Has anyone heard anything about Met.Jonah resigning? / Met Jonah Resigns / Holy Synod Releases Official Statement about Met. Jonah's Resignation

[Melodist]

+Matthias and the Synod did the right thing I think in releasing that statement. I think many of us, still scared and reeling from the previous scandals (and abuse we or unnamed acquaintances suffered) and we desire some amount of transparency.

One can release an explanation behind a move like this which affects those of us who are members of the OCA. But that explanation doesn't have to release additional names or information that may endanger other parties involved in whatever issues caused the request for retirement.

I am glad it was our own Bishop Matthias who first released this information. From the brief times I've gotten to speak with him and from what I've heard from others, he is a good man and a good successor to Archbishop Job.

I agree. His grace gave us enough information to know that this isn't simply a case of "the old gaurd" ousting Met Jonah for self serving reasons, and without giving any detailed information about the specifc persons involved.

[kijabeboy03]

Chica, wake up and smell the coffee - the Holy Synod did this because of the lies and gossip people were spreading, to put a stop to it. Eish...

Wow. Basically the Synod opened fire in the Metropolitan's reputation.

I dont think they should have released this.

PP

I'm going to assume the 'rationale' behind the destruction of the Metropolitan's reputation is that they are doing it for the good of the Church and that  the end justifies the means.   It's the concept of 'economia' going haywire.   Well I have news for anyone who thinks this way, the Church is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit doesn't work through sin...so no matter how one looks at it, to slander and calumniate another person is  a sin.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

You would have to read the entire letter to understand the particulars of the Holy Synod's case against +Jonah.

Point of order: It's not really a 'case against +Jonah' because the Holy Synod has (once again) decided to forgo canonical procedures and actually hold a spiritual court. At some point, the question the Holy Synod really should address is why, if they have actual an actual case against Metropolitan Jonah (or Metropolitan Herman, or Metropolitan Theodosius, or Bishop Nicholai of Alaska or...), they never actually prosecute that case in the manner prescribed by the canons of the Church (or indeed the statutes of the OCA). Canonical due process protects not only the accused but the accusers by bringing the accusations out for actual scrutiny by all sides. By avoiding following canonical process, the bishops of the Synod are basically asking for the matter to be tried 'in the court of public opinion', with rumor and gossip flying and their own motives and claims just thrown into the mix.

Witega--I know that you are familiar with Canons of the Church. That said, wouldn't you agree that the OCA Statute has the force of canons for the OCA? If that is the case (and I believe it to be so), then the Holy Synod has the canonical power to ask for and to approve retirements. Would it have been better in the cases that you mention to have used the route of Spiritual Court, which involves more bishops that the OCA had (has?). The latter approach may have been more definitive; however, I submit that the approach that has been taken to date has also been canonical, albeit one that does not bring as much closure.

[Basil 320]

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

[kijabeboy03]

I don't think the Holy Synod's credibility is in question, unless you're such a blind devotee of our former metropolitan that you can't believe the facts put forward in the Holy Synod's statement. I honestly don't know who would want to be our metropolitan, but wouldn't it be better to get on with things than to make them even more drawn out and uncertain? (Which waiting a year certainly would do.)

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

[trifecta]

As an OCA member who occasionally followed the scandals, I am glad the Holy Synod put out this statement.  
I have met Metropolitan Jonah and have been supportive of him.   He is a man of not only wisdom, but an ability
to communicate the spiritual to those of us with a more secular mindset (not that that's a good thing).
I was thinking the Holy Synod were just some old fuddy-duddies who were resisting change.
(I know Orthodox don't think much of change).

But as a parishioner friend said to me, the actions of the Holy Synod have been unanimous.  Furthermore,
I read biographical excerpts on these people, and wow, many have lived difficult or at least thoughtful lives.
Could *all* of them been wrong?

There is no excuse for covering up a crime.  I believe that I had a run-in (nothing major, but nevertheless disturbing)
with the priest at the center of this scandal.  I reported the incident to my priest, because I felt it was my duty as a member
of the OCA.   I did not want to see the church's reputation tarnished by this priest and maybe more importantly, members
being harmed by his actions.

The apparent fact that the Metropolitan tried to sweep this under the rug and, worse yet, pawn him off on another
jurisdiction is to say the least disturbing.  If true, this is reason enough to request the Metropolitan's resignation.
Thus the Synod's letter.    I'm glad to hear their side of the story and feel bad for doubting them.

 
(This post is a reaction; upon hearing other evidence I reserve the right to change my mind.)

[witega]

You would have to read the entire letter to understand the particulars of the Holy Synod's case against +Jonah.

Point of order: It's not really a 'case against +Jonah' because the Holy Synod has (once again) decided to forgo canonical procedures and actually hold a spiritual court. At some point, the question the Holy Synod really should address is why, if they have actual an actual case against Metropolitan Jonah (or Metropolitan Herman, or Metropolitan Theodosius, or Bishop Nicholai of Alaska or...), they never actually prosecute that case in the manner prescribed by the canons of the Church (or indeed the statutes of the OCA). Canonical due process protects not only the accused but the accusers by bringing the accusations out for actual scrutiny by all sides. By avoiding following canonical process, the bishops of the Synod are basically asking for the matter to be tried 'in the court of public opinion', with rumor and gossip flying and their own motives and claims just thrown into the mix.

Witega--I know that you are familiar with Canons of the Church. That said, wouldn't you agree that the OCA Statute has the force of canons for the OCA? If that is the case (and I believe it to be so), then the Holy Synod has the canonical power to ask for and to approve retirements. Would it have been better in the cases that you mention to have used the route of Spiritual Court, which involves more bishops that the OCA had (has?). The latter approach may have been more definitive; however, I submit that the approach that has been taken to date has also been canonical, albeit one that does not bring as much closure.

This whole thing is clearly very spiritually unhealthy for me, so I'll answer this post and the pray that God gives me strength to stay as far away from it as possible going forward.

I do not claim intimate familiarity with the Statute of the OCA, but I think it's a given that the statute ('canons') of any local church should conform to the Ecumenical Canons--particularly on the matter of how to deal with clerical discipline. And if the OCA does not have the capability of assembling a proper canonical court (borrowing bishops from sister Churches if necessary) that is the strongest argument I have ever heard that the OCA's autocephaly should be rescinded until such time as the Church in America is capable of actually following the canons.

As for Bishop Mathias' communication, I am on record earlier in this thread that the bishops do not answer to us and do not 'owe' us an explanation, but I think this communication proves my point. If these accusations were going to be made public at all, then they should have been done so in some venue (preferably a spiritual court) where the accused actually had an opportunity to tell his side of the story. Making them public (and with confirmable details redacted) only after Metropolitan Jonah can no longer freely respond (now that he's resigned, he is completely dependent on the good will of the Synod for another assignment, retirement pension, or even simply canonical release so that he can go and serve elsewhere) smells like the behavior of those who know their actions won't actually stand up to questioning. It doesn't make me a supporter of Metropolitan Jonah, about whom I've been ambivalent for a while--but it certainly erodes any trust I had left in the Synod.

Luckily, neither the Church nor my own faith is dependent on my trusting them. But with that, I'll bow out.

[JamesRottnek]

Wow. Basically the Synod opened fire in the Metropolitan's reputation.

I dont think they should have released this.

PP

I'm going to assume the 'rationale' behind the destruction of the Metropolitan's reputation is that they are doing it for the good of the Church and that  the end justifies the means.   It's the concept of 'economia' going haywire.   Well I have news for anyone who thinks this way, the Church is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit doesn't work through sin...so no matter how one looks at it, to slander and calumniate another person is  a sin.

The Church is not the Holy Spirit.

[JamesRottnek]

My bishop, +Matthias, has today published a very lengthy new explanation about the reasons why the Holy Synod requested that +Jonah resign, and providing much more detail about the reasons behind the Holy Synod's action.  

A snippet:

"Our request for Metropolitan Jonah’s resignation, or that he take a leave of absence for treatment, came at the end of a rather long list of questionable, unilateral decisions and actions, demonstrating the inability of the Metropolitan to always be truthful and accountable to his peers.  The Metropolitan’s freely-chosen resignation has been characterized by him and others as the result of politics and internal discord among the members of the Holy Synod.  Quite to the contrary, the other members of the Holy Synod stand firmly together in our unanimous astonishment at the Metropolitan’s actions.  We cannot stress enough that while the most recent events are likely the most dangerous for the Church, these represent only the latest in a long series of poor choices that have caused harm to our Church.  We understand and agree that an ability to work or not work well with others, or a challenged administrative skill set, or Metropolitan Jonah’s refusal to comply with the recommendations of the treatment facility, while not the reasons for his requested resignation, were fundamentally related to the consequences of his actions."

http://domoca.org/news_120716_1.html

What did they want him "treated' for?

As far as I know, the precise things they wanted treatment for have not been publicly disclosed, though there are plenty of rumors (some of which are probably true, with people in the know telling other people and so on).  I'm not really sure it's a good idea to discuss the issue publicly since - to my knowledge - neither the Synod nor Metropolitan Jonah have ever officially revealed what sort of treatment was supposed to happen.

[JamesRottnek]

My bishop, +Matthias, has today published a very lengthy new explanation about the reasons why the Holy Synod requested that +Jonah resign, and providing much more detail about the reasons behind the Holy Synod's action.  

A snippet:

"Our request for Metropolitan Jonah’s resignation, or that he take a leave of absence for treatment, came at the end of a rather long list of questionable, unilateral decisions and actions, demonstrating the inability of the Metropolitan to always be truthful and accountable to his peers.  The Metropolitan’s freely-chosen resignation has been characterized by him and others as the result of politics and internal discord among the members of the Holy Synod.  Quite to the contrary, the other members of the Holy Synod stand firmly together in our unanimous astonishment at the Metropolitan’s actions.  We cannot stress enough that while the most recent events are likely the most dangerous for the Church, these represent only the latest in a long series of poor choices that have caused harm to our Church.  We understand and agree that an ability to work or not work well with others, or a challenged administrative skill set, or Metropolitan Jonah’s refusal to comply with the recommendations of the treatment facility, while not the reasons for his requested resignation, were fundamentally related to the consequences of his actions."

http://domoca.org/news_120716_1.html

The same letter was also published at OCA.ORG coming this time in the name of the Holy Synod. The reason given for the publication of this letter was stated in the opening paragraph:

"We, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America, have hesitated to release further details surrounding the resignation of Metropolitan Jonah as Primate of our Church, this in a desire to preserve his dignity and to prevent further harm to an innocent party. We did this knowing there would be appeals for additional information regarding our decision. We also harbored some hope that Metropolitan Jonah would show a willingness to accept responsibility for his actions and failures to act. However, things said and written by Metropolitan Jonah since his resignation have demonstrated that he is not accepting that responsibility." (my emphasis)

http://oca.org/PDF/NEWS/2012/2012-0716-holy-synod-statement.pdf

Where, exactly, did His Beatitude write anything since he resigned?

I cannot find anything that he has said publicly. However, plenty of his supporters have said plenty in public, including many hiding behind fake Internet names, citing information that could have come only from +Jonah.

Would you please provide us with links to where His Eminence's supporters have posted public comments about his resignation?

This is a link to the Monomakhos website, select any of the first six or seven posts, and you'll find those public comments about his resignation: http://www.monomakhos.com/category/a-michalopulos-blog/

[JamesRottnek]

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

I think what really needs to happen, if the people (including the priests and deacons) are to have faith in their leaders, a Metropolitan who is completely unimpeachable, and who's character and talents and personality are well known, must be elected.  As I understand it, Fr. Hopko was pushing for Met. Hilarion to be elected back in '08.  Perhaps such a thing wouldn't be a terrible idea.

[Hermogenes]

Did he not mismanage money enough for them?

PP

Is this kind of comment really necessary?

[Hermogenes]

Dear Augustin,

If you carefully comb through the controversies surrounding Met. Jonah, you will see the 'culture war' was by far a small bump in His Beatitude's road as First Hierarch.

The main problems he encountered came from speeches in which he offended the Church of Constantinople in an unpolitical way, then later called the Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA into question by essentially implying it could be given up in favor of an arrangement with the Episcopal Assembly.  In both cases, the Holy Synod was caught off-guard, since these were major issues (inter-Orthodox relations and autocephaly itself) that the HS has a role in.

His Beatitude had a habit of musing in public, which is never something that someone of such consequence should do.  After all, when he speaks, he speaks not for himself but the entire OCA.  It appears that he never entirely grasped the idea that the OCA is a large ship and that you can't jerk the wheel this way or that before you end up breaking the rudder.

This was all the more magnified when he agreed to take a leave of absence, then 'un-agreed' after the meeting with his bishops.  His pattern of quick decisions that led him to even quicker changes of mind really made working with him difficult.  But, it was his ignoring of the other bishops that ultimately did him in.  They tried to explain to him why he could not simply move the whole operation of the OCA to Washington, DC, during a true financial crisis, and he never seemed to accept the advice.  He tried to jerk the wheel, and ended up in conflict with his own administration.

Then, there was his unfortunate involvement with Fr. Joseph Fester that was uncovered by the leaked emails posted on OCANews.  I'm sure you don't want to wade into that controversy here.

In the end, Met. Jonah is a good man, but very clearly not cut out for the job.  This is not an insult, not every monk is material for such an office.  It just did not work out.  The difficulty of the OCA is that it has had a string of bad choices, which is really painful when you are a young church.  Let's hope the next metropolitan is a better fit.

For those here who are members of OCA parishes: What do the faithful in your parish think about this issue? Is this all just something going on in the Synod, or were the laypeople and parish clergy also discontent with Met. Jonah's leadership? Would they prefer to keep him?

From my limited experience: there are those thatmourn him as if it's a presage of the world's ending, and there are those that are glad; he was really naive though thinking that he can just dive head in into the whole "culture-war" the way he did, when his church wasn't on the same page as him by and large. But with friends like Dreher, a metropolitan hardly needs enemies.

Take a look at the letter sent to the faithful of the Diocese of NY/NJ by HG Bishop Michael. I don't believe culture wars enter into the picture. First off, HB is a long way from being anyone's idea of progressive. I've never heard anything official from him that fails to conform to our Orthodox tradition. Many of his views had already been exposed to publics scrutiny prior to his election, since as Igumen Jonah he was fairly well known in the church.

I can only wonder at what sort of leader he might have been if he'd had more than 11 days to learn how to be a hierarch. Remember, at the time of his election only a few bishops were free of any role in the then ongoing scandals. For most, it was simply a matter of collaboration, of not asking uncomfortable questions for fear of getting uncomfortable answers. Going in to the 2008 church convention no one knew what to do. The only clear "hero" of that time was HE Archbishop Job, and he was adamant about not wanting the job. The locum tenens, HE Archbishop Dimitri, was increasing frail, not to mention his advanced age. (Both hierarchs have subsequently fallen asleep. Memory eternal!) And then here comes this sparkling new bishop out to talk with the faithful, and the "musing out loud" totally charmed his hearers. Here was a man whose yea was yea, and whose nay was nay. Next thing you know, he's standing front and being acclaimed primate. And he seemed to start off pretty well. But there have been rumblings for several years. I don't know anyone who's surprised.

[kijabeboy03]

I don't think the Russians were (or are) going to let go of their next patriarch :-).

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

I think what really needs to happen, if the people (including the priests and deacons) are to have faith in their leaders, a Metropolitan who is completely unimpeachable, and who's character and talents and personality are well known, must be elected.  As I understand it, Fr. Hopko was pushing for Met. Hilarion to be elected back in '08.  Perhaps such a thing wouldn't be a terrible idea.

[primuspilus]

Did he not mismanage money enough for them?

PP

Is this kind of comment really necessary?

I already recanted and apologized for the statement. If you read 3 or 4 posts further, you would have seen that. Peter took me to the proverbial woodshed (as he should have).

After thinking it over, I think that maybe it was the right thing to do. Granted, the previous metropolitans had serious issues, I think that the OCA needed someone to "lead from the front". It wasnt that +Jonah is a bad man, just maybe not the right guy for what the OCA needed at the present time, coming out of scandal.

PP

PP

[mike]

While I'm sure we were part of the problem, I think monomakhos was a huge part of the vitriolic rumor mill.

We did, too.

[PrincessMommy]

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

I agree.  The knee-jerk reaction of many people (myself included) was to mis-trust the Synod and they're going to need to work on that.  Perhaps its an impossible task in this day of cynicism and automatic distrust toward leaders here in America.  I wish they had told us the reasoning when the resignation was made public.  It just made things worse.  The only thing that is puzzling to me is why they wanted Met. JONAH to take a "leave of absence for treatment".  That just seems so odd wording if the reason he has stepped down was for administrative issues related to non-disclosure.  Shouldn't he have gone to "training".   That makes me think there is more to the story but I'm less inclined to dis-trust and assume the worst of the Synod now.

[PeterTheAleut]

Did he not mismanage money enough for them?

PP

Is this kind of comment really necessary?

Already addressed and forgiven. There's no need to bring this up again.

[FormerReformer]

What I would find amusing if the situation weren't so sad is that the most stringent of the Metropolitan's supporters (on other sites, you know which blogs I refer) have spent the past week demanding the Holy Synod explain the reason for requesting the Metropolitan's resignation, and now that the Synod has done so it is being accused of engaging in a smear campaign with cries of "he resigned already, haven't they done enough?" The Synod is truly in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" Catch-22.

[gzt]

What I would find amusing if the situation weren't so sad is that the most stringent of the Metropolitan's supporters (on other sites, you know which blogs I refer) have spent the past week demanding the Holy Synod explain the reason for requesting the Metropolitan's resignation, and now that the Synod has done so it is being accused of engaging in a smear campaign with cries of "he resigned already, haven't they done enough?" The Synod is truly in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" Catch-22.

Some of them are saying, "This isn't enough information, it doesn't prove anything, substantiate all of the allegations fully. Give more examples!"

[rakovsky]

Peter took me to the proverbial woodshed (as he should have).

So that no one in the house could hear your cries?
If it is so good a thing to do, why is it done hidden in darkness?
Could this be a metaphor for the way some things are done in the leadership of organizations- they are done hidden and people don't know about it, and people think everything is OK, but it really isn't. They just trust the leadership while the leadership makes its own justification about the things. "They just wouldn't understand", "It's for the good of the order", etc. Meanwhile people think it's better if they don't know.

Perhaps I am part of this. I heard that there was a problem with the leadership, and avoided trying to find out about it myself. But if something bad is going on in the woodshed, could it be better to open the doors and expose it so people can stop it?

Admittedly, it seems there can be the opposite problem- when people are brought out to be mistreated and ridiculed by an uncaring populace. What if, say, the problem was that the Metropolitan had a mild (nonsexual) condition of some kind. Then there could be a problem if it was exposed needlessly.

[FatherGiryus]

This is not merely, in my opinion, limited to OCA internet denizens.

I recently had a parishioner leave our parish because I would not describe exactly what was going on in a pastoral situation with another parishioner.  Of course, the other parishioner was fabricating big time, knowing that I would not break confidentiality.  When I tried to explain that I could not defend my decisions or answer the accusations, he said, "Yes, but I still need to know."

So, he walked, and God has since sent others to take his place.  Too bad for him.

What was interesting was that he had said, quite plainly, that he has done this before in other churches.  Most of the folks who are grousing right now are people who've had issues like this with other jurisdictions and even other churches altogether.  They are perennially discontent, and nothing will make them happy.

When Mark Stokoe ran OCANews, he actually was well-connected and got lots of insider information.  Since he was closed down, his 'replacements' on the internet indignation scene have no real connections and thus little to offer but rage.  Stokoe had rage, but at least it was informative rage.  Now we get just rage.

What I would find amusing if the situation weren't so sad is that the most stringent of the Metropolitan's supporters (on other sites, you know which blogs I refer) have spent the past week demanding the Holy Synod explain the reason for requesting the Metropolitan's resignation, and now that the Synod has done so it is being accused of engaging in a smear campaign with cries of "he resigned already, haven't they done enough?" The Synod is truly in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" Catch-22.

Some of them are saying, "This isn't enough information, it doesn't prove anything, substantiate all of the allegations fully. Give more examples!"

[Hermogenes]

Here is the link to the Diocese of NY/NJ Web site and Bishop Michael's letter. It seems quite forthright to me, given the limits imposed by legal considerations.


http://nynjoca.org/files/2012/2012%20Releases/Bishop_LTR_16_JULY_2012.pdf

[katherineofdixie]

This is not merely, in my opinion, limited to OCA internet denizens.

I recently had a parishioner leave our parish because I would not describe exactly what was going on in a pastoral situation with another parishioner.  Of course, the other parishioner was fabricating big time, knowing that I would not break confidentiality.  When I tried to explain that I could not defend my decisions or answer the accusations, he said, "Yes, but I still need to know."

So, he walked, and God has since sent others to take his place.  Too bad for him.

What was interesting was that he had said, quite plainly, that he has done this before in other churches.  Most of the folks who are grousing right now are people who've had issues like this with other jurisdictions and even other churches altogether.  They are perennially discontent, and nothing will make them happy.

Exactly, Father. What people don't seem to understand is that it is not always fair, appropriate, helpful or even (in some cases) legal, for them to know all the gory details. I learned this as an HR manager, and I have seen it play out in interactions between Bishops and parishes. A Bishop or Priest literally cannot divulge details of interactions with Priests or parishioners. Nor is it necessary or helpful to anyone not directly involved.

Why do I need to know what conditions Metropolitan Jonah needed treatment for?

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I think that Monomakhos has four kinds  of bloggers:

1. Those who are inordinately afraid that the Orthodox Church will become like the Episcopal Church and condone abortion, gay marriage, women clergy, etc...They are willing to schism.

2. Those who use the culture wars issues I listed above as a smokescreen to cover up Metropolitan Jonah's mistakes. These folks are also willing to schism.

3. Those who have joined with the first two groups to push yet another agenda; the rehabilitation of retired Bishop Nikolai and former Chancellor Bob Kondratick. These folks cannot schism and achieve their goal.

4. Finally, there are folks who jump in trying to counter the arguments of the first three groups. I was part of this group. I have quit trying to reason with schismatics.

[gzt]

What about those caught up in the cult of personality of Metropolitan Jonah? They may have aspects of 1 and 2.

But, yes, I've worked in HR, too, and know that it is not in my interests to know all the dirt and that it is not in anybody's interests to know all the dirt. If you want to know the dirt, it is most likely a prurient interest rather than a righteous one. If you want to know something, you need to have a reasonable need for that information and you will be given the minimum necessary to meet that reasonable need. Beyond that, "What is it to you?" as Jesus once said.

[PeterTheAleut]

Peter took me to the proverbial woodshed (as he should have).

So that no one in the house could hear your cries?
If it is so good a thing to do, why is it done hidden in darkness?
Could this be a metaphor for the way some things are done in the leadership of organizations- they are done hidden and people don't know about it, and people think everything is OK, but it really isn't. They just trust the leadership while the leadership makes its own justification about the things. "They just wouldn't understand", "It's for the good of the order", etc. Meanwhile people think it's better if they don't know.

Perhaps I am part of this. I heard that there was a problem with the leadership, and avoided trying to find out about it myself. But if something bad is going on in the woodshed, could it be better to open the doors and expose it so people can stop it?

Admittedly, it seems there can be the opposite problem- when people are brought out to be mistreated and ridiculed by an uncaring populace. What if, say, the problem was that the Metropolitan had a mild (nonsexual) condition of some kind. Then there could be a problem if it was exposed needlessly.

What are you talking about, Rakovsky? You're taking a metaphor primuspilus used in reference to a very public interaction I had with him on this thread and turning that metaphor into something totally different.

[FatherGiryus]

Let's be fair: the higher you move up in terms of responsibility, the less expectation one should have of privacy.

For example, if you cheat on your wife as a layman, it can be handled in complete confidentiality.  How about a priest?  No, some of it is going to be public because he's going to be deposed.

If there are criminal matters, there is also less of an expectation of privacy.  However, this situation was not criminal.

In this case, there was a violation of the canons regarding the reception and release of clergy.  Yet, the Church has flexibility in how to deal with these kinds of violations, and retirement is appropriate.

The second was a rather significant violation of the trust OCA members have that the hierarchs will act on behalf of the entire community.  His Beatitude violated that trust by refusing to abide by the OCA's misconduct policy which was in place before his elevation and which he never made any official effort to remove.  Given that the OCA is involved in a lawsuit, and the Metropolitan's action may very well have been revealed through later legal proceedings, I think that this revelation would have been made at some point and so there was no expectation of privacy beyond what the Holy Synod had already offered him.

Let's remember something as well: for those diehard supporters of His Beatitude's 'culture warrior' role, what is more important in modern American religious discourse than sexual misconduct?  This very issue has shattered the confidence of countless Roman Catholics and even Evangelicals (yes, they've had their share: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals).  Metropolitan Jonah had a significant problem in a monastery he received... and he did nothing but cover up the problem.

While His Beatitude's personality issues that appeared to be behind many of these decisions could have been kept confidential, what could not, in the end, were his primatial decisions.  In the end, the Holy Synod could neither force him to make these decisions, nor could they help him once he made them.

It is apparent that the Holy Synod wanted to keep all of this as quiet as they could, but it was the dire calls of His Beatitude's supporters that forced the hands of the Holy Synod to release the information and air the 'dirty laundry.'  Even now, one site is crying for documentation.  I am beginning to wonder if this site is not directly involved in some kind of plot to undermine Met. Jonah while pretending to support him.

His Beatitude probably could have been given the Diocese of the South had he resigned a few years earlier before these decisions became entrenched, but now this will never happened because his violation of the canons are such that he is truly disqualified from further service in the episcopate.  

This is not merely, in my opinion, limited to OCA internet denizens.

I recently had a parishioner leave our parish because I would not describe exactly what was going on in a pastoral situation with another parishioner.  Of course, the other parishioner was fabricating big time, knowing that I would not break confidentiality.  When I tried to explain that I could not defend my decisions or answer the accusations, he said, "Yes, but I still need to know."

So, he walked, and God has since sent others to take his place.  Too bad for him.

What was interesting was that he had said, quite plainly, that he has done this before in other churches.  Most of the folks who are grousing right now are people who've had issues like this with other jurisdictions and even other churches altogether.  They are perennially discontent, and nothing will make them happy.

Exactly, Father. What people don't seem to understand is that it is not always fair, appropriate, helpful or even (in some cases) legal, for them to know all the gory details. I learned this as an HR manager, and I have seen it play out in interactions between Bishops and parishes. A Bishop or Priest literally cannot divulge details of interactions with Priests or parishioners. Nor is it necessary or helpful to anyone not directly involved.

Why do I need to know what conditions Metropolitan Jonah needed treatment for?

[Nigula Qian Zishi]

According to that blog, the accusations of the synod were incorrect. Read and decide for yourselves:

http://www.monomakhos.com/first-rule-of-holes-when-youre-in-one-stop-digging/

[PeterTheAleut]

According to that blog, the accusations of the synod were incorrect. Read and decide for yourselves:

http://www.monomakhos.com/first-rule-of-holes-when-youre-in-one-stop-digging/

Please do remind me never to go back to that rag of a blog called monomakhos again.

[PrincessMommy]

According to that blog, the accusations of the synod were incorrect. Read and decide for yourselves:

http://www.monomakhos.com/first-rule-of-holes-when-youre-in-one-stop-digging/

I saw that.  He's lost every shred of credibility with that post.  Sad, really sad.

[FatherGiryus]

The problem with the Monomakhos post is that it assumes the ENTIRE Holy Synod is lying, in which case one would wonder why George is not attending a parish of Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian Patriarchal or some other jurisdiction.  All hope would be lost at that stage.  Met. Jonah could not be 'restored' to a jurisdiction without bishops, which is the natural conclusion of such an act of depravity as he accuses.

Furthermore, most of this information is outside the OCA, so it would make no sense to make claims about the transfer of the priest in question since ROCOR is in possession of the original letter of transfer.  If the Holy Synod was lying, ROCOR could easily post the original letter and utterly humiliate the entire OCA while exonerating an innocent man.

In some ways, the Holy Synod has been far more loving to Metropolitan Jonah than George has.  They have been trying to get him help and end his self-destructive behavior, which George, Fr. Joseph Fester, Rod Dreher, Jesse Cone, and many of the other 'supporters' were busy trying to get His Beatitude to double-down.  They created a conspiracy narrative to drive a wedge between the bishops and the metropolitan.

There are many people who love Metropolitan Jonah and wanted him to succeed.  I don't think any of them wanted to see him violate OCA policies and Church canons the way he did.  They did not support him to do those things, but rather be an inspirational leader.  Sadly, his actions were not in keeping with his sermons, and this disconnect is disappointing to everyone.

According to that blog, the accusations of the synod were incorrect. Read and decide for yourselves:

http://www.monomakhos.com/first-rule-of-holes-when-youre-in-one-stop-digging/

I saw that.  He's lost every shred of credibility with that post.  Sad, really sad.

[Hermogenes]

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

I think what really needs to happen, if the people (including the priests and deacons) are to have faith in their leaders, a Metropolitan who is completely unimpeachable, and who's character and talents and personality are well known, must be elected.  As I understand it, Fr. Hopko was pushing for Met. Hilarion to be elected back in '08.  Perhaps such a thing wouldn't be a terrible idea.

I can see His Emminence is known to you only by name. He would truly bring disaster upon our church. Yes, he is brilliant, devout, and talented. But his very Russian style of leadership would never work here.

[Benjamin the Red]

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

I think what really needs to happen, if the people (including the priests and deacons) are to have faith in their leaders, a Metropolitan who is completely unimpeachable, and who's character and talents and personality are well known, must be elected.  As I understand it, Fr. Hopko was pushing for Met. Hilarion to be elected back in '08.  Perhaps such a thing wouldn't be a terrible idea.

I can see His Emminence is known to you only by name. He would truly bring disaster upon our church. Yes, he is brilliant, devout, and talented. But his very Russian style of leadership would never work here.

You're probably right. The question is, whose problem is that? I'm not so sure anymore...

[Marc1152]

Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took.  It's a sad situation.  Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it.  Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely.  The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.

What do others think about this?  Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so).  I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan.  Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service.  Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year?  Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility.  Your thoughts?

I think what really needs to happen, if the people (including the priests and deacons) are to have faith in their leaders, a Metropolitan who is completely unimpeachable, and who's character and talents and personality are well known, must be elected.  As I understand it, Fr. Hopko was pushing for Met. Hilarion to be elected back in '08.  Perhaps such a thing wouldn't be a terrible idea.

I can see His Emminence is known to you only by name. He would truly bring disaster upon our church. Yes, he is brilliant, devout, and talented. But his very Russian style of leadership would never work here.

Maybe just for a couple years to bring order.

I have spent time with Met. Hilarion. I cant attest to his leadership style, Russian or not, but he is very wise in his personal style.
Sounds like what the doctor has ordered to me.

My Priest was ordained by him at all levels. Just after he was made a Deacon, he was serving the Liturgy with  the Met. He recounts that he did not really know what he was doing and went out from the Altar with the sensor. He walked back and forth, back and forth in front of the Icon Screen until all eyebrows were up and there were a few giggles.

He got back to the Altar when Met Hilarion looked at him and said............. "Perfect"    

[Cognomen]

I don't claim to know the truth in this situation, but these blogists come off as revolting rumor mongers.

I'll be in line when bishops seem to stray from the faith (as we all should), but the derisive tone these folk (or maybe one fellow) take towards the bishops is disconcerting.  

I suppose the taking in of a bunch of disgruntled folk is coming back to roost. These type of reactions make me miss the 90% of my life when I had no affiliation with churches.

[primuspilus]

I just read the latest monomakhos post and I must say, that although he brings up good counterpoints in light of not knowing EVERYTHING, the way in which it is presented is very, very disrespectful and should not be done.

PP

[primuspilus]

No edit.

I would like to say I have been following alot of blogs on this, from Episcopalians, to Baptists, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans.

They dont denounce the Holy Synod (well...except for one....no not mono...its an Anglican blog) but they say how much he'll be missed and how great a voice he was for American Orthodoxy. His Eminence is loved by alot of folks.

I hope he does get an episcopal assignment because he seemed to be a true asset to our faith.

I am surprised that Stokoe hasnt said too much (except for some Chicago Tribune piece or something)

PP

[Hermogenes]

I can see His Emminence is known to you only by name. He would truly bring disaster upon our church. Yes, he is brilliant, devout, and talented. But his very Russian style of leadership would never work here.

Maybe just for a couple years to bring order.

I have spent time with Met. Hilarion. I cant attest to his leadership style, Russian or not, but he is very wise in his personal style.
Sounds like what the doctor has ordered to me.

My Priest was ordained by him at all levels. Just after he was made a Deacon, he was serving the Liturgy with  the Met. He recounts that he did not really know what he was doing and went out from the Altar with the sensor. He walked back and forth, back and forth in front of the Icon Screen until all eyebrows were up and there were a few giggles.

He got back to the Altar when Met Hilarion looked at him and said............. "Perfect"    
[/quote]

I didn't mean he was evil. He's extraordinarily kind and cultured. But for example, take a look at his comments a year or so ago to Der Spiegel (German news pub) about the breakdown in discussions between Orthodox and Lutherans. "Brisk" would be about the most generous spin I could put on it. Needlessly blunt and rude would be closer. And it's not a translation issue. The interview was in German, which I speak, being half Viennese. I believe we do not need a bishop given to harsh public comments that offend his audience. And even apart from this, I do not think he will leave Russia. He is being guided to a much different future.

[PrincessMommy]

I can see His Emminence is known to you only by name. He would truly bring disaster upon our church. Yes, he is brilliant, devout, and talented. But his very Russian style of leadership would never work here.

Maybe just for a couple years to bring order.

I have spent time with Met. Hilarion. I cant attest to his leadership style, Russian or not, but he is very wise in his personal style.
Sounds like what the doctor has ordered to me.

My Priest was ordained by him at all levels. Just after he was made a Deacon, he was serving the Liturgy with  the Met. He recounts that he did not really know what he was doing and went out from the Altar with the sensor. He walked back and forth, back and forth in front of the Icon Screen until all eyebrows were up and there were a few giggles.

He got back to the Altar when Met Hilarion looked at him and said............. "Perfect"    

I didn't mean he was evil. He's extraordinarily kind and cultured. But for example, take a look at his comments a year or so ago to Der Spiegel (German news pub) about the breakdown in discussions between Orthodox and Lutherans. "Brisk" would be about the most generous spin I could put on it. Needlessly blunt and rude would be closer. And it's not a translation issue. The interview was in German, which I speak, being half Viennese. I believe we do not need a bishop given to harsh public comments that offend his audience. And even apart from this, I do not think he will leave Russia. He is being guided to a much different future.

I think you two are talking about two different Hilarions:

Met. Hilarion of ROCOR and Met. Hilarion Alfeyev.  

[PrincessMommy]

No edit.

I would like to say I have been following alot of blogs on this, from Episcopalians, to Baptists, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans.

They dont denounce the Holy Synod (well...except for one....no not mono...its an Anglican blog) but they say how much he'll be missed and how great a voice he was for American Orthodoxy. His Eminence is loved by alot of folks.

I hope he does get an episcopal assignment because he seemed to be a true asset to our faith.

I am surprised that Stokoe hasnt said too much (except for some Chicago Tribune piece or something)

PP

Good grief!  Baptists are talking about this?  I had no idea he was even their radar.

[kijabeboy03]

Assuming he had any to begin with...

According to that blog, the accusations of the synod were incorrect. Read and decide for yourselves:

http://www.monomakhos.com/first-rule-of-holes-when-youre-in-one-stop-digging/

I saw that.  He's lost every shred of credibility with that post.  Sad, really sad.

[Melodist]

he seemed to be a true asset to our faith.

I agree. He served well in the positions he was in before being elected Metropolitan. Having admitted his own personal shortcomings as an administrator in the position of metropolitan, regardless of what position he will find himself in when the dust settles, I do honestly hope that he ends up in a position where he will be able to best serve the OCA and Orthodoxy in general in North America.

[Marc1152]

I can see His Emminence is known to you only by name. He would truly bring disaster upon our church. Yes, he is brilliant, devout, and talented. But his very Russian style of leadership would never work here.

Maybe just for a couple years to bring order.

I have spent time with Met. Hilarion. I cant attest to his leadership style, Russian or not, but he is very wise in his personal style.
Sounds like what the doctor has ordered to me.

My Priest was ordained by him at all levels. Just after he was made a Deacon, he was serving the Liturgy with  the Met. He recounts that he did not really know what he was doing and went out from the Altar with the sensor. He walked back and forth, back and forth in front of the Icon Screen until all eyebrows were up and there were a few giggles.

He got back to the Altar when Met Hilarion looked at him and said............. "Perfect"    

I didn't mean he was evil. He's extraordinarily kind and cultured. But for example, take a look at his comments a year or so ago to Der Spiegel (German news pub) about the breakdown in discussions between Orthodox and Lutherans. "Brisk" would be about the most generous spin I could put on it. Needlessly blunt and rude would be closer. And it's not a translation issue. The interview was in German, which I speak, being half Viennese. I believe we do not need a bishop given to harsh public comments that offend his audience. And even apart from this, I do not think he will leave Russia. He is being guided to a much different future.
[/quote]

Are we talking about the same guy? He officially lives in Australia and spends most of his time in New York, Met of Rocor.

[kijabeboy03]

I think there's been a confusion of Metropolitans Hilarion (Kapral) of New York and the ROCOR and Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk, head of external affairs for the Moscow Patriarchate...

I can see His Emminence is known to you only by name. He would truly bring disaster upon our church. Yes, he is brilliant, devout, and talented. But his very Russian style of leadership would never work here.

Maybe just for a couple years to bring order.

I have spent time with Met. Hilarion. I cant attest to his leadership style, Russian or not, but he is very wise in his personal style.
Sounds like what the doctor has ordered to me.

My Priest was ordained by him at all levels. Just after he was made a Deacon, he was serving the Liturgy with  the Met. He recounts that he did not really know what he was doing and went out from the Altar with the sensor. He walked back and forth, back and forth in front of the Icon Screen until all eyebrows were up and there were a few giggles.

He got back to the Altar when Met Hilarion looked at him and said............. "Perfect"    

I didn't mean he was evil. He's extraordinarily kind and cultured. But for example, take a look at his comments a year or so ago to Der Spiegel (German news pub) about the breakdown in discussions between Orthodox and Lutherans. "Brisk" would be about the most generous spin I could put on it. Needlessly blunt and rude would be closer. And it's not a translation issue. The interview was in German, which I speak, being half Viennese. I believe we do not need a bishop given to harsh public comments that offend his audience. And even apart from this, I do not think he will leave Russia. He is being guided to a much different future.

Are we talking about the same guy? He officially lives in Australia and spends most of his time in New York, Met of Rocor.
[/quote]

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Has anyone heard anything about Met.Jonah resigning? / Met Jonah Resigns / Holy Synod Releases Official Statement about Met. Jonah's Resignation