America

Published by GreekNewsonline.com, February 14, 2005

The Nature of Spiritual Courts in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Oyster Bay, N.Y. -- Recent actions involving the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and members of the parish council at the Church of the Transfiguration in Corona have raised questions in the community about the nature of spiritual courts. Some believe they are increasingly being used to intimidate the elected leadership of parishes and not to reconcile an individual to his Church as they were intended. There is also a question of whether lay people have ever before been brought to spiritual court on issues of church governance as, some believe, has increasingly been the case of late.

Points raised in interviews with Rev. Fr. Michael Kontogiorgis, assistant chancellor at the archdiocese; Fr. Emmanuel Gratsias, pastor at the Church of the Resurrection in Glen Cove, N.Y. and a member of the spiritual court for Vassilios Livanos and others at the Church of the Transfiguration; Orthodox Christian Laity Executive Director George Matsoukas; and archon and former Archdiocesan Council member Evan Chriss may broaden our understanding of these proceedings.

"In the last 50 years of my involvement with the archdiocese, I have not been aware of a parish council member being brought before spiritual court [in a case of church governance] until this case in Corona," says Evan Chriss, who is an archon, a member of Leadership 100, a former member of the Executive Committee of the Archdiocesan Council, and has been a member of the Archdiocesan Council for more than two decades.

Fr. Kontogiorgis has served as a member of many spiritual courts in his more than 30 years of clerical experience. He has also been in a position to observe the types of situations considered by spiritual courts as chancellor in the Pittsburgh Diocese for two years and in his current position as assistant chancellor in the archdiocese for more than six years.

Fr. Kontogiorgis attributes what may be perceived as an increase in lay spiritual court cases involving church governance to a disregard for the statutes governing the church as expressed in the Uniform Parish Regulations (UPR).

A problem between a priest and the parish council, according to Article 4, Section 3, "shall not be brought before the Parish Assembly. The Priest or the Parish Council shall have the right to refer the matter to the Bishop whose decision shall be final."

"The UPR are followed by most parishes and we do not need to resort to a spiritual court in governance issues. Lately, however, we are seeing more of these cases because there's been a lack of acceptance of the final decision of a hierarch."

He noted that, this week, there are two or three parishes seeking arbitration and a determination of the right thing to do for their disputes. "They are aware that the decision made by the hierarch is final and they must abide by it."

The UPR also give the archbishop the authority "to suspend or remove the Parish Council from office whenever, in his judgment, there is sufficient cause for such action after consultation with the Bishop." (Article 1, Section 6)

Article 7, Section 6, of the UPR states that a vacancy on the Parish Council "shall be considered to exist…[under such circumstances as]… the determination by a Spiritual Court of the Diocese that a Parish Council member is guilty of a serious moral transgression or has violated his or her oath of office."

Fr. Kontogiorgis notes that the taking of an oath of office when someone has been forbidden to is in and of itself a violation of the oath. "When we get to that point," he says, "no dialogue is sincere."

Fr. Gratsias points out that before the situation in Corona was elevated to a need for a spiritual court, Mr. Livanos was given the opportunity to provide evidence to support the charges he raised against Fr. Strongylis.

"At that time, he provided none and admitted it was at his direction that [Fr. Strongylis] signed checks in his name."

In response to concerns that spiritual courts are being used to intimidate elected leadership, Fr. Kontogiorgis notes that the UPR were approved by delegates to clergy-laity congresses, and three-fourths of those delegates are lay people.

"It is not like clergy are trying to impose things upon the church as far as the type of regulations we have," he says.

He added that holding a spiritual court is "not something we do lightly; it happens as a last resort because every other option or avenue toward reconciliation has been exhausted."

While there are no time limits set to coming to a conciliatory conclusion in a dispute before resorting to a spiritual court, Fr. Kontogiorgis stressed that there must be evidence of progress in the situation.

"If there's no evidence of remorse, repentance, a change of heart, the Church has the power to impose spiritual discipline, or penance, to deal with spiritual shortcomings. Being deprived from participating in the sacraments hurts, but it will help an individual to get back on track. While it is initially difficult to accept and understand the need for this penance, it does have an effect on them; I've never seen it not work. After 1-3 months, they look at things more objectively and realize they have to change them; they become better travelers on the road to salvation because of it.

"This is not a punishment. The Church imposes discipline and it hurts the Church more than it does the person because they don't want to lose someone. We must remember that we don't have a right to be a member of this Church on our own terms; Christ didn't say do whatever you want. To be a member of the Church, you had to be willing to die for the Church; there is a price to pay for membership in the Church—it is not a social club."

It is also possible for those brought to a spiritual court to be exonerated of the "charges" brought against them, Fr. Kontogiorgis notes.

In response to concerns raised about using spiritual courts for the laity as regards the governance of the Church and not dogmatic problems, Fr. Gratsias says that, when the Creed has not been violated, guidelines for courts addressing non-dogmatic violations are drawn from Scripture, the Canons and the governance documents of the Church, such as the Charter (which calls for spiritual courts for "family problems, divorce, and moral and disciplinary offenses of clergy and lay persons") and the UPR. The purpose of the spiritual court in those cases is to maintain the "Faith and Order" of the Church, to provide for the spiritual welfare of parishioners, as even St. Paul alluded to in Scripture.

The secrecy of a spiritual court and its clerical composition according to both Fr. Kontogiorgis and Fr. Gratsias, reflects its pastoral and confessional dimension.

"We wouldn't allow the press to be present at a Sacrament of Confession," Fr. Gratsias says. "A spiritual court is not a completely juridical type of thing. We are not going to take somebody who did something wrong and tell the papers about it."

Fr. Kontogiorgis notes that the parties called to spiritual court "agree to not air their grievances in public and to respect the sanctity of the court and its workings. After all, trying to reconcile someone with their Church is a private matter."

Both priests indicate that the only reason the archdiocese went public with its decision was that parties in the Corona case had already spoken to the press.

Among Mr. Matsoukas' concerns is the issue of the strictly clerical composition of the spiritual court in cases where a lay person is brought before it.

"The Romanian Orthodox church includes two lay persons and three clergy," he points out.

According to Fr. Kontogiorgis, "It is a church court and has always been made up of clergy." However, he adds, "In the early phases of the Corona situation, we did have a kind of informal investigative hearing that was made up of lay people and clergy. All parties appeared at the same time; however, in spiritual court, we see one person at a time."

Mr. Matsoukas is also concerned about what appears to be a punitive nature to many spiritual court cases. He recalls a situation in the past involving Archbishop Iakovos, who expressed his opinion about the authority of the archbishop vis a vis, for example, a government entity.

"As I recall, the archbishop said, 'I don't have an army, a navy, or an air force; I am only a priest who wants to bring people together.'"

Asked why the case of Archbishop Spyridon, which some believe was an issue of governance, wasn't addressed by a spiritual court, Fr. Kontogiorgis said he wasn't aware of charges involving governance issues brought against him. There are, however, spiritual courts involving clergy, he noted, but these are not publicly known.



Volume 7 Number 8 - Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY