The Bukovina Greek-Oriental Religious Fund 1783-1949

A comprehensive secularisation process in the course of the Josephinian reforms led to the dissolution of monasteries and ecclesiastical sinecures throughout the entire Habsburg Empire and to a complete restructuring of church assets. The Bukovina, as a young province of the Habsburg Empire, was at this time under direct military administration from Vienna. Moreover, the Orthodox Church dominated this country by far but here too, monasteries were dissolved. An essential part of the imperial political strategy, however, aimed at adjusting and orienting this church on the new territorial situation of the Habsburg Empire. As early as 1783 a Greek-Oriental Religious Fund attributed to the Bukovina was established. In stark contrast to the "general" Viennese Religious Fund, this institution was not only set up for a different denomination but also with a clear regional allocation from the start. Its growing economic role as the largest land owner in the Bukovina and the increasing influence of its bodies made this institution a major factor in the development of the region. It kept this important position until its eventual dissolution in the course of socialist restructuring of Romania in 1949. The research project thus focuses on analysing, for the first time, comprehensively and on the basis of historical sources, the Religious Fund in its significance for the formation, development and religion-led identity politics of the Bukovina region during its time as part of the Habsburg Monarchy (1774-1918) and during its time as part of Greater Romania (1918-1949).

The Greek-Oriental Religious Fund is a result of Josephinian church politics. On the one hand, in terms of territory, these politics aimed toward an adjustment of historical borders of the dioceses in this region, which were undefined prior to its conceptualization. The modern administrative state demanded clearly defined borderlines. Therefore Vienna could not accept church institutions within its own control, with a metropolitan bishop located beyond the border and outside of Habsburg state jurisdiction, as for instance in the Moldovan capital Iasi. On the other hand, the emperor had a very specific vision of how the church could be usefully integrated in the state. From the reformers point of view, the churchs administration of its own property definitely did not appear to be efficient enough. Therefore the estates of the church in Bukovina were transferred into a special fund. This Fund had to cover all expenses of the church and its needs, as well as of the elementary schools in the county. Finally, the complex question of who possessed and could exercise jurisdiction over this property could not be solved in a satisfactory manner until the outbreak of World War I. A fairly pragmatic compromise in favour of the state took place: de jure Orthodox Church remained proprietor of the Fund. De facto the power of disposal was fixed in a constant process of negotiation in between state authorities and church. However, each final decision rested with the countys prince the emperor in Vienna who had been widely accepted as the highest authority beyond any dispute. Beginning with the second half of 19th century, the structures of this institution the Fund had been largely settled and stable. From 1848 onward, there had been initially an intensive discourse within the Orthodox Church itself, whether and to what extent believers of the community should be granted an enlarged participation in church (and Fund) matters. Finally the Orthodox Church in Bukovina was confronted bit by bit with a nationalization of its structures and believers. Some archbishops (in 1873 Bukovina was raised to a metropolitanate) even actively supported these new ideas and defined the Orthodox Church as well as its Fund as a genuine property of the Romanian people. A constantly nationalized and in the same time emotionalized society and public provided further fertile grounds for these developments. Romanian interests confronted Ruthenian (Ukrainian) claims in an increasingly and inconciliable manner.In economical terms, the Fund developed into one of the crown lands most powerful players. This was predominantly a result of improved infrastructure in general and accessibility of Bukovina to international markets, e.g. via railway. The state deliberately utilized the Fund and its economic prosperity for a targeted modernization of the crown land.Until 1914, the countervailing power of state authorities had been quite successful to balance national aspirations within the Orthodox Church of Bukovina and its Fund. By the end of World War I, Bukovina became part of the Romanian Kingdom. The national situation was clarified, at least on this level. However the Romanian state, far more than the Austrian one, intermeddled constantly in church affairs. The sovereignty of the Fund had been permanently defeated by Bucharest. Additionally, the economic crisis of the late 1920s led toward an immanent structural crisis of the Fund. Even the vigorous attempts of archbishop V. Puiu to regain church sovereignty had failed as democratic state structures in Romania diminished step by step. Furthermore, World War II forestalled an orderly development of the Fund. Several evacuations and a rigid war economy caused severe damage to the Fund. In 1948, as Communist rule took over power in Romania, the Romanian Orthodox Religious Fund of Bukovina (as it was officially called after 1918) was dissolved and its property transferred toward state ownership. Since 1989, the diocese of southern (Romanian) Bukovina has been trying to regain this property as a part of general restitution processes. But the original concept of a church fund to the benefit of the county, commonly administered and controlled by state and church, is not at all part of this process.