ΕΑΝ ΠΡΟΤΙΜΑΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΠΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΗ ΣΗΜΑΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΟΝΗΣ
The public handling of the Fr. Gilbert case has produced more questions than answers. While the accusations have been broadly publicized without specifics, the facts necessary to evaluate them have not been made available to the faithful. This tension between public accusation and private evidence has sparked debate about due process, transparency, and the standards by which clerical communication is judged.
Just the fact that the “remorse statement” By Fr. Gilbert, accompanied by a statement by Fr. Villis, does NOT appear on GOARCH’s website but only in TNH is indicative of the flawed investigation procedure. Similarly, the very first accusation of “inappropriate communications” against Fr. Gilbert appeared in TNH. Are you serious? You will destroy someone’s life using the known disreputable “journalists” of the community, and you call this a “Spiritual Court”?
By Markos (Helleniscope’s Religion Commentator)
When carefully reading the following “Communiques”:
- The official announcement from GOARCH dated June 9th – link here
- The “forward” of Fr. Gilbert’s “apology” by Fr. Villis, dated June 8th
- The “apology” (public statement) by Fr. Gilbert dated June 8th
…the only conclusion the faithful can reach is NO CONCLUSION AT ALL.
Despite the intentional “public nature” of this story, the actual details behind the accusations have remained quite “private”. And certainly, they should probably remain private for ethical reasons, but then why did the media engine of GOARCH go out of its way to publicize as much as possible in general? Perhaps it was to gain as much “leverage” against Fr. Gilbert as possible, but perhaps it was to send a subliminal message to “others” who might be considering “falling out of favor” with the Archbishop or their Metropolitan in the future.
And again, we haven’t been explained “what” the exact details are…so, that fact alone provides the fuel that supplies “speculation”….here are some speculative scenarios:
Scenario 1) The “inappropriate communication” referenced could have been a direct sexually suggestive/vulgar/perverted exchange with an individual, or concerning a third individual…if this was the case (and we are NOT talking about a tasteless joke, but direct, intentional and explicit discourse revealing a troubled spiritual state), then it would be quite appropriate to protect the Body of the Church by restricting the priestly duties of the individual involved.
Scenario 2) If the “inappropriate communication” involved (for example) “trashing” the Archbishop or fellow clergy in a private setting, then “getting caught” with such “communications” has its consequences…yeah, sure…we get it.
Scenario 3) If the “inappropriate communication” was done in a private setting, under the category of “as a joke”, then we are talking about a “lapse in judgement”, that all electronic exchanges COULD BE MADE PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET ONE DAY…(a.k.a. the priest is more guilty of being naive that what he says on the internet, even in a “private chat” won’t be used against him in the future)
Scenario 4) If the “inappropriate communication” involved (as we have heard many times) delving into too many explicit details during Confession, there are generally boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed but we hear from time to time that some priests do…that scenario would be problematic.
Scenario 5) There could be other types of scenarios of “inappropriate communication” by a priest, such as engaging in heretical sermons, extreme political discourse, providing business advice, encouraging divorces, encouragement of faithful to engage in sinful behavior (gambling, shady business dealings, etc)…but we are most likely expecting that what transpired with Fr. Gilbert fell under one of the previous categories, based on trying to interpret the verbiage of the 3 aforementioned announcements.
The above Speculation leads us to the same “dead end”…we simply don’t know what the actual details of the accusation are in this Fr. Gilbert case.
However, there is also a secondary layer of “speculation” that we do need to entertain…The TIMING of this accusation and swift “relief of duties”…Fr. Gilbert was on the GOARCH list of those “eligible to be bishop”... There are many individuals on that list, but from time to time we see how “popular choices” get accused and removed from that list…the last controversial case was that of Fr. Gerasimos Makris who was accused on Feb 2, 2018, and on Feb 7th 2018 the new Metropolitan of Chicago was elected without real competition (many faithful still believe that [conveniently??] the chief “rival” had just been disqualified a few days earlier)…
We’ll have to see what happens on the “episcopate front” in the near future, but in the meantime…what’s really left to say after all this “speculation”?
======================
LET’S ALL JOIN the planned Rally outside GOARCH’s headquarters on 79th Street THIS THURSDAY, June 11th, 6 pm.
======================
The last point of discussion drives all of us to contemplate what “inappropriate communication” means these days, because things are REALLY CONFUSING when it comes to GOARCH and Constantinopolitan standards on this topic…
The Church Fathers stipulated Canons on what is appropriate and inappropriate discourse to be spoken by the lips of an Orthodox clergyman:
Heresy and general deviation from dogma and the teachings of the Orthodox Church stand out as being “inappropriate communication”, and the Canons are quite clear about the penalties associated with such infractions…
So one must wonder…do the following quotes fall under the category of “inappropriate heretical communication”, and if they do, why hasn’t the one who uttered these words been tried in Spiritual Court, but instead appears to be “immune from prosecution”?
- Primus sine Paribus “The primacy of the archbishop of Constantinople has nothing to do with the diptychs, which, as we have already said, merely express this hierarchical ranking… If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople is the first-hierarch without equals (primus sine paribus).” Met Elpidophoros Lambriniadis (2014)
2) “There are many paths which lead to the top of the mountain, and those who ignore this fact are ignorant.” – Elpidophoros, 2021
3) “Personally, I would offer … the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist,” to non-Orthodox spouses (AB Elpidophoros 2020)
4) Association of the Theotokos in the abortion / “freedom” debate as an example of “free will.”
5) “Communication with heretics” – we know what the Church Fathers say about “Common Prayer” with heretics…
Are these examples of “appropriate communication” by a hierarch?
Are they examples of alignment with Orthodox Patristic Teaching?
What is the definition of “appropriate communication” anyway, and who is defining it these days?
Jun 9, 2026, n.stamatakis@aol.com www.helleniscope.com
DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.
TO SUPPORT HELLENISCOPE OR BECOME A SUBSCRIBER, LINK HERE!!
=====================
Did you really expect anything different? Did you really believe or think that Elpidoktonos would punish his boy charming. He’s one of many and these boys that won’t turn on each other unless they are bitten. Elpi has learned from the best. Bartholomeos who instead of punishing the deviants of the fanar, he promotes them. Why? Ask the new priest, Elvis chosen one, in the Washington DC parish. Oh I forgot, he had to extort Bartholomeos in order to secure him and make him his sole…boy wonder. Ouch
Marcos, in your effort to malign the GOA, you conveniently omit the most obvious explanation of what happened with Fr Gilbert. Fr Gilbert is gay and made sexual overtures toward a parishioner which was reported by the individual to the Archdiocese. Upon inspection of his computer, it was found that he visits inappropriate pornographic sites. I respect the fact that he took responsibility for his actions and hope that he repents of his sins, seeks counseling and at some point can be reinstated.
JK, what if I announce through Helleniscope that you are gay and that you committed x,y and z sins. Would that announcement make you liable somehow? Or it would be part of the GOA evaluation process? The way GOA treated Fr. Gilbert is absolutely reprehensible and you should be ashamed not noting this first before referring to anything else. As for the double standards why your silence? You don’t know that half our Metropolitans are gay? You haven’t heard about the Phanar and the concrete evidence that exists? If you are not going to be sincere and truthful better to shut up… “κρειτον το σιγαν του λαλειν», as our ancestors used to say in such occasions…
JK,
Can you perhaps start by focusing your energy on substance, and answering the most important question that was actually posed here, concerning if the definition of “inappropriate communications” by clergy / hierarchs also contains heretical statements, and if such statements have been made, why those who made them remain immune from prosecution in Spiritual Court? Shouldn’t “inappropriate communication” be dealt with equally without discrimination in favor of bishops or even archbishops who also fall into this transgression?
And concerning your comments:
Unless you are close to the “inner circle” of the “evidence review committee” or a “witness” that has come forward, there is NO WAY that anyone else can conclude what you are concluding without the specific evidence being brought to public light. Besides, the official announcement (inappropriate electronic communication with another adult) doesn’t align with what you are saying anyway, so are you implying that the Archdiocese is lying?
And because the rest of us are NOT close to the “inner circle”, we are forced to continue our speculation…
By the way, do you realize how easy it is these days for someone you know (or you think you know) to send you a link, you click on it because you trust the sender, and it turns out that you just installed malware that also installed nasty “images” and “websites” in your browser history? Or that the malware utilized your device to send something “nasty” to someone else that you do know? And then suddenly you are arrested because of “images” in your possession…Extortion/racketeering mobsters and Corrupt Law enforcement have been using such tactics for many years… If someone really “wanted” this outcome, there are rumors circulating of people out there in the “dark web” that know how to “generate” that exact outcome (for the right price)…Don’t take it from me…ask your local IT expert. Personally, having spent MANY years in high-security IT ecosystems, I prefer to understand the actual forensic technical details before concluding what you have so easily concluded.
And even if what you claim is true about images on computers, etc, we are NOT in turn suggesting that this “hacker/malware” scenario is what happened in the Fr. Gilbert case, nor are we attempting to defend him (I personally never met him to be honest). We are speculating, and keeping all scenarios open on the table, because we simply don’t know.
If he truly and WILLINGLY did what you claim, then yes, there absolutely should be intervention by the Spiritual Court…we all agree…and I believe we were crystal clear in Speculation Scenario #1 above on this point…. but at this time, your version of the story is certainly not convincing, not only because it doesn’t match what the Archdiocese has officially said, but also because you have not supported your claims with any actual or convincing evidence. You are only proving the point of this article even more with your statement.
Marcos, Fr Gilbert would not have admitted his indescretions if the accusations were false and produced by a hacker on the Internet. Both you and Nick give him a pass because of the lack of consistency in previous situations. Unfortunately, many transgressions have been overlooked. Nick I agree that there are gay men among the metropolitans. Please remember that Fr Gilbert was being primed to become a bishop. He was sent to greece to Greece to learn Greek and then assigned to the most prestigious parish in the country. May our gracious Lord grant him forgiveness.
If so many are known homosexuals both here and in the Phanar without receiving any form of punishment, then the Church – all of us – should immediately consider returning to the rule of married bishops. Do I need to remind everyone that Saint Nicholas was married? But dragging Fr Gilbert through the mud by using Kalmoukos and TNH is grossly reprehensible and unforgivable. The buck stops at Elpidophoros’ desk and at the minimum he needs to issue a letter of apology, or fire Nektarios the Chancellor. Period.
JK,
I think it’s the opposite…if anything we aren’t “giving a pass” to the questionable axiom that GOARCH is “assumed to be above board” in what just transpired. Have you ever been blackmailed, JK? Did all those hostages in the Middle East shown on video in years past (even some tough members of the US military) really believe the words of the public letters they were asked to write and recite on camera? Give us a break, dude. We aren’t exactly dealing with “saints” at the Archdiocese either, and that’s why we prefer to reserve opinion until we have all the facts on the table…You might argue that he didn’t exactly have a hood, handcuffs, and a knife held to his throat, but threatening someone with their “livelihood” can also cause them to take a “plea deal” of sorts too, including “writing a public apology”…we just don’t know, but it’s always a possibility…And, we reserve the right to speculate on all scenarios until then.
After the fiasco and timing of what happened to Fr. Gerasimos Makris (and others), there is no way we can trust anything without hard evidence at this point, because the important fact you are persistently ignoring is that there does always exist the potential for “cannibalistic incentive” within the ranks of the “many candidates”, when the “coveted seats” are “so few” in GOARCH… There are several speculative scenarios, and we can’t conclude what is really going on with no public facts.
So it’s not about “giving a pass”…If he’s guilty, he’s guilty…so be it… he made his choices and “that’s the way the cookie crumbles” …However, we simply don’t know “what” specific “inappropriate communication” he would be guilty of though, based on the official evidence provided in the media announcements. We already stated the possible scenarios in the article above, but we don’t know “which one” applies.
BUT THE MAIN POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS (I REPEAT…and you still haven’t responded to the questions above) that if we plan to start sending clergy to Spiritual Court for the violation of “inappropriate communication”, then why don’t we do that equally across the board, with the “full expanse of the violation’s possible forms”, INCLUDING for those who are on the public record having openly “communicated inapproprate” HERETICAL statements? Isn’t speaking heresy a serious violation for any Orthodox clergy member? And isn’t the “pot calling the kettle black” in this case, when you examine who is judging (what they have said publicly in the past) and who is being judged? So it’s not about a “pass”, but a clear request to “equally apply the Canons” across the board in this case…
It would really be a great day to see ALL clergy who engage in ALL MANNERS of “inappropriate communication” (ESPECIALLY heretical statements) be removed from their positions…
Also, we were never informed by GOA or the Phanar what was the reason that Evangelos was removed from the Metropolis of New Jersey!
Or there was not a reason? Did they just want to reward their protege Apostolos for his service? By the way, Apostolos pitches the ball with grace…