Everything is good, but Himself is tired of feeling "obliged" to murmur sweet nothings -- the gist is, I know he loves me, so why should he have to say it?
The rest of what his representative had to say:
The practice of telling your wife that you love her began in the 12th century, when committed love was widely rejected by courtly cads, or misunderstood by poorly educated peasant men.
Husbands saw saying “I love you,” as a way of reaffirming their commitment to their wives and of promoting renewed devotion to them.
However, as time went on, saying loving things drifted further and further away from its grounding in love itself.
Notwithstanding my Dad’s personal endorsement of telling Mom he loved her, and the sporadic restoration of the practice in this suburd and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about verbal proofs of devotion today.
Now that most women are literate and even well-educated, there is little or no need for extraneous spoken reminders of a spouse's commitment.
His just being there ought to be proof enough.
Saying “I love you, honey”, constantly or not, is a step backward in your relationship, not forward.
Oh, wait, my bad.
It wasn't a representative of MY husband, it was the representative of another Spouse, who said these things, more or less, to Her Bridegroom:
The practice of eucharistic adoration began in the 12th century, when the Real Presence of Christ was widely rejected by heretics or misunderstood by poorly educated Catholics. The church saw eucharistic adoration as a way of reaffirming its faith in the Real Presence and of promoting renewed devotion to it.
However, as time went on, eucharistic devotions, including adoration, drifted further and further away from their liturgical grounding in the Mass itself.
Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI's personal endorsement of eucharistic adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today.
Now that most Catholics are literate and even well-educated, the Mass is in the language of the people (i.e, the vernacular), and its rituals are relatively easy to understand and follow, there is little or no need for extraneous eucharistic devotions. The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.
Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.
Fr McBrien, it seems to me, is misrepresenting Church teaching on this, as on so many matters.
In which case, his boss, Christ's Holy Bride might want to consider letting him go.
If McBrien is really speaking for the Church, I would say some couples' counseling might be in order for Her and Christ, huh?