The Bishop and Secular Justice

Metr. Tychikos of Paphos, in his letter dated January 1, 2026 to the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus, informed them that he intends to appeal to the Civil Courts in order to secure a fair trial in his case. As the press has reported, Metr. Tychikos has since initiated his appeal.

In response to this letter, the Holy Synod, in its announcement of 8.1.26, states that it “examined the unacceptable, from the standpoint of ecclesiastical ethos, actions of seeking recourse to the civil courts, an action condemned by the Holy Canons,” and calls on him to “withdraw his appeal or his intention to appeal to the civil courts.”

Do the Holy Canons Forbid It? No!

The question therefore arises: Is the appeal of Metropolitan Tychikos to secular justice unacceptable “from the standpoint of ecclesiastical ethos” and contrary to the Canons? Do the Canons prohibit a clergyman from appealing to civil courts? Does the Statutory Charter of the Church of Cyprus prohibit recourse to secular justice?

First of all, it is worth noting that the Holy Synod neither substantiates nor justifies the claim that recourse to civil courts is supposedly unacceptable “from the standpoint of ecclesiastical ethos.” It also does not refer to—or even mention, as it should—any sacred Canon on which it bases the claim that recourse to secular justice is uncanonical.

Of course, there are Canons that do not allow clergymen to hold ecclesiastical justice in contempt, to refuse to make use of it, and to scheme through the civil authority (“the Emperor”) to be tried exclusively in Civil Courts and not in ecclesiastical ones. In such a case, the clergyman is subject to canonical penalties. The relevant sacred Canons are: Basil 6 (“having despised the decisions previously declared”), Dionysius 9 (“let him not abandon his own bishop”), Antioch 12 (“having disregarded these”), Carthage 15/14 (“refusing the ecclesiastical court”).

Does the appeal of Metropolitan Tychikos fall into this category forbidden by the sacred Canons? Obviously not!

From the texts published so far, and especially from his appeal submission dated June 5, 2025 to the Ecumenical Patriarchate—his most official document—Metropolitan Tychikos has neither denied nor denies the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. On the contrary, he requests to be tried by a real Ecclesiastical Court with all the provisions of the sacred Canons and the Statutory Charter of his Church. He asks to be tried properly and truly by the bodies provided for in ecclesiastical procedure (Investigative Committee, Ecclesiastical Prosecutor, Holy Synod lawfully constituted as a court). Therefore, the provisions of the above sacred Canons do not apply to the case of Metropolitan Tychikos.

Do the Holy Canons Permit It? Yes!

Moreover, there is Canon 104 of the Council of Carthage (according to the Rudder, Carthage 115), which precisely concerns the case of Metropolitan Tychikos: “It pleased [the Council] that whoever from the Emperor seeks a judgment of public courts shall be deprived of his own honor. But if he seeks an episcopal judgment from the Emperor, let nothing hinder him.”

The Canon provides that if any clergyman asks the Emperor to refer his case to be tried not in an ecclesiastical but in a civil (“public”) court, he shall be deprived of his priestly honor. But if he asks the Emperor to refer the case to an ecclesiastical court (“episcopal judgment”), he shall not be hindered and certainly not penalized.

Interpreting Carthage 104 (Rudder 115), Zonaras notes: “But if anyone… having been ordained, approaches the Emperor asking for a judgment of [civil] courts—that is, civil and governmental ones—he shall be deprived of his own honor, instead of being deposed. But if, approaching the Emperor, he asks for an episcopal court—that is, an assembly of bishops to be held by imperial command and to judge—he shall not be harmed regarding his honor.”

The same interpretive approach is followed by Balsamon: “The present Canon is clear. Ordained persons who refuse the ecclesiastical court and seek from the Emperor to have their cases judged by public judges—that is, civil ones—shall be deposed. But those who obtain imperial commands in order to be judged by bishops do no harm.”

Aristenus interprets: “He who seeks a public judgment from the Emperor is not a bishop. A bishop or clergyman accused of crimes, who refuses the ecclesiastical court and seeks civil judges from the Emperor, shall be deprived of his own honor.”

Finally, St. Nicodemus in the Rudder, interpreting Carthage 104 (Rudder Carthage 115), writes: “The present Canon ordains that any bishop or clergyman who seeks from the Emperor to have his case judged in civil courts shall be deposed. But if he seeks from the Emperor an ecclesiastical court—that is, that bishops be gathered by his command and consider his case—then he shall not be penalized as having done something improper. For all the Ecumenical and Local Synods were gathered in this way, that is, by Imperial command.”

Related to Carthage 104 (Carthage 115 in the Rudder) is also Carthage 15 (Carthage 14 in the Rudder), which likewise sets as a condition for the penalty whether the clergyman, “refusing the ecclesiastical court, wishes to be cleared by public courts.”

However, as we have already mentioned, Metropolitan Tychikos not only does not refuse but has repeatedly emphasized that he desires to be tried by an ecclesiastical court, while observing the procedural provisions of the sacred canons and the Statutory Charter.

In his letter dated September 5, 2025 to the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metr. Tychikos noted: “If again You judge that the accusations must be examined, I beg You to refer my case to the Church of Cyprus for a just judgment, obliging Her, however, to respect the procedural guarantees of the sacred Canons, the Statutory Charter, and the International Conventions on fair trial.” He goes on to say:

<< In the opposite case in which… the Patriarchal Synod itself [wishes] to judge the substance of the accusations, I warmly request, for a more accurate ascertainment of reality and truth, that the following be called to testify: (A) His Beatitude George, Archbishop of Cyprus, (B) the persons mentioned in the document which His Beatitude read during the session of 22 May of this year… (C) the prosecution witnesses whom the Archbishop will propose, and (D) the defense witnesses whom I have to propose and who are already ready and earnestly request to testify with knowledge of the case. Finally, for these reasons, I beg that I be given the opportunity to examine the above-mentioned witnesses, so that Your Holy Synod may acquire clear and full knowledge of the baselessness of the accusations against me and be facilitated in its final decision. >>

In other words, Metr. Tychikos not only does not refuse but insistently requests to be tried by an ecclesiastical Court, while observing the canonical provisions for a fair trial.

The Statutory Charter Permits It, Too!

Furthermore, the Statutory Charter of the Church of Cyprus provides that the secular Cypriot justice system can review the ecclesiastical judges in the exercise of their duties! More specifically, article 48 (Appendix B II of the Statutory Charter) provides that an ecclesiastical trial is repeated “provided that a substantial breach of duty by the judge, in relation to the specific trial, has arisen, verified or strongly presumed after judicial examination before an ecclesiastical or state judicial authority, even if it did not result in the conviction of the judge.”

Analyzing this provision, it emerges that in the Statutory Charter of the Church of Cyprus it is provided that the “state judicial authority”—that is, Cyprus’s civil courts—may examine whether in an ecclesiastical trial procedure “a substantial breach of duty by the judge has arisen.” Moreover, if this breach is “verified or strongly presumed,” then the ecclesiastical trial is repeated!

We therefore understand the anxiety of the Archdiocese of Cyprus if the Cypriot Supreme Court wishes to examine whether there was a “substantial breach” in the proceedings of May 22, 2025 by which Metr. Tychikos was declared deposed!

It is obvious that the utilization of this possibility by Metr. Tychikos, which the Statutory Charter itself provides, does not constitute a canonical offense.

Moreover, it does not constitute an insult to the Church of Cyprus nor an undermining of its autocephaly. On the contrary, it protects the Body of Christ from the unjust judgments of the hierarchy. For it is an insult to the dignity and autocephaly of the Church when ecclesiastical leaders feel that their obviously unjust judicial decisions against their subordinates are unaccountable.

Consider, too, that the Patriarchal Synod itself (in its decision of October 17, 2025) accepted the main reasoning of Metr. Tychikos’s appeal submission and admitted the Cypriot Synod committed certain procedural “omissions”—essentially grounds for nullity. Who will restore ecclesiastical order when the competent ecclesiastical Leaders refuse to do so? This restoration of ecclesiastical order is what Article 48 (Appendix B II of the Statutory Charter) comes to impose.

Finally, of particular interest is Circular No. 2300/9.10.1981 of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, by which the clergy are very politely and delicately urged to avoid appealing to secular courts, being content only with recourse to the Holy Synod. Nevertheless, the Hierarchy does not completely prohibit recourse to the secular justice system nor impose canonical penalties:

And because it is possible for one among you to claim that in this way he is supposedly deprived of a legal right enjoyed by every Greek citizen, we observe that we do not wish to deprive you of your right to judge your cases at a higher level. We do, however, want you to understand that our deep desire is that in such cases you resort to the Supreme Ecclesiastical body, i.e., the Holy Synod, which is in a position to judge your case most justly and to restore any injustices that may have been committed.

The Hierarchy of Greece concludes: “Do not doubt that the Hierarchs who from time to time constitute this sacred Body, inspired by the same spirit of Christian justice and love, will perform their duty in full and will satisfy your thirst for justice in the best possible way.”

If the above statements by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece had been applied in the Church of Cyprus during the last six months, there would have been no reason at all for Metr. Tychikos to “seek from the Emperor (i.e., the Cypriot justice system) an ecclesiastical court, that is, that bishops be gathered by his command and consider his case” (St. Nicodemus), that is, to judge according to the applicable provisions. Since, therefore, what the Hierarchy of Greece describes does not exist in Cyprus, Metr. Tychikos was forced to appeal to “Caesar,” to the secular Cypriot courts, requesting a fair ecclesiastical trial. And for this reason, according to the Rudder, “he shall not be penalized as having done something improper.”

In Conclusion

The sacred Canons forbid clergymen to despise ecclesiastical justice, to refuse to be tried in ecclesiastical judicial bodies, and to scheme through secular authority to be tried by secular Justice. On the contrary, the sacred Canons permit clergymen to seek the assistance of the civil authority so that they may be tried in ecclesiastical Courts according to the sacred canons and the relevant ecclesiastical provisions (e.g., Statutory Charter).

Finally, the Statutory Charter of the Church of Cyprus provides the possibility for the secular justice system of the Republic of Cyprus to remedy bad rulings by ecclesiastical courts by performing a review of the conduct of ecclesiastical judges in a specific trial. If a “substantial breach by the judge” is verified or strongly presumed, the trial is repeated.

Of course, we cannot prejudge or know the outcome of an appeal to civil Courts. What we do know very well, however, is that ecclesiastical history has shown that St. John Chrysostom died far from his province, deposed, exiled, defrocked, and excommunicated, yet he remains forever through the ages the great Chrysostom! And together with him, the few who stood by him—persecuted, hunted, deposed, and excommunicated by the then all-powerful and audacious ecclesiastical authority of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch…

Because the final word in the Church always belongs to Christ Himself!

This article was originally published by the UOJ's Greece bureau.