Why Greece recognised same-sex marriage
At first, the Greek Church, under pressure, recognized the OCU and supported the government's measures in the fight against COVID-19. Should we be surprised that they were not listened to regarding same-sex marriage?
On February 15, 2024, the Greek parliament passed a law legalizing same-sex marriages and granting homosexual couples the right to adopt children.
The parliament voted by a majority (175 against 75), with another 40 abstaining. Passions were running high before the vote.
We wrote that many Greek hierarchs were outraged by Archbishop Ieronimos's wait-and-see tactics, demanding more decisive statements and actions from him. Some metropolitans transparently hinted to the Primate that the people should be mobilized, citing the late Archbishop Christodoulos, who effectively initiated the popular movement against new passports.
Back in 2000, the Church managed to bring 150 thousand people out into the streets and gather three million signatures under a petition to the government not to decide on the introduction of new documents. Yes, the state won that battle, but many politicians realized that the Church must be reckoned with, that behind it stands the people, and behind them – power. We are witnessing a quite opposite attitude towards the Church now.
Greek authorities: "The Church must remain silent"
During the discussion of the bill, politicians and government representatives consistently emphasized that the legalization of same-sex marriage is a matter for the authorities, not the Church. In this regard, Prime Minister Mitsotakis repeated the words of Christ from the Gospel: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Later, he went even further, stating: "Render unto priests the things which are priests’, and unto couples – the things that are couples’," as if "adapting" the Saviour's words to the current situation in Greece.
In turn, some politicians "outdid" Mitsotakis, stating that homosexual relationships are not sinful. In other words, the state essentially undertook to explain moral and theological issues to the Church. At the same time, the government refused to include Church representatives in parliamentary debates on the issue of same-sex marriage, dismissing them with the phrase, "We have heard the priests, and they will not tell us anything new."
In other words, the authorities did everything to not only demonstrate their disregard for the Church's opinion but also to silence its representatives. Nevertheless, even considering the shaky positions of the Greek Church, the authorities were concerned that the Synod's firm decisions on gay marriage would provoke public outrage and protests, which, as we know, no politician wants.
The Church of Greece: "We have no right to remain silent"
That's why PM Mitsotakis and MPs tried to somehow negotiate with Archbishop Ieronimos and the Greek metropolitans. Just a few weeks before the vote, information leaked to the press that the Prime Minister and the Primate of the Greek Church had secretly met on this issue. This secrecy caused outrage among both the faithful and the hierarchs, fueling rumours that the government and the Church had reached an agreement. The situation was so tense that some bishops began collecting signatures demanding that Archbishop Ieronimos convene the Synod. It was impossible to remain silent any further, and the Primate of the Greek Church convened an extraordinary meeting of the Holy Synod himself.
The position of the metropolitans was unanimous: same-sex marriage is evil, it contradicts the teaching of the Church and the traditions of the people, and it cannot be legalized. Greece froze in anticipation of a reaction: the people awaited the government's reaction, and the government awaited the people's. But...
Very soon it became clear that the Church's stance was so weak that it could be completely disregarded. Politicians began giving interviews, in which (no longer worrying about the consequences) they explained that the decisions of the Synod would not affect the decision to legalize gay marriage.
To excommunicate or not to excommunicate?
Just a few days before the vote, the situation took strange and even comical shape. Shortly before the parliamentary session on gay marriage, the Primate of the Greek Church proposed (timidly, unclearly, with the wording "why not...") to hold a popular referendum on the matter.
It is clear that in the case of a referendum, the authorities would be in for a complete failure because at least 90% of Greeks (if not more) are against gay marriage. Therefore, the state reacted to Archbishop Ieronimos's proposal in a harsh mind-your-own-business way.
This was a serious blow to the reputation of the Church, and Archbishop Ieronimos made a move to somehow save the day by proposing a roll call vote. The hint was clear: if the deputies voted openly, the people would "draw conclusions" and the Church would know who should be excommunicated. This proposal also initially met with sharp criticism from the government but just a few hours later the authorities changed their position and accepted the Church's challenge. The vote was made open.
It should be said here that Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou called for anathema to the deputies who would vote for the legalisation of same-sex marriage. But his words did not frighten the Greek authorities.
Firstly, the Metropolitan of Morphou is a representative of the Church of Cyprus and can only withhold communion from those who come to his diocese.
Secondly, none of the Greek hierarchs dared to join his position (except for the Metropolitan of Kalavryta, who promised to punish those who voted).
Thirdly, politicians began to say that even if the Church decides to prohibit communion, it will not be an obstacle for them, and they will continue to go to church as before.
The situation appeared such that by agreeing to a roll-call vote, the government accepted the Church's challenge, making it clear that it did not expect any serious opposition from the hierarchy.
The Church and the government: what's next?
It is necessary to note here that in Greece, same-sex marriages (as well as traditional ones) will be registered through local municipalities. Officials (mayors of localities, clerks and employees of state institutions) cannot refuse to register these marriages. But priests are also, in a sense, government officials who receive salaries and collaborate very closely with the heads of municipalities. This position of the Church naturally complicates the situation and has already made many believers ask priests and metropolitans, "What's next?" So far, no one has answered this question except for Metropolitan of Kalavryta, who said, "You will see what happens next."
But even now, we can see that by legalizing same-sex marriage, politicians openly demonstrated disregard for the Church’s opinion. The authorities showed society that the Greek Church was too weak to be reckoned with. And they are largely right.
Being almost a state agency, the Greek Church constantly interacts with the authorities and has to be guided by the government's position or the "current moment" in its decisions. But most of all, the Church's authority was undermined not by this. After all, if the Gospel is put at the forefront, there is nothing wrong with the Church-state alliance.
The problem arises when the hierarchy forgets the words of Christ and listens too closely to the words of Caesar or does not argue with Caesar when he has delusions or goes against the Gospel. We can note at least two such situations in Greece recently.
Why has the Church of Greece lost its "power"?
The first such situation is the recognition of the OCU by the Greek Church. The recognition somewhat resembles the situation with legalizing same-sex marriage by the authorities: decisions were made by the leadership without considering the demands and desires of the people. The consequences of Dumenko's legitimisation still affect the life of the Greek Church, where the overwhelming majority of ordinary believers and priests, as well as many hierarchs, disagree with the OCU recognition. Transforming Dumenko from a schismatic into a "canonical" hierarch with a stroke of a pen cannot but raise questions and undermine trust in those who supported this "transformation".
The second is the attitude towards the coronavirus. Many hierarchs of the Greek Church closed churches, banned services, forced priests to be vaccinated, banned dissenters, and did not stand up for those priests who continued to serve and were persecuted by the authorities. The coronavirus, like the Tomos, showed the common faithful people that there are things more important than the Gospel for Greek hierarchs. Thus, the words about the unacceptability of same-sex marriage are no longer perceived as the words of those "who have power".
What does this mean? It shows that in the history of the Church, there are no mistakes that would not affect the life of the believing people for many centuries. On the other hand, it suggests that there are no mistakes that cannot be corrected. There are just people who, having made a mistake, are in no hurry to fix it.
