I'm in discussion with a friend about incidents in the use of such tactics as below with Archbishop Alypy and wondered if examples could be gathered together. They show a distinct pattern and often result in the victims being made to look fanatical or insane to outsiders. Whatever you can add to this will be much appreciated. Thanks. Myrrh
http://www.orthodoxwebsite.com/attempt/griefalypy.html
Needless Grief Inflicted on Archbishop Alypy.
July 1, 2002.
(Editors note: it seems Fr. Paul is once again involved in troubles concerning the older bishops. One wonders what motivates him and why Archbishop Alypy is being so ill treated?)
Taken from an internet list post:
This letter was given to the Synod at ROCOR by our Bishop Alypy regarding what is happening in our church. I was asked by a parishoner to post this on the internet. Now you seen why we have fallen.
"I was consecrated a bishop in 1974, and thus have already served for 28 years in the Diocese of Chicago and Detroit. When I arrived in Chicago, I saw very soon that there were many drawbacks for the development of parish life. First and foremost, the church was in a bad neighborhood; across the street there was often blaring music; the church was defaced with graffiti; there was no parking lot, and so forth. Archbishop Seraphim did not want to move to another location, and used to say, "When I die, do what you will"; but later, he did agree, and gave permission to start a special building fund (by the time we purchased land, there was $60,000.00 in this fund).
By 1980, Archbishop Seraphim and Fr. Theophan had almost completely relocated to Vladimirovo-Lost Lake, and only drove into Chicago now and then
At some point I expressed the thought, while amongst parishioners who also wanted to relocate the church, of buying a lot with a house already on it - since it would have been beyond our means to build both a church and a house. And all at once, Vladimir G. Filippov came upon a suitable parcel of land, one that we liked, and which we soon bought. But let no one think that all this came about as if by magic! After all, there had been other lots or buildings that we had considered, and the land that we did buy was not that easy to make over for our use, or to get the needed permissions for this. We bought the land in 1986, but it would have been hard to build a church immediately, as we still did not have the funds.
It was on New Year's Day of 1990 that I took up residence in the house on the land we had bought. In the spring of that same year, Vladimir G. Filippov came to me and said, "We need to start building a church already!" These were the words that I needed to hear, and we all were inflamed with enthusiasm. Work was taken up in September, and by September of 1991, we held the first service. I began to paint the murals on the church walls at once, and this labor lasted about 9 years
On all the documents - on the deed, and on those related to construction -there stands my signature, which shows and proves that I am the one in charge of this place; the more so as all who were here in those times can bear witness that I worked more than anyone else on this place. Of course, I did not work alone, but with the help of others.
But then, misfortune befell me. I had decided to cut back the mulberry (sycamore) trees on the south side of the church, since their berries were soiling the walk: people were stepping on them and tracking them into various places, including the church.
I climbed a ladder, and began cutting a branch with an electric chainsaw. When I had cut through it halfway, the branch broke away and hit the ladder. I fell headlong onto the cement path, according to a witness, and was injured in the small (the lumbar region) of the back. I lost consciousness at once. Fr. Pablo Iwaszewicz called the paramedics and had me admitted to Lutheran General Hospital. I underwent an operation and, as I am told, it went well. Fr. Pablo did much to assist me, often came to see me, spent the night in the hospital room, helped me to turn onto the other side when needed. I am grateful to Fr. Pablo for his help. When I saw him doing this, I trusted him completely.
But soon I began to notice something else about him. I realized this his concern for me was a cloak for something different: Fr. Pablo had decided to use my serious condition to get rid of me, and to seize complete control for himself over the parish. Before this I had noticed a tendency in him towards love of power, but I had supposed that good sense would, nonetheless, win out. But, unfortunately, in this case, that was not to be. In setting up plans for my future, he never said so much as a word to me on the subject, not once did he take counsel with me, but kept everything a secret, and even reached an agreement with the hospital doctors to have them abet him in this
Suddenly I found out that, on Wednesday evening, June 5, a meeting was announced to discuss my condition, a meeting to which, supposedly, the doctors treating me were invited. Many parishioners came to this meeting. To their amazement, they saw, not the doctors who were treating me, but certain doctors from our parish, who were not treating me, and who had seen me only on [Orthodox] Easter Sunday, i.e. on May 5. Nevertheless, as instructed by Fr. Pablo, they boldly gave a negative prognosis, based on obsolete information from the first days, rather than on my current status. Therefore I consider this information to be spurious. They claimed that I was lying motionless on the bed, almost unable to move; that my mind was failing me, and that I had no idea what was going on; and therefore they proposed to put me in a nursing home - that is, to leave me there to die; or else to put me somewhere as far as possible from Chicago, so that I would not be able to return home. I cannot remember a single instance of a sick hierarch being forbidden to return to his place of residence! Archbishop Averky was ill, but he was not put in a nursing home. Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco and Western America was also ill, but he was not put away anywhere - and there are other cases.
Many of the parishioners objected to the clearly false information, and felt that a bishop, who had put in so much work for the church, deserved better treatment, and of course, should be allowed to return to his residence. During this dispute, Dr. Nina Efimievna Horun, who had just been to see me in the hospital, arrived at the meeting. She declared without hesitation that the statements being made were false, that she had only just come from visiting the Bishop, and had seen that I could easily move from the wheelchair to the bed and back, and that I often simply sat on the bed. She said that nothing was wrong with my head, and that I had no memory loss.
Fr. Pablo had not expected such a turn of events, and immediately closed the meeting, saying that he "had to hurry". There was no microphone at the meeting, it was difficult to hear what was said, so that many did not understand what was going on. Fr. Pablo left in company with the doctors, and together they composed a "Decision of the Council" from the meeting, based on the initial information that was given about my illness, which no longer corresponded to my condition - despite the fact that other information on my status had been presented that was much more positive. Therefore I consider the "Decision of the Council" from this meeting to be false, and to have been done with the deliberate aim of distancing me from my residence.
The aggressive report by Fr. Pablo to the Synod of Bishops had its effect, the more so as Bishop Gabriel was a godfather to Fr. Paul's children. All of this was done secretly, behind my back, without my being asked or informed by so much as a single word, taking the word of a priest with a doubtful reputation and without sending anyone to check on his story. Such treatment of a sick bishop is foreign to any idea of fairness.
When I learned of this deceitful plot, there was nothing else I could do, except turn to a secular lawyer and threaten to bring a lawsuit for slander. Only after this was I able to get an agreement from Metropolitan Laurus that I might return to my home.
My release from the hospital was scheduled for June 20. Four days before this, on Sunday, I decided to go to church, since it had already been two months since I was in church. The doctor's assistant gave me permission to be absent for 3 hours. It was conveyed to me that, somehow, Fr. Pablo had learned of this, got in touch with the hospital, and demanded that they not let me go, as he was afraid of an "uprising" at the church! And so, the senior doctor told me not to go to church. What an outrage! He tried every way he could to keep me from returning home. He urged it upon all the parishioners that I had completely lost my wits, and all ability for logic. He was afraid that his lie would all at once be exposed. For a month and a half, my apartment had been under its usual locks. But now, he changed the locks. He did everything to prevent the bringing-in of accommodations, such as wheelchair access and the like, so as to make my return impossible. But I still came back, and accommodations were made.
It took 7 days for an "elevator" to be installed. For 5 days I went to the Rehabilitation Institute I C- of Chicago, and attended church on Saturday and Sunday: they carried me along with the wheelchair up and down the steps, risking injury to me and to themselves. All of this was because of Fr. Pablo, who did everything possible to keep me out of my apartment. But when I returned, did Fr. Pablo perhaps reconcile himself to the fact, and cease his war against his bishop? No! To my face, he was polite; but out of sight, his dirty work goes on. To people who showed an interest in my return, he said, "Just as he arrived, so will he depart". He has been spreading a rumor that I returned home contrary to a Synodal decree. Deacon Gregory, who fell completely under the aggressive influence of Fr. Pablo, made the reproof in my direction, that "Archbishop Alypy should have asked permission to go to church!"
Incidentally, when the Starosta [church warden], George [Pawlukowsky], was told that in Archbishop Alypy's house a special exit with an elevator was being installed, and that the church should pay some $5,000, he replied, "I don't know anything about it, the Synod has to decide that". I would like to ask "the Synod" whether they thought at all about what they were doing. I am the senior member of the Synod, and my assignment was made by the Sobor [Council] of Bishops. They could not simply cast me out by order of Fr. Pablo. I was sent no notice that a Synod was convening, and I was not sent a single decree. The Ukase, of which I received a copy from the lawyer, about my being deprived of my rights, was sent by Bishop Gabriel to the hospital doctor, but he did not give it to me personally, considering this Ukase to be confidential, i.e., secret
The Synod refers to Fr. Pablo by the title of "Dean". What does that signify? He considers this title to be higher than that of the Pastor of the parish, who is an Archbishop in rank. You cannot deprive me of my status without a trial, for which I have committed no crime. If someone is ill and because of illness unable to carry out his duties, then these duties are assigned to an assistant, but only on a temporary basis, without any special title, until the recovery of the hierarch, when he is able to resume his work.
I am being helped by the choir director, George Perekrestov, and by Matthew Panchishin. Fr. Pablo tried, and still tries, to drive my helpers away from me. On the Monday of the Holy Spirit [the Monday after Pentecost, or Whit-Monday], and at a private Pannikhida [memorial service], he gave a sermon about how "each person should know his place in society and in the Church", looking at George Perekrestov and at the others who have been helping me. I would like to know what his place is, in society and in the Church! He is only a priest, but he lays claim to the domain of a bishop, takes absolutely no stock of his superior, the archbishop, and decides the latter's fate according to his own egotistic judgment. He carries on dictatorially, and by his behavior drives parishioners away. He drove away Yuly, who was willing to stay and help me. He threatened Yury, who had agreed to help me, that he would hand him over to the American immigration authorities.
Such behavior of a priest towards the ruling Archbishop is criminal. Unfortunately, he obtained the support of certain members of the Synod of Bishops. I appeal to the members of the Synod, as to my brethren, and I ask them to correct this wrongful situation, if indeed they are concerned about what is right.
I demand that the "Authorization" by Bishop Gabriel, which is based on early, and therefore incorrect, documents, be revoked. Fr. Pablo still makes use of this authorization, claiming that the Metropolitan had no right to go against this Synodal decree. I am the senior member of the Synod, and I was told nothing about this, nor was I given any written minutes, and therefore I doubt that there was any such Synod session. On the basis of this authorization, Fr. Pablo takes no account whatever of the ruling Archbishop. Never has there been such wrongdoing in our Church Abroad.
(Signature)
Archbishop Alypy
Taken from a link in the new page on Metroplitan Vitaly
