***
Most Reverend Brother Hierarchs in Christ,
Most Distinguished Chancellor,
Most Distinguished Vice-Chancellors, Deans, Heads of Department, Professors and members of the academic staff, together with the other officers of the University,
Beloved Graduates and Students,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Filled with joy and gratitude, and honoured by the presence of you all, we accept the distinction bestowed upon our humble person through our proclamation as Honorary Doctor of the University of Chichester, fully conscious that this great honour passes to the Mother Church of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which we have served, by the favor of God, for many decades. From the depths of our heart we express, in the person of the Chancellor, to the entire University community of Chichester our gratitude for the bestowal of the title of Honorary Doctor and for today’s conferral.
It is with gladness that I address the Graduates of our University—which I now call my own University as well, because starting today, as one of its Honorary Doctors, I am a part of it. I congratulate you most warmly, dear Graduates, and I invoke every blessing of God on your journey through life.
We too, my own generation, were once young, and we lived through the contradictions of our society, its challenges, but also its positive prospects, its disappointments and its hopes. Youth is a period of intense inner crisis for the human person, and the soul of the young person is a sensitive seismograph of developments. The crisis of youth, which is “normal” from an anthropological perspective, is intensified by the external circumstances of each age. Today especially, you young men and women face unprecedented developments in the field of scientific knowledge, momentous changes in the course of history, and continuous “digital leaps.”
I lived my childhood years on an idyllic island of the northern Aegean, Imbros, today known as Gökçeada in Türkiye, having bound my life and my dreams to school and the Church. From an early age I experienced education and faith in God as my freedom and future. I discovered early on that, as a believer, I am a member of an ecclesial community whose banner is unshakeable trust in Divine Providence and the service of the human person as a response to, and an extension of, God’s love for humankind. All this guided my steps to the Theological School of Halki and thereafter to Rome, to Bossey near Geneva, and to the University of Munich in Germany. Throughout my whole life, I have firmly believed that theology is the mighty arm of the Church.
I have served the Ecumenical Patriarchate since 1961 as a member of the sacred clergy and, since 1991—for thirty-five years now—as Ecumenical Patriarch. Every day I glorify God for all His blessings, for all that He has granted “beyond word and understanding” to His humble servant, crying out: “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and “What shall I render unto the Lord for all that He has given me?” (Ps. 115:3 LXX), and, in the words of John Chrysostom, my predecessor as Archbishop of Constantinople: “Glory to God for all things! For I shall never cease to say this always, in all that befalls me” (PG 52, 610).
You too, the promising young men and women of today, are called to build your present and your future within a civilisation which you did not yourselves create. The first thing I wish to propose to you, in the words of a wise man of our age, Karl Popper, is to close your ears to the pessimistic voices who proclaim that you are entering a wretched and irredeemable world, the worst world that has ever existed (K. R. Popper, Alles Leben ist Problemlösen. Über Erkenntnis, Geschichte und Politik, Piper Verlag, Munich/Zurich 1997, p. 273). Gerhard Ebeling had urged the theologians of his day not to forget that humanity, even before the modern era, did not live in paradise, and that original sin is older than Descartes, Voltaire or Karl Marx (G. Ebeling, “Die Botschaft von Gott an das Zeitalter des Atheismus”, in idem, Wort und Glaube, II, Tübingen 1969, p. 381).
There is certainly undeniable power in the words of Anthony Giddens: “If we were to regard the whole span of human presence on earth up to the present as equivalent to a single day, then the development of modern societies would begin at 11:59 and 30 seconds! Nevertheless, in these last thirty seconds of human life as many changes have taken place as in the entire period up to the beginning of the modern era” (A. Giddens, Sociology, Greek trans. and ed. D. G. Tsaousis, Gutenberg, Athens 2002, p. 674).
In these thirty seconds a great deal has been achieved: in the West were born the rule of law and the welfare state, human rights and ethical humanism; the impressive progress of science and technology took place; there was an impressive rise in the standard of living and in the quality of life; and there came the digital revolution, and much else besides. In the last two centuries of modernity, however, we also came to know the great crises—political and economic crises, the crisis of institutions, the devaluation of traditional values, the great social upheavals, unspeakable calamities against human dignity, two world wars, nuclear weapons, and the global ecological crisis and its social consequences.
Within this modern world and its postmodern variations, with the multicultural composition of our societies and with the core of traditional values bound up with humanism and Christianity now diminished in the Western world, you, dear Graduates of the University of Chichester, will set out on your own path, and you will be called upon to leave your imprint on the course of human affairs. There is no “end of history,” no end of scientific research, no end of the struggles for justice and peace, for social cohesion, for sustainable economic development—which is to be promoted, with your participation too, through the combination of economic strategies with ethical principles, foremost among them social justice and solidarity. There is no end to the struggle for the protection of the natural environment and against the social repercussions of its degradation, which in the future too will touch first, and most acutely, the poor of the earth. There is no end to the struggles for education and culture, nor any end to the need and the responsibility of managing developments and polarisations which are unforeseeable in their extent yet certain to come. The view that, owing to the dominance of technology and globalization of communication, the historically shaped differences between peoples would be dissolved and that we would inevitably arrive at a unified understanding of the world has been refuted by current developments.
Amid the turmoil of human affairs, no human being—and certainly not you, young men and women—can push away the ultimate questions about the meaning of existence, about life and death, about happiness and misery, about right and wrong, about good and evil, about the perplexities of our freedom. In our life there are dimensions inaccessible to science, deep existential pursuits which scientific knowledge is unable either to resolve or to eliminate. The dimension of the depth of things remains with us today. Philosophy continues to reflect upon the whole, to be nourished by wonder and by the existential divisions of the human person. Art flourishes, enlarging the beauty of the world. There is the religious awe before the mystery, before the mysterium tremendum et fascinans of the Sacred; the longing for eternity lives on. The view that, with the rise in living standards, the progress of science and the democratisation of societies, these pursuits would disappear underestimates their existential depth and their seriousness.
The human being is not merely a biological entity, nor merely a citizen of the world. He is a spiritual being with an exalted vocation. The underestimation or rejection of spiritual values and traditions has gravely negative consequences for every dimension of personal and social life.
Undoubtedly, science is the dominant “superpower” of our age. It radically changes our world; it solves problems which until today were considered insurmountable and “inevitable”; it heals diseases; it facilitates communication, the production of goods, and the organisation of societies; it contributes to progress and prosperity; it constitutes a decisive turning point in the historical course of humanity. The achievements of artificial intelligence hold new surprises in store for us every day and fill us with expectations. The wonders of science today vindicate Charles P. Snow, who in his famous lecture “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution” (1959) had stressed that “there is much in our fate that does not belong to the category of the inevitable”, and that “by their nature, scientists have the future in their veins” (C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures, Greek edition, Ellinika Grammata, Athens 1995, pp. 89 and 93).
It is of course a fact that, alongside this most evident progress, we are living through the side-effects and the negative consequences of the explosive development of science and technology: the reduction of the human being to a measurable quantity, the ecological problems, the persistence and proliferation of nuclear weapons, and much else. Beyond this, the fascination with technological achievements leads to the identification of development with technological progress. It has also been observed that the growth of scientific knowledge does not keep pace with the development of the moral sensibilities of the human person. The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 2016), too, alongside its position that, from an Orthodox perspective, “the ability to explore the world scientifically is a gift from God to humanity” (The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World, VI, 11), underlines that “scientific knowledge does not motivate man’s moral will, and even though unaware of the dangers, he continues to act as if unaware of them” (Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, § 11).
The daily experience and practice of human beings refute the final phrase of Sigmund Freud in his critique of religion, The Future of an Illusion: “It would be an illusion to believe that we can find elsewhere what science cannot give us.” The human being always seeks, outside science, solutions to problems that lie beyond its range, to all of which answers may be given by other spiritual powers. And I am convinced, despite all that is rumoured to the contrary, that if religion, as Immanuel Kant also writes, answers the question “What may I hope?” then youth, full of hopes and visions, must be characterised as “the most profoundly religious phase of human life.”
In recent decades, we have witnessed a re-evaluation of the role of religion. Religion is a universal human phenomenon with irreplaceable functions for the human person, for groups, for peoples and for cultures, for the whole of humanity. Without reference to religion, to the diversity of religions and to their role for the present and the future of humanity, no analysis of developments, however scientific it may appear, is in the end adequate. It is no accident that today one speaks not of a “post-religious age” in the course of humanity, but of a “post-secular age,” in which religion claims a public role, a public voice and participation in all significant developments.
Religion remains of critical importance for contemporary man for the following reasons:
1) In an age in which the “existential vacuum” is a global phenomenon, amid the pervasive anthropological confusion and the mutually contradictory proposals for the meaning of life, religion is the answer to the ultimate questions of human existence, which stir our minds and souls. We cannot imagine a human being who does not ask about the meaning of his life. Religion constitutes “a constant of human existence,” while the suppression of the religious need and its expression provokes profound alienations in the human person.
2) Religion is of central importance not only for the personal orientation of life, but also for the identity of peoples and cultures. This became particularly evident at the end of the twentieth century when, after the fall of the Eastern Bloc, the religious self-awareness of its peoples, repressed for decades, re-emerged. Atheist ideology and prohibitions failed to uproot a religious identity bound up directly with the cultural distinctiveness of those peoples. A wholly secularised society, cut off from its religious roots, cannot possibly preserve its humanistic orientation.
3) Within religious traditions, the greatest achievements of civilisation and of particular cultures, their fundamental values, and their ordering of those values were born, shaped, and preserved. With the religions is bound up the great spiritual heritage of humanity. Nothing of significance in the course of human history can be understood without regard to its religious roots. Whatever is most precious among the things that peoples have preserved is connected with their religion or religions. Religious treasures and artefacts fill museums; the religiosity of peoples reveals central aspects of their culture.
4) The fourth essential function of religion is its peacemaking power and mission. From Professor Hans Küng comes the phrase: “No peace among the nations without peace among the religions. No world peace without peace among the religions. No peace among the religions without dialogue among the religions.” The credibility of the religions is linked today, and will depend in the future, on their contribution to the struggle for peace and reconciliation. It will become ever less comprehensible and ever less acceptable for religions to create wars, to feed hatred, to fanaticise and to divide, instead of striving for peace. We understand the importance of dialogue and cooperation among the religions more deeply when we realise that there is no such thing as “religion” in the abstract, but that there are many religions, each with its faithful, its history, its teaching, its ethos and its culture. All religions are bound to develop their peacemaking potential, to declare unequivocally that violence in the name of religion is violence against religion. In this sense, we regard fundamentalism as a degeneration of religious experience and we utterly reject its characterisation as inherent in religious faith. Genuine faith is the most effective refutation of religious fanaticism and intolerance. Interreligious dialogue promotes mutual trust and constitutes an opportunity to bring to light the philanthropic traditions of the religions.
Distinguished audience,
No one can deny that today we are living through a profound “crisis of freedom.” The transition in modernity from “given values” to “values in formation” was not without dangers and side-effects. Individual and collective life has become, for the human being, more demanding and more difficult. Yet this change was neither a moral and social catastrophe nor, of course, did it mark the entry into a golden age of freedom. As has been written, “it would be a dangerous utopian illusion to believe that man, under conditions of a system of values in formation, has regained the lost paradise” (H. Ryffel, “Zur Begründung der Menschenrechte”, in J. Schwartländer (ed.), Menschenrechte. Aspekte ihrer Begründung und Verwirklichung, Tübingen 1978, p. 63). In the theological perspective, moreover, “paradise” is not a part of history: it lies beyond history; it is eschatological.
The central question of human existence is the understanding and use of our freedom. Unfortunately, it is proclaimed today with a loud voice that freedom is “the art of avoiding commitment.” The impression has been skillfully planted in our young people that commitment means adaptation to outdated patterns of life, confinement within obsolete schemes. Freedom is very widely identified with the possibility of choice. Yet the truth of our freedom is judged not by the fact that we choose, but by what we choose. The issue that remains is the linking of freedom with responsibility. Freedom understood as responsibility is Ariadne’s thread, which leads us out of our intricate existential labyrinths.
At this joyful moment, so significant for your lives, dear Graduates, I should like to leave you as a legacy a personal conviction of mine, formed over my long journey through life and within the Orthodox Church.
Studying the concept of freedom as autonomy, in the Kantian sense, I came to understand that autonomous freedom does not mean doing whatever I desire; it is not to be identified with a self-sufficient and arrogant self-determination, but is obedience to the moral law, which is the foundation of human dignity, that is, of the absolute worth of the human person. As Kant makes clear, what befits the human being is not the attitude of the arrogant volunteer, who has no need of the idea of duty in order to do good since he does it of his own inclination and initiative, but the attitude of indebtedness and obligation.
We recall here the great theologian of freedom, the Apostle Paul, according to whom the renewal of the human being in Christ is, and is experienced as, liberation and freedom. Freedom, which is a gift from above and not a human achievement, is expressed as the indissoluble unity of faith in God and love for one’s fellow human being, one’s brother.
These two aspects of freedom, the philosophical and the Christian, with their differences but also with their common character as a refusal of the self-deification of the human being and as absolute commitment, together form a robust existential possibility for the creative combination of the identity of the contemporary responsible and free human being with the quality of the believer. In Kant the sense of the mystery of freedom, of “the moral law within me,” is fully alive; of this he declares, at the conclusion of the Critique of Practical Reason, that, together with “the starry heavens above me,” the moral law fills his mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe. And the theology of freedom, in full awareness that, when “the sense of the mystery of God” is lost, a distortion or collapse of the understanding of the human person follows, insists that, in answering anthropological questions, “the religious dimension cannot be ignored” (W. Pannenberg, “Der Mensch – Ebenbild Gottes”, in idem, Glaube und Wirklichkeit. Kleine Beiträge zum christlichen Denken, Kaiser Verlag, Munich 1975, p. 70).
In the hope, then, that on your own journey through life, beloved graduates and students, in your engagement with science, in your social witness and in your relationship with the Transcendent—what humankind has discovered about itself and about its freedom will not be left on the margins, I address all of you with the following words: “The human being ‘honoured with freedom’ has a higher destiny than simply to do ‘whatever he wants’.”
In this spirit, I express once more my sincere thanks to the University of Chichester for the honour of my inclusion in the company of its Honorary Doctors; I congratulate our Graduates once again; and I thank you all for your presence and your attention.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου