PART 3:
EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORT BY
ARCHBISHOP JOHN HIMSELF CONCERNING
HIS TRIAL IN PUBLIC COURT
Photograph printed in the San Francisco Examiner, July 9, 1963
Archbishop John in Court, surrounded by his friends. Left to right: Bishop
Savva, Archbishop John, Archbishop Leonty, Bishop Nektary, Fr. Nicholas
Dombrovsky, and Fr. Leonid Upshinsky.
To the highest Most Reverend President and the Very Reverend members
of the Archiepiscopal Council of the Russian Church Abroad:
In accordance with the decree of the Archiepiscopal Council of November 7/20 and the decree of the Synod of November 20/December 3, 1963, in
the evening of the day of the Entrance of the Most Pure Mother of God into
the Temple, I arrived in San Francisco and took on the administration of the
Diocese....
In March, two weeks had passed since the repose of the Most Eminent
Archbishop Tikhon. According to the request he had made during his life, I
was appointed the ruling bishop of Western America by the Archiepiscopal
Synod on March 1/ 14, with all the rights of a Diocesan bishop. It was decided
to ask all the bishops about my final confirmation in the See.
The Great Fast passed in San Francisco with a great number of worshippers and Asters; and Pascha was met with great spiritual enthusiasm. Interrelations in the congregation were observably being ironed out, and they spoke
of the previous year's difficulties as "former." Having decided that it was time
to continue the construction of the new Cathedral, I, during Thomas Week,
appealed with a call about this, having reminded them also about the approaching General Assembly meeting. The necessity of continuing to build
the Cathedral was also increased by the fact that the authorization for
construction had only been given until June 1st, and only because of my
personal request. Otherwise, the city's permission to build would have already
ended on April 1st; and the additional respite of two months had been given
only upon my request, in view of the change that had arisen in the administration of the Diocese.
On Saturday of Thomas Week there was designated in one general place
a large gathering for the raising of donations for the construction of the
Cathedral. On Monday of Thomas Week I received from the Chief Hierarch
an announcement that on Wednesday there would be a session of the Synod,
and I arrived there on Wednesday morning. Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago
appeared there "accidentally."... He arrived at the session together with other
hierarchs; and to my reminder that he should not participate, he answered
that he had been invited by the Chief Hierarch.
On the second day, there was on the agenda a hearing on the opinions
of the bishops concerning the San Francisco See, and I was asked to leave the
session. I sat waiting in the Synod building for more than four hours, until
the dinner break began. Upon the resumption of the session, after some time
they invited me in again and already another question was being discussed.
Upon my request that they announce the decision about San Francisco, the
decision of the Synod was read, but to the question of how many voices were
for and how many against, the answer was not immediately given since a new
count had been done. It clearly showed that a number of votes were recorded 8 for and 11 against which did not have a decisive significance;
and other subjects were discussed.
At night, a short time after the conclusion of the evening session, people
telephoned me from San Francisco, in order to know how much was true of
the information issuing from the members of the Parish Council, that I had
been dismissed from the administration of the Western American Diocese.
The decision was already well known to them.
On the following evening, having returned to San Francisco, I was met
by a few hundred men at the airport. After this, many gathered in the Home
of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk. The excitement was indescribable. At this time the
news was spread about the letter from members of the Parish Council to the
hierarchs, which was accepted as the reason why the Synod had convened.(..the letter (mentioned in the above newspaper articles) in which Archbishop John was accused of having "Communist sympathies," being "generally unstable," etc.)
The meeting concerning the building of the Cathedral, which was
supposed to take place the next day, turned out to be a meeting concerning
that which had taken place, with an excess of 600 people. A delegation was
sent to the Synod with a request to change the decision. After the delegation
returned from New York, having been denied its request to change the
decision, a second meeting was scheduled with representatives from the whole
Diocese. The excitement and tumult in a large portion of the Russian
population in San Francisco continued, with strong tension, throughout the
course of more than two weeks, absolutely disturbing the balance of a
considerable part of it.
Tremendous indignation broke out against those who had signed the
already-issued denunciation, with the danger of fist-fights, which could have
risen to great proportions. I restrained people as much as I could, since my
presence held back somewhat the zeal not according to knowledge; but to my
profound sorrow, that which had been done to establish peace in the flock
during the course of four months was destroyed in one day, with one stroke....
Archbishop John's report follows with a description of events
which we have summarized here:
After returning from New York, Archbishop John spoke on the
telephone for over an hour with Metropolitan Anastassy. Thanks to
the Metropolitan's influence, the Synod's decision was changed and
Archbishop John's temporary authority in San Francisco was extended for six months.
On May 3/ 16, 1963, Archbishop John announced that on Sunday,
May 27/June 9 there would be a Parish Council election followed by
a General Assembly meeting concerning the construction of the new
Cathedral, which had been halted in mid-course by the existing Parish
Council. He repeated this announcement publicly on two occasions,
and it was published daily in the Russian newspaper.
On May 16/29, Archbishop John received an urgent letter from
the Synod stating that the election must be postponed until June 30.
Three days later he received another telegram from the Synod, full of
threats in the event that he did not fulfill the orders given in the
previous message, and placing all responsibility on him for the situation that had arisen.
These telegrams were received simultaneously or before by Archbishop John's opponents in the parish, who now felt that these
directives freed them from the authority of the ruling bishop. At the
next meeting of the Parish Council, under the presidency of Archbishop John, they spoke freely, without receiving word. "The session,"
writes Archbishop John, "was torn by bitter, abusive speech.... In
view of the chaotic shouts that broke out, I was forced to adjourn the
session."
[On the evening of the next day, Archbishop John's friend Bishop
Savva arrived in San Francisco in order to help him. Ed.]
On Thursday [May 24/June 6, 1963], {All bracketed portions have been supplied by the editors.} the evening Divine Services had
only just ended when an American Court official arrived, attended by one
Russian. As soon as I left the church, he delivered to me a copy of a complaint
of 16 members of the Parish Council and of their collaborators, against 16
members of the former Parish Council,
The "former Parish Council" here refers to ArchbishopJohn's supporters who were originally
on the Council and raised money for the building of the Cathedral. When Archbishop Anthony
of Los Angeles came and haired the building of the Cathedral, he had his own supporters instated
at an election in which he demanded that people buy tickets in order to go to church and vote.
These supporters of Archbishop Anthony formed the Parish Council that filed the complaint.
A few days after this complaint is delivered, the situation changes Archbishop John's supporters
are elected again to the Parish Council, at which time they begin to be referred to as the "new
Parish Council," and Archbishop Anthony's supporters as the "former Parish Council."
and against ME and Archpriest Nicholas Dombrovsky. I was served a Court order which forbade me from
making appointments to have the meeting [for a new Parish Council election]
and from signing contracts [with building contractors in order to continue the
building of the Cathedral. Together with this was a summons to appear in
Court on May 31/June 13. The former Parish Council was charged with
causing losses for the church in the conducting of its economic matters, and
I was charged with covering up [the actions of] that Council, and with having
appointed new elections which would return to power the previous [Council]
delegates.
Bishop Sawa quickly communicated to the Chief Hierarch about this,
and also about the impossibility of postponing the meeting. The next morning, Bishop Sawa received an answer from Vladika Metropolitan [Anastassy],
stating that he was in agreement with the carrying through of the meeting if
Bishop Sawa found it necessary.
On the next day a short hearing of the Court took place, which Vladika
Sava and I attended, together with the lawyers of both sides. The Judge lifted
the restraining order on the organization of the meeting....
[On Sunday, May 27/June 9, the General Assembly meeting
appointed by Archbishop John took place and a church election
held. Despite objections from the existing Parish Council that this
meeting was illegal, a new church warden (Eugene Hrapoff) and
Parish Council were elected, composed of people who supported the
building of the Cathedral. Ed.]
On Thursday, May 31/June 13 the [next] session of the Court took
place. The aforementioned Rt. Revs. Sawa and Nektary and I were permitted
to remain in the court library and not attend. The decision of the Court was
postponed, so that the Court could become more familiar with its business.
On Saturday June 2/15 I received a telegram from Caracas [Venezuela],
from Bishop Seraphim, stating that he protests against the meeting taking
place and considers it illegal.
On Monday, June 4/17, after I had served Liturgy in the Cathedral, I
learned that Bishop Seraphim of Caracas had arrived the night before and
stayed in the church house for clergy next to the Cathedral. He had not
informed me previously of his coming, nor had he made it known to me upon
his arrival; instead, he had apparently informed someone from the Parish
Council who was concerned with lodging. In the course of this day, as well as
the following one, Bishop Seraphim did not consider it necessary to visit me
or get in touch with me, being thus situated in the church house.
On the same Monday evening, June 4/17,1 received a telegram from
Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal concerning his trip as representative of the
Metropolitan. A short time later, Archbishop Vitaly communicated by phone
that he had now arrived; he called from this same church house and asked me
to receive him. When I came there, he told me he had come upon the personal
request of Vladika Metropolitan, and that he had written authority but had
forgotten, now, to take it with him. He also said that the complaint in Court
had not been served on me, but on the former Parish Council; and he was
surprised when I showed him the complaint where I was placed in the number
of the defendants.
Bishop Seraphim presented himself to me only on the third day, and did
not sufficiently explain the cause for such a delay. i proposed to him that he
familiarize himself with the preparation and conducting of the general
assembly meeting for some reason he avoided this, as he also avoided it later
when i asked him afterwards. nevertheless, before my visit, he and archbishop vitaly saw each other with the lawyer of the plaintiffs, and he participated together with archbishop vitaly in a meeting of lawyers supporting
those who had lodged the complaint.
In two days, Archbishop Vitaly showed me the written commission
from the Chief Hierarch, dated June 4/ 17, to come to San Francisco and take
measures toward the establishment of peace. Practically, this expressed itselfin
a lively intercourse of Archbishop Vitaly with the lawyers of the plaintiffs, and
in the presenting of statements to the Court that he as a representative of the
Synod attested to the illegality of the June 9th meeting....
On Monday, June 11/24 ... a session of the new Parish Council took
place. At this meeting a temporary agreement was signed with the building
contractor about doing a small amount of work on the new Cathedral before
the day of June 29/July 12, after which the contract on the main work of the
structure should be concluded....
Archbishop Vitaly departed on the same evening to New York. I immediately reported to the Metropolitan about the confirmation of the new
council. The next day I received a telegram signed by the Chief Hierarch: "Do
not hasten with the decisions and await instructions."
Decrees about the establishment of the new council, and about the
discharge of the duties of the old, were published in the newspaper and
distributed to the members of the departing council. The latter did not
acknowledge these arrangements and did nothing; but Bishop Seraphim sent
me a letter expressing his displeasure that I had published the decree without
informing him.
On June 14/27 the dismissed members of the Parish Council presented
a new complaint as a supplement to the first. The newly elected members of
the Parish Council were added to the list of defendants: THE "JOY OF ALL
WHO SORROW" COMMUNITY AND THE WESTERN EUROPEAN
RUSSIAN DIOCESE. {All capitalized portions are this way in the original.}
On the strength of the aforesaid complaint, the Judge again imposed a
prohibition on any decisions of any of the defendants in regard to church
business, until the court decision. The court hearing was assigned on June
25/July 8. On the day that the new complaint was presented to the Judge, I
was shown a telegram, signed by Metropolitan Anastassy, confirming the
authority here of the aforementioned Archbishop Vitaly and stating that the
June 9th meeting seemed useless and illegal since it had been conducted in
violation of instructions given to me, and that, accordingly, the Parish Council
had appealed. The telegram began with the words "Your Honor" and had no
reference to the question of the Court. In essence, it was a corroboration of
the complaints of the former Parish Council or a complaint of the Chief
Hierarch about the Diocesan Hierarch.
A copy of this telegram, or any communication about it, was not sent
to me. It was shown to us by the Court. It was subsequently published in one
publication with a hostile temper and likewise printed in the bulletin which
is sent by the Secretary of the Synod to the Rt. Rev. bishops. Likewise, we
learned in Court that Archbishop Vitaly, before his departure, had declared to
the Court "in the capacity of representative of the Synod" that the June 9th
meeting was illegal.
It is necessary to note that, on the day of his arrival, Archbishop Vitaly
had presented himself to me as a personal representative of the Metropolitan,
not having received special authority) but in Court he testified as plenipotentiary of the Synod about the illegality of the meeting, although he was not the
representative of the Synod but others were.
On the day of the court session, June 25/July 8 at 10:00 a.m., I set out
to Court. Bishops Savva and Nektary were also with me. The session was open
and there was a multitude of people in the courtroom besides the plaintiffs
and defendants. At the very beginning of the session, Fr. George Grabbe [the
Secretary of the Synod] appeared unexpectedly. As he told me, he had arrived
by the personal instruction of the Metropolitan in order to give the Court
important explanations in the case of necessity.
I knew nothing about his arrival until his appearance in Court, but the
plaintiffs knew and had met him at the airport. After the [court] session he
visited me and thereafter departed with Bishop Seraphim. The next day he was
also present in Court. His continual meetings with the plaintiffs' lawyer
arrested one's attention. After the session, Fr. George again came to me and a
meeting took place with me and the aforementioned bishops here, except for
Bishop Seraphim, who held himself apart. We spoke to him about our view
of the situation: namely, about the fact that he had arrived [in San Francisco)
with no written authority. On the third day of Court, Fr. George testified as
an expert witness....
The Judge wanted to know on which section [of the Regulations of the
Russian Church Abroad] the plaintiffs had based their claims. After an
attempt to find this section, in view of the inconsistency of the English
translation of the Regulations, the Judge postponed the business, having
granted to Fr. George Grabbe to prepare a report for tomorrow's session and
to show it to me. Fr. George prepared this report together with (or at all events
being found with) the plaintiffs' lawyers. Fr. George did not appear on the
following day, however. The plaintiffs' lawyer gave a speech which was chiefly
directed against me.
The accusations were so many that the Judge said that, if each one were
considered, the business would never end, and that for the sake of shortening
the time it was necessary for the lawyers to come to an understanding and, as
far as possible, come to an agreement. The Court session was suspended until
further notice.
Fr. George Grabbe flew to New York, having sent me a copy of the proxy
which had been sent to me in San Francisco from the Metropolitan and
marked with the date of the eve of his [Fr. George's] arrival here.
On Sunday, July 1/14, as it became known to me, three lawyers of the
plaintiffs arrived at the Synod. They were presented to Vladika Metropolitan
and thereupon deliberated at his place with Archbishop Vitaly, who had
arrived [at the Synod headquarters] again, and with Archbishop Nikon and
Fr. George Grabbe. Their meeting lasted for more than four hours. The
conference of the lawyers appointed by the Synod on the following week led
to nothing. The lawyers of the plaintiffs did not come to any agreement, and
all the proposals of our lawyers were rejected.
The Judge, wishing to end the business in peace, for which he repeatedly
called in his talks in Court, adjourned the session. Finally, a session was
appointed for Tuesday, July 10/23, which took place behind closed doors,
with right of entry only to lawyers.
On the same day a session of the Archiepiscopal Synod was appointed.
I was informed of it after it had already taken place, just as on two or three
previous occasions they had arranged sessions and considered the business of
the San Francisco Diocese without making it known to me....
The Archiepiscopal Synod did not take the existing situation into consideration in its wish to support the [former] Parish Council.... The Parish Council of
this composition ceased to exist, since its members departed from obedience to their
superior-bishop. They brought an action against him in Court. They were removed
from office by the Decree on the confirmation of the newly elected Council,
after which they added to the first complaint another suit against the "Joy of
All Who Sorrow" community and Diocese.
In this way, at the present moment, the former members of the Parish
Council are involved in a lawsuit against their superior-Bishop of the same church,
community, and Diocese. How, then, are they able to represent this community
whom they put on trial; how are they able to be "assistants to the superior " (section
36.2 of the Regulations) while not obeying him...
Such is the situation on the present day, July 17/30, 1963....
I turn to ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
ABROAD. I have explained as much as possible the facts of church life in San
Francisco so that the conditions will be more clear because the situation here
is the same situation in which the whole Church Abroad finds herself.
Such a situation that of the San Francisco [Diocese] could happen
tomorrow to any Diocese, any bishop. The Council of bishops made known
decisions, and the governor of the Diocese was charged with carrying them
out in life. The Synod reminds, it orders to hasten the fulfillment of these
decisions, and itself hinders this fulfillment by its own decrees and instructions....
Would they [the plaintiffs] have been able to become insolent and
openly fight against church authority if they had not received support for
themselves from other church authorities? These educated people, each individually and in the majority, are not bad people, but they are not church-conscious enough to know the church order of things.
Is it permissible anywhere, even in a completely worldly institution, for
the highest authorities to give instructions to their representatives, and then
to simultaneously incite and support the subordinates of these representatives
against the representatives?
Is it possible to imagine this, even in a commercial establishment having
as its general purpose the increase of profits? With what kind of names would
they slander those who found themselves guilty how would any institution
treat them?
Nevertheless, that which is hard to imagine even in non-Christian
institutions and establishments (except for those which reject moral principles) is widely practiced where all should be accomplished according to the
word of God and the canons of the Church....
Thus, the same relations of the Synod with the discontents constantly
arise due to the fact that adequate pastoral measures are not taken for the
purpose of spiritual strengthening, as far as administrative decisions and
actions are concerned, and this causes injury to the side accused. So it was in
what happened to me heretofore, which I experienced three ago in the
business of the Western European Diocese, especially in the last months, when
I became once more a member of the Synod. In the beginning I did not
especially feel this, since the presence of Archbishop Afanassy and Bishop
Sawa controlled that which was coming out officially from the Synod.
After their departure and the coming of a new session, however, business
set off with unrestrained swiftness, with no control, without hearing the
opinion of the one who governed the Diocese. Decisions flew out provided
only that they satisfied the plaintiffs and displayed "impartiality"! The decisions of the "Synod" were now received by, or at least transmitted to, the
discontents directly, and often earlier to them than to me. More than once in
San Francisco they spoke about imminent events before they happened, but
almost never did the Synod send for an opinion [from me] about the
complaint received. Thus it was with the session of April 12/25 of this year;
and thus it was with the session of May 16/29, which proved, through a
combination of many crude violations of the position of the Church Abroad,
to be unfounded and an obvious absurdity.
The May 16/29 session [of the Synod], under the presidency of the
Chief Hierarch and with the attendance of Archbishops Nikon and Averky
in which Archbishop Vitaly participated "by chance," having "appeared in the
Synod" was conducted in hasty order, without communication and notification to the members of the Synod besides those present, and without
inquiry into the opinion of the Diocesan Hierarch, who is entitled to participate in the business of his Diocese with the deciding vote even if he is not also
a member of the Synod. The business was decided on rudiments of knowledge
received from people who obviously were interested in delaying the convocation of the meeting, on the assumption that some negligence had occurred,
without verification of this information; the appointment of two representatives of the Synod displayed obvious mistrust for the Diocesan Hierarch; and
the delay of the [General Assembly] meeting contradicted the decision of the
[Archiepiscopal] Council about arranging it in the shortest time....
By these actions, the Synod allowed an exceeding of its authority which
cannot be justified by anything. The execution of the illegal decision of the
Synod threatened church life with great complications and not only did not
bring peace, but, on the contrary, provoked new complications and shocks.
And so the session of May 16/29 was: 1 ) incorrectly convened; 2) guided
by one-sided information, without a statement from the Diocesan Hierarch
to the Synod; 3) an invasion of Diocesan life and a violation of Diocesan
authority; 4) an exceeding of its [the Synod's] authority, as was shown by the
suppression of the Archiepiscopal Council's decision and by the coercion of
this Council, which was responsible for the execution of its decision and failed
tO follow through with it; and 5) the cause of a decision which was accepted
on the basis of only one side, and which was actually impractical without great
complications and shocks to parish and Diocesan life.
In viewof ALLTHE AFORESAID, I APPEALTO THEARCHIEPISCOPAL COUNCIL. I ASK THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGE AS ILLEGAL
AND HARMFUL THE DECISIONS FROM THE MAY 16/29 SESSION
OF THE SYNOD ITSELF AND ALL FURTHER ACTIONS WHICH
PROCEEDED FROM THAT DECISION, which have served as a source of
new disturbance and discord. In all, it was thirteen days before [this decision]
that the Chief Hierarch wrote [to me]: "You are able to work with all the
fullness of power of the Diocesan Hierarch, taking all measures necessary for
the peace and good order of the Diocese" (letter from May 3/16) and now
this power is limited WITHOUT ANY LEGAL FOUNDATION.
The telegraphed instruction of May 21/June 3 not only was a direct
threat to the Diocesan Hierarch in the event of his failure to carry out
instructions which he, in conscience, was not able to carry out, but also, in
being simultaneously communicated to interested persons, IT PROVED TO
BE AN INCITEMENT TO MUTINY AGAINST THE RULING HIERARCH.
Furthermore, the "Synod" supported the mutiny secretly and visibly,
being found in continual dealings with people who undertook actions which
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SYNOD CONDEMNED A YEAR AGO.
The "Synod" transmitted all the information necessary to these people, and
then appeared openly in Court in support of them. This support went so far
as to become an attempt to exert pressure on the Court by sending a telegram
signed by the Chief Hierarch, both before the Court's decision and after the
decision was received. This support showed itself also in the later decisions of
the Synod.
The impression appears that the "Synod" or rather, persons who speak
in its name—is bound up with those who were elected to the Parish Council
of the preceding year, who want to retain power for themselves or at least for
their close associates and those of one mind with them,,be this by lawful or
unlawful means.
In every parish, there are people who are dissatisfied with the way things
are. There were also such people in San Francisco before the present disturbance. But the creation from them of a united group working now in defense
of the local church authority, now against it, now in accordance with the
canons, now in contradiction to them, but always unanimously and obstinately, is not just a local phenomenon, but is now guided by someone who is
near to the Synod.
With this explanation, all that happened in San Francisco becomes
understandable, from the beginning of the origin of the disturbance even to
this day. Certain events which arose in other dioceses also become understandable.
What then are the consequences? The authority of the Synod is nearly
annihilated.
They [i.e., those who speak in the name of the Synod] do not respect
those whom it [the Synod] now protects, since they know how to compel it
to fulfill their smallest wish and through whom to bring pressure if this will
not be done immediately.
They have ceased to respect even the former loyal offspring of the
Church Abroad who have guarded her faithfulness in the fire of trials and now
have felt themselves to be her stepchildren.
That which happened in San Francisco has quickly spread to all the
Diaspora and threatens the existence of the whole Church Abroad with a
falling away of part of her offspring in general from the Faith.
Recently, the still glorious and esteemed name of Metropolitan Anastassy was covered with disgrace because of the contradictory decisions, the
appeal to the Court and other actions which have injured his prestige, not only
in our flock but also among those of other faiths, since they proceeded from
his name.
We, his closest collaborators know how incompatible this is with his
character, and we are unable to lay complete responsibility for this upon him.
However that may be, there are also conditions which outwardly issued
from his name, degrading his and our Church. With pain it comes about,
then, to watch and see the breakdown of the Church Abroad, profitable only
to her enemies. We, her hierarchs, cannot allow this, nor this: that one
organized group should dominate over the other bishops and by any means
promote whatever that group wants.
As one of the oldest bishops of THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ABROAD
AND HER SYNOD, I TURN TO MY COLLEAGUES AND IN THE
FIRST PLACE TO OUR ESTEEMED CHIEF AND EMINENT CHIEF
HIERARCH, METROPOLITAN ANASTASSY WITH AN APPEAL,
AND I REQUEST THAT THERE BE ASSEMBLED, AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE, AN EXTRAORDINARY ARCHIEPISCOPAL COUNCIL
SESSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCH ABROAD
AND FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE QUESTIONS DISTURBING
AND HARROWING HER. I ask all eminent colleagues to respond to this
appeal.
Member of the Archiepiscopal Synod,
Archbishop John
July 23, 1963: The appearance of the Most Holy Mother of God on the
Mountain of Pochaev, the Miraculous Icon of the Most Holy Mother of God,
Joy of All Who Sorrow with the coins in Petrograd.
{In 1965, when court proceedings were still going on in San Francisco in the
wake of the trial, Archbishop John paid a his flock in France. One
Frenchman describes the scene that occurred at the end of this visit, as Archbishop
John was boarding the plane to return to America:
"Those of us who saw him during the last year of his life could clearly observe
how he was melting away before our eyes, how his strength was leaving how all his
energy was being drained by the persecution. He was in such a terrible state that it
was apparent what the persecution was doing to him. He was often very serious.
Being clairvoyant, he of course knew that he was leaving us forever, but we did not
know this. I saw him off at the airport and was even allowed to accompany him
into the plane. He was especially serious; he could not even talk. When I told him
just before entering the plane, 'Please look back, your flock is looking at you with
love, 'he turned around sadly and three times blessed us all for the last time. And we
never saw him again. Early that summer one of his spiritual sons received a letter
fiom him, stating, 'Ifyou hear that have died, know that I was killed. 'And shortly
thereafter we heard the sad news that our dear Blessed John died. " (Blessed John
the Wonderworker, p. 138.)}
Home
Part 1: Introduction to the Trial
Part 2: Newspaper Articles on the Trial