Jesus and Religion

This three-parts video explains the true relationship between Jesus and religion.

The first part of the video is titled “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”, which claims that Jesus came to abolish Religion.

The scond part of the video is an extremely well-done and high quality response to the video “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”.  The purpose of this video is to do a response from a Catholic perspective, in a spirit of love, but also with a spirit of passion to defend our Mother the Church.

In the third part, you can listen to an excellent commentary on the video “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”, by Fr. Robert Barron.

CONFIRMATION (WHY WE’RE CONFIRMED)

Why do I have to get confirmed if I’m already baptized? How do I choose a sponsor as I prepare for confirmation? Why do I have the option to choose a new name?
These questions and more are answered in this edition of “Sacraments 101,” a web video series geared for those who’d like an introduction or refresher course on these important, tangible Catholic experiences of God.

Click here to find out more.

Science Doesn’t Have All The Answers

Catholic Communications, Sydney Archdiocese,
5 Oct 2011

Fr Purcell’s book willbe released in Australiaon Friday, 7 October

Despite the giant leaps made by science over the past century, scientists are still unable to explain the huge difference between humans and all living beings, says Father Brendan Purcell.

“When science examines the origins and evolution of human beings more questions are raised than are answered,” he says.

Now Fr Purcell, Assistant Priest at St Mary’s Cathedral and an internationally renowned academic who taught philosophical anthropology at University College, Dublin for more than four decades, has written a ground-breaking book that explores these issues and answers to the ultimate question: where did human beings come from.

Called “From the Big Bang to the Big Mystery: Human Origins in Light of Creation and Evolution,” the book will be launched this Friday, 7 October by the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell at the University of Notre Dame’s Broadway campus where Fr Purcell is Adjunct Professor of Philosophy.

When it was released internationally three months ago by Irish publishers, Veritas, the book garnered widespread praise across Britain and the US.

A fascinating, accessible and detailed study of humans, their distinct differences from all other mammals and creatures on earth, Fr Purcell’s strongly argued thesis is that it is not only the human that searches for the divine but the divine that seeks out the human.

Cardinal Pell to launch Fr Purcell’s

groundbreak book

Described by an English reviewer as giving “philosophical anthropology a new lease on life,” he went on to praise Fr Purcell’s work as “an astonishing, learned and profoundly moving book where the author was able to move easily best scientific data on evolutionary genetics to mystical affirmations of God.”

In the US, reviews of From Big Bang to the Big Mystery were equally fulsome with Stephen M. Barr, Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Delaware calling Fr Purcell’s book “comprehensive, wise and of startling philosophic clarity, combing combining the latest discoveries in paleoanthropology, genetics, neuroscience, linguistics and other sciences with the insights of thinkers from Xenophanes, Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle to Eric Voegelin and Bernard Lonergan.”

Even before the 13th Century when Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Church has been at the forefront of both science and philosophy.

The original Big Bang Theory to explain the origin of the Universe was first postulated by Belgium priest, Mgr Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and now 80 years later Fr Purcell is tackling the “Big Bang of Human Consciousness.”

But even though Lemaitre’s Big Bang theory has become the prevalent view of the world’s leading astrophysicists and astronomers, Fr Purcell points out that like the beginning of human consciousness, scientists are at a loss to adequately explain the origin of the Universe and “why there is something rather than nothing.”

Fr Brendan Purcell, Adjunct

Professor of Philosophy at

University of Notre Dame

He describes questions such as these, which are raised by the natural sciences but cannot be fully answered by them as “boundary questions.”

“The origin of human beings is a boundary question, one we can explore, compare and on which we can do a large amount of work, but which we still can’t explain,” he says. “We have no explanation for the development of human qualities such the mind, intellect, the concept of freedom, understanding, compassion and language. Nor can we explain self-awareness which is not apparent in any other being.”

While we know the modern facts of biology, when it comes to the principles of life Fr Purcell says we are at a loss and scientists, no matter how hard they try, cannot explain the vast difference between human beings and all other living creatures or plants.

“Humans and their level of development cannot be explained simply by what went before,” he says using the Chauvet Cave in Southern France which was discovered in 1994 as an example.

Fr Purcell (left) flew home to Ireland

for the British launch of his book

Featuring the earliest paintings by humans and dating back between 30,000 and 32,000 years, the murals of Chauvet are almost twice as old at those discovered in France’s famous Lascaux Cave which were painted during the Paleolithic era, 17,200 years ago.

At Chauvet, which is now the subject of the just released film, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, 13 different species of animals are depicted including mammoths, lions, panthers, bears, rhinos and hyenas. But for Fr Purcell what is most remarkable is the fact that the cave paintings use three quick strokes around the animal in the same way modern cartoonists’ do to suggest movement and speed.

“Even in this prehistoric era at the dawn of history, people had already learned how to pick out the essentials of what they saw, and not only translate the three dimensional into two dimensions in their paintings, but they had worked out what was important and what could be omitted. This shows an understanding that goes beyond image into meaning,” he says explaining that as well as the artist, those who viewed the paintings were able to recognise the animal and in their minds, fill in the details that had been left out.

This is something beyond any other creatures’ abilities and unique to humans, even to those men and women of pre historic times whom many popularly believe were descended from apes and had only just begun to walk upright.

But the differences between humans and other living beings don’t stop there. The human frontal area of the brain is unique and deals with the reception and production of speech. Despite trials and attempts to teach language to chimpanzees and gorillas, only humans communicate and are able to understand the complexities of language, linguistics, plays on words and symbolism.

“Animals operate on instinct. But this is not built into us. We are not programmed to be human and we have to learn how to live as humans which is why human infants are so dependant for the first seven or eight years of their lives,” Fr Purcell explains. “Unlike animals, humans also continue to live many years after their ability to reproduce has disappeared.”

These are just some of the many differences in humans that cannot be explained except by a belief in God and what Fr Purcell calls “the immense Odyssey of the human spirit and its thirst for transcendence.”

 All are welcome when Cardinal Pell launches the book in Australia at St Benedict’s Building, 104 Broadway at the Sydney Campus of the University of Notre Dame at 5 pm on Friday, 7 October.

From Big Bang to Big Mystery: Human Origins in the Light of Creation and Evolution by Fr Brendan Purcell (Veritas, rrp $32.95) is available from the Mustard Seed Bookshop, Lidcombe.

WHAT COMES FIRST, CONSCIENCE OR THE POPE?

Cardinal Newman Offers Well-Founded Answer

By Father Juan R. Vélez

LOS ANGELES, California, OCT. 5, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Many people consider there is little more to life than thinking as they wish and doing as they feel. They speak of “my truth” and “my conscience,” refusing to acknowledge an objective moral order. Unfortunately, this cultural relativism is also prevalent among Catholics, who often wish to act according to their subjective beliefs rather than the objective teaching of the Catholic Church.

Catholics who disagree with Church teaching often attempt to find a basis for their arguments in the teachings of Blessed John Henry Newman, who was beatified by Benedict XVI last Sept. 19, and whose feast day is Oct. 9. This great teacher on moral conscience wrote, among other things, on the development of Christian doctrine, the consent of the faithful in matters of doctrine, and on the supreme role of the moral conscience.

Those who question objective truths or the Church’s capacity to command obedience to these truths often misunderstand the context and content of his teaching. In particular, Cardinal Newman’s notion regarding the “freedom to follow my conscience” is invoked to sanction disagreement with the Church’s teaching on obedience to the Pope, artificial contraception, the question of “divorce and remarriage,” ordination of women and the practice of homosexuality.

What is conscience?

Conscience is a natural faculty by which man applies what he knows of natural law and revelation to decisions regarding his choice of actions. In the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Cardinal Cardinal Newman explained that together with revelation — an external witness to God that comes to us through the teaching of the Pope and the magisterium — we have conscience, an internal witness which commands man to fulfill his duty. He described conscience as a messenger from God, an internal witness of God’s revelation, which like a high priest, is able to command, to judge and to bless.

The following is Cardinal Cardinal Newman’s description of conscience: “The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor state convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself, but it is a messenger from him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives.”

Conscience is not the “self” speaking; it is the voice of God. Cardinal Newman explains that conscience is like a messenger of God speaking to us behind a veil. He even goes as far as to call it the original Vicar of Christ, attributing to it the offices of prophet, king and priest.

“Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its information, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway,” said Cardinal Newman.

Father German Geissler comments on Cardinal Newman’s words: “Conscience is a prophet because it tells us in advance whether the act is good or bad. It is a king because it exhorts us with authority: ‘Do this, avoid that.’ It is a priest because it blesses us after a good deed — this means not only the delightful experience of a good conscience, but also the blessing which goodness brings in any case to people and to the world — and likewise: ‘condemns’ after an evil deed, as an expression of the gnawing bad conscience and of the negative effects of sin on men and their surroundings. It is a principle that is written in the being of every person. It asks for obedience and refers to one outside of itself: to God — for one’s own sake and the sake of others.”

Thus Cardinal Newman argues against conscience as a license for one’s own utility or pleasure. Conscience is always bound to the truth. It should never be used as a justification for a self-referential interpretation of what is good and evil which cuts man off from God and his Revelation. No one can rightly say: “my conscience tells me this” in contradiction to that which God reveals in an external manner through Revelation and entrusts to the judgment of the Church.

For, instance, it is wrong to claim that “my conscience tells me the use of artificial contraception is acceptable” when God mandates in the Scriptures that sexual love is to be fruitful, and when the Church authoritatively teaches this doctrine. To sanction this choice under the notion “freedom of conscience” would be to make God’s internal and external witness contradictory.

Conscience does not to decide on the truth about Natural Law or Revelation. Writer Jeff Mirus explains, “Conscience is a moral compass, not an intellectual one.” It acts upon revelation and is subordinate to it. However, like Adam and Eve, men and women often wish to establish what is good and evil. Man can and does err in his moral judgments when his conscience ignores revelation.

Judgments and authority

Catholic Tradition has taught of the importance of forming one’s conscience; people have the obligation to learn the truths of natural law and those revealed by God and taught by the Church. As Pope John Paul II taught in “Splendor Veritatis,” there are objective moral norms that always apply. There are some negative precepts that admit of no exceptions. No “conscience” can rightly justify them.

Otherwise, a person acts on what is called “a poorly formed,” or at times “deformed,” conscience. The same can be said about education of children; they need to be formed at an early age in the truths of the faith, and the best source for instruction and formation in conscience is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Newman’s teaching on conscience is found in his sermons and other works, but especially in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875), a response to his friend, William Gladstone, the prime minister of England. It was a brilliant defense of Catholic citizens in which Cardinal Newman asserted that they are loyal citizens of any just state. He explained that the Catholic religion does not keep Catholics from fulfilling their obligations as loyal citizens, and that the Holy See does not have the custom of interfering in their civic duties.

Cardinal Newman repeated the teaching of the constitution “Pastor Aeternus” of Vatican Council I, which asks Catholics for obedience to the Pope only in matters of faith and morals, and in matters of discipline and ecclesiastical government. Cardinal Newman explained that by obeying the Pope in such matters, the moral conscience is neither eliminated nor substituted by the Pope’s authority.

Papal infallibility

As Vatican I asserted, the Pope’s authority extends only to matters of doctrine and morals. We are obliged to believe, for example, what he teaches about the Holy Eucharist or marriage. His teaching does not extend on how to organize the water supply of a city, raise taxes, run elections, etc.

Cardinal Newman explained to his fellow Englishmen, who out of prejudice considered the teaching of the Pope’s infallibility as a threat to English government or sense of pride, that this doctrine does not make Catholics puppets: did the Pope speak against Conscience in the true sense of the word, he would commit a suicidal act. He would be cutting the ground from under his feet. His very mission is to proclaim the moral law, and to protect and strengthen that “Light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world.” On the law of conscience and its sacredness are founded both his authority in theory and his power in fact…I am considering here the Papacy in its office and its duties, and in reference to those who acknowledge its claims.

Cardinal Newman pointed out that so many types of acts by a Pope, such as the excommunication of a person in error or the Pope’s blessing of the Spanish Armada, are not a matter of exercising his pontifical authority in an infallible manner, which would bind the faithful in conscience. Cardinal Newman wrote that Catholics are not bound by the Pope’s personal character or private acts, but by his formal teaching (although it should be pointed out that, in the case of a person excommunicated, that is a canonical act that is indeed binding, whether or not it is infallible).

Difficult cases

If a scholar were to disagree with a doctrinal or moral teaching of the Church he should submit his judgment to the Church’s teaching out of humility and obedience. Here too Cardinal Newman offered advice and good example. A theologian or for that matter a pastor should not create unrest among the faithful, much less confusion. Such a person should have the humility to admit that his opinion is likely mistaken, especially if the magisterium has already pronounced on the matter.

Upon being received in the Church Cardinal Newman accepted all its teachings, including the ones he did not fully understand. As the declaration of papal infallibility drew near, Cardinal Newman accepted this teaching, even if he thought that despite its truth it was not an opportune moment to make it. The English hierarchy had only just been restored in England in 1850, and there was a lot of prejudice against Catholics in England. In that country the so-called Ultramontane Catholics who advocated a temporal power by the Pope were making matters worse. In sum, Cardinal Newman thought this was not the best time for such a declaration, but he submitted to it.

Developing doctrine

“Development of doctrine” is one of Cardinal Newman’s great contributions to theology. He argued that over time Catholic doctrine grows; it is explained better and conclusions are drawn from truths known earlier in time. At a cursory glance development of doctrine seems to imply that what was once held may now be shown not to be true. It would seem to undergird the idea that one can object in conscience to beliefs that later on may be shown to have been wrong in the first place. Cardinal Newman’s seminal work which, in fact, actually led to his conversion on Oct. 9, 1845, argues the contrary. Cardinal Newman put forth safeguards for reaching the conclusion that a development is a true development. One of the main safeguards is, precisely, that it does not contradict earlier teaching, and another is that the new teaching was already implicit in earlier teaching. In sum development of doctrine does not support the claim the truths are subjective and therefore can be accepted or rejected by a Christian based on his own conscience.

A toast

Cardinal Newman noted that on rare occasions a person’s conscience may collide with the Pope’s teaching, for two reasons: 1) the Pope is attempting to teach in an area that does not really pertain to faith and morals as such, or 2) the person’s conscience has not been formed properly. Cardinal Newman laid out the Church’s long-standing teaching that on such occasions that person must obey his conscience, even if it is in error. Naturally, however, the person is obliged to seek the truth about the matter in question; and once he discovers the error, he must re-evaluate his position.

After providing some examples of papal statements or actions that are not infallible Cardinal Newman proceeded to make an affirmation which is often quoted to justify dissent from Church teaching: “Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink — to the Pope, if you please — still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterward.”

Out of context, this casts doubt on all that Cardinal Newman taught, but properly examined, we understand that there should very rarely be opposition between conscience and the Pope. Since a well-formed conscience is God’s voice, Cardinal Newman naturally would give it preference in a toast.

* * *

Father Juan R. Vélez has written “Passion for Truth: The life of John Henry Cardinal Newman,” to be published in the Fall by TAN Books. He is co-author of “Take Five, Meditations With John Henry Cardinal Newman.”

CATHOLIC YOUTH ANSWER TO ANTI-POPE PROTESTS AT WYD11, MADRID

Watch this video to find out how Catholic youth responded to the atheist, anti-pope march that took place on August 17, during World Youth Day 2011 in Madrid.

WE ARE CATHOLIC – WORLD YOUTH DAY 2011

In this video, World Youth Day 2011 pilgrims explain why they like being Catholic! “We are Catholic because our religion is one of love, the one, true Church that Christ established, whose joy and strength is manifest in her youth, as in all her members.”

7 BILLION PEOPLE: EVERYBODY RELAX!

At some point in 2011, the Earth will reach a population of 7 billion! Many people fear that this is a sign of overpopulation and therefore a global crisis… but there is no need to fear! This video disputes this overpopulation myth, showing that population growth is actually dramatically falling.

This is the fifth episode of PRI’s popular POP 101 series, which takes a fresh, humorous approach to the demographic issues facing the world today. Click here to watch episodes one, two, three and four.

Do animals go to heaven?

Fr. Joe Answers:

Your question is one of the most frequently asked “religious” questions. It has become a big question becauseso many people, like yourself, have pets for whom they feel affection and therefore sadness when their pet dies. The most honest answer to your question is that we don’t know.

Death and what comes after death is a mystery. We Christians believe that there is life after death and that God desires us to live forever in his presence. “Heaven” is a word we use to describe a relationship of love with God that exists beyond death. We believe that it is a state of complete happiness and that it involves “being with” God. Other than that we have no photograph or blueprint to fill in the details. The Bible does provide some passages which speak of animals in a heavenly state (Isaiah 11:6-7,Psalm 36:7, Revelation 19:11)but the Bible often uses such images as symbols of what heaven is like.

The Bible gives us no clear evidence if animals are in heaven, or that they are not. That being said, our human imagination seems to tug us in the direction of at least keeping an open mind. For one thing, most images of heaven that our imagination supplies us are derived from the garden of Eden described in the book of Genesis. There were certainly animals in this garden, and Adam and Eve were friendly with them (Genesis 2:19). Many people feel closer to God when contemplating the beauty of nature and it is hard for us humans to imagine happiness without the beauty that nature (including animals) conveys to us.

Another hint from human imagination lies in what our pets mean to us. One friend described his two pet dogs to me as being “unconditional love.” Our theology tells us that God is unconditional love, and that only in heaven will we experience the fullness of this truth. Yet here on earth, many pet owners might agree with the words of the author James Herriot: “If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans.” Pets evoke love from us, and respond with what we believe to be love in return. By needing care from us, they help us to be more generous and caring.

Yet a third hint lies in the sense of kinship with creation to which St. Francis of Assisi gave such a powerful voice. Many Catholic churches bless pets on the feast of St. Francis (October 4) from an awareness of Francis’ relating to all creatures as his brothers and sisters. St. Paul suggests that the saving and reconciling power of Christ’s love effects not only human beings, but all creation (II Corinthians 5:17-19), an insight that was explored in the reflections of the Jesuit priest and scientist Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955).

In the end we face death with few concrete answers, but are invited to trust that God intends happiness for us and that heaven will lack nothing we need in order to enjoy God’s goodness.

Editor’s Note: Will I See My Dog in Heaven by Friar Jack Wintz is an excellent book on this topic.

Fr. Joe Scott, CSP lives in Los Angeles and has been a longtime contributor to the Busted Halo Question Box.

PHYSICAL GRAFFITI: A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE ON TATTOOS, PIERCINGS, AND “BODY ART”

OCTOBER 1, 2011 BY PATRICK MADRID

Every day, across the United States — indeed, throughout the world — men and women, boys and girls, get themselves tattooed and pierced. And not just their ears. They are participating in the modern fad of “body art,” which has its origins in antiquity, but which in recent decades as developed into some extreme forms that are often quite disturbing.

— By Deacon Robert Lukosh, Envoy Magazine —

The intentional marking or mutilation of the human body under the guise of “body art” goes beyond simple tattoos or ear-piercing as adornment for women. For many, it is a personal expression of solidarity with a social cause, a trend that attracts predominately young people, driving them to ever wilder and more shocking expressions of what some term “personal mutilation” that includes: total-body tattoos, pierced eyelids, lips, noses, tongues, foreheads, and even disfigurement of the genitalia, in a never-ending quest for the most “outrageous” form of self-expression through what is commonly known as “body art.”

These forms of personal exhibition have spread rapidly throughout contemporary Western society, resulting in a secondary wave of participants (namely, the children of those who engaged in radical body art during 70s and 80s) who, like their parents and role models, are disfiguring their own bodies irrevocably, claiming as their justification “personal freedom” and a right to unlimited self-expression.

In earlier generations, garish tattoos and unusual piercings were found almost exclusively only among members of social groups and subcultures that lurked at the fringes of mainstream society. Aside from your relatives who served in the military (which is definitely not a fringe subculture), chances are, neither of your parents nor any of your grandparents, aunts, or uncles — in the case of those born before 1950 — have tattoos or unusual piercings. But look around today and you will see a massive number of people — especially young people — who have become enamored of extreme tattoos and unusual piercings.

This modern fad of body art permeates American society, affecting virtually every industry, age group, race, sex, and religion. Since many of these people occupy leadership and mentoring roles in the lives of children and young adults, such overt displays have an additional rebound effect by providing tacit justification sufficient to overcome the doubts of those who are unsure if they want to dabble in the body art fad themselves, resulting in yet a third generation of pierced and tattooed bodies. . .

(continue reading this article in PDF form).

MY WIFE, MY BEST FRIEND

Friendship Supports Love

Aaron Kheriaty, M.D.

Aaron Kheriaty, M.D., is the founding director of the Psychiatry and Spirituality Forum at the University of California, Irvine, and the associate director of residency training in the UCI department of psychiatry. Fathers for Good talked to Dr. Kheriaty, a married man with three sons, about marital friendship.

Fathers for Good: How would you define/describe “spousal friendship” – how is it similar to or different from other types of friendship?

Dr. Kheriaty: Spousal friendship is unique because it is strengthened and complemented by other forms of spousal love.

The ancient Greeks had four words to describe love: sexual and romantic love (eros), the love of friendship (philia), familiar everyday love for ordinary things (storge), and generous self-sacrificing love (agape). Marriage is unique because, besides our relationship with God, it is the one relationship where all four of these types of love can and should be present.

So spousal friendship is indeed a special kind of friendship (philia), distinguished by its more passionate elements (eros), its everyday familiarity (storge), and above all, by a self-sacrificing love (agape) that puts the spouse and her needs above one’s own.

Our Lord himself taught by his words, and demonstrated in his passion and death, that the greatest love is that in which a man lays down his life for his friends. St. Paul described a man’s friendship with his wife in precisely the same terms – husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself up for her.

FFG: What Is a common barrier to friendship?

Dr. Kheriaty: In his excellent book, The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis describes some of the difficulties encountered in spousal friendships. He considers the situation of a wife who stays at home doing domestic work and rearing the children, while the husband is involved in the world of professional life outside the home. Lewis reminds us that friendship is always based upon common interests and common projects.

When one spouse works professionally outside of the home and the other does not, he argues that friendship tends to wane – the wife, no matter how hard she tries to “keep up,” will eventually feel alienated from the husband’s professional interests. He moves in different circles, from which she inevitably feels excluded. Try as she might, she cannot “talk the talk” with him in the same way his colleagues can. Thus, Lewis argues, friendship between spouses in these circumstances becomes progressively more difficult with time.  He does not offer much in the way of a solution to this difficulty.

Without denying the potential problem he describes, I am more optimistic about the possibility of friendship between spouses, even those who, in their daily professional work, move in different circles. First of all, consider the spouses’ common interests and projects, upon which a solid friendship can be built. For most married couples, God blesses their union with children. What could be a more important, fascinating, and demanding common project than parenthood? Good parenting requires constant communication, cooperation, and mutual support between spouses – the very stuff upon which a friendship can develop.

Of course, the foundation for their friendship needs to go beyond parenting – otherwise, when the children are out of the house, the spouses run the risk of losing their only common project. So their friendship should include other common interests and activities – politics, hobbies, projects, reading together, discussions and conversations about cultural topics.

Finally, if the man who works outside the home does not try to include his wife in his professional interests and activities, if he does not attempt to speak with her about his daily joys, sorrows, and concerns, then he is not treating her as an equal, as a true friend.  She will feel this and resent it, as Lewis noted.

To avoid this problem, men should be ready to talk with their wives about their work when they get home, even if they are tired from a busy day, and would prefer to sit with the TV or newspaper. Likewise, wives should attempt to show interest in their husband’s professional life – if not for an interest in the work itself, then for his sake.

FFG: How important is “spousal friendship” to happy marriage?

Dr. Kheriaty: It is indispensable. Perhaps the most common cause of divorce is the lack of a solid and constant friendship between spouses. This foundation of friendship remains firm when the emotions and passions of eros wax and wane.

The antidote to the proverbial “seven-year itch” is real friendship that continues to be cultivated year after year. This takes work – it often requires sacrifice and always requires effort.

A well-known psychologist has done studies comparing successful marriage relationships with those that end in divorce. The worst sign of a troubled marriage is what he calls “stonewalling” – a total lack of engagement between the spouses.

When the lives of a husband and wife begin to run on parallel tracks that never meet, the marriage is likely doomed if things do not change. Interestingly, this psychologist argues that for spouses who are “stonewalled,” even getting them to argue with one another is a step in the right direction; at least in arguing they are engaging with one another.

Friends sometimes have disagreements, so spouses will have occasional arguments (of course, this should never be done in front of the children, and attempts to reconcile should come quickly). What should be avoided at all costs is a lack of daily engagement, a distance or coldness between spouses. This kills friendship; and when the spousal friendship dies, the marriage is in trouble.

FFG: What are some practical “everyday” things a husband can do to achieve “spousal friendship”?

Dr. Kheriaty:   1. A husband should pray with his wife daily. This can take many forms – the family rosary, night time prayers with the children, quiet mental prayer together before the Blessed Sacrament, vocal prayers. The husband should be the spiritual leader in the family (giving good example to the children), and the spiritual leader in the marriage (helping his wife on her way to heaven).

2. He must demonstrate his love with words and deeds. Women need to hear, and to be shown, “I love you” many times a day. Just as Our Lady never tires of hearing the repeated prayers of the rosary, so our wife never tires of hearing how much we love her.

Tender and affectionate words are never boring or repetitious when love is present. So we say it (over and over – with phone calls, e-mails, or text messages during the workday), and then we show it.

Take care of the Saturday “honey-do” list without complaint. Try to anticipate her needs.  Come up with projects that you can do together. Love is deeds, not sweet words (but the sweet words are necessary as well).

Finally: It sounds clichéd, but flowers work every time. Bring her flowers often – for no apparent reason, and without the need of a “special occasion.” They are a great way to diffuse arguments or tensions: swallow your pride, and be the first to apologize.