Reject the Invitation, Blame the Church

Someone has written a letter to the Holy Synod. No one signed it. It claims to speak for "the faithful of the Cathedral Church of Saint Sava, Cleveland, Ohio," and it has been circulated to clergy and parishes across the Diocese of Eastern America. It asks the Synod to intervene over the head of the Diocesan Hierarch. It describes exclusion, silence, and suffering. What it does not describe is anything the authors themselves have done.

The letter claims that for over twenty-two weeks, "a large number of the faithful remain outside their church." What it does not say is why. The doors of Saint Sava Cathedral have remained open for every scheduled service throughout the entirety of this period. No parishioner has been denied entry to the Divine Liturgy. The choice to remain outside is precisely that: a choice, made by individuals engaged in an ongoing demonstration against a lawful clergy transfer and a canonically appointed Temporary Board of Trustees operating under Article 47 of the Diocesan Rulebook.

The letter laments that children have been separated from the liturgical life of the Church. This is a serious concern, and it deserves a serious answer. The adults responsible for those children are the ones who have chosen to keep them outside. No child has been turned away from the cathedral. To place children in the middle of an ecclesiastical dispute and then appeal to the emotional weight of their absence is not testimony. It is leverage.

The letter references court summonses, police involvement, and access restrictions. What it omits is the conduct that prompted those measures. Nina Marković, who has organized and led the demonstrations outside the cathedral throughout this period, was issued a cease and desist letter regarding her activities on church property. She has continued to appear and to organize in violation of its terms. The letter asks why the faithful are outside. The documented record already answers that question.

Beyond what the letter omits, there is the matter of how it was sent. Bypassing the parish priest, the Temporary Board, and the Diocesan Hierarch to appeal directly to the Holy Synod is not a minor procedural misstep. It is a fundamental breach of Orthodox ecclesial order. Article 68 of the Diocesan Rulebook establishes a clear chain for complaints and appeals: through the Executive Board, through the parish priest, and to the Diocesan Administrative Board. The authors of this letter followed none of it. The reason is plain: that chain leads through Bishop Irinej, and the entire purpose of the letter is to go around him. Under the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Diocesan Bishop is the spiritual head of his diocese. He governs it. He is responsible for clergy, for parishes, and for the pastoral life of the faithful within his canonical territory. To write past him to the Synod is not an appeal for help. It is a public declaration that these individuals do not accept the authority of their own bishop, the very authority under which they claim to seek reconciliation. That contradiction is not incidental. It is the substance of the dispute itself.

The letter closes with the assurance that its authors seek not accusation but testimony. Testimony, however, requires a witness willing to be identified. An anonymous letter, circulated without attribution, asking church authorities to act on unverified claims, is not testimony. It is pressure.

There is also the matter of money. A GiveSendGo campaign has been established using the incorporated name of Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Cathedral, soliciting funds from donors under the apparent authority of the parish. It is not authorized by the Temporary Board of Trustees, the only body with legal standing to act on behalf of the congregation. The funds raised are reportedly intended to finance legal action against the Church itself. Donors are entitled to ask a straightforward question: what exactly is there to sue? A bishop exercised his canonical authority over a clergy assignment, a power affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976) and protected under the ministerial exception doctrine. The basis for any civil cause of action remains, at best, unclear. What there is, however, is an unauthorized fundraising campaign conducted under the name of an incorporated religious entity without the knowledge or consent of its governing board. That is not stewardship. It is a matter that invites regulatory scrutiny.

The pattern is worth observing in its entirety. Each time the Church has proceeded with the ordinary life of the parish, the response has been escalation: street demonstrations, media outreach, social media campaigns, and now anonymous letters to the Holy Synod timed to the holiest weekend of the liturgical year. At every stage, invitations to return to the life of the parish have been refused, and each refusal has been followed by a public claim of exclusion. The sequence is consistent: reject the invitation, then accuse the Church of failing to extend one.

Even as this letter circulates with its appeals to dialogue and unity, the same circles have issued a public call for demonstrators to gather at the cathedral this Pascha weekend to "greet" Bishop Irinej "as befits his character and deeds." The juxtaposition requires no commentary. A movement that claims to seek pastoral dialogue does not mobilize confrontations during the Resurrection service.

The faithful of the Diocese and those abroad deserve factual clarity, not rhetorical staging. The doors of the cathedral remain open. They always have.