Răzvan Mihai Clipici, the head of the Culture subdepartment of the Culture, Painting and Restoration Sector of the Patriarchal Administration, published an article with historical data about the priests Ilarion Felea, Ilie Lăcătusu, and Dumitru Stăniloae in response to various accusations that appeared in the public space after their canonization announcement.
These three deceased theologians and clergymen suffered under communism, however Holocaust researchers are protesting that in the 1930s and 40s these clergymen openly campaigned for the Romanian fascists who carried out pogroms against Jews. They argue that there is no written evidence that any of them ever regretted their support.
Recently, the public sphere in Romania has seen numerous opinions both for and against the canonization of 16 saints decided by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church at its working session on July 11-12, 2024.
The news of these canonizations has brought great joy to most clergy and believers, as these saints already have a well-established devotion in the Romanian people’s consciousness.
Some expressed doubts about certain aspects of the lives of the canonized fathers, which at first glance seem controversial or sometimes even misunderstood.
Surely, many of those who have such doubts have a sincere desire to know the truth and to be assured of the holiness of these great spiritual fathers, who have demonstrated their humility and boundless love under conditions of torture and humiliation. Some of them even paid with their lives for their testimony of faith.
These three deceased theologians and clergymen suffered under communism, however Holocaust researchers are protesting that in the 1930s and 40s these clergymen openly campaigned for the Romanian fascists who carried out pogroms against Jews. They argue that there is no written evidence that any of them ever regretted their support.
Recently, the public sphere in Romania has seen numerous opinions both for and against the canonization of 16 saints decided by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church at its working session on July 11-12, 2024.
The news of these canonizations has brought great joy to most clergy and believers, as these saints already have a well-established devotion in the Romanian people’s consciousness.
Some expressed doubts about certain aspects of the lives of the canonized fathers, which at first glance seem controversial or sometimes even misunderstood.
Surely, many of those who have such doubts have a sincere desire to know the truth and to be assured of the holiness of these great spiritual fathers, who have demonstrated their humility and boundless love under conditions of torture and humiliation. Some of them even paid with their lives for their testimony of faith.
Hieromartyr Ilarion Felea
The hieromartyr Ilarion Felea’s association with the Legionary Movement must be understood in the context of the era. After King Carol II’s abdication and the establishment of the national-legionary regime, political interference in church matters caused significant internal turmoil in ecclesiastical life.
In this situation, dialogue was needed to bring the clergy and faithful people back to the path of reason and balance. For this dialogue, people with notoriety and authority were chosen. Among these persons was also Father Ilarion Felea, who joined the Legionary Movement in November 1940 out of obedience to his hierarch, Bishop Andrei Magieru of Arad, to maintain a state of balance and discernment among the clergy and young sympathizers of this movement, becoming the head of the “St. John Chrysostom” group, in reality, a reflection group of priests addressing ecclesiastical issues.
Acting as a representative of the Church and not as a politically engaged person, Father Ilarion Felea demonstrated a balanced attitude, defending the autonomy of the Church and its non-involvement in risky political projects.
The strictly contextual nature of his enrollment in the Legionary Movement is also shown by the fact that he ceased all activity related to this political affiliation only two months after this moment.
Regarding his disagreement with the legionary horrors, Father Ilarion confessed: “Any friendship or sympathy with former legionaries I broke off once the rebellion occurred because hearing about the looting of Jewish houses, about beatings, I as a priest could not accept such things, then my subsequent sufferings without any fault of my own, simply falling victim to circumstances beyond my will, distanced me even more from anyone who was part of the Legionary Movement. That is why I avoid them wherever I meet them.”
The news of Father Ilarion’s testimony of faith and martyrdom surpassed the country’s borders. The American magazine “The Orthodox Word,” published by Saint Herman Press, dedicated issue 315 of 2017 to Father Ilarion Felea.
The edition evokes the priest’s personality and presents two chapters from the Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, under the coordination and translation of Diana Suvak. In the magazine’s presentation text, it is stated:
“This issue of ‘The Orthodox Word’ presents the biography of a Christian hero who suffered in Romanian prisons during the more than forty years of communist rule in this country. Father Ilarion Felea, a married priest with two children, was a significant servant, researcher, theologian, and remarkable author whose works are still highly appreciated and studied today. The great Romanian theologian, Father Dumitru Stăniloae, states, ‘Father Ilarion surpassed me… I translated the Philokalia, but he truly lived it.’ For his uncompromising stance towards Christ, he was arrested three times. During his final incarceration in the infamous Aiud prison, he became the foremost spiritual father and guide for the prisoners. His martyrdom occurred in 1961.”
Confessor Priest Ilie Lăcătușu
The claim that Confessor Priest Ilie Lăcătușu was a group leader during the National Legionary State is not documented; Securitate officers attributed it to the priest based on denunciations accompanied by much contradictory information.
Father Ilie Lăcătușu’s association with the Legionary Movement was formal and very brief in time and activity. Apart from distributing electoral posters for the Iron Guard during his student years before its prohibition, which in itself is not evidence of supporting an ideology or party, there was no evidence of pro-legionary activity.
Moreover, the Securitate did not consider Father Ilie’s arrest either the personal records made by the Vâlcea Gendarmerie Legion in 1933 and 1934 or the statement given to the dean of Mehedinți County in 1941 by Father Ilie, but the denunciations of some people from Buicești, as well as the statements given by the priest in detention under the physical and psychological pressures specific to the investigation and prison environment.
In the statement given by Father Ilie on March 17, 1941, before the dean of Mehedinți County, Gheorghe Stoichițescu, and the secretary, he stated the following: “Regarding the unfair accusations brought against me by the teacher Diaconu from the village of Buicești – MH, I declare the following: Understanding to respond to the call of the Leader of the State, I joined the Legionary Movement with the purest intentions, thinking of sacrifice for the good of the Nation and the Homeland, working with wisdom and tact in my role as an educator in this civic-national-patriotic guidance. Concerned with these thoughts and imbued with the consciousness of the mission of the priestly garment and prestige, I have not done disgraceful deeds and given cause for stumbling to the good because I was armed not with ammunition and killing weapons that I never had either promised or in possession, but I had, despite all the enemies, faith in God and respect for every man. Working in evangelical love, I proceeded in the surplus time allowed by church matters to this social work, not in gossip, defamation, nor the company of fools or ruffians, as the teacher Al. Diaconu qualifies my dear parishioners, although they are the village’s most unblemished, diligent, and distinguished sons. […] From the Holy Altar, I called, I proclaimed through sermons the will of the Lord Christ, by no means political allusions and apologies […]. No name of any legionary sector leader was mentioned at the divine services. Nor was I asked to do so, but I prayed with the good Romanians and Christians with much zeal to God that in these times of severe trials for mankind, plagued by the spirit of enmity brother to brother, to give much power in love and deeds and hundredfold help to our King, the Leader of the State and his entire government. […] My conduct in bearing and word was appropriate anytime and anywhere. To my love for the parishioners whom I never threatened with intemperate words, I was always responded to, and I am still responded to today with the most enthusiastic love. Ample proof of this is the lively reaction to the cunning and malice of some who try to find me guilty unjustly. This explains the participation of the village community in such large numbers in this investigation to openly wither the bold attack on my honour by Mr Al. Diaconu and his narrow band of people at odds with common sense and Christian morality. His baseless insinuations, increasingly vicious in substance, culminate in the ingenious oddity, bringing me the infamous accusation that I was called to take up arms and ammunition and that I guided the inhabitants to arm themselves and follow me into Rebellion. What could have been concocted in his imagination by a heart poisoned by personal malice and hatred that the complainant has borne for me for so long, daily occupied with the thought of how to make me fall because I did not indulge in cheap parties with him. […] Therefore, with a clear conscience that I am not tainted by the accusations brought against me out of malice and that I had not done disgraceful deeds in the short time when the Legionary Movement was at the helm of the Country alongside Mr. General Antonescu, I believe in the victory of the truth over the accusations brought against me and I await with humility a just qualification of those fictitious incriminations brought to me by Mr. Al. Diaconu and his followers.”
Father Ilie’s detailed statement about the deeds committed, especially those not committed, clarifies his perception of membership in the Legionary Movement. If, during his student years, his status as a member of the “Oltețul de Jos” group meant, according to documents drawn up by the Gendarmerie, the distribution of electoral posters by 1940-1941, it was more about submission to State authority, to the ruling party, without this meaning promoting legionary ideas, without disturbing the community’s life or that of any person, without using force or hatred against anyone, “faith in God and respect for every man” being the principle by which the priest guided himself.
Teacher Diaconu’s complaint would create significant problems for Father Ilie, as he recalled many years later. On April 20, 1967, the source “Angelescu” informed the Securitate about the discussion he had on April 6, 1967, with Priest Ilie Lăcătușu.
He states that: “He then told me that he suffered a lot, that he was imprisoned, that his children died, leaving him with only a daughter. He was doing his ‘mea culpa,’ saying that he alone was to blame, that he didn’t regret his own suffering, but that his family suffered and he lost his children because of him. When I asked him what he was guilty of, he replied that it was for political activity with the Legionary Movement. He then told me that he wasn’t registered but attended six meetings of the Legionnaires, and because he was held in high respect and authority in the commune, they were determined to recruit him. Again, he repeated his guilt both towards the authorities and his family, stating that he personally deserved the punishment. From our discussions, he gave the impression of a sincere man who had radically restructured his life views. He is an honest and hardworking man, collaborates with local state authorities, and has earned the sympathy and trust of the residents of Gârdești in just two years.”
Regarding Father Ilie Lăcătușu’s regret and distancing from his association with the Legionary Movement, Security Captain Răduț Constantin wrote in an informative note: “Lăcătușu Ilie is listed in records for the issue of former convicts and is under informational surveillance through the commune file. The note indicates that he regrets his past actions and has a good stance. As a result of his position being confirmed by other agents as well, proposals will be made to classify this suspect in the passive category.”
Regarding the so-called lack of empathy towards the deported, we have no documentary evidence to confirm or deny this assumption. However, this hypothesis is disproved when considering his attitude towards his fellow inmates in suffering. Hieromonk Nicolae Marinescu, the abbot of Sitaru Monastery, remembered Father Ilie with reverence, testifying that:
“In his presence, any malice faded. He was so gentle and patient that those around him felt ashamed of the malice that consumed them. He spoke very little, but his words filled your heart with spiritual joy. It is no wonder that even after death, the Father’s body soothes the souls of believers who come near him.”
The daughter of Priest Nicolae Stăncescu, a former political prisoner, also testifies to the sacrificial love of Father Ilie for those in suffering. She stated in an article how much good Father Ilie did for her father, weakened by the tortures he had endured, by taking over the heavy tasks he had to perform during detention.
Thus, Silvia Stoia noted: “Daddy spent the entire period of detention (until 1964) at Periprava alongside Father Ilie. My father was frail after the extermination regime he had been subjected to. At one point, they worked together as masons. Father Ilie was the only one who accepted my father on his team, as weak and sick as he was. When their fellow sufferers’ strength dwindled, a few priests, including Father Ilie, would give up their bread portions and subsist only on a piece of flatbread. Father Ilie was quiet, kind to everyone, and very humble. My father had a special impression of Father Ilie and thought highly of him.”
In light of such testimonies and many others that demonstrate the Father’s empathy and sacrificial love for those in suffering, the hypotheses that Father Ilie lacked empathy for the deported or that he compiled lists of adversaries of the Legionary Movement to be shot are improbable.
The Confessor Priest Dumitru Stăniloae
The alleged Legionary sympathies of the Confessor Priest Dumitru Stăniloae never existed. Although the communists attempted to show during interrogations that his articles published in various magazines had a Legionary character, Father Stăniloae testified otherwise.
He declared: “I have never been part of a Legionary organization and do not acknowledge having carried out Legionary activity. […] I had no connections with those elements concerning Legionary activities; rather, I mention that my connections with them were strictly professional. […] I did not write articles of any character other than religious.”
Father Dumitru Stăniloae distanced himself from the Legionary Movement upon his release from detention on January 15, 1963. Thus, he confessed: “I am not a Legionary and never have been. Nevertheless, I took a stand against the murders practiced by the Legionaries as early as 1936, not under the influence of their later failures, and this can be a guarantee of objectivity.”
The presence of articles signed by Father Dumitru Stăniloae, which included ideas supporting the Legionary Movement, must be interpreted in the context of the era. These articles were subject to censorship, which in some cases required the inclusion of such laudatory passages about the regime.
Some mention Father Dumitru Stăniloae’s formal collaboration with the Securitate. It must be remembered that he signed two commitments, in 1963 and 1971, under pressure from the communist authorities. The context in which the 1963 commitment was signed is that he was not allowed employment as a professor at the Theological Institute or as a serving priest in Bucharest.
The regime’s opposition to Father Stăniloae’s return to the pulpit or the holy altar is evident in address no. 1200/April 12, 1963, from the Department of Religious Affairs, Direction of Representatives, which states: “The leadership of the Archdiocese intended to appoint him as a professor at the Theological Institute or as a priest in the Capital, which we did not agree with, but we agree that he be recognized in the position of office head.”
On September 9, 1963, Father Dumitru Stăniloae requested an audience with the Secretary General of the Department of Religious Affairs, Dumitru Dogaru, to discuss his appointment to the position proposed by the Romanian Patriarchate. Following this meeting, constrained by the situation, on September 17, 1963, Father Stăniloae signed the collaboration agreement with the Securitate.
Proof of Father Stăniloae’s refusal to collaborate de facto with the Securitate is a report note from November 7, 1972, in which the Securitate officer wrote about Father Dumitru Stăniloae as follows:
“Throughout his collaboration with our bodies, he was directed to some elements in his entourage, known for their political and criminal records, about whom he provided very little information, mostly superficial. He often refused to come to meetings, claiming he was sick, which was not always true. In 1971, we had a discussion with him to correct his position, in which the head of the office also participated. On this occasion, we referred to his weak contribution to the collaboration, but he stated that he had no matters of interest for our bodies. On other occasions, he was asked to provide information about certain elements known for hostile manifestations, but he openly declared that he ‘did not want to harm anyone.’”
Another document proving Father Stăniloae’s non-collaboration with the regime’s repressive organs is the characterization made in 1973 by the Securitate officer tasked with maintaining contact with him. He noted: “From the data we possess, it results that ‘Ion Văleanu’ [the codename assigned to Father Stăniloae – ed.] was insincere in his collaboration with our bodies, even having a hostile attitude, for which he is under surveillance through D.U.I. [informative surveillance – ed.].”
Considering the documents created by the Securitate and kept at the National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives, the accusations made by some people claiming that Father Dumitru Stăniloae was a collaborator of the Securitate are entirely unfounded.
Father Dumitru Stăniloae encouraged many prisoners to have courage and testify to their faith in front of atheist persecutors through his love and words. Regarding this, Ilie Tudor, a fellow detainee with Father Dumitru, testified:
“The great theologian, who spoke to us every evening. He was weak, and his voice was hard to hear, and that is why when he spoke, there was perfect silence. Eight priests were there with us, including a Greek-Catholic bishop, who absorbed his words with respect and religiosity. […] Could there be talk of hunger or cold? Of suffering or disbelief in the power of faith? Could there be talk of revenge or hatred? All melted away at the gentle voice full of the Holy Spirit of the weakened one in body, in whom only the soul was gigantic. The most brilliant representative of Orthodoxy was also carrying his cross for the glory of Christ. He was like a Byzantine saint lost among so many condemned, themselves defenders of the ancestral church and the nation crucified by atheists. In those conditions, his words were a balm, an unexpected gift for the multitude of martyrs who were to fill the crossless cemetery on the outskirts of Aiud, where the town’s residents dumped garbage. The love that poured from his lectures kept us from hunger and warmed us. […] I tried to give him my sheepskin coat to put under him, and he refused with a firm hand gesture. ‘No! My dear! You have a long sentence! Don’t be foolish! Preserve yourself as much as you can! We don’t know how long we will be here; I … the will of the Lord! In a few days, we will return to the cellular; it is not as cold as here, and we are more protected.’ I insisted, but I could not convince him. At night, we would cover each other. Sometimes, I would cover him; sometimes, I felt him trying to cover me. That’s what everyone did. The concern for the other was the characteristic trait of the attitude imposed by Christian love. The spirit of sacrifice was not just words, in the most cursed prison where we melted away. We stayed there between Zarcă and the cellular isolations for about ten days while the general cleaning lasted.”
Many have wondered whether or not the three canonized fathers expressed repentance for their political affiliations. Although all publicly testified their disagreement with the actions of the Legionary Movement, they all suffered in communist prisons, being tortured and humiliated for their faith.
But above all, their life change was continuously directed towards the perfect model of the Saviour Christ. They confessed their sins before their spiritual fathers, seeking through the work of prayer and virtues to perfect themselves and to serve the faithful they shepherded with much dignity, encouraging them in faith during times of atheist persecution.
Source