By Archmandrite Athenagoras Soupourtzis
Professor of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law at Theological Academy of Volyn, Ukraine- Visiting Professor at Supreme Ecclesiastical Academy of Athens, Greece
The recent public statement and intervention by twenty eminently respected academic colleagues, from leading institutions in Europe, the United States, and Canada, in support of the Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine of Sinai, constitutes a genuine and well-intentioned expression of scholarly vigilance, and ecclesiastical sensitivity. This comes especially at a time when new challenges are emerging regarding the ownership and legal status of the Monastery.
The signatories express their respect for the place of worship and the monastic community, and their academic authority undoubtedly lends weight to this international appeal. The public intervention was undoubtedly positive in highlighting the spiritual and cultural prestige of the Monastery and represents a valuable contribution to raising awareness within the international community.
However, in order to gain completeness and functional effectiveness in the realm of public discourse and intergovernmental negotiation, it is absolutely necessary that this intervention be supplemented by a clear reference to the legal and canonical dimensions that define the Monastery’s special status.
The absence of such a reference carries the risk of being interpreted—by third parties less well-disposed—as an implicit acceptance of a “neutrality” in the Monastery’s status, which could obscure the boundaries of its Greek Orthodox administrative, spiritual, continuous ownership of its lands, especially in relation to religious actors operating in the Sinai region, with increased interest in a potential institutional redistribution of spiritual authority – were the monastery to lose its Greek Orthodox character and the land declared as a neutral religious ground.
However, the text of the declaration makes no reference to the historically entrenched ownership status of the Monastery, nor to its Greek Orthodox character—both of which are legally and canonically inseparable from its very identity and functioning. The declaration merely refers to the Monastery as a “pilgrimage site for all Christian denominations,” without stressing that its unique status within the Orthodox Church. St. Catherine’s Monastery enjoys self-governance, with full canonical and administrative autonomy, and with the understanding of its historic ownership of its lands, based on the legal theory of possession immémoriale.
If the declaration fails to acknowledge the Greek Orthodox identity, and proprietary autonomy of the Monastery, who can guarantee that, tomorrow, under the wide umbrella of such colorless micro-cosmopolitanism, other religious communities present in the region will not assert “legitimate” claims to its territorial ownership and administrative control?
The Holy Monastery of Sinai is not merely a place of worship or cultural remembrance. It is a sui generis ecclesiastical, legal, and canonical entity, whose autonomy derives from an enduring canonical tradition and the recognition of successive state and administrative authorities (Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman, and Egyptian). Its inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List (2002) imposes international obligations on the Egyptian state—not only with respect to the preservation of its physical structures, but also with regard to its spiritual-administrative autonomy, and the church’s property rights over its functional lands (Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR; 1972 UNESCO Convention).
It may be said that the recent appellate decision, which appears to challenge the Monastery’s legal ownership over a critical tract of land, does not dispute the right to worship per se, (a right explicitly guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution and protected under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Despite this, any de facto or de jure erosion of its proprietary autonomy directly affects the Monastery’s practical ability to exercise its religious, administrative, and educational functions, as well as its capacity to house and sustain its monastic brotherhood.
The declaration, without undermining the positive intentions of its signatories, risks omitting the legal core of the matter: the institutional identity of the Monastery cannot be reduced to a loose moral call for the “universal” Christian heritage, when the very precision of legal terminology (i.e. directly speaking about its ownership, autonomy, and Greek Orthodox tradition) is the condition sine qua non for its appropriate protection.
Greece, as a state with historical and spiritual oversight over the Monastery (droit de regard), bears the responsibility to issue clear legal observations at the international level. This relationship is not founded upon mere sympathy, but upon institutional and canonical bonds: since 2014, in the context of Greek-Egyptian foreign policy, an agreement (“extrajudicial settlement”) was proposed between the Egyptian state and the Abbot of the Monastery, which would have confirmed—prior to the final appellate ruling—the integrity of the Monastery’s property and its administrative autonomy.
This initiative marked a practical recognition, on the part of high-ranking political leaders, for example, President Sisi of Egypt, and the Prime Minster of Greece, of the necessity to protect its Greek Orthodox character.
The selective rebranding of the Monastery as a “place of pilgrimage for all Christians” potentially paves the way it becoming de facto a neutral or even contestable territory—not as a site of mere historical significance, but as a legal and canonical entity open to claims by various denominations or state actors, should it first be severed from the institutional framework of its Greek Orthodox identity and autonomy. The possible withdrawal of the Greek-speaking monastic community—which is protected under both the Egyptian Constitution, and international customary law—would in effect constitute the collapse of this status, despite any formal assurances that “religious freedom” is not at risk.
Focusing solely on a moral appeal while omitting the legal and canonical dimensions may in fact contribute to further destabilization. Not because the signatories act in bad faith—quite the contrary—but because the protection of an institutionally, canonically, and legally defined entity cannot rest solely upon broad “ecumenical” rhetoric, when binding legal commitments are absent.
According to the well-established methodology of legal and canonical protection, the safeguarding of an institution presupposes recognition of its ownership, legal personality, administrative autonomy, and spiritual identity. When a declaration proclaims that the Monastery belongs “to all Christian denominations,” yet fails to acknowledge its Greek Orthodox character and autonomy, it creates a problematic legal void: If its ownership status is not explicitly named, who will guarantee that Roman Catholics or Copts, for example, could not theoretically come forward tomorrow, to claim the same land, citing the notion of a “pilgrimage for all” as legal precedent?
The answer cannot rely solely on ethical appeals; it must be grounded in rigorous documentation showing that the Monastery’s ownership, administrative autonomy, and Greek Orthodox spiritual identity are both de jure and de facto prerequisites for the exercise of religious freedom—as enshrined in the Egyptian Constitution, the 1972 UNESCO Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 18), and international law and customs.
Ultimately, the protection of the Holy Monastery of Sinai—including its property issues—is not a matter of moral sentiment. It is a matter of law: if we wish for Sinai to remain a point of synthesis among monotheistic religions and, at the same time, a guardian of the Greek Orthodox tradition, every appeal must be founded upon legal and canonical precision, and institutional clarity. Only in this way can the Monastery continue to function as a living ecclesiastical body and sui generis cultural monument, without jeopardizing its autonomy, legal status, or canonical-spiritual constitution.
