The Catholic Church in Hungary and Romania during the Communist Dictatorship: A Comparative Analysis
Gabor Bankuti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29302/auash.2024.28.2.2
2024-04-15
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Historica
Abstract:The structure and cultural characteristics of a society are, in the words of Joseph Schumpeter, “like metal” – they bend and melt but do not readily evaporate. My comparative analysis confirms the diagnosis that the everyday presence of dictatorship cannot be adequately described by the standard top-down models of ideologically driven communist power. The substantive differences in developments between Hungary and Romania suggest that external power is only part of the construct, however rigid the hegemonic structure. By looking at the reactions caused by similar effects in different contexts, it becomes clear what has an impact on what. The relationship of the churches to the state in the countries under study includes similarities and differences shaped by distinct historical trajectories that are partly structural and partly situational. In terms of circumstances, Romania’s Orthodox pattern regarding the relationship between the state and the church also determined the relationship with other denominations and sealed the fate of Greek Orthodox Catholics. The measures taken against Roman Catholics, although more or less the same as in Hungary, also tended more towards the state-church model. However, this feature was not the primary cause of the different impact in Romania compared to Hungary. This is because, just as the relationship between church and state differed from country to country, so did the relationship of the churches to their own “national” societies. Further, no matter how tempting it might be to consider the Catholic Church a closed entity, the comparison clarifies that neither the hierarchical division nor the same (Catholic) norm made behaviour uniform. The differences arising from local configurations of the single norm grew more and more evident in the 1950s. All this suggests that state and church strategies and actions were shaped more by the conflict of contexts and pressures to comply than by the tension between the scope of action and the constraints: the differences between Romania and Hungary are explained by the different contexts and the cross-generational ecclesiastical and social patterns A greater historical understanding explains how bishops in Hungary, in line with previous conditions and established practice, hoped for quasi-freedom in church operations through a “partnership” with the state while the Roman Catholic Church in Romania has been operating under exlex conditions for four decades. That does not mean that a rational-legal approach on its own is the key to understanding what has occurred. Under a dictatorship, we can identify deviance, excesses, abuses and arbitrary actions in relation to the law. However, these “models” can only be understood in the context of processes that transcend political history. The behaviour of the authorities in Bucharest towards the Catholic Church has been dramatic compared to other countries under Soviet influence. With the arrests of Áron Márton and Anton Durcovici, the public hierarchy appointed by the Holy See ceased to exist. The elimination of dioceses by the state was also a unique feature. The resistance organised by the Jesuits and Franciscans, with the support of the faithful, successfully paralysed the ecclesiastical administration, which had been put in place due to state intervention after the arrest of Áron Márton. This process was largely due to the church’s strengthened social embeddedness in previous years and its successful adaptation of strategies developed to cope with its minority status. Over the centuries, the Catholic Church in Transylvania has faced a series of challenges that have threatened its very existence. These pressures have also shaped the thinking of its clergy and its relationship with its faithful. The recoveries from crises have led to innovative and flexible adaptation strategies, making the local church “tough” and thus contributing to its management of the next crisis. The mentality of the church, which was minimally domesticated or determined by the secular power, showed fewer Josephine traits than in Hungary. The relationship between church and state tended towards the passive model, while the relationship between church and society tended towards the active model. The Catholic Church’s double minority status in Transylvania during the Communist years – minority as a Hungarian and minority as a Catholic – created an alternative society that did not allow it to abstain entirely from politics. Beyond individual choices, this also made its confrontational position more flexible and its submission more moderate.