DISCLAIMER

This is a privately owned blog. It is not and has never been an official organ of any ecclesiastical organization.

"No one man, or group of men, can himself speak for the Church of Christ. It is nonetheless possible to speak from within the Church, in conformity with Orthodox tradition; and it is this that we shall attempt to do." Fr. Seraphim Rose Orthodox Word #1 Jan-Feb 1965 p. 17

Sodom Intoxication


Parent post:

http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2011/08/sticky.html

NOT A PLEASANT SUBJECT, BUT..........

"Sodom intoxication" ( the google crude translation of the Russian title)-

Why read this?
Because it gives us outside of the current Russia, some clearer, if disturbing,  picture of what are some of the deepest,  spiritual, and moral and organizational problems inside the MP, especially at it's episcopal levels.
The moral corruption of the MP's episcopate is tremendous.
The meaning is clearer in the original Russian, of course, and the google English translation, yields only a rough understanding, but still this is worthy of reading.
Too bad, we don't have this in good English, though it is not a pleasant subject........
Yet, in trying to UNDERSTAND  what makes the monolithic MP work, we can use any insider information that we can obtain......
And, we DO need to understand it.
Rd. Daniel Everiss



Thank you, Vladimir, for attempting this following translation even when 
words such as these are neither in your Russian vocabulary 
nor in your English vocabulary.


  • August 3rd, 2011 at 9:54 PM




Dmitry Savvin. On the mechanism of homosexuality reproduction among the managing layer of the ROC MP and on the only possible way to overcome it
      To be honest, the pervert-erotic aspect of the internal church issues has never seemed to me a topic that is to be actively discussed. And not at all because raising such issues is sinful (sinning is sinful and not opposing the sin), but because in [doing] this I saw no point.
      However, after the issue of the ridiculous interview of Nevzorov, the keypoint of which is a story about some unthinkable oral sex in the altar part of the church, it became obvious that speaking [out] on this subject would be necessary.
      Indeed, as far as we can tell, there are homosexuals among Orthodox bishops. (In this case, word is about the situation inside the ROC MP, but we need also mention that also in both ROCOR, and RTOC [the presence of] figures like these are not to be excluded). However, no one has been caught by the arm or something of the kind. But there: the “blue[—collar]” scandals have occurred repeatedly, and the bishops who were involved in them have been hastily moved on to new cathedras, and then packed off as staff[-members, on the payroll?].
      In addition, known within the church circles are bishops, with a name for their “non-traditional” [i.e. gay] orientation, but who have not yet fallen into disgrace. As to their numbers, what the truth is, and what is priests’ and sextons’ gossip, we cannot affirm with synonimity. In any case, what we can say is that they do exist. And not only they do but they also form a sort of lobby; around which, in turn, there winds, respectively, a “younger generation”  of seekers of bishophood, eager to reach it through the behind thereof, in all respects.
      The problem is real. And should we discard all hypocritical (and in the mouths of atheists – especially hypocritical) moans and sighs, spells and howls, it would be impossible not to notice: this filth has been generated by the presently existing administrative system. To be more precise, by the system of selecting and training the candidates for bishops.
      As is well known, canons prescribe for the Orthodox bishops celibacy, and the established tradition (characteristic, above all, for the Russian Church) supposes not only celibacy, but also the adoption of monasticism. In fact, this tradition is in its value identical to the canonical norm.
      Even much before 1917, there has settled a split in monsticism in the [then] ruling Greco-Russian Orthodox Church, which [split] led to the formation of the two sorts of “castes”: monastic monks, and a scholastic monks. The former – in fact monks and nuns who come to a monastery and according to one’s power engaged in monastic podvig [exploit]. This was, so to say, the traditional – in its form anyway –  type of monasticism. As for “scholastic” caste, here everything was somewhat different.
      In most cases by far, the latter were students of seminaries and academies, who have taken vows as early as during their study in religious schools. As early as on their school benches at the seminary, they were jokingly called – and that was not without sarcasm – “bishops”  [hirarchs] – for that simple reason that, indeed, the standard end of the career of such a seminary-graduate was precisely hierarchy. As a rule, the average path of a Theological Academy graduate to the bishopry was not too long, and fell within 10-15 years.
      Those 10-15 years passed in an environment that was very far away from the monastic doings. This is how archpriest George Shavelsky described it: “All the atmospgere, all the conditions of the pre-bishopric service of the “scholastic” inoks (rasophora monks) were such that they could rather corrupt than educate and improve them. A young inok lived in the world, without undergoing the monastis exploit of obedience, without educating oneself in the principal virtue – not only in the monastic life, but also in general for the Christian life –- humility....” And again in his writings: “Church authorities stubbornly refused to notice the terrible and seductive contradiction, which was conducive to concealing what became a church-wide phenomenon: the adoption of monasticism is dooming oneself to constant humility and submission, and there monasticism immediately elevated and magnified an inok at the expense of the rights and merits of others... monasticism is a renunciation of the world and its riches, but here it was exactly the tonsuring that opened to a monk the way to ruling over the world; monkhood is related to the monastic vow of poverty [nestyazhenie], and by the way only famous artists, lawyers and even professors in medicine could compete with the bishops of the most prominent cethedras... in the abundance that granted them of the share of earthly riches.” 
      That is, a system was developed that in its essence made the bishop’s way of life alien to monasticism. At that it was only available for monks. Accordingly, people started reaching out to tonsuring who dreamed not of the monastic way of life, but of something, to say the least, earthly.
      This disease, detected at the decline of the XIX century within the Greco-Russian Synodal Church, one way or another, reflected in the subsequent history of the ROC MP. However, here there was no direct continuity, because the living conditions in Russia under the Soviets were qualitatively different and a bishop, who between the sendings to concentration camps ran a diocese from the church lodge, looked like unlike anything of the above-described “scholastic” [monk] figures.
      A full-scale revival of the “scholastic monkhood” was started by the not ever, but memorable Metropolitan Nicodemus (Rotov). Actually, it is he exactly that can be thanked for the fact that within ROC MP some monastic (let’s call it so for the time being) community has reappeared, copying all the “achievements” of the “scholastis” monks described by Fr. Shavelsky. And the full flowering of this phenomenon began in the 1990-s.
      Both the pre-revolutionary “scholastic” monks and the “intellectual elite” are the making of Metropolitan Nicodemus, and many of the current ROC MP bishops are akin in one. For all of them (in their eyes) monkhood was not the only possible and best way to salvation. To them it was only a necessary and, in general, unpleasant appendage, which, “by custom” is attached to the main delicacy – the bisshop’s mitre. In this sense, in the 1990-s. they really “restored a tradition”, at that – quite a vile one. And later, that “tradition” has only taken root and strengthened.
      And, regrettably, on that path of administrative-and-economic development, which the ROC MP chose after 1991 – they could not do without it. Contributing to this were several factors. First of all, the synodal Church was implicitly perceived as some absolute standard. And once ruling in it were “scholastic” monks, then there can be nothing better to come up with now. Second, standing firmly at the helm of the MP were chicks from the Micodemus’ nest, that very same pre-revolutionary Soviet reprint of the above-mentioned phenomenon. Quite naturally, they felt right to educate the new church elite in their own image and likeness.
      But all this is, ultimately, lyricism and other “psychology”. The basic – the third-cause lay in the method of administration.
      Starting in the 90s., at first softly and “covertly” [through underground works] – and then more and more openly asystem began to line up where all the church administration closes with the bishop. All the council institutions de facto disappeared. (Not excluding, by the way, the Council of Bishops, too – the body at present in ROC MP has no independence and the only lays stamps onto synodal decisions.) The Diocesan Councils are either absent or are formed as merely executive bodies of the bishop's authority. Their Graces report only to the Patriarch and to the Synod, and in their dioceses they rule completely [undividedly]. At that they do so – as is usual to say today, in a “manual mode”.
      And right awat, purely pragmatic considerations get triggered. To manage, even after the scheme described, requires not an expert ccleric, not an elder monk – what it takes is an experienced director, a manager.
      Can a monastery of such a manager ever educate? Exceptions are possible, but the norm is quite straightforward: no, it cannot. The monastic socium and its economic structure – even in our merry-made time –  is too specific. And anyone who can successfully and accurately be the warden of a monastery, proves quitey often unable to manage the diocese.
      What happens when they try to disregard this norm I chanced to see in person. It was at one ROC MP diocese where they had palced at the cathedra a bishop of the monastery monks’ ranks. As to his personal morals, this Vladyka [bishop] (especially as compared to his fellow-bishops) was worthy of all praise. He was indeed humble in life, perhaps even going close to asceticism. He loved liturgizing, loved praying. He hated the vice in the title of this article and in his diocese, so to speak, he burned with hot iron. And, well, so much good and warm words can be said about him.
      But he never understood that the diocese should not be managed in the same way as the monastery. He was simply unable to realize this. As a result, with a moral and personally devout bishop the diocese started crumbling, and people were tearing hairs off their heads and periodicallyclimbed the wall [with great eforts].
      And in general, all this was natural. Management is both art and science, and we must study it seriously. Piety makes a monk neither an outstanding chemist, nor an outstanding biologist, nor an experienced manager.
      As a result, there evolved an entirely logical scheme – giving preference to managers namely. Their standard career path is somewhat different from the one that existed before 1917. Then would-be bishops moved to the mitre mainly through religious schools. Now this path is not mainstream since the staff brought up in this manner – coupled with all their other shortcomings – are poor managers, too. Before the revolution inthese bishops were a feeding tit [wet-nurse] in the face of the imperial authorities, who willy-nilly had to compensate for all mistakes and failures. Now therte is no such miracle feeding tit [wet-nurse]. And without it, the "scholastic" monasticism weaves sandals quickly and surprisingly malignant, which Hilarion (Alfeev) clearly demonstrated in his time in the Diocese of Sourozh.
      This is why today the career line looks for instance like this: subdeacon (cell brother) – secretary (celibate deacon or hierodeacon “with the Vladyka”) – Secretary of the Diocese – Vicar Bishop – Bishop running the diocese. From time to time, woven in here is a monastery, but in between and not for long. Monastic wardens and guardians – these are, in a number of cases, that same chant, but a chant that is special, going beyond the scope of this article.
      Getting onto this escalator, one more or less clearly realizes that “with others [being] equal” this must result in bishophood. That is, in the ultimate authority in the church field over a certain territory and in various delicious things. And once this is so, then, it would be that one is asfter these exactly, and not after monkhood. (I would [very much] like to be a monk – I would [gladly] go into a monastery rather than into a diocese office.) Tonsure here is, as the expression in Soviet trading used to be, like a burden, as a spoon of tar in the barrel of archbishop’s honey.
      Such motives and assumptions, by themselves, can no longer cause concern for the further spiritual and moral development of would-be bishops [Right Reverends]. And added to all this is the very LIFESTYLE, customary amidst the ROC MP episcopate.
      Being the absolute master, Vladyka in the sense of a despot in his own diocese, the hierarch is – in principle, free to do whatever he wants to. In this respect he differs radically from all other in the monkhood. A parish hieromonk is still under the Diocesan Authority supervision. The same applies to diocesan employees of the monk ranks. Anyway, there always is some external constraining factor in their lives.
      A ROC MP bishop in the church environment, by and large, is not controlled by anybody. Within the diocese all are accountable to him, while he is not accountable to anyone, and the Patriarch and the Synod are far away. So one can live the way one likes. If you want to serve – then serve with a full service around the clock. If you do not want to – you can even forget about all the services except for Pacha (and on Pascha even you may not be present – “due to sickness”). You can sit every day in your residence, and you can also ride for months in cities and villages, both Russian and abroad. And so on and sso forth – options of leisure, boh the innocent [in Russian – “of no wine”] and of wine [here – for guilt], are here plenty. And if you can arrange this leisure [time] wisely then it is all very remarkable.
      Then add one more shade. Each bishop is a monk and monasticism, in general, supposes a vow of poverty [nestyazhenie]. However, both the church, and the public opinion are generally accustomed to the fact that life of the episcopate is being heralded at a “high level” –  respectable residences, expensive cars, not bad food, etc. Although this does not fit in with the monastic way of life, but we are used to onsider this violation as something normative.
      From a bishop – always a monk – no one expects now, de facto, asceticism. The only both Church people and society still expect from the monk-hierarch is observing celibacy, [observing] sexual discipline.
      In conclusion what is to be found? A man who did not want to be a monk but wanted to be a bishop. Having become a bishop, he is now the full master of both the diocese, and of himself. He is a successful manager, with the psychology of a clerk-manager rather than that of an inok, de facto he is not bound (not considering his inner convictions and conscience) by any monastic vows and obligations, except for a single one: celibacy.
      We ask the question: can a middle-aged man, still relatively young and healthy, having no distinct customs in monastic life, but at that possessing authority and access to many material goods, take and simply limit oneself solely and only in one area – sex? The answer, I’m afraid, is obvious.
      One should not be a monk easily or a monk on Sundays and at other times spit saliva at monastic vows. Monastic path supposes a constant struggle, discipline and self-discipline, which alone can allow one to keep oneself in bodily cleanliness. At that, a full implementation of this path can only take place in a monastery (exceptions are possible – but these are exceptions to the rule rather than the rule itself). If this is absent then “through the line of celibacy” there also arise serious hardships.
      Further, alas, all is still as logical and sad. The figure that does not want to constrain oneself begins to look for a suitable target [object] for sexual gratification. And (this is the only point we can agree with Nevzorov) a woman is for this... ill-suited. Intimate relationships inevitably affect interpersonal communication in the presence of outsiders, the relationship one way or another becomes evident to all. The constant presence of women alongside compromises, and to boyar out with some “pious” excuse would not work here.
      Homosexualism – no matter how bad this may sound, is more convenient to hide, and therefore observing “decency” is easier. To explain the constant presence “with the person” of a pretty secretary is rather more complicated than a similar affinity to a subdeacon or archedeacon (to be alongside with whom is after all simply a duty). There are here also quite a few other points, but getting into details is to no avail on the grounds of squeamishness.
      Further, the weakness begins to spread. The bugger surrounds himself with likes, whom he begins to push up the carreer ladder. And then the cycle repeats on and on...
      The resulting picture is quite sad. A system comes to life that gives quite unequivocal fork [crotch]. Standing at the cathedras would be either monks who simply fire away the liturgy [ministry], for they do not know how to manage and are unable, or those who have been tonsured are professional managers. And then one is to expect not only Mercedes-Lexus [cars], but also sodomites, for the professional managers in all ages do not wish to miss out on either a “decent” transportation, nor also on sexual gratification.
      Under the current structure of the Moscow Patriarchate there can be no other variants.
      And by the way, the “theological” justification of this pandemonium of Sodom has already been worked out. I recently heard about one such concept on high-ranking sodomites, say, “it’s better this way rather than with a woman” (!!!). So they do not marry, they do not reject monasticism. And then some time before death they will accept great schema, it is like second baptism, it will wash away this sin of theirs... In general, this would be funny was it not so abominable [vile]. But the neo-sergianist consciousness has once again demonstrated flexibility and tensibility that no silicone can match.
      The most appropriate solution to the issue, as always in the Church, is not outside Tradition, but is in the faithful and careful adherence to it. We should once again start to place on the bishopric cathedras spiritually experienced, monastic monks, and not managers. And in order to ensure that they would not destroy the diocese they have been given, we are to give up the manual control system and the archbishop’s  “absolutism” [absolute power].
      The bishop’s authority is primarily a power spiritual. Obliged “to serve the tables”, to engage in household economics, and in many a political issue are the people living in the world. A hierarch must control their actions (keeping the absolute right of veto), but must not give direct orders, thus taking over the functions of a superintendent and caretaker.
      At that the Right Reverend needs to be controlled by Council institutions – rather stringent at that. Let us not forget that according to canonical norms, a lay brother is above all a witness to the pious living of the bishop. That is, strictly speaking, the formally attached to him canonical informer [stool pigeon], who is obliged to make known to the Church the crimes of the Vladyka, if such would show up.
Elective, full-fledged diocesan councils should deal with administrative-and-economic affairs, leaving to direct running by the bishop only spiritual issues. Diocesan Councils are needed (conference of clergy and laity), convened regularly that are not formal and phony, but real – Local Councils. Then in one go the need would disappear of both managers who wear monks’ robes by misunderstanding, and the total lack of control over the episcopate on the part of the Orthodox community that paves the way to various vices.

In general, we should realize what was accepted and approved by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church [of] 1917-18.

One can certainly argue about how “liberal” this Council was, etc. But, still, there simply exist no other medications for the hierarchy’s Sodomistic intoxication, as well as for many other misfortunes, but the development of conciliar institutions.