts," and so forth, which was done, by all accounts - he is guilty beyond ANY shadow of doubt. He may not (and probably did not) act alone, or without anyone else's knowledge, which means he's not the only guilty party. But to try to say that he's been made a scape-goat, and oh by the way, +MH is a pervert - well that's just not good enough anymore. I would suggest that, in the interest of maintaining the credibility of this Website, you need to suppress any further garbage from this individual (Monk James) unless he's got some sworn depositions, photos, or tapes, regarding his "charges," or he can't play in this sandbox anymore! We all get the fact that +Herman is a scheming, self-serving, liar and a thief already; Okay! But, "the poor scape-goat" whose family members had 22 credit cards on the company dime? Give me a break! +Herman should be fired just for allowing that to happen, much less RSK! 22 credit cards, and, "I've been scape-goated"?!!! You really do think that we OCA members are completely stupid, don't you? 22 credit cards?! As a business executive, I'm here to tell you that having 22 credit cards for LEGITIMATE purposes is unmanageable, and just having that many issued means that you're trying to hide something! So enough with the sanctimony and counter-allegations (gossip, actually) from Monk James and the RSK crowd, already. File your legal papers if you've got a different story, because you're just talking trash now. And anyway, aren't monks supposed to sit around and pray all day? You can't possibly have the time to be a monk AND to assure us all that there's not malfeasance associated with another man's 22 credit cards! This entire "Monk James" thing is straight out of a bad episode of the Twighlight Zone!!! Mark, please spare us! Edit, already! This guy is Spam. If the Church recovered just the Annual Fees from each of RSK's credit cards, much less the spending, we could probably fund five new mission churches! Anybody with 22 credit cards for any reason is GUILTY of something. So, shut up already! And if you want to pray for someone, pray for the postman who had to deliver all of those credit card bills for all of those years.
#28
C.C.
on
2007-12-14 08:43
It trickles if you think such living waters ONLY come from Syosset. What a laugh. My parish and diocese are growing and our thirst is being quenched by the Living Water that comes not from Syosset but from our loving priest and Archbishop. Stop making Syosset something it was never called or could be. By thinking to invest such positon to Syosset we are all to blame.
#29
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 09:04
Fr. Ted, that is a brilliant analysis and insightful commentary on the example of Noah's sons used by +Herman. Your explanation and clarification of the story and the moral/ethical implications is the more accurate and correct lesson from that Genesis story. THANK YOU for posting this! I hope everyone reads it and compares it with what +Herman tried to do.
Mark:
While it is obviously true that RSK was at the center, don't you think that is by virtue of his position? As a capable chancellor, might he have been charged with doing the "dirty work" on other's, namely HS, behalf? This being the main reason why +Job's work was stonewalled.
Many of the financial misdeeds which were rumored in the NY area for years have been revealed in the "beginning" of an investigation...I fear the other rumors may also be true now too. The "why" behind the "what" - immoral activities, payoffs, hush-money and the like. The report mentions travel to Vegas and Aruba, but something tells me that's not all the places he went, just the ones that lead people to believe it was all for pleasure...what about any off-the-books "business trips" to clean up potentially embarassing hierarchal and clergy messes? (Kind of hard to report the whereabouts of missing money when the location of it is even more embarrasing that the fact that it's missing...sometimes it's just better to play dumb.)
I too would like to see Monk James and RSK offer some evidence of something. RSK is a smart man if nothing else, and we should not be surprised if he did keep some kind of copies. It is true what he did was wrong and he should be held responsible for his part, but under a MH administration, Watergate would have just been ruled a simple breaking and entering with no further discussion allowed.
While it is obviously true that RSK was at the center, don't you think that is by virtue of his position? As a capable chancellor, might he have been charged with doing the "dirty work" on other's, namely HS, behalf? This being the main reason why +Job's work was stonewalled.
Many of the financial misdeeds which were rumored in the NY area for years have been revealed in the "beginning" of an investigation...I fear the other rumors may also be true now too. The "why" behind the "what" - immoral activities, payoffs, hush-money and the like. The report mentions travel to Vegas and Aruba, but something tells me that's not all the places he went, just the ones that lead people to believe it was all for pleasure...what about any off-the-books "business trips" to clean up potentially embarassing hierarchal and clergy messes? (Kind of hard to report the whereabouts of missing money when the location of it is even more embarrasing that the fact that it's missing...sometimes it's just better to play dumb.)
I too would like to see Monk James and RSK offer some evidence of something. RSK is a smart man if nothing else, and we should not be surprised if he did keep some kind of copies. It is true what he did was wrong and he should be held responsible for his part, but under a MH administration, Watergate would have just been ruled a simple breaking and entering with no further discussion allowed.
#31
M. G.
on
2007-12-14 09:40
How sad it is to see Monk James slander and besmirch Fr. Alex Vinogradov. How inappropriate to speak off the cuff in such a manner, simply repeating heard rumors and gossip without knowing any of the facts, though we can be sure the good monk will promise to share all then tell nothing of the truth. he won't tell the truth because he doesn't know the truth. read between the lines - monk james is upset that a more severe penalty.
Monk, you are free to express unhappiness about Kondratick's punishment. Your public whining that Fr. Alex wasn't penalized more harshly is disgusting. I'd feel better if I knew that your brethren and superiors would rebuke you for such sloppy public gossip, but we all know that your "traditionalist" monastery is virtual only, and not real at all.
As far as I'm concerned, you owe Fr. Alex, a good, loving, and devoted priest, an apology.
Monk, you are free to express unhappiness about Kondratick's punishment. Your public whining that Fr. Alex wasn't penalized more harshly is disgusting. I'd feel better if I knew that your brethren and superiors would rebuke you for such sloppy public gossip, but we all know that your "traditionalist" monastery is virtual only, and not real at all.
As far as I'm concerned, you owe Fr. Alex, a good, loving, and devoted priest, an apology.
#32
Dn. Nicholas Denysenko
on
2007-12-14 09:59
Please provide the evidence that leads you to make this statement.
#33
Paula Brkich
on
2007-12-14 10:01
I'm sorry, but what did MH say that was different from the past 2+ years? "Mistakes were made...but we don't expose the shame of elders (ok, that may be a new line, but an old mentality nonetheless)...forgive us for whatever we may have done...now let's move on."
It's more than money...it's the fact that every OCA member will sleep much better at night if our Metropolitan would just come out and say "I had no knowledge of any wrongdoings at the time. I was never involved." Isn't it funny that throughout his entire letter he still manages to evade these 2 simple statements, but had the nerve to lecture us on not exposing the shame of elders?!?!? Hello! It can't get more obvious! (For those who don't see it between the lines, he's trying to soften the blow of what Fr Bob will potentially expose.)
It's about much more that just money. Yes, there needs to be FULL accounting of where the missing money went. But it's about integrity, trust and morality....and all we witnessed a Synod united in defending the institution of the Hierarchy at all costs. If MH is found to be fallible, then what they see as their infallibility as a whole is challenged and diminished. (And I don't suspect it's all the bishops, just enough of the more senior ones to push through a "consensus"....we all know how that works.) So much for defending integrity, trust and morality!
It's more than money...it's the fact that every OCA member will sleep much better at night if our Metropolitan would just come out and say "I had no knowledge of any wrongdoings at the time. I was never involved." Isn't it funny that throughout his entire letter he still manages to evade these 2 simple statements, but had the nerve to lecture us on not exposing the shame of elders?!?!? Hello! It can't get more obvious! (For those who don't see it between the lines, he's trying to soften the blow of what Fr Bob will potentially expose.)
It's about much more that just money. Yes, there needs to be FULL accounting of where the missing money went. But it's about integrity, trust and morality....and all we witnessed a Synod united in defending the institution of the Hierarchy at all costs. If MH is found to be fallible, then what they see as their infallibility as a whole is challenged and diminished. (And I don't suspect it's all the bishops, just enough of the more senior ones to push through a "consensus"....we all know how that works.) So much for defending integrity, trust and morality!
#34
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 10:05
I agree Father; as an Alaska Native who comes from a culture where real "elders" are held in high esteem, I have learned as I myself have gotten older, that not all "elders" are truly "elders: if you get my drift. Elder worship can become dysfunctional in and of itself, especially if it is being used to cover up criminal behaviour (which I have seen in our Alaska Native communties over and over again), it is repulsive in our clans and villages, and it is repulsive in the Church. What is going on here in Alaska is a facade, and alot of clergy and laity want to pretend that everything is okay, while it is obvious, as N. Berdayev said, the corpse is gettin' smelly! Pew! I, for one, cannot participate in any of it with a straight face...I can't, it seems phony and weak.
Elders Schmelders!
Moses
Elders Schmelders!
Moses
#35
Moses
on
2007-12-14 10:23
Daniel - I thought I would address your questions, since you're not one of the many anonymous nattering nabobs of negativism that so far have posted.
1. "Explain why RSK won't go to jail." You might be interested to read pages 7-8 of the Federal indictment of the Governor of Illinois' campaign manager: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2007-12/34255398.pdf It should sound familiar to our case here.
2. "we should be rolling in money." No, because basically no money is coming in from FOS. Not to mention the withholding from the Midwest and eslewhere.
3. "Someone authorized the establishment of the 500k credit line along the way." Read the Treasurer's report to the 2005 AAC. Everybody at the AAC knew that the OCA had large deficits; +Job demanded more financial information before the AAC and was basically told by RK to take a hike.
4. "Then what happened to the ADM millions?" You should direct this question to the new SIC (or to +MT). The cynic in me says we'll never find out.
5. "explain how the MC will ever have any authority to stop a wild spending administration in the future." Well, they can and they can't. They do approve the budget. However, if the AAC stands up and says "we're authorizing an assessment of $20 instead of $80", I guess that would send the proper message about wild spending. (it would also help to have an effective audit committe and effective auditors).
6. "I was pleased by the Metropolitan's letter. He has finally accepted his errors publicly." I was pleased too, but would have been more pleased if he had said that he had personally apologized to three people: John Kozey, +Job, and Eric Wheeler.
1. "Explain why RSK won't go to jail." You might be interested to read pages 7-8 of the Federal indictment of the Governor of Illinois' campaign manager: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2007-12/34255398.pdf It should sound familiar to our case here.
2. "we should be rolling in money." No, because basically no money is coming in from FOS. Not to mention the withholding from the Midwest and eslewhere.
3. "Someone authorized the establishment of the 500k credit line along the way." Read the Treasurer's report to the 2005 AAC. Everybody at the AAC knew that the OCA had large deficits; +Job demanded more financial information before the AAC and was basically told by RK to take a hike.
4. "Then what happened to the ADM millions?" You should direct this question to the new SIC (or to +MT). The cynic in me says we'll never find out.
5. "explain how the MC will ever have any authority to stop a wild spending administration in the future." Well, they can and they can't. They do approve the budget. However, if the AAC stands up and says "we're authorizing an assessment of $20 instead of $80", I guess that would send the proper message about wild spending. (it would also help to have an effective audit committe and effective auditors).
6. "I was pleased by the Metropolitan's letter. He has finally accepted his errors publicly." I was pleased too, but would have been more pleased if he had said that he had personally apologized to three people: John Kozey, +Job, and Eric Wheeler.
#36
Michael Strelka
on
2007-12-14 10:28
"In the Biblical spirit of Noah's sons I was taught that the right thing is to not expose the shame of elders, by which I understand my brother bishops and the other clergy. "
I was struck by the same paragraph and I further conjecture that if one adheres to this philosopy, then it seems logical to me that the holder, as an *elder*, would also be justified in applying the same rationale to himself. It justifies hiding one's own possible errors for "the good of the church."
I was struck by the same paragraph and I further conjecture that if one adheres to this philosopy, then it seems logical to me that the holder, as an *elder*, would also be justified in applying the same rationale to himself. It justifies hiding one's own possible errors for "the good of the church."
#37
Brad Miter
on
2007-12-14 11:03
The Metropolitan has explained his actions as the covering up of another's sin and used Noah and his sons to justify his actions. As Fr. Ted has shown that scriptural account is hardly applicable to the situation in which we find our selves today during which the Metropolitan has been intimately involved as a bishop, treasurer, friend, and Metropolitan. Noah and the actions of his sons has absolutely nothing to do about the sins of a priest and the actions of other priests (elders) to that sin!
Paul does speaks directly about the sin of an Elder of the church this would include priests, arch-priests, Bishops and Metropolitans.
In Paul's first letter to the young pastor Timothy He writes about the sins of a priest. Paul says that a charge can only be received against a priest (elder) on the testimony of two or three witnesses. "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly so that others may fear (take warning). I charge you in the sight of God and Jesus Christ and the elect angles, to keep these instruction without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism." 1 Timothy 5:19.
Notice that Paul is rather clear about this command. There is to be no partiality, no favoritism and only a public rebuke is allowed. Who said to the Metropolitan to be silent? God and Paul did not say to be silent. Noah's sons do not justify a covering up of priestly sin.
How in God's name does the Metropolitan not apply these clear words of Scripture and instead misapplies or defines the Word of truth regarding Noah and his sons. Is it incompetence or cover up? There is nothing worse than a priest (Metropolitan) misusing the Word of God to justify sinful actions.
The Metropolitan was for years intimately involved in the finances of the Holy Church. What has transpired did so under his watch as a treasurer and as a metropolitan. Was he incompetent or just covering up? Was the covering up criminal? This is the problem of going forward. It is one that the Metropolitan will not face. He is either incompetent or criminal: one or the other and possibly both. Either of them is enough reason for him to no longer serve as Metropolitan.
Now the Metropolitan again is either incompetent with the Word of God or He is criminal in it's misapplication. Either he does not know how to apply the scripture or with purpose misapplies it, so as to cover his own sin.
Metropolitan Herman was not always silent these last two years. He was only selectively silent. He spoke rather loudly when he consigned two dioceses to the Devil and suggested that he knew the outcome of our judgment with his words, "it will be to late". Was he being just a good shepherd and trying to save us from our sin and calling us to repentance? I think not. We were about matters that the Metropolitan had insisted there would be silence about. It had worked with most of the Bishops most of the time. It had worked with most of the priests most of the time. Why was it not working now?
The Metropolitan was not silent when he said over two years ago that there was nothing to these "rumors" of mismanagement. He was not silent when he shared in the attack of Dn. Wheeler. He withheld information from His fellow bishops and was not silent when he told them that their was nothing to the allegations and that they had been fully investigated. He was not silent as he stood in the way of the investigative committee.
Metropolitan Herman, in each of these instances you were wrong. Over the course of these last two years when you have spoken in the above instances you were often wrong and when you were silent about the sins of a priest again you were often wrong. Are you incompetent or criminal?
The metropolitan was mad that Dn Eric spoke out. He has been mad that Bp Job spoke out. He is mad that whole dioceses spoke out. He has been truly committed to selective silence but not for the protection of other's reputations but of his own. He did not defend the reputation of Eric or Job or other's who have been threatened if they spoke up. This letter is just self promotion and self protection.
The "anathema" (condemnation) against two of the dioceses was the response to sober and praying people who were saying that we cannot participate in the incompetence or criminality of this particular Metropolitan any more. We have continued in our prayers that he might rightly define the Word of truth. But we are not deluded in believing that that is happening right now. It hasn't been happening for quite awhile.
This latest offering of the Metropolitan is sadly more evidence of the same. What is really frightening is that he had help writing this letter. Do they really believe what they just helped to write?
Can the Metropolitan really be so deluded and convinced that while Satan has ravaged our Holy Church and assaulted the faith of her people, his silence was needed? Metropolitan Herman wishes to sell his silence as piety. It is anything but that. I contend and on the basis of Holy Scripture that was not what he was given by God to do.
Much of what the Metropolitan does seems suspect as being either criminal or incompetent! That has not changed.
Fr. Andrew Moore
St Thomas the Apostle
Paul does speaks directly about the sin of an Elder of the church this would include priests, arch-priests, Bishops and Metropolitans.
In Paul's first letter to the young pastor Timothy He writes about the sins of a priest. Paul says that a charge can only be received against a priest (elder) on the testimony of two or three witnesses. "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly so that others may fear (take warning). I charge you in the sight of God and Jesus Christ and the elect angles, to keep these instruction without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism." 1 Timothy 5:19.
Notice that Paul is rather clear about this command. There is to be no partiality, no favoritism and only a public rebuke is allowed. Who said to the Metropolitan to be silent? God and Paul did not say to be silent. Noah's sons do not justify a covering up of priestly sin.
How in God's name does the Metropolitan not apply these clear words of Scripture and instead misapplies or defines the Word of truth regarding Noah and his sons. Is it incompetence or cover up? There is nothing worse than a priest (Metropolitan) misusing the Word of God to justify sinful actions.
The Metropolitan was for years intimately involved in the finances of the Holy Church. What has transpired did so under his watch as a treasurer and as a metropolitan. Was he incompetent or just covering up? Was the covering up criminal? This is the problem of going forward. It is one that the Metropolitan will not face. He is either incompetent or criminal: one or the other and possibly both. Either of them is enough reason for him to no longer serve as Metropolitan.
Now the Metropolitan again is either incompetent with the Word of God or He is criminal in it's misapplication. Either he does not know how to apply the scripture or with purpose misapplies it, so as to cover his own sin.
Metropolitan Herman was not always silent these last two years. He was only selectively silent. He spoke rather loudly when he consigned two dioceses to the Devil and suggested that he knew the outcome of our judgment with his words, "it will be to late". Was he being just a good shepherd and trying to save us from our sin and calling us to repentance? I think not. We were about matters that the Metropolitan had insisted there would be silence about. It had worked with most of the Bishops most of the time. It had worked with most of the priests most of the time. Why was it not working now?
The Metropolitan was not silent when he said over two years ago that there was nothing to these "rumors" of mismanagement. He was not silent when he shared in the attack of Dn. Wheeler. He withheld information from His fellow bishops and was not silent when he told them that their was nothing to the allegations and that they had been fully investigated. He was not silent as he stood in the way of the investigative committee.
Metropolitan Herman, in each of these instances you were wrong. Over the course of these last two years when you have spoken in the above instances you were often wrong and when you were silent about the sins of a priest again you were often wrong. Are you incompetent or criminal?
The metropolitan was mad that Dn Eric spoke out. He has been mad that Bp Job spoke out. He is mad that whole dioceses spoke out. He has been truly committed to selective silence but not for the protection of other's reputations but of his own. He did not defend the reputation of Eric or Job or other's who have been threatened if they spoke up. This letter is just self promotion and self protection.
The "anathema" (condemnation) against two of the dioceses was the response to sober and praying people who were saying that we cannot participate in the incompetence or criminality of this particular Metropolitan any more. We have continued in our prayers that he might rightly define the Word of truth. But we are not deluded in believing that that is happening right now. It hasn't been happening for quite awhile.
This latest offering of the Metropolitan is sadly more evidence of the same. What is really frightening is that he had help writing this letter. Do they really believe what they just helped to write?
Can the Metropolitan really be so deluded and convinced that while Satan has ravaged our Holy Church and assaulted the faith of her people, his silence was needed? Metropolitan Herman wishes to sell his silence as piety. It is anything but that. I contend and on the basis of Holy Scripture that was not what he was given by God to do.
Much of what the Metropolitan does seems suspect as being either criminal or incompetent! That has not changed.
Fr. Andrew Moore
St Thomas the Apostle
#38
fr Andrew Moore
on
2007-12-14 11:49
"Ineffective" deposition? Are we to take it that Robert Kondratick plans to defy the Synod he worked with for so long and maintain acting like the priest he officially isn't? Is he going to attempt to ignore the decision of the Synod? Wow!
There comes a point when the inner character of people come to the fore and regrettably this might be the time we see this happen. He may be angry and in complete disagreement with the decision, but to flagrantly disregard the sanctity of the Church's integrity is over the top. Coming forth with information is beyond what he can do, but he can snub the decision of the Holy Synod? The rules he played by for so many years were the rules he was tried with. Game over.
This is a time for prayer, fasting, reconciliation and rehabilitation, not to make the Sanctuary itself a battleground.
There comes a point when the inner character of people come to the fore and regrettably this might be the time we see this happen. He may be angry and in complete disagreement with the decision, but to flagrantly disregard the sanctity of the Church's integrity is over the top. Coming forth with information is beyond what he can do, but he can snub the decision of the Holy Synod? The rules he played by for so many years were the rules he was tried with. Game over.
This is a time for prayer, fasting, reconciliation and rehabilitation, not to make the Sanctuary itself a battleground.
#39
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 12:30
Noah's shame (passed out drunk and naked on the ground) may have been handled "appropriately" by Shem and Japheth, but the record of it in Scripture stands for countless generations to see.
Metropolitan Herman, if I were you I'd see this story more as a threat than a code of conduct. The gaping holes in the tent you're in are wider than you think.
Felix
Metropolitan Herman, if I were you I'd see this story more as a threat than a code of conduct. The gaping holes in the tent you're in are wider than you think.
Felix
#40
Felix Culpa
on
2007-12-14 12:41
Especially when you ARE the Church.
#41
Anonymouse
on
2007-12-14 12:42
Nice letter. Now, if we can just examine all the financial statements of St. Tikhon's for the last 10+ years, we'll all believe Met. Herman. Try, go ahead, just try to get all the financials on St. Tikhon's.
What's still needed is + Herman's resignation, NOW, so the OCA can move on.
What's still needed is + Herman's resignation, NOW, so the OCA can move on.
#42
The Answer
on
2007-12-14 13:18
What could Robert Kondratick possibly add to any of this? Why in the world would anyone care to hear what he has to say now?
He had already been given numerous opportunities to speak in public (re PR, the Holy Synod and the Church Court) and in private, via an interview through this forum, and for reasons known only to him, he refused time and time again.
I for one could care less what he has to say.
Unfortunately, it's too late now.
He needs to deal with the consequences.
(Editor's note: Point of order, Mike. Proskauer Rose, the Synod and the Church Court, are hardly "public" forums. OCANews.org has offered RSK a very public forum to speak, but he has yet to accept. That does not mean he will not. But you are correct in saying that if he does not choose to do so, his followers should stop grousing. The ball, as they say, is in his court.)
He had already been given numerous opportunities to speak in public (re PR, the Holy Synod and the Church Court) and in private, via an interview through this forum, and for reasons known only to him, he refused time and time again.
I for one could care less what he has to say.
Unfortunately, it's too late now.
He needs to deal with the consequences.
(Editor's note: Point of order, Mike. Proskauer Rose, the Synod and the Church Court, are hardly "public" forums. OCANews.org has offered RSK a very public forum to speak, but he has yet to accept. That does not mean he will not. But you are correct in saying that if he does not choose to do so, his followers should stop grousing. The ball, as they say, is in his court.)
#43
Michael Geeza
on
2007-12-14 13:52
Has the Diocese of the Midwest established a reasonable bar to stop withholding or to start again?
I was disappointed with the outcome of the DC and would have hoped for clarity on this matter.
Can withholding stop now?
I was disappointed with the outcome of the DC and would have hoped for clarity on this matter.
Can withholding stop now?
#44
Daniel E. Fall
on
2007-12-14 16:33
Don't be surprised if RSK shows up being accepted by another jurisdiction - EP or Bulgarian (patriarchal). It's no secret +Bartholomew absolutely does not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA and therefore would easily not accept this defrocking as valid. Similarly, the Bulgarians are known for having accepted defrocked OCA priests in the past. If something like this were to happen, it'll be yet another time we'll see our "we're always right" OCA Synod standing there with egg all over their faces.
#45
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 16:58
In the first two points of the posted summary, there is report that Fr. Bob Kondratick was "given" monies. Who exactly "gave" him these monies? Will the Special Investigative Committee try to answer that? Who "gives" anyone any large sum like this? How has only one person been found "accountable" so far?
Patty Schellbach
Patty Schellbach
#46
Patty Schellbach
on
2007-12-14 17:22
I grew up around clergy, including bishops. I don't know how to stop it, but these days I find within myself a very visceral reaction to the notion of a bishop, though I didn’t in earlier years. Not to the office, mind you; nor to the need for the office … but to the notion of any given (even if unidentified) person who himself happens to be a bishop. The way a liberal Democrat might react to President Bush or a staunch Republican to Senator Clinton.
Its not just Herman and Theodosius; few in any jurisdiction seem normal; how much less do the gross majority of them feel safe, trustworthy, likable; how much less do they seem servants. But—at the least!—they could be likable (or fake it!) and "stand-up" guys (not stand-up as in comic; stand-up as in do-the-right-thing).
I'd shun a parish if I knew it had a bishop present, likely. I've recently read a bit of the Apostolic Fathers again since I think I need to re-educate that inner part of me that involuntarily says "Yetch" to bishop. Who among the mitered maniacs even approaches the shadow of the type of person who would—if on the road to Rome for execution—inspire a turnout along the way like St. Ignatius did? Even if we know nothing negative about [fill in the name of any given bishop], I suspect many would assume nothing wonderful about him. There are only a handful who would inspire such a fanfare, much less normal mourning.
Its not just this OCA scandal, though it is really, truly grotesque. Its the garbage from Constantinople re their authority over—what do they call them?—the "barbarian lands" (read: the OCA in the USA); and the the related recent nonsense of Moscow and Constantinople re the Estonian Church—over which the Moscow delegation left the recent plenary Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue with the Romans. (How can our bishops dialog with Rome when captivated by power struggles within?)
Its how we've got an OCA bishop plundering the Church in Alaska and a feckless Synod that is as blind to, or as immobilized in the face of, that as Herman is sympathetic to the need for proper bookkeeping.
Its how we had a now-retied bishop, so long clearly mentally ill, allowed by his brother-bishops to reign his tyranny over the West; an portent of the response, one would presume, by the Synod to the imprisoned parishioners and priests held captive in Alaska.
Its how on the Internet there is a Greek bishop whose statements regarding the Faith sound read they came from a catechism for a Roman Catholic teenager, whereas any Orthodox teenager could correct that bishop.
Its how American bishops, all, publicly talk of American unity in interviews and speeches ... and yet, have SCOBA bishops ever determined to direct their respective flocks to add a common petition (better, a full litany) to the liturgical services for American unity (maybe they are afraid the Lord will actually grant it).
Similarly, Orthodox bishops and the Roman Pope speak of rapprochement and sacramental reunification, approve meetings of "theologians," send delegates to visit one another's sees on feast days—yet no agreement among them to direct their respective parishes add to their liturgical services a series of petitions for unity. (Such a petition should be added immediately and retained until granted or until the Lord returns, whichever occurs first.)
And now ... we have Herman who, as a bishop has the charisma to divide the word of truth rightly, nevertheless apply the story of Noah's kids to justify covering up crimes against the Church. What the ...??? How about Paul’s withstanding Peter to Peter’s face? Well? How does that work into his curious exegesis?
It just plain ... well, my mom won't let me use that words around her, so I won't here either. But it stinks to high Heaven.
If we can't have holiness among our bishops (I'm not holy so I guess I can't ask them to be) can't we at least have normalcy???
Its not just Herman and Theodosius; few in any jurisdiction seem normal; how much less do the gross majority of them feel safe, trustworthy, likable; how much less do they seem servants. But—at the least!—they could be likable (or fake it!) and "stand-up" guys (not stand-up as in comic; stand-up as in do-the-right-thing).
I'd shun a parish if I knew it had a bishop present, likely. I've recently read a bit of the Apostolic Fathers again since I think I need to re-educate that inner part of me that involuntarily says "Yetch" to bishop. Who among the mitered maniacs even approaches the shadow of the type of person who would—if on the road to Rome for execution—inspire a turnout along the way like St. Ignatius did? Even if we know nothing negative about [fill in the name of any given bishop], I suspect many would assume nothing wonderful about him. There are only a handful who would inspire such a fanfare, much less normal mourning.
Its not just this OCA scandal, though it is really, truly grotesque. Its the garbage from Constantinople re their authority over—what do they call them?—the "barbarian lands" (read: the OCA in the USA); and the the related recent nonsense of Moscow and Constantinople re the Estonian Church—over which the Moscow delegation left the recent plenary Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue with the Romans. (How can our bishops dialog with Rome when captivated by power struggles within?)
Its how we've got an OCA bishop plundering the Church in Alaska and a feckless Synod that is as blind to, or as immobilized in the face of, that as Herman is sympathetic to the need for proper bookkeeping.
Its how we had a now-retied bishop, so long clearly mentally ill, allowed by his brother-bishops to reign his tyranny over the West; an portent of the response, one would presume, by the Synod to the imprisoned parishioners and priests held captive in Alaska.
Its how on the Internet there is a Greek bishop whose statements regarding the Faith sound read they came from a catechism for a Roman Catholic teenager, whereas any Orthodox teenager could correct that bishop.
Its how American bishops, all, publicly talk of American unity in interviews and speeches ... and yet, have SCOBA bishops ever determined to direct their respective flocks to add a common petition (better, a full litany) to the liturgical services for American unity (maybe they are afraid the Lord will actually grant it).
Similarly, Orthodox bishops and the Roman Pope speak of rapprochement and sacramental reunification, approve meetings of "theologians," send delegates to visit one another's sees on feast days—yet no agreement among them to direct their respective parishes add to their liturgical services a series of petitions for unity. (Such a petition should be added immediately and retained until granted or until the Lord returns, whichever occurs first.)
And now ... we have Herman who, as a bishop has the charisma to divide the word of truth rightly, nevertheless apply the story of Noah's kids to justify covering up crimes against the Church. What the ...??? How about Paul’s withstanding Peter to Peter’s face? Well? How does that work into his curious exegesis?
It just plain ... well, my mom won't let me use that words around her, so I won't here either. But it stinks to high Heaven.
If we can't have holiness among our bishops (I'm not holy so I guess I can't ask them to be) can't we at least have normalcy???
#47
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 17:27
Talk about not learning anything!
Pokrov is now reporting that +Nikolai has tonsured as a reader a convicted sex offender. Is this allowed?? Aside from it just being wrong on so many levels, don't the church canons forbid such a thing? Can't he get in trouble for doing this? I can't believe such a thing could be allowed. We shouldn't stand for it as Orthodox Christians.
Maybe a clergy could clarify this for us? Is it allowed?
(Editor's note: It is true. Pokrov.org has the links on their site for those interested to read about it.)
Pokrov is now reporting that +Nikolai has tonsured as a reader a convicted sex offender. Is this allowed?? Aside from it just being wrong on so many levels, don't the church canons forbid such a thing? Can't he get in trouble for doing this? I can't believe such a thing could be allowed. We shouldn't stand for it as Orthodox Christians.
Maybe a clergy could clarify this for us? Is it allowed?
(Editor's note: It is true. Pokrov.org has the links on their site for those interested to read about it.)
#48
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 17:30
I see what Mark has replied to Jon's query, and I understand that federal agencies may be interested in the various violations of federal law involving currency and customs and such, but I am confused about common garden-variety thievery, which is a local crime. We read in the papers often about church employees of one denomination or another, who have been arrested, charged, tried, and found guilty, of taking money for their personal use that belonged to the church. I am not the only one who is wondering how whoever was involved in the OCA missing funds escaped being arrested by local authorities.
#49
Cate
on
2007-12-14 19:02
Glory to IC XC!
I’m confused. In the Metropolitan’s December 13, 2007 address there is a vague apology, and he asks “God's mercy and your forgiveness.” That’s good. I appreciate it and I offer my forgiveness as best I can give it and he has my feeble and unworthy prayers every day.
But, here’s where I’m confused. You see, in my experience, when someone asks forgiveness, they usually acknowledge specific sins or offenses. And if there is to be credibility, they don’t also, …um, how can I put this diplomatically… contradict themselves?
And, I really would like to take him at his word, but, …again: how to put this?... Which word from him do I take as truth? Today he tells us the reason for firing Kondratick was that “…his overbearing management style was becoming apparent as was a perceived habit of excessive spending. Some suggested that he should be dismissed. This was a difficult decision but by the spring of 2006, it was apparent that there was no alternative. I dismissed him from his role as Chancellor on March 16, 2006.”
Okay. I can accept that. But, if I do, that forces me to reject his 2006 version of these events, when +MH said that his “decision was prompted by an accusatory and intimidating letter which I received from Father Kondratick’s attorney, Harry H. Kutner, Jr. I do interpret his attack on me as Primate as an attack on the whole Church.”
Well, which of the statements does he want us to believe? Which should we reject?
Another statement which I find difficult to align with previous statements that +MH has made is that “During that time [of Churchly service] there has never been a moment when I did not have only the most sincere desire to honor and defend the Church.” But, isn’t this the same +MH who declared the devil to be at work in the Diocese of the Midwest and in the Diocese of Western Pennsylvania? Pardon me, how is this either honoring or defending the Church? These are not just the ventings of a hot-headed blue collar worker. (I am, by the way, a blue collar worker and I don’t recall an instant where any one of my co-workers spoke so “demonically” -- to put it literally.) These statements are sins against the Church, against the people of God.
All this devil stuff notwithstanding, I’m still left to wonder which statement +MH wants me to believe. Has he assigned the devil to be at work in these two dioceses, or has he had the uninterrupted desire to honor and defend the Church?
It reminds of Elim Garak -- a professional deceiver -- who, when asked which of his stories were true, responded, “All of them.” “Even the lies?” “Especially the lies.”
You see my confusion. Please, straighten out this simple, blue-collar stiff. I’m just too stupid to figure it out on my own.
in XC,
Rev. Bartholomew Wojcik
St. Nicholas Mission Church
Pella, IA
I’m confused. In the Metropolitan’s December 13, 2007 address there is a vague apology, and he asks “God's mercy and your forgiveness.” That’s good. I appreciate it and I offer my forgiveness as best I can give it and he has my feeble and unworthy prayers every day.
But, here’s where I’m confused. You see, in my experience, when someone asks forgiveness, they usually acknowledge specific sins or offenses. And if there is to be credibility, they don’t also, …um, how can I put this diplomatically… contradict themselves?
And, I really would like to take him at his word, but, …again: how to put this?... Which word from him do I take as truth? Today he tells us the reason for firing Kondratick was that “…his overbearing management style was becoming apparent as was a perceived habit of excessive spending. Some suggested that he should be dismissed. This was a difficult decision but by the spring of 2006, it was apparent that there was no alternative. I dismissed him from his role as Chancellor on March 16, 2006.”
Okay. I can accept that. But, if I do, that forces me to reject his 2006 version of these events, when +MH said that his “decision was prompted by an accusatory and intimidating letter which I received from Father Kondratick’s attorney, Harry H. Kutner, Jr. I do interpret his attack on me as Primate as an attack on the whole Church.”
Well, which of the statements does he want us to believe? Which should we reject?
Another statement which I find difficult to align with previous statements that +MH has made is that “During that time [of Churchly service] there has never been a moment when I did not have only the most sincere desire to honor and defend the Church.” But, isn’t this the same +MH who declared the devil to be at work in the Diocese of the Midwest and in the Diocese of Western Pennsylvania? Pardon me, how is this either honoring or defending the Church? These are not just the ventings of a hot-headed blue collar worker. (I am, by the way, a blue collar worker and I don’t recall an instant where any one of my co-workers spoke so “demonically” -- to put it literally.) These statements are sins against the Church, against the people of God.
All this devil stuff notwithstanding, I’m still left to wonder which statement +MH wants me to believe. Has he assigned the devil to be at work in these two dioceses, or has he had the uninterrupted desire to honor and defend the Church?
It reminds of Elim Garak -- a professional deceiver -- who, when asked which of his stories were true, responded, “All of them.” “Even the lies?” “Especially the lies.”
You see my confusion. Please, straighten out this simple, blue-collar stiff. I’m just too stupid to figure it out on my own.
in XC,
Rev. Bartholomew Wojcik
St. Nicholas Mission Church
Pella, IA
#50
Rev. Bartholomew Wojcik
on
2007-12-14 19:40
The Blame Game
I would like to take some heart from the latest news release from Met.
Herman, but it is impossible to take it at face value in light of the 'progress' of the scandal and crisis thus far. I see no way to read his late and generalized request for forgiveness here as a sincere one. Actions speak louder than words, and it will take much more than "some time for [Met.
Herman] to regain the trust of some people".
Of course this post of mine will be put down to 'bitterness' or cynicism, but in fact I have only a weary sadness in pointing out that the vague apology of the Metropolitan is only given after an exhaustive litany of remarks that cast the blame on anyone and everyone but himself:
MH writes:
"My predecessor, Metropolitan Theodosius allowed most of the administrative work to be conducted by Robert Kondratick."
(Read: blame my predecessor, not me)
"Members of the Holy Synod and the Metropolitan Council relied on his efficiency, recognizing his energy and managerial skills. "
(Read: blame the HS and the MC, not me)
"Some suggested that he should be dismissed. This was a difficult decision but by the spring of 2006, it was apparent that there was no alternative. I dismissed him from his role as Chancellor on March 16, 2006."
(read: Blame the chancellor, don't blame me. And if you don't think he should have been dismissed after all, don't blame me for that either, blame the ones who suggested it)
"The immensity of the financial malfeasance made uncovering it a complicated task. As Primate of the Church, I was advised to retain the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP. "
(read: blame my advisors, not me)
"This decision on the appeal of the former Chancellor does not yet bring everything to an end. Several members of the original Special Investigation Committee regrettably resigned."
(read: they resigned, blame them, not me)
"A good deal of this frustration was due to the perception that there was deliberate stonewalling by myself and the Central Church Administration.
Actually legal counsel advised against the revelation of pertinent material and this made it impossible to answer questions in a timely manner."
(read: the lawyers made me do it. Blame them, not me)
"In the Biblical spirit of Noah's sons I was taught that the right thing is to not expose the shame of elders, by which I understand my brother bishops and the other clergy."
(read: blame my teachers who taught me this and the brother bishops and clergy who did the shameful things, not me)
"I have, on occasion, as a Christian and an Orthodox cleric, made errors in judgment."
(Read: everyone makes errors. Don't blame me. )
"At times I trusted those that I should not have trusted."
(read: blame the people I shouldn't have trusted, not me.)
"There were times I did not act when I should have acted, or when I did not speak when I should have spoken, and I have said things that I should not have said. To the measure that my sins and faults have caused harm to our Church, to my fellow hierarchs, to members of the Church Administration, to the clergy and faithful of the Orthodox Church in America, I ask God's mercy and your forgiveness."
(read: Okay, now you can blame me just a little bit. Just enough to forgive me. But only AFTER you spread the lion's share of blame over my predecessor, my former chancellor, my teachers, my brother bishops, my advisors, my lawyers, the special investigative committee, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council and anybody else you can think of.)
"The unfortunate events which we have recounted here constitute a very tragic chapter in the history of our Church. Yet we learn from mistakes and we have learned much from the experience of the past several years. It is time now to "strain forward to what lies ahead, pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3.15)."
(read: Okay, that little bit of blame is enough, stop blaming me already!)
-----------------------------------
We are taught in the church NOT to bring other people's sins with us when we make our confession, but rather to come seeking forgiveness for our own sins. Embedding this little 'apology' to the people of God in a long rehearsal of deflections and excuses, and cushioning the mention of 'sins'
with 'faults' and 'errors in judgement' is a shameful act from one who should be an example of penitence to the rest of us.
If I were bitter or cynical, I would give up and not bother commenting on this message. I believe most people in the OCA are like me-- they are anguished, distressed, but not in fact bitter or cynical. They are still clinging to hope and still choosing what is right, and that is why people like Mark Stokoe and others who comment here and elsewhere haven't stopped speaking up, even if some of us still find it prudent to remain anonymous. I am sure Mark will soon do a more thorough analysis of this message, and thanks be to God that Fr. Theodore Bobosh has already masterfully exegeted the story of Noah and his sons in a truly Orthodox manner.
That said, I want to address only two more points in the Metropolitan's
message:
"This crisis has had profound tragic consequences in the life of our Church.
Clergy and faithful have expressed outrage, with passionate demands and calls for retribution."
No. Hardly anyone has called for "retribution". Most of the calls have only been for "restitution". Unlike another poster, I think it is a hopeful sign that a conflict resolution specialist has been called in from outside.
Perhaps he can explain to the Metropolitan the difference between retribution and restitution.
"It may take some time for us to regain the trust of some people".
No. For one thing, the 'some people' here referred to are surely more numerous than MH seems to believe. Perhaps the conflict resolution specialist can also explain to Met.
Herman that it is not merely time that regains trust. In attempting to regain trust, actions speak louder than words-- especially when the words are as clearly self-serving as those in this message.
What actions would regain trust? Make the opening service of the All American Council a footwashing. Let Met. Herman humble himself to wash Dn.
Eric Wheeler's feet, who would be there both as one of the chief persons offended by the Metropolitan's actions and inactions over the course of this scandal and as representative of all the faithful who have been defrauded, hurt, distressed and disparaged by the same. (Better still, it would befit the entire Holy Synod to join in this ceremony. ) This should be MH's last liturgical act before announcing his resignation, effective immediately at the council so the bishops, clergy and faithful assembled may decide together what to do next.
Is that dreaming in Technicolor? With God all things are possible. Even if it seems unlikely in the extreme, it needs to be said. Met. Herman-- indeed each of us-- must not be able to say on the last day, "but nobody gave me good advice, nobody told me the right thing to do."
Without such a dramatic self-humbling on the part of Met. Herman and his brother bishops, I do not believe he or the OCA have enough time left on this earth to regain our trust. The blame game must end, before we can move on.
I would like to take some heart from the latest news release from Met.
Herman, but it is impossible to take it at face value in light of the 'progress' of the scandal and crisis thus far. I see no way to read his late and generalized request for forgiveness here as a sincere one. Actions speak louder than words, and it will take much more than "some time for [Met.
Herman] to regain the trust of some people".
Of course this post of mine will be put down to 'bitterness' or cynicism, but in fact I have only a weary sadness in pointing out that the vague apology of the Metropolitan is only given after an exhaustive litany of remarks that cast the blame on anyone and everyone but himself:
MH writes:
"My predecessor, Metropolitan Theodosius allowed most of the administrative work to be conducted by Robert Kondratick."
(Read: blame my predecessor, not me)
"Members of the Holy Synod and the Metropolitan Council relied on his efficiency, recognizing his energy and managerial skills. "
(Read: blame the HS and the MC, not me)
"Some suggested that he should be dismissed. This was a difficult decision but by the spring of 2006, it was apparent that there was no alternative. I dismissed him from his role as Chancellor on March 16, 2006."
(read: Blame the chancellor, don't blame me. And if you don't think he should have been dismissed after all, don't blame me for that either, blame the ones who suggested it)
"The immensity of the financial malfeasance made uncovering it a complicated task. As Primate of the Church, I was advised to retain the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP. "
(read: blame my advisors, not me)
"This decision on the appeal of the former Chancellor does not yet bring everything to an end. Several members of the original Special Investigation Committee regrettably resigned."
(read: they resigned, blame them, not me)
"A good deal of this frustration was due to the perception that there was deliberate stonewalling by myself and the Central Church Administration.
Actually legal counsel advised against the revelation of pertinent material and this made it impossible to answer questions in a timely manner."
(read: the lawyers made me do it. Blame them, not me)
"In the Biblical spirit of Noah's sons I was taught that the right thing is to not expose the shame of elders, by which I understand my brother bishops and the other clergy."
(read: blame my teachers who taught me this and the brother bishops and clergy who did the shameful things, not me)
"I have, on occasion, as a Christian and an Orthodox cleric, made errors in judgment."
(Read: everyone makes errors. Don't blame me. )
"At times I trusted those that I should not have trusted."
(read: blame the people I shouldn't have trusted, not me.)
"There were times I did not act when I should have acted, or when I did not speak when I should have spoken, and I have said things that I should not have said. To the measure that my sins and faults have caused harm to our Church, to my fellow hierarchs, to members of the Church Administration, to the clergy and faithful of the Orthodox Church in America, I ask God's mercy and your forgiveness."
(read: Okay, now you can blame me just a little bit. Just enough to forgive me. But only AFTER you spread the lion's share of blame over my predecessor, my former chancellor, my teachers, my brother bishops, my advisors, my lawyers, the special investigative committee, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council and anybody else you can think of.)
"The unfortunate events which we have recounted here constitute a very tragic chapter in the history of our Church. Yet we learn from mistakes and we have learned much from the experience of the past several years. It is time now to "strain forward to what lies ahead, pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3.15)."
(read: Okay, that little bit of blame is enough, stop blaming me already!)
-----------------------------------
We are taught in the church NOT to bring other people's sins with us when we make our confession, but rather to come seeking forgiveness for our own sins. Embedding this little 'apology' to the people of God in a long rehearsal of deflections and excuses, and cushioning the mention of 'sins'
with 'faults' and 'errors in judgement' is a shameful act from one who should be an example of penitence to the rest of us.
If I were bitter or cynical, I would give up and not bother commenting on this message. I believe most people in the OCA are like me-- they are anguished, distressed, but not in fact bitter or cynical. They are still clinging to hope and still choosing what is right, and that is why people like Mark Stokoe and others who comment here and elsewhere haven't stopped speaking up, even if some of us still find it prudent to remain anonymous. I am sure Mark will soon do a more thorough analysis of this message, and thanks be to God that Fr. Theodore Bobosh has already masterfully exegeted the story of Noah and his sons in a truly Orthodox manner.
That said, I want to address only two more points in the Metropolitan's
message:
"This crisis has had profound tragic consequences in the life of our Church.
Clergy and faithful have expressed outrage, with passionate demands and calls for retribution."
No. Hardly anyone has called for "retribution". Most of the calls have only been for "restitution". Unlike another poster, I think it is a hopeful sign that a conflict resolution specialist has been called in from outside.
Perhaps he can explain to the Metropolitan the difference between retribution and restitution.
"It may take some time for us to regain the trust of some people".
No. For one thing, the 'some people' here referred to are surely more numerous than MH seems to believe. Perhaps the conflict resolution specialist can also explain to Met.
Herman that it is not merely time that regains trust. In attempting to regain trust, actions speak louder than words-- especially when the words are as clearly self-serving as those in this message.
What actions would regain trust? Make the opening service of the All American Council a footwashing. Let Met. Herman humble himself to wash Dn.
Eric Wheeler's feet, who would be there both as one of the chief persons offended by the Metropolitan's actions and inactions over the course of this scandal and as representative of all the faithful who have been defrauded, hurt, distressed and disparaged by the same. (Better still, it would befit the entire Holy Synod to join in this ceremony. ) This should be MH's last liturgical act before announcing his resignation, effective immediately at the council so the bishops, clergy and faithful assembled may decide together what to do next.
Is that dreaming in Technicolor? With God all things are possible. Even if it seems unlikely in the extreme, it needs to be said. Met. Herman-- indeed each of us-- must not be able to say on the last day, "but nobody gave me good advice, nobody told me the right thing to do."
Without such a dramatic self-humbling on the part of Met. Herman and his brother bishops, I do not believe he or the OCA have enough time left on this earth to regain our trust. The blame game must end, before we can move on.
#51
Anonymous
on
2007-12-14 19:44
Thank you Fr. Andrew for your strong but accurate words. We need more priests to speak publically about what should be their outrage at how our Metropolitan and other bishops have so wounded this Church. I am from the Diocese of the South where the silence is dismaying.
My best to you and your work,
David Paynter
Wilmington, NC
Charleston, SC
My best to you and your work,
David Paynter
Wilmington, NC
Charleston, SC
#52
David Paynter
on
2007-12-14 20:33
Good heavens! I can't keep these "anonymous"es straight anymore: 4 on one posting, each with a different, if not conflicting, point of view. Ouch, my head!
#53
Fr. Dennis Buck
on
2007-12-14 21:58
You've made an excellent posting all the way through. So much of your sentiments are like mine especially the part about bishops. I wish I knew who you were.
With specific reference to another litany, I suggest doing what my former parish does -- it adds three petitions to the litany of fervent supplication as follows:
Again we pray for Orthodox Christians who are made to suffer on account of Christ (Mat. 5.11), and we pray for those who persecute them (Mat. 5.44)
Again we pray for Orthodox Christians and indeed all men who are victims of war and civil strife, of hunger and want, of intolerance and injustice. (1Pet 2.9)
Again we pray for an end to schisms and jurisdictional divisions, that we may become perfectly one. (Jn. 17.23)
I believe the liturgy at the New Skete monastery includes a petition "for all Christ-loving people."
With specific reference to another litany, I suggest doing what my former parish does -- it adds three petitions to the litany of fervent supplication as follows:
Again we pray for Orthodox Christians who are made to suffer on account of Christ (Mat. 5.11), and we pray for those who persecute them (Mat. 5.44)
Again we pray for Orthodox Christians and indeed all men who are victims of war and civil strife, of hunger and want, of intolerance and injustice. (1Pet 2.9)
Again we pray for an end to schisms and jurisdictional divisions, that we may become perfectly one. (Jn. 17.23)
I believe the liturgy at the New Skete monastery includes a petition "for all Christ-loving people."
#54
Terry C. Peet
on
2007-12-14 22:56
Today I started a thread on monachos.net to try to collect in one place biblical, patristic and canonical references that are relevant to how the Church should respond to this type of scandal. The focus is not on the OCA scandal itself, but what the Fathers say about how bishops, clergy and laity should respond when something like this happens. I would have posted it here, but it was too long and it needed formatting.
http://tinyurl.com/35c6d6
If the link does not work, go to monachos.net, click "Community" on the left, then "Ecclesiology and the Church" and then "Church Hierarchy and Structure". My first post was just a start. I hope others will contribute different sources and viewpoints.
http://tinyurl.com/35c6d6
If the link does not work, go to monachos.net, click "Community" on the left, then "Ecclesiology and the Church" and then "Church Hierarchy and Structure". My first post was just a start. I hope others will contribute different sources and viewpoints.
#55
Robert Wachter
on
2007-12-15 02:59
QUOTE: (Editor's note: If you have any evidence of wrongdoing you are obligated to share the same with the Special Investigative Committee, or failing that, make it known yourself. To accuse the Metropolitan of sexual indiscretions as you have on the Orthodox Forum, and to a lesser extent here, without any supporting evidence or credible testimony, is simply disreputable. If you don't have any evidence or credible testimony, please stop threatening. Its just so much hot air at this point. )
It would be a serious mistake to think that I have no 'supporting evidence or credible testimony' simply because I don't provide such attestation here or elsewhere on the Internet.
I look forward to being interviewed by the 'Special Investigative Committee' and I will provide as much background information as I can to appropriate officers of the OCA and to the government.
BTW: Please note that I have written nothing so vague as 'to accuse the Metropolitan of sexual indiscretions'. Let me make myself clear: I'm accusing him and several others of our bishops, priests and deacons -- sometimes in connection with these very bishops -- of specifically homosexual activity, a shameful and scandalous pattern of transgressions and cover-ups. Some of our financial troubles are directly attributable to this sinful conspiracy.
Monk James
It would be a serious mistake to think that I have no 'supporting evidence or credible testimony' simply because I don't provide such attestation here or elsewhere on the Internet.
I look forward to being interviewed by the 'Special Investigative Committee' and I will provide as much background information as I can to appropriate officers of the OCA and to the government.
BTW: Please note that I have written nothing so vague as 'to accuse the Metropolitan of sexual indiscretions'. Let me make myself clear: I'm accusing him and several others of our bishops, priests and deacons -- sometimes in connection with these very bishops -- of specifically homosexual activity, a shameful and scandalous pattern of transgressions and cover-ups. Some of our financial troubles are directly attributable to this sinful conspiracy.
Monk James
#56
Monk James
on
2007-12-15 06:33
We are in this matter given evidence of the lack of a basic Biblical knowledge by this Bishop.
This tonsuring has taken place without taking into consideration that this lower rank of the Clergy should have as a basic requirement that the man be of a good reputation, that he be self-controlled, that he be worthy of respect, that he must first be tested and then if there is nothing against him he can then serve. These are not my words but Paul's.
A man considered for the clergy (even this lower rank) must be shown to be pursuing righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, and gentleness.
A convicted sex offender can pursue all these things but not in the ranks of the clergy. He may be forgiven but must remain a forgiven layman. He must be helped in working out his salvation but not as a figure in the Church who would serve as an example.
This brief reply does not even take into consideration that a leadership position has now been given to someone who is a potential lawsuit if he repeats his offense. Not knowing the particular nature of this man's offense I can only hope and pray that it did not involve a child!
This pseudo Bishop of Alaska does not himself meet the scriptural demands of the Office that he holds. Nikolai is likely to look away for others not meeting the standard either. This is madness.
Where is this Bishop's temperance, gentleness, and hospitality? Where is his non violent and gentle nature. Where do we see in his actions a gentle shepherd who loves his sheep. Where is his concern for others who might be victimized by this serial offender. How in God's name was this man tested and found worthy of this office? I believe Nikolai loves his office but I do not see evidence that he loves his sheep. This is not an act of love on behalf of the people of Alaska. Can you imagine what the 13-15 year old victims of his abuse and their families and villages must think about the Church!
So Alaska has this abusive Bishop, and Britton who says he is cured of his homosexual advances and his substance abuse (people in treatment and truly in recovery never say that) and now they have a new reader that is a serial sex abuser.
Abuse seeks to be the key word that describes the work of this Alaskan bishop. What a legacy?
God have mercy on the sheep of His (Jesus Christ's) Alaskan Church.
Fr. Andrew
This tonsuring has taken place without taking into consideration that this lower rank of the Clergy should have as a basic requirement that the man be of a good reputation, that he be self-controlled, that he be worthy of respect, that he must first be tested and then if there is nothing against him he can then serve. These are not my words but Paul's.
A man considered for the clergy (even this lower rank) must be shown to be pursuing righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, and gentleness.
A convicted sex offender can pursue all these things but not in the ranks of the clergy. He may be forgiven but must remain a forgiven layman. He must be helped in working out his salvation but not as a figure in the Church who would serve as an example.
This brief reply does not even take into consideration that a leadership position has now been given to someone who is a potential lawsuit if he repeats his offense. Not knowing the particular nature of this man's offense I can only hope and pray that it did not involve a child!
This pseudo Bishop of Alaska does not himself meet the scriptural demands of the Office that he holds. Nikolai is likely to look away for others not meeting the standard either. This is madness.
Where is this Bishop's temperance, gentleness, and hospitality? Where is his non violent and gentle nature. Where do we see in his actions a gentle shepherd who loves his sheep. Where is his concern for others who might be victimized by this serial offender. How in God's name was this man tested and found worthy of this office? I believe Nikolai loves his office but I do not see evidence that he loves his sheep. This is not an act of love on behalf of the people of Alaska. Can you imagine what the 13-15 year old victims of his abuse and their families and villages must think about the Church!
So Alaska has this abusive Bishop, and Britton who says he is cured of his homosexual advances and his substance abuse (people in treatment and truly in recovery never say that) and now they have a new reader that is a serial sex abuser.
Abuse seeks to be the key word that describes the work of this Alaskan bishop. What a legacy?
God have mercy on the sheep of His (Jesus Christ's) Alaskan Church.
Fr. Andrew
#57
fr Andrew Moore
on
2007-12-15 07:15
Once again, our boldly nameless correspondent makes unwarranted assumptions.
No matter what 'Anonymous' thinks, the truth is vastly different, but people of that ilk seem unable to process the simple fact that the Proskauer-Rose report was part of a scheme to 'build a firewall around the metropolitan' -- pointedly NOT to get at the truth.
As a result (verbum sapienti sat), the wise and perceptive among us will regard P-R's work and Met. Herman's use of it as a distortion of the facts and a manipulation of such truth as they recognized as irrefutable.
The same is true of the Special Investigative Committee's 'Preliminary Report', which is an astonishing concatenation of calumnies and lies about Fr Robert Kondratick and about the financial workings of the Syosset Chancery as a whole.
Bearing all that in mind, I'd like to state that prior to March 2006 I didn't know even half of what I came to know about the inner mechanisms of this conspiracy until I began to help as I could to defend Fr Robert Kondratick against MetH's predations.
As a result, I was not in a position to say anything about any of that, especially as it pertained to FrRK's defense, since I was NOT involved when most of these events took place, and because I had no authority to correct their attendant abuses after the fact, and because releasing their details would have compromised FrRK's case.
But what I did know and could address, I did, and on the highest levels. Unsuccessfully, but I did what I could do vis-a-vis my superiors, our last two metropolitans.
Oh, I knew about the ADM money, alright. Back in 1999 I wrote publicly to the clergy of the OCA insisting that Met. Theodosius either run those donations through the usual accounting procedures (as Pdn Eric Wheeler also insisted), or else be prepared to pay personal income tax for his (MetT's) exclusive access to those millions. MetT got some very bad advice, and he heeded neither PdnEW's nor my own warnings. Heaven knows, we tried, each in our own ways and from our own angles.
Coming closer to the present, FrRK and I and everyone else involved in his defense agreed that it would be prejudicial to his case to release any material related to his appeal before the bishops made their ruling.
As it happened, when the Holy Synod ruled on Thursday 13 December 2007 that they would NOT hear FrRK's appeal, the matter came to a dead end as far as our bishops thought. They're mistaken.
In any event, since the bishops rejected FrRK's appeal without hearing it -- or even reading it, as far as I can tell -- he has nothing to lose by sharing his rebuttals with the concerned public.
People should be aware, though, that FrRK's responses are calibrated only to the fourteen formal (but false) Accusations brought against him by the Spiritual Court, and to the illegal and immoral structure and proceedings of that Court.
As he has never seen the evidence underlying the formal Accusations, it has never been possible for him to respond to them in substance.
Neither he nor I have ever seen any reports from P-R, although we know that their mendacious work underlies the SIC's Preliminary Report (based on no investigations of their own) and the Accusations, and hence, his unjust and canonically ineffective deposition from the priesthood.
In the near future, I expect to publish a sequence of excerpts from FrRK's request to be heard on appeal, with explanatory notes. I anticipate doing this on the Orthodox-Forum list in several posts there (it's too long for one post), although I'll consider also sending it to ocanews in one piece if it can be presented in its entirety here.
Our correspondents in both venues can then respond with their comments and observations.
Monk James
No matter what 'Anonymous' thinks, the truth is vastly different, but people of that ilk seem unable to process the simple fact that the Proskauer-Rose report was part of a scheme to 'build a firewall around the metropolitan' -- pointedly NOT to get at the truth.
As a result (verbum sapienti sat), the wise and perceptive among us will regard P-R's work and Met. Herman's use of it as a distortion of the facts and a manipulation of such truth as they recognized as irrefutable.
The same is true of the Special Investigative Committee's 'Preliminary Report', which is an astonishing concatenation of calumnies and lies about Fr Robert Kondratick and about the financial workings of the Syosset Chancery as a whole.
Bearing all that in mind, I'd like to state that prior to March 2006 I didn't know even half of what I came to know about the inner mechanisms of this conspiracy until I began to help as I could to defend Fr Robert Kondratick against MetH's predations.
As a result, I was not in a position to say anything about any of that, especially as it pertained to FrRK's defense, since I was NOT involved when most of these events took place, and because I had no authority to correct their attendant abuses after the fact, and because releasing their details would have compromised FrRK's case.
But what I did know and could address, I did, and on the highest levels. Unsuccessfully, but I did what I could do vis-a-vis my superiors, our last two metropolitans.
Oh, I knew about the ADM money, alright. Back in 1999 I wrote publicly to the clergy of the OCA insisting that Met. Theodosius either run those donations through the usual accounting procedures (as Pdn Eric Wheeler also insisted), or else be prepared to pay personal income tax for his (MetT's) exclusive access to those millions. MetT got some very bad advice, and he heeded neither PdnEW's nor my own warnings. Heaven knows, we tried, each in our own ways and from our own angles.
Coming closer to the present, FrRK and I and everyone else involved in his defense agreed that it would be prejudicial to his case to release any material related to his appeal before the bishops made their ruling.
As it happened, when the Holy Synod ruled on Thursday 13 December 2007 that they would NOT hear FrRK's appeal, the matter came to a dead end as far as our bishops thought. They're mistaken.
In any event, since the bishops rejected FrRK's appeal without hearing it -- or even reading it, as far as I can tell -- he has nothing to lose by sharing his rebuttals with the concerned public.
People should be aware, though, that FrRK's responses are calibrated only to the fourteen formal (but false) Accusations brought against him by the Spiritual Court, and to the illegal and immoral structure and proceedings of that Court.
As he has never seen the evidence underlying the formal Accusations, it has never been possible for him to respond to them in substance.
Neither he nor I have ever seen any reports from P-R, although we know that their mendacious work underlies the SIC's Preliminary Report (based on no investigations of their own) and the Accusations, and hence, his unjust and canonically ineffective deposition from the priesthood.
In the near future, I expect to publish a sequence of excerpts from FrRK's request to be heard on appeal, with explanatory notes. I anticipate doing this on the Orthodox-Forum list in several posts there (it's too long for one post), although I'll consider also sending it to ocanews in one piece if it can be presented in its entirety here.
Our correspondents in both venues can then respond with their comments and observations.
Monk James
#58
Monk James
on
2007-12-15 07:32
+ Nicolai should be removed. If the OCA bishops won't take action, concerned people in Alaska should. A nice ride to the North Pole would do.
#59
Anon-i-moose
on
2007-12-15 08:47
Hi Cate,
Because the alleged criminal act involves the US Postal Service, the wire service, crosses state boundaries, etc., the feds have control rather than the local police.
I'm purely speculating here: If the alleged criminal behavior is determined to be fraud, and the monies were transferred by US Postal Service, that adds mail fraud. If any money were transmitted electronically, that adds wire fraud. When fraudulently obtained monies are used in any way (like to pay salaries, light bills, travel, etc.) that adds money laundering. Plus you have the alleged undeclared transfer of American currency abroad.
All this adds up to a potential prosecution under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statutes, which could involve many persons both inside and outside the Church, and will take much, much evidence gathering to prosecute.
Hope this explains a possible reason for the apparent slow/invisible action on the part of law enforcement.
Martin D. Watt, CPA
Dayton, Ohio
Because the alleged criminal act involves the US Postal Service, the wire service, crosses state boundaries, etc., the feds have control rather than the local police.
I'm purely speculating here: If the alleged criminal behavior is determined to be fraud, and the monies were transferred by US Postal Service, that adds mail fraud. If any money were transmitted electronically, that adds wire fraud. When fraudulently obtained monies are used in any way (like to pay salaries, light bills, travel, etc.) that adds money laundering. Plus you have the alleged undeclared transfer of American currency abroad.
All this adds up to a potential prosecution under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statutes, which could involve many persons both inside and outside the Church, and will take much, much evidence gathering to prosecute.
Hope this explains a possible reason for the apparent slow/invisible action on the part of law enforcement.
Martin D. Watt, CPA
Dayton, Ohio
#60
Marty Watt
on
2007-12-15 11:05
Cate, didn't the IRS get Al Capone? The IRS has to be interested in what's in the Summary Report. From the looks of it, there's a lot of unreported income.
#61
Anonymous
on
2007-12-15 13:01
Would someone please provide a link to any official church documents or policies regarding how convicted sex offenders may serve in the Church?
Also, if anyone in Alaska can provide a link to official state policies about restrictions on sex offenders after they're released from prison? For example, are they required to stay away from parks and schools?
Thank you for the information.
Also, if anyone in Alaska can provide a link to official state policies about restrictions on sex offenders after they're released from prison? For example, are they required to stay away from parks and schools?
Thank you for the information.
#62
Josephine
on
2007-12-15 13:02
One thing that screamed out to me in the report was that the plundering of the operating funds that occured during 2001-2005 and in no small amount. Looking at the timelines, it appears to be the dynamic duo of Bob Kondratick and Dmitri Oselinsky (treasurer). In all of this, where's the examination of Oselinsky? The treasurer was entrusted with the monies of the Church and it was plundered in numbers that are incomprehensible. Coincidence that he left as treasurer in 2005? .... He at one point told his parish that the person at fault for all of this was Eric Wheeler, because he brought it to light. Makes you wonder if he should be next under the lights?
#63
Anonymous
on
2007-12-15 13:09
#21 Anonymous...the late Archbishop Kyrill (who was Bulgarian) had a favorite word for you. It was: " Idiot !" Do you really think those Bulgarians want the robber Rodion taking their money?
#64
A Bulgarian Bubba
on
2007-12-15 15:18
The following letter reveals some of the stuff that we who are in the trenches as pastors (not Herman) of the Holy Church are dealing with because of Metropolitan Herman. What follows is a real letter that I received from a convert in my parish today. In my parish my people are free to express themselves.
This is how Herman is making it more difficult for Orthodox people. This man has a very stong faith and a firm resolve to serve the Holy Trinity. He has been nable to attend liturgy for a while in that his struggles with this issue have him by the throat.
This layman is struggling with the issue of how to deal with the fact that we have in the office of Bishop those who do not desire to be Holy. It is not an issue of sin but rather an issue of what "oneness with God" means. We all sin and we can all in Christ heal from that sin. What we cannot deal with is that the Episcopal office is being defined downward and is being used to justify actions and decisions that lack the approval of God.
Here follows the letter:
Please know Father that most of my difficulties have been my own sin getting in the way. There is no excuse for this. However, try to understand where we come from. I was raised mostly by my grandparents who were strict Wesleyan/holiness...we believed in "sanctified living" to best we could understand it. Greatly instilled into me was, in a sense, puritanical ways. I still get a little uneasy when I hear of orthodox church dances.
Also please try to understand what part of the country we are from. We are from the south. We southerners are, in a way, an ethnic group also. Southerners have many weakness, like wearing our feelings on our sleeves. We are hopelessly people pleasers and usually take everyone at their word until given a reason not to do so. Duplicity appears ramped in orthodox politics. We expect that of democrats and republicans but not church leaders. Someone like Herman would have already been "out on his tush". A southern person is hospitable, civil, and friendly. We don't take kindly to people with "airs". What you see is what you get. Southern people expect pastors and church leaders to be down to earth as well. Another weakness is that southern people can be easily offended. Our people-pleasing nature lends itself to over- sensitivity. To southerners, admiration comes easy but respect is earned over time, even when it comes to church leaders.
Southern people do not take to kindly to "slime-ball people". It may be that we take things to seriously. The golden rule applies to everyone no matter what rank or station. However, the general weakness of many orthodox converts is phariseeism, and a sort of a convert-superior-orthodoxy which is a far cry from the ideal. We all struggle toward humility. We must all remember to take heed, thinking that we stand, lest we fall. Thanks to the lackadaisical attitude that some cradle orthodox have (some who do not even know there own faith) this can present a great challenge for many converts, especially southerners. To the eyes of someone raised in southern holiness, what seems to be laxity in piety, dress, service attendance, and orthodox-zeal-vs-ethnic-idenity, can be a great temptation to the beginning lambs.
IF orthodoxy is ever going to make an impact in this country...most of which is heartland, rural America, it will have to put down the jurisdictional or western vs eastern rite wars, and consider a little of what I have stated above.
Southerners always usually have strong suspicions when it comes to authority. As the old saying goes, "fool me once,shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
Those serious about evangelizing rural america would do well do well to study this culture just as any missionary would study the culture they hope to reach.
Until later, pray for us.
This is how Herman is making it more difficult for Orthodox people. This man has a very stong faith and a firm resolve to serve the Holy Trinity. He has been nable to attend liturgy for a while in that his struggles with this issue have him by the throat.
This layman is struggling with the issue of how to deal with the fact that we have in the office of Bishop those who do not desire to be Holy. It is not an issue of sin but rather an issue of what "oneness with God" means. We all sin and we can all in Christ heal from that sin. What we cannot deal with is that the Episcopal office is being defined downward and is being used to justify actions and decisions that lack the approval of God.
Here follows the letter:
Please know Father that most of my difficulties have been my own sin getting in the way. There is no excuse for this. However, try to understand where we come from. I was raised mostly by my grandparents who were strict Wesleyan/holiness...we believed in "sanctified living" to best we could understand it. Greatly instilled into me was, in a sense, puritanical ways. I still get a little uneasy when I hear of orthodox church dances.
Also please try to understand what part of the country we are from. We are from the south. We southerners are, in a way, an ethnic group also. Southerners have many weakness, like wearing our feelings on our sleeves. We are hopelessly people pleasers and usually take everyone at their word until given a reason not to do so. Duplicity appears ramped in orthodox politics. We expect that of democrats and republicans but not church leaders. Someone like Herman would have already been "out on his tush". A southern person is hospitable, civil, and friendly. We don't take kindly to people with "airs". What you see is what you get. Southern people expect pastors and church leaders to be down to earth as well. Another weakness is that southern people can be easily offended. Our people-pleasing nature lends itself to over- sensitivity. To southerners, admiration comes easy but respect is earned over time, even when it comes to church leaders.
Southern people do not take to kindly to "slime-ball people". It may be that we take things to seriously. The golden rule applies to everyone no matter what rank or station. However, the general weakness of many orthodox converts is phariseeism, and a sort of a convert-superior-orthodoxy which is a far cry from the ideal. We all struggle toward humility. We must all remember to take heed, thinking that we stand, lest we fall. Thanks to the lackadaisical attitude that some cradle orthodox have (some who do not even know there own faith) this can present a great challenge for many converts, especially southerners. To the eyes of someone raised in southern holiness, what seems to be laxity in piety, dress, service attendance, and orthodox-zeal-vs-ethnic-idenity, can be a great temptation to the beginning lambs.
IF orthodoxy is ever going to make an impact in this country...most of which is heartland, rural America, it will have to put down the jurisdictional or western vs eastern rite wars, and consider a little of what I have stated above.
Southerners always usually have strong suspicions when it comes to authority. As the old saying goes, "fool me once,shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
Those serious about evangelizing rural america would do well do well to study this culture just as any missionary would study the culture they hope to reach.
Until later, pray for us.
#65
fr Andrew Moore
on
2007-12-15 15:22
Sir, you have fallen to a level that is now beneath contempt. No one has condemned the conduct of Metropolitan Herman more than I have, but to bring forward these latest accusations without evidence or proof is scurrilous and hateful. Is this the price you have been threatening to make him and others pay if your "sainted" patron was not rehabilitated?
The stench of this charge would be less if the conduct of those accused did not lead one to believe that there might be some truth in it. It would certainly explain why there seems to be a desperate need by the Metropolitan and the Synod to keep a lid on the whole sordid affair and why nothing is being done about Bishop Nikolai. Are they all participants in or accessories to sexual misconduct?
So their silence and refusal to air the full truth concerning the scandal now brings them, ironically, to the point where they are naked to "Monk" James', and of course Kondratick's, claims of sexual improprieties. Needless to say, James and Kondratick are playing them, i.e.many of our bishops and leaders, to the hilt, when the proper and Christian course of action would have been to make these very serious allegations some time ago. But then our former Chancellor would have been open to the charge of being the enabler-in-chief!
Whoever would have thought that church politics could be so "hardball" and ungodly?
KRT
The stench of this charge would be less if the conduct of those accused did not lead one to believe that there might be some truth in it. It would certainly explain why there seems to be a desperate need by the Metropolitan and the Synod to keep a lid on the whole sordid affair and why nothing is being done about Bishop Nikolai. Are they all participants in or accessories to sexual misconduct?
So their silence and refusal to air the full truth concerning the scandal now brings them, ironically, to the point where they are naked to "Monk" James', and of course Kondratick's, claims of sexual improprieties. Needless to say, James and Kondratick are playing them, i.e.many of our bishops and leaders, to the hilt, when the proper and Christian course of action would have been to make these very serious allegations some time ago. But then our former Chancellor would have been open to the charge of being the enabler-in-chief!
Whoever would have thought that church politics could be so "hardball" and ungodly?
KRT
#66
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2007-12-15 15:37
For whatever it may be worth, sometime after the Iron Curtain fell, some in the Moscow Patriarchate had announced that the matter of the OCA's "autocephalous" status, would be revisited. Subsequently, Patriarch Alexei assured the OCA that Moscow would not rescind the OCA's autocephalous status.
However, the OCA, through its Chancellor at the time, ran to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, early into Patriarch Bartholomew's tenure, to discuss the OCA's status, in as much as the EP had refused to recognize its autocephaly, although it maintained communion with it. These negotiations resulted in the EP acclaiming that the OCA is a self-governing Church, (using a Greek word that escapes me). It indicated it was not "aftocefolos" (literally, self-headed), but could elect its own primate. It maintained that until an Ecumenical Synod proclaims autocephaly, only the EP can proclaim autocephly; that one of the sister Churches cannot introduce a new autocephalous Church, into the family in the Communion of the Holy Churches of God, without pan-Orthodox consultation and consensus.
Classic byzantine double talk, that those of us who are under the EP, have grown accustomed to. Never the less, I don't think the EP can reject a Synodic unfrocking, although the EP accepted the Patriarchal successor to Metropolitan Anthony in Great Brittan and didn't question the Antiochian Archdiocese's Ben-Lamond clergy who were unfrocked by Antioch, and accepted by the Jerusalem.
Wild stuff. Maybe your right!
However, the OCA, through its Chancellor at the time, ran to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, early into Patriarch Bartholomew's tenure, to discuss the OCA's status, in as much as the EP had refused to recognize its autocephaly, although it maintained communion with it. These negotiations resulted in the EP acclaiming that the OCA is a self-governing Church, (using a Greek word that escapes me). It indicated it was not "aftocefolos" (literally, self-headed), but could elect its own primate. It maintained that until an Ecumenical Synod proclaims autocephaly, only the EP can proclaim autocephly; that one of the sister Churches cannot introduce a new autocephalous Church, into the family in the Communion of the Holy Churches of God, without pan-Orthodox consultation and consensus.
Classic byzantine double talk, that those of us who are under the EP, have grown accustomed to. Never the less, I don't think the EP can reject a Synodic unfrocking, although the EP accepted the Patriarchal successor to Metropolitan Anthony in Great Brittan and didn't question the Antiochian Archdiocese's Ben-Lamond clergy who were unfrocked by Antioch, and accepted by the Jerusalem.
Wild stuff. Maybe your right!
#67
B.W. Trakas
on
2007-12-15 16:36
Can't help on Alaska at this point, however:
The OCA guidelines on workers in the Church and Sexual misconduct state the following:
11.05. Restrictions and Prohibitions on Church Service
(a) Unless approved by the Bishop in writing at the request of the Rector, laypersons who are volunteers should not be considered for work with youth or children until they have been members of the parish for a minimum of six months.
(b) No person who has been convicted or has plead guilty to any violation of law involving child sexual or physical abuse, and no person known to have a paraphilic diagnosis such as, but not limited to, pedophilia, exhibitionism, or voyeurism as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, shall be allowed to work with children or youth in any capacity.
(c) Adult survivors of child abuse must meet with the Rector before being approved to work with children or youth, and a criminal records check must be performed as to such individuals.
Back to Top
11.06. Exceptions
The requirements of paragraphs 11.02 through 11.04 of these Policies, Standards, and Procedures shall not apply to voluntary Sunday School teachers serving in such capacity, although any Bishop or Rector may adopt screening procedures for voluntary Sunday School teachers. Any Bishop may, for good cause, if the interests of children and youth are not prejudiced, modify the requirements of paragraphs 11.02 through 11.05 for one or more parishes in his diocese, or with respect to one or more individuals, by informing the applicable Rector(s) in writing and providing a copy thereof to the Office for Review of Sexual Misconduct Allegations.
(end of quoted matter)
Be aware that the exceptions in the last paragraph are broad enough, in effect, to invalidate the entire document and to basically say it is up to each bishop. The "Office for Review of Sexual Misconduct Allegations", as far as I know, doesn't exist except on an ad-hoc basis.
Martin D. Watt, CPA
Dayton, Ohio
The OCA guidelines on workers in the Church and Sexual misconduct state the following:
11.05. Restrictions and Prohibitions on Church Service
(a) Unless approved by the Bishop in writing at the request of the Rector, laypersons who are volunteers should not be considered for work with youth or children until they have been members of the parish for a minimum of six months.
(b) No person who has been convicted or has plead guilty to any violation of law involving child sexual or physical abuse, and no person known to have a paraphilic diagnosis such as, but not limited to, pedophilia, exhibitionism, or voyeurism as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, shall be allowed to work with children or youth in any capacity.
(c) Adult survivors of child abuse must meet with the Rector before being approved to work with children or youth, and a criminal records check must be performed as to such individuals.
Back to Top
11.06. Exceptions
The requirements of paragraphs 11.02 through 11.04 of these Policies, Standards, and Procedures shall not apply to voluntary Sunday School teachers serving in such capacity, although any Bishop or Rector may adopt screening procedures for voluntary Sunday School teachers. Any Bishop may, for good cause, if the interests of children and youth are not prejudiced, modify the requirements of paragraphs 11.02 through 11.05 for one or more parishes in his diocese, or with respect to one or more individuals, by informing the applicable Rector(s) in writing and providing a copy thereof to the Office for Review of Sexual Misconduct Allegations.
(end of quoted matter)
Be aware that the exceptions in the last paragraph are broad enough, in effect, to invalidate the entire document and to basically say it is up to each bishop. The "Office for Review of Sexual Misconduct Allegations", as far as I know, doesn't exist except on an ad-hoc basis.
Martin D. Watt, CPA
Dayton, Ohio
#68
Marty Watt
on
2007-12-15 17:30
sorry, Fr. & al., I didn't pause long enough to choose a nom de plume for my comment "the blame game". Let's call me "Valentine".
#69
Valentine
on
2007-12-15 17:41
Thank you Fr Andrew for your insightful reply. I was also looking for information on this on the internet and read that in the holy canons it says that if a bishop elevates into the clergy a convicted criminal then he is to be removed from the ranks of the episcopacy. Is this true? If yes, should we expect our holy synod to do something about it?
#70
Anonymous
on
2007-12-15 18:43
Fr. Bartholomew:
Specifically with reference to your confusion expressed in the first four paragraphs re the reasons for dismissing Fr. Kondratick, I believe that both reasons expressed more than a year apart are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the first one given (threatening letter) was the catalyst for the coup de grace, but as the metropolitan is opening up, the second reason (overbearing management style) recently given was on the back burner for some time.
The reason for my thinking behind the last sentence is that for some years I have heard that one of the unspoken reasons for Metropolitan Theodosius' retirement in 2002 was not entirely due to health considerations, but because he could not control his chancellor. And now I am hearing that saner minds, cognizant of the deep mistrust in the church of the primate, are prevailing on the metropolitan to be more open and he is taking their advice. Time will only tell.
(Dear Terry: If the reason that Metropolitan Theodosius retired in 2002 was that "he could not control his Chancellor", how is it that the new Metropolitan re-appointed that very man upon his own ascension to the white hat? Sorry, your story doesn't hold water. )
Specifically with reference to your confusion expressed in the first four paragraphs re the reasons for dismissing Fr. Kondratick, I believe that both reasons expressed more than a year apart are not mutually exclusive. I suspect the first one given (threatening letter) was the catalyst for the coup de grace, but as the metropolitan is opening up, the second reason (overbearing management style) recently given was on the back burner for some time.
The reason for my thinking behind the last sentence is that for some years I have heard that one of the unspoken reasons for Metropolitan Theodosius' retirement in 2002 was not entirely due to health considerations, but because he could not control his chancellor. And now I am hearing that saner minds, cognizant of the deep mistrust in the church of the primate, are prevailing on the metropolitan to be more open and he is taking their advice. Time will only tell.
(Dear Terry: If the reason that Metropolitan Theodosius retired in 2002 was that "he could not control his Chancellor", how is it that the new Metropolitan re-appointed that very man upon his own ascension to the white hat? Sorry, your story doesn't hold water. )
#71
Terry C. Peet
on
2007-12-15 19:37
No, no, no, you've got it wrong, there is no theft. The Politically Correct term as used in MH's statement is "Perceived Habit of Excessive Expenditures".
As someone asked on another site, "What the heck is that?"
It's a white-wash! For some reason he can't even say unauthorized, undocumented or unjustified expenditures. No, it is politically called "Perceived Habit of Excessive Expenditures"! MH makes no admission that he knew Kondratick was taking money, just noticed some kind of "Perceived Habit" that Fr. Bob had. But how can you determine that there is such a Perceived Habit? I guess it must have been expenditures that were somehow related to the good of the church. What, did Kondratick have new vestments made for every day of the year?
You can go through the whole letter and ask similar questions:
The "Speaking the Truth in Love" starts off claiming that the church has been wrestling with this problem "For almost two years", but ends with the statement "we have learned much from the experience of the past several years". So how many years is it? Two, three, five, ten years?
There is some blame shifting to Met Theodosius "My predecessor, Metropolitan Theodosius allowed most of the administrative work to be conducted by Robert Kondratick". Why isn’t Theodosius being pursued?
There is complimentary speak about the 1st Investigative Committee and how they identified the culprit of
Robert Kondratick.
And then the short apology for although being known as a micro-managing leader, Met Herman had no idea what was happening to the OCA (meanwhile the OCA is losing an average of >$600,000 per year during *2002-2004*).
Finally, we have the proclamation that everything is better. We have both new software and new dedicated people. (Perhaps Paul Bodnar had an overbearing management style?). So, please folks, turn the cash spigots back on.
The actual Report is certainly better at "Speaking the Truth in Love" , but you have to ask why the lead sentence concerning the report again extols cover up "It contains ALMOST all of the content of the Preliminary Report". Why not ALL of the content? Where's the explanation? Why doesn't it contain ALL of the content?
Certainly, there are many questions from the report, but why did Kondratick and Theodosius need to spend $125k or more on legal fees to protect the "Missions Fund" - no, sorry, I mean the "Metropolitans’ Discretionary Account" (or is that accountS)? You only spend that kind of cash to protect something much larger. Hmmm..... My questions really turn to how much of this is orchestrated? Why was Fr. Bob sent to Florida? Why is Met Theodosius not being investigated? Why the time drag? Where's the restitution?
There is some hope this week for this moral scandal, but you have to look at baseball to get it. It seems that a New York District Attorney was involved in exposing the steroid scandal, which has rounded up quite a large gang. Anyone have the DA website for Syosset, NY to list again?
Ken Kozak
As someone asked on another site, "What the heck is that?"
It's a white-wash! For some reason he can't even say unauthorized, undocumented or unjustified expenditures. No, it is politically called "Perceived Habit of Excessive Expenditures"! MH makes no admission that he knew Kondratick was taking money, just noticed some kind of "Perceived Habit" that Fr. Bob had. But how can you determine that there is such a Perceived Habit? I guess it must have been expenditures that were somehow related to the good of the church. What, did Kondratick have new vestments made for every day of the year?
You can go through the whole letter and ask similar questions:
The "Speaking the Truth in Love" starts off claiming that the church has been wrestling with this problem "For almost two years", but ends with the statement "we have learned much from the experience of the past several years". So how many years is it? Two, three, five, ten years?
There is some blame shifting to Met Theodosius "My predecessor, Metropolitan Theodosius allowed most of the administrative work to be conducted by Robert Kondratick". Why isn’t Theodosius being pursued?
There is complimentary speak about the 1st Investigative Committee and how they identified the culprit of
Robert Kondratick.
And then the short apology for although being known as a micro-managing leader, Met Herman had no idea what was happening to the OCA (meanwhile the OCA is losing an average of >$600,000 per year during *2002-2004*).
Finally, we have the proclamation that everything is better. We have both new software and new dedicated people. (Perhaps Paul Bodnar had an overbearing management style?). So, please folks, turn the cash spigots back on.
The actual Report is certainly better at "Speaking the Truth in Love" , but you have to ask why the lead sentence concerning the report again extols cover up "It contains ALMOST all of the content of the Preliminary Report". Why not ALL of the content? Where's the explanation? Why doesn't it contain ALL of the content?
Certainly, there are many questions from the report, but why did Kondratick and Theodosius need to spend $125k or more on legal fees to protect the "Missions Fund" - no, sorry, I mean the "Metropolitans’ Discretionary Account" (or is that accountS)? You only spend that kind of cash to protect something much larger. Hmmm..... My questions really turn to how much of this is orchestrated? Why was Fr. Bob sent to Florida? Why is Met Theodosius not being investigated? Why the time drag? Where's the restitution?
There is some hope this week for this moral scandal, but you have to look at baseball to get it. It seems that a New York District Attorney was involved in exposing the steroid scandal, which has rounded up quite a large gang. Anyone have the DA website for Syosset, NY to list again?
Ken Kozak
#72
Ken Kozak
on
2007-12-15 22:10
Maybe someday I'll tell ya, Terry, but I can't now.
Those petitions are good. How much more if we also had petitions that were written and prayed with *specificity*, maybe starting with an expression of gratitude for the freedom of this amazing American land that permitted Orthodox believers to come here initially (and still!) from all over the world and prosper; a petition for our bishops to be given the humility and wisdom (which the bishops should write themselves, being very express about their personal responsibility for the persisting state of the jurisdictionally sliced Orthodox pie); a petition of us lay folk and our parish priests and deacons, that we would be set free from our parochialism (forgive the pun), or ethnic ghettoism, and for our own personal responsibility (in the many forms it takes); and a petition that very expressly states the nature of the "problem" -- fragmentation, the state of being "diabolized" -- and our desire to be freed from its captivity. And, maybe even a petition for us to want to want unity -- gotta want it before the prayers mean anything.
Everything is Scripture is about, or only has any meaning when made with reference to, Unity: from "when I am lifted up I will draw all men unto myself" to "behold how good it is when brothers dwell together in unity" to "for we, though many, are one bread and one body," to "baptize all natoins in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to "I am the bread that came down from Heavon" etc. etc. etc.
The devil is the divider ("diabolos") and Christ the Uniter, esp in the Symbol ("Symbolos," something that puts things together) of the Eucharist in which we give back to God, with thanks, that which He gave us in the first place, and then we can consume it for our wholeness, and then we can be united. But, we have to "love one another that with ONE mind we may confess Father, Son & Holy Spirit, Trinity (Tri-UNITY), ONE in essense and UN-divided." But if we're only consuming, and not praying for the end to the fragmentation, if we're merely reciting formulae, then ... what's the point of any talking about "jurisdictional unity." We're obviously not serious, not corporately. So, the specificity of a set of petitions would (I think) urge us to be less tempted to formulaicism (a word I may have just made up, Im not sure.)
Our bishops aren't interested in directing their sheep to pray in the Liturgy and vespers and other services for canonical Orthodox unity in America (or, on a more macro scale, for an end to the diabolical schism of the Roman Church from the Orthodox Church). And the OCA's Synod is not interested in addressing the woes in our little corner of Orthodoxy. If they were, in any of these cases, we'd see it, we'd pray it, we'd feel it, we'd be given it as a gift from God.
Most of our bishops aren't "bishoping," at least in these important concerns.
Those petitions are good. How much more if we also had petitions that were written and prayed with *specificity*, maybe starting with an expression of gratitude for the freedom of this amazing American land that permitted Orthodox believers to come here initially (and still!) from all over the world and prosper; a petition for our bishops to be given the humility and wisdom (which the bishops should write themselves, being very express about their personal responsibility for the persisting state of the jurisdictionally sliced Orthodox pie); a petition of us lay folk and our parish priests and deacons, that we would be set free from our parochialism (forgive the pun), or ethnic ghettoism, and for our own personal responsibility (in the many forms it takes); and a petition that very expressly states the nature of the "problem" -- fragmentation, the state of being "diabolized" -- and our desire to be freed from its captivity. And, maybe even a petition for us to want to want unity -- gotta want it before the prayers mean anything.
Everything is Scripture is about, or only has any meaning when made with reference to, Unity: from "when I am lifted up I will draw all men unto myself" to "behold how good it is when brothers dwell together in unity" to "for we, though many, are one bread and one body," to "baptize all natoins in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to "I am the bread that came down from Heavon" etc. etc. etc.
The devil is the divider ("diabolos") and Christ the Uniter, esp in the Symbol ("Symbolos," something that puts things together) of the Eucharist in which we give back to God, with thanks, that which He gave us in the first place, and then we can consume it for our wholeness, and then we can be united. But, we have to "love one another that with ONE mind we may confess Father, Son & Holy Spirit, Trinity (Tri-UNITY), ONE in essense and UN-divided." But if we're only consuming, and not praying for the end to the fragmentation, if we're merely reciting formulae, then ... what's the point of any talking about "jurisdictional unity." We're obviously not serious, not corporately. So, the specificity of a set of petitions would (I think) urge us to be less tempted to formulaicism (a word I may have just made up, Im not sure.)
Our bishops aren't interested in directing their sheep to pray in the Liturgy and vespers and other services for canonical Orthodox unity in America (or, on a more macro scale, for an end to the diabolical schism of the Roman Church from the Orthodox Church). And the OCA's Synod is not interested in addressing the woes in our little corner of Orthodoxy. If they were, in any of these cases, we'd see it, we'd pray it, we'd feel it, we'd be given it as a gift from God.
Most of our bishops aren't "bishoping," at least in these important concerns.
#73
Anonymous
on
2007-12-15 23:08
Marty, you are correct in your general statements on those federal crimes.
There would also be I'd think the elements present for federal conspiracy --- whcih really tends to stretch out the SOL period. Also, since monies may have left the USA, international money laundering, which is a crime distinct from domestic money laundering. There may even be crimes that fall under one more provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, though about that Im less certain.
There would also be I'd think the elements present for federal conspiracy --- whcih really tends to stretch out the SOL period. Also, since monies may have left the USA, international money laundering, which is a crime distinct from domestic money laundering. There may even be crimes that fall under one more provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, though about that Im less certain.
#74
A Lawyer
on
2007-12-15 23:58
A clarification/addendum to my immediately preceding reply to you, Marty. The feds have control over federal crimes, but that does not mean the various states lose their respectives powers and rights to prosecute for state crimes involving the same people and actions. There is a doctrine called dual sovereignty at play: vis a vis a state, the federal government is a different sovereign, and thus its crimes different from state crimes. So, even where the same actions of a person constitue a federal crime and a separate state crime, that person can be tried by both federal and state authroities without any regard (since it does not apply) to the doctrine of double jeopardy. (Unless this has changed ... its been a while since I've been in that world.)
#75
A Lawyer
on
2007-12-16 00:07
Monk Silver,
Am I to assume that you are of the opinion that whatever information that RSK is in possession of will adequately justify his robbing our church of millions of dollars? I do not think any information is worth that, including homosexuality, intoxication or the like.
Frankly, I feel that if RSK truly had information worth sharing he would have surely covered his rather large backside by now. That being said enough with the hot air, you and so many others backed the wrong horse. Get over it already and let the church rebuild.
Am I to assume that you are of the opinion that whatever information that RSK is in possession of will adequately justify his robbing our church of millions of dollars? I do not think any information is worth that, including homosexuality, intoxication or the like.
Frankly, I feel that if RSK truly had information worth sharing he would have surely covered his rather large backside by now. That being said enough with the hot air, you and so many others backed the wrong horse. Get over it already and let the church rebuild.
#76
anonymus
on
2007-12-16 08:07
Wow...
Had I not read this, I would have wondered if it was true...
I am convinced once again that our church leadership is corrupted beyond reproach!
Does this tiny little vestige of a man think that enough people are blindly going to buy his side of the story? How could they?
I for one do not place all the blame on Kondratic... he could not have operated alone without anyone knowing... and if he did, it still makes "them" culpable by the breeching of their spiritual and fiduciary responsiblity to God first, us {the church) and the law... we operate under.
If these so called bishops really believe that they can operate with total infallibility - they need to go... they need help!
Despite the ongoing scadal with money and cover-ups, one might think that the synod would address the issues of concern in the Diocese of Alaska... can every one of the voices calling out be wrong?
If that many are wrong... how does this compare to five or six that sing glory? They must be really wrong?
I will never trust these men who are abusing power and people..
I look forward to the day when our Church can once again stand undefiled in the light of the Spirit!
Had I not read this, I would have wondered if it was true...
I am convinced once again that our church leadership is corrupted beyond reproach!
Does this tiny little vestige of a man think that enough people are blindly going to buy his side of the story? How could they?
I for one do not place all the blame on Kondratic... he could not have operated alone without anyone knowing... and if he did, it still makes "them" culpable by the breeching of their spiritual and fiduciary responsiblity to God first, us {the church) and the law... we operate under.
If these so called bishops really believe that they can operate with total infallibility - they need to go... they need help!
Despite the ongoing scadal with money and cover-ups, one might think that the synod would address the issues of concern in the Diocese of Alaska... can every one of the voices calling out be wrong?
If that many are wrong... how does this compare to five or six that sing glory? They must be really wrong?
I will never trust these men who are abusing power and people..
I look forward to the day when our Church can once again stand undefiled in the light of the Spirit!
#77
Ted Panamarioff
on
2007-12-16 08:47
Adam - "It was the woman you gave me who made me eat."
Eve - "It was the serpent in the garden who told me to eat."
Serpent - "Yeah, yeah, it's always me, isn't it?"
RSK is gone; Kucynda is gone; + Theodosius is gone; now just one more and the OCA can seriously begin to recover. Hey, + Herman, I hear Moscow needs a new backup to + Alexy and they want a Wilkes-Barre, PA guy, are you in?
Eve - "It was the serpent in the garden who told me to eat."
Serpent - "Yeah, yeah, it's always me, isn't it?"
RSK is gone; Kucynda is gone; + Theodosius is gone; now just one more and the OCA can seriously begin to recover. Hey, + Herman, I hear Moscow needs a new backup to + Alexy and they want a Wilkes-Barre, PA guy, are you in?
#78
Over and Under
on
2007-12-16 10:28
Might we start with how the Scriptures teach about fiscal responsibility before God: Acts 5, 1-10.
Acts 5,1-10:
1. Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
2. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
4. Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
5. When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.
6. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8. Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" "Yes," she said, "that is the price."
9. Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
10. At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
Acts 5,1-10:
1. Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
2. With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
4. Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
5. When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.
6. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8. Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" "Yes," she said, "that is the price."
9. Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
10. At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
#79
William Kosar
on
2007-12-16 13:29
money is missing! It was STOLEN!!!! A GRAND LARCENY!!!!! What don't you get!!!!
#80
Anonymous
on
2007-12-16 13:57
Bishop Nikolai does not care. Fresh from his "victory" (with the Synod's complicity) over the allegations made by Paul Sidebottom, Fr. Dunlop, and numerous other, he is showing the WORLD that he is a law unto himself and Alaska is his personal fiefdom. He will smash any who dare step on his toes. This very public tonsuring of a convicted sex offender and seminary reject is +Nikolai's way of saying "IN YOUR FACE" and "WHAT YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?"
Look back over the people that +NS elevates and the ones he gets rid of and you see a pattern. A very ugly and alarming pattern.
Look back over the people that +NS elevates and the ones he gets rid of and you see a pattern. A very ugly and alarming pattern.
#81
Al Askan
on
2007-12-16 14:56
And you, braveheart, will continue to bash those who expect integrity from those in authority. And you will continue to accuse our host of lying, without evidence of any kind to back up your frantic asssertions. And you will continue to hide behind anonymity. It's as predictable as a solar eclipse.
#82
Scott Walker
on
2007-12-16 21:14
I assume I am responding to Fr. Bartholomew’s riposte, not our editor Mark: Not so fast! I believe my story does hold water. Let me explain. Metropolitan Herman had a different relationship with Fr. Robert Kondratick than Metropolitan Theodosius; remember, Fr. K. was Herman’s chancellor in the Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania and was recommend to Metropolitan Theodosius to be brought in as secretary in Syosset starting in January 1984. MT was looking to replace the chancellor (Fr. Daniel Hubiak). After a short spell as secretary, Hubiak was out and Kondratick became chancellor. It seems that Krondratick had solid control of the church by 1992. Since MH worked with Kondratick previously in the Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania, perhaps it made sense to keep him in his position when MH received the “white hat.”
Both reasons given by our current primate (threatening letter and overbearing management style) have implications that may be reasonably seen as approximating a form of blackmail. RK has, sorry to say, the goods on a lot of people--- which is why the outright accusations made by Monk James are all the more surprising. It is hard to believe the monk is serving the interests of Fr. Kondratick, because the accusations could backfire.
(Editor's Note: Sorry, it was Mark Stokoe, not Fr. Bart who made the comments. Your subsequent explanation I find even more inplausible that the former. Are you suggesting that after 30 years of knowing the man, +herman felt he could control Kondratick better than +theo? And that eventually he discovered he couldn't, so he had to let him go? But that he didn't know this in 2005 when he reappointed him (after three years of working with him as Primate) but did just a year later when he fired him? C'mon.
Or, are you suggesting that Kondratick kept his position through blackmail? Then what changed to allow him to be terminated? And why hasn't Kondratick revealed his blackmail as "payback" - since you are asserting he was more than willing to threaten people for the last 20 years?
It smacks of nothing more than special pleading for the man in the white hat. )
Both reasons given by our current primate (threatening letter and overbearing management style) have implications that may be reasonably seen as approximating a form of blackmail. RK has, sorry to say, the goods on a lot of people--- which is why the outright accusations made by Monk James are all the more surprising. It is hard to believe the monk is serving the interests of Fr. Kondratick, because the accusations could backfire.
(Editor's Note: Sorry, it was Mark Stokoe, not Fr. Bart who made the comments. Your subsequent explanation I find even more inplausible that the former. Are you suggesting that after 30 years of knowing the man, +herman felt he could control Kondratick better than +theo? And that eventually he discovered he couldn't, so he had to let him go? But that he didn't know this in 2005 when he reappointed him (after three years of working with him as Primate) but did just a year later when he fired him? C'mon.
Or, are you suggesting that Kondratick kept his position through blackmail? Then what changed to allow him to be terminated? And why hasn't Kondratick revealed his blackmail as "payback" - since you are asserting he was more than willing to threaten people for the last 20 years?
It smacks of nothing more than special pleading for the man in the white hat. )
#83
Terry C. Peet
on
2007-12-17 08:11
IT'S JUST ANOTHER SHAM.
HERMAN APPOINTED ALL OF THE MEMBERSOF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION, HERMAN NAMED THE HEARING PANEL, HERMAN PAID FOR THE PR REPORT, HERMAN PAID THE ACCOUNTANTS, HERMAN CHAIRS THE SYNOD MEETINGS AND HERMAN IS STILL WEARING HIS WHITE HAT. I WONDER WHY?
HERMAN APPOINTED ALL OF THE MEMBERSOF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION, HERMAN NAMED THE HEARING PANEL, HERMAN PAID FOR THE PR REPORT, HERMAN PAID THE ACCOUNTANTS, HERMAN CHAIRS THE SYNOD MEETINGS AND HERMAN IS STILL WEARING HIS WHITE HAT. I WONDER WHY?
#84
MP
on
2007-12-17 09:09
All I can say is, I predict this will move to a level playing field.
It will be interesting to see if it will!!!!!!!
It will be interesting to see if it will!!!!!!!
#85
mp
on
2007-12-17 09:12
Patty - I write out a check to you for $9900, you go to bank and cash it, you come back to me and hand me 99 $100 bills. It's no more difficult than that.
#86
Michael Strelka
on
2007-12-17 09:33
Fr. Andrew,
Thank you for not being silent. You make an excellent point concerning MH's Selective *Silence*.
It was said before by Fr. Berzonsky that as Christians, we should be above politics. Yet, when I look at the communications from Syosset and see terms such as "Perceived Habit of Excessive Expenditures", it looks like politics rules.
They are very good at what they say and especially what they don't say. It makes me think that these folks should be running for office, but why would they want to? In the political arena, they would run the risk of not being re-elected.
Ken Kozak
Thank you for not being silent. You make an excellent point concerning MH's Selective *Silence*.
It was said before by Fr. Berzonsky that as Christians, we should be above politics. Yet, when I look at the communications from Syosset and see terms such as "Perceived Habit of Excessive Expenditures", it looks like politics rules.
They are very good at what they say and especially what they don't say. It makes me think that these folks should be running for office, but why would they want to? In the political arena, they would run the risk of not being re-elected.
Ken Kozak
#87
Ken Kozak
on
2007-12-17 09:53
Bubba:
Don't be so naive....they've taken much worse clergy...including ones who took entire parishes out of the OCA. Besides, they're well aware that nothing gets done in a bishop's office without the bishop (or Metropolitan in this case) knowing about it. I suspect they wouldn't hesitate to give him a parish if he wanted one.
Don't be so naive....they've taken much worse clergy...including ones who took entire parishes out of the OCA. Besides, they're well aware that nothing gets done in a bishop's office without the bishop (or Metropolitan in this case) knowing about it. I suspect they wouldn't hesitate to give him a parish if he wanted one.
#88
Anonymous #21
on
2007-12-17 10:04
What good are regulations if they can be modified at a bishop's rather wim. This newest case in Alaska is an ABOMINATION! Herman and Nicholai have lost their minds and humanity.
#89
anonymous
on
2007-12-17 10:54
Unfortunately, neither truth nor love is the primary motivation of this epistle. What he and the Chancery staff have provided is a revisionist history of the scandal that seeks to give the impression of a Metropolitan, who was betrayed by his Chancellor, but once made aware of this, assumed a leadership role in bringing those misdeeds to light. As anyone who has followed the chronology of events, the opposite is true.
If the Metropolitan was interested in the Truth, he should face the fact that under his leadership first as Treasurer then as Metropolitan, he did nothing to resolve this financial scandal until events compelled him, but done everything to control the results of the investigation. Why the Synod has acquiesced in this (with the exception of Abp Job) is anyone's guess. But in so doing, they have become complicit in this scandal. Like many others, I will support my local parish, but until the rules and leadership of our Church are changed, nothing more.
If the Metropolitan was interested in the Truth, he should face the fact that under his leadership first as Treasurer then as Metropolitan, he did nothing to resolve this financial scandal until events compelled him, but done everything to control the results of the investigation. Why the Synod has acquiesced in this (with the exception of Abp Job) is anyone's guess. But in so doing, they have become complicit in this scandal. Like many others, I will support my local parish, but until the rules and leadership of our Church are changed, nothing more.
#90
David Paynter
on
2007-12-17 11:30
After rereading Metropolitan Herman's encyclical for the fourth or fifth time, I must say that it is indeed very well written. It is very cleverly written. It is almost lyrical. All of which signifies nothing.
"Speaking the Truth in Love" turns out to be anything but truthful or loving. One small mea culpa cannot make up for the torrent of excuses and blaming others. If the truth is largely absent, then how can this be and act of love and caring for the Church?
Such a small man. Pity.
"Speaking the Truth in Love" turns out to be anything but truthful or loving. One small mea culpa cannot make up for the torrent of excuses and blaming others. If the truth is largely absent, then how can this be and act of love and caring for the Church?
Such a small man. Pity.
#91
Carl
on
2007-12-17 12:13
What is developing in Alaska should have all of us concerned. Has the OCA learned nothing from other churches and scandals? Do the bishops once again stick their heads in the sand? And they tell us that everything is just fine now - send in your checks while you're at it - and if you don't, well then you are just plain awful. The fact that they allow Nikolai to proceed unchecked is a reflection on the whole OCA. The bishops are allowing this to happen. Will any of us be shocked if a terrible incident takes place in Alaska? You tell me right now why I should support a chuch that allows Paul Sidebottom to be fired, a priest who allegedly made advances to another man to be in charge of a seminary, and a convicted sex criminal who was removed from the seminary to be tonsured? How am I supposed to think my funds will be put to good use when my funds may later go to some payoff for some sordid incident as a result of these actions? I was encouraged by so many brave priests who have spoken up. However, they are not the ones in the HS, and the HS essentially runs the church. So as good as these priests are, they so far appear to have no influence on the higher ups. Otherwise, the HS would have acted swiftly with Nikolai. But they don't, and I refuse to send any money.
#92
Sad state of affairs in Alaska
on
2007-12-17 12:30
I have wondered about Monk James myself. What Abbott would allow his monk to leave the monastery to participate in worldly
conflicts. Wouldn't the best course be for him to stay with his fellow monks and pray for the healing of the church and it's people. Strange, very strange.
conflicts. Wouldn't the best course be for him to stay with his fellow monks and pray for the healing of the church and it's people. Strange, very strange.
#93
Lillian Blome
on
2007-12-17 15:01
Mark,
Your latest posting really takes the cake. I understand that you have a rather personal dislike of Metropolitan Herman but I believe you are really taking this too far. I truly applaud you for bringing this scandal to light and for so much of your work over the past couple of years but you are really carrying this too far.
It was not just Metropolitan Herman that made serious mistakes. There were serious breakdowns with the Holy Synod, with the Metropolitan Council, and with many key people in the administration. And as hard as it is to believe Bob Kondratick had a hand in all of it.
Whether it was in August, September, October or now December when these documents were first leaked/presented it doesn't take away from the fact that members of the first Special Commission, members of the Holy Synod, and numerous accountants and lawyers have unanimously said, Bob Kondratick took a tremendous amount of money that he was not entitled to. And to date none of those groups has come up with anyone else that took money -- not Metr. Theodosius, not Metr. Herman, not Fr. Kucynda, not Fr. Strikis.
But like captain Ahab you seem to be fixated solely on Metropolitan Herman. I believe that you are now actually hurting the Church with your venom and pseudo legal analysis of every sentence.
Mark, you have done so much good. You have almost singlehandedly helped to get the Church as a whole to pay attention to this scandal; however, your latest rant reflects some kind of desperate attempt to stay in the spotlight.
It is time for the Church to heal and continuing to pick at the scab is not going to bring about any healing. Is Metropolitan Herman the ideal spokesman? No. Did he have some serious laps in judgement? Yes. But these same questions apply equally to the Holy Synod, to the Metrpolitan Council, and to the former members of the Central Administration. If Metropolitan Herman should resign then so should a whole lot of other people that were either directly or indirectly involved. This was a failure on multiple levels not just one.
Like many others, I have visited your website because I felt like you were trying to present a fairly unbiased presentation of information. But quite frankly for the last few months you have really been missing the mark. Your continual denegration of the current administration is a perfect example. I don't know the current Chancellor, the current Treasurer or the current Director of Communications but I believe that they are trying their best to fix things. Give them a chance to do their jobs.
With all due respect, your talents would be much better served in bringing the Church together not dividing it further.
(Editor's Note:
Dear Father:
Thanks for the kind words and gentle rebuke. Unlike some who are so obsessed with white objects they would inflict any harm, any suffering, any lie to continue to wear it, I have no such obsession with things white. I seek only that the truth of this scandal be told. So far, it has not. I have no personal dislike of Metropolitan Herman; I simply expect more from him than it appears he is willing to give -like telling the truth. There is no doubt Kondratick was at the heart of this; but if no one else has as yet been named, one could argue that it is because no one has been allowed to look beyond Kondratick to those who enabled/benefitted from him. To give one example we both know of - the Special Commission recommended that Metropolitan Theodosius be questioned - and were refused. As for the other names you mentioned, not one, not one, has admitted any responsibility for their deriliction of duties, or worse, beyond vagaries and generalities.
I agree it is not possible to fully clean out this Augean stable, for that is a Herculean task requiring more than this generation. Yet common sense tells us the work would go faster if we could get the horse to stop sh*ting on us. Otherwise, all you good folks charged with the real ministry of the Church are doomed to spend the next years not repairing the stable, but just scooping up poop.
The new administration deserves better, I agree, but until you help lead the horse out of the stable, in to the green fields of retirement where it belongs, you need me to point out the new piles, lest you all continue to step in it, as you most recently did.
I know it must seem tedious for you, but the truth is, I am not the one giving you crap.)
Your latest posting really takes the cake. I understand that you have a rather personal dislike of Metropolitan Herman but I believe you are really taking this too far. I truly applaud you for bringing this scandal to light and for so much of your work over the past couple of years but you are really carrying this too far.
It was not just Metropolitan Herman that made serious mistakes. There were serious breakdowns with the Holy Synod, with the Metropolitan Council, and with many key people in the administration. And as hard as it is to believe Bob Kondratick had a hand in all of it.
Whether it was in August, September, October or now December when these documents were first leaked/presented it doesn't take away from the fact that members of the first Special Commission, members of the Holy Synod, and numerous accountants and lawyers have unanimously said, Bob Kondratick took a tremendous amount of money that he was not entitled to. And to date none of those groups has come up with anyone else that took money -- not Metr. Theodosius, not Metr. Herman, not Fr. Kucynda, not Fr. Strikis.
But like captain Ahab you seem to be fixated solely on Metropolitan Herman. I believe that you are now actually hurting the Church with your venom and pseudo legal analysis of every sentence.
Mark, you have done so much good. You have almost singlehandedly helped to get the Church as a whole to pay attention to this scandal; however, your latest rant reflects some kind of desperate attempt to stay in the spotlight.
It is time for the Church to heal and continuing to pick at the scab is not going to bring about any healing. Is Metropolitan Herman the ideal spokesman? No. Did he have some serious laps in judgement? Yes. But these same questions apply equally to the Holy Synod, to the Metrpolitan Council, and to the former members of the Central Administration. If Metropolitan Herman should resign then so should a whole lot of other people that were either directly or indirectly involved. This was a failure on multiple levels not just one.
Like many others, I have visited your website because I felt like you were trying to present a fairly unbiased presentation of information. But quite frankly for the last few months you have really been missing the mark. Your continual denegration of the current administration is a perfect example. I don't know the current Chancellor, the current Treasurer or the current Director of Communications but I believe that they are trying their best to fix things. Give them a chance to do their jobs.
With all due respect, your talents would be much better served in bringing the Church together not dividing it further.
(Editor's Note:
Dear Father:
Thanks for the kind words and gentle rebuke. Unlike some who are so obsessed with white objects they would inflict any harm, any suffering, any lie to continue to wear it, I have no such obsession with things white. I seek only that the truth of this scandal be told. So far, it has not. I have no personal dislike of Metropolitan Herman; I simply expect more from him than it appears he is willing to give -like telling the truth. There is no doubt Kondratick was at the heart of this; but if no one else has as yet been named, one could argue that it is because no one has been allowed to look beyond Kondratick to those who enabled/benefitted from him. To give one example we both know of - the Special Commission recommended that Metropolitan Theodosius be questioned - and were refused. As for the other names you mentioned, not one, not one, has admitted any responsibility for their deriliction of duties, or worse, beyond vagaries and generalities.
I agree it is not possible to fully clean out this Augean stable, for that is a Herculean task requiring more than this generation. Yet common sense tells us the work would go faster if we could get the horse to stop sh*ting on us. Otherwise, all you good folks charged with the real ministry of the Church are doomed to spend the next years not repairing the stable, but just scooping up poop.
The new administration deserves better, I agree, but until you help lead the horse out of the stable, in to the green fields of retirement where it belongs, you need me to point out the new piles, lest you all continue to step in it, as you most recently did.
I know it must seem tedious for you, but the truth is, I am not the one giving you crap.)
#94
Anon.
on
2007-12-17 21:30
To quote you: "Oh, I knew about the ADM money, alright." And you continue to defend RSK?! Have you checked your sense of decency at the door? If you are as innocent as you claim, then run for your ethical life, because your musings betray a lost morality. The more you write, the more lost you seem to become.
#95
Anon.
on
2007-12-17 22:04
The Church is perfect and the gates of hell will never prevail;
every empire is doomed to fall;
if anything, we need to ask ourselves what we are preserving, what are we fighting for? do we want accountability- is that an end in itself? will we be happier if we find out shocking news so that we are able to wave our finger all the more?
orthodox christians of the OCA need to think about who they are. they started with a dream. in 1970 it came true.
it took us thirty years to mess it up.
underneath the omophorion, sakkos, etc. etc etc... there is a man who was filled with that which was lacking. more importantly, there is a man.
in monasticism it is quoted that there three vows and three temptations. the three vows are poverty, chastity, and obedience. the three temptations are possessions, pleasure, and power.
but i would go on to say that there is also three temptations to a lay person: possessions, pleasure, and power.
orthodoxy is antiquated; it does not know how to operate in a democracy. it doesn't even know how to unite. there seems to be a real danger in what the church seems to be doing; putting a mediator between Christ and the lay person.
if we think accountability will give us Christ back; we are mistaken! if we want accountability so we can hang on to our small "t" traditions we might as well go down the tubes- it's worthless anyway.
if we want accountability to prove a point, my unworthy soul will probably be joining you in hell.
if you want accountability so you can have your sundays free of controversial talks- you are luke-warm.
if you want accountability- tell us why- but it has got to be a reason that has Christ at the center of the argument.
if you want accountability- put the icons of the fathers of the ecumenical councils on your website.
if you want accountability- why can't you have a special prayer for the thousands of people who visit this website to download and PRAY.
is there even any prayer on this website.
we are blessed to live in this time. this is what separates the men from the boys. we cannot be comfortable sunday going orthodox christians wearing our sunday best. we have to be orthodox christians who put on the breastplate of righteousness- take up the whole armor of Christ.
forgive us for judging, Christ, when you are the only judge.
help us to defend what we believe and know how to do that.
don't put a hierarch between you and Christ. put Christ in your heart.
be your own you- make a difference. be the orthodox christian of the 21st century like schmemann was for the 20th.
be bold
every empire is doomed to fall;
if anything, we need to ask ourselves what we are preserving, what are we fighting for? do we want accountability- is that an end in itself? will we be happier if we find out shocking news so that we are able to wave our finger all the more?
orthodox christians of the OCA need to think about who they are. they started with a dream. in 1970 it came true.
it took us thirty years to mess it up.
underneath the omophorion, sakkos, etc. etc etc... there is a man who was filled with that which was lacking. more importantly, there is a man.
in monasticism it is quoted that there three vows and three temptations. the three vows are poverty, chastity, and obedience. the three temptations are possessions, pleasure, and power.
but i would go on to say that there is also three temptations to a lay person: possessions, pleasure, and power.
orthodoxy is antiquated; it does not know how to operate in a democracy. it doesn't even know how to unite. there seems to be a real danger in what the church seems to be doing; putting a mediator between Christ and the lay person.
if we think accountability will give us Christ back; we are mistaken! if we want accountability so we can hang on to our small "t" traditions we might as well go down the tubes- it's worthless anyway.
if we want accountability to prove a point, my unworthy soul will probably be joining you in hell.
if you want accountability so you can have your sundays free of controversial talks- you are luke-warm.
if you want accountability- tell us why- but it has got to be a reason that has Christ at the center of the argument.
if you want accountability- put the icons of the fathers of the ecumenical councils on your website.
if you want accountability- why can't you have a special prayer for the thousands of people who visit this website to download and PRAY.
is there even any prayer on this website.
we are blessed to live in this time. this is what separates the men from the boys. we cannot be comfortable sunday going orthodox christians wearing our sunday best. we have to be orthodox christians who put on the breastplate of righteousness- take up the whole armor of Christ.
forgive us for judging, Christ, when you are the only judge.
help us to defend what we believe and know how to do that.
don't put a hierarch between you and Christ. put Christ in your heart.
be your own you- make a difference. be the orthodox christian of the 21st century like schmemann was for the 20th.
be bold
#96
Anonymous
on
2007-12-18 04:27
"be bold"??? Signed "Anonymous"????? There seems to be a disconnect here.
#97
Robert Wachter
on
2007-12-18 06:18
I can understand why critics of the current administration might want to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. I can understand why low profile types might respond anonymously to provide factual information to correct or supplement news posts or comments -- in such cases the facts are more important that the identity of the poster. But for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would publicly criticize Mark's work here or publicly criticize his judgment -- on an anonymous basis. That just seems wrong. Can "Anon" please clarify (on an anonymous basis, of course) the reason for anonymity for the original post?
I admire Mark for the work he has done. I think he has shown more courage than anyone on the Holy Synod or the Metropolitan Council. I don't agree with everything he has had to say, but I think anyone who would criticize him publicly on his own website should sign his or her name. I think he deserves at least that much.
The first act of the 2008 All-American Council should be a resolution to commend Mark for the work he has done to bring these issues to light.
I admire Mark for the work he has done. I think he has shown more courage than anyone on the Holy Synod or the Metropolitan Council. I don't agree with everything he has had to say, but I think anyone who would criticize him publicly on his own website should sign his or her name. I think he deserves at least that much.
The first act of the 2008 All-American Council should be a resolution to commend Mark for the work he has done to bring these issues to light.
#98
Anonymous
on
2007-12-18 07:11
Mark,
I just replied to this post, but I inadvertently forgot to type in my name before ckicking "send". Please add my name to my reply.
I just replied to this post, but I inadvertently forgot to type in my name before ckicking "send". Please add my name to my reply.
#99
Robert Wachter
on
2007-12-18 07:14
Perhaps it's really not possible to state this any more clearly than I have already, but -- since 'Anonymous' hasn't been able to process that information efficiently -- I'll say it one more time:
Only Met. Theodosius was responsible for accepting and spending the millions donated by Dwayne Andreas and ADM. By Mr Andreas's directly expressed intention, MetT was not held accountable to himself or ADM for his use of that money.
By the directly expressed intention of the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops on four separate occasions, MetT was not held accountable to the OCA for his use of that money.
(As I recall, the bishops reversed their position on the matter of the Metropolitan's Discretionary Fund at their Spring 2007 meeting -- but that was too little, too late, and completely unhelpful in getting to the bottom of MetT's shameful excesses.)
Fr Robert Kondratick was not responsible for the ADM money. Ever.
Please, people, let's not be dense and obtuse about this and reject the truth simply because we've become comfortable with the lies and distortions pumped out by Met. Herman, Fr Paul Kucynda, Proskauer-Rose, and all the other liars involved in the 'firewall' conspiracy.
Monk James
(Editor's Note: Unfortunately Monk James assertions are not born out by the facts. The fact is that the original grant asking from money from ADM specifies that it will "Fr. Robert Kondratick" who will be handling all the monies, with external audit oversight provided by a Big Four accounting firm. Well, we know the latter did not happen, but there is no reason to assume the former did not.
The truth should be easy to ascertain though: Who cashed the checks? Into whose accounts were they placed? Who were the signatories on those accounts. I think the answers , should the new Special Investigative Committee elect to investigate the same, will surprise no one.
Only Met. Theodosius was responsible for accepting and spending the millions donated by Dwayne Andreas and ADM. By Mr Andreas's directly expressed intention, MetT was not held accountable to himself or ADM for his use of that money.
By the directly expressed intention of the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops on four separate occasions, MetT was not held accountable to the OCA for his use of that money.
(As I recall, the bishops reversed their position on the matter of the Metropolitan's Discretionary Fund at their Spring 2007 meeting -- but that was too little, too late, and completely unhelpful in getting to the bottom of MetT's shameful excesses.)
Fr Robert Kondratick was not responsible for the ADM money. Ever.
Please, people, let's not be dense and obtuse about this and reject the truth simply because we've become comfortable with the lies and distortions pumped out by Met. Herman, Fr Paul Kucynda, Proskauer-Rose, and all the other liars involved in the 'firewall' conspiracy.
Monk James
(Editor's Note: Unfortunately Monk James assertions are not born out by the facts. The fact is that the original grant asking from money from ADM specifies that it will "Fr. Robert Kondratick" who will be handling all the monies, with external audit oversight provided by a Big Four accounting firm. Well, we know the latter did not happen, but there is no reason to assume the former did not.
The truth should be easy to ascertain though: Who cashed the checks? Into whose accounts were they placed? Who were the signatories on those accounts. I think the answers , should the new Special Investigative Committee elect to investigate the same, will surprise no one.
#100
Monk James
on
2007-12-18 08:46
Wow, explitives, Mark? What's next? I expect that from those you are seeking to squeeze the truth out of, but you? But, I'm sure you've got all your emotions and temper in check, and it wouldn't hurt to re-read anonymous comment and maybe take it to heart.
peace
(Dear Bautista: Sh*t is not an expletive - it was used as a good old Anglo-Saxon noun. The asterix was a attempt to be sensitive to the gentler sensibilities, which, I learn, now seems to include you. I always try to use the appropriate word. In this case, that was it.
I have re-read anonymous - indeed I believe we have spoken at length on this very topic. I simply repeated to him on screen what I said to him in person. And if it was indeed another, well, I try to let my yes be yes, and no, no, to all without regard for station.
All the best,
Mark
peace
(Dear Bautista: Sh*t is not an expletive - it was used as a good old Anglo-Saxon noun. The asterix was a attempt to be sensitive to the gentler sensibilities, which, I learn, now seems to include you. I always try to use the appropriate word. In this case, that was it.
I have re-read anonymous - indeed I believe we have spoken at length on this very topic. I simply repeated to him on screen what I said to him in person. And if it was indeed another, well, I try to let my yes be yes, and no, no, to all without regard for station.
All the best,
Mark
#101
Bautista Cabrera
on
2007-12-18 09:17
If it did not occur to you in you rant-like rebuttal of Mark's brilliant exposition, "canned goods", the real attention-getter in this scandal is the fact the OCA is in debt, repeat, in debt to a bank in Eastern Pennsylvania to the tune of over two million, repeat, two million dollars........is that clear enough
#102
Guileless
on
2007-12-18 10:17
Are you attempting to silence this web site? Is that your goal? Another priest who thinks we should all just pay our money and not ask any questions? I think the OCA is fast finding out that people are NOT willing to donate if the organization is not truthful and has not really explained the loss of millions of dollars to their membership.
#103
Sad state of affairs
on
2007-12-18 11:19
Dear Monk James,
Do not insult our intelligence. Anyone close to Syosset at the time of the ADM monies knows full well that FRK was fully and totally in charge of spending and Met. T. was along for the ride. Your "spin" on history is abhorrent. Your lying is just disgusting. Did you get some of these monies? Why are you lying so brazenly?
Do not insult our intelligence. Anyone close to Syosset at the time of the ADM monies knows full well that FRK was fully and totally in charge of spending and Met. T. was along for the ride. Your "spin" on history is abhorrent. Your lying is just disgusting. Did you get some of these monies? Why are you lying so brazenly?
#104
Anon.
on
2007-12-18 16:12
Unfortunately, there is a party to which +MT, RK and the rest of us are accountable - the IRS. Any money not properly accounted for will be considered to be a private inurement, and subject the beneficiary to a 100% tax, and the Church to a 200% tax.
Martin D. Watt, CPA
Dayton, Ohio
Martin D. Watt, CPA
Dayton, Ohio
#105
Marty Watt
on
2007-12-18 19:26
Yet once again, for the record: I've never been paid for my service to the Church. I never received payment from the Syosset Chancery, the central administration of the OCA, or Fr Robert Kondratick for anything except to cover my minimal expenses when traveling on OCA business.
As I calculate these reimbursements, they total about $950 over the more than thirty years I've been a monk.
Since that much is attestably true, it seems to me unreasonable that correspondents here, especially 'Anonymous', should question the veracity of anything else I've written.
Monk James
As I calculate these reimbursements, they total about $950 over the more than thirty years I've been a monk.
Since that much is attestably true, it seems to me unreasonable that correspondents here, especially 'Anonymous', should question the veracity of anything else I've written.
Monk James
#106
Monk James
on
2007-12-18 19:43
There's that "ineffective" deposition again. What exactly does that mean?
Is Robert Kondratick going to try and play priest? Are we going to have a rogue priest amongst us?
Is Robert Kondratick going to try and play priest? Are we going to have a rogue priest amongst us?
#107
Anonymous
on
2007-12-19 07:14
There is no abbot. Monk James has been freelancing since the spring or summer of 2006 when the Metropolitan washed his hands of him - the one good and sensible act out of the Metropolitan since this broke. He said once on the Orthodox Forum that once he finds an abbot that he agrees with he will go under his obedience. He lives in an apartment in New Jersey and is under no one. That is how we define monasticism here in the OCA. The new order of how the Orthodox Church operates in America. The Church is in shambles because in its haste to try to be a Church to America it takes in anyone who purports to fit into a role we need filled no questions asked.
#108
Anonymous
on
2007-12-19 07:21
Still, Ken, we need to know. What did Oselinsky know, when did he know it, and what did he do to help the corruption. In the recent OCA posting by the treasurer we hear that there will now be two approvers for invoices: the chancellor and the treasurer. Before it was only the treasurer. So, what you had was Kondratick's buddy in as treasurer approving whatever came past him. The Treasurer is as much liable for the missing operating funds as Kondratick, but people aren't talking about him. Why not? Not considered a key person? If Kondratick was deposed for this, then the other person who had to be complicit needs to be looked at seriously and disciplined. None of this I didn't know stuff, the treasurer is a legal officer of the church with the responsibility of the stewardship of its money. If he was not performing his duties, approving questionable invoices, and then not being vigilant to watch the numbers, then we need to know this. Why didn't he require audits? What were his qualifications for being treasurer other than being a long time friend of Kondratick? If he was complicit, he needs to be disciplined. In any event, this must be investigated. Why does he feel the bad guy in this is Eric Wheeler? Did Eric take or divert money? What's he hiding? Is the Metropolitan protecting him? Was he one of the people questioned by PR? The original commision? Why was he moved to EPA shortly before the AAC in 2005 around the time that Job was demanding answers on the finances? There's a lot to be answered concerning this man.
#109
Anonymous
on
2007-12-19 07:34
Come on Patty. Do you really not understand how things worked?
The people from the chancery staff in Syosset who were sent to the bank by RSK in order to cash the numerous checks made out to cash in $9,500 increments. They would then return to the chancery and hand the money over to him.
What happened then, only God and RSK know.
The people from the chancery staff in Syosset who were sent to the bank by RSK in order to cash the numerous checks made out to cash in $9,500 increments. They would then return to the chancery and hand the money over to him.
What happened then, only God and RSK know.
#110
Michael Geeza
on
2007-12-19 09:19
Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
#111
Anonymous
on
2007-12-19 16:21
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 | ||