"Dumitru Mărtinaş"  Roman-Catholic Association
representing Roman-Catholics of Moldavia (so called "Changos",
French - Tchangos,    Hungarian - Csango,    German - Tschangos)

"Dumitru Mărtinaş"


Bacau - Romania

on the 
"Dumitru Mărtinaş" Roman -Catholic
Association site.

The English version is not available for the moment to all pages.
Please try again later.

COUNCIL  OF  EUROPE  about "Csango" community - read here    (english)
read here    (english)

CONSEIL DE L' EUROPE  à propos de "Tchangos"      - lire ici    (français)

* * * * *

The truth about the so-called "Csango's"

Video presentation

       Part I - here  
       Part II - here
Part III - here
Part IV - here

      Presentation I - here
      Presentation II - here
      Presentation III - here   (Romanian words in Hungarian language)

    Documents about genetic structure of csangos:

1) Chromosomal Diversity in Europe - here  
    2) MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungaryhere  
    3) History of Click-Speaking Populations of Africa - DNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Variationhere  
    4) Comparison of mtdna haplogroups in Hungarians with four other European populations here  
    5) Genetic markers - here
    6) Human Chromosomal Polymorphism in a Hungarian Samplehere
    7) Human Chromosomal Polymorphism - here
    8) Epidemiology of genetic diseases in India - here  
    9) Bulgarian Bone Marrow Donors Registry - here  
    10) Ethnic groups in Transylvania - Romania - here
    11) Genetic Structure of two Hungarian Ethnic Groups in Transylvania - Romaniahere

*  *  *  *  *

    On the 17th of March 2001, the Statute and the Coordination Committee of the association were publicly debated in the presence of approximately 1000 representatives coming from 40 Moldavian localities. As a result of the unanimous vote of the participants, „Dumitru Mărtinaş” Association was authorized to represent and to defend the interests of those 265,000 Moldavian Romano-Catholics, regarding problems about these communities past, present and future. Our association, through its entire activity, obeys and promotes the principles and values admitted by the European Union, including those related to the defense (protection) of identity and to the preservation of the cultural specificity.
    Confronted with the various tendencies of distorting the truth, which (mistakenly) erroneously present the community of the Roman-Catholics of Moldavia as an ethnical minority, giving it different names as “Csangos”, ”Magyars-Csangos” or “Csangos-Magyars”, the Roman-Catholics Association “Dumitru Mărtinaş” shows its disponibility for a dialogue reflecting the whole reality. By the authorized voice (spokesmen) of our association, the 265.000 of Roman-Catholics in Moldavia are at your disposal with clear arguments demonstrating that the name “Changes” represents an abuse permanently fired by the false and distorted statements, having the desire of sustaining, in spite of all realities, that, in Romania, the rights of these communities are broken.
    In this context, the reaffirmation of the truth that the majority of the members of our community didn’t and don’t consider themselves “Csangos”, but Roman-Catholics. Taking this into account, they can not be considered an ethnical minority as the Hungarians, the Germans, the Jews, the Slovakians, the Greeks, the Italians, the Bulgarians, the Turks from Romania. That is why, the Association of the Roman-Catholics “Dumitru Mărtinaş” invites you respectfully to consider an “ethnical minority” submitted by a so-called “assimilation”, having no bounds to reality, no rights and freedom.
    There is a way of tackling the problem of the Roman-Catholics from Moldavia and this belongs to the Hungarian side, which starts by using the writings of an Szekler Catholic missionary, Zold Peter, who wrote in 1781. Coming in Moldavia, he introduced a linguistic innovation, “Csangos-Magyars” denoting the Roman-Catholics’ community and thus, creating a false term. Starting with that moment, the Hungarian investigators begun to search the origins of this imaginary ethnical group, even speaking about the “csangos” of Cumanian, Cabarian, Pazinakian, Hun or Hungarian origin. These theories carefully avoid the possibility for these Moldavian Catholics to belong to the Romanian people, avoid traditional elements that obviously integrate them in this cultural area, being considered as result of the assimilation of the Romanian majority.
    Treating things like this, the Hungarian side invariably reaches conclusions having had in mind from the very beginning – that in Moldavia there is an ethnical minority of Hungarian origin, a mysterious, exotic and fascinating one, the “Csangos”, which is in danger of extinction because of the Catholic Church and of the Romanian State.
    Unfortunately, the European organizations were caught in the traps smartly built by the Hungarian propagandistic system and, without previously starting a scientific research of the problem, they rushed to endorse documents to “save” the supposed minority. This was the way to reach the 1521 Recommendation that mentions the “Csangos” and their “Csango” language, considering them of a certain Hungarian origin and, only at the end of the document, there is made the proposal of “researching and cataloguing the linguistic and traditional elements” for these.
    Such paradoxes could have been avoided, if there had been the willingness of listening to other arguments than those of the Hungarian part. It would have been noticed that the Catholic Moldavians are and have always considered themselves as being Romanians. There also could have been observed that, since 1781 to present, the Hungarian part has constantly been warning about “the impending danger of the assimilation of the Hungarians from Moldavia”, calling that region as “the great cemetery of the Hungarian nation”. If things were like this, there would rise a question: how did the supposed minority manage to survive and increase its number? How did it have equality of rights with the majority for more than 300 years? Would all these have been possible in the context of the so much denounced assimilation policy of the Romanian state for which nobody ever have brought any reliable proof ?
    The Hungary’s desire to expand its influence in the Eastern side of the Carpathians manifested variously in time. Very important was the assuming of the role of a state with a missionary mission. For this, the Hungarian Catholic Church made effort to impose its supremacy in Moldavia. The argument brought by the Hungarian missionaries in front of their Polish or Italian competitors, and also in front of the Vatican, was the idea that the Moldavian Catholic parishioners are Hungarians and, thus, they need a Hungarian clerical hierarchy.
    After the year 1781, together with the frenzied research of the origins of the supposed minority of “Changos”, whenever, when the historical background allowed, there was a direct tendency transferring these population to Magyars, ignoring both these community members’ desire to be considered Romanians and also scientific truth.
    An eloquent example is offered by the post – IInd War period, when the Moldavian Roman-Catholics were under the huge pressure of the communist system, a pressure of assuming the Magyar identity.
    The process of “building the communist society” had the aim of “cleaning” the Romanians’ consciousness and, in this way, of controlling the society. The leading circles, under the direct protection of Moscow, developed a policy of emphasizing the nationalism of the ethnical minorities.
    As a part of this policy, an important role was given to the instruction in the mother tongue, and the excesses which had nothing in common with the real situation. We are speaking about education in the Hungarian language. In Transylvania, it was the result of undeniable ethnical realities, while, in Moldavia this far-fetched constraint was a political action of undermining those communities in spite of the fact that they declared themselves as a population of “Romanian origin, nationality and citizenship” for the censuses. The people’s attitude was presently confirmed by their refusal to attend Hungarian schools, insistently asking for education in the Romanian language. These are the cases in Luizi Călugăra, Cleja, Pustiana or Nicolae Bălcescu, mentioning only the important localities, which also today, are confronted with such problems.
    In fact, reading all this material, you will be able to recognize other similarities between the tendency  of adopting the Hungarian identity of the 50s and the imaginary “campaign of saving the Csangos”, which we are facing today.
    If the idea of an instruction in the Hungarian language was of Soviet origin, its practice found embittered supporters in the Hungarian communists settled in Transylvania. These emissaries, confronted with the refusal of the population, put pressure and adopted methods of “briefing” of the Roman-Catholics regarding the national problem, which, according to the methods of the 50s, probably the darkest and murderous period of the Romanian communism, meant, in fact, constraints and indoctrination in order to accept this policy. This method also aimed the breaking of the relationship between parishioners and priests, the representatives of the Catholic Church in Moldavia being the best defenders of the Romanian Catholics’ identity and feared opponents of the communist system.
    Coming out that the foundation of new Hungarian schools, initially adopted, has none of the expected results, they got to the abusive method of changing the Romanian schools in Hungarian language schools, allowing their artificial development.
    Following the same policy, that time’s authorities also adopted the idea of teaching uneducated adults in the Hungarian language too, facing the people’s refusal in this attempt.
    The above - mentioned methods perfectly matched the Communist Party’s latest propaganda innovation – the solving of the problem of nationalities. That policy had nothing in common with offering a real protection for these, having, in fact, the role of imposing the party’s control using ethnical manipulation and, finally, ending with massive immigration of the true ethnical minorities.
    This is the moment about which various people sustain to be used today as an example. These rapporteurs proceed to a terrible misleading, talking about the 50s as about a period where there was “possibility” of studying the Hungarian language in some Moldavian schools, “possibility” later limited by the nationalist communist campaign, as they say.
    Those who treat things like this forget about, don’t know or purposefully ignore the fact that the so – called “possibility” of studying at the Hungarian schools was a Soviet imposal with no connection to realities and followed by the whole series of constraints specific to totalitarian regime. Also, they deny the fact that the Moldavian Roman-Catholics strongly declared their Romanian identity, constantly refusing to attend Hungarian schools. Further more, the Hungarian language not being the Moldavian Catholics’ mother tongue, the pupils’ school results were somewhere between satisfying and insufficient. The communist regime was also put in the situation of bringing Hungarian teachers to teach Hungarian but who couldn’t almost at all speak Romanian and were not able to communicate with the pupils.
    A forgotten truth was the one that not the communist system abolished the Hungarian schools, but they themselves imposed them. They naturally disappeared, each of them surviving for only some years, being a proof of the pitiable failure of a preposterous experiment.
    Europe is preparing itself to become part of a family with other outlooks and with a new life style. Unfortunately, in this context, too, some consider timely to bring back to life phantoms of the past, coming back to the same obstinate ideas, a bit changed and wearing the footprint of our time’s ways of expressing.
    After the year 1989, invoking the legislation regarding the minorities protection, there started a new campaign of considering the Moldavian Catholic community as “the most Eastern and the oldest constituent of the Magyar nation”. Following the Hungarian missionaries of the period between the 16th  and 18th centuries, the 19th century Hungarian researches and the communist emissaries who tried the adoption of the Hungarian citizenship for the Moldavians Catholics at the middle of the last century, now, a new generation of “apostles of Hungarian identity” have tried their methods on our community.
    We shall only mention some of the aggression directed towards the Romanian identity of the Roman – Catholics in Moldavia, just for you to be offered an image about the psychological pressure given to this community by a small group of people, who had never claimed their Hungarian origins until they were given a financial stimulus, a material one or one consisting in tending them to studies in Hungary. These are different from the Magyar people of Transylvania, who have always declared their national identity.
    Thus, some for – Hungarian associations were founded, having a number of members as large as the sum of their members, which, in spite of the fact that they never obtained the right to represent the Catholic community from Moldavia, they started to speak in its Behalf in front of the Romanian institutions, the European forums and the Catholic Church.
    But which are the main ideas promoted by the militants of the so – called campaign of saving the Moldavian Csangos.
    The first one, a strange one, is that the tackling of the problem of the Moldavian Catholics in an European manner would require the ignoring of the discussion about their origins if this leads to the conclusion that the members of the community are Romanians. But the same problem of the ethnical origins is not avoided any longer when some people want to declare everybody as belonging to the Magyar nation, calling them an ethnical minority who had rights that should be obeyed, but which, in fact, are broken by nobody.
    This is the source of the accusations that the Romanian state and the Catholic Church would develop a policy of assimilation of the Csangos, refusing their access to the religious and educational assistance in the Hungarian language, insistently asked for, but without any real support, by the for – Hungarian associations.
    These, embracing the thesis of the Hungarian origin of the Moldavian Catholics, using different grievances and complaints, wave the slogan of obeying the human rights and the minorities rights, using various logical makeshifts, hoping, not to improve the living standard of the Moldavian Catholics or to preserve their national identity, but to make known the idea that Romania is not an European propensity country, but a state incapable of admitting and obeying the rights of its citizens who belong to the different types of minorities. So, we find ourselves in the situation of facing associations existing only because of their 2 or 3 members but which approach a diversity of problems, starting with external affairs analysis and ending with putting forward suppositions in fields totally strange to them (as history, linguistics, ethnography etc.), organize press conferences, present communiqués, give advice to the Romanian state, to the Catholic Church, and the most and really strange thing, to the Romanian Romano – Catholic population from Moldavia, about how they should naturally accept the Magyar origin of the members of this community. In other words, they ask us to ignore that the self – identified and self – declared “Csango – Magyar” belongs to a Romanian family with parents, grandparents and great grandparents who considered themselves and declared themselves as being Romanians. By virtue of this thinking, we should accept the idea of the Hungarian origin of the so – called Csangos and to give rights to a minority which doesn’t exist, with the more Western variants “affirmative methods”, “positive discrimination”.
    The for – Magyar circles speak a lot about the assimilation policy of the Romanian state and of the Roman – Catholic Church, about the pressure the population is under because of wishing to declare the membership to the Hungarian nation, but they never speak about the methods used to lure the few hundreds of new members for “the cause of the Magyars in Moldavia”. Those associations always forget to mention that they overwhelm people with material help and financial support “to bring them back in the middle of the Hungarian nation” and they say no word about the repeated frauds committed when drawing up the list of signatures on applications for using the Hungarian language in schools and churches. In these conditions, we ask the question: what kind of freedom of consciousness is this and how reliable is this kind of self-identification?
    In the given context, it is interesting the approach of the results of 1992 census by these associations when 95% of the Moldavian Catholics declared themselves as being Romanian. The Hungarian groups developed a large campaign of contesting the results of the consensus, sustaining that they wore falsified by the agents who refused to record some of the Catholics as being “Csangos” or “Magyars”. We mention that these interpretations are based on later testimonies, after the year 1992 and they come from a small group of people who forgot that in the moment of the census they had no reaction, although they would have had at least the possibility of not signing the questionnaire considered untruthfully filled in.
    The press related that, for the census of 2002, the for – Hungarian organizations adopted foreseeing methods, even directing some conflicting episodes in order to be later able to dispute the possible unfavorable results.
    In spite of all these, after 12 years of propagandistic pressures of the for – Hungarian groups, the Moldavian Roman Catholics understood that they had again the right of self-identification, declaring themselves, repeated by, Romanians in a percent of 95,7. This percent, as well as other data (information) used here, refer to the population of Bacău, who we consider representative for the situation in entire (the whole) Moldavia.
    Thus, in 2002, in Bacău County, from the entire number of  706.623 inhabitants, 119.618 declared themselves as being Roman – Catholics. Reminding you that not all Hungarians are Romano – Catholics, we mention that in the same county, at the last census, 4317 inhabitants were registered as Hungarians, but among these, 2720 can not be taken into consideration because they, unquestionably, belong to the Magyar minority from Romania, living in Ghimeş – Făget commune and, from an ecclesiastic point of view, they belong to Alba Iulia Archbishopric. The conclusion is, that 1597 are Hungarians to whom we can add a number of 796 persons who declared themselves “Csangos”. Thus, we get the entire number of 2393 persons, who could constitute the target group for the for – Hungarian associations, but this figure is also irrelevant because we have to skip those people belonging to the other religions than the Roman – Catholic one (specific for the so called “Csangos”). Also, the above mentioned number has to be lowered by excluding the Hungarian people who came in Moldavia in the 20th century, most of them intellectuals established in towns, who cannot be part of the “Csangos’ problem” and can’t be helpful in bringing arguments by the for – Hungarian groups, as well as helpless for them are those, who declared Themselves as “Csangos”, but consider the Romanian their mother tongue which they want to learn at school and to use in churches. The 1992 statistics indicate the proportion of the latest mentioned situation: from a number of 2062 “Csangos” nationally declared, 1489 consider their mother tongue the Romanian, and only 403, the Hungarian language.
    From the data previously presented results that, from 119.618 Roman – Catholics in Bacău county, 114.505 ( i. e. 95,72%) self – identified as Roman – Catholics, and those 2393, who declared themselves as “Hungarians” or “Csangos” and who could be of any interest for the “Csangos’ problem”, represent only 2,00% of the community and only 0,33% of the whole county population.
    We mention that, in villages and communes, those “Hungarians” and “Csangos” don’t establish compact communities, but they are scattered, presenting almost similar percentages as in the general statistic table. For example, in the two main action centers of the for – Hungarian associations, where the propagandistic pressure and the attempts of financial and material attraction have had amazing levels for more than a decade, the following situation is noticed: in Cleja. From 6903 inhabitants, declaring themselves as Hungarians, were 108 (i. e. 1,56%); in Pârjol commune, to which Pustiana village belongs from 6773 inhabitants, 360 people declared themselves as Hungarians (i. e. 5,31%), these being in fact the highest percentages and the most favorable for the associations and which don’t legitimate for the classes and sermons in Hungarian to be allowed in these localities.
    If we are to analyze the data offered by the 1992 census and to compare them with those of 2002, speaking about the people considering themselves Hungarians and “Csangos”, we shall notice the following situation: in 1992 there were 4373 Hungarians and 1137 “Csangos”, that is a total of 5510 persons, and in 2002 there were 4317 Hungarians and 796 “Csangos”, which is a sum of 5113 people. It is obvious that, in the context a demographic diminution nationally registered, there also is a slight diminution of the number of Magyars (with 56 people) and, in the same time, a significant diminution of the number of “Csangos” (with 341 people), despite the intense for – Hungarian propaganda. These numbers have to be interpreted also by talking into consideration the pressures of the filo – Hungarian associations, which asked the population to declare themselves directly “Hungarians”, not only “Csangos”, for the census. To sustain this idea there is a relevant example of mass – media in Bacău exactly during the census of 2002. So, an old man from Pustiana, who, initially, declared himself “Csango”, being influenced by his son and daughter – in – law, changed his option asking for registration as Hungarian. The inhabitants declared that the dissatisfied man’s son works for the UDMR branch in Miercurea Ciuc, and his wife is the sister of the President of The Csango – Hungarians Association from Moldova, the main sustainer of the thesis speaking about the Hungarian origin of the “Csangos”.
    Naturally, the results of 2002 census are are still too recent and they are going to be read and analyzed in different ways from now on. Our approach doesn’t want to draw all the possible conclusions, which, we are sure will be offered to us soon by researches justified to do it. We just wanted to give a brief presentation of some of the information of the census, with the purpose of emphasizing that the conscious freedom and the right of self – identification are not limited in Romania. In such conditions, the Roman – Catholics of Moldavia firmly and in a huge proportion express their Romanian identity, giving, practically, a slight possibility of maneuver to those who, whishing  to artificially extend the borders of the Hungarian nation, ignore the scientific truths and the desire of the Roman – Catholic community groundlessly speaking about the “problem of the Csango – Hungarians”, about whose lack of rights they lament in the most possibly hypocrite way.
    The childish argument, according to which these Catholics would like to declare themselves Hungarians but they can’t for fear of the state’s pressure, is denied by the fact that those tests (surveys) offered confidentially for the data given by the people and allowed people to declare any identity they would have liked (for example, the information of March 2002 census was confirmed by an independent survey in March – April 2002 made by The Urban and Regional Sociology Center (CURS) and by Bucureşti University, entitled “The villages with Csangos from Moldavia”). Further more, the Moldavian Roman – Catholics never restrained themselves from overtly expressing their options regarding the Romanian identity, even when the historical conditions were unfavorable for such a gesture.
    We consider at least strange the fact that the leaders of the for – Hungarian associations never manage, even when using forgeries, to gather a significant and constant number of supporters, the numbers inexplicably fluctuating between some tens and a couple of hundreds of people, in the conditions in which only the population of a commune counts some thousands. And this is the case of a community who ardently wishes the introduction of the Hungarian language in churches and schools.
    These claims ignore the strong and constant desire of Moldavian Roman – Catholics of being educationally and religiously assisted only using the Romanian Language, which all of them speak and understand.
    Without the population’s help, the for – Hungarian associations need to adopt all kinds of forgeries to overcome this hindrance. The most common used method is to assail the institutions of the Romanian state and of the Catholic Church with a huge amount of complaints aiming the adoption of the Hungarian language. To hide the fact that they are the conception of the same 20-30 filo – Hungarians in the area, they make up lists of supporting signatures. The procedure would be normal, if, in actual fact, they didn’t commit forgeries which belong to the area of offences punished by the Criminal Code.
    Any time the list accompanying the complaints were checked, the result was they were not well worked out. The for -  Hungarians associations leaders promise all kind of helps and facilities for the people who, in exchange, would sign for confirmation. Later, these tables are added to the applications for the adoption of the Hungarian language in school and churches. The cases presented by the media and by the population are numerous and their simple listing would be as long as our material. That is why we shall give only three examples.
    In the autumn of 1997 the Education Inspectorate in Bacău received from Andras Beress, at that time state secretary of UDMR, a complaint signed by 29 inhabitants of Cleja, who asked for the “possibility of studying of the Hungarian language and literature in school”. Because of the fact that the Inspectorate had not received an application from the villagers, an investigation of the list of signatures added to the complaint was ordered.
    It was revealed that, from the 29 signatories, only eight had children with the age fit for school and having the justification to solicitate such a thing. More than this, the majority of those names whose names were on the list, didn’t even know that they had really signed, because Andrei Duma, the leader of AMCM Cleja and the promoter of the complaint, misinformed them, pretending they were signing to get foreign help.
    For the 2002 – 2003 school year, AMCM pretended that classes in Hungarian should be introduced, claiming that they were speaking in the behalf of 150 families of Cleja and Pustiana. Finally, it was proved that only 11 children in Cleja and 12 in Pustiana, attend such classes approved by the School Inspectorate County. In the same way other institutions could be mislead to offer rights asked by AMCM.
    In April 2001, the AMCM leaders requested the introduction of sermons in Hungarian in Pustiana, adding to the complaint a list of 253 signatures supposed to belong to the parishioners in the village. The Iaşi Roman – Catholic Bishopric Committee noticed that 21 people had signed no applications, six had signed for other purposes (a village doctor, the building of a school, workplaces in Hungary) and seven had solicited sermons in Hungarian, but one had changed his mind. In other 64 cases there had been registered people who hadn’t even lived ever or any longer in the village, people with severe handicaps, people without religion or non – applying Catholics, under aged people coming there on holiday, signatures twice registered in the list, people declaring they had signed to get material goods.
    The promoters of such action glaringly contradict  the Vatican’s reglementations, obeyed by the entire Catholic world, by bringing Hungarian priests from Transylvania and Hungary to solemnize sermons in Iaşi Bishopric’s parishes in a foreign language for the population. On the other hand, the Hungarian language media, which is never too tired for deploring over “the extermination” “the Csangos” were victims of, resort to misinformation about the high Catholic prelates using Hungarian names for them and meanly attacking their families.
    To the misinforming methods mentioned above we can also add the replacing of the traditions and the adoption of another ethnical belonging, an old historical procedure. In the autumn of 2002, in Bacău, at the press conference organized by AMCM, UDMR and the Embassy of Hungary, the most fanatic speaker about the so – called Csangos’ Hungarian origin was nobody else than Kallos Zoltan, one of the main participants at the communist offensive of considering and changing the Moldavian Catholics into Magyars in the period of the 50’s. In that time, the promoters of this process realized that the deportment (costume), dances and songs of the Moldavian Catholics had nothing in common with the Magyar cultural area. Consequently, they brought Szekler’s popular costumes for the folkloric ensembles in Transylvania and songs from the Hungarian Transylvanian received from the researchers of Cluj Folklore Institute. Not long after, these came in Moldavia and collected the songs brought from Transylvania as a proof of the Hungarian origin of the “Csangos”. Among the “experts”coming from Cluj to Bacău Area for this so called scientific purpose, there was the ethnographer Kallos Zoltan, the one who, on October 24, 2002, couldn’t have been stopped from talking about his endless scientific activity to collect information about “the Csangos’ folklore”.

    But who are the Catholics from Moldavia and why has their problem created so many controversies?

    Why do some people try to make them part of the Hungarian nation by calling them “Csangos”?

    It is right to talk about the rights of a community, ignoring or reproving a preliminary scientific research of its origin?

    Can we ignore the Romanian self – identification of more than 95% of the Moldavian Roman – Catholics, giving priority to a few tens of pro – Hungarians?

    What elements should we take into consideration when speaking about identity? Do we rely only on the simple declaration of a few people? Let us not forget that the law never considers as a sufficient evidence the accused’s declaration, even if this one admits the perpetration of the deed.
    We consider that the identity problem can not be discussed about without bringing about some main elements of this, like those deriving from the ethnical belonging. We can not agree with those who try to accredit the false idea that the debate upon the origin is only an embezzlement from the obeying of the community rights. The ethnical belonging, the language, the history and cultural traditions representing the Moldavian Catholics’ main identity marks, can not be avoided, if the truth is really searched for. From only this point the claim and the granting of some rights (special, as those granted for minorities) can be discussed.
    As well, we consider as groundless the based assertion regarding the Church’s involvement in the so – called assimilating policy against “Csango – Hungarians” having as consequence the Moldavian Roman – Catholics’ community falling apart. On the contrary, the Catholic Church promotes equilibrium and harmony parishioners, as it does in the whole world. Statements as those according to which the Vatican, by creating a Roman – Catholic Bishopric in Iaşi, did nothing else than to take part into the process of transferring the “Csango – Hungarians” to the Romanian nationality, prove not only the serious lack of Christian spirit, but also a misunderstanding of the rights of people, because the Catholic Church reach the solution of founding that bishopric for the very reason of meeting the ethnical and linguistic need in Moldavia, which they knew very well and which, until this foundation, could not have been obeyed.
    When sustaining this, we have in mind that no international organism does not want to adopt false decisions, considering the approaches of a small group and ignoring the assertion of more than 95% of a community members, sustained by scientifically confirmed proofs.
    We mentioned the Hungarian historiography assertions when intending to demonstrate the un – Romanian origin of the Moldavian Catholics. It is true that the Romanian historiography of the beginning of the 20th century had the same kind of challenges, having to pay later for an indirect tackling of the problem and rather rising questions than offering credible answers. As well as some Hungarian researchers, some Romanian historians were mislead by the stereotype “Catholic means Hungarian, Orthodox means Romanian”.
    In the same way, the terms “Hungarian” or were used to call people coming from Transylvania, which was called in the past “The Hungarian Country”, ignoring the fact that such names given at that time to some individuals or communities had no ethnical basis, but indicated the origin in a certain geographic and political area. In the same way, the problem of bilinguvism was superficially treated, considering that the use of the Csango dialect is a satisfactory argument for the Moldavian Catholics’ Hungarian origin, excluding the deeper elements that demonstrate the Romanian origin of the users of this dialect. These are the reasons for which the for – Hungarian associations, neglecting the basic rules for a historical research, falsely interpret the interrogations of some Romanian historians, naming them as being taken out of the real context, as cogent proofs of the Moldavian Catholics un – Romanian origin.
    In exchange, intellectuals as professors Iosif Petru M. Pall and Dumitru Mărtinaş, coming among the Moldavian Catholics, started demonstrating with scientific arguments their Romanian origin. This tendency is followed and enlarged today by other researchers who, by their approaches bring the truth closer to us.
    The results of their work demonstrate that the Moldavian Roman – Catholics never called themselves “Csangos”. More over, they reject this term which is considered ironical, and they adopt the term Romanian Catholics. The situation is the same even nowadays, from the beginning of the 18th century when Dimitrie Cantemir registered that the Moldavian Catholics “Have this name referring to nationality and to religion”.
    What more eloquent proof of their Romanian identity could they produce for more than 300 years, than the constant rejection and the strong one of a name as “Csangos” given to them by someone out of their community with a clear desire of awarding them an ethnical origin strange to them?
    We can be more clear than the pitiable failure of the linguistic innovation of the Szekler priest Zold Peter in the very context of this community who never stop claiming their Romanian identity? Maybe only the life together of the Romanian Orthodox and Catholics, they both of sharing both good and bad things given by an unlenient history for this piece of land. They together fight in all the moments of national assertion, they together pay taxes, suffer from epidemics and hunger brought by wars, the restrictions imposed by totalitarian systems and, today, here they are to overcome the restrictions produced by a too long transitory period. Unfortunately, some people consider these insufficient and add a new burden on the community’s shoulders, trying, again and again, to change their identity.
    The traveling of people from Transylvania to Moldavia is a well – known phenomenon which made the relations between the two provinces to be constant and strong. Of course, because of the unfavorable position of the Transylvania Romanian population until the 1918 Unification, the flux was from the province to Moldavia. When the situation of the Transylvanian Romanians became unbearable, they found refuge in Moldavia.
    This is the way the Catholic Romanians came here, their establishment in the area being accelerated and increased in the 18th century. While living in Szekler identity, which, automatically, meant learning the Magyar language and, most of the times, giving up the Romanian names for their Hungarian translations.
    That is how we can explain the popular costumes, the architecture, the folklore, the customs and traditions that have resemblances allowing the identification with the cultural area of the Transylvanian Romanians. In the same way we can explain the Transylvanian Romanian dialect, being known that the Moldavian Catholics don’t use the Moldavian Romanian dialect, which excludes the theories sustaining that the people coming into contact with the Romanians adopted their identity. The Transylvanian language elements preserved and the siflant characteristic of speaking, specific only to the area of the Romanian language in its period of formation, clearly demonstrates that the Moldavian Roman – Catholics’ ancestors spoke Romanian when living in Transylvania and this has always been their mother tongue.
    The dialect called “Csango” is a heritage from the period of Transylvanian establishment, being a partly adapted Magyar language, only orally and mixed with a lot of Romanian elements, used to be used as a means of communication with their Hungarian or Szekler neighbors. Once coming in Moldavia, some Catholics, in an incipient stage of adoption the Szekler or Hungarian identity, naturally abandoned the Csango dialect, and those strongly adopting these identities kept (preserved) it but without having a written language; it is important that the priest Zold Peter himself, the father of the false name “Csango – Hungarian” mentioned about the Moldavian Catholics’ imperfect Hungarian. And this was in the year 1781, when the Transylvanian Catholics had not had time yet to support the supposed assimilation pressures of the Orthodox natives.
    In fact, as it can today be observed, the dances and popular costumes from Moldavia belong to the traditional Romanian field.
    We consider that, together with the results of the scientific research results, the problem of how representative are the associations, dealing with the Moldavian Catholics and reporting to a target group, is very important in debating upon the Moldavian Roman – Catholics.
    As far as we are concerned, “Dumitru Mărtinaş” Association had the courage to let people vote, to organize a general meeting where participants, rejecting their identification as an ethnical minority, sustained their quality of Romanian religious community. The adherence of the association among people is proved by the great number of branches founded or about to be founded, over 20, in less than two years of proper functioning.
    What do the for – Hungarian associations present and whose behalf do they speak in?
    We ask this question, because it seems that those associations have big problems regarding representative. It is noticeable that, after 12 years of intense activity, they managed to attract only a small number of people, a few hundreds, from some Moldavian localities, these being, not accidentally, exactly the villages where the above mentioned organizations’ leaders had been born. More eloquent is the fact that the number of people involved in actions for introducing the Hungarian language in schools and churches, has never been the same, the conclusion being that, despite the different methods of material luring exerted upon people, their “convictions” about their Hungarian origin are deviously not as strong as the leaders of for – Hungarian associations would like. In order to evade this reality, those leaders have recently sustained that they have 35 branches in Moldavia. Even for a person who doesn’t know the situation, the number is obviously unrealistic because in Moldavia there don’t exist 35 communities to use the Csango dialect. We shall infer from the AMCM leaders that they militate for the introduction of Hungarian even in the localities with 100% Romanian Catholic population.
    Regarding the dimensions of the group, in the behalf they pretend to be speaking, we could also notice great fluctuations, because the self – entitled saviors of the Hungarian Csangos’ identity initially claimed the entire number of 265.000 members of the Moldavian – Catholics community.
    Later on, they came to another approximation of 60-70 thousands of “Csangos” in Moldavia, including bilingual Catholics, who use the Romanian Transylvanian and the Csango dialects. Unfortunately, these numbers have been considered by the reporters of the European Council, who have not noticed that in the localities with bilingual communities statistics mention, as well as in the Catholics villages using only the Romanian language, over 95% citizens declaring themselves Romanians.
    Finally, if one of these assessments could not be assumed, the for – Hungarian associations found refuge in the 2000 “Csangos” declared for the census, although nearly 1500 of them indicated Romanian as their mother tongue.
    In the end, we again appeal to your Kindness by asking you to analyze the following situation:
    From 265.000 Catholics in Moldavia, over  95% consider and declare themselves Romanians. They reject being seen as an ethnical minority and being named with the unsuitable name of “Csangos”, sustaining that they are part of the Romanian people, a Catholic community of this one.
    The results of the scientific researches confirm and support these truths.
    On the other hand, some people, in the name of their personal interests and with the clear desire of fulfilling other interests than the Moldavian Roman – Catholic community’s wealth, want to demonstrate that there is a minority of the “Csangos”, considered of Magyar origin, who is almost extinct because of the Romanian state and of the Catholic Church’s pressures. These people try hard to obtain the admittance of this forgery by the European organisms, not only for a moment forgetting to remind the fact that Romania doesn’t obey the minorities’ rights and, so, it doesn’t deserve to be part of the of the European and Euro – Atlantic structures. But they forget the detail that for 12 years Romania has been making clear progress in the field of admitting and guaranteeing the minorities’ rights in the country. Why should they then be against the “Csangos” rights? What makes them different from Germans, Gypsies, Hungarians, Jews, Turks, Armenians, Tartars, Serbians, Polish, Ukrainians or others, in this respect? Not this very fact makes us believe that the “Csangos” are an imaginary ethnical minority?
    An eloquent proof of the fact that the real target of the for – Hungarian is compromising Romania in the process of becoming part of the European organizations, and not in the least the wealth of the Moldavian “Csango” minority, are the latest declarations at Balvanyos of the AMCM and UDMR leaders. In spite of the fact that the Romanian authorities offered them undeserved “rights” for introducing the Hungarian language in the Moldavian Schools, those people denied this reality, continuing to declare that Romania doesn’t guarantee such rights. We believe it is a good example that the for – Hungarian will never stop pretending, no matter how many concessions, even unjustified, the Romanian part would make.


Toate articolele şi materialele paginilor acestui website sunt înregistrate şi protejate de legile dreptului de autor. Nici un material de pe acest website nu poate fi reprodus parţial, integral sau modificat fără permisiunea noastră.

Home About Culture Communities History Religion Books Links Forum