By Paul Cromidas
Orthodox Reform [United States]
April 17, 2007
http://orthodoxreform.org/columns/metropolitan-isaiahs-letter-questioned/
(Writer's Note: Like my fellow parishioners, I was saddened and in disbelief when I learned that our long-time pastor was suspended on charges of sexual misconduct. Nevertheless, after reading Metropolitan Isaiah's letter to the parish, I felt that a response was called for. Ironically, I have been writing about the church misconduct issue for some time and that has included criticism of the Metropolitan. He has never responded to any of my articles or correspondence and neither has Archbishop Demetrios. A shorter version of this article appeared as a Letter to the Editor in The National Herald, the Greek-American newspaper, on April 13, 2007.)
 |
After eight months of silence, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan (Bishop) Isaiah finally communicated with the faithful of one of his largest parishes about a matter of paramount importance — the suspension of their long-time priest, Fr. Nicholas Katinas. He expressed his "deepest sadness" and praised Fr. Katinas' accomplishments over the years.
Surprisingly, and without explanation, he also said that there were "serious situations" in his parishes and in others around the country. Was he referring to other misconduct charges?
His letter, dated February 22, 2007, came a day after Fr. Michael Kontogiorgis, the assistant chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA), came to Dallas and told parishioners at Holy Trinity Church that their retired priest, Fr. Katinas, had been permanently suspended following an investigation of charges of child sexual abuse. He asked for prayers and forgiveness for all concerned. Even though the 400 or so parishioners who were present had probably heard the rumors, they were still stunned and many were in tears. Fr. Katinas had been their priest for 28 years.
The Metropolitan's letter, on the other hand, did not mention the reason for the suspension, or express concern about possible victims. He urged compassion and forgiveness, but did not say anything about the Church's responsibility in protecting children.
The Metropolitan wrote that he knew last summer of rumors about Fr. Katinas, "but I have waited for more clarification before communicating with you."
Does it sound credible that the shepherd of the diocese could not have written or visited his Dallas parish over a period of some eight months, even considering time-out for his illness? Surely, a good shepherd would have reached out to his people to inform them of developments and perhaps started a reconciliation and healing process. (To its credit, the Dallas parish has conducted some "Healing Seminars".)
Was the Metropolitan put on the sidelines by his superiors while the matter was essentially being handled by the Archdiocese? This may very well have been the case, even though the GOA bishops were "elevated" to a higher position of authority as metropolitans a few years ago. They alone are now commemorated as "archbishop" in the liturgy. In light of this, it seems strange that, according to press reports, Fr. Katinas was transferred to the authority of Archbishop Demetrios, head of the GOA. Apparently, this was in line with the GOA policy on sexual misconduct which allows such a move when there has been a priest's suspension. Still, is a metropolitan not in charge of his priests? Only up to a point, it would appear. (When Fr. Katinas sent his letter of resignation, the salutation was to "Your Eminence Archbishop Demetrios.")
Not long ago, after he "fired" some parish council members in Houston, Metropolitan Isaiah had declared imperiously that a bishop "derives his power from the Patriarchate and is responsible only to the Holy Synod of Constantinople."
Given the GOA's questionable and often "ad hoc" way of handling abuse cases, the issue of fairness and due process should also be examined. With an investigation that was internal and apparently secret, what due process did Fr. Katinas receive? In the press reports, he sounded resigned to his fate being in the hands of his superiors. (In another case, two-and-a-half years elapsed between a priest's suspension and the announcement of that suspension by the GOA.) Can the GOA be fully trusted?
The press release issued by the GOA was also dated Feb. 22, and its first words were: "In response to further inquiries…" One wonders: how many "inquiries" it should take for the GOA to make a statement. The release also stated that "Parish administrators at Holy Trinity…were notified of the suspension in July 2006." Apparently, they were also told not to say anything to the parishioners at that time.
Role of Laity
The GOA stance appears to be "Don't call us, we'll call you." It is my view that the laity of Orthodoxy need to have a stronger voice on the abuse issue. They should not just be passive recipients of whatever information the clergy and hierarchs want them to know. The Catholic group, Voice of the Faithful, was formed in 2002 after the abuse revelations in Boston. It now has some 35,000 members who are seeking accountability from their church in the protection of children and in financial matters. Orthodoxy needs a proportional voice from its laity - an informed, pro-active voice, not a "pray, pay and obey" voice.
It wasn't until late in 2006 that the Dallas parish learned that Fr. Katinas had been suspended, but still no reason was given. Instead, as the Dallas Morning News reported, "Months of rumors ended with devastating confirmation" about the reason for the suspension when the parish was visited by the assistant chancellor. (This may be the first time a GOA representative has addressed parishioners about such a matter.)
Aside from the first coverage by print and TV news in Dallas, the Fr. Katinas story has received unprecedented space and headlines in the main Greek-American paper, The National Herald, which also printed the Metropolitan's letter. In its editorial comments, the Herald has questioned the Archdiocese's handling of this matter, and its apparent attempt at cover-up. One further revelation by the Herald has been that some $10 million may have been paid by the Archdiocese for settlements of sexual misconduct cases over the past five years. Not so long ago, it seemed like quite a revelation that $1.5 million had been borrowed for such settlements. As has been its pattern, the GOA has still not revealed the names of priests who may have been involved in these cases.
While the Metropolitan's letter avoided mention of the reasons for the suspension, he made two alarming statements about other possible troubles when he wrote:
| It never fails that, when Great Lent arrives, I am faced with very serious situations in several of our parishes. I am certain that this holds true in every one of our metropolises. |
What are we to make of these assertions? What are these "very serious situations"? Is he saying there are other misconduct cases in his metropolis and in "every" other one across the country? He surely needs to explain himself to the faithful on this.
The Metropolitan's letter then proceeded to play "blame the messengers". He wrote:
| …to compound the problems, it is our own people who believe themselves to have a mandate from God; indeed, they take pride in sharing bad news with as many as they can. |
Did the Metropolitan expect that for the better part of a year, the people of Holy Trinity parish were to be silent about this? Naturally, the faithful will talk and ask questions, especially when their Church keeps them in the dark about something so important. Does he also blame the press for its reporting, like the Catholic bishops have done so shamefully in many of their cases?
The organization, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has also reportedly criticized the Metropolitan's letter for its "insensitive remarks."
The Metropolitan's Track Record
That the Metropolitan is being less than forthcoming about the Fr. Katinas case should not really surprise us. Over the past few years he has more than covered-up the situation about the former Fr. Gabriel Barrow, also of his metropolis, who was ultimately defrocked for sexual misconduct with minors. The Barrow case was handled egregiously. There was no notification by Church authorities of the reason for his suspension, or of his Spiritual Court appearance, the decision of the Synod of Bishops or the action of defrocking by the Ecumenical Patriarch. It was kept quiet all the way by the GOA, including Metropolitan Isaiah not saying anything to the people.
It was only after the press contacted the GOA that we learned of Barrow's defrocking and that there would be no further statement, just a listing in the Orthodox Observer, the official paper of the Archdiocese. Then, when the paper came out, the Archdiocese had the audacity to print only this:
| Returned to Status of Layman Barrow, V. Rev. Gabriel - 02-22-05 |
The GOA did not even have the Christian honesty to report to its faithful that the man had been defrocked — let alone the reason for it.
The Barrow case had other complicating dimensions that do not speak well for organized Orthodoxy. Barrow had been a priest in the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church and had been suspended for misconduct with minors by that jurisdiction in the late 1970s. By the mid-nineties he was first loaned and later fully released to then-Bishop Isaiah's Denver diocese of the GOA, where he served a small parish south of Houston. It would appear that both jurisdictions should share blame here in that the Antiochians should not have released him and the GOA should not have accepted him. When this writer asked representatives of both jurisdictions about this matter, they gave conflicting versions of how it came about, and neither one will admit that it may have been wrong, to this day.
Moreover, one of the Antiochian bishops, Antoun, had written to Metropolitan Isaiah in the year 2000, advising him that a man was claiming that he had been molested as a youngster by Fr. Barrow in Ohio. The man was told, according to the letter, that Fr. Barrow was now under the authority of Metropolitan Isaiah. It was not until early 2004 that Fr. Barrow was suspended. (The man testified later against Fr. Barrow in Spiritual Court.)
In addition, there was the case of Roy Joe Givens, a former Greek Orthodox priest in El Paso, Texas, also in Metropolitan Isaiah's territory. According to news accounts in 2003, he had fled the state earlier and was extradited back to Texas. He was tried for sexual misconduct, was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Metropolitan did not inform his diocese of that matter, either.
It can be said that the assistant chancellor's presentation to the Holy Trinity parishioners reflected one positive breakthrough in openness for the GOA and for the people. But, overall, we should not be surprised at how the Fr. Katinas matter and other cases have been handled, given the record of the Metropolitan and of the GOA. We can, however, insist on more transparency and accountability from now on.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.