“Then I was acting as Nicolae Ceaușescu’s confessor with those letters”

Sorin Dumitrescu: Archimandrite Mina, I would like you to remember the face of Nicolae Steinhardt, to recall him as Your Beatitude knew him in prison. What kind of man was he?

Father Mina: Professor, this is a question that puts me in the position of having to start from the beginning, to remember the moment when I first met Mr. Nicolae Steinhardt… I was in the Jilava prison, already sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and confined to a cell, cell 18. When I entered, there was only one prisoner there, but soon it became overcrowded, they put bunk beds there and the cell was full.

There were three rows of beds. Late one night, I can still see the bolted door opening loudly… in the dim light I saw another prisoner appear, a somewhat shy convict; he looked like a man who had never been through such hard trials. He had a boot on his armpit and was standing in the doorway looking at the beds, all of which were occupied. Noticing that he couldn’t find a place to rest, I said to him, “Come up here! – and he recorded the moment in his Diary of Happiness. He describes how I stood up like a ghost – I was very weak – and invited him up. He said that this time he had to climb like this, like a monkey is climbing trees….

S. D.: How old were you when you were in prison?

F. M.: If it was around 1960, I was 40 years old.

S. D.: How long had you been in prison when Mr Steinhardt came?

F. M.: I was arrested in October 1959, so it was 1960…

S. D.: So he arrived a few months after you?

F. M.: Yes, at the end of February. I had already been sentenced, and I think he was too, because he was part of the “Noica Group”. There were about twenty intellectuals who were sentenced because they had their own club and did not support the system of the materialist ideology of socialism. They were sentenced and they were in different cells, in the one I was in, only Nicolae Steinhardt was from that group. In the morning we woke up and met him… He was very fond of me, in the sense that he saw that I was sympathetic to people of culture, intellectuals, with nice manners. And he said that if I’m a priest, I must be a good Christian. He saw that I was sincere with him and he became very fond of me. I say that what attracted him was that he saw that I was suffering for a cause, and that can’t be something accidental, but I was certainly taking a stand for the freedom of the Church. I had protested the first time when religious education was taken out of schools, and the second time when Decree 410 was issued, which abolished monasticism. So it wasn’t by chance, I had taken a stand. He must have said to himself, in his conscience, that he had not made a mistake in remaining faithful to this group of intellectuals, to their concept of culture, of Christian and Romanian spirituality. He was not wrong in choosing not to betray his colleagues. He suffered with dignity for a just and good cause. In this way he became very close to me. Finally, some time later, he said to me: ‘I am suffering and I don’t know how I will manage in these conditions, with dirty food and dirty water. But I want to die a Christian,” and he asked me to baptise him.

S. D.: But didn’t that surprise you?

F. M.: No.

S. D.: It didn’t amaze you?

F. M.: No, because I had already spoken to him…

S. D.: And what did he tell you?

F. M.: He liked me, especially because I had a job there. I, who was brought up in a convent, knew the whole ritual by heart.

S. D.: The prayer rule…

F. M.: The prayer rule, the seven praises, the Akathist of Jesus and the Akathist of the Mother of God, the Holy Liturgy…

S. D.: By heart…

F. M.: Yes… And he was very impressed by the way I recited the Psalms of David, or the Old Testament, by heart. He became attached to me. There was also Sergiu Al. George from your group…

S. D.: Bessarabian…

F. M.: Yes. He had studied Sanskrit and Tibetan monasticism. Now they were studying me, how an Orthodox Christian monk is and how he knows monasticism from theories and writings. Then they took us out of that cell and we met some of their group in another cell, the one where Nicolae Steinhardt was baptised. When he expressed this wish, he told his colleagues. They then asked him what denomination he wanted to be baptised in.

S. D.: But how many of you were in the cell?

F. M.: There were about sixty of us in a large cell.

S. D.: And they were all intellectuals?

F. M.: They were intellectuals: Roman Catholics, Greek Catholics, Orthodox priests…

S. D.: Was the prison regime harsh?

F. M.: Very harsh. Imagine, there were sixty people in the cell, doing their business there, in the toilet. It was filthy. There were also beatings… They would take us out for air or to the toilet and when they took us out they would beat us… There were others in their group. Constantin Noica was not yet… Sergiu Al. George, Alexandru Paleologu and many others.

S. D.: Father, these people were all intellectuals. How did they endure the regime of imprisonment, coming as they did from a more comfortable sphere of existence than a peasant working in the fields or a proletarian? Were they discouraged?

F. M.: How did they bear it?! They had gone through the investigations. And you should know that it was much harsher there, beatings, severe coercion, and some were tortured. I escaped torture because I avoided the militia. My attitude was against atheism and I criticised this tendency. Priests should stick to their duty, not play politics. I was not against collectivisation or their socialist, social levelling policies. I was suspicious of these things, and that is why I was spared the harsh, torturous trials. The Securitate commander on Uranus, in order to protect me somewhat, took me to the criminals who carried out these tortures and asked me such questions that he removed me from the category of those who were against the policy of communism, of collectivisation. So I got off easier. But the others had a hard time! But when they were imprisoned in Jilava, when they felt a moment of liberation, in a way… As Nicolae Steinhardt himself says: “It was only there that we felt free to talk, to say anything without fear. And yet it wasn’t quite like that, because there were also informers in the cells… When Nicolae Steinhardt asked to be baptised, he was very impressed that I immediately offered myself and did not question the fact that someone would find us, that they would report us to the administration, that we would suffer…

S. D.: But this question of baptism was discussed publicly?

P. M.: No.

S. D.: Was it only discussed among you?

F. M.: Between us. But he communicated with the other colleagues, because when the question came up, his colleagues asked him what denomination he wanted to be baptised in. When he answered that he was Orthodox, his colleagues told him that he should be baptised as a “monk”. I was a monk to them. You read in the Diary of Happiness how we prepared. I gave him a little catechism because he was Jewish. He knew other religions, but when he was asked to make a choice in Christianity, he did not become a Baptist, Adventist or Catholic, but joined the Orthodox Church. He says in the Diary of Happiness why he chose Orthodoxy in the first place, he chose it because he was part of this group of intellectuals and he was convinced of the spirituality of this people, which is Christian-Orthodox… and he accepted to be baptised in the Orthodox religion, although there were also Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics. I gave him a preparation, a catechism, explaining to him what the Old Testament means to us, which is the preparatory phase for a people through which Christianity should come, a universal religion for all peoples, explaining to him that Christ is the Son of God who comes down and brings divine wisdom to free us from the influence of paganism. I taught him the symbol of the faith. It was easy for him because it was not foreign to him. He said that as a child he had been with the children of Christians, going to their homes, often even toasting red eggs at Easter… Later, together with other members of the intellectual group to which he belonged, he went to monasteries where he met spiritual fathers. So he was no stranger to Orthodoxy.

S. D.: But as a Jew, did he tell you why he wanted to become a Christian?

F. M.: No. There was no question of him being a Jew and why he wanted to become a Christian. There was no question of engaging in that kind of discussion, that he would make a confession as to why he came to the conviction that the Old Testament law was wrong or condemned… When I catechised him, I told him that the law of the Old Testament was a law by which God made His justice known, so that mankind might know what justice, truth and man’s behaviour towards divine justice and towards his fellow man meant. In the Old Testament the emphasis was on justice and those who did not respect it were condemned, whereas in Christianity we have the law of grace. One Psalm says: “Mercy and truth have met, justice and peace have kissed, truth has risen from the earth – the true Christ is – and justice has come from heaven…”. He embraced this concept. We spoke of truth and faith, of Christianity, of the law of grace, which is mercy, truth and justice.

We decided that on the 15th of March we would do the baptism, before we went to the scheduled break, I had prepared all the necessary things and I told him that when we came we would do the baptism by pouring water, like this, more unnoticed… He stayed in the room because he was ill, and he could not walk because a boot had gnawed on him. I went to get some air, and on the way back I was the first. If you remember, it says in the diary that he was baptised with stale water from a kettle. I, who had prepared him, performed the baptism: “Nicolae, the servant of God, is baptised in the name of the Father, amen, in the name of the Son, amen, in the name of the Holy Spirit, amen.” The baptism was done by pouring, with the meaning of Holy Baptism. Then I told him the symbol of faith, also in a whisper: “As many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ…” and others, improvising. Then he went to join his colleagues. Two other Greek Catholic priests were present, one Fagărășanu and the other Nicolae, and they communicated with him. Because they knew that he was to be baptised and took part in the act, the baptism was considered ecumenical. That is, with their participation as well.

S. D.: From different confessions…

F. M.: Yes, Roman Catholics, pastors… In the end, everyone was happy because it was a very special moment. As he also confessed in the Diary of Happiness, Steinhardt had an inexpressible state of happiness after his baptism. He went on to say that those who are baptised at a young age do not realise the importance of it, whereas he, who was baptised at that age, experienced moments of unspeakable happiness. He, who was a writer of a higher level, managed to put into words this state of happiness he experienced after Baptism, which can only be explained by the fact that Baptism is true, that the Holy Mysteries are true. In the Diary of Happiness, he tells how he really experiences this state of happiness, like jumping from step to step. Then I told him that he should also receive the Sacrament of Charismation, but since there were no opportunities, we would do it after we got out of prison. Then I told him to go to St. Catherine’s Church at the Theological Institute, where he would find Father Teodorescu. I knew him as a man of great dignity, piety and priestly conduct worthy of all honour. But in 1964, when he was released from prison, Steinhardt forgot where and to whom he was supposed to go. By chance he went to the Darvari Hermitage…

S. D.: Father Teodorescu was there…

F. M.: Yes. Only then did he remember that I had sent it to him. He spoke to him and arranged the day when he would come to give him the Sacrament. And Steinhardt says in the Diary of Happiness that I was also his godfather…

S. D.: Do you visit each other?

F. M.: Yes, we kept in touch. I used to go to Bucharest, to his house. Then I was called by the parish, by His Beatitude Parthenius; he came to me in 1971 and told me that he would like to remain a monk here, in the monastery, next to me. But His Beatitude Parthenius did not accept him, because at that time the communists did not allow us to receive him personally, especially since he was an intellectual, a Christianised Jew… I recommended him to His Eminence Theophilus and to His Eminence Justinian the Vicar. I told him that His Eminence Theophilus knew me well and loved me, because there was a spiritual closeness between us. And he received Nicolae Steinhardt and found him a place in the monastery of Rohia, where after a while he was ordained a monk. At first he was given the task of looking after the library. He looked after it, put it in order, made files. That was his first job in the monastery, but after he was ordained a monk, he entered the monastic discipline and became fully integrated. But he also kept in touch with the Writers’ Union, took part in its meetings, wrote other works and, later, religious works, according to his convictions as a firm Christian, in the spirit of Orthodoxy.

S. D.: How do you explain the fact that you were together when he was preparing to die?

F. M.: That’s right, but how did you find out? That’s interesting. I went there by chance…

S. D.: But isn’t it amazing?

F. M.: Whenever I have the opportunity to speak about Steinhardt, I say that the Providence called him to Christianity. I was an outstretched hand in the name of the Church, so that he could be baptised into our Orthodox Christian confession, and he was an outstretched hand to the intellectuals, saying, “Behold! I have met Christ! Come to Christ! There is no other way to explain the state of happiness I have experienced!” So Divine Providence called him, the fact that I happened to be around him in his last days was again a work of Divine Providence.

S. D.: Did he say anything to you then?

F. M.: It was Monday evening when I arrived there by car with a colleague of mine. He was staying at the house of the poet Ioan Alexandru, I found him and he said to me: “Dear brother, I am very sick. I have to go to Bucharest to see my doctor. I have a ticket and I’m leaving on Wednesday.” But I asked him if he could get a ticket for me too, so that we could go to Bucharest together. He agreed, and later he made a phone call and got another ticket. The next day we drove from Rohia to Baia Mare in the monastery car, accompanied by a priest and a young theologian, from whom we learned many interesting things.

When we arrived in Baia Mare – because it was Tuesday and we had to leave for Bucharest on Wednesday – he took me to a host, an acquaintance of his, and he went to another host. Some time later he called me and said: “Dear brother, I got sick in the car… I’m not going back to Bucharest because I’m seriously ill. I have to go to the hospital here, urgently…” Towards evening I went to the host where he was. He was feeling better. We talked about nice, interesting things, because he came from a family of intellectuals. At one point he said to me, “Dear brother, I am tormented by dark thoughts that God will not forgive me for the sins of my youth. And I have no peace…” I tried to answer him, not to find some words of comfort, but to tell him a truth. I said to him, “You know that when Satan sees that he can’t make you sin, he tortures you with the sins of the past so that you still have no peace. This is the devil’s evil device! And you, who are a sensitive person… first of all, do not forget that you have converted to Christianity, that you have been baptised. Through baptism, original sin and personal sins are forgiven. All your past sins are forgiven! Secondly, you have entered monasticism, which is another baptism. You have come out of civil life, you have renounced life in the worldly spirit and you have entered into the pure and holy life! Here you went to confession, received Holy Communion, lived a life of piety and prayer. You must be tranquil, for this is the plot of the enemy to disturb your peace… Great and beautiful things have happened to you. God has chosen you, called you… He has sanctified you and given you the confidence that He is the God of mercy and compassion. He has received you with love, because you have experienced those moments of happiness which could have been nothing more than a sign, which we in our language call the joys of paradise… You have tasted them!”

S. D.: Tell me, before Mr Steinbardt’s death, did you know of the existence of the Diary of Happiness?

F. M.: I didn’t know…

S. D.: He kept it hidden?

F. M.: Yes.

S. D.: But you, who lived through the whole period and all these events, do you consider this diary to be a work that is objective, perfectly descriptive? Does Steinhardt describe objectively in the Diary of Happiness what happened there?

F. M.: Yes, of course. I am sure he was objective. For him…

S. D.: I asked what you thought of the book…

F. M.: It’s very important that he had such a good memory; during that period of four or five years, he had many discussions, with various intellectuals, but also with other social categories. He wrote about sectarians, how he confronted them and how he understood their problems. He kept all these facts and wrote them down after his release from prison. These are realities. He proved his sincerity by his conversion to Christianity and his renunciation of Judaism and Jewish concepts.

S. D.: Tell me, there at the airport, where he was injured, did he manage to tell you anything else?

S. M.: No, because I didn’t go to the airport… I said he was with a hostess and he went to the hospital there. I went to Bucharest, that was Thursday-Friday. Friday I was at home. On Saturday I received a telegram that Father Nicolae had died in the hospital in Baia Mare. The monastery invited me to his funeral, but the time was too short, I didn’t have time to go.

S. D.: Was he followed?

F. M.: While he was in the monastery, he was certainly followed…

S. D.: And you were?

F. M.: Of course I was followed. He wrote me a letter every holiday, he never let it out of his sight… every year, on the day of his baptism, he wrote me a postcard; he wrote very briefly, thanking me for that moment, so important in his life. Nothing more. I still have the postcards… But why did he write by postcard? So that it would be open from the beginning and so mer or him not to be followed.

As for me, I was the abbot here and the secretaries here would phone me to come to them. I never went. Never, never! Then they’d come, they’d start with good words, I’d serve them a little snack… When the temperature rose, they’d invite me for a drink… I’d answer them: “What do you want? I see, you want me to be an informer… Fine, fine, but will you give me a salary so that I can travel around and collect information? But also give me a gun, because I need to defend myself if I have to!” Another time I said, “Fine, I’ll do what you ask, but will you do my job in the church? Let’s swap roles!” And then they’d come back, and then they’d start again…

S. D.: Father, tell me, do you agree in principle that people should have access to their Securitate files? It’s a problem that is bothering people now…

F. M.: It’s a problem that worries people, yes. In a way I agree, but not to make it public. Let’s prosecute our dignitaries who are now in leading positions and who were secretaries or informers. At least privately, they should be asked to resign, to admit their guilt… Let them say mea culpa. For them, yes, I agree with the opening of the files, but for the others, it is not good to go to the raid. It’s wrong. For example, I met a guard. I was with a teacher, and one of the ex-guards, who I know well, who he was and how he treated me and others, joined in our discussion… And he got into a conversation with us that “it’s good to see each other again, to get to know each other…”. Two years ago, an acquaintance of mine came who had also been in the secret police and with whom I had problems… He was with the Securitate commander here in town, the one who was and still is… They came to tell me, in a friendly way, not to speak ill of him. I shouldn’t speak ill of him because Nicolae Ceaușescu was also a good man, a Christian…

S. D.: And what was your reaction to that?

F. M.: Let me tell you what it was like. I told them that Jesus said: “Let the children come to me…” while the communists with their materialistic ideology said: “Let the children come to us, to the Antichrist…” Children were reprimanded in the headmaster’s or teacher’s office for going to church, for thinking as their parents or grandparents had taught them. But the young Utopians, what was their relationship with the Church? They were educated to leave the Church! But the working class, who was the leading force of this godless party? And the intellectuals? They were made to teach atheism in the schools, to write and to support the materialist ideology. What about the poor peasant? As long as he was lord of the manor and lord of the field, he knew, according to tradition, to go to church, to go to confession and to receive Holy Communion on holidays. When he joined the collective, he had no time to go to church and pray. That was the reality!

S. D.: I’d like to ask you something. You have been imprisoned, you have been imprisoned for these attitudes in relation to the prohibition of religious education or monasticism. You sent letters…

F. M.: In 1959 I sent about thirteen letters to all the cultural centres. The Securitate was informed everywhere.

S. D.: I would like to know if you know of any other cases of priests or monks who did what you did, who wrote to the authorities or to those in power?

F. M.: I can’t say that I know of any. I don’t know.

S. D.: Then I’ll ask you this way. In relation to the way Christianity is understood as a doctrine almost of resignation, how do you justify this line that you felt you had to give? At that time, I knew a lot of priests who said: “That’s it, we have to bear it, because it comes from God. ” and that was it. How do you justify this extremely vital and emphatic attitude of yours?

F. M.: In all sincerity, precisely and categorically. I did it in 1948 when…

S. D.: I know… But how do you explain this from a theological point of view? Is this behaviour compatible with the Orthodox mentality?

F. M.: What I did fits in with the Orthodox mentality, it’s just the word of the Gospel. He who will confess Me before men, I will also confess him before the Father. He who denies Me, I will deny him. But it is written in the prophet Daniel that because of these times many will suffer and pass through the sword and the fire. And others shall be duplicitous, that the time may pass.

S. D.: Explain to me better this duplicity… What does it mean that ‘others will be duplicitous’?

F.M.: Here, I’ll tell you. After I came back from the prison in Galati, I had to stay there for about five years. Twice a month I went to Huși on foot, in winter and in summer, a distance of 30 kilometres, because there was no bus. But one day, a year later, a high-ranking security officer from Iași or Bucharest came to see me and spoke kindly to me about priests. That priests have always been with the people, that they are men of culture and that they should lead the people because the people listen to them. He was very kind. What am I to make of this? The secretaries said to themselves: “We will not have access to the people with our ideas, because the Church will denounce us as anti-Christs…”. Then they changed their policy and proposed to take collaborators from the ranks of the priesthood. I told you about that officer… They asked us to collaborate with them because – you see, God… – they respect us, because we are valuable and represent something in society… That’s why they propose nothing more and nothing less than to be with them! Those who were with them did not suffer. Those who were against them suffered. So that was the attitude of the collaborators and those who were more reserved. I was in this permanent position because I had already changed my point of view in 1941 and then, being at the Theological Institute…

S. D.: But this position of revolt… The fact that you sent letters to the government was an atypical position, which only Father Calciu had – later on.

F. M.: I entered the monastery at a time when communism was already taking hold, in 1946. I understood what monastic life meant, the renunciation of the worldly spirit, and this commitment is exposed to the end! And Father Coman, when he came to the lectures, said that the letter was written by a saint. It had no faults. But what about us? All the monasteries have been dismantled, the old monks have been thrown out into the streets… That’s how I explain my attitude, by what happened and is happening to the monks. That was my answer.

S. D.: Archimandrite, in your opinion, what is the main defect in the life of the Church in Romania at the present time?

F. M.: I say that our Church came out of paganism, which was a serious limitation, but the priests remained with the same language and the same attitude. We lost our spiritual language, during communism, because there was a guard or an informer next to him, a priest would no longer talk about spiritual things. He would talk about other things, about films, about matches, and he wanted to appear a little worldly, with a cigarette in his mouth and a drink… and now the priests are still without spiritual grace. You meet them and they’re still talking and talking. But why? During communism, many young people entered the clerical life, but where did they come from? All those who had the education that was available everywhere at the time. Spoiled, liberal in their thinking, anything but mystics. Mysticism was doomed! And those who had a mystical sense, especially the priests, tried to moderate them. For example, a young man would come out of the university with a good education, but it would remain at the level of theory, because if the young priest tried to apply it, he would be sanctioned by the protopopes and the department.

S. D.: What, in Your Beatitude’s opinion, should change in the Church at the moment?

F. M.: We need to change our focus and do more individual pastoral work. What does this consist in? Some say it would mean going around like sectarians, from house to house, Bible in hand. The priest has the opportunity to meet with the faithful on Epiphany Eve, Christmas Eve, at fasts – when he goes from house to house and prays – at engagement, marriage, funeral, school, confession, communion, Holy Liturgy. He has so many reasons to come out of this atrophied state. Let’s get out of this rut! The priest goes into a man’s home, but it has become a routine, the priest no longer takes the time to explain to the believer the importance of the moment, to proclaim the Gospel to him, to awaken piety in him. This is it. I take this matter very seriously. I put it this way: let us think deeply, logically, correctly, well-meaning and well-intentioned. So let us look at things with all seriousness. This is the way we must go. Let us get out of this rut in our worship and in our manifestations of individual ministry.

S.D.: Father, can we get political for a second?
How do you feel about the King?

F. M.: About the King?

S. D.: About our King.

F. M.: I grew up with the King. I was born the same year as him. My parents named me Michael, and the King is still called Michael.

S. D.: What is your name?

F. M.: Mihai.

S. D.: And what?

F. M.: Dobzeu.

S. D.: So Mihai is your name?

F. M.: Yes, and my parents, you know, were influenced by the name of the King born at that time. They named one of my brothers Gurie, because that year Metropolitan Gurie had come and consecrated the church in the village.

I grew up in that period with the King, all I heard was: “Long live the King! Long live the Fatherland!”

S. D.: Would Romania win if it was ruled by a king?

F.M.: Under communism, the historical parties were abolished, completely destroyed. The monarchy was blamed, scorned and despised. Can we change the mentality of today’s generation so easily? People don’t get it. They are not ready. Those who have now – backed by one party or another – become president will never give their place to a king. So neither the parties nor society are ready. The king does not succeed.

S. D.: He doesn’t stand a chance…

F. M.: He doesn’t stand a chance. Especially since he has no male offspring. Some intellectuals, even John Alexander, used to say that our country had rulers, not kings. But we are not defaming the King’s cultural role in this period, for the cultural and economic orientation and development of our state. The King was a support.

S. D.: But, in your opinion, Father Nicolae de la Robia would have wanted King Michael to rule?

F. M.: I think he would have wanted him.

S. D.: Why is that?

F. M.: Because he was an intellectual and had a Western orientation. He kept in touch with the great intellectuals of the West. He had a much broader Western orientation, which meant democracy, freedom, progress, culture.

S. D.: Tell me, Father, do you have many disciples?

F. M.: Yes. In this matter I will denounce myself, I will say what was the reality, because I was permanently in opposition, – therefore watched by the security and those around me -, no one was allowed to get closer to me. Everyone vilified me, everyone ran away from me. Even after ’89, when it got much worse. “Alas, alas, this is just one, but… If we don’t get along with Securitate, what will we do then? Let’s leave this one…” They isolated me even more… Friends…

S. D.: Father, in closing, I would ask you to give us a word of wisdom for those who will follow our conversation.

F. M.: I will talk about all the time I have spent with sufferings, troubles and hardships. I can say, and I say this after years, that I led a comfortable life, in the sense that living in a monastery, as Nicolae Steinhardt says, the monk is always ready to put up with everything, the more miserable life, the table and the dormitory, the way they are.

In prison everyone saw me with my head held high. I was not mistaken in the attitude I took towards the regime that was, and I was confident that I had a special calling. I felt God’s hand of protection not only in big things, but also in little things; I often think that I should solve this or that problem, but God arranges everything in this way, so that I am amazed. That is to say, I know that I am always under God’s protection, and I no longer worry about what will happen, what will be. As I have said in the past, I will bear everything as God wills, because I am not alone, I am with God. I can tell you that I have always said something that was appropriate for the moment and that was in support of our ecclesial spirituality.

Now, especially after ’89, I accepted to go to all the prisons in the Roman and Huși diocese and I was a priest for prisoners, old people’s homes, orphanages. I did mass, and when Fr. Stăniloae died – I was also his teacher at the Institute, I was a disciple of his – the Most Holy Patriarch said at the funeral that we should heed the teachings he left us. I then asked His Beatitude the Patriarch to allow me to go to all the monasteries and propagate the prayer of the heart. And I wrote this paper, “The Prayer of the Heart”. And this article was also published in Bucharest. I went through the monasteries of the Roman and Huși Diocese, through Buzău and Craiova, and I spoke to people about the quality of prayers and about the heart. I lingered for a day or two, explained to them and then went on to practical application. That was my occupation. Now I am a cultural counselor and have written several articles.

S. D.: I would like to ask you one last question, if you accept…

F. M.: I want to tell you that I have not been mistaken in my faith, that I have been with God, and God is always with me. Someone said that God has not always been with us. No, I say, God is with every sinner! I say that I understood that I had a special calling and I was somewhat at peace, and even happy in my state. If someone asks me what my state is now, I tell him what a religious inspector we have here in Vaslui County, Mr. Popa Ion, told me. We had managed to get closer in spirit, but suddenly I realized that he was going around with harsher, false things; he saw that he was not successful with me and decided to be more honest, I was telling him some things, and he said to me: “You are the happiest man!” Exactly, but it doesn’t mean that from now on I’m exempt from temptations, from troubles, from hardships. I am happy in that I trust in God and nothing worries me or frightens me. Just as the past has not frightened me. Do you know what it means to say that the ruling regime is the Antichrist, because it is destroying spiritual life, it is abolishing monasticism, the churches… I said that without fear! When they arrested me the first time, the head of Securitate said to the bishop’s administrator, who had taken part in my arrest: “I want him to escape, to change his mind.” And the second time when they arrested me, the prosecutor accused me in court that I was saying that the Bible says, “When the persecution of these sons comes, do not enter the city. Flee! Flee to the mountain!” And they understood that I was urging the people to flee to strengthen the resistance in the mountains!…..

I understood that God was with me always, and God protected me to see the result of the struggle and to rejoice in the triumph of the Truth. Christ is victorious today.

S. D.: I wanted to ask you the last question and I ask you to be so kind as to answer me. Could you be the confessor of a Head of State?

F. M.: A head of state…

S. D.: Like St. Daniil the Hermit, could you be the confessor of a head of state?

F. M.: I was Nicolae Ceausescu’s confessor in those letters. I made myself a confessor through those letters! I urged him: “It is not good to persecute Christianity. Give freedom to Christianity so that it can be celebrated in our country, so that the church calendar can be respected, so that the believer can meet his loved ones on Sundays. Let him feel free in his family, in his home, not to be driven to work… I fought Darwinism with arguments. Atheism is unnatural, unscientific, contemptible. I pointed out the superiority of the Christian faith…

S. D.: So you’ve already been the confessor of a president?

F. M.: I was, I was…

S. D.: Thank you, Father.

F. M.: Good health! 

(Fr. Mina Dobzeu, I was Ceaușescu’s confessor, Dacia Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, 2002, pp. 80-101)