In an interview with orthodoxtimes.com, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia, Professor of Theology at the University of Athens, shares his views on several key issues concerning the Church.
Metropolitan Chrysostomos reflects on the legacy and role of each Archbishop, addresses the issue of Church–State relations, and expresses opposition to business and investment initiatives aimed at exploiting ecclesiastical property.
He also expresses his belief that peace is the only path toward resolving the Ukrainian issue, while noting that the Russian Orthodox Church has attempted—and continues to attempt—an intrusion in the Church of Greece, similar to its actions in Africa and against the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
He shares his views on the election of the new Pope Leo, while regarding artificial intelligence, he believes it is significantly overrated and will ultimately prove to deliver less than it promises.
Regarding the recently passed legislation on same-sex marriage, he predicts the emergence of new challenges, particularly of a pastoral nature, which the Church will inevitably be called to address.
Read the interview of Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Messinia with Efi Efthimiou, published on orthodoxtimes.com.
Q: The late Archbishop Christodoulos introduced a spirit of extroversion to the Church, attracting many young people to its life. The current Archbishop Ieronymos has chosen a more moderate path, prioritizing the achievement of goals related to the Church as an organization. In your view, what should be the main priorities of a hierarch in the 21st century—especially in the era of artificial intelligence—for the Church to remain a meaningful point of reference in Greek society?
A: It is true that each Archbishop leaves his own mark, shaped by the unique characteristics of his personality and interests.
Each has sought to serve our Church and has made an impact on society in their own way. Whether they succeeded or not will be judged by history and the future. Therefore, as you can understand, no “seasonal” trait can define the “pastoral imprint” of each Archbishop.
The Church—and especially the Orthodox Church—has always opened itself to the world and engaged in dialogue with it, without becoming secularized. This balance is delicate and challenging, and it can sometimes lead to deviations. The safeguards for the criteria of its application are tradition, theology, and ecclesiastical conviction; otherwise, the Church’s preaching may easily fluctuate between populist rhetoric and rigid repetition, while ecclesiastical ministry may operate within the confines of timid introversion or uncontrolled activism.
The Church in general, and the Orthodox Church in particular, cannot function as a “closed” caste, nor can it be reduced to a form of entrepreneurship. The Church becomes a true point of reference when it is able to—and indeed does—make a meaningful difference in relation to the world, especially for young people and the challenges they face. These challenges arise not only from social or economic upheavals, but primarily from their isolation, which often leads to painful consequences—psychological, personal, and relational. The Church is called to provide answers to existential questions, matters of life and death, and to affirm the value and necessity of hope.
In other words, it must offer meaning to life’s purpose and significance—something that modern technology, unfortunately, tends to distort or diminish when it turns human beings into utilitarian objects and dictates their lives by offering them alternative orientations. Technology is acceptable and even welcome when it serves as a useful tool (instrumentum), but when it transforms into a mode or category of existence—when it takes on an ontological role in relation to the human person—it becomes quite dangerous.
I would like to refer specifically to artificial intelligence (AI), which I believe is significantly overrated and will ultimately prove to offer less than it promises. This means that the relationship between the Church and its faithful cannot be defined, replaced, or substituted by any technological invention—let alone have its boundaries and terms dictated by it. This relationship is one of freedom and, therefore, of life itself.
Q: What is the current state of Church–State relations? What is your view on the possibility of separating the Church from the State?
A: In order to achieve a creative and effective relationship between Church and State, separation is not the solution. Instead, what is needed is the consolidation of the principle of solidarity within the framework of their distinct roles.
A cooperative relationship between the two institutions has historically proven to be beneficial for Greek society, functioning positively over time—provided that there is no overreach or overlap. Whenever this framework has not been respected, issues of legality and canonicality have arisen. In other words, when there is interference in the Church’s interna corporis or an attempt to abolish its self-governance, or when the Church interferes in the internal affairs of the State, both democracy is undermined, and the Church risks becoming politicized and secularized.
Q: How do you think the Church of Greece should manage its property? Should it adopt a more extroverted approach (investing and seeking opportunities to maximize revenue), or a more conservative one?
A: Such investment and business initiatives fall outside the character and identity of the Orthodox Church of Greece. In other Christian Churches with a parallel state structure, they may be “justified,” but for the Orthodox Church, they are contrary to its pastoral mission and the nature of its charitable work.
In the past, similar proposals were made but were “nipped in the bud.”
The use of ecclesiastical property—which is not as vast as some might imagine—requires a comprehensive inventory and evaluation, which has yet to be conducted. In other words, what is needed is an “ecclesiastical cadastre.” Only on the basis of this can we explore ways to utilize church property, and even then, strictly within the framework of pastoral needs—not for profit, as some might assume to be the only purpose of such utilization.
The increase, maintenance, and use of ecclesiastical property cannot be approached from a business or investment standpoint by the Church itself, especially when such entrepreneurship in any way compromises the Church’s ecclesial character.
Q: Six years after the granting of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine by the Ecumenical Patriarch, expectations do not seem to have been fulfilled. Concord and union under one Church have not been achieved as anticipated, and the rate at which parishes are joining the new Church is disappointing, while the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onufriy remains within Moscow’s sphere of influence. How do you see the future of Orthodoxy in Ukraine? Can anything change? Should the situation be reconsidered?
A: The resolution of the ecclesiastical issue in Ukraine will only come once peace is restored and the dust of war has settled. The granting of autocephaly was a a one-way path, but its consolidation takes time. The ultimate goal of autocephaly is the achievement of unity within a single ecclesiastical jurisdiction. However, this unity cannot be realized without peace, nor without the active contribution of all stakeholders — both ecclesiastical and political within Ukraine, as well as the broader family of Orthodox Churches.
Q: What is the relationship between the Church and the world today? Do people still go to church? Are they seeking a spiritual connection? And how should the Hierarchs approach the world—especially the younger generation?
A: I believe that every hierarch, within his ecclesiastical jurisdiction—his Metropolis—strives to serve according to his abilities, and this service is generally recognized in a positive light. Their presence and relationship with their flock bear fruit, leading to positive evaluations and acceptance.
Following the pandemic, we’ve observed an increase in participation in worship, particularly among young people. Many of them appear to be seeking support and a renewed sense of hope, as other paths have left them disillusioned. It is now up to us to respond with a human and compassionate voice. This moment presents an opportunity to reaffirm the true dimension of our role and presence as a Church within human society. The time of isolation and rigid declarations has passed.
What is now needed is dialogue, understanding, and the promotion of values that bring meaning, direction, and a higher quality of life—especially for young people who long for hope and a better future. This is how our Church must respond to the contemporary concerns of society, affirming our relevance and necessity as a spiritual community that lives “in the world,” though not “from the world.”
Q: There has been extensive discussion around the bill on same-sex marriage. Do you believe that the Church will soon be called upon once again to confront situations that may bring it into conflict with its principles and/or with modern realities?
A: I believe that the prudent stance taken by the Hierarchs on this bill has been validated by social developments and contemporary realities. Their positions were rooted in both the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Church Fathers, deeply embedded in ecclesiastical life and tradition.
The Hierarchs did not deny anyone’s right to manage their life and personal choices responsibly, within the boundaries of their freedom—recognizing, of course, that individuals are accountable for the consequences of those choices.
However, there is a clear distinction between showing respect for personal freedom and officially legitimizing what constitutes a moral and anthropological deviation—especially when such validation serves only to satisfy individual interests or “dissonances” coming from rights activists. This approach, unfortunately, carries serious implications for life, the family, social cohesion, interpersonal relationships, and even political life.
Undoubtedly, over time, new challenges—particularly of a pastoral nature—will emerge, and the Church will be called upon to respond. It must also be said that this is a deeply serious issue with far-reaching consequences, both in inter-church relations and within the broader Orthodox world.
Q: Many argue that Russian aggression has also extended to the Church, with the most recent example being the intrusion of the Moscow Patriarchate into the canonical territories of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Is there a risk of similar actions by Moscow in areas under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece?
A: Unfortunately, the Church of Russia, through the ideological narrative of the so-called “Russian World” (messianism, nationalism, racial purity, and a rigid view of Orthodoxy) has not yet abandoned the vision of the Third Rome or the legacy of Pan-Slavism. Nor has it distanced itself from a model of Church-state identity reminiscent of Tsarist times.
As a result, it engages in various forms of ecclesiastical intrusion. One example is its intervention in Africa through the establishment of the so-called “Exarchate,” which serves not only ecclesiastical goals but also political and economic interests, particularly those related to geostrategy and natural resources.
Beyond these overt actions, the Church of Russia also engages in more subtle forms of intervention within other Orthodox Churches. These are often less visible and are carried out through local “satellites” — clergy, monks, and monasteries — who attempt to influence decisions and internal dynamics of synodal governing bodies for Moscow’s benefit.
They may seek to promote or support the election of individuals to key positions in Church administration or even in political life, including the elevation of Primates, with the goal of advancing Russian ecclesiastical and geopolitical interests and establishing zones of influence in pan-Orthodox affairs. Such intrusion has been attempted — and continues to be attempted — within the Church of Greece as well, though not always successfully. Thankfully!!
Q: How do you view the election of the new Pope, particularly in relation to the Orthodox Church and the ongoing Theological Dialogue?
A: From the initial indications in his speech, it appears that he will follow a similar path to his predecessor, though in a more traditional and less liberal manner. He began his address by quoting the final words of Pope Francis on Easter Day and emphasized themes of peace and unity.
His entire ministry in Peru has been marked by a strong focus on the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, in line with the legacy of Pope Leo XIII—whose name he chose. Pope Leo XIII, through his encyclicals, prioritized the major social issues of his time.
Moreover, his repetition of Pope Leo XIII’s phrase, “In the One (meaning Christ), we are One,” signals an embrace of the principle of synodality. He emphasized this in his very first address during the Divine Liturgy before the Electoral Cardinals. The concept of synodality—which was a central theme for Pope Francis—remains a key topic, along with the issue of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, in the ongoing Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.
