Memories are often short in this internet age. For this reason, I draw your attention to the reports of the Special Investigative Committee and Special Commission which, in 2007 and 2008, investigated the gross immorality, malfeasance, and theft that plagued the Orthodox Church in America for some two decades. The people who undertook those investigations labored with difficulty against obstructionism, lies, misdirection, character attacks,  malevolent excommunication, and clerical abuse. (As Metropolitan Jonah once put it, “[The] church was looted. It was an expensive lesson, a very expensive lesson.”) The reports themselves are no longer available at oca.org, but they are now posted here at Orthodox Leader. To all of those who worked so hard to bring these sins to light: thank you. To the rest: learn well, and remember.

Christ is risen! Indeed he is risen! (Lest we forget with the hubbub over the past few days.)

No time for a lengthier article today (or for the next couple of days, in all likelihood). But, since some readers (well, one reader, I guess) have suggested that I have characterized the Truthers unfairly, I’d like to explain that my standard for bearing false witness is that of the Church.

That standard finds its origin in Exodus 20:16, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour,” a.k.a. the Ninth Commandment. Deuteronomy 19:15-21 goes on further, in establishing that accusations are made only “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses.”  The point of the witnesses is that known individuals (more than one of them, so someone has to agree on something) in the community, with personal reputations to uphold, stand up and make their accusations. Rumor and innuendo are tossed aside in favor of faithful maturity. If there’s any room for doubt or misunderstanding, it’s better for no accusations to be brought than to risk a loss of credibility face.

Beyond that, the prohibition on bearing false witness achieves its fullness in the light of Christ, as explained  its fullness in the Christian profession given by St. Paul:

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. –Romans 13:9-10

Thus, “false witness” cannot be reduced to “did what I say, technically, turn out to be a lie?” as the world would have it, but must be understood in terms of that and more. False witness is also found in attributing evil motives to others, in casting aspersions on our enemies’ character absent any proof, in making unsupported statements about others’ beliefs, and in misrepresenting what our adversaries say.  As I’ve written previously, avoiding false witness is central to those in leadership. We must seek to present others in the most honest and charitable light, not the light in which we want them to stand or the light that makes them look as bad as possible.

With that, I’ll close with something I’ve quoted before (see preceding link) because leaders really need to be able to answer righteously to this particular set of questions for self-examination before confession:

Ninth Commandment – You shall not bear false witness.

Have I told lies, or added to or subtracted from the truth? Have I made careless statements or spoken evil of anyone? Have I told any secrets entrusted to me, or betrayed anyone? Have I gossiped about anyone or harmed their reputation? Have I concealed the truth, assisted in carrying out a lie, or pretended to commit a sin of which I was not guilty? Have I tried to see the good in others rather than their shortcomings?

“He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.” -Proverbs 10:18

To elaborate briefly on the post immediately preceding this one, it is hard to overstate the role that anonymity played in the damage inflicted by OCATruth.com. Being anonymous allowed the writers at OCA Truth to receive information without revealing who they were, and to launch attacks with impunity against whomever they chose. The domain name was registered with a proxy, shielding the true registrant-owners of the domain from public visibility, likely requiring a court order to lift the veil of secrecy. Further, OCATruth.com disabled comments, even though the site is a blog. Thus, for anyone to counterattack required any critic either a) to have his own site, or b) to post in other venues. Both options forced respondents to stick their heads up out of the foxhole, becoming ready targets for more attacks from OCATruth.com. The shill names used at sites like monomakhos.com enabled them to lure others into revealing their objections.

In short, OCATruth.com was a nest of snipers drawing out their prey with a steady stream of half-truths, innuendo, unsupported accusations, taunts (“C’mon Fr. Bieberdorff [sic]“), and invective. Worse, having been flushed out, OCA Truth has withdrawn two damaging posts with the excuse that the information disclosed falls under the seal of the confessional.

What kind of leadership is that? Cowardly leadership (whether misguided or malicious), facilitated by anonymity.

But it must be observed that, with regard to anonymity, Jesse Cone (“Parishioner” at OCA Truth) held a different position as recently as December [emphasis mine]:

I fail to see how any of us can responsibly say whether or not Fr. Fester is trying to gloss over anything, and I fail to see how Fr. Fester’s assignment to DC has received any credible objections. Suspicions? Sure. But if you’re not in a place to know, you don’t know. And if you do know for sure, what would give just reason to accuse a member of the priesthood? If you cannot even sign your name to such an accusation, is it really responsible to publically denounce a fellow Christian and stir up suspicion and distrust in others?

Rod Dreher (“Muzhik” at OCA Truth) likewise had a different opinion, back in April 2009 [emphasis and notes mine]:

I would also like to add, for the sake of clarification, that the question of Syosset and the old days is a separate issue. My objection stated here is solely about the gross impropriety, cowardice and destructiveness of the [anonymous] “Humble and Obedient” post. If someone had posted a similar anonymous attack on Fr. John, and had called on the cathedral parish to rise up against him, I promise you I would be equally disgusted.

One of the things that so impressed me about the way many priests and laymen of the OCA handled the mess with Met. Herman is how they were bold enough to sign their names to their criticism. When I was a Catholic, and a journalist writing about the sex abuse scandal, I heard from priests and laymen all the time who had truly shocking and terrible things to report. I believed then, and believe now, that they were telling me the truth. But I couldn’t report any of it unless they were willing to put their name to the criticism of particular bishops, priests, et al. Their views and information, however passionately held and grounded in fact, were useless gossip. And for all I know, they had it wrong. That they wouldn’t say what they felt needed saying in public, with their names attached to it, said a lot about the credibility of their accusations. It is perhaps understandable, to an extent, when a priest or layman whose income depends on not crossing church leaders is hesitant to stand up. But that didn’t stop many OCA priests during the Herman mess. What’s stopping this anonymous attacker of Fr. Joseph from identifying himself or herself now, and letting all of us at the cathedral be the judge of his or her credibility?

No one has the right to do this to our parish and its priests. No one. Whoever you are, you either have no idea what you’re doing, or you don’t care.

In spite of these statements, both men found themselves willing to cast, anonymously, all manner of aspersions against a sizable number of clergy and laity in positions of responsibility in the Orthodox Church in America. The veiled ones chose to malign a cast of people (a.k.a. “the cabal”) who served faithfully, at personal cost to their reputations, under difficult circumstances not all that long ago. The gravity of the temptation to hide, lobbing grenades over the wall, instead of standing up to the slurs and accusations is revealed mightily in the attacks from OCA Truth. It doesn’t cost anything, nor does it require any exposure of one’s self, to work in this fashion.

When I started this blog, I wrote briefly about the value of real names. While the particular policy in that post has been relaxed somewhat, I think my point still holds true. Anonymity does not serve Christ’s Church. If what is being said needs to be said, then it should be said forthrightly and by someone we know. The very idea of apostolic succession is established on the twin pillars of apostolic doctrine (i.e., what is taught) and apostolic connection (i.e., who ordained whom). The latter can’t exist in an anonymous world. The bishops, as those preaching the Gospel, must be named and identifiable, so as to establish the continuity of what is taught. If it’s so for them, shouldn’t it be so for those accusing them? Oh wait. It is. Take your time and read this carefully:

I Constantinople Canon 6
There are many who are bent on confusing and overturning the good order of the church and so fabricate, out of hatred and a wish to slander, certain accusations against orthodox bishops in charge of churches. Their intention is none other than to blacken priests’ reputations and to stir up trouble among peace- loving laity. For this reason the sacred synod of bishops assembled at Constantinople has decided not to admit accusers without prior examination, and not to allow everyone to bring accusations against church administrators — but with- out excluding everyone. So if someone brings a private (that is a personal) complaint against the bishop on the grounds that he has been defrauded or in some other way unjustly dealt with by him, in the case of this kind of accusation neither the character nor the religion of the accuser will be subject to examination. It is wholly essential both that the bishop should have a clear conscience and that the one who alleges that he has been wronged, whatever his religion may be, should get justice.

But if the charge brought against the bishop is of an ecclesiastical kind, then the characters of those making it should be examined, in the first place to stop heretics bringing charges against orthodox bishops in matters of an ecclesiastical kind. (We define “heretics” as those who have been previously banned from the church and also those later anathematised by ourselves: and in addition those who claim to confess a faith that is sound, but who have seceded and hold assemblies in rivalry with the bishops who are in communion with us.) In the second place, persons previously condemned and expelled from the church for whatever reason, or those excommunicated either from the clerical or lay rank, are not to be permitted to accuse a bishop until they have first purged their own crime. Similarly, those who are already accused are not permitted to accuse a bishop or other clerics until they have proved their own innocence of the crimes with which they are charged. But if persons who are neither heretics nor excommunicates, nor such as have been previously condemned or accused of some transgression or other, claim that they have some ecclesiastical charge to make against the bishop, the sacred synod commands that such persons should first lay the accusations before all the bishops of the province and prove before them the crimes committed by the bishop in the case. If it emerges that the bishops of the province are not able to correct the crimes laid at the bishop’s door, then a higher synod of the bishops of that diocese, convoked to hear this case, must be approached, and the accusers are not to lay their accusations before it until they have given a written promise to submit to equal penalties should they be found guilty of making false accusations against the accused bishop, when the matter is investigated.

If anyone shows contempt of the prescriptions regarding the above matters and presumes to bother either the ears of the emperor or the courts of the secular authorities, or to dishonour all the diocesan bishops and trouble an ecumenical synod, there is to be no question whatever of allowing such a person to bring accusations forward, because he has made a mockery of the canons and violated the good order of the church.

Keep in mind that those wronged here were the bishops on the Holy Synod accused of wrongdoing along with several priests and leading laity. The OCA Truth crew has attempted to lead without having a face, and, at this point, we see why that’s a very, very bad idea. We are baptized by name. We partake of the Holy Eucharist by name. We receive Holy Absolution by Name. We are married or tonsured by name. We are buried by name. Why, then, wouldn’t we resolve our Christian differences by name? What holy purpose is served by hiding our identities when we express thoughts and opinions we feel need to be heard?

First and foremost, I remind readers of this site that the primary goal here is not to report on details of any particular scandal. Rather, the blog exists to discuss matters of leadership in the Orthodox Church. To that end, the recent conflict within the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America provides much material for reflection on leadership.

The most recent events in the scandal – primarily the release of confidential emails between Archpriest Joseph Fester, Bishop Nikolai (Soraich), Mr. Rod Dreher, and others – have turned everything upside down. I am not surprised at the names of the principals of OCATruth.com. I had already deduced the identities of two of them solely by their words and actions, prior to the revelations from the ugly emails. What is of greater concern now is that a site devoted to “truth” is, in fact, built upon lies.

Up until this past weekend, OCA Truth has absolutely dominated the narrative about what was going on in the OCA since the site’s inception in early March. OCA Truth provided the “facts” that shaped the discussion of the entire matter. Consider that the following points first appeared at OCA Truth:

• That attempts were being made to depose Metropolitan Jonah,
• That Metropolitan Jonah did not agree to a leave of absence (and that the minutes of the Santa Fe meeting were, at best, inaccurate, and at worst, manipulated),
• That Mark Stokoe’s email was positive proof of a growing coup (with no possibility of being descriptive rather than prescriptive),
• That Metropolitan Jonah was being opposed by a “liberal” cabal of bishops and Metropolitan Council members on the basis of his conservatism,
• That the Metropolitan was being sent to a substance abuse rehab center,
• That the Soviet method of declaring enemies of the state to be “insane” was in play,
• That the Metropolitan was the only real monk on the Holy Synod, and many more.

(If this list is wrong, please send proof using the contact form, and I’ll note corrections here.) Not only were these points promulgated by OCA Truth, OCA Truth was the only source of that information in most cases. It is possible that some of these points are true, but no serious evidence was ever adduced in support of them. Rather, the charges were repeated, and distributed to proxies on other blogs, and, after a while, accepted as axiomatic by many even when the basis was still questionable.

Yet, in the end, we now see that OCA Truth was built on lies:

• The writers lied to protect their anonymity. This is perhaps excusable absent the other lies. On the other hand, OCA Truth would likely have had a different reception had Fr. Fester’s involvement been known. Further, it was anonymity that enabled Mr. Dreher to indulge his journalistic Id, against all academic preparation and professional discipline.
• The writers then lied in order to misrepresent their identities, enabling them to act as shills, as in the case of Mr. Dreher writing pseudonymously (as Muzhik) in order to quote himself under his real name as a reputable authority.  This is fraud. If you do it on eBay, they suspend you. Doing so on a credit card application can earn you a visit to jail.
  • UPDATED 5/4/2011 8:15am: The principals did similar things by posting under real names like “Rod Dreher” and “Jesse Cone” or pseudonyms like “Southern Comfort” in other fora, including monomakhos.com, giving the appearance of different individuals supporting the writers at OCATruth.com.
  • UPDATED 5/4/2011 8:39am: One reader writes to suggest that Mr. Dreher never posted “Dreher” material under the “Muzhik” identity, instead leaving “Parishioner” and “Tovarishch” to do that. I am researching this now, for the sake of accuracy, although I don’t think it changes the basic charge.
  • UPDATE 5/4/2011 8:39am: Further, Mr. Dreher appeared in other fora (notably monomakhos.com) and claimed he knew the people running OCATruth.com, but that he was not one of them.
• The writers lied in order to characterize their opponents and other hierarchs as liberals—pro-gay, pro-abortion, feminist, etc.—even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. References to the Episcopal wing of the OCA (or “Piscies”—i.e., Episcopalians—elsewhere) were not made to suggest that their opponents had good taste and lots of money, but rather that they supported an Episcopalian-style liberal agenda. A fawning article about the Metropolitan in the Washington Post was shaped by this narrative of conservative-metropolitan-against-liberal-establishment and then employed as a club with which to bludgeon the “liberals.”
• Worst of all, the writers lied in order to bear false witness. This was done when OCA Truth denied having possession of the confidential SMPAC report in order to attribute that possession, falsely, to Mark Stokoe, when exactly the reverse was true. It was done in the case of deliberately misrepresenting an email sent from Faith Skordinski to (attorney) Alexandra Makosky as being instead sent to Archpriest Alexander Garklavs in order to impugn both Skordinski’s and Garklavs’s motives.

I am not interested in waving Mark Stokoe’s banner, one way or the other. (I’ve certainly disagreed with his editorial decisions by private email on several occasions, as he can attest. We have never met in person.) What I am interested in is seeing is the return of leadership that is built on truth, trust, and accountability. If we define leadership as influence, OCA Truth has been a leader without peer over the last two months. Sadly, that leadership was built on lies, and those were built on anonymity and a total lack of accountability. (I wrote previously that OCA Truth’s heated rhetoric was only making the possibility of a reconciliation within the Holy Synod even more remote.) Detractors might respond with, “But Stokoe did it, too!” but he didn’t. At a very minimum, his name was on what he wrote, so that people could evaluate the source and his history in the same way I read or don’t read several columnists in the paper based on my perception of their credibility. I know several members of the alleged cabal, and, despite any disagreements I might have with them, I know them to be honest, upright, and Christian.

In the end, OCA Truth has provided a negative example of leadership, by demonstrating how lies and, really, anonymity ultimately come to ruin. For now, it is time for us to return to prayer for our real leaders, to ask that they be guided by the Holy Spirit and that the divisions of the recent couple of years and the acrimony of the past two months can be healed. We need the concerns of the first cohesive Holy Synod seen in decades to be addressed for the sake of God’s people.

“Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.” -Proverbs 12:22

In the event OCATruth.com goes offline, I’ll do my best to get my own archive of the site’s contents up and running here.

Don’t forget to pray.

I see the most recent post on another site ostensibly devoted to truth reads as follows (formatting as in the original):

Sadly, there is a “need to print,” and that’s why we’re printing this. The Synod has got to wake up and understand what it is doing to the Church. It sat around for years and did nothing about Met. Theodosius’s abuse of office. It did nothing but wring its hands over Met. Herman following in that tradition. When we finally got a primate who was uncorrupt and visionary, though one who needs help mastering the finer points of administration, oh, that’s when they suddenly got vigilant — and now are willing to risk tearing the Church apart to have their way.

The following table shows ordination dates  of the current members of the OCA’s Holy Synod, along with the dates of their enthronement as ruling (i.e., diocesan, not auxiliary) bishops and, as a result, full members of the Holy Synod. (Dates taken from biographies at oca.org and diocesan web sites; this really should be in one place.)

Metropolitan Theodosius served a primate from October 1977 until July 2002, with Metropolitan (then-Archbishop) Herman serving as administrator from September 2001 until September 2002 (during Metropolitan Theodosius’s medical leave of absence and subsequent vacancy of the Metropolitan’s see), and then as primate from September 2002 until his retirement in September 2008.

So, of all the hierarchs currently comprising the Holy Synod, exactly one of them, Archbishop Nathaniel, was on the Holy Synod during Metropolitan Theodosius’s service as primate. Five of the current members of the Holy Synod served there during Metropolitan Herman’s leadership. However, in their case every one of them with the exception of Archbishop Nathaniel were junior members of the Synod, having been enthroned as ruling hierarchs after Metropolitan Herman became primate. In addition to these five, the other diocesan hierarchs on Herman’s Synod included Archbishop Kyrill (Yonchev) of Toledo and Pittsburgh (now departed), Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas (now retired), Archbishop Peter of New York (now departed), Archbishop Seraphim (Storheim) of Ottawa (now suspended), Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) of San Francisco and Los Angeles (now retired), Archbishop Job of Chicago (now departed), and Bishop Nikolai of Sitka (now retired). [UPDATED 8:50pm: Added Archbishops Kyrill and Peter to the list of hierarchs. I regret the omission.]

Apart from Bishop Nikolai, those other bishops had significantly more episcopal experience than the four junior bishops. The political escapades and machinations of Bishops Tikhon (Fitzgerald) and Nikolai are now well-documented. Some questions still remain concerning Archbishop Seraphim’s role in the past scandals. Robert Kondratick’s actions and influence on the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Council, and OCA administrative staff are well known from the report of the OCA Special Investigative Committee (to be uploaded here ASAP; I can’t find it at oca.org at present). Archbishop Job of blessed memory was the only senior hierarch willing to pursue an investigation of the corruption going on at the time.

However, I need to return to the the Ninth Commandment. The quote above says The Holy Synod “sat around for years and did nothing about Met. Theodosius’s abuse of office. It did nothing but wring its hands over Met. Herman following in that tradition.” In terms of Metropolitan Theodosius, it cannot be true for seven of the eight current members of the Holy Synod (including Metropolitan Jonah). With Metropolitan Herman, it cannot be true for three of the eight current members of the Holy Synod, including Bishop Melchisedek, who is repeatedly accused of conspiring against Metropolitan Jonah. And, four of those five bishops that served on the Synod during Metropolitan Herman’s primacy were clearly dominated by those senior bishops who are no longer present.

Accusing the entire current Holy Synod of looking the other way and general hand-wringing with previous metropolitans is just plain false. The Holy Synod in April 2011 is very, very different from the Holy Synod of even 2005. Seven of its eight members have under eight years of service as diocesan bishops, six of its eight members have under six years of service. Four of them (half!), including the Metropolitan, have under three years of service as diocesan bishops.

Thus, the accusation that the Holy Synod is “willing to risk tearing the Church apart” in response to the Metropolitan’s being “uncorrupt and visionary” and his lack of administration skills is just plain false. Half the members of the Holy Synod have similar administrative experience, and three-quarters don’t have much more. The repeated assertion of this as some kind of self-evident axiom is a form of false witness by suggesting that the rest of the Holy Synod is acting only when their (corrupt) interests are threatened.

Leading (even as primate) means casting a vision, not imposing one. If the Holy Synod is balking at the latter, or, more likely, having great difficulty reconciling the stated vision with His Beatitude’s actions and inactions, it’s worth hearing them out. What was being handled as an affair internal to the Holy Synod has now been turned into a circus of suspicion and accusation. One must also ask what real vision is being presented and pursued by His Beatitude? A pro-life Orthodoxy? His predecessors and brethren have both articulated this (and His Beatitude was strangely silent a year ago). An evangelical Orthodoxy? The Metropolitan is not the only one pursuing that. (For example, Bishop Melchisedek has begun a pilot of Natural Church Development in four parishes in his diocese, and I serve a new outreach with his blessing.) An Orthodoxy with pious, monastic bishops? His Beatitude isn’t the only one. What else?

This entry isn’t intended to be critical of His Beatitude, but rather to call the Metropolitan’s supporters, particularly the Anonymous Cowards, to accountability. Accusing bishops of actions they could not have taken is, well, …what would you call it?

“Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.” -Deuteronomy 5:33

Perhaps I missed it, but which of the big players – the hierarchs comprising the Holy Synod, the OCA’s officers, the members of the Metropolitan Council – in the current difficulty has suggested that anyone is crazy (or less than sane)? I don’t recall seeing anyone in a significant role doing that. Or is this like the same folks’ talk about deposition, when it was the Metropolitan himself who first mentioned deposition, with OCATruth repeating it further?

A request for a mental health evaluation carries no implication of madness, certainly not in the year 2011, when we now regard a huge spectrum of behaviors not as disqualifying handicaps but rather as conditions to be managed with a large variety of treatments: mental, physical, and spiritual. [UPDATE 5:13pm EDT: Further, the minutes from the Santa Fe meeting make no mention of anything other than concerns about physical and spiritual health. So, how is it that this is transformed into these other claims?]

Honest leadership (and I emphasize honest) requires that people understand the positions of those who agree and disagree with them and then recount them accurately in discussion and argument. Doing otherwise is a violation of the ninth commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” That’s even in the Bible, in Exodus 20:16. One common set of questions for self-examination prior to confession (from the Antiochian Archdiocese’s pocket prayer book) reads as follows, italics mine:

Have I told lies, or added to or subtracted from the truth? Have I made careless statements or spoken evil of anyone? Have I told any secrets entrusted to me, or betrayed anyone? Have I gossiped about anyone or harmed their reputation? Have I concealed the truth, assisted in carrying out a lie, or pretended to commit a sin of which I was not guilty? Have I tried to see the good in others rather than their shortcomings?

It’s impossible to lead without the willingness to give sufficient attention to what is being said. Sometimes it even means reviewing what exactly was said, to ensure that our memories are correct. Otherwise, we end up tilting at windmills, and, worse,  bearing false witness against our neighbor by attributing to him things he did not say.

Sadly, though, this legislation is not purely about political matters, for it has provisions for using taxes gathered from individuals, including Christians, to pay for elective abortions in all or part (c.f., here and here). Despite the scandalously equivocal language used by the Ecumenical Patriarch in discussing abortion (c.f., here, here, here, and here),  the Church’s teaching cannot be misunderstood. As a best example, consider St. Basil the Great (AD 330-379), who says absolutely nothing new: “Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses” (Letter 188). Children in the womb are human beings, and their willful destruction is murder. So what about all those who will now find themselves accessories to the crime through the new legal requirement to fund abortion?

In the face of this legislation, this question, and the evil that is elective abortion, the silence from our Orthodox leaders is deafening. Goarch.org? Oca.org? Antiochian.org? ROCOR? The Serbian Church in America? SCOBA? Nothing. We are justified in wailing with grief over more than 250,000 dead in Haiti, yet over 1.2 million elective abortions are performed each year in the United States alone. All is now set to begin funding them with tax dollars, and no official word of protest or exhortation is to be found.

Worse, at least one professor at Holy Cross Seminary is reportedly elated at the passing of this legislation, and I am nearly certain he has company among the faculty at St. Vladimir’s. Is it any wonder, then, that our parishes have so many individuals – often lifelong Orthodox Christians – who think abortion is no big deal? Is it any wonder that many of our parish clergy are indifferent to (if not supportive of) abortion? If the shepherds won’t wield their staves to drive away wolves wearing power suits and lab coats, aided by the Internal Revenue Service, who will? If they won’t, who can reasonably be expected to?

To those bishops (especially those whom I have overlooked) and my brethren who are speaking against the wanton destruction of these little ones by means of tax subsidies in the name of health care, I thank you and pray that your efforts would yield much fruit by strengthening and encouraging the Orthodox faithful to stand firm. To the others, the bigger lambs need someone to feed them (Jn 21:14-19), and the littlest ones need someone to speak in their defense. Who will do it?

[Edited 3/23/10, 4:20pm EDT, to fix a sentence.]

Read it: What to do about a bad priest?

As you work your way through it, consider St. Theophan’s counsel in light of many reactions today to poor leadership. Readers are invited to weigh in in the comments.

And all sexual misconduct deserves the maximum penalty. When persons on the bench, in the bar, or with a badge undermine the legal system they get locked up for a long time; they are held to a higher standard. Priests who are pedophiles, homosexual predators, and adulterers need to be defrocked — not only to send a message but to protect the Church and her members. Some of them need jail time too.

I even managed, quite inadvertently, to pick up his closing statement: “Sexual sin among the clergy must stop.”

The only point at which I would disagree with Fr Aris is on the second chance for adulterers. I think even one time should lead to defrocking.

However, Fr Aris deserves praise for speaking out very clearly concerning this issue. Now to get everyone else speaking and, more importantly, acting just as firmly.