Saturday, November 15. 2008
Melchizedek Nominated on First Ballot
Congratulations to the Diocese of WPA for its conciliar process, good candidates, and final nominee. It is now up to the Synod.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
It's been a busy week for the Holy Spirit.
#1
Staupitz
on
2008-11-15 20:47
Mark -
You might want to amend the last sentence of your post about the candidate for the WPA episcopal vacancy. I'm in the Midwest and the last time I looked, Ohio was the eastern-most state that might be considered as part of the Midwest. I've never read anything that considers PA to be a "Midwestern" state!
(Editor's note: Don't be so literal!
The Midwest is a state of mind, not geography, in many ways, and a set of values that, in my experience, are shared in Pittsburgh and Cleveland. No offense was meant to PA.
You might want to amend the last sentence of your post about the candidate for the WPA episcopal vacancy. I'm in the Midwest and the last time I looked, Ohio was the eastern-most state that might be considered as part of the Midwest. I've never read anything that considers PA to be a "Midwestern" state!
(Editor's note: Don't be so literal!
The Midwest is a state of mind, not geography, in many ways, and a set of values that, in my experience, are shared in Pittsburgh and Cleveland. No offense was meant to PA.
#2
Michele Hagerman
on
2008-11-15 21:09
Please help me to understand. I have felt vehemently angry over this scandel since the SIC report was released in early September. I have struggled not to be so angry- even feeling guilty for it. But, it persisted. I read Fr. Symeon Rodger's sermon on righteous anger and finally felt like it was okay to be angry. That, in fact, my concsience is what is bothering me. Other parishioners are disinterested and ready to move on...they'll work it out, they say. I don't want THEM to work it out. I want them out! We will elect others to work it out.
Now, here is what I don't understand- if I am to forgive and move on and stop being angry then where do you draw the line? What I mean is- don't we have to forgive all involved? Kondratik, Theodosius and Herman- we must forgive them as well and move on...so why don't we just bring them all back and tell them we forgive them and are moving on? Put them back on office, because as Orthodox- we don't judge we forgive. So, bring them back. After all, what these three did is not much worse than what the present Synod has done (or failed to do).
Now, I've always thought that in God's eyes, one sin isn't greater than another. If this is true, and we are to forgive and move on with the current Synod of Bishops entact, with a new, younger and inexperienced Bishop as their leader, then bring back formely mentioned three. Their sin is no greater than the current Synod's or mine for that matter. So forgive them, invite them back and let's move on.
Sound ludicrious? It does to me too. Thus, my struggle. When I read the SIC report and saw that the current Synod did not do their job, I thought- they will resign. They will apologize. They will ask for our forgiveness and repent. They will lead by example and teach us, as I do my children, that there are consequences to your actions. They will allow us, to hold them accountable. They love us, as a Father should, they will come to us and be understanding of our anger. None of this has happened.
So here I sit. Still angry. Not with Met Jonah, but with the "old boy's club" behind him. How can I ever trust my bishop? He has not done one thing to take responsibility for his part in this horrible scandal. Until he does, the path of to forgiveness for me will be long and difficult.
I did not cause this problem, but as a faithful orthodox christian, I am forced to react to it. My conscience is telling me that ALL those involved must be held accountable.
I hope that Met. Jonah is true to his word that being a leader is not power but responsibility and accountability. I have certainly not seen that from my bishop.
Please pray for me a sinner. Lord have mercy.
Now, here is what I don't understand- if I am to forgive and move on and stop being angry then where do you draw the line? What I mean is- don't we have to forgive all involved? Kondratik, Theodosius and Herman- we must forgive them as well and move on...so why don't we just bring them all back and tell them we forgive them and are moving on? Put them back on office, because as Orthodox- we don't judge we forgive. So, bring them back. After all, what these three did is not much worse than what the present Synod has done (or failed to do).
Now, I've always thought that in God's eyes, one sin isn't greater than another. If this is true, and we are to forgive and move on with the current Synod of Bishops entact, with a new, younger and inexperienced Bishop as their leader, then bring back formely mentioned three. Their sin is no greater than the current Synod's or mine for that matter. So forgive them, invite them back and let's move on.
Sound ludicrious? It does to me too. Thus, my struggle. When I read the SIC report and saw that the current Synod did not do their job, I thought- they will resign. They will apologize. They will ask for our forgiveness and repent. They will lead by example and teach us, as I do my children, that there are consequences to your actions. They will allow us, to hold them accountable. They love us, as a Father should, they will come to us and be understanding of our anger. None of this has happened.
So here I sit. Still angry. Not with Met Jonah, but with the "old boy's club" behind him. How can I ever trust my bishop? He has not done one thing to take responsibility for his part in this horrible scandal. Until he does, the path of to forgiveness for me will be long and difficult.
I did not cause this problem, but as a faithful orthodox christian, I am forced to react to it. My conscience is telling me that ALL those involved must be held accountable.
I hope that Met. Jonah is true to his word that being a leader is not power but responsibility and accountability. I have certainly not seen that from my bishop.
Please pray for me a sinner. Lord have mercy.
#3
Still Angry
on
2008-11-16 02:43
ITS TIME TO SHUT DOWN THIS HURTFUL, AND GOSSIP WEBSITE! I PRAY IT HAPPENS SOON! BISHOP JOB DOESN'T NEED IT EITHER ANYMORE! THIS WEBSITE DID MORE DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH THEN 10 KONDRATICS COMBINED! LETS NOT CONTINUE DOWN THE SAME PATH! HAVE A GREAT DAY!
(Editor's note: Thanks, I am having a great day. But once again, All Caps Guy, you are wrong. As the SIC Report and the Treasurer's report made clear, this website spoke the truth, not gossip. And no, nothing I wrote, or indeed anybody commented on, on the this site came close to the damage 1 Kondratick did to the Church. Fortunately, Kondratick and all his works and all his ways were repudiated by the Synod, clergy and laity of the OCA in Pittsburgh. We have taken a new path, which, in retrospect, is the old path we wandered from beginning in 1977, or 1988, whenever you want to mark the beginning of the Time of Troubles. )
(Editor's note: Thanks, I am having a great day. But once again, All Caps Guy, you are wrong. As the SIC Report and the Treasurer's report made clear, this website spoke the truth, not gossip. And no, nothing I wrote, or indeed anybody commented on, on the this site came close to the damage 1 Kondratick did to the Church. Fortunately, Kondratick and all his works and all his ways were repudiated by the Synod, clergy and laity of the OCA in Pittsburgh. We have taken a new path, which, in retrospect, is the old path we wandered from beginning in 1977, or 1988, whenever you want to mark the beginning of the Time of Troubles. )
#4
Anonymous
on
2008-11-16 13:42
Keep in mind that northern and southern Ohio are two foreign countries united under a single government.
--A Cincinnatian
--A Cincinnatian
#5
Fr. Dennis Buck
on
2008-11-16 21:37
There is a difference between accepting consequences, having genuine accountablity and justice. One of the consequences for Kontradick is that he lost his job an his priesthood.
The question is whether that is necessary for everyone involved or not. With the self-reporting of some of the abuses to the IRS, further direct consequences are likely to follow and may well include members of the Synod.
Justice is another matter, and as Christians we can get in trouble very quickly if we desire or demand justice. As Shakespeare so aptly pointed out, "In the course of justice, none of us should see salvation". St. Isaac of Syria said, "All we can know of God's justice is His mercy".
Forgiveness is an attitude of our own heart, not dependent upon someone else repenting. The incensive power of anger is best used against our own sins, but even there can be dangerous. Real forgiveness and mercy may indeed involve asking some to leave their current positions, for their own good and the good of the Church but they may need to have the ability to make amends within their office as well. Time will tell.
Regaining trust in your bishop can only be achieved by forgiveness which may also include addressing the issues you have with him directly as long as it is done in the right spirit. The spirit of reconcilliation and humility.
Having confronted my own clergy from time to time, I can tell you for certain, doing it in a spirit of humility works much better for all concerned.
You are right about one thing especially--it cannot be 'them' that correct things. That will simply allow the troubles to re-occur and leave Met. Jonah swinging in the breeze. The Church is all of us responding to the Holy Spirit. Without our prayers and our thoughtful participation, the bishops become detached from the community, that is always bad.
The question is whether that is necessary for everyone involved or not. With the self-reporting of some of the abuses to the IRS, further direct consequences are likely to follow and may well include members of the Synod.
Justice is another matter, and as Christians we can get in trouble very quickly if we desire or demand justice. As Shakespeare so aptly pointed out, "In the course of justice, none of us should see salvation". St. Isaac of Syria said, "All we can know of God's justice is His mercy".
Forgiveness is an attitude of our own heart, not dependent upon someone else repenting. The incensive power of anger is best used against our own sins, but even there can be dangerous. Real forgiveness and mercy may indeed involve asking some to leave their current positions, for their own good and the good of the Church but they may need to have the ability to make amends within their office as well. Time will tell.
Regaining trust in your bishop can only be achieved by forgiveness which may also include addressing the issues you have with him directly as long as it is done in the right spirit. The spirit of reconcilliation and humility.
Having confronted my own clergy from time to time, I can tell you for certain, doing it in a spirit of humility works much better for all concerned.
You are right about one thing especially--it cannot be 'them' that correct things. That will simply allow the troubles to re-occur and leave Met. Jonah swinging in the breeze. The Church is all of us responding to the Holy Spirit. Without our prayers and our thoughtful participation, the bishops become detached from the community, that is always bad.
#6
Michael Bauman
on
2008-11-16 23:00
Dear Still Angry --
Your reaction is completely normal and understandable. There's no quick solution -- these matters are hard. It may take a long time for you to sort through your feelings.
But as a starting point, try listening to now-Metropolitan Jonah's address from Tuesday night at the AAC ["Bishop Jonah Addresses Questions and Concerns" http://ancientfaith.com/specials/oca15aac I'm not aware of any transcription yet].
Any effort to summarize or characterize this will fail, but one of the key points that I took away from his talk concerned exactly the issues you are struggling with.
We had heard from several speakers words that seemed to say that we have to forgive, that we owe the perpetrators forgiveness, that it is our duty to forgive. We had also heard words that minimized what had been done -- it's growing pains, it's just money, or, my favorite, "I'm not ruling out the possibility of some local, isolated dishonesty."
In his talk, Met. Jonah did two things that were critical -- he spoke of the harm done in simple, straightforward language that acknowledge the impact [the church was looted, you were raped], and he spoke of forgiveness as something we need to do for our own sake because the alternative is to continue to be controlled and wrecked by this experience.
Listen to it. If a transcript exists, read it.
Then pray. It'll take a lot of time -- there's no magic switch to flip. We all have to heal, and that's an organic process.
Your reaction is completely normal and understandable. There's no quick solution -- these matters are hard. It may take a long time for you to sort through your feelings.
But as a starting point, try listening to now-Metropolitan Jonah's address from Tuesday night at the AAC ["Bishop Jonah Addresses Questions and Concerns" http://ancientfaith.com/specials/oca15aac I'm not aware of any transcription yet].
Any effort to summarize or characterize this will fail, but one of the key points that I took away from his talk concerned exactly the issues you are struggling with.
We had heard from several speakers words that seemed to say that we have to forgive, that we owe the perpetrators forgiveness, that it is our duty to forgive. We had also heard words that minimized what had been done -- it's growing pains, it's just money, or, my favorite, "I'm not ruling out the possibility of some local, isolated dishonesty."
In his talk, Met. Jonah did two things that were critical -- he spoke of the harm done in simple, straightforward language that acknowledge the impact [the church was looted, you were raped], and he spoke of forgiveness as something we need to do for our own sake because the alternative is to continue to be controlled and wrecked by this experience.
Listen to it. If a transcript exists, read it.
Then pray. It'll take a lot of time -- there's no magic switch to flip. We all have to heal, and that's an organic process.
#7
Rebecca Matovic
on
2008-11-17 05:14
Dear 'Still Angry'
I hear you. I completely understand your feelings. I suggest that the important thing to understand is that forgiveness is a PROCESS...and that we must be patient with ourselves during this process and give the Lord plenty of time to work on and with us. It often takes months and even years to be able to forgive completely. In this it is much like the grief/bereavement process. Daily (I would suggest) that you begin by praying for those who have hurt and offended you. Maybe not even mentioning their names in the beginning...and then gradually with time to add the names...praying the the Lord with bring them to true repentance and to salvation. Depending on the depth of the hurt, this can take months or even years of daily faithfully remembering them in prayer, but it is essential. In the meantime try to live in the spirit of hope and know that just as the sun comes out after the storm...so too in our lives, the Son of Righteousness brings warmth and light where there was previously only the cold heart and the dark spirit. This prayer that I printed somewhere else here is a wonderful prayer for those who would try now to live in hope:
Act of Confidence in God
by Claude de la Colombière
My God, I’m so persuaded that You watch over all who hope in You and nothing can be lacking to those who await from You all things, that I have determined to live from now on without any concern, letting go and giving You all of my anxieties. I will sleep and rest in peace because You, O Lord, and only You, have secured my hope.
Men can deprive me of possessions and reputation; illnesses can take away my strength and means to serve You; I myself can lose Your grace because of sin; but I will not lose my hope; I will conserve it until the last instant of my life and all the efforts from demons trying to take it away from me will be useless. I will sleep and rest in peace.
May others expect happiness in their richness and talents; some may lean on the innocence of their lives, or the rigor of their penitence, or above all on the amount of their good works, or the fervor of their prayers. As for myself Lord, all my confidence is my confidence itself. Because You Lord, only You have secured my hope.
No one has been deceived by this confidence. No one who has waited in the Lord has been frustrated in their confidence.
Therefore, I am sure that I will be eternally happy because I firmly hope to be; and because You, Oh, My God, are in Whom I expect all. In You I hope Lord, and never will I be confused.
I know very well . . . too well that I am fragile and inconstant, I know well the power of temptations against the most firm virtue; I have seen thestars fall from heaven and columns from the firmament; but none of this can frighten me. As long as I maintain firm my hope, I will be conserved from all calamities; and I am sure to hope always, because I hope the same in this unchanging hope.
In conclusion, I am sure that I cannot hope in excess in You and that I will receive all that I would have hoped for in You. Therefore, I know You will sustain me on the most rapid and slippery slopes, that You will strengthen me against the assaults and make my weakness triumph over the most tremendous enemies.
I hope You will always love me and I will love you without interruption; to take once and for all my hope as far as it can reach. I hope in You and only in You! Oh, My Creator! In time and for all eternity.
Amen.
I wish you well. Take time...and be patient with yourself.
In His great love for us,
Fr. Pius, priestmonk
I hear you. I completely understand your feelings. I suggest that the important thing to understand is that forgiveness is a PROCESS...and that we must be patient with ourselves during this process and give the Lord plenty of time to work on and with us. It often takes months and even years to be able to forgive completely. In this it is much like the grief/bereavement process. Daily (I would suggest) that you begin by praying for those who have hurt and offended you. Maybe not even mentioning their names in the beginning...and then gradually with time to add the names...praying the the Lord with bring them to true repentance and to salvation. Depending on the depth of the hurt, this can take months or even years of daily faithfully remembering them in prayer, but it is essential. In the meantime try to live in the spirit of hope and know that just as the sun comes out after the storm...so too in our lives, the Son of Righteousness brings warmth and light where there was previously only the cold heart and the dark spirit. This prayer that I printed somewhere else here is a wonderful prayer for those who would try now to live in hope:
Act of Confidence in God
by Claude de la Colombière
My God, I’m so persuaded that You watch over all who hope in You and nothing can be lacking to those who await from You all things, that I have determined to live from now on without any concern, letting go and giving You all of my anxieties. I will sleep and rest in peace because You, O Lord, and only You, have secured my hope.
Men can deprive me of possessions and reputation; illnesses can take away my strength and means to serve You; I myself can lose Your grace because of sin; but I will not lose my hope; I will conserve it until the last instant of my life and all the efforts from demons trying to take it away from me will be useless. I will sleep and rest in peace.
May others expect happiness in their richness and talents; some may lean on the innocence of their lives, or the rigor of their penitence, or above all on the amount of their good works, or the fervor of their prayers. As for myself Lord, all my confidence is my confidence itself. Because You Lord, only You have secured my hope.
No one has been deceived by this confidence. No one who has waited in the Lord has been frustrated in their confidence.
Therefore, I am sure that I will be eternally happy because I firmly hope to be; and because You, Oh, My God, are in Whom I expect all. In You I hope Lord, and never will I be confused.
I know very well . . . too well that I am fragile and inconstant, I know well the power of temptations against the most firm virtue; I have seen thestars fall from heaven and columns from the firmament; but none of this can frighten me. As long as I maintain firm my hope, I will be conserved from all calamities; and I am sure to hope always, because I hope the same in this unchanging hope.
In conclusion, I am sure that I cannot hope in excess in You and that I will receive all that I would have hoped for in You. Therefore, I know You will sustain me on the most rapid and slippery slopes, that You will strengthen me against the assaults and make my weakness triumph over the most tremendous enemies.
I hope You will always love me and I will love you without interruption; to take once and for all my hope as far as it can reach. I hope in You and only in You! Oh, My Creator! In time and for all eternity.
Amen.
I wish you well. Take time...and be patient with yourself.
In His great love for us,
Fr. Pius, priestmonk
#8
Fr. Pius
on
2008-11-17 08:03
Dear "Still Angry":
First of all, you have my unworthy prayers.
Second of all, the ones that were the root of the corruption have been removed AND forgiven. However, just because they have been forgiven, does not mean they will be (or should be) returned to their places. They have proven that they cannot handle the kind of power they had, that is corrupted them. Thus the Church has given the medicine for their healing: removal from the source contributing to their 'illness,' forgiveness, and places for them to remain to repent and work out their salvation. Now it is up to them and God to work the rest of it out.
Those who were tainted by the sources of corruption have had the rot, so to speak, removed from them. They have now been placed in a situation where the source is not corrupt. Therefore, I am of the mind that the nourishment they will receive will be healthier. But I am absolutely sure that it will be difficult for them to adjust to the different 'food' they will receive from His Eminence, Met. +Jonah. It will be painful for the bad to be leeched out and replaced with the good. But with God's Grace and the prayers of the faithful, it will happen. Of that I have no doubt.
As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to pray for those who do not know to pray for themselves. We must ask God to forgive them because perhaps at this time they do not know to do so themselves. But if they can't pray for themselves and their own salvation, ought we not do it until they can? Isn't that what it means to love your brother and love your enemy? I do not know.
As for the hurt and anger which you feel inside, I can only suggest what my spiritual father suggested to me; pray that God blesses them. Very, very hard to do. But when I have been intensely angry, it has been the only thing that has helped.
But no matter what, May God's peace bring you comfort and help.
In Christ's peace,
Philippa
First of all, you have my unworthy prayers.
Second of all, the ones that were the root of the corruption have been removed AND forgiven. However, just because they have been forgiven, does not mean they will be (or should be) returned to their places. They have proven that they cannot handle the kind of power they had, that is corrupted them. Thus the Church has given the medicine for their healing: removal from the source contributing to their 'illness,' forgiveness, and places for them to remain to repent and work out their salvation. Now it is up to them and God to work the rest of it out.
Those who were tainted by the sources of corruption have had the rot, so to speak, removed from them. They have now been placed in a situation where the source is not corrupt. Therefore, I am of the mind that the nourishment they will receive will be healthier. But I am absolutely sure that it will be difficult for them to adjust to the different 'food' they will receive from His Eminence, Met. +Jonah. It will be painful for the bad to be leeched out and replaced with the good. But with God's Grace and the prayers of the faithful, it will happen. Of that I have no doubt.
As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to pray for those who do not know to pray for themselves. We must ask God to forgive them because perhaps at this time they do not know to do so themselves. But if they can't pray for themselves and their own salvation, ought we not do it until they can? Isn't that what it means to love your brother and love your enemy? I do not know.
As for the hurt and anger which you feel inside, I can only suggest what my spiritual father suggested to me; pray that God blesses them. Very, very hard to do. But when I have been intensely angry, it has been the only thing that has helped.
But no matter what, May God's peace bring you comfort and help.
In Christ's peace,
Philippa
#9
Philippa Alan
on
2008-11-17 08:33
Please listen to + Jonah's speech addressing Q & A's at the AAC on Tuesday before the election. Maybe this will help with your anger.
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/specials/aac2008/aac_2008-11-11bpjonah.mp3
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/specials/aac2008/aac_2008-11-11bpjonah.mp3
#10
Anonymous
on
2008-11-17 09:10
Forgive the double response, but now Metropolitan Jonah's Tuesday remarks have been transcribed, and here are his words on this topic:
Repentance also means conversion; it means transformation of the mind. And that is a constant process for every single committed Christian. It is a constant process that we have to engage in both personally and corporately. And when we engage in that process we have to confront the anger and the bitterness and the hurts and the pain and the resentment that we have borne within us as reactions against the people who have hurt us. And by forgiving we are not excusing the action, we are not saying that Kondratick was right to loot the Church. We are not saying that Metropolitan Theodosius was right to abdicate all of his responsibility to the bottle or whatever. We are not justifying anything.
What we are saying is: My reaction is destroying me, and I need to stop it. If I value Jesus Christ and the Gospel and communion with God, I need to stop it, and move on. {lengthy standing ovation}
Repentance also means conversion; it means transformation of the mind. And that is a constant process for every single committed Christian. It is a constant process that we have to engage in both personally and corporately. And when we engage in that process we have to confront the anger and the bitterness and the hurts and the pain and the resentment that we have borne within us as reactions against the people who have hurt us. And by forgiving we are not excusing the action, we are not saying that Kondratick was right to loot the Church. We are not saying that Metropolitan Theodosius was right to abdicate all of his responsibility to the bottle or whatever. We are not justifying anything.
What we are saying is: My reaction is destroying me, and I need to stop it. If I value Jesus Christ and the Gospel and communion with God, I need to stop it, and move on. {lengthy standing ovation}
#11
Rebecca Matovic
on
2008-11-17 09:27
Dear 'ALL CAPS GUY'
If it were not for a site like this...and people like Mark, we may very well have had 'business-as-usual' at the Sobor! This site (untasty at times as it might be for you) is a grace and the Holy Spirit (Who is ALWAYS the Spirit of TRUTH) has used it well. It like veggies bro---you gotta eat 'em---like 'em or not...they're good for you!
In His Holy Name,
Fr. Pius, priestmonk
If it were not for a site like this...and people like Mark, we may very well have had 'business-as-usual' at the Sobor! This site (untasty at times as it might be for you) is a grace and the Holy Spirit (Who is ALWAYS the Spirit of TRUTH) has used it well. It like veggies bro---you gotta eat 'em---like 'em or not...they're good for you!
In His Holy Name,
Fr. Pius, priestmonk
#12
Fr. Pius
on
2008-11-17 13:33
My goodness: the Goblet of Fire,
the Scouring of the Shire, AND
the Last Battle?
I think it a little unfair to burden Mr.
Obama, I mean Met. Jonah, with expectations
that only the Second Advent will meet. He
is not going to eliminate corruption from
the OCA; that would require eliminating sin.
Hopefully, he will reduce it, and may God
strengthen him to do so.
But at the risk of seeming a Bad Dwarf,
I would like to make a few observations
from the vantage-point of a non-participant,
that is, of someone not swept up in the
apparently overwhelming emotion of the
council.
Concerning the electoral process: it
remains unclear to me why drawing names
from a chalice is a bad idea, but electing
a dark-horse candidate on the basis of
one stirring speech is a good one.
Concerning changing attitudes: people I respect
(hello, Rebecca) who, just a fortnight past,
were calling for a short-term, "care-taker"
administration are now rejoicing in the
election of a Metropolitan who is, for
most of us, an unknown quantity, and who
is likely to remain in office for decades.
This rejoicing may be justified, but it is
remarkable nonetheless.
Concerning the outcome: I have no objection
to Metropolitan Jonah -- everything I hear
about him seems positive.
Nevertheless, after the glowing descriptions
of his speech, I was somewhat disappointed in
the posted text.
It seems to me exceedingly unlikely that
"the problem is not in the dioceses,
it is not in the parishes. The problem
was in Syosset."
The Metropolitan tells us of a "culture
-- that only a few knew about –- of fear
and intimidation which operated within the
walls of the Chancery in Syosset, a culture
which was fundamentally sick, and that has
been removed. Thank God."
Thank God, but three men do not a culture
make. Blaming everything on three
scapegoats is not necessarily too helpful
a strategy in the long-term healing of a
dysfunctional family.
In any case, I agree with the Metropolitan's
call for forgiveness and repudiation of
the party of Justice, but I pray that
throughout his entire episcopate he remain
as serious and, well, worried as he looks
in his photographs.
Norman Hugh Redington
the Scouring of the Shire, AND
the Last Battle?
I think it a little unfair to burden Mr.
Obama, I mean Met. Jonah, with expectations
that only the Second Advent will meet. He
is not going to eliminate corruption from
the OCA; that would require eliminating sin.
Hopefully, he will reduce it, and may God
strengthen him to do so.
But at the risk of seeming a Bad Dwarf,
I would like to make a few observations
from the vantage-point of a non-participant,
that is, of someone not swept up in the
apparently overwhelming emotion of the
council.
Concerning the electoral process: it
remains unclear to me why drawing names
from a chalice is a bad idea, but electing
a dark-horse candidate on the basis of
one stirring speech is a good one.
Concerning changing attitudes: people I respect
(hello, Rebecca) who, just a fortnight past,
were calling for a short-term, "care-taker"
administration are now rejoicing in the
election of a Metropolitan who is, for
most of us, an unknown quantity, and who
is likely to remain in office for decades.
This rejoicing may be justified, but it is
remarkable nonetheless.
Concerning the outcome: I have no objection
to Metropolitan Jonah -- everything I hear
about him seems positive.
Nevertheless, after the glowing descriptions
of his speech, I was somewhat disappointed in
the posted text.
It seems to me exceedingly unlikely that
"the problem is not in the dioceses,
it is not in the parishes. The problem
was in Syosset."
The Metropolitan tells us of a "culture
-- that only a few knew about –- of fear
and intimidation which operated within the
walls of the Chancery in Syosset, a culture
which was fundamentally sick, and that has
been removed. Thank God."
Thank God, but three men do not a culture
make. Blaming everything on three
scapegoats is not necessarily too helpful
a strategy in the long-term healing of a
dysfunctional family.
In any case, I agree with the Metropolitan's
call for forgiveness and repudiation of
the party of Justice, but I pray that
throughout his entire episcopate he remain
as serious and, well, worried as he looks
in his photographs.
Norman Hugh Redington
Philippa says pray that God blesses them
This is very good counsel. But sometimes blessings bring pain as well as bringing consolation, pain that causes one to be wounded by God's love, to be brought to action that demonstrates one's change of heart and restores broken communion.
Some have said jail is in order for the *looters*. This is not of God, and those saying jail is justified are the ones who are damaging their own souls. The ones who are calling for repentance with restitution and without revenge in their hearts are not in that category. A restitution that seeks not to punish the wrongdoers in any way, but instead to exhort and implore them to ease the burden on others in the Church in making up what was lost, and to welcome from them restitution of not only the money, but the restitution of themselves as beloved for the sake of Christ.
The humility shown in the restitution of money *for the good of the Church*, indeed of all that was stolen, (i.e. their presence from among us as well as the money) and the Church's humble acceptance of their restitution, this humility on the part of each will restore the unity and fellowship that has been broken, so that then all together may bring as one the restored gifts (money and brothers) to the altar of the Lord for the sake of the Gospel.
If another path is followed, i.e. another that dismisses any call for restitution of money from the brothers ,as well as the restitution of the sinning brothers themselves to full fellowship, the way of the Chrsitian Gospel will be thwarted and true forgiveness will be only a byword and not a Kingdom reality. It is only in this way that we shall see faith working by love.
The Church should be reaching out to these men to
show them the way back into the fold. The ultimate goal is not the money but the souls of brothers and the restoration of fellowship, a fellowship that defeats the devil.
God doesn't forgive and forget; He forgives and restores.
May the blessing of God that brings the pain of humility fall not only on the erring brothers to restore what was taken but also on the rest of the Church which reaches out in love to restore the broken fellowship.
This is very good counsel. But sometimes blessings bring pain as well as bringing consolation, pain that causes one to be wounded by God's love, to be brought to action that demonstrates one's change of heart and restores broken communion.
Some have said jail is in order for the *looters*. This is not of God, and those saying jail is justified are the ones who are damaging their own souls. The ones who are calling for repentance with restitution and without revenge in their hearts are not in that category. A restitution that seeks not to punish the wrongdoers in any way, but instead to exhort and implore them to ease the burden on others in the Church in making up what was lost, and to welcome from them restitution of not only the money, but the restitution of themselves as beloved for the sake of Christ.
The humility shown in the restitution of money *for the good of the Church*, indeed of all that was stolen, (i.e. their presence from among us as well as the money) and the Church's humble acceptance of their restitution, this humility on the part of each will restore the unity and fellowship that has been broken, so that then all together may bring as one the restored gifts (money and brothers) to the altar of the Lord for the sake of the Gospel.
If another path is followed, i.e. another that dismisses any call for restitution of money from the brothers ,as well as the restitution of the sinning brothers themselves to full fellowship, the way of the Chrsitian Gospel will be thwarted and true forgiveness will be only a byword and not a Kingdom reality. It is only in this way that we shall see faith working by love.
The Church should be reaching out to these men to
show them the way back into the fold. The ultimate goal is not the money but the souls of brothers and the restoration of fellowship, a fellowship that defeats the devil.
God doesn't forgive and forget; He forgives and restores.
May the blessing of God that brings the pain of humility fall not only on the erring brothers to restore what was taken but also on the rest of the Church which reaches out in love to restore the broken fellowship.
#14
Ever and anon.
on
2008-11-17 15:24
I rejoice at the action of the AAC but I too am angry that the MC has failed at getting MH to clean up the mess at St. Tikhons in regard to the 40,000.00 travel allowance, and 5000.00 housing allowance connected to the bookstore and a certain deacon. Is this institution just regarded as booty for the former Metropolitan to use at his own discretion? While the former Metropolitan doesn't need to be locked up in chains as Bishop Benjamen suggested to one questioner, he does need to cease and desist from using the monastery and seminary assets as his personal accounts. Why in the name of transparency
are these issues not addressed. If this is not the case now, and these problems have been addressed but I have just not read about it, I stand corrected.
As Archbishop Job once asked, are the allegations true or not true?
are these issues not addressed. If this is not the case now, and these problems have been addressed but I have just not read about it, I stand corrected.
As Archbishop Job once asked, are the allegations true or not true?
#15
Anonymous
on
2008-11-17 16:14
I listened to +Met Jonah's speech and, although I agreed with much of it, it still left me with feelings of a double standard...he stated that the only way to regain trust is to choose love. I agree with him. If the current Synod of Bishop's love us, they will leave so we can heal from our terrible wounds. I feel that by them still being "in power" I am simply being abused over and over again. We will love and forgive, but they must take responsibility for the pain they caused and move on. To take responsibility for one's actions, does not simply mean to say, "as we had no leader, we were unable to do what was right". Although I do love and forgive them, that does not mean I entrust the church to them anymore. I was hoping for some realization of this at the AAC, but it does not appear to be the case. They still will not answer direct questions when asked, but offer vague statements and send +Jonah (who was not invloved at all) up to answer for their indiscretions. I am not satisfied that the current Synod has been held accountable for their part in all of this. Forgiving someone is different from trusting them, thus the reason we can forgive Kondradick, although he still had to go. I feel the same way about the curent Synod. They failed us and need to take responsibility for their failings. I certainly do not feel, at this point, that they have.
#16
troubled
on
2008-11-17 16:55
Three cheers, Father.
#17
A Daytonian
on
2008-11-17 17:21
Has anyone mentioned this Archimandrit is a priest of the Church of Greece and not the OCA?
(editor's note: Yes, on multiple ocassions. I am sure a transfer will be requested, and approved. It is not like Fr. Melchizedek is an unknown quantity though. He was born in the USA, remains a US citizen, was chrismated, and ordained in the OCA, served multiple OCA parishes in at least two dioceses I know of, and was a regular visitor back to the States since going to Greece so as to visit his elderly mother, during which time he served in an OCA parish.)
(editor's note: Yes, on multiple ocassions. I am sure a transfer will be requested, and approved. It is not like Fr. Melchizedek is an unknown quantity though. He was born in the USA, remains a US citizen, was chrismated, and ordained in the OCA, served multiple OCA parishes in at least two dioceses I know of, and was a regular visitor back to the States since going to Greece so as to visit his elderly mother, during which time he served in an OCA parish.)
#18
Anonymous
on
2008-11-17 18:58
Yes, I agree. I was so hoping I too would be moved by +Jonah's speech but when I listened to it, I was disappointed. I guess that is what was wanted - three scapegoats and the rest of it can be swept away. A paradigm shift is needed and not so easily accomplished, I'm afraid. Lord have mercy on all of us.
One thing that this tells me is how starved the people are for leadership in the church that all so quickly embraced him based on one speech. I trust the Lord to care for all of us, most especially Met +Jonah.
One thing that this tells me is how starved the people are for leadership in the church that all so quickly embraced him based on one speech. I trust the Lord to care for all of us, most especially Met +Jonah.
#19
Agree
on
2008-11-17 22:06
This, for me, is the last issue. You are right. Something has to be done about it. As far as I am concerned, Met. Herman should be reduced to the rank of simple monk and forced to live in the monastery that he has pretended to be the abbot of for so many years. He should have to daily look in the faces of the brothers whose home he put in hock in order to buy his deacon a jewelry store. I can't put into words just how difficult it is to deal with all of the bowing, scraping and commemorating that is expected of us every time he walks through the doors. As if nothing has happened and he still rules the roost. And this is all of the time now that he is retired and lives so close by.
#20
Anon.
on
2008-11-17 22:14
Gee, Norm. Not sure where to point out the flaws inferred from, or express in, what you've said here. Perhaps some will let it go due to your creative use of imagery. But making a pun or painting a word picture that flows with alliterative or literary grace is not making the same as making a point. You reference the Second Coming, Obama, even Nikabrik, literary allusion to Armageddon, and the Yom Kippur sacrificial goat. Cool.
But, as you said, you were not there. And so, you've made the following errors in judgment or inference:
You Are Mistaken Wrong About the Role of Emotion. You underscored the most important point when you noted you were not present, and thus could know whether there was in fact the "apparent" overwhelming emotional flow that only one, such as yourself, could have perceived who was not there ... your advantageous vantage point of not being present (forgive the alliteration). Wow. Do you walk through walls, too? (Sorry, perhaps a bit too snide, there.) I was there. I was not overwhelmed. In fact, I was not emotional. I was impressed, however. That's not to pooh pooh emotion, mind you. Emotion is a part of the human make up. But from the vantage point of one who was there (for which I apologize, not having had the better view of non presence) of those who were "emotional" I am pretty confident stating that the emotions expressed flowed from the mind of the gathering and each individual mind, and not the other way round. In other words, it seemed pretty obvious that everything was working as it should -- the emotions being informed by the facts, and not the facts being inferred from the emotions. The way its supposed to be.
You Are Mistaken About the Influence of Leadership. I'm not sure if you've ever been in the military, or even in any sort of organization. I'm sure you have at some point in your life. But still, I wonder, since you say an organizational culture cannot be defined by three persons. A group culture can be defined by three, or even one, quite easily. That's a consequence of the essence of leadership. Good leadership defines a good group culture; bad leadership a bad culture. And where, as in the case of Syosett, the Chancery staff was small in size, three is no small number, and one is big enough indeed, where the one has an authority that he can wield with ill will.
(Perhaps a note on organizational culture ... the Church is not an "organization" as such ... it is the mystical body of Christ, and never ceases to be such, even when it is (wrongly) "operated" as an organization by those at the level of decision making responsibility. And if in the Church those so responsible effectively deny the mystical reality by taking an "organizational" approach, corruption would seem to be a natural accompaniment ... like a pilot fish attached to a shark.)
You Are Mistaken About the Inevitability of Institutionalized Corruption. You are also wrong to state that only removing sin from the OCA will remove corruption. Corruption is a sin, sure. But it does not necessarily follow that where there is sinfulness the specific sin of institutional or institutionalized corruption will be present. It may, but it may not. Corruption (of the organizational type with which the OCA has been concerned lately, and which was the subject of the SIC report) is a specific wrong that has certain elements that need be present, including bad leadership, arrogance, a small group of people who are so positioned to maintain secrets, a desire on the part of those people to both affirmatively take corrupt actions and passively deny them or cover them up, and, of course, viewing the Church as an organization.
You Are Mistaken About the Locus of the OCA's Corruption. You said it seems to you exceedingly unlikely that the problem is in Syosett and not in the Dioceses or the parishes. But, you don't say why ... unless you mean to indicate that your rationale is that a small number of men cannon define an organizational culture (as to which, ibid). Yet, here the problem was, in fact, in Syosett. Yes, it flowed outward, and tainted the dioceses and the parishes to the extent that the bishops and some priests remained silent, or tried to silence "their people." But, in the context of this specific matter, the problem was in Syosett, where 2 corrupt primates and a corrupt chancellor ran a sick fiefdom with the assistance of the silence of those bishops, MC members, and CA staff who knew or should have known.
You Are Mistaken About the Role of the "Three Scapegoats". You are also wrong to indicate that there are 3 scapegoats on whose heads this scandal has been placed. Not so. +Jonah endorsed the SIC report, which indicted the entire Synod, the MC as a body, and specific individuals who held the offices of treasurer. A scapegoat takes the blame that is due others (it comes from the Yom Kipppur practice); these 3 men -- those most responsible -- are not scapegoats. Nor are the fall guys -- those who, while having acted wrongly, take the blame for others who also acted wrongly. That, too, is inapposite, as these 2 former Mets and Bob Kondratick held the highest positions of responsibility and abused that for their own gain and at the expense of the people of the Church. No, they are not scapegoats ... they are not so innocent as that; nor are they fall guys ... they are the chief co-conspirators, the capo di tutti capi and his two underbosses. They were the architects and but-for causes of a decade of embezzlement and a culture of fear that permitted their sins to go undisclosed for so long.
You Are (Likely) Mistaken About Ascribing to +Jonah the Sin of Worry. Another mistake you have likely made -- also from your vantage point of not having had a vantage point -- is that +Jonah mus be as "worried" as you think he looked. ("Likely," because I do not have the power to read the hearts of men.) He did not even present as "serious." People with no levity are serious; and people with fear are worried. He seemed -- to those of us burdened with the misfortune of actually having been there -- neither serious nor worried, but rather aware of the importance of his job before him and appreciative of both the possibilities and the pitfalls. His presence is one of a sort of humble confidence. But he also seemed to have a healthy sense of humor. How can it be said that he seemed so? Well, his words, when actually heard rather than read, and his demeanor. Ya know, those things that subject people to being swept up in emotion when they are unfortunate enough to actually be in someone's presence.
You Are Mistaken About the Meaning of "One Stirring Speech" Its too bad that you were disappointed with the text of the speech; I'm sure impressing you is what +Jonah was after. (That may have been too snide, too. Sorry.) But, you are mistaken to conclude that the decision was made on the basis of "one stirring speech." Again, you are misidentifying the role of emotion. Moreover, it was not one stirring speech as such, but the substance and import of his words -- they were honest, and they called sin sin, and wtih specificity. This is precisely what has been in so short supply from the OCA leadership. He did not back down -- as did one bishop at one question so bravely made by one priest re the nature of the scandal -- but he stepped right into it like spiritual aikido, and by calling it what it was, began the process of its dis-empowerment. It was respect, not being "stirred" that caught the delegates' attention.
Of course, as they say: You had to be there.
Perhaps in future AAC's we can be freed of the subjective ill influence of being present, together, in an assembly where a spirit of a group can develop, and instead have the benefit of objective review of texts of speeches and photos, videos and audio recordings from which to infer the speaker's mental state, free of being stirred up by our emotions. In fact, we should amend the Statute to permit podcasts of AAC's each delegate manning a computer in a short-term-rent micro-office environment, like at Kinkos.
(Editor's note: That too was a snide and unworthy. If you are going to apologize in your remarks, at least have the courtesy not to committ the same sin a few paragraphs later.)
But, as you said, you were not there. And so, you've made the following errors in judgment or inference:
You Are Mistaken Wrong About the Role of Emotion. You underscored the most important point when you noted you were not present, and thus could know whether there was in fact the "apparent" overwhelming emotional flow that only one, such as yourself, could have perceived who was not there ... your advantageous vantage point of not being present (forgive the alliteration). Wow. Do you walk through walls, too? (Sorry, perhaps a bit too snide, there.) I was there. I was not overwhelmed. In fact, I was not emotional. I was impressed, however. That's not to pooh pooh emotion, mind you. Emotion is a part of the human make up. But from the vantage point of one who was there (for which I apologize, not having had the better view of non presence) of those who were "emotional" I am pretty confident stating that the emotions expressed flowed from the mind of the gathering and each individual mind, and not the other way round. In other words, it seemed pretty obvious that everything was working as it should -- the emotions being informed by the facts, and not the facts being inferred from the emotions. The way its supposed to be.
You Are Mistaken About the Influence of Leadership. I'm not sure if you've ever been in the military, or even in any sort of organization. I'm sure you have at some point in your life. But still, I wonder, since you say an organizational culture cannot be defined by three persons. A group culture can be defined by three, or even one, quite easily. That's a consequence of the essence of leadership. Good leadership defines a good group culture; bad leadership a bad culture. And where, as in the case of Syosett, the Chancery staff was small in size, three is no small number, and one is big enough indeed, where the one has an authority that he can wield with ill will.
(Perhaps a note on organizational culture ... the Church is not an "organization" as such ... it is the mystical body of Christ, and never ceases to be such, even when it is (wrongly) "operated" as an organization by those at the level of decision making responsibility. And if in the Church those so responsible effectively deny the mystical reality by taking an "organizational" approach, corruption would seem to be a natural accompaniment ... like a pilot fish attached to a shark.)
You Are Mistaken About the Inevitability of Institutionalized Corruption. You are also wrong to state that only removing sin from the OCA will remove corruption. Corruption is a sin, sure. But it does not necessarily follow that where there is sinfulness the specific sin of institutional or institutionalized corruption will be present. It may, but it may not. Corruption (of the organizational type with which the OCA has been concerned lately, and which was the subject of the SIC report) is a specific wrong that has certain elements that need be present, including bad leadership, arrogance, a small group of people who are so positioned to maintain secrets, a desire on the part of those people to both affirmatively take corrupt actions and passively deny them or cover them up, and, of course, viewing the Church as an organization.
You Are Mistaken About the Locus of the OCA's Corruption. You said it seems to you exceedingly unlikely that the problem is in Syosett and not in the Dioceses or the parishes. But, you don't say why ... unless you mean to indicate that your rationale is that a small number of men cannon define an organizational culture (as to which, ibid). Yet, here the problem was, in fact, in Syosett. Yes, it flowed outward, and tainted the dioceses and the parishes to the extent that the bishops and some priests remained silent, or tried to silence "their people." But, in the context of this specific matter, the problem was in Syosett, where 2 corrupt primates and a corrupt chancellor ran a sick fiefdom with the assistance of the silence of those bishops, MC members, and CA staff who knew or should have known.
You Are Mistaken About the Role of the "Three Scapegoats". You are also wrong to indicate that there are 3 scapegoats on whose heads this scandal has been placed. Not so. +Jonah endorsed the SIC report, which indicted the entire Synod, the MC as a body, and specific individuals who held the offices of treasurer. A scapegoat takes the blame that is due others (it comes from the Yom Kipppur practice); these 3 men -- those most responsible -- are not scapegoats. Nor are the fall guys -- those who, while having acted wrongly, take the blame for others who also acted wrongly. That, too, is inapposite, as these 2 former Mets and Bob Kondratick held the highest positions of responsibility and abused that for their own gain and at the expense of the people of the Church. No, they are not scapegoats ... they are not so innocent as that; nor are they fall guys ... they are the chief co-conspirators, the capo di tutti capi and his two underbosses. They were the architects and but-for causes of a decade of embezzlement and a culture of fear that permitted their sins to go undisclosed for so long.
You Are (Likely) Mistaken About Ascribing to +Jonah the Sin of Worry. Another mistake you have likely made -- also from your vantage point of not having had a vantage point -- is that +Jonah mus be as "worried" as you think he looked. ("Likely," because I do not have the power to read the hearts of men.) He did not even present as "serious." People with no levity are serious; and people with fear are worried. He seemed -- to those of us burdened with the misfortune of actually having been there -- neither serious nor worried, but rather aware of the importance of his job before him and appreciative of both the possibilities and the pitfalls. His presence is one of a sort of humble confidence. But he also seemed to have a healthy sense of humor. How can it be said that he seemed so? Well, his words, when actually heard rather than read, and his demeanor. Ya know, those things that subject people to being swept up in emotion when they are unfortunate enough to actually be in someone's presence.
You Are Mistaken About the Meaning of "One Stirring Speech" Its too bad that you were disappointed with the text of the speech; I'm sure impressing you is what +Jonah was after. (That may have been too snide, too. Sorry.) But, you are mistaken to conclude that the decision was made on the basis of "one stirring speech." Again, you are misidentifying the role of emotion. Moreover, it was not one stirring speech as such, but the substance and import of his words -- they were honest, and they called sin sin, and wtih specificity. This is precisely what has been in so short supply from the OCA leadership. He did not back down -- as did one bishop at one question so bravely made by one priest re the nature of the scandal -- but he stepped right into it like spiritual aikido, and by calling it what it was, began the process of its dis-empowerment. It was respect, not being "stirred" that caught the delegates' attention.
Of course, as they say: You had to be there.
Perhaps in future AAC's we can be freed of the subjective ill influence of being present, together, in an assembly where a spirit of a group can develop, and instead have the benefit of objective review of texts of speeches and photos, videos and audio recordings from which to infer the speaker's mental state, free of being stirred up by our emotions. In fact, we should amend the Statute to permit podcasts of AAC's each delegate manning a computer in a short-term-rent micro-office environment, like at Kinkos.
(Editor's note: That too was a snide and unworthy. If you are going to apologize in your remarks, at least have the courtesy not to committ the same sin a few paragraphs later.)
#21
Anonymous
on
2008-11-18 06:51
Hugh:
I would respectfully disagree with at least one thing you said, which was that "three men does not a culture make." In my experience in organizations in my working life, the men and/or women at the top of any given organization have a great deal to do with establishing the nature of that organization's culture. After three decades with the last two Metropolitans and their empowered surrogate (the former Chancellor), the OCA's culture was poisoned.
Let's pray that the combination of our new Primate and the new operational management team in Syosset will work diligently to turn the Queen Mary around. I say "Queen Mary" because changes in organizational culture take time to effect. Bishop +Nikon said at the AAC that the Synod will have to "earn trust" again. This is very true. We'll all be watching and listening carefully to what transpires. The key is being open to accepting the cultural transformation if/when it occurs. If we all continue reacting to everything the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Council, and OCA officers say and do as though they were still Met. Herman and/or Robert Kondratick speaking or acting, the change will take even longer.
I would respectfully disagree with at least one thing you said, which was that "three men does not a culture make." In my experience in organizations in my working life, the men and/or women at the top of any given organization have a great deal to do with establishing the nature of that organization's culture. After three decades with the last two Metropolitans and their empowered surrogate (the former Chancellor), the OCA's culture was poisoned.
Let's pray that the combination of our new Primate and the new operational management team in Syosset will work diligently to turn the Queen Mary around. I say "Queen Mary" because changes in organizational culture take time to effect. Bishop +Nikon said at the AAC that the Synod will have to "earn trust" again. This is very true. We'll all be watching and listening carefully to what transpires. The key is being open to accepting the cultural transformation if/when it occurs. If we all continue reacting to everything the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Council, and OCA officers say and do as though they were still Met. Herman and/or Robert Kondratick speaking or acting, the change will take even longer.
#22
David Maliniak
on
2008-11-18 08:40
Regarding St. Tikhon's; + Herman has misused his authority over this institution for years. When he formed an illegal LLC for St. Tikhon's and named himself as the President and sole owner of the institution, he went down the wrong road. Compounding this, he used this LLC to take out an illegal mortgage. These acts are surely criminal. Adding insult to injury, STOTS Bookstore was also made into an LLC. And, + Herman managed to have himself made beneficiary in the wills of two elderly sisters with huge assets. Any wonder he's gone?
#23
Anonymous
on
2008-11-18 09:00
Hi Norman --
It's been 20 years or so since we've seen each other, and yet I always feel a strong sense of connection to you and Karen.
Everything you say in your post is completely on target. Four days in Pittsburgh can't change the culture -- but by God's Grace, I do believe we have created the conditions under which the culture can change.
As for my own change of heart, it was exactly that -- a change of heart. As I said to someone in the airport, and as you well know, I'm one of the eternal Marthas of the world (focused on getting the food out for coffee hour, always somehow end up as treasurer), but even I was moved past practical considerations by the experience of this council.
As for Met. Jonah's words on Tuesday, they derived much of their power from context. But also from manner and expression. We have amazing ways of communicating and reproducing images and sounds from events, but in the end this cold medium is no substitute for living experience.
Your cautious but open-minded attitude seems to me the only possible response to where we are.
Time will tell. But it's not just up to Met. Jonah to change our course, it's up to all of us.
It's been 20 years or so since we've seen each other, and yet I always feel a strong sense of connection to you and Karen.
Everything you say in your post is completely on target. Four days in Pittsburgh can't change the culture -- but by God's Grace, I do believe we have created the conditions under which the culture can change.
As for my own change of heart, it was exactly that -- a change of heart. As I said to someone in the airport, and as you well know, I'm one of the eternal Marthas of the world (focused on getting the food out for coffee hour, always somehow end up as treasurer), but even I was moved past practical considerations by the experience of this council.
As for Met. Jonah's words on Tuesday, they derived much of their power from context. But also from manner and expression. We have amazing ways of communicating and reproducing images and sounds from events, but in the end this cold medium is no substitute for living experience.
Your cautious but open-minded attitude seems to me the only possible response to where we are.
Time will tell. But it's not just up to Met. Jonah to change our course, it's up to all of us.
#24
Rebecca Matovic
on
2008-11-18 10:40
you claim to "provide the questions" on tuesday 11/18. where?
(Editor's note: My mistake. I apologize for linking both to Metropolitan's Jonah's speech. The error has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. )
(Editor's note: My mistake. I apologize for linking both to Metropolitan's Jonah's speech. The error has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. )
#25
D. Kmetz
on
2008-11-18 11:05
Dear Angry,
I too am still angry, but what concerns me more is the damage being done to the future of our church, the children,be they children of the laity or the clergy .
I too have a bishop I can't trust.
In my heart , if not my soul, I try to take comfort in the hope that the one true judge of all , CHRIST, in his infinite wisdom,mercy,love and forgiveness will judge these people as he sees fit.
I'm terrified at the thought of my own judement day.
May God forgive all of us!
May GOD grant our new Met Jonah the wisdom of the 2,000 year history of the Church , for CHRIST to guide,guard,protect and illuminate Met Jonah as our Met takes up the very heavy cross given unto to him by our Saviour.
I too am still angry, but what concerns me more is the damage being done to the future of our church, the children,be they children of the laity or the clergy .
I too have a bishop I can't trust.
In my heart , if not my soul, I try to take comfort in the hope that the one true judge of all , CHRIST, in his infinite wisdom,mercy,love and forgiveness will judge these people as he sees fit.
I'm terrified at the thought of my own judement day.
May God forgive all of us!
May GOD grant our new Met Jonah the wisdom of the 2,000 year history of the Church , for CHRIST to guide,guard,protect and illuminate Met Jonah as our Met takes up the very heavy cross given unto to him by our Saviour.
#26
Another angry person
on
2008-11-18 11:10
it's good to see you back, All Caps Anonymous Guy. I was beginning to wonder where you had gone. Seriously, though, it's over. Don't you think that it's time to give up railing about this gossip website and turn instead to the future? It really looks pretty good, much better than I had imagined possible even a month ago. There's no need for yelling at us any more, if, indeed, there was ever a need for it at all. So how about we give peace a chance?
#27
Scott Walker
on
2008-11-18 11:32
I really, really need to take a brief break from reading and responding to this stuff -- just to get a clear head and get out of the weeds for a bit.
But this post does call for a response.
You were there, I was there, we experienced what we experienced, we know what happened that night and the next morning. Neither you nor I could have anticipated what happened. Neither you nor I truly understand what happened. If any of us who were there think we truly understand what happened, I'd contend that that person is deceived.
To expect that those who were not there will respond as those who were there is unfair.
To rebuke those who were not there for not automatically defering to us who were is unfair.
To treat the questions of those who were not there in the same dismissive and demeaning manner that the questions of those clamoring for truth were treated over the past three years is not only unfair but is a complete repudiation and rejection of what was poured out on us at the council.
For those who were there, it is our duty to convey in our words, but more importantly in our bearing, our actions, and our tone the fruit of what we experienced over those days.
To borrow from our contemporary political dialogue, quoting someone quoting someone else -- we are the change we've been waiting for. If we don't manifest in ourselves a change of tone and a change of culture, then those who remain skeptical will be justified in becoming cynics.
If nothing else [and I believe there was much else] the events of last week show that words have power. We should all set a guard before our mouth [and our keyboard] -- that doesn't mean silence, but it does mean using caution and judgment.
But this post does call for a response.
You were there, I was there, we experienced what we experienced, we know what happened that night and the next morning. Neither you nor I could have anticipated what happened. Neither you nor I truly understand what happened. If any of us who were there think we truly understand what happened, I'd contend that that person is deceived.
To expect that those who were not there will respond as those who were there is unfair.
To rebuke those who were not there for not automatically defering to us who were is unfair.
To treat the questions of those who were not there in the same dismissive and demeaning manner that the questions of those clamoring for truth were treated over the past three years is not only unfair but is a complete repudiation and rejection of what was poured out on us at the council.
For those who were there, it is our duty to convey in our words, but more importantly in our bearing, our actions, and our tone the fruit of what we experienced over those days.
To borrow from our contemporary political dialogue, quoting someone quoting someone else -- we are the change we've been waiting for. If we don't manifest in ourselves a change of tone and a change of culture, then those who remain skeptical will be justified in becoming cynics.
If nothing else [and I believe there was much else] the events of last week show that words have power. We should all set a guard before our mouth [and our keyboard] -- that doesn't mean silence, but it does mean using caution and judgment.
#28
Rebecca Matovic
on
2008-11-18 11:58
On the one hand, I can understand the reluctance on the part of the Synod to be cautious about deposing +Herman and +Theodosius, revenge never solves anything. However, they do need to be clear that what they did was wrong, and wrong actions require restitution. If they are not going to depose them (cue whine: "they've suffered enough") then we should at least demand restitution. My thought is this (though I'm not a lawyer, so this should be read as just a thought): we should make a legal "lien" on the assets of +Herman and +Theodosius. They should be allowed a certain amount of money to live on each year they are alive, and upon their death all their assets convert to the property of the OCA. The value of these assets could be used to pay back any outstanding mortgages (Honesdale or St. Tikhons) or if those are already paid, divided into funding any of the OCA's missions, charities, schools, or monasteries with the stipulation that the money be used for special appeals or capital improvements. This way we would not be having revenge on those who have "suffered enough" but restitution would still be made to the Church as a whole. I don't think the same sort of "lien" could be made on Kondratick, that's a different situation. But I would expect that +Herman and +Theodosius, if they want to remain bishops, will agree to such an arrangement. It is, in my opinion, the meet and right conclusion to their misdeeds.
#29
Anonymous
on
2008-11-18 12:20
Sometimes our spirit and our emotions go in opposite directions. In our spirit, we are determined to forgive, but our emotions do no immediately follow our spirit. This is because the anger is, quite literally, emblazoned in the nerve paths of our brains. It takes a while for the wrong nerve paths to dissipate. The key is not to feed the anger, avoid reinforcing it. Then, in due time, the emotions will follow the spirit.
Another point, which I believe others have made but it's worth making repeatedly: forgiveness does not require returning to the way things were before! It does nto require having the same relationship(s) as before. And it does not mean overlooking or saying a crime - a CRIME! - was okay, or that the perpetrators should not be held accountable to the Church.
But when we are angry, the devil's true target isn't the person(s) with whom we are angry; it's *us*, the angry ones.
Another point, which I believe others have made but it's worth making repeatedly: forgiveness does not require returning to the way things were before! It does nto require having the same relationship(s) as before. And it does not mean overlooking or saying a crime - a CRIME! - was okay, or that the perpetrators should not be held accountable to the Church.
But when we are angry, the devil's true target isn't the person(s) with whom we are angry; it's *us*, the angry ones.
Thank you Rebecca from saving me from responding (probably over responding 
) to such an outrageous and ill-considered post. It goes without saying, that if its purpose was to deflect questions and criticism it utterly failed in its objective. To add insult to injury, the offending party didn't even have the guts to use his name (and I'm sure it was A HE!).
As I have stated on another thread, Metropolitan Jonah's address at SVS last summer impressed me far more than anything he said in Pittsburgh. But we all have to arrive at our own conclusions and make our own reasoned judgments.
Thank you again for all your terrific contributions.
KRT
) to such an outrageous and ill-considered post. It goes without saying, that if its purpose was to deflect questions and criticism it utterly failed in its objective. To add insult to injury, the offending party didn't even have the guts to use his name (and I'm sure it was A HE!).As I have stated on another thread, Metropolitan Jonah's address at SVS last summer impressed me far more than anything he said in Pittsburgh. But we all have to arrive at our own conclusions and make our own reasoned judgments.
Thank you again for all your terrific contributions.
KRT
#31
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2008-11-18 15:18
I wouldn't say Met. JONAH was an unknown - dark horse, perhaps, but not unknown. He was the Abbot at a popular Northern California monastery, he traveled extensively, he wrote extensively, and was vetted extensively by the Diocese of the South and the Holy Synod.
True, we haven't seen how he would administer a diocese. But better than that, many of us have seen what kind of man, what kind of Christian, he is.
If our Metropolitan is someone to be emulated, then we've made a good choice. Besides, it is only an illusion that we actually choose. We identify who God has chosen.
In Christ,
Dn. Marty
Martin D. Watt, CPA
True, we haven't seen how he would administer a diocese. But better than that, many of us have seen what kind of man, what kind of Christian, he is.
If our Metropolitan is someone to be emulated, then we've made a good choice. Besides, it is only an illusion that we actually choose. We identify who God has chosen.
In Christ,
Dn. Marty
Martin D. Watt, CPA
#32
Dn. Marty Watt
on
2008-11-18 17:04
Then stop bowing and scraping.
Folks, the only way those who "lord it over the flock" get away with it is through acquiecence.
Give a bishop his due resepct, but this excessive deference is really quite unconscionable. Neither is it Christ-like. Like many accumulated customs, it's easy to feel obligated when not only is it quite unnecessary, it can be rather dangerous.
Clearly, events of the past tell us so.
Folks, the only way those who "lord it over the flock" get away with it is through acquiecence.
Give a bishop his due resepct, but this excessive deference is really quite unconscionable. Neither is it Christ-like. Like many accumulated customs, it's easy to feel obligated when not only is it quite unnecessary, it can be rather dangerous.
Clearly, events of the past tell us so.
#33
Anonymous
on
2008-11-19 01:14
....Upon their death all their assets convert to the property of the OCA
Perhaps I'm naive, but I thought the assets of a monk were generally turned over to the Church at tonsure. So they have, by definition, nothing. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I thought the assets of a monk were generally turned over to the Church at tonsure. So they have, by definition, nothing. Please correct me if I am wrong.
#34
Christopher
on
2008-11-19 17:14
Perhaps that is what is supposed to happen, but as far as I am aware both +Herman and +Theodosius own property, houses, vehicles, and operate private bank accounts. Their salaries from their time as Metropolitan had to go somewhere, and someone here has previously mentioned that +Herman is the beneficiary of family wills. Lacking dependents, it seems right to me that the value of these assets be left to the Church, both because of their involvement in allowing millions of dollars to be stolen, and, as you point out, their (ostensible) position as monks of the Church. I fear that, left to their own devices, they will manage to perpetrate the scandal even beyond their graves by leaving their assets to "buddies" or some other assortment of questionable cronies. Maybe I'm barking up a silly tree here, but I think it is time that we take some proactive actions in order to bring restitution and avoid future problems.
#35
Anonymous
on
2008-11-19 20:35
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 | ||