Dostoevsky and the Sins of the Nation

confession-1[1]For many, the idea that we are somehow responsible for the sins of others, or can repent on their behalf is counter-intuitive and deeply troubling. It is distinctly non individualistic. However, it is a cornerstone of Orthodox devotion. Dostoevsky presented a very popular version of this teaching in the words of the fictitious character, the Elder Zosima, in his The Brothers Karamozov. The elder was modeled, many say, on the elders of Optina Pustyn. His teaching and story, contained in the novel, have the authentic sound of Holy Orthodoxy, and could be found nowhere else.

I offer an excerpt here from The Brothers Karamozov, that is the elder teaching. The translation is by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, whose work is without equal.

+++

“Love one another, fathers,” the elder taught (as far as Alyosha could recall afterwards). “Love God’s people. For we are not holier than those in the world because we have come here and shut ourselves within these walls, but, on the contrary, anyone who comes here, by the very fact that he has come, already knows himself to be worse than all those who are in the world, worse than all on earth … And the longer a monk lives within his walls, the more keenly he must be aware of it. For otherwise he had no reason to come here.

“But when he knows that he is not only worse than all those in the world, but is also guilty before all people, on behalf of all and for all, for all human sins, the world’s and each person’s, only then will the goal of our unity be achieved. For you must know, my dear ones, that each of us is undoubtedly guilty on behalf of all and for all on earth, not only because of the common guilt of the world, but personally, each one of us, for all people and for each person on this earth.

“This knowledge is the crown of the monk’s path, and of every man’s path on earth. For monks are not a different sort of men, but only such as all men on earth ought also to be. Only then will our hearts be moved to a love that is infinite, universal, and that knows no satiety. Then each of us will be able to gain the whole world by love and wash away the world’s sins with his tears …

“Let each of you keep close company with his heart, let each of you confess to himself untiringly. Do not be afraid of your sin, even when you perceive it, provided you are repentant, but do not place conditions on God.

“Again I say, do not be proud. Do not be proud before the lowly, do not be proud before the great either. And do not hate those who reject you, disgrace you, revile you, and slander you. Do not hate atheists, teachers of evil, materialists, not even those among them who are wicked, nor those who are good, for many of them are good, especially in our time.

“Remember them thus in your prayers: ‘Save, Lord, those whom there is no one to pray for, save also those who do not want to pray to you.’ And add at once: ‘It is not in my pride that I pray for it, Lord, for I myself am more vile than all …’

“Love God’s people, do not let newcomers draw your flock away, for if in your laziness and disdainful pride, in your self-interest most of all, you fall asleep, they will come from all sides and lead your flock away. Teach the Gospel to the people untiringly … Do not engage in usury … Do not love silver and gold, do not keep it … Believe, and hold fast to the banner. Raise it high …”

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, Pastor Emeritus of St. Anne Orthodox Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. He is also author of Everywhere Present and the Glory to God podcast series.


Comments

139 responses to “Dostoevsky and the Sins of the Nation”

  1. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    Recognizing gay marriage as a Civil Right is going to have broad-sweeping consequences too. How are publicly funded religious schools going to be deemed now for refusing to hire an unrepentant, married gay man or woman as a teacher? More Civil Rights laws concerning gays are yet to come…

  2. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    Sorry for the double post. The second one is edited. Let’s play “Can you find the typo?” Lol.

  3. John H Avatar
    John H

    Hi Michelle,

    Those are great questions. The thing is that the First Amendment explicitly and unequivocally guarantees the right to freely practice one’s religion. If your religion proscribes participation in a Wiccan wedding than that constitutionally protected right would most certainly trump any right derived from an amended civil rights statute purporting to give same sex couples equal access. Justice Kennedy implied as much in the Court’s majority opinion. And while we cannot ever be certain about such things, I trust that the Court would be extremely reluctant to curtail your right to practice your religion, which is an ancient right defined explicitly in the Bill of Rights. The same analysis would apply with respect to the other hypotheticals that you raised in your comments.

  4. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    John H,

    If one held to a religion that deemed it to be unfaithful or spiritually dangerous to have any dealings with black people, then when a pizza vendor refused to sell their pizzas to black people their First Amendment right is going to be trampled on by the existing Civil Rights laws.

    This is were I think gay Civil Rights laws are heading.

  5. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    And as a side note, I do not hold to racist religious beliefs like the one I stated above. Just saying soon that gay rights are going to be viewed exactly the same as racial rights in this country.

  6. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    John H,
    No. The case of Bob Jones vs. US (1983), set a precedent that First Amendment rights can be overridden for purposes of government policy. Michelle, I think, is correct in her concerns.

    Also, the case just decided, by defining gay unions as “marriage,” weakens the jurisprudence surrounding the relationship between child and birth parents.

  7. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    John H,

    Here’s a good link to a good explanation about how Christians are going to be sued for discrimination against gays:

    https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

  8. John H Avatar
    John H

    Father Stephen

    The Bob Jones case is distinguishable on its facts because it involved a situation where a private university was seeking tax exempt status from the IRS while engaging in overt racial discrimination against blacks and interracial couples It is hardly surprising that the Court refused to require the Government to subsidize racial discrimination
    Michelle that is an interesting article It was particularly noteworthy that a lower state court held the baker liable for refusing to bake a cake for a same sex couple Of course each case stands or falls on its own unique set of facts The baker’s religious freedom claim may have been a mere pretext for engaging in discriminatory practices The more interesting question is how would the U.S. Supreme Court balance a meritorious First Amendment religious freedom claim against a state law derived right of same sex couples to equal access Based upon Justice Kennedy’s comments which are admittedly vague I stand by my previous belief that the Court would protect the First Amendment right of free religious expression
    Please understand that I do not think that ur fears are unfounded because much litigation may ensue before the Court actually gets to address the issue

  9. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    John H, you have much more faith in the Supreme Court than I. I hope you’re right, but I doubt it. Not to mention, the younger generations will ultimately be making these decisions for us soon enough with their voting power. In the coming years new Supreme Court Justices will be appointed by politicians who are the mouth pieces for this new wave of gen X, Y, and Z voters. When I talk to my peers belonging to these younger generations it becomes apparent that they view the gay struggle in the exact same context as the racial struggle.

  10. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    John H,
    The Bob Jones case created strange bedfellows. Though other religious groups abhored the racial discrimination, they filed amicus briefs in support of BJU. BJU had long held opposition to interracial marriage on religious grounds. They admitted all racial groups, but would not allow interracial dating, etc. The case held that religious beliefs were trumped by Civil Rights. The same case will easily removed tax exempt status for religious institutions that may oppose same-sex unions. It is highly unlikely that First Amendment will be successful as a defense.

  11. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    “John H, you have much more faith in the Supreme Court than I”

    “faith” is not the correct descriptor. I am simply flabbergasted at the argument John H puts forward, because it is objectively wrong:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/supreme-court-gay-wedding-photography_n_5104699.html

    We don’t need to speculate “in theory” (such as relying on the majorities empty rhetoric towards the 1st amendment in Obergefell), we already have the data – what the courts (and the whole “civil rights movement”) are ACTUALLY doing. At the risk of sounding repetitive, this is not all some future hypothetical – the future is now.

    I did not know you were in the wedding service business Michelle – I will pray the persecution does not come to you…

  12. Michelle Avatar
    Michelle

    Christopher,

    I’m not actually in the business myself. I’m just making my argument from the point of view of those who are. We should all be praying for those who are. They are going to have some rough times ahead (or now, as you say).

  13. John H Avatar
    John H

    Father Stephen,

    I agree with you that the rationale of the Bob Jones case may be extended to deprive a religious organization of its tax exempt privilege if it engages in discriminatory acts based upon a person’s sexual orientation. The same logic applies in either case: the US taxpayers should not be required to subsidize practices that are discriminatory. But that is a far cry from saying that the religious organization may face criminal fines or civil liability for the same activity. The Court has yet to rule on that prticular issue.

    I am not saying that your fears are not well founded. You are not being chicken-little like alarmists here. But, as I stated in an earlier post, I am not particularly confident about the long term viability of the majority decision handed down by the Court either. The reason being that the Chief Justice’s dissenting opinion is spot on here. If you want to know why constitutional law scholars may be squeamish about giving unqualified support to the decision, read Justice Robert’s dissent. I won’t go into a detailed analysis of the issues discussed in that dissent because it would take us too far afield. And I think that I have digressed enough from the main theme of Father Stephen’s excellent post, which as I recall was forgiveness of everyone for everything. So I shall retire from the discussion and refrain from saying another word about this very controversial topic.

  14. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Just came across this quote. It is from Archimandrite Arsenie Papacios:

    My dear ones, I repeat: we are responsible for all the mistakes that are done in this world – we are personally responsible for them, every one of us. There. So we must have this attitude of sacrifice. Because the Mystery of man’s salvation, for everyone of us, is carried out on the Cross. What we should understand from that is that the Cross is the earth’s greatest gift, of the greatest utility.

    Source: http://www.pravmir.com/don-t-judge-priests/#ixzz3ekvAYWqs

  15. Anna Avatar
    Anna

    Dear Fr Steven bless!

    I found your podcast titled “Whose psyche is it?” very helpful. I had heard on AFR your talk at the Orthodox Lenten Retreat in Frisco, where you said that we are not our memories and that people with dementia are fully present and had so wanted to know why you said so and what we are, if not our memories. I’m so glad you explained it in your recent podcast.

    I wish you’d do a podcast on being male and female (not on homosexuality nor on our all-male priesthood, but simply on maleness and femaleness), so that we may understand Orthodox teaching, the teaching on the Church on being male and female.

    Thank you!

    Anna

  16. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Saint Porphyrios’ words: “I want to be in the desert and incessantly pray to God to put all people in Heaven and put only me in Hell . It is very sinful that this is my burning desire?”

  17. Alan Avatar
    Alan

    John H, regarding your comment from 7:38 today…..you wrote “The thing is that the First Amendment explicitly and unequivocally guarantees the right to freely practice one’s religion. If your religion proscribes participation in a Wiccan wedding than that constitutionally protected right would most certainly trump any right derived from an amended civil rights statute purporting to give same sex couples equal access. Justice Kennedy implied as much in the Court’s majority opinion.”

    The key word in all of that is the word “implied.” You know better than I that in legal settings, that word means nothing. It’s vitally important to point out that, as you said, the 1st amendment uses the word “practice”, while Kennedy (purposely, I think) did not use that word. In the oh so tiny bone he threw to us, he used the word “believe.” As in, believe in private.

    For someone to believe that the courts care at all about the 1st amendment, in light of what’s happened in the last few years with bakers and photographers, etc, is pure lunacy.

  18. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Actually, John is incorrect. There is no explicit and unequivocal guarantee to a right to freely practice. That is the “free exercise” clause, and its history is clearly one in which the courts have recognized numerous reasons to restrict it. There are some who have held such a narrow interpretation that it included only the right to think (believe) but not practice.

    Very little research is required to learn this. Just a little research will quickly reveal that we actually have very little protection for religious liberty. It has a long history of restrictions. Essentially, we have liberty to do anything they think is ok, but not anything else.

  19. Psalti Avatar
    Psalti

    “we are responsible for all the mistakes that are done in this world – we are personally responsible for them, every one of us”

    “This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?”

    Fr.,

    I still don’t understand what this means. I don’t dispute it. I just don’t understand. How can I be personally responsible for the sins of Dylan Rooff? Is it because I don’t pray enough? Because I am not Holy enough?

    Is it because if I were truly filled with the Spirit of God, thousands around me would be saved? Is it because if I truly followed Christ, his love and redemption would flood the world?

  20. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Psalti,
    To me, extreme examples make these things much clearer.
    Take the most extreme: the Most Holy Mother of God…
    God was searching for the person that would open up the closed walls of humanity, seeking a small door that was open to His will (to enter through it and become one of us and offer to all, all that His first coming into the world offered). One person (the Theotokos) offered Herself to God, and God to all, offering even Dylan Roof what he would in no way have had access to without Her.
    `it follows from this that Her (theoretical) failure to do this would have made her feel personally responsible for Dylan Roof. It is the same with all of us as we all have the same high calling to be like the Panagia and like Christ who bears the sins of the world…
    It is why Elder Sophrony often spoke of the ‘cosmic repercussions’- for or against cosmic evil – that every small sin or small repentance (even just in thought) that we commit has.

  21. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Psalti,
    Those all sound like reasonable explanations and the sort of explanations that I’ve seen. There is, in addition, a mystical sharing, I think. I do not hear it often described.

  22. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Gregory Manning,

    I appreciate your testimony and comments above. Thank you.

  23. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Fr. Stephen,

    I’ve been chewing on this post for awhile. I appreciate Greg Lowe taking the devil’s advocate position, and I suspect that in some measure he simply walked through the counterpoints of thoughts going through many people’s minds. I wanted to make a couple points for your confirmation or comment – and maybe it would help if I stated up front that I’m not actually arguing your points, just trying to understand them:

    1.
    You’ve said that we should pray for others but not repent for them. No arguments there. But then you said “I do not mean that we can do their repenting for them, but that we can indeed repent in union with them, and bear some of the weight of their burden.” This I think is the difficult piece for us. I agree that individualism is probably one of the biggest reasons we don’t readily accept it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s hard to wrap our minds around it.

    However I thought of a couple things we all know which might help us have a category for it. One is our own blood kin. If my brother (from the same earthly parents) does something, people will look at him – and then they will next look at me. No matter what he did – for good or bad – it will reflect on those around him. In fact this would hold true for anyone who is close to me: spouse, co-worker, best friend. It’s the old “birds of a feather flock together”, so if your best friend did so and so, what can we expect from you?

    Another example is every time I fill out an application for health or life insurance, they want to know any of my relatives ever had any of the diseases known to mankind. Obviously individualism has not yet conquered this area of life. “It doesn’t matter what my grandfather had; I’m my own man!” Apparently their statistical research shows otherwise.

    So all you’re doing is pushing this “connectedness” boundary out so that it includes the whole world. While this can seem ludicrous and unnecessary, it’s probably the adage that you should shoot for the moon, because even if you miss you’ll land among the stars. If we are willing to start contemplating the fact that we are one with the whole human race, we may at least become unselfish enough to love our wife and kids – and maybe one other person. (grin)

    2.
    I do have a second point, but I’ll pause in case someone wants to comment.

    Does this sound accurate?

  24. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Drewster,
    Yes, to an extent. What I’m actually doing is looking at this from an ontological point of view (on the level of actual being and existence). The point is that on the level of being and existence, we are not strictly individual. There is an individual aspect to our existence, but there is also a communal aspect (koinonia). In the parlance of the Church, this is what is meant by “Personhood.” Person is not the same thing as individual. If that were its meaning, then we would be Tri-theists.

    But our individualism has a false ontology. It is biologically not true (as you note with inherited disease, etc.). But it is existentially and ontologically not true. This is its more “mystical” reality.

    We cannot wrap our heads around this because we have a false consciousness in the modern world. We believe that we and the world we live in is one way, when it is, in fact, something else. The whole of Orthodox teaching and doctrine hold an ontology that contradicts the assumptions of modernity.

    What happens to one of us, effects us all. Not just for psychological or biological reasons – but on the level of being. It is why Christ CAN die for our sins. The penal substitution model of the atonement psychologizes things – so that Christ’s atonement is not ontological. It only effects the psychology of God (He sees us different). It is why it is a false and heretical doctrine. It denies the most fundamental understandings of the Christian faith and creates a false worldview.

    I cannot repent for someone such that they do not need to repent, but I can repent for them in such a way that their own repentance is made easier. We are never saved alone.

  25. Psalti Avatar
    Psalti

    Dino and Fr. Freeman,

    Thanks for responding to my question.

  26. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Thanks for your response, Fr. Stephen. Sounds good to the extent that I can understand such things. (grin)

    2.
    I think part of the problem – even beyond the individualism – is that what you’re talking about is mystical, something we have a hard time with in the West. I’ll give you a relevant example:

    When reading the Fathers and such, they always say things similar to St. Paul’s, “Of all sinners I am chief.” We simply don’t know what to do with a statement like this when coming from saints that we probably aren’t worthy to unloose their sandals. Where does this leave us? Trash for the worms to ingest? Or are we not good enough for even that? How is it possible for them to talk about themselves in such a way?

    There is something deep within me that resonates with this profoundly humble attitude but my Western mind cannot grasp it any more than a fork can be used to get broth out of a soup bowl. I find that I might only approach it in an attitude of faith:

    I don’t understand this concept but Christ has said that those who humble themselves will be exalted. So there is scriptural basis for going this route. A key point here is that when I do humble myself, I can’t say things out of one side of my mouth and secretly deny it with the other. In other words I have to go all in and actually believe that I’m the chief of all sinners. Once again pure logic fails me on this point. I can’t look around and see the evidence of it.

    Now….I believe that once you take this plunge, your eyes begin to be opened and you start to understand how this is so. I also believe that it scares the living daylights out of you and causes you to really cling to God like you never have before in your life – which of course was one of the main reasons for going through this but not the smooth, orderly way you had envisioned it. But this method seems to be the only way for those of us who rely so heavily on logic.

    I’m suggesting that the exact same step of faith has to be taken in order to gain any understanding concerning your point about us all being one and learning to bear each other’s burdens. Logic simply won’t get you there.

    Would you agree?

  27. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Drewster,
    Yes, I do agree. The right approach in these things is as you’ve described. We must assume that the saints actually mean what they say when they claim to be the worst of all sinners. This is not a metaphor or hyperbole or mere humble noises. The truly mean it. It’s similar to St. Paul saying that “Christ became sin…” He means it.

    It’s only when we take “mystical” things in a literal manner (if you will), that we can begin to make the journey of understanding. We often fail to be literal about the truly literal things.

    When we take that faith step of accepting that these words mean exactly what they say, then we can begin to wonder. “Only wonder understands anything,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa.

  28. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Drewster,
    equally, we can look around and see the evidence of it… or to be more precise, we can look inside the depths of our heart and God’s Light can reveal the infinite potential for evil lurking in what is a heart which, at the same time, causes us to wonder, awestruck at its natural, singular solicitude for God alone, while also containing the potential of Lucifer’s thought ‘I will place myself higher…’

  29. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Dino,

    Yes but my point is that the looking and actually seeing for us of the West seems to necessarily be coupled with steps of faith (sometimes feeling like they are blind). Without this essential piece we can look all we want and see nothing but our dingy selves and the crumbling defeat of the world around us. Many American movies are really only about those two very things.

  30. Maria Wenzel Avatar
    Maria Wenzel

    Was St Paul in the Bible not a chief sinner? How many did he persecute and had killed before he was blinded on the road to Damascus and turned to the light, probably in remorse and grief of what he had done in the past.
    What about Marin Luther who drowned and persecuted the Ana Baptists and yet he left his mark on History, Or this famous slave sailor who brought in slaves from Africa and who wrote famous songs, Amazing Grace etc. These people were all tormented by sin and found Grace in the eye’s of God.

    But you do not have to become a Chief Sinner in the above sense. The closer you get, the more is revealed….and even tiny sins reveal the consequences of/in the collective sense, and they become huge, or to whom much is given, much is required.

    Drewster2000, your understanding is remarkable.

  31. drewster2000 Avatar
    drewster2000

    Thank you Maria.

  32. Dino Avatar
    Dino

    Drewster,
    indeed the ‘western humanistic’ introspection is quite different to the ‘eastern hesychastic’ one.
    The first tends to a comparative analytic ‘psychologisation’, the second to an ontological, more direct revelation; the discursive deliberations of the first often see little more than individual responsibilities, whereas the second kind of ‘introspection’ [nous in heart] sees that every small, hourly fall (even just in thought) is clearly a repeat, a furtherance and perpetuation of the cosmic Adamic fall.
    I cannot recall the exact hymn but, I cannot forget its poignant depth -most likely one of the lesser known compunctionate cannons of Lent- which clearly stipulates something like this: “it is me, I am the one who ate and who keeps partaking of that forbidden fruit”. It is as if it implies: ‘it is not you, him, her, Adam, Judas or anyone else that is the cause of the entrance of sin in this world, all are somehow justified in their respective contexts when compared to me’.
    God’s Light does this to a person. It is this context of Light that does it. They see all others as saints and themselves as the only sinner. It also produces such joyful contrition that combines utter despair with an even “more” utter hope in God’s salvation – it is rousing and stirring the person’s heart with its assurance while illuminating, revealing to him the profundity of his ‘hypostatic sinfulness’ against the backdrop of this merciful assurance.
    I believe it makes a person (even at the very first stages of Its still concealed advent) see that all are deserving of Heaven and only his self deserves Hell. It also provides the fervour of a love that comes direct from the Holy Spirit and makes them desire to suffer such a Hell so that no one else would – they have acquired the Christ-like strength to suffer it (on behalf of others) unlike most others.
    It is, I think, what gives Saint Porphyrios the words:

    “I want to be in the desert and incessantly pray to God to put all people in Heaven and put only me in Hell . Is this burning desire of mine too sinful?”M/blockquote>

  33. From Romania Avatar
    From Romania

    What do you, Fr. Stephen, think of the Romanian Iron Guard movement? (Fr. Arsenie Papacioc, which you mentioned in one of the comments here, was a member of it in his youth and has never renounced his allegiance.)

    A law has been proposed to outlaw them in our country. I don’t know what to think of either the movement, or this law.

  34. From Romania Avatar
    From Romania

    (*whom you mentioned

  35. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    From Romania,
    I have an extremely limited knowledge of the movement. I do know that there were some involved who indeed became saints. That does not, however, justify the movement. Frankly, I’m very leery and cautious about any movement.

  36. From Romania Avatar
    From Romania

    …yet the only major political force to appear after the breakup of the National Peasant Party was the Legion of the Archangel Michael, whose founding by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was briefly described in Chapter 5.

    The Legion was arguably the most unusual mass movement of interwar Europe. It is generally classified as fascist because it met the main criteria of any appropriate fascist typology, but it presented undeniably individual characteristics of its own. Ernst Nolte has written that it «must not only be declared, but also plainly appears, to be the most interesting and the most complex fascist movement, because like geological formations of superimposed layers it presents at once both prefascist and radically fascist characteristics.» What made Codreanu especially different was that he became a sort of a religious mystic, and though the Legion had the same general political goals as other fascist movements, its final aims were spiritual and transcendental – «The spiritual resurrection! The resurrection of nations in the name of Jesus Christ!» as he put it.

    This seemed to be contradicted by the Legion’s primary emphasis on life and politics as «war,» but Codreanu propounded a doctrine of two spheres: sinful human life which must be the arena of political endeavor, and the reconciled and redeemed spiritual community of nation, ultimately to participate in eternal life. Ordinary human life was a sphere of constant war and eternal struggle, above all against the enemies of the Ţara (Fatherland). The Legionnaire must forgive his personal enemies but not those of the Ţara, who must be punished and destroyed even at the risk of the Legionnaire’s personal salvation. Violence and murder were absolutely necessary for the redemption of the nation; if the acts which this required placed in jeopardy the individual soul of the militant who carried them out, his necessary sacrifice was simply the greater. His punishment would consist of the earthly punishment for his deed (which he ought not to avoid) as well as the possible loss of eternal life, the ultimate sacrifice for the Fatherland, which must be accepted with joy. A principal effect of this political theology was a unique death cult, unusually morbid even for a fascist movement. […]

    The Legion reflected the anti-individualism and emphasis on the collectivity often found in sociopolitical movements in Eastern Orthodox societies, and it has even been termed a kind of heretical Christian sect. What placed it outside even a heretical Christianity, however, was not merely its maniacal insistence on violence but its biological concept of the nation, whose essence supposedly lay in the blood of the Romanian people.

    The Legion had little in the way of a concrete program.[52] Codreanu pointed out that a dozen different political programs already existed in Romania, and he proclaimed the need instead for a new spirit, a cultural-religious revolution whose goal was [the] creation of the omul nou – the «new man» sought in varying ways by all revolutionary movements, but one that for the Legion would be consubstantial with its interpretation of the Romanian Orthodox Church and the national community. The Legion held that the parliament should be replaced by a corporative assembly based on a «family vote.» Its leaders recognized that the country had in some fashion to be developed economically, but they disagreed sharply with the Neoliberal program of rapid industrialization. The high tariff maintained by the government was strongly denounced for increasing living costs among the peasantry. The Legion sought a more national and collective or communal basis for the economy, while abhorring the materialism of capitalism and of socialism. Industrialization per se was not the goal, and it was to be pursued only to the extent necessary for well-being, though, conversely and somewhat contradictorily, the Legion insisted on development of a strong modern army. Legionnaires would later engage in small-scale collective enterprises of their own for public works, retail goods, and restaurants. Codreanu always emphasized that «everything is possible» and, in typical revolutionary and fascist manner, that «everything depends on will.» Material conditions were always secondary: «Cry out loud everywhere that the evil, misery and ruin originate in the soul!»

    [52. Professor Nae Ionescu, perhaps the leading Legionnaire ideologue after Codreanu, is quoted as declaring: «Ideology is the invention of the liberals and the democrats.» «No one among the theoreticians of totalitarian nationalism creates a doctrine. Doctrine takes shape through the everyday acts of the Legion as it evolves out of the decisions of him whom God placed where he orders.» R. Ioanid, The Sword of the Archangel (New York, 1990), 83]

    The chief enemies were the leaders of the present corrupt system and the Jews. If the former were immediate targets, Jews constituted the special archenemy, to the extent that the Legion was possibly the only other fascist movement as vehemently anti-Semitic as German Nazis. Building on preexisting trends that were already powerful in Romania, the Legion encouraged the most extreme policies, to the extent that General [Gheorghe] Zizi Cantacuzino, one of Codreanu’s leading collaborators, declared that the only way to solve the Jewish problem in Romania was simply to kill the Jews.

    For several years the Legion remained a tiny sect, a common experience for most fascist movements in the 1920s, lacking both money and support. In 1930 it founded a sort of militia called the Iron Guard, to include all Legionnaires between the ages of eighteen and thirty, and this new formation provided the name by which the Legion was more commonly known in Romanian politics and subsequently in historical study.

    Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995), 279–282.

    See also:

    Why Romania had to ban Holocaust denial twice – The Washington Post (July 27, 2015)

  37. P. Antonio Arganda Avatar
    P. Antonio Arganda

    Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess… We were called to singleness of mind and purpose by our Creator. Just as within the Trinity there is one will, so too with our humanity. We are the image and likeness of God, therefore our true nature implies that we are of one mind. We , through sin, have distorted that singleness of mind by our individualism, but our essence is still one and therefore, our humanity is one. A sin committed on the other side of the world still mystically effects me. If you do not believe in the single will of our humanity, you cannot uphold the single will of the Holy Trinity.

  38. David Waite Avatar
    David Waite

    Thank you, Father.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!


Latest Comments

  1. Janine, Our whole culture suffers from deep wounds – particularly if you think of them under the heading of “de-moralization.”…

  2. Robert, Generally, I’d recommend a therapist who has good training and track record with EMDR. It’s been an effective tool…

  3. Thank you for this Father. There is a lot of food for thought. I would simply like to add that…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives