In Defense of Fr. Michael Crowley
In a pointed irony, Pokrov Truth tried to discredit Archpriest Michael Crowley’s ability to protect his flock from predators. Yet their own correction admits Fr. Michael knew of a convicted sex offender in his parish, enforced strict monitoring and supervision, informed parishioners, consulted the community, and ensured ongoing oversight. The very update disproves Pokrov's fears while proving Fr. Michael's competence in managing such risks effectively and transparently.
Recently, a Substack newsletter known as Pokrov Truth (a.k.a. “The Grand Inquisitor”) published two articles about Archpriest Michael Crowley, the Bishop-elect of Boston for ROCOR.
It explains that a group of Orthodox “survivors and advocates” has asked Metr. Nicholas of New York, First Hierarch of ROCOR, to reconsider Crowley’s nomination.
It’s important that we take such matters as seriously as possible. So, let’s consider the facts.
Guilt By Association
The complaint hinges upon the fact that, prior to becoming Orthodox, Fr. Michael belonged to a pseudo-Christian “New Age” sect called the Holy Order of MANS. Pokrov claims that Fr. Michael was trained for the HOOM priesthood by Herman Podmoshensky and Benedict Greene. Both men were, at various points in their lives, ROCOR monks. Both were also notorious sexual predators.
We must, then, ask two questions.
Firstly, why would anyone hold Fr. Michael guilty for Podmoshensky and Greene’s crimes? Pokrov does not even claim that Crowley was aware of their sins—much less that he was in any way complicit.
Secondly, what kind of instruction did Fr. Michael receive? Pokrov doesn’t specify. All they say is that Podmoshensky and Greene “were in charge of training the Order candidates for ordination, such as Archpriest Crowley.” The Crowleys lived in Indiana and Maine during this period; to the best of my knowledge, Podmoshensky was based in California while Greene lived in Texas. It’s not clear how intimately he could have known either man.
It seems that Crowley and Greene both belonged to a faction of the HOOM that “converted to Orthodoxy” at some point in the late 1980s. In fact, they joined a schismatic group calling itself the Archdiocese of Vasiloupolis. The AOV was led by Pangiotious Vrionis, a Greek Orthodox priest who was defrocked in 1970 after being convicted of child sexual abuse.
Again, we must ask: does this in itself disqualify Fr. Michael from serving as a bishop?
Crowley’s continued association with Greene may appear suspicious. However, the latter’s abuse was not reported until 2006—long after the Fr. Michael joined ROCOR and relocated to New England.
As with Podmoshensky and Greene, there’s no evidence that Fr. Michael was aware of Vrionis’s crimes. In 2002, Vrionis was convicted of sexual abuse for a second time. Contemporary news reports suggest that many members of the AOV were unaware of his prior conviction. This is not entirely surprising, given the limited ability to access and share such information before the internet.
In short, it’s highly unlikely that Fr. Michael was aware of these men’s sins at the time that he knew them.
‘Expert’ Witnesses
The “testimonies” that Pokrov Truth includes in its article make it clear that the accusation against Fr. Michael is, basically, guilt-by-association.
For instance, “advocate” Melanie Sakoda writes:
Archpriest Crowley’s association with HOOM is troubling to me, particularly since it looks like he chose to omit the association from his resume. It is also concerning to me that I do not see that he has ever spoken out about the crimes committed by Metropolitan Vrionis and Fr. Greene, or the multiple accusations against Fr. Podmoshensky.
Yet it’s possible that Fr. Michael didn’t mention the HOOM connection because he’s embarrassed by it. An ROCOR priest probably would not advertise his previous membership in any New-Age group.
Moreover, it’s not clear why Fr. Michael would “speak out” about Podmoshensky, Greene, or Vrionis, as though he committed some sort of infraction simply by knowing them.
Also, how could Fr. Michael have “spoken out” against Podmoshensky, Greene, and/or Vrionis even if he’d wanted to?
Again, Sakoda says: “I do not see that he has ever spoken out about the crimes” committed by these three men. But where did she look? Maybe Sakoda would prefer it if Fr. Michael had issued a press release to the New York Times or some other, easily searchable newspaper. Yet, even if he’d tried, it’s unlikely the Times would have run a statement by an unknown priest with only a professional relationship to the accused.
So, did Sakoda check the more likely media for such a statement? For example, did she review all of his parish bulletins from the 1980s through the mid-2000s? Did she (or anyone at Pokrov Truth) reach out to Fr. Michael at any point in this “investigation”?
Really, it’s unclear what principle Sakoda is operating upon. If a man commits a crime, is everyone who knows him required to issue a public statement condemning him? And if one of his acquaintances fails to issue such a statement (or if we simply can’t find it easily on the internet), may we assume that she supports his crime? May we even accuse her of being complicit? Would this disqualify her from ever holding a position of authority/responsibility?
That may be Sakoda’s standard. It doesn’t strike me as reasonable, however.
J’accuse?
In a follow-up article, Pokrov Truth attempted to tar Fr. Michael’s reputation further by pointing out that a convicted sex offender attended his parish in Massachusetts until fairly recently. Pokrov had to amend the article, however, in order to include the following information:
• “Fr. Michael Crowley was fully aware of the situation and that the appropriate risk management steps had been taken to ensure [the offender’s] attendance at church was closely monitored and supervised.”
• “Other parishioners were also made aware of the situation and there had been consultation with the church community.”
• “The situation continues to be closely monitored and that [the offender] is also being supported by his family.”
Pokrov deserves credit for being forthcoming with this information. However, it only goes to show that Fr. Michael is more than capable of dealing with such a potentially dangerous situation in a safe and transparent manner.
Full disclosure: I spoke with Fr. Michael on the phone and we’ve exchanged emails on two occasions. Both exchanges took place long before he was nominated Bishop of Boston.
I live near his parish, which is huge—and growing constantly. While I’ve never visited, I know several of Fr. Michael’s spiritual children. They all attest to his deep pastoral sensitivity, his unwavering commitment to the Orthodox Faith, and his deep self-sacrificial love for his flock.
Take that for what it’s worth.
