THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940

Most of the wealth of the two churches came from their estates. Their holdings kept increasing. Let us compare the statistics from the turn of the century with those from the First World War. The Romanian Uniate Church of Hungary owned 143,408 cadastral holds of central estates in 1900 including Episcopal, archiepiscopal, and clerical lands. Of these 138,964 were in Bihar county, 2,150 in Also- Feher, 661 in Kis-kukullo, and 245 in Szolnok-Doboka. There were also 1,388 cadestral holds of estates in Transylvania. The church and pastoral holdings in the entire archdiocese - not counting the estates of the church schools - amounted to 65,388 cadastral holds. Thus the

160

amount of land held by the Uniate Church exceeded 200,000 cadastral holds, more exactly 208,746.⁶⁰

The Romanian Orthodox Church owned far less. The estates owned by the administrative centers and by the monasteries barely exceeded 10,000 cadastral holds in all, whereas church and pastoral lands of the dioceses amounted to about 50,000 holds. The Romanian Orthodox Church, therefore was much poorer than Uniate Church. ⁶¹

A decade and a half later, towards the end of the First World War, both Romanian churches could boast of considerable increases in their holdings. That year the Uniate Church held 226,582 cadastral holds, whereas the Orthodox Church held 89,838.⁶² The Uniate Church acquired almost 20,000, whereas the Orthodox Church acquired over 25,000 additional cadastral holds in the intervening period. These estates produced a sizable revenue. The estate of the Uniate diocese of Nagyvarad, for instance, brought in a yearly income in excess of 400,000 crowns. ⁶³

The income of the larger church estates served primarily to cover the expenses incurred by the central administration. Often there were not enough funds to cover the needs of the poorer parishes or to support the more deserving priests. Similarly, administration, construction and equipment of new buildings, repair of old churches, construction of new ones and their expenses in new districts, such as the Uniate bishoprics of Szamosujvar and of Lugos, were often left uncovered. Tidy sums had to be collected or secured by means of donations. Wealthy Romanians from either Hungary or Romania occasionally donated enormous sums for Romanian cultural or religious purposes in Transylvania, to enable the Romanian churches to build new churches and schools. There were no legal impediments to accepting such donations. Permission had to be obtained only for more extensive collection campaigns. Among the Romanian complaints we have found none regarding any refusal to grant such a permission.

Yet the church estates, collections, and donations still did not suffice to cover the expenses of the Romanian churches. After 1867 the Hungarian state had to provide subsidies to the Romanian churches. The Hungarian Minister of Religious Affairs and Education earmarked regular assistance for Romanian religious purposes from the purely Roman Catholic Religious Foundation and from the state treasury. These sums enabled the Romanian churches to grow, their central administration to function, and the seminaries to remain open; it also allowed them to construct and repair churches, and covered the emergency expenditures of church dignitaries and active priests as well.

161

Since the Religious Foundation had a Roman Catholic source, the minister used this fund mainly for the support of the Uniate Church, whereas the state treasury provided for the Orthodox church. The extent of Hungarian state subventions can be determined with a fair degree of accuracy from the official publications of the two churches, from the budgets of the Uniate dioceses, and from the minutes of the synods and congresses of the Orthodox Church. In addition to these sources, the secondary works, as well as letters of thanks from Romanians in the archives of the Hungarian Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education testify to the extent of state assistance.

It can be determined from the budget of the Uniate Church at the time of the Compromise that the Religious Foundation provided the primary financial base of the Uniate diocese of Szamosujvar. In response to the application of Bishop Ion Vencea, the Hungarian Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education met the expenses incurred by the seminary of Szamosujvar with a yearly contribution of 14,800 forints. There was also a 10,000 forint annual subvention to the parishes. Also, 17,224 forints were awarded for the construction of the Uniate Church of Szilagysomlo. The bishopric of Szamosujvar continued to enjoy support not only from the Foundation but from the state treasury as well. For instance, the Hungarian Minister of Religious Affairs and Education purchased the site of the Episcopal palace. ⁶⁴ Years later, in 1911, when Dr. Vasile Hossu was appointed bishop, the Hungarian government once again made a sizable contribution; this time the sum donated for the construction of institutions in the diocese amounted to 600,000 crowns. ⁶⁵

The Romanian Uniate diocese of Lugos received even more extensive assistance from the Foundation, and later from the state treasury. Neither the bishop nor the see had offices when the diocese was set up. Bishop Ioan Olteanu obtained 35,000 forints from the Foundation for the Episcopal residence. This contribution enabled the church to purchase a large house with a garden, and an estate of 9 holds on the outskirts of the town, constituting the principal estate of the diocese. The house was converted into an Episcopal residence. It was once again the Foundation that provided 10,000 forints to meet the cost of the repairs and conversion. It was also the Foundation that made it possible to find a place for the see. In 1879, at the request of the Bishop Dr. Victor Mihalyi, the Foundation disbursed 8,000 forints for this purpose. This contribution was used to purchase the two treasury- owned houses adjoining the Episcopal residence, and these were to constitute the see. A few decades later, when these buildings were deteriorating, Dr. Dimitru Radu obtained a fresh contribution of 41,451

162

crowns and 70 fillers from the Foundation, to renovate the houses and place them under a common roof with the Episcopal residence. ⁶⁶ The special state assistance remained the most important basis for the development of the dioceses even under the successor to Dr. Radu. The new bishop, Dr. Vasile Hossu, requested and received an assistance of 200,000 crowns for various church and school purposes. Thus the financial situation of the dioceses continued to improve. Thirty-nine new schools were built under his 1ong tenure of office, during the very era of Apponyi. ⁶⁷

In addition to the Religious Foundation, the Uniate Church received tidy sums from the state treasury. The bishops of Lugos and Szamosujvar regularly received 20,000 crowns annually, and pay for the canons of the church also came from the state treasury. Before the First World War the bishopric of Gyulafehervar received a yearly 38,000 crowns, the bishopric of Nagyvarad 30,000, the bishopric of Lugos 37,000, and the bishopric of Szamosujvar 38,970 for the pay of the canons. In addition to these regular sums the dioceses also received extraordinary contributions. In 1917 Bishop Hossu was granted 20,000 crowns in addition to the 21,000 crowns he received regularly for expenses. During the war the bishops of Lugos and Szamosujvar received 133,000 crowns assistance each.⁶⁸

The Romanian Orthodox Church also received considerable sums from the state treasury. In addition to extraordinary grants for special purposes, the bishops and archbishops, the offices of the Orthodox administration, the sees, and the seminaries survived mainly thanks to state support. These were disbursed annually and regularly as part of their budget. In the years preceding the First World War the main archdiocese of Szeben received 68,400 crowns, the Arad diocese 40,000, the Nagyvarad diocese 37,000 and the Karansebes diocese 34,000 crowns of yearly state assistance. Thus the Hungarian state contributed 179,400 crowns annually to ensure the viability of the central institutions of the Orthodox Church. ⁶⁹ Moreover, the Orthodox Church received additional sums earmarked for church and educational institutions, amounting to roughly 150,000 crowns a year. Of this sum 100,000 crowns were earmarked for the archdiocese at Nagyszeben, 29,300 for the diocese at Arad, 19,800 for the diocese at Karansebes, and 900 crowns for the pastors of the latter two dioceses. Such assistance, in addition to the regular supplemental pay the clergymen received from the state, was not unusual.

In the years immediately preceding the First World War and during the war itself, the Hungarian state increased the subsidies considerably. In 1912 the subsidy for the Romanian Orthodox see of Nagyvarad was

163

increased from 12,000 to 29,000 crowns. This extra help enabled the see to fill two positions of "section chief', and raise the salaries of the staff in general. ⁷⁰ The following year the same see received 37,000 crowns of extraordinary subsidy from the state to cover urgent needs. In 1917 the subsidy for the Romanian Orthodox see of Nagyszeben increased along with the rest. In 1918, the last year of the war, the see of Nagyszeben received 91,700 crowns, that of Arad 70,000, that of Nagyvarad 50,000, and that of Karansebes 70,000. These sums were disbursed at a time when the Romanian delegates had already declared their intention to break away from the Hungarian state; in fact, Dr. Frentiu, the Orthodox bishop, received his disbursement on January 13, 1919, that is fully six weeks after the secession meeting held at Gyulafehervar. ⁷¹

It was likewise state support and the Religious Foundation that provided for the maintenance of the offices of the see, as well as for personnel and supplies. The largest sums under these categories went to the Uniate sees of Lugos and Szamosujvar.

While financial support for church dignitaries and for the central administration got off to an early start and afforded a decent standard of living, help for the parish priests left a lot to be desired for a long time. The lower clergy, the priests in charge of smaller or larger parishes, survived under most deprived conditions. This was particularly true of the Orthodox priests, since their church was not as well off as the Uniate Church. Where the priests had to rely exclusively on the "stola" or their plot of land, they must have made a very meager living indeed. The faithful in the Uniate diocese of Lugos give their priests stolas worth only ten to twelve forints at the time of the Compromise. In other dioceses the situation may have been better, or worse in the case of Orthodox dioceses. There was an unquestionable need for Hungarian state subsidies; without it the condition of Romanian priests in the first twenty years of the Dual Monarchy, when the general population was living under more modest circumstances, would have been unbearable.

Very soon, therefore, the Romanian church leaders turned to the state for salaries to the clergy and to the staff of the central offices. The first steps in this direction were taken during the Austrian autocratic regime. In 1850, Saguna requested state pay for all employees of the church. Since during the 184849 revolution the Romanian Orthodox clergy, led by Saguna, lined up the Romanians on the side of the House of Habsburg and against the Hungarians, he drafted a special memorandum to explain how the Romanian Orthodox Church was entitled to such support, inasmuch as the Romanians, beginning with their clergy,

164

had performed a great service for the Habsburgs. Still, it took the Viennese central government eleven years to award 25,000 forints. Of this sum 24,000 were earmarked for the clergy, and one thousand was awarded to the seminary. ⁷² In 1864, for the first time, 25,000 forints were awarded to cover the expenses of the central diocese.

When the Austrian autocracy was replaced by the Hungarian regime in 1867, Dr. Jozsef Eotvos, the Hungarian Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, accepted the continuing disbursement of this sum, at Saguna's request. Neither Eotvos nor any other member of the Hungarian government thought of taking revenge for the anti-Hungarian role of the Romanian clergy in 1848-49 by withholding the subsidies awarded by the Austrian government. In addition to assistance for the clergy, the parliament, already in the early 1870,s, granted an addition- al 100,000 forints to the Romanian Orthodox Church. The Orthodox bishop of Karansebes, Ion Popasu, wrote a special letter (number 163), dated March 1, 1871, to thank the state for its support, which he acknowledged "with unrestrained happiness and infinite satisfaction." ⁷³

The bishops, however, managed to withhold illegally various amounts from the sum meant for the clergy. They were able to do this because each year, until 1884, the sum intended for the clergy was disbursed to the central authorities of the church, who in turn were accountable to the state for the distribution of the sum. ⁷⁴ In 1884 the government deprived the archbishoprics of the right to distribute the sum because of the abuses. The Orthodox Romanian deacon, Nicolae Manegutiu, related the antecedents of this government decision in a book published in 1902. According to Manegutiu it was the unprecedented abuses of the central office of the Romanian Orthodox Church that compelled the Hungarian government to resort to this measure. The Romanian clergy only knew what their church leaders were willing to reveal to them about the matter. They were told that "the Hungarians have denied and withdrawn the subvention for the Romanian Orthodox clergy in an arbitrary manner." "They told this lie to the clergy," continued Manegutiu, "because the officials of the consistory had to find a cover for their criminal activities." ⁷⁵

The truth was that during the distribution of the state subvention each official of the consistory retained 1,200 forints. Moreover, since they were trained priests, their names also appeared on the rolls as clergymen, hence they received an additional 200 to 400 forints. Each deacon received 200 forints, and priests 50 to 70 forints. According to the guidelines issued by the Hungarian government, priests with more years of schooling, with families, and with children attending school,

165

should have been on top of the list. But the deacons decided otherwise. They included on the list priests who were illiterate, who knew nothing of the subvention, and who were willing to sign [sic] anything placed in front of them because they were only too happy to be tolerated. These illiterate priests were on the lists, but once they signed a receipt written in the Cyrillic alphabet, which they could not understand, the deacons collected the sums in their stead. The better-educated priests filed hundreds of denunciations requesting that the government put an end to such abuses. Finally the government sent an inspector to the consistories. After a three-week examination tour "the inspector reached an absolutely just verdict: subsidies to the clergy should continue, but the distribution should be carried out by the government rather than the consistories which had committed the abuses." The church leaders failed to inform the clergy of this verdict; rather, they misled the clergy, pretending that the government had withdrawn the subsidies arbitrarily and without cause. They went further: the leaders proposed that the synod reject the subsidies provided by the government if the latter insisted that the distribution not be entrusted to the consistories. The misguided synod accepted this proposal. ⁷⁶

This measure of the consistory of Nagyszeben resulted in some confusion in the disbursement of the state subsidies to the lower clergy. The government refused to hand over to the consistory the sums earmarked for the clergy, but this did not prevent it from disbursing the allotted amounts directly to the clergy, nor did the government stop disbursing the usual sums to the bishops and to the consistory. Until the voting of the Congrua Law, many letters of thanks testify to the support given to the bishops of Arad, and to Nicholas Popea, the bishop of Karansebes, among others. The priests of the Orthodox Church received regular annual compensation, on the basis of Act XIV of 1898 regarding subvention to the clergy.

The Congrua Law divided the clergy into two groups, according to their level of education. The state complemented the incomes of the priests in the first group, those who had gone through all eight forms of the secondary school before attending the seminary, with an annual 1,600 crowns. Priests who attended the seminary without completing their secondary education fell under the second category and were awarded a state subvention of 800 crowns. By approving the Congrua Law the Hungarian state meant to make up for the loss in income resulting from the nationalization of the registry process. Before 1895 the registries had been kept by the clergy. Clergymen were the ones to record births, marriages, and deaths - a service for which they received remuneration. In 1895 the so-called ecclesiastic policy laws regarding

166

civil marriage and the keeping of the registries by civil servants were approved; henceforth the clergy was deprived of these remunerations. The Hungarian state awarded the annual subvention, called the congrua, to the priests of various churches as a sort of compensation. ⁷⁷

The Orthodox Romanian clergy, instigated against the Hungarian state by the consistory of Nagyszeben, received the congrua with mixed feelings. During the "memorandum trials" this clergy, with but few exceptions, had conducted a mass campaign of agitation against the Hungarian state and the Hungarian courts. It was well aware that these activities could not be hidden from the Hungarian authorities. Hence it expected no financial support from the state; on the contrary, it feared reprisals. Instead, the state adopted the Congrua Law. Thus it is not surprising that a substantial portion of the clergy greeted the law with suspicion, suspecting some kind of a trap. Manegutiu wrote:

This was an unexpected boon to the lower clergy, the state overwhelmed the clergy with its munificence. According to the clergyman author of an article in the official paper of the church, the clergy had not even dreamt of such subvention and was wondering how it had deserved it. ⁷⁸

At the same time the Romanian clergy regarded the congrua as a kind of balm, and soon began to urge its disbursement. Indeed, this did not take long: On May 28, 1899, with a vote of 40 to 28, the main body of the Orthodox Church, the Nation-Church Congress, declared that it would ask for the congrua, but with one condition: it should be picked up by the consistory. The Hungarian state had no objection. The Romanian archbishop, Ioan Metianu reached an agreement with Dr. Gyula Wlassics, the Hungarian Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, regarding the method of determining the state support to be awarded to the Romanian Orthodox parishes. Accordingly the secretary of the main see of Nagyszeben, Dr. Cristea Illes Miron, the future Patriarch of Greater Romania, was sent to Budapest. Cristea spent over seven months with the Second Section of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education; he did most effective work in his thorough examination of the Ministerial instructions pertaining to the application of the Congrua Law, and how it applied to other religious groups. As a result, the Romanian Orthodox clergy obtained everything it deserved according to the provisions of the law; in fact, significant subvention for some of the new parishes was also facilitated. The Hungarian Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education awarded the subvention even where

167

there were hardly any Orthodox Romanians. Thus the clergy of the newly-formed parishes in Balazsfalva, Naszod, Beszterce, and Marosujvar [Ocna Mures] also received the subvention. Without it, acknowledged the decision number 17911901 of the see of Nagyszeben, the parishes established in those cultural centers "would have remained without a priest." ⁷⁹

The yearly subvention soon completely altered the financial and social situation of the Orthodox Romanian clergy. "Our church," wrote Manegutiu, "received a considerable sum under the title subvention, and the thirst of the priests for this unexpected manna was like the thirst of the earth for drops of rain after an extended drought." ⁸⁰ Within a few years the financial situation of the hitherto-impoverished Orthodox clergy improved substantially. Therefore, in his report 123 dated January 26,1904, Archbishop Metianu requested the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education "that the available funds be turned over for the construction of churches and other buildings in the poor parishes." The decision of the Minister favored the interests of the priest, but support for the parishes also got underway.

The amount of the congrua increased several times by the end of World War I. For instance, in 1907, according to the official accounts of the dioceses, the priests received 674,177 crowns and eight fillers in the main see of Nagyszeben, 292,492 crowns in the diocese of Arad, 121,800 crowns and 62 fillers in that of Karansebes. In 1907, during the regime of the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, Count Apponyi, the Orthodox priests received altogether 1,088,469 crowns and 70 fillers under the title congrua. Seven years later the amount of the congrua more than doubled, to reach three million crowns. ⁸¹ The increase took place on the basis of Act XXXVIII of 1913. This law provided compensation for seniority, in five year increments; priests with the required educational background received a pay of 3,000 crowns after 25 years of service. In 1917, in accordance with regulation 1870, they also received a 500 crown clothing allowance. In the same year, they received an allowance for every child on the basis of Act IX. In 1918 these sums were raised to 1,000 and 600 crowns respectively.

Since the Uniate Church was considerably better off, its priests were awarded the congrua only later In this church for a long time, the financial burdens of the priests were borne almost entirely by the Religious Foundation. The Uniate priests of the diocese of Lugos received a subsidy amounting to five times their local income in 1867. The Foundation also took care of the moving expenses of the priests [oeconomicalis assistance], it often paid the tax on clerical lands, medical expenses incurred by the clergy, assistants appointed to help elderly

168

priests, the keep of mounts needed to visit distant parishioners, etc. Such were the subsidies given to the poorer priests of the archdiocese of Gyulafehervar, and to those of the dioceses of Lugos and Szamosujvar. In 1872 the average amount of the subsidies was 50 forints per individual, equivalent to the price of a cow.

The state subsidy was handed over to the Uniate bishop in a lump sum from 1900 on. ⁸² The final determination of the amount of congrua to be awarded to Uniate parishes took place in 1908, along with the parishes of the Roman Catholic Church but, as we have seen, Uniate priests received the sums corresponding to the congrua even earlier.

Five years later, after the approval of the five year increments, the financial situation of the clergy had improved to such an extent that the official paper of the archbishopric called upon them to work overtime.

Our clergymen will even receive five year increments from now on; although the government's proposed law to this effect has not yet gone through the legal formalities, the moneys have already arrived, and this is the main thing. Today our priests receive a yearly salary of 3,000 crowns, which is infinite progress compared to the past when, only fifteen years ago, they received next to nothing. In those times the priest had to mind his parcel of land carefully to support himself and his family. The congrua and the related five-year increments have improved his condition immeasurably.

Yet the question remains, now that they no longer have to worry about making ends meet, what will our priests do for the sake of the people and the church? In our region the churches stay closed all week long, except on Sunday, and our clergy pays not the slightest heed to the spiritual welfare of the people during the week. Now that they are able to live more at ease will they even bother to continue preaching and practicing the rituals?

These questions must be answered by acts, because a heavy responsibility would weigh upon our church dignitaries if our priests, in exchange for a salary of 3,000 crowns a year, were expected to do no more than fifteen years ago, when they earned almost no cash whatever. ⁸³

The question now arises: Could the increment provided by the state be viewed as preventing the Romanian priesthood from continuing to act on behalf of Romanian nationalism and be involved in politics? Was it not the objective of the congrua to hang as a sword of Damocles over

169

the head of the Romanian clergy, which was running the risk of losing its freshly-tasted ease if it did not refrain from political involvement?

The law specified the circumstances under which the increment could be withheld. According to paragraph 7 of the Act of 1898: XIV a priest deprived of his parish by due process, or condemned for moral turpitude or anti-state activities, was not entitled to the congrua. The congrua could be withdrawn for a maximum period of three years during the 1088 of the parish. It could be permanently withdrawn only from someone who had been repeatedly sentenced for moral turpitude or anti-state activities. In every case, the accused priest had to be tried in his own ecclesiastic court. The Minister could withdraw the congrua only after the ecclesiastic trial had been concluded. According to Article 9, if the ecclesiastic authorities took no action within three months upon the Minister's request, the latter had the right to decide regarding the withdrawal of the congrua on the basis of the data available to him. He had the right to do the same if the ecclesiastic court dismissed the charges despite valid grounds. But in such a case the church authorities still had the right to appeal the Minister's decision in the local courts. The concept of anti-state activity was defined in Article 13 of the Act of 1893: XXVI, describing the goal of the objectionable acts in precise terms. Activities directed against the constitution, the national character, the unity, the independence, the territorial integrity, and furthermore the misuse of the official language of the state were defined as anti-state activities.

The above prescriptions seem extremely harsh at first reading. Indeed, part of the Romanian clergy refused to accept them. At the general meeting of the main body of the Romanian Orthodox Church held on May 28,1899, to deal with this specific issue there were 26 votes for the motion to reject the congrua. No doubt one of them was the vote of the Romanian chronicler who, in the 1900 edition of the Tribuna's popular calendar, described the congrua as persecution of the church. ⁸⁴ Other Romanians were less pessimistic regarding the congrua. They saw favorable signs in the attitude of the Hungarian government up to that time. The church leaders in Szeben knew right well that in 1895 the Hungarian government had not withheld subsidies from those officials of their Orthodox see and those professors of theology who had been sentenced in connection with the Memorandum trial. ⁸⁵ Even earlier, the government had continued to support Romanian priests who had been sentenced by the courts, because it did not consider a leading role in some political movement as grounds for withholding assistance. We know how important was the 1881 meeting of Romanian voters in Nagyszeben for the development of the move

170

ment against the constitution of Hungary. This was where the program of the Romanian National party was elaborated, as was the demand for the autonomy of Transylvania and other demands. Nicolae Popea, the Romanian deputy bishop, presided over this meeting. Yet the government raised no objections when, shortly thereafter, Popea was elected bishop at Karansebes; in fact, the government forwarded his name for confirmation. ⁸⁶ These and similar facts convinced the majority of Romanian leaders at Szeben that the congrua constituted no threat to the political and ethnic independence of the Romanian clergy. Indeed, the events gradually proved them right. The congrua was disbursed year after year without serious confusion or negative consequences. The law of 1898, in the thirtieth year of Hungarian rule, did not even prescribe a knowledge of the Hungarian language for the priests benefiting from the congrua. That requirement was stipulated later, by Act 1909: XIII, but even then it allowed a five-year grace period for those priests who were otherwise qualified and who strove to meet the linguistic requirement.

When the Romanian leaders mounted mass demonstrations against the laws promoted by Apponyi, the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, some Romanian priests did not participate. Most likely they feared eventual reprisals, the loss of their congrua. A lawyer (probably Victor Onisor) published a series of articles about the situation of the clergy in a Romanian weekly from Beszterce dealing mainly with social and financial issues. "Dependence deriving from state supplement pay is not so dangerous," he wrote in his introductory article, "because the fears relating to the loss of the congrua are baseless and derive from lack of knowledge of the legal situation." ⁸⁷ The congrua does not subordinate the priest to the state.

The law prescribes this income not for certain political services or for certain opportunism, but in exchange for priestly functions.... The increment can be obtained only on the basis of the law and if the required conditions are present. No minister or other entity has the power to grant this increment on grounds different from the circumstances as defined, and once the pay is granted it can be lost, once again, only as a result of specific occurrences defined by the law. The knowledge and understanding of these facts must awaken in the clergy an awareness of the significance of their vocation and of their independence vis-à-vis the state. The state requires no service from the clergy, because they are not employees of the public administration, are not in a relationship of dependence from the state or the police. They

171

are merely required to perform their pastoral duties, not as a demand of the state, but as a requirement of their vocation. In spite of any pay increment granted by the law the legal situation of the priests has not changed in any way; they remain subordinate to the same higher institutions of the church as before. ⁸⁸

The events of subsequent years proved these arguments correct. In 1910 and 1911, the Romanian clergy once again participated in Romanian political movements in even greater numbers than earlier. One of the vice-presidents at the voters' conference in Nagyszeben, in 1910, Nicolae Ivan, also happened to be the top official of the see of the archdiocese of Nagyszeben (hence his pay came from the Hungarian state). At the plenary session of this conference the Hungarian state was under intense attack. In the series of mass rallies held in Romanian areas in 1911 the tone of the attacks was even more radical. The Romanian clergy who benefited from help or incremental pay provided by the Hungarian state participated in masse, at the rallies held in larger towns and villages. Roman Ciorogariu, the director of the seminary, six deacons, a professor of theology, fourteen parish priests, and others attended the February 16 meeting at Arad. They denounced the government in sharp tones in a resolution adopted by the popular assembly, and expressed their adherence to the program of the Romanian National Party (one of whose points aimed at changing the country's constitution). The Romanian priests of Brasso (Dr. Softu, Vasile Stefan, Ioan Priscu, etc.) and twenty priests from nearby villages were present, yet not a single one had his congrua withdrawn by the state for having participated in the assembly.

These facts lead us to believe that the risk of the congrua being withheld was indeed slight, and the Hungarian state did not resort to it as a political weapon. Our opinion of the contributions and financial solidity of the Romanian priests may be identical or similar to that of the Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga, as expressed in 1926:

In Transylvania, under Hungarian rule, the priestly vocation was one of the most sought- after. With the granting of the congrua the income of village priests improved sensibly, and their financial situation became satisfactory. Financial independence contributed greatly to their moral standing before both the people and the authorities. Moreover, a career as priest served the ends of national independence as well. The important role played by the clergy in our political struggles is well known. ⁸⁹

172

The satisfactory situation of the clergy was the result of the Hungarian state's contribution to the livelihood of over 3,500 individuals - priests and their families. In the first year of World War I there were 1,943 priests in the Orthodox Church. More than 1,500 priests were functioning in 1,475 parishes and 1,600 affiliate parishes of the Uniate Church. ⁹⁰ The Hungarian state ensured the financial independence of the Romanian clergy even though it was aware of its anti-state and anti-Hungarian attitudes. Very seldom did the state declare the congrua forfeited, though it may have had good reason to do so more often, for the Romanian archdiocese committed serious abuses in issuing the certificates needed to apply for the congrua. The archbishop issued certificates even to some who were not entitled to them. Had the attitude of the government been negative it could have resorted to serious reprisals. Instead, it was satisfied with the archbishop's declaration to the effect that he had signed the objection able false documents without reading them. ⁹¹

The sources describing the financial situation of the clergy also mention state help to Romanian seminaries and theological faculties. The seminaries of the Uniate Church were subventioned from the Religious Foundation, the Orthodox ones from the state treasury. The Foundation took care of the board, clothing, and even medical expenses of the theologians. Sometimes it even covered the traveling expenses of Romanian theologians studying abroad. The novices from dioceses without a seminary were kept by the Foundation at the Roman Catholic seminary of Nagyvarad or Szatmar, or at the Uniate seminary at Ungvar [Uzhgorod]. The seminary of Szamosujvar was subsidized by both the Foundation and the state treasury. The latter also covered the expenses of the renovation of the seminary at Balazsfalva in 1916 17.⁹² The salaries of the Romanian professors of Orthodox theology were paid out of the state treasury. Part of the sum earmarked for this purpose was disbursed to the consistories, and part of it directly to the individuals through the internal revenue bureaus. ⁹³ Moreover, the state granted certain sums for the university studies of Romanian Orthodox theologians on an annual basis, and these sums enabled four theologians to study at Hungarian or foreign universities, year after year. Dr. Onisifor Ghibu, Nicolae Regman, George Tulbure, Lazar Triteanu, Iosif Enescu, Cristea E. Miron, Iosif Blaga, and others benefited from scholarships awarded by the state.

In addition to state subsidies for the clergy and for the training of priests, the Religious Foundation and the treasury often took care of the expenses of the parishes. Every time a parish wanted to build a new church, or repair the old one, the foundation or the treasury was the

173

most important source of funds, besides the collections taken. Many parishes of the Uniate Church were kept afloat by the Hungarian authorities or the Foundation. For instance, the Foundation was in charge of 77 parishes and over 20 Uniate institutions in the diocese of Nagyvarad and of 45 parishes in the diocese of Lugos, while 30 more parishes were supported by the Hungarian Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Agriculture. In other words, the churches and other religious buildings in these parishes were built by organizations subventioned by the state. The Foundation covered the expenses incurred in connection with the construction of a particularly large number of churches in the Uniate diocese of Lugos. The program started under Ioan Olteanu, when new churches were built at Izgar [Izgar], Petromany [Petroman], Rakovica [Racovita], and Vermes [Vermi~], all from the funds of the Foundation. When Olteanu undertook to visit this region and requested a travel voucher from the Minister of Religious Affairs, he wrote in his application:

I find the present moment most appropriate for the suggested tour of inspection, because I can show the faithful facts regarding the completion of churches recently consecrated thanks to the Hungarian government, regarding the extent to which our government is taking care of us, and with what favors we are being overwhelmed. ⁹⁴

Later, under bishop Dr. Mihalyi, thirty new churches were constructed, 24 repaired, and 33 school buildings added in the same diocese. The greater part of the expenses were borne by the Religious Foundation. Moreover, the Minister also awarded grants from the treasury to those underprivileged Uniate parishes which were not supported by the Foundation. Thus there were several hundred parishes in Transylvania where new churches were constructed and old ones repaired with the assistance of the Foundation or of the treasury.

In addition to helping the Uniate parishes, the government did not reject requests for assistance from the Orthodox parishes. According to the records of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the government contributed to the construction of churches in the following Romanian Orthodox parishes in the decade preceding World War I: Andras, Bernad [Bernadeal, Borsomezo [Inuri], Burjanfalva, Beganyiresd [Breazova], Birda [Birola], Csarnohaza [Bulz], Des, Erzsebetvaros, Felsocsertes [Certege], Felsopoumbak [Porumbacul de sus], Gerendkeresztur [Grindeni], Halumany, Istvanlak, Kisbecskerek [Becicherecu Mic], Korostarjan [Tarian], Kislaka [Chislaca], Les, Luki [Iteu],

174

Martonhegy [Somartin], Maroskeresztur [Cristesti], Mezobergenye [Berghia], Marosaszao [Ususau], Nagydisznod, Nagydevecser [Diviciorii Mari], Olahtyukos [Ticusu Nou], Pakles, Pokola, Purkerec [Purcareni], Szakadat [Scdat], Szirbo [Sirbova], Sellemberk [Selimbar], Szarakszo [Saracsau], Tirgovesti, Terebes, Torontaloroszi, Unip [Temesujnep], Vamoslaz [Chislaz], Varsonkolyos [Suncuius], Valkany [Valcani] and Zoldes [Zeldis] as well as the convent of Csiklovabanya [Ciclova Montan] and the cloister of Marionforras.

The following churches were repaired thanks to financial assistance from the Hungarian state: Alcina [Altina], Alsogezes [Ghijasa de jos], Alparet [Bobilna], Arany [Uroiu], Budafalva [Ungureni], Bendorf [Benesti], Boholc [Boholt], Brulya [Bruiu], Buziasfurdo, Berekszo [Birsu], Csicsoujfalu [Ciceu-Corabia], Csikardal, Csulpesz [Ciulnaz], Erdohat [Gunoasa], Gajnar [Poenita], Jakabfalva [Iacobeni], Kohalom, Kupsafalva [Cunseni], Kosztafalva [Costeni], Kisdebrecen [Dumbrava], Koved [Cuiad], Kalbor [Calbor], Kutin [Cutin], Kosso, Megos [Mogos], Magyaro [Alunis], Mezotelegd [Tileagd], Milova [Milova], Nyaradszentbenedek [Murgesti], Nyarfas [Plopis], Olahszentandrasfalva [Scel], Obad [Obad], Omlod, Prazsmar [Prejmer], Ruszka [Rusca], Szelecske [S1iaca], Sepsiszentgyorgy, Sovenyseg [Fiser], Szaszahuz [Ssusi], Tiszavina, Temesujnep [Unip], Telekirecse [Recea Nou], Ujvaros [Noistat], and Zsombor [Jimbor]. The same applied to the lodging of the priests at Aga [Brestovt], Felsokapolna [Capilna], Hortobagyfalva [Corntel], Janosda [Ianosda], Korodszentmarton [Coroisinmrtin], Marosorbo [Oarba de Mures], Magyarcseke [Ceica], Ordogkut [Treznea], Rakos, Sovenyfalu [Cornesti], and Temesvukovar [Vucova]. It was also thanks to the financial support of the Hungarian state that the Romanian Orthodox churches of Alsodoboly [Dobolii de Jos], Budapest, Des, Falkusa [F1cusa], Felsoorbo [Girbova de Sus], Felsokastely [Costeiu de Sus], Hegyeslak [Hazesti], Kisbecskerek, Marosilye, Szekelyandrasfalva, and Szekelyfoldvar [Rzboeni-Cetate] were equipped or furnished. In addition to the above, Hungarian state support made it possible to repair the steeples of the Romanian Orthodox churches at Marpod [Mariapod], Offenbanya [Baia de Aries], and Szaszkezd [Saschiz]; it also enabled the Orthodox churches of Des, Skore [Scoreiu], and Ujegyhaz to purchase bells. In some Orthodox parishes such as Rogoz [Rogojel] and Illenbak [Ilimbav] state assistance was requested and obtained for fencing the churchyard.

The construction and maintenance work of the Romanian parishes was carried out, apart from state assistance, with contributions obtained at the community or municipal level. In most Romanian communities the process encountered no difficulties whatever. Since the notary, the

175

judge, and the community council were in the hands of Romanians, they easily approved the contributions requested by the dioceses. Nor did these requests encounter difficulties in towns with a mixed population. In Szaszvaros the council approved the wood for a new cross, ⁹⁵ in other areas they approved the cash. If this did not suffice, the religious leaders turned to the authorities for permission to solicit funds. We have found no indication among all the Romanian complaints that any such application was denied. The Hungarian authorities approved such applications courteously. The collection for the construction of the Orthodox cathedral at Nagyszeben was an interesting case in point: It has taken over a period of almost half a century, from 1857 to 1906. The collection had been launched by Saguna, who retained part of the contribution the Austrian government issued to the clergy. The fund for the cathedral amounted to 22,400 forints by 1868. From that year the Hungarian government undertook to contribute the same amount, even though it knew that the Austrians had been forwarding the money as a reward for the participation of the Romanian clergy in the anti- Kossuth fight in 184849. On December 31, 1900, the fund had swollen to 507,837 crowns and six fillers, of which almost half had come from the Hungarian state. At the time of construction the state added yet another 15,000 crowns. Thus the famous Romanian Orthodox cathedral of Nagyszeben is a 50% product of Hungarian state help. ⁹⁶

Hungarian society also contributed to the success of fund-raising for Romanian church construction. Occasionally even Hungarian landlords had Romanian churches built at their expense. In 1872 Count Domokos Zichy, the Hungarian landowner of Major in Beszterce-Naszod county, while visiting the community of Kisilva, summoned the Romanian teacher, Gabriel Nechiti, who was also curator of the church, and asked him: "Do you all want to build a church?" "Of course we want to," the man answered, ',but we are too poor." "I will have the church built, you only need to bring the materials," said the Count, and kept his promise. He took care of all expenses, and the beautiful church was erected. ⁹⁷ Karoly Huszar, the Hungarian landowner of Lugoskisfalu, acted in a similar manner. According to Hungarian sources several members of the Wesselenyi family had churches built in many a Romanian community. The governors of certain counties with a Romanian population also went out of their way to support the Romanian churches and meet their financial needs. On the occasion of the consecration of the Romanian Uniate Church of Des, the Uniate bishop of Szamosujvar delivered a special speech of thanks to Dr. Zoltan Dezsi, the governor of the County of Szolnok-Doboka, for all the assistance he had provided to Romanian religious causes. ⁹⁸

176

In smaller communities, the Romanian dioceses met almost all of their more-significant expenses from benefit performances. There is scarcely a daily or weekly which does not mention the success of some such performance. These reports indicate that in villages with a mixed population, Hungarians always participated in goodly numbers in soirees organized for the benefit of Romanian religious purposes, and supported these with sizable donations. In 1897, for instance, the Uniate priest of Korosbanya publicly expressed his gratitude to associate judge, Janos Nagy, the notary, Meszoly, the notary public, Karoly Pap, and the Minister of the Reformed Church, Szegedy, who had all donated for the benefit of the diocese at the ball organized by its leading clerics. ⁹⁹ A few years later the committee of the Romanian diocese of Retteg [Reteag] organized a benefit for the Uniate Church. Fifteen of the guests paid in excess of the face value of the ticket, and nine of the fifteen were Hungarians. '"We express our special thanks to the professionals from other ethnic groups who honored U8 by their presence," wrote the author of the report. ¹⁰⁰ In 1912 the Hungarians of Abrudbanya showed up in considerable numbers at the local Romanian ball. ¹⁰¹ And the columns of the Romanian papers mention hundreds of similar occurrences throughout the period of Hungarian rule, demonstrating that in most places Hungarian society did not isolate itself from the Romanian. Having achieved a satisfactory, and even steadily-improving financial situation, the Romanian churches could carry on with their work in peace. This work, as we have seen, was more ethnic and national than Christian, and the Hungarian authorities were well aware of this. They also knew how pervasive abuse and corruption were within the Romanian churches, particularly the Orthodox one. The leaders of this church disregarded the Organizational Rules whenever their interests so dictated. Bishop Metianu ruled the church in an arbitrary and tyrannical manner. He modified the decisions of the consistory at the time of their execution. When this high-handed application of the rules was criticized at the Episcopal synod he stood up and declared: "I am the law and rules of our church.¹⁰² In spite of all this the Hungarian authorities continued to respect the autonomy of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the freedom of movement of church officials, their right to assemble or tend to their flock, and the observance of the holidays of their church throughout the period, as stipulated by the law. Romanian church autonomy and freedom of worship were not empty slogans, but reality, and this is confirmed by the Romanian press and the minutes of religious assemblies which make no mention of any infringement of these rights. Nowhere have I run across

177

complaints to the effect that individuals who belonged to the Romanian Uniate or Orthodox Churches were forced or intimidated into conversion to another faith, forced to share in the financial burdens of other religions or to construct churches that did not belong to them. Nor is there evidence that the authorities interfered with the holidays of the Orthodox Church, which came later than the holidays of the Western Christian churches. The Orthodox Christmas, Easter, and Ascension Sunday did not normally coincide with the same holidays of the Gregorian calendar, rather, these Orthodox holidays were celebrated later, and sometime this led to chaos. Occasionally Roman Catholics and Protestants leaving their church on a holiday met Romanians working in the village or on their plots. This had a disturbing effect on Hungarian Christians, as it did on the Orthodox when, coming out of their church on an important holiday they found offices and stores open. Occasionally even a megalomaniac policeman might prevent the Orthodox Romanians from working on their plots on a Western holiday. This was the case with a Hungarian policeman at Zernyest [Zarnesti] who forbade Romanians from working on the Christmas Day of the Gregorian calendar. His supervisors, however, had him transferred by way of punishment. ¹⁰³ At Deva, Hungarian and Romanian merchants concluded an agreement to observe each other's holidays; the Romanian merchants kept their shops shut on the Christmas Day of the Western Christians, and the Hungarians did the same on the Christmas Day of the Orthodox, which, according to the Julian calendar, fell 13 days after the Christmas of December 25 in the Gregorian calendar. The agreement implied mutual tolerance, and nipped in the bud any possibility of either party spoiling the holiday. ¹⁰⁴

The authorities were generally considerate of the religious sensitivities of the population. On St. John's Day the military participated in the Orthodox religious ceremony in the larger towns such as Brasso or Szeben, with a parade or a gun salute. after the ceremony they returned to their barracks while the military band played Romanian tunes. ¹⁰⁵

Dignitaries of the Romanian church were accorded receptions fitting to higher church and public office by the authorities. More than once, if some high ranking Hungarian official arrived at the Episcopal see, he paid his respects to the Romanian bishop. In 1913 the Hungarian Minister of Religious Affairs and Education Bela Jankovich paid a personal visit to the Romanian archbishop. After words of greeting from the Archbishop, the Councilor Ion Micu Moldovanu stood up and delivered a speech in Romanian "so that the Minister too may have an opportunity to enjoy the sweet sounds of our Romanianian- guage." ¹⁰⁶

178

The situation of the Romanian churches on Hungarian territory can be understood from the data above. But the circumstances of the Romanian churches under Hungarian rule become even clearer if we compare them to the predicament of the Romanian churches in neighboring countries.

While the Romanian Orthodox Church of Hungary was independent of the state, dealt with issues on the basis of autonomy, and waged intensive theoretical and practical struggle against the state, the Orthodox faithful and clergy living under Romanian rule could not even dream of such rights. The Holy Synod had no autonomy whatever, vis-à-vis the various regimes. These regimes decided as they pleased on most issues confronting the church. They elected metropolitans and deprived bishops of their sees. In the case of the Metropolitan Serafim, the Holy Synod was, in the words of the historian Iorga, "subject to

179

jealousies among the principal popes allied with the government, and even cowed in a servile manner before all governments." ¹⁰⁸ These conditions were typical not only of the Romanian Orthodox, but of the relationship between the Serbian and Russian Orthodox churches and their respective states, since they were a logical consequence of the ceasaro-papist organization of the official church. Clear evidence of this was the measure adopted by the Serbian government towards the Metropolitan Mihal, the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Metropolitan, along with some bishops, raised his voice against a new stamp act proclaimed by the government. On the request of the cabinet, the ruler removed the Metropolitan from his position by decree, without due process, and had him interned in a monastery. His position was filled by someone else. The Serbian clergy unanimously backed the deposed Metropolitan. The citizens of Belgrade sent a delegation to the ruler, and even the tsar intervened on behalf of the popular Metropolitan, all to no avail! He had the audacity to object to a law, and had to disappear into a monastery. ¹⁰⁹

The moral scandal that broke out in 1911 sheds a sharp light on the relationship between the Romanian state and the Orthodox Church. Bishop Gherasim accused the Metropolitan of Romania of immorality, plagiarism, and heresy. The government removed both from their positions, although everyone recognized that the bishop who raised the charges was correct and above reproach. According to one Romanian paper, the Metropolitan represented all those who ,'either compromised with the dirty regime in the bosom of the church, or simply fled by leaving the church." They had difficulty finding a qualified person to fill the vacant position of Metropolitan, because it turned out that the majority of the bishops had been bribed by the government to ensure their vote during the decisive meeting of the Holy Synod. Rumor had it that a Romanian bishop from Transylvania would be approached to fill the see of the Metropolitan. One newspaper in Bucharest described this as unrealistic, since the Romanian bishops of Transylvania "are sovereign rulers within their church who can be removed from their see only by death." They would surely not accept the high office, because they realized how offensive this would be to Romania. The Romanian nation and the Romanian Orthodox Church indeed had the right to feel offended, since inviting a bishop from Transylvania was tantamount to admitting that "there was not a single person worthy of filling the office of Metropolitan in the entire Orthodox Church of Romania.'' ¹¹⁰

A comparison of the situation of the Orthodox churches in Hungary and Romania leads to interesting conclusions. The 6.7 million Orthodox members of Romania had two archbishops and six bishops. The three

180

million Romanians in Hungary had two archbishops and five bishops in the Uniate and Orthodox Churches combined; in other words, the Romanians of Hungary, whose numbers were only about half of the Romanians of Romania, had almost the same number of church leaders as their brothers in the Kingdom of Romania. The comparison of the number of parishes leads us to similar conclusions: In Romania there were 6,636, in Hungary 6,136. On the other hand, the number of priests differed considerably; they were far more numerous in Romania than in Hungary, where they could choose between many parishes. Thus a career as priest was more attractive and enjoyed greater prestige in Hungary.

The churches in Hungary and in Romania agreed in one respect: support for Romanian nationalism and fostering it by whatever means. In Hungary this meant a common fight by the two Romanian churches against the state, and the Romanianization of Hungarians living among the Romanian population for the sake of enhancing Romanian power. As the newspaper of Brasso was to write:

The people of Romania recognize but one church: The Romanian Church. In spite of all the differences that have evolved between our religions, we represent one and the same church, the calling of which is to defend and cultivate our national unity. Thus a common fight is our obligation. ¹¹²

The Orthodox Church also felt it to be its national mission to Romanianize the non-Romanians living in Romania. The periodical of the church wrote:

The Holy Synod must strive to integrate into the Romanian nation, the foreign ethnic elements assembled in our country, so that they may become true sons of the Romanian nation. This can be achieved only if the foreigners who are already Romanian citizens become Romanian Christians through the church as well¹¹³

Such was the chauvinist final objective of the Romanian state.

The Romanian subjects who did not belong to the Orthodox Church, especially the Hungarian Csangok, who were Roman Catholic, and the Jews, soon felt the impact of the chauvinist policies of the Romanian state in all areas. Although the constitution guaranteed freedom of worship, the practice was different. Jewish school children had to spend half a day in school even on Saturday, hence could not observe their

181

religious holiday. Romanian chauvinism was particularly obnoxious with regard to the Csangok who were forced to observe the holidays of the Orthodox Church. Their language was banned from church. The bishop of Iasi authorized the printing of the catechism only in Romanian for the benefit of Hungarian children, in accordance with the Law on Education of 1893.

The Romanian government endeavored to Romanianize the Hungarian-speaking Csangok by every means at its disposal. It instructed the Romanian bishop appointed by the state to send into the Csango villages only priests who could not understand Hungarian. The priests who were already stationed there received different instructions: ,'It is forbidden to pray, sing, or deliver sermons in Hungarian in the churches." According to the ban issued by the bishop they were not even allowed to speak Hungarian in their private communications with the faithful. The Hungarian press did raise the issue on several occasions. Endre Barabas, familiar with Romanian conditions, dealt with the sad predicament of the Csangok in a monograph and a series of articles. He pointed to the flourishing condition of the Romanian national churches in Hungary and to the differences between the religious policies of the Hungarian and Romanian states. Yet the Romanian press in Hungary felt, without exception, that the religious policies of the Romanian government of Bucharest vis-à-vis the Csangok, were entirely justified. The Libertatea of Szaszvaros, edited by the Orthodox deacon Mota - that is, by a church official - responded to one of Barabas's articles by stating that the Csangok could no longer speak Hungarian, hence it was necessary to resort to Romanian at church. But even if they were Hungarian and could speak the language, we must still not forget that "Romania is a nation-state, not a multilingual state like Hungary. The sixteen communities declared to be Hungarian (although in fact Romanian-speaking) would not have the gall to request that Romania change its educational laws.'' ¹¹⁴ Thus the author of the article was of the opinion that since the Csangok spoke only Romanian they had to be "truly Romanian," but when it came to the Romanians of Szekely-land who spoke only Hungarian, the same paper took the stand that the language spoken by the people is not a criterion of nationality. And not only this newspaper, but the entire Romanian press adopted the same stand when the issue of the Hungarian Uniate bishop came up in 1902, even though, as we have seen, the Hungarians intended this institution only for a defensive role.

The situation of the Orthodox Romanians living in the Orthodox countries of the Balkans or in Russia was the saddest of all. Every- where a ceasaro-papist regime prevailed; the Orthodox Church and the

182

Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, and Russian Tsarist state were as one. As far as Romanian minorities were concerned, this meant the total annihilation of Romanian national feeling by the Orthodox Church- state. None of the states allowed the Orthodox Romanians to organize on an ethnic basis. The nearly 500,000 Romanian Orthodox living on Serbian and Bulgarian territory did not have a Romanian church or clergy, either in the second half of the 19th or in the first decades of the 20th centuries. They had to attend mass said in Serbian or Bulgarian. Serbian priests Serbianized even Romanian family names. ¹¹⁵ In 1913 the situation of the Romanians of Serbia was described to the Romanian parliament in a memorandum, with a wealth of details. "The Romanian churches have disappeared, and the Romanian priests have gradually been replaced by Serbians, as a consequence of which Romanians have to attend service in the churches of Serbia exclusively in Slavic language." By circular number 765, dated August 18, 1899, the Bishop of Timocul instructed priests to give "purely Serbian national names to Romanian children, and he compiled a list of such names for this purpose.'' ¹¹⁶

The fate of Romanians living on Greek territory, and of Macedo- Romanians living on Turkish territory in areas with a Greek majority was even worse. The Greek government and state church tried everything to turn the Romanians into Greeks. It persecuted Romanians living on its own territory, while exerting constant pressure on neighboring Macedo-Romanians as well. According to Romanian sources the Greeks hired gangs of criminals to perpetrate tortures and slaughter in areas inhabited by Romanians. According to the newspaper published in Brasso:

For a period of fifty years the Romanians of the Ottoman Empire were subjected to constant pressures and harassment, as manifested in the refusal to provide religious services, in excommunications from the church, in libelous denunciations to the Ottoman authorities, or in far more terrifying slaughter and other atrocities. No crusade has ever been directed with greater determination and deliberateness than the one against the Romanian churches and their followers in the Ottoman Em- pire. ¹¹⁷

But the situation of the Romanians in Bessarabia, in Tsarist Russia, was no rosier, as Romanians in Hungary were well aware. The Russian state and Orthodox Church would not allow church organization on an ethnic basis. It was forbidden to speak or pray in Romanian in the

183

churches. In 1908 the rumor spread that the Tsar would authorize Masses in Romanian, and a Romanian priest in the province of Izmail gave a sermon in Romanian without awaiting official confirmation of the news. The next day he disappeared from the bosom of his family, and was never heard from again. ¹¹⁸

Surveying the ecclesiastic life and the evolution of the churches of the Romanians in Hungary, we must conclude that throughout the Dual Monarchy, Romanian churches evolved without encountering obstacles from outside. The majority of Romanian priests had intervened on the side of the Habsburgs in the Hungarian freedom fight of 1848149, against the Hungarians. The Austrian autocratic regime initiated regular state subsidies for the Romanian Uniate and Orthodox churches from the revenues of Hungarian lands, by way of reward. It also agreed, in theory and in practice, to the organizational separation of Orthodox Romanians from Serbians, and of the Romanian Uniates from Hungarian Catholics, by setting up the Romanian Orthodox archbishopric and by recognizing the archbishopric of Gyulafehervar of the Uniate Church. This separation placed the two Romanian churches on an ethnic foundation. All this took place as a reward for the anti-Hungarian stance of the Romanians in 1848-49, and to set up Romanians as a bastion against any possible anti-Habsburg action on the part of Hungarians. In 1867, because of international considerations, the House of Habsburg achieved a peaceful coexistence with Hungarians, and also gave them a free hand with regard to Romanians. The Hungarian statesmen could have placed obstacles to the development of Romanian Churches to lessen their national character. Instead, at the time of the Ministry of Baron Jozsef Eotvos, the Hungarian government consolidated the national basis on which the two Romanian churches were organized. By approving the Organizational Rules providing autonomy for the Orthodox church, the Hungarian state erected a powerful fortification protecting the Romanian Orthodox and enabling them to settle matters of church and nation in peace during the whole period of Hungarian rule. The Hungarian authorities respected this autonomy to the end, even though the Romanian church had become a state within a state as a result of it.

The Hungarian government not only agreed to continue to pay the subvention initiated by the Austrians, but also subsidized the churches increasingly year after year. The government alleviated the financial burdens of the Romanian churches at first with special contributions, and later with the congrua. Bishoprics, central religious institutions, priests, and parishes benefited from the assistance provided by the Religious Foundation and the state treasury. Many bodies, buildings,

184

and churches of the Uniate and of the Orthodox were set up or built entirely out of Hungarian government contributions. The government's help to Romanians was not aimed at curtailing the political role of the Romanian clergy, nor did it have such an effect.

By recognizing organization on an ethnic basis, by increasing government allowances, by the unlimited freedom of operations granted to ecclesiastic bodies, by unfettered freedom of religion and conscience, the Hungarian state adopted a well-meaning and liberal religious policy which was in sharp contrast to the religious policies of Serbia, Romania, Russia, or Bulgaria.

THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940