Bishop Isaias denounces the monks of the Monastery of Saint Habakkuk for exploiting the faith of thousands of people through a “miracle” production industry, which they then advertised to collect vast sums from thousands of believers.
The monks accuse the Bishop of accepting large sums of undeclared money from them and turning against them once they began refusing to give him more money than they collected. They describe a well-orchestrated campaign of threats and blackmail to force them into confession.
The public watches the unfolding events in shock, with many finding it hard to unequivocally support either side.
On one hand, the operation of the “miracle” industry and its promotion have been evident, making it difficult not to see charlatanism and exploitation of faith.
On the other hand, however, those who wish to view everything objectively and without sentimentality, how can they avoid entering into the torment of thinking and wondering: “All this scenery of the ‘miracle’ industry and the blatant attempt to pour huge sums of money into the monastery, did not Isaiah see it in previous years?” A certain monk used to walk around every three and a half hours on TV stations (we journalists ought to engage in rigorous self-criticism). Wasn’t he troubled? Didn’t he look into it?
Reasonably, then, it is difficult to reject a priori the monks’ claim that the Bishop’s reaction came from the abbot of the monastery’s refusal to continue giving him black money.
Indeed, the scene which puts Isaias in a similarly difficult position to the monks is made worse by the detailed description in the monks’ testimony. One extract is sufficiently illustrative as seen in the public domain: “The Bishop told him, as he claimed, that their lies had been exposed and that they were deceiving the faithful by putting myrrh on the Cross, allegations, however, which he denied. Then the Bishop, always according to the monk’s complaint, began to shout at him, saying: “I will put the Elder and Father Porphyrious in prison for 15 years and I will publish on the internet and YouTube their sexual escapades.”
He continued to deny the accusations and the bystanders with threats and shouting began to push him so hard that he had reached the point, he claims, where he was shaking with fear and losing the ground beneath his feet.
As he says in his complaint, “Isaias demanded from the Abbot 450,000 euros from the monastery’s money for his election campaign”. The complainant said he went to a parking lot of the Bishopric and handed over “in a pharmacy bag the sum of 50,000 in hundred and fifty euros”. “In fact, at Isaia’s request, the money was called ‘medicines’ and I had to say to him at the time of delivery the following sentence: ‘Your blessing, Despot, come your medicines,'” the monk alleged.
This is the context in which the trial in the Synodal Court begins tomorrow. The blow to the Church is enormous. It may not be the first time. But each subsequent one multiplies the cost. Therefore, the burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the Court is enormous.
But before and above all, the responsibility rests with the Archbishop. It is to be welcomed that at this moment in the Archbishop’s throne sits George, a serious, prudent, honest and clean of such behaviour that infects the Christian crowd, person.
Regardless, however, of the seriousness which distinguishes him, he ought to know that public opinion expects a full clarification of the case. The final aspect of the scandal is brought to light. There must be exemplary punishment for all those who are responsible, whether small or large, without exception. And when we say everyone, we mean both sides.
Society demands, at last, a catharsis within the Church. The weak monks cannot be punished if they are found guilty, but the powerful Bishop can get away with it if there is indeed evidence implicating him in any way.
This is the Archbishop’s first enormous test. His fair stance could significantly mitigate the scandal tarnishing the Church.
Read more:
