I'm not going to comment much on this except to point it out. By the way, if you don't care about the OCA's internal workings (really, why should you?!), you can ignore this post, though I suppose you can find something in here of interest.
Two different sites, on opposites sides of some dispute, posted a copy of a speech Metropolitan Jonah, the primate of the OCA. One interpreted it as a sign he was wrong, another as an example of how awesome and right he is. If it were merely a matter of interpretation, I suppose this would be quite justified, and on some level it is a matter of interpretation, but there are a large number of matters of fact which are at stake between these two interpretations. I certainly don't have sufficient access to the facts to make a decision between one party or the other, but I am forced to wonder at times what state of affairs could make the pro-Jonah side (note: the other "side" is not anti-Jonah) ever change their mind. There surely must be some somewhere, since there is, at some level, a basis in matters of fact. It could be something that they're 99% sure isn't going to turn out to be the case, as long as there's something other than, "My Metropolitan, right or wrong."
Disclaimer: I am pro-Jonah, pro-Synod, and (most of all) pro-Matthias. I want the lot of them to be able to work together and play nice. I can't believe either the simplistic pro-Jonah side or the nuanced interpretation put forth by Stokoe is the whole truth, but I certainly have neither the access to information nor the inclination to discern necessary to develop an informed opinion on the matter. Therefore, I won't form or express an opinion directly on the matter and confine my comments, as usual, to how much I dislike OCA Truth and the Monomakhos web-log.
EDIT: Though one "matter of fact" which I am fairly glad that Stokoe did address is the matter of Metropolitan Theodosius's retirement. The people on OCA Truth and Monomakhos constantly harp on it, and Met. Jonah mentions it, but he retired suddenly due to health problems after 25 years of service and well before the scandals caught up with him. Several of the people writing those web-logs were barely here for +Herman's reign, much less +Theodosius's, so they have no institutional knowledge of this sort of thing. I was (barely) not around for +Theodosius, though I did meet him in the (I think it was) '04-'05 school year when he was in town, he hung out with the OCF for the evening. And another note, it felt to me like +Herman promoted Sanctity of Life Sunday and the other stuff around the Pro-Life cause more than +Jonah, but it could just be that, after +Job's repose, we didn't have a bishop relaying that push. But it's pretty much the only thing I really remember about +Herman's primacy.
2 comments:
As a papist outsider, I shouldn't really be following this mess. But, after all the grief "Muzhik" gave us Catholics for our sex-abuse scandal, I confess that I'm finding it fascinating. (And no, I'm not talking about schadenfreude. I sincerely hope youse guys iron this all out -- just as we Catholics are, slowly but surely, ironing out our own messes.)
Given all that...I found Met. Jonah's speech extremely problematical, and I cannot for the life of me see how "team Jonah" finds it encouraging. It is a rant. A rather paranoid rant. I am not a trained psychologist nor do I play one on TV, but I think a public rant of that sort, if not unhinged, is certainly unbecoming the dignity of the metropolitan's office.
That's just my personal opinion. I have no doubt that certain Catholic hierarchs rant like that all the time. But usually they do it in private. Leastwise, I haven't seen a Catholic prelate vent and rant in this way in public -- not in a while, anyway. Not saying it doesn't happen; we certainly have our share of fruits and nuts. But, if it happens publicly nowadays, it's pretty rare. If it were common, believe me, the media (and "Muzhik") would be all over it like a dust cover.
I draw no inferences from this. I have no dog in this fight. God bless Met. Jonah and more power to him. I hope all this stuff gets resolved. I am actually sympathetic to "culture warriors" like Met. Jonah.
But several things do disturb me: (1) this paranoid-sounding rant; and (2) even more important, Met. Jonah's refusal to publish the SMPAC Report. In this day and age, suchn anti-transparency is dangerous and misguided, to say the least. (If the pope were sitting on such a report, "Muzhik" would never let us hear the end of it. Oh, the irony.)
Diane
Well, two things because I think this needs a little more context. The first is that this was not really a "public" speech, it was supposed to be delivered to closed session of bishops. That should temper one's reading of it slightly. The second is that it seems like the SMPAC report is the sort of report that might not really need to be published publicly. It's not the comprehensive report on what all happened in the OCA surrounding sexual abuse, and I'm sure the SMPAC can later produce something explicitly for public consumption - and by that I don't mean bowdlerized, but directed to the specific purpose of informing the public. From what everybody said about it, this one seems to be written with the express purpose of informing the Synod how they don't like how +Jonah interacts with the SMPAC. Important information, probably not necessary to disseminate publicly, but suspicious to quash.
As for culture warriors, recall my comments about the previous metropolitan. I haven't known every bishop, but every bishop I've known has been pro-life. The Synod of the OCA has come out with some rather "conservative" documents about marriage, morality, abortion, etc...
Anyway, I'm starting to write opinions and I don't like to do that, especially since I'll probably just prove how foolish I am. I also don't want to complicate my life.
Post a Comment