September 2007

What has remained to defend?

In a renowned literary work from 1922, "Mesure de la France", Drieu la Rochelle wrote that the Conservatives no longer exist because there is nothing left to conserve: "Religion, family, aristocracy, all ancient embodiments of the authority principle have been destroyed". The Conservatism is an attitude more than an ideology; it is born from the intersection with the others and not from the ambition to rationalize the human relationships and to plan the existence scientifically. Not detached from the World that they defended, the Conservatives, who Drieu spoke about, seem to be gone together with the people sacrificed in the trench of the 1^st World War. At the beginning of 1920s, the last fraction, which had resisted, of the Old Conservative Party disappeared in Romania too. The tumultuous inter-war Romanian political History could be interpreted as a crisis of a political system that lacked a serious Conservative component capable to express the socio-professional and cultural pulse of the Romanian society.

The inter-war situation of Romania seems to repeat now days. The crisis seems to be aggravated by the integration of Romania within the European Union that is more likely to increase Romania’s deficit of autonomy. With an European Union that declared that Romania has too many peasants, whose number should be reduced by 50% – action that is currently done by transformation of our peasants in occidental proletarians – with an European Union that has engaged to pump in Romania, until 2013, 30 milliards Euros, most of which will reach the bureaucratic – corrupted structures, with a population that is declining, and with an increased number of immigrants, Romania is more likely to transform from a national state to an European agricultural-industrial kolkhoz without identity, without memory, and without freedom. In these conditions, in which the Left is stilling and the Right is disappearing, in conditions of rapid demographical decline and cultural obscurity, a Conservative movement is imperative. But, what could the Conservatives still conserve now days?

Samuel Francis, an American Conservative from the early times, wrote that, from the disputes with the Left, the contemporary Right has learnt that "we do not fight to conserve something, we fight to restore something". The fight to conserve a prototype of traditional life (as that of the peasants threatened by the global industrialization or by the giant food chains), and the national or cultural identity is therefore a fight against the institutions and ideologies that want to destroy them. In fact, it is important to stress out that now days, the Left is the one interested to preserve the present, not the Right. The immigrants suit the Left’s multicultural views craving after "hybridism" and the objectives of the big corporations that look for a servile and cheap labor force. Because the Left is "Conservative", the single chance for the Right is to become "revolutionist".

The Left has always struggled to lay hands on the national institutions, on schools, on economy, in one word, on the "system", because, in the Lerft’s view, the system is the one that models the human being. In Left’s view, the human being is neither good nor bed, but extremely flexible and easy to manipulate through science. The human being progresses together with the science and through science. The human being advances to the extent to which the science advances. The Left believes that the human being has advanced to the current stage because of the society, not because of its intrinsic nature. The Left always tried to lay hands on the system because this way it could reform the man. The actual occidental system is therefore convenient to the Liberal Left due to the fact that it can be used to create something that they believe to be a new human being: without identity or with multiple national, sexual, and religious identities, a hybrid.

In these conditions, what the Conservative movement has to conserve is the definition of human being itself, the meaning of the human nature, the means of the restored nature. The Conservatism is an affirmation of the existence and, as a consequence, it can be neither spiritualist nor materialist, but personalized. The Liberal Left wants to lay hands on the system in order to create a man that represents the system, a perfectly adaptable man. The Conservatives should defend the human being in order to create a society that represents the human being, a society without technocratic ambitions, without mechanizing the man for the benefit of production, without destroying the criteria for distinguishing the god from the evil in the spirit of fairness, without destroying the family as "an permanent natural harmony in which the human being booms" (Susan Orr) in the spirit of sexual experimentation, without pretending that we are divinities, but that the single divinity is the nothingness. In these conditions, the Conservatives are the ones that refuse to accept any action or system of values meant to abolish the human being. What has remained to conserve? The secret of human being, the "resemblance of God", non-quantifiable and impossible to buy or sell, and a World at human dimensions.

Mircea Platon, Rost, september 2007

Since the ancient times, it has been well known that the Christian iconography showed up for the first time in the catacombs, as a symbolic representation. The most frequently seen is the image of a woman that prays, "oranta", representing the only authentic attitude of the human spirit. In that case, why don’t we ask ourselves: where so much fury against the icons comes from? Does this attitude have any justification?

An image that represents the beauty, the perfection, and more than these, the Divinity itself is rejected on the considerate that it hurts the atheist eyes. On the other hand, as an orthodox Christian, I shouldn’t revolt in front of the image and presence of the craze and sin seen everywhere?

How could the icon hurt, for instance, the pure spirits of the children? Would the real danger for these children be the icons? Maybe it has not been remarked yet, but our young generation is facing a crisis provoked by the lack of models, and why not?, the lack of the Example Itself Who said: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". How else could they find the Way, if they do not have the example, the representation, the icon?

The values of our World are reversed, but we should not forget the courage of the heroes that died for Christ; we should promote the Church message; we should fight for this truthful attitude. Few people know that "icon" means "manifestation, image, representation". God’s Sun manifested as a human, like us. As it is a natural thing to always have in front of us the image of those that we love, the representations of Christ, Virgin Mary and Saints filled the walls of the churches, especially after the Christianity had become an officially permitted religion. Biblical scenes were added thereafter to those representations, this way offering to less knowledgeable people the possibility to understand in one look the entire History of their salvation. Like a bridge between visible and invisible, the symbolic representation is present in its symbol. What the Bible tells us in one word, the icon reveals us through its colors. Little pieces from the dust of this Word, a plate, few colors, few lines, and the beauty has come to life. In its greatness, the icon is the sight of things that cannot be seen. Additionally, the icon fulfills a spiritual role, the sprit of the believer entering in communion with God. The icons are the spirit’s mirrors to Heaven.

Therefore, the icons are venerated not as matter (as the heathen idols), but as communion with the Images that they represent. The man needs spiritual representations of the Divinity. Long time ago, the people used to go in the desert to contemplate the ascetic Saints, to integrate into the memory the image of the spirit’s power against the matter. They returned with simple drawings, prototypes of icons in order to always remember the greatness that the man can attain, personification of the most authentic victory against the evil.

Ramona Suciu, Rost, september 2007

 I. Religion and science

The relationship between religion and science, in its truthful understanding and with its multiple consequences, was one of Father Galeriu’s sermon motifs. Although he was 80-year old, he still dreamt to learn…chemistry. This was not a reflex of an extraordinary curiosity or gnoseological apprehension, as one could believe (because the true faith – that the Father Galeriu embraced totally – cultivates and balances the spirit above the level of our cognoscibility), but a catechetic need realistically comprehended and assumed, both in the more general context of the modern mentality positivism, and in the particular context of "ideological terrorism" imposed on us (and in the entire communist block) by the radical atheism and materialism promoted by the Marxist-Leninist regimen.

Priest of a metropolitan parish (first, "Saint Vasile" in Ploiesti city, and thereafter, starting in 1973, "Saint Silvestru", a church located in the center of Bucharest and frequented by many intellectuals) and professor of Theology with a high interest in apologetics (a domain of the Romanian theological education unfortunately neglected after the 2nd World War), Father Galeriu faced sometimes the situation to preach to a very exigent intellectual community. Within this community, the young generation (especially students and young people at the beginning of their careers) represented a very important category that Father Galeriu deeply cherished, considering it the promoter of a better future in which he always believed, despite all hostilities brought by History. His sermons complied with the spiritual needs of this prevalently young intellectual audience that sometimes had been confused by the modern discrepancies between the laic and the religious culture, cognoscibility and faith, "official" truth and "intimate" livelihood, and between the pragmatism of a civilization tailored on technical-scientific developments and the moral-spiritual hallmarks of our traditions.

Father Galeriu’s merits are attributed to his efforts directed not only to elucidate (when most of the people avoided doing so) the historical and contemporary relationships between religion and science or between man’s creativity and the divine creation, systematically abolishing the prejudices of incompatibility or antagonism, but also to effectively convene the sciences and arts to reveal themselves to the contemporaneous conscience as an integral part of the Absolute Truth, specifically reflected in their particular genuineness. To achieve his goals, Father Galeriu studied rigorously both orthodox and occidental literature. With patience and responsibility, he assimilated the essence of the specific language of different sciences and arts, so that the audience was many times surprised by the accuracy of a reference or by the subtlety of a detail. Metamorphosed by the spirit and moral authority of Father Galeriu, not only the simple allusions, but also the more detailed facts were perfectly integrated in his sermon. It never seemed inappropriate to hear Father Galeriu consecutively citing Saint "Ioan Gura de Aur" and Jacques Monod, or to evaluate the attributes of a theological word with a scientific word (entropy-vanity, finalism-divine order, etc). This way, the sciences became, without forcing their status, convergent vehicles towards the Absolute, overcoming the relativity in the Spirit of Truth, the formal immanence within the transcendental essentiality, and the vanity of Lucifer within the eucharistic jubilee. Father Galeriu cared to demonstrate with predilection that between the science and the divine revelation there is no real conflict or exclusion relationship; everything is placed subsidiary to the spirit and is invaded by the holiness of God, Who’s sacred mystery is inexhaustible [1].

Father Galeriu had the great talent to bring into play witness (sometimes surprising ones) among the most famous elderly or contemporary scientists (starting with R. Bacon or Newton). In consequence, this gift increased his credibility among those people that were less familiar with Theology, but educated in the spirit of intellectual worship of modern scientists. He was very proud and delighted that among leading scientists such as Planck, Cl. Bernard, Einstein, Heisenberg, H. Poincaré, Frankl, who distinguished themselves not only by means of their scientific accomplishments, but also by their faith, there were many contemporary Romanians belonging to the Orthodox Church. Especially after 1990, Father Galeriu used to advocate with predilection the merits of two Romanian personalities that distinguished themselves in both the cultural and the scientific fields: Nicolae C. Paulescu (1869-1931) and Alexandru Mironescu (1903-1973). This endeavor promoted the reestablishment of these personalities’ right place within our civic conscience.

II. Memories about Dr. Nicolae C. Paulescu

I heard Father Galeriu speaking about Dr. Paulescu with the same spiritual force as he used to preach from the pulpit, in front of a mixed audience (that was not entirely Christian), not only at the 14th National Conference of Physiology (Bucharest, May 29-31, 1997)[2], but also with many other occasions (until 2001 when his health started deteriorating[3]). Some of his reflections were edited and published on September 8th 2001 in the weekly Christian section – "The Way, Truth, and Life" – of the "Ziua" newspaper[4] (edited under the auspices of Anastasia Foundation[5]).

Father Galeriu valued Dr. Paulescu not only for his tremendous contributions to the medical field reflected by numerous publications (books, manuscripts), academic lectures and a remarkable body of laboratory work, but also for his authentic Christian living. As an example, Father Galeriu was impressed by the fact that although a very busy person, Dr. Paulescu accepted to become a trustee at the parish that he belonged to – "Saint Mina" Church in Bucharest – and he honored his new responsibilities with the same seriousness that characterized his personality). Some people only assert an ideal: Dr. Paulescu made this ideal become true. He used to live in chastity and only in the spirit of Truth. The adoration of God was always accompanied in his life by love and compassion for people. In his view, love is alpha and omega of the existence. He considered that the astonishing harmony at all levels of creation is based on the principle of God’s love: "As a consequence, the absolute low that governs the natural societies in both man and animals is Love". Father Galeriu interpreted his words in a symbolic manner: "With certainty, it should be said that in this vision of love and comprehension of life, his major discovery brought with compassion and love in the service of human being – the discovery of insulin (1921) – was the manifestation of his philosophy and hard work in the spirit of love, because this hormone "regulates the metabolism of glucose, lipids, proteins and minerals in the body", meaning that it restores the harmony in living structures, proving that our existence is governed from deep inside by the spirit of love".

Starting from both his concepts and proven facts, and the memorable characterization done by Nicolae Iorga in June 1931 in his memoriam in the "Neamul Romanesc" publication ("An erudite: Dr. Paulescu" – text incorporated few years later in the third volume of "Oameni cari au fost")[6], Father Galeriu did not hesitate to distinguish in the life and professional activity of Dr. Paulescu a materialization "sui generis" of the paradigm of Virgin Marry: "Paulescu lived in the spirit of Virgin Marry, Who was predestined to be Virgin and Mother in the meantime, unifying in a divine symbiosis the chastity and the maternity. In the pure chastity of the spirit one can see the truth, and in the maternal love one can see the actions done in the spirit of truth and their consequences, as a mother is capable of sacrifice in the spirit of love for his child. In this regard, the divine revelation highlights Virgin Mary’s holy paradigm in the context of messianic salvation and resurrection, and concluded: "Therefore, in the deepest understanding of God’s revelation, one cannot succeed as a scientist, as a philosopher that values the wisdom, as an artist, or undertake any steps towards creation, outside the spirit of Virgin Mary. Not only Dr. Paulescu’s beliefs and activity, but also his entire life was a homage dedicated to Virgin Mary, a homage that reveals the chastity and maternity in a symbiosis full of meanings".

Within the philosophy of the one that hoped to transform "medicine in sacerdotium", Father Galeriu put emphasis on three academic lectures incorporated in 1905, at the apogee of his Darwinist polemics, in the Volume "Notions of Spirit and God in Physiology". God is the primary cause, the promoter of all things, and the spirit - which comes from God, too – acts as "a second cause", conforming and guiding the created being from deep inside (is "an agent of the vital end", as the author said). Paulescu not only contested the Darwinist theory of evolutionism (combated easily even from a strictly scientific point of view), but also created a coherent model designed to support and explain the theory of creationism and finality that suited the principles of both the science and the religion. "As a Professor of Physiology, the fundamental motif that characterized his beliefs was the finality", like the philosophy of Claude Bernard. Through this philosophy, he distinguished himself as a precursor of a generation of intellectuals in the 20th Century (Father Galeriu cited Merleau-Ponty, Jean Lacroix, Jacques Monod, John C. Eccless, mentioning those intellectuals that were awarded the Nobel Price, distinction that Dr. Paulescu would had fairly deserved too).

From am apologetic and catechetic point of view, Father Galeriu concluded: "At the end, following this scientific path, Nicolae Paulescu faces the God’s testimony. [...] «The proof for the existence of a primary, single, non-material, intelligent cause that has promoted the Life, this is the sublime certainty that the Physiology leads us to. This primary cause is God», postulated Paulescu in front of his astonished and fascinated students…" (as was Father Galeriu’s audience that followed him in his charismatic cultural journeys, which remained for many people memorable and unique).

III. Memories about Alexandru Mironescu

Even if he was not as famous as the discoverer of the insulin, Professor Alexandru "Codin" Mironescu [7] remains a noticeable personality in the field of Romanian Philosophy of Science. Both a scientist and a publicist, a prominent member of the spiritual movement "Rugul Aprins" from Antim Monastry in Bucharest, an erudite person and an authentic Christian, he combined research with faith and writing with praying. Beginning with the inter-war period, he distinguished himself both as a theoretician of the scientific knowledge[8], and as a novelist[9]. Father Andrei Scrima characterized him cordially in "Timpul Rugului Aprins. Maestrul spiritual in traditia rasariteana" (Humanitas Publishing, Bucharest, 1996, pp. 142-143); professor Mironescu was a live torch of the spiritual group from Antim…[10]. Refusing any compromises with the communist regimen, he was convicted in 1958 to 20 years of prison from which he fulfilled 5 years, being liberated with severe health problems. Ten years later, at his burial, Father Benedict Ghiuş (one of his closest friends) said: "Al. Mironescu loved the authentic faith, he discovered it, experienced it, and promoted it without magniloquence, just «simply and normally», as he used to say […]. About his faith will speak the manuscripts that he left us". Indeed, Alexandru Mironescu left behind a significant posthumous legacy[11], comprising essays, dialogues, revelations, and literally work (of more mystical than esthetical value, in particular "Poemele Filocalice", a symbol of the author’s faith).

Father Galeriu, not only valued Alexandru Mironescu (as a Christian scientist and anti-communist ex-convict [12]), but he also understood to promote his memory at the beginning of 1990’s; two of Professor Mironescu’s books were re-edited for the first time after 1989, Father Galeriu writing their prefaces: "Certitude and Truth" (1992) and "The limits of the scientific knowledge. Contribution of experimental sciences to epistemological problem" (1994).

Father Galeriu emphasized the attitude in front of knowledge and creation of an authentic Christian scientist and a model for the new generations. "The comprehension of the human nature is not a simple achievement. It implies a durable commitment and a lot of responsibilities", said Mironescu. Father Galeriu pointed out: "Both the understanding of the outside world and our intimate universe are more than a simple "chance" offered us for the purpose of joining a exhaustive cosmic project; they are the human being rationale to be a universal consciousness". Mironescu believed that "in no other field of activity the man is so close to God’s power of creation as in the scientific field", but Father Galeriu knew that there are many temptations and weaknesses that could distract a scientist that is not anchored in the authentic spirituality: "Because he could become overwhelmed by haughtiness, and as a luciferic intruder, he may consider that he could substitute himself for the Creator". As Mironescu himself noted, the laicization of the science is a stupid tendency and a result of the potential distractions of the creative spirit. An authentic Christian attitude was formulated memorably by Shakespeare in Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreams of in your philosophy". Mironescu not only contradicted with strong arguments the incompatibility between the faith and the knowledge (inclusively the scientific knowledge), but also he supported the idea that, in general, without a fully defined and assumed faith, any knowledge is blind or inconsistent[13].

In a more ample preface at "The Limits of the scientific knowledge", Father Galeriu considered that after a long period of time dominated by positivism, there are two realities that should be especially reaffirmed today: that "the spirit is above the matter and it stays at the basis of the matter" and that "above the spirit is the other world, the divine world of the origins, of the information, of the projects" (the divine, non-created Sophia, in more theologized words). Alexandru Mironescu’s philosophy, like Nicolae C. Paulescu’s philosophy, was based on these two fundamental realities. Its pertinence and actuality is also confirmed by the fact that many philosophers and scientists such as Roger Sperry, Lyall Watson, Heinz Pagels, Niels Bohr, and Victor Weisskopf, which followed him, had assimilated and expanded similar concepts.

Alexandru Mironescu’s book – concluded Father Galeriu – is an extraordinary pleading not only for the need of a cognitive effort, but also for the happiness that could be brought in our minds and souls by this act, which is indispensable in the process of understanding the Creation and our responsibilities on this planet".

Maybe the Orthodoxy never emphasized its point of view regarding the delicate relationship between science and faith more clearly than now days. In the future, if the science gets closer and closer to faith, we might become more grateful than today to those who had newer doubted that the Truth manifests in our spirits as a prophetic gift that should persuade us to become more than we are…

Răzvan Codrescu, Rost, september 2007

At the beginning of 1970s, when I met the philosopher Petre Tutea for the first time, I was a student at the Polytechnic University in Bucharest. During that period, as an aspirant to the literary glory, I used to go regularly to the "Uniunea Scriitorilor" Restaurant on the Victoria Avenue. At this place, in one afternoon, an old, tall, and bald man entered the room speaking about Sofocle. Since than, I had had the opportunity to see him several times. By that time, I was not aware of his real value because I had not had the opportunity to become familiar with his life, his literary work, and his rank within the glorious generation of Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran, Eugen Ionescu, Mircea Vulcănescu, Constantin Noica...

The last time when I spoke with Petre Tutea was at the "Christiana" establishment. We discussed the last details of the "Treatise of Christian anthropology" before editing it. I asked him to speak about Nae Ionescu and Mircea Vulcănescu; he did no longer had the same spiritual force that I used to admire so much; he started losing his vigor; he was more in Haven than here with us. At that time, at the end of May 1991, I promised him to do my best to edit this first volume during his lifetime. It was not meant to be this way because of financial difficulties encountered besides other impediments. In the meantime, there were edited other books of the philosopher, comprising peaces of his literary work that was more or less relevant for this prominent Christian philosopher.

In 1993 I got to publish the first volume from The Man. Treatise of Christian anthropology – Dilemmas and the book of questions. The other volumes followed the first one, so that in 2004 I was able to edit a complete edition. The interview below was done in the fall of 1990, at the philosopher place, a small and austere studio, located at the eighth floor of an apartment building in Bucharest. As always, Petre Tutea was ready for conversation.

Long time ago, you submitted to the communists a proposal of economical reforms…

They didn’t even answer me. They did not have any interest to speak with a man situated on the Right side. I have always believed that the only way to push the man forward from the anthropoid status is the right, even the radical right. The Russians could have had a chance through the radical right, but they do not have vocation for History. They have vocation for masses of people.

As an alternative, the Russians created the bolshevism. Some people say that the Jews created it, but I am asking why didn’t the Jews invented it in France or in Germany, because Marx was German? They did not create it there because in France or Germany there are no masses of people! The bolshevism could be implemented within an agricultural society, but not within an urban society. And, in fact, the socialism would be suitable for townspeople! However, it failed when implemented to a rural nation.

Mr. Ţuţea, who is, in your opinion, the most famous personality of the 18th Century?

Napoleon. He was a man that restored the national order. He did the true History of the French Revolution. When he was asked how he explains the entry of his army in the Lowland Countries when the kings of France tried to do this without success, he answered: "Not the French army, but the revolutionary ideas on the flag did it". A new philosophy of the History had begun.

Do you believe that the communism concept could have had a different fate if it had fallen into different hands?

What hands can transform an error in truth? At the most, if the communism fell into different hands, it would finish sooner. I am positive!

What is your opinion about social – democracy?

The social – democracy is the waiting room of the communism. The communists are only the successors of the social – democracy. My attitude related to the social – democracy was an additional reason to be beaten when I was in prison.  

Because I mention it, let me tale you something: one time, a guardian went to the jail’s commander to get his permission to come and listen to me. "Do you understand something when he speaks?", asked the commander. "I do not understand a word, but he speaks gorgeous", answered the guardian. At the investigation, they asked me: "Is it true that you praise the social – democracy?". My answer was: "It is the butter milk of the communism". Do you know what social – democrats want? They want to do good things, but not thoroughly. Because the entry to communism was via social – democracy, the escape from communism could not be via the same route. It is a door that can be open only from one side, and the social – democrats do not have sufficient energy to fight.

Didn’t the social – democrats govern Germany? Now days, the best doctrine could be the liberal one, leaded by the classical liberals, who build the society starting from the human personality.

Which is the best social system in your opinion?

It is the one that starts from showing respect to humans; it is the democracy. By its ideology, democracy obliges the foolish to stay next to the genius and tell the genius: "What are you doing brother?". The negative part is that the exceptional people may become incarcerated into the democratic masses of people. What the most majority of people think has an absolute value, because the species expresses itself via broad masses of people. Personality expresses itself via individual people, but sometimes a person gets to influence highly large masses of people. These are the Chosen Ones. The history is done by Chosen Ones. The paradox of the human society is that the masses of people generate the leaders, who get to lead it.

Mr. Ţuţea, don’t you believe that today the Romanian nation experiences, after 45 years of communism, a national rebirth?

We did not exit the communism yet. We did not exit this scatterbrain invention, yet.

What could you tell us about francmasonry?

It started in the Middle Ages as a reaction to the tyrannical system. During the time, it was taken over by the Jewish people that transform it into a weapon of possession. Initially, nobody could become, for example, a Rose-Croix Knight if it was not a Jew. Thereafter, everything was possible. This was in fact the fruit of the extremely tolerant Christianity. Argentoianu was one time asked by some young people: "Mr. Minister, are you a francmason?" He answered: "I was, it’s a trifle". Francmasonry wants the power with democratic slogans. They are not religious. They have a single religion: their own doctrine. They annihilate their enemies socially. They have a supra-national structure. This way they are anti-naturals. All people that seek human species communion annihilate the principle of competitiveness between nations. They cancel the principle of civilization born through struggle.

  Cassian Maria Spiridon, Rost, september 2007

Cumpăraţi revista "Rost" de la chioşcurile Rodipet!