Holy Crap
IS BEATITUDE, The OCA’s Metropolitan +Herman Retires! That’s what a good sex and money scandal can do to ya…
Huw blogged this on September 5th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Tags: herman, money, oca, sex | Category: church geekery
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
Tags: herman, money, oca, sex | Category: church geekery
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
So, from what I’ve been able to gather, (mostly from the Indiana List) the hush fund has to do with OCA bishops paying blackmail money to cover up certain sexual flings that certain hierarchs are enjoying?
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us…
Amanda – The official report is woefully lacking in “whys” only “whats” are present.
I, too, have heard the rumours about the sexual escapades. I’ve also hinted at them in these pages. But there’s something a bit more shocking in the report. Despite all the lack of “why” the most common phrase – used of nearly every bishop and member of the council – is “took no action”.
The problem I’m having is that “take no action” is exactly the Christian response: the fathers tell us that as we cover the sins of others, God will cover our sins. There’s even one story of a saint advising his student to tell lies to protect a criminal.
The fathers would tell us that my fascination with “why” is a fascination with Gossip. And a sin.
I’ve lived through this excitement before: the embezzlement by Treasurer Ellen Cooke of 2.2 million dollars from the Episcopal Church. I really wanted vengeance then because her embezzlement led directly to my getting laid off – as well as many of my friends and coworkers. All the while she was building a new house, sending her kids to private schools, etc. Seeing her in prison did nothing for me except make me more bitter about Church.
What does “judge not lest ye be judged” look like in this situation? How can we live into the sort of radical forgiveness that Jesus offers us – and expects us to offer others?
If the merger of the OCA and AOA results from this, greater good has come out of it than prior. If some part of the result of this was the paying of money to the Church in Russia – and that money helped her survive – then good.
But again: that’s not the point.
If my Godson (at the age of 2 or 3) gave money to the Church during this period then it is good. The good of that charity for his salvation – and thus the salvation of the world – is not impinged at all. God doesn’t care what evil men did with Samuel’s money: only that he gave it from a good heart. God will deal with Samuel – *and* with the men who did evil with Samuel’s money – and I pray he will be merciful to all of them, and to me.
Perhaps – and Charity demands that I admit this – that was the reason that “took no action” is repeated so many times.
They have asked for our forgiveness.
And as we forgive them, may God forgive us.
“The problem I’m having is that “take no action†is exactly the Christian response: the fathers tell us that as we cover the sins of others, God will cover our sins. There’s even one story of a saint advising his student to tell lies to protect a criminal.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but couldn’t the same be said about the RCC sex abuse scandals?
I have no problem with gay sex per se, its the covering up of it by churchmen who continue to support “traditional” values in public while being hypocritical in their personal lives.
That is troublesome – and I speak as a gay man here, so in their speeches they have oppressed my people so they could use my money to have a good time.
But it doesn’t seem to matter what kind of sin we’re talking about. The Lord’s prayer says, “As we forgive others” not “as we forgive others except of their hypocrisy and sexual abuse”.
And I have said the same about the RCC scandal: although a point could be made that JP II was doing exactly that and it was tedious American lawyers who were driving the unChristian lawsuits home.
Another of the saints said “Guard your peace”. Courts don’t do that – prayer, forgiveness, meekness… I don’t need to list the virtues. But not one of the virtues is nicknamed “kick the bastards out”.
Once again this drives home to me how any church with humans in it is not going to be infallible, not going to be perfect and not going to be heaven: “holy Orthodoxy” no more than Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism.
While I am not supporting the RCC cover-up, I must agree with those who say that it was indeed lawyers who saw this as an opportunity to make money. Though lawyers go on and on about restitution, it is not restitution they go after but damage money. Since they typically get 33% of the award, it is no wonder that they encourage their clients to feel the pain for the rest of their lives. Thus, for the sake of money, they impede the healing of those who have been victimized. A victim who says that they received counseling, have a large measure of healing in their life, and have been able to put the incident in the “history” column rather than the “active” column does not make as good a witness (for damage purposes) as one who is falling apart on the stand.
Both Jesus and the Early Church Fathers were not about retribution but about restoration. Thus their advice was in the context of the expectation that as they “covered” the sins of various people, they would receive in return the restoration of those people. This would be somewhat like the way in which Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery.
The problem in the RCC was that the persons involved kept repeating their offenses. There was no restoration, so the Church should have acted. Having said that, too many of today’s victims want a permanent mark put on a person’s record for even one offense, no restoration, no “paying off your debt to society,” no forgiveness, nada. We are now seeing a slew of secular cases where a person has been branded permanently as a sexual offender based on one episode in their life, which has not been repeated. This is wrong.
Since we do not literally live in a theocracy, we have to abide by the civil law, and that is what punitive damages are for-a way to deliver a deterrent to others via a civil lawsuit.
Perhaps since I’m no longer Orthodox I don’t have the obligatory right wing political slant that loves tort reform, but I can’t feel too sorry for the RCC. In many cases, RCC clergy molested many people over a period of time. It is hardly rash or improper to condemn that.
I don’t think it’s a “right wing slant” – and I’m not Orthodox either! I think of it as rather a “left wing” slant that would rather forgive a sinner than condemn him. It’s a pro-life slant.
There is a difference, Amanda, in our condemnation of sin, on the one hand (we should condemn the sins of sexual predators and embezzlers) and the way we deal with those sinners on the other hand.
The full story – I hinted at above – told of the desert fathers from a millennia ago (and so, I hope, absolved from our left/right issues of today) hits exactly on this.
One monk said that you must never tell a lie. And his spiritual father said that was not so: he said what if a thief had come to you and begged to be hidden in your cell. When the authorities came, asking for the thief, you should lie to them and hide the thief. Because to turn him over to the police would be to condemn him to the hands of “Civil justice” rather than to work on him – yourself – for his reform and his salvation.
This is why St Paul says we are *never* to go to the civil courts for problems in our community – which make us a laughing stock before the world. We see it clearly now in the world unwillingness to let Christians forget any legal tussle we’ve ever been in. Sexual issues in Rome, property fights between Anglicans, spiritual abuse in Orthodoxy, whatever the problem: Christians have been far too wil;ing to pull in the people St PAul said never to pull in. And the result has been exactly as he promised.
Oh please Huw! Actually, the most appropriate venue for child molesting priests is criminal court, not civil court, but of course that is also an option in our fair country.
“One monk said that you must never tell a lie. And his spiritual father said that was not so: he said what if a thief had come to you and begged to be hidden in your cell. When the authorities came, asking for the thief, you should lie to them and hide the thief. Because to turn him over to the police would be to condemn him to the hands of “Civil justice†rather than to work on him – yourself – for his reform and his salvation.”
One of the good things about not being Orthodox anymore is not being a slave to the opinions of monks who lived 1600 years ago. What hypocrisy! Are we not called to obey Caesar’s law as well? How is hiding sexual predators in the Church obeying the laws of the state?
Isn’t such activity un Christian for undermining the state?
I sorta see where Fr. Ernesto is coming from, I just can’t stand the convert’s inevitable justification of right wing political stances using Orthodox theology (for most good converts to Orthodoxy in the US tend to adopt that particular ideology).
Should Christians never become involved in civil lawsuits?
As you wish, Amanda. I’ll not argue further: than to say we disagree.
And I’ll note amusement that you keep calling this right wing.
God’s peace between us and God’s forgiveness.
Amanda, I have often said to Huw that the parishes I have been in do not resemble the parishes he describes. I think I need to say the same to you. Mind you, I have not served in “convert” parishes, though I am a convert. Both of the parishes I have been in have been of “Arabic” background. As a result, the number of registered Democrats is extremely high. Support for the nation of Israel has been very low. I, myself, am a registered Democrat here in Florida and have gone out a couple of times with the local Obama people to help register voters.
I regret your obviously bad experiences. I have not had to deal with parishioners who try to enforce every canon they find, but I know priests who have had that headache and had even had a split in their parish over issues of canonical observance. One of the splits even had a language twist to it, an argument over what language should be used during the anaphora! You are correct that that type of person does have a slavish mindset. Just don’t blame the poor dead monk they quote. I suspect that many of those monks are actually quite unhappy with how they are being used nowadays.
The issue of tort reform in the USA may, indeed, be a right-wing issue, and it is sad that it is so. I wish I could remember where I posted a report on international enforcement of our civil lawsuit judgments. Countries such as Britain, Australia, Canada, and France have regularly refused to enforce our civil judgments against individuals and companies on the basis that they actually undermine justice. On more than one legal issue, the international community does not agree with us, and tort reform is one of them. Among the other issues are: our willingness to try minors as adults, our willingness to execute people who committed a capital crime as a minor, our willingness to jail foreigners for a crime committed here without giving them access to their embassy though we have actually signed a treaty that commits us to that.
Amanda, I am not right-wing on the issues of the court; I am an internationalist. I agree with the international community that our arguments for our tort practices are actually quite mistaken and do undermine justice.