A martyr of Romanian Orthodoxy: mother Mihaela Iordache

Mother Mihaela Iordache is a well-known name in the Romanian Church. Unfortunately, many details of her biography remained unknown for a long time [1]. Here we will try to reconstruct the main lines of her life on the basis of documents from the former Securitate.

Background and education

Maria Iordache, daughter of Alexandru and Elena Iordache, was born on 15 November 1914 in Nicorești, Galați County [2]. She attended her first seven classes in her native village, then went to high school at the Liceul de Fete in Dej and the Liceul “Domnița Elena” in Bucharest [3]. Between 1934 and 1938, Maria (Marieta – as she was better known) attended the National Academy of Physical Education (A.N.E.F.), which she successfully completed with a bachelor’s degree, but she would only work sporadically and for a short time as a physical education teacher. At the same time, she attended courses at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy, but did not graduate [4].

Maria Iordache’s time as a student was decisive for her future destiny. It was here that she defined her political convictions and embarked on a path that would eventually lead to her death. Like many young people at the time, she saw in Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and the Legionary Movement an alternative to the traditional political parties, which were considered insufficiently dynamic for a generation that was no longer satisfied with small actions, but wanted a “Romania like the holy sun in the sky”. Historical distance allows us today to see the errors of this movement, which had tragic consequences, but at the time the Legionaries seduced a large part of the youth with their message of national dignity and their clear affirmation of the idea of faith in God, a concept radically different from the religious indifferentism of the other parties. Coming for the most part from peasant backgrounds, from families in which religion played a decisive role, these young people could not imagine that there could be a morality divorced from faith. The relationship between the Legionaries and the Church is far from clear, but this is not necessarily the fault of historians. Even within the movement there were different opinions on the subject. Some Legionaries saw the Church as an ideal Christian community of saints to which people (in this case Romanians) should aspire. The Legion was only a manifestation of the decadent world, which, like angelic hosts, took up the fight against evil. It is an image that comes close to the Last Judgement, when the angels separate the sinners from the saints and establish the eternal kingdom [5]. For these reasons, some Legionaries took it upon themselves to carry out these murders, considered as acts of justice [6], which became the main accusations against the Legion. The case of the Legionary Movement proves, if proof were needed, the enormous difficulty of reconciling the political with the spiritual.

From the Legion to the convent

To return to the case of Marieta Iordache, her approach to Legionnaireism was also motivated by a family atmosphere, since all the children of the Iordache family were involved in the movement in one way or another. Iordache Nicoară became a legionary commander [7] and one of the daughters was married by the captain himself, who came to Nicorești [8]. Marieta becomes a member of the Girls’ Citadel, led by Nicoleta Nicolescu [9], who is later brutally killed by the Securitate [10]. Together with other girls, she worked as a volunteer in one of the Legion’s restaurants in Bucharest and became active in the women’s organisation [11]. During the investigation in 1955, Maria Iordache, who naturally insisted on her Legionary past, was asked what the purpose of the Legion was. She replied that it was the creation of a new man, and that this ideal could be achieved through the interiorisation of conscience, the honest confession of one’s faults and the attendance at church. She also confessed that the Bible was read at the nest meetings [12]. She was asked: “What was achieved by attending church to form the new man? The answer was: “By going to church one acquired Christian behaviour and principles of correctness, which the legionaries put into practice in such a way that they enjoyed the sympathy and confidence of those around them” [13]. Such statements, collected from many of those arrested, were a reason for the Securitate to speak of an infiltration of the Church by the Legionaries and their doctrine. In fact, in the minds of people like Maria Iordache, it was the other way round. The doctrine of the Church was to permeate the life of the Legion, creating a social and political movement guided by Christian values. From Maria Iordache’s statements it is clear that for her the Legion was more of a secular order, designed to impose a set of Christian values on society.

The success of the movement alarmed King Charles II. Having failed in his attempt to incorporate it into his plans for a personal dictatorship, Charles took a number of steps to destroy the Legion. One of these was the arrest and sentencing of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. On 8 June 1938, a demonstration was held at the ANEF stadium, in which King Carol II was to take part. When Maria Iordache managed to enter the stadium and approach a microphone, she shouted: “Corneliu Zelea Codreanu is innocent and for this truth I am ready to die” [14]. Arrested and beaten, she was interned in the Suzana convent camp for women legionaries. In October 1938, she managed to escape and wandered for a long time in the woods with a broken rib. The closure of the camp immediately after her escape saved her from further trouble [15].

In the following months, two deaths would affect her deeply: that of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and that of her brother, Iordache Nicoară, killed in the Miercurea Ciuc camp on the night of 21-22 September 1939. For a long time she refused to believe that they had died. He returned to his native village, where he stayed until September 1940. During this time, she visited the Vladimirsti monastery and was impressed by the life there. The coming to power of the Legionary Government in September 1940 led her to come to Bucharest, but only to attend the exhumation of Codreanu’s remains. Convinced of the captain’s death, she immediately left for Vladimirești, determined to become a nun [16]. She told the Securitate investigators that she had practically withdrawn from the Legionary organisation at that time, and when the investigators wondered why she had done so when the Legion was in power, she replied: “I withdrew precisely during the Legionary government because I saw that the Legionaries were committing some acts that I did not like, which led me to distance myself from this organisation, seeing at the same time that the Legionaries who were convinced of this idea had died” [17].

Her parents did not leave her in the convent, but followed her. In these circumstances, Maria Iordache returned to Bucharest, where she worked occasionally and, with some friends, set up a small farm on her brother’s land, where she led a quasi-monastic life. Either in church or at home, Marieta would pray for the souls of the dead, for the forgiveness of sins [18]. After leaving Bucharest for a while, she learns that the farm has been confiscated and the girls arrested [19]. From that moment on, the decision was made. After a short time in the convent of Pasărea, she came to Vladimirești on 22 September 1942, never to leave, and her parents had to accept their daughter’s decision [20].

After two years, she joined the Rostra (16 July 1944), and on 22 September 1946 she became a nun, taking the name Mihaela [21]. Because of her superior education, she was entrusted with the position of secretary. The abbess of the Vladimirești Monastery, Mother Veronica, said about Mother Mihaela: “As a nun, she led a special spiritual life of prayer and devotion, being a model and an example to be followed by the whole monastery. Although she was the secretary of the convent, Mother Mihaela, with a humility that surpassed all her other virtues, tirelessly participated in all the offerings of the convent. The nuns remember how one day, when the convent was besieged by Russian soldiers, they wanted to shoot at the icon of Our Lady in the church. Without hesitation, ready to sacrifice herself at any moment, courage born of her deep faith, Mother Michaela sat down in front of the icon, preferring to be shot herself rather than see the image of Our Lady and the Child mocked” [22].

Arrested by the Securitate

In the years that followed, the prestige of the Vladimirești monastery grew steadily, and many considered it to be a centre of anti-communist resistance, thanks to the courageous preaching of the priest Ioan Iovan. Many refugees found shelter here. For these reasons, the communist power was determined to abolish the monastery, trying to take advantage of some dogmatic misunderstandings between what Father Iovan preached and the rest of the Church. Patriarch Justinian tried to resolve the situation through a compromise, but failed. On the night of 30 March 1955, the security forces intervened with a large force and arrested several people from the monastery, first of all Father Ioan Iovan and Mother Mihaela. Mother Veronica remembers that “the first cell that the armed soldiers entered in large numbers was Mother Mihaela’s cell (as secretary, she was a member of the committee) and the priest’s dormitory, where Father Ioan was. Mother Mihaela had gone to the chapel to rest for an hour; she had only taken off her shoes and, dressed in this way, she lay unprepared on the bed next to Father Ioan. When she heard the noise of thunder in the courtyard, she awoke quickly, got dressed, and ran barefoot to the guesthouse. The soldiers, not finding her in the chapel, made a great commotion, screaming like mad, and ran to the nuns in their cells. They found her in the priory; they wanted to tie her hands, she fought with them, bit their hands, but they turned the bed of the gun and hit her on the mouth. It is said that she even lost some teeth” [23].

The two were arrested and taken to Galați Prison without an arrest warrant, which in the case of Mother Mihaela would not be issued until 23 April 1955 (for public agitation, Article 327 of the Penal Code) [24]. The investigators had nothing concrete against her, hoping to find something in the course of the investigation. A series of harsh interrogations followed, during which Mother Mihaela was questioned about her whole life, with the secret police insisting in particular on her past as a legionnaire and the possible continuation of this activity, in order to find a reason to officially accuse her and still make the accusation legit. Mother Mihaela openly admits her past, clearly explains what she understood by being a Legionnaire, what she hoped for from it, her disappointment with some aspects of it and her closeness to God through the Church. She resolutely stated that she was against communist ideology [25], that she would always fight against atheism, that she had hidden refugees in the convent and had not denounced them out of solidarity [26], and that she would never do otherwise. At the same time, she said that the former legionnaires who still visited her sometimes did so because of the friendship that bound them together and not to organise conspiracies, as the investigators would have us believe. The minutes show that the distances between visits were long and the people were different. Mother Mihaela knew how to separate things. She says clearly: “There were no legion meetings in the convent. If I had known, I would have thrown them out” [27]. Once asked by a legionary (Aurel Tacu) what she should do in the new political context, she replied: “The role of the legionary movement is to defend and support the Church, […] to propagate Christian virtues among the population and to attract the population to the Church. That the legionaries themselves should give their personal example of defending the Church and uniting against those who are against God” [28].

The investigation was in full swing until Ioan Lupeș, Petre Măzăreanu (who had killed several militiamen), Teodorescu Dumitru (Theovid, a legionary sympathiser, admirer of the Vladimiretists, who supported the actions here) and Păiș Ghiță (of Tudor Vladimirescu, a fighter against collectivisation) were arrested [29]. All of them had had dealings with Vladimirsti and the staff here. From this point on, the reason for the arrest is found and the investigation focuses on the links of Mother Mihaela, Ioan Iovan and Mother Veronica (also arrested) with these people. An ad hoc group was set up and tried in Galati by the military tribunal in Bucharest. In the indictment, Sister Mihaela is accused of continuing the Legionary activity under the guise of the monks, trying to attract other nuns. She is accused of having set up a real school of crime, of having organised legionary camps, of having organised shooting exercises [30]. The facts are presented in the mobilising, apocalyptic style typical of communist accusations. The interpretation given to the sheltering of German soldiers after 23 August 1944 is ridiculous: it was intended to exempt them from responsibility for their crimes [31]! Mother Michael did indeed help some of the refugees with money and food, gave them identity cards or forged documents to enable them to escape, and sent Theovid a typewriter so that he could multiply the pamphlets with Mother Veronica’s views [32]. All this was reason enough for Mother Mihaela to be condemned by the communist justice system, but the sentence was given an additional pathetic twist to make it even greater and to justify the theory of a Legionary conspiracy, which the communist power would later use to abolish a large number of monasteries [33].

Death in prison

In judgement 1655 of 7 December 1955, Maria Iordache was sentenced to 25 years’ hard labour and 10 years’ deprivation of civil liberties for the crime of “conspiracy against the social order” under Article 209 p III of the Penal Code, and to 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 years’ deprivation of liberty for forgery of public documents. She was to serve the maximum sentence under Article 101 of the Criminal Code [34].

From Galati she was sent to the women’s prison in Miercurea Ciuc. On 4 March 1960 she was sent to Arad Prison for work [35]. On 4 September 1960 she was transferred to Jilava for investigation [36], from where she returned to Miercurea Ciuc on 21 February 1961. Here, on 20 April 1963, she met her final end, in the same place where her brother, “bădia” Iordache Nicoară, had been killed 24 years earlier. In order to clarify the cause of death, it is useful to reproduce in full the medical report drawn up by the prison doctor, Alex. Lorenzovici on 23 April 1963:

“Prisoner C.R. Iordache Maria, born on 14.11.1914, died on 20.04.1963 at 8.00 pm. Cause of death: cardiovascular failure, decompensated cardiosclerosis, ankylosing rheumatism.

Important data from the medical record

– Date of completion of the file: 18.07.1956 – healthy

– 31.08.1956: gastric ptosis, chronic gastroenterocolitis, dysmenorrhoea, polymenorrhoea, general physical weakness. A gynaecological examination is prepared, but the inmate refuses it.

– 9.04.1957: Anaemia followed by hypermenorrhoea. Refused gynaecological examination.

– 19.04.1957: idem (trat: Progesterone, Testosterone, Glanduitrin, Ergatin, Glucose, Vit. C, Vit. B1, Complex b and Syr. Haemoglobin)

– 7.07.1957: ditto

– 10.10.1957: ditto

– Feb 1959: refuses all prescribed medication

– 13.12.1960: MRF, ITH

– 3.03.1960: fit for work (sent to Arad, n.n.)

– 11.04.1962: chronic rheumatism (treatment with vitamin C, aspirin)

– 17.01.1963: Dystrophy, rheumatism with incipient ankylosis (treatment: Arenal, Algocalmin, polyvitamins, glucophilin, diet)

– 01.02.1963: cardiac insufficiency, cardiosclerosis, chronic colitis (treatment: Strofanthin, Glucophilinum)

– 15.02.1963: ditto (treatment with Strofanthin, Glucose)

– 26.02.1963: ditto (Vit. C ampoules, Vit. K, Vit. B1 25 mg. ampoules)

– 8.03.1963: Strophanthin, Glucose, Vit. C ampoules

– 28.03.1963: Status idem plus enterocolitis, bronchitis, suspected oesophageal cancer

– 5.04.1963: Cardiac decompensation (Strophantin, glucose, ampoules of vitamin C)

– 15.04.1963: Status idem (Strophantin, Glucose, Vit. C ampoules)

– 17.04.1963: Status ditto (cefine, pentazole, vitamin B1, vitamin C)

– 18.04.1963: ditto (vitamin B1 100 mg, strophantin, glucose, pentazole).

Recently, the patient developed heart failure and became severely cachectic due to loss of appetite, vomiting and severe dysfunction (I also made the diagnosis: suspected oesophageal cancer). In the treatment I took into account the nature of the disease and stopped the treatment of rheumatism, the drugs of which were contraindicated.

On 19.02.1963 I applied for admission to the Văcărești hospital, which was granted with the stroke of 23.04.1963.

The prisoner repeatedly refused gynaecological examinations. Recently, she no longer showed any symptoms of gynaecological disease, but on the basis of previous data, it was possible that she had a malignant uterine tumour, which would explain the subjective abdominal symptoms that gradually became more pronounced (abdominal pain, diarrhoea, loss of appetite, severe cachexia). In January 1963, with assistance, she was able to go downstairs to the doctor’s office, but from February she was unable to get out of bed by herself and had to be looked after by others. Her general condition deteriorated rapidly, although we tried and did all we could, and on 20.04.1963, at 8 p.m., she died after a suffocation crisis. On Monday 22.04.1963 I reported the case in accordance with the regulations in force. As there was no coroner or medical expert with a delegation in Miercurea Ciuc, I also reported the case to the Military Prosecutor’s Office in Tg. Mureș, who gave us permission by telephone to bury the body without an autopsy.

I would like to mention that the patient was not admitted to our infirmary because we do not have an infirmary, so we cannot send you a copy of the infirmary’s admission form. Miercurea Ciuc, 23.04.1963″ [37].

The measures taken by the doctor were correct, but the prison regime was destructive. This is clear from the doctor’s report, but it is even clearer from a document written by Mother Mihaela: “9 June 1959 – Miercurea Ciuc – Mr. Commander, the undersigned prisoner Iordache Maria, sentenced to 25 years m.s., suffering from haemorrhagic metritis and having been proposed a uterus repair, I could not accept it for personal reasons. I hereby declare that I was therefore offered treatment conditional on this operation, which I refuse, being convinced that the cause of the repeated haemorrhages is due to a cold and a state of excessive fatigue and weakness. Before attempting to recover physically, I cannot accept the proposed operation due to the special conditions of prison life, and I have no claim to this regime as I am a prisoner and not a free man with the right to life. Respectfully, Iordache Maria prisoner” [38]. This is a very clear statement about the status of political prisoners. Mother Mihaela, who had entered the prison in good health, fell seriously ill in the prison of Miercurea Ciuc. Partially recovered, she was sent to work in Arad and Jilava, from where she returned to Miercurea Ciuc with rheumatism and heart problems. The suffering described in the report is appalling. Ironically, she was buried on the day she was due to be taken to the hospital in Văcărești. As there was no autopsy, it is impossible to say exactly what caused her death. All the testimonies show that she lived in prison as a true confessor, enduring all the torments with patience.

(George Enache – Puncte cardinale magazine, year XX, no. 11-12/239-240, November-December 2010, pp. 14-15; the text originally appeared in Rost magazine; for an extended version, see the collective volume Martyrs for Christ in Romania during the communist regime, EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 2007, pp. 361-370)

[1] In the gallery of personalities drawn up by the “George Manu” Foundation there are also some lines on the biography of Maria Iordache (on the Internet: http://www.fgmanu.net/personalitati). A particularly interesting portrait of her is given by Petre Pandrea in The White Monk, Ed. Vremea, Bucharest, 2003, passim.

[2] Archive of the National Council for the Study of Security Archives (CNASAS), Criminal fonds, file no. 160, vol. 3, f. 186.

[3] Ibid., f. 191.

[4] Ibidem, f. 188.

[5] Codreanu, in one of his writings, states: “The Legion defends the altars of the Church that the enemies want to tear down. The historical line is one: the one we live. Because we live in the age. The line of the Church is far above us. We tend towards it, but we realise little. For we live under the condemnation and under the millstone of our sins, of the world and of our forefathers. We admit that we are sinners: this is the Legionary attitude towards the Church…” (Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, The Doctrine of the Legionary Movement, ed. The quest for an ideal Christian community, which manifested itself in the last century, was combined with a certain disinterest in the realisation of a pragmatic project of social organisation, Codreanu stating that it was necessary first of all to train men of character who would bring about a “revolution” in Romanian society. However, history has shown that revolutions usually get out of hand, and the differences between a socio-political revolution and a spiritual one are extremely wide. Luigi Sturzo, the founder of Christian Democracy, was active in Italy at the same time and showed how the Christian faith could be valued in an increasingly secularised society (Luigi Sturzo, Liberty: its friends and enemies, trans. by Nicoleta Panait, ed. If one doctrine is ‘revolutionary’, the other could be described as ‘reformist’, and the difference between Codreanu and Sturzo is that between a messianic prophet and a scholastic theologian. The failure of the Legionary government in 1940 will show the limits of the doctrine and make many believers in God turn to the Church, realising that true salvation lies there. The security forces will use this to accuse the Church of Legionary infiltration (see George Enache, Orthodoxy and Political Power in Contemporary Romania. Studies and Essays, ed. Nemira, Bucharest, 2005, pp. 381-400, 451-497).

[6] They were considered as sins taken on knowingly (see Flor Strejnicu, The Christianity of the Legionary Movement, Ed. Imago, Sibiu, 2000, passim).

[7] A.C.N.S.A.S., Criminal fonds, file no. 160, vol. 3, f. 187.

[8] Ibidem, f. 192.

[9] Ibidem, 190-191.

[10] Cf. http://www.fgmanu.net/personalitati/personalitati1.htm.

[11] Ibidem, f. 191 (Question: What activity did you carry out within this legionary group? Answer: In this group I carried out the following activities: I took part in the weekly meetings, I paid the membership fee, I helped the imprisoned legionaries and their families materially, I sang legionary songs and went to the graves of legionaries, I worked as a volunteer in the legionary canteen and restaurant on Gutemberg Street, next to Cantacuzino’s house).

[12] Ibidem, f. 192.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., f. 187.

[15] Ibidem, f. 196.

[16] Ibidem, f. 197-198.

[17] Ibid, f. 189.

[18] Ibid, f. 194, 199.

[19] Ibid, f. 197-198.

[20] Ibid, f. 200.

[21] Cf. the testimony of Mother Superior Veronica Gurău of the Vladimiresti Monastery, given in 2004 for the martyrology produced by the “St. Gerhard” Foundation.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] A.C.N.S.A.S., Criminal fonds, file no. 160, vol. 3, f. 179. Mother Michael’s investigation in vol. 3, f. 179-355.

[25] Ibidem, f. 221.

[26] Ibid., f. 216.

[27] Ibid., f. 214.

[28] Ibid., f. 204.

[29] Ibid, vol. 6, f. 1-11.

[30] Ibid, f. 162.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid, f. 179. Both she and Ioan Iovan had an informant in their cell (ibidem, vol. 11, f. 326-353). In the confessions made and in the file, Mother Mihaela admits that she tried to transmit to the monks something of the Legionary spirit, but by this she means honesty and firmness.

[33] See G. Enache, op. cit., pp. 148-150, 398-400).

[34] A.C.N.S.A.S., Criminal fonds, file no. 160, vol. 6, f. 188.

[35] Ibidem, vol. 12, f. 96.

[36] Ibid., f. 31,33.

[37] Ibidem, f. 9.

[38] Ibid, f. 115.