There are things I did during my wife’s final illness that, had you asked me beforehand, I would have said I could never do. Not would not, could not. The distinction matters.
When the time came, I did them. Not heroically – there was nothing heroic about it. I did them because the fact of her need, fully accepted, left me no honest alternative. The decision space had collapsed. What had looked, in the abstract, like a wide field of options turned out, on the ground, to be a very short list.
On that list, when she wasn’t hospitalized, was waking every forty-five minutes through the night to help her roll over. She could not do it herself.
I thought about this recently when reading a Medal of Honor citation. The recipient, in the aftermath, said what so many of them say: “I just did what anyone would have done.” This is usually taken as modesty. I no longer think that’s what it is.
Consider what Major Jay Vargas faced over three days at Dai Do, Vietnam, in May 1968. He entered the second day already wounded from relocating his unit under fire the day before. He led the attack anyway, crossing seven hundred meters of open rice paddy under mortar, rocket, and artillery fire. Hit again by grenade fragments, he refused aid, reorganized his perimeter, and held it through the night against repeated counterattacks.
On the third day, wounded a third time, he watched his battalion commander go down with a serious injury. He crossed the fire-swept ground, carried the man to cover, and returned to supervising the defense. His citation records not what he endured but what he did each time a new challenge arose.
When men like Vargas say afterward that anyone would have done it, they are making a precise claim: that the facts, fully accepted, corner you. At each point across those three days, two of his three options were evasions: run or collapse. One was not. Courage, in this account, is not a superhuman quality. It is the refusal to lie about what the situation requires.
Aristotle would recognize this. For him, courage is not the absence of fear. The courageous man feels fear, as any sane person would with multiple shrapnel and bullet wounds. Courage is the correct response to the situation as it actually is. The coward and the man who runs are not lacking in feeling. They are evading the fact. The courageous man is simply the one who doesn’t.
This is a pattern, not an exception. Facts, genuinely accepted, narrow your options. Often to a binary. The diagnosis that cannot be unfound. The child who needs feeding. The friend you have watched fall.
In each case, there is a version of yourself that knew, in the abstract, that such things happen. But now, at a concrete moment, you must respond to the fact that it is happening. The second version has fewer choices available than the first. That is not a loss. It is a form of clarity.
Fr. Luigi Giussani was an Italian priest who founded Communion and Liberation, one of the most significant Catholic renewal movements of the twentieth century. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) celebrated his friend’s funeral Mass in 2005 at the Duomo in Milan. His central intellectual achievement is a trilogy – The Religious Sense, At the Origin of the Christian Claim, and Why the Church? – which argues that Christianity must be encountered as a living reality.
In the second volume Giussani makes the distinction that snaps our earlier examples into focus. All of human religious history, he argues, can be understood as man reaching upward toward the mystery – imagining it, constructing systems to approach it, building what he calls bridges with a thousand arches between earth and heaven.
‘This is a noble effort. It is also, he says, an effort that by its nature cannot complete itself. The mystery, properly understood, exceeds reason’s reach. The horizon recedes as you approach it.
But then something changes the question entirely. Into the plain full of bridge-builders comes a man who says: Stop. You will never build your way to the other side. I am the other side. Follow me.
This is not a philosophical proposal. It is not a doctrine to be evaluated or a moral system to be assessed. It is a claim – historical, particular, scandalous. Scandalous in the precise Greek sense of skandalon: a stumbling block you cannot simply step around.
Kierkegaard put it with characteristic bluntness: the basest form of scandal is to leave the problem of Christ without a solution. That Christianity has been announced to you means you must take a position. He himself, or the fact that He existed, is the one decision to be made in life.
Notice the structure. Once you have genuinely heard the claim – not processed it as background noise, not filed it among interesting ideas – the decision space narrows.
Not to a comfortable range of considered responses, but to yes or no. Acceptance or evasion. After the disruption, most of the bridge-workers in Giussani’s parable went back to work at their bosses’ orders. By so doing, they were not withholding judgment. They were rendering it.
This is what makes mere cultural Christianity – Christianity as just inheritance, as atmosphere, as moral framework – something different from what Giussani is describing.
It is possible to live inside the forms of Christianity while having never actually accepted the Fact of Jesus Christ. To have heard the claim and left it, as Kierkegaard says, without a solution. That is not neutrality. It is an answer.
The Medal of Honor recipient is right. Once you accept the fact in front of you, “most people” do what must be done. The larger question is whether you will accept it.
