Abstract
Concerning the attitude of the Orthodox Church of Greece (hereafter GOC)
towards the EU since 1998, one ought to distinguish two different periods on the
basis of fundamentally dissimilar strategic, essentially political, approaches. The
eras of Archbishops Christodoulos and Hieronymos II diverged markedly,
considering the differences in personality but also of the tasks at hand, as those
were co-dictated by the circumstances of the time. As regards Christodoulos, it
has been well established that interventionism in extra-ecclesiastical,
predominantly political affairs was part of his agenda and polity.1 This was
variably supported by the Holy Synod of the GOC, at times reluctantly or
otherwise wholeheartedly. In fact it would not be out of order to maintain that
this attitude exceeded national boundaries; particularly as regards the intra-
European fermentations in dealing with the formulation of an EU Constitutional
Treaty under construction and all that it ought to articulate, what its group-personhood – if any – stands for, what it represents and what its essence is,
including its religiocultural identity. It is in fact worth mentioning a few examples along those lines, by focusing on the relationship of the GOC with the European Union and its institutions, in order to better capture the context and broader political conditions of the time. If anything, they are indicative of an attitude, ultimately an agenda that took shape in practice. However, it is pertinent to also take into account the relationship of the modern Greek state with the EU, in order to better appreciate the political context and culture within which the GOC operates.
towards the EU since 1998, one ought to distinguish two different periods on the
basis of fundamentally dissimilar strategic, essentially political, approaches. The
eras of Archbishops Christodoulos and Hieronymos II diverged markedly,
considering the differences in personality but also of the tasks at hand, as those
were co-dictated by the circumstances of the time. As regards Christodoulos, it
has been well established that interventionism in extra-ecclesiastical,
predominantly political affairs was part of his agenda and polity.1 This was
variably supported by the Holy Synod of the GOC, at times reluctantly or
otherwise wholeheartedly. In fact it would not be out of order to maintain that
this attitude exceeded national boundaries; particularly as regards the intra-
European fermentations in dealing with the formulation of an EU Constitutional
Treaty under construction and all that it ought to articulate, what its group-personhood – if any – stands for, what it represents and what its essence is,
including its religiocultural identity. It is in fact worth mentioning a few examples along those lines, by focusing on the relationship of the GOC with the European Union and its institutions, in order to better capture the context and broader political conditions of the time. If anything, they are indicative of an attitude, ultimately an agenda that took shape in practice. However, it is pertinent to also take into account the relationship of the modern Greek state with the EU, in order to better appreciate the political context and culture within which the GOC operates.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Coping with Change |
| Subtitle of host publication | Orthodox Christian Dynamics between Tradition, Innovation,and Realpolitik |
| Editors | Vasilios N. Makrides, Sebastian Rimestad |
| Publisher | Peter Lang |
| Pages | 127 - 146 |
| ISBN (Print) | 978-3-631-67146 |
| Publication status | Published - 6 Jul 2020 |