All bishops are supposed to be monks, but in the Antiochian Archdiocese, only Bishop BASIL is a little schema monk (or for that matter tries to live as a monk). Having said that, regardless of whether one is a focused monk or not, it doesn't necessarily mean they know about traditionalists or not.
As one person privately emailed me, the problem with the Antiochians has been that while Met PHILIP has been very generous in ordaining convert clergy (and non-convert as well) he often is very "passive aggressive" with them. That is, they are often left on their own to fend for themselves. If anything, proper Orthodox liturgics and praxis has never been seen as important for Met. PHILIP (it is interesting to note, that until Bishop BASIL printed the Liturgikon the extent of Antiochian liturgical services where found in the abridged Service Book and the Evening Divine Liturgy books, proper weekday vespers, for instance, where never done. Until a few years ago, students at the St. Stephen's course, most of them convert, were often scandalized that meat was served as a primary dish everday, including Wednesdays and Fridays and even on the beheading of John the Baptist )
So called "traditionalist" Antiochian clergy often find they live a schizophrenic liturgical life. They follow "traditionalist practices" and wear a cassock when the Bishop or Metropolitan isn't around and then revert to the abridged services and clerical collar when they are. Several have said, that if they were allowed to serve and live as clergy do in Syrian and Lebanon (which as one ex-Antiochian priest, now with the Greeks says, is basically the services one finds in the Liturgikon or the Arabic Service books) and dresses like they do there (cassock) with the option to serve as a more "modern" Antiochian (like Met. Philip), they would be happy. Instead, some of them become Athonite monastics and go off the deep end. (They don't even have an Antiochian monastery to go to to learn Antiochian monasticism, because Met. PHILIP won't allow one to be built!)
Back to my "passive aggressive statement"... so, if a priest keeps a low profile, sends kids to camp, gets a few people to sign up for the Order of St. Ignatios. and "wears his collar" he is left on his own. If on the other hand, he is caught being "traditionalist" in public or encouraging his people to live a proper Orthodox life, he can be in big trouble. There is no sense of discussion with Met. PHILP - it is his way or the highway.
The Antiochians may be the group most open to converts, but it is still run by a country club of Arab Americans who are religiously "Byzantine Anglicans" (note Met. PHILIP'S suits and red buttons are the same that Anglican Bishops wear). They are lost in the 1950's and 1960's when America was considered "Christian" and to make it was to become Episcopalian. One just has to look at the list of senior bishops (Antoun) and priests, as well as the board of directors to see what I mean. So, when this club is threatened, by what they see as out of date religiousocity, they just get rid of people, with no thought or discussion.
Anyways, back to my question, Fr. Basil has been laiczed as noted on the LA diocese website. Any publically known reason why this occured?