Fr. Robert Kondratick to Appear Before Spiritual Court June 11

THE TEST OF OUR INTEGRITY


by Igumen Philip (Speranza)

Edmonton, AL, Canada


Sources report that Protopresbyter Robert Kondratick, former Chancellor of
the Orthodox Church in America, will appear before a Spiritual Court on June
11 to answer various finance-related charges. How the Spiritual Court
conducts the trial and what we expect of it will be the acid test of our
moral integrity and our spiritual maturity as individual persons and as the
Orthodox Church in America. The standard against which we will be measured
is found in Micah 6:8, "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what
doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to
walk humbly with thy God?"



The moral virtue of justice might best be defined as "the constant and firm
will to give their due to God and neighbour." Justice towards God requires
us to give to God the worship, the glory, the respect, the obedience and the
love that are His by right; justice towards other people disposes us to
respect their rights and to establish (insofar as we are able) that harmony
with them which creates and develops equity (fairness and equal treatment)
of persons and the common good. To "do justly" means actually living that
definition, as God expressly commands through the prophet Amos: "But let
justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream
(5:24, RSV)."



In the case of Fr. Kondratick, the virtue of justice demands of him what he
owes to the Spiritual Court and to the Church as a whole: the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In Ephesians 4:15 the Apostle
teaches that one inalienable characteristic of spiritual adulthood is
"speaking the truth in love;" in verse 25 Paul insists that being "members
of one another" in the one Body of Christ demands that "each one of you
speak truth with his neighbour" (NKJV). The former Chancellor owes it to all
of us to tell us the plain, unvarnished truth about how finances were
handled in the Central Church Administration and what his role actually was.
If he is guilty of wrong-doing, he must heed the injunction of James 5:16 to
"confess your trespasses to one another," because that is the only way for
him and for the Church to even begin to find the healing we so desperately
need. If he has made mistakes, bad decisions, and/or errors in judgment, he
needs to own up to that as well, and in as much detail as possible. More
painfully, he must break the ingrained habit of discretion and speak the
truth in love about other leading figures in our drama and about their roles
in our financial fiasco. We deserve to know.



By the same token, the Metropolitan, the Accuser, the attorney for the
prosecution, and the Spiritual Court, both members and president, owe a
great deal to Fr. Kondratick in this matter. They owe him clarity in the
charges and full disclosure of the evidence against him. As has been noted
elsewhere, in Matthew 18:15, the Lord Jesus Christ commands us bluntly, "If
your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault.;" hence, the
prosecution has a duty to be very explicit and focused in its charges; to
tell the accused in detail why such charges are being brought (i.e.,
disclosing all the evidence upon which they are based); and to bring only
charges for which the accused can legitimately be held responsible.



One would also suggest that, although it be a departure from ordinary
practice, because this is so high-profile a case, the prosecution owes it to
all of us to disclose publicly exactly what the charges are and to disclose
at least the Special Commission's report, upon which (reportedly) the
charges are based. To give the whole Church the mushroom treatment,
especially in a case like this, is to withhold from us what is certainly our
due, viz., information which concerns all of us.



In that vein, justice also requires the Spiritual Court to cite explicitly,
not only to Fr. Kondratick but also to all of us, some Canon, some provision
of The Statute, or some officially-sanctioned document which makes
crystal-clear what responsibilities and areas of accountability the
Chancellor of the Orthodox Church in America actually had during the time in
question. Simply to assume that the Chancellor bore ultimate responsibility
for anything and everything that happened in the Central Church
Administration overall and from day to day, especially with respect to
financial matters, for example, violates the provisions of Canons 38 and 41
of the Holy Apostles, which lay such responsibility on the shoulders of the
Bishop (and by extension here, the Metropolitan), and Canon 26 of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council, which lays responsibility for day to day financial
administration on the shoulders of the steward (who corresponds more to the
Treasurer than to the Chancellor). Another example: was it the Chancellor's
responsibility to examine each employee's work product to make sure that
person was actually doing the job he/she was paid to do, and doing it
properly; and, if so, how often? If failure to do so is one of the charges
(directly or by implication), upon what authority is that charge based?



Let us also note that "doing justly" demands that the charges against the
former Chancellor be only those "breaches of canonical or moral discipline"
over which The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America (Article XI,3)
gives the Spiritual Court jurisdiction. Since the one and only penalty
prescribed by The Statute for clergymen in these cases is deposition from
Holy Orders; and since nowhere do the Sacred Canons order the deposition of
any presbyter or deacon guilty of incompetence, errors in judgment,
well-intentioned but ultimately bad decisions, and/or sheer stupidity;
therefore the charges against Fr. Kondratick can be legitimately only those
breaches of discipline which are the product of knowing, deliberate and
sinful wrong-doing. Making mistakes and/or generally screwing up are not
sufficient canonical grounds for deposition; deliberate wrong-doing is.



Fairly obviously, "doing justly" requires the Spiritual Court to give to the
accused, not only all the evidence against him, but also any exculpatory
evidence; sufficient time to review the evidence; and both full opportunity
and fairly wide latitude to present evidence and testimony to refute the
charges. All of these we find in secular courts; and because the Lord tells
us in Matthew 5:20 that unless our righteousness "exceeds the righteousness
of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of
heaven," our standards certainly cannot be any lower than those of secular
courts. Admittedly, Article XI,4,d of The Statute empowers the Court to
determine what "experts and witnesses" are "acceptable to the court"
(one of
the more dangerous provisions, in this writer's opinion); but given the
weight of power and authority against the accused, justice demands that the
power to exclude "experts and witnesses" as unacceptable be used sparingly,
if at all.



The bottom line is really quite simple: for the Spiritual Court, "doing
justly" means providing what all of us raised in the traditions of the
British and American justice systems would see as a genuinely fair trial.



But to what end? Here, the test is whether or not we genuinely "love mercy."
In a recent reflection, Fr. John Garvey wrote, " .the calls for heads to
roll, the anger, the gleeful desire to see clerics on perp walks, the
unwillingness to take to heart the understanding that repentance means not
only the confession of the guilty but also the compassion of all the rest of
us---all of this is disheartening." Amen! How often must we hear the words
of the Apostle in Galatians 6:1 before we actually take them to heart and
live them: "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are
spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself
lest you also be tempted"? How often will we deliberately choose to pass
over in silence the Lord's insistent teaching in Matthew 18:15ff that the
purpose of discipline in the Church is not punishment but to "gain your
brother," to effect repentance on the one side and forgiveness and
reconciliation on the other? Calling for Fr. Kondratick's head does neither.

Further, many of us among the clergy of the Archdiocese of Canada remember
well how the then-Chancellor was present at the trial of one of our brother
priests in the Spiritual Court of another diocese to which he had been
transferred. Perhaps improperly, but with genuine pastoral love, Fr.
Kondratick intervened several times, entreating the accused simply to
promise to be obedient to his Bishop (in a matter in which the Ruling
Hierarch had every right to demand obedience). If the accused had done so,
the charges against him would have been dropped. Only because he continued
to refuse such obedience was he ultimately deposed. Fr. Kondratick
understood clearly that the Scriptural object of that exercise was to gain
his brother, not lop off his head.



Do we understand that in his case? Do we understand that to "love mercy" is
not optional? Do we understand how chilling we should find the words of the
Lord in Matthew 7:2, "For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged;
and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you"? Even
supposing (purely for the sake of argument in matters which demand real,
concrete, substantial proof) that Fr. Kondratick were guilty of everything
with which he is charged and of all our worst imaginings: what then? If
anyone's desire and goal is anything other than to gain a brother, that
person does not love mercy and will receive none from the Lord.



Which leads us to the point that doing justly and loving mercy can occur
only when we do "walk humbly" with our God. It is only when we are bluntly,
brutally honest before God with ourselves about ourselves.and our own
sins.and our own failings.and our own nasty little secrets we want to take
to the grave with us.and our own mistakes and errors and dumb decisions.and
our own stupidities.and our own pride and arrogance.and our own
rationalisations of our sins and faults.and all the excuses for our bad
behaviours and bad attitudes that we pull from our soul like Kleenex from a
box: only then are our "righteous indignation" and demands for the
punishment of that evil s.o.b. over there transformed into a hunger and
thirst for true justice and a longing to exercise mercy. This does not
preclude appropriate discipline; but the spirit in which that discipline is
desired and deployed makes all the difference.


June 11 it begins. By what happens, by what all of us allow to happen, by
what we want to happen, our moral integrity and our spiritual maturity will
be tested yet so as by fire. What will the verdict be.on us?



______________________

Igumen Philip (Speranza) is a misanthropic old misery in the Archdiocese of
Canada.

(Editor's Note: His description, not mine.)
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]