Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite (1857–1918)

Mihaela Bedecean PhD Researcher

The idea of a Greek-Catholic Metropolitan See had circulated among the higher clergy ever since the eighteenth century, return- ing in full force in the mid-nineteenth century, in the context of the 1848 Revolution.1 The ministerial conference held in Vienna on 18 November 1850 regarded the decision to re-establish the Romanian Greek-Catholic Metropolitanate as a solution that would prove favourable both to the church and the state. The imperial decree of 12 December 1850, announcing the reactivation of the Greek-Catholic Metropolitan See of and the establishment of the episcopal sees of Gherla and Lugoj,2 was submitted to the Vatican so that the pontifical authorities could draft the project for the organization of the new province.3 The founding papal bull “Apostolicum Ministerium,”

1 On the establishment of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Metropolitanate, see O. Bârlea, “Metropolia Bisericii Române Unite proclamată în 1855 la ,” in Perspective, 1987, X, no. 37–38, pp. 215–216; George Bariţiu, Părţi alese din istoria Transilvaniei pe 200 de ani în urmă, vol. II, second edition, ed. Ştefan Pascu, Florin Salvan, Braşov, 1994, p. 670; Nicolae Bocşan, Naţiune şi confesiune în Transilvania în secolul al XIX-lea: cazul mitropoliei române, în Etnie şi confesiune în Transilvania (sec. XIII–XIX), : Edit. Cele trei Crişuri, 1994, pp. 147–148; Ioan Mircea, “Demersurile prelaţilor români greco-catolici pentru statutul mitropolitan,” in Anuarul Institutului de Istorie Cluj- Napoca, 1996, XXXV, pp. 184–208; Mihaela Bedecean, Presa și bisericile româneşti din Transilvania (1865–1873), Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2010, pp. 49–55. 2 The Greek-Catholic parish of Lugoj was founded in 1836. 3 Nicolae Bocşan, Ana Victoria Sima, “Înfiinţarea şi organizarea Mitropoliei greco-catolice româneşti,” in Biserica Română Unită cu Roma, greco-catolică: istorie şi spiritualitate. 150 de ani de la înfiinţarea Mitropoliei Române Unite cu Roma, greco-catolică la Blaj, ed. Cristian Barta, Z. Pintea, Blaj: Edit. Buna Vestire, 2003, pp. 361–375.

[135] Mihaela Bedecean

Mihaela Bedecean issued on 26 November 1853,4 sanctioned the new status of Romanian Greek-Catholicism and demanded the enforcement, in the territory, of the organization directives enacted in and Blaj. The new ecclesiastical creation included also a diocese in the Banat, whose residence was fixed in Lugoj. The first Bishop of Lugoj, Alexandru Dobra,5 was appointed under the imperial decree of 17 March 1854. Rome’s confirmation of Dobra in the episcopal see was validated by the papal bull “Apostolatus Officium,” issued on 17 November 1854, and the bishop’s installation occurred on 21 September 1856. At the time of its establishment, the Diocese of Lugoj included 113 parishes with nearly 52,000 parishioners,6 comprising communities that had been removed from the Diocese of Oradea and the archdiocese, their number growing over the coming years.7 From a territorial-adminis- trative standpoint, the authority of the diocese encompassed six coun- ties: Arad, Torontal, Timiș, Caraș, Hunedoara and Lower Alba, with a greater number of parishioners in the area of Hunedoara.8 Given the context of new beginnings, what was required was an internal reorganization of all the component structures, consistent with the realities of the recently formed diocese. The new circum- stances were marked by difficulties and obstacles in the way of solving problems pertaining to the infrastructure of the young diocesan body, its patrimony, the purchase of suitable premises for its needs, its mea- gre endowment, as well as the lack of qualified priests and teachers. During the first decades after its establishment, the Greek-Catholic Diocese of Lugoj encountered major material difficulties, including the lack of estates and land, or the need to find a location for the diocesan offices; this problem was to be solved only during the time of Bishop Ioan Olteanu, who, after repeated requests, received the

4 Alexandru Grama, Istoria Basericei Românesci unite cu Roma de la începutul creştinismului până în zilele noastre, Blaj: Edit. Seminarului Arhidiecezan, 1884, pp. 556–557; Nicolae Bocșan, Camelia Vulea, La începuturile episcopiei Lugojului. Studii şi documente, Cluj- Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2003, pp. 156–163. 5 Alexandru Dobra (1794–1870), born in the village Şopteriu, Cluj County (the present-day county of Bistriţa-Năsăud). He carried out theological studies in Pest and Vienna, and was Bishop of Lugoj in 1854–1870. 6 Dieceza Lugoşului. Şematism istoric publicat sub auspiciile P.S.S.D.D. Dr. Demetriu Radu episcop gr.-cat. de Lugoş pentru Jubileul dela Sânta Unire de 200 de ani dela înfiinţarea aceleiaşi dieceze de 50 ani, Lugoj, 1903, p. 93. /Hereinafter Şematism Lugoj, 1903/. 7 N. Bocșan, C. Vulea, op. cit., p. 26. 8 Luminița Wallner-Bărbulescu, Zorile modernității. Episcopia greco-catolică de Lugoj în perioada ierarhului Victor Mihályi de Apşa, Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2007, p. 49.

[136] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite sum of 35,000 fl. from the government authorities, with which he pur- chased the building where the episcopal residence was established. Another obstacle that had to be removed was the lack of unifor- mity in the diocese, including as regards its economic development. The Transylvanian part of the diocese was poorer than its western, Banatian counterpart, and this led to the precarious material endow- ment of the archpresbyteriates of Hunedoara, reflected in the diffi- cult financial situation of the parishes and the schools there. A draw- back for the eastern part of the diocese consisted in the absence of the patronage institution, which operated successfully in the Banatian area, with beneficial consequences for the material welfare of the par- ishes.9 In an attempt to improve the financial situation of the under- privileged parishes, the diocese repeatedly requested assistance from the government authorities, under the provisions of the Concordat between the Austrian Empire and the . In parallel, recourse was made to the metropolitan funds for supplementing the income of the priests. These efforts also included the bishop’s proposal that part of the celibate priests’ estate should remain with the diocese, so as to increase the diocesan funds. Despite these joint efforts, insufficient material resources remained a constant concern, transmitted to the subsequent bishops. To cope with the lack of clerical staff in Greek-Catholic communi- ties of the diocese, the bishop ordained, after 1857, several priests, who were chosen from the ranks of the community, but also in keeping with the idea of maintaining the priestly tradition within the family. As such, the sons of several priests were steered toward Blaj and the Latin seminaries, after graduation, returning to their native villages. The problem was perpetuated over the following years, so Bishop Olteanu opened a 2-year course of theology in Lugoj, which ran from 1873 until 1876, solving the problem of the lack of qualified priests. Bishop Alexandru Dobra began the difficult mission of internal organization, which was to integrate the new diocesan structures into a unitary whole. The establishment of the chapter was part of these efforts. In the two newly created Dioceses of Lugoj and Gherla, the institution of the chapter was born at the same time as the establish- ment of episcopal see. As such, one of Dobra’s main concerns after occupying the Banatian see was the founding of the capitular body. The chapter of the cathedral church in Lugoj was founded, having six

9 Gh. Ciuhandu, Patronatul ecleziastic ungar în raport cu drepturile statului român, Arad: Tiparul Tipografiei Diecezane, 1928, 211 p.; L. Wallner-Bărbulescu, op. cit., p. 86.

[137] Mihaela Bedecean canonical stalls. For a long time, the Chapter of Lugoj did not have its own organizational statutes, as the canons’ duties were not regulated under written enactments, with clear and rigorous provisions,10 but functioned under unwritten rules, adapted to the circumstances. The canons’ responsibilities were related mainly to the assistance they had to provide the bishop with in managing the diocese, as they served as referents in the ecclesiastical, administrative and educational matter of the episcopal bodies, gave communion to the bishop with the holy sacraments at the hour of his death, oversaw his solemn funeral and elected the vicar capitular during the episcopal vacancy (sedis vacan- tis). To these essential tasks were added the daily celebration of divine service in the cathedral church, the spreading of the teachings of the Greek- across the diocese, the delivery of sermons, theological and moral teachings, visits to the ecclesiastical commu- nities, regular meetings in capitular sessions and the administration of the diocesan funds and foundations, an important responsibility given the importance of these resources for the proper functioning of the diocese. At the installation ceremony of the first Banatian chapter on 12 April 1857, Bishop Dobra took the opportunity to describe, in his speech, the portrait of a model canon, with an impeccable moral conduct, asking the capitular members to set an example worth fol- lowing, by fulfilling their mission and demonstrating their outstand- ing human qualities.11 The bishop recommended them to distinguish themselves through the activity they carried out and also to be aware of their calling. The proposal for filling the canonical stalls belonged to the bishop, who referred to the emperor’s attention three nominations for each of the canonical stalls. Following the episcopal recommenda- tions, the imperial consent and Rome’s approval, under the resolu- tion of 15 January 1857, the emperor appointed the first canons of Lugoj. Promotion to the canonical stalls was gradual, with very few

10 These tasks were to be laid down for the entire metropolitan province only in the First Provincial Council of the Greek-Catholic Church, see Conciliul Provincial Prim al Provinciei Basericecsi greco-catolice Alba Iulia și Făgăraș ținut la anul 1872, Blaj, 1882, pp. 37–40. /Hereinafter Concilul Provincial 1872/; Ioan Rațiu, Instituțiunile dreptului bisericesc, Blaj, 1877, pp. 332–338; 340–348; Iosif Papp-Szilágyi, Enchiridion juris ecclesiae orientalis catholicae, Oradea, 1880, pp. 142–145; Nicolae Brânzeu, “Capitlurile catedrale. Notițe despre drepturile și datoriile canonicilor,” in Cultura creștină, 1942, XXII, no. 10–12, pp. 553–564. 11 For the speech Bishop Alexandru Dobra gave on the occasion of the installation of the first canons in the Diocese of Lugoj, see N. Bocșan, C. Vulea, op. cit., pp. 349–355.

[138] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite exceptions caused by moral motivations, the rungs at the basis of the scheme being the first to be occupied. The appointment of the new canons was an important event in the life of the diocese, which was granted due solemnity. The designation of the canons had to take into account several rules, in the sense that those appointed had to have theological studies, a bachelor’s degree or a doctorate in Theology, to be over 24 years of age, and have a morality beyond reproach.12 Regarding the rights of the canons of Lugoj, they were the same as in the entire Catholic Church: the right to wear the canonical insignia, the title of address Reverendissimus, the right to a salary,13 to vote in the chapter, etc. The actual activity of the Chapter of Lugoj started in September 1857, when the first capitular meetings were held. From the establish- ment of the Greek-Catholic Diocese of Lugoj until 1918, 23 canons served in the chapter of the cathedral church. Much has been written about some of these canons and there is a rich historiography, but we know very little about others, as the bibliographic information is scarce and difficult to uncover. Still, the abundance of the sources is directly proportional with the reputation of the character in question. Personalities with distinct individualities, with their own ambitions and egos, with conducts that may have aroused suspicions at times, both in the ecclesiastical milieus and in the civil society, these canons each had their own personality and often came into conflict with those around them, especially under circumstances that would have neces- sitated the capitular body functioning on the grounds of collaboration between its members. Gradual promotion within the chapter, the can- ons’ duties, their relations with the hierarch, the superior position of the capitular provost – all these influenced, to some extent, the inter- personal relationships between the chapter members, which ranged, in certain situations, from cordial rapports to conflicting states. In this study, we intend to outline the dynamics of the relations between

12 Ioan Rațiu, op. cit., p. 345. 13 The canons’ endowment ranged between 1,800 and 1,000 fl., as annual salaries allocated from the “treasure of the country,” hence paid by the state and fixed by the decree of April 1857, issued by the Minister of Religious Denominations. To the annual salary, there was awarded an annual stipend of 600 fl. for the provost, 500 fl. for the reader and 400 fl. for the other canons to cover accommodation expenses; see Şematism Lugoj, 1903, p. 124. These emoluments remained unchanged until the turn of the twentieth century, which generated constant grievances, expressed in reiterated petitions to the Ministry of Religious Denominations, which demanded an increase in the revenue of the capitular members.

[139] Mihaela Bedecean the members of the chapter, between the canons and the hierarchs of Lugoj, the connections they engaged in with the political environ- ment, with the entourage of the episcopal see, and, not least, to cap- ture the types of behaviour and conduct exhibited by the canons. One important thing to note, from the very beginning, refers to the sources used for documentation. Given that the information comes only rarely from official documents and that most of it is not derived from docu- ments of legal authority, but from texts of memoirs or from news sto- ries that circulated in the ecclesiastical milieus, without being verified or receiving archival-documentary confirmation, all the testimonies must be approached with caution, as they are highly likely to convey a certain degree of subjectivity. Thus, the portrait sketched of a charac- ter may comprise a diverse range of images, from those purveying an appreciative tone to their exact counterparts, texts describing the can- ons in entirely opposite or negative, antagonistic, discordant terms, depending on the subject who provided the information. Among the first canons who were active in Lugoj,Teodor Aron14 and Ştefan Moldovan15 had a relationship of mutual respect and appreciation. Both canons belonged to the first generation of capitu- lars installed after the setting up of the diocese, in 1857: Teodor Aron was capitular provost and Ştefan Moldovan was canon reader, the immediately lower position on the canonical ladder. After complet- ing his theological studies, Aron worked in the Diocese of Oradea, in the episcopal chancery and at the Gymnasium of Beiuş, in two stages, holding the position of director of the gymnasium during the latter. On the establishment of Banatian diocese, he relinquished his post and came to Lugoj, being proposed for the dignity of provost, a posi- tion he filled for two years. Following his death in April 1859, Bishop Alexandru Dobra proposed Ştefan Moldovan as capitular provost, who was accepted by the papal and the imperial authorities. The two years 14 Teodor Aron lived between 1804 and 1859. Born in Ţichindeal, County, in the noble family Aron of Bistra. He completed his secondary studies in Blaj and Cluj, studied theology at Oradea and Pesta, graduating in 1829. “Theodor Aron de Bisztra,” in Gazeta Transilvaniei, 1859, XXII, pp. 57–58; “Biografie Theodor Aron,” in Foaie pentru minte, inimă şi literatură, 1860, XXIII, no. 20, pp. 147–153; Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 125–127; Canonici, profesori şi vicari foranei din Biserica Română Unită (1853– 1918). Dicţionar, ed. Mirela Popa-Andrei, Cluj-Napoca: Edit. Mega, 2013, pp. 86–89. / Hereinafter Dicţionar, 2013/. 15 Ştefan Moldovan lived between 1813 and 1900. He was born in Ţicudul de Câmpie, Turda County, and completed his theological studies in Blaj. From 1852 to 1857, he served as parish priest and Vicar Forane of Haţegi Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 127–129; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 251–257.

[140] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite

(1857–1859) in which Teodor Aron and Ştefan Moldovan collaborated in the chapter sufficed for the latter to make a eulogistic portrait of his predecessor. They had cooperated in all their efforts for organizing the diocese, during the difficult years after its establishment, and they were the ones who often influenced the adoption of key decisions that would mark the subsequent evolution of the diocesan province. A very rich source of information resided in the memories16 of Canon Ioan Boroş,17 unfortunately one of the few memoir-type sources left by the members of the Banatian diocese. Originally from Carei, Sătmar County, Boroş entered the ranks of the Banatian capitulars in 1897, climbing to the highest rank, that of capitular provost, and build- ing a career of over 40 years in this organism of the cathedral church. Attentive to the atmosphere around him, ambitious and interested in acceding to high dignities, Ioan Boroş focused his entire activity on achieving this goal. Throughout his life, he engaged in several disputes or had tense relations with the clergy, the staff around the episcopal see or the hierarchs of Lugoj. Some of the canons Boroş entered into conflict were Ioan Madincea, George Popovici and Petru Pop. About Madincea,18 Ioan Boroş believed he was such an inveterate enemy that he wished him dead. What made him state this were the tense rela- tions between the two, ever since the time Boroş had been employed in the diocesan chancery and had not yet become a member of the chapter, as he declared, at a later time, that he had felt Madincea’s envy ever since then. Boroş’s appointment to the chapter truly aroused Madincea’s discontent, as he had other preferences, openly displaying a hostile attitude towards the young prebendary.19

16 The memories have been published under the title Ioan Boroş, Memorialistica, ed. Valeriu Leu, Nicolae Bocşan, Ion Cârja, Costin Feneşan, Cristian Sabău, Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2012, 385 p. /Hereinafter I. Boroş, Memorialistica/. 17 Ioan Boroş (1850–1937) carried out theological studies in Vienna (St. Barbara’s Seminary), which he completed in 1873; after that he returned to Lugoj, being employed by the diocesan chancery in the first years, and then assigned as a priest in Zăbrani, where he stayed between 1881–1897. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 141–142; Ioan Boroş. “Date biografice,” in Luceafărul, 1935, I, pp. 528–529; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 104–112. 18 Ioan Madincea (1841–1929), was born at Iladia, Caraş-Severin, as the son of a priest. He completed his theological studies in Budapest. He was a parish priest and an archpriest in Oraviţa, and in 1876 he entered the Chapter of Lugoj, where advanced to the dignity of canon reader, after a 53-year long career in the canonry. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 138–139; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 220–223. 19 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, pp. 146–147.

[141] Mihaela Bedecean

The same thing happened with Canon Petru Pop.20 The antagonis- tic relationship between the two started with Boroş’s admission to the canonry in 1897. Having displayed a distant attitude ever since the days when Boroş had activated in the diocesan administration and supporting another candidate for the chapter, Petru Pop – then canon custodian, with a seniority of 22 years in the capitular body – openly expressed his dissatisfaction, which wounded the pride of the young capitular. In many situations, Canon Madincea joined forces with Petru Pop, especially in actions against Ioan Boroş, whom neither of the two liked. Their relations cooled even more after Madincea’s designs to lure Boroş in an action against Bishop Demetriu Radu,21 in an attempt to force the bishop to obey the chapter. Boroş understood in time what Madincea’s intentions were and the resentment the latter harboured against him, so he distanced himself from the canon reader and shunned his influence. Subsequently Madincea tried to denigrate him in the press, accusing him, among others, of mismanaging the diocesan funds. The tension escalated in 1902, when, due to his trial against the diocese, Madincea was not promoted, the bishop opting for advancing Boroş in his stead. This gesture shortly aroused a new reaction from Madincea. Thus, in November 1902, when Boroş had an accident and suffered a fracture, being bedridden for several months, Madincea and the future Canon George Popovici,22 who was, at that time, assessor at the Court of Matrimonial Causes, spread the news that Boroş was dying, declaring their satisfaction that he would disap- pear from the canonical circle, Madincea considering this event as an opportunity for advancement on the hierarchical ladder.23

20 Petru Pop (1821–1910), born in Sâmpetru de Câmpie, Cluj County, did his theological studies in Blaj. In 1857, he entered in the service of the Banatian diocese. In 1862 he was appointed Vicar Forane of Haţeg, and in 1875 he was appointed to the Chapter of Lugoj. Prior to the Great Union, he was the only canon who had gradually accessed all the six canonical stalls, becoming capitular provost of the diocese in 1901. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 136–138; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 329–331. 21 Demetriu Radu (1861–1920), born in Tâmpăhaza (Rădeşti), , was Bishop of Lugoj in 1897–1903. 22 George Popovici (1855–1916) was born in Hălmagiu, Arad County. After servingas a parish priest in the territory for several years, he took over the poition of diocesan archivist and consistorial vicenotary. From there, he was appointed Archpriest of Oraviţa and, as of 1900, he served as parish priest and Archpriest of Lugoj; he entered the chapter in 1912, was quickly promoted and, prior to his death, he occupied three successive canonical stalls, reaching the dignity of canon scholar. Dictionar, 2013, pp. 344–345. 23 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 157.

[142] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite

In 1903, the designation of Boroş as papal prelate stirred fur- ther animosity. Madincea deeply abhorred this appointment, striv- ing to use the local press to denigrate Boroş once again, and Canon Beniamin Densuşianu24 was also not happy with the honorary distinc- tion Boroş had, in fact, obtained.25 Ioan Boroş was then canon custo- dian and Densuşianu occupied a higher stall, as canon reader. Thus, despite the fact that Boroş considered he had a cordial relationship with Densuşianu and that there had been no conflict, to that date, between the two, the canon reader believed that the papal distinction was rightfully his, according to the criterion of age and by virtue of the capitular office he filled. AlthoughDensuşianu overtly avowed his disgruntlement with the appointment of Boroş, he avoided congratu- lating the latter and maintained a distance during the period immedi- ately following his appointment, all the more reason for the one who had obtained the promotion to consider Densuşianu’s gesture a token of envy.26 The enmity between Boroş and Popovici was known in the episcopal court circles, as was that between Boroş and Madincea. Popovici was at first a parish priest in Oraviţa, whence he was trans- ferred to the parish of Lugoj. Boroş recounts in his Memories that Popovici’s transfer to Lugoj was due to his efforts, because the priest had not obtained the consent of the local political authorities, being perceived as a Daco-Romanian, so much so that the local Prefect Jakabffy had opposed Popovici’s relocation.27 Ioan Boroş was the one who took upon himself Popovici’s case, which he argued before Bishop Demetriu Radu, so eventually the hierarch assumed this appointment. However, very shortly thereafter, the relations between Popovici and the people who had supported him became tense, as they found out what his true “face” was like. He neglected the tasks entrusted to him and demonstrated an entirely inadequate behaviour. Without being affected by the reaction of those around him, Popovici continued to ignore the warnings he had received and declared his open enmity

24 Beniamin Densuşianu (1829–1915) was born in Densuş, in the family of the local priest. He graduated in Blaj, the worked as a teacher at the Preparandia (pedagogical institute) of Haţeg. He was ordained as a celibate priest and operated in the parish of Lugoj, and then in several Banatian communes until 1875, when he was transferred as a priest and vicar in Haţeg. From here, Densuşianu entered the Chapter of Lugoj in 1884, as a prebendary canon. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 141–141; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 156–161. 25 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 159. 26 Ibidem. 27 Ibidem, p. 153.

[143] Mihaela Bedecean against Boroş, who refused to endorse his behavioural deviations. This explains the above-mentioned gesture he made in the context of the accident Canon Boroş had suffered in 1902, an episode that Popovici regarded as a good opportunity for entering the capitular body, thanks to the disappearance of Boroş and the vacation of a canonical rung. The relationship between Boroş and Popovici degraded constantly, especially after the latter’s entry among the capitulars in 1912 and his association with Madincea. Boroş rapports with Petru Pop suffered the same deterioration, so the two remained declared enemies for life. Ioan Boroş had a tortuous relationship with Canon Mihail Gian.28 While accepting that the latter was “indolent by nature,”29 Canon Boroş considered that he had a good heart and an upright character. For these reasons, in 1898, when the canonical stall had remained vacant after the death of Andrei Liviu Pop,30 Ioan Boroş supported Mihail Gian, then a parish priest in Bocşa. Consequently, Gian was included in the ternary proposal submitted to the emperor, along with Nicolae Nestor and Dr. David, the latter being supported by Petru Pop and Madincea, which provided the two with a new opportunity for attack- ing Boroş, as they aimed to undermine his intention of bringing in his favourite to the canonry. Mihail Gian was elected and entered the chapter as prebendary canon in April 1900. Canon Boroş, however, soon regretted his endorsement gesture. After taking over the capitu- lar dignity, Mihail Gian exhibited a duplicitous character. Ioan Boroş soon realized this and reconsidered his position, especially after learn- ing that Gian had been the author of the event in Timişoara, which had occurred many years before.31 As a result, Boroş totally fell out

28 Mihail Gian (1834–1904), born in Bocşa Montană, completed his secondary studies at the Gymnasium in Oradea, and then at the St. Barbara Seminary in Vienna. He climbed two dignities on the capitular ladder and, at the time of his death, he was canon chancellor. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 142–143; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 179–180. 29 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 161. 30 Andrei Liviu Pop (1816–1898), born in Barei, Cluj County, graduated from the theological course in Blaj in 1842. He was the first canon scholar of the Chapter of Lugoj; in 1860 he became custodian, and in 1879 he was promoted to the position of canon reader. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 131–132; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 301–305. 31 In 1891, during the emperor’s visit to Timişoara, the diocesan clergy arrived late at the official meeting, this incident being used by MihailGian, the Archpriest of Bocşa at that time, who told Bishop Victor Mihályi of Apşa that Ioan Boroş was to blame for this situation as he had retained the clergy. Following this episode, the bishop removed Boroş from his milieu, postponing his entry into the chapter. Boroş found out about Gian’s ruse only a few years later, after he had already offered the latter support for entry into the chapter. See I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 139.

[144] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite with Gian, being convinced that the latter had permanently envied him for his ecclesiastical trajectory. Another character that Ioan Boroş intersected with throughout his lengthy canonical career was Nicolae Nestor.32 Their relationship had many ups and downs and it started under the sign of suspicion and mistrust. After his candidacy for the chapter was rejected in 1894, when Canon Liviu Pop passed on, in 1898, Nestor was again on the list of ternary candidacies. His attempt did not benefit from Boroş’s support, who had his own favourite, Mihail Gian, the latter being appointed, in fact, as capitular. Very soon afterwards, however, in 1901, Nestor entered the Chapter of Lugoj and, in turn, refused to support Boroş for election to the dignity of vicar capitular, retaliating thus. The incident occurred in 1903, after Bishop Radu’s departure to Oradea. At that time, Boroş had the support of the politi- cal authorities and of the former bishop in taking over the dignity of vicar capitular. Although Petru Pop, the provost in office at the time, said he was not interested in the appointment, he conspired to prevent the appointment of Boroş, using the hostility displayed by Madincea and Nestor, whom he made his allies in the fight against the appoin- tee. Moreover, along with Pop, Nicolae Nestor also aspired to the dig- nity of vicar, but some members of the chapter believed that Nestor had fallen under Madincea’s negative influence, as a declared enemy of Boroş, and that he had therefore become involved in this imbro- glio. Subsequently, the relationship between Ioan Boroş and Nicolae Nestor seems to have become close again, so in 1912, on the departure of Bishop Vasile Hossu33 to Gherla, Nestor was among the signatories of the document submitted to Metropolitan Mihályi of Apşa, request- ing that Boroş should be appointed as bishop. Besides hostile or controversial relations, Canon Ioan Boroş also had people who supported and collaborated with him throughout his career. During his studies at the St. Barbara Seminary in Vienna, the future canon had a close relationship with Prof. Grigore Silaşi,34 vice-

32 Nicolae Nestor (1857–1934), born in Întregalde, Alba Inferioară County, started his theological studies in Blaj, finishing them at the Seminary in Budapesta between 1879 and 1883. He was Vicar Forane of Haţeg, then entered the chapter in 1901. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 143–144; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 269–271. 33 Vasile Hossu (1866–1913) carried out his studies at the College of the Propaganda Fide Congregation in Rome and became a Doctor in Theology. After ordination, he was a professor at the Seminary in Blaj, while in 1898 he entered the Metropolitan Chapter. He shepherded the Diocese of Lugoj between 1903 and 1912, when he was appointed Bishop of Gherla. 34 Grigore Silași (27 January 1836, Beclean – 17 January 1897, Năsăud) was a

[145] Mihaela Bedecean rector of the institution, who had educated generations of seminarians in the spirit of Romanianness and closeness to the Eastern-rite Church. After graduation, Ioan Boroş entered in the service of the episcopal administration in Lugoj, occupying the position of diocesan actuary. From this period, he had warm recollections about Provost Ştefan Moldovan, for his welcoming attitude on his arrival at the episcopal court, as well as for the subsequent relationship between the two, as Moldovan was one of Boroş’s supporters on his entry into the chap- ter.35 The establishment of the bank “Poporul”36 in 1900 was another occasion that illustrated the good collaboration between Ioan Boroş and Ştefan Moldovan, the latter supporting, from his provost posi- tion, the canon’s intention to establish the bank. The canon remained in good relations with Ştefan Moldovan, so after his death, in 1900, the latter’s manuscripts and correspondence were left in the care of Ioan Boroş.37 Unfortunately, after the dismantlement of the Greek-Catholic Church, many of them have been lost trace of, including a manuscript that included the biography of all the canons of Lugoj, from the cre- ation of the chapter until 1894.38 Having recently been employed as an actuary by the diocesan chan- cery in Lugoj, in November 1873, Ioan Boroş established good rela- tions with Canon Matei Kiss.39 The decisions taken by Kiss during the last years of his life revealed that he had full confidence in the younger cleric. In the autumn of 1875, having no family or other close rela- tives, Matei Kiss asked Boroş to take stock of his entire fortune and draft a new, updated testament, a document in which he appointed the latter as testamentary executor of his will.40 According to the testa-

Romanian Greek-Catholic priest, philologist and folklorist, an honorary member of the Romanian Academy. Between 1872 and 1886, he was head of the Romanian Language and Literature Department at the “Franz Joseph” University in Cluj, wherethe language of instruction was Hungarian. 35 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 146. 36 Lucian Dronca, Băncile româneşti din Transilvania în perioada dualismului austro-ungar (1867–1918), Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2003, p. 139. 37 Gheorghe Naghi, Studii de istoria bisericii româneşti din Transilvania şi Banat în epoca modernă, : Criterion, 2006, p. 267. 38 Şematism Lugoj, 1903, p. 128. 39 Matei Kiss (1816–1876) studied philosophy and theology in Oradea, graduating in 1841. He worked as a teacher at the Gymnasium in Beiuş and then served as a parish priest in the Diocese of Oradea. On the establishment of the episcopal see of Lugoj, he was appointed as prebendary canon in the Chapter of Lugoj, being promoted as chancellor in 1875. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 134–135; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 204–206. 40 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, pp. 125–126.

[146] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite tor’s wishes, Ioan Boroş auctioned Kiss’s assets and divided the money among the charitable purposes mentioned in the will. Also referring to the period in which he had served in the diocesan chancery, Ioan Boroş spoke of a cordial relationship with Mihail Perianu,41 then sec- retary to the bishop, even though the two had competed, in 1879, over the vacant parish of Lugoj, and, during the following year, for the par- ish of Arad, neither of them managing to occupy the position. From 1873 to 1880, during the period in which he worked in the episcopal chancery, Boroş had good relations with all the members of the canon- ical body, except for Madincea and Petru Pop. He also had good relations with Daniel Fireza,42 who had entered the Chapter of Lugoj in 1915, but had previously occupied, for sev- eral years, various positions in the diocesan administrative apparatus: capitular actuary, librarian, consistorial notary and assessor, consisto- rial secretary and secretary of Bishop Demetriu Radu. Moreover, in the episcopal court, on his entry into the chapter, Daniel Fireza was per- ceived as the man of Capitular Provost Boroş, who was then also vicar general. Fireza served, for one year, as parish administrator at Zăbrani, a parish Canon Boroş felt very strongly connected with and where he had spent a distinct and important stage in his life, totalling 17 years. Although he was 21 years younger than Canon Boroş, Fireza passed away before him, so Ioan Boroş was the one who handled aspects per- taining to his funeral. A collaborative relationship of mutual support existed between Canons Mihail Nagy43 and Demetriu Mihăilescu.44 Of Transylvanian 41 Mihail Perianu (1841–1894), a celibate priest, was born in Bocşa Montană. He studied at Blaj and at the Faculty of Theology in Budapest. He joined the Chapter of Lugoj in August 1891, occupying the first rung in the hierarchy, that of prebendary canon. Due to a prolonged illness, he died at the age of 53, without having advanced further on the ecclesiastical ladder. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, p. 141; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 297–299. 42 Daniel Fireza (1871–1932), born in Uricani, carried out his studies in Blaj, then in Rome, at the College of the Propaganda Fide Congregation, obtaining a double Doctorate in Theology and Philosophy. He was a priest in several communities in the diocese; then, at the age of 44, he entered the Chapter of Lugoj, reaching, before his demise, the stall of canon reader. Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 171–173. 43 Mihail Nagy lived between 1818 and 1879 and was born in Domohida, Sătmar County. He finished his theological studies in Oradea. In 1855, he became secretary to the Bishop of Lugoj, Alexandru Dobra, being appointed as the first canon custodian in the Chapter of Lugoj. After three years, he was promoted, being installed as canon reader in 1860. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, pp. 130–131; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 261–264. 44 Demetriu Mihăilescu (1818–1879) was born in the Banatian village of Budinţi, Timiş County. Prior to 1918, he was the capitular member in Lugoj who came from

[147] Mihaela Bedecean extraction, the cleric Nagy came to the Banat as secretary of Bishop Alexandru Dobra, which facilitated his access to the diocesan struc- tures: after the establishment of the diocese, he was proposed for admis- sion in the first chapter. Throughout his entire ecclesiastical career, he demonstrated real organizational skills, being a good administrator, who was deeply involved and interested in the problems of the dio- cese. He had cultural inclinations, as he was one of the capitulars who evinced a preoccupation for the history of the Greek-Catholic Church and for the history of culture, as attested by the works he wrote. He made two attempts of acceding to the see of Lugoj, both of which failed. Demetriu Mihăilescu was involved, however, in these efforts: at that time, he was Archpriest of Lugoj, a position from which he mani- fested himself as a staunch supporter of Canon Nagy’s candidacy for the episcopal dignity. The opportunity arose in 1874, when the Bishop Olteanu45 left to occupy the Greek-Catholic diocesan see of Oradea Mare. Archpriest Mihăilescu then took the initiative of organizing an archpresbyterial assembly in the diocese, which aimed to support Canon Nagy to the episcopacy, by making interventions with the gov- ernmental authorities to this end. Mihăilescu’s efforts were endorsed by Canon Mihail Perianu, who was consistorial notary and secretary to the bishop at the time, and was directly interested in the person of the one who was to occupy the hierarchal see. Perianu openly declared his support for Nagy, hoping that he would win the goodwill of the political and pontifical authorities. The action Mihăilescu initiated stirred the reaction of other canons in the chapter, who opposed this. Among them was Ştefan Moldovan, the capitular provost. The opinion of some contemporary canons was that Moldovan had always felt overshadowed by Nagy, who had dis- played a certain degree of pre-eminence over him, which is why the provost had always sought to obstruct him, from the high position he

an Orthodox family and had graduated the Orthodox Theological Institute in Arad. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, p. 139; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 236–237. 45 Ioan Olteanu was born in Sinteşti, Caraş-Severin, in 1839 and died in Oradea in 1877. He studied theology at Blaj and Vienna. Because of the lack of priests in the Diocese of Lugoj, after 3 years of studying theology, he was recalled to the diocesan see and appointed as actuary in the episcopal chancery. Subsequently, he was ordained a a priest, and then was appointed secretary to the bishop and consistorial notary. At the age of 31 years, he was consecrated as bishop, shepherding the Diocese of the Banat between 1870 and 1874. After the death of Iosif Papp-Szilágyi, he was transferred to Oradea, where he remained for another 3 years, until his death.

[148] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite held in the chapter.46 Ştefan Moldovan’s fear worsened in the context of the 1874 vacancy of the episcopal see, which made room for Nagy’s possible ascent. To prevent this, Ştefan Moldovan denounced Nagy at the Nunciature, claiming that he had serious human defects, that he had relations with women whom he introduced in the eparchial court and that he had a passion for cards games. Canon Andrei Liviu Pop belonged to the same anti-Nagy camp: using the same occasion, he filed a complaint about Nagy with the Nunciature and the Archbishop Primate of Hungary, accusing him of having forced his non-canonical appointment by manipulating the lower clergy and forcing them to grant him their support, which was an allusion to the actions under- taken by Archpriest Mihăilescu. The whole episode also produced side effects, such as the birth of strained relations between Ştefan Moldovan and Mihail Perianu, who were positioned, in this context, in opposing camps. Thus, after the appointment of Victor Mihályi of Apşa as bishop, Capitular Provost Ştefan Moldovan took care to por- tray Perianu in negative terms, informing the bishop him about the details of Perianu’s avowed support for Nagy to the episcopal see and irreparably compromising the relationship between the bishop and his secretary. The tense situation created at the episcopal court determined Perianu to run for the parish of Lugoj in 1879 and for the parish of Arad in 1880, without any success. His candidacy for the parish of Arad led to the deterioration of his relations with George Telescu,47 the Archpriest of Oraviţa, a would-be canon, who also wanted this posi- tion and was appointed to it. As regards Canon Mihăilescu, judging from the information that has survived to this day, it would appear that he did not have a posi- tive image in the episcopal environment and among the clergy of the diocese. He joined the chapter in 1879, after the death of the one he had supported, Canon Nagy, but he had one of the shortest canonical terms, since he died 3 months after his appointment because of a car- diac condition. Thus, in terms of their chronological biographies, the destinies of the two seem to have been interwoven, as both Nagy and Mihăilescu were born and died in the same years. The short time he served as a canon means that the information we have had access to is

46 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 117. 47 George Telescu (1839–1908), born in Bocşa Montană, carried out his studies at Beiuş and, between 1861 and 1865, at the University of Vienna. He was admitted to the Chapter of Lugoj in 1905 and served as a prebendary canon for three years. Dicţionar, 2013, p. 390.

[149] Mihaela Bedecean centred around the episode of Nagy’s candidacy for the episcopal see, a perspective from which Canon Mihăilescu interacted with the other capitulars. The full support he offered to Mihail Nagy for this can- didacy brought him into conflict with CanonsŞtefan Moldovan and Andrei Liviu Pop, which is why Mihăilescu’s entry into the chapter was not to the liking of the two. An interesting case, unique in Lugoj given the nature of the family environment from which the character came, was that of Canon Iacob Radu.48 Certainly, his family ties represented one of the reasons for the suspicion with which he was regarded, and these ties definitely influ- enced the canon’s relations with the other members of the episcopal entourage, including with members of the chapter and of the consis- tory. Canon Iacob Radu was the brother of Bishop Demetriu Radu, who pastored in Lugoj between 1897 and 1903 and was later moved to Oradea, until 1920, when he passed away. Moreover, to some extent, the canon followed the ecclesiastical pathway of his brother because, after serving in Lugoj, he left for the Diocese of Oradea. After a two- year sojourn spent in Bucharest, where he served as a Greek-Catholic parish priest and professor at the Catholic Seminary, Canon Radu came to the Banatian diocese on 1 September 1899. He started with a three-year internship at the episcopal court,49 and then, in April 1902, his brother Demetriu, then Bishop of Lugoj, appointed him as parish priest, archpriest and vicar forane in Haţeg, where he remained for nearly a decade, until 1911, when he entered the Chapter of Lugoj as prebendary canon, on 3 August 1911. Some of the canons, including Ioan Boroş, had an overt aversion for Radu, envying him for the privi- leged position he occupied due to his kinship with the bishop.50 A special relationship of assistance and gratitude existed between the members of two generations of capitulars. As the former Vicar of Haţeg, Nicolae Nestor supported Nicolae Brânzeu,51 the future canon, 48 Iacob Radu (1869–1932) was the brother of Bishop Demetriu Radu. He attended the Gymnasium of Blaj, studied theology at the Urbarian University of Rome, and obtained his Doctorate in Theology and Philosophy. Lucian Predescu, Enciclopedia României. Cugetarea, Ediţie anastatică, Bucharest: Saeculum I.O., 1999, p. 708; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 347–350. 49 Iacob Radu worked in the diocesan chancery as an archivist, librarian, vicenotary and assessor, as a consistorial notary at the Court for Matrimonial Causes, as well as a catechist at the industrial school in Lugoj. 50 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 151. 51 Nicolae Brânzeu (1883, Vulcan – 1962, Lugoj) was a graduate of the Universities of Budapest and Vienna, where he had obtained a doctorate in theology. He served as a priest in Petroşani and Vulcan, then as an archpriest in Comloşu Mare, Timiş County.

[150] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite in being admitted to study theology.52 The two remained on good terms, as the young student was thankful to his mentor.53 Having become Canon of Lugoj in 1921, Brânzeu visited Nicolae Nestor before the lat- ter’s death,54 served him a paraklesis and gave him absolution, being entrusted by the chapter with organizing the funeral ceremony.55 An important segment of the subject addressed here concerns the relations that existed between the members of the chapter and the bishops of Lugoj. Of course, the setting in which they acted and the dignities those concerned occupied imposed a relationship of respect, of compliance with the bishop’s decisions, which was envisaged as an effective collaboration for ensuring the governance of the diocese under optimum conditions. According to the ecclesiastical laws, the canons were subordinated to the bishop, whom they had to obey, and in turn, the bishop had to take into account the advice and suggestions made by the capitular body. The cooperation between the two sides left its mark on the evolution of the diocesan province, on the deci- sions implemented here, the programs developed at the diocesan level, the projects carried out, the reform and modernization of the church structures, from the bottom to the top of the hierarchy. Despite the fact that, in general, this pattern worked, in practice things were not always like this, and there is sufficient evidence to show that daily rou- tine often circumvented theory. The specific cases mentioned herein are relevant for both situations. One of the first capitulars from Lugoj with a controversial position in the Greek-Catholic milieu was Petru Raţiu.56 Born in Silvaşul de Câmpie, Cluj County, in 1805, Raţiu attended theology at Oradea and Pest and was ordained as a celibate priest. After serving in the episco- pal court of Oradea, in several communes from Bihor and the Banat,

He was a canon in the Cathedral Chapter of Lugoj between 1921 and 1948. He was arrested in 1948, confined to house arrest, and then imprisoned at . 52 Nicolae Brânzeu, Memoriile unui preot bătrân, ed. Pia Brânzeu, Timişoara: Edit. Marineasa, 2008, p. 125. /Hereinafter N. Brânzeu, Memoriile/. 53 Nicolae Brânzeu, Jurnalul unui preot bătrân, ed. Pia Brânzeu, Luminiţa Wallner- Bărbulescu, Timişoara: Eurostampa, 2011, p. 141. /Hereinafter N. Brânzeu, Jurnalul/. 54 Nicolae Nestor died on 18 May 1934. 55 The Archives of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Diocese of Lugoj, Protocolul şedinţei capitulare din 22 mai 1934. /Hereinafter AERUL/. 56 Petru Raţiu (1805–1875) was born in Silvaşul de Câmpie. In 1862 he was admitted to the Cathedral Chapter of Lugoj, occupying the dignity of canon scholar. Şematism Lugoj, 1903, p. 135; C. Diaconovici, Enciclopedia Română, tome III, Sibiu, 1904, pp. 731–732; Dicţionar, 2013, pp. 359–362.

[151] Mihaela Bedecean in 1843 he took over the parish of Spinuş.57 He was here when the 1848 Revolution broke out, becoming actively involved in it. During the revolution, the future canon had a direct conflict with Bishop Vasile Erdelyi.58 Raţiu participated in the diocesan synod held in Oradea on 29 August 1848, where he demanded the adoption of measures aimed at reforming the Greek-Catholic Church, in keeping with the liberal and national aspirations. His free spirit and his desire to impose the consultation of the clergy and their participation in the administration of ecclesiastical life attracted the bishop’s dislike of him. Despite the latter’s opposition and repeated attempts to annihilate his influence, in the synod held in September 1848, Raţiu was elected as the represen- tative of the Greek-Catholic clergy in the general synod of Hungary, envisaged to take place in Esztergom.59 This leadership position soon came to an end, however. His nationalist attitude and liberal discourse, coupled with the hostile attitude of his bishop, led to the arrest and imprisonment of the cleric for one year. Released from prison in 1850, Raţiu was overwhelmed by financial difficulties and was confronted with the lack of support from the episcopal authorities, all these rea- sons determining him to leave the Greek-Catholic faith and embrace the Orthodox confession.60 He was appointed parish priest in Arad, where he helped to have the Orthodox Seminary reopened, a seminary whose professor he became in 1852,61 and to restore its library fund, scattered during the revolutionary movements.62 After the founding of the Greek-Catholic See of Lugoj, Bishop Dobra persuaded Petru

57 Susana Andea, “Date despre viaţa şi activitatea lui Petru Raţiu (1805–1876),” in Crisia, 1991, XXI, p. 271. 58 Vasile Erdélyi (1 August 1796, Mako, Hungary – 27 March 1862, Oradea) was a baron and Greek-Catholic Bishop of Oradea. He studied law at Oradea, then theology at Oradea, Pest and Vienna. After ordination, in 1820 he was assigned as a priest in Beiuş, then in Oradea. He joined the Chapter of Oradea and also assumed the position of rector of the Greek-Catholic Seminary in Oradea. On 2 August 1842, he was appointed Bishop of Oradea and was consecrated at Blaj on 11 June. He supported the movement for the establishment of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Metropolitan See and of the Dioceses of Lugoj and Gherla. He bequeathed large sums of money for the Romanians’ culture and for the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church. He was a counsellor of state, elevated to the rank of baron and decorated with the Cross of Knight of the Order of Saint Stephen in 1850. 59 Ioan Boroş, “Anul 1848 şi sinoadele protopopeşti şi cel diecezan din eparhia unită de Oradea Mare,” in Cultura creştină, 1922, XI, no. 9–10, pp. 281–283. 60 Gazeta Transilvaniei, 1852, XV, pp. 155, 186–191. 61 Teodor Botiş, Istoria Şcoalei Normale (Preparandiei) şi a Institutului teologic ortodox- român din Arad, Arad: Edit. Consistoriului, 1922, pp. 530–532. 62 Ibidem, pp. 643, 670–671.

[152] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite

Raţiu to return to Greek-Catholic confession, appointing him as a Greek-Catholic parish priest in Arad,63 and then, in 1862, as a canon in Lugoj, where he remained until his death. After entering the chapter, throughout the duration of his entire episcopate, Canon Dobra had a positive relationship with the bishop, being involved in the diocesan administration, by virtue of the experience he had acquired as a parish priest in the territory, but also through cultural activities.64 Within the same time span, we may include the relationship between Ştefan Moldovan, the first canon reader of the Chapter of Lugoj, and Alexandru Dobra, the first Banatian bishop. Ştefan Moldovan had been the closest collaborator of Bishop Dobra, ever since the latter’s arrival in Lugoj. A vicar in Haţeg when the diocesan see was set up, Moldovan took over the organization of the bishop’s enthronement ceremony, held on 21 September 1856.65 Both Transylvanians had been educated in Blaj and they shared spiritual affinities, based on trust and collaboration. Once installed, the bishop included Ştefan Moldovan in the proposals he submitted for the first Chapter of Lugoj, the lat- ter being appointed the first canon reader of the Banatian diocese, installed on 12 April 1857. After the death of capitular provost Teodor Aron, Bishop Dobra proposed Ştefan Moldovan on the list of candi- dates for this dignity to the papal and the imperial authorities, being convinced of his capabilities and qualities. Under the papal bull of 31 January 1860, Ştefan Moldovan was confirmed as capitular provost and was installed on 11 March 1860. Provost Moldovan had similar positive relations with the next bishop, Ioan Olteanu. A Banatian by birth, who was also educated in the Blaj environment, Bishop Olteanu headed the Diocese of Lugoj for four years. Following his departure to Oradea, the new bishop, Victor Mihályi of Apşa uncovered irregu- larities in the diocesan funds, Provost Moldovan and Canon Reader Andrei Liviu Pop being held liable for these wrongdoings. The two had consented to granting a loan to Bishop Ioan Olteanu, in 1871, from the revenues of the diocesan funds and foundations, causing sub- stantial damage.66 Bishop Mihályi decided to convene a commission

63 Petru Raţiu’s appointment as administrator in the parish of Arad was approved by the Consistory in October 1857, after the death of the former parish priest and Canon Vasile Moldovan. 64 Dan Demşea, “Protopopii Petru Raţiu şi Ioan Berceanu în mişcarea naţională din Arad (1857–1880),” in Analele Banatului. Arheologie. Istorie, 2008, XVI, pp. 271–277. 65 For Ştefan Moldovan’s letters to Bishop Alexandru Dobra about the installation ceremony, see N. Bocşan, C. Vulea, op. cit., pp. 326–329. 66 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 139.

[153] Mihaela Bedecean for examining and reviewing the diocesan funds, appointing, as mem- bers, Beniamin Densuşianu, then vicar in Haţeg, Ioan Boroş, who was then a parish priest in Zăbrani, as well as a lawyer from Arad and a prosecutor from Deva. The path of cordial relations with the first two bishops of Lugoj that Ştefan Moldovan followed was also adopted by Canon Andrei Liviu Pop. He was connected to the first bishop, Alexandru Dobra, by virtue of their birthplace, as they were both born in Cluj County, through the family from which they came, as they were the sons of Greek- Catholic priests, and also by the atmosphere of Blaj, in which they had received their education. On the establishment of the Banatian see, Andrei Liviu Pop entered the diocese as secretary to the bishop, and was then appointed as the first canon scholar of the Chapter of Lugoj. The relationship between the two remained close, so much so that Bishop Dobra appointed Andrei Liviu Pop as his testamentary executor,67 together with Canon Petru Pop. Canon Andrei Liviu Pop was, however, also a close associate of Bishop Olteanu’s, who pre- ferred him on the episcopal throne after his departure from Lugoj, in 1874.68 According to some of the members of the episcopal entourage, the support Olteanu have Andrei Liviu Pop for the diocesan see repre- sented a reward for the loan he had received in 1871, with the canon’s goodwill. Among those who wanted to obtain an appointment to the see of Lugoj was Canon Mihail Nagy, which affected, to some extent, his relations with the Banatian hierarchs. During the period in which he served as a capitular in Lugoj, the episcopal see was vacated twice and, on both occasions, Nagy sought to count himself among the decision makers’ preferences. The first attempt took place in 1870, after the death of Alexandru Dobra, when, although he wanted this dignity, he offered positive references about his rival Ioan Olteanu, who actually received this appointment. During the four years he spent in Lugoj, Olteanu had no conflict with Canon Nagy. The bishop appreciated Nagy’s honesty, as attested at the time of his appointment, and the canon appeared to have resigned himself to the situation, granting the bishop the support he needed. However, at the end of Olteanu’s epis- copate, a conflict arose between the two over the post of vicar in the parishes Ticvan and Reşiţa. Having already been appointed as Bishop

67 Dobra died on 12 April 1870, and his will is dated 31 March 1870. The testament is published in N. Bocşan, C. Vulea, op. cit., pp. 256–264. 68 I. Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 118.

[154] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite of Oradea, Ioan Olteanu sent the proposal for a parish priest to the State Railways Company, in its capacity as a patron. The appoint- ment was made on behalf of the consistory, without however this body being consulted. Once in the territory, the two priests were rejected by the parishioners, who reported the situation to the diocese.69 As vicar, Nagy suspended the appointments and promised a new designation, an attitude that triggered Bishop Olteanu’s admonition. His intervention was futile, however, because the appointments were cancelled irrevo- cably. In the context of Ioan Olteanu’s departure to the see of Oradea, the Diocese of Lugoj became vacant again, creating a new designation opportunity that Nagy seized. Although on Olteanu’s arrival to the see of Lugoj, Canon Nagy had shown him kindness and support, the bishop did not return this service, preferring Canon Andrei Liviu Pop in his stead, as he was indebted to him for the material support he had received. Prior to the appointment of the new bishop, Mihail Nagy was appointed as vicar capitular, a position from which he sought to win the support of the decision makers. It was now that the already known episode initiated by Demetriu Mihăilescu took place, an inci- dent that did not have the expected result, but created tensions at the episcopal court. The coming of Mihályi of Apşa to the see of Lugoj in 1875 aggrieved Nagy, but he masked any hint of dissatisfaction and offered his entire support to the new bishop in the work of reforming the diocese he had started, proving again his moral virtue. Canon Demetriu Mihăilescu had relations verging on the extreme with two of the bishops of Lugoj. The close rapport between the canon and Bishop Ioan Olteanu was apparently based, according to some of the clergy in town, on financial reasons. When he served as Archpriest of Lugoj, Mihăilescu gave a loan to Bishop Olteanu,70 which attracted the latter’s support in all his activities and increased his influence at the episcopal court. The archpriest’s claims were not limited to this, how- ever. Mihăilescu’s aim was to become one of the capitulars. This came through 1879, when the canon used Olteanu’s influence, who was then Bishop of Oradea. His accession to the chapter aroused the discontent of Bishop Mihályi, with whom the canon had distant relations. Boroş spoke about the bishop’s discontent, triggered by the appointment of Demetriu Mihăilescu to the chapter, as the bishop considered that he was not recommended by special merits and did not have the moral qualities for such a dignity.

69 Ibidem, p. 117. 70 Ibidem, p. 122.

[155] Mihaela Bedecean

Canon Mihail Perianu was in a delicate situation. While he worked as secretary to the bishop, the see of Lugoj became vacant, and he pub- licly stated his support for Canon Nagy, whom he saw as the future bishop. Therefore, the appointment of Victor Mihályi of Apşa was a disappointment for Perianu, and his relations with the bishop started on these grounds. Knowing about Perianu’s involvement in Nagy’s case, the bishop was reluctant towards him, showing an overt aversion, which led to Perianu’s repeated attempts to leave the entourage of the episcopal court in Lugoj. To the strained relations Canon Ioan Boroş had with some of the capitulars can be added those with some of the bishops of Lugoj, as the canon served under the pastorate of six bishops. As shown by his actions, but also by the text of his memoirs, the goal he pursued with perseverance over several decades was that of occupying the episcopal see of Lugoj, which he strongly desired, revealing his purpose when- ever the opportunity arose: in 1903, when Vasile Hossu was appointed, after Demetriu Radu’s departure to Oradea; in 1912, after Hossu’s departure to Gherla and Frenţiu’s appointment, when Boroş had the support of the Secretary of State Jakabfy; in 1922, on the appoint- ment of Alexandru Nicolescu. Ioan Boroş saw each vacancy of the Banatian diocesan see as a possibility of hierarchical ascension and exploited it as such, by appealing to the ecclesiastical and political milieus in which sought help, but his intentions nevertheless remained unfulfilled. Instead, in this endeavour, the canon often aroused the animosity of some of the capitulars, who were far from happy with the provost’s ambitions, but also of the bishops he had competed against for the see of Lugoj. Following his lengthy attempts, the only result he obtained was his appointment as Bishop of Tesbia in 1922. Still, his failures marked him because Provost Boroş’s rising ambitions were related especially to the see of Lugoj, which he wanted and tried repeat- edly to occupy, requesting the support of those around him, church- men and politicians of the moment. After each failure, disappointment was the feeling that his memoirs are pervaded by. Moreover, the issue of eparchial appointments occupies a generous place in his Memories, with a detailed description of the manner in which they were made, the power and influence leverage systems that were set in motion. Perhaps because he was consumed with the ambition of acceding to the episco- pal dignity, he underestimated and expressed his dissatisfaction with those who occupied the see of Lugoj, a very visible reaction especially in the immediate aftermath of an appointment. In 1903, Boroş stated

[156] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite he was distraught by the appointment of Bishop Vasile Hossu, saying that the latter was “a young canon with a dubious political past,” 71 the bishop, in turn, displaying caution towards the canon. The relation- ship between the two ended on tense terms. When the bishop was transferred to the see of Gherla, Provost Boroş asked his support for the vacant episcopal see. Although the bishop consented, in fact he supported Frenţiu,72 the Vicar Forane of Haţeg. Ioan Boroş had a rela- tionship that began under the sign of mutual distrust with Frenţiu, who was appointed bishop on 4 November 1912. Because he posi- tioned himself as a rival for the episcopal throne of Lugoj, the bishop did not trust Boroş, who, in turn, did not like him, according to the confessions in the pages of his Memories. Moreover, upset that he had missed again being appointed as bishop, Ioan Boroş refused to attend the ordination of Bishop Frenţiu, held at Blaj, considering that he had suffered enough humiliation by having his opponent appointed to the see. He portrayed Frenţiu in his Memoirs as a character he despised and disconsidered, as he was humiliated by the belittling position to which he had been relegated. Bishop Frenţiu forced Boroş to quit his post as executive director of the bank “Poporul,” appointing Augustin Giurgiu in his place, an accountant of the Diocesan House and the son-in-law of Canon George Popovici. Because of this change, the epis- copal entourage speculated that Ioan Boroş had resorted to revenge, attacking the bishop in an article published in Temesvári Hirlap.73 Frenţiu had not responded, but decided not to appoint Boroş as vicar general, after the departure of Iacob Radu. In 1918, after the death of Metropolitan Mihályi of Apşa, rumours placed Frenţiu in the metro- politan see. Seeing this as an opportunity Boroş immediately sought support for being considered for a possible appointment to Lugoj, overcoming his pride and appealing to Bishop Frenţiu, whom he

71 Ibidem, p. 157. 72 Valeriu Traian Frenţiu (1875–1952), who was born at Reşiţa, died incarcerated in Sighet Prison. The son of a priest, he attended the Gymnasium of Blaj, then studied theology in Budapest and Vienna, crowning his studies with a PhD. On his return to Lugoj, in 1902, he was employed by the diocesan chancery; afterwards, in 1904, he took over the parish and Archpresbyteriate of Orăştie. In February 1912, he was appointed as Archpriest and Vicar Forane of Haţeg, where he stayed for only a few months, because in November he was appointed Bishop of Lugoj. Here he remained until February 1922, when he was transferred to Oradea, to occupy the see vacated through the death of Demetriu Radu. 73 The article was not signed, but the manuscript, which had been seen by the lawyer Giurgiu, who recounted the incident, had been proofread by a close associate of Ioan Boroş’s, betraying the origins of the document. See N. Brânzeu, Memoriile, p. 214.

[157] Mihaela Bedecean requested to help him. A further failure drove Provost Boroş against the aforesaid Alexandru Nicolescu,74 whom he also considered unde- sirable. Despite the appearances he was struggling to keep, Ioan Boroş disregarded the hierarch. Their tense relationship was often consumed in the consistorial sessions, in which the two stood on antagonistic positions.75 After 10 years since his takeover of the Banatian see, the bishop was still troubled by his animosity against Boroş. On his 50th anniversary, in July 1932, he preferred to be absent from the diocese, declining the personal congratulations of the chapter members, but in a subsequent confession he justified his attitude through the hostility he had towards Ioan Boroş, whom he had not wanted to meet.76 Boroş’s actions for seizing the episcopal see also caused nuisance to other members of the chapter, affected by the situations created thus. Supporting Boroş’s attempt to reach the high episcopal dignity in 1912 was detrimental for Canon Nestor. The vacation of the diocese through the departure of Vasile Hossu was followed by the usual backstage games of those who aimed for this rank. Boroş was again among the candidates; at that time, he was capitular provost and endeavoured to attract as many supporters as possible. Besides the decision makers he struggled to win over to his side, the canon also relied on support from inside the diocese, so a document was drafted in Lugoj whereby part of the members of the chapter and of the consistory declared their sup- port for Ioan Boroş. Among them was Nicolae Nestor. Boroş’s failure collaterally reverberated onto those who had supported him. After the appointment of Frenţiu to the bishop’s see, the latter sought to remove Nestor from the directorship of the diocesan chancery, the real motive being the endorsement he had granted the bishop’s opponent.77 A difficult relationship existed between Canon George Popovici and Bishop Demetriu Radu, caused by the former’s behavioural devi- ations. The damage had occurred prior to Popovici’s entry into the chapter, during the period in which he had worked as a parish priest and Archpriest of Lugoj. Brought into the parish with the consent of the bishop, the future canon did not consider that he was indebted to

74 Alexandru Nicolescu (1882–1941), born in Ciuc County, carried out his theological studies in Rome, at the College of the Propaganda Fide Congregation. He was appointed Bishop of Lugoj in 1922, and in 1935 he was designated as Metropolitan of the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church. 75 One of the disputes was related to the assets of the Greek-Catholic Church in Arad; see N. Brânzeu, Jurnalul, p. 51. 76 N. Brânzeu, Jurnalul, pp. 50–51. 77 Ioan Boroş, Memorialistica, p. 243.

[158] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite his superior, shortly building a dubious repute. Scarcely present in the current affairs of the diocese, often showing disinterest in these, shallow in performing his current obligations, the archpriest also had an improper conduct, which sparked the outrage of the episcopal entourage. All these attracted the bishop’s admonishment, but with- out consequences. The cleric had no remorse and did not try to change his attitude; on the contrary, he was the one who felt persecuted and wronged, choosing to distance himself from the hierarch. He perpetu- ated his lifestyle and the indolence in which he wallowed continued after the arrival of Bishop Vasile Hossu, in 1903, the latter realizing the canon’s inappropriate conduct and threatening him with suspension. Canon Iacob Radu’s privileged position, ensured by his kinship with one of the Banatian hierarchs, also marked the canon’s relations with the subsequent bishops. After Bishop Hossu’s departure for the see of the Gherla, Iacob Radu, who had recently entered the chap- ter, publicly stated his support for Valeriu Traian Frenţiu. The latter’s appointment to the see of Lugoj was a good opportunity for Canon Radu to show the bishop his availability. The canon was present at Blaj as a representative of the chapter during the enthronement of Frenţiu, and in February 1913, when the bishop arrived in Lugoj, the canon was the one who met him at the station and was one of the organizers of the reception ceremonies. After installation, the bishop appointed Iacob Radu as episcopal vicar general.78 The appointment was made amid strained relations between Frenţiu and Boroş, the latter being the permanent candidate for the Lugoj see, thus arousing the bishop’s hostility. It was, therefore, a combination of circumstances that Canon Radu benefited from, who was positioned, at that time, on the lower rung of the capitular hierarchy, that of a prebendary, unlike Boroş, who occupied the highest canonical stall, that of capitular provost. The solidarity between the bishop and Canon Radu lasted only a little while, however, as Frenţiu did not accept either the comments of the vicar capitular, or his proud attitude.79 The dispute ended in October 1914 through the canon’s transfer to Oradea, where his brother was already bishop. At the end of this study, a few conclusions are in order. A first observation that can be made concerning the particular relationships between the members of the chapter is that seldom did such details become public, making it difficult for us to examine certain aspects

78 Hof-und Staats-Handbuch der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarhie, Wien, 1914, p. 1250. 79 N. Brânzeu, Memoriile, p. 208.

[159] Mihaela Bedecean thereof. Few archival documents or memoir testimonies have revealed the nature of interpersonal relations that existed at the episcopal court. This is because the church has retained discretion over these aspects. Then, also because in the Banatian diocese, unlike in other Greek-Catholic Transylvanian dioceses, few memorialist texts written by the members of the episcopal entourage have been preserved, so we do not have the privilege of numerous references. Such sources often concealed personal reflections, different from the official information, which would have allowed us to capture attitudes, behavioural pat- terns and interpersonal connections that may often explain the reac- tions of those concerned in some situations, but also the backstage games and the atmosphere of the episcopal court. As provost, Ştefan Moldovan wrote a book including the biographies of all the mem- bers of the Lugoj chapter, from the establishment of the chapter until 1894, and this may have contained such references, but the manuscript has unfortunately been lost, probably at the time of the abolition of the Greek-Catholic Church during the communist regime.80 Thus, the remaining essential sources from this point of view are the memories of Canons Ioan Boroş and Nicolae Brânzeu. From what has managed to permeate through to the public space, we may conclude that most of the information is negative in nature. Oftentimes, those who wrote their personal thoughts down did so not in order to portray their contemporaries in a positive light, but rather used this opportunity to highlight their flaws, defects and weaknesses, illustrating, in fact, the frustrations and grievances of the one who made a biographical sketch or to justify his attitude in a certain con- text, attempting to seek explanations in favour of himself. We may thus easily observe that the relations between the members of the chapter or from the entourage of the episcopal court did not differ too much from human nature as such, that they followed the path of human psychology, with positive and negative aspects, with emotional sym- pathies and attachments or, on the contrary, with antipathies and aver- sions, sweeping across the entire range of human weaknesses. What is easy to see is also the cause of these strained relations, which was envy most of the times, the positioning of an individual in relation to the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the power holders, the desire to climb the hierarchy and, therefore, the attempt to overcome those who imper- illed this career trajectory.

80 Şematism Lugoj, 1903, p. 128.

[160] Interpersonal Relations and Behavioural Attitudes among the Banatian Greek-Catholic Elite

Despite the numerous examples illustrating the negative side of the relationships between the capitulars, the progress registered at the general level of the diocese was visible. During the period of half a century on which we have focused our analysis, this evolution was evi- dent and was due to the chapter members’ involvement in the dioc- esan administration, to the cooperation between the capitulars and the representatives of other diocesan structures, and to the collabora- tion and support the canons offered the Bishops of Lugoj, in the com- mon interest of the believers and of the modernization of the Banatian Greek-Catholic province.

[161]