Are you saying a metropolitan does not have the right to censure a priest?
A metropolitan has the right to censure a priest in his diocese, but a priest has the right to an independent and unbiased spiritual court. He has the right to reject a juror. If he believes one of the jurors may be antagonistic to him, he can request that the juror be replaced by someone else. If he is not satisfied with the court’s verdict, he has the right to an appeal. Moreover, a metropolitan cannot take part in any of the judicial process.
In our Church, we do not even have a chance at such canonical order. Metropolitan Agafangel simply censures whom he pleases and that is that. Apparently, the Metropolitan believes that his verdict is final and immutable, like the last word of God on the day of the Last Judgment. It is especially outrageous that the Metropolitan usually tries those who are demanding a trial of him. How can the accused suddenly become the judge of those who are accusing him? This sends a clear message; anyone who dares to complain will be dealt with. Simply put, lawlessness and coercion have become the norm and the law for us.
Should a censured priest obey the censure and not serve? He should not serve until the trial, which according to the canons should be set at the earliest time possible. But for us, there is no talk of a trial. The censure issued by the Metropolitan is open-ended and there is no possibility to free oneself of the censure, unless you get on your knees before the Metropolitan. Therefore the censured priest acts lawfully, when he ignores such a censure, levied in opposition of the canons. To submit to the censure would mean to countenance unlawfulness and permits the strengthening of the established dictatorship.
Let us not forget that by censuring priests, Metropolitan Agafangel denies the parishioners any services. How could, for example, all three priests in Izhevsk who were censured by the Metropolitan obey the censure? Who would take their place in their parishes?
The All-Diaspora Council is being convened just for that purpose, to restore canonical order in the Church, to summon a Ecclesiastical Court and provide an opportunity to all those previously accused a chance for an acquittal from the Council.