Community Voices: A Thoughtful Dialogue on Church Governance and Free Expression

As our community navigates these challenging times, we've been blessed with thoughtful contributions from various perspectives on the issues facing Saint Sava Cathedral of Cleveland, Ohio. The quality of this discourse reflects the depth of concern for our parish's wellbeing and the Serbian Orthodox tradition.

These comments were sparked by our recent article "Holy Week Disrupted: Bishop's Demand to Silence Community Blog Raises Constitutional Concerns", which reported on the directive issued to Father Dragoslav regarding this blog. The discussion that followed in the comments section demonstrates the complex questions this situation raises about ecclesiastical authority, free expression, and proper governance.

We believe these perspectives deserve to be highlighted in their own right, as they collectively illuminate the complex intersection of canonical authority, parish governance, civil rights, and faithful stewardship. Below, we've compiled three significant contributions that offer different viewpoints on our current situation.

An Initial Perspective on Ecclesiastical Authority

From Observer.orthodox:

As someone familiar with both civil law and ecclesiastical structure in the U.S., I want to offer a gentle but important perspective — not as legal advice, but as I understand the situation.

While the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, it does not prevent religious institutions from managing internal matters according to their own laws and traditions. In the Orthodox Church, Bishops have the canonical authority to oversee clergy, issue directives, and pursue ecclesiastical discipline if they believe Church unity, obedience, or clerical conduct is being compromised — even indirectly.

The continued publication of this blog — particularly during Holy Week — may now be viewed as a source of public scandal or division within the Church. Even though the blog is independently run and the content may have begun as a call for transparency, its ongoing activity may now be doing real harm to Fr. Kosic, regardless of his involvement.

It's worth emphasizing: even if Fr. Kosic had no prior knowledge of the blog's existence or content, he has since acted in good faith by informing parishioners about the Bishop's directive to shut it down and clearly stated that he has no control over the site. He has fulfilled his obligation by bringing the matter forward. Unfortunately, if the blog remains online despite this, it may be seen by Church authorities as a sign of defiance — even if that perception is unjust — and that could trigger canonical consequences well within the Bishop's ecclesiastical rights.

Also concerning is the anonymity of this blog's authors. While the blog critiques a lack of transparency in Church governance, it simultaneously shields its own contributors from accountability. This imbalance shifts the weight of responsibility — and scrutiny — onto those who are publicly identifiable, especially the priest. If the blog's intent is to protect the parish and support Fr. Kosic, continuing anonymously while letting consequences fall on him may be inadvertently doing the opposite.

This is not a comment on the legitimacy of the concerns raised — many may be valid and worth addressing. But the format and timing of this blog, combined with its anonymous nature, are now placing a priest in serious jeopardy. It may be time to reassess whether this method of advocacy is truly helping the community or unintentionally deepening the harm.

A Response on Constitutional and Ecclesiastical Rights

From OrthodoxPublius:

Dear observer.orthodox - or as is more grammatically correct "orthodox.observer":

As someone familiar with constitutional, civil, and ecclesiastical matters in the United States of America I would like to gently point out some issues in your perspective.

1. While you are correct that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses limit government involvement in ecclesiastical matters and the government does take a backseat in internal governance, this blog is not run by clergy and therefore is outside of the Bishops purview. Should the Bishop choose to infringe upon the first amendment rights of the owners of StSavaPerishNews.com, including attempting to limit their free exercise of speech and religion it could then move from an internal matter to one involving the secular courts. The first amendment safeguards the right of individuals to express opinions and raise concerns in a public forum, as long as they are not defamatory or incite unlawful action.

2. There could be many arguments made whether the Bishop does indeed have the right to use his canonical authority to punish priests for the actions of private individuals, especially as you noted, that this blog is anonymously published, and may not even be associated with anyone from Fr. Dragoslav's parish. Fr. Dragoslav has made a good faith effort to prevent further publication of articles by asking that the individuals involved cease immediately, and that is the only action he could undertake as he is not directly involved with the publication and distribution of the blog. If Fr. Dragoslav, or any other individual, made an effort to forcibly prevent the publication of articles it would then trigger the first amendment protections held by the owners of this blog.

3. As for public scandal or division in the church, could the same not be said of the Bishops recent publication of an open letter to His Holiness Patriarch Porfirije, online and in Serbian media, voicing his support for students when the Patriarch made clear that the Church and her clergy were not to take sides in this matter. Did the Bishop and his colleagues not go against a clear directive and therefore cause public scandal and division themselves? This could be considered even more scandalous than a small community blog, as it took sides in what is widely considered to be a political matter and not an ecclesiastical one. The open letter, it should be noted, was first published by two news sites, Nova.rs and N1, known for their open stance against His Holiness and the SOC.

4. These points seem threatening. It seems that you are implying that should private individuals not bow down to the wishes of the Bishop, a priest's career could be in jeopardy. It is not Fr. Dragoslav that is defying the Bishop but private individuals over who the Bishop has absolutely no power or authority, so why would their actions cause the Bishop to punish Fr. Dragoslav? Would that not be an abuse of the power the Bishop holds? Fr. Dragoslav followed the Bishops directive to the fullest and cannot be expected to forcibly close down a website he is not involved in. He is a priest not the administrator of the world wide web.

5. As for anonymity: with the Bishops past actions against those who "defy" his "authority" in mind, in my opinion it is prudent of the owners of the site to keep their identities confidential, at least for the time being. If the concerns raised are valid, then it should not matter who is raising them, rather how will they be resolved? If the Bishop is concerned about these matters, would it not be better for him to come to Cleveland and address his flock and the concerns raised rather than threatening a priest over something he has done his best to prevent.

6. Worth noting, the Supreme Court of the United States has time and again ruled that anonymous free speech is protected, check McIntyre Vs. Ohio Elections Commission. Anonymous speech protects individuals from retaliation, a legitimate cause for concern, especially given the Bishops recent actions.

7. 
   

A Thoughtful Analysis on Governance and Transparency

From a Guest:

As a visitor to this blog who's been following the situation at St. Sava closely, I appreciate the effort to maintain a thoughtful, faithful tone in both the original post and the recent response. Still, I feel it's important to offer some clarity — especially regarding governance, canonical authority, and civil rights.

Yes, it's true that religious institutions have broad autonomy under the First Amendment. But that autonomy is not unlimited, especially when it intersects with the legal rights of parish members and the governance structures defined by church bylaws and state nonprofit law.

In the case of St. Sava, this is not merely a matter of a Bishop issuing a directive to a priest. If the Bishop is refusing to approve a lawfully elected parish board — chosen by parishioners according to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Serbian Orthodox Church in North and South America — then it raises legitimate questions about both canonical overreach and the rights of members under Ohio nonprofit corporation law.

In the SOC's own constitution (notably Article 19 and others governing parish governance), the election and confirmation of a church board involves the Bishop, but requires adherence to due process. Denial without explanation or against procedural norms can undermine both the ecclesiastical and civil legitimacy of leadership. And if intimidation tactics are being used — whether aimed at Fr. Kosic or at laypeople simply exercising their right to speak or organize — that goes beyond internal discipline and borders on unlawful interference with protected activities.

It's also worth noting that the parish itself is a registered nonprofit organization under civil law, with responsibilities to the state and its members. Civil courts have historically respected the autonomy of churches, unless that autonomy is used to suppress the legal rights of members, including rights related to elections, financial oversight, or expression.

The anonymous nature of the blog may not be ideal, but that doesn't invalidate the concerns raised — especially if speaking openly could invite retaliation. Protecting transparency sometimes requires temporary anonymity, especially when people feel voiceless in institutional structures.

To me, this isn't just about a blog or Holy Week timing. It's about a much deeper issue: how a church relates to its faithful, and whether it honors their participation in both spiritual and practical life.

Transparency and accountability are not threats to unity — they are foundations of trust.

Our Reflection

These three perspectives highlight the complexity of the issues facing our parish community. From questions of ecclesiastical authority to constitutional rights, from proper governance procedures to the practical realities of parish life, these thoughtful contributions help illuminate different dimensions of our current situation.

We are particularly struck by the Guest commenter's insight that "transparency and accountability are not threats to unity—they are foundations of trust." This principle guides our continuing efforts to address these challenges in a manner that honors both our Serbian Orthodox traditions and the proper governance structures of our Church.

We invite further respectful dialogue and reflections from our community. As we face these challenges together, such thoughtful discourse strengthens our bonds and helps us chart a path forward that preserves both our faith traditions and proper governance.

Note: We welcome the authors of these comments to contact us if they wish to further elaborate on their perspectives or if they have any concerns about their comments being featured in this post.