ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS MISTAKES we could make when addressing the coronavirus pandemic, would be to limit ourselves to the analysis and description of this plague, forgetting about the more or less recent past, and simultaneously, moving away from the future, from the social consequences and from the debates that with total security we will have within our society. We must not only focus on the present, but we have an obligation to go deeper on “where we come from” and “where we are going”.
It is an unquestionable truth that today we are one-eyed, confused, even in some aspects blind, before this new and unpredictable challenge for our generation. It does not have to surprise us, it is logical, it is normal. But personally and collectively, we have the obligation to offer a certain light, which we possess at all times, however dim and limited it may be, starting with what each of us is receiving as life lessons in the face of the outbreak of the pandemic. As little as it may be, each of us has learned and internalized something of this new situation, and we must not hide or conceal it, or be ashamed to do so because of our own doubts in the face of the difficulty of a complicated forecast. On the contrary, we have to state it, explain it and communicate it.
The stage prior to the pandemic
The Platform of European thinkers One of Us, the people who are part of it, have revealed and alerted about the depth of the crisis in which we lived. On multiple occasions, with different accents, words and expressions, we have diagnosed the severity of it. The failure of modern man, a crisis of civilization, the end of a historical stage after the Second World War, disorder as the main and growing characteristic of our society, an anthropological crisis, the relentless prevalence of lies about truth, the growing lack of permanent references, a relativism with totalitarian overtones, constitute examples and references of a previous diagnosis of the coronavirus, which was born from this Platform. The very launching Manifesto of the Platform in defense of human dignity constitutes the best confirmation of a diagnosis determined by a rupture, a sum of fractures, of a set of indispensable balances in a society like ours, which alters nature and the dignity of the person. This lack of “balance, of a social order” was transforming at its root the nature of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights into a new statement of supposed new rights, contrary to human dignity. Likewise, it is necessary to remember today that the first initiative of this platform meant the launch of an Observatory of Values, an Observatory of the Crisis, of the disorder in the European scope from a diagnosis in each of our countries.
It is not a question of taking advantage of this dramatic circumstance to impose our deepest convictions. It is not about making the Spanish saying good : “Taking advantage of the fact that Pisuerga passes through Valladolid”. Not, the objective of the Platform is that at least we do not forget “where we come from”, as is generally the case today in the media. The virus is the extreme manifestation of a disorder, but it had been previously announced and denounced, as an unequivocal reality. If before the virus the “rectification” of a way of life was already necessary, after the pandemic and its social consequences, even more. If the prevalence of lies over truth was a dominant element yesterday, if this reality continues, tomorrow it will be suicide. What it is about is that the exaggerated dogmatism of those who, very sure of themselves, were determined to ridicule and persecute all the expressions and manifestations based on the value of transcendence and the Christian faith, as evidenced in many laws, directives, legislative and government resolutions, cessation.
What it is about is that analyzing the situation prior to the pandemic, we continue to promote a moral rearmament, trying to convince many that current contempt for our religious dimension cannot continue, from the confirmation that supremacy material, overwhelming on the spiritual does not lead us to any progress. In this context of starting the activity of our Platform, and with a certainly disturbing diagnosis, today’s pandemic breaks out.
The coronavirus today
The first big question we must ask ourselves is whether or not there has been a change of personal attitude to date to the experience we are undergoing. The question is whether this virus is changing our consciousness, our attitude towards life. The question that is open to us today is whether this examination of conscience is already a reality in our lives or whether, on the contrary, the idea prevails that the pandemic will have a circumstantial nature, but that it will not alter our approach to our way of life. In short, we must ask ourselves if our main objective, rather than a rectification, is based on the way to achieve the level and the way of life that prevailed before the pandemic. This means that our main contribution that we can put into practice today from the Platform and from a personal level is to ask ourselves about the deep or superficial changes that we are experiencing within us, so that we can then explain and communicate to all of our society. This should be our main service today.
How many times have we reiterated before the pandemic that the crisis is in the person, and that therefore, the solution will also be in the person, in a change of personal attitude. Let’s start with ourselves, by myself, trying to explain what I consider that these weeks of confinement have changed me the most. In the first place, I recognize that the degree and perception of our limitations have been accentuated within me, both personally and collectively. How easily a simple virus has turned our society “upside down”, defenseless, insecure, unnerved, full of uncertainties, when, very recently, it seemed so self-assured, settled and reinforced in a relativist with authoritarian overtones. A relativism that, at the same time, was so implacable and contemptuous with all that and those whom it considered to be hindrances of the past, hindrances that had to be destroyed so as not to disturb the progress of the present and the future. A virus has forced us to confine ourselves, to hide in our houses, probably for good reason.
This reflection leads us to a second consideration: fear has taken hold of us and the death that we felt so far has come closer to our lives, and I think we have the feeling that it is closer today than we thought yesterday.
The third personal consideration refers to the fact that in one way or another, I am modifying a certain hierarchy of values. We value more at home what we did not appreciate before with the same intensity as today. On the contrary, we do not find such important issues to which we attached great importance yesterday. Today I appreciate more than ever the value of life, the illusion of living, the importance of family and loved ones, the example that our little daughter, a doctor, is giving us, away from our house for fear of infecting her parents. Today I appreciate and seek more than ever the meaning of a religious and spiritual dimension in our daily life.
To the extent that we are able to delve deeper, to dedicate time to what this coronavirus irruption has changed for ourselves, we will be able to transfer some conviction to the rest of our society. If, on the contrary, there is only an ethereal and superficial feeling in that answer to our question, we will be unable to contribute to and influence the whole of our society.
There are also other considerations that this virus has raised for me, this time in the public sphere. This virus has brought us closer to the possibility of self-destruction of human beings, beyond the fact that this virus comes or not from a Chinese military laboratory. What we have to be convinced of is that in the future, some wicked minds may already have realized the disturbing nature of a phenomenon of this nature. In short, this personal task of an interior nature must be the first great objective of the members of the Platform. It is necessary to encourage and encourage the exchange of impressions and reflections of all its members on this matter, starting with making explicit what has changed in ourselves.
The debates of the future
If the pre-pandemic situation was presided over by a lack of necessary balance in our society, if the pandemic has multiplied the disorder, it is not risky to predict that we are going to live a great debate on the western model of society. Obviously, the pandemic does not end in itself. If it was preceded by a great moral crisis, if the immediate horizon is an unprecedented economic and social crisis for our generation, what is certain is that it will put on the table, it will drive a great debate on the model of society of our future.
As I have reiterated, we are not facing a still photograph, before a single debate linked to the governments’ response to the pandemic, which in the end will be the least relevant. We have to have the capacity to go ahead, to imagine and understand the great debates that are going to accelerate in our society in the coming years. The coronavirus is going to be a catalyst and trigger for this great social debate regarding the meaning and nature of a western and democratic society today, a debate that, on the other hand, was before us for a long time. Waking up after this eruption of the coronavirus will be bitter, traumatic, and dramatic for many Europeans. It is also true that the intensity and drama of this debate will not be the same, identical in European countries. In some nations, such as Spain, the debate on a model of society will acquire a very relevant dimension and will dangerously polarize Spaniards, politically and socially. I dare not predict the degree of festering and polarization in other European countries. But let no one reassure himself thinking about his nation that this debate is not going to be relevant. It is sure that it will be, it will reach, before than later, all European countries, although some are already at the forefront of it. History teaches us that these debates are not closed and limited to one country or another. I want to remember that the Platform is European, and its dimension is correct, even if it complicates our task by the different rhythms of the societal debate that are going to take place within us.
I end with a series of risks that are deduced from these lines :
The first risk is that nothing changes in our consciences, that we do not make an inexcusable examination of conscience, either personally or collectively, and that therefore, the need for a rectification process is not understood. As I have said before, our main failure is that the great objective of the majority is simply to aspire to live as before. That is, to close the door to regeneration, rectification, change and transformation, starting with oneself.
But there is no doubt that in addition to this risk, there are other great risks in the social field ; The maximum polarization in some places in our society, the desire to return from much more authoritarian regimes, the loss of the value of freedom, collectivist solutions and at the same time, the risk of individualistic selfishness, and also the debate about the meaning and the reason for the European Union. But we do have to start this reflection by stressing that the accent of this Platform in the defense of human dignity was correct. We were not wrong with the title of the Platform Manifesto. We were not confused when we also intuited both the dimension of the crisis and the disorder, when we launched an Observatory of Values, an Observatory of the Crisis. If we were in the right direction, we are obliged to update the contents of this Platform, as well as the activities to be carried out. This Platform must necessarily be more present than ever before the different debates related to the model of society that are going to open up immediately.
