Angie McKinnon Responds to the Metropolitan's Recent Letters

Moderator's Note: We are posting Angie McKinnon's thoughts with her permission, and have converted the text to html exactly as written.

December 27, 2007

Rev. Matthew Gilbert, Proistamenos
Mr. Nick E. Varanakis, President
The Esteemed Parish Council
Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral
279 South 300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1797

To Whom It May Concern:

It is with great restraint that I need to respond to the two communications from The Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver.

I was appalled at the tone of the two letters and would have expected much softer and healing language in both coming from a metropolitan. The letter regarding the priest assignment was totally judgemental and would have served the community much better if the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs had been eliminated entirely. It came across as very mean-spirited and hurtful.

It is not my place to argue the decision that was reached (although I am very disappointed in it) – it was his decision to make – but rubbing salt into the wound was certainly not necessary and totally out of line and not very Christian in my humble opinion.

And now the second letter regarding becoming separate parishes. This letter’s underlying anger is certainly not lost on the reader. When has anyone heard the words “bull dung” in a communication from the Archidiocese? It is unfathomable that The Metropolitan would stoop to that level to convey his feelings.

Quoting The Metropolitan now, (As long as your one and only question in the life of the community is, “What is best for the Church?” you will be doing what the Lord expects of you)…Perhaps the time has come for The Metropolitan to step down since it is obvious that he has lost any ability to convey his feelings to the Parishioners in a manner befitting his position. I am truly embarrassed by his communications at this holiday season.

I apologize if I have offended anyone – but I have been seething over this since I received the letters and felt I needed to express my feelings on the matter.

Best Wishes for the New Year to All,

{signature}

Angie McKinnon

Some Thoughts on Reaching 20,000 Hits

When we began this blog in April, we never expected to have so many people come and tell us “thanks”, or “keep up the good work”, in providing a forum where pertinent issues are openly discussed. We humbly thank our supporters, and yes, even our detractors, who try to insist that this blog is the cause of this community’s “issues”. We know our efforts are merely the result of too many instances of less-than-transparent governance in this community and in the wider church community on issues of deep importance.

We’ve been told that the title of our blog is not appropriate. It is Christ’s Church, not ours. We submit that this is a disingenuous argument. We know fully well to Whose glory these churches were built by those who gave much when they had but little. It is in their honor and memory that we maintain and continue our efforts. As always, we invite any and all comments and participation.

We pray that our readers had a safe, healthy, glorious Christmas and wish all a safe, healthy, happy and prosperous New Year.

Words of Wisdom

By the Denver Metropolitan

The December 6, 2007, letter regarding “not splitting" the Community.
What an inspirational letter! Especially the “bull dung” part.
No matter how you slice it is still bull dung.
And it comes from those whom we are to trust to guide us. So much for that.

As to the negative remarks that the Denver Metropolitan has fallen victim to!!!
Our community had nothing to do with it.
It all came about when the Denver Metropolitan made the headlines,
securing for himself the “coveted” position of a defendant in the Katinas sexual abuse case “cover up.”

As it is said by common wisdom: Ολα εδώ πληρώνονται.

We are all looking forward to calendar 2008 to see some more inspirational messages.

Our best wishes for 2008. May we all be happy and secure in the knowledge, that the Hierarch and his assigned Clergy, are properly guiding us, as “they have done so well” in the past.

Nick J. Colessides

Letter from Metropolitan Isaiah Regarding our Recent Survey and Other Issues

Moderator's Note: On December 6th, Metropolitan Isaiah wrote a letter to Fr. Matthew and to the President of our community. The Metropolitan insisted that it be sent out, exactly as he wrote it, to all parishioners in the community. This letter, along with another regarding priest assignments, has been arriving at the homes of parishioners of this valley in the last few days. We have reprinted it here in html format; as usual, we have typed the wording exactly and kept as much of the formatting as html allows.

December 6, 2007

Rev. Michael Kouremetis, Proistamenos
Mr. Nick E. Varanakis, President
The Esteemed Parish Council
Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral
279 South 300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1797

Beloved in the Lord,

I am in receipt of your letter dated November 27, 2007 and I thank you.

In my pastoral visits to the community during the past ten years, the subject of the two churches becoming separate parishes has been a regular topic of discussion. During the past year, the subject appeared to become a burning issue with an increasing number of parish members. Because of this, I thought it the appropriate time to conduct a survey among the members and to determine what the feelings and thoughts of the people were. Unfortunately, before you decided to go ahead with the survey, the usual few members became vocal spokesmen against the recognition of two distinct parishes. As you know there were many negative and un-Christian statements made to the point of condemning and ridiculing me, as well as Father Kouremetis. Had I been a less patient bishop, this would have been enough for me to declare two separate parishes with two separate councils. The teachings of our holy Church give me this right, as the presiding bishop. In fact, by not doing so, I am not fulfilling my responsibilities as a bishop.

Be that as it may, I saw the results of the survey and I was mildly surprised at the apathy of the majority of the members who became fence-straddlers or showed indifference by not returning the survey. Our Lord has strong words about those who are lukewarm when it comes to the Church (Rev. 3:15,16). I commend all those who did express their opinions whether they voted to stay as one parish or to become two.

Almost ten years ago, more or less, when Father John Kaloudis was your proistamenos and Mr. Nick Bapis was the council president, the topic of two separate parishes was very much alive. After much discussion with Mr. Bapis, I told him that I would not force the community to become two parishes. I like to believe that I am faithful to what I say. One reason for this is that I believe in the exercise of one's free will. In my forty-five years in the clergy, I have never forced anyone to do my will. Each person must be free to exercise his or her own free will, especially in matters that deal with God and the Church. I challenge anyone to say that I forced someone to do or not to do a particular thing. In this regard I do not identify with the few members in the community who have attempted to force their will upon others, especially those who used my name in their little "bull dung" game. May the Lord forgive them, if they desire to be heirs of Christ's Kingdom.

One thing has been accomplished in this experience. Each church has its own proistamenos. This is ecclesiastically correct. As we read in Holy Scripture, our Lord calls Himself the Bridegroom and He calls His people the Church. He does not believe in polygamy. this is why each parish, which is a microscopic bride of Christ, must have only one bridegroom who is recognized as the priest. Ecclesiologically, this has now been corrected.

In regard to one parish council over the two churches, the bishop who comes after me will, no doubt, end this latter-day tradition. However, I am hopeful that you and all the parishioners will decide to do this in a very fraternal way on your own. For now, the reality is like two married families living under the same roof. I know that the parish council now serves, as well as future councils, will try to do what is best for the Church of Christ in Salt Lake City. As long as your one and only question in the life of the community is, "What is best for the Church?' you will be doing what the Lord expects of you.

In keeping my word to Mr. Bapis and to myself, I will not force the recognition of two parishes. But I do hope that you and all the people will do so willingly and lovingly, before a higher authority in the future will do so forcefully in order to observe the ancient teachings of our holy Church.

Finally, I thank all who helped to conduct this survey and all who voted. I am most appreciative.

With paternal blessings,

{signature}

Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver

Lingering Silence in Response to Enduring Pain

Moderator's Note: this article was posted December 15, 2007 on the Orthodox Reform Web site (http://orthodoxreform.org/). It was originally published in the National Herald, also on December 15.

Victim of Alleged Sex Abuse Opens Up about his Life’s Nightmare
December 15, 2007

Author: Theodore Kalmoukos
Date Published: 12/15/2007
Publication: The National Herald

Former Parishioner from Chicago-Area Church: Scars of Molestation Will Always Be With Me

BOSTON – The man who first reported to the Archdiocese that he was allegedly molested as a teenager by then Rev. Nicholas Katinas, who is now defrocked, has broken his long and painful silence in an exclusive interview with The National Herald and described his nearly lifelong nightmare.

The Herald has specific knowledge of the alleged victim’s full identity, but at his request, the Herald will refrain from disclosing his identity at this time, and will instead refer to him as Olympia Fields John Doe. Out of respect for this victim, his family, the Church and the Greek American community, the Herald will also refrain from publishing graphic details about the alleged abuse.

Olympia Fields John Doe, who is identified in the original lawsuit as “DZ,” told the Herald he served as an altar boy under Mr. Katinas at the Assumption Church in Olympia Fields, Illinois. He is a second-generation American of Greek descent. He is proud of his Hellenic heritage; professionally successful; and happily married today.

His grandparents came from the Peloponnese; his parents were baptized and married in the Greek Orthodox Church; and he grew up Greek Orthodox. “My maternal grandmother, especially, was very religious,” he says.

As a typical young Greek American boy, he was connected, from early on in his life, with his local church, where he met his alleged abuser, his parish priest at that time. In the original lawsuit filed this past April 27 (pg. 7), it says Mr. Katinas told him “during the abuses… that he likewise ‘played around’ with other altar boys.”

Olympia Fields John Doe is not the only alleged victim. The amended lawsuit (dated this past November 29) alleges there are four more victims.

The alleged abuse of Olympia Fields John Doe took place “in NK’s church office almost every time,” Olympia Fields John Doe told the Herald, noting that he was an emotionally vulnerable teenager who had developed a deep level of trust in Mr. Katinas at the time, and was therefore an easy target for the alleged perpetrator, whom he now refers to as NK.

He felt something was very wrong with Mr. Katinas’ alleged advances and abuse at the time, he said, but did not understand the full nature and scope of what he allegedly underwent then.

“I attended the Assumption Greek Orthodox church in Olympia Fields in the Chicago area with my family when I was a teenager, and I started out being an altar boy. I met Nicholas Katinas at that time, around the late 1960’s, at the age of 13 or 14. Then I joined the church basketball team, and I had a chance to attend the church regularly and be involved in its religious activities,” he said.

“In retrospect, I didn’t really understand what was going on at that time. In my teenage years, I was going through some very difficult emotional times, and I didn’t feel comfortable discussing them with my parents. So I turned to NK for help and counseling. In the beginning, he was professional and provided pastoral counseling, but at one point, he crossed the line and molested me,” he added, noting that child molesters tend to zero in on their intended victims once they determine their target is vulnerable.

“I believe pedophiles ‘choose’ their victims based on the vulnerability they detect in a child. I know I was very emotionally vulnerable then, and had developed a deep trust in NK when the abuse occurred. I would guess that the other victims were also in a vulnerable situation when their abuse occurred. But NK was not just a pedophile. He was a priest pedophile. He was supposed to be a representative of God,” he said.

Asked whether he protested Mr. Katinas’ alleged actions, he stressed, “I didn’t fully realize that these teenage experiences were clergy sexual abuse and acts of molestation until I started therapy in the mid 1990’s. In 1972, I moved away from Chicago to start college, and did not see NK. Upon one of my visits back to Chicago, NK tried to initiate contact with me again. I felt very uncomfortable about this, and declined to meet with him.”

Asked whether it was because he realized Mr. Katinas had taken advantage of him, he said, “No. There was a part of me that always blamed myself. I was made to feel that it was my fault. Self-blame is part of the wound that is inflicted upon a sexually abused victim. During the course of my therapy, I realized that one of my biggest fears was that NK was continuing to molest boys in his Dallas parish.”

Asked if he eventually confronted his alleged abuser, he said, “I confronted him in 1998 and told him that his abuse had caused me a lot of guilt, misery and shame, and that I needed to know he was no longer abusing boys in Dallas. He said he was sorry for what had happened between us. He said he couldn’t explain what happened, and that he did stupid things back then. He said he has a different life now, and that I should pray for him. He also said that he feared his family finding out about his wrongdoings.”

Asked if he ever said anything to his parents and his sister, he said, “I did not, because I felt too much shame. I was so ashamed and guilty, and I always blamed myself because I was made to feel it was my fault. The only people at that time who knew what happened were my two best friends in high school. I didn’t discuss the details with them because I was too embarrassed.

Then I moved to California in the mid 1970’s. During the years I lived in California, I just mentioned it to a few close friends, so for most of my life, the abuse has been a secret that I’ve carried as a heavy emotional burden. I should have known better. Over the last decade, I’ve been going to therapy, and I’m slowly dealing with the emotional issues surrounding the abuse.”

Asked when he first communicated with the Archdiocese about the problem, he said, “I called their hotline on October 14, 2005 and told them I was a survival victim of clergy abuse. I mentioned his name, and I gave them my name and telephone number. It was not an anonymous complaint. It was an official one. An hour later, (Archdiocese Chancellor) Bishop Savas called back and said he was sorry for what had happened, and then we actually talked in detail a week later. Then I sent him a written statement detailing what happened. Bishop Savas was busy because of Christmas and the holidays, so I asked him if he could delegate a trusted member of his staff for my case. Then in February 2006, he told me he was assigning Father Michael Kontogiorgis, the assistant chancellor, to my case.”

Rev. Kontogiorgis paid him a visit on March 6, 2006. Mr. Katinas continued to serving as parish priest of Holy Trinity Church in Dallas, Texas – to which he was transferred from Olympia Fields in 1978 – and was not suspended from the priesthood until July of 2006, a few days after he retired.

Concerning Father Kontogiorgis’ visit, Olympia Fields John Doe said, “He wanted to review my ‘story.’ At the time, I asked my therapist to attend as a special witness. One of the reasons I asked my therapist to attend was that this would have been the first meeting I would be alone with a priest since the abuse occurred. Father Michael said he had spoken to my high school friends, and they had verified my story, and he was planning to confront Katinas shortly after my visit with him. On April 7th of 2006, I had a phone conversation with Father Michael, and he told me that he confronted NK, and that NK had admitted to molesting me and a small number of others who were placed in similar situations like me. I asked Father Michael what actions he was going to take since NK admitted his guilt. I asked him if the Church was going to defrock NK, and whether the Church was going to make a public disclosure to the parishioners. Father Michael said the Church did not want to take any action until they finished with the investigation, and that they were also going to send Katinas to a clinic for a weeklong evaluation.”

Asked whether the Archdiocese offered him any money to keep silent, he said, “No. I went to the Archdiocese in October of 2005 for three reasons: 1) to tell them about what happened to me as a teenager; 2) to hold NK accountable for his actions, as well as to inform the local parishes about him; and 3) to see if they would reimburse me for my past therapy costs and some estimated future therapy costs. So when I met with Father Kontogiorgis, he said that there were two separate issues; 1) to do further investigation on Katinas in order to find out more details about what happened, and 2) to evaluate the financial request I had made about therapy. He said once the Church and I agreed upon a figure, I’d have to sign an agreement releasing the Church from all future liability. The release agreement had an exclusion that I can still sue Katinas.”

Asked, when his parents found out what allegedly happened to him, he said, “My father never found out because he died in 1998. I didn’t tell my mother until April of 2006 because I felt such incredible shame. I was afraid the truth would break her heart. I finally built up the courage to tell her. She was devastated, and couldn’t believe what she heard. She was totally shocked. She was also very supportive of my attempts to heal myself. I wish I had the courage to tell my parents what happened much earlier in my life, but I have to remind myself that telling mom later in life was better than never telling her, at all.”

Asked why he didn’t go public earlier, he said, “First of all, the amount of shame and guilt I felt prevented me from taking any action. I felt numb mostly, and dissociated from the feelings of the abuse. Whenever I was able to think about the abuse, I just ended up blaming myself. It wasn’t until in the mid-90’s when I met my wife. She kept asking me why I was taking all the blame for what happened. She said NK was the adult – he was the priest, and he was wrong. At that point, I finally came to some realization that I was the victim, so I started going into therapy, and it was during the course of therapy over the last decade that I developed better clarity about what happened. The two main motivations for me going public included 1) wanting to know if Katinas was still an active pedophile, and 2) when I turned 50, I had this revelation that I did not want to go to my grave without taking some kind of an action about the abuse.”

Asked how he felt about people, to include Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, expressing doubts that any incidents of alleged abuse ever took place, and whether there were other victims, he said, “I feel angry and shocked at reading that a Metropolitan would make such comments. These comments indicate insensitivity and lack of knowledge about sexual abuse, and totally invalidate the victims. Intellectually, I can understand such reactions because these people loved NK and could not bear the thought that he could be a pedophile. Emotionally, however, these reactions just make me distrust the Church hierarchy even more.”

What is his response to those who say that he is coming out now, after all these years, just to get some money?

“These critics are avoiding the main issue – that NK is a pedophile – and are misplacing the focus by accusing the victims of greedy motives,” he said, adding that he is not looking to profit from anything monetarily, but is simply seeking to be reimbursed for past and some future estimated therapy.

Asked how he feels about the latest amended petition, which details an alleged cover-up by Church officials, he said, “I feel so angry that these Church officials – who had the power, authority and legal obligation to report NK’s sexual abuse to the parish community and police – took no action. It’s unconscionable, and goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Archdiocese is not being forthright or transparent in their handling of clergy abuse cases. The Church teaches all its children to act in an honest manner, but the Church elders are not walking their talk.”

He also said, “Recently, the Dallas parish sent out a letter to all of its parishioners asking them to donate money to help pay legal fees for the lawsuit against NK, Holy Trinity Church, the Metropolis of Denver and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

Now that the Church’s involvement and cover-up has been exposed, how will Holy Trinity, the Metropolis and the Archdiocese respond? Will they admit that there was past guilt and settle the lawsuit with the victim, or will they continue denying any involvement and dig in their heels? The present leaders of the Church need to acknowledge the wrongdoing of those leaders who came before them. In addition, the Church has not yet officially announced the defrocking of Mr. Katinas. This is a tremendous disservice to the victims because the Church’s silence is telling everyone that it’s not important to let the victims and parishioners know that the Church does not tolerate NK’s pedophilia.”

Olympia Fields John Doe went onto college. He got married and has a successful life as an individual and professional, but said he believes the scars of clergy sexual abuse will stay with him until he dies.

Banana Republic General Assemblies Followed by Banana Republic Elections

Before our last elections, the chairman of the election committee notified Gus Colessides and Jim Sifantonakis that they were ineligible. The election committee is assigned to set up and oversee the election process, not rule or inform nominees as to their eligibility status. The proistamenoi need to take this task upon themselves and not delegate it inappropriately, passing the buck, hoping to avoid doing their own dirty work. Unfortunately, too many parties are willing to accommodate the behavior.

Jim Sifantonakis and Gus Colessides were and are in fact eligible and qualified candidates. They were arbitrarily and unjustly barred – based upon accusations that are unfounded. Adding to the farce, Jim was first told "no" by Father Matthew, then "yes" by Father Michael. Then "no" again by Father Matthew. Gus was first accused of being a blog moderator by Fr. Matthew (which he is NOT), then accused of not attending by Fr. Michael (which he does, and how would Fr. Michael KNOW, since Gus attends Holy Trinity?), then was told by Fr. Matthew that he could not run because HIS WIFE is a moderator.

Both these men were deemed ineligible according an arbitrary and capricious standard that has never been required of ANY other nominees. As such, the recent election should be declared null and void and new elections with ALL names on the ballot should be held.

Additionally, the Board of Elections, the Parish Council and our proistamenoi failed to comply with the 2007 requirements as outlined in Article VIII, section 7 (“Administrative Guidelines for Parish Council Elections”, revised September 2007), in denying Jim Kastanis, another qualified and eligible candidate the opportunity to become a candidate. It was explained to Mr. Kastanis that in his case “the old rules applied”.

It is interesting that “new rules” apply to Gus Colessides and to Jim Sifantonakis, but Jim Kastanis was told that he would not be allowed to run under the “old rules”.

Some consistency and fairness in the matter might be nice; those virtues are usually the first to go under banana republic governance.

God Grant Us Fearless Bishops Who Call for Repentance

Moderator's Note: Posted from the Orthodox Reform Web site (http://www.orthodoxreform.org/) and with permission from Fr. Thomas Hopko. (http://orthodoxreform.org/topic/reflection/fearless-bishops/)

In light of recent sexual misconduct cover up allegations, we are mindful of our need for holy leaders. December 9th’s Prologue from Ochrid reading by Saint Nikolai Velimirovich reminds us of Orthodox Saints who defended the weak and fearlessly called for repentance. God grant us again leaders in our day of such character. Saint Nikolai’s December 9th Reflection says:

Fear of God drives all fear from the hearts of men. In every great hierarch of the Orthodox Church, we see meekness and fearlessness wonderfully united.

St. Nicholas grabbed the sword of the executioner and pulled it away so that innocent men would not be beheaded.

St. Chrysostom reproached the Empress Eudoxia for her misdeeds without consideration for the unpleasantness and danger to his own life, to which he was exposed as a result.

And there are many, many other examples similar to this: Emperor Valentinian the Elder, upon hearing of Ambrose’s stern criticism of him, said: “I knew of your fearlessness; that is why I helped you to be chosen as bishop. Correct our faults as the Law of God teaches, and heal our unrighteousness.”

When Valentinian the Younger, at the instigation of his mother Justina, an Arian, ordered that the cathedral church in Milan be yielded to the heretics, Ambrose shut himself in the church with the faithful and would not come out for three days. He sent a message to the emperor and empress that, if they desired his death, he was prepared at any moment “here in the church to be run through either by the sword or spear.” Hearing this, the emperor and empress withdrew their decree. When a riot occurred in Thessalonica, at which time about seven thousand people were beheaded by the decree of Emperor Theodosius the Great, Ambrose became so enraged at the emperor that, when the emperor visited Milan and wished to enter the church, the saint forbade him. The emperor said to Ambrose: “Even David sinned and was not deprived of God’s mercy.” To this the bishop replied: “As you have imitated David in sin, imitate him also in repentance.” The emperor was ashamed, turned back and repented bitterly of the sin he had committed.

Lawsuit: Archdiocese knew about abuse claims

Moderator's Note: This article was posted on the Orthodox Reform Web site (http://orthodoxreform.org/) on December 5, 2007; we have been given permission by Mr. Paul Cromidas, Editor, of the Web site to link and post his articles.

December 5, 2007

Author: Sam Hodges
Date Published: 12/1/2007
Publication: Dallas Morning News

Leaders of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America knew the Rev. Nicholas Katinas had been accused of child sexual abuse but let him continue for years as pastor of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in North Dallas, an amended lawsuit claims.

“The entire lawsuit shows a pattern and practice of officials in the Greek Orthodox Church of cover-up,” said Tahira Khan Merritt, the Dallas lawyer who represents alleged victims of Mr. Katinas.

The suit was amended this week and now includes a fourth plaintiff claiming to have been abused by Mr. Katinas.

Church officials would not comment on the specific allegations, and defense attorneys did not return phone calls.

Mr. Katinas retired from Holy Trinity - a center of the Dallas Greek community - in the summer of 2006 after leading the church for 28 years.

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America soon suspended him, meaning he could no longer serve as a priest, even on a fill-in basis.

In February, a GOAA official told the Holy Trinity congregation that there had been a complaint against Mr. Katinas for child sexual abuse at another parish and that an investigation showed he had “engaged in serious moral transgressions.” The official also said he was investigating an allegation of abuse by Mr. Katinas at Holy Trinity.

In April, Ms. Merritt filed the lawsuit that has now grown to four plaintiffs, all claiming to have been sexually abused by Mr. Katinas in the 1980s, relatively early in his Holy Trinity tenure.

The suit says the latest plaintiff - referred to only as John Doe IV - was an 11-year-old altar boy at Holy Trinity in 1987. Mr. Katinas sexually abused him as they were disrobing after Mass, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says the plaintiff informed his father, who first contacted the church secretary, then called the GOAA in New York.

Various top officials of the archdiocese knew of the accusation, and its vicar general, the Rev. Nicholas C. Triantafilou, came to Dallas to investigate, the suit says.

Mr. Triantafilou currently is president of Hellenic College and Holy Cross School of Theology in Massachusetts.

The suit says Mr. Triantafilou convinced the plaintiff’s father that Mr. Katinas’ actions had been misunderstood. The father only came to believe his son 20 years later, after learning others had come forward to accuse Mr. Katinas, MS. Merritt said.

Mr. Triantafilou was reached by phone Friday but said he could not comment with the lawsuit pending. He suggested calling defense lawyers, who did not return calls.

The suit also claims that Mr. Katinas committed child sex abuse at a parish he served near Chicago in the 1970s and that a parish council president suspected him of pedophilia and worked to get him removed.

Defendants in the suit include Mr. Katinas, Holy Trinity Church and the GOAA. The suit alleges, among other things, gross negligence and asks for punitive damages.

On Oct. 5, Holy Trinity’s presiding priest, the Rev. Christopher Constantinides, and its parish council president, George Michael, sent a letter to parishioners saying that the lawsuit’s charges against the church are untrue and asking them to contribute to legal defense funds. They estimated $250,000 would be needed.

“If the people who brought this lawsuit are allowed to win a judgment,” the letter says, “the church’s assets [most notably its land and buildings] could be seized to satisfy the judgment.”

Mr. Constantinides also used a recent church newsletter to pen an open letter to parishioners, acknowledging that many of them have “lost trust” in the church and withheld contributions, causing the church to struggle financially. He asked parishioners to “rise above the pain” and support Holy Trinity.

The lawsuit is scheduled to be tried in Dallas County District Court beginning June 9, Ms. Merritt said.

You Sin, Conceal, Conspire? YOU PAY!

To those of us who have worked in the business or corporate world, the behaviors of some of our clergy and hierarchy, and their seeming immunity from standard consequences for serious crimes and misdeeds, are mystifying.

In the corporate world random drug testing occurs from the CEO down to the mail room. There are rules which prohibit financial wrongdoing, sexual indiscretions, harassment and fraud. Violations most often result in immediate dismissal. In the business world, in our everyday work places, in our communities, we are held accountable for our actions. We are expected to adhere to the law. Failure to do so results in consequences.

Pedophilia a CRIME. It is a crime against the most defenseless among us – our children. It is a crime that has profound physical, emotional and spiritual consequences. One priest likened it to “spiritual murder.” Tragically, many of its victims later commit suicide.

In a corporate setting tolerance for this type of crime would not exist. Some within the church, unfortunately, seem to think themselves immune from such restrictions. Why should participating hierarchy and clergy be exempt? Why do we allow them to get away with an “oh well, God will ultimately be the judge and punish an errant priest.”? Of course we all will ultimately answer to God. In the meantime, we are expected to follow His laws and the laws of the society we live in.

It is inconceivable that a loving God wants children to suffer at the hands of those they should trust. Yet it occurred, and may still be occurring, because some of Our Lord's bishops and priests lack the moral fortitude to stand for what is right here and now in this lifetime! The clergy involved in covering up claimed to be protecting the Church. In fact, they were protecting themselves at the expense of scarred children, distraught parents and, ultimately, damaged parishes! Adding insult to injury, we will be expected to pay the actual economic costs of these, their sins!

It is time for our clerical and lay leaders to tell pedophile priests, and those who covered up for them, the following:

"If you broke man’s law and God’s law, you, not we, must pay the price." And finally, they all ought to be told the same thing that is demanded of those in the corporate world who have disgraced themselves. "Resign!"

- Barbara Colessides

New Rules for the Christmas Fast

Sausage is now allowed at a breakfast served by the Philoptochos; apparently it has been baptized as fish by the Proistameno at Prophet Elias.

If you have your doubts, read the December 2, 2007 Sunday Bulletin, “The Word.”

I guess next year bacon will also be allowed.

He has changed everything else, ... why not the “fasting rules”? I am sure it can be found under some “new Canons.”

Merry Christmas,

Nick J. Colessides


P.S. Also appearing in the last two weekly bulletins: "PROPHET ELIAS PHILOPTOCHOS SOCIETY - Join us for Merry'ment and Martinis on December 11 at 7 pm in the Prophet Elias Boardroom. Bring your favorite appetizer, martinis provided. Bring a wrapped gift, not more than $20 (optional)."

We assume these appetizers are vegetarian? Is the board room the appropriate place for martinis and appetizers? Ah well, 'tis the season...

Think former Fr. Katinas is the ONLY Cover-Up? Think Again!

Moderator's Note: Mr. Paul Cromidas of Dallas, Texas gave us permision to reprint this article from his Web site, Orthodox Reform.

"Money and Misconduct" by Paul Cromidas

(This article/letter was sent to The National Herald, the Greek-American newspaper based in New York. The paper asked for documentation about the priests’ convictions noted in the article. This was supplied, but the paper chose not to publish the article. P.C.)

March 17, 2005

The appearance in your February 5 issue of a letter from Metropolitan Isaiah, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, and a news report from Theodore Kalmoukos, calls for a commentary.

The Metropolitan (Bishop) gave one of his periodic preachments in print, this one mostly about money, and Mr. Kalmoukos reported yet another story about fund shortages in the Greek archdiocese and, in this case, about their possible relationship to the financial settlements for sexual misconduct. Are there some connections here? I think so.

THE ISAIAH LETTER

In his letter, the Metropolitan praised Mr. Kalmoukos for an article that appeared Dec. 11, 2004, dealing in part with the difficulties of small parishes supporting a priest. He thanked him for “sensitizing the readers about very critical issues in the life of the Church in the United States”, and he touched on several topics. Now, it would be a good thing if the Metropolitan would also recognize other crucial issues of the day, such as the sexual misconduct brought up in Mr. Kalmoukos’ Feb. 5th piece. Maybe he will respond to that. He has not responded to questions about this issue in his own diocese.

His Denver diocese covers an area from Montana to Texas that includes some 48 parishes. One of his priests, Fr. Gabriel Barrow, of the Houston area, was suspended last year for old allegations of misconduct and has appeared in a Spiritual Court, presided over by Metropolitan Isaiah. Yet, the Metropolitan has told us nothing about it, let alone what his role was in accepting Fr. Barrow into his diocese when it was known that Fr. Barrow had also been suspended previously by the Antiochian Archdiocese.

In May of 2003, according to the El Paso Times, Roy Joe Givens, a former Greek Orthodox priest in El Paso, also known as “Father Mathias”, was convicted there of sexual misconduct that occurred some years ago. He had apparently fled the state and was eventually extradited back to Texas. He was sentenced to 10 years in state prison. Why have we heard nothing about that from the diocese office?

More recently, Fr. Elias Greer of San Angelo, Texas, was relieved of his duties by the Metropolitan. We haven’t been given the reason for that action. I am not suggesting that misconduct was involved. But, surely, if a priest‘s suspension has taken place, the faithful ought to be told why. The church situation in San Angelo had an unusual aspect about it, to begin with. The Metropolitan, who says he is concerned about the viability of small parishes, should tell us why he allowed a second Greek Orthodox parish (Fr. Greer’s) to be established in this West Texas community where there are few Orthodox faithful. (It has been reported that since the suspension of Fr. Greer, that parish has been closed).

At least, Fr. Barrow’s and Fr. Greer’s suspensions were listed in the Orthodox Observer, the official archdiocese paper, even though, predictably, no reasons were given.

The archdiocese claims to be serious about the misconduct issue, but its actions say otherwise.

# Currently, it does not necessarily follow the misconduct policy it created in 2002.

# In the past, it allowed a priest in Florida to continue his duties even after his 1989 conviction and 10-year probation sentence. This man is still given substitute assignments as a retiree.

# The archdiocese stood by while another convicted priest from Pennsylvania declared himself a bishop and set up his “Metropolis” near the archdiocese headquarters in New York. This man has since been convicted of child molestation in New York, as well.

And last year, Metropolitan Isaiah was named chairman of the Clergy Sexual Misconduct Advisory Board for the Greek archdiocese! (That shouldn’t surprise us. This is the same archdiocese that wanted to give Boston’s Catholic bishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, an honorary degree from Hellenic College-Holy Cross Seminary in 2002 at the height of the abuse revelations there. The Cardinal resigned by the end of that year.)

The national victims’ organization, SNAP, (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), as well as the Orthodox website, Protection of the Theotokos, (www.pokrov.org), have both called on the Metropolitan to step down from that chairmanship because of his conflicts of interest. As far as I know, he has ignored these calls, as has the archdiocese. The Metropolitan apparently feels that he does not have to account to any laypeople, let alone “outsiders”. In a letter he wrote to Houston parishioners in 2003, after he had been taken to court in a parish dispute, he said he is only accountable to the “…Holy Synod of Constantinople” (at the Patriarchal headquarters in Istanbul).

Would he say that to a District Attorney who might seek records to trace how Fr. Barrow was accepted into the archdiocese?

In his letter, the Metropolitan also suggested abolishing faculty tenure at Holy Cross Seminary as a way of having more equity among faculty. That was a curious reference. Here, he seems to have reverted to the temporary post he held as president of Hellenic College-Holy Cross Seminary in the 1997-98 period. How did that position come about? Perhaps the defining event of the misguided administration of former Archbishop Spyridon from 1996 to1999, was the archbishop’s dismissal of the president and key, tenured faculty at the school, when they would not cover up a dormitory misconduct incident. Following the gross injustice of those dismissals, the Metropolitan was willing to assist Archbishop Spyridon by serving for a year as the interim president of the seminary and college. His disdain for those dismissed was evident. So, it should not surprise us that he is not open about the misconduct issue now, or that in his recent letter he questions the practice of faculty tenure. (Whether tenure is always properly administered at this school or others is another issue.)

He was later to join his fellow bishops and many of the clergy in calling for the removal of Archbishop Spyridon. The clergy, in their letter of grievances against the archbishop, cited the cover-up of sexual misconduct as one of their complaints.

In his comments about church financial support, the Metropolitan observed that Protestant church-goers give money more generously than Greek Orthodox parishioners. He cited some of the reasons for the low giving by Greek-Americans. I submit that for Protestants this generosity has something to do with the greater voice they have in the administration of their churches. I submit that they would not stand for the imposition of a new charter and regulations, as the Greek Orthodox in America are expected to do. And, as we have seen, even the formerly compliant American Catholics have shown that, hierarchical church or not, they will hold back their money and they will confront their bishops with demands and picket signs, and go to court when they have been betrayed, as they were in the tragic child abuse cases.

THE KALMOUKOS ARTICLE

Mr. Kalmoukos’ front-page article was headed: “Burdened by Legal Costs, Archdiocese Owes HC/HC $500,000”. One’s first reaction might be: “Again?” The archdiocese has been late in its allocation to the college/seminary before. His article then quotes sources that say one of the reasons for the shortage of funds at the archdiocese is that payments are being made for clergy sexual misconduct settlements. (I think that most of us would agree there would still be shortages even if there were no such settlements). He does not mention that just before the Clergy-Laity Congress last year, he reported that the archdiocese had borrowed $1.5 million to pay these settlements because it no longer had insurance coverage for this. At that point, the fact that it had no such insurance was presented as “hot” news, when, actually, this had been revealed two years previously, at the 2002 Clergy-Laity Congress, but was not reported at the time by the Herald.

Mr. Kalmoukos wrote that his archdiocese sources “…did not provide any details about the cases…” He reported the same thing last year. We don’t have to know the names of the victims, but we should be given the names of the priests, and this is something the Herald should be pursuing. That’s how the Boston Globe made the breakthrough in its landmark reporting of the Boston Catholic diocese scandal. It went to court to get the records. The Herald should do the same, and not just report every six months that the archdiocese will not provide any details. One might also wonder why Mr. Kalmoukos did not interview Metropolitan Isaiah, as chairman of the misconduct board, and Bishop Savas, of the archdiocese, who is supposed to be administering the misconduct policy.

To the extent that these settlements are a contributing factor in the archdiocese shortfall, shouldn’t greater attention then be paid to the misconduct issue? We may not have the magnitude of problem that the Catholics have, but it is clearly significant. The $1.5 million is a significant percentage of the small archdiocesan budget that the Metropolitan decries. All of our bishops should be showing a greater accountability on this issue. But they and the general Orthodox laity continue to treat it as a taboo subject. That is why some of us, at least, must speak up. (Catholic laypeople have set up a website called “Bishop Accountability.” There should be one for Orthodox Bishop Accountability, although some of this information may be found on the Pokrov site, mentioned above). Wouldn’t it be a good sign of Christian stewardship for the Metropolitan to speak forthrightly to the faithful about this issue?

One of our country’s best writers on this matter is the attorney and law professor, Marci Hamilton, who has written that:

“…The blame for the victims suffering is society-wide. The newspaper editors who agreed not to air the Church’s dirty linen failed the victims. The prosecutors who let the Church take care of its dirty linen failed the victims. The legislators who did not require clergy members to report child abuse, and who set shamefully short statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse, failed the victims.

This society’s whitewashing of religious leaders – as though they can do no wrong - …also failed the victims. For some of the victims, even their parents failed them. Every power on which those children relied for their well-being let them down.”

The National Herald once referred to lack of information from the Greek archdiocese as “the black wall of silence.” For leaders who are supposed to be the example of Christ-like behavior, the silence of the bishops on this issue is unconscionable. During my work years, I saw the sad eyes of abused children. If the voices of the laity can save even one child from abuse in the future, it will have been worth our efforts, certainly in the eyes of God.

Metropolitan Isaiah concluded his letter by saying that it’s really Christ’s Church and it’s not under human control. Well, if that’s so, then some bishops should step aside.

####
Mr. Cromidas is retired executive director of the Dallas Family Guidance Center, and has served as a parish council president in the Dallas community. He is currently editor for the Orthdox Reform Web Site, and sits on the Orthodox Christian Laity Board of Directors.

Read It and Weep, Truly ...

Moderator's Note: TOCB has been given permission by Orthodox Reform to post any and all present and past articles on their Web site.

With a sense of profound sadness we report the following:

It now appears that the cover-up involving Fr. Katinas has spanned DECADES and involves numerous incidents.

It is tragic that so many people sought to have Fr. Katinas merely "re-assigned" rather than reported. Who knows how many more victims might have been spared had our clergy, hierarchy and laity the courage to report these incidents when they first began occurring?

Our current Metropolitan's name keeps cropping up as part of the cover-up by reassigning Fr. Katinas. Other prominent clergy are mentioned as well. To read the full accounts, please click on the Orthodox Reform Web site (view http://orthodoxreform.org/).

All of us are affected by what our leaders do.

Voices from the Past

Moderator's Note: we have been requested to post the following by Mr. Con Skedros, Archon of our Church and Historian of our Community. (from notes in his own hand)

During the 4th Clergy-Laity Conference held in New York City, November 1931:

Meeting with the delegates on November 14, 1931, Archbishop Athenagoras assured the Assembly that he did not seek a parish administration dominated by the clergy.

Even if such authority was unanimously vested on the clergy by the Congress, I would not accept it because I believe such an authority is damaging to the prestige and the ministry of the priest, and such authority is contrary to the history of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Cited from The Odyssey of Hellenism in America, by Reverend Father George Papaioanou, (later Bishop of the Diocese of New Jersey), p. 272. The late Bishop George obtained his information from the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Salonika, Greece, 1985.

"Love One Another": from a Priest's Essay

Moderator's Note: the following is an excerpt taken from an essay "Effective Leadership Relationship Between Priest and Parish Council Members for the 21st Century" by Father Paul Palesty

On the eve of our Lord's betrayal and crucifixion, He gathered the twelve in the upper room where He celebrated the Passover, instituted the Holy Eucharist, washed their feet, and gave them a new commandment: Love one another as I have loved you...' Then He added, '...by this shall men know that you are my followers...' The relationship between pastor and Parish Council should manifest such love. Nothing less should be true of those who minister together. It is a wise and true leader who gives priority to the nurture of a loving, caring, supportive relationship between himself and those with whom he serves. This takes time ‑ much time ‑ but the priest cannot afford to do less.

This relationship must begin in the official council meeting. There the priest demonstrates whether he is a dictator, or a friend and servant, whether he thinks of himself as a member of a team of disciples or the head of an organization that is supposed to run according to his plans. He must understand that he is a servant to the servants of Jesus Christ, who is Head and Lord of the Church. The Parish Council represents the people whose needs the priest and parish council are committed to meet because of the Great Commission. It is a team ministry in which the Head of the Church guides and directs not only the priest, but every member of the official Parish Council. The priest should listen much more than he talks, and should avoid manipulative practices designed to influence decision, trusting the Spirit of God to guide the body in the will of God. Never should the pastor intimidate the Parish Council nor communicate the idea that they must decide as he wishes. Together they should seek the mind of Christ, which is more likely to be expressed through a consensus than through a simple majority.

This does not mean that the priest should not have ideas about which way things should go. As a matter of fact, he is responsible for giving leadership to the board. But if he uses threats, intimidation, or ultimatums in the Parish Council meetings, he is not exercising authentic leadership.

WHO Pays the Wages of Sin?

A few days we cited an article from the Orthodox Reform Web site, informing our readers that Greek Orthodox parishioners in Dallas were being asked to pony up more funds to protect their church properties - the ones over which our Metropolitan has "absolute authority and exclusive control." These funds are now needed to protect church assets in the lawsuits being brought by victims of the parish's defrocked priest, Fr. Katinas.

Apparently more of the same is in the offing. The Orthodox Reform Web site, has an article which again parishioners throughout the nation ought to find disheartening. (The article can be read in its entirety by clicking on this link: http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/stanley-adamakis/archdiocese-to-settle-misconduct-cases/. )

The final paragraph in the article by Theodore Kalmoukos, writing for The National Herald, is particularly noteworthy for those who don't have time to read the article in its entirety:

There is also strong disappointment mounting in many Archdiocese parishes, especially among the laity, due to the huge increase of the annual contribution of the parishes to the Archdiocese. The Metropolitans are exercising pressure on priests in their jurisdictions, urging them to convince the laity to increase their contributions to the Archdiocese, and parish councils are also pressuring the faithful to give more and more money, a good part of which is already being used to help pay for clergy sexual abuse cases.

Read it and weep. How can our hierarchy look us in the face and justify this situation?

Wanted: Qualified Candidates for the Parish Council

John Kaloudis is asking that we post this piece, and has told us he obtained the author's permission to do so.

Fr. Stavros Akrotirianakis

Ah, 'Tis the season for Parish Council elections. Every year as November and December roll around, many Orthodox parishes hold elections for their Parish Councils. In my ten year ministry, I've had Parish Council members who are shining examples of what it is to be an Orthodox Christian, who genuinely care for the mission of the church, who made a weekly habit of receiving Holy Communion, who came to confession, in addition to coming to Parish Council meetings, serving on committees and organizing community events. I've also had Parish Council members who did not attend church, who laughed when I told the Parish Council that all members should go to confession at least once a year, who came to church each Sunday only in time to pass the tray, who weren't faithful in keeping the fasts of the church and who generally did not set a good example.

In my parish, in addition to a seminar for Parish Council candidates held in the local area, last year I instituted an additional one hour private session in my office so that I could have an opportunity to dialogue with each candidate one on one. The other day, in conducting one of these meetings, a candidate asked me "Father, what is your number one goal for next year?" Without even thinking about it, I replied, "To have 11 Parish Council members (the number of my Parish Council) who will worship in church each Sunday." This person replied, "Do I have to come on time?" I guess a priest can dream, but as we approach another year of Parish Council elections, I scratch my head and wonder is it really that hard to find 11 people for a Parish Council who will commit to coming to church on time each Sunday? And is our method of choosing our parish leaders something that needs to be revised?

Picking versus Electing

History shows that leaders have traditionally picked those who work closest with them. Kings chose their men of court, Presidents choose their cabinets, Hierarchs choose their councils, coaches choose their assistant, managers hire their own secretaries, but the parish priests have their councils voted in. (In fact, the priest isn't even allowed to cast a vote for the Parish Council.) Why is that? Some say, this is to serve as a check and balance for the priest, make sure he doesn't get too much power. If we are worried that a priest will wield power in a dictatorial and oppressive way, perhaps that person is not an appropriate candidate for ordination and should be screened out during Seminary. However, the priesthood is a position of authority. The priest serves as the Icon of Christ at the altar in his community.

The priest serves as the leader of his community. Many Parish Council members will argue that the priest leads only the spiritual part of the community, with the Parish Council doing the business part. To which I counter, is there any part of the community life that isn't to be considered spiritual? Just look at your own personal life. Is there a separation between the spiritual and secular parts of your life? Does Christ only lead part of our lives, or is He supposed to be leading at all times, even when we are engaged in "secular" things like sports or socializing? Likewise, there is no secular part of a church -- Christ, through the priest, leads all aspects of community life. If there is a sinful or ungodly segment to community life, like running a bingo business, that aspect of community life needs to be eliminated, not have the priest turn a blind eye to it.

And what happens more often than not, is that rather than serving as a check and balance to temper a priest who "wields too much power," a Parish Council serves as an obstacle and handicaps the enthusiastic priest who is trying to grow his parish in the image and likeness of Christ.

What is the purpose of an Orthodox Church?

The Orthodox Church has but one purpose, to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As subgoals under this overarching theme are mission statements taken directly from the Gospels themselves. "To seek and to save the lost," (Luke 19:10); To call sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13) ; and "to baptize all nations." (Matthew 28:19) Every priest, parish council member and parishioner should be actively working towards these goals in their own lives and in the lives of their peers. Some have distorted the purpose of the church to include providing a social life and preserving a certain culture and language. There are certainly social and cultural elements present in every parish, but should not be the focus of that parish. The focus of every parish is Jesus Christ.

What is the role of the Parish Council?

Archdiocese regulations in various Orthodox jurisdictions provide a legal job description of the parish council which is to ostensibly help administer the parish in cooperation with the parish priest. Some interpret that as making sure the parish is on solid financial footing, counting money in the tray, running the parish festival, or selling raffle tickets. But if the primary focus of the parish is supposed to be furtherance of the Gospel, then the primary focus of the Parish Council Member is supposed to be assisting the priest to further the Gospel. This means that first and foremost, the Parish Council member must be a supportive example of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian. If Parish Council members are not worshipping in church or receiving the sacraments or going to confession, what kind of message does this send? That these things are important for the "regular people" of the parish but not for its leadership? By not being a good example IN the church, not only does the parish council member not further the message of Christ or work in cooperation with the priest, but actually works in opposition to the priest. Because the regular member of the church is going to think, "If our priest can't convince his own Parish Council that worship and the sacramental life are important, he must be a real bozo." Yes, the parish council has an administrative role in the church. The church festival is generally organized by someone on the Parish Council. Someone on the parish council is usually in charge of the buildings and grounds, the stewardship committee, the outreach committee and acts as a liaison to the various ministries of the church. But the primary role of the parish council is to be leading by example, in worship, in speaking positively about the future spiritual growth of the church.

What constitutes a Member in Good Standing? -- A hypothetical case study

In the parish of Holy Trinity, in Anytown, USA, there was a rule that to run for the parish council, one had to be a member for one full year prior to the election. So, if the election was December 9, 2005 for the parish council of 2006, in order to run, one had to be a member on December 9, 2004. It turns out that one year, George Smith wanted to run for Parish Council. He was a very pious man, in church every Sunday, one of the top stewards of the parish, who also did a lot of volunteer work at the parish festival. In November 2005, George Smith was nominated for parish council and was very excited about the prospect of serving his church. George had moved to the area in January of 2005 from a parish where he had served on the Parish Council, and filled out his membership form on January 2 of 2005. George was disqualified from running because he hadn't been a member of the parish for a full year (he was three weeks short of a full year), and hence wasn't a member in good standing. Mike Johnson, on the other hand, who rarely attended church, who pledged only a nominal amount, was nominated and elected. His great-grandfather, after all, had been one of the founding members of the parish. And for the 90 year history of the church, a Johnson had always been on the Parish Council. Perhaps it is time to redefine what is a member in good standing.

An Uninformed Electorate

In most parishes, members of the congregation do not know all the members who are running. Since we don't have debates or public forums for candidates to introduce themselves before the elections (hmm, there's an idea, a debate on the stage in the parish hall after church), members are told to vote for a slate of candidates they may not even know. And so the voting goes like this. Nick Jones picks up his ballot. It says vote for 6 of these 8 candidates. Nick knows five of the candidates, so he votes for them. He evaluates which of the other three to vote for and finds one of the remaining candidates is named Nick Smith. So he thinks, "My name is Nick, that's a good name, I'll vote for him." And so Nick Smith is qualified in the eyes of Nick Jones merely because his name is Nick. Then you have a good number of parishioners who show up only to vote -- they don't even attend church on election Sunday but come afterward to vote. They bring their checkbooks to make sure they are caught up on their membership for the year, filling out their stewardship form or paying their dues in December, just so they can vote. You have parishioners who themselves are not members in good standing, because they don't live an Orthodox Christian life, voting for people they don't know. An uninformed electorate voting for people they don't know -- is this a functional system?

What motivates people to run for the Parish Council?

There are many answers here. Some are motivated by a desire to help the church grow and to help others grow in their faith. If that's not a motivation to run, you probably need to evaluate why you are running. Some run because "we need responsible people to make sure the church is on solid financial footing." Or "we need to make sure the priest doesn't get too powerful." Or "I've been on the Parish Council for 25 years so I'll run again." Or " my father was on the parish council and now that he's passed away, I'll take my family's seat on the parish council." How many qualified people stay away from the parish council? In my years as a priest, when I've approached people who I think would make excellent parish council members, I have often been turned down by them because "there is too much politics" on the Parish Council, or "I don't know enough people to get elected." If you are running for parish council, you need to clearly examine why you are running. If it's for any reason other than I want to help my priest spread the Gospel in this parish, then please reconsider running. That's not to say that a parish council member does not need an administrative skill set -- yes, people on the parish council need to be good with numbers and balancing checkbooks, should understand stewardship and fundraising and will be doing administrative jobs like making sure the church roof gets repaired. But the primary job of the parish council member is to be a good example of a faithful Orthodox Christian, and being faithful to this role must be a motivating factor for the parish council candidate.

What we need on the Parish Council?

Committed Christians, plain and simple. We need people who will serve as examples to the rest of the community, who will come faithfully and punctually to church each Sunday, who will receive Communion, who will go to confession, who will attend a Bible study or religious retreat, who can talk with some competency about Orthodoxy. What we do NOT need are people who spend the liturgy in the hall, who come at 11:00 a.m. in time to pass the tray, who discourage parishioners from going to confession, who engage in gossip about the priest, or each other. How do these things help in spreading the Gospel of Christ?

The time has come to reexamine how we select leaders in our parishes. If Jesus Christ could choose illiterate fishermen and repentant tax collectors and make them into heralds of the Gospel who founded the Orthodox Church which still exists two thousand years later, if a priest were allowed to choose 9 or 11 (or whatever the number) committed Christians in his parish to serve as its leaders, I'm quite confident that the results would be positive. Since there is virtually no chance that that will ever happen, all I can hope for is that if you are nominated for the Parish Council and aren't committed to regular church attendance, if you don't have a regular prayer life, if you don't receive Communion often, keep the fasts, go to confession periodically (if ever) or are engaged in serious habitual sin, that you will withdraw your name from the ballot. And if there aren't enough qualified people to run in your parish, perhaps the priest will end up getting to appoint one or two people to the parish council. Would that be such a bad thing? He, above all, should know who is qualified.

Several years ago, at summer camp, one of the staff members also happened to be the parish council president of her church community. One morning, as we were beginning the Orthros (Matins) service before the Divine Liturgy, there was one person in our camp chapel (a tent outdoors covering a slab of concrete). In the back row of the chapel, it was this woman who was kneeling on concrete and praying. After Liturgy, I told her how moved I was to witness this scene of a parish council president on her knees praying at the beginning of Orthros in an empty church. I told her thank you for giving me a healthy image of a parish council member to have in my mind. At a time when many parish council members are the last ones in church, it was refreshing to see one be the first. We always picture the parish council members passing the tray, taking sign-ups for something, or hawking tickets to the dinner-dance. It's time for parish council members to step up and change that image, into images of holiness rather than images of business. After all, what is a church, a place of holiness or a place of business? And as Orthodox Christians, we are supposed to be being led by our priests and parish council members to become images of holiness, not merely consumers, customers and constituents.

Fr. Stavros Akrotirianakis is the Priest of St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church in Tampa, FL and is director of St. Stephen's Summer Camp for the Metropolis of Atlanta.

Posted: 22-Nov-07

Fax to Fr. Matthew from Nick Colessides

Nick J. Colessides
Attorney at Law
466 South 400 East, # 100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-3325
USA
-----------
Telephone: 801/ 521-4441
Tele-copier: 801/ 521-4452
E-Mail Address: njcolessides@msn.com
Facsimile Transmission

Date: November 26, 2007

Fax:328-9688

To: Fr. Matthew Gilbert

Total pages including this transmittal page: -2-
If you do not receive the entire transmission please call

MESSAGE

URGENT-URGENT

Dear Father Matthew,

This is to confirm that during our conversation right after church services yesterday I DID NOT tell you that:

1. There were 5 moderators for the Blog; and
2. That my brother was one of the moderators,

as you have suggested in your conversation with him earlier today.

As a matter of fact when you told me that your information was that he was one of “the 5 moderators,” I corrected you, and told you that he was NOT a moderator, but that his wife was. I also said to you yesterday and today that none of us control our wives. They are individuals with their own point of view.

I do not know where you get your information but HE IS NOT a moderator.

As I started this fax I responded to your call back. Let me again reiterate to you that I am not a moderator either; but I am a contributor.

You also told me in your conversation that my representations as made in this fax do NOT change your mind about his candidacy.

I hope my conversation today remove any doubt about what you and I discussed yesterday.

With all best wishes for upcoming Holy Season,

Nick J. Colessides

P.S. The only asset one has in life is integrity. We have learned long ago that our word is our bond.

New Rules

Effective immediately the priests apparently have instituted new rules.

Look out; the “Church Attendance Patrol” and the “Communion Patrol” is watching you.

How about the “Confession Patrol?” Is that not a “must” sacrament?

Be careful out there! If you miss a few times (26%/year in Church attendance and 2/12ths on Communion) and you pay the consequences. You become Ineligible. You are NOT in good standing.

Meanwhile you can rest comfortably in the thought that the two priests clergy are praying for you every Sunday. That is solely how our current priests discharge their duties as priests for our community.

Let the Clergy visit the following passages from the Bible.

Let them review Matthew 23:2-33

There is a lesson to be learned. Except for those who are “beyond learning.”

Happy Holidays to all,

Nick J. Colessides

The “Scarlet Letter” – “I” for “Ineligible”?

Ineligible, therefore disqualified. This past week, two community members, nominated for election to the parish council of this community, were telephoned by the chairman of the election committee, and told they were ecclesiastically “ineligible” to run for, and to serve on the parish council. The Scarlet Letter, a novel set in 17th Century Boston, describing the story of a woman who is forced to wear a scarlet “A” (for “adultery”) on her clothing comes to mind. Our present-day clergy and their minions cannot stand any scrutiny or accept any hard questions. They view those who disagree with them as "un-Christian" or "non-Orthodox". Thus they seek to put the letter “I” on two worthy gentlemen whom they label, based on ever-shifting standards that few can meet, or have had to meet in the past, as “ineligible”.

Jim Sifantonakis, moved to the U.S. with his family while still in high school. He graduated and went on to get a diploma in mechanical design. He married Katina Limberakis, and together they opened Omega Burgers, in 1976, along with other businesses through the years. Jim currently runs his own contracting business, building furniture and remodeling. With his wife, he has raised four successful children, teaching them to give their time and best efforts to the church and community. A self-motivated, talented man, Jim is honest and generous in always helping the church in any way he can. Jim never says "no" to anyone who asks for his help, and truly enjoys helping others. The church and community trust him with security and cash pickups. He has organized and cooked in the kitchen for countless events. When everyone else anticipates showing up for a party at six in the evening, Jim gets to the church early in the morning, spending the day and most of the party working to make events successful. Through his example he has taught his four children reason, honesty, fairness, humility - most importantly to strive to be good Orthodox Christians and persons of high integrity.

Gus Colessides, came to this community in 1966 from Kavala, Greece at the age of 17. An altar boy in his youth, Gus was the grandson of Theodoritos Colessides, a Pontian Archimandrite who led Pontic Greeks out of Asia Minor and into Greece, and who also was appointed by the Patriarch as Oikonomos of the Theological School at Halki. He served with distinction during his tenure there. Gus graduated from Westminster College in 1970 with degrees in Mathematics and Physics. He married Barbara Billinis in 1973, and earned his MBA from the University of Utah in 1977. He is the proud father of two daughters and the proud pappou of two grandchildren, both baptized at Holy Trinity. He worked in the oil industry for 24 years before retiring, and is still asked to speak as a consultant on trends in the oil and gas industry. He is currently a business consultant and entrepreneur. Gus taught Greek School at Prophet Elias and served on the parish council. He served on the Audit Committee at Holy Trinity Church, Tulsa. In Houston, he served on the building committee at St. Basil’s Greek Orthodox Church. Even after returning to Salt Lake in 2005, he still travels to Houston every May to run the kitchen for four days the St. Basil’s Greek Festival. He coached numerous youth soccer teams, helping several young people to obtain college scholarships, and mentored many young soccer referees through the years.

Jim and Gus are the kind of men any dynamic, open and transparent organization ought to be recruiting. They might ask hard questions, perhaps in ways not always considered politically correct by our overly sensitive leadership, but they are fair. Diversity of opinion generates good ideas and strong action. These people have raised good children, had success in their professional lives, and clearly GIVE BACK in a variety of ways. They exemplify the American Dream while maintaining pride in their heritage and their faith.

To those who think to assign a scarlet “I” to these men and others like them, we say shame on you! And let those among you who supposedly live up to the ever-shifting "standards", set forth by this clergy who can't stand any honest scrutiny, cast the first stones! And keep fooling yourselves into thinking the “I” stands for “ineligible”.

Those who are honest, fair and decent in this community know that the “I” stands for “INTEGRITY” – a trait that is sorely lacking among our hierarchy, our proistamenoi and their lackeys who are supposedly in "good ecclesiastical standing".

A Thought Cornucopia

In keeping with the holiday season vernacular, we offer the following cornucopia of thoughts to ponder:

• In his letter to us printed in the September Messenger, our treasurer lists figures for a third priest. In his financial information distributed at the General Assembly he lists a different set of figures. In a previous posting we questioned his figures... hmmm. And we are the "small number of terminal malcontents" who "revel" in furthering "misinformation"? Pot and kettle?
  
• Does our proistameno of Prophet Elias only choose not to celebrate the feasts of St. Nektarios and the Presentation of the Theotokos in the Temple? He was not in attendance at either Divine Liturgy.
  
• Has anyone seen the plans for the new "Baptismal Chapel" being planned for Prophet Elias, or does the proistameno of Prophet Elias only believe he can unilaterally make changes to OUR church, without at least going through the motions of letting us think we have a say?
  
• The original hand-picked "split committee" requested a letter from the Metropolitan stating he would honor the results of the survey. Where is that letter?


• Why was all pertinent General Assembly information only made available on the day of the meeting and not mailed previously for review?

Ponder away to your heart's content. Answers may never come but the questions need to be asked.

Banana Republic General Assemblies – the New Trend in Greek Orthodoxy in America

Yesterday’s General Assembly reminded one of Mormon Conference. The leadership proposed; the attendees disposed. There is also an elephant in the room that no one dares mention: our Metropolitan is an Absolute Ruler and his dictates, wishes and whims trump anything we might propose or dispose. Oh yes, there were a few pointed questions that the parliamentarian managed to deflect deftly, or that the speaker, particularly the Treasurer with his belated financials, managed to weasel away from. Yet, for the most part, everything went according to script.

There is only one deviation from the script. That deviation consists of the result from our community-wide survey whether to split our unified community of one parish, two churches, into two independent churches. Of 427 voting, 87% said NO. Our parish council president is now forced to convey to our Metropolitan, our absolute Master and Ruler (because we have allowed and continue to allow it!), that his “loyal subjects” still insist on an “uncanonical” and “bigamous” situation. We insist upon a unified community in this valley. He has promised to provide in writing an assurance that the result will be honored. Not that it matters. We also voted to create a vibrant and effective Heritage Corporation by a 72% margin in February and that was scuttled by our Metropolitan as not being in his best interests. Disagreements with this turn of events resulted in a parish council member's dismissal and a now-rescinded excommunication. Many would-be candidates now will not run for our parish council for fear they will also be excommunicated if they object to this sorry state of affairs. Add to this that our Metropolitan has also been an ardent and zealous supporter of Fr. Katinas, whom he transferred to Dallas from Olympia Hills, Illinois. When the sexual abuse lawsuits in Dallas are settled, will we will end up paying for the defense costs? Does it make ANY difference anymore?

We are being treated like ignorant yokels, because we allow it. We pass financials and a budget that we've seen for only a couple of hours. We are given a priests’ report that doesn’t say, for example, how many new parishioners we have acquired or lost, how many hospital visitations, what efforts are being made on the part of the clergy to increase youth and young adult participation, and the like. They fail to address the abuse scandals; they haven’t told us what measures they have in place to protect our children and youth. Instead we get a very nice sermon. Nothing wrong with its contents, but it is not a priests’ report.

In case we still don’t “get it”, our priests, who between them pull in $295,000 in salary, without counting any “τυχερά”, no longer deign to tell us, the marginalized laity, ANYTHING. We have only to shut up and put up. We are no longer ALLOWED to ask questions of any import. We are there but to affirm the whims of dictators in the form of the clergy and their assignees, to assent quietly to those among us who present themselves as our lay “leaders”, and to pay the tab. They sit there, in front of us at General Assemblies, uncomfortable and emasculated, for hours, while we are fed platitudes, half-truths and convenient omissions. They are outraged if we call it, or even imply, dissembling. To us, when a few brave souls dare to ask the hard questions they express outrage. To what is truly outrageous, they acquiesce.

However their silence speaks volumes. They KNOW what so many of us REFUSE still to believe – even though we can literally see it unfolding in front of us. They know that they, like we, have become superfluous. Oh, yes, they’re useful in that they provide, for example, construction expertise, or accounting expertise, or legal expertise, but they have no real authority to effect meaningful progress because absolute power and ultimate decision-making belongs solely and exclusively to our Metropolitan.

We are hesitant to believe this because even though we may disagree with them, we love them. We love them because they are our sons, our godsons, our brothers, our cousins, our friends. So we mince words, or try “think positive”, or pray that this too shall pass, because we know from past experience what rifts can come of these situations – the ones our clergy and hierarchy are cynically promulgating. And, when our priests have moved on, we will all still be here.

The gentlemen on our Parish Council, KNOW we’ve been DISPOSSESSED by our hierarchy and clergy. Our Metropolitan now OWNS, he says (and they obviously agree, or fail to disagree), our properties. They excuse it to themselves and to us behind the platitude of “hierarchical, canonical church”. The properties that our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents built with sweat, blood and love, the properties that the archdiocese AGREED IN WRITING were OURS, have been taken away from us. On our watch, on the watch of this, the “baby-boom” generation, we have allowed it to happen. One can “spin” this any way one likes. It is, however, impossible to deny and, sadly, true.

The Verdict Is In: 87% - No Split

The survey results are in. Of the 1,325 surveys sent out, 427 were returned. The results of those who sent in their surveys were:

Against the split: 370 - 87%

For the split: 57 - 13%

In terms of primary church attendance the votes broke down in the following manner.

Those who attended primarly Holy Trinity voted 110 - against, and 5 - for.

Those who attended primarly Prophet Elias voted 104 - against, 46 - for.

Those claiming they attended both churches fairly equally voted 119 - against, 2 - for.

Those who claimed no attendance preference voted 37 - against, and 4 - for.

The results speak for themselves.

Keep Quiet and Keep Paying!

We’ll say it again: the years following the "resignation" of the late Archbishop Iakovos, Archbishop of North and South America, will not and should not be remembered kindly by Greek Orthodox communicants in this country. The consequences for the laity under the new arrangement have been negative and traumatic. “Gifts” were given by our hierarchy to the “naïve and spiritually immature Greek-Americans” who were not ready for autonomy (unofficially enjoyed prior to 1996) and most certainly not autocephaly. The “gift” that our Patriarch gave the faithful in this country consisted of a new charter, ratified by Clergy-Laity Congresses, where dissenting voices were ignored or stifled. With this “gift” we had the further “gift” of new Uniform Parish Regulations designed by our newly appointed Metropolitans. These have now been imposed. And, our so-called leaders of the laity – archons, parish councils and the like – have let it happen. In effect, the hierarchy seized the churches and other parish assets in all our cities. Most of us did not know what this meant for our communities, but we are certainly finding out!

Our Metropolitan now claims as his our church properties. We say this because WE, and not just he and his priests, are the church. He now claims in a protocol document on his Web site (view entire document here) that he has absolute authority and exclusive control over all properties in his Metropolis. Our former hierarchs and clergymen worked with us, and we all prospered. Now the goal is to dominate, demand monies and impose punitive sanctions if monies are not or cannot be paid. (One is tempted to make the comparison to credit card companies.) If we question, we’re told that these are God’s. If we object, we’re “protestants”.

How facile and convenient! For all these years we, the communicants of our parish and its churches, have managed to faithfully steward these properties. These are the legacy handed down to us. We managed all these years to maintain our reverence, worship in our churches, baptize, marry and bury our loved ones, and still vouchsafe our community’s churches and other properties wisely together with our clergy. We did this and still held our deacons, priests and bishops in high esteem. It wasn’t always smooth and perfect, but it generally worked well in our valley.

Now we are told that this responsibility belongs solely to our Metropolitan who will answer only to God. Rightly or wrongly, we now must accept all clerical decisions in ALL facets of our parish life without any discussion. When the clergy err, they now answer only to their own and to God. We have but to keep quiet and keep paying!

A look at the excerpt from the protocol (page 2) we cited earlier in this essay tells it all:

The Metropolitan of Denver also has absolute authority over the property of the church and its administration. Canon XLI of the 85 Canons of the Holy and Renowned Apostles specifies:

"We command that the Bishop have authority over the property of the church. For if the precious souls of human beings ought to be entrusted to him, there is little need of any special injunction concerning money; so that everything may be entrusted to be governed in accordance with his authority, and he may grant to those in need through the Presbyters and Deacons with fear of God and all reverence, while he himself may partake thereof whatever he needs (if he needs anything) for his necessary wants, and for brethren who are his guests, so as not to deprive them of anything, in any manner. For God's law has enjoined that those who serve at the altar are to be maintained at the altar's expense. The more so in view of the fact that not even a soldier ever bears arms against belligerents at his own expense."

According to this and other canons the administration and disposal of all church property within his Metropolis falls under the exclusive and absolute authority of the Metropolis Hierarch. (emphasis added)

These canons were written in times of absolute monarchies. Even so, the hierarchy will do well to remember that, historically, the best kings, even absolute monarchs, reigned with the understanding that their longevity depended upon the goodwill of their subjects. Good monarchies lasted, even to this day; despots fell.

Orthodox churchmen in this country prior to the reign of this hierarchy were wise enough not to cite or enforce these canons. They are unnecessary and undesirable in today’s church. Our church in America has been vibrant and prosperous when clergy and laity worked in concert and with respect for one another. It is high time we returned to this arrangement. No one argues that in the ecclesiastical realm we are a hierarchy. It should be argued however that in all other aspects of church governance we are and should be a democracy – the legacy handed down by both our Greek and American ancestors. Our leaders, clergy and laity alike, would do well to remember it.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

Be sure you attend,and be sure you encourage your fellow parishioners to do the same. We will see you all this coming Sunday, November 18, 2007 at 3:30p.m. at the Holy Trinity Cultural Center.

We have been informed by the church offices that 1,325 surveys have been sent to community members in good standing. Everyone should come to show their enthusiasm and determination that our Community remains now more than ever UNITED, and that no obstacle is in its way. We believe that the majority will not wish to have our two churches split, divided, separated or indepedent from each other.

This UNITY, this UNITED FRONT, that will be demonstrated this coming Sunday, November 18th, will show everyone that the majority of our parishioners are determined to continue their religious work as before, and as the future needs of our Community require.

With our presence next Sunday let us bury once and for all the issue of the SPLIT of our community. Let us all stay UNITED. It is the only way this Community can build on over 100 years of progress.

Yet Again: A Reminder to Those Who Would Divide Us

Moderators' Note: On the eve of the survey deadline, and in anticipation of next week's General Assembly, we would like to remind our readers of the proper and ONLY acceptable method for dividing our community.

This comes from a General Assembly motion passed in 1968, an image of which we posted in May of this year (view here). As always we've kept the exact text, including typos and line breaks, and tried to stay as true to original formatting as html allows.

We would also remind our readers that both Mr. Vidalakis and Mr. Skedros are, thankfully, still with us, and can verify the thoughts and wishes for this community's unity that were expressed unanimously by our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents. We would all do well to consider their efforts and their sacrifices when we attend next Sunday.


General Assembly action on April 28, 1968.

The General Assembly unanimously voted the following motion made by Nick Vidalakis.

“That any attempt or motion in a Special
General Assembly to separate or divided (sic)
the Greater Salt Lake Greek Orthodox Community
would require the following:

(A). Minimum of six months written notice
with full and detailed particulars
as to the proposed division or
separation.

(B). General Assembly discussion.

(C). A minimum vote of 300 or 75% of
the total elgible (sic) membership of the Parish
(not the number which may be at any
given General Assembly) which ever
number is greater.

(Con Skedros asked Nick Vidalakis to amend
the 2/3 to 75% in his original motion.
Motion carried unanimously.

Quick Reminder

November 12th is the deadline for submitting surveys regarding the splitting of our Greater Greek Orthodox Community of Salt Lake City. Again we urge everyone, regardless of their opinion on the subject to submit their surveys.

Please also be aware that November 12th is Veteran's Day - a federal holiday. As such there is no mail service that day.

WHO PAYS? A Follow-Up...

Questions expressing shock and disbelief regarding our last post have come to TOCB. It seems that many are having difficulty believing the possibility that shortfalls in one parish can be allocated to all parishes in any given Metropolis.

TOCB some time ago provided its readers with both the Metropolitan's Budget Protocol and the actual budget spreadsheet for each parish within the Metropolis. These have been listed under the "Food for Thought, Questions to Ponder" section of our blog, to the right of the blog articles. These documents came directly from the Web site of the Metropolis of Denver.

We do not believe, given the specific circumstances in Dallas, that it is far-fetched that all of us will be required to pay for the shortfalls that are expected to arise in Dallas (and elsewhere throughout the country) in the wake of the abuse scandals now plaguing the Church.

It is simply a matter of reading the Metropolitan's own words, which were quoted verbatim from page four in his budget protocol. Read the documents and draw your own conclusions.

Who Pays for the Sins of the (Reverend) Fathers?

A few days ago an article, originally published in the National Herald, appeared on the Orthodox Reform Web site. The implications of this article are chilling.

Apparently the new priest and the parish council president at Holy Trinity in Dallas, Texas have asked Dallas parishioners to donate an extra $250 - $1,000 each. By doing so they hope to raise an extra $250,000 on top of their standard stewardship. The sum is needed to protect the church and its properties from lawsuits that are being brought by victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by the church’s former priest, Fr. Nicholas Katinas.

So it has now come to this. Our clergy sins; we pay the price. We are not implying that this is the case with all our clergy – the vast majority are fine, honorable, decent men of God. But when they are not, someone must pay the price.

We should keep in mind that earlier this year our Metropolitan was dismayed that revenues in Dallas had fallen twenty percent with the news that Fr. Katinas was about to be defrocked. So the $250,000 needed just to defend the church and its properties probably won’t cover the amount needed for this purpose AND also cover any shortfall from Dallas' usual stewardship level.

The article further states that the Metropolis of Denver and the Archdiocese are also being sued and that they are "taking responsibility for their own defense."

What does this have to do with us – with other members of the Greek Orthodox faith throughout this Metropolis and ultimately throughout the country?

A reading from Metropolitan Isaiah’s budget protocol dated 7/12/07 (page 4) might be instructive:

Should a parish feel that it has a special circumstance warranting my consideration, I will carefully examine whatever information is submitted to me by the parish priest, and will inform all the parishes of my decision. I ask that any such circumstances be brought to my attention as early in the year as possible. The final appeal period will be between June 15th and July 15th.

Please Note: Any reduction in the Total Commitment allocation granted to a parish will be paid for by all the other parishes of the Metropolis. Before an appeal for special consideration is submitted to me, consider the impact of your action on the other parishes. (emphasis added)

Who will pay for the sins of the Fathers? You decide.

* Note: The article mentioned, Church In Dallas Asks $250K From Parishioners, can be found on the Orthodox Reform Web site, http://orthodoxreform.org/cases/fr-nicholas-katinas/dallas-requests-250k/.