#394: The Burden of Proof--Part 1

The Supreme Court has shifted the burden of proof in the debate over same-sex marriage.

When I began writing CrossCurrents in 2003, America’s debate over same-sex marriage was just heating up.  Almost immediately, the American Catholic hierarchy made protection of the status quo on marriage a top priority.  They have spent 10 years losing ground, and this week’s Supreme Court rulings confirm what has been clear for some time: the burden of proof is now on the US Bishops and anyone else trying to resist this change.

My doubts about the bishops’ strategy are not new.  In my early CrossCurrents pieces on this issue, I advised that the bishops back civil unions for gays, as Pope Francis did in Argentina.  After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned a ban on civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples in 2003, I observed that it was time for the U.S.  Catholic Church to get out of the civil marriage business (in which priests act as agents of the state) while the getting was good, in order to focus on the Sacrament of Matrimony.  I wrote:

The bishops could have drawn a sharp line between “civil marriage” and the “Sacrament of Matrimony”. Then they could have defended the unique meaning of Christian marriage against evolving, secular versions of civil marriage. Instead, the bishops chose to meet the court on its own turf, arguing that the good of society depends on denying same-sex couples, and lobbying against any broadening of civil marriage.

Thus the bishops dug in their heels by talking about “marriage” as though civil marriage and sacramental Matrimony were the same institution, while launching scary warnings about the woes to follow us if gays were to marry one another.

Ten years later, the rising tide has eroded the bishops’ stand, yet they cling to the same losing strategy.  Immediately after the Supreme Court killed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this week and reinstated a California court’s ruling in favor of gay marriage, Catholic bishops quickly sprung into reaction.  Predictably, they offered only more of the same losing strategy.

Archbishop Alan Vigneron of Detroit said:

Catholics and millions of our fellow citizens will continue to make the case…that marriage cannot be redefined, and that attempts to do so hurt us all.

And Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco hammered away on the theme of the “truth about marriage”:

The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage...The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth.

The Bishops’ problem is very simple: by confusing the two institutions of matrimony and civil marriage, they’ve replaced the facts with wishful thinking.  They want to make their case on two grounds: (1) there is one unique, non-negotiable truth about “marriage,” and (2) changing our definition of marriage will “hurt us all.” But both these arguments have become less and less credible over time.

Actually, the “truth about marriage” argument was never very convincing.  It only worked as long as people pretended that “marriage” referred to one thing rather than two different institutions, as I wrote earlier:

Many Catholics can’t tell civil and sacramental marriage apart. They may not realize that in fact civil marriage is a great deal older than sacramental marriage: it existed in archaic cultures, in Egyptian and the Israelite cultures, in Greek and Roman cultures, all before St. Paul ever taught that marriage could be understood as a sign of Christ’s bond with his church. Civil marriage took various forms, with various rules (Israelite men were sometimes required to marry their brother’s widow; Roman men were permitted extra-marital sex with slave-women; Greek men were permitted extra-marital sex with boys). Such rules evolve even within a culture, of course: not long ago most states forbade marriage by mixed-race couples.

But while the Bishops failed to acknowledge this truth, Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated it plainly in her landmark Goodrich opinion legalizing same-sex marriage:

We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution…No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage.

The truth is that “civil marriage” is an invention of the government, and different governments have defined it differently for centuries.  Moreover, this re-defining has included the evolving recognition that civil marriage, unlike the Sacrament of Matrimony, is a civil right that people make claim access to as a matter of justice:

The benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching nearly every aspect of life and death. The department states that "hundreds of statutes" are related to marriage and to marital benefits...It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right."

Without the right to marry…one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws…Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry…"There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and reasonable means."

There are two consequences of this fact.  First, civil marriage is now being drawn into the general history of civil rights.  Second, this history now challenges Catholic teaching to practice what it preaches about the just treatment of homosexuals.

First, on general history, Marshall wrote:

The history of constitutional law "is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded."…This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights.

In this week’s DOMA case, the Supreme Court saw this at work as well in New York State:

The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries have been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other states as an unjust exclusion…New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice they had not earlier known or understood.

This movement linking civil marriage to all other civil rights explains the rising tide of court decisions favoring a new definition of marriage.  For if keeping the “one man and one woman” definition means denying gay people in a civil right, the question arises: how can that be justified? It becomes a matter of justice.

This explains why the movement to accept same-sex marriage has been so rapid: from one state in 2003 to 13 and counting in 2013. Now 40% of gay Americans already have access to this civil right, and the rest are demanding to know why they should be denied their rights.

This has dramatically shifted the burden of proof away from those proposing change; they now have both the rhetoric and the reality of civil rights on their side.

NEXT: How the new burden of proof challenges the Church to honor its own teachings.

  © Bernard F. Swain PhD 2013

#393: Lost and Found--Pope Francis Retrieves Vatican II

After nearly 35 years of Catholic officials obscuring the vision of Vatican Council II, the new pope may already be rescuing its legacy.

The recent homily in which Pope Francis proclaimed Christ has redeemed all humanity, even atheists, has triggered seemingly endless commentary in the media - - print, electronic, and online. (homily text & video at http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445).

But most of it misses the point.  Amid the debates--over “Did the pope endorse universalism?” or “What is the difference between redemption and salvation?”--most observers (other than James Carroll) miss these facts: (1) Francis’ remark about atheists was neither new nor controversial; (2) his real shift was to leap back over the legacy of John-Paul II and Benedict XVI to invoke the extroverted optimism of Paul VI.  He thus retrieved Vatican II’s version of the Church’s mission - - a version that has been out of favor for 35 years.

Francis may be simple, but he is not simple-minded, so his startling break with his predecessors is couched in his soft proposal to build a “culture of encounter.”

Why does this matter?  Because an “encounter culture” is quite different from the “counter-culture”--and that difference could re-set the Church’s course for years to come.

If memory serves, I first heard the Church described as a “counter -culture” nearly 30 years ago, when Bernard Law took

Bernard Law

over the Archdiocese of Boston in 1984.  Six years after the election of John Paul II, he used the term to express his conviction that Catholicism should not conform or even adapt its traditions to the demands of modern culture.  Rather than blend Catholic faith with the surrounding secular culture, he wanted Catholics to hold fast to an alternative way of life that would “counter” prevailing mores and values.

Back then I found his terminology clever but troubling.  As a child of the 1960s, I already considered myself a proud member of the “counter-culture”--but to me that meant a wave of progressive movements ranging from rock music to civil rights to antiwar politics to the sexual revolution to the questioning of all authority, including church authority.  We were rebelling against much of post-World War II American culture: its conformity, its complacency, its superficiality, its materialism, its militarism, its racism, its spiritual impoverishment.

What Bernard Law called “culture-culture” meant something quite different.  It included scolding Boston College (as well as the students and parents gathered for commencement) for not being true to  its Catholic identity.  It included refusing to allow women to serve as Eucharistic ministers.  It included refusing to allow a Knights of Columbus fundraiser to serve alcohol.  It included forcing the Archdiocese’s charismatics to move their annual conference to the cathedral (despite its inadequate seating capacity) and then imposing his own agenda on the day.  Law was not into questioning authority.  For him, “counter-culture” meant imposing authority to make sure Catholics behaved the way he wanted them to.

I admit I resented this theft and reshaping of the term “counter-culture.” But I soon learned he was not alone. Increasingly in the 1980s and 1990s, US bishops, conservative commentators, and some theologians promoted the “counter cultural” mission of the Church on issues like abortion, sexual morality, “catholic identity,” priestly celibacy, sex education, and eventually same-sex marriage. 

They were so successful that the term “counter-culture” lost its original meaning for people like me, and came to be a code-word for a move to establish a certain understanding of Vatican Council II. This understanding saw the modern world embracing a “culture of death” and countered it with a “culture of life.” The opposition was as clear as black and white, and treated every church position as non-negotiable.

Vatican II

Within the Church itself, this movement was labeled “the reform of the reform.” It was driven by the belief that Catholicism after Vatican II had become too friendly, too accommodating to the modern world around it, and was in jeopardy of losing its own identity.  Supposedly this was the fault of those who exploited the “reforms” of Vatican II as an excuse to abandon traditional teachings and practices in favor of every new cultural trend.  Only by “reforming the reforms” could the Church achieve its “true mission” as a counter-culture.

That is why, in rejecting this view, Pope Francis is provoking such reactions.  In theory, no one is more “counter” to Christian faith than an atheist.  Yet Francis asserted that:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics.  Everyone!...  Even the atheists.  Everyone!

This is what Francis means by a “culture of encounter”: that whoever does good, regardless of their beliefs, creates a common ground where we can meet one another:

If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

Such talk rings loud echoes for me of the talk Pope Paul VI gave at the final session of Vatican II in 1965:

Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical

Pope Paul VI

reality has, in a certain sense, defied the council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it…But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists…to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.

Paul is clearly talking about an encounter between the Church and secular culture that can produce a working partnership--and he knew full well that some Catholics would criticize the openness required for such an encounter:

The council…has been deeply committed to the study of the modern world. Never before perhaps, so much as on this occasion, has the Church felt the need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change. This attitude, a response to the distances and divisions we have witnessed over recent centuries…between the Church and secular society—this attitude has been strongly and unceasingly at work in the council; so much so that some have been inclined to suspect that an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking...may have swayed persons and acts of the ecumenical synod, at the expense of the fidelity which is due to tradition…We do not believe that this shortcoming should be imputed to it, to its real and deep intentions, to its authentic manifestations.

Observers have mostly overlooked this key fact about Francis: he is the first post-Vatican II pope!  The last five popes were all participants of the Council between 1962 and 1965, but Francis was only a seminary student.  He heard about the Council like the rest of us, from various reports and the media and perhaps by word of mouth. Unlike Benedict, who by the Council’s end felt it was moving too far and getting out of his control, Francis received the Council’s work as a blessing.  He took Pope Paul’s openness as an inspired vision.  Indeed, in his homily he warned against negative attitudes that insist on a “counter-culture” instead of an “encounter.” As reported by Vatican Radio, he contrasts the “counter” of the apostles with the “encounter” of Jesus:

The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong...Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation.”

Francis is, in effect, depicting Jesus as a bridge-builder among people.  This fits perfectly with our belief that Jesus is the Christ that bridges the gap, not only between people, but also between the human family and the divine family we called Trinity.  And this also fits perfectly the role of the pope, whose titles include “Pontiff” (from pontifex, meaning bridge-builder).

Francis demonstrates reaching out to Encounter

Francis contrasts this open-minded bridgebuilding encounter with the close-minded attitude that leads to conflict: “This ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war.”

This reminds us again of Paul VI, who described the Church's role in the world this way addressing the United Nations in 1965:
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.

Paul VI Addressing the UN General Assembly

 I, for one, am delighted and encouraged to hear the new pope talk this way.  Such talk is important not because it is about atheists but because it is about Catholics.  Francis is saying we should not be a people content to “counter” those who differ with us.  We must, as a matter of our faith, have the courage to “encounter” them.  
This means we must engage in a true conversation--not simply sharing our faith-based message, but also listening to the message of modern, even secular culture with an openness to the possibility that its message also brings wisdom that can enhance and enrich us.

Not only that, but Francis is saying we must build an “encounter culture” that leads away from conflict to the peace that Christ promised:

“Doing good” is a principle that unites all humanity, beyond the diversity of ideologies and religions, and creates the “culture of encounter” that is the foundation of peace.

For me, there is hope yet that the real renewal of Vatican Council II has not been lost on this pope, a man who has the wisdom to see the dangers lurking in the modern world but also has the courage to reach out and encounter it.  This was the true message of Vatican II, which has been nearly lost amid all the “counter-culture” negativism of recent Catholic leadership. I’m beginning to think that Francis is just the man to rescue Vatican II for us--just in the nick of time.

  © Bernard F. Swain PhD 2013

#392: On OUR Honor—Or Just Lip Service?

When the Boy Scouts of America decided last Thursday that “no youth may be denied membership on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone,” that might have seemed a story of interest only to those in the gay community or in scouting.  Not so.

For American Catholics, this may be a landmark test case of whether the Catholic Church will really practice what it preaches about homosexuality.

Catholic teaching is quite clear (as the National Catholic Committee on Scouting noted): “[People] who experience a

homosexual inclination or a same sex attractions are to be treated with respect recognizing the dignity of all persons.” Of course, they are also expected to follow church teaching that sex outside marriage is morally wrong.

In principle, these teachings are unambiguous, but in practice they are proving difficult to reconcile.  That’s because, in matters of public policy, if you give gay people rights, it’s disingenuous to think they will not use them.  In other words, once you say people have the right to be gay, it’s not a realistic to think they will not act gay as well.

That’s why Catholic teaching has reserved a loophole, by saying that the Church opposes “all unjust discrimination” against gay people.  The loophole is, of course, the word “unjust,” since it implies that there may be cases of “just” discrimination--that is, cases where excluding gays is justifiable.

The US Bishops have used this loophole to oppose same sex marriage, arguing that it is damaging to marriage and family life.  But the criteria for justifying discrimination against gays remain somewhat vague, as the experience in Massachusetts suggests. 

Same-sex marriage here was the act of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, not its legislature.  The court found that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional on two grounds.  First, it found that previous case law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had already established civil marriage as a civil right.  Second, it declared that denying any civil right to gays could only be justified if significant and demonstrable social harm could be identified.   

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote that the Attorney General's office "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

The court majority could find no such harm.  Ten years later, no one else has proven them wrong--and growing numbers of Americans agree.

This creates pressure on church officials to define more clearly the criteria that would justify discrimination against gays.  Given its own principles, the Church cannot just exclude gays wherever it wants to.  In order to really practice what it preaches, it will need strong justifications for discrimination that are at least as clear as those in our civil laws, if not more so.  Otherwise, the Church’s own teaching will demand that Catholics oppose such discrimination.

This pressure will be especially intense if the US Supreme Court follows Massachusetts this month in rejecting federal bans on same-sex marriage.  What will the Bishops do then?

This is why the scouting case is such a clear litmus test.  Here is one instance where the distinction between being a homosexual and practicing homosexual activity actually makes practical sense.

First, this is not a constitutional issue, since in the 2000 case Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in a 5-4 ruling that the Boy Scouts of America was within its rights to set its own membership standards, (including the exclusion—or inclusion) of gay youths.  So the scouts have the legal right to discriminate against gave members.  The question is rather is such discrimination morally justified?  In other words, does the Catholic loophole apply here?

Second, the scouts are, after all, for kids, and operate on the assumption that its members are not yet sexually active.  So the Boy Scouts of America itself has made it clear that will it will allow members to be gay but not act gay:

[The resolution] reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.

Thus the BSA resolution seems to reflect almost perfectly the Church’s teaching, by including gay members while banning gay sex.

So how will the Church react?  This is no small question, since 70% of all scout troops are church-based, and Catholic institutions are the third largest religious sponsors of scouts (Catholic-chartered units total 8,397 with 273,648 members.)

So far, the response of church officials has been a mixed bag. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting had previously supported the ban on gays (according to Fox News) but (according to ABC News) took no official position on the new policy that repeals the ban. The NCCS released a statement Thursday saying it hoped to maintain the strong relationship the Catholic Church has had with the Boy Scouts for more than 100 years.  Now it says that, since the policy change will not go into effect until January 2014, it will have “adequate time to study its effects.”

Not every bishop or pastor is prepared to wait, however.  Bishop Paul Loverde of the Diocese of Arlington (Virginia) issued a statement which read, in part:

I deeply regret that the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America, after years of principled and steadfast resolve, has now wavered in their commitment to the values that the scouting movement has traditionally embraced and taught.

…As Bishop, it has always been my firm hope that we might continue sponsorship of Boy Scout troops in a manner that is consistent with the Church’s teaching and mission.

Sadly, yesterday’s decision forces us to prayerfully reconsider whether a continued partnership with the BSA will be possible.

… As an organization founded on character and leadership, it is highly disappointing to see the Boy Scouts of America succumb to external pressures and political causes at the cost of its moral integrity.

One Northern Virginia pastor, in fact, had already made his decision before the BSA acted:

This new proposal does not change my previously announced decision: if it is adopted by BSA next month, St. Raymond’s association with BSA will end (effective in September). I continue to pray and hope that this does not happen. But if it does, I will give all the support I can to forming a new scouting group, independent of BSA, that will defend Christian values.

Meanwhile, the Archdiocese of Denver released this statement:

The Church agrees that no group should reduce a person to their sexual orientation or proclivity…However, the moral formation of youth must include a firm commitment to respecting and promoting an authentic vision of sexuality rooted in the Gospel itself.

The Archdiocese stated it will continue to allow parish-chartered Scouting organizations, but would be "steadfast in articulating a Christian understanding of human dignity and sexuality.”

And the Archdiocese of Washington took a similar, but even stronger, position:

[The Boy Scouts of America policy change] does not affect the teachings of the Catholic Church and the manner in which the Archdiocese of Washington conducts the Scouting programs under its purview.

Scouting programs seek to instill the importance of duty to God and to country, and groups chartered through the Catholic Church witness to the faith while continuing to provide an opportunity to involve youth in the life of the local parish.

The church, through its clergy and lay leaders, has the responsibility to teach the Gospel and encourage all people to live out the teachings of Christ -- regardless of their sexual preference.

This range of reactions is not a hopeful sign.  If each Diocese establishes its own independent position or—worse—if individual pastors are left to decide they want to abandon the BSA for some gay-banning alternative, Catholic officials will be hard pressed to demonstrate that Church teaching is being honored.  Many people will be convinced that our teaching on “the dignity of all persons” gets just lip service.  More and more, it will appear that the loophole of “unjust discrimination” opens the door for hypocrisy.

In fact Catholic teaching as it stands may prove to be a ticking time bomb.  It requires church officials, as well as rank and file Catholics, to distinguish which discrimination is “just” and which is “unjust.” That will always be a judgment call.  And each time Bishops make a bad judgment, they will inflict more damage on their moral credibility.

Moreover, as Americans adapt to the open presence of gays in sports, schools, the workplace, family gatherings, and even churches, justifying discrimination will only become more difficult.  In fact, I foresee the day when any attempt to “justify” discrimination against gays becomes an academic exercise with no practical effect.  At that point, the Catholic “loophole” will be closed.  That will make practicing what we preach less complicated, but it may also make it more difficult.

For now, the Scouts have given the bishops a golden opportunity to prove that we will honor our teaching, not just give it lip service.

  © Bernard F. Swain PhD 2013

#391: The Finish Line

During the entire week following the Boston Marathon attack, the phrase that stuck in my mind was “the finish line”--for so many reasons.

For Bostonians, the Marathon Finish Line on Boylston Street has now become sacred ground--perhaps it is even becoming a sacred symbol, value, or idea.

Of course, the finish line has always been where the race ends, where the victors are crowned with laurels, where some arrive with arms raised in triumph while others stagger across or even collapsed onto it.   

But for all, since 1897, it has denoted the gold standard of running, since for most runners at Boston the aim is not to win but rather to finish the planet’s most prestigious road race.  Crossing that line is a personal victory for all of them.

But now that finish line has been transformed. It means more than before. One churchgoer returning to one of the Copley Square churches closed off as part of the crime scene said, “Now it’s a starting line too.”

From now on, the finish line is also where the bombs went off.  Future runners will finish only by passing the two spots where three people died and more than 200 others bled.  And very likely the finish line will soon have a memorial to the victims attacked on April 15, 2013.

     For Christians, of course, the symbolic power of the finish line is nothing new, since the Apostle Paul long ago employed the image of athletic achievement to describe his own life as his and approached:

“I have fought the good fight, I have run the good race, I have kept the faith:”--2 Timothy 4:7

And Paul himself was echoing the way the prophet Isaiah viewed life’s need for strength and endurance:

“But those who trust in the LORD will find new strength. They will soar high on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not faint.”--Isaiah 40:31

The stress in both images is not on competition, but on accomplishment, not on winning the race but on finishing the course, not on the contest but on the journey and its destination.

Later Christians built on these images to establish a long tradition of seeing our life as a journey.  This view evolved from seeing life as a race to the image of a pilgrimage which follows its path to its end—but the idea of the race to the finish line was never lost. 

No doubt part of the popularity of the Boston marathon lies in its power to evoke our life’s long struggle to endure all trials and overcome all obstacles until we finally arrive at our natural end.

Sometimes someone’s life actually fits this image.  When my father died last year at 94, my wife said, “He died at the end of his life”--a life that really was a long, fully lived journey to its natural finish (see CrossCurrents #370, “A Quietly Heroic Life”).

But this is not always so.  As Boston 2013 showed and life teaches, the finish line can be moved. 

Runners still on the Boston course after the bombing were stopped short of 26.2 miles.  Yet they were awarded medals for finishing, which meant that for some the finish line was Kenmore square, for others Commonwealth Ave., for others someplace further back along the course.  The finish line moved, caught them unawares, and suddenly ended their races.

The same is true in life, since for some of us the finish line of life arrives well before anyone expects.

I have already written about the child whose life was more like a sprint than the marathon, ending only eight short weeks after his birth (see CrossCurrents #378, “Precious Child”).

As I drafted this piece, another young Boston University student died in a house fire, the 11th BU student to be killed (counting the marathon victim) in the last 12 months.

And on Wednesday, April 17—two days after the bombs and 24 hours before the suspects’ images became public—another runner reached his early finish line.  Our close friends’ son Matthew Shea had suffered leg pains while running high school track; these led to a 10-year-long effort to outrun the cancer infecting his body.  Through several remissions and relapses he not only persevered but filled his life with more acts of courage, generosity, and love than many people achieve in three times his lifespan. He died at 27 knowing, as did his loved ones, that he had run the good race with steadfast hope no matter how fast his finish line was approaching.

In reality, the same is true for all of us.

We are all alike in living our lives as a journey that (for most) is more like a marathon than a sprint.  But we are all unique in that, while we all run the same race of life, each of us runs a personal race on a different personal course.  For each of us, the finish line is different.  For each of us, the finish line is a moving target.  For each of us, its final location cannot be known.  

We may pace ourselves like marathoners, looking forward to careers and vacations and children growing and marriages and grandchildren and retirement. But that is like saving enough energy to get over Heartbreak Hill and still have enough left for the last few miles to the official end of the race. The fact is that our own personal finish line may not be at the end of the official course (called “life expectancy”). For each of us, the finish line may be just round the next corner.

Yet we run on, filling our lives with as much joy and love and hope and courage as we can before our finish line arrives—and trying always to be prepared for it.

For those who died on April 15, 2013, the marathon’s finish line was their unexpected finish.  For the injured, it was a turning point; their lives are changed forever.  And for all of us, it was the reminder that none of us controls the course we run.

Six days after the Boston bombings, the London Marathon was held amid heightened security.  The runners wore black memorial ribbons and made their intentions clear: they are determined to make a show of strength in the face of violence at Boston 2014. 

So next year we can expect more runners, more wheelchair racers, more midnight cyclists, more volunteers and spectators and memorial honors.  The 118^th running of the Boston marathon may well surpass the record numbers of the 100^th running.

And for all those hundreds of thousands along the course in whatever capacity, as well as the millions watching on TV and Internet, that famous and now sacred finish line on Boylston Street will mean more than ever, especially at 2:50 PM.

Perhaps there will be some special moment of commemoration.  Perhaps the church bells will toll.  And if they do, all of us will know they toll not only for those who died, not only for those injured or traumatized, but for all of us who each day, all our lives, run toward life’s certain, sacred, but unknown finish line.

And that will be our shining moment to show that Boston has found new strength, and will not grow weary.

  © Bernard F. Swain PhD 2013