Father Lazarus Abboud
The Antiochian Synod took a decision yesterday to defrock a retired metropolitan, justifying the decision: the former metropolitan alleged the establishment of rights in his favor over assets and funds belonging to the diocese without any right, and resorted to the civil judiciary in the United States of America. The fathers in the Synod considered that this conduct does not befit a metropolitan with regard to financial matters, and the fathers found these acts contrary to the spirit of the Scripture and the canon law, and consequently guilty:
1. Misconduct as a clergyman (retired metropolitan) concerning the property belonging to the Church and with regard to financial matters.
2. Filing a lawsuit against the Church before the civil court.
This decision leads us to shed light on several points, no more.
The first point: it is clear from the decision the ease of defrocking a metropolitan, whom we consider in Orthodox thought “where the bishop is, there the Church is,” and defrocking him without a trial according to the legal procedures stipulated in the Antiochian law. Defrocking a metropolitan necessitates taking legal measures and trials (1), which stipulate the following: “Article 13: The Patriarch receives the written complaints that are submitted to him against the metropolitans or bishops, and it is for his estimation to refer them to the accused among them to hear their answer concerning them. If the written complaint against the chief priests includes an act constituting an offense falling under the canon laws, the Patriarch refers it to the Holy Synod to adjudicate it.”
And the procedures of trial and defrocking are carried out through a set of precise criteria (see the book The Bishop in the Church). A complaint is submitted by a complainant party, then it takes its legal course by forming a court in which there is a plaintiff and a defendant, and the answer of both parties is heard; and this takes a course that is not short, like any trial. All these elements we did not see, neither in this decision nor in the previous defrocking. And for the issued and effective decision to be legal, it needs a legal course, for the aim, even if it is sound, is corrupted by the path to it if it is corrupt. The legal decision needs a legal course, otherwise it becomes devoid of its legality, even if it is effective by virtue of authority.
The second point: is resorting to the civil judiciary and the civil authority considered an offense? Does the ecclesiastical authority not resort to the civil judiciary? Can the Church, for example, try a murderer and take a decision to imprison him — is this among the work of the ecclesiastical judiciary? If someone stole funds from the Church, can it issue a decision to imprison a thief, for example, and recover the funds from him, or is this among the work of the civil judiciary? And on the other hand, every decision the Church takes, in order to become legally effective, needs resorting to the civil authority, such as marriage and the spiritual courts, for example. And the canon law gives the Church institution this possibility (Synod of Antioch, canon 5) (2).
From the very statement it is clear that the metropolitan resorted to the civil judiciary to demand “the establishment of rights in his favor..”, and because the Church institution did not give him his rights he resorted to the civil judiciary. I believe that in the civil judiciary in America and the West no one is wronged, and even if the case is brought against the head of a state, such as Trump for example, if the Church institution has the right it will take it, or the opposite. True.
The third point: the statement did not clarify what the misconduct concerning the property belonging to the Church and the financial matters was, that is, the speech is ambiguous; did he, for example, sell the Church’s endowments and trade in them? Did he use the endowments for personal interests? And no one knows the metropolitan’s position and why he went to the civil judiciary. We have a single point of view upon which the decision was built, which did not come from a plaintiff party in the case.
The fourth point: taking a measure against a metropolitan with this ease means that every metropolitan may be defrocked at any moment; the matter only requires forming a committee and taking a decision while he does not know why and how, based on what the committee sees in its view as misconduct, not based on what the laws stipulate or the reality of the facts, testimony, and evidence.
It is not my concern to defend anyone; my concern is to defend the face of the Church, which is our face and which no one monopolizes. What I want to say is that upright faith appears through upright conduct. What use is it that we claim uprightness and Orthodoxy in faith while we tread un-Orthodox paths, especially that such a decision of defrocking comes in the week of Forgiveness, where there is forgiveness and where we bear one another? And the following question haunts me: how will some preach about forgiveness next Sunday after this decision? Metropolitan George Khodr says “if the guardians of values trample them under their feet, who will believe the good tidings?” (3)
The decisions taken by the Church institution, even if effective by virtue of authority, if they do not follow an orthopraxic course (upright conduct) — which is the reflection of the uprightness of faith — disfigure the face of the Church and cause it to lose its credibility in the eyes of its members and in the eyes of the other churches and institutions, and make every decision it takes devoid of its value even if it is effective. Patriarch Hazim says “there is a divorce between our institutions and faith.” Can the civil courts be more upright, more truthful, more faithful, and more realizing of truth and justice than the Church institution that was established to realize the truth and justice of Jesus? ” The way and the truth, which is Jesus” — we must tread the way (Jesus) to reach the truth (Jesus).
The final question: had Jesus been present in person among the members of the Synod, would He have taken such a decision? In other words, is this the will of Christ, so act? A question that everyone must ask himself, so that we may enter toward Pascha in peace.
References:
1. George Tawfiq Ghandour, Antioch and the Law (the system of the ecclesiastical disciplinary councils in the Antiochian See of the Greek Orthodox), Al-Nour Orthodox Cooperative, p. 559.
2. The Canon Law, or the Laws of the Universal Christian Church, translated by Archimandrite Hanania Elias Kassab, Al-Nour Publications, 1998, p. 178.
3. George Khodr, Sunday Talk, The Religion of the Religions, Part Two.
4. Ignatius IV, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, Breaths of Antioch, Publications of the Patriarchate of the Greek Orthodox, Damascus, 2007.
5. A group of authors, The Bishop in the Church ((Know Your Church)) 16, Al-Nour Publications, 1984.