Holiday Wishes to All

We at TOCB wish our community members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Christ is born!


Our prayer for this holiday season is that the New Year finds us strong and united!

- TOCB moderators and bloggers

Press Release: Support Group Wants Greek Bishop To Apologize

http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Article&id=864

Date Published: 12/22/2008


Related Document: December 22nd Letter From Pokrov.org to GOA Synod

Related Document: December 3rd Letter From Metropolitan Isaiah to Metropolis of Denver


After Multi-Million Dollar Settlement, He Claims Accusations Are “False”

Greek Orthodox Officials Should Discipline Denver-Based Cleric

A top Greek Orthodox church official is being harshly criticized for claiming that five men who reached a multi-million dollar child sex abuse settlement actually made up allegations.

Leaders of a support group for survivors of abuse in the Orthodox Churches are writing to Archbishop Demetrios Trakatellis and the other members of the ruling body of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA). They want that group to discipline Metropolitan Isaiah Chronopoulos and force him to apologize for accusing the five men of lying.

In October, the men settled their lawsuit against Fr. Nicholas Katinas and numerous church entities. But two weeks ago, Chronopoulos publicly accused these victims of making false charges in that action. He made his allegations in a letter sent to all members of his Denver-based diocese, as well as posting them on the diocesan website.
Protocol 08-27

“Chronopoulos should explain and apologize for his hurtful claims,” said Melanie Jula Sakoda of Moraga, California. She is a co-founder of a San Francisco-based support group called Pokrov.org. “Church officials can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t pay millions to avoid an embarrassing public trial which will expose their complicity in child sex crimes, yet afterwards pretend the victims are lying.”

In a December 22nd letter, sent by fax and email to Trakatellis and the denomination’s Synod of Bishops, Sakoda writes, “Pokrov.org has in its files material submitted to the court before the case was sealed. Contrary to the metropolitan’s claim, there was indeed evidence supporting the allegations of a cover-up.”

“It’s disgraceful for the metropolitan to claim that ‘there was no cover-up by anyone in the parish or at the Metropolis’ when the claims against both the church and the diocese were dismissed in the confidential settlement agreement.”

Katinas was defrocked in July of 2007 because of child sexual abuse allegations by other men. There is also another lawsuit pending in Illinois against Katinas and the Greek Church.

Pokrov.org went online in June of 1999. It was founded by three Orthodox women who wanted to see the problem of sexual abuse in the Orthodox churches addressed. Pokrov is the Russian word for protection. There are a dozen or more Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States in addition to the GOA.

Metropolitan Isaiah oversees the Denver diocese of the GOA, which includes some 50 churches in an area from Montana to Texas. His title, Metropolitan, is one given to some Orthodox bishops. The metropolitan previously come under fire from Pokrov.org for taking almost four years to try the case of another priest accused of child sexual abuse. That clergyman, Fr. Gabriel Barrow, who worked in Toledo, Ohio, and Houston, Texas, was defrocked by the Greek Church in May of 2005.

From the Metropolis: Protocol 08-27: Concerning the Former Priest Nicholas Katinas

The following protocol may be found on the Metropolis of Denver Web Site at:

http://www.denver.goarch.org/protocols/2008-Protocols/protocol-08-27.pdf

December 3, 2008

Protocol 08–27

All Members of the Holy Metropolis of Denver Clergy, Monastics, and Laity

Beloved in the Lord,

Recently our Archdiocese sent out a news release regarding the lawsuit against the Archdiocese, stating that the matter of the former priest, Nicholas Katinas, had come to an end with a confidential out of court decision.

As you may have noticed, neither the parish of Holy Trinity in Dallas, nor your Metropolis, were part of this decision. The reason for this is that there was no evidence of any cover-up by anyone in the parish or at the Metropolis. The initial accusations, therefore, against anyone in the parish or of my office were false. I personally wanted a trial by jury; but our superiors in New York decided that the matter had been protracted to the point that it was not helping our people, and therefore chose to close it with an out-of-court decision.

In the course of this sad affair which affected many people besides the accusers, not only the faithful members of the parish but concerned faithful Christians throughout the country, there obviously will be no expression of “I am sorry” for spreading false information by public and self-appointed media from the East coast to the West coast, and even individuals in Dallas who believe that God chose them as His avenging angels.

The fact remains that we are the Church of Christ in the world which seeks out sinners for repentance. This is the only purpose for which our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world.

I have no knowledge whatsoever of what the Archdiocese knows regarding Nicholas Katinas. But I do know that, as Christ was a friend of sinners, I can do no differently. I, too, must be a friend of sinners, whoever they may be. My prayer is that all faithful members of the Church, clergy and laity, would try to imitate our Lord. Whenever we can, we should guide sinners to repentance, so that they, also, will be led to a merciful and forgiving God, Who grants to all sinners eternal life in His coming Kingdom.

My prayers continue to be with Nicholas Katinas for his salvation.

With Paternal Blessings,

[signature]

+ Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver

=========================================================

Moderators' Note: The note on the bottom of this protocol reads: TO BE PRINTED IN ALL PARISH BULLETINS OR SENT INDIVIDUALLY BY MAIL.

Some Further Perspectives on "Judge, Jury and Executioner"

The Clergy Letter of "ineligibility"...

• None of the four candidates declared ineligible were ever given the opportunity to defend themselves.
• They were accused, found guilty and sentenced without any representation.
• We question and we are told we disrespect ecclesiastical authority.
• We ask to be heard and are told we are out of order.
• We voice our concerns and they are twisted into malice.
• We are preached love, kindness and respect of our fellow man; yet, we get dictatorship rather than any real or sincere Clergy-Laity dialogue.
• We are asked to state our concerns in writing, yet they are never made known.
• Where is the unity of Clergy and Laity we were always taught represented the Orthodox Faith?
• The Uniform Parish Regulations of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America state in part that one must be obedient in matters of the faith, practice and ecclesiastical order, contribute to the progress of the church’s sacred mission; and be an effective witness and example of the Orthodox Faith and traditions to all people. Does this only apply to the Laity?

It IS time for a change!

Merry Christmas to all!

- Jim Kastanis

Andrea Orton Responds to Metropolitan Isaiah

December 10, 2008


His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver
4550 East Alameda Avenue
Denver, CO 80246-1208

Your Eminence,

As a parishioner of the Greek Orthodox Community of Greater Salt Lake City, I felt it my duty to comment on your letter of December 3, 2008. With all due respect, the problems facing our community today are very real and not imagined. If you were kind enough to grant us an audience as we requested at our fall general assembly of 2007, which was over one year ago, perhaps you could see this for yourself.

In your letter to our community you addressed the importance of converts. I personally have nothing against converts to our faith. I feel they have much to offer this community; however, they also have much to learn. I disagree with your generalization that certain problems never seem to be resolved in our community. To what chronic problems do you refer? Rather than speak in ambiguities, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call a spade a spade? I’ve lived in the community all my life and have seen priests come and go. Never once do I feel our community has “used” a priest as a scapegoat. The facts speak for themselves. One can only ask our Church Historian and revered member of community, Mr. Constantine Skedros. I was involved quite extensively with Father Dean Gigicos during his assignment to Salt Lake City as an active GOYA member and GOYA Officer. Sure, we had our disagreements. That’s part of life and growing up, but to use him as a scapegoat for our community’s problems… I strongly disagree. Please cite examples to correct my slighted memory.

As to your question, why is Salt Lake City so problematic? Come on now. We live in the United States of America. We have friends and relatives in other communities across the country. Do you really think we’re that naïve? All one must do is read the National Herald and visit other communities to see this is not an isolated problem unique to Salt Lake City.

How can you say we’re isolated from our nearby parishes? We support our sister parishes and go above and beyond to assist them in any way possible. We attend church services and offer donations when we visit. Our dance groups perform at their festivals. Our choirs travel to assist during their church services. We recently donated our old choir robes to a sister parish in need. How dare you say we’re isolated! It seems like you really don’t know our community at all.

Our issues with our priests and the Archdiocese have never been over liturgical issues. They have been over financial and business issues. Once again, you’ve missed the point. You are correct, we don’t own our community but we do own the real property belonging to our church and community. Who maintains this property, pays the taxes, and keeps everything financially sound? It’s the parishioners of the community not the Archdiocese. Perhaps the clergy need to listen to the laity. You’re right, clergy come and go, but the parishioners are always left behind to clean up the mess made by the clergy. Don’t you think it’s time to stop and listen to this community? There are only so many hours in a day. Why doesn’t the clergy spend their time administering to the spiritual and liturgical growth of our community? That’s their expertise and why they attended Seminary School. They don’t have business degrees.

We are not naïve and know the Church of Christ is not a worldly entity but a divine institution created and established by God. Perhaps the Archdiocese needs to take a step back and practice what they preach. Whose Church is this? Did anyone in the Archdiocese die to establish the Church on Earth? Why does the Archdiocese constantly demand our hard-earned money? TAKE OUR CHURCH BACK…you’re darn right!! Why should we have to pay disproportionately for lawsuits and other actions of unfaithful clergy?

This “problem” always seems to rear its ugly head when priests are sent to rule with a hidden agenda rather than listen to the rational needs of the community. It’s amazing the things we could accomplish if we could work together rather than against each other. Isn’t it time for the priests to listen to the members of this community. There will always be disagreements but a dictatorship with no open means of discussion IS NOT the answer!

It doesn’t seem a fair analogy to compare our Church to AHEPA or the Masons. The financial operations of our Church were not written over 2,000 years ago. It was only at a recent Clergy/Laity Conference where the Archdiocese demanded sole control and deeds to our properties. Is this the Church of Jesus Christ? It sounds like the Church of the Archdiocese to me! Again you’re right, one day we “troublemakers” will die, but our Church will live on. It will live on because I strive for it to continue on for the salvation of my children and those that follow. Should I be shot down and persecuted just because I voice an opinion? Is voicing an opinion really blasphemy?

I also write these words not to offend, even though I’m afraid offense will be taken. I want to awaken you to your total misconception of what our community stands for and is all about. I do not have any unChristian concept of the Church. You’re right, our Church should unify, but right now it divides. As our spiritual leader you should offer support and guidance, not lectures and scoldings.

I honestly don’t feel anyone in this community is spreading division, other than the clergy. We are concerned, have questions, and want answers. We don’t want to be threatened into submission or with excommunication. We live in the United States of America where freedom of speech is one of our inalienable rights. As I said before, there will always be differences and our community will never agree on everything, but there’s no reason why we can’t keep an open line of communication and dialogue between all clergy and laity. No topic should be closed to discussion.

The murmuring and complaints voiced by this community will not ease until the clergy really wants to listen to what we have to say with an open mind. Again, our Church belongs to Christ, not us, and not the Archdiocese.

God bless you and keep you during this holy Christmas Season. I hope one day you’ll visit and really tend to the needs of this community.

Respectfully and in God’s Name,


Andrea Orton
Parishioner of Greater Salt Lake City

Meet the Judge, Jury and Executioner

A review of the Metropolitan’s letter leads to the following inescapable conclusions:

• We need love; he offers indictments;
• We seek help; he says he has no time for us;
• We need a shepherd looking after his flock; he says we are trouble makers;
• We have substantial discontent; he continues to keep Fr. Kouremetis in place;
• We need workable programs to keep our youth within the Church; he offers severe criticisms;
• We ask for help; he provides us with threats explicit and implied;
• We ask for help; we get a manipulated view of the Holy Canons;
• We ask for help; we get his “scapegoat” theory;
• We do not need to have on board clergy who support his points of view;
• Do you want to continue your financial support to the Metropolis?

KALA CHRISTOUYENNA TO ALL.

Nick J. Colessides
Attorney at Law

Metropolitan Isaiah's Letter to Our Community, Dated 3 December 2008

Moderators' Note: We are posting our Metropolitan's letter to our community dated 3 December 2008. Any differences in formatting are due to posting in html. We have not altered the language.

December 3, 2008

The Reverend Priests and
The Faithful Members
Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral
Prophet Elias Greek Orthodox Church
5335 Highland Drive
Holladay, UT 84117

Beloved in the Lord,

Having read letters and other articles by a small number of members of the community regarding real and imagined problems, my mind goes back to March 1962 when I was assigned as the assistant priest at Holy Trinity under Father Steven Katsaris. In being assigned to the parish I received a bonus in that my uncle, Mr. Gust Kapsimalis, one of my mother’s older brothers, had been living in Salt Lake City from the early 1900’s. He was married with three children, and he was a supporter of the parish. This allowed me to have a stronger feeling for the parish, a feeling which I have continued to hold.

I remember how unhappy Father Steven was with the parish. Certain problems never seemed to be resolved. Even though he had served from 1956, after seven years Father could not wait to leave the parish. Indeed, he did leave in July 1962. In my three years at Holy Trinity, I tried to put my finger on the underlying problems that did not want to go away. I also remember that one of the most dedicated servants of the parish was Lucille Floor, who administered the Sunday School program for over six hundred young people. Thank God for our converts!

The fact that problems appear to exist regarding the Church has been a chronic situation in Salt Lake City among our people. Usually, the scapegoat is the priest because priests do not usually stay long, and what better person to blame for the problems, whether real or imagined? Priests do leave, but the problems seem to come back again. All you have to do is ask Father Dean Gigicos regarding his tenure from 1976 to 1981.

My dilemma has been: why is Salt Lake City so problematic? I can correctly say that a prime reason is its isolation from nearby parishes, whereas in the Chicago area, the Boston area, and also the New York area, all places where I myself have lived and served, have an ongoing relationship of one parish to another. Those parishes see themselves as under the umbrella of the Archdiocese, the Body of Christ, made up of many interrelated cells.

It seems that, in Salt Lake City, a small number of people down through the years have seen the community as an entity which they own. They believe that the ownership of the church is theirs. This may be true only legally, as far as the laws of our nation are concerned.

However, these people fail to see that the Church of Jesus Christ is not a worldly entity, but a divine institution created and established by God. What better evidence can one see, that a web site created by someone in Salt Lake City, and named “Take Our Church Back!” Whose Church is it? Did anyone in Salt Lake City die to establish the Church on earth? Who has the audacity to say that the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ is “My Church”? Ownership of the Church is solely Christ’s. We in the Church are simply members with the hope of attaining salvation in God’s Coming Kingdom.

Could this be the problem which always seems to rear its ugly head whenever someone does not like the priest for whatever reason? Those of you who belong to human organizations such as AHEPA or the Masons, don’t you abide by the regulations of those organizations? Why, then, do some flout the regulations of the Church, which has existed for almost 2,000 years without change or interruption, and want to do “their own thing”? All of us are going to leave this life one day, sooner or later, but the Church will go on. If this is so – and it is – then the Church can also say, “One day those troublemakers will die, but I, the Church, will continue to live on for the salvation of those who will come after them.”

I write these words, not to offend anyone, but to awaken those who have a totally unchristian concept of the Church. Christ our God is the God of Love. Love does not divide; love unites. If anyone persists in spreading division among you that person is in danger of self-excommunication (Rom. 16:17, Titus 3:10, 11) IF they persist in their attempts to cause division, the priests and the parish council have the right to return their stewardship and, thus, these people will not be in the position of being able to attend and vote at any meeting of the community.

It is time for the murmuring and the complaints to cease. The procession of priests who have served in the community is far too long. This is an indictment against the community. When we recognize the churches in Salt Lake City and Holladay as cells in the Body of Christ, which is made up of hundreds of thousands of parishes throughout the world, then we can begin to say, “The Church belongs to Christ Who died to establish Her; She is not our Church. She is the Bride of Christ Who is in the world for our salvation.”

With Paternal Blessings,

[signature]

Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver
TO BE SENT TO ALL PARISHIONERS

Holiday wishes!

I would like to thank our Metropolitan for an eloquently
written letter and also to extend to him my Holiday wishes.
ΣΕΒΑΣΜΙΩΤΑΤΕ,ΑΝΤΕΥΧΟΜΑΙ,
ΚΑΛΑ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥΓΕΝΝΑ
ΜΕ ΥΓΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΧΑΡΑ ΤΟ ΝΕΟΝ ΕΤΟΣ!

ΓΙΑΝΝΗΣ ΑΡΜΑΟΥ

Letter to Metropolitan Isaiah from Dimitri Tsagaris

Per Mr. Tsagaris' request, we've posted his letter to Metropolitan Isaiah.

Dimitrios Tsagaris
3815 South 2900 East
Salt Lake City Utah 84109
801) 554-1951

November 14, 2008
Via fax: (303) 333-7796
Original via first class mail.

His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah

Metropolis of Denver
4550 E Alameda Ave
Denver, CO 80246

Your Eminence,

I have been an active member of the Salt Lake Greek Orthodox Community for the last 30 years. When I first arrived in this country, I represented the University of Utah’s Greek Students from Greece. I addressed the General Assembly and asked permission that the then-minimum pledge requirement for those students be waived in order for them to become official members of the Community. This request was granted. Thirty years later, having served for six years in prior terms, and also during the last two years as a parish council member, I am still here offering my services to this community in any capacity I can.

Please allow me to express to you that during the last four years our community has endured serious setbacks. There is damage due to specific actions and/or decisions that have been detrimental to this community and that, unfortunately, are still continuing. Your immediate attention and guidance is imperative.

I do not know from where you are receiving your information about the affairs of our community. I’m quite certain you are not receiving them from your parish council.

I have submitted two drafts of this letter to the council for input and discussion, and I wanted to present it to the assembly. I was told by the president of this community that technically I cannot discuss this subject with the board, and definitely not during the upcoming General Assembly. I have respected his directive.

I feel strongly enough about it, however, to present to you my point of view and my thoughts and to ask for your consideration. This is not meant as a challenge to your authority, or to be in any way disrespectful. It is just a simple talk between me and my spiritual leader. I’m told you are the nicest person in the world to talk to in person. I understand you are extremely busy however I look forward to meeting with you in person. Until then here are my thoughts on a few specific issues.

Our community in Salt Lake City is facing severe financial shortfalls. The most recent action of the Special General Assembly, allowing us to place approximately $170,000 of our festival funds in our operating budget, is but a temporary measure. Our forecast for next year does not appear any more encouraging. This shortfall is indicative of the great financial crisis sweeping this country and the world and also due to the compromised current parish organizational culture of our community. Our parishioners’ revenues and expenses are negatively affected by this global crisis; however they all do their best by taking the appropriate corrective survival measures by controlling their expenses first.

We the Parish Council have examined and adjusted our expense accounts to the best of our ability. Labor and benefits comprise 62% of our expenses for our employees, and also for the remuneration and benefits of our three clergymen. The clergy’s portion accounts for 31%, or half of the 62%. We have a total of three clergy along with 12 additional full-time-equivalent staff.

Below are the measures the Parish Council has taken in order to arrive at the 2009 labor and labor overhead components of our expenses and their values.

(A) Non-Clergy personnel: (12 full time equivalent employees)

1. No merit increases for 2009: Approx $(13,000) @ 3.5 %

2. Elimination of parish’s contributions portion to the employee 401(k) Plan: Approx $(6,000)

3. Initiation of a 15% co-payment to their 2009 health plan. Approx $(8,000)

4. Responsibility change-related salary reduction to 1 employee. ${placeholder for future consideration}

The above 2009, expense budget cuts amounts to about $27,000

(B) Clergy personnel.

We approved an increase for our three clergy’s remuneration (labor and overhead) of approximately $15,000. This increase was in the range of 4% to 7%. For the record, the day after the meeting, Fr. Michael Kouremetis, to his credit, “humbly declined” the proposed increase. Fr. Elias Koucos followed his example, and as such it is not included in the 2009 budget.

I feel that it is my responsibility as a parishioner, as member of the Parish Council and as member of the Finance Committee to point out the following:

We increased our clergy’s remuneration while we cut salaries, merit increases, and benefits to our other personnel and in the face of growing economic difficulties our fellow parishioners might be facing.

The present remuneration costs of our clergy are based on the attached guidelines set forth by the Archdiocese. This is a generic guideline that needs to be re-examined in order to be revised improved and customized.

Of equal importance in following the Archdiocesan guidelines is the financial situation of each community, particularly our own community, to respond in accordance with our ability to follow the guidelines. At the end of the day, if our community cannot afford current clergy salary levels, this needs to be pointed out. Indeed, this is the case.

The aforementioned 31% of our budget in clergy labor and overhead costs is extremely high at this particular time, and will be as well for some time going forward. I believe it too ought to be adjusted accordingly. In five years the above $15,000 clergy remuneration level of increase, @6% will become $85,000. When taking into consideration historical increases in health benefit costs, it can easily reach the $100,000 range. A few months ago the finance committee, of which I am a member, presented the parish council with a list of action items, along with suggestions targeted to streamline our finances and operations. One of those recommendations was to enter into open dialog with Your Eminence regarding a symbolic if you will clergy salary reduction. This negotiation never materialized. We ought to be allowed to immediately enter into discussions with Your Eminence to implement a one-time base salary reduction of our clergy to be effective preferably by January 1, 2009.

The issue of whether or not our three clergymen at their present remuneration levels can remain on the payroll should be placed before you for your consideration, along with the request that at your earliest convenience you reassign one of our clergy to another community currently in need of a clergyman.

Here is the dilemma and the struggle, in my opinion, our Parish Council faces: The attached guidelines sent by Your Eminence, on one hand, clearly allow us to discuss fairly and negotiate clergy remuneration, and, on the other hand compensation issues cannot be discussed with the parish council when considering the Parish budget.

The question is: HOW then does a community negotiate with Your Eminence on the remuneration of our priests, and then find itself barred from discussing the very same subject in a parish council meeting and/or in a General Assembly?

The answer in my opinion is very simple. We must begin by talking to you and outlining our dilemma. Rules and regulations are written to apply to the majority of communities in the most usual of circumstances. However, rules and regulations need to be constantly streamlined and revised, and these are not the most usual of circumstances.

It is our responsibility to enter into open discussions with Your Eminence. When faced with extraordinary circumstances, I enter into similar discussions at my place of employment, in my household, with my friends, with my acquaintances, and, presumably so at the Parish Council. Why not with my spiritual leader? The essence is not really the mechanics of interpreting and following the wording, but in capturing the true issue and just putting it on the table for food for thought, discussion and subsequent action.

We cannot and should not be using “band-aids”, instead of prudent solutions. We have asked for drastic cuts from our non-clerical employees; we have acknowledged the financial burdens of our parishioners. We should further be allowed to be proactive and ask for similar sacrifices from our clergy. The collective amount of their remuneration at this time is simply too large. It should be clarified here that if a clergyman declines the proposed required increase in a given year, according to the guidelines, in order to be within the range, the following year, if economic conditions improve, the increase should be adjusted accordingly. Remuneration can be deferred to be paid when conditions improve.

On the proposed revenue side, I have had the opportunity to preview the new stewardship presentation. I was truly impressed. It is very well thought out. However, I am convinced, as you will see from the presentation, that it will ONLY work if the parishioners of our community feel that the Parish Council, the Clergy and the laity are on an equal footing; that there is an active demonstration of unity; that there is a commitment toward working cooperatively; and that there is open communication. If there is no such commitment, then we can expect to see the ongoing declining trend in the number of stewards and in the amount of stewardship.

In closing, I believe that the extraordinary circumstances we face in these times require extraordinary measures. Whether we like it or not, we are facing extraordinary circumstances. We can continue to put our heads in the sand, pretending that the problems will simply go away, or we can proactively and honestly begin to address them. Like it or not, we are ALL in this together. We cannot simply decide these things by ourselves, nor can we blindly ask our parishioners to accept to measures adopted without their input and expect or demand from them to simply comply.

Our clergy need to do their utmost to be viewed as servants to all our parishioners. They need to be role models, not critics. They need to exemplify the Lord’s role as that of the good shepherd. Humility, and not arrogance, is what is required. They must stand with us and not presume to stand above us.

I keep hearing that the complainers will always be complainers and that there is only a small group of people that create trouble and advocate reduced monetary stewardship giving. I submit, however, that it is those “trouble makers” who give very generously when it comes to specific restricted capital projects and /or community fund raising events such as the St Sophia’s School, the Thavma Foundation, Taste of Greece, etc. They will not be as generous when their intelligence is insulted and when their input is rejected. I ask Your Eminence: is there a possibility that they are trying to point out something to you? If nothing else, Your Grace, the loss from the previous year of 130 stewards or 13.00% for the 12-month period ending October 2008 is surely a matter for serious consideration.

Respectfully yours,



Dimitrios Tsagaris

Cc Parish Council

ATTACHMENTS

Here are some relevant UPR notations for consideration

ARTICLE 15

PARISH
Section 1: The Parish is the local eucharistic community of the
Church in a given locality; organized under the jurisdiction of the
Archdiocese whose ecclesiastical authority is its canonically consecrated
Hierarch. Locally, the Parish is headed by a canonically ordained and
duly appointed Priest. The assignment of such appointed Priest shall bind
the Parish to the Archdiocesan Regulations, Uniform Metropolis
Regulations and Uniform Parish Regulations with the same force and
effect as if the same were formally approved and adopted by the Parish.

Article 17. Section 2:
A. In accordance with the canons and ecclesiastical procedure,
neither the Parish Council nor the Parish Assembly is
authorized to dismiss a Priest.

Article 17. Section 8.
B. No Parish shall reduce, withhold or adversely alter a Priest's
remuneration without the consent of the respective Hierarch.

ARTICLE 30
Section 4: If a problem should arise between a Priest and the Parish
Council, the matter shall not be brought before the Parish Assembly. The
Priest or the Parish Council shall have the right to refer the matter to the
respective Hierarch.

Here are some relevant notations for consideration from protocol 08-15 July 24, 2008.

a. A clergyman is assigned or reassigned to a parish by the Metropolitan alone.

b. Clergy compensation is governed by the annual Clergy Compensation Plan. This plan is promulgated by the Archdiocese through the office of the Chancellor and the Archdiocese Benefits Committee.

c. The clergy of this Metropolis are forbidden by me to discuss the terms of their compensation with any member or body of the parish. This includes the parish council and its officers: this standard practice helps to preserve the good relationship between the Priest and the parish on a spiritual level. All discussions and negotiations regarding the compensation of a clergyman are, without exception, conducted solely between the parish and the hierarch who acts on behalf of the Priest.

d. The compensation of the priest is not subject to discussion when considering the parish budget. This is so whether it is being considered informally, such as at a parish council meeting, or at a General Assembly: the compensation of a clergyman is to be regarded as a “fixed” expense just as a mortgage payment or other financial obligation of the parish.

Link to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Clergy compensation plan for 2009.
http://www.denver.goarch.org/protocols/2008-Protocols/protocol-08-15-encl-1.pdf

Dimitri Tsagaris Withdraws His Candidacy for the Parish Council

Moderators' Note: Mr. Tsagaris requested we post his withdrawal of candidacy.

2 December 2008
Rev. Fr. Matthew Gilbert
Rev. Fr. Michael Kouremetis
Parish Council members and Parishioners of the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake City.

I was extremely disappointed and hurt to hear that four board candidates were disqualified by our Clergy! After careful consideration, I am sending you this letter to inform you that under the current circumstances, I am withdrawing my application to become a candidate for the parish council in the upcoming elections.

Since the arrival of Fr Michael, our community has been on a rapid decline. My experience as a board member over the past two years has allowed me to recognize this continuing trend. I have often wondered how a charismatic individual such as Fr. Michael could inflict such pain and disorder in this community.

In my opinion, a good leader is one who reflects on his actions, and also one who wishes to hear feedback from his community, whether it is positive or negative. Community members should be allowed the opportunity to express their concerns of the administrative life of our community, without fearing punishment or intimidation. This said, asking the community for responses from the pulpit does not appear to be motivated by a sincere way for feedback; it is an inept way to discuss issues.

The selective enforcement of the UPRs, the fabrication of four disqualifications clearly appear to be measures taken in order to silence possible opposing points of view; it is a medieval practice long discarded by the Orthodox faith, and has no rationale. I would like to know who is responsible for keeping records of church attendance; and, when this “supervisor” was established and appointed to his or her position. These grounds for disqualification are evidently invalid, unless documents outlining the weekly church attendance of each parishioner are kept and can be produced. Also, shouldn’t people be allowed to start getting fully involved in the life of the parish if they had not been so before? Disqualification based on personal insights and opinions posted on the blog appear juvenile. We should be able to freely express ourselves in whichever manner we find appropriate. The blog has served as the only outlet of expression to many parishioners, but has become increasingly negative due to the events taking place in our community. The blog has never discussed a theological issue. The blog can be turned into a good-news forum, when there is good news to report.

I understand that the mandatory seminar for all candidates to the parish council is scheduled for tonight, December 2, 2008, in order to “review the Uniform Parish Regulations and the role of parish council members and oath of office.” As I recall, two years ago when I attended the same seminar, the focus by Fr. Michael was clearly on “who is in charge.” That was in contrast to three seminars I attended in the past conducted by our previous proistameno as well as invited clergy.

If I may suggest, inviting other clergy who served this parish in the past and are very well respected and liked by all parishioners as guest speakers to tonight’s seminar, it would be a good idea and beneficial to clergy and candidates alike. Also, touching on issues such as overreaching egos, extreme impulsiveness, intimidating, controlling, and how to be a good team player, would be very beneficial.

In closing, at this time and under the current leadership, I do not feel inclined to serve on the board. I wish to see a leadership that thrives on growing this parish in the image and likeness of Christ. I consider myself to be a simple person living a simple Christian life. I help my community in any way I can and respect the role of the clergy and the cloth. Respect, however, is earned, not automatic or demanded. I am certainly neither surrendering myself nor I hold any negative feelings towards anyone. But at this time I prefer and elect to serve my church and community in other capacities.

Sincerely,


Dimitrios Tsagaris
Cc: His Eminence Metropolitan Isaiah

Living in Glass Houses While Throwing Stones?

We employed a bit of levity in a previous article discussing the absurdity in our Proistamenoi’s claim that Mr. Sifantonakis (for a second time) and Mr. Armaou’s candidacies were disqualified due to inconsistent attendance. It’s difficult to imagine that our priests have the uncanny ability to know who is in which church on any given Sunday, particularly in the case of one of our priests since his absences are so frequent.

We find little humor, however, in the dismissals of Jim Kastanis and Sakis Sakellariou. Our priests claim that by words written on this blog, these gentlemen disqualified themselves. Protesting this sorry state of affairs, Mr. Gamvroulas withdrew his candidacy, as have Mr. Tsagaris and Mr. Skedros. Mr. Gamvroulas aptly pointed to a double standard in that he, along with a current parish council member, also wrote on the blog, but both were nevertheless allowed to run.

Let’s consider our priests’ written statements that Messrs. Kastanis and Sakellariou display disrespect for ecclesiastical authority. This contention is patently false. Nowhere, ever, not once, did any person writing on this blog question our clergy’s primacy in the ecclesiastical realm. Rather, these gentlemen, along with many others in this community, question the premise that our priests and hierarchs ought to control and dominate in all areas – secular and spiritual.

Let’s examine Fr. Michael’s further charge that Mr. Sakellariou was directly responsible for a “potential” convert turning away from Orthodoxy. Apparently, this lady, Alta Jackson, had been to our 2007 festival and was impressed with the spirit of unity we always muster each September. During a later visit, she attended services and was inspired by the beauty of the liturgy. Since a general assembly was announced for the next evening, she decided to attend and observe. There, she became disappointed, describing remarks made by Mr. Sakellariou as “negative”. She asked ONE parishioner, clearly someone who disagreed with Mr. Sakellariou, and was told that he was always nay-saying. Nowhere in this woman's letter does she indicate that she ever tried to determine what issues or situations might have prompted Mr. Sakellariou’s comments. As such, it would seem that her level of interest and intended commitment must have been fairly flimsy. If she’s looking for a faith whose adherents march in complete lockstep at all times and in all situations, she needs to join a cult. Such a condition is not normal, nor is it healthy.

Let’s, just for the moment, accept that perhaps Mr. Sakellariou discouraged a potential convert. If so, then using the same logic, our clergy have done precious little themselves to promote the unity Ms. Jackson was seeking. In fact, their actions have been manipulative, self-serving and divisive. Only those who are completely willing to be in lockstep with this “ministry” may “lead” and serve. The rest are here simply to provide funds, volunteer and keep quiet.

Our priests believe that one person’s remarks prevented winning one soul. We keep witnessing that their “ministry” has turned away many more stewards of long standing who have faithfully given time, treasure and talent for decades! Even worse, this sad state of affairs has caused several of our youth, young adults, and many others to turn away. They have become discouraged and cynical at this state of affairs. One of our young adults, expecting her first child, commented:

One of my best friends teaches the kindergarten sunday school class at Prophet Elias.

The other day when asking the kids "What does the Priest do?" one very observant little kid replied promptly: "He gets P***ED!"

At first this is hysterical, kids say the funniest things. But when I think about it, it's very accurate and very sad. Our clergy is so angry and petty that they have clearly lost all reason.

I found out yesterday the baby I'm lugging around is indeed a boy as we hoped. Unfortunately today, upon learning of recent events, I am not hopeful or excited about blue paint, strollers, and an adorable layette. Instead I am overwhelmed with pity for this kid, because the clergy, the parish council, the dudes in denver... it's all so dismal a present, I dare not imagine the future! Why is my kid getting stuck with the broken GOCSLC?!

At least now I can avoid it all ... but in a few months I'll have some one else to responsibly haul in for judgment. …

As a concluding thought, we would refer our clergy to Matthew 7:3: "And why do you behold the sliver that is in your friend's eye, but do not consider the beam that is in your own eye?"

Withdrawal Letter from Steve Gamvroulas

2 December 2008

Fr. Michael Kouremetis
Fr. Matthew Gilbert
Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake Parish Council members

Esteemed Parishioners of the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake

Reverend Fathers and Parish Council Members,

It is with great disappointment that I must remove my name as a candidate for the Parish Council. I do this in protest of the unceremonious disqualification of candidates for consideration for the Parish Council. The reasons given to the disqualified candidates include: not attending church enough; speaking against the actions of clergy; posting on the blog; and using a letter written by a "prospective convert" who was "offended" by the statements made by one of our members. These reasons are all subjective and highly suspect.

I have also posted comments in the blog, yet I was deemed worthy as a candidate for the Parish Council. I also bring to your attention that Bill Souvall, a current Parish Council member, has also posted on the blog. He, I assume, is also worthy of consideration for the Parish Council? Yet others who post comments are not eligible. What is the double standard that exists here? I sense a certain degree of hypocrisy in the disqualification of the other candidates.

To my knowledge, this is the second time in the past 103 years that members of this community who have lived here their entire lives have been subjectively deemed to be "unworthy" by clergy. The first time was last year. This is a dangerous and frightening trend. Is it a Christian trait to silence those who disagree with us?

The members of this community who were told they were unworthy are elders of this community. They are highly respected and esteemed. Their contributions to this community are great. They have served in various roles including: Parish Council members; choir members; altar boys; chanters; and Greek Festival chair people and volunteers. They have donated tens of thousands of dollars and hours to this community and are now considered to be pariahs. This is a very sad editorial on the state this community is in currently, and has been in since 2002.

The only people who are qualified to determine if a person should serve on the Parish Council are those members who are prepared to vote for or against those candidates. Is it really in the best interest of this community to allow clergy, whose assignment to our community is temporary, to decide the future of this community? Remember - priests come and go. The candidates for the Parish Council who were disqualified were part of this community long before any of the current clergy were assigned here and will remain here with their family long after clergy have been reassigned. Please tell me who sincerely has the best interests of this community at heart.

The mistreatment of people in our community who dare to speak against the unethical, secretive leadership must end. Are you going to continue to surround yourselves with "yes men?" Will you continue to browbeat those who would say your actions are wrong? I cannot agree with the view that sycophants are honorable people -- they have never been nor will they ever be.

Please look at your actions and you will see the reason for the discontent rampant in this community. Please stop trying to divide this community. We need unity to solve the problems facing this community. Diverse and open dialogue is crucial if we will ever solve those problems.

My Lord drew a line in the sand. I think it is time I do so as well.


With a heavy heart and great sadness,

Steve Gamvroulas

Church Attendance 101

For those of you who wish to participate in the life of our churches in the Greater Greek Orthodox Community of Salt Lake City, please be aware that: your honor, your good intentions, your prior stewardship, your previous efforts, your life-long commitment to your church are no longer "good enough". For a second time, our proistamenoi have rejected qualified candidates on the basis of church attendance. (We will discuss other "reasons" for disqualifications in a later article.)

You must now provide proof for our proistamenoi that you are "ecclesiastically eligible" to hold any position of responsibility in the "brave new church" of the constantly shifting clerical whims. You must attend church EACH Sunday, and you must take communion at a minimum of once each month. Other older rules or wisdoms, passed down by your less pious parents and grandparents or prior priests, no longer apply. (Please note, however, that NONE of these "new rules" apply when searching for festival volunteers or during stewardship drives!)

Insofar as attendance, however, help is on the way. In order to be "eligible" to run for the parish council, or participate in youth ministries, dance groups or church sports, we have provided a downloadable attendance card.

The instructions are simple: click on the card image, then print out as many as you need.

Be sure to have an appropriate authority sign you in at the narthex as you enter, and be sure to have the priest sign you out as he gives the antidwro.

Bear in mind that you are responsible to keep this record in case you're ever questioned regarding your church attendance. Otherwise your priests reserve the right to determine for themselves how regular your attendance is. As they have photographic memories, along with ESP, they are fully aware at all times of everyone's attendance at either church on any given Sunday or holiday.

In the interest of time and economy, please be sure to provide your own pen for these purposes. (Three attendances in a row and you get one free! Weekday services count double!)

The Winter of Our Discontent

December 1, 2008

The recent deluge of “disqualification letters” speaks volumes.

It gives us yet another glimpse into the assigned Clergy’s weaknesses.

It speaks volumes as to:

1. Both Clergymen’s inherent weakness in God’s ministry and service;


2. The Clergy’s inability to become leaders in the parish;


3. The Clergy’s willingness to manufacture reasons for the disqualification of our community’s members to become candidates for the parish’s elections;


4. The Clergy’s obsession to silence all differing points of view; leadership means one must listen, not silence.


5. The Clergy’s desire to make the community “servants” to their shortcomings;


6. Both Clergymen’s inability to comprehend the depth and breadth of the problems in our community; and their refusal to work with ALL the people toward solutions.


7. Their abuse of the power of the pulpit;


8. Their inability to be and to become bridge-builders, rather than the foremost divisive force in our community;


9. Their mendacious mentality.


10. Their inability to gauge the pulse of this community; it would make them better priests.

Our 100-plus-year community does not need clergy/dictators with Napoleonic complexes.

What do they do in seeking to obtain the parishioners’ forgiveness before they partake of Holy Communion on Sundays? When was the last time they went to confession? Does the assigned Clergy follow the canons of the Church? Are they doing the things which can only aggrandize them in their own grand schemes of superiority? What are they afraid of?

The assigned Clergy knows that they are the “single most relevant” cause of the parish’s discontent. They can do us all a favor; they can voluntarily depart from our community.*

Our community does not need clergy who make up rules and regulations in order to control the parishioners. The assigned clergy conveniently discover canons which do not appear anywhere. Their manipulation of canons, people, and events defy logic.

We need clergymen who act out of love for the parishioners, and not as vindictive despots.

Our administrative head in Denver does not do anything about it. Maybe it is his health; maybe it is his own despotic predisposition toward intolerance for different points of view.

We do not need a clergy that is unable to bring the community together; we do not need a clergy that promotes animosity.

The assigned Clergy must go.

If you go and vote, please cast a “blank” ballot. There is a message. Do they have the strength of conviction to recognize it?

Best regards to all,

Nick J. Colessides

*P.S. We of course congratulate Fr. Michael; he recently tried to obtain a position as a proistameno and go to the Boston Cathedral; the parish council of the Boston Cathedral rejected him. They refused to hire him. Their gain, our loss.

That was the past …

If he said it once, he said it half a dozen times during the past General Assembly when faced with straightforward questions about why 45-plus percent of budget figures were off-limits to any discussion. Our treasurer does not understand that those of us who oppose this mindset will not accept what are clearly dictatorial practices - past, present or future.

Along with other board members, he fails to grasp there are still those among us, not that much older than he is, who remember our parents' and grandparents' examples of leadership in this community. We and they loved and supported our church and its priests. In contrast, however, we learned from our elders and expect and insist that we will have a significant say in the economic issues - all of them - that face our community. We expect our votes, so long as they do not impact ecclesiastical practices, to matter, even if at times they are at odds with the opinions of priests and other leaders. We did not learn from our forefathers (and mothers!) to be a rubber-stamp voting body with a voice that is censored or stifled.

Our forefathers’ major goal for this community was UNITY. It is why they did not want two separate churches in this valley. We, their heirs, voted these past months first for the founding of a Heritage Corporation to properly manage our assets in order to supplement stewardship, while protecting our community’s income properties through good times or bad. It passed by 74%, yet was scuttled by a few dissenters, along with the Metropolitan as being “against the spirit” of the Uniform Parish Regulations. These are the strictures that give our clerics unprecedented control, without review, with the tacit consent of our so-called lay “leaders”. We would point out that with the latest settlement of the Katinas case – and with other victims now suing – this insistence is dangerous! The second vote was whether or not to remain united. The results, despite various attempts to scuttle that vote through fiat, (once again at a Clergy-Laity Congress) were uncovered and have hopefully been laid to rest.

Most of us who write for this blog are not ultra-conservatives who are blindly stuck in the past. Rather, we espouse positive and progressive change, such as the Heritage Corporation as originally designed. We maintain a deep and abiding reverence for our church and the traditions our grandparents and parents built for us. We did not grow up with clergy and bishops who threatened excommunication when they did not get their way. We will not accept such a medieval mindset. We are disappointed and outraged that this board continues to be cowed or overawed by it.

One parish council member had the honesty to stand up and say that a former parish council member’s excommunication and dismissal from the parish council could be a contributing factor to current stewardship difficulties. Fr. Michael’s quip that the excommunication was “temporary”, along with our president’s attempt to gloss over the event as not being “really excommunication” was further instructive. They can deceive themselves, if they so choose. The reality is that the action, temporary or not, was meant to be hurtful and humiliating to the person in question – a person who served this community for nearly half a century. More than that, it was done as an object lesson to intimidate others who might be so inclined. Its ramifications are staggering. Look up Hosea 8:7: “for they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” The fact that many faithful stewards for these past few years have been dismissed from boards, or are now prevented from running for and serving on the parish council, is but further evidence of an exclusionary, punitive and backward-looking mindset among today’s clerics.

In contrast, we respect, revere and honor our parents’ and grandparents’ wisdom. We were taught by them to honor the democratic traditions of both our Greek and American heritage. Following their example, we expect church governance to be informed by fairness, common sense, consensus and majority rule.

In Times of Hardship

Some years back, when still working in the oil and gas industry, I recall a year when my company did not meet earnings forecasts, in fact had suffered losses. It was rumored there would be no salary increases or bonuses that year. I was miffed. It had been a year when my group - Investor Relations and Corporate Communications - had worked extraordinarily hard, putting in many long, extra hours per week throughout the year. I had, in fact, been seconded to many other departments, along with my ordinary tasks, and was feeling the strain. The “rumor” was in fact, true. No one in the company, including top management, got a raise that year; no one got a bonus.

A couple of years later, my colleagues and I faced yet another blow to our personal incomes. Management had decided, after an intensive review by outside consultants, that employee benefits were too generous. Along with my other colleagues, I saw my portion of the health care cost contribution raised from $2.50 per month, to $250.00 per month – a one hundred-fold increase.

I bring up these incidents as an example of what average, ordinary workers in the country are facing. I then consider what I heard in Sunday’s General Assembly and I am astounded at the disconnect. I might add that the non-clergy employees of our community have faced somewhat similar conditions. Many of their benefits have been drastically cut.

On the surface, we might well laud Fr. Michael and Fr. Elias for their magnanimity in declining (or is it deferring?) their annual cost-of-living increase. Further, we might, in better times, understand Fr. Matthew’s decision in insisting on the raise, for whatever reasons he may feel are valid.

However, for most working people these decisions are moot. No economic entity gives most salaried workers the option of whether to “graciously decline” or “reluctantly accept” what were heretofore routine cost-of-living raises. No one, for that matter, gives workers the option not to be laid off. In general, employees are not consulted when these decisions are made. This is the stark reality for the vast majority of working people in this city, this state, this country. Conversely, our priests are, at present, shielded from this reality that is part of everyone else's life. Let us also keep in mind that median income for a family in the Wasatch Front area in 2007 was $45,140 – significantly lower than any of the three priests’ salaries, without even taking benefits into account.

In pondering this disconnect, an example from the past comes vividly to mind:

During the Second World War, when Greece was suffering under Nazi Occuption, the Germans started rounding up Jews. During that time, about 600 Greek Orthodox priests were arrested and deported (to concentration camps) because of their actions in helping Jews. Many Jews were saved by the Greek police, the clergy and the resistance. Archbishop Damaskinos and Chief of Police, Angelos Evert, faced the threat of death for their efforts. Archbishop Damaskinos ordered that false baptismal certificates and new identity papers be created by the Greek Orthodox Church in order to help desperate fleeing Jews. The Archbishop also ordered monasteries and convents in Athens to shelter Jews, and urged his priests to ask their congregations to hide the Jews in their homes. As a result, more than 250 Jewish children were hidden by Orthodox clergy alone.

Further, Archbishop Damaskinos spearheaded a direct appeal to the Germans, in the form of a letter composed by the famous Greek poet, Angelos Sikelianos, and signed by prominent Greek citizens, in defense of the Jews who were being persecuted. The letter incited the rage of the Nazi authorities, who threatened the Archbishop with death by a firing squad. Damaskinos' response was, "Greek religious leaders are not shot, they are hanged. I request that you respect this custom." The simple courage of the religious leader's reply caught the Nazis off guard, and his life was spared.

It should be noted (and a source of deep pride to all people of Greek descent!) that the appeal of the Archbishop and his fellow Greeks was unique; there is no record of any similar protest to the Nazis during World War II that has come to light in any other European country!

"In our national consciousness, all the children of Mother Greece are an inseparable unity: they are equal members of the national body irrespective of religion... Our holy religion does not recognize superior or inferior qualities based on race or religion, as it is stated: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek' and thus condemns any attempt to discriminate or create racial or religious differences. Our common fate both in days of glory and in periods of national misfortune forged inseparable bonds between all Greek citizens, without exemption, irrespective of race..."

Our clergy and hierarchy would do well to consider, and we would all do well to remember, Archbishop Damaskinos' words. In past times of trouble our clergy protected not only their own flock, suffering with them, but also felt the pain of, and protected others as well.

- Barbara Billinis Colessides

Banana Republic General Assembly Redux: Keep Drinking the Kool-Aid

Overheard in the parking lot: a parishioner commented to a parish council member something to the effect that we live in a democracy. "No," replied the parish council member, "this is a theocracy."

It's deja vu all over again! Same stuff, different year. This time last year we described (Banana Republic General Assemblies – the New Trend in Greek Orthodoxy in America) the utterly rubber-stamp nature of our recent general assemblies. This year's still fits the description.

We continue to witness:

• Financials and budgets presented with explanations that would never be taken seriously in any other setting. (Deficit budgets that are described as "really surplus"? Go figure.)
  
  
• An inability and unwillingness to discuss the deep discontent, and frustration over the complete voicelessness that is the true driver of current stewardship difficulties, and not just difficult economic times. It is further galling that some of our stewardship monies will most certainly go toward defraying the church's settlements with the victims of pedophile priests. Yet none of these subjects may be discussed.
  
  
• A new stewardship program that might just work, if this community had true bridge-builders as priests, along with reasonable consensus-builders as board members. Instead we have priests who divide, rather than unite, and a parish council rife with "yes men" who hide behind UPRs and canonical law, while assisting the clergy and hierarchy in preventing any discussion of the true problems at hand.

We cannot have any serious dialogue about finances when nearly half our budget is off limits to any discussion whatsoever. Several parishioners tried to bring up the point. Another asked why the board could not provide some "push-back" to the Metropolis and Archdiocese about the problems at hand. All were promptly shut down by our president, and by another parish council member who read from the UPRs pointing out that the laity is not entitled to have any say on this subject. Another parish council member pointed out, in a further insult to our intelligence, that if these regulations were to change it would have to be through the Clergy-Laity Congress.

That too, is unlikely to occur. In fact, from all reports by many concerned lay leaders, past and present, in our city and in others, our Banana Republic General Assemblies are modeled after recent Banana Republic Clergy-Laity Congresses. Delegates are hand-picked; dissenters are shut down; excommunications are threatened (temporary or not) and the "pay, pray and obey" nature of Greek Orthodoxy in this century in this country continues.

“Confidentiality Is Part of the Settlement”

These are the words spoken by Ms. Tahira Merritt, attorney for the defendants in the most recent sexual abuse case against the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. In doing so Ms. Merritt declined to disclose the amount that the Archdiocese will be paying in what is the latest out-of-court settlement to five victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Fr. Nicholas Katinas.

According to an article by Theodore Kalmoukos in The National Herald, “[t]erms of the settlement were not immediately disclosed, but sources from within the Archdiocese told The National Herald that the amount will be in the millions of dollars.” Ms. Merritt, verified the Herald’s information, but declined to disclose the amount, stating that “confidentiality is part of the settlement.”

The defense team was determined, had the case continued, to summon Archbishop Demetrios to be present at the trial, and it is believed that this insistence was instrumental in producing a settlement. Further the defense sought, by extension, to implicate the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Patriarch Bartholomew, since the Archdiocese of America is legally “an extension of the Patriarchate.” The Archdiocese had filed a petition with the court, attempting to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations, since the abuses had taken place many years ago, however, the Court declined the petition, and a trial date had been set.

Not including the Katinas case, the Archdiocese has to date paid more than $12 million dollars in just the last five years to victims of pederasty by priests. In this case, incidentally, the former Fr. Katinas, rather than face the consequences of his actions, has fled to his native island of Rhodes in Greece.

According to Kalmoukos, The National Herald has learned of yet another group of victims that is considering filing a yet another lawsuit against the Archdiocese. And, there is already a new case filed just last month in Chicago by another alleged victim who had been an altar boy in the 1970s when Katinas had served at the Assumption Greek Orthodox parish in Olympia Fields, Illinois.

The article further states that the “Archdiocese has requested that all court documents be shielded, including the depositions of the both parties.” Further, according to Mr. Kalmoukos, the “Archdiocese has also requested the amount of the settlement not be disclosed, while its officials are looking for ways to compensate the victims without disclosing details to the membership of the Archdiocese or in its budgetary reports, out of fear that the parishes might somehow react negatively. The parishes have been under constant pressure to increase their monthly allocations to the Archdiocese.”

Surveys? We Don't Know Who Has The Surveys

On Tuesday, October 21 members of the parish council, including our president, ventured to Holy Trinity to retrieve the most recent surveys. The envelopes were finally opened and the surveys were numbered after sitting for almost 4 months. Those surveys were supposed to be turned over to the election committee who, just as the previous survey, has been charged with compiling the information and disseminating it (along with comments made) to the community.

As of Friday, October 31, the surveys had not been delivered to that committee. In fact, when a member of the committee was asked about the most recent events, they were unaware that the surveys had been retrieved let alone opened and counted. Why the delay? Who has possession of the surveys? Why were they not immediately turned over to the committee responsible to compile and disseminate the information? We're sure someone will eventually find them and see they get where they belong. Hopefully, they will be turned over as they were retrieved and who knows, maybe the community will finally see what we were promised. On second thought, that might be expecting too much.

Another recent troubling event has brought about the removal of one of our youth from ALL youth programs for a full year. It is our understanding that the decision was that of the three clergy and the parish council president. Maybe they have forgotten the words of Christ in the bible, "Let the children come to Me, and do not forbid them, for such is the kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 19:14) Might the punishment not fit the alleged crime especially in a time when we should be looking to bring our children back to the church and not chase them away?

LET THEM EAT CAKE!

Six years to the day, on October 8, 2002, the new Proistamenos, now solely of Prophet Elias, had a meeting with eight members of the then-recently deposed (by Metropolitan Isaiah) parish council. Members of that group advised the Proistamenos to avoid two things: don't form cliques; and don't try to split the community. He was cautioned that if he did either of these, "Θα φυγεις νυχτα". (“you’ll leave by night.”) Unfortunately, six years later, this Proistamenos has almost continually contrived to do both. Over the past six years we have seen:

• Governing – “shepherding” his flock - with a demand for absolute power and authority, disregarding the people he was sent to serve.
• Continually attempting, throughout his tenure, to hand-pick members of the parish council, and to require them to maintain absolute silence about council meetings. Members disagreeing with him were either forced to resign or not allowed to run.
• Almost constantly chastising the people in his flock.
• Prioritizing his “special” projects before the immediate needs of the community.
• Blatantly categorizing parishioners by class, and according to wealth.

Considering the aforementioned, how is it that:

• This Proistamenos rules with an iron fist, yet claims to know nothing about any meetings of those wanting to split this community? How is this believable when, according to those who conducted these meetings, they were given permission to use the facilities at Prophet Elias for their meetings?
• How is it possible that the Proistamenos “knew nothing” about the establishment of a separate Philoptochos for Prophet Elias, by claiming to be conveniently out of town? (something that occurs quite FREQUENTLY).
• How is it plausible that the Proistamenos, along with our Parish Council president, knew nothing of the resolution passed in Oklahoma during a Diocesan Clergy-Laity meeting that directly concerned the splitting of this community, which ultimately became an official agenda item at the Clergy Laity Conference this year in Washington, D.C.?
• Worse yet, and again last year in Oklahoma, how is it that neither the Proistamenos nor our president stood up to defend this community’s special dispensation to have a unified community with two churches?
• Why were three members of this community, whose thinking runs counter to the Proistamenos’ concept of “leadership”, denied the opportunity to run and, if elected, to serve our community on the parish council? In America, in Greece, and in other European countries where there are Orthodox, individuals are free to speak their minds? Clearly this does not sit well with our current “leadership”.
• Through this Proistamenos’ actions, a member of this community was not only removed from the parish council, but actually excommunicated for a period of time.
• As recently as two weeks ago, this Proistamenos was complaining about parents not letting their children pay stewardship.
• This Proistamenos declared that he was embarrassed in Washington D.C. when asked about the problems in Salt Lake City. Does he not consider that his actions may have something to do with these problems?
• How is it that during a time where there is financial difficulty in the community, likely to get worse due to his mismanagement and along with the malaise of the world economy at large, our Proistamanos managed to have his office refurnished?
• We have participated in two separate surveys sent by our parish council; yet this Proistamenos and the timid souls on this parish council have yet to publish comments from the first survey, which were supposed to have been made public, and we know nothing whatsoever about the results from the second survey. Why?
• The Proistamenos and our parish council executive committee have shown a blind and slavish obedience to the Metropolitan, yet they are now being audited by him because, obviously, he doesn't trust them. (We would hope that this mistrust isn’t due to a notion by His Eminence that our community might be using second set of books! If this is the case, they should all resign; if it is not, the audit should NOT be occurring, and they should be STRONGLY objecting! Just exactly what is going on here?)

The Proistamenos and the parish council have threatened in past correspondence to cut programs that are not funded by the general fund (Senior Citizens, Youth activities, etc. – lending a new “meaning” to ‘women and children, first’?) Of course, we will not be witnessing any sacrifices from our clergy who claim to love their flock and their community. (Imagine if they hated us!) It is painfully obvious that this clergy and hierarchy will now demand, in a time of economic hardship, due in no small part to their divisive activities, that festival funds (heretofore restricted) be moved to the operating budgets to salvage their “lifestyles” at the expense of the community’s programs and other ongoing needs.

How sad!

The Culture in Action - How Abuse Is Covered Up

Editor's Note: the following article is reprinted with permission by the author, Paul Cromidas, writing for Pokrov.org (http://pokrov.org/resource.asp?ds=Article&id=809).

In a recent news article about the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese settling a case of sexual misconduct by a priest, it was reported that two prominent clergymen, Metropolitan Gerasimos and the former Fr. Michael Pappas, knew about the situation and had said respectively that the matter was “not a subject of my immediate concern” and “I didn’t think it was my business”.

The case involved the San Francisco Metropolis, or diocese. The accused was Michael Rymer, now defrocked, and said to have AIDS. Metropolitan Gerasimos, now head of the Metropolis, apparently knew of the situation before he became a bishop. Michael Pappas has since been defrocked after admitting extra-marital relations. Pappas had also been a member of the archdiocese advisory committee on clergy sexual misconduct.

I submit that these examples typify what is referred to as the “culture of the organization” or, in other words, “how the system works”. It is common behavior in many organizations to cover-up wrong-doing because it is seen as “not my business”. With the revelations of the past few years, attention has been focused on church organizations and how they too have hidden misconduct, usually in the name of “not hurting the church”.

The Catholic Church, as a prime example, has a practice known as “Mental Reservation”. This allows a priest or bishop to use “misleading words to deceive another so long as a deliberate lie is not told.” When taking the Catholic Cardinal’s Oath, one promises to keep secret “the revelation of which could cause damage or dishonor to the Holy Church.”

The excellent 2006 book, “Sex, Priests and Secret Codes”, reports that “When one bishop was chided…for denying the existence of sexual abuse…he replied, ‘I only lie when I have to.’” I would say that this practice applies to the Orthodox Church and to other denominations as well. A bishop or clergyman is seldom penalized for hiding the truth, but we can take heart from a recent Episcopal case where a bishop was defrocked for concealing a priest’s misconduct. Perhaps this will be a precedent for more such defrocking. The 2006 book also tells us that cover-up of clergy sexual misconduct has been part of the culture since the days of the early church.

Laypeople also find themselves acting according to what is seen as acceptable behavior by the culture of the organization. If the understanding is that one does not report credible allegations of abuse by clergy, then one does not. In the Greek Orthodox culture, there is the concept of “dropi”, or shame, which one is expected to avoid in order not to hurt the church. That children may be molested as a result of this silence seems to be a secondary consideration.

In a well-known case, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit alleges that the priest’s misconduct was known from his seminary days, yet he was ordained. Then, while serving at a parish, it is alleged that his further misconduct was hidden by lay leaders who worked quietly to effect his transfer, and no damaging information was passed on to the next community. That these leaders would make the matter public or report it to the police was apparently unthinkable.

In a case of massive financial fraud in the Orthodox Church in America, a sister jurisdiction of the Greek archdiocese, it took some years before courageous laypeople and clergy finally spoke up. Up to that point, one was not supposed to question the hierarchs. That was the culture. But now, the matter has even been turned over to the District Attorney’s office.

Whether the church offense is of a sexual or financial nature, the layperson who dares to speak up risks being branded as a traitor in the parish or congregation.

The importance of the cultural factor was also validated in a 2007 book by a sociologist who “focuses on the function and culture of faith communities.” The book, titled “Spoils of the Kingdom – Clergy Misconduct and Religious Community”, is authored by Anson Shupe of the University of Indiana.

He holds that clergy misconduct “occurs in a systematic, or structured, context and is not merely the result of a ‘few bad apples in the barrel’, however discomforting that thought is to any religious apologists or believers.” He says that, typically, even when church leaders admit that there was abuse, they will say that the offender was a weak or sick personality and that whatever happened was not the fault of the church. The offender is often sent to a residential treatment center for evaluation, as though only he could have been responsible for what happened, and not the system or culture he was operating in.

It is difficult for both laypeople and clergy to acknowledge that the culture may have created the setting for abuse. In the San Francisco case cited above, the man had gone to the priest for spiritual counseling, and the lawsuit alleged that the abuse would not have taken place if the offender had not been a clergyman. In a further example of secrecy, the terms of the settlement in that case were sealed on a motion by the Metropolis.

Bishops have been known to excuse their inaction by saying that they are not allowed to interfere in the matters of another diocese or jurisdiction. I submit that it is high time for them and others to “interfere” in the interest of saving children from molestation.

Yes, it is time to think in new ways. Changing the culture of an organization is a difficult thing to do, especially when it is a hierarchical church. But, I believe that the effort must be undertaken. The laity and, hopefully, clergy will need to help change their church culture. This will mean speaking up when there are credible allegations of misconduct by reporting them to the proper governmental authorities. There is more than enough evidence that reporting them only to church authorities will result in a continuation of the cover-up culture.

(Mr. Cromidas, a retired social agency director, has been writing about the abuse issue for several years. He has been a parish council president in a Greek Orthodox parish and has served on the board of the Greater Dallas Council of Churches and the City of Dallas Commission on Health and Human Services.)

Embracing an Upcoming Opportunity

We have an opportunity this Monday, October 20th, to turn a corner and put our community back on the right path.

A special general assembly has been called to discuss the distribution of this year's festival funds due to the community's dismal financial condition. Taking whatever monies remain from this year's festival is an easy fix, yet it does not address the ongoing problem.

We will be able to turn this corner if the current regime is willing to provide pertinent information that each member of this community has the legal, as well as moral, right to see.

Are they willing to provide:

• copies of the detailed registers of all accounts so the stewards can review the actual income and expenses?


• a detailed accounting of all festival expenses with copies of all invoices?


• honest answers to difficult questions instead of the standard "it's a bad economy"?


• a forum for an open and honest discussion, along with a willingness to hear the voice of the people, to take suggestions and to seriously consider their implementation without reprisal?


• an environment where the people are part of the long-term solution, and not solely seen as human ATMs?

A good first step toward moving forward is complete honesty and transparency. This decision must not be made with partial information, and under the specter of "confidentiality agreements." If this can't happen, we will continue down the same road, continually applying band-aids to gunshot wounds.

Let us insist that our leadership offers the people all the necessary information so that a solid decision can be made. Clearly the path we have been on has not benefited anyone. The opportunity exists, if we are forthright, honest and courageous in seeking it - and, if our leadership has the wisdom to help implement it.

Special General Assembly - October 20

Information cards announcing the upcoming Special General Assembly have been mailed and delivered to our homes. The single item on the agenda is the "Designation of Festival 2008 Proceeds." On August 19, 2008, a letter was authored by the Parish Council and subsequently mailed to the community bemoaning our desperate financial condition. In this letter the Parish Council says it "will call for a Special General Assembly in October to specifically deal with our financial condition." What exactly is the agenda?

If the predominate thinking is that the solution to our "financial condition" is to take the proceeds of the 2008 festival and summarily dump them into the general account, think again. The lack of financial support is the result of the problem. The problem is the continued displeasure of the people. If we only look at the past year we see the following:

• Late 2007 survey mailed with the promise that comments made would be published. To date, no comments from that survey have been made public. An idea: Look at those comments and maybe the reasons for the displeasure of the people will be ascertained.


• Three members of the community were denied running for the parish council without valid reason except maybe they were perceived as not being blind followers.


• Another survey - this one carefully worded so as to not solicit the same problem exposing comments as the first - since its mailing no further mention has been made.


• The mysterious resolution of the Metropolis of Denver placed on the agenda at the recent Clergy Laity conference in Washington D.C. which specifically refers to the splitting of this community. Mysterious because although this community had representatives at the Oklahoma City conference that made the resolution, none of them know anything about it.


• At a recent parish council meeting, the proistameno of Prophet Elias only made the bold statement that he had informed a member of this community that they would be denied candidacy for the parish council because they had written letters on "the blog." Heavy handed authoritarian techniques continue and the silencing of the people is the mark of success. For the record, TOCB spoke with the individual in question and we were told no such conversation has taken place.

Therein lie some of the problems. The end result is the "financial condition" of our community. Allocating the festival proceeds to the general fund is not the solution. The solution calls for first, reevaluating the budget and making serious cuts across the board and second, listening to the voice of the people instead of trying to silence it. See you all on the 20th.

To Survey, or Not to Survey … What, Still More Questions?

Mr. Kastanis is clearly a keen observer of the ongoing absurdity we keep witnessing. Does it not seem obvious that this survey is redundant? We've heard several complaints, along with those of Mr. Kastanis, that it is also a bit selective. Several paid members did not receive this survey. (They have however, received festival tickets to buy and sell. As one member put it, "... they are unwilling to solicit my opinion but are happy to solicit my money.") In many cases, one survey came addressed to "Mr. and Mrs.", assuming that both parties have EXACTLY the same opinion?

And, once again, our intelligence is insulted in that the survey begins with the constant excuse that our "leaders" accept as GIVEN that they can have no say as to the clergy’s actions. The root of our problems begins here. It is not about what they "can't do"; it is about what they "won't do." The expulsion of a previous board, and one of a more recent member, has provided the requisite "scare" needed to induce this board, when facing ongoing clerical abuses, to cave.

Let's get real here, please: surely, most parish council members are fairly aware who attends what, who belongs to which group, and ought to have a fair idea as to who has paid how much over the years. They are also aware why many people have stopped giving as generously.

The majority of questions this latest survey asks have already been answered. No doubt many such answers appeared on the "comments" section of the "split" survey. (Those have never been made public by the way.) The tone, tenor and VOTES of the previous assemblies make it abundantly clear that there is deep dissatisfaction in this community. And falling revenues cannot be explained solely by a withering economy.