Rowe, Rowe, Rowe Your (Sinking) Boat

Excerpt from Rape and the Holy Man (posted 2018)

WHEN REPORTING THE STORY BECOMES THE STORY

This JTO editor was one of many who was a recipient of Carole Stephen's numerous e-mails over the last four years. It was difficult to divine the facts and easy to feel helpless to act, being on the outside looking in. As providence would have it, I entered the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on May 28, 2017. I did not make the connection that I was entering the same Orthodox Jurisdiction as Father Matthew Williams until a few months after that. We now share the same Bishop. The thought that I might eventually see Father Matthew Williams face-to-face, that he might concelebrate in a joint service with my own priest, in my own parish church, brought a discomfort to me, one that I could not ignore. I began to reconnect with Carole Stephens and talk with her personally via e-mail. I assured her that I was compelled to act, not only for her sake and the sake of her daughter, but I had a holy compunction driven by the words of Christ. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." My lack of action would be as grievous a sin as what has been exposed here. At this point and in this case, it is not the mother making the complaint to the ROCOR, it is a member of the ROCOR. In a legal sense, the allegation of sexual misconduct is brought by the mother and not by this writer. In an ecclesiastical sense, the ROCOR is compelled by their own Policies and Procedures to take this mother's account from my hands, making sure, this time, that the event is "diligently investigated" while remembering that, "The person making the complaint is assured of an understanding and respectful reception" and that this complaint is "responded to with justice, compassion and charity for all person's involved."

Fr. Mark Rowe

With the ROCOR Policies and Procedures in mind, the JTO editor prepared a cover letter along with the full context of this post for the ROCOR Metropolitan, with the intent being to deal with the matter in a more private manner and foregoing the public posting. After first presenting the material to my local priest to get his advice and counsel on the matter, and taking him up on his offer that he would get the materials to the Metropolitan rather than me mailing it directly to the Metropolitan's office, I was surprised and disappointed to later discover that Father Mark Rowe, the "boss" of my local priest, intercepted and read the letter and document addressed to the Metropolitan. He justified this by saying, in a subsequent phone call, that, "This is the way it is done...No one sends communication directly to the chief hierarch." Where is this rule found that one can't talk directly with his or her pastor and who appointed this priest to be the spokesman and chief interceptor of communications sent to the Metropolitan? I would venture to say that there is no such rule and Father Mark Rowe appointed himself. Father Mark Rowe and other ROCOR priests would do well to familiarize themselves with their own procedures regarding reporting clergy sexual misconduct: 

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.  [1.b. Procedures, The Policy and Procedures of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Regarding Sexual Misconduct by Clergy]

The key word here is "directly" to the Metropolitan's office. Not only did Father Mark Rowe not encourage me to talk directly to the Metropolitan's office, but he inferred that doing so is forbidden: "...no one sends communication directly..."  In this case, Father Mark had no authority to open, read, advise, or in any other way offer unsolicited instruction related to the document and letter addressed to the Metropolitan. Archpriest or not, Father Mark Rowe did not follow ROCOR's own procedures to which he as a clergy is bound. It is not up to Father Rowe or any other local priest to filter, approve and in any other way decide whether or not a communication should go directly to the Metropolitan's office, especially in a matter of clergy sexual misconduct. 

By his own admission, Father Mark Rowe is a priest, not a bishop, nor an official spokesman for the office of the Metropolia in matters of clergy sexual misconduct. He is an Archpriest of a Western Rite ROCOR Mission in Sarasota, Florida. In this case, he far overstepped his authority and a subsequent phone call with the JTO Editor revealed part of his motive.

In the phone call set up by my local priest, Father Mark Rowe initially reverted to the default, knee-jerk, circle-the-wagons, protect-the-institution position, by lashing out at the JTO editor, saying, "That document, frankly because of the way that you basically tell him, 'hey if I don't get the answer that I want, I'm blasting this all over social media...' "  At that point in the conversation, I could only think of the mother, Carole Stephens, and the years of similar intimidation she had endured, trying to get someone to listen and show some godly integrity. It seems that ROCOR and a few of its sister jurisdictions have an unofficial system of filters through which information regarding sexual misconduct of its clergy must pass. If one does not know the established procedures of reporting, then they may have to endure what Carole Stephens did when she was confronted by these filters from several priests. First, comes the seemingly consoling words, but they are soon laced with subtle warnings, then the criticism as to the methods, then the unofficial brush off, then the ad hominems such as "unstable woman" when she dared to take it public. 

It took Father Mark Rowe no more than three minutes into a one-hour phone conversation with the JTO Editor to jump right to the criticisms. It took him only three seconds to realize that he couldn't bully me as he might a grieving mother. Father Rowe backed down and apologized only after I cut him off, talked over his attempt to talk over me, and told him that the conversation was over and would only continue if he would be just a "little more courteous" and did not impugn my methods or character. I also let him know that I would decide my own actions in this matter and did not care what anyone thought of me. I reiterated to him that my heart and first choice was not to "blast" anything and that I was trying to help a girl who had been raped (allegedly) by one of our priests. He said, "You're right. You're right. I apologize if it came off that way." I also informed him that I would not discuss the matter with him unless or until he was officially assigned by the Metropolitan to reinvestigate the matter. The rest of the phone conversation was he predominantly talking, and cutting me off numerous times in the middle of a sentence. However, the bulk of his diatribe was agreeing with the content of the document, communicating that something did not pass the smell test with Father Matthew, that the 15 Questions contained in the document was his favorite part, that it was not necessary to have the victim come forward to adequately investigate, that the victim's own e-mails may constitute new evidence that warrants a new look into the matter, and that he would love to be appointed to re-investigate the matter. The most startling revelation in his diatribe was when he revealed that he, himself, was part of a "group" a while back that discussed priests that were having issues and that "this case came up." He said he remembered specifically that she (the victim) was not willing to cooperate and that's where they "left off." Father Rowe also pointed out that this case originally went through the "protocols of sexual abuse cases in the Russian Orthodox Church."

So this ROCOR priest and, by his account, a group of ROCOR priests, knows and have known of the allegation toward Father Matthews Williams. Did the determination that "she was not really willing to cooperate" take into account her alleged call to one of their fellow priests, Father Anastasy P. Vatrelis, just hours or days after the event? Was Fr. Anastasy P. Yatrelis in that "group" with Father Rowe that day? Would not such a call from the 15-year-old victim constitute cooperation, at least for the purposes of verifying that an event occurred?

***

Arkansas

Holy Transfiguration Orthodox Church

292 Co Road 390 Mountain Home, AR 72653

Phone: 815-258-3668

www.ozarksorthodox.com

Rector: Archpriest Mark Rowe

Email: fr.markrowe@gmail.com