Cathedral or Communist Mausoleum? Romanians Wrangle
Thu Jun 12, 8:17 AM ET
By Dina Kyriakidou
BUCHAREST (Reuters) - The huge gleaming stone arches jutting high into the sky from central Bucharest's Carol park are hardly the type of monument to give visitors goose bumps.
Built as a mausoleum for dead communist dictators, the feeling which the structure usually evokes among the capital's 2 million residents is unease about the Balkan country's tragic past during 40 years behind the Iron Curtain.
But plans by the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate to build a huge cathedral in its place have ignited the country's hottest church-versus-state debate since the 1989 collapse of communism.
The Patriarchate says the cathedral for 4,000-5,000 people would finally fill the need for a big church in the Romanian capital after decades of communism that largely outlawed religion and destroyed 18 historic churches in Bucharest.
Putting a Byzantine-style church on top of the mausoleum has prompted heated arguments on television and in newspapers, pitting the devout against defenders of the monument.
"This monument is not related now to any political or ideological souvenir. It's only a work of art," Culture Minister Razvan Theodorescu, the main defender of the dark, cold 1960s structure, told Reuters.
COMMUNIST MAUSOLEUM
The five granite and marble arches that meet about 164 feet high in the sky top a circular building where the remains of Romania's first communist leader Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej and other senior party members were laid to rest.
After the 1989 revolt that overthrew dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, the bodies were removed from the building which sits on an artificial hill reached by monumental steps across a pond.
"This monument does nothing but remind us of the sadness of an era we shouldn't remember. I don't see why there's so much fondness for a monument which turns us back to our 50 years of suffering," theology professor Nicoale Necula told a TV debate.
Named "The Monument to the Heroes in the Fight for People's Freedom and the Country, For Socialism," the building is now empty, off bounds to visitors.
"The mediocrity of this monument is devastating," Sorin Dumitrescu, an artist and president of the Anastasia Foundation, told Antena1 TV. "The Patriarchate is doing us a favor by ridding us of such an evil symbol. We should be glad."
Others say that building a cathedral will not exorcise the Romanian Orthodox church's controversial past, clouded by accusations of collaborating with Ceausescu's repressive communist government.
Mirroring the country's reluctance to deal with dark chapters of its history, the church has yet to answer accusations of complicity with the communists and failure to protest the demolition of centuries-old churches in the 1980s.
It has yet to investigate priests accused of working as informers for the feared Securitate secret service. Securitate files remain locked away despite public outrage.
"A cathedral is not an urgency for our spiritual life," historian and former culture and foreign minister Andrei Plesu told Reuters. "The church should begin by making a sincere confession (about its past sins)."
CATHEDRAL KEY FOR CHURCH
The Patriarchate has defended itself by saying that keeping a low profile during communism at least kept the churches open, as opposed to Albania where religion was banned altogether, that many of its priests were imprisoned and church-goers persecuted.
The $200 million cathedral seems to play a key part in the church's efforts to redefine its role in post-communist Romania.
A church spokesman told Reuters that spending so much on a new church instead of helping the poor in a country where monthly salaries average $130 was nothing to be ashamed of.
"Since the revolution in Romania the church has built a lot of social buildings," said Father Stoica. "But we also need churches as places of worship."
Others agree that Bucharest needs a big church but say the huge communist monument should be moved, not destroyed, a view that appears to be gaining ground among officials.
"I see it as a place where the nation can gather...where thousands, tens of thousands of people can come like in Rome's St Peter's square," historian Dan Berindei told Antena1.
But he said it should not be necessary to tear down the existing structure, which was part of the country's past -- however bleak -- and as such must be preserved.
"I am against tearing down any monument," Berindei said. "It represents a moment in the development of (our) architecture. The monument should be moved, not demolished."