Re: Priest-Monk Is Defrocked For Sexual Misconduct
Melanie Sakoda
from Orthodox-Forum]
<<Regarding the following news item, one can only comment that the
system of Orthodox ecclesiastical courts is working, and working very
well, as shown in this case. <SNIP> >>
The process was not quite as rapid or as easy as it appears in the
metropolitan's letter.
The victim phoned Metropolitan Joseph approximately three months
before she sent in the written complaint and laid out all the
particulars for him. However, the metropolitan neglected to inform the
victim that he would not take any action without a written complaint!
Since the Bulgarian Sexual Misconduct Policy does not appear on their
website, and since the victim is not a member of that diocese, she did
not realize that her phone call would not trigger a spiritual court.
I'm also disappointed that Metropolitan Joseph did not follow the
Bulgarian policy and report the allegations to the authorities in
Wisconsin. Although the victim was not a minor at the time of her
abuse, the actions attributed to Simeon Gitlis by her describe a Class
F felony in that state.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
athair ambrois
Honestky, Melanie, WHAT court of justice anywhere in the world would
be activated by an anonymous telephone call? (The Soviet Union
maybe.) Who could be so ignorant as to think that they did not have
to submit something in writing with a signature?
The Church has acted correctly and expeditiously.
athair ambrois
> I'm also disappointed that Metropolitan Joseph did not follow the
> Bulgarian policy and report the allegations to the authorities in
> Wisconsin.
Why didn't the woman who was abused? The abuse took place over a four
year period. She was an adult. She kept returning to the monastery
for more sexual abuse. Maybe she was psychologically impaired but
could you tell us why *she* never reported the sexual abuse to the
Police?
Melanie Sakoda
<<Honestky, Melanie, WHAT court of justice anywhere in the world would
be activated by an anonymous telephone call? (The Soviet Union maybe.)
>>
The victim should have been asked what she wanted to do, and then told
how to proceed. Or, she could have simply been sent a copy of the
guidelines. To do less suggests (to the victim) that there is no
interest in investigating.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
Melanie Sakoda
<<Why didn't the woman who was abused?>>
Whether or not the woman reported has nothing to do with the
institutional response. Why have a policy that says that you will
report crimes, and then neglect to follow through?
Melanie Jula Sakoda
nickk
"Melanie Sakoda" <Melanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4ea1057-6846-4d86...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
nickk
Something isn't right with this.
"nickk" <ni...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5d83m.3345$bq1....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
AGG
"athair ambrois" <em...@globe.net.nz> wrote in message
news:5e793caf-1d67-40ba...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 2, 1:45 pm, "AGG" <AGG@no_el_spamo.jp> wrote:
> The two are not analogous. Blanco was in the ROCOR. The monks who
> were not defrocked cou ld have stayed in the ROCOR,
>
> ***NO! ROCOR dumped the lot of them...washed their hands of the monastery
> and its inhabitants.
ROCA did not dump them. The monks who were not defrocked could have
stayed in ROCA. They were all offered the opportunity to relocate to
other monasteries. None of the Blanco monks accepted the offer.
***That is NOT the way it was told to me by a ROCOR dean.
AGG
"church" thinking it's on the up and up. Geesh! But then, maybe you don't
give a damn.
"nickk" <ni...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4j23m.2129$Wj7....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Who cares?
>
> "AGG" <AGG@no_el_spamo.jp> wrote in message
> news:h2i3p...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> "Melanie Sakoda" <Melanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3170e732-f9cb-4751...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> <<Does anyone know if the HOCNA still exists?>>
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>> Melanie Jula Sakoda
>>
>>
>> ***HOCNA exposed:
>>
>> http://hocna.info/
>>
>>
>
>
Stephen Adams
>On Jul 3, 5:22=A0am, Melanie Sakoda <Melanie.Sak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 9:13=A0am, athair ambrois <em...@globe.net.nz> wrote: [Relayed
When even a credit card dispute in the US requires a signed, physical
letter (in most cases), one should not be surprised that an accusation
of this magnitude should also require a formal, written complaint. It
may well be the case that the young woman was not aware of this, but
she should have inquired if the phone call was sufficient.
>The Church has acted correctly and expeditiously.
I agree, though I would add that the policy probably should state that
anyone receiving such an accusation should inform the accuser that they
must submit the accusation in writing.
-Stephen
--
Stephen Adams
crathv...@tznvy.pbz (rot13)
Stephen Adams
In most states, she could still report it. She should do so now, even
if the statute of limitations has expired. Such a filing, even at this
late date, might help her with any private action against the man in
question.
athair ambrois
>
> The victim should have been asked what she wanted to do, and then told
> how to proceed. Or, she could have simply been sent a copy of the
> guidelines. To do less suggests (to the victim) that there is no
> interest in investigating.
Simply presupposition on your part. You have no idea of the tone of
the telephone converstaion. She could well have been very nervous
when making it and not understood fully what she was asked to do.
You say that she waited three months before making a written
statement? Why did she wait so long? Why did she send a written
statement if she was unaware that one was needed? Was she contacted
by the Diocese to ask what was holding up her statement?
Why do you appear to have a desire to badmouth the Diocese when it
suspended the priest the day after receiving her complaint (according
to their policy for immediate suspension after receiving a complaint))
and defrocked him one month later.
athair ambrois
> On Jul 2, 11:25 am, athair ambrois <em...@globe.net.nz> wrote:
>
> <<Why didn't the woman who was abused?>>
>
> Whether or not the woman reported has nothing to do with the
> institutional response.
It certainly has. A woman has responsibility for her body and for
her sexual health. If she has ben subjected to a criminal act,
whether physical violence or sexual assault the first authority to
report it to is the Police, After all, it is NOT customary to report
it to the employer and not to the Police. WHY did she fail to report
it to the Police? She had four years of sexual abuse and failed to
report it. Has it been reported yet? Who reported it?
Melanie Sakoda
<<Why did she keep going back time & again?>>
<<After four years, wouldn't she go to the police and stop returning
to them? Something isn't right with this.>>
Quite the contrary, it's a normal pattern of behavior in this type of
situation. If you are interested in learning more, I would start with
"Sex in the Forbidden Zone," by Dr. Peter Rutter. You might also take
a look at "Combating Cult Mind Control" (pages 59-67), by Dr. Steven
Hassan.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
Melanie Sakoda
<<When even a credit card dispute in the US requires a signed,
physical letter (in most cases), one should not be surprised that an
accusation of this magnitude should also require a formal, written
complaint. It may well be the case that the young woman was not aware
of this, but she should have inquired if the phone call was
sufficient.>>
<<the policy probably should state that anyone receiving such an
accusation should inform the accuser that they must submit the
accusation in writing.>>
The protocol for dealing with sexual abuse allegations should indeed
include notifying the victim of the appropriate procedure. Most
victims find it extremely difficult to talk about what happened, and
are able to take the initiative after a draining recitation of what
happened to them. The recipient of the information should outline the
necessary procedure, both on the phone, and in a follow-up letter.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
dmitri mosier/iowa city, ia
> Melanie Sakoda <Melanie.Sak...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Similarly, Boscobel gave their antimens back to ROCOR in 1999, and
> >operated independently until they later joined the Bulgarians, circa
> >2001. If the skete's property hadn't been independently owned, ROCOR
> >would have been able to keep the property, even if the monks
> >departed.
>
> One clarification (and I don't mean to say that Melanie is saying
> anything wrong) - the ex-priest Simeon did not conduct a liturgy
> without an antimens - there was no Eucharist at the Skete while
> they had no antimens from a canonical bishop.
>
> ><<That means that the Skete can be brought under honest control,
> >either in the ROCOR, to which presumably some of the monks, however
> >many there are, belong, or by the OCA or the Bulgarian Patriarchate,
> >to which the Skete evidently fled when ROCOR caused Blanco to shut
> >down.>>
>
> >I'm not quite sure I follow you here. The Boscobel monks all left
> >ROCOR in 1999. Perhaps the skete could be brought under control, but I
> >think that the next bishop will insist that the diocese hold title to
> >the property. I'm not sure how many monks are associated with the
> >skete now, but in 2004-2005 there were 6, including Gitlis.
>
> On my last visit, about a year ago, there were 3 including (then) Father
> Simeon and one novice.
>
> -Stephen
> --
> Stephen Adams
> crathvagb...@tznvy.pbz (rot13)
Just 3???
When I was there in 2001, there were about 5 (including then-igmen
Simeon) and about 3 novices. None were of an age to have died since
them (I believe Mr Gitlis was the oldest), so where did they all go?
The novices, of course, could have just left, but the 5 at-least-
rassophore-level monks?
There was also one nun. I don't know the situation at St. Silouan.
Melanie Sakoda
<<Simply presupposition on your part. You have no idea of the tone of
the telephone converstaion. She could well have been very nervous
when making it and not understood fully what she was asked to do.>>
Which is why the recipient of such information should follow up. If
Met. Joseph was expecting a written complaint, and did not receive one
within a reasonable amount of time, he should have contacted the
victim. In his place, I would have been anxious to proceed, to
ascertain whether or not there was indeed a bad apple among my
priests. I would have wanted to protect my flock from potential
danger, and also minimize my civil liability, by following up promptly
once I was aware of the allegations.
<<You say that she waited three months before making a written
statement? Why did she wait so long? Why did she send a written
statement if she was unaware that one was needed? Was she contacted
by the Diocese to ask what was holding up her statement?>>
The victim was waiting to hear from Met. Joseph. She considered him a
kind and decent man. When she didn't, she felt he was ignoring her
allegations, and began asking others for suggestions as to what to do
next. Then she followed their advice. She was not contacted by the
diocese.
<<Why do you appear to have a desire to badmouth the Diocese when it
suspended the priest the day after receiving her complaint (according
to their policy for immediate suspension after receiving a complaint))
and defrocked him one month later.>>
I have a great deal of fondness for Met. Joseph. However, I'm an
advocate for victims. The victim in this case was never told that
Gitlis was suspended following the diocese's receipt of her written
complaint, even when Met. Joseph wrote to her on March 5. Dealing
appropriately with the victim should be as much a part of handling
sexual abuse cases as dealing with the allegations themselves. Keeping
the victim in the dark about procedures and process is not a good
policy.
In other words, I think there is still much room for improvement.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
Melanie Sakoda
<<It certainly has. A woman has responsibility for her body and for
her sexual health. If she has ben subjected to a criminal act,
whether physical violence or sexual assault the first authority to
report it to is the Police, After all, it is NOT customary to report
it to the employer and not to the Police.>>
Every Orthodox victim I have ever talked to went to the church first.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is a behavior
cultivated by the church. Perhaps when the church begans telling the
victim that he/she should report, and supporting a decision to do so,
going to the police first will become the norm.
Also, in the case of adult victims, many do not think of going to the
authorities because they are unaware that what they experienced was a
crime. While most understand that rape is a crime, they do not realize
that sexual battery -- an unwanted touching of the private parts --
is also criminal. Moreover, virtually no one knows that in some
states clergy are included with other counseling professionals, and a
sexual relationship with a client is a felony.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
Melanie Sakoda
Most victims find it extremely difficult to talk about what happened,
and are UNABLE to take the initiative after a draining recitation of
what happened to them.
Stephen Adams
>On Jul 2, 7:55=A0am, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>> Melanie Sakoda <Melanie.Sak...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >Similarly, Boscobel gave their antimens back to ROCOR in 1999, and
>> >operated independently until they later joined the Bulgarians, circa
>> >2001. If the skete's property hadn't been independently owned, ROCOR
>> >would have been able to keep the property, even if the monks
>> >departed.
>>
>> One clarification (and I don't mean to say that Melanie is saying
>> anything wrong) - the ex-priest Simeon did not conduct a liturgy
>> without an antimens - there was no Eucharist at the Skete while
>> they had no antimens from a canonical bishop.
>>
>> ><<That means that the Skete can be brought under honest control,
>> >either in the ROCOR, to which presumably some of the monks, however
>> >many there are, belong, or by the OCA or the Bulgarian Patriarchate,
>> >to which the Skete evidently fled when ROCOR caused Blanco to shut
>> >down.>>
>>
>> >I'm not quite sure I follow you here. The Boscobel monks all left
>> >ROCOR in 1999. Perhaps the skete could be brought under control, but I
>> >think that the next bishop will insist that the diocese hold title to
>> >the property. I'm not sure how many monks are associated with the
>> >skete now, but in 2004-2005 there were 6, including Gitlis.
>>
>> On my last visit, about a year ago, there were 3 including (then) Father
>> Simeon and one novice.
>>
Yes. Two of the monks had left for individual reasons (of which I
am not privy). At least one of them had returned to a pubic life
and was not a practicing monastic at the time I was there.
>When I was there in 2001, there were about 5 (including then-igmen
>Simeon) and about 3 novices. None were of an age to have died since
>them (I believe Mr Gitlis was the oldest), so where did they all go?
The novices were gone - there was but one when I was there, and he
was brand new, having just arrived. He wasn't one of the ones I
had met on my several previous trips.
>The novices, of course, could have just left, but the 5 at-least-
>rassophore-level monks?
I know. I was surprised that there were only 3 total. But it wasn't
my place to inquire. Fr. Simeon commented on it only as he knew I
had known the departed monks quite well.
>There was also one nun. I don't know the situation at St. Silouan.
She was still there at the time of my last visit.
dmitri mosier/iowa city, ia
was Fr. Anthony still there? in 2001 he had just been given the
exoryaso.
mandy lee
converter-pro.html) software-Daniusoft Digital Media Converter Pro is
a perfect video converter. It is not only a video converter but also a
DRM Protected video converter. Most important, its price is really
reasonable.
Look at its supported format:
Input format:
DRM audio and DRM video (WMA/WMV/M4A/M4B/M4P/M4V/ASF)
Common audio and video formats: MP4, MPG, MPEG, 3GP, RM, RMVB, DAT,
MOV, FLV, VOB, MP3, WAV, M4A, WMA
High-definition video: M2TS, TP, TRP, TS, AVI
Output format: Audio: MP3, M4A, AC3, AAC, WMA, WAV, OGG, and APE.
Video: MP4, FLV, AVI, WMV, ASF, 3GP, 3G2, M4V, MPG, VOB.
It is also very easy to use:
Stpe 1:Download and install the DRM Removal Software(http://
www.topsevenreviews.com/download/video-music-converter/daniu-digital-media-converter-pro.exe).
Run the software and click “Add…” button to load WMA or M4A, M4B, AAC,
WMV, M4P, M4V, ASF files.
Step 2: Choose output formats. If you want to convert protected audio
files, please select “Convert audio to” list; If you want to convert
protected video files, please select “Convert video to” list.
Stpe 3: You can click “Settings” button to custom preference for
output files, and Click “Settings” button bellow “Convert video to”
list for protected video files.
mandy lee
Stephen Adams
>was Fr. Anthony still there? in 2001 he had just been given the
>exoryaso.
Yes.
AGG
free.
"mandy lee" <natash...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb37a91d-1d21-4fad...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
DRM Crack(http://www.topsevenreviews.com/daniusoft-digital-media-
converter-pro.html) software-Daniusoft Digital Media Converter Pro is
a perfect video converter. It is not only a video converter but also a
DRM Protected video converter. Most important, its price is really
reasonable.
Look at its supported format:
Input format:
DRM audio and DRM video (WMA/WMV/M4A/M4B/M4P/M4V/ASF)
Common audio and video formats: MP4, MPG, MPEG, 3GP, RM, RMVB, DAT,
MOV, FLV, VOB, MP3, WAV, M4A, WMA
High-definition video: M2TS, TP, TRP, TS, AVI
Output format: Audio: MP3, M4A, AC3, AAC, WMA, WAV, OGG, and APE.
Video: MP4, FLV, AVI, WMV, ASF, 3GP, 3G2, M4V, MPG, VOB.
It is also very easy to use:
Stpe 1:Download and install the DRM Removal Software(http://
www.topsevenreviews.com/download/video-music-converter/daniu-digital-media-converter-pro.exe).
Run the software and click �Add�� button to load WMA or M4A, M4B, AAC,
WMV, M4P, M4V, ASF files.
Step 2: Choose output formats. If you want to convert protected audio
files, please select �Convert audio to� list; If you want to convert
protected video files, please select �Convert video to� list.
Stpe 3: You can click �Settings� button to custom preference for
output files, and Click �Settings� button bellow �Convert video to�
MJS
Title: Priest-Monk Is Defrocked For Sexual Misconduct
Date Published: 7/1/2009
Publication: SNAP Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
For immediate release: Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Priest-Monk Is Defrocked For Sexual Misconduct
Church Hierarchy Can't Shut Down Wisconsin Monastery
Clerics Are Linked to Notorious Now-Closed Monastery in Texas
Support Group Says “Vulnerable Teens and Adults May Still Be At Risk”
SNAP Urges Victims & Witnesses to ”Come Forward, Get Help and Call
Police”
An Eastern Orthodox priest has been defrocked because of credible
allegations that he molested a teenaged girl in the 1990s in
Wisconsin. The alleged crimes happened at a monastery with ties to a
now-shuttered Texas monastery.
In March, Metropolitan Joseph Bosakov of the Bulgarian Eastern
Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia ousted Archimandrite
Simeon Gitlis from the priesthood. Gitlis was also removed as abbot of
a monastery in Boscobel, Wisconsin (between Dubuque, Iowa and La
Crosse, Wisconsin). A woman who had lived at the monastery in the late
1990s, when she was in her late teens and early twenties, had made a
written complaint to the bishop alleging that Gitlis had sexually
molested her.
http://pokrov.org/Documents/Persons/322/MetJoseph_SimeonDeposedRedacted.pdf
”We're grateful that this dangerous man has been ousted from the
priesthood, but fear he may still be at this facility so children and
young adults may still be vulnerable,” said Melanie Jula Sakoda of
Moraga, California. She's the co-founder of SNAP Orthodox and of a
website called Pokrov.org, dedicated to helping those who've been
victimized by Eastern Orthodox clergy.
Sakoda urged victims or witnesses to call SNAP, the nation's oldest
and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. ”I want to let
victims know they are no longer alone, that they are supported no
matter how they choose to start their healing journey, and that
despite the pain, there is hope,” she said.
In an April letter, notifying the victim that Gitlis was defrocked,
Bosakov noted that the monastery was owned by an independent non-
profit corporation. The Bulgarian diocese has since removed the
monastery from its website, but the bishop cannot stop the group from
operating independently. As a result, leaders of a support group
called SNAP fear that vulnerable teens and adults may still be at risk
at the facility.
The Boscobel monastery, called St. Isaac’s Skete, is an offshoot of
Christ of the Hills Monastery (COTH) in Blanco, Texas. In 1999, a boy
filed sex abuse charges against two Christ of the Hills monks. In
response, the Russian Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), to which both
monasteries belonged at the time, ordered COTH to disband. The Blanco
monks refused. ROCOR removed COTH from its jurisdiction, but could not
shut it down because the monastery was owned by an independent non-
profit corporation. In solidarity with COTH, St. Isaac's Skete left
ROCOR, later joining the Bulgarian Diocese. Additional allegations of
child sexual abuse at COTH were made by other boys in 2006. The new
charges resulted in convictions for four Blanco monks (one of whom was
also convicted in 1999) and the suicide of COTH?s founder. The Blanco
monastery is now defunct.
SNAP strongly suspects there are others who saw or suffered similar
abuse by Gitlis, either as teens or as adults. The group is urging
victims and witnesses to come forward, get help, call police, and
contact independent sources of support.
Boskov and his diocese are based in New York City.
Founded in 1989, SNAP has more than 8,000 members and 65 support
groups. Most members were molested by Catholic priests, nuns, bishops,
and seminarians, but a growing number were abused by religious figures
in other denominations. SNAP has a nation-wide toll-free hotline, 1
877 SNAP HEALS. The organization's web site is SNAPnetwork.org
++
> Link:http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Article&id=1059
>
> Title: Priest-Monk Is Defrocked For Sexual Misconduct
>
> Date Published: 7/1/2009
>
> Publication: SNAP Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
>
> For immediate release: Wednesday, July 1, 2009
>
> Priest-Monk Is Defrocked For Sexual Misconduct
>
> Church Hierarchy Can't Shut Down Wisconsin Monastery
>
> Clerics Are Linked to Notorious Now-Closed Monastery in Texas
>
> Support Group Says “Vulnerable Teens and Adults May Still Be At Risk”
>
> SNAP Urges Victims & Witnesses to ”Come Forward, Get Help and Call
> Police”
>
> An Eastern Orthodox priest has been defrocked because of credible
> allegations that he molested a teenaged girl in the 1990s in
> Wisconsin. The alleged crimes happened at a monastery with ties to a
> now-shuttered Texas monastery.
>
> In March, Metropolitan Joseph Bosakov of the Bulgarian Eastern
> Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia ousted Archimandrite
> Simeon Gitlis from the priesthood. Gitlis was also removed as abbot of
> a monastery in Boscobel, Wisconsin (between Dubuque, Iowa and La
> Crosse, Wisconsin). A woman who had lived at the monastery in the late
> 1990s, when she was in her late teens and early twenties, had made a
> written complaint to the bishop alleging that Gitlis had sexually
> molested her.
>
It's important to talk about the connection of one group with
another. A friend of mine told me about the icons at St. Issac's
Skete and I was on their email list for quite a while, even putting
some of their postings on here. Then you told me about the connection
and I unsubscribed. We have to be vigilant and even though we should
not prejudge, the fact that St. Isaac's left the ROCOR in solidarity
should have bee one of those facts that set off alarm bells.
Thanks again for your vigilence and good work for our Church.
Stephen Adams
>Link: http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=3DArticle&id=3D1059
>
>Title: Priest-Monk Is Defrocked For Sexual Misconduct
>Date Published: 7/1/2009
This is very sad. I was helped greatly at several points by the
former Priest Simeon and the monks of the Skete. I'm glad when the
church takes action in these cases. I'm sad for the loss of the
Skete, where I visited many times.
dmitri mosier/iowa city, ia
> It's important to talk about the connection of one group with
> another. A friend of mine told me about the icons at St. Issac's
> Skete and I was on their email list for quite a while, even putting
> some of their postings on here. Then you told me about the connection
> and I unsubscribed.
The only connection is that it's an ofshoot. Well, the OCA is an
"offshoot" of sorts of the ROC, but that doesn't mean the OCA was full
of communists during teh cold war.
We have to be vigilant and even though we should
> not prejudge, the fact that St. Isaac's left the ROCOR in solidarity
> should have bee one of those facts that set off alarm bells.
Alarm bells, my foot. It was because of the overwhelming "There is no
grace outside the ROCOR" rhetoric that turned the skete away from the
Synod, not any nefarious agenda. Your implication that it was
otherwise.....well, i think you should have a chat with your priest.
On another note, what is being done to get Mr. Gitlis out of the
skete? The business side of things may be an independent corporation,
but the skete itself is the property of the Bishop, ultimately, and i
think that would give him the right to have the police go in and
forcibly remove Mr. Gitlis from the property if need be.
Maybe Mel should be asking about that as well.
Melanie Sakoda
wrote:
<<The only connection is that it's an ofshoot.>>
Simeon Gitlis lived at the Blanco monastery before he found the skete
in 1987. According to the August, 1997, issue of the Christ of the
Hills Monastery "Chronicle," Gitlis was one of the first monks to
witness the so-called "weeping icon." He also sent at least two young
boys from his community to live at COTH, and was vocal in his support
of the monastery in 1999, when he took his group out of ROCOR in
solidarity with COTH, and again in 2006.
<<On another note, what is being done to get Mr. Gitlis out of the
skete? The business side of things may be an independent corporation,
but the skete itself is the property of the Bishop, ultimately, and i
think that would give him the right to have the police go in and
forcibly remove Mr. Gitlis from the property if need be.>>
Again, it's my understanding that the property itself is owned by an
independent corporation, not just the "business side of things." If
true, Met. Joseph has no right to remove Gitlis from the premises, he
can only remove the group from his jurisdiction. Those were the exact
same options ROCOR faced in 1999, when they took back their antimens
from COTH.
The skete and it's affiliates no longer appear on the website of the
Bulgarian Diocese.
http://www.bulgariandiocese.org/
Melanie Jula Sakoda
++
Is it clear that the Skete is lost? It seems that the Skete is
operating independently of the BOC in the same way that Blanco was
able to have some independence form the ROCOR (I may be wrong on the
ROCORL part). That means that the Skete can be brought under honest
control, either in the ROCOR, to which presumably some of the monks,
however many there are, belong, or by the OCA or the Bulgarian
Patriarchate, to which the Skete evidently fled when ROCOR caused
Blanco to shut down. Does anyone know if the HOCNA still exists?
Alarm bells should go off when there is a jurisdiction change in
solidarity with monks accused of sexual abuse, like in the hOly
Transfiguration case as well..
++
wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:11 pm, "++" <galja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's important to talk about the connection of one group with
> > another. A friend of mine told me about the icons at St. Issac's
> > Skete and I was on their email list for quite a while, even putting
> > some of their postings on here. Then you told me about the connection
> > and I unsubscribed.
>
> The only connection is that it's an ofshoot. Well, the OCA is an
> "offshoot" of sorts of the ROC, but that doesn't mean the OCA was full
> of communists during teh cold war.
The two are not analogous. Blanco was in the ROCOR. The monks who
were not defrocked cou ld have stayed in the ROCOR, whether or not
they formed a new monastery. The OCA was an offshoot of the Russian
Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, aka the Metropolia. It never left its
jurisdiction and only changed name upon being granted autocephally by
the MP
dmitri mosier/iowa city, ia
> Again, it's my understanding that the property itself is owned by an
> independent corporation, not just the "business side of things." If
> true, Met. Joseph has no right to remove Gitlis from the premises, he
> can only remove the group from his jurisdiction. Those were the exact
> same options ROCOR faced in 1999, when they took back their antimens
> from COTH.
you'll forgive me if i don't trust your "understanding" unless you
can produce some concrete evidence that the monastery grounds are the
property of anyone but the diocese it was attached to. If this is not
the case it would be a first in the world of Orthodox monasticism.
And might i point out that not being on a website is not indication of
anything of much import unless it's coupled with some sort of
proclamation.
Melanie Sakoda
wrote:
<<If this is not the case it would be a first in the world of Orthodox
monasticism.>>
The statement of an Orthodox bishop good enough for you? Met. Joseph
said in his letter to the victim, "The property of St. Isaac of Syria
Skete does not belong to the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the
USA, Canada and Australia, but rather is independently owned by a
nonprofit corporation. This diocese has neither representation nor
control of that corporation."
http://pokrov.org/Documents/Persons/322/MetJoseph_SimeonDeposedRedacted.pdf
Melanie Jula Sakoda
dmitri mosier/iowa city, ia
>
> Melanie Jula Sakoda
He's talking about teh business of selling mounted icon prints, the
bookstore, etc.
AGG
"++" <galj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5dea771a-eb3d-4a9b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 5:11 pm, "dmitri mosier/iowa city, ia" <drm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:11 pm, "++" <galja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's important to talk about the connection of one group with
> > another. A friend of mine told me about the icons at St. Issac's
> > Skete and I was on their email list for quite a while, even putting
> > some of their postings on here. Then you told me about the connection
> > and I unsubscribed.
>
> The only connection is that it's an ofshoot. Well, the OCA is an
> "offshoot" of sorts of the ROC, but that doesn't mean the OCA was full
> of communists during teh cold war.
The two are not analogous. Blanco was in the ROCOR. The monks who
were not defrocked cou ld have stayed in the ROCOR,
***NO! ROCOR dumped the lot of them...washed their hands of the monastery
and its inhabitants.
Melanie Sakoda
<<Is it clear that the Skete is lost?>>
The only thing that is clear is that the Bulgarian Orthodox Diocese
has removed the skete from it's website, and that the monks, including
Gitlis, have been attending a nearby ROCOR parish.
<<It seems that the Skete is operating independently of the BOC in the
same way that Blanco was able to have some independence form the ROCOR
(I may be wrong on the ROCORL part).>>
ROCOR took their antimens back from COTH in 1999 when they refused to
disband, as ordered by their bishop. While there was some talk that
the monastery went to UOC-KP, Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, then with that
group, now with the OCA, ultimately repudiated the connection. The
Blanco monastery was also independently owned by a nonprofit
corporation, it that case "Ecumenical Monks," so they were able to
continue their operations.
Similarly, Boscobel gave their antimens back to ROCOR in 1999, and
operated independently until they later joined the Bulgarians, circa
2001. If the skete's property hadn't been independently owned, ROCOR
would have been able to keep the property, even if the monks
departed.
<<That means that the Skete can be brought under honest control,
either in the ROCOR, to which presumably some of the monks, however
many there are, belong, or by the OCA or the Bulgarian Patriarchate,
to which the Skete evidently fled when ROCOR caused Blanco to shut
down.>>
I'm not quite sure I follow you here. The Boscobel monks all left
ROCOR in 1999. Perhaps the skete could be brought under control, but I
think that the next bishop will insist that the diocese hold title to
the property. I'm not sure how many monks are associated with the
skete now, but in 2004-2005 there were 6, including Gitlis.
<<Does anyone know if the HOCNA still exists?>>
Yes it does.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
AGG
"Melanie Sakoda" <Melanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:393ff3e9-c15c-4af7...@x17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
http://pokrov.org/Documents/Persons/322/MetJoseph_SimeonDeposedRedacted.pdf
Melanie Jula Sakoda
***This seems quite clear that the "property" is every physical asset,
including the land and buildings.
Melanie Sakoda
wrote:
<<He's talking about teh business of selling mounted icon prints, the
bookstore, etc.>>
I believe you are mistaken. I think that "property" in this case
refers to real estate. As I said above, if the property wasn't
independently owned, it would still be with ROCOR.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
AGG
<<Does anyone know if the HOCNA still exists?>>
Yes it does.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
***HOCNA exposed:
Stephen Adams
>Similarly, Boscobel gave their antimens back to ROCOR in 1999, and
>operated independently until they later joined the Bulgarians, circa
>2001. If the skete's property hadn't been independently owned, ROCOR
>would have been able to keep the property, even if the monks
>departed.
One clarification (and I don't mean to say that Melanie is saying
anything wrong) - the ex-priest Simeon did not conduct a liturgy
without an antimens - there was no Eucharist at the Skete while
they had no antimens from a canonical bishop.
><<That means that the Skete can be brought under honest control,
>either in the ROCOR, to which presumably some of the monks, however
>many there are, belong, or by the OCA or the Bulgarian Patriarchate,
>to which the Skete evidently fled when ROCOR caused Blanco to shut
>down.>>
>
>I'm not quite sure I follow you here. The Boscobel monks all left
>ROCOR in 1999. Perhaps the skete could be brought under control, but I
>think that the next bishop will insist that the diocese hold title to
>the property. I'm not sure how many monks are associated with the
>skete now, but in 2004-2005 there were 6, including Gitlis.
On my last visit, about a year ago, there were 3 including (then) Father
Simeon and one novice.
-Stephen
nickk
"AGG" <AGG@no_el_spamo.jp> wrote in message
news:h2i3p...@enews1.newsguy.com...
athair ambrois
Regarding the following news item, one can only comment that the
system of Orthodox ecclesiastical courts is working, and working very
well, as shown in this case.
A letter from a woman complaining of having been sexually abused by a
senior clergyman, in fact the abbot of a well-known monastery, is sent
to the clergyman's Ruling Bishop, Metropolitan Joseph.
The letter of complaint was written on February 24, 2009, received the
next day, February 25, and on the very next day, February 26, the
accused clergyman was suspended by the Metropolitan from serving as a
priest or performing other priestly duties including pastoral care.
The Metropolitan writes to the accuser about a week later, informing
her that the accusations will be investigated by diocesan authorities.
Three weeks later, on March 28, a Diocesan Spiritual Court convenes to
consider the complaint. As a result of the Court's deliberations, the
accused clergyman is deposed from the Priesthood and removed as Abbot
of the monastery.
All of this happens within about a month -- 32 days from the time the
original complaint is written.
To me, this is amazing. What civil court in the U.S. could go from
Complaint to Trial to Sentencing within 32 days??
And yet there are those who complain that the Orthodox Church does not
pursue these matters in a timely fashion, or tries to cover them up.
There is no cover-up here. There is no transfer of the accused to
another diocese where he can continue preying on innocents. The
accused was suspended within a day the complaint was received, and
deposed from the priesthood a month later.
The simple fact here is that the Ecclesiastical Court system of the
Orthodox Church works, and works very effectively, at least as proven
by this example.
With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
athair ambrois
> The two are not analogous. Blanco was in the ROCOR. The monks who
> were not defrocked cou ld have stayed in the ROCOR,
>
> ***NO! ROCOR dumped the lot of them...washed their hands of the monastery
> and its inhabitants.
ROCA did not dump them. The monks who were not defrocked could have
stayed in ROCA. They were all offered the opportunity to relocate to
other monasteries. None of the Blanco monks accepted the offer.
John Galt
Because their loyalty was to COTH first, not Orthodoxy or the ROCOR.
IIRC, COTH was founded by the now-deceased Mr. Greene (aka Fr. Benedict)
who established the order as an outgrowth of a long period of seeking a
pietistic lifestyle in various other Christian and non-Christian
traditions. It was only after deciding on Orthodox pietism that union
with a formal Orthodox jurisdiction was sought.
With such a history, it seems difficult to imagine that full obedience
to any authority would be seriously undertaken. It seems more logical
that the pledge of obedience would be lip-service.
The history of the Evangelical Orthodox groups shows that it is
difficult enough for congregational leaders to fully submit to
ecclesiastical authority, after years of being suspicious of it. It is
difficult to imagine an entire monastery moving under ecclesiastical
authority under a geronda who himself was a recent convert, and can
think of other examples where this sort of effort led to either failure
or controversy.
In retrospect, it seems that at least, the accepting jurisdiction ought
to send an abbott to the new monastery, rather than elevate the current
leader and hope everything turns out OK.
Anyway, my $.02.
JG