The following article is taken from The National Herald, March 15, 2015 concerning some of the corruption in the Greek Orthodox Church (links to for the original Greek and English transcription are included):
The following article is taken from The National Herald, March 15, 2015 concerning some of the corruption in the Greek Orthodox Church (links to for the original Greek and English transcription are included):
NOTE: This article is taken from Misunderstanding Cults: Searching for Objectivity in a Controversial Field, pp. 123-155. It has been condensed.
One of the things that cults do well is the construction of inspiring and exciting alternative worldviews. They do this passionately and with great skill, and the most successful of them are also skilled at creating internally consistent social and cultural contexts to make these worldviews visible and attractive both to their members and to their audiences. Consequently, researchers attempting to study cults are confronted with a set of problems beyond those encountered by ethnographers studying other types of social organizations. Researchers of cults are faced with a kind of hall of mirrors in which they must contend with multiple layers of reality construction. In this chapter I discuss the potential pitfalls inherent in doing research on such groups.
First, let me attempt to define what I mean by cult, that problematic word:
A cult can be either a sharply bounded social group or a diffusely bounded social movement held together through shared commitment to a charismatic leader. It upholds a transcendent ideology (often but not always religious in nature) and requires a high level of personal commitment from its members in words and deeds.
At certain times in its history a cult can be a precisely defined group with clear boundaries separating members from outsiders, and at other times it can take the form of a more amorphous social movement with fuzzy concentric boundaries shading off imperceptibly from totally committed inner-circle members to fellow travellers to vaguely interested spectators.
When one turns the viewing lens on a single cult in order to extract a thick definition of the forces that hold it together, one inevitably sees charismatic relationships and devotion to transcendent ideology as the important defining features.
Cults Try to Prevent You from Coming Backstage after the Show
Often cults are found to be mystical, grandiose, secretive, and multi-layered. Such characteristics have been noted by various researchers.1 There is no way to know how many times researchers have been successfully ‘fooled’ by such groups, in the sense that researchers were shown a version of reality that either differed from the typical daily life or hid from view the negative or controversial aspects. But if we assume that a researcher wants to present a thorough descriptive account, then how best achieve that goal? Whether doing content analysis of documents, participant observation, or interviews, in addition to abiding by generally accepted standards of research in the social sciences, an important first step would be for the researcher to acknowledge that there might be some distortion going on, meant either to impress or to hide, or both.
Over the years there has been a surprising likeness in reports of systems of control and influence used in cultic groups, which have served to misinform, disinform, or obfuscate in one way or another. Those efforts at information control and impression management might be called the group’s ‘mask of normalcy.’ This mask can serve to keep researchers at arm’s length, impeding an inside look at what really transpires. For that reason a researcher must be methodical, thorough, and grounded, and have a solid but flexible plan or approach.
An initial task involves acquiring basic knowledge of the group in question. Know as much as possible about the group beforehand (its doctrine, practices and rituals, lingo, history, lineage, controversies, and crises); then be ready to entertain various interpretations of findings. A central challenge, of course, is gaining access.
I offer here a glimpse of the various strategies used some of the time by some groups, with examples of the types of occurrences that might derail the researcher…These manipulative strategies pose four categories of problems for the researcher who would not be deceived: (1) tricks and setups; (2) demands, restrictions, and intimidation; (3) informants as spin masters; and (4) researcher susceptibility to the cult’s appeal.2 I will discuss each of them in turn.
Problem 1: Tricks and Setups
Researchers must remember the ease with which a group can trick visitors and outsiders. This can happen through selected interviewees, selected topics of discussion, and staged events.
When visiting a group facility or location, a researcher may believe that she is free to interview or observe whomever is there, and as a result may feel that she has been given free reign. In many cases, however, only trusted members are allowed in those locations during the time the researcher (or, in some cases, the public) will be there. As a result, ‘outsiders’ end up talking to or interviewing only those group members who were preselected by the gatekeeper, or were pre-assigned and trained as spoke-persons for the group.3 Another way this type of control occurs is through either overt or indirect censoring of responses and interactions.4
Selected Topics of Discussion
Researchers or journalists who want to interview a group leader may quickly learn that this is not so easy. One evasive strategy has been to ask researchers to submit their questions in writing to the leader, who then (either himself or through his aides) selectively chooses the questions he wants to answer. Sometimes the questions are rewritten so the leader can talk about his own favourite topics.
These events occur for a variety of reasons: to gain credibility for the group, to recruit, to fund-raise, to keep members busy, or simply to put forth a public face.
Beneath the facade there is often a hidden layer—and, in this case, more than one. While the performance itself is sociologically interesting, equally important is what is being hidden: the backstage, the secret nature of the organization, its purpose, and the control of its membership.
Manipulative strategies are devised for a particular context. The purpose is to impress and recruit, and the members’ dedication, commitment, and idealism are taken advantage of, both to put on a good front and to hide certain less desirable aspects.
An antidote to the types of tricks and setups that researchers might encounter would be to try to establish beforehand some ways to ensure getting unadulterated data. For example, whenever possible, and, if the setting permits, arrive unannounced or early. Try to visit a group’s various locations, including members’ residences, the leaders’ quarters, and any other special facilities. Also request that you be allowed to randomly select interview subjects, and ask permission to speak with members of different ranks, positions, functions, and lengths of time in the group. If at all possible, conduct your interviews off-site, which may allow members to speak more freely. Naturally, all of this must be done within ethical research standards and in a way that maintains good relations with your subjects. Be sensitive as well to the potential emotional, psychological, or physical risks that may befall your informants—whether they are current or former members. And take that same care yourself.
Problem 2: Demands, Restrictions, and Intimidation
Researchers must be alert to a group’s attempt to put demands on them by restricting visiting times, locations, and access to members, and sometimes even requesting to review and approve the researcher’s results or final reports. If a group so desires and is unable to put its stamp of approval on a report, or if a negative or critical report should surface, harassment of the authors and/or publishers is always a possibility.
Ayella5 advises that researchers be critical of the kind of access they are given. Why is a group allowing you in? Is it looking for a clean bill of health or stamp of approval? Has it been criticized recently and is now seeking outside aid in impression management? Does the group understand and agree with scientific norms of research? And possibly most critical, did the group invite you to do the research? Honest answers to such questions may reveal that a researcher is slated to become an unwitting pawn in someone else’s project, perhaps with a questionable goal, and, potentially, with just as questionable an outcome.
Cultic groups with controversial and secret practices are unlikely to be open to scrutiny. It is not unusual for such groups to work against the airing of information that might be detrimental. Groups much prefer positive puff pieces.6
Problem 3: Informants as Spin Masters
Researchers may encounter trained behaviour on the part of cult members and adherents. Therefore, while acknowledging this front-stage activity, researchers must also be prepared to seek out backstage behaviours and attitudes. Researchers might also consider ways in which they might evoke a fuller picture of what is going on in the member-informant’s mind. Such investigation requires perseverance, creativity, and critical thinking.
As noted earlier, some cults allow only carefully selected members to speak with the press or outsiders.
There is a type of briefing, grilling, and role-playing that occurs in some groups which is intended to train members to respond in desired ways, rather than as they feel. As Barker so aptly described:7
“Some members of some movements have gone further than concealing the truth—they have denied the truth, blatantly lying to potential converts and ‘outsiders.’ Furthermore, some members of some movements lie to other members of the same movement. It is not unusual for members of certain NRMs not to know what their leaders get up to—how the money is spent, exactly who issues the orders, or what the long-term goals of the leaders are.
“Sometimes members have been instructed to say that they are collecting money, food or other goods for the aged, for young people on drugs, or for poor people in underdeveloped countries. Sometimes these statements are downright lies; at other times, they are twisting the truth; at yet other times, the members may convince themselves that they are telling the truth.”
In researching cultic groups, the text is perhaps not so important as the subtext and nonverbal clues.
Planting members trained to ‘spin’ in the group’s front organizations is a common tactic among cults concerned about their public image.
Problem 4: Researcher Susceptibility to the Cult’s Appeal
Researchers of cultic groups are treading into charismatic environments. Many of these groups have great appeal—through the belief system, the activities and interactions, the members, and, of course, the leaders. Researchers must learn how not to be overly influenced by the charismatic performance of a leader—whether it consists of showing off, or feigned humility, or both. Being dazzled by the leader’s glamour is something many a researcher has experienced, if only momentarily. But the savvy researcher will acknowledge his vulnerabilities and guard against succumbing to this very human foible.
I realize how difficult it is to gain access to a cultic group, let alone remain disinterested. Barker8 spoke of the dangers of getting too close to one’s subject; she cautioned against favouritism in reporting, or researchers acting to protect members from experiencing bad press. Spending time with these groups, attending their services or meetings or events, observing members interact, sitting with them while their leader is lecturing—certainly only someone made of stone would not feel drawn in. How else can the researcher expect to gather data and draw interpretations? A researcher must both yield and hold back—a sometimes tricky mix in what are often extraordinary settings.
Operating with the authority of charisma, some leaders of charismatic groups go so far as to fancy themselves to be above and beyond human.
Many cult leaders are quite gifted at their public performances. It is not surprising, then, that the researcher, a mere mortal, finds herself responding to the charismatic lure. Naturally, the wise cult leader counts on such a response—it is not only self-validating but also likely to achieve some desired outcome. A researcher who finds himself swayed by the prowess, magical powers, wisdom, or flattery of a cult leader is less likely to be ‘objective’ in his recording and reporting. Therefore, the researcher might want to put into place certain safeguards against those automatic emotional responses. The first would be, of course, to admit to one’s susceptibility to that charismatic pull. The next would be to institute checkpoints and outside reminders to help bring you back to earth. For example: (1) ensure that you have sufficient time alone, away from group rituals, practices, and paraphernalia; (2) place regular phone calls home or to colleagues who can give you a reality check; (3) stay on a good diet with plenty of liquids, nourishment, and protein; (4) surround yourself with reminders of your usual life; and (5) engage in regular reviews of research objectives. It is important to remember that the objective is not to get recruited, or even to have a good time, but to collect data and report on your findings.
How Not to Become a Mere Apologist for the Cult You Are Studying
No researcher wants to become a pawn of the group that he or she is studying, but it is all too easy and tempting to fall into just that trap. Cultural anthropologists have long been known to become protective of the tribes they study. The more they come to understand tribes from the inside, the more they realize how vulnerable those distant cultures are to misunderstanding back home. Similarly, with cults, many aspects of their behaviour that seem weird to outsiders are much more understandable within the cult’s own milieu. It is only human nature for the researcher, having worked so hard to become familiar with the cult’s context, to wish to parade this expertise by explaining to the world why certain outrageous cult behaviours really do make sense when looked at from the appropriate perspective. Add to all this the fact that the leaders of totalistic cults are in a position to grant the researcher complete access to the cult with a mere wave of the hand, or just as easily to take it all away, as we have seen. Thus, the urge to ingratiate compounds itself upon the urge to protect the cult. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that some researchers have found it difficult to resist the pressure to become apologists rather than unbiased observers.
The secrecy that often envelops cultic organizations makes that pressure all the more of an obstacle to objective research. Wilson9 was explicit in advising researchers that the ‘tendency toward secrecy is intensified’ in cults and sects.10 Investigators who are not aware of (or turn a blind eye to) this reality will be doing a disservice to their field and to their research subjects. When researchers don’t make efforts to look at what might be going on behind the scenes or when they accept the front stage at face value, the results will stack up alongside some of the weaker studies and analyses in this field.
An instance of whitewashing occurred recently when a sociologist of religion was flown out to the West Coast as an expert to do a report on a local controversial group for a lawyer and public relations firm hired by the group (or rather, a member of the group), after two or three days in the area, the scholar asserted in writing that the group was not a cult and there was no evidence of brainwashing. His report was sent to both local and national media, as well as to some families of group members who were being affected by the brewing controversy. The report helped to stave off (and water down) media exposes, and put another wedge between some of the families and their relatives in the group. The scholar’s findings, however, were at odds with other evidence from cross-corroborated, first-hand reports from almost a dozen former members and families of members, documentation from a lawsuit filed several years earlier, and extensive research done by a local investigative reporter, which included access to internal group materials and videotapes that gave direct evidence to support some of the allegations. Nevertheless, the scholar’s report, based on a couple days of visits orchestrated by the group, and supported by a well-paid public relations campaign, as well as legal threats, made it more difficult to shed light on this group’s controversial backstage behaviour.
Some apologists are quick to say that everything from the 913 Jonestown deaths to the allegations of child abuse or sexual improprieties in other groups are nothing but the result of the ‘bigoted and criminal’ anticult movement and a handful of ‘disgruntled and vengeful’ former cult members. Yet, I would argue that such mud merely sullies the waters but does not change the facts. Over the years there has been enough evidence that at least some cultic groups have engaged in illegal and harmful activities, and, on a lesser scale, have created environments held together by intense forms of enforced conformity and rigid methods of controlling and constraining their members. These situations and these aspects of organizational control must not be overlooked if we are to understand these groups and their behaviours, as well as attempt to comprehend the lives and choices of the individual members. We must not be guided by the ‘norms of academia [that] make us reluctant to believe or disseminate negative facets of controversial groups.’11 Rather it is vital to look beyond the surface appeal of any group in order to examine and assess both the individual and societal ramifications and implications. Then, as Barker suggested, one’s interpretation of raw data might ‘become a basis for social action’12 that is preferably positive in nature as opposed to simply being favourable to the group’s perspective.
The work of scholars in this field can and does have real-life implications. Apologies and whitewashing based on inadequate or biased research may help perpetuate harm by glossing over or covering up questionable practices and activities, and, at worst, a variety of improprieties, abuses, or crimes. A researcher’s job is to produce knowledge and minimize distortion. Data provided by a cultic group should never be taken at face value, and being courted or toured about by the leadership is probably not a reliable avenue to anything other than a superficial view. Every charismatic group has gatekeepers who control the group’s environment, and many groups have vast public relations operations that send out polished views of their corporate world or public face. Similarly, claims by those who appear to be opponents of the group or merely taking a critical stance must also be verified and cross-corroborated; but they should not be ignored or discounted. If Lofland and Lofland’s13 ‘questioning mind-set’ is recommended in everyday research of ‘ordinary’ situations, then it seems only obvious that such an attitude would be all the more necessary when investigating cultic groups.
Use of Whistle-Blowers in Cult Research
Another important issue in researching cultic groups relates to the use of former members as informants and/or as researchers. Generally, in other contexts, a researcher will pursue information and insights from previous participants or other affiliated persons (e.g., consultants, business partners, investors, project collaborators, fellow-travellers, relatives). But in cult research, whether or not to use former members as sources of information has been a subject of much controversy. This controversy has raised such basic questions as the following: Should former member accounts be sought out, ignored, or overtly discounted and discredited? Are such accounts valid and reliable? Why or why not? Do all former cult members express negativity about their experiences, or just the ones who have been ‘deprogrammed’? Do all former cult members who speak critically about their experiences have an unworthy agenda? Why are some scholars adamant about deriding the accounts of those who are critical of their former group?
Central to this discussion is the issue of reliability and validity of so-called apostate accounts. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.), apostasy merely means ‘abandonment of a previous loyalty’ or ‘renunciation of a religious faith.’ Yet some scholars appear determined to discredit the testimony of any and all former cult members.14 They label former-member accounts as atrocity tales, and promote the idea that they should never be taken seriously. Instead, such researchers tend to rely on the accounts of leaders and current members, as well as accepting at face value the group’s literature (when it exists) and explanations.
However, other scholars do believe in truthfulness and the value of the accounts of former members. There is a risk in doing so, however—such as being accused of being an anticult-movement sympathizer, not getting published in certain academic journals, not being accepted as a conference participant, being pressured to conform, or, as discussed earlier, being threatened or harassed by the cult in question.
Former-member reports could be regarded as vital to obtaining a more comprehensive picture of certain cults. Especially taking into account the level at which a person functioned while in the group, a former-member informant who was in leadership or had other kinds of access to privileged locations or information is a valued source of information. Wilson noted that the lack of cooperation on the part of leaders or members will influence ‘what can be discovered and how what is discovered is understood.’15 In this vein, Zablocki16 reminds us that ethnographers rarely see anything but front-stage behaviour. The implication of Wilson’s and Zablocki’s comments is that it is even more crucial to gather data from those who have participated in and left a group. Seeing only front-stage behaviour typically means that a researcher will not get to hear members talk about what is really on their minds.
Many researchers in this field insist on the need for triangulation (using multiple sources of varying viewpoints), although few seem to practice what they preach. This lack of thoroughness has been reinforced by those who strive to delegitimate the entire category of former-member accounts. For such researchers there are two types of former members: (1) ‘good’ former members (called leave-takers) who leave the group quietly, and (2) ‘bad’ former members (labeled apostates) who voice discontent about their experiences.17 Here is but one example of this crude typology:
“The apostate is a defector who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden a dispute, and embraces public claims-making activities to attack his or her former group. Unlike typical leavetakers whose responses range from indifference to quiet disenchantment, the apostate assumes a vituperative or hostile posture and pursues a moral campaign to discredit the group.”
Bromley,19 Wright,20 Lewis,21 and others put forth the notion that so-called career apostates (those bad former members) have won over and influenced the views of journalists, commentators, and, hence, the general public. Yet, I have seen no evidence of any solid effort on the part of those scholars to ascertain, for example, what percentage of former members actually even speak out about their groups, much less in the exaggerated form attributed to them. It is my contention that the image of the vengeful, fabricating apostate has a shabby foundation.
Former members are reluctant to speak about their experiences or participate in public forums—not because they do not have important experiences and insights to share, but rather because they are self-critical, cautious, stigmatized, and fearful of lawsuits. In many instances, those who have decided to speak publicly or write about their experiences have chosen not to identify the group or name the leader.
In the end, former members have provided invaluable insights into complex phenomena, making important contributions to our understanding of cults and charismatic relationships.22
The Issue of Reflexivity Bias
Reflexivity bias can occur when the researcher is also a member or an ex-member of the cult being studied and therefore sees the cult in part as reflected through his or her own internalized cult worldview and/or memories of cult experiences. Clearly, such researchers have the benefit of having had an inside look, which can provide insight into other similar situations and is a vantage point not often shared by others. Yet, the insider perspective can also colour what the researcher sees and the conclusions she draws. Along with the opportunities afforded by insider status, doing research on a cult with which one had been affiliated poses a set of unique challenges.
First, and most obviously, it is important to openly acknowledge any personal interest in the subject in general, any personal experiences that may influence objectivity, any residual cult or anticult point of view, as well as any bias one may have concerning the group being studied.23
Researchers who have been members of the groups they are studying have the considerable advantage of already knowing the cult’s private ‘language.’ They know what the leader means by his or her often-coded utterances. They know where to look, and what veils to shake loose. They are familiar with the effect of the leader’s words (spoken or written) on the devotees. They have lived with and shared the group’s attitudes towards outsiders. They may even be aware of the false claims, the tricks, the devices used to sway and convince. For example, in one group, words were manipulated to serve the leader’s sexual urges, so that ‘meditating with swami’ meant engaging in sexual activities with him.24 That usage was understood only by those in his inner circle who were expected to participate in the sexual behaviour. Someone from outside listening to an adherent of this particular swami, or observing behaviour around the ashram, probably would not catch on to the subterranean world of words, glances, gestures, relationships, and so on, whereas a former-member researcher stands to grasp more precisely the meanings of statements and actions.
The ability to comprehend a cult’s literature or spoken word is also enhanced by having shared the insider perspective.
Naturally, as with any research, a former member’s memories and perceptions must be corroborated, and triangulation becomes critical. But having been there lends a perspective and provides insights not otherwise possible. Ultimately, I see no problem in former cult members conducting research on their own group or any other so long as ‘experiences prior to entering the field [are] subjected to analytic reflection.’25
How to Get a Peek Backstage When the Cult Doesn’t Want You To
Cults are private organizations and deserve respect for their privacy. It follows from this that when a cult says ‘No, thank you’ to a request for research access, the ‘no’ response should be respected. And, perhaps even more obviously, a researcher does not have the ethical right to infiltrate a cult’s circles by pretending to be a devotee. However, it does not follow from this that cults have the right to play it coy with researchers and show the pretty side while hiding the ugly. Researchers have rights too; and, once a researcher has been invited in, there is nothing wrong with trying to see behind the masks and the facade. Doing so during any but the briefest stay at a cult is far from impossible, but it does require that the researcher keep her wits about her.
Various scholars have presented useful suggestions to help pave the way. More than a decade ago, Balch26 offered a comprehensive guide for the kind of data needed in the studies of these groups. His hope was that these categories would become standard. The categories are (1) demographic characteristics of membership, (2) historical development, (3) structure and content of belief system, (4) leadership, (5) social organization, (6) relationship between members and outsiders, (7) economic system, (8) material culture, (9) patterns of everyday life, (10) talk, (11) sexual relationships, (12) child-rearing, (13) deviance and social control, (14) recruitment strategies, (15) commitments demanded of members, (16) socialization techniques, (17) conversion experiences, and (18) defection. Balch argued that too often in published studies many of those topics were ignored or touched on too lightly to be useful for comparative purposes. In agreement with that perspective, I believe that researchers would be making a far greater contribution to the study of cults if they kept those categories in mind as they went about their work.
More recently, Balch and Langdon had these suggestions: ‘First, scholars who study alternative religions need to be familiar with the charges against them before they begin collecting data. Second, they should not take members’ claims at face value, however reasonable they seem. Third, they need to interview defectors and other critics to get different viewpoints, although here too they must be aware of hidden agendas. Finally, whatever the source of information, statements presented as fact need to be corroborated and verified with independent evidence.’27 Those four points, in my opinion, could serve as an invaluable guide for researchers of cults and controversial new religious and social movements.
Overall my advice is, be more like state investigators who drop in on nursing homes unannounced. Assume that things will be hidden, or prettied up. Be on the lookout for less-than-obvious findings and nonverbal cues. Charismatic leaders don’t need to hold a gun to their followers’ heads to get them to comply, but charismatic magic does only part of the job. Thus, explore specifically how the system works to bind members to the group and/or leader. Who are the key players and what are the crucial interactions? Where and when do they take place? How can you, the researcher, gain access to that?
As Lofland and Lofland cautioned, ‘The researcher is bound to doubt and to check and to hold all claims as simply claims. This creates an unavoidable tension between social scientists, group members, and any champions of those members.’29 An objective look that does not gloss over what is there requires being aware of the ways in which cultic groups can cover up or tone down. To reveal or write about these realities is not an attack on religious deviance or non-mainstream behaviour; rather, it is offering a more complete look at complex phenomena. Whether or not a researcher takes the next step of also providing a critique of certain social practices is an individual choice.
The full article can be read here:
NOTE: This is a brief overview of some of the scandals that have rocked the Greek Orthodox Church over the past few decades. It is by no means an exhaustive list. For those interested in a more comprehensive look at the rampant abuses of Orthodox bishops, priests and monastics go to http://www.pokrov.org
Greek Orthodox Church structure State religion with 10,500 priests and 10,000 theologians, paid government salaries similar to those earned by high-school teachers. Its 81 bishops are far more powerful, earning tax-free salaries similar to those of cabinet ministers and at least twice again that much from fees for weddings, baptisms and funerals, from the rental of burial plots and from the construction and renting of apartments on church property.
Greek Orthodox Church scandal Worst crisis in the church’s modern history, with allegations of theft, skullduggery, homosexuality, sexual improprieties, trial rigging, drug and antiquities smuggling engulfed the institution. Tape-recordings revealed rampant homosexuality among senior clerics who, unlike ordinary priests, are under oaths of chastity. The Greek Orthodox Church sees homosexuality as an “abomination,” with the archbishop recently describing it as a “blatant, crying sin.” Erupted when Bishop Theoklitos of Thessaliotis resigned after being accused of running a trial-fixing ring; four high-court judges and several politicians were allegedly paid large sums of money to clear the bishop and his associates of charges that included drug dealing and homosexuality (which is illegal in the church), February 2005.
Greek Orthodox mafia Greek Orthodox Church is run by bishops who were accused of serious crimes, amounting to an organized crime ring that exerted control over Greek politicians and judges, and to have used the church’s almost unlimited powers to build a mafia-like hierarchy of wealth and corruption.
Aghia Skepi Monastery affair Abbot (1941-) of Aghia Skepi Monastery in Keratea, east of Athens, was arrested on suspicion of sexually abusing at least 21 novice monks over the last two decades, after four men aged 18 to 34 went to a police station in Keratea and told officers that the monk repeatedly abused them between 1988 and 2007 while they were at the monastery, 10 March 2009. http://www.topix.com/forum/world/cyprus/TL78U8MP126LE7IVC
Archbishop Christodoulos affair Embattled spiritual leader accused of procuring the services of a convicted drug smuggler, Apostolos Vavylis, to help elect a favoured cleric to the post of patriarch of Jerusalem. Investigations have shown that the archbishop wrote a recommendation letter for Vavylis months before he was arrested smuggling heroin. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/20/greece
Metropolitan Theoklitos of Thessaliotis affair Metropolitan Theoklitos of Thessaliotis (Karditsa) is under investigation by a three-member committee of bishops. In a sworn affidavit, Theoklitos’ predecessor, Metropolitan Constantine, alleged that Theoklitos was arrested in a bar on suspicion of drug dealing, along with priest Seraphim Koulousousas, who later served as Christodoulos’ private secretary for two years.
Archimandrite Iakovos Giosakis affair Suspended after being charged with antiquities smuggling following the disappearance of valuable icons from his former diocese, February 2005.
Archimandrite Iakovos Yiossakis affair Trial-fixing gang involving judges, lawyers and at least one churchman — Archimandrite Iakovos Yiossakis.
Metropolitan Panteleimon of Attica affair Panteleimon (1919-), Bishop of Attica, a leading churchman who headed Greece’s richest diocese, was withdrawn from duties after allegations of “lewd exchanges with young men” and charges that he had embezzled around ¤4.4 million for “his old age.” He owned an offshore company. The bishop is one of several eminent priests whose names have been linked in a widening trial-fixing and corruption scandal involving at least 20 judges currently under investigation. In the wake of suggestions by fellow members of the synod that he resign, Panteleimon’s reaction was less than charitable. “If I speak, there will be an earthquake. I’ll take many with me to my grave.”
Panteleimon embezzlement Panteleimon, Bishop of Corinth, stood trial for siphoning Church funds into bank accounts in his name 1993-2000, including cash from a girls’ orphanage and an old-age home. Panteleimon was also accused of having falsely claimed that the Bishopric’s financial records were destroyed during the severe floods that afflicted Corinth in 1997. Instead, he ordered an associate to dispose of the potentially incriminating documents in dumpsters on a highway outside Corinth. Another five Corinth priests and the bishop’s female factotum were also indicted.
Vatopaidi Monastery swindle Fathers Arsenios and Ephraim, two monks who apparently duped the Greek Ministry of Finance out of a millions of dollars. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010
Other investigations Church is investigating four more clerics.
Anon priest I Unnamed Greek Orthodox priest was charged with molesting a young girl between 2001 and 2002, when he was giving Greek lessons to children in Barcelona, Spain, 2005.
Anon priest II Unnamed Greek Orthodox priest was arrested on the island of Lesvos on suspicion of accessory to prostitution by an undercover police officer posing as a client, having demanded a fee of €100 for the introduction, 13 October 2005.
Anon priest III Greek police charged an Archimandrite (1965-), a priest in the Peloponnese attached to a church near the southern town of Sparta, but was taken into custody in Attica prefecture. He was one of 25 people comprising of a ring downloading child pornography from the internet that displayed pornographic pictures and videos of children as young as 6 months old being sexually abused by adults, 27 January 2009.
Anon priest IV 63-year-old priest, a client of the Athens sex-slave ring sentenced to 24-years in prison.
Barrow affair Rev. Gabriel Barrow, pastor of St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Sylvania 1972-77, was suddenly ousted from the denomination 10 October 1977 when faced a tribunal in the Greek Orthodox Church over allegations that he molested three boys in Toledo, Ohio. He was suspended in January, 2004, as pastor of St. John the Theologian Greek Orthodox Church in Webster, Texas, after the Toledo allegations surfaced. http://orthodoxbeacon.com/viewpoints/gabriel-barrow-bishops-silence/
GREEK ORTHODOX ABUSE AUSTRALIA
Demetrie case Dionysios Demetrie, a Greek Orthodox priest, appeared in Box Hill Magistrates Court, Australia, charged with indecently and unlawfully assaulting man, aged 33, in 1994 at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Church, Box Hill, in Melbourne’s east, 1995. Court hears Demetrie, of Doncaster, believing victim possessed by evil spirits, groped and tongue kissed man while performing unorthodox exorcism ritual. The victim had gone to Demetrie “desperate for answers” to save marriage but priest only grabbed his bottom and groin saying, “You want it, you want it.” https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/aus.religion.christian/FLUUGl9R76s
GREEK ORTHODOX ABUSE US
Saint Irene Chrysovalantou Monastery
Saint Irene Chrysovalantou Monastery Astoria, NY, co-founded by Bishop Vikentios (Malamatenios).
Metropolitan Paisios Metropolitan Paisios of Tyana (Loulourgas) was accused by Bishop Vikentios of Apameia who made allegations about Metropolitan Paisios of Tyana tenure at the Saint Irene Chrysovalantou Monastery and its Dependencies in Astoria, NY, including charges that the Metropolitan sexually abused the Bishop’s brother, Spyros Malamatenios, who was 17 at the time.
Bishop Vikentios (Malamatenios), a close associate of Metropolitan Paisios (Loulourgas) for 40 years and co-founder of the Monastery, outlined a tale of sex and other alleged wrongdoings. Bishop Vikentios made revelations of alleged serious excesses by the Metropolitan, including that he was involved with people of both sexes, including Christonymphi, The National Herald (USA) 19 December 2010.
Vikentios accusations Bishop Vikentios confirmed reports that a gun was found by the Patriarchal Exarchy in the room of Metropolitan Paisios and that he also sold the golden offerings known as tamata of the faithful at the Monastery’s Greek festival, also taking much of the gold to Greece, which was melted and made hierarchical crosses and pictorials. Bishop Vikentios alleged that even his own life is at risk. He stated that based on the Charter granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Chrysovalantou Monastery, and also according to New York State’s regulations governing the Legal Corporation of the Chrysovalantou Monastery, both interim Abbots appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Metropolitan Evangelos of New Jersey and Bishop Elias of Philomilion, are considered illegal.
Konstantinos B. Said to have uncovered the scandal, and who allegedly also participated in group sex events with Metropolitan Paisios. The man was said to have given that testimony to the police and the FBI.
Christonymphi accusation Young nun who has given up her Monastic vows and talked to the police. Bishop Vikentios revealed that, according to his information, the former nun had been pregnant but did not know by whom. https://scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.com/category/st-irene-chrysovalantou-greek-orthodox-monastery-ny/
Georgiou accusation Bishop Vikentios asked “forgiveness from the victims’ of Paisios,” at least one of whom, Andreas Georgiou, launched a lawsuit against the Monastery and the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
GREEK ORTHODOX ABUSE US CASES
Givens case Roy Joe Givens (1936-) (Father Mathias), former Greek Orthodox priest, was arrested in January 2003 in Springfield, Illinois, and extradited to El Paso, Texas, where he was jailed in lieu of a $500,000 bond, on charges filed about 10 years earlier, was sentenced to 10 years in state prison along with a $10,000 fine after being convicted of sexual misconduct with a then 15-year-old girl while working as a priest at a defunct church he established in El Paso.
Graff affair Very Rev. Nicholas T. Graff and the St. John the Divine Greek Orthodox Church was sued by a former parishioner and his family who allege he was sexually assaulted and also the subject of a bizarre adoption attempt by the priest, filed 17 Septenber 2007. http://archive.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=91741
Katinas affair Rev. Nicholas E. Katinas (1935-), pastor of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in North Dallas where he worked for 28 years, sexually abused minors while a priest before going to Dallas. He is also under investigation by the archdiocese for alledgedly abusing a child at Holy Trinity, reported 22 April 2007.
“Greek Orthodox Archdiocese has proven that there was in fact, very serious sexual misconduct committed by Father Nicholas Katinas against children, it is my understanding that the Archdiocese is now refusing to defrock him. It is a disgrace and an embarrassment to our Church, as well as an insult to his victims, if Father Katinas is allowed to remain on an indefinite suspension and is not subsequently defrocked.” Letter to the Editor of Orthodox Reform, 20 April 2007. http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/09/yet_another_sexual_abuse_lawsu.php
Koveos case Rev. Emmanuel Koveos, pastor at the Dormition of the Mother of God Greek Orthodox Church in Burlington, was convicted in 1998 of fondling a 12-year-old girl during Greek lessons at the church. http://orthodoxbeacon.com/viewpoints/former-priest-koveos-demonstrates-need-for-listing-defrocked-clergy-online/
Pappas affair Rev. Michael Pappas former priest at Stockton’s St. Basil Greek Orthodox Church resigned from San Francisco’s Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church he has led for the previous three years sent a letter in which he admitted to cheating on his wife and stepped down from his post, August 2007. http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/A_NEWS/708280309
Rymer affair Rev. Michael Rymer of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco, was accused by John Doe that he did not tell him that he had been exposed to the AIDS virus, when they engaged in a homosexual relationship from 1989 to 2004. Rymer, who was defrocked as a priest in 2006 and who denied “Doe’s” allegations in a court document filed in 2007, was diagnosed with AIDS in 1990. Lawsuit settled 8 October 2008. http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Church-settles-sex-abuse-suit-against-priest-3194082.php
Vrionis case Pangratios Vrionis (1944-) who was defrocked from the Greek Orthodox church after being convicted of sexually abusing two boys in 1970. He founded his own independent church in Queens, NY, referring to himself as the archbishop of Sts. Fanourios & Gerasimos Greek Orthodox Cathedral. On 1 February 1999, he showed a 14-year-old boy a pornographic videocassette and touched him sexually. He was arrested April 2003 on charges of third-degree sexual abuse and attempted sexual abuse and as part of a plea deal, Vrionis pleaded guilty to both charges in Queens Criminal Court in exchange for a year of probation, 14 May 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/19/nyregion/defrocked-after-68-sex-case-priest-faces-new-accusation.html
PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM
Patriarchate of Jerusalem Ancient Patriarchate of Jerusalem, one of nine highest-ranking Eastern Orthodox bishops, religious leader of 100,000 Christians in the Holy Land.
Irineos I (Eirinaios; Irenaios)
Theophilos III Originally from Messini in Greece, was elected the 140th Patriarch of Jerusalem and all Palestine on 22 August 2005, sworn in 22 November 2005.
Recognition withdrawn Jerusalem’s Greek Orthodox patriarch whose recognition was withdrawn by the Jordan government over his alleged failure to recover church land in the holy city sold by his predecessor, May 2007.