Maybe this was a "one time" event, the groping incident that is...and yet, groping a woman is not exactly the same sort of "one time" event like getting a speeding ticket on an empty country road....or shop lifting a candy bar....it's not just an abstract minor crime, it's a violation of another human being, another icon of Christ. Alcohol often brings out things inside a person they'd rather not confront, but they come from within, and not without. (IMO, I'm no dr. phil)....so something else is going on here.
He's admitted he has a drinking problem, and that is NOT a one time incident. Now it may very well be he's got all this nipped in the bud...that Christ has healed him, and that he is now a saint.....if that is the case he'll likely refuse any positions offered to him because in God's wisdom saints probably realize when something is just "too soon"....
In the end, this man, while we should are commanded to forgive him, doesn't mean there aren't conseuqences. Let him teach, let do any number of things to serve the Church, but a Bishop he should not be.
There were consequences and they have been administered. I will also say this: with the same measure that you now feel free to judge Bp Demetri, you will also be judged. It's not my idea of justice but rather the Lord's. It seems to me that we need to be very circumspect in how we express our righteous indignation. He is a bishop... yes... but he is also a man and a sinner like every other man... including hierarchs of the Church.
So when a Bishop does something immoral, lives an immoral life, or has some sickness (like alcoholism) we're not aloud to point these things out because we're "judging" him? That's news to me, and I think many of the saints would be surprised to hear of such a concept as well.
That seems to be the same stance taken in the diocese in Alaska in the OCA. That seems to be the same stance MANY people had with the OCA financial scandal. That seems to me, to be the same stance that "some" in the Church have used for centuries to allow all sorts of corruption to affect the Church. The whole idea of "protecting" the Church is just nonsense. We protect people, individuals, the Church and the heirarchy need no protection.
I'm sorry that you cannot separate the office from the man, and that you don't understand the difference between adminstrative judgments and actually judging the individual, but I have a feeling that if this were a Catholic Bishop, people would be up in arms shaking their fists and crying out "those Latins are at it again"...but because this man is an Orthodox Bishop we just let all this slide? Good grief! I'm sorry, but I seriously do NOT understand what you're saying or why you're saying it. The man, whom I've never met, is probably a likable enough guy, and for all I know he is completely and utterly repentant, (though he could be completely unrepetent none of us know this only God knows, and maybe his confessor), and this man may be ushered into the Kingdom while I am shut out...those decisions are up to God, and only God, and I am not judging him on matters of salvation, or personal character, or how holy of an individual he may or may not be.....But I just cannot believe my eyes; people shrugging this off as "well he only did it once"...what if he had raped this woman? Would you still be saying "well he repented, let him continue to be a Bishop?"
If this man were a Catholic priest, would you be saying the same thing? I'd be curious to know what your opinion of the Catholic "celebrity" priest who was all over the news this morning is...at least his relationship and priestly indiscretion was consensual.
What if this were a Jewish Rabbi? Or a Muslim Cleric? Or a Protestant pastor/minister? What about priests who DO abuse children, and then are later truly and honestly repentant? Should they be restored as a parish priest with children? Just curious if your opinions are consistent on this issue, or if because this Bishop is Orthodox he gets "special" treatment?
I'm not saying he should be excommunicated, defrocked, deposed, sent into exile, or anything of that sort, I'm only saying he should NOT be a diocesan
Bishop....in fact I didn't even say NEVER, I just said that it's WAY too soon. I totally get forgiveness and restoration....as I've met priests, one in particular who've had some pretty nasty skeletons in their closet, one who would have likely been a Bishop, had it not been for a single episode in his life. But that jurisdiction decided that even though he was repentant, and in fact was restored to the serving priesthood, he would NEVER be made a Bishop. I've met him, talked to him, and he is a gentle, soft spoken individual, and I have no issue with something he did 10 years before, however he's also been "protected" by the Church in the proper way, that he would never be put into such a position that would might cause him to be put into a similar situation ever again. True forgiveness is also about healing, and if Bishop Dimitri were put into the extremely stressful situation of an acting administrating Bishop once again, how is he expected to heal?
I don't mean to be so firm in my words, but you're throwing around the bible verses as if i'm judging the man, the individual, and I'm not.
Obviously this man was much beloved, he must have been because he is garnering much support, but in fact, if indeed he's made a diocesan Bishop once again, it's as if the Church would be throwing him right back into the snakepit where he came from. This is not a one time speeding ticket, and even if he is "healed", things of this nature can rise up inside a person once again, especially in stressful situations....I can't think of many vocations that are are stressful as a Bishop of the Church. It's like a recovering alcoholic owning a bar. Sure, Sam could do it on Cheers, but the Church ain't Cheers, and the Bishop isn't Ted Danson.