By Elias Hazou
TO THE casual observer, Archbishop Chrysostomos II appears to have gone overboard over the last few months – even by his own lofty standards. Switch on the telly, day or night, and chances are you’ll find the bearded cleric with the gold bling imparting words of wisdom on any subject under the sun.
These days his pronouncements usually have to do with the topic du jour – the economy. Never camera shy, the Prelate has nevertheless shifted up a gear lately. It’s these traits – like his straight-talking style – that some find endearing, whereas others see them as flaws. He’s been dubbed a businessman, Holy Banker, CEO of Church Inc., and so forth. But given Chrysostomos is who he is, we should probably get past that old cliché (men of the cloth should confine themselves to ecclesiastical affairs etc.). A more mundane profile of him is called for. So how does he stack up as a public figure?
Not too well, say commentators. On the Archbishop’s increasing involvement in political and social life, the consensus seems to be that it’s down to a combination of two chief reasons: first, Chrysostomos’ attempt to reassert the political authority of the Church, which is long-term and ongoing; and second, the pressures – mostly economic – of the post-bailout period.
Andrekos Varnava is co-editor of a new book The Archbishops of Cyprus in the Modern Age: The Changing Role of the Archbishop-Ethnarch, their Identities and Politics (published September 2013). He believes that Chrysostomos is fighting a losing battle in his latest attempt to reassert the political authority of the Church.
“The battle in my view has already been lost, the question is whether the church will keep fighting the losing battle or move on and reform and make itself relevant to society, because this it can do,” Varnava said in an email.
According to the scholar, “Chrysostomos II is merely attempting to reassert the age-old Ottoman derived authority of the Ethnarch within the prism of the 20th century nationalist Ethnarch, but in a 21st century age where the majority of Cypriots desire a contemporary and modern Cyprus with a clear division of Church and State.”
And Varnava, a senior lecturer in Imperial and Military History at FlindersUniversity (South Australia) believes Chrysostomos’s desperation to reassert the influence of the Church is reflected in his overtures to the nationalist group ELAM.
“It also reflects his opportunism in the face of potential changes to the political configuration (ELAM appeals to those who believe the politicians have failed society), rather than an ideological agreement, although he does belong to the ‘nationalist right’.”
Varnava goes on to note: “What should also be recognised is that there are bishops and lower level clergy who fundamentally oppose the principles and approach of Chrysostomos and who do not believe the church should continue to fight the losing battle. They believe that the role of the church should not be to play the antagonist or nationalist compass in order to have a political leadership role; but to play a spiritual, moral and reconciliatory (on the national question) role behind the scenes.”
Political analyst Christoforos Christoforou acknowledges that, just like any other citizen, the Archbishop certainly has the right to voice his opinion.
What troubles, he says, is not the Prelate’s interventions per se, but rather their content. Often, Chrysostomos comes across as undemocratic, intolerant and not at all very humanistic.
“For instance, woe betide anyone who disagrees with him on something he feels strongly about, such as the Cyprus issue. Like when he once branded daily Politis ‘a Greek-speaking Turkish newspaper’. That’s heavy. Or when he said something to the effect that the police should be able kick a** once in a while. And who can forget the dubious manner in which he was elected Archbishop in the first place?”
What’s more, Chrysostomos is prone to some glaring contradictions in his views and positions down the years, as on the issue of the restoration of the Apostolos Andreas monastery in the Karpas.
“He’s like a chameleon,” remarks Christoforou.
More recently, the Archbishop has upped the ante as far as his involvement in economics and finance goes. He was clearly a driving force behind a play by ex-shareholders of Bank of Cyprus (whose stock was all wiped out) to gain a say in the bank’s new powerbase.
At the end of the day, Chrysostomos managed to get one of his ‘people’ to sit on the bank’s new board – something which the cleric freely admits to and even advertises.
“The question here,” says Christoforou, “is not so much that the Archbishop wants to have a say. To some extent it’s understandable, given that Hellenic Bank – controlled by the Church – took some heavy losses when the Bank of Cyprus was restructured, which wiped out Hellenic’s stock.
“The problem, as a public figure, is that more often than not he seems to be pursuing narrow interests rather than the broader interest,” says the analyst.
On the Archbishop’s public persona, Christoforou finds him impulsive, saying the first thing that comes to his head.
Like he when he recently threatened to “lead a revolt of the people” if he saw that austerity is driving people to poverty.
Costas Constantinou is a columnist for Politis who regularly pens scathing indictments of the Church leader.
He has showered the Archbishop with a raft of tongue-in-cheek sobriquets, most notably “Scoundrel II” or “Sassy II.”
“I’ve nothing against him personally,” Constantinou tells the Sunday Mail. “Admittedly, he’s got some good qualities…he’s quite approachable and a down-to-earth guy. I just think he’s entirely the wrong man for the job.”
In his mind, the Archbishop needs to define his role: “Does he want to be a political leader or a religious leader? He’s got to decide. Because, in my view, as a spiritual figure, he just doesn’t make the cut.
“How can he possibly reconcile the fact that he’s a Christian and yet at the same time be spreading divisive messages on the Turkish Cypriots or immigrants? And the fact that he tries to gloss over the image of ELAM – which he has referred to as ‘nice guys’ – is quite frankly beyond the pale. With all that’s been happening in Greece with the far-right Golden Dawn party, how can Chrysostomos possibly maintain this outlook?”
Constantinou agrees that over the last few months the Archbishop has “lost the plot”.
“If I had to guess, I’d say he’s in a state of panic. Right or wrong, he’s in charge of a huge organisation and its finances, which are going down the drain. In addition to the losses incurred due to the bailout, the value of real estate is dropping. Things are not going well.”
That’s why, argues Constantinou, the Prelate has ramped up the rhetoric. The problem is that most of the time the Archbishop doesn’t have a clue about what he’s talking about. He just opens his mouth and lets rip.
“Why, for instance, won’t the Archbishopric appoint an expert, such as an economist, to act as spokesman? Or whenever an issue comes up, they could just release a statement. Instead, you get Chrysostomos dominating the airwaves.”
“He’s an unabashed publicity seeker, no doubt about it,” offers Constantinou.
As luck would have it, the Archbishop is the guest on a talk show airing tomorrow evening on CyBC. Now in its second season, the Tete-à-tete show is a platform for socialites, show business people and politicians.
Here are some of Chrysostomos’ quotes from the show’s teaser trailer: “I do not engage in populism”; “The Church does not engage in business, but in investments”; and “No one will shut me up.”
Amen to that.
