= Fester was Kondratick’s secretary and implicated in the SIC Report but not disciplined because of the focus on Kondratick and his later lawsuit.
= Kondratick was caught, along with Metropolitan Theodosius Lazor, in engaging in financial shenanigans, though the SIC report went beyond that.
= Kondratick was supported by only two OCA hierarchs- Tikhon Fitzgerald and Nikolai Soraich.
= Soraich was Fitzgerald’s chancellor until he was successful in promoting his candidacy for bishop to eventually replace Innocent in Alaska after Innocent was forcibly removed from Alaska.
= Fitzgerald supported both Kondratick and Soraich in suing the OCA.
= Soraich confirmed that he is still in touch with Kondratick.
= Soraich and Fester are in contact.
= Fitzgerald and Soraich are in regular contact.
= Fitzgerald and Soraich still refer to Kondratick as ‘Protopresbyter Rodion’ even though he has been lawfully deposed.
It is safe to say, based on public information on such sites as OCANews and the Indiana List that these four individuals, through their various postings and the uncontested accounts of their relationships, form circle of relationship that have weathered various adversities.
Now that Lazor is in full Alzheimer’s disease, we can assume he is no longer an active member of the Mafia, though he was its figurehead for many years which enabled Kondratick to run the show. However, the Fabulous Four are still around.
The Fabulous Four of Kondratick, Fester, Soraich and Fitzgerald will be the main focus of this post, but we will gradually move outward to the general circle of the OCA’s Holy Synod. From examining their Sin-dicate, we will also come to understand Mark Stokoe and his own estrangement from Syosset. We will also see that the battle of ‘OCANews’ versus the Fabulous Four is certainly not “gay versus straight” but something far stranger.
What brought these four together was not so much sexuality, but rather the lust of power.
Fitzgerald’s relationship with Kondratick is far from simple. Fitzgerald had a distaste for Kondratick before Kondratick started getting into trouble, mostly because Kondratick was a “modernist” compared to Fitzgerald’s “ultra-traditionalism”.
But he switched as the controversy grew. Why?
Fitzgerald had a big problem with an anxiety disorder that often left him cooped up in his apartment in L.A. rather than visiting his parishes or even attending Holy Synod meetings. He even admitted needing anti-depressants to cope with his problems. Kondratick was instrumental in preserving Fitzgerald’s ministry by enabling him when problems would break out in the Diocese of the West. Fitzgerald started to support Kondratick when he realized that “Bobby the Gun” was in fact helping him stay in office. Once Kondratick was removed Fitzgerald started having problems managing the diocese and eventually offered his resignation.
Fitzgerald also had two bishops he positively hated- Seraphim Storheim and Job Osacky. We all know the reasons, Storheim for his loosy-goosy style and Osacky for much the same lack of strictness. When Osacky and Stokoe began to cooperate in forcing out Kondratick and later Soraich, Fitzgerald’s wrath against Stokoe was complete and thus his alliance with Kondratick and Fester was perfected along with his protégé Soraich.
The OCA of the 1990’s had some big problems- the older generation of bishops such as Grabbe and Shahovsky were passing from the scene and the new crop, such as Storheim and Fitzgerald were coming into their prime. Storheim and Fitzgerald had lots of personal problems, and the lack of leadership from Lazor led the bishops to follow Archbishop Dmitri Royster’s method of survival in a rudderless OCA- declare that everything is fine in your diocese and ignore the problems outside.
Royster’s closed-wagon approach which the other bishops duplicated was successful for him because he was healthy both mentally and spiritually but it had devastating effects within the OCA. It meant the Holy Synod became more of a truce between self-indulgent bishops rather than a cooperative venture into the future. While the DOS grew, the DOW and the Pennsylvanias stagnated. Herman Swaiko ran ‘his’ monastery and ‘his’ seminary as a personal piggybank which he refused to let go of once he took up the white hat of the metropolitanate.
Kondratick was there to act as liaison between the bishops and handle controversies for the bishops so they would not have to deal with one another and thus become mutually accountable. Kondratick’s enabling built up walls between the bishops, but it also helped determine what kind of bishops the Holy Synod would end up voting for.
After all, why would obviously troubled men like Soraich, Storheim, Innocent Gula and (if you believe Soriach and Fitzgerald) Benjamin Peterson end up elected as bishops?
The Kondratick Principle- morally compromised bishops can’t challenge the status quo.
Eventually, Storheim bucked the system until his ‘compromise’ called the cops. But the SIC report clearly indicated that he knew what the Lavender Mafia was up to but said nothing.
Innocent also decided to rat out the rats but only after his own five-year run as Auxiliary of Alaska came crashing down under a cloud of iniquity.
These men knew what was going on in Syosset and throughout the OCA but they said nothing because the Mafia had made them offers they could not refuse- join us as bishops and keep your mouths closed. No sane system, knowing what Storheim was accused of would have chosen him as a bishop, but the OCA did because the old way was clear- the immoral fit best with the immoral. This is why between Osacky and Soraich there were only three bishop consecrations in 20 years and Lazor had locum tenens over multiple dioceses. Fewer bishops meant fewer questions for Kondratick and Lazor. It also preserved the power arrangements for the dysfunctional bishops.
In the next post you will see more of the dysfunction and how the Fabulous Four have worked hard to keep the OCA dysfunctional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've always heard that "The Kondratick Principle - morally compromised bishops can’t challenge the status quo" was actually "The Schmemann Principle".
ReplyDeleteFr. Alexander used to run all the Synod meetings himself and wanted a weak (compromised) primate who would allow him to continue in his role as architect and captain of the OCA. (He didn't foresee his early repose.)
In fact, it was only when canon law expert Bp. Peter (L'Huillier) pointed out at his first Synod meeting (perhaps 1981/2) that a Synod is comprised of bishops alone, so Fr. Alexander was removed from attending much less leading their meetings. he died 2 years later.
Once Fr. Alexander was gone, there was a power vacuum and nature abhors such.
Those of us from outside of the OCA can only sit back in sadness and scratch our heads over all of this intrigue. Perhaps you simply have too many Bishops as in the old saying too many chefs spoil the broth? In any event, I have known Bishop Mathias for many years and I can assure you that in no way is he morally compromised.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in the AOANA you have one hierarch using politcal persuasion to grant him more powers than the "infallible" Pope of Rome does, following the Borgian principle.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to chapter 2
Over at OCAT, they are bemoaning the resolutions that came out of the HS meeting, claiming that the HS is changing the hierarchical structure of the church. What, are we papists??
ReplyDeleteIt seems there is a lack of awareness concerning how differently the different autocephalous churches do and have organized themselves. There is no single tradition about how this is done. Retired Bp Tikhon of the West spelled out recently his view, based on St. Justin Popovich, of the single tradition - but this really just represents the Serbian tradition, not the worldwide tradition in practice today. One can argue this is what 'should' be the universal practice, but that is a slightly different kind of argument.
ReplyDeleteSupposedly, Uniate Dr. Adam DeVille's Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity (University of Notre Dame Press, 2011) provides a survey of how primacy is practiced (differently) in the Orthodox churches. The latter part of the book then attempts to apply these facts to Roman Catholic-Orthodox unity.
For more on the facts concerning conciliarity as set forth in the Moscow Sobor of 1917-18, listen to Dominican Dr. Fr. Hyacinthe Destivelle's paper presented at the SVS 2009 Summer Conference here:
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/specials/stvlads09/hiacynthe_2009-06-19.mp3
Fr. Hyacinthe is a Dominican priest and professor in the theological faculty at the Catholic Institute in Paris. He is the author of Le Concile de Moscou (1917-1918): La Creation des Institutions Conciliares de l'Eglise Orthodoxe Russe (Les Editions du Cerf, 2006), which was described on the AFR podcast as the definitive, magisterial study of the Moscow Sobor of 1917-18. (I don't believe it has yet been translated into English.)
The Moscow Sobor is often used in the way Vatican II was used - its "spirit" is often referred to while the particulars of its action and inaction (and the canonical reasons why) are often ignored.