The official condition for church marriage is the union of faith – ie. the affiliation of the spouses to the Orthodox Church. The definitions of the Laodicean (Rule 10 and 31), Carthage (Rule 21), Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils (Rule 14 of Chalcedon, Rule 72 of Fifth-Sixth) forbid marriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. and recommend the dissolution of such marriages if they are registered with the civil authorities.
But of course, this is not a formal issue. The common faith makes marriage truly Christian. Of course, even if you do not belong to a Church, it is possible to enjoy friendship, share mutual interests, feel true unity and “abide in love” for one another. But the whole problem is whether it is possible for all these human relationships to change and become a reality of the Kingdom of God if they are not enriched by the experience of belonging to the Kingdom, if they are not strengthened by common faith. Is it possible to become “one body” in Christ without communion with His Eucharistic Body and Blood? Is it possible for a married couple to enter into the sacrament of marriage – a sacrament relating to “Christ and the Church” – if the spouses do not participate together in the sacrament of the Divine Liturgy?
These are no longer formal questions, but fundamental problems that need to be answered by anyone facing the problem of intermarriage. Certainly the easiest solutions are confessional relativism (“there are not many differences between our churches”) or simply the removal of the Eucharist as the center of the Christian life. Unfortunately, the modern practice of marriage, which does not distinguish between single and mixed marriages, is treading on the above path. We have already said that this practice stems from the gradual desecration of marriage, and the separation of the wedding from the Eucharist is the ultimate expression of this process. In the Ancient Church, the canons forbidding mixed marriages were understood by all – everyone knew that Orthodox and non-Orthodox could not participate together in the Eucharist through which marriage was blessed. This already controversial issue has been further complicated by the recent Protestant practice of “intercommunion” (common communion between representatives of different denominations) among divided Christians, a practice partially embraced by modern Catholics. Personal and general responsibility for the visible Church of Christ in her Eucharist can here in practice be replaced by vague and passive religiosity, in which the sacraments play a mostly secondary role [1].
By renouncing “intercommunion”, the Orthodox Church does not deny Christian unity. On the contrary, it defends true and complete unity and denies all its surrogates. Therefore, with regard to marriage, the Church desires the spouses to enjoy complete unity in Christ, and therefore considers only those marriages in which two beings are united in a perfect unity of faith, sealed by the seal of the Eucharist, to be truly sanctified.
Recently, “mixed” marriages are a common occurrence. In our pluralistic society, where the Orthodox are a small minority, mixed marriages make up a large (and ever-growing) percentage of all marriages that are blessed in our churches and also, unfortunately, outside of Orthodoxy. We all know that some such marriages lead to happy families and it would be unwise and superficial to ban them. In practice, some mixed marriages turn out to be healthier and happier than Orthodox marriages, in which the two have never heard of the true meaning of Christian marriage and have not taken on any Christian responsibility before God.
This indisputable truth does not belittle the fact that the Gospel calls us not to a partial revelation of the truth or even to “happiness” in the conventional human sense. The Lord says, Be perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Christianity is inconceivable without the struggle for perfection. Religious indifference, or the acceptance of the Christian faith as a secondary aspect of life, in itself precludes the pursuit of perfection of which Christ speaks. The church can never come to terms with indifference and relativism.
Therefore, an Orthodox priest cannot bless a marriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. It is also obvious that pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ to a person who does not acknowledge Him as His Lord is meaningless. Such a prayer would be disrespectful not only to God but also to man and his beliefs (or lack of beliefs). When a participant in a future marriage is a baptized Christian, the blessing of the Orthodox Church is justified by the apostle Paul’s conviction that the unbelieving man is sanctified by his believing wife and that the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband-believers (1 Cor. 7:14). But these words probably refer to a marriage in which one of the participants subsequently turns to the true faith, and not to one in which a member of the Church is combined with a person who does not recognize the Church. In any case, the Church hopes that religious unity in the family will be restored and that the day will come when both spouses will be united in Orthodoxy.
The rule adopted by some Orthodox dioceses – to require participants in mixed marriages to make a written promise to baptize and educate children in Orthodoxy – is (at least for the signatories) very dubious both from a principled standpoint and from the point of view of efficiency. There can be no compromise here: either the Orthodox husband must be strong enough in his convictions to pass on his own religious understandings to the children and confidently bring his whole family to the Church, or he must renounce any action. . For those who marry outside the Orthodox Church, the pastoral attitude must be fully defined. Such a marriage is seen as a betrayal of the mysterious grace received by the Church in baptism, which is in fact incompatible with belonging to the Church.
Many misunderstandings related to mixed marriages would be resolved for both Orthodox and non-Orthodox people if the ancient practice of uniting marriage and the Eucharist were revived. Then, in the wedding of mixed couples, a completely different ceremony, independent of the Eucharist, should be used (as in the second or third marriage between Orthodox). The impossibility of blessing mixed marriages during the Liturgy would in itself be eloquent enough and would show: first, the true nature of the marriage sanctified by the Church; secondly, the pastoral tolerance shown by the Church in the blessing of mixed marriage, and finally, thirdly, the Church’s desire for mixed marriage to take the path to perfection in the union of faith and joint participation in the Eucharist.
[1] For the Orthodox view (quite negative) of “intercommunion” between divided Christians, cf. in St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quartery, vol. 12, 1968, Nos. 3-4.
People certainly remember vividly all the pets we had. It happens that we raise and live for some time with a purring friend, but we have to separate and entrust it to someone else. Whether it’s because we have to go to university or work or we have developed an allergy, the decision is certainly not an easy one for us.
However, if the pet has “stayed the family” – he has lived with relatives or close friends, we would certainly be very happy to see him when we have this opportunity!
Months or even a year pass and you see your favorite cat for the first time, and a very important question certainly comes to mind – does my cat remember me?
Let’s talk a little about cat memory
A 2015 study published in National Geographic shows that many animals do not have short-term memory. In this study, scientists tested 25 species of animals – from dolphins to bees, cats, dogs and others.
Cats, like other animals, use associative memory to store information that helps them survive.
This also explains why they remember where they received help or food from someone. Thanks to these associative memories, pet animals act in a certain way at certain moments – for example, they will run to you as soon as they hear the opening of the food cabinet.
This associative memory is probably the way your cat remembers you. She may not have memorized specific interactions with you, but she may associate you with the memory of giving her food and caring for her, which is actually very key to cats.
Cats feel sad for us
Many researchers suggest that her cat is sad for her owners if she is left alone for a while. In fact, this can be confirmed by many owners who observe strange behaviors of their pets when they go on vacation for a few days, and after returning – the purring friend is apparently very happy.
Many cats are stressed when left by their owners, even for just a few days, and signs of this are:
• Urinating or going to the toilet
• Changes in eating habits
• Destructive behaviors
• Loud meowing
The purring friends are really very anxious when they are left alone for a few days and another person they do not know well comes only for about an hour a day to take care of them. Think about it, this is a very big change for the cat, which is used to a certain regime and your presence every day, even if it is only in the morning and evening, because you are at work during the day.
It is a big mistake to scold our cat when she has done damage while we are gone. The purring friend did not do this to get revenge, but simply because he was under stress, because of your absence.
If you travel often – maybe your cat will get used to the fact that at some point you are not. On the other hand, in order not to give her a reason to break or scratch your belongings – make sure to put away all objects that would provoke interest in her. Leave lots of toys and her favorite items to play with to make her feel as engaged as possible.
It is difficult to say exactly how much the cat will remember you after not seeing you. Certainly this is strictly individual and depends on both the relationship you had and the character of the purring friend. Surely, if you see your cat after a while, you will feel for yourself whether she remembers you or your scent or behaves as if you are a complete stranger.
Arianism is the first current in the mainstream of Christian thought, recognized as heresy and became the state religion in the Roman Empire. Arianism is undeniably the largest and largest of the movements within Christendom since the beginning of Christianity that have been recognized as heretical. Therefore, subsequent generations of Christian writers understood Arianism as a heresy par excellence, and this testifies to the important role played by the phenomenon of Arianism in the culture and philosophical thought of their time.
The Arian movement was formed by the first quarter of the 4th century as a result of theological disputes that began around 315-318. These disputes arose around the teachings of presbyter Arius, after whom the movement of the church people and bishops, who in one way or another shared his ideas, began to be called. Arius taught that Christ (God the Son) was created by the will of God from “nothing”, and He is created by nature (this did not prevent, however, Arius from calling Christ “God” (1)). God created Christ, Arius taught, but Christ, following the direction of God, created the whole created world. Arius distinguished between the Word and Wisdom proper to God, which God always has (2), and the Word produced by this Wisdom, which is the Word and Wisdom by communion with God. “There are two Wisdoms: one own and co-existing with God; the Son is begotten by this Wisdom, and, as a partaker of it, is only called Wisdom and the Word. For Wisdom from Wisdom was realized by the will of the most wise God … In God there is another Word, besides the Son, and The Son, as one who participates in Him, is called by grace the Word and the Son himself” (3).
For this reason, according to Arius, Christ does not know God as He is in Himself, but just as the Son is the Word and Wisdom by participating in the true Word and Wisdom of God, so the Son knows the Father “as far as it is permissible”, by participating in the contemplation of God. himself: “Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all is that He is invisible both to those who are through the Son and to the Son Himself. God can see, in his measure it is possible for the Son to see the Father, as much as possible” (4).
We can agree with R. Williams (5) that here the words “by the same power by which God can see” indicate the self-contemplation of God, that is, it means “by which God [Himself] can see”.
Arius’ argumentation is interesting as to why the Son cannot fully know God: because the work cannot grasp its reason, its foundation of being, all the more so since this reason itself is causeless, having no beginning for itself, for to one who has beginning, it is all the more impossible to seize Him who has no beginning. As V. Lehr notes (6), probably for the same reason, Arius argues that the Son cannot know His essence either – because it is produced by the Father as an existential principle that is not covered by the mind: “For it is impossible for Him [the Son] to explore the Father what He is in Himself. For the Son does not even know His own essence: being the Son, He was truly realized by the will of the Father. And how is it possible for one who is from the Father to know the Begotten through comprehension? He is” (7).
On the whole, Platonic implications are seen in Arius’s teaching on the knowledge of God. His teaching about the unknowability of God by the Son and people refers to the tradition of interpretation of Timaeus, 28c, in Platonism, and primarily in Christian Platonism (8). In connection with the intellectualism of the First Principle in the doctrine of Arius (the theme of the self-contemplating God), we can talk about the Middle Platonic motives in his teaching, as opposed to the Neoplatonic emphasis, which is placed on the fact that God the First Principle is higher than mind and being. Middle Platonic elements are also seen in the teaching of Arius that there is an intermediate link between the Deity and the world – Christ, who performs demiurgical functions (the mediator-demiurge is a distinctive feature of the systems of Numenius and Albinus (9)); for the same reason, the origin of the world in the Arius system cannot be explained using the concept of an outpouring, an emanation of the Divine (similar to the case in Neoplatonism), which also brings the teaching of Arius closer to the middle Platonism, although, of course, in this respect the decisive role is played by Judeo-Christian doctrine of creationism (10).
However, it is incorrect to say, following Fr. G. Florovsky (11), that the unknowable God Arius is a kind of lifeless higher principle, of which it is known only that He is the cause of the created world. On the other hand, it is probably not worth it, as A. Grillmeier (12) does, to assert that Arius referred to God the concept of infinity, that is, the absolute fullness of life. It is obvious that the doctrine of Arius implies a certain idea of the intra-divine life, although he does not emphasize it – namely, this idea is manifested in the teaching of Arius that a certain Divine Word, Wisdom, is inherent in God, which is such not by communion. , as in the case of Christ, but in the proper sense.
The intermediate link between the teachings of Arius and the neo-Arian teachings that developed in the second half of the 4th century, at the second stage of the Arian disputes, the Anomeans (neo-Arians (13)) Aetius and Eunomius, is the teaching of Asterius (14). Asterius was born in Cappadocia. Like Arius, he was probably a student of Lucian of Antioch. Having been tormented in the time of Diocletian, Asterius became an apostate, and for this reason he could not accept the priesthood. By profession he was a rhetorician. Asterius was the chief defender of the Arians in the first stage of the Arian controversy. Around 325, at the insistence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius, he wrote his essay “Syntagmation” (15), and in 327 he defended in writing the provisions of the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia condemned at the Council of Nicaea to the Peacock of Tire.
Fragments of this work are preserved by Athanasius, especially in the treatise “Against the Arians”, and also, mainly in paraphrase, by Marcellus of Ancyra (16). Asterius refused Aryan’s distinction between the two Words of God – the Word by communion (Christ) and God’s own, however, according to Asterius, God has intrinsic Wisdom and Power, through which He created the created world. Apparently, Asteria was not entirely satisfied with the position of Arius regarding the fact that God is unknowable and inexpressible, and the Son cannot know his own essence. Asterius also sought to challenge the words of the main defender of Orthodox teaching during the first stage of the Arian disputes, Alexander of Alexandria, whose position is evident from the following quote: “But let no one ever accept the word in the sense of unbornness, as people with damaged feelings of the soul think: “always”, nor “before the age” – is not the same thing with unbornness. The human mind is not able to invent any name to indicate unbornness “(17).
Asterius believed that if Alexander focuses on the impossibility of finding in speech, the impossibility of establishing the exact meaning of that essential feature that distinguishes the Divine from the created, then it is necessary to work on rationalization, the definition of this feature. Asterius thus defines the unborn: “The unborn is that which is not created, but always exists” (18).
Thus, agreeing in some way with the understanding of Alexander of Alexandria that the concept of “unbornness” is not identical with the idea of the absence of a beginning in time, Asterius adds a certain positive attribute to the definition of unbornness, namely, that in relation to the subject of unbornness one cannot speak of its creator, i.e. e. that the unborn has no reason for its existence. However, “unbornness” for Asterius is not an essential sign of God as a single being, as it will later be among the neo-Arians. According to Asterius, God has a constructive Wisdom and Power, and the concept of “unbegotten” can also be applied to the Wisdom that God made Christ: “Blessed Paul did not say that he preaches Christ – His own, that is, God, Power or Wisdom; of this addition: God’s power and God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24), preaching that there is another own Power of God Himself, innate and unborn coexistent with Him; and she is the bearer of Christ and the Creator of the whole world “(19) .
As we can see, Asterius, like Arius, has a certain idea of the fullness of Divine life, manifested in the doctrine of His Wisdom and Power co-born with God. Speaking of God’s Wisdom as the Creator of the cosmos, Asterius develops the view of Philo (20) and Clement
of Alexandria (21) to God’s Wisdom as a helper and organizer (22) of the creation of the cosmos.
So, the discourse of Arius suggests that the Divine essence is unknowable and ineffable; and although, according to Arius, God is unbegotten, this is not a characteristic of His essence, but “unbegottenness” is a predicate applied to God along with many others (23). Moreover, Arius’ understanding of the Divine names, as far as one can judge, is such that any name spoken of God can only be expressed in terms of opposing the Divine being to the properties of the created world; in particular, God, according to Arius, is called “unbegotten” in opposition to the “begottenness” of the Son (24), – this is one of the manifestations of the intention of apophaticism in the teaching of Arius. In this regard, the teaching of Asterius acts as an intermediate link between the doctrines of Arius and Aetius. Asterius, as far as can be judged from the fragments preserved in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Athanasius, lacks the elements of apophaticism that are so important for Arius, but there is still no emphasis on rationalism in theology, which was the main point in the methodology of the Arians of the time of the second stage of the Arian disputes (neo-Arian ), and, in particular, in the methodology of one of the leaders of the neo-Arian movement – Aetius.
In contrast to Arius, the neo-Arians followed a rationalist stream in theological discourse. As Ronald Heine rightly remarks, this was probably because Arius’s insistence on the unknowability of God provided their rivals with a weapon that embarrassed the Arians; namely: accepting that the Divine nature is unknowable and ineffable, one could insist on the possibility of the eternal birth of the Son from God and His consubstantiality with God and say that how the Son is born and how He is consubstantial with the Father is beyond human understanding (25) .
Therefore, the neo-Arians needed to formalize the discourse that operates with the concept of the Divine nature (essence) and the nature (essence) of the Son. They insisted that a Christian needs to know what he worships, what is the nature of the worshipper; if a Christian cannot express this essence, then he does not know what he worships (26). Thus, the methodology adopted in the teaching of the neo-Arians, in contrast to the Arian teaching of the time of the first stage of the Arian disputes, indicates the prevailing rationalistic motives in their doctrine – in the sense of an emphasis on knowledge and expression in the language of the image of the being of God and Christ. This approach aims to achieve a static stability of thought, which has found its rest in the knowledge of the specifics of the way of being of God and Christ.
NOTES:
1 – On the one hand, Arius, like Origen, argued that the Son is not “true God” (Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.9), on the other hand, the Arians could, for political reasons, argue that the Son is the true God (Athanasius, Epistle to the African Bishops, 5).
2 – In his sophiology, Arius probably followed Philo of Alexandria (cf. On flight and acquisition, 109; That the worst tends to attack the best, 115-116).
3 – Athanasius, Against Arius, 1.5.
4 – Athanasius, On cathedrals, 15.
5 – Williams 1987: 212.
6 – Loehr 2006: 148.
7 – Athanasius, On cathedrals, 15.
8 – See Albin, Textbook 10.1,4; Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris, 77; Justin, Conversation with Tryphon the Jew, 4.1; Athenagoras, Petition, 6; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.102.5 et al. See in general: Danielou 2003: 165-167.
9 – See Dillon 2002: 351.
10 – For Arius’s Middle Platonic connotations, see Stead 1964: 16-31; Stead 1997: 39-52. And although certain points of Stead’s argument seem to us incorrect, for example, the correlation of the monadology of Arius with the monadology of Numenius, in general, we can agree with his conclusion about the predominant Middle Platonic underlying basis of the doctrine of Arius.
11 – Florovsky G., prot. “The concept of creation in St. Athanasius”, Florovsky 1998: 90 (translated from the English edition of the article by o. G. Florovsky: Florovsky 1962).
12 – Grillmeier 1975: 231, 237.
13 – The Orthodox opponents of Aetius and Eunomius called them “anomei” (Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, PG 29, 500.27), i.e. “incomparable”, but this is an incorrect name, since, firstly, Arius also argued that Christ is not like God and, secondly, in a certain respect, according to Aetius and Eunomius, Christ is like God (by will). Therefore, following the modern researchers, we will call the teaching of Aetius and Eunomius “neo-Arian”; for a discussion of this issue, see ed. Wiles 1996: 30-31.
14 – See Kopecek 1979: 72-73.
15 – Surviving fragments from the “Syntagmation” of Asterius published in the book: Bardy 1936; in general, Asterius is dedicated to ss. 316-357 of this classic work.
16 – See Markellus 1972: 185-214. For a general discussion of the controversy between Asterius and Markell, see the generalizing work Parvis 2006: 96-133.
17 – Theodoret, Church History, 1.4.
18 – Athanasius, Against the Arians, 1.30.
19 – Athanasius, On Cathedrals, 1.18.
20 – Philo, On flight and acquisition, 109.
21 – Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.13.
22 – On this see Jaeger 1961: 90-106. However, this evidence seems to contradict other fragments from Asterius cited by Athanasius, according to which God, having wanted to create the cosmos, but seeing that the cosmos could not endure the power of the Divine hand, created Christ as an intermediary between Himself and the cosmos – this view, according to Athanasius, was shared by Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Asterius (Athanasius, On Councils, 24; On Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, 8).
23 – See: “Our faith, received from the ancestors, which we also learned from you, blessed Pope, is this: we know the one God, the one unborn, the one eternal, the one without beginning, the one true, the one having immortality, the only wise, the only good, one Sovereign, Judge of all, Ruler, Dispenser, immutable, unchangeable, righteous and good” (Message to Alexander of Alexandria in Athanasius in On Councils, 16).
24 – “God Himself, since He is God, is indescribable for all. He alone has neither equal, nor similar, nor glorious to Himself. Let us call Him unbegotten for the sake of the one who was born by nature; let us hymn Him without beginning for the sake of the one who has a beginning; we honor Him eternal for the sake of the one born in time” (Arius, Thalia, in Athanasius in On Councils, 15).
25 – See Heine 1975: 135.
26 – Evidence of this: Basil of Caesarea, Letter 234.1; Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2.39.13-14 (Jaeger).
Bibliography
Albertz M. (1908) Untersuchungen tiber die Schriften des Eunomius (Wittenberg)
Markellus (1972) Fragmenta e libro contra Asterium (frr. 1-128), ed. E. Klostermann, G. C. Hansen, in Eusebius Werke, Vol. 4, GCHS 14 (Berlin)
Jaeger H. (1961) “The Patristic Conception of Wisdom in the Light of Biblical and Rabbinical Research”, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 79, 90-106
Parvis S. (2006) Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345 (Oxford)
Stead C. (1964) “The Platonism of Arius”, The Journal of Theological Studies 15, 16-31
Stead C. (1997) “Was Arius a Neoplatonist?”, Studia Patristica 32, 39-52
Wickham L. (1968) “The Syntagmation of Aetius the Anomean”, The Journal of Theological Studies 19, 532-569
Wiles M. (1996) Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries (Oxford)
Wiles M. (2002) “Eunomius: hair-splitting dialectician or defender of the accessibility of salvation?”, The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. Williams (Cambridge) 157-172
Williams R. (1987) Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London)
In Russian:
Danielou J. (2003) “Plato in Christian Middle Platonism”, Theological Collection 11, 146-168
Dillon J. (2002) Middle Platonists (St. Petersburg)
Lossky Vl. (2000) Theology and vision of God (Moscow)
Nesmelov V. (1887) The dogmatic system of St. Gregory of Nyssa (Kazan)
Florovsky G., prot. (1998) Dogma and history (Moscow)
Photo: Icon of Saint Mercurius killing Emeror Iulian
They were formulated in nine working groups including citizens, members of the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission and national parliaments as well as representatives of other EU bodies, regional and local authorities, social partners and civil society.
Speaking at the end of the plenary session, Conference co-chair Guy Verhofstadt said that the work of the Conference is a return to the legacy of those who set the foundation for the European project after the Second World War. Referring to the challenges that the EU faces now, including the war in Ukraine, he said: “It’s time to go back to [the founding fathers’] dream, to their initial objective of creating real European unity, real European integration. A revival of the ideas of the founding fathers is necessary for the survival of our beautiful continent.”
In an earlier plenary speech, Verhofstadt had described the perils ahead and the need for the EU to change: “The world of tomorrow is a world of empires. It’s a world of danger and in this world we need to defend ourselves, to organise ourselves […] and therefore we need to reform the EU. Not because we like reforms or because it’s fun to do it, but because it is necessary for our survival, because otherwise Europe will disappear.”
The proposals adopted by the Conference plenary are grouped into nine topics: climate change and the environment; health; a stronger economy, social justice and jobs; the EU in the world; values and rights, rule of law, security; digital transformation; European democracy; migration; education, culture, youth and sport.
They include calls for a shift in energy production towards renewables, establishing a right for all EU citizens to health care, giving the European Parliament a right of legislative initiative, removing unanimity in the Council on foreign policy and improving education on environmental issues, digital technologies, soft skills and EU values.
Citizens who took the floor expressed satisfaction at having taken part in the Conference and with the outcome of months of work.
Huub Verhoeven, from the Netherlands, talked about the positive attitude during deliberations: “Regardless of [people’s] background or views, we were always able to work together and come to a consensus and I hope this sets a good example for the politicians.”
Valentina Balzani, from Italy, said: “We are asking for wide-ranging actions that have real and symbolic effects and we hope that our ideas will be listened to seriously and will be put into practice.”
Guy Verhofstadt said MEPs are set to call for the procedure for treaty change to be triggered when they meet on 2-5 May. This would make it possible to deliver on some of the most ambitious proposals coming out of the Conference.
He also said the EU should hold exercises similar to the Conference on a regular basis to get people involved in decision-making. “We could easily, based on our experience, organise every mid-term an exercise like this, as a guidance for the European Parliament, for the European Commission, of what needs to be done in the upcoming years.”
Conference closing event
On 9 May – Europe Day – one year after the Conference on the Future of Europe was officially launched, the co-chairs of the executive board will deliver the conclusions to the presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission at a ceremony in Strasbourg.
The three institutions have committed to following up on the outcome of the Conference.
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, presented her annual report 2021 to the Parliamentary Assembly during the Assembly’s Spring Session in the end of April. The Commissioner stressed that trends undermining human rights protection have continued in 2021.
The topics covered by the report vary from media freedom and journalists’ safety to the protection of migrants, from freedom of peaceful assembly to the rights of women and girls, persons with disabilities, human rights defenders and children, as well as transitional justice*, the right to health, and racism.
“These trends are not new,” Ms Dunja Mijatović noted. “What is particularly alarming is the scale of retrogression on many human rights principles and the widespread undermining of the rule of law, which is a precondition for human rights protection.”
In her speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe the Commissioner in particular addressed the consequences of the war in Ukraine. “During the last 61 days of war, Ukraine has been the scene of egregious human rights violations committed against the civilian population. The images of the lifeless bodies of civilians, brutally killed in cities and villages in Ukraine, have left us all speechless,” Ms Dunja Mijatović stated.
She added, “They provide a haunting illustration to shocking reports of violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law, such as summary executions, abductions, torture, sexual violence, and attacks against civilian infrastructures, committed in areas of Ukraine previously under the control of Russian troops. To many of these violations, including those that have emerged in Bucha, Borodyanka, Trostianets, Kramatorsk and Mariupol, I reacted publicly.”
“This war and the blatant disregard for human life that it brings needs to stop. Every effort must go into preventing more atrocities. The terrible acts committed against the civilian populations may constitute war crimes and must not go unpunished. All of them must be documented and thoroughly investigated, and their perpetrators identified and brought to justice,” Ms Dunja Mijatović pointed out.
She hoped the European member states would continue to support the Ukrainian justice system, as well as the International Criminal Court, so that they can deliver a measure of justice and reparations to the victims.
She also called on governments and parliaments of member states to strengthen efforts to coordinate and scale up support for the response to the humanitarian and human rights needs of people fleeing the war in Ukraine with a medium and long-term perspective.
The Commissioner on Human Rights however also noted, that while the impact of the war on the human rights of those fleeing Ukraine and those remaining in the country has been the focus of her work in the last weeks, she has also continued to alert member states on other pressing human rights issues.
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, presented her annual report 2021 (Photo: THIX Photo)
Free speech and participation threatened in some countries
She specifically pointed to a growing pressure on free speech and public participation in European member states. Many governments have become increasingly intolerant towards public demonstrations of dissent. Faced with the multiplication of protests, authorities in several countries have taken legal and other measures that limit people’s right to peaceful assembly and therefore their ability to express their views, including political ones, publicly and together with others.
She also observed a worrying retrogression in the safety of some human rights defenders and journalists and the increasingly restrictive environment affecting their ability to work in many places in Europe. They face a variety of reprisals, including judicial harassment, prosecution, unlawful deprivation of liberty, abusive checks and surveillance, smear campaigns, threats and intimidation. She stressed that legislation should protect freedom of expression, not undermine it.
Responsibility of parliamentarians
In addressing the parliamentarians of the Assembly and their responsibilities, Ms Dunja Mijatović noted: “The centrality of parliamentarians in underpinning the democratic institutions of our member states cannot be overstated. Your engagement for human rights can make a concrete difference in the lives of many people. Your actions and your words are powerful tools in that sense.”
She however also noted, that the actions and words of the parliamentarians “can also have negative consequences. All too often I have heard politicians both in governments and parliaments use their positions to advance racist, antisemitic, homophobic, misogynist or otherwise undemocratic ideas. More worryingly, in some countries prominent politicians and public figures are fanning the flames of nationalism and willfully sowing the seeds of hate.”
In consequence she stressed that “Instead of going down this path, politicians in Europe must exercise responsibility and lead by example in their public discourse and actions to promote peace, stability, dialogue and understanding. Instead of warmongering and spreading divisive propaganda, politicians should work towards improving inter-ethnic relations and ensuring that everyone’s rights are equally protected, in the Balkans, in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe.”
Reform of mental health services
In the Commissioners Annual activities report of 2021 an impressive long list of actions is noted. These include the Commissioner continued intensive work concerning the rights of persons with disabilities.
The report stated that she particularly focused on the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities, setting out her views on the much needed reform of mental health services in a Human Rights Comment dedicated to this issue that she published on 7 April 2021.
The Comment considering the devastating impact of the pandemic which had exposed and aggravated existing failings of mental health services throughout Europe, the Commissioner pointed to the various ways in which these services were continuing to cause numerous human rights violations, in particular when they are concentrated in closed psychiatric hospitals and where they rely on coercion.
The report also note, that the Commissioner was vocal in speaking out against institutions and coercion in psychiatry on several occasions, for example at a hearing organised by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Parliamentary Assembly on deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities on 16 March 2021 and an event organised by Mental Health Europe on Shaping the future of community mental health services based on human rights on 11 May 2021. She also participated at a launch event organised by the World Health Organisation for its new guidance on community mental health services on 10 June 2021 and contributed a video message to the opening plenary session of the Global Mental Health Summit organised in Paris, France, on 5 October 2021.
She stressed that persons facing mental health problems must have access to recovery-oriented community mental health services which are provided on the basis of free and informed consent and which promote social inclusion and offer a range of rights-based treatments and psychosocial support options.
* Transitional justice is an approach to systematic or massive violations of human rights that both provides redress to victims and creates or enhances opportunities for the transformation of the political systems, conflicts, and other conditions that may have been at the root of the abuses.
EU - European Parliament - 25 april vote on Foreign Subsidies Régulation
The Committee on International Trade backed a proposal designed to counteract market-distorting foreign subsidies granted to companies operating in the EU.
With the EU market open to foreign investment, there has been a growing number of instances in which foreign subsidies seem to have facilitated the acquisition of EU undertakings, influenced investment decisions or distorted trade in services, to the detriment of fair competition. The new tool seeks to address these distortions until an effective multilateral solution to the problem is found.
The draft law, as adopted by the Committee on International Trade by 42 votes unanimously, gives the EU Commission the power to investigate and counteract market-distorting foreign subsidies granted to companies set to acquire EU businesses or take part in EU public procurement.
The goal of the new tool is to ensure fair competition among firms active on the EU market; while EU countries have to abide by state aid rules, there is no comparable regime in place for support granted by non-EU countries.
Commission to investigate and redress distortions
MEPs agreed that the Commission must be able to investigate and mitigate the effects of such support that can take the form of foreign capital injections, loans, fiscal incentives, tax exemptions and debt forgiveness.
In addition, the committee adopted amendments to make the tool more effective and improve legal certainty.
Lower thresholds
The committee lowered the thresholds above which companies would be obliged to inform the Commission about their foreign subsidies, extending the scope of the new rules to a larger number of acquisitions, mergers and public procurements.
Cutting red tape
MEPs also reduced red tape for companies by, for instance, shortening the period the Commission has to investigate foreign subsidies to companies. In addition, they call on the Commission to put forward guidelines on how to assess foreign subsidies and balance their market-distorting effects against their potential wider benefits.
More access for stakeholders
Finally, MEPs ensured that EU countries and companies can inform the Commission confidentially about potentially distortive subsidies, and that firms can consult the Commission informally on whether they need to notify it about their subsidies.
Quote
“Jean-Claude Juncker stated in 2018 that “Europe is open but not for the taking”. For that to be the case, it is about time we plugged the longstanding regulatory gap between the rigorous state aid control that European companies in the Single Market are subject to, and foreign companies that can compete in it while receiving distortive subsidies from foreign governments. Re-establishing fair competition on the EU’s Single Market is not only important for companies, but also to restore the faith of all Europeans in the virtues of global trade”, said Rapporteur Christophe Hansen (EPP, LU).
Next steps
Parliament is expected to vote on its position in plenary in early May. The adopted report will serve as the mandate for negotiations with the Council to agree on the final version of the new regulation for it to enter into force.
It is hard to imagine that it was in Mariupol land about two centuries ago that a man lived whose personality both his contemporaries and descendants compared with the personality of God’s prophet Moses. “Moses of the Mariupol Greeks” – this is the name of St. Ignatius of Mariupol, Metropolitan of Gottya and Kafay. Just as the prophet of biblical times, Moses, delivered the people of Israel from Egyptian slavery, so St. Ignatius delivered the Crimean Greeks from subjection to the Tatars.
The future Saint Ignatius was born in 1715 on the Greek island of Thermia (today’s Kythnos) into a noble, pious Gozadino family. His parents named him Jacob. Fermia Island at that time was under the rule of the Turks. The Greeks conquered by the Gentiles, although they had certain rights – both civil and religious – never forgot that their homeland was in the past the center of the entire Orthodox world. They dreamed of its revival and raised their children in this hope.
Monastic service
Jacob received his education in Venice, in the Greek College established there. In Greece itself, the state of education was then not the best. After school, Jacob felt a monastic vocation, took the blessing of his parents and went to Mount Athos, where one of his close relatives carried out the monastic feat. Jacob wholeheartedly loved the monastic life with renunciation of worldly fuss, therefore, as a young man, he took monastic tonsure with the name Ignatius in honor of the great Saint Ignatius the God-bearer. Having gone through all the hierarchical degrees of the priesthood, up to the episcopal rank, Ignatius (Gozadino) proved himself to be a kind and hardworking pastor, for which he earned the love and respect of his flock.
Metropolitan Sanctuary
In 1769, by decision of the Hierarchy, the bishop, in the rank of metropolitan, headed the Gottya-Kafai department in Tauris. He settled in the Holy Assumption Monastery near Bakhchisarai. At that time, the Holy Assumption Monastery was a beacon for all Christians of the peninsula. From this monastery St. Ignatius ruled the diocese, here he prayed for the flock, meditated on its difficult fate. The great-nephew of the Saint, Ignatii Ivanovich Gozadinov, tells about the life of the Greeks under the rule of the Tatars and cites horrific facts: “What was the life of the poor Greeks, completely enslaved by the Asian peoples? -an eyewitness, who at that time was a boy under the Metropolitan One Greek comes to His Eminence and says with tears: “Effendi! (This is how the Turks and Tatars call noble persons) Efendi! My four-year-old son, having heard the muezzin shout on the minaret: “Magomed irresul alla”, shouted the same himself; the Tatars seized the child and, saying that he had converted to Islam, Muslimized him.” “Efendi! calls another. – The Tartar knocked out the rest of the still burning tobacco from his pipe in the street in order to light a newly filled pipe from it. My old and almost blind father, without noticing this, stepped on the fire. Seeing this as an insult to himself, the Tatar, without hesitation, and without saying a word, shot him like a dog.
For seven difficult years St. Ignatius ruled his cathedra, offering tearful prayers for the oppressed flock. The Lord opened the way for deliverance from the oppression of his co-religionists. Like Moses, the difficult mission of the exodus of Orthodox Greeks from the Tatar Crimea to the Christian land of the Russian Sea of Azov was entrusted to St. Ignatius.
At the head of the Greek settlers
Diploma of Catherine II.
Made for the Crimean Greeks who moved to Russia
May 1779
When the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774 broke out. and Crimea was occupied by Russian troops in 1771, Archbishop Ignatius, through the commander of the Russian occupation corps in Crimea, V. M. Dolgorukov, sent letters to the Holy Synod and to Empress Catherine II with a request to accept Christians into Russian citizenship. Negotiations began, during which it was decided to start campaigning for the resettlement of Orthodox Greeks to the territory of the Russian Empire. Russia itself was interested in this resettlement, because 30 thousand people who could be withdrawn from the Crimea would significantly weaken the Crimean Khanate. The qualities of a diplomat helped Saint Ignatius obtain great economic and land benefits for his flock, but the main thing was that the Greek people had the opportunity to forever get rid of oppression in the sphere of religious life.
The call to begin preparations for the Exodus was made after the Divine Liturgy on April 23, 1778, in the cave church of the Holy Assumption Skete. Messengers throughout the peninsula alerted fellow believers. It is noteworthy that there was not a single traitor among the Greeks: the Turkish-Tatar authorities of the Crimea did not learn anything about the impending event and were unable to prevent it. Leaving the houses and graves of their ancestors, in the month of June, with the great shrine – the Bakhchisaray icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria, whose name translates as “Guide”, – the Greeks set off. They also took with them the icon of St. George the Victorious from the monastery on Fiolent.
Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov led the military side of the exodus, and Vladyka Ignatius led the spiritual and administrative side. About twenty thousand people left the Turkish-Tatar Crimea.
“The Great Transition of the Greeks to Azov”
Mariupol wood carver Georgy Korotkov
(cedar)
During the journey, the Greeks faced many difficulties and terrible illnesses, which were successfully overcome thanks to the prayers of Archpastor Ignatius. So, when an unknown terrible epidemic happened on the way, Saint Ignatius prayed to Hieromartyr Kharlampy, and the people were saved. Metropolitan Ignatius, sparing no effort, worked for his flock, helped them endure the hardships of the path – not a single person was bypassed by his care. But just as the Jews once lived in the wilderness, so the Greeks were not always grateful to the one who laid down his life for them. Many grumbled, offered to go back, complained about the difficulties of the path. However, nothing could lessen Vladyka’s love for his spiritual children, and he sincerely rejoiced that the miracle of God’s mercy had taken place and his people had been saved.
In the city of Mariupol
On the Russian coast of the Sea of Azov, where the settlers stopped, with the blessing of Metropolitan Ignatius, the city of Mariupol was founded, named after the Queen of Heaven, the Patroness of Christians on the road and in later life in a new place. Vladyka passed under the omophorion of the Russian Orthodox Church as a vicar bishop of the Kherson and Slavic diocese, retaining the title of Metropolitan of Gottya-Kafai. For the feat and courage shown, Empress Catherine II awarded the Saint with a high award – a diamond panagia.
The first concern of Metropolitan Ignatius was the arrangement of the spiritual life of the flock: living under the auspices of an Orthodox state, the Greeks were now free to confess the faith of Christ. Vladyka founded new settlements, built and consecrated temples in them. In one of the churches of Mariupol, an icon of the Mother of God brought from the Crimea was installed. Vladyka kept another icon – St. George the Victorious – in front of this icon, St. Ignatius constantly prayed for the well-being of his people.
The hardships of life in a new place, the danger of an attack by Turkish landing forces, which often landed on the coast in order to return the fugitives – all this aroused the murmur of faint-hearted people. They began to blame the Saint for all their troubles and discords. The Metropolitan endured everything with humility. Archbishop Gabriel of Kherson and Taurida, whose manuscript is in the Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities (Volume 1, 1861), indicates: He lived, along with the poorest of his fellow tribesmen, in a wretched, gloomy, damp dugout. Moreover, misfortune visited him here: a fire that broke out turned all his property to ashes, after which, although a comfortable house was built for him, but the saint did not find perfect peace in him, being disturbed by frequent upsets from his compatriots.
The manuscript of Archbishop Gabriel tells about the place where St. Ignatius stayed: “He chose a special place for spiritual rest, six miles from the city up the river Kalmius, where he planted a good orchard, building in it a stone cell for prayer. , also a stone, tiled house with five windows. Here the Right Reverend intended to build a monastery in the name of the great martyr and victorious George, especially revered by the Greeks; but with his death, all his noble intentions crossed.”
Attitude of compatriots
In 1786, after a two-week illness, Vladyka reposed in the Lord. He was buried in the first church in Mariupol – in the Cathedral of St. Kharlampy. But the ingratitude of compatriots did not dry up for a long time, both in relation to the saint and to his relatives. “The suburban orphanage of the Right Reverend has fallen into disrepair, the garden has died out with nettles, and the cells and the prayer house are being destroyed. With his death, the existence of the diocese of Gotthia and Kathia in Russia ceased to exist, with him it arose and lasted for almost seven years,” says Archbishop Gabriel.
The saint died on February 3, 1786, after a two-week illness. He was buried in the first church in Mariupol – the Cathedral of St. Haralamp.
After some time, the name of the saint, hitherto under the cover of semi-forgetfulness, again awakened a grateful memory of him among the Orthodox of the Russian Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov. Requiem services at the grave of the righteous man gathered many people, readings and historical research were conducted about his life and work.
In 1936, the atheists destroyed the St. Kharlampi Cathedral, and opened the coffin of the saint. Then it was discovered that his relics were incorruptible. During the occupation, when churches were reopened, his body was transferred to a church building. During the liberation of Mariupol on September 10, 1943, the city set on fire by the Germans burned, and the holy relics burned with it. Thus the prediction of the saint was fulfilled, that his body would be burned along with the city. And yet part of the relics survived. Through the efforts of believers, this part was kept by them until 1992, when the tomb with the shrine was transferred to the Mariupol Nikolo-Preobrazhensky port church.
On June 11, 1997, and on November 15, 1998, the Divine Liturgy and the rite of glorification of St. Ignatius of Mariupol, Metropolitan of Gottya and Kefay were served as locally venerated saints.
On November 30, 2017, the all-church veneration of St. Ignatius of Mariupol, Metropolitan of Gotha and Kafa, began with the inclusion of his name in the calendar.
John (Maximovitch) the Wonderworker (1896–1966) was a prominent Eastern Orthodox ascetic and hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) who was active in the mid-20th century. He was a pastor and spiritual father of high reputation and a reputed wonderworker to whom was attributed great powers of prophecy, clairvoyance and healing, and he is often referred to simply as “St. John the Wonderworker.”
St. John was born Mikhail Borisovich Maximovitch in 1896 in the village of Adamovka in the Kharkov Governorate (in present-day southern Ukraine). He came from the same family of Serbian origin as that of St. John of Tobolsk whom he was said to resemble in several respects. From 1907 to 1914 he attended Poltava Military School. He received a degree in law from Kharkov Imperial University in 1918. His family brought him to Belgrade in 1921, where in 1925 he graduated from Belgrade University with a degree in theology.
In 1926 he was tonsured a monk and ordained a hierodeacon by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who gave him the name of John after his saintly relative. Later that same year, he was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Gabriel of Chelyabinsk. For several years afterward he worked as an instructor and tutor. In 1934 he was ordained a bishop by Metropolitan Anthony and assigned to the diocese of Shanghai.
Shanghai
In Shanghai, Bishop John found an uncompleted cathedral and an Orthodox community deeply divided along ethnic lines. Making contact with all the various groups, he quickly involved himself in the existing charitable institutions and personally founded an orphanage and home for the children of indigents. It was here that he first became known for miracles attributed to his prayer, and as a public figure it was impossible for him to completely conceal his ascetic way of life. Despite his actions during theJapanese occupation, when he routinely ignored the curfew in pursuit of his pastoral activities, the Japanese authorities never harassed him. As the only Russian hierarch in China who refused to submit to the authority of the Soviet-dominatedRussian Orthodox Church, he was elevated to archbishop by the Holy Synod of ROCOR in 1946.
When the Communists took power in China, the Russian colony was forced to flee, first to a refugee camp on the island ofTubabao in the Philippines and then mainly to the United States and Australia. Archbishop John travelled personally toWashington, D.C. to ensure that his people would be allowed to enter the country.
Western Europe
In 1951 John was assigned to the archdiocese of Western Europe with his see first in Paris, then in Brussels. Thanks to his work in collecting lives of saints, a great many pre-Schism Western saints became known in Orthodoxy and continue to be venerated to this day. His charitable and pastoral work continued as it had in Shanghai, even among a much more widely scattered flock.
San Francisco
In 1962 John was once again reassigned by the Holy Synod to the see of San Francisco. Here too, he found a divided community and a cathedral in an unfinished state. Although he completed the building of Holy Virgin Cathedral and brought some measure of peace to the community he became the target of slander from those who became his political enemies, who went so far as to file a lawsuit against him for alleged mishandling of finances related to construction of the cathedral. He was exonerated, but this was a great cause of sorrow to him in his later life.
Deeply revering St. John of Kronstadt, John Maximovitch played an active role in preparation of his canonization.
Death and veneration
On July 2, 1966 (June 19 on the Julian calendar) St. John died while visiting Seattle at a time and place he was said to have foretold. He was entombed in a sepulchre beneath the altar of the Holy Virgin Cathedral he had built in San Francisco dedicated to the Theotokos, Joy of all who Sorrow on Geary Boulevard in the Richmond district. In 1994 he was solemnly glorified on the twenty-eighth anniversary of his death. His unembalmed relics now occupy a shrine in the cathedral’s nave. His feast day is celebrated on the Saturday nearest to the 2nd of July. He is beloved and celebrated worldwide, with portions of his relics located in Serbia, Russia, Mount Athos, Bulgaria, Romania, United States, Canada (Holy Trinity Serbian Orthodox Church, Kitchener), England (Dormition Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church, London) and other countries of the world.
Photo: Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, 1954.
European Parliament to discuss the resumption of hostilities in Nagorno Karabakh TheEuropeanTimes INFO
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted a series of proposals for a revision of the EU’s legislative process to strengthen EU democracy.
The right to initiate legislation is reserved almost entirely for the European Commission. Both the Council and the Parliament have an indirect right of initiative as they can request a legislative proposal from the Commission, which is not obliged to follow up. The Treaties grant Parliament a direct right of initiative only in specific cases, namely on rules for its own composition, European elections, and the duties of MEPs. The European Council is formally not a legislative body of the EU.
In the resolution adopted by the Constitutional Affairs Committee with 22 in favour, 5 against and one abstention, MEPs propose giving Parliament a “general and direct” right to initiate legislation, when the Treaties are next revised.
This would reflect the evolution of the EU’s institutions and restore balance to the EU’s institutional architecture, they say. Parliament’s right of initiative should be exclusive on matters where the democratic legitimacy and sovereignty of the European Union are concerned. The Commission could retain a concurrent right or keep a monopoly of legislative initiative in some areas, for example on budget matters. The Council could have a direct right of initiative in strictly defined areas, MEPs add.
Further changes to strengthen EU democracy
The committee calls for a new agreement with the Commission and Council to avoid deadlocks when Parliament uses its current right of initiative on institutional matters, such as the European electoral law.
Other examples of institutional imbalance include the lack of ratification of the last electoral law reform, Council’s refusal to negotiate on Parliament’s right of inquiry (in violation of the Treaties), and the de facto assumption of legislative rights by the European Council in the area of freedom, security and justice, MEPs agreed.
Finally, the Commission has not responded appropriately to Parliament’s existing indirect right of initiative on most occasions in the past (despite the current Commission President’s fulfilled commitment to always follow up on Parliament’s proposals) and needs to be enhanced as well, possibly through a revision of the relevant interinstitutional agreements.
“Parliament must be able to propose legislation. In fact, the existing rights of initiative and monopolies demonstrate that the institutional architecture of the EU is ready for rights to be distributed in a different way. It is possible and desirable to establish Parliament’s general direct right of initiative, and this responds to the constitutional aspiration of a more democratically legitimate Union.”
Interview: How I welcomed refugees – “Schools should be on the frontline of the full integration” – An interview with a teacher of a secondary school in Lisbon who gave asylum to a family of seven Ukrainian refugees. How easy (or difficult) is it to welcome a family of refugees? What can we do to help Ukrainian refugees? This interview adds perspective on the attitude of Europeans towards the Ukraine crisis, and the subsequent refugee crisis.
Is it possible for you to describe your action (the asylum of seven Ukrainian refugees)?
A friend of a friend of a friend knew I had an empty house and I was willing to receive refugees coming from Ukraine. She got in touch with me, sent me Kateryna’s phone number. I called her, and a few days later, I showed her the house and made plans for cleaning, new furniture, internet connection, and so on…
How did you give shelter to them? Did you cooperate with any institutions?
I did not contact any institution (although I already knew about the platform We Help Ukraine and was considering registering as willing to give help). I am now searching for the proper way to register the aid I’m giving just for security purposes (as I think it is important to know where the refugees are being lodged, who is in charge, what help is being provided, and so on).
What was the origin of your action?
The origins of the action are diverse: I had a free house; a friend (of a friend of a friend) knew a family that had just arrived from Ukraine and needed a place to stay; I consider it a moral obligation to help if one has the chance to do it without any relevant cost associated.
What do you think other people can do for Ukrainians?
I think there is a lot that can be done regarding the thousands of Ukrainians fleeing the war, both as individuals (citizens) and as states. As individuals, we can volunteer for help (with shelter, food, medical supplies and other commodities, help in their integration, with legal assistance or training in education, for instance with the Portuguese, etc.), and as states, we should further sanction Russian interests, help during wartime (mainly with humanitarian help) and in the reconstruction of the country as soon as the war is over (hopefully soon).
Schools should be on the frontline of the full integration of these Ukrainians in our country, and I sincerely hope we will rise to the challenge – students, teachers and the government. In September, we must be ready to welcome all children into our school system, if needed with Ukrainian interpreters, and give them the conditions not to lose yet another indispensable feature of their development. Having, for now, lost the chance to grow in peace where they were born, where their relatives and friends live(d) and where their memories still are, it’s important that they don’t lose the possibility to study, to practice their skills, music, sports, or whatever their interests may be, play, make friends, and so on. of these Ukrainians in our country, and I sincerely hope we will rise to the challenge – students, teachers and the government. In September, we must be ready to welcome all children into our school system, if needed with Ukrainian interpreters, and give them the conditions not to lose yet another indispensable feature of their development. Having, for now, lost the chance to grow in peace where they were born, where their relatives and friends live(d) and where their memories still are, it’s important that they don’t lose the possibility to study, to practice their skills, music, sports, or whatever their interests may be, play, make friends, and so on.
Apart from individual help and the legal framework provided by the government (among other initiatives, we should commend the decision of an expeditious “legalization” of these fellow Europeans), I think that some major companies should also have a role to play. For instance, in order to provide my guests with internet service, I am still subject to a 2 year loyalty period (or an initial fee of 400 euros) and I have not seen any package offered by any telecom company that offers any special conditions to people that must be very dependent on good internet access to keep in touch with those they left behind or to guide and adapt themselves to a new country, a new language, different habits, and so on.
I will add a more personal reflection to what I’ve said, which makes me feel quite uncomfortable: I wonder if there is an element of racism in the abysmal difference between our commitment to the Ukrainian refugees and the previous wave of refugees coming from North Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan. And my discomfort rests on the assumption that there is no moral or philosophical background that can justify discrimination on the basis of national borders, the colour of skin, or cultural and religious identity. So the issue isn’t so much that we aren’t doing the right thing–we are!–but rather whether we are consistent and courageous enough to foster an attitude of universal hospitality.
Can you describe the contact that you have with the family?
I’ve been keeping regular contact as we’ve been adapting the house (long closed) to a new large family. I’ve also offered my help with legal issues, job opportunities, and learning Portuguese (they are now having daily classes in a Portuguese school between 6 pm and 10 pm). Although I kept regular contact and visits, I also wanted to give them their space and a sense of autonomy and efficiency (so whatever they could do by themselves, and if they preferred to do it themselves, I chose to “withdraw”).
My main criterion has been: were I in their place (hard to imagine…), what would I prefer? And even though slavs can be very different from Latins, they too love their children, thrive for peace and prosperity, value friendship, honesty and justice, etc. (By the way, I’ve often remembered in these weeks the motto from the sixties “Justice, not charity”, which I think we should all keep in mind in the current scenario).
How do you view your action? What do you think about helping a family going through such a difficult time?
I have no special views on my own actions. I just thought it was the right thing to do. I could easily do it. There is nothing else worth mentioning about it. Those who decided to stay and fight, as well as those who decided to flee and face the dangers of the journey, were brave. My choice was, by comparison, very easy.
My main concern has been to make them feel like guests rather than refugees and to make them feel safe – in a foreign country, with hosts they don’t know (yet!) and a language they can’t speak nor understand (yet!). So far, I think I succeeded in making them feel at ease, and I just hope their welcome is a way to find the peace that, for the time being, they are not able to find at home.
