By Stan Shinn

Summary

In July 2009 at the Antiochian 49th Annual Archdiocesan Convention, Metropolitan Philip spoke in defense of Bishop Demetri Matta Khoury. +Demetri is a convicted felon and registered sex offender whom the Antiochian Archdiocese continues to fund, thereby enabling him to remain in a position of trust.

In the heated discussions which have erupted on this topic, we find several fundamental questions at play:

1. Should Christians unconditionally obey our church leaders?
2. Should Christians remain silent when church leaders lead us astray?
3. Should Christians judge others?
4. Should a sex offender remain a bishop?

I will make the case that the Faithful have a moral responsibility to hold +Philip and other church leaders accountable to protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse. I will also show that this issue is not an isolated incident. Beyond the issue of Bishop Demetri, there is a troubling culture in the Antiochian Church which shuffles around abusive priests and remains silent while sexual predators remain in positions of trust. Lastly, I will show that enabling a sexually abusive priest makes one just as guilty as the abuser.

First, a summary of the +Demetri controversy and +Philip’s recent response.

+Demetri’s Crime

+Demetri was a bishop in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (AOCANA). He was arrested in July of 2003 for grabbing a woman’s breast in a Traverse City, Michigan, casino. (See the police report at http://tinyurl.com/demetri-police-report for the disturbing details).

The bishop was charged with fourth degree criminal sexual misconduct (a felony). Rather than defrock +Demetri, in May of 2004 the Antiochian Archdiocese granted him an early retirement. In December, 2008, the Antiochian Archdiocese of Mexico announced on its website that +Demetri, the previously retired bishop, would assume his duties as the auxiliary bishop of that diocese in January, 2009. Subsequently, it has come to light that the Antiochian Archdiocese continues to fund +Demetri. (For more information see http://pokrov.org.)

+Philip Defends +Demetri

During the Archdiocesan Convention, church delegate Sarah Hodges made a motion to cease funding +Demetri. +Philip’s response to Ms. Hodges and the +Demetri controversy is chronicled in the last ten minutes of this recording — http://tinyurl.com/demetri-audio — and transcribed here: http://tinyurl.com/demetri-transcript.

+Philip responds to Ms. Hodges’ motion by passing the buck, ignoring the funding issue and saying Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch had told them to shuffle +Demetri to Mexico. +Philip’s chancellor, reading from a prepared statement, said:

“The decision of the patriarch in this regard is simply not subject to challenge under any circumstances, for any such challenge would be deemed an uncanonical assumption of the natural prerogatives of the rightful and proper church authority.” (emphasis in the original)

The exchange concludes with +Philip preventing Sarah Hodges’ motion from receiving a vote:

+Philip: “…as long as we are alive, we cannot just classify people, say these are the righteous and these are the sinners and this is it, let’s condemn them. So let God Judge Bishop Demetri. He received enough judgment. So your motion is not in order. Thank you.”

Mrs. Hodges: “It was seconded. I think there should be a vote.” (Inaudible background.)

+Philip: (In Arabic) “I spoke.” (In English) “I don’t want to vote on it. This is ridiculous. To vote on what? Something the Patriarch did? Okay. Let’s move. We have work to be done.”

So much for Robert’s Rules of Order

Should Christians Unconditionally Obey?

+Philip said that Sarah Hodges was wrong to speak out in concern over the +Demetri matter, saying “your motion is not in order.” +Philip’s chancellor said, “The decision of the patriarch in this regard is simply not subject to challenge under any circumstances.” The implication is that to speak out in concern over this matter is to challenge the hierarchical nature of the church.

This frames the issue in a wrong light. No one is suggesting we are not a hierarchical church. But when there is a conflict between the actions of our church leaders and the clear teachings of Holy Tradition, we must choose obedience to the higher authority — Christ himself.

Some leaders in the Antiochian church are ignoring Holy Tradition, canon law and the precepts of Scripture. Laity who are speaking out in concern are not being disobedient; rather, they are choosing to be obedient to the higher authority of Holy Tradition and are calling our leaders to likewise follow the clear commandments of Christ.

The idea of unconditional obedience to bishops in the context of a synod which does not hold its members accountable for sin is alien to Orthodox ecclesiology. Bishops can and do sin. Sinful bishops who lead the church astray can and should be deposed.

Acts 4:18-20 tells us how Peter and John disobeyed the unrighteous religious leaders of their day:

“Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’”

As the Apostles themselves demonstrated, we are to obey our religious leaders, but only so long as they follow the commandments of Christ. When a bishop leads us astray our moral imperative to obey our church leaders must cede to the greater imperative to obey God’s law.

Should Christians Remain Silent?

Are +Philip and his chancellor correct — should Christians remain silent when church leaders sin? Or, to put it another way, are church leaders exempt from rebuke?

Certainly no Christian is called to act hatefully or disrespectfully to anyone, regardless of their hierarchical position. But are we called to rebuke those within the church who sin? Absolutely!

There are numerous commandments on this; here are a few:

We are publicly to rebuke sin:

“Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.” (I Tim. 5:20)

Even the Apostles are not exempt from public rebuke:

“Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.” (Galatians 2:11-21)

Consider the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445). It was billed as the 8^th Ecumenical Council, and would have reunited the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church. This would have put the Orthodox in the position of accepting Latin doctrinal errors such as Purgatory. Administratively speaking, the whole Orthodox Church signed off on this Union, but “the Byzantine people did not accept the Union.” (Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, Oxford, 1956, p. 500). The laity and many brave priests spoke against the errors of their bishops, and in time the decisions of these cowardly bishops were overturned.

Yes — we are called to reproach those living in sin and those who lead us astray, but we must reproach those in error in a spirit of love, with the goal of the salvation of all. I can find no defense from Scripture that clergy are to get a free “pass” when it comes to being held accountable for their sins. Laity can — if done with respect — speak the truth about sin and error to any church leader, even a bishop.

Should Christians Judge Others?

What right have we to discuss +Demetri’s sins when Christ tells us “do not judge” (Matt.7:1-5)?

Blessed Theophylact writes:

“He forbids condemning others, but not reproving others. A reproof is for another’s benefit, but condemnation expresses only derision and scorn.” (The Explanation of Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew, House Springs, Missouri: Chrysostom Press, 1992, p. 63.)

Understanding this principle — that we may judge when our motive is reproof instead of condemnation — we then make sense of 1 Timothy 5:20: “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.” This is not always a private matter — our commandment to challenge sin in our community may need to be done publicly. When the sin is public, the rebuke should also be public.

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians who tolerated a sexual sinner in their midst:

“Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (I Corinthians 5:6,12-13).

Note that St. Paul does not single out the priests or bishops of the area as being the only ones at fault in not dealing with sexual sin — it is all of the church who are responsible to prevent sexual sin from being tolerated. Such sin, if allowed to fester, would prove a disease which would in time undo the work of the gospel.

The laity are rebuked precisely because they failed to judge sexual sin. Lay people are specifically called to “judge” those within the church and hold them accountable for their sexual misconduct.

Disclosing sexual sin to the community and taking action to prevent abusers from occupying a position of trust is not an act of anger but an act of love. The point is not to scandalize, but to heal a sick situation and to prevent further sin from happening. Common sense — as well as the laws of our land — dictates that sexual abuse (and in particular, sexual abuse against children) be disclosed to the community so that families may take action to protect children and vulnerable adults and so we may identify and compassionately minister to victims.

Should A Sex Offender Be A Bishop?

Serious moral failures such as +Demetri’s criminals acts are grounds for the clergy to be laicized. The Orthodox Church has within its sacred traditions the authority of Canon Law which was composed by the Holy Fathers. Canon Twenty Five of The Eighty five Canons of the Holy Apostles declares that, “Any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that is taken in the act of committing fornication, or perjury, or theft, shall be deposed from office…”

Can sinful clergy find forgiveness and salvation? Absolutely.

Should a registered sex offender remain in office as a deacon, priest or bishop? Absolutely not.

Our civil authorities know something about sexual crimes that many bishops seem to have forgotten: sexually abusive people tend to have a high rate of recidivism, meaning if they abuse once, there is a good chance they may do it again. A sex offender’s promise they will not abuse again is not grounds to return the offender to a position of trust, regardless of how much an offender may be sorry he was caught.

Imagine you have a 14 year old daughter — would you let her take confession alone with a registered sex offender?

What of a sexual abuse victim — could you in good conscience tell him or her to take communion from someone who is himself a registered sex offender?

Of course not.

Paul wrote in I Timothy 3 what we are to require of our bishops:

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

Note this phrase: “…he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach.” Bishops are to have a good reputation in the secular world. Being a registered sex offender brands a person for the rest of their life. Their reputation is so marred that — even if they repent (as I hope +Demetri does) — they can no longer represent the Church in an official capacity.

Why does +Demetri insist on remaining in a position of authority even though he knows it will bring scandal to the church? Does he think so little of the integrity of the church that he will sacrifice the reputation of Christ’s Church so that he can hold on to his power? If he is indeed penitent he should willingly relinquish his authority and seek to be laicized so he can quietly work out his salvation in the church.

A Pattern of Protecting Predator Priests?

+Demetri is but one case in what appears to be a pattern with the AOCANA. In Texas, Antiochian church leaders acted irresponsibly and remained silent while another predator priest continued in a position of trust.

Media reports gave a summary of former Antiochian Priest Gabriel Barrow’s scandal:

“Gabriel Barrow, 59, of Houston, who was pastor of St. Elias from 1972 until 1977, was accused of sexually abusing three boys in Toledo in the 1970s. Metropolitan Philip, leader of the 450,000-member U.S. Antiochian Orthodox Church, barred Mr. Barrow from the denomination on Oct. 10, 1977, citing ‘reasons beyond my control,’ but offering no further explanation.During the mid-1990s, he was accepted into the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and served as a pastor in Webster, Texas.

A former Detroit resident who said he was 16 when Mr. Barrow molested him in Toledo in 1975 reported his allegations to the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese headquarters in 1998 and was told that Mr. Barrow had been removed from the ministry.” (Source: Toledo Blade (Toledo OH), 5/13/2005)

But Barrow was not removed from ministry — Barrow had been transferred to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Only in June, 2004 did the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (GOA) defrock Barrow when four victims testified regarding their alleged abuse.

Why did +Philip allow Barrow to be transferred to the GOA? Why did +Philip remain silent and not disclose to the public why Barrow had been suspended?

Shielding Predators Makes One As Guilty As The Abuser

What does Holy Tradition have to say about remaining silent in the face of sexual misconduct?

In A.D. 314, the Council of Ancyra wrote a series of canons which were accepted and received by the 1st Ecumenical Council. In Canon XXV these early church fathers wrote about a situation where those who knew about sexual misconduct failed to alert the public (“The Rudder” (Pendalion), published 1957 by The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, p. 503)

St. Nikodemos commenting on this canon was clear on this point: “Notice here that along with the actual sinners those who knew about the sin but failed to reveal it so as to have it prevented, but, on the contrary, concealed it, are chastised too. For so far as they had it in their power to prevent this sin, they too were as guilty as those they themselves had committed it.” (Pendalion, p. 503)

St. Nikodemos cites St. Basil the Great (A.D. 329-379) who said a person participates in another’s sin when one “keeps silent and fails to reprove him.” The Pendalion further quotes St. Basil as saying “one who knows about the sin of another but fails to report it of his own accord to those who have the power to prevent it, is to be subjected to the same penalty as the sinner himself.” (Pendalion, p. 504)

The pattern is disturbing. Church leaders are playing a dangerous game: shuffling predator priests between jurisdictions while failing to alert the public to the danger these sex offenders pose. Instead of defending sexual predators, +Philip and other bishops should act decisively to protect children and vulnerable adults.

What +Philip Should Do

+Philip and his fellow bishops should have defrocked +Demetri when they had the chance. Instead, they transferred +Demetri to another position of trust. Only by the diligence of watchdog groups like Pokrov.org were the Faithful even made aware that a known sex offender had been shuffled to another jurisdiction (where, conveniently, the sex offender registry does not apply).

+Philip and the Antiochian synod of bishops need to take three simple, proven steps to prevent abuse and help heal those already abused.

• First, stop supporting sexually abusive priests.
• Second, post a list of clergy credibly accused of abuse on the archdiocese website.
• Third, aggressively reach out to anyone who may have been victimized and offer them help.

In addition, they should urge anyone who saw, suspected or suffered clergy abuse crimes to come forward, get help and call the police.

What We Should Do

Bishops must act to protect children and vulnerable adults. They should not protect, fund and enable dangerous clergy. Too often bishops misuse their authority to put a spell of complacency on their flock. Hiding behind excuses like forgiveness and ekonomia, they mislead the faithful to believe sexually abusive clergy need not be disciplined and removed from positions of trust.

This is nonsense.

Write +Philip as well as your local bishop to alert them to your opinion on this matter. Write Patriarch Ignatius and ask him if he is aware of +Demetri’s status as a registered sex offender. Consider other ways to express your opinion and hold our leaders accountable.

We need to understand that this scandal is not a result of disobedient laity, but the result of an unhealthy episcopate. The Antiochian Archdiocese and synod of bishops are not following Orthodox ecclesiology in the matter of +Demetri. The result is damage to the church. Remaining silent while supporting a known sexual predator who may abuse again is a sin. Because of these sinful actions, people are doubting +Philip, the Antiochian Synod, and — in many cases — Orthodoxy itself. Church leaders in the Antiochian church who have played a role in creating this sinful situation need to repent publicly and begin to reach out to victims of abuse.

St. John Chrysostom, in his commentaries on Psalm 132, wrote:

“Ignoring the wronged, not grieving on behalf of the wronged or fuming over the abused is a mark not of virtue but of vice.”

May the Holy Spirit deliver us from wolves within our church and may we all hold our church leaders accountable to no longer enable abusers.

By Stan Shinn

[Editors note: The follow letter to the editor appeared in the eactions poured in the Sept. 6th Dallas News regarding the recent Harry Potter Icon used in an article illustration (see the full reactions here —  http://tinyurl.com/nw3382 —  regarding the Harry Potter Icon story first reported here —  http://tinyurl.com/lqv3tp.)]

The letter:

The front page of the Points section displayed a traditional Orthodox icon with the image of Christ replaced by Harry Potter.

Many who do not hold icons sacred — as the Orthodox do — may not see this as a big issue.
To the Orthodox though, this is sacrilegious and offensive in the extreme. Orthodox Christians are trained from an early age to read icons. The halo with a cross background is iconography’s way of saying: This person is God.
While the illustrator may not understand the theological ramifications of this image, educated Orthodox do.
Icons are sacred, and a sacrilegious illustration like the Harry Potter icon is — wittingly or unwittingly — a mockery of Christianity.

Stan Shinn, Wylie

By Stan Shinn

Today’s reading from the Prologue from Ohrid reminds us that while we are called to forgive those who sin against us, we are also as a church called to champion justice, protect the innocent, and discipline the unlawful. It is a lesson sadly ignored by many of our modern day Bishops. Saint Nikolai Velimirovic describes St. Basil’s teaching on this subject:

Christianity has uprooted many barbaric customs from the society of man. But some of those customs-praiseworthy from the pagan point of view, but shameful from the Christian point of view-are, even to the present day, like hidden corruption oozing from a supposedly healed wound. One of these customs is the unlawful kidnapping of maidens. St. Basil wrote powerfully to one of his priests, after one such incident:

“Do all in your power to find and rescue this maiden. Then, return her to her parents and excommunicate the perpetrator. Also suspend those who abetted him – including their entire households-from participation in services for three years. Likewise, suspend everyone in the village to which the maiden was taken, where she was hidden or perhaps kept by force — so that all will know that a kidnapper should be driven away from them like a serpent or some other wild beast or common enemy, and that the abused should be protected.”

From the September 6 daily reading in Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich’s “The Prologue from Ohrid”, available here.

By Stan Shinn

“The lies conceal everything; the lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me. Live Not By Lies.” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote these words only hours before the Secret Police broke in and arrested him. He was subsequently exiled. A defender of the Orthodox Faith, Solzhenitsyn stood unwaveringly for truth. Following his example and heeding the demands of my Christian conscience, I cannot be silent in the face of recent statements by the GOA and Metropolitan Isaiah.

Our church officials are not telling the truth about the Nicholas Katinas lawsuit.

I am a parishioner at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Dallas Texas. I have talked personally to church officials, local witnesses, and victims both before and after the recent lawsuit alleging sexual abuse by (former) priest Nicholas Katinas. I am intimately aware of the details of this case.

A GOA press release (Oct. 30, “Archdiocese Settles Dallas Lawsuit” ) claims “The Archdiocese and Holy Trinity Church had no knowledge of Mr. Katinas’ wrongdoing prior to a complaint made to the Archdiocesan Chancellor’s Office in late 2005.”

Nonsense.

A letter from Metropolitan Isaiah (Dec. 3, Protocol 08–27, sent to all parishes in his metropolis) says the accusations of a cover-up were false, the media lied, and to this day Metropolitan Isaiah has “no knowledge whatsoever of what the Archdiocese knows regarding Nicholas Katinas.”

This is simply not credible.

Despite the untold millions the Archdiocese paid to prevent a public trial, many records were already released. Eye-witnesses (who have nothing personally to gain by speaking out) gave sworn testimonies in the legal pleadings in the Katinas case that a report was made to church officials around 1977. After reports of sexual assaults in the Olympia Fields parish, a parish council member in the late 1970s advised the GOA that Katinas “should be kept away from boys” and to get Katinas out of their church. Unfortunately, church officials transferred Katinas instead of defrocking him.

Then in 1987, Fr. Nicholas Triantafilou, Vicar General for the Archdiocese, in his official capacity investigated Katinas after parents reported misconduct against their child. In the legal pleadings no fewer than five witnesses — including Triantafilou himself — testified this investigation took place (visit Pokrov.org and search on “Katinas” for full documentation).

Texas law in the 1980′s (Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code) made it mandatory for Vicar General Triantafilou to report the abuse claim to the authorities. He did not. Had he followed the law — or even common sense — he could have prevented the dozens of sexually abusive crimes against children which Katinas perpetrated in the wake of this Archdiocese cover-up.

The Archdiocese should not mislead us saying they didn’t know until 2005 of Katinas’ sexually abusive tendencies. They knew in 1977 when they transferred him to Dallas. They knew in 1987 when Doe IV’s father made a report. Yet they left Katinas in a position to abuse again. He did — more than once.

The GOA must retract the misleading statement in its Oct. 30 press release. Church leaders must publicly rebuke Metropolitan Isaiah for his untrue and hurtful statements. The Archdiocese must admit the truth of what has happened, apologize, and act to reform our dangerous culture of clergy abuse and cover-up.

I called Tahira Khan-Merritt, the plaintiffs’ attorney in the recently settled Katinas lawsuit. She has no objection to the release of depositions of church officials if the GOA agrees to their public dissemination (the only condition that names and personally identifiable information of victims and non-clergy witnesses be redacted).

Metropolitan Isaiah states he wishes the Katinas case had gone to trial so he could be vindicated. It is in Metropolitan Isaiah’s power to release his deposition as well as that of Fr. Christopher Constantinides. The GOA can follow suit and release the sworn statements of Fr. Nicholas Triantafilou, Fr. Michael Kontogiorgis, Bishop Savas, and all other church leaders deposed.

If there is nothing to hide, there should be no problem in releasing these documents.

Somehow, I think my request will be answered with silence.

This silence, and the untruthful information being released by the GOA and Metropolitan Isaiah, should give all Orthodox Christians pause.

May we all, as God commands, live not by lies.

___

[Note: This article was published in The National Herald's print edition, Pokrov.org, OrthodoxNews.org, OCL.org, BishopAccountability.org and elsewhere in January, 2009]

The Abomination of Child Molestation

Written by the Very Rev. Vladimir Berzonsky

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18:6)

Through the millennia and the translations from Aramaic through Greek and into English, the force of our Lord’s admonition glares through. Can you see His eyes in your mind’s eye as He declared that indictment? “It would be better for him”: perhaps not in this lifetime, but in the afterlife. What would He say about a culture such as ours, where child molestation is endemic and where we have gone Sodom one better in perversity? In that weird city it was homosexuality that cried out to heaven as an abomination. Despite contemporary “theologians,” those scriptural defense attorneys for Gay Rights advocates who skew the obvious as though the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality to strangers, at least the sexual congress there was among adults. Here in our enlightened times we have to deal with the imposition of adults upon innocent children.

The renowned case of Jon Benet Ramsey still continues to haunt and mystify our society more than a decade after her murder. The beautiful child in heavy adult makeup wearing gaudy costumes and made to parade across stages at beauty contests in order to please her mother and win the prize of Queen, only to be found trussed, gagged, and molested in her basement home on Christmas night of 1996. The lurid details are known and need not be rehashed. But the case is not closed, and perhaps in a way, it’s better unsolved. We have a way of finding killers and after the trials considering it behind us. Abominations such as this are better left as reminders that it’s not one murderer to blame. It’s our entire system that must be brought to justice. We are guilty of pandering to the sexual fantasies of America’s population, terming it a sexual revolution, ignoring the revolting underside of what has been unleashed in the name of liberation.

Take into account the bizarre near-solution of the Ramsey episode in our social history, the return of the pathological liar, John Mark Karr from Thailand after he “confessed” to having killed the child only to be revealed that he had a perverse fantasy passion for Jon Benet. How did it enter his ghastly imagination if not for the culture that encourages mothers of young girls to display themselves as nymphs, which then play to the dark obsessions of people like Karr?

We wonder why we Americans are loathed by various groups, mostly Moslems, around the world. Maybe it’s because of our present government’s myopic unqualified support of Israel and our inability to consider the plight of Palestinians, and maybe there’s a bit of envy of our great wealth and position among the nations on the globe; but it has a great deal to do with the flagrant abuse of the fundamental social standards of any religious culture. It’s said that in the recent elections Democrats won because Evangelical Christians supporting Republican candidates had been disappointed at the failure of the administration to fulfill the promises made to them for their political support. Compromise on family values, on anti-abortion laws and other such conservative causes were ignored or patronized by the Bush government. But these causes are not only Evangelical – they are Roman Catholic, Orthodox Christian, fundamental Judaism and include many serious Americans who despite their religion or lack thereof have come to realize that certain basic ethical and moral standards underlie every civilization that has ever existed. America is no exception. Empires end not only from outside attack, but from inner rot.

I am pleased to offer for download an excellent resource to aid Orthodox Parishes in implementing a Safe Environment program. This “Policy & Procedures on Sexual Misconduct” document contains many items that were suggested by the speaker at the Fall 2006 SCOBA Bishop’s workshop. This document was produced by Fr. J. Gregory Waynick, serving at Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Church in Florence, SC. Fr. Gregory developed this policy while at St. Mark Greek Orthodox Church in Boca Raton, FL. Many of the ideas in the Policy came from Fr. Gregory’s research of documents from other Christian groups.

This document can serve as an excellent starting point for parishes constructing their own Safe Environment program to protect our children.

Also available for download is a list of training resources that can aid in educating your church on these matters of safety.

The policy document contains these sections:

• Policy on Sexual Misconduct
• Policy on the Protection of Children
• Policy on Personnel Employment & Volunteers
• Prevention Practices & Procedures To Protect Children & Youth
• Acknowledgment of Sexual Misconduct Policy
• Application For Child/Youth Workers
• Request For Confidential Personal Reference Form

Downloads:

• Policy & Procedures on Sexual Misconduct (Word Document)
• Video Resources on Awareness/Prevention of Sexual Abuse in Churches (Word Document)

Here are some clergy abuse topics I would like to write on at some point:

• The Crisis
  Abuse of power, sexual misconduct, and its devastating effect on the church.
• Understanding Abuse
  Power imbalances, the tactics of a predator, and how survivors cope with abuse.
• Coming Forward
  Victims, their families, and the role of clergy in reporting abuse.
• Recovering From Abuse
  Finding healing and getting support.
• Victim’s Stories
  Case studies and what we can learn from history.
• Keeping Your Faith
  Spiritual advice for dealing with depression and combating the loss of faith.
• Preventing Abuse
  Creating a safe environment to prevent abuse.
• Cautions for Clergy
  Practical tips to help clergy avoid risk and dangerous situations.
• Public Opinions
  Interviews with survivors, victim’s advocates, and those with expert opinions.
• What Can We Do?
  How to help victims and pursue reform in a theologically sound and loving way.

By Fr. Vladimir Borichevsky

The following reflection on authority in the church is apropos given the many scandals of our day. From: http://ocanews.org/reflections.html

Q&A on Authority in the Church by Fr. Vladimir Borichevsky (+1990)

Question: The present confusion in the church is what really troubles me…..Someone wrote “we are now in a crisis of authority.” I think it is more accurately described as a crisis of credibility of those in authority. We can no longer rely on those in authority to speak directly with us. They insist on talking down to us as though we were not capable of understanding real problems and real issues. In the old days, we were told that we were to pray and pay. But, that is exactly what our parents rejected when they returned to Orthodoxy. Now we find many of those in authority insisting that our duty as laymen is to do whatever we are told and never to rock the boat. I can’t be specific, but I want you to discuss the principals of Orthodox Catholicity or sobornost in which the whole church is supposed to act in harmony, in unity, and love. The present authorities seem to call for obedience and compliance to whatever they propose. Don’t we have a say, can’t we object and question our leadership?

Fr. Vladimir: In response to your question, “Don’t we have a say?” The answer is yes. And you have certainly a right and a duty to question those in authority in the church whether they be bishops, or clergy or laity. They are all subject to the authority of Christ and of his church. In this mutuality is our real strength. We all acknowledge one ultimate authority, our Lord Jesus Christ. And we submit to all those in authority in the church only as long as they themselves are also obedient to Christ. We are a unity in Christ and without him we are as nothing. Therefore, as long as we acknowledge him, we are a fellowship of true unity and love in Christ.

Question: But is this unity of love in Christ a realized reality or is it just an ideal; easier to state than to put into practice?

Fr. Vladimir: It is both. It is an ideal but it is not beyond our power to try to live by it and to attain it from time-to-time. The church continually challenges us to love one another so that we may confess Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided. Loving one another is not easy to do. It requires the exercise of all our spiritual powers and faculties. It requires great patience and forbearance and as long as we strive towards that goal of unity and love in Christ, in a sense, it is attainable. The moment we cease striving to love one another in Christ, we cease to attain the goal of unity in Christ.

Question: Does that mean we must always obey those in authority?

Fr. Vladimir: Yes, but only as long as they too are striving to attain the unity of love in Christ. If a person in authority becomes primarily concerned with his own personal position, the power it gives him, and forgets the great duty and the greater obligation it imposes on him, then he comes under the censure of the church. That is the whole church.

Question: How does this work in an actual situation?

Fr. Vladimir: There are many cases in our own time when a priest or a bishop in the highest authority was reminded by one in the lesser authority that he had failed to act as a bishop or as a priest and instead of taking offense, that person acknowledged his failure and promised to correct the situation. There are also cases probably more when a bishop or priest failed to accept the correction made and instead of acting in humility, acted instead arrogantly and out of pride. This leads to even greater difficulties and more confrontations. The situation deteriorates until those involved rediscover their sense of fellowship in Christ. Healing can then only take place by returning to Christ and drawing on the power that he bestows on all who call on him.

Question: You do not see any solution by returning to sobriety, a sanity of the whole person?

Fr. Vladimir: Of course, part of the whole solution is for the individual believer to become sober, to find himself, but this does not occur without real effort. To become sober is not to allow one’s self to fall into the trap of the Devil by becoming only concerned for the needs of this world. Authority and power are of this world and the saints always avoided them. When it was bestowed on them they suffered under the burden. Therefore, they respond positively to criticism that was given in love.

Question: That seems to be a definitive phrase in this discussion. Everything is possible as long as one lives in the fellowship of the church and acts as a Christian in a loving way?

Fr. Vladimir: Yes, but we must also warn you that this is most difficult – it is far easier to fall back on righteous indignation, anger, condemnation, judgment as the attitude or stature one takes when questioning those in authority.

Question: In other words, we should always give the benefit of the doubt?

Fr. Vladimir: Anticipate only positive results, but always be ready to be rejected. If we are in the right, then there is no need to fear. Christ promised to be with us always, but especially with those who work for him. In their time of need he promised he would give the words that would be necessary. We describe this as inspiration or being filled with the spirit.

Question: Is it this simple? Does not this call for better and more informed church members who know what church membership calls for?

Fr. Vladimir: Of course we are to prepare ourselves as best we can, but in the final analysis, it is the Holy Spirit who will be our guide in times of difficulty especially. Yes we can depend on God for it is his church that he has entrusted to us, to all who confess his name. If we all recognized this as a mutual responsibility and calling, then we will have no reason to fear that somehow it all depends on us and if we fail, everything goes down the drain. It is the same whether we are laymen or clergy or bishops. The power of Sobornost is the sense of the power of the whole, so that the least of us becomes capable of doing great things and all benefit from it.

Question: The credibility then is not dependent on us as individuals, but is inherent in the church which is God’s creation, not ours?

Fr. Vladimir: That is precisely the point. Individually we are called upon to be aware of our responsibility as members of the church, but our strength as individuals in the church is totally related to the church. And so if we are in harmony with the church, the credibility of the church is manifested through us, even though we know ourselves as only one of the least.

(A fomer dean of St.Tikhon Seminary, Fr. Vladimir Borichevsky fell asleep in the Lord in September 1990. During his tenure at St. Tikhon’s he produced radio programs called “The Hour of Orthodoxy. These programs can be heard today on the web at www.stlukeorthodox.com., the website of St. Luke’s Orthodox Church in Palos Hills, IL, whose pastor, Fr. Andrew Harrison forwarded the above. The transcript is from a program which aired in Scranton on 1/30/83.)

Are policies enough to constraining sinful man? T. S. Eliot gave his opinion seventy years ago in his poem, “The Rock”:

They constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect
that no one will need to be good.

I thought this to be perhaps the best summary I’ve seen anywhere of how to deal with the various issues of our day…the crux of it comes in his seven points in the second half.

http://www.ocanews.org/news/Hopko8.17.06.html
(The URL above also includes a great introduction to the below)

“What Can We Do?
Fr Thomas Hopko

I believe that the problems and disagreements we have in the Church today, not only concerning finances in the Orthodox Church in America, but about virtually everything in Orthodoxy (authority, community, responsibility, structure, organization, leadership, decision-making, education, mission, monastic life, liturgical worship etc.) are not simply because we are sinful and incompetent people. They also exist because we are compelled to deal in a complex, secularized world with a two-thousand year history that we don’t know how to understand and handle in relation to our present times and conditions.

<…>

I believe that we can begin by doing seven things.

We can realize the tremendous complexity of our present situation, and work together patiently and charitably to disentangle its various elements, to understand them accurately, and to deal with them appropriately in our church life today, according to our abilities to do so, whether or not our hierarchs, here in America or abroad, choose to lead us and participate with us in these obligatory efforts.

We can make our views known, and offer our suggestions about proper action, forcefully and firmly, without demonizing or ridiculing those who disagree with us, while cooperating courageously with those who do.

We can always remember that those who disagree with us are as strongly committed to their understanding of things as we are.

We can meet regularly with those whom we believe are building up the Church and fostering its God-given mission, even if these people are few and are not always supported by the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

We can obey our leaders who disagree with us, and refuse to meet with us and speak with us, to the extent that they do not lead us into heresy or immorality, whatever they are doing, or not doing, in their personal lives and pastoral actions.

We can give our money, time and energy to the churches, institutions, organizations and activities in the Church that we believe in, and give only what we are obligated to give by statute to other ecclesiastical offices and institutions.

We can work on ourselves to be faithful Orthodox Christians in word and deed through liturgical worship, sacramental communion, reading Holy Scripture, and following the Saints in prayer, fasting, silence, repentance, confession of sins and acts of mercy to others, whoever they are, that are in need of spiritual and material assistance, guidance and support.

If we do these things, we will be using our time, energy and money to inspire, encourage and educate new church leaders, who, humanly speaking, are the Church’s only hope for survival and growth. We cannot keep trying to “put new wine into old wine skins.” We cannot keep trying to force or cajole or shame our leaders and our people into doing things that they don’t want to do. We can only love them and leave them to do what they think best while we give ourselves fully to finding and fostering a new generation of Orthodox Christian leaders who believe in the Gospel and struggle to interpret the complex history of Orthodoxy in the eternal light of Christ, while applying their evangelical, theological and historical visions to the conditions of the real life of the real world in which they are really living.

We have everything in the Orthodox Church that we need for divine life in this world, whoever our bishops, priests and people are, and whatever their behavior may be. We have God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, His Only Son, and the Holy Spirit. We have the Scriptures, the Sacraments, the Liturgical Services, and the lives, teachings and prayers of the Saints. And we have each other. We don’t need anything else. We don’t even need formal church unity, especially if it will be a unity in our present chaos and confusion that may actually make matters worse. Indeed, we are perhaps even better off, at least for the time being, without such unity.

Let us all start by doing what we can as individual believers, families, monasteries and local communities. Let’s leave all the rest for now. And let’s let those responsible for those aspects of church life, for whom we pray and whom we obey and support to the extent that we can, do what they think best, remembering that we will all answer on the Day of the Lord for what we have said and done. May the Lord have mercy on us all.

Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko
Dormition 2006