January 28, 2014 commemorating day of Sts. Ephraim and Isaac of Syria.

From: Date: To: Subject: Rev Fr Vasile Susan 5413 N. Nottingham Ave, Chicago, IL 60656 Phone: 773-220-9503; E-mail:vasilesusan@hotmail.com January 28, 2014 commemorating day of Sts. Ephraim and Isaac of Syria. Melanie J. Sakoda, Cappy Larson, Pokrov.org Post Office Box 170654 San Francisco, CA 94117 The OCA Bishops, OCA Central Administration, OCA at large, everybody else. OCA s PSP saying nothing about accountability and transparency and much more. Scriptural quotation: The Sins of Israel's Leaders The LORD spoke to me again. Mortal man, He said, tell the Israelites that their land is unholy, and so I am punishing it in my anger. The leaders are like lions roaring over the animals they have killed. They kill the people, take all the money and property they can get, and by their murders leave many widows. The priests break my law and have no respect for what is holy. They make no distinction between what is holy and what is not. They do not teach the difference between clean and unclean things, and they ignore the Sabbath. As a result the people of Israel do not respect me. The government officials are like wolves tearing apart the animals they have killed. They commit murder in order to get rich. The prophets have hidden these sins like those covering a wall with whitewash. They see false visions and make false predictions. They claim to speak the word of the Sovereign LORD, but I, the LORD, have not spoken to them. The wealthy cheat and rob. They ill-treat the poor and take advantage of foreigners. I looked for someone who could build a wall, who could stand in the places where the walls have crumbled and defend the land when my anger is about to destroy it, but I could find no one. So I will turn my anger loose on them, and like a fire I will destroy them for what they have done. The Sovereign LORD has spoken. Ezekiel 22, 17 31. Dear sisters in Christ the Lord, Honored ladies from www.pokrov.org, It is about time to once again properly consider sending for posting to www.pokrov.org this letter, at this time, as a sign of my respect for the truth you ladies and I would like to present, God s willing. It is also for the revealing of cover up of malfeasances of the malfeasant OCA hierarchy et al. of the cancerous sin of homosexuality, sodomy among its clergymen, which was deliberately, devilishly, reprehensibly and unwisely covered up by the OCA Synod, MC, SIC and SMPAC for so many decades. This cancerous sin is finally revealed by the oca.org, ocanews.org, monomakhos.org, pokrov.org, 02varvara.wordpress.com, civil court rulings, and free press articles. God is ticking the clock the right way. The OCA bishops not. The Roman Catholic Church worldwide lost all court battles and billions of dollars, regarding the cover ups of homosexual clergymen. The same thing will be happening to the OCA. This is just the beginning of the work of God and attorneys regarding the issue at stake. God doesn t like mockery in OCA as a Church. My current letter is in line with the: Statement by Melanie Jula Sakoda of Moraga, CA, Orthodox Director for SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (925-708-6175 cell, melanie.sakoda@gmail.com), and I adhere 100% to it. Melanie is clear and she is serving God the right way. Complements go to Melanie et al. for their courageous dedication to Christ the Lord s Church. It is also a sign of solidarity with those who are fighting the right fight within the Orthodox Church fields in the Americas & Canada, against the cover ups of the homosexual / sodomite clergymen of any rank. Page 1

Page 2 These are sad days for all of us as part of the OCA, but especially for the OCA leaders / elite (OCA Synod, MC, SIC, SMPAC and Chancery staff) who carefully should once again take a look into their closet and realize God s anger and retribution. They should tell the truth without hesitation or fear now, not later on, and depart quietly, accountably, transparently and responsibly. Finally at this fullness of time for the OCA the truth is transpiring the right way: God is neither blind, nor deaf and He is working mysteriously. Much ignorance of God by the OCA leaders / elite wasn t accepted by God, as the Master of truth. The scriptural quotation from the beginning of this posting is nothing else but a very moving text from the Old Testament, and it is sending out a signal to the OCA leaders / elite. It is very feasible for the past & current situation of the OCA Synod, MC, SIC & SMPAC decades of improper conduct. You, the OCA leaders / elite should realize (in the light of God s words from Ezekiel 22, 17 31) the following: i You the OCA leaders / elite are Mortal man, as me; ii You the OCA leaders / elite made your / our OCA land (Church) look unholy, not me; iii You the OCA leaders / elite have been punished by God s anger, but good OCA faithful & I suffer; iv You the OCA leaders / elite leave many widows and unhappy families like mine; v You the OCA s leaders / elite (did) break God s law and have no respect for what is holy, not me; vi You the OCA s leaders / elite make no distinction between what is holy and what is not, not me; vii You the OCA s leaders / elite do not teach (practice) the difference between clean and unclean things, and as a result (some) faithful people of the OCA do not respect God, and leave our OCA; viii You the OCA s leaders / elite do look similarly to the government officials (of some communist and oppressive countries), using dictatorial and abusive power, who are doing everything to get the job done at any cost, regardless the consequences, pains and years of sufferings, not me; ix You the OCA s leaders / elite are identically to the prophets who have hidden these sins (of OCA homosexuals / sodomites clergymen) and those covering a wall with whitewash, not me; x You the OCA s leaders / elite see false visions and make false predictions, not me; xi You the OCA s leaders / elite claim to speak the word of the Sovereign LORD, but, the LORD, has not spoken to you (because you have sin too much against God). This is true! xii You the OCA s leaders / elite look wealthy, cheat and rob (contrary to God s laws), not me; xii You the OCA s leaders / elite ill-treat the poor and take advantage of foreigners, (and of me), not me; xiii You the OCA s leaders / elite should pay attention to God s words: I looked for someone (within the OCA) who could build a wall, who could stand in the places where the walls have crumbled and defend the land when my anger is about to destroy it, but I could find no one (and we pay for your sins). This is true! xiv You the OCA s leaders / elite should pay attention to God s words: So I will turn my anger loose on them, and like a fire I will destroy them for what they have done. The Sovereign LORD has spoken, so (we the OCA flock pay for your sins). I am telling you: Turn to God and divorce the evil one, now, at this time. The OCA s leaders (& some priests) comments contrary to this text from Ezekiel 22, 17 31, are futile.

Page 3 The bad smelling stuff hidden under the rugs of the OCA s Syosset offices is surfacing at this time much worse than expected, and at a different scale. The OCA leaders / elite, the pro gay agenda & cabal, and the compromised rulers should faster come to the understanding that enough is enough and the Almighty God became sick and tired & He will revenge for their cover ups and mockery of holy issues from now on. To me, the Holy Synod issue statement regarding Archbishop Seraphim, (http://www.pokrov.org/holysynod-issues-statement-regarding-archbishop-seraphim/), In court proceedings that took place earlier today Friday, January 24, 2014 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Archbishop Seraphim was found guilty of one count of sexual assault. He also was acquitted of one count of sexual assault, is nothing else but a point of reflection and understanding of God s mysteriously way to act and respond to those who mocked the holy issues irresponsibly, faithless, unaccountably, less transparently, and covered up the OCA gay clergymen. The God s house (our OCA as a Church not as a Corporation ) needed to be put in order the right way long time ago, and not in a false, cosmetically and unacceptably way. Obviously and unfortunately, Your Beatitude, the OCA Synod, MC, SIC & SMPAC kept secretly and quietly the cover ups of OCA homosexuals and then let the Cat out of the Bag, as per SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011, Page 6 7, attached as ADDENDUM 1, which was made public via Internet by blessed people of God. The scriptural quotation from Ezekiel 22, 17 31, should not offend anyone honest believer of the OCA, but we all should come up to the point that those faithful of our beloved Orthodox Church in America WHO pray, pay and obey are waiting for accountability and transparency regarding the matter (s) at stake, and don t be foolish, the right way at this time. It is unfortunate that, within the last 2 3 decades, it was demonstrated by the OCA hierarchy that there is a big contradiction between all biblical & canonical principles and the OCA s hierarchy less Orthodox Christian conduct. The Biblical or Canonical Christian principles related only to "the truth which will set us free" (John 8, 32) were purposely buried. It is obvious that the lies of the OCA s leaders / elite & the work of the devil did not set us free of mockeries we are facing uninterruptedly for decades. The evil one got so many PHD within the OCA apparatus and manipulated the innocents, the evil and the blind ones. Without any doubt, from the Internet sites (oca.org; ocanews.org; ocatruth.org; mospat.ru; pokrov.org; monomakhos.com; 02varvara.wordpress.com, civil court rulings, and free press articles, etc.) it was demonstrated over the years, that WHEN the fish stinks from the head, and the clean up process started from the head down went on unsuccessfully, the only way to get to the justice done and to see the accountability and transparency at work, is through lawsuits in criminal courts, as in Seraphim s case. The Internet postings as listed herewith (oca.org; ocanews.org; ocatruth.org; mospat.ru; pokrov.org; monomakhos.com; 02varvara.wordpress.com) are proving that the OCA leaders / elite preached God & practiced evil. They proved that for numerous times. It is not a secret anymore. Just read at least the oca.org site & find out the truth. The OCA leaders / elite already learned the lesson the hard way without saying MEA CULPA, by acknowledging / accepting the Seraphim s verdict by saying: In court proceedings that took place earlier today Friday, January 24, 2014 - in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Archbishop Seraphim was found guilty of one count of sexual assault, and the faithful of the Orthodox Church in America are asked to offer prayers for the victim and family involved in this case, per UPDATED: Holy Synod issues statement regarding Archbishop Seraphim, attached as ADDENDUM 2. The OCA leaders and elite should listen to their brother Cardinal Francis George from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, who plainly and openly said: Telling the truth does not create an excuse for failure. But it makes a difference, as we go forward, to know in what the failure consists, to know that the truth has been told and that the Church is committed to accountability and transparency. Read ADDENDUM 4, page 2. Now the question is coming to the OCA leaders / elite: Quo Vadis you?

Page 4 "God's mills mill slowly, but surely," is a Czech proverb. Even for the OCA leaders / elite, this proverb is a lesson to learn out from. It is not a sky rocket scientist business to carefully go over the ADDENDUM 3 and to find out the truths and the rules of the POLICIES, STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE ORTHODOXCHURCH IN AMERICA ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT April 2, 2003 and October 17, 2013, in regards to the case of Archbishop Seraphim, as presented on pokrov.org by Melanie, J. Sakoda. The PSP is very clear regarding the issue at stake, and in case for the adulterous priests the rule is / must be applicable by the letter of the laws, for the homosexual bishops found guilty in criminal court, it should be the same, and in accordance to the Orthodox Church Canons provisions. God is watching you. Following a carefully analysis and comparison of the POLICIES, STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE ORTHODOXCHURCH IN AMERICA ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT April 2, 2003 and October 17, 2013, I was very much surprised to find out that there are 2 words purposely missed from the draft and final revision of the PSP presented above, such as: accountability and transparency. Those words were intentionally omitted by the architects and revisers of the PSP in order to have their hands clean and have zero accountability and transparency while maneuvering, twisting, & covering up the OCA homosexuals / sodomites of any rank, even though the white elephant (Seraphim case) was in the Syosset rooms for decades. Now is coming out through Official Statement. What a shame to acknowledge it just now!!! Also, this kind of omission of the OCA leaders / elite would give them green light for any cover ups of the OCA homosexual / sodomites clergymen in the future (or at the present time by ORSMA cover ups), who can evade / escape justice as per the PSP provisions. They did not feel accountable and transparent in front of God, OCA people and rule of law while drafting and approving the PSP. The only way to hold the OCA leaders / elite accountable and forced to show transparency is the civil or criminal courts lawsuits. If they thought their way, they got the Seraphim s case the right way they did not expect it. To be well understood: from now on it should be no more room for lack of accountability and transparency within the OCA regarding the cover ups of the OCA homosexuals / sodomites of any rank. Nevertheless, the publications in the Canadian free press, as well as on oca.org, pokrov.org, monomakhos.org, 02varvara.wordpress.com, of the case of +Seraphim, put the actions of these 3 men and the OCA in the spotlight, at the right time and the right way. It is painful to publicly review the past and the present of the OCA Bishops, MC, SIC, SMPAC members behavior to cover up the homosexuals / sodomites of any rank. It can be and it should be part of the accountability and transparency to which the OCA should be committed from now on to please both God and the OCA good clergymen and faithful. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago learned a historic lesson, the hard way, as presented by Cardinal Francis George, as per ADDENDUM 4, and more TV stations, news papers, and Internet postings. It would be the same for the OCA at this time and in the near future. It is my thought that the OCA leaders / elite will read ADDENDUM 4, take a breath and reflect on their shortcomings. The pattern of cover ups from the Roman Catholic Church in American was followed / copied by the OCA Bishops as well, as the case of Rev. Fr. B. can prove it. There are battles for justice within the OCA s ORSMA field not over yet. Some cases are put on hold by the less accountable and less transparent people. It is black on white the truth about the cover up by the OCA Bishops, MC, SIC, SMPAC, as the SMPAC Report was presented to the OCA Synod in Chicago IL, on Wednesday, May 4, 2011, by Protodeacon Peter Danilchick and James C, Spencer, Esq. M. Stokoe said: Eighty days later, in Chicago, the SMPAC offered more than 650 pages of supporting evidence, including more than a hundred and forty footnotes, and a 51 page timeline outlining who actually said and did what, when, and to whom, backed up by emails, letters, and other documents. (+Jonah - In His Own Words, ocanews.org). Quo Vadis OCA?

Page 5 It is black on white the truth about the cover up by the Chicago Roman Catholic Archdiocese: The more than 6,000 pages of letters and internal memos from the 1980s and 1990s also detail the reluctance of Church leadership and law enforcement officials to investigate the allegations, (from: BishopAccountability.org.). In the light of Cardinal Francis George in Chicago s underlined statement presented herewith: In 2002, the National Bishops Conference decided that zero tolerance was the only certain means to be sure children would not be molested, and I removed from all public ministry those who had been allowed some pastoral work under the rules in effect under my predecessor. Others have been removed as accusations came forward. So far as can be known from all our records, there is no priest in public ministry in the Archdiocese of Chicago who has been found to have sexually abused a child, no matter when the abuse took place see ADDENDUM 4. I would like to accountably, transparently and openly question the OCA Bishops, MC, SIC, SMPAC and ORSMA coordinator: 1 - How many open files or closed files of the OCA homosexuals / sodomites clergymen of any rank do you still cover up or you properly investigate, at this time and what kind of zero tolerance you implement while working accountably, transparently and responsibly??? 2 - Is it the closed file of Rev. Fr. B. under your investigation, or is it gone on the winds? 3 - Is Rev. Fr. Vasile Susan going to be called by ORSMA coordinator to substantiate his (June 23, 2005) complaint / allegations and press more charges against the ROEA Archbishop N.W.P., in regards to Rev. Fr. B file, this year, sooner than later? 4 Is ORSMA aware of any surprise that could come from Rev. Fr. Vasile Susan who is seeking justice? In the light of this LETTER, the attached ADDENDA and 10 years of my ordeal, expulsion (not transfer), and exile from the ROEA into the OCA GULAG, I would like to ask the ROEA Archbishop, the following questions: Q: Your Eminence, is it true, that the ROEA Consistory on June 28, 2000, concluded that Fr. B. is a homosexual according to his admission to the ROEA Spiritual Consistory members who interviewed him in September 1999, and proper ecclesiastical / canonical action (see PSP) had be taken accordingly? Q: Your Eminence, is it true, that the presbytera / the wife of Fr. B. has proven the homosexuality of her husband Fr. B. whom she divorced for such a reason? Q: Your Eminence, is it true, that you and the OCA Synod of Bishops covered up and protected this notorious OCA / ROEA homosexual clergyman since 1990 or much more time? Q: Your Eminence, is it true (according to some Internet posted materials), that you and some of the OCA Synod of Bishops did cover up and provided safe heaven to some OCA s homosexual clergymen? Q: Your Eminence, have you been in the past, or are you at the present time a homosexual? Q: Your Eminence, is it true that I am a straight GUY and not a straight GAY as Fr. B. is? I hope this letter will be posted by the honored ladies of www.pokrov.org on their / our blog, and it will bring the OCA Synod, MC, SIC, SMPAC members feet again upon the earth, from their out of space walking and thinking of revengeful acts, against any people of good intentions including me, for the good of the OCA as a living and loving Orthodox Church within the Americas. With all due respects and best wishes to all my OCA friends and readers of my postings, I remain yours, In Christ the Lord, Rev. Fr. Vasile Susan c.c. my legal counsel, OCA Bishops, & (OCA MC members & Internet posting after February 1, 2014).

ADDENDUM 1 MEMORANDUM Date: February 10, 2011 To: The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America From: Sexual Misconduct Policy Advisory Committee of the Orthodox Church in America Re: Report Regarding Handling of Cases and Allegations of Sexual Misconduct This urgent communication has been prepared for the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America by the Sexual Misconduct Policy Advisory Committee (the SMPAC ). During the course of their regular meetings, the members of the SMPAC became seriously alarmed by how cases of sexual misconduct were being handled. Some of the members of the Holy Synod also became concerned and, after conversations with members of the SMPAC, they requested that a formal presentation be made to the entire Holy Synod. In response, the SMPAC has collectively produced this document. In order to generate a readable document in a timely manner, citations and footnotes are not included; however, all of the facts and observations contained herein are based on documentary evidence available in the OCA Chancery and/or on verifiable, trust worthy statements. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Your Beatitude, Your Eminence, Your Graces, We ask your blessings! 1. Introduction. In April 2003, the Holy Synod adopted a set of policies and procedures to address situations when the Orthodox Church in America (the OCA ) was challenged with allegations and incidents of sexual misconduct. These policies, which are binding on all clergy and laity of the OCA, are described in the official document Policies, Standards, and Procedures of the Orthodox Church in America on Sexual Misconduct (the Sexual Misconduct Policies ). While the Sexual Misconduct Policies are significant, they are in need of review and revision, which was made clear in and indeed, required by the settlement of the Paul Sidebottom case in 2009. About two years ago, it became apparent that the OCA s Office for Review of Sexual Misconduct Allegations (the Office for Review ), which was established by the Sexual Misconduct Policies, was in considerable need of revamping to fulfill its role in responding to cases of allegations of sexual misconduct in a timely manner that is appropriate spiritually, ethically, pastorally, professionally, and legally. In responding to these needs, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, blessed the creation of the SMPAC within the administration of the OCA Chancery. In addition to reviewing and revising the Sexual Misconduct Policies, the SMPAC s mandate is to assist the Metropolitan as the one under whose authority the Office for Review operates, and the Chancellor, who manages the Office for Review in its daily operations. From its inception, the SMPAC has been involved in the task of proposing revisions to the Sexual Misconduct

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 2 Policies, meeting for this purpose on numerous occasions at the OCA Chancery and by teleconference. During these meetings, the SMPAC has also responded to requests from the Chancellor to assist the Office for Review in addressing allegations of misconduct that have come to the OCA Chancery. Some members of the SMPAC have also been asked to serve in actual investigations of sexual misconduct cases, although such service is not due to or required by their membership on the SMPAC. An essential duty of the SMPAC, as provided in its Charter, is to Assist in reviews of the extent to which the Church s Policies, Standards, and Procedures on Sexual Misconduct are implemented in practice and how compliance with them is ensured. It was in fulfilling this duty that the SMPAC became familiar with some alleged and actual cases of sexual misconduct by OCA clergy and how they were addressed by the Church. The more we learned, the more we individually and collectively became extremely concerned by how cases are being handled and how professional advice is being disregarded. A culture of denial regarding clergy misconduct has resulted in a failure by the Church to investigate allegations with due diligence, a failure to apply consistent discipline to clergy found to have engaged in misconduct, and a failure to ensure that victims and perpetrators receive the appropriate pastoral care. Although these aforementioned problems are in many ways systemic, a main and central issue is the response of His Beatitude to cases of clergy sexual misconduct. His response often appears to be either indifference or in deliberate conflict with the decisions of the Holy Synod, with the OCA s Best Practices, and with other established policies and procedures (including the Sexual Misconduct Policies). His Beatitude s responses often seem to be based on his personal choices and ideas, rather than on sound pastoral, ethical, or legal considerations. Because His Beatitude s behavior affects not only these critical issues of clergy sexual misconduct but also the integrity of the Holy Synod and very viability of the OCA, we believe we are obligated to bring such vital issues to the attention of the entire Holy Synod, although we are pained to do so. In this Memorandum, we offer instances in which His Beatitude s critical lapses in judgment and actions caused further deterioration in certain situations, caused potentially irreversible harm to all involved, and prevented a fitting resolution to the problem. Even if we had not been asked to present these issues to the entire Holy Synod, we feel ethically compelled, as Orthodox Christians and as members of an official OCA committee dealing with sensitive and critical problems of our Church, to bring this matter to your attention. We recognize that the issues that we are raising are solely within the competency and authority of the Holy Synod to address. As members of the SMPAC, we categorically reject any assertion or implication that this Memorandum is meant to question the roles, prerogatives, and authority of any of the members of the Holy Synod. Rather, the members of the SMPAC strongly affirm our commitment and devotion to the spiritual, structural, and canonical principles of the Orthodox Church. We here simply present the facts (according to our understanding), our observations, and our concerns, and we entrust ourselves and the issues discussed in this document to your hierarchal and pastoral judgment. We offer below specific concerns, instances, and events involving His Beatitude that have caused us unease and even alarm. This is not a complete list of all the situations we have encountered in our committee work. There are other serious cases of which we are aware and which have been discussed by the OCA s Legal Committee and/or by the Metropolitan Council. The cases we have detailed in this Memorandum have been selected because they serve as concrete examples of what we have come to see not just as mistakes by His Beatitude, but rather as an unchanging

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 3 pattern of deliberate behavior that has not benefited from lessons learned and will also negatively affect the OCA as a whole. 2. Concerning Attitudes and Actions. His Beatitude presented the Zero tolerance policy as an organic part of our response to sexual misconduct in the Church. He publicly stated, If a priest drops his pants, he loses his stole. In light of His Beatitude s response to actual cases of sexual misconduct, we cannot help but notice a glaring discrepancy between his official statements and his actions. His Beatitude has proceeded in ways that leads us to doubt the veracity of his professed position in the matter of allegations of clergy sexual misconduct. When actually dealing with clergy who dropped their pants, His Beatitude has not demanded accountability but has instead adopted an immediate position of tolerance of the behaviors; tolerance that is now labeled forgiveness, even when all evidence pointed to the perpetrator s impending relapse which in some cases has happened. This has created confusion for all involved and lends itself to claims of unreliability and dishonesty. Regrettably, His Beatitude has not been decisively engaged whether with the Chancellor, the Chancery, the Office for Review, or the SMPAC in responding to allegations of sexual misconduct, even when actual criminal charges were attracting international media attention. We have not witnessed a willingness to take into consideration advice from the SMPAC that is offered as part of our mandate and according to our respective areas of professional expertise. When on the few occasions that His Beatitude sought the advice of individual SMPAC members, only rarely did he follow it, responding instead in direct opposition to what was suggested and all the while ignoring the written Sexual Misconduct Policies and even the law. When allegations have been made, His Beatitude defaults to an immediate conclusion of false accusations without actually assessing and investigating the matter. Without a proactive approach in the matter of sexual misconduct, a culture of inertia and deception is allowed to flourish. Such behaviors by His Beatitude put the OCA at legal risk in cases of sexual misconduct, since any criminal or civil court is going to examine whether or not the OCA follows its own policies and procedures. Ignoring policies and following unsubstantiated personal ideas is in opposition to the Church s ethical standards and the best interest of the OCA. It has also been shown to further increase the suffering of victims and can become the trigger for damaging civil liability suits. 3. Fr. Isidore (Brittain). The disturbing case of Fr. Isidore (Brittain) provides several examples of confusing inconsistency and disordered response by His Beatitude. As you are aware, Fr. Isidore is an admitted alcoholic, whom the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC ) determined committed act of sexual misconduct in Alaska against Reader Paul Sidebottom. In addition, evidence came to the attention of the Office for Review and subsequently to Metropolitan Jonah that, while Fr. Isidore was living in Australia, he sought sexual interaction with other men through a gay internet matchmaking site. Fr. Isidore was never suspended or even disciplined for any of his sexual misconduct in Alaska or Australia. (It is important to note that it was Metropolitan Herman who suspended Fr.

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 4 Isidore, and only because he uncanonically moved to Australia.) This failure to suspend or discipline Fr. Isidore is unconscionable to the members of the SMPAC. Rather than discipline Fr. Isidore, Metropolitan Jonah instead went to the other extreme. When the settlement with Reader Sidebottom was reached, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, sent Mr. Sidebottom a letter, which included the following promise: "Archimandrite Isidore is currently under suspension. His case will be reviewed by the Holy Synod in the near future. Restoration to active ministry within the Orthodox Church in America seems highly unlikely, but should the merciful Lord guide him to repentance the process of recovery will be carefully monitored over such period of time as is determined by the OCA, in good faith, to be appropriate." That letter was written two years ago. Since that time, Fr. Isidore s sexual misconduct has not been reviewed by Holy Synod. Nor, seemingly, has it been carefully monitored. Instead, His Beatitude canonically released Fr. Isidore to the Diocese of the West, without any discipline whatsoever and with seemingly no regard for what Reader Sidebottom experienced or the danger to other potential victims. Amazingly, based on recent photos posted on the OCA s Facebook page and linked to from an official news release on the OCA s website, in November 2010, His Beatitude served Divine Liturgy with Fr. Isidore at Saint Anne Church in Corvallis, Oregon, in spite of the fact that Fr. Isidore s suspension for moving to Australia has never been lifted and in spite of His Beatitude s claim to Reader Sidebottom that Restoration to active ministry... seems unlikely. And, as if it could get any worse, the SMPAC has learned that Fr. Isidore was recently arrested for DWI, providing further evidence that he is not yet fit for active service in the Church. We are concerned that His Beatitude s too quick willingness to forgive and restore Fr. Isidore will pose disastrous consequences for the Church, to potential victims, to Reader Sidebottom, and, indeed, to Fr. Isidore. We are convinced that His Beatitude s attitude and actions in the case of Fr. Isidore evidence a grave issue that the Holy Synod needs to address. 4. Fr. Simeon (Kharon). The case of Fr. Simeon (Kharon) reveals a troubling lack of understanding and discernment by His Beatitude of the pastoral issues at stake. Over a short period of time, Fr. Simeon has exhibited various dangerous and severe pathological behaviors (e.g., problems with alcohol, the actions that brought him into conflict with the police, which led to two incarcerations, and his previous history of reported disordered and abusive behaviors including going AWOL when he was still in Greece). The investigation team received testimony from witnesses that Fr. Simeon tried to force himself on a woman after having exhibited a knife in his possession. It was also reported by an OCA priest that, on another occasion, Fr. Simeon produced a handgun and started firing shots in the presence of a female parishioner. Despite His Beatitude s admission that he was aware of these situations, and despite Fr. Simeon s total lack of insight into his own problems, His Beatitude allowed Fr. Simeon to serve in the OCA

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 5 (including the hearing of Confessions) and recommended him for appointment to the Military Chaplaincy. His Beatitude was also considering allowing Fr. Simeon to perform the Sacrament of Marriage upon his release from jail. The indifference by His Beatitude to the actual and potential victims of Fr. Simeon for example, allowing Fr. Simeon to hear confessions and counsel the nuns and His Beatitude s instruction to Fr. Simeon to remain in the nuns company is incomprehensible and disturbing. Furthermore, the official Investigative Report indicates that His Beatitude knowingly withheld pertinent information from the Chancellor and others about the allegations of misconduct and that he completely omitted informing the Military Chaplain recruiter of the issues involving Fr. Simeon. Yet, in a letter that he wrote to Fr. Simeon, His Beatitude was obviously aware of Fr. Simeon s severe problem with alcohol as well as the two incidents involving the police. The investigative committee, which was headed by His Grace, Bishop Michael, made specific recommendations in Fr. Simeon s case. The Holy Synod accepted the report and its recommendations. Several of these recommendations have been ignored or singlehandedly overturned by His Beatitude. Perhaps most notable is the conduct of the women monastics under the guidance of Abbess Aemiliane (Hanson). Her questionable involvement in the Fr. Simeon case was noted with emphasis in the Investigative Report. In a letter to the investigative committee, and in quoted statements, Abbess Aemiliane deliberately withheld information and did not offer objective testimony, according to the report on Fr. Simeon s verifiable actions and his serious problems. Instead, she threatened lawsuits against those who questioned Fr. Simeon s conduct and accused them of wrongdoing. Despite all of this, His Beatitude has continued to offer hospitality and protection to her and her co-monastics. Incredible as it may be, recent reports indicate that Abbess Ameliane participates at meetings of the Parish Council at St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington, DC. Other information about the monastic community raises serious questions that could be the subject of a separate inquiry. Related to all of this, and very troubling by itself, is that His Beatitude recently told Fr. Gregory Safchuk, the Chancellor of the Washington Diocese, that His Beatitude was working with Fr. Michael Matsko and the SMPAC on the Fr. Simeon case. This was blatantly false. Neither Fr. Matsko nor the SMPAC were ever consulted by His Beatitude about the case. Such a statement is not only disturbing but also exposes the members of the SMPAC to claims of professional misconduct and liability, since it makes it appear that the SMPAC has somehow approved His Beatitude s actions in the Fr. Simeon case. 5. Archbishop Seraphim. The case of the allegations of sexual misconduct against His Eminence, Archbishop Seraphim, raises many critical concerns. In 2008, just prior to the All American Council, the Holy Synod was made aware by a senior OCA priest of grave allegations of sexual misconduct against Archbishop Seraphim. These allegations were taken seriously enough that Archbishop Seraphim withdrew his name from consideration to become Metropolitan.

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 6 In 2009, His Beatitude decided upon a course of action that was merely a semblance of an investigation into the allegations, despite being advised by Fr. Michael Matsko that such action would not fulfill any of the professional standards demanded by such serious allegations. Fr. Matsko had insisted that a forensic evaluation be done according to accepted professional standards in order to proceed with due diligence, to show proper respect to all involved, and to avoid painful legal entanglement and liability. Such an evaluation would have been invaluable, especially given the legal situation with which the OCA is now faced. However, the advice of Fr. Matsko was completely disregarded by His Beatitude. Instead, Archbishop Seraphim was sent to talk with Fr. Meletios Webber, who had not held a professional license for 18 years, and to Fr. David Fontes, who is a licensed clinical psychologist but who did not conduct any psychological evaluation of the archbishop. Neither Fr. Meletios nor Fr. Fontes produced a professional report of evaluation, although they each sent a letter to His Beatitude, which merely consisted of the conversations held between Archbishop Seraphim and Fr. Meletios and Fr. Fontes, respectively. In a letter, His Beatitude publicly told Pokrov, the Orthodox victims advocate group, that an investigation into the allegations against Archbishop Seraphim was taking place, implying that the interviews by Frs. Meletios and Fontes constituted professional evaluations. Beside a conversation with two priests, no investigation was duly performed no witnesses were interviewed, no evidence was gathered. His Beatitude subsequently failed to provide Fr. Fontes letter - which contained sensitive information - to the Holy Synod, to the Office for Review, to the SMPAC, or to the OCA s legal counsel even after the OCA was notified that the Canadian law enforcements officials had begun an investigation in response to the allegations of sexual misconduct committed by Archbishop Seraphim. This could constitute a possible obstruction of justice, with His Beatitude exposing himself and the OCA to the risk of criminal charges. It required the collective intervention of the SMPAC, the Metropolitan Council Legal Committee, and the OCA General Counsel for the documents to be released to the Crown with the authorization of Bishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchisedek, head of the Synodal Commission. Furthermore, His Beatitude made the statement to the Holy Synod that nothing reportable was discovered, although this is in contradiction to the facts. The failure of His Beatitude to apprehend the seriousness of the case increases the legal liability of the OCA. Furthermore, if the allegations are indeed true, the victims as well as potential victims have been willfully placed at risk by His Beatitude. An urgency of attention into those matters has been lacking at every step of the response to this case. Three weeks after the Holy Synod placed Archbishop Seraphim on leave of absence because the Winnipeg police were investigating him, His Beatitude stated in an email that there are no allegations and there are no victims. The events should have been treated with timely and intense attention. Instead, His Beatitude publicly stated, "This will all blow over in a couple of months. Even after Archbishop Seraphim was reportedly charged by indictment with two counts of sexual abuse against two pre-teenage boys and severe restrictions to his freedom were imposed on him by the Canadian legal system, His Beatitude did not take an active interest or directly participate in the response to this crisis. Finally, the sense of importance and transparency by His Beatitude of the Synodal Commission process/ mandate were absent, until pressure was brought to bear by the SMPAC to approve the

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 7 mandate. He treated responses to issues arising within the Archdiocese of Canada with an almost total lack of urgency and interest. Little pastoral care or concern was shown toward the Canadian members of the OCA in the face of serious allegations of child abuse brought against their archpastor. Little guidance was offered to them, resulting in several serious, and potentially legally damaging, missteps in how the Archdiocese of Canada dealt publicly with the crisis. The muchneeded ability to recognize the crisis, to provide proper administrative leadership, and to show even a little concern for the events as they unfolded did not materialize. His Beatitude has not once met with the professionals available to him to be briefed on the case or to offer direction and guidance. 6. Appointment of Fr. Gregory Jensen. His Beatitude s appointment of Fr. Gregory Jensen as a consultant to the Office for Review is indicative of an individualistic and impulsive approach to decision-making that can create one legal entanglement after another. The appointment was made without consulting the Chancellor or the SMPAC, and apparently was in part due to His Beatitude s stated view that the SMPAC is a pool of amateurs. Ironically, despite His Beatitude s desire not to rely on amateurs, only after appointing Fr. Jensen did His Beatitude ask for his resume, but he did not request to see any official credentials. Therefore, His Beatitude had no credible reason other than Fr. Jensen s own statements to believe that Fr. Jensen would be able to provide qualified assistance to the Office for Review. Without the support of any actual official documentation, His Beatitude publicly asserted that Fr. Jensen has a doctorate in psychology and is a trained and experienced psychologist. Although Fr. Jensen claims to be a psychologist on his resume, on his blog, on other websites, and on the brochures for conferences that he leads, he has limited training in psychology and does not hold a valid license. It is a criminal offense to claim to belong to a restricted profession without holding a valid license and also for someone to make such claims about another person. These spurious claims by His Beatitude about Fr. Jensen (now an official consultant to the Office for Review) put His Beatitude and the OCA legally at risk, create an ethical dilemma for the other professionals working on the SMPAC, and undermine the confidence of the faithful and all those who are looking at the OCA s manner of operating in the area of sexual misconduct issues. In a puzzling incident, Fr. Jensen contacted Pokrov as a representative of the OCA, with the blessing of His Beatitude, in order to offer a joint response to cases of sexual misconduct. This was done without any consultation with the Office for Review or the SMPAC. In fact, the Office for Review had already made efforts in that direction about a year ago. The members of Pokrov reacted very negatively to the contact from Fr. Jensen, which has further alienated the work that others are doing to address sexual misconduct in the Church. 7. Further Disregard of Professional Advice. Fr. Michael Matsko, who has professional licensure and experience in dealing with cases of sexual misconduct, presented a paper to His Beatitude on June 19, 2009, entitled Some Reflections Regarding Clergy Sexual Misconduct. That paper outlined policies and procedures that the OCA should follow in dealing with problems of sexual abuse in the church. Fr. Michael stated in that paper: When the Church avoids the truth to protect its image, it becomes unloving toward its spiritual children and colludes in the secrecy and silence that constitute the

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 8 infrastructure of sexual abuse. Unfortunately, so far, this sound advice has not been followed. The paper also called for a multidisciplinary compassionate approach for dealing with misconduct cases that involves both the Church s leadership and professionals from several disciplines. Unfortunately, time and again the SMPAC has witnessed the rendering of unilateral pastoral judgment by His Beatitude, without regard for the advice given by fellow bishops, clergy, senior staff, lawyers, and members of the SMPAC. His Beatitude s manner of decision-making is at odds with a true compassionate, professional, and pastoral approach toward the victims of clergy sexual misconduct. The refusal to follow proper OCA procedures will result in the undue protection of perpetrators to their own detriment and the marginalization and the revictimization of the victims. Recent experience has shown that judges and juries consistently decide against organizations which fail to take seriously allegations of sexual abuse or which show the slightest inclinations toward discouraging victims from coming forth to make their allegations. 8. Disregard of Crisis Management Committee. The value of the Crisis Management Committee, which was marginalized by His Beatitude from the onset, has become obvious through the case of the allegations against Archbishop Seraphim. Bernie Wilson and other Metropolitan Council members worked tirelessly to produce a Crisis Plan. His Beatitude showed very little interest in such a plan. Therefore, when the major crisis with Archbishop Seraphim came to light, the OCA was completely unprepared, which led to serious mistakes and has opened the OCA to potential civil liabilities and perhaps criminal proceedings. In an email to Bishop Nikon on October 11, 2010, His Beatitude expressed the opinion that the Holy Synod has been and is being unduly pressed to conduct a needless investigation of Archbishop Seraphim, and he stated his belief that the present pressure is political and that the pressure preceding the previous AAC was vehement and reeks of politics. The events have shown this position to be untenable. A situation that could have been easily averted by following the Sexual Misconduct Policies, as well as the advice of those who have experience in dealing with such issues, was instead made much worse. His Beatitude stood in the way of proper and dispassionate crisis management and the investigatory processes, and the OCA will pay the price, not only in treasure but very likely in souls. 9. Concluding Statement. The particular instances presented above represent a brief cross section of the collective observations of SMPAC members. Since the inception of the SMPAC, we have encountered numerous situations where we could not reconcile the statements, decisions, or conduct of His Beatitude with the Sexual Misconduct Policies, the Best Practices of the OCA, or our Orthodox Ethos. His Beatitude has often stated that he is not interested in administration. Such a position is incompatible with his role as Metropolitan and the proper functioning of the Office for Review, for which His Beatitude has the authority under the oversight of the Holy Synod. We have observed that the advice of the Holy Synod, senior staff, and unbiased advisors has been disregarded in favor of His Beatitude s unsubstantiated ideas or personal opinions, which are often in flagrant conflict with the Sexual Misconduct Policies and even the law. It becomes increasingly challenging to fulfill our duties, when we are constantly faced with patterns of

SMPAC Memorandum February 10, 2011 Page 9 behavior that obfuscate the truth with distorted and/or partial information, deceit, opposition to the accepted standards of the Church, avoidance of the people assigned to serve the office of the Metropolitan, and a chronically disordered decision-making process that compromises the Holy Synod and the OCA as a whole. We are concerned that ignoring the Sexual Misconduct Policies, Best Practices, and professional advice places the OCA at risk legally, pastorally, ethically, and financially. His Beatitude s decision-making process exposes members of the OCA to risks, to further abuse and to possible lawsuits. Our concern for the Church and for His Beatitude is based on our observation that the common denominator in all the situations described above is a pattern of responding to problems. That pattern, unfortunately, is not the result of accidental mistakes. If those choices were simply mistakes, we would expect to see an improvement with each successive situation, rather than a seemingly endless repetition of decisions that have proven to be unworkable, erroneous, or dangerous. Nothing seems to be learned by His Beatitude from incident to incident. Rather, the maladaptive behavior of offering misinformation, changing positions, and then denying that such a change occurred repeats itself in each new situation. We trust that the Holy Synod discerns the painful reality that this Memorandum underscores and will guide the OCA on its difficult road toward recovery. Although it will not be painless, a solution to the current situation must be found. If the current tragedy involving Archbishop Seraphim was not damaging enough, to continue on the present course will be to allow the OCA to deteriorate through one crisis after another, until soon we are no longer viable as a Church. It is likely that should a civil suit be brought against the OCA in the case of the allegations against Archbishop Seraphim, the OCA could become bankrupt. We, the members of the SMPAC, feel obligated to bring these issues to your attention because, in an autocephalous Church, the Holy Synod represents the highest authority, including oversight of the actions of the primate. The SMPAC was created to serve the Church by offering advice in dealing with serious misbehavior by clergy and the treatment of sexual misconduct allegations. We respectfully ask you to give audience to our concerns and lead us on the way of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Respectfully submitted, Sexual Misconduct Policy Advisory Committee of the Orthodox Church in America /s/ Archpriest Alexander Garklavs (Chair) /s/ Archpriest Eric Tosi /s/ Archpriest Michael Matsko /s/ Archpriest Theodore Bobosh /s/ Protodeacon Peter Danilchick /s/ Dr. Nikita Eike /s/ James C, Spencer, Esq. P. S. The SMPAC Report was presented to the OCA Synod and MC in Chicago IL, on Wednesday, May 4, 2011, by Protodeacon Peter Danilchick and James C, Spencer, Esq. The ocanews.org is telling the genuine truth on 05. 20. 2011 as posted on the blog mentioned herewith. There are some clues (posted on the www.oca.org) which indicate the truthfulness of 05.20.2011 posting. The OCA Corps d' élite from above did a good job by hiding SMPAC report for a while. We got it, God s willing. We used it accountably and transparently. Thank you God!

ADDENDUM 2 January 24, 2014 UPDATED: Holy Synod issues statement regarding Archbishop Seraphim SYOSSET, NY [OCA] The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America has received information regarding Archbishop Seraphim (Storheim), who is on suspension from his position as Archbishop of Canada. In court proceedings that took place earlier today Friday, January 24, 2014 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Archbishop Seraphim was found guilty of one count of sexual assault. He also was acquitted of one count of sexual assault. Sentencing will take place later this year. He remains free on bail. Separately and apart from the court proceedings, Archbishop Seraphim remains suspended, pending completion of reports from a Synodal Commission that was appointed to review the charges from an internal Church perspective. While this is a sad and stressful matter for all involved, the legal process had to take its course before any administrative action could proceed. While taking an active interest in the criminal proceedings, the OCA is not a party to the criminal action. The Lesser Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America, meeting at the OCA Chancery in Oyster Bay Cove, NY, September 21-24, 2010, heard an official report that police in Canada had received a complaint alleging misconduct committed by His Eminence, Archbishop Seraphim of Ottawa and Canada some 30 years prior. He was placed on leave of absence by the Holy Synod of Bishops effective October 1, 2010. On October 13, 2010, the Holy Synod appointed a Synodal Commission to conduct an internal investigation into the allegations. The members of the Synodal Commission were announced on October 29, 2010. On November 25, 2010, Archbishop Seraphim turned himself in to police authorities in Winnipeg, Manitoba. After posting bail he was released, pending trial. On November 30, 2010, the Holy Synod of Bishops changed his status to suspended and he remains in that status. The Synodal Commission has been in communication with civil authorities and has held its investigation in abeyance so as not to interfere with or compromise the judicial process. Now that criminal court judgment has been announced, the Synodal Commission will resume its work and issue a report to the Holy Synod in accordance with the sexual misconduct Policies, Standards and Procedures of the OCA. The Synodal Commission has had changes in membership since 2010 and is now under the guiding authority of His Grace, Bishop Melchisedek, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania, along with His Grace, Bishop Mark, Bishop of Baltimore. Current members are Protopresbyter Mirone Klish, Dr. Lila Amirali, Dr. Thomas Kolivakis, Archpriest Andrew Jarmus and Mr. David Grier. Mr. Robert Koory serves as a consultant on behalf of the Sexual Misconduct Policy Advisory Committee (SMPAC). The faithful of the Orthodox Church in America are asked to offer prayers for the victim and family involved in this case, for all victims of sexual abuse, for Archbishop Seraphim, for the civil authorities, the Synodal Commission, and for their brothers and sisters in Christ in the Archdiocese of Canada. From http://oca.org/news/headline-news/holy-synod-issues-statement-regarding-archbishopseraphim

ADDENDUM 3 Below is the EXTRACT from: POLICIES, STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Adopted by the Holy Synod of Bishops, April 2, 2003, Page 6 7, from http://oca.org/about/documents 5. Standards of Conduct for Clergy 5.01. Canonical Obligations: Those set apart for ordained ministry bear a particular responsibility to pattern their lives after Jesus example. Members of the clergy have obligations to the Church, their Bishop, and those in their pastoral care that derive from their ordination. Nothing herein diminishes or changes those responsibilities and obligations. 5.02. Basic Prohibition: No member of the clergy shall commit, attempt to commit, or engage in any act of sexual misconduct. 5.03. Pastoral Authority: Members of the clergy, by their position, have an inherent power over others. That power, whether or not acknowledged by clergy or believed to exist by the others, creates a difference between themselves and the laity that places a special moral burden on the clergy. No member of the clergy shall use or exploit his position in connection with his sexual or emotional needs or desires. 5.04. Avoidance and Precautions: Members of the clergy should be aware of and not disregard any signs of sexual boundary breakdown in relationships with others. They also should be aware that there could be sexually aggressive people who could initiate improper relationships. Members of the clergy shall at all times take precautionary measures to avoid inappropriate behavior that could lead to sexual misconduct. 5.05. Counseling and Assistance: Any member of the clergy who finds himself at risk of probable acts of sexual misconduct in response to an inappropriate sexual or romantic attraction or impulse, or for any other reason, shall immediately seek counsel and pastoral guidance from an individual trained and experienced in the field. With approval of the Bishop, the costs thereof shall be paid or reimbursed by the diocese. 5.06. Cooperation and Discipline: All members of the clergy who are respondents in matters involving alleged sexual misconduct shall cooperate fully with all reviews and investigations; shall provide full, complete, and truthful information; and shall accept and abide by all recommendations and discipline that may result from the matter. >>>>> Below is the EXTRACT from: POLICIES, STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE ORTHODOXCHURCH IN AMERICA ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Adopted by The Holy Synod of Bishops, April 2, 2003, Page 17. <> from http://oca.org/about/documents 10.06. Discipline of Clergy: (a) If clergy are found to have engaged in act of sexual misconduct, the Bishop shall impose appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with the Canons of the Holy Orthodox Church. (b) Any member of the clergy who admits or is found to have committed child sexual abuse shall be suspended by the applicable Bishop, shall be deposed by the Holy Synod of Bishops, and shall be permanently prohibited from exercising any functions or responsibilities of parish ministry. Any report to any law enforcement or social service agency required to be made by reason of the admission or finding shall be made. Such conduct shall be conclusive grounds for him to be deposed as set forth herein. Page 1

Page 2 Below is the EXTRACT from: POLICIES, STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Approved by the Holy Synod of Bishops at the Fall 2013 Holy Synod Meeting. Page 11, <> from http://oca.org/about/documents 5. Standards of Conduct for Clergy 5.01. Canonical Obligations: Those set apart for ordained ministry bear a particular responsibility to pattern their lives after Jesus example. Members of the Clergy have obligations to the Church, their Bishop, and those in their pastoral care that derive from their ordination. Nothing herein diminishes or changes those responsibilities and obligations. 5.02. Basic Prohibition: No member of the Clergy shall commit, attempt to commit, or engage in any act of Sexual Misconduct. 5.03. Pastoral Authority: Members of the Clergy, by their position, have an inherent power over others. That power, whether or not acknowledged by Clergy or believed to exist by others, creates a difference between themselves and the laity that places a special moral burden on the Clergy. No member of the Clergy shall use or exploit his position in connection with his sexual or emotional needs or desires. 5.04. Avoidance and Precautions: Clergy shall be aware of and not disregard any signs of sexual boundary breakdown in relationships with others. They shall be aware that there may be sexually aggressive people who could initiate improper relationships. Clergy shall at all times take precautionary measures to avoid inappropriate behavior that could lead to Sexual Misconduct. They must also avoid even the appearance of impropriety relating to possible sexual activity outside Holy Matrimony. 5.05. Counseling and Assistance: Any member of the clergy who finds himself at risk of probable acts of Sexual Misconduct in response to an inappropriate sexual or romantic attraction or impulse, or for any other reason, shall immediately seek counsel and pastoral guidance from an individual trained and experienced in the field. With approval of the Ruling Bishop, the costs thereof may be paid or reimbursed by the Ruling Bishop s diocese. 5.06. Cooperation and Discipline: All Clergy who are Respondents, Complainants, or witnesses or may have information, in matters involving alleged Sexual Misconduct shall cooperate fully with all reviews and investigations. All Clergy who are Respondents shall accept and abide by all recommendations and discipline that may result from the matter. >>>>> EXTRACT from: POLICIES, STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES OF THE ORTHODOXCHURCH IN AMERICA ON SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. Approved by the Holy Synod of Bishops at the Fall 2013 Holy Synod Meeting. Page 25, from http://oca.org/about/documents 10.05. Discipline of Clergy: (A) If Clergy are found to have engaged in an act of Sexual Misconduct, the Ruling Bishop shall impose appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church and with 10.01 (C), (D) and (E) above. (B) Any Clergy who admits or is found to have committed child sexual abuse shall be suspended by the applicable Ruling Bishop, shall be deposed by the Holy Synod of Bishops, and shall be permanently prohibited from exercising any functions or responsibilities of parish ministry. Any report to any law enforcement or social service agency required to be made by reason of the admission or finding shall be made. Such conduct shall be conclusive grounds for him to be deposed as set forth herein.

ADDENDUM 4 Cardinal George s letter says files on sex abuse by priests to be released Accountability and Transparency Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, This January, as was announced a month ago in a press conference by a plaintiff s lawyer, documents relating to the sexual misconduct of thirty priests of the Archdiocese will be released as part of settlement agreements over the past years. All these incidents were reported over the years to the civil authorities and claims have been mediated civilly. Almost all of the incidents happened decades ago, perpetrated by priests whom neither I nor many younger clergy have ever met or talked to, because the priests were either dead or out of ministry before I came to Chicago as Archbishop. Nevertheless, the publication puts the actions of these men and the Archdiocese itself in the spotlight. Painful though publicly reviewing the past can be, it is part of the accountability and transparency to which the Archdiocese is committed. For more than twenty years, the Archdiocese has reported all allegations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities and to DCFS. Records of priests have been shared with civil authorities when asked for. Accountability to the civil authorities constitutionally responsible for the protection of children is part of the life of the Church here. The names of priests known to have abused a minor are published on the Archdiocesan website, and the Archdiocese will offer more information in the future. But publishing for all to read the actual records of these crimes raises transparency to a new level. It will be helpful, we pray, for some, but painful for many. Pope Francis has spoken several times in recent months about clericalism as a vice. Clericalism appears when a person or group decides it is not accountable for its actions. Clericalism in the clergy is evident when a priest decides he is not accountable to his bishop or to the faithful for what he teaches or how he celebrates the Church s liturgy or pastors the Church s people or when a bishop, in turn, is not accountable to his Councils and his clergy for his own ministry. Clericalism is spiritually deadly when a priest decides he is not accountable even to God and breaks his promise of chaste celibacy as well as the commandments of the Lord himself. The general discipline of the clergy weakened during the years when sex abuse was most prevalent, during the 1970 s and 1980 s. Chicago followed the now well-known national trends. In the late eighties, however, the Archdiocese began to put its house in some order and started, sometimes hesitantly, to follow the path of accountability and transparency. Through the nineties, Archdiocesan policy still allowed some perpetrators a restricted form of ministry, with monitoring, that kept them from regular contact with minors. In 2002, the National Bishops Conference decided that zero tolerance was the only certain means to be sure children would not be molested, and I removed from all public ministry those who had been allowed some pastoral work under the rules in effect under my predecessor. Others have been removed as accusations came forward. So far as can be known from all our records, there is no priest in public ministry in the Archdiocese of Chicago who has been found to have sexually abused a child, no matter when the abuse took place. A more recent episode that has created distrust and injured the Archdiocesan community is that of Daniel McCormack. The public story, up to this point, has been largely fashioned by plaintiffs lawyers and other activists and deliberately distorts or ignores points that would mitigate the charge of Archdiocesan neglect. For the sake of complete transparency, as well as accountability, I want to put on the public record the following facts: 1. Neither in Chicago nor in any previous posting as a bishop or a religious superior have I assigned to pastoral ministry or transferred for ministry a priest whom I knew to have sexually abused a child. Page 1

Page 2 2. When I came to Chicago as Archbishop, Fr. Daniel McCormack had a reputation as a dedicated priest and an effective pastor. He had been ordained by Cardinal Bernardin, who vetted his seminary record. He was already, before I became Archbishop, appointed to a seminary faculty, a position of trust. He had been elected by his peers to represent them on the priests placement board, a sign of confidence in his judgment by those who knew him best. Just months before his first arrest, he was recommended by those who worked with him in re-organizing the parishes on the west side to serve as dean for that area. He was dedicated to ministry in African American parishes in poor neighborhoods. He was trusted and admired. 3. The first association of his name with the possible sexual abuse of a minor was made for me in September 2005, when I was told that the police had arrested him, questioned him about the allegation and then released him without charges. He was put under monitoring and his ministry with children restricted while the Archdiocese began to investigate whether there was reasonable cause to suspect that he had sexually abused a child. The investigation was hampered because the various offices involved did not consistently share what they knew with each other or with me. Nor did the civil authorities share with the Archdiocese what they came to know in their investigations. From the time he was arrested and released to the time that he was arrested a second time and eventually pled guilty, no one involved in investigating the allegation, not even the review board that struggled with their justified concerns, told me they thought he was guilty. 4. After McCormack s second arrest in January 2006, a number of incidents came forward that might have served as warning signals along the way, if people had been more wary. Each of them, when the record is fairly presented, was examined and responded to by the authorities concerned. The response, in retrospect, was not always adequate to all the facts, but a mistake is not a cover up. This is not a story that fits the template that has been used to report sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, which is why it s difficult to set the record straight. Nor is the record, even when set straight, one that any of us can easily put together with what we expect the Church to be. Telling the truth does not create an excuse for failure. But it makes a difference, as we go forward, to know in what the failure consists, to know that the truth has been told and that the Church is committed to accountability and transparency. Cardinal Francis George / Michael Jarecki / For Sun-Times Media Chicago Cardinal Francis George listening to reporters' questions before he left for Rome to meet with Vatican officials and other American cardinals about the child sex abuse scandals in the United States. Attorneys for sex abuse victims posted thousands of documents to a website Tuesday morning that show that the archdiocese concealed the abuse for decades.

Page 3 In 1996 file photo, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin speaks with reporters on the steps of his Chicago residence just before his departure for Rome to meet with Pope John Paul II. The Archdiocese of Chicago spent decades covering up the sexual abuse of children according to documents released by Church officials last week and being made public on Tuesday. For decades, those at the highest levels of the nation s thirdlargest archdiocese quietly moved priests from parish to parish and took steps to keep the abuse from becoming known outside church circles. The documents show that former Cardinals John Cody and Joseph Bernardin often approved the reassignments, though some eventually were removed from ministry. RELATED DOCUMENTS Just take a look at some headlights from the free press and TV stations as follows: Cardinal Francis George's letter to priests From http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/24825019-418/cardinal-georges-letter-says-files-on-sexabuse-by-priests-to-be-released.htm Archdiocese of Chicago fought to conceal abuse claims: report Roughly 6,000 pages released show lengths that church took to make sure that child abuse didn t go public Chicago Catholics to See Letter on Abuse This Sunday... Group: Archdiocese mishandling latest priest sex abuse allegation BY FRANCINE KNOWLES Ahead of abuse report, Cardinal George sends letter to parishioners (VIDEO) Victims of priest abuse 'looking for accountability' in documents (VIDEO) UPDATE: Chicago Archdiocesan Files Reveal Extent of Sex Abuse Cover-Up Chicago Archdiocesan Files Reveal Extent of Sex Abuse Cover-Up, Fourteen of the 30 Chicago Archdiocesan priests mentioned in the files are now dead.

Page 4 Chicago archdiocese releases documents detailing sexual abuse by priests Daley, Cardinals Mentioned In Archdiocese Documents Previously secret files show church leadership was informed of allegations dating back to the 1960s By MaryAnn Ahern, Wednesday, Jan 22, 2014 Pictures of the pedophiles priest below as posted on the Internet. OCA leaders / elite: Take a look. [Two of the most vocal OCA clergymen within the OCA had the opportunity to signal the upcoming day, not long time ago as per his statement from MINUTES of the Joint Meeting of the Lesser Synod and the 2012 Spring Session of the Metropolitan Council, Tuesday, February 21 Thursday, February 23, 2012, East Norwich Inn, East Norwich, NY, D Fr. Theodore Bobosh shared additional observations on the work of the SMPAC. He noted that Church leaders are now being held criminally responsible for not properly supervising clergy who are perpetrators. Who is the OCA Bishop who is going to be the 1st held criminally liable? Here is the possible answer: the former OCA Synod secretary and the current OCA Metropolitan Time is near. F F.2. MOTION GARRETSON/MAHAFFEY - That the Office for Review of Sexual Misconduct Allegations review in a systematic and timely manner previously closed clergy sexual misconduct files to determine any necessary action. To fund the appropriate staff and resources to ensure the professional, prompt, and timely execution of the Policies and Procedures regarding sexual misconduct (existing PSP). The Metropolitan Council requests that the Holy Synod issue their complete response to the SMPAC memorandum of February 2011 with all deliberate speed.] Whatever staff was put in place up to this time everything is business as usual within the OCA s PSP.

Page 5 Archdiocese of Chicago Statement in Response to Release of Priest Abuse Files Tuesday, Jan 21, 2014 The Archdiocese of Chicago on Tuesday released the following statement in response to the release of previously secret documents detailing sexual abuse by priests. The documents made public by Jeffrey Anderson relate to 30 Archdiocesan priests accused of abusing minors at various times during the last half century. All of the documents relate to cases that date back many years, in some cases, decades. Ninety-five percent of these cases occurred prior to 1988. Today no priest with even one substantiated allegation of sexual abuse of a minor serves in ministry in the Archdiocese of Chicago. The Archdiocese acknowledges that its leaders made some decisions decades ago that are now difficult to justify. They made those decisions in accordance with the prevailing knowledge at the time. In the past 40 years, society has evolved in dealing with matters related to abuse. Our understanding of and response to domestic violence, sexual harassment, date rape, and clerical sexual abuse have undergone significant change and so has the Archdiocese of Chicago. While we complied with the reporting laws in place at the time, the Church and its leaders have acknowledged repeatedly that they wished they had done more and done it sooner, but now are working hard to regain trust, to reach out to victims and their families, and to make certain that all children and youth are protected. We realize the information included in these documents is upsetting. It is painful to read. It is not the Church we know or the Church we want to be. The Archdiocese sincerely apologizes for the hurt and suffering of the victims and their families as a result of this abuse. Our hope is through this release of documents and the work we are doing through our Office for the Protection of Children and Youth we can help further promote healing among all those affected by these crimes. The Archdiocese of Chicago is in full compliance with the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, adopted by the U.S. Bishops in Dallas in June 2002. We refer all reports of sexual abuse immediately to civil authorities. The Archdiocese s independent Review Board examines the findings of all investigations and makes recommendations to the archbishop regarding fitness for ministry and safety of children. The Archdiocese of Chicago is concerned first and foremost with the healing of abuse victims and has maintained a victim assistance ministry for more than 25 years. In addition, the Archdiocesan Office for the Protection of Children and Youth, charged with assisting victims and their families and preventing abuse, has trained and processed background checks on more than 160,000 priests, deacons, religious, lay employees and volunteers; conducted more than 3,000 training sessions; and trained more than 200,000 children to protect themselves from sexual predators. For more information about the Office for the Protection of Children and Youth, Please visit www.protectandhealchicago.org. The abuse of any child is a crime and a sin. The Archdiocese encourages anyone who has been sexually abused by a priest, deacon, religious or lay employee, to come forward. Complete information about reporting sexual abuse can be found on the Archdiocesan website at www.archchicago.org/departments/protection/protection.shtm.

Page 6 Victims and attorneys release files on #Priest Sex Abuse #ChicagoArchdiocese 21 Jan 2014 Source: http://www.nbcchicago.comnews/local/chicago--archdiocese-statement-priest-abuse-... Chicago Archdiocesan Files Reveal Extent of Sex Abuse Cover-Up Fourteen of the 30 Chicago Archdiocesan priests mentioned in the files are now dead Tuesday, Jan 21, 2014 Thousands of previously-secret documents released Tuesday by the Archdiocese of Chicago reveal in graphic detail how priests accused of sexual abuse were transferred from parish to parish and how concern for the priests' reputations took precedence over their victims. The more than 6,000 pages of letters and internal memos from the 1980s and 1990s also detail the reluctance of church leadership and law enforcement officials to investigate the allegations. The released documents are part of an eight-year-long negotiated settlement between attorney Jeffrey Anderson and the Archdiocese. The files concern 30 Chicago Archdiocesan priests with the abuse dating back more than 20 years ago. Of the 30 priests, 14 are dead. While the abuse crisis has long been reported, the files give the first ever look behind the scenes at how the Archdiocese handled the crisis. There are letters from both Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and Cardinal Francis George to the accused priests, memos on internal church meetings, legal documents, letters from the priests themselves, as well as information as to exactly when church leaders learned of the first allegations. The documents, released by AndersonAdvocates.com, will also be found at BishopAccountability.org. P.S. Time of OCA secretive maneuvers is over. OCA Synod, MC, SIC, SMPAC, Central Administration, please stop playing games with PSP. Be accountable and transparent to God and the people.