Phanar: Guilty Silence in the Shadow of the Mobsters

source – dimokratia.gr

Bartholomew must give explanations for what has in recent days come to light with the “holy scandal” in Crete.

Two mafia bosses, with “front” businesses a beach bar and a hotel in Crete, appear in conversations exerting pressure for the election of their own Archbishop in Chania. The same archimandrite—puppet of the mobsters—was also the choice of Patriarch Bartholomew, who even threatened with defrockings in order to impose him.

By Vassilis Galoupis

Bartholomew, just like all who held or once pursued his office, knew that one does not become Patriarch if he wishes to give account only to God. If that was what he wished, he would have become an ascetic. He claimed, however, the role of Patriarch, which means he is also accountable to men! And men, imperfect and cynical creatures, demand explanations from the Patriarch even for mundane matters.

Such as:

1. The swindling with Church property.

2. The degree of entanglement with the Prime Minister.

3. The blackmail so that the bishop desired by the Church of Crete would not be placed, but rather the one desired by swindlers, thieves, land-grabbers, and drug traffickers.

In a word, Bartholomew is called upon to explain how it is possible to promote a man of the mafia, without himself being a man of the mafia, but of… God!
How is it possible that the pillar of Orthodoxy, our Ecumenical Patriarch, has totally lost control and cannot govern his own house? Reaching the point of promoting, through his choices, the most lawless interests? It remains inconceivable that Bartholomew does not even now ask forgiveness, since he was “pushing” an archimandrite tangled with the mafia. And after all these shocking revelations he is obliged to consider withdrawal. To step back. So as not to drag further the Ecumenical Patriarchate down such a polluted road…

And finally, let him answer the questions he himself has provoked:

A. Why did he proceed to such a display of force, even to the point of imposing a special “decree” from the competent ministry, in order to block the appointment of Amphilochios, who would have continued the effort for the reclamation of the Church property—usurped and stolen with forged papers?

B. Why did he not demand the annulment of the usurpation of the prime parcel that was illegally sold to Israeli businessmen for a hotel? What moves does he intend—if he intends—to make to achieve this?

A Patriarch is not—or, in any case, should not be—a CEO and manager of interests. He is not a cynical dealer in politics or with mobsters, whether willingly or unwillingly. In the case now unfolding a picture of rot is revealed. The same archimandrite is described as perpetrator in a case of blackmail and beating of a clergyman, a case which, according to information, would yield for him and his accomplices a profit of 200,000 euros. Moreover, the two hotel-owning brothers, presented as members of the leadership group of the ring, had and sought to maintain close relations with local clergy. There are conversations showing them exerting pressure for the election of an Archbishop of their liking in Crete.

As we noted yesterday, Dimokratia from the very first moment denounced the dark manipulations, and the headline of the main front-page story on May 8 was: “Unholy tricks for the Metropolis of Kydonia with a German hand. Ecumenical Patriarchate and government change the rules to prevent the victory of the militant Amphilochios.” Relatedly, it is recalled that Amphilochios in October 2024 had exposed the hypocrisy of German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, when during his visit to Crete he shed crocodile tears for the massacres while at the same time declaring the matter of war reparations closed.

And we added that “the Ecumenical Patriarch owes many explanations, but also a great apology to the flock he scandalized with his stance in the succession for the Metropolis of Kydonia and Apokoronas.” Bartholomew’s silence is guilty. The Patriarch did not do his job, which is to serve his flock and his Church with boldness and transparency. In business, when a manager is “caught red-handed” or simply fails, he resigns. Since the Patriarch evidently sees himself as more of a manager, he too can leave.

Alternatively, he can remain and do his job. The halfway situation, where news appears with the words “mafia” and “Church” in the same sentence, degrades the institution of the Church to a club of interests, mafia and otherwise. Bartholomew is also exposed elsewhere. On what grounds did he decorate Panos Xenokostas? The Ecumenical Patriarchate is not his personal “shop” to hand out medals as he pleases, to people whom no one knows what exactly they have done to deserve such an honor from the Church… As for the dramatic moments at the Monastery of Sinai, the Ecumenical Patriarch remains essentially detached, simply watching developments. The only thing he did was to recognize—and indirectly to support—Archbishop Damianos as “the only lawful and canonical abbot of the Monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai.” But for the scandalous accusations against Damianos by his own monks—not a word…