Church Property, Clergy Salaries, and the Questions Archbishop Ieronymos Cannot Escape

ΕΑΝ ΠΡΟΤΙΜΑΤΕ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΠΑΤΗΣΤΕ ΤΗ ΣΗΜΑΙΑ ΣΤΟ ΚΑΤΩ ΜΕΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΟΘΟΝΗΣ

By Markos (Helleniscope’s Religion Commentator)

Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens is striking back at the public debate over the government covering clergy salaries:

https://www.romfea.gr/epikairotita-xronika/77194-arxiepiskopos-ieronymos-diastrofi-ta-osa-legontai-gia-tous-misthoys

He reminds everyone that the vast majority of Church property (real estate holdings) that existed at the time of the Greek Revolution had already been donated to the Greek state, and that the arrangement in place today dates back to those land-transfer agreements.

So far, so good. However, it is a well-known “secret” that after Archbishop Christodoulos’ tenure, the Greek political establishment did not appreciate the kind of “competition” represented by a Church figure of his stature. As a result, they made sure that the next Archbishop would be a much more “silent lamb” by comparison.

Yet more deterioration of the legislative status of Church property—in favor of the government—has occurred during Ieronymos’ tenure than during many decades prior. Therefore, his sudden interest in the issue seems rather odd when viewed against a broader historical backdrop of inaction and muted responses.

EXAMPLE 1

What was the Archbishop thinking when he weakened the Church’s position by allowing the government to tax Mount Athos assets located outside Athos—something that had not been done even under the Ottoman Turks?

Under that same legislation (and, for the record, legislation affecting Church assets requires the consent of the Church of Greece in order to pass, pursuant to constitutional provisions), I have been informed by several first-hand sources that even the money collected in the pagkari is now considered taxable income that must be reported.

Did he care about ecclesiastical property and tax-exempt status back then when he allowed such laws to pass? Not even the Turks enacted this type of legislation against the Church.

EXAMPLE 2

What about his acceptance of the “haircuts” imposed during the Memoranda era, which allowed the government to reduce the number of paid clergy—and clergy salaries—across Greece? Who remembers that?

Why didn’t Ieronymos stand his ground then, but now chooses to do so when Metropolitan salaries are increased by nearly 100% and public backlash over this perceived spiritual provocation has reached a peak?

EXAMPLE 3

And while we are discussing Ieronymos’ tenure as it relates to Church property, let’s revisit another gem that was largely swept under the mainstream media rug: the curious appearance of Article 56 in an otherwise unrelated piece of government legislation in 2020.

https://www.orthodoxianewsagency.gr/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/document.pdf

Was this transfer of control—and revenue—from previously municipal cemetery churches to the local Metropolises one of the incentives or “rewards” behind the Church of Greece’s largely silent acceptance of the COVID-era lockdowns of places of worship, as many voices on the street have claimed?

If there is any truth to the rumors that these two developments were connected, did Ieronymos really believe government officials were his friends and would never trouble the Church again? Or is he simply playing the role of a “double agent” whenever it suits him?

The details of Article 56 (below) are particularly revealing. They even managed to slip in a clause in the final sentence exempting Metropolitan vehicles from a 1953 law.

The timing, the substance, and the long-term implications deserve far more scrutiny than they have received.

=====

Jun 16, 2026, www.helleniscope.com

DISCLAIMER: The views and statements expressed in this article constitute constitutionally protected opinions of this author.

TO SUPPORT HELLENISCOPE OR BECOME A SUBSCRIBER, LINK HERE!!