DILEMMAS OF THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD
The contemporary society finds itself in an acute crisis of identity, touched not only by the radical transformations it is subjected to, but also by the revaluation of the values constituting the foundation of the present-day world. We speak stubbornly about the freedom pre-eminence, about the responsibility it involves; about the directions towards the humanity founding acts should head to. However, one does not take into account that this new approach is built on a sand foundation. The so-called virtues of the recent world are only pale copies of an ethical past, compelled to integrate itself into a history the post-modern man is ashamed of. Morality, spirituality, dignity, the temperate exercise of the free will have lost viability, leaving their place to a new ethics, almost exclusively dominated by the rule of consuming and secularizing, as well as by the conflict between supply and demand.
To speak in such a society about God and about man, about the responsibility involved in such a relationship represent a huge challenge, an act that may be suspected of the post-modernity irony. Still, this connection fascinates because of the fact that what the previous times considered as an undeniable truth has become today an overwhelming dilemma, tabooed by the contemporary human ignorance and by his fear when facing a reality that that overwhelms him and exceeds him in the same time. The contemporary world reaction is rather dominated by the fear of the one feeling the danger in his closest proximity. Transposed into the day to day language, this strange relationship acquires a dual form: the nonchalant use of obviously ironic tinted questions and the helpless silence of man in front of a deity he does not know, though he feels it, that he would prefer it dead, but can not confirm in any way its disappearance.
Where is God when I and my family suffer because of the social injustices? What does God when the world is crumbling, torn down by the crisis? Such questions may receive multiple answers: perhaps God does not exist, maybe he is sleeping, and maybe he is not interested in any way about the world he had created. However, it is strange that such lines are rather parts of a monologue more extended than it would be proper, and not the parts of a constructive, viable, honest dialogue. Would it be possible that the crisis the contemporary society is facing would be the very fruit of giving up to this dialogue? Would it be possible for the decay the world is sinking into deeper and deeper to be caused by misunderstanding the true responsibilities that man must have mainly to himself, and also to the world he lives in and even to God?
Essentially, all these questions represent but the dilemmas of a responsibility that has left its natural track. Man is not finding his place in a world he likes to believe that he dominates; he is lying to himself with power surrogates, forgetting that his true superiority comes from inside and not from an outside unjustified extended over his entire existence. Humanity has forgotten to respect itself, considering that the only immediate realities deserve an exclusive attention and leaving behind an intimate fund, too profound to understand and, even more, to assume it.
The crisis brought a dual perspective upon reality: on one hand the humanity state of fact confirms the failure of its own selfish steps; on the other hand, it enables the return towards another reality, which he can strengthen or cancel, by virtue of his own freedom of choice and action. Manís return to God does not mean a Utopian act, due to the contemporary world despair, but can be also understood as a restitutio in integrum of the unjustly marginalized normality.
For a while, humanity plays the role of prodigal son, but it forgets that it still has a chance that may make him responsible, can straighten its steps towards the father that had never ceased to hope for his return. This is an essential gesture, a profound one, independent from any avouchment a purely human act of retrieval, of communication with One and with the ones alike him. From this gesture may derive a different view upon the existence, freed from the spectrum of the crisis and of the social injustice, optimistic about the future, understanding and wise as regards the past.
Of course, such a picture seems utopian and few seem willing to believe that it can become reality. People seem to be resigned as regards the social injustice, and the only solution they would find in order to overcome the crisis would be to run away from it and to head towards an unreal world. It is much harder to consider the crisis as a major opportunity to revalue the world, the society. Such an approach requires an overwhelming responsibility, a huge patience in healing too deep wounds that the contemporary civilization produced to it and, last but not least, assuming its own existence not as a consumer good, but as a precious gift that he had lost at a certain moment in time and that now it is returned to us.
All this may be possible when man would assume the responsibility for its own deeds, for ignoring the past and for slighting future, for the abusing use of the nature and for its absurd desire for power, for forgetting God and for the cowardliness to recognize the reality.
I would like to conclude by sharing with you our tragic experience.
We, who are living in South Eastern Europe, and who lived the terrible experience of communist dictatorships, we know best the pedagogy of suffering. The experience of the communist regime, which tried to keep us away from our European Christian-humanistic vocation, was paid with the price of tens of millions lives. The citizens in the former communist countries have been deprived for half a century of all their rights, including the right to live. We were able to resist only because we kept the faith in God; it helped us to preserve our human dignity. The lesson of suffering tought us to understand that, if God is dead, as a part of modern society declare, man dies too, and along with him the world based on morals, on respect for freedom and self dignity, as well as for the otherís freedom and dignity.
After our hard experience in anateistic regime we strongly believe in God, we believe in manís future, we believe in the future of our world.