#439: After That October Day, America Would Never Be the Same

Last month’s US visit by Pope Francis was the most recent chapter in a story that began 50 years ago this month.

Except for Church insiders and those following the extended reporting of John Cogley in the New York Times or “Xavier Rynne” in the New Yorker, the seismic shift of Vatican II (1962-1965) meant little to Americans, including American Catholics, until the first shockwave reached our shores in the Fall of 1965.

This is the moment when Paul VI broke all tradition and precedent (popes had been, quite literally, “prisoners of the Vatican” for the previous 94 years) by traveling across the Atlantic to deliver his Church’s message to the world. Pope Paul VI, the “Pilgrim Pope,” became the first pope to ever visit the United States.

The scene was the stuff of high theater…

Shortly after Amintore Fanfani, Foreign Minister of Italy and President of the twentieth session of the United Nations General Assembly, had called the meeting to order, he and Secretary General U Thant provided the official escort down the main aisle. Soon, only the slim, white-robed figure stood at the green marble rostrum.

     Pope Paul VI, only hours from his arrival, had already presided over a special service at St. Patrick's Cathedral and met with President Lyndon Johnson at Waldorf Towers under the tightest security precautions ever taken in New York City; that meeting had to be “private” because the U.S. did not yet have diplomatic relations with the Vatican City, so this was not officially a State Visit. Quite a contrast with 2015, when both the White House and the Congress officially welcomed the pope as a visiting Head of State!

Later, Pope Paul would present U Thant with a diamond-studded cross and ring (valued at $115, 000, to be sold to raise funds for alleviating world hunger), meet with a small interfaith group at Holy Family Church on East 47th Street, celebrate Mass before 90,000 people at Yankee Stadium, and visit the Vatican Pavilion at the New York World's Fair to gaze at Michelangelo's Pieta before flying back to Rome.

The Papal Mass Yankee Stadium

But this was moment he had really come for--the moment he had been invited for when planning for a UN conference on "Peace on Earth" began at Santa Barbara's Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in 1963. Since the Center's inspiration came from John XXIII's encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, it had seemed fitting to invite his successor to address the UN. Now he stood before the General Assembly, the first Pope to visit the New World. He spoke in French.

     Many listeners expected no more than polite and pious boilerplate, but he had not made the trip for nothing. As Drew Middleton of the New York Times reported, "The Pontiff's address, with its emphasis on universality, disarmament and the development of a world authority, went far beyond the simple pleas expected by most of the delegates." In fact, Paul delivered one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century.

Pope Paul Addressing the UN General Assembly

Specifically, Paul appealed to outlaw all nuclear weapons, issued his famous "Jamais plus de guerre!" cry, urged more concerted action on hunger, and, in "the most controversial part of the speech," advised the UN to admit Red China. Most surprising and significant of all, however, were the Pope's extended remarks about his own church and the UN itself. He began by characterizing the trip's importance from the Catholic point of view:

Like a messenger who, after a long journey, finally succeeds in delivering the letter which has been entrusted to him, so we appreciate the good fortune of this moment, however brief, which fulfills a desire nourished in the heart for nearly twenty centuries. For, as you well remember, we are very ancient; we here represent a long history; we here celebrate the epilogue of a weary pilgrimage in search of a conversation with the entire world, ever since the command was given to us: Go and bring the good news to all peoples. .

Next, he challenged the UN to an extraordinarily exalted view of its own mission:

Now, you represent all peoples...The edifice which you have constructed must never fall; it must be perfected and made equal to the needs which world history will present. You mark a stage in the development of mankind from which retreat must never be admitted, but from which it is necessary that advance be made.

The Pope paused. Then, in the measured tones of the career diplomat he was, he sharpened his point by comparing the UN's global mission to Catholicism's:

You are a bridge between peoples. You are a network of relations between states. We would almost say that your chief characteristic is a reflection, as it were, in the temporal field, of what our Catholic church aspires to be in the spiritual field: unique and universal. Your vocation is to make brothers not only of some, but of all people.

Finally, he sought to convince his listeners that his Church's own concern with humanity's spiritual needs should link, rather than separate, the two organizations:

This edifice which you are constructing does not rest upon merely material and earthly foundations, for thus it would be a house built upon sand; above all, it is based on our own consciences. The hour has struck for our "conversion," for personal transformation, for interior renewal. We must get used to thinking of humanity in a new way...With a new manner, too, of conceiving the paths of history and the destiny of the world...The edifice of modern civilization must be built upon spiritual principles which alone can, not only support it, but even illuminate and animate it.

     It was October 8, 1965. Vatican Council II would end just eight weeks later, but until now it had remained a distant blip on most Americans’ radar. Paul had used this speech to announce the Council’s agenda in the most public way imaginable.

Demands on New York's communication system were greater than for the Kennedy funeral and the five Gemini moon shots combined; A.M. Rosenthal, then the Times' metropolitan editor, called it "the saddest professional day in our lives," because a strike kept the paper's papal coverage off the stands.  But millions saw the TV coverage of the pope landing in New York, the pope meeting the President of the United States, the pope before the UN, the Pope saying mass at Yankee Stadium.

Even then, however, few observers realized that the agenda Paul proclaimed simply as his Church’s “weary pilgrimage in search of a conversation” had already put this vast and ancient organization on a collision course with its own past.

The stated intention at Vatican II was not “collision’” of course; it was “renewal.” Even so, anything new in an institution so old, any move from point A to point B, held the risk of disrupting long-accepted ways.

Francis in America

Vatican II set a course correction for the world’s largest organization, and 50 years later that course is still disputed. But the recent visit by Francis has made 2 things perfectly clear. First, the place of the Catholic Church in American life is more public and powerful than ever before. Second, Francis intends to steer that Church back onto the course intended by Vatican II, especially by his insistent focus on the twin “north stars” of Mercy and Justice.

And thus our Church continues that “conversation with the entire world” that Paul VI began 50 years ago.

Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015

#433: 10 Reasons Why Pope Francis’ Ecology Encyclical Is a Game Changer—Part 2

As Pope Francis begins his campaign for an environmental revolution by traveling to Latin America this week, I list 5 more reasons why his new encyclical may well mobilize enough support to bring real change. 

6. Francis Draws from Catholicism’s Core.  Conservative naysayers can complain all they want that France and should “stick with his job,” should “keep out of politics,” should “focus on making us better people.” It is all camouflage designed to disguise either their ignorance or the truth or both.  The fact is that Francis is synthesizing 20 centuries of an evolving Christian worldview and 125 years of modern Catholic social teaching to arrive at his positions.  His job as pope is to communicate the Catholic tradition to the world and offer its wisdom for the benefit of all.  That tradition, at its core, rejects hard divisions between religion, social justice, and politics. The Church’s engagement in social justice issues is long-standing, and its concern for the environment is rooted in the Book of Genesis. The naysayers don’t understand (or don’t WANT to understand) either Catholicism or the modern papacy (see #7).

Moreover conservative Catholics should be wary: by dismissing or undermining France’s integral vision they expose themselves as people whose economic and political values come from the conventional wisdom of modern secular culture, rather than from their own faith tradition. In short, Francis has become a challenge to their Catholic identity.

7. A New Role for the Papacy.  I have argued before that every pope since John XXIII (1958-1963) has transformed the papacy in some way.  Thus Francis was elected to an office vastly different from the papacy of Pius XII (1939-1958), who never left the Vatican but ruled his flock in isolated, regal splendor.  John XXIII deleted the pomp and opened the Vatican; Paul VI (1963-1978) became the “Pilgrim Pope” for his wide travels (including his historic U.S. visit in 1965); John-Paul I (1978) was the “Smiling Pope”; John-Paul II (1978-2005) was pope as global globetrotting superstar; Benedict XVI’s (2005-2013) resignation ended the papacy as a lifelong office.

Now Francis is positioning the papacy as the world’s most visible protector of the planet.  This also makes the papacy the world’s strongest voice promoting the future of humanity--and especially the future of humanity beyond the prevailing capitalist model.

8. Confronting Power with Truth.  Those committed to (or bought by) the system Francis criticizes have resorted to every sort of ad hominem attack, calling him “out of is depth,” “socialist,” “sounding more like Marx and Stalin than Jesus,” or even “anti-Christ.”

These people have two things in common: they all speak for the powers that be and they are all in denial.  They deny the science of climate change.  They deny the flaws of capitalism, especially its centralization of unaccountable power and its role in promoting inequality and thereby violence and terrorism.  They deny the exploitation of global trade.  They deny the ongoing destruction of our energy, our waters, our air, our food supply.  They deny the soul-deadening impact of consumer culture.  They deny what Francis has called “the globalization of indifference.” Above all they deny his call to make the common good priority #1.

But Francis speaks the truth, and he represents not the 1% who hold the planet’s power, but the 99%--and especially the very poor, whose future is bleak unless someone--someone like Francis--has courage, the humility, and the wisdom to speak truth to power. 

9. Breaking Down the Walls.  Perhaps the chief way the powerful protect their power is by constructing phony “walls” that separate life on our global home into neat compartments. This allows the powerful to pretend either (1) that all is well, since no one compartment threatens global disaster by itself or (2) but nothing can be done, since reforming any ONE compartment will not solve our problems--or, worse, will create others.

Against this phony worldview, Francis offers a comprehensive, holistic vision that breaks down the phony barriers.  In that vision, environmentalism and economics and business and public policy and politics and social justice and politics and human solidarity all fit together--for better or for worse.  Thus, when someone says that he should “avoid environmental issues and stick to talking about human sin,” Francis has this direct reply: our current environmental practices are human sin! 

In short, the pope’s “integral ecology” leaves no place to hide, no room for evasion, no loophole to pretend that our global life is just unconnected compartments.  For him, we are all one human family who inhabit one globe and need one a strategy to secure its future.

10. The “Bulliest” Pulpit.  One irony of Catholic social thinking, which tends to be more “leftist” than the Democratic Party, is that since 1891 most of its development has been driven by papal documents.  Thus a vision championing the poor and protecting the dignity of each person has emerged mostly through proclamations from on high. 

But in this encyclical we see a change.  Instead of a life-long diplomat (as was Paul VI) offering his Olympian views, we get a longtime bishop from the barrios of Buenos Aires.  Instead of a former academic (Benedict XVI) providing scholarly analysis, we get an activist. Instead of a native of Europe offering hope to the third world, we have a natural-born third-worlder speaking up for his own southern half of the world.  And instead of a document content to quote scholars and scriptures and official proclamations, we get significant input from the on-the-ground insight of bishops’ conferences from around the world.

In other words, when we read Francis we are not reading simply one man’s words.  We are reading the words of many leaders, who work with many of the world’s poorest people.  Francis is not just speaking to the whole world he is speaking for the whole world. And his pulpit is not confined to a church; his pulpit is the planet itself.

Of course, no single document can change the world.  But a single document can be the catalyst, the tipping point that pushes a revolutionary vision from futile resistance to active momentum.  If Francis’ words can mobilize widespread suffering into discontented solidarity, than perhaps it will bring the courage that millions--no, billions--need to finally say “we want a better world, more livable future--and we can have it!” And with that, Francis will have changed the game from hopeless suffering to hopeful joy.

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015

#432: “Everything is Connected”—10 Reasons Why Pope Francis’ Ecology Encyclical is a Game Changer

The wave of media attention that initially greeted Pope Francis’ new encyclical was submerged almost immediately by last week’s news cycle, moving from the Charleston shootings to the free trade vote to the Obamacare victory to the legalization of same-sex marriage. But the real test is: what impact will Francis’ document have long term?

Few actions by any pope have received as much public attention (from media, candidates, office holders, scholars, and ordinary readers) as Pope Francis’ new ecology encyclical “Laudato Si’: On Care For Our Common Home.” Naturally, some embrace it, some dismiss it, some rationalize their opposition, others debate its pros and cons. But in the eyes of history, these reactions matter less than the answer to the most basic question: “Will it make any difference?” 

My quick response, after merely scanning the document and its commentators, is “Yes, this document could indeed turn out to be the game changer that alters the course of public policy, business practice, and personal behavior for years to come.” I offer 10 reasons. 

1. A Compelling Vision in which “Everything is Connected.” Many commentators wrongly described the encyclical’s theme as “climate change.” In fact Francis presents climate change as just one piece of a much bigger puzzle. He roots the problem of climate change in runaway carbon emissions, which are generated by our unsustainable reliance on fuels needed to power a runaway capitalist system that treats self-interest and greed as our most important social virtues. This system despoils the global environment while generating not only intolerable levels of pollution but also intolerable levels of inequality. The result, he says will be a progressive degrading of earth’s ecological systems which, while caused by the world’s wealthy, will disproportionately affect the world’s poor. Violent resistance (what Francis says is already "World War III") will continue to block the road to peace. The solution to this massively dysfunctional global system is nothing less than a planetary ethical revolution that dethrones runaway capitalism as we know it and replaces it with a system that reflects more authentically humane values. 

In short, rather than focusing on science or environmentalism or economics or public policy or social justice or religion--Pope Francis has integrated them all into one big coherent vision. No wonder he calls it “integral ecology”: it is not just the “big picture,” it is the biggest picture of all. 

2. Perfect Timing, Part 1. Elected in March 2013, Francis has arrived in the world stage at the very moment of history when our ecological challenges are approaching the crisis point. The signs of environmental decline are everywhere. The scientific consensus makes a compelling case for action, and the resistance to economic inequality is cresting. Across the globe, hundreds of millions of people--especially the poor--sense the urgent need for change and demonstrate their unwillingness to passively accept the words of those defending the status quo. It is at this moment that the papacy--one of the planet’s few truly global offices--is occupied by a certified champion of the poor from a southern hemisphere country, trained in chemistry, whose warm simplicity has made him the most popular man in the world and given his voice a public power without rival. At the very moment any revolution would need a moral authority to believe in, Francis is the man of the hour.

3. Perfect Timing, Part 2. In the next six months at least four major events will provide Francis high-profile opportunities to promote his message. In September he will visit the U.S., and will become the first pope ever to address a joint session of Congress, where his audience will include enough climate change deniers, unfettered free market apologists, and 1% millionaires to sink Noah’s Ark. They will have no choice but to listen, and they will also know that millions of American viewers are also hearing this stunningly popular man speak truth to power. They may not like what they hear, but they will dismiss his message at their own peril.
The pope will also address the General Assembly of the United Nations, where his message will have an international (even global) audience. And since the U.N. has already taken the lead on environmental matters, Francis will be linking his moral authority and the global reach of his Church (2/3 all Catholics live south of the equator) with the political influence of another international organization.

December will bring two more events. December marks the 50th anniversary of the closing session of Vatican Council II, which secured the support of the world’s 2000 Catholic bishops for much of the vision that Francis has embraced. And the U.N.’s own summit conference on climate change will be held in Paris, where delegates pushing for radical governmental reforms and regulations will find ample ammunition in Francis’ vision.

Francis of Assisi, Patron of the Environment

4. Linking Faith and Science. Since Galileo, faith and science have too often seemed at odds, going their separate ways and even forming separate and conflicting worldviews. (The Catholic Church has not always been the worst of offender: witness how fundamentalist Christians have dug in their heels by proposing “creationism” to deny evolution.) The result has been a scientific community that often shies away from ethical categories to avoid unscientific intrusions. But Vatican II’s vision called for the reconciliation of science’s power with the wisdom needed to guide it toward the common good. And now Francis has linked the wisdom of Catholic social teaching to the powerful scientific consensus of our day--and the scientific community is acknowledging that this can give their concerns both a popular and a political impact they cannot achieve on their own. This historic breakthrough might even restore the ancient notion that faith and reason are only truly relevant if they are together.

5. Preaching Beyond the Choir. Like John XXIII before him, Francis addresses not just Catholics, but “every person living on this planet.” He is speaking on issues that concern us all, and he is evoking facts and values that are relevant to us all. He seems perfectly aware that his papal office allows him to command worldwide attention, and moreover he seems perfectly ready to use the office to do just that. Stop and think: what other public official can command such attention?

NEXT: 5 More Reasons

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2015

#424: All in the Francis Family?

The 2014 Synod on the Family offered echoes of the past and hopeful clues to the future.

Last month’s Synod on the Family in Rome is still fresh news for two reasons.  First, its work will not really be done until the end of another Synod, to take place in the fall of 2015.  Second, the work the Synod has accomplished already provides significant pointers for the direction of Catholic life.

The Synod is shaping up, in fact, as the most promising transformative event in Catholicism since Vatican Council II (1962-1965).  For me, the Synod so far is notable for four things: (1) the leadership of Pope Francis; (2) the echoes of dynamics and themes from Vatican II; (3) the echoes of Vatican II documents; (4) the struggle to accept the truth about civil marriage.

1. The Leadership of Pope Francis.  It is obvious by now that the phenomenal worldwide popularity of Francis is due more than anything else to his personal manner.  In organizing the Synod, his style once again has reminded many of us of Pope John XXIII (who convened Vatican II). 

For one thing, Francis appears decisive, and unafraid of criticism.  For another, he stresses the pastoral dimensions of church life over the doctrinal requirements:  he speaks much more of God’s mercy than of “truth” or rules.  Francis showed this in his choice last spring of Cardinal Walter Kasper of Rottenburg-Stuttgart (Germany) to deliver an address to prepare for the Synod.

Kasper

Kasper, true to his progressive reputation, suggested the possibility of changes in the Church’s pastoral approach to divorced and remarried couples.  Francis’ style also showed September 14 at Saint Peter’s Basilica, when he presided over the weddings of 20 couples, some of whom were living together.

It showed again in his decision to have real live married couples address the Synod fathers, including one couple who spoke of their friends’ decision to accept their daughter’s same-sex partner. 

We have had many Synods since Vatican II, but none directed by a pope who acts like St. John XXIII.

Saint John XXIII in 1963

2. Echoes of Vatican II. Francis is, after all, the first pope since John XXIII who was not a bishop at Vatican II. He experienced it like the rest of us—he received its work as a challenge. He knows its history, and clearly he feels that its potential has not been fully realized.  No surprise, then, that his style reflects an attempt to complete John XXIII’s work.

Francis’ final address to the Synod reminds us of the addresses both John XXIII and Paul VI gave at Vatican II. He speaks of reading the signs of the times, of learning how to respond to contemporary challenges, of learning how to rethink the tradition in contemporary terms rather than reacting negatively to simply avoid reform. 

This stress on how best to reach out to the world around us, to focus on helping people rather than protecting doctrine, harkens back to the dynamics and climate of Vatican II, which Paul VI described as pervaded by a tone of “profound optimism.”

Pope Paul VI

 One Vatican spokesperson express the same outlook when he suggested that talking of unmarried couples “living in sin” or of gay people’s “disordered orientation”  is not the kind of language that attracts people to the Catholic Church.

Of course, there was a great deal of polarization among the hierarchy at Vatican II, and the same has been true of the Synod, to the point where some bishops have quietly talked about the danger of schism. This recalls Cardinal Ottaviani, the most conservative bishop at Vatican II, publicly hoping to die before Vatican II’s end.  “That way,” he said, “I will still be dying in the Catholic Church.” So too the Synod has begun to surface the misgivings of many conservative bishops about the direction Francis is taking, while also exposing them as minority voices--just as happened at Vatican II.

3. The Documents of the Synod also recall the documents of Vatican II.  When studying the Council, it is usually instructive to compare early drafts with final drafts, because they often showed movement as texts underwent debate, discussion, and finally votes.  The same thing happened in 2014.  Why?  First, because when the majority drafts documents reflecting the majority view, drafts have a reformist, progressive tone that is surprising, even radical.  Second, because the final drafts often step back from such progressive proposals.

This is not because the majority changes its mind, but because the ethos of hierarchical decision-making constantly seeks consensus. 

Synod Session

The documents are voted on, but no one wants a close vote.  Everyone wants each document to receive overwhelming approval (as did the documents of Vatican II).  But getting a “supermajority” requires that final drafts incorporate words and tone which attract the votes of conservative (minority) bishops.

Thus two lessons coming out of Vatican II apply equally well here: First, the final draft of nearly all of such documents is more conservative than earlier drafts because they water down the progressives’ main positions.  Second this means that a strong current at the Synod was more progressive than the final document reveals. So we should read the document’s tone as conservative political packaging of the Synod’s progressive pastoral agenda.

4. Accepting the Truth about Civil Marriage. This conservative shift to garner votes for the final draft was particularly significant with the Synod’s references to both homosexuals in general and homosexual unions in particular.  While earlier drafts had urged the Church to “welcome” gays, the final draft simply proposes that the Church “provide for” them.  And while early drafts suggested that homosexual unions might bring benefits for the partners, the final draft offered no such positive assessment.  In fact, the final draft reflected the bishops concern to stress:

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage.

But even here there may be hope of reform.  For even as the bishops reject equating heterosexual marriage and homosexual unions, at least some bishops are also ready to reject equating civil marriage with the sacrament of Matrimony.  This is significant, since the confusion of civil marriage with Matrimony makes people think that “same-sex marriage” threatens Catholicism’s sacramental teachings.

So far, most bishops--especially U.S. bishops--have claimed to be defending “marriage” without making any distinction between civil marriage and Matrimony.  In short, they have pretended there is only one kind of “marriage.” But of course the reality is that there are two kinds of “marriage” which differ in many significant ways.

First, they are different legally.  Civil marriage is a legal contract, a strictly civil procedure governed by state law and the requirements of the U.S. constitution.  As such, it is a civil right that the government may not deny any citizen without compelling legal justification.  It must be available to all, without prejudice.

Matrimony, by contrast, is a sacred covenant, a sacramental bond governed by the universal canon law of the Church.  It is not a right anyone may claim; rather, the Church reserves its right to determine both who is eligible for Matrimony and whether they meet the necessary preconditions.  It is available, for example, only to Catholics and their partners. 

Weddings at St. Peter's--September 14, 2014

Second, civil marriage and Matrimony are quite different institutions.  Marriages existed everywhere through all history, in all cultures; it shows wide variations in who can get married, what it means, and how it is practiced.  So civil marriage is a much broader institution than Matrimony. That sacrament appeared only since the first century, was found only where Christians lived, and has relatively fixed rules about who can marry, how they marry, and why they marry.

But civil marriage is also a much shallower institution.  It is a simple contractual agreement which may be performed by a justice of the peace without any particular ceremony or ritual.  Matrimony is a sacred covenant performed by the couple themselves (not a justice or a priest), and requires the sacramental rite of Christian Matrimony (as well as several other requirements) to be valid.

Third, these two institutions have quite different purposes and expectations.  The church has developed a clear teaching that Matrimony has two purposes: procreation and the unified life of the couple.  Thus couples must be willing to have children (and raise them Catholic).  Any intention to remain childless nullifies the sacrament.  So does any intention to preserve divorce as an option.  Moreover, the sacrament is not consummated until and unless the couple has (unprotected) sexual intercourse.  (Couples intending to remain celibate require a dispensation.)

Civil marriage, by contrast, has no such requirements.  It is valid whether or not people intend to children or even intend to have sex.  The private life of civilly married couples is not relevant to the civil contract, whose purpose is rather to access a long list of legal and social benefits and privileges (as many as 37 in some states) that only married couples have.  Once a couple completes the civil contract, they are eligible for those benefits and privileges, regardless of their intentions about sexual intimacy or children or family life.  People often think that civil marriage aims at promoting family life, but while that may be a societal benefit of civil marriage, it is not a legal requirement. So civil marriage confers many legal benefits but does not require any family intentions.  Matrimony does require both sex and the intention to have children--but it confers no legal benefits or privileges.

In many countries, these differences are made obvious by having two different ceremonies, but they are masked in the U.S., where the priest performs the civil marriage (acting as an invisible agent of the state!) During the same ceremony when the couple performs the sacrament of Matrimony.

Why do all these differences matter?  Because they totally alter the debate about same-sex marriage.  If marriage and Matrimony were the same thing, then the campaign for same sex marriage would directly  challenge a Catholic sacrament.  If marriage and Matrimony are the same, then “redefining” marriage equates to “redefining” Matrimony.

But if these are two separate institutions, one can redefine one without redefining the other.  Marriage can change while Matrimony stays the same.  This of course, has happened before, when some states prohibited mixed-race couples from marrying even when the Church accepted them for Matrimony.  Eventually these bans changed, but Matrimony stayed the same.

Thus same-sex marriage only threatens Catholic life directly if we insist on pretending that there is only one “institution” of marriage.  For more than 10 years I have been baffled watching the U.S. bishops maintain this pretense, and I’m relieved to see that some of them have finally realized that this does more harm than good. 

The best way to protect the sacrament of Matrimony is, on the contrary, to insist on the truth: Matrimony is not the same as civil marriage.  Thus the sacrament of Matrimony will remain the same no matter what happens to civil marriage.  Any changes in the sacrament would be decided in proper church channels, not by any court or government body.

When the Synod on the Family returns in 2015, we can hope that its work will advance in several ways. 

First, we can hope Pope Francis’ leadership has gathered even more followers (especially among bishops).  Second, we can hope that the optimism of Vatican II is rekindled once and for all.  Three, we can hope that people will treat the Synod documents respectfully but also realistically, so their conservative packaging does not blind us to their reformist core.  And fourth, we can hope that discussions about changes in civil marriage will not be confused with discussions about the sacrament of Matrimony.

   © Bernard   F. Swain PhD 2014