Decree 410/1959. A brief assessment 50 years after its adoption
Decree 410 and the Repression of Romanian Monasticism
On 28 October 1959, the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly adopted Decree 410, which introduced several amendments to Decree No. 177/1948 concerning the general regime of religious cults. Applied retroactively, these measures had devastating consequences for monastic life in Romania—effects that could scarcely be countered.
Fifty years after the adoption of this infamous decree, it remains important to examine the causes and context of its enactment, the manner of its implementation, the responses of Church leaders and monastic communities, and the lasting impact on Romanian monasticism.
Causes Leading to the Adoption of Decree 410/1959
Monasteries had attracted the attention of the Securitate as early as 1948 for two principal reasons. Politically, they were viewed as potential centers of resistance, offering refuge to those hostile to the regime. Spiritually, they embodied the authentic faith—a threat to the atheist ideology of the state. Securitate documents disparagingly referred to the “black army of monks and nuns,” whom they deemed necessary to combat by any means.
Actions against the monasteries intensified after 1955 and reached a peak following the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which heightened fears that large numbers of “hostile elements” had taken refuge in monastic life. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s atheist campaign, launched during the 21st Congress of the CPSU, also influenced decisions taken by Communist authorities in Bucharest regarding religious affairs.
Provisions of Decree 410
Prior to Decree 410, the Communist authorities had already implemented several administrative measures. By late 1958, the Department of Religious Affairs issued new regulations specifying that the following categories of individuals were barred from entering monastic life: minors, persons without at least seven elementary grades, individuals who had committed offenses against monastic rules, those with common law convictions, “counter-revolutionary elements,” and anyone known to hold “enmity” toward the Communist regime.
At the Holy Synod meeting on 15 December 1958, Dumitru Dogaru, Secretary General of the Department of Cults, presented the provisions of these new regulations, urging their adoption. Although the hierarchs expressed formal agreement, their compliance often represented a delay tactic while seeking solutions to mitigate the measures. Security documents reveal that many hierarchs opposed these provisions. Consequently, the regulations were only tacitly enforced on 4 April 1959.
The retroactive nature of the decree meant that monks and nuns failing to meet the Department’s criteria were to be removed from their monasteries. Between December 1958 and March 1959, the Securitate, alongside the Department of Religious Affairs, conducted extensive inspections to identify individuals subject to exclusion. More than 3,000 monks were slated to leave their communities.
Following these inspections, authorities concluded that many monasteries faced closure due to “insufficient monks.” Specific measures were outlined to repurpose the buildings, with the Department of Religious Affairs responsible for enforcing removals and authorized to enlist the Security Service, operating under the cover of the Militia.
Due to the resistance of monks and some hierarchs, by 1 November 1959 only 1,200 monks had left their monasteries. To accelerate the process, Decree 410 of 28 October 1959 supplemented Decree 177/1948, introducing Article 71. This article stipulated that men could only enter monastic life at age 55 and women at age 50, provided they renounced any state salary or pension, were unmarried, and had no family obligations. The decree allowed the Communist state to assert direct responsibility for repressing Romanian monasticism, circumventing potential Synod objections.
Monastery Closures
Partial Securitate records indicate that on 1 January 1959, Romania had 224 Orthodox monasteries. By October 1959, following the application of the new regulations, this number had fallen to 194. By 31 March 1960, only 132 monasteries remained operational, with an estimated 92 having been abolished.
Number of Monks Removed
Partial data show that on 1 January 1959, there were 6,014 monks and nuns. After all measures were implemented, authorities estimated only 1,400 would remain. Documents indicate that approximately 4,750 monks were removed from monastic life.
Arrests Among Monks
Most arrests occurred before the administrative measures were enforced, providing a pretext to justify the extensive exclusions as necessary for state security. After Decree 410, monks who refused to abandon monastic life, despite being officially excluded, faced arrest, sentencing, or house arrest.
Patriarch Justinian’s Response
A Security Service report from April 1960 notes that Patriarch Justinian Marina strongly opposed the government’s “monastic reform.” At Synod meetings, he declared his refusal to recognize the decisions, framing them as state, not Church, mandates and contrary to canonical law. He encouraged monks to submit petitions to remain in monasteries, personally approving them, and concentrated certain nuns at the Monastery of the Hill under the pretext of establishing ecclesiastical workshops. Exploiting the historic monument status of some monasteries, he kept residents in place under the guise of preserving and enhancing these sites.
The report concludes: “As a result, a significant number of monks who had left monastic life returned to the monasteries, in many cases requiring the intervention of the MAI.”
Life After Removal
Those removed were compelled to publicly adopt lay status. The Securitate monitored them to prevent continued monastic practice outside the monastery, including wearing monastic garb, meeting former monks, or visiting monastery buildings. Minors were returned to their parents, while adults were encouraged to marry, thus renouncing their vows, and employed as “productive elements” contributing to socialist construction.
Many monks possessed trade skills acquired in monastery workshops—painting, sculpture, weaving, tailoring, agriculture, and education—and continued to practice these trades in state enterprises and cooperatives. Monks owning property within monasteries either refused to leave or remained in their residences under state pressure.
Elderly monks faced the greatest difficulties, often lacking alternative accommodations. Despite these challenges, most continued exemplary monastic lives discreetly, awaiting the opportunity to return to their former communities. Their steadfast commitment to their vocation remains a testament to their resilience and devotion.
(George Enache – Ziarul Lumina)