Church and State

Religious Nationalism and State Identification in Post-Communist Romania

Cristian Romocea

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9781441182012
• eBook ISBN: 9781441183187
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

Twenty years have passed since the fall of the Iron Curtain, yet emerging democracies continue to struggle with a secular state which does not give preference to churches as major political players. This book explores the nationalist inclinations of an Eastern Orthodox Church as it interacts with a politically immature yet decisively democratic Eastern European state. Discussing the birth pangs of extreme nationalist movements of the twentieth century, it offers a creative retelling of the ideological idiosyncrasies which have characterized Marxist Communism and Nazism. Cristian Romocea provides a constant juxtaposition of the ideological movements as they interacted and affected organized religion, at times seeking to remove it, assimilate it or even imitate it. Of interest to historians, theologians and politicians, this book introduces the reader, through a case study of Romania, to relevant and contemporary challenges churches worldwide are facing in a context characterized by increased secularization of the state and radicalization of religion.

Chapter 1

The Orthodox Church in Post-Communist Romania

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the challenges facing the contemporary Orthodox Church in post-Communist Romanian society. A contradiction prevails among the Orthodox majority population between the high level of Orthodox religiosity and the low level of morality and commitment to democratic practice, a contradiction that must be perceived within the larger social and political changes taking place after the fall of Communism. The sudden freedom from totalitarian rule meant the churches could finally shape their new identities, both internally and in relation to the state. However, it soon became evident that the path chosen by the Orthodox Church would be controversial. Revisiting the issues surrounding attempts at public repentance and reparations—the ROC’s autonomy from the state, understanding of religious pluralism in dealing with other religious denominations, and the controversies surrounding church–state autonomy—will provide further insights into the difficulties the Orthodox Church is facing in the democratic Romanian society.

The attempt of theologians, on the one hand, and secular intelligentsia, on the other, to address church–state relations in an informed way will constitute the subject matter of this chapter in order—it is hoped—to provide insight into the interaction between the Orthodox Church and the Romanian state. This chapter will unveil the incongruity between official pro-democratic statements by some of its clergy and the Orthodox Church’s anti-Western and negative perception of the democratic system. The case put forward in this chapter is crucial to the overall argument of this volume because it posits that such discrepancies have roots in the historical identity of the ROC as a national church endowed with special responsibilities toward the state and its people.

Political Identity of Post-1989 Romanian Society

The collapse of Communism in the countries of the Eastern bloc has been perceived as a great liberating event marking the beginning of a new Central and Eastern Europe. This change brought about the formation of new states and the rediscovery of buried cultural traditions, as well as the resurgence of old ideologies. In Romania, where some argued that the Communist dictatorship was one of the most repressive in the whole of the Eastern bloc, liberation did not come through a nonviolent change of government, but had to be secured with street protests that resulted in hundreds shot and more wounded. Comparable in cruelty to Enver Hoxha in Albania, Kim Il-Sung in North Korea, Mao Zedong in the People’s Republic of China, and Stalin in the Soviet Union, Communist dictator Nicolae Ceaus¸escu’s regime was in fact inspired by each one of these grand dictators and, as stated, was probably as cruel as any of them.¹ From all the countries that had gotten rid of Communism by the close of the twentieth century, many expected Romania to become the example of a transition to a democratic society because of the sheer determination and courage shown by the people in bringing a change and attaining freedom from such Communist oppression.

Over two decades later, Romania is lagging behind most other Central and Eastern European countries, struggling to reduce corruption at the societal level, to control a widespread black market, to limit the brain drain and mass emigration, and to convince European Union officials that its commitment to an open economic market is genuine. Analysts have called this a paradox, noting that the most abrupt breakup of the old regime in Eastern Europe has led to one of the least radical transformations.² Such evidence only enforces the outsiders’ perception of Romania, famously described by Tony Judt as the European “bottom of the heap.”³

Nonetheless, approximately since the turn of the twenty-first century, positive transformations have begun to take place, offering hope that Romania’s political institutions are gradually maturing, and that the social and economic reforms are generating a functioning market economy and a more stable society. Joining the EU in January 2007 represents an impressive achievement in itself, but also presents society with great challenges for continual and effective transformation of the social and economic conditions according to European standards and demands. An important aspect that could significantly influence this process is the need for a change of mentality. In this regard, the Orthodox Church in Romania is often perceived as an institution that retains and perpetuates an irrelevant and outmoded way of social thinking, exhibiting antidemocratic and, oftentimes, intolerant attitudes while at the same time formally supporting the commitment of the society to democracy and European integration.

The Church Following the December Revolution

The events following the December 1989 removal from power of the Communist dictatorship allowed the Romanian churches to gain prominence, with clergy leading public prayers before masses of street protesters in various cities of Romania. The presence of the Orthodox Church’s clergy at the formation of the first interim political leadership seemed to indicate the churches would play a positive and active role in the transition of the society from Communist mentalities to democracy. The first steps toward reform and redefinition were taken by a group that included enlightened and well regarded Orthodox clergymen and laity such as Fr. Bartolomeu Anania, Fr. Daniel Ciobotea, Fr. Iustin Marchis¸, and Teodor Baconsky, who approached the interim government with the proposal for drafting a religions law and for setting up a group for reflection and renewal within the church.⁴

Thus, after the revolution, the ROC resumed its constitutionally protected social activity in army bases, hospitals, and prisons as well as its philanthropic activity with orphans and the elderly, and providing hot meals, medical assistance, and treatment.⁵ With most of the restrictions of the Communist regime against religious associations and organizations now lifted, formerly persecuted Orthodox renewal movements like the Lord’s Army⁶ and also the Greek Catholic Church⁷ were able to regain legal status, while other new associations were formed.⁸ A number of rights and privileges were granted the ROC by the new constitution, laws, and emergency ordinances that allowed for rapid development of its infrastructure.⁹ Church properties that had been confiscated by the former regime were returned or, where this was not possible, exchanged for others of equal value. Finally, it was decided that the clerical body of the ROC would continue to receive salaries through the Ministry of Religion while activities in support of the church’s needs were exempted from taxation.

The new responsibilities of the ROC now included, alongside social and philanthropic activities stipulated by the constitution, a symbolic presence in the public arena. Thus, the Orthodox clergy would offer symbolic legitimization to the opening of the parliamentary session, to official ceremonies, and to other activities organized by institutions of the state. The presence of the Orthodox crucifix and icons in public spaces (parliament, schools, hospitals, courts, etc.) was also reinstated by the new constitution, as were oaths sworn on the Bible—without making such oaths compulsory for other religious denominations.¹⁰

While such changes were supposed to generate a stable and harmonious relationship between the state and the church, it became evident that the ROC would indiscriminately offer support and legitimization to any government so long as endorsements and privileges continued to come from the state. This realization dawned even on Orthodox intellectuals who decried the church’s lack of critical thinking and its deficient social ethics.¹¹ The Orthodox Church hierarchy’s increasing demands included the recognition, in the text of the constitution, of the ROC as the national church, a demand that has generated mu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 The Orthodox Church in Post-Communist Romania
• Chapter 2 German Protestantism and Nazism in Third Reich Germany
• Chapter 3 From Caesaropapism to Religious Nationalism
• Chapter 4 Nationalist Orthodoxy and the Romanian State
• Chapter 5 The Marxist-Orthodox Symbiosis
• Chapter 6 The Theological Error of Nationalism: Barth and Sta˘niloae
• Conclusion  Toward a Theology of ‘Permanent Revolution’
• Bibliography
• Index