THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940

The several hundred churches Romanian Orthodox members built during the Dual Monarchy and the steady growth of their financial resources are undeniable proofs of outward progress; but religion and morality were unable to keep up with this material progress. In fact, the trend was rather the reverse, and not by accident. If a supposedly Christian church spreads not love and understanding but hatred, if its leaders and administrators reinforce the influence of the secular press which proclaims a policy of hatred, the consequence can only be the atrophy of religious and moral feeling. Such was the case of the Romanian Orthodox Church of Hungary. The unlimited leeway in administration granted to laymen, and the all-pervasive nationalism and chauvinism necessarily bore fruit. Interest in religion declined not only among the faithful, but among the clergy as well. They performed their religious duties nonchalantly, less and less concerned with the spiritual welfare of their flock. They devoted all their energies to the awakening and fostering of nationalism, and since this activity was condoned by the top officials of the church no remedy could come from above. Occasionally Archbishop Miron addressed warning words to the clergy, but without significant results. Nor did his bishops help him much in this endeavor. The bishop of Arad, Metianu, refused to take serious measures to uplift religious and moral life; the Episcopal Consistory committed innumerable abuses under his administration, and the bad example spread to the clergy of the dioceses.

The Romanian Orthodox Christians who felt responsible for upholding the true calling of the church attempted to intervene on several occasions. The periodical of Arad already quoted, Biserica si Scoala, was deeply involved along these lines throughout the period. The editors of the periodical soon identified the source of the troubles.

148

Already in the late 1870,s they noted with anxiety that the behavior of the Orthodox clergy was seriously remiss. "We confess with deep irritation that the priests - and the exception proves the rule - had allowed themselves a great deal of liberty since the introduction of the constitutional regime." In fact, they took more and more advantage of their liberty. The diocese is constantly rocked by conversion movements, or by quarrels between clergy and their congregation. They have neglected church discipline. In seven years the synods have not adopted a single rule as regards discipline. The churches are empty. The choruses are disbanding. Priests do not deliver sermons regarding the liturgy. ³⁵ Similar observations can be found in the issues of the following year. The author of one study pointed out that the sermon should be the most important part of the service; "but, to our misfortune, the sermon is not taken seriously, or is neglected altogether in our Romanian Orthodox Church." In other churches the pulpits resound from the sermons delivered by the preachers, from the proclamation of the evangel. In contrast, Romanian pulpits are deeply silent. The art of preaching is in decline among Romanians. Where sermons are still being delivered they cause more harm than good; but there are places where the sermon is bypassed completely. ³⁶

An even more depressing article appeared about conditions in 1883. In this article the author drew a parallel between the external and internal conditions of the church. Materially the Orthodox archdiocese grew stronger after the passage of the Act 1868: IX, which ensured its autonomy. "The liberal constitution of the church had been drafted on the basis of that law - constitution so liberal that even Protestant denominations are envious of it." The constitution encourages meetings, discussions for the advancement of religious and general education. This autonomy of the church must be defended. Yet the religious objective of the archdiocese is different: to spread the verb, religion, and morality. But what are the priests doing? Very little indeed; they deliver no sermons in church. The recipients of scholarships to seminaries learn everything except what the church really needs, the art of preaching. Many priests are outright enemies of the religion and of church rituals. Immorality has begun to take hold of many priests. "And have the synods done anything to improve morals?" ³⁷ Indeed, priests spent little time on religion or morals, because they were too busy with politics. There were more than fifty priests among the 156 delegates to the Nagyszeben Congress of the representatives of Romanian voter in 1884.³⁸

Though the Romanian clergy did not lead in strictly religious work, in preaching or teaching morals, it played an important role in the

149

national struggle of the Romanian people. In the period of the Memorandum people flocked to the churches because church leaders and priests drew crowds with their national and racial slogans. Sermons became more frequent, but they dealt not with Christian but with national issues. This circumstance was the result of apparent progress, yet appearances could not fool the expert. The Archbishop himself observed in 1895: "The church institutions brought about by the Organizational Rules have not led to the results the founders had expected; our Orthodox Church did not become stronger and more solid." ³⁹ A few years later a Romanian paper gave a similar evaluation of the leading bodies of the church, stressing that the Nation- Church Congress "was unable to bring about significant and worthwhile development in the area of religion and general culture." ⁴⁰

It seems that in the years following the Memorandum trial the official paper of the archdioceses itself felt that the nationalist games were excessive and that this nationalism concealed individual vested interests. The editorial which criticized the exiles who crossed over into Romania leads us to this conclusion. It was customary by then for certain journalists or politicians who had published some inflammatory article to simply move over into Romania and obtain good positions there as "exiles" (the quotation marks are in the original). The official paper of the archdiocese came out sharply against these self-exiled "martyrs," who suffered nothing on this side of the border "except a fear of accepting responsibility for their acts." They simply ran away, leaving their flag and comrades in the lurch, "seeking refuge, or rather a place of exile whence they can manage their private affairs basking in the glory of false martyrdom, and covering these affairs in front of less well-informed persons with the veil of the national Romanian cause." ⁴¹

This sober realization might have launched a religious and moral revival, had it been supported by the successor of Archbishop Miron Metianu. But the new Archbishop was not up to the task. Even during his tenure as bishop at Arad he exhibited traits and methods unworthy of a church leader. He overlooked, and even took an active part in, corrupt and abusive practices that were rampant among the officials of his diocese. As we have seen, his very election took place in disregard of the precepts of the Organizational Rules. According to contemporary notes, those from Arad supported his election as archbishop only because they were fed up and hoped to get rid of him. Others who also knew him well hoped that the government would refuse to confirm his election as archbishop. When, however, he was confirmed nevertheless, they had to count with the regime of the new archbishop. While many

150

were pessimistic, the faithful in the Arad diocese were pleased. A Romanian paper wrote:

We notice the relief with which the priests, teachers, and all those who had to deal with the consistory of Arad during the past quarter of a century read the news [of Metianu's confirmation]; how eagerly they await that he take along the whole gang with which the bishop had saddled our diocese.⁴²

Of course, the author of the article did not expect much from the new head of the archdiocese. "It cannot be happy news to see the mitre on heads from which appropriate knowledge is lacking. In fact, it is outright offensive to us and humiliates us in front of foreigners."

The worries of the pessimists found confirmation in the years that followed. Under Metianu the see of the Orthodox Romanian Church at Nagyszeben became the nucleus of all kinds of financial and administrative wrongdoings. The archbishop gave up none of his old methods. The church was soon echoing from the most varied complaints. The precepts of the Organizational Rules were taken for naught by the Archbishop, who viewed himself as omnipotent. The great majority of the elections to deacon and parish priest were manipulated from the center at Nagyszeben. The right of the faithful to vote freely became an empty formality. "Only one percent of the cases of election to the office of priest went without protest." ⁴³

In 1902 the Orthodox deacon of Marosvasarhely, Nicolae Manegutiu, published a book about the corruption prevailing in the church. "The church is rotten with immorality," he observed. Most instances of corruption stem from Nagyszeben. The members of the consistory and those individuals who obtained positions as deacons thanks to their help run roughshod on the precepts of the Organizational Rules. The clergy is intimidated by so-called "vagrant" priests who obtained their positions, at a lower pay, by winning over some of the villagers, and then chase the real priests away. The leadership of the church sanctions such machinations. The government does not intervene because the supervision of church regulations falls within the sovereign jurisdiction of the archdiocese. Thus, these half-educated,

constantly troublesome individuals, whose background is neither the peasantry, nor the intelligentsia, thrive on demagoguery among the kind and trusting masses, keep them in a state of constant excitation, weave intrigues for the sake of sudden innovations, and fish in troubled waters.⁴⁴

151

Instead of refuting the charges raised by Manegutiu, the church officials immediately deprived him of his job, bypassing the prescribed due process altogether. ⁴⁵ Yet the manifestations of corruption did not cease. In 1903 even the Budapesti Hirlap reported on the event, and its observations were repeated by the Romanian paper Drapelul without comment or refutation. The Romanian paper of Szaszvaros did add some comments, however: "For those of us who are privy to some of the secrets of the church, who hear everyday deeply concerned priests mention the desecration of our own system of justice, we declare ourselves in solidarity with the meaningful silence of Drapelul",⁴⁶

Indeed, the system of justice of the church was replete with scandals. Manegutiu was immediately deprived of his job and means of livelihood, whereas the Orthodox deacon of Fogaras, Dan, however, was allowed to remain at his post for a long time, even though he had embezzled funds innumerable times and committed other crimes to the consternation of the faithful. Complaints lodged against him with the church authorities fell on dead ears, no disciplinary action being taken for a long time. He was finally forced to retire when, on July 30, 1905, the state tribunal at Brasso sentenced him to five years in jail for 54 instances of embezzlement and forged checks. ⁴⁷

The faithful who were dissatisfied with the administration of Metianu lodged complaints against the archbishop and the consistory of the archdiocese on several occasions. As noted, even the newspapers voiced their critical opinions every once in a while. They refrained from attacking him openly because they were happy with his stand on the main issue, serving the objectives of nationalism. Nevertheless, Metianu was irritated by the charges placed against him, and the dissatisfaction of the clergy. He wanted to put an end to all ,'opposition." He had fresh disciplinary measures adopted, most of which were aimed at smothering internal criticisms. The most serious sin, in this new set of disciplinary rules, approved on October 29, 1906, to be severely punished, was "disloyalty towards the church." Among other sins we find "whispering campaigns and slanders against the leaders of the church, ecclesiastic bodies, institutions, and circles" [point 3], as well as "conspiracy and collaboration against the integrity and constitution of the church." Those guilty of such sins were to be punished more severely than those who neglected their official duties or did not meet their responsibilities. Thus the Archbishop could feel more secure, confluent that the Hungarian state would not interfere with the autonomy of the church.

All these developments were the logical consequence of serving Romanian national interests above all else. Religion and morals

152

continued to deteriorate, because leaders of the archdiocese were completely preoccupied with political struggles, protests against the Apponyi Laws, and the proposed revision of the electoral process. They had no time to study cases such as the behavior of Manase, the Romanian Orthodox priest of Piski [Simeria Veche], during his frequent visits to Szaszvaros. The daily Libertatea of Szaszvaros finally wrote up the case which so scandalized the local Romanians, hoping that the machinery of church discipline might thereby be set in motion. The aforementioned priest, cap in hand, yelled in a drunken fashion and danced a wild jig in front of many spectators while the local military band was playing. The public roared with laughter, but the Romanians were embarrassed. The perpetrator of the scandal was finally removed by the police. The scandalized faithful denounced the priest at the see in Szeben where the complaint was merely acknowledged at that time.⁴⁸ Such cases vividly illustrate that the Orthodox Church did not use the amazing autonomy granted to it by the Hungarian state to foster a truly Christian way of life, but rather to benefit Romanian nationalism. The Romanian author who, in his French-language work published in 1916 wrote that as a consequence of Saguna's Organizational Rules the Romanian church in Hungary "formed a true state within a state," was quite correct. ⁴⁹

A few years later the Romanian newspaper of Szaszvaros reported another instance of abuse. The priest of the community of Balomir in the vicinity of Szaszvaros, one Nicolae Suciu, having reached old age, announced a competition for the position of assistant priest. He meant to have his grandson "elected," even though the latter lacked the required qualifications. Since the community was rather well off, there were quite a few young men with the required theological preparation who expressed an interest; however, "as a consequence of the intervention of some church organizations, they withdrew their applications and did not compete." Merely a "moralist," who had attended secondary school for only a few years, the grandson could only have obtained a position with the smallest congregation, according to the Organizational Rules. This case was yet another indication that the people did not understand or make good use of the Organizational Rules. But it would be the task of the church hierarchy to make sure that the Rules, "that wise law, be carried out in an ideal way.... The responsibility for this failure must be divided three ways," wrote the correspondent of the paper of Szaszvaros: "the consistory of Szeben, which ran roughshod over the precepts contained in the Organizational Rules and allowed the moralist to apply in a parish barred by those Rules," the priest Suciu, and the people of Balomir [Balomirul de Cimp].⁵⁰

153

Of course, the people did not and could not make use of the rights granted them. In any case, they were beginning to get fed up with the one-sided and not particularly Christian behavior of the nationalist priests. It was at this time that the first Baptist churches were set up in Romanian areas. The Romanian peasants, disillusioned with their own church, turned eagerly to the Baptist preachers. The consequence was the spread of Baptist teachings and the conversion of large numbers of Orthodox Romanians. This frightened the Orthodox clergy, all the more so since the more intelligent believers occasionally pointed a finger straight at the priests, by means of letters to editors. In 1912 an Orthodox correspondent from the town of Brad made the following pointed observations: "For some time now the Baptists, the sect of the 'converted' whose members have abandoned their ancestral faith, are becoming increasingly numerous among us...." Romanian priests, on the other hand, did not preach on this issue. Of the six Romanian priests in Brad "none took it upon himself to preach some Sunday about the correctness of our faith and the errors of the 'converted."' It is fortunate, at that, that there is a decent church chorus; when it sings, the pews are filled. ,'How happy would we be if our priests were to preach to us as well, in a manner uplifting our soul and strengthening our ancestral faith; then the church would always be full. ⁵¹

This description by the correspondent from Brad of the troubles affecting the Romanian Orthodox church was fitting. The main problem was the neglect of the evangel and, consequently, the apostasy of large numbers of faithful. All this derived naturally from the fact that the Romanian Orthodox church used its autonomy for national and political goals, from 1868 all the way to the end of World War I.

Though Hungarian leaders were aware of these activities of the Romanian Orthodox Church, they respected its autonomy granted by the law to the end. It was the will of the laymen that prevailed during elections for head of the church, in the internal organization of the church, in the operation of its diverse bodies, in the seminaries, in the absolute freedom enjoyed by the religious press, etc. The Orthodox leaders publicly acknowledged the positive attitude of the Hungarian state. What's more, when parts of Hungary became attached to Romania after 1918, and the Romanian government crudely interfered even in the elections of the Orthodox synod in 1924. the frightened and indignant Romanians of Transylvania recalled the respect for the law exhibited by the former Hungarian regime. In that year the government attempted to appoint the members of the Orthodox diocese of Arad. The Bucharest regime did what the "oppressive" Hungarian

154

authorities never even thought of doing. The newspaper Romania wrote:

The political administration, particularly that of the county of Arad, from the prefect on down to the village notaries, interfered openly in the elections with the help of elements of the state police, and infringed on the moral and constitutional rights of the voters in an unheard-of aggressive manner.

Finally, they even closed the synod down. When the minutes of the synod were published in the official periodical of the diocese, the prefect of Arad censored the publication, obliterating entire pages from the Biserice si Scoala. The indignation of the leaders of the Romanian Orthodox church knew no bounds. An eyewitness observer wrote:

Let anyone try to find a similar case, in the 48 annual volumes of our official publication, beginning with the introduction of Saguna's Rules: When did anyone dare censor the minutes of the synod of the diocese! The Hungarians refrained from doing it even during the World War. Now the Liberals [members of the political party of Romania then in power] are doing it, in the sixth year of peace and national independence. How base and lacking in self-respect!

A week later the paper differentiated between the Hungarian and Romanian procedures even more clearly. Bucharest's methods were used during the elections to the synod.

They forged the results of the election, destroyed the records of the voting district, and threatened the voters; the delegates to the synod of Arad, both ecclesiastic and secular, resigned their mandate in protest against the infamous procedures, unprecedented in the history of the church on the other side of the Carpathians.... The officials of Prime Minister Istvan Tisza never dared lay a finger on a church publication in order to censor it, much less censor the minutes of the synod, even in the period of the most severe siege during the Great War. ⁵²

It is clear, therefore, that the Hungarian state respected the autonomy and freedom of the Romanian Orthodox Church to the very end, and exercised control or set limitations only in certain specific cases, as in the case of the control of Romanian synods after 1916 and

155

the appointment of government commissioners. The First World War reached Transylvania when it was invaded by the Romanian army. The Romanian clergy in Hungary openly sided with the invading Romanian troops, in spite of the oath they had taken, to such an extent that the military authorities demanded closer supervision of the Romanian churches. Consequently, the commissioner would appear at authorized meetings, deliver a short speech, and depart. Many of them did not even know Romanian. Furthermore, church autonomy was subjected to limitations in the area of education. Other than these, the Orthodox Church had no grounds for complaint regarding autonomy.

156

of the church, and thus not only would the numbers of their congregation decrease, but the process of Romanianization would suffer as well. The Hungarian Uniates persisted, collecting signatures among the Hungarian-speaking members of the church and organizing a pilgrimage to Rome. The Hungarian Uniates of 67 communities in the region of Nagyvarad joined the movement and requested the establishment of a Hungarian bishopric from Rome. The Romanian press, government agencies, and the irredentist organizations of the Romanians of Bucharest also went into action. Everywhere they advertised that the projected bishopric was yet another device for Hungarianization advocated by the Hungarian government, since the number of Hungarian Uniates was negligible. The Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga even wrote two pamphlets in French on the issue, and the world press echoed the Romanian complaints for months. In response the Hungarians pointed out that a Hungarian bishopric was intended precisely to prevent the further Romanianization of the Hungarian members of the church. After all, the Romanian bishopric of Nagyvarad included many Romanianized Hungarians. The oldest roster of the bishopric indicated that of 264 priests and seminarians, 148 were of Hungarian mother tongue. In 1912, after almost two decades of struggle, Rome finally agreed to set up a Hungarian bishopric. Now the Romanians readily admitted that there were many Hungarians in the Romanian Uniate Church. Their continued protests were aimed merely at limiting the number of communities assigned to the new diocese. The semi-official paper of the Romanian diocese wrote:

We recognize that there are many among us who have lost their Romanian background altogether, either because they never used the Romanian language, or because our pastors, not unlike some landlords, did not guard their flock.... Therefore, for those who so fervently requested the diocese, let it come into being, but only for them; no Romanian communities should be attached to the new diocese. ⁵⁴

Along with the Hungarian government, the Holy See gave consideration to this legitimate Romanian request. Though at the time of the 1910 census some 304,318 Uniates had declared themselves to be Hungarian, only 217,540 of them were assigned to the Hungarian Uniate diocese set up by the encyclical Christi fideles Graeci. The new diocese received the name Hajdudorog and, in addition to the Hungarian Uniates of the region of Nagyvarad, it included the faithful from the Szekely region. There were still a few complaints regarding the

157

boundaries of the diocese, but the more objective Romanians admitted that the members assigned to the diocese of Hajdudorog never had been or no longer were Romanian. An article in a Brasso weekly honestly conceded:

that this dioceses will be merely a defensive rather than an aggressive institution of the Hungarian nation.... Nevertheless, it harbors certain dangers for us Romanians. There are very few Romanians among the members to be included because in the 35 Szekely parishes the mother tongue of the faithful was Hungarian to begin with. If in the space of two hundred years the Uniate Church was unable to Romanianize these, it is not likely that it would be able to achieve this in the future either. ⁵⁵

The leaders of the Romanian Uniate Church could have had only one justified complaint against the Hungarian state: at the request of the faithful some dioceses where only Hungarian was spoken, were attached to the Hajdudorog diocese even though the population had a Romanian background. In its memorandum to the Pope the Episcopal body of the Romanian Uniate Church protested principally against this possibility:

We believe we fully meet the intentions of the Holy See and of the Royal Government if we relinquish all those parishes where the faithful are not Romanian. But it would cause us pain to hand over those parishes where the faithful may use Hungarian rather than Romanian in their everyday conversation, yet do not want to give up the Mass in Romanian. ⁵⁶

Still, the number of these persons was negligible, as the Romanian papers themselves were to admit. The jurisdiction issue was finally clarified by setting up the Hungarian Uniate bishopric of Hajdudorog. From then on no such burning issues arose, unless it be when a member of the irredentist organization of Bucharest mailed an explosive device to the Hungarian Uniate bishop. The bomb exploded in the Debrecen office of the bishopric and claimed several victims. The authorities in Bucharest helped the culprit escape abroad from Romania.

Thus the Hungarian state did not hamper the evolution of the Romanian churches as regards their organization. The only partially- justified complaint of the Romanian Uniate Church was the setting up of the bishopric of Hajdudorog. Yet even this took place in agreement with the Holy See, at the fervent wish of the Hungarian state and the Hungarian Uniates, after a struggle of a decade and a half The fact

158

that the Holy See did not favor the Hungarian-speaking faithful at the expense of the Romanian bishopric is demonstrated by the long struggle of the Hungarian Uniate faithful, which often looked hopeless. ⁵⁷

The Romanian Uniates, much like the Orthodox, took part in the political struggles of the Romanians of Hungary. The cradle of Romanian nationalism was rocked at Balazsfalva, the spiritual center of the Uniate Church. Romanian Uniate priests were the first to work out, in Hungary, the Daco-Romanian thesis, and they were chronologically the first to formulate Romanian political demands; they were the first to interpret history to the effect that the Romanians of Hungary were the descendants of Dacians and of Romans, and have lived continuously in the area that corresponded to Emperor Trajan's Dacia ever since. The argument that the Romanians were the original inhabitants of the eastern portions of Hungary, where Hungarians appeared only later - hence the rights of Romanians to take precedence over those of the Hungarians [prior tempore, potior jure] was first formulated by the Romanian Uniate clergy in their political demands. This so-called continuity theory was disseminated among the Romanians of Hungary by the Romanian Uniate clergy. This politically-motivated historical theory, although refuted since by French, German, and Hungarian scholars, has remained the foundation of ancient Romanian history to this day. As those scholars demonstrated, in contrast to the continuity theory, the truth is that the Romanian nation evolved in the Balkan peninsula in the course of the sixth to tenth centuries, and from the twelfth century on, migrated to Hungary where the Hungarians had been residing for over two hundred years.

Unlike the Orthodox Church, the Romanian Uniate Church had considerable wealth, hence it developed faster culturally. Once the Uniates recognized the Pope, the road to higher Roman Catholic institutions in Vienna and Rome was open to them. Education improved back home as well, thanks to the priests trained abroad. Their seminaries, modeled on Roman Catholic institutions, had higher standards than those of the Orthodox Church. The educational achievements of the Uniate priesthood usually exceeded those of the Orthodox popes, and this superiority was maintained during the Dual Monarchy. In 1913 the five years' pay supplement granted to priests living on Hungarian territory was disbursed, according to the law, to those who had completed training in a seminary. According to the statistics compiled on this occasion nine-tenths of the Orthodox priests lacked such a preparation, whereas it was lacking only in the case of one-sixth of the Romanian Uniate clergy. ⁵⁸

159

The Uniate Church fostered Romanian nationalism as much as the Orthodox Church did. Much like the Orthodox clergy its priests took part in Romanian political movements, conferences, and protests. Representatives of both churches may be found among the signers of the Memorandum. They were in complete agreement regarding the ultimate aim of Romanian nationalism. Their common theoretical ground, anti-Hungarian irredentism, even erased the doctrinal differences between the two churches, as clearly demonstrated by the agreed- upon practice according to which, if both churches were represented in a given village, the Orthodox and Uniate priests acted as alternates in their clerical functions. ⁵⁹

Nevertheless, the leadership of the Uniate Church was more flexible and less aggressive than the Orthodox. Though their nationalist aims were identical, their devices and attitudes often differentiated them. There was no corruption mentioned in the Uniate Church. But the distinction obvious to all was their financial situation.

THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940