A Former Follower of HTM Comments On Why He Began To Doubt HTM

Excerpts from the Orthodox Tradition List, message 17796, July 31^st, 2001

I really, really don't want to get drawn into another HOCNA

discussion, and I have resolved to try to stay out of it this

time around. This whole thing makes me feel like poor King

Sisyphus, and one of these days I'm going to walk away

and leave that boulder for somebody else to push up the hill.

But I feel bound to say that while the canonical issues may

be interesting, they're really just window dressing, and don't

get to the heart of the matter….

I had a huge stack of documents relating to HTM and

our exit from ROCOR, but at some point I decided that

I didn't need to have all that unedifying stuff taking up

space in my file cabinet, and I dumped it all in the trash.

I only have a few random documents left, which survived

only because they weren't properly filed. So I can't say

for sure when this issue -- the idea that the "time limit"

for a canonical trial had expired -- first came up. While

it may have been mentioned early on, I don't remember

anybody talking about it, and I'm sure it was never a

particularly relevant factor in anybody's thinking.

It's absurb [sic] to talk about a canonical "deadline" for a trial

in this case, any way. There was never any canonical

trial in any jurisdiction, either in ROCOR, or in the Diocese

of Attica, or under Abp. Auxentios. Eventually, under Abp.

Auxentios, the charges were simply dismissed, on the

grounds that there were no qualified witnesses. Obviously,

a trial is one thing, and an investigation is another. An

investigation takes as long as it takes. And I've *never* seen

*anyone* cite *any* relevant canon that imposes the kind of

time limit we're talking about, anyway.

One reason (not the only one, by any means) that I

objected to going under Abp. Auxentios was that I believed

a canonical trial was absolutely necessary to clear the

reputation of the monastery. Understand, at that time,

I believed the charges were false, and I didn't think there

was anything to fear in a full investigation and trial.

I also knew that -- given Abp. Auxentios' reputation --

the monastery could not credibly be cleared under his

jurisdiction, even if there had been a trial. And even if I

say so myself, I was right. Whether Frs. Panteleimon

and Isaac were innocent or not, there's hardly anybody

outside of HOCNA who believes they were innocent.

People have argued for fifteen years about whether this

matter was *canonically* addressed, and they're going

to go on arguing about it. But it's absolutely certain that

it was not *credibly* addressed.

I know that I, personally, never even entertained the

remotest *possibility* that the charges might be true

until I realized the charges were not going to be

credibly addressed. And it was only when I saw how

HOCNA dealt with Metropolitan Akakios that I realized

the kinds of things HOCNA's leadership was capable

of. For me, and I'm sure for many others, it was not

the accusers (however many there were) or the bishops

of ROCOR who destroyed HOCNA's credibility, but

HOCNA's own leadership.

There are three possibilities I can think of. Either:

1) The fathers were innocent, and their reputation

was sacrificed for the sake of going under Auxentios.

(In that case, they should have been sacrificed in

earnest, and retired into seclusion for the sake of

the church.) Or

2) The fathers were guilty, and the reputation of

HOCNA was sacrificed to cover their guilt. (This

is what I believe happened.) Or

3) Nobody really thought anything out at all. I don't

think this is likely, because whatever one may say

about HOCNA's leadership, they're not stupid.

We can sit and argue about this and that canonical

detail till the end of time, but the fact is that HOCNA's

leadership CHOSE not to address the accusations

in any credible way. If they didn't want this following

them around forever, they should have dealt with it

in 1986 and 1987. Since they didn't, I don't have any

sympathy whatsoever with their whining about injustice

and false accusations now….

Whether the charges were true or not, the *perception*

that they were true is the natural and inevitable result

of decisions HOCNA's leadership made. I have never

understood why they refuse to face that fact.

I'm only marginally interested in discussing the details

yet again, because if I were to give a real, honest answer

to HOCNA's claims, it would be: "I'm sorry, but I don't

believe you. Nobody believes you. And there's no reason

anybody should." My cousin Romanos is a wonderful

person. Nina Seco is a wonderful person. There are

plenty of people in HOCNA who are better than I am,

more pious than I am, more sincere than I am. I DO NOT

want to go to my grave having argued with them all my

life. But I do not, I cannot, believe their leaders, and I

can't imagine anything that would change that at this point.

Patrick Barrett