Politics and Religion in Communist Romania—Case Studies: André Scrima and Valeriu Anania

Abstract

(1) Background: The present research aims to emphasize the interest of the Securitate in theological matters with the help of information provided by the Romanian Securitate Archives. To this end, we will focus on two important personalities of the Romanian theological space, namely André Scrima (1925–2000), who left Romania in 1956 and refused to go back, and Valeriu Bartolomeu Anania, who was imprisoned for political reasons and later sent to the USA between 1966 and 1977. Both were writers and theological and cultural personalities (Scrima was well known internationally, while Anania had made a name for himself within the borders of the country). Therefore, the question this research will try to answer is the following: What was the interest of the Romanian Securitate in terms of religious aspects and particularly in the Orthodox Church? (2) Results: This analysis of the documents from the Romanian Securitate Archives proves that, although such an interest existed, it was rather superficial and was mostly related to the potential relations between politics and theology. (3) Methods: This analysis is qualitative and consists of a case study based on the interpretation of primary sources. (4) Conclusions: The conclusion of this research is that the Romanian Securitate was interested in the personalities and the work of André Scrima and Valeriu Bartolomeu Anania and their relationships with various people. However, the theological aspect was only of secondary interest to the Romanian Securitate.

1. Introduction

Between 1946 and 1989, the Securitate (the secret police of the Communist countries) played an important role in the Romanian political, social and cultural areas (Deletant 1998; Cosma 1994; Oprea 2002). This is why the country was sometimes named, in the literature and historical research, a “penitentiary republic.” (Gheorghiu 2008, pp. 11–12; Morariu 2022, pp. 32–33). The Churches and their representatives were also targeted by the repressive system. The Greek Catholic Church was forbidden in 1948 and its bishops were sent to prison, where some of them died; Roman Catholic bishops, such as Pascha from Timișoara, Anton Durcovici from Iași and Marton Aron from Alba-Iulia, were persecuted; Romanian Orthodox bishops who disagreed with Communism were withdrawn and some of them, including Grigorie Leu from Huși, were poisoned; and more than 1000 priests from the Orthodox Church were imprisoned. The Protestant and Evangelical space suffered too (pastors such as Richard Wurmbrand later gave precious testimonies about their experience in prison) (see Wurmbrand 1968, 1969, 1974, 1975, 1985).

Some Orthodox Christians were accused of being “mystics”, others of political far-right orientations, and others imprisoned for their relationships with spiritual movements such as “The Burning Brush”1. All of them were condemned under Article 209 for “conspiracy against state order,” which actually allowed the imprisonment of people for any reason (Deletant 1998, pp. 12–14).

Bearing this in mind, we will investigate the interest of the Romanian Securitate in religious matters pertaining to the Orthodox Church and its motivation. Most likely, the regime was interested in religion and in the Orthodox Church due to the fact that the majority of the population was Orthodox. Moreover, in certain situations, the Securitate tried to use religion to control people and to pretend that Romania was a country where there was religious freedom.

Considering that most of the people who suffered during the Communist regime are old or dead, it is almost impossible to conduct quantitative research. Therefore, we will try to present this aspect from a qualitative perspective. This research will emphasize the way in which the Securitate tried to use two important priests and influence their decisions.

We will consider two case studies: André Scrima and Valeriu Anania. Both of them were cultural and theological personalities. While the former received a scholarship in India in 1956 (after working as a librarian for the Romanian Patriarchate) and later refused to return to Romania, the latter was imprisoned between 1958 and 1964 (Anania 2017) and later left Romania for the United States of America, where he stayed for eleven years (1966–1977). He then returned to Romania, where he remained until his death. Scrima decided to come back only in 1991 (Botoi 2015, p. 491). Both authored books and are referred to in the literature, Scrima mostly outside his country, and Anania mostly within its borders. Anania translated the Bible and tried to offer it to the Romanian readers under a new perspective. He also published more than 40 books in the fields of literature and theology. As for Scrima, he was a scholar who wrote mystical theology, among other endeavors. He attended the Second Vatican Council and taught at different universities all around the world. Some of his writings were discovered, edited, published and translated posthumously, and his contributions have been researched to this day by theological scholars, especially in the Romanian space.

Anania was imprisoned for political reasons, while Scrima managed to escape. As to their work, Scrima wrote on theological topics like ecumenism, hesychasm and Eastern Orthodox Spirituality, while Anania’s work is rather literary, trying to show how the Romanian people lived their lives according to Orthodox values. Later, he also wrote a series of liturgical catechesis and worked for almost two decades on the translation of the Bible into an updated Romanian language. His translation was published in 2001.

2. Results

2.1. André Scrima and the Securitate

André Scrima (1925–2000) is a theologian whose work is still read and commented upon. Books, studies, articles and monographs have lately brought to attention his ideas and legacy (Bot 2022, pp. 1–11; Coman 2020a, pp. 571–95; Coman and Tofan 2024; Dumitrașcu 2016, pp. 272–81; Coman 2020b, pp. 181–210; Morariu 2021, p. 3; Tofan 2021; Coman 2021, pp. 291–316; Tofan 2019; Tătaru-Cazaban 2020, pp. 488–501; Morariu 2023, pp. 165–76; Coman 2023, pp. 1–11; Tătaru-Cazaban and Dumbravă 2019; Manolescu 2015, pp. 5–11). His works are being re-printed and translated into Romanian or from Romanian into English, French, Hungarian and Italian (Scrima 2018, 2007, 2017). However, the emphasis is more on his theological message and on his work in the ecumenical field rather than on his relation with the Securitate and on the fact that he was followed by this institution both before and after leaving Romania. There are only a few studies on this latter topic (Morariu 2022, pp. 19–40). Furthermore, three files of the secret surveillance service containing information about him (namely ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1; 1952b, vol. 2; 1958) present the information in a narrative way rather than offering a critical analysis. This is why we try to present the most representative files and how their theological message evolved.

There are a few aspects worth mentioning with regard to the structure of the dossiers and their content. What does not come as a surprise is the fact that the more than 1200 pages of notes written by different sources contain many repetitions. For example, almost every year, a so-called personal file was produced that presented Scrima’s life prior to his departure. The names of his family members (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 84), the fact that his mother died shortly after his birth, the fact that his father married again and had three daughters with his second wife, and other similar aspects are repeated without actually being relevant. This information is followed by different resolutions stating that a certain “source” should contact him and try to convince him to change his attitude. The dossiers also included his correspondence with Romanian theologians like Fr. Benedict Ghiuș (1904–1990) (to whom he was close before his departure to India and whom he later mentioned in the interviews he gave in an attempt to protect him from the Securitate (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 18–20) and kept records of the meetings he attended, the theologians he met and the attitude he had in the ecumenical space. Sometimes, the Securitate even paid for the translation of some of his articles and interviews (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 105) that they were informed about. This wasthe case, for example, in 1961, when, after a conference in Rome, Fr. Scrima gave an interview for the Catholic “Unitas” journal edited in Paris. The same article was later published in journals like “La Reforme”. The delegate of the surveillance service wrote a note about it to the Bucharest department, presenting the context of the interview and attaching its content:

In March 1961, the Catholic magazine “Unitas” published an article referring to the conference held by the former monk ANDREI SCRIMA—a lecturer and former librarian of the Romanian Patriarchate—regarding the situation of the Romanian Orthodox Church.

SCRIMA ANDREI held the conference in November 1960 in Rome and some Catholic monks from the Jesuit order attended.

In the article summarizing the conference held by SCRIMA ANDREI, Patriarch JUSTINIAN is praised and presented as a supporter of Catholics.

The translated article is attached (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 63); (ACNSAS 1952b, vol. 2, f. 248–51).

The article was not a theological one, but rather, a dialog, where, when asked about the situation of the Romanian Orthodox Church during the Communist period, André Scrima spoke about the fact that the Church was not truly free. Patriarch Justinian tried to use his position to ask for certain freedoms for the institution he was leading in a society which provided religious freedom only theoretically. He also presented the situation of Orthodox publications and schools in Romania. There are no other articles with deep theological content. On a different occasion, the sources of the Securitate mentioned that in a letter exchange with Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae, which has unfortunately been lost, Fr. Scrima asked him for the first four volumes of the “Philocalia” collection (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 112), which he probably used in the series he published in the Istina journal (Scrima 1958, pp. 295–398, 443–74, 493–516). The Securitate also often published a list of the people he met and their relevance for the theological space. The sources also took note of Scrima’s interest in having a dialog with different Romanians who visited him about certain theologians imprisoned by the Communist regime (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 58). Other sources summarized Scrima’s debates with Metropolitan Justin Moisescu at the World Council of Churches (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 57) and mentioned how he characterized the Metropolitan, considering his image in Western circles2. Unfortunately, a general analysis of the aspects presented by different sources about Fr. Scrima, his theological activity and his attitude in the theological field, especially after his departure to India and his refusal to return, shows that the representatives of the Securitate were not interested in Fr. Scrima’s theological activity, but rather, in his work, travels, friends and contacts, due to his international visibility and to the fact that his interventions could influence the perception that the West had of Romanian Communism. For this reason, they saw Fr. Scrima only as a tool for their political activity. In certain situations, they did present some aspects that did not have political relevance. In other cases, those presenting his activity also had a theological background. This transpires in the language they used (which included theological terms) or in how they wrote (unfortunately, very often, the Securitate agents were not at all qualified for their job, and this is reflected in the way they wrote their notes, which were filled with spelling errors). Sadly, despite their theological background and the interest they had in the theological field, none of them were capable of understanding or summarizing Scrima’s message. They only touched the surface. This is probably due to their weak qualification in the field or to the fact that they were afraid that, had they made a deep theological analysis, their superiors would not understand their notes.

Therefore, we can definitely conclude that André Scrima made for an important topic for the Communist regime in Romania, especially after he refused to return to the country. However, the repressive regime neither understood his theological concerns, ideas or work, nor did they use them as a basis for accusation or dialog. The Securitate’s representatives were only interested in the potential political notes of Scrima’s message and in how he could use his theological visibility to speak against the regime. Consequently, even when they translated and tried to summarize some of the works he published abroad, they paid attention to interviews rather than to the religious and theological content of his ideas. Western theologians, therefore, conducted a theological analysis (some of them met him at the Second Vatican Council), or later, after 1989, in Romania, younger theologians who met him before his death sought to valorize his manuscripts posthumously. The Securitate only criticized him, considering him dangerous, and used his lectures and interviews to discredit him.

Thus, the extracts from his speeches, interviews or articles contain references to his opinion about the Palestinian matter, references to his meetings with Patriarch Justinian Marina (Iancu 2020, p. 204) and bishop Andrei Moldovan of the Romanians living in the Americas (ACNSAS 1952a, p. 36), or short and unclear references where the author of the note often tried to find a relation between his theological ideas and the political life of Romania, although there was none.

2.2. Valeriu Anania and the Securitate

Valeriu Anania (1921–2011), also known as Metropolitan Bartholomew of Cluj (a city in Transylvania), was a well-known personality with in Romania and abroad, being a theologian, clergyman and writer. He was imprisoned between 1958 and 1964 by the Communist regime for political reasons. In 1966, at the request of Fr. Glicherie Moraru (for information on his life and activity, see Străjeri 2020, p. 244; Gârdan 2007; Bobango 1979; Cristea 2019), a Romanian dean living in the United States of America, the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate and Patriarch Justinian Marina sent him to the New World to become a bishop in what was left of the former Romanian Orthodox Diocese of America, which was split in 1952, upon the election of Andrei Mureșan as its bishop (for details, see Gârdan 2007; Bobango 1979). After this, an important part of the Romanian parishes, led by Valerian Trifa, became part of ROEA (the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America) and joined the Orthodox Church of America in the 7th decade of the 20th century, while another part remained within the Romanian Patriarchate. However, the plan was not accomplished. He stayed for 11 years and later returned to Romania, where he wrote literary books (novels and dramaturgy, many of them finding their inspiration in religion). Until his retirement in 1986, Anania was the director of the Publishing House of the Romanian Patriarchate. In 1993, he was elected Archbishop of the Orthodox Diocese of Vad, Feleac and Cluj, and, in 2006, Metropolitan of Cluj, Alba, Crișana and Maramureș, the central part of Transylvania.3 For a few years after the interwar period, he was also a colleague of André Scrima. Later, in 1958, after his departure, he positively reviewed Scrima’s interview from the Unitas journal (ACNSAS 1952a, vol. 1, f. 314–15), which probably contributed to his imprisonment (during his interrogatory, the Securitate often asked about his relationship with André Scrima). As a consequence, but also for other reasons, he no longer considered Scrima his friend and portrayed him in a not very pleasant way in his memories, most likely because he considered him guilty of his imprisonment (Anania 2017, pp. 437–42). As a theologian, Anania attended the Uppsala meeting of the World Council of Churches4 and wrote a theological essay at the request of Ioan Bria (Anania 1982, pp. 106–7) on a topic related to the Vancouver World Council of Churches.

As expected, the Romanian Securitate monitored him. There are already publications about the minutes of the interrogatory the Securitate conducted between 1958 and 1959 (Anania 2017), about 14 dossiers containing references to him in the archives of the Securitate and about 10,000 pages of notes. Therefore, we can conclude that he was a personality that raised the interest of the surveillance authorities through his work and fame. Unfortunately, it would be almost impossible to speak about all of them in the present research. Nonetheless, we will try to consider the main aspects and, at the same time, avoid the multiple repetitions that existed in Scrima’s case (multiple personal files containing the same information, duplicates of certain notes, and so on).

When speaking about the Securitate’s interest in Anania’s theological work, it is worth saying that the situation looks similar to that of André Scrima. Therefore, in the minutes of the interrogatory, the officer asked him to speak about his relationship with different contemporary theological scholars. The only thing that mattered for the officer was the potential association of the scholars with the far right (and, in case there was no such association, the officer made up a story to suggest there actually was one). The same thing can be said about the interest of the Securitate in the published work of young deacon Anania in the 6th decade of the 20th century. Thus, for example, they were interested in his review of Scrima’s article not for its theological meanings, but because it could be used for his later imprisonment.

In a nutshell, the notes of the Securitate before Anania’s departure to the United States of America included information related to his birth, his studies, his political orientations (sometimes there were references to his relationship with people who were part of the Legionary Movement (ACNSAS 1958, f. 8) or his activity as the organizer and head of the students’ strike from 1946 in Cluj (ACNSAS 1958, f. 40, f. 94). The fact that he had a good cultural background was sometimes also underlined, together with his relationship with people like André Scrima.5 On the 9th of June 1956, the Securitate even asked for a professional camera to intensify the surveillance activity dedicated to him (ACNSAS 1958, f. 19), and a few months later, in November 1956, they tried to convince him to become one of their agents.6 In fact, one of the dossiers shows that the Securitate used the camera to take photos of the legionary documents that would later represent the primary basis of his imprisonment dossier (ACNSAS 1960, pp. 1–52).

Previously, in 1952, when he was the director of the Monastic Seminary, there was a note about his intervention in a conference of the clergy that he took part in together with Metropolitan Firmilian Marin; Professor Justin Moisescu, the future Patriarch of Romania; the priests Topologeanu and Diaconescu; and the representative of the Ministry of Cults. The note underlined that he said nothing against the Communist regime (ACNSAS 1958, f. 114). Unfortunately, the source could not make a summary of his intervention, as they were probably unable to understand its theological and literary nuances. Consequently, the note does not mention any theological content, despite the fact that the document most likely contained at least a few such references.

Another cultural and implicitly theological concern of Valeriu Anania was related to the imprisonment of Dancu I. Cristofor in 1951. Because the prisoner was a collaborator of Valeriu Anania at the Dacia Rediviva journal, which the future clergyman edited and where he often published literary articles with theological references,7 the Securitate was interested in this topic, as one can see from the interrogatory:

“Question: Since when have you known the monk Anania Bartolomeu and under what circumstances have you met him?

Answer: I met the monk Anania Bartolomeu in 1942 when we collaborated at the literary magazine Dacia Rediviva.

Question: When did you find out that Anania joined the Legionary Movement and what position did he hold?

Answer: I do not know when or if he was part of the Legionary Movement and I do not know whether or not he had any position in the Movement. I only know that, in terms of spiritual affiliation as a publicist and writer, he was on the right-wing line, according to the magazines in which I had read what he had published before I knew him.”

(ACNSAS 1958, f. 152)

The dialog stops here. There are no other words about the content of the journal, its impact on the interwar period, the authors that cooperated with the editor or other similar aspects. The Securitate was only interested in practical matters, and not in cultural ones. Unfortunately, the information is also not accurate. Anania was not part of the Legionary Movement, as he himself testifies (Anania 2008, p. 78), but only of the “Cross brotherhoods”, the youth branch of the movement.

Sadly, for this research, we did not have access to Anania’s dossiers covering his stay in the United States of America. They were not kept in the archives or they have not yet been inventoried and are not open for research. This is probably caused by bad preservation. They are therefore not part of the fonds dedicated to the future Archbishop and Metropolitan. Because of this absence of evidence, we are not able to reconstitute the interest of the Securitate in theological matters. We can only try to guess some of the aspects related to this period using his testimonies, or the information found in the dossiers of other people with whom he interacted.

After his return from the United States, when he was appointed director of the Press of the Romanian Patriarchate, Anania often received visits from different Securitate Agents, who tried to see if he was still is in contact with the United States and with the representatives of institutions like the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America belonging to the OCA, led by Valerian Trifa. He was probably aware of their intentions, as the notes show. This is, for example, the summary of a discussion he had in 1978 with a source:

“During the discussions, the source showed V. Anania that Patriarch Justin approved his departure to the USA as a missionary priest. In this context, V. Anania gave him advice on how to act, and emphasized the fact that during his entire activity he tried to serve the interests of the Church and of the Romanian State. Upon his arrival to the USA, Anania was greeted with a smear campaign by Trifa’s adepts. He responded in the same way and started his activity among the Romanians living there. One of his recurrent successes was organizing a meeting of Romanians with Mr. Palade, winner of the Nobel Prize.

When he arrived to the United States of America, there were about seven parishes belonging to the Patriarchate and when he left there were over 30. From this point of view, he visibly balanced the forces in relation to Trifa’s adepts. Tactfully, he managed to organize a meeting with V. Trifa. He brought Trifa’s adepts, the Greek Catholics and the Baptists from the United States of America to the table.”

(ACNSAS 1958, f. 152)

As one can see, the conversation takes place using a kind of “wooden language”, with Anania trying to justify his activity in the United States of America and present the situation of the Romanian Orthodox parishes there in neutral terms. Later, he spoke about his literary work, emphasizing that, although he was in the United States of America for so many years, he published his books only in Romania and in Romanian:

“Although I lived for years elsewhere, I was longing to publish my books here… that is, I understood that I was writing for my people and in their language, and my satisfaction is huge knowing that I managed, book by book, to lay a brick to the building of the nation, the country, the language… in a period when the language was going through and is still going through a crisis.”

(ACNSAS 1962, f. 18)

One can see that there is no reference to the theological meaning of Valeriu Bartolomeu Anania’s works, their relevance, his involvement in bodies like the ecumenical Movement, where he was very active for a while (Colceriu 2005, p. 14), his dialog with theological personalities or how he resorted to literature to present profound theological aspects. The Securitate was mostly interested in the potential political outcomes of his ideas, in how they could influence the image of Romania and the possible relation between his work and his belonging to the Legionary Movement during the interwar period (he was only part of its youth branch). Even when such relations did not exist, the Securitate tried to invent them. On the same note, his relationships with cultural personalities were only interesting to them in view of potentially enrolling them in a certain political direction and in the context of the far-right orientation the Communist regime claimed Anania had. They were only secondarily and superficially interested in the value of his work. This explains why the dossiers from the beginning of the Communist period contain more information about the student strike Anania coordinated in 1946 (for information about this topic and documents thereof, see Sasu 2010) or the documents he hid in the monastery where he lived for a few years, which were discovered by the authorities and led to his imprisonment.

3. Methods

This study’s sources of investigation are the primary documents found in the Archives of the Securitate. The study analyses historical sources using the analytic–deductive method (without neglecting other methods). We start from the information provided by these sources, but also compare it with the work of the two authors and of others to see if there was genuine interest from the Romanian Securitate in theological matters or if their surveillance was motivated by practical issues, such as the way in which they could influence the perception of Romania in the areas where they were active. We should clearly state from the very beginning that the Archives of the Securitate are unlike others. They do not yet have inventories for all the fonds and there is no clear repartition of the documents (this is why, in one of Scrima’s dossiers, there are also documents on the activity of other people under surveillance, who were not in contact with him; at the same time, not all the contents of the documents are always available to researchers, especially when those mentioned are still alive).

4. Conclusions

As we have shown in this research, the Securitate was interested in the life and activity of theological personalities like André Scrima and Valeriu Anania and other people like them, mostly due to their public visibility and to the fact that, when they traveled outside Romania, they took part in various events in the ecumenical space, where they could influence the image others had about Romanian Communism. The translation of certain articles and interviews by André Scrima that can be found in his dossiers of the Securitate, the fact that the people he met were later also targeted (this was the case with Valeriu Anania), and the fact that various sources provided summaries of his interventions in conferences or in private discussions are proof thereof.

As once can see, the Securitate mostly resorted to aspects related to the two personalities’ political orientation and, in some cases, they tried to find political connections or actions in their theological or literary work, even when there was none. This probably happened because the sources sent to monitor them were not well trained enough. The life and work of Scrima and Anania were sometimes tackled superficially, and the interest of the Securitate was only limited to political theology or to so-called political allusions that could be found in their interventions. Moreover, the Securitate tried to monitor their private and social lives to find out what they thought about the regime and, in certain situations, to pressure them and make them cooperate with the regime.