Five

Published by The National Herald, October 8, 2004

The First Five Years of Archbishop Demetrios

By Theodore Kalmoukos
Special to The National Herald

BOSTON.- It seems like it was yesterday although five whole years have already passed since September 19, 1999, that Archbishop Demetrios was enthroned as Archbishop of America. Until that time, he was simply an auxiliary Bishop to Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens and All Greece, bearing the honorary title Bishop Demetrios of Vresthena.

We had almost completely forgotten this fifth anniversary of the enthronement of our Archbishop if it was not for Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomaios, who sent him that dual-faced Patriarchal letter (The National Herald Sept. 25-26, 2004). Those who know little about the mentality of Planarians can understand many things by reading the Patriarchal letter, which came just days after the National Herald had revealed that strong "accusatory" attack of the Patriarch against the Archbishop during the Synodal session of August 30 and 31.

Patriarch Bartholomaios, faithful to his Byzantine tactics of duality, did the right thing by sending the congratulatory letter to Archbishop Demetrios. Many times, what counts most is not what is said publicly but rather the behind-the-scenes scenarios and discussions. On the one hand, Bartholomaios officially expressed great disappointment in Archbishop Demetrios at the Synod as well as privately in his office, and on the other hand, he sent him a letter of praise and congratulations. Those who know the Byzantine intrigues and the Anatolian mentality say that if a person is praised, he or she should begin to worry. If, by the way, the Patriarchal letter did no include the paragraph that spoke about the "drafting" of Demetrios to assume the helm of the Church in America, it would have been less insulting to our local hierarchs in America because none of them was considered capable for the Mother Church to place in his hands the care of her Daughter, the Archdiocese of America.

It is not our intent to reprise past criticisms, but simply to register certain elements that have marked the very history of the life of our Church and the Greek-American community. In this respect, and in order to be honest and fair with everyone, it should be noted that many Synodal hierarchs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, including Patriarch Bartholomaios himself did not want the then auxiliary Bishop Demetrios of Vresthena to be the Archbishop of America. This explains the desperate attempt by Patriarch Bartholomaios— even at the very last moment—to convince Metropolitan Methodios of Boston to assume the Archbishopric position of America, but he declined. After Methodios’ refusal became known, his fellow Bishops are still telling him to this day, along with many clergy and laypeople, that he made a big mistake, especially today, seeing the stagnation of our Church in these first five years of Archbishop Demetrios’ ministry. The words that are used to describe the state of our Church today, which by the way are said not by enemies, but by sympathizers of Demetrios are: stagnation, inactivity, aponeurosis, and administrative incompetence. The same people who use the above characterizations to define Demetrios’ ministry are saying other things in front of him, although there are some individuals who have told him even in writing that he has disappointed them and the majority of the pleroma (faithful) of the Church.

On the other hand, those who know personalities and situations in our Church and community believe that Methodios would most definitely have put order in the finances of the Church, the Theological School in Brookline, in the multimember hydrocephalous personnel of the Archdiocese that consumes many millions of dollars in payroll, benefits and travel expenses, in the dying Hellenic Paideia, and in the administration in general. They say something else as well, that the Church and the community would know where Methodios stands, because the beautified pietism is not in his character.

What a pity, a Church such as ours not to be able to produce its own leader, but twice since Archbishop Iakovos’ departure from the active ministry two "imports" were made from abroad. The respected Geronta Archbishop Iakovos is to be blamed to a certain extent. Now that Archbishop Iakovos sees the events and the developments in a more cool and prudent way, he certainly feels the pain, but it is too late.

Thank God our hierarchs of the Archdiocese are men with understanding and obedience, otherwise Patriarch Bartholomaios would have come in the middle of the night to calm the situation…Bartholomaios’ behavior towards our hierarchs even today is unacceptable because he prohibits them from communicating directly with him, they can only through Archbishop Demetrios. For God’s sake, are these things serious? When the hierarchs Liturgize, they commemorate the Patriarch’s name, but at the same time they are forbidden to correspond with him. Even if Archbishop Demetrios demanded something like this, as it has been said, the Patriarch should not have honored his request.

It would not be fair if we do not emphasize that Archbishop Demetrios assumed the leadership of the Church in America "during days of difficulty and uncertain future," as Bartholomaios wrote in his congratulatory letter to him. Certainly the Phanar and its interloper advisors from America are to be blamed for creating "days of difficulty and uncertain future" for the Church and the Greek-American community. It is true and confessed by many that Archbishop Demetrios has managed, with his pietistic style and his superficial humbleness, to bring some kind of peacefulness to the turmoil that existed. That pacification, along with the completion of the revision of the Charter and the Uniform Parish Regulations—even the way they were done—comprise the contributions of Archbishop Demetrios to this Church all these five years. All the rest of the problems remain without any approach having been made. Even the financial debt has once again reached high levels, nearing $7 million. Many from the clergy and the laity claim the choices that Archbishop Demetrios has made to fill various positions in the Church are ill-fated, and point to the Chancery and the School of Theology as examples. They also say that Demetrios had all the power and dynamics in place to really make our Church and community shine, but instead we find ourselves in a static condition with no vision, no strategy, no planning for the next day. We do believe that the future is in the hands of God, but we also know that "we are God’s co-workers."

Five years have been exhausted since Archbishop Demetrios’ enthronement and the question remains, where are we going as a Church? Does Demetrios have the capabilities to take leading initiatives or is he simply enjoying the ceremonial aspect of his position with all the glamour that the spotlight brings?

With so many photographs of himself that he publishes in the "Orthodox Observer" and in the annual "Year Book" of the Archdiocese, I think we should have reached our conclusions by now.



Volume 6 Number 40 - Tuesday, October 12th, 2004	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY

Volume 6 Number 40 - Tuesday, October 12th, 2004