AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/Re-marriage of Fr. Joseph Allen/FRJOEART.txt

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 118KB | 795 lines

  ORTHODOX BISHOP CLAIMS TO APPLY THE CANONS--ORTHODOX QUESTION APPLICATION


This computer file may have acquired some transmission errors in its uploading and downloading.  Should there be any questions, one may contact the author at his new address provided below for a hard copy and/or an Amiga DOS formatted disk.  Please note that the Concerned Parishioners of Saint Anthony's Parish in Bergenfield, New Jersey, have requested the assistance of all Christians in praying about this situation, in dissemination of this information about it, and in writing to His Beatitute, Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch and All the East (where they were first called Christians).  Your help is deeply and greatfully appreciated!


                        H. Keith Mephodie Sterzing, CFP
                        12421 Turtleback Lane
                        Austin, Texas  78727-5227
                        [phone]


FROM:  H. KEITH STERZING, CFP               [Contact the author to obtain
      6070 Palladium Court, #202            these documents in an Amiga-DOS
      Kingstowne, VA  22315-4823            formatted disk.]
      [phone]

FOR PUBLIC RELEASE ON OR AFTER 25 NOVEMBER 94

ORTHODOX BISHOP CLAIMS TO APPLY CANONS--ORTHODOX QUESTION APPLICATION

Enclosed is an article (both longer and a shorter versions as well as some related info) about a unique situation which has caused consternation among many clergy, hierarchy, and laity in the Orthodox Church.  The Archbishop involved has not given any indication that he is willing to admit an error was made, or to change his previous decision, despite the expressed concerns of fellow hierarchs and Orthodox clergy and faithful.  This is a case study of accountability (or the lack thereof) in the practical application of Christian theology and professional ethics to the complexities of an all too typical real world situation and its impact on the people and religious institutions involved.

You are free to use the enclosed article, or parts thereof, or to modify it with other material in an article of your own.  You may also wish to serialize it in your media.  Three additional potential sources of information are provided below.  Do not hesitate to contact me if you believe I may be able to provide additional useful information.  For local and regional media, contacts with and input from Orthodox parishes, parishioners, and institutions in your locality and region may be useful in personalizing this story with its local and regional impact for your readers, listeners, and viewers.  Comparative comments from sources in other religions, and in the fields of professional ethics, management decision-making, and leadership, may also be significant and beneficial.

OTHER POTENTIAL INFORMATION SOURCES:

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Philip
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
358 Mountain Road
Englewood, New Jersey  07631
[phone]/6 (VOICE)
[phone] (FAX)

Fr. Joseph Allen
87 Woodland
Demarest, New Jersey  07627
[phone]

[For information about the situation in the parish most directly impacted.]
Concerned Parishioners of Saint Anthony's Orthodox Parish
c/o Ms. Nadine Faro
224 New Jersey Avenue
Bergenfield, New Jersey  07621
[phone]
ORTHODOX BISHOP CLAIMS TO APPLY THE CANONS--ORTHODOX QUESTION APPLICATION
   [Short version of longer article by H. Keith Mephodie Sterzing, CFP]


For several years now the Orthodox Church in North America has been trying to quietly cope with a major scandal in one of its archdioceses.  His Eminence, Metropolitan (Met.) Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America has, contrary to the established canonical norms of the Orthodox Christian Church, sanctioned the remarriage and continued priestly ministry of Fr. Joseph Allen, a high placed archdiocese cleric, to a long time parishioner and spiritual child, Valerie Maloof.  According to Gregory Maloof and other parishioners, Fr. Joseph  counseled Valerie and Gregory through the dissolution of their marriage without  disclosing his interest in Valerie to her husband, also a long time parishioner and spiritual child.   Met. Philip then granted Fr. Joseph "economy" (dispensation) from the normative canons to allow him to continue as a priest in the very parish (Saint Anothony's of Bergenfield, New Jersey) which is at the center of this scandal and which is now so badly split and in need of healing.  This apparently unprecedented action in Orthodox Christianity in America, with all its related ramifications, has shattered the previous harmony in Saint Anthony's parish, in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, and in the whole of Orthodox Christianity in America.

As Met. Philip publicly appears to consider his action as a fiat accompli and "non-issue", no resolution has occurred although there are now reports that the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV, and the Holy Synod of Antioch, Syria, to which Met. Philip nominally belongs, have taken a renewed interest in the case based on receipt of more complete information subsequent to their initial discussions on the subject in the fall of 1990.  Also possibly propitious is the first all episcopal assembly of the Orthodox Church in North America scheduled for 30 Nov-2 Dec, 1994, at the Antiochian Village in Pennsylvania.  This forum could be an ideal opportunity for Met. Philip's fellow Orthodox bishops to hold him accountable.  Orthodox hierarchs traditionally have been reluctant to question the actions and decisions of their brother bishops.  Orthodox eyes will be on this first ever in America all episcopal assembly, and on the actions of the Holy Synod of Antioch.

The issues in the Fr. Joseph case are both theological and ethical.  The theological issues relate to the sacraments of marriage and the priesthood in Orthodox Catholic Christianity and the proper application of the canonical principle of economy, dispensation from canonical norms under limited and strictly prescribed circumstances and conditions.  [Canonical guidelines for the proper use of economy are described in detail, along with their application in the Fr. Joseph case, in the author's lengthier article on this subject.]  Although there have been some past, largely historic, cases of economy granted to widowed priests to continue their priestly ministry after remarriage, the canonical prohibitions have been so strictly observed for so long now, and the exceptions so rare, that many Orthodox believe any use of economy in such cases is improper.  Some Church
authorities in America have expressed support for the use of economy in                                 -2-

such circumstances "in general" while professing not to know or be able to state whether it was appropriate in the particular circumstances of the Fr. Joseph case.  The moral and ethical issues relate to what many see as Fr. Joseph's rather obvious conflict of interest in dealing with his pastoral obligations to Greg and Valerie Maloof, his parishioners and spiritual children of many years.  When the author questioned a number of these Church authorities on record as supporting the use of economy "in general" to allow the continued ministry of remarried priests in Orthodox Christianity, none were willing to address the moral and ethical issues and impediments in the Fr. Joseph case even though the canonical guidelines for proper use of economy require that such issues be addressed and favorably resolved.

Among the Church's canons are prohibitions against marrying on certain days, against clerical ordination of persons who have married divorcees, against clergy being twice married (referred to as "clerical bigamy"), and against clergy marrying after ordination.    Orthodox Catholics are united by God in the sacrament of marriage in an eternal bond.  "Until death do us part" is not found in the Orthodox Christian marriage service.  In Orthodoxy, marriage is indissoluble, its breakdown is sinful, and it is believed by many  theologians to survive death into the kingdom.  In the Orthodox Catholic Church, ordained clergy are held to a higher standard than are the laity.  The Church has always expected its ordained clergy to live up to the Christian teaching regarding one marriage for the continued exercise of the sacramental priesthood.  In his widely popular and definitive work The Orthodox Church, contemporary theologian Bishop Kallistos (Ware), states flatly (p. 291), "If a priest's wife dies, he cannot marry again."

As His Grace, Bp. Kallistos (Ware), is so widely read and respected as a world renown theologian, it is instructive to read his understanding of the Church's theology and belief in areas pertinent to this case.
        Orthodox priests are divided into two distinct groups,
    the 'white' or married clergy, and the 'black' or monastic.
    Ordinands must make up their mind before ordination to which
    group they wish to belong, for it is a strict rule that no one
    can marry after he has been ordained to a Major Order [Deacon,
    Priest, or Bishop].[p. 291]
        The Orthodox Church permits divorce and remarriage,
    quoting as its authority the text of Matthew XIX, 9, where
    Our Lord says:  "If a man divorces his wife, for any cause
    other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery."
    ...Divorce is seen as an exceptional but unavoidable concession
    to our human brokenness, living as we do in a fallen world.
    ...Orthodox Canon Law, while permitting a second or even a third
    marriage, absolutely forbids a fourth...a divorce granted by the
    State in the civil courts is not sufficient.  Remarriage in
    church is only possible if the Church authorities have themselves
    granted a divorce.[p. 295]

                            -3-

In the Orthodox Christian Church, the bishop is invested, as "the shepherd of his flock," with tremendous although not unlimited authority in ecclesiastical matters.  The Church and Orthodox theology is ecclesial and conciliar.  While not purely democratic, neither is it autocratic or dictatorial.  Its canonical tradition derives from the Church Fathers and decisions of ecumenical councils which have been accepted by the Orthodox people.

Met. Philip, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, under the Patriarchate of Antioch, has celebrated the 28th anniversary of his ordination to the episcopate.  Under Met. Philip's reign, the Antiochian Archdiocese, from a base of Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian American Orthodox, has prospered, experienced significant  growth, and won wide respect for innovative actions such as reuniting the previously divided archdiocese, founding the Antiochian Village Retreat and Youth Center, bringing in the former Evangelical Orthodox Church, being a strong advocate of Orthodox administrative unity in America, providing a home for the Western Rite Vicariate, and providing significant financial assistance to the Patriarchate of Antioch and other humanitarian relief efforts in the troubled Middle East.  It has a large number of converts among both its clergy and laity and English is widely used as the exclusive or predominate language for its services.

Among Fr. Joseph's parishioners at Saint Anthony's parish were Gregory and Valerie Attalo Maloof.  Valerie is a nurse and cared for Joan Allen (Fr. Joseph's late first wife) during her long but losing bout with cancer.  Greg served several years as parish Board of Trustees Chairman and assisted Fr. Joseph in the altar by training and supervising the altar boys for more than 20 years.  Greg and Valerie were married in June of 1982 but after several years of marriage, communication and marital problems developed between Greg and Valerie.  Orthodox Catholic priests are responsible for providing ethical, objective, professional, pastoral counseling to their parishioners and for being sensitive to the pastoral counseling needs of their spiritual children.  Pastoral counseling was Fr. Joseph's area of expertise and he reportedly provided such counseling to Greg and Valerie over the course of several years.  Depending on the total facts and situation, a recommendation of divorce could be consistent with Orthodox Catholic canon law which in certain limited circumstances (primarily adultery, desertion and abandonment) has historically reluctantly permitted divorce and remarriage by lay persons up to a third time.

In July, 1988, Greg and Valerie ceased living together but Greg continued to pay the bills and mortgage.  According to Greg, after a number of counseling sessions with Fr. Joseph, both individually and together with Valerie, the focus of the counseling turned primarily to their property settlement.  This was true even though Fr. Joseph had initially informed Greg in 1988 that it would be improper for him to get involved in discussing property division with Greg and Valerie.  By 1990, Valerie was demanding virtually all the property (including substantial equity in their home and all their furniture).
                            -4-

Finally, in the summer of 1990, Fr. Joseph (whose wife had died in June, 1989) informed Greg that insufficient progress on the property settlement was being made and he would therefore have to bar Greg from serving in the altar and bar him and Valerie from the Orthodox holy sacraments until agreement on their property settlement had been reached.  Fr. Joseph held a number of additional "counseling sessions" with Greg regarding Valerie's property demands.  According to Greg, Fr. Joseph kept insisting that "the moral thing [for Greg] to do" was for him to agree to Valerie's property settlement demands.  This was true even when Greg informed Fr. Joseph that the company he was employed by was going to file for bankruptcy and the  loss of his job was imminent.  At no time during these counseling sessions, or at any other time until after the divorce, did his spiritual father and confessor disclose to Greg that he had any personal interest in Valerie.  The property settlement was so one-sided in favor of Valerie that Greg's attorneys urged him not to enter into the agreement and were very concerned about their own malpractice liability should Greg do so.  Only after Greg gave in and signed the skewed property settlement in March, 1991, did Fr. Joseph permit readmission to the Orthodox holy sacraments in time for Pascha (generally referred to as Easter in Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches), 1991.  Greg and Valerie were divorced in May, 1991.  In accordance with the property settlement Fr. Joseph helped negotiate, Greg continued to make the mortgage payments until the house was finally sold even after Valerie's subsequent marriage to Fr. Joseph a few months later.

In other words, Fr. Joseph, using the power of the Holy Orthodox Church (his clerical collar and the withholding of the holy sacraments) negotiated with Greg a very favorable property settlement on behalf of Valerie.  Greg's monetary payments under this settlement continued even after her marriage to Fr. Joseph later that same year thus conferring on Fr. Joseph direct financial benefits from the agreement which he used the power of the Church to obtain.

Even though Greg did what he had to do, and was apparently counseled to do, to obtain a Church divorce and readmission to the holy Orthodox sacraments, serious concerns have been raised.  The most important ones:  (1) Fr. Joseph's use of Orthodox Church sacraments and his position as an Orthodox priest to obtain a significant financial benefit for Valerie (and thus himself) in the property settlement; (2) his bigamous (second) marriage; (3) Fr. Joseph's marriage to his parishioner and spiritual child whom he counseled through the dissolution of her previous marriage without disclosing his interest in her to her husband, also a long time parishioner and spiritual child; (4) his marriage to a divorcee; (5) his marriage after ordination to the Orthodox priesthood, and, most critically, (6) Met. Philip's sanction for Fr. Joseph to continue his priestly ministry contrary to Orthodox teaching and generally accepted canonical norms.

In November, 1991, the previous rumors were confirmed with the official announcement that Fr. Joseph and Valerie were going to be married on December 29, itself a day which The Word (the Antiochian Archdiocese's official publication) stated was prohibited for marriage without a special
                            -5-

dispensation from the Bishop, and that Fr. Joseph would remain as Saint Anthony's pastor after a six month leave of absence.  This sent shock waves throughout the Orthodox community in America.  Events unfolded rapidly as the news spread by word of mouth.

Saint Anthony's parish quickly split into three camps--pro Fr. Joseph, anti Fr. Joseph, and those who try to be neutral and uninvolved in the continuing controversy.  Fr. Joseph came back from his "six month" leave of absence in March, 1992, after less than three months.  Approximately one-third of the parishioners (52 families) signed a petition to Met. Philip requesting that a new pastor be assigned to Saint Anthony's.

In November, 1991, Met. Philip attended a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch and presented the case of Fr. Joseph.  Whether the Holy Synod received "full disclosure" of all the facts in Fr. Joseph's case has been questioned and the text of his remarks has not been released.  No response has been received to an inquiry made to His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch (Where they were first called "Christians").  The Holy Synod of Antioch authorized Met. Philip to determine whether Fr. Joseph should be allowed to remain an Orthodox priest through use of "economy," an authorized exemption from the canons.  On February 24, 1992, Met. Phillip described the Holy Synod's discussion of Fr. Joseph's case as follows:
    When I presented the issue of Father Joseph Allen to the
    Synod of Antioch for advice, I discovered that it was a non-issue.
    Two years ago, Metropolitan George Khodre, one of the leading
    Orthodox theologians, permitted the marriage of a widowed priest
    [Fr. Elias Abou Saba] who is now serving in the Archdiocese of Zahleh.
    Antioch, therefore, and some other autocephalous Orthodox Churches
    [none were named and no examples were cited] permit the marriage
    of widowed priests without being accused of heresy.

His Eminence, Metropolitan George (Khodre) of Mount Lebanon, Antiochian Archdiocese of Byblos and Botrys, recently wrote:
    The facts are the following:  Father Elias was serving a parish
    of this diocese when his wife died tragically in the explosion of
    a bombed car.  After her death he manifested the will to get
    married for the second time.  I then consulted a professor of
    canon law of our church, and I decided to reduce him to the state
    of a layman and thus to allow him to [have] an ecclesiastical
    marriage which is the only legal marriage in Lebanon.  After some
    years I learned that the above mentioned priest was married in
    another diocese and have [sic] been accepted as a priest in
    the same diocese.

Other possibly significant information on the Holy Synod of Antioch's action relates to the large financial support provided to the Patriarchate for its school, hospital and other institutions in Syria and Lebanon by its North American Archdiocese.  Much of the funds collected from the American faithful have been invested in endowments here.  Met. Philip thus continues
                            -6-

to control the flow of money to the Patriarchate.  It has been reported that members of the Holy Synod acquiesced acquiesced to his request since, to a considerable extent, Met. Philip controls the Patriarchate's purse.

Met. Philip's office claims not to know whether Fr. Elias Abou Saba married a divorced parishioner whom he confessed and counseled as his spiritual child.  Fr. Joseph, of course, was not required to become a lay person and serve a period of years in penitence before being accepted again as a priest.  Thus the sole extant case cited as a precedent of an Orthodox priest being allowed to remarry and continue [at least after a period of time spent in penitence as a lay person] his priestly ministry was not applicable in a number of significant respects to the Fr. Joseph case.

Met. Philip has not responded to a request to provide his rationale for granting economy to Fr. Joseph and what exceptional circumstances, if any, were present to warrant the exercise of economy, rather than laicization.

Reports are now circulating that both the Antiochian Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are taking a greater interest in the Fr. Joseph situation and may have even issued instructions prohibiting clergy concelebration with him.  Reports are that Fr. Joseph was not well received on his recent trip to the Middle East.  It is said that he was refused an audience with His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV, and that in accordance with the Patriarch's directives, Fr. Joseph was denied the right and privilege to celebrate, or concelebrate, Divine Liturgy over there.  It was also reported that Patriarch Ignatius IV requested Met. Philip for a copy of the spiritual court's recommendation of economy for Fr. Joseph.  Since no spiritual court had apparently heard this case and made any recommendation regarding it, Met. Philip has just now reportedly quietly appointed a spiritual court composed of persons expected to comply with his wishes.  Its results will then be submitted to the Holy Synod of Antioch.  Further action by the Holy Synod in Antioch is, therefore, expected.  Hopefully its decisions will be publicly released to "clear the air" regarding its role in sanctioning Met. Philip's decision in this case.  Unfortunately, documentation on these rumors and stories has not been obtained, so their accuracy could not be confirmed.

The Concerned Parishioners of Saint Anthony's Antiochian Orthodox Parish (Contact:  Ms. Nadine Faro, 224 New Jersey Avenue, Bergenfield, New Jersey 07621, [phone]), have requested all Orthodox and members of the wider Christian community to pray about this wound in the Body of Christ.  Each Christian is responsible for his or her own actions, and failures to act, and will ultimately be asked for an accounting.

What the future will bring, only God knows.  Time eventually heals and the Holy Spirit will remain with the Church, the Body of Christ.  The Church will overcome the Fr. Joseph case one way or another.  What is our role and our responsibility as Christians?


ORTHODOX BISHOP CLAIMS TO APPLY THE CANONS--ORTHODOX QUESTION APPLICATION


[H. Keith Mephodie Sterzing, CFP, the author of this article, came from the Presbyterian Church into the Orthodox Catholic faith through an Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese parish over three decades ago.  As he has been a member of three Antiochian Archdiocese parishes, this article was especially difficult and painful to write.  His Eminence, Metropolitan (Met.) Philip, and The Very Reverend and Mrs. Joseph Allen, were requested to provide him information for this article but have not done so, and have not responded to questions.]

His Eminence, Metropolitan (Met.) Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America has, contrary to what many see as established canonical norms of the Orthodox Christian Church, sanctioned the remarriage and continued priestly ministry of Fr. Joseph Allen, a high placed archdiocese cleric, to a long time parishioner and spiritual child.  Fr. Joseph counseled his new wife through the dissolution of her previous marriage without disclosing his interest in her to her husband, also a long time parishioner and spiritual child.  This apparently unprecedented action in Orthodox Christianity in America, with all its related ramifications, has shattered the previous harmony in Saint Anthony's parish (Bergenfield, New Jersey), in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, and in the whole of Orthodox Christianity in America.  The issues in this case are both theological and ethical.

As Met. Philip publicly appears to consider his action as a fiat accompli and "non-issue", no resolution has occurred although there are now reports that the Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV, and the Holy Synod of Antioch, Syria, to which Met. Philip nominally belongs, have taken a renewed interest in the case based on receipt of more complete information.  Also possibly propitious is the first all episcopal assembly of the Orthodox Church in North America scheduled for 30 Nov-2 Dec, 1994, at the Antiochian Village in Pennsylvania.  This forum could be an ideal opportunity for Met. Philip's fellow Orthodox bishops to hold him accountable.  Orthodox hierarchs traditionally have been reluctant to question the actions and decisions of their brother bishops.  Orthodox eyes will be on this first ever in America all episcopal assembly, and on the actions of the Holy Synod of Antioch.

In the Orthodox Christian Church, the bishop is invested, as "the shepherd of his flock," with tremendous although not unlimited authority in ecclesiastical matters.  The Church and Orthodox theology is ecclesial and conciliar.  While not purely democratic, neither is it autocratic or dictatorial.  Its canonical tradition, viewed as providing pastoral guidelines reflective of "the spirit of the law," derives from the Church Fathers and decisions of ecumenical councils which have been accepted by the Orthodox people.  An Antiochian Archdiocese clergyman recently wrote,1
    No ecumenical council is authoritative in and of itself...
    The people have to agree with the discernment of the council,
    and give their "Amen."  Sometimes this takes many years!
                            -1-
                            -2-

    This means the laity is active as an essential part of doctrinal
    decisions.  Their "amen" was, and still is mandatory in Church
    affairs...Our worship is communal; our sacraments are communal;
    our life is communal.  Therefore, our decisions must naturally
    be communally confirmed.

Among the Church's canons are prohibitions against marrying on certain days, against clerical ordination of persons who have married divorcees, against clergy being twice married (clerical bigamy), and against clergy marrying after ordination.  Orthodox Catholics are united by God in the sacrament of marriage in an eternal bond.  "Until death do us part" is not found in the Orthodox Christian marriage service.  In Orthodoxy, marriage is indissoluble, its breakdown is sinful, and it is believed by many  theologians to survive death into the kingdom.2  In the Orthodox Catholic Church, ordained clergy are held to a higher standard than are the laity.  The Church has always expected its ordained clergy to live up to the Christian teaching regarding one marriage for the continued exercise of the sacramental priesthood.  In his widely popular and definitive work on the Church, contemporary theologian Bishop Kallistos (Ware), states flatly, "If a priest's wife dies, he cannot marry again."3

As His Grace, Bp. Kallistos (Ware), is so widely read and respected as a world renown theologian, it is instructive to read his understanding of the Church's theology and belief in areas pertinent to this case.
        Orthodox priests are divided into two distinct groups,
    the 'white' or married clergy, and the 'black' or monastic.
    Ordinands must make up their mind before ordination to which
    group they wish to belong, for it is a strict rule that no one
    can marry after he has been ordained to a Major Order [Deacon,
    Priest, or Bishop].4
        The Orthodox Church permits divorce and remarriage,
    quoting as its authority the text of Matthew XIX, 9, where
    Our Lord says:  "If a man divorces his wife, for any cause
    other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery."
    ...Divorce is seen as an exceptional but unavoidable concession
    to our human brokenness, living as we do in a fallen world.
    ...Orthodox Canon Law, while permitting a second or even a third
    marriage, absolutely forbids a fourth...a divorce granted by the
    State in the civil courts is not sufficient.  Remarriage in
    church is only possible if the Church authorities have themselves
    granted a divorce.5

As in so many other areas, it is relatively easy to speak in theoretical terms about theoretical situations.  The practical application of theory (and Christian theology, morality, and ethics) to life is not always easy, however, and can result in disparate and controversial applications.

Met. Philip, Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, under the Patriarchate of Antioch, has celebrated the 28th

                            -3-

anniversary of his ordination to the episcopate.  A recent issue of The Word magazine, the official publication of the archdiocese, referred to him as, "the Most Reverend and Most Devout, chosen by God to be the Metropolitan and Exarch of North America."  These are honorific titles deriving from the Byzantine Empire.  Under Met. Philip's reign, the Antiochian Archdiocese, from a base of Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian American Orthodox, has prospered, experienced significant growth, and won wide respect for innovative actions such as reuniting the previously divided archdiocese, founding the Antiochian Village Retreat and Youth Center, bringing in the former Evangelical Orthodox Church, being a strong advocate of Orthodox administrative unity in America, providing a home for the Western Rite Vicariate, and providing significant financial assistance to the Patriarchate of Antioch and other humanitarian relief efforts in the troubled Middle East.  It has a large number of converts among both its clergy and laity.  English is widely used as the exclusive or predominate language for its services.

Saint Anthony's parish in Bergenfield, New Jersey, was previously thought of as one of the archdiocese's most progressive parishes.  The Very Reverend Joseph Allen who served as its pastor held several other high positions in the archdiocese--Archdiocese Vicar-General; Archdiocesan Board of Trustees Member; Order of Saint Ignatius Chaplain; Saint Stephen's Course of Studies Chairman; and Continuing Pastoral Education and Vocations Chairman.  Fr. Joseph is reported to be a close personal friend of Met. Philip and edited the highly glowing book about Met. Philip, Feed My Sheep:  The Thought and Words of Philip Saliba.  He also served on the faculty of Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary as a tenured Professor of Pastoral Theology and Field Education and as Doctor of Ministry Program Director.  Fr. Joseph specialized in courses in practical theology including family life, sexuality, personal problems, marital relations, divorce, and other pastoral care and counseling areas.  In addition to a Master of Divinity from Saint Vladimir's Seminary, he also earned a Master of Sacred Theology from Union Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Theology from the General Theological Seminary.

Among Fr. Joseph's parishioners at Saint Anthony's parish were Gregory and Valerie Attalo Maloof.  Valerie is a nurse and cared for Joan Allen (Fr. Joseph's late first wife) during her long but losing battle with cancer.  Greg served several years as the parish Board of Trustees Chairman and assisted Fr. Joseph in the altar by training and supervising the altar boys for more than 20 years.  As most marriages are initially, Greg and Valerie's in June of 1982 was thought of as a marriage "made in heaven."  After several years of marriage, however, communication and marital problems developed between them.  Orthodox Catholic parish priests are responsible for providing ethical, objective, professional, pastoral counseling to their parishioners and for being sensitive to the pastoral counseling needs of their spiritual children.  Pastoral counseling was Fr. Joseph's area of expertise and he reportedly provided such counseling to Greg and Valerie over the course of several years although he now apparently prefers to describe it as "informal discussions" rather than
                            -4-


"counseling."  Depending on the total facts and situation, a recommendation of divorce could be consistent with Orthodox Catholic canon law which in certain limited circumstances (primarily adultery, desertion and abandonment) has historically reluctantly permitted divorce and remarriage by lay persons up to a third time.  Desertion and abandonment were reportedly used as the grounds for Greg and Valerie's ecclesiastical divorce.

In July, 1988, Greg and Valerie ceased living together but Greg continued to pay the bills and mortgage.  According to Greg,6 after a number of "counseling sessions" with Fr. Joseph, both individually and together with
Valerie, the focus of the counseling turned primarily to their property settlement.  This was true even though Fr. Joseph had initially informed  Greg in 1988 that it would be improper for him to become involved in discussing property division with Greg and Valerie.  By 1990, Valerie was demanding virtually all the property (including substantial equity in their home and all their furniture).  Finally, in the Summer of 1990, Fr. Joseph (whose wife had died in June, 1989) informed Greg that insufficient progress on the property settlement was being made and he would therefore have to bar Greg from serving in the altar and bar him and Valerie from the Orthodox holy sacraments until agreement on their property settlement had been reached.  Fr. Joseph held a number of additional "counseling sessions" with Greg regarding Valerie's property demands.  According to Greg, Fr. Joseph kept insisting that "the moral thing [for Greg] to do" was for him to agree to Valerie's property settlement demands.  This was true even when Greg informed Fr. Joseph that the company he was employed by was going to file for bankruptcy and the loss of his job was imminent.  At no time during these counseling sessions, or at any other time until after the divorce, did his spiritual father and confessor disclose to Greg that he had any personal interest in Valerie.  The property settlement was so one-sided in favor of Valerie that Greg's attorneys urged him not to enter into the agreement and were very concerned about their own malpractice liability should Greg do so.  Only after Greg gave in and signed the skewed property settlement in March, 1991, did Fr. Joseph permit readmission to the Orthodox holy sacraments in time for Pascha (generally referred to as Easter in Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches), 1991.  Greg and Valerie were divorced in May, 1991.  In accordance with the property settlement Fr. Joseph helped negotiate, Greg continued to make the mortgage payments until the house was finally sold even after Valerie's subsequent marriage to Fr. Joseph a few months later.

In other words, Fr. Joseph, using the power of the Holy Orthodox Church (his clerical collar and the withholding of the holy sacraments) negotiated with Greg a very favorable property settlement on behalf of Valerie.  Greg's monetary payments under this settlement continued even after her marriage to Fr. Joseph later that same year thus conferring on Fr. Joseph direct financial benefits from the agreement which he used the power of the Church to obtain.  These property settlement financial benefits were in addition to obtaining his spiritual child Valerie as his wife while
                            -5-

retaining, with the blessing of Met. Philip, his sacred Orthodox priesthood, contrary to Orthodox canonical norms.

Even though Greg did what he had to do, and was apparently counseled to do, to obtain a Church divorce and readmission to the holy Orthodox sacraments, serious moral, ethical and religious questions have been raised about the conflict of interest of their spiritual father and confessor, about Fr. Joseph's failure to disclose to Greg his personal interest in Valerie, about the legitimacy of the alleged grounds of "desertion and abandonment", and about Fr. Joseph's second marriage and his continuing to function, with episcopal sanction, presumably as an Orthodox priest.  As Greg continued to pay bills and provide Valerie with financial support even after their physical separation in July, 1988, how are the alleged ecclesiastical grounds of desertion and abandonment legitimate?  Met. Philip was questioned about Fr. Joseph's role in counseling his spiritual children through their divorce, and on the alleged grounds for divorce, but has not responded.7

If the proof of "desertion and abandonment" was weak, it is probably a common situation in Orthodox divorces.  For Orthodox Catholics, divorce is sinful and very difficult to justify legitimately.  In November, 1991, the previous rumors were confirmed with the official announcement that
Fr. Joseph and Valerie were going to be married on December 29, itself a day which The Word (the Antiochian Archdiocese's official publication) stated was prohibited for marriage without a special dispensation from the Bishop, and that Fr. Joseph would remain as Saint Anthony's pastor after a six month leave of absence.  This sent shock waves throughout the Orthodox community in America.  Events unfolded rapidly as the news spread by word of mouth.  Fr. Joseph stated in May, 1992, that he believed this was a story that needed to be written and told publicly but that it was not then the right time because, "everything is still in turmoil and still unfolding."  He said he therefore declined to answer any questions.8  Both he and Valerie have continued to refuse to return telephone calls and to answer questions.  Met. Philip has not responded to inquiries on whether Fr. Joseph formally requested a dispensation to be married on a day when marriages are prohibited by the Church, whether such dispensation was granted, what grounds justified its necessity, whether he was allowed to marry without a dispensation, and how his marrying on this day prohibited for Orthodox Catholic marriages would impact his future ability as an Orthodox priest to counsel other couples desiring to marry during proscribed periods.9

The much more serious concerns, of course, are:  (1) Fr. Joseph's use of Orthodox Church sacraments and his position as an Orthodox priest to obtain a significant financial benefit for Valerie (and thus himself) in the property settlement; (2) his bigamous (second) marriage; (3) Fr. Joseph's marriage to his parishioner and spiritual child whom he counseled through the dissolution of her previous marriage without disclosing his interest in her to her husband, also a long time parishioner and spiritual child; (4) his marriage to a divorcee; (5) his marriage after ordination to the
                            -6-

Orthodox priesthood, and, most critically, (6) Met. Philip's sanction for Fr. Joseph to continue his priestly ministry contrary to Orthodox teaching and generally accepted canonical norms.

Saint Anthony's parish quickly split into three camps--pro Fr. Joseph, anti Fr. Joseph, and those who try to be neutral and uninvolved in the continuing controversy.  Fr. Joseph came back from his "six month" leave of absence in March, 1992, after less than three months.  Approximately one-third of the parishioners (52 families) signed a petition to Met. Philip requesting that a new pastor be assigned to Saint Anthony's.

In November, 1991, Met. Philip attended a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch and presented the case of Fr. Joseph.  Whether the Holy Synod received "full disclosure" of all the facts in Fr. Joseph's case has been questioned and neither the text of his remarks nor the Synod minutes have been publicly released.10  No response has been received to an inquiry made to His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch (Where they were first called "Christians").  The Holy Synod of Antioch, according to its minutes, "after an in-depth discussion," authorized Met. Philip to determine whether Fr. Joseph should be allowed to remain an Orthodox priest through use of "economy," an authorized exemption from the canons in accordance with strict criteria explained below.  On February 24, 1992, Met. Phillip described the Holy Synod's discussion of Fr. Joseph's case:
    When I presented the issue of Father Joseph Allen to the
    Synod of Antioch for advice, I discovered that it was a non-issue.
    Two years ago, Metropolitan George Khodre, one of the leading
    Orthodox theologians, permitted the marriage of a widowed priest
    [Fr. Elias Abou Saba] who is now serving in the Archdiocese of Zahleh.
    Antioch, therefore, and some other autocephalous Orthodox Churches
    [none were named and no examples were cited] permit the marriage
    of widowed priests without being accused of heresy.11

His Eminence, Metropolitan George (Khodre) of Mount Lebanon (Antiochian Archdiocese of Byblos and Botrys) recently wrote:
    The facts are the following:  Father Elias was serving a parish
    of this diocese when his wife died tragically in the explosion of
    a bombed car.  After her death he manifested the will to get
    married for the second time.  I then consulted a professor of
    canon law of our church, and I decided to reduce him to the state
    of a layman and thus to allow him to [have] an ecclesiastical
    marriage which is the only legal marriage in Lebanon.  After some
    years I learned that the above mentioned priest was married in
    another diocese and have [sic] been accepted as a priest in
    the same diocese.12

Other possibly significant information on the Holy Synod of Antioch's action relates to the large financial support provided to the Patriarchate for its school, hospital and other institutions in Syria and Lebanon by its North American Archdiocese.  Much of the funds collected from the American faithful have been invested in endowments here.  Met. Philip thus continues                                     -7-

to control the flow of money to the Patriarchate.  It has been reported that members of the Holy Synod requested Met. Philip not to ask them to allow him to grant economy in the Fr. Joseph case.  They reluctantly acquiesced when he insisted since, to a considerable extent, he controls the Patriarchate's purse.

Met. Philip's office claims not to know whether Fr. Elias Abou Saba married a divorced parishioner whom he confessed and counseled as his spiritual child.  Fr. Joseph, of course, was not required to become a lay person and serve a period of time in penitence before being accepted again as a priest.  Thus the sole extant case cited as a precedent of an Orthodox priest being allowed to remarry and continue [at least after a period of time spent in penitence as a lay person] his priestly ministry was not applicable in a number of significant respects to the Fr. Joseph case.  Met. Philip was requested to provide his rationale for granting economy to Fr. Joseph and what exceptional circumstances, if any, were present to warrant the exercise of economy, rather than laicization.13  His Eminence has not responded.  Should Orthodox Catholic bishops be held responsible and accountable for explaining their decisions to grant economy from the canonical norms of behavior and for answering questions from the faithful?  It is not uncommon for some Orthodox hierarchs to attempt to avoid being accountable to the Orthodox faithful by ignoring and not responding to  letters sent to them.

One Antiochian Archdiocese priest wrote Met. Philip,
    ...Fr. Joseph's right as a Christian to remarry is not really
    the issue, nor is the idea of a widowed priest remarrying per se
    the primary issue.  [For many Orthodox, these are also    critically
    important issues in this case.]  The major problem is that Fr. Joseph
    married a divorced woman who was a member of his parish, and whom he
    counseled through the process of divorcing her husband."14
"More troubling," this Antiochian priest wrote to Met. Philip,
    is the fact that Fr. Joseph counseled his new wife and her
    former husband through their divorce, even, it is said,
    recommending that she not continue the marriage.  There is
    virtually no church on earth in which marrying this woman
    under these circumstances would not be seen as unethical
    behavior on the part of the pastor.  It would be viewed as a
    conflict of interest, a violation of propriety, and a serious
    breach of pastoral ethics.  In most Protestant denominations,
    all of which have a tradition of allowing widowed pastors to
    remarry, a pastor would immediately be called upon to resign
    and step out of the ministry should this type of thing occur.
        This type of relationship with a counselee is also viewed as
    unethical in secular counseling circles.  An enormous amount of
    psychological transference and emotional bonding takes place when
    counseling is going on.  Thus, it is considered psychologically
    abusive to engage in romantic relationships with clients.  And
    rightly so...If bonding too place in an earlier counseling
    relationship, what is to say it won't happen again with another?
                            -8-

    Unfortunately, I have known several pastors and psychologists
    whose marriages were wrecked and who destroyed others' marriages
    by pursuing these types of relationships.  I am not implying that
    Fr. Joseph has engaged in any immorality.  But I am pointing out
    that ethical standards in the counseling profession are set for
    the benefit of both the clients and the counselors.  To ignore them
    is to imperil the integrity of the counseling process itself.
        By marrying a woman he had counseled as her pastor through a
    divorce, Fr. Joseph has, knowingly or unknowingly, violated the
    integrity of the pastor/parishoner [sic] relationship.
    St. Paul warns, "Abstain from the very appearance of evil"
    (1 Thessalonians 5:22).  In this respect, Fr. Joseph's pastoral
    ministry is no longer "above reproach."15

Concern about psychological transference and counter-transference in counseling relationships is so strong that it is addressed and proscribed by the professional standards of conduct of all major professional counseling organizations.  Infractions lead to strong disciplinary actions including expulsion from the profession.  The American Psychiatric Association's The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, Section 2,1. and 2. state,
    ...the patient tends to model his/her behavior after that of
    his/her therapist by identification.  Further, the necessary
    intensity of the therapeutic relationship may tend to activate
    sexual and other needs and fantasies on the part of both patient
    and therapist, while weakening the objectivity necessary for
    control.  Sexual activity with a patient is unethical.  Sexual
    involvement with one's former patients generally exploits
    emotions deriving from treatment and therefore almost always
    is unethical.  The psychiatrist should diligently guard against
    exploiting information furnished by the patient and should not
    use the unique position of power afforded him/her by the
    psychotherapeutic situation to influence the patient in any way
    not directly relevant to the treatment goals.

Other professional counseling associations have similar, and in some cases even stronger and more specific and detailed codes of ethics governing dual relationships and other counseling situations involving their membership.16

The Orthodox Catholic Church has no "standards of conduct," per. se., for their hierarchs, clergy, and monastics.  It does have its system of Canon Law.  Fr. Joseph can be forgiven for being sexually and emotionally attracted to his parishioner and spiritual child, Valerie, and wishing to marry her.  The sex drive was created by God and is natural to all.

Since most pastoral counselors are men, and women often come to them vulnerable and lacking in self-worth, the women look to their pastor and spiritual father for help and safeguard.  Psychological transference is normal and sexuality easily enters the picture.  At least 10 states (CA, CO, FL, IL, MI, MN, ND, NH, WI, and WY) have laws which make it a felony
                            -9-

for a "professional" to have sexual contact with a client (parishioner) because of the "power imbalance."  For example, under Wisconsin's criminal laws (Code Section 940.22), sexual exploitation or contact by a therapist is a felony offense.  Clergy are specifically included in the definition of "therapist" and consent is not an issue.  As a nationally recognized "expert" in Orthodox Catholic theology and pastoral counseling, Fr. Joseph certainly bears significant responsibility in this situation.  Despite his apparent strong personal relationship and bond with Met. Philip, if anyone should have known better, wasn't it Fr. Joseph?  Should he not have received the sacraments of confession and penance and voluntarily requested laicization?  It is reported that Fr. Joseph has informed Met. Philip that he (Fr. Joseph) was willing to request laicization "if Met. Philip wanted him to do so" but that Met. Philip responded that he did not want that.17  If he did, of course, Fr. Joseph would not have any choice about it.

Met. Philip, as the ruling bishop who claims to have granted economy to Fr. Joseph bears the bulk of the responsibility for Fr. Joseph continuing his clerical function.  The Holy Synod of Antioch which reportedly approved allowing Met. Philip to grant economy to Fr. Joseph (regardless of whether it had been provided full disclosure) bears the ultimate hierarchial responsibility.  As in other professions, are Orthodox hierarchs subject to error or misjudgment?  There is the recent example of such an admission by the Holy Synod in Bulgaria, and there have been some historical examples, but they are rare.  If the Orthodox Catholic Church in America had an administratively united autonomous or autocephalous (self-governing) American holy synod, these types of pastoral issues could have been discussed conciliarly before decisions were made and implemented.  The Church in America, however, is still administratively fragmented with most of its dioceses subject to holy synods in the various "old countries" and a united autocephalous structure in America still lies in our future.

Fr. Joseph was requested in December, 1991, to resign from his tenured faculty position at Saint Vladimir's Seminary if he intended to continue to function as an Orthodox priest.  He initially refused but did submit his resignation in May, 1992.  Relations between the Antiochian Archdiocese (at least those members supporting Met. Philip's decision regarding Fr. Joseph) and the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) which had been very close, quickly became very strained.  In an apparent quid pro quo, Met. Philip decided that new Antiochian seminary students (the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have its own seminary and most Antiochian seminary students have previously been sent to Saint Vladimir's) could no longer attend OCA seminaries on Antiochian scholarships beginning with the Fall, 1992, semester.  An Antiochian Archdiocese official has said that while this decision was made in the aftermath of the Fr. Joseph situation, it had been contemplated previously and is rational since the Byzantine culture, services, music and traditions of the Antiochian jurisdiction are closer to those of the Greek Archdiocese taught at Holy Cross Seminary than with the Slavic culture, services, music and traditions taught at Saint Vladimir's Seminary.18  Reports have been circulating for some time that Met. Phillip plans to begin his own seminary at Antiochian Village in Pennsylvania, or at another                            -10-

archdiocesan site.  With 12 Orthodox Catholic seminaries already in America (most are small and mainly serve students from their own ethnic              jurisdiction), many Orthodox question the need or desirability of using limited Church resources to support still another small seminary focusing primarily or exclusively on students of its own ethnic jurisdiction and losing the benefit of economy of scale.  His Eminence was questioned on his plans and justification for beginning his own separate archdiocese seminary but has not responded.19  New Antiochian seminary students now will be provided Antiochian scholarships only at Holy Cross (Greek Archdiocese) Seminary for the immediate future.

In a further recent development, Fr. Anthony Scott, an Antiochian Archdiocese priest employed by Saint Vladimir's Seminary as its Director of Development, received a "release" from Met. Philip even though his release had not been requested by Fr. Anthony or by any Orthodox Church.  The only explanation Met. Philip gave for this breach of proper church order was Fr. Anthony's employment association with Saint Vladimir's Seminary.20

On March 30, 1992, the OCA Holy Synod of Bishops issued a letter addressing clergy marriage in general but not specifically referring to the Fr. Joseph case.  This encyclical, printed in the OCA's official publication, "The Orthodox Church," stated in part:
        We are deeply concerned that we support, protect and uphold
    the integrity of priestly marriage, in accordance with Tradition,
    as expressed in Scripture and the Holy Canons...Failure to
    uphold canonical tradition distorts the theology of the priesthood
     and marriage, and undermines pastoral and spiritual relationships.
    It also betrays the integrity of the Gospel and leads the People
    of God astray.  We confirm our adherence to the traditional practice
    of the Church based on Holy Scripture and the Canons concerning the
    principle of one marriage for the continued exercise of priestly
    ministry.21

No other "official" Orthodox publication has even addressed Met. Philip's decision regarding Fr. Joseph this indirectly, much less provided any direct detailed discussion and analysis of its basis, impact and ramifications.  This may be too hot and sensitive of an issue for most "official" Orthodox press publications.  The Fr. Joseph case has already cracked the fragile facade of American Orthodox Catholic unity.  In today's instant information age, with information superhighways becoming more and more easily accessible to all Church members, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to utilize Byzantine intrigue and secrecy to hide either honest mistakes by professional Church clerical and lay officials, or actual cases of lay or clerical malpractice.

In February, 1992, the 17 Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission (AEOM) Council of Pastors (these were the leaders of the former Evangelical Orthodox Church) members signed and sent Fr. Joseph a letter urging him to voluntarily step down from the active priesthood in the interests of Holy Scripture and Tradition, and to avoid embarrassing Met. Philip by creating
                            -11-

a scandal in the Church.  They also signed and sent Met. Philip a polite  and respectful letter expressing similar concerns and concluding, "A major reason we and our faithful came to Orthodoxy was the refuge it provided  against the doctrinal and moral relativism of our times.  Because of our love for you, Fr. Joseph, and the Church, we fervently ask that this step not be taken."22  Met. Philip replied,
    The depth of my disappointment in your letter exceeds the joy
    which I experienced when I received you in the Holy Orthodox faith...
    You must know that my point of reference vis-a-vis the    situation
    of Father Joseph Allen is neither your Council of Pastors nor St.
    Vladimir's Seminary.  It is the Scripture, the Holy Synod of Antioch
    and my authority as the Metropolitan Archbishop of the
    Archdiocese....23

Met. Philip stated he "did break the law of the sabbath in order to save a human soul" and accused the AEOM of being like "the scribes and pharisees" by hiding behind "the canons of the Church."24
    Our code of canon law has not been revised since 787 A.D.,
    the last Ecumenical Council.  [Depending on what Met. Philip
    means by "revised," many Orthodox would question this allegation.]
    Thus, if we apply all the canons of the church indiscriminately
    and strictly to our conditions today, I assure you that ninety-nine
    per cent of our patriarchs, bishops, priests and deacons will be
    deposed and one hundred per cent of the Orthodox laity will be
    excommunicated.25
He concluded,
    When I received you, joyfully, into the Orthodox faith,
    I thought you were going to missionize America.  Except for
    Peter Gillquist, unfortunately, you have not done much.
    You have become like our traditional Orthodox parishes,
    comfortable and satisfied within your own parochial boundaries.
    Finally, when you embraced Orthodoxy in 1987, we shared a dream.
    Is that dream still alive?  I do not know.  Only God knows.26

Only God knows.  Apparently, however, the same dream about Fr. Joseph's legitimate future ministry as an Orthodox Catholic priest is not shared.  If the AEOM Council of Pastors were really "comfortable and satisfied within their own parochial boundaries," would they have had the courage to formally speak out and question a decision made by Met. Philip?

Many other Orthodox clergy and lay persons expressed their concern about, and opposition to, Met. Philip's decision allowing Fr. Joseph to continue to function as an Orthodox priest.  In April, 1992, Met. Philip sent a letter to all the clergy of his archdiocese stating he would,
    like to remind all of you that decisions regarding ordination,
    priesthood and ministry in our Archdiocese belong solely to
    the Metropolitan Archbishop.  [What happened to "axios" and
    "anaxios," the amen of the Orthodox people that a candidate for
    ordination is either "worthy" or "unworthy"?]  In the case of
    the status of the widowed priest, Father Joseph Allen, this
                            -12-

    decision was made after consultation with the Patriarch and the
    Holy Synod of Antioch, the highest authority in the Patriarchate.
    The opinions of priests, groups of priests and other institutions
    have no place in this matter and can only be counter productive
    to the future of Orthodox unity on this continent.
        This matter will be thoroughly discussed at the Clergy
    Symposium, July 20-24, 1992.  Until the symposium, we expect
    our clergy to cease any further discussion and communication
    regarding this matter, and to disregard any literature, rumors
    and gossip, especially from the non-Antiochian sources, which
    stand contrary    to the Metropolitan's decision.27

One longtime Antiochian priest from the South stated that this "gag order" is "not my favorite communication from Met. Philip" and said, "I knew the rules when I accepted ordination into the Orthodox priesthood.  I expected those rules would apply to all Orthodox clergy."28  Two Antiochian clergy, Fr. Daniel Gunther and Deacon Mark Hodges, were requested to concelebrate with Fr. Joseph and refused to do so.  They were both promptly suspended and remain suspended.  As neither were afforded hearings or trials as required by the Canons, their suspensions are invalid according to Orthodox teaching.  Although both are archdiocesan clergy, neither were invited, or allowed, to attend the Archdiocesan Clergy Symposium in July, 1992.  As long as Met. Philip allows Fr. Joseph to function as a priest, he probably has little choice but to suspend clergy who refuse to concelebrate with Fr. Joseph although this can only properly be done after affording the accused clergy an ecclesiastical trial.  Met. Philip does, of course, control whose loyalty he wishes to test by asking them to concelebrate with Fr. Joseph.  That is "an invitation" many Antiochian Archdiocese clergy would prefer not receiving.  Should they refuse, their career, as well as their pension, as Antiochian Archdiocese clergy may be virtually ended.  Furthermore, to transfer to another Orthodox jurisdiction would require a release from Met. Philip.  His Eminence has been questioned on these topics but has not replied.29

At the Archdiocesan Clergy Symposium in July, 1992, Met. Philip read a paper (reportedly based in large part on a paper Fr. Patrick Viscuso presented at the Holy Cross Seminary Canon Law Conference 16-17 March 92 commemorating the 1300th anniversary of the Penthekti Ecumenical Council in Trullo) mainly reciting the few ancient historical precedents for widowed clergy being allowed to remarry and continue their priestly function.  The papers from the Holy Cross Seminary Canon Law Conference are expected to be published by Holy Cross Press.  Met. Philip's presentation was reportedly stiff and stultified, and received only limited applause from a small minority of the clergy in attendance.  The focus of his remarks were reportedly on ancient historical cases (including some involving former serious moral and ethical questions relating to an Orthodox priest marrying a divorced spiritual child whom he had confessed and counseled, along with her former husband, his parishioners of many years.  His attempt to justify clerical remarriage in terms of Orthodox theology was reportedly weak.  He seemed to feel that Orthodox clergy should not be held to a higher marriage
                            -13-

heretics) for remarriage of widowed priests and on some historic calls for Church canons to be revised to allow widowed priests to remarry and continue their priesthood.  Met. Philip did not forthrightly address the standard than laity.  His attitude reportedly was if the Church allows remarriage to laity it should also do so for its clergy.  Any ecumenical council canons to the contrary simply being disciplinary and administrative, as opposed to dogmatic, and thus subject to episcopal economia (dispensation).  The author requested His Eminence for a copy of the paper he read so his position could be quoted and its major points could be incorporated in this article but he has not provided it to the author or responded, as promised, to the questions submitted.30  He reportedly stated clergy were free to express their dissent confidentially to him but he expected them not to express it publicly.  Met. Philip controls their pensions and assignments giving him an economic stranglehold over clergy careers and retirement.  Some Archdiocese members (clergy and lay) who have expressed their opposition or otherwise questioned this action of Met. Phillip believe he now considers them "disloyal" and is taking vindictive actions against them.31

Met. Philip also announced that a new priest, Fr. Daniel Daly, was being assigned as the pastor of Saint Anthony's but that Fr. Joseph would remain attached to the parish as "pastor emeritus" and continue to do some services for the parish while also working for Met. Philip in the new position Met. Philip created for Fr. Joseph, "Administrative Assistant to the Metropolitan."  While Fr. Joseph receives a salary from the Archdiocese, Saint Anthony's was required to provide partial financial support for Fr. Joseph as well as full financial support for their new priest.  Furthermore, Fr. Joseph continued to prominently serve there, apparently on an equal footing with the official pastor.  Fr. Joseph appeared during this time period to function as the "associate" (rather than "emeritus") pastor for his own group of parish followers who soon came to dominate the parish board.  Fr. Joseph's service on a regular basis in the very parish which he and Met. Philip brought scandal to will likely only perpetuate its turmoil and division.  The sorely needed spiritual healing is not likely to occur while Fr. Joseph is continuing to serve there "in the faces" of all those who consider his behavior sinful and a serious violation of Orthodox Canon Law and basic moral and ethical principles of proper professional conduct.  How are his new wife's large number of ex in-laws to be expected to react?32

Saint Anthony's is no longer a jewel and archetype parish for the Archdiocese.  At a parish council meeting on May 6, 1992, one parishioner stated, "Father [Joseph] Allen has changed and is no longer the same priest we all knew and loved for so many years."33  Fr. Joseph invited the parish dissenters to leave the parish and archdiocese and to "Find another Bishop."  Met. Philip, however, in a personal meeting with concerned Saint Anthony's parishioners, asked them not to leave.  Most seem reluctant to desert the archdiocese or to allow Fr. Joseph to drive them out as he   appears intent on trying to do.

                            -14-


Writing in the "Orthodox Observer," the official publication of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, Holy Cross Seminary canon law expert Dr. Lewis Patsavos provided an explanation of the exercise of economy in Orthodox canon law today:
      The abolition of the letter of the law by the spirit
    of the law has led to the institution of "economy,"
    exercised in non-essential matters.
      Through "economy," which is always an exception to the
    general rule, the legal consequences following the violation
    of a law are lifted.
      "Economy" is granted by the competent ecclesiastical
    authority and has not so much the character of urgency as it
    does the character of compassion for human frailty.
      The character of compassion is justified by the Church's
    ardent desire to prevent any adverse effects    from the strict
    observance of the law in exceptional circumstances.
      The premise upon which an exception is granted is the general
    welfare of all concerned...
      "Economy" is not something to be applied at random or arbitrarily.      It is governed by defined guidelines which must be strictly adhered
    to by the competent ecclesiastical authority granting it.
      First and foremost, exception from a law which has been endowed with     universal recognition and validity is not possible.  It is only from
    a law that has not been endowed with such authority that a person can
    be released, if this is deemed spiritually beneficial.
      The right to exercise "economy" is the sole prerogative of the
    legislator (council or holy synod of bishops).  This right can
    in turn be delegated to individual bishops by the corporate
    authority of the synod.
      This delegation must, however, be within the limits described by
    the canons and according to the express    authorization of one's
    superior legislative authority..."economy" is any deviation from the
    norm.  The exercise of "economy" ceases if its cause no longer exists     or if the basis for its application rested upon false or pretended
    grounds.
      Once "economy" has been applied, the normative practice is
    restored as before.
      Furthermore, temporary departure from the normative practice
    through "economy" does not set precedent.34

Was this action of Met. Philip and the Holy Synod of Antioch an appropriate use of economy as outlined above?  Have the canons against remarriage of ordained clergy (clerical bigamy--Orthodox believe Joan Allen, Fr. Joseph's first wife, is alive in Christ) and forbidding their marriage to divorcees been endowed with universal recognition and validity?  Inquiries to the major Orthodox jurisdictions in America found no known exceptions in America.  Although rare, there is the one extant case cited by Met. Philip
of remarriage of a widowed priest in the Patriarchate of Antioch, and there have been some historic cases where widowed priests were allowed to remarry
                            -15-

and continue their priestly ministry.  It is doubtful that any of these cases involved the additional impediments present in the Fr. Joseph case.

Although some have alleged that Orthodox clerical remarriage has been widely tolerated, none have been able to document that claim.  Professor John Erickson, in a paper presented March 17, 1992, at the International Canon Law Conference at Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, stated:
    If remarriage [of Orthodox clergy] has indeed been tolerated
    in some places, until now at least the churches in question
    have been very careful to maintain "credible deniability";
    they have refrained from any word or gesture which might suggest
    official approval or set a precedent to which others might then
    appeal.  When incidents of clerical bigamy have been brought to
    light, they generally have been officially disavowed or denounced.35

In the early part of this century, there were proposals made from several quarters of the Church to ease the prohibition against remarriage of widowed clergy and this issue appeared on proposed agendas for the next Great and Holy Ecumenical Council.  No such council met, however, and when these efforts "resumed with the Rhodes conferences in the 1960s, the issue was quietly dropped."36

As regards the possibility or likelihood of a future Great and Holy Ecumenical Council "revising" or "reforming" the Church's canons to allow clerical remarriage and continued ministry as a priest or deacon, Professor Erickson believes that such a change would be "hard to imagine."  He states,
    The Orthodox Church's understanding of marriage itself is at
    stake.  While the remarriage of widowed clergy at first glance
    may seem to be simply a disciplinary issue, on par with such
    issues as the age for ordination, in fact it is a serious
    theological issue - one which calls for Christian integrity,
    not capitulation to the world's sub-Christian standards and
    expectations.  To ignore the seriousness of this issue would
    not only damage the fragile unity of world Orthodoxy precisely
    at a time when the possibility of inter-Orthodox cooperation
    is becoming not just a pious hope but a real possibility.
    It would also gravely undermine the credibility of Orthodoxy's
    witness to the world.37

Even without considering the additional impediments in Fr. Joseph's case, these canons seem to have attained near universal recognition and validity.  No extant examples have been cited of Orthodox Catholic priests being allowed to marry a divorced spiritual child who they had confessed and counseled as their parishioners.  If these canons have now attained universal recognition and validity, then Met. Philip's grant of economy is invalid and of no effect.  Then the suspensions of Fr. Daniel Gunther and Deacon Mark Hodges are null and void since Fr. Joseph is functioning uncanonically as a priest.
                            -16-

Assuming these canons have not been endowed with universal recognition and validity,38 were there "exceptional circumstances" in Fr. Joseph's case warranting the grant of economy?  If there were, no one seems to know what they were and His Eminence has not explained what they were.  It has been reported by reliable sources39 that His eminence learned something in hearing Fr. Joseph's confession which justifies his grant of economy to Fr. Joseph.  Since it was revealed during confession, Met. Philip is not at liberty to disclose it.  It is, therefore, believed by some of His Eminence's supporters that all Orthodox and other Christians must now simply "trust" Met. Philip that this secret information learned during the sacrament of confession warrants his grant of economy in Fr. Joseph's case.  In view of the facts outlined above which neither His Eminence, nor
Fr. Joseph, nor Valerie, nor any of their supporters have disputed, how could any secret information possibly justify a grant of economy in an egregious case such as this?  Did Fr. Joseph confess his ethical and moral innocence?  Did he confess Greg's sins, or alleged sins?  To many Orthodox Catholics this is stretching credibility, rationality and loyalty beyond reasonable limits.  It would behoove Fr. Joseph to give His Eminence permission to release this critical information in the best interests of the both of them, as well as of the Church as a whole.

Was Met. Philip's claimed grant of economy to Fr. Joseph spiritually beneficial for the general welfare of all concerned and did its exercise here prevent any adverse effects from strict application of the canons in exceptional and fully justified circumstances?  If such is not the case, then the alleged grant is improper and uncanonical.

The grant of economy also ceases if its application rested upon false or pretended grounds.  This can only be determined by the Holy Synod of Antioch.  If false or pretended grounds were used, then the suspension of Fr. Gunther and Deacon Hodges is null and void since Fr. Joseph would be functioning uncanonically as a priest.  Did Met. Philip provide the Holy Synod with all the relevant facts in Fr. Joseph's case?  Some Orthodox believe not and the Holy Synod has not responded to an inquiry about that.  If there was full disclosure, how could the Holy Synod of Antioch rationally authorize Met. Philip to grant economy in this case?  That leads one to conclude full disclosure was probably not provided.  His Eminence's control of the financial spigot from America to the old country mother Patriarchate could also have been a major factor in the Holy synod's ultimate decision even if there was reasonably full disclosure.

The one extant example cited of economy for remarriage of a widowed priest may not, of course, be used as a precedent for the exercise of economy for Fr. Joseph as Met. Philip has attempted to do.  Fr. Joseph's case has to stand on its own merits as an appropriate use of economy under the canon law guidelines explained above.

Even if one believes that these canons have not attained universal recognition and validity, economy can only legitimately be granted when all the conditions outlined above have been met.  Have they been met?  These
                            -17-

are questions which all Christians, and certainly all Orthodox Christians, should pray about and address in Christian love and charity.  The Orthodox Catholic and larger Christian community, as well as the Antiochian Archdiocese itself, does not appear to be confirming Met. Philip's decision with its amen and consent.

Another contention of the supporters of Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph are that this whole affair needs to be covered up and kept quiet since any publicity "would be washing our dirty linen in public" and "would bring scandal on the Church."  Their implication is that those who make it public, rather than the actual perpetrators, are responsible for the dirty linen and scandal.  Many others believe, however, that Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph bear the real responsibility for the scandal, and that after several years of extensive but fruitless confidential discussions, wide publicity and candid but respectful open discussion may be a more effective vehicle for bringing about Fr. Joseph's voluntary or involuntary laicization.  Also, as President Nixon tragically learned, when one has a problem, and one tries to cover it up, one then has two problems and the second problem, the cover-up, may be larger than the first one.

The famous Orthodox Catholic lay theologian, Dr. Paul Evdokimov, states:
    Christianity in the grandeur of its confessors and martyrs,
    in the dignity of every believer, is messianic, revolutionary,
    explosive...The idea of a passive people is in flagrant
    contradiction with patristic ecclesiology; the universal
    priesthood of the faithful shares in the three powers--government,
    teaching and sanctification.  The first Council of Jerusalem
    in the time of the apostles united all the elements of the Church--
    apostles, elders and brethren.  The words, "the Holy Spirit and
    we have decided," became the sacred formula of the Ecumenical
    Councils, and this "we" is the collegial we of the body in its
    totality.  It is the bishops that constitute the Council, but
    they bear within them the whole body, and their supreme power is
    exercised only on the level of the mystery of the consensus of all;
    the bishops act ex consensu ecclesiae.  As the encyclical of the
    Eastern patriarchs in 1848 states so well:  "With us, innovations
    cannot be introduced whether by the patriarchs or by the Councils;
    for with us, the safeguarding of religion dwells in the entire
    body of the Church, that is, in the people themselves who wish to
    preserve their faith intact.40

All Orthodox constituting the Body of Christ (especially so those in the Antiochian Archdiocese) must, therefore, bear some responsibility regarding the action of Met. Philip and the Holy Synod of Antioch in Fr. Joseph's case.  How many Orthodox Christians will have the courage and will to speak out and take an open stand?  As with so many other Christians, Orthodox Catholics sometimes prefer to find excuses and justifications to avoid "getting involved" in controversy even when such controversy relates to the most basic doctrines of their Church.  It is also very clear that openly questioning the theological and dogmatic appropriateness of a decision by
                            -18-

an Orthodox hierarch archbishop primate "chosen by God to the Metropolitan and Exarch of North America" is likely to be controversial and may require "a lot of chutzpah" from Orthodox Christians who may usually be quite timid about such issues having been repeatedly told "the Orthodox Church is not democratic."  Nevertheless, as His Grace, Bishop Kallistos (Ware) states, "The 'lay theologian' has always been an accepted figure in Orthodoxy... [which has never known the] sharp division between clergy and laity which arose in the western Middle Ages."41

The "official" Orthodox press has not, and may not, carry any articles directly addressing Met. Philip's action regarding Fr. Joseph's continued  priestly ministry.  There is no doubt that the major responsibility for his action in this case rests with His Eminence, the Most Reverend and Most Devout Metropolitan Primate Archbishop and Exarch of North America.  Is Met. Philip open to the possibility of changing his mind on this issue?  Sources within the Antiochian archdiocese say Met. Philip considers his decision on Fr. Joseph to be a successful fait accompli.  Miss Kathy Meyer, his secretary, alleged that His Eminence considers it to be a "non-issue."42  Far from being open to admitting the possibility of a mistake, he and Fr. Joseph have given the impression they are determined to stand by that decision regardless of the damage it may do to the archdiocese, the historical record of Met. Philip's episcopacy, and to Orthodox unity in America.  Even if Met. Philip were to change his mind now, memories of his behavior regarding his friend, Fr. Joseph, will be slow to fade and the scars wrought slow to heal.

Supporters of Fr. Joseph control the Saint Anthony's parish council and reportedly made life miserable for Fr. Dan Daly who had been given the "mission impossible" assignment to bring healing to the torn parish with "pastor emeritus" Fr. Joseph continuing to function there as a defacto "co-pastor."  In August, 1994, Fr. Dan received a welcome reassignment to Saint Michael's parish in Beaumont, Texas.  It was reportedly announced that Met. Philip had appointed Fr. Joseph as "Acting Pastor" of Saint Anthony's and would make a decision by the end of September, 1994, about a permanent pastor for the parish.  As of this writing, no word has been publically announced about Met. Philip's promised decision on assignment of a permanent pastor to Saint Anthony's.  All references, however, to Fr. Joseph's pastorate at Saint Anthony's are reportedly now made as "pastor."  Fr. Joseph uses the title "Pastor", not "Acting Pastor" as was previously publicly announced.

How will this Orthodox Church tragedy evolve and end?  Many Orthodox are praying about it.  As members of the universal royal priesthood of all believers, what obligation does one have to fellow members of the Body of Christ and to God in this sorrowful situation?  Readers who feel a Christian obligation to courteously, lovingly, and respectfully, albeit firmly, make their views known may write:
    His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV
    Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
    P. O. Box 9
                            -19-

    Damascus, Syria
    [First Class Air Mail for .5 once is $ .50.]

A courtesy copy should be sent to:
    His Eminence Metropolitan Philip
    Archbishop and Primate
    Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
    358 Mountain Road
    Englewood, New Jersey  07631
    [phone]/6 (Voice)
    [phone] (FAX)

Members of the Antiochian Archdiocese may also formally appeal Met. Philip's decision to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of Antioch, their highest hierarchical Church authority and the body which previously authorized Met. Philip's action regarding Fr. Joseph's marriage to his divorced parishioner and spiritual child, Valerie.  Met. Philip was requested to provide the appellate procedures but has not done so.  It is not clear what the procedures for formal appeal are, or whether or not such an appeal from a Church member would ever even receive the courtesy of a reply.  There is a tendency among some Orthodox hierarchs and clergy to ignore and not respond to even courteous letters from Orthodox Church members when such letters ask controversial questions, or raise sensitive issues.  Nevertheless, letters sent to Patriarch Ignatius and Metropolitan Philip are certain to have an impact.  What would happen if hundreds, or even thousands, of Antiochian Archdiocese members formally appealed Met. Philip's decision to the Holy Synod of Antioch?  What if the larger Orthodox Catholic and concerned Roman Catholic and Protestant Christian communities also wrote?  Along with fervent prayer, sufficient letters from Orthodox and other faithful Christians could be enough to have Met. Philip and/or the Holy Synod of Antioch rescind the claimed grant of economy allowing Fr. Joseph to continue functioning as an Orthodox priest.

The possibility also exists for a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese to bring charges against Fr. Joseph in ecclesiastical court for abusing his spiritual father/spiritual children relationship with Greg and Valerie, and his Orthodox Catholic pastoral moral and ethical responsibilities.  Met. Philip was requested to provide information on the procedures, on who would hear the charges and determine guilt or innocence, and on the appellate procedures, but he has not done so.  Would a letter to his office stating the charges and signed by an Antiochian Archdiocese member be sufficient to initiate ecclesiastical court proceedings?  A civil clerical malpractice suit is also conceivable.

Many Orthodox believe the Fr. Joseph case is a tragic violation of Orthodox Catholic canon law use of economy gone awry and of the most basic moral and ethical standards and principles universally recognized by all major  religious and secular counseling professions.  Will these Orthodox only talk and complain privately, or will they also act in defense of their faith?  Being a faithful Orthodox Catholic is not easy and does involve                                 -20-

religious obligations in addition to praying, paying, obeying and attending services.  How many Antiochian Orthodox will take an open stand?  How many other Orthodox [The body of Christ is not divided, is it?] will also write?  Will there be concern in the larger Protestant and Roman Catholic Christian communities for this Orthodox Church scandal?

Supporters of Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph have claimed this situation should not be a topic of oral or written discussion as "there are a lot of false rumors floating around" and only a few people (Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph?) have all the facts.  Other Christians should simply "keep their nose out of it" and support Met. Philip's decision instead of spreading gossip and discussing something they do not have the full information about and knowledge of.  When these people were requested to provide the full story and facts, the writer was told they could not as only Met. Philip had that.  Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph have been requested to provide it for this article but have not done so.43

Reports are now circulating that both the Antiochian Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate are taking a greater interest in the Fr. Joseph situation and may have even issued instructions prohibiting clergy concelebration with him.  Fr. Joseph reportedly was not well received on his recent trip to the Middle East.  Reportedly, he was not granted an audience with His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV, and that in accordance with the Patriarch's directives, Fr. Joseph was denied the right and privilege to celebrate, or concelebrate, Divine Liturgy over there.  It was also reported that Patriarch Ignatius IV requested Met. Philip for a copy of the spiritual court's recommendation of economy for Fr. Joseph.  Since no spiritual court had apparently heard this case and made any recommendation regarding it, Met. Philip has just now reportedly quietly appointed a spiritual court composed of persons expected to comply with his wishes.  Its results will then be submitted to the Holy Synod of Antioch.  Further action by the Holy Synod in Antioch is, therefore, expected.  Hopefully its decisions will be publicly released to "clear the air" regarding its role in sanctioning Met. Philip's decision in this case.  Unfortunately, documentation on these rumors and stories has not been obtained, so their accuracy could not be confirmed.

The Concerned Parishioners of Saint Anthony's Antiochian Orthodox Parish in Bergenfield, New Jersey, have requested all Orthodox and members of the wider Christian community to pray about this wound in the Body of Christ.  Each Christian is responsible for his or her own actions and failures to act, and will ultimately be asked for an accounting.

What the future will bring, only God knows.  Time eventually heals and the Holy Spirit will remain with the Church, the Body of Christ.  The Church will overcome the Fr. Joseph case one way or another.  What is your role and responsibility as a Christian?  As a non-Christian American citizen?  What action, if any, will you take to assist?

                            NOTES


1.  As many people involved with this situation in the Antiochian Archdiocese, including Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph, did not wish to put their positions in writing for this article, or to speak "for the record," it has been much more difficult to write this article than I initially anticipated.  As Met. Philip controls clergy assignments, pensions, etc., within his archdiocese, it is especially difficult for his clergy or employees to speak out without risking suspension or termination.  Such is the situation with the clergyman quoted here.  The other bishops of Met. Philip's archdiocese report to Met. Philip as they are only titular bishops without the authority and independence accorded to full bishops in the Orthodox Church.

2. See John Meyendorff's Marriage:  An Orthodox Perspective (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Third Revised Edition, 1984) for a thorough theological discussion of marriage in the Orthodox Catholic Church.

3.  The Orthodox Church, Timothy Ware.  (Penguin, Revised Edition, 1993), p. 291.

4.  Ibid.

5.  Ibid, p. 295.  Protestant Churches generally have a similar position regarding marriage and divorce.  For example, The Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, as quoted by Dr. Sandra Read Brown in "Clergy Divorce and Remarriage" (Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 30(3), Spring 1982, p. 191) states, "Divorce is accepted as permissible only because of the failure of one or both of the partners, and does not lessen in any way the divine intention for indissoluble union."

6.  Gregory (Greg) Maloof, one of the principals in this situation, was willing to speak on the record.  The author had several interviews with him.

7.  The author's 10 Sep 92 and 28 Jan 93 letters to His Eminence, Met. Philip.  Also his telephone conversations with Fr. Joseph, his second wife (Valerie), and with who he was told was His Eminence, Met. Philip.  The 28 Jan 93 letter describes the circumstances of this last telephone conversation.  It was scheduled in advance though Archdeacon Hans El-Hayek of Met. Philip's office and immediate staff.  When the author called at the appointed time, he was told he was being put through to Met. Philip, as arranged.  He addressed the speaker in that manner and that address was accepted and not corrected.  Several months later Miss Kathy Meyer, Met. Philip's secretary, telephoned the author and informed him that Met. Philip alleged he never spoke with the author.  She stated she was not present when the author called on 8 Sep 92 and claimed not to know who received the this telephone call.  An Archdiocesan official who wished to remain anonymous subsequently informed the author that it was really His Grace, Bp. Antoun, who took the call scheduled in advance for His Emerience, Met. Philip.  His Eminence's surprise denial that he talked with the author
                        NOTES CONTINUED


struck the author as another seemingly pointless Byzantine twist in this episode.  The call was long distance, straight forward, and brief.  Why did  His Eminence not take the call as previously arranged and scheduled by Archdeacon Hans El-Hayek of His Eminence's office?

8.  Fr. Joseph made these statements in a telephone conversation with the author.  Just as this article was released to the public, the author learned that Fr. Joseph's apologia has just been published--Widowed Priest:  A Crisis In Ministry, Joseph Allen (Light and Life Publishing Company, 1994).  The publisher's description states, "Objections to that decision [Met. Philip allowing Fr. Joseph to continue to function as a priest after his remarriage] sparked both a personal crisis in the life of Fr. Joseph, and an ecclesiastical debate which led to much theological investigation."  The  debate about both the ethical and theological issues in the Fr. Joseph case, and its impact on the Church and its institutions, continues without abatement or resolution.  It has already impacted the Church far beyond the shores of America.

9.  See Note 7.

10.  This description of the minutes is based on a statement from an Orthodox priest who told me he had a copy of the minutes.  He stated the minutes were not publicly available and he refused to provide me with a copy.

11.  Met. Philip's letter responding to the 7 Feb 92 petition of the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission clergy expressing their concern and sorrow about the news that Fr. Joseph might be allowed to continue his priestly ministry and fervently requesting Met. Philip not permit that.

12.  Met. George's 25 Nov 92 letter to the author.

13.  See note 7.

14.  Although the 16 Mar 92 letter of this Antiochian priest has been widely circulated within the Archdiocese and the greater Church, the priest requested me to omit his name in this article.

15. Ibid.

16.  Compare:  The American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, the American Association of Pastoral Counselors' Code of Ethics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy's Code of Ethics.  Despite his teaching specialty and practice in the field of pastoral counseling, Fr. Joseph was not a member of these associations so he technically is not subject to their codes of  ethics.  See also H. Newton Malony, "Codes of Ethics:  A Comparison," Journal of Pastoral Counseling, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 94-101.  Due to the emergence of clergy malpractice issues and the general lack of codes of
                    NOTES CONTINUED


ethics by which to judge clerical behavior, Dr. Malony, a Professor of Psychology at Fuller Graduate School of Psychology, endorses the adoption of a code of professional ethics for pastors.

17.  This was reported to the author by an Antiochian Archdiocese official who would only speak "off the record."

18.  Ibid.

19.  See note 7.

20.  This report was received from several sources, including other Antiochian Archdiocese clergy, who requested anonymity.  Fr. Anthony was unwilling to be interviewed or to provide a copy of Met. Philip's letter.  Met. Philip and Fr. Anthony were provided a copy of my draft article containing this information with a request for their comments and neither disputed its accuracy or offered further clarification.

21.  Vol. 28, No. 7, July, 1992, p. 3.

22.  7 Feb 92 letter to Met. Philip signed by all Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission (AEOM) clergy.

23.  Met. Philip's 24 Feb 92 letter to the AEOM clergy.

24.  Ibid.

25.  Ibid.

26.  Ibid.

27.  Met. Philip's 9 Apr 92 letter to all Antiochian Archdiocese clergy.

28.  This priest requested anonymity.

29.  See note 7.

30.  Ibid.

31.  The sources of these reports requested anonymity for obvious reasons.

32.  For the views of Saint Anthony parishioners opposed to these actions of Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph, contact The Concerned Parishioners of Saint Anthony's Orthodox Parish, c/o Ms. Nadine Faro, 224 New Jersey Avenue, Bergenfield, New Jersey  07621, [phone].  Supporters of Fr. Joseph now control the parish board.



                        NOTES CONTINUED


33.  The quotes and information about this Saint Anthony's parish council meeting come from the 14 May 92 Concerned Parishioners of Saint Anthony's Church Executive Committee open letter to their fellow parishioners.

34.  Vol. 57, No. 1066, March 1992, pp. 9 and 23.

35.  "The Council in Trullo:  Issues Relating to Marriage of Clergy,"  unpublished monograph of John H. Erickson, p. 11.  This paper, along with the response by Fr. Patrick Viscuso, is scheduled to be published in a forthcoming issue of The Greek Orthodox Theological Review.

36.  Ibid, p. 10.  The reader is also referred to two publications in Russian by the noted canonist, S. V. Troitsky, The Christian Philosophy of Marriage and The Remarriage of Clergy for a good description of the theology of marriage in the Orthodox Church and for a rebuttal of proposals to allow clergy remarriage.  Met. Philip and Fr. Joseph would reportedly have us believe that Orthodox clergy remarriage is a burning issue, with Church theologians and canonists divided into two opposing roughly balanced camps, and with economia widely utilized today to waive the canonical prohibition which, they aver, is simply disciplinary and administrative, not dogmatic.  As one of their supporters told me, "This is simply a personnel matter which is, and should be, totally up to the bishop."  The very serious moral and ethical questions in Fr. Joseph's case are waived aside as "simply unfair personal attacks" based on misinformation and false rumors and not justifying any formal clerical malpractice investigation or hearing.

37.  Ibid, p. 11.

38.  Dr. Lewis Patsavos, in a letter to Met. Philip, apparently takes this position.

39.  This information was reported to the author separately by several highly placed Church officials having direct personal contact with Met. Philip.  They requested anonymity for obvious reasons.

40.  The Struggle With God, Paul Evdokimov. (Paulist Press, 1966), pp. 202-203 and 208.  His chapter 5, "Universal Priesthood of the Laity in the Eastern Tradition," is the best theological description of the proper role of the laity in the Church which this author is aware of.  This is, of course, theory and Orthodox teaching.  Today's practical reality is that much (probably the bulk) of the Church's laity is passive and reluctant to question clerical or episcopal authority, and to hold them accountable for their actions and behavior.  Some Orthodox clergy even subtlely (or not so subtlely) encourage the notion that laity should only "pray, pay, and obey."  Such clergy seem to view an active and involved laity as an unwanted "problem."

41.  Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 48.
                        NOTES CONTINUED


42. This statement was made in a telephone conversation she initiated with me to request that I cease writing on and talking to people about the Fr. Joseph case.  I made it clear to her that I was unable to do that and could not accept Met. Philip's decision in this case as legitimate, appropriate, or Orthodox.

43.  See note 7.

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Philip                        10 Sept 92
Archbishop and Primate
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
358 Mountain Road
Englewood, New Jersey  07631

Your Eminence,

In our 3 September 92 telephone conversation, I informed you that I was in the process of writing an article on the Fr. Joseph Allen situation and wished to have your responses to questions related thereto and any other input which you deemed relevant to providing a full and accurate report for our faithful Orthodox and other interested Christians.  Some people who have supported your decision on Fr. Joseph's continued priesthood have alleged that there have been a lot of false rumors being circulated by people who did not know, the facts.  Any article I write will address and lay out all the relevant facts which I know and reveal any false rumors for what they are.  I trust you concur that it is past time for this topic to be discussed openly, candidly, forthrightly, and above board in our free press and among the interested and concerned people and all the members of the Body of Christ.

You declined to respond to any questions over the telephone and requested that they be submitted in writing for a written response.  I appreciate your cooperation and willingness to provide accurate and complete written responses to the questions below.  Please feel free to add any additional information which you believe is relevant to this case and identify any false rumors circulated on the situation which you believe should be addressed, along with your basis for determining them to be erroneous.

    1.  What was the rationale for your decision to allow Fr. Joseph to continue to function as an Orthodox priest after his marriage to his spiritual child, a divorced parishioner whom he had reportedly confessed and counseled over many years?  Do you believe Fr. Joseph had a conflict of interest or dual relationship in his pastoral role with Greg and Valerie?  If so, what impact did that have on your decision regarding this priest's continuing his priestly function?

    2.  What was the name of the widowed priest in the Archdiocese of Zahleh who was granted economy by Metropolitan George Khodre to remarry and continue to function as an Orthodox priest?  Was his remarriage to a divorcee and spiritual child whom he had confessed and counseled as a spiritual father and Orthodox pastor, or was it to someone he met outside his parish and who was not a divorcee?  Are you aware of any other living examples of Orthodox clergy, in any jurisdiction, who have been granted economy to remarry and continue their priestly function?  If so, please provide names, diocese, bishop who granted the economy, and any other pertinent information thereon (such as whether the marriage was to divorcees and parishioners) of which you are aware.

    3.  What exceptional circumstances, if any, were present in Fr. Joseph's case to warrant the exercise of economy rather than laicization?
Did these circumstances fully justify your decision?  Do you believe your decision was spiritually beneficial for the general welfare of all concerned and prevented any adverse effects from strict application of the canons?

    4.  Is a transcript or other record available of your discussion of this topic with the Holy Synod of Antioch?  If so, please provide a copy.  Did you inform the Holy Synod that Fr. Joseph's remarriage was to be to a divorced spiritual child and parishioner whom he had confessed and counseled over many years as her pastor?  That he had a similar role and conflict of interest with her former husband, Greg, also his parishioner of many years?

    5.  Over the course of your episcopate, how many other widowed priests have asked about the possibility of continuing their clerical function after remarriage?  What was your response in each of these cases?  How many were brought before the Holy Synod of Antioch?  How many of those cases involved remarriage to divorced parishioners?  In the cases of those rejected, what warranted the different treatment of their case as compared with the case of Fr. Joseph?

    6.  In this case, Fr. Joseph reportedly recommended divorce in his Orthodox pastoral counseling role with his spiritual children as "the moral thing to do" and advised on "desertion and abandonment" as providing the necessary ecclesiastical grounds which would permit an Orthodox divorce and permission to remarry for up to a third time.  Although Greg did what was necessary and what he was apparently counseled to do by his spiritual father, serious questions have been raised abut the legitimacy of the alleged grounds of "desertion and abandonment."  Was any verification done to determine the accuracy of Greg's letter alleging his "desertion and abandonment" of Valerie?  If Greg continued to pay the bills and provide Valerie with financial support until the divorce, how are the alleged grounds of "desertion and abandonment" legitimate?  Except for adultery, what other grounds are there for Orthodox ecclesiastical divorces?  Is "desertion and abandonment" the easiest to support and the most common grounds used for ecclesiastical divorces in your archdiocese?

    7.  The Word, official organ of your archdiocese, published a ban on marriages "On Christmas Day and all the following days until January 7."  It further stated, "If for a serious reason it is necessary for someone to be married on a prohibited day, the proper dispensation must be received from the Bishop."  Was such a dispensation requested by and granted to Fr. Joseph for his marriage to Valerie during this officially prohibited period?  If so, what was the serious reason justifying its necessity?  If he was not granted such dispensation, why was he allowed to marry during the proscribed period?  How will this impact his future ability and credibility to counsel couples who desire to marry during the proscribed period?

    8.  How open are you to reconsideration of this case?  If a member of your archdiocese wishes to appeal your decision, what avenues and options do they have?  What are the procedures, timetables, and other pertinent information which they should have on the canonically authorized appellate procedures?  What options are available to concerned Orthodox of other dioceses and what do you see as the role and responsibility of those members of the Body of Christ?

    9.  If a member of your archdiocese wishes to bring charges against Fr. Joseph in ecclesiastical court for abusing his spiritual father/spiritual children relationship with Greg and Valerie, and his Orthodox pastoral ethical responsibilities, what are the procedures?  Who would hear the charges and decide his guilt or innocence?  What would the appellate procedures be?

    10.  What was your decision concerning training for new archdiocese seminary students?  What impact did Fr. Joseph's case have on that decision?  What is your rationale for believing it beneficial for your archdiocese to start its own seminary?  What do you expect as its initiation date and projected enrollment?

    11.  It has been reported that you issued a "gag" order to your clergy that they were expected to "cease any further discussion and communication regarding this matter" until your clergy symposium July 20-24, 1992.  Is that report correct?  If so, is it still in effect or may your clergy feel free now to publicly express their thoughts, position, questions, etc., on this topic without fear of any reprisal?  Is a transcript or copy available of your presentation on this topic to your clergy symposium and any resulting discussion?  If so, please provide.  To what extent was your presentation based on the paper Fr. Patrick Viscuso presented to the Holy Cross Seminary Canon Law Conference on March 16-17. 1992?  Do you feel this clergy symposium discussion resolved the questions of your clergy and that they now believe you made the correct decision in Fr. Joseph's case?  Were some archdiocese clergy not invited and/or instructed not to attend your July clergy symposium?  If so, what was the rationale and justification?  Were your remarks at the symposium directed primarily or exclusively to the rare historical cases where remarriage of widowed priests was allowed, or were the much more serious issues of marriage to divorced spiritual children and parishioners with its resulting pastoral counseling conflicts of interest forthrightly and fully addressed?

    12.  What are the duties of Fr. Joseph in the newly created position of "Assistant to the Metropolitan"?  Are these duties accomplished in the archdiocese office, or in his home?  If partially in each, what percent in each?  What is his archdiocese salary and compensation package?  Is this position fully justified or was it created primarily to help Fr. Joseph so he would not be faced with a geographical move as is normally involved in clergy reassignments?

    13.  Since Fr. Joseph's behavior has badly split what had been widely recognized as a model archdiocese parish, what is the justification for allowing him to continue to regularly serve, albeit in an "emeritus" status, in Saint Anthony's parish "in the face of" all those parishioners, reportedly approximately one-third of the parish, who have formally requested you to remove him?  According to the 14 May 92 letter to "Follow Parishioners of St. Anthony's" from the Concerned Parishioners of Saint Anthony's Church (a copy of which was provided to both you and Fr. Joseph as well as all Saint Anthony parishioners), Fr. Joseph has engaged in a tirade from the pulpit, endorsed a very unfair attempt at character assassination of a leader of the parish, and has invited the parish dissenters to leave the parish and archdiocese even though you have emphatically stated that they were not to leave the Church.  During Fr. Joseph's unchristian behavior at the 6 May 92 parish council meeting, one parish council member, no doubt speaking for many others in the parish, stated, "Father Allen has changed and is no longer the same priest we all knew and loved for so many years."  It is reported that he is no longer speaking to many of his parishioners and that many of these parishioners refuse to accept the Holy Eucharist from him.  Also, since his promotion to your assistant, this parish has had to continue partial financial support to him, as well as full financial support to its new pastor.  What is the value of Fr. Joseph's continuing financial package from St. Anthony's?  With a badly split parish, is Saint Anthony's income reasonably projected to increase or decrease?  How does Fr. Joseph's continued service in Saint Anthony's contribute to its badly needed spiritual healing?  If other archdiocese clergy normally have to move upon reassignment, shouldn't Fr. Joseph have to?  Isn't this especially important if to is desired to avoid the appearance of special favored treatment for Fr. Joseph?

    14.  What control do you have over clergy pensions and assignments?  Would dissent from your decision on Fr. Joseph have an adverse impact on the assignments and pensions of those who dissent?

    15.  Some members of your archdiocese have told me that they believe you have been especially close to Fr. Joseph, perhaps closer than with any other member of your archdiocese.  That this strong personal bond of friendship unduly and adversely affected your decision in this case in that you have given Fr. Joseph favored treatment which your other clergy cannot expect.  Is there any justification for such feelings?  How would you describe your relationship with Fr. Joseph as compared with your other clergy?

    16.  Is it possible for a member of your archdiocese honestly as a devout Antiochian Orthodox to dissent from your decision in this case without your holding it against them and considering them disloyal to their archbishop?  Do you believe you have acted in a manner which could be reasonably interpreted as vindictive against any of your archdiocese dissenters?  If their dissent in this case has influenced your behavior toward them, please escribe its impact.

    17.  Several of your clergy have reportedly been suspended for declining, based on their honestly held convictions as Orthodox Catholic clergy, an "invitation" to serve with Fr. Joseph.  Should one or more of these clergy at some point in the future request a release to transfer to another jurisdiction, would you be open to approving it?

    18.  In the past, you have been widely recognized as a strong advocate of Orthodox administrative unity.  What impact do you believe your decision regarding Fr. Joseph has had on relations with other Orthodox jurisdictions and dioceses in America?  How is your support of Orthodox administrative unity in America different today from what it was a year ago?

    19.  Instead of attempting to impose censorship in our information age, and having things discussed by word of mouth, in the bedroom, and through various other information mediums, many people believe it is usually much more beneficial to encourage open, honest and loving communal discussions of issues and decisions affecting our Church.  Would you be open to publishing my article in your archdiocese publications?  If you believed my coverage and analysis was defective, of course, you could point that out.  Analysis and commentary by Fr. Joseph and others could also be included.

It is recognized that these questions are sensitive and this letter is not likely to be a pleasure to answer.  I appreciate your commitment and willingness to cooperate, to truthfully respond to the questions, and to provide other relevant input on this important decision for your archdiocese, as well as for our entire Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Asking your prayers and episcopal blessings, I remain,

                    Your humble servant in Christ.




                    H. Keith Mephodie Sterzing, CFP
                    6070 Palladium Court, #202
                    Kingstowne, Virginia  22310-4823
                    [phone]


bcc:  His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Byblos & Botrys
Broumana-Liban  Tel.:  [phone],  04-961209


                            25 november 1992


                                Mr. H. Keith Mephodie Sterzing, CFP
                                6070 Palladium Court, #202
                                Kingstowne, Virginia  22310-4823


Beloved son in Christ,

    I received a copy of your letter to the Most Reverend Metropolitan Philip, Archbishop and Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of north America dated 10 september 1992 in which the case of Father Elias Abou Saba is mentioned.  The facts are the following:  Father Elias was serving a parish of this diocese when his wife died tragically in the explosion of a bombed car.  After her death he manifested the will to get married for the second time.  I then consulted a professor of canon law of our church, and I decided to reduce him to the state of a layman and thus to allow him to an ecclesiastical marriage which is the only legal marriage in Lebanon.  After some years I learned that the above mentioned priest was married in another diocese and have been accepted as a priest in the same diocese.

                                Yours in Christ,


                                [Signed  +George]


                                George
                                Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Philip                           28 Jan 93
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
358 Mountain Road
Englewood, New Jersey  07631

Your Eminence,

This letter is being sent to you at the suggestion of a member of your Archdiocese Board of Trustees to provide you with a copy of my draft article before its release.  It is another opportunity for you to provide input for the article in order to assure that it is factually complete and that the basis for your actions are accurately described.  If you or Fr. Joseph Allen believe any relevant material information is missing, please promptly provide so it can be included.

Although you and Fr. Joseph may wish that this was a "non-issue," you know that is not the perception shared by a large part of your archdiocese flock as well as the Church as a whole.  As a lay person, Fr. Joseph could make significant contributions to the Church and to your archdiocese.  You surely realize that no one is condemning him or passing judgment on his sins or life eternal.  The prayer and request is simply that he cease his priestly ministry and use his significant talents for the Church in a lay role.  If that is expected, please let me know and I will gladly cancel this article and not release it for publication.  As long as Fr. Joseph continues his priestly ministry, this sore on the Body of Christ is likely to continue to be a serious issue as well as a scandal and embarrassment for your archdiocese and the entire Church.  It is unlikely to heal if left untreated.  We pray that we can work together with you to resolve this issue and initiate the healing process.  Its continued festering over time could bring permanent damage to your archdiocese, and to the memory of your episcopate.  I join many others in praying that you will ask Fr. Joseph to reconsider how he might best contribute to the Church.

I have been informed that you have complained about copies of my 10 Sept 92 letter being given to others.  I have not met you and have only talked with you one time, by telephone on 8 Sept 92.  Our telephone conversation was arranged on 7 Sept 92 with Deacon Hans El-Hayek.  When I spoke with him on
7 Sept 92, he told me that you were not there but if I called back the next day between 9 and 10 a.m. you would be expecting my call.  I called at the appointed time and was told I was being put through to you.  You were informed that the purpose of my contact and questions was to assure that the article I was writing on your grant of economy for Fr. Joseph to continue his priestly ministry was accurate and definitive, and included any points or information which you deemed appropriate.  While you declined to answer verbally, you requested me to put my questions in writing for your written response.  My 10 Sept 92 letter was not a personal letter between boyhood friends, or old classmates.  Rather, it was a formal inquiry, sent at your request, concerning your official archdiocesan actions.  As you did not follow through on your commitment to respond, I consider the 10 Sept 92 correspondence to be an "open letter."

As our 8 Sept 92 telephone conversation had been pre-arranged with your
staff and the person I spoke with at your telephone number acknowledged being you, I was very surprised to receive the 9 Nov 92 telephone call (two months after my 10 Sept 92 letter to you) from your secretary alleging that my 8 Sept 92 telephone conversation was not with you but rather with some other unknown person at your telephone number.  If it was not you whom I spoke with on 8 Sept 92, it was a very good impersonation conducted by someone in your office and presumably on your staff.  I regret receiving the information that you are now denying we spoke on 8 Sept 92.  The mystery person in your office impersonating you is very Byzantine (in the bad sense of the word) and unseemly for an Orthodox Archdiocesan office in America in 1992.  When you received my 10 Sept 92 letter I expect you wished to get right to the bottom of this, determine who conducted the impersonation and take appropriate disciplinary action to assure there is no repeat.  I would appreciate your letting me know who you determined it to be.

As I wrote Dr. George A. Dibs (whose wife is Valerie's cousin), I did not send him a copy of my 10 Sept 92 letter and do not know who did.  His was, however, the only letter I have received from your Board of Trustees (or any of your archdiocese clergy or laity) which supported your position.

Should you decline to respond to this letter within a reasonable period of time (if you need an unreasonably long and extended period to reply, please let me know promptly to avoid any chance of a premature release), I will consider this letter to be an "open letter" available for publication.  I would, therefore, plan to include this letter, as well as my 10 Sept 92 letter, in the press release package distributed to each Orthodox jurisdiction in America, and Orthodox publication in America, as well as to the Arabic press and general religious and secular media and press services here.  Although not all will publish and circulate it, I expect some will.  In the best interest of the truth, your archdiocese flock and the entire body of Christ, I trust I can rely on your full and prompt response.

While the enclosed draft article was prepared under the assumption (based on your non-response to my 10 Sept 92 letter) that you would not reply, be assured that if you do timely respond, I will revise the draft article to incorporate your response before releasing it.  I trust you will be forthcoming so your flock as well as other Christians can understand why you took the action you did and why you are unwilling to change it.

With the prayer that some members of the Church might be able to influence you to reassess your decision regarding Fr. Joseph, I have authorized this letter and the enclosed draft article to be copied and distributed within the Church, but it is not to be released for publication until you have had  adequate time to respond.

    Yours in the truth of Christ and the edification of the People of God,







                        H. Keith Mephodie Sterzing, CFP
                        6070 Palladium Court, #202
                        Kingstowne, Virginia  22310-4823
                        [phone]

Enclosure:  Draft article not to be released for publication at this time


cc:  His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV


    ---END OF COMPLETE FR. JOE ALLEN AFFAIR PRESS RELEASE PACKAGE FILE---
                        [FRJOEART.TXT]