Hey ROCOR, Do You Concur?

By: Andreozzi & Foote

March 15, 2022

Sexual Violence in Religious Institutions

In recent years, several high-profile investigations have uncovered a scale of sexual abuse in religious institutions that most Americans struggle to comprehend.

It is estimated that in the Catholic Church alone, tens of thousands of children worldwide may be affected.

Sexual abuse is one of the most serious violations of any person’s rights – let alone a child’s rights.

It is rightly condemned in all quarters of society but when it happens in religious institutions in which we place our trust and faith, it seems all the more horrific.

As further reports come to light, the main questions that need answering center on how to tackle sexual violence in religious organizations, hold the perpetrators accountable for their actions, and provide justice and support to the victims?

Child Sexual Violence In The Catholic Church And Beyond

Child sexual violence is not just wrong. It is a human rights violation that sickens most right-minded Americans and may even be a violation of the UN’s Convention Against Torture.

That abuse has affected many children within the Catholic Church around the world is now widely accepted – but the abuse stretches far beyond the jurisdiction of The Vatican.

The Church is an institution that parents, children, and people in all walks of life have historically placed a huge amount of trust in – and many still do.

In recent years, the institution has been pressured into releasing more details about sexual abuse against children by Catholic clergy but, in many cases, it has been less than transparent.

In the worst cases, rape and other forms of sexual violence against children have been uncovered.

Children have a right to bodily integrity, freedom from violence and sexual exploitation. The actions of employees and leaders in the Catholic Church violate children’s rights on many levels and this needs to be treated as a criminal act.

Victims frequently carry their experiences into their adult years and suffer psychological and behavioral problems as a result. Obtaining justice can bring a small measure of comfort.

Unfortunately, more information has come to light about the extent of the cover-ups and denials of justice for victims, serving to make the problem even worse.

The well-documented problems within the Catholic Church have also led to a light being cast upon other religious organizations in America and around the world.

This light is only getting brighter and has implicated institutions like Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormon Church, Jewish Synagogues, and others in child sexual abuse claims.

The Cover-up Of Abuse In Religious Institutions

The extent of the abuse problem within respected organizations in our society has surprised many.

Cases of sexual violence are not merely isolated incidents. A culture of impunity has helped the problem grow in religious institutions everywhere.

Perpetrators have been permitted to continue with their despicable acts due to a lack of accountability and transparency, entrenched power structures that do everything possible to protect the “status quo”, and a propensity to simply “sweep the problem under the carpet” rather than addressing it.

It is unfathomable for most Americans that, in many cases, the leaders of the institution in question were aware of a problem existing but did not act to stop it or simply “relocated” the problem elsewhere.

In many cases, the institution itself (including prominent and powerful leaders at the time) knowingly harbored perpetrators of sexual violence against children or covered up what they knew.

The Urgent Need For Accountability, Justice And Reform In Religious Institutions

There has never been a greater need for more transparency and accountability within organizations that are meant to present our values as a society.

Our children’s right to protection from violence must be upheld at all costs.

This starts with holding perpetrators accountable for their actions, bringing justice to victims, compensating them for their losses, and then reforming institutions to reduce the chances of the same mistakes being made in the future.

Religious institutions – and all organizations that we entrust our children to (including educational and sporting institutions) – must be scrutinized more closely to prevent the types of cover-ups we have seen in the past.

All religious institutions are against violence and should be prepared to change in order to practice what they preach rather than maintain outdated policies that have not worked to protect children in the past.

The Catholic Church recognizes that the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child is “the most important among the rules of international law”.

Yet, the Church and many other religious organizations have shown a historic failure to deal effectively with people who repeatedly violate the basic rights of children.

If the Church is serious about its human rights obligations, it must hold itself to the tenets of the convention – and other religious organizations must also commit to them. It should start by choosing full disclosure of information over the self-preservation strategies that it has chosen in the past.

The more that victims come forward and seek justice, the more pressure will be put on religious institutions to introduce policies that affect real change – rather than just paying “lip service” to the idea of change.

The lawyers at Andreozzi & Foote are committed to helping victims of sexual violence and child abuse hold their institutions to account.

Rest assured that if you contact us, all the information provided will be treated confidentially, including your identity.

Start with a free and confidential consultation with one of our sexual abuse attorneys.

Agency in the Bible: The Human Person Jesus "was" The Father

William (Bill) Schlegel taught Bible history, geography and Hebrew in Israel for over three decades. He is the author of The Satellite Bible Atlas, making the scripture relevant to the geographical locations of the Holy Land. Bill moved to Tennessee, USA after he came to the Biblical Unitarian understanding of the scripture. He currently is the Hebrew translation scholar for the on-going REV Bible translation, as well as a speaker and podcaster.

The audio podcast below is from the Bill Schlegel - YouTube. Bill shares a rarely discussed topic of the role of the Messiah Yeshua as the agent of his father, Yahweh. Bill suggests that a failure to understand the principle of agency has led many, especially Trinitarians, to wrongly misinterpret some scriptures to say that Yeshua/Jesus was God the Son, rather than the Son of God.

Jesus Wasn’t Lying When He Said, “My Father Is Greater Than I”

Did God Wear Diapers?

...and, no, you can't say "it is just Jesus' human nature talking", because your own Council of Chalcedon established that Jesus' two (proposed) natures could not be divided.

"...be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Rape and the Holy Man - Part Five - Too Much Liberty?

I recently received comments on JTO that were derogatory and demeaning character assassination attempts directed toward Carole Stephens, the mother in Rape and the Holy Man (see Parts One through Four). I refused to post them; I did post a JTO Editor comment encouraging the commenter not to use ad hominems. The anonymous commenter then turned his/her ad hominems on me, suggesting that I was a biased and poor journalist and a coward for refusing to post comments with which I didn't agree. When that verbal cudgel and manipulation didn't work, the commenter left it with "your gay LOL", and "I know this story firsthand, you do not."

The argument from authority that this commenter presents, is a logical fallacy. A journalist, investigator, interrogator, or Blog Editor, and the like, certainly do not have to have "been there" to find the facts and come to reliable conclusions. I do not present the matters of the current issue of sexual impropriety of Matthew Williams or the utter failure of ROCOR to advocate for the innocent, from a platform of authority. 

I approach my JTO posts on all matters from the perspective of 

 Fact, Opinion, Judgement, Inference, and Argument. 

I believe I present a balance and understanding of the difference between the five while always preferring to provide factual documentation when it is available as it is the most powerful ingredient of any argument.

That being said, the platform from which I speak about this current issue, was initiated from my "firsthand" experience which may not account for much in the eyes of some but should at least give the reader some perspective.

Here is my firsthand account and the platform from which I speak regarding Father Matthew Williams and ROCOR:

My wife and I served with Father Gregory Williams (Matthew's Williams' father). The church, Holy Annunciation, is in Liberty, TN. My wife, who worked with and was mentored by the Arkansas Chef of the Year, organized and planned the Sunday meals. We both acted as chanters for every service, often being joined by two of our five daughters. I eventually assisted Father Gregory at the altar. We also gave financially and regularly.

Although I was willing and made the offer, Father Gregory refused to allow me to assist him in his publishing house, St John of Kronstadt Press. He also refused my offer to travel with him and assist him on his Haiti mission trips.  His refusals seemed odd and cryptic, especially since he certainly needed the help with both.  After being there a while, I became aware of his practice of nude baptisms (both male and female) and his practice of kissing female parishioners on the lips in public. I was surprised at his wife's candor one day when she told me, "He loves women." He would go on periodic "walking trips", as his wife called them, to an undisclosed destination.

We left the church as Father Gregory became increasingly controlling, demanding and manipulative of our time, even when my wife was recovering from injuries from a fall. His attempt to sell us one of his houses was a red flag. Another parishioner had already bought a house from him, which the church still used as its own. Carole (mother), of Rape and the Holy Man also lived in one of Father Gregory's houses and made payments for years toward purchasing it, only to have it, according to her, snatched out from under her by Father Gregory. When we left, we were contacted by a parishioner who said we were just another few in the long line of good folks Father Gregory had "run off."

Father Gregory had many children. A man cannot be held responsible for all of the conduct of his various children, but there was much talk of sexual impropriety, partying and ruckus conduct by the boys. One of the sons, Matthew's brother, had been arrested for drug related crimes and reportedly admitted to his sexual escapades with female parishioners. When I walked the property, I discovered piles of discarded beer cans and bottles behind an abandoned barn on the property and other evidence of it being the local meeting place for wanton conduct and drunkenness. Another abandoned house was strewn with furniture, clothes, boxes of books and other household goods and a mattress or two on the floor.

I also investigated a couple of cabins on the property. Apparently, they had housed former parishioners and also were used by at least one of Father Gregory's sons. The cabin contained old furniture, various trash and numerous photos scattered about on the floor and table. The photos were of the son and "friends" partying, wrestling half-clad. Along with the beer cans, the houses, the drug-related crimes and the photos, it was obvious to me the nature of the environment in which the Williams children, including Matthew, were raised on that large piece of mountainous property. The less-than-wholesome environment was confirmed by Carole Stephen's experience as expressed in a letter she sent to Father Gregory.

Carole Stephens, our fellow Holy Annunciation parishioner, sent this letter to Father Gregory Williams, after later discovering that the then deacon Matthew Williams had allegedly sexually abused her 15-year-old daughter: Excerpt:

"I will need to speak to you.. and it should be with some representation. It is grossly unfair how I have been used and played by not only my husband, but also what was supposed to be my church. I thought of the church as being a refuge for many years. Had I known about the abuse behind the scenes of my precious daughter, I would have not invested so many years of dedicated suffering and hard-earned money. Nothing is worth the price of supplying cheap little whores for sons who are unseemly. I can only say that at least John was upfront about his misdeed, with his wild parties and proclamations of not loving his wife as he solicited the teenage and young women of the parish... he was easy to avoid. But my [daughter]? As a silent victim? I am in a vice and being held very accountable by the Stephens for this unspeakable crime against a once pious promising [school omitted] student, whose spiritual life was sabotaged by none other than God parents of my family. And when I was trying so hard to have a win."

It was in this environment that Carol Stephens lived with her many children, sons and daughters. Her house was not on Holy Annunciation's 400-acre plot of property but was close enough for the family to walk. Her children basically grew up there, being homeschooled and attending services. The dispute over the sale of Father Gregory's house to Carole occurred after Carole's husband became estranged from the family, leaving her the sole provider. The house was in desperate shape with holes in the floor and leaks here and there. I drove Carole home one day but could not drive all the way up to the house because a deep hole in the dirt driveway made it impassable.

At some point, Matthew and Elizabeth Williams became Godparents to some of Carole's children. One of the daughters at age 15 would later babysit for her Godparents and on one such overnight job would allegedly be raped by Matthew Williams. "I knew I shouldn't have left him alone with her", Elizabeth would allegedly tell Carole later.

I recall one of the after-service meals where Carole arrived late, but Father Gregory would not allow her to eat or stay. I was told the reason for this rejection was because she had missed services. I remember feeling that that decision was quite cruel and a punishment of sorts. Carole says the reason for the rejection was because she had recently brought up the accusation of Matthew Williams' sexual assault to her priest, Father Gregory Williams.

...And the persecution and effort to silence Carole began. Father Gregory sent a letter to Carole in answer to the appeal letter sent out to him and others. It included:

"The incident to which you refer (of which neither Matushka Anastasia nor I knew anything till about a year and a half ago) occurred many years ago. The son in question (also unidentified) was an adult, living away from home. The partner/victim was a minor, but has never contacted us in any way; all we "know" even now is exceedingly vague and mostly 3rd or 4th party hearsay... I can only assume that your purpose in broadcasting this letter (I can only identify about 2/3 of the recipients, most of whom have nothing whatever to do with these issues) is to inflict harm on our family and the Church community..."

After Father Gregory Williams was found dead in an outdoor hot tub on the Holy Annunciation property, his son in law, Father Christopher Stanton, moved to the property with his wife, Matthew's Williams' sister, to become priest of the parish. From there, Father Christopher issued a letter to Carole which included the warning not to "slander" Matthew Williams, thus continuing their family's effort to diminish her.

The persecution of Carole Stephens continues to this day by various clergy, in particular the clergy of ROCOR... and, of course, attackers like our "your gay LOL" anonymous commenter. 

"But no one is able to subdue the human tongue. It is a restless evil full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people, who have been made according to the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth comes blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, these things should not be this way." James 3: 8-10

Also See:

Rape and the Holy Man - The Alleged Sexual Crime of a ROCOR Priest

Rape and the Holy Man - Part Two - Appeal of a Mother

Rape and the Holy Man Part Three - All Are Punished!

Rape and the Holy Man Part Four - Sincerely, Carole Anne Stephens

Happy New Year - ROCOR Style

Proverbs 31:8-9

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice.”

ROCOR, You cannot now expect to be given "time" to deal with the issue of sexual predators in your midst. You cannot now play the victim. "Oh, the evil one is accusing the church!" No. It is you- "Thou art the man", the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, who has facilitated the evils to abound in your midst. It is the righteous who are accusing the church. 

You knew. You have known for years. Father Anastasy P. Yatrelis allegedly knew within hours of the alleged sexual assault of the 15-year-old Stephens girl. How did he allegedly know? Well, contrary to the circle-the-wagons ROCOR narrative, she REPORTED IT. SHE CAME FORWARD. (Please forgive all-caps shouting, but you don't seem to be hearing very well.) She phoned Yatrelis. She had a conversation with Yatrelis. Did any of your ROCOR investigators ask Yatrelis about that conversation prior to the late Metropolitan Hilarion's statement that the investigation "was curtailed due to lack of accusation on the part of the alleged victim" ?

Father Anastasy P. Yatrelis

Did anyone in the ROCOR Hierarchy or anyone who was empowered to deal with such matters, respond personally to the mother, Carole Stephens, all those years ago? No. How about now? In light of the current circumstances and new accusations, have you contacted Carole Stephens? Do you intend to? She has always been willing to meet. She is willing to meet now. Are you? (journeytoorthodoxy@gmail.com)

Does ROCOR Have A Systemic Problem?

This is a link to an article originally started in October of 2022 and just finished today 12/28/2024. In light of current events regarding St Tikhon and Father Matthew Williams, a relevant question arises:

Does ROCOR have a systemic problem 

regarding the mishandling of sexual predators?

Read: 

     Sex and the Seminarian - A ROCOR Systemic Problem?

ROCOR and Sexual Misconduct

 The Policy and Procedures of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Regarding Sexual Misconduct by Clergy

 INTRODUCTION 

Allegations of sexual misconduct by the clergy or other representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (the "Church") cause grave concern to the Church and its members and must be diligently investigated, given the potentially devastating effects they may have upon spiritual and emotional well-being of the victims, their families and friends and the community as a whole. The Church condemns any form of sexual misconduct, especially the sexual abuse of children, as these actions are devastating to not only the victims, but to their families and the community. Moreover, such actions are morally wrong and undermine the faith of many of people with regard to the Church and its clergy. The Church recognizes and shares the pain and suffering of the victims of sexual misconduct, and is eager to address that suffering in order to promote healing of all those who are harmed. The Church expects all its clergymen to abide by the Guidelines for the Clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (adopted by the Council of Bishops in 1956) in all their actions. The Church also seeks "to protect the ecclesio-social and personal life of the members of the Church from violations of the rules of Christian morality" ( Regulations on the Ecclesiastical Court and Legal Procedures of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Of Russia ). The Church is committed to acting swiftly and fairly toward every person involved in an effort to determine the veracity of the allegations, determine what actions, if any, must be taken and offer spiritual and emotional support to those in need. The policies set forth herein have been adopted and published by the Church in order to ensure that the Church responds appropriately to allegations of sexual misconduct. This policy shall to apply to the clergy of the Church, including but not limited to: bishops, priests, monks and deacons who are serving in our parishes, schools and institutions. Priests, brothers and sisters who are members of religious orders and lay persons employed by institutions within the Church are properly subject to the direction and supervision of their religious superiors or employers, as the case may be, and we will work with those superiors or employers to address any situations which may develop. This does not mean that any allegations against these persons are to be taken any less seriously; however, direct jurisdiction for matters involving these persons lies with their religious superiors or employers. With the intention to help those who have been hurt by sexual abuse and other forms of sexual misconduct, and also to make every effort to prevent such incidents from occurring, the Church also invites suggestions as to how this policy might be improved and best implemented in order to meet its goals.

 I. SEXUAL ABUSE INVOLVING CHILDREN 

 A. Policy The Church will respond to complaints of sexual abuse made against a priest or other clergy with justice, compassion and charity. In this regard, all persons involved are to be respected and treated with dignity and love, whether it be the person making a complaint of sexual abuse, the family of that person, the clergyman against whom the complaint is made, the parish or the broader Church community. 

 B. Procedures Any person who intends to make a complaint of sexual abuse against a bishop, priest or deacon of the Church, or against any other clergyman, including subdeacon or psalm-reader, or against a parish warden (starosta), may telephone or may write to their 

Diocesan Office of Clergy Personnel at 75 East 93rd Street, New York, NY 10128, telephone 212-534-1601 

(if writing, please indicate a way that you may be contacted, either in writing, or by telephone). The person making the complaint is assured of an understanding and respectful reception. In some instances, a complaint is first brought to a local priest or an official of a school or other Church institution. In such cases, the person receiving the complaint must advise the person making the complaint that the allegation and the identity of the person making the complaint will, to the extent possible and desired, be maintained as confidential. The person receiving the complaint must also make every effort to encourage the person who has made the complaint to contact the Office of Clergy Personnel directly. The person making the complaint is encouraged to be open and forthcoming with all relevant information in order for the Church to properly investigate the allegations, and, where appropriate, address the problem and ensure that victims receive any pastoral or other appropriate care that is needed. 

There are three judiciary levels in the Church, these being the Diocesan Court, the Court of the Synod of Bishops and the Court of the Council of Bishops. In accordance with the Regulations on the Ecclesiastical Court , "Clergymen are subject to the due process established by law in the civil courts in cases of the violation of civil laws or directives of authorities, or finally, the commission of such political or criminal crimes which may at times entail condemnation and punishment by the Church." Also, "Persons occupying administrative positions within the parish, e.g. the rector, the church warden, members of parish councils and auditing committees, and others in responsible positions in parish organizations, in respect of improper or illegal acts that they have committed, may be judged by the Diocesan Court if these acts lead to the harm and detriment of the parish… and also bring about the… moral decline of the parish… or lead to the harm or detriment of individuals who have lodged a complaint against the incorrect or illegal acts of the parish administration before the Church authorities." In all its procedures, the Church is committed to the careful observance of the civil law as well as the canon law of the Church and the Regulations on the Ecclesiastical Court . The Church shall endeavor to fulfill all legal obligations concerning the reporting of such complaints to the proper civil authorities. The person who brings an allegation against a clergyman will be advised of other reporting options available, in addition to reporting the allegations of the Church. The Church treats all complaints as serious. Even if the complaint made against a priest or deacon does not initially appear to be credible, the Church shall nevertheless take every reasonable step to examine the complaint. However, anonymous or otherwise vague and unspecific complaints may be extremely difficult to investigate and deal with, and, therefore, all persons making a complaint are strongly urged to be as factually specific as possible. The person making the complaint is given the opportunity to relate the details of the complaint personally to the Office of Clergy Personnel and/or to another appropriate representative of the Church. During this interview, the person making the complaint may be accompanied by another person, such as a family member, a friend, an attorney or another trusted adviser. The clergyman involved is informed of the complaint made against him. However, prompt action by the Church in response to the complaint is not, and should in no way be perceived as, a determination of guilt of the clergyman. A meeting between the clergyman and the Church is arranged to review the complaint. During such a meeting, the clergyman has the right to be accompanied by an adviser of his choosing, whether it be a friend or family member, an attorney, or another trusted person. If the clergyman against whom the complaint is made admits to its truth, he is immediately referred for clinical evaluation to determine the appropriate type of professional help that will be needed. He is also removed from his ministry and may have other restrictions placed on him. If the complaint initially appears to be credible, those who may have been abused are offered appropriate pastoral care and other assistance--including professional treatment--as may be needed, which is determined on an individual basis. In the case of any complaint that initially appears to be credible, or if the findings of the preliminary inquiry are inconclusive, the priest or deacon will be referred for clinical evaluation. The clergyman may also be temporarily removed from his ministry and may have other restrictions placed on him. If a clergyman is removed from his assignment, the appropriate person or persons from the affected parish or other ministry are informed of the reason for the removal, so that they in turn will be able to respond in a pastorally-sensitive way to the needs of the parish or other affected community. Decisions regarding any public statements must be made on a case-by-case basis; these decisions must balance the desire for confidentiality on behalf of the person bringing the complaint, the rights of the clergyman against whom the complaint has been brought, and the need and desire to identify and minister to others who may have been harmed by any wrongdoing. If a clergyman receives a clinical evaluation, based upon the recommendations of professionals of such evaluation, he may be referred for treatment. The person who has made the complaint is presented to so that a determination may be made on what steps are appropriate in light of the complaint. Both the person who has brought the complaint and the clergyman have an opportunity to review the summary and to respond to it in writing. The factual summary, and any response by the person who has brought the complaint and/or by the clergyman, will be placed in the personnel file of the clergyman. Personnel files of a clergyman are to be consulted in connection with any future assignments. In the final determination is that the complaint is unfounded, the clergyman will be given ongoing support and assistance, as and when needed, in light of the tremendous suffering of a priest or deacon who has been falsely accused. If he has not been removed from ministry, any public statement will depend on the notoriety of the matter and will take into account the wishes of the priest or deacon involved. If the clergyman has been temporarily removed from ministry, and upon determination that the complaint was unfounded, a return to ministry will take place after consultation with him to ascertain his wishes. Decisions regarding any possible reassignment of a clergyman who has engaged in sexual abuse are made on a case-by-case basis. Reassignment to a parish ministry is rarely appropriate, although there may be ministries in which the clergyman can serve under supervision and subject to certain limitations. Because of the complex nature of each individual case, there can be no hard and fast rules about reassignment. However, when such decisions are contemplated, several factors are used in evaluating the possibilities of reassignment. Among these factors are the recommendations of the professionals involved in treating the clergyman, the feelings of the person who suffered the sexual abuse, and the availability of an assignment where the priest or deacon will be able to exercise ministry within appropriate limits. Care and concern will be given to altering the appropriate person or persons in a situation when and if a reassignment is made in order to ensure proper follow up. 

 II. OTHER SEXUAL MISCONDUCT To the extent that the above procedures are appropriate in cases where a clergyman is accused of sexual misconduct not involving sexual abuse of children, these procedures are applied. Determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. However, the policy of the church with regard to sexual abuse of children applies to other forms of sexual misconduct, and such complaints are responded to with justice, compassion and charity for all persons involved. Complaints of other sexual misconduct should also be made to the Office of Priest Personnel of the Church.

 III. Omitted?

 IV. SEXUAL ABUSE OCCURRING IN PARISHES OF THE CHURCH Although the Church may have ecclesiastical authority over its parishes, which are subject to the canon law of the Church, the Church does necessarily have the same legal authority over all of its parishes as civil courts may. Accordingly, the Church may not be able to strictly enforce this policy with respect to those parishes which resist the Church's involvement in complaints and/or allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual abuse by priests, deacons, brothers, sisters or employees of such parishes. However, the Church is committed to the importance of the implementation of this, or a similar policy in all of its parishes and will endeavor to ensure that all complaints and/or allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual abuse are handled by its parishes in a manner consistent with this policy. 

 SYNOD OF BISHOPS, December, 2005

Doh!

Some commenters remind me of the political pundits on election night in 2016. A lot of blowhards until Trump won.

Will these JTO commenters who defended Matthew Williams now say, "I was so wrong"? I doubt it. These comments shared here are nothing compared to what Carole Stephens had to endure from priests and bishops, and naive' parishioners, who all circled the wagons in an attempt to discredit her.

Fr. John Whiteford9:03 PM

If the woman in question is now saying that nothing happened, isn't it quite possible that nothing of the sort alleged actually did happen? Also, in Scripture we have a clear rule: "Do not receive an accusation against a presbyter except from two or three witnesses" (1 Timothy 5:19). At a minimum, I think this would mean we need a victim actually making a charge, and some sort of corroborating evidence, but here you have an alleged victim denying the charge. Given that, how do you expect the Bishops to assume a priest is guilty when Scripture and the Canons say more is required? The idea of due process is a concept based in Scripture, and even priests are entitled to it.

Anonymous12:42 PM

A not-so-former Baptist tries to slander one of the kindest priests in ROCOR. Go take your nonsense somewhere else.

RobertNG1:17 AM

Do you know Fr. Matthew Williams? He is a kind man and a good soul. When I read these emails, I see nothing but crazed hysteria and slander. This is a disgusting article

Theodore_Harris1:09 PM

Fr Matthews is a saintly priest. St Nektarios was accused of raping nuns, several early desert father's were accused of impregnating prostitutes, but in the end (like this story); we see the same "one" is behind these baseless accusations

Theodore_Harris3:04 PM

Fr Matthew will be expulcated either here or the hereafter. This is an attack from the same "one" who baselessly accused St Nektarios of raping nuns and a particular desert father of impregnating a prostitute. Fr Matthew is a saintly priest and anyone who has known him can attest

Anonymous8:20 PM

I met Fr Matthew in 2023 for a friends wedding at his parish. He let me stay in the room at the church for a weekend. He would come to visit me and chat, making sure I had what I needed. Never a weird feeling and I have good instincts from experience. A kind and saintly man. I think these allegations are baseless. I watched him with his Matuska and children, and his parishioners. Slander and persecution are to be expected for men who are going the work of God. We should keep him and his family (and the girl and her mother) in our prayers 🙏🏼

Rape and the Holy Man Part Four - Sincerely, Carole Anne Stephens

ROCOR! It is incumbent on you to act now on behalf of Carole Stephens, her daughter, and her entire family. JTO will facilitate a meeting or communication with her. Please contact via journeytoorthodoxy@gmail.com. You already have her documentation and testimony in Rape and the Holy Man and in your office via a hard copy report sent to and received by your Metropolitan Hilarion. Look again now with fresh eyes at the criminal conduct of Matthew and Elizabeth Williams and some of your own clergy.

"Better is open reproof than hidden love" Proverbs 27:5

The following is a new statement from Carole Anne Stephens:

          To whom it may concern:

I am grieved to hear about the recent allegations of Father Matthew Williams assault on the parishioners at St Tikhon. I always suspected that since he was so protected by his wife and parishioners and allowed to be ordained as a priest after attacking my own 15-year-old daughter in 2008, that he could eventually victimize his own children.

I was not informed about the attack upon my own daughter until she was in college in 2012 (when my eldest son informed me) and she had passed the age of my parental rights. My whole family became homeless as a result of my own investigation and complaints filed with the metropolitan of the ROCOR. I was deemed a rabblerousing instigator at many parishes where I tried to seek help and lost our property that Matthew's father, the late Father Gregory Williams of the Church of the Annunciation, was selling us on a land contract. My daughter suffered a nervous breakdown at the University of Tennessee and was hindered in her studies for a few years. I am not sure she ever recovered and is unwilling to come forward.

Only, Father Gordon Walker of St. Ignatius in Franklin TN, and Reader, Nathan Lee Lewis were willing to take my part. Father Gordon fell ill with cancer shortly after and passed away. Among those who accused me of slander were Father Christopher Stanton, brother-in-law to Matthew, and Father Kentigern McCaffrey of Cullman, Alabama.

Sadly, we were betrayed by the very godparents of my children, Matthew and Elizbeth and Eleni Jolly, who was the personal godmother of my daughter. Eleni kept silent when I entrusted her to pick my daughter up from the bus station after being sent home after the sexual assault by Matthew. Elizabeth Williams warned my daughter, that "this should never be found out". My daughter had served Elizabeth with childcare and was attacked while at their home near Roswell, Georgia. I filed a police report once I found out, but without my daughter, I had no case. She was over eighteen years of age by then. It was just filed away. My daughter cried jagged tears and spoke with Father Anastasy Yatrelis by phone upon returning from Georgia. Eleni swore she would not tell her parents of her emotional condition. Later, after I found out, Eleni said she did not know why my daughter was crying but allowed her to call Father Anastasy from her house. My daughter and her two daughters were friends. All of my attempts to contact Fr. Anastasy were ignored.

Matthew and Elizabeth did try to apologize by phone once the formal complaint hit the desk of the metropolitan. We went 'round and ' round for hours in this conversation with no real admission of the details. They had a lot at stake. I confronted Father John Oliver at St. Elizabeth's in Murfreesboro, TN as he was the one who set up the phone conversation after Matthew had consulted him. Father John had always been" inaccessible", so it was odd that he should call me. I went to see him at his church in person and he told me he never knew why Matthew wanted to contact me. Father Sommers from the metropolitan office was trying to get me to dismiss the issue with a light apology. Everything that was written by Nathan Lee Lewis in his article, "Rape and the Holy Man" is accurate and true. He is the only one who tried to bring justice.

Sincerely, Carole Anne Stephens