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.

Who Gets The Questionnaire?

The recent mailing of a questionnaire to the community by the stewardship committee raises more questions than appear on the one sent out. Some people received it in their name only; others received it jointly as husband and wife, and others didn’t even receive one at all. In my particular case, I received one in my name only and addressed to me only. Needless to say, my wife, also being a paid member of the community, immediately placed a call to the church offices.
In all reality will anything be accomplished by this questionnaire or will it go by the wayside as all the others? Surely the parish council and stewardship committee know the mood of the community and why the finances are in the condition they are.

Let’s review again what has transpired in the past year or two to set the now mood of the community.

1. The community elects a parish council and it terminated by the Metropolitan.


2. A member of the parish council voices his opinion and is ejected from the council and denied his sacraments.


3. Good-standing members submit their names for election and are denied. (There must be some kind of a tracking system being kept for ones eligibility.)


4. A General Assembly has the largest number in attendance in years, if ever, and over 70% approve a motion and it is rejected.


5. Major improvements to our churches and buildings are implemented without community general assembly approval.


6. Can anyone with a pet project proceed because he is willing to fund the project, without general assembly approval?


7. Why are we not PRIORITIZING our capital improvements? Many items need attention more than those currently being attended.

The properties of the Greater Salt Lake Greek Orthodox Community belong to the community. They always have been and always will be as our forefathers struggled and suffered for us, our children and our grandchildren. Clergy come and go but we who live in our community remain to perpetuate our great GREEK heritage, culture and Religion for our children and grandchildren. Parish Council listen to your members of the community and take back control because we are in serious trouble.

Jim Kastanis

The Survey

It seems our Parish Council is now sending out yet another survey? We point out that many have reported NOT receiving these questions, though they are paid members. For those who have not, we are providing, the list the main topics/questions being asked in the survey, and some of the issues of importance, beginning with the introductory paragraph.

In an effort to continually improve our Parish, your elected Parish Council wants to hear from you. Please take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire. Results will be used by the Parish Council to base a work plan for the coming years for this current council and future ones. All information is important, and nothing will be disregarded, but in order for this input to be worthwhile, it is important to limit the ideas to items that the Parish Council can actually influence. [emphasis added]

We are then asked the following 16 questions (we have not added many of the sub-questions due to space limitations):

1. Please list three areas of success in your overall experience with the Greek Orthodox Church of Greater Salt Lake City.
2. Please list three areas of improvement you would like to see for the Parish in the future.
3. With 1 representing very involved and 5 not involved, how would you rate your level of personal involvement with the Parish?
4. Rank in order of value (with 1 being most important and 6 being the least important) your reason in being a member of the Parish.
Social/Cultural (i.e. Greek programs, fraternal organizations, etc.); Influence on Community/Archdiocese Policies; Sacramental Life; Participation in Youth Programs; Participation in Religious Education Programs; Other (Please specify below)
5. Rank in order of importance the things you believe are the most pressing issues the Parish Council should be focusing on (with 1 being most important and 8 being least important).
Stewardship; Youth Programs; Parish Personnel Management (since the Parish Priests are not under Parish council direction, this would be limited to other Parish employees). [emphasis added];Parish Financial Matters – Keep the finances in order; Capital Improvements, such as the dome at Prophet Elias and/or Sunday School rooms at Holy Trinity; Festival Preparation, Parish Asset Protection (i.e. Parish properties); Other (specify below)
6. What do you think is the greatest value of Community membership to you and/or your family?
7. Do you or your family members participate in any of the church’s community-related activities and/or programs? If so, which ones?
8. Have you made a stewardship commitment or donated to Holy Trinity/Prophet Elias during the last five years? Please indicate which years and the respective amounts.
9. If applicable, why did you decide not to make a stewardship commitment or donation? Please choose only One Reason [we must here presume there cannot be many?]
Prefer single contributions to special projects; Prefer single contributions to general operating fund; Don’t understand the Stewardship program; Uncertain of personal finances; Not satisfied with the stewardship program; Other, please specify.
10. Are you and/or your family satisfied with the current Parish Council and their work?
11. Do you feel that the current Parish Council has the community’s best interest at heart when making decisions concerning the future of our community?
12. What suggestions would you offer to the Parish Council?
13. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting effective communication and 5 not communicated at all, please rate how you feel we have communicated to you as a Community Member?
14. Are you/and or (sic) your family satisfied with the office staff of the church and the way they handle your needs when you call or stop by the office?
15. Are you satisfied with the clergy service/accessibility to you and your family?
16. What suggestions would you offer to the Clergy?

Any other thoughts on your mind? Please share them.

PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY AUGUST 15, 2008

Thank you for your input! Please mail the questionnaire back in the enclosed pre-paid envelope. You are not required to provide this information in order to respond unless you would like a member from the Parish Council to respond back to you on a specific item.

Name _________________________________
Address _______________________________
City, State, Zipcode _______________________

Bravo

In response to Mr. Varanakis' assertion that the Metropolitan "stands by the letter he provided to our community after the information on our survey was provided him.", we say, as we said we would, "bravo".

We however stand by our blogs regarding the issue, despite Mr. Varanakis' detailed explanations on the nature of the CLC and its myriad of workshops, meetings and resolutions.

TOCB in representing the wishes of 87% of this community's members who voted, had every reason to point out that the issue of splitting our community WAS in fact on the CLC agenda, regardless of whether or not it was discussed. The controversy, in fact, would never have occurred, had the resolutions sent to the Archbishop been amended based upon "the information our survey provided".

In fact, we surmise that had this situation not been exposed, we may have all been facing a highly different outcome.

Further, we find it hard to imagine that some random soul from another parish or state felt self-righteously compelled to see to it that our community was split, and therefore proposed the original resolution at the Denver Metropolis CLC in Tulsa.

Therefore we reiterate the critical question, "WHO initially proposed the resoluton at the Denver Metropolis CLC in Tulsa, Oklahoma with regard to splitting our community?"

Do We Really Need These Confrontational Messages?

Today’s Sunday’s bulletin “The Word” had the following message:

"XRONIA POLLA! MANY YEARS! May PROPHET ELIAS, whose memory we commemorate today, intercede for our parish and all our parishioners, as we gather to celebrate the name day of our Prophet Elias parish. [Emphasis added.] FYI: It is Prophet Elias whose intercession we seek in times of drought or too much rain, and also for problems with hernias."

Over the last week we have been pondering the following:

We have been advised by Mr. Floor and have been assured about rumors at the Clergy-Laity Convention!

We have seen the agenda of this year’s Clergy Laity Convention; it appears to be contradictory to Mr. Floor’s comforting (!) message on rumor-spreading.

Today we see the editor of the Sunday Bulletin telling us that there is a separate Prophet Elias parish. Apparently it is a fait accompli to those in the know.

Can somebody in authority tell the rest of us what is going on? Maybe there is a comforting answer. Maybe we ought not to know.

Nick J. Colessides

Rumor Has It ... or Done Deal?

Let's consider for a moment the events of the past few days:

TOCB provides evidence that the Metropolitan, despite prior promises and present assurances, sent contrary resolutions to the Clergy-Laity Congress which were clearly on the agenda.

In yet another protocol imaged here (with emphasis added), the Metropolitan refers to our two delegates to the Clergy-Laity Congress as representing the "parish" of "Prophet Elias, Holladay".












On the heels of these not-so-subtle communications, we're provided the following verbatim language in our Sunday Bulletin:







Despite our treasurer's assertion of rumor-mongering, the actions and the language we are being presented with bespeak of τετελεσμενο γεγονος - a "done deal".

(Perhaps we should ask for the intercession of Prophet Elias for relief from the hernias we are sure to acquire from strained credulity.)

There is no such entity as a Prophet Elias PARISH in Holladay, nor a Holy Trinity PARISH in downtown SLC. Our parish council members represent this valley's ONE and ONLY parish, the Greater Greek Orthodox Community of Salt Lake City.

Rumors? It Would Appear Not So!

Since our previous posting, numerous e-mails have been circulated regarding the "rumor" that the Denver Resolutions with regard to our community would NOT include a resolution that the Salt Lake Community MUST split. We advise those who insist such to check out the Clergy-Laity Congress' Web site - specifically the AGENDA ITEMS.

In reviewing the Denver Resolutions, we would ask that our readers kindly note that in the fifth and sixth paragraphs it quite clearly still contains the language we referred to in our previous blog article, the one presumably based upon rumor. If, in fact, the Metropolitan did not want this discussed, should he not have, by now, sent a revised version of his resolutions for consideration to the Archbishop?

In truth, if this resolution as written, despite the protestations of "rumors", passes at Clergy-Laity, what would prevent our Metropolitan from arguing that he did not "force" the split - that it was simply a decision by the deliberative body of the Greek Orthodox Church in the USA and "out of his hands"? He could, technically, lay the blame at the doorstep of the Clergy-Laity Congress, or at the feet of the Archbishop himself. This would certainly put an end to a problem he has had with our community for decades.

We could, and would, ask, WHY this particular resolution was left in the list of resolutions for consideration sent in by our Metropolitan to Archbishop Demetrios for consideration at this Clergy-Laity Congress? If this resolution truly was not meant to be considered by the Clergy-Laity Congress, the Metropolitan had several months to see that to it this particular resolution was not included in the Denver Resolutions. He did not do so.

This said, if it turns out that the Metropolitan sees to it that this particular resolution is not considered, and honors his word to us, as stated in the December 6, 2007 letter sent to the community, our response will be "bravo".

Those who insist that at this particular point in time our concerns regarding this matter are merely based upon "rumor" are once again wrong. This is NOT a rumor; it is there, in plain black-and-white, for all to see. Οποιος εχει ματια βλεπει. (Whoever has eyes can see.)

Will Metropolitan Isaiah Keep His Word?

On December 6, 2007 parishioners of the Salt Lake City community received two letters from Metropolitan Isaiah regarding an apparently ongoing desire on his part to split our community. The first letter explained His Eminence's decision in not assigning a priest the community requested. The second referred to the survey results where 87% of those who returned surveys voted against splitting the community. Among statements His Eminence made were:

• During the past year, the subject [splitting the community] appeared to become a burning issue with an increasing number of parish members... Unfortunately, before you decided to go ahead with the survey, the usual few members became vocal spokesmen against the recognition of two distinct parishes...
• Had I been a less patient bishop, this would have been enough for me to declare two separate parishes with two separate councils...
• After much discussion with Mr. Bapis [editor's note: during prior attempts to split the community] I told him that I would not force the community to become two parishes...
• I like to believe that I am faithful to what I say...
• In my forty-five years in the clergy, I have never forced anyone to do my will...
• I challenge anyone to say that I forced someone to do or not to do a particular thing...
• In keeping my word to Mr. Bapis and to myself, I will not force the recognition of two parishes."

However, TOCB has learned that in May 2007, our Metropolitan sent a letter to Archbishop Demetrios reporting that the Metropolis' Clergy-Laity conference had passed a number of resolutions. One requested that the matter of splitting of our community be put on the agenda at the national convention. The pertinent page of that letter is excepted and imaged here. It reads:

The second resolution was made specifically to address the irregular situation of our Salt Lake City, Utah community which has two churches and two separate parish programs but operates under one parish council and as one incorporated legal entity. This, of course, is an uncanonical situation. It was tolerated by the Archdiocese many years ago for reasons that may have seemed logical at that time but the reality is that both “churches” need to function as separate parishes. The resolution is as follows:

"The Metropolis council of the Holy Metropolis of Denver and its delegates,
striving to accomplish wholeness and unity among all Orthodox Christians of our Metropolis and the Holy Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, affirm and state that each parish shall be a separate entity within our Holy Metropolis, with its own Proistamenos and Parish Council, in harmony with the pertinent canons of the Church."

http://www.clergylaity.org/

That letter's reference regarding our community was addressed to Archbishop Demetrios on May 22, 2007, more than six months before the letters he sent to us in December 2007. Knowing that he had PREVIOUSLY sent this letter proposing for national consideration a resolution specific to our community, how could His Eminence assert to us that he would keep his word and not force a split this community does not want? (We might also ask WHO proposed this resolution?)

Since this resolution is now a part of this year's National Clergy-Laity Conference agenda, are we going to be presented with a "done deal"? We hope, Your Eminence, that we can take you at your word. We are asking you, on behalf of those 87% of us who cared enough to vote (more than one-third of the voting members, which is certainly a sufficient representative sample) and vote "NO" to splitting, does the truth lie with your letter dated on May 22, 2007, or with the one you sent to us on December 6, 2007?

An Uninformed Community

Since the spring general assembly in May, much has happened in our community but little has been reported to the parishioners. Consider the following:

• Renovations in Prophet Elias have begun under the direct supervision of the proistameno of Prophet Elias only. No general assembly has approved the commencement of the renovations. The parish council found out about the renovations only after they had begun. We have heard that the money for this project was "donated" therefore negating any need for parish approval or participation. If this logic holds, anyone can "donate" for a project of their liking and it would be completed without input or approval. This thinking encourages chaos.
  
  
• Certainly the proistameno of Prophet Elias only and the parish council have forwarded the preliminary plans to the metropolitan for his approval according to the UPR's Article 16 Sections 3 and 4 "Parishes shall submit to the respective Hierarch, for his prior approval related to aesthetic and dogmatic concerns, all preliminary plans for: (subsection B) Any major structural alteration to an existing church structure or other Parish building." Is the parish council aware of this section of the UPR or is the proistameno of Prophet Elias only acting unilaterally?

• Without question we believe that the proistameno of Prophet Elias only and the parish council have forwarded the final plans to the metropolitan according to the same Article and Section of the UPR "All final plans shall also be submitted to the respective Hierarch for his prior approval."

• Does the proistameno of Prophet Elias only believe that by holding question and answer sessions after services he is informing the community? As much as he would like this community to be split, the reality is that we are not. Question and answer sessions are held at general assemblies (instead of sitting quietly with his head down) where all members of the community are present instead of in one church after services.

Οποιος δε βλεπει που πατει, στη λασπη θε να πεσει!