CANA IS FOREVER

COUNSELS FOR BEFORE AND AFTER MARRIAGE

Charles Hugo Doyle

Nihil Obstat: JOHN M. A. FEARNS, S.T.D.

Censor Librorum

Imprimatur: +FRANCIS CARDINAL SPELLMAN

Archbishop of New York
January 5, 1949

Copyright 1949 by The Nugent Press, Tarrytown, N. Y.

Printed in the United States of America

IN MEMORY OF MY FATHER, MOTHER, AND BROTHER

CONTENTS

Gospel Story
Prologue
1. Marriage Is a Career
2. This Thing Called Love
3. Remote Preparation for Marriage
4. Proximate Preparation for Marriage
5. Mixed Marriages Are Dangerous
6. The Great Sacrament
7. The Period of Adjustment
8. Basic Requisites for Marital Happiness
9. The Great Sin in Marriage
10. Marriage Wreckers
11. The Important Role of Parents
12. Cana Is Forever

At that time . . . There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus
was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. And the
wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith
to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother
saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. Now, there were set
there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews,
containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots
with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus saith to them: Draw
out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when
the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but
the waiters knew who had drawn the water, the chief steward calleth the bridegroom,
and saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have
well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory.
And his disciples believed in him. (St. John 2:1-11)

PROLOGUE

". . . and Jesus also was invited" (to the marriage).

IF YOU ARE contemplating matrimony as a career and you honestly want your marriage
to be an unqualified success, your task may be far greater than you realize.

Today, in this country, one out of every three marriages ends in divorce or
separation. So oft repeated is this in the press that it now produces little more
than the raising of eyebrows. What really would prove startling would be an
accurate survey of the felicitous state of the other two-thirds who maintain common
domicile alone through force of public opinion, circumstances or, as they say, "for
the sake of the children." I would venture a guess that at least one half of the
two-thirds who do remain together experience unhappiness in all its various shades
from the powder gray of discontent to the deep black of desperation. The tragic
failure of so many others only proves that many pitfalls await you in marriage.

Taking unto oneself a partner, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in
sickness and in health until death, is serious business. A happy and successful
marriage is one of life's greatest blessings. On the other hand, an unhappy
marriage is one of the cruelest afflictions that can befall anyone. Who fails at
marriage fails at living!

The pages that follow have been written with the hope that they will assist those
contemplating marriage to choose wisely and well. They are written, too, for those
who have quaffed deeply of the heady wine of wedlock and found it sometimes very
sweet and sometimes very bitter, and also for those whose complete disillusionment
has made them so cynical that they pronounce the word "marriage" with all the
fervid sadness and loathing with which Job must have said "boils."

If you are standing only on the shores of the sea of matrimony, or if you have
already set sail and find yourself tossed about on the topmost waves, this book is
for you. Read it carefully, follow its counsels, and you too may be spared the
folly of so many others: that of dropping broken pitchers into empty wells and
growing old in drawing nothing up.

Since marriage is such a hazardous venture it would appear reasonable that God
should provide men and women with certain guiding principles to insure its success.
That is why, in my mind, Cana of Galilee assumes such tremendous importance. It is
a spiritual Baedeker for matrimonial careerists.

Nothing that God ever does is the result of mere chance. Everything is divinely
planned to the minutest detail. Christ's presence, therefore, at the marriage in
Cana was not accidental but pre-ordained from all eternity. Indeed, the evangelical
prophet Isaias foretold centuries beforehand that the light of the Messias would
first shine in Galilee. And shine it did, in the miracle of the changing of water
into wine, and again in the miraculous curing of the sick child.

That Cana was chosen for two great miracles, the first in tribute to conjugal love,
the second in tribute to paternal love, removes all doubt as to its being anything
but a place of God's special predilection and providence. The events that took
place there followed such a pre-eminent pattern that they ought not to be
considered as favoring individuals but rather as extending to the instruction and
ennoblement of all mankind, especially to those embracing the marital state.

There is deep significance in the fact that the Son of God chose a banquet table as
a backdrop for the event that marked the beginning of His public ministry and again
another banquet table to preface its ending. As an invited guest at the marriage
feast in Cana, Christ changed water, universal symbol of sorrow and tears, into
wine, symbol of joy and love. As host at the Last Supper, the same Christ changed
wine into love's overflow, His own most precious Blood. When William Makepeace
Thackeray remarked that meals with friends were "the greatest vehicles of
benevolence," he provided a more than adequate explanation for Christ's presence
in Cana in Galilee and again in the Upper Room in Jerusalem.

Certainly, it was no mere coincidence that He who came to redeem a world plunged
into degradation by the reckless action of the first man and his wife should
perform His first miracle as the Messias for another man and his wife. It would
appear that Our Lord, by gracing with His presence the marriage in Cana, and making
of it the occasion for working such a striking miracle, wished to demonstrate to
all men that the ultimate success of the work of redemption of mankind would rest
with the family unit as such.

Terse as Saint John's accounts are of the events at Cana, they nevertheless would
provide adequate material for numerous volumes of essays and many years of
meditation. Regarding the first miracle, there is the question of why Our Lord
chose Cana at all, a village of fewer than six hundred souls, when He might have
chosen the crowded city of Jerusalem, or even the palatial summer home of the rich
Simon, the Pharisee, at Magdala. There is the matter of the amount of water made
wine--more than eighty gallons--or the fact that the miracle was done through the
intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary simply because she remarked to her Son,
"They have no wine." Again, there is the point that the names of the bride and
bridegroom are not recorded, as if God covered this couple with anonymity to
impersonalize the whole affair.

Likewise, the second miracle is equally rich in exegetical material. There's the
question of who the royal official was, whose son was mortally ill; the nature of
the illness; whether it was the little son who had asked his father to seek out the
Divine Physician, or whether the father had sought Christ without the child's
knowledge. These and a thousand other questions would provide interesting material
for many a book. There is even a font of hidden meaning in the word "Cana" itself,
as well as in its providential geographical position, to say nothing of the deep
significance of the rich ceremonials of that day, especially those surrounding the
ancient Jewish marriage ceremony.

Out of the wealth of essay topics provided by these and other incidents relative to
Cana of Galilee, I have chosen to write the present volume around certain points in
the scriptural accounts that in one way or another indicate guidance toward success
and happiness in marriage. For instance, the lamentable and alarming numbers of
marriage failures today may be traced to the fact that too many who enter this
sacred relationship fail either to invite Christ to their marriage or, having done
so, fail to follow in married life the counsel our Blessed Lady gave to the waiters
at Cana: "Whatsoever He shall say to you, do ye." Again, the failure of the wine
would indicate inadequate preparation, and the failure of many modern marriages may
be traced to the same cause. If there is one career that demands prayerful
consideration and careful preparation it is marriage. Circuit Judge L. D. Miller of
Chattanooga, Tennessee, who has handled over twenty-five thousand marriage failures
in his long career, unreservedly asserts that over forty per cent of those marital
tragedies resulted from hasty marriages of the physically and mentally immature.
Cana's lessons thoroughly applied will help you to avoid such pitfalls.
Indeed, narrow is the gate to marital bliss and few who enter therein; but with a
consciousness of its hazards and a determination to avoid them, by the grace of
God, you can make a grand success of your marriage. At least, that is the prayer of
the author.

Chapter One: MARRIAGE IS A CAREER

There is something formally prohibitive about a sign on a door reading "No

Admittance Except on Business," and it usually gets results. There would be fewer
disappointing marriages if none entered the sacred relationship but those bent on
serious business. Believe me, marriage is serious business. It is no lark, no
adventure in the vacuous emotion of youth; it is a decision that will affect for
life, and perhaps for eternity, not only oneself but one's partner and any children
God may send.

Marriage is a career, one so vital and so splendid that it ranks next to the
priesthood and religious life in the trinity of top-flight careers in the world.
All other careers are incidental to them. The fact that marriage was the first
career ever to be embraced by man is most significant. And our common Father, Adam,
when his pure gaze fell upon the first incarnation of unalloyed womanhood, Eve,
proclaimed the inviolable law that was to bind all his descendants until the end of
time: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they shall be two in one flesh." (Gen. 2:24.)

The etymological meaning of the word "career" is interesting. It comes from the
Latin word carrus--"wagon"--and means literally something that carries one along a
road. In this sense, marriage is truly a career--one instituted by God Himself to
carry a man and his wife and their children along life's highway to heaven.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "career": "As a course of professional life
or employment which affords opportunity for progress or advancement in the world."
According to this definition marriage certainly qualifies as a career. History
bears this out. There was hardly ever a great deed done by man that did not
somewhere bear the fingerprint, no matter how faint, of a fond mother or a loving
wife. How often have we not heard successful men humbly proclaim that the Herculean
feats they have accomplished they owe to a devoted, saintly wife.

Indeed, not only is marriage a career that affords opportunity for spiritual and
temporal progress and advancement in this life, but it reaches far into the next.
"Marriage," said Taylor, "is the mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, and
fills cities and churches, and heaven itself. The state of marriage fills up the
number of the elect and hath in it the labor of love and the delicacies of
friendship, the blessing of society and the union of hands and hearts. It is indeed
the very nursery of heaven."

The nature of man's career in marriage consists primarily in a permanent union for
the procreation and education of children, the provision of a home, support of his
wife and his offspring, constant vigilant care for the spiritual and temporal
welfare of his household. The nature of a woman's career in marriage consists in
the bearing and education of children, insoluble union, home-making and
housekeeping. These are not matters of choice but of obligation.

A married man may give proof of power to rule an empire, master

abstruse sciences, write immortal tomes--yet if he fulfills not the
primary ends of the marriage career he is a failure.

A married woman may win by her particular capabilities and capacities the plaudits
of the world for her contribution to medical and scientific research, or for works
of art that grace the greatest museums and art galleries in the world; yet if she
fulfills not the primary ends of her marriage career she is indeed a failure. Her
first duty is to be a wife and mother and homemaker.

Failure to realize that marriage is a career is one of the tragedies of our day and
the chief cause of the countless broken homes. People readily accept law, teaching,
medicine, nursing, singing and advertising as careers, but neglect to include
matrimony among the top-flight careers. Important as all careers may appear
to be, only two were elevated to the dignity of sacraments--the priesthood and
marriage. That consideration above all else should merit for the matrimonial state
special veneration.

No one would deny that for Gainsborough painting was a career, after feasting one's
eyes on his famous Blue Boy. But what comparison is there between the colored oils
skillfully blended on canvas by the hand of the artist and a tiny, lovely infant
born to an adoring mother and father whose union had been sanctified in
marriage? If painting the picture of a child is a career, dare we deny that
parenthood is a career?

What artist could reproduce the faint azure blue of a baby's eyes or gather rays of
pale dawn and distill therefrom the delicate pink that graces a baby's dimpled
cheek? Who but God, in using human agencies, could put such innocence and trust
into a baby's smile or bless such frail little hands with enough terrible strength
to help weld two hearts into one until death do them part?

No one would think of denying that teaching is a high career, but, by far and
large, the first and most important school is the home, and the most influential
teachers, all mothers and fathers.

Nursing is a career, but a mother's untaught hands can often heal and nurse with
such latent skill that they can coax a waning life back to strength when it has
slipped beyond the reach of a registered nurse and even the physician.

If entertaining an audience from the stage, screen, or over the radio is a career,
creating joy and happiness in a home is also a career.

Diplomacy is a career, but where is diplomacy so necessary and so frequently

required as in marriage? Indeed, the keeping of a husband or a wife for life
demands more consummate diplomacy than that ever exercised by Richelieu and
Churchill together. The author of the "Lady of the Lake," Sir Walter Scott, sums up
for husbands the most contradictory and salient characteristics of all wives in a
single verse thus:

"Oh woman! in our hours of ease,

Uncertain, coy, and hard to please,
And variable as the shade
By the light quivering aspen made;
When pain and anguish wring the brow,
A ministering angel thou."

Some careerists are successful though they may only practice the virtues requisite
to their own particular vocations. Thus, it is quite possible for a doctor to be
successful in medicine or surgery without having to practice the subtle arts of the
diplomat. When a traffic officer stops your car and roars at you that highly
original greeting, "Pull over, Buddy. Where's de fire?", it is evident that his
career as such does not require the sympathy and gentleness of the mortician.

Marriage as a career differs from all others inasmuch as it demands for its success
a great combination of many virtues and qualities peculiar to many particular
careers. Marriage demands the patience of the teacher, the training of the
psychologist, the diplomacy of the statesman, the justice of a Supreme Court judge,
the sense of humor of a good comedian, the self-sacrifice of a good doctor, "the-
customer-is-always-right" attitude of the successful department store salesman, the
mercy of the confessor, and so on, ad infinitum.

Having once established the fact that marriage is a topflight career, it naturally
follows that the same rules govern its success as govern those of other careers.
Every successful career demands adequate preparation, intelligent earnestness,
persistent industry, and the will-to-win, but marriage demands all these, plus the
anointed strength of love.

If every couple would but bring to marriage one half the consuming zeal for success
that Thomas A. Edison brought to his scientific career, how different many of them
would be!

As a youth, Edison spent long dreary hours practicing on the tiny telegrapher's
key, learning the code and manner of sending and receiving messages. There was a
four-day walk from Port Huron to Boston in search of work. There was the penniless
arrival in New York and a chance job repairing a telegraphic communication system
in a stock exchange on Wall Street that led to financial betterment, but it was
dogged determination to succeed that made him so outstanding as a scientist.

Take, for instance, Edison's work on the carbon filament. In October, 1879, he
determined to make his experiment work if it was the last thing he ever did. So
convinced was he that the carbon filament was utilizable that he refused to leave
his laboratory until he completed his work. On the second night he said to his
associate, Charles Batchelor, "We will make a lamp before we sleep or die in the
attempt," and make it he did, though it took four sleepless days and nights before
the now famous Edison incandescent light was invented and the whole lighting system
revolutionized in the world.

Edison's career was successful solely because he brought to it a determination to

succeed no matter what the cost. Success in any field rarely comes without great
sacrifices. One has only to read about the life of Madame Curie and her devoted
husband and follow the discovery of radium to evaluate the cost of success in a
career.

Madame Curie's sufferings as she worked in the smoke-filled shed, cold in the
winter and stifling hot in the summer, defy description. The work of days became
months and years, and failure dogged her every minute of the time, but Marie Curie,
with terrible patience, continued to treat kilogram by kilogram the tons of
pitchblende residue. Poverty hampered her in the acquisition of adequate equipment.
The obstacles seemed insurmountable in the forty-five months of experimentation,
but in the end the Curie work produced radium.

Who could look at the great Marie Curie as she lay on her deathbed, after thirty-
five years' work with radium, and see her tired, burned, scarred hands without
realizing the awful cost of success in a career?

Success in marriage depends upon acceptance of the fact that it is a career and
upon the readiness and willingness to bring to it all the determination possible to
overcome every difficulty and obstacle on the road to success. If a marriage breaks
up, it is not because a man or woman must accept defeat but because the defeat is
willed.

A kite cannot be made to fly unless it goes against the wind and has a weight to
keep it from overturning. No marriage will succeed unless there is readiness to
face and overcome difficulties and a willingness to accept the responsibilities of
a parent, for parenthood is the weight that keeps most marriages from
somersaulting.

When Divine Love Incarnate came to Cana of Galilee to sanctify forever pure
conjugal love, He came to that marriage fresh from His terrible bout with Satan.

Since the first man and his wife had succumbed to temptation in the Garden of Eden,
it was divinely planned that Christ, the New Adam, should permit the same tempter
to attack Him and be ignominiously defeated and thus set a pattern for all to
follow in the resistance of temptation. His sacred presence at the wedding
was ever to be an earnest of the help and special graces He would grant those
called to the marriage career who would likewise resist the onslaughts of Satan.
Yea, more, Our Lord would elevate matrimony to the dignity of a Sacrament and make
of it a veritable channel of special graces.

It is worthy of note, however, that while en route to Cana, the Master called His
first five apostles, one of them being Nathanael (St. Bartholomew), a native of
Cana of Galilee. The timing of Nathanael's call to the apostolate was, doubtless,
to indicate the primacy of dignity and honor of the priesthood and religious life
over marriage, and that, in that very order, they would form a trinity of top-
flight careers.

It was only after choosing a nucleus for His priesthood that Christ went down to
the marriage at Cana of Galilee.

Chapter Two: THIS THING CALLED LOVE

Lord Bacon, one of the great English philosophers and essayists, tells us: "He was
reputed one of the wise men that made answer to the question--when a man should
fall in love and marry--'a young man not yet, and an older man not at all.'"

I, for one, cannot dismiss the feeling that the formulator of that answer was
either once in love and was jilted, or he was married and his wife beat him. Love
is the wine of existence and marriage is an honorable estate, or, should I say, for
some it is an imperative one, and go along with Saint Paul, who fiercely puts it:
"For it is better to marry than to be burnt."? (I Cor. 7:9.)

In the second chapter of the Book of Genesis we are told that when the world was in
its freshness of new beauty and Adam was master of it all, God saw the need of
making a companion for him. One thing was lacking: "for Adam there was not found a
helper like himself" and "it was not good for man to be alone"; and so God made
Eve. Strange as it may seem, falling in love means searching and finding in
another, the partner who will make it easier for you to fulfill your destiny and
realize God's plan for yourself. At least, that is one conception of love.

A clear-cut definition of love is not as easy to find as one might imagine. Few
encyclopedias even carry the word. They devote pages to economics, art, and music,
but ignore love. The writers of books on marriage either avoid giving a definition
of it or frankly admit that it is indefinable. Cole Porter went so far as to set
the question "What Is This Thing Called Love?" to music, yet he gave no satisfying
answer. The inimitable George Bernard Shaw when invited to contribute to a book on
marriage replied: "No man dare write the truth about marriage while his wife
lives." Perhaps that answer may supply a key to the problem of why so few have
dared to define love. There may be as much "dare not" as "cannot" involved in this
complex matter.
The gifted St. Thomas Aquinas had no inhibitions on the subject and boldly declared
that "to love a person is to wish him well." And Webster, as we shall see a few
pages hence, goes along with the Angelic Doctor on that definition.

Sir Walter Scott says:

True love's the gift which God has given

To man alone beneath the heaven.
It is not fantasy's hot fire
Whose wishes, soon as granted, fly;
It liveth not in fierce desire--
With dead desire, it doth not die.

It is the secret sympathy,

The silver link, the silken tie
Which heart to heart and mind to mind
In body and in soul can find.

To Scott, then, love is a composite thing which, laying hold upon one's nature,
binds it with another in secret sympathy. Like grace, the effects of love are
easier to treat than its nature.

Love, like death, is the universal leveler of mankind. It is nature's motive and
reward. "We are all born of love," said Disraeli, "and it is the principle of
existence and its only end."

It is only natural that since love was to be the mainspring of man's existence it
would be the very thing Satan would endeavor to counterfeit. Thus true love, like
every genuine thing of value, has numerous imitations. The cruel task for many is
to sift the wheat from the chaff, to distinguish the true from the false, the
precious metal from the slag. There is but one thing against which genuine
love is helpless and that is time. Love is like wine in that age improves the good
and sours the bad.

If we are to accept modern songs, novels, the radio, and movies as our criteria, we
shall believe that love comes at first sight and with such a crushing force that
one is powerless to resist. Such, however, is not the case. If love were always to
strike like lightning, then no one would be safe. Your mother might be smitten by
the paper boy and your father by John's Other Wife. Momentary attraction must not
be confused with love, for love needs time.

Love at first is fancy, then there follows admiration, joined with respect and
devotion. In this melange of emotions there occurs, sometimes, violent agitation,
but more often there is a gentle simmering, a confused but agreeable mingling,
until gradually all becomes transfused into a vital feeling called love. "The
introduction to this felicity," says Emerson, "is a private and tender relation of
one to one, which is the enchantment of human life; which, like a certain divine
rage and enthusiasm, seizes a man at one period and works a revolution in his mind
and body; unites him to his race, pledges him to the domestic and civic relations,
carries him with new sympathy into nature, enhances the power of his senses, opens
the imagination, adds to his character heroic and sacred attributes, establishes
marriage and gives permanence to human society."

Since so much depends on love for abiding happiness in marriage, it stands to

reason that a comprehensive understanding of what real love is takes on paramount
importance. There is nothing so misunderstood and no word so abused as the word
'"love." Little boys and girls "love" candy; women "love" mink coats; trees in
every village and in every lane have "love" carved in their bark, and fences on
every back street proclaim that A.B. "loves" C.D., while recapped Romeos whisper it
gently and its magic is supposed to make liberties righteous. Ignorance of the
development of love, as well as the multitudinous forms love takes, makes for the
misunderstanding of it. A great many people imagine that all children are born with
an innate love for their parents and their immediate family; that, later, puppy
love develops; and finally that they will quite naturally go through the
process of dating, courting, and then marry. Would that it were quite so simple!

Under the most favorable conditions everyone's love life develops through five
stages. The first stage comes in infancy when, as Dr. Vladimir G. Eliasberg, a
psychology professor at Rutgers University, says, we begin by being narcissistic--
that is, lovers of ourselves. Next comes our love for our Parents--then a love for
our playmates--then a crush on a companion of the same sex (for example, a girl's
crush on her teacher)--finally, as teen-agers, we show the usual interest in the
opposite sex, with thoughts of finding a life mate and marriage.

During any one or all of these stages, external forces may hinder or help the
growth of love. Let us examine some of these hindrances or helps in detail. For
instance, in the first stage of narcissism, a child in the normal home learns to
depend upon its parents and finds it easy to transfer some of its love from itself
to its parents. In those homes, on the other hand, where the child is definitely
not wanted and lacks love, that child is a cheated individual and because he is not
loved he refuses to love in return. In order to acquire a fine personality, a child
must feel himself a worthy and wanted member of the family. A child needs to feel
secure. Without security he is cheated, and a cheated child is a future delinquent.
Parents who really love one another and who are considerate of one another and
avoid harshness naturally provide the best background for the child's security. The
shrewish, nagging, domineering mother will stunt the growth of a child's life.
The proud, arrogant, sawdust-Caesar-like father, who rules his home with
dictatorial edicts, will set a pattern for his child's later love life. Knowingly
or unknowingly, we become like those with whom we live and associate.

Another extremely important matter in the growing love life of a child is the
proper attitude toward sex. The vast majority of children will grow up, choose a
mate, and find in marriage the fulfillment of a real vocation. How successful this
venture will be will depend upon a sensible sex education in the home. Growing up
in a home where there are condemnation and embarrassed looks when the child asks
the normal questions about sex and questions concerning life's beginnings, as if it
were something terribly unclean and sinful, tends to make of it a personality
problem. Curiosity is merely whetted by such mid-Victorian attitudes and the child
will seek information elsewhere. Parents actually warp a child's sex life by their
attitude of evasion or embarrassment when sex is mentioned. It suffices to say here
that the best Catholic authorities assert that parents should avoid the extremes of
prudishness on one hand and vulgarity of detail on the other. Pope Pius XI, in the
Encyclical letter "On Christian Education of Youth," pointed out the duty of
parents to instruct their sons and daughters in sex matters when they are requested
to do so by their offspring.

Sex questions should then be answered directly and reverently. The way in which
parents handle this problem may affect their children and their children's children
for generations.

Still another way the love life of a child or teen-ager may be permanently affected
is that by which a selfish mother or father resents sharing the child's affection
with friends and playmates. A mother who emotionally ties a child to her apron
strings does that individual a great injury. Obstacles placed in the way of a
child's development in normal friendships can later turn out to be a real booby
trap. Parents should endeavor to develop in their children, from early years, a
wide range of friendships with other children of both sexes. The mother who boasts
that she is her "son's best girl" and who is eternally berating all girls as
flirts, and who, to her daughter, pictures all men as "wolves," does her offspring
a disservice. The teen-ager's normal adjustment may be impaired or irreparably
damaged by such conduct.

Let us now consider some of the different manifestations of love. There is, as we
all know, such a thing as a deep love of country; there is the love in friendship
such as that which existed between Jonathan and David and between Our Lord and
Saint John; there is filial love such as exists between a child and its parents;
there is romantic love such as exists between two lovers; and nuptial love--
that which exists between a man and his wife.

Common sense tells us that in each of the above cited examples, the love is
different. For instance, the simpler love in friendship is more or less restricted
in external expression, for while there is genuine esteem and deep regard, we do
not kiss or fondle all our friends. Again, the love that exists between members of
the family, while much more demonstrative, has definite natural limits. A mother
will have as deep and abiding a love for her child as she has for her husband, but
the difference lies in the fact that her love for her husband is flavored by sexual
attraction. The romantic lovers will love their parents, brothers, and sisters, but
the love between themselves is the sexually flavored variety. And sexual attraction
is a normal, natural, healthy desire, created by God Himself, without which few men
and women would desire to marry and have children. Frankly, without sex attraction
the human race would soon die out.

A deep understanding of the different kinds of love will keep parents from making
the mistake of resenting the romantic love of sons and daughters. The new love will
not extinguish filial love, it will strengthen it.

Romantic love is such a subtle thing that human intelligence must be assisted by
divine grace to be able to discern the true from the false. Few realize that true
love is, as defined by Webster, "a desire for and earnest effort to promote the
welfare of another," and not simply another name for external manifestations of
affection and sex satisfaction. Nuptial love that is built on passion alone is
doomed to failure. Almost all passions are temporary by nature. We know from
experience that the passion of anger, for instance, is rarely able to be sustained
at a high pitch. Once we "get even" with our enemy, the force of the rage is spent.
The same is true of love as a passion, for from this point of view the chief
pleasure is in anticipation and once its object is attained it may wane and even
pall. Marriage must be built on a much firmer basis.

A happy marriage depends on one's early education in what real love is and what it
is not, and what its end and object are. A happy marriage depends too on one's
capacity during courtship to discern true love from mere infatuation. Love whets
the appetite; infatuation leaves hunger still.

"Love hath its seat

In reason and is judicious,"

says Milton, while infatuation directs action without reason and precludes
judgment. Love is a learned quality; infatuation is a play of humor in the blood.
Infatuation can even be a one-sided affair, but not so, love, for as the Italian
proverb says, "To love and not be loved is time lost." One strives in vain to light
a cigarette from a dead coal.

A doctor of medicine, a close friend of mine, and I were discussing a young man, a
problem child, in whose case we had both become concerned. I ventured to suggest
that what really ailed the boy was that "he had a touch of love." "You ought to
know better than that," said the doctor. "Love is like diabetes. There is no such
thing as a touch of it. You have it or you don't have it."
Granted that one knows when he or she is in love, is there no infallible way of
telling the genuine from the unreasonable facsimile? I'm afraid not, but I hasten
to say that you can be morally certain your love is true and genuine if you find
gentleness, beauty, refinement, generosity and intelligence and a reciprocal love
made up of all these qualities and one that outdistances your love, day by day,
month by month. What? No sex? Yes, indeed, but when two persons are really in love
and that love is genuine, the sex feelings are so controlled that, without
realizing it, they find great pleasure merely in being in one
another's company.

Newell W. Edson of the American Social Hygiene Association, in a

pamphlet entitled "Love in the Making," has listed the following
signs as indicative of true love:

1. A genuine interest in the other person and all that he or she says
or does.

2. A community of tastes, ideals, and standards with no serious

clashes.

3. A greater happiness in being with this one person than with any
other.

4. A real unhappiness when the other person is absent.

5. A great feeling of comradeship.

6. A willingness to give and take.

7. A disposition to give fair consideration to the other party's

judgment.

8. A pride in the other person when comparisons are made.

9. A wealth of things to say and do together.

Mr. Edson neglected to mention something that I consider a most indicative sign of
love, and that is a willingness to sacrifice oneself for another--to sacrifice
something prized by the giver. Sacrifice stimulates love while expressing it. It
was Antoine de Saint-Exupery, I think, who said: "The mother gives nourishment
from her own body for her child. By her giving she creates her love. To create love
we must begin by sacrifice. Afterwards it is love that makes the sacrifices. But it
is we who must take the first step."

Emerson sums up the whole problem in his own inimitable way as follows: "All that
is in the world, which is or ought to be known, is cunningly wrought into the
texture of man and woman:

The person love does to us fit

Like Manna, has the taste of all in it."

Upon parents, teachers, and clergy alike falls the grave obligation of forewarning
and forearming teen-age youths against the folly of permitting themselves to "go
steady" during high-school years. Youth must be taught the dangers of this
procedure well in advance of its actuality, for once the love-bug gets them they
become blind to reason and deaf to admonition. Teen-agers must be shown that the
wisdom of nature must be respected and that ventures into love demand maturity--
physical, intellectual, and emotional maturity. The bird does not leave the nest
until its wings are grown strong enough to carry it. The chrysalis does not
tear open until there are wings to take the tiny insect aloft. Teen-agers likewise
ought to wait until they are of proper age before going steady or being allowed to
do so.

My experience with adolescents has been that under ordinary circumstances, they
react favorably to logic. For instance, few teen-agers would let themselves fall in
love during their high-school years if they knew that more than sixty-nine per cent
of those who were madly in love during that period of their lives did not marry the
object of this youthful affection at or after the age of twenty-one. This proves
simply that a person at twenty-one has a different sense of values than at, say,
sixteen or seventeen.

No youth would fail to condemn the folly of a sixteen-year-old lad who had set his
heart on a red convertible coupe and had gone so far as to have a car salesman give
him several road demonstrations, but who at the same time had no money to buy a
car, no money for its upkeep, no place to keep a car, and, lastly, couldn't drive a
car. Now, applying the same reasoning to steady-company-keeping by minors, it is
easy to point out the utter folly of permitting themselves to fall in love until
they are old enough to distinguish real love from mere infatuation; until they are
mature enough to assume the complex and responsible duty of parenthood; and until
they have the income sufficient to establish and maintain a home. Teenagers should
ponder the wisdom of the words of Owen Felltham, who warns that "love is never
lasting which flames before it burns."

A person may not vote until his twenty-first birthday has been reached. Now, this
legislation was enacted simply because the politicians felt that anyone younger
lacked mature judgment. Anyone who is too immature to vote is too immature to
choose a life partner. There are physical reasons also involved in such a
decision. The Germans, according to Julius Caesar, ruled that the act of
reproduction in marriage was not permitted to anyone under twenty-one without
incurring infamy: and to this he attributed the great strength and fine stature of
that simple people.

But is it possible to keep from falling in love? It is, if kissing and petting are
not indulged in, no endearing terms expressed through little intimacies, no gifts
exchanged, and no confession of love made. It's just as simple as all that. Ovid, a
writer in ancient times, said "Love gives place to business. Attend to business and
you will be safe."

It is a wise thing to have a few, good, well-founded principles to guide you when
about to choose a mate. One of those principles should be that beauty of face and
figure will not be the sole motivating factor in your choice. Remember that "you
can never tell the depth of the well by the length of the handle on the pump."
A ready smile, a bright mind, a pleasing personality, a courteous manner are all
more important than a pretty face. All the flaunted beauty of certain screen
actresses and actors has not served so well in keeping them happily married.

To those who are intellectually, physically, vocationally, and emotionally mature

enough to fall in love, we say emphatically that enduring love is ever built on
virtue which cannot be seen in the other person at once. Long acquaintanceship--one
to five years--has better prospects than "love at first sight." Above all, we
remind them that many more qualities than the severely practical go into the
composition of married life and home building. Abstract traits are beautiful and
indispensable, but:

Will the love that you are rich in

Build a fire in the kitchen
Or the little god of Love turn the spit, spit, spit?
Flour is the chief and most quantitative ingredient in a good cake, but flour alone
won't make a cake. You also need baking powder, salt, sugar, shortening, eggs and
milk, a lot of sifting and mixing, a smooth batter, and just the right amount of
heat. Love is the chief ingredient requisite for a happy marriage but not the only
one. A good many other things go into the making of a happy marriage, especially in
these modern times with changing attitudes.
Speaking of recipes, here is an old grandmother's recipe that has a
lot of wisdom in it:

"When once you have made your selection, let it remain forever settled and give
your entire thoughts to preparation for domestic use. Some wives keep their
husbands in pickle, others in hot water. Even poor varieties may be made sweet,
tender and good by garnishing with patience, well sweetened with smiles and
flavored with kisses. Wrap in a mantle of charity, keep warm with a steady fire of
domestic devotion. Serve often with peaches and cream. When thus prepared, husbands
will keep for years."

But getting back to our main topic--love--most readers will agree wholeheartedly
with what we have stated thus far. There will be perfect agreement with the tenet
that a person ought to know what real love is and be so well grounded in the
knowledge that the true can be easily detected from the false. Sound advice, all
this is, for those who have not yet entered holy wedlock, but what about those
already married who find the fires of love reduced to but smoldering embers, if
not, as some protest, gone out completely?

To such persons we say that were it not within the power of man to "will to love,"
there would be no solution to such a problem and most marriages would rarely remain
happy for more than a few years at best. That it is not impossible to foster love
for one's husband or wife is being proven daily by thousands of thoughtful men and
women who, while disillusioned as to the fitness of their match, nevertheless have
forced themselves to look for the good and noble in each other, with the amazing
result that a new understanding and respect has grown up between them.

No matter who it is, there is some loveliness in everyone that lurks undiscovered,
and patient, kindly exploration will render it easily discernible and upon this a
new comradeship can be born and fostered. Always remember that the great bridge
that now spans Niagara Falls first began with the spreading from side to side of a
tiny wire. The wire was used to haul across a rope and at the end of the rope was a
heavy cable, and so on until a bridge was begun that today supports the traffic of
trains, cars, and honeymooners. The point is that someone had to will that a bridge
be built across Niagara Falls and from that will flowed the determination that
provided the means for overcoming what appeared at first to be insurmountable
obstacles. The same holds true in marriage, and while one or both parties may not
experience all the rapturous moments of happiness that they might have had had they
chosen their life partner more wisely, consider that few marriages are a tale of
uninterrupted bliss.

That everyone has within him the power "to will to love" is proved by the fact that
in certain countries, in the past, there was no free choices of mates, and yet such
a deep sense of the duty of loving was taught in the home--and not only a great and
high sense of duty but the grandeur of loving--that the husband and wife usually
managed to make a good job of mutually respecting one another. So successful was
this sort of thing that some wag--Lyttleton or Shaftesbury, I think--said:
"Marriages would be happier if they were all arranged by the Lord Chancellor."

The person who says, "I do not love my wife or my husband any more," acknowledges
simply that "the will to love" is absent. Such a person lacks good sportsmanship
too, for a good sport will take pride in succeeding in every adventure, and
marriage is one of life's chief adventures. Morton puts it this way: "In love, as
in religion, faith worketh miracles."

Whatever you do, give love time. "Love," says Blucher, "is the river of life in
this world. Think not that ye know it who stand at the little tinkling rill, the
first small fountain. Not until you have gone through the rocky gorges and not lost
the stream; not until you have gone through the meadow and the stream has widened
and deepened until fleets could ride on its bosom; not until beyond the meadow you
have come to the unfathomable ocean, and poured your treasures into its depths--not
until then can you know what love is!"

And the measure of love? Mrs. Browning gave the world a

wondrous formula:

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of Being and Ideal Grace.
I love thee to the level of everyday's
Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.
I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;
I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.
I love thee with the passion put to use,
In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith;
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints,--I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life!--and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.[1]

There is every reason to believe that all the ancient Jewish customs were observed
at the marriage in Cana. If that be true, Our Blessed Lord and His Virgin Mother
witnessed a most significant reminder of the fragility of love. According to
custom, from time to time during Jewish wedding feasts, someone would put somewhat
of a check on the joyous festivities by shattering the wine glasses of the happy
pair.[2] The idea was to remind the bride and the groom that all felicity is
subject to instability, and that love, like a glass once dashed to the ground,
could be shattered into a thousand pieces--and were repair possible, the cracks
would always show.

In this, as in so many other ways, the lessons of Cana are tremendous and Cana Is
Forever.

ENDNOTES

1. Sonnets from the Portuguese.

2. "Fortuna vitrea est, tum quum splendet frangitur"--Publius

Syrus--see Berachot F. 31. 1. "The Christ--The Son of God," by the
Abbe Constant Fouard (I, p. 193).

Chapter Three: REMOTE PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE

I read somewhere about an old prospector who discovered a gold mine which he later
sold for more than ten million dollars. The story related how the miner came to a
certain spot and threw down his pick, remarking: "Where my pick falls, I'll dig for
gold." What the story did not make clear was that it took him forty years to find
the right spot to throw the pick.

Success that results from mere chance is extremely rare and this is doubly true in
the matter of matrimony. There are those who, when they see a happily wedded couple
whose marriage has made them eloquent in love, believe it to be solely the result
of a lucky meeting, a decent courtship, and an adequate period of engagement.
Believe me, these are but a few of the many ingredients that go into the making for
happiness and success in marriage. But marriage is not nearly as much of a gamble
as some would have you believe. It does not belong in the lottery class. It is
definitely an open-and-shut proposition. How marriage turns out is the exact
working out of cause and effect. What you bring to marriage and what your mate
brings to marriage will determine its success or failure. Therein lies the
importance of remote preparation.

It is sheer folly to attempt to build a massive superstructure on a weak

foundation. That was dramatically proved when the Saint Francis Dam in Southern
California collapsed a few years ago and the waters it was built to hold back
rushed down the valley, causing terrific loss of life and property. Here was a case
of faulty foundation construction. When a marriage collapses, the blame most
frequently may be traced to a faulty foundation--a faulty remote or long distance
preparation.

Being the right kind of person is as important as finding the right person to
marry. But being the right kind of person depends not only upon what you have made
of yourself or upon whether the influence exerted by other persons and
circumstances has been good or bad but also upon that with which you began life.
When Victor Hugo said, "To reform a man, you must begin with his grandmother," he
enunciated a principle that opens up fields for speculation. Naturally, whatever is
said here concerning heredity, environment, social and moral development, applies
equally to the one you have already wed or whom you will eventually marry.
Consideration of these matters when judging yourself or another may clear up some
of life's complexities.

Your life began with a single cell. That cell divided in two, the two cells divided
and became four, the four cells divided and became eight, the eight became sixteen
until as a single individual you represent a total of some thirty thousand million
or more cells. The single cell in the fertilized ovum or egg from which you started
increased in weight more than seven million times in nine months.

More marvelous still is the fact that the single original cell from which you
began--a cell no bigger than the head of a pin --contained forty-eight chromosomes
each with its genes derived partly from your mother and partly from your father--
passed on to them through the generations--and determining your features, traits,
and even the color of your eyes. With all this in mind, one is confronted with the
intricate and staggering force of heredity.

Out of the dim past every child brings a two-fold deposit: an ancestral and a
racial inheritance. Scientists claim that the ancestral inheritance is determined
by the individual maternal and paternal cells which unite to form one from which
the new life begins. Mendel explained in his theory of heredity that "the offspring
is not intermediate in type between its parents but the type of one or the other
parent is predominant." It is the idea of continuity, the steady flow from the past
into the future, that every married person or anyone contemplating marriage must
strive to understand, if he or she is to grasp the significance of the vastness of
the problem of differentiation between one man and another and one woman and
another and cooperate with it intelligently.

Heritable traits are admitted in animals. A brood mare which has developed a mean
streak or trickiness will be promptly removed from the breeding stables by a wise
horseman because he knows that such traits will show up in the colts. In human
beings heritable traits are frequently totally discounted. Most authorities
agree that a normal healthy baby inherits nothing but (1) a fear of noise and a
fear of falling, (2) a capacity to learn, (3) physical characteristics, and (4) a
certain glandular mechanism, and they drop the matter right there.

Too few of the authorities, I fear, grasp the far-reaching effects that good or bad
glandular mechanisms play in determining what sort of a person we are or become or
their effect on our relations with others with whom we live. An over-active thyroid
gland in a pregnant mother may be transmitted to her child, and such a transmission
will certainly produce nervousness and irritability. Who can determine the extent
of the effect that such nervousness and irritableness will have upon that mother-
child relationship and upon other relationships?

What has been said of the thyroid gland might be said of the other glands.
Preponderance of activity or underactivity of even one gland will upset the balance
of the whole system. All of us have seen side-show freaks. They became bearded
ladies, giants, dwarfs, or fat monstrosities because of defective glands, glands
that were in many cases transmitted to them from their parents.

There is nearly perfect agreement among geneticists that, (1) close relatives
should not marry since such individuals draw their genes from the same common
ancestral sources and there is grave risk that defective genes may simply be
duplicated and (2) that persons not related but whose family records show similar
defects ought not consider marriage together, since they would bring to their union
the same trends toward hereditary evils. How well your ancestors and mine observed
those principles has determined what sort of persons we are today.

Not many people stop to realize the profound influence of ancestry on their present
status. The person who has such soft bones as to be crippled or partially
incapacitated, the young man or woman whose whole life has been influenced and
inhibited due to unsightly, decaying teeth, most likely can trace these defects to
a physically incapable or downright careless mother who paid no attention to her
diet during pregnancy, and so her blood was non-productive of the calcium and
silicon necessary for good bone and dental structure. The fault might not even be
the mother's, but the grandmother's. The ultimate effect of these bad teeth might
be to alter one's whole personality, close certain professions to that person, and
generally affect his relations with others. Indeed, heredity plays a most important
part in one's life. Remember this when you come to choose a mate. The prudent
choice should be made in the light of your own heritable physical make-up and that
of your mate.

Present-day authorities on genetics have the annoying habit of blandly and

unequivocally stating with all the finality imaginable that every baby starts at
zero and comes into the world with no heritable traits. They claim that environment
alone is to blame for what a child turns out to be. Then they qualify this
statement. For instance, they hold that a child is born into this world with a
hereditary fear of noise and a fear of falling. If two traits are hereditary, why
not twenty-two?

Amram Scheinfeld, in his famous book, "You and Heredity,"[1] goes to any lengths to
disprove hereditary influences, but yet he admits that excessive smoking, drinking,
or drug addiction may reach the unborn baby through the mother and cause harmful
and even disastrous effects. Heavy drinking, he claims, can cause malformation;
excessive use of quinine can cause deafness in the baby; while addiction to
morphine or opium to a point where the mother's tissues are saturated with such
drugs, may cause the baby to come into the world as a drug addict. More amazing
still is this statement by Scheinfeld--the ardent anti-hereditarian: "From the very
first instant--we might say even before conception--both heredity and environment
are at work."

Much has yet to be explained by the scientists before we have a complete picture of
the matter of physical heritable traits. Can it be that our physical side is so
plastic that an unborn baby can be affected by what enters its mother's mind
through her senses? We have all heard of disfiguring blemishes and birthmarks that
were said to have resulted to the unborn baby by its mother having seen a
frightening object. Medical authorities today reject this as utterly untenable.

However, before dismissing such things as physical impossibilities, it would be

well to read the thirtieth chapter of Genesis, beginning at the thirty-second
verse. The story found therein tells how Jacob, after making an agreement with
Laban to accept "all the sheep of divers colours and speckled: and all that is
brown and spotted, and of divers colours, as well among the sheep, as among the
goats, shall be my wages," proceeded to increase the number of spotted and speckled
animals by this most ingenious method.

"And Jacob took green rods of poplar and of almond, and of plane trees, and pilled
them in part: so when the bark was taken off, in the parts that were pilled, there
appeared whiteness: but the parts that were whole remained green. And by this means
the colour was divers. And he put them in the troughs, where the water was poured
out: that when the flocks should come to drink, they might have the rods before
their eves, and in the sight of them might conceive.

"And it came to pass . . . the sheep beheld the rods and brought forth spotted, and
divers colours, and speckled." The same process worked for the goats too, and the
Sacred Writer adds that "the man was enriched exceedingly."

Unanswerable as the problem is of whether or not what enters a mother's mind

through her senses can affect an unborn child and alter its physical development, a
greater problem is presented if we ask whether or not the very thoughts and desires
of parents can affect the unborn. Yet Dr. H. S. Pomeroy makes this curious
observation: "For twenty years I have made a study of first-born children, and I am
satisfied that it is one of the laws of heredity that they should resemble the
father. The reason for this appears to be that in a happy marriage the husband is,
during the first year, an object of peculiar interest and admiration to the wife:
she thinks of him rather than herself and her child is patterned after the model
she has before her. The second child, under favorable circumstances, usually
resembles the mother, for the reason that, having already one child like the
father, both parents unite in the desire that the second child be like the mother.
When the first child resembles the mother markedly, it is occasionally difficult to
account for it, but usually it will be found that the wife is innately selfish,
intraverted, or was led to think of herself rather than her husband."[2]

Dr. Pomeroy, by the way, goes all out for the passing on of hereditary traits from
parents to child. "It is," he writes, "an established fact that the children of
drunken parents will furnish a much greater percentage of inebriates than will the
children of temperate ones. It is known that 'love children' are particularly
difficult to bring up in paths of virtue."

The above has not been included in this essay to supply you with a ready answer to
someone's dubious query of "How do you get that way?", but simply to point up the
fact that although one is not born with a ready-made personality, many
potentialities of one's character and personality may possibly have been
established before birth. You were born with a certain kind of body--thin or fat,
strong or weak, active or sluggish, insensitive or responsive, and those things
affected your output of energy, push, indefatigability, and these formed the
physical foundation to your personality. The kind of body you have today is in no
small way the result of good or bad heredity. Sallust once remarked that "the glory
of ancestors sheds a light around posterity: it allows neither their good nor bad
qualities to remain in obscurity."

Be all this as it may, both those who differ on the question of more or less potent
transmission of heritable traits from one's ancestors and those who contend that
the human individual starts only with the union of sperm and ovum, all agree that
every newborn babe is a potential saint or sinner, a scoundrel or an ornament to
society, a joy or a heartache to its parents. What the newborn babe will eventually
become depends in a great part upon certain external forces or factors and upon its
own internal mechanisms, plus the grace of God and the individual's cooperation
with it.

The growth of the human child is divided into three main periods: infancy,
childhood, and adolescence. From birth to the end of the first nine months
represents early infancy; and from nine months to two years later infancy. From two
years to six years we have early childhood, while from six to thirteen, later
childhood. From about thirteen years to sixteen is termed early adolescence, and
from sixteen years to maturity is called later adolescence. From the day an infant
is born it requires parents to love, nourish, and teach it, and good religious and
social environment to give it a chance, for human behavior is made and not born.
Human beings are unbelievably complex things, constantly played upon by numerous
forces.

So much stress is laid on personality today that one is said to succeed with it and
to be a failure without it. Certainly, no one is born with a definite personality.
In fact, you had so little individual personality at your birth that had you been
accidentally mixed up with other newly born infants neither your own father
nor mother could have pointed you out. Today your mother or father could pick you
out of ten millions of people. What makes you you? Evelyn Duvall and Reuben Hill
wrap the answer up very neatly in the following quote: "What makes you you depends
upon years of responding to life's situations. Your personality is made up of many
things: the kind of body you started with, the type of home you were born into, the
sort of people you had to associate with, the way you have been brought up and the
things you have learned and, most important of all, how you felt and acted about
them. Your personality is the sum total of the characteristic ways of feeling,
responding, and behaving, which determine your place in society."[3]

Let us examine some of the above-mentioned influences in detail.

The kind of body with which you started. Having already gone into this matter, it
suffices here to say that your personality was affected by circumstances that even
preceded your birth. The very way in which you were attached to the womb of your
mother had something to do with your development. T. Wingate Todd asserts that
"many low-grade mentalities are not instances of hereditary feeble-mindedness but
examples of defect in brain development induced by mal-nurture during pre-natal and
post-natal life.[4] The quality and quantity of food, the balanced or unbalanced
diet of the mother, partial starvation or overfeeding; in short, whether your life
was one of comfort, of luxury or hardship, made for gross differentiation in your
personality and profoundly influenced it.

The type of home into which you were born. Your body was your primary environment.
Your home was your secondary environment, and it influenced your present
personality in no small way. If you were born to a family which dwelt in the
country you absorbed different ideas about life than you would have, had
you been born to city folk. Having been born and brought up in a squalid tenement
section of a large city would have differentiated your social influence from a
person who was born to a multimillionaire's residence on Park Avenue. In a word,
you share the status of your family's standing in your neighborhood and your
community. Where you actually dwell is more significant than perhaps you think.
Would you be surprised if I were to tell you that sixty-three per cent of people
marry someone who lives within eight blocks of where they live? Thus, such a
trifling thing as where you dwell will have its influence upon whom you marry,
and where you live once you are married will have its influence upon your children.
It seems that there is something to what Alexander Smith once said: "Trifles make
up the happiness or misery of mortal life."

How your parents acted toward each other and toward you has had a great influence
upon your personality development. If your parents made a success of their
marriage, the chances are good for your making a success of yours.

The basis for your marriage has been laid in your own home and the example you
there absorbed will be the basis of your own happiness in that career. It is not
pure accident that for generations, in certain families, there have been no
divorces or unhappy marriages. The influence of family background, traditions, and
ideals is powerful. According to leading sociologists, psychologists, clergymen,
and others best fitted to know, it has been pointed out that there is a close
relationship between childhood impressions of family life and the achievement
of married happiness as an adult. The happier the recollections of the parents'
marriage, the better the chances of happiness in the child's subsequent wedlock.

In a revealing article by Barbara Benson in the February, 1947, issue of "The

Ladies' Home Journal," entitled "Would You Marry Your Husband Again?", a new
nationwide survey shows that from persons whose marriage turned out better than
they expected, fifty-seven per cent say their parents' marriages were very happy,
too. In contrast, among the people whose marriage has been a disappointment, only
one in three (thirty-six per cent) recalls his parents' marriage as a happy one.
Note the evidence of the power of example! This indicates, too, that care should be
taken to avoid marrying a person whose parents failed in marriage. The cards are
stacked against you!

Such a trifling thing as the memory of a mother, on the one hand, loving her home
and enjoying her role as housekeeper, or the memory of a mother, on the other hand,
who constantly protested and groaned about the slavery of housekeeping, may spell
the difference between your liking or despising housekeeping and be the cause of
your present urge to be a career woman.

Your personality has been affected for good or for evil by the differences in
familial relationships. Psychologists now all agree that the feeling of being
wanted, being loved, and having a place in your own world constituted a fundamental
need in your life even from infancy. Perhaps I can best explain this with an
example. Some years ago a father and mother came to me regarding what they termed
their problem boy, Dore, an eighteen-year-old son, who had become defiant, sulky,
uncompanionable. The boy had no interest in sports and just wanted to be left
alone.

As the parents told their story, the reason for their son's strange behavior became
evident. When their son was born they wanted a girl, and they could not conceal
their disappointment. From the very beginning they began to treat him as if he were
a girl. They chose a name as nearly feminine as possible. The gentlest companions
were picked for him and rough games were roundly discouraged.

Naturally, at eighteen, Dore did not fit into sports, and in an endeavor to give
himself something in the way of toughness, he developed the habit of vile language
and of drinking. The defiance of parental direction and authority was a natural
result of this attempt to gain an appearance of manhood.

Dore's parents were taken aback when I pointed out that they and they alone were
responsible for what they termed their "problem child." He was simply an example of
what happens when the feeling of not being wanted is present in a child's mind and
heart.

The way you have been brought up. Every child is a very complex human being. Hence
the problems of development are by no means simple. Every infant born into the
world is a bundle of potentialities, and how the various potentialities will
develop depends to a large extent upon environmental factors--in the child's case
these are largely the personalities with whom he comes in contact. "During
infancy," says Mary E. Spencer, Ph.D., "and the pre-school years, the patterns of
development are well outlined. The foundation of what the child will become has
already been laid. This ground structure may evidence careful planning and well-
defined outlines. Or it may have been built hit or miss, with supports too weak to
carry a superstructure of any lasting value. Or the masonry may be very shoddy,
giving evidences of poor workmanship, as we review the foundation work on which the
later personality and character building are to rest." This line of reasoning seems
to be borne out by the following story.

Some time ago a New York Sunday paper ran a full-page story concerning a sensitive
plant which would respond to the most delicate outside movement. The article was
strikingly entitled "Even a Good Holler Scares These Sensitive Plants." The author
pointed out that the rumble of a passing automobile or a gust of wind or the heat
from a match would cause the small light blue flower to collapse. Luther Burbank
was cognizant of this, too. He claimed that all plants were sensitive and would
become unconscious in the presence of ether. He would never hire a man who used
alcohol or who smoked because plants were affected by the odor of both alcohol and
tobacco.

Never did the great horticulturist discuss the delicate nature of plants without
asserting that while they responded to the most delicate outside influences, a
child was infinitely more sensitive. "A child," Burbank would say, "is as sensitive
to outside influences and forces as a seismograph is sensitive to an earthquake
which is ten thousand miles away."[5]

Some authorities maintain that a tiny infant is influenced by angry and bitter talk
indulged in by its parents in its presence. A baby in its mother's arms is said to
acquire a lasting fear of lightning, simply by feeling the trembling of the mother
as she clasps the little one to her breast. Baseless fears resulting from feelings
of suffocation, or pains and clutching sensations suffered in adult life, have been
traced back to times in early childhood when the senseless punishment of being
locked in a closet was administered by an irate parent. Do you understand now what
I mean when I say that external forces contrive to make each of us what we are?
Those good or bad forces will make us good or bad risks in marriage years hence.

The delaying of the development of self-reliance likewise can be destructive of

essential character formation. While it is true that the human child has the
longest term of infancy of any living creature, nevertheless it must gradually be
taught to acquire independence if it is to develop normally. Much damage is done to
the child in its early formative years by the faith parents have in their
protective powers over their offspring and the tendency from force of habit to
think of them as much more immature than they are. This robs the child of the
opportunity to take care of itself and of the enjoyment of assuming
responsibilities.

Catherine Cox Miles, Yale psychologist, states: "There is nothing more important we
can do for children than give them all the responsibility their shoulders can bear.
As a result, in manhood and womanhood, whether they are building a building,
running a farm or business, becoming president of a club, leading a community
drive, editing a magazine, inventing an engine, writing a book, or managing their
marriage, home, and children, they will be able to handle the responsibilities of
these jobs from the sheer momentum of habit."

The things you learned, how you felt about them and reacted to them. Educational
experiences are among the strongest environmental influences affecting one's life.
What you are or will be depends in no small way on how you were trained and what
you were taught. Samuel Johnson once wrote: "Every man is a worse man in proportion
as he is unfit for the married state," and no person is fit to marry who lacks a
good sound intellectual, social, moral, and religious training.

Pope Pius XI, in his famous Encyclical letter, "On Christian Marriage," stresses
the importance of a long-range moral preparation for matrimony in the following
words:

"For it cannot be denied that the basis of a happy wedlock, and the ruin of an
unhappy one, is prepared and set in the souls of boys and girls during the period
of childhood and adolescence. There is danger that those who before marriage sought
in all things what is theirs, will be in the married state what they were before,
that they will reap what they have sown; indeed, within the homes there will be
sadness, lamentation, mutual contempt, strifes, estrangements, weariness of common
life, and worst of all, such parties will find themselves left alone with their own
unconquered passions."

From the Pontiff's words it is obvious that one who has acquired and practiced the
Seven Great Virtues of Faith, Hope, Charity, Temperance, Prudence, Fortitude, and
Justice, and the Ten Little Natural Moral Virtues of Tact, Order, Courtesy,
Punctuality, Sincerity, Unbiased Judgment, the Good Use of Time, Cheerfulness,
Loyalty, and Caution in Speech, will certainly make a success of the matrimonial
career. On the other hand, what marriage could be happy where one or both of the
mates bring to their union souls steeped in habits resulting from frequent
commissions of the Seven Deadly or Capital Sins--namely, Pride, Covetousness, Lust,
Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth? The scale of marital happiness tips toward that
in which one's soul inclines.

Need we stress the well-known fact that a person will be after marriage what he was
before it? For instance, a young man who was inordinately proud as a child and
teen-ager will most certainly be an arrogant and domineering husband, for pride is
not founded on the sense of happiness but on the sense of power. "Unwarranted
pride," as Johnson puts it, "is seldom delicate. It will please itself with very
mean advantages." What is true of sinful pride is true of all the other Capital
Sins. What chance for happiness has a girl who marries a drunkard or one whose
temper is uncontrollable? Pope Pius XI, as noted before, warns against marrying one
whose weakness is lust, for he said: "There is danger that those who before
marriage indulged their impure desires, will be in marriage what they were before
and they will reap what they have sown . . . worst of all such parties will find
themselves left alone with their own unconquered passions."

A survey made several years ago of the real causes of unhappiness, separations, and
civil divorces is most revealing. I say real causes, because in most cases the
excuses given in the courts are not the real causes at all but the required legal
grounds for civil suits. Here follows the list of the true causes of unhappiness or
failure in marriage:

On the part of the wife:

Extravagance
Dirty--untidy home
Unattractive person
Accepting attention of other men or outright infidelity
Resentment of father's discipline of children
 Too much time spent with mother
Accepting advice of neighbors
Nagging or disparaging the husband
Indifference to the husband
Not being tactful or feminine
Drunkenness

On the part of the husband:

Stinginess
Interference in household management
Gloominess
Lack of consideration
Lack of love-making and kindness
Living with relations
Drunkenness
Vulgarity or slovenly habits
Infidelity
Laziness

It would be interesting and worth while to write in alongside each of these items
the deadly sins that caused it or the different virtues it violates. For instance,
laziness is the result of the sin of sloth; and drunkenness the sin of gluttony and
the lack of the virtue of temperance. Such an exercise will make the poet's lines
more understandable.

We make the world we live in: and we weave

About us webs of good or ill, which leave
Their impress on our souls.

Strength or weakness of will, its training or the lack of it, may spell the
difference between being a good marriage risk or a bad one. Pope Pius XI, in his
great Encyclical letter "On Education," wisely stated that:

"The inclinations of the will, if they are bad, must be repressed from childhood,
but such as are good must be fostered, and the mind, particularly of children,
should be imbued with doctrines which begin with God, while the heart should be
strengthened with the aids of Divine grace, in the absence of which none can curb
their evil desires, nor can their discipline and formation be brought to complete
perfection by the Church, which Christ has so provided with heavenly doctrines and
Divine Sacraments, as to make her an effectual teacher of men."

There is no gainsaying the fact that there is a vast difference between what you
could have learned and what you did learn, and a vast difference between how you
were trained and how you could have been trained--between what you are today and
what you could or can be. While it is true that you are the product of your
environment, nevertheless if your parents were remiss, you don't have to remain a
sensitive, anti-social, immoral, frightened, irreligious, or nervous person. As the
Chinese say, "You can't stop the birds from flying overhead but you can prevent
them from building their nests in your hair." You can force yourself to change. You
can learn new things and form new and better habits. There is no limit to what
determination, love, and the grace of God can do.

The kind of marriage you make depends on the kind of person you are and the kind of
person your mate is. The success or failure of your marriage will depend in a large
measure on what each one of you brings to that union. What each of you brings to
marriage likewise depends on the kind of remote preparation each has made for
wedlock. Regarding this foundation,

"Build it well, whate'er you do;

 Build it straight and strong and true;
Build it clean and high and broad;
Build it for the eye of God."

When Our Lord went to Cana for the marriage feast, it is assumed that He arrived in
time for the great procession which formed such a colorful and important part of
the ceremony. According to custom, the marriage procession always began late on
Tuesday night and was made up of a troop of singers, their voices mingling with the
notes of the flute and the clash of tambourines, with, last of all, the bridegroom,
gloriously clad, his forehead wreathed with a golden turban entwined with myrtle
and roses. About him marched his ten friends called "sons of the groom," holding
palm branches in their hands while the kinsmen acting as his escort bore lighted
torches. Arriving at the home of the bride, the bridegroom and his companions
entered within and, taking her by the hand, escorted her to the threshold, there to
receive the tablet of stone on which was inscribed the dowry. This done, the whole
party left for the home of the bridegroom.

At Cana, as in every ancient Jewish marriage, the receiving of the tablets of stone
on which were inscribed the dowry formed an important part of the wedding. The
dowry still forms an important part of every wedding--for Cana is forever. Today
both the bride and groom bring a dowry to their marriage--a dowry made up of two
individual personalities, each with its own particular history and background. Each
dowry is made up of the sum total of good or bad environmental influences, good or
bad habits, good or bad ideals, good or bad fundamental moral principles, good or
bad religious background, or, in a word, the good or bad remote preparation for
marriage.

By trifles in our common ways,

Our characters are slowly piled,
We lose not all our yesterdays;
The man has something of the child.
Part of the past to all the present cleaves,
As the rose-odors linger in the fading leaves.

In ceaseless toil, from year to year,

Working with loath or willing hands,
Stone upon stone we shape, we rear,
Till the completed fabric stands,
And when the hush hath all labor stilled,
The searching fire will try what we have striven to build....[6]

ENDNOTES

1. Philadelphia, Pa.: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1939.

2. "The Ethics of Marriage," p. 114. New York: Funk and Wagnalls

Co., 1888.

3. "When You Marry," Evelyn Millis Duvall and Reuben Hill, p. 4.

New York: Association Press, 1945.

4. "Growth and Development," T. Wingate Todd. Cleveland: Brush

Foundation Publications, 1930.

5. "More Stories in Sermons," William L. Stidger, p. 101. New York:

Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1944.
6. "The Building of Character," J. R. Miller, D.D. New York: Thomas
Y. Crowell Co., 1894.

Chapter Four: PROXIMATE PREPARATION FOR MARRIAGE

"Choose your horse from a hundred, your friend from a thousand, and your wife from
ten thousand." That is an Arabian proverb, and it is startling in its blunt
annunciation of a patent truth. The choice of a life partner in marriage is a great
and grave responsibility. It obligates one to love and serve another, to rear
children and govern them, and, at the same time, to serve God with one's whole
heart and soul and mind--works any one of which alone requires great faith and
perseverance, and which, taken together, cannot be accomplished without special aid
from Heaven.

To choose a life mate for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness
and in health until his or her death, is obviously a task that requires sane and
sage judgment. So much depends on the right choice that a prayerful proximate
preparation is imperative. Upon the choice of a husband or a wife depends happiness
or bitter regrets during this life and even heaven or hell in the next.

Important as the remote preparation for marriage is, the proximate preparation is
vastly more important, since it must serve as a novitiate for wedded life. Speaking
of novitiate, I am reminded of the words of St. Francis de Sales, who said:
"Marriage is an order where the profession is made before the novitiate," and then
he adds this startling observation: "But if there was a year of trial or testing as
is required before the profession of vows in monasteries, few would be professed."

St. Francis de Sales' observation has been borne out by a recent nation-wide survey
made by a great American woman's magazine. The interviewers talked to a cross
section of the country's married adults and found out that one married person in
five doubted he or she chose the right partner and stated they would choose
differently if given a second chance.

The importance of making a correct choice is stressed in Holy Scripture. Here are
but a few salient quotations:

"Happy is the husband of a good wife, for the number of his years
is double."

"A virtuous woman rejoices her husband; and he shall fulfill the
years of his life in peace."

"It will be more agreeable to abide with a lion and a dragon than to
dwell with a wicked woman."

"As the climbing of a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a

wife full of tongue to a quiet man."

"Roofs dropping through on a cold day, and a contentious woman,

are alike."

Few readers will have experienced the calamity of having a roof fall in on them on
a cold day, but I feel that the married reader of this page who steals a look
across the room at the face of a belligerent wife, or at a sullen, gloomy husband
whose face constantly bears the grieved look of an untipped waiter, will readily
understand what the Holy Ghost had in mind.

Broken hearts and homes would be the rare exception if more serious thought was
given to this matter of preparedness for wedlock. An adequate proximate preparation
for marriage demands:

(1) A healthy moral and social teen-age development

(2) Physical, intellectual, emotional, and vocational maturity
(3) Prudence in choosing a potential mate
(4) Persevering prayer for guidance
(5) Parental counsel
(6) Consultation with your pastor or confessor
(7) A proper period of engagement

Some may wonder at the inclusion of teen-age development problems in a chapter

dealing with proximate preparation for marriage, and the point is well taken until
one considers that it is during the teen-age that many friendships are formed from
which love and marriage later result. Again, since many of the virtues and vices
acquired in the teen-age period find their way into marriage as good or evil
habits, it can be readily seen that the teen-age can truly be said to be a part of
the proximate preparation for marriage and the venture may succeed or fail
according to what is blended in the joint alchemy of "keeping company."

A healthy moral and social teen-age development

Morality may be defined as "human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to

the ideal of what is right and fitting," and the Church has always maintained that
morality and religion are essentially connected. She contends that without religion
the observance of the moral law is impossible. For this reason Holy Mother Church
states that certain conditions are required for the growth and development of
morality in the individual and the community, namely: (1) a right education of the
young, (2) a healthy public opinion, and (3) sound legislation. Since we are
primarily concerned here with right education of the young as it concerns morality,
let us endeavor to find out what constitutes a solid basis for such an education.

According to the mind of Holy Mother Church, right education of the young includes
the early training in the home as well as the subsequent years of school and
college life. The family is the true school of morality and its good or bad effects
will remain with one during the whole of life. It is in the home that we learn
obedience, truthfulness, purity, and self-restraint and the other primary
virtues. The Church also maintains that the best scholastic education is the one
that is given in a moral and religious atmosphere. Morality and religion go hand in
hand. Mark Hopkins once remarked that "Everywhere the tendency has been to separate
religion from morality, to set them in opposition even. But religion without
morality is a superstition and a curse; and anything like adequate and complete
morality without religion is impossible. The only salvation for man is in the union
of the two as Christianity unites them."[1] Father Joseph Roux, in Meditations of a
Parish Priest, remarks that "morality is the fruit of religion: to desire morality
without religion is to desire an orange without an orange tree." To the above we
simply add the warning that morality will be terribly difficult for the person who
does not pray.

Two persons who want to find success and happiness in the marriage career must
bring to their marriage a healthy moral development founded on the teachings of the
one true religion. G. A. Coe, writing in "Education in Religion and Morality,"[2]
states that "the capacity for love between persons of the opposite sex, the
beginning of which is the central fact of adolescent psychology, is usually treated
as a matter of indifference to religion or else as a positive hindrance to
spiritual development. Yet the worst evils are always perversions of the best
goods. The higher sentiments that cluster about the relation of the sexes are, in
their normal development, precisely the ones that constitute a spiritual as
distinguished from an unspiritual life. The great unselfishness that knows no life
except through losing its life is not an experience of childhood; it awaits
adolescence, and it is an upshoot of our capacity for devoted love to a person of
the opposite sex. So, also, it is love that refines away the grossness of
our nature. It spreads through the life of lovers and is communicated to the whole
of society."

From this quotation the reader may grasp something of the importance of what we
have listed as a prime requisite for a healthy moral development--namely, the good
moral education in the home or a good Catholic education in the school. Religion as
a basis for morality is essential for good living. It was Jung, the psychiatrist,
who said: "Among all my patients, there has not been one whose problem in the last
resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that
every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religion of
every age has given to its followers, and none of them has been really healed who
did not regain his religious outlook."[3]

All we have stated so far may be resolved into the following

sentences:

Love, honor, obey and respect your parents.

Attend Catholic schools.
Learn your religion.
Frequent the sacraments.
Avoid the company of those without faith or those who
criticize or scoff at religion. Base your morality on the teachings of
the Church.

Before quitting this topic of morality, I feel I should say a few words on good
manners, for good manners are nothing less than little morals. If not virtues
themselves, they are shadows of virtues. Burke once said that "Manners are of more
importance than laws. According to this quality, they aid morals, they supply
laws, or they totally destroy them."

But what are good manners? One aspect is the art of putting others at their ease.
The person who makes the fewest persons uncomfortable is the best-mannered. It is
worthy of note that ill manners spring from vanity, ill-nature, want of sympathy,
and want of common sense. Avoid the pitfall of being unmannerly yourself and above
all avoid the company of a person who is ill-mannered.

Manners are not idle, but the fruit

noble nature and of loyal mind.

I once read that "he is an ill-mannered man who is always loud in the praise of
himself or his family; who, boasting of his rank, of his business, of his
achievements in his calling, looks down upon lower orders of people; who cannot
refrain from having his joke at the expense of another's character; who tries
always to say the smart and cutting thing." That is not a bad observation and might
be used as a yardstick to measure your own manners or the manners of others. Take
care, however, not to confuse etiquette with good manners. The former is quite
arbitrary, varies in different ages and places and, very often, is absurd; whereas
good manners, founded as they are on common sense, are universally the same.

So much for morals (and manners). Let us turn our attention to the problem of
social development. In this matter we shall confine our remarks to those things
that promote a normal development of human love and to whatever prevents or
degrades it.
We have already noted that every child passes through five definite stages on its
way from the narcissistic tendency of self-worship to a covert interest in persons
of the opposite sex. Psychiatrists term the last stage heterosexuality, which,
along with gradual liberation from parental domination and preparation for a life
career, make up the triune tasks of adolescence.

Heterosexuality is usually completed when the child reaches the age of fourteen or
fifteen but there is no hard and fast rule concerning the exact age. With some it
may come earlier and with others later. The important thing is that when the
adolescent first feels the desire to seek the company of persons of the opposite
sex, he must be aided by parental help and sympathy. Any parent who throws an iron
curtain around a son or daughter in a shortsighted, selfish attempt to protect him,
rather than to educate him for living, does more harm than good. Remember, the
little boy of five who ran to his mother for protection from a belligerent female
of four will suffer if the same sort of protection is forced upon him at sixteen,
seventeen, or eighteen. His Catholic education, his frequentation of the
Sacraments, his moral development should help him to stand on his own feet during
his social development. This does not mean that youths should be turned loose with
no supervision and no notice taken of the company they keep or the hours they come
in at night. Far from it. It means simply that new and more advanced methods of
achieving protection must be used in place of those employed when the child was of
preschool or grammar-school age.

The moral development must be continued by all means with renewed zest during
adolescence, for this is the very time in the youth's life when he or she is given
to brooding Over religious misgivings. Such doubts and difficulties must be met
with deep sympathy, patience, and frankness. The penny catechism method of question
and answer must give way to meaningful concepts of sound moral and dogmatic
essentials. Generalized religious teachings will be adequate for children up to
teen-age, but from then on a specialized instruction is required if the adolescent
is going to carry into adult life a knowledge of what is right and what is wrong
and the development of the desire and determination to do right.

When adolescents begin high school it is time for them to know all the pitfalls and
dangers of this period of life and the inadvisability of allowing their affections
to be settled upon any one particular person. Should particular friendships develop
at this time an interesting and distracting program of activities ought to be
engaged in to divert attention, such as basketball games, tennis, handball,
excursions, picnics, fishing, hunting, or photography.

The last two years in high school are particularly dangerous years. These might be
termed the puppy-love years. Undue anxiety and opposition during this period then
may do more harm than good. It is much more sensible to endeavor to launch the
teen-age boy or girl into proper social contacts with those of the opposite sex.

The symptoms of the development of the romantic urge are usually quite obvious.
When a boy starts to wash up to his wrists and down to his collar line, shines his
shoes, and starts polishing down his hair with machine oil, it's happening. When a
teen-age girl raids mother's lipstick and cold creams, stands staring into a
looking-glass, finds the furniture old-fashioned and father more so, the battle is
on.

Fortunate were you beyond estimation if Providence gave you understanding and
intelligent parents--parents who were wise enough to help in your social
development rather than hinder it. Had your parents "kidded" about your first
dates, two unhealthy conditions might have resulted: their attitude might have made
you crawl back into a shell or made you defiant and rebellious. Equally great
damage could have been done you had your parents been, on the other hand, too
anxious to force your social development.

Katherine W. Taylor notes the following factors as interfering with one's

achievement of good social development: "Homes lacking in affection, homes
deviating too widely in cultural levels, failure on the part of girls to be
modishly attractive, and on the part of boys to grow rapidly enough for successful
participation in sports."[4] It is noteworthy that favorable social adjustment
follows a more or less set pattern. Generally, one starts out with a "yen" to
belong to a club, gang, or group, and then, gradually, a close and intimate
association with one person is substituted. As the capacity for love develops and
matures, the desire for single dating appears and the desire to "go steady" with a
very special friend develops. These first attachments are usually not very
permanent, but they play an important part in one's development.

Modern adolescents need not take too seriously the charge that they are a lost
generation. The oldsters of every age have thought their youths were the worst
ever. A cuneiform fragment found in the ruins of Babylon bears this ever ancient,
ever new comment: "Alas! Alas! times are not what they used to be."[5]

A certain lady writing in 1817 about the youths of her day said: "Nothing like the
young people of today has ever been seen. They make one's hair stand on end. They
have neither manners nor morals."[6]

Today, we hear tirades about the apparent insanity of our bobby-soxers and their
overwrought hero worship. But every age has had a swoon-gang! Franz Liszt, the
piano virtuoso, was the Frank Sinatra, the Van Johnson of his day. Women and girls
went to his concerts equipped with knives and scissors so that they could rush
onto the stage and snip off a lock of his hair. Even the water in which he washed
his hands was bottled and sold to admirers. His cigar butts were worn as prized
lockets.

"Humanity," says Donn Piatt, "is about the same the world over--the same in every
age; and while the earth has its uniformity, with slight differences in mountain
and plain, so its products are very nearly alike."

Accepting the fact that our age presents new problems to youth, granting that our
generation has more than its share of problem children and even bad boys and girls,
this much must be stated clearly and definitely-that the adolescents who go wrong
are usually the ones who are seeking the love they have been denied at home or are
those who have not been conditioned for right living.

Here are some timely and important directives to teen-agers. Every youth should
have a rigid code of rules if he or she would blossom into a mature person capable
of selective choice of a life mate.

Girls should not cheapen themselves by engaging in a conversation with a boy who is
so uncouth as to think a two-toned whistle or a "Hiya, babe!" constitutes an
introduction. The boy who stands by the school fence ogling girls as they pass is
not worth knowing.

Don't accept a lift in a car from a stranger, no matter how movie-actor-like he

looks. Be constant in this. Say "no" and mean it. Girls who can be picked up by
strangers are usually "just pick-ups" and will be treated as such.

Don't "hang around" the usual city or small town haunts. When you go out, have some
definite place to go. Don't dress as if you did it just to attract attention. Too
much make-up, too daring clothes, no place to go and nothing to do but stand or sit
around somebody's "sugar-bowl" or hot dog stand, will mark you as a "fast, stupid
dame."
Girls should avoid the companionship of boys who tell smutty stories or who
blaspheme. A person who does not respect your company will not respect your moral
principles. A girl I knew was with a group when a smutty story was started. "If
you'll excuse me, I'll go home," she said. "I would step around a puddle so as not
to get my feet dirty, and I like to take the same care of my mind." I was impressed
no end.

Beware of the boy or girl who must have a drink to achieve the mood. The sought-
after teen-ager is the one who dares to be different, and it is during your first
dates that you must keep your wits about you and look forward to the time when you
will have to make a final decision about a mate. Courage and a plain coke will
do more to make you sought after than all the giggle water in the world. The girl
who needs a highball to bring her out of her shell is a poor bet for an interesting
companionship. Remember always: The teenager who drinks is a boy or girl who lacks
the courage to be different. Write that in your diary and make it a guiding
principle throughout your whole life.

Teen-agers, as we said before, ought to exert every effort to keep from falling in
love with anyone. Wait until you are twenty-one for that. You will have a whole new
set of guiding principles at that age. Buzz around and meet new friends--be
ladylike or be a gentleman, as the case may be, and enjoy youth as God intended it
to be enjoyed. How true is the saying: "Youth is such a wonderful thing it is a
shame to waste it on youth." Don't waste yours!

Above all, be careful of the amorous companion. Teen-age kissing, petting, necking
or love-making is dangerous and should be a warning signal to give such a companion
the brush-off. Such things show definitely that the instigator of amorous
demonstrations is emotionally immature and that he or she is selfish and weak-
willed. The teen-age "necker" is well on the way to becoming a Kinsey Report
statistic. Love knocks less often at a door that is wide open.

One of the most rational and striking articles I ever read on petting appeared in
the December, 1947, issue of "Your Life,"[7] entitled "Public Petting Wastes
Romance," and written by Miriam Allen De Ford. After denouncing the prevalent habit
of public petting in parks, cars, and theaters, the author states that "such
intimate contacts in public often inflame passions which demand quick satisfaction
in private. Secondly, they stir up sleeping dogs of desire in the onlooker. And
thirdly, it is always open season on a girl who thinks so little of appearances and
reputation as to be guilty of flaunting her love life so openly."

Moreover, since so many young people have no home where they can do their courting,
it often leads to serious frustration and nervous tension, which is the stuff of
which neuroses are made.

Miss De Ford then referred to the great physical dangers that result from any sort
of amorous kissing on the part of teen-agers (and unmarried adults). Speaking of
the great epidemic of "unsolved murders in which women and girls--by no means
always women of bad repute--have been found horribly beaten and mutilated, the
girl who permits and participates in 'necking' anywhere and everywhere, without
regard to self-control or the standards of civilized society, and then suddenly
attempts to draw the line and dam off the forces she has aroused, may find herself
in terrible peril."

"One of the worst aspects of this practice," concludes Miss De Ford, "is the effect
it has on the very young, both by precocious stimulation, and by spreading the
belief that it is necessary for them to allow it in order to be 'popular.' When
mere children become convinced that companionship with children of the opposite sex
implies promiscuous endearments, they are lighting a fire in which they will be
burnt out long before their real season of love-making has arrived." The moral side
of this question will be treated later in this chapter.

Let us now turn our attention to the important consideration of the four maturities
demanded of those who would begin serious company-keeping with a view to subsequent
marriage--namely, physical maturity, intellectual maturity, emotional maturity, and
vocational maturity.
Physical maturity

When we speak of physical maturity in relation to marriage, we speak of the

obvious. Exhaustive comment on this topic is definitely unnecessary. All know that
the period in life at which a person of either sex becomes functionally capable of
germination is called puberty. It is equally common knowledge that pubescence
usually is achieved in girls at twelve and in boys around fourteen and that
whenever it does arrive, the sensory stimuli scream for attention. What not a few
individuals fail to realize is that how these stimuli are met and held in check
will play an important part in future behavior.

Many a romance has been doomed to failure from its inception by a suitor who failed
to make the will rule the physical. The swelling river, so long as it is made to
flow in its appointed channel within its own banks, can have its rushing waters
harnessed so as to be a source of benefit and power to mankind. When the river
overflows its banks and floods the surrounding land, it can bring death in its
wake. So, too, with the physical stimuli of man. Harnessed, they can be real
sources of power, but let run rampant they can cause sorrow and regret, and can
destroy reputations and souls.

Remember that while puberty is usually reached at between twelve and fourteen, the
development is not completed until one is twenty-one. It is a progressive affair
and takes time. Above all, nature must not be tampered with. Bad habits acquired in
junior or senior high school years may carry over into marriage and may even rob
marriage of the complete physical satisfaction the innocent mate has a right to
expect.

Nature punishes always, and pardons never, when her laws are violated or
disregarded. Dr. James Foster Scott, writing on the subject of the solitary vice,
says that "it produces its own train of personal neuroses, diseases and
degenerations, injuring the soul, the character, perverting the instincts, ruining
the nervous system and by striking at the very foundations from whence love comes,
it unfits the victim for the high functions of marriage. It is a 'furious task-
master,' universally berated, and its perpetrator is universally despised."

Modern psychiatrists believe that the solitary vice is an expression of a fixation

on self and thus is a narcissus complex. Self-abuse, when it becomes a deep-rooted
habit, may render one incapable of heterosexual love and thus must be regarded as
pathological.

Before quitting this topic of physical maturity it might not be amiss to point out
that good health in both partners ought to be an important concern. Persons
suffering from active tuberculosis, chronic and serious heart conditions, brain and
nervous ailments as well as kidney disorders and diabetes, ought to seek the advice
of their doctor before attempting marriage.

Above all, these matters ought to be talked over by the interested principals. It
would be criminal for a person afflicted with a communicable sex disease to marry
because of the serious injustice to the other party. A confessor would be obliged
to refuse absolution to a penitent determined to contract a marriage under such
circumstances. A cure, if possible, must be effected before the marriage, or the
disease must be made known to the other party. However, if one must choose between
a leper with high moral principles and deep faith, and a shop-worn Miss America, or
a muscle-bound Adonis without faith or morals, I'd say, take the
leper.

Intellectual maturity

Intellectual development must also be attained along with the physical development
as a required condition for a good proximate preparation for marriage. The eminent
scholar and author, the Reverend Edward Leen,[8] defines education--that is,
Christian education--as "that culture of the mind, the will and the emotions,
which, whilst adapting a man for the exercise of a particular calling, disposes him
to achieve an excellent personal and social life within the framework of that
calling." In other words, he defines the object of education as nothing else than
human happiness. Van Dyke expresses nearly the same idea in his definition of
education, for he says: "Education is to create men who can see clearly, image
vividly, think steadily, and will nobly."[9] God help the young man or woman who
thinks of marriage without being able to see clearly, image vividly, think
steadily, and will nobly!

"The human soul," says Ruskin, "in youth, is not a machine of which you can polish
the cogs with any kelp or brickdust near at hand. The whole period of youth is one
essentially of formation, edification, instruction; intaking of stores,
establishment in vital habits, hopes and faiths. There is not an hour of it but is
trembling with destiny."

His Holiness Pope Pius XI, in his great Encyclical letter "Divine Illius," writes
these important words: "When literary, social and domestic education do not go hand
in hand, man is unhappy and helpless."

The foregoing quotations will but strengthen the claim we make for the importance
of intellectual development and maturity as a basis for a happy marriage. "The
discipline by which it is gained, and the tastes which it forms," says Newman,
"have a natural tendency to refine the mind and to give it an indisposition, nay
more than this, a disgust and abhorrence, towards excesses and enormities of evil,
which are often or ordinarily reached at length by those who are not careful from
the first to set themselves against what is vicious and criminal. It generates
within the mind a fastidiousness, analogous to delicacy, generally lively enough to
create a loathing of certain offences or a detestation and scorn of them as
ungentlemanlike, to which ruder natures are tempted or even betrayed." It is
noteworthy that Cardinal Newman was speaking of Catholic educational development,
for always remember that Basil and Julian were fellow students at the Schools
of Athens; one became the Saint and Doctor of the Church, the other her scorning
and relentless foe.

The better the intellectual development, the better chance there is for happiness
in marriage. The more Catholic is that intellectual development the more hope there
is for holiness and happiness in marriage. Remember this when you come to make the
choice of a mate!

Emotional maturity

Let us consider another and a most important requisite for happiness in marriage:
emotional maturity. Emotion has the same physical basis as a mental reaction but
the primary end of emotion is to move. For instance, a person who is hungry will be
moved to steal something to eat; a person who is afraid will be moved to shout his
lungs out or run like a rabbit. The examples of emotional stimuli I have mentioned
list but two of the four primary emotions, namely hunger and fear, while the other
two are rage and pain. All other emotions are offshoots of these four; e.g.,
anxiety, worry, sorrow, admiration, scorn, revenge, shame, envy, reproach, and a
multitude of others. Without emotions you would be a moron; with an overdose of
emotion you are a social misfit, an abnormal member of society.

Control of emotions, mastery of emotions, is a very important part of the training

for living. Without control emotions can, if allowed to run rampant, bring on a
neurosis, ulcers of the stomach, or can even lead to a prison cell. Anger, for
instance, can move one man to use harsh words, another man to strike his wife, and
yet another man to kill. Which of these three would you say had the most control
and which man most lacked control? Nothing is more destructive of marital bliss
than is emotional immaturity, and oddly enough, a person may be perfectly developed
physically and intellectually and yet be emotionally immature. For instance, the
adolescent or grown man who pouts for long periods over real or imaginary wrongs,
who flies into towering rages, hollers and curses; or the young teen-age girl or
young woman who goes into fits of anger and screams, slams doors, stamps her feet,
dashes to her room and throws herself face down on the bed to pour out her
tears, are people who are emotionally immature.

Here is a list of other things that indicate emotional immaturity.

(1) Gloominess over little failures

(2) Pessimism over slight difficulties

(3) Complete panic when frightened or in an emergency

(4) Throwing or breaking things when angry or crossed

(5) Tears when thwarted, disappointed or upset

(6) Selfishness, aggressiveness, rebelliousness, stubbornness

(7) Needless and prolonged worry over trifles

(8) Morbid fears, strong hates, and unreasonable prejudices.

But how, you ask, may one acquire emotional control? To this I
answer:

(1) Know yourself as you really are.

(2) Be individual. Try to pick your own hats and clothes.

(3) Fight your own battles.

(4) Don't seek sympathy from others.

(5) Don't feel sorry for yourself.

(6) Never be indecisive.

(7) Avoid too much sentimentality over persons or causes.

(8) Resist parental over-possessiveness.

(9) Check first signs of jealousy.

(10) Resist feeling of depression. Laugh at yourself.

(11) Train your emotions as you would your will.

(12) Learn to check your tongue when you are angry.

If this looks like a superhuman task it is not so difficult if you keep in mind
that control of emotions does not mean suppression. Control of emotions means
direction into channels that are founded on reality and bring material and
spiritual satisfactions to you. Victory over self is achieved with great effort! It
may spell the difference between happiness and unhappiness here and hereafter.

Anyone who plans marriage ought to make certain that he or she is emotionally
mature and that the mate is also grown up emotionally, for without this maturity
such a marriage is certain to be unhappy if not doomed to failure.

There is one more maturity that is equally important and should be well founded
before any thought of marriage enters one's head, and that is vocational maturity.
By vocational maturity is meant simply the know-how and acquisition of a trade,
position, or profession that will permit the future husband to support a family
and the acquisition of vocational knowledge that will permit a young woman to
manage a home and wisely govern her children.

No wise young man will consider marriage until he has spent at least two years
working at his chosen trade, profession, or position. Wisdom also demands that
savings of from $1200 upward ought to have been laid away against the wedding day,
as well as a permanent assured monthly salary income. It is an accepted rule that
the first week's pay ought to be large enough to pay the rent for the month. No
fear is so haunting, so destructive, as that which results from economic
insecurity. Love and an empty stomach are poor companions. Too, any young woman who
considers marriage, yet possesses no skill in homemaking, cooking, and
housekeeping, is one who is asking for trouble.

Prudence in choosing a potential mate

Now we come to the very important consideration of when and how to choose a mate,
what to look for in a mate, and how not to spoil your chances of marriage.

All authorities on the subject agree that the best age for a man to marry is
between twenty-two and twenty-nine and for a woman between twenty-one and twenty-
eight. Allowing oneself a year at the most for courtship and engagement, a girl
ought not to consider seriously any one individual before she is twenty, and no
man ought to consider making a final choice of a life companion until he is at
least twenty-one.

And how is a choice to be made? Believe me, there is a lot more skill than chance
to picking the right person in marriage. It would appear prudent to write down a
list of the qualities that you insist your one and only should have and then keep
your eyes and your heart open. Here are a few suggestions for that list:

Good morals
Intelligence
Fine physique
Neatness
Sportsmanship
Sincerity
Dependability
Good sense of humor
Truthfulness
Consideration for others
Thoughtfulness
Nice manners
Modesty
Personality
Industry
Good family background

When making your list, be sure you determine whether you have these required
qualities yourself--if not, set out to acquire the ones you lack. The time of
proximate preparation should be spent not only in the eradication of evil habits
but also in the acquisition of the virtues needed for happiness in marriage.

If diligent search has led you to believe that there is no one in your immediate
circle of friends and acquaintances with the minimum of the ideals you have set for
your future wife or husband, you should circulate. Join a club in a neighboring
parish, attend church socials, political organizations, and sports groups, or mixed
bowling leagues. Hold out, though, for a formal introduction and don't accept the
two-toned whistle or the moron's mating call of "Hi, Toots!" as any substitute.

A "knock-down" to someone who appears to have most of the qualities you have set
for a suitable "steady" is but the beginning. An introduction alone is useless
without the follow-through. Here is where tact and common sense plus warmth of
character come into play. Girls who want to know a man better will ask him where
he lives and what he does, thus affording him a chance to talk about himself--the
male failing. It places the girl at the receiving end of the conversation, makes
her a good listener. If he stalls, start him on the weather, sports, his home,
brothers and sisters. Get around to speaking about church, and let him know right
from the start that you are a Catholic.

If things progress according to plan, invent a little house party during the
following week. Tell him you were planning to have a few friends in and ask him if
he would join them. In the case of a young man making a play for a nice young lady
he has just met, he might suggest a movie with a couple of friends or a dance.

Here are a few important "don'ts" for first dates:

Don't try to be the life of the party.

Don't forget to introduce the new dates to your parents.

Don't overdress.

Don't talk too much--be a good listener.

Don't drink.

Don't forget to serve a nice lunch prepared by your own hands.

Don't neglect to learn to dance well. Your date has a right to expect
this.

Don't "neck or pet." This shows lack of control and selfishness.

Don't park. Keep out of dark streets and country lanes and don't
allow yourself to be led into temptation. Any time you can't answer
"yes" to the question: "Would Christ or His Blessed Mother stay in
this room or car?" it's time to move.

Don't be openly affectionate in public.

Don't write gushing, sloppy letters.

Don't waste your time on a person who is:

domineering
bad-tempered
boastful
jealous: (Holy Scripture says: "A jealous man or woman is
the grief and mourning of the heart.")
overaggressive
lacking in consideration.

Remember marriage is not a reform school! A young woman must make a careful study
of the person she intends to marry. It is important that she look for signs of
selfishness, such as the honking of a car horn to summon her from the house. She
must beware of the sulky young man, the fellow who boasts of his female conquests,
the one who grabs the best chair in the house to rest his love-torn frame in, and
the fellow who always wants things his way--all of these denote selfishness.

A young man ought to study the way in which his girl friend gets along with her
parents and the others of her household. Beware of the street angel and house
devil. Is she cheerful? Has she good judgment? Is she economical? Can she cook? Is
she possessive? Hearken to the words of Holy Scripture: "A virtuous woman rejoices
her husband, and he shall fulfill the years of his life in peace."

Someone has said that personality is like an iceberg--two-thirds of it is hidden.

Now this is not quite true. If you are observant you can determine quite definitely
the hidden characteristics of others by noting their common traits. For instance, a
person who bites his fingernails is usually an introvert and is self-centered. The
chain smoker is usually a deeply nervous person. The cigar-chewer is an aggressive
person. The person who spends long periods gazing into the mirror is usually
affected with infantilism. And the bushes are full of border-line screw-balls.
Albert Deutsch asserts that there are 450,000 New Yorkers alone who need
psychiatric treatment. By their fruits you should know them.

Here are a few characters you ought to give a wide berth: They are
usually psycho.

The hard-boiled variety. These are invariably insensitive, heartless,

ruthless, and cruel.

The grouchy variety. These growl at everything and everybody.

The suspicious variety. These think everyone is against them. They

feel people talk about them.

The moody variety. One day on top of the world--the next down in
the depths. These pout for days.

The neurotic variety. These frequently display hysteria. They

complain of physical ailments on little or no medical basis. They
love to talk about their ills.

The perverse personalities. These are always getting into trouble--at

home, in the office, the plant, or in school.
Girls should beware of the following types of suitors:
Sugar daddy
Philandering
Paternal
Domineering
Possessive

Men ought to avoid the following types of girls:

Baby doll
Over-romantic
Masculine
Frigid
Domineering
Matriarchal
Possessive
Gold-digger

In choosing a mate for marriage remember that the happiest unions are those wherein
both parties are socially and intellectually equal; both have the same high ideals;
both are in good physical health; both are of the same faith; both have the
approval of their parents; and both have a good attitude toward sex.

Here is an example of how tragic the absence of even one of these essentials for
marriage can be.

A year or so ago I was fishing from a dock at a nearby yacht club when an elderly
gentleman joined me. As we fished, a boat headed in for the dock and my companion
said: "Father, there's a queer duck. He was once married to a school teacher,
although he himself had only a grammar school education. The marriage ended
in divorce because he could not stand his wife eternally correcting his English.
That woman in the boat is his second wife. She is Spanish and can hardly speak
English at all."

That conversation supplied concrete proof of the fact that social and intellectual
inequality can wreck marriage.

The Holy Ghost very wisely warns that there are three things that disturb the
earth: (1) a slave when he reigneth; (2) a fool when he is filled with meat, and
(3) an odious woman when she is married.

Persevering prayer for guidance

So important is the matter of the choice of a mate that prayer for

guidance and enlightenment is most essential. An old Russian
proverb runs like this:

Before embarking on a journey, pray once;

Before leaving for war, pray twice;
Before you marry, pray three times.

And His Holiness Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical letter "On Marriage," warns
suitors in these words:

"To the proximate preparation of a good married life belongs very specially the
care in choosing a partner; on that depends a great deal whether the forthcoming
marriage will be happy or not, since one may be to the other either a great help in
leading a Christian life, or on the other hand, a great danger and hindrance. And,
so that they will not deplore for the rest of their lives the sorrows arising from
an indiscreet marriage, those about to enter into wedlock should carefully
deliberate in choosing the person with whom henceforward they must live
continually. They should in so deliberating keep before their minds the thought
first of God and of the true religion of Christ, then of themselves, of their
partner, of the children to come, as also of home and civil society, for which
wedlock is as a fountain head. Let them diligently pray for Divine help, so that
they will make their choice in accordance with Christian prudence, not indeed led
by the blind and unchecked impulse of lust, nor by any desire of riches or other
base influence, but by a true and noble love and by a sincere affection towards the
future partner; and then let them strive in their married life toward those ends
for which this state was constituted by God."

Parental counsel

Before thinking of engagement, be sure to consult your parents regarding your

choice. Here, again, the wisdom of Pope Pius XI is evidenced in his words addressed
to young men and women as follows:

"Let them not fail to ask the prudent advice of their parents with regard to the
partner and let them regard this advice in no light manner, in order that by their
mature knowledge and experience of human affairs they may guard against a baneful
mistake, and on the threshold of matrimony may receive more abundantly the
Divine blessing, the Commandment: "Honor thy father and thy mother," which is the
first Commandment with a promise, "that it may be well with thee and thou mayest be
long-lived upon the earth."

I can't imagine a worse insult to one's parents than to become engaged, much less
married, without consulting them. It is something that will bother conscience as
long as one lives. I can vividly recall a middle-aged man who called at the rectory
one day. When I came into the office I noticed he was weeping, and he told me that
the reason for his tears was simply that he had heard that day his daughter had
been married a month earlier. He was hurt and crushed. Like every father, he had
planned for the pleasure of seeing his daughter married to a worthwhile man.
However, she had seen fit to mistrust him. "But, Father," he said, "why I weep
today is that I did the same thing to my parents. I married without telling my
parents and when I did break the news to Mother, she just looked at me--dry-eyed
and calm--and said, 'Just wait, Son. Your turn will come too.' And it did!"

Consultation with your pastor or confessor

Not only should your parents be consulted, but also your pastor or confessor. Many
a broken home or heart or both might have been avoided if the spiritual father had
been asked as to the wisdom of the choice of mate in life and the choice of the
life partner. And don't wait until you go in to have the banns announced. Call on
the pastor or confessor before you become engaged.

When all these suggestions have been wisely followed and the choice has been made
only after prayerful consideration and wise counsel, the parties become what is
known as "engaged."

A proper period of engagement

What do we understand by engagement? An engagement is simply a mutual promise to

marry. Its purpose is to permit the parties to get to know one another better and
to test the depth and the sincerity of the mutual affection and love. As regards
the length of the engagement, from six months to a year is reasonable and
desirable.

The period of engagement is in no way to be considered a license for dangerous

and/or impure love-making. Bear this in mind:

(1) All actions performed for the purpose of promoting or

stimulating venereal pleasure are mortal sins.

(2) All directly venereal actions are mortal sins.

(3) All actions involving the proximate danger of performing

directly venereal actions or of consenting to venereal pleasure are
mortal sins.

(4) Indirectly venereal actions performed without a relatively

sufficient reason are venial sins.

Now, regarding kissing and embracing the general rule is as follows: If they are
indulged in from impure motives or if immodest intimacy is involved or if there is
proximate danger of something seriously sinful happening, such kissing is mortally
sinful.

The Reverend Gerald Kelly, S.J., in his fine pamphlet entitled "Modern Youth and
Chastity," which should be required reading for all young men and women, says: "It
is clear that two people eligible for marriage and genuinely in love do not sin by
manifesting their love in a modest and moderate fashion, with a reasonable
assurance of controlling themselves should passion be unintentionally aroused.
Again, the kiss or embrace which is according to a recognized convention of good
people is not sinful. Generally speaking, such things do not abuse passion, or if
they do, it is slight and easily controlled."[10]

During the period of engagement do not make the mistake of building your love on
lust. Lust and love are two different things Sex indulgence before marriage, in
place of giving pleasure, can be most bitter and disillusioning. I remember reading
once of a little boy who while visiting his grandmother in the country noticed
some buds on a rose bush. He kept pestering his grandmother to let him open one of
the buds to see the rose. In spite of the injunction of the wise grandmother that
the roses must bloom in their own natural way, the boy still insisted on opening a
bud. Finally, when the permission was granted, the lad tore open the little hard
green bud and was disappointed in seeing nothing but a nondescript pulp.

The same thing holds true of those who attempt sexual pleasures before marriage.
They will find them bitter and disturbing Prof. C. E. Groves, a leading sociologist
writing on the subject, says:

"In addition to the part this experience of petting plays in bringing greater
maturity to heterosexual urges, there are also two contrasting results connected
with it that need to be separated and understood. One is the fact that courtship to
a considerable degree acts as a sublimation of physical sex desire. The biological
hunger is transferred into complex expression that is essentially mental and social
and were this not true the idealization of courtship would be negligible and human
maturity would continue close to the pairing of animals.

"Were this all that analysis reveals, the problem would indeed be simple, but it is
certain also that expression of sex attraction in courtship acts upon the organism
in exactly opposite ways. It is truly a stimulating as well as a sublimating
experience. Whatever may be the reaction of the imagination, there is a basic body
structure organized to respond to sex stimulation in whatever form it appears. And
this body mechanism, once it is aroused, has no concern with inhibitions or
sublimating experiences but is set to proceed directly to a purely physical release
of nervous energy.

"Experience with this problem has led to the recognition of certain hazards that
the intelligent person will recognize. One is the danger of precocious commitment.
Under stimulation, intimacy may go so far as to make it seem to one or both
individuals that marriage is an obligation, even though as a result of this
recognition there may be loss of the desire to marry--obligation is always a
dangerous doorway to matrimony, and anything that makes it liable is detrimental to
the social purpose of courtship.

"The second consequence of courtship intimacy may be a fixation of sex hunger upon
the line of what is known as its secondary expression. In cases, not a few, as the
specialist knows, individuals who seemed highly sexed in courtship have lost,
because of their habit of secondary sex expression, their normal biological hunger
and on this forced to find in marriage an anticlimax.

"It is also found in some instances that by allowing sex intimacy to go to great
lengths, the value the woman had for the man, or that the man had for the woman,
and which had previously prophesied marriage, is lost and the association is
aborted by having become so largely physical in character."[11]

It would appear from Holy Scripture that one is rewarded for a virtuous life by the
choice of a virtuous mate. In the Book of Ecclesiasticus we read: "A good wife is a
good portion, which shall be given in portion of them that fear the Lord." Endeavor
then during your time of courtship and engagement to shun evil and avoid senseless
temptations so that you might merit a worthy mate. Prayer will help in that choice
too, for "unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it."
(Psalms 126:1.)

For those who, after reading through this entire chapter, find themselves confused
and amazed by the seemingly infinite number of requisite virtues and
characteristics demanded of those who seek union of mind and heart in wedlock,
there is some small consolation in the knowledge that it takes the exports of
thirty-six different countries to supply the ingredients of a single lowly hot
dog. Should we be surprised then that many different virtues and characteristics
are required in marriage to assure its happy outcome?

When every other requisite is met as suggested in this chapter, be sure that the
love is genuine. Here is how the Reverend J. J. O'Connor, S.J., says you can be
sure that it is true love and not a facsimile.

"Happiness and joy in each other's company, an anxiety for self-development to be

more worthy of the partner, a consciousness of an intellectual, moral and emotional
advancement as a result of being together, a longing for each other when separated,
a toleration of each other's foibles, and a willingness to make concessions--if
these are the experiences had by a courting couple, then they can be fairly certain
that between them true love exists."

There is an old Tuscan proverb that says: "In buying horses and in taking a wife
shut your eyes tight and commend yourself to God." I think you will fare much
better if, while commending yourself to God, you keep both eyes wide open!

Let us return to Cana of Galilee for a consideration of a most meaningful Old

Testament custom observed in every Jewish wedding, which doubtless must have formed
a part of the wedding feast at Cana.

In those ancient days every bride went to her nuptials wearing on her head a crown
of myrtle,[12] an evergreen shrub especially prized for its fragrant leaves.
Likewise, every bridegroom wore a crown of myrtle, to which were added red roses.

From time immemorial myrtle has been considered as sacred to Venus, the legendary
goddess of love, while red roses have everywhere symbolized love. The old song
runs:

"My love is like the red, red rose."

The wearing of the myrtle and rose crowns by the bride and bridegroom is strikingly
significant. The lesson is obvious. The placing of the symbol of love on the head
was done to point out that the mind, the intelligence, must play the dominant role
in any choice of a life partner. In other words, the importance of sound judgment
in all matters of love.

In this, as in so many other ways, the lessons of Cana are thought-provoking. And
it might not be amiss to observe that a crown has only to slip down a little to
become a noose!

ENDNOTES

1. Speech in Boston, Mass., April 9, 1871.

2. P. 221. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1914.

3. "Modern Man in Search of His Soul," C. G. Jung, p. 264. New York:

Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1933.

4. "Do Adolescents Need Parents?" Katherine W. Taylor. New York:

D. Appleton-Century Co., 1937

5. "Literary Digest," November 23, 1929, p. 24.

6. "The Journal of Social Hygiene," April, 1927, p. 227.

7. Published monthly, 227 East 44th St., New York, N.Y.

8. "What Is Education?" Rev. Edward Leen, p. 1. New York: Sheed &

Ward, 1944.

9. "The Pivotal Problems of Education," W. P. Cunningham, p. 18.

New York: The Macmillan Co., 1940.

10. The Queen's Work, 3742 West Pine Blvd., St. Louis 8, Mo.

11. Marriage, E. R. Groves, pp. 113-115. New York: Henry Holt and
Company.

12. Ketoubot II:[1].

Chapter Five: MIXED MARRIAGES ARE DANGEROUS

Worshippers at the shrine of Bacchus may differ as to the potency and merits of
various spirituous beverages, but they are unanimous in denouncing the folly of
mixing drinks. Such universal accord is due in no small measure to the inevitable
pink elephants, splitting headaches, and the-morning-after dejection. Strangely,
the untold numbers of broken hearts and homes resulting from mixing religions in
marriage have failed to produce similar unanimity concerning its injudiciousness.

In spite of the frequent warnings of the Church against mixed marriages, they
continue to take place, and while some turn out well, the vast majority are doomed
to failure. Never, in my twenty years experience in the ministry, have I
interviewed young people of different religious beliefs who wanted to marry,
without hearing the old refrain: "But Father, our case is different. We have
reached a complete understanding about religion. We have decided never to permit
religion to interfere with our lives." And my answer is always the same. "Whether
you like it or not, religion will interfere with your life It is too important,
much too important, to be relegated to the background of life." The proof that
difference of religion in marriage does interfere is demonstrated by the fact that
it is one of the great causes of separations and divorce today.

The Reverend Robert Good, a Presbyterian minister, addressing a church group in

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, said recently that "mixed marriage ought to be avoided at
all cost because of the high rate of their failures. Only six per cent of the
marriages in which the husband and wife were of the same faith ended in failures as
compared with fifteen per cent in the case of mixed marriages."

Brother Gerald J. Schnepp, S.M., M.A., in his survey made in 1942 for his
dissertation entitled "Leakage From a Catholic Parish," asserted that in "sixty-two
per cent of the marriages leading to separation, one party was Catholic and the
other not." In other words, the percentage was high because of the mixed marriage
angle.

Dr. Clifford R. Adams, director of the Marriage Counseling Service of Pennsylvania

State College School of Education, and author of the recent book, "How to Pick a
Mate," stated in an article appearing in the September, 1946, issue of "The Woman's
Home Companion" that "Three out of four girls seriously date, at some time, a man
of different religion. To a girl in love the matter of religious difference is apt
to seem inconsequential. After all, the man she marries will be a freethinking
adult. To such girls I point out the jarring fact that my records show that seventy
per cent of such marriages now end in divorce or separation." Now, Dr. Adams
should know what he is talking about, since he counsels some four thousand persons
a year. Perhaps, after considering well this high percentage of failures in mixed
marriages, the Church's warnings may not seem too exaggerated.

To those who think this problem is solved when they plan to enter matrimony with a
person without any religious convictions or beliefs at all, I say that they worsen
the condition and merit to be nicknamed after a nationally known decaffeinized
coffee, whose advertisements claim "it has no active ingredient in the bean." "A
man without some sort of religion," says Marvel, "is at best a poor reprobate, the
football of destiny, with no tie linking him to infinity and the wondrous eternity
that is begun with him; but a woman without religion is even worse--a flame without
heat, a rainbow without color, a flower without perfume."

This much is certain, the single state in life is a thousand times more preferable,
in nearly every case, to a mixed marriage. Even in the Old Testament mixed
marriages were definitely forbidden. The Jews were not permitted to contract
marriage with the Canaanites nor indeed with the Samaritans, who, while practicing
heathen ceremonies, kept the law of God and had the books of Moses. God's
abhorrence of mixtures is evidenced by His command in the ancient law: "Thou shalt
not sow thy field with mingled seed; neither shall a garment mingled with linen and
woolen come upon thee."

The Church warns her children today against mixed marriages for the same reason
that a loving mother might warn her child against undertaking a journey she knows
will expose her offspring to great peril. Lowell once said: "One thorn of
experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning," and it has been the sad
experience of the Church during her two thousand years that mixed marriages are
dangerous both to the faith of the principals and even more so to their innocent
children. Let us consider these two angles separately.

That mixed marriages are fraught with danger to the salvation of those who contract
them can be amply proved. For instance, the wise and enlightened King Solomon took
to himself heathen wives in his old age, and they prevailed over him so far that,
from a worshipper of the true God, he himself became an idolater and allowed
temples of the false gods to be erected in his kingdom. Solomon's folly has been
perpetuated down through the centuries by untold thousands who, like him, lost
their faith because they failed to marry their own. Take, for instance, the
apostasies listed in the official German civil census for the year 1929. This
document shows that 40,000 souls were lost to the Church in Germany in one year
through mixed marriages, while the number of converts was only 8,762.

Claire Boothe Luce, in her inspiring apologia entitled "The 'Real' Reason," which
appeared in the February, 1947, issue of "McCall's Magazine," very frankly states
that her mother was born a Catholic but fell away from the Church when she married
a non-Catholic. That this very thing has happened to so many others who marry a
person of a different faith is easily understood. Human nature being what it is, it
is prone to take the line of least resistance. The mixed marriage that is entered
into with the best of intentions may result in the loss of faith for the Catholic
party in later years. It happens this way. In nearly every mixed marriage the
Catholic party honestly believes and hopes that some day, somehow, his or her mate
will enter the Church. The danger lies in the fact that the Catholic may suddenly
come to the realization that all the good example, tolerance, and patience
displayed through many years have in no way brought the other party nearer the
faith and thus they grow weary of hoping and praying and gradually lose faith. It
is not so difficult to give up doing or believing something that upsets someone we
love very dearly. Herein lies the secret of the ultimate loss of faith! Joubert
puts it this way: "Religion is fire which example keeps alive, and which goes out
if not communicated."

In the rare instances where in a mixed marriage the Catholic party does not
actually suffer loss of faith there is definitely violence done to the essential
and complete unity demanded in all marriages. His Holiness Pope Pius XI, of happy
memory, pointed this out very clearly in his famous Encyclical "Casti Connubii."
The Pontiff stated: "If the Church occasionally on account of circumstances does
not refuse to grant a dispensation from her strict laws provided the Divine Law
remains intact, and the dangers already mentioned are provided against by suitable
safeguards it is unlikely that the Catholic party will not suffer some detriment
from such a marriage." It was in this same letter that His Holiness listed the two
well-known evil effects of mixed marriages--"deplorable deflections from religion"
and "religious indifference."

That mixed marriage is an obstacle to complete harmony is readily understandable.

People of different religious beliefs have different philosophies and in marriage
these differences take on new importance. When the first glow of the honeymoon is
over, a couple with different religious backgrounds may become impatient and even
intolerant. Complete unity of mind and heart, complete happiness in such a
marriage, is threatened when two persons of different faiths find themselves
obliged to ignore the most discussed topic in the world, and by that, I mean
religion. The very thing parties to a mixed marriage wish to ignore, will
come into prominence every Sunday of their lives. The Catholic will walk to Mass
alone and the non-Catholic will sit alone in his seat in some Protestant church.
Both will hear doctrines diametrically opposed to their life partner's faith. The
Catholic may hear in a sermon that the Mass is the continuation of the Sacrifice of
Calvary, while the non-Catholic may hear the Mass denounced as idolatrous,
sacerdotal trickery; in one edifice the Holy Father may be denounced as a humbug
and in the other, at that very moment, the little woman may be contributing a
dollar from her husband's last pay check toward a Peter's Pence collection.
Fundamental differences in religious beliefs invariably form a gulf between two
married persons. Such differences are more insurmountable than differences of
education, race, culture, or economic standing. Love could be said to be an
outgrowth of our recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves, and where
the resemblance is only faint, the love will be faint. The more things two married
people have in common, the greater are their chances of happiness in marriage and
the fewer adjustments will be necessary.

Another important thing that must be considered in a mixed marriage is that such a
union offers the Catholic party the minimum of matrimonial security. In the case of
a serious misunderstanding the non-Catholic may feel free to walk out and obtain a
divorce and marry again; whereas the Catholic is bound not to take a second partner
as long as the former lives. On the other hand, two practical Catholics, while not
exempt from the possibility of grave misunderstandings, will usually avoid the
extremes that lead to difficult reconciliations because they know they must
reconcile, since divorce for them is out of the question.

Dangerous as mixed marriages are to the faith of the Catholic parties involved, the
dangers to the faith of the children are even greater. Here are a few statistics
from the Holy Name Journal that may amaze you.

(A) In families where both parents are Catholics only eight out of every hundred
will forsake the practice of religion in later life.

(B) In families where both the parents are of the same Protestant denomination some
thirty-two out of every hundred will be lost to the practice of that religion.

(C) In families where one parent is Catholic and the other a non-Catholic sixty-six
out of every hundred will forsake the practice of religion later in life.

Some years ago Rev. M. V. Kelly, C.S.B., made a survey of the leakage in the
membership of a Catholic city parish of seventeen hundred souls. He limited himself
to the special study of one hundred twenty-one cases in which the whole family was
lost to the Church. Here are his findings:

1. There is not one case out of the one hundred twenty-one in which both parents
were brought up Catholics. Six were cases in which one of the parties had become a
Catholic on the occasion of marriage and the remaining one hundred fifteen were
cases of mixed marriage.

2. The falling off can be explained in six cases by the death of the Catholic
parent and in eight cases by a divorce or permanent separation.

3. There remain today, therefore, one hundred six clear cases of a Catholic father
or mother who had contracted a mixed marriage and who is allowing his or her
children to grow up outside the Church.

4. In these one hundred six cases the Catholic party is almost entirely to blame;
instances of any determined or effective resistance on the part of a non-Catholic
husband or wife are almost negligible.[1]

Such tremendous leakage from the faith through mixed marriages is easily
understandable when one considers the whole problem in the light of cold judgment.
For instance, how can a non-Catholic mother, even though she signed the pre-nuptial
promises in the best of faith, very convincingly teach her children doctrines they
must study in the catechism when deep in her own heart she believes them to be
false, if not downright evil? Or take the case of a Catholic mother who rises early
on a Sunday and starts out for Mass with her children on a cold winter's morning.
In between the biting blasts of wind one of the children is certain to ask, "Why
doesn't Daddy come to Mass, too?"

"Your father is not a Catholic," the mother must say, "and his religion does not
demand that he attend Church under pain of sin." Right there and then a division is
created between the father and the rest of the family--a division which ought not
to be there. Too, human nature being what it is, it is quite possible that a less
exacting religion might seem more appealing in view of the biting wind.

It is possible, too, that the faith of the little ones might even suffer damage by
a thoughtless remark of a non-Catholic parent. I recall once hearing of a little
lad who asked his father to go with him to the Catholic Church for the closing
exercises of the Forty Hours.

"You go, son," said the father. "I can't stand all that ritualistic stuff." So
saying, he finished putting on his long tails and white tie, and packed a sword,
apron, fancy cuffs, embroidered collar, scarf and a white-plumed Lord Nelson hat.
"I'll be home late," the father said; "there is an initiation at the lodge tonight,
and I'm on the ritual team."

The father's scorn of religious rites was bad, but his logic was worse!

Another great disadvantage for children born of mixed marriages is that they rarely
receive a Catholic education. The public schools today have hundreds of thousands
of Catholic children on their registers who are there because a Catholic mother or
father has compromised on the matter of their Catholic education, and such
compromise leads to subsequent loss of faith by the offspring.

If the Church never warned against mixed marriages, good logic would dictate their
avoidance. Marriage is based on perfect sympathy and understanding. It is a career-
partnership, and the fundamental requisite for any successful partnership is common
interest. A wise lawyer who wished to take a partner into his firm would naturally
choose another lawyer and not an electrician. Then apply that same logic to
matrimonial partnerships. A woman who has made a career of painting would not let
herself fall in love with a man who despised art and artists; then why should she
fall in love with a man who, if he does not despise religion outright, at least is
cold and indifferent toward it? No other partnership would succeed under like
conditions. That is just common sense, and when common sense and love work
together, you can expect a masterpiece.

A Catholic who begins serious company-keeping with a non-Catholic and does not at
the outset discuss the problem of religious difference as it affects them acts
unfairly and selfishly. Many a non-Catholic falls in love and becomes engaged
before the Catholic party dares mention the sweeping promises regarding the
Catholic upbringing and education of all children of either sex born to them in
marriage.

Long before the matter of the engagement is contemplated, religious differences

should be discussed as well as the problem of birth control and Catholic school
education of the children. Above all, the non-Catholic should be acquainted with
the fact that certain promises regarding the Catholic education of the children
must be signed and, if possible, a visit should be paid to the rectory and
permission asked to have the non-Catholic person read over the promises. Did you
ever see those promises yourself? Here they are in their usual form:
ARCHDIOCESE OF--

MIXED MARRIAGE (Mixta Religio Vel Disparitas Cultus)

Rev. dear Sir: 19

____________________________________________________________
(Name)

Child of________________________and_________________________
(Maiden Name of Mother)

of___________________________________________________________
(Address)

A Catholic of this parish wishing to marry

_____________________________________________________________
(Name)

Child
of__________________________and______________________________
(Maiden Name of Mother)

of____________________________________________________________
(Address)

A non-Catholic baptized in sect.

never baptized
(If non-Catholic, a Hebrew, please so indicate)

humbly petitions the Archbishop of , as delegate

of the Holy See, to grant a dispensation from the impediment

of____________________________________________________________

THE REASONS ARE (give sufficient canonical reasons in proper

form; cf. approved authors):

The necessary promises in writing are attached hereto; there appears to be no

unusual danger of perversion and there is present MORAL CERTAINTY THAT THE PROMISES
AS MADE WILL BE FULFILLED.

Yours respectfully,
_____________________________________________

ARCHDIOCESE OF--

FORM OF PROMISES FOR NON-CATHOLIC

I, the undersigned non-Catholic, desiring to contract marriage with the Catholic

party named in this application before a Catholic priest, duly authorized by a
special dispensation from the Archbishop (or Bishop) hereby promise in the presence
of the undersigned witnesses:

(1) That all children of either sex born of this marriage shall be baptized and
educated in the Catholic religion.

(2) That I will neither hinder nor obstruct in any manner whatsoever the Catholic
party in the exercise of the Catholic religion.

(3) That in the solemnization of my marriage there shall be only the Catholic
ceremony.

(Signature of non-Catholic)

FORM OF PROMISES FOR CATHOLIC

I, the undersigned Catholic party, hereby promise in the presence

of the undersigned witnesses:

(1) That all children of either sex born of this marriage shall be
baptized and educated in the Catholic religion.

(2) That in the solemnization of my marriage there shall be only

the Catholic ceremony.

(Signature of Catholic)

We, the undersigned, hereby declare that we witnessed the signatures of the above
mentioned contracting parties in their presence and in the presence of each other,
on this day of the month of 19 .

(Signature of priest)

(Signature of witness)

Many a mixed marriage could be avoided if only the Catholic party had sufficient
strength of character to insist that marriage is out of the question if the other
person cannot conscientiously accept Catholic doctrines. Many fine, worthy
Catholics today owe their submission to the Church, after God's grace, to the
presence of that condition. Sad to say, there are many who are not willing to
accept the alternative of abandoning the prospect of a marriage which seems in
every other way most desirable. They have all sorts of excuses ready to offer for
their indifference or fear, and usually they are cloaked under such statements as:
"I would not have him enter the Church just for my sake," or again: "I knew others
who became Catholics just to marry someone, and they gave it up soon afterward."

It might be well to remark here that no one is admitted to the Church unless a
priest has first given the person adequate instruction and passed upon the
candidate's disposition and assumed responsibility for the serious step to be
taken.

It has been the experience of most priests that where the Catholic party is
prayerful, firm, and patient, he or she will inevitably be rewarded with the
conversion of the non-Catholic before marriage. Too, it has been the sad experience
of priests that where such converts later lose the faith, the blame must be laid
directly to the bad example of the Catholic mate.

When Our Lord changed the water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana, the change
was complete and total. There was not just part water and part wine, but the
contents of the whole six waterpots were miraculously changed into superb wine. Let
there be no mixture of religions in marriage. Good common sense demands that you
marry your own, and if there must be any converting done, by all means get it done
long before the marriage. And don't be too anxious about the possibility of losing
your beloved because you are holding out against a mixed marriage, for Thomas Carew
naively suggests:
 Then fly betimes, for only they
Conquer Love, that run away.

Remember it's better to say "no" now to a mixed marriage than be tempted to say
"Reno" later!

ENDNOTES

1. The Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. LXXXIII, No. 2.

Chapter Six: THE GREAT SACRAMENT

William Shakespeare, in "As You Like It," put these words into the
mouth of Jacques:

"And will you, being a man of good breeding, be married under a bush, like a
beggar? Get you to a church and have a good priest that can tell you what marriage
is. This fellow will but join you together as they join wainscot; and then one of
you will prove a shrunk panel, and like green timber, warp, warp."

The fact that Shakespeare, writing in the year 1598, should demand the services of
a priest and advise a definite, sacred surrounding for marriage, might indicate to
some a certain antiquity and venerability for the matrimonial ritual. The truth is
that the origin of the sacredness surrounding marriage goes back to the Garden of
Eden and our First Parents.

The very first marriage on this earth was a wondrous affair. It was glorious in its
simplicity. God created man separately and He created woman separately; then He
joined the two in a sacred union. Here are the exact words of Holy Scripture: "And
God created man to His own image; to the image of God He created him. Male and
female He created them. And God blessed them saying: Increase and multiply, and
fill the earth...." (Gen. 1:27, 28.) The mingling of the two elements of human
nature engendered in Adam and Eve an unsurpassed unity of conjugal life--a unity so
pronounced that Adam exclaimed the principle which was to be the guiding rule for
all his descendants: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh." (Gen. 2:24.)

There is no question about the divine origin of marriage. The words of Scripture
just quoted bear this out. That it was a special union and contract that merited a
special blessing is equally patent from the words of the sacred and inspired
writer: "And God blessed them saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the
earth...." (Gen. 1:28.) And the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve and those who
came after them down through the dim vista of the years recognized in marriage a
definite sacredness and recognized, too, the need for the special blessing of God
upon it. For instance, it was perfectly natural for the young Tobias before
his marriage to pray to God and say in that prayer: "Lord God of our fathers, Thou
madest Adam of the slime of the earth: and gavest him Eve for a helper...." then,
turning to his beloved Sara, say: "Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and
tomorrow, and the next day: . . . For we are the children of saints: and we must
not be joined together like heathens that know not God." (Tob. 8:4, 5, 7, 8.) So
sacred did God want man to consider marriage that He imposed two special
commandments--two out of ten--to preserve it from profanation. The two prohibitions
were: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house:
neither shalt thou desire his wife...." (Exod. 20:14,17.)
Thus, from the beginning of the world, marriage has been considered by God as a
very special and sacred contract in which two people promise to be faithful to each
other, to help each other, and never to forsake each other. In this, marriage
differs from all other human contracts. Any other contract may be set aside by
mutual agreement, but not so marriage. While it is a private affair--private to the
extent that the choice is free--once the marriage vows are made, the fate of all
mankind is connected with that marriage and it becomes a public affair, and no one
has the right to dissolve it. Indeed, marriage is more than a contract. It is the
mystical union of two bodies and souls. To hold less than this is to refuse to
identify ourselves with the divine plan of God, and we reduce ourselves to the sad
plight of our First Parents.

The first love this world ever knew between a man and a woman went wrong because
Adam and Eve betrayed their God. They had been asked simply to accept the Creator
as the master of their hearts and souls and actions. Freely, however, our First
Parents rejected God as their ruler and in that rejection lay disaster. That
first mortal sin lost for them supernatural life and the consequent loss of the
friendship of God. Severed from God by their sin, Adam and Eve found that their
human nature became dominant. They who had been made by and for God were conscious
of their orphanhood and awful isolation. They had cut themselves adrift in a storm-
tossed and cursed sea. Never must our First Parents have so realized the awful cost
of their lack of unity with God as when their son Cain murdered his brother Abel
and displayed the depths to which impaired nature could descend.

It took four thousand years of waiting, of prayer and penance, to make ready for
the coming of Christ who, out of boundless love for fallen humanity, offered to
come down on this earth and take a human nature and re-establish contact with the
Creator.

F. J. Sheed very beautifully puts it this way:

"At last God did for man what man could not do for himself . . . but consider what
man by his own act had become, and it will be small wonder if the new road lacks
some of the simplicity of the old. The first road had been planned for man as he
came all perfect from the hand of God; the second had to be planned for man as he
was, with the wounds and stains that were upon him after countless ages of bearing
the assaults of the world, the temptations of the devil, the warfare within
himself. For the first road God had made man; for the building of the second road
God became man."[1]

It is worthy of profound contemplation that the first recorded act of the public
life of the Son of God made man was to assist at and bless the nuptials of a man
and his wife at Cana in Galilee. He it was who raised marriage to the dignity of a
sacrament and His divinely instituted Church has never ceased through the ages to
promulgate and protect marriage as such.

The triune God is made up of the Three Divine Persons--the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost. In marriage--the holy union of husband and wife--God is ever a third
partner, and the union of all three is for the sole purposes of the Creator. The
union of man and woman in Christian marriage is effected through the priestly
power of Christ Himself. It is a union effected by God and for God. When a man or a
woman, or both, deny God's plan in their union, the result is disaster. The
incomparable Father Isidore O'Brien, O.F.M., puts it this way:

"Man was created with no contradictions in his soul or body. But certain evil
influences did exist outside him and these he admitted into his soul by a single
deliberate act, and since that day they have remained within him. When man let
these negative agencies (sin) into his soul, they at once weakened his positive
powers and struck an alliance with his nature which is called a propensity to
evil."[2]

Our Saviour, conscious of man's misfortune and altered state when He came to save
man from his sins, and realizing that man would need special help to succeed in the
marriage career, raised matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament--that is, He made
it an official channel by which baptized members are united to His mystical Body
or, in other words, He made it a means of grace. It should be carefully noted that
while the marriage of two unbaptized persons is certainly not a sacrament, and
while it is more probable that the marriage of a baptized person to an unbaptized
person is not a sacrament either, such marriages are, nevertheless, important,
serious things besides being valid contracts[3]

Now since the sacramental character of marriage is ofttimes denied today, it might
be well to have a ready answer for those who raise such an objection. Only recently
I heard a nationally famous radio broadcaster say that marriage did not become a
sacrament until the middle of the fourteenth century. I took him to task and
pointed out that the prime requisite for a sacrament is that it has been instituted
by Christ. The other two requisites are that it is an outward sign and that it
gives grace. I hastened to inform him of St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians
(5:32), in which he wrote these words when comparing marital love with the love of
Christ for His Church: "This is a great Sacrament [or mystery]: but I speak in
Christ and in the Church." In case he might think that I was attempting to use this
text to prove immediately the fact that matrimony, for a Christian, is a sacrament,
I hastened to quote the following from THE SACRAMENTS, by Rev. Isidore O'Brien,
O.F.M.:

"As explained, the Greek word mysterion, "mystery" (which St. Paul employs here)
was often used for "sacrament." In this text Catholic theologians so understand it.
The King James Version of the Bible translates it "mystery." But this literal
translation does not exclude the Catholic significance of "sacrament." The civil
contract, is not a "great mystery"; it is not mysterious, in the sense of being
transcendentally sublime, unless it is a Sacrament. St. Paul describes matrimony as
the symbol, the sign of Christ's union with the Church: and not, let us note, in
the sense of a certain loose resemblance. It is a sign of that union because of the
spiritual love by which Christ loves and rules the Church and by which the
Church cleaves to Christ as a wife to her husband. Christ's union with the Church
sanctifies the Church. The sacramental union of marriage sanctifies husband and
wife in the holy state of matrimony.

We have, therefore, in the marriage contract between Christians, as described by

St. Paul, the three essentials of a Sacrament: an external sign, internal grace,
and institution by Jesus Christ.

It is worthy of note that the Council of Trent derived its main argument for the
sacramentality of marriage, from the teachings of the Fathers and the early
councils, and from the universal practice and belief of the Church. Let us here
examine a few excerpts from the works of the early Fathers.

St. Ignatius, writing in the second century, said: "But it is fitting for those who
marry--both with the men and the women--to accomplish their union with the consent
of the bishop that their marriage may be according to God and not according to
lust."[4]

Tertullian, in the same century, wrote: "How can we find words to describe the
happiness of that marriage which the Church joins together and the oblation
confirms (the Mass) and the blessing seals, the angels report and the Father
ratifies."[5]

And should you need to prove that the Church has always been the careful guardian
of marriage and that marriage before a priest is in no way a modern invention, read
these words of Timotheus of Alexandria, successor to the See of St. Athanasius,
written in the third century A.D. "If any one call in a cleric, to unite in
marriage but he shall hear that the marriage is unlawful . . . ought the cleric
to accede or to make the oblation? Answer--Say to him, if the cleric hear that the
marriage is unlawful, the cleric ought not to become a partaker of another's
sins."[6]

Again, this matter is well summed up in the following ancient Anglo-Saxon

ordinance: "At the Nuptials there shall be a Mass-priest by law who shall with
God's blessing bind their union to all posterity."[7]

When in the sixteenth century the professors of Tubingen University sought to win
the Greek Church to the creed of the reformers, the Greek Patriarch Jeremias
indignantly scouted their suggestion that his Church could ever be won to their
doctrine of only two sacraments. Testifying to the unvarying belief of the
Oriental Church in the seven sacraments, including matrimony, he terminated their
overtures with a scornful refusal. Thus eloquently do the voices of Christian
tradition testify to the sacramental character of matrimony equal to the other six
sacraments. Marriage, too, was instituted by Christ.

Speaking of the so-called Reformation, it might be only justice to say that if

there is little or no respect today for marriage either as a binding contract or a
sacrament, the blame can be laid to the reformers themselves. Most non-Catholics
are shocked to read that Calvin taught that "there is nothing more sacred about
marriage than there is about agriculture, architecture, shoemaking or hair-
cutting."[8] Luther was just as vigorous in condemning the sacramental character of
marriage, saying that "claims of sacredness for marriage are a mere jest."[9] In
Luther's words lies the secret of marriage failures today--men and women continue
to make a joke of it.

Be this as it may, the task of present-day Christians is to follow the laws of God
and of His Church and safeguard themselves against the pagan onslaughts of the
modern world. Christian lovers might well repeat often the poetic prayer of Thomas
Moore:

O guard our affection, nor e'er let it feel

The blight that this world o'er the warmest will steal.
While the faith of all round us is fading or past,
Let ours, ever green, keep its bloom to the last.

Pope Pius XI, in his famous Encyclical letter "Casti Connubii," already referred
to, expresses the benefits of the sacrament of matrimony in the following terms:

(1) Husband and wife possess a positive guarantee of the endurance of the marriage
bond.

(2) They are provided with a strong bulwark of chastity against the incitements to
infidelity, should they arise.

(3) They are freed from anxiety lest in advanced years the partner prove
unfaithful.

(4) The human dignity of man and woman is maintained.

(5) Mutual aid is assured.

(6) It perfects natural love, confirms the indissoluble union and sanctifies both
man and wife.
(7) Christian marriage opens a treasure of sacramental grace from which is drawn
the supernatural power of fulfilling the rights and duties of married life faith
fully, holily, perseveringly till death.

(8) In addition to sanctifying grace, the sacrament bestows particular gifts,

dispositions, seeds of grace, by which the natural powers are elevated and
perfected.

(9) It assists the parties in understanding and knowing intimately, in adhering to

firmly, in willing effectively, and in successfully putting into practice those
things which appertain to the married state, its aims and duties.

Little wonder then that Dr. Paul Popenoe, director general of the American
Institute of Family Relations, and author of "Marriage, Before and After," could
say: "Those who consider marriage a sacrament are naturally more disposed to turn
it into success than are those who look on it as merely a ninety-day option."
Remember that, before you choose a mate who does not or will not hold that
marriage is a sacrament.

The marriage of baptized persons is ruled not only by the divine law of God but by
the Canon Law of the Church, and this without prejudice to the power of the civil
authority over the merely civil effects. To the Church alone belongs the right to
safeguard the sacraments and therefore the marriage of the baptized, since the
contract of marriage is a sacrament. Since there is no distinction, it is not
possible that the State should regulate marriage as a contract, and the Church
should be allowed to regulate it as a sacrament. The power of the Church is
legislative, judicial, and coercive. Legislative, inasmuch as it can lay down laws
for valid and lawful marriages; judicial, since it can decide marriage cases;
and coercive, because it can threaten and punish those guilty of dereliction of
marital duties.

Having established the sacramental character of marriage and the Church's exclusive
and independent authority over Christian marriage in respect to validity and
lawfulness, let us get down to the practical application. Those who plan to marry
should follow the Shakespearean advice and get you to a Church and have a good
priest who can tell you what marriage

It is strongly advised that those who plan to marry ought to approach the girl's
pastor a good month or more in advance of the date set for the wedding. In case of
mixed marriages, the Catholic's pastor is the one to be consulted. It is important,
and it will save time, if on that initial visit you bring certain essential
documents. Catholics planning marriage should surrender to the priest on their
first visit:

(1) A recent copy of your baptismal certificate

(2) Your First Communion certificate

(3) Your Confirmation certificate

(4) And in the case of a man a Letter of Freedom from his own
pastor, stating that to the best of his knowledge he is free to
marry.

In the case of a non-Catholic who plans a mixed marriage a baptismal certificate

should be brought along as well as a letter from some well-known person, stating
his belief as to the freedom to marry of the subject.

In any case, and especially where a mixed marriage is planned, we cannot overstress
the importance of calling on the girl's pastor one month or more in advance of the
date chosen for the marriage, since some dioceses demand that the non-Catholic take
six instructions before the wedding.

Unless a special dispensation from publication of banns is requested and obtained

in writing from the Bishop, three Sundays or two Sundays and an intervening Holy
Day must be allowed for the publication of the names of the two Catholic parties at
the principal masses in the parish church of both persons concerned.

In the matter of mixed marriages the banns are not announced, but instead, the
regular application for a dispensation for such a marriage must be made in writing
to the Bishop. Attached to this application must be the signed promises already
spoken of on page 84 (see Form of Promises). Let us look at the matter of
impediments and dispensations--a dispensation meaning a relaxation of law in a
particular case.

Ever conscious of her obligation to safeguard the great sacrament of marriage, the
Church places certain restrictions around the sacred contract and enacts laws
concerning it. Pope Leo XIII made this quite clear in his Encyclical letter
"Arcanum," when he said: "Therefore when Christ bestowed marriage to the care of
the Church, He entrusted and recommended the whole discipline of
marriage to her. Concerning the sacrament, the Church alone can and should
determine and prescribe."

The Church teaches that there are certain conditions which because of their nature
make it impossible for persons to contract a marriage. Such conditions are called
invalidating impediments. There are also conditions which make it unlawful to
contract a marriage, but which do not actually prevent a real marriage from
taking place. These are called forbidding impediments. Some invalidating
impediments are clear from the Natural and Divine Law. Some are specified by the
Church, which has been given authority over society by Christ. These latter are
called impediments of Ecclesiastical Law.

The chief impediments which invalidate marriage are the

following:

Blood relationship in the direct line, i.e., father and daughter, grandfather and
granddaughter, etc.

Blood relationship in the collateral line, i.e., brothers and sisters, first and
second cousins.

Spiritual relationship, such as sponsors at baptism and the person baptized.

Affinity, i.e., relationship arising out of marriage. One cannot marry the blood
relation of his partner in marriage except beyond the second degree.

Solemn vows taken in Sacred and Religious Orders.

Disparity of religion, i.e., marriage of a baptized Catholic with a non-baptized

party.

Crime, i.e., adultery with the promise of marriage.

Violence or compulsion by grave fear amounting to violence.

Error regarding a person's identity or error substantially equal to

that.
Impotency, i.e., incapacity to have marriage relations. This must be perpetual and
antecede the marriage.

The following are forbidding impediments:

Simple vows of chastity.

Marriage with baptized non-Catholics.

By the same power which the Church has over society in virtue of which she can
place an impediment to marriage, she can also dispense from these impediments which
she has established in particular cases. Thus the Church may dispense and permit
the marriage of a baptized person with one not baptized, or without the publication
of banns. But as regards impediments contained in the Natural Law or the
Commandments of God, the Church has no power of dispensation. The Church cannot
dispense a person who is already married from the obligations of his or her
marriage and permit remarriage.

The parties themselves, their parents, relatives, or friends are bound to make
known to the priest the existence of any of the above-listed impediments.

In the case of a mixed marriage it is important for the nonCatholic party to state
whether or not he or she has ever been baptized and if not, to freely admit it. If
the non-Catholic has been baptized, the priest will apply for a dispensation for
"mixed religion"; and in the case of non-baptism, he will apply for a dispensation
covering "disparity of cult."

It may occur to some that the Church acts very arbitrarily in the matter of
declaring the attempted marriage of a Catholic to a non-Catholic before a justice
of the peace or a minister as invalid, while holding that the marriage of two non-
Catholics under the same conditions is valid and binding. While comparisons are
said to be odious, they do at times clarify an issue. With this in mind, let us
compare the stand of the Church regarding the marriages mentioned and the arbitrary
actions of important educational institutions regarding the recognition and refusal
to recognize degrees of other institutions. Doubtless you have noticed from
time to time advertisements in the national magazines inviting students to take
correspondence courses leading to A.B., A.M., or B.Sc. degrees? True, if you take
the course and pass the examinations, the said university or school will award a
very formidable-looking diploma, but you will find that universities like Columbia,
Yale, Harvard, Fordham, and Georgetown will refuse to recognize such a degree. No
one denies the universities this right. Then why deny the Church similar authority
in the case of marriages which do not conform to her regulations? She really acts
so in the case of mixed marriages because, as the Father of the Third Council of
Baltimore declared: "The Church . . . has always been against marriages of
Catholics and non-Catholics both on account of the disgrace to the divine communion
and on account of the most grave danger of perversion of the Catholic party and of
the evil institutions for raising the children."

Isn't it rather strange that people who agree wholeheartedly with the United States
Government's strict control of the atom bomb, and the formation of a special
commission to safeguard its development, should resent a similar control by the
Church over marriage and the fact that Christ should appoint His Church to
safeguard its sanctity? Right reason dictates that anything that could wreak such
havoc on mankind as an ill-used atom bomb should be controlled. In the same way,
unless marriage as a contract and as a sacrament is protected and reverenced,
mankind could wreck human society. Even the pagan Cicero taught this, for
he said in "De Officiis": "The first bond of society is marriage, the next, our
children; then the whole family and all things in common."
Until and unless the Church, through her pastors, is certain that there is no
danger of perversion to the Catholic party or the children will she grant a
dispensation for a mixed marriage. The usual form of the application is such as
that found on page 83, with the promises signed in the presence of the priest and
one witness by both the Catholic and the non-Catholic party.

After the marriage license has been secured from the proper civil authorities and
turned over to the priest who is to perform the ceremony, the future bride and
groom must answer under oath in the presence of a priest the following or a similar
questionnaire:

THE BRIDE (or Bridegroom)

(The parties must be interrogated separately. The priest will propose the questions
and write the answers.)

The prospective bride (bridegroom) is to be reminded of the sacred character and

binding force of an oath and then asked to take the following oath: "I solemnly
swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in answer to all the
questions that shall be proposed to me, so help me God."

What is your full name?

When and where were you born?
What is your address?
How long have you lived at that address?
Have you lived in any other parish for six months or more since
you were twelve years old and, if so, in what parishes, and for how
long a time in each one?
What is your father's name?
His religion?
What is your mother's name?
Her religion?
What is your religion?
If non-Catholic, indicate particular sect.
Have you proof of baptism? When? Where?
Have you proof of baptism?
(a) Check whether proof was obtained by certificate------, or by
competent witnesses-----
(b) If not baptized, check whether person is a Jew------, or a
Mohammedan------, neither----.

Catholics are to be asked:

Did you receive First Communion?

When and where?
Did you receive Confirmation?
When and where?
When and where did you receive religious instruction?

Arrange for instructions before marriage if necessary. Remind

person to go to Confession and receive Holy Communion before
marriage.
Have you ever been married before?
How often?

1. To whom? When?
Where?
Priest, Minister or Civil Magistrate?
2. To whom? When?
Where?
Priest, Minister or Civil Magistrate?

Proof of death of former spouse or of nullity of former marriage must be obtained.

Check whether or not there is present the impediment of crime.

Are you related to your intended husband by blood? By marriage?

If a relationship exists, please indicate the precise degree by use of the

genealogical tree at bottom of page.

Are you aware of any physical defect that will prevent you from fulfilling the
marital duties of a wife?

Have you ever been treated by a neurologist or psychiatrist or suffered any mental
disturbance?

If so, how often? When?

Are you marrying freely, i.e., free from compulsion or pressure exerted by any
person or circumstance?

Is your intended husband marrying freely?

Investigate and check if any of the following impediments are

present:
(a) Vow in Religion
(b) Spiritual relationship
(c) Legal relationship
(d) Public propriety.

Explain the nature and essential obligations of Christian marriage and then ask:

(a) Do you intend to enter a permanent marriage, i.e., a marriage

that cannot be dissolved by divorce or any other way except by
death?

(b) Do you intend to be faithful to your husband (wife) always?

(c) Do you understand the object of marriage to be the begetting of children, God
willing?

(d) Does your intended husband (wife) accept and propose to fulfill these
obligations?

(e) Do you know that the use of methods or means to frustrate the purpose of
marital relations is sinful?

(f) Have you or your prospective husband (wife) the intention of denying to the
other the right to true marital relations and the natural consequences thereof?

(g) Have you or your prospective husband (wife) made any

conditions or reservations concerning marriage or marital
relations?

Did you ever make a private or public vow? What was the precise nature of the vow?

Are you a member of any condemned or atheistic society?

If either party has not yet completed his twenty-first year ask: Do your parents
consent to your marriage (if not, consult canon 1034).

When do you intend to be married?

Are the witnesses to the marriage to be Catholics?
Have you fulfilled the license and other civil requirements?

Do you now swear to the truth of the above answers?

Signature of Bride (Bridegroom)

Signature of Priest

Explanation Date

The priest will record the following:

1. Date and place of marriage
2. Dispensations granted
3. Delegation asked for or given
4. Permission asked for or given
5. Date of notice sent to parishes of baptism

Note the question regarding the witnesses. The Church law is that both witnesses to
the marriage of two Catholics or the witnesses to a mixed marriage must be
Catholics. (Catholics may not be "attendants" at a non-Catholic wedding without the
consent of the Bishop of the diocese.)

Let us now turn our attention to the matter of time, place, and types of
ceremonies. A marriage may take place at any time of the year but the different
enactments of the civil law should be observed in this matter. Marriage at a
Nuptial Mass, with the accompanying blessing, is forbidden by the Church from the
first Sunday of Advent to Christmas inclusive and from Ash Wednesday to Easter
Sunday inclusive, unless special permission is granted.

Regarding the place of marriage, if the bride is Catholic the marriage is

celebrated in her parish church; and if it is a mixed marriage, the ceremony
usually takes place in the parish rectory of the baptized non-Catholic bride.[10]
It sometimes happens that very unreasonable requests are made for the performance
of marriages in hotels, country clubs, private homes and scenic gardens. In the
name of all that is holy and good, don't ask for special concessions. It usually
happens that those who want such special permissions are the ones least worthy of
special favors.

As to the type of ceremony, let it be said that it is hard to imagine two Catholics
who would consider any other ceremony than that which takes place at a Nuptial
Mass, since it is only during a Nuptial Mass that the important Nuptial Blessing is
given. Hearken to the words of the Fathers in the Third Plenary Council of
Baltimore: "Frequently and with grave words, pastors of souls are to inculcate that
pious and laudable rite of the Church by which the faithful contract marriage not
at night but at the time of Mass with the blessing of the Nuptials. By which they
profess tacitly their Catholic faith and show before all, how highly and splendidly
as is becoming, they consider the dignity and sanctity of matrimony. And this is
not only worthy of praise but seems necessary to us in these times, when the
enemies of religion leave nothing unattempted, in order to strip matrimony of all
sanctity, of every species of sacrament, if this were possible, and have it
considered as a mere civil contract."

Catholics who withstand all types of urging in the matter of a Nuptial Mass for
their wedding would be the first to raise a fuss if they were not allowed to have a
funeral mass for a loved one. The Mass at a wedding is as important as a Mass at a
funeral.

I know of no priest who does not become a little sick at heart when a Catholic
bride-to-be says, "Oh, yes, Father, we want the organ and a singer at our wedding,
and flowers on the altar and all that but--not the Mass"! Not the Mass? Why, the
mind of the Church is that marriage ought to be performed before the sacrifice and
at the very altar of the Lord where it is sealed by the merging of the common
sacrifice of each to the other in the universal sacrifice of Christ through
participation of the husband and wife in both the sacrifice-oblation and the
sacrifice-banquet.

The whole Nuptial Mass, the prayers, the instructions are themed around unity in
God. "May the God of Israel make you one," are the first words spoken in the
Introit and the prayers ask God's blessing in a most special way.

Apart from the proper parts of the Mass text, the priest prays twice for the newly
married couple, each time intensifying the ordinary progress of the liturgical
action of the sacrifice. After the Pater Noster the priest turns to face the
newlyweds and recites the long prayer that follows. Read it slowly. It is
beautiful.

"O God, who by Thy might has out of nothing made all things, who, in the beginning,
didst create the world, and having made man, to Thy image, didst give him woman to
be his constant helpmate, fashioning her body from his very flesh and thereby
teaching us that it is never lawful to put asunder what it has pleased Thee to
make of one substance; O God, who hast consecrated wedlock by a surpassing mystery,
since in holy matrimony is shown forth the Sacrament of Christ and His Church; O
God, who dost join woman to man, that theirs may be the blessing given by Thee in
the beginning, and which was the only one not taken away as part of the punishment
inflicted for the sin of our first parents, the only one left untouched by Thy
wrath at the time of the flood; look down in mercy on this Thy handmaid, who is
about to enter upon her wedded life, and who seeks to be strengthened by Thy
protection.

"May the yoke she has to bear be one of love and peace; faithful and chaste, may
she marry in Christ; may her whole life be modeled on that of the holy women; may
she be pleasing to her husband as was Rachel, may she be wise as was Rebecca; may
she be long-lived and true as was Sara; may he who is the author of all evil have
no part in her actions; all the days of her life, may she be true to the troth she
has plighted, faithful in obedience, innocent and pure, strengthened against
weakness by wholesome discipline; may she be respected for her seriousness,
venerated for her modesty, schooled in Divine wisdom, rich in children, worthy of
all praise and above reproach, and in the end may she enter in a blessed rest and
have a place in heaven. And may she and her husband see their children's children
to the third and fourth generation, and come to the good old age to which they look
forward."

Finally, just before the blessing of the Mass the priest again turns, takes up the
last notes of the preceding occasion and recites the concluding prayer of the
Church's rite in behalf of the happiness of the couple:

"May the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob be with you, and may he
fulfill unto you His blessing; that you may see your children's children unto the
third and fourth generation; thereafter enjoy forever eternal life, with the help
of Jesus Christ our Lord, who with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, liveth and
reigneth, God through all eternity. Amen."

How, I ask you, can Cana be better re-enacted than for your marriage to take place
at Mass, so close to the Master that He can hear your heartbeat? How better to
commence life together than by receiving Holy Communion side by side, so that the
first nuptial kiss will have in it, too, the heavenly taste of Jesus. No kiss will
ever be so sweet!

Have you ever thought how weak and trivial are the reasons given for not having a
Nuptial Mass? For instance, I've heard brides-to-be say: "Oh, Father, I could never
stand through a Mass!" Lady, you don't stand through a Nuptial Mass--you sit, and
kneel. It has been my experience that the frail damsel who is jet-propelled up the
aisle and down again at an afternoon wedding--too weak and nervous to sit and kneel
through a thirty-five-minute Nuptial Mass--usually can find sufficient reserve
strength to go to a public hall or hotel and stand in a reception line for two
hours or more. No, it adds up simply to lack of faith. Remember, you cannot receive
the Nuptial Blessing outside of Mass and but once in your lifetime. Don't pass it
up. You will regret it later on, for no Catholic celebrates his marriage in full
conformity with the desires and spirit of the Church without the Nuptial Mass.
Those who will not have the Mass cannot have the special blessing except by
Apostolic Indult.

The ideal way to prepare for a worthy reception of the sacrament of matrimony is
for both parties to make a week-end retreat, or at the very least make a general
confession before marrying.

Just a word about the modern scourge of picture-taking at church weddings. I know
of nothing so distracting, nothing that can so detract from the solemn dignity of a
Catholic marriage as a shutter-happy photographer dashing hither and yon from
sanctuary to belfry, in pursuit of an "unusual" candid shot, while setting off
eerie pyrotechnics at the most sacred parts of the Mass and, at the same time,
shedding used flash bulbs from reredos to narthex with all the reckless abandon of
a startled porcupine shedding quills. If you are going to insist on pictures, first
ascertain whether or not it is permissible and in accordance with local parochial
custom. If permission is granted, brief your photographer to stay out of the
sanctuary and away from the front of the church. "Back and center" might be a safe
slogan!

As regards the social side of the wedding, don't make a vulgar display of your
nuptials a la Hollywood. Money wasted on a monster reception may later be
regretted. Lend even to the social side of the wedding an air of dignity and
reserve. As a point of information, it is quite proper to invite the celebrant of
your nuptials to the wedding breakfast, and if he is free to accept, a place at the
right hand of the bride should be reserved for him. He will say the grace before
and the thanksgiving after the breakfast.

And if in the rush and fuss prior to the wedding you may be irked by the several
essential requisites demanded by the Church and her apparent opposition to the
modern element of speed, remember the advertisement prevalent in national magazines
that says: "Some things just can't be hurried!" The Church feels that way about
marriages. On the other hand, be grateful that the Church takes such care of this
great sacrament. Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament and the
Church maintains that dignity.

Shakespeare may have been more right than he realized when he advised the church
wedding mentioned earlier. There is more than a passing relationship between the
kind of marriage ceremony one chooses and its ultimate results. Judge Sabath, who
has for twenty years headed the divorce branch of Cook County, during which time he
has heard more than one hundred thousand divorce cases, states that it is his
experience that "the more impressive the wedding ceremony--one conducted in a
church in a dignified and sincere manner, with both families present, the fewer
chances there will be of that marriage breaking up." What could be more impressive
than a marriage at a Nuptial Mass?

Too few of the faithful realize the abiding character of the sacrament of
matrimony. The sacrament is not left behind when the bride and groom leave the
altar. It is not just a sacrament that two lovers administer to each other but a
very particular kind of sacrament. Like the Holy Eucharist, it is an abiding
sacrament. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine compares marriage to the Eucharist.[11]

St. Robert wrote: "The sacrament of matrimony is a sacrament like unto the
Eucharist, which, not only while it is being conferred, but as long as it remains,
is a sacrament. For as long as the husband and his wife shall live, so long is
their life together a sacrament of Christ and of the Church."

Little wonder then that the Church looks upon a violation of marriage and the
marriage bond with horror, because such a violation is the desecration of a
sacrament of God.

Always remember that not only is sanctifying grace increased by the sacrament of
matrimony but both parties receive another most special grace: They become entitled
to God's help in all trials and difficulties that affect them in this holy state
and all the special helps necessary to make of their marriage a real and permanent
success. In every trial, in every misunderstanding, in every great or small
problem, a simple heartfelt prayer such as "Dear Lord, help us in our need, help us
now," will bring swift and powerful spiritual aid.

Reverend Edmund D. Bedard in a recent radio talk on the

sacrament of marriage, said:

"This is the union of husband and wife. The little tasks of every day, the words
they speak to one another, the joys they share and the sorrows they endure, the
strength they give and the strength they borrow, their hours and days and years
together, shine with the brilliance of a sacrament, and are colored with its glory.
And the house that shelters them and their family, whether it be a mansion or a
cottage, a tenement or a Quonset hut, is like the tabernacle on the altar that
protects the Body of the Lord!"

As at the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee--and Cana is Forever--be sure Christ is

invited first and made the honored guest. No marriage has a better chance of
retaining its flavor and of withstanding the wear and tear of prosaic wedded life
than one begun at a Nuptial Mass. The words of Tertullian, written in the second
century, bear repetition: "How can we find words to describe the happiness of that
marriage which the Church joins together; and the oblation (Mass) confirms; and the
blessing seals; the angels report and the Father ratifies."

ENDNOTES

1. "A Map of Life," F. J. Sheed. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1937.

2. "Greater Love," "The Anthonian," 1938, V. I, 12 (No. 1).

3. When subsequent to the marriage the infidel is baptized, or both

of the unbaptized receive baptism, then and there the sacrament
of marriage is wrought.

4. Ad Polycarp No. 5.

5. L. 11. Ad Uxor. No. 9, P. 171

6. Galland T. VII Resp. Canon. pp. 348-349.

7. Liebermann--Gisetze der Angell-Sachsen 1.422.

8. Institutions--IV, IX, 34.

9. De Captivitate Babylonica--by Luther.

10. Woywod, I, p. 682.

11. "De Controveriis de Matrimonii sacramento," lib. I. Cap. 6.

Chapter Seven: THE PERIOD OF ADJUSTMENT

It is related that King Louis XIV of France, shortly after his ascension to the
throne, stood at an open window in his palace and silently admired the simple
beauty of the Church of Saint Denis, standing some distance away. A servant
ventured to remark that all the king's ancestors lay buried there and that
doubtless it would also be His Majesty's last resting place. The very next day
the king ordered another palace built so that the Church of Saint Denis would be
hidden from his view.

Many newlyweds behave like King Louis XIV. They build dream castles designed to
hide life's cold realities. They readily accept as a fact the existence of trials
and difficulties in the lives of other married couples but refuse to acknowledge
them as possible in their own particular union. Even in the best of matches the
first year is one fraught with dangers and has been called "the period of
disillusionment," which I prefer to term "the period of adjustment."

It would be well for all newlyweds to prepare themselves for a certain letdown
after the dizzy heights of the honeymoon. A sweet grape and a bitter nut look the
same in the moonlight. Only in tasting or in the cold light of day is the
difference perceived.

There is no gainsaying the fact that it is a shock for every new husband to
discover that a great deal of his wife's beauty comes out of bottles and jars. Who
could adequately measure the depth of the disillusionment of the young bride who
beholds for the first time her Romeo with a three-day beard and hears him go into a
tantrum when in the dark he walks into three pairs of wet nylons hanging from the
bathroom light cord. Such situations point up what Lowell said in "My Study
Windows": "It is in untried emergencies that the native mettle of man is tested."

Marital adjustment, though but one process, is usually and wisely subdivided into
two periods: that which immediately follows the marriage, coyly termed the
honeymoon; and the other, beginning on the way home from the honeymoon and enduring
until death.

The purpose of the honeymoon is to provide the couple with the chance to start
making new and more intimate adjustments between each other before they are
required to adjust to their relatives and friends. This is a most important period
and should for no reason or circumstance be omitted. In a great many cases of
marital rupture it has been found that there had been no honeymoon.

It is advised that the duration of the honeymoon should run from a week to a month
and should be enjoyed away from the prying eyes of relatives and friends. The real
value of the honeymoon lies in
the opportunity it affords the newlyweds to meet the first experiences in conjugal
love and also the opportunity to get over the self-consciousness which comes with
their new role of "Mr. and Mrs." The honeymoon provides, too, that necessary and
wondrous chance to practice generosity, patience, mutual forbearance and,
above all, tact. Should the ultimate in sexual enjoyment be restricted, due to
nervousness, fatigue, or excitement, it is well to remember that this, like love,
grows with the years and is a matter of learning. A grand rule to follow on the
honeymoon is for the couple to be good pals rather than to try to be dramatic.

The second period of marital adjustment begins, as we have already stated, on the
way home from the honeymoon and endures till death. It is the tougher because it is
the longer.

Newlyweds start their honeymoon in a burst of excitement and enthusiasm, surrounded

by well-wishing relatives and friends, fiendishly hurling rice and confetti. All
the world loves lovers, and so the bride and groom are treated with privileged
respect and veneration at the secret, quiet haven of retreat (the Mount Royal or
Waldorf-Astoria). However, all too soon the honeymoon is over, and they find
themselves on the way home. But now they are just another married couple. No
friends bother to meet them at the station, so they have to hail a taxi to convey
them to their abode. If they, disregarding the advice of authorities and ignoring
the statistical proof of fatality, move in with their in-laws, it is quite possible
that the mother-in-law who looked so perfectly ravishing in ice-blue satin at the
wedding may be in the midst of the weekly wash and garbed to suit the occasion. Or
suppose the returning honeymooners have been fortunate enough to have secured an
apartment or home of their own, it is none the less very disillusioning to the
bride that while she is being carried across the threshold it dawns on her that her
husband does stutter and all the time she had thought it was emotion.

The pay-off comes, however, when hubby, after nonchalantly appropriating the twin
bed nearest the window for himself, hears his beloved say that she can never sleep
in a room with the window open--"Sinus, you know...." Brother, the period of
adjustment has arrived!

Every newly married couple ought to be disillusioned to the extent that they must
expect occasional disagreements. Perfect and perpetual harmony in marriage is so
rare as to be termed unique. A little serious reflection ought to be sufficient to
convince any mature man or woman, any two normal individuals of this. Since
each person is a distinct being with particular and personal patterns of feeling,
behavior, and thought, of background, desires, motives, and impulses--some or all
of which are alien or incomprehensible to the other--the answer to marriage failure
or disillusionment lies hidden therein. Let us get a better picture of this matter
here and now.

The whole problem of human adaptation consists in fitting dynamically into an

environment made up of other individuals, whether considered in groups or singly.
The equation of adaptation is made up of (1) the raw materials inherent in a person
and (2) that person's environment. Individual variation is greater in man than in
any other species. Two flies are more similar than two birds, two birds are more
similar than two cows, but not until one gets to the human species does individual
variation become so sharply remarkable.

First among these variables comes intelligence, then temperament, inherent

personality, emotions, will, and environment. These things differ in every
individual and thus adapting oneself to a mate is, to say the least, tricky. Causes
of maladaptation may be divided into two general categories: first, those arising
in self; and second, those arising from environment, such as a bad example derived
from the family, harmful education, or ignorance.
Newlyweds must keep all this in mind during the period of adjustment, and they must
accept the fact, too, that adjustment or adaptation is never a static condition but
requires continual effort and continual improvement in technique. All human
relationships, and above all marriage, grow only through increased mutual
understanding. There should be no such thing as a state of routine relationship.
Human relationships either grow or starve. The general slump that follows the
honeymoon must not be accepted as the normal flavor of marriage. It is really
essential that when the new low is reached, that is the time for the ideals that
developed during courtship to be renewed, and the promises made to be restated, and
for love to be intensified.

Many of the recent books on marriage would incline one to the belief that the only
important problem for newlyweds is adjustment in the matter of suitable and
satisfactory physical mating. Important as this is, it is but one in the adjustment
group. As we shall see later, it is seldom that violent acts cause unhappiness and
failure in marriage, but rather an accumulation of small things. Small cumulative
irritations are harder to put up with than great sporadic blasts of human nature. A
vulgar belch, an unsocial mannerism, a constantly repeated hackneyed expression,
nagging, fault-finding and the lack of a sense of humor can be as catastrophic as
an atom bomb. To have achieved excellent sex adjustment and to have ignored any of
the other elements that go into the making of a happy marriage may easily
hamper or ruin sex compatibility.

Generally speaking, marital adjustment falls into several logical

divisions, namely:

(1) Personal adjustment

(2) Domestic adjustment
(3) Sexual adjustment
(4) Social adjustment
(5) Economic adjustment

Personal Adjustment. Anyone who enters marriage armed only with a faulty
preconceived idea of matrimony, based on the unreal movie or modern novel pattern
of a sticky romance kept aglow with constant burning thrills, is headed for
failure. The Hollywood- or love-story attitude toward marriage is deceiving and
fallacious simply because it ignores the fact that both individuals must put
forth constant effort to keep happy and stay married. The whole problem of
happiness in marriage begins first with the individuals. Finding the right mate is
not the most important thing in making a success of matrimony. What is more
important is being the right mate.

Being the right mate demands personal adjustment. It means

acquiring and practicing such traits as:

(1) Thoughtfulness
(2) Neatness
(3) Friendliness
(4) Cheerfulness
(5) Enthusiasm
(6) Humility
(7) Patience
(8) Eagerness to help
(9) Sociability
(10) Emotional control

Volumes might be written on each of these ten traits and their effects on marriage.
Their importance might be pointed out by taking number ten, emotional control, as
an example. For instance, let us consider the effect of the voice in our relation
to others. The personal adjustment of the voice as the vehicle of the emotions is
so important that it can be used to provoke or reduce about seventy per cent of
daily frictions in marriage Have you ever noticed the effect of your voice on, say,
a strange cat you encounter on the street? If you speak kindly to it in a sweet,
gentle voice, saying, "Come here little kitty--nice pussy," you will invariably
find that it reacts favorably. On the other hand, if you raise your voice and say,
"Get out of here, you mangy brute," you will experience the opposite effect. If the
dumb beast reacts favorably to the controlled voice, how much more the intellectual
being-your mate. Always remember that a gentle, controlled, persuasive voice will
most certainly reduce friction. Foghorns screech only when the deep fog surrounds
them. The person who has to sound off in a loud, raucous bellow to get a point
across demonstrates that he or she is in a fog. It is a good rule never to holler
except if the house is on fire.

What we have just said concerning one little angle of emotional control may open up
a new avenue of thought concerning this whole matter of personal adjustment to
marriage. It is told by the great sculptor Michelangelo that when at work he wore
over his forehead, fastened to his artist's cap, a lighted candle, in order that no
shadow of himself might fall on his work. There is a fine thought here for every
married person and one that teaches a great lesson, since most of the shadows of
doubt and unhappiness that fall over marriage come from the individuals themselves.
It was Tennyson who wrote:

Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control

These three alone lead man to sovereign power.

The same three lead to happiness in marriage.

Domestic Adjustment. One day not long ago, when I was taking a walk, I passed a
very old brick residence. It must have been built well over a hundred years ago. As
the sun played upon it, I was struck by the fine brick work in the construction. As
I gazed upon that wall, the sun lit up the little shining crystals of sand in the
cement between the bricks. I reflected that while the sand blended with the cement
to hold those bricks in place, each grain retained its own individuality. The sand
remained sand, the cement remained cement, but both were united in such a way as to
form one to keep that house together.

Much the same thing takes place in marriage. Two people are united to form one in a
union that surpasses human estimation. "They shall be two in one flesh," says Holy
Scripture, and yet each will retain his or her own individuality. Domestic
adjustment must be considered in this light.

If men and women could only see the worst side of each other before marriage and
demonstrate their real tempers, dispositions, manners, pet peeves, and weakness of
character instead of camouflaging them until after the honeymoon, many of the
hazards would be removed from marriage. Since that does not happen (nor will it
ever happen), those who enter marriage must do so with a spirit of adventure and
the determination to make a success of it in spite of the faults or imperfections
that time will expose.

It is a good idea not to expect too much of matrimony. The very vows of marriage
warn one against this by having each of the parties repeat aloud: "I take thee for
better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death
do us part." The very fact that such a promise is required points out the margin of
error or chance in the lives of all married couples. The ideal thing is to enter
wedlock with the firm purpose to take the other partner as he or she is. Marriage
is no reform school. The man who is a drunkard before marriage doubtless will be a
drunkard after marriage. The careless, untidy girl before marriage will be a
slovenly housekeeper after marriage. The best you can hope for is to be able to
alter to a degree the deep, ingrained fundamental traits. The rest calls for
adjustment on your part. For example, once I knew a timid man who became a nervous
wreck simply because his wife tried to remake him into an aggressive businessman
and social lion. Her mistake was in not being content with a partial accomplishment
of her designs and in her failure to adjust her life as much as humanly possible to
her husband's.

Domestic adjustment entails the task of trying to understand the other partner.
Love, of course, is the leaven of married life. It was Goethe who said: "A man does
not learn to understand anything unless he loves it." But even with a heart full of
love, right reason must also function.

Fewer conflicts would arise if the husband and wife would stop to think that they
are really two fundamentally different persons and that their approach to things is
different. Each person is influenced by the kind of body he started with, the kind
of home he was born into and the persons he associated with in that home, by his
relatives, and by circumstances such as being the only child, the youngest, middle,
or last child. The age of the parents when he was born, his religious educational
advantages, early emotional training, family status in community, and other things
influence him. Domestic adjustment simply means taking all these items into
consideration and attempting to adapt oneself and one's life to them.

I have said that men and women differ fundamentally in their approach to the same
problem. This is so true that it would be well to examine this statement. Its
acceptance will lessen conflict because it will make married couples patient with
one another.

The very fact that man as an individual and woman as an individual can be so
different in their approach to the same matter, yet be so one in their common life,
is one of the great mysteries of matrimony. Let us take the subject of clothes as
an example. Most men would rather be shot than wear, say, a pink vest. They would
argue that other men do not wear such things.The fact that ten men at a banquet
were dressed in the same dress suits would not be thought strange. But ten women at
a banquet wearing the same color, the same style of dress, would make each of them
most self-conscious and uneasy. A man feels comfortable only when he wears what
every other man wears, while his wife strives frantically to purchase the gown that
differs from all others. Right here we see a difference of opinion in a man and a
woman's approach to the simple matter of wearing apparel. Men and women differ in
their individual approaches to numerous other matters.

Men and women also differ in their emotional demonstrativeness. When angered, a
woman generally expresses her emotion in tears, while a man wants to fight with his
fists. Reaction to certain circumstances shows differentiation in men and women. A
man will think nothing of taking a mouse from a trap while his wife would shudder
at such a task; but a woman, in turn, would care for the personal needs of a sick
infant, while the child's father entertains only the urge to flee.

Again, the fact that women differ psychologically from men is another thing that
demands consideration. Elizabeth Kidd[1] gives the following list as the basic
differences between the sexes. (I'm glad a woman compiled this list. I'd hate to
have had to do it. The parentheses are mine.)

1. Women are intuitive Men are intellectual

2. Women are identificationalists Men are realists

("It's an adorable dress, Angela. ("What mileage can you get
I had one just like it when I was per gallon?")
your age.")
3. Women are subjective Men are objective
("I like--I think") ("He's O.K.--he is a good guy.")

4. Women go by inner perception Men go by rationalization

("I don't know why--but I just ("Do you have any figures on
do.") that?")

5. Women are more indulgent Men are more influenced by

in fancy facts.
(That is why there are so (No comment.)
many soap operas on the radio
these days.)

If the reader's temper has a low boiling point, the truth of the above will be
apparent. Take, for instance, the matter of feminine intuition. Intuition in women
is uncanny. By it, she is able to grasp what is not openly stated better than if it
were openly stated. A few weeks ago, a mother came to me with a letter from her
daughter, who was a student in a fine college. The girl told her mother that she
was not interested in her course and could not seem to decide what she wanted to
be. The mother read between the lines and she said to me, "Mary will be home next
week. I just feel it." Mary was home that Saturday. It is that same intuition that
plagues many husbands. Most wives know things are not just right long before
they find that blonde hair on the coat collar or the lipstick on the pocket
handkerchief.

Good domestic adjustment can never be achieved unless allowance is made for the
difference in the mental processes of men and women. Whenever I hear a man storm
and fume over the fact that his wife "does not talk his language," "does not see
things his way," or when he says that he "does not understand how her mind works,"
I know I am in the presence of one who is utterly ignorant of the fact that men's
and women's minds work completely differently. Unless and until this fact is
accepted there will be conflict.

It is a good rule for married people to take each other as they really are. To
desire to make radical changes in another is not the sign of love but of hate. When
a wife wants to make a man over into something she wants him to be, it shows
clearly that she dislikes him as he is. When a husband always wants to have his
wife think as he does, see eye to eye with him in everything, he is asking the
impossible. Don't start married life under that delusion.

Mrs. Dwight Eisenhower offers brides the following sage advice:

"If a bride can make up her mind at the beginning of her marriage that she is the
wife and that her husband is the head of the house, all of the adjustments and
strains that are sure to come will take care of themselves. 'Happily ever after'
does not follow the ceremony automatically. It takes wit and straight thinking and
a good deal of adapting on both sides. The wise wife is the one who says at the
beginning:

"'I will be the one to volunteer to do most of the adapting. It is worth it.'

"If I were newly married today I could wish nothing better for myself than to
understand that idea in so many words, rather than instinctively. Men are so easy
to please if you do not become belligerent over the little things that make no
difference anyhow. But there were many times in my early married life when I had to
go into conference with myself and say:

"'Listen. Is it worth it to have my own way about this? What am I gaining, anyway,
if Ike would rather have it some other way?'"[2]
Since domestic adjustment involves putting up with another's habits it will serve a
great purpose if newlyweds during the first year will, on their monthly anniversary
of the wedding, check up on the things they have found more or less irritating. It
could take the form of a little celebration. A nice dinner out or at home, exchange
of little gifts, then after eliciting a promise from each other not to get angry,
go over the little (or the big) things that are found to be irksome in the other.
The lists might include such things as:

Sloppy table manners (be specific)

Nervous mannerisms (e.g., snapping knuckle bones)
Slamming doors
Leaving clothes around on chairs
Yelling from room to room
Leaving wet towels on bathroom floor
Sulkiness
Jealousy
Belching without effort at apology
No privacy
Cold cream on face at night
Thoughtlessness of others (radio on when the other wants to sleep)
Chin-strap worn to bed
Impatience
Garbage left in sink.

If such a check-up is really made in a mutual spirit of help and love, it will be
found to be of inestimable value. After the first year, the monthly check-up can be
changed to a quarterly one, but never less frequently. Make it a rule never to use
these check-ups as an excuse or occasion to nag. A grindstone will sharpen a knife
to a razor-edge, or it will ruin the blade--it all depends not on the grindstone
but on the way you hold the knife. Monthly or quarterly friendly, understanding
discussions of the annoying traits of the other partner can make living together a
keener thing, but if such exchanges of "peeves" bear the least tinge of sarcasm,
they can do more harm than good.

Some readers may feel that none of these things is really big enough to cause any
marital trouble. Believe me, it's the small things that cause most trouble in
marriage. Never underestimate the effect of small things on a common life. Here is
something I read lately. I think it is very good and to the point. "One day in
Colorado a great stalwart tree fell to the ground. It was a sapling when Columbus
landed at San Salvador. It had been struck by lightning fourteen times. It had
braved storms, defied earthquakes and hurricanes. But in the end tiny little
beetles killed it. They bored underneath the bark, dug into its heart, ate away its
mighty fiber--and down came the king of the forest. It is the little things that
make or break marriage.[3] Oliver Wendell Holmes realized this when he wrote: "Life
is a great bundle of little things."

It is advised that newlyweds study each other carefully during the first months of
marriage to find out the other's vulnerable spots. Once determined, you avoid these
altogether or tread gently as you pass them. The great art of living happily in
marriage--the great achievement in domestic adjustment--is never to develop a
martyr complex, but rather to use all your skill in developing in the other partner
the habits that please you. This might be called "the art of arts."

A cardinal rule to follow during the adjustment period and throughout life is for
the husband to strive always to make his wife proud she is his wife and for the
wife, on the other hand, to make the husband proud of her and proud of himself.

Nothing can kill respect so completely as for a husband to habitually berate women
as inferior, weaker, and less efficient than men. It's never very flattering to a
wife to hear her husband scoff at, say, "women drivers," and blame them for most of
the traffic snarls or fatalities. In addition, the records do not bear this
statement out. Never do anything that would induce an inferiority complex. Without
a feeling of equality--of partnership, of really belonging--no married person can
be happy.

Domestic adjustment is not accomplished in a day or a year. This calls for

persistence, patience, the acceptance of the other mate as he or she is and then
making the most of the bargain. It is said that when an oyster cannot eject an
annoying and irritating grain of sand from its shell, it proceeds to cover it with
a coating that produces a pearl. When you come to think of it, a diamond is nothing
but pieces of coal that stuck together at the same spot for years and years under
terrific pressure.

Here is a little prayer that should be displayed in a prominent place in every home
and recited daily by every married couple. It contains the whole secret of domestic
adjustment.

God grant me the sense

To accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things I can:
And the wisdom to know the difference.

Sexual Adjustment. Happiness in marriage depends in no small way upon good sexual
adjustment. Ignorance of the sexual side of marriage has brought unhappiness and
has done irreparable harm to the bodies and souls of millions of men and women.
Many of the recent books on marriage stress too much the sex side, confuse and
mystify the reader with hard and fast principles for what their authors determine
to be the ideal sex life. There is no such thing as the ideal sex life but only sex
life that is good and satisfactory for each individual married couple. Certain
types of marital relations that please one couple might be frustrating to another.

Smugness has no place in the matter of the sexual side of marriage

Ignorance is unpardonable. No person should dare think of
marriage unless and until he or she has read some good book[4]
treating the physiological side of marriage. Complete sex
knowledge sufficient for happiness in marriage is not "just
something that comes naturally." In the vast majority of cases this
knowledge must be acquired.

Every married couple has its own story of sexual disharmony. Some mates are
oversexed, some undersexed. Even the most exquisite made-to-order garment will need
a few alterations to make it fit perfectly, and even where two people might be
classified as perfectly suited mates, alterations in demands, procedure, approach,
frequency, in sexual relations may be required. It is here that adjustments must be
made. Impatience, unreasonableness, coercion, lack of cooperation and roughness
should by all means be avoided. The end and object of marriage is the procreation
of children--this is its primary function in the biological sense. The secondary
and spiritual function is the furthering of the higher mental and emotional
processes, the fortification and enlargement of the whole personality in all its
aspects.

Proper sexual functions in wedlock is the passing from husband to wife of the
chalice of love, the wine of which imparts one of the deepest joys man and woman
can know on the earth. The wine is of their own vintage and requires expert
blending and time to improve its strength and savor.

Social Adjustment. The problem of adjustment of newlyweds to their enlarged circle

of friends, relatives and in-laws resulting from marriage is by no means the least.
In fact, it is a most important adjustment, and one that requires prudence, tact
and skill. A basic principle for happiness in marriage is "Don't live with
your in-laws. Go it alone."

The worst snare and pitfall to newlyweds is the offer of a nice apartment with "his
people" or "her people." Usually, such offers are made by parents who naturally
want to keep the lovebirds a little longer in the old nest. Even when the motives
are of the highest nature, such arrangements are fraught with dangers.

The first years of marriage, no matter how they are considered, are trying, and the
very presence of a third party is always a disturbing element. Usually, the first
months of marriage are filled with much fondling and caressing, and nobody wants to
carry on so in front of in-laws. Unfortunately, the whole tone of wedded life
is keynoted by the first year of marriage, and if all the little affectionate acts
are neglected then, they may never again burn or even flicker.

Cruel as it may seem, the best marriages result from the breaking away (and I mean
a complete break) from the ties of the former family life. Social adjustment in
marriage calls for a new attitude, a subordination of, and, in a certain manner, a
forgetfulness of, the home of one's childhood. It would be better to postpone the
wedding if it means having to live with in-laws. For the one marriage you know of
that has weathered the storm, ninety-nine have failed from "in-lawitis."

As is the case for all rules, there are exceptions. Circumstances may arise where a
newly married couple must move in with in-laws or permit in-laws to move in with
them. In such cases, the following suggestions may minimize the causes of friction
and assist social adjustments under such conditions.

Primarily, it is important to rid the mind of the idea that in-laws are natural
enemies. Every effort must be put forth to overcome this common in-law complex.
There is no law--human or divine--against liking in-laws. Begin by resolving never
to repeat old, hackneyed "mother-in-law" jokes. At the best, it is bad taste.

If you have moved in with in-laws, remember it is their home, and it was just that
long before you came into the picture. Try to settle a program for a division of
the work and do it in as far as you are able according to the existing procedure.
Fix up your own room as a bed-sitting room where you and your mate can spend whole
evenings together. Keep your personal problems to yourself. Discourage in-law
interference in such matters right from the start. Sharing a house does not include
sharing your problems.

If "his" parents or "yours" must of necessity live with you fix up a nice bed-
sitting room for them--with a radio, good lights and easy chairs--and encourage its
use. Divide the work, take turns at getting the meals, and giving a little praise
now and again will work wonders. You can stretch a point to rave about the coffee,
even if it tastes like something the Borgias might have concocted. Your partner
will love you the more for your efforts. Make it a rule to report something your
mother or father said that was complimentary to your mate. Forget the
uncomplimentary things. Samuel Johnson observed that "Praise, like gold and
diamonds, owes its value only to its scarcity."

Should conditions become intolerable, remember you have but one choice to make--"A
man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife," and that's Holy
Scripture. Find new quarters for yourself or for the in-laws.

Now, regarding his or your parents when, God willing, they live apart from you.
Social adjustment is demanded in your relations toward them. Encourage frequent
visits by your partner with his or her parents. Never be afraid of a woman who is
devoted to her parents. Such a grand quality will revert to your benefit if you are
prudent in your attitude. The same holds true of a husband and his parents. Never
force visits to your parents on your mate. Above all, don't have two nights a week
set aside for such visits. That sort of routine is killing. Have it understood by
your relatives that you want to be free to drop in any old time, but not on a fixed
day and time schedule.

Remember your mother-in-law's and your father-in-law's birthdays and anniversaries,

but be wise enough not to spend more on gifts for one side of the house than for
those on the other side. Don't side with your mother or father against your mate in
arguments or someone is going to be certain the cards are stacked against him.
Never brag about your rich relatives or your brainy aunt or uncle. Brains, like
lightning, seldom strike in the same place (or family) twice, and the person who
has nothing to be proud of besides a rich, dead relative is poor indeed. Avoid
mentioning the obvious defects of your partner's family. Blood is thicker than
water. If you berate his "shiftless brother," he'll throw up to you your "half-
witted sister." The law of compensation, you know. And it is a good rule to
discourage long visits from your relatives or friends, or his.

Everyone, even though married, has the right to keep the friends he or she had
before marriage. To ask one to sacrifice a friendship is asking a great deal.
Social adjustment demands that every effort be made to make your partner's friends
like you and to make yourself like them. Consider that there is something wrong
with you (and there really is) if all your wife's or your husband's friends
displease you. Find the cause and eliminate it. It usually stems from selfishness
or jealousy on your part.

A couple of good principles need considering in adjusting oneself to one's in-laws

and your husband's or wife's friends--Be courteous--Be agreeable. "Courtesy," says
Hamerton, "lives by a multitude of little sacrifices," and Lady Montague remarks
that "to be beloved one must ever be agreeable."

Economic Adjustment. Many marriages go wrong simply because the husband and wife
have never become economically adjusted. Usually, discussions of money problems
have a way of starting reasonably enough and then suddenly deteriorating into a
series of blasts and explosions.

In most cases the wife earned her own living before marriage. The money she earned
then, apart from a token allowance she donated to her board and room (and which she
borrowed back again with an additional two dollars), was hers to spend in any way
she chose. After the wedding she finds herself rebelling against the awful role
of having to beg for an allowance. Under normal conditions she should never have to
experience that feeling of lost or surrendered independence. Here is where economic
adjustment comes in. Every wife should, after the current expenses are taken care
of, be given a separate and fixed allowance for her to do with as she pleases
with no accounting required. In like manner, the same holds true of the husband. My
heart bleeds for the man who must hand over his pay envelope and then be doled out
two dollars as his share for the week. That is not a partnership, but a dictatorial
monopoly. I'd picket such a wife.

Budgets are, I suppose, necessary in the first few months of marriage, but speaking
from experience I hate the idea. I kept a budget for but one month, and when I
totaled up what I spent on tobacco, tips, magazines, papers, and gasoline, I nearly
swooned. Post-mortems are always disconcerting, to say the least. If you
must follow a budget, then make it a flexible one. ("Magazine Digest" published one
called "The Way to Save Money," April, 1947.)

The happiest couple I ever met had a good system all their own. They paid all their
bills by check, set aside money regularly for savings, insurance, rent or payment
on house, then put the residue in a cigar box in the buffet. When the wife wanted a
hair-do she just went to the "kitty" and took out the cash. The same procedure
was followed for clothes, hats, and other items. The husband did likewise. When he
wanted golf balls or a fishing pole he was, as the Irishman says, "beholdin' to no
one." There was only one restriction on raiding the "kitty"--withdrawals of more
than ten dollars were mutually discussed. Of course, what is one's man's meat may
be another man's poison. The point I want to establish is that some system must be
evolved for the handling, saving, and the spending of the family income. Public
libraries are well stocked with books on the subject of home economics. For
instance, if you ask for "Controlling Your Personal Finances" by David F. Owens
(published by McGraw-Hill, N. Y., 1937), or "Managing Personal Finances" by D. F.
Gordon and E. F. Willett (Prentice-Hall, N. Y., 1945), your librarian will get them
for you.

In drawing up your budget, make provision for a widowed mother or mother-in-law or

a father who lives with you. A little personal spending money, to do with as they
see fit, will go a long way to ease the feeling of utter dependence. If you live
with your own parents or your in-laws, make ample provision for your share of
the expenses or set a straight rental payment.

Where husband and wife both work, the income should be pooled and rent, taxes,
household expenses, medicine, recreation, insurance, investments, and savings
deducted, then the residue divided in proportion to each one's income. What each
does with his or her share should rest with the individual. However, I still like
the common "kitty" idea. It suggests a fine partnership.

It was Cato, I think, who said that "the foundation-stones of a home are the woman
and the ox: the ox to plow and the woman to save." Part of every pay check, if it
is only five dollars, ought to be put into a savings account. "The trip of a
thousand miles," say the Chinese, "begins with one step." Someone has calculated
that if the Dutchman who "squandered" twenty-four dollars on the purchase of
Manhattan Island had invested that money at current rates of interest, he would
today be able to purchase the island as it now is and have forty thousand dollars
over.

Train yourself in resistance to installment buying. Experience shows that articles

purchased for cash are usually cheaper. If you must purchase something on the
installment plan, complete the payments before the next article is ordered. Never
run up bills anywhere. Make it a rule to pay as you go. Your credit is part of
your reputation. Keep it good. You can judge a person's intelligence by what he
does, and his character by what he doesn't. A person of good, honest character does
not demand luxuries he can't afford.

All this bosh about bringing a wife flowers before breaking the news of the
purchase of a new fishing pole, or preparing a husband's favorite meal, getting his
slippers, and lighting his cigar before mentioning the purchase of that "divine"
little hat, can be overdone. No husband, no wife, ought to be too apologetic about
asking for money or getting things they really want or need. Get started right and
keep your self-respect.

Looking back over this chapter, the reader must of necessity be impressed with the
importance of proper adjustments in the role of being a Mr. and Mrs. How the
various adjustments are accomplished may spell the difference between harmony and
heartache. Tact, persistence, a spirit of fair play, determination, and compromise
are omnipotent.

The changing of the water into wine at Cana in Galilee provided one of the greatest
lessons in adjustment this world has ever seen. Our Blessed Lady, when she noticed
the failure of the wine, merely mentioned the fact to her Divine Son. She did not
give her request a big build-up, nor did she demand a miracle, but, with reserve
and superb tact, said simply: "They have no wine." Now Our Lord, although He
remarked that His hour for miracles had not come, nevertheless adjusted His divine
plan in favor of His mother's request and changed the water into wine, or, as the
poet put it, "the water beheld its God and blushed."

If all husbands and wives the world over would follow Our Lord's example and, in
marriage, adjust themselves to the likes and dislikes of one another, the years of
their lives, like the waterpots at Cana, would be filled to overflowing with the
rich, red, intoxicating wine of love.

ENDNOTES

1. "Just Like a Woman," Elizabeth Kidd. New York: D. Appleton-

Century Co., 1945.

2. "If I Were a Bride Today," by Mamie Doud Eisenhower, as told to

Llewellyn Miller in "Today's Woman," June, 1948.

3. Quote--"The Weekly Digest," October 12, 1947, Vol. 14.

4. Recommended: "The Art of Happy Marriage," James A. Magner.

Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1947. (Request your Public
Library to get this book for you.)

Chapter Eight: BASIC REQUISITES FOR MARITAL HAPPINESS

In the blessing of Moses, pronounced before his death upon the different tribes,
there was this strange, added warning, particularly addressed to Aser: "Thy shoes
shall be iron and brass." A little geographical research will help make the meaning
of the warning plain. You see, part of Aser's allotted portion was hilly and
rugged. Common sandals made of wood or leather would never endure the wear and tear
of the sharp, flinty rocks. There was need therefore for some special kind of
shoes. Hence the form of the warning:
"Thy shoes shall be iron and brass."

Turning the age-old phrase into a caution for married couples, we get from it these
salutary lessons. The road two lovers must travel together in matrimony is usually
rough and rugged. The words of the marriage ceremony warn of this: "So not knowing
what is before you, you take each other for better, for worse, for richer, for
poorer, in sickness and in health, until death." Now, no living soul could keep
such a vow and live nobly and worthily without rugged self-denial and an uphill
struggle against the world, the flesh, and the devil. Indeed, the more one thinks
of the dizzy heights that must be scaled and the rugged terrain that must be
conquered before the summit of happiness in marriage is reached, the more
necessary the shoes of iron and brass become.

One other lesson is apparent in Moses' caution. He wisely suggested that the shoes
be of iron and brass. Not of iron alone or brass alone, but a combination of both
metals. In marriage, likewise, not one element alone, even though that be love,
will suffice for its ultimate success. A strong blend of many other elements must
be mingled in the alchemy of wedlock if the treacherous ascent be made safely.
As we remarked elsewhere, the real cause of broken hearts and homes, of separations
and divorces, is seldom the isolated violent and vicious flare-up, but rather the
result of an overwhelming accumulation of little things--little annoyances, little
aggravating mannerisms, thoughtlessness, and so on. Nor ought the little
things be ignored as inconsequential. Small leaks can sink a ship. A tiny sharp
pebble in a shoe may be ignored as a "little thing," but it may cause such an
irritation or serious infection as to lead to an amputation.

Most of the sharp, flinty rocks on the road to happiness in marriage could be
traversed in easy safety if both husband and wife would don the following shoes of
iron and brass. And they come in pairs too. Let us try them on for size:

Love and Contentment

Cheerfulness and Courtesy
Patience and Helpfulness
Truthfulness and Tact
Neatness and Politeness
Generosity and Loyalty

LOVE AND CONTENTMENT

Love: Nothing is so tragic in marriage as the taking of love for granted. "Love,"
remarked Beecher, "cannot endure indifference. It needs to be wanted. Like a lamp,
it needs to be fed out of the oil of another heart or the flame burns low." There
is a wealth of wisdom stored up in that statement, and a good deal of food for
thought, too. Why in the world two people who were so eloquent in love before their
marriage should suddenly become so indifferent to love after marriage is beyond me.
It is one thing to marry and quite another thing to stay married, and no one can
hope for the latter without love, love frequently expressed and with an ever
increasing number of external acts to prove it.

Fine grapes and water need time to become a superb wine. Romantic love in the
hearts of two newly married persons likewise needs time to become wholesome
conjugal love. There is a difference, you know, between romantic and conjugal love.

A marriage built on romantic love alone is a precarious thing. After the first
ecstasies of romantic love are over, after the heart is filled to overflowing,
giving the impression that there can be nothing more perfect, such a love begins to
diminish. Conjugal love, on the other hand, waxes stronger with the months and
years. Each day opens up new vistas. Each day gives birth to new joys. Conjugal
love is purified, sanctified and perfected romantic love, or as Gustave Thibon puts
it: "The final essence of the great love of man and woman consists in the
confidences and divine graces transmitted from one soul through the chosen channel
of another soul."

True marital love, according to Amiel, is "that which ennobles the personality,
fortifies the heart, and sanctifies the existence. And the being loved must not be
mysterious and sphinx-like, but clear and limpid as a diamond; so that admiration
and attachment may grow with knowledge."

One of the most strikingly beautiful stories of a love between a man and his wife
that grew stronger and greater with the years, in spite of poverty and adversity,
is that of Nathaniel and Sophia Hawthorne. On the first anniversary of their
marriage, Nathaniel wrote these touching words to his wife: "Dearest Love, we have
never been so happy as now. This birthday of our married life is like a cape, which
we have now doubled and find a more infinite ocean of love stretching out before
us."
Twenty-two years later, shortly before his death, Nathaniel again wrote of his
love--love that had grown stronger from continuous association, love that he called
"that enchanting mystery." Writing then, he left the world this single touching
testament: "Happiness has no succession of events because it is part of eternity.
And we have been living in eternity since our marriage."[1]

Nathaniel and Sophia Hawthorne had learned the lesson that every married couple
must strive to learn and to practice, and that is that conjugal love can never
survive neglect. Like a precious, delicate plant, it must be diligently tended
daily if it is to grow. Never must the weeds of indifference be allowed to smother
it. A husband must never grow into that sort of person who takes his wife's love
for granted, content solely in the knowledge that it is always there. All through
the years he must reassure her of his continued love--by paying compliments, by
sending flowers and candy, by taking his wife out evenings, by tenderly caressing
her--such things will reassure his wife that she is still "lovable." Love
frequently and adequately expressed will keep a woman young and give meaning and
purpose to her life. Without love of a sufficient degree to fill her heart and warm
her soul, a wife becomes disinterested in married life and, like a tender plant,
withers and fades.

A wife must never, on the other hand, blackmail her husband into loving her by
crying spells or by using such hackneyed expressions as "You don't love me any
more," simply because he forgot a birthday or wedding anniversary gift. If he has
given up that gift-giving routine perhaps it is because his wife has taken
such things for granted and neglected on past occasions to praise him for his
choice of remembrances. It is a smart wife who makes a fuss over her husband's
gifts, even if he gives her the car or golf clubs he always wanted. "As long as he
brings home the bacon," says Matilda Rose McLaren, "don't beef if he forgets an
anniversary. You should casually mention the event days in advance or helpfully
mark his fresh desk calendar on New Year's. It isn't easy for Bill to bring the
flowers and candy he proffered as a sweetheart; marrying you gave him a bread and
butter complex."[2]

The best all-round resolution for husbands or wives is to renew daily the intention
of loving the other party enough to make him or her happy, rather than seeking to
be made happy himself. Never be afraid or ashamed to express your love. Malcolm
Canmore and his sainted Margaret gave to the world a wondrous formula for
successful living. The soldier-king, Malcolm, was remarkable for his reverence,
gentleness, and tenderness in the presence of his lovely wife. He could scarcely
think of her without tears, without wondering how such an angel was given him to
keep and love. The very prayer book she used was something holy, which he would
allow no one but himself to carry, kissing it reverently as he gave it to her or
received it from her, even in the presence of his rude Scottish chieftains. Until
his dying day he demeaned himself in public and private toward his spotless queen
as if he were her servant and bondslave. How truly Margaret must have loved him
all the while--how truly, how tenderly--that she could inspire him with a devotion
that never decreased and a reverence which ever grew with age.

Conjugal love dies in that heart where respect diminishes instead of daily
increasing, and where delicacy and courtesy in word and manner--what we call
outward respect--is dispensed with on pretext of nearness, intimacy, and reserve.

Make it, therefore, the law of your life that as the years pass by, they shall find
the ever-blooming flower of love in the center of your home-garden--the flower of
undying reverence. One cannot live without the other. And to the wife we say: If
you would have your husband's love and respect to know no fading, make it a
sacred duty to God, every day of your life, to invent new methods of showing your
companion that your love in turn is ever new and fresh.
Contentment: Be ever mindful, however, that love alone is not the sole requisite
for marital happiness. Love is but one of many requisites.

I have known scores of married people who were very much in love with one another,
but they were not happy. Love must be accompanied by a sane, placid spirit of
contentment if happiness is to be attained in matrimony. Never in any age was the
spirit of contentment so rare as it is today. Everyone is striving to get more
than they have--more money, more power, more pleasure, and more luxury. Yet Cicero
wrote, centuries ago, that "to be content with what we possess is the greatest and
most secure of riches." And speaking of contentment in marriage, Le Sage compared
it to "a river which must have two banks--one on either side." In other words, both
the husband and the wife must be content.

Married couples could get much more out of life if they made the best of what they
have. Grumbling does no good. If the thing that bothers or aggravates is of such a
nature that it can be changed, change it. If it is not, then why grumble? Ignoring
an unpleasant situation minimizes its unpleasantness. Remember no home that
shelters a grumbler can be happy. On the other hand, a home where conditions are
accepted as not only right but pleasant, or at least to be tolerated, or made the
best of, is a haven when one grows up with the sweet spirit of satisfaction with
things as they are.

True contentment does not interfere with advancement, nor does it narrow one's
outlook or inspire indifference and lethargy. Contentment is the antidote for
restlessness; indeed, it is the calm, quiet influence that is so sorely needed in
the home today.

CHEERFULNESS AND COURTESY

Cheerfulness: Thackeray gave as good a definition of cheerfulness as I ever read

anywhere when he defined it in his "Sketches and Travels in London": "It is a
contented spirit, it is a pure heart, it is a kind and loving disposition, it is
humility and charity, it is a generous appreciation of others and a modest opinion
of self."

Nothing can possibly be more conducive to happiness in marriage than a sustained

mood of cheerfulness, a cheerfulness that is made up of the various components
described by Thackeray. Lightheartedness will do so much to smooth out the rough
spots on the highway to heaven. Horace reminds us that "the mind that is cheerful
in its present state will be averse to all solicitude as to the future and will
meet the bitter occurrences of life with a happy smile."

There are no greater enemies of cheerfulness than gloominess, sulkiness, and

moodiness. Gloominess is like dark glasses; the sun may be shining all around you
but so long as those dark lenses shut out the sun from your eyes all appears dark
and overcast. Then the reasonable thing to do is to take the glasses off.
Gloominess can be overcome by training oneself to look for the bright side of every
difficulty. Don't be like the old lady who complained about the failure of her
potato crop one year, and the next year complained about the bumper crop of
potatoes, and especially of their large size, gloomily remarking that now she
would have no small potatoes to feed the pigs.

Sulkiness is also a great enemy of cheerfulness. It is a despicable thing in child

or adult. Sulkiness is definitely indicative of emotional immaturity. The silent
treatment after a misunderstanding or a real or imaginary offense is a great
wrecker of marital happiness. The best cure for hurt feelings is simply not
to let on to yourself that you have been offended. Refuse to notice an insult or a
slight. Keep right on talking and smiling and the thing will fly right over your
head. Never hold out for an apology for any sort of offense (real or imaginary).
Just be your own self and multiply your kindness, and you'll soon see an apology on
its way that will be more sincere than anything you could elicit at the point of a
gun or from the "I'll go home to Mother" line.

The third of the triune-demons and arch-enemies of cheerfulness is moodiness.

Moodiness takes several forms in different people and not infrequently in the same
person. A moody husband or wife will be all smiles and cheerfulness one day, but
the very next, for no apparent reason, will be all gloom and silence and storm. A
moody husband will leave the house in the morning the pleasantest of men, only to
return in the evening like a bear with the mumps. A man may himself possess an even
temper but be married to a wife whose temper he can never trust. Although all
smiles and perfectly serene one moment, she changes quickly from sweet to sour,
from mildness to the downpouring of wrath.

It is difficult to say which is more unbearable--a person who suddenly gives way to
successive or continuous spasms of ill-humor, censoriousness, and impatience, or
the one who subsides into a gloomy silence lasting day after day and making the
whole atmosphere of the home as unendurable as the cold darkness of the long polar
region nights. Both are cruel.

For your own happiness and that of your home, fight these enemies of cheerfulness
in an unrelenting warfare. Work and pray for a cheerful, even disposition. This
won't be too difficult if you force yourself to like what you like more than you
dislike what bothers you. E. P. Whipple, in "Success and Its Conditions," says:
"Cheerfulness, in most people, is the rich and satisfying result of strenuous
discipline."

Courtesy: Lack of courtesy on the part of a husband or wife, or both, is the basic
cause of eighty per cent of the coldness and estrangements, if not absolute
quarrels and separations, in married life. "Politeness," said Joutert, "is one
development of virtue," and in reply to those who would contend that it is to be
used in society only, not in the horne, he remarked that "we should wear our velvet
indoors," that is, give those nearest and dearest to us the chief benefit of
gentleness. It is a terrible mistake to suppose that the forms of courtesy can be
safely dispensed with in the family circle. Like charity, courtesy begins at home.

Courteousness demands that a husband refrain from teasing a wife on a subject in

which there is danger of hurting her feelings. Never ought a husband speak of the
virtues of his own mother, or of another man's wife to remind his own of a fault.
Nor should a man treat his wife with inattention in company or upbraid her in the
presence of a third party.

The courteous wife is never too tired to accept an invitation from her husband to
step out for an evening. She ought to be wise enough to reach for the Lady Esther
powder, the Chanel No. 5, put on an extra snitch of lipstick, and say, "Let's go!"
It is courteous and wise, too, to remember always to say "Thanks" for such sorties.
A sincere "Thanks, John--that was a swell night," will do much to make him say,
"Let's do this more often!" The Big Three in marriage are "Pardon me," "please,"
and "thank you." Use them as often as you can. They are miracle words, and they are
infinitely more potent when accompanied by a tender caress. One of Shakespeare's
heroines suggests the latter as the easiest and most successful method of getting
things done.

"You may ride us

With one soft kiss a thousand furlongs, ere
With Spur we heat an acre."
A courteous wife or husband will never invade the privacy of the other party. Being
married to someone does not privilege one to dispense with the rules of common
decency. A closed door is usually closed for a purpose. Someone wants privacy.
Never enter a closed room without knocking and without receiving a gracious
permit to enter. A courteous (and trusting) wife or husband will never open the
other's mail, read opened mail without permission, or go through pockets or
pocketbook. A courteous wife will not keep her husband waiting while she fusses in
dressing. A wise wife begins that intricate and delicate operation well in advance
of the zero hour. A courteous person does not read a paper or letter while the
better half is talking or, worse still, contradict while the other is relating
something.

Observe these rules and the thousand others that will become obvious as the years
go on, and you will appreciate more keenly what Hamerton meant in "Human
Intercourse" when he said: "Courtesy lives by a multitude of little sacrifices."

PATIENCE AND HELPFULNESS

Patience: It has always been interesting to me that the words "patience" and
"passion" are so akin to one another. Etymologically, they are synonymous.
"Patience" comes from the active participle to suffer; while "passion" comes from
the passive participle of the same verb. In other words, patience signifies a
determination to suffer, while passion signifies what one suffers due to the lack
of power to prevent it. Patience, simply put, is the spirit to endure without
bitterness, without complaint, whatever things are hard to endure in life. With
that definition in mind, it will be apparent how essential the virtue of patience
is to every married person. No career makes so many demands on patience as
does matrimony. When Plantus said "patience is the best remedy for every trouble,"
he must have had wedlock in mind.

Most married couples can muster enough patience to put up with the great crosses
and vexations of marital life, but where many fail is in exercising patience with
the little annoyances that crop up when two people live so closely as do a man and
his wife. It is the old story of "the little foxes spoiling the grapes."

Many a wife can suffer the physical discomforts of childbearing--morning sickness

and all--and come down from the delivery room after hours of racking pain with a
smile on her face, but that same woman may fly into a fit of temper at the sight of
the once neatly arranged dresser drawer thrown into a sudden state of chaos by a
clumsy husband in pursuit of an elusive collar button. And many a husband can keep
a stiff upper lip when sickness or financial losses crowd in upon him, yet the same
lad may lose patience beyond all reasonable bounds because half the evening paper
was used to roll up the garbage before he got a chance to see the sports pages.

Little wonder St. Paul said "love is patient," and since love must ever abide in
the hearts and souls of married couples, so must patience. It is needed all the
days of marriage. It is needed when the children come. It is needed in the
acceptance of great crosses, trials, and misunderstandings. It is needed when such
cutting little digs are passed out in the old routine: "Well, she doesn't get that
from my family."

While all will agree that patience is a "must" during the first years of marriage,
few realize how essential it is for every day of married life, especially around
the twenty-fifth anniversary. The first year and the twenty-fifth year are both
dangerous. It has happened that some married men or women, feeling themselves
slipping down the sharp decline to old age, will step off the reservation in an
attempt to prove to themselves that they are just as young and attractive as they
were years before. The delusion is only temporary. They soon realize that age has
cramped their style, and they quickly want to come back to their old love. Patience
and understanding can make this easily possible--impatience can cause an
unforgiving rupture and be the spearhead that leads to the eternal ruin of one or
both of them.

Bad temper grows strong upon what it feeds, that is, itself. When displayed over a
long period of time its victim receives a sort of pleasure from it. Little does he
who hugs anger and bad temper to his heart realize that it is like a serpent that
will sooner or later strike a fatal blow.

Home is no home, and home life is at best but a long purgatory, where a wife or
husband lives in constant dread of doing or saying something that will set off the
fireworks of ill-temper. If you know you have a quick, uneven temper, do something
about it. Never apologize for an ugly scene of ill-temper by saying, "But you know
I have a bad temper," as if the mere fact of your being quick-tempered were a
sufficient excuse for it.

Here are a few hints for the bad-tempered person. Know the things that provoke you
and by all means avoid them. Resist the temptation to speak or act during the first
moments of excitement. A prime rule is to keep your mouth shut. A fire that is
sealed off with no vent will burn itself out. In your better moments reason with
yourself whether it is better to have a home with an untidy husband, or have all
the bath towels perfectly arranged on the towel rack and no husband. Are the little
things that cause you to flare up worth fussing about? Make it a rule never, never,
never, to bring up anything at mealtimes that might prove disagreeable. To
do so is unpardonable.

When you feel out of sorts keep away from people you can hurt. Mary E. Thomson
tells this story of a handsome, rosy-cheeked old gentleman of about eighty, who
went to a doctor for a general physical examination.

The physician checked him over with great care, and reported that he had no cause
for worry. "Tell me," he asked the octogenarian as he helped him into his overcoat,
"how do you account for your unusually robust condition at your age?"

"That's easy, Doc," chuckled the old chap. "When Martha and I married sixty years
ago, we made an agreement never to quarrel. When I lost my temper and began to blow
off steam, she was to keep quiet. And I promised that when she was in a bad humor
I'd leave the house. And, Doc, I've enjoyed a fine outdoor life for sixty
years. Guess that's why I'm still hale and hearty![3]

If fate has been so unkind to you as to have thrown you into the union of marriage
with an irascible person, here are a few rules for you, too. Do your best to avoid
the things that, in the past, have caused your partner to blow his or her top.
Wives would do well to learn a few fundamental principles in dealing with men:

Give him his meals on time.

Cook him a real he-man meal. Don't make him diet because you
are on one.

Fold the paper up again in its original state after you have finished
giving it the once-over before hubby gets home.

Never touch his razors or pipes.

Never reprimand a waiter or waitress or be too fussy with them

when you go out with the lord and master.
Never talk about his relatives--in fact, try always to praise his
mother and father and even his dopey sister.

Don't get on the telephone when you know he is coming home,

waiting to eat, or ready to go out.

Never call him at his office or place of business. (Except if Junior

has swallowed the egg-beater.)

Don't kiss him when you have on fresh make-up.

Don't argue over unimportant things.

Don't ask him to carry parcels that would stagger a coolie.

Don't start discussions at breakfast.

Don't give away his things without asking him. (That old brown hat
is his prize possession.)

Don't go with him to pick out his clothes unless he expressly asks you. If he comes
home with a green plaid suit, praise him for his individuality.

Don't give him a list of things to lug home from the store on his way from work.

And here are a few good rules for husbands:

Never butt into the management of the kitchen and the children.

Never say her hat is crazy. Praise her for her unusual headgear.

Don't complain about the junk in her purse. Think about your own
pockets.

Don't keep telling your wife to "step on it" when she is trying to do
her nails or pour herself into one of those new dresses. You'd be
all thumbs then, too.

Don't forget her birthday or the anniversaries. (The same goes for
her parents.)

Don't pass remarks about her girl friends.

Don't stay at a party when you can see your wife is uncomfortable
or bored. Take your cue from her when to leave.

Don't neglect to compliment your wife often on her beauty and

efficiency. It works wonders.

Remember she loves attention. In public, really turn it on. Help her off with her
coat, stand behind her chair until she is seated. Order for her. Light her
cigarette. Look interested in what she is telling you. Just remember that women
love attention. Pour it on!

There is nothing like a good start, and if, during the first scene of temper
displayed by a husband or wife, the innocent party would pay no attention to the
outburst at all, the irascible one will see that fits of temper are not going to
achieve much. When the storm is past, talk the matter over and simply state that
such storms are not going to be effective ever. Frank and open discussions of
tensions and disagreements can promote understanding. Claude C. Bowman gives the
following observation, which I think is very good. "In all honesty," he says, "it
must be admitted that frank and open discussion of intimate problems is difficult
for certain types of husbands and wives. There is, for example, the self-assured
egotist, so thoroughly convinced of the superiority of his own claims that any
cooperative effort is out of the question. The dogmatic man or woman whose mind is
completely closed is hard to deal with. So is the person with a strong sense of
inferiority who is afraid to see any merit in the views of his mate."

The sulky, petulant type, who stores up resentments secretly and will not talk them
out, is likely to be a poor risk for the method of rational discussion. Such
persons brood darkly and build up barriers of isolation. Both the woman who expects
to weep her way to triumph, and the man whose impatience is touched off by any
family problem that keeps him from the evening newspaper, are incapable of
understanding the approach advocated here. Yet I believe that the great majority of
married people can learn the secret if they are determined to do so.[4] And he
might have added, "if they have patience," for as Benjamin Franklin once said, "He
who can have patience can have what he will."

Strive for a happy medium in the matter of patience. "Be not too sweet," says an
Afghan proverb, "else men will eat you; be not too bitter, else men will loathe
you." Avoid extremes and remember the words of Pope Pius XII addressed to newlyweds
on June 7, 1939: "Eucharistic Communion," he said, "generates strength, courage
and patience."

Helpfulness: Another important factor in achieving success in matrimony lies in the

development of the spirit of helpfulness. Marriage must of necessity be more of a
mutual aid society rather than a mutual admiration society. I think it was H. G.
Wells who said that "a day arrives in every marriage when the lovers must
face each other, disillusioned, stripped of the last shred of excitement--
undisguisedly themselves." Doubtless that is true, and when that time arrives,
every husband and every wife must instinctively turn to his or her mate for mutual
aid, courage, and comfort to continue in love and life together.

Every married person ought to take time out to read and meditate on the words of
Holy Scripture relative to the first married couple who were ever joined in sacred
wedlock. It is worthy of note that after God had created Adam and set him in "a
paradise of pleasure to dress it and keep it," He commanded the first man not to
eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Only after that primeval command was
given did God say: "It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like
unto himself.... Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was
fast asleep, He took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God
built the rib which He took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam."

Observe in the Scriptural account as recorded in Genesis, Chapter 2, first verse,

that one of the reasons for Eve's creation was that she should be a helper to her
husband. Secondly, note that Adam was commanded to abstain from the fruit of the
Tree of Knowledge prior to Eve's creation, that, doubtless, God created Eve to help
Adam keep that law, and finally, that Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs--that
is, from his side. The early Fathers of the Church drew therefrom this lesson. They
reasoned that God had not made Eve from a bone from Adam's foot, lest some might
believe that woman's place was ever to be at the feet of her husband, groveling
in servitude. Nor was woman made from a part of Adam's head lest woman might claim
dominion over man's mind, but, rather, Eve was made from the side of man, to
indicate forever that a woman's place was to be beside her husband as his helper.

With this in mind, let us consider the different kinds of help, and the extent and
scope of the help a husband and wife must render each other. To be effective, such
help must extend to the spiritual, moral, physical, economic, and domestic life of
the other mate.

Spiritual help takes in everything that would assist the other partner to save his
or her soul. This implies encouragement by word and example in such things as
family prayers, assistance at Mass, reception of the sacraments, keeping of the
commandments of God, and the precepts of the Church, along with the faithful
observance of many duties implied in this state of life. Every husband and every
wife must strive to make God the central figure of the whole family program.
Salvation of one's soul and the soul of one's partner and the children must be a
chief concern of married life, for Our Lord said, "What doth it profit a man if he
gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?"

Moral help is equally important. A married person must strive to diffuse around the
home an atmosphere of cheerfulness, piety, truthfulness, generosity, and
magnanimity. This is not so much a matter of great talent as it is a matter of
great effort. There is an obligation on the part of every husband and wife to point
out the moral faults of one another, pointing them out tenderly, humbly, sadly, yet
with such plainness as not to have to repeat it over and over again. Wives can do
so much to help an erring husband.

There is no man so full of pride,

And none so intimate with shame;
And none to manhood so denied,
As not to mend if women blame.

If a husband is not chivalrous, or is selfish, shiftless, and lacking in

consideration, it is generally the fault of the wife. In such cases it will be
found that the wife does not demand and insist upon attention, consideration, and
help.

Sir James Mackintosh paid a wonderful tribute to the helpfulness of his wife when
he wrote: "She gently reclaimed me from dissipation; she propped my weak and
irresolute nature; she urged my indolence to all the exertions that have been
useful or creditable to me; and she was perpetually at hand to admonish my
heedlessness and improvidence."

For every man who can rightfully claim that a woman ruined his life, there are ten
thousand who could never have succeeded in any career--including marriage--except
for the help and guidance of a wife.

Every wife must strive to realize that a sweet, modest influence will never be
exercised over a man so long as she resorts to sharp, bitter words or resorts to
hateful nagging. Nothing can snatch power quicker from her heart and hands than the
latter.

Nagging is one of the sharpest stones on the highway to happiness in marriage and
its varieties are legion. While most writers on human relations intimate that most
wives nag and that no two nag in the same way or on the same subject, I feel that
husbands can be naggers too. It matters not too much whether it is the husband
or the wife who is given to nagging--the point is that it is one of the most
destructive forces in married life. Whatever you do, shun it as you would the most
loathesome of infectious diseases.

In the vast majority of cases, nagging may be traced to the following real or
imaginary causes: frustration, jealousy, faulty preconceived idea of marriage, or
the downright feeling that the wrong choice of a mate was made. A little thought
will demonstrate how each or all of these will set a husband or wife to nagging one
another.
Since, as we have already stated, few persons realize that they are naggers, the
following questions may help you determine whether or not you are a nagger.

Do you repeat the same request over and over?

Do you make frequent comparisons between your spouse and other married men and
women, being vocally eloquent in praise of them and disparaging of your own mate?

Do you continually point out the glaring faults of your mate?

Do you frequently point out the ill effects of the other's choice of
food?

Do you excuse your nagging by saying, "It's for his (or her) own
good"?

Do you harp on "duty"?

Do you keep love-nagging? (Do you love me?--I don't believe you
do love me.)

Should one or several affirmatives to the questions indicate that you are a nagger,
do all in your power, by prayer and self-discipline, to shed the habit. Nagging is
deadly to marital bliss and marital security. In the words of Percy there is much
wisdom:

Oh shun, my friends, avoid that dangerous coast,

Where peace expires, and fair affection's lost,
By wit, by grief, by anger urged, forbear
The speech contemptuous and the nagging air.

Praise, constructive criticism, tact, and good old common sense

will accomplish more than all the combined nagging that has ever
scourged this world.

Physical help is as real a necessity for a happy marriage as any one of the other
aids. Adam's proclamation stands today and will until the end of time, ever the
same: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife:
and they shall be two in one flesh." The obligation to help one another to bear the
burden of human nature is clear from those words and must be clearly understood as
such if the ends of marriage are to be achieved.

Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical letter "Casti Connubii," after confirming the
primary end of matrimony to be "to procreate children," goes on to say that "in
matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends
such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of
concupiscence, which husband and wife are not forbidden so long as they are
subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is
preserved."

Regarding the obligation of husband and wife in the matter of marital intercourse,
St. Paul is very definite: Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the
wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power over her own body:
but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power over his own
body: but the wife." (I Cor. 7:3, 4.)

It has been the constant teaching of the Church that sexual intercourse cannot be
withheld by a husband or wife without a grave reason, for the rendering of marital
dues is an obligation of justice. Consequently, it is grievously wrong for married
persons to live apart from one another, except by mutual consent, or for
clearly specified and grave reasons; to refuse marital relations from a whim or for
minor inconveniences is to violate a grave contract for insufficient reasons, and
to expose the partner not infrequently to sin. So that the marriage act may remain
a lovely thing, it must be governed by rational kindness.

Economic help is an important factor in the matter of marital success. The

satisfaction the family needs and feels in its home life may be vitally influenced
by the amount of income Without an adequate income to provide the family with the
needs and comforts demanded by the normal standards of good living makes for the
distressful feeling of insecurity.

Recent trends toward higher living costs have had drastic effects on those whose
salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living. As a result of this, hard-
pressed wives have sought elimination of the problem by going back to work. In
seeking the solution of one problem, many have raised newer and greater problems,
such as neglect of the family to such an extent that juvenile delinquency is on the
up-grade;[5] divorces have increased and are blamed upon the arrogance of the
working wife and upon her lessening domestic tranquility, due to over-fatigue,
nervousness, and irritability.

Married women would do well to reflect that all men have an insatiable ego, and if
that is punctured, man is reduced to a second- or third-rate chattel. Even nature
goes along with this. The males of most species of birds and animals are usually
more colorful and stately than the females. Take the rooster, for example. His
bright, colorful feathers and stately strut are obvious. The hen, by comparison, is
rather drab and dumpy. The same holds true for most all of the animal kingdom. In
the human race, man must be allowed to think he is cock of the walk or he loses
something of his nature. There are exceptions, but the general rule holds good.

Some husbands just can't keep their self-respect and allow their wives to work.
(The old Pennsylvania Dutch husbands used at one time to give their wives marriage
plates inscribed: "Rather would I single live than to my wife the britches give.")
Most of them have been brought up to feel that a woman's place is in the home. The
wise wife will sound out her husband on this matter and if there is the slightest
danger of its developing in him an inferiority complex, it would be better to
struggle along with love and fewer of the world's goods than to have luxury and no
love.

I wonder if working wives have ever sat down to figure out a balance sheet of
profit and loss in the matter of their employment outside the home.

Here are a few questions they might ask themselves.

(1) How much extra money do I bring into the house each month?

(2) How much more could I save by being home to plan and prepare food than I spend
on prepared foods and on eating out?

(3) How much more could I save by doing the washing and cleaning at home rather
than sending things out to be done?

(4) If I were home all day, how much more could I save on making
clothes for myself and the children, whereas by working I have
neither the time nor energy to do such things?

(5) By staying home, couldn't I be more rested, more ready to please my husband,
better groomed when he comes home from work; couldn't I keep the house cleaner and
prepare more tasty and wholesome food?
(6) Don't I spend most of what I make working out, on myself, for clothes or for
furniture for the home--always things that I want?

(7) Isn't the real reason basically for my working that I am bored
by home and domestic routine?

His Holiness Pope Pius XII addressed these wise words to working
mothers in an allocation delivered October 21, 1945. He said in
part:

"We see a woman who, in order to augment her husband's earnings, betakes herself
also to a factory, leaving her house abandoned during her absence. The house,
untidy and small perhaps before, becomes even more miserable for lack of care.
Members of the family work separately in four quarters of the city and with
different working hours. Scarcely ever do they find themselves together for dinner
or rest after work--still less for prayer in common. What is left of family life?
And what attractions can it offer to children?

"To such painful consequences of the absence of the mother from the home there is
added another, still more deplorable. It concerns the education, especially of the
young girl, and her preparation for real life. Accustomed as she is to see her
mother always out of the house and the house itself so gloomy in its abandonment,
she will be unable to find any attraction for it, she will not feel the
slightest inclination for austere housekeeping jobs. She cannot be expected to
appreciate their nobility and beauty or to wish one day to give herself to them as
a wife and mother.

"This is true in all grades and stations of social life. The daughter of the
worldly woman, who sees all housekeeping left in the hands of paid help and her
mother fussing around with frivolous occupations and futile amusements, will follow
her example, will want to be emancipated as soon as possible and in the words of a
very tragic phrase 'to live her own life.' How could she conceive a desire to
become one day a true lady, that is, the mother of a happy, prosperous, worthy
family?

"As to the working classes, forced to earn daily bread, a woman might, if she
reflected, realize that not rarely the supplementary wage which she earns by
working outside the house is easily swallowed up by other expenses or even by waste
which is ruinous to the family budget. The daughter who also goes out to work in a
factory or office, deafened by the excited, restless world in which she lives,
dazzled by the tinsel of specious luxury, developing a thirst for shallow pleasures
that distract but do not give satiety or repose in those revue or dance halls which
are sprouting up everywhere, often for party propaganda purposes and which corrupt
youth, becomes a fashionable lady, despises the old Nineteenth Century ways of
life.

"How could she not feel her modest home surroundings unattractive and more squalid
than they are in reality? To find her pleasure in them, to desire one day to settle
in them herself, she should be able to offset her natural impressions by a serious
intellectual and spiritual life, by the vigor that comes from religious education
and from supernatural ideals. But what kind of religious formation has she received
in such surroundings?

"And that is not all. When, as the years pass, her mother, prematurely aged, worn
out, and broken by work beyond her capacity, by sorrow and anxiety, will see her
return home at night at a very late hour, she will not find her a support or a
help, but rather the mother herself will have to wait on a daughter incapable
and unaccustomed to household work, and to perform for her all the offices of a
servant.

"And the lot of the father will not be any better when old age, sickness, infirmity
and unemployment force him to depend for his meager sustenance on the good or bad
will of his children. Here you have the august holy authority of the father and
mother dethroned."

Better think it all over; in the vast majority of cases, you must agree that little
is gained by the economic help wives can contribute by working. Much more might be
achieved in the way of economic help to the husband and family if the wife would
remain home and make of it a haven of peace and rest. Three blocks away from where
I live two little children were burned to death in their home where they had been
left alone while the father and mother were away at work. Moral damage to lonely
children can be as tragic as death.

The extra dollars earned by a wife may be costly indeed. They will never compensate
for the other losses. The constant pressure that goes with trying to run a home,
prepare meals, doctor Junior's cold, and do outside employment, is killing. No wife
can do all her home duties and work out, too. Something will suffer, and usually
it is her home. She will soon find her most useful tool is a can-opener, and find
that she comes home too tired to enjoy the family. Even her social life will
suffer, simply because her evenings must be devoted to duties which ordinarily
would have been done during the day. In most cases, a married woman who works
builds up her world on a false security--the security of the dollar. Gulping coffee
on the run in the morning; dashing home like mad at noon to see if the house is
still in one piece; worrying every time the fire engines pass the office, store, or
plant; wondering whether little Jane decided to light a fire on the living
room floor; plodding home at night too tired to be fit company for man or beast,
ready to pick on the least little annoyance, to create a scene--I ask you, is it
worth it?

Think it over, and if your job is costing you too much, give the boss two weeks'
notice!

In committing all this to type, I have not intended to condemn in toto the practice
of married women working at jobs outside their homes. In some cases such work is an
absolute necessity, and the wives who perform it deserve the full credit due them.
A sick husband or a not too robust one, a veteran husband, a casualty of the wars,
a family plagued by debt or business failure, a son or daughter being afforded a
college education, or a thousand other valid reasons might well make such work
imperative and even meritorious. My peeve is with those who work from caprice and
not necessity.

In no family should a wife work outside the home without first weighing the
necessity, the advantages and disadvantages, and without careful discussion of the
matter with her husband and securing his unqualified approval of the project.

In many cases such a thing would be unnecessary if both husband and wife would
endeavor to live within their budget and stop imagining luxuries as necessities and
by refusing to "keep up with the Joneses," if that means saying those tragic words,
"Charge it."

The best help to be given to the permanency of married life is for husband and wife
to plan and save for a home of their own, a home with a garden, too. It is a wise
wife who insists on this, for it is very seldom a husband will "walk out" of a home
in which he has invested his life's savings. As to that garden, well, someone said
once that "the man who plants his own apple tree will never betray his country" (or
his family). Home ownership is one of the answers to America's divorce problem.
Statistics show that divorce is thirty times more prevalent among those who do not
own homes than it is among those who do.

Domestic help is also an important feature in the smooth running of marriage. By

domestic help I mean, here, the teamwork demanded in household management.

One of the remarkable changes in society today is that of the attitude toward the
traditional home life. A few generations ago there were marked and sharp
distinctions between a man's work and a woman's work. A man in those days did the
outside chores--worked the farm or garden, milked the cows, or looked after the
stables; while the woman ruled supreme in the home, doing the cooking, cleaning,
and sewing. Today those sharp distinctions do not exist. Today our educational
system is such that most young people graduate from high school and college with an
adequate scholastic training but with little training for the important task of
home-making. The finishing school will see that one knows how to serve cafe noir in
a demi-tasse but not how to make it. Modern education includes the subtle art of
mixing a cocktail but ignores the more important art of making a pie or a pot of
soup. As a result of this, many a girl comes to marriage with little or none of the
know-how of cooking and so many a husband is forced into the role of chef. It is my
personal belief that any young woman who goes into marriage without a good basic
knowledge of cooking and home management is guilty of fraud. The average husband
has a right to expect such knowledge and, believe it or not, many divorces or
separations spring from the kitchen. Good cooking is simply a matter of getting the
know-how and patience.[6] A wise husband will encourage his wife in the culinary
arts and be loud in his praise of each and every attempt by his wife to provide new
and appetizing dishes. Not a few potentially good cooks are ruined by the take-it-
for-granted type of husband. The husband who forgets to praise his wife's cooking
is a knave. He will soon be trying to draw water from the well with a broken
pitcher!

Teamwork in the home requires a division of the chores and a well-defined division.
Work as well as pleasures ought to be shared. If the wife remains in the home, then
she should, with a little bit of planning, be able to look after the whole matter
of meals and housework. Here is a keen observation by a housewife and I think
it is most apt:

"The advantages of a home should be obvious-a great deal more freedom than most men
ever enjoy, a self-made schedule that can be changed at will. The woman dusting is
all too likely to exaggerate the joys of being tied to a desk with occasional trips
to the water cooler or ladies' room for diversion; I, for one, am sick and tired of
hearing about the poor woman who works from morn till night. It's absolutely true,
no doubt, that many women spend their entire day doing housework, but what they do
is beyond me. A six- or seven-room house can be handled quickly and efficiently
in the morning hours, and a woman who spends her entire time cleaning is making a
grave mistake, costly to her mental and emotional balance.

"No house is more important than a well-rounded personality, and dusting never
taught anyone anything. Those perfectionists whose homes are always sparkling are
usually unhappy women trying to work off a sense of disappointment and failure.

"We all believe in a neat and clean house, but it is second in importance to
husband, children, and fun. If you can't always eat on my kitchen floor or see your
face in the bottom of my pans, still, none of my family has ever expressed a desire
to do so. My children don't have a cross mother or my husband an exhausted wife at
the end of the day."[7]

As for the husband of a wife who remains in the home, his communal tasks should be
those of the heavier and more burdensome type, e.g., removal of snow, tending of
furnace, removal of refuse, handling windows and screens, lawns, etc. It's a
wise wife who will encourage him to help around the kitchen, too.
In this matter, as in so many others, the wife must know her husband. Perhaps his
early training was such that dishwashing and drying was such a burden that the mere
mention of it now will outdo the atom bomb explosion in force and intensity. A
little praise for his feeble efforts at such distasteful tasks will work wonders.
Never find fault if he breaks a few cups or mixes your tea spoons with the soup
spoon. The best way to promote teamwork is to do it together. Never ask a husband
to do housework unless you help, too.

In a home where both husband and wife work, then the division of the housework
ought to be settled upon and faithfully executed (not the husband, but the work).
The woman who complains that her husband never helps with the work or the children
in most cases has only herself to blame. She is usually the fussbug type.
She scolds if hubby splashes water on the floor when he is doing the dishes, or
can't stand to see him wax the floor his way. If you're fussy, you had better quit
your job and stay home or, better still, join the Foreign Legion. If you don't, he
will!

TRUTHFULNESS AND TACT

Truthfulness: Truthfulness is the foundation of all personal excellence and it is

the cornerstone of wedlock, for there it exhibits itself in conduct.

Truthfulness in the dealings between husband and wife and the family is rectitude,
or truth in action, shining through every word and deed. It means reliability and
proves that one can be trusted--that when one says he knows a thing, he does know
it; that when he says he will do something, he does it, no matter what the cost.

No husband or wife is really truthful who minimizes important things or exaggerates

minor things into things of major proportion; who conceals or disguises; who
pretends to be with you but is really against you; who promises things which are
never intended to be done. Such a person is insincere and is an impostor.

Make it a rule of your married life never to attempt justification of the sacrifice
of truth. Truth must be sovereign in your relations with one another and the
family. I think it was Lord Chesterfield who declared that "Truth made the success
of a gentleman," and I might add that it can help make a success of marriage, too.

There is no excuse for telling your husband that the adorable hat you bought
yesterday--you know, the one with the two crossed violets and the trailing ostrich
plume--cost only $5.95, when you actually paid the bargain price of $29.95. The
worst part about lying, aside from the moral evil, is the fact that it is much like
the atom explosion--it has a chain reaction. One must tell so many other lies to
cover up the original one. If you needed the hat--and what woman will ever deny the
awful need of new headgear--there is no necessity for lying about its cost. Tell
the truth and let the chips fall where they will. Your husband will recover, and it
will make it easier for him to tell you about the bargain fishing-rod he picked up
for $19.95. "To Truth," says Richter, "belongs freedom."

Tact: Hand in hand with truth must go tact. Without tact, truth can be cruel; it
can be destructive. And it is important to remember that tact is a talent, or as W.
P. Sargill puts it: "Talent is something, but tact is everything. Talent is
serious, sober, grave and respectable; tact is all that and more too. It is not a
seventh sense, but it is the life of all the five. It is the open eye, the quick
ear, the judging taste, the keen smell, and the lively touch; it is the interpreter
of all riddles, the surmounter of all difficulties, the remover of all obstacles."
Sargill would appear to ignore the added two senses that make seven in all--the two
additional ones being common and horse sense--and believe me, those two are basic
in dealing with any consideration of Tact. It may be true, as Amiel says, "that
kindness is the principle of tact," but good common sense plus a good dash of horse
sense make up the prime requisites of savoir-faire.

Let us go back to that "adorable hat" again. A tactful wife will never bring up
such a topic as the price of a hat, or a dress, or that fur coat, until after she
has served a good meal--one that included the lord and master's favorite dishes
and, above all, until after coffee. A tactful wife will always speak the truth but
she will pick the most effective, the most gentle way to say it. The same is true
of a wise husband. For instance, he may have a pet aversion for purple but when his
wife shows him a little bargain she ran into in Saks' or Eaton's--a purple dress-
the tactless husband will say, "What did you get that horrid color for?"; while a
tactful one would say: "Gee, honey, that is a nice dress, but you know blue or
brown always matches your eyes or seems to frame your hair and set it off better."
If the wife has an ounce of sense she will take the hint. And it is easier to take,
too, when what is said is said so tactfully.

Here are a few hints for tactfulness. A tactful husband or wife will:

Never nag.
Never ask embarrassing questions.
Never contradict or correct in public.
Never appear curious about the other partner's mail or telephone
calls.
Never use the word "mine" where the word "ours" will fit.
Never blame or criticize until after one has first found something
to praise.
Never appear jealous when another is praised.
Never accuse the other of thoughtlessness or inconsideration.
Never speak slightingly of the other's parents or relatives.
Never permit relatives "to outstay their welcome."
Never try to put the other person on the spot.
Never forget the words of Holy Scripture: "The soft answer turneth
away wrath."

If married couples would only practice the same tact that clerks must use in
dealing with their customers, how different their lives would be! A little of that
public relations' routine about "the customer always being right" would pay off in
marriage, too. Ask yourself how long you would last in Macy's or Gimbel's if you
"sounded off" at every silly thing your customers did or said. Then, why say the
catty or cutting thing to those who love you most?

"If I am building a mountain," said Confucius, "and I stop before the last
basketful of earth is placed on the summit, I have failed." That is true also of
marriage. If you have not used every effort and power to achieve self-control, if
you have not tried always to be tactful, the mountain of matrimonial bliss will
remain unfinished. Tact is that last basketful.

NEATNESS AND POLITENESS

Neatness: A few years ago I received a telephone call from a young wife asking that
I make a visit to her home that evening to discuss what appeared to be one of those
distressing marital blow-ups. She was in tears and begged me not to fail to drop in
that evening. After consulting my appointment book I found out that I had other
appointments for that evening, so I decided to run over then and there.

Arriving unexpectedly, I found the young wife in a most hideous get-up. Her hair
was all done up in curlers and rags; she had about an eighth of an inch of some
sort of beauty cream plastered all over her face; she had slacks on and a smock
that an attendant in the Fulton Street Fish Market wouldn't have been found dead
in-and the house! Well, that beggars description.

It was the old story--a whirlwind romance, no preparation for marriage, no thought
as to the mutual responsibilities and duties of marriage, a gradual cooling-off of
love (if it ever really existed), bitter words, and finally the near collapse of
the whole deal.

One glance at the pathetic wife and the condition of her home, and I could see one
of the basic reasons why her husband was acting as he was. He simply could not
stand her personal and domestic untidiness.

Why any woman who before marriage will go to such limits to appear beautiful and
well groomed, and yet after marriage can take her husband's love so much for
granted that she feels he will love her in spite of her appearance, is beyond me.
It is one thing to find a husband but quite another to keep him. Thomas Jefferson
once wrote a letter to Martha Jefferson in which he laid down a rule
that every wife the world over might do well to make her very own. "Some Ladies,"
wrote Jefferson, "think they may, under the privileges of the deshabille, be loose
and negligent of their dress in the morning. But be you, from the moment you rise
till you go to bed, as cleanly and properly dressed as at the hours of dinner or
tea."

Mrs. Dwight Eisenhower goes along with this, too. In a recent article entitled "If
I Were a Bride Today" Mrs. Eisenhower writes:

"A wife does not have to be dolled up in expensive clothes all the time but I think
it is dreadful for a pretty bride to go around in cold cream or curlers or a sloppy
dress. Who ever heard of a secretary wearing a spotted dress to work "because it is
just the office and no one will see but the boss?

"Your husband is the boss--and don't forget it."[8]

I often feel that wives are, as a rule, very poor psychologists. They are usually
as simple as doves when they ought to be wise as serpents. Take, for instance, a
married man who goes to business. Usually, the girls in the office come to work
well dressed (becomingly dressed), and their frequent sorties to the washroom
afford them the opportunity of keeping their hair in place and their face on
straight, to say nothing of lip-sticking and nail polishing, plus the right dab of
perfume behind the ear. All right, that is what hubby comes to believe is an
accepted factor in human relations in office routine.

Now, home he comes for dinner. What he may find there is problematical. It might
happen that his one and only is in the throes of cooking turnip and cabbage, the
aroma of which alone could slay Goliath. Making his way in through the steamy
apartment, he is fortunate if, without radar, he can locate his wife. When he does,
what he beholds is no vision of loveliness--a halo of curlers, a soiled housedress
if not slacks, unstockinged legs, heel-turned mules, plus a tale of all the woes
that befell his spouse and the children from breakfast on. Brother! No wonder he
bolts down his food and has to rush back to the office. It's time to find out
what is wrong with you and/or the house when a husband starts to invent excuses to
remain away from the home fires.

A woman is least ladylike and least attractive:

When she smokes on the street.

When she is seated on a stool or standing at a bar.
When she is noisy in a restaurant.
When she argues in public.
When she scolds or slaps a child in public.
When she applies make-up in public.
When she has her hair in curlers.
When she does battle for advantageous position during a bargain
sale.
When she runs for a bus.
When she is laden down with parcels.
When she studies her neighbors' clothes in church.
When she wears a handkerchief or Kleenex on her hair for a hat in
church.
When she is passing on a choice morsel of gossip.
When she tells a shady story.
When she is tugging at her nylons.
When she wears slacks.

There is no excuse for a wife letting herself get fat and sloppy, for being none
too clean about her person, for allowing her hair to be unkempt, or, in general,
for becoming careless or slipshod about herself or her home.

No wife is so busy that she can't take time out during the day to set her hair
while her husband is at work, or change into a fresh housedress before her one and
only arrives home. You can buy make-up and perfume in the same drugstore his
secretary does. Don't take him for granted. And if you must have cabbage and
turnips cook them early, then air the place out and tidy up the house so that when
your husband does come home he will think you the most beautiful woman in the whole
world and his home his castle and not a stable.

And this works both ways, too. I know wives whose love for their husbands has been
lost because of the personal untidiness, slovenly habits, careless mannerisms, and
vulgar habits of their mates.

Every husband, no matter what type of work he does, ought to wash, even shave, and
change into a good suit for dinner. Believe me, it does something to a person. One
may be poor, but poverty is no excuse for uncleanliness or untidiness. The happiest
couple I ever knew, middle-class people, too, made it a rule to make of Sunday
dinner a cause celebre. They both helped to prepare the dinner, setting the table
as elegantly as they could, using their best silver (even Aunt May's pickle fork).
Then they went upstairs and the wife changed into her one and only evening dress,
long skirt and satin slippers, and the husband donned a tuxedo he had bought at
college. Then they went to the table and ate in the soft candlelight, with softer
dinner music provided by their portable radio. Any wonder they were happy?

My heart aches for the husband who is married to a downright lazy and incompetent
housekeeper. I was invited to dinner with a college friend of mine some years ago.
He had called his wife and said I was coming. Well, first she dictated a list of
things to bring home as long as your arm. When we did arrive at the house, the
husband started picking up papers and clothing at the door. There was a pile of
damp wash on the dining table, and although the wife had six hours' notice of our
coming, she had just begun to prepare the vegetables. Her husband had to set the
table and cook the meat while his wife seated herself meanwhile in a big chair,
anxious to discuss the latest philosophical book she had been absorbed in all
afternoon. It was eight-forty P.M. when that meal began. Once was enough for me! I
fear the woman who can't cook and does. I pity the woman who can cook and won't!

Likewise, my heart aches for the wife who wants so much to elevate the social
manners of a home only to find an uncooperative husband who, in spite of all the
hints in the world, finds it less restricting to spear a piece of bread from across
the table with a fork, who insists on buttering a whole slice of bread on the palm
of his hand, while risking his eyesight by leaving a spoon in his cup. Neat table
manners go hand in hand with personal and domestic neatness. It is unusual that you
find the one without the other.

Make it a cardinal rule in your home to keep the house in that state you would put
it in if your most critical friend were about to visit you. And never serve a meal
to the family that you would be ashamed to serve to your husband's boss. Plain,
simple food, served on a neatly set table, will more than compensate for all the
bother and extra work.

Before quitting the topic it might be wise to warn against overdoing this business
of neatness. It can be overdone, you know. All of us are familiar with that fusspot
type of person who is constantly on the run, emptying ash trays or picking up
threads from the carpet or off the furniture, and slipping newspapers under your
feet so you won't soil the carpet. These are the people who think more of the
tidiness of the house than they do of the comforts of the family. Sir John Ervine
in his "Sophia" made a very understandable comment on this matter "I'm not so fond
of efficiency. Those energetic, neat people who go about the world furiously
tidying things appall me. I like a little dirt about. It hows there has been
activity. That people have been present, that there is life. The neatest places I
know are museums, stuffed with dead things."

I read the following in the "Western Recorder":

"Now and then, one hears complaints that young people are inclined to make a
'ruckus' in the house. Seemingly, young people, unlike some of their seniors, have
never developed aptitudes for acting other than their age.

"From where we stand, an ounce of boy is worth a ton of rugs and upholstery,
whether in the home or in the classroom.... Boys and girls have drifted into
dangerous, so-called recreational centers because they were made to feel they
stirred up too much dust at home.... A blacksmith's shop too well kept is a pretty
good sign there hasn't been much horseshoeing going on."

By all means, avoid extremes. Better a shack warmed by love than a palace chilled
by icy formalities!

Remember that a house only becomes a home when it is created by love, joined with
cleanliness and attractiveness, yet where these do not limit comfort and ease.

Politeness: Politeness is very essential, too, in married life. It ought never to

be dispensed with, for, as Joubert said: "It is one development of virtue." Since
marriage is for life, it is to the mutual interest of each party that neither grow
tired of the other, and the best possible safeguards against such a thing are
kindness and civility.

Politeness is simply the showing by external signs the internal regard we have for
others. It stems from sincerity and exhibits itself in the disposition to
contribute to the welfare and happiness of others and in refraining from anything
that would annoy them. I think it was Dr. Johnson who once remarked: "Sir, a man
has no more right to say an uncivil thing than to act one--no more right to
say a rude thing to another than to knock him down."

Try to keep in mind that you may love your husband or your wife with deep
tenderness and affection, but if you lack politeness you will cause that love to
lose its beauty and luster. "Virtue itself," says Middleton, "offends when coupled
with a forbidding manner."

The basic rule for politeness is being benevolent in small things. Observe this
rule and there will never be any big things to mar your family relations.
GENEROSITY AND LOYALTY

Generosity: Writing on generosity in "The Bee," Goldsmith remarked: "True

generosity is a duty as indispensably necessary as those imposed upon us by law. It
is a rule imposed upon us by reason, which should be the sovereign law of a
rational being." The more one goes over the statement, the more one is inclined to
believe that the author must have had married couples in mind when he wrote it.
Generosity is a duty and it must be the sovereign law in marriage, for without it
the husband or wife or both of them become unbearably selfish. To be selfish is to
be ignoble.

I can think of no quicker way to weaken the wedding knot than by being selfish,
for, as Beecher reminds us, "Thorough selfishness destroys and paralyzes
enjoyment," and to do this at the expense of others' happiness is demonism.

Since the word "generosity" is usually associated with the idea of money it might
be logical to begin by saying that generosity in this regard is quite essential.
The stingy, penny-pinching husband is the cause of no end of uneasiness and
unhappiness in the home. There must of necessity be a happy medium between
stinginess and too much generosity. The husband must understand that his wife is
not a servant or a galley slave, but a partner, and that what is his ought likewise
be his wife's. It is a wise husband who makes it a rule to bring home from time to
time little gifts--surprises in the way of candy, flowers, and other presents to
the wife and family. Sacred Scripture says that "by a man's gifts he makes room
for himself." Think that one over!

Generosity extends to other fields of marital relations too. For instance, His
Holiness Pope Pius XII, speaking to newlyweds on July 10, 1940, urged all married
couples to be generous in pardoning one another's faults and sins. His Holiness
stressed the necessity for a rigorous application in marriage of Our Blessed
Lord's answer to Saint Peter's question as to whether or not a person ought to
pardon another seven times. "I say not to thee, till seven times," said Christ,
"but till seventy times seven times." (Matthew 18:22.) Or, in other words, without
reserve and without limit. The Sovereign Pontiff urged on all married people the
advice of St. Paul--"Bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if
any have a complaint against another. Even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you
also." (Col. 3:13.)

Generosity extends to the social side of married life too. A wife might like
nothing better than to stay home and get caught up with her darning or she might
just prefer to relax by the radio, but a wise wife will put her own personal likes
aside and step out with friend husband for dinner, a show, a bridge game with
friends, or a game of golf. The same holds true for the generous husband. He
ought to think of his wife's desires more than his own. This type of generosity
pays off in so many ways. The happiest couples or families are those who do things
together. Many a wife has found out too late, to her sorrow, that by not being
generous with her time and/or charm, she lost her husband to some blonde who did
take time to be friendly and sociable.

Generosity excludes possessiveness, which, along with jealousy, can cause no end of
unhappiness. Let us focus our attention on these two marriage-wreckers in turn.
First, possessiveness. Possessiveness is an offshoot of selfishness, and although
it is more prevalent in wives, it is not exclusively a wifely fault. Husbands may
be possessive, too, but it usually is with less force. The ruinous part of
possessiveness is that it demands that the other mate be an exclusive piece of
property that may not be shared with friends or even with relatives. Possessiveness
is progressive. It starts usually with making the other party divorce
himself or herself from the old set. It proceeds then to take dominion over the
other mate's thoughts and actions. Possessiveness is fatal to love--fatal because
in the selfish desire to possess completely, the other person is held so tightly
that love is smothered.

It might be well for the possessive person to remember that we get happiness only
out of sharing what we have with others. It was Richter who remarked that "distance
injures love less than nearness." A night out with "the boys" for the husband and a
night out with "the girls" for the wife may prove most beneficial to both.

It's good to remember that you will never get more out of marriage than you put
into it. Be generous in your giving to marriage. It was Pliny the Younger who
wrote: "Generosity, when once set going, knows not how to stop; the more familiar
we become with its lovely form, the more enamoured we become of its charms."

The sharing of self with one's partner and with the children is the hardest kind of
giving, but it is the best kind of giving.

Generosity is an antidote to jealousy--another of those hateful enigmas that stem

from selfishness. We become jealous when the love that we feel is our own
possession is shared with others. It arises too from a fear of losing that love to
another, and when such fears become uncontrolled it becomes a mental illness. La
Rochefoucauld wisely and expertly notes that "there is more self-love than love in
jealousy." That is true.

Should you ever notice the first signs of jealousy rearing its ugly head in your
soul smite it with all your strength. Pray as you never prayed before. Examine your
conscience and see wherein you are failing in your married life. When you arrive at
that stage where you have to worry about your mate two-timing--the fault is yours.
You're slipping. Most likely you will find that you have become careless about your
home, your clothes, your grooming, your charm, or your home manners. You must then
make yourself so attractive, so alluring, so companionable that your mate will find
all others "phony," and distasteful facsimiles.

Never doubt the love and the good intentions of your partner. Jealousy lives and
thrives on doubt. It is a magnifier of trifles. Heed the sage warning of J. C. Hare
in his "Guesses at Truth," in which he says: "Jealousy is said to be the offspring
of love. Yet unless the parent makes haste to strangle the child, the child will
not rest till it has poisoned the parent."

If, after sincere prayer and frequent reception of the sacraments, your jealousies
remain unabated or should they reach an uncontrollable stage, see your doctor.

Should you ever be the innocent victim of a jealous mate, you will find no little
consolation in the midst of your mental agonies by realizing that jealousy is the
cruelest proof of love there is. The jealous person must and does love you greatly,
or he wouldn't care who played up to you. Be patient and understanding. Try your
best to bring the whole matter out in the open. Often when such matters are
discussed openly and freely they lose their force. Jealousy is always worse when it
is disguised or concealed. Suggest that it be made a matter of confession.

There is no cruelty akin to that of walking out on a person who has developed this
meanest and deadliest form of mortal ills. Generosity in such a crisis will pay off
in gratitude when the rough spot has been passed over. Would you leave a wife or
husband who was developing cancer? Indeed, you would not. You would do all in
your power to effect a cure. Jealousy is cancerous, too! Prayer, patience, and
generosity can cure jealousy. Generosity can prevent jealousy!

Loyalty: The handmaid of generosity is loyalty, and loyalty is a keystone in any

marriage. Be certain, however, that the basic loyalty is first to God and to His
laws, for as Malbie Babcock so wisely states: "Loyalty to God alone is fundamental.
Feeling, words, deeds, must be beads strung on the string of duty. Let the world
tell you in a hundred ways what your life is for. Say you ever and only: 'So I come
to do Thy Will, O my God.' Out of that dutiful root grows the beautiful life, the
life radically and radiantly true to God--the only life that can be lived in both
worlds."

Married couples might well ponder the warning that the Archangel Raphael gave to
that young and ardent lover, Tobias. "Hear me," the Angel said, "and I will show
thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner
receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to
give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have no understanding:
over them the devil hath power." (Tobias 6:16, 17.) Thus from the inspired Word of
God a warning--timely and important. Loyalty first, then, to God and His laws.

Next, loyalty to one another. No loyal husband or wife will ever run the other down
in the presence of the children or attempt to get even with the other mate by
speaking slightingly of his or her personal habits or family background to the
children. A loyal husband or wife will refrain from criticizing the other to
friends or relatives. "Keep your family troubles to yourself" is a wonderful
rule to observe. You wouldn't go to a party in a shabby housedress; then why wear
the seamy side of marriage in public, either? Some people love to discuss their
family troubles. They go out of their way to bring such things up. I heard a story
the other day about a priest who met one of his parishioners and said to her:
"Hello, Mrs. Brown! I hear your husband is ill."

"Yes, I'm sorry to say that he is ill, Father."

"Is he critical?" asked the priest.

"Critical!" said Mrs. Brown. "He's worse than critical--he's downright

abusive!"

You see, she couldn't lose an opportunity of getting her family troubles off her
chest. Don't be like that. Domestic silence is the most important part of domestic
science.

Loyalty is paramount when sickness or misfortune strikes one or the other mate.
Nothing is so consoling and fortifying as the knowledge that the one you love can
be counted on to stick with you in thick or thin, no matter how hard the winds of
adversity blow. Such loyalty should extend itself to every branch of married
life. For instance, if your husband has had a violent disagreement with his boss
and he feels low and beaten as he dejectedly relates the whole story to you that
evening, hear him out. If you can see his side of the problem, back him up. Tell
him he was right. On the other hand, should you feel his stand was unjustifiable or
that he was entirely wrong, let him get the whole story off his chest, and
then suggest that you would like to think the whole matter over and that you will
discuss it the next morning. The following day you might try to have your husband
see both sides of the problem and suggest that a certain mode of procedure be
followed that would save face for both your husband and his boss.

Should he have decided that he is going to quit and you know from experience that
nothing can change him, you had better agree that that is what he should do. What
is the use of a man working under conditions that will make him unhappy or
difficult to live with? Once the decision is made, back him up. He will never
forget your loyalty. You have the same right, of course, to expect loyalty when
you have that inevitable disagreement with Mrs. Quelquechose, your next door
neighbor, over sweeping leaves onto your walk.
At no time in married life is loyalty so necessary and imperative as when any
husband or wife has to face the awful truth that the choice of his or her mate has
been unwise if not downright foolish. God forbid that any such calamity befall you,
but if it should your one consolation will be found in prayer and in the
frequentation of the sacraments. At such a time, you must recall that the sacrament
of matrimony which you received is an abiding one and that in it you are assured
enough grace to see you through to the very end. The crosses and sacrifices that
such a union will inflict can, if rightly accepted, be a great means of personal
sanctification. When the true, evil character of such a mate is made apparent,
your sense of duty and loyalty must rise to the occasion. Humble prayer will be
found most efficacious when joined with good example and patience in the task of
reforming what is deformed in the other's character and temper. They may easily
rise higher in such a heart and lift the level of all goodness and forbearance. The
stronger must support the weaker member of the union. In a word, a Christian sense
of loyalty will lighten the burden that was your own free choice.

Nothing that I know of will do more to impress the husband and wife with the
abiding need for loyalty to one another all during life than the wise custom of
reciting together on the wedding anniversary date each month the words: "I take
thee for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health,
until death do us part." Renew this allegiance, this fealty, each month of your
life and your loyalty will grow and blossom with peace and love.

With that final suggestion, we come to the close of our consideration of the iron
and brass shoes which every married couple ought to don before setting out on the
highway of life together. Only the utterly reckless would go barefoot over a road
that has been found so mountainous, craggy, and precipitous by so many other
travelers.

No one will ever convince me that Moses was not speaking prophetically to all
married couples until the end of time when he warned Aser about the need for having
shoes of iron and brass. You see, Cana of Galilee is right in the middle of what
was once Aser's territory.[9]

ENDNOTES

1. "Husband of the Month of May," John K. Lagemann, "The

Reader's Digest." Copyright, August, 1946.

2. "How to Keep Your Husband," St. Anthony Messenger, June,

1946.

3. Your Life. October, 1947.

4. "Home Remedies for Marital Ills," "Your Life," July, 1947.

5. Many of the homes nowadays seem to be on 3 shifts--father is

on the night shift, mother is on the day shift, and the children
shift for themselves.--"Highways of Happiness," Central Culvert
Corp'n.

6. Here is an excellent book for brides: "Your First Hundred Meals"

by Mary Scott Welch. Published by Chas. Scribner's Sons, N. Y. C.
($2.75.)

7. "The Marriage Mirage," Marion Magee, "Today's Woman,"

December, 1947.
8. "Today's Woman," June, 1948 (by Mamie Doud Eisenhower as
told to Llewellyn Miller).

9. Jerome: Peregr. S. Paulae.

Chapter Nine: THE GREAT SIN IN MARRIAGE

I read recently of a man who attempted to make a jump from the top of his high barn
by using an ordinary umbrella for a parachute. As you can well imagine, the
umbrella collapsed under his weight and the poor unfortunate chutist fell to the
ground, severely injured. He was rushed to a local hospital and later detained for
psychiatric treatment.

Any man or woman who enters matrimony with any other end in view save that ordained
by God acts more stupidly and more foolishly than an umbrella parachutist. The
manufacturer of umbrellas makes his product for the primary purpose of shielding
the purchaser from rain. He may foresee, however, such secondary uses as a shield
from the sun or as a cane for support. No rational umbrella manufacturer would
claim that his product could be used safely as a parachute. When used for its
primary or secondary ends, an umbrella can be a most useful thing. When, on the
other hand, an umbrella is used for an end never dreamed of by its maker, it may be
a medium of destruction.

The same thing is true of marriage. The primary end of matrimony is the procreation
and education of children, and its secondary ends are mutual assistance and comfort
of the parties, together with allaying of concupiscence. Anyone who makes use of
marriage for any other ends is headed for disaster. Therein lies the secret of the
vast majority of marriage breakups today.

Examine carefully the word matrimony. It comes from two Latin words, matris munus,
meaning the "office of mother," and it implies that the man and woman are united
principally that the woman, if possible, may have the privilege of lawful
motherhood. For anyone to enter matrimony with any other intention is to act
fraudulently.

Is it not thought-provoking that the first command God ever gave to human beings
was addressed to a man and his wife, phrased simply in these words: "Increase and
multiply, and fill the earth." And never once in all the ages that followed has
that command ever been modified or changed.

God commanded other things in the Old Testament that were ordered modified,
changed, and even abrogated when His Divine Son became Man. Take, for instance, the
ancient sacrifices of the Old Law. The whole Book of Leviticus treats of the matter
and form of all the sacrifices that were to be offered to God. It was evident that
these sacrifices were to terminate when God's Son was sacrificed on the Cross.

Four hundred years before Christ came, the prophet Malachias, speaking for God,
told of the passing of the old sacrificial rite in favor of the new: "The table of
the Lord is contemptible.... I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts:
and I will not receive the gift of your hand.... For from the rising of sun even to
the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is
sacrifice and there is offered to my name a clean oblation." (The Sacrifice of the
Mass.)

St. Paul revealed under inspiration the change from the old to the new. In Hebrews,
chapter 10, we read these words:
Wherefore, when He cometh into the world He saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou
wouldst not: but a body thou hast fitted to Me.

Holocausts for sin did not please thee.

Then said I: Behold I come to do thy will, O God: He taketh away the first, that He
may establish that which followeth. In the which will, we are sanctified by the
oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once.

Let us take another example of how a law of the Old Testament was changed by the
Messias when He came. Moses, in chapter 24 of Exodus, promulgated God's law
relating to justice. Therein we read how if a man caused fatal injury to another he
was to be punished in like manner: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

In the New Law under Christ all this was to be changed.

Hear His words as recorded in St. Matthew, chapter 5.

"You have heard that it hath been said: 'An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth.'

"But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him also the other."

From the several examples cited, it will be apparent that it was Christ's policy to
make known any changes that were to be made in the Old Testament laws. In fact,
such changes were so numerous that the New Testament is frequently referred to as
the New Law. But nowhere do we read that Christ rescinded or abrogated the primal
command issued to the first man and his wife "to increase and multiply and fill the
earth." If any change was to be made Christ would have said so at Cana in Galilee
or on the other numerous occasions when He was questioned concerning marriage. The
primary end of the first marriage in the Garden of Eden was the procreation of
children. That primary end of marriage still remains the same.

The early descendants of our First Parents realized this to be so. Note these noble
words of Tobias in his prayer to God:

"And now, Lord, thou knowest that not for fleshly lust, do I take my sister to
wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which Thy name may be blessed for ever
and ever." (Tob. 8:9.) Indeed, had not the Angel Raphael--a messenger from God to
man--stated quite clearly to Tobias this essential condition when he said: "Thou
shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved, rather for love of
children than for lust: that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing
in children."

To thou who are inclined to the belief that God's command to our First Parents "to
increase and multiply and fill the earth" was directed to the peoples of the Old
Testament only, I say, read the great teacher of the New Law, St. Paul, and heed
his words. Writing to Timothy, his beloved disciple, St. Paul said:

"And Adam was not seduced: but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression.

"Yet she shall be saved through child-bearing: if she continue in faith and love
and sanctification with sobriety." (I Tim. 2:14, 15.)

Again, in that same epistle, St. Paul wrote:

"I will, therefore, that the younger should marry, bear children, be mistresses of
families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil."

Commenting on this latter text, St. Augustine said: "The Apostle himself is
therefore witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says,
'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?' he immediately adds:
'To beget children, to be mothers of families.'"

Woe to the man or woman who enters marriage moved rather from lust than from love
of children. Woe to the married man or woman who refuses to see a blessing in
children. Such make a mockery of the name "matrimony" (office of mother). The
cardinal rule must ever remain that those who are not willing to become parents
ought not to marry.

To enter the holy state of matrimony with a purpose to defeat its primary end is to
violate it. Those who pervert it inevitably degrade themselves. They descend from
the plane of a spiritual and intellectual relation into a union beneath their
nature as a whole. Such surrender themselves to a part which is the lesser and
which, out of its proper adjustment to the noblest, not only becomes the lower, but
ceases to be human at all and lapses into the purely bestial. When the true end of
marriage is ever kept in view, the whole nature of the union is elevated.

In those marriages where parenthood is avoided and where children that are
procreated are accidental, unwanted, and intruders, the innocent ones become
victims of a cruel fate. According to the principles of heredity, so far as they
are known at present, it would appear that such unwanted children may be
permanently affected. It is known that the mental state of parents modifies the
condition of children physically, mentally, and morally. The repugnance to
offspring on the part of the parents makes of the child a sort of orphan. It is
cheated of natural affection and such a defect may show up later in its
development.

Birth prevention is the curse of our generation. Unless and until men and women see
in it the evil God does, it may wreak its own punishment on mankind. To prove that
contraception is a grievous sin, one has only to consult the pages of God's Word
and read Genesis, chapter 38, verses 8, 9, and 10. Therein you will see that
Onan (from whom the sin derives its name) "spilled his seed upon the ground, lest
children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord slew him,
because he did a detestable thing."

If contraception was a sin in Onan's day, it still is. God does not change. If it
was grievously evil then, it is grievously evil now. And it is worthy of note that
the word detestable is used only seven times in the whole of Holy Scripture.

When I wrote that contraception is the curse of our generation, I did not mean to
imply that it is peculiar to our generation alone. Other peoples and other ages
have embraced it, and it destroyed them. Here is what Polybius wrote circa .c.:

"In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children . . . and a failure of
productiveness followed . . . by our men's becoming perverted to a passion for show
and money and the pleasure of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at
all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear children that were born, or at most
one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing
them up in extravagant luxury."

Doesn't that read like something Will Durant might have penned in 1948? Mentioning
Will Durant brings to mind one of the most striking confessions I have ever read.
It was made by Durant before a group of bankers--the New York State League of
Savings and Loan Associations--at their fifty-third annual convention held
at Lake Placid, June 12-14, 1940. Mr. Durant spoke on "The Crisis in American
Civilization" and readily admitted that, while he had once been a great admirer of
Margaret Sanger and an apostle of birth prevention, he suddenly began to realize
that he had participated in the creation of a Frankenstein's monster that now
menaces our civilization. Let me quote Mr. Durant verbatim, and I urge you to read
every word of the following:

"I remember, in the first private school that I taught, having among my pupils two
little boys whose name was Sanger. They were the children of Margaret Sanger, whom
at that time I knew as a modest nurse in a hospital in New York. During that
woman's brief maturity she has changed the whole biological face of the western
world.... She taught the human beings of this country to make parentage voluntary,
discriminating, and perhaps dangerously sparse.

"As I contemplate the movement, I must congratulate it on its victory. It has won
almost completely, and perhaps today that movement stands in the midst of its
victory, wondering if it was good. It is a terrible thing--isn't it?--to give your
life to an enterprise of human liberation and then, having won all the goals
that you set out for, to stand in doubt as to whether this was what you sought. For
today the people of America who could bring up fine children, whose homes are
equipped to give education and civilization and health, keep those homes more and
more empty. And the homes that are not equipped either biologically or socially
to give civilization and health and education are the homes that are making the
future citizens of America.

"Sometimes, when I look at America today, I wonder: Are all our victories defeats?
And perhaps some of our defeats might be victories.

"I, too, worked for this birth control movement--preached it, shouted it almost
from the housetops shamelessly; and today I see America breeding from the bottom
and dying from the top because we won so thoroughly. I am not sure that it was
good. We have solved one problem and we have created another that is immeasurably
profounder.

"I know what happened to Athens. Infanticide was raised to such a point that nobody
raised children in Athens except the lowest of the low and the most barbaric of the
immigrants. I know what happened to Rome. I know how Caesar almost scratched his
head bald thinking how he could induce the Roman women to have children. He decreed
that they should have no diamonds if they had no children--that they should have no
jewels of one kind if they had none of the other. I know that Augustus passed law
after law in the first decade of our Christian era almost two thousand years ago,
trying to stop this current of family limitation. I know too that all that
legislation failed. I know that Rome at last had to till her soil with barbarians
and with slaves; and that finally, the rapidly breeding immigrant Germans overran
Italy. It was the end of the Western Roman Empire.

"Civilization has to kill itself before it can be conquered. . . . You will be

conquered from within, not from without."

Would that every Planned Parenthood worker could read and study this apologia. They
are blind leaders of the blind. They know not what they do. Such groups and their
sponsors may even in our day wreak such havoc on our civilization that their names
may go down in the pages of history linked closely with those of Herod--the
slaughterer of the Innocents and with Benedict Arnold, the traitor to his country.

It is certainly not my intention to go into an exhaustive study of this birth

prevention question. I intend rather to state briefly the teaching of God and His
Church on the matter and then cite certain authorities to uphold the reasonableness
of that teaching.
As far as the Law of God on the morality of birth prevention is concerned we have
already seen that the first man who practiced it was struck dead because "he did a
detestable thing." We have seen too that the Angel Raphael pointed out to Tobias
that marriage was for the procreation of children and not for lust. We saw St.
Paul's inspired words to Timothy on the ends of marriage, and there remains but to
add the apostle's salutary counsel: "Let marriage be held in honor with all, and
let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the immoral." (Heb. 13:4.)
Could anything be more clear?

For the benefit of those who salve their conscience on this matter of birth
prevention by saying that it is nowhere specifically named as immoral in Holy
Scripture, I may say that it is true that the words "birth control" or "birth
prevention" do not appear in the Bible. Little wonder such words do not appear in
Holy Scripture, since they were only concocted as a propaganda catch phrase some
forty or fifty years ago. The point is that Onan was slain because he first
practiced birth prevention and thus the mind of God was indicated on the subject.
General principles are given quite clearly in the Bible but not every concrete
application of those principles. All will admit that it would be gravely sinful for
a person to allow himself deliberately to become an opium addict; yet there is no
text in Holy Scripture that says, "Thou shalt not become a dope fiend."

Indeed, were there no Holy Scripture references to the matter of birth prevention
at all, the sacred traditions of God's infallible Church would be as binding as the
Sacred Word itself. Let us examine some of these traditional teachings.

Origen, writing against the pagan Celsus in the third century, says: "At least the
more our people obey Christian doctrine, the more they love purity, abstaining from
even lawful sex-pleasures that they may the more purely worship God. Christians
marry as do others, and they have children; but they do not stifle their offering.
They are in bodies of flesh, but they do not live according to the
flesh."

In the next century, the fourth, we find St. Augustine writing: "Relations with
one's wife, when conception is deliberately prevented, are as unlawful and impure
as the conduct of Onan who was slain."

St. Thomas Aquinas, writing eight centuries later, says: "Next to murder, by which
an actually existent human being is destroyed, we rank this sin by which the
generation of a human being is prevented."

Again, St. Thomas says that a man who asks his wife to cooperate in the marriage
act where the intention is to prevent the natural result of it treats her as a
harlot. Here are his exact words: "A husband seeks from his wife harlot pleasures
when he asks from her only what he might ask from a harlot."

Such testimony from the earliest days of the Church must of necessity confuse those
jokers who would have modern Christians believe that the Church's present-day stand
is an innovation. Read this portion of Pope Pius XI's great Encyclical letter
"Casti Connubii," and see for yourself how constant the Church's teaching on this
matter has been. Every word is important. Read it carefully.

"And now, Venerable Brethren, We shall explain in detail the evils

opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony.

"First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call
the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which, they say, is to be carefully
avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian laws
permit in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.
Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and
wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they
cannot on the one hand remain continent nor, on the other, can they have children
because of the difficulties, whether on the part of the mother or on the part
of family circumstances.

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically
against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore,
the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children,
those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin
against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition,

some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine
regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense
of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral
ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the
nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of
Divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of
matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its
natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature,
and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

No matter what you think of the Catholic Church, you have to admire her
steadfastness in preaching the Gospel to a rebellious world. She never varies her
doctrines to suit the tastes of the age. Little wonder that Professor Draper,
historian and rationalist, a severe but oftentimes wondering critic of the Catholic
Church, could say of that Church in a discussion of "The Age of Faith" in Europe:
"From little better than a slave she raised each man's wife to be his equal, and
forbidding him to have more than one, met her recompense for those noble deeds in a
friend at every fireside. Discountenancing all impure love, she put around that
fireside the children of one mother and made that mother little less than sacred in
their eyes."

To recapitulate, then, the moral law is simply this: "Any use whatsoever of
matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its
natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature
and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

Note that I have stated that this is the moral law--the law of God and of nature.
Since the Catholic Church did not make the law, she can never change it. The
Church's task on this earth is to declare to men the right interpretation of the
natural moral law imposed by God. And since Christ said to His Church, "He who
hears you, hears me," it is really Christ who still teaches men through His Church.

Remember this, too, when a priest in the confessional is unable to absolve you
unless and until you promise to desist from such offenses: he is morally bound to
act as he does. See the spot he is in from the words of the Pope himself: "We
admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions, and others who have the care of
souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation
of souls, not to allow the Faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most
grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false
opinions, in no way conniving at them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which
God forbid, lead the Faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least
confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that
he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme judge, for the betrayal of his
sacred trust."

So much for the moral side of the question. Now let us turn our attention to the
physical damages done by the violation of this same natural moral law. Here, too, I
am going to confine myself to the barest minimum of medical and lay authorities.

In Monsignor Edward Robert Moore's book, "The Case Against Birth Control,"[1] this
eminent writer quotes one Frederick J. McCann, M.D., F.R.C.S., writing in "Natural
Life," March, 1931, as follows: "All known methods of contraception are harmful to
the female; they only differ in being more or less so."

Dr. M. A. van Bouwdigk-Bastiaansi, a veteran gynecologist of Amsterdam, declares:

"I point to the possibility that the large increase in cervical cancer may be due
to the wide use of contraceptives. It is admitted that cancer may be caused by
long-continued irritation, produced by a foreign body in contact with the cervix or
through continual vaginal flushings using chemical elements. I state that
inflammation of the neck of the womb results not infrequently from the use of
preventives. That such inflammation may in turn lead to cancer is mentioned in
nearly all scientific publications dealing with the subject."

Dr. James T. Nix, in his work, "The Unborn," writes:

"In all probability thirty per cent or more of persons who go to the operating
table or are otherwise incapacitated by long illness resulting from pelvic
infection, are there as a result of malicious interference with conception or
impregnation. I would like to suggest also that one of the principal causes of
sterility in the female comes from this same cause. If I were asked a percentage
of this, I would state about sixty per cent."[2]

That birth prevention and the avoidance of parenthood is bad neurologically,

psychologically, and psychiatrically is also indicated. Sir Robert Armstrong-James,
M.D., F.R.C.P.S., a London specialist in mental diseases, said in an address to the
People's League of Health: "Birth control leads to lunacy in women. If we are
to have birth control on a large scale we will have to add to our lunatic asylums
for the mothers. The absence of children leads to neurasthenia in married women and
that leads to insanity. I know from my practice that that is a fact."

This may have some bearing on the terrific increase in mental cases in our nation.
National statistics show that at least one in every twenty persons will some day be
a patient in an asylum. America has today some six hundred thousand in insane
institutions and an estimated six million mentally ill outside.

This bears out what Dr. Marynia F. Farnham, an outstanding New York psychiatrist
and co-author of the current best-seller, "Modern Woman: The Lost Sex," stated in
the September, 1947, issue of "Coronet," in an enlightening article entitled "The
Tragic Failure of America's Women."

Dr. Farnham says that a clear majority of all adult American women are engulfed
today in emotional difficulties.

"They come to me complaining about their 'nerves.' These fall into two classes: the
feminine careerists, women who have invaded the 'big league' of male competition;
and the women who have no careers--but wish they did. Both these groups usually
have no more than one child (if any), although physically capable of bearing
more. When I ask them why, they give all sorts of reasons, they blame their
husbands, their figures, their incomes, their landlords, their health--anything, in
fact, but themselves."

Then the author makes this fine observation that is worth

contemplating:

"There is one type of woman rarely seen in a psychiatrist's office. That is the
woman who is glad she is a woman. Although not a minority in our female population,
she honestly enjoys homemaking, and more than anything in the world wants to raise
a family of healthy, normal youngsters. During twenty years of listening to
distressed patients, I have never met her in my office--because she doesn't need
help."

The following quotation from this same article shows what a clever diagnostician
Dr. Farnham must be:

"In rearing the child, this normal, feminine mother is not bothered by the guilt
feelings that afflict the rejecting mother. For example, since she has no guilt
phobia about germs, she casually sets her baby down on the butcher's shelf while
ordering meat. If Junior refuses spinach, she says: 'Okay, I don't like spinach
either. Try these peas.' And thus the child eats normally.

"Furthermore, if a mother feels that Junior is taking advantage of her good nature,
she has no qualms about wielding the switch because she knows she is acting
objectively, instead of venting secret hostility toward the child.

"Such a mother finds child-rearing satisfying because she honestly likes children.
They seem interesting, strange and unaccountably captivating. The children know
that Mother likes them. They also know that she likes herself and likes Father. And
they know in turn that Father likes Mother and likes them. That combination is
unbeatable for building a sound America![3]

The social effects of birth control are terrible too. Dr. Friedrich Burgdorfer, in
the April 10, 1931, issue of the "Deutsche Allgerneine Zeitung," scores the two-
child system and gives these revealing statistics:

"A population in which the two-child system prevails, and in which consequently
there are but two children on the average surviving to each marriage, is condemned
to extinction.... A thousand people among whom the two-child system rules will
shrink in the first 30 years to 621. In 60 years there will be but 386; in ninety
years 240; and in 120 years 194; in 150 years 92, and in another 150 years there
will be but eight to replace the original thousand. Practically speaking,
therefore, the two-child system leads to extinction of a population in three
hundred years."

Little wonder that Theodore Roosevelt could say that "the severest of all
condemnations should be visited on willful sterility. The first essential in any
civilization is that the man and the woman shall be the father and mother of
children so that the race shall increase and not decrease."

And now some practical applications--"But the doctor says I will die if I have
another baby!" How familiar that old chestnut is! And Pope Pius gives such a
question its only answer. He gives an answer, too, to the question: "But how can we
have more children when we have barely enough money to support our present family?"
Hear the Pope on the first question. "Holy Mother Church very well understands and
clearly appreciates all that is said regarding the health of the mother and the
danger to her life; and who would not grieve to think of these things; who is not
filled with the greatest admiration when he sees a mother risking her life
with heroic fortitude, that she may preserve the life of the offspring which she
has conceived? God alone, all bountiful and all merciful as He is, can reward her
for the fulfillment of the office allotted to her by nature, and will assuredly
repay her in a measure full to overflowing (Luke 6:38)."

And to the second he replies:

"We are deeply touched by the sufferings of those parents who, in extreme want,
experience great difficulty in rearing their children. However, they should take
care lest the calamitous state of their material affairs should be the occasion for
a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting
aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no
possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace
of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity
unspotted."

In other words, where the problem of the health of the wife comes up, or where
economic conditions are such that more children cannot be raised at that time, then
two courses are open: first, both parties must live as brother and sister until
such crises are past or, after consultation with the confessor, avail themselves of
the act during the so-called "safe period" during the month. Regarding the use of
such "safe periods," His Holiness says:

"Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use
their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of
time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as
well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as
mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which
husband and wife are not forbidden to intend so long as they are subordinated to
the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved."

The common name now used for such periods is rhythm, and the system is technical
enough to demand a consultation with your family physician to work out the date
schedule.

On this matter of "rhythm," Rev. Hugh Calkins, O.S.M., makes the following
important comment: "The Church neither approves nor disapproves of the rhythm
method as a system to be followed. The Church merely tolerates the use of the
method. Toleration indicates reluctant permission. And the Church only tolerates
this method when three definite factors are present. First, there is sufficient
serious reason for a given couple to use this method, sufficiently serious enough
to justify sidestepping the first purpose of marriage; second, both husband and
wife are truly willing to follow the method--neither one can force the other to
adopt this system; third, the use of this method must not cause mortal sins against
chastity nor become a proximate occasion of such sins. The breakdown of any one of
these three factors makes the use of rhythm sinful. So the correct attitude is
this: The use of rhythm is sometimes no sin, sometimes venial sin, sometimes mortal
sin. So please stop saying: 'Oh, it's okay, the Church approves it.'"[4]

Getting back to the first suggestion, to say that such a thing as living as brother
and sister is impossible is to admit a terrible lack of faith and will power.
Indeed, it can be done. It was done during the war years when husbands and wives
were separated, and it can be done again. The Little Flower's mother and father
denied themselves by mutual agreement the marriage act for the first year of their
marriage as a sacrifice to God that He might bless them with many children. He did.
He sent them nine in all, and He sent them a Saint for heaven and earth--Saint
Therese.

To those who want children, but practice contraception solely to achieve a degree
of economic security beforehand, we say that such a procedure is dangerous. When
these persons are ready for children, they may not be able to have any.

Dr. Edward Reynolds of Boston says that "many cases are seen in which prudential
prevention of pregnancy in early married life has set up consequences of congestion
which persist after pregnancy is desired."[5]

Here is a word of consolation from the Sovereign Pontiff Pope Pius XI himself,
addressed to the mate who wants children and is refused this honor and privilege by
a faithless husband or wife. Where birth control is forced on such a one, the Pope
says:

"Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties permits the sin
rather than commits it, when for a really grave cause a perversion of the right
order is reluctantly tolerated. In such a case, there is no sin provided that,
mindful of the law of charity, one does not neglect to seek to dissuade[6] and to
deter the partner from sin." Note well, that where contraceptives are made use of
in the marital act, this teaching does not apply.

Whatever you do, do not confuse birth control with abortion. Abortion involves the
cutting short of a life already begun and hidden in the mother's womb. Birth
control or contraception, on the other hand, is the obstruction of the union of the
male and female cells.

The Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying foetal life, and the Church
decrees excommunication against all who seek to procure abortion, if their action
produces the effect. The abortion here meant is that which is strictly so-called--
namely that performed before the child is viable (before the twenty-eighth week).
Such an act is murder pure and simple.

And who can find words strong enough to denounce doctors who perform or advise the
cutting or tying off of tubes, husbands who encourage or consent to it, and the
wives who submit to it. These are usually the same persons who would not dare to
turn back the hands on an expensive watch lest they harm its delicate machinery.
Ah, but nature usually punishes in her own way for such a crime as tube-tying or
cutting. Indeed, nature is tenacious of her rights; she resists grandly and when
forced to yield to violence, she repays the offender with chastisement which is no
less sure because it is sometimes long delayed. Nature is no fool. Her revenge is
quite terrible. Shattered bodies, minds, homes, and families bear this out.
Scripture is most explicit. Four times in God's Word we read: "For I am the Lord
thy God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children unto the third
and fourth generation." That holds for mothers, too.

My best advice to married couples is to leave off matching their wits with God.
There is plenty of authority for saying that if married couples would live properly
they would not be overburdened with offspring. That much is true of the lower
animals, for not one of them, when left to the course of nature, produces offspring
too rapidly.

The supreme folly of humans lies in trying to separate duty from pleasure when they
belong together. In marriage these two belong together and may not be separated.

I plead especially with those couples who have barely crossed the threshold of
wedlock to resist this sin of contraception with all their strength. Happiness in
marriage may depend on just such a resolve. If contraception is practiced in the
early years of marriage, it will breed disgust for the marriage act and the partner
thereto, and I can say from my experience with broken marriages that contraception
is one of the prime causes leading to separations and divorces.

Dr. Henry A. Bowman, who organized the marriage preparation courses at Stephens
College, Columbia, Missouri, and whose staff deals with some eighteen hundred
enrollments a year, said in an interview with Gretta Palmer[7] that "marriages
based on a decision to put off motherhood until later years are highly vulnerable:
fear of parenthood does not make a good companion for a husband and
wife trying to get along together. Approximately three fourths of all childless
marriages end in divorce--ten times the rate of those where there are children.
"Rather than marry, it is better to remain engaged until a plan can be worked out
that permits a baby to be a blessing, not a catastrophe."

Supreme Court Justice Lewis of Brooklyn some years ago observed that among one
day's undefended divorce cases--sixty-four in all--there was but one child for
every two couples and that the average duration of such marriages was less than
three years. Justice Lewis said: "If our women had more children there would be
more happiness and fewer divorces. Absence of children promotes discord."

I listened to a radio play recently wherein one of the actors was made to say that
"he had two children--a boy and a girl." Then he added, "That is par, you know." I
could not help wondering that if one or two children had always been par the world
would have suffered great losses. Benjamin Franklin was the eighth among ten
children; William T. Sherman was the sixth among eleven; Horace Greeley was one of
seven; Longfellow was one of eight; Washington Irving one of eleven; Beethoven one
of eleven; Saint Mother Cabrini one of thirteen; St. Therese of the Child Jesus,
one of nine; General Pershing one of eleven; and General D. D. Eisenhower one
of seven.

There is nothing so sad as a deliberately planned one- or two-child family.

Commenting on the fact that once upon a time the family made character just through
its size, Will Durant said: "When you had eight or nine brothers and sisters, you
learned civilization by attrition. You had decency knocked into you. I had a
brother whose name was Frank. He had two years' start on me--and powerful
muscles.... When I look back on my education, I realize that Frank was the best
teacher I ever had. He had no textbooks, no theories, he had never heard of
Teachers' College. But he just knocked me down. And to be knocked down at the right
time is worth the best college education. But who is going to knock you down now,
when you are the only son in the family? Your sister can't do it, if you have one.
Your father must not do it--the latest books are against it. How are you going to
be civilized?"

Isn't that a gem?

There can be no doubt that Bacon was right when he said: "Children sweeten labors
and they mitigate the remembrance of death." Your fortune will be your children and
your children may be your comfort and joy in this life and your salvation in the
next. That numerous children are a comfort is so evident as to need little proof.
Go to any home for the poor and infirm, and you will find that the great
preponderance of those unfortunate and lonely inmates, if married at all, brought
but one or two children into the world and now find themselves alone--lonely, and
dependent on the state for food, clothing, and shelter.

To faithful married men and women who, through no fault of their own, are
childless, I suggest the adoption of children. Such great charity is repaid a
hundredfold even in this life. Begin, however, to adopt children within the first
five years of marriage. They who adopt homeless little ones stand nearest to God.

God never intended any love, not even that between husband and wife, to forever
feed upon itself but rather that it should seek and find ever wider and greener
pastures. The mission of children in lawful marriage is to purify and sweeten the
stream of life by bringing to it a new supply of happiness, so unsullied that it
seems fresh from the eternal fountain and purifies as it blends with it.

Let us return to Cana, for its lessons are forever. There is every reason to
suppose that Our Blessed Lord was present for the customary bridal procession which
made up such an important part of the ancient Jewish ceremonial at all weddings. If
He was present, then He no doubt saw the bride approach wearing a chaplet of golden
wheat, indicative of fertility, and rose with everyone else to salute the
procession, or join it. It was almost a religious duty to break into praise of the
beauty, the modesty, or the virtues of the bride, and repeat to the rhythm of
clapping hands:[8] "May you be the mother of thousands of millions!"

How striking such a consideration really is. To the first man and his wife, God the
Father, the Creator, had said, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth," and, at
Cana in Galilee, the Son, the Redeemer made Man, may have addressed similar words
to another bride saying: "May you be the mother of thousands of millions!" That
ever was and ever will remain God's plan for married couples and His earnest wish
for their happiness.

Take particular care that you build no false conscience in this matter of unlawful
family limitation. I think it was Father Ginder who remarked that "a freshly
painted park bench bearing the sign 'Wet Paint' will not suddenly become dry if the
sign be removed." That holds true of contraception too. Just saying it is no sin in
your particular case will not alter the facts. It is always gravely sinful and no
cause may ever excuse. It is going to be pretty tough for birth controllers to
attempt to excuse themselves on the score of economic necessity when they stand
before a Judge who was born in abject poverty in a stable, worked as a laborer, and
who could say in full manhood that "the foxes had holes and the birds of the air
nests, but the Son of Man had nowhere to lay His head."

Cana gives the answer to this problem too. Aser's portion which contained this
memorable village was so rough that Moses was inspired to warn that shoes of iron
and brass would be imperative. Yet there were compensations. The rugged hills
abounded in iron ore. There is your answer. If God sends you children, He will send
you the grace and means to support them. This law of compensation runs through all
God's distribution of duties and gifts.

It is more than mere coincidence, too, that Christ should have chosen a marriage in
Cana at which to perform His first miracle. You see, Cana of Galilee was situated
in the terrain given to Aser, and the word "Aser" itself means "to make or to
declare happy." Odd as it may seem, that name was bestowed by a mother who was
thrilled at the birth of a son, by a mother who hoped, she said, that through
child-bearing, women would ever call her blessed. (Gen.
30:13.)

ENDNOTES

1. New York: The Century Co., 1931.

2. Quoted in "Birth Prevention Quizzes," by Rev. Fathers Rumble

and Carty. "Radio Replies Press," St. Paul 1, Minn.

3. Copyright, 1947, by Coronet, Inc., Coronet Bldg., Chicago 1, Ill.

(Coronet, September, 1947.)

4. "Rhythm--The Unhappy Compromise," Rev. Hugh Calkins,

O.S.M., "Integrity," June, 1948, Vol. z, No. 9.

5. "Case Against Birth Control," by Monsignor Edward Robert

Moore. New York: The Century Co., 1931.

6. Because of the danger of developing laxity in conscience in this

matter it is advisable to consult your confessor as to the manner of
formulating the warning and the frequency of its issuance.
7. "Marriage Control; A New Answer to Divorce," by Gretta Palmer.
"Your Life," August, 1947.

8. It was specially related of King Agrippa that he had done this,

and a curious Haggadah sets forth that when Jezebel was eaten by
dogs her hands and feet were spared (Kings 410) because, amidst
all her wickedness, she had been wont to greet every marriage-
procession, by clapping hands.

Chapter Ten: MARRIAGE WRECKERS

The Reverend John A. O'Brien, in his scholarly work "The Faith of Millions,"[1]
gives a fine pen picture of his visit to the old home of Napoleon and Josephine,
situated a few miles outside of Paris. He describes how the furniture in Napoleon's
room was, on the occasion of his visit, exactly as it was when the First Consul
mapped his brilliant campaigns which led to his great victories at Marengo,
Austerlitz, Jena, and the Pyramids--victories which changed the map of Europe. It
was in Malmaison, a retreat of sylvan loveliness, that Napoleon and Josephine
passed their happiest days.

The writer then mentions visiting Josephine's room, a study in contrasts. There he
saw the incidentals that minister to the needs of womanhood and that echo the notes
of love and domesticity. There, among many things, stood one dominating item in the
center of the room--a harp, a harp played by Josephine in the days of her happiness
but now standing mute and silent, its strings broken asunder.

The broken strings on that harp were a jarring reminder to Father O'Brien of a
broken home, a family torn asunder, a sacred vow trampled underfoot, a domestic
travesty and failure that will forever mar the escutcheon of the great Bonaparte.
The man who successfully conquered Europe, and built new empires, failed at
marriage. Napoleon divorced Josephine and the broken harp in Malmaison will ever
stand as a mute monument to love's failure and matrimonial disaster. "The broken
harp," wrote Father O'Brien, "sounds with superlative irony a warning to the world
today against the tragedy of a broken home, for which no other victories over men
or nations can ever compensate. It reminds mankind that the building of a home,
where peace and love abound, is man's supreme achievement, and the source of his
deepest and most abiding happiness. If a man fail in business, politics, or other
enterprises, but has kept intact the empire of his own home, with the myriad ties
of sympathy and understanding unbroken, his failure is overshadowed by a victory
which soothes the sting of uncounted defeats and brings the richest returns in love
and happiness."

Have men and women in any age ever repudiated marriage vows with such recklessness
and in such terrifying numbers as in our day? Statistics point out that there is
now one divorce for every three marriages. And who can estimate the numbers of
husbands and wives who avoid the divorce courts, but whose marriages have failed
just the same and who have decided to call it quits and separate? Indeed, their
number is legion--and this latter group is made up in no small way of Catholics who
are kept from the divorce mill simply through fear of the discipline of the Church.

How inconsistent such people are! They are the very ones who would be loudest in
their condemnation of, say, a soldier who, in the midst of battle, would throw down
his arms and desert. They are the ones who would hurl the worst blasts at a pitcher
in a world series who, because he found himself in a tough spot, would throw
down his glove and walk off the mound. Yet the one who walks out on a marriage when
things get tough is the lowest form of deserter and the poorest sport on this
earth.
It is not my intention to give here an exhaustive treatise on the immorality of
divorce or cite in detail its multiple evil effects upon husband and wife and upon
their children. I intend rather to confine myself simply to presenting the inspired
words of God Himself, the words of His Divine Son in condemnation of divorce
and arbitrary separation from bed and board. The whole argument for the
indissolubility of marriage is based upon the premise that God is the creator of
man and as such has the right to command what He wills and forbid what He wills. It
is based, too, on the fact that Christ is the Son of God--that He and the Eternal
Father are one--and that therefore whatever the Redeemer of the human race
commanded must be obeyed and whatever He forbade must be avoided. But let the
Master speak for Himself. Here are His very words: "Do you not believe that I am in
the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of
myself." (John 14:10.) Again, "He that loveth me not keepeth not my words. And
the word which you have heard is not mine; but the Father's who sent me." (John
14:24.) Did not Christ proclaim his sweeping authority to command men when He said:
"All power is given to me in heaven and in earth." (Matt. 28:18), and did not His
eternal Father oblige all to hear Christ, when He said: "This is My Beloved Son in
whom I am well pleased, Hear ye Him." (Matt. 17:5.) To hear Christ, then, is our
duty; to obey Him is our obligation! We must therefore believe and do all that our
Saviour commanded.

If you ask where does one find all the things that must be believed and the things
that must be done that salvation may be attained, we say that these things are
found in (1) the inspired word of God, Holy Scripture; (2) in the traditions handed
down to us from the time of the Apostles; and (3) in the doctrines believed and
taught by the infallible Church which Christ established on this earth.

With all this in mind, let us first see what the Holy Bible says regarding the
indissolubility of marriage. When the Creator instituted marriage, He inspired Adam
to proclaim to all his descendants that "a man shall leave his father and mother
and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh"--a command that
is clearly vitiated by divorce. Marriage from the very beginning, therefore, was to
be considered as a most special form of union.

This primal idea of the indissolubility of marriage persisted throughout the whole
of the Old Testament save for a relatively short period when Moses, because of the
hardness of men's hearts, permitted divorce. Some writers hold that the fact that
Moses was constrained to permit divorces only goes to prove that the idea of
the indissolubility of marriage except by death was so universally held that some
desperate men tried to circumvent the law by taking the life of their innocent
mates and thus freeing themselves from the bond. It may have been that Moses
permitted divorce as the lesser of two great evils. Be this as it may, the point is
that Christ, when He came down on this earth, spoke plainly and authoritatively on
this matter of divorce. He forbade it in no uncertain terms.

One day some Pharisees came to Him with this leading question:

"Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? But He answering, saith to them: What
did Moses command you?

Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her
away.

To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you
that precept.

But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his
wife. And they two shall be in one flesh....

What therefore God had joined together, let no man put asunder."
(Mark 10:2-9.)

When the tempting Pharisees had left, His disciples went back to the question again
and this time the Master was very explicit. And He said to them:

"Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against
her. And if the wife shall put away her husband and be married to another, she
committeth adultery." (Mark 10:11-
12.)

There is no mincing of words here. It was straight from the shoulder; and to give
emphasis to this teaching, the words are repeated in the Gospels of St. Matthew and
St. Luke. Curiously enough, divorce adherents lay claim to some authority for their
stand, from the recorded words of Our Lord in St. Matthew's Gospel. Let us look at
them. Contrasting His mission with that of Moses, Christ said:

"And it hath been said: Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill
of divorce. But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for
the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marryher
that is put away committeth adultery." (Matt. 5:31-32.)

The clause "excepting for the cause of fornication" in no wise is to be understood

as an "out" for those who wish to remarry. It simply means that by reason of this
terrible sin against conjugal fidelity, the offending mate may be sent away,
effecting what is generally known as "separation from bed and board," but this
separation does not destroy the marriage bond nor render remarriage permissible.

That the Apostles understood Our Lord to have indicated remarriage for separated
husbands and wives to have been forbidden is proved from the cryptic reply they
made when Christ explained His doctrine on the subject. "If the case of a man with
his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." (Matt. 19:10.) That is, if marital
infidelity is a reason for separation, but afterwards neither mate can remarry,
then it is better not to separate at all.

St. Paul had no delusions on this subject, either. He also spoke clearly and
authoritatively; note his words:

"But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth" (note that!) "that
the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried
or be reconciled to her husband."

That would seem to explain very nicely the "excepting" clause in

St. Matthew.

"And let not the husband put away his wife," adds St. Paul (I Cor.
7:10, 11).

In a different way, but just as uncompromisingly, the Apostle sets down this
teaching on marriage in another Epistle:

"For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law.
But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore,
whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress if she be with another
man; but if her husband be dead, she is delivered from the law of her husband; so
that she is not an adulteress, if she be with another man." (Rom. 7:2, 3.)
Well, there you have the words of the Son of God Himself on this matter of divorce
as well as the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul. And Paul was not inclined to
view lightly any attempt to change the Gospel as he preached it. He it was who
said: "If any one preach to you a Gospel, besides that which you have received,
let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:9), and anathema means cursed--excluded from the
Kingdom of God.

So much for Holy Scripture. Let us turn now to the traditional doctrine on this
matter handed down to us from the earliest days of the Church.

St. Ignatius, in the second century, said: "Speak unto my sisters that they love
the Lord and be content, in flesh and spirit with their husbands." (Ad. Polycarp.
No. 5.)

St. Basil, in the third century, wrote: "Though the husband be harsh and savage in
temper, the wife must bear with him and on no pretext seek to sever the union."
(Hexaemer. Hom. VIII.)

St. Augustine, in the fifth century, wrote:

"By conjugal fidelity it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse

outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that
children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious
atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect, that the marriage bond should not
be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another
even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the
fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained. (De
Genes. ad. Lit. IX.)

Again, St. Augustine writes, "And they who are well instructed in the Catholic
faith know that God is the author of marriage, and that as it is from Him, so
divorce is from the devil." (In Johan. Evang. VIII:[1], and IX:[2].)

Thus you have a rather striking array of traditional proof as to the constant
teaching of the Church regarding the indissolubility of marriage, one that comes
down to us unchanged in spite of the assaults upon it by the loss of the sturdy
faith of ages past.

The solemn declaration of the Council of Trent is final. "If anyone should say that
on account of heresy, or the hardships Of cohabitation or a deliberate abuse of one
party by the other, the marriage may be loosened, let him be anathema."

And again: "If anyone should say that the Church errs in having taught or in
teaching that according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of
marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of adultery of either party, or that
neither party, even though one be innocent, having given no cause for the sin of
adultery, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other and that
he commits adultery who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, and
likewise that she commits adultery who puts away her husband and marries another:
let him be anathema."

The Third Council of Baltimore decreed the pain of excommunication, reserved to the
Bishop, to be incurred ipso facto by those attempting marriage after obtaining a
civil divorce.

Anyone who would be so reckless as to attempt or even consider divorce in the face
of its prohibition by the Son of God, by Holy Scripture, by tradition and by the
Church, is foolhardy indeed.
Such a one would be well advised to arrange with his or her favorite funeral
director to be sure and place a copy of the divorce decree, along with the names of
the lawyers and the judge, in the casket when this mortal sojourn is finished. Even
then it is going to be pretty tough trying to convince Christ, the Eternal Judge,
who so vehemently forbade divorce, that their case had special angles that He
hadn't foreseen.

The unqualified statement of Our Lord's that remarriage after divorce or separation
is adultery might not be so terribly restricting had the Holy Ghost only avoided
inspiring St. Paul to write: "Fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb.
13:4), and again: "Do not err: neither fornicators nor adulterers shall possess the
Kingdom of God." (I Cor. 6:9.) There are teeth, you see, in all God's laws.

In spite of the increasing divorce rate in the world today it must be said, in all
fairness, that among Catholics the percentage is comparatively low. This group has
not accepted the prevalent belief that "marriage itself constitutes grounds for
divorce." No matter what the numbers of Catholics who defy God's law and His
Church's mandates are, if there be but one case, that is one too many. What is
beginning, however, to be relatively prevalent among Catholics is separation from
bed and board--that is, husbands and wives deciding, when things go wrong, to
separate and go their own individual ways. The question arises, then, may a
Catholic who is married and for some reason or other tires of his union, may such a
one separate from his lawful mate? He may, but only under certain well defined
conditions.

The Canon Law of the Church regarding separation from bed and board states this
general principle: "The married couple is obliged to live together in conjugal
relations unless a just cause frees them from the obligation." (Canon 1128.) Then
the law states the following: "For reasons of adultery of one party, the other has
the right to solve even for all times, the community life, though the marriage bond
remains, unless the other consented to the crime, or was the cause of it, or
expressly or tacitly condoned it, or finally, committed the same crime himself or
herself." (Canon 1130.)

Other reasons for separation are listed in the Canon Law as follows:

If one party joins a non-Catholic sect; or educates the offspring as non-Catholics;

or leads a criminal and despicable life; or creates great bodily or spiritual
danger to the other party; or if, through cruelties, he or she makes living
together too difficult, and other such reasons, which are to the innocent party so
many legal causes to leave the guilty party by the authority of the Ordinary
(Bishop) of the diocese or also by private authority, if the guilt of the other
party is certain beyond doubt, and there is danger in delay.

In all these cases the common life must be restored when the reason for the
separation ceases; if, however, the separation was pronounced by the Bishop either
for a time or indefinitely, the innocent party is not obliged to return except when
the time specified has elapsed or the Bishop gives orders to return. (Canon 1131.)

Note well that where separation is indicated the bond still remains and there may
never be a remarriage while one or the other mate lives. Note too that one may not
separate without consent of the Bishop, unless delay is dangerous or excepting
where adultery is proved beyond doubt. Father De Smet says that confessors ought
to refuse absolution to those who do not act according to this latter condition.

Rt. Rev. Louis J. Nau, S.T.D., in his "Manual of the Marriage Laws of the Code of
Canon Law," states that in every case, by reason of the scandal, permission to go
to the civil courts, whether for a decree of separation or for divorce, must be
obtained from the Bishop of the diocese.
In most of the dioceses in the United States, to sue for a separation in civil
courts, even if only the civil effects are intended, is a reserved sin, unless the
Bishop has granted the proper permission.

Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical letter "Casti Connubii," points out that separation
from bed and board eliminates the need for legal divorce. Read his words.

"This separation, which the Church herself permits and expressly mentions in her
Canon Law in those canons which deal with the separation of the parties as to
marital relationship and cohabitation, removes all the alleged inconveniences and
dangers. It will be for the sacred law and to some extent also the civil law,
insofar as civil matters are affected, to lay down the ground, the conditions, the
method and precautions to be taken in a case of this kind in order to safeguard the
education of the children and the well-being of the family, and to remove all those
evils which threaten the married persons, the children and the State."

"But this is a free country," I hear you say, "I can do what I like." Can you? You
have freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, but try to use that free
speech by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see what happens to you. You are
free, it is true, but that freedom is curtailed where the common good demands it.

The common good demands that when a man and woman marry they remain married. Should
one have been so unfortunate as to have been stuck with a lemon, he or she is
stuck, and that's that. Remember the vow: "For better, for worse, for richer, for
poorer, in sickness and in health, until death!" That takes in every emergency
imaginable!

That the common good demands indissolubility in marriage, that it demands a husband
and wife to stay together, is so generally admitted and so universally proved as to
need no underscoring by this writer. For instance, Judge McNaff of Fort Wayne
declared: "A great majority of the delinquent boys and girls who appear in
juvenile court come from homes that have been broken principally by separation,
desertion or divorce. Therein lie some of the greatest tragedies of life."

The effect on the children is the same whether the parents are divorced or simply
agree to separate. A two-year study of New York criminal records reveals that
forty-seven per cent of those convicted of major crimes came from disrupted
families. I have before me on my desk as I write a clipping from a Chicago
newspaper. It is the account of a mysterious brutal killing of a seven-year-old boy
by a twelve-year-old youngster. The alleged murderer's mother said she and the
child's father had been separated since he was seven months old, and that she had
worked as a domestic to rear him. "He wasn't brought up, he was dragged up," she
said.

Perhaps this and the millions of other examples that might be cited will at least
indicate that the common good demands husband and wife to stay together for the
sake of the family and the nation. As Dr. H. S. Pomeroy notes: "For reproduction,
men need not mate. For the care of the offspring, they must. And for
the proper care of the moral and intellectual development of the child they must
mate permanently. This is the judgment of the civilized world."

And what does Holy Scripture say about separating? It commands: "Keep then your
spirit and despise not the wife of thy youth . . . yet she is thy partner and the
wife of thy covenant." (Mal. 2:14, 15.) St. Paul says: ". . . The Lord commandeth
that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain
unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." (I Cor. 7:10, 11.)
St. Paul in that same chapter cried out: "Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be
loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife." Finally he proclaimed the
reason for this doctrine when he said: "But to them that are married, not I, but
the Lord commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband." Could any doctrine
be more clearly stated or more forcefully promulgated?

Better remember this rule: Before you decide to separate from your lawful spouse,
take the case to your pastor. Whatever you do, don't try to make such a terrible
decision all by yourself. Someone once said that "he who is his own lawyer has a
fool for a client." That holds true for the person who would settle his marital
difficulties by separation without leave or license from the Church.

"Marriage is the beginning and the end of all culture," wrote Goethe; "it civilizes
the savage and gives the most cultured the best opportunity of displaying their
delicacy. It must be indissoluble, for it brings so much happiness that any
exceptional unhappinesses it may bring with it are, when weighed in the scales
against the happiness, of no account. There can never be any adequate reason for
separation. The scale of joy and sorrow in mortal affairs is so high that the sum
which two married people owe one another is incalculable. It is an infinite
debt,which can only be discharged throughout eternity."

There remains now but to examine the causes of marital failures. Every effect must
have a cause. The most eminent and outstanding court judges, directors of bureaus
of domestic relations, and psychologists point to the following list as basic
causes of divorces and separations.

(1) Meddling and obnoxious relatives

(2) Deliberate childlessness and birth prevention
(3) Boredom, frustration, and disappointment
(4) Hasty marriages
(5) Difference of religious beliefs and lack of religion
(6) Jealousy
(7) Emotional, physical, intellectual, and vocational immaturity
(8) Nagging
(9) The triangle
(10) Sex ignorance
(11) Low mentality
(12) Drink

Practically all the foregoing items have been treated elsewhere in this work. For
instance, we laid down certain basic rules to follow where a married couple have to
move in with in-laws, only to find them meddling and obnoxious. We did likewise in
regard to the problem of having in-laws move in with you. There is little we can
add except to advise adoption of the rule laid down centuries ago by St. Benedict
for the early monks of his order. It runs something like this: "If a monk comes to
visit from another monastery, receive him in all charity and permit him to abide as
long as he wishes. However, should it be found that he is contumacious, he
shall be advised to leave. Should he refuse to go then have two stout monks, in the
name of God, explain the matter to him."

We have discussed the dangers to marital bliss resulting from birth prevention; the
folly of hasty marriages--those entered into without adequate remote and/or
proximate preparation; the high percentage of marriage failures resulting from
mixed marriages; and we have considered the destructive effects of jealousy,
nagging, and sex ignorance, along with the requisite maturities demanded in every
right-ordered union.

There remain but three items in the foregoing list for cursory treatment; namely,
the evidence of low mentality in those who unjustly seek release from their marital
responsibilities, the triangle, and finally the problem of drink as a cause of
marriage failure.

Dr. William J. Hickson, famous Chicago psychiatrist, when asked by Rollin Lynde
Hartt what he considered the chief cause of divorce, unhesitatingly
replied,"Feeble-mindedness, with or without dementia praecox." The doctor stated
that low mentality was prevalent in a great percentage of the cases that came to
his attention (and his psychopathic laboratory Committed two thousand cases a
year). He intimated that if all divorce petitioners were given an intelligence
test, a great majority would fall into the twelve-, eleven-, or ten-year mental age
class.

Such tests, he felt, would reveal dementia praecox too, which he described as an
insanity of the emotions which in one form produces fits of uncontrollable rage,
and, in another, it declares itself in the abominations such men and women dodge
calling by their right names.[2]

Mr. Ralph Hall Ferris, one-time director of the Bureau of Domestic Relations in
Detroit, after handling some twenty thousand marriage cases, concluded as follows:

"Most of them are subnormal, borderline, semi-criminal types. Most of them are
registered in our hospitals also, and with various social agencies, where they have
applied for help. They are physically inadequate, economically inadequate, socially
inadequate. Having failed in all other relations, they fail in domestic relations.
[3]

Such opinions are somewhat strengthened by the suicide rate, which is very high for
divorced people. Dr. Frederick L. Hoffman,[4] an insurance statistician, has
furnished this comparative table for New York City showing the suicide ratio for
married and divorced people of both sexes:

Male Female
Married 34.1 15.0
Divorced 113.5 61.2

Now let us turn our attention to the problem of intimate attachments outside
marriage.

The "triangle" is a perennial cause of divorces or separations and is too obviously

immoral to need much discussion here. It generally results from boredom,
frustration, or disappointment on the part of one or both mates. The new attachment
for someone other than the legitimate spouse is usually an outgrowth of an
attempt to find sympathy.

More often than not, the person seeking a divorce or separation has fallen for a
third party. The reasons given in the courts are usually trumped-up reasons,
designed to provide adequate grounds for freedom. Everywhere, divorces are obtained
for alleged causes wholly different from the real causes. In a court it is
generally adultery, cruelty, or desertion, but in rectory parlors the excuses run
something like the following:

She is jealous and suspicious.

He doesn't understand me.
She treats me like a child.
He won't give me money enough to run the house.
She can't cook.
He resents my friends.
She refuses to have a family.
He cares more about his mother than me.
She never loved me.
He finds fault with everything I do.
The house is filthy.
Sex relations are repulsive. And so on and on and on.

The lawyers call some or even all of these "incompatibility," and in most cases Mr.
Dooley's explanation of the term is applicable. The famous American philosopher
puts it this way: "Ye can always git a divorce f'r what Hogan calls incompatibility
iv temper. That's when husband and wife ar-re both cross at the same time. Ye'd
call it a tiff in ye'er family, Hinnessy."[5] Dr. Jules Guyot sagely observed more
than one hundred years ago that a person who divorces with the hope of finding
happiness with another mate "is like a wretched fiddler who demands another violin,
hoping that a new instrument will yield the melody he knows not how to play."

The person who attempts divorce or separation from a lawful spouse because he has
met someone who, it is thought, will bring greater happiness, is a great fool
indeed. Study well these passages from Holy Scripture and see if it is worth it.

"Every man that passeth beyond his own bed, despising his own soul, and saying: Who
seeth me? . . . This man shall be punished...." (Ecclus. 23 :[25], 30.)

". . . because they have committed adultery with the wives of their friends . . . I
am the judge and the witness saith the Lord." (Jer.
29:23.)

"This man shall be punished in the streets of the city, and he shall be chased as a
colt: and where he suspect not, he shall be taken."
(Ecclus. 23:30.)

"Take heed to keep thyself, my son, from all fornication: and beside thy wife never
endure to know a crime." (Tob. 4:13-)

To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Avoid beginnings. Be careful and be suspicious

of anyone who is attempting to make a play for your affections, or who praises your
beauty or your general behavior, for, as Saint Francis de Sales says: "He that
praises the ware which he cannot buy, is strongly tempted to steal it; and if to
your praise, such a one adds dispraise of your mate, the injury is heinous since
the bargain is half made with the second merchant, when one is disgusted with the
first."

Should you ever become involved in a triangle, stop and think the whole matter over
and ask yourself if any earthly pleasure is worth risking the loss of eternal
happiness. Get to the sacraments and pray as you never prayed before. It is
important, too, to make a clean break once and for all from such an attachment and
resolve not to see that person again. If need be, move to a new locality or even a
new city. The alternative is too awful to contemplate, for the Holy Ghost says:
"The eye of the adulterer observeth darkness . . . cursed be his portion on the
earth.... Let mercy forget him; may worms be his sweetness. Let him be remembered
no more, but be broken in pieces as an unfruitful tree." (Job 24:15, 18, 20.)

No matter how difficult you find married life, remember the power of the grace of
the sacrament you received on your wedding day. Matrimony is an abiding sacrament
and the grace abides until death of one of the partners. It is wiser to take your
counsels from the Holy Scriptures, from the Church and the writings of the Saints
and the Popes, rather than from some shyster lawyer. In times of great stress
recall the words of St. Basil, written in the third century: "Though the husband be
harsh and savage in temper, the wife must bear with him and on no pretext seek to
sever the union. Does he strike? Still he is your husband. Is he drunken? Yet he is
united to thee by nature. Is he harsh and hard to please? Still he is a member of
your body and the most honorable of thy members." Such a set-up might be pretty
tough, but you can suffer great things so long as you have the grace of God to
support you. The sacrament of matrimony guarantees you such grace.

Let us consider, now, the problem of alcoholism and marriage. Overindulgence of

intoxicating beverages is high on the list of marriage wreckers. Too few realize
what a disastrous wrecker alcohol can be. According to recent surveys, there are
upward of a million chronic alcoholics in America alone, and there are more
than four million excessive drinkers. This nation alone spent $8,700,000,000 on
whiskey, beer, and wine in the year 1946--that is an average of eighty-nine dollars
for every man and woman over eighteen years of age. Aside from the material cost of
alcoholism to our nation, the physical, psychological, and moral damage is
inestimable.

Alcohol can cause great physical damage or impairment. From sixteen to twenty
ounces of alcohol, fully absorbed, can kill a man of average size, and lesser
quantities can be seriously harmful. What many fail to realize is that alcohol is
an irritant, a habit-forming depressant narcotic (or anesthetic) drug. Contrary to
the common belief, it is not a stimulant. Its apparent stimulating
effects are due to its suppression of inhibitions. Dr. Emil Kraepelin of Stuttgart
says: "The effects of alcohol are due chiefly, if not solely, to its toxic action
upon the brain and spinal cord and the central nervous system of man. Alcohol is a
narcotic, as are ether and chloroform, acting on the brain and other parts of the
central nervous system."

The physical damage of alcohol is outdone by the evil psychological damage.

Drunkenness, according to the great psychiatrists, is a temporary psychosis, and
this bears out what Seneca said thousands of years ago "Drunkenness is nothing but
an insanity purposely assumed."

Recent tests point up the fact that alcohol lessens reasoning power. Two ounces of
whiskey was found to impair judgment over twenty per cent. Half a pint decreased
reasoning power by sixty-seven per cent.

And what does Holy Scripture say on the matter? Here are some quotations from the
Holy Bible:

"Woe to you that rise up early in the morning to follow drunkenness, and to drink
till the evening, to be inflamed with wine." (Isai. 5:11.)

"A drunken woman is a great wrath: and her reproach and shame shall not be hid."
(Ecclus. 26:11.)

"Fornication and wine and drunkenness take away the understanding." (Osee. 4: 11.)

". . . for wine hath destroyed very many." (Ecclus. 31:30)

"Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor drunkards shall possess the
Kingdom of God." (I Cor. 6:9, 10.)

And what can alcoholism do to marriage? Hear the words of Superior Court Judge John
A. Sbarbavor of Chicago:[6]

"Seventy-eight per cent of the divorce cases I have heard resulted from
alcoholism." Another judge, Judge Elmer J. Schnackenberg,[7] Chicago Circuit Court,
stated recently that "the failure of marriage is the major cause of divorce, and
liquor the underlying cause in over fifty per cent of marriage failures."
The mere fact that liquor has been such a wrecker of happiness in marriage for so
many other couples ought to point up its awful consequences, thus moving the wise
married man or woman to abstain completely. Whatever you do, don't kid yourself
along with the belief that "to drink in moderation" is perfectly safe. We might
parody two well-known lines from Macbeth:

"Another, and another, and another

Creeps in each little glass from day to day."

"What is moderation in drinking?" asks Dr. Richardson. "I have asked that question
of many people. A few cocktails, a few whiskey-and-sodas, a half pint of wine (the
devil in solution)? I find that six ounces of whiskey taken in moderation does this
to a man--it makes his heart beat eighteen thousand times a day beyond what it
ought to do, and it makes that unfortunate heart raise what would be equivalent to
nineteen extra tons weight one foot from the earth. The worst part of moderate
drinking is its indefinability."[8]

Here are a few hints that may help. The wise husband and wife will not drink liquor
at all. If you must drink, do it at home. Women ought never to drink at a bar. Know
your saturation point and stop well before you reach it. Never drink if you feel
you need it. Never drink alone. Never nag an alcoholic. Encourage such a person to
approach the sacraments frequently. Have such a one join Alcoholics Anonymous.
Heavy drinkers will find it easier to stop altogether than to attempt to moderate
their drinking. Dr. Samuel Johnson remarked once: "I can abstain, but I cannot
drink moderately." Above all, avoid persons and places associated with drinking,
once you have resolved to quit.

The mention of women drinking in saloons recalls to mind an editorial which

appeared December 1, 1947, in the New York Journal American. Here are a few
excerpts from that editorial. It is important, since four out of every six
alcoholics are women.

"Public drinking by women is bad morally and it is in excessively bad taste, and it
lowers them in the opinion of all who behold them and particularly in their own
self-respect.

"It is no accident that so many women who frequent public drinking places become
involved in violent and sordid crimes, for when a woman holds herself so cheaply
her conduct sets the example and constitutes both incitation and invitation for
disrespect by others.

"Moreover, when women who drink publicly are mothers, they not only cheapen and
endanger themselves, but by neglecting their homes and disregarding their duties
there they deprive their children of the natural companionship and guardianship
which are the sacred trusts of motherhood, and lose both the confidence and the
faith of their children.

"Probably the greatest single contributing factor to juvenile delinquency is the

mother who drinks habitually and promiscuously in public saloons, and it is surely
the lowest and most unsavory estate to which motherhood can sink--and the nation's
accusing and tragic rate of delinquency among boys and girls bears challenging
witness to this fact.

There should be a persuasive and an insistent moral appeal to American women, and
especially to mothers, to refrain from lending themselves to the personal indignity
of public drinking, but above all to desist from a form of conduct which is
loathesome to those who depend upon them most and love them most.
Should you be one of those unfortunate people who married a heavy drinker with the
secret hope of reforming such a one, you were foolish indeed. But don't walk out on
your marriage. Do your best to accomplish what you set out to do, pray hard, and
God will surely ease your path. If, on the other hand, your mate did not drink
until after the marriage, then find out the cause. Often a person drinks as an
escape from some unpleasant situation. Check up and see if perhaps your nagging,
lack of affection, lack of sociability, extravagance, untidiness of person or
domicile or plain boredom might be the cause. Last, when you find the cause do all
in your power to remove it. Wives of such unfortunate husbands must, above all,
avoid the martyr complex. Often the wife must share the blame for her husband's
intemperance simply because she was not firm enough at the beginning of the married
life. A wife's firmness is a lot more effective at the outset of marriage because
that is the time her husband loves her most and would sacrifice anything rather
than lose her.

Married couples who realize that no reason will ever justify dissolving of the
marriage bond have a better chance of being forbearing with the weaknesses of their
partners; such forbearance will move them to attempt every means of curing the
failing member of the partnership. Continuance of the married life can work
miracles. It was Lucretius who wrote:

Yet when, at length, rude huts they first devised,

And fires and garments; and in union sweet
Man wedded woman, the pure joy indulged
The rough barbarians softened. The warm hearth
Their frames so melted they no more could bear,
As erst, the uncovered skies; the nuptial bed
Broke their wild vigor, and the fond caress
Of prattling children from the bosom chased
Their stern ferocious manners.

With the foregoing reflections fresh in mind, let us return to the marriage in Cana
of Galilee. That particular wedding blessed by the presence of the Messias Himself,
if it followed common Jewish custom and prescribed ritual, must have included a
special prayer for unfailing fidelity and a significant ceremony indicative of both
the perfect unity and indissolubility essential in every marriage.

The prayer was offered by the Friend of the Bridegroom and it took this form:

"Lord God, King of the universe, thou who hast set a place in Thy Paradise for this
sweet fruit, this rose of the dales, so that no stranger may ever hold domain o'er
this sealed fountain--wherefore it is that this fair form of love hath never proven
false to her plighted faith. Blessed be thou forever, O Lord."[9]

Following this, a long white napkin was placed over the heads of the bride and
groom, beneath which they clasped hands and then the groom slipped a ring on the
finger of the bride in token of their indissoluble union.

If Our Blessed Lord heard that prayer in Cana of Galilee, and if He beheld the
bride and groom seated with hands clasped beneath the single white napkin, He must
have been reminded of how closely that wedding followed the pattern of the first
marriage in the Garden of Eden. The words He had heard Adam pronounce in the
morning of creation must have flashed before His eternal mind with all the depth of
their original pathos: "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall
cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh." Holy Scripture is silent
on this and so many other touching details, but this much we know for certain, that
Christ went out from Cana of Galilee and by His prayers, His works, His sufferings,
and His death on the Cross, amassed for all married couples who would receive the
sacrament of matrimony until the end of time, grace enough to stay together and
fulfill the duties of their state in life.

It was Christ Himself who raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament so grace
might be made available to all those disposed to receive it. He was fully aware of
the weakness of human nature and the force of Satan's temptations, and that is why
He instituted the sacrament of matrimony.

Only a few days before He went to Cana, had He himself not been subjected to
Satan's vicious attacks? Had not Satan offered Him, too, the whole world if He
would only abandon His vocation? Christ understood, better than any man who ever
lived, the fickleness of human nature-how one day men want to make you king and the
next cry out for your crucifixion. He knew what it was to be betrayed--to be kissed
even by a traitor. He knew what it was to be tempted to seek release from trouble
and sorrow. Did He not cry out in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Father if Thou wilt,
remove this chalice from me?" but, also, did He not quickly add, "But not My will
that these be done"? Temptation is one thing, yielding is another.

No matter how poorly you prepared yourself for marriage, no matter how unwise your
choice of a mate, no matter how crushing your disappointment and disillusionment
with marriage, don't be a quitter. Christ will never understand if you do. He hung
on His cross for three long hours, nailed hand and foot, to merit enough grace for
you to carry your cross. When the soldiers, in cruel mockery of their dying
Saviour, cried out: "Save thy own self. Come down from the Cross," did He come
down? Then don't come down from yours.

Christ changed water into wine at Cana in Galilee at the merest suggestion from His
Blessed Mother. When the wine of love runs short in your marriage, turn to Our Lady
for help. At her prayer, her Divine Son will change tears into the wine of love
again. Whatever you do, stay together. In marriage, as in Cana, often the best wine
is kept for the last.

ENDNOTES

1. "Our Sunday Visitor," (Huntington, Ind., 1938).

2. "Habit of Getting Divorces," Rollin Lynde Hartt, "World's Work,"

58; 403-9, August, 1924.

3. Ibid.

4. "For Better, Not for Worse," Dr. Walter A. Maier. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1936.

5. "Mr. Dooley Speaks." New York R. H. Russell, 1902.

6. Clipsheet, September 9, 1946.

7. Quoted in "Some Notes on the Alcohol Problem," by Deets Pickett.

Published by the Board of Temperance, 100 Maryland Ave., NE.,
Washington, D.C.

8. "Manners Maketh Man," Anonymous. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

9. "Halechoth gedoloth," 51 b. Quoted in "The Christ--The Son of

God," p. 143, op. cit.
Chapter Eleven: THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF PARENTS

A young man called at the rectory quite a while ago seeking vocational guidance. He
had just been discharged from the army and was in a quandary as to what he should
do. I advised him to seek an interview with the vocational guidance director at the
local high school and submit to the latest aptitude tests. A short time later he
reported that the tests indicated that he might do well in drafting or commercial
art. He chose the latter and had already made application for entrance to an art
school, where he looked forward to a four-year course. When I asked why he had
rejected drafting he replied, "That is a tough, tedious course. Anyway, I could
never see myself taking the responsibility for planning bridges or skyscrapers.
That's not for me."

Two more months passed, and the same young man again called to see me. This time,
he had in tow a pretty, misty-eyed maiden. Very nonchalantly he said he wanted to
make arrangements for marriage. A little questioning brought out these facts. They
had met at a U.S.O. dance in the city some four months earlier. He had
never met her family, and she knew little or nothing of his background. Neither of
them had ever read a book on marriage and obviously knew nothing about child
psychology.

Here was a typical case of a young man who accepted as quite normal and logical the
fact that he must train for four long years to learn commercial art, but who had
never thought of giving one day, one week, one month, or one year to training for
another career, infinitely more technical and important--parenthood. He who shied
away from the responsibility of building a bridge or skyscraper was ready rashly to
rush into marriage and parenthood without giving it a second thought.

I imagine that that sort of fallacious thinking and acting will go on until our
educators wake up to the fact that an obligatory four-year course in domestic
science and domestic relations would serve students in high schools and colleges
better than some musty course in Chaucer's English, or, as Mr. Dooley would say,
"Th' Relations iv Ice to th' Greek Idee iv God."

Marriage is a career--a highly specialized career--and as such, demands adequate

training and preparation. Just pause for a moment and ask yourself if there is any
career on the face of this earth that you could embrace that does not call for
special training? Could you teach a high-school class without normal school or
teachers' college training? Could you practice medicine, dentistry, law, without
long years of study and sacrifice? Could you be a successful mortician, chemist,
pharmacist, musician, radio entertainer, opera singer, radio operator, electrician,
or plumber, without training? And yet, men and women marry, and in so doing, assume
responsibility for one of the biggest and most important tasks in the world--and
this they do with little or no thought of preparing themselves for their work.

The sacrament of matrimony confers grace on its recipients, but there is no mention
of any miraculous infusion of knowledge. The rearing of children is not something
that comes naturally. Nor is it instinctive. Instinct alone can be a dangerous and
deceptive guide. I heard once of a man whose job it was to assist a circus balloon
in its ascension. His particular work consisted in holding on to one of the many
guide ropes while the balloon eased its way up. On one particular occasion this
man's bulldog followed him to work. Seeing the master take hold of one of the
ropes, the dog did likewise and, doing what instinct directed, hung on and was
carried aloft only to fall from a great height to its death.

The office of a mother or father is one that demands training and skill. With the
wealth of printed material in books and magazines today, it is inexcusable for a
parent to be ignorant of "the know-how" of raising children and thus preparing them
to face problems of living normally, happy and holy in a topsy-turvy world.
"We are struck," say the authors of the book entitled "What Is Wrong with
Marriage," "with an immense pessimism. It is not over the institution of marriage.
It is merely despair over the way in which the sins of the fathers are visited upon
the children, and the children growing up, inevitably repeat the process. Again and
again, we see the misery of maturity driving men and women to teach their children
exactly those things which will perpetuate the misery when the children themselves
grow up.... Our pessimism is not, of course, that the circle cannot be broken, but
only that it is so hard to make men and women see this in the face of hoary
tradition. They are so much more interested in their own troubles than in the
troubles their children may some day have. They are not interested in vicarious
atonement. They cannot see that as parents they can do more to put an end to the
things that breed misery for all who have to follow the way of love from the cradle
to the grave. They cannot see that they are the gods upon whose knees rests the
married happiness in the next generation--and the next and the next and the
next."[1]

Ignorance is no excuse before the law, nor should it be an excuse in the matter of
rearing children. There are right and wrong ways, there are good and bad ways of
bringing up the family. One must be progressive enough to make use of new ways and
methods, in so far as they produce the desired results. Many a child has gone
through life with a set of neuroses that have handicapped it far more than, say,
infantile paralysis, simply because its mother or father knew nothing about child
psychology. Many an ignorant, selfish mother has so dominated every single iota of
her sons' or daughters' lives as to render them completely unfit to stand on their
own two feet and face life's problems or solve them. "Momism" is more prevalent
than we like to admit, but the number of men and women who walk out on marriage and
return to their parental homes because encouraged to do so by their mothers or
fathers, or because they cannot live away from them, is legion. The awful increase
of marriage failures is due in no small way to mothers and fathers who have never
given their children a deep and abiding reverence for marriage. Their own
unhappiness, their quarreling, their example, has served to pattern the low
estimation their children have of marriage. How the mother and father of a family
succeed at marriage will in turn condition their sons and daughters for success or
failure of their marriages. As Joubert wrote, in Pensees: "Children have more need
of models than of critics."

Let us examine together a few basic principles governing the important role of
parents.

The moment you become aware of the fact that the plenitude of office of mother is
about to dawn upon you, joyfully and prayerfully repeat the words of Our Blessed
Mother: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to thy
Word," and begin at that moment to prepare for the arrival of your child. The
little life scarcely begun, although apparently shut away from all the influences
of the world is, nevertheless, very much under the influence of the mother.

"The unborn child breathes," writes Dr. Pomeroy, "the air of heaven through its
mother's lungs; it sees beauty through her eyes, hears harmony or discord through
her ears; it lays up stores of future gladness through her joy in all that is
gladsome and good; it lays foundations for future hope and courage through her
exercise of them at this time; and its quantity and quality of brain and heart
must largely depend upon the pattern she furnishes for its copying. In view of
this, will any woman dare spend the subsequent months in selfish repining or in the
mad whirl of social gayety? Will anyone worthy of the name woman dare ask for a
larger or more honorable sphere than to mould the destiny of unborn
generations?"[2]

At the first sign of the great tidings of pregnanc[3] turn to the mother's Saint,
St. Gerard, and recite daily this splendid prayer, imprimatured by His Excellency
Archbishop Gerald Murray, C.S.S.R., of Winnipeg, Canada.

"O good St. Gerard, powerful intercessor before God and Wonder-worker of our day, I
call upon thee and seek thy aid. Thou who on earth didst always fulfill God's
designs help me do the holy Will of
God. Beseech the Master of Life, from Whom all paternity proceedeth, to render me
fruitful in offspring, that I may raise up children to God in this life and heirs
to the Kingdom of His Glory in the world to come. Amen."

It is important, too, to place yourself under the care of a capable doctor. Be sure
he is worthy of your trust. Avoid, as you would a leper, the fashionable medico who
has the reputation of taking upon himself the role of the Deity--with power of life
or death, or who tells you when you can observe the moral law and when he dispenses
from that law. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Once having conscientiously chosen your doctor, follow his advice regarding diet
and exercise. We have touched on the matter of the effect of diet on the unborn
child elsewhere in this volume. Go regularly for check-ups. Such visits will pay
dividends in a healthy, normal child. Ask the doctor to suggest a few good books
on infant care and child-training. You can't begin too early to amass good
reference books on such topics. Could you embrace any other career without having
to purchase textbooks? Your public library may be well stocked with such books.
However, it's better to have your own.

When the great day arrives, offer your sufferings and discomfort to God in behalf
of your offspring. Place yourself in the tender hands of His Blessed Mother, and
she will guide you through the valley of pain and up the Mount of Tabor where your
suffering will be transfigured into joy--joy the like of which no human being
experiences--the joy of bringing into the world a child created in the image and
likeness of God.

From the moment of birth, a baby must experience a feeling of "being wanted" and
needs above all to be loved. That is why a wise nature calls into play the
expression of that love in breast-feeding. Breast-fed babies have a better chance
of good health, and few ever fall victims of the infectious and ofttimes fatal
diarrhea common among bottle babies.[4] Breast-feeding completes a natural
circle that begins with love, procreation through the birth, and then through
nursing, weaning, and guiding the child to maturity. To avoid breast-feeding when
possible is to break that magical circle.

"This union, it's true," says Dr. John C. Montgomery,[5] "must some day be broken.
Emotionally as well as physically, mothers must also wean their children. But
psychologists have learned that this 'weaning' is most successful and the child's
separateness and independence best achieved when the early tie with the mother has
been a deep and a warm one."

This same eminent Detroit pediatrician points out the utter folly of present
hospital regulations which restrict to certain set times the mother's fondling and
feeding of the new-born infant. He says that the infant should be kept with the
mother as much as possible. It is better for the infant, too, inasmuch as it has a
good psychological effect on the child.

"Peaceful, satisfied infants, so psychiatrists tell us," says the doctor, "are more
likely than others to grow into self-reliant youngsters who eventually develop iron
enough to stand life's hardships. The comfort and pleasure of the mother's breast
in the early months favors this sense of blissful well-being. To the
mother herself, the experience brings also a quieting sense of fulfillment which is
deeply satisfying. Such harmony is the surest foundation for mutual enjoyment in
the years ahead."

Don't delay the baptism of the baby beyond a month. It is customary to have this
important and essential sacrament administered two weeks from the date of birth.
The sponsors must be Catholics (practical Catholics). And be sure the names you
choose are saints' names and not ones which would be suitable for a dining car, or
that spell "box car" backward and nothing frontward. Incidentally, "Twinkles"
doesn't qualify either. Seriously, though, the choosing of names for your children
is very important. Don't reach too far for originality. "Certain names," says
Joseph Roux, "always awake certain prejudices." Consult your pastor if in doubt of
the propriety of your choice. Anyway, can you think of better heavenly patrons than
Mary or Joseph?

When you receive delivery of a new car, your dealer will invariably warn you that
it should be given special care for the first thousand miles. He will advise a
speed not greater than thirty miles per hour for the first five hundred miles, and
not more than forty or fifty for the next five hundred. Why does he bother to give
out such information? Simply because experience has taught that a car that
is not broken in properly at the outset of its service may never again perform
properly.

This same thing holds true for new babies. Their whole lives may be adversely
affected by injudicious handling by the parents. Ill-advised attention can be as
bad as neglect. Take, for instance, rocking a baby to sleep. Nature intended the
healthy, normal child to go to sleep by itself and has arranged that darkness and
quiet assist this natural act. In many cases children are trained from earliest
infancy to expect and then demand to be laboriously put to sleep with electric
lights blazing and parents or in-laws rocking them, singing to them or later
telling them weird bed-time stories. Under usual circumstances, ninety-nine out of
one hundred children would more quickly go to sleep without artificial props if
they had not been badly trained or spoiled in infancy. Picking up a baby every time
it cries is a bad practice and an injustice to the tiny mite, because it sows the
seeds of selfishness which may follow it all the days of its life.

This example may point out what I mean when I say get the best books you can buy on
child care and training. Profit by the experience of the so-called experts. They
may have a few crack-pot ideas about child training, but learn how to separate the
wheat from the cockle.

Let us return again to the example of the automobile manufacturer. Every car
manufacturer issues a book of basic instructions for the care of his product and
prudence demands that such instructions be followed. This same procedure of issuing
printed instructions for the study and care of their product is carried out by
manufacturers of watches, fountain pens, refrigerators, washing machines, radios,
and an infinite number of other articles. Since God made man, it would be only
natural to expect Him to set down a few basic principles relative to man's early
training. The Holy Bible contains such basic rules. Let us examine a few of them
now.

From the first dawn of reason, a child ought to be trained to know, love, and serve
God. The Creator warns parents: "It is better to die without children than to have
ungodly children." (Ecclus. 16:4.)

Regarding training and discipline, Scripture says:

"He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him correcteth him
betimes." (Prov. 13:24.)

"A horse not broken becometh stubborn: and a child left to himself
will become headstrong. Give thy son his way, and he shall make thee afraid....
Give him not liberty in his youth: and wink not at his devices. Bow down his neck
while he is young . . . lest he grow stubborn, and regard thee not, and so be a
sorrow of heart to thee." (Ecclus. 30:8, 9,11,12.)

That is the broad outline. Nor is it to be considered as addressed solely to

parents of the school-age child. Proper training is essential from the infant's
earliest days. I think it was Aristotle who, when he had finished an important
lecture on child training, was approached by a bewildered mother and asked by her
when she should begin to train her child. He answered her with this question: "How
old is your child, madam?" Upon hearing the mother reply that the child was five,
Aristotle said: "Hurry home, madam, you are now already five years late."

While the first child is still an infant, begin to collect your family library of
books on child training. Instead of flowers for an anniversary, or useless gifts on
birthdays, let husbands and wives give each other the following good books:

(1) "Infant and Child in the Culture of Today," Dr. Arnold Gesell and
Dr. Frances Ilg. $4.50

(2) "The Child from Five to Ten," Gesell and Ilg. $4.50. Both may be
purchased at any bookstore, or from the publisher, Harper & Bros.,
637 Madison Ave., N. Y. C.

(3) "As the Twig Is Bent," Dr. Leslie B. Hohman, published by The
Macmillan Co., New York City.

(4) "Living Together in the Family," Lems T. Dennis, published by

American Home Economics Association, 620 Mills Blvd.,
Washington. D. C.

(5) "Stop Annoying Your Children," William W. Bauer, M.D.,

published by Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis, 1947.

(6) "Some Notes for the Guidance of Parents," The Reverend Daniel
J. Lord, S.J. A superb work--paperbound for $1.00, published by
The Queens' Work, 3742 West Pine Blvd., St. Louis 8, Mo.

When the child is old enough to start school, be sure you enroll him in a Catholic
school.[6] Children need religion from their earliest youth. The short time devoted
to Sunday School or released time can never supplant whole-time Catholic education.
Public schools as a rule never teach anything offensive about God. What is worse,
they ignore Him. Lt. Ralph Brophy, head of the police juvenile bureau at Des
Moines, Iowa, in his 1946 report, asserted that "religious education was an
antidote for juvenile delinquency. At least eighty-three per cent have had to deal
had no religious training and the other seventeen per cent were poorly
instructed."

For parents who are neglectful of their children's welfare and their future
usefulness as American citizens, he listed four certain ways for making a child
delinquent.

1. Don't give your child any religious and spiritual training.

2. Don't let him tell you about his plans, problems and pleasures,
so he won't develop affection, security or trust in you.

3. Don't open your home to his companions; they may muss up the
place. Don't be concerned where he spends his leisure.
4. Never praise your child for his worth-while effort because he might take
advantage of you and try harder to please in the future. In other words, just don't
pay any attention to what your child does or says. He should be able to take care
of himself in this day and age.

Regarding school, see that home assignments are neatly and correctly done, and
never side with your child against the teacher in his presence. If you think the
child has a case, go to see the teacher yourself.

Encourage the children by word and example to approach the sacraments weekly. The
example of parents is by far and large the greater stimulus.

And now to the question of discipline. Not infrequently parents confuse discipline
with punishment. They are by no means the same thing. Nor are their ends the same;
the end of punishment being to inflict pain for a crime or evil done, while the end
of discipline ought to be the development of self-reliance and self-control.
Punishment, at best, is only an emergency treatment of a problem. Discipline, on
the other hand, is a long-range program concerning itself with ways and means of
establishing controls with the greater aim in view of developing self-reliance and
self-control. Were this always borne in mind, fewer senseless beatings would be
administered to children.

It was James Douglas who once said that "if a history of cruelty were written, it
would fill thousands of volumes and the largest section would be allotted to the
description of cruelty to children." The parent who through ill-temper slaps a
child on the face or head or who administers severe physical punishment is not
fitted to rear children. The late Monsignor E. J. Flanagan, director of the famous
Boys' Town, once said that even in prisons and jails "flogging and other forms of
physical punishment wound that sense of dignity which attaches to the self. The
result of such negative treatment is that the child comes to look upon society as
his enemy. His urge is to fight back, not to reform.

"The child is not born bad. It is not born to be bad. The child who makes mistakes
is a spiritually sick child. He is the victim of bad environment, bad training, bad
example. In short, he is a product of neglect. A person who goes ill-clad into the
snow and cold becomes sick with pneumonia. But who would seek to cure his illness
by forcing him again into the snow and cold? And yet some people think a child who
has become a misfit as a result of being ill-treated can be socialized by more
mistreatment."

To deprive a child of some much enjoyed pleasure is often more effective as a

chastisement than corporal punishment. In justice, the punishment must fit the
crime. Often there is little or no proportion between what evil or fault a child
has committed and the unreasonable punishment.

The trouble with most parents is that parental authority is divided. Mother tells
Johnny he may not go to the show. Pop vetoes the order and slips Johnny the money
to see the current "Madame X and Her Fourth Husband." Or parental edicts are not
consistent. It is wrong one day for Junior to walk through the house with muddy
rubbers and he is slapped for so doing, but tomorrow he could walk through the
house with mud galore on his feet and no comment. Again, the punishment is often
delayed far beyond its proper time, so that Marcella is punished in the evening for
some fault committed that morning. When the punishment does arrive, her little mind
can hardly connect the gravity of the crime with the severity of the punishment.

No parent ought ever punish a child in anger. Cool down and think it over, and then
think up a proportionate privation of some pleasure that will have a punitive
effect. Mothers ought never to say to a child who has done something wrong, "Wait
till your father gets home. He'll punish you within an inch of your life." That is
the worst thing you could do. The child will just hate to see Pop make the bend in
the road. Do your own sentencing. Each parent must agree to back the other up in
every instance of punishment.

Here are two excellent rules from the Bible.

"Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged" (Col.
3:21), and for mothers, here's a good one for you: "Be not as a lion in thy house,
terrifying them of thy household and oppressing them that are under thee." (Ecclus.
4:35.)

It is of cardinal importance that parents treat their children as they themselves

would want to be treated. As a parent never ask a child to do something you
yourself would not want to do. If you wanted a twenty-dollar bill changed would you
go into a store and buy an evening paper? I'll bet you wouldn't. Then don't make a
child do it.

Work out a schedule of work and play for the child and then, barring great urgency,
don't break in on a child's playtime to ask him to run up the street for a box of
eye-shadow. Don't blame a child for taking your things without first asking, if you
have the habit of acting arbitrarily with his. Treat a child with consideration
and he'll treat you with consideration.

I've heard of one mother who was tops as a child psychologist. She realized that
her children had feelings too. She noted how her neighbor thought nothing of
throwing open a door and letting go a war whoop: "JunIOR, come in here this
instant. It's time for bed." There was no thought of what a spot Junior was in--
with three men on bases and two out, he himself in there pitching to a home-run
king from the next block. The other mother, with a keen sense of the nice thing to
do, arranged with her son that when it was time to go in she would put the porch
light on. Note the difference in the two approaches. One mother had no
consideration for her son, while the other mother did. One mother was helping her
son save face before the gang, and when he saw the light out of the corner
of his eye, he finished his game as quickly as he could and then, as if he had
decided all by himself, said: "I guess I'll go home." Such consideration will be
appreciated by the tiniest child. The sooner you begin the better.

I found this little clipping in my desk. I have no idea who published it, but it
sums up clearly what we have tried to say.

"Bring thy children up in learning and obedience, yet without outward austerity.
Praise them openly, reprehend them secretly. Give them good countenance and
convenient maintenance according to thy ability, otherwise thy life will seem their
bondage, and what portion thou shalt leave them at thy death, they will
thank death for it, and not thee. And I am persuaded that the foolish cockering of
some parents, and the over-stern carriage of others, causeth more men and women to
take ill courses than their own vicious inclinations."--Lord Burleigh.

Regarding the sex education of children, Pope Pius XI reminds parents that it is
their duty to handle this delicate matter. It should be always given individually
and modestly. It's better for parents to tell children the truth about "where
babies come from." Let them catch you in a lie about that fabulous stork and they
may not believe you in other matters. Don't underestimate the "education" of your
child in this matter. Junior may be able to enlighten you quite a little. There is
a wonderful little booklet for girls written by a Catholic woman doctor, and I
earnestly advise mothers to buy a copy and leave it around where Sis can get her
hands on it. It is entitled "Growing Up--A Book for Girls" (and it is in the
twenty-five-cent class), published by Benziger Brothers, 26 Park Place, N. Y. C.
This is a "must" for the noble sex education of girls. Whatever you do, don't make
a ceremony of telling children the facts of life. They hate lectures. Make it short
and to the point.

To better understand the different phases of growing from infancy to childhood and
then from teen-age to adulthood, review what we have already treated in Chapter
III. Facilitate as much as possible the different transitions. The struggle is
pretty rugged in passing from boyhood or girlhood into the teen-age or adolescent
group. Faults in character-building either on the part of the parents, or in the
response to good training by the teen-ager himself, must be corrected. Where the
foundation has been faulty, a repair job must be begun in early teen-age, and while
some of the marks of the repair may be noticeable, it must nevertheless be
undertaken.

It is important to remember that the same tactics used in the development of the
moral and social characteristics of a child cannot be used in the repair work done
on the early teen-ager. This needs a decidedly different approach. It demands on
the part of those directly responsible for such training, self-control, good
example, sympathy, and a willingness to let go at the proper times.

The old idea of treating teen-agers as you yourself were treated by your parents
demands radical changing. Parents must keep abreast of the times and endeavor, if
possible, to attain the old standard results by modern methods. What does it matter
what method, ancient or modern, is used, so long as the desired results are
attained?

Few parents seem to realize the terrific effect growing from childhood into manhood
or womanhood really has on a child. A lad at eighteen is a vastly different person
from the one he was at eleven. Doubtless he was, at eleven, a lanky, gawky little
person, all legs and arms, habitually untidy about his personal appearance, with
everything but the kitchen sink stuffed into his pockets. The same boy at sixteen
is in all respects a man; he takes particular delight in a swanky sports coat and
puts his dad's tonic on his hair, and if the truth were known, rubs a bit on his
face to encourage a beard so he can brag about his five o'clock shadow.

Changes in a girl's body take place more or less rapidly between fifteen and
eighteen too. While the body changes vaguely mystify and confuse a girl, the moods
accompanying them upset both her and her parents. She goes through a spell of
daydreaming, she assumes an air of bored condescension, she plays to the gallery by
endeavoring to be noticed, she is moody, unduly emotional and more or less deaf to
parental edict and direction. Frankly, these moods are common to youth of both
sexes.

It is during the adolescent years that young people need cooperation and
sympathetic understanding most. They must feel the assurance of parental love and
affection. Gradually, through the adolescent years, the youth must be granted his
liberty from the hard and fast rules that tied him to his mother's apron strings
in earlier years. In other words, there must be a gradual emancipation. The task is
to know when to let go and when not to let go, and parents have to judge this for
each individual case. The best parents are those who "No" best.

What most parents dread above all else is the development of the romantic urge in
their children, and usually they take drastic methods to circumvent it. Errors in
judgment in solving this problem can do untold harm. Where a good Catholic grammar
and high school education, where good home example and family prayers and
frequentation of the sacraments have been provided the youth in question, the
problem is not how to keep your son or daughter from getting involved with the
opposite sex, but how to get them launched as graciously as possible.
As much as you may hate to see the children grow to adolescent stature, you must
face it; how you react will affect them more than you can ever imagine. The best
plan is to be pleasantly interested at the signs of normal social development. It
is important that all "kidding" references, no matter how well intentioned, be
omitted. Adolescents teased about having "girl friends," or "boy friends," or
the "Mary's in love" routine, will have one of two serious effects--it will make
the youngsters crawl back into a shell, or it will cause the young lover to be
defiant and rebellious. On the other hand, any obvious attempts toward forcing
social development will most certainly back-fire.

Social development must be aided and fostered. The teenager should be permitted to
have friends in on Fridays and/or Saturday nights. School and church group
activities should be encouraged and supported. Parents who are afraid the furniture
might get a few scratches from such adolescent pow-wows in the home have no sense
of values. Which is worse--a broken chair or a broken life? If the children can't
meet and feel free in their own homes, they will meet in less protective places.

Care and caution is urged on fathers who take their daughters to parties and social
affairs and who call for them when they are over. If a father must do this for
peace of mind or peace in the home, he ought to be subtle enough to say that it is
for transportation purposes only and not the act of a virtuous parent.

I recall a family where the father took his two teen-age daughters to every social
affair the girls ever attended, even to church, too. There was no end to the
daughters' embarrassment and the net result was that the girls never got to know
any of the boys well. Deprived of the chance to make comparisons, one of the girls
met a young man on the train she took to and from her office job in the city during
the summer vacation, and she ran away with him and got married, a marriage that
lasted but two years. Train children well from their youth as adolescents, let them
mingle freely and normally, and the ultimate results will be better. Never mistrust
youth. Nothing hurts as much as mistrust. Parental supervision must be
exerted,however, yet in such a way that it won't be resented.

One of the finest little booklets, and a "must" for parents confronted with teen-
agers in the family, is "The Adolescent," by Henry C. Schumacher, M.D., B.Sc.
(Write to "Our Sunday Visitor," Huntington, Indiana. It may not cost more than
twenty-five or fifty cents.) It is tops for practicality.

Later, when your son and daughter show definite signs of being bent on marriage,
help them then more than you ever did in your life before. Encourage enrollment in
one of the finest courses given anywhere today. It is a correspondence course in
marriage preparation. Write Marriage Preparation Service, The Catholic Centre, 125
Wilbrod Street, Ottawa, Canada. That would be the best ten-dollar gift you ever
gave your son or daughter. The whole fifteen installments are issued under the
guidance of a priest, a doctor, and a lawyer.

When Sis or Junior is old enough, if he or she has all the maturities herein
stated, if everything looks to be in order, give them the green light with your
blessing.

May no child of yours ever say about you what St. Augustine had to say about his
father's indifference:

"My father never bothered about how I was growing towards You (God) or how chaste
or unchaste I might be, so long as I grew in eloquence."

Decrying the lack of sympathy and guidance again, the great Saint bitterly
protested:
"If only there had been someone then to bring relief to the wretchedness of my
state and turn to account the fleeting beauties of these new temptations and
bringwithin bounds their attractions for me: so that the tides of my youth might
have driven in upon the shore of marriage: for then they might have brought calm
with the having of children as Your law prescribes, O Lord, for in this way you
form the offspring of this our death, able with gentle hand to blunt the thorns
that You would not have in Your paradise.... My family took no care to save me from
this moral destruction by marriage: their only concern was I should learn to make
as fine and persuasive speeches as possible."

I can never understand the psychology of parents who, if a son chooses, say, to be
a doctor, lawyer, dentist, or an electrical engineer, or if a daughter wants to be
a nurse, opera singer, or artist, will in every case feel it a duty to help in a
financial way toward the achievement of such goals. But when a son or daughter
chooses marriage as a career, how few parents will ever offer them any real
financial help to get them established. Make that one of the highlights of your
relation with your children. Resolve to help them in marriage as you would if they
chose any other career. They will appreciate your least generosity more in the
early years of marriage than they will if you leave them a huge legacy after you
have passed away. They may feel then that you left your money to them simply
because you couldn't take it with you.

Among life's tragedies the saddest is a mother and father who

when they start down the hill of life into the shadows of old age
find themselves burdened under the crushing weight of remorse
for having neglected their marital duties. The bitterest yoke,
however, is the remorse that follows neglect of parental
responsibilities. The mistakes they made in training their children
they may see perpetuated in their children's children. The
marriage failure of a son or daughter they may then be able to
trace to the faulty pattern they themselves set before such a one.
The weak, watered-down faith of their grown children will haunt
them and will reproach them for the lack of example they gave in
religious practices. The whip of repentance will be severest on a
mother or father who realizes too late that their own personal
selfishness kept a son or daughter from marriage, and in their last
years they must see them wither like leaves at the touch of a heavy
frost.

Disturbing thoughts, you say? They are meant to be. Marriage is a serious business.
It's a glorious career but a responsible one. It can
be a joyous career, and it may be a wearisome and even a thankless one. Children
who trample your feet when they are small may even trample your heart when they
grow up. But aren't there such contingencies in every career? Can you name one
career that one can hope to be a success in without fidelity to duty, untiring
effort, and sacrifice? Do you think Balzac's career as a writer was an easy one? He
wrote sixteen hours a day, sometimes never left his room for three days at a time.
At the age of thirty he started writing "La Comedie Humaine," and worked at it
almost without stopping for twenty years. If a person could put such zeal and
devotion to duty into writing a book, what can we say of the zeal and devotion
mothers and fathers ought to demonstrate in the procreation, education, and
salvation of their children?

Take care, however, that in being a good mother or father you do not neglect the
duty of being a loving husband or wife. Foolish indeed is the mother who lavishes
all her love upon her children, reserving little or none for her husband. Such a
one may find, when the children are grown up and have moved away from the
family circle, that she is a stranger to her mate. Diffidence and neglect are the
two antidotes to love. Marital love, like the ancient manna, must be collected
every day. Live such a life of mutual love that in the closing hours of your life
you might in all truth be able to express sentiments similar to those expressed by
Mark Twain to his beloved wife, Olivia. Keep in mind as you read the following
charming protestation of love that it was written by a man who was then standing in
the awful shadows of financial disaster and at about the time his great genius was
ebbing.

On the seventeenth anniversary of his engagement to Olivia, Mark Twain wrote:[7]

"We have reached another milestone, my darling, and a very, very remote one from
the place where we started but we look back over a pleasant landscape-valleys that
are still green, plains that still bear flowers, hills that still sleep in the soft
light of that far morning of blessed memory. And here we have company on the
journey--ah, such precious company, such inspiring, such lovely, and gracious
company! and how they lighten the march! Our faces are toward the sunset, now, but
these are with us, to hold our hands, and stay our feet, and while they abide, and
our old love grows and never diminishes, our march shall still be through flowers
and green fields, and the evening light as pleasant as that old soft morning glow
yonder behind.

Your Husband."

Co-equal with the obligation resting on husbands and wives of sustaining and
increasing their love for one another is their duty as mothers and fathers of
loving, respecting, instructing, and giving good example to their children. Above
all, they must pray for their children--for the prayers of parents are most
efficacious. For a proof of this, let us return to Cana--of Galilee.

The immortal village of Cana is mentioned twice in the New Testament, once in
reference to the marriage feast and once in connection with the story of a father
and his dying son. It is to this latter incident that we now refer.

We should not, in the absence of positive information on the matter, be far from
the truth, we think, in surmising that Christ, in returning to Cana a second time,
simply did so to visit the young couple at whose marriage He had performed His
first miracle the year before. In any case, Scripture tells us that the Master had
been to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Jews and from there started for Cana.
Passing through Samaria, Our Lord stopped to talk to the Samaritan woman at the
well and gently reproached her for her infidelity in marriage.

Reaching Cana, the news of His presence spread rapidly and a certain royal official
whose little son lay dying at Capharanaum "approached the Master and besought Him
to come down and heal his son for he was at the point of death." The deep faith,
the urgency in that father's simple petition, "Sir, come down before my child
dies," touched the tender heart of Christ and He said to the man: "Go thy way, thy
son liveth." And the account written by St. John ends thus: "And he himself
believed, and his whole household."

Two wondrous lessons flow from the touching mystery of love and power in Cana of
Galilee. The first great lesson concerns the efficacy of a father's or mother's
prayers for their children. Were a history ever written of all the spiritual and
temporal miracles that have been wrought in favor of children through parental
prayer, the world itself, I think, could not contain the books. For instance, the
conversion of St. Augustine is but one of a legion. Small wonder that St. Monica,
"whose tears flowed down and watered the very earth beneath her eyes in every place
where she prayed," should have been, after God, instrumental in his conversion. It
was the great Ambrose who said to her: "Go your way: continue as you now are: it is
not possible that the son of these tears should ever perish." Monica's prayers and
tears saved Augustine. You can save your children in like manner.
The second lesson is equally great. The royal official "became obedient unto the
faith" and "went his way," presently to find his faith both crowned and perfected--
he and his whole household. In other words, the believing father and mother can
strengthen the faith of the whole family. Never let your faith waver for an
instant, even when the salvation of your child seems hopeless. Say through your
tears: "Lord, come down before my child dies." Keep saying it while there is breath
in your body. In heaven, some day, your faith will be rewarded, and your joy will
be full when the Christ of Cana says to you, "Thy son lives."

ENDNOTES

1. "What Is Wrong with Marriage," Hamilton and MacGowan. New

York: Borli, 1929, pp. 307, 8.

2. The Ethics of Marriage. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1888.

3. As far as we know now parents have little or no control over the sex of their
offspring. In a way, it is better so. Does not nature manage this matter better
than man ever could? However, according to Dr. R. T. Trall, the time of
impregnation may exercise some control over the sex of the child. From experiments
he carried out, the weight of testimony goes to show that early impregnation forms
the development of females and late impregnation the development of males.

Dr. Trall explains it this way. If the impregnation is very soon after the ovum is
matured, it is far up in the Fallopian tubes and consequently a fewer number of
spermatozoa reach it. The result will be that the germ element will most likely
prevail and the offspring be a female. On the other hand, if the impregnation takes
place at a later period, the ovum will be farther down, and consequently more
spermatozoa will be capable of reaching it and the probability will be that the
sperm element will predominate and a male will be the result.

4. Breast milk, according to James A. Taylor, M.D., F.A.C.S., of Tarrytown, N. Y.,

"imparts to the baby many of the maternal immunities to contagious and infectious
diseases."

5. "Will You Nurse Your Baby?", John C. Montgomery, M.D.,

"Woman's Home Companion," May, 1947.

6. Neutral schools from which religion is excluded cannot exist in practice. Pius
XI declared such schools "are bound to become irreligious."

According to Canon 1374; and Instruction, Holy Office, Nov. 24, 1875, parents need
permission of the local Ordinary to send their children to other than Catholic
schools.

(a) Parents who send their children to non-Catholic schools on principle because
they prefer them, or (b) to schools that are positively harmful because heresy,
etc., is regularly taught, or (c) to non-Catholic schools when nothing is done to
offset the danger of perversion, cannot be absolved. (Noldin II, n. 296.)

7. "The Love Letters of Mark Twain" Edited by Dixon Wecter. "The Atlantic Monthly,"
January, 1948. Copyright, The Mark Twain Company.
Chapter Twelve: CANA IS FOREVER

One night some years ago when I was stationed in the prairies, I went to the wake
of one of my oldest parishioners. She had been the kind of person whose name would
instantly have come to mind were one asked to select the outstanding mother in the
district. It was not so much her genial disposition, her charities, her
neighborliness, her deep faith, or her abiding love for her husband and her seven
children, as much as the universal consensus that her family was the closest-knit
unit in the district. Everyone marveled at the love her husband and children
demonstrated toward her in private, as well as in public. So completely did she
symbolize noble motherhood that her passing was taken as a personal loss to nearly
everyone in the community.

As I prepared to say the holy rosary that night, her devoted husband knelt beside
me and whispered: "Father, if you don't mind, may I say the rosary tonight? You
see, for forty-four years we have never once missed saying the rosary together with
the family. Her last night with us must be no exception." Needless to relate, he
said the prayers.

As I knelt there and answered the prayers, through tear-dimmed eyes I gazed first
upon the placid features of that noble mother and then my gaze became fixed on the
well-worn rosary, wrapped around two old, wrinkled, parchment-like hands. My
thoughts wandered back through the years to when those hands were smooth and white
and beautiful. One morning long ago they had clasped other hands before God's altar
and vowed love and fidelity, a trust they never violated. Those same hands had
fondled tiny babies and guided their first steps, and through the years they had
assuaged fevered brows and broken hearts and even clasped other hands in last
farewells. And the key to their terrible strength--the rosary--now bound those
hands together forever in peaceful rest.

I never hear that modern cliche, The family that prays together, stays together,
without thinking of that old mother. I know now the secret of her happiness in
marriage. I know, too, why her family was so outstanding and so respected; it was
the family rosary.

Tennyson was right when he wrote:

More things are wrought by prayer

Than this world dreams of. Wherefore, let thy voice
Rise like a fountain for me night and day.

For what are men better than sheep or goats

That nourish a blind life within the brain,
If, knowing God, they lift not hands of prayer
Both for themselves and those who call them friends?
For so the whole round earth is every way
Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.

If married couples would but learn the necessity of and the power of prayer,
especially family prayer, there would be few, if any, marriage failures. The
necessity of prayer in every chosen state of life was exemplified in Our Blessed
Lord's life. Before He went to Cana, He had prayed and fasted forty days. During
His sacred ministry He often passed whole nights in prayer, and on the eve of
His death did He not pray in the garden of Gethsemane? Indeed, He it was who
inspired Peter to tell husbands to dwell with their wives "as to the co-heirs of
the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered . . . Because the eyes of the
Lord are upon the just, and His ears unto their prayers." (I Pet. 3: 7, 12.)

And who could adequately describe the power of prayer? Prayer with faith can
accomplish anything. "All things," said Christ Himself, "whatsoever you ask when ye
pray, believe that you shall receive: and they shall come unto you." (Mark 11:24.)
And of family prayer, did He not say: "Where two or three are gathered together in
My name there I am in the midst of them."?

A few blocks away from where I live there is a large, empty old house. No one has
lived in it for years and years. Every time I pass it, it seems to be in a worse
state of dilapidation. No fire has as yet touched it, nor have hurricanes shaken
it, nor has it been abused by constant use, but, rather, it is falling into ruin
through decay. It just seems unable to bear the weight of emptiness and silence.
Much the same thing happens to all homes when pagan silence locks the mouths and
freezes the hearts, so that no family prayer ever ascends from them to the heart of
God.

J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, in a recent radio broadcast urged a return to
the practice of daily family prayer. "Our nation," said Mr. Hoover, "is sadly in
need of a rebirth of the simple life--a return to the days when God was a part of
each household, when families arose in the morning with a prayer on their lips, and
ended the day by gathering together to place themselves in His care. A Godless home
is built upon sand; it is an inviting breeding ground for moral decay and crime."

Whenever in ages past an antidote was discovered for some dread ill, its use has
been maintained even to our day. "The Holy Rosary," said Pope Leo X, "was
instituted to crush heresiarchs and growing heresies," and we know how well it
accomplished its purpose against the twelfth century Albigensian heretics. In the
sixteenth century we know its effect upon the Turks, who at that time threatened to
impose the yoke of superstition and barbarism on nearly the whole of Europe. Its
use in favor of victories at Temeswar in Pannonia and at Corfu needs no reiteration
here. For centuries now, the rosary has been an antidote to heresy--will it cease
to be effective against modern heresy inherent in the false doctrines of easy
divorce, birth control, free love, broken homes, and juvenile revolution?

Whether you are on the threshold of matrimony or whether you have already set sail
on its unchartered seas, I beseech you, begin the daily recitation of the rosary in
your home. After you have read the following Promises of Our Lady to those who
devoutly recite the Holy Rosary, you may better understand how and why those who
pray together stay together.

1. Whoever will faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary shall receive
signal graces.

2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who will
recite the Rosary.

3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell; it shall destroy vice,
decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

4. It shall cause virtue and good works to flourish; it shall obtain for souls the
abundant mercy of God; it shall withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the
world and its vanities and shall lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh,
that souls would sanctify themselves by this means!

5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary shall not
perish.

6. Whoever will recite the Rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration
of its sacred mysteries, shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not
chastise him in His justice; he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be
just, he shall remain in the grace of God and become worthy of eternal life.
7. Whoever will have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the
sacraments of the Church.

8. Those who faithfully recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their
death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death they
shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.

9. I will deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to

the Rosary.

10. The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in
Heaven.

11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.

12. All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their
necessities.

13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall
have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour
of death.

14. All who recite the Rosary are my sons and brothers of my only Son, Jesus
Christ.

15. Devotion to my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.[1]

It is striking to note that the Canon Law of the Church nowhere obliges priests to
say Holy Mass daily while it does specify "that the Ordinary must take care, (1)
that the clergy frequently go to confession, (2) that they make each day a
meditation of some duration, visit the Blessed Sacrament, say the Rosary, and
examine their conscience." (Canon 125) Holy Mother Church knows that a priest who
frequents the sacraments, meditates and says his rosary, will have such a love for
the Holy Sacrifice that to miss it would cause such a one keen sorrow.

If frequentation of the sacraments and prayer, especially the Rosary, is so

important for priests, how much more so for those in the midst of a sinful world
who have embraced the holy state of matrimony? Indeed, married persons will find in
prayer and the sacraments the greatest source of their strength. There is no
conceivable situation that cannot be bettered by prayer. Prayer divinely dissolved
the worries of Moses and the doubts of Jeremias; it purified and sanctified Tobias'
love; it brought about the return of the Prodigal Son; it extricated David from a
vicious triangle; it guided Ruth in the problem of handling in-laws. And to the
husband whose bitter experience has taught him that he chose neither wisely nor
well, we respectfully point to what prayer did for Daniel in the lion's den.

But let us again return to Cana and learn well its lessons. First, note that Christ
came to that marriage because He was invited; by the same token, He will come to
your marriage and dwell with you in your heart and home only if He be invited. The
familiar painting of Our Lord Knocking at the Door was completed when someone
remarked to the artist that he had neglected to put any latch on the door. The
artist replied that "the door at which Christ knocks must be opened from the
inside." Secondly, note that it was through the power of prayer--the simple prayer
of Our Lady--that the great miracle of the changing of the water into wine took
place. Therein lies a two-fold lesson: the power of prayer and the power of Mary's
prayers. Likewise, in the second miracle, the curing of the son of the royal
officer, the efficacy of parental prayer is made obvious. Nothing great happened in
Cana that was not the result of prayer. Cana's greatest lesson, other than the
sanctity of marriage, was the
power of prayer.

Ever since I began this book, I have searched high and low for a hidden meaning
behind the word Cana. I knew, for instance, that Bethlehem meant "House of Bread,"
but what "Cana" could be, puzzled me. Today, I found out. It comes from the Hebrew
word for "reed," and so Cana simply means a reedy place. It was not until I had
consulted the encyclopedia that I realized the full depth of mystical meaning that
the name "Cana" implies.

I learned that these Palestinian reeds were of considerable importance in ancient

days. They were useful in binding the soil and impeding denudation. Their close-set
stems broke the current of water around them and so caused deposition of rich
sediment that furnished annual contributions to incipient soil. Their tall,
straight stalks were much sought after for use in the building of the walls and
roofs of homes; they provided pipes for musical instruments; and very frequently
they were used as measuring rods.

The mystical application to marriage found in the nature and the common usage of
reeds is intriguing and limitless. The most striking application, however, to my
way of thinking, lies in the use of the reed as a measuring rod. I firmly believe
that God in His great providence intended Cana ever to be the measuring rod
against which all Christian marriages should be laid. The closer they measure up to
it, the greater the success--the greater the happiness. Verily, Cana Is Forever.

ENDNOTES

1. "The Crown of Mary." Apostolate of the Rosary, 141 East 65th

St., New York City.