Expert: Moldova Faces a Rapid Escalation of Church-Related Tensions

Up to the parliamentary elections, the authorities had somehow managed to preserve an appearance of neutrality on one of the most delicate issues – the Church. But they are no longer willing to maintain a balance between the two competing Orthodox metropolises (the Moldovan one, aligned with the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Bessarabian one, a structure of the Romanian Orthodox Church). As a result, the inter-church conflict was reactivated after PAS confirmed its mandate, and this time with far more serious consequences than before

Over the past years, relations between the two metropolises in the country have remained consistently tense, regardless of changes in governments or shifts in foreign-policy priorities. Only with the backdrop of the armed conflict in Ukraine did the process of clergy switching jurisdictions gain some momentum. One way or another, the division within Moldovan Orthodoxy has always been systemic and deeply rooted. But for a long time, it remained within a kind of conditional equilibrium so as not to provoke social tension. The first signal that the contradictions were entering yet another phase of escalation was the recent decision of the Synod of the Moldovan Orthodox Church to defrock 11 clergymen from the Cahul-Comrat Diocese on the grounds of their “arbitrary and canonically unjustified” departure from its jurisdiction – in other words, for transferring to the “competitors”. The Synod noted that the clerics who left were given time for “correction and full repentance”, but they refused to return. In its response, the Bessarabian Metropolis argues that the statement “contains errors and is misleading”, and that the very name “Orthodox Church of Moldova” is used incorrectly. In addition, it claims that the defrocking decisions “have no effect” on those priests who have already been under its jurisdiction for several years. Thus, a precedent has emerged in which two church structures operating within the same country no longer recognize each other’s canonical decisions. Soon after this came another blow, one with far broader legal implications. The Chisinau Court of Appeal ruled to remove from the cadastral registry the usage rights to more than 800 historic churches previously held by the Moldovan Metropolis. These rights were based on a 2003 agreement between the Ministry of Culture and the Moldovan Orthodox Church (MOC). However, the document had already been declared null and void in June 2023 following a lawsuit filed by a parish in Dubasari that had switched to the jurisdiction of the Bessarabian Metropolis. The cadastral authorities had refused to implement the court’s decision, arguing that the entry could only be deleted with the consent of the Moldovan Metropolis itself. The Court of Appeal deemed this position “absurd and unlawful”. Now, the usage rights can be removed at the request of any interested party. The Bessarabian Metropolis naturally welcomed this development, calling it “a return to legality, justice, and normality”. In its interpretation, the court annulled “the unlawful usage rights established during the Soviet and post-Soviet period”, thereby restoring historical justice. But the implications go much further: for the first time in the country’s modern history, the very property forming the foundation of its spiritual infrastructure has been thrown into question. These are not merely religious buildings, but symbols of identity, places around which Moldovan religious communities have built their lives for decades. This is the opening of that very “Pandora’s box” that our editorial staff, as well as many experts, had been warning about for years. The consequences are quite obvious. If the legal reasoning behind this decision begins to be applied broadly, the Moldovan Metropolis may first lose its legal right to use hundreds of churches, and later their physical control as well. At the same time, this creates a basis for widespread pressure on clergy – to “gently” persuade them to transfer under the jurisdiction of the Bessarabian Metropolis as the only way to preserve their parish and retain their church buildings for services. A scenario like this could trigger a chain reaction – from local clashes over parishes to a prolonged and even “heated” redistribution of Moldova’s church resources. And most importantly, it could lead to a schism among the faithful: the emergence of parallel communities, clandestine parishes, and social conflicts that can easily shift from the religious sphere into the political one. The ruling regime will likely try to initiate this “property transfer” as carefully as possible in order to avoid a public backlash at a “historic moment” for the country. However, the scale of the process is such that keeping the situation under control will be extremely difficult. The experience of Ukraine shows that when political and administrative forces interfere in people’s spiritual life, the consequences become unpredictable and begin to unfold according to their own irrational logic. Some analysts are already comparing the emerging situation to the Ukrainian scenario, in which disputes surrounding the Church became a catalyst for a broader confrontation between society and the state. At the same time, many observers link the current acceleration of the religious agenda in Moldova to developments in the Ukrainian settlement: according to several assessments, once the crisis in the neighboring country finally shifts into the diplomatic realm, drastic steps by our authorities in the country’s spiritual life will become far less feasible. The church issue in our regional space clearly contains not only a spiritual but also a geopolitical dimension. The canonical dispute between the two Orthodox jurisdictions is merely the surface layer of the issue. In essence, the conflict lies at a much deeper level. PAS and Maia Sandu speak of a desire to integrate the country into the European space, along with all the accompanying cultural and value transformations. This includes promoting a supranational civic identity, a liberal model of society, and broad recognition of religious pluralism. The MOC, in its current form, represents a social institution that most consistently stands in defense of traditional identity, historically established norms of life, moral order, and spiritual heritage, that is also informally oriented toward the East and Russia. Therefore, for many parishioners, the current developments and the growing tension between the two metropolises should be perceived not merely as an attempt by external actors to weaken the role of Orthodoxy and replace one ecclesiastical structure with another that is more compliant with Brussels, but also as a matter of choosing a civilizational path. Therefore, today, however dramatic it may sound, Moldova stands before a choice whose consequences will be felt for decades to come. On the one hand, there is integration into the European Union and the embrace of the European model as the foundation for the country’s future and its socio-economic well-being. On the other, there is the preservation of its own cultural and religious identity, historically rooted in Orthodoxy, traditional values, and regional cultural codes. Judging by recent developments, we have gradually reached the point where the split within the Orthodox Church is no longer an internal matter for clergy moving from one metropolitan jurisdiction to another. It has become part of the country’s political, social, and identity agenda. It is becoming clear that the ecclesiastical confrontation is not merely deepening but entering a decisive phase, in which the decisions taken may alter the fragile balance of power within the Orthodox community, regardless of which metropolis its parishioners belong to, and may trigger serious social upheavals. And now much will depend not on how sound the government’s decisions prove to be – there is little reason for optimism, as it has failed to cope even with simpler issues – but on our own collective wisdom.