The Exonerated Play Pdfslink' title='The Exonerated Play Pdfslink' />Dr. Don Huber sent a concerning letter to Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack about the long term effects of glyphosate. Read the full letter here. A good storyteller never lets the facts get in the way. When an event is preserved in song and story, the.

Contents • • • • • • Plot [ ] The work combines first-person narrative with legal records to tell the stories of six wrongfully convicted inmates:,,,, and, and their paths to freedom. The production is performed as an by 10 actors seated behind music stands. Their accounts of the freed convicts emphasize their lives after being sentenced to death, including much of the legal proceedings that gained their exoneration. Cast [ ] The original cast was as follows: • – • – • – • – • Sue Gauger/Sandra – • Male Ensemble –, • – • – • Georgia Hayes, et al. – Productions [ ] During the summer of 2000, Jensen and Blank traveled to interview 40 former inmates who had been freed by the state after having served as much as 22 years in prison. After previews beginning on October 1, the play debuted on October 10, 2002 at 45 Bleecker Theater, directed. The original run lasted from October 10, 2002 to March 7, 2004.

A revival of the play ran from September 19, 2012 to December 2, 2012 at the same theater, with a rotating cast that included,,,, and. The play was later performed for a 16-week run at the Riverside Studios theater in London, where it was supported by death penalty opponent. In December 2002, the play was performed by a cast that included, and, for Illinois Governor, other politicians, and attorneys.

A group of exonerated individuals also attended. Ryan was reviewing how to handle death row inmates in light of the publicity surrounding those who had been convicted during Chicago Police Commander 's tenure, which ended when he was fired in 1993. He had been the subject of numerous complaints to the police board and suits against the city for abusing suspects and coercing confessions. In 2006 the results of an investigation were presented to the city of Chicago, saying there was evidence sufficient to indict Burge, but the statute of limitations for the crimes had been exceeded. Ryan declared a moratorium on the use of the death sentence in the state in 2000.

In early January 2003, shortly before he left office, he pardoned four men whom he believed to be innocent. On January 11, 2003, having lost confidence in the state's penal system, Ryan commuted the death sentences of 167 prisoners on Illinois’ death row to life imprisonment. He said that would allow them to appeal their convictions. In 2005, the play was adapted into of the same name, starring, and. That February, published Jenson and Blank's memoir, Living Justice: Love, Freedom and the Making of The Exonerated. Awards [ ] The original production, which ran for 608 performances, won the 2003 for Unique Theatrical Experience, the 2003, and the 2003 for Outstanding Off-Broadway Play. It has also won the ' Champion of Justice Award and 's Scales of Justice Award.

• ^ Isherwood, Charles (October 13, 2002)... Retrieved July 17, 2015. • ^ Brantley, Ben (October 11, 2002)... Retrieved July 16, 2015. The Culture Project. Retrieved July 17, 2015. Retrieved July 16, 2015.

• Jaworowski, Ken (September 19, 2012)... Retrieved July 16, 2015. • Stransky, Tanner (September 19, 2012)...

Retrieved July 23, 2015. February 20, 2006.

Retrieved July 17, 2015. • Jones, Chris (December 18, 2002)... Retrieved July 17, 2015. • ^ Bussel, Rachel Kramer (April 11, 2005)... Archived from on February 20, 2015. Retrieved July 17, 2015. • ^ Ferkenhoff, Eric (July 19, 2006)...

Retrieved July 16, 2008. • Wilgoren, Jodi (January 10, 2003)... Retrieved November 17, 2007. • Flock, Jeff (January 13, 2003).. Archived from on February 8, 2008.

Retrieved October 5, 2007. • Lowry, Brian (January 26, 2005)... Retrieved July 17, 2015.

• Hernandez, Ernio (March 7, 2004)... Retrieved July 17, 2015. • Jones, Ken (May 5, 2003)... Retrieved July 17, 2015. • Simonson, Robert (May 19, 2003)...

Retrieved July 17, 2015. • Gans, Andrew (May 5, 2003)... Retrieved July 17, 2015.

External links [ ] • at Lortel.org's Internet Off-Broadway Database.

I’m not sure what to make of this. My feelings in general have been that the Syosset Apparat simply doesn’t know how to play the game. In this sense, they could learn a thing or two from the GOA. When Archbishop Spyridon Papageorge’s primacy proved to be untenable, the Archons gave him a very generous severance package.

Syosset seems to be unable to grasp this concept, hence its reversion to form: step out of line, get whacked. It’s sad really.

Particularly in this case. Bishop Matthias Moriak’s transgression was unfortunate but it wasn’t malicious.

Texting is juvenile to be sure but it’s only dangerous when driving. Regardless it doesn’t rise to the level of malfeasance that actual physical contact does, no matter what the fine ladies at SNAP may think. I’ve always said that the re-centralization of the OCA in the offices of Syosset and especially with the agency of a Sex Czar (who, we are told is the niece of the current primate) does not bode well for the future. Such hyper-centralization is not the hallmark of a mature Church. I’ll say this until I’m blue in the face, a truly autocephalous Church has independent dioceses.

That’s where the work of the Church takes place. Source: HT: (Chicago Tribune) – The former Chicago bishop of the Orthodox Church in America who was asked to retire amid allegations of sexual misconduct two years ago has sued church leaders, claiming they breached that retirement contract. The lawsuit against Metropolitan Tikhon, primate of the Orthodox Church in America, and Detroit Archbishop Nathaniel, leader of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate, was filed in Cook County Circuit Court last month. Both defendants were served during the national Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in Chicago. Bishop Matthias alleges that church leaders violated the terms of his retirement and a recent employment agreement when they terminated a parish assignment in response to complaints from the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP. “This is a case about broken promises and the repeated failure to honor one’s legal obligations,” the suit says. “The legal questions involved are not complex.

Indeed, they require only a straightforward application of civil law.” Officials with the Orthodox Church in America declined to comment, citing a church policy “to not comment on any active or potential legal activities.” Bishop Matthias’ assignment to a parish in Pennsylvania angered victims’ advocates who said allowing the ousted bishop to return to any form of active ministry violated the church’s zero-tolerance policy. Bishop Matthias, born David Lawrence Moriak, stepped down from his post as head of the Midwest diocese in April 2013 after the church determined that remarks to a female parishioner in Ohio qualified as sexual misconduct. “I do repent of using poor judgment, of using inappropriate words that I thought were being received as humorous,” Matthias said at the time of his ouster. “It was never my intention to cause a complaint of any harm or discomfort.” Terms of the retirement package included permission for Bishop Matthias to serve in any parish, as long as he had the blessing of the local bishop. That agreement included the parish in Columbus, Ohio, where his son serves as a priest.

Though the Orthodox Church allows its priests to marry and have children, only monastic priests can become bishops. Bishop Matthias never remarried after the death of his wife in 1997 and entered monastic life in 2003. He became a bishop when he came to Chicago in 2010.

After agreeing to retire in 2013, Bishop Matthias moved to West Virginia, where he purchased a home and secured a retail job to make ends meet. According to the suit, Archbishop Nathaniel, the most senior bishop in the denomination and leader of the Romanian Episcopate, contacted him in November 2014 to fill a parish post temporarily in Hermitage, Pa. Because of the temporary nature of the job and the required move, Bishop Matthias initially declined the request, the suit said.

Archbishop Nathaniel returned six months later to offer a guaranteed one-year appointment approved by Metropolitan Tikhon and other bishops, according to the suit, leading Bishop Matthias to quit his retail job, lease his house and move to Hermitage. According to the suit, after victims’ advocates aired their concerns in July, Metropolitan Tikhon told Bishop Matthias he could continue to serve with his blessing, but any references to his position had to be removed from the parish website. Bishop Matthias declined, the suit said. Melanie Sakoda, a member of SNAP, said she’s not surprised by the allegations in the complaint that the church tried to keep the reassignment under the radar. “The OCA has been dragged kicking and screaming into making changes,” she said. “Bishop Matthias is a hard case for them because there was no touching involved.” In August, according to the suit, Metropolitan Tikhon proposed removing Bishop Matthias from the Pennsylvania parish to participate in a three-month clergy supervisory plan in residence at a monastery with a $7,000 stipend. He also acknowledged in that email that Bishop Matthias had “acted in good faith in all of this” and admitted that he and the bishops “failed in fulfilling” their “responsibility,” the suit said.

Bishop Matthias seeks damages, including lost wages and expenses incurred during the move from West Virginia to Pennsylvania. The suit also claims Bishop Matthias has suffered emotional distress. “After losing his beloved wife, the church was his entire life,” the suit said. “And now that, too, was being taken away from him.” The Orthodox Church in America, one of several branches of Orthodox Christianity in the U.S., claims about 100,000 adult members nationwide and 5,000 in the Midwest. Watch out, Monk James, some time back I made a tongue in cheek quip that it was refreshing to have the rumor this time be of a cleric who was tempted by women, and I was scolded by someone who thought I was advocating having bishops take advantage of vulnerable women.

As I recall, this texting situation was actually portrayed as worse than gay bishops cavorting because in the latter situations no-one vulnerable is being taken advantage of. Never mind the fact that gay bishops are actually in a much more privileged position when it comes to exploiting young men with homosexual temptations — unlike a woman, such a young man can’t out the bishop without outing himself. Call me crazy, but I think a homosexual bishop is a far greater risk for going undetected and undisciplined as a predator than is a straight bishop with an eye for the ladies.

What’s unfortunate is that the young woman in question was a CATECHUMEN when Bishop Matthias approached her. In her own words: “... I feel as though my naivete and unfamiliarity with how to interact with clergy was taken advantage of...” I would be very surprised if she is still in the Church. If she is, it is only by the grace of God, because WE certainly didn’t support her. Catechumens are the “little ones.” Read Mark 9:42 and see what Christ thinks should happen to those who cause them to stumble. – You won’t read anything in there about a generous severance package, I promise you that. What OOM is ‘not aware of’ is not at issue.

Like many others, though, I — personally — am aware not only of active homosexuality among our OCA bishops, but also of their failure to censure actively homosexual clergy in their various jurisdictions. Given all that, the OCA’s ‘policy on sexual misconduct’ is a joke.

It would be OK for people with same-sex attractions to swear to celibacy and enter monastic life. It would not and will never be OK for men with same-sex attractions to marry falsely (this happens) so that they can be ordained to the priesthood, or to conceal that fact from their spiritual fathers so that they might be ordained to the episcopate, although — God help us — this happens, too. Lord, have mercy on us, for we are weak. Monk James: Like many others, though, I — personally — am aware not only of active homosexuality among our OCA bishops Monk James has personally witnessed the sex among active OCA bishops?

Monk James: Given all that, the OCA’s ‘policy on sexual misconduct’ is a joke. Does ANY church or organization have a policy against sex between consenting adults?

What an absurd idea. Monk James: Lord, have mercy on us, for we are weak. A phony insincere prayer worthy of a phony insincere monk. A Christian says: “God be merciful to me a sinner.”. “Does ANY church or organization have a policy against sex between consenting adults?

What an absurd idea.” Every single one that wants to protect themselves and those for whom they are responsible: – Colleges and universities have a policy forbidding relationships between professors and students. – Corporations have a policy forbidding relationships between bosses and employees. – The military has a policy forbidding relationships between commanding officers and subordinates. Consent cannot exist when there is a power disparity between the parties. All of these policies recognize that disparity, and seek to prevent the more powerful party from taking advantage of the weaker.

All the more should the Church seek to prevent a hierarch or presbyter from taking advantage of a member of the laity. When I think of the untold numbers of lawyers and other professionals who have married their secretaries, doctors who have married their office or ward nurses, and those similarly situated, that I have known personally in a reasonably long and unsheltered life, I know “consent cannot exist where there is a power disparity between the parties” to be untrue. It’s a common enough rubric these days, no doubt.

It’s pure lawyer-talk (as I well know). “Lawyer talk” meaning: designed to extract money from someone. When I think of all the “presbyters” I have represented in civil and ecclesiastical cases, which have included any number of Protestant parsons and a couple of non-Protestant ones, in matters arising from carnal relations, I figure the bulk of them would be better described as “stupid” rather than “powerful”!

Or more accurate yet: weak. Kurt: “Does ANY church or organization have a policy against sex between consenting adults?

What an absurd idea.” Every single one that wants to protect themselves and those for whom they are responsible Kurt is correct, and the question was poorly phrased. There was a disparity of power between +Matthias and his victim.

It is right that the OCA’s policy protects the victim in that case. What is wrong is to suggest, as Monk James does, that there is some kind of moral equivalency between the despicable actions of +Matthias against his victim, and what Monk James considers to be improper sexual relationships between bishops and other consenting adults, where no power disparity between the parties exists. So, just to be clear: If two bishops had sex with each other, that would be okay? If two protopresbyters had sex with each other, that would be okay? But, if an archdeacon had sex with a deacon, that would be wrong? 🙂 Just for the record, we’re talking about a lot more than what Kurt correctly identifies as the problematic nature of sexual relationships where a power disparity is involved.

Unless I’ve missed something, Jesus never talks in terms of “power disparity,” but rather a fairly absolute moral standard. Kurt: If the OCA breached a promise based on SNAP, then get out the checkbook. From the article: “According to the suit, after victims’ advocates aired their concerns in July, Metropolitan Tikhon told Bishop Matthias he could continue to serve with his blessing, but any references to his position had to be removed from the parish website. Bishop Matthias declined, the suit said.” Was part of the original agreement between +Matthias and the parish the condition that +Matthias could have his name on the website no matter what? It’s not plausible that the topic would even be discussed. Sounds like +Matthias balked when +Tikhon told him to remove his name from the website.

So, he wasn’t exactly fired. Is that really the basis of the lawsuit? Sounds very weak. If I have this correct, Bishop Matthias went off quietly to West Virginia to move on with his life and was called back by Archbishop Nathaniel to help a church basically as a priest. Bishop Nathaniel agreed to a contract and so did Bishop Matthias. When it became public knowledge that Bishop Mathias was serving again, he was forced to resign. It seems to me that the real offender in all of this is once again that great archbishop Nathaniel.

And clearly he didn’t pay Bishop Mathias or there would be no lawsuit. Assuming that a valid contract was entered into, the one who should be writing a check is archbishop Nathaniel. He is the fool that entered into the agreement knowing full well that this could blow up in his and the OCA’s face. The OCA is finally getting their act together but they need to put people like archbishop Nathaniel in a nice monastery away from people. Sorry to say, but what an incredibly bone-headed decision to bring bishop Matthias out of retirement and think that this wouldn’t get reported some where. If I have missed the facts somewhere, please enlighten me.

Bishop Matthias is loved and supported by the parish he currently serves. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be able to continue serving there while this plays out. The OCA breached Bishop Matthias’ retirement contract by pandering to Snap.

He committed no crime. Bishop Matthias uprooted his life to take a guaranteed assignment. This really is a no brainer.

The only way this will make it to court in my opinion is if Bishop Matthias refuses to settle because he simply wants to serve a parish of which he is guaranteed, and has no interest in a payout. Bishop Matthias seemingly has the upper hand because his contract was violated, and he has parish who loves and supports him. Please allow me to correct an error of information which I posted earlier in another thread.

Heise is NOT His Beatitude, Met. Tikhon’s niece according to Fr.

It was documented in the most recent Metropolitan Council minutes on page 3 found here:. As regards this law suit, I agree with you George. It is sad that it must be taken to this level but I don’t fault His Grace for feeling the need to take this step.

Syosset has mishandled everything regarding him from the gate and onward. This is just one more time of mishandling. What makes me VERY uncomfortable is the power the SNAP ladies have over Met. Tikhon et al. They say, “Jump!” and Syosset responds, “How high?” then proceeds to do what they ask. SNAP published info on Bishop Irineu Duvlea and have not posted anything that shows the allegations where false and clear his name. The real shame is that we do not know whether to believe Fr.

Jillions or the Internet postings. We have so little trust in Syosset, that we’ll spend hours digging through genealogies to discover if Fr.

Jillions statement of denial is accurate. He boldly stated that Mrs. Heise is not the niece. Well, is she or her husband a 2nd cousin or tangentially related in some other way? I cannot recall Fr. Jillions ever having been accused of or caught in a lie, and yet the doubt about his statement will linger. Why didn’t Met Tikhon go on record with the facts?

Why was the “truth” only revealed to insiders at a Met council meeting instead of broadcast publicly? If Syosset wants to take back control of the narrative, they should be jumping at every opportunity to put Varvara and SNAP back into their little corner of the internet by publicly correcting their errors. Otherwise, how do you begin to defend against the truly false accusations? Unless, of course, we still don’t actually have all the facts. Philippa says, “What makes me VERY uncomfortable is the power the SNAP ladies have...” I agree. Some years ago these gals called me, trying to get information about a monk in the OCA. I tried to explain to them that this monk’s bishop (Archbishop Demetri) had the situation well-in-hand, that proper ecclesiastical discipline was in place, that the offense happened before the man’s entrance into the Orthodox Church, that the offender actually joined the monastery as part of his repentance, that due reparation was in process under the normal supervision of the Church, that the faithful were being protected from scandal or any additional offense, that further public attention to the matter would be irresponsible, and so forth.

None of this made any difference. These ladies wanted blood and vengeance. The call did not end well. I can’t remember which of us slammed down the phone. While I agree that there is no place for sexual shenanigans in the Church, the SNAP business model allows no room for repentance. Miscreants should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (in the case of abused minors) but there is no place for “avenging angels” in the Church. Hence, I share your distaste for SNAP and probably would have reacted the same way you did.

Having said that, I think we both agree that “the fish rots from the head.” SNAP exists because there’s a vacuum of moral leadership in many jurisdictions. (You are fortunate Fr in this regard.) I might as well speak generally here: Scripture and Tradition dictate a well-ordered ecclesiology, which encompasses proper discipline. Broadly speaking, this discipline is largely absent in our churches. It’s next-to-impossible in a jurisdiction which has bishops who are geographically remote from the parishes.

That’s one reason I continue to believe in Orthodox unity in the US. To my simple mind, fifty-five bishops could intersperse themselves quite easily among the fifty states. The Catch-22 however is that as a whole, the present EAUSA contains more than a few *ahem* marginal men. I therefore heartily concur with your willingness to stand in the door of your parish barring the entrance of one of these men as the bishop of Chicago under such a new regime. I believe, like the Israelites in their wanderings in the desert, that ours is a wicked generation and that we must pass away before a more righteous people are rewarded with seeing the Promised Land of a united, American Orthodoxy. When you hear a story, consider the narrator as in Syosset and Snap.

Who are they? Why are they telling this story as they are? What feelings do they convey when they tell it? If there was true victimization, then the wish to retaliate is utterly understandable.

But what if the true story is not as it seems? You might have a strange lack of empathy.

Sometimes people dramatize. Some lie or they feel so injured for rational or irrational reasons that they come to believe their own distortions.

There are those who are at peace when they lie and those who toss, turn and torture themselves about doing so. In short, some people lie and some do not. You might wonder as you listen or read, is this person truly seeking wellness, self-protection or justice, or is the goal to destroy someone else? If a person is lying or distorting truth to hurt someone else it is a very aggressive act, and the accuser needs help.

Such choices do not foster a healthy existence with generous, loving relationships. Snap has at lest one priest and Bishop Matthias on their webpage, and they should not be there. These men have sexually abused no one. They have committed no crimes. To do such an act is very aggressive.

Being publicly branded a sexual abuser or predator when one did not commit these acts could lead a person to extreme psychological distress and disorders. People have committed suicide over far less. Once the information is out there, defending yourself, clearing your name, fighting suspicion and tolerating disdain is a horrible predicament. People with little information but text messages can form strong opinions and take unwarranted retaliatory action from expulsion from the clan to spreading the false or distorted word.

Such actions are unjustifiable, and pandering to them is abusive, and in this case seemingly illegal too. Thank God Bishop Matthias has the love and support of his parish.

Love and support from people who know and work with him on a day to day basis. A.P.: When you hear a story, consider the narrator as in Syosset and Snap. Who are they? Why are they telling this story as they are? What feelings do they convey when they tell it?

If there was true victimization, then the wish to retaliate is utterly understandable. But what if the true story is not as it seems?

You might have a strange lack of empathy. Sometimes people dramatize.

Some lie or they feel so injured for rational or irrational reasons that they come to believe their own distortions. There are those who are at peace when they lie and those who toss, turn and torture themselves about doing so. In short, some people lie and some do not. When you hear a story, consider the narrator as in the contributors at Monomakhos. Who are they? Why are they telling this story as they are?

What feelings do they convey when they tell it? If there was true victimization, then the wish to retaliate is utterly understandable. But what if the true story is not as it seems? You might have a strange lack of empathy. Sometimes people dramatize. Some lie or they feel so injured for rational or irrational reasons that they come to believe their own distortions. There are those who are at peace when they lie and those who toss, turn and torture themselves about doing so.

In short, some people lie and some do not. ‘Cake porn’ mistress admits to taking $30K from parish school By Isabel Vincent and Melissa KleinOctober 11, 2015 The NY Post ‘Cake porn’ mistress admits to taking $30K from parish school Father George Passias leaves St.

Spyridon Greek Orthodox Church in 2013 with his mistress, Edith Bouzalas. The mistress of pastry-porn priest George Passias helped herself to $30,000 on her way out the door as the parish school principal in a sex scandal that’s rocked the Greek Orthodox church. Ethel Bouzalas, 45, admits grabbing the cash — tuition money paid by parents at St. Spyridon Parochial School — from a school safe in a soul-baring e-mail to Bishop Andonios Paropoulos, the chancellor of the Greek Orthodox church in the United States. The Peruvian mom of three also told the bishop how she feels “used” and “hurt” by the 67-year-old Passias, who got her pregnant, and that she suspects she’s not his first mistress.

“I am not going to dare ask if Father George has done something like this before, although it seems as if... Why should I doubt it?” she wrote in the e-mail seen by The Post. “I’ve been left to bare [sic] the brunt of the scandal while he has safely hidden himself away. My sister says that I’ve been used and victimized for my money and that I am probably not the first victim who has fallen.

I’m hurt like I’ve never been hurt.” Bouzalas said she is in a “downward spiral.” “My oldest son loves Father and now I have to tell him the truth,” she wrote. The church last month suspended Passias as pastor of St.

Spyridon Church in Washington Heights after his tawdry affair with Bouzalas was confirmed by church authorities. Passias then resigned. Kinky sex tapes surfaced of the duo enjoying an odd fetish known as a “cake crush” or “cake sitting.” The priest watched as Bouzalas, wearing only a thong and stilettos, “smothered” a plastic-wrapped piece of banana bread with her behind and her feet. In another video clip, provided anonymously to The Post, Bouzalas rubs her bare feet on the priest’s face and says, “That’s where you belong, right under my feet.” When The Post first exposed the cozy relationship between Passias and Bouzalas in 2013, the priest denied any affair, maintaining the volunteer principal was his “spiritual goddaughter.” After Passias took the pulpit at St. Spyridon in 2006, parishioners raised questions about the handling of church finances.

Bouzalas was also the church treasurer. Bouzalas, in her e-mail to the bishop, said her husband loaned “hefty amounts of cash” for school books and payroll. She claimed the money she took repaid those loans, which were made without documentation. “Tom never gave monies in check form, always in cash as he deals in real estate and deals with a lot of cash transactions,” she wrote. Ethel Bouzalas crushes a baked good for Father George Passias as part of a fetish act. The bishop told Bouzalas to provide paperwork or possibly face being turned over to the authorities. “Otherwise, there are those who will accuse you of stealing these funds, which will only compound what has already appeared in the press,” he wrote.

Paropoulos told The Post that Bouzalas would be returning the cash this week and it would be placed in an escrow account until an audit was completed. Bouzalas’ husband Tom said Saturday that he is “estranged” from his wife, but still loves her and believes she was “mind-f–ked” by a cruel manipulator “who suffers from deviant behaviors.” A group of former members and church leaders from St. Spyridon have asked the District Attorney to investigate the church. Fast and loose with the Truth, at all levels, and every direction with the singular focus of, follow the money, Not to find the Truth, and do it, but to get it( the Money). Den of thieves.

Any individual Church parish can focus on the acquisition of the Holy Spirit despite this, with good cleric’s. Yep, there are still some out there. You know who you are and who you serve alone. It’s called being faithful.

Quaint, in the modern world, but it’s still the only way. Serve God alone.

Any Christian individual can acquire a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit without good cleric’s. In a cleric centered church that is not a people of God centered church you can still follow the moral and ethical lead of the Holy Spirit, but it will cost you in how you stand alone for God the Holy Spirit. When corrupt, incompetent and abusive cleric’s become the Holy Spirit of a church that church suffers from many forms of abuses. Those abuses can destroy a church if left not transparent and accountable with consequences. In such corrupt churches you serve the corruption and not God if you allow the cleric’s to be your God. That is idolatry and dysfunctional enmeshed sick religious codependency that is spiritually immature.

It enables church destruction. What enables church destruction destroys church growth and relevancy development. A church can abuse itself to its church death and that is what is happening in the OCA and GOC. Replace the authority and leadership of the Holy Spirit in a church with corruption as God and your church will pay a serious price for that apostasy. It can find itself in a powerless position to stop the corruption and abuses by removing and replacing the power of the Holy Spirit with what is corrupt. Submission to the Holy Spirit brings the power of the Holy Spirit and submission to corruption as God renders you powerless.

Idolatry of cleric’s is dangerous. How many of you are feeling powerless to stop the corruptions and abuses of your cleric’s and incapable of stopping the dying state of your jurisdiction led by your cleric’s? The Lord Himself is revealing the corruption. It is being revealed in the way that it is because some of those in charge of dealing with it are themselves not fit to deal with it.

It will be a painful and shameful cleansing but also necessary and, if it brings us to repentance, fruitful in the end. The solution to the problem will not be found by substituting sociological and business paradigms for traditional ecclesiology.

The fact is that some areas of the church are still healthy — miraculous healings occur, life changing counsel is given and so forth — but these events usually remain hidden (and appropriately so). Corruption can be systemic, but changing systems and structures never eradicates the source of corruption. Structural changes can slow corruption but usually it manifests itself in another form sooner of later.

The only real healing of the kind that dissolves corruption is repentance. If one refuses to repent then corruption will occur, and if the corruption is so great that the Gospel is distorted and thwarted, then judgement will come. The exposures can be understood as a beginning of judgement. Nevis, Again you impose your foolishness & heresy into the Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church, of which your lack of knowledge is both embarrassing & heretical. There is no “good” cleric” or “bad” cleric, as we are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God – and as I’ve noted before, we have never derived holiness nor Sanctity from the personal worthiness of its clergy.

Never You are preaching outright heresy. The reality is Scott Nevins took his own life not because of the corruption of the Orthodox jurisdictions and its clergy, but because he was mentally ill, You imagine that by devoting your time and energy blaming the Orthodox for causing his suicide, you will find justice. Unfortunately, justice belongs to the the Lord, the Just Judge, Who will not not suffer wrong to be done to the righteous. It is said by some of the fathers that the Lord is Merciful, and in the judgment will allow those so impaired by mental illness to open their eyes and see and choose the reality of the Kingdom. Stop your expressions of hatred and blaming and invite those of us here who care about you and Scott to join you in prayer for his ultimate enlightenment and salvation.

Ages (October 23, 2015 at 6:50 pm) says: You can’t have the Holy Spirit without the sacraments. No clergy, no sacraments, no Holy Spirit dwelling in you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is a gross misstatement of orthodox pneumatology. As God, the Holy Spirit is ‘present everywhere, filling all things’.

There is no place nor person apart from the Holy Spirit. ‘If I descend into Hades, there You are’ (PS 138).

The Holy Spirit is not limited in terms of time or place or movement. In spite of his theological missteps in such works as Contra Errores Graecorum, in one of his best insights Thomas Aquinas wrote ‘Deus non alligatur sacramentis.’ (‘God is not bound to rituals.’ Summa Theologiae 3a). And this is true, especially since it is only divine grace which brings us to Christ in the first place, whether or not we’ve ever encountered The Church or a priest. Sometimes this concept is described as ‘prevenient’ grace.

What is true is true regardless of who speaks the truth. Monk James: In spite of his theological missteps in such works as Contra Errores Graecorum, in one of his best insights Thomas Aquinas wrote ‘Deus non alligatur sacramentis.’ (‘God is not bound to rituals.’ Summa Theologiae 3a). And this is true, especially since it is only divine grace which brings us to Christ in the first place, whether or not we’ve ever encountered The Church or a priest. Sometimes this concept is described as ‘prevenient’ grace. What is true is true regardless of who speaks the truth. Oh, so a monk of the Orthodox church (?) agrees with Mr.

While considering the topic of sexual abuse, I feel it incumbent on myself, at my age (83 next month), to speak of an elephant in the room completely ignored by all sex policies and czars and ladies-on -the-warpath, namely, sexual assaults on the clergy BY members of the Laity, especially female members. I know from my own experience (mostly, but not only at Confession) and from the confessions of PRIESTS that from time to time females of various ages have been known to physically MOLEST clergy, during Confession. No one does anything about it, and no one WANTS to do anything about it, but it happens. It seems to me, therefor, that there is something UNJUST in the FURY, energy and full dedication with which some address the same conduct by clergy. Oh, it happens outside Confession as well, but that is easier to flee. I don’t know of any Priest EVER throwing a stone at any particular WOMAN OR OTHER person for such molestation, but there’s something perverse in rewarding the clergy by THEIR UNENDING AND PUBLIC STONING.

People keep asking, “when are the scandals going to stop?” No one wants to say it, but here goes. The reality is that some priests do not confess sexual sins to their father confessors. The temptation is to reduce the gravity of a sin, or omit it altogether.

Precisely because, as +Tikhon wrote, there is NO seal of the confessional. What you say CAN and WILL be used against you. And when your 30 year career is on the line, you just don’t take such a risk.

Here’s an example that follows James 1:15. The priest sees an attractive woman walking down the street, and has lustful thoughts. He confesses this but the thoughts persist.

Next he views pornography, masturbates, and fails to confess it. Then he visits a “gentlemens club”, and fails to confess it. Finally, he consummates the act for the first time with a prostitute, a woman or man from the parish,and fails to confess it. Subsequently, he repeats the trysts over and over and over again, failing to confess every time until he is finally caught. Mugshot on SNAP.

Deposed by Synod. At what point could the priest have confessed not just the thoughts, but also the acts? Apparently, never. He would have been judged on the spot, reported to the higher-ups, and tossed out.

According to the Puritan Orthodox model, once ordained, a priest is not allowed to sin for the rest of his life. Is that a realistic expectation given the fallen state of man? No, it is not. Sin is going to happen, and if the priest risks confession, what is the result?

His career is over. Matushka files for divorce, and the kids go hungry. No wife, no kids, no job, no career. Despondency sets in. People keep asking, “when are the scandals going to stop?” The answer is simple.

Priests need the ability to go to confession and tell all without any career risk and without any of it leaking out, ever. Until such time, the scandals will continue unabated. People keep asking, “when are the scandals going to stop?” Let’s put it out into the open.

The reality is that some priests do not confess sexual sins to their father confessors. The temptation is to reduce the gravity of a sin, or omit it altogether. Precisely because, as +Tikhon wrote, there is NO seal of the confessional. What you say CAN and WILL be used against you. And when your 30 year career is on the line, you just don’t take such a risk. Here’s an example that follows James 1:15.

The priest sees an attractive woman walking down the street, and has lustful thoughts. He confesses this but the thoughts persist.

Next he views pornography, masturbates, and fails to confess it. Then he visits a “gentlemens club”, and fails to confess it. Finally, he consummates the act for the first time with a prostitute, a woman or man from the parish,and fails to confess it. Subsequently, he repeats the trysts over and over and over again, failing to confess every time until he is finally caught.

Mugshot on SNAP. Deposed by Synod. At what point could the priest have confessed not just the thoughts, but also the acts? Apparently, never.

He would have been judged on the spot, reported to the higher-ups, and tossed out. According to the Puritan Orthodox model, once ordained, a priest is not allowed to sin for the rest of his life. Is that a realistic expectation given the fallen state of man? No, it is not. Sin is going to happen, and if the priest risks confession, what is the result? His career is over. Matushka files for divorce, and the kids go hungry.

No wife, no kids, no job, no career. Despondency sets in. People keep asking, “when are the scandals going to stop?” The answer is simple. Priests need the ability to go to confession and tell all without any career risk and without any of it leaking out, ever. Until such time, the scandals will continue unabated. EO: from time to time females of various ages have been known to physically MOLEST clergy, during Confession” Ummmm, huh?

Just pondering the particulars of this phenomenon is bewildering. Yeah, how does this work? While leaning over the gospel and cross, the penitent reaches with the hand and starts to feel up the priest through the podraznik? Doesn’t the molestee just stop the whole thing right then and there, and if not WHY NOT? +Tikhon I don’t know of any Priest EVER throwing a stone at any particular WOMAN OR OTHER person for such molestation If you never heard of such a thing, WHY BRING IT UP?

This whole non-issue of priests being attacked in confession “takes the cake” for weirdness. If ANYONE is in a position to STOP an attempted molestation from happening, physically, spiritually, and otherwise, it is a priest who is hearing confession!

Or is the Orthodox church manned by complete nincompoops? Well, “OOM,” if you’re going to call me a liar, I don’t blame you for your cowardice in hiding behind a pseudonym. Here’s something that should not strain your powers of reasoning: You ask why the molestee doesn’t stop the whole thing?

He always does so, “OOM!” Who said anyone ever allowed that behavior to be prolonged? OF COURSE I and some Priests I know jump back or say “stop it” or even grab the offending hand and remove it.

These things happen VERY FAST and unexpectedly. I won’t accuse you of asking for salacious details, right? I have raised my hand to bless a middle-aged woman at the conclusion of her confession, only to have her grab my hand and place it on one of her breasts.

I call that molestation, even if you think these things should have been prolonged in order to qualify as such! OOM, you ask:”If you never heard of such a thing, WHY BRING IT UP?” I never heard of a priest NAMING the perp, get it?

“a particular woman or other person.” are my words. And NO ONE is in a position to stop such a molestation being initiated. Hearing Confession can be extremely trying. One spinster liked to describe IN DETAIL the bodily sensations she felt when contemplating an icon of the Savior, for whom she LUSTED. In the War years, when the young Hieromonk John (Shahovskoy) was the rector of the Russian Church of St Vladimir on Nachodstrasse in Berlin, a young matron threw herself at his feet at the conclusion of Liturgy and cried out, “I want to have a child by you!” So do not imagine that the only sex offenders in our Churches are remote-control composers of emails such as the villainous Bishop Matthias!

+Tikhon: Well, “OOM,” if you’re going to call me a liar, I don’t blame you for your cowardice in hiding behind a pseudonym. +T should reread my response. I accuse him not of lying but of taking an idiosyncratic and frankly bizarre position. “Molestation of clergy by the laity” is a problem of his imagination, not of social reality. Does LUST occur when people come into contact with each other?

Yes, we all know that, we live in the world. +T can’t handle it? Let him go to a monastery – where no monk would EVER sexually harass or abuse another monk, RIGHT?!?

+T: OOM, you ask:”If you never heard of such a thing, WHY BRING IT UP?” I never heard of a priest NAMING the perp, get it? “a particular woman or other person.” are my words. So, priests and bishops generally don’t create scandal by naming and shaming the perps in these situations, and that makes them somehow SPECIAL and worthy of praise? Isn’t that setting the standard rather low? +T: Hearing Confession can be extremely trying.

One spinster liked to describe IN DETAIL the bodily sensations she felt when contemplating an icon of the Savior, for whom she LUSTED. +T as a priest and bishop puts himself in a position to hear confession of SINS, and he finds it “extremely trying” when they ACTUALLY CONFESS THEIR SINS. I’d like to back up a bit.

I don’t want to accuse a bishop of lying.A man who does have a woman coming on to him might be in the same predicament as Joseph in Egypt. If he submit, of course it’s a sin. But what if he refuses and the woman turns it around, making him look like the aggressor. It used to be said that two things would be believed about about any man; one, that he has taken to drink, and two, the scenario described here(perhaps with the gay lifestyle we should make that three things).

It does seem unlikely that such a thing could occur during confession, but the devil never sleeps. Plus, if a priest or any man,pushes off an aggressive woman, doesn’t he risk getting charged with assault? Remember the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird”? A white woman threw herself upon Tom Robinson, a black man,in 1930’s Alabama. He couldn’t have put his hands on a white woman and expect to live, so he chose to run, a sure sign of guilt. And perhaps there is no one who recalls Tolstoi’s story of the seductress Russian noblewoman who came to his cell under the presumption of needing “spiritual counsel ” of the renowned father, but the man of man of God knew her heart.

And removing her fine fur and placing her before the warm fire, answered her seduction by serving her tea from the one one hand that remained after he severered the other with an axe. Harsh words, murderous gossip, and filthy banter are not the way of the real monastics, as he stood by while her chamber men removed her fainted body. The father was not there to absolve” her, but to to reconcile her to the the Holy Church. Monk James: And this is true, especially since it is only divine grace which brings us to Christ in the first place, whether or not we’ve ever encountered The Church or a priest.

Stankovich: And perhaps there is no one who recalls Tolstoi’s story of the seductress Russian noblewoman who came to his cell under the presumption of needing “spiritual counsel ” of the renowned father, but the man of man of God knew her heart. I suppose that in a thread where a monk of the church says we don’t need the church to bring us to Christ, it’s not surprising to find TOLSTOI paraphrased as an authority on how monks should behave! OOM (November 1, 2015 at 9:01 am) says: Monk James: ‘And this is true, especially since it is only divine grace which brings us to Christ in the first place, whether or not we’ve ever encountered The Church or a priest.’ M. Stankovich: ‘And perhaps there is no one who recalls Tolstoi’s story of the seductress Russian noblewoman who came to his cell under the presumption of needing “spiritual counsel ” of the renowned father, but the man of man of God knew her heart.’ I suppose that in a thread where a monk of the church says we don’t need the church to bring us to Christ, it’s not surprising to find TOLSTOI paraphrased as an authority on how monks should behave! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NoNoNoNoNO!

I’m saying that the Holy Spirit doesn’t need The Church to bring anyone to Christ, ‘who intends that all of us be saved and come to know The Truth’. We Christians need The Church, since that is what the Lord gave us as the matrix in which we must ‘work out our salvation in fear and trembling’.

As St Paul recommends, ‘may we be truly grateful for His indescribable gift’. We Christians are incompetent to comment on the final spiritual condition of people who have not received this gift, and mostly not even to say anything about those who have. Divine mercy is not like human mercy, and the standards of divine justice are incomprehensible to our limited minds. Were this not so, we would find ourselves in the indefensible position of having to say — as some heretics have indeed asserted — that people who (even through no fault of their own) have never heard of Christ or of The Church yet live good, even noble and virtuous lives, cannot be saved. God’s Holy Spirit is absolutely unlimited in presence and action in every place and through all time (our human limitations) and beyond our imagining. Maybe people should read Leigh Hunt’s ‘Abou ben Adhem’ instead of anything by Lev Tolstoy, who was NOT friendly toward Christianity, russian orthodox Christianity in particular. “If ANYONE is in a position to STOP an attempted molestation from happening, physically, spiritually, and otherwise, it is a priest who is hearing confession!

Or is the Orthodox church manned by complete nincompoops?” I have to agree in principle on this one. It difficult to imagine not being able to handle that situation. Yet, I could see a priest fearing being accused of being the aggressor by someone unscrupulous enough to grope him.

This is part of the reason I am so uncomfortable with some priests who like to lay their epitrachelion over penitents and have their arm over them during confession. I have observed some priests who are so “huggy” during confession that in a “he said, she said”, on what happened during confession, they would lose in the court of public opinion.

There is no reason not to keep a little personal space as long as the penitent doesn’t need to speak loudly to be heard. I recall someone whose judgment I trust returning from an OCA meeting and telling me that the former bishop Seraphim of Canada creeped her out because of the aggressive way he hugged her when she went to him in a line for a blessing (weird that a hug for everyone was part of the blessing process in the first place) — she stiffened during the hug, and said he wouldn’t let go until she relaxed — felt like a physical power play to her. I poo-pooed her concerns, to be honest.

I had other reasons I didn’t care for him, and breathed a sigh of relief when the Holy Synod didn’t elect him Metropolitan in spite of his winning the rabble vote. Later, when the truth came out about his issues, I remembered the exchange, and ever since then pay attention when a sober woman tells me that a cleric is creepy of has boundary issues. Bp Tikhon brings up several good points.

I’ve always felt that the Orthodox way of Confession, which is semi-public is the best way in that it protects both confessor and penitent from obvious charges of impropriety. HG throws a couple of wrinkles into this scenario. Perhaps an additional fail-safe would be to have a Reader reading from the Psalms standing about 10 feet away in kleros.

That way there would be another angle of sight which is perpendicular to the awaiting penitents standing 10 or so feet behind the on-going Confession. That’s how we do it in our parish. I’d like to think that this is universal as well. Daniel, The point was that, as Edward eluded, everyone in the village knew her reputation as a wealthy seductress, and were shocked that the holy man even acknowledged her, let alone offered a visitation into his humble monastic cell. One can only imagine her surprise and shock of “opportunity” – likened to joseph and the sinful woman – as her invited her into his sanctified dwelling, took her fur and wrap, and placed by the fire for warmth. And as her lust and sinful urges grew, he responded by severing his own hand lest he be tempted. And obviously, the story of the deed of the holy man spread through the village, as did the evil intent of the woman, who falsely believed her seductive powers superseded God Himself, and she was humiliated away.

Gossip, filthy accusations – “This bishop is evil, this man is his cohort,” etc. – is for God to judge, the only Just and Righteous Judge and the Seer of Hearts.

The real monk guards his own lips and sets a watch at his tongue, fearing that day when all things will be made known to all men without discretion. I recently by email spoke to one of the women NY Post article authors on the issue of the GOC priest, the pregnant woman and the cake fetish. I gave her some other issues to research on the hierarchy and elder. She was very interested and told me more expose’ is coming.

Seems that the OCA and GOC share much is sexual corruption common. Scandal and debacle seem to be a common denominator occurrence. So is a dying state of jurisdictions.

Thank you, Pokrov.org for exposing the corruption and doing for the Orthodox what they will not do for themselves. Without their effort most issues of abuse would be ignored, hidden and not addressed. I find it interesting that two women do what the so-called Orthodox men of God will not do to protect adults and especially children from abuse. AP: In the case of Bishop Matthias he was never convicted criminally of abuse. He was never even criminally charged with abuse, unless one counts conviction by the Pokrov internet court and showroom. Dear Father Anonymous, why make that point on THIS BLOG of all places?

In the case of Met. Paisios LouLourgas he was never convicted criminally of abuse. He was never even criminally charged with abuse, unless one counts conviction by the. In the case of Rev. Passias he was never convicted criminally of abuse. He was never even criminally charged with abuse, unless one counts conviction by the.

Anonymous Priest, I have never once on this site supported nor condoned the practice of “anonymity” in posting comments, but in some bizarre notion that the Church be spared the actual revelation of your identity as an actual Orthodox Priest – if, in deed you are – better you remain anonymous in your stupidity. This not a case of “did he, did he not,” Anonymous Fr., his own words speak to his fundamental lack of discernment & judgment.

Now, I’m not a big fan of Hallmark and the like, but a cursory examination did not produce a single invitation, “Single-Girl’s Movie Sleepover at Vladyko’s Place Tonight! He’ll provide the inflatable mattress, you bring the snacks!” And for heaven’s sake, as a clinician who has provided care for women who have been traumatized simply by inappropriate intimidation of power and position – and here, a catechumen no less – while there certainly was no violation of any civil or criminal law, how do you imagine the Holy Fathers would respond to this seemingly innocent “grooming” as other than seduction? An worse, shame on anyone who would ascribe responsibility to this victim preparing to be received into the Church, no matter that she had fifty previous illicit relationships, because now, like Mary Magdalene, her heart was inclined to anoint the hair of the Lord with precious oil, and not cozy up to his minister, alone, in his apartment; and so she resorted to lies to avoid him. And now, Anonymous Priest, you dare bitch that this oil could have sold and the money given to the poor. Shame on you, shame on the unrepentant Mathias, who at counsel from people like you now believes he is the victim. Call me as witness for the Church at this trial, and you will see what beloved Prof.

SS Verhovskoy demanded: men in hair shirts with bones in their hands, speaking the words of Elijah. Mathias will not return my gaze, I guarantee you. Mortiss could stand by to argue against my being held in contempt). Bishop Matthias clearly erred. To suggest his actions were not felonious is disingenuous and provokes the idea even Bishop Matthias doesn’t think he erred, which does not reflect his very letter. His own clergy found his actions unacceptable. Rather than think of pokrov as an internet court, consider them a flashlight.

I am no fan of pokrov. I believe they have overreached more than once in naming administrators and even Matthias on their site. But to defend Matthias’ by crediting pokrov is really mind bogglng. What is more mind boggling is you respond to Ashley Nevins. And so did Jacobse above. Nevins is on a mission to use the pen to hurt and express his hatred of Orthodoxy.

Nevins has no business posting on this forum. George is using Ashley to beat the anti-Syosset drum, but Nevins drum is anti-Orthodoxy. Just ask him. Personally, I think Ashley should be banned.

He must have relished in your response defending Matthias (reproving his entire argument). Mr Fall, thank you for your considered response. Let me make one thing perfectly clear however: I do not let Mr Nevins post here because he’s “anti-Syosset.” I fully realize he is vehemently anti-Orthodox. As far as he’s concerned, it’s a “pox on all our houses.” So why do I let him spew forth his vitriol? There’s certainly my devotion to free speech. That’s one thing.

I love robust debate. That’s another.

I also feel sorry for his tragedy. Despite his hatred of Orthodoxy, there are a few (and I mean few) trenchant observations.

We Orthodox need to be kept honest. There are times in which I’ve thought about banning him but not a few of my readers have told me that in some strange way, he strengthens their faith. That’s paradoxical for sure but I find myself agreeing with these commentators. Many evil and scandalous things that are taking place are also strengthening my faith, that is the realization that we –despite our manifest faults–are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And that we are headed for more persecution. Mr Nevins’ harsh words are merely a harbinger of what is to come. Gta V Money Hack Ps3 Online Download here. George Michalopulos wrote: not a few of my readers have told me that in some strange way, he strengthens their faith.

Thus spoke Abraham, the Jew wishing to convert: Jehannot expected Abraham’s conversion least of all things, and allowed him some days of rest before he asked what he thought of the Holy Father and the cardinals and the other courtiers. To which the Jew forthwith replied:—”I think God owes them all an evil recompense: I tell thee, so far as I was able to carry my investigations, holiness, devotion, good works or exemplary living in any kind was nowhere to be found in any clerk; but only lewdness, avarice, gluttony, and the like, and worse, if worse may be, appeared to be held in such honour of all, that (to my thinking) the place is a centre of diabolical rather than of divine activities.

To the best of my judgment, your Pastor, and by consequence all that are about him devote all their zeal and ingenuity and subtlety to devise how best and most speedily they may bring the Christian religion to nought and banish it from the world. And because I see that what they so zealously endeavour does not come to pass, but that on the contrary your religion continually grows, and shines more and more clear, therein I seem to discern a very evident token that it, rather than any other, as being more true and holy than any other, has the Holy Spirit for its foundation and support. The Decameron, by Giovanni Boccaccio.

There is a benefit in allowing arguments from the opposition, because it shows we Orthodox have nothing to hide or fear from engaging in debate. However, there are others here who can make the same occasional good points that have come from Nevins. Nevins himself delivers nothing original but diarrhea of the keyboard. There’s no shame in banning someone from a discussion when he has no interest in rational participation. The loss of his son, Scott, is extremely tragic, but it should not confer on Ashley a license to bully others and hold the floor here with his malicious, rumor-mongering garbage. At the very least, I would set a word limit on Ashley’s comments, and those of Francis Frost, to save the rest of us the trouble of scrolling past those marathon comments on mobile devices.

I would have more respect for your opinion on this matter had I not had comments never see the light of day for no reason other than the fact that I was contesting the fallacious arguments of those you consider to be members of a protected group — using language no more strongly worded than that used against my arguments to which I was responding. It is your site, and your judgment on what should see the light of day is final. But don’t pretend you have some sort of commitment to free debate that is anything other than selective.

I personally see no reason not to let Mr. Nevins vent his spleen, but for those of us whose comments have been censored, it is hard not to chuckle at pious words about “robust debate” and shake our heads at how exactly you determine what is fit for public consumption. Daniel E Fall: Bishop Matthias clearly erred. The woman who complained against him certainly thought he erred. What a dumb-ass move it was to bring him back out of retirement; everyone would have been better off if he had just stayed a Wal-Mart greeter or whatever in WV. But that would have required a degree of humility and repentance, as the repentance experts like Reverend Jacobse might say.

BTW, CANON LAW GURUS, isn’t it wrong of +Matthias to sue in the civil courts? And why do disgraced retired/resigned bishops get a huge chip on their shoulders and find it necessary to LAWYER UP? “To suggest that his actions were not felonious is disingenuous.” Guys, God gave us the gift of language so that we could use it precisely. What Bishop Matthias did was wrong, juvenile, and reprehensible. But it wasn’t “felonious,” as far as I can tell. I lived in Illinois for many years, and had occasion to deal with the legal system there vis-a-vis clergy issues. Even if Bishop Matthias had been “sexting,” which it appears was not the case, I don’t know that it would have been illegal unless the young woman was under 18.

I’m not condoning what he did, though I think he’s paid for his action in spades. But let’s get a grip: not every wrong action of a sexual nature is a felony, though some certainly are. You can ask the former priest (now age 85) whom I helped put away about that, when he’s released from federal prison in 2030! Just hold on a second. If I defend someone stealing by suggesting their actions were not murder; that is disingenuous.

If I defend the cooks bad food by saying he didn’t burn it; that is disingenuous, although comedic. If I defend any action by referring to a worse possible action; that is disingenuous. And while some might defend doing such a thing under the auspices of positivity or optimism, if you permit Abouna, Matthias’ actions while he held the title of bishop are simply not defensible without such a ploy or play on words.

So it is not me abusing the language. If I erred technically, I did not err on the whole.

The priest suggesting it wasn’t a felony and all those blowing that horn have erred. He didn’t kill anyone! In Matthew 18:15-17, the Lord Jesus sets out a clear process for dealing with disputes between believers: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’ [Deuteronomy 17:6].

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” And clergy have a special responsibility, says St.

Paul in 1 Timothy 4:12, to “be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” For the last more than 100 years, every single priest ordained in the Russian or Ukrainian tradition has been presented with a silver pectoral cross inscribed with exactly those words, as a reminder of his responsibility to set a good example, including the example of following the Lord’s command on the process for settling disputes. Hence, clergy taking other clergy to secular court are deemed by the Church to be in express violation of the Lord’s words. This is expressed and reinforced by 1. Canon 9 of the 4th Ecumenical Council: “If any Clergyman have a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province.

But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese [i.e., to the Bishop appointed as the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch] or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him;” and 2. Canon 12 of the Council of Antioch: “If any Presbyter or Deacon, deposed from office by his own Bishop, or any Bishop deposed by a Synod, should dare to annoy the Emperor’s ears [i.e., take his case to a secular court], he must address his appeal to a greater Synod of Bishops, and specify whatever justice he thinks that he is being denied to a number of Bishops, and accept whatever examination and adverse judgment he may receive from them. But if, paying no heed hereto, he should annoy the Emperor, he shall be precluded from any pardon, and shall be allowed no opportunity to make an apology in his own defense, nor to entertain any hope of reinstatement.” As for Clergy suing other Clergy in a Secular Court, in Matthew 5:38-42 the Lord Jesus sets the bar really high for His followers: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.

And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.” As cited above, in Matthew 18:15-17 the Lord Jesus requires that His followers follow a specific pattern in dealing with disputes with one another, the bottom line of which is that problems between members of the Body of Christ are to be dealt with within the Body.

Further, in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 the holy apostle Paul applies the Lord’s teaching specifically to one recurring matter in this world of ours, the matter of lawsuits: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?

I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourself be cheated?

No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren.” The Gospel answer to the question of suing is simple: don’t! And, again, 1 Timothy 4:12 imposes upon Bishops, presbyters and deacons a special responsibility to teach this, as well as the rest of the Faith by example as much as by word. Addendum: Canon 14 of the Council of Carthage says, “It has pleased the Council to decree that if anyone whatsoever among the Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, or Clerics, is charged with any ecclesiastical or political crime in the Church and, flouting the ecclesiastical court, resorts for justification to civil courts, even though a verdict be pronounced in his favor, he shall nevertheless lose his position [i.e., be defrocked]. And this applies to the matter of the charges; as for the civil aspects of the case, he shall lose what he has won, if he tries to keep his position.” In other words, if anyone in holy orders is charged in the Church with a canonical or moral offense which might result in his being defrocked, or in any case involving suing for monetary damages, he must take his case to the spiritual court.

If, instead, he, defying the Canon, takes a case alleging canonical or moral violations to the secular court, he is to be defrocked; if the case is one involving money, and he wins it, he must choose between forfeiting the money awarded by the civil court in order to remain in holy orders, or keeping the money and being defrocked. And as can be determined from the foregoing, the Canons are not arbitrary “laws” or rules, much less mere “guidelines,” but conciliarly arrived-at applications of scripturally-based Orthodox Christian doctrine to specific situations. Draw your own conclusions.

Philip, this is all well and good; however, His Grace, Bp. Matthias was denied a spiritual court and the ability to take it to a higher Synod. How would this play out with the OCA being an autocephalus court?

Take it to the MP? Which emperor do you suggest?

As far as this has gone His Grace did turn the other cheek, got slapped on that one too, and turned again to be slapped a third time. Forgive me Fr. Truly, I mean no disrespect but I’m not seeing how this whole thing could be played out as you suggest in light of the OCA Synod being one that deals with nothing but only sweeps most of it under the rug. Kissing your right hand. Dear Philippa, Obedience to the Gospel takes precedence over everything.

In 1 Corinthians 6:7, cited, St. Paul says, “Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another.

Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?” And again, from 1 Timothy 4:12, clergy have a responsibility to be role-models; that’s why the Canons specifically prohibit clergy from suing one another. Note, however, that regardless of a local Church’s autocephaly, the plain sense of Canon 9 of the 4th does provide for an appeal by a Bishop to the Ecumenical Throne, a privilege peculiar to that See.

And as I explained, “the emperor” is the civil authority, whoever/whatever it may be. Without commenting on the merits of this particular case ( pace, George!), let’s be honest and say that sometimes Synods have been less than stellar. The saint whose name I was given at tonsure, St. Philip of Moscow, was wrongfully and quite uncanonically deposed by a synod of the Russian Church at the behest of Ivan the Terrible—who then had two thugs strangle the poor man in his bed. Because we are sinners living in a broken and sin-scarred world, not every story has a happy ending in this life. We venerate the martyrs, who were braver than I could ever even in my wildest fantasies imagine myself being; but I’m reasonably sure they didn’t enjoy the process of being martyred.

And in the eyes of the world, they died stupidly, foolishly. Like it or not (and I admit that generally I do not like it), it’s only in eternity that everything gets truly sorted. Philip, Thank you for your explanation. I couldn’t agree more that “Obedience to the Gospel takes precedence over everything.” Would that the Holy Synod and His Beatitude, Met.

Tikhon himself would obey it. After all, has he not overstepped the Canons regarding interference in another bishop’s diocese (that of Abp. Because that is exactly what His Beatitude is doing – interfering in Abp. Nathaniel’s Diocese where this parish is located. It was he (Abp.

Nathaniel) who appointed His Grace, Bp. Matthias to it! Again, agreeing with you here too “Like it or not (and I admit that generally I do not like it), it’s only in eternity that everything gets truly sorted.” Until then, and even then, may our Gracious Lord have mercy on me. Kissing your right hand, Philippa. Your question is not just for lawyers, but for every Orthodox Christian: what is the relationship between the Church and the State? The “Byzantine symphony” idea of harmonious cooperation between the two is, to my mind, quite unscriptural.

In John 12:31 our blessed Lord says that Satan is “the ruler of this world;” thus, while we must obey the just laws of the secular government and pray for that government, ultimately, when push comes to shove “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This world and its ruler have their agenda; God and His Church have their agenda; and in the final analysis, the two are incompatible, in consequence of which “friendship with the world is enmity with God” and “whoever wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4). One immediate application of this principle calls into question the assertion of our OCA’s sexual abuse PSPs, that a secular conviction is to be taken as “conclusive proof” of guilt (or words to that effect). Here in Canada we’ve had three high-profile cases of wrongful convictions for murder (Donald Marshal, David Milgaard, and Guy-Paul Morin), wherein the convicted spent as much as 22 years behind bars (and only because by then we had abolished the rope), only to be freed by new DNA evidence. The State of Illinois placed a moratorium on exercising the death penalty in the face of numerous wrongful convictions and more than one wrongful execution.

And let’s not forget the infamous finding of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal that the Bible is “hate literature” because it deems homosexual activity to be sinful. The point is that in the face of a judicial system clearly and painfully flawed, the Church can and should take nothing for granted as to the accuracy and truthfulness of secular verdicts, but take each case that comes before a spiritual court on its own merits.

The findings of secular courts may and likely should be entered as evidence, but never taken as infallible statements of absolute fact. In my opinion, symphony works in the theoretical context of a government comprised of Orthodox Christians who are at least committed enough to bow to the church’s moral authority.

Having an emperor who directs policy based on church teaching creates an environment of positive reinforcement that keeps people on the straight and narrow. That’s not bad; it’s a logical extension of having a society based around the Church. I don’t think any such examples have existed for some time.

Modern attempts at symphony are in large part deals with the devil, where the lords temporal and lords spiritual agree to work together on some things but render most things irrelevant, which always waters down the church’s authority. Even that is an ideal, as now we have government dictating to the church. In those situations the government should be recognized as having zero moral authority, and should be resisted and disobeyed if necessary. OOM, that’s a silly argument.

Churches are not allowed to break legal contracts once they have agreed to enter into them. Churches cannot order the execution of heretics. Churches may not hold illegal lotteries or host dog fights for entertainment.

Neither do civil courts have any jurisdiction over Orthodox Christian sacraments. No civil court has the authority to tell Orthodox who to baptize, or who to admit to communion. Orthodox churches are not public buildings. So it is pointless to suggest that a homosexual pair could hope to sue for the right to “marry” in an Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians believe it is impossible and blasphemous to “marry” homosexuals. A ceremony purporting to be a wedding for two people of the same sex would never have any sacramental value, and would only desecrate the church and the people involved. Stop moving the football or I’m gonna have to call you Lucy.

And you are incorrect. If the change of assignment was a breach of a promise, implied or otherwise, the priest and the unpaid snowplow guy both have tort claims.

And remember it is just a claim. If a priest of the Orthodox church promised to marry gays; that doesn’t mean such a claim as you suggest would have merit. If the priest made a promise he could not keep; the claim is against him, not the church. What that means is there are places all the gay activism in the world has no impact.

And the beauty is that in a free society, some are free to say no to actions with which they don’t agree. It is a good thing.

The same freedom allows homosexuality. You can’t expect freedom to be one sided. If you take a uber-liberal perspective where gays would be required to be married by their religion(not sure its even liberal), the religion no longer exists. I know I went beyond your idea, but I agree with gay marriage in the secular, government world(though I prefer government uninvolved entirely), but see it as the destruction of freedom if it is required et al. “quo licet Jovi non licet bovi” = What is permitted to Jovi = OCA is not permitted to bovi (axen)= stupids.

Double standards are the norm in the OCA, worst in ROEA. If we don’t wake up God will punish us very bad. Both Theodosius and Herman were almost open gay and are living a comfort life, along with Mark F from Florida.

Mathias is not even convicted that he did something wrong, and here he is out for good. This attitude is used, in extreme, by the pope and by the protestants. Are we running after them or we must run for our salvation???

Pity on us!!! Recent Comments • () • Greatly Saddened Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. It is in its entirety at the time of my posting. Archiepiscopal Encyclical Announcing. – • George Michalopulos Clearly, they view the GOA in much the same way that Israelis view AIPAC. As just another ethnic lobby.

The damage that accrues from using. – • Brian Interesting. Though what the EP is doing of late is highly disturbing, I am not one who has any particular ax to grind against the. – • Brian No apology necessary, GS.

Just thought you should know. They are probably seeing the current crisis in the GOA as an opportunity for subscriptions because. – • Greece has lost it GS, Thanks for linking this article. I found it, all at the same time, tragic, insulting, amusing, and depressing. It’s clear that the Kathimerini authors.

– • Greatly Saddened Below please find an article from Ekathimerini's website. Hellenism in America at a crossroads – • Alitheia1875 I wonder why they went to Vatopedi? – • () • George Michalopulos Indeed, the Maccabean revolt was a civil war between hellenistically-inclined Jews (led by Greco-Syrian officers) and fundamentalist-inclined Jews led by the Maccabees. The irony is. – • Curiosity SUpremist You have to see this in this context: The Maccabees and the Hellenists, Hanukkah as Jewish civil war.

By James Ponet Slate.Com DEC. – • George Michalopulos Also, both extant LXXs agree with each other as well as the Samaritan LXX.

The MT is the odd man out. – • George Michalopulos True Misha. The oldest extant copy of the LXX is post-3rd century but it's clear that it is faithful in itself to an earlier text. – • Misha 'The problem was that the earliest known MT –the Codex Leningradensis–was several centuries younger than the LXX (ca AD 1100).'

George, You need to rephrase. – • () • George Michalopulos GS, who's on the list? – • Greatly Saddened It has just been reported in the 'Ethnikos Kyrix,' His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, has sent the list of possible candidates for Metropolitan of Chicago to. – • George Michalopulos Great news indeed! – • Jordanville MDiv Apparently Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville (ROCOR) will have an MDiv program starting up next fall.

This is great news for those wanting to pursue. – • Greatly Saddened Below please find another article from today on the Ortho Christian website. HIEROTHEOS (VLACHOS) WAS THREATENED TO ACCEPT CRETE DOCUMENTS, GREEK THEOLOGIAN SAYS Thessaloniki. – • Greatly Saddened Below please find an article from today on the Ortho Christian website. RELIGIOUS LEADERS, INCLUDING ORTHODOX BISHOP, SIGN OPEN LETTER AGAINST TRANSGENDER IDEOLOGY Washington. – • Seminaries As much as I understand it, the 3 OCA seminaries exist to fulfill very different purposes: St Herman's fills the pastoral needs unique to the.

– • () • Menas Moralotos Dumquafles, of Public Orthodoxy, is Bart's Didactor Tou Gennous (Doctor of the Generation), successor to Yale's Deno Geanakoplos. – • Misha Cautiously optimistic. I personally know Dr. David Bradshaw, one of the authors. I started to suggest the site was headed in the right direction, but.

– • Brian Always the provocateur, your Grace. Surely you know that the reference for this is Saint Paul's Epistle to the Church at Philippi. “and most of. – • Brian George, The welcome change in tone here is gift enough for me. It hasn't gone unnoticed or unappreciated.

– • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) Priest Christopher! Please provide evidence of your charge that I have found ' the articles Fr has on the new site' objectionable. You rejoice '“whether. – • () • Menas Moralotos Remember when Lulurgas wanted to scam us with his stolen icon and the mafia went out looking for it?

So, it should not surprise you. – • Greatly Saddened Are these hierarchs supposed to be representatives of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or of Byzantine Emperors? If of Byzantine Emperors, then that would. – • Constaninos Dear Michael, You are a man of keen observation and eminent good sense. The Orthodox prelates love their fancy titles and pompous attire. – • George Michalopulos Yup. – • Brian A most blessed Nativity to you, Michael!

– • Michael What a ridiculous title for the EP. In Greek All Holiness is pan agios. We call the Theotokos the Panagia. How presumptuous to claim the. – • Brian I'm envious, Tim. All I get is, 'Hey.ahhh.can.I.maybe have.? I asked mom (or grandma), and she said to ask you.'

– • () • Greatly Saddened Below please find two articles from today on the Ortho Christian website. NEW MEDICAL EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FROM MONEY COLLECTED FOR PAT. KIRILL’S BIRTHDAY Moscow, December. – • () • George Michalopulos From the original 'pervnado' that's been stalking our land lo, these many years: Bernard Cardinal Law has died. It was his 'mishandling' of the pederasts. – • () • Joseph Lipper Well, Paul Craig Roberts is a big fan of Noam Chomsky: – • Gail Sheppard There were 3 things that made me think you were Palestinian, AISS: (1) your politics, (2) your love for Assad and (3) using the phase.

– • Assad is staying What on earth made you think I am a Palestinian? I am an American. I gave no indicator of being Palestinian whatsoever. I'm an American.

– • Brian MG, There are, however, some things that Assad is Staying gets right. One is the one-sided reporting of all things Middle East in this country.

– • George Michalopulos No, because he's a leftist. I think his anti-Zionism is a ruse. – • George Michalopulos Yes,I like Roberts – • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) Hezbollah, Lebanese Arab Shiite Moslems, are appreciated in Beirut and loathed in Tel Aviv. One reason: when Israel invaded and occupied southern Lebanon, Hezbollah drove. – • () • Michael Bauman Fr.and there is the problem.

We will not eliminate sin, even in our own hearts, by the application of law and justice. – • Gail Sheppard Perhaps those within the laity who are leading the charge are not being entirely truthful. There is another side to this story and the possibilities. George Washburn Mr.

Underwood' comments seem based in a genuine love for the Lord and the Church, and nothing I say below should be construed as doubting. Philip (Speranza) While the link to the Byztex blog was given above, it would appear that not many have actually read the piece. Please note the following. – • George Michalopulos Bjs, seriously, you need to start a satirical blog.

A cross between Mark Twain & Diogenes. – • () • Greatly Saddened Below please find an article from yesterday on the Ortho Christian website. AUTHORITIES DETAIN MAIN PLANNING TO BLOW UP ST. PETERSBURG’S KAZAN CATHEDRAL –.