The noble cause defended by Patriarch Teoctist's supporters excuses excesses which do not shock anybody. Let's say it from the very beginning: the publication of a document belonging to the former Securitate implies certain deontology-related problems. The credibility of the information included in such a document is undermined by the fact that it is difficult to confirm its validity by resorting to a second source. Two months ago, when "Monitorul" published a document of the Securitate which indicated that the Patriarch had been a member of the legionary movement, that he had participated in the 1941 rebellion in an active way, this gesture was not motivated by the intention of launching a crusade or by that of proclaiming the truth of the above-mentioned document. Its unique justification was the intention of submitting this document to the public debate. We should remind you that the article published in "Monitorul" contained many question marks and resorted to many conditionals. The fact that the Patriarch could have been blackmailed by the communist regime was presented under the form of a hypothesis. But these nuances, which should be added to the problem, do not mean that this item of information should be abandoned; on the contrary, we should double our efforts in order to elucidate this embarrassing case. Let's admit that the fact that the Patriarch's chair might be occupied by a former active extremist, who might have been involved in compromises with the communist regime, makes us thrill. Meanwhile, the Teoctist scandal has already entered the second act. It is like the recurrence of a disease incompletely cured. A daily paper from Bucharest, "Libertatea", published another document of the former Securitate which, unfortunately, emphasized the Patriarch's sexual past. Teoctist's unconditional supporters have started to speak very recently, when the accusat