“The measure of a man is what he does with power” – Part Three

By dogcatcher on March 27th, 2017

Plato 428 BC to 348 BC


At the conclusion of part two of this article we told you that we would inform you as to where the money went. So here is a partial list: Some of the Hierarchs: 1. His Grace Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos a. Check number 111 dated August 28, 2008 amount $3,000 b. Check number 118 dated October 22, 2008 amount $500.00 c. Check number 127 dated December 15, 2008 amount $500.00 d. Check number 141 dated September 6, 2009 amount $500.00 e. Check number 150 dated June 10, 2009 amount $500.00 f. Check number 200 dated August 26, 2009 amount $500.00 g. Check number 219 dated August 12, 2010 amount $500.00 h. Check number 226 dated December 15, 2010 amount $500.00 i. Check number 261 dated April 1, 2010 amount $200.00 TOTAL “GIFTS” TO HIS BISHOP $6,700.00 2. His Eminence Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco a. Check number 116 dated October 14, 2008 amount $1,000.00 b. Check number 152 dated June 10, 2009 amount $500.00 c. Check number 161 dated October 15, 2009 amount $300.00 d. Check number 202 dated December 21, 2009 amount $300.00 TOTAL “GIFTS” TO His Eminence $2,100.00 3. His Eminence Metropolitan Nikitas of the Dardanelles a. Check number 126 dated December 12, 2008 amount $1,000.00 b. Check number 151 dated June 10, 2009 amount $500.00 c. Check number 157 dated September 15, 2009 amount $300.00 d. Check number 170 dated December 21, 2009 amount $300.00 e. Check number 225 dated December 15, 2010 amount $500.00 f. Check number 262 dated April 1, 2010 amount $300.00 g. Check number 276 dated February 3, 2012 amount $300.00 h. Check number 285 dated September 11, 2012 amount $300.00 TOTAL “GIFTS” TO His Eminence $3,500.00 Here are the questions we should all demand answers to: 1. Was any of this money paid to the Hierarchs ever reimbursed to the rightful beneficiaries once the extent of the felonious conduct was made public? If not, why not? 2. Were any public statements made by the Hierarchs to indicate contrition, repentance, apology or even acknowledgement for misinforming the Laity? 3. Why was the Metropolis of Chicago involved in the issue of Fr. Dokos once it was disclosed that one of the Hierarchs received money from this trust, indicative of a conflict of interest in any decision regarding Fr. Dokos? 4. When will we see the Metropolitan Iakovos’ letter that was “sealed” by the Milwaukee court, which was attached to Fr. Dokos’s Motion to Dismiss? 5. Letters are attached to Motions almost always to support the Movant’s theory of the motion. Here he was asking for the charges to be dropped (in layman’s terms). What legal or ecclesiastic theories were offered by our Metropolitan to exonerate Fr. Dokos? 6. There were questions raised about two other estates, the estates of James W. Pihos and Myron G. Stamos. Did the Metropolis of Chicago retain an Attorney to interview the descendants and heirs of these estates and review the files in those estates? If not, why not? 7. On August 7, 2013 Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos wrote the following letter to the Annunciation Church of Milwaukee: “Rev. Fr. Angelo J. Artemas and Esteemed Parish Council Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church 9400 W. Congress Street Milwaukee, WI 53225-4812 Dear Father Angelo and Esteemed Members, In the light of the Transfiguration, on behalf of His Eminence Metropolitan Iakovos of Chicago, I greet you in the name of the Lord. As you are aware, the Holy Metropolis of Chicago engaged legal counsel to review the administration and use of funds originating from the Ervin J. Franczak and Margaret S. Franczak Trust. At the direction of His Eminence Metropolitan Iakovos, I instructed counsel to examine and analyze the information from an unbiased and neutral perspective. A thorough examination of all documentation that has been made available has now been completed. In addition, counsel has spoken with Fr. James Dokos and the attorney for the Trust, Steven Fishman. Based upon the analysis of counsel, the Metropolis has reached the conclusion that the funds from the Franzcak Trust were used in accordance with the provisions of the Trust, for the benefit of Annunciation Church, or in accordance with the wishes of Margaret Franzcak. 8. Why would an Attorney be retained by the Metropolis of Chicago to write a report that allegedly exonerated Fr. Dokos when the facts later caused Fr. Dokos to plead guilty to a felony to avoid trial and possible jail time? 9. Why was the report of the Church’s legal counsel in the Fr. Dokos matter never made public? Was a legal fee paid to the outside counsel to produce it? If yes, and since the Laity pays the bills for the Metropolis, did the funds to pay outside counsel come from Church funds, or from the Estate funds? Why was that report not provided to the Laity if they paid for it? 10. Finally, when will we, the laity, be treated in a respectfully way? When will we be shown any respect? When will those within the Church who have abused their authority be reprimanded for accepting “gifts”, for promulgating falsehoods, for avoiding the issues raised by their own actions and for defending a convicted felon to escape any meaningful punishment?


Whether you see or acknowledge it, subconsciously or consciously we put all our leaders through a “Character Test”. We do this to our spiritual fathers and even our political leaders. The actions of the Hierarchs in the Metropolis of Chicago and their enablers have proven, to those of us that care, that the “Character Test” standard has not been met. The actions of trying to keep their laity in the dark, denying the obvious and then removing the one person who told the truth, Fr. Angelo Artemas, has left everyone feeling violated. Their actions in this Dokos mess reinforces the supposition among the laity that we don’t matter, that the truth does not matter and that the enablers are 100% complicit in maintaining an “atmosphere” of darkness to hide the guilty. You see, it takes authority to lead, but more on this later. For many years, the sheep among us have taken the position…… “We can’t do or say anything because it’s a Hierarchical Church.” Or, “We are at their mercy”. Or, “We are not their equals, we are not their partners in the Church”. So back to the issue of the authority to lead our Church. There are two kinds of authority that apply to those within the Church. There is the formal authority that comes from apostolic succession and the hierarchical structure of the Church. But there is a second authority, one that has been eroded in this Metropolis over time. It is the MORAL authority to act in the name of Jesus when one leads a flock. Now that it is lost, it is very difficult for this Metropolis to recover. Under rare circumstances, this moral authority can be regained through great efforts on both sides, but again, not here and not now. Effectively, that lack of moral authority has been denied by the arrogance of those who should possess it; it has been squandered. It has been so depleted, only those who have never considered its absence are left in the pews. On the other hand, many of the enablers understand its absence. They are so in love with their positions within the Church they are still willing to pretend that moral authority over the flock is still there. If it is truly within the desire of our Hierarchs to lead successfully, they should ask themselves the questions above. They may also want to ask themselves, if they are even interested in the moral position, what would Jesus do if faced with the issues in this series of articles. The answer to these questions, truthfully faced and answered, would provide some small measure toward rebuilding the trust that is necessary for the institution to survive. Remember our title: “The measure of a man is what he does with power”. I think you know where we stand!