Jehovah’s Witnesses—“Known” Once Again in Greece
By “Awake!” correspondent in Greece
JULY 1975 will long be remembered by Jehovah’s witnesses in Greece. On the eighth day of that month, leading newspapers of Athens announced: “MARRIAGES BETWEEN JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES PRONOUNCED LAWFUL.” Thousands of Greek families were thrilled at this turn of events.
The ruling came as the result of a judgment by the Supreme Court of State on July 3. The decree stated:
“The religious doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses or Millennialists meets the requirements of a ‘known religion’ according to the Constitution and is therefore an ‘approved’ doctrine . . . Thus, any marriage performed between adherents to the said doctrine and in conformity with the rituals provided for thereby is not a nonexistent one, and any child conceived in pursuance of such a marriage is legitimate.”
But why the need for such a Supreme Court judgment?
For more than four years prior to this, the government of Greece had viewed marriages of Jehovah’s witnesses as “nonexistent” and their children as “illegitimate.” Why? Because a circular issued on November 13, 1970, by the then Vice-President and Minister of Interior, Stylianos Pattacos, declared that “the religion of Jehovah’s witnesses is an unknown one.”
Does that sound surprising to you? Perhaps you realize that Jehovah’s witnesses are active with full legal recognition in scores of lands and islands of the sea. In fact, the Witnesses have carried on Bible educational work in Greece since the beginning of the twentieth century. Why, after some seven decades, did the government of Greece declare Jehovah’s witnesses to be an “unknown” religion?
Incessant Pressure Tactics
It was because of constant pressuring of the government by an influential group that hated the Bible-based message proclaimed by Jehovah’s witnesses. A peculiar expression of this hatred began in 1927. In that year, for the first time, clergymen of the Greek Orthodox Church questioned the then Attorney of the Supreme Court of Greece as to whether marriages between “Bible Students” (as the Witnesses were then called) were lawful and belonged in official Registrar Books. The Attorney replied:
“One of the most fundamental principles of Modern Public Law with regard to religious tolerance—deriving from our Greek traditional virtue—is undoubtedly the performance of . . . any religious service. Therefore, a marriage solemnized according to any religious sect whatever between persons of the same religious beliefs, is in principle absolutely respectable and therefore admissible of registration on the State’s Registrar Books.”
Twenty years later religious leaders of Greece again attempted to pressure the government into withdrawing its legal recognition of Jehovah’s witnesses. Thus in 1947 the Greek clergy questioned the validity of Witness marriages. But they were in for another disappointment, for the Attorney of the Supreme Court stated:
“Seeing that their sect is a ‘known’ one in Greece, namely open, not having any secret doctrines and worship rites and not opposed to the common morality and public order . . . they are entitled to the religious tolerance acknowledged by the Constitution . . . Consequently, a marriage between Millennialists [Jehovah’s witnesses], solemnized in conformity with their beliefs, is contracted with legal validity . . . and is recordable in the Registrar Books.”
The Greek clergy, however, refused to accept defeat. They kept looking for another opportunity to raise this issue. It came in 1959. But once again, a fair-minded jurist refused to bend to such pressure tactics. Mr. Andrew Tussis, Assistant Attorney of the Supreme Court, handed down a well-documented opinion in which he gave assurance that Jehovah’s witnesses were a “known” religion and that their marriages were lawful.
From “Known” to “Unknown”
In time, however, the political situation in Greece deteriorated. Suddenly, on the night of April 21, 1967, a military group seized control of the country. They appointed as archbishop a favorite clergyman named Ieronymous.
It seemed a perfect opportunity for the clergy to take another stab at Jehovah’s witnesses. But, instead of approaching the Attorney of the Supreme Court, this time the Athens Archiepiscopate asked a Mr. C. Muratidis, professor of canonical law at Athens University, to make a pronouncement as to whether Jehovah’s witnesses were a “known” religion.
Professor Muratidis issued his opinion on September 5, 1967. Ignoring all previous decisions of Supreme Court Attorneys, he declared that Jehovah’s witnesses were not a “known” religion and that their marriages should be considered nonexistent.
Archbishop Ieronymous brought the matter to Vice-President Pattacos. From there the case went, not to the Supreme Court, but to the Legal Council of the State, made up of lawyers who were subservient to the governmental Ministers. What was the outcome?
Fortified with the opinion of Professor Muratidis, on November 13, 1970, this body stated that Jehovah’s witnesses were not a “known” religion. Thereafter the Ministry of Interior sent out circulars to the country’s Registrar Offices ordering them not to register any marriages of Jehovah’s witnesses, since “such marriages are of no subsistence.” Further, the circular declared that children of Witness couples were to be recorded in their mother’s family name, which is the same as declaring them illegitimate.
Appalling Consequences
Can you imagine the tragic consequences, of such legislation? Overnight thousands of Greek married couples were viewed as cohabiting unlawfully. Widows of Jehovah’s witnesses could no longer draw pensions, since the law now insisted that they had not really been married. The Social Security Institution denied payments for childbirth and funeral expenses.
Government agents began removing Witness families from the Registrar Books. Data for wives was removed from their husbands’ names and relisted under those of their fathers. Children of such women were entered as extramarital. Some officials went so far as to snatch away any lot of land belonging to couples whom they no longer considered married and entitled to the land.
Of course, not all officials acted so harshly. Some even acknowledged that Pattacos’ circular was “preposterous.” Nevertheless, they lamented that “regrettably we feel unable to ignore it.” Sympathetic officials urged Jehovah’s witnesses to appeal their cases to the tribunals.
Many Witnesses did this. They even received some favorable judgments from lower tribunals. But when they would present these decisions to the Registrars, the latter would refuse to comply. Obviously they feared the consequences of disobedience to Vice-President Pattacos. The Vice-President was unyielding in his opposition to Jehovah’s witnesses. To one protest of the deplorable results of his circular, he replied:
“(a) Millennialism is not a ‘known’ religion in the Constitutional sense.
“(b) Marriages said to have been performed according to this religion are nonexistent and not to be recorded in the registrar books. In view of the foregoing facts, please stop invoking emotional or philanthropic reasons on matters governed by Logic and Law.”
The dire consequences of such “Logic and Law” are evident in a case that involved the death of a baby. When the father, Demetrius Kazanis, sought a permit for burial, the Registrar refused. He declared himself unable to record an “exit” where there was no corresponding “entry” in his books. As far as that official was concerned, the baby had not been born.
Shamefully, while the father groped for a way to correct the situation, it was necessary to keep the dead baby in a refrigerator. Word quickly spread to newsmen. A magazine carried the headline: “IN THE NAME OF FANATICISM A BABY’S CORPSE IN REFRIGERATOR!”—Epikaira, Jan. 26, 1973, p. 20.
At length, a public prosecutor intervened and ordered that the child be recorded in its father’s name and buried. This, however, did not rectify matters for most of Jehovah’s witnesses in Greece. Neither judgments of lower tribunals, which were ignored, nor assistance from a portion of the press could annul the circular of the Minister of Interior. What could be done?
An Unexpected Change
After lengthy discussions with legal advisers, it was decided to introduce two cases to the Council of State. One was that of Prokopius A. Delis, whose marriage had been legally registered in 1957. In spite of this, though, the Registrar of the community of Vuniatades, Corfu Island, denied Delis’ request for having his wife and child registered there.
The second was the case of Stamatius Kallinderis, a bailiff for the municipality of Peristeri-Athens. Government officials had discontinued the monthly subsidy for his family because “the marriage between him and Mary Hormova, both belonging to the religion of Jehovah’s witnesses, which is not a ‘known’ and ‘approved’ religion, and was performed according to the rituals of the said religion, is nonexistent.”
In view of the importance of these cases, the Supreme Court of State decided to hear both of them on one day, April 22, 1975. In anticipation of the hearings, Jehovah’s witnesses pondered many questions. Would the Supreme Court of State proceed without religious bias? How would the clergy react? Would Archbishop Ieronymous interfere?
But some months before the April hearing something unexpected happened. The military group dismissed the acting government and appointed a new one. Though even more oppressive than the previous one, this rulership ingloriously collapsed just a few weeks after taking power. Then the military men called on politicians to take over. They assigned the presidency to former premier Constantine Karamanlis, who had been in self-exile at Paris, France, for ten years. Would matters improve for Jehovah’s witnesses now?
Karamanlis’ government sponsored elections and a referendum whereby a democratic regime came about. The new Greek Parliament voted for a liberal Constitution. It guaranteed personal freedom to Greek people and equal rights for citizens, regardless of religious beliefs. Interestingly, these developments occurred just before the date set for hearing the cases of Jehovah’s witnesses.
The new Minister of Interior, Mr. Stefanopulos, was asked about the possibility of issuing a new circular that would supersede the former one by Pattacos. In his reply, Stefanopulos suggested going ahead with the two cases. He expressed his expectation that the law “will give a right solution,” adding: “In the contrary case, we shall see what may be done. As you understand, it is not merely a matter of revoking a previous circular, but is a legal matter in suspense before the Supreme Court of Justice.”
“Known” Legally Once Again
The hearings went very well. The Reporter for the Court, Mr. M. S. Muzurakis, gave a fine presentation of the entire matter concerning Jehovah’s witnesses. He then suggested annulment of the administration’s previous order. Paradoxically, one of the government’s solicitors agreed, while another feebly tried to defend the former circular that denied legal recognition to the Witnesses. What was the outcome?
On July 3, 1975, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of State announced favorable judgments in both cases. Showing agreement with this, the Minister of Interior issued a new circular to all the country’s municipalities and communities and to the Greek Consulates abroad. It ordered registration of marriages between Jehovah’s witnesses and of any children resulting therefrom.
How pleasant this was for Jehovah’s witnesses in Greece! With serious legal obstacles removed, they can once again concentrate their full energy to sharing with their neighbors the most important of all messages—the good news of God’s established kingdom.—Matt. 24:14.
[Picture on page 20]
The old royal palace building, where the Supreme Court of State handed down a momentous decision on July 3, 1975