Gabriel Andreescu

RESEARCH REPORT

13 December 2013

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

Orthodox Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

relationship of the Romanian Orthodox Church with the Legionary Movement") Historia.1

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

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

that connects the church to chauvinistic nationalism: Leon Volovici, ldeologia naţionalistă şi

problema evreiască, (Nationalistic ideology and the Jewish problem) Humanitas,

Bucureşti,1995; Armin Heinen, Legiunea Arhanghelului – o contribuţie la problema fascismului

mondial, (The Legion of the Archangel - a contribution to the issue of world fascism)

Humanitas, 1999; Florin Muller, Metamorfoze ale politicului românesc, 1938-1944,

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

legionara.

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

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

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

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

New York, 2011.

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

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

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

Book. Facts and documents. The suffering of the Jews in Romania: 1940-1944), vol. I şi II

(SAR, Bucureşti, 1946 şi “Dacia Traiana”, Bucureşti, 1947, 1948), to the Final Report of the

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

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

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

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

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

Imago, Sibiu, 2000 (second edition); Gheorghe Racoveanu, Mișcarea legionară și biserica (The

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

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

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

Stefan Palaghiţă, Garda de Fier. Spre Reînvierea României (The Iron Guard. Toward a Rebirth

of Romania) Buenos Aires, Ed. Autorului, 1951 ş.a.

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

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

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

modernă: Atitudinea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române” ("The Jewish problem in modern Romania: the

attitude of the Romanian Orthodox Church"), TABOR, Revista lunară de cultură şi spiritualitate

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

Spiritual Monthly edited by the Metropolitan of Cluj, Alba, Crişana and Maramureş)2.

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

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

CNSAS Archive (A2).

II. The main results of the research done so far

a) The framework for the evolution of ROC anti-Semitism up to the Holocaust

ROC anti-Semitism is traditional, stemming from Church dogma itself. In the ‘30s the Orthodox

anti-Semitism manifested itself in the context of the development of nationalism in Europe. In

Romania, anti-Semitism became a political capital for some organizations and, in time, a state

policy – found in anti-Semitic legislation and leading eventually to the genocide of the Jews in

Transnistria. I think it is necessary to look at the background in which Romanian anti-Semitism

developed separately, according to the different periods in history, in order to be able to

understand the behavior of the ROC in all its anti-Semitic manifestations.

In attempting to separate the different “eras” of anti-Semitism, a major difficulty arises from the

manner in which we define the Holocaust. The Holocaust, as presented by the Jewish people’s

living memorial to the Holocaust, Yad Vashem, is defined as the sum total of all anti-Jewish

actions carried out by the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945: from stripping the German Jews

of their legal and economic status in the ‘30s; segregation and starvation in the various occupied

countries; the murder of close to six million Jews in Europe.3 The United States Holocaust

Memorial Museum has the same approach: “The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic,

state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime

and its collaborators."4 In Romania, the final Report and the studies in the journal Holocoaust.

Studii şi cercetări (“The Holocaust. Studies and research”) use the same definition of the

Holocaust. Therefore, defining the Holocaust as the totality of actions of discrimination,

2 http://www.tabor-revista.ro/in_ro.php?module=content_full&id=10676. 3 http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp. 4 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143.

segregation and starvation, and murder of Jews, between 1933 and 1945, has the status of a

doctrine.

However, this definition blends together ethically and legally distinct phenomena:

discrimination, repression, murder and genocide against Jews. The implicit assumption that the

genocide was the certain result of the repressive actions against Jews is not supported by events

preceding the Holocaust. In this analysis I will use the term „Holocaust” (or „Shoah”) as

synonym to „the genocide of Jews”, and I will separate the period of society-level „anti-

Semitism” from that of State-endorsed anti-Semitism. Further research is needed into defending

this claim.

b) How coherent, stable, and aggressive was the ROC anti-Semitism?

Many researchers into the relationship between anti-Semitism and the ROC see a connection

between the Church anti-Semitism and its links with anti-Semitic political movements („Totul

pentru Ţară”, the Iron Guard, the Legionary movement). This perspective sees the Church as a

second-hand actor: „The priests were attracted to the Legionary movement, believed it

represented a true religion and not a political movement …”5; "the Church and its people didn’t

escape the nefarious influence of former Legionaries”6; “Lacking a firm opposition from the

Church, Cuza’s campaign spreading religious anti-Semitism continued unchallenged”7 etc. These

statements suggest that between the World Wars the ROC was at the back of the line of

organizations with criminal anti-Semitic characters. One form of this interpretation is that the

ROC was responsible through inaction. I will document as part of this research the consistency

with which the image of the ROC is turned into that of a second-hand political actor.

This perspective rests in part on the contradictory signals coming over time from the ROC

official statements. Following the assassination of prime-minister I.G. Duca, on January 31st

1933, the Patriarch Miron Cristea and the Holy Synod stated that the Legionary movement as a

5 Alexandru Voicu, „Relația controversată a Bisericii Ortodoxe Române cu Mișcarea Legionară”, Historia -

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

legionara. 6 Apud. Gina Pană, „Biserica Ortodoxa Română şi mişcarea legionară: clarificări şi ambiguităţi", Holocaust. Studii

şi cercetări, Vol. III, Nr. 4 /2011, p. 144. 7 Oana Pană, “Ortodoxia românească şi atitudinea sa faţă de evrei”, Holocaust. Studii şi cercetări, Vol. II, Nr. 1

(3)/2010, p. 116.

whole was not responsible for this crime; the responsibility rested entirely with the perpetrators

and some foreign, anarchic influences8. In 1937, over 200 priests, among them a Metropolitan

and 2 bishops, participate in the funerals of Legionaries Ion Moța and Vasile Marin. In this case

we can say that the ROC completely embraced militant anti-Semitism. On the other hand, in

1939, after the murder of Armand Călinescu (at the time president of the Council of Ministers),

Patriarch Nicodim released a pastoral letter in which he blames the murderers and invokes divine

punishment for all crimes.

Another difficulty in analyzing events comes from the propensity of the Patriarchy and the ROC

leaders to select, among the many relevant events, only those that suggest a moderate, or even

anti-anti-Semitic, attitude. Hence, TABOR, a monthly on Romanian culture and spirituality

published by the Metropolitan of Cluj, Alba, Crişana and Maramureş,9 discusses the position of

ROC leaders regarding the Decree-Law no. 71110, which amends the law on denominations by

forbidding the baptism of Jews by the Churches. The Apostolic Nuncio invoked the provisions of

the 1927 Concordat, and convinced the Council of Ministers and Ion Antonescu to exempt Jews

converted to Catholicism from being deported to Transnistria. Brînduşa Costache, Mircea

Costache and Doru Costache stress that the Romanian Patriarchy “protested against the

preferential treatment shown to the Catholic Church, and the annulment of the right of Churches

to convert non-Christians” and sent the Minister of Culture, I. Petrovici, a message requesting

that religious life be respected. The Metropolitan of Transilvania, Nicolae Bălan, protested

officially, on April 2nd 1941, against “the illegitimate intervention in the life of the Church”.11

As part of this research I will analyze the relationship between the fundamental, stable elements

of ROC anti-Semitism manifestations and its opportunistic elements.

8 O explicaţie poate fi conspiraţia împotriva lui I.G. Duca, care a mers până la cea mai înaltă poziţie din stat, regele

Carol al II-lea, ceea ce înseamnă că relaţia BOR cu statul a motivat prioritar acţiunile sale. 9 Some political and cultural personalities belong to the magazine board: Petre Guran, Andrei Marga, Basarab

Nicolescu, Toader Paleologu, Aurel Sasu, Mihai Şora, Bogdan Tătaru-Cazaban ş.a. 10 Monitorul Oficial 21 March 1941. 11 Brînduşa Costache, Mircea Costache, Doru Costache, „Problema evreiască în România modernă: Atitudinea

Bisericii Ortodoxe Române”, TABOR, Revista lunară de cultură şi spiritualitate românească editată de Mitropolia

Clujului, Albei, Crişanei şi Maramureşului (http://www.tabor-

revista.ro/in_ro.php?module=content_full&id=10676.).

c) The Role of ROC dogma

c1) Anti-Semitism and other hostile attitudes towards different churches and beliefs

Research shows that ROC dogma is the source of not only anti-Semitism but also other hostile

behaviors towards alternative churches and beliefs. The fundamental argument was expressed by

Dumitru Stăniloaie, "the most important Romanian Orthodox theologian of the twentieth

century"12, and even today is assumed ad-literam: “Orthodoxy is the only authentic

representation of heaven on earth."13

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

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

government to remove from public office and to prohibit all sects: "...masonry and sects on the

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

decay of our national unity, pouring the winning corrosive over the love of nation. Between all of

them there is a connection, all of them were united by the malicious conspiracy to lead this

nation to the grave."14

In the life of the Romanian Orthodox Church, such assumptions are not solely abstract notions.

They motivated the ROC to achieve, through the State, the banning of other religious or spiritual

movements. The 1937 ROC Synod denounced the Freemasons thus: „Crass materialism and

opportunism in all actions is the necessary conclusion stemming from Freemason precepts. The

Freemason lodges gather together Jews and Christians and Freemasonry states that only those

part of its lodges know the truth and rise above other people. This means that Christianity

confers no advantage in knowing the truth and achieving salvation. The Church cannot watch

unmoved as the mortal enemies of Christ are seen as superior to Christians in their knowledge of

the highest truths and in their chances of achieving salvation”.15

12 Lavinia Stan, Lucian Turcescu, Religion and Politics in Post-Communist Romania, Oxford University Press, New

York, 2007, p. 45. 13 Dumitru Stăniloaie, “Ortodoxia şi viaţa socială” (1940), in Stăniloaie, 109. 14 Dumitru Stăniloaie , “Restaurarea românismului în destinul său istoric” (1940), in Stăniloaie, 114-115. 15 The ROC never retracted this statement.

At this time, I think one important research track is the study of the correlation between ROC

anti-Semitism and other actions of the Church against religious minorities.

c2. The ROC nationalism involves chauvinism and anti-Semitism

With ROC anti-Semitism, the connection between orthodoxy and nationalism is of particular

relevance. According to the dogma: "a People is an irreducible ontological space. It is the

ultimate specific unit of humanity. It is the basis of explaining individuality and the medium of

living. Humanity does not exist as a continuum or a uniform dis-continuum. God's creation can

be found in no other place but in the expression of ethnic communities."16 As a consequence,

Christianity, which in the Romanian context is Orthodoxy, is "a necessary path towards

nationalism, and nationalism, in turn, is a necessary path to Christianity."17

The importance of the nationalistic dimension can be discerned in the attitude of the ROC

towards the Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic (RCUR). The November 1937

General Report of the "Agru" Central Committee referred to the campaign launched by the ROC

against Greek-Catholics as such: "An intense and tireless propaganda on behalf of Orthodoxy has

monopolized Romanian nationalism. Moreover, an equally continuous, and often heated, campaign

has depicted the United Church as a national danger, a foreign object in the body of the nation.

Nothing was spared in spreading this idea. Facts are reversed, evidence is distorted. Our leaders are

attacked in unworthy ways. History is falsified with amazing boldness. The city of Blaj and its

schools, the great teachers who awakened the Romanian soul and turned the people of serfs of yore

into a nation aware, no longer exist; Clain, Şincai and Maior were <alienated from the core of the

nation> (...) Orthodox publications put forward this message of hatred and enmity in all its

forms. Large organizations, created for other goals, like the For, the Romanian anti-revisionist

League, the Association of Romanian Clergy, put themselves in the service of this false ideal of

pure negationism. Access to important media outlets, like The Universe, is possible through them.

Furthermore, the state powers themselves are continually exposed to these temptations."18

16 Dumitru Stăniloaie, “Biserica românească” (1942), in Dumitru Stăniloaie, Naţiune şi creştinism, Bucureşti: Elion,

2004), 145-146. 17 Dumitru Stăniloaie ,“Creştinism şi naţionalism” (1940), in Stăniloaie, 117-118. 18 The November 1937 General Congress in Satu Mare (Buletinul AGRU Bucureşti, nr. 8-9, iulie-august 2002.)

The ROC’s historic dream to annihilate the RCUR was achieved after the Soviet occupation of

Romania. Its aspirations matched the anti-religious and anti-Western policy of the communist

power in Moscow. Greek-Catholic churches were banned throughout the Soviet Union and its

Orthodox allies, such as Romania and Ukraine.19 It is to be expected that a comparison between

the role of ROC nationalism in the Church’s campaign against the RCUR, and Jewish leaders

respectively, will shed some light on the nuances of the ROC anti-Semitism.

c3) The relationship between the State and the ROC; its role in changes of positions of ROC

clergy regarding fascist forces

A main argument is that Orthodox churches always saw the collaboration with the ruler as a form

of protection against danger. This attitude mirrored the interest of secular powers in using the

Orthodox churches for the purpose of strengthening control over the uneducated population, and

maintaining order in the community.20 The State-Church relationship was even used to forge

relations with the regional neighbors.21 The concept use by the ROC to legitimize the ruler-

Church partnership is the “symphony” between the secular powers and the Orthodox Church.22

A detailed investigation of the relationship between Church and State is needed for the `30s and

2nd World War periods. Researchers have noted a change, over time, of the position of the ROC

towards far right movements. To cite a radical and over-simplifying statement by Alexandru

Voicu on the complex ties between ROC and the Iron Guard: “the Romanian Orthodox Church

was relatively equivalent – ideologically and politically – with the [Legionary] movement when

the latter answered the wishes of the political power and of the Romanian society. When the

Guard lost the support of all but a minority, the attitude of the Church changed to one of radical

19 Gabriel Andreescu, „The Romanian Church United with Rome (Greek-Catholic) under Pressure: The ROC’S Bad

Behaviour as Good Politics”, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, vol. 11, issue 32 (Summer 2012). 20 Cristian Romocea, Church and State: Religious Nationalism and State Identification in Post-Communist Romania,

Continuum Religious Studies, New York, 2011, p. 77. 21 Gabriel Andreescu, „International Relations and Orthodoxy in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe” in International

Studies no. 4, 1998, pp. 3-35. 22 Oliver Gillet, Religion et nationalisme. L’ideologie de l’Eglise Orthodoxe Roumaine sous le regime communiste,

1997. The book is seen as a necessary reference on the relationship of the ROC with the Communist regime but was

received, as would be expected, very critically by Church theologians (see Prof. Dr. Alexandru Dutu, “Ortodoxie şi

laicitate”, Almanah Bisericesc, Arhiepiscopia Bucureştilor, 1999, pag. 65-69).

hostility”.23 This raises the question of whether such a change was the result of rethinking the

Church’s attitude toward the „Jewish problem”, or of opportunism.

I see no clear indications that certain changes in the attitude of the ROC stemmed from a

reevaluation of the treatment of Jews through an ethical or dogmatic perspective. The

declarations purporting an ethical motivation behind the ROC’s disavowal of legionary crimes

have an obvious rhetorical style, belied by the ROC’s long-time anti-Semitic campaign. While

the ROC did criticize the legionary rebellion of 1940, it did not, as far as I am aware, apologize

for its own support of Romanian anti-Semitic movements. The change in attitude appears instead

to adhere to the traditional manner of the ROC towards state powers, in connection with the

Church’s old view of its place in the history of the Romanian people. Other investigations are

however necessary in order to confirm or refute this claim.

III. Documentation activity during the writing of this Research Report

The main questions raised by the review of studies on the relationship between anti-Semitism

and the Romanian Orthodox Church have already inspired several hypotheses worth researching.

At this point in the development of the Research Report I work on two topics meant to direct

future investigations: (a) structuring the history of anti-Semitism between 1918 and 1944 into

three distinct stages, and (b) clarifying the relationship between the ROC, as an autonomous anti-

Semitic organization, and other anti-Semitic actors like political movements or intellectual elites

(partnership, competition, unilateral or mutual support etc.).

(a) The need to separate the history of anti-Semitism between 1918 and 1944 into three distinct

and conceptually relevant stages

It is unclear to what extent the ROC leadership was able to stay independent during the legionary

government and the Antonescu government. The Antonescu government took steps against the

orthodox clergy that had participated in the legionary rebellion. 218 priests were identified as

having participated in the skirmishes against the army and were arrested by order of Marshal Ion

23 Alexandru Voicu, „Relația controversată a Bisericii Ortodoxe Române cu Mișcarea Legionară”, Historia -

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

legionara.

Antonescu.24 The scope of the involvement of orthodox priests in active fighting, as legionaries,

is suggested by the following Communiqué of the Council of Ministers on February 1941:

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

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

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

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

These lying servants of the Lord went as far as to make arms and munitions deposits out of their

places of worship."25

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

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

especially in such turbulent circumstances, and some sources confirm this was the case. While

the Patriarch Nicodim was congratulating Marshal Antonescu for defeating the legionary

rebellion, and was promising to pray that God would give the latter „the power to succeed in

bringing about the salvation of the country and the Romanian people”26, the lower clergy

continued to support the Legion in various ways even after January 1941.27

(b) The relationship between the ROC, as an autonomous anti-Semitic organization, and other

anti-Semitic political actors: anti-Semitic political organizations, the anti-Semitic intellectuality

A fundamental theme in this investigation is the extent to which we can separate the ROC, as an

autonomous organism, from the other anti-Semitic social forces, incomplete as this separation

may be. Mainly, I am interested in the relationship with far right parties and the pro-legionary

intellectuality. Priests were directly involved with political parties. According to research into the

archives of the Ministry of the Interior conducted by Gina Pană, in the 1937 elections, out of 103

candidates of the party "Totul pentru Țară", 33 were priests – around a third, a considerable

percentage. 55 priests had leadership positions within the Legion.28

24 Ion Antonescu, Pe marginea prăpastiei, 21-23 ianuarie 1941, vol. II, 1941, p. 163. 25 Ion Antonescu, Pe marginea prăpastiei. 21-23 ianuarie 1941, vol. II, 1941, p. 102. 26 Ion Antonescu, Pe marginea prăpastiei, 21-23 ianuarie 1941, vol. II, 1941p. 163. 27 Ibidem. 28 Gina Pană, „Biserica Ortodoxa Română şi mişcarea legionară: clarificări şi ambiguităţi", Holocaust. Studii şi

cercetări, Vol. III, Nr. 4 /2011, p. 143.

Legionary priests kept in touch with the orthodoxist intellectuality, and the latter kept in touch

with the ROC leadership. While a lot has been written on the orthodox nationalism of a part of

the intellectual elite, the involvement of the Church, as an institution, in the anti-Semitic drift of

the orthodoxist intellectuality is still unclear. Things are more straightforward in the case of

intellectuals getting degrees in theology, who were used as sources of authority by priests and

theologians, and who were financed by the Church.

A representative example from the first group is Nichifor Crainic. The case of Nae Ionescu is

somewhat different – he received a degree from the Department of Letters and Philosophy of the

University of Bucharest and promoted, in the magazine Cuvântul, secular cultural personalities –

Mircea Vulcănescu, Mihail Sebastian, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran, etc. Some studies suggest

more complex causal relationships. Roland Clark points out that most Romanian nationalists

were atheists prior to the First World War, but state-sponsored nation-building allowed

individuals such as Nichifor Crainic to introduce religious nationalism into the public sphere.

The early career of Crainic shows why Orthodox Christianity became a central element of

Romanian ultra-nationalism during the 1920s.29. A lot has been written on the anti-Semitic

attitudes of several important intellectuals between the World Wars, but their relationship with

the ROC has to be better conceptualized30.

Research in archives I have so far gained access to

A1. Documents in National Archives Bucharest, partially studied

Collection ID Years

Jewish communities in Romania 3001 1918-1959

League for Cultural Unity of All

Romanians

1915 1891-1949

League against terror 2648 1926-1936

Ministry of Religious

Denominations and Arts -

documents

2719 1920-1929

29 Roland Clark, “Orthodoxy and nation-building: Nichifor Crainic and religious nationalism in 1920s Romania”, Nationalities Papers, 2012, 1–19. 30 The reference study on this topic is Zigu Ornea, Tradiționalism și modernitate în deceniul al treilea, Ed.

Eminescu, Bucureşti, 1980. By the same author, see also Anii treizeci. Extrema dreaptă românească, Ed. Fundaţiei

culturale române, Bucureşti, 1996.

Ministry of Religious

Denominations and Arts –

documents

2720 1933-1944

Student Organizations and

Associations Collection

2860 19341938

Democratic Jewish

Organizations

2921 1916-1952

A2. The collections most relevant to the topic, part of the CNSAS Archives, to be studied

Topic ID Volume Years

Notes of the Siguranţa –

orthodox denomination

2308 1 1932

Lists of candidates 2309 1 1940-1945

Informant notes and press

articles

2313 1 1940-43

Telegraful român - lists 2320 1 1922-1955

Reports 2542 3, 4, 5 1933-1950

Conversions 2921 1 1942

Reports – orthodox youth 4193 1 1920-1928

Oastea Domnului 5981 1 1938

Cultul Patriei 5987-5988 1 1934-1936

Declarations, tables 7755 2, 3 1934-1938

Orthodox Women 8758 1 1935-38

Romanian Women 8840 1, 2 1938-1939