www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News OCA Searching for New Bishop of New York & New Jersey

Reflection:

In Response to the OCANews.org Editorial of August 3, 2009

"Shame, Shame, Shame, Shame"

The Diocese of New York and New Jersey is in the process of nominating
the man who will be elected, by conciliar Assembly and the concurrence
of the Holy Synod, its ruling hierarch: a Diocesan Bishop. The process employed was through the decision of the Locum tenens, Metropolitan +Jonah, in consultation with the three elected Deans (New York Deanery, New York City Deanery, New Jersey Deanery) and Chancellor of the Diocese. The process was presented and accepted by the elected members of the Diocesan Council. The process is governed by the Holy Canons, the Statutes of the Orthodox Church in America, and the Holy Synod's "Instructions Concerning the Election of the Ruling Hierarch" (Approved & Revised 1972).

Several communications have been released for full dissemination among the clergy and laity of the diocese. Those tasked with implementing the process, and those aforementioned in approving the process, have promised an open, inclusive, conciliar approach to the fullest extent possible. Are there disagreements as to the exact nature of the process, the fullness of conciliarity, the desired level ofopenness, or other questions? Probably. Imperfections and human limitation abound. No process is perfect; all things can be improved; we are sinners, all. I am confident that such concerns and, hopefully, lessons learned will surface at our upcoming Extraordinary Diocesan Assembly. That's a good thing. But, it is hardly a conciliar principle amongst brothers dwelling in unity for one with a "loud
voice" to shout from beyond the boundaries of the Diocese (the
conciliar body, in this case) that all involved in the process of
electing their diocesan hierarch are liars, deceivers, betrayers of the
conciliar principle and worthy of shame. If anyone thinks I have
incorrectly summarized the accusations published in the recent
OCANews.org editorial, read it for yourself and choose your own words to
describe the direct and implied accusations.

Editor Mark Stokoe
pronounced four "Shame on you" declarations, the last of which
is directed at my faithful parishioners. Quite bold, I'd say!
Saint Seraphim of Sarov taught me that any cursing directed against me
is a blessing because I just might learn humility, and humility is my
only hope of salvation. So, thanks – to Mark Stokoe – for the
personal blessing. But when he points his "shame on you" finger
at my beloved and faithful flock, I am not inclined to think of him
fondly.

As for my parish, everyone is expressing amazement and joy at how open
the process is and they are eagerly awaiting more information as we
prepare for the Assembly. It ought to be clear to anyone with a modicum
of sense and propriety that a full and unrestricted release of candidate
names, bios, reputations, and histories to "all and for all" followed by
a free-for-all race to the Golden Omophor in front of cheering & jeering
crowds would be a disgraceful (and un-grace-filled) spectacle unto our
legitimate shame. That was – and I know it to be so – the
meaning behind the singular word "non-competitive" lifted from
the recent Diocesan Search Committee memorandum and ridiculed by Mr.
Stokoe as a sign of the continuation of the "dysfunctional diocesan
administration under Metropolitan Herman" (his words, not mine). My
goodness! -- talk about petty trivialities in search of substance!
There is also a matter of privacy and confidentiality involved, after
all. I wonder if Father Michael Dahulich enjoyed the banner-headline
and reporting on OCANews.org pronouncing him as the singular candidate
and chosen-one to ascend as Bishop of New York and New Jersey by decree
of the Holy Synod with the blind acceptance of the diocesan peasants
errantly presuming themselves to be "parish delegates." Was
there any editorial concern, I wonder, regarding the impact such
reporting (as fact) may have on – oh, let's say – the
Seminary of which he is currently dean? And, while any simpleton could
come up with a broad list of those potentially affected by such
reporting, it is – as all gossips claim – "what reliable
inside sources say."

While I am not troubled by what OCANews.org
reports, neither do I fret over the National Enquirer at the supermarket
checkout, it is bothersome to know that many people accept what is
presented there, and the unwavering courage and integrity of the source,
as "gospel." Example? When our diocesan process was just
beginning, I was visited by a relative from the Diocese of the Mid West.
I explained to her how excited we were to be engaged in prayerfully
discerning the future of our diocese and the election of a Bishop.
"You know," she said, "the Synod of Bishops has already
decided and you have no say in it." "Really," said I.
"My priest said so, and he knows people who know." Wow! I
didn't know her priest was "on-line!" But if he got it
"on-line" it is, most assuredly, the truth. I must be a real
dope and dupe, because I'm kind of in the middle of this thing and
that particular "clue bird" has not yet landed on my shoulder!
Needless to say, it was not my place to correct my relative or, worse,
suggest that her priest was either uninformed, wrong, or a liar. It
would be nice, I must admit, if some others would also refrain from
pronouncing such judgments – especially while throwing them up into
the Internet wind.

Does Mr. Stokoe not know, or does he intentionally choose to ignore,
that the three Deans comprising the Selection Committee (along with the
Chancellor installed and blessed by Metropolitan +Jonah) are duly
elected by the priests of their respective deaneries? Does he have
"reliable inside sources" leaking information regarding
instances of corruption and behind-the-curtain deals of evil intent
fomenting in the countless meetings conducted by the Search Committee?
Is he prepared to present "the case" behind his innuendo that
these priests – our Deans – are justifiably to be labeled as
"stooges?" (sorry, but given Mr. Stokoe's artful and
creative skill with the written word I couldn't resist the
"Three Stooges" reference for his amusement). I laughed
hysterically when, many years ago, a movie of the same title featured
the lines: "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!"

Now, in the world according to Mr. Stokoe, it seems that instead of
Russian Communists the "Hermonites" have not only come but
infiltrated every parish and deanery of the New York and New Jersey
Diocese. So, with McCarthy-like precision, they must be "outed"
and labeled with every manner of distrustful accusation, questioning of
motives, and general disdain. As one who not only voted for our Dean,
but who respects and trusts him implicitly in this Search Process, and
who thanks God for our priestly brotherhood, I am personally offended
and refuse to accept a "shame on you" from a man in Ohio whom I
neither know nor have reason to regard as my judge. It has become
evident that Mr. Stokoe seeks to rouse the keyboard masses within his
limited yet boastful sphere of influence, with himself the
self-appointed, irreproachable, pure, "man of the common
people," keyboard wizard. The arrogance, mistrust, proclivity to
judge, and self-absorbed grandeur exuding from his website – and the
long line of bloggers (my guess is that among the usual suspects are
12-16 keyboard commentators who repeatedly, and most often anonymously,
share profundities) -- is amazing and a wonderment: so much so that
though I try to avoid it as much as possible for my spiritual
well-being, the temptation to salaciousness sometimes becomes so great
that I "log-on." The encounter, I confess, always leaves me
feeling uneasy as flashbacks of my youth and that "deeply
concerned" group of Church gossips comes to mind. The experience
makes me feel, well – to use Mr. Stokoe's word –
"stained."

I can't help but see in this a grievously sickened form of spiritual
McCarthyism through which the dreaded "communists" are replaced
by "Hermonites" -- conspirators who clothe themselves in
priestly vestments while surreptitiously using positions of ecclesial
leadership to subvert and destroy the blessed conciliarity (democracy)
of the Church. Faithful to the legacy of Joe McCarthy, this movement is
founded on the endless pursuit of traitors and agents of evil,
maintained by an ever-flowing stream of "anonymous" sources,
allegations, and ever-so-nuanced gossip heralded as transparency,
accountability, and truth, while all the while serving the purpose of
self-righteous discourse. I recall some people -- call them gossips --
in our parish when I was growing up. The best of them always said,
"Well, it's the truth, you know!" True or not, that simple
formula vindicated their words and actions, lifted them above the sin of
false witnessing, and mitigated all of the turmoil, suspicions,
mistrust, fracturing of love, and dissolution of mercy they sowed while
always – always – presenting a smile of self-assurance and
"journalistic" dignity. Even as a young boy, they saddened me.

What I know is this: I respect, trust, and love the members
of our Diocesan Search Committee. My parish is excited and enthused by
the process and openness they have espoused, and the manner by which
they have labored diligently to carry out their difficult task. I
believe they have earnestly considered the many names submitted for
their consideration, honoring both the sincerity of the nomination and
the personal dignity and confidentiality of each nominee. I do not see
a "Hermonite" lurking behind every bush. In our parish, we
– yes, in a conciliar process -- are engaged and prepared to
prayerfully consider the nominees for the high office of diocesan
hierarch and -- with faith, hope, and love – to send our delegates
to the Extraordinary Diocesan Assembly on August 31st where we believe
the grace of the Holy Spirit will assemble us. In response to Mr.
Stokoe's pronouncement, "we are not ashamed."

Fr. Ken James Stavrevsky
Rector
Saint John the Baptist Church
Rochester NY

Typically, in the heyday of Byzantium, the Synod of a metropolitan province chose a new bishop from among the ranks of its own clergy. [...]

I thought the more original pattern was for the new bishop to be chosen by the clergy of the diocese, presented to the people for approval, and then ordained by the metropolitan and bishops of the province. Or am I wrong?

In the post-sixth century period, the final choice of a patriarch rested with the Emperor. Initially, the metropolitans met in the standing synod in Constantinople and selected three names. Only they [the metropolitans] could vote, but as in other synodal business, views could be expressed unofficially by others outside the metropolitan circle, such as the leading officials of the Great Church. The three names were submitted to the Emperor, who could select one of these or a fourth candidate of his own choice. The De Ceremonis describes how the announcement and investiture were made by the Emperor in the Magnaura palace in the presence of the senate and clergy. The Patriarch was then escorted to his own palace, the patriarcheion adjoining Hagia Sophia. He was enthroned in the Great Church on the following Sunday after receiving the patriarchal insignia from the Emperor, and he was consecrated by the Metropolitan of Heracleia.

It's your description of how Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are elected that is not very accurate.

With regard to the appointment of the metropolitan and bishops, for each case the council of hierarchs is to compose a list of at least three of the more suitable candidates, and send the list to the Apostolic See, observing secrecy even towards the candidates [Yeah, right--SLK]; in order to compile the list, the members of the council of hierarchs, if they judge it to be expedient, can seek the opinion of certain presbyters or other Christian faithful outstanding in wisdom concerning the needs of the Church and the special talents of a person required for the episcopate.