top

The National Herald - October 10-16, 2015

     EDITORIALS

___________________

No More Free Passias

It was well documented that (father) George Passias was a deeply troubled man.

We ran a number of stories over the years exposing some of his misdeeds.

As the presiding priest at the Saint Nicholas Church in Flushing, Passias was accused of numerous financial and other transgressions. He almost split that big community apart.

He was transferred to the Holy Cross in Brooklyn, where he was accused of repeating at least some of the same offenses.
|
Subsequently, he was chosen by then-Archbishop Spyridon as his chancellor, a powerful position. Again, that created quite a few problems.

Upon Spyridon’s forced resignation, father Passias was transferred to the historic community of Saint Spyridon, in Upper Manhattan’s Washington Heights, where again he was accused of financial improprieties, and womanizing.

And then, this latest scandal broke wide open.

On a recent morning, we received an envelope from an anonymous source. Upon opening it, we found a memory stick. The content shocked us.

We did not rush to print. We had to absorb the impact of it and make sure it was authentic.

In the process, we realized that we were not the only recipients of it.

We had no choice but to run the story, trying very hard to phrase it in such a way so as not to offend our readers’ sensitivities unnecessarily. After all, we are a traditional newspaper. We are not a newsletter, not a blog, and not a tabloid. We still practice the lost art of reporting even lewd news in a manner that tempers the lewdness. To that end, we did not post the video online, of course.

The story ran on our English language website the next day, Saturday, Oct. 4, as soon as it was translated. The next day, it ran in the New York Post.

We are pleased to say that the reaction of Archbishop Demetrios was what it should have been. He stated right away that he would defrock Passias.

Still, one has to wonder why our church leaders wait until a scandal comes to light before they take action. Not only in this case, but in many other cases over the years.

Why, when there are so many indications, serious and multiple accusations and even proof of inappropriate action, they wait only until after a scandal breaks –if at all– before they do something about it?

Is that right? Is it wise?

[ The National Herald - October 10-16, 2015 - p. 12 ]