relationships between the romanian orthodox church and anti-semitism before the holocaust

8/20/2019 Relationships Between the Romanian Orthodox Church and Anti-Semitism Before the Holocaust

1/22

96

Esettanulmány 6

Gabriel Andreescu :

Relationships between the Romanian Orthodox Church and anti-Semitism before the

Holocaust

Introduction

I did an analysis of the role played by the Romanian Orthodox Church (ROC) in the evolution of

anti-Semitism and its manifestations, from the creation of Greater Romania (1919) to the genocide

of Jews (the Holocaust), using previous research and archives367. Anti-Semitism is a component of

the more general national-orthodox anti-democratic drift. This research provides a conceptual

framework needed in order to take full advantage of the data on anti-Semitism in Romania between

the World Wars. I use the term Holocaust to have a different meaning than that established indoctrine368; I distinguish between „societal anti-Semitism” and „institutionalized anti-Semitism”; I

concentrate on the study of „the sources of anti-Semitism” and differentiate between actant

resources and passive resources. I identified four stages of anti-Semitism between the World Wars.

The Romanian Orthodox Church was both a passive resource and an actant resource throughout the

different stages of anti-Semitism until the Holocaust. The relationship of the ROC with anti-

Semitism took different forms for the church as an institution, for the clergy and for the

heterogeneous community of the faithful. ROC anti-Semitism was only one component of Orthodox

nationalism – a body of ideas and practices, hostile towards other religious communities and, more

generally, hostile towards any form of otherness that could affect the ideal of a homogenous

orthodox nation.

The Romanian State and the Romanian Orthodox Church have been in a constant dispute over who

has the authority within Romanian society. However, throughout this period, the State dominated

the Church because of the ROC’s dependence on the material resources provided by the state and as

a result of the state institutional power. During the second part of the ‘30s, the ROC succeeded in

pushing some of its objectives into the governmental agenda. Even so, the state had the advantage

over the church. The relationships between church leadership, the orthodox clergy and the

community of the faithful were influenced by this asymmetry of power. The result was a rift within

the Orthodox Church between its hierarchy and the clergy. The main conflict was triggered by the

involvement of the clergy in politics. The Orthodox clergy entered the political arena and

represented an important resource for nationalist-Orthodoxist political movements. In criticalsituations, the hierarchy was forced to condemn the actions of the clergy and the political

involvement of its members.

In my research I stress that at the beginning of the ‘20s, contrary to the opinion of some others369,

the Romanian state was evolving towards modernity. The foundational laws of the time, starting

with the Constitution of 1923 and continuing with the 1928 Law on religious denominations,

367 The study stems from looking at previous works in conjecture with two archives: the CNSAS archive, which holds

the files of the Securitate (including the files of the former State Security, between 1922 and 1945) and the National

Archive. The ROC did not allow access to its own archives.368 This corresponds to the concept of genocide (against Jews) as defined by the Convention on the Prevention

and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 369 I am thinking also of the Final Report of the International Commission for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania.


2/22

97

assume that Romania is a secular state. There was a conflict between the modernism of the majority

of the political elites and the traditional culture and ideological resources of the largest part of the

population. Entrepreneurs of these latter resources created a constant pressure on the state, and

changed little by little the political ethos of the Romanian state.

Research on anti-Semitism in Romania is done in the context of the adoption of a framework

doctrine for this phenomenon, in the form of the Final Report of the International Commission for

the Study of the Holocaust in Romania (2004). That is why I repeatedly highlight where ourcontribution deviates from the theses of the Final Report.

A. Concepts used in analyzing the four stages of anti-Semitism in Romania, 1918-1944

The Holocaust

The term „anti-Semitism” is used to refer to language, ideas, attitudes and practices that are hostile

toward Jews. We separate anti-Semitic manifestations in Romania between the World Wars into

four stages, and use the term “Holocaust” in its narrow sense to refer to „the genocide of Jews”. The

Holocaust, as presented by the Jewish people’s living memorial to the Holocaust, Yad Vashem, isdefined as the sum total of all anti-Jewish actions carried out by the Nazi regime between 1933 and

1945, including: stripping the German Jews of their legal and economic status in the 1930s`;

segregation and starvation in the various occupied countries; the murder of close to six million Jews

in Europe.370 The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has the same approach if in

somewhat different terms: “The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored

persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its

collaborators."371 In Romania, the Final report and the studies in the journal Holocaust. Studies and

research use the same definition. Therefore, defining the Holocaust as the sum of actions, between

1933 and 1945, towards the discrimination, segregation and starvation, and murder of Jews became

a part of the doctrine on anti-Semitism.

This definition mixes together acts of very different ethical and legal status: discrimination,

repression, murder and genocide against Jews. The choice to do so stems from the assumption that

the genocide of Jews was a necessary result of the repressive acts preceding it. We think it would be

wrong to say this assumption is supported by the evidence. Here, we will use the term „Holocaust”

(or „Shoah”) to mean „the genocide of Jews”, as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in

part, the Jewish community. Hence, the Romanian Holocaust starts with the Jassy pogrom of June

27, 1941, and lasts until 1943.

During the fourth stage of the Holocaust the Jews from Basarabia and Transnistria were

exterminated, through massacres or the living conditions imposed on them in the labor camps in

Transnistria. The Final Report estimates that between 280,000 and 370,000 Jews were killed.

Romania’s contribution to the tragedy of European Jews also has several contradictory elements.

Marshall Ion Antonescu, the leader of Romania at the time, refused to hand over to the Germans

around 350,000 Jews living in the Old Kingdom, and thus they survived the Second World War

During the war, the Antonescu government allowed some Jews from Poland and Hungary to transit

Romania in order to save themselves by boarding ships on the Black Sea or moving into Bulgaria.

370 http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp - accessed on 15 May, 2014.371 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143- accessed on 15 May.

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asphttp://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp


3/22

98

Societal anti-Semitism, institutional anti-Semitism and the four stages

From September 1920, when Corneliu Zelea Codreanu managed to persuade the first student

congress in Greater Romania, in Cluj, to decide to expel Jews from student organizations, and until

the formation of the national legionary government on September 14 th 1940, a powerful, grassroots

anti-Semitic movement developed and was structured within the larger society, with separate

resources and in opposition to the values of the state. We call this societal anti-Semitism.

Between the formation of Greater Romania (1919) and until the National Christian Party came to

power in 1937 (the Goga government), state authorities supported the principles of the democratic

state based on the equality of citizens. During the ‘20s the foundational laws of the modernization

of the Romanian state were passed: the 1923 Constitution, which granted citizenship to Jews (up to

that point inhabitants of inferior legal status372) and stated that all are equal independent of ethnic or

religious identity; and the 1928 Law on religious denominations.373 But the pressure created by the

anti-Semitism of extremist organizations and parties managed to erode those constitutional

principles during the `30s. On December 29th, 1933, the Prime Minister Ion G. Duca, who jailed

thousands of Iron Guard members, was shot to death by a legionnaire squad.

Starting in 1934, the Tătărăscu government adopted several laws imposing a quota for Romanianethnics within economic institutions, laws that mainly affected the Jewish community. However,

between 1919 and 1937, the state was a counterweight to the escalating anti-Semitic plans and

actions. The Romanian society was still at a stage of societal anti-Semitism.

The naming of Octavian Goga, a known, anti-Semitic, politician and cultural personality, as Prime

Minister, on December 29th, 1937, was the result of growing anti-Semitic pressure, but also an

attempt to stop the political rise of the Iron Guard, a more anti-Semitic and threatening entity. Using

decrees, the Goga government closed newspapers that were viewed as dominated by Jews, stopped

the aid provided by the state to Jewish institutions, and cancelled liquor licenses. Decree no. 169/22

January 1938 for amending the citizenship of Jews led to a loss of citizenship for 252.222 Jews.

However, the measures implemented by the Goga government were judged insufficient by theRomanian society. The result was political and social instability. This is the context in which, on

February 11th, 1938, the king declared the Constitution invalid, dissolved political parties and

installed on February 20th, 1938, the royal dictatorship.

King Carol’s Constitution included ambiguous provisions that could be used against Jews. The

Miron Cristea government (created on February 13th, 1938) further amended the citizenship of

Jews. No new anti-Semitic laws were adopted, but administrative decisions and rules were used to

further the marginalization of the Jewish population. From December 1937 to September 14 th, 1940,

Romania was at a stage of institutional anti-Semitism, i.e., of adopting anti-Semitic measures at the

level of the state.

The ideology of the 1937-1940 governments was explicitly nationalistic, anti-Semitism was a

component of state nationalism, but the governments had to face nonetheless the violent anti-

Semitism of the Iron Guard. Prime Minister Armand Călinescu was assassinated in September 1939

because of his anti-legionnaires measures. The government arrested many members of the Iron

Guard, which was already banned, and attempted to repress its activity.

372 According to art. 7 of the 1866 Constitution, “The Romanian citizenship is obtained, kept and lost according to the

rules stated by civil laws. Only Christian foreigners may obtain Romanian citizenship”. 373 Although the National Liberal Party and the National Peasant Party were responsible for the adoption of the two

fundamental laws, the Final Report calls them “at most indifferent to the situation of the Jewish minority” ( Final

Report , p. 20).


4/22

99

The institutionalized Anti-Semite anarchism during the National-Legionary State

The legionnaires’ rise to power and the formation of the national -legionary government on

September 14th, 1940 changed dramatically the situation of Jews in Romania. They were left

defenseless against people who hated them or just wanted to steal their property, whether people on

the street or public servants. Given the particularities of this stage, extremely violent but not of

genocidal proportions, we call it the institutionalized anti-Semite anarchism. This apparent

oxymoron stresses the organized destabilization (by the national-legionary state) of the system of protection of Jewish citizens – the exact opposite of the state’s duty to its citizens. As a result, the

Jews became pray to anarchist acts that went well beyond previous anti-Semitic actions, in number

and intensity, but also qualitatively. Their assets were taken from them374, they lost residence and

freedom to move rights, and children were killed375. Many disappeared never to be found again376.

It was a time for paybacks377. The victims were beaten378, and then forced to give away houses and

shops, they were blindfolded and told they will be killed. The perpetrators became completely

dehumanized, and the local authorities remained passive379. When it got involved following

requests for intervention, the central government didn’t punish the guilty.380

This stage lasted until Marshall Ion Antonescu’s victory against the legionary rebellion, on

February 14th, 1941.

B. The Romanian Orthodox Church as a passive resource of chauvinism and anti-Semitism

The passive resources of anti-Semitism consist of the language, attitudes and ideas that feed anti-

Semitism, a potential at the level of orthodox thought. It is “passive” because a transformation of

language, attitudes and ideas into active anti-Semitism depends on opportunities and context. The

Church is one of the best examples of the major consequences that can stem from slight differences

in interpretation of the same text381. A particular verse may be given an exclusivist interpretation by

chance, to later become a popular argument for anti-Semitism. The potential anti-Semitism of the

orthodox thought was also taken advantage of through local and popular interpretations of dogma

and traditions that are sometimes contrary to the canonic interpretation.

374 Notice by the Jewish Community of Râmnicu Vâlcea from December 30th, 1940: “all Jewish merchants were closed

down. The merchandise was taken by the legionnaires, and we received 10% of its real value (many of the parishionersleft the city” (Ibidem, f. 24). 375 Notice through which the parents announce the 16 years old son of the Gelber family was picked up by legionnaires

and taken to the Police, and then the hospital, where he died of “intoxication” (Ibidem, ff. 92 -94).376 Notice on November 24th, 1940: Dr. H. Fisher, the president of the Jewish Community of Piatra Neamţ was picked

up by legionnaires and was never seen again. His 17 years old daughter went to the Legionary Police and was never

seen again (Ibidem, f. 17).

377 On November 13th, 1940, Cohu Eugen was surrounded by 15 legionnaires and 6 policemen and taken to City Hall.He was arrested and beaten repeatedly until he signed a confession “admitting” he had said bad things about the

legionnaires. He had been “reported” by D. Grozea, who had been sued many years before by the shop where Cohu

Eugen worked for not paying (Jewish Community in Romania Archive, 21/1940, ff. 8-9).378 Notice to the fact that in Călăraşi-Ialomiţa, on the night of November 23rd, 1940, all the Jews were taken to a cave at

the Legion were they were beaten until morning. The attempt to run Jews out of the cities (43 Jews were badly beaten)

belong to the Legionary Police (Ibidem, ff. 98-99).379 Notice from December 29th, 1940, to the Union of Jewish Communities in the Old Kingdom: several Jews in Târgu

Neamţ report that during the investigation by the Police and General State Security Commissariat „superhuman efforts

were made … to not write down the names of those that had beaten, mockingly cut our hair, took our money or

houses…” (Ibidem, f. 51). 380 Letter from a group of merchants addressed to Marshall Ion Antonescu (December 6th, 1940). Armed legionnaires

brought in young people who were taken into shops and put their names over the owners’. This lasted until December

7th, 1940, when, “following the energetic response of the authorities, these young people were taken out of the shops,their signs were removed and order was reestablished” (Ibidem, f. 11). 381 The Old or the New Testament have been interpreted very differently and have generated very different behaviors

depending on epoch and denomination.


5/22

100

The use of Christian dogma to support murder and violence is not unique to Orthodox anti-

Semitism in Romania, where „the violent, aggressive and oppressive phobia against Jews bears a

"national-Christian" stamp and its every action, no matter how unchristian or antichristian, is

defined and made "sacred" by divine offices with priests in vestments.”382 Other versions of

European anti-Semitism in the ‘30s invoke Christianity: „in Hungary, anti-Semitic students pose as

Crusaders; in Poland, the clergy supports – and sometimes leads – the anti-Semitic movement, even

though the latter is purely chauvinistic; in Austria, the systematic removal of Jews from public life

and away from their means of support is done in the name of social Christianity, with theunconditional support of the church, and in England, the leader of the fascists emphatically declared

yesterday: « Israel hates Jesus, hence it hates us too »”383.

The essential attribute of ROC-fueled anti-Semitism is its association with a nationalistic vision.

The relationship Orthodoxism-nationalism is described by Dumitru Stăniloaie, "the most impor tant

Romanian Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century"384, thus: "a people is an irreducible

ontological space. It is the ultimate specific unit of humanity. It is the basis of explaining

individually and the medium of living. Humanity does not exist as a continuum or a uniform

discontinuum. God's creation can be found in no other place but in the expression of ethnic

communities."385 As a consequence, Christianity, which in the Romanian context is Orthodoxy, is

"a necessary path towards nationalism, and nationalism, in turn, is a necessary path towardsChristianity."386

ROC dogma is at the same time a source of anti-Semitism and of acts hostile towards other

churches and faiths. The positive fervor for Orthodoxy is transformed into a thesis of uniqueness:

“Orthodoxy is the only authentic representation of heaven on earth."387 Theological thought is

transformed into an exclusivist, patronizing or hostile view of other beliefs and identities. While, for

the ROC, Protestantism and Catholicism are inferior to Orthodoxy, the other religious movements

are real dangers. Dumitru Stăniloaie welcomed the measures taken by the legionary government to

remove Masons from public office and prohibit all sects: "...masonry and sects on the other hand

were like worms consuming the body of our State, bringing apathy into souls and decay of our

national unity, pouring the winning corrosive over the love of nation. Between all of them there is aconnection, all of them were united by the malicious conspiracy to lead this nation to the grave."388

Theological thought is a good example of a passive resource: one that incites or legitimizes actions

when the right societal circumstances appear. The extreme violence of the theological language in

the quote above should be noticed: "masonry and sects on the other hand were like worms

consuming the body of our State”. This type of aggressiveness was also present in the

communications of the executive bodies of the ROC in the ‘30s. The public statements move the

conceptual framework towards an active role in public life. Just like Stăniloaie, the 1937 ROC

Synod condemned the Freemasonry in extremely harsh terms: „Stark materialism and opportunism

in all actions are the necessary conclusion of Freemason premises. Freemason lodges gather

together Jews and Christians and the Freemasonry states that only those gathered in its lodges

know the truth and rise above other people. This means that Christianity doesn’t confer any

advantage in knowing the truth and achieving the salvation of its members. The Church cannot

382 A. L. Zissu, Logos, Israel, Biserica. Viciile organice ale bisericii şi criza omenirii creştine, Tipografia “Moderna”,

Bucureşti, 1937, p. 4. 383 Idem, p. 5.384 Lavinia Stan, Lucian Turcescu, Religion and Politics in Post-Communist Romania, Oxford University Press, New

York, 2007, p. 45.385 Dumitru Stăniloaie, “Biserica românească” (1942), in Dumitru Stăniloaie, Naţiune şi creştinism) Bucureşti: Elion,

2004), 145-146.386 Dumitru Stăniloaie ,“Creştinism şi naţionalism” (1940), in Stăniloaie, 117-118.387 Dumitru Stăniloaie, “Ortodoxia şi viaţa socială” (1940), in Stăniloaie, 109. 388 Dumitru Stăniloaie , “Restaurarea românismului în destinul său istoric” (1940), in Stăniloaie, 114-115.


6/22

101

watch unmoved how Jesus’ mortal enemies are thought to be above Christians in regard to knowing

the highest truths and to salvation”.389

Although this paragraph is concerned with freemasons, the views regarding Jews are also apparent.

They are „the mortal enemies of Jesus”. Such anti-freemason and anti-Semitic messages nourish the

clergy and the faithful. But the orthodox nationalism is the cause of which anti-Semitism is just a

result. That is why the hostile opinions, the propaganda and the actions of the ROC between the

World Wars were mainly directed at religious organizations that were perceived as a threat to theChurch’s dominant role. The Church that was closest dogmatically to the ROC – the Romanian

Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (RCUR) – was also the one which bore the brunt of the

ROC attacks. The November 1937 General Report of the "Agru" Central Committee referred to the

campaign launched by the ROC against Greek-Catholics in these terms: "An intense and tireless

propaganda on behalf of Orthodoxy has monopolized Romanian nationalism. Moreover, an equally

continuous, and often heated, campaign has depicted the United Church as a national danger, a foreign

object in the body of the nation. Nothing was spared in spreading this idea. Facts are reversed,

evidence is distorted. Our leaders are attacked in unworthy ways. History is falsified with amazing

boldness. The city of Blaj and its schools, the great teachers who awakened the Romanian soul and

made of the people of serfs of yore a nation aware, no longer exist; Clain, Şincai and Maior were

« alienated from the core of the nation » (...) Orthodox publications put forward this message of hatredand enmity in all its forms. Large organizations, created for other goals, like the For, the Romanian

Anti-revisionist League, the Association of Romanian Clergy, put themselves in the service of this

false ideal of pure negationism."390

These quotes are relevant to more than the issue of anti-Semitism, because they show how

Orthodox nationalism worked as a passive resource not only through its ideas, but also through its

intense opposition to otherness. The ROC was both a School in Hostility and a School in Ideals of

Exclusivity. Much of the previous research underestimates the place of the ROC in the anti-Semitic

movement between the World Wars because researchers have concentrated on institutional

positions and on the highest levels of the hierarchy. But most often the passive resources fueled

processes at the grassroots level. Therefore the best proofs for the role of Orthodoxist dogma andattitudes in “creating” anti-Semites are the testimonies of clergy that became legionnaires and were

involved in anti-Semitic violence.

We will highlight one case study. Priest Ilie Imbrescu joined the legionary movement because he

was interested in nationalism , „in a doctrinal and academic sense”, because it was „deep and

strengthened in his soul, since childhood, under the influence of the education in his family”391. His

father had been „a nationalist fighter against the oppressive Hungarian domination”.392 Imbrescu

studied Theology in Cernăuţi, where he joined the Student Center of Cernăuţi, and became atone point the president of the student movement. In his mind, nationalism and Ortodoxism, through

history and education, were two sides of the same coin. Initially, he looked up to Professor A.C.

Cuza, at the time president of the National Christian Defense League and thought to be the father of

Romanian Christian nationalism. During a discussion on February 4th, 1930, Ilie Imbrescu asked the

latter a question regarding the Old Testament. A.C. Cuza rejected the Old Testament and stated that

„Jesus was not from the body of a Jew” 393. Faced with such major dogmatic errors, the theologian-

to-be looked toward other sources.

389 The ROC has never reversed its position.390 The November 1937 General Congress in Satu Mare (Buletinul AGRU Bucureşti, nr. 8-9, July-August 2002.)391 The legionary priest wrote his testimony in the detention camp near Miercurea-Ciuc. He sent his book of testimonies

from there, on December 7th, 1938, to Metropolitan Nicodim

Munteanu, at the time ad-interim President of the ROCSynod.392 The Imbrescu family was from Banat (p. 20).393 Ibidem, p. 21..


7/22

102

In this context of personal searches, he met Zelea Codreanu and read „The Nest L eader's

Manual” 394, and in 1933 became a legionnaire because „the meetings of these nests convinced me

that the legionary movement walks on the path of the old Orthodox-nationalist « law »”395. Reading

Ilie Imbrescu’s book of testimonies, we can find out how a priest searches for and finds in the Holy

Book arguments for murder: „Therefore,…, do I support murder ? This is a question whose answer

requires the Priest to have the courage to not be hypocritical! Because God stops murder , but

punishes folly dreadfully! “Jesus said to his disciples: Things that cause people to sin are bound to

come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be throwninto the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to

sin”. (Luca 17, 1-2)”396.

The case of Ilie Imbrescu highlights perfectly the connection between nationalism, Ortodoxism and

dogma, and the manner in which their components, as passive resources, were transformed by

circumstances and contexts into violent anti-Semitic actions. His case is similar to those of tens of

thousands of priests who supported anti-Semitism and to those of many Orthodox faithful taught

that Jews are „Jesus’ mortal enemies”, that the Jewish people is an intruder on the "orthodox land"

and that „to be Romanian is to be Orthodox”, and who turned those ideas into political practice.

C. The Romanian Orthodox Church as an actant resource for anti-Semitism

The ROC as an actant resource for anti-Semitism encompasses the set of orthodox actants, social

actors that engaged in anti-Semitic acts because they saw them as arising from their Orthodox faith,

or that placed their anti-Semitic acts under an Orthodox banner. This set includes the church as an

institution, orthodox foundations and associations, the clergy and the heterogeneous community of

the faithful. The orthodox actants were an important segment of Romanian society between the

World Wars. Their behavior was often in conflict with the place reserved at the time by the state for

religious actors.

C1. The attitude of the Romanian state toward religion and the Churches

Mainstream studies on interwar anti-Semitism focus on documenting instances of anti-Semitism.

This focus leads to paradoxical phenomena: the borders separating social actors are blurred, and the

number of relevant actors and their role is underestimated. An ample study like the Final Report of

the International Commission for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania gives the ROC more of a

supporting role in the evolution of anti-Semitism, limiting it to the anti-Semitic statements of some

clergy and members of the ROC hierarchy.

Our evaluation diverges most from the results of the Final Report in the role it assigns to state

authorities between the World Wars and in particular during the stage of societal anti-Semitism.

The authors of the Final Report state that the period between the Wars continues the history of anti-

Semitism on the same lines on which it was built in the 19th century. The 1937 movement towards

an institutionalized anti-Semitism is not, then, a change in the nature of the latter, but just a new

phase in its evolution397. The political elites leading Greater Romania, the leaders of the National

Liberal Party and the National Peasant Party were at most indifferent toward the situation of the

Jewish minority in the country398. Anti-Semitism, according to the Final Report , permeated the

entire social body of Romania between the World Wars.

394 “The Nest Leader's Manual” collects Corneli u Zelea Codreanu's ideological teachings.395 Ibidem, p. 55.396 Ibidem, p. 60.397 Final Report , p. 11.398 Final Report , p. 20.


8/22

103

This perspective cannot explain however the emancipation in terms of citizenship rights of the

Jewish community in the ‘20s or its widespread integration within the economic and cultural system

of the State. The emancipation of the Jews was a force oriented toward modernization. During the

second half of the ‘30s, in the international context of the rise of European fascism, the actors for

modernity gave up in the face of the anti-modernization tendencies of the grassroots.

The modernizing actions of the State in the ‘20s

The 1923 Constitution confers full right to Jews. The fundamental law was written under pressure

from the Powers that had recognized the new borders of Greater Romania and went against many

voices at the national level. But the support of the Romanian state in 1923 was not purely formal, as

was demonstrated by the Law of religious denominations adopted in 1928. The explanatory

memorandum of the law argues that

„In defining the relationship between the state and religious denominations our draft follows

the principle of equal protection established by art. 22 of the Constitution. No differentiation

is being made between one denomination and another. All are equal and all receive the samesupport and protection, because all have the same civilizing purpose and because all

correspond to the spiritual needs of a smaller or bigger part of the population of the country.

[…] Paragraph f of the draft talks about the Mosaic denomination, without addressing

specifically the different branches in which it was divided by historical circumstances. By

using the general term of Mosaic denomination we do not mean to prevent its organization

according to the differences in rituals that exist. Every branch shall have the freedom to

organize itself independently, according to the implementation rules of this law. Of course, in

this division of the Mosaic denomination into branches only those that have achieved a

distinct and recognized character during the historical development of the denomination shall

be taken into account.”399

It is relevant that during prior parliamentary debate the main concern of the Mosaic denomination,

represented by Rabbi I. Niemirover, was that „too much freedom of conscience” may affect the

functioning of the denomination at a collective level. In particular, there was suspicion toward the

ease of changing religious identity:

„The freedom of conscience is the basis of this law. In regard to some paragraphs that deal

with changing religious denominations, the freedom of conscience was the guide of the

legislator. Moves from one denomination to another cannot be seen positively by priests. I am

not talking about moving from one denomination to a related one, but of moving from one

denomination to another that is very different from the initial faith. The freedom of

denominations must also be limited in some situations, and it was well said that no religious

requirement can be used as a pretext for not doing one’s duty to the State. On the other h and

the State is also required to respect as much as possible, in order to preserve the order of the

State, the religious and ritual options of every denomination.”400

The Ministry of Religious Denominations took this grievance into account401.

399 *** Biserica noastră şi cultele minoritare. Marea discuţie parlamentară în jurul Legii cutelor , Introduction N.

Russu Ardealeanu, p. 22.400 *** Biserica noastră şi cultele minoritare. Marea discuţie parlamentară în jurul Legii cutelor , Introduction N. Russu

Ardealeanu, p. 132.401 According to Rabbi I. Niemirover: „If provisions are made such that every locality may only have one [religious]community, it is clear that the rights of the Spanish communities in the Kingdom and the separatist Orthodox

communities in Ardeal would not be in any way violated. If such measures to organize a single community in each

locality are not taken, there is a danger that our denomination will be pulverized through the formation of sects.”


9/22

104

The parliamentary debates instigated by the Constitution and later by the Law of Religious

Denominations show the inclination toward modernity of historical party leaders and the

bureaucracy they had created, made apparent through legislation. Other motivations, like the

promises made at the international level and economic interests, may be seen in many ways. But

everything points to a push by the institutions of the state towards democracy.

The relationship between the State and the ROC

The political regime created by the 1923 Constitution acknowledged the Orthodox religion as

dominant, but the differentiation of denominations was viewed from a democratic perspective. The

preamble for the 1928 Law on Religious Denominations talked about a „secular state”, based on

religious freedom, a fact that was noticed and highlighted by the leaders of different religious

communities.

The State was the administrator of this freedom and held the instruments that allowed it to limit the

abuses of the denominations. Religious freedom and the protection of all denominations were

guaranteed, and enhanced by the provision that „religious beliefs cannot stop anybody from gainingand exercising civil and political rights”. At the same time, art. 2 also stated that religious beliefs

cannot exempt anybody from obeying the law.402

This hierarchical relationship also affected the ROC. Some researchers insist on the privileged

relationship between the ROC and the state, while ignoring the other side of the coin: the state’s

control over the ROC. This preoccupation with the role of the state is apparent in the legislation,

among other things in the conditions imposed on the clergy and those who work for denominations:

„We establish in art. 8 of the draft the following three requirements fo r members of the

clergy, of the leadership and for public servants at any level of the denominations. That is: a)

they must be Romanian citizens, b) they must enjoy all civil and political rights and c) theymust not have been found guilty through a final decision for crimes against morality, against

State security and in general for any criminal act.”403

The Romanian state recognized the right of denominations to create, administer and control cultural

and charitable institutions, but imposed some rules:

„The study of history, Romanian language and literature and the Constitution of the country is

required in these establishments, and they will be taught according to a curriculum established

by the same authority, with the consent however of the Ministries of Religious Denomination

and of Education, such that they do not prevent the specialized theological training and are

compatible with the moral religious character of these establishments.”404

A key provision, meant to preserve the authority of the state over religious denominations, was the

prohibition of political involvement for members of the clergy, which included a ban of

denominational political organizations. These were the arguments of the Minister for Religious

( Biserica noastră şi cultele minoritare. Marea discuţie parlamentară în jurul Legii cutelor , Introduction N. Russu

Ardealeanu, p. 134).402 See art. 2, art. 7, par. 1 ant art. 22 of the Law for Religious Denominations ( Biserica noastră şi cultele minoritare.

Marea discuţie parlamentară în jurul Legii cutelor , Introduction N. Russu Ardealeanu, p. 2).403 Preamble to the Law for Religious Denominations: *** Biserica noastră şi cultele minoritare. Marea discuţie

parlamentară în jurul Legii cutelor , Introduction N. Russu Ardealeanu, p. 19.404 Preamble to the Law for Religious Denominations: *** Biserica noastră şi cultele minoritare. Marea discuţie

parlamentară în jurul Legii cutelor , Introduction N. Russu Ardealeanu, p. 19.


10/22

105

Denominations and the Arts, Alexandru Lepădatu, in his support for the draft-law on religious

denominations:

„Art. 4 prohibits the creation of denominational political organizations and the debate of

political issues within church institutions and bodies. We thought this provision was

necessary because, while religious beliefs are and remain a part of every citizen’s conscience,

in a State like ours, of secular tradition and character, it is dangerous, we believe, for them to

be used as a basis for political fights, in the same way in which it is dangerous when the latter,the political fights, permeate the life of religious institutions and bodies. This is true also

because the denominations are, essentially, religious organizations with ideal purposes, and

hence must keep themselves within this sphere and not get involved in issues that are not in

accordance with their mission. Militant politics must be completely excluded from the internal

life of denominations, because it may disturb the inner peace they have a duty to propagate

and sustain.”405

The government and its minister assumed the secular character of the state and the danger of mixing

religion and politics and turned them into general principles for the functioning of the state. In the

meantime, the Orthodox clergy moved in the opposite direction, not just getting involved in politics

but supporting precisely those movements that challenged public authorities. The 1937 anti-democratic drift and the move towards an institutionalized anti-Semitism were accompanied by a

new symbolic position of the ROC. During the Goga government, the Minister for Religious

Denominations and Arts, Ioan Lupaş, defined the role of the ROC within the new government in a

manner completely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution:

„We want to lay as the basis of the Romanian state the spiritual principles of Christianity. We

want the National Church to be considered as the supreme representative of the force which

generates a moral life ( ... ). We want a fighting clergy that is an essential part of the

organization of the State, according to Romanian tradition and the ethical requirements of a

sound national edifice.”406

The Constitution that established the bases of the authoritarian regime of Carol the Second407 also

granted the status of dominant church to the Orthodox Church, with authority in the canonic and

spiritual spheres. Patriarch Miron Cristea was named Prime Minister a second time (March 30th,

1938 – February 1st, 1939). Nicolae Colan, a bishop of Vad, Feleac and Cluj and member of the

government, described in his statement to the King his aspiration for a close relationship between

church and state: „Your Highness’ same trust called me to lead the Department for Religious

Denominations and the Arts. To be the connection between denominations, the dominant Church in

particular, and the state. To promote the realization of the commandment: Give to Caesar what

belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God”.408

405 *** Biserica noastră şi cultele minoritare. Marea discuţie parlamentară în jurul Legii cutelor , Introduction N.

Russu Ardealeanu, p. 2.406 Letter on December 31st, 1937 addressed by the Minister to the Patriarch (Costel Coajă, Relaţia stat -biserică în

perioada 1938-1948. Cazul Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Princeps Edit, Iaşi , 2008, p. 18). 407 It is worth highlighting an analysis by Armin Heinen, according to which the dictatorship of Carol the Second is nota totalitarian dictatorship or despotism since political figures are co-opted in the Crown Council, parties were allowed to

exist – even if only outside the law – , and media censorship allowed the expression of a multitude of points of view (see

Armin Heinen, Legiunea „Arhanghelului Mihail ". O contribuţie la problema fascismului internaţional, Humanitas,Bucureşti 1999). 408 Costel Coajă, Relaţia stat -biserică în perioada 1938-1948. Cazul Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Princeps Edit, Iaşi ,

2008, p. 20.


11/22


12/22

107

adopted the charter of the National Union of Romanian Christian Students, which equated the

Romanian identity and the Christian identity, the beginning of an evolution toward the thesis

„Romanian = Orthodox”, and the related „Romanian = anti-Semite Orthodox”. According to one of

the participants:

„From this congress on in particular, it became more and more common and significant to use

the term: « Romanian-Christian » student for a higher purpose, to finally establish the fact

that Romanian nationalism allows a single outcome: either we are faithful to death to thereligion that will make us victors by the will of the One that gave Romanian nationalism so

many heroes and martyrs, or our decade-long rebellion and battle is futile.”414

In the case of the student organizations and other organizations created on the basis of an Orthodox

perspective, nationalism and Christianity (Orthodoxism) are indivisible. For example, according to

its charter, the organization „The Orthodox Youth” (registered with the Chişinău Court) has as its

purpose „the unification of all youths under the banner of the defense of Christianity against

foreignness and the devastating socialist and anarchist movements”.415 Such an objective would

have been as relevant under the name of „The Nationalist Youth”.

The intense collaboration between nationalist and Orthodoxist organizations in the ‘20s and ‘30sshows that the „partners” see each other as sides of the same coin. As an example: on May 20 th,

1935, the Association of the clergy „Assistance” (Orthodoxist) thanked the „Worship of the

Motherland” organization (nationalist) for its support;416 on March 30th, 1936, a professor in the

School of Theology, Marin Ionescu (an Orthodox priest) took part in the board meeting of the

„Worship of the Motherland” organization etc. The leader of the „Orthodox Society of Romanian

Women” (Orthodoxist), Alexandrina Cantacuzino, tried to make the organization available to the

„Everything for the Fatherland” party (an extremist nationalist party).

The quote above also points to the close ties between civic and political organizations that embrace

nationalist-Orthodoxism. The authorities were aware of these ties and pressured the organizations

believed to be a threat to public order. Minister Petre Andrei proposed replacing the Board of theOrthodox Society of Romanian Women because „the president of the society has close ties to

political organizations that are a danger to public peace and the general security of the Romanian

state ….”417 The organization „ Worship of the Motherland” created in 1926 for the purpose of

promoting the national ideal, was banned in 1932 by the Council of Ministers.418 A report by State

Security from 1936 described it as:

„…an organization that uses as part of its manifestations the street and aggression against

authorities. Public meetings of this organization attempt to gather all the nationalist student

associations and even political groups, as a forum for censuring our public life. […] The

members of the organization, through their status as: university professors, former magistrates

and generals, in all their meetings, marches and processions, ignore the requests of the

authorities and through their presence and attitude attempt to intimidate the representatives of

the authorities and even those of the military.”419

“Everything for the Fatherland” was the latest name of the party created by Corneliu Zelea

Codreanu in 1930, the “Legion of the Archangel Michael”420. Previously, in 1923, Codreanu

414 Preot Ilie I. Imbrescu, Biserica şi Mişcarea Legionară, Ed. Cartea Românească, Bucureşti, 1940, p. 42.415 CNSAS Archive, Documents, Societatea „Tinerimea Ortodoxă”, D 11672, f. 8. 416 CNSAS Archive, Documents, „Asociaţia Cultul Patriei”, D 015861, vol. 1, p. 88. 417 CNSAS Archive, Documents, D 012706, „Societatea ortodoxă a femeilor române”, f. 19.418 The decision was taken after activists of the organization kidnapped a policeman and took him to Army Corps C.The High Court of Cassation and Justice reinstate the organization in March 1933.419 CNSAS Archive, Documents „Asociaţia Cultul Patriei”, D 015861, vol. 1, pp. 40-41.420 As a Christian activist, he shot in 1924 a police commissioner, but was acquitted for reasons of self -defense.


13/22

108

founded together with A. C. Cuza, a theoretician of anti-Semitism, the „National-Christian Defense

League”. Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s use of Christian symbols in party names would stop here, but

the name changes (the “Legionary Movement”, the “Iron Guard” - the paramilitary political branch

of the Legion -, and after June 1935, “Everything for the Fatherland” ), motivated by obstacles set

against the party’s participation in elections, did not affect the Orthodoxist character of the party.

The Romanian Orthodox Church, as an institution, at the highest levels of the hierarchy, never

assisted the murderous political program of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. But Codreanu’s case is atextbook example of how Romanian Orthodoxism acted as an anti-Semitic passive resource that

fueled the anti-Semitic actant resources. The family, school and university education of Zelea

Codreanu were both militantly nationalist and militantly Orthodox, an embodiment of Orthodoxist

dogma: Christianity is the path towards nationalism, and nationalism is the path to Christianity 421.

The plans for moral and spiritual renewal of Romanian society as stated by many representatives of

the ROC and by the Legionary Movement were equivalent422. The Orthodox religious elements in

legionary thinking and public appearances, and the intense religiosity of the members and leaders of

the movement, were a significant part of their political and electoral capital. These facts prove the

central role played by Orthodoxism in anti-Semitic activism between the World Wars. The

conceptualization: anti-Semitic passive resource – anti-Semite actant resources captures and gives

definition to this role. It is an answer to a tendency in the research on the relationship ROC-anti-Semitism to underestimate the effect of the Romanian Orthodox Church on interwar anti-

Semitism423.

The nationalist-Orthodoxist ideology and activity of civic and political organizations that had a

grave effect on democracy in the `30 continued to be a component of the anti-democratic

mobilization. The societal anti-Semitism was just a component of the societal anti-democratic

movement that created a conflict between the state elites and conservative forces. In the „war”

between legionnaires and state authorities, violent means were used by both sides, in an

increasingly destabilizing spiral. The legionnaires murdered two Prime Ministers (Ion Gh. Duca on

December 30th, 1933, and Armand Călinescu, on September 21st, 1939), Nicolae Iorga and other

cultural and political personalities. On the other side, the authorities killed Corneliu Zelea Codreanuand some members of Iron Guard death squads while moving them from one prison to another, on

November 30th, 1938. In the fall of the same year, hundreds of legionnaires were executed without a

trial after the discovery of a plot against Armand Călinescu, at the time Minister of Interior. After

Călinescu’s murder, the ten assassins were shot in broad daylight, and their bodies were left in the

street for several days, under a banner reading: "From now on, this shall be the fate of those who

betray the country."

These events show that the confrontation between the authorities and the extremist organizations

took the most violent forms, and the authorities themselves sometimes chose to use murder in the

421 Codreanu was a volunteer fighter in World War I at 16. When the president of the University of Iaşi decided to start

the school year without a religious ceremony, Codreanu barricaded himself inside the building.422 Marius Turda, „« Fascismul clerical » în România”, in Mirel Bănică, Biserica Ortodoxă Română, stat şi societate în

anii `30, Polirom, 2007, p. 13.423 The perspective that the ROC as a second-hand actor has different expressions: „The priests were attracted to the

Legionary movement, believed it represented a true religion and not a political movement …” (Alexandru Voicu,

„Relaţia controversată a Bisericii Ortodoxe Române cu Mişcarea Legionară”, Historia -

http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-

legionara.); "the Church and its people didn’t escape the nefarious influence of former Legionaries” (Apud. Gina Pană,

„Biserica Ortodoxa Română şi mişcarea legionară: clarificări şi ambiguităţi", Holocaust. Studii şi cercetări, Vol. III, Nr.4 /2011, p. 144.); “Lacking a firm opposition from the Church, Cuza’s campaign spreading religious anti-Semitism

continued unchallenged” (Oana Pană, “Ortodoxia românească şi atitudinea sa faţă de evrei”, Holocaust. Studii şi

cercetări, Vol. II, Nr. 1 (3)/2010, p. 116.); „The Romanian Orthodoxy resisted the temptation of legionarism…” (MirelBănică, Biserica Ortodoxă Română, stat şi societate în anii `30, Polirom, 2007, p. 245), etc. These statements suggest

that between the World Wars the ROC was at the back of the line of organizations with criminal anti-Semitic

characters. Another variant of this interpretation is that the ROC was responsible through inaction.

http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionarahttp://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionarahttp://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionarahttp://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionara


14/22


15/22

110

counties in Dobrogea did not have „any secret committees whose members swore to no longer

recognize the authority of the bishop428.

Economic Control. Economic interests created a major dependency of the ROC hierarchy on the

secular powers. State institutions had the power to make decisions in many situations. For example,

in order to collect money for the Church, an authorization was required from the Ministry of Labor,

Health and Welfare, and the Capital Police checked the running of this activity 429.

There were many interventions regarding filling available positions. The Government of Basarabia

nominated P.S. Efrem Tighineanul as Archbishop of Chişinău. His recommendations: „The best of

results in fighting against religious sects, religious sects are getting smaller and smaller in the

Chişinăului Eparchy”430. Other times there were complaints regarding financial issues. Gherontie,

Bishop of Tomis, accused Minister I. Petrovici of „requiring his resignation in private” and

suspending his salary and those of another 100 priests who wrote a letter in his support431.

The Secretary General for Religious Denominations and the Arts, prof. Aurel Popa, complained that

„although the Diocese of Ungro-Vlahiei owns a candle factory that can bring in an income of at

least 10.000.000 lei, and 200 ha of arable land and 500 ha of forests, the Patriarch still thinks it is

acceptable to request … money from the Ministry”. He also reported the illegal ordination of priestsin unpaid positions by the Diocese in order to save the individuals from military service432.

Financial audits found constant irregularities. Money was received or charged without justification;

there were expenditures that could have been avoided, and overblown repair expenditures on

contracts awarded without bidding433. The ordination of priests was often done for the purpose of

avoiding military service434.

These are just a few instances of a general trend.

The Control exercised by the courts. The use of brute force by the authorities in order to secure

public peace doesn’t mean that the state lacked modern institutions. There is a lot of evidence forthe professionalism of the court system. Decisions like the one released by the High Court of

Cassation and Justice in March 1933, which reinstated the „Worship of the Motherland”

organization after it was banned in 1932 by the Council of Ministers, also point to the independence

of judges. The Archives highlight the chasm between the thinking of magistrates in key public

positions and the popular mentality. A relevant and well-documented example is the activity against

members of non-dominant religious denominations. Their harassment was the joint work of the

Orthodox priest and the local police. Usually the priest was told about the activity of the

denomination by members of his church, then went to the policeman and together they took the

guilty person into custody. Sometimes, the policemen went to the ROC representatives. The

indictment and the trial came next.

Often, the final result was an acquittal, and the reasoning for the decisions is surprisingly modern.

Four defendants, Jehovah Witnesses that had spread publicly “Rule of Peace” books, were acquitted

428 CNSAS Archive, Documents, Clergy Issues in the Old Kingdom, D 008927, f. 17.429 See notice from March 1st, 1941, which authorizes an extension for money collection by the Costescu Parish in order

to cover expenses related to the rebuilding of the church. (CNSAS Archive, Issues File, D 000057 f. 134).430 Notice from December 29th, 1943 (CNSAS Archive, Issues with the Orthodox denomination 1937-1947, D 006910,vol. 4, f. 40).431 CNSAS Archive, Issues with the Orthodox denomination File 1937-1947, D 006910, vol. 4, f. 58.432 CNSAS Archive, Issues with the Orthodox denomination File 1937-1947, D 006910, vol. 4, f. 154.433 Report from February 1943, financial audit office of the Archepiscopy of Bucharest (CNSAS Archive, Issues with

the Orthodox denomination 1937-1947, D 006910, vol. 4, f. 85).434 CNSAS Archive, Issues with the Orthodox denomination File 1937-1947, D 006910, vol. 4, f. 93.


16/22

111

because „there was no unrest that could lead to a danger to public safety.”435 The Bălţi County

Court acquitted I.E.S., who was taken into custody by a police patrol for selling booklets critical of

the Orthodox Church, because the booklets didn’t include propaganda or criticisms that could incite

„disobedience or disdain towards the dominant religion or other religions”436.

The Soroca County Court had to consider the guilt of several Jehovah Witnesses indicted by the

Chief of Police after the latter had searched their homes and found booklets. His first step had been

to submit them to the Bălţi Diocese. The bishop looked over them and concluded that thedenomination was a danger to the dominant Church and the State. The judges decided that the texts

support love towards others, belief in God and Jesus, but also criticize other things that characterize

Romanian society. But this didn’t suggest an involvement of the Jehovah Witnesses in acts that are

a danger to the security of the State, as stated by the law for controlling crimes against public peace,

which was the basis for the indictment”437.

As a last case study, the Decision of March 3 rd, 1937, in the trial against B.I.A for disseminating

booklets “that may induce hatred, unrest against other denominations”. He was found not guilty

because the texts „do not intend to foment unrest, but to criticize a religious, economic and social

status quo, criticism that often, even in more serious forms, is disseminated by political parties

which are nonetheless not sanctioned, because it is considered that they intend to improve thesituation and not to produce unrest that may endanger the state order”438. This kind of judicial

reasoning would be a reason for pride for any European court in the 21st century.

The cases we mentioned prove the heterogeneity of Romanian society in the ‘30s, and the presence

of professional bodies capable of ensuring the functioning of a modern political community. At the

same time, they highlight the realities at the local level: the Orthodox priests and policemen policed

their fiefdom from an exclusivist perspective. The nationalist-Orthodoxist attitude discernable in the

court cases included a healthy dose of anti-Semitism.

C2. The involvement of the clergy in anti-Semitic politics

The highest levels of ROC hierarchy and anti-Semitism

The ROC hierarchy was a staunch supporter of Orthodox nationalism through the interwar period. It

condemned any form of religious otherness, which implied in many cases a condemnation of ethnic

otherness. The highest levels of the Orthodox hierarchy expressed their anti-Semitism, which took

the extreme form of supporting the banishment of Jews from Greater Romania. This is clearly stated

by Patriarch Miron Cristea: “You want to cry out of pity for the poor Romanian people, whose bone

marrow is sucked out by the Jew. To not react against Jews, is to walk us to our destruction. […]

You have enough qualities and options, to search for and find somewhere a place, a land, a country,

a motherland not yet inhabited. … Live, help yourselves, defend yourselves, and exploit each other;

but not us and other peoples, whose abundance you seize through your ethnic and Talmudic

sophistication”.439

435 Decision by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on May 24th, 1935 (CNSAS Archive, Documents, The structure

and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Hostile acts 1934-1938, D 000074, vol. 35, f. 2, 2v.).436 CNSAS Archive, Documents, The structure and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Hostile acts 1934-1938, D 000074, vol. 35, f. 1.437 Decision no. 3094 of September 30 th, 1937 (CNSAS Archive, Documents, The structure and functioning of the

Romanian Orthodox Church. Hostile acts 1934-1938, D 000074, vol. 35, f. 3).438 CNSAS Archive, Documents, The structure and functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Hostile acts 1934-

1938, D 000074, vol. 35, f. 18, 18v.439 In the Curentul newspaper, August 19th, 1937.


17/22

112

An indirect but visible form of anti-Semitism was the support for extremist anti-Semites. Following

the assassination of Prime Minister I.G. Duca, on January 31st, 1933, the Patriarch Miron Cristea

and the Holy Synod stated that the Legionary movement as a whole was not responsible for this

crime; the responsibility rested entirely with the perpetrators, and some foreign, anarchic influences.

Such a statement, following an act of such seriousness as the assassination of a Prime Minister,

highlights the fact that the ROC hierarchy was sensitive to the power plays at the highest levels of

power. The disputes between the Royal Family and the Government allowed the ROC leadership toexpress its view with more sincerity440.

The most eloquent proof of the co-operation between the Orthodox hierarchy and the members of

the Iron Guard was the procession occasioned by the funerals of the Iron Guard leaders Moţa and

Marin, in February 1937. During the procession tens of clerics officiated, and the main divine

service was celebrated by over 200 priests led by the Metropolitan of Ardeal, Nicolae Bălan, and by

other bishops441. To place a Metropolitan at the head of the procession and to have such numbers of

clergy participate means that the ROC leadership fully supported legionary leaders.

Although he was the leader of the ROC during the rise of anti-Semitism, including the increase in

the number of violent attacks against Jews (1925 – 1939), Patriarch Miron Cristea never took astand against anti-Semitism.

The ROC leadership was not able to openly support the Legion during times of stronger State

leadership. During the royal dictatorship, after the assassination of Prime Minister Armand

Călinescu, Patriarch Nicodim released a statement in which he blamed the legionary assassins and

invoked God’s punishment for every crime. He showed the same level of obedience during the Ion

Antonescu government. The Patriarch Nicodim congratulated Marshal Antonescu for defeating the

legionary rebellion, and promised to pray that God would give Antonescu „the power to succeed in

bringing about the salvation of the country and the Romanian people”442. The lower clergy however

continued to support the Legion in various ways even after January 1941.443

Regarding the ROC’s position on saving Jews by baptizing them, two documents describe it

unequivocally. In the first, the Patriarch agreed to a 1941 Decree than bans Jews from joining the

Orthodox Church, because „[t]his ban was adopted by the State in the national interest, to protect

the ethnic nature of our Romanian nation f rom mixing with Jewish blood...”444 On the other hand

the Patriarch was incensed that the Roman-Catholic Church continued to baptize Jews, who „have

flourishing economic positions in the Capital as it is well known”, and thus the number of Catholics

in Bucharest was increasing. He demanded that „the arrangement with the Papacy be denounced

and the Roman-Catholic Church lose all its advantages and support”445.

440 Some sources say that the assassination of Prime Minister Duca was desired by King Carol the Second himself.

Since the ROC leadership has traditionally had access to the antechambers of power, this statement may point to the

king’s acceptance of murder ( Florin Şinca, Din istoria Poliţiei Române, Tipografia RCR Print,

Bucureşti, 2006, p. 333). 441 Gabriel Catalan, "Legiune şi slujitorii Domnului" (“The Iron-Guard and the ministers of God”, Dosarele istoriei

( History Files) no. 9, 2000, p. 29-32.442 Ion Antonescu, Pe marginea prăpastiei, 21-23 ianuarie 1941, vol. 2, 1941, p. 163.443 Ibidem. 444 Notice on March 2nd, 1942 (Issues with the Orthodox denomination File 1937-1947, D 006910, vol. 4, f. 47). On theother hand, The Metropolitan of Transylvania, Nicolae Bălan, officially protested in April 2nd, 1941, against the Decree,

which was “an illegal intervention in the life of the Church” (Brînduşa Costache, Mircea Costache, Doru Costache

„Problema evreiască în România modernă: Atitudinea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române”, TABOR, Romanian cultural andspiritual monthly edited by the Diocese of Cluj, Alba, Crişana and Maramureş - http://www.tabor-

revista.ro/in_ro.php?module=content_full&id=10676).445 Notice on 27.02.1942 (Issues with the Orthodox denomination File 1937-1947, D 006910, vol. 4, ff. 44-45).


18/22

113

There were some members of the hierarchy who were uneasy with the tragedy of the deportation of

Jews to Transnistria. The Final Report mentions the Metropolitan of Ardeal, Nicolae Bălan, as one

of those responsible for the refusal to deport the Jews from South Ardeal, Moldova and Muntenia to

Nazi camps in Poland446.

The involvement of the clergy in politics

While discipline within the Church is much more severe than within other organizations, it is not

possible however to completely control the behavior of the clergy. Divisions may appear, especially

in turbulent circumstances. Although the 1928 Law for Religious Denominations forbade the

involvement of priests in politics, this was still an open issue among the clergy. There were many

voices that expressed, in religious journals, their wish for a role for the ROC in public life: „our

clergy has not only the right but a holy duty to participate in the political life of the state, while

preserving its freedom and independence.”447

Beyond the principled positions, there were specific situations that pushed the clergy into politics

and the search for new opportunities. One factor was the marked increase in the number of

Theology graduates entering a limited religious “job market”. According to Victor. N. Popescu:

„After the war, the number of seminaries was increased significantly, and so the number of

graduates ready to enter priesthood outpaced the number of available parishes. The years

between 1922 and 1933 were a period with a high production of seminary and theology

graduates [ ... ]. The vacant positions were still taken by the old members of the profession,

even though they already had much on their plates. Therefore, at the graduation of those

studying at the new theology schools, the positions were already taken and defended, such

that some had too much and others had nothing. Those who had a parish forced those without

to be subservient. The situation is absolutely unfair and immoral.”448

The Iron Guard and other parties were interested in winning the support of the clergy, whose

influence over a mostly rural population was well-known.449 From time immemorial, the priests had„all been in politics”450 in order to gain certain advantages. But not for the purpose „of achieving

through the party a Christian or religious ideology. The priest-politician type still abundant in our

old parties has always been detested”451, said a supporter of nationalist-Orthodoxism. The

legionnaires seemed to offer a way to reconcile the personal and the spiritual interest. There were

calls for the clergy’s „energetic intervention and guiding, through its words, of the vote of the

masses toward those parties that guarantee the defense of the vital interests of the country and the

Orthodox Church!".452 The „latent anti-Semitism”453 of some priests had the opportunity to meet the

official one of some parties:

„In later years, the Church has been sought and courted, as the last source of renewal from the

disaster coming over the world. After the political parties made whatever they wanted out of

the Church – instead of what they could have – , now new political groups have an

increasingly specific attitude towards the Church. The religious issues hold a place of honor

under the leadership of Mr Goga, the Iron Guard of Corneliu Codreanu, the “Lance - bearers”

party of Mr Cuza….454

446 Final Report , p. 216.447 Veniamin, „Preoţimea în viaţa publică”, Telegraful Român (organ naţional -bisericesc), Sibiu, 15 Decembrie 1928.448 Victor N. Popescu, "Biserica şi şomajul", Viitorul, Iaşi, no. 3, February 1932. Apud Bănică p. 139. 449 Bănică, p. 154. 450 I. G. Savin, “Preoţimea şi actualele alegeri”, Viitorul , Iaşi no. 12, 1932. 451 Ibidem.452 Ibidem.453 Bănică, p. 152. 454 Gh. Coman, “Biserica şi partidele politice”, Viitorul , Iaşi no. 8, April 1933 (apud. Bănică, p. 156).


19/22

114

In the most extreme case, an argument was made for an identity of feeling between the Church and

the Legion: „the Iron Guard didn’t practice a Christianity that was different from that of the

Orthodox Church. Its manner of living and practicing the Orthodox faith is not directed against the

Church, because it is its submissive and obedient daughter…”.455

The priests promoted the Legionary Movement among their parishioners and some became its

activists. According to research into the archives of the Ministry of the Interior conducted by GinaPană, in the 1937 elections, out of 103 candidates of the party "Everything for the Fatherland", 33

were priests – around a third, a considerable percentage. 55 priests had leadership positions within

the Legion.456 Some of the legionary priests were among the Movement’s most fanatical activists.

Alexandru Răzmeriţă, a Romanian Orthodox priest, proposed a plan to expel the Jews entirely from

cities and deport them into forced labor camps in the country. Attempts to escape the camps were to

be punished by death.457

The involvement of priests in the violent activity of the Legionary Movement is demonstrated by

the measures taken by the Antonescu government against the orthodox clergy that had participated

in the legionary rebellion. 218 priests were identified as having participated in the skirmishes

against the army and were arrested by order of Marshal Ion Antonescu458. The scope of theinvolvement of orthodox priests in active fighting, as legionaries, is suggested by the following

Communiqué of the Council of Ministers on February 1941:

”Neither the Church nor its people escaped the nefarious influence of false legionaries. 218

priests are under investigation for taking part in the rebellion, leaving the cross and the altar of

peace to fight with the weapon of murder and terror against their own flock. Many had active

positions within the legionary movement, incompatible with their pastoral position and

mission. These lying servants of the Lord went as far as to make arms and munitions deposits

out of their places of worship."459

Conclusions

It was possible to discern the role of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the interwar anti-Semitic

phenomenon after undertaking a conceptual reorganization that starts with a criticism of the

definition of Holocaust as established in doctrine, as the sum of actions, between 1933 and 1945,

towards the discrimination, segregation and starvation, and murder of Jews. This definition,

dominant in Romanian and international research on the issue, blends genocide, „the crime of

crimes”, and anti-Semitic acts, serious but of a different nature. In Romanian context, this definition

conceals the separation of anti-Semitism into four distinct periods: the periods of societal anti-

Semitism, institutional anti-Semitism, institutionalized anti-Semitic anarchism and the Holocaust

(defined here as the genocide of Jews, starting with the Jassy pogrom of June 27th, 1941, and

lasting until 1943).

The institutionalized anti-Semitic anarchism phenomenon is, in our opinion, a particular case of

anti-Semitism. The decision of the authorities of the National-Legionary State to leave the Jewish

communities defenseless (between September 14th, 1940 and February 14th, 1941) within a social

455 Priest Victor Moise, Garda de Fier şi credinţa strămoşească, Editura Majadahonda, Bucureşti, 1994, p. 12, apud.

Mirel Bănică, p. 158. 456 Gina Pană, „Biserica Ortodoxa Română şi mişcarea legionară: clarificări şi ambiguităţi", Holocaust. Studii şi

cercetări, Vol. 3, Nr. 4 /2011, p. 143.457 Alexandru Răzmeriţă, Cum să ne apărăm de evrei – Un plan de eliminare totală (Turnu Severin, TipografiaMinerva, 1938), pp.65-69.458 Ion Antonescu, Pe marginea prăpastiei, 21-23 ianuarie 1941, vol. II, 1941, p. 163.459 Ion Antonescu, Pe marginea prăpastiei. 21-23 ianuarie 1941, vol. II, 1941, p. 102.


20/22

115

medium dominated by hate of Jews and aspirations to benefit from their property led to systematic

inhumane acts, that happened across the country over a period of months in an atmosphere of terror.

Individual Jews were the victims, but Jews as a group were also targeted. What happened during the

National-Legionary State was more than the sum of the thefts, beatings, and individual crimes.

None of the current terms: discrimination, segregation, repression, massacres, pogroms, adequately

describes the nuances of the phenomenon.

By dividing anti-Semitism into four periods we highlight the central role held by the confrontation between state authorities and the interwar promoters of anti-Semitism in the development of events.

The political elites leading Greater Romania from 1919 on had a modernization plan for the country

that included the emancipation of Jews. On the other hand, a part of the population, a large

proportion of which was rural, was dominated by nationalist and Orthodoxist traditions with anti-

Semitic content. In the democratic context after World War I, the supporters of nationalist-

Orthodoxist traditions created a vast network of organizations, movements and political parties that

attacked the principles defined by the 1923 Constitution. The confrontation between the state and

the multilayered nationalistic-Orthodoxist opposition led to violent conflicts throughout the

interwar period. In 1937, for the first time, the nationalist-Orthodoxist movement managed to

include a part of its agenda into state policies. Nonetheless, between 1937 and the fall of 1940, the

institutions of the state had to fight against the conservative mainstream that clamored for a moreradical anti-Semitic policy than the government’s. The stress put by many studies about interwar

Romanian anti-Semitism, and the Final Report, on the breadth and the continuity of anti-Semitism

underestimated the role of the competition between the forces of modernity and the societal anti-

democratic movement during the years between the World Wars.

I was able to describe comprehensively the role of the ROC in the competition between the

modernization project and anti-Semitic national-Orthodoxism by discussing „resources” and

differentiating between anti-Semitic actant resources and passive resources. As a passive resource,

Orthodoxy fueled, through Orthodox dogma, language, attitudes and ideas, the interwar anti-

Semitism. As actant resources, the church as an institution, the clergy, the heterogeneous

community of the faithful and their various forms of organization, participated in various degrees toanti-Semitic activities.

The contribution of the ROC to interwar anti-Semitism was determined by the relationship of

dependence between state authorities and the Church. The State was able to control the ROC

through its prerogatives in religious matters, the resources it provided to the Church, and the

institutions with relevant responsibilities, like the courts. This created tension within the ROC, and

eventually led to chaotic behavior uncharacteristic of religious communities. The hierarchy of the

church most often abetted the authorities of the state, which pushed many dissenting priests, and

Orthodoxist organizations and foundations, into a conflict with the ROC hierarchy. One

phenomenon that the ROC lost control of was the involvement of priests in politics.

The inner tensions, segregations and inconsistencies of the ROC led some researchers to believe

that the role of the ROC in interwar anti-Semitism manifestations, through dogma and activism,

was secondary. We disagree: in its double role as a passive resource and multiple actant resource,

Orthodoxy played a central role in the development and support of interwar anti-Semitism.

At the same time, there is a difference between the ROC and the main political forces that fought

the democratic state and won with the creation of the National-Legionary State and the rise of the

Ion Antonescu regime. In the case of the Legionary Movement and other extremist organizations,

anti-Semitism was the central theme of their programs. In the case of the ROC, anti-Semitism was

just a secondary component, because the purpose of the ROC was to create a homogenous Orthodoxstate that banished any other types of religious identity. The energy expended against Roman-


21/22

116

Catholics, Greek-Catholics and other religious denominations appears to exceed that expended on

anti-Semitic goals.

ANNEX

I. Status of the research on the relationship between anti-Semitism and the Romanian

Orthodox Church

There are several studies today that are dedicated specifically to the issue of the relationship

between anti-Semitism and the Romanian Orthodox Church: Paul Shapiro, "Faith, Murder,

Resurrection. The Iron Guard and the Romanian Orthodox Church”, in anti-Semitism, Christian

Ambivalence and the Holocaust , Kevin Spicer (ed), Indiana University Press 2007; Oana Pană,

“Ortodoxia românească şi atitudinea sa faţă de evrei” ("Romanian Orthodoxy and its attitude toward

Jews"), Holocaust. Studii şi cercetări, Vol. II, Nr. 1 (3) /2010, pp. 113-133; Gina Pană, „Biserica

Ortodoxa Română şi mişcarea legionară: clarificări şi ambiguităţi" ("The Romanian Orthodox

Church and the Legionary Movement: clarifications and ambiguities"), Holocaust. Studii şi

cercetări, Vol. III, Nr. 4 /2011, 142-167.

To this we can add several articles from a “secondary bibliography” – like “Alexandru Voicu,

„Relația controversată a Bisericii Ortodoxe Române cu Mișcarea Legionară”, ("The questionable

relationship of the Romanian Orthodox Church with the Legionary Movement") Historia.460

Other published works, although discussing a different topic, include observations relevant to the

relationship between anti-Semitism and the Romanian Orthodox Church, or the ROC doctrine that

connects the church to chauvinistic nationalism. Among the long list with this type of books I

notice: Leon Volovici, ldeologia naţionalistă şi problema evreiască, (Nationalistic ideology and the

Jewish problem) Humanitas, Bucureşti,1995; Armin Heinen, Legiunea Arhanghelului – o

contribuţie la problema fascismului mondial , (The Legion of the Archangel - a contribution to theissue of world fascism) Humanitas, 1999; Florin Muller, Metamorfoze ale politicului românesc,

1938-1944, (Metamorphoses of Romanian politics, 1938-1944) Ed. Universității din București,

București, 2005; Lavinia Stan, Lucian Turcescu, Religion and Politics in Post-Communist

Romania, Oxford University Press, New York, 2007; Cristian Romocea , Church and State:

Religious Nationalism and State Identification in Post-Communist Romania, Continuum Religious

Studies, New York, 2011.

Information on the subject may also be found in a series of studies on the situation of the Jewish

minority between the World Wars and the Holocaust: from Matatias Carp's pioneering work

"Cartea neagră. Fapte şi documente. Suferinţele evreilor din România: 1940-1944" ("Black Book.

Facts and documents. The suffering of the Jews in Romania: 1940-1944), vol. I şi II (SAR,Bucureşti, 1946 şi “Dacia Traiana”, Bucureşti, 1947, 1948), to the Final Report of the International

Commission for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania, Polirom, Iaşi, 2005.

The third category of texts are those that promote and theorize anti-Semitism while invoking the

ROC as a source of legitimization. Among them: Hie Imbrescu, Biserica şi Mişcarea Legionară,

(The Church and the Legionary Movement) Ed. Cartea Româneasca. Bucureşti, 1940; Flor

Strejnicu, Creştinismul Mişcării Legionare (The Christianity of the Legionary Movement) Ed.

Imago, Sibiu, 2000 (second edition); Gheorghe Racoveanu, Miș carea legionară ș i biserica (The

Legionary Movement and the church), Ed. Samizdat, București, 2002 (second edition). Other

volumes are relevant because of the status of their authors: Ion Antonescu, Pe marginea prăpastiei

460 http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-

legionara.

http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionarahttp://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionarahttp://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionarahttp://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/rela-ia-controversata-bisericii-ortodoxe-romane-mi-carea-legionara


22/22

(On the edge of the chasm) 21-23 ianuarie 1941, Scripta, Bucureşti, 1992; Preot Stefan Palaghiţă,

Garda de Fier. Spre Reînvierea României (The Iron Guard. Toward a Rebirth of Romania) Buenos

Aires, Ed. Autorului, 1951 ş.a.

The manner in which works by authors affiliated to the Orthodox Church, or writing in ROC

sponsored journals, treat and generally conceal the anti-Semitism of the ROC is itself of interest:

e.g. Brînduşa Costache, Mircea Costache, Doru Costache „Problema evreiască în România

modernă: Atitudinea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române” ("The Jewish problem in modern Romania: theattitude of the Romanian Orthodox Church"), TABOR, Revista lunară de cultură şi spiritualitate

românească editată de Mitropolia Clujului, Albei, Crişanei şi Maramureşului. (Cultural and

Spiritual Monthly edited by the Metropolitan of Cluj, Alba, Crişana and Maramureş)461.

I also identified documents relevant to the research of the relationship between anti-Semitism and

the Romanian Orthodox Church in the National Archives of Bucharest (A1) and in the CNSAS

Archive (A2).

Research in archives

A1. Documents in National Archives Bucharest, partially studied

Collection ID Years

Jewish communities in Romania 3001 1918-1959

League for Cultural Unity of All

Romanians

1915 1891-1949

League against terror 2648 1926-1936

Ministry of Religious Denominations and

Arts - documents

2719 1920-1929

Ministry of Religious Denominations and

Arts –