They appeared at the edge of the crowd on the Mall, a group of men seemingly out of a distant century. Their heads were crowned with klobuks, the distinctive headgear of Orthodox clergy. Sporting black cassocks and untrimmed gray beards, with golden icons dangling from their necks on long chains, these visitors stood out among the crowd clad in jeans and winter coats. The man in their center carried a bejeweled walking stick.Read the rest here.
Metropolitan Jonah, 51, leads the Orthodox Church in America, the second-largest Eastern Orthodox body in the United States. He was there to rally the huddled masses waiting in the freezing air to begin the March for Life, the annual demonstration protesting the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide. His aim was to boost Orthodox participation in political issues. But his efforts to change the OCA would spark a ferocious reaction from his own bishops one month later. At issue is the very nature of Orthodoxy in the New World.
The tensions began with Jonah’s surprise election as head (or “metropolitan”) of the OCA in late 2008. The new leader, who is the first native-born convert to head the church, wasted little time instituting change. He put word out to his bishops and seminarians that their presence was expected at the March for Life, held every January. It was time, he would later tell a reporter, for the Orthodox “to step out in the public square” on a number of social concerns, including abortion. To encourage such stepping out, Jonah also decided to move the offices of the OCA from its isolated Syosset, N.Y., chancery to St. Nicholas Cathedral in Northwest Washington.
On the morning of the march, Jonah preached an uncompromising Gospel at the cathedral. “We need to see and call things what they are and not in some disguised politically correct language,” he said, dressed in resplendent gold brocade vestments, his salt-and-pepper beard making him appear like an Old Testament prophet. “Abortion is the taking of human life.”
Jonah continued: “So often, people think that if we name sin for what it is, that we’re judging people. No, we’re just pointing out reality. It is not a matter of judgment to say abortion is a sin. It is not a matter of judgment to say that homosexual activity is a sin. It is a matter of simply stating the truth of the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.”
A few hours later at the march — while 80 Orthodox seminarians from New York and Pennsylvania stood, shivering, underneath a large “Orthodox Christians for Life” sign — Jonah told his listeners to stand firm against “the plague of abortion.” He received a rousing ovation. As he swept away down the steps, various clergy kissed his hand, and Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl came up to greet him.
The Infant God
5 hours ago
31 comments:
So, what are the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that Metropolitan Jonah has committed? I can see that the issue of the move to Washington might be a problem...but is the real reason he has detractors due to his stance on abortion and traditional morality? Is the OCA going to go back to being an ethnic enclave or are we going to take a stand against the modern culture that embraces sin?
I find nothing he had done in public wrong. Saying it how it is sure seems better than doing the old 360 dance around the May Pole that most Orthodox - ethnic do. A sharp knife cuts the quickest and hurts the least, as my saints Grandmother would say. I've been a Priest (Canonical Orthodox) coming up on 25yr now and he is the first Bishop I really would like to follow...he had a vision and its not making a little Russia here in the USA/CA/MX but bringing the Light of Christ to the Nations.
Archpriest Yohannes
Being hungry brings out my natural cynicism. I notice Stokoe is quoted several times in the story, but his version of events is not reported. That makes me wonder if this is from the Diocese of the South.
Happy Saint Patrick's Day!
Bill, tGf
My hunch is that Stokoe is right, once again. Time will tell, but my bet is on the Synod and the Metropolitan Council.
Look folks! like him or not you voted for him to be your Metropolitan knowing full well he had no experience as a bishop. Get a life and stop the messy pr that has become, unfortunately, part of the recent history of the OCA. Like him or not he is the Metropolitan. Let the Bishops work out the resolve. Ethnic orthodoxy, even in it American form, often misses the point of the Gospel.
What a horrible man.
/sarc
If the Washington move and his impolitic outspokenness is truly all that's going on here, then Stokoe just needs to calm down. At age 51, +Jonah has plenty of time to grow into the office.
In fairness to Stokoe (who I do suspect is addicted to scandal and ecclesial insurrection), one point of contention not mentioned in the article is that Jonah is known to support changing the OCA's status from "autocephalous" to "autonomous" under the omophoron of the MP. For the record, I agree with that proposal. The OCA's claims to autocephally are generally not recognized outside of Russia. And the new guidelines for granting autocephally that are likely to be approved at the forthcoming Pan Orthodox Synod are almost certain to leave the OCA out in the cold. It's time for a reality check here.
That said the Holy Synod is deeply opposed to the idea.
A humiliating proposition for the OCA, for sure. But sometimes we have to take two steps back for three steps forward. Of course, being under Antioch it's easy for me to say that. God protect His Church.
The issue is not at all Met. JONAH's stance on abortion and such. To quote Stokoe:
"For the past two years the Metropolitan's behaviours have often been - and are getting more so - preemptory and potentially dangerous - such as the repeated attempts to dismiss Fr. Garklavs since the beginning of the year. Not because he, Garklavs, was not doing his job, but because he was. Question: does the Chancellor work for the Metropolitan, or the Church? To ask the question already shows you begin to understand the problem - and why there can only be one answer if we want to keep off the front pages of the newspapers. The same is true for the Staff, and the MC. Our loyalty must be to the organization, not an individual. The past six years have shown us how dangerous the former opinion can be, and where it inevitably leads. Do we want to go back there?
The Synod felt that the best way to handle this growing set of problems was to encourage the Metropolitan to take a break, in the hope that a period of serious retreat would help focus his mind. That is hardly a coup, removing one from office. And suggesting the same is hardly a conspiracy. Its more properly called "concern".
+Jonah agreed. Then, he unilaterally changed his mind, contradicted his previous opinion, berated the staff to get his private will done, threw the Synod into turmoil, cancelled the MC and Synod meetings on his own without explanation, and went off to a series of receptions where he could be feted, leaving organizational. financial and communication chaos in his wake. But not before confusing other foreign Churches as well, and setting up a website making shameful accusations."
I really like +Jonah and can fully excuse a bit of bumbling - hell, I even think it's necessary. However, we cannot have a man at any level of authorit in the Church who undermines our attempt to protect children from predators. Monastic therapy is not a cure all for pedophiles. This horribly misleading article had better not obscure the issue at hand: +Jonah's handling of sexual abuse guidelines and his categorically unacceptable behavior around the Canadian case suggest he is unfit for any position of decision making authority in the Church. We must not equivocate on the protection of children in any way shape or form.
M
What a brave comment, anonymouse. Pedophilia! Sexual abuse! +Jonah!
Specifics, please. And again, Apophatically, if that's all it takes for your Synod and Council to get the knives out, then your jurisdiction will always be in turmoil, further undermining her claims to autocephaly.
I gather, Anonymous, that what you mention are, or appear to be, related issues.
The Anti-Gnostic,
I have no pony in this race.
A..S.. - sorry for my abrupt comment. As another outsider, it just struck me that a jurisdiction coming off an appalling financial scandal would keep things in perspective with a 51-year old abbot they themselves so hastily promoted to bishop to metropolitan.
A.S. Doesn't Stokoe deserve some blame for taking the inner workings of the Holy Synod, putting his own spin on them (Bishop Benjamin has stated publicly that he regretted the meeting of the Holy Synod was made public)? Apparently, there is some dispute among the Holy Synod over these issues. But, if you read Stokoe, he has nothing good to say about the Metropolitan. Stokoe's reporting is obviously biased. He wants the Metropolitan out and is using his contacts to turn public opinion against him. I suspect the Post article senses the real issues involved here.
Stokoe lays out the details - not referring to any secrets. Unless +Jonah commits himself to the protection of the most vulnerable in the Church, its my straightforward opinion he should not have any authority whatsoever. Grandstanding about gay marriage seems a hell of a lot less important. M
This article captures to a certain degree the dynamism in Met. Jonah that many of us have appreciated since the day he was elected. I was there, and I was deliriously happy.
However, I am afraid I do not believe that this article is balanced at all. First, I think a lot of OCA tension did not begin with the election of Met. Jonah as Ms. Duin writes. Rather, the beginning of his tenure marked an end to the horrible period of tension of 2006 – 2008.
Ms. Duin refers to the meeting of our Holy Synod of bishops as “disastrous” and where Met. Jonah “faced a revolt among his own bishops at a conclave in Santa Fe, N.M.” Our Holy Synod is not a conclave of bishops in revolution. I find this approaching slander. And directly contradicted by the Minutes put out by the Holy Synod and the public statements of Bp. Benjamin of San Francisco and Bp. Mark, administrator of the diocese of the South. This meeting is presented as if it where a response to Met. Jonah's pioneering participation in the March for Life. Except it wasn't (it was responding to wholly other concerns). This wasn't the first year he went. And he wasn't the first OCA Metropolitan to go. Met. Herman zealously supported the March for Life ever since it began in the 70's when he was a young bishop, and attended every year. Met. Herman, whatever other problems he had, was visible in the Pro-life cause, and was visible in DC as Metropolitan, frequently participating in national events, not only the March, but representing the Orthodox at those big soirees in the National Cathedral etc. Other OCA bishops have participated in the March for Life. Bp. Michael of New York is clearly visible.
I do not believe that any of our bishops teach any strange doctrine concerning abortion or homosexuality. If someone wishes to charge them with such they may do so with evidence.
The issue of the chancery location is one about feasibility and affordability at this time, and how the decision is made.
Again, John points to issues surrounding the Autocephaly. Who decides whether the OCA sticks to the autocephaly or not?
There are such serious omissions combined with spurious implications in this article as to make it wholly misleading.
Neither Anti-Gnostic nor Anonymous M know what is in the report of the SMPAC, whose members where selected and appointed by Met. Jonah. Mark Stokoe doesn't know, the anonymous (pro-Jonah) OCATruth bloggers don't know, and neither do I. What seems clear from all tellings is that that report and its fallout had more to do with the Synod meeting in Santa Fe than the March for Life. By now, not only Mark Stokoe's OCAnews, but even the pro-Jonah OCATruth, not to mention the Visitor from Russia have acknowledged certain administrative problems in need of resolution. That resolution is largely in the hands of the hierarchs, where it should have been left in the first place.
Fr Yousuf Rassam
Stokoe did MUCH more than just "lay out the details." His reporting is clearly biased with an attempt to sway public opinion against the Metropolitan. Stokoe's latest criticizes the Metropolitan for leading a retreat at his own Cathedral this weekend. That's a bit much. However you interpret the 60 day break for the Metropolitan, I doubt it was meant to stop him from leading a Lenten retreat at his own parish. But, Stokoe finds fault with him for so doing. Is he serious? As to the issue of protection of children, I agree. I suspect so does +Jonah.
Joshua, of course leading a Lenten retreat in itself is no big deal, but in the given context it may just well be. It so appears it is in direct defiance of the Synod. This is Imprudent at the least, and would seem to underscore the need for the counsel/advise/instruction he was given in the first place. As Stokoe points out, the ball is in +Jonah's court.
A.S., so it's your interpretation that +Jonah was to be silenced at his own parish! Where was that in the deal? I don't think anyone reading the actual minutes would say that what was agreed upon was that +Jonah could not even lead a retreat at his own parish. Stokoe's clearly reaching on this and being unfair (but no surprise!).
Fr. Yousuf, that is an excellent summary/commentary on a very misleading article. M
I think my point remains. If this is all it takes for Stokoe et al. to get their knives out, they're going to be busy and unhappy people regardless of who is Metropolitan.
On the issue of +Jonah and his leading a retreat at his own Cathedral parish and Stokoe's latest statements that OCATruth is +Jonah's website:
http://www.ocatruth.com/?p=443#more-443
I think we should be wary of commentary from Stokoe's site.
Joshua,
Not interpreting, just reading the Synod minutes.
Let me quote Fr. Yousuf's wise words which address, the relevant issue, as I see it:
"The issue of the chancery location is one about feasibility and affordability at this time, and how the decision is made....
Who decides whether the OCA sticks to the autocephaly or not?"
A.S., where do the Synod minutes say that +Jonah was to be totally silenced even in his own Cathedral parish? It's not there.
I agree, however, that any change on autocephaly should be a decision for the entire Synod.
Joshua, by splitting hairs over the letter you will not see the spirit of the issue at hand.
Be it as it may, I hope and pray for normalcy and peace for all my brothers and sisters in the OCA. May God be blessed by and in all.
A.S. I do not think I'm splitting hairs. I think the criticism by Stokoe on that issue is totally unfounded and unfair.
Thanks for your prayers! We need them!
Stokoe's agitprop is the manifestation of but one side of the American culture war that has finally reared its head in this American Orthodox Church. Stokoe is simply attempting to uphold the little "t" tradition within the OCA of DADT. Metropolitan Jonah is apparently emerging as an anti-traditionalist in this case.
I think you've nailed it. While I have generally agreed with Stokoe in the past, in this instance I feel his current campaign is chiefly motivated by personal issues (homosexuality/gay marriage). The real or imagined infractions attributed to Jonah appear to be more about style than substance. Despite Mark's attempts to fan the flames they rise to little more than a tempest in a teapot in my estimation.
In short, heaven forbid we actually have a bishop/metropolitan that dares rock the boat by taking a firm stand on ANYTHING!
The current problems with the Metropolitan have nothing to do with a culture war. That's the figment of some still-evangelical imaginations.
I truly do not fully understand this situation. However, the fact that Fr. Thomas Hopko referred to Met. Jonah as “gravely troubled,” certainly causes me to wonder how deep this issue goes.
Post a Comment