(This, Mother Mariam''s and Sbn Jerjis' Appeal - Abp Gregory held in Contempt - For It Fell On 'Deaf Ears.' )
EXPOSING ABP GREGORY IV
SBN/DR JERJIS ALAJAJI PROTESTS GREGORY'S 'ABORT' OF SPIRITUAL COURT - FINALE'
"In addition, I have some questions of my own, which have arisen in my mind, surrounding these last events, and for which I would like to be educated with your knowledge and opinion. These are the following:
1- Concerning Striking:
I was surprised when Fr. George and your Eminence told me that it was acceptable for a hieromonk, abbot, priest, or bishop to strike a monk in a monastery. If the monk accepts the physical beating voluntarily, that would add to his crown in Heaven. However, he is under no obligation to submit to any beating if he is not willing, because God's Law forbids striking as evidenced by the following:
a) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 "2: A bishop then must be ... no striker, ... ; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; "
b) Apostolic Canon 27 [p.38] "As for a Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that strikes believers for sinning, or unbelievers for wrong-doing, with the idea of making them afraid, we command that he be deposed. For the Lord has nowhere taught that, on the contrary, He Himself when struck did not strike back; when reviled, He did not revile His revilers; when suffering, He did not threaten.""
c) Canon 9 of the 1st-&-2nd Council [p.465] "In view of the fact that an Apostolic and divine Canon subjects to deposition priests that attempt to strike believers who have sinned or un?believers who have wronged someone, those who are devising a way to satisfy their own animus and garbling the Apostolic Ordinances have taken it to mean priests striking persons with their own hands, when as a matter of fact neither does the Canon imply any such thing, nor does right reason permit this to be assumed. For it would be truly vain and exceedingly precarious to depose a priest from office for striking someone three or four times with his own hands, but to leave unpunished one who, permission being given, beats someone by order of another mercilessly and to death, instead of augmenting the punishment. Wherefore seeing that the Canon simply chastises the act of striking, we too join in condemning this. For a priest of God ought indeed to reprimand a disorderly person with instructions and admonitions, and at times even with ecclesiastical censures, but not with whips and blows to assault men's
bodies. ..."
2- Concerning Obedience:
I fully agree that Brother Nathaniel, may not have been as obedient as he should have been during his one and a half years as a Novice, not withstanding that no novice evinces prefect obedience. But, on the whole, he has demonstrated fidelity both to you and to the monastic rules, liturgical prayer, and his personal prayer rule, which everyone knew was for him a night Vigil from midnight to 5:00 am, and then performing his kitchen obedience at 5:00 am, and then preparing and practicing chanting for Liturgy at 7:00 am.
I also agree that Br. Nathaniel shares in the responsibility of the debacle. In addition I have to wonder whether Fr. Peter has reconciled himself to Mother Mariam after his estrangement from her and his offensive words towards her during your absence. It is of note that Fr. Peter did not make a real effort to get Br. Nathaniel out of jail, after you had told him over the phone from Bulgaria to "drop the charges" and get Sbn. Nathaniel "out of jail". Instead, Fr. Peter has stonewalled and delayed any effective actions with the Police. Were it not for Mother Mariam's bail on Monday June 27, Br. Nathaniel would have been in jail longer and would have likely stood before the judge on Tuesday for arraignment, bringing more disgrace to the good name of Orthodoxy and the Skete. Fr. Peter has asserted up until your return from Greece, that calling the Police was the right thing to do.
I hope his actions now will prove his repentance in words and deeds. Fr. Peter is a monk and a priest at all times; his action as a monk should at no time violate his responsibility as a priest, or vice-versa. Therefore saying that his disciplinary action against Br. Nathaniel in his capacity as a monk and deputy abbot would allow him to violate his canonical boundaries as a priest, would not be true.
I also have to mention Brother John's surge of anger towards me on the phone when I suggested to him calmly that calling the police is uncanonical, after which I asked his forgiveness and completed the phone conversation quickly to avoid a heated argument and his irresponsible and irreverent misuse of the Holy Canons to justify his own part in the calling in of the Police.
I am also concerned that priest-monk Fr. George may have not expressed any opinion of his own during this crisis, but has rather adopted your position almost verbatim, under the mantle of 'obedience' to his elder. Fr. George is a candidate for the lofty office of the Episcopate, which requires independent thinking, knowledge of the Scriptures, Canons, and Fathers, and an honest assessment and judgment of conflicts, with no respect to any person or material benefits, which is to be deliberated in the fear of God and obedience to God's Law.
We know that many Saints of the Church honestly disagreed with one another on certain issues, each struggling to seek the Truth with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength. I would have expected Fr. George to have some degree of divergence with you Vladyka on this
complex series of events, even if the divergence would have been minor.
His espousing of your position without hesitation worries me, for this is not how the Conciliar Mind of the Church works, as we know from the lives of the Saints, the history of the Councils, etc.... I am also deeply concerned that there may be a spirit of censorship that prevails at the Skete, in so far, that any parishioner outside of the Skete, even though he or she may be a faithful parishioner/clergyman, is not to be made privy of internal disputes, even though serious ecclesiastical issues may be at stake.
Granted, it is often wise to spare those outside the Skete any grief from controversies, but it is sometimes also wise to ask for help and receive the benefit of a fresh look from an upright member of the Body of Christ who does not live at the Monastery, and who may look at the situation from a complimentary angle.
For my own education and that of others, please correct and comment on the following opinions:
a) A monk, cleric, or layman is obligated to obey his spiritual father and/or hierarch as long as the latter is confessing the Orthodox Faith. If the spiritual father and/or hierarch asks the monk, cleric, or layman to espouse heresy or to commit immorality or uncanonical actions, then the latter are under obligation before God to stand up and resist the heresy and/or immorality or evil. St. Gregory the Theologian says it is better to be at war for the sake of truth than to accept a dishonorable peace.
b) If a monk (or maybe also cleric or layman) suffers injustice at the hands of his spiritual father and/or hierarch, he should accept it and be voluntarily afflicted, emulating our Master and His martyrs and saints. This voluntary submission will reap him greater crowns in Heaven. St. Peter teaches that in 1 Pe. 2:19-21, as quoted above.
c) If a monk, cleric, or layman witnesses his spiritual father and/or hierarch committing repeated injustice to another monk or person, maybe because of personality conflicts, ignorance, or misunderstanding, I would think it would be God-pleasing for the witness to approach the offender in private and correct him, according to our Lord's admonition in the Gospel of St. Matthew 18:15-16 "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established", and according to 2 Esdras 2:20 "Do right to the widow, judge for the fatherless, give to the poor, defend the orphan, clothe the naked". I believe it may be his religious duty to defend the weak and downtrodden according to the measure of his knowledge the truth with discernment, and according to his ability and wisdom.
I would ask you dear Vladyka to comment more on this, please.
In closing, let us learn from the life of the Prophet David, who had to pay very dearly for neglecting to reprove in due time his sons Absalom and Amnon or their lawlessness. For what we sow today we will reap tomorrow.
Dear Vladyka, your spiritual sons Fr. Peter and Brothers John and Lazarus, are very dear to you and to me. This is why you should love them the more through reproof, according to God's Word. For you are on the seat of Moses and are a judge in the True Israel of God. Prune the vineyard the Lord has planted for more bountiful fruits in due season.
Thank you for your patient hearing, Despota. I would hope to have a point by point answer to the weighty matters in this letter. I am undergoing this labor of love for the sake of unity of mind in our fledgling GOCA, and to bring genuine repentance to all the parties involved, for the salvation of their souls. The canonization of clergymen is a commandment of God, as written in the Holy Canons. It cannot be ignored because it is for their own spiritual benefit.
The punishment is the therapy and medicine of the Holy Spirit for transgressors of God's Canonical Law. The medication or surgery has to be applied to make the ill person well. Your Eminence, as a hierarch, you have taken an oath on the Holy Altar of Christ, and upon His Body and Blood, to uphold the Canons. I strongly believe that a significant canonization should be considered, rather than just a slap on the wrist.
Kissing your right hand,
In Christ, the Holy One of Israel,
Sbn. Jerjis"
POST SCRIPT - ABP GREGORY IGNORED THIS LETTER AND RATHER AFFIRMED HIS PROTOCOL #62905 July 12,2005 AGAINST SBN NATHNIEL KAPNER, WHEREBY HE MADE 22 COUNTER CHARGES IN VIOLATION OF THE 6th CANON OF THE 2nd ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.
