Hi Benjamin, thanks for the question! From what I understand it is a pretty common arrangement for historic buildings or even all pre-1991 buildings. The Soviets nationalized all church property and largely used the buildings are storehouses and such until there was a slight thawing in the later Soviet period. When that happened the state kept ownership but gave out free use rights to churches that they approved of.
After independence that situation basically carried forward in Moldova (and I believe most other countries). I say basically because it does not hold for all churches and there are likely a ton of exceptions - including Monasteries. Basically it's a patchwork arrangement and when in doubt the state is responsible.
So The Ministry of Culture or local authorities are responsible for protecting historic property, but they aren't arbiters of these disputes. These "free use" rights are contested in court. Largely this happens if a church decides to join the Metropolis of Bessarabia and the Moldovan Orthodox Church opposes it. But disputes like these have been going on for a long time based on current events as well as the pre-1940 status of the building in question.
Like so many other situations that involved rebuilding institutions after the Soviet collapse, it remains a bit messy.
"As many churches are the property of the local governments or the Ministry of Culture"
This detail was very surprising to me. Is state ownership of religious property the norm in the former Soviet Union?
Hi Benjamin, thanks for the question! From what I understand it is a pretty common arrangement for historic buildings or even all pre-1991 buildings. The Soviets nationalized all church property and largely used the buildings are storehouses and such until there was a slight thawing in the later Soviet period. When that happened the state kept ownership but gave out free use rights to churches that they approved of.
After independence that situation basically carried forward in Moldova (and I believe most other countries). I say basically because it does not hold for all churches and there are likely a ton of exceptions - including Monasteries. Basically it's a patchwork arrangement and when in doubt the state is responsible.
So The Ministry of Culture or local authorities are responsible for protecting historic property, but they aren't arbiters of these disputes. These "free use" rights are contested in court. Largely this happens if a church decides to join the Metropolis of Bessarabia and the Moldovan Orthodox Church opposes it. But disputes like these have been going on for a long time based on current events as well as the pre-1940 status of the building in question.
Like so many other situations that involved rebuilding institutions after the Soviet collapse, it remains a bit messy.