The Church of Greece under Axis Occupation

Panteleymon Anastasakis

• Publisher: Fordham University Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780823262014
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

Axis forces (Germany, Italy, and Bulgaria) occupied Greece from 1941 to 1944. The unimaginable hardships caused by foreign occupation were compounded by the flight of the government days before enemy forces reached Athens. This national crisis forced the Church of Greece, an institution accustomed to playing a central political and social role during times of crisis, to fill the political vacuum. Led by Archbishop Damaskinos of Athens, the clergy sought to maintain the cultural, spiritual, and territorial integrity of the nation during this harrowing period. Circumstances forced the clergy to create a working relationship with the major political actors, including the Axis authorities, their Greek allies, and the growing armed resistance movements, especially the communist-led National Liberation Front. In so doing the church straddled a fine line between collaboration and resistance—individual clerics, for instance, negotiated with Axis authorities to gain small concessions, while simultaneously resisting policies deemed detrimental to the nation.Drawing on official archives—of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the British Foreign Office, the U.S. State Department, and the Greek Holy Synod—alongside an impressive breadth of published literature, this book provides a refreshingly nuanced account of the Greek clergy's complex response to the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II. The author's comprehensive portrait of the reaction of Damaskinos and his colleagues, including tensions and divisions within the clergy, provides a uniquely balanced exploration of the critical role they played during the occupation. It helps readers understand how and why traditional institutions such as the Church played a central social and political role in moments of social upheaval and distress. Indeed, as this book convincingly shows, the Church was the only institution capable of holding Greek society together during World War II.While The Church of Greece under Axis Occupation elucidates the significant differences between the Greek case and those of other territories in Axis-occupied Europe, it also offers fresh insight into the similarities. Greek clerics dealt with many of the same challenges clerics faced in other parts of Hitler's empire, including exceptionally brutal reprisal policies, deprivation and hunger, and the complete collapse of the social and political order caused by years of enemy occupation. By examining these challenges, this illuminating new book is an important contribution not only to Greek historiography but also to the broader literatures on the Holocaust, collaboration and resistance during World War II, and church–state relations during times of crisis.

1

Historical Background

Church–State Relations from the Ottoman Period to the Eve of World War II (1453–1939)

Traditional interpretations of the autocephalous Church of Greece have, since its establishment in 1833, presented it as a tool of the Greek state. Wanting to reduce the role played by organized religion in political affairs, modern Greece’s founding fathers legally bound the church to the state and limited its role to spiritual affairs. Moreover, some secular leaders hoped to weaken the allegiance of the population to the church by substituting its religion with nationalism as the main criteria of identification. This assault on the power of the church and its influence in society met with limited success for several reasons. First, during four centuries of Ottoman rule prior to independence, ecclesiastical leaders played a crucial role in preserving Greek culture. This experience made religion synonymous with Hellenism, and Greeks continued to see the church as a powerful political and social force. As Charles Frazee puts it, “What they [secular leaders] misjudged was the ability of their Greek countrymen to absorb both Hellenism and Orthodoxy, in fact, to identify them.”1 Second, due to the failure of the political establishment to provide, on a consistent basis, even basic public goods, the population lost faith in the state and continued to rely on the church. In short, powerful traditional perceptions of the church and the shortcomings of secular authorities enabled the church to continue as a social and political force—especially during periods of crisis, such as World War II and the Axis occupation.

This chapter traces the development of church–state relations in Greek history from the fall of Constantinople (1453) to the eve of World War II (1939–45). This development has three important phases. During the first period (1453–1821), the patriarch of Constantinople became an ethnarch (national leader), a role that included administrative as well as legal responsibilities. For much of the period these responsibilities required the church leadership to act as intermediary between the Orthodox population and the Ottoman authorities. In addition, the church played the role of national custodian, preserving the religious and cultural identity of the Greek-speaking population by maintaining Greek-language schools and publishing a rich body of literature. Second, the period of the Greek Revolution (1821–30) witnessed a division within the church and the emergence of the role of clergymen as rebel leaders, because a faction of the clergy played an important role during the early stages of the independence movement. Third, the period between the later stages of the revolution and the enactment of the first ecclesiastical charter of modern Greece in 1833 saw efforts by secular authorities to turn the church into a department of state and limit its role to spiritual affairs. These efforts met with partial success, as the state managed to reduce the role of the clerics in governmental affairs, even though the church continued to wield significant influence in the broader social and political life. Despite legally transforming the church into a department of state, the failure of the Greek governments to establish an efficient bureaucratic machinery capable of meeting the demands of the population allowed the church to play a role in society exceeding that prescribed by the new legally set parameters. This historical background elaborating on the role of organized religion in Greek tradition is essential for understanding how the Greek Church participated in the political and social life of the country during World War II.

Among the most important popular images of a Greek hierarch remains that of ethnarch, a role established by historical fact and a series of myths based on the response of the church hierarchy during the period of Ottoman rule (1453–1833). Emerging during Hellenism’s greatest crisis (the fall of Constantinople in 1453), the image convinced the Greeks that their religious leaders could be effective national leaders during periods of crisis, well after the creation of the modern Greek state. During the declining years of the Byzantine Empire beginning in the thirteenth century, political elites attempted to curb the advance of the Ottoman Turks by eliciting the assistance of other Christian states, especially from Western Europe.2 These efforts were ineffectual due to the strength and influence of a powerful group of clergy, who represented the general population’s disapproval of such a policy. Some historians argue that opponents of union with Rome were partly motivated by “ethnic” reasons, believing that such a policy posed a threat to their identity. Among the most important members of the clergy who successfully thwarted the efforts of the secular authorities was Georgios Scholarios (better known by his ecclesiastical name, Gennadios), who later became patriarch of Constantinople.3 This individual caught the attention of the conquering sultan, Mehmet II, who hoped to exploit this anti-Western sentiment among the Greek population and ensure their fidelity to the new Ottoman state.4

Aware of the potential financial value of tax revenues from his Greek subjects and wary of a Western response to the taking of the city, Mehmet II hoped to establish a strong bond between the Greek population and the state. To that end, and influenced by Islamic tradition and conscious of the anti-Western sentiment among the Greek population, Mehmet elevated Gennadios to the position of patriarch of Constantinople and expanded the role of patriarch to that of ethnarch.5 According to Islamic tradition, Mohammed and his successors called for the respect of the Ahl al-Kitâb, or religious communities that possess “holy scriptures,” such as Christians and Jews. Islamic states, therefore, permitted these communities to practice their religion openly and enjoy semiautonomy in return for paying their taxes and remaining loyal to the state. The millet system, as it is best known, became the standard approach adopted by most Muslim states, including the Ottoman Empire, to govern their non-Muslim subjects.6 Though considered tolerant for its time, this system treated members of these communities as second-class subjects at best.7 Despite its shortcomings, the system permitted the Greek community to maintain its cultural and religious identity throughout the period of Turkish rule, thanks largely to the efforts of the church and a select group of Greek intellectuals in the Diaspora.8

The well-established bureaucratic tradition of the Orthodox Church and the Ottoman theocratic form of government made the church the ideal vehicle to ensure that its flock paid taxes regularly and remained loyal to the state. Prior to 1453, the church, legally speaking, concerned itself exclusively with the spiritual well-being of its flock. Under the Ottoman system, it became a lay administrator, judge, and tax collector for the Orthodox community. As Steven Runciman puts it, “He [the patriarch] had become the local Caesar as well as the deputy to God.”9 The nature of the system meant that Christian subjects of the empire had little direct contact with the Ottoman state.10

These developments caused mixed feelings among the population toward the hierarchy, especially as corruption within the church grew in proportion to its role as a bureaucratic institution. Ambitious clergymen continually increased the financial burden of their flock, from whom they expected funds to pay taxes as well as bribe Ottoman officials for political favors.11 The harmful influence of the Phanariotes, a small group of wealthy Greeks residing primarily in the capital, contributed to the growing popular resentment toward the church hierarchy.12 Moved by excessive and unjust clerical practices and motivated by Enlightenment ideas, Greek intellectuals in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century articulated this resentment toward the church.13 Adamantios Korais was probably the most severe critic of abusive church practices. Korais and other Greek intellectuals believed that the church remained a major impediment to emancipation from Turkish rule and the establishment of an independent Greek state.14 Nevertheless, as the Ottoman government shifted from an efficient expanding empire to a declining state, Ottoman policies toward the Greek subjects became harsher and led the population to continue to lean on the church leadership. Reliance on the hierarchy continued to influence relations between the church and the general population well after independence. After all, governmental arbitrariness did not end with the creation of the modern Greek state.15

In addition to playing the role of intermediary between the Greek population and the Ottoman authorities, the church contributed to the preservation of the Orthodox faith, Greek culture, and the Greek language, thereby maintaining the Greek population’s distinct identity. This role of cultural “custodian” won the church the admiration and respect of apologists and critics alike.16 Today’s official church position continues to emphasize the role played by the church and the sacrifices made by its clergy during the period under discussion.17 Even education was closely identified with the efforts of the church throughout much of the Ottoman period. Central in these efforts was the establishment and maintenance of educational institutions that trained talented Greeks to administer to the needs of the population.18

A prominent feature in the church’s effort to preserve Greek culture was the publication of a rich body of ecclesiastical literature.19 In fact, ecclesiastical literature constitutes the majority of the Neohellenic literature produced during the Ottoman period.20 As Theodore Papadopoullos reminds us, “The quantity of the literary production actually known constitutes an indication of the maintenance throughout the whole period, of a serious literary tradition, and of a great number of learned men.”21 Another group credited with the preservation of Greek cultural life during the Ottoman period consisted of Greek intellectuals living in the diaspora. Many of these intellectuals (logoioi) helped pave the way for the Greek Enlightenment. For example, they advanced the cause of changing the curriculum of Greek schools in general and ecclesiastical schools in particular. Theophile Korydalleus counted among the most accomplished of this group.22 Frequently, these individuals and progressive clerics clashed with the more traditional elements of the church, conflicts that became more serious during the years immediately preceding the revolution of 1821.

On the whole, as a conservative institution, the church rejected Western thought that espoused a direct challenge to the existing political system, maintaining that to support such ideas would pose a serious threat to the moral fabric of society and the existence of the Orthodox community in the empire. After all, the Ottoman Empire permitted the Christian population to practice its faith. Furthermore, Enlightenment ideas were challenging the position of the church as the leading force of the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire. In short, Enlightenment ideas ran counter to the canons of the faith and the church’s worldview.

This ecclesiastical position raised the ire of many Greek intellectuals, who criticized the church for its servility to Ottoman authority and for opposing the creation of an independent Greek state.23 Many conservative church leaders, including the patriarchs of Constantinople, had their own visions of an independent Greek political entity.24 The intellectual divisions, however, that arose earlier in the Ottoman period led a group of clergymen to sympathize with many Enlightenment ideas. Even this group, however, remained divided over when and how to establish such a state. This division within the church led to both the desire for the creation of a separate autocephalous Greek Church and the emergence of a new image of the church leadership during periods of crisis, that of the clergyman as rebel leader.

The response of the official church to the ideas of the Enlightenment was swift and vigorous. In 1777, for instance, Patriarch Sophronios II of Constantinople condemned the teachings of Voltaire.25 The attack against these ideas continued and intensified after the French Revolution.26 Paternal Teachings, published in 1798, best articulated the church’s position regarding the spread and influence of such ideas.27 The rationale behind the stance of the church appears consistent with its ethnarchic role. The church’s mission throughout the period was to preserve the Hellenism which existed in 1453, deeply steeped in Orthodox theology and in the context of a multi-ethnic empire. Papadopoullos articulates the church’s position as follows: “To preserve what had survived the catastrophe [the fall of Constantinople] … we can say that the Church carried out, through many vicissitudes, rather or less successfully by adapting itself to the conditions imposed by necessity.” While he explains what events influenced the mind-set of the church throughout the Ottoman period, Papadopoullos goes on to discuss how this way of thinking later prevented the official church from playing a similar role in the Greek War of Independence. As he describes the situation, “When the modern national conscience awoke, the Church could not be expected to assume a role, that of fostering and conducting the Revolution, which was directly in contradiction with its nature and constitution … for the Church’s role had en...