The Hole in the Conspiracy Narrative

As those of you who are following the ‘Conspiracy Against Metropolitan Jonah’ being strung along, there is a curious piece of the story that is missing.  Let us examine this for a moment.

Here are the main points of the Conspiracy Narrative:

-- Mark Stokoe is a homosexual seeking to bring the OCA in line with the  Episcopal Church when it comes to homosexual immorality.

-- Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) is against such immorality.

-- Stokoe has manipulated the Metropolitan Council and the entire Holy Synod against Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen), preparing for the compromise of the OCA’s morality.

-- All those who do not unquestioningly support Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) are part of this homosexual conspiracy.

-- You must either support Stokoe or Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen).

This is obviously a simplistic outline, but outlines are by nature without nuances of meaning.

Now, here’s a the problem with that narrative: Bishop Matthias (Moriak).

On August 9^th, Bishop Matthias (Moriak) unceremoniously fires Mark Stokoe from the Metropolitan Council, directly citing his activities on the internet  as unacceptable.  Here’s the message Stokoe got from Bishop Matthias (Moriak)-

Membership in the Metropolitan Council and the Diocesan Council are privileges and honors bestowed upon those who should be examples of faithful living and the promoting of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether we are clergy or lay people, we are to be examples of living the Orthodox way of life.

In the months that I have been administrator of the diocese and now its archpastor, I have observed the divisiveness and the promoting of gossip that your website “Orthodox Christians for Accountability” provides. It is not a healthy vehicle for the Church. It has hampered Pan-Orthodox unity, and it has encouraged those who disrespect the clergy and the Church to express their distain and sometimes outright hatred for the Church, the hierarchs, the clergy and its faithful.

As the archpastor of this diocese, I can no longer tolerate the existence of this website being administered by a member of the Metropolitan Council and Diocesan Council. Your representation on these Councils leaves the impression, whether correct or not, that I approve of your website, and I do not! You once even wrote on your website when someone was criticizing you that “you had your bishop’s blessing to be on the Metropolitan Council and Diocesan Council”. At this time, I am removing that blessing. Upon the reception of this letter, you are hereby dismissed from serving on the Metropolitan Council and Diocesan Council. Alternate members will assume your positions for the remainder of your terms.

It saddens me to do this because I do see the talent and abilities that you possess that could be helpful to the Church. Unfortunately, you cannot serve two masters! You cannot serve the Church in these capacities while providing a website that is counterproductive to Church life.

The final straw that “broke the camel’s back” for me was when you printed a lengthy article promoting homosexuality, written by an anonymous author. That article was a complete distortion of the Church’s teachings and twisted the canons of the Church to justify its position. If that isn’t bad enough, the author did not have the courage to put his name on the article. It appears to me that if someone cannot reveal themselves in the light, they are coming from darkness.

I can only hope and pray that someday you yourself will realize the harm this website brings to the Church and you will decide to close it down. The time has come for us to work together for the glory of God and His precious Bride, the Church!

It looks as if Bishop Matthias (Moriak) is pretty unequivocal on the matter of homosexuality.  Yet, he is not mentioned by Conspiracy Theorists as a supporter of Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen).

 

Why is this?  The narrative that one must either be for one ‘side’ or the other rests on the assumption that the conflict between the Holy Synod and Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) on the matter of homosexuality and its acceptance or rejection by the OCA, and more broadly on “culture war” positions.

 

The fact of the matter is that the conflict really has little to do with homosexuality: Bishop Michael (Dahulich) is another hierarch who speaks unequivocally on the matter (most of us have already read his diocese’s resolution), and yet he is part of the Synod that is attacked, counted as an ‘enemy’ of Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) by the Conspiracy Theorists.

Tolerance towards homosexual conduct (including the absolute perversity of transsexual surgery and the mutilation of one’s body!) is incompatible with the Church, period.  Stokoe’s active homosexuality makes his candidacy for any office of the Church a no-go, but it does not necessarily make him a liar.  He’s been right on facts more often than not, since no one really questions the fact that both Metropolitans Theodosius (Lazor) and Herman (Swaiko) were morally impaired when it came to money.

 

But, the situation is far more complicated than Metropolitan Jonah versus Mark Stokoe.  The Fabulous Four (Bishops Tikhon [Fitzgerald] & Nikolai [Soraich], Fr. Joseph Fester and Bob Kondratick) are not backing Metropolitan Jonah out any commitment to heterosexuality.  After all, the indiscretions Bishop Nikolai tries to pin on Bishop Benjamin (Peterson) did not bother them enough at the time to prevent them from recommending Bishop Benjamin for consecration!  None of the Fabulous Four ever had a reputation for standing up to immorality.  Rather, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) loves to drop hints about the sins he witnessed but never did anything about.

We must look beyond the political veneer and see what is happening underneath. 

Only when we see Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen) leading the Holy Synod by engaging his brethren will we see the real ‘cleaning’ that needs to take place in the OCA, in such places as SVOTS, New Skete and other stavropegial institutions that need to be reformed.

Despair versus Hope

If you listen to Stanley Drezhlo or Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald), the OCA appears to be coming to an end. Yes, everything is hopeless, though for very different reasons. I would like to offer a theory as to why their despair is a sign that there is hope for the future of the OCA.
 

Why would anyone take these two ‘fringe’ characters seriously to begin with?

  

Stanley (known after is cosmetic surgery as ‘Barbara Marie,’ which is neither his birth name nor his Baptismal name) Drezhlo is desperate for the OCA to collapse and be absorbed into the Moscow Patriarchate. But, he never asks the real question: why would Moscow want the OCA? The OCA is not that Russian. The old Slavic base in the OCA was more Carpatho-Rusyn than Russian, and the OCA has gone beyond its Slavic base.

 

They are entirely different when it comes to church politics as well. The crisis in confidence was only deepened by Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen)'s reported attempt to invoke 'primacy as exercised in the Moscow Patriarchate', which is among the most centralized, if not the very most centralized of the Autocephalous Churches. And the Church in Russia lives in a culture which has a distinct taste for centralization, quite unlike America in that regard.

 

Moscow does well with ‘real’ Russians, something that the OCA lacks. In major cities, those “new” Russians pack the ROCOR churches in droves (during holidays). Moscow, it may be remembered, took drastic measures to keep control of Sourozh in England. Now we must remember that Sourozh has a lot of new Russian émigrés. It makes sense from a Russian perspective to keep hold of it. But, why the OCA? It is poor, uninfluential and (mostly) ethnically unrelated to Moscow. Liturgically speaking, the comparison is an even bigger stretch: the average parish hears no Slavonic, and in certain places, including (especially?) influential stavropegia (SVOTS and, of course, New Skete), there is a relish in dumping “19^th century Russian” liturgics.

The OCA clearly has many 'issues' to resolve, and just as clearly will refuse to solve them in an MP way. Why would the MP want to 'own' it?

Therefore, Stanley Drezhlo’s odd craving for a transsexual-embracing, Communist-dominated (somehow without the religious persecution) Russian concept is unrelated to the OCA other than for historical purposes and the delusions that Mr. Drezhlo has about both his own sexual identity and Russia in general. His politics are centralized, and so is his view of church politics. No surprises, except perhaps that which he will experience if he ever sets foot in his ‘Russian paradise’ only to discover that his loyalty to the Motherland still won’t get him restored to communion until he renounces his homosexuality and starts living like a man again. Russians are not a gay-friendly tribe.

Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) is also a leftist and so also for centralized control. This is part of why he pines for the days of Bob Kondratick running the OCA’s benign-neglect reign of Metropolitan Theodosius (Lazor). The Holy Synod was largely self-absorbed as the bishops gazed intensely at their own dioceses while ignoring the greater OCA. Metropolitan Theodosius (Lazor) pretty much did what he wanted, which was not much, but that was OK with all the bishops because it meant that they didn’t have to work together. If there was a conflict, Bob came in with a solution, usually involving cash that seemed to magically appear and disappear.

His despair came with the realization that the quiet world of the early years when his cathedral in LA was packed with immigrants and the Slavonic services were packed have given way to an almost empty church in a Hispanic neighborhood, and the immigrants have been replaced by converts who don’t share his fantasies. When Bob Kondratick’s Episcopal baby-sitting service ended with his removal and deposition, Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) could no longer remain as bishop because he simply could not handle the strain of cooperating with the other bishops on the Holy Synod.

He, he threatened to retire and everyone accepted his offer with gladness.

The new Holy Synod now requires a very different touch. Metropolitan Jonah’s (Paffhausen) problems appear to stem from his inability to lead in a more pluralistic context, which is how Synods are supposed to function. He received bad advice from Moscow (a centralized church) and Fr. Joseph Fester (a remnant of the Kondratick regime), which was bad match for his pre-existing character. He didn’t take charge of Syosset, he moved away from it. He didn’t build consensus on the Holy Synod, but rather avoided working with the individual bishops one-on-one prior to Holy Synod meetings to bring the various hierarchs together.

Stanley Drezhlo and Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) want a dictator, but the hope for the OCA is a balanced Holy Synod that works together to preach the Gospel and build up the Faithful. The weaknesses of the OCA really do come from over-centralization: dictators sacrifice effectiveness for control. Many of the most festering problems have gone along unchecked for decades as the central administration amassed power, locum tenencies, elaborate 'programs', and of course assessments and had no energy left over to actually use that power.

But, there is hope so long as the Holy Synod’s members continue to work together.

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.

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.