With the May 21 national elections approaching, the interdependent relationship between the ruling church and politicians is once again coming to the fore.

It is possible, of course, that churches can no longer serve electoral needs, as it was in the past, as a result of which, for example, back in 1925, Bishop Anthony II of Patras was forced to [Παράσχης] to ask that “divine liturgies celebrated on Sundays and other holidays be celebrated earlier, so that from 9½ in the morning the Churches should be free, so that the commissioners for the reorganization of the electoral lists can meet …” However, politicians did not fail (rather strive) today to include the Church in their election plans.

Thus, the participation of the Church in the (pre-)election process is not legalized, as before, but remains, albeit unrecognized, standardized. And let me explain: in the framework of the pre-election activities of many candidates, footage from their meeting with the local bishop is prominent. The latter, as a “good shepherd”, responds positively to relevant requests. With a clear conscience, I could agree that these meetings are aimed at seeking the blessing of the Church. In this case, it is clear that this is a manifestation on the part of the candidates of their deep-seated, turning inside out conviction towards the “uncle”, which does not need to be photographed and, moreover, was predicted and made public with a delay. When the latter happens, good intentions, perhaps understandably, take a backseat. And this is because it seems that the publication of these otherwise private moments is aimed at the religious consciousness of the voters, whose reflexes it tries to stimulate. The Church certainly (should) offer its embrace to all. That is why it cannot, of course, support individual parties, which by definition are part of society. Moreover, by virtue of its institutional position, it is obliged to coexist with any party formation that enjoys the support of the Greek people, and it often succeeds, despite the ambivalent suspicion that sometimes characterizes its relationship with the state, to promote its well-being. – intentional interests. On the contrary, it is the politicians who usually claim a privileged relationship with the church on a case-by-case basis, even if at other times they express reservations about the place and general presence of religion in the public sphere.

True, there were cases when the state was in a hurry to “use” the Church “in its own interests.” There are many examples. I will mention only two from the distant past for economy of reasoning:

1. It is impossible not to take into account that it was not the Church and, in fact, the Orthodox Church that asked for the establishment of an oath in administrative practice and courts, since it rejects it for theological reasons. On the contrary, the state has historically sought to “exploit” the religious conscience of the parties, witnesses or the governed for its own procedural or administrative purposes.

2. The state went so far as to even use the Church as an instrument of anti-criminal policy, establishing by law (1852), at the request of the party, the possibility of imposing an honorary personal excommunication by a local bishop for exposing the perpetrators of illegal actions, taking advantage of the piety of the Greek people.

I would like to end this note with two points: a) Although about seventy years have passed since April 1954, when the clergy were allowed to exercise their suffrage, “the Church is not politicized” (Archbishop Seraphim, “K”, 23.6.1981), but her constant demand (should) be the “humanization of politics” (St. Patriarch Bartholomew) and b) Jesus’ answer to Pontius Pilate’s insistent questions that “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). In this context, reducing any relationship with the Church to an electoral asset seems rather unfortunate.

* Mr. Georgios I. Androutsopoulos is Associate Professor of Ecclesiastical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Athens and a lawyer.