Why Gossip Is a Sin

People like to talk about other people. For some, it seems like their favorite hobby. Others act like it is their vocation! But we all do it to a certain extent. It is part of living in a society with others, in community with others. Human beings are relational creatures, so we need to live with others. But we need to realize that our words have the potential to harm those relationships, and we need to be especially wary of the sin of Gossip.

Gossip is when we relate personal or sensitive facts about another to a person who really has no business knowing them. And even if what we say is quite true, if we gossip we sin against the eighth commandment, not to bear false witness against our neighbor. And we also contribute to sin if we listen to gossip and take it to heart.

Consider the following excerpts from the Catechism.

"Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion..." (2469)

"Repect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury..." (2477)

"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way..." (2478)

"Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity." (2479)

"Boasting or bragging is an offense against truth. So is irony aimed at disparaging someone by maliciously caricaturing some aspect of his behavior." (2481)

And of course lying is the most fundamental offense against the truth. "It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity." (2485)

Sadly, many good people violate one or more of the above precepts on a daily basis, and brush aside the injustice as "mere gossip." But a "mere" sin is a sin nonetheless, and a violation of justice and charity.

Please think on these words from the Catechism the next time you are tempted to share that "juicy gossip," and ask yourself whether you are using your words to build up or break down your neighbor.

Some thoughts on liturgical music

If there is one thing that has a great potential for causing division among Catholics, it is the music of the local parish. Everyone has their own taste and backgrounds. Do you come from a parish with a full choir, decked out in robes, accompanied by an organ masterfully played? Or perhaps a a folk choir with guitar? Maybe you attend a "Life Teen" Mass with electric guitar, bass, and a drum kit. Maybe there is little music at all, beyond what two or three non-musically trained volunteers can put together each week. I'm willing to bet, however, that your home parish doesn't frequently feature Gregorian chant in their Sunday liturgies. Why is this?

Many think the answer is obvious. Didn't all that go out with Vatican II and the New Mass? Isn't it just now starting to make a come-back with the new allowance of the Old Mass (now called the Extraordinary Form) under Benedict XVI?


Well.... not exactly.


The truth is that Vatican II did have something to say about sacred music in the liturgy (more in fact, than any other council before it). But it's not what the average Catholic might think. Here's what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council said in Sacrosanctum Concilium, paragraph 116.

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman
liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place
in liturgical services.

The Vatican II Fathers go on to say that other sacred music is allowed, so long as it is of a sufficiently dignified nature; the document only mentions one other type of music specifically by name, and that is polyphony. Polyphony is a Renaissance style of music combining many voices singing different texts into one unified musical whole (unlike Gregorian chant, where all singers sing with one voice).

So Vatican II did not mandate Gregorian chant (nor did any council previous), but it does give it "pride of place" in the liturgy. "All things being equal," it says, this is what you should be hearing when you attend Mass.

Now is a good time to introduce you to a book called the Liber Usualis. This volume was the book of Gregorian chant used prior to the New Mass (Novus Ordo). It contained many settings of the ordinary chants of the Mass (those for which the text is the same for each Mass, i.e. the Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.), as well as the proper chants for the specific Masses of the year. This concept of "propers" is something that has been largely lost. Most modern Catholics are unaware of their significance, let alone their existence. But these are prayers that are particular to each Mass, and there are chants that are associated with them that have developed along with the liturgy for the past 1500 years. So, for example, there will be a proper introit (entrance antiphon) for the 6th Sunday of Ordinary Time, and a proper communion antiphon, etc., particular to that Mass, which relates to the readings and general theme for the Mass. The Liber Usualis had all of that for the entire Church year. It was (is) a massive collection of the musical heritage of the Church. This is what the Vatican II Fathers had in mind when they said "Gregorian chant" should have "pride of place."

So if Vatican II speaks so highly of Gregorian chant, why don't we hear it at Mass? Well, as you may know, the Novus Ordo Mass did not come directly from Vatican II. The council called for a renewal and revision of the liturgy, but it did not give us the new Mass. That came later. Did Gregorian chant somehow get left out when the Novus Ordo was issued?

Let's take a look. The text that the priest follows when he offers the Mass is called the Roman Missal. And the liturgical norms for this liturgy are laid out in the document called the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, often shortened to "GIRM." In 2001 a new (third) edition of the Roman Missal, as well as it's Instruction, were promulgated by John Paul II (in Latin). The English translation of the Roman Missal itself is still in the works, but an English translation of the GIRM has long been available. Let's see what this latest Instruction has to say about music in the liturgy.

Well, paragraph 41 states:

All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is
proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular
polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided they correspond to the spirit of the
liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful

Sound familiar? It should. The footnote for this section cites Sacrosanctum Concilium, which we just quoted from. I should add, too, that by "participation of all the faithful" it does not mean that all the faithful should be able to sing along. No, the participation of the faithful at Mass is primarily one of prayer. Music that contributes towards a prayerful spirit among the faithful is aiding their participation. It really matters not whether the congregation can sing along.

There are some parts of the Mass, though, that the congregation is expected to say or sing aloud. In fact, the GIRM makes a point to say (still in paragraph 41):

Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently,
it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, set
to simpler melodies.

So, when was the last time your parish all chanted the Creed in Latin? Enough said. Now, let's take a look at some of what the GIRM has to say about music for some other particular parts of Mass.

Starting at the beginning, regarding the Entrance, the GIRM states (para. 48):

In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the
Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missalor the Psalm from
the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting;
(2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song
from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of
Bishops or the diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or
metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the
Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop.

What does all that mean? Basically, the Church is presenting us with four options for music during this part of Mass. Either the proper antiphon for that Mass according to the official texts of the Church (the Roman Gradual and the Simple Gradual are essentially like the Liber Usualis for the New Mass), or the proper antiphon from another collection with Ecclesial approval (these would be texts such as the Gregorian Missal or the Anglican Use Gradual, the latter of which has all the antiphons in English translation). Barring all this, the fourth and final option is another "suitable liturgical song."

Now, I don't know percentages, but I'm willing to bet that in the majority of parishes across the United States, what you will hear on any given Sunday is the fourth option -- some hymn as selected by the choir or music director.

And this is, I think, one of the major reasons why we do not hear Gregorian chant, or know anything about "proper antiphons" in our culture today. Given the option not to sing or chant these texts, people have opted not to. And we have sadly lost a major part of our Catholic culture and tradition.

Paragraph 74 of the GIRM says that the Offertory chant follows the same norms as the Entrance chant (i.e. we have the same four options -- the last of which is "another suitable song.").

Paragraph 87 deals with music at Communion, for which (surprise!) we have the same four options. Paragraph 88, however, does allow for "a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn" that could be sung by the entire congregation after the communion antiphon. But the first choice, once more, is for the proper antiphon for that particular Mass to be chanted.

In addition to these proper antiphons, there is also the Alleluia antiphon, which is mentioned in paragraph 62. Interestingly enough, no options are given here.

The Alleluia is sung in every season other than Lent. The verses are
taken from the Lectionary or the Gradual.

Period. No other source for Alleluia verses is given. But, probably because we have gotten so used to exercising our options in the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion music, we have made our own options where they do not exist, such as with the Alleluia verse.

I have, in my own experience, encountered even worse abuses. I have seen many integral prayers of the Mass replaced by "another suitable song" including the Responsorial Psalm, the Gloria, and the Agnus Dei.

The end result, unfortunately, of taking all of these "options" (even those we don't really have) is chaos. You don't know what you might encounter when you enter a parish church for the first time as a visitor. Will you be asked to sing from a hymnal filled with old classic Protestant hymns accompanied by an organ? Will you be asked to sing along with a "contemporary choir" using throw-away misselletes or "song sheets"? Or will you maybe, just maybe, get a chance to hear the traditional music of the Church, which is proper to the Roman Rite?

If you were a person whose only experience with Catholic worship was what you have read in the liturgical documents governing the worship of the Church and the documents of the Second Vatican Council, you'd expect to hear a lot of Latin, a lot of Gregorian chant, and to hear the proper antiphons for the Mass most of the time. You might think that you'd hear the occasional other hymn, perhaps after the proper Communion antiphon has been sung, or as a recessional hymn. (Which, by the way, you won't read about in the GIRM, because it really is not part of the Mass -- it occurs after the priest says Ita Missa Est. The Mass is ended!)

You would be very surprised, having read these documents, to discover parish after parish, and even cathedrals, where the music director's weekly job is to select four or five "other suitable songs" for the Sunday Mass. The proper antiphons are not even considered, if indeed they are even known about!

And I think this is the real key. Most music directors and choir members are well meaning people (in many cases volunteers) who simply do not know what the liturgical documents say, or that the Church has an ideal in mind when it comes to our sacred music, or that things such as "proper antiphons" exist at all. And this is a sad commentary. These documents are all readily available, many of them free on line (I've supplied links above in many cases). With today's information technology, there is really no excuse for those involved in music ministry not to be aware of what the Church expects of us in this regard.

And no, we may not be able to meet this "ideal" in many cases, at least not immediately. But it does present us with something we can strive for, a rule against which we can measure our own efforts.

As for me, personally, the more I learn about sacred music and study the liturgical documents, the less satisfied I become with the current model of "let's select four hymns for this week." I long to hear the tones of the proper antiphons, setting the tone (literally) for the Mass itself.

One day, perhaps, the ideal will not be so uncommon.

March For Life

Today marks the 36th anniversary of the annual March for Life at our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., marking the date of the infamous Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, overturning abortion laws in all 50 states.

We have two students on our Catholic Campus Ministry peer council who will be marching in defense of the unborn in Washington today, and our prayers are with them.

Those students who are able, please join with these marchers, whose numbers are anticipated to exceed 200,000 strong, by participating in a prayer vigil at St. Mary's Catholic Church today in Sylva. The vigil will start at noon (as the March begins) with the Angelus, followed by Mass, and a pro-life rosary. The vigil will end at 2pm. Please come and stay for as much as that time as you are able.

I wanted to post today a link to a letter of invitation that the organizers of the March for Life sent to then-President-elect Barak Obama on January 15. It gives powerful reasons why the defense of unborn life is so important, and why we need strong leadership. We'll see what happens....
Click here to read the letter.

Upcoming series at the Student Center

Welcome to the Spring 2009 semester!  I sincerely hope that our returning students had a good Christmas break, and that new students to campus will come by the student center to introduce themselves.

This semester I am happy to announce that we will have an ongoing series about morality on alternate Wednesday nights, after our meal together.

Morality?  Sounds boring, I know.  Most people hear the word "morality" and they either think of "Thou Shalt Nots" being proclaimed from on high, or they think of some touchy-feely, fuzzy, whatever makes you feel good and doesn't hurt anyone else way of justifying our actions.  

The truth is that human beings are moral creatures, meaning our choices and our actions carry moral weight -- that is, when we excercise our God-given free will, those choices reverberate through eternity.  Serious implications, no?

Exploring the Catholic traditions on morality reveals that it is a science, one with a long and noble tradition, and it is a science really worth thinking about; and best of all, moral thought is accessible to everyone.  You don't need a special ethics desgree to make sense of it.

So I truly hope you'll decide to join us, as we learn about our moral traditions and explore the reasons behing all those "thou shalt nots."

Our schedule this semester will be:

Jan. 21: Ways of Looking at Morality

Feb. 4: The Natural Law

Feb. 18: The Moral Act

March 11: Conscience

March 25: Moral Absolutes

April 15: Sin & Grace

April 29: Applying to our Lives

This series will be part of our regular Wednesday meals together, and discussion is encouraged.  Hope to see you there!

An Apologetic For Life

I just got off of the radio where I was once more the guest on Relevant Radio's "Searching the Word" program.  This is their "apologetics & catechesis" program, and on it we discussed the nature of apologetics as simply illustrating the reasonableness of our faith.

"Reasonable" is a big word with me these days.  When something is reasonable, it simply means that it makes sense.  We can understand it to be true using our reason, our human intellect.  The Catholic faith (and indeed, religion in general) gets a bad rap these days with athiests and secularists claiming that to have faith you must "leave your brain at the door" and allow your beliefs to be dictated to you by other people.

Far from it, I say!  To really engage in the Catholic faith, one must use their mental faculties.  We believe our intellect to be God-given, after all.  Our reason is the mechanism God gave us by which we deduce the truth.  Our faith demands that we use our reason.

But I see some people these days advocating for some very unreasonable things in the name of reason and logic.

With the recent presidential election behind us, I've been seing a lot of things posted around Facebook dealing with abortion and the respect for human life.  A lot of the students involved in WCU's Catholic Campus Ministry have made pro-life statements on their pages.  It is interesting to see some of the reactions of their friends and fellow college students.

To give an example, one commentor made the statement that it is  "sensible and logical to understand that a fetus in the first trimester is super far from being a being. They don't have a heart or brain yet, they're like an ant. You squish ants all the time."

Well, let's just use a bit of reason to parse through that statement.  To say that something or someone is a "being" is simply to say that that this has existstance.  It is.  To say something is not a being means that it does not have existence.   So to suggest that a fetus in the first trimester does not have existance is absurd.  I know a lot of pregnant women that would beg to differ!  

Of course, what this young writer probably meant to say is that the fetus in the first trimester is not a "human being."  It exists, sure enough, but not as a human.  The question then becomes, what is it?  If it is not a human, it must be something else?  Is it a different kind of animal?  Is it a plant?  A mineral?  Biologically, what exactly is the fetus?  Scientists (using that God-given reason) understand the fetus to be a developing human being.  It is human alright, just a human in an early stage of development, just like a five-year old child is not as fully developed as the thirty-year old man.  Both are still humans; as is the fetus in the womb.

What of the assertion that the fetus has no heart or brain?  Is this true?  Well, let's use our reason and look to what modern science has been able to tell us.  The brain actually begins to develop around the twentieth day of pregnancy, and the heart starts to beat around day 21.  This is less than a third of the way through the mother's first trimester, and well before most women even realize they are pregnant.  Doctors can actually detect active brain waves from about day 40.  So to say that abortion is permissible because a fetus has no heart or brain means that abortion should be illegal after the first three weeks of pregnancy.  And, as an aside, "fetus" is the word generally used to describe the developing child after about the eighth week of pregnancy, when everything is present that would be found in a fully developed adult.  It comes from the Latin word for "offspring."  So it really doesn't make any sense at all to speak of a "fetus" with no heart or brain.  At those early stages, the developing person is called an "embryo."

In any case, whatever the unborn child is called, how would lack of a brain or heart make the embryo like an ant?  Last time I checked, ants have brains and hearts.  We squash ants not because they lack certain organs but because -- well, because they are ants.  We don't kill human beings, again not because they possess certain organs, but because they are human beings.  Killing another innocent human being is called murder.  And, in case anyone needs reminding, murder is wrong.

This same student also comments that, "If anything it's bad for the kid to have him when you can't take care of him, and it could also royally ruin your life. I say abort, if you're responsible."  Ah, here is the argument that abortion is the responsible thing to do if you really care about your child.  If you don't have the time, or the money, or the inclination to raise a child, it's far better for him or her to be killed than to have to live in a less-than-perfect family.  If you truly believe this, then God hep you, because there are not very many perfect families out there.  As a young father, I tell other young couples that if you wait until you feel you are "ready" to start a family, you may never start one.  Rarely do people feel they are "ready" on all fronts -- monetarily, emotionally, what have you -- to bring a child into this world.  But people do it very day.  Our species have been doing it for millennia.  And we manage to get by just fine, thank you.

But to suggest that it's better for the child that he be killed is the height of arrogance!  How dare we presume to be able to dictate the fate of an unborn child!  The fact of the matter is we have no idea who that child will grow up to be.  Some of our best minds, our noblest leaders, or most brilliant artists, statesmen and scientists have come from very humble and disadvantaged backgrounds.  And what if the child doesn't grow up to acheive greatness, but grows up to work as a grocery clerk, or a civil servant, or pizza delivery boy?  Does that mean he shouldn't have been allowed to live?  How dare we make that judgment?  For there is only one thing we can know for certain about that child's future -- if we kill him, he won't have one.

And the idea of advocating abortion as the "responsible" option is, to speak plainly, repugnant.  It calls to mind the famous quote from Blessed Theresa of Calcutta (aka Mother Theresa), "It is a trajedy to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you please."  And that is what this argument really boils down to.

I saw a comment made by a different student that was along the same lines as the "abortion as the responsible choice" argument.  This student wrote, "The resources of the world are stretched far enough without encouraging every person who puts two cells together in their uterus to call it a person and give it a name and put another human being on the already overpopulated planet."

Well, what does reason tell us about this line of thinking?  First of all, a person is not a person because we decide to call it such.  We could call a rock a "person" and give it a name and it is still a rock.  And a person is still a person even when not acknowledged as such by society.  In early nineteenth century America we had a whole class of people that society didn't consider persons.   But society was wrong, and we came to understand that slavery was a gross injustice.  In the early twentieth century, the Nazis in Germany decided a whole class of people were not real persons and could therefore be summarily rounded up and killed.  The resources of the world were stretched far enough -- why share them with inferior Jews?  

The same bad logic used to justify slavery and the holocaust is today being used to justify the holocaust of the unborn in America; a holocaust that to date has cost over 50,000,000 lives and counting.  

And what about our world's limited resources?  Since the days of Malthus people have been arguing that our growing population would soon outstrip the world's capacity to feed us.  However, while the world's population has increased from 1.6 billion to 6.2 billion over the past hundred years, the world's gross domestic product has actually increased twenty to fourty times, leading to much higher standards of living.   Food production is not really the problem.  People starve not because there is not enough food, but because they do not have access to food.  It's a problem of distribution, not production.  But despite the data, people continue to use the "population bomb" mantra as an excuse to advocate for the genocide of the unborn.  

In the end, we can boil this issue down to one central issue: is the embryo or fetus in the womb a person, or is it something else?  For if it is a person, then it is entitled to human rights, including the right to life.  If it is not a person, then one may legitimately make arguments that it can be killed, the way we euthanize a pet.

In my experience, arguments for the non-personhood of the unborn always fall short.  For example, the first comment I quoted mentioned lack of a functioning brain.  Well, if this is our defining factor, what do you do with a brain-dead adult.  Can you morally kill him?  The abortion supported may very well say, "Yes."  But the follow up question must be, if doctors told you that the brain-dead adult would regain all brain function in a matter of weeks, would it still be permissible to kill that person, simply because they are temporarily incapaciated?  I have a hard time imagining our young student saying "yes" to that question.

But if we apply that logic to the unborn, we can see how wrong abortion truly is.  Becuase even during that short time before the fetal brain is fully developed, there is potential.  If we simply wait a short while, the brain is there, fully functional.  It will be the same brain the child uses to learn about the world, to recognize his mother and father, to learn to walk, to talk, to play, to sing and dance.  The only thing we need to do is to allow nature to take its course and allow that child to live and develop.

If you style yourself as "pro-choice," remember the choice that you are advocating.  It is a decision that leaves the child in the womb with no choice, no voice; it leave him or her with no life.  Is that choice really ours to make?

Archbishop Charles Chaput teaches...

"Christians in general and Catholics in particular do not, and should not, seek to "force" their religious beliefs on society. But working to form the public conscience is not coercion any more than teaching the difference between poison and a steak is a form of bullying. Actively witnessing to and advancing what we believe to be true about key moral issues in public life is not "coercion." It's honesty. And it's also a duty -- not only of faith but of citizenship." - Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

The Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., has been the archbishop of Denver, Colorado since February 18, 1997. As member of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe, Archbishop Chaput is the second Native American to be ordained bishop in the United States, and the first Native American archbishop.

Here are a couple of recommended articles by the above archbishop, which I strongly encourage you to read in this election season, as they touch upon the role of the faithful Catholic in political life.

"Why We're Here" is actually chapter three of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life, recently published by Doubleday.

"Little Murders" is a talk he gave at an ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women) dinner on Oct. 17.

NC Bishops survey political candidates

The Catholic Bishops of NC (Diocese of Raleigh and Charlotte) have invited all political candidates running for office this year to participate in a survey to find out where they stand on various moral issues of special importance to Catholic voters (and all of good will, really).

The results of that survey can be found on line, here:
http://www.charlottediocese.org/candidatesurvey2008.html

You can enter in your address or zip code to see how the candidates running for office in your area responded. I did, and I noticed one fact that surprised me. Of all the candidates running in my region, every Libertarian candidate responded to the bishops' survery; all but one Republican candidate responded; and not a single Democratic candidate bothered to respond. I found that interesting.

Why not try your zip code to see how the candidates running in your area responded?