Back to Homepage
Quaderni 2002
p. 143
The Italian Catholic bishop Antonio de Stefano
and the emancipation of the Catholic communities from Moldavia
(1849-1859)
After the
revolutionary movement from 1848, a new social status was required for the
Catholic community from Moldavia, not only as a consequence of their own
natural aspirations to ameliorate its condition, but also due to the changes
occurred concerning the status of Moldavian principality after 1848. It is
beyond any doubt that the increasing need to establish a new constitutional
order in Moldavia inevitably connected with the need of re-evaluation the
structure of the society. Within this emerging re-evaluation process, perhaps,
the most “sensitive” part was the problem of integration of the various
minorities (both ethnic and religious) from the principality. The aim of this
article is to reconsider the problem of the emancipation of the Moldavian
Catholics through the conceptions and actions carried by the Italian bishop
Antonio de Stefano in the period 1849-1859. This approach defines its utility
through the fact that, according to my opinion, De Stefano’s letters
(unpublished up to nowadays) had been poorly anaylsed as a valuable source in
studying this aspect.
The figure of Antonio de Stefano is
hardly known in the Romanian historiography, and this is not a surprising fact.
As an ecclesiastic administrator (with bishopric attributions) of a religious
minority in a period when spectacular evolutions headed the bill in Moldavia,
his figure was neglected if not ‘forgotten’ by the Romanian historians inasmuch
as the problem of the religious discrimination, which affected the communities
he had under his supervision. The most comprehensive presentation of De
Stefano’s activity in Moldavia belongs to the historian Pietro Tocanel (member
of the Order of the Conventual Franciscans)
p. 144
who realised the
most recent synthesis on the history of Catholicism in Moldavia[1].
Some notes on Antonio de Stefano can be found also in Iosif Petru M. Pal’s work
on the Catholic communities from Moldavia and the activity of the Franciscans[2].
Unfortunately, these notes are very scarce in information. According to Pal,
the future Catholic bishop of Moldavia was born in Naples; before being
appointed bishop he carried out missionary activity for many years in Moldavia
(he was for a while parish priest in Huºi). After his retirement in Italy, in
1859, he continued to maintain relations with the Catholic Franciscan mission
from Moldavia until his death, in 1893[3].
From a detailed report sent to the Sacra Congregazione di Propaganda Fide,
on January 18, 1852, by De Stefano himself, we can find that he was born in the
village of Cicciano, the diocese of Nola, kingdom of Naples, on December the 23rd
1808[4]
According to the general of the Order of the Conventual Minor Friars, Giacinto
Gualerni, De Stefano carried out missionary activity in Moldavia for 19 years
before being appointed visitator and praefectus apostolicus of the Moldavian
p. 145
Catholic mission
by the Sacred Congregation after the death of his predecessor, Paolo Sardi[5].
He was confirmed and anointed as bishop on October 30, 1849, in Bucharest by
Angelo Parsi, bishop of Nicopole and prefect of the catholic mission from
Wallachia[6].
His nomination seemed not to be unobserved in Moldavia. In a report sent on
January 15, 1850, to the Sacred Congregation De Stefano noted:
“Molti dei nobili di Moldavia a farmi
visita e se congratularono meco per la mia inaugurazione al vescovado di
Moldavia. Si compiacerono della presenza del vescovo cattolico nel loro
principato, dicendo esser di ornamento al loro paese. Fui solicitare il
Principe Regnante per le prossime passate feste e mi accolse benignemente
offrendo a me ed a miei compagni l’acqua con dolcezza e caffè alla
usanza dal paese cose però che non faceva l’altro principe […]. E non manca con gentilezza di essibirmi la protezione per la
cattolica missione.”[7]
This
passage is very interesting from the perspective of this study. According to my
opinion, the importance of the activity of this bishop lays in the fact that De
Stefano was the first Catholic bishop from Moldavia who dedicated almost his
entire energy for the re-evaluation of the social status of the Catholic
communities from Moldavia. The request for political and civil rights was meant
to integrate the Catholics into the life of the Moldavian (and later) Romanian
society in a period when this goal seemed to take its best chance since the
apparition of the Catholic Church in this region.
Nevertheless, one cannot really speak
about rapid and radical changes in the relation between the Moldavian Catholic
mission and the authorities from Iaºi. For example, the protection promised by
the Moldavian state (through the statement of prince Grigore Alexandru Ghica)
to the Moldavian Catholics effectively manifested only in occasions such as the
intervention in a censorship act which could affect two religious books printed
by De Stefano in 1848 and 1849 in
p. 146
Braºov, in
Romanian with Cyrillic characters. On December 1849, according to the
resolution issued by the state censor Codrescu, these books did not represent a
danger for the Orthodox Church, although Moldavian metropolitan, Meletie,
expressed another opinion[8].
The problem was again brought into the attention of the authorities by the new
metropolitan, Sofronie Miclescu, after De Stefano’s leaving to Italy on October
19, 1851. On November 16, 1851, the metropolitan made an intervention to the
prince Ghica, asking him to interdict the circulation of the two books. The
prince, however, let him know the resolution of the state official Sihleanu,
the chief of the Censorship Department who rejected the metropolitan’s request
on the same juridical basis as Codreanu’s decision.[9]
The metropolitan’s initiative seems to prove a certain feeling of insecurity
towards a possible proselytizing attempt carried by the Catholic mission
towards Orthodox majority. However, as De Stefano himself witnessed, Miclescu’s
intolerance did not aim to the removal of the Catholicism from Moldavia, but
limited only against possible Catholic proselytism[10].
As mentioned above, Antonio de Stefano’s
main preoccupation concerned the status of the Moldavian Catholic population in
relation with the Orthodox majority. On January 18, 1852, he sent a report to
the Sacred Congregation in which, among other issues, he generally referred to
the relations between Catholic and Orthodox communities:
p. 147
“[…] I Cattolici generalmente non fori perseguitati ne impediti
nello esercizio di loro religione. E quantunque sia severamente vietate fare
proseliti degli scismatici pur nondimeno i P. P. Missionarii non lasciano
passare occasione che loro si presenta onde insinuare a qualche scismatico la
veritá cattolica sperando che la Divina Misericordia una volta gli toccherà
il cuore e ritorni al grembo di nostra Santa sede. [...] I Cattolici non
comunicano in divinis con gli scismatici ne vanno alle loro chiese ad adorare
il Dio della verità… Nel giorno della Epifania il metropolitano con gran
pompa si porta a benedire l’acqua radunata in una vassa nel cortile del
principe regnante in mezzo della conca é situata un gran croce di ghiaccio e
vien detta tal funzione – Il Giordano – alcuni anche da nostri Cattolici per
soddisfare alla loro curiosità intervengono a tale funzione cui assiste
anche il Principe regnante nel suo uniforme. Gli scismatici frequentano le
nostre chiese nelle principali funzioni dell’anno; ed in Iassi molte volte
vengono ancora i Ministri dello stato. I matrimonii dei Cattolici con gli
scismatici non avadono quasi mai e si fa di tutto per evitarli: se ne
contraggono talvolta con i Protestanti sempre però colle condizioni
volute dalla chiese ed alla presenza del parocco cattolico.”
According to this report, it seems that the only reason for
which Catholics or Orthodox believers used to attend for certain occasions the
other religious services seemed to be the pure curiosity for the particular
display of the religious ceremonies and nothing more: the Catholic bishop
considered that the two churches did not communicate at all in matters of
religion. Two main barriers that stood between the two communities caused this
lack of spiritual interaction: the interdiction of proselytism and the
interdiction of marriage[11].
Non-communication (not understood in terms of total
isolation) obviously determined typical patterns of image of the others. It is
interesting to notice that in the case of bishop Antonio de Stefano the cliché
according to which the Orthodox parish priests were ignorant and insufficiently
detached from the condition of their poor parishioners was still vivid as in
the mind of his predecessors from 16th century. In a report sent to
the Sacred Congregation (entitled Prospetto
della missione di Moldavia negli anni mille ottocento cinquanta cinque
trasmesso alla Sacra Congregazione di Propaganda Fide da monsignor Antonio de
Stefano,
p. 148
vescovo
din Benden, prefetto e visitatore apostolico della medesima), De Stefano
noted:
“Il clero [referring to the Moldavian Orthodox clergy – explanation mine] generalmente giace in una ignoranza massima sapendo alcuni appena leggere il messale ed il libro delle quotidiane preghiere; preti destinati alla cura delle anime nei villaggi sono poveri e ruvidi; coltivano campagna frammischiati con i contadini, dirigendo in persona lo aratro, nonche guidano il corso con bovi nelle pubbliche vie.”[12]
De Stefano considered in this report also the perception of
the Orthodox faithful over the Catholic communities in order to stress the
existence of a certain negative discrimination applied over the Catholics by
the Orthodox majority:
“Questi
scismatici sono involti nei medessimi errori che si difendono dati i Greci in
generale: in faccia loro nessuna persona di qualcunque nazione, comunione e
religione essa si sia è cristiana; ma vien considerata da essolo come
idolatra o israelita. E perciò, se per avventura qualcuno per disfarsi
la propria consorte ed affiancarsi ad altra non sua, o per altri non lodevoli interessi [?],
volesse abbracciare lo scisma, é duopo pria di tutto che sia ribattezato tenendo [?] immerso in un gran
vaso con acqua appositamente preparato e sia tolto [?] col sacro crisma; ed in simile guisa secondo essi
ricevera il lume del cristianesimo. I prelati non si fanno scrupulo verun di
sciogliere il matrimonio.”[13]
In a previous letter sent on October 20, 1854, to the
cardinal Giorgio Fransoni, the chief of the Moldavian Catholic mission made an
interesting annotation:
“Presso i
Greci scismatici son feste di precello la Transfigurazione del nostro Signore
Gesù Cristo, e la presentazione al Tempio della Beatissima Vergine
Maria. La maggior parte dei nostri Cattolici si astengono in tali giorni dai
lavori manuali. Quindi per eccitare viemaggiormente nel cuore di tutti i fedeli
di questo principato la divozione si verso il nostro Signore Gesù
Cristo, che verso la sua Sanctissima Madre e per provare sempre più agli
Scismatici, che noi siamo veri cristiani [emphasis mine], i missionari ed io crediamo cosa opportuna che
si elevino a feste di precetto la Transfigurazione del Signore
p. 149
che cade nel
giorno 6 di agosto e la Presentazione al Tempio della Sanctissima Vergine
cadente nel di 21 novembre.”[14]
It is to be remarked here the effort carried by De Stefano
for establishing a common language with the Orthodox community, at least in
terms of image. Convincing the Orthodox faithful that the Catholics were not
pagans but Christians as well as the majority of Moldavians was meant to be an
important step towards a possible changing of perspective, and ultimately, towards
integration and mutual acceptance.
At that moment, at the middle of the 19th century,
toleration through non-interaction was nevertheless accepted, primarily as a
means of self-defense in order that the two communities preserve their own
cultural and religious identity. Obviously, the Catholics tried to avoid
possible assimilation in the Orthodox majority. From the perspective of the
other side, the Orthodox clergy felt insecure on its own positions when coping
with the tendencies present in the Moldavian society towards modernization by
adopting Western patterns of civilization. The impact of the revolutionary
moments of 1848 increased the anxiety within the so-called ‘conservative’ part
of the Moldavian society, who usually tended to associate the Western
civilization with violent revolution and negation of the values of
‘traditional’ society. Within this perspective, they integrated the Catholicism
as an organic part of the Western civilization, and thus, the pretext of the
danger of the revolution for the Moldavian society easily determined the
hostility of the Moldavian clergy against any forms of Catholic proselytism and
education[15]. This
attitude was encouraged and supported through legislation. According to the
regulations issued in the autumn of 1848, the Catholic religion was only tolerated and any initiative carried by
the Catholic church in Moldavia which could allegedly affect the monopoly of
the Orthodox Church in education and other ‘spiritual needs’ was put inevitably
under total interdiction[16].
Given the circumstances the fact that one of De Stefano’s projects, the
establishment of a
p. 150
Catholic institute of
education in Moldavia, could not be fulfilled in the circumstances of the
period immediately after 1848 was not surprising[17].
The problem of the poverty of the majority of the Catholic
faithful also concerned De Stefano who mentioned in his report from 1852 the
lamentable status of the Catholics who mainly live in the countryside:
“I nostri
Cattolici di Moldavia son quasi tutti poveri ed adetti al lavoro della
campagna: sono tenuti come schiavi, e forse peggio, dai boieri, i quali
abusando di loro condizione li tengono in una posizione veramente
compassionevole, poiché il più delle volte non possono adempiere al
dovere del cristiano puo essere da Padroni impiegati in opere servili anche né
giorni più Sacri dell’anno.”[18]
In another general report sent to the Sacred Congregation on
December 28, 1853, De Stefano presented an overview of the Catholic
communities, both living in villages and in urban areas:
“La massima
parte di essi sono dediti all cultura dei campi, ed abitano nelle campagne di
attinanze dei signori di rito greco non unito, per i quali dessi nostri plebei
sono obbligati di travagliere vari giorni dell’anno e perchè tengono
domicilio nelle possessioni ad essi appartenenti e perchè ricevono da
esso loro una quantità di terreno d’onde deggiono pro cacciare
nutrimento ed a se stessi, ed al bestiame seppure ne hanno sono quasi tutti
miserabili, oppressi ed avviliti d’assai ed a ragione non possono non giacere
nella squallore e della miseria, mentre non posseggono se nonchè una
misura di terreno ascendente presso a poco a canne 500. Per si grandene corrone
il dovere di fare per proprietario oltre il lavoro determinato altri travagli
ancora non prescritti dalle leggi ai quali se non vanno spontanei vi vengono
condotti con battiture come ancora a guisa di tanti animali sono spinti ai
pubblici lavori senza ricevere emolumento vercino; o se lo ricevano e si tenue
che non basta loro per comperarsi la farina per la facaccia chiamata nella
lingua di questo paese – mamaliga -. I Cattolici abitatori delle Città e
dei borghi del
p. 151
principato
appartengono alle classi d’impiegati, d’aggenti consolari, di avvocati, di
negozzianti, e di artisti. Sono di varie nazioni: a tutti però si
concede libero l’esercizio del culto cattolico senza inicontrare ostacolo
veruno dalli Eterodossi, i quali anzi intervengono alle sacre funzioni, e vi
assistono con rispetto e tutta riverenza.”[19]
This report is very interesting from the point of view of the
structure of the Catholic social body from Moldavia. On the one hand, there was
a large category of poor people, who lived in the country side and having the
social status of the entire peasant population from Moldavia and Wallachia:
free citizens, having a low income, and working the lands of the great
landowners (the boyars) under an abusive regime of contractual obligations. On
the other hand, there was a small Catholic population living in towns and which
was integrated in a so-called ‘middle class’. This population seems to be
formed mostly from foreigners – presumably under a foreign jurisdiction – who
enjoyed religious freedom. De Stefano noted that the Orthodox believers
respectfully attended the Catholic religious services carried in towns.
Consequently, we can infer two types of manifestation of the religious
tolerance from the part of the Orthodox majority: the ‘negative’ tolerance
(manifested through indifference) and the ‘positive’ tolerance (manifested
through respect). From De Stefano’s relation, it is clear that in the case of
the Catholic poor peasantry the first type of tolerance was applied. But the
most important thing was that this social category represented at that moment
the most important problem of the Catholic Church in Moldavia, as it
significantly affected the basic functions of the Catholic mission from
Moldavia reducing to a very high degree its possibilities and initiatives.
One of De Stefano’s main objectives was to impose to the
conscience of the Moldavian society the necessity of solving the problem of the
“religious toleration”. The social status of “tolerated” applied to the
Catholic peasant communities seems to have transformed them into citizens of
‘the second rank’. De Stefano was the first to assume the difficult task of
removing this social inequality. The Catholic bishop seemed to be aware of the
implications not only in the life of the Catholic faithful but also in the life
and evolution of the Catholic Moldavian Church itself.
However, in order that these intentions could be turned into
reality, ‘favorable’ radical changes of political circumstances were needed.
The coming of the Austrian troops in Moldavia in 1854 (after the retreat of the
Russian troops), as the Crimean war begun, could be considered as such a
‘favorable’ circumstance. Undoubtedly, the Austrian military officials who
settled in Moldavia encouraged the Catholic missionaries in their religious
practice; nevertheless, one can infer that
p. 152
in fact the Catholic
missionaries and especially De Stefano, tried to seize the opportunity. In his
letter sent on May 30, 1855, from the city of Bacãu to the Cardinal Giorgio
Fransoni, De Stefano gave expression of the good relations carried between the
Austrian officials and the Catholic mission from Moldavia:
“Giovedi
scorso si celebró in Iassi la festa del Corpus Domini ha processione che si
fece per la strada maestra di Iassi, fu accompagnata da numerosa milizia
austriaca con due bande militari, dalla generalità e dal corpo
diplomatico: nel dare la benedizione col venerabile una compagnia dava delle
salve. Venerdi partii da Iassi e sabbato sera giunsi in Baco per sollennizzare
in questa cattedrale antica la medesima festività. Volli profittare della permanenza
delle truppe imperiale [emphasis
mine] e fatta le debite disposizioni, andanno per la prima volta col
santissimo sacramento per le strade delle città merosissimo fu il
concorso de’ nostri fedeli e di altre religione. Il governatore della
città e del distretto benignamente ordina alla sua gente di scopare
tutte le strade per le quali doveva passare la non mai vista finora processione
dopo furono ben pulite mando i pombieri e le fece bagnare onde non fosse
polvere nel passare mando ancora dei gentilomi per mantenere il buon ordine.
Tutto a gloria maggiore di Signore e ad onore della nostra S. Religione.”[20]
From De Stefano’s relation it is clear the fact that at least
in terms of image the Catholicism gained a serious advantage when the troops of
the Austrian Empire took active part in the Catholic processions displayed in
the two Moldavian towns. Within this perspective, it is not a minor detail that
for the first time (at least according to De Stefano’s knowledge) a Catholic
religious procession was allowed to take place in the main street of a
Moldavian town (like Bacãu) or even in the capital of Moldavia. Moreover, the
special preparations and the impressive display of military forces (not to
speak about the massive participation of the population) could be considered as
a spectacular form of propaganda meant both to enhance the prestige of the
Catholic Church in Moldavia and to ensure better chances for its future
recognition and integration in the Modavian society.
By all means the Austrian tried to support the Catholic
Church as it can be seen from the collaboration between the Catholic clergy and
the Austrian military officials[21].
Nevertheless, beyond natural religious affiliation, this attitude was also a
part of the policy carried by the Western states concerning the problem of the
Russian “protectorate’ over the Orthodox Christians from the Ottoman Empire.
After a series of political meetings held in Vienna and Constantinople, Russia,
p. 153
France and Austria imposed to
Russia, among other conditions, the renunciation of the protectorate over the
Orthodox population from the Ottoman Empire. From that moment on, the religious
freedom in the Ottoman Empire was to be secured by the Ottoman authorities
themselves and extended over all Christian cults including the Catholics[22].
Thus, the Orthodox Church from Moldavia lost an important support for its
political positions in the society.
Initiatives like those carried by De Stefano and the other
missionaries (like Zapolski, the parish priest from Iaºi) who provided help and
religious assistance for the Austrian soldiers[23],
could create, speaking in terms of longue
durée, an identity of image between the Austrian policy and the Catholic
mission. Of course, this collaboration was mainly the result of the special and
temporary circumstances and this perception avoided possible anti-Catholic
reactions from the part of the Orthodox faithful. Moreover, the prince Grigore
Alexandru Ghica, supported by the Austrian troops, rapidly became an ardent
supporter of the union and in order to encourage the unionist propaganda
abolished the censorship[24].
In the new conditions, De Stefano could continue his printing activity
concerning Catholic religious books, such as the catechism printed in Romanian
in Lwow in 1857[25].
In all annual reports and also in other letters sent to the Propaganda Fide, De Stefano repeatedly
stressed the fact that the social status of the Catholics was very low in the
Moldavian society and radical reparations had to be operated. Especially after
the Treaty of Paris from March 30, 1856, when it was decided that a
constitutional reorganization of the Romanian principalities was inevitable
within a short period of time, the Catholic bishop was fully aware of the fact
that this reorganization process had to include also the status of the Catholic
population. That was in fact a simple matter of seizing the opportunity, as a
constitutional reorganization in itself, once established, could not be changed
fast. In some of his letters De Stefano mentioned that he tried to convince the
prince Grigore Ghica to rally his efforts in order to determine a
reconsideration of the situation of the Moldavian Catholic communities; the
prince did fully agree that the status of the Catholic communities had to be
changed, but also stressed the fact that he could do
p. 154
nothing in this sense[26].
It was clear for the bishop De Stefano that it was impossible to achieve his
goals on the basis of a very uncertain and improbable collaboration with the
Moldavian authorities. Moreover, it was also obvious that the final decision
over the fate of the Moldavian Catholics seemed to belong to the Western Great
Powers. Therefore, his appeal to the diplomatic representatives of France,
Austria or England is not surprising at all. On March 1857, probably encouraged
by the general consul of France in Moldavia, Victor Place, who had an important
role in the activity of the unionist party, De Stefano addressed to the
Commission from Paris a petition, a veritable political program for the
political emancipation of the Catholic communities from Moldavia. I chose to
reproduce the entire document, although it was published in 1889, in order to
emphasis the fact that this is the first document that rises explicitly the
problem of the political emancipation and integration of the Catholics in the
Romanian society:
“Au nom des
Catholiques moldaves. En présence de la teneur du traité de Paris, qui porte
qu’une organisation nouvelle sera donnée aux Moldo-Valaques, nous sera-t-il
permis de faire un appel aux Puissances signataires de ce traité, en faveur de
la religion catholique romaine dans ce pays et plus particulièrement en
Moldavie? Nous ne pouvons en douter, notre voix, toute faible qu’elle soit,
sera entendue et les Puissances qui ont dépensé leurs trésors et le sang de nos
frères, pour sauvegarder l’intégrité de l’Empire ottoman, voudront que
les catholiques romains jouissent des mêmes libertés qui viennent
d’être octroyées par S. H. le Sultan à tous les Chrétiens,
répandus dans son Empire. L’exercice du culte catholique n’est, en ce moment,
que toléré et nullement reconnu par le gouvernement moldave. Les membres de la
religion grecque, ne considérant les catholiques roumains que comme des
païens, la position des catholiques en est rendue plus malhereuse, plus
difficile. Les catholiques des campagnes – en ce sont les plus nombreux – sont
principalement à plaindre, car, éloignés du centre du gouvernement qui –
nous nous plaisons à le reconnaître – le soutiendrait dans leurs justes réclamations,
ils sont particulièrement exposés aux vexations et aux exactions de
certains seigneurs influents. Les catholiques romains, dont le nombre
s’élève à un chiffre de 50,000 âmes, remplissent les mêmes
devoirs que le reste de la population moldave. Ils sont soumis aux mêmes
lois, paient le même tribut, ils accomplissent les mêmes corvées
envers l’Etat et les seigneurs dont ils dépendent et fournissent des hommes
pour le recrutement de la milice nationale. Les catholiques moldaves
accomplissent, en un mot, sinon mieux, du moins tout aussi bien, les devoirs
qui leur sont imposés par l’Etat. Ne serait-il pas juste alors que ces
catholiques jouissent des mêmes droits pour l’exercice de leur culte que
les Moldaves d’une autre religion? La plus grande difficulté à la
jouissance de ces droits, il faut bien le reconnaître, provient de
l’intolérance du rit grec. Ce clergé nous regardant comme païens, se
refuse à reconnaître les mariages mixtes entre Moldaves du rit grec et
du catholique romain, à moins que, ce qui ne se pratique en Russie
même, le catholique romain ne consente à subir un nouveau
baptême, absolument comme le juif ou le païen et à renier
ainsi sa religion. Il est inutile de faire ressortir que, dans un pays où
les pouvoirs et les richesses sont entre les mains du
p. 155
clergé grec,
cette pratique occasionne de plus graves abus. La sublime religion du Christ
à trop à gagner à la publicité pour que nous songions
à la cacher à l’abri de privilèges particuliers. Nous nous
bornons à demander pour la religion catholique la jouissance des
mêmes libertés qui sont le partage de la seule religion grecque.
Intimement convaincu que le but spécial de la Commission qui fonctionne en
vertu du traité de Paris est de rendre la justice égale pour tous, je crois devoir
m’adresser à elle, en ma qualité de chef des catholiques, pour réclamer
au nom des catholiques moldaves: 1) la liberté du culte catholique reconnu par
l’Etat; 2) La jouissance pour les ministres du culte catholique, comme, pour
les fidèles, des mêmes droits dont jouissent le clergé de rit grec
ou autre; 3) L’obligation pour l’Etat de reconnaître comme valables, sans
être de nouveau baptisés, les mariages entre les membres des deux
religions, catholique et grecque; 4) Enfin, la jouissance pour les catholiques indigènes,
des droits civils et politiques dont jouissent les membres de la religion
grecque. En garantissant ces droits de libre exercice au culte catholique, la
haute Commission courronnera dignement l’oeuvre de civilisation entreprise, et
la population catholique de la Moldavie ne cessera d’implorer la bénédiction du
Ciel pour elle.”[27]
Later, as a continuation of his initiatives, on April 1st
1857, he sent a letter asking the Sacred Congregation to support his cause and
to use its influence in Vienna and Paris for this purpose:
“[…] Del
quale Memoriale mi prendo la libertà di acchiaderne alla Eminenza Vestra
Reverendissima pregandola caldamente di parlare in proposito agli ambasciatori
delle potenze cattoliche onde procurino per mezzo delle loro corti che siano
sollevati questi cattolici, e li vien fatta la dovuta giustizia. Che se in
questi tempi di organizzare non si prendono analoghe misure in favore dei
Cattolici, lo stato della nostra religione andrà sempre da male in
peggio. Alcuni giorni non hanno potuto avere il soccorso per istudiare allo
estero accordato dal governo agli altri indigeni, sol perché non son
scismatici; e si deciso nell’alto consiglio che costoro saranno ajutati qualora
si batezzeranno [?] e
mostrino la fede di battesimo del prete scismatico.
Questi non
lievi motivi meritano l’attenzione anche della congregazione. Non é fuori di
ogni possibilità che alcuni giovani volendo esser impiegati per
proccaviarsi il vitto giornaliero e non lo potendo essere perché non
appartengono allo scisma, s’indurrebbero a cambiare religione con onta del
cattolicismo. Quinci ora che abbiamo propizia occasione non bisogna perderla,
ed adoprar ogni mezzo per scansare tanti e si gravi pericoli. E se la Eminenza
Vestra Reverendissima credesse a proposito, la prego per quanto so e posso, di
raccomandare officiosamente la causa di questi cattolici ai signori nunzii
apostolici appo le corti cattoliche, e singolarmente a quello di Parigi, ove si
decideranno gli affari dei Principati danubiani. Dal canto mio ho già
scritto ai Signori Nunzii di Vienna e di Parigi ai quali mandai il prefato
Memoriale pregandoli di presentarlo ai signori conti Valeski e Buol onde
prendano in considerazione il deplorabile stato di questi Cattolici e procurino
per quanto sarà fattibile che sia migliorato.
p. 156
Frattanto
prego il Signore perchè conceda alla Eminenza Vestra Reverendissima
lunga serie di anni felici, e con predistinta stima e profondo rispetto mi
piego al bacio della sacra porpora.”[28]
De Stefano’s petition presented a clear and concise
argumentation: as the Moldavian Catholics had the same obligations required by
the state to the rest of the population, namely the Orthodox majority, without
any exception, thus, they were fully entitled to benefit the same civil and
political rights. A case of clear discrimination on religious basis is also
provided as being sufficiently evocative in order to legitimize De Stefano’s
cause. Moreover, the Catholic bishop was convinced – and, also, tried to
convince Propaganda Fide – that only through the Commission
from Paris which had to decide and supervise the constitutional re-organization
of Moldavia and Wallachia, the status of the Catholics from the East of the
Carpathians had real chances to be radically changed.
The attitudes of discrimination manifested by the Moldavian
authorities towards the Catholics were caused mainly by the policy of Nicolae
Vogoride, appointed as princely lieutenant (caimacam)
by the Turkish authorities (from February 17, 1857 until October 1858).
Vogoride’s desire was to achieve the throne from Iaºi after the constitutional
re-organization of the Romanian Principalities. Nevertheless he was aware of
the fact that it was impossible for him to fulfill this aim if the political
union of the principalities was to become reality. Given the fact that the
political elites from Moldavia (and also from Wallachia) split in two parties,
unionists (called the Liberals or the “French party”) and anti-unionists (also
called the “Russo-Austrian party”), Vogoride, being secretly encouraged by the
Turkish government, supported the anti-unionist party. Unsurprisingly, the
Orthodox metropolitan Sofronie Miclescu remarked himself among the leaders of
the anti-unionists. On the other side, the Catholics supported the idea of the
union considering that their chances in acquiring the rights they claimed for
were much higher at Bucharest than at Iaºi. Moreover, unlike in the case of the
anti-unionists, the unionist idea seemed to be shared by a large majority of
the society. According to the decision taken in Paris, elections for the
General Assembly (Divanul ad hoc),
which had to decide the union of the two
p. 157
principalities, had to be
held. Vogoride decided to interdict the participation of the catholic
communities in the elections under the pretext that they were foreigners. An
anonymous report on Vogoride’s lieutenancy from June 1st 1857 noted:
“Il est de
notoriété publiques que les communes de paysans de religion catholique sont
pour l’union des Principautés. Sous prétexte que ces paysans sont étrangers, M.
Vogoridès vient de décider arbitrairement que les communes catholiques
ne seront pas représentées au Divan ad hoc. Or, l’on sait que ces paysans sont
depuis des siècles établis en Moldavie; qu’ils ont toujours été
considérés comme indigènes, relevant uniquement des autorités locales;
qu’il n’y a entr’eux et les autres paysans de différences que la religion; par
conséquent, ils ne sauraient être assimilés aux étrangers et privés des
droits nationaux qui leur appartiennent depuis des siècles.”[29]
The case of the Catholic Ioan Robu from Sãbãoani, elected
deputy for the Assembly ad hoc by the Catholic communities from the district of
Roman, and contested by the local prefect on the basis of his religion (in
fact, on the basis that he was a stranger, not a Moldavian citizen, as his
religion allegedly proved it) is very significant in this context[30].
The French consul in Iaºi, Victor Place, remarked the
position of the Moldavian Orthodox Church who actively sustained the
anti-unionist propaganda, mainly with a clear reference to the Catholicism seen
as a potential danger over the dominant religion of the country:
“Ainsi, j’ai
entre les mains un prétendu programme sans signature que l’on attribue
faussement aux unionistes valaques et dans lequel il est dit que l’union doit
avoir pour résultat le partage des terres et l’introduction du catholicisme au
lieu et place du rite grec. Ce sont là les deux points qui doivent les
plus écarter les esprits de l’idée de l’union, particulièrement le clergé.”[31]
To legitimize their political option the anti-unionists used
also arguments such as the danger for the Orthodoxy represented by a foreign
prince ruling over the united principalities (Victor Place noted in a telegram:
“Enfin, on avait fait valoir le danger que courrait l’orthodoxie sous un
Prince appartenant à un autre rite.”[32])
or the Catholicization of the Orthodox population from Austrian Bucovine
p. 158
(it was evoked the
catholicisation – in fact the adoption of the union - of two Orthodox villages
in this region)[33].
In such tensed atmosphere, De Stefano tried to carry a
prudent policy in order to spare the growing Orthodox susceptibilities. For
example, discussing the problem of adopting the Gregorian calendar by the
Catholics from Moldavia, De Stefano considered in 1856 that it was at least
premature to take such a decision due to the consequences possibly unfavorable
to his co-religionaries:
“[…] Confusione perche quando i cattolici avrebbero feste i
signori proprietari li spingerebbono al boeresco dicendo non esse giunta ancora
quella giornata. Quando sarebbe festa appo i signori proprietari non sarebbe
permesso ai cattolici contadini di faticare nel territorio di essi; ne
avverrebbe detrimento, perché in tal caso i nostri agricoli non osserverebbero
né le feste gregoriane, né alla giuliana e non adempirebbono ai precelli della
santa Madre Chiesa; e generalmente si bisbigliarebbe che i cattolici fanno
mutazione secondo aggrada loro e che sono amanti d’invazioni; e gli acattolici
prenderebbero ansa maggiore di chiamarci non cristiani. […] Ed
inconvenienti maggiori avverebeno in Moldavia se si volesse adottare ancor qui
la correzione gregoriana. Quinci la mia opinione la é di lasciare le cose in
statu quo.”[34]
As the Catholic bishop from Wallachia, Angelo Parsi,
suggested that the adoption of the Gregorian style should be imposed also to
the Moldavian Catholics, De Stefano made a request to his missionaries to give
an opinion on this issue[35].
The answer of the missionaries is relevant for the perspective of the Moldavian
mission:
“[…] ast nunc introducere correctionem Gregorianam moloestum fore
arbitramur sequentibus de causis:
1o
Cum maior pars fidelium Romano-Catholicorum huius missionis et principatus
Moldaviae in coloniis ruralibus domicilium habent, et vitae media manuum labore
in terra aliena sibi mereri cogatur omnesque et singuli nostri fideles praeter
Catholicos civitatum et oppidorum sint servi et subditi Boëronum, seu nobilium
Moldaviae, ad eorum nutum et mandato agriculturam et quosvis labores dominales
exercere coacti; item perenalis publicis patriae huius laboribus et oneribus
uti sunt viarum publicarum aedificatio, militiae transportatio etc. de iure
principatus sunt obnoscii kalendarium gregorianum observando. Festa de
praecepto principaliora uti sunt Nativitas Domini, Purificatio, Annunciatio,
p. 159
Assumptio
Deiparae etc. minime possens observare nam illa prouti huc adusque, non
coinciderens cum festis Graecorum observantibus iulianum kalendarium; in quo
observando consuetudo etiam Catholicis legem praescripsit, hic in Moldavia.
2o
Cum huius principatus incolae non sint novationum amantes et antiquis inhaerere
malint omnis repentina innovatio praesertim in divino cultu vaderet cum non
parvo molestia; atque differentiam introducendo in kalendario, maior adhuc
danetur heterodoxis ansa, sacrosanctam religionem romano-catholicam non esse
christianam criminandi; atque him cultus noster, maioribus adhuc exponi posses
odiis et calumniis. Dogma Catholicum et hoc competentes fideles ferientibus.”
However, at that moment it was obvious that the problem of
the calendar had also a clear political stake and it would have been an
imprudent initiative that could seriously endanger the position of the Catholic
Church in Moldavia in a very delicate moment.
After Vogoride’s intentions were discovered and the question
of the re-organization of the elections for the General Assembly was settled in
August 1857 at Osbourne, the first session of the new assembly opened on
September 20, 1857. On this occasion De Stefano, who assisted personally at the
opening ceremony, noted:
“Ieri con gran pompa si faceva la solenne apertura del Divano ad hoc per la riorganizzazione dei Principati. I Deputati componenti lo son tutti nomini di spirito e di buon senzo. Ci giovi sperare che nella nuova legislazione non vorranno escludere i Cattolici nativi del principato dai diritti patriotici, e vorranno proporre ed accordarci la libertà di culto da quale concessaci una volta, e tolto il servaggio, potremo con facilità e senza scalpore menare introdurre anche il calendario gregoriano e celebrare le feste nel giorno medesimo, in cui vengono celebrate da tutto il mondo cattolico. Epperó per viemaggiormente ció conseguire abbiamo soprattutto del forte appoggio della Francia, dalla quale dessi scismatici tutto speraro ed aspettano. E se la Francia fa tanto bene essi non dovra, non vorra senza dubbio porre in obblio quei di sua religione – e forze li dimentichera. Sol m’induce in qualche dubbio la presidenza del metropolitano al Divano ad hoc. Del metropolitano naturalmente inimico della religione cattolica. E perció prego la Eminenza Vestra Reverendissima di raccomandare anche dal conto suo questi cattolici o per meglio dire la religione cattolica in Moldavia agli ambasciatori delle Potenze e singolarmente a quello di Francia. In quanto a me non omisi di parlare con energia a tal uopo ai commisari di Francia, di Prussia, di Sardegna e di Austria, e tutti mi promisero di fare quanto sarà in essi, affinché i cattolici siano considerati al par degli abitanti di Moldavia. Mi raccomando alla maggior parte dei deputati, che conosco da molti anni, i quali mi fanno belle promesse e m’inspirano fiducia; ma saranno perplessi per non arrecare dispiacere il metropolitano la cui avversione al cattolicismo mi tiene in agitazione.”[36]
p. 160
On November 15, 1857, in the session of the Assembly the
fifth point of the twelve, which were established for debating was put in the
discussion of the deputies. I chose to provide here De Stefano’s own relation
on these debates considering it to be more significant for the subject of our
presentation:
“Il Divano ad hoc, salvo alcuni del clero, votó unanime la libertà del culto. Si repinge peró con maggiorità di pochi voti la proposizione dei diritti civili e politici da godersi da tutti gl’indigini della provincia di qualunque religione cristiana eglino si fossero. Per una si grave ingiuria fatta al cattolicismo – perchè gli acattolici dominanti pongono lo scisma per base del possesso di ogni diritto ne apellai alla Francia, all’Austria ed alla Commesione Europea in Bucaresti et [?] vi sperare che tale un appello produca il desiderato effetto. Sarebbe vergogna [?] indelebile per l’Austria e soprattutto per la Francia se tendendo la mano sollevatrice agli scismatici del paese lasciasser tanti cattolici sotto oppressione dei medesimi. Quei peró che del tutto non son privi del salute [?] comune e del buon senno non cessanto di dire che il Divano ad hoc portarsi in tal fatta operó contra ogni ragione; e che la Europa opererà da se. Nel quale Divano varii deputati, ma con calore e con tutta energia il signore [?] Michele Kogälnicianŭ perorarono la causa dei cattolici; e conchiusera ed il signore Costantino Negri nel loro lungo ragionare che i cattolici in particolare devono essere ammessi al godimento di tutti i diritti del pari gente attinente all religione dominante e perchè son in Moldavia ab antiquo [?], e perchè una con gli altri abitanti del principato di religione greca hanno sempre presso le armi a richiesta del principe per la difesa della medesima patria. Qual cosa vien confermata dalla presente milizia nazionale, la quale è composta solamente di cattolici moldavi e di scismatici con esclusione di altra gente. Conchiusero quei due che siccome gl’indigini cattolici portano tutti i pesi dello stato senza differenza dagli altri abitanti di loro religione; cosi essere giusto ed equo che sieno accordati loro tutti [?] quei medesimi dritti di cui fruiscono i loro confratelli di miserie e di servezza senza differenza veruna. I discorsi di due oratori specialmente signor Cogalnicianŭ furono lunghi i calorosi a pro degl’indigini cattolici il Cogalniciano propose che nella futura organizzazione i sacerdoti cattolici sieno considerati equalmente che gli scismatici e che siano del pari salariati [?] dal governo perchè possano attendere viemeglio al vantaggio spirituale dei popoli ed’alla cultura dei medesimi senza essere impicciati per Maestà negli affari temporali. Questa proposta fu approvata a pieni voti dell’Assemblea.
Per viemaggiormente animare questi signori bravissimi ed eloquenti Michele Cogãlnicianu e Costantino Negri, tenuti in gran stima dalla […?] del principato ad impegnarsi sempre più a pro della nostra santa religione l’odiata dai perversi, caldamente oso pregare Vestra Eminenza Reverendissima, e tale [?] la Sacra Congregazione onde benignamente inviino qualche oggetto di reconoscenza ai due sullodati signori. La missione, Eminenza, la Religione Cattolica in queste parti ha bisogno, ha necessità di uomini di tale un libro: abbisogna di forte appoggio! Molti fra la subblima nobiltà del paese desiderano ed ardentamente desiderano qualche decorazione in segno di eterna affezione del Santo Padre. Hanno fatto del bene, fanno alla chiesa cattolica e gliel saranno. Si querelano che Roma non ha veruna considerazione per essi; e dicono che con qualche distinzione provenientali della Santa Sede i cuori di loro, s’infervorerebbero sempre più e sempre più s’avvicinarebbero alla Santa Madre Chiesa Romana; ché romani di sangue si dicono, condotti in queste parti dallo Imperatore Trajano. Ma continuano, non esssendo
p. 161
per nulla considerati da Roma perdono il coraggio, e cosi tengonsi lontano, benché non tralascino di fare quei favori che ponno.
Su tal punto quindi – indotto messo dalla necessità, dal zelo della nostra religione in terra aliena mi ardisco dire – e Sua Eminenza non si s’isdegni – che per i benefattori acattolici i diplomi di aggregazione agli ordini cavallereschi potrebbe avere diversa formola, cioè in nome del sovrano di Roma senza fare menzione di censura… Con qualche simile diploma la religione cattolica si accattiveria l’animo e la benevolenza dei grandi del paese che essendo farcoltosi verrebbero ben volentieri in soccorso alle tante nostre misere chiese. Quindi rinnovo la calda preghiera a Vestra Eminentissima Reverendissima ed alla Sacra Congregazione di non porre in obblio i due menzionati signori. E la nostra S. Religione ne sentirà il vantaggio.”[37]
The Catholic bishop stressed the merits of the deputies
Mihail Kogãlniceanu and Constantin Negri who supported the idea of equality
between Catholic and Orthodox faithful in terms of civil and political rights.
The two politicians carried long discourses with many arguments trying to
convince the Assembly of the justice of the Catholic cause[38].
The result of the efforts carried by De Stefano was that the article 9 of the
future Convention of Paris debated by the assembly from Iaºi on November the 15th,
1857 had the following text (translation mine): “All the indigens sharing any Christian confession will acquire the same
political rights as the indigens sharing the Orthodox confession. […]”
Unfortunately, this text did not encounted the approval of
the majority of the deputies. While 36 voted favorably, 42 preferred to
postpone the debate of the article for the dicussion of the future Legislative
Assembly[39]. Thus, the
only text concerning the religious freedon whichremained in vigor was the 5th
point of the debate, approved as following (translation mine): “La religion dominante en Roumanie est la
religion orthodoxe d’Orient. L’exercice des cultes des autres religions
reconnues, sera libre, sauf la restriction prévue par les capitulations.”
Nonetheless, the appeals carried by De Stefano convinced the
Commision fom Paris to insert in the article 46 of the Convention from Paris
(the new constitutional establishment of the United Principalities of Moldavia
and Wallachia) the following principle: The
Moldavians and the Wallachians sharing
p. 162
any
Christian confession will acquire equally the political rights; the use of
these rights can be extended over other confessions on the basis of legal
dispositions.
As a conclusion, it is to be remarked here the fact that De
Stefano’s efforts to ensure the recognition of the Catholic communities as
citizens benefitting the same civil and political rights as the majority of the
citizens sharing the Orthodox confession was based mainly on the collaboration
with the diplomatic representatives of the Great Western Powers. De Stefano’s
success was in fact the result of the policy carried by France, England and the
Ottoman Empire in order to limit the Russian influence in the Balkans
(including here the Romanian principalities). It is an irony that Petersburg
itself was the first to use the religious argument, and, in 1856 and 1858 the
consequences of this policy reflected also in the social changes from Wallachia
and Moldavia.
The bishop Antonio de Stefano, nevertheless, has his own
merits. Seizing the good opportunity offered by the favorable political
circumstances is perhaps his main own merit. It is for the first time in the
history of the Catholic communities from Moldavia when such initiative took
place. To my opinion De Stefano’s actions were mainly determined by the fact
that in the conscience of the Catholic mission from Moldavia their
coreligionaires (at least from the countryside) represented an organic part of
the Moldavian society.
For this material, permission is granted for
electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and
personal use.
Whether you intend to utilize it in
scientific purposes, indicate the source: either this web address or the Quaderni
della Casa Romena 2 (2002): Occidente-Oriente. Contatti, influenze,
l’image de l’autre (a cura di Ion Bulei, ªerban Marin e Rudolf Dinu), Bucarest: Casa Editrice
Enciclopedica, 2003
No permission is granted for commercial use.
© ªerban Marin, June 2003, Bucharest, Romania
Back to Homepage
Quaderni 2002
[1] Pietro Tocanel (or
Petru Tocãnel, the author being a Romanian native), Storia della chiesa cattolica in Romania. III – Il vicariato apostolico
e le missioni dei frati minori conventuali in Moldavia. 2nd
part. Padua: Messaggero, 1965: 403-488. The
main merit of this book is that it succeeded in realizing a comprehensive
overview of the Catholicism in Moldavia in the modern and contemporary period. Perhaps it is interesting
to mention here that the book is very rare in Romania (somebody told me that
there is only one copy in the private library of the Roman Catholic
Archbishopric from Iaºi). It was cited only by the historians who dealt more or
less with the problems of Catholic communities from Moldavia, see for example
Dumitru Mãrtinaº in his Originea ceangãilor din Moldova [The
origin of the Csángos from Moldavia] (ed. by V. M. Ungureanu and Ioan Coja),
Bucharest: ªtiinþificã ºi Enciclopedicã, 1985 (see the bibliography compiled by
V. M. Ungureanu).
[2] See Pr. Iosif Petru M. Pal, Originea catolicilor din Moldova ºi franciscanii pãstorii lor de veacuri [The Origin of the Catholics from Moldavia and the Franciscans, their shepherds for centuries], Sãbãoani-Roman, 1942: 154. The book was written with clear political purposes: the author’s main aim is, beyond any other scientific approach, to demonstrate the Romanian origins of the Catholics from Moldavia.
[3] See Ibidem.
[4] The report is entitled “Relazione
della missione di Moldavia umiliola alla Sacra
Congregazione di Propaganda Fide da Mons. Antonio da Stefano, nato in Cicciano,
diocesi di Nola nel
regno di Napoli nel 23 dicembre 1808 religioso professo dell’ ordine dei Minori
Conventuali fatto vescovo Bendense in partibus visitator e prefetto apostolico
della medesima missione nel di 18 agosto 1849 alla occasione che gli fu
accordato di apentarsi per qualche mese della sua residenza e portargli in
Italia”. See Archives of the Sacra Congregazione di Propaganda Fide,
Rome, Fondo Scritture riferite nei congressi S. C., (hereinafter A. P. F.) vol.
11: 226-230 (the documents from vol. 11 of the above mentioned archive are also
available on microfilm copies in the National Archives of Romania, Bucharest,
(hereinafter A. N.) Microfilm collection Vatican, reel 42, copies which I used
for my documentation).
[5] For Gualerni’s report see
A. P. F., vol. 11: 268 (the report was issued on November 30, 1853, in Rome).
According to Tocanel, De Stefano was proposed by the majority of the Catholic
missionaries from Moldavia through a collective letter sent on June 26, 1849,
from the parish of Cleja to the Sacred Congregation Propaganda Fide (the letter was signed by 12 missionaries).
Consequently, the Congregation proposed De Stefano to the pope Pius IX, on
August 16, 1849. The pope accepted the proposal and nominated de Stefano bishop
of Benda in partibus infidelium two
days later. The official confirmation set in the papal decree issued on August
22, 1849. See Tocanel, op. cit.:
404-405. George Schmidt in his Romano-catholici per Moldaviam episcopatus
et rei romano-catholicae res gestae, Budapest, 1887: 150 wrongly noted that
De Stefano was elected bishop of Moldavia on August 28, 1848 (the information
was assumed also by Iosif M. Pal,
op. cit.: 154).
[6] See Tocanel, op. cit.: 407; Pal, op. cit.: 154.
[7] See A. P. F., vol. 11: 100
(see also A. N., Vatican collection, reel 41: 469).
[8] On December 1849 in the
custom of Iaºi were found in a box two books printed in Braºov in 1848, Katekismu crestinescu (The Christian
Catechism) and Kalea
Crucii, ascultarea sfintei Liturghii ºi metodul de a face o cuviincioasã
mãrturisire ºi spre a lua cu vrednicie sf. Komunicãturã pentru junimea
romano-catolicã [The way of the cross, the listening of the
Holy Liturgy and the method of making a proper confession and taking properly
the holy Eucharist for the Roman-Catholic youth]. The box was confiscated by
the authorities upon the metropolitan’s request under the pretext that the
content of the books was against the Orthodox precepts; moreover the religious
authority considered that the presence of a annotation on the first page pentru sholerii din Prinþipatul Moldovei
[for the scholars from the Principality of Moldavia] was meant to ensure a
large circulation of the book with a proselytizing aim (we can infer also that
the fact that these books were translated in Romanian increased the suspicions
of the metropolitan). Spatar Codrescu
decided that the two books were not under the interdiction of the state
censorship (a compromise was, however, made: the page with the annotation was
removed and the distribution of the books was strictly limited to the Catholic
environment). See Radu Rosetti,
“Despre censura în Moldova. IV. Censura sub Grigorie Ghica ºi desfiinþarea ei”
[On the censorship in Moldavia. IV. The censorship under Grigore Ghica’s rule
and its elimination], Analele Academiei
Române, Memoriile Secþiunii Istorice,
2nd series, tom 30, Bucharest: Carol Göbl, 1907: 4-5.
[9] See Rosetti, op. cit.: 5; Tocanel, op. cit.: 417-418.
[10] In a letter sent by de
Stefano to the Sacred Congregation on April 12, 1851, with the occasion of the
election of Miclescu (former bishop of Huºi) as metropolitan, the Catholic
bishop noted that ,,Ei non è contrario a noi, come lo furono i suoi
predecessori; ed allorché edificava la chiesa di Hussi mi regaló una buona
quantità di pietre per la fondamenta.”. See A. P. F. , vol. 11: 194
(A. N., Vatican collection, reel 41: 575).
[11] There were also physical
barriers (“physical” in the sense that they were perceived and accepted as such
by the two communities), in the sense that rural communities sharing different
confessions consequently shared different villages. Catholic and Orthodox
communities living in the same village (not in the same town where the social
structure was different) was a very rare situation, almost unconceivable. In a
letter sent to Cardinal Fransoni on May 30, 1855, from Bacãu, De Stefano
provided an interesting example: a man of Catholic confession, relative of a
certain Catholic missionary, who used to live in concubinage, being rebuked by
the bishop for his immoral behaviour, menaced “che se sara molestato,
prendera la donna con i figliuoli e se ne andare in qualche villaggio moldovano
e si ribattezzerà”. See Ibid.:
471.
[12] See A. P. F., vol. 11: 500
(A. N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 335-336).
[13] Ibidem. However, in
the Roman Catholic Church, a slightly different perspective on the Orthodox
Moldavians seems to have been shared. It is interesting to mention here the
opinion of the patriarchal vicar from Constantinople (the general supervisor of
the apostolic missions from Eastern Europe, appointed by Propaganda Fide): “Si aggiunga che le popolazioni di esse non
hanno quel fanatismo e quell’odio che hanno verso la Chiesa Cattolica i greci
scismatici del Levante e della Grecia”. See Ibidem: 533 (This
opinion was expressed in a letter sent on June 19, 1856, from Constantinople,
to the Cardinal Alessandro Barnabò, the secretary of the Propaganda Fide).
[14] Ibidem: 487.
[15] Immediately after prince
Mihail Sturdza put the Moldavian revolution to an expected end, the Orthodox
Church accused the Catholic West of trying to combat the Orthodoxy with the
help of the Ottoman Empire This accusation was a reaction to the proposal of
Constantinople made to the Holy See in 1848 to take under its protection all
the Christians from the Ottoman Empire (including also the Orthodox
commuities). See Tocanel, op.
cit.: 398.
[16] Also De Stefano noticed in
one of his letters sent in 1854 to Rome: “Stante i trattati la missione
cattolica é solamente tollerata nel principato; ed é inibito ai banditori dello
apostolico verbo di toccare qualche seguare dello scisma colla intenzione di
condurlo nel grembo della S. Madre Chiesa Cattolica Romana.” See A. P. F.:
396 (A. N., reel 42: 212).
[17] Tocanel, op. cit.: 423 (the author supported his
affirmation on the basis of a logical explanation: the Orthodox clergy could
have easily and successfully opposed to de Stefano’s initiative invoking the
law who banned the Catholics to carry up activities of proselytism (even if
that institution could be established exclusively for the Catholic youth).
Moreover, Russia’s position as self-declared protector of the Orthodoxy from
the Ottoman Empire legitimised the anti-western (and also the anti-Catholic)
attitude of the Moldavian Orthodox Church. The tsar Nicholas I expressed its
anti-western and anti-catholic feelings and opinions in the presence of members
of the Moldavian high society and sometimes gave recommendations to the
Moldavian authorities in the sense that the Moldavian youth should be educated
no more in the western educational establishments but in Russian schools and
universities – see Ibid. The hostility
of the Orthodox clergy towards the Catholic church manifested sometimes in
curious declarations, perceived as such even by his co-religionaries, as De
Stefano noted in his letters sent to Propaganda
Fide in 1854: “Il Metropolitano fanatico ha detto che il vescovo
cattolico non dovrebbe residere in Iassi, ma nessun gli ha detto ascolto”.
See A. P. F.: 395 (A. N., reel 42: 211).
[18] A. P. F., vol. 11: 228 (A.
N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 7).
[19] Ibidem: 360 (A. N.,
Vatican collection, reel 42: 161).
[20] A. P. F., vol. 11: 472 (A.
N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 297).
[21] In a letter sent from Iasi
on April the 1st, 1856, De Stefano noted: “Si è messo mano
per la edificazione di una chiesa in Piatra e per la installazione di un
sacerdote. Il tenente maresciallo, il Signor Conte Paar, comandante delle
regolare imperiale truppe austriache in questo principato, si e dato tutta la
cura onde tal opera religiosa si conduca alla bramata meta.” See in A. P.
F., vol. 11: 524 (A. N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 362-363).
[22] Tocanel, op. cit.: 445.
[23] For their support De
Stefano and Zapolski were granted medals by the Emperor Francis Joseph I; also
material support was granted for the Catholic churches from Grozeºti and
Brãila. See Tocanel, op. cit.:
447.
[24] Rosetti, op. cit.: 90, 100.
[25] The title of the book was Katechismu krestinescu pentru junimea
romano-catolicã, iar mai ales pentru cei în vrâsta (The Christian Catechism
for the Roman-Catholic youth, and, especially for the elders). See Tocanel, op. cit.: 447, footnote
5.
[26] See Tocanel, op. cit.: 448.
[27] See Ghenadie Petrescu, Dimitrie A. Sturdza, Dimitrie C. Sturdza, Acte ºi documente relative la istoria renascerei României [Acts and
Documents concerning the history of the renaissance of Romania], vol. 4,
Bucharest: Carol Göbl, 1889: 128-129.
[28] See A. P. F.: 582-583 (A.
N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 445-446).
At that time, De Stefano had already got some promises from the diplomatic
representatives of the Commission of Paris: “Abbiamo in Iassi da qualche
settimana i Commessari per la organizzazione dei Principati. I signori
commissari di Francia e di Sardegna baron Talleyrand e conte Benzi mi hanno
promesso che riunendosi in consiglio non perderanno di vista quello che
concerne la nostra santa religione e procureranno per quanto sarà in
essi, che anche i nostri cattolici indigeni godranno in appresso degli stessi
diritti che hanno gli altri indigeni acattolici.” See the letter sent on
April 18, 1857, in A. P. F.: 584 (A. N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 448-449).
[29]Acte ºi documente relative la istoria renascerei României, cit.: 814.
[30] Iosif Pal, Originea catolicilor, cit.: 19.
[31] Ibidem: III, 182
(telegram sent on March 31, 1857, to French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, count
Walewski).
[32] See Ibidem: 563 (the
telegram was sent to Walewski on June 2nd, 1856).
[33] Tocanel considered that the
two Orthodox communities willingly adopted the catholicisation as a convenient
way in order to more easily acquire civil and political rights). See Tocanel, op. cit.: 450.
[34] See A. P. F. vol. 11:
547-548 (A. N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 395).
[35] Parsi made this suggestion
to the Sacred Congregation as he had already introduced the Gregorian style in
Wallachia, but noticed that the Catholics preferred to follow the Julian style
arguing that also the Moldavian Catholics followed it. – See TOCANEL, 453. De
Stefano made his request on October 7, 1857. See A. P. F. vol. 11: 478 (A. N.,
Vatican collection, reel 42: 478).
[36] A. P. F., vol. 11: 611 (A.
N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 489).
[37] A. P. F., vol. 11: 712-713
(A. N., Vatican collection, reel 42: 613-615).
The letter was sent to the Sacred Congregation on January 10, 1858.
[38] These discourses can be
found in Bulletin des séances du Divan ad-hoc de Moldavie, no. 5 / November
18, 1857. Tocanel suggested that the major part of the arguments used by
Kogãlniceanu and Negri were provided by De Stefano. See Tocanel, op. cit.: 463, footnote 46.
[39] Tocanel argued that the
main reason for which the deputies of the Assembly from Iaºi rejected the text
of the article 9 was that they had in mind the Austrian policy in Bucovine,
considered as anti-Orthodox. See Tocanel,
op. cit.: 463.