Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 2023
Starting from the traditional public administration dichotomy 'power versus knowledge', concerned... more Starting from the traditional public administration dichotomy 'power versus knowledge', concerned with the cleavage between politicians and bureaucrats, this paper's main purpose is to reframe a classic theoretical model, by placing the spotlight on a new, under-conceptualized public sector actor: the technocrat. Second, the paper performs empirical research starting from an own-build comprehensive database that includes all the ministers appointed in the Romanian Government during a 30-year timeframe (October 1991-November 2021). In spite of being a rather young democracy with a communist public sector legacy, research findings indicate that in Romania we can clearly identify patterns similar to other European countries (primarily Italy), consisting of appointing technocrats to the cabinet. Such nominations are discussed in correlation with the advancements of new theories of democracy and public administration, imprinted with Neoliberalism, New Public Management, and Good Governance paradigms.
This paper presents one the most difficult episodes from the post-Communist history of Church and... more This paper presents one the most difficult episodes from the post-Communist history of Church and State relations in Romania from a political science perspective by analysing the pandemic period and moreover how public authorities engaged with religious organizations. On the first side of the narratives, the state has neglected many of the international standards on freedom of religion or belief when had restricted the religious life regarding religion as a liability, while, on the other side, the state has tried to convince the Church to push for the promotion of the vaccination campaign, regarding religion as an asset. I conclude that religion is still seen in Romania not in terms of social partnership, but in terms of "friend or enemy" as famously labelled by Carl Schmitt. Thus, religion is still under the politicization impetus and not empowered as a tool of further democratization. keywords politicizations, Church and State relations, freedom of religion or belief, health policies, democracy.
A catastrophic fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania raised international concern due t... more A catastrophic fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania raised international concern due to a rapid surge in the number of infections and the high associated mortality. A country of approximately 19 million inhabitants, Romania recorded close to 20,000 daily infections, with more than 500 daily deaths, by mid-October 2021 (1). Consequently, the WHO sent experts to Romania to evaluate the ongoing situation, including the status of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, and to help with an action plan. Here, we provide explanations for this dramatic reality using information from previously published academic analyses, the authors' personal involvement in the Romanian COVID-19 mitigation efforts, and press articles which describe the evolution of the pandemic in Romania.
In the public discourse of European and international institutions the word 'government' ... more In the public discourse of European and international institutions the word 'government' seems to be replaced by 'governance'. While there is a very traditional liberal approach in political theory claiming that to govern means to exercise political power, it is not clear what governance means. In public administration theories, governance is used to imply statecraft that is the exercise of governmental responsibilities. The connotation of governance was borrowed from management and implies, in politics, to scale down big governments. The entire governance process tends to be depoliticized as the debates over basic democratic values have been overshadowed in the European Union context. Starting with Plato's definition of good governance, which he describes as right order, this paper aims to explore the ontology of (good) governance from a political theory perspective.
Law, Religion and the Spread of Covid-19 Pandemic. DiReSoM Papers 2, 2020
Freedom of Religion or Belief can be limited as an exceptional measure, to reestablish order and ... more Freedom of Religion or Belief can be limited as an exceptional measure, to reestablish order and public security, or in the case of an epidemic as an exceptional measure and with the fulfillment of the following terms: 1. to be provided by law 2. to serve purposes of the political body in its whole (protection of security, public order, health, etc.) 3. to be nondiscriminatory in language and application 4. to strictly serve the purpose and announced period. W
In this paper, by presenting few political ideas of the bishop of Râmnic Noul-Severin, Bartolomeu... more In this paper, by presenting few political ideas of the bishop of Râmnic Noul-Severin, Bartolomeu Stănescu (1875-1954), I am trying to portray how a social-Christian political vision has failed in the Romanian interwar period. In his case we are rather dealing with a transplantation of a doctrine named „Social Christianity” and defined as an eclectic body of counter-revolutionary ideas implemented with liberal tools and born out of socialist sensibilities. Although important figure in the Romanian Orthodox Church and Senate, moreover as a public promoter of Social Christianity, the failure of his political project gives us the clues to understand why Christian-democracy has never been born in Romania, as for instance in Italy, along with the principles of subsidiarity, anti-statism, democracy, personalism or anti-communism. On the contrary, the political reading of the interwar ecclesiastical debates and events is due to prove that the society was incomplete modernized, eager for pa...
The methodological approach of this paper is inspired by Michel Foucault's work on power and ... more The methodological approach of this paper is inspired by Michel Foucault's work on power and subject. He has seen the political power as a mode of action on actions, meaning that the essence of power is to be found not in institutions or individuals, but in the deep structures of the society because the power relations are rooted in the whole network of social bonds. While the foucauldian approach is due to make us understand the nature of the political subject, we are also using a discourse analysis in order to explore the thought of the western Social Christians mainly in the late nineteenth-century France. Likewise we are using the view of theologian John Milbank on liberalism as a political philosophy which does not have in its very heart the true nature of the human person, but an invented abstract individual, pure material, asocial, whose own nature is broken from God's creation. The classic liberal ideal was that of a human being lacking its traditions and faith, who ...
The issues discussed in this study point out that Romanian postcommunist referenda are, in politi... more The issues discussed in this study point out that Romanian postcommunist referenda are, in political terms, plebiscites. By creating a genealogy of the main political patterns and terms used in the constitutional framework, as well as in the political public discourse, the study makes use of the concept of 'raison d’État' in order to reveal that representative democracy in postcommnunist Romania tends to be its own enemy. Public consultations are not the instruments of social and political consensus aimed at politicizing society. They serve as tools of electoral barganing, as in the case of pre-democractic regimes. From this particular perspective, the Romanian political system lacks some of the patterns of mature democracies, as for instance the separation and distinction between sovereignity and government or between office and status. The conclusion of the paper is that the president of Romania, as coined by the Constitution and embodied by its successive incumbents, is n...
Puterile sociale ale Creştinismului : opere alese / PS Vartolomeu Stănescu, episcopul Râmnicului-... more Puterile sociale ale Creştinismului : opere alese / PS Vartolomeu Stănescu, episcopul Râmnicului-Noul Severin ; ed. îngrijită, studii introd., note şi comentarii, indice de George Enache şi Cătălin Raiu ; trad. în lb. franc.: Raluca Sarău.
Public Governance and Religion. Key Historical Turns in Modern Romania, 2023
To determine how intellectual debates on Church government, churchmanship and Church engagement w... more To determine how intellectual debates on Church government, churchmanship and Church engagement with nationhood, the secular state and democracy may have a bearing on public governance and public policies is no easy task. Such an effect has largely gone unnoticed, as scholars were – and still are – accustomed to consider rather the different, and sometimes dramatic ways modern and contemporary statecraft influenced the position of the Church(es) in modern societies, as well as the various ecclesiological arguments brought forth by Church officials and theologians in order to explain, accept or reject this situation. It takes not only a firm command of both the social sciences and theology, but also the courage to go beyond the prevalent methodological assumptions to argue that discussions among theologians and clergymen about internal Church affairs have changed modern politics and have helped reshape many a perspective on public administration or democratic government. Cătălin Raiu has both the required expertise and the audacity to venture out into this (as of yet) scientifically uncharted territory. Vast and barely traveled as it is, the territory mapped by Cătălin Raiu has however well-defined borders. It covers by and large the intertwined histories of the Romanian nation-state (from its formal inception in 1862 to the demise of the communist regime in 1989-1990) and of the Romanian Orthodox Church (from its establishment by the Romanian state in 1864 to its final disentanglement from any state control in 1990-1992). All along this chronological span, the Church acted in turn as a constituent part of civil society which weight had to be taken into serious account by the successive political regimes (including the communist one) and as an interest group able to exert an effective influence on the public agenda (not only on issues related to its religious mission or the question of collective identity, but also in administrative, financial and political matters). The Church acted sequentially and contingently as a pervasive part of civil society or as an organized and hierarchical interest group, but was constantly and essentially both. It was at once an organic link between society and the state and an agency for promoting the specific interests of the clergy. It was always the state that decided which of these two indivisible figures of the Church had to take precedence at a given time. In examining these “key historical turns”, Cătălin Raiu relied less on the mainline historiography, resorting instead to sources that were thus far disregarded if not completely ignored. He dug out from neglect, a nuanced and rich body of literature authored mainly by clerics and theologians – among whom only Metropolitan Andrei Șaguna is widely studied – who pondered on how the Church, used by the state for nation-building purposes, may frame the state, reconfigure its institutions, and inspire its policies. There is no doubt that this multifaceted story begins in 1862-1864, even if Church officials and Church historians are usually overlooking the constitutive and constitutional major turn of 1864, when the secular nation-state fashioned and established the Romanian Orthodox Church as a national institution of its own making and serving its own goal, preferring instead to support the unfolding narrative of a fictional continuity of the Eastern Church in the Romanian lands from the Middle Ages to the present day. Equally obvious, but even less discussed, is the final point of the itinerary. At first glance, the end of state socialism hardly disturbed the continuousness of Church's recent history. The Patriarch – whom many regarded as too involved in the politics of the late years of the fallen regime – withdrew to a monastery for a few months. The Holy Synod acknowledged the collective guilt of its members for not speaking out against the communist abuses and asked forgiveness in a document that was never duly published. However, no bishop resigned. The Patriarch himself resumed his functions to the almost general satisfaction of the clergy and the state authorities. Almost, because during his absence and for a short time after his comeback, a Reflection Group for the Church Renewal, formed by a small (but quite significant) number of clerics and lay theologians, was very vocal in demanding a profound reform of the Church in capite et in membris, a reform that would not that much echo, but rather steer the transformation of the Romanian post-communist politics and society. A radical reform of the Romanian Orthodox Church did occur eventually, albeit not of the nature hoped for by the Reflection Group. Carefully surveyed by Cătălin Raiu, the reflection of the Group called for critical decentralization and even democratization of Church government, presuming that the spirit of democracy is somehow embedded in the Orthodox tradition of synodality. They also surmised that the same tradition, deprived of a permanent magisterium entitled to sanction doctrine and opinions, is fully compatible with the freedom of expression that characterizes liberal democracy. There is no accident that the fifty days of sit-in protests in the University Square of Bucharest (April to June 1990) demanding an immediate transition to democracy and the exclusion from governmental and political offices of the former communist apparatchiks were anticipated and triggered by a march of nuns, monks and theology students who, inspired by the public stands of the Reflection Group, urged the Patriarch to resign (“Teoctist Antihrist” was their slogan) and the Holy Synod to democratize the institutional fabric of the Church. These connected remonstrations failed in their attempt to reform the state and Church. Nevertheless, both the state and the Church would soon be engaged in a process of thorough reconstruction, but a process immune to bottom-up civic pressures. The changes undergone by the post-communist state and the Romanian Orthodox Church after 1990 sent them out in opposite directions. The state gradually became something close to a democracy without democrats, which means that the institutions of democracy were designed, put up, peopled and led by individuals and networks already active in public life under the communist regime. The Church for its part would also be ruled by hierarchs promoted or at least trained for high offices before 1990. Unlike their political compeers, these bishops had no taste for democracy and no incentive to democratize the government of the church. On the contrary. Today, the Romanian Orthodox Church is a highly centralized monarchical institution, suspicious of free speech and equipped better than ever to exert an authoritative control over its ecclesiastical personnel. In some legal cultures, constitutionalists and politicians count a first, a second or even a fifth republic. In a like manner, it could be said that Cătălin Raiu has analyzed the interdependence of the First Romanian Orthodox Church and public governance from the parliamentary regime of the late 19th century to state socialism. During this period, the state was able to keep the Church in a position of administrative and financial dependency, even if the Church managed oftentimes to inspire many a public policy, mainly in matters of nationhood, welfare and constitutional design. After 1990, a Second Romanian Orthodox Church slowly came of age. A Church independent from the state, but capable of claiming unconditional financial benefits on the public budget. A Church that took the lead in terms of human and social values or the governance of the numerous Romanians living abroad. Behind the image of a continuous, traditional and everlasting institution, this Church has started a history of its own. (Daniel BARBU)
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 2023
Starting from the traditional public administration dichotomy 'power versus knowledge', concerned... more Starting from the traditional public administration dichotomy 'power versus knowledge', concerned with the cleavage between politicians and bureaucrats, this paper's main purpose is to reframe a classic theoretical model, by placing the spotlight on a new, under-conceptualized public sector actor: the technocrat. Second, the paper performs empirical research starting from an own-build comprehensive database that includes all the ministers appointed in the Romanian Government during a 30-year timeframe (October 1991-November 2021). In spite of being a rather young democracy with a communist public sector legacy, research findings indicate that in Romania we can clearly identify patterns similar to other European countries (primarily Italy), consisting of appointing technocrats to the cabinet. Such nominations are discussed in correlation with the advancements of new theories of democracy and public administration, imprinted with Neoliberalism, New Public Management, and Good Governance paradigms.
This paper presents one the most difficult episodes from the post-Communist history of Church and... more This paper presents one the most difficult episodes from the post-Communist history of Church and State relations in Romania from a political science perspective by analysing the pandemic period and moreover how public authorities engaged with religious organizations. On the first side of the narratives, the state has neglected many of the international standards on freedom of religion or belief when had restricted the religious life regarding religion as a liability, while, on the other side, the state has tried to convince the Church to push for the promotion of the vaccination campaign, regarding religion as an asset. I conclude that religion is still seen in Romania not in terms of social partnership, but in terms of "friend or enemy" as famously labelled by Carl Schmitt. Thus, religion is still under the politicization impetus and not empowered as a tool of further democratization. keywords politicizations, Church and State relations, freedom of religion or belief, health policies, democracy.
A catastrophic fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania raised international concern due t... more A catastrophic fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania raised international concern due to a rapid surge in the number of infections and the high associated mortality. A country of approximately 19 million inhabitants, Romania recorded close to 20,000 daily infections, with more than 500 daily deaths, by mid-October 2021 (1). Consequently, the WHO sent experts to Romania to evaluate the ongoing situation, including the status of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, and to help with an action plan. Here, we provide explanations for this dramatic reality using information from previously published academic analyses, the authors' personal involvement in the Romanian COVID-19 mitigation efforts, and press articles which describe the evolution of the pandemic in Romania.
In the public discourse of European and international institutions the word 'government' ... more In the public discourse of European and international institutions the word 'government' seems to be replaced by 'governance'. While there is a very traditional liberal approach in political theory claiming that to govern means to exercise political power, it is not clear what governance means. In public administration theories, governance is used to imply statecraft that is the exercise of governmental responsibilities. The connotation of governance was borrowed from management and implies, in politics, to scale down big governments. The entire governance process tends to be depoliticized as the debates over basic democratic values have been overshadowed in the European Union context. Starting with Plato's definition of good governance, which he describes as right order, this paper aims to explore the ontology of (good) governance from a political theory perspective.
Law, Religion and the Spread of Covid-19 Pandemic. DiReSoM Papers 2, 2020
Freedom of Religion or Belief can be limited as an exceptional measure, to reestablish order and ... more Freedom of Religion or Belief can be limited as an exceptional measure, to reestablish order and public security, or in the case of an epidemic as an exceptional measure and with the fulfillment of the following terms: 1. to be provided by law 2. to serve purposes of the political body in its whole (protection of security, public order, health, etc.) 3. to be nondiscriminatory in language and application 4. to strictly serve the purpose and announced period. W
In this paper, by presenting few political ideas of the bishop of Râmnic Noul-Severin, Bartolomeu... more In this paper, by presenting few political ideas of the bishop of Râmnic Noul-Severin, Bartolomeu Stănescu (1875-1954), I am trying to portray how a social-Christian political vision has failed in the Romanian interwar period. In his case we are rather dealing with a transplantation of a doctrine named „Social Christianity” and defined as an eclectic body of counter-revolutionary ideas implemented with liberal tools and born out of socialist sensibilities. Although important figure in the Romanian Orthodox Church and Senate, moreover as a public promoter of Social Christianity, the failure of his political project gives us the clues to understand why Christian-democracy has never been born in Romania, as for instance in Italy, along with the principles of subsidiarity, anti-statism, democracy, personalism or anti-communism. On the contrary, the political reading of the interwar ecclesiastical debates and events is due to prove that the society was incomplete modernized, eager for pa...
The methodological approach of this paper is inspired by Michel Foucault's work on power and ... more The methodological approach of this paper is inspired by Michel Foucault's work on power and subject. He has seen the political power as a mode of action on actions, meaning that the essence of power is to be found not in institutions or individuals, but in the deep structures of the society because the power relations are rooted in the whole network of social bonds. While the foucauldian approach is due to make us understand the nature of the political subject, we are also using a discourse analysis in order to explore the thought of the western Social Christians mainly in the late nineteenth-century France. Likewise we are using the view of theologian John Milbank on liberalism as a political philosophy which does not have in its very heart the true nature of the human person, but an invented abstract individual, pure material, asocial, whose own nature is broken from God's creation. The classic liberal ideal was that of a human being lacking its traditions and faith, who ...
The issues discussed in this study point out that Romanian postcommunist referenda are, in politi... more The issues discussed in this study point out that Romanian postcommunist referenda are, in political terms, plebiscites. By creating a genealogy of the main political patterns and terms used in the constitutional framework, as well as in the political public discourse, the study makes use of the concept of 'raison d’État' in order to reveal that representative democracy in postcommnunist Romania tends to be its own enemy. Public consultations are not the instruments of social and political consensus aimed at politicizing society. They serve as tools of electoral barganing, as in the case of pre-democractic regimes. From this particular perspective, the Romanian political system lacks some of the patterns of mature democracies, as for instance the separation and distinction between sovereignity and government or between office and status. The conclusion of the paper is that the president of Romania, as coined by the Constitution and embodied by its successive incumbents, is n...
Puterile sociale ale Creştinismului : opere alese / PS Vartolomeu Stănescu, episcopul Râmnicului-... more Puterile sociale ale Creştinismului : opere alese / PS Vartolomeu Stănescu, episcopul Râmnicului-Noul Severin ; ed. îngrijită, studii introd., note şi comentarii, indice de George Enache şi Cătălin Raiu ; trad. în lb. franc.: Raluca Sarău.
Public Governance and Religion. Key Historical Turns in Modern Romania, 2023
To determine how intellectual debates on Church government, churchmanship and Church engagement w... more To determine how intellectual debates on Church government, churchmanship and Church engagement with nationhood, the secular state and democracy may have a bearing on public governance and public policies is no easy task. Such an effect has largely gone unnoticed, as scholars were – and still are – accustomed to consider rather the different, and sometimes dramatic ways modern and contemporary statecraft influenced the position of the Church(es) in modern societies, as well as the various ecclesiological arguments brought forth by Church officials and theologians in order to explain, accept or reject this situation. It takes not only a firm command of both the social sciences and theology, but also the courage to go beyond the prevalent methodological assumptions to argue that discussions among theologians and clergymen about internal Church affairs have changed modern politics and have helped reshape many a perspective on public administration or democratic government. Cătălin Raiu has both the required expertise and the audacity to venture out into this (as of yet) scientifically uncharted territory. Vast and barely traveled as it is, the territory mapped by Cătălin Raiu has however well-defined borders. It covers by and large the intertwined histories of the Romanian nation-state (from its formal inception in 1862 to the demise of the communist regime in 1989-1990) and of the Romanian Orthodox Church (from its establishment by the Romanian state in 1864 to its final disentanglement from any state control in 1990-1992). All along this chronological span, the Church acted in turn as a constituent part of civil society which weight had to be taken into serious account by the successive political regimes (including the communist one) and as an interest group able to exert an effective influence on the public agenda (not only on issues related to its religious mission or the question of collective identity, but also in administrative, financial and political matters). The Church acted sequentially and contingently as a pervasive part of civil society or as an organized and hierarchical interest group, but was constantly and essentially both. It was at once an organic link between society and the state and an agency for promoting the specific interests of the clergy. It was always the state that decided which of these two indivisible figures of the Church had to take precedence at a given time. In examining these “key historical turns”, Cătălin Raiu relied less on the mainline historiography, resorting instead to sources that were thus far disregarded if not completely ignored. He dug out from neglect, a nuanced and rich body of literature authored mainly by clerics and theologians – among whom only Metropolitan Andrei Șaguna is widely studied – who pondered on how the Church, used by the state for nation-building purposes, may frame the state, reconfigure its institutions, and inspire its policies. There is no doubt that this multifaceted story begins in 1862-1864, even if Church officials and Church historians are usually overlooking the constitutive and constitutional major turn of 1864, when the secular nation-state fashioned and established the Romanian Orthodox Church as a national institution of its own making and serving its own goal, preferring instead to support the unfolding narrative of a fictional continuity of the Eastern Church in the Romanian lands from the Middle Ages to the present day. Equally obvious, but even less discussed, is the final point of the itinerary. At first glance, the end of state socialism hardly disturbed the continuousness of Church's recent history. The Patriarch – whom many regarded as too involved in the politics of the late years of the fallen regime – withdrew to a monastery for a few months. The Holy Synod acknowledged the collective guilt of its members for not speaking out against the communist abuses and asked forgiveness in a document that was never duly published. However, no bishop resigned. The Patriarch himself resumed his functions to the almost general satisfaction of the clergy and the state authorities. Almost, because during his absence and for a short time after his comeback, a Reflection Group for the Church Renewal, formed by a small (but quite significant) number of clerics and lay theologians, was very vocal in demanding a profound reform of the Church in capite et in membris, a reform that would not that much echo, but rather steer the transformation of the Romanian post-communist politics and society. A radical reform of the Romanian Orthodox Church did occur eventually, albeit not of the nature hoped for by the Reflection Group. Carefully surveyed by Cătălin Raiu, the reflection of the Group called for critical decentralization and even democratization of Church government, presuming that the spirit of democracy is somehow embedded in the Orthodox tradition of synodality. They also surmised that the same tradition, deprived of a permanent magisterium entitled to sanction doctrine and opinions, is fully compatible with the freedom of expression that characterizes liberal democracy. There is no accident that the fifty days of sit-in protests in the University Square of Bucharest (April to June 1990) demanding an immediate transition to democracy and the exclusion from governmental and political offices of the former communist apparatchiks were anticipated and triggered by a march of nuns, monks and theology students who, inspired by the public stands of the Reflection Group, urged the Patriarch to resign (“Teoctist Antihrist” was their slogan) and the Holy Synod to democratize the institutional fabric of the Church. These connected remonstrations failed in their attempt to reform the state and Church. Nevertheless, both the state and the Church would soon be engaged in a process of thorough reconstruction, but a process immune to bottom-up civic pressures. The changes undergone by the post-communist state and the Romanian Orthodox Church after 1990 sent them out in opposite directions. The state gradually became something close to a democracy without democrats, which means that the institutions of democracy were designed, put up, peopled and led by individuals and networks already active in public life under the communist regime. The Church for its part would also be ruled by hierarchs promoted or at least trained for high offices before 1990. Unlike their political compeers, these bishops had no taste for democracy and no incentive to democratize the government of the church. On the contrary. Today, the Romanian Orthodox Church is a highly centralized monarchical institution, suspicious of free speech and equipped better than ever to exert an authoritative control over its ecclesiastical personnel. In some legal cultures, constitutionalists and politicians count a first, a second or even a fifth republic. In a like manner, it could be said that Cătălin Raiu has analyzed the interdependence of the First Romanian Orthodox Church and public governance from the parliamentary regime of the late 19th century to state socialism. During this period, the state was able to keep the Church in a position of administrative and financial dependency, even if the Church managed oftentimes to inspire many a public policy, mainly in matters of nationhood, welfare and constitutional design. After 1990, a Second Romanian Orthodox Church slowly came of age. A Church independent from the state, but capable of claiming unconditional financial benefits on the public budget. A Church that took the lead in terms of human and social values or the governance of the numerous Romanians living abroad. Behind the image of a continuous, traditional and everlasting institution, this Church has started a history of its own. (Daniel BARBU)
Seria Theologia Socialis este editată de Radu Preda (Cluj-Napoca) alături de un consiliu știinţif... more Seria Theologia Socialis este editată de Radu Preda (Cluj-Napoca) alături de un consiliu știinţifi c format din George Enache (Galaţi), Ingeborg Gabriel (Viena), Pantelis Kalaitzidis (Volos), Vasilios Makrides (Erfurt), Picu Ocoleanu (Craiova), Stefan Tobler (Sibiu/Tübingen) și este promovată de Institutul Român de Studii Inter-ortodoxe, Inter-confesionale și Inter-religioase (INTER), Cluj-Napoca/Sibiu/Craiova/București/Chișinău www.inter-institute.ro Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României VARTOLOMEU STĂNESCU, episcop Puterile sociale ale Creştinismului : opere alese / PS Vartolomeu Stănescu, episcopul Râmnicului-Noul Severin ; ed. îngrijită, studii introd., note şi comentarii, indice de George Enache şi Cătălin Raiu ; trad. în lb. franc.: Raluca Sarău.
Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review, 2024
The volume presents a critical analysis of how the Romanian Orthodox
Church and other forms of in... more The volume presents a critical analysis of how the Romanian Orthodox Church and other forms of institutionalized religious faith have defined themselves within the modern Romanian space (1860 to 1990s) in relation to the nature of political regimes, developing their own political visions, or participating in the formation of incipient Indigenous forms of democratization. The volume is prefaced by Professor Daniel Barbu, whose text, published shortly before his untimely death (March 2024), describes Cătălin Raiu’s research as “beyond the prevalent methodological assumptions” and delving into a “scientifically uncharted territory” (VII).
ANALELE ŞTIINŢIFICE ALE UNIVERSITĂŢII „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA” DIN IAŞI TOMUL XXVII/1, TEOLOGIE ORTODOXĂ, 257-262, 2022
The beginning of 2020, marked by the much dreaded Coronavirus (COVID-19) left its mark of fear, p... more The beginning of 2020, marked by the much dreaded Coronavirus (COVID-19) left its mark of fear, panic, disease as well as death on us. In this context, most governments opted for physical (social) distancing, in varying degrees, by which they tried to reduce the close contact between people as much as possible and thus slow down the spread of the disease. These physical distancing measures taken by governments included quarantine, traveling restrictions, and the closure of schools, churches, workplaces, stadiums, cinemas, theatres and restaurants. The relations between the state and denominations established by law, especially during the pandemic period, require the conjugation of efforts to overcome this difficult period, each in the perspective of its goal, the state through its means to seeking physical healing with the help of medical personnel and the health system and thus to fulfill its purpose, the wellbeing of the citizens, and the Church to fulfill its pastoral, spiritual-cultural, educational, and social-philanthropic mission for soul healing, and the ultimate goal, the salvation of the faithful.
Uploads
Papers by Catalin Raiu
Books by Catalin Raiu
secular state and democracy may have a bearing on public
governance and public policies is no easy task. Such an effect has
largely gone unnoticed, as scholars were – and still are –
accustomed to consider rather the different, and sometimes
dramatic ways modern and contemporary statecraft influenced the
position of the Church(es) in modern societies, as well as the
various ecclesiological arguments brought forth by Church
officials and theologians in order to explain, accept or reject this
situation. It takes not only a firm command of both the social
sciences and theology, but also the courage to go beyond the
prevalent methodological assumptions to argue that discussions
among theologians and clergymen about internal Church affairs
have changed modern politics and have helped reshape many a
perspective on public administration or democratic government.
Cătălin Raiu has both the required expertise and the audacity to
venture out into this (as of yet) scientifically uncharted territory.
Vast and barely traveled as it is, the territory mapped by Cătălin
Raiu has however well-defined borders. It covers by and large the
intertwined histories of the Romanian nation-state (from its formal
inception in 1862 to the demise of the communist regime in
1989-1990) and of the Romanian Orthodox Church (from its
establishment by the Romanian state in 1864 to its final
disentanglement from any state control in 1990-1992). All along
this chronological span, the Church acted in turn as a constituent
part of civil society which weight had to be taken into serious
account by the successive political regimes (including the
communist one) and as an interest group able to exert an effective influence on the public agenda (not only on issues related to its
religious mission or the question of collective identity, but also in
administrative, financial and political matters). The Church acted
sequentially and contingently as a pervasive part of civil society or
as an organized and hierarchical interest group, but was constantly
and essentially both. It was at once an organic link between society
and the state and an agency for promoting the specific interests of
the clergy. It was always the state that decided which of these two
indivisible figures of the Church had to take precedence at a given
time. In examining these “key historical turns”, Cătălin Raiu relied
less on the mainline historiography, resorting instead to sources
that were thus far disregarded if not completely ignored. He dug
out from neglect, a nuanced and rich body of literature authored
mainly by clerics and theologians – among whom only
Metropolitan Andrei Șaguna is widely studied – who pondered on
how the Church, used by the state for nation-building purposes,
may frame the state, reconfigure its institutions, and inspire
its policies.
There is no doubt that this multifaceted story begins in
1862-1864, even if Church officials and Church historians are
usually overlooking the constitutive and constitutional major turn
of 1864, when the secular nation-state fashioned and established
the Romanian Orthodox Church as a national institution of its own
making and serving its own goal, preferring instead to support the
unfolding narrative of a fictional continuity of the Eastern Church
in the Romanian lands from the Middle Ages to the present day.
Equally obvious, but even less discussed, is the final point of the
itinerary. At first glance, the end of state socialism hardly disturbed
the continuousness of Church's recent history. The Patriarch – whom
many regarded as too involved in the politics of the late years of
the fallen regime – withdrew to a monastery for a few months. The
Holy Synod acknowledged the collective guilt of its members for
not speaking out against the communist abuses and asked
forgiveness in a document that was never duly published.
However, no bishop resigned. The Patriarch himself resumed his
functions to the almost general satisfaction of the clergy and the
state authorities. Almost, because during his absence and for a short time after his comeback, a Reflection Group for the Church
Renewal, formed by a small (but quite significant) number of
clerics and lay theologians, was very vocal in demanding a
profound reform of the Church in capite et in membris, a reform
that would not that much echo, but rather steer the transformation
of the Romanian post-communist politics and society.
A radical reform of the Romanian Orthodox Church did occur
eventually, albeit not of the nature hoped for by the Reflection
Group. Carefully surveyed by Cătălin Raiu, the reflection of the
Group called for critical decentralization and even democratization
of Church government, presuming that the spirit of
democracy is somehow embedded in the Orthodox tradition of
synodality. They also surmised that the same tradition, deprived of
a permanent magisterium entitled to sanction doctrine and
opinions, is fully compatible with the freedom of expression that
characterizes liberal democracy. There is no accident that the fifty
days of sit-in protests in the University Square of Bucharest (April
to June 1990) demanding an immediate transition to democracy
and the exclusion from governmental and political offices of the
former communist apparatchiks were anticipated and triggered by
a march of nuns, monks and theology students who, inspired by the
public stands of the Reflection Group, urged the Patriarch to resign
(“Teoctist Antihrist” was their slogan) and the Holy Synod to
democratize the institutional fabric of the Church. These connected
remonstrations failed in their attempt to reform the state and Church.
Nevertheless, both the state and the Church would soon be engaged in a
process of thorough reconstruction, but a process immune to bottom-up
civic pressures. The changes undergone by the post-communist
state and the Romanian Orthodox Church after 1990 sent them out
in opposite directions. The state gradually became something close
to a democracy without democrats, which means that the
institutions of democracy were designed, put up, peopled and led
by individuals and networks already active in public life under the
communist regime. The Church for its part would also be ruled by
hierarchs promoted or at least trained for high offices before 1990.
Unlike their political compeers, these bishops had no taste for
democracy and no incentive to democratize the government of the church. On the contrary. Today, the Romanian Orthodox Church
is a highly centralized monarchical institution, suspicious of free
speech and equipped better than ever to exert an authoritative
control over its ecclesiastical personnel.
In some legal cultures, constitutionalists and politicians count a
first, a second or even a fifth republic. In a like manner, it could be
said that Cătălin Raiu has analyzed the interdependence of the First
Romanian Orthodox Church and public governance from the
parliamentary regime of the late 19th century to state socialism.
During this period, the state was able to keep the Church in a
position of administrative and financial dependency, even if the
Church managed oftentimes to inspire many a public policy,
mainly in matters of nationhood, welfare and constitutional design.
After 1990, a Second Romanian Orthodox Church slowly came of
age. A Church independent from the state, but capable of claiming
unconditional financial benefits on the public budget. A Church
that took the lead in terms of human and social values or the
governance of the numerous Romanians living abroad. Behind the
image of a continuous, traditional and everlasting institution, this
Church has started a history of its own. (Daniel BARBU)
secular state and democracy may have a bearing on public
governance and public policies is no easy task. Such an effect has
largely gone unnoticed, as scholars were – and still are –
accustomed to consider rather the different, and sometimes
dramatic ways modern and contemporary statecraft influenced the
position of the Church(es) in modern societies, as well as the
various ecclesiological arguments brought forth by Church
officials and theologians in order to explain, accept or reject this
situation. It takes not only a firm command of both the social
sciences and theology, but also the courage to go beyond the
prevalent methodological assumptions to argue that discussions
among theologians and clergymen about internal Church affairs
have changed modern politics and have helped reshape many a
perspective on public administration or democratic government.
Cătălin Raiu has both the required expertise and the audacity to
venture out into this (as of yet) scientifically uncharted territory.
Vast and barely traveled as it is, the territory mapped by Cătălin
Raiu has however well-defined borders. It covers by and large the
intertwined histories of the Romanian nation-state (from its formal
inception in 1862 to the demise of the communist regime in
1989-1990) and of the Romanian Orthodox Church (from its
establishment by the Romanian state in 1864 to its final
disentanglement from any state control in 1990-1992). All along
this chronological span, the Church acted in turn as a constituent
part of civil society which weight had to be taken into serious
account by the successive political regimes (including the
communist one) and as an interest group able to exert an effective influence on the public agenda (not only on issues related to its
religious mission or the question of collective identity, but also in
administrative, financial and political matters). The Church acted
sequentially and contingently as a pervasive part of civil society or
as an organized and hierarchical interest group, but was constantly
and essentially both. It was at once an organic link between society
and the state and an agency for promoting the specific interests of
the clergy. It was always the state that decided which of these two
indivisible figures of the Church had to take precedence at a given
time. In examining these “key historical turns”, Cătălin Raiu relied
less on the mainline historiography, resorting instead to sources
that were thus far disregarded if not completely ignored. He dug
out from neglect, a nuanced and rich body of literature authored
mainly by clerics and theologians – among whom only
Metropolitan Andrei Șaguna is widely studied – who pondered on
how the Church, used by the state for nation-building purposes,
may frame the state, reconfigure its institutions, and inspire
its policies.
There is no doubt that this multifaceted story begins in
1862-1864, even if Church officials and Church historians are
usually overlooking the constitutive and constitutional major turn
of 1864, when the secular nation-state fashioned and established
the Romanian Orthodox Church as a national institution of its own
making and serving its own goal, preferring instead to support the
unfolding narrative of a fictional continuity of the Eastern Church
in the Romanian lands from the Middle Ages to the present day.
Equally obvious, but even less discussed, is the final point of the
itinerary. At first glance, the end of state socialism hardly disturbed
the continuousness of Church's recent history. The Patriarch – whom
many regarded as too involved in the politics of the late years of
the fallen regime – withdrew to a monastery for a few months. The
Holy Synod acknowledged the collective guilt of its members for
not speaking out against the communist abuses and asked
forgiveness in a document that was never duly published.
However, no bishop resigned. The Patriarch himself resumed his
functions to the almost general satisfaction of the clergy and the
state authorities. Almost, because during his absence and for a short time after his comeback, a Reflection Group for the Church
Renewal, formed by a small (but quite significant) number of
clerics and lay theologians, was very vocal in demanding a
profound reform of the Church in capite et in membris, a reform
that would not that much echo, but rather steer the transformation
of the Romanian post-communist politics and society.
A radical reform of the Romanian Orthodox Church did occur
eventually, albeit not of the nature hoped for by the Reflection
Group. Carefully surveyed by Cătălin Raiu, the reflection of the
Group called for critical decentralization and even democratization
of Church government, presuming that the spirit of
democracy is somehow embedded in the Orthodox tradition of
synodality. They also surmised that the same tradition, deprived of
a permanent magisterium entitled to sanction doctrine and
opinions, is fully compatible with the freedom of expression that
characterizes liberal democracy. There is no accident that the fifty
days of sit-in protests in the University Square of Bucharest (April
to June 1990) demanding an immediate transition to democracy
and the exclusion from governmental and political offices of the
former communist apparatchiks were anticipated and triggered by
a march of nuns, monks and theology students who, inspired by the
public stands of the Reflection Group, urged the Patriarch to resign
(“Teoctist Antihrist” was their slogan) and the Holy Synod to
democratize the institutional fabric of the Church. These connected
remonstrations failed in their attempt to reform the state and Church.
Nevertheless, both the state and the Church would soon be engaged in a
process of thorough reconstruction, but a process immune to bottom-up
civic pressures. The changes undergone by the post-communist
state and the Romanian Orthodox Church after 1990 sent them out
in opposite directions. The state gradually became something close
to a democracy without democrats, which means that the
institutions of democracy were designed, put up, peopled and led
by individuals and networks already active in public life under the
communist regime. The Church for its part would also be ruled by
hierarchs promoted or at least trained for high offices before 1990.
Unlike their political compeers, these bishops had no taste for
democracy and no incentive to democratize the government of the church. On the contrary. Today, the Romanian Orthodox Church
is a highly centralized monarchical institution, suspicious of free
speech and equipped better than ever to exert an authoritative
control over its ecclesiastical personnel.
In some legal cultures, constitutionalists and politicians count a
first, a second or even a fifth republic. In a like manner, it could be
said that Cătălin Raiu has analyzed the interdependence of the First
Romanian Orthodox Church and public governance from the
parliamentary regime of the late 19th century to state socialism.
During this period, the state was able to keep the Church in a
position of administrative and financial dependency, even if the
Church managed oftentimes to inspire many a public policy,
mainly in matters of nationhood, welfare and constitutional design.
After 1990, a Second Romanian Orthodox Church slowly came of
age. A Church independent from the state, but capable of claiming
unconditional financial benefits on the public budget. A Church
that took the lead in terms of human and social values or the
governance of the numerous Romanians living abroad. Behind the
image of a continuous, traditional and everlasting institution, this
Church has started a history of its own. (Daniel BARBU)
Church and other forms of institutionalized religious faith have defined
themselves within the modern Romanian space (1860 to 1990s) in
relation to the nature of political regimes, developing their own political
visions, or participating in the formation of incipient Indigenous forms
of democratization. The volume is prefaced by Professor Daniel Barbu,
whose text, published shortly before his untimely death (March 2024),
describes Cătălin Raiu’s research as “beyond the prevalent methodological
assumptions” and delving into a “scientifically uncharted territory” (VII).
personnel and the health system and thus to fulfill its purpose, the wellbeing of the citizens, and the Church to fulfill its pastoral, spiritual-cultural, educational, and social-philanthropic mission for soul healing, and the ultimate goal, the salvation of the faithful.