Greece

Published by The National Herald, March 4, 2005

On the Church of Greece

This past week saw the Archbishop Christodoulos’ counteroffensive – finally.

After a long period of silence – some would argue indecisiveness – at which his opponents unleashed the most fiery media attack Greece has seen in decades – if ever, considering that privately owned television and radio stations came into existence only in the past 15 years – the Archbishop of Athens granted a 90-minute primetime interview, answering all questions – and then some.

For instance one of the questions that brought Christodoulos visibly to tears concerned his personal financial situation. He owns nothing of significant material value, he replied. Even the family home, which his brother bought with a loan 40 years ago, he gave to a monastery a few years ago, he said.

It was an interview which drew a huge audience. All of Greece came to a halt to watch it. It did not end the crisis, but at least it reduced the tsunami of media attacks into a storm. And that might prove to be the beginning of the end, or at least the end of the beginning, for this unprecedented media attack against a Greek archbishop.

Those in a position to know the reasons behind all the recent attacks stress that the Archbishop was exploited to no about the scandals involving several junior, and even some senior, clerics and tried to attach them to the Archbishop himself.

The problem for them is that, so far, there is no concrete link to the Archbishop. There was a recommendation letter, for instance, which Christodoulos gave many years ago, well before he became the Archbishop of Athens, on behalf of one of an accused person, Apostolos Vavilis, before there were any allegations or evidence of any wrong doing on Vavilis’ part.

There are some accusations coming out of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which were retracted at first, and then repeated, that Archbishop Christodoulos sent Vavilis as an emissary of sorts to Jerusalem to help get Patriarch Eirineos elected.

But it is well known that Christodoulos preferred another candidate instead of him, so why would he send anyone to help Eirineos?

In any event, who are the hostile parties trying to force the Archbishop to resign?

Christodoulos has stepped on a few toes in his seven years as the Archbishop of Athens, who presides over the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. He gave voice to the church – some would argue too strong of a voice – bringing people back into the fold.

He objected to the PASOK government’s attempt to remove religion affiliation on the Greek citizens ID, and brought more than half a million people to Syntagma Square to protest the threatened removal of it. This has incurred the previous government’s wrath (PASOK conveniently blames Christodoulos for losing the last election).

Christodoulos sided with the Serbs in the war on Kosovo, being that they are Orthodox – this not endearing him to the West – and he even made what some viewed as unkind statements about America when the terrorists attacked, which he adamantly insists were taken out of context.

He opposed the entrance of Turkey to the European Union, arguing the Turks have little, if anything, in common with Europe, and let’s not forget, Christodoulos and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew almost split the Church over the issue of the so-called New Lands – areas ceded to Greece after the Balkan Wars.

Now, of course, the conspiracy theorists are having a field day in Greece, reaching the point of absurdity.

Thus, to us, the most plausible explanation for what has happened in the Greek media is that the Archbishop’s enemies saw an opening and took full advantage of it.

Still, the most pertinent questions pertaining to the issue are, is he personally involved in the scandal? Has he protected, or in any way abetted, anyone involved in the corruption? Should he resign, as some politicians (mainly from the left) are demanding, as a consequence of the media assault resulting in a decreased popularity, as the polls suggest?

As to the first two questions, there is absolutely no proof that the Archbishop was either personally involved in any kind of scandal, or that he tried to shield anyone who was.

As to whether he should resign, barring some unforeseen events, we think the answer is clearly no. On the contrary, he should stand and fight for things he believes in, like strengthening the family unit and striving to maintain the core values and beliefs, which Greek society had in the not-too-distant past.

That said, it should be noted that it is unfortunate that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has been silent for the past month, when this issue is tearing the Church of Greece apart. If the Patriarch could not (understandably) come to the defense of the Archbishop, he should at least come to the defense of the Greek Church.



Volume 7 Number 10 - Tuesday, March 8th, 2005	A Publication of the ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN LAITY