"The treason of the bishops"

Catholic leaders today have resources that the twelve Apostles could never have imagined. They have undergone years of formal training, honing the skills for thier ministry. They have access to every means of instant communication, including newspapers and electronic media. They control schools at every level, from kindergartens to universities. Their holdings in real estate alone are worth billions of dollars. Their flocks are (by reputation, at least) the most highly educated Catholic lay people in history. Yet the Church they guide is a shambles.

Maybe the public just isn't interested in the product anymore. It happens.

Guess I need to think a little more about this one but my initial thought is that blind faith in people who have power is almost always a bad idea. There is a constant tension between the liberal and conservative viewpoints about authority on this site. Liberals question and often reject authority. Too much of this leads to chaos (true) and a breakdown in morality (often true). Conservatives support and enforce authority. When those in authority abuse that power (which they always do when they have full blind support) it leads to chaos (often true) and a breakdown in morality (true).

Both sides need to listen to each other without fear that doing so means having to give up ones core beliefs. Sometimes the other side is right.

Steve

What a terrible situation. It's particularly tragic because inevitably the people who suffer the most are those who are most devout and entrust their children with clerics whom they think are doing good work, thus wrecking their faith. It's not the families of skeptics and agnostics who suffer in these types of situations, generally. I'm certainly not a religious traditionalist and am something of a hard-boiled skeptic, but this sort of thing really makes one sympathize with those who just want a place for simple faith and a respite from the dangers of the outside world, only to find serpents in their midst.

"...only to find serpents in their midst."

You're right, Mark, but remember that there was a serpent in paradise, too.

Sorry, the 7:38 and 7:43 PM comments are mine.

Ok This is used to be my issue. I was one of those people who stood outside in front of the NH Cathedral with the protesters, called the Bishop and asked him to resign several times (even though he denied in the newspaper that anyone had ever asked him to resign). I begged my pastor to get priests together to request his resignation. I did everything I possibly could.

My bishop ran the office in charge of disciplining priests in the Boston Diocese and failed miserably corruptly. He is still the Bishop of Manchester and he is SO unliked that the local Catholic HS had a petition signed by a majority of their students asking that he not come to their graduation. [That was great.]Our Bishop is still in place. Characteristically he went to the kids graduation and made a big show of being the MAN in charge. Many people had difficulty having their children confirmed because they did not want this Bishop and his poor example anywhere near their children.

He created a new diocesan magazine that generally features at least one large full size image of himself in the middle of the mag and a story about himself as well. When some priests did ask for his resignation, he decided to refuse the seminarians these men were asking to be admitted. That is until the priests apologized for disobeying their vow of obedience to this Bishop. He got rid of the Office of Spiritual Renewal - said we no longer needed it. Unsurprisingly this guy has an ego the size of the Atlantic and he is very fond of parading around his Power. He doesn't consider resigning for the good of the Faithful. I often find myself praying to forgive him and have told him as much in person. At the same time I've also emailed the Pope detailing what this Bishop's bad decisions did to ordinary people's lives. Not much has changed.

What I learned from the entire mess is that God is bigger than this Bishop. And if I keep my eyes on Christ, and NOT on this guy, my faith will be ok. For awhile it shattered and broke and by grace alone I kept walking in the dark. And well it's been a long time that I've been dealing with this but it's getting better. I'm thankful to see the seminars that people who work with children are required to see. I'm thankful that I've been given the opportunity to witness to some of my friends who were seriously injured and I'm thankful that I've been able to come back to God.

I'm still overly suspicious sometimes but maybe that's a good thing.

Oh and it's very good to see some priests stand up publicly! It's very hard for them to do so. They face lots of sanctions.

Thanks for the encouraging info.
Pax

>>>
This is something I never could understand as a Catholic, and that I cannot understand as an Orthodox: why do men who are given the awesome authority of shepherding souls act in this way? Why do they have such a sense of entitlement? Do they even fear God, or believe in Him?
>>>

Governments are not for the benefit of the governed, they are for the benefit of those who govern.

Hierarchical religious organizations are not for the benefit of the worshipers, they are for the benefit of the hierarchy.

Erin, All men are prone to sin and evil. If we could see the interior of the soul, we would hesitate to let any man be a priest or a bishop--or a husband or a father; we would equally hesitate to let a woman lead a convent or be a wife or a mother.

So true. Well written.

As for the Catholic Church, its obituary has been written before, and will be again.

This sounds like a straw man; what person with a room temperature IQ or higher thinks the RCC is "dying" right now? Numbers are projected to go up, both from converts and breeding, as far as the eye can see.

One thing the Catholic Church has had from the beginning is cathlicity - it is the only truly global organization in the world. So certain areas are doing poorly (rich English speakers, natch), while others of a more humble bent are doing well. As would be expected, at least from anybody who has read the Beatitudes.

No straw man intended, M_David; I was responding to these words by Mr. Lawler, which Rod quoted:

"The entire massive structure of Catholicism totters along on borrowed time. But the trend is clear. That whole structure will come crashing down, perhaps within the next generation, unless there is some dramatic change."

Now, perhaps he is only referring to the Church in the United States, but even then the specter of a full-scale institutional collapse seems like a rather overdrawn phantom.

This is something I never could understand as a Catholic, and that I cannot understand as an Orthodox: why do men who are given the awesome authority of shepherding souls act in this way? Why do they have such a sense of entitlement? Do they even fear God, or believe in Him?

I'm convinced it's because they're not men of prayer. I cannot believe that anyone who spends regular time in honest prayer could act this way. That may sound like a harsh judgment, but I'd bet the ranch on it. Archbishop Alban Goodier, SJ, said it best in his essay, "The More Excellent Way" (http://www.themissionchurch.com/excellentway.htm):

"On the other hand, it is possible to be a great saint, and yet to be imperfect in many respects: ask the saints themselves and they will all tell you of their many failures and shortcomings. But one thing is not possible; it is not possible to grow in the knowledge and love, and imitation of Jesus Christ, without at the same time growing in the perfection of every virtue and becoming more a saint every day."

I second your admiration of Phil Lawler. He and I grew up in the same neighborhood, where our parents still own their homes. I'm looking forward to reading his book.

Rod:

I'm still trying to figure out how you turned a tale of scandal in your current church into an endorsement of a full-scale condemnation of your former one.

Bait and switch, anyone?

Erin, No straw man intended, M_David; I was responding to these words by Mr. Lawler, which Rod quoted: "The entire massive structure of Catholicism totters along on borrowed time.

My bad. I didn't read that part.

I'm still trying to figure out how you turned a tale of scandal in your current church into an endorsement of a full-scale condemnation of your former one.

Larry, I swear, I have no idea how you think. Can you not read? I wrote that the same dynamic I saw playing out so destructively in my former Church seems to be playing out in my present church. And I quoted a new book by a prominent orthodox Catholic journalist who dissects the Boston scandal, and who offers his work as a cautionary tale to all churches about how bishops court ruin if they place their own comfort and respect for the world above the Gospel. Obviously I cited Phil Lawler's work as a warning to my own bishops about their behavior. And yet you somehow see this post "a full-scale condemnation" of the entire Catholic Church!

Really, Larry, this is daft.

>>>Posted by: Zoetius | February 1, 2008 12:36 AM

nicely put!

Gotta second Reader John on the Alaska-thing-- I don't know the details of that particular story. But the order of Reader really is a very very minor order-- it means the guy has an official blessing to chant during Matins. If this is in the distant past and he's truly repentend and been reconciled to the Church, I just can't find it in me to be scandalized.

I'd be more concerned, actually, if he were a Sunday School teacher-- and that's not even a minor order.

"One thing the Catholic Church has had from the beginning is cathlicity - it is the only truly global organization in the world. So certain areas are doing poorly (rich English speakers, natch), while others of a more humble bent are doing well. As would be expected, at least from anybody who has read the Beatitudes."

Off topic - M_David, so your point of view is trans-national as opposed to nationalist? You would just as soon see Mexicans outbreed Anglos in this country because Anglos have turned their backs on God? It would serve the Anglos right? Bring in African believers, etc. to replace the heathen Anglos?

"Catholicism is an anethema to me, so I don't want to comment on it directly."

That's funny!

Your 8:13 a.m. post, Rod, hits the proverbial nail right on the head. The problem with the bishops is that they believe Catholicism derives from their authority, not from Christ. May God grant those who have lost their way a right and proper awakening.

I'm not Catholic -- yet? -- and yet I find myself compelled to respond to Zoetus:

>>>>
1) The church is not our one source of infallible hope.
2) Infallible hope doesn't rape (or support those who do) children (or anyone else for that matter).
3) God is the only source of hope and is alone infallible , and I have given up on finding God in any church or organized religious practice. If these atrocities are going on and sexual abuse is very common in houses of worship across all faiths, I assure you God is not there.
4) I have given tremendous amounts of time and resources to these organizations to find that they are as Christ described "whitewashed tombs" for the faith they destroy by their atrocities.

I do admire Rods Quixoitic hope that "The Church" can play a part in the redemption of western culture, however I have found that it is rotten to the core.

Keeping God, throwing out the wrapper.
>>>>

A few things: First, regarding number (1) and (2) and the church being "rotten to the core": you're illegitimately substituting part for whole. Horrible things have indeed happened, but there are many, many, many faithful priests and bishops in the Orthodox and Catholic churches, as well as faithful ministers in the Protestant churches.

Second, regarding (2): sex abuse is *not* common across all churches, but I suppose it depends on how one would define common. You're also expecting churches and the people who constitute them to be without fault, and Christians have always taught that the church on earth is going to have wheat and weeds, it's going to be a mixed body. (Wasn't it Chesterton who argued that the sins of church's members were an argument for her truth claims?) Furthermore, you cannot be a Christian and not be part of a church, given what Jesus and Paul and others in the New Testament say. You can't 'keep God and throw out the wrapper' as a Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox. Now, if you would consider yourself not a Christian but a theist of some sort, that's a different matter. I can't speak to that.

Third, regarding the renewal of Western culture, I think that the church -- were she to get her house in order -- is the one institution that could renew it. (Of course, there's so much involved here regarding worldviews and conceptions of the good and what might constitute 'renewal' that it's a tough issue to discuss.) What has secularism given us? Pornography, prostitution, abortion as birth control, the crimes of secular totalitarian states, and so forth. Only Christianity can renew culture because only Christianity teaches the value of the person, the need of the person to be connected to other persons, the goodness and beauty of the world, and the possibility of truth. And any worldview that does echo those things is dependent on Christianity's prior development thereof.

Fourth, regarding the tone of the whole post and number (4): I am so sorry -- truly -- that you must have had such a bad experience, and I don't take that lightly.

I think of Gandalf, refusing the Ring of Power because he knew himself too well. He knew that he was inclined toward good, but that he was weak: that if he accepted absolute power, he would become a monster, because he would tell himself that everything he wanted to accomplish would be for Good. He would cease to be aware of his own fallibility, and would, in time, become corrupted -- all the while never intending to do Evil.

I think this is the great temptation for religious leaders of all kinds. To believers (well, most believers), they have a mandate from heaven. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that the priesthood and the episcopate are divinely ordained offices. But that does not mean that the men who inhabit them will always be acting according to the will of God. The danger is that these men, these fallible men, will forget who they are, and Whom they serve, and will confuse His will with their own. In that regard, I am absolutely certain I don't have the moral strength to be a bishop, or even a priest. I am not remotely humble enough.

I've deleted the two posts by "ex-Bostonian," because the "ex-Bostonian" turns out to be none other than the kooky Diane Kamer, who was banned from this blog ages ago. It may be of interest to longtime readers and sundry savorers of the lives of the morbidly eccentric to know that she's still with us, and still reading this blog. And I, for one, appreciate the extra hits to the site.

'the "ex-Bostonian" turns out to be none other than the kooky Diane Kamer, who was banned from this blog ages ago'

Now you've done it, Rod. "She Who Must Not Be Named" has been named! Who knows what manner of infernal repercussions in the space-time continuum will result?

Mr Dreher,

Does it give you any pause that your bishop seems at best to be turning a blind eye to the scandal in the OCA or at worst is even complicit? He has after all done nothing to help bring resolution to this crisis and has even provided safe haven for two priests (one now defrocked) who were at the heart of the OCA's central administration when these alleged improprieties were taking place.

Irenaeus,

Thanks for responding. Here are my thoughts

Irenaeus "First, regarding number (1) and (2) and the church being "rotten to the core": you're illegitimately substituting part for whole. Horrible things have indeed happened, but there are many, many, many faithful priests and bishops in the Orthodox and Catholic churches, as well as faithful ministers in the Protestant churches."

I argue the opposite. There are few holding fast. There are many perpetrators and many more enablers perpetrating atrocities on children ( and women as well I know but I'm just focusing on kids here). Rod has written extensively on the response of both the laity and church authorities to the victims of sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. From parties for pedophile priests, excommunications, death threats, and shunning. Each act was of extreme evil. He again takes the role of prophet to warn about Orthodoxy.

Irenaeus, "regarding (2): sex abuse is *not* common across all churches, but I suppose it depends on how one would define common.

Common: 1 incident per 5 houses of worship. Incident being sexual abuse of child or adult, by church authority Priest, rev., pastor to sunday school teacher, coaches, and even highly esteemed lay members. I also include supressive/ enabling behavior by the laity/ church members.

-four year old molested by baby sitters son. Son caught twice by baby sitter molesting child with no action. Child tells parents. Social worker investigating attends church with "Upright" woman. Tells family to stop teaching their child to entice adults.

-Deacons molests daughter for years. Daughter tells pastor, pastor tells daughter to forgive. Family and church blame "crazy" daughter for Deacons ensuing heart attack and death after she reports abuse of 9 yo niece by Deacon.

-Pastor rapes and sodomizes women (note the plural form )during counseling session, tells women it is god's will. Church votes to keep pastor. Women ostracized threatend.

-mother rapes son repeatedly, father locks child in unheated garage and during midwestern winter and beats him out of jealousy. Tells pastor, pastor tells child its his dads responsiblity as head of house to dealt with it. At 18 the man is a rattling shell unable to speak without stuttering. Nearly the entire congregation knows, no one called child protective services.

-50 year old man recounts his escape from 3 different priest that tried to sodomize before he was 14. A very angry atheist indeed. Of whom I can't spend to much time with. How can there be a God indeed.....

Except for one example I knew each of these people at one point or another. Each told me their story and I heard each story before the age of 30.

Its everywhere and its insidious from Mormons to Jehovah's Witnesses, Mainline Protestant, small white board rural church, to Catholism and Orthodoxy.

Irenaeus "You're also expecting churches and the people who constitute them to be without fault, and Christians have always taught that the church on earth is going to have wheat and weeds, it's going to be a mixed body."

No I expect that church leaders will not rape children ( or those that they are given authority over) or aid and abet those who do. Or instigate genocides or commit murder. Adultery, theft, addiction,gluttony,materialism, and looking at other adults doing naughty things are the internet ...not-so- much.

Irenaeus "Furthermore, you cannot be a Christian and not be part of a church, given what Jesus and Paul and others in the New Testament say. " and "You can't 'keep God and throw out the wrapper' as a Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox."

I can no longer participate in an Institution that in the Name of God, commits these atrocities. By committing my time and resources I become complicit .

Holy hermits and Dessert fathers baby, the solo seeker is traditional. It has it's pitfalls, but I won't

And I am a Christian and will be for as long as I can be. Oddly enough its the children literature that keeps me going, CS Lewis "The Last Battle" JK Rowlings, even Pullman oddly enough. I've heard scripture used to often to justify horrible things.

Irenaeus "Third, regarding the renewal of Western culture, I think that the church -- were she to get her house in order -- is the one institution that could renew it. "

Because of these atrocities and the churches responses to them any witness that a Christ proclaiming church could have to todays world... is null and void. By these actions the church neuteured itself, and muzzled it truest witness, and most tragically actively participated in the demise of Western culture.

Irenaeus "Fourth, regarding the tone of the whole post and number (4): I am so sorry -- truly -- that you must have had such a bad experience, and I don't take that lightly.

Thanks. That means something

meh, Off topic - M_David, so your point of view is trans-national as opposed to nationalist? You would just as soon see Mexicans outbreed Anglos in this country because Anglos have turned their backs on God? It would serve the Anglos right? Bring in African believers, etc. to replace the heathen Anglos?

I don't want to steal this thread. But let me just say that my opinion on this doesn't matter, does it? I was merely relating facts. I try not to let my personal opinion get in the way of reality. The days of Anglo hegemony are over, because they won't breed.

Zoetius said: I can no longer participate in an Institution that in the Name of God, commits these atrocities. By committing my time and resources I become complicit .

Zoetius, my heart goes out to you, especially after hearing the number of painful situations you've encountered. Your conclusion is the same one that I was forced to. If there were any way I could stay in the Church and feel that I was working for real, meaningful change, I would do so. But there is none. As long as I stay, I'm just headcount for an unjust system. I cannot believe that's what Jesus would want me to do.

"Indeed the corruption is more firmly entrenched now than it was in 2002 because the hierarchy has refused to acknowledge the most serious aspect of the scandal: the treason of the bishops."

Crimens Solicitationes, anyone? I mean, it's POLICY not to report but instead to cover up abuses. Why is ANYONE surprised?

Larry: OF COURSE the bishops ARE the Catholic Church. That's not to say either you or I agree in the least that should be the case, only describing the reality of the institution (the Church itself, as opposed to CATHOLICS). Why do you think you're no longer a Catholic? Why do you think I'm a severely lapsed one?

That's theologically untrue. You cannot have the Catholic Church without the bishops, but the fullness of the Catholic Church doesn't consist within the clergy. Same is true of the Orthodox church.

Rob G, Seen the Lolita post eh?

A commenter who has been banned repeatedly, but who has an Asperger's like determination not to be ignored, but the quote up there. I deleted his remark.

I also attend an OCA parish. I guess I have to say that I'm becoming increasingly troubled by the "sky is falling" mentality. God's will will prevail regardless of whether the bishops get it together or not. There's seems to be the attitude that they need to change on our terms and if they don't change it will be a catastrophe. But the Church has been on the brink of disaster from the beginning. There was always a crisis of some kind or the other. From any secular point of view, it never would have lasted as long as it did.

Maybe the OCA will disappear but the Orthodox Church will survive.

Naw, it was our buddy Victor Hugo reincarnated.
I figured it was someone anti-clerical and French. heh.

Well, my link got sent off to moderation purgatory, but if anyone wants to read the whole review, it's at vgronline.org/ articles/2001/winter/zagorin-lord-acton-victorian/. (The Virginia Quarterly Review, review by Perez Zagorin.)

Scott & Fr. Deacon-- thanks for the clarification.

Joseph, the version of St. John Chrysostom's quote I'm familiar with is:
'The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.'

While the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal seems to be slowly creeping down the descending side of the slope, you'll eventually see that this is merely the early part of the exposure of similar predation, networking, enabling, by-standing and cover-ups for the 'good' of the Orthodox Church (not just the OCA). It's a smaller scale of atrocities for a smaller church, but the body count is just as painful for the Orthodox victims and their families. Just ask the mom's at www.pokrov.org - Cappy Larson and Melanie Jula Sakoda.

another disgusted OCA'er...

I encourage concerned to look into why this decade for the revelations of a homosexual preponderance among never married clergy and abuse disproportionately toward young teen boys. Why not 1960, or 1970 or 1980, the time when many of the deeds exposed today occurred?

Because the generation before the increase in all these events a thing never before seen in human history happened: The population of men interested in advancement in the priesthood whose wives died before their own retirement age became, statistically, zero. The discoveries that made the Cesearian operation safe for the mother (antiseptics, antibiotics, anesthetics) all were well in place only in 1945 or so.

The church's rule that barred presently married men from advancement in church rank made sense when there was a population of widowers whose proven stability and wisdom could bring depth and connection to church decisions. Times change leading to our present problems -- church leadership from a too narrow pool of clergy candidates whose understandable interest in personal security and intense focus on personal life situation makes them as incapable of saving their institution as a train is incapable of travelling across an ocean. The metaphorical necessary mental perspective or equipment to accomplish the job just isn't there in numbers able to change synodal decision making given such members of such synods.

Back in the day the state was involved with the church, the state at some level would, when church misdoing was reported, as it were, 'create vacancies' for the church to then fill with better replacements. (Boats up the Crimea, etc.)

The only realistic corrective course available is a change to the US law allowing a supermajority of local memberships deemed to be financially responsible for the creation of this or that church facitilty to be enabled to depart heirarchical churches -- with title to the properties and contents -- to join with whomsoever they deem wise. This would free those among the senior clergy who are presently outvoted by sinacure craving self-focused persons to lead the institution to a future other than dwindlement, secrets and more of the present problem once media attention moves on.

I hope that this generation of parents will raise a generation of Christian children who will grow up with strong principles that will prevent their falling into those things we now see and suffer from seeing.

Mary H.

Sig, I am not surprised that you would support Acton (a wrong-headed, I-know-better-than-Rome-and-the-Counsel-type) , or that you would support Rod's completely wrong interpretation of my comment (you know me better than Rod, my friend). What's even more unfair is your attempt to turn my comment into an attack on your marriage. Not a very nice thing to do, sig, and so transparent.

As to your "Call To Action"-type hero Acton, here is just a sliver of what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about him: "The publication of the 'Syllabus' by Pius IX in 1864 tended to alienate Acton still further from Ultramontane counsels."

Rod, my comment regarding sig's support of Acton wasn't unfair to sig. First, I agree 100% with what you said: "I think it's inarguably true that power has corrupted the judgment of many Catholic bishops (as well as Orthodox bishops)." After all my time and comments on this board upholding that obvious fact and discussing it with you, how or why you think I could ever dispute it is beyond me. Of course power corrupts, but Acton's belief was that Christ's all-empowering words to St. Peter (Matthew 16:19), if taken literally, would corrupt St. Peter absolutely. You may think that, too, for all I know (you were never clear about it), but I take it from sig as just another sigism against my Church--which she has an absolute right to do. And I have a right, fairly, to call her on it.

My comment to sig was that she never tires of slamming the Church by implying , strongly, that the Church left poor little her, who had just been minding her own business being a good Catholic. That is as absurd as it is common for people who have left the Church. Listen to her confirm what I am telling you:
"It was not meant as a 'slam' against the Church, but as an earnest plea for metanoia. It grieves me very much to think that all that was good in the Church is lost to me, and it grieves me yet more to wonder if it may be lost for millions due to the short-sighted and self-seeking actions of a few men...." ARGHHHHHH!

I say again: sig left the Church and now uses the corruption of some arrogant jerks with Roman collars to badmouth the Church for leaving her.

And, Rod, you may want to take another look at what you told Larry: "In Catholicism, it's not the Pope who is 'infallible' in matters of morals (and faith); it's the Roman Catholic Church, by whose authority the Pope teaches." In Catholicism, the Pope doesn't need any consent from the "Church" to declare an infallible teaching. He does not teach by the authority of the Church. See Denzinger 3074, and the Catechism, 882 and 883. If you meant that he never has had to act in a vacume when teaching infallibly, you would be correct.

I love you, too, sig; I do pray for you. And no kidding around, I really am envious of the effort you put into issues involving the Church, even if they tend to be issues liberals find appealing.

See you the next time your interpretation of things Catholic becomes unbearable for me :)

"I think it's an open question, sadly on both ends, whether the American bishops properly implemented Vatican instructions/discipline (to the extent it existed) on the child abuse scandal." Larry Parker

Larry, did those words really come from you? That is so pleasantly surprising that it will force a rethinking of my view of the value of a Georgetown education. Why have you been hiding your light under a basket?

Too much to respond to, so shall comment about "readers" only. The posters who believe that a tonsured reader possesses nothing more than a "union card" to chant during sacred services are, flatly, wrong. A man (or older male teen) may be granted permission to "read", without receiving the tonsure. Mr. Dreher's parish has several such non-tonsured readers, as well as tonsured readers. The tonsure IS the reception of a man into the lower orders of the Orthodox clergy. As stated openly during the service, the reader HAS ascended to the lowest step, which may lead to the priesthood. (The comparison with baptism does not hold up.) Neither the reader nor the subdeacon have received the grace nor the authority inherent to the higher orders of the clergy, but one should not denigrate the holiness of the tonsure on that basis. The tonsuring in Alaska WAS a travesty and scandal.

Last posting I see is March 17; perhaps all has already been said that needs said. At the heart of the Gospel is the call to repentance to all, within the Church and those yet outside the Church. This repentance must be an ongoing, moment-by-moment exercise in all of our lives, not just something done one moment in time. Bishops, priest, deacons, subdeacons, readers, seminarians, faithful men, women, children are all called to cultivate repentance - Lord,Jesus Christ, Son of God, be merciful to me a sinner. As concerns the institutional reality of the Church, repentance must have at its foundation and throughout transparency, accountability, conciliarity. Nothing which is undertaken in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ can be concealed as it were in a dark room. Each "Order" of the Church has its appropriate function and that function must be exercised before the whole Church. As a priest, I must be accountable in Holy Confession as frequently if not more so than my faithful. As a priest, no money passes through my hands for "services" rendered (i.e. treby). All finances coming into the parish treasurer is reported to all the faithful down to the last penny. Though as father of the community I must oftentime make the "final" decision (understanding I am under the authority of Jesus Christ and my bishop), no "final" decision is undertaken without the appropriate discussion with the faithful. I know in the OCA we inherited some of our "way of doing business" from the Russian Orthodox Church. The ROC is dear to me and fostered within my grandparents a vibrant spirituality and love for God which I can only hope will some day blossom in me. However, let's face it. Russia has a history of civil leadership exemplified by autocracy. Russians love, desire a strong leader; someone to lead them as head of the household. In the Russian home, by and large, the father's word is the final word; even if he's wrong, he is to be respected. Now, Orthodoxy is striving to respond to America. We are a unique people; for anyone to insist that the Orthodox Church on the North American continent will thrive with a Church structure characterized as autocratic will be terribly disappointed. Repentance, transparency, accountability, conciliarity (clergy and faithful together) and above all love expressed in humility must characterize the Orthodox Church in North America. Though we have a distance yet to travel, I see these virtues taking root and beginning to bear fruit. In the Divine Liturgy, as the priest approaches the Body and Blood of Christ, he prays, "the precious Body of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me, the unworthy priest, Peter, for the remission of sins and life everlasting. Amen. The priest however when ministering the Eucharist to the faithful does not refer to them as unworthy servants. As clergy, we must always remember this and be reminded that ours will be a stricter judgment; for to whom much is given, much is required. Pray for me a sinner.