Mitropolia Moldovei şi Mitropolia Basarabiei sau Dubluri Religioase

„Patriarhia de la Bucureşti a dovedit lipsă de stimă faţă de conducerea
Moldovei şi a contribuit, prin acţiunile date, la dezmembrarea teritorială
a Republicii Moldova”
( Preşedintele Mircea Snegur,
într-un discurs rostit în Plenul Parlamentului Republicii
Moldova, 24 decembrie 1992 )


„ România... îi susţine pînă în prezent pe naţionaliştii de la noi. Este vorba de acea Românie cu care ne judecăm acum la Strasbourg. Ca să vezi, în aceşti ani, nouă ne-au creat o mitropolie a Basarabiei subordonată patriarhului român Teoctist.”

( Preşedintele Vladimir Voronin,
interviu pentru Rossiiskaia gazeta şi Trud,2001)


După Marea Unire de la 1 Decembrie 1918 s-au produs schimbări şi în organizarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române. Autocefala din 1885, Biserica Ortodoxă Română este ridicată la rang de Patriarhie prin Legea din 3 noiembrie 1925, avînd în componenţa ei, ca persoana juridică, şi Biserica Ortodoxă din Basarabia, ce a fost înfiinţată prin hotărîrea Sinodului Bisericii Ortodoxe Române din 15 noiembrie 1923, cînd Arhiepiscopia Chişinăului a fost ridicată la rangul de Mitropolie.
Organizarea acesteia s-a făcut prin Legea pentru organizareaBisericii Ortodoxe Române din 1925, iar arhiepiscopul de Chişinău, Gurie Grosu, a fost numit mitropolit al Basarabiei prin Înaltul Decret Regal din 21 aprilie 1928. Noua Mitropolie avea trei eparhii: Arhiepiscopia Chişinău lui, Episcopia Cetatea Albă-Ismail şi Episcopia Hotin-Bălti. În urma Ultimatumului din 26 iunie 1940 şi a întrării Armatei Sovietice în Basarabia la 28 iunie 1940, bisericile şi mănăstirile din Basarabia sunt închise, transformate în depozite de marfă, spitale, cazarme militare, „case de odihnă”. Mitropolia Basarabiei, cu Consiliul Eparhial şi cu Casa Eparhială, este declarată Casa Armatei Roşii. Pînă în 1941, cînd autorităţile române revin în Basarabia, fuseseră devastate sau distruse peste 200 de biserici şi mănăstiri, preoţii şi călugării sunt ucişi sau deportaţi, în număr foarte mare, iar bisericile şi mănăstirile sunt dărîmate sau secularizate.
În 1944 Mitropolia Basarabiei va fi desfiinţată, iar în locul ei va fi organizată o Episcopie, creată de Biserica Ortodoxă Rusă pe scheletul istoricei „ eparhii Chişinăului şi Hotinului” înfiinţată în urma cuceririi ţariste din 1812. Mitropolia Chişinăului şi a întregii Moldove constituie 1 din cele 124 de filiale canonice locale ale Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse, în ordine fiind a 117-a eparhie, cu numele de Kişiniovscaia ( a Chişinăului), parte componentă a „ trupului bisericesc rus”.
La 21 mai 1989, Patriarhul Moscovei şi al întregii Rusii îl numeşte episcop al Chişinăului şi al Moldovei pe Nikolai Vasilievici Kantarian (colonel în rezervă), sub numele Vladimir. În 1990 Vladimir este ridicat la treapta de arhiepiscop al Chişinăului. La 3 ianuarie 1991, Sinodul de la Moscova a aprobat organizarea Mitropoliei Chişinăului şi a Întregii Moldove pe baza Statutului Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse şi confirmat de către Ministerul Justiţiei al Federaţiei Ruse la 30 mai 1991. În 1992 Vladimir este ridicat la treapta de Mitropolit al Moldovei.
La 24 martie 1992 a fost adoptată Legea nr. 979-XII privind Cultele în Republica Moldova.
La 9 aprilie 1992, Sfîntul Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române publică un comunicat oficial prin care declară că „ nu a recunoscut niciodată desfiinţarea Mitropoliei Basarabiei, cu sediul la Chişinău, şi a Mitropoliei Bucovinei cu sediul la Cernăuţi ”.
Pe baza Legii cultelor, o parte a clerului si a credincioşilor din Republica Moldova se asociază şi la 14 septembrie 1992 are loc la Chişinău Adunarea de reactivare a Mitropoliei Basarabiei. Petru Păduraru, episcop de Bălţi, este numit mitropolit locţiitor, iar o delegaţie de clerici este trimisă la Bucureşti pentru a cere Sfîntului Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române să primească noua Mitropolie a Basarabiei sub jurisdicţia canonică a Patriarhiei Române, aşa cum fusese după 1918.
Sfîntul Sinod va răspunde acestei cereri, la 19 decembrie 1992, prin „Actul Patriarhal şi Sinodal al Patriarhiei Române privind recunoaşterea reactivării Mitropoliei Basarabiei, autonomă şi de stil vechi, cu reşedinţa în Chişinău”, care proclamă: „Biserica Ortodoxă Română, Mama spirituală a poporului român ce răspunde cu părinţească şi frăţiască dragoste dorinţei sfinte a fraţilor noştri de peste Prut şi cererii scrise, din 14 septembrie 1992, a Adunării eparhiale de constituire, prezidată de Prea Sfinţitul Episcop Petru şi compusă de reprezentanţii preoţilor şi mirenilor dreptmăritori români din Republica Moldova, ca tradiţionala Mitropolie Ortodoxă a Basarabiei să-şi reia activitatea sub oblăduirea canonică şi cu binecuvîntarea Sfîntului Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, mai ales că aceasta n-a reunoscut niciodată desfiinţarea Mitropoliei Basarabiei.
Reacţia PatriarhuluiMoscovei, înregistrată la 24 decembrie 1992, a fost deosebit de dură: Întîistătătorul Bisericii ruse a acuzat Patrirhia Romînă de “ ingerinţă anticanonică în problemele interne ale Bisericii Ortodoxe din Moldova, care este parte a Patriarhiei Moscovei”. Totodată, Patriarhul Alexei al II-lea şi-a exprimat “ protestul energic” şi a făcut apel “ să fie corectate cît mai curînd posibil nedreptăţile existente, pentru binele unităţii ortodoxe şi mîntuirea sufletelor fiilor Bisericii din Moldova. Motivele politice, naţionaliste şi de altă natură nu trebuie să intervină în domeniul bisericesc, întrucît acest lucru duce inevitabil la consecinţele negative pentru Biserică”.
În 1992 situaţia bisericească din Republica Moldova era paradoxală deoarece “ intelectualii şi o parte din credincioşi luptau pentru independenţa faţă de Moscova, iar în interiorul Bisericii Ortodoxe din Moldova s-au creat trei grupări: prima, cea mai numeroasă, reprezintă grupa conservatoare, ce luptă în mod deschis şi din urmă cu toate metodele şi formele legitime şi nelegitime pentru păstrarea Bisericii moldoveneşti în cadrul jurisdicţiei Bisericii de la Moscova. Frica faţă de unirea cu România, pierderea fotoliilor, incapacitatea de-a munci conform legii bisericeşti adie a serapionism şovin rusesc…; a doua categorie o reprezintă susţinătorii unirii spirituale - deci, trecerera Bisericii Ortodoxe din Moldova sub jurisdicţia canonică a Patriarhiei Române; iar a treia direcţie o reprezintă cei care luptă pentru independenţă şi autonomie.
La 8 octombrie 1992, Mitropolia Basarabiei solicită guvernului să fie recunoscută, dar nu primeşte răspuns.
La 16 octombrie 1992, Ministerul Culturii si Cultelor cere guvernului un aviz favorabil recunoaşterii Mitropoliei Basarabiei. Guvernul refuză să dea acest aviz, deşi Ministerul de Finanţe (la 14 noiembrie 1992), Ministerul Muncii si Protecţiei Sociale ( la 8 februarie 1993), Ministerul Învăţămîntului (la 8 februarie 1993) şi Departamentul de Stat pentru Privatizare (la 15 februarie 1993) comunică guvernului şi presedintelui ţării că nu au obiecţii în legătură cu recunoaşterea Mitropoliei Basarabiei.
Chiar şi Comisia pentru Cultură şi Culte a Parlamentului Republicii Moldova face cunoscut la 11 martie 1993 (în urma unei scrisori a episcopului Petru Păduraru) că statutul şi activitatea Mitropoliei Basarabiei sunt în conformitate cu legislaţia statului şi cere guvernului să recunoască noua Mitropolie pentru a nu agrava situaţia socială şi politică din Mldova.
Anul 1993 va fi şi anul unei intense corespondenţe între Prea Fericitul Teoctist, Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Române şi Sanctitatea Sa Alexei al II-lea, Patriarhul Moscovei şi al întregii Rusii, cu privire la problema canonicităţii şi continuităţii Mitropoliei Basarabiei. Semnificativă este scrisoarea din 19 mai 1993 a Prea Fericitului Teoctist care îi spune Sanctităţii Sale Alexei al II-lea: „Exercitarea jurisdicţiei Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse asupra românilor ortodocşi din Basarabia între anii 1769-1774, 1787-1791, 1808-1918, 1940-1941, 1944-1992 a fost un act nedrept şi abuziv din punct de vedere al realităţii istorice şi al normelor de drept canonic deoarece a fost urmarea unor abuzuri politice, care au lezat dreptul istoric”.
La 17 noiembrie 1993, prin Hotărîrea nr. 719, Guvernul Republicii Moldova, condus de Andrei Sangheli, recunoaşte existenţa legală doar a Mitropoliei Moldovei, declarată „parte inseparabilă a trupului bisericesc rus”.
Patriarhia Română recunoaşte acestei structuri ruse doar dreptul de jurisdicţie asupra diasporei ruse din Basarabia, ceea ce presupune, prin reciprocitate, exercitarea în Federaţia Rusă a jurisdicţiei Bisericii Ortodoxe Române prin Exarhatul Plaiurilor. La 20 octombrie 1995, Sfîntul Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române a acordat Mitropoliei Basarabiei rangul de Exarhat al Plaiurilor cu drept de jurisdicţie extrateritorială asupra diasporei ortodoxe române din spaţiul ex-sovietic şi asupra diasporei basarabene din întreaga lume.
Drumul Mitropoliei Basarabiei către recunoaştere şi legalitate a fost facut sub focul persecuţiei, cu foarte multe semnale politice din partea autoritaţilor statului.
Mitropolia Basarabiei a fost acuzată că:
1) a declanşat războiul în Transnistria;
2) subminează autoritatea statului şi stabilitatea Republicii Moldova;
3) este o „agentură străină”;
4) este unealta României etc.
Din păcate, astfel de acuzaţii aberante au fost aduse şi de cei mai înalţi demnitari ai statului moldovean în declaraţii publice. Astfel, Andrei Sangheli, şeful guvernului de la Chişinău declara în scrisoarea adresată, la 1 martie 1992, Prea Fericitului Patriarh Teoctist: Reactivarea Mitropoliei Basarabiei este „un amestec în treburile interne ale Moldovei”.
La rîndul său, fostul preşedinte al Republicii Moldova, Mircea Snegur, declara în discursul pronunţat la 24 decembrie 1992 în faţa Parlamentului Republicii Moldova: „ Patriarhia Română a contribuit la dezmembrarea teritorială a Republicii Moldova”
Idei asemănătoare a exprimat şi actualul preşedinte al Moldovei, Vladimir Voronin, în interviul acordat în 2001 ziarelor „Rossiiskaia gazeta” şi „Trud”.
Victor Stepaniuc, liderul fracţiunii comuniste din Parlament, declara că problema Mitropoliei Basarabiei este artificială şi că este creată de formaţiunile politice care, la începutul anilor ’90, doreau unirea Moldovei cu România.
Nu este de mirare, aşadar, că mulţi preoţi au fost bătuţi, călcaţi în picioare, ameninţaţi cu arma, alungaţi din biserici. Publicaţiile „Ţara” şi „Alfa şi Omega” au publicat zeci, sute de articole despre astfel de acte violenţe şi abuzive.
Mai mult, la 21 noiembrie 1994, Serviciul de Stat pentru Culte de pe lîngă guvernul Republicii Moldova a dat publicităţii o notă în care Mitropolia Basarabiei era acuzată că:
1) îşi desfăşoară activitatea ilegal;
2) preoţii ei nu respectă normele canonice;
3) face prozelitism;
4) propagă ideile Bisericii Ortodoxe Române;
5) activitatea ei este mai mult politică decît religioasă şi este susţinută din interior (de unii deputaţi, de reprezentanţi ai opoziţiei şi ai autorităţilor locale, de unii primari etc), dar şi din exterior (de Guvernul Român care, prin Hotărîrea nr. 612 din 12 noiembrie 1993, a finanţat activitatea Mitropoliei Basarabiei cu 399,4 milioane lei);
6) activitatea Mitropoliei Basarabiei este instigatoare şi provoacă tensiuni de ordin religios şi socio-politic cu urmări imprevizibile deoarece:
a) nu există în Moldova o unitate administrativ-teritorială cu numele Basarabia; crearea unui grup religios cu numele Mitropolia Basarabiei este un act antistatal, nelegitim şi de negare a statului suveran şi independent Republica Moldova;
b) Mitropolia Basarabiei a fost creată pentru a înlocui vechea episcopie a Basarabiei întemeiată în 1925 (recunoscută prin Decretul Regal nr. 1942 din 4 mai 1925); dacă acest act ete recunoscut valid din punct de vedere juridic sunt recunoscute efectele acestui act al unui stat străin pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova;
c) existenţa Mitropoliei Basarabiei destabilizează Biserica Ortodoxă a Moldovei şi societatea moldovenească;
d) recunoaşterea Mitropoliei Basarabiei va duce la dispariţia Mitropoliei Moldovei etc.
Mitropolia Basarabiei va cere recunoaşterea sa şi în 1995, 1996, 1997 dar în zadar, deşi faţă de alte culte Guvernul Republicii Moldova a avut o atitudine binevoitoare, recunoscînd „Biserica Adventistă de Ziua a Şaptea” (22 iulie 1993), „Biserica Adventistă de Ziua a Şaptea – Miscarea Reformată” (19 iulie 1994), „Biserica Ortodoxă Rusă din Moldova” (28 august 1995), „Federaţia (religioasă) a Comunităţii Evreieşti” (9 iunie 1994), „Uniunea Comunităţii Evreilor Mesianici” (1 septembrie 1997).
Refuzul guvernului de a recunoaşte Mitropolia Basarabiei şi persecuţiile suferite de clerul şi credincioşii ei au dus la procese în Moldova şi la Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului.
La 12 septembrie 1995, Judecătoria Buiucani din Chişinău dă caştig de cauză Mitropoliei Basarabiei, care ceruse guvernului să fie recunoscută, dar Curtea Supremă de Justiţie anulează, la 18 septembrie 1995, această hotărîre. La 19 iulie 1996 Judecătoria Buiucani dă o altă hotărîre prin care respinge cererea Mitropoliei Basarabiei de a fi recunoscută de guvern. Această hotărîre este casată, la 21 mai 1997, de Tribunalul Municipiului Chişinău care trimite dosarul spre examinare Curţii de Apel a Republicii Moldova. Aceasta, prin decizia din 19 august 1997, dă caştig de cauză Mitropoliei Basarabiei constatînd că:
1) prin art. 31, paragrafele 1 şi 2 din Constituţie se garantează dreptul la libertatea conştiiţei;
2) cultele sunt libere şi se pot organiza potrivit statutului propriu în condiţiile prevăzute de legile Republicii Moldova;
3) refuzul guvernului de a recunoaşte Mitropolia Basarabiei încalcă:
a) Legea cultelor;
b) art. 18 din Declaraţia Universală a Drepturilor Omului;
c) art. 5 din Pactul Internaţional privind drepturile economice, sociale şi culturale;
d) art. 8 din Pactul Internaţional privind drepturile civile şi politice.
Biserica Ortodoxă Rusă şi-a extins jurisdicţia asupra Basarabiei „ nu conform canoanelor bisericeşti, ci în urma încălcării lor, cînd teritoriul dintre Prut şi Nistru a fost alipit forţat în 1812 la Rusia Ţaristă şi în 1940 la U.R.S.S., fără ca populaţia Basarabiei să fie consultată în această privinţă”. Biserica Rusă a profitat de această ocupaţie politică şi şi-a extins jurisdicţia asupra noului teritoriu anexat. Astfel, au fost încălcate: „Canonul 34 apostolic; canonul 8 al Sinoului III ecumenic, care obligă că nici un episcop să nu cuprindă altă eparhie, care nu a fost mai de mult şi dintru început sub mîna lui sau a celor dinaintea lui. Iar dacă cineva a cuprins o eparhie străină şi în chip silnic a pus-o sub stăpînirea lui, pe aceasta să o dea înapoi; şi canoanele 13, 21 şi 22 ale Sinodului de la Cartagina, precum şi canonul 2 al Sinodului II Ecumenic, care interzic episcopului unei anumite eparhii să-şi întindă puterea asupra altei eparhii. Biserica Ortodoxă Rusă „ este vinovată de încălcarea canoanelor menţionate mai sus, care condamnă extinderea şi menţinerea unei Biserici naţionale asupra altei etnii, în cazul nostru, jurisdicţia Bisericii Ruse asupra românilor ortodocşi din R. Moldova. De aceea, pretenţiile Patriarhiei Moscovei de a avea jurisdicţie asupra românilor din Basarabia, care au propria lor Patriarhie, sunt necanonice şi nedrepte.Trebuie să fie clar, canoanele nu admit cuceriri canonice, ca urmare a unor cuceriri teritoriale!”
Intervine preşedintele de atunci al Republicii Moldova, Petru Lucinshi, care cere să se facă recurs la Curtea Supremă de Justiţie. Aceasta respinge, la 9 decembrie 1997, acţiunea Mitropoliei Basarabiei şi anulează hotărîrea din 19 august 1997 a Curţii de Apel.
Vlad Cubreacov, deputat în Parlamentul Moldovei şi în Adunarea Parlamentară a Consiliului Europei, face o interpelare în Parlament pe tema refuzului guvernului de a recunoaşte Mitropolia Basarabiei. În urma acestei intervenţii, adjunctul primului ministru adresează o scrisoare preşedintelui Parlamentului în care califică neintemeiat refuzul guvernului de a nu recunoaşte Mitropolia Basarabiei şi apreciază că „dezbaterile febrile” cu privire la Mitropolia Basarabiei au un caracter pur politic.
În această situaţie, Mitropolia Basarabiei mai are o singură cale: să se adreseze Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului de la Strasbourg. Prin urmare, la 3 iunie 1998 depune o plîngere împotriva Republicii Moldova. Cererea va fi înregistrată la CEDO la 26 ianuarie 1999 cu nr. 45701/99 şi va fi declarată admisă la 7 iunie 2001.
Serviciul de Stat pentru Culte de pe langă guvern reacţionează după plangerea la CEDO din 3 iunie 1998 a Mitropoliei Basarabiei şi, la 29 iunie 1998 declară:
1) în Republica Moldova nu există o unitate administrativă „Basarabia”;
2) cultul creştin ortodox a fost recunoscut la 17 noiembrie 1993 sub numele de Mitropolia Moldovei; Mitropolia Basarabiei fiind un „element schismatic” al Mitropoliei Moldovei;
3) statutul Mitropoliei Basarabiei este copia statutului Bisericii Ortodoxe din altă ţară (aluzie la Biserica Ortodoxă Română).
Declaraţia pare absurdă deoarece Ministerul Justiţiei (la 22 iunie 1998), Ministerul Muncii si Protecţiei Sociale (la 25 iunie 1998), Ministerul Finanţelor (la 6 iulie 1998) şi Ministerul Educaţiei (la 7 iulie 1998) fac cunoscut că statutul Mitropoliei Basarabiei nu contravine legilor Republicii Moldova şi că nu au obiecţii privind recunoaşterea ei.
La 15 martie 1999, Mitropolia Basarabiei adresează guvernului o nouă cerere de recunoaştere. La 20 iulie 1999, primul ministru motivează refuzul guvernului astfel:
1) Mitropolia Basarabiei nu este un cult în sensul legii, ci un grup schismatic al Mitropoliei Moldovei;
2) Guvernul Moldovei nu va aproba cererea Mitropoliei Basarabiei pînă cînd negocierile în curs dintre Patriarhul rus şi Patriarhul român nu vor găsi o soluţie religioasă conflictului provocat prin reactivarea Mitropoliei Basarabiei.
La 10 ianuarie 2000, deputatul Vlad Cubreacov a primit o scrisoare de la adjunctul procurorului general al Republicii Moldova, care îşi exprimă părerea că refuzul guvernului de a recunoaşte Mitropolia Basarabiei încalcă Legea Cultelor şi art. 6, 11 şi 13 din Convenţia Drepturilor Omului.
Prin atitudinea sa, Guvernul Republicii Moldova şi-a atras criticile unor organisme internaţionale. Astfel, Federaţia Internaţională a Drepturilor Omului, în Raportul său anual pe 1997, critică refuzul guvernului de a recunoaşte Mitropolia Basarabiei, atrage atenţia că numeroase biserici au fost transferate în patrimoniul Mitropoliei Moldovei şi condamnă violenţele fizice împotriva preoţilor Mitropoliei Basarabiei şi lipsa de protecţie a acestora din partea autorităţilor.
Aceeaşi federaţie, în Raportul său anual pe 1998, critică art. 4 din Legea Cultelor care nu oferă protecţie credincioşilor cultelor nerecunoscute de guvern şi condamnă din nou actele de violenţă şi de vandalism la care a fost supusă Mitropolia Basarabiei cu membrii ei.
La 2 octombrie 2001 au avut loc audierile publice la CEDO, la Palatul Drepturilor Omului din Strasbourg, Adversarul Mitropoliei Basarabiei era atuci reprezentat de Ministrul Justiţiei Ion Morei, care a spus Curţii: ” E adevărat că nu am nici un precedent legal prin care să-mi susţin cauza. Şi e adevărat că oponentul meu a prezentat un număr considerabil de precedente în sprijinul cauzei sale- legalizarea Mitropoliei Basarabiei. Dar, în ciuda acestui fapt, tot nu trebuie să-i daţi cîştig de cauză, căci, dacă legalizaţi Mitropolia Basarabiei, ţara va exploada! Moldova va dispărea! Va fi o revoluţie! Forţele reacţionare- în primul rînd politicienii din Partidul Popular Creştin Democrat-vor distruge tînăra republică.
Reprezentantul Mitropoliei Basarabieia a argumentat, în replică, în felul următor: guvernul Moldovei afirmă că nu vrea să intervină într-o dispută religioasă, respective o chestiune care privea doar cele două Biserici Ortodoxe. Ceea ce „ era complet fals şi, ca argumentaţie, nul. Căci guvernul intervenise deja! Prin simplul fapt că recunoştea una dintre ele, deci se implicase deja, direct, în această problemă”. Prin simplul fapt că guvernul înregistrase o biserică-Mitropolia Moldovei-şi nu pe cealaltă! Deci, „ deja era tendenţios - ori le înregistra pe toate, ori pe nici una. Discriminarea era limpede.
La 13 decembrie 2001 CEDO hotărăşte în unanimitate că Republica Moldova a încălcat, în cazul nerecunoaşterii Mitropoliei Basarabiei, art. 9 şi 13 ale Convenţiei Europene a Drepturilor Omului. Statul a fost obligat să plătească Mitropoliei Basarabiei 20.000 euro despăgubire morală şi 7.025 euro pentru cheltuielile de judecată.
Guvernul Republicii Moldova a atacat decizia CEDO şi a cerut rejudecarea cazului, dar la 27 martie 2002 CEDO respinge cererea Guvernului Republicii Moldova. În acest fel, hotărîrea CEDO din 13 decembrie 2001 a rămas definitivă.
În sfarşit, Mitropolia Basarabiei, care la 19 februarie 2002 ceruse pentru a XI-a oară guvernului să fie recunoscută ca structură religioasa distinctă, subordonată canonic Patriarhiei Române, este recunoscută şi admisă în legalitate la 30 iulie 2002 ca urmare a hotărîrii Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (CEDO).
Dar suferinţele Mitropoliei Basarabiei nu au luat sfîrşit odată cu recunoaşterea şi întrarea ei în legalitate, deoarece a apărut o problemă nouă, problema succesiunii. Mitropolia Basarabiei trebuia recunoscută de guvern şi ca succesoare de drept a fostei Mitropolii a Basarabiei dinainte de 1944, mai ales că, la 26 septembrie 2001, guvernul Republicii Moldova a aprobat prin Hotărîrea nr. 1008 modificarea întrodusă în statutul Bisericii Ortodoxe din Moldova (Mitropolia Moldovei) prin care aceasta este declarată şi recunoscută succesoarea de drept a Mitropoliei Basarabiei.
La 8 februarie 2002, Înalt Preasfinţitul Mitropolit Petru şi deputaţii Iurie Roşca şi Vlad Cubreacov atacă la Curtea de Apel a Republicii Moldova, în procedura de contencios administrativ, Hotărîrea 1008 a guvernului.
La cererea Guvernului Tarlev, Curtea de Apel a respins, la 20 octombrie 2003, cererea petiţionarilor pe motiv că ar fi de competenţa Curţii Constituţionale. Hotărîrea Curţii de Apel a fost atacată cu recurs la Curtea Supremă de Justiţie, care a anulat decizia Curţii de Apel şi a acceptat să examineze pe fond, în prima instanţă, litigiul patrimonial dintre Mitropolia Basarabiei, pe de o parte, şi Guvernul Republicii Moldova şi Mitropolia Moldovei, pe de altă parte.
La 2 februarie 2004, Curtea Supremă de Justiţie a anulat Hotărîrea Guvernului nr. 1008 din 26 septembrie prin care Mitropolia Moldovei (subordonată canonic Patriarhiei Moscovei) fusese declarată succesoarea fostei Mitropolii a Basarabiei. Cu acest prilej, deputatul Vlad Cubreacov (PPCD), care a reprezentat în instanţă Mitropolia Basarabiei a declarat: „ Este o zi mare în istoria Mitropoliei Basarabiei şi a justiţiei naţionale întrucît s-a făcut dreptate într-un litigiu atît de dureros, care vizează patrimoniul Mitropoliei, uzurpat de către structura locală a Patriarhiei Moscovei, prin complicitate cu guvernul comunist de la Chişinău . Acest lucru s-a făcut ţinînd cont de atenţia sporită a Consiliului Europei faţă de evoluţia acestui caz. Decizia Curţii deschide o nouă etapă în procesul de recîştigare a drepturilor Mitropoliei Basarabiei.”
Deoarece Curtea Supremă de Justiţie anulase, la 2 februarie 2004, Hotărîrea nr. 1008 a Guvernului din 26 septembrie 2001 prin care Mitropolia Moldovei fusese recunoscută succesoarea juridică a Mitropoliei Basarabiei, dar în acelaşi timp statuase că Mitropolia Basarabiei ar putea fi doar succesoare istorică, canonică şi spirituală a Mitropoliei Basarabiei de pînă la 1944, Mitropolia Basarabiei a iniţiat în 2004 un nou dosar la CEDO pentru a demonstra că în accepţia legilor Republicii Moldova, la CEDO şi a primului protocol din Convenţia Europeană, ratificat de Republica Moldova, succesiunea istorică, canonică şi spirituală înseamna, de fapt, succesiunea de drept. Cînd se va obţine recunoaşterea acestui fapt vor putea fi recuperate proprietăţile şi bunurile Mitropoliei Basarabiei, confiscate sau naţionalizate.

Miron Sergiu.

Gavril Bănulescu-Bodoni (1746 – March 30, 1821) Biography

Gavril Bănulescu-Bodoni (1746 – March 30, 1821) was a Romanian clergyman who served as Metropolitan of Moldavia (1792), Metropolitan of Kherson and Crimea (1793–1799), Metropolitan of Kiev and Halych (1799–1803), Exarch of Moldo-Wallachia (1806–1812), and Metropolitan of Chişinău (1812–1821), being the first head of the church in Bessarabia after the Russian annexation.

Early life

Born in Bistriţa, Transylvania to a family originating from Câmpulung, Bukovina, Bănulescu studied at the Kiev Theological Academy (1771–1773), then at the Greek-language academy in the Island of Patmos, Smyrna and Vatopedi (1773-1786).[1][2][3] At Patmos, he befriended Nikephoros Theotokes, a Greek cleric and enlightenment figure, with whom he taught at the Iaşi Academy in 1776.[2]

In 1779 he became a monk in Constantinople, then continued his studies in Patmos, returning to Moldavia in 1781 to be a preacher at the Metropolitan cathedral. Then, between 1782-1784, he taught philosophy and Greek language in Poltava, then in the Russian Empire.[4][3]

Clergyman in Moldavia

In 1784, Bănulescu-Bodoni returned to Iaşi to serve under Metropolitan Gavriil Callimachi, then moved to the diocese of Huşi.[2] In 1874 he was nominated to become a bishop of Roman, but the phanariote ruler declined his nomination.[3] After the second Russo-Turkish War began, he fled to Ukraine, together with the phanariot ruler of Moldavia, Alexandru Mavrocordat Firaris.[2] In Imperial Russia, he became the rector of the Poltava Seminary.[3]

In 1789, as Russians occupied the Danubian Principalities, Catherine II of Russia and the Holy Synod appointed Archbishop Amvrosii Serebrennikov of Ekaterinoslav to be the locum tenens Exarch of Moldo-Wallachia, naming in 1791 Bănulescu-Bodoni bishop of Cetatea Albă. The Treaty of Iaşi ended the military occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia, but prior to the Russian retreat, in February 1792, Amvrosii appointed Bănulescu-Bodoni the Metropolitan of Moldavia.[5]

Patriarch Neophytus VII saw the appointment a challenge to the authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and requested to the new Phanariot hospodar, Alexander Mourousis to demand Bănulescu-Bodoni's departure. Bănulescu-Bodoni refused to leave without a Russian imperial decree. The patriarch convened with local bishops to declare his seat vacant and to select a new Metropolitan.[5]

Neophytus VII also obtained an order from the Sultan to arrest Bănulescu-Bodoni, who was taken to Constantinople in June 1792. The Patriarch tried to give him a bishop seat in Greece, but Bănulescu-Bodoni refused to give up his Russian citizenship. He was freed after the intervention of Viktor Pavlovich Kochubei, the Russian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.[5]

Clergyman in Imperial Russia

Bănulescu-Bodoni returned to Russia to become Metropolitan of Kherson and Crimea (1793-1799), then Metropolitan of Kiev and Halich (1799-1803) and in 1801, a member of the Holy Synod of Petrograd.[6]

Falling ill, Bănulescu settled to Odessa and Dubăsari, where he stayed until 1806, when he following the Russo-Turk War, the Russian Army occupied again the Principalities and he was once again named Exarch of Moldo-Wallachia. The Russian annexation of Bessarabia was acknowledged by the Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of Bucharest and Bănulescu was named in charge with organizing the archdiocese of Bessarabia.[6]

His proposal of the creation of a new eparchy was approved by Tsar Alexander I of Russia, whose ukaz of August 21, 1813 created a new "Archbishopry of Chişinău and Hotin", which included Bessarabia and the Kherson gubernya, including the cities of Odessa, Tiraspol, Ananiev and Elisabetgrad. The tsar allowed the eparchy to organize itself according to "local customs".[7]

The local boyars, lead by Bănulescu-Bodoni, petitioned for self-rule and the establishment of a civil government based on the Moldavian traditional laws. In 1818, a special autonomous region was created, which had both Moldovan and Russian as languages used in the local administration.[8]

In 1813, Bănulescu-Bodoni founded a Romanian-language seminary[9] and in 1814, a printing press. He also oversaw the building of the Chişinău Metropolitan Church (1817) and of the Soborul Cathedral. A Romanian translation of the New Testament was published in 1817 and the whole Bible in 1819 in Petrograd.[10]

Bănulescu died in 1821, and was buried at the Căpriana Monastery.[11]

Notes
^ Nistor, p.169
^ a b c d Batalden, p. 470
^ a b c d Păcurariu
^ Nistor, p.226–227
^ a b c Batalden, p. 471
^ a b Nistor, p.227
^ Nistor, p.227-228
^ King, p.21-22
^ Nistor, p.228
^ Nistor, p.230
^ Nistor, p.230-231

References
Ion Nistor, Istoria Basarabiei, Humanitas, 1991. ISBN 973-28-0283-9
Charles King, The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture, 2000, Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-9791-1
Stephen K. Batalden, "Metropolitan Gavriil (Banulesko-Bodoni) and Greek-Russian Conflict over Dedicated Monastic Estates, 1787-1812", Church History, Vol. 52, No. 4. (Dec., 1983), pp. 468-478.
Mircea Păcurariu, "Gavriil Bănulescu", entry in Dicţionarul Teologilor Români, Editura Univers Enciclopedic, Bucharest, 1996 ISBN 9739739148

Russia Patriarch Criticizes Romanian Church Over Metropolitan Of Bessarabia 21.01.2008

Patriarch Alexius II of Moscow on Monday criticized the decisions of the Romanian Orthodox Church regarding the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, saying the Romanian church “interfered with an autocephalous orthodox church” and that its actions were “anti-canonical,” the Moldovan presidency said in a statement.

The Russian patriarch on Monday met with Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin.

The church official voiced his regrets that last year’s discussions with a delegation of the Romanian church were “unsuccessful,” but mentioned the two parties should carry on a dialogue in a hope to find a joint solution.

The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia was set up by the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1925. After the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia in 1940, the Russian church refused to its legal status. The Romanian church officially reactivated the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia on September 14, 1992.

In 2004, after years of legal hurdles and a final decision by the European Court of Human Rights, the Orthodox Church of Bessarabia received official registration.

Religious books in Bessarabia 1812 – 1918 (between tradition and tsarists politics)

Summary

Paper Religious books in Bessarabia 1812 – 1918 (between tradition and tsarists politics), is dedicated to an actual, but not sufficiently studied theme. The historical explanation was directed to delimitate some significant moments of historical, political, confessional and cultural background that marked the religious book in Bessarabia – it persisted under the sign of struggle: between the tradition and tsarist’s politics. hrough this historical perspective, religious book reflects the specific of spiritual development of Bessarabia as part of Russian Empire, comparing it with other Romanian provinces under foreign domination. Paper consists of Introduction, three chapters divided in ten paragraphs, Conclusion, eighteen annexes and general bibliographical index. The main sources of research are novel documents from State Archive collections of Republic of Moldova (Chişinău) and Ukraine (Odessa).

The establishment of local typography (founded by exarch Gavriil), is viewed as a direct result of political, religious and ecclesiastic changes that occurred after the 1812, and had to serve the spiritual necessities of province according to its own “manners and customs”, while the Synodal Ukaz from 1814, May, 4th (which approved the establishment of typography) especially notified about canonical violation of “manners and customs” in annexed province. The political proselytism was obvious: in new-founded typography, religious books had to be translated into Romanian exclusively after the Russian synodal editions.

Thus, the most stabile social institution - the Church – ought to satisfy the ambitions of some aggressive proselytic practices subordinated to tsarist’s politics. Here was the main danger of assimilation and rusification of bessarabian Romanians: the Russian proselytism was hidden under the mask of religious identity. Historical, philological and linguistic considerations guided us to a conclusion that exarch Gavriil didn’t exactly respect the requirements of Synod from Petersburg and tried to make a compromise between the traditions and the tsarist politics: contents of Liturgier(1815), Molebnic(1816, 1816), Catihisis(1816),Ceasoslov(1817), Psaltire(1817) were mostly translations from Romanian editions, with small additions from the structure of Synodal editions.

Linguistical evidences testify the Moldavian, Transylvanian and Wallachian origins of liturgical texts included in printed works from this period. Metropolitan Bishop Gavriil Banulescu- Bodoni continued this tradition, but the activity of Archbishop Dimitrie Sulima should be reconsidered in this sense: books printed under his cure signify nothing but the interruption of tradition of religious printings. Under the cure of Bishop Pavel Lebedev (1871-1882) the printing of Romanian books was stopped and the Confessional Typography was closed (1883). But the tradition of “moldovenism” in church was very strong, so the bessarabian clergy claimed their right to reopen the typography at the beginning of XXth century.

Through the XIXth century proselytism practices were more subtle and varied: being defeated in struggle with local church traditions in religious book-prints, they tried another way: the substitution of Romanian language from old liturgical books with a local “Moldavian dialect”.The empire’s traditions in printings and book spreading were always upheld by the system of censorship institutions. All books printed in Chişinău can be divided in 2 categories: first category includes “reproductions” mixed with synodal editions which were under the chiriarch supervision; second category includes “new translations and compositions” which were obligatory approved by synodal censorship, what was notified in the contents of these books.

Although the system of restrictive interdictions was sufficiently drastic, the printed books from diverse zones of Romanian printing – Iaşi, Bucureşti, Râmnic, Buda, Buzău, etc penetrated in Bessarabia during the XIXth century, in commanding number, but never sufficient to cover the necessities of local churches. Imperial politics in field of book spreading and printing aimed at restructuration of book funds composition in parochial library by gradually completion with Russian books. The richest collections of Romanian books in XIXth century Bessarabia were that of monastery library. In this aspect, the book collection of Hârjauca monastery is representative: Romanian books of library were gradually reduced by foreign (Russian) books: to the end of XIXth century Romanian books constituted only 3,1 % comparing to Russian ones. Important collections of Romanian books are identified in library of Church’s Historical-Archeological Society from Bessarabia (1904): 240 (296 titles) volumes (XVII-XIX c.) and 18 manuscripts (XIV-XIX c.).

Our final conclusion is that the religious books printed in Bessarabia in the period of Russian domination (1812-1918), persisted under the sign of permanent struggle: between tradition and tsarist’s politic. In spite of restrictions imposed by the synodal censorship, religious books printed in Confessional Typography of Bessarabia continued the traditions of Romanian Church.

Confessional Typography of Bessarabia was the only cultural (ecclesiastic) institution legalized by the imperial administration of province (1814 - 1918) that continued its mission through printings in Romanian language, and thus contributed to spreading of religious books in all Bessarabia and to consolidation of linguistic unity of Romanian language

CHAPTER XXX THE PRESENT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONDITION OF BESSARABIA

We have seen that Bessarabia is an almost purely agricultural region, with only a rudimentary industrial and commercial development; that when the Roumanians took it over from the Russians, they found it almost without means of communication, and with an uneducated and backward peasantry. Since then, they have had to struggle with several years of drought, particularly acute in 1924 and 1925, and with a complete dislocation of Bessarabia's ordinary markets; it was hoped that Poland would take the place of Russia as chief buyer of Bessarabian fruits and wines, but Poland (until recently) clapped high duties on them, as reprisal for the Roumanian high duty on Polish coal. Smuggling is of course a great evil; two million smuggled cigarettes and over seven tons of tobacco were seized in the first half of 1926. Money has been scarce and very dear, as everywhere in central and eastern Europe, and more so than in any other province of Roumania; it is calculated that while about 100,000,000 rubles were on loan in 1914-$50,000,000-today loans amount to only about a billion and a half of lei ($8,000,000) ; the rate of expropriation of the great estates was lower, under 700 lei a hectare, whereas the average in the Old Kingdom was 2000 lei; and during the period of exchange of rubles for lei (at a very favorable rate, as with crowns in Transylvania), the peasants had little confidence in the new regime, and at least a billion rubles is believed to have been kept back, and thus completely lost. The government's, export duties on grain, now happily greatly reduced, interfered with the sale of what little wheat was available. Taxes, rents and prices of prime necessities kept going up; the government finally had to postpone collection of the burdensome commercial taxes, as the merchants found collections very bad. Add to this the progressive depreciation of the currency, the constant Soviet interference, the exactions of speculators lending to the peasants on their crops, and the intensity and bitterness of local politics, and the wonder is that Bessarabia has remained so loyal; there was not a single Roumanian among those found guilty in the Tatar-Bunar trial. The 1925 statistics showed a falling off in the planting of winter grain-561,967 hectares, as compared with 650,432 in the autumn of 1925; 471,923 hectares were in wheat, 78,749 in rye, 9828 in barley, and 2825 in rape-seed; but the winter of 1925-6 was excellent, with abundant snow; the spring planting of corn and wheat brought an abundant harvest, unfortunately partly ruined by a very rainy autumn (see p. 11).

I have failed to mention a feature of the Bessarabian situation which may seem insignificant, but which recently roused more feeling, perhaps, than any other act of the Roumanian government; I refer to the attempt to do away with the Old Style calendar. The Orthodox Church held to the Julian Calendar until the war; and observation of what is now going on in Bessarabia will help the student to visualize the struggles of 175, years ago in England and the American Colonies, when the Gregorian Calendar was being introduced with us. In Roumania itself, and in Soviet (and irreligious) Russia, the Gregorian Calendar is now in effect;a but the Orthodox Bessarabian peasant has no sympathy with such newfangled notions, and is shocked at the idea of changing the date of Easter and other church feasts. Devout religious observance is still a general Bessarabian characteristic. A recent Roumanian Finance Minister told me this anecdote. He had brought in a bill laying a uniform inheritance tax through the kingdom; a group of eight Bessarabian Senators at once called on him, to protest. Such an iniquitous tag had never been laid by Russia, they said; and one of them, in his excitement, called down the curses of the widows and orphans of Bessarabia upon the unhappy Minister. He explained to them that the tag is practically universal, was already being levied along four different lines in various parts of Roumania, and seemed low to the Transylvanians, who had had to pay a higher tag under the Hungarians; and that it fell very lightly on close relatives. The Senators were finally won over, and. penitently informed the Minister that they would go to church after the session and each light a candle, to counteract the curse they had invoked against him!
aIt was adopted by the Ukraine in December 1926.
At the meeting of the Orthodox Church Synod in Bucharest in December 1925, Archbishop Gurie, head of the Bessarabian clergy, outlined the efforts made, through pastoral letters, addresses by the priests to their congregations, canonical epistles, sermons, etc., to induce the faithful to adopt the New Style-efforts almost wholly without result. The Synod voted to have the reformed calendar applied to Bessarabia; but in an address to the Ministry of Public Instruction, asking that they call upon all school authorities in Bessarabia to help enlighten the people on the subject, the Synod notes' that this matter "has taken the aspect of a politico-social question, in consequence of the intromission and propaganda of various agencies hostile to the unity of the Roumanian people, or of unscrupulous politicians." It is no secret that the former Russian Archbishop of Bessarabia, Anastasius, is conducting this campaign from his headquarters in Jerusalem, with the aid of various anti-Roumanian elements.
On Feb. 4, 1926, at the meeting of the National Church Congress, a memorial was read in the name of the delegates of the archbishopric of Kishineff, the bishopric of Ismail and that of Baltz, recalling their request to have a gradual introduction of the new calendar, in view of the strong conservative feeling of the members of the Bessarabian Orthodox Church-a request the Synod did not see fit to grant. The news of the approaching change in the date of Easter, they continue, has been such a serious blow that they beg that for one more year the old system continue. In fact, the matter went still further. It was established that certain priests encouraged their parishioners to continue observing Old Style; and in April 1926, before the fall of the Liberals, several of these priests were arrested and brought before the military courts. Judging by the experience of our ancestors-it took Scotland 50 years to follow England's example in adopting New Style-this will be a live question in Bessarabia for some time to come. The new Averescu Ministry, in April 1926, allowed everyone to celebrate Easter as he pleased, Old Style or New Style, pending an Ecumenical Council, to be held later in the year; the chief beneficiaries were the school-children, who had two sets of Easter holidays. Orders were again issued (in October 1926) for a uniform observance of New Style in Bessarabia in 1927.

Another unexpected difficulty the Roumanians had in the Bessarabian cities arose from their effort to introduce a new law providing rest-hours for employees, uniform all over the kingdom. This provided that stores should open at 8, and close from 12 to 1. A storm of protest burst forth all over Bessarabia. In Russia, they keep late hours, like the Spaniards; it is not customary for stores to open before 9 in Kishineff, and the best shopping hours are from 12 to 3, the dinner hour coming from 3: 30 to 5; then the stores are open again in the evening.
The Bessarabian Church has had other troubles since the Union. The Church still possessed valuable properties in Bessarabia; and in fear of possible secularization, it transferred these' properties to a private corporation, the Union of the Orthodox Clergy of Bessarabia. But the new Roumanian Constitution grants the Church complete autonomy; and under pressure from the government, the Church has finally resumed ownership and responsibility, after a controversy which lasted several years.
The Church, like any other land-owner, had had its excess holdings expropriated. The Agrarian Law passed by the Provincial Diet aimed at giving every family a minimum of 6 hectares (15 acres) ; but the average worked out much less. According to the recent brochure of Dr. Agricola Cardash, Director General in the Ministry of Agriculture, "Aspects of the Bessarabian Agrarian Reform" (1926), some 4480 estates were expropriated, with an area of 1,844,539 hectares; of this, 1,098,045 hectares have been taken up by 357,016 farmers, living in 1739 villages. The average is therefore 3 hectares (71/2 acres). At the end of 1926, the total area is announced as 1,; 491,020 hectares; the average still remains low. That is considered too small, and of course has been pitifully inadequate during the drought conditions of the past few years; there has been much emigration, especially to Brazil; but the industrialization of the country, which will now soon take place, will provide a remedy. Roumania stands where Italy was forty or fifty years ago, on the verge of an intense industrial development; she has an abundance of raw materials and willing and faithful labor; now that she has regulated her American debt, she may expect foreign aid. Bessarabia will profit with the other provinces.
It is a pleasure to turn from this rather gloomy picture of economic and financial conditions, to the enormous improvement in the schools since the annexation. We have seen how widespread was illiteracy under the Imperial Russian regime, especially among the Roumanians, for whom, when the war broke out, there was not a single school in Bessarabia, although they formed the majority of the population. The teachers in the Bessarabian schools, mainly Russians, were supposed to have had a four-year normal school course; many, however, were graduates of the intermediate schools (between primary and lycee), who had taken pedagogical courses for two or three years. When the Roumanians took over the province, many of these teachers went back to their homes in Russia; but the Roumanians, who were short of teachers even in the Old Kingdom and Transylvania, at once employed all that were available, assigning them the salary due them according to service, just as in Roumania. They even took in teachers without full preparation, from church, village and private schools, nor did they insist on their taking the oath; many did not know Roumanian; and it was years before they were required to pass an examination in elementary Roumanian, just as in Transylvania. The first school census, of 1920-21, showed a total of 1747 schools, of which 1233 were Roumanian, 200 Ukrainian, 120 Russian, 78 Bulgarian, 73 German, 38 Jewish, 3 Polish; of the 2746 teachers, 854 belonged to the minority races. The number of children between 7 and 13 was 398,695, of whom 136,172 (34.2%) were in school. By 1923.24, the number of schools had increased to 2041, with 3927 teachers; and 203,627 children, out of a total of 441,958 (46%) were in school. The Roumanians show the same easy-going tolerance of minority languages in Bessarabia (see Russian testimony on p. 219 that has surprised me so many times in Transylvania, where there are actually today more Hungarian public schools, under the Roumanians, than there were when the country was under the Crown of St. Stephen. Indeed, on Nov. 12, 1926, the City Council of Satu Mare (Szatmar) voted to return to Hungarian for its deliberations I In 1925, I bought in a Kishineff bookstore copies of a Russian geography and a Russian reader in use in the Russian schools maintained by the Roumanians ; and I find in the Bucharest newspapers of 1926 repeated complaints that Russian is still used in church services in Bessarabia, even in Kishineff itself.
In Larga, e. g., a town of 5000 Roumanians near Lipcani (Hotin), formal complaint was made in August 1926 that the local priest still uses only Russian, though his flock do not understand it; and the special correspondent of the Bucharest Universul, in that same month, notes that at Tighina (Bender) neither his station porter nor the coachman nor a policeman of whom he asked his way, spoke Roumanian. Every traveler in Transylvania notices the same patience; indeed, the opposition charges that over 3000 Roumanian government employees iii Transylvania (former Hungarians) not merely do not yet understand Roumanian, but have not even taken the oath of allegiance. Russian telegrams are accepted for transmission, if written in Latin letters; and in February 1926, it was officially decided by the Roumanian Court of Appeals that commercial documents in Russian were perfectly legal. Of the other nationalities, the Germans and the Bulgarians are especially loyal to the new regime.
Side by side with the schools are functioning other educational agencies. Everywhere one finds "cultural clubs"; in the village of Volontirovca, I was shown the local headquarters, with its little library and museum; and in the larger towns more pretentious organizations-Free Universities or Popular Universities (i. e., University Extension), "Case Culturale" (Culture Clubs), and the like. In Soroca, e. g., the "Popular Atheneum" gives a musical or educational program every Sunday, and a public library has been opened,, as in numerous other towns. A similar "Atheneum" and library are in operation in Orhei. Much aid is extended by the educational societies of the other provinces, and the government encourages excursions of professors and students from the Old Kingdom and Transylvania into Bessarabia. In April 1926, e. g., representatives of the student organization of Bucharest, "Curentul Studentzesc la Sate" (Student Movement in the Villages), under Prof. Shtefanescu of the University of Cluj (Klausenburg), visited the town of Comrat, a center with 17,000 people, largely Bulgarian, about 50 miles from Kishineff, and were entertained by the local students; some years ago, this organization had established two public libraries in Comrat; up to date it has established in Roumania 724 such libraries, with 146,745 volumes. It is affecting to see the devotion and enthusiasm with which such work is being carried on in Bessarabia-work that makes one hope that the Cultural Loan Roumania has been trying to get from the League of Nations, may be granted; and if, in the midst of economic and financial distress and political disgust, Bessarabia is nevertheless loyal to Roumania, the reason is to be found primarily in the delight of the Bessarabian peasant at these new educational facilities for himself and his children.
Perhaps nothing can illustrate the change in Bessarabia more strikingly than the will of Basil (Vasile) Stroescu, the Moldavian patriot, President of the Bessarabian Diet, who died in the spring of 1926. This will, a holographic document in Russian, with the signatures of two Russian witnesses, was dated in Paris in March 1918. It begins: " In the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. I, the noble, Vasile Vasilievitch Stroescu, of the Province of Bessarabia, born, etc., being of sound mind and memory unimpaired, have thought best to make the following disposal, etc. " He then enumerates his various properties, in Trinca, Badragi, Zabriceni, Drutza, Stangaceni and still others, in the counties of Hotin and Baltz, with a total area of about 8000 hectares (20,000 acres)-all now expropriated, of course, except for a few hundred acres. Then comes the list of his bank accounts, the chief being some 850,000 French francs in a Paris bank, and 150,000 rubles in Odessa-the latter, of course, completely blotted out, and the former only a shadow of its earlier value. All this property Stroescu left to the Provincial Zemstvo of Bessarabia (now non-existent) for the establishment of village schools with obligatory instruction in Roumanian (now provided by the state). In case the Zemstvo could not do this, all his property was to go to the Roumanian State; I have mentioned his earlier generosity to this cause of Roumanian schools in Transylvania. Furthermore, either the Zemstvo or the Roumanian State was to pay certain annuities from these funds to his sister and certain dependents; and the executor, Ioan G. Pelivan, was to provide from the Russian funds for two churches, in the villages of Trinca and Zabriceni.
Such a document, only ten years old, bridges an abyss. It breathes the comfortable old Russian patriarchal atmosphere, of a land-holding aristocracy, of higher rights and privileges than the rest of mankind. Its execution falls within a period of militant equalization, as radical and almost as uncomfortable as the French Revolution. Nature chose to make this period particularly hard for Bessarabia; nor has man's perversity and incompetency failed to complicate matters. As is remarked by the veteran observer Stephen Graham (p. 175), in 1924: "It may frankly be said that England herself could not govern a place like Bessarabia." Yet Stroescu lived to see triumphant the principle for which he had fought all his life-schools for the people, in Bessarabia and Transylvania, in their own language-and that is Bessarabia's chief hope for the future.
The End

RUSSIFICATION OF THE CHURCH CHAPTER XI

Bessarabia, like other parts of the Roumanian territories, had many important convents and monasteries (13 for monks, 7 for nuns), when taken over by the Russians. These establishments, at their best, were not merely religious centers, but also centers of educational activity, particularly as they generally owned great estates. Much land was also owned by monasteries west of the Pruth, and even outside of Roumania. The secular clergy also had great privileges; they were exempt from all state taxes, from the vineyard tag up to 50 vadras of wine (over 160 gallons) for an archpriest and 30 for a priest; from the tax on sheep up to 25 sheep for an archpriest, 15 for a priest; and from the tag on bees, honey being an important Bessarabian product. The boyars were bound to give the clergy free plow-land, enough to sow 11 pounds of grain on; free meadow-land-eight falci (nearly 10 acres) for a priest and 6 for a deacon; and enough pasturage for 16 head of cattle for a priest and 12 for a deacon. They were also free from interference at the hands of either the boyars or the civil authorities.

The first Metropolitan of Bessarabia was a very remarkable man, Gabriel Banulesco-Bodoni (see pp. 68, 71). Born in 1745 at Bistritz in Transylvania, and thus a Roumanian, he studied at Kronstadt (Brashov), Buda-Pesth, Kieff, Mt. Athos, Smyrna and the Isle of Patmos; became a seminary professor and director; then Archbishop of Yecaterinoslav, Metropolitan of Kieff, and in 1808, Metropolitan of Moldavia. He was a most energetic builder; we have seen how he established the Theological Seminary in Kishineff ; he found 750 churches in Bessarabia, and added 200 to the number. He knew his clergy, and though a zealous servant of the Imperial Government, realized that Russification must be a long and slow process; meanwhile the necessary reforms must be accomplished with the use of their native tongue. So in 1813 Gabriel petitioned the Synod for permission to open a Roumanian and Russian printing-establishment in Kishineff. He pointed out that since his transfer from Jassy to Kishineff, he had discovered that both churches and monasteries lacked not merely spiritual books in general, but even the books necessary for divine service; the only Moldavian church printing establishment was in Jassy, and had not been able to meet the demands, so that a large share of the service-books in Bessarabia came from Transylvania, while it was hard to get books from Kieff for the few Russian churches in Bessarabia.
While awaiting permission, he himself translated into Roumanian a prayer-book, a catechism, and two other service-books, and evidently made his business preparations, for the Synod approved his proposal on May 4, 1814, and on the 31st the establishment was already in operation. This church publishing house was of the utmost importance to the inarticulate Roumanian peasantry for the preservation of a national consciousness and their mother-tongue. And the Metropolitan lost no time. In 1815 he brought out his first book-a Liturgy of some 200 pages, well printed, on excellent paper; and others followed at short intervals. Scandalized at the scarcity of copies of the Bible among his clergy, he corresponded with the newly formed Russian Bible Society at St. Petersburg, and at their request, sent them copies of two famous Roumanian versions of the Bible-that printed in 1688 at Bucharest under Sherban Cantacuzene, and that of Blaj (Blasendorf) in Transylvania of 1795recommending that they use the latter. In a letter of Jan. 26, 1816, Prince Golitzin, President of the Society, informs Gabriel that they are using the Blaj Bible, and that Prince Ypsilanti and Counselor Matthew Krupensky are correcting the proof; he wishes however that Gabriel would send him some educated person well versed in Roumanian, to assist, and that Gabriel would himself revise the proof. Gabriel's reply confesses that he has nobody in the eparchy of Kishineff "who really knows Moldavian grammar and spelling, though practically everybody here used both to speak and write Moldavian." So, as he was shocked by the numerous mistakes which the distinguished proofreaders had failed to correct, he undertook personally the revision of the proofs; he did however send up to St. Petersburg, in February 1817, an archimandrite, Varlaam Cuza, educated at the monastery of Dobrovatz in Moldavia, who corrected the Old Testament, the New being already printed.
In 1819 this great Bible was finished; the eparchy of Kishineff gave a copy to every priest on his consecration, while the New Testament was sent to every archpriest, with instructions to have every priest in his district buy one. Gabriel kept insisting at St. Petersburg that the Moldavians should not be " derided and belittled," pointing out that "in hard times, when the French were in the heart of Russia, the Turks along the Danube and the Pruth, when their emigration could not be prevented by force of arms, since, through the treaty with the Porte, the inhabitants were free to go where they wished," they nevertheless remained. In his sermons and addresses to the peasants, he promised them that they would be happy under Russian dominion; and the Czar promised him, in his letter of Apr. 1,1816, that "at the first, temporarily, as an experiment, he would leave the local laws in operation, and send trusted officials to investigate and do away with, evils and abuses."
Thus at the start there was an effort to keep up Roumanian culture among the clergy and their parishioners, side by side with a more powerful effort at Russification by the importation of Russian priests and the installation of Russian seminaries for the Moldavian students. Gabriel's successor, Demetrius Sulima, had worked with him as his vicar from 1811 to 1821, date of Gabriel's death; and through his incumbency of 23 years, he kept up this double function-Russification, together with the preservation, to a certain degree, of Roumanian culture. Irinarkh Popoff, who succeeded him (1844-58), neglected the Moldavian printing-house, and tried by every means to get theological students from Russia, but unsuccessfully; even in 1858, of the 24 archpriests and 879 priests in Bessarabia, only 14 archpriests and 152 priests had had a seminary education; and services were held in Kishineff itself in Roumanian as well as Russian. We even find a priest named Muranevitch complaining to the consistory that the peasants of Comrat did not understand his preaching in Russian, and understood Roumanian better, although they are Bulgarians (Gagaoutz) and talk Turkish. In fact, Roumanian is one of those languages which expand continually at the expense of their neighbors; the Bessarabians have a rhyme illustrating this:
Tata rus', mama rus', Dar Ivan, moldovan.
(Father Russian, mother Russian, but Ivan, the son, is Moldavian.) This explains in part the Russian fear that their peasantry in Bessarabia would be Roumanized. Roumanian has always been a lingua franca in that part of the world-a great advantage for the new country of Greater Roumania, since only about 5% of her population do not talk Roumanian, and every member of the Roumanian Parliament understands it-the only Parliament, perhaps, of the Succession States, where every member of the Parliament understands the language in which the proceedings are carried on! In one of these Parliaments, about one-fifth of the members never have an idea of what is being said in the sessions!

The same tolerant policy was pursued more or less under Irinarkh's successor, Antonius Socotoff (1858-1871) ; but with Paul Lebedeff (1871-882) begins a period of violent Russification. In 1874, the old exemption from service in the Russian army, a Bessarabian privilege from the start, was removed; schools and civil administration cast out Roumanian altogether; and Lebedeff attacked the monasteries, where Roumanian services had been peacefully going on all this time. He installed Russian schools in the monasteries, replaced Moldavian superiors and priests with Russians, and in 1872 was able to boast that all church records were being kept in Russian alone. When, in 1878, lower Bessarabia, which had been returned to Roumania after the Crimean War, again became Russian, he set a limit of two years within which the Roumanian priests must learn Russian or leave. He was promoted to be Egarch of Georgia, where his employment of the same energetic measures of Russification led to an uprising in which one of his proteges, Rector Tchiudetzky of the Tiflis Seminary (his former Inspector of the Kishineff Seminary) was killed; and the Imperial Government sent him off to Kazan. As a result of his closing Moldavian churches in Bessarabia, for which no Russian priests could be found, 340 Bessarabian churches remained without spiritual heads.
The church printing establishment had been closed since 1882. But Russian made little headway among the great mass of the Bessarabian people. The children who learned a little in the schools-and few had the chance to go to school-speedily forget it.
A favorite -story illustrating this, tells of a Ruthenian priest in a Moldavian village, who discovered, after commencing the service, that he had forgotten his prayer-book. He could quote the prayers by heart, in the Church Slav, but not the gospels. Undismayed, he repeated from memory in their place a famous poem of the Ruthenian poet Kevchenko, "Dumi moi, dumi," (thoughts, my thoughts), to the entire satisfaction of his hearers, who understood not a word, either of the Church Slav or any dialect of Russian.
Bishop Lebedeff made one significant commentary, in the course of a tour of inspection: " Priest N., 37 years old, is a graduate of the Seminary, but he has so degenerated in his Moldavian parish that his Russian is already atrocious." And by the time of Bishop Jacob Pyatnitzky (1898-1904), the situation had changed so little that he wrote the Holy Synod on March 23, 1900: "In many parishes of Bessarabia the orthodox population is composed mainly, often exclusively, of Moldavians, who know only Moldavian and do not understand in the least Church Slavonic or Russian, even in the conversational form. Russian religious literature, in the shape of leaflets and brochures, is altogether inaccessible to these people. But the Moldavians also are thirsty for religious instruction, for Christian counsel and comfort through the printed word. The need of Moldavian literature with which to satisfy the thirst of the orthodox Moldavians, is great. It is true that there are, Moldavian books available, printed over the border in Roumania. But the language of these editions differs somewhat from the language spoken by the Moldavians in Bessarabia, and besides, they are printed with Latin characters, impossible or hard for readers here to decipher." In view of this, the Synod granted him permission to reopen the church printing establishment for such edifying literature, in Roumanian with parallel Russian teat, and without; and in 1905, the Synod permitted the new Bishop, Vladimir Sinkovsky, to print Roumanian gospels, psalters and other works-in the Cyrillic characters, of course, abandoned over a generation before in Roumania proper.
With the Russian Revolution of 1905, Bessarabia also breathed more freely; and on Oct. 20, 1906, in the presence of Governor-General Kharuzin and two Russian. Bishops, there was inaugurated a new Moldavian church printing establishment in Kishineff. But a wave of reaction followed the Revolution; and the new Bishop, Seraphim Tchitchagoff, a former army officer, at once (1908) set out to crush the renewed use of Roumanian. In 1912, Seraphim made an interesting report on the situation, connecting the use of Roumanian in the churches with the political separatist movement, which he considers headed by the Jews of Kishineff, who wish union with Roumania. Among the Moldavians, he says, this movement `comes from their fear of losing their language and their church singing, and secondly, from the realization by the priests that the people still do not know Russian at all; the schools have turned out an insignificant percentage of pupils who are able to read Russian; the great mass of the inhabitants do not understand the Church Slavonic. For that reason when the service was carried on in Slavonic, the Moldavians attended church without comprehending; then they began to lose the habit of going to church, and finally they have completely ceased developing religiously, and have begun to degenerate into vice and superstition."
Seraphim had to combat this latter, in the extraordinary movement headed by a Moldavian monk (John Tzurcan, from near Soroca) named Innocent (Inochentie). He was an arch-monk in a monastery at Balta (till recently, capital of the Soviet Moldavian Republic, in the Ukraine), and his powerful religious harangues to the peasantry in their mother-tongue were supplemented by what they believed to be a miraculous power of healing disease. His fame spread through the Roumanian peasantry of Bessarabia, Podolia and Cherson, and Balta became in 1910-11 a Moldavian Lourdes, with shelters on every side for the invalids brought for his ministrations. At first his monastic superiors encouraged him; but then the government became alarmed at the Moldavian character of the enormous crowds which gathered around him. He was transferred to a monastery north of St. Petersburg; but hundreds of peasants in Bessarabia sold their belongings and went up there to be with Innocent. He was again transferred, this time to a monastery on an island on the White Sea, from which, after the Revolution, he returned to Balta, where he died in 1920. But the "Innocentist Movement" still persists in Bessarabia, having fallen into the hands of charlatans who persuade the peasantry to sell their effects and prepare for the approaching end of the world; one such "pastor" was arrested in April 1926, just after consecrating a new meeting-house at Budeshti, near Kishineff.
We have an interesting diagnosis of this movement from the pen of a well-known nerve specialist, Dr. Yacovenco, in which he paints the conditions in Cherson, Podolia and Bessarabia which encouraged the rapid spread of Innocentism (Innokentievshtchina): "The abuse of liquor and poor food on the one hand, spiritual darkness and the low level of intellectual and moral development on the other, taken together, produce a weakening of the organism, an exaggerated irritability of the nervous system, and such instability that when powerful new exciting factors operate, there arises a nervous disease . . . . We are forced to point out the slight intellectual development of the Moldavians, their proneness to superstition, and their lack of schools .... In great overgrown villages of 10-15,000 people, there are only one or two schools, and those in Russian, whereas the Moldavians do not mingle with the Russians, and do not know the Russian language. In their ignorance they are very credulous, and take as gospel all they hear, and particularly what comes to them from the church and in their own language. The passionate addresses of the Moldavian arch-monk pierce deep into their spirits; they come at his call to purify their souls through prayer and fasting."
After this portrayal, the reader will realize with what enthusiasm the Kishineff Theological Seminary was reopened, on November 8, 1926, as a Roumanian educational institution. It began with 454 students, of whom 19 were women.