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.