Foto: Jan Palach

Felicitari Televiziunii Romane pentru curajul de a difuza un documentar cu potential exploziv in seara de 22 decembrie. Subiectul: misterul evenimentelor dintre 22 si 25 decembrie 1989. Realizatorul, Cornel Mihalache, indica spre conducerea Armatei si CFSN ca posibili autori ai diversiunii “teroriste.”

Iata de ce ieri, pe 21, comemorarea s-a petrecut in anonimat; de ce trairea bucuriei eliberarii nu poate fi completa si sfarseste inevitabil, iarasi si iarasi, in amaraciune si exasperare. Durere a luciditatii: sa descoperi, odata cu trecerea anilor si maturizarea perceptiei, ipoteza ca noua societate a fost construita printr-un macel, ca revolutia autentica are loc abia pana in 22 dupa-amiaza, moment in care suprimarea “strazii” debuteaza cu primele focuri de arma, procesul continuand in urmatoarele zile, apoi, cu alte mijloace, in urmatoarele luni pana la mineriada din 13-15 iunie.

Tentatia este de a tacea si de a fugi autist in viata privata, in lecturi si istoria picturii, de a ingheta vechi relatii de flecareala, de a rade mai putin zgomotos sau deloc, de a fugi de pierderea in non-esential si de aceleasi persoane suspendate in an-istorie, fie ca se constituie in decor uman in mall-uri sau fac apologii erudite ale supravietuirii cu orice pret. Mutilati spiritual, dar cu plaiuri mioritice intacte si Biserica nationala blanda, dar isteata.

P.S. Felicitari si ProTV-ului, care a difuzat un reportaj scurt, dar in care se pun totusi niste intrebari.

Edvard Munch- “Furtuna” (1893)

E dificil  sa descriu starea de soc provocata de afirmatiile doamnei Zoe Petre in emisiunea de aseara de la Realitatea. Cu melancolie aristocratica, ea deplange victoria referendumului si faptul ca “ceva se distruge si nu se pune nimic in loc.” Senatul, de unde, ce surpriza, “s-au rostit mari discursuri” si care are o vechime de “200 de ani”, va fi desfiintat prin acest referendum. Este, sugereaza dansa, un atac la adresa democratiei, asemanator cu, atentie! “decretul de desfiintare a Senatului dictat de Stalin in 1946 “.

As dori sa ii felicit din toata inima pe Sever Voinescu si Traian Ungureanu pentru eleganta si calmul aproape ireal aratate in emisiunile “Realitatii”. Trebuie ca cineva sa detina o luciditate si o stapanire de sine extraordinare pentru a putea rezista cu mintea netulburata manifestarilor obscene de ignoranta si rea-vointa din aceste emisiuni. Reactia lui Sever Voinescu la afirmatia doamnei Zoe Petre a fost intr-adevar impresionanta prin detasare si politete. Marturisesc ca un asemenea comportament mi-ar fi peste puteri. Domnule Voinescu, va rog sa imi permiteti o observatie: comparatia dintre Basescu si Stalin sau dintre cele doua momente istorice nu este doar, cum i-ati raspuns dumneavoastra, “un pic cam exagerata”.

Nu, comparatia se bazeaza pe un sofism monstruos, grosolan; este stupefiant, uluitor, consternant ca un istoric de renume, o excelenta exegeta a culturii antice sa compare un demers ce facea parte din comunizarea tarii si exterminarea elitelor cu unul contemporan ce constituie un pas marunt, dar important dintr-un lung drum de reformare a statului. Este dificil de articulat o explicatie, de fapt chiar si o relatare, a acestei afirmatii. Lipsesc resursele emotionale, dramul de luciditate, experienta poate. Nu ar fi fost vreo problema daca ar fi spus asta Mihai Gadea sau Mircea Dinescu. De la ei stim ca ne putem astepta la opinii politice delirante. Dar ca liderul “de facto” al Facultatii de Istorie sa dovedeasca o atata de crasa lipsa de discernamant istoric, o selectie atata de brutala a faptelor, o uluitoare rea-vointa, o aroganta atat de jignitoare fata de cei care au spus “Da”, fata de un presedinte si un stil pare-se “populist, vulgar, demagogic”, este un fapt ce continua sa ma bantuie.

Si ma bantuie in continuare spectrul singuratatii absolute, groaza de a trai intr-o societate in care binele comun nu exista, in care eroarea de apreciere a adevarului se combina cu o ura inexplicabila, dezarmanta. Mai grav decat atomizarea sociala- si poate la baza acesteia- este o atomizare existentiala, a unui numar infinit de lumi paralele ce nu se intersecteaza decat in punctul resentimentului. Eroarea, ignoranta, minciuna, lumea fictiva a presei, instinctele atavice si inertiile postcomuniste- ele, doar ele alcatuiesc substanta fiintarii noastre. Un nenorocit de blestem, o vraja sau insusi “stapanul lumii acesteia” ce L-a ispitit pe Mantuitor in pustiu, iata ceea ce ne apasa. Ne apasa cumplit, nemilos, atat de tare incat nu mai simtim, incat traim amortiti si bolnavi, morti-vii ce striga obsedant unii la altii. Suntem sub o vraja dar vedem lumea dezvrajita, goala, contingenta. Fara incredere in adevar, vesnic suspectand, fara iubire.   Lovim pana si omul bolnav, in omul plangand, lovim in valori, in modele, lovim in Creatie. Lovim puternic, pana avem spume la gura si ochi injectati, lovim pana gafaim de oboseala.

Nu mai exista bine comun, credinta, noblete, aproapele nostru. Oameni orbi, incapabili de a contempla, fara puncte de referinta, cazuti. Singuratate. Prefigurare a iadului.

Photo: Corneliu Coposu, Romanian former political prisoner and democratic opposition leader, with Pope John Paul II

In “Saint Ursula” Church from Sibiu, Romania, a Greek-Catholic mass begins at 11.15 am. The church is quite crowded; the people take their seats humbly, still wearing their winter jackets because of the low temperature in the building. The church is rather long than wide, making the altar seem quite distant from the last rows. Two priests and a small boy helping them. A choir composed of 3-4 young women. There are very few decorations. The choir sounds very distant, while the priests seem a bit out of place. The whole arrangement looks rather provisional, hasty, modest.

But as the priest walks among the rows sanctifying the people and the objects with incense, all the people stand up from the seats and cross themselves repeatedly. Everybody is looking towards the priest as he moves farther and farther towards the last rows, while the whole scene steps more and more in the mystery of the cloud of incense. The priest is barely visible now, while the choir, as distant as it seemed, sound more like voices of the beyond, similar to the voices which saved Faust from eternal damnation. Under a cloud of modesty, you see Glory. Under the humble and provisional appearances, you see a group of humble pilgrims battered by a storm but in the light of their Shepherd. And when the priest evokes in his prayers the 20th century martyrs (“We pray for Cardinal Iuliu, for Cardinal Alexandru, for Corneliu Coposu, for Iuliu Maniu, Ion Mihalache, Vasile Lazar, for those who suffered in cell no.14 from Jilava prison”) and his voice brakes and crumbles under the weight of memory, you finally discover what your proud and full of prejudice soul did not realize in the beginning: the presence of Christ among his pilgrim Church.

Truly the Greek-Catholic Church is a pilgrim Church. For those who do not know, Saint Ursula Church is primarily a Roman-Catholic one. The Greek-Catholics are allowed to have their Mass here because… there is no other building left for them in Sibiu. There used to be one, but now it belongs to the Orthodox Church. Ah, the waves of history… such were the times!… What was to be done? Indeed. That building was confiscated in 1948 by the Communists and then offered to the Orthodox Church. Throughout the country a massive campaign of extermination was unleashed against the Greek-Catholics, with the result that most priests were killed or arrested and the properties nationalized or given “back” to the Orthodox Church.

This was to reward prepared for a Church which from the beginning, around the year 1700, was engaged in the gradual improvement of the political and social situation of the Romanians in Transylvania. Admittedly, the Austrian authorities pressed for the union with Rome in exchange for political rights, permission to be educated and to work for the imperial administration. And although they accepted what is still a problem today- papal infallibility- they did preserve the Byzantine rite. And after all, and this should be said boldly- the Pope truly was from the beginning and will continue to be the first bishop of the Church and no Orthodox denies that. What the Eastern Christians want is that he preserves an honorary role and allow for greater influence of the Synods.

But this “grave sin”, “this bowing to Pope the Antichrist, to the heretics, to Catholic propaganda in our Orthodox lands” was immediately felt as bearing that specifically Western characteristic: attention to the interval. It is no secret that in the West and the Roman-Catholic spirituality, history, this world, is engaged more fully, sometimes with responsibility, sometimes with abuse. But this category does exist, the interval is conceptualized and taken into account. So while in the Orthodox realm, the monks of Mount Athos still continued to denounce the sacking of Constantinople from 1204 (and they still do that today, a friend once said to me), while Peter the Great was enslaving the Russian Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church continued to be a passive witness to the Ottoman barbarism, the Greek-Catholics tried to move something in the realm of mentalities, society, politics, however gradually. Already in the 18th century a powerful movement of Transylvanian intellectuals initiated a complex program of rediscovering the Latin origin of the people, of articulating a Romanian identity, of establishing an Enlightenment-inspired agenda asking for modern liberties and rights.

Gradually, the attitude of Vienna changed. In 1848, the Romanians were even more favorable to imperial authority, but with equal rights, than the Hungarians who managed to alienate all their potential allies with their stupefying  and arrogant nationalism. After the defeat of the Revolution, although in a time of absolute imperial rule, the Romanians managed for the first time in their history to achieve substantial political equality and proportional representation. After 1867, however, the happy times were gone and Transylvania was subjected to direct Hungarian authority, which led to the reduction of ethnic rights. Still, that Western influence was felt again, as Romanians developed more and more small businesses which led to the formation of a fairly substantial bourgeoisie. Again, a large part of the political elites which contributed to the 1918 unification were Greek-Catholic, while the population was divided in almost 50%-50% Greek-Catholics and Orthodox.

This mainly positive record was to be completely destroyed and forgotten in Communism. They intuited well that the Greek-Catholic church and political elites (mainly grouped in the National Peasants Party) were tough nut to crack and would not collaborate so easily- or at least as easily as some Orthodox hierarchs did. So extreme violence was chosen.

The attitude of some Orthodox hierarchs and believers towards the stolen properties which they refuse to return and in general, towards the existence of this Church can be explained, but hardly justified. The rejection of the Union can be discussed, but the obsession looks suspicious. That the positive, historical record of the Greek-Catholic elites is either rejected, not known or even mocked is certainly dubious. That some people dare to invoke, in response to the questions about the Communist repression and the Orthodox silence, some distant, controversial, supposed abuses comitted 300 years ago can be explained mainly through the categories of hatred and lack of information.

The argument goes like this: “Yes, but we should remember that we also suffered 300 years ago…” Even if this is confirmed by documents (and I admit that I never heard of these abuses), so what?? Is any type of evil justifiable or repaired by another evil? This stubborn, outrageous insistence on their “original sin” and the relativization (if not secret approval) of the Communist evil is stupefying.  Horia-Roman Patapievici wrote once about the example of Nae Ionescu, (a hysterical fascist and anti-Semite, but “true Romanian”); Ionescu had written that Petru Maior, 18th century intellectual, that he could be named only as a “good Romanian” but not a “Romanian”. He meant that he barely acted as a good citizen, for Romanian interests and values, more like joining a cause or NGO. But to be a “Romanian” was something organic, ineffable, perennial; you can only be born a “Romanian” and not become one. And a Romanian is synonymous with being Orthodox, while poor Petru Maior was Greek-Catholic.

To this type of argument, H.-R. Patapievici replied in a cold and neutral manner that it is a manifestation of stupidity. The example of Western Ukraine is strikingly similar. Here too we have a Greek-Catholic community which is known as one of the centers of Ukrainian identity and Western values, but eternally regarded with suspicion by the millions of “saints” in the eastern regions. What these armies of “Pravoslavnic” fanatics and defenders of the “true faith” do not understand is that you cannot accuse a pro-Western agenda as not being patriotic or even Christian. On the contrary, one of the most efficient ways to prove the love of your country is exactly to wish the implementation of a free market, human rights, political plurality. These are common sense values which are the most tangible proof that one loves his community and that he is Christian (because liberal democracy has its origins in Christian values), not anti-papist, anti-capitalism, anti-EU hysteria.

Not by developing instant allergy to “Western scholasticism”, “reason without faith” or “theologians who do not live as true Orthodox Christians” is one able to make good theology; seminars and conferences go on and on with the same endless quotes like “According to the Church Father…”, while the Romanian, Ukrainian or Russian public spaces lose the world competition and descend into an eternal but proud backwardness. Rather by engaging in a dialogue with modern achievements, from the philosophical tradition to the empirical aquisitions of the social sciences can a 21st century national public space hope to make sense of our age. Not by retreating from the world and taking pride with the richness of the liturgy can the Church hope to prefigurate the Heavenly kingdom, but by being able to ensure a balance between the mystical core and the engagement with history and society.

Rome has been for the past 150 years elaborating a superb social doctrine, articulating a theology of economy, society, family, political community and above all of the personal dignity. Where is the East (I know the answer: the social doctrine is already there. According to the Church Father….) ? Where are the monasteries as centers of spirituality and culture? Where are the flexible organisations able to entertain a dialogue with the trained laity? Where are the funds for young scholars? Where are the academic exchanges, the competitive ph.d. programs? Where is history as a moral category for an Orthodox?

Where are all of you proud and full of resentment people, the silent ones, the believers of the “true faith” instead of being here, in Saint Ursula Church and see this old priest starting to cry during his sermon, as he recalls his first night spent in cell no. 14, Jilava prison, Romania?

Romanian born German writer Herta Muller has won the Nobel prize for Literature. “Time” gives an account on her work, which is apparently obsessively focused with her traumatic experience in Romania, which she left in 1987 for Germany.

It is increasingly clear that the seeds which fell on the ground and died during Romania’s totalitarian ordeal are starting to bear fruit now, again confirming that suffering is only the anti-chamber of life, knowledge and light. From the New Wave of Romanian film directors to Mircea Cartarescu and Herta Muller, a series of spectacular achievements point to the existence of a gifted generation with intellectual themes bringing new insights about the human condition.

Off to the library!

New Moldovan parliament. Time to talk about unification with Romania.

Mircea Geoana: Ii salut cu prietenie pe Vadim Tudor si Adrian Paunescu. Avram Iancu ii va pedepsi pe cei care fac aici propaganda

Mircea Geoana

Foto: AGERPRES

UPDATE: Primul politician care a inceput discursurile la mormantul lui Avram Iancu a fost presedintele PSD, Mircea Geoana. “Este aici domnul Vadim Tudor, pe care il salut cu prietenie. Il salutam si pe Adrian Paunescu, care a fost si ramane o voce a vointei romanesti”, a declarat liderul social-democrat, care a abordat cu aceasta ocazie subiectul pensiilor si al crizei economice.

“Vorbeam cu doua doamne mai in varsta care ma intrebau ce facem cu pensiile, toata lumea asteapta raspunsuri la criza”, a continua Geoana; discurs primit cu huiduieli de multimea adunata la eveniment. “Cei care vin doar sa faca propaganda electorala, Avram este acolo si ii va pedepsi”, a incheiat presedintele PSD.

Corneliu Vadim Tudor: Aici se afla viitorul presedinte. Nu-l asteptati sa soseasca, e deja aici

A urmat la tribuna presedintele PRM Corneliu Vadim Tudor, care a declarat ca “aici se afla neindoielnic viitorul presedinte al Romaniei”. “Nu-l asteptati sa vina din alta parte, ca el este deja aici”, a continuat Vadim, in contextul in care presedintele Traian Basescu nu sosise inca la eveniment. “Eu i-am scos din inchisoare pe Ilie Ilascu si pe Gigi Becali, ba i-am facut si parlamentari”, a sustinut presedintele PRM. Dupa discursul sau, la Tebea a sosit si Gigi Becali.

“Procesiune” politica la Cimitirul de la Tebea, la mormantul lui Avram Iancu. Presedintele PSD Mircea Geoana, presedintele PRM Corneliu Vadim Tudor, instotiti de numerosi parlamentari se afla duminica in judetul Hunedoara, pentru a participa la manifestarile dedicate memoriei eroului national Avram Iancu. Presedintele Traian Basescu este si el asteptat in jurul orei 13.00.

Momentul depunerii coroanelor s-a incheiat, insa si acest gest al politicienilor a fost primit cu huiduieli de cei aproximativ 2.000 de oameni care s-au adunat la mormantul lui Avram Iancu. Serbarile din judetul Hunedoara au inceput de sambata, cand autoritatile au organizat mai multe festivitati la implinirea a 137 de ani de la moartea lui Avram Iancu.

Hannah Arendt, “Eichmann la Ierusalim. Raport asupra banalitatii raului.”

“In Romania, chiar si SS-istii erau luati prin surprindere si uneori ingroziti de ororile pogromurilor la scara larga, demodate si in acelasi timp spontane. Deseori interveneau sa-i salveze pe evrei de la macel, astfel incat omorul sa fie facut in- ceea ce ei numeau- mod civilizat.

Nu este o exagerare sa spuneam ca Romania era cea mai antisemita tara a Europei antebelice. Inca din secolul al XIX-lea, antisemitismul romanesc era un fapt bine stabilit. In 1878, marile puteri incercasera sa intervina, prin tratatul de la Berlin si sa determine guvernul roman s-i recunoasca pe locuitorii evrei drept cetateni romani- chiar daca ar fi ramas cetateni de rang secund. Nu au reusit, iar la sfarsitul Primului Razboi Mondial toti evreii romani- cu exceptia catorva sute de familii sefarde si a catorva evrei de origine germana- erau inca straini rezidenti pe teritoriul romanesc.[...]

Doi ani mai tarziu, in august 1940 (sic!), cu cateva luni inaintea intrarii Romaniei in razboi, maresalul Ion Antonescu, seful noii dictaturi a Garzii de Fier, i-a declarat apatrizi pe toti evreii romani, cu exceptia celor cateva sute de familii de evrei ce fusesera cetateni romani inaintea tratatelor de pace. In aceeasi luna, el a instituit o legislatia antievreiasca care era cea mai severa din Europa (luand in considerare si Germania). Categoriile privilegiate, veteranii de razboi si evreii care fusesera cetateni romani inainte de 1918, nu reprezentau mai mult de 10 000 de oameni, deci cel mult 1% din intregul grup etnic. Hitler insusi eea constient de faptul ca Germania risca sa fie depasita de Romania, si i-a atras atentia lui Goebbels, in august 1941, la cateva saptamani dupa ce daduse ordinul pentru Solutia Finala, ca “un om ca Antonescu procedeaza in aceasta chestiune intr-un mod mult mai radical decat am facut-o noi pana la ora actuala.”

Romania a intrat in razboi in iunie 1941, iar Legiunea Romana a devenit o forta militara demna de luat in seama, avandu-se in vedere apropiata invazie a Rusiei. Numai la Odessa, soldatii romani au fost raspunzatori de masacrul a 60 000 de oameni. Spre deosebire de guvernele altori tari balcanice, guvernul roman detinea informatii foarte exacte despre inceputul masacrarii evreilor din Est, iar soldatii romani, chiar dupa ce Garda de Fier a fost indepartata de la guvernare, s-au lansat, in vara anului 1941, intr-un program de masacrare si deportari care au “umbrit pana si rebeliunea de la Bucuresti a Garzii de Fier din luna ianuarie a aceluiasi an- un program de neegalat, din punctul de vedere al ororilor, in tot ansamblul de atrocitati semnalate (Hilberg). Stilul deportarilor romanesti consta in inghesuirea a 5000 de oameni in vagoane de marfa, lasandu-i sa moara acolo asfixiati, in timp ce trenul traversa tara zile de-a randul, fara vreun plan sau scop stabilit. O urmare preferata a acestor operatiuni de exterminare era expunerea cadavrelor in macelarii evreiesti. De asemenea, ororile din lagarele de concentrare romanesti- care fusesera infiintate si erau conduse chiar de catre romani, caci deportarea din Est nu era posibila, erau mai elaborate si mai atroce decat tot ce stim ca a avut loc in Germania. Atunci cand Eichmann si-a trimis la Bucuresti obisnuitul consilier in probleme evreiesti, pe Hauptsturmfuhrerul Gustav Richter, acesta a raportat ca Antonescu dorea acum sa trimita 110 000 de evrei in “doua paduri, de cealalta parte a raului Bug”, adica in teritoriul rusesc controlat de germani, pentru a-i lichida. Germanii au fost oripilati si toata lumea a intervenit.[...]

In consecinta, la jumatatea lunii august- moment pana in care romanii ucisesera aproape 300 000 dintre evreii lor, in general fara ajutor german-, Ministerul de Externe a incheiat o intelegere cu Antonescu, ce prevedea ca evacuarile evreilor din Romania sa fie realizata de catre unitatile germane.”[...] Acum insa, cand totul era gata, iar aceste marete concesii fusesera facute, romanii si-au schimbat brusc opinia.[...] acum, maresalul dorea sa scape de evrei intr-un “mod comod”. In paralel cu aceste masacre, se nascuse o afacere infloritoare cu vanzarile de excluderi de la deportare, in care se angajase cu placere fiecare ramura a birocratiei, nationale sau municipale.[...] Acum, se descoperise ca evreii puteau fi vanduti peste hotare pe valuta forte, asa incat romanii devenisera cei mai ferventi sustinatori ai emigrarii evreilor- o mie trei sute de dolari pe cap de evreu.[...] Pe masura ce Armata Rosie se apropia, Antonescu devenea tot mai “moderat”; acum dorea sa-i lase pe evrei sa plece chiar fara a mai plati vreo compensatie baneasca.

Aproximativ o jumatate din cei 850 000 de evrei din Romania au supravietuit, dintre care o mare parte- cateva sute de de mii- au luat drumul Israelului. Nimeni nu mai stie cati evrei au mai ramas astazi in tara.”