AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HONORABLE SYRIAN ORTHODOX PEOPLE EVERYWHERE
FROM THE VERY
REV FR
JOSEPH TARZI,. PHD
To the honorable Syrian Orthodox people wherever
they are.
Blessing and greetings in
the Lord,
I
have kept silent for a long time with regard to what has been and still is
going on in our Archdiocese of the
THE LONG TRIP OF THE BISHOP
I took the Bishop to the airport on
The
holy Passion Week had already arrived.
During that week, I called him twice inquiring about his health status
and return. He could not designate a
date. I asked for his permission to
announce his health problem and ask the congregation to pray for his
recovery. He granted permission. I did announce this in the Easter Mass and
asked the faithful to pray for him.
After this, I lost contact with him.
His cellular phone never responded.
I
traveled to
In
the mean time, we received news from many sources that the Bishop had suffered
huge financial losses. I do not want to
reveal these sources out of my magnanimity and for the sake of protecting these
sources. However, I ignored this news
and continued to tell people that the Bishop was sick at the time when those
who are close to him today were backbiting him, slandering against him, and
spreading defamatory statements against him.
Today, the very people who did this are flattering him and causing
severe anguish to the pastor of the Cathedral and its faithful and honest
parishioners.
Towards
the end of July 2002, I received a personal letter from His Holiness the
Patriarch. In that letter, His Holiness
informed me that in addition to the Bishop’s illness, the Bishop was trying to
collect a consignment, deposited for the Church in a bank account in
THE SITUATION AFTER THE
BISHOP’S RETURN FROM HIS LONG ABSENCE
I was surprised to hear the Bishop blaming me publicly,
in his sermon on
The
Bishop confirmed the statement of these malicious people when he contacted me
ordering me to evacuate my office. He
said that my office befitted a Bishop and not a priest, and that he brought
monks and thus more space is needed and other excuses. I went to see the Bishop and said to him, “If
you were really in need of my office, and our relationship was cordial, I would
have gladly offered you my office, but it is quite clear that you intend to
hurt me and humiliate me in order to pave the way for getting rid of me.” I asked him to put the matter off pointing
out that the congregation was in turmoil because of his long absence, his
alleged financial adventures and losses, for refusing to tell the truth about
what went on in his trip, and for refusing to meet with his faithful to discuss
the matter. I advised him earnestly to
meet with the congregation and reveal to them the details of his prolonged
trip, but he showed no interest in what I was proposing. I warned the Bishop that his attitude in this
matter, particularly his intention to drive me out of my office, might lead to
an up-rise in the Church, something that no one of us wanted. However, the Bishop insisted on his demand
despite mediation of some peace lovers.
Then I asked the Bishop to charge me with the responsibility of securing
and preparing a proper office for him that would be larger and much better than
mine. He ignored my proposal, and I left
him very disappointed.
In
the face of this tyrannical behavior, and because the congregation had already
been agitated and angry as I mentioned above, a few of them got together and formed
a committee to oppose the Bishop’s oppressive and offensive actions. Contrary to the Bishop’s claim, I had nothing
to do with this whatsoever. The
Committee drafted a petition asking His Holiness the Patriarch to remove the
Bishop. The malicious band, however,
whose only goal was to destroy the pastor of the Cathedral, convinced the
Bishop that I was behind this movement, and that I was meeting with them,
etc. Thus, the Bishop wrote to me on
Few
days after my response to the warning letter of the Bishop, Fr. Hazail Sawmeh visited me in my
office and proposed that I write a letter to His Holiness the Patriarch denying
the existence of any relation between the Opposition and me. I asked him what the purpose of such a letter
was. He said if I did that, His Holiness
would dissociate me from the Opposition.
Fr. Samweh wanted me to add the following
sentence to the text, “I have learned that an episcopal
committee is coming to investigate; in my opinion there is no need for such a
committee to come.” I asked, “Why?” He answered, “For, if such a committee comes,
you will be out of the whole matter, that is, you will not be part of the
investigation.” I asked Fr. Sawmeh,
“What about evacuation of my office, and will the Bishop stop associating me
with the Opposition?” He said he would
try to convince the Bishop to abandon the idea of taking my office away and to
dissociate me from the Opposition. I
asked, “What assurances can you offer to me that the Bishop will honor his
word? I know him very well; he would always
break his promises and violate agreements.”
“His Holiness and I are witnesses in this case,” Fr. Sawmeh
said. “Very well,” I said, “I will write
the letter gladly, because I have nothing to do with the Opposition,
indeed.” Fr. Sawmeh
proposed that I write a letter of apology to Bishop Mor
Clemis. “What
do you want me to apologize for?” I asked, “I have not done anything that calls
for apology. Had I done anything wrong,
I would not have hesitated to go to him to apologize. Furthermore, if I go to him and apologize, I
would fasten to myself a guilt that I have never committed. The Bishop will show my apology to everyone
saying, ‘look, if the priest was not guilty, he would not have written a letter
of apology.” Fr. Sawmeh
replied, “Then apologize to him verbally even though you have done nothing that
warrants apology, if only for the sake of peace.” “Very Well, I will do that,” I said.
I
wrote the requested letter and faxed it to His Holiness. I received a nice reply from His
Holiness. Few days later, I took a copy
of the said letter to the Bishop and said to him, “If you think I have done
anything wrong I apologize and ask for forgiveness. Let us open a new chapter.” After I did this, I thought things had gone
back to normal between the Bishop and me.
However, about ten days later, I was surprised to see Fr. Sawmeh coming to my office saying, “Father, I come to you
with much disappointment.” “What is the
matter?” I asked. He said. “Bishop
Eugene asked me to deliver you the following message: that you are to evacuate your office within
few days or else he will suspend you from services. The letter of suspension is written, signed
and ready to be delivered.” I asked him,
“What happened? Why has the Bishop changed his mind? What happened to our agreement and the
understanding we had reached? Were you
and His Holiness not going to be witnesses?
Did I not tell you that this Bishop is known for breaking his promises
and violating agreements?” “You are
right,” he said, “However, it is my duty to deliver you his message.” “How did he justify his action?” I
asked. He answered, “He claims you were
late in delivering him a copy of your letter to His Holiness.” I asked him, “Are you convinced of the validity
of his claim?” He answered, “No.” Imagine, my dear readers, the Bishop gives me
this treatment just because I was a little late in giving him a copy of my
letter to His Holiness. The delay was
because I had to be with my mother in the hospital. She had fallen on the same day, and at the
time I was writing my letter to his Holiness, and broken her hip. I had to rush to the hospital immediately
after faxing the letter to His Holiness.
In the following few days I had to be with my mother who had serious
surgical operations. Fr. Sawmeh and the Bishop knew this. Yes, this was the reason for the delay, what
a pretext!
My
answer to Fr. Sawmeh was, “It is quite obvious that the
Bishop is looking for pretexts to get rid of me, it is futile to deal with
him. Tell him to do what he wants.” Fr. Sawmeh,
nevertheless, suggested that we go to see the Bishop and discuss the matter
with him further. I was convinced that
talking to him would be useless, but I agreed reluctantly to go lest I would be
accused of not cooperating with peace efforts.
We went right away to the Bishop’s residence and started talking to
him. I asked the Bishop what the reasons
for changing his stand were; he once again told me that I must stop the Opposition. It is worthwhile to mention here that he did
not reiterate that the reason was the delay in handing him a copy of my letter
to His Holiness. The Bishop kept on
talking for a while. Fr. Sawmeh stopped him saying, “Sayyedna,
it is not clear from your talk what it is that you want from Abouna, why do you not define your demands?” The Bishop answered saying, “First: Abouna must stand
in the altar and condemn the Opposition and order them to stop. He must urge them to obey the head of the
Archdiocese, and declare clearly and publicly that he is against the Opposition. In addition, he must break relations totally
with all those who continue their opposition.
Second: He must evacuate
his Office.” I asked him, “Do you have other
conditions?” He answered, “Not for
now.” I asked him, “If I fulfill these
conditions, will you still go ahead and bring another priest, especially since
you know you are doing this to agitate and marginalize me in preparation to get
rid of me?” “Of course”, he said, “I am
going to do this in response to a petition that carries one hundred and some
signatures. I cannot ignore the
petition.” I said to him, “You can
easily tell this minority of only 20 families that this is not the right time,
especially since you were the one who asked them to prepare that petition.” He answered, “I cannot do that.” I said, “Why
then are you asking me to fulfill your conditions?” I got up and asked permission to leave
saying, “Do whatever your conscious dictates.”
Fr. Sawmeh is witness to what I write
here. Imagine, my dear readers, the
Bishop could not ignore a petition that carried only one hundred and some
signatures, but he easily ignored a petition carrying about 900 signatures
asking him to reinstate me and not to bring another priest!
THE FIRST EPISCOPAL
COMMITTEE
We thought that the Episcopal Committee (the first one)
would come to find facts and investigate the problem of the Bishop, which is
the real reason for the severe ordeal that the Church is going through. Alas! The committee came only to strive and try
to find pretexts to convict me and exonerate the Bishop. Everyone knows that I had absolutely nothing
to do with the financial adventures of the Bishop. It was obvious that the outcome of the
so-called “investigation” had already been defined before the arrival of the
Committee. Its mission thus was only a
formality. Its report came to confirm
this. One could easily see that the two
members of the said Committee were laboring themselves and trying hard to find
guilt in me, but to their disappointment, they found nothing. Therefore, they wrote down what they heard
from the few malicious prejudiced people who harbor hate and enmity to me, as I
mentioned earlier. The two members
ignored my version of the story completely.
What they wrote in their so-called “Report” about me calls for
shame. Besides being ridiculous, laughable
and shameful, they have no basis of truth.
THE SITUATION AFTER
RECEIVING THE PATRIARCHAL ENCYCLICAL
You all know about the reaction to the Patriarchal
encyclical, and there is no need to mention it here. What is of interest, however, is that the
Bishop handed me a letter in Syriac on the morning of
I
sensed that the Bishop was somewhat pleased, too. I saw some change in his attitude towards
me. However, to my disappointment, he
soon turned once again against me (within ten days) when he saw someone
distributing flyers in the social hall, as if I were the one responsible for
that. The Bishop and his supporters wanted
me to act as a police officer over the faithful. They would love to place me at the tip of the
gun barrel. They wanted me to carry out
their wishes and do their job for them.
The malicious and prejudiced supporters of the Bishop often wondered
saying, “Why does Abouna not silence the ‘trouble
makers’ inside the Church especially since he is known to demand silence during
worship even of children. He often would
stop the sermon until they are quite.”
These people are trying to compare two quite different things. In the first case, the matter concerns the
fact that the faithful must keep quite always during worship. In the second case, the matter concerns the
existence of an acute conflict between the vast majority of the congregation
and their Bishop because of serious wrongdoing of the latter, and I wanted to
stay neutral. There is also a deep
division among the congregation, and I do not want to be part of this conflict,
and look as if I were taking sides and defending the obvious wrong actions of the
Bishop or covering up for him. The
difference between the two cases is quite clear.
THE SUSPENSION LETTER
In the morning of
I
learned later on, that the suspension letter had already been written before the
Bishop left
REBUTTAL OF THE CLAIMS AND
ACCUSATIONS IN THE SUSPENSION LETTER
1. In the beginning of his letter of suspension,
the Bishop claims that I have not been obeying him and have become insolent for
almost a year. As such, the Bishop
acknowledges that in the years before the last, I was obeying him and I was not
insolent, hence there were no problems.
It follows that his complaints to people, other bishops, and to His
Holiness the Patriarch that since the beginning, that is, ever since he came to
this Archdiocese, I have been neither cooperating with him nor obeying him is
false and baseless by his own admission. False and baseless also is his claim
that I never wanted a bishop in
In
addition, the Bishop takes pleasure in fastening accusations on me in order to
justify the grave injustice he inflicted on me.
Your Eminence, Why do you not come forward and tell us what orders have
I disobeyed? What matters was I insolent in?
You must be referring to your “order” to me to condemn, stop and silence
the Opposition, and to move out of my office, because there are no other orders
that I have disobeyed from day one of your arrival until today. Stopping the Opposition and moving out from
my office for malicious reasons do not fall under the category of priestly
obedience. I have explained both matters
adequately at the proper place in this letter; I refer our dear readers to
them. Besides, why do you not silence
the Opposition yourself instead of making me a sacrifice and a scapegoat for
your own wrongdoings?
2. The Bishop claims that I held meetings,
installed people to instigate trouble against my superior and committed acts
that were inconsistent with the holiness of priesthood. First:
I have never held any meeting, and never installed any people to
instigate trouble. The Bishop knows very
well where the Opposition meetings are held and who attends those
meetings. I challenge anyone who can
produce the slightest evidence to substantiate these claims. These accusations are the fruit of the
imagination of the evil people who are very close to the Bishop.
As
for actions inconsistent with the holiness of priesthood, the Bishop knows very
well to whom this applies, to him or to me.
3. The Bishop says I have made myself equal to
him! Let me ask the Bishop, what made
you imagine that I made myself equal to you?
I have never ever thought of making myself equal to my bishop. However, if you consider me a competition,
that is your problem. In addition, do
you not know that a priest can never be elevated to the bishopric rank in our
Church? Have I ever held a Cross in my
right hand and a staff in my left hand, wore a “Qawoogh”
on my head, or sat on your chair in the altar so that you thought I made myself
an equal to you? Have I ever blessed
someone in your presence? Have I ever
sat on the chair of honor in banquets, meetings and get-togethers like
you? Did you not notice how I used to
keep silent when you talked during our visits to the homes of the faithful, in
our meetings and get-togethers giving you the chance to speak even if the
question was directed to me personally?
Yes, I kept silent even when your answers were wrong, in respect to your
rank, as is witnessed by hundreds of parishioners. Would he who makes himself an equal to his
bishop make himself a chauffeur to him, opening and closing the car door when
he embarks and disembarks? Not only
that, but also he never waited for me to turn the engine of
his car off and lock its doors so that we might enter the house or our visiting
place together. He would always go in
alone without me as if I were his servant not his Archpriest. Did you not notice my extreme respect to you on the
holy altar as witnessed by all Church attendants? In short, this claim is false, laughable and
unacceptable in its totality.
4. The Bishop claims that my actions violate our
Church Constitution. Let me ask the
Bishop, who has violated the Constitution of our Church, he or I? Had the Bishop had any respect to the
Constitution, we would have never reached the situation we are in today. Had the Constitution been observed justice
would have prevailed in our Church. He who has stabbed the Constitution in the
heart has no right to accuse others of violating it, let alone that he is
accusing an innocent, honest law-abiding and noble priest who has much respect
to the Constitution, laws, rules and regulation of the Church.
5. The Bishop claims that I refused to
administer Holy Communion to some parishioners, which according to him, is
indicative of spite against the parishioners.
First: The Bishop knows
very well that any priest has the full right to withhold Communion from anyone
whom he believes to be unworthy of taking it.
Therefore, even if I did withhold Communion from some people, it is my
right to do so, and I call upon our people to ask any religious authority on
this matter. Second: I have never ever exercised this right ever
since I was ordained up to this very moment.
The claim is baseless and false, fabricated and spread by the Bishop’s
chief advisor and closest friend George Khouri for
obvious reasons. The Bishop is repeating
what he hears from this character and from others without any scrutiny or investigation. I have asked the Bishop and everyone who
reiterated this naked lie to bring one person of those from whom I allegedly
withheld Communion to testify, but until this moment, they failed to find
one. It is a cheap naked lie,
indeed. I ask the Bishop, why did he not
investigate the matter at the time? Why
did he not send for me for inquiry and investigation? Is the Bishop striving to excavate the
distant past hoping to find a pretext to punish me as if he were looking for a
precious jewel, but not finding any, and hence, being content with a false one?
As
for hate and grudge, these are not of my nature, and I urge the Bishop to go
back to his conscience and see who holds grudges, he or I. I am quite sure if he does so, he will find
that it is he, who is full of grudge.
6. The Bishop claims that I committed
transgressions including translating his letter of warning from Syriac to Arabic and English. I ask the Bishop, why is he considering my
translating his warning letter a transgression?
Which law prohibits me from translating his letter of warning? Why does
he not want me to translate this letter?
Is his warning letter a secret document?
If it is, why did he send copies to the priests of the Archdiocese? Was he expecting that those priests would
keep it secret and hide it from all, or perhaps he feared embarrassment because
he knew he was not right in what he was doing?
It is my right to translate and make public any letter or document
addressed to me unless the writer of the document requests to keep it
confidential, and the Bishop never did so.
As for claiming that I gave copies to those who were trying to get my
superior, it is not true. I told people
from all groups and factions about his warning letter, and our people have the
right to know about such a grave matter, which concerns their pastor.
7. The Bishop talks about the mediation efforts
of Fr. Hazail Sawmeh to
bring peace. I have talked about this
matter in detail in the previous sections of this letter, please look pages 4
and 5. As for the Bishop’s claim that I
felt embarrassed about their peace efforts, let us clarify matters further,
because the Bishop keeps repeating this:
As
I pointed out earlier, the Bishop has never had any feeling of love in his
heart towards me. He has never even
liked me. I have never seen him
defending or protecting me or concerning himself with any of my affairs or
interests. I am sure he would have gotten
rid of me soon after his arrival to this Archdiocese had he not felt that the
vast majority of the parishioners supported me.
He was waiting for an opportunity to hurt me. Based on this, he has been insisting that I
stand on the altar, condemn the Opposition, and attack them so that I may stir
their anger and resentment against me.
In this way, he would make me a party in the conflict instead of being
neutral, and thus they would treat me as they treat him, and accuse me of being
his partner in his wrongdoings, and defending untruth. If that were to happen, he would have
isolated me and then, gotten rid of me, for he would have had a strong pretext,
that is, the majority of the congregation did not want me. If he has dared and inflicted on me all this
injustice when the vast majority of the congregation is supporting me, what
would he have done had he seen that this majority had abandoned me? In addition, how can he ask me to defend his
wrongdoings? Is this not contradictory to
the mission of priesthood, which calls for supporting truth and renouncing
untruth? Is it not wrong to defend
wrongdoing? As for me, I will never
attempt to judge someone who is higher in rank than I am. The Bishop has a
The
Bishop guesses that I probably wrote many of the writings that came out under
the name of the Opposition and directed to the Supreme Head of the Church, what
a guess! The Bishop knows very well who
writes for the Opposition, and that I did not write any of their writings, not
even a word. However, it pleases the
Bishop to fasten on me false accusations that he may use them as pretexts to
get rid of me, and to justify his matchless injustice and oppression against
me. If the Bishop has any evidence that I wrote anything for the Opposition,
let him produce it.
8. The most regrettable
thing in the suspension letter is the Bishop’s claim that I told the two Parish
Council members who came to visit me before the Bishop’s departure to
9. Once again, the Bishop
talks about translating letters from Syriac to
English and Arabic for the benefit of the Opposition. Let me ask the Bishop; are there any Syriac letters except those of his and the two letters from
Bishop Julius Cicek and Fr. Gumush
to the Parish Council? I have already
discussed the Bishop’s letters above.
Concerning the other two letters of Bishop Mor
Julius Issa Cicek and Fr. Gumush, yes, I did translate them, but upon the request of
the Vice President of the Parish Council, our dearly beloved John Kavak. Bishop Clemis must have known about that, being the president of
the Parish Council. Furthermore, it was
the Council members, who made the letters public and not I, therefore, his
accusation is meaningless.
10. The Bishop claims that I
am receiving in my house the “trouble makers” after their disturbing activities
in the church on Sundays. I am really
astonished how the Bishop can bring up such a point in his letter! First: The pastor’s house, just like
the Archdiocese house, must be open to any visitor. It is inconceivable that the pastor should
shut the door of his house at the face of some visitors and open it for others
no matter what their stands, opinions or inclinations were. Second: Some relatives and friends
have been visiting me on Sundays for years.
They are the very ones who come to visit me. If some of them are members in the Opposition,
that is their business and choice, and it does not concern me. It is absolutely impossible and improper to
expel guests from the house of a priest no matter what opinions they held. For example, have I ever complained that the
Bishop has been receiving almost daily in his residence those who have been conspiring
against me openly at the presence of the Bishop and giving him wrong advices,
which are destructive to him and to the church, and yet, the Bishop has been
acting on their evil wishes? I have
never complained of this, because I believe the Archdiocese house should be
open to all, as the priest’s house should be.
Therefore, raising such a point in his letter of suspension is totally
irrelevant and rejected. Furthermore, the
Bishop and his conscienceless followers have been fabricating and spreading
false stories such as participation of my wife and daughters in the
demonstrations, and carrying banners against the Bishop and His Holiness the
Patriarch. How shameful! I have never
thought that the Bishop’s followers could reach such a low status to invent
such abhorrent lies. All that it is that
my daughter Urhoy saw, on her way to the Burbank
Library, a crowed in front of the church, and she approached to see what the
matter was. She stood there for a few
minutes speaking to a friend of hers, and then left for the Library. This happened only once. Look at these lies and judge yourselves, dear
readers. Nevertheless, suppose my
daughter Urhoy did participate once in the demonstration without my
knowledge can anyone blame her after what the
Bishop has done to her father?
11. The Bishop complains
that I did not say “welcome back” to him on his return from
12. The Bishop often talks
about the “written confessions of Fr. Abjar Bahko.” He claims
that Fr. Bahko declared in his confessions that I
encouraged him to abandon monastic life and break his monastic vows to start
his work outside the church. He claims
also that I asked Fr. Abjar to bring me some files
from his office in his absence. The
Bishop uses these as one of his pretexts to suspend my services.
First:
I have never instigated Fr. Abjar to leave monastic
life or to break his vows. Fr. Abjar wrote an open letter in October 2003 denying this
allegation. Copies of his letter are
available. I also have a copy of Fr. Abjar’s letter to His Holiness, and there is no mention of
anything about this alleged instigation.
However, if there is another letter sent to His Holiness the Patriarch
that I do no know about in which Fr. Abjar confesses
something like this, he must have written it under coerce, threats, and
pressure. I do have a letter signed by
Fr. Abjar in which he talks about such threats. However, the whole matter is irrelevant to
the subject of my suspension and certainly never justifies the decision to
suspend me. The whole world knows that
the person who expelled Fr. Abjar from this church is
Bishop Eugene Kaplan by the influence and reporting of his brother and his
closest friend and “wise man of his Archdiocese” George Khouri.
Second:
Concerning the alleged request for obtaining some files from the Bishop’s
office in his absence, I have this to say, first. I was in charge of the
Archdiocese in the absence of the Bishop.
His Holiness the Patriarch confirmed this more than once assuring me
that I had all the authorities of the Bishop.
As such, it was my duty and my right, if need be, to look into required
files. Therefore, I am not to be blamed
at all if I did that. Second. I
assure everyone that I have never touched or looked at any of the files in The
Bishop’s office, and I never stepped into his office, neither during his long
absence nor in other absences of shorter durations. I never even went close to his house. However, there is one exception only: I
needed holy chrism (mayroon), so I took three
people with me to be witnesses. They were
the secretary, Fr. Abjar, and Mr. Abdo
Maksoud, the caretaker. I took them with me lest the Bishop’s brother
would fasten false accusation on me, as he always does. We knocked on the door, and sister Shmouni opened and lead us to where the holy mayroon was.
I picked up a bottle and left with my accompanying party. This is the only time I entered the Bishop’s
residence in his absence.
As
for the story of the files, I explained this to the Bishop many times, and the
secretary of the Cathedral testified confirming the truth as I reported, but the
Bishop likes to forget or pretends to forget my explanation for he needs
pretexts to punish me. The story is as
follows:
During
the absence of the Bishop, some parishioners donated certain amount of money to
the Sunday school fund. They chose to
place their donations in my trust.
However, I did not want to keep this money with me for obvious
reasons. I wanted to deposit it in the
Sunday school account, so I asked the secretary and Fr. Abjar,
as they were in charge of filing the Bishop’s documents, to find the Sunday
school account number. This is part of
my duty as the Bishop’s vicar.
Nevertheless, they did not find it.
This is the whole story; anything more than this is baseless. Most probably, the Bishop’s brother saw the
secretary or Fr. Abjar looking for the Sunday school
account number and his suspicious mind made him contact the Bishop and His
Holiness the Patriarch accusing me of sending them in to fetch files from the
Bishop’s office. Alas!
13. The Bishop claims that I said to his
supporters, “The Bishop whom you brought betrayed you and misused your
money.” Certainly, it is not I who said
this, but another priest. I advise the
Bishop to investigate this matter well before he fastens such baseless
accusation on me, though trivial and not worthy of mentioning
14. The Bishop writes about me in his defamation
letter, which he sent to every household in the Archdiocese, “… and other
transgressions that I do not want to mention here…” The Bishop did not write this phrase in the
suspension letter to me, although he saturated me with accusations. Why did he
not do so? Because he knew well there
were no alleged “other transgressions”.
He also knew that he did not have any arrow left in his quiver to shoot
me with, he ran out of ammunition. By
God, if I had any other transgression, no matter how small, he would have
mentioned it. Please, Your Eminence,
tell us, what are those other transgressions?
They must be of the weaving of your imagination. As for me, I can fill pages of your
transgressions, be it behavioral, or those which violate the Constitution of
the Church and its laws and regulations.
Do you not see that this talk of yours wholly applies to you? In which affair of yours were you straight
and honest seeking integrity and honesty?
Ever since you stepped into the Archdiocese house for the first time eight
years ago until this day you have been taking crooked paths in all your
dispensations. After this, you want me
to straighten my alleged crookedness!
Who is crooked among us, you or me?
Have you not resorted to obvious crooked paths in appointing a priest in
my position and planned to ordain another ignoring hundreds of signatures
submitted to you? Have you not relied on
only tens of signatures that you obtained from your few prejudiced followers to
impart legitimacy to your actions and illegitimate dispensation? Do you really believe that the glaring tricks
of yours would fool us? I can list tens,
or rather hundreds of examples of your transgressions. Is this the way a person clad in the robe of
honorable priesthood who claims to be a man of God should behave?
I
ask God to forgive you, Your Eminence, for the injustice and tyranny you have
inflicted on me. How can you punish me,
I the innocent, and you the burdened with guilt? You pretend to have forgotten
The Lord’s saying, “Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
(Mat 7: 5). You might have thought that this verse does not apply to you because
you do not consider me a brother in Christ but rather a slave! Here I would like to remind you of
THE “CHRISTIAN SPIRIT” OF
BISHOP EUGENE KAPLAN AND OTHER CLERGYMEN IN OUR CHURCH
During the first six months
of the suspension of my services, I attended the Holy Mass four times at
In the evening of
On
Imagine, dear brethren, a Syrian Archpriest who has
served his Church for twenty years as pastor, quarter a century as deacon and
many years in church organizations including Boards of Trustees is barred from
celebrating the Holy Mass on his mother’s memorial day at the Church, which he
himself founded and served as its pastor!!
This happens despite the fact that a tyrant, revengeful, hateful, sinful
and a felon bishop suspended me, the innocent, unjustly, making me a
scapegoat to save himself, and even as the suspension is only effective in the
Western Archdiocese of the USA. Not only
this, but he also excommunicated twenty-two honest and ardent believers, an act
that makes Christianity ashamed of. It
is for you, dear faithful brethren, to ponder the actions of this bishop and
make a judgment.
In case you are interested to know, Bishop Kaplan, after
all that he did to me, has been complaining that I did
not take his permission to travel to
FINANCIAL MATTERS
I came to
In the period between January 1985
and January 1986, the late Bishop Mor Athanasius and some friends contacted me
several times to persuade me to accept the Board’s offer ($2,500) with promises
to review the situation later on. Some
Board members and others admitted that the salary offered was not enough to cover
the cost of living in
Two
years passed after starting my service at St. Ephraim Church and those who
promised me did nothing. My financial
loss reached $20,000. I used the money
from the sale of my house in
Board Members: Dr. Issa Shamonki, Messrs: Saliba Kallah, Pierre Khouri, Mousa Askar,
George Ghrair, George Shamsi, Jacob Adam, Robert Tawil, the late Munir
Peltekci, William Durghalli, Shukri Kutlo.
Attendants from Outside the
Board: Messrs:
Ghazi Fedail, Bassam Mechammel, Fahmi Mushmel, Naim Muochammel, And the
late Mtanos Hawara.
I was also present in the
meeting.
The attendants (17 people) approved, after a lengthy discussion
that lasted for more than 3 hours, a financial agreement. This agreement was put down on paper and
signed by the President and the Secretary of the Board of Trustees on
THE ALLEGED STORY OF MY
OWNERSHIP OF “SEVERAL”
BUSINESSES AND STORES
In 1988, I used what remained of my savings from the sale
of my house in Canada, added to it loans presented to me by some friends, to
enter into partnership with our dearly beloved Adwan Adwani, and purchase 50%
interest in a store. The friends who
provided me with the loans assured me that the loans were interest free and
that I could pay them back whenever I wished.
However, I was surprised that three of these friends asked their money
back within a relatively short time.
Therefore, I had to borrow the required amount from some friends from
overseas, and pay them back.
In
the first few years, the store generated a modest income, but soon the income
started diminishing until it reached zero level in the later years. Finally, I sold my share about 5 years ago,
and since then I have no source of income whatsoever, except my salary from the
Church. I do not have any business or
store or any kind of investment. I call
upon anyone interested to substantiate this information and investigate by
contacting the concerned authorities for inquiry.
HARASSMENTS AND
PROCRASTINATIONS OF PARISH COUNCILS IN PAYING MY FINANCIAL ENTITLEMENTS AFTER
THE COMING OF
BISHOP EUGENE KAPLAN
After 18 (eighteen) years of service to St. Ephraim
Church, my salary in 2003 was less than $5,000 per month from a starting salary
of $2,500 in 1986, with no increases in the first two years. Boards of Trustees or Directors kept paying
my financial entitlements according to the above-mentioned agreement, no less
and no more. However, after the arrival
of Bishop Eugene Kaplan, the parish councils began procrastinating in payments
and complaining that my entitlements were too high and resorting to other kinds
of harassment as well. Every year they
would put my financial package to voting, after delaying payment for months,
and after repeated reminding. I remember
once the Council was discussing my financial package once again as usual and in
my presence, and the increase that year was only 1.9%, one member suggested
making it a round figure of 2.0%. One of
the other members jumped, yelling, “1.9%, period. Not a penny more!”
For
the last three years, the “permanent” Treasurer of the Church, Reda Hawara,
intensified his campaign against me. He
kept complaining about my “very high” salary.
He found himself some susceptible members of the council who were ready
to dance to his music, and they together started fabricating and spreading
false information inflating my salary up to $12,000. The Treasurer kept stalling payments of my entitlements,
refusing, and delaying to pay the annual increases for months. I would send him written reminders until he
would bring the matter once again for voting.
The matter was repeatedly voted upon.
Two and a half years ago, the Parish Council called me for a long
meeting instigated by the Treasurer Reda Hawara and his company, to discuss my
financial package once again. After a
long and thorough discussion, it was decided to keep the package of 1990 as it
was, and close the subject for good.
However, the Treasurer was not pleased.
When the increase was due in January 2003, he refused to pay. I wrote him two letters to remind him. He did not respond. I complained to our dearly beloved John Kavak
more than once, he promised to look into the matter. Finally, after a delay of eight months, they
paid me the increase, but up to this moment, they have not paid most of my
entitlements for the year 2003.
The
Treasurer of the Church also kept complaining that my health insurance premium
was too high and proposed to reduce it or cancel it altogether, as if I were
the one who determined the premium. He
never complained when the premium was only about $200 per month for many
years. The Treasurer knows very well
that health insurance premiums increase with increase in the cost of living and
with age. He wants to take way my health
insurance because I got older, despite the fact that the Church Bylaws call for
providing full health insurance coverage for the priest and his family, as
mandatory. The Treasurer Reda Hawara and his band want
themselves to live luxuriously like kings in palaces and drive luxurious cars,
but they want the priest to live in poverty, remain needy and humble stretching
his hands to beg them and people like them for charity. These people know very well that my salary is
low in view of the high cost of living and qualifications, and in comparison
with the salaries and benefits of priests in other Syrian and non-Syrian
Churches of comparable or even smaller sizes.
They also know very well the level of my education, my spiritual,
pastoral, scientific, religious and liturgical knowledge, managerial skills and
my dedication and devotion. Anyone in my
position, qualification and experience would receive at least double my salary
wherever he works. They know, further,
very well, what the needed monthly minimum amount of income is to cover living
expenses. However, when the Treasurer and
his company lack conscience they do not hesitate to make my life and the life
of my family miserable. For when it
comes to the pastor’s salary, they count the pennies, but for other people and
other things, even the trivial ones, thousand and hundreds of thousands look
quite cheap. They always forget, or
pretend to forget that the priest is the backbone of the Church and the basic
driving force of its activities and affairs.
Some “wise” members of the Parish Council do not feel embarrassed to
express pleasure of getting rid of me, for they say, they now can bring two or
3 priests for the price of one, as if they were buying merchandise from a 99
cent store! For them, the priest can be
bought and sold like any other commodity.
What a pity! Alas! What an
alarming ignorance! What a shameful
levels of thinking! Quality for these
people means nothing; spiritual education for their children has no value. To them, the only thing of any value is the
mighty Dollar, be it inside or outside the Church, or at their homes.
The
talk about my “high” salary does not come only from the above-mentioned prejudiced
group, but also from Bishop Eugene Kaplan who often would complain about my
“high” salary to his visitors including other bishops. He would declare, “I would be content if they
pay me as much as they pay to the priest.”
However, the Bishop forgets or rather pretends to forget that he
receives free housing. Yes, he forgets
that the cost of renting a house equivalent to the one he is living in is
$3,500-$4,000 per month let alone the cost of utilities and the like. What he does not tell his visitors though is
that the priest spends the greatest part of his salary on housing.
I
often told the boards and parish councils, “Provide me with housing and take
half of my salary.” In spite of the fact
that the church owns two houses and that almost all churches worldwide
generally provide housing to their pastors, no one seemed to be interested in
my proposal, perhaps intentionally; they wanted my salary to look inflated.
It
is unfortunate and displeasure to mention here that when I came to
In
conclusion, I thank everyone who took a portion of his precious time to read
this letter despite its length. I have
tried to be brief as much as possible so that the reader may become aware of
the plain facts and truth
May
God bless you and reward you benevolently, and grant you to remain always
supporters of truth, justice, and fairness.
The Very Rev. Chorepiscopus Joseph Tarzi. Ph.D.