Two Common Red Herrings With Regard To The Investigation Of HTM

Two Common Red Herrings With Regard To The Investigation Of HTM

1). The investigation took too long, contrary to the Canons:

On an internet forum which primarily consists of Greek Old Calendarists, a discussion

was conducted which covered the frequently asserted claim of the Panteleimonites that

the Synod violated the canons in the way in conducted the investigation of Holy

Transfiguration Monastery:

“HTM begged for a year to have a trial, and the Canons specify

that one must be held within a few weeks. The Synod never had

one” (The Orthodox Tradition List, Message 17450).

Do the canons indeed make any such requirement? Not the Ecumenical Canons of the

Orthodox Church. Not the canons of the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, when asked

for specifics, none were given.

There was the claim that the Monastery was an Athonite dependency, and that according

to Athonite custom a trial had to be held within a specified period of time. No evidence

was offered, however, that the Monastery had been accepted into the Synod with any

special conditions that would have placed it under canons other than those which govern

the Russian Church in general, or that it was received as an Athonite dependency, or that

it ever was an Athonite dependency.

Aside from that, we are speaking of an investigation, not of a canonical trial... which did

not take place, because the guilty fled immediately after being suspended in anticipation

of that trial. Obviously an investigation conducted by the Synod of Bishops of the

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is not subject to the local customs of an "Athonite"

monastery. Aside from that, one must ask, could the monastery conduct a canonical

trial? Obviously not. So since it could not conduct the trial, certainly the trial (much less

the investigation) was not a matter of the monastery's custom

this post on the same subject.

2) The accusers were suspect, and the canons require that they not be listened to.

First of all, it should be noted that those who criticizes HTM are slandered as a matter of

course, and one should not accept their claims without a thorough scrutiny of the actual

evidence. However, even if, for the sake of argument, we granted their claims, the

canons do not in fact require bishops to ignore the charges of even heathen… much less

so many monks tonsured to the Great Schema by the Abbot they were accusing.

Canon 6 of the 2nd Ecumenical council says:

"...if anyone lay a personal grievance, that is, a private complaint,

against a bishop, on the grounds that he has been a victim of the

bishop's greed or other unjust treatment, in the case of such

accusations neither the personality nor the religion of the accuser

is to be inquired into. For the conscience of the bishop must be

clear in every respect, and the man who claims to have been wronged

should receive justice whatever be his religion."

Sexual abuse is a matter of personal grievance to those so abused.

No canon requires that bishops not listen to any individuals during the course of an

investigation. The canons do specify who may testify in a canonical trial, and under what

circumstances. Our bishops would be positively derelict in their duties if they had not

taken seriously the accusations of so many monastics.