Why I Disbelieve What the OCA Bishops Said about Metropolitan Jonah: Testing the Only Argument That Can Be Checked Publicly

I mentioned in the previous essay that only one argument in the July 16 statement can be checked against sources available to the public. That argument, which takes up about a quarter of the statement, is presented as the best specimen of +Jonah's malfeasance. Although the bishops claim that some names need to be withheld, it is well known that they are discussing Fr. Symeon Kharon, the subject of much public discussion in Orthodox Internet venues.

For checking the bishops' account we are fortunate to have a number of publicly available documents. I have listed all sources known to me in the appendix, and refer to them in this essay by roman numeral.

First, a bit of background. On 8 April 2009, Metropolitan Jonah requested from the Monastery of Petra the release of a Fr. Seraphim (Starkhof) and with him other monks for the establishment of a monastic community in the Dallas or Oklahoma area (source II). The only one released with Fr. Seraphim was Fr. Symeon Kharon (sources III–V). He seems to have met +Jonah only in December 2009 in Moscow (source VIII). He came to the United States shortly after, where a series of disturbing events occurred.

The July 16 statement's account of this “most disturbing and serious matter" takes the story from there, covering events from December 2009 up to and beyond February 2012. But their account is difficult to reconcile internally and externally. Indeed, more than 40% of the claims made by the bishops about this affair contradict key, publicly available sources.

Because my case rests upon a core part of the Synod's July 16 statement, I reproduce the relevant section here.

[¶4] The most disturbing and serious matter, indeed the final matter that caused us to ask the Metropolitan to resign or take a leave of absence and enter a treatment program, involves the Metropolitan's poor judgment in critical matters of Church governance, lack of adherence to the PSPs, and the risk of serious harm to at least one other person. While the names, dates and other details must be held in confidence to minimize the risk of further harm, we can say the following.

[¶5] At some point after his enthronement as our Primate, Metropolitan Jonah unilaterally accepted into the OCA a priest known to him and to others to be actively and severely abusing alcohol, which more than once was coupled with episodes of violence and threats toward women. One of these episodes involved the brandishing of a knife, and the other the discharge of a firearm, the foimer resulting in the man's arrest. The man was also incarcerated for three days in yet another incident, shortly after he was accepted into the OCA by Metropolitan Jonah. While under Metropolitan Jonah's omophorion, this priest is alleged to have committed a rape against a woman in 2010.

[¶6] Metropolitan Jonah was later told of this allegation in February 2012, yet he neither investigated, nor told his brother bishops, nor notified the Church's lawyers, nor reported the matter to the police, nor in any other way followed the mandatory, non-discretionary PSPs of the OCA. The alleged victim, however, did report the rape to the police. We know, too, that the alleged victim and a relative were encouraged by certain others not to mention the incident, and were told by them that their salvation depended on their silence. As recently as last week Metropolitan Jonah was regularly communicating with one of those who tried to discourage the reporting of this crime by the alleged victim and her relative. In addition, the Metropolitan counseled the priest to pursue a military chaplaincy, without informing the military recruiter of any of the priest's problems. Finally, the Metropolitan attempted to transfer the priest to other Orthodox jurisdictions, and ultimately did permit him to transfer to another jurisdiction, in each case telling those jurisdictions there were no canonical impediments to a transfer.

[¶7] We have started an investigation into the rape allegation, and cannot assume whether the allegation is true or not. We only know that earlier allegations of misconduct by this priest were handled by Metropolitan Jonah in a manner at a complete variance with the required standards of our Church.

It is not easy to see the specific problems without first breaking down the four paragraphs into a chain of claims. Some of those claims are merely inferred or insinuated, and I have marked them below with square brackets. Each claim that is problematic I have highlighted.

Anyone may spend time reading the sources to test these claims for him or herself. Here are the contradictions I have found:

There is a major problem that has no bearing on the sources. Claim P—Metropolitan Jonah orchestrated a cover-up—is an insinuation built upon a hasty generalization. That is to say, the only way one can get from claims M, N, and O to inferred claim P is by assuming a middle premise, something like “All persons who communicate regularly with anyone encouraging someone to be quiet about a crime are orchestrators of a cover-up." If that is true, then about a decade ago anyone who regular contacted those who tried to cover up financial irregularities in the OCA are themselves guilty of orchestrating the cover up, no matter how innocent the communication.

The accusations that +Jonah was covering up a rape and harboring a rapist priest (combination of claims P and U) are especially troublesome. They are not my invention. They were understood by most ordinary readers. The secular media used these insinuations to shape the headlines of their stories: “Orthodox Church in America Head Metropolitan Jonah Dismissed over Alleged Rape Cover-Up" (Washington Post, 20 July 2012) and “Orthodox Church in America Exec Fired for Not Removing Rapist Priest" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 17 July 2012).

If the bishops were mistaken in accusing +Jonah of P and U, a retraction or clarification should be offered, since the statement falsely damaged +Jonah's reputation, among Christians and non-Christians alike. If the bishops did mean to accuse him of P and U, then they need to clarify their logic and explain why their chronology conflicts with those of independent sources.

This does not prove that the July 16 statement is wrong. But it does give excellent reason to doubt it, and to ask for clarification from the bishops. Are some of the sources forgeries? (Three features of source X make me suspect it is fraudulent.) Are there additional details that explain their position? Was the July 16 statement put together too hastily? Who wrote it? Could the faithful be given a more trustworthy, complete account of what happened? Would the principal authors of the July 16 statement, as well as the earlier official OCA report (source VIII) it so frequently contradicts, recuse themselves from an investigation process? More important, how many of the other fourteen allegations, most of which are asserted without argument, have the same problems as this one? How can the rest of the July 16 statement be trusted?

In the next essay I will argue that the statement cannot, because it exemplifies the OCA's culture of deeply flawed reporting.

Why I Disbelieve What the OCA Bishops Said about Metropolitan Jonah

Part Two: Testing the Only Argument That Can Be Checked Publicly

Next...Part Three: A Tale of Three Tales

Appendix: List of Publicly Available Sources Regarding Fr. Symeon Kharon