Emotionalism

 

I am trying to get refocused on my work for this blog which is not easy. I said before I do not like having to blog but I think this is necessary even though my feelings say “run”.

What I am struggling with here as I dig and compile is the problem in the church I see the same problem with this country. What do I see?

There is first of all a great deal of emotionalism in both the church and in the US. Perhaps there always has been but it has gotten to the point where it seems that rational disagreement has been totally replaced by double-barrel blasts of invective every time two people do not totally agree. Some people think that the church is all about their emotions, so much so that they are better about telling you how their church makes them feel over what their church makes them think.

It is hard enough to keep emotion out of the reporting of fact but it seems our society considers emotion a fact. This is where the problem lies since people now think that how they feel about something is evidence for the thing itself. This makes ordinary rational people quite irrational. My goal here is to point out the irrational beliefs of some by demonstrating how silly these irrational statements are when extracted from their emotional shell.

At the popular level there is an international phenomenon of emotionalism that is leading to over the top spending and debt. I would say a majority of Americans and citizens of other lands think that someone else must take care of their needs. They see themselves as not being entirely responsible for their own upkeep. Kids these days have it pounded into their heads to the point where I wonder where we are heading. They are told to value their feelings before their thoughts and the most emotional appeal always wins the day.

Our problem now is that this emotionalism has taken root in the churches here in America. Liturgical decisions are made based on how people feel rather than on a rational discussion of the Typicon and the decisions people make about coming to church.

Mark Stokoe tapped into those emotional impulses to build his base. Yes he had a lot of fact but he added a lot of emotional hyperbole to tip the scales in his favor. Now we see that the same technique is being used against him.

This can best be seen in the issue of Bishop Mark Maymon.  I have seen lots of anger and emotion yet no one has really sat down and explained what it is that he is doing. We know people are upset but we never see a logical analysis as to why they are upset to begin with. I have heard snippets here and there but certainly not enough to justify the ‘lynch mob’ as one eyewitness described it.

Maymon is certainly not perfect but neither are the people in the South. They are used to having the same bishop for over forty years who built a diocese in large part around himself. This is the same problem with the Antiochians with another bishop who has stayed in to the point where nobody really remembers life without that one person in charge. The office and the person become inseparable and thus the emotions that the person elicits are synonymous with the office and the role.

The people are not thinking that a bishop might come in and do things differently because they assume that when someone makes different decisions from what Archbishop Dmitri Royster would do then he is being a bad bishop. The only solution would be Royster II. The only problem was that Royster made lots of mistakes but was able to get past them because of how people felt about him.

So he could rehabilitate a gay deacon and allow him to serve on a limited basis
while living with another man, a retired bishop alleged to be also "orientation-challenged", and it is OK because Royster is a good man.

Yes, some like Rod Dreher and others on that sad band wagon will quote chapter and verse were they admitted Royster or Paffhausen were maybe a little mistaken here or there.  Dreher can even call Royster and Paffhausen "wrong" about the deacon thing I just mentioned, but still they are trusted leaders who made mistakes.  And anyone, including the Synod, who wants to address problems with Paffhausen or Fester had better be able to prove off the bat that they are using and using correctly the "nuclear option" of a water tight case for deposition.  For Kondratick, even his "slam dunk" deposition is not enough because the SIC report did not result in civil prosecution.  Despite that fact that some of the most obvious and prosecutable crimes of Kondratick were well past the statute of limitations before the SIC report came out, the lack of a civil conviction gets trumpeted as a virtual acquittal, or even proof of innocence.  Maymon, not a friend of Fester's or Dreher's, gets no such benefit of the doubt.   

Why Maymon is bad because, well, we are not too sure. But he has to go because people there feel he is wrong. At least that is the public argument. Mind you, I am not making a case that Maymon is either acting poorly or a saint.  What I am pointing out is that emotions are running high but no case has been made either way. Replacing someone who is revered is almost a suicide mission.  I have seen several priests go down in flame who were good men but replaced priests who were looked upon as virtually perfect.

Before jumping to any conclusions about Maymon, I really wish that some of those who are crying the loudest for his ouster would actually get around to stating the reasons other than their feelings. Emotions are not enough of a case unto themselves.

This emotionalism also has allowed people to draw direct parallels between the OCA and the Episcopalians to say that gays and women are preparing to board and sink the OCA without any real evidence other than an obituary. Yes the lone piece of solid evidence is an obituary which calls Stokoe’s house-mate and presumed lover an ‘in-law’ to Stokoe’s dead mother.

We need to move away from the emotionalism that is driving people to vote for the person who promises them the most free benefits and believe the person with the narrative that best fits our opinions, and sit down in peace to examine the facts.

The OCA is part of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. It is in no danger of being turned into a gay zombie turned against our Lord because He said so. What happened to the Episcopals and Presbyterians has to do largely with the fact that they are not part of the Church. Come on guys. Put your theology where your brain is. The worst that can happen is that we can be purged from the Body. This is either done through the discipline of the Church or our own desire to be separated.

All indications are the emotionalists are winding up for the pitch to leave the Church.  After all you cannot remain angry for very long before acting on it.

EA Note

The official “Assembly of Bishops” statement ended with this gem-

The Assembly decided that it was prudent for itself to be incorporated as a legal entity, as this would bring the Assembly a number of benefits and would further its ability to act as a body. It therefore authorized the proper agents to move ahead with the work of incorporation. In addition, the Assembly reaffirmed its petition of last year to the mother churches, for the partition of the Assembly, by establishing Canada as a separate region, and joining Mexico and Central America to the region of South America. This represents also the desire of the Canadian, Mexican and Central American bishops. Lastly, the Assembly drafted and approved an official message to be issued in its name to the all Orthodox Christian faithful living within the region.

If you split off Canada and Mexico, that ‘region’ the bishops are alluding to is none other than the United States of America. Sorry I had to point that out but you almost would miss that from the statement.

I am digressing to this matter because it has a direct connection to the matters we are covering here on this blog. It has to do with underlying assumptions which bubble up in public communications. I am sifting through the public communications of various figures in the OCA to demonstrate their underlying motives.

What this hesitancy in saying “USA” should tell us is that the Assembly is a farce when it comes to any genuine interest for the people in this country. It has everything to do with the bishops’ interests in thumb-wrestling each other for who has to go home and who gets to lick the spatula.

This assembly is being defined by what Mexicans and Canadians want, but the biggest community, the Americans, are not even mentioned. When it comes to our desires or needs, there is silence. Not that I think it is a bad idea to see these regions go their separate ways. But what I am pointing out is that the Assembly cannot bring itself to saying that it is becoming an assembly for the United States of America.

We know that this is problem for them because of several reasons. The first is that with the exception of the Romanians perhaps almost every Orthodox country has a popular culture that hates America even while its individual citizens scramble to get a work visa here. This cannot be understated. So, the bishops who sit in the Mother Churches will have to work doubly hard to overcome this popular inclination before making decisions effecting Americans… if we let them.

The second problem is that by acknowledging the United States of America it is pointing out the obvious direction of independence for the churches here. The OCA has never been seen as a profound threat to the status quo because it has remained nationalistically weak by stretching across the entire continent. The Tomos perhaps on accident guaranteed this.

But now, the bishops are being forced to acknowledge that a continental approach will not work. But this also sets the groundwork for an “American Orthodox” community as well as a “Mexican Orthodox” and “Canadian Orthodox” community.

Watch for forthcoming choking while the bishops struggle to explain what they are becoming while not saying the words “American” and “Orthodox” next to each other.

This process is about these other overseas churches. The fact that they have to make a second request to “approve” the partitioning of the region should tell us a great deal. Our concerns are secondary to theirs. They can even leave ‘their own’ bishops hanging for a year to make a decision that should be obvious that the whole system is not geared for being either timely or responsive which makes it in the end a useless enterprise when it comes to pastoral matters.

Again, their failure to use the name of the United States of America tells us a great deal. This tied to the “mother churches” unwillingness to reapportion the territory of the assembly indicates that Americans are more of a problem for them than the churches are willing to say publicly.

Another notable feature of the announcement was how the Serbian absence was mentioned not once but three times, each time excusing then for essentially the same reason. This recitation of the same excuse may very well indicate that the Serbs are indeed not planning to go along with the Assembly.  Then again, if the “Mother Churches” refuse a second time to approve the partition, the game will be over.  The territory is simply too big and too diverse to hold together.

In the end, the only thing the Assembly may succeed in is the destruction of SCOBA.

Fester's Lies Part II

In Part I, we saw that Fester told a big whopper about the “ambush in Santa Fe”.  Now some might think this was an isolated event.  Well, not quite. 

Following the failure of his plan in Santa Fe, Fester, undeterred, is indulging in “revisionist history”.   Just as he got Archbishop Dmitri Royster to “take it back” right after the Spring Synod meeting in 2007, so he seeks to “adjust” the meaning of the Leave of Absence.  We all watched as Stokoe reported the Leave of Absence; some really irresponsible folk reported deposition or resignation; the initial OCA press release did not use the word Leave of Absence; and then Paffhausen denied the Leave of Absence in a recorded statement from the amvon of St. Nicholas cathedral in DC.  Behind the scene, Fester was hectoring Bishop Mark Maymon about letting the cat out of the bag, in an exchange that bears full quotation:

Fester:  I was told that your announced in NC [North Carolina] that Jonah was on a Leave of Absence.

Maymon:  Are you the grand inquisitor?  People asked specific question to which I did not lie, nr speak outside of class.

Fester:  But Vladyka, His Beatitude is not on a LOA [Leave of Absence]  Its just confusing when they hear one thing and they His Beatitude makes it clear that he is not on a leave.

Maymon:  That was the specific terminology used at the synod meeting. They categorically rejected the word retreat.  My meeting was on Saturday, His Beatitutde’s statements were on Sunday.

Fester:  well, as you know, the press release on oca does not state he is on leave.  What Saturday meeting?  the one in which his Beatitude was not included?

Maymon:  the one with the pc [parish council] in NC.

Fester:  ah, yes.  well, you are right.  Timing is everything, but I am sure that it will all be cleared up.  It just important that folks in the ODS and the Cathedral know you support His Beatitude as we know, he is much loved.  but that is a given, you know that, Thank God.

Maymon:  WE all love him and want him to succeed.

Fester:   yes, You should know that the information that has been gathered from Fr. Alexander’s email account, which is the property of the OCA, which was handed over when he resigned is painting a very different picture of Fr. Garklavs and some of the members of the MC and sadly some members of the MC.  I am sharing this with you because I don’t want you to be used or hurt.  That is all I can say, but it will be made clear soon.

Maymon:  His Beatitude agreed to a LOA.  I heard it with my own ears.

Fester:  Vladyka, please.  nothing was signed.  He is not on a leave.  Don’t get sucked into something by Benjamin and Melchesedek.  It was all set up ahead of time.  It was a trap.  The information is there.

… 

Fester: ... HB never signed anything.

Maymon: I am too new to all this and it is best for me to stay out of it.  I do not even have a vote.

Fester: I don’t want you to get hurt.  Please believe me … I want you to succeed.  …  I think you are right.  stay out of line of fire. Not having a vote now is a blessing ...

O Man!  There is just so much here.  For right now, though, let’s just focus on Fester’s way of dealing with facts.  

-         Fester calls Maymon on the carpet for announcing the Leave of Absence.

-         Maymon says he (Maymon) did not lie

-         Fester counters with Paffhausen’s statement on Sunday at the DC cathedral.

-         Maymon makes clear the Leave of Absence was the term used at the Synod meeting, and points out he spoke of “leave of absence” on Saturday before Paffhausen denied it. 

-         Fester then refers to the press release.

-         Fester expresses no interest whatever in what Maymon actually heard at the Synod meeting.  He refers to the press release.

-         Maymon makes clear the meeting under discussion was a parish council meeting on Saturday. 

-         Fester responds “ah, yes.  well, you are right.  Timing is everything, but I am sure that it will all be cleared up”.  There it is.  It’s all about Fester’s spin.

Fester has called Mark on the carpet for contradicting Paffhausen’s Sunday announcement.   Then Fester gets that Maymon made his statement about the Leave of Absence before the Paffhausen denied it on Sunday.  Timing is everything.  He understands already that what Maymon heard in Santa Fe was different.  That was then, this now.  Timing is everything.  He isn’t interested in what Maymon actually heard in Santa Fe, only interested in how he can spin it now.  Timing is everything. 

Fester is, however, interested in trying to interpret what went on Santa Fe for Maymon, when Maymon asserts that the “we all love him (Paffhausen)”.  Then we get the talk of traps, and “nothing was signed”.  Again, Fester shows he knows that Paffhausen agreed to the Leave of Absence, but “nothing was signed”.  As if the bishops of Christ’s Church had best not trust each other’s word, but have to “get it in writing”.  They do if the bishop has fallen into Fester’s charming advice, as the Synod learned when Royster agreed and then didn’t agree to release Kondratick to face the music in 2007. 

Royster and Paffhausen are respected hierarchs, loved by their flocks.  It is not pleasant to see them caught in dishonesty.  Some people just can’t wrap their minds around the fact that dishonesty is exactly what’s going on, and engage in denial.  How could these good bishops fall like this?  The common feature was falling into Fester’s advice and counsel.

The Leave of Absence however, was confirmed by the Synod.  Not with an argument or an attack, but simply by posting the minutes of the Santa Fe meeting. Fester was counting on the Synod not daring to publicly contradict Paffhausen’s statement.  Those of us who remember Syosset back in the day when Kondratick and Fester had power find this mendacity familiar.  Right to the current moment, those who are drinking the Fester Kool Aide of OCA Truth are imagining that Moscow will swoop in.  Here’s a little detail – Moscow has figured this out.  In Met. Hilarion Alfeyev’s report to the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate and its response they recognized that Paffhausen was on a Leave of Absence.  Since then, this little part of Fester’s spin has met the memory hole.

By now, it is clear that Fester has promoted two demonstrable lies, the ambush in Santa Fe and the denial of the Leave of Absence.  Sadly, he was even able to sully the Metropolitanate of the OCA by getting Paffhausen to make the denial.  These lies are significant.  They touch on major issues of the topic, not side issues. 

The next step is to look at how these lies were pursued by Fester and his friends.

"Us" and "Them" in the OCA

The process of compiling things for this blog has brought some things to light that I believe have to be addressed outside the stream I am trying to compose.

One of these components of the discussion within the OCA is identification of “parties” within the OCA. A few years ago, it was the Kondratick Party versus the Reform Party. Then it was the Herman Party versus the Reform Party. Then it was the Nikolai Party versus the Reform Party.

Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen’s speech at the AAC made him the de facto head of the Reform Party within the OCA. Prior to that, the headship rested with Archbishop Job Osacky and Mark Stokoe. Osacky’s death and Stokoe’s internal conflicts have left the Reform headship open for Paffhausen’s taking.

But, as we can see, the Reform movement is stalled out. Why? In large part this is because Stokoe is now a member of the MC thus an insider who can no longer play the outside that he never really was. But Paffhausen also lost that image by taking up counsel from Fester and isolating himself from the rest of the Synod whose cooperation he would need to pass reform measures.

Paffhausen never really tried to push any reforms. His biggest reform proposal was to move the chancery to DC.

That’s in large part because most of the demands for reform were actually implemented under Swaiko and he sank because he could not live by them. The big test is whether the OCA can live by its reformed vision of accountability and transparency.

So when Paffhausen started running into problems, Fester had to create a new two-party system to polarize the OCA. Thus we have a liberal Democrat Fester tapping into the conservative roots of the Diocese of the South and painting the conflict over Paffhausen’s bumbling as a liberal/gay conspiracy against the straight/conservative Metropolitan. This works well with Stokoe’s not so private life. Hand in glove they say. The problem is that this glove does not have enough fingers.

While there are gays in the Church, our concern is not so much about their temptations as their actions. This was the problem with Lazor and the accusation that he was using the Church to cover up his actions. The same with Swaiko’s finances at St. Tikhon’s. Kondratick’s crimes were supposedly about covering up these messes and he even threatened to “tell all” at one point.

Our concern should be about covering up rather than disposition. My charge here is that there is less to worry about with gays than there is to worry about men who are sneaking around trying to cover up their actions. If Fester had publicly stated that he wanted Soraich restored to ministry it would not be a problem. The problem is that the emails indicate that Fester did not even want Paffhausen to know yet. Look at the speech from Santa Fe. He sees Soraich’s lawsuit as a negative.

I do not see the OCA as really divided into parties. What I see is the Fabulous Four seeking ways to divide the hard-won unity of the OCA for their own selfish gains.

Even trying to portray Paffhausen’s critics as representatives of the “old ethnic club” does not work, since most of the bishops are not members of that club. Then the party becomes the “Congregationalists” until it is pointed out that none of the group has questioned the central role of the Holy Synod. Taken too far this argument for an absolute metropolitanate with vassal bishops makes the OCA start looking more like the Lazor-Swaiko years where metropolitans answered to no one. This runs against the “Reform” image and so it has not gained traction either. Thus the divisions are not working.

Some other blogs have taken up the discussion of the Baby Boomer generation and its narcissistic tendencies. These tendencies are evident in the actions of the Fabulous Four. Soraich never stops pouting for himself and yet he also shows no remorse for the intense anger he caused in his former diocese. Kondratick in his appeal never stated how his restoration would be good for the OCA. Their concern was always what was good for them.

I believe that if Paffhausen can truly break loose from the self-centeredness as preached by the Fabulous Four, he will certainly redeem much of the confidence that others have lost in him. He should go back to the Fester-influenced Santa Fe speech and remove the self from it. He has to start talking about the OCA again rather than “his” office.

The "Us versus Them" narrative is weak. The Fabulous Four and their functionaries have underestimated the unity forged from the years of controversy we have already passed through. Creating divisions where there are none is an ultimately pointless exercise un;less they can really trick enough people into believeing them.

The only real division in the OCA right now is between the critics and supporters of Paffhausen. Their judgments stem from his actions. I believe that most are motivated by their care for the OCA and its future. The exception would be Fester and his cohorts' schemes to return to power for their own needs and interests.

Sanity Revisited

Here are two messages that got little press when they were released, but should be read again (and again and again for those who believe Fester).

This first is from Bishop Mark Maymon, the second from Bishop Benjamin Peterson.

I am not going to comment on them other than to say that they are as valid now as they were when they were written.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<+>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thursday, March 03, 2011

I have recklessly forgotten Your glory, O Father; And among sinners I have scattered the riches which You gave to me. And now I cry to You as the Prodigal: I have sinned before You, O merciful Father; Receive me as a penitent and make me as one of Your hired servants. Kontakion of the Prodigal Son

Dear to God,

Christ is in our midst! As we gather this Sunday, we remember the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, reminding us that sin alienated mankind from God, much like the prodigal son who was estranged from his father. We have drifted far from the newness of Baptismal Grace and our blessed hope in the Resurrection we experience at Pascha through proper preparation, i.e., prayer, fasting, sacred reading and frequent communion and confession. Our life has become old and petty once again.

The time of Lent is set aside to make a serious and sustained effort to draw closer to the Lord. How? By abstaining from certain foods, frivolous talk, and guarding our eyes, ears and tongue. Simply abstaining from certain foods will not save us, but it is a sacred tool nevertheless. During this time the church in her wisdom also instructs us to abstain from sin as well and the things that incite the passions. In order to do so, we must guard our eyes, ears and tongue.

Let us use the time profitably, by observing the fast, holy confession, attendance at the divine services as well as abstinence from various forms of entertainment, i.e., movies, parties and thoughtless hours on the computer or internet reading blogs, etc. Let us purify our minds and hearts, redirecting our passions towards their proper goal, the Lord Himself, to the glory of God.

Over the past several years without fail there seems to arise some perceived crisis to distract us from our Lenten journey. This year is no exception. As you may know His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah is on a Leave of Absence. Our Holy Synod expressed their love and concern for him in Santa Fe, NM and their desire to see him take a time of rest and return before Pascha more focused and refreshed. He is scheduled to Consecrate Bishop-Elect Matthias together with the members of the Holy Synod on Bright Saturday. The Synod affirmed their love for Metropolitan Jonah numerous times throughout our gathering. As I am new to the OCA and the Synod, I can only address what I saw and

heard. There was no talk whatsoever of removing him as the Metropolitan. He has labored caring for multiple dioceses and as our Metropolitan. He simply needed a break.

Let us resist the temptation to speculate on motives and feeding our eyes on disturbing websites, emails, etc. in this regard. There is a critical spirit which wants to dissect every word and judge every motive. Let us not bring the house down upon our heads. Pray for His Beatitude, the Holy Synod and the Metropolitan Council. Abstain from those things that excite the passions, especially, gossip. Our Diocese had peace.

Once again, let us believe in the power of prayer, purity and holiness. The Holy Synod told His Beatitude numerous times “we want you to succeed. We need you to succeed. The OCA needs you.” Let us pray that when he comes back he is rested. He will not rest if the house is burning down. Thank God we have a full schedule of services at St Seraphim for Great and Holy Lent to guide our hearts and minds through the coming months. Please come and pray for your Hierarchs, your Diocese, your priests and your church.

Yours in Christ,

+Mark

Auxiliary Bishop to the Metropolitan and Administrator of the Diocese of the South

CC: Diocesan Clergy and Faithful; Friends of St Seraphim of Sarov

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<+>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.dowoca.org/news_110303_2.html

March 3, 2011

Holy Martyrs Eutropius, Cleonicus and Basiliscus of Amasea

Beloved Clergy, Monastics and Faithful of the Diocese of the West

As many of you are painfully aware, there are numerous speculations and opinions floating about the internet following a recent meeting of the Holy Synod of our Orthodox Church in America. I believe there is no accident that this great temptation is happening just before the period of the Great Fast.

I have been quite reticent about making matters more complicated, more confusing, and more perilous by making some sort of public statement that will be parsed and scrutinized by others. We have come to a precarious time in our history, a time when it is possible for anyone with an opinion or thought to broadcast it to the world. And, it seems there are those who feel every matter is their business. The result is soul destroying. The demon of gossip runs about freely among us, hardly detected and unexposed to the light of day.

What occurred in Santa Fe was a matter that should have and could have remained within the body of our Holy Synod. It should have remained there to preserve both the dignity of our much-loved Metropolitan and of his brother hierarchs, the Synod of Bishops. It was and remains a matter that touches upon mutual accountability, truth and a most sacred trust that must exist among the hierarchs of the Church of God. It was and remains a matter that touches upon the meaning of obedience to each other out of love in Christ, counciliarity.

Very soon after our meeting, postings began to appear on the internet from people who were not in the room, from persons who had and have no first-hand knowledge of the deliberations that took place there. A website in Greece, for example, assured the world Metropolitan Jonah had been asked to resign and was no longer the primate of the Orthodox Church in America. This is flatly and totally untrue. It is a lie told by gossips who know nothing.

The Holy Synod of Bishops, a body whose very nature requires mutual obedience to each other in a spirit of truth, asked Metropolitan Jonah to request a leave of 60 days and to allow us to remove the heavy burden of care for our Church from his shoulders so that he could attend to his own physical, mental and spiritual health. We attempted to do this in a manner that would allow him privacy and to retain the dignity of his office. This is clearly indicated in the minutes. I regret our delay in releasing these minutes has allowed speculation to injure the Body of Christ and for that injury to fester. It has allowed persons outside the body of the Synod to spin and color the facts.

The Metropolitan Jonah remains the primate of the Orthodox Church in America and, like the rest of us, is accountable to God and to the entire Church for his actions. Our polity that rests upon the critical relationship between the primate and his synod is, I believe, what is being challenged but remains unchanged.

I ask your prayers for both the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod and I ask your forgiveness for the disturbance that has occurred in the peace of the Church.

+Benjamin, Bishop of San Francisco and the West

The Direction We Are Heading

I am working through some new analyses of the various “characters” at play in the present OCA controversy. This takes time because I want to use public documents and there are in many cases too many for me to go through to find the “gem” that sums it up.

At this point a great deal has changed from when I started this blog not so long ago. For one, Fester has been exposed though the myth around him remains with a few diehards unable to see his membership in the Fabulous Four who have done so much to discredit the OCA. Even Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen has seen enough to remove Fester from DC.

However, Fester still wields a great deal of personal power over the Diocese of the South. Any priests reading this should feel a bit queasy about having to replace a priest who does not stop communication with his old parishioners particularly to influence them. Until Fester’s status is finally resolved he is still a danger to the OCA. After all he is connected to two men who took the OCA to court, Kondratick and Soriach and never denounced their lawsuits. He may sue as well.

Bishop Matthias Moriak will also now have to figure out what to do with Stokoe’s now public personal life. I would advise Moriak not to worry about Stokoe leading a gay gendarmerie against him. My view of the average OCA member including the Diocese of the Midwest is that they can differentiate between the good that resulted for the OCA from Stokoe & OCAnews and his appropriateness as a member of the Metropolitan Council.

Even Stokoe realizes how difficult it is to be a reporter on the institution he is reporting on.

Stokoe benefitted from protection by Osacky and then inaction by Mollard though the latter had the cloudy issue of locum tenancy on his side. Moriak will now face a series of challenging decisions- will he investigate Stokoe to remove him from the MC as is his duty and if so how long does he envision this process taking? If he refuses to investigate will he set limits on Stokoe in terms of reporting? This poses problems for the impression that Stokoe operates under “freedom of the press” and posts what he wants and when he wants to.

None of us are entirely free and we must choose to whom we are enslaved. As Orthodox Christians we are certainly slaves to God but we also willingly choose to bind ourselves to other people and even ideas that we refuse to abandon without great struggle. We must be cautious of who we bind ourselves to. My concern was that Paffhausen and others were binding themselves to Fester and thusly to whom Fester is bound- Kondratick, Soraich and Fitzgerald.

Paffhausen’s “speech” which is still unclear as to its actual presentation shows a man under torment rather than a leader. This was not a rally-the-troops kind of speech. It was clearly written with Fester’s help if we look at his emails to Soraich. But I think this torment was a hopeful sign that Paffhausen senses what is unclean about what Fester is telling him and that his inconsistencies reveal his own inner struggle. If you are struggling with accepting evil that is good. It is when you swallow it without even a twinge that you have a much greater problem.

In order for Paffhausen to succeed, he cannot take this tone with the bishops. We people in the business world would laugh at a CEO addressing his management team like this. For him to lead he has to inspire. He once inspired the people and I think he has it in him to do it with the bishops but that does not begin with complaining about how unfair life is. It is not enough to say “I am the boss”. Anyone can do that.

What he has to do is get at least a majority of the bishops to believe that what he is doing is right for the OCA. So far the message has been inconsistent especially in external affairs which is his “specialty” as metropolitan. That has to change.

Then we can support him. Right now we are not sure if we are supporting Paffhausen or the schemes of the Fabulous Four.

Fester's Lies

I plan on examining some of the assumptions that undergird the “story” of the Friends of Fester.  But to warm up, let us look at outright falsehoods that Fester and his acolytes have propagated.  The most obvious is the “Ambush in Santa Fe”. 

Fester put out the word that the Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen was “blindsided” by an ambush of his brother bishops at the February 22 – 24, 2011, meeting of the Holy Synod in Santa Fe.  Really now, this never made much sense, despite the fact that it was widely repeated by OCATruth and followers.  After all,

-         Paffhausen tried to fire the Chancellor and the Secretary in early February 11, 2011.

-         The firings were appealed to the Synod.

-         The firings were in response to the Sexual Misconduct Advisory Committee issuing a report to the Synod detailing their concerns with Paffhausen’s actions/inactions.

-         Earlier, Paffhausen made a sudden trip to Russia to seek the support of the Patriarch of Moscow on a Primate of the OCA being the only to set the “agenda”, the Synod being relegated to a supporting cast.

-         Paffhausen made a speech in the DoS Pastoral Conference in Mississippi stating that a small group was seeking to replace him.

-         The Synod and the Met Council had both expressed concern about Paffhausen’s actions and inactions.

Yet Paffhausen was unaware that the Santa Fe meeting might just involve some conflict or tension?  Unaware that he might face some criticism?  Come on.  No one is accusing him of being that out to lunch.  (On the other hand, not bothering to know what the other bishops of the Synod thought might have led Paffhausen into some unpleasant surprises, but the other bishops can hardly be blamed for that). 

Fester’s emails between the Feb 11 firings in Syosset and the Feb 22 Synod retreat, however, fully and totally discredit the tale of Paffhausen being “blindsided” by the other bishops

-         Fester takes charge of Paffhausen’s response.

-         Fester contacts the disgraced and removed former Bishop of Alaska, Nikolai Soraich, apparently beginning by leaking the SMPAC report to Soraich, a subject of the report.  Fester wants Soraich help in planning Paffhausen’s response for him.

-         Fester is, in his own words “brutal” in bullying Paffhausen into accepting Soraich’s advice.

-         Fester hopes to make use of a disgraceful tantrum that Soraich wrote in a rage against the Bishop of the West, Benjamin Peterson.

-         Paffhausen orders an investigation into the accusations made by Soraich against Peterson.

-         Fester raises the possibility of Soraich somehow turning his tantrum into formal charges against Peterson.

-         Fester knows that a leave of Absence is a possibility, but hopes to force Peterson to take it instead.

-         Soraich warns Fester that “He’s go to be ready for this next week-- bad stuff is coming down.” (whilst complaining that Paffhausen wasn’t paying him enough attention).

-         Fester and Soraich express their mutual pleasure in the approach that Paffhausen takes following their advice.  This includes manipulations meant to “push the buttons” of other bishops, such as raising the specter of the Consistory for Bp. Michael Dahulich and also Matthias Moriak with their background in the Johnstown diocese, and trying to get a “reliable” translator for Bp. Alejo.

-         Fester, (much like Stokoe), prognosticates how various bishops will act.

All in all, Fester thought he was well prepared, thought that he and Soraich had Paffhausen all ready for the Santa Fe retreat.

So what was the surprise?  Their plans did not work.  In fact, they failed spectacularly.  I am not surprised that that Fester/Soraich tactics failed.  If they worked, Soraich would still be a ruling bishop on the Synod and Kondratick and Fester would never have left Syosset.  I am not so much surprised as grateful to God.  The only thing that ambushed Paffhausen was his misguided trust in Fester, and then Soraich.

Now Fester’s claims of ambush and blindsiding are “Totally exposed”, (to borrow a phrase from Rod “Muzhik” Dreher).  They are exposed as a Lie, and Fester is exposed as a Liar.  What is a surprise, is that those who swallow the Fester Story continue to repeat this Lie, even after it is exposed.  It’s just sad.

Centralized Power and Darkness

I must confess that my posts are harsh. Maybe too harsh. But I do believe that what I am saying is true and I do not hide my intentions.

But I am trying to make a point that has been lost in a lot of over-the-top rhetoric regarding Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen and the supposed “conspiracy” against him that seems include the entire Holy Synod of the OCA.

I hardly think a conspiracy can be formed from a majority. It would be more accurate to call it a “consensus”.

While Mark Stokoe may secretly wish to remove Paffhausen from office most of us think that would be awful. Yes I am absolutely certain that Paffhausen’s removal from office should be the last thing that should happen. On a purely political level this would be a disaster for the OCA because having three white hats on the retired bench would make the whole OCA look like a tribe of idiots. We are not.

There are several problems with the American Orthodoxy that are in play here. The first is that there is simply too much centralizing of power in American Orthodoxy. No I am not saying we need a congregational model. I am saying that our bishops need to work cooperatively rather than trying to one up each other for personal power.  Metropolitan Philip Saliba got caught up in great shame of having his power and lack of willingness to share it exposed on the internet. 

The Greeks have been relatively quiet of late in large part because of the horrid reign of Archbishop (Now Metropolitan) Spyridon Papageorge who tried to replace the superpowerful Archbishop Iakovos Coucouzis by acting like an over-caffeinated teenager fresh out of a GOYA rally.  Patriarch Bartholomew Archontonis effectively reorganized the GOA to the point where nobody is quite certain who is in charge and it seems to be working well for them.

Both Herman Swaiko and Theodosius Lazor abused their roles as central authoritarians.  After two unsuccessful centralized administrations the OCA’s Holy Synod is now in a peculiar position- all of the bishops have less than ten years of episcopal ministry aside from Archbishop Nathaniel Popp. The culture of a strong metropolitan is foreign to them because they came into ministry in a time when the office of metropolitan was already being degraded by its last two occupants.

This is especially important if one remembers some of the rhetoric about Paffhausen leading the OCA in a new direction. The new direction was fait accompli when Archbishop Job Osacky passed away and Archbishop Seraphim Storheim was arrested (after his stupid public announcement many of us are hoping he comes back only to clean out his desk whether the charges stick or not)- Popp as leader of the autonomous Romanian Episcopate is in no place to lead the OCA, leaving the most experienced bishops as Nikon and Peterson. As the chair of the SIC, Peterson is no big supporter of the ‘old ways’ of the OCA.

What Paffhausen has is the perfect Synod for changing the OCA. But what he has to do is communicate with the Holy Synod. Instead he started off by challenging the Ecumenical Patriarchate and then theorizing about whether the Tomos could be cashed in for a deal with the Greeks. Top that with an obsession about moving the Central Administration to DC when the OCA is broke and you have a real failure to communicate that even Luke Jackson would understand.

Paffhausen does not need to leave, he needs to listen to his bishops.

He also needs to stop listening to the remnants of the old regime like Fester.

Fester was with Kondratick when Kondratick was leading the Lavender Mafia. Fester got Royster in trouble defending the Mafia and now he is getting Paffhausen in trouble while conspiring with Soraich.

Let’s think about this- it has been two weeks since the embarrassing emails and messages from Fester have gone out into the world. Have we heard from Fester? Is he happy now that others continue to belittle the Holy Synod in defense of him?

Fester could prove his morality by asking everyone to stop fighting. That is what both Royster and Maymon did when destructive arguing ensued in the DOS. Fester is silent.

Fester also could have tried to explain his actions openly but we notice he has not. He has never stated what exactly he was trying to accomplish with his calls to Soraich other than what the leaked emails reveal.

That is because Fester was trying to lead Paffhausen back to the old ways, where the Metropolitan ran the OCA Central Administration with little oversight and less accountability to the other bishops. And that is exactly the environment in which the Lavender Mafia thrived. While Paffhausen does not have a “secret life” the way Lazor was rumored to have, the darkness of the old system would allow other things to grow.

The Lavender Mafia that developed under Lazor eventually reached too far and got caught. It fought for survival under Swaiko. Now Fester is trying to bring back Soriach with Fitzgerald’s unwavering support for him and Kondratick. The fabulous Four thrived under the centralized system that left them unchecked. Mutual accountability amongst the bishops will stop any one of them from allowing one of them to develop a secret life.