A day after National Heroes Day, Facebook reminded me of an old post which may still be worth reading:
What constitutes heroism? In other words, what makes a hero a hero?
Is it the holiday celebrated in their honor that makes them heroes? Well, Dec. 30 is Rizal Day, and Nov. 30 is (or used to be) Bonifacio Day. But not all heroes are feted with national holidays. There is no national holiday for Diego Silang and Leon Kilat. If ever there are holidays for Apolinario Mabini and Marcelo H. del Pilar, these are celebrated only in their respective provinces or hometowns. In fact, National Heroes Day should be a time to remember those heroes without any declared holiday in their honor.
Is it necessary to die for a particular cause to be considered a hero? Rizal and Bonifacio were both executed. Sadly, Bonifacio was killed not by the Spaniards but by his fellow revolutionaries. Gregorio del Pilar was killed in the battle of Tirad Pass. Ninoy Aquino was also martyred by the forces of the dictatorship. But Mabini and del Pilar died a natural death. Furthermore, to include martyrdom as a prerequisite for heroism would negate the concept of day-to-day heroism of many people who are still very much alive, like the OFWs and the honest bureaucrat.
Is moral perfection necessary to be called a hero? Not so. Juan Luna’s art may have contributed to the pride of our own race but he killed his own wife and mother-in-law. He was subsequently acquitted, for his act was described by the court as coming from passion. Oskar Schindler may be a hero for saving the lives of more than a thousand Jews but he was a womanizer. The bravery of Emilio Aguinaldo is not in question but what was his involvement in the death of Bonifacio?
Is it necessary to be successful in the cause one is fighting for? Nelson Mandela won independence for South Africa. Mahatma Gandhi drove the British out of India. Martin Luther King Jr. was relatively successful in fighting for the civil rights of the African Americans. Cory Aquino was able to restore democracy in the Philippines. But not all heroes are successful. Mabini must have felt disillusioned because, even as he continued to resist the Americans, many Filipinos welcomed them. Simon Bolivar failed in his desire to unite all countries of South America.
Is it necessary to be consciously fighting against a corrupt and unjust status quo? This question reminds me of an opinion of my Church History professor, Fr. John Schumacher, SJ. He asserted that Francis of Assisi was not fighting against the perceived opulence of the Church. He and his community of friars simply lived in poverty and protest was not their motivation.
After all these considerations, we go back to the question, “What constitutes heroism?” I think one common denominator of heroes is that they live their lives for something bigger than their own selves. This denominator would immediately exclude those responsible for the fraudulent and even non-existent flood control projects. These people could not go beyond their own greed.
The cause that is bigger than one’s self can include national independence, human rights, cleaner environment, justice and peace, a more equitable distribution of wealth, honest and transparent leadership in the government and in the Church, and many others.
Followers of Jesus are called to a heroic discipleship. The cause that is bigger than themselves is the construction of the reign of God. They are called to proclaim and live the values of the kingdom and denounce its disvalues.
The disciples of the historical Jesus were warned of the dangers of following him. They were to follow him not just in the sense of practicing what he taught. Since he was an itinerant preacher, to “follow” him was understood in the physical and geographical sense. This would entail leaving behind their families and livelihood. And there was the risk of hostility from authorities which could result in losing one’s life. To follow him was a call to heroism.
Needless to say, Jesus was himself a hero. He did not stay silent and neutral. He could have chosen not to criticize the religious and civil authorities. If he chose to be neutral, he would have lived beyond 33 years old. Do we not believe that we are saved by his heroism?