Bishop and secular justice

Metropolitan Tychikos of Paphos, in his letter of January 8, 2026 to the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus, stated that he intends to appeal – and, as the press has written, has already appealed – to the civil courts, in order to secure a fair hearing in his case.

In response to this letter, the Holy Synod, in its communiqué of January 8, 2026, notes that it “considered his actions of appealing to civil courts – actions unacceptable from the standpoint of ecclesiastical ethics and condemned by the sacred canons,” and calls on him “to withdraw his appeal, or his intention to appeal, to the civil courts.”

Do the sacred canons forbid this? No!

A question thus arises: is Metropolitan Tychikos’ appeal to secular justice truly “unacceptable from the standpoint of ecclesiastical ethics” and contrary to the canons? Do the sacred canons forbid a cleric to seek redress in civil courts? Does the Charter of the Church of Cyprus forbid recourse to secular justice?

First of all, it must be noted that the communiqué (08 January 2026) does not substantiate or argue its claim that resorting to civil courts is allegedly unacceptable “from the standpoint of ecclesiastical ethics.” Nor does it cite – or even mention (as it ought to have) – a single sacred canon in support of the assertion that recourse to secular justice contradicts the canons.

Undoubtedly, there are canons that do not allow clerics to disregard ecclesiastical justice, to refuse it, and to act through secular authority (“the king”) so as to litigate exclusively in civil courts rather than in ecclesiastical ones. In such a case, a cleric is subject to canonical penalties. The relevant sacred canons are: Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council (“having disregarded what is prescribed”); Canon 9 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (“let him not leave his bishop”); Canon 12 of the Council of Antioch (“having disregarded this”); and Canon 15 of the Council of Carthage (or Carthage 14 in certain enumerations) (“rejecting the ecclesiastical court”).

Does Metropolitan Tychikos’ appeal fall under the case prohibited by these sacred canons? Certainly not.

From the texts published thus far, and especially from his appellate petition of June 5, 2025 to the Ecumenical Patriarchate – the most official of his documents – Metropolitan Tychikos did not deny and does not deny the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. On the contrary: he asks to be judged by a genuine ecclesiastical tribunal, with all the prescriptions of the sacred canons and the Charter of his Church observed. He asks to be judged properly and truthfully by the bodies provided by ecclesiastical procedural law (an Investigative Commission, an ecclesiastical prosecutor, the Holy Synod, lawfully convened as a judicial body). Consequently, the provisions of the aforementioned sacred canons are not applicable to the case of Metropolitan Tychikos.

Do the sacred canons permit this? Yes!

Moreover, there exists Canon 104 of the Council of Carthage (in the Rudder: Carthage 115), which directly concerns the case of Metropolitan Tychikos: “It has pleased [the Council] that whoever asks the king to transfer a case to the public courts shall be deprived of his rank. But if he asks the king for an episcopal court, let no one hinder him.”

The canon provides that if any cleric asks the king to transfer his case for hearing not to an ecclesiastical court but to a civil (“public”) court, he is deprived of his sacred rank. But if he asks the king to transfer the case to an ecclesiastical (“episcopal”) court, no one is to hinder him – and, of course, he is not punished.

Interpreting Carthage 104 (Rudder 115), Zonaras notes: if, says this canon, someone who is a priest comes to the king asking that his case be sent to the public courts – that is, civil and secular courts – he shall be deprived of his rank, that is, deposed. But if, coming to the king, he asks for an episcopal tribunal – namely, a gathering of bishops convened by royal command and hearing the case – he will incur no penalty.

Balsamon explains the canon in the same sense: the canon is clear; it determines that priests must be deposed if they reject the ecclesiastical court and ask the king to have their cases judged by public judges, that is, civil ones. But those who obtain royal orders so that bishops may judge them will suffer no harm.

Aristenos comments: he who asks the king for a public court is no bishop. A bishop or cleric accused of crimes, who rejects the ecclesiastical court and asks the king for secular judges, shall be deprived of his rank.

Finally, Saint Nikodemos, interpreting Carthage 104 (Rudder Carthage 115), writes that this canon determines that every bishop or cleric who asks the king to judge his case in civil courts is subject to deposition. But if he asks the king for an ecclesiastical court, that is, for bishops to assemble by his command and examine his case, then he will not be punished as one who has acted improperly. For all councils, ecumenical and local, were gathered in this manner – by imperial command.

Connected with Carthage 104 (Rudder Carthage 115) is Carthage 15 (Rudder Carthage 14), which likewise makes the imposition of penalties conditional on the fact that a cleric, “rejecting the ecclesiastical court, desires to be judged by public courts.”

However, as we have already noted, Metropolitan Tychikos not only does not refuse ecclesiastical justice, but repeatedly stresses that he desires to be judged by an ecclesiastical court – while insisting that the procedural prescriptions of the sacred canons and the Charter be observed.

In his letter of September 5, 2025 to the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Tychikos wrote: “If you deem that the complaints should be examined, I ask that you remit my case to the Church of Cyprus for a fair trial, obliging it, however, to observe the procedural guarantees of the sacred canons, the Charter, and the international conventions on a fair trial… Otherwise, if… the Patriarchal Synod itself [wishes] to judge the substance of the complaints, I ask insistently, for the more exact establishment of reality and truth, that you summon for examination: His Beatitude Archbishop Georgios of Cyprus; the persons mentioned in the document which His Beatitude read at the session of May 22; the witnesses for the prosecution whom the Archbishop may propose; and the witnesses for the defense whom I intend to propose, who are already prepared and, in particular, ask to testify with full knowledge of the matter. Finally, for these reasons I ask that I be granted the opportunity to question the above-mentioned witnesses, so that Your Holy Synod may gain a clear and complete understanding of the groundlessness of the accusations brought against me and so that it may facilitate your making a final decision.”

In other words,

Metropolitan Tychikos not only does not refuse, but persistently asks, to be judged by an ecclesiastical court – provided, however, that the canonical prescriptions concerning a fair trial are observed.

The Charter permits this!

Furthermore, the Charter of the Church of Cyprus contains a provision under which the secular judiciary of Cyprus is entitled to exercise oversight over the activity of ecclesiastical judges. Thus, Article 48 (Appendix B II of the Charter) provides that an ecclesiastical trial is subject to review “in the event that a substantial breach of a judge’s duties in relation to a particular judicial process is revealed, confirmed or established with a high degree of probability in the course of judicial consideration by an ecclesiastical or state judicial body, even if this has not resulted in the judge’s conviction.”

An analysis of this provision shows that the Charter of the Church of Cyprus grants a “state judicial body,” that is, the secular judiciary of the Republic of Cyprus, authority to verify whether there was a “substantial breach of a judge’s duties” in a given ecclesiastical trial. If such a breach is confirmed, or its likelihood is established to a high degree, the ecclesiastical trial is repeated. One can thus understand the concern of the Archbishopric of Cyprus at the possibility that the Supreme Court of Cyprus might address whether there was a “substantial breach” in the process of May 22, 2025, as a result of which Metropolitan Tychikos was declared deposed.

It is evident that Metropolitan Tychikos’ use of this possibility – a possibility granted by the Charter itself – does not constitute a canonical offense.

Moreover, it is not an insult to the Church of Cyprus nor an infringement upon its self-governance; on the contrary, it protects the Body of Christ from unjust decisions of leadership. For what truly offends the dignity and self-governance of the Church is the sentiment among certain primates that their manifestly unjust judicial decisions concerning subordinates are beyond any control. This is all the more so when the Patriarchal Synod (17 October 2025) acknowledges the basic substance of Metropolitan Tychikos’ appellate petition and notes procedural “omissions” – in essence, grounds for the nullity of the process – yet the competent ecclesiastical primates refuse to restore order. Who, then, will restore ecclesiastical order? This is precisely what Article 48 (Appendix B II of the Charter) is meant to ensure.

Finally, of particular interest is Circular Encyclical No. 2300 of October 9, 1981 of the hierarchy of the Church of Greece, which, with great delicacy and tact, urges clerics to avoid resort to secular courts, limiting themselves to appeals to the Holy Synod.

Even so, the hierarchy does not impose an absolute prohibition on approaching secular justice and does not lay canonical penalties, noting: since someone among you may claim that in this way he is allegedly deprived of the lawful right enjoyed by every Greek citizen, we observe that we do not wish to deprive you of the right to refer your matters to a higher instance, but we want you to understand that our deep desire is that in such cases you should appeal to the highest ecclesiastical authority – the Holy Synod – which is able to judge your case justly and correct possible injustices.

The Greek hierarchy then concludes: do not doubt that the hierarchs composing this sacred body, imbued with the same spirit of Christian justice and love, will fulfill their duty fully and will, in the best possible manner, satisfy your thirst for justice.

Had the principles described by the hierarchy of the Church of Greece been observed in Cyprus over the past six months, Metropolitan Tychikos would not have had to “ask the king” (the Cypriot judiciary) for an ecclesiastical court so that bishops might assemble by his command and examine his case (Saint Nikodemos) – that is, so that they might judge him according to canonical order. But since such conditions do not exist in Cyprus, Metropolitan Tychikos found himself compelled to seek the assistance of “Caesar” – to appeal to the secular Cypriot judiciary with a request for a fair ecclesiastical hearing. For this reason, according to the Rudder, “he will not be punished as one who has done something improper.”

Conclusions

The sacred canons forbid clerics to disregard ecclesiastical justice, to evade ecclesiastical trial, and to secure through secular authority the adjudication of their case in secular courts. On the contrary, the sacred canons permit clerics to seek assistance from secular authority so that they may be judged by an ecclesiastical court on the basis of the sacred canons and the corresponding ecclesiastical statutes (for example, the Charter).

Finally, the Charter of the Church of Cyprus provides the secular judiciary of the Republic of Cyprus with the possibility of correcting injustices of ecclesiastical justice, by judicially reviewing the conduct of ecclesiastical judges in a particular process. If a “substantial breach by a judge” of his duties is confirmed, or reasonably likely, the trial is repeated.

Of course, we cannot predetermine or know the outcome of the appeal to civil courts. But what we do know very well is this: church history has shown that Saint John Chrysostom died far from his eparchy – deposed, exiled, banned, and excommunicated – and yet he remains forever, through the ages, the great Chrysostom. And with him stand the few who supported him – persecuted, driven out, stripped of rank, and excommunicated by the then all-powerful and audacious ecclesiastical authorities of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch…

Because the final word in the Church always remains with Christ Himself.

Thanks be to God.