Memory, communism and ecclesial conscience

Memory, Martyrdom, and the Challenge of Communism: Reflections on 2017

The year 2017 challenges us to exercise memory, to confront a traumatic past, and to honor the iconic figures who bore witness to Christ during the Communist era. This year marks a century since the Bolshevik Revolution, seven decades since the painful end of natural Romania with the forced abdication of the king, and forty years since Patriarch Justinian went to be with the Lord.

“Do this in remembrance of me.” These words of the Savior, renewed by the Apostle Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians, establish the Eucharist as a constant presence within the Church. Through this sacrament, the sacrifice of the faithful continually recalls the history of salvation, with the act of remembrance carrying profound eschatological meaning.

In the earliest centuries of Christianity, the faith survived persecution precisely by cultivating memory—the memory of those who had sacrificed themselves for Christ. Roman arenas became sites of martyrdom, supplication, and, above all, remembrance: the tombs of martyrs were transformed into “places of memory” and altars for the Eucharistic sacrifice. In this way, the memory of martyrs was not only preserved but celebrated, becoming the foundation of the Church’s identity.

Liturgical veneration of martyrs was at once complete and joyous. Through it, Christians internalized the witness and suffering of those who had died for Christ. The Acts of Martyrdom represent a faithful transformation of historical record into liturgical memory, effectively becoming the first synods of the Church. Over the centuries, this practice maintained the identity of the ecclesial community, shaping the Church into a living culture of memory. Although modernity sought to break with the past, it had to “translate” this memorial dimension into secular forms, in order to counteract the amnesia that might allow history’s horrors to repeat. Thus, after events such as the Holocaust and the Gulag, memory becomes a vital tool for safeguarding humanity.

Communism and the Memory of Genocide

Communism was, above all, an apology for murder as a political tool. Beyond acts of genocide against ideologically constructed opponents, Communist regimes practiced ‘memocide,’ seeking to eradicate memory itself—the central vehicle of identity—as an obstacle to the creation of the “new man.” Romanian Communist prisons extended far beyond the detention of criminals. Political prisoners carried into their cells the memory of a vanished Romania, whose cultural vibrancy, spiritual depth, and communal solidarity were suppressed by the regime. Within the walls of prisons, subjected to exterminatory conditions, the prisoners’ memories preserved the essence of Romanian society.

Romanian gulags were paradoxical spaces. The violence, torture, and brutality inflicted upon inmates paradoxically fostered the freedom of spirit that sustained resistance. While the prisons imposed hunger, cold, isolation, and beatings, they also bore witness to extraordinary spiritual creativity—works of the mind and heart that transcended the barbed-wire confines of the dungeon.

Memory as Identity

The fall of Communism ushered in a wave of memory recovery, both personal and collective. Prison literature and oral testimonies surged into public discourse after 1989, reflecting Romania’s broader process of reclaiming identity. Memoirs became crucial testimony, documenting a system that sought to erase its own cultural and spiritual foundations.

The imperative to bear witness—the moral duty to expose the horrors of Communism—was assumed by every survivor. Aurel State eloquently encapsulates this: “Whoever survives the unknown future and returns home, let him speak, even if he is a gossip, for what the earth keeps silent!” These testimonies, however incomplete or mediated, form the moral backbone of our collective understanding.

Prison memoirs are more than personal accounts; they particularize the suffering inflicted by Communism, bearing witness to individual participation in a collective hell. In turn, the survivor synthesizes the vast trauma of the Gulag into their personal narrative, while their story contributes to a collective memory. The witness speaks both of their own experience and of the survival of the self in the face of systemic oppression. Memory constructs a communion of witnesses, linking individual suffering to the broader solidarity of resistance against Communism.

The Dangers of Memory

Using memory to confront Communist repression is not without pitfalls. One danger is reducing memory to a “tribunal of history,” attempting to judge the unresolved trials of Communism. While memory carries ethical weight, it must not be treated as a legal deposit alone. Memorial feuds and partisan disputes can obscure rather than illuminate the past. Conversely, memory cannot be diluted to avoid confrontation; it is precisely through a living, ecclesial memory that society can fully reckon with a past marked by martyrdom and trauma.

Ideologization presents another threat, where memory becomes a battleground for contemporary political agendas, and the personal suffering of survivors is exploited to legitimize present-day struggles. Imposing contemporary standards on the past risks oversimplifying the complex realities of Communist Romania. This pitfall can be mitigated by appreciating the virtues of memory: it preserves the uniqueness of individual experience, guarding against hasty generalizations or partisan interpretation. In the Gulag, each prisoner’s suffering was mediated by personal spiritual capacities, not political alignment.

Finally, trivialization threatens memory when it is reduced to superficial publications or ceremonial displays, lacking substance or scholarly rigor. Viorel Gheorghiță, a witness and memorialist of Communist prisons, sounded a prophetic warning: “Let us not forget!” Yet he cautioned against saturating the world with hollow signs, hypocritical ceremonies, or polemical books, which distort the meaning of memory. True memory is formative—it builds the interior, then serves as a warning and an example.

Towards a Meaningful Commemoration

Awareness of these potential pitfalls renews the value of memory, offering an integrative approach to the past, embraced ecclesially and understood as part of the broader history of salvation. The commemorative year honoring Patriarch Justinian and the defenders of Orthodoxy under Communism provides the Church a meaningful opportunity: to celebrate memory as a lens through which the past is understood and to reaffirm its own martyr consciousness.

(Dragoș Ursu – Ziarul Lumina, electronic edition of 8 January 2017)