top

Orthodox Christian Laity - August 3, 2004

Observations On The Clergy-Laity Congress 2004

Commentary by Andrew Kartalis

Prior to the convening of the Clergy-Laity Congress there was intimidation against individuals.  Two parishioners (one the President of a Parish Council) were denied to be delegates by a Metropolitan, and two others, including this writer, had their delegate status taken away by their Metropolitans after they had been elected by their parish assemblies.  These denials were done on an arbitrary basis.  While three of these denials were due to the individuals being plaintiffs on the legal action regarding the charter, other plaintiffs in four other Metropolises were allowed to serve as delegates.  Is this an indication of the fragmentation of the Archdiocese into nine separate fiefdoms with nine different sets of rules as has been feared with the elevation of our bishops to the rank of metropolitans?

Why New York?  Two years ago in Los Angeles there were lamentations about the high cost of attending a Congress and that something needed to be done about this.  Holding it in Times Square certainly did not serve to increase attendance.  Of a possible 2280 here were only 805 delegates registered, down from the number in LA. 

In LA in 2002 there were more delegates questioning the Proposed Charter than the number in New York questioning the Proposed Regulations.  I submit that this is because there is disillusionment and apathy caused by the heavy-handed tactics used to impose the charter and the regulations.  By the time the Plenary Session rolled around at the end of the Congress, there were only 439 voting delegates in attendance.  The others had left.

The charter was not allowed to be discussed in any manner.  Any mention of it by a delegate, and he was ruled out of order.  Many delegations had been directed by their parish assemblies to demand that the charter issue be discussed on the floor of the Congress, so they were not able to carry out their charge.  They were emphatically told that the charter was a closed issue. 

The Proposed Regulations clearly stated that Congresses will abide by Robert's Rules of Order.  When delegates questioned or objected to the heavy-handed procedures of the chairman of the Administration Committee by referring to Robert's Rules, a motion was made and passed to add the phrase "and custom and practice of prior Congresses", thus nullifying Robert's Rules and affirming the past tradition of arbitrary rulings and procedures of the chairs of the committees and the Plenary Sessions.

It was obvious from the beginning that there was never any intention to allow parishes to review and act on the Proposed Regulations.  While they were submitted to other bodies of the Archdiocese in plenty of time to review prior to the Congress, they were only received by the parishes about two weeks prior to the Congress.  When delegates objected that the Proposed Regulations were not received 60 days in advance of the Congress as called for in the Special Regulations, they were told that the Regulations only states that the agenda need be sent out 60 days ahead, and that this was merely "a report" that was to be reviewed by the Administration Committee and acted on at the Plenary Sessions.  Further, it was obvious that extraordinary efforts were made at the Congress to pass the Regulations in a manner that would not allow them to go to the parishes for any further review after the Congress prior to final adoption.  The two days allocated for their review obviously did not suffice because of the volume of the work, so sessions were added a third day and it was finally finished on the floor of the Plenary.  Requests that the vote at the Congress be considered a "First Reading", thus allowing the Proposed Regulations to be sent to the parishes for further review, were not allowed.  The "ramming through" process of the Proposed Regulations became further obvious at the Plenary that was chaired by Demitri Moschos, who was on a mission to achieve passage of them by utilizing a "take no prisoners" attitude.  Speakers were quickly ruled out of order, voting was by voice vote that was liberally interpreted by the chair, and a "rush, rush" attitude was utilized which cut off full debate of individual sections of the Proposed Regulations.

The section in the Proposed Regulations that states that the Archdiocese has no members was allowed to stand.  Surely this will have an impact on the how the clergy and laity will view their status in the future in the Church relative to the Archdiocese.

Apparently meaningless statistics:

•   The Archbishop and the Archdiocese continue to misrepresent the number of members in the Church as being 1,500,000, when in truth the number by all calculations is closer to 400,000.  (1,500,000 divided by 540 parishes equals an average of 2800 parishioners for each parish in America, an obvious impossibility!)  Is this done in order to keep the Church in the major religion category and not relegate it to minor status?

•   As in previous Congresses, the percentage of 'mixed marriages' is announced as 80% of all marriages taking place in our Church.  A few comments about the problems this raises are made and then the Congress goes on to discuss measures as how to further Hellenize the Church.

The Budget presentation for 2004 and 2005 was not reassuring.  Two years ago in LA the Archdiocese had a debt of over $5 million, and the Archbishop thankfully announced that monies had been donated by generous individuals to erase the debt.  But here, this year, we are back in debt to the tune of $6.5 million with very little explanation of why.  It was pointed out that every department of the Archdiocese had exceeded its budget and that fiscal integrity was needed there.  This year's budget showed a pay down of the debt by only $500,000.  Will the departments of the Archdiocese live within their budgets?  Are there any unknown extraordinary expenses out there?

Part of the over expenditures in 2003 were explained in that $1.5 million was paid out to settle sexual harassment cases.  The Archdiocese does not have insurance to cover claims for damages from sexual abuse.  Any payments must be paid out of the operations budget.  What was not made known is how many cases did these payments involve, are there other cases still pending, who the priests were, and are these priests still in service?  The secrecy of the Archdiocese in this area is reminiscent of the methodology of the Catholic church, that has created the crisis in that church.  { Most disturbing were the statements by George Behrakis, a member of the Executive Committee of the Archdiocese published in the July 24-25 issue of the National Herald.  When asked to comment on the $1.5 million dollar loan, Mr. Behrakis referred the interviewer to Jerry Dimitriou and Manny Demos, "because I am not really knowledgeable in that area", and further responded in response to the question, "You mean you did not know about it?", he responded, "No, I was a little surprised that $1.5 million was borrowed".  This is an indication that even the Executive Committee of the Archdiocesan Council, the highest level of laity involvement in the Church, was left in the dark on such an important matter.

There was a great deal of discussion about the Archdiocesan Total Commitment of parishes.  It is evident that stronger efforts will be made to require each parish pay their 15% share of the Total Commitment on a mandatory basis rather than the haphazard method prevalent today.  Statements were made that the parishes are 'hiding' money and measures to force compliance needed to be included in the UPR.  Delegates responded that if the 'books' of the Archdiocese were more open, and if the parishes could be assured that the funds of the Archdiocese were spent prudently, more funds would be forthcoming.  The punitive measures that are included in the Proposed Regulations are severe if the monies are not paid.  Second, the issue of also including the income to Building and Endowment funds of a parish in the Total Commitment calculations was strongly pressed by the Archdiocese representatives, but just as strongly opposed by many delegates.  Fortunately, more reasonable views prevailed and the proposal to include  Building Funds and Endowments was REMOVED by amendments made by the delegates.

The rules on property acquisition were tightened in the approvals that are needed.  However, the new requirement to require approvals for all personal property (includes everything from pencils and paper to organs and draperies and pews) were confusing.  The Archdiocese agreed to clarify this to mean only actions which have the effect of converting real property into personal property.  The most disturbing aspect is the number of ways in the Proposed Regulations that a parish can be declared to be in 'canonical disorder' by the Archbishop and Metropolitan, which immediately triggers a takeover of parish property and the authority to sign any deeds, etc.  A parish can be in canonical disorder if its Archdiocesan commitment is not completely paid, or if it fails to turn in its annual financial records on time, for example.

With the tightened controls over a parish and its properties, should there be a concern that a parish's assets are in any danger of loss in the event of a sexual misconduct lawsuit and settlement?  This happened to the Catholic church which directly owned the parish properties, and it needs to be considered carefully in our Church.

What will be the role of future Clergy-Laity Congresses?  Since, according to the Proposed Regulations they cannot initiate any legislation, that now being the province of the Synod of Bishops, it can only serve to act as a rubber stamp.  So why meet for other than just social reasons?  Also, the membership of the Archdiocesan Council which is handpicked by the hierarchs, is being increased by 50%, from 87 to 127.  This is a powerful voting block loyal to the wants of the hierarchs.

In summary, this Congress was more mean spirited than not, lacking in love and fellowship.  Certainly obvious is that the way they ran this Congress meeting is one reason they have lawsuits.  More important, however, is the question of what do all the foregoing charters, regulations and actions portend for the future of our Church?  Are they positive or negative?  Will they help meet our spiritual needs?  Will they reverse the downward spiral of membership and allow our Church to grow?  Will it become the Church that will attract our progeny and their spouses after we are gone?  I think not, and I fear that others are coming to the same conclusion.

[ Orthodox Truth - www.orthodox-truth.bugs3.com/art_56.html - August 3, 2004 ]