Pocono Highland Camps: A Legal Case Study on Worker’s Compensation

What was the significance of the Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case. How did the Pennsylvania Superior Court rule on worker’s compensation for off-duty employees. What factors determine if an injury occurs “in the course of employment”.

The Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp Case: Background and Facts

In 1966, the Pennsylvania Superior Court heard an appeal in the case of Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp. This workmen’s compensation case centered around a maintenance worker who died in a fire at Pocono Highland Camp after the summer season had ended. The key facts of the case were:

• The employee, Barrick, worked as a maintenance worker at the boys’ camp during July and August 1960
• After the camp season ended, employees continued doing clean-up work for the same wages
• On September 12, 1960, work ended early at 10am due to bad weather
• Barrick left the camp for personal business and returned to his room in the administration building around midnight
• A fire broke out at 2am on September 13, resulting in Barrick’s death from asphyxiation

Legal Questions Raised by the Case

The central legal question in this case was whether Barrick’s death occurred “in the course of his employment” and was therefore eligible for worker’s compensation benefits. Key factors considered included:

• Was Barrick required to be on the premises at the time of the fire?
• Did his presence on the property benefit the employer in any way?
• What was the nature of Barrick’s employment after the camp season ended?

The case hinged on interpreting Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, which stated that injuries “in the course of employment” included those sustained on the employer’s premises when “the employee’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.”

Conflicting Testimony on Employee Requirements

The court had to weigh conflicting testimony from various witnesses regarding whether Barrick was required to be on the premises:

• Alex Washeleski (fellow employee) initially stated workers were required to remain on premises and were on call at all times, but later said Barrick was free to go where he pleased after work
• Andrew Dippre (foreman) said Barrick was not required to be there at night but may have worked after hours if needed
• Earl Weinberg (camp owner) testified Barrick was not required to live at the camp and was not on call
• Raymond Jacobs (fellow employee) stated they were not required to return until 8am the next morning

Initial Ruling and Appeal Process

The case went through several stages of review:

1. A referee initially made an award in favor of the claimant (Barrick’s estate)
2. The Workmen’s Compensation Board, as the ultimate fact-finding body, vacated the award and dismissed the claim
3. The case was then appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court

The key issue on appeal was whether the Board’s findings were consistent with the evidence and the law. The court had to determine if the Board capriciously disregarded competent evidence in making its ruling.

Legal Principles Guiding the Court’s Decision

The Superior Court outlined several key legal principles that guided its review of the case:

• The compensation authorities’ refusal to find facts in favor of the party with the burden of proof can only be overturned if their findings are inconsistent or cannot be sustained without capriciously disregarding evidence
• While the Board is the ultimate arbiter of facts, appellate courts can review questions of law and how the law is applied to the facts
• If the facts permit only one legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law for the court to decide

Implications for Worker’s Compensation Law

This case highlighted several important aspects of worker’s compensation law in Pennsylvania:

• The importance of clearly defining when an employee is “in the course of employment”
• The role of employee requirements and expectations in determining eligibility for benefits
• The weight given to conflicting testimony in worker’s compensation cases
• The balance between the fact-finding authority of compensation boards and the legal review power of appellate courts

Broader Context: Worker’s Rights in the 1960s

The Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case occurred against the backdrop of evolving labor laws and worker protections in the 1960s. Some key contextual points include:

• The growing importance of worker’s compensation laws in providing financial protection for employees and their families
• Increasing scrutiny of employer practices and employee rights
• The role of unions and labor advocates in pushing for stronger worker protections
• Changing expectations around workplace safety and employer responsibilities

Legacy and Impact of the Barrick Case

While the specific outcome of the Barrick case is not provided in the given text, its legacy likely includes:

• Clarifying the interpretation of “in the course of employment” for worker’s compensation claims
• Establishing precedent for how courts should review compensation board decisions
• Highlighting the importance of clear employer policies regarding off-duty expectations
• Potentially influencing future legislation or policy changes related to worker’s compensation

Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees

The Barrick case offers several important lessons for both employers and employees:

• Employers should clearly communicate expectations for employee presence on premises outside of regular work hours
• Employees should understand their rights and responsibilities regarding injuries that occur on employer property
• Both parties should maintain clear documentation of work requirements and any incidents that occur
• The importance of consistent testimony in worker’s compensation cases

Evolution of Worker’s Compensation Laws Since the 1960s

Since the Barrick case in 1966, worker’s compensation laws have continued to evolve. Some key developments include:

• Expansion of coverage to include more types of injuries and illnesses
• Increased focus on workplace safety and injury prevention
• Changes in how courts interpret “course of employment” in light of modern work arrangements
• Growing recognition of mental health issues and stress-related claims
• Adaptation to new industries and job types, including gig economy workers

Comparative Analysis: Worker’s Compensation in Other States

While the Barrick case focused on Pennsylvania law, it’s instructive to compare worker’s compensation approaches across different states:

• Variations in eligibility requirements and covered injuries
• Differences in benefit calculations and duration
• State-specific interpretations of “course of employment”
• Varying roles of state agencies vs. private insurers in administering benefits
• Unique provisions for certain industries or types of workers

The Role of Precedent in Worker’s Compensation Law

Cases like Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp play a crucial role in shaping worker’s compensation law through the principle of precedent. This concept involves:

• Using previous court decisions to guide rulings in similar current cases
• Ensuring consistency and predictability in the application of the law
• Allowing for gradual evolution of legal interpretations over time
• Providing a framework for lower courts to follow in their decision-making

Challenges in Applying Worker’s Compensation to Modern Work Arrangements

While the Barrick case dealt with a traditional employment situation, modern work arrangements pose new challenges for worker’s compensation law:

• Remote work and telecommuting: Determining when a home office qualifies as a work premises
• Gig economy and independent contractors: Establishing employer-employee relationships
• Flexible schedules: Defining “work hours” when employees have non-traditional schedules
• Multiple job holdings: Determining liability when an employee works for multiple employers
• International and cross-border work: Navigating jurisdictional issues for global employees

The Intersection of Worker’s Compensation and Other Employment Laws

Worker’s compensation laws don’t exist in isolation. They intersect with various other employment laws and regulations:

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Accommodations for injured workers returning to work
• Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Coordinating leave for work-related injuries
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA): Prevention of workplace injuries
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): Implications for overtime and work hours
• State-specific employment laws: Varying protections and requirements by jurisdiction

The Economic Impact of Worker’s Compensation Cases

Cases like Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp have broader economic implications:

• Costs to employers for insurance premiums and potential payouts
• Financial security for injured workers and their families
• Incentives for workplace safety improvements
• Impact on industry competitiveness and labor costs
• Potential influence on employment practices and hiring decisions

Ethical Considerations in Worker’s Compensation Cases

The Barrick case raises several ethical questions related to worker’s compensation:

• Balancing employer interests with employee protections
• Ensuring fair treatment of workers in ambiguous situations
• Addressing potential abuses of the worker’s compensation system
• Considering the societal impact of compensation decisions
• Evaluating the role of legal representation in pursuing claims

Future Trends in Worker’s Compensation Law

Looking ahead, several trends may shape the future of worker’s compensation law:

• Increased use of technology in claim processing and injury prevention
• Growing focus on mental health and stress-related claims
• Adaptation to evolving work arrangements and employment models
• Potential for federal standardization of worker’s compensation laws
• Integration of artificial intelligence in risk assessment and claim evaluation

As the workplace continues to evolve, cases like Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp serve as important touchstones for understanding and applying worker’s compensation principles. By examining these historical cases, we gain valuable insights into the complex interplay of law, employment practices, and societal expectations surrounding workplace injuries and employee protections.

: 1966 :: Pennsylvania Superior Court Decisions :: Pennsylvania Case Law :: Pennsylvania Law :: US Law :: Justia

208 Pa. Superior Ct. 72 (1966)

Barrick, Appellant,
v.
Pocono Highland Camp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 14, 1966.

June 17, 1966.

Before ERVIN, P.J., WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, and SPAULDING, JJ.

*73 Harry B. Goldberg, with him Ronald M. Katzman, and Goldberg, Evans & Katzman, for appellant.

Christian S. Erb, Jr., with him Metzger, Wickersham & Knauss, for appellee.

OPINION BY ERVIN, P.J., June 17, 1966:

This is a workmen’s compensation case. The facts as stated in the opinion of Judge SHELLEY of the court below are as follows: “It appears that the decedent was a maintenance worker at Pocono Highland Camp in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. This was a boys’ camp that operated during the months of July and August of 1960. During the season, employees were paid a weekly wage, together with food and board. At the time of the accident on September 13, 1960, the camp season had ended. The employees were living in the administration building and purchased their food at a local grocery store. They continued at the same wage and did clean up work. The employees, including the decedent, quit work on September 12, 1960 at about 10:00 a.m. because of inclement weather. The decedent left the camp, went to town on personal business and, although there is not a complete accounting of his time, it is conceded that he did not work again for his employer. He returned to his room in the administration building about midnight. A fire broke out about 2:00 a.m., which resulted in the decedent’s death from asphyxiation.”

There was a conflict of evidence as to whether or not the decedent was required to be on the premises at the time of the fire. On the one hand, Alex Washeleski, a fellow-employe, testified on direct examination that they are required to remain on the premises and were *74 subject to call “at any time of the day. ” On cross-examination, however, he testified that after punching out the time clock Barrick was not due back to work until 8 a.m. the next morning and that he was free to go where he pleased. Andrew Dippre, the foreman, testified that the decedent slept at the camp but that he was not required to be there at night, could go wherever he wanted and was not on call at night. On the other hand, he testified that if there was a need for cleaning up or maintenance after 4:30 p.m., the decedent would have worked at those hours.

Earl Weinberg, the owner of the camp, testified that the decedent was not required to live at the camp, could live where he desired and was not on call at any time. Raymond Jacobs, another fellow-employe, stated that they were not required to be back at the camp again until the following morning at 8 a.m. and testified to the decedent’s movements subsequent to his leaving camp until about midnight.

With this conflicting testimony the referee made an award in favor of the claimant. He made six findings of fact and two conclusions of law but made no specific finding as to whether or not the decedent was required to be on the premises of his employer at the time of his death. Upon appeal, the board, which is the ultimate fact finding body, vacated the award and dismissed the claim. It did not disturb the six findings of fact but added two additional findings[1] and substituted a different conclusion of law.[2]

*75 Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, reads: “The term `injury by an accident in the course of his employment,’ as used in this article . . . shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises . . . sustained by the employe, who . . . is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer . . ., the employe’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.”

It is well established that where the compensation authorities refuse to find facts in favor of the party having the burden of proof, the question on review is not whether the evidence would sustain such a finding but whether the board’s findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence: Newman v. Congregation of Mercy and Truth, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 350, 175 A.2d 160; Dandy v. Glaze, 197 Pa. Superior Ct 218. 177 A.2d 157.

It is also well established that “While the board is the ultimate arbiter of the facts and its findings are binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence, the appellate court may review questions of law, including whether the law has been properly applied to the facts: Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 603, 136 A.2d 151. If the facts permit of but one legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law [citing cases].”: Adams v. Dunn, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 319, at 323, 162 A.2d 42.

In the present case it is undenied that the decedent was upon the premises of the employer at the time of his death. However, whether his presence was “required by the nature of his employment” was a controverted question. The board decided that question in favor of the defendant and, since it can be sustained *76 without a capricious disregard of competent evidence, we are bound by it.

The claimant cites the cases of Delbene v. Pine, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 353, 19 A.2d 533; Werner v. Allegheny County, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 10, 33 A.2d 451; Wolsko v. American Bridge Co., 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 339, 44 A.2d 873; Weiss v. Friedman’s Hotel, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 98, 106 A.2d 867; and Dupree v. Barney, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 163 A.2d 901, in all of which the present question was involved and in all of which the claimant recovered an award. However, in all of them except the Wolsko case there was a definite finding that the employe was required to live on the premises or was on call at all times. In the Wolsko case the deceased’s employment was to commence at 5 p.m. and the accident occurred at 4:45 p.m. We said: “Deceased was injured about 15 minutes before his day’s work was to begin. It was entirely proper for deceased to be on the premises of his employer a reasonable length of time before the hour fixed for him to commence his duties.”

On the other hand, the appellee relies on the case of Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 27 A.2d 445. In that case the deceased was the janitor for an apartment house. He was paid $50.00 a month less $10.00 rent for his living quarters, which were over the garage sixty feet in the rear of the main apartment building. When the furnace was not operating he was free to leave from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. During the evening of September 10, 1937 he entertained friends in his apartment and then went for an automobile ride with them. They returned at 1:30 a.m. to his quarters. The party broke up at about 2:15 a.m. A fire occurred at 4 a.m. and he was burned to death. The referee disallowed compensation, holding that he was not in the course of his employment. The board substituted findings and held *77 he was in the course of employment because he was subject to call at any time. The court of common pleas sustained the board. However, we reversed, holding that there was no evidence to support the board’s finding that he was on 24-hour duty. We said, at page 447: “Whether deceased met death in the course of his employment is a question of law for the courts: Lewis v. Capital Bakers, Inc. et al., 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 171, 18 A.2d 883; Strunk v. E.D. Huffman & Sons, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 429, 19 A.2d 539. Even if we assume, as the appellee contends, that the deceased’s apartment was a part of the employer’s premises within the meaning of that term used in our compensation act [compare Brown v. Elks’ Club No. 123, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 226, 172 A. 408; Dunphy v. Augustinian College of Villanova et al., 129 Pa. Superior Ct. 262, 195 A. 782; and Tappato et al. v. Teplick & Eisenberg Co. et al., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 231, 2 A.2d 545] there is no evidence to support the board’s finding that deceased was on 24 hour duty subject to call at any time when he died thus warranting the conclusion that he was in the course of his employment at the time of his death. The proof is directly to the contrary. When the furnace was not in operation Ormes’ hours of employment in no instance extended beyond 9:00 P. M. Furthermore, on the evening and early morning in question he undoubtedly removed himself from the course of his employment in acting as host to a drinking party which had nothing whatever to do with his usual employment, being wholly foreign thereto. The fact that he was found fatally burned by a fire, probably of accidental origin, in his home located on his employer’s premises did not warrant the conclusion that he met his death in the course of his employment. This is not a case where an employee after performing his usual duties was found dead on his employer’s premises under unexplained circumstances.”

*78 We agree that the facts in the present case are so similar that a similar result must follow.

Order affirmed.

NOTES

[1] “Seventh: That the deceased, William L. Barrick, was not required to be on the premises of his employer at the time of his death.

“Eighth: That the deceased, William L. Barrick, was not engaged in the course of his employment at the time of his death. “

[2] “Second: Since the death of the decedent was not a direct result of an injury which occurred in the course of his employment with the defendant the claimant is not entitled to recover compensation as provided by the Act.”

Backpacking and Primitive Camping

Primitive camping, also sometimes referred to as backpacking, is a true wilderness camping experience. There are no modern conveniences such as bathroom and shower facilities. You pack in what you need to camp for the night.

To primitive camp in state forests or parks, you must:

• Obtain a camping permit if staying more than one night in an area in a state forest

• Make a reservation for a trail shelter in a state park

While primitive camping in state forests and parks, please practice the
Leave No Trace guidelines.

Primitive Camping in State Forests

Primitive camping can take different forms but is always a true wilderness camping experience. Enjoy the solitude and tranquility of staying overnight in a state forest; and with 2.2-million acres of land and more than 5,000 miles of trails, outdoor enthusiasts find endless opportunities for this activity.

There are no modern conveniences and no vehicle access, so all equipment is carried by you.

Trailside Camping in State Forests

Trailside camping (backpacking) is the most popular form of primitive camping and is often done along one of the
18 State Forest Hiking Trails. Many other local trails can also be used to form unique and adventurous routes.

Many State Forest Hiking Trails require multiple nights, hiking from campsite to campsite in order to complete, but the abundance of connector trails also offer shorter hikes for overnight trips.

Trailside camping is part of an overall backcountry travel experience. It involves hiking far from nearby buildings, roads, and trailheads where you will find no modern conveniences or campsite improvements.

Those who are trailside camping are often referred to as backpackers, many of whom utilize tents; however, hammocks, bivy sacks, and other equipment are becoming increasingly popular. No matter your preference, be sure to be fully prepared with everything you’ll need to spend a night in the woods away from your vehicle.

Beyond just the traditional, trailside backpacking, primitive camping includes overnight camping where all equipment is transported by other non-motorized vehicle methods, including watercraft, bicycle, or horse.

A motorized vehicle is not located near or part of the camping experience. Bicycle users and horseback riders may not be permitted on some trails; and there may be unique camping regulations for these uses, so remember to check with the state forest district office.

Primitive Camping Guidelines in State Forests

Backpack campers are permitted to camp in most areas of the forest without a permit if staying no more than one night in any location.  Backpackers may camp overnight anywhere except:

• In designated Natural Areas
• Within 200 feet of a forest road
• Within 25 feet of a trail
• Within 100 feet of a stream or any open water

See the DCNR Bureau of Forestry’s
Motorized and Primitive Camping Guidelines and Ethics (PDF) for additional requirements when camping in state forests.

Primitive Group Camping in State Forests

If you would like to camp in a group of more than 10 people, a Letter of Authorization must first be obtained from the
state forest district office where your group would like to stay. There are some sensitive areas in state forests where the landscape cannot sustain larger groups.

Primitive Camping Permits in State Forests

Remember, if you are camping close enough to your vehicle to access it to store gear and supplies, you are not primitive camping, but are
motorized, roadside camping.

A permit and fee is always required for motorized, roadside camping and can only be done at designated sites. Please plan appropriately.

There is no fee for a state forest primitive camping permit. Primitive campers spending no more than one night at a campsite do not need a camping permit; however, a free camping permit is required if:

• You desire an emergency point-of-contact.

• You stay at a campsite more than one night.

• You stay at a campsite designated “permit required.”

• A campfire is desired during spring wildfire season — you must obtain permission from the state forest to have a campfire from March 1 through May 25; no campfires are permitted when the state forest district forester determines the forest fire danger to be high, very high, or extreme.

• You camp using a vehicle for storage or transportation.

• You camp within the Pine Creek Gorge along the Pine Creek Rail Trail in Tiadaghton or Tioga State Forests.

To request a free, state forest primitive camping permit, please contact the
state forest district office for where you are planning to camp.

Primitive Camping in State Parks

Hiking in and putting up a tent where you choose, is NOT permitted in Pennsylvania state parks. All camping must be in a designated camping area and on designated sites. Many Pennsylvania state park campgrounds have walk-in sites which are for tents only and are more private than campsites with a paved camping pad.

Some parks have backpacking trailside shelters or sites, which can be in very remote areas, but visitors still must camp in designated areas.

Currently, there are five state parks that allow backpacking and overnight hikes:

• Laurel Ridge

• Ohiopyle

• Moraine

• Oil Creek

• Raccoon Creek

These parks provide backpacking trails with overnight trailside shelters or sites. You must pre-register to hike and camp overnight at these state parks.

Backpacking Reservations at State Parks

Backpackers can obtain a camping permit for these parks at the
Pennsylvania state parks reservation website or by calling the specific park office during business hours.  

If making an online backpacking reservation, in the “Where” field, enter the name of the state park you are interested in. In the “Interested in” field, select “Permits & Wilderness” from the dropdown menu.

Laurel Ridge State Park, Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail

• Trail mileage within park: 70 miles

• Total trail mileage: 70 miles

• Number of overnight sites: 8

• Number of shelters per site: 5

• Number of tent spaces per site: 25

• Amenities available: firewood, fireplaces, fire rings, and pit toilets

• Amenities not available: check in at park office for availability of water

• Pets allowed: Yes

• Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance

Ohiopyle State Park, Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail

Ohiopyle is the southern entrance to the Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail

Moraine State Park, North Country National Scenic Trail

• Trail mileage within McConnells Mill, Moraine, and Jennings: 25. 9 miles

• Trail mileage within Moraine: 13.9 miles

• Total trail mileage: 4,600 miles

• Number of overnight sites: 1 (Moraine State Park)

• Number of shelters per site: 3

• Number of tent spaces per site: 0

• Amenities available: restroom and fire ring

• Amenities not available: firewood and water

• Pets allowed: Yes

• Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance

Oil Creek State Park, Oil Creek/Gerard Hiking Trail

• Trail mileage within park: 36 miles

• Total trail mileage: 36 miles

• Number of overnight sites: 2

• Number of shelters per site: 6

• Number of tent spaces per site: spaces are available

• Amenities available: water (Seasonal April 1 to November 1), firewood (when available), restrooms, picnic table, and fireplaces

• Pets allowed: Yes

• Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance

Raccoon Creek State Park

• Backpacking trail loop mileage within park: 44 miles

• Number of overnight sites: 2

• Number of shelters per site: 5

• Number of tent spaces per site: 5

• Amenities available: water and pit latrines/port-a-johns available 1/4-mile from campsite, fire ring

• Amenities not available: firewood (may be purchased at park office)

• Pets allowed: Yes

• Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance

Reservation Changes and Cancellations

Cancellations and changes can be handled online under “My Account” or by calling the call center. Any cancellation or change on the day of arrival must be made through the state park where the reservation occurs.

Please see state park’s
reservation cancellation and change policy for additional information about cancelling or changing reservations and associated fees.

“St. Seraphim Camp – the true triumph of Orthodoxy!”

“St. Seraphim Camp – the true triumph of Orthodoxy!”

The Eastern American Diocese has a long tradition of hosting various children’s camps during the summer months. When we talk about summer camps, scout camps immediately come to mind, and, above all, camps of the Organization of Russian Young Scouts (ORYUR) and the National Organization of Russian Scouts (NORR). But over the past 25 years, a new camp has been opened in the Poconos, named after Rev. Seraphim of Sarov. Serafimovsky camp was founded in 1992 parishioners of the Church of Christ the Savior mountains. Wilkes-Barre, pc. Pennsylvania. It has since grown to become the largest summer camp in the Eastern American Diocese and is not going to give up. On Friday, August 4th and Saturday, August 5th, we drove to the Pocono Mountains to learn the secret behind this very popular summer camp.

“The camp was founded in 1992, when I was serving in these places, as a parish project,” says Archpriest Alexy Duncan (rector of Our Lady of the Nativity Church in Albany, New York, and founder of the camp). For two years more and more people wanted to take part in it, and then Archbishop Laurus (later Metropolitan) supported our initiative to open a camp for all youth.” While the organizers were looking for a suitable place for the camp, the news of the new camp was spreading like wildfire. The prayers of the Rev. Seraphim, oh Alexy was able to get in touch with local American scouts, and they kindly offered a place for the newly established Orthodox summer camp at their Akahila camp.

Camp Akahila is located in Blakeslee, pc. Pennsylvania, on a 242-acre peninsula at the confluence of the Lehigh and Tobyhanna rivers. The location is ideal for an Orthodox summer camp, not only because of its proximity to New York, but also because the camp offers a wide range of activities for children, such as rafting, archery, rifle shooting and many others. . The American Scouts even have a chapel, which every year turns into a temporary Orthodox church with a portable iconostasis. All this simplifies the organization of an Orthodox summer camp – and there is no need to buy land and build new facilities. “The first year we came to the Akahila camp, everything seemed to explode,” says Father Alexy. “We had over 100 children, and in recent years the number has been constantly growing.” Currently, an average of 200 children a year come to the camp.

The most notable difference between the Seraphim Camp and the Eastern American Diocese scout camps is the use of English in the first language. While in the camps of scouts they mainly speak Russian, in the St. Seraphim camp they speak English. “When we started organizing the camp, we wanted to give children who do not speak Russian the opportunity to also attend an Orthodox summer camp,” said Father Alexy. “But St. Seraphim’s camp always opens after scout camps, and we began to notice that many “Russian-speaking children also enroll in it. This year we can say with confidence that most of our camp is bilingual children.”

“This is not a scout camp. I grew up in a camp of Russian scouts, where we wore uniforms, raised flags, marched, etc. But this is not suitable for everyone,” says Archpriest Andrey Sommer (Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Youth Department). “Some children prefer one camp over the other, while others go to both camps, but as the Russian Orthodox Church continues to grow and embrace people of diverse non-Russian backgrounds and traditions, it is important for us to reach out to them as well and create a camp that will respond to them specific needs. This camp is special because it is the only purely Orthodox ROCOR camp in America, with no specific patriotic or Scouting focus.”

Priest Richard Reid (rector of St. Joseph of Optina Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia) has been coming to the camp for six years and believes that “this is the place where children can be in an Orthodox environment 24 hours a day. When we are here, we are not really in the world, but in an Orthodox oasis where children can practice their faith and learn what it means to be Orthodox.”

St. Seraphim’s camp, according to custom, takes place in the first week of August to celebrate the feast of St. Seraphim of Sarov (August 1, NS). Every day begins with morning prayers, then breakfast and classes on the Law of God. Classes are led by a group of 8-10 priests from the diocese who take time out of their busy schedules to spend time with the children. Classes are held in an informal setting and usually outdoors, where children are divided into groups by gender and age. “We try not to repeat the knowledge that they can get in their home parish, such as the basics of the Law of God. Since most of these children already have a basic understanding of the Orthodox faith, we can delve into more complex and relevant topics,” says O. Alexy.

When we visited different groups, we heard topics such as the Orthodox approach to suicide, same-sex marriage, transsexuals, etc. being discussed. “We can’t get away from some of the modern questions our kids are facing in school. These topics make them really ‘digest’ at school, so when they come here they ask us these questions – which is great! We can guide them the way the Orthodox Church teaches,” explains Fr. Andrey.

While the older children are talking about these serious and topical topics, the younger ones are discussing the lives of saints such as St. Seraphim of Sarov and St. John of San Francisco, myrrh-streaming icons and how to live life in Christ.

After the young campers finish their lessons on the Law of God, they devote the rest of the day to what Fr. Alexy calls “entertainment”. In the camp, children can swim in the turbulent clear waters of the Lehigh River, play sports, shoot with rifle and archery, participate in such interesting projects as making T-shirts and writing-decorating stones, making camp fires, they also organize talent shows and dances, swim in the pool and do many other things. But no matter what activities children participate in, one thing remains the same – there are always priests next to them. Each priest is given a group of children with whom they communicate in addition to studying the Law of God. “During the day, children constantly come up to me and ask personal questions that they don’t want to ask during group classes,” says Father Andrey. “Through this kind of communication, we can establish close relationships with each teenager in our group – and this is wonderful! ”

Such a personal relationship with the clergy is the key to the success of the camp, as a result of which the children finally begin to speak openly about the problems facing the Orthodox in the modern world. One of these conversations was remembered by Priest Gabriel Weller (rector of the Church of St. Myrrh-bearing Women in Harrisonburg, Virge). “Some senior assistants told me that when they go to a restaurant and eat there, they don’t cross themselves and don’t pray, because they are being looked at. Then I told them: ‘We need to pray! People need to look at you. “Bearing witness about Christ is what we are all called to do here. We are not of this world. We also talk about St. Seraphim and what he taught about the acquisition of inner peace, through which thousands around will be saved. We explain to the children, that they never know in advance what effect they can have on others if they are bold enough, if they love God and are not ashamed of their faith.”

At the end of a fun week, everything suddenly stops, and calm and silence come to the camp. As we approached the main dining room, we heard the familiar words of the pre-communion prayers read over a loudspeaker. All 250 campers and helpers stood quietly in line for confession, while the older children read the rule for communion. The little boys who recently played in the forest were joking with each other, standing quietly in line, thinking about their sins and transgressions. Near them stood girls, all with their heads covered. The priests scattered around the dining room, listened to confessions and gave instructions to the children. Then came the time for the akathist to St. Seraphim Sarovsky, who wonderfully performed the youth choir.

Later that day, the youth gathered for the All-Night Vigil in the open-air chapel. The youth choir prayerfully sang the service, and the clergy continued to confess until late in the evening. After the service, the campers returned to their tents and spent the rest of the evening in quiet prayerful contemplation in anticipation of the Divine Liturgy. The last camp day was truly the triumph of Orthodoxy! After spending a week with their brothers and sisters in Christ, confessing their sins, all campers partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ.

Photo album

“St. Seraphim’s camp – the true triumph of Orthodoxy!” – 08/05/17

(120 photos)

see photos here >

But the beauty of the St. Seraphim camp is also that it does not end with the end of the camp. Communication between the campers usually continues throughout the year on social networks and at various events such as St. Herman’s Youth Congresses. Friendship that originated in the camp of St. Seraphim, lasts for many years, and some even get married and get married. “That is why we invite our youth here,” says Fr. Gabriel. “So that they can meet Orthodox friends from all over the country and, in the end, they can find an Orthodox life partner. who to meet, unless of course they want to meet someone from the non-Orthodox. Here we can create a network of friends, resulting in marriages, which began in this camp. Three weddings have already been played this year.” Father Richard confirms Fr. Gabriel and says that “the number of marriages born here is a kind of test for the camp of St. Seraphim. All this indicates that we are doing the right thing.”

The opportunity for young people to communicate with the clergy and with each other in an Orthodox environment is considered the main goal of the camp of st. Seraphim, but how effective is it? Despite the fact that more and more children are constantly coming to the camp, can we be sure that the children are growing spiritually? “Of course they are growing,” Father Richard says. “I notice it when I return here every year. The children talk about their lives and how they have grown over the past year while we have not seen each other. So even if I don’t see I will notice their spiritual growth next year when they return. And this is a great spiritual joy for me. As a priest, I see that I am doing what God expects from me. I can influence the children – the future of our Church and our country”.

St. Seraphim Camp is an unforgettable experience for our children, but it also gives the clergy the time they need to get closer to each other. Father Andrei says that “for the clergy it is almost like a continuation of pastoral congresses.” And about. Richard explains: “Together, the clergy gather around the fire at night and discuss topics that we don’t get our hands on during conventions. It’s a great place; here we can come together, be honest and open with each other, and learn from each other. The secret camp is that the clergy take out of the camp no less useful than children.

Living in the forest for a whole week is not easy, but Fr. Gabriel believes that the benefits are worth the sacrifice. “Life in the camp is connected with stress, but it’s worth it. Here we meet people from all over the country, and this kindles such warm and inexpressible feelings in our hearts.” Love for children is what unites all volunteers who take time out of their busy schedules to work hard so that our children have a place where they can have fun and, at the same time, learn to live as Orthodox Christians. The best thing to say about this is Fr. Andrei Sommer: “The biggest plus for us who come here is the joy of giving. How wonderful to feel that you have the opportunity to give everything you have to these children! Giving – what could be better!”

Subdeacon Peter Lukianov
Eastern American Diocese Press Office

NEWS

00000

Mayfield, PA: Metropolitan Nicholas presides over Patronal Feast of St. John the Baptist Cathedral

00001

Lewisburg, PA: Bishop Luke led the Patronal Feast of the Mission of St. John of Shanghai

00002

Miami, Florida: Metropolitan Jonah leads the 40th anniversary of the community of the Holy Apostles

Parishes

Clergy

Kursk Root Icon

Resources

Church Calendar

Metropolitan Nicholas
Bishop Luke
Diocesan Council
Deaneries of the Diocese
Spiritual Court
Diocesan Office
Audit Commission
Diocesan Press Service

MEDIA LIBRARY

Latest news
Announcements
News
Photos
Podcasts
Videos
Diocese faces

9000 2 PARISH LIST

Temples
Clergy

RESOURCES

Pastoral Resources
Choir Resources

History

Bishops
Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky)
My work in the vineyard of Christ
Kursk Root Icon
Iosif Munoz-Kortes
St. Vladimir Church-Memorial
Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral)

Mountain camp: hiking with accommodation at the camp site

Mountain camp: hiking with accommodation at the camp site | Prices and routes for active recreation

Summer has come! It’s time to go to the mountain camp! Now everyone can visit the heart of real mountains ! With any level of physical fitness!

But this does not mean that the mountain camp is easy! This is also a GO! Hike in which we live at camp site and every day we walk lightly through the picturesque surroundings: we climb peaks, make our way along mountain paths to waterfalls, admire canyons and gorges.

We have easier and really physically difficult programs in the mountains of the Caucasus, Crimea, Montenegro and in the Khibiny .

Mountain camp is:

• comfortable accommodation in a hotel or camp site;
• walking light in the mountains, to waterfalls, caves and other most remarkable places;
• clean air and always amazing views;
• a company of people of different ages, but the same in spirit, here it is always fun and friendly ;
• awesome photos! You can even take a dress with you for a photo shoot;
• not a resort! This is the REAL HIKING! Only more comfortable.