REMEMBRANCE IN TIME - Index of

Ion XENOFONTOV: Monastery Closing Campaign Throughout Soviet Moldavia … 337
regards the monks from Curchi monastery, they are said to “be fond of drunkenness and
lead a dissolute life; the abbot itself, Veniamin Batâr, lives with the nun Dionisa Cempoc
from Hirova monastery. The monastic cells and the monks are dirty” [36]. The
commissioner Romenski concluded in 1956, that all monasteries are centres of amoral
behaviour and sexual debauchery [37].
Another constraining form of the monastic establishments was economic. According to
a classification of the Soviet authorities, three categories of monasteries existed in the
republic: monasteries with high, medium and poor economic potential. The third-category
monasteries were reckoned to have no existence perspectives, therefore they were to be
liquidated or merged [38]. The first monastery abolished on these grounds was Frumoasa
convent (6 June 1946). As argument for closing Vărzăreşti monastery, in the year 1949,
the fact was invoked that “the monastery is insufficiently provided materially and does
not dispose of t he necessary conditions to further exist”. The same “arguments” were
invoked in case of łipova (Horodişte) monastery [39].
Unlike farms, monastic complexes were not granted exemptions. Monasteries were
subjected to taxes and other compulsory deliveries of animal products. Because of the
poor harvest, in 1947, 12 monasteries from 22 did not meet the cereal-delivery plan.
In 1952, the taxes and obligations of the monasteries towards the State doubled
compared to 1950. Through economic ruining, there was counted on “decently”
liquidating the monastic establishments. The economic restrictions on monasteries were
intensified by late 1950s. New taxes constituted three quarters or more from the total
volume of the harvest [40]. Grigore CăpăŃină, abbot of Suruceni monastery, reported that
because of the high tax – 5000 litres of milk – sold two cattle [41].
In the collectivization process, there was staked on nationalizing the monastic estates.
On 3 April 1946, the monasteries owned 1317 land hectares, inclusively 791 ha of arable
land, 117 ha of orchards and 109 ha of vineyards. In two years, on 16 March 1948, the
monasteries only owned 1030 ha, inclusively 506 ha of arable land, 81 ha of orchards and
67 ha of vineyards. On average, a monastery owned 46,5 ha of land. The new collective
households forcedly seized in their turn the monastic lands and buildings. Monasteries
were charged with exorbitant taxes. In the context of the collectivization, various attempts
were made to dispossess the establishment of land and the monastic congregation
members were obliged to work in the collective households with modest remuneration
[42]. This way, by late 1944, the abbot of Noul NeamŃ monastery from ChiŃcani, Axentie
Munteanu, submitted a complaint as regards the occupation of the land and the seizure of
the monastic wealth by the newly established local sovkhoz [43]. In 1946, Hâncu
monastery was dispossessed of its crop by the local authorities: “And God gave full fruit
in the orchards, 150 000 (one hundred fifty thousand) roub. could be taken , but the
Soviet of Ciuciuleni village – cheated on abbot Pavel Friptu and seized all these fruit ...
took from the monastery all the grape and fruit harvest” [44].
In the second half of the 1940s, according to the assessments of the Soviet authorities,
Saharna monastery was included in the category of the socio-economically developed
establishments [45]. The Soviet State continued however to dispossess the establishment
of its estates, one of the first actions being the seizure of the mill. Then the monastic
establishment was charged with exorbitant taxes. In 1946, the monastic community
requested the diminution of the taxes, the request being categorically rejected by the
Soviet commissioner, who reckoned the taxation to be “correct” [46].