A Hero's Love: Because Heroes Love

All heroes begin as idiots.

When my mother learned that a cousin of mine volunteered to work in an ICU at a local hospital to help treat Covid-19 patients, her immediate reaction was to wonder how my cousin could be so stupid.  She said it out of worry and concern, because I strongly suspect my mother loves my cousin more than me, and certainly does not believe my cousin is stupid in any regard.

Nor do I believe my cousin is stupid.  So I corrected my mother, telling her that my cousin was not stupid. My cousin was an idiot, I told her.  But, I immediately added, all heroes begin as idiots.

Only an idiot runs into a house on fire, but the hero comes out with persons trapped within it.  Only an idiot jumps into a frozen lake, but the hero saves the person who fell in and in danger of drowning.  Only the idiot steps into the line of fire, but the hero takes the bullet for another.

The word "idiot" in English initially was a technical term, referring to those who were profoundly intellectually or cognitively disabled.  It was still used that way until recently, though relegated to the label "idiot savant," referring to such a disabled person who exhibited an unusual--even extraordinary--intellectual gift in the absence of most others.  However, because "idiot" came to be used as an epithet and defined (in the dictionary even!) as "a stupid person," we now normally refer to such persons as "savants."  Be that as it may, most people use "idiot" to refer to someone who does something most unwise and stupid, against reason and logic.

But that was certainly not the original meaning of the word.  It is etymologically derived from the Greek idiotes, referring to a "private person" or "individual," itself derived from idios, meaning "one's own" (in ancient Greek, before it came in Modern Greek to mean "the same").  Latin borrowed the word as idiota, meaning "common," and later took on the meaning of a "commoner" or "ignorant person."  This is when it took on a derogatory sense, passing into French as "illiterate," "crude," or a synonym of "stupid" and then into English.  By the 14th century, English used it to mean something more than ignorant, but as actually "mentally deficient."  Today, while still meaning the same, it is used only in a derogatory sense.

Be that as it may, the word "hero" also comes to us by way of Homeric (or Attic) Greek, a word denoting a "defender" or "protector."

And this is where we see the connection between an idiot and heroism.  At least in the original meaning of the word idios, each of us begins as "one's own" self.  The natural inclination and drive to survival would typically suggest that each "self" would be self-concerned, and to do things that risk survival is certainly not prudent or wise.  In some sense, risking one's own life is stupid.  Unless...

Being a defender and protector of another makes a person a hero, and the very act of defending or protecting another is always, in greater or lesser degree, a risk to one's own self.  It is, by one definition, an act of idiocy.

But true idiocy is the mental and intellectual deficiency that suggests that one's own self is sufficient for survival in the first place.  We do not begin life "alone" and we cannot, actually, survive alone.  We cannot rely on our "own self" and remain human.  "No man is an island unto himself," the saying goes.  Fundamentally, we need other human beings in our life to live.

A hero is someone who realizes this in an extreme way, perhaps not even consciously.  While the dictionary may define a hero as someone who displays courage, noble qualities, and outstanding achievements, the original meaning of defender and protector points to something else: the act of love.

Love is self-less-ness, plain and simple.  It is not an emotion (though acts of love may be motivated by such or evoke emotion), but a manner of existing, to defend, protect, and share "one's own" life with another, even to the point of risking life--or in the "greatest" example of love, losing one's own life for the sake of another (which is how Jesus defines the greatest love).

By all accounts of "conventional wisdom," any act that endangers one's own life is almost by definition an act of idiocy.  Only idiots would run into a burning building, or step into the line of fire, or jump into the frozen lake.  

Only an idiot would come close to those infected with disease and risk contagion, as so many have chosen to do in our day.  It is idiocy to do so recklessly and in denial of danger.  An idiot--in the derogatory sense--is cavalier about real danger to one's own self and those around one's own self.  The hero, by contrast, recognizes risk and danger, and for the sake of defending and protecting others faces the danger anyway head on.

So many persons in our time have demonstrated real heroism in serving the public needs during this pandemic.  While most who are infected with this novel coronavirus may not have severe symptoms or even be aware of it, it is unpredictable in its effect on persons.  Seemingly healthy human beings fall prey to the contagion, while those seemingly more susceptible survive.  There is so much about this virus that we have yet to understand.

And knowing this, recognizing the risks perhaps better than most, certainly not wanting to become infected or infectious, my cousin has still chosen to enter the Intensive Care Unit of a hospital to bring care and healing to Covid-19 patients.  

By any stretch of the imagination, only an idiot would do so.  And we obviously have many idiots who, day in and day out, enter the ICUs around the world, or drive ambulances, or fight fires, or walk the beat, in order to help, defend and protect their fellow citizens, family, friends and neighbors (and even the idiots, in the derogatory sense, who don't appreciate that fact). Yet these people show themselves to be anything but "idiotes" in the classic sense, because they are not common, they are not private, and not putting their own selves and self-interest above others.  They are sharing their very lives for the sake of others.  Because that is what heroes do.  Heroes love. And that's why my mother likely loves my cousin, my hero, more than me.

End of an Era

END OF AN ERA

It was just announced by our Archdiocese of America that His Eminence, Archbishop Demetrios, Geron (Elder) of America submitted his resignation to His All-holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.  The acceptance of the resignation will be considered by the Holy Synod of Constantinople at its meeting next week.

While much can happen in a week, and it is uncertain how things will play out in the weeks to come regarding the election of a new Archbishop and so forth, it appears we are coming to the end of an era.

His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios is the third Archbishop of America under whom I have served as a clergyman, and as I was ordained in 1994, certainly this is the longest tenure of any Archbishop during my own ministry, and His Eminence is the hierarch of the three whom I knew "personally" and best.

I met him as a student at our seminary, when he was a visiting professor at our own Holy Cross Orthodox School of Theology and Harvard University Divinity School.  Even before having him as my own professor of Old Testament Exegesis, he was a frequent, if not daily, browser in the seminary bookstore where I worked.  He was always engaging conversation with students--even freshmen in the undergraduate program such as me--and always teaching in some manner.  I cannot recall hearing any criticism of him as a teacher (and I had none), though such criticism was abundant for nearly every other instructor.  Humble, friendly, cheerful and gently-spoken even when apparently irritated or frustrated--this is how I recall His Eminence at school.

When change is incremental as it often is in our Archdiocese, it is sometimes taken for granted.  Much has changed for the better under His Eminence's leadership.  Perhaps a fair criticism of these last two decades is that there was not enough institutional change, but such inertia in such a vast institution as our Archdiocese and its very nature makes this an enduring criticism.  Indeed, His Eminence's predecessor was criticized, and perhaps ultimately removed, for undertaking change too rapidly.

In the past several years, our Archdiocese has faced numerous crises and problems, mostly of an administrative and financial nature.  Many of these have been issues before the tenure of His Eminence and reflect systemic and perennial problems our Archdiocese; they will persist for years to come, and will require the efforts of many persons to solve them.  One man, such as any Archbishop, cannot solve them without the cooperation of the faithful at every level of our ecclesiastical life, and it is unreasonable to believe so.  Perhaps His Eminence could have done more, and perhaps he made mistakes along the way.  Yet it was not for lack of devotion to the Church, or faithfulness as a pastor, and for a man now in his 90s, these are still evident in his person.

Even as we pray for the Holy Spirit to rightly guide the Holy Synod of Constantinople to elect a worthy successor, we should pray that the Lord continue to bless His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios as he enters into what I imagine will be a retirement or, more likely, a new phase in his service to the Church through his scholarship to which he can now return.  We owe him our deep gratitude for nearly two full decades of service.

Moscow and Constantinople: Who Stands to Gain?

On January 6, 2019, His All-holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, on behalf of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, will formally issue the Tomos (or "Proclamation") of Autocephaly for the newly-constituted Church of Ukraine to the newly-elected primatial hierarch of this new autocephalous Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Epiphanius of Kiev.

The event is most controversial, perhaps the most serious controversy affecting the Orthodox world during my lifetime, and has already resulted in the Moscow Patriarchate essentially excommunicating the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and all its clergy and faithful).  The Patriarchate of Moscow has protested the move on several grounds, accusing the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and His All-holiness Patriarch Bartholomew personally) of all sorts of motives (political and even financial!) and violations of the Holy Canons.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate has defended itself by claiming canonical and traditional prerogatives.

Without any doubt, this is a "political" controversy, for the rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople is long standing--centuries long in some respects.  Likewise, there is a continuing dispute between the Ukrainian and Russian governments.  Without doubt, the accusations and defenses of all sides (Moscow, Constantinople, the various Ukrainian groups involved) are messy, complicated, and subject to a number of interpretations.  At least from an international "public relations" perspective, this has not been the Orthodox Church's finest hour.

As a clergyman formally under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, I take the side of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but not out of any "blind loyalty."  In fact, some of the arguments the Ecumenical Patriarchate has made in defense of its actions seem somewhat strained: reassertion of canonical prerogatives essentially ignored for over three centuries struck me as quite curious.  After all, up until just a few months ago, the Ecumenical Patriarchate--at least publicly--considered two of the three Orthodox "jurisdictions" in Ukraine to be schismatic or uncanonical, just as the Moscow Patriarchate did.  Technically, the reassertion of canonical "rights" may have been necessary, but it is not the strong argument in the matter.

In such cases, where various aspersions and motives have been thrown around by the Moscow Patriarchate and others, I think it is simpler to ask who has what to gain in such matters.  And for this writer, it seems to me that rather than gaining anything, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually the only side in the controversy willing to give anything away.

From a purely ecclesiastical and canonical perspective, declaring the Ukrainian Church autocephalous actually creates a situation where Constantinople will no longer have any canonical prerogatives or "rights" in Ukraine, apart from the ability to hear "appeals" of hierarchs on canonical matters--and even this prerogative is contested by Moscow and some others.  In any case, an autocephalous church is completely self-ruling, and elects its own "head" and hierarchal primate.  From an administrative point of view, once Constantinople declares the Ukrainian Church autocephalous, it ceases to have any "rights" or prerogatives in that territory.  Unless requested, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will have no say regarding any aspect of the internal life of the Ukrainian Church.

Of course, the Ecumenical Patriarchate can expect some gain in the matter, but what is gained will be things such as the gratitude of those Ukrainians who desire to have their own autocephalous church.  Because this controversy undoubtedly involves secular politics (and there is a de facto war occurring between Ukraine and Russia), the Ecumenical Patriarchate has already received the gratitude of the secular leadership of Ukraine.  The Ukrainian government did also provide the Ecumenical Patriarchate the use of an ancient church in Kiev, but honestly this could not have been a major motivation!  The United States government applauded the move, but mostly because Russia was against it, and that rivalry is escalating to a degree not seen since the end of the Cold War.  NATO countries might sympathize as well in this geopolitical struggle, and the Ecumenical Patriarch has earned some goodwill.

But none of that, for me, compares to the pastoral accomplishment that many commentators seem to ignore.  Basically, since the independence of Ukraine, there have been three Orthodox "jurisdictions" claiming legitimacy and essentially not in communion with each other.  Whatever the actual numbers, there is no doubt that millions of Ukrainian Orthodox were negatively affected by these schisms and considered outside the communion of the Orthodox Church.  By recognizing bishops that formally and formerly were in schism with the rest of the Orthodox world, millions of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful were recognized as Orthodox by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  The Unification Synod held recently, in preparation for the declaration of autocephaly, brought at least two of the three "jurisdictions" together--those that stood opposed to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

So now, not counting a sizeable Ukrainian (Byzantine) Catholic Church (known as Uniates, for they appear identical to Eastern Orthodox but are in union with Rome) in the country, the Ecumenical Patriarchate now essentially recognizes all Orthodox Christians in the country as "canonical."  On January 6, 2019, there will be two such groups: one autocephalous church recognized as such by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and one "autonomous" church under the formal jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.  After all, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not severed communion with anyone in this matter, including the Ukrainians united still to Moscow.

What the Ecumenical Patriarchate has done, however, is most significant.  It has decided, essentially and canonically, to give up its right to being involved in this matter.  It will be up to the Ukrainians themselves to solve the remaining "jurisdictional" problem and schism.  Even if one is inclined to view this matter as one of an uncanonical "interference" by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ukraine, there can be no doubt that once autocephaly is proclaimed and formally recognized, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cannot "interfere" or intervene on any Ukrainian matter without request and invitation.  In effect, it has tied its own hands in this matter and relinquished any "rights."

The situation in Ukraine is quite complicated, involving both ecclesiastical and civil disputes. Yet the ecclesiastical dispute, as complicated and unseemly as it seems, comes down to this: Moscow has only asserted its rights and its "possession" (and by Moscow, we must consider the Patriarchate and government to be in lock-step as has been amply demonstrated).  It has not addressed the reality of millions of faithful being formally outside the communion of the Church.  Constantinople, in contrast, brought millions of faithful back into communion and, at the same time, allowed the Ukrainians the opportunity through self-rule and self-determination, to solve their own problems.  Those problems will not disappear anytime soon.  But this significant first step must be credited to the Ecumenical Patriarchate which, contrary interpretations of the canons aside, has taken the moral high ground.