Benevolent Funds

The recent letter from the Metropolitan raises more questions than it answers.  If the letter was written on Tuesday, November 26 and addressed to the assigned clergy, the parish council and the members of this community, why was there a six day delay in its release.  Presumably, the assigned clergy had the letter, sat on it until Sunday, December1 before forwarding it to the parish council.  Any complaints regarding this blog receiving the letter before it was released to the parish are reminiscent of a pot and kettle.

An issue remains that, by its being ignored, should be alarming.  No real resolution has ever come from the questionable use of the benevolent funds of the assigned clergy.  According to the National Herald, the proistameno of Prophet Elias only, had his secretary as a co-signatory on his account.  Is this true?  If it is true, according to the February 4, 2013 letter from the Metropolitan, "You could be defrocked from the holy priesthood, if you were known to divulge such confidential information."  Having anyone other than the clergy as a signatory on this account would certainly "divulge such confidential information."  Why would the Metropolitan and Archdiocese look the other way?  Could they be trying to hide the truth? If so, why?

Distributing funds to family members is certainly questionable.  The Metropolitan excuses these expenditures as "seminarians" who, "as well as other college students at all colleges have unexpected needs that require financial assistance."  This might very well be true.  Two points:  no other seminarians were offered financial assistance and, no other seminarians have a family member who has access to this type of account.  The Metropolitan also excuses five other expenses as having to do with "worship services involving visiting clergy and chanting."  Aren't expenses involving visiting clergy and chanting parish expenses that would come from the parish general fund and not a benevolent fund?  Again, why would the Metropolitan and Archdiocese look the other way?  

Why , according to the National Herald, was the secretary's name on the benevolent fund account?  WHY did  Fr. Kouremetis allow this?

John Saltas Responds to "Protect Our Clergy"

Moderator's Note: Mr. Saltas has given us permission to respond to an e-mail sent by "Protect Our Clergy" here.

---

Dear Person(s) who are holier than me:

As a writer myself, I want to compliment you on your improved style, story rhythm, and all around good story telling efforts. Fiction is my favorite genre, and your skills prove why.

Just a small couple of squibbles though.

1. With apologies to Inigo Montoya, I don't think the words "silent" and majority" mean what you think they mean.

2. When you query about "an ex-parish council member getting into a fight and having to be escorted from the premises" I get your deep wit. What I don't get is how you missed a former parish council president flipping the bird to the wife of our parish president. That had a richer context for sarcasm and it's too bad you didn't riff off that.

2A. On that same line, and recognizing the humor of your line, the ball was also dropped when you didn't take the opportunity to compare Sunday's fictitious scene to the real one a couple of winter's ago when the blessed and graced among you stood strong against the efforts of the mighty Kal Sargetakis and others to enter a warm church hall, making sure they shivered in the snow. Holier than thou indeed!

3. I'm not convinced, despite what I read here, that there are flaws in the budget, or proposed budget, or amended budget. Or whatever. A writing tip here: don't go to a well that has no water--it's plain as your glowing halo that a fellow who is bigwig with the San Francisco Reserve (Kapos, to name but one credible financial mind among those in charge of the budgets and audits), that your grassy knoll conspiracies just don't hold...uhhhh...water. Try again. I'm with you, you just didn't try very hard on this one.

4. With regards to orchestration of events during the assembly, I must compliment on the orchestration of your own, the walk out of less than 30 people (yes, I counted) in some sort of Masonic Priesthood brotherhood ritual. My question regarding that is who among you got the text or wink to move up and out first--or was it a group text? Look if you're going to make a "a large number of parishioners" leave, at least do it with the flair of David Copperfield or the mystery and magic of our fellow Greek, Chris Angel. Next time, everyone should disappear.

Otherwise, job well done!!

Take care.

Looking forward to the next email.

John Saltas
Your "secret" Admirer

DRAFT

In a perfect world all lay people would be generous stewards .. giving freely because it is what the Lord asks of us and we Laity would give for their own spiritual benefit -- not because it is required by a decision of a Clergy-Laity Congress. (emphasis added) They would give without demanding financial transparency and accountability on the part of Church leaders. (BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT NEED TO?) In a perfect world Church leaders would be loving and caring stewards of the resources entrusted to them. They would be skilled in dispute resolution. They would lead by personal example: by persuasion and consent rather than by command and force. The problem of leadership in our present circumstances and in the American age we live in is that Church leaders need to understand that they cannot be effective by themselves… (emphasis added) they are useless without followers. (emphasis added) They need to learn a new style of leadership.. just as the Laity must develop a new quality of followership. Church leaders in America must be responsive to the people and the people must be active and informed participants in the process.

- from "The Meaning of a Hierarchical Church" - by George Karcazes

---

A CRY FOR HELP, PLEASE!!!

Yesterday, November 10, we again we witnessed the logical consequences of illogical Uniform Parish Regulations and a warped Charter. 

When our clergy hear reality that affects THEIR bottom line, they leave. 

In the meantime, the evening before, the clergy threatened that any mention of "benevolent" funds would ensure the same result.

Is this any way to lead the Church - the Bride of Christ? 

We beseech the Archbishop and the Patriarch to intervene!

The situation is intolerable.

Thoughts from Nick Colessides: KEEP ON WALKING!

Dear Parishioners,

May I suggest  that the Clergy “keep on walking,” after they walked out from the General Assembly;  if they had any filotimo they should never come back.  And, if we have any sense and intestinal fortitude, we should NOT accept them back.

We do not need cowards to think that we are in need of their ministry; they have nothing to offer us.

It will do them good to find out where their next meal will come from;  maybe from the Benevolent Fund?

Let us tell them exactly what President Ligeros told Bishop Demetrios of Los Angeles in 1964:  Don’t let the door hit you in the rear end.  Bishop Isaiah should know the drill; he was one of the clergyman that Bishop Demetrios took with him.  I was there;  I saw it happen.

See if you can convey this message to the Denver Metropolitan, and the Archdiocese in New York.

Best regards,

Nick

The former anointed appointed might have a point regarding their observations if:

a) they remembered that during their dismal misrule the books were NOT open for anyone to inspect (a violation of the UPR they hold dear); this Parish Council has had them open for inspection at anytime by any parishioner.  In addition, upon inspection by the anointed appointed, they themselves found no improprieties.

b) while decrying audits of benevolent funds [which do fall under the purview of GAAP Accounting Standards under rule 501(c)(3) regardless of UPR paranoia] they fail to note that there were improprieties;  these are not "discretionary" funds to be used by the esteemed clergy for their family or individuals who are themselves signatories on the accounts they espouse untouchable. 

c) their claims for "unity", and adherence to the UPRs, ring hollow in view of their ongoing justification of a separate corporate identity for Prophet Elias only by a self elected, unauthorized group of parishioners; 

d) they applied the dearly held UPR uniformly during their misrule

Reaching Back to Go Forward: Looking Back to the Previous Century and Saying: OXI!

Instead of promoting Christ’s love, unifying the community and taking positive forward thinking steps, this “leadership” intends to pull us back into the previous century. (from a recent e-mail to various community members from Protect our Clergy)

---

You bet we do!

The leaders from the previous century were MEN! Men with vision, men with stamina, men who did not cower if a so-inclined priest or bishop cast a cross glance!

Men who knew that a modicum of control had to reside with the laity. Men who knew that clerics and hierarchs, however well intended, were, after all human beings, with human failings.

The former anointed appointed would have us cow to a set of regulations that have us at the mercy of a group of human beings who may be destined for sainthood, or, be a series of Rasputins. Our grandfathers would NOT take that chance. Neither should we!

Even if it means reaching back into the prior century, to a group of immigrants who did not have our education or our advantages, we should heed their wisdom and say, "OXI".

Thoughts from the Former Anointed Appointed Regarding this Year's General Assembly

Our Parish Council “leadership” is at it again, and again your help is needed.

The Parish Council has published a proposed budget that is clearly crafted to eliminate our clergy and will ultimately lead to conflict with our Hierarchs and again result in the closing of our Churches.

These blatant attempts to turn our Christian Parish into a country club have been made even more apparent by the recent public statements of some councilmen who have advocated leaving the Archdiocese and openly admitted that their prime motivation for being on the Council is to remove our clergy.

They have made little effort to alleviate the problems of the Parish and in fact are suggesting a reduction in Stewardship to levels comparable to 1998! Instead of promoting Christ’s love, unifying the community and taking positive forward thinking steps, this “leadership” intends to pull us back into the previous century.

WHY "OXI" IS PARTICULARLY MEANINGFUL THIS YEAR!!!

Moderator's Note: The original letter sent by the Denver Metropolitan may be viewed here. We added it below and have responded to the absurd assertions, point-by-point in said letter.

---

October 23, 2013

Reverend Matthew Gilbert
The Esteemed Parish Council
Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral
279 South 300 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84101


Beloved in the Lord,

Having been informed that a general assembly is scheduled in the community for Sunday, November 10, 2013 and being aware of the fact that parish council elections for eight seats will take place before the end of the year, I am pleased to make you aware of the proper procedures that are to take place in order for me to be able to ratify the elections.

There are seven, and not eight seats available.

The Denver Metropolitan very well knows this, and knows very well why. He initially promised NO restrictions, and then reneged (yet again!), refusing to ratify Nick Bapis and Yanni Armaou - both of whom were FAIRLY elected.

The insistence on EIGHT, considering the circumstances he himself effected, is grossly unfair to Alicia Mares, a prominent member of this community, who has admirably and tirelessly served for decades at both churches. She is also one of only two women on the Parish Council, and is also serving on the Executive Committee as well. Since the Denver Metropolitan disqualified Mr. Bapis, she became the person with the next highest votes - the EIGHTH highest votes - and, as such, she deserves to hold her position on the Parish Council for another year.

Further, the Denver Metropolitan's mathematics are highly flawed. If Mrs. Mares holds the 8th spot for the extra year, another seven electees will add up to 15 and not 14, as the Metropolitan has suggested.

As you know, in March and April of 2012, I totally relaxed the qualifications of all the members of the community to be able to vote. However, I never imagined that there would have been 142 absentee ballots cast. With the inclusion of such a high number of absentee ballots (which is usually the total number who vote in parish council elections for an average size parish) - WE ARE NOT AN AVERAGE SIZED PARISH - it appears this was the reason most of the candidates who were successfully elected identify with only one of the two churches. This of course, contributed to the continuing tensions and divisions which have not diminished these past seventeen months.

What the Denver Metropolitan had relaxed were the UPRs after having ignored the same, for years, in denying free elections and open general assemblies; this, in direct violation of those same UPRs! If they're "good" for the laity, they should be "good" for the clergy. (NOTE: They're not good for either!)

As for the absentee ballots, (a) What difference did that make? The elected were ELECTED and by a wide margin, whether in person or through absentee votes, and (b) did it ever occur to the Denver Metropolitan that people in late May (instead of December when elections normally were held and were not, thanks to him) had kids finishing school and were taking early summer vacations?

Those chosen were elected by a community tired of the arrogant manipulations of the Denver Metropolitan, the local clergy, and, the community's former anointed appointed, who could not accept that the majority of this community disavowed their vision for the community and disbelieved their belated claims for "unity".

It is THIS ELECTED PARISH COUNCIL that cares about BOTH churches. The Metropolitan's anointed appointed, caring only about Prophet Elias (and about taking it away from the community as a whole), have, to this day, made no secret that if they wrest P.E. from the whole community they will SELL it (at a handsome profit, to the detriment of the others in the community!) and build elsewhere! The Denver Metropolitan, and the local clergy are conspiring with them and working tirelessly in continuing to facilitate this travesty!

That the tensions of the past seventeen months have not diminished - to say nothing of the previous decade - are due to the Denver Metropolitan's ongoing interference, an intractable and unloving local clergy, and a vocal minority of malcontents who will stop at nothing to STEAL a part of this entire community's rightful legacy.

Now that regular parish council elections will take place for the eight (SEVEN!) positions which will be vacated, it is imperative that we return to the proper procedures which are found in the Uniform Parish Regulations. These procedures have to do not only with the candidates for the parish council, but also for the parishioners who plan to vote. Since the Priest determines whether the parishioners are in canonical and financial good standing in order to vote, as specified in Article 18 Sections 1, 2 and 3, the roster containing the names of the parishioners shall be verified by Father Gilbert and Father Kouremetis as stated in Article 25 Section 2.

We will NOT accept any such interference with our traditional rights as Greek Orthodox Christians and as members of this community.

Moreover, the parishioners who plan to run for the parish council must be nominated on the basis of Article 25, Sections 1, 2 and 3. This means that among other qualifications, they must attend the required seminars, attend the holy services regularly, participate in the sacrament of Holy Communion and respect all ecclesiastical authority.

We've said this before. Respect cannot be demanded, despite any regulations that are IMPOSED from on high; it must be earned. Further, the paradigm "ο,τι κανεις, λαβεις" (as you sow, so shall you reap) is appropriate here.

Because of the appearance of abuse of absentee balloting on May 20, 2012 for the current parish council, I would not be in a position to ratify the elections if absentee balloting were allowed. It is not at all logical for absentee ballots to determine who is or is not elected at a properly conducted parish council election.

'THE "APPEARANCE" OF ABUSE??? How carefully the Denver Metropolitan crafts his poisonous words based on the nonsensical information given to him by the community's former anointed appointed! Again, the Denver Metropolitan cherry-picks the UPRs. Absentee ballots ARE ALLOWED (Article 25 Section 6) under such! Further, our 501(c)(3) community by-laws also provide for absentee ballots. We insist that our Parish Council continue to allow them as well!

Finally, at your coming general assembly, financial reports on the parish budget must be restricted to the parish budget according to the UPR's of the Archdiocese, Article 34 Section 7.

The flawed UPRs can restrict as they like. Our Metropolitan is an expert at imposing restrictions when it suits his purpose, and ignoring them for the same reason.

Regardless. Numbers are numbers. We urge the Parish Council to be honest about them - ALL OF THEM!

Based on this latest vitriolic letter, one of a dismal array of many, no one should wonder why stewardship is down despite the best efforts of the Parish Council and the Stewardship Committee. This bishop's ongoing petulance, obstructionism and disdain point to the MAJOR reasons that: a) this community cannot get back on its feet; and, b) no one will give as generously as they might. For all their dictatorial implementation, if not outright intent, STEWARDSHIP is the Achilles' Heel of the Uniform Parish Regulations!

Who is inclined toward maximum giving when one has a Metropolitan who, a) disparages continually the majority of his flock who are dismayed by his imperious and arrogant attitude; and b) conspires with the local "Ephialteses" to strip this community of its rightful legacy?

With Paternal Blessings,
(We ask our Lord to be spared such; the Denver Metropolitan is anything but "paternal".)

/s/

+ Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver

ENOUGH SAID ...