The Zen of Tikhon- what is the sound of one pedal moving backwards?

The metaphor of back-pedaling invokes the imagery of a bicyclist furiously trying to avoid his inevitable descent. But, pedaling a bike requires two pedals, not one. And so now Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald), having been called on revealing confidential pastoral communications and the contents of a confession on Monomakhos, in the process insulting his predecessor, a well-respected clergyman and retired Archpriest of the OCA, and an Episcopal candidate. His response:

·         Implying the identities of those involved was needful because his posting was a Polish Joke (the retired Archpriest in question is Polish). Without identifying the parties we would never know that it was an attempt at ethnic stereotype humor.

 

Well, ethnic humor is a good reason for anything.

·         While originally saying that the alleged impediments referred to deserved exclamation marks because they were of a candidate for the episcopacy, he now says that the matter was settled by bringing it to the attention of Metropolitans Theodosius and Herman.

If it was settled, then it didn't need to be brought up again, did it?  He didn’t need to specify the ‘learned Archimandrite,’ did he?

·         Then he compares the general knowledge that sin is confessed in confession with revealing specific details of a specific confession from a confidential document in the DOW files.

I know he is an intelligent man. If he is fooling even himself with this strained comparison, it is pure willfulness.

Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) shows little regard for the fact that he is not supposed to use the confidential records of his previous office as fodder for his comedy routine. He is not the rightful keeper of those documents, and even now he could not walk into his old office and see them at his leisure. These are the property of the DOW, not him.

He certainly ought not to offer the names of people who have come to him for confession.   Despite his own indulgence in self-pity for being advoided by the other Bishops, one can only wonder why he hasn’t figured out by now that the other hierarchs of the OCA might not want their communications with him to end up as ammunition for his virulent internet postings.

It was good enough reason for Mark Stokoe to be removed from the Metropolitan Council.  After all, how can the other members work with someone who is so interested in revealing their confidential communications?

We all act differently when we are being watched, and so we tend to guard our mouths against saying things too over the top.

If these are the kinds of remarks Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) in his more guarded, public moments, one can hardly imagine what thoughts he must indulge in when in private.

The Metropolitan, the Synod, and the Metropolitan Council

The recent reflection of Mark Stokoe reveals an inherent potential conflict between the Synod and the Metropolitan Council that has been forming for at leastthe last half decade. Let's give it a look!

History: Past is prologue

Those who watched the OCA in the 90's through the scandal of 2006 – 2008¹, will have memories of the way things were, and how they came to where we are today. These memories are extremely fresh for some of us. The basic documentation is plain enough in the SIC report, and in the archived on-line controversies.

The basic governing entities of the OCA had failed, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council, and the All American Council had either been subverted or abdicated responsibility. Sometimes, when one of these bodies would rouse itself, a little, it would simply be ignored.

When this fact became public and obvious, there was a deep crisis in the OCA, deeper than the scandal itself. It's hardly a secret that “conciliarity” and “autocephaly” not to mention “canonical” do not mean exactly the same thing to all parties, to say the least! But no matter how you slice it, canonicity, conciliarity and autocephaly did not prevent the paralyzing and embarrassing scandal. It wasn't supposed to work like this.

·         the canonicity of the OCA, not it's “canonical standing in “world Orthodoxy” but its internal adherence to the canons: in having a Synod of bishops who were ruling bishops of properly erected dioceses and as a Synod were the supreme authority.

·         The conciliarity of the OCA, where in the input of all sectors of the OCA had a role in governance, supremely through the All-American Council and in the interim through the Metropolitan Council. This has a long history in the OCA, going way back, involving some of our most beloved Fathers: initiatives of St. Tikhon in holding the first All American Sobor, to Metropolitan Leonty, who fostered the implementation in the statute of ideas from the great All Russian Sobor of 1917 – 1918, at which he was a delegate. Conciliarity in the OCA goes back way before Fr. Alexander Schmemann!!

·         Autocephaly, the crowning achievement, which was supposed to allow the canonical structures mentioned above to function without political interference or agendas from abroad.

The fact that all of these failed to function was deeply demoralizing to the OCA, to say the least. And the disappointment could be felt regardless of one's take on “conciliarity”.

Leadership versus Pinch Hitting

During the turbulent years of the open scandal from 2006 – 2008, it is essential to note that the first of any of these bodies to rouse to action was the Metropolitan Council. The All-American Council obviously was not in session. More importantly, the Metropolitan and the Synod were always slower to act. Metropolitan Herman (Swaiko) seemed unable to ever get ahead of the ball, nor did he lead the Synod to consensus, which was a tall order as two bishops, the then Bishop of the West, Tikhon (Fitzgerald) and the then Bishop of Alaska, Nikolai (Soraich) blamed those who made the allegations and opposed any efforts of cleaning house. With the publication of the SIC report, it became clear that other bishops had direct knowledge of some of the allegations before the scandal was public. Rather than over-rule the minority and consistently move forward, Metropolitan Herman and the Synod under his presidency seemed that it could only take a step forward when pushed. Metropolitan Herman failed to remember the “Nixon lesson” - it's the cover up that will kill you, and paid for it by losing his place as Metropolitan.

Now it is of the very nature of the Episcopate that the Synod is slower, more conservative, and more reflective a body than the Metropolitan Council. But in the years of 2006 – 2008 this imbalance approached dangerous proportions. At the 15^th All-American Council in 2008, there was a certain discomfort amongst some delegates. However praiseworthy and needful the role of the Metropolitan council in the years of trouble, there was a feeling that the Metropolitan Council

·         had become too powerful,

·         had become a sort of co-equal “branch” relative to the Synod,

·         was too “activist”

·         that the accrued power and “activism” of the Council was becoming a permanent feature of the “new order”.

·         Had become somewhat allergic to deferring to the Synod.

·         The “activism” strain was in part symbolized by the election of Mark Stokoe to the Metropolitan Council.

When one reviews the past history, it starts to become clear that it is hardly unexpected that the Metropolitan Council would revert to it's own activism and almost seem, in some of its members explicitly, as if the Metropolitan Council has a veto on the Metropolitan, can call for his dismissal, hold him as “any other member” of the Council to account. However understandable certain of those perspectives are, I do not think they can be approved of.

But with the election of Metropolitan Jonah, and the generally positive tone on which the All American Council ended, it was hoped by many that the balance would be restored: a Synod with good will and cooperation, chaired by a popular Metropolitan, could channel the Metropolitan Council, and if need be check it within appropriate boundaries. Moreover the new Metropolitan had articulated a vision of hierarchical conciliarity that the OCA at large seemed ready to endorse.

The Division

The key thing here is to realize that to most if not all of the bishops on the Holy Synod, this was the goal. For many members of the Metropolitan Council, they are jealous of their new prerogatives and do not wish to abandon them. This is very important, the Metropolitan Council at current and the Synod at current hardly think alike or have identical visions.

Since the last All American Council, this potential conflict has been circumvented in the most unexpected, (in 2008) manner – both bodies find themselves in conflict with Metropolitan Jonah. In fact all the interests of the Synod and her members would indicate that they wanted, desired, and needed the Leave of Absence given Metropolitan Jonah to work – to restore a working unity to the Synod. In no way are their interests served by “allowing” let alone supporting the Metropolitan Council or a faction thereof to force any hierarch out.

Why then did the Synod force the leave of absence, make the limitations it did and so forth at the spring session? The logical conclusion is that when the Chancery Staff, the Metropolitan Council, the Synod – Bishops, Clergy and Laity from all overth OCA, representing many, many different point of views and approaches – are all having the same problems, those problems are in fact real.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1The years of the scandal are the years when the scandal was the prime issue in the OCA. The allegations were public as of late 2005, but began to consume the attention of the OCA in the beginning of 2006. I am marking the end of this period with the 15^th All American Council in 2008 and the election of Metropolitan Jonah.

The Depths of Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) - just when you thought he could sink no lower

Recently, one of our favorite hierarchs decided to weigh-in with more of his gossip. Now, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) is known for his indecorous remarks on the internet. I have documented some of them, and will have more to share as time permits. But this, by a long shot, takes the cake.

There’s the pertinent excerpt from the blog ‘Monomakhos’:

In the OCA, and before that, the Russian Metropolia, candidates for ordination must, just prior (usually on the eve) to the actual laying on of hands, have made a full life confession to their (or a) spiritual father. They must also take an oath before the precious Cross and the book of Gospels. They must certify to this on a certificate. Below the place for a candidate to sign, there is a block labelled “Certificate of Spiritual Father” in which is space for about 5 lines of typing and then a line onto which the Priest who heard the life confession puts his signature. For an ordination to proceed, the Spiritual Father must state in that block that he has heard the life’s confession of the candidate. It is expected (and found on 99 per cent of the certificates on file at the Chancery and in the Archives) that the Priest will add the words, “and there are no impediments to ordination.” After that block, there’s a block for the ordaining Bishop, of the same size, into which the Bishop enters ‘I, N, Bishop of N. ordained X to the Holy Priesthood/Diaconate at X date and at X parish. Then he signs it.

I was astonished one day, when reading through my diocesan personnel files, which I was reorganizing, to find the following remark by an Archpriest, now retired and living in Minnesota, which went like this: “i have heard the confession of X. He has (my caps) REPENTED OF ALL CANONICAL IMPEDIMENTS.”
I think that merits several exclamation points, because the man was ordained anyhow and is now a learned archimandrite and candidate for a vacant see in the OCA. The ordaining Bishop fell asleep years ago, so there is no way to confront him and ask him, “Did you actually READ this before you ordained X?”

http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/09/the-king-of-righteousness-and-the-amazing-uncanonical-dreamcoat/#comment-11505

Yes, that’s right: Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) divulged the contents of a confession on the internet. Not one that he heard, but rather one that another priest heard, and he has left no doubt as to who heard the confession and who gave it.

Now, there are not too many retired Archpriests living in Minnesota, nor are there many candidatesfor the episcopal rank. Why be so specific? Obviously, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) wants everyone to know who he is talking about.

He could have made mention of the note without specifying which state the confessor now lives in or what the confessee is up too. Like so:

I was astonished one day, when reading through my diocesan personnel files, which I was reorganizing, to find the following remark by a priest, now retired, which went like this: “i have heard the confession of X. He has (my caps) REPENTED OF ALL CANONICAL IMPEDIMENTS.”
I think that merits several exclamation points, because the man was ordained anyhow. The ordaining Bishop fell asleep years ago, so there is no way to confront him and ask him, “Did you actually READ this before you ordained X?”

That would have made no difference to the thrust of his post on the process of the life confession before ordination.

If Bp. Tikhon feels that this is important he should write to the members of the Synod. A blog is hardly the place to bring something like this up.

There is only one ‘learned archimandrite’ who is also candidate for a vacant diocese in the OCA. In fact, there is at the moment only one formal candidate who is to be presented to the Synod. And the then pastor of his home parish is retired and in the state mentioned. It is fairly easy to figure out the year and the ruling bishop as well. (There is a slight uncertainty as this could have been before his diaconal or presbyteral ordination).

At the time, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) was assigned to the parish next over, and, as Fr. Stephen Fitzgerald, would never have had access to this document were he not eventually consecrated to the episcopacy as the later replacement for then ruling bishop. Thus, having for a time licit access to these records, he took it upon himself to remember their gory details so that he could share them at an opportune time, such as commenting on the Monomakhos blog.

This Archimandrite is now finding himself accused in the most under-handed and passive-aggressive manner, which we can always trust Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) to execute. Why he has decided to question Fr. X’s morality (or lack thereof) in a public forum rather than by following proper canonical procedures is a question only Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) can answer.

In one post, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) smeared the reputation of one of his predecessors, a Bishop held in very high regard, an Archpriest and Father Confessor, and the Archimandrite.

It should be obvious to even the casual reader that Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) wants us all to ask, “Gee, Vladyka, what canonical impediments could he have repented of?” Yes, folks, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) once again would like all of us to sit back and dream a bit about what ‘canonical impediments’ a 34-year-old single man can accomplish during his lifetime. He is pushing the ‘gutter button’ of every reader’s imagination, but he will obviously state that it is your fault. He didn’t really say what it is that the Archimandrite did. He just opened the door by suggesting there are problems.

Of course, in an age where ‘stolen emails’ are debated as to whether their contents should be heeded or ignored, the stolen confession of a seminarian by a hierarch will, I fear, go unnoticed.

The motives are not too hard to find either. The Archimandrite in question was considered the “front runner” in 1987 when Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) was elected Bishop of San Francisco. Given that the Archimandrite is indeed learned while Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) dropped out of SVS in his first year, one does wonder how he ever got to be the “dark horse” candidate, or a candidate at all.

Bishop Tikhon’s (Fitzgerald) swipe at the Father Confessor is also no surprise.

Psalm 126, vv 3-5 -- Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one's youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

One son of the Father Confessor, also a priest, was a vocal and never-anonymous critic of the Kondratick administration, continuing his demands that Bob Kondratick be called to account for his transgressions against the OCA. Another was the General Counsel for the OCA during Bob Kondratick’s 2008 lawsuit for $25 million.

Given that Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) has never publicly repented of being a supporter of Bob Kondratick, we can see why he would want to smear the father of two men who shamed and ultimately defeated Bob Kondratick.

The real question is how long is this retired purveyor of stale gossip going to be allowed to trade on his high rank to violate both the Canons and simple decency, and this time to go so far as to divulge confessions??

(NOTE: While the original draft of this used the rather obvious names of the persons in question, and they are hardly difficult to figure, (the fact that Bp. Tikhon made it absolutely clear exactly of whom he was speaking is obviously one of the main points of this post.) Spartion has decided to edit this post so as not to further the break of confidence. So some of our readers will know, and others won't, but could probably figure it quickly. The identities of those gossiped about are not really germane. The depths to which Bp. Tikhon will sink to attack those against whom he has a grudge is.)

Back

Well, it gives me no joy, but it seems, some new contributions are in order from Spartion Geometrias.

But first a little housecleaning. The usage of names on this blog became an issue. It was used for clarity (and a bit for convenience) . I didn't and don't think that using a family name is somehow less respectful than “+HB”, “+HG”, “BN” or “+Tikhon”. It was never my intent to offend any with that by the use of the family names. But issue of style must take a back seat to issues of substance, so from here on out I will adopt a more formal style. Any how, back to the “issues”.

No, dear reader, Spartion and friends don't really enjoy this, and with what seemed like a workable resolution after Pascha, the fire to keep at it waned.

It did seem for a bit there that things were functioning with a sort of normality. Mark Stokoe's role was eventually reviewed by the appropriate authority, Bishop Matthias (Moriak) of Chicago and the Midwest. Bp. Matthias rendered his decision, and removed Stokoe from the Metropolitan Council, removing something of a conflict of interest, showing that the proper authorities do act when they have the time and space to do so, and and revealing to all what should have been obvious all along – that Stokoe's blog is Stokoe's, not some quasi-official mouthpiece. (The reason for the similarity of Stokoe's position and many others is because Stokoe was observing the same facts, not because he was controlling all the organs of the OCA).

Similarly, the unfortunate situation regarding Archimandrite Zaccheus (Wood), until this summer representative of the OCA in Moscow, revealed some rather “normal” Church order. Bp. Tikhon (Fitzgerald), retired Bishop of San Francisco and the West, could not restrain himself from “noting” the fall of one of Bob Kondratick's nemeses.

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind1107D&L=ORTHODOX&T=0&F=&S=&P=25300

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind1107D&L=ORTHODOX&T=0&F=&S=&P=25997

At the same time Jesse Cone at OCA Truth was having a right little fit. He seems to have elevated opposition to leaves of absence to a Dogma of the Faith, since he accused OCA.org of heresy for announcing, as briefly as possible, that Fr. Zaccheus was on leave. The representative to Moscow could not just disappear. Maybe in Moscow 1937, for an Archimandrite to just disappear was par for the course, but now it seems the Moscow Patriarchate and many others beside just might like to know who the representative of the OCA to Moscow is at the moment. The announcement was as brief as possible and included absolutely no accusation or pre-judgment. Beyond what it said, the further details at that time were none of our business.

But to most of us it seemed that we could see a beginning of at least being able to muddle through. Things were working, maybe not optimally, but they were working. Since these events however, we seem to be returning to paralysis, on the eve of the All American Council of the OCA.