Part 1: Introduction
The discription of the trial that St. John faced in his final days on earth is described in the following article from the ORTHODOX WORD, No. 175-176, 1994. It is placed on his web page so that each of us who loves Archbishop John will to some degree realize that God tests His holy ones with trials and burdens. The description placed on this page is not meant to cast aspersions on any Orthodox person or upon the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD or any of its hierarchs.
"A man cannot be so perfect
as to be free from sin, and since everything is subject
to recompense, the righteous man receives for sin a
proportionate punishment, even though his sin may be
minor. So too, if a righteous man endures some
misfortune he will receive his recompense here in
order that he might cast off his sin and enter cleansed
into the Kingdom of Heaven."
(St. John Chrysostom: "Homily on Lazarus")
A Saint's Final
GOLGOTHA
EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORT BY
ARCHBISHOP JOHN HIMSELF CONCERNING
HIS TRIAL IN PUBLIC COURT
Introduction
July, 1963, Archbishop John Maximovitch was tried in a public court in
San Francisco. He was charged with holding an illegal church election and
covering up a misappropriation of funds by sixteen members of the newly
elected parish council, who were charged together with him. The funds
were being collected for the building of San Francisco's new "Joy of All
Who Sorrow" Cathedral, which Archbishop John was trying to accomplish
against great odds. In the end, Archbishop John and the council were
acquitted of all charges, but charges against them continued to be filed
almost until the time of his death.
In July of this year, exactly twenty-one years later, this same
Archbishop is to be formally canonized a saint in this same "Joy of All
Who Sorrow" Cathedral, which was finally built through his prayers,
labors, and tremendous sorrow.
The canonization of Archbishop John is truly a triumph of Orthodoxy
in modern times. Archbishop John, who has been called the holiest man of
the 20th century, serves as a model of Orthodox sanctity for the whole
world. As we celebrate his triumph in heaven, however, we must
remember that there is no sanctity without the Cross. Archbishop
John—like allthe clinic learn
him who have been glorified by the Church—bore a very heavy cross, a cross
which became most burdensome of all during the trial at the end of his life.
Recently, on the eve of Archbishop John's canonization, there have been
attempts to mitigate the reality of this cross, to make the story of Archbishop
John's life "nice" and noncontroversial, so that it will not disturb anyone's
conscience. Three Orthodox journals have recently printed statements that
Archbishop John was not persecuted, that no charges were ever brought
against him in court. Such statements are totally untrue. To deny Archbishop
John's suffering—his suffering for righteousness—is to deny him the primary
means of his sanctity. Are we to remove the Cross from Christianity so as not
to offend anyone's conscience? Are we to gloss over the sufferings that all the
saints endured, or to omit from the Gospels the story of Herod, Pilate,
Caiaphas, the Pharisees, and the crucifixion of Christ—so as not to disturb
people or say anything "negative"? The truth about Christ and His saints must
be told; otherwise, those people today who strive to follow them will not find
the way to salvation—which is precisely the way of suffering and the Cross.
Accounts of Archbishop John's numberless miracles, both before and
after his death, have been told elsewhere.' But if we only tell of his miracles,
without telling of his pain, we are left with Christianity without the Cross. In
our age of self-indulgence, such a false form of Christianity is a big temptation.
Within the Orthodox Church (to say nothing of other churches) its
"theological" formulation is to be found in the false "dogma of redemption";
but in a much more subtle form it is to be found in that "successful," "slick,"
"polished" Orthodoxy which makes one feel comfortable in one's religion,
remaining in the shallow pool of human plans and calculation, and not
venturing into the dangerous depths of Christ.
The true Orthodoxy lived by Archbishop John has been called, in the
words of St. Gregory the Theologian, suffering Orthodoxy. Far from making
one comfortable, this Orthodoxy disturbs one, it shakes one up, it convicts
the conscience, annihilating all forms of self-righteousness and revealing, with
the fiery light of God's Truth, all the lies we have told to ourselves. Fr.
Seraphim Rose, describing how this was embodied in Archbishop John, once
wrote:
In reading the papers of Bishop Sawa, we find addressed to him
the usual complaints about Vladika John (these are the worst things
they can find about him!): that he is irritable, crude, unthinking of
others (for example, because he comes late to services), disrupts the
usual order of things, is a poor administrator, can't be understood,
mumbles and falls asleep in the midst of the most important (worldly)
discussions, that the clergy of the S.F. Cathedral consider it a holiday
when he isn't present. I myself had occasion to witness most of these
phenomena, and I can testify, for example, that on the several occasions
when he was "crude" with me I was extremely grateful and saw
only spiritual benefit in it. In all of this I think there is a hidden
significant fact about Vladika which hasn't been brought out much:
that he refused to allow the Church to become a habit, and by his
seeming crudeness, he tried to jolt people out of the spiritual rut into
which it can be so easy to fall. As soon as Vladika was gone, everything
became "smooth" in the Cathedral and the clergy were content—because-
now they could and did make the Church a habit, incapable of
inspiring anyone except on the capital of the past which has not yet
been used UD (but will be before long!)
One may come to Orthodoxy because of its beauty or profundity or
historical continuity. But if one goes deeper, if one is not afraid to go
underneath the surface, then one discovers a new and startling fact: that to be
Orthodox means to suffer and to be all alone, alone and hurting before God.
Archbishop John tasted deeply of this reality. During the time of his trial, in
spite of all the people who loved and supported him, he was known to have
said to one close parishioner: "I am alone in all this."
True Orthodoxy hurts—but it is alive. When one finds it, one finds the
living, throbbing heart of Christianity, and one will never want to return to
the lifeless mask of "slick" Orthodoxy.
THIS YEAR we are celebrating the bicentennial of Orthodoxy in America,
and at the apex of the year is the canonization of an American saint of
modern times. Let us Orthodox Americans not congratulate ourselves, however.
Rather, let us be disturbed out of our complacency, let us be convicted
at heart. Let us remember that this very saint spent only 3 1/2 years of his life
in America, and that these very years, up until his death, were the most
miserable of his entire life. And his misery was the result, not of American
liberalism or secularism or neo-paganism, but of the actions of Orthodox
Americans. If we Americans are going to celebrate and bask in the glory of his
sanctity, let us also share in the guilt of this crime. It is the crime, not of some
"other" people or of some other "jurisdiction" whom we can smugly point our
fingers at, but of all of us Orthodox Americans. If God sees us, in the midst ofour celebrations, repenting over this common crime, feeling sorry for the
totally unmerited suffering that Archbishop John endured, then surely He will
shower all the more His blessing upon our grace-thirsty land.
In taking on the burden of this crime of Orthodox America, we may ask
ourselves how we can repent over a crime in which we may not have directly
participated. We should remember, then, that in the services of Passion Week,
in speaking of Christ's betrayal and death, the Church exhorts us to implicate
ourselves, to look at the ills of our own hearts, and to see our common
participation in Christ's crucifixion. Let us remember, likewise, that any one
of us could have been Archbishop John's persecutor Often we read, in history
books or novels, of heroes who stand alone in the face of all odds, who go
against public opinion, who are reviled on all sides and yet go boldly on.
Invariably, we laud and admire such heroes of the past and cheer them on.
When, however, we see such a hero right in front of us, living and breathing,
we are likely not to stand by him or her—for the power of public opinion is
too strong, and we are swayed by it without knowing it. Everything is crystal
clear in retrospect, especially when public opinion shifts in favor of a once-
maligned hero after he is dead, as is so strikingly the case with Archbishop
John. Often the same people who persecute a man in life will be the same ones
who honor him in death. It was for this reason that Christ said: "Woe to you!
for you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are
witnesses and consent to the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and
you build their tombs" (Luke 11:47-48). As we glorify Archbishop John, let
us remember these sobering words of our Lord.
These, then, are the reasons why we are printing the following excerpts
from the report by Archbishop John himself on his trial: first, so that our new
saint will not be held up as a model of emulation without his cross in full view;
and, secondly, so that we Orthodox Americans can offer up repentance for
what befell him in our land. But there is a third reason, and it is this: There
may be some who, in reading about Archbishop John's tribulations, find
themselves in a similar situation, who are trying to work for God and yet feel
lonely and abandoned, coming up against absurd obstacles every step of the
way. Let such people take heart, knowing that no matter how hard they have
it, Archbishop John had it much worse—and he became a saint. Moreover,
we deserve to suffer, for we are sinful and have our pure motives mixed in with
motives of self-satisfaction. But Archbishop John was a holy man who did not
harbor ill will toward anyone, who lived a life of total self-sacrifice for God
and his neighbor, who prayed and cared for sick and suffering ones at all hours
of the day and night.
ARCHBISHOP JOHN wrote the following report to his chief hierarch,
the 90-year-old Metropolitan Anastassy, because his brother-bishops—hierarchs
under this same Metropolitan—were actively supporting and aiding the
plaintiffs who had filed the suit against their Archbishop and put him on trial.
These hierarchs had come to San Francisco for this purpose, and were sending
out telegrams in the Metropolitan's name. Archbishop John's report, then, is
an appeal to the Metropolitan, who was then ailing due to extreme old age, in
order to make him aware of what was really happening in the San Francisco
diocese and how some of the bishops were assisting the plaintiffs.
The report reads something like a legal document (it will be remembered
that Archbishop John had been educated as a lawyer in Serbia), and
therefore may be difficult to understand by those without prior knowledge of
the events Archbishop John describes. It is necessary, therefore, to provide
more background information as an introduction to the report. A step-by-step
account of the trial and the events preceding and following it can be found in
Chapter 30 ("A Saint on Trial") of NOT OF THIS WORLD, the biography of Fr.
Seraphim Rose. Here, rather than just reprinting this recently published
chapter, we are including articles from San Francisco newspapers in order to
provide the necessary background. These articles began to appear at the
beginning of Archbishop John's persecution, in April 1963, only four months
after he had come to San Francisco. In comparing them to Archbishop John's
complete report, of which we are printing a portion here, we have found them
to be accurate in their information.
Finally, in introducing Archbishop John's report, we should address the
false claim, mentioned above, that no formal charges were brought against
Archbishop John. The documents of the Superior Court of the City and
County of San Francisco, are still available today for public examination,
plainly show Archbishop John listed with the defendants (the accused).
Some documents, for brevity, cite only Archbishop John and Eugene Hrapoff,
the president of the parish council, as the defendants, and some speak only of
"the defendant Archbishop John." Also, in the report that follows, Archbishop
John himself speaks of how he was listed with the accused.
This report by Archbishop John, translated from the original Russian
version given to US by Bishop Nektary, is an important primary document of
his hagiography in that it reveals many facets of him. First of all, it shows that,
although he avoided controversy and personal attacks, he was bold and direct
when the time came to speak out against unrighteousness. Secondly, it shows
that, contrary to slanders brought against him that he was a "poor administrator,"
he was exceedingly responsible in recording and taking care of every
detail in the life of his flock; and finally, it shows his deep pain over the state
of the Church as exemplified by the actions of his brother bishops and
parishioners. The greatest pain of his life lay not in the fact that he was put on
trial, but in the fact that he was put there by the "right-believing ones"—
members of his own Church, of which we, Orthodox Americans of today,
must include ourselves.
OUR holy Archbishop John! Having obtained the final victory
through the power of the Cross you bore, pray to Christ God to have mercy
on us, to help us bear the Cross, to give us the strength to stand alone in our
stand for Truth, and to stand behind those who are alone today, as you once
were. In our repentance, we magnify you!
—Monk Damascene
Part 2: Newspaper Articles on the Trial
Part 3: Archbishop John's Report on the Trial