-The Monastic Issue in Modern Romania. Between the Liberal Indifferentism and the Communist Denial

CURPINS

1

Revistă fondată în anul 1929 de către

Prof. dr. Teodor M. Popescu

Seria a III-a, Anul IX, Nr. 4, octombrie-decembrie, 2013

CUPRINS

2

COLEGIUL DE REDACŢIE:

Preşedinte: Preafericitul Părinte DANIEL, Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Române

Membri de onoare: Acad. pr. prof. dr. Mircea PĂCURARIU (SIBIU); Acad. prof. dr. Emilian POPES-

CU (BUCUREŞTI); IPS dr. Hilarion ALFEYEV (MOSCOVA); Pr. prof. dr. John BEHR (CRESTWOOD NY);

Pr. prof. dr. John MCGUCKIN (NEW YORK); Pr. prof. dr. Eugen J. PENTIUC (BROOKLINE MA); Prof.

dr. Tudor TEOTEOI (BUCUREŞTI).

Membri: Pr. prof. dr. Ştefan BUCHIU, decanul Facultăţii de Teologie Ortodoxă „Justinian Patri-

arhul” din Bucureşti; Pr. prof. dr. Ion VICOVAN, decanul Facultăţii de Teologie Ortodoxă „Du-

mitru Stăniloae” din Iaşi; Pr. prof. dr. Aurel PAVEL, decanul Facultăţii de Teologie Ortodoxă

„Andrei Şaguna” din Sibiu; Pr. prof. dr. Vasile STANCIU, decanul Facultăţii de Teologie Ortodo-

xă din Cluj-Napoca; Pr. prof. dr. Ioan TULCAN, decanul Facultăţii de Teologie Ortodoxă „Ilarion

Felea” din Arad.

Redactori corespondenţi: Asist. dr. Vasile CARABĂ, Bucureşti; Pr. prof. dr. Ion VICOVAN, Iaşi;

Conf. dr. Paul BRUSANOWSKI, Sibiu; Pr. asist. drd. Cristian-Sebastian SONEA, Cluj-Napoca; Prof.

dr. Mihai-Valentin VLADIMIRESCU, Craiova; Lect. dr. Caius CUŢARU, Arad; Pr. lect. dr. Ionuţ

HOLUBEANU, Constanţa; Pr. lect. dr. Radu TASCOVICI, Piteşti; Pr. conf. dr. Ştefan FLOREA, Târgo-

vişte; Pr. lect.. dr. Jan NICOLAE, Alba Iulia; Pr. lect. dr. Viorel POPA, Oradea; Pr. conf. dr. Ionel

ENE, Galaţi; Pr. lect. dr. Teofil STAN, Baia-Mare; Dr. Mihai GRIGORE, Princeton; Marius PORTARU,

Roma; Dr. Marian SIMION, Boston.

Redactor şef: Pr. prof. dr. Nicolae D. NECULA

Redactori: Prof. dr. Adrian MARINESCU (coordonator), Lect. dr. Ionuţ-Alexandru Tudorie (secretar

de redacţie), Lect. dr. Alexandru MIHĂILĂ (tehnoredactare), Asist. dr. Sebastian NAZÂRU

Corectură: Lect. dr. Constantin GEORGESCU (filolog)

Traducere în lb. engleză: Asist. Maria BĂNCILĂ (filolog)

Editura Institutului Biblic şi de Misiune Ortodoxă

Director: Pr. Mihai HAU, consilier patriarhal

Tipografia Cărţilor Bisericeşti

Director general: Pr. Mihai HAU, consilier patriarhal

Inspector general tehnic: Protos. Varsanufie JEBURA, consilier patriarhal

Coperta şi viziunea grafică a revistei: Doina DUMITRESCU

Redacţia: Str. Sfânta Ecaterina, Nr. 2-4, cod 040155, Bucureşti, sect. 4, România

Tel. (+40) 722 620 172; (+40) 21 335 61 17; Fax: (+40) 21 335 07 75;

Adresă poştală: OP 53, CP 125, sect. 4, Bucureşti, România

e-mail: [email protected]; web: www.studiiteologice.ro

Materialele trimise Redacţiei nu se înapoiază.

Redacţia îşi rezervă dreptul de a opera modificări atât asupra formei, cât şi a conţinutului

materialelor trimise spre publicare şi roagă să fie respectate recomandările postate electronic

la adresa web: www.studiiteologice.ro – rubrica „Condiţii de publicare”.

Revista respectă normele ISO 9001:2000 & 19011:2002 privind managementul calităţii şi

aplică sistemul de recenzare peer-review.

CURPINS

3

Prolog ................................................................................................................................ 5

Studii

Vasile Adrian CARABĂ

Se poate vorbi astăzi despre o filosofie bizantină? Interpretări noi la o

temă veche ....................................................................................................................... 15

George ENACHE

The Monastic Issue in Modern Romania between the Liberal Indifferentism and

the Communist Denial ............................................................................................. 29

Ciprian STREZA

Sfânta Liturghie — Cina la Masa Împărăţiei şi complementaritatea modurilor de

împărtăşire de Hristos ............................................................................................. 53

Ovidiu SFERLEA

Emilia sau Emmelia, cum o chema de fapt pe mama Sfântului

Vasile cel Mare? ........................................................................................................ 69

Oana-Mădălina POPESCU

Paraclisul Sfinţilor Împăraţi Constantin şi Elena ................................................ 79

Pr. Gruia ZAMFIRESCU

Prima lege privind organizarea învăţământului teologic în Ţările Române —

Legea seminarelor preoţeşti din Muntenia, 1834 (condiţiile apariţiei legii, conţi-

nutul ei, regulamentele conexe) .......................................................................... 101

Alexandru PRELIPCEAN

Historia concordatorum, historia dolorum? Istoria Concordatului cu Statul ro-

mân (1920-1929) şi implicarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române ............................ 123

Nicolae DRĂGUŞIN

Critica argumentului ontologic şi proiectul noii metafizici la Immanuel Kant. O

încadrare teologică a unei (re)surse a modernităţii .......................................... 209

CUPRINS

4

Din SfinÆii PärinÆi ai Bisericii

Sfântul GRIGORIE DE NYSSA

Encomion al Sfântului Grigorie, episcopul Nyssei, [rostit în cinstea] fratelui său,

Sfântul Vasile, arhiepiscopul Cezareei Capadociei (trad. din lb. greacă veche,

introd. şi note de Pr. Adrian PODARU) ................................................................... 261

Recenzii

Matei CAZACU, Dan Ioan MUREŞAN, Ioan Basarab, un domn român la începuturile

Ţării Româneşti, Ed. Cartier, Chişinău, 2013, 242pp. (Pr. Ioan

MOLDOVEANU) .......................................................................................................... 283

FILOSTORGIU, Istoria bisericească (ediţie bilingvă), trad. de Dorin Garofeanu, stu-

diu introd., tabel cronologic şi note explicative de Dragoş Mîrşanu, ediţie îngrijită

de Adrian Muraru, coll. Tradiţia creştină 14, Ed. Polirom, Iaşi, 2012, 456pp. (Ovi-

diu SFERLEA) ........................................................................................................... 287

Pr. Lect. Dr. Sorin ŞELARU, Pr. Lect. Dr. Patriciu VLAICU (eds.), Misiunea sacra-

mentală a Bisericii Ortodoxe în context european, Ed. Basilica, Bucureşti, 2013,

464pp. (Pr. Ştefăniţă BARBU) ................................................................................. 289

THE MONASTIC ISSUE IN MODERN ROMANIA…

29

George ENACHE Facultatea de Istorie, Filosofie şi Teologie, Galaţi

THE MONASTIC ISSUE IN MODERN ROMANIA

BETWEEN THE LIBERAL INDIFFERENTISM AND THE

COMMUNIST DENIAL

Keywords: monasticism, liberalism, communism, secularization,

the Orthodox Church, Romania.

Abstract

This study aims at revealing several major aspects of the debates regarding mo-

nasticism in Romania, in the period starting with the mid-19th century and until the

issue of the Decree no. 410/1959 by the Communist government. At stake was the oppo-

sition of modernism to monasticism, which allegedly promoted an attitude contrary to the

active, revolutionary and progressive spirit of the modern world. On account of these

allegations, it was suggested that monasticism should have been refuted, either through

intellectual propaganda or through administrative measures. The clergy reacted against

this accusation, trying to prove that monasticism and its values didn’t go against the

modern world.

Although to a lesser extent than other regions of Europe, Romania wit-

nessed too, starting with the modern age, instances of denial and even fighting

against monasticism, generated by various ideological trends, from the religious-

ly indifferent liberalism to the atheistic communism which considered religion

and the church a threat to humanity. This imposed upon the church new re-

definitions and explanations of issues which seemed unchanged for centuries.

Below we will only describe briefly this extremely complex phenomenon which

will certainly become the subject of our future endeavours.

Roles of monasticism in the Romanian Middle Ages

The Prince and the Church in the Middle Ages

For the ecclesiastical realities of the Romanian countries in the Middle

Ages, Dimitrie Cantemir’s Description of Moldavia is a fundamental source. The

following excerpt portrays the relationships between the Metropolitan See of

Moldavia and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as well as between the ruler and the

church hierarchy:

“The outer control of the Church of Moldavia falls upon the lord who dili-

gently and cautiously makes sure that the behaviour and teachings of the

StTeol 4/2013, pp. 29-52

GEORGE ENACHE

30

clerics are in line with the foundations of faith; that none of them strag-

gles from the path of truth or hides a wolf’s heart under a sheep’s skin ….

After receiving the lord’s approval, three bishops of Moldavia give their

blessing and notify the Patriarch of Constantinople that a certain pious

man, faithful and erudite, was chosen with the help of the Holy Spirit and

not through the will of man. The same is done by the lord, in a different

letter, which the Patriarch cannot object to …. Although the Metropolitan

Bishop holds such a high position, he can neither name, nor dismiss any

of his bishops for only the lord can weigh their way of living and their

teachings and look into the reasons that might lead to their dismissals and

make decisions. For the lord undertook all of these tasks, leaving to met-

ropolitans the blessings only, along the rules of the apostles. However, the

lord cannot change, add or take anything out of the spiritual matters ….

But this rule is observed by faithful monarchs only. For if the lord does

not cherish faith, then no law can restrain him”1.

The text reveals two things: the de facto self government of the Orthodox

Church in the two principalities in relation to the Patriarchate of Constantinople

and, on the other hand, the frequent intervention of the lord in church admin-

istration, who named not only the metropolitan bishop, but regular bishops as

well, and the superiors of the most important monasteries.

The Paisian phenomenon. Social-political implications

Although great, given the historical situation of the Principalities, espe-

cially in the 18th century, the lord’s power was seriously limited by the short

reign and the many wars carried out on Romanian land. Under such circum-

stances, wide areas would escape the authority of the central political power and

find refuge around the only institutions which did not end their activity: monas-

teries. This is how monasteries acquire an extremely important role and superi-

ors often supersede an absent political and judicial power.

As we know, in the 18th century, ecclesiastically speaking, Moldavia and

Wallachia were a land of contradictions. On the one hand, various sources (for-

eign travellers especially) emphasise the gaps in the organisation and spiritual

life of the Orthodox Church (corruption, priests’ lack of education, an often

much too worldly way of living), due to the political state of facts or to the defec-

tive administration of dependent monasteries2, on the other hand, we witness a

1 DIMITRIE CANTEMIR, Descrierea Moldovei, translation by Petre Pandrea, post script and bibli-

ography by Magdalena Popescu, Minerva, Bucureşti, 1986, pp. 160-161. 2 See Sever-Mircea CATALAN, “Credinţă, mituri şi superstiţii în societatea românească a secolu-

lui al XVIII-lea”, in: Oraşul românesc şi lumea rurală. Realităţi locale şi percepţii europene

la sfârşitul secolului al XVIII-lea şi începutul celui de-al XIX-lea, Ileana CĂZAN, Daniela BUŞĂ

(eds.), Istros, Brăila, 2004, pp. 160-61.


31

true rebirth of independent monasteries, phenomenon related to the name of

superior Paisius Velichkovsky, with deep implications on the Romanian society3.

We will not insist on the various aspects of the Paisian phenomenon. For

our current research it is important to emphasise its strength of dissemination

through many disciples who impose a strict behavioural model and, more im-

portantly, the remarkable stability of Paisian monasteries, many of them having

the same superior for decades, even if their appointment was still the lord’s re-

sponsibility, an eloquent example being Constantin Moruzzi’s intervention in

1779 for sending Paisius Velichkovsky himself to Secu Monastery in Neamţ,

acting in defiance of the metropolitan bishop or the synod of Neamţ4. The fact

that these superiors kept their position irrespective of who was the lord is a

proof of the respect these monasteries commanded and of the fact the authori-

ties realised that they could represent an element of stability, one of the few in

those troubled times.

Testimonies of the chronicles

The significant role of monasteries and superiors was outlined in many

chronicles. Thus, two such moments are recorded in the biography dedicated to

father Paisius Velichkovsky. In 1768, at the beginning of the war which would

end in the rapture of Bukovina, Paisius was superior at Dragomirna Monastery.

The monastery,

“sited in endless woods, had gathered crowds of people seeking refuge …. It

was a harsh winter, with lots of snow. The superior, seeing people’s needs,

most of them bare-footed and almost naked, was doing his best to make

their lives easier. He moved all the monks in one half of the monastery and

housed the poor refugees in the other half, putting two, three, or even four-

five in one room. He gave the large and warm refectory to the poor people

and, mostly, to the poor afflicted women. He ordered the cellarer, the baker

and the cook to give food to anyone that asked …. Food was cooked and

bread was baked constantly, to be enough for everyone in need”5.

Later, in 1790, when a new Austro-Turkish war broke out,

“the towns and villages of Moldavia were deserted. … Neamţu Monastery

was filled up with runaways, both inside and outside. … Neamţu borough

was taken up by the Turks …. In the monastery, the word was spread that

the Turks, being 15 km away from the monastery, had started their way

3 Nicolae IORGA, Istoria Bisericii Româneşti şi a vieţii religioase a românilor, vol. II,

Bucureşti, 21930, pp. 175-188. 4 See Serghie CETFERICOV, Paisie — stareţul mănăstirii Neamţului din Moldova. Viaţa,

învăţătura şi influenţa lui asupra bisericii ortodoxe, translation by Patriarch Nicodim Munte-

anu, Nemira, Bucureşti, 32002, pp. 221-226. 5 S. CETFERICOV, Paisie — stareţul mănăstirii Neamţului …, pp. 215-216.

GEORGE ENACHE

32

towards it. An indescribable terror seized the hearts of the people who had

found refuge in the monastery”6.

In 1821, during Tudor Vladimirescu’s and the Filiki Eteria members’ in-

surrection, another great superior, Calinic of Cernica, found himself forced to act

as a mediator with the Turks in order to save the inhabitants of Bucharest who

had found refuge in the monastery:

“March 1, 1821. Bucharest is seeking refuge … many families came here as

well, at Cernica; we all had to leave our cells …. On May 15 this same year,

1821, the Turks came, before entering Bucharest; they had been told that

we were hiding apostates and the Zaporozhians surrounded the eastern

isles, while the Turks the western ones; they placed cannons on the hill to

hit the monastery. Seeing this danger, I sent a grievance to the pasha, say-

ing that there were no apostates in the monastery, only people and us,

several humble monks, inhabitants of these two isles – grievance carried

by Dorothei, a monk, to the pasha who stayed then in Căţel village. After

receiving the grievance, the pasha convinced himself of our words and

sent 12 Turks to guard the monastery”7.

The signs of occultation in modern times

This “leader of the community” role often played by the superior of a

monastery in the 18th century is increasingly challenged in the next century,

following the imposition of new thinking patterns at the social level, dominated

by a cold rationalism and by the primacy of state over society, irrespective of

religion. Such a thinking pattern no longer recognizes miracles as a legitimate

experience of human life and tends to drive the divine away of everyday life.

Moreover, the prominent voices in the society are not the priests, but the laymen

who write in the spirit of the modern European culture and who would classify

as superstition the following statement made by Saint Calinic of Cernica:

“On November 5, this same year, 1821, the earth shook; it was Saturday.

In this time, as bread was very scarce in the monastery, and the little we

had was eaten by the refugees, and as we had no means to buy or come by

it, God proved merciful to us, through Saint Nicholas, and Chehaia-bei,

the pasha who ruled over the Turks, had procured biscuit from all baker-

ies for the armies who had to chase away the roisterers, however, the

roisterers did not wait to fight the Turks and fled, going to other coun-

tries. Therefore, as there was no need for all that biscuit, he sent it to us,

about 50 carriages, which was enough for us and for all our guests until

we made bread from the new wheat”8.

6 S. CETFERICOV, Paisie — stareţul mănăstirii Neamţului …, p. 285. 7 Apud D. FURTUNĂ, Ucenicii stareţului Paisie în mănăstirile Cernica şi Căldăruşani, Nemira,

Bucureşti, 2002, p. 152. 8 D. FURTUNĂ, Ucenicii stareţului Paisie …, p. 153.


33

Calinic of Cernica is thus the last superior honoured by people along the

old paradigms and, for a long time, “the last saint”. Thereafter, superiors not

only that they did not have social and political authority, but lost their influence

on the religious level as well, a clear sign that religion was not seen as a ful-

filling manifestation. “Elevated” culture discards any references to “miracles”,

“apparitions” and other miraculous phenomena, while the superiors and the

other clerics become the leaders of those behind the times, simple people who

clung stubbornly onto the old traditions9.

Doctrinarian foundations of the anti-monastic spirit

The West versus the East

For the Romanian monasticism, the measures adopted during the reign of

Alexandru Ioan Cuza are a landmark. As they are well known, it is not the place

to list them here. What is of interest to us is the way in which this Lord of the

union is perceived regarding his attitude towards religious matters. On the one

hand, some of his measures seriously affected Church, limiting its possibilities of

social expression, on the other hand, he was known as a religious man who used

to fast and abide by all church practices. This contradiction was often accounted

for by political commands, Cuza being forced to make choices which he disa-

greed of. However, the political motivation does not suffice, for it only partially

explains the impropriation of the possessions of monasteries and other gestures

regarding the Church.

Maybe Cuza was a faithful man, but had a different view of the Church,

and thus the contradictions would be solved.

This different view, forgotten nowadays, was very popular with the Roma-

nian elite in the 19th century and we find it in the work of the writer of Romani-

an origin, Dora d’Istria. Dora d’Istria was the literary pseudonym of Princess

Elena Ghika, born on January 22, 1828 in the family of Prince Mihai Ghika, the

son of Grigore IV Ghika, Prince of Wallachia (1822-1828). She received a good

training from her earliest years, first in the family, then at illustrious schools

abroad, at Dresden, Vienna, Venice and Berlin, becoming one of the most edu-

cated women in the Romanian countries, open towards the newest cultural and

ideological trends of the time10.

9 See George ENACHE, “Religie şi modernitate în Vechiul Regat. Dezbateri privind rolul social,

politic şi naţional al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române în a doua jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea şi

începutul veacului al XX-lea”, in: Schimbare şi devenire în istoria României, Ioana BOLOVAN,

Sorina Paula BOLOVAN (eds.), Cluj-Napoca, 2008, pp. 375-381. 10 Antonio D'ALESSANDRI, Il pensiero e l’opera di Dora d’Istria fra Oriente europeo e Italia,

coll. Biblioteca scientifica, Serie II, Memorie 54, Istituto per la storia del Risorgimento ital-

iano, Gangemi, Roma, 2007, passim.

GEORGE ENACHE

34

Dora d’Istria’s writings stood out for the beauty and elegance of the com-

position, for the author’s wide knowledge in different areas of science and, most-

ly, for the strength with which the princess supported her views. Elena Ghika

was considered a “cosmopolite” due to the way in which she moved in various

cultural milieus, however, she was a fervent supporter of the Western modern

civilisation, with strong liberal convictions in politics and religion. Moreover, she

felt it was her duty to promote these values in the East which the Romanian

territory was a part of11.

From this perspective, Princess Ghika ranks among the many Romanian

intellectuals trained in the West who became aware of the gap which existed

between the “civilised” world of the West and the pathetic state of facts from our

places. Trying to identify the causes of the Romanian backwardness, these intel-

lectuals came to the conclusion that it was all due to the attachment of the Ro-

manian space to the Ottoman world, to Levant, a world which cannot evolve in

the modern spirit.

Compared to the West – active, enterprising, citizen-focused, trying to solve

people’s problems here and now – the East is meditative, indifferent to an active

political life, it does not value the citizen, it leaves things slide, the only solution

for salvation being history boycott and resorting to “mystical” procedures.

Obviously, such (non)values cannot be used by the Romanian people in or-

der to aspire to an upper level of civilisation. Therefore, the Romanians’ only op-

tion was to turn their back on the East and integrate, at every level, into the West.

Among the institutions most representative for the “Eastern” spirit, the

monasteries were holding a central position. This is why Princess Elena Ghika,

in her fight against “Orientalism”, wrote the paper La vie monastique dans

l’Église orientale12.

The “threat” of monasticism

In the foreword to the book, the author states that her work is not purely

“ethnographic”, meant to introduce the West to the aspects of an exotic place,

like the travel descriptions which were so many at the time. Unlike other au-

thors, coming from the West, Princess Elena Ghika builds a common Christian

cultural space, bringing together the Orthodox East and the Catholic and

Protestant West. This space of Christianity seemed to be infested by a “malady”,

that of monasticism. This malady was preserved in the East, while in the West

attempts had been made to fight it back, but, according to Elena Ghika, it re-

11 About “Orientalism” in the modern European culture, see the classical paper of Edward W.

SAID, Orientalism. Concepţiile occidentale despre Orient, translation by Ana Andreescu and

Doina Lică, Amarcord, Timişoara, 2001, passim. About the Romanian case, see Neagu DJUVARA,

Între Orient şi Occident. Ţările române la începutul epocii moderne, Humanitas, Bucureşti,

1995. 12 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique dans l’Église orientale, Joël Cherbuliez, Genève, 21858.


35

lapsed, with disastrous consequences for the “civilisation”: “The issue of monas-

ticism is a universal matter nowadays which calls for the attention of the people

concerned with the wellbeing and progress of humanity. Those who believe that

monasticism is inconsistent with the modern development of the society cannot

watch calmly the efforts made to regain ground”13. The work is, therefore, a

warning signal for those who do not take seriously this “danger” and tolerate

the rebuilding of the monastic properties or the involvement of the religious

orders in the education of the youth. The description of the Eastern state of

facts, where monasticism was best preserved, is meant to draw the attention to

the negative consequences that the re-emergence of such a lifestyle would have.

But where did this negative attitude towards monasticism come from, since

Elena Ghika did not declare herself hostile to Christianity? It was from the strong

belief that monasticism was a misapplication of the true spirit of Christianity.

A mysticism which “flows” into the world

“Monastic life is not a phenomenon restricted to Christian peoples only.

From the oldest of times we see pious anchorites, fervent proponents of

Brahmanism, retreating in the woods of India where, below a forever clear

sky, nature seemed to display its majesty. The mystical genius of the Hindu

religion favoured, undoubtedly, the development of eremitical life. However,

the climate stimulated these prone to indolence people to avoid the burdens

of social activities and to dedicate themselves to the pleasures of some vague

meditation, stimulated by the waves of the Bay of Bengal”14.

The ideas brought forward by Princess Ghika are by no means new – they

belonged to the “scientific” imaginary of the time, which every “civilised” man

from the West accepted, ideas which marked a neat distinction between East and

West, such as: the difference of spirit between eastern and western peoples, fa-

voured and enhanced by the climate and by the presence of a “mystical” spirit

specific to the East, opposed to the activism specific to the West: “While the

West is looking for the perpetual movement, India is still striving to find abso-

lute repose!”15.

The Indian mystics, through their lifestyle and teachings, had stunted, in

Elena Ghika’s view, the evolution of the Indian society: “They did not embark

upon offering grand shows and sublime teachings to the world. Concerned to

evade from the troubles of the existence and to return into Brahma’s bosom, the

origin of all beings, they awake in the other people that vague feeling of sympa-

thy which pantheism generally inspires”16.

13 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, p. VIII. 14 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, p. 7. 15 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, p. 8. 16 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, p. 8.

GEORGE ENACHE

36

A moment which seemed to turn these things a different way was repre-

sented by the activity of Buddha Sakyamuni. This son of prince, according to

Princess Ghika, brought about a true revolution in the conscience of the Indian

subcontinent, by abolishing the system of castes and stating that people, “even

from the most unfortunate classes, are summoned, just like priests and warriors,

to achieve perfection in point of religion, that is, they are called on to the high-

est form of existence the human being can aspire to”17. However, Buddha’s revo-

lutionary message was quickly forgotten: “The mystical vision, meant by its

founder to favour the emancipation of India, turned into the strangest forms of

temporal and spiritual despotism which astonish the civilised world with cruel-

ties worthy of the time of Imperial Rome”18. The greatest misapplication was

known by the Buddhist monasticism, its principles spreading into the world and

reaching as far as Palestine, where it influenced the Essenes, whose name is

related to the origins of Christianity.

The Christian revolution and the misapplication of monasticism

However, in Princess Ghika’s view,

“the founder of the Christian church did not show any enthusiasm for the

Essenes’ doctrine and practices. Never had life been so tied to the reli-

gious and social movements of the time as was the apostles’ life. We find

in them nothing from the Yogis’ taste for contemplation, from the formal-

ist practices of Buddhist monasteries or Essenes’ communities. Following

Christ’s example, their life is essentially militant; their work is inspired by

a fraternal devotion to all who suffer. They developed a moral accessible

to everyone, valid for the master and for the slave alike, for the maid and

for the soldier, for everyone capable of understanding the words of the

Gospel and for all the hearts open to love. The true religion, a religion

universal in spirit and truth, which had in it everything that was necessary

for the emancipation and progress of humanity, had finally been revealed

to the world!”19.

It is, undoubtedly, a grand vision of Christianity, placing this religion at

the foundation of the modern civilisation and forming into a well-articulated

answer to those who denied completely the importance of Christianity. However,

the paid price was a high one: converting Christianity into a social doctrine and

turning monasticism into the trash can collecting all the instances of unfulfill-

ment of Christ’s religion.

Monasticism represents for Princess Ghika a misapplication of the real

Christian spirit, made by individuals incapable of facing the social fight and un-

happy with the pressure exerted upon them by the authorities: “Instead of crawl-

17 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, pp. 8-10. 18 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, pp. 10-11. 19 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, pp. 11-12.


37

ing together with the crowds, at the feet of the Caesar, wouldn’t it have been

better to look in the desert for the reign of equality, virtue and fraternity?”

“Guilty” of this had been the fathers of the Egyptian desert, one of the most

famous being Saint Anthony, whose work was highly praised by Saint Athana-

sius the Great20. This is by no means surprising. Saint Anthony became, in the

time of Princess Ghika’s writings, a romantic hero, the subject of many literary

works, the Saint being the embodiment of the one who seeks at all costs to put

human nature to the benefit of the divine nature.

The monastic institutions had borne from the very beginnings, in Elena

Ghika’s view,

“the germs of decadence and death. The principles on which monasticism

is based are by far the true principles of Christianity, as outlined by the

Saviour’s words and the Apostles’ letters. Christ and his disciples had a

completely different idea regarding the struggles of day to day existence

than Saints Anthony, Arsenius or Makarios.

For them, abandoning the world, however decadent, was out of the ques-

tion; instead they sought to fight and eliminate what was bad in the socie-

ty, through the power of good and the energy of good examples. They op-

posed to selfishness, the essence of the spirit of the world, all the heroic

abnegation of the Christian devotion: this rule must guide any follower of

the Gospel”21. Along the same lines, Elena Ghika opposes Saint Paul to

Saint Anthony: “Anthony meditates, Paul acts. Paul fights not against

chimeras, but against the enemies of the humanity, not against dreams,

but against Rome and the synagogue, against the universe, the storms,

against all the powers which had promised him death”22.

Saint Paul becomes thus a modern revolutionary, while the monks are

mere shadows of an imaginary, crepuscular world.

The meaning of Al. I. Cuza’s church reforms

Without realising that monasticism, in spite of the contemplative dimen-

sion, had been an active factor in the development of the Christian civilisation,

Princess Ghika accused it of having contributed to the backwardness and deca-

dence of the world of the Levant, especially of the Romanian world. After theo-

retically exhausting the issue of the relationship between monasticism and mo-

dernity, Elena Ghika moves on to describe the situation of monasticism in vari-

ous areas of the Ottoman East, among which Moldavia and Wallachia. More

precisely, the author describes the situation of four important monasteries in the

Danube Principalities, namely Căldăruşani, Cernica, Neamţu and Văratic. The

description, essentially romantic, invites one to reverie and contemplation of the

20 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, pp. 12-13. 21 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, p. 20. 22 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, p. 23

GEORGE ENACHE

38

beauties which surround Romanian monasteries. However, this “spell” created

by monasteries must be broken so that truth and progress may triumph. And

this must be done even to the detriment of childhood memories: “Even though I

grew up in a church completely dominated by monks, I find myself in this paper

on the side of their adversaries for their vision seems to me closer to the Gospel,

to the healthy philosophy of the real interests of humanity. I have thus sacrificed

the prejudices and sympathies of my youth on the altar of truth”23.

This emancipation she tends to affirm in the various dialogues, either real

or invented, which populate her descriptions of Romanian monasteries, refuting,

in Plato’s style, those who have anything to say in the defence of monasteries.

These dialogues from the “Romanian” chapters of the book sum up extremely

well the entire negative imaginary which part of the Romanian elite had in rela-

tion to monasteries, which, apart “philosophical” elements, includes actual ele-

ments related to the bad or ill use of church possessions and the way in which

national sovereignty was violated by the abbots of monasteries.

All these elements formed the ideological and mental background which

eventually led to the monastic reforms of Alexandru Ioan Cuza. History, howev-

er, only retained the economic, social and national aspect, ignoring the religious

dimension of these reforms. Alexandru Ioan Cuza was faithful, but his religious-

ness resembled Elena Ghika’s. He sincerely wished to reform the Church and to

bring it on the path of social activism, limiting, at same time, the role of monasti-

cism and promoting seculars. It was not haphazardly that over the next decades

most of the bishops were chosen from widowed priests. His appreciation for

Saint Calinic of Cernica is not contradictory because the great hierarch embod-

ied the virtues of Anthony and Saint Paul alike, as described by Princess Ghika.

The new apologists of monasticism

The need to defend monasticism

Therefore, at the middle of the 19th century, the Romanian principalities

witnessed too the apparition of the germs of anti-monastic trend, progressively

developed in Europe, starting from the years of the Reform and culminating with

the French revolution. According to this trend, monasticism was a futile form of

life, contrary to the human nature. In order to justify the futility of monastic life,

all the deficiencies and weakness of the system were being exploited. Any devia-

tion, however small, from the monastic rules, was seen as a proof of the inade-

quacy of these requirements with the human nature.

Many men of the church rose to the defence of monasticism, showing to

their contemporaries that the reproaches to Christian monasticism were not well

founded. Clearly apologetic in nature, such demarches begin rather timidly at the

23 DORA D’ISTRIA, La vie monastique …, pp. IX-X.


39

middle of the 19th century through the voices of some scholar clerics who gener-

ally resort to the authority of the Holy Fathers, by translating some of their most

important writings on monasticism. One of them was Gherasim Safirin, future

bishop of Roman, who translated in 1883 The second lecture against the oppo-

nents of monastic life, written by John Chrysostom. Naturally, the theological

and spiritual argumentation of this great father of the Church is impeccable and

extremely convincing, however, at the time it was written, in the 4th century AD,

it started from a different historical and moral context, when the Romanian soci-

ety was already dominated by a pro-asceticism and anti-civitas trend (against the

old values of the ancient citadel). On the other hand, the modern world cultivat-

ed activism, citizenship, complete involvement in the life of the state and of the

society. Consequently, apart from reminding of the great spiritual values of

Christianity, it was necessary to begin an active dialogue with modernity, thus

building a new discourse, adapted to the new realities, meant to show the speci-

ficity of monasticism, but, at the same time, its “modern”, permanently actual

character. Theology is engaged in the dialogue with modernity at the beginning

of the 20th century, marking a significant moment in the development of the

Romanian theological thought.

A modern apologist

Concerned since his seminar years by the fate of the Church, the future

metropolitan bishop of Bukovina, Visarion Puiu, approached the touchy issue of

monasticism in general, as well as of the Romanian monasticism, writing several

papers on this topic. One of them is entitled From the history of monastic life,

printed in Bucharest in 1911. The work was unique in the Romanian publicist

world of the time, not necessarily through its scientific information, but through

the main topics of the discourse.

The purpose of the paper is outlined in the following excerpt: “We do not

know whether there is any other such significant institution whose purpose is

known less than that of monasticism. We do not know the purpose of this lifestyle

for we do not clearly know what led to it or its evolution along the centuries or the

service it once provided and could still provide to the human society”24.

This is where a first reproach directed at the detractors of monasticism

springs from, namely that, monasticism is not an institution which appeared in a

specific historical context and would disappear sooner or later, along with the

evolution of the society. One of the counter-arguments is the universal spread of

the monastic lifestyle in various societies and times. On the other hand, Visarion

Puiu states that there are institutions which “are born from higher causes for

the fulfilment of a universal need and which are, therefore, meant to pass

through centuries, achieving great ideals”. Or,

24 Arhim. Visarion PUIU, Din istoria vieţii monahale, Bucureşti, 1911, p. 4.

GEORGE ENACHE

40

“the institution which meets per excellentiam the requirements is the

Christian Church which had given birth “like a living, but eternal stem, to

two branches, to two other institutions: the school in its nowadays’ form,

meant to develop, for the transient wellbeing of the humanity, the scien-

tific and religious knowledge and practices and the Christian monasticism,

meant to be a kind of nursery garden for the development of the

knowledge and practices of a distinguished moral life, a superior Christian

life, sprung from the laws and advices which Christianity presents to the

world for its eternal wellbeing”25.

Already, through such statements, Visarion Puiu was suggesting the fun-

damental role of Christian monasticism which, however, has not been clearly un-

derstood by some, as it was thought together with other forms of monasticism,

from other cultures and religions. This is why, until getting to discuss the specific

case of Christian monasticism, Visarion Puiu embarks upon a wide investigation of

the Ascetic manifestations of the most important monastic traditions (Buddhism,

Hinduism, Islam, the pagan Greco-Roman religious tradition). Compared to all

these traditions, Christianity has specific features which cannot be mistaken.

The “Christian revolution” and the true stakes of monasticism

For Visarion Puiu, the apparition of Christianity meant a revolution for

the entire humanity because its supreme goal was to moralise the world: “Chris-

tianity presents to man a moral rather than intellectual ideal. Who follows Christ

enters a school of religion and virtue rather than a school of philosophy”26.

In order to reach this high goal, “Christianity, says Visarion Puiu, seeks

first to destroy individual evil and then, implicitly, extinguishes social evil”. Start-

ing from this goal, the three fundamental principles of Christian monasticism

were defined: voluntary poverty, voluntary chastity and humbleness. Monasticism

is not the only lifestyle proposed to Christians:

“Christianity brings forwards two lifestyles: one that is common to all

Christians and another, special one, experienced by only few of them. The

common one is recommended by the Church to people who seek redemp-

tion, but not perfection. The special one gives people the chance to reach

moral perfection, through the so-called evangelical advice”27.

This is the path of monasticism. Therefore, “it was not the desire to es-

cape the world and its sorrows that gave birth to Christian monasticism, but the

wish of some of the Christians to reach a higher ideal of moral perfection”28.

The historical investigation fully supports, in Visarion Puiu’s opinion, the

high role that monasticism fulfilled in the Church, which was not limited to spir-

25 Arhim. V. PUIU, Din istoria vieţii monahale, pp. 3-4 26 Arhim. V. PUIU, Din istoria vieţii monahale, p. 40 27 Arhim. V. PUIU, Din istoria vieţii monahale, pp. 43-44 28 Arhim. V. PUIU, Din istoria vieţii monahale, p. 46


41

itual perfection. The passage from the anchorite’s solitude to the coenobite spirit

was a plus to Christian monasticism. From this perspective, Visarion Puiu highly

appreciated St. Basil the Great:

“This monasticism of the beginnings, of course, would have gone wild in

the desert, where it appeared initially, unless one of its great admirers

hadn’t seen in it some sort of practical Christian philosophy, hadn’t taken

it close to villages and towns and hadn’t assigned some rules to it, be-

tween the years 360 and 370, rules which made it last. This great admirer

of monasticism was Saint Basil the great, later Metropolitan of Caesarea in

Cappadocia. He organised monasticism which, as a Christian philosophy,

was meant to bring redemption to monks and benefit to the world”29.

Thus, the thorough organisation of monastic life and its integration with

the life of the church and of the society was beneficial to everyone. Monasticism

must not be looked as a denial of the society, but only as another lifestyle, con-

nected to the rest of the world through the common moral ideal. Being part of

the social body, monasticism cannot, therefore, be considered an aberration, an

accident of history, as seen by its detractors.

State, society and monasticism

Gradually, such texts had become rarer and rarer. The “spiritualism”

which engulfed the Romanian culture after World War I made the apologetics of

monasticism seem redundant. The high spiritual value of this lifestyle became a

foregone conclusion, the interest being focused now on the way in which Roma-

nian monasteries could become again those hearths of spirituality and culture, as

they used to be. Due to reasons we will not insist upon herein, the “reform” of

monastic life drew the attention of the state authorities, especially at the end of

the 30s of the last century. First of all, King Carol II, then Marshal Ion Antones-

cu make specific references to the need for reforms for stimulating monastic life.

For instance, Marshal Antonescu, who spent part of his life under house arrest

in monasteries, had a rather bad opinion regarding their current organisation.

When he came to power, at one meeting of the Council of Ministers, he ordered:

“Take care of the problem of our monasteries too. There are hearths of intrigue

and moral infection there. We will either lead these institutions onto the path of

the higher interests of the State or we will destroy them. Turn them into active

centres of work and discipline”30. Obviously, the statements of the leader of the

State were exaggerated for they expressed the views of a social-political model

which claimed mobilisation and regimentation to the society and within which

29 Arhim. V. PUIU, Din istoria vieţii monahale, pp. 54-61. 30 National Archives of Romania, Stenogramele şedinţelor Consiliului de Miniştri. Guver-

narea Ion Antonescu, vol. 2 (ianuarie—martie 1941), M.D. CIUCĂ, A. TEODORESCU, B.Fl. POPO-

VICI (eds.), Arhivele Nationale ale României, Bucureşti, 1998, pp. 314-315.

GEORGE ENACHE

42

monasticism had to manifest actively, like the part of a social project, a clear

expression of the modern spirit.

These pressures of “reforming” monasteries in the spirit of modern activ-

ism met those originating from a spiritual horizon, putting forth the idea of

“monasteries of intellectuals”31, a place of dialogues between religion and culture

and hearths of high spirituality, which will be famous in the Communist era.

The Church follows its own path

The external pressures, coming either from the social-political horizon, or

from culture, could only stimulate a debate which had already been initiated

within the Church. Important ecclesiastical personalities had already begun a

wide program of monasticism rebirth, which would meet all requirements. The

answer was not a new one, but the old, reiterated and updated, ora et labora.

We assist therefore to the rebirth of the great monastery of Neamţ, through the

diligence of Nicodim Munteanu, Metropolitan of Moldavia, the tenacious recon-

struction of the Transylvanian monasteries, ruined by the Austrian cannons,

having Brânconveanu Monastery – Sâmbata de Sus as focal point, by The Right

Reverend Nicolae Bălan32, or the remarkable actions of the Bishop of Râmnic –

Noul Severin, The Right Reverend Vartolomeu Stănescu which were an example

for the bishops to come. In one of the most articulated works dedicated to Ro-

manian monasticism, namely the volume General view on the Christian monas-

ticism, published in 1940, bishop Ephrem Enăcescu, vicar for the metropolitan

see of Bessarabia, showed:

“Today, in Romania, monasticism is required to participate more actively in

the life of the Church. Monk monasteries must open religious art work-

shops, typographies for cult and religion books, missionaries’ schools for

fighting back sects, monastic seminaries, schools for vicar chorals; Nun con-

vents should open special schools for training nuns, vocational and house-

keeping schools, orphanages, homes, workshops for ecclesiastical clothing,

national weaves, institutions for training nurses which cared for the sick and

the wounded in times of war, etc. All these provisions were to be put into

practice in the entire country, especially in the eparchy of Oltenia, where

The Right Reverend Bishop Bartholomew paid a close attention to the rise

of local monasticism, by material support, by introducing collective life in all

the monasteries of the eparchy and by creating the Vestry of Monasteries,

charged with economic, cultural and administrative duties. At present, The

31 See George ENACHE, Ortodoxie şi putere politică în România contemporană, Nemira,

Bucureşti, 2005, pp. 381-434. 32 See George ENACHE, Adrian Nicolae PETCU, Părintele Arsenie Boca în atenţia poliţiei

politice din România, Partener, Galaţi, 2009, pp. 10-13.


43

Right Reverend decided upon a unitary school for all the novices, as well as

upon a general hospital for the monasteries of Oltenia”33.

Answering to the pressures of the society of the time, the book of bishop

Ephrem pointed out that the Church saw fit to carry out itself the reform of

monasticism, abiding by traditions and canons, this being already anticipated by

actions such as the ones from the Eparchy of Râmnic where, for the first time,

the many monasteries of Oltenia were coordinated according to a unitary plan

and collective life was based on prayer and work. We must also add that Bishop

Bartholomew Stănescu patronized the activity of “The Protection of Virgin

Mary” Society, initiated by Mother Epiharia Moisescu, who created a monastic

seminary attached to Bistriţa Monastery, Oltenia, with the following goals: “ris-

ing monasticism through culture and serving the Church and the nation”34.

A model of monastic organisation

The fruitful activity of the eparchy of Oltenia continued under The Right

Reverend Niphon Criveanu as well, the successor of The Right Reverend Bar-

tholomew, who brought to the attention of the monastics the following aspects:

“Everywhere, the main occupations of all votaries are prayer and work. As

they have the duty to set an example through piety and faith, love and

peace, morality and spiritual self-communion …. The Right Reverend gave

the proper advice and guidance, deciding, among other things: …

3. The most reasonable use of agricultural lands through systematic agri-

cultural work, through plantations of trees, vegetables, creating bee gar-

dens, arranging fish ponds, silkworm, poultry farms, etc;

4. Intensifying work in carpet weaving, broidery and knitwear workshops

in nun convents; setting up wood sculpture and religious painting work-

shops in monk monasteries;

5. Observing a pure monastic life and restoring the monastic discipline,

eliminating monks’ rambling, giving the proper attention to clothing, and

thus doing away with the sad sight of ragged and beggar monks …;

6. As collective life is the most adequate in monasteries, it shall be further ob-

served, and the superiors shall have a parental care for the monks and nuns,

treating them like sons and daughters and making up a real spiritual family …;

10. Morning or evening masses shall be performed regularly and daily, ac-

cording to the monastic ritual;

12. Efforts shall be made to repair and restore the churches in need with-

out delay (…);

33 † Efrem ENĂCESCU, Privire generală asupra monahismului creştin, Craiova, 2007, p. 147. 34 See George ENACHE, “Mamele cu mii de copii. Monahiile şi orfanii României”, in: Lumina de

Duminică, May 30, 2010.

GEORGE ENACHE

44

15. People shall not be received easily in convents and monasteries, only

out of the desire to count large numbers, but they shall undergo a strict

selection, so that unprepared individuals shall not come through”35.

All these things show that, it was already being built a model of rebirth of

the Romanian monastic life, through the harmonious interlacing of prayer, study

and work and which was applied in Communism too. This is fully accountable if

we have in view that Patriarch Justinian Marina was a close collaborator of

Bishop Bartholomew. Moreover, during the patriarchate of The Right Reverend

Justinian, we will witness to the development of two phenomena which were only

sketched in the inter-war period: intellectuals massively joining the ranks of

monks, through the awakening of the monastic vocation, and the solid theologi-

cal education of monks, up to higher education. This entry of intellectuals in

monasteries at the beginning of the communist era is a fascinating issue, which

deserves to be treated as such.

“The army of Jesus Christ”

Regarding the need for monks to receive a sound theological education, the

most articulated argumentation was given by the same restless and forever dissat-

isfied metropolitan bishop Bessarion Puiu. He, in a speech of 1936, exaggerated in

many ways, in order to better emphasise certain aspects, made real cuts in what

concerns the recruitment of monks, underlining that many of the people who came

to monasteries did not seek for spiritual perfection, but to have a roof over their

heads or because of other reasons36. The Church, however, does not need workers

dressed in long robes, but people who are really and effectively committed to the

path of an authentic spiritual life. The Right Reverend Bessarion appreciated the

role and the mission of abbots, however, he believed that there should not be a

gap between theology and spirituality and monks should benefit too from system-

atic theological training, under the auspices of the educational facilities of the

Church, which had not been the case until then. Theological culture, although it

does not automatically create great confessors, it represents, however, an essential

aspect for the perfection of a well-trained monk, aware of his mission, possessing

religious knowledge, able to discern between superstition and dogma, missionary

in spirit and word. Thus, the Church was united under the sign of dogma and it

avoided particular experiments or heretical attitudes.

All this education was necessary for preparing the “working and fighting

factors of Jesus Christ’s army” so as to be able to stand up to any challenge from

the world. And it did not take long for such challenges to appear, the most

threatening one being atheistic communism. Listening to the advice of his fore-

35 Viaţa bisericească în Oltenia. Anuarul Mitropoliei Olteniei, Râmnicului şi Severinului,

s.n., Craiova, 1941, pp. 889-892. 36 † VISARION, metropolitan bishop of Bukovina, Monahismul ortodox din România de astăzi.

Conferinţă ţinută studenţilor Facultăţii de Teologie din Cernăuţi, Chişinău, 1936, 8 p.


45

runners and trying to train educated, diligent and spiritual priests and monks,

Patriarch Justinian was accused by the agents of the Security to have formed a

real “black army” of monks and nuns. This statement guides us towards the last

part of our paper, which concerns the anti-monastic policies of the atheistic

communism which culminate in the enactment of Decree 410/1959.

The Communist regime and the monks

To a regular reader, the text of Decree 410/1959 does not say much. It

contained only “two” provisions which completed what was written in Decree

177/1948 regarding the general regime of cults from People’s Republic of Ro-

mania. The first provision stipulated that monasticism was only open to people

with theological studies. The second provision stipulated that, as an exception,

people without theological studies can become monks provided that they meet

the following age criteria: men must be over 55 and women over 50. Plus, none

of them could have family obligations. However, on its foundation, a world of

suffering would be built.

The cults and the religious life from Romania came to the attention of the

Communist forces eager to impose their dictatorship immediately after the events

of August 1944. Aware of the vitality of the religious life from our country and of

the force of some of the cults, the Communist party made a well thought-out plan

for separating cults from the rest of the society and for enclosing and “neutralis-

ing” them in the new system. The laws regarding cults, adopted in 1948, after the

full takeover of the power by the Communists and their allies, had the undeclared

purpose of keeping the appearances of religious freedom, behind which they could

gradually void cults of their spiritual vitality and turn them into simple propagan-

distic mannequins, fit to be put on display for the curious.

As at that time Communists had to fight many enemies (fighters from the

armed resistance, members of the historical parties, the military elite, etc.) and as

no law could concretely envisage all of its consequences, for the time being it

could not be realised how some representatives of the cults knew to exploit all the

omissions of Decree 177 for obtaining most of the advantages for their church.

Patriarch Justinian and monasticism

From this perspective, Patriarch Justinian proved to have an amazing in-

tuition. Devoid of illusions, highly pragmatic, His Beatitude Justinian quickly

understood that the Communist regime was ready to govern for a long time and

the Western support given to Romania would be limited to propagandistic ac-

tions, lacking consistency. Due to this reason, he accepted the game imposed by

the Communist regime, but with the purpose of influencing and overthrowing it.

For reaching his goals, the Patriarch made use of various legal loopholes, Com-

munists’ caution concerning religious matters, caused by their wish to prevent

GEORGE ENACHE

46

useless conflicts in an often uncontrollable area and of an original interpretation

of the Communist ideological speech37.

Specifically, in the case of monasticism, the Patriarch used the obsessive

communist theme of the active, “productive” man, in order to reassure the new

leaders of Romania that the inhabitants of monasteries would stop being the

inactive, meditative, useless characters which the Communist propaganda obses-

sively denounced, but individuals fully integrated in the “working field”. Thus,

the famous monastery workshops were created, denounced by the uninformed or

the malevolent as a destruction of the Orthodox monasticism. In fact, beyond the

glitter of the official speech, Patriarch Justinian was putting into practice those

interwar plans for monasticism reorganisation which combined prayer and work,

the latter having to be better organised. Furthermore, anyone reading the rules

of the monastic life elaborated during Justinian’s patriarchate can notice the

primacy of prayer and spirituality in the life of Romanian monasteries38.

On the other hand, the creation of these workshops was a pragmatic need

because monasteries had been deprived of most of their resources. By limiting the

resources of monasteries, the Communists hoped that most of the monks would

give up monastic life. However, through a well planned economic policy, Patriarch

Justinian managed not only to keep all the monks in monasteries but their number

even grew considerably from almost 4,000 in 1938 to over 6,000 in 195839.

The Communist style of discussing everything in black and white made

many of the Romanians wonder about their own existence in radical terms. For

those who loved God and could see no meaning in the world proposed by the

Communists monasticism became the only way. Due to its cleavages, Com-

munism made many who were still “on the fence” go the whole way. Most of

those who joined monasticism after 1948 actually had vocation and were not

only in search of a temporary refuge. Many of them were prominent intellectuals

who gave new prestige to Romanian monasticism.

Patriarch Justinian fully contributed to this rise of the Romanian monasti-

cism, through his care that all monks be educated and attend the highest

schools. This was in line with the Patriarch’s educational program of creating a

clergy and a monastic order able to stand up to any propagandistic pressures

from the regime and to keep the believers close to the church40.

All this remarkable development was also made possible by the fact that

the regime focused on other matters which it considered of major importance.

When all the structures of the “old world” had been destroyed, the Communists

37 For more details, see G. ENACHE, Ortodoxie şi putere politică …, pp. 15-155 38 See Legiuirile Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune Ortodoxă,

Bucureşti, 1953, pp. 23-26. 39 Cristina PĂIUŞAN, Radu CIUCEANU, Biserica Ortodoxă sub regimul comunist, vol. I, Institutul

Naţional pentru Studiul Totalitarismului, Bucureşti, 2001, p. 323. 40 G. ENACHE, Ortodoxie şi putere politică …, pp. 101-110.


47

found themselves fighting an Orthodox Church full of vitality, honoured by all

those who rejected the atheistic ideology.

Monasticism comes under scrutiny

Obviously, monasteries never escaped the vigilance of the Communist re-

pression bodies (the Security). However, the way in which they were regarded

changed in time. Initially, the issue of monasteries was related to that of the

anticommunist armed resistance movement. Many isolated monasteries became

places of refuge for the armed groups in the mountains and some of the monks

gave their moral support or gave food and clothes to these fighters. Therefore,

the first arrests were motivated by their involvement in such support actions.

Some were real, but many arrests were based on the strategy of the Security to

arrest several people so as to be sure that it caught the culprits as well. During

this time, we find the first plans to dissolve some monasteries and sketes; how-

ever, the purpose was not openly anti-religious, but part of their fighting against

the groups from the mountains, most of these settlements being in hardly acces-

sible places which could not be controlled by the Security troops41.

Things change completely after 1955. Shortly before, in USSR, a new

wave of religious persecutions had begun with the purpose of turning the Soviet

Union into a fully atheistic state up to 1967, 50 years after the beginning of the

Soviet revolution. The deepening of the conflict between the dialectic material-

ism and religion echoed in Romania, where the local ideologists intensified the

atheistic campaigns that, until then, had not been as intense as in the other

countries of the Soviet Bloc. On the other hand, this is the year when the events

of Vladimireşti Monastery, Galaţi County took place42.

Not everyone in the Church agreed with the cautious tactics of Patriarch

Justinian, requesting an open denunciation of the nags that the regime made to

the Church and to the freedom of faith. The most radical opinion in this regard

was that of Bishop Nicolae Popovici of Oradea43. Inspired by his ideas, the vota-

ries from Vladimireşti Monastery started to speak openly about the limitation of

religious freedom in Communist Romania. Obviously, the regime did not like this

and put pressure on the patriarch to solve the issue. His Beatitude Justinian, on

the one hand, postponed as long as he could any measure meant to punish the

votaries from Vladimireşti, however, on the other hand, he did his best to try to

persuade them that such a way, in the historical context of the time, caused

prejudices to the Church. At last, the political power, anxious to take the matter

in its own hands, arrests, at first, the main culprits and, later, the entire synod44.

41 George ENACHE, Adrian Nicolae PETCU, Monahismul ortodox şi puterea comunistă în

România anilor ’50, Partener, Galaţi, pp. 22-37. 42 G. ENACHE, A.N. PETCU, Monahismul ortodox şi puterea comunistă …, pp. 63-68. 43 G. ENACHE, Ortodoxie şi putere politică …, pp. 157-279. 44 G. ENACHE, A.N. PETCU, Monahismul ortodox şi puterea comunistă …, pp. 66-68.

GEORGE ENACHE

48

This event led to what the patriarch feared most: it brought the Church

and monasticism into the focus of the regime. From that moment on, the regime

no longer considered that the problems of monasticism were only some isolated

votaries, but thought that it was a systematic problem which had to be dealt with

structurally. In 1955 were the first projects meant to stop the development of

monasticism through economic means (bringing monastic workshops to bank-

ruptcy), administrative means (restricting the possibilities of access to monasti-

cism), repressive means (pursuing and arresting the votaries who carried out an

activity hostile to the regime) and propaganda against religion and monastic

life45. The Patriarch had to resort to all his influence to limit the monastic prob-

lem to Vladimireşti Monastery and he seemed to have succeeded for a while.

However, an external event troubled once more the frail equilibrium that had

been established between the State and the Church: the Hungarian Revolution.

The Hungarian Revolution and the new wave of persecutions in

Romania

The Hungarian revolution of 1956 had a significant impact in Romania as

well. The Communist leader, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej was extremely concerned to

identify the causes of this movement and to check whether such conditions were

in Romania too. One of these causes was thought to be the existence of groups of

intellectuals who, through their rejection of the Communist ideology, agglutinated

the discontent of the masses. Therefore, the second wave of repression to begin in

Romania in 1958 covered many “intellectual” groups. What is interesting in Ro-

mania is the intellectuals-clergy alliance that the Security establishes.

This connection was caused especially by the arresting in June 1958 of

the famous “Burning Bush”. Essentially, things started from an article published

in France by Olivier Clément, which recorded the conversations with a young

Romanian monk who had obtained a scholarship for India, Andrei Scrima. Fas-

cinated by Scrima’s words, who spoke of the vitality of the spiritual life of the

Romanian Orthodox Church under communism, of the Hesychasm and Philo-

kalia rebirth of Romanian monasticism, Clément thought that these things must

be made known to the world, without foreseeing the consequences of his gesture

in a country such as Romania46.

The article reached Romania too, the clergy did not make a great deal out

of it, however, this was not the case with the Security who revised the danger of

Romanian monasticism, seen as a great intellective conspiracy, patronized by

Patriarch Justinian himself. The arrest of the “Burning Bush”, including many of

the Patriarch’s close collaborators, was meant to put the Patriarch in difficult; he

45 G. ENACHE, A.N. PETCU, Monahismul ortodox şi puterea comunistă …, pp. 38-50. 46 The archives of the National Council for the Study of the Archives of the Security (AC-

NSAS), Informative Fund, File 5468, vol. 1, ff. 55-56.


49

was faced with the plan for the complete destruction of monasticism47. Two-

faced, the communists wanted this plan to be achieved by the Church itself. Pa-

triarch Justinian refused such a plan and was ready to bear the consequences. At

the same time, he tried, with the same diplomacy, to overcome the crisis.

The first forced banishments from monasteries

In December 1958, at a meeting of the Holy Synod, Dumitru Dogaru,

General Secretary of the Department of Cults, announced that State authorities

knew that many of the votaries were hostile to the regime, had a criminal record,

were corrupt or were minors and, therefore, they did not belong there, and

asked the Synod to banish them from monasteries. Proper to the Communist

regime, the gesture was allegedly meant to support the Orthodox Church in

consolidating an authentic monasticism48. The Holy Synod answered diplomati-

cally, accepting that there might be such “elements” in monasteries whom the

Church would banish after making the appropriate checks.

In exchange, in March 1959, the authorities brought before the hierarchs

a phantasmagorical list, as a basis for banishing votaries from monasteries. We

must say that the process of eviction from monasteries had already begun, alt-

hough the bishops had not given their consent or were not even aware of the

actions carried out by the authorities. In parallel with these abusive measures,

the orders of the State to monastic cooperatives were stopped, thinking that

hunger would force the monks to leave monasteries and to choose the “tempt-

ing” offers of the lay world49.

The effects were minimal and most of the hierarchs, the Patriarch as well,

resisted these abuses, asking that banishment from monastery be ordered only

after a proper investigation is carried out by the people of the Church50.

The enactment of the decree

This tabling and debating exasperated the regime who wanted to settle

the monastic issue as quickly as possible. Therefore, realising they could not

hide behind the hierarchy, the Communist leaders resorted to the legislative

means, amending, through Decree 410, a series of the provisions of Decree

177/1948. Inspired from Cuza’s legislation, Decree 410 was meant to deal a

deathly blow to Orthodox monasticism through retroactive enforcement. The

reason was a simple one: in spite of Patriarch Justinian’s efforts, out of the 6,000

votaries, only few had graduated from the monastic seminary or had higher

theological education, which was one of the prerequisites for remaining in mon-

47 G. ENACHE, Ortodoxie şi putere politică …, p. 428. 48 ACNSAS, Documentary fund, file 71, ff. 482-483. 49 G. ENACHE, A.N. PETCU, Monahismul ortodox şi puterea comunistă …, p. 61. 50 ACNSAS, Documentary fund, file 66, ff. 438-439.

GEORGE ENACHE

50

asteries. Thus, most of the young had to leave and the economic basis of monas-

teries would be ruined, only some old votaries being left, who could barely pro-

vide for themselves51.

As Decree 410 was a correction to an organic law, the State no longer

needed the Church for acting. However, even in this new state of facts, there

were hierarchs who sought to stop its effects. Patriarch Justinian interpreted in

an original manner the stipulation regarding theological studies, keeping in

monasteries all the votaries who had completed a two-year monastic school52.

Effects and consequences

The enforcement of Decree 410 took several years. In 1963, when the

monastic issue had been settled, the authorities estimated that there were

around 2,000 votaries left in monasteries. What was less told is that the return-

ing process began immediately after the enforcement of the decree. The Church

sought any opportunity to reintegrate the ones who had been banished from

monasteries, most of them having preserved their monastic way of life. This bla-

tantly contradicts the claims of the communist regime regarding the “opportun-

ism”, the “decadence” and the “ignorance” of the ones who had taken the path

of monasticism and proves the vitality, the authenticity and the solid grounds of

Orthodox monasticism in those days.

Some of the banished monks continued to wear their monastic robes after

leaving the monastery. The Communist regime was quick to put them in prison.

Others, however, lived for decades a life of “white monasticism”, keeping the

flame of faith alive. Their correspondence, intercepted by the Security, filled with

spiritual allusions, was considered “mystical” by the repressive bodies, this mean-

ing, in their opinion, that they had mental problems. This is why, from time to

time, the monks evicted from monasteries were called on to psychiatric examina-

tions which, surprisingly, found that they were perfectly sane. Still, the regime

did not trust those former members of the “black army of monks and nuns” and

tried to make their lives miserable. However, faith in God broke all the obstacles

and His word was spread into the world through these “white votaries”.

Rezumat: Problema monahalä în România modernä. Între

indiferentismul liberal öi contestarea comunistä

Istoriografia română a interpretat multă vreme Legea secularizării averilor mănăs-

tireşti (1863), dată de domnitorul Alexandru Ioan Cuza, mai mult din perspectiva intere-

51 The text of the decree in G. ENACHE, A.N. PETCU, Monahismul ortodox şi puterea comunistă

…, p. 57. 52 G. ENACHE, A.N. PETCU, Monahismul ortodox şi puterea comunistă …, pp. 59-60.


51

selor economice şi naţionale ale statului român la acel moment. S-a analizat mai puţin

adoptarea acestei legi din perspectiva fenomenului general al laicizării societăţii româ-

neşti în perioada modernă şi a diverselor curente intelectuale care au influenţat atitudini-

le elitelor româneşti.

Studiul de faţă trasează câteva momente semnificative ale dezbaterii intelectuale

privind importanţa şi misiunea monahismului în societatea românească modernă. După o

scurtă incursiune asupra rolului monahismului în Evul Mediu şi în perioada premodernă

pentru societatea românească, sunt analizate concepţiile despre monahism ale Elenei Ghika

(Dora d’Istria), care critică monahismul în numele unui creştinism militant, asimilat altor

„ideologii” cu caracter revoluţionar, idei care sunt destul de răspândite în mediul cultural

european din perioada Revoluţiei de la 1848. Ideile Elenei Ghika se întâlnesc aici cu ideile

liberale, care considera la rându-i monahismul un stil de viaţă nepotrivit unei societăţi

active, precum cea modernă, însă se deosebesc de acestea prin faptul că, totuşi, creştinismul

este considerat ca un potenţial principiu activ, de dezvoltare a societăţii. Deşi opera Dorei

d’Istria nu a avut un impact semnificativ în mediul cultural românesc, ea este totuşi de mare

ajutor pentru a înţelege o anumită forma mentis care domină elitele româneşti ale vremii,

care, fără a elabora discursuri sistematice, manifestă o atitudine destul de reticentă la adresa

monahismului, fie că sunt indiferente din punct de vedere religios, fie că atribuie un anumit

rol creştinismului, de natură politică sau spirituală. În orice caz, atitudinea generală este că

monahismul operează o deviaţie în viaţa oamenilor, care nu este nici naturală, nici nu este,

după cum crede Dora d’Istria, în adevăratul spirit al creştinismului.

Opera Dorei d’Istria este importantă, deoarece introduce şi în cultura românească

o cheie coerentă de dialog fertil între creştinism şi modernitate, pe care vor merge, la

sfârşitul secolului al XIX-lea, o serie de oameni ai Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, care vor

căuta să demonstreze compatibilitatea dintre ortodoxie şi spiritul modern, negată în

numeroase rânduri. Ierarhii Visarion Puiu şi Vartolomeu Stănescu sunt cele mai repre-

zentative personalităţi care ilustrează aceste tendinţe, apărând creştinismul în general,

dar şi monahismul, vorbind de un monahism activ, iar nu de unul dedicat exclusiv con-

templaţiei, printr-o reinterpretare a principiului ora et labora.

Ideile lor şi ale altora au stat la baza reformării monahismului în perioada interbe-

lică, fenomenul monahal cunoscând în această perioadă o revigorare remarcabilă, datorită

răspândirii curentului „spiritualist” în rândul elitelor şi accesului la cultura înaltă a unor

elemente din mediul rural, crescute în dragoste faţă de mănăstiri. Un fenomen interesant

al epocii, care va continua şi în anii comunismului, este combinaţia de „activism” şi trăire

isihastă.

Ca şi colaborator al episcopului Vartolomeu Stănescu, patriarhul Justinian Marina s-

a inspirat din ideile acestuia în raport cu monahismul. „Activismul” monahal a părut o idee

care părea mai acceptabilă pentru regimul comunist, decât „misticismul” care era combătut

prin propagandă şi măsuri represive. „Reformele” monahale ale patriarhului Justinian nu

sunt, prin urmare, o „comunizare” a monahismului, aşa cum s-a scris de multe ori, ci reflec-

tarea unei tendinţe interbelice de reformă a monahismului într-un spirit mai „activ”, dar

care a prezervat totuşi spiritul „mistic”, dovadă fenomenele Slatina, Prislop, etc.

Studiul se încheie cu o scurtă privire asupra condiţiilor care au condus la adopta-

rea Decretului 410/1959, despre care se spune că a fost inspirat de măsurile din vremea

lui Cuza. Rămânând în cheia dezbaterilor intelectuale, se poate spune că între măsurile

din 1863 şi cele din 1959 sunt tot atâta asemănare şi distanţă cât este între revoluţia

franceză şi cea rusă. De asemenea, o judecată asupra felului în care trebuie să raportăm

GEORGE ENACHE

52

monahismul la modernitate ţine foarte mult de modul în care gândim şi evaluăm însăşi

modernitatea. O respingem cu totul, sau numai anumite aspecte, „aberante”? Cazurile

prezentate de noi au vizat discursuri care acordau un rol pozitiv modernităţii, însă au

respins „modernităţi eşuate”, precum comunismul.

-The Monastic Issue in Modern Romania. Between the Liberal Indifferentism and the Communist Denial

Documents