Curb your tongue! : the eighth commandment and the precepts of the church


CURB YOUR TONGUE!

The Eighth Commandment and the
Precepts of the Church

By

REV. GERALD C. TREACY, S.J.

Special edition for

NATIONAL CATHOLIC COMMUNITY
SERVICE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, D. C.

Distributed by U. S. O.



Imprimi Potest:

Nihil Obstat:

Imprimatur:

James P. Sweeney, S.J.,
Provincial, Maryland-New York.

Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D.,
Censor Librorum.

© Francis J. Spellman, D.D.,
Archbishop of New York.

New York, August 28, 1941.

Copyright, 1941, by

The Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle
in the State of New York

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE U. S. A.
BY THE PAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK, N. Y.

DoacMd



THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT
The Eighth Commandment is:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against
thy neighbor”

B
Y this commandment lying testimony re-
garding another is explicitly forbidden.

Implicitly all lying is forbidden by this com-
mandment, all unjust injury by word or deed
of another’s reputation and honor, all rash
judgments, and every unjust revelation of
secrets.
The virtue of truthfulness is enjoined by

this commandment. When our Lord was on
trial before Pilate, He was asked about His
Kingdom. The men who brought Him to trial
accused Him of conspiracy against the Ro-
man State. They said He was establishing a
kingdom in opposition to Caesar’s empire.
That was a lie. And our Saviour stamped it
as a lie, when in answering Pilate He de-
clared: “You are right. I am a King. For
this was I born and for this came I into the
world, that I shoiild give testimony to the
truth . Everyone that is of the truth hears
My voice.” The follower of Christ, the
Christian, belongs to the kingdom of truth.
He shows his sincerity by his love for truth.
He hates a lie.
God is Truth. Satan is the father of lies.

And the virtue of truthfulness is an image of
Divine Truth. It means saying exactly what
is in my mind. We express to others what
we think and what we are by external signs,
according to St. Thomas. These may be
words or deeds. Deeds speak as well as
words. In fact they speak more forcefully.
If we falsify the thought in our minds, we
lie. The real evil of lying consists in the
abuse of the power of speech. God gives me
the power of speech to reveal the thought in

(Page 3)



my mind. When I lie, I frustrate the power
in the very act of using it.
Even if lying were not forbidden by God’s

command, it would be wrong. For it would
be against the Law of Nature. To frustrate
any power that belongs to my nature as a
man is against the Law of Nature. God in
creating man gave him reason. By that power
man is able to put two and two together.
That is reasoning. And by that reasoning
power man can know that God exists. He
also can know that God rewards good and
punishes evil. And by his reason he can
know that truth is good, and lying is evil.
His conclusion is inevitable. It is this: “I
must tell the truth if I am to behave accord-
ing to the nature God has given me, for that
is why God has given me the power of
speech.” Everyone can conclude that by us-
ing his reason. That is why St. Paul con-
demned the ancient Romans. They failed to
act as men. They thought they were clever.
St. Paul told them they were not. “For pro-
fessing themselves to be wise they became
fools. . . . Because when they knew God they
have not glorified Him as God, or given
thanks, but became vain in their thoughts and
their foolish heart was darkened. . . . Who
changed the truth of God into a lie and wor-
shiped and served the creature instead of the
Creator” (Rom. i. 21-25).
But God in His mercy did not leave man

to figure out by his reason alone what was
right and what was wrong. He spoke to man
through the commandments and through the
Voice of His Divine Son, and continues to
speak through His infallible Church. And
our blessed Lord Who called Himself the
Truth, promised those who followed Him
that they should find truth and that truth
would make them free. And if we glance
into His life whom do we find ever His ene-
mies? The Pharisees. And how did He, the

(Page 4)



ever-gentle and the ever-kind lover of all
men, characterize these enemies of His love?
Liars and hypocrites, like their father the
devil who was a liar from the beginning.
These were Christ’s words.
Common sense shows us what results would

follow if man could not rely on the word of
his fellow-man. Society would be disrupted.
There could be no such thing as human faith.
And the world really moves on human faith,
the faith that man has in the word of man.
Whenever truth is violated disaster follows.
Needless to say we are speaking of the seri-
ous violation of truth, when a serious injury
is done, not of the jocose or humorous life.
It is the grievous lie that St. Paul speaks of
when he tells his congregation at Ephesus:
“Put away lying and speak truth every man
with his neighbor” (Ephes. iv. 25). And it
is the serious lie that St. John means when
he says : “All liars shall have their portion in
the pool burning with fire and brimstone”
(Apoc. xxi. 8).
A lie is not justified in an endeavor to with-

hold information that should not be given.
For no matter what the motive may be it is
never right to abuse the power of speech.
What may be done then by one who is bound
to withhold information and yet must speak,
or his very silence will betray his trust? An
answer may be given that is capable of a two-
fold meaning. The speaker employs words
that express the truth that is in his mind.
The hearer could get the meaning as the
speaker has it in his mind. The expression
may be understood in two senses. Ordinary
convention shows this in the commonplace
expression in answer to an inquirer trying to
see a busy executive: “He is out.” The ac-
cepted meaning is: “He is out to you. He is
t^o busy or he does not wish to see you.”
The person in question need not be a busy
executive either. The fact that he does not

(Page 5)



wish to see a caller justifies him in declar-
ing: “I am out.” The little girl who came
running down stairs and burst upon her
mother’s caller with the announcement:
“Mother told sister to tell you she was out,
but I got down stairs first,” was upsetting a
convention by expressing literally what was
in her mother’s mind.
This expression “out” or “not at home” is

an example of what is called broad mental
restriction. It is restricting the words to a
meaning which they can really have. For the
words can express two thoughts. The speak-
er restricts the meaning to one of the
thoughts, and is justified in so doing. He
does not lie in so doing. He may deceive.
It is surely lawful to deceive another who is
seeking information to which he has no right.
So Father Davis says: “When a secret has
to be kept, some form of words may be em-
ployed that express the veiled truth, and at
the same time occasion the deception of the
hearer. . . . For the legitimate use of broad
mental restriction two conditions must be
fulfilled, namely, there must be a sufficiently
good reason for its employment and for the
permitted deception of the hearer, and sec-
ondly the hearer should have no right to the
information which he seeks.” (Moral and
Pastoral Theology, Vol. 2, p. 415.)

St. Thomas with his usual clarity, when
speaking of what a man is bound to tell in a
court of justice, declares: “It is one thing
to withhold the truth and another to utter a
falsehood. The former is lawful sometimes,
for a man is not bound to divulge all truth,
but only such as the judge can and must
require of him according to the order of jus-
tice. . . . On the other hand it is never law-
ful to make a false declaration. . . . Accord-
ingly it is lawful for the accused to defend
himself bv withholding the truth that he is
not bound to avow. . . . But it is unlawful for

(Page 6)



him either to utter a falsehood or to with-
hold a truth that he is bound to avow, or to
employ guile or fraud, because guile or fraud
have the force of a lie” (2a 2ae Q. 69, Art. 2).

Detraction and Calumny

Detraction and calumny are forbidden by
this commandment. Detraction means reveal-
ing a true but unknown sin or fault of an-
other. It destroys the good esteem of an-
other. Good esteem may refer to physical,
moral, or intellectual qualities. Every man
has a right to this. To invade that right is
to commit an injustice. The fact that I
know another’s weakness does not justify me
in broadcasting that weakness. Not only has
the individual the right to good esteem but
that right belongs to every group, a business
group, a social organization, a city, a nation.
Detraction is a serious sin if the harm done
is serious. And even though the fault re-
vealed may be slight, because of other cir-
cumstances the sin may be serious. For ex-
ample a child’s reverence for its mother may
be hurt by the revelation of a fault that is
considered a slight fault by grownups. That
fault registers big in the trusting mind of
the child. To reveal that fault to the inno-
cent child is a serious offense against this
commandment. Detraction is a grievous sin
if the injury done is serious. This is a prin-
ciple that governs all sins against justice.
Calumny which is the assertion of a false
statement about another adds the sin of lying
to detraction. To be contrite for these sins
the one guilty must do all in his power to
make up for the injury he has done. Restitu-
tion which is a necessary condition in repent-
ance for the sin of theft is likewise necessary
in repentance for the sins of destraction or
calumny.
Are there any circumstances in which the

(Page 7)



revelation of the fault of another is justifi-
able? Yes. In defense of oneself or another
to whom an injustice has been done I am
justified in revealing another’s fault. The
revelation, however, must be made to one
who is entitled to the knowledge. For ex-
ample if I come to the knowledge of a vicious
habit that a child in my neighborhood is
guilty of, my right is to inform the parents
of the child, but not the neighbors. For the
purpose of the revelation is the correction of
the fault. So it is to be revealed to those
who are in a position to correct. Our blessed
Lord taught this very clearly when in speak-
ing of correction. He said we were to correct
the erring if we were in a position to correct,
and then if that were unavailing to speak to
those who had the duty and power to correct.
“If thy brother shall offend against thee, go
and rebuke him between thee and him alone.
If he shall hear thee thou shalt gain thy
brother. And if he will not hear thee take
with thee one or two more, that in the mouth
of two or three witnesses every word may
stand. And if he will not hear them, tell the
Church. And if he will not hear the Church
let him be to thee as the heathen and publi-
can” (Matt, xviii. 15-17).

Rash Judgment and Contumely

Rash judgment is a sin against justice. It
consists in condemning another without suffi-
cient grounds for condemnation. Others
have a right to retain the good esteem we
have of them until they forfeit this right by
actions unmistakably bad. Rash judgment is
really based on contempt. “Who art thou
that judgest thy neighbor?” (St. James iv.
13.) “Who art thou that judgest another
man’s servant?” (Rom. xiv. 4.) When serious
injustice is done the neighbor by rash judg-
ment, the sin is serious.

(Page 8)



Contumely consists in unjustly violating
the honor due another. The history of our
Lord’s sacred Passion is one long tale of con-
tumely. By God’s command we are obliged
to esteem others and give them their due
honor: “Render to all their dues . . . honor
to whom honor is due” (Rom. xiii. 7). As
honor consists in the outward recognition of
another’s excellence and this recognition is
due to another, contumely which violates this
honor is a sin against justice and charity.
The obligation of restitution applies here.

Keeping Secrets

A secret is hidden knowledge that cannot
be revealed without violating justice and
charity. Secrets are ordinarily divided into
three classes, the natural secret, the prom-
ised secret and the entrusted secret. The
natural secret is so named because the duty
of secrecy comes immediately from the Law
of Nature. In such cases where secrecy is a
duty, the nature of human relationships de-
mands it. There need not be any agreement
or promise to safeguard the secret. Its very
nature does that. For the knowledge ac-
quired is such that it cannot be revealed with-
out injuring the person who has communi-
cated the knowledge and damaging his char-
acter. The natural secret obliges under seri-
ous sin if the revelation of the knowledge
would do serious injury. It always obliges in
charity and sometimes in justice. Is there
ever a reason for revealing such a secret?
Yes. Moralists agree that such a secret even
though binding in justice, may be revealed if
he who holds the secret would be harmed by
silence, or a third innocent person would
suffer injury, or the common good would
suffer. If the secret binds only in charity,
the serious inconvenience of the one holding
it, is a reason that justifies its revelation.

(Page 9)



Once the secret has become public there is
no further duty of silence.
A promised secret explains itself. On

gaining knowledge of a secret a man prom-
ises not to reveal it. This is considered a
promise of fidelity not of justice. However,
a man receiving such a secret and binding
himself under a serious obligation because
he considers the matter in question of great
importance, assumes by that fact a serious
responsibility to observe silence. It must be
remembered that no one can make any prom-
ise to keep a secret that is a violation of
God’s Law. It is both sinful to make such a
promise and sinful to keep it.
An entrusted secret is one in which there

arises the obligation of secrecy from an
agreement made before the communication of
the secret. “If you tell me what you know
about this individual’s character I will not
reveal the knowledge.” That is a spoken
agreement. The agreement may be tacit as
in the relation between doctor and patient,
lawyer and client. We call these profes-
sional secrets. Every Catholic knows of
course that the most sacred secret of all is
that of the confessional. The civil courts of
New York have upheld the sacredness of the
confessional secret. Under no circumstances
may this ever be revealed.

The Secret of the Confessional
and American Law

The court decision safeguarding the secret
of the confessional centers around the name
of Father Anthony Kohlmann, S.J., the first
Vicar-General of New York. Father Kohl-
mann was summoned into court under the
following circumstances. Restitution had
been made of some stolen goods to a man
named John Keating through Father Kohl-

(Page 10)



mann. Keating stated this fact in court. The
court summoned Father Kohlmann and called
upon him to name the person or persons from
whom he had received the stolen property.
He refused to do this. The knowledge asked
of him was gained under the seal of confes-
sion, and no court had the right to that se-
cret. The case went to the Grand Jury and
Father Kohlmann was subpoenaed to appear.
He answered the summons but again refused
to testify. As the trial went on, he was
brought to the witness stand a third time, and
again refused to give testimony. With con-
sent of counsel the question was put off for
some time and finally on Tuesday, June 8,
1813, it was brought on for argument before
a court composed of De Witt Clinton, Mayor
of the city; Josiah Hoffman, recorder; Isaac
Douglas and Richard Cunningham, aldermen.
When Father Kohlmann was called to the

witness stand he asked to be excused and
stated: “Were I summoned to give evidence
as a private individual (in which capacity I
declare most solemnly I know nothing rela-
tive to the case before the courts), and to
testify from those ordinary sources of infor-
mation from which the witnesses present have
derived theirs, I should not for a moment
hesitate, and should even deem it a duty of
conscience to declare whatever knowledge
I might have. . . . But if called upon to testi-
fy in quality of minister of a sacrament, in
which my God Himself has enjoined on me a
perpetual and inviolable secrecy, I must de-
clare to this honorable court that I cannot,
I must not answer any question that has a
bearing on the restitution in question; and
that it would be my duty to prefer instanta-
neous death or any temporal misfortune,
rather than disclose the name of the penitent
in question. For were I to act otherwise, I
should become a traitor to my Church, to my
sacred ministry, and to my God. In fine I

(Page 11)



should render myself guilty of eternal dam-
nation. . . . The question now before the
court is this : Whether a Roman Catholic
priest can in any case be justified in reveal-
ing the secrets of sacramental confession? I
say he cannot; the reason whereof must be
obvious to everyone acquainted with the
tenets of the Catholic Church respecting the
sacraments. Father Kohlmann then proceeded
to explain the teachings of the Church, and
showed to what disabilities a violation of its
laws would subject him.
The decision was given by De Witt Clin-

ton. Briefly he stated: “We speak of this
question not in a theological sense but in its
legal and constitutional bearings. Although
we differ from the witness and his brethren
in our religious creed, yet we have no reason
to question the purity of their motives, or to
impeach their good conduct as citizens. They
are protected by the laws and constitution
of this country in the full and free exercise
of their religion, and this court can never
countenance or authorize the application of
insult to their faith or of torture to their
consciences.” At the suggestion of De Witt
Clinton, when he became Governor of New
York State, this important decision was in-
corporated into the Revised Statutes, as part
of the written law of the State.

It was a fortunate thing for the early
Church in America that a man of Father
Kohlmann’s type was called upon to make a
public defense of the doctrine of Confession
and the inviolability of the seal. In The Life
and Times of John Carroll, Dr. Peter Guil-
day says of him: “The most remarkable of
the Jesuits sent from Europe by the General
was Father Anthony Kohlmann, whose career
in America and in Europe as a teacher and
missionary, places him above all who be-
longed to the American Province during his
time here. . . . Born in Alsace, June 13, 1771,

(Page 12)



he entered the Society of Jesus in Russia in
1803, and the fbllowing year came to Amer-
ica to take part in the restoration of the So-
ciety in this country. He was one of the
most distinguished members of the restored
Society, and when Bishop Carroll sent him to
New York in October, 1808 ... he organized
the New York Literary Institute, a classical
school for boys, on the present site of St.
Patrick’s Cathedral. . . . Father Kohlmann
was far-sighted enough to realize, more keen-
ly perhaps than the Americans themselves,
that the future of the United States lay no
longer with the South and that it was in New
York that the nation would find its greatest
center of population. ... In a letter written
to his Superior, April 24, 1815, he declared:
‘the State of New York is of greater impor-
tance to the Society than all the other States
together.’ . . . As pastor of St. Peter’s Church
and vicar-general and administrator of the
diocese in the absence of Bishop Concanen,
Father Kohlmann was virtually the founder
of the New York Archdiocese. ... In 1815
Father Kohlmann returned to Georgetown
and became Master of Novices. Two years
later he was appointed Superior, and in 1824
when the Gregorian University was reopened
in Rome, he was recalled to take the chair of
dogmatic theology. One of his pupils was
Joachim Pecci, later Leo XIII. He died in
Rome on April 11, 1836.” ( The Life and Times
of John Carroll, pp. 556-636.)

If the matter of the entrusted secret is of
sufficient moment the obligation of preserv-
ing that secret is a serious obligation bid-
ing under serious sin. This obligation is one
of justice and if we are considering a profes-
sional secret, the obligation also derives from
the need of upholding the common good.
Such secrets may be revealed, however, when
consent to reveal on the part of the giver
of the secret may be presumed. For example

(Page 13)



if continued secrecy would work harm to the
one who had entrusted the secret. Again if
continued secrecy would harm a third inno-
cent person, the secret may be revealed. For
the simple reason that an innocent person
has the right to be defended against unjust
aggression, and no entrusted secret may pre-
vail against such a right. The same holds
true when revelation is necessary in the in-
terest of the public good.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent in

treating of this commandment states that it
forbids all sins of the tongue. As St. James
says : “If any man offend not in word, the
same is a perfect man, he is able also with a
bridle to lead about the whole body. We put
bits in the mouths of horses that they may
obey us, and we turn about their whole body.
Even so the tongue is indeed a little mem-
ber, and boasts great things. Behold how
small a fire kindles a great wood” (St. James
iii. 2, 3, 5). From this the Catechism declares
we learn two truths. “The first is that sins
of the tongue are very prevalent. . . . The
other truth is that the tongue is the source
of innumerable evils. Through the fault of
the evil speaker are often lost the property,
the reputation, the life and the salvation of
the injured person, or of him who inflicts the
injury. The injured person unable to bear
patiently the contumely avenges it without
restraint. The offender on the other hand,
deterred by a perverse shame and a false idea
of what is called honor, cannot be induced
to make reparation to him whom he has of-
fended.”
And who is the neighbor against whom we

are forbidden to bear false witness? The
Catechism answers: “Our neighbor is he who
needs our assistance whether bound to us by
ties of kindred or not, whether a fellow-
citizen or a stranger, a friend or an enemy.
It is wrong to think that anyone may give

(Page 14)



false evidence against an enemy since by the
command of God and our Lord we are bound
to love him. Moreover as every man is
bound to love himself, and is thus in some
sense his own neighbor, it is unlawful for
anyone to bear false witness against himself.
He who does so, brands himself with infamy
and disgrace, and injures both himself apd
the Church of which he is a member, much as
the suicide by his act, does a wrong to the
State. . . . This precept then prohibits de-
ceit, lying, and perjury on the part of wit-
nesses. It extends also to plaintiffs, defend-
ants, promoters, representatives and advo-
cates; in a word, to all who take any part in
lawsuits.”

Sins of the Tongue

This commandment explicitly forbids false
testimony given under oath in a court of jus-
tice. It moreover prohibits whatever is false-
ly affirmed by anyone in a public court or
elsewhere, in his own interest or against his
interest. By our neighbor is meant anyone
who needs our help. It includes ourselves
as St. Augustine explains: “Let no one who
bears false testimony against himself think
that he has not violated this commandment,
for the standard of loving our neighbor is the
love which we cherish toward ourselves.”
Lying, deception, perjury violate this com-
mandment. Detraction is likewise forbid-
den, which the Catechism of the Council of
Trent calls “a pestilence which is the source
of innumerable and calamitous evils.” Repu-
tation is injured not only by calumniating
the character of another but also by exag-
gerating another’s faults. To reveal the se-
cret sin of any man to one who has no right
to the knowledge is to be guilty of detraction.
Willingly to listen to detraction or to give
encouragement to the detractor is to share in

(Page 15)



the sin. Those who foment dissensions and
promote quarrels, who flatter and fawn upon
people of influence for self-gain are all guilty
of evil speech forbidden by this command-
ment. For such are hypocrites who were
constantly rebuked by our blessed Lord.
Viewing the eighth commandment from a

positive angle, it calls for the conduct of
trials on the plane of strict justice and ac-
cording to law. It calls for sentence to be
pronounced only after full knowledge of the
case is possessed by the judge. It requires
the acquittal of the innocent and the punish-
ment of the guilty, and that judicial decisions
be rendered without fear or favor. As this
commandment chiefly concerns witnesses, it
not only forbids false testimony but enjoins
the truth, “the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.” St. Augustine in this matter
pithily remarks: “He who conceals the truth
and he who utters falsehood are both guilty;
the one because he is unwilling to render a
service; the other because he has the will to
do an injury.” However, we are not always
obliged to disclose the truth. Attorneys and
counselors, plaintiffs and prosecutors are men-
tioned specifically by the Catechism of the
Council of Trent: “The two former should
not refuse to contribute their services and
legal assistance when the needs of others call
for their aid. They should deal generously
with the poor. They should not defend an
unjust cause, prolong lawsuits by trickery,
nor encourage them for the sake of gain. As
for remuneration for their services, let them
be guided by the principles of justice and
equity. Plaintiffs and prosecutors on their
side are not to be led by the influence of love
or hatred or any other motive into exposing
anyone to danger through unjust charges. . . .
To all is addressed the divine command that
in every conversation they should speak the
truth at all times from the sincerity of their

(Page 16)



hearts; that they should utter nothing injuri-
ous to the reputation of another, not even of
those by whom they have been injured and
persecuted.”

Gossip and Gossipers

Gossip is the most common of all sins of the
tongue. It takes many forms. There is the
much-mentioned gossip of the bridge-table.
There is the gossip of the men’s club. It is
often called harmless. It is in fact rarely so.
For gossip hits at character. And a blow at
character if not always a mortal wound, is
always a wound. A wound bleeds. Surely
it may heal. But there is always a scar left
after the gossip-wound.

Character is what we are. God knows that
best. And we know it, too, but not as well as
God knows it.

Reputation is what people say we are.
And they say it because they think it. “What
do you think of John Jones?” Your answer
is the REPUTATION you give him. His
reputation is the picture of his character.
We speak about revealing character. That

means lifting up the veil and showing wliat
is within. Character is the shrine within the
temple. Reputation is the outside picture of
the inside treasure.
You reveal your character and establish

your reputation by the way you speak and
act. You reveal another’s character by the
way you speak of another and act toward an-
other. Gossip is drawing a wrong picture.
Or it is drawing a picture I have no RIGHT
to draw.
How is it drawing a wrong picture? In

this way. Sergeant Brown knows that Cap-
tain Smith enjoys a game of cards. Around
the mess table one night he suddenly an-
nounces: “Our captain is a heavy gambler.”
That is gossip. What is its effect? A heavy

(Page 17)



gambler has a very special meaning. A man
who is a heavy gambler thinks of nothing but
gambling. It is his life. It has become a
master-passion. In the case of Captain
Smith it is a picture of an officer who puts
gambling ahead of his military duties, his
family, his religion. The young soldier hear-
ing this opinion of Captain Smith, at once loses
respect for him. He cannot look up to him
as he used to. Why this man is going to lead
him into battle. What if his thoughts are
on the card table when he is handling the
lives of many men? Every soldier who hears
that remark reacts in the same way. What
has happened? Sergeant Brown’s careless
gossip has lost a good officer to the country’s
service. Captain Smith is through.
May careless gossip be tossed off lightly?

God does not toss it off lightly for God’s
command is: “Thou shalt not bear false wit-
ness.” And drawing a false picture is bear-
ing false witness.

“Well, I’m sorry for my careless gossip,”
says the gossiper. That does not forgive the
sin. For that is not contrition. Contrition
is proving that I am sorry. How do I prove
my sorrow? By making up to the best of
my ability for the harm I have done. If I
take a man’s money from him, I do not prove
my contrition until I have paid it all back.
So if I take away a man’s reputation from
him, I am obliged to restore that reputation.

Sergeant Brown is obliged to retract what
he said, if he wants forgiveness for his sin of
detraction. For what is wrongly called care-
less gossip means detraction. He is bound
to go to every soldier who heard him make
his remarks, and take back the statement he
made.

Gossip however may give the right picture.
Then how is it gossip? It is gossip because
it is drawn for those who have no right to
see it. For example Miss Blue knows that

(Page 18 )



Miss Black is a heavy drinker. There is no
mistake about it.. There is no exaggerating
the fact. But Miss Blue is the only one of
all Miss Black's friends who knows this. In-
stead of trying to help Miss Black overcome
her passion for drink, Miss Blue does nothing
about it. She should have used her friend-
ship to help her friend. She should have
urged her friend to go to Holy Communion
frequently, even daily. For Miss Blue is a
good Catholic and knows that God has given
us His Body and Blood to enable us to con-
trol our passions.
What does she do? She breezes up to the

bridge table and announces to her three
friends who know nothing about Miss Black's
weakness, all the details of a sad sin, as she
has seen them in the case of Miss Black.
There are a great many kind and unkind re-
marks passed. The game is over and each
one of the three returns home, and relays
the choice bit of gossip to three families.

Is not the fact true? Certainly. But it is
wrong to say something that damages the
reputation of another, even though the fact
stated is true. It is wrong because God gives
each one a right to his and her reputation.

Propaganda Lies

The modern word propaganda has become
identified with lying. This is too bad for
propaganda can be truth and should be truth.
Propaganda means advertising or giving pub-
licity to facts. If it broadcasts falsehoods
or half-truths it is lying.
Every real educator is a propagandist in

the good sense of the word, so is every sales-
man. Everyone interested in an idea or a
plan who tries to sell that idea or plan is a
propagandist. Our Lord’s Apostles were the
greatest propagandists that ever lived. They
believed in Christ's Truth and they spent

(Page 19)



their lives in spreading that Truth through-
out the world, even at the cost of their lives.
“Going therefore teach all nations” is a propa-
ganda message. The Catholic Church has
been propagating that message down through
the centuries.

But when we hear the word propaganda
today we rarely identify it with truth. We
are chary of propaganda. We should be, be-
cause we have learned that certain groups in
this country and in other countries have ad-
mitted after the fact, that they did not hesi-
tate to issue false statements to further the
interests of their groups. It is not a sin
peculiar to one nation. It is not only a po-
litical trick. It is found among groups that
are not political either in the national or
international sense.

Sad to say it has always been. If it is more
prevalent today that is because the means of
sending out information are more extensive
today than ever before in the world’s history.
The press, the radio, the movie, the theatre
are all means of sending out information or
misinformation. The obligation of obeying
God’s commandment—Thou Shalt Not Bear
False Witness—is just as binding on all
groups as it is on all individuals. In fact
those who hold responsible positions, who
reach a great many people through their con-
trol of sources of information, and the means
of spreading information, are capable of do-
ing greater harm, than the individual propa-
gandist who only reaches a few.
Every modern government has its propa-

ganda agencies. This is not merely a war-
time situation. Long before the war this
was true. What is the obligation of govern-
ment in this matter? The same as the obliga-
tion of the individual. A government is not
OBLIGED to tell all the government knows.
Neither is the individual. But government
is OBLIGED by God’s Law not to bear false

(Page 20)



witness to the truth, not to garble the truth,
not to proclaim false facts as true facts.

Before the war, Edward Knoblaugh, an
Associated Press foreign correspondent had
this to say about some European governments
in their policies toward the men of the press:

“I have had to submit to all kinds of cen-
sorship and I have had to pass on to millions
of readers stuff that was so smelly, that I
felt sure its odor must be detected. . . . Yet
I have later heard many of these fabulous
propaganda untruths solemnly relayed as gos-
pel. . . . During the ten years I covered for-
eign happenings, I made myself so obnoxious
in one country that I was blackballed out of
it, and I got out of another just ahead of a
firing squad. In both cases I committed the
unpardonable offense of daring to write what
I saw and knew to be the truth.”

Summary
To sum up the teaching of the Eighth Com-

mandment. Everyone is forbidden to lie.
On all occasions and under all circumstances
everyone is not bound to speak the truth,
for everyone is not bound to speak on all
occasions and under all circumstances. There
are times when a man is bound to secrecy.
But I am not allowed by God’s command-
ment to keep a secret, by lying.
Everyone is entitled to his reputation. Al-

though I know a person’s reputation is un-
deserved, it is not my right to proclaim this
fact. If I have harmed the good name of an-
other, I must make amends for the harm, if
I want God’s forgiveness. Detraction, ca-
lumny, rash judgment, contumely, gossip are
forbidden by this commandment. Truth is
enjoined.
The word is the picture of the thought.

Truth means the right picture. The way of
Truth must be the way of life, for the God

(Page 21)



of Truth is the God of life. I AM THE
WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE.

THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH
God makes His Law known through the

commandments, through the teaching of His
Divine Son, and through the teaching of His
Church. Christ established the Church to
lead men to their true destiny. He made it
a real society with a definite end and definite
means to reach that end. In His mercy He
did not leave men to flounder around, to
spend their lives in guessing whether this
was God's Will or something else was God's
Will. No. God’s Will is found in the fulfill-
ment of His Law, and to His Church He com-
mitted that Law.
We know from the first commandment that

our duty is to worship God. But how are we
to worship God? The Church tells us that.
Christ founded His Church to tell us that.
His Church then would be a strange society
if it possessed no laws. In fact it would be
no society at all for there can be no society
without law. God's worship is the whole
reason of life. It is the supremely important
thing in life. Is it surprising then that the
Church should formulate laws to make that
worship as humanly perfect as it can be?

Unless we realize that this is the reason
back of Church Law, we miss everything. If
we fancy that the Church gives us a law for
some ordinary human purpose we are wrong.
The Church’s purpose is divine. And every
law of the Church has in view this divine
purpose. Church Laws are commonly di-
vided into liturgical and disciplinary. By
liturgical is meant that which pertains to
the official worship of the Church. For ex-
ample everything that has to do with the
service of the altar is regulated. Holy Mass

(Pare 22 )



is offered at certain times, in a definite man-
ner, in a prescribed form. All these observ-
ances fall under liturgical law. An example
of a disciplinary law would be the obligation
to fast from midnight before receiving Holy
Communion. A moment's reflection however
shows us that disciplinary laws are not mere-
ly for the sake of discipline. They are all
for the purpose of making man’s worship of
God more dignified, more proper, more
worthy. God is All-Perfect, man so imper-
fect that all care should be taken that man’s
worship of God be as free from defect as
possible.
With these ideas clear, we can understand

better what are called the precepts of the
Church. There are six precepts or command-
ments of the Church:

1. To hear Mass on Sundays and holydays
of obligation.

2. To fast and abstain on the days ap-
pointed.

3. To go to confession at least once a year.
4. To receive the Holy Eucharist during

Easter time.
5. To contribute to the support of our pas-

tors. •

6. Not to marry within certain degrees of
kindred, nor to solemnize marriage dur-
ing the forbidden times.

The First Precept of the Church

In the first commandment of the Church
we are told how to fulfill the third command-
ment of God. “Remember that thou keep
holy the Sabbath day” was the command of
God given to the people of the Old Law by
Moses on Mount Sinai. When the Old Law
ceased, the obligation of honoring God on
a special day did not cease. Why should it?
The New Law which issued in the Life of

(Page 23)



Grace would indeed look strange if it did not
contain a special day set aside for the honor
of God, the Author of Grace. Our Lord said:
“I have not come to destroy but to fulfill
the Law.” The Old Law was a type of the
more perfect Law to come. The Old Law
was the shadow. The New Law is the sub-
stance of God’s love. Whatever beauty was
in the Old Law was to be intensified in the
New. Love was to supersede fear. The most
perfect expression of love is sacrifice. The
most perfect Sacrifice is the Sacrifice of Cal-
vary renewed on the Altar. And so the
Church commands us to honor God by shar-
ing in the Great Sacrifice on Sundays and
holydays.

It is the Mass that Matters. So we are
bidden to honor God and bring blessings on
ourselves through the Mass. And by hear-
ing Mass we mean not merely being present
at Mass but really offering the Mass. It is
true that the priest is the chief minister of
the Mass. But that does not mean that he
is the only one to offer it. It is a common
or communal action. The action of the love
and the prayer of many. And the priest is
ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice not for
himself alone of by himself alone but for
himself and his people. “Pray my brethren,
that my sacrifice and yours may find favor
with Almighty God,” is what he says at the
Orate Fratres. This is the real fulfillment
of the first precept of the Church, namely,
the body of the faithful united with the
priest, praying with each other and for each
other, and with the whole Church and for the
whole Church. It means a union with Christ
and with each other. We are joined in the
most perfect act of worship which gives
more honor and glorv to God than all other
prayers could give Him, even though welling
up in the hearts of His saints or pouring forth
from his angelic hosts.

(Page 24)



The Church then as the guardian of God’s
Law and the Voice of Christ bids us honor
God in this very special way on Sundays and
holydays. He who hears you, hears Me. We
do not pray the Mass because we feel like
honoring God in this way. We pray the Mass
because God speaking through His Church
tells us plainly: “This is the way to honor
Me as I would have you honor Me.” In the
treatise cn the Third Commandment, the
details of God’s Law pertaining to the wor-
ship due to Him are fully explained.
The holydays of the Church are days set

apart as Sunday is set apart for divine wor-
ship. Their number has varied in the long
history of the Church. In this country there
are three in honor of Christ: namely, Christ-
mas in honor of His birth, New Year’s Day,
when we commemorate His circumcision, and
Ascension Thursday when we celebrate His
entrance into heaven. There are two holy-
days in honor of our Blessed Mother, name-
ly, the Assumption, August 15th, when we
pay tribute to her remarkable privilege of
entering heaven after her death, with her
body as well as her soul glorified, and the
feast of the Immaculate Conception, Decem-
ber 8th, when we honor her unique gift of
being conceived without original sin. There
is one holyday in honor of all the saints
which is on November 1st, and is called All
Saints’ Day or All Hallows.

The Second Precept of the Church

This precept obliges us to fast and absti-
nence on the days appointed by the Church.
An easy w^y to remember the difference be-
tween fasting and abstinence is this: Fasting
limits the quantity of food, abstinence deals
with the quality of food. The Lenten Regu-
lations published each year explain the obli-
gation and nature of fasting and abstinence.

(Page 25)



The weekly notices read in our churches re-
mind us of our obligation of fast and absti-
nence on days other than Fridays. All Fri-
days of the year are observed as days of
abstinence in this country. When a holyday
occurs on Friday abstinence is not observed.
Although usually the day preceding the holy-
day is a day of abstinence. The other ab-
stinence days are the Wednesdays of Lent,
Holy Saturday morning, and the ember days,
as well as the vigils of Pentecost, the As-
sumption, All Saints and Christmas. When
a national holiday occurs on a day of absti-
nence, the Bishop of the diocese may dis-
pense from the law. The law of abstinence
obliges all who have completed their seventh
year. The sick, the convalescent, the needy
who cannot afford to purchase the prescribed
foods are exempt from abstinence. Pastors
and confessors have the dispensing power in
individual cases.
The law of fasting prescribes that only one

complete meal may be taken in a day. Other
food is allowed as explained in the diocesan
regulations. The fast days in this country
are all the days of Lent, except Sundays, the
ember days, the vigils of Pentecost, the As-
sumption, All Saints and Christmas. All are
bound to fast from the age of twenty-one to
fifty-nine years. Exemption or dispensation
from this law is granted as in the case of
abstinence to those who have lawful reasons
excusing them. In this instance diocesan
regulations are our guide.
Every Catholic should realize that the

Church in prescribing fast and abstinence is
considering above all things our spiritual
health. As a matter of fact bodily health is
benefitted by fast and abstinence as the sci-
ence of modern dietetics proves conclusively.
This, however, is not the spiritual ideal. The
spiritual ideal of fasting and abstinence is
penance. We fast and abstain as a penance

(Page 25)



for our sins. And even if for good reasons
we are exempt or dispensed from fasting and
abstinence, we are not thereby excused from
all penitential practice. “Unless you shall
do penance, you shall all likewise perish,” are
our Saviour’s words (Luke xiii. 3). The real
Catholic who cannot abstain or fast will do
some other form of penance. The Church
moreover in prescribing days and seasons of
fast and abstinence is ever giving us a re-
minder. The season of Lent reminds us of
our Lord’s fast of forty days in the desert;
the ember days remind us to sanctify the
four seasons of the year; and the vigils re-
mind us to prepare spiritually for the worthy
celebration of the feast day that follows. The
Friday abstinence throughout the year, is a
weekly reminder of our Saviour’s death on
the cross on Good Friday.

The Third and Fourth Preeepts
of the Church

These two precepts have to do with annual
confession and the reception of the Holy Eu-
charist during the Easter season. Canon Law
(Canon 906) declares that every Catholic
who has reached the age of reason is obliged
to confess his sins at least once a year. While
no special time is mentioned for the yearly
confession it is usually made in preparation
for the Easter Communion. The time pre-
scribed for the Easter Communion begins
with the first Sunday of Lent and ends on
Trinity Sunday, and every Catholic who has
attained the age of reason is under a serious
obligation of fulfilling this precept. It is
plain that these precepts have for their ob-
ject the restoration and preservation of grace
in the soul. It is just as plain that these pre-
cepts lay down the minimum for Catholic
life. The true ideal of Catholic life is fre-

(Page 27)



quent confession, and more and more fre-
quent reception of the Holy Eucharist. The
Church of the present century since the pon-
tificate of Pius X, the Pope of the Eucharist,
has learned that Catholic life means Eucharis-
tic life or it means nothing. The great Pope
whose clarion call to all Catholics was “Pray
the Mass

”

instituted the Eucharistic Cru-
sade which has meant so much for the life of
the modern Church. His successors on
Peter’s Throne have handed on the torch that
is the Light of the world. The peace of
Christ in the Kingdom of Christ, which alone
can save the muddled modern world begins
and ends with the Tabernacle. “Except you
eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink
His Blood, you shall not have life in you”
(John vi. 54).

The Fifth and Sixth Precepts
of the Church

“The Lord ordained that they who preach
the Gospel should live by the Gospel,” are
St. Paul’s words (1 Cor. ix. 14). And again
in the same letter he said: “Know you not
that those who work in the holy place, eat the
things that are of the holy place; and they
that serve the altar, partake with the altar.”
The fifth precept of the Church commands
us to support our pastors. Just as in the Old
Law there was special provision made by
God for the support of the priests and the
Temple, so does God command in the New
Law that His ministers be supported by
those to whom they minister. The common
method of Church support in this country
is by free will offerings. Sometimes this does
not suffice and other means have to be found
to supply the needs of the parish. The point
is that every Catholic is obliged in keeping
with his income to contribute to Church sup-

(Page 28)



port. When he does so he is not doing a favor
to those whom he may like or dislike. He is
fulfilling a duty that God has put upon him.
The last precept of the Church obliges us

to observe the laws that the Church pre-
scribes for marriage. These laws are given
in detail in the treatise on the Sacrament of
Matrimony. Among the most important is
the law that obliges Catholics to be married
in the presence of a priest and two witnesses.
Unless this law is fulfilled there is no mar-
riage. It must be remembered in consider-
ing the marriage laws of the Church that the
Church is commissioned by God to safe-
guard the sacrament and prescribe the con-
ditions for its valid and licit reception. As
a sacrament instituted by Christ, it is not
merely a human or civil contract. So no
matter what State law may say regarding the
contract, the sacred character of the mar-
riage bond is in the safekeeping of the
Church and not the State. The State has the
right to legislate in this matter for the good
of its citizens as individuals and as members
of a social unit. But it has no right to in-
fringe on the rights of the Church whose
task is not merely to look after the human
welfare of its children, but much more their
eternal welfare. The fact is that the more
the State conforms in its marriage legisla-
tion to the legislation of the Church, the bet-
ter for the citizens and for the State.
This precept forbids the solemnization of

marriage during the penitential seasons of
Advent and Lent. That does not mean that
marriage cannot be contracted during these
times. It means that the pomp and cere-
mony usually attendant on marriage are for-
bidden. The reason is evident. As these
times are set apart for penitential observ-
ance, it is out of keeping with the spirit of
the Church to sound the note of joy when
the heart of the Church is in sorrow.

(Page 29)



While these precepts or laws of the Church
are taught to every Catholic, the Church has
many other laws that are contained in its
Body of Laws, or Corpus Juris. This group
of laws is known as Canon Law. Just as
the body of laws in the State is known as
Civil Law.

Canon Law
Canon Law (Jus Canonicum) meaning norm

or rule, from the Greek kainown, and the
Latin jus, meaning law either in the singular
or plural is the technical term used for
Church Law since the twelfth century. So
we may say that Canon Law is “the complex
of rules which direct the external order of
the Church, the whole Church is meant, not
some particular part of it. The purpose of
Canon Law, as of all true law, is the estab-
lishment and maintenance of external order.
As the Church is a society, a body that is
visible, her laws are mainly concerned with
public or external order. Of course as the
end of the Church is spiritual, it is clear that
Canon Law must be aware of the spiritual.
By reason of its origin Canon Law is either
divine or human. That part of it is divine
that owes its origin to Christ or to the Apos-
tles in so far as the Apostles enacted laws
under divine inspiration. That part of it is
human which owes its origin to human au-
thority, such as decrees passed by councils,
popes and bishops. If, however, these de-
crees are declarations of divine or natural
law, they belong to the class of divine laws.
Canon Law then is as old as the Church

is old. However, during the centuries that
have marked the life of the Church, there
have appeared from time to time new ar-
rangements of the Law of the Church. So
we speak today of the New Code of Canon
Law. This new code became effective on

(Page 30)



May 19, 1918 (Pentecost Sunday), by decree
of Pope Benedict XV. In this Decree, en-
titled Proventissima, the pontiff explains
very clearly, that “the Church, most provi-
dent of mothers, enriched by her Divine
Founder with all the characteristics befitting
a perfect society, from the very beginning
of her existence . . . undertook to regulate
and safeguard the discipline of the clergy and
the Christian people by definite laws. . . .
However, owing to changes in the circum-
stances of the times and the needs of men,
Canon Law no longer achieved its end with
sufficient speed. For in the passing of cen-
turies a great many laws were issued. Some
were abrogated by the supreme authority of
the Church or fell into desuetude. Others
proved too difficult to enforce as times
changed, or ceased to be useful for the com-
mon good. And the laws had so increased in
number and were so separated and scattered
that many of them were unknown not only to
the people but to the most learned scholars
as well.

,,
This is why the New Code was

issued. And so the Holy Father concludes
his decree by stating: “Therefore having in-
voked the aid of divine grace and relying on
the authority of the Blessed Apostles Peter
and Paul, or Our own acord and with certain
knowledge, and in the fullness of the Apos-
tolic Power with which We are invested, by
this Our Constitution, which We wish to be
valid for all time, We promulgate, decree
and order that the present Code, just as it is
compiled, shall have from this time forth the
power of law for the Universal Church ...”
This decree was issued on Pentecost Sunday,
1917, and went into effect one year later on
Pentecost Sunday, 1918.

(Page 31)





.



*