The one involving the Legion of Christ has been completed.

Anyone who thinks this will have a simple and tidy conclusion are kidding themselves. The Legion is intimately linked to its fraudulent, devilish founder and purging them completely of his influence while keeping the value of the group will be a long and difficult process (unless, of course, Pope Benedict decides to just abolish the Legion, in which case its members will need to find new spiritual homes).

Of course the trouble within the Legion is just one in a whole host of such problems facing the Church today. The various crises related to sexual misconduct which have rocked the Church over the past few years – in the U.S., the Legion, Ireland, and now all of Europe – are a result in so many ways of unfaithfulness and fornication with the world. In the Old Testament, whenever Israel faced troubles, whether from inside or outside their nation, the prophets told them that the root of their problems was their unfaithfulness to God and His covenant. This unfaithfulness was inevitably likened to adultery (see: Hosea). Do we really think that things are different for us?

As Catholics, we too have been unfaithful to God’s covenant, and the covenant we have with God is much greater than the Old Covenant. We have the sacraments as the means in which to stay within that covenant, and we can even receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ! Yet we have continually fornicated with the world, accepting its values instead of the values of God. And the most important word in the previous sentence is “we” – do not think that the problems of the Church are someone else’s problems. If you are a Catholic, then they are our problems, helped along by our sins.

The solution to these problems is not some new program or even some institutional change. It is repentance. If we beg God to forgive our sins, then perhaps He will be merciful to us.

Regular readers of this blog know how much I appreciate and love the Eastern practice of Christianity: its spirituality, its liturgy and its history. Most of my readers are Western, so I like to point out the many beauties of the East so that Western Christians will appreciate them as well. But I am a Western Catholic, not Eastern, and there are many, many things I love about being Western, so I thought I would post a few of my favorite particularly Western practices here.

(Please note: this post should in no way be taken as an anti-Eastern post or as Western triumphalism. Nor do I think Eastern Christians should adopt any of these practices [except perhaps number 10]. In the Body of Christ there are a diversity of gifts and loving one gift does not in any way denigrate other gifts).

1) The tradition of daily Mass
I am very thankful for the practice of daily Mass in the Western church. The fact that we can receive the precious body and blood of our Savior any day of the week is a great blessing, and one we should take advantage of as much as possible. Also, I love the whole simplified ethos of a daily Mass.

2) Kneeling
When I first became Catholic, it took me a while to get used to the whole kneeling thing. But over the years I have come to love the regular kneeling we Western Catholics do. It is an obvious sign of humility, and I find it very hard to be prideful in front of the Lord when I’m on my knees.

3) Eucharistic Adoration
This practice took centuries to develop in the West (and it never did in the East), but boy am I glad it did! I still find it amazing how I can walk into an Adoration chapel and immediately just know it is a holy place. The peace that comes from Eucharistic Adoration is hard to surpass.

4) Celibate clergy
I know that the East has a strong tradition of celibacy among their monks and bishops, but I am grateful for the West’s tradition of an all-celibate clergy, including parish priests. I think the sign that celibacy gives is needed even in the day-to-day of parish life, and the freedom such celibacy gives to the parish priest is very beneficial as well. (See this post for my defense of the Eastern practice).

5) Ash Wednesday
What is more humbling than walking around all day with a smudge on your forehead? I can’t think of a better way to start Lent than with this great day.

6) Diversity of religious art
There are rooms in my house in which you might believe you walked into an Eastern Christian church because there are so many icons. The Eastern icon is my favorite type of religious art. But I do greatly appreciate the wide variety of Western religious art over the centuries, and believe that this art has brought millions of people closer to Christ over the centuries.

7) The Rosary
It led me into the Church and has been my favorite form of prayer ever since. What more can I say?

8 ) St. Francis of Assisi
My all-time favorite saint is also quite Western as well. I can think of no better model for how to live like Christ (other than Christ himself).

9) Scholasticism
I recognize the potential excesses of a scholastic outlook, but I also acknowledge the synthesis of faith and reason that St. Thomas Aquinas and his colleagues brought to the Church.

10) Recognition of centralized authority/papacy
I have often written on the importance of the authority of each bishop in his diocese, and I think we in the West would do well to learn from the East in regards to regional synods and collegiality among bishops. However, I also think it is highly important that the Church have a place where the buck truly stops. And in the West, we have always (rightly) seen Rome as that place.

11) 59-minute Sunday Masses
Just kidding.

If you are a member of the Latin Church, the answer, of course, is “yes”. In the West we have a strong tradition of celibate clergy, and those priests who are married – such as Anglican converts – are the exception, not the rule. Celibacy in the priesthood is a cherished tradition in the West, and there has never been a strong movement here to push for married priests.

Thus, Father Laurent Touze, a spiritual theology professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, was quite correct to speak of married priests as an “exception” in an interview with Zenit News Agency. However, the good Father went off the tracks a bit when he tried to apply this practice to the Christian East:

ZENIT: With this measure, do you think that one day, celibacy might become voluntary also for priests of the Latin rite?

Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn’t so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.

This statement of Fr. Touze’s shows either an ignorance or a disrespect for the legitimate traditions of the East. As we in the West have a strong tradition of celibate clergy, so too does the East have a strong tradition of married priests (note, however, that their bishops and monks are always celibate). To wish to “promote” a celibate clergy in the East goes against their praxis which has existed for centuries.

Furthermore, it goes against the teachings of Vatican II, which commanded that the traditions of the East be respected by those of us in the West:

“…the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls,” (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 5)

Vatican II also explicitly commends the practice of married priests in the East:

“This holy synod, while it commends ecclesiastical celibacy, in no way intends to alter that different discipline which legitimately flourishes in the Eastern Churches. It permanently exhorts all those who have received the priesthood and marriage to persevere in their holy vocation so that they may fully and generously continue to expend themselves for the sake of the flock commended to them.” (Decree on Priestly Life and Ministry, 16)

Finally, the code of canon law for the Eastern Churches, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, demands that the practice of married priests in the East be “held in honor”:

“Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.” (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 373)

It is unfortunate that Fr. Touze chose to ignore these teachings of our Church in his public comments. We in the West should zealously honor our celibate clergy, and should always work to explain and defend the practice of celibacy in the priesthood. But that defense should not come at the expense of our brothers and sisters in the East, who have their own, just-as-legitimate, tradition of married priests.

Today’s Gospel reading addresses one of the most contentious issues in the early Church:

Jesus said to his disciples:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.
I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away,
not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter
will pass from the law,
until all things have taken place.
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments
and teaches others to do so
will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven.
But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments
will be called greatest in the Kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 5:17-19)

Although it may appear clear to us what Jesus means here, it was not so clear to the first Christians. The debate regarding the validity of the Jewish law for Christians divided the Church for decades. Some, such as James, followed the Mosaic law very precisely and did not stop attending the Temple and celebrating the Jewish feasts. Others, however, eventually stopped following the ceremonies of the Old Covenant. And some proposed a compromise between the two extreme positions. This debate underlies much of Paul’s letters and was a constant concern for him.

So how did the Church resolve this issue? Since we no longer practice any of the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Law, didn’t we in fact “abolish” the law, contra Christ’s explicit command? In my article Abolished or Fulfilled? I did an in-depth study of this issue and found that the  early Church divided the law into different parts, and each part was fulfilled by Christ, but its fulfillment took different forms, depending on the type of law involved.

For example, St. Justin Martyr divided the Old Law into three parts:

(1) Ethical commands
(2) Commands symbolic of Christ (such as the Passover lamb)
(3) Laws due to the hardness of the Jews’ hearts

For Justin, then, only the first type of law was still to be followed, for Christ’s work had fulfilled the others in such a way to make them unnecessary.

Another common delineation in the Law by the Church Fathers was to see two types of Law in the Mosaic Covenant:

(1) Ceremonial Laws
(2) Moral Laws

Christ’s saving works brought an end to the ceremonial laws because his life, death and resurrection brought them to complete fulfillment. But the Christian must still follow the moral laws (such as the Ten Commandments) because they were still necessary to follow Christ fully.

So in fact Christ did not “abolish” the law, but brought it to fulfillment. However, that fulfillment in some cases meant that certain particular laws were no longer necessary to follow.

For those of us who are discouraged by the seemingly constant debates that rage within the Church today should take heart that similarly intense debates also existed at the beginning, and that they were eventually resolved. Sometimes it takes hundreds of years, but the Holy Spirit is always faithful in bringing resolution to our own hardness of heart.

In today’s Gospel reading, Christ urges us to make petitionary prayers to the Father. He says,

Ask and it will be given to you;
seek and you will find;
knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds;
and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Which one of you would hand his son a stone
when he asked for a loaf of bread,
or a snake when he asked for a fish?
If you then, who are wicked,
know how to give good gifts to your children,
how much more will your heavenly Father give good things
to those who ask him.
(Matthew 7:7-11)

For a while now I have been planning a “service” I would like to offer to anyone who comes to this blog, and this Gospel inspired me to start it today. Here is the service: if you send me a prayer intention I will make sure that one of the following will be offered for that request: a decade of the Rosary, a Mass intention, or a day of fasting. I am in contact with some people who are willing to offer these activities for your prayer intentions.

To make a prayer request, simply email prayer@ericsammons.com and let me know your intention. Strict confidentiality will be kept and I promise that someone will offer your intention as soon as possible. Unless I am overwhelmed by intentions, I can’t imagine that it will be more than one or two weeks before your intention is offered in union with one of the above-mentioned activities. If the matter is urgent, state that in the email, and the request will be given priority.

I don’t want this blog to just be a place where I expound my opinions; I want it to be something that helps others draw closer to Christ. I believe very strongly in the power of prayer, so I hope (and pray) that this little service will do some good in building up the Kingdom of God.

If you have your own blog, feel free to let others know about this service.

This past Sunday my family attended Mass in the Extraordinary Form, as my pastor has begun to say this Form of the Mass on a weekly basis at our parish. It was the first time attending a Latin Mass for my wife and most of my children, so I tried to prepare them beforehand as to what to expect. It was a Low Mass, so silence reigned, which was actually quite beautiful.

Although I truly appreciate the old Mass, I admit that I am content with the Novus Ordo, as long as it is properly celebrated. However, there are many Catholics who greatly prefer the Latin Mass, and John Zmirak has posted a wonderfully written, charitably-argued defense of traditional Catholicism over at Inside Catholic. I urge everyone to go over there and read it.

Zmirak distinguishes between “orthodox Catholics” and “traditionalist Catholics”. “Orthodox Catholics” are those who assent to all the Church’s teachings and appreciate all the Church’s traditions, yet do not have an attachment to pre-Vatican II, Tridentine Catholicism. In fact, some orthodox Catholics greatly prefer many of the changes that came about as a result of Vatican II. “Traditionalist Catholics”, on the other hand, also assent to all the Church’s teachings, but believe that many of the pre-Vatican II, Tridentine traditions of the Church still have great value. As someone who falls in the “orthodox Catholic” camp but has significant Traditionalist sympathies, I want to make a few comments on Zmirak’s article:

Still, the division [between orthodox and traditionalist Catholics] is palpable. It was lying right there on the table, for any who cared to palpate it, last week when I went to dinner with a Trad-minded colleague and a visiting author who’d come to speak at our college on G. K. Chesterton. (The presentation was riveting, and I highly recommend Dale Ahlquist’s talks and books.) Like the good Mr. Shea, our speaker is a convert, and he shared with Mark a puzzlement at the apparent fixation traditionalists have on restoring former elements of the liturgy and other Catholic practices that are not essential, and resisting innovations that are not inherently evil. Having come from churches that didn’t have the Eucharist, and remaining through God’s grace flush with gratitude for the sacraments, many converts really don’t understand what the rest of us are nattering on about. We who grew up privileged may seem like sulky, spoiled kids. We owe these good people an explanation.

Zmirak hits on an important difference here. When I go to Mass, I still sometimes find myself saying, “Jesus Christ is coming – body, blood, soul and divinity – to this altar; I can’t believe I’m here!” A traditionalist cradle Catholic, on the other hand, might sometimes think something along the lines of, “Jesus Christ is coming – body, blood, soul and divinity – to this altar; I can’t believe [insert liturgical abuse] is here!” Both are valid reactions, and both appreciate the awesomeness of what is happening. But the former perspective – often held by converts – doesn’t concern itself with many of the inessential elements of the Mass. After all, we have been a part of a ecclesial community which didn’t even have the Eucharist, so we are just thankful for being present.

But should we be concerned with “inessential” elements? Zmirak thinks so:

Here’s what we Trads have realized, that the merely orthodox haven’t: Inessential things have power, which is why we bother with them in the first place. In every revolution, the first thing you change is the flag. Once that has been replaced, in the public mind all bets are off — which is why the Commies and Nazis filled every available space with their Satanic banners. Imagine, for a moment, that a newly elected president replaced the Stars and Stripes with the Confederate battle flag. Or that he replaced our 50 stars with the flag of Mexico. Let’s say he got away with doing this, and wasn’t carried off by the Secret Service to an “undisclosed location.” What would that signify for his administration? If people accepted the change, what else would they be likely to accept?

A valid concern, but I would argue that it can be easily over-inflated. If the president changes the United States flag with the flag of Mexico, that has a powerful effect. But if he changes the dinner china in the White House dinner room, that does not. So there are inessential things that have power, and inessential things that do not. The trick is determining the difference, and the sin of the Pharisees was that they could not make that distinction. But even accepting that certain inessential elements have power (such as the turning of the priest towards the people), the Christian should still always realize that even then they do not trump truly essential elements, something that, at least in my experience, some Traditionalist Catholics have a hard time remembering.

In fact, you can see the danger in focusing on inessential matters in the very comments of Zmirak’s article. In one of the very first comments, another traditionalist criticizes Zmirak for being positive about the congregation saying the responses with the altar servers. Instead of focusing on the fact that Zmirak is giving an extremely powerful argument for his own beliefs, this traditionalist focuses only on another inessential matter to debate.

But this does not diminish the main thrust of Zmirak’s article. I applaud him for this well-argued article, and I hope many of us “orthodox Catholics” give it a read and take his arguments to heart.

During my 15 years of married life, I have been very fortunate to have had a number of good pastors. I have been a member of three different parishes in three different dioceses during that time, and have had a total of five pastors in fifteen years. All have been men who faithfully strive to serve the Lord and their parish.

My first pastor, however, does have a special place in my heart. Fr. Ed Bayer was the pastor at Holy Family in Randallstown, Maryland during the mid-1990’s when my wife moved there right after our wedding. Fr. Bayer was a no-nonsense, old-school priest who was devoted to serving the Church. Yet I don’t want someone to get the idea that he was a crusty curmudgeon; on the contrary, he was a loving pastor who would do anything for his people. His specialty was moral theology, and he used his vast knowledge in this area in a loving, pastoral fashion – never compromising the Truth yet always extending mercy to those who fell short of the Christian ideal.

On a personal note, Fr. Bayer was a wonderful confessor, and he also introduced me to a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical group that was then forming in the Baltimore area, and this group was a major factor in my own deepening knowledge and appreciation of the beauty of Eastern Christianity.

After I moved away from the Baltimore area, I heard that Fr. Bayer, at the age when most people retire, had volunteered to go to New Guinea and teach seminarians there. He lived there for about a decade, faithfully forming new priests to bring Christ’s sacraments to those in need. When I heard he was going to the other side of the world at a time when most people are only thinking of a well-deserved rest after long decades of work, I was not surprised. Fr. Bayer did not ever think of himself, but instead put service to Christ and his Church above all else.

Fr. Ed Bayer passed away last Thursday. Well done, good and faithful servant.

If you have a moment, please say a prayer today for the repose of Fr. Bayer’s soul.

For the past few years, the Archdiocese of Washington has urged Catholics to go to the sacrament of confession during Lent through a wonderful program called “The Light is On”. Archbishop Wuerl has told all parishes in the Archdiocese to have extended confession hours and asked that confession be promoted as much as possible. He has also told all parishes to offer confession every Wednesday night during Lent from 6:30-8:00pm. I can’t think of a better idea to help Catholics enter into this penitential season.

This year, however, the Archbishop has added a new wrinkle: Eucharistic adoration. During those Wednesday evening hours, parishes will also have the Blessed Sacrament exposed for quiet adoration. As Archbishop Wuerl noted, “What better place to say penance after Confession than before the Blessed Sacrament?”

Here are more details:

• The Light is On website
• An interview with Archbishop Wuerl about the program
• Archbishop Wuerl’s pastoral letter

This Lent, get to confession and make time to prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament as well. You will not regret it!

A number of great stories recently:

• Australia to get its first saint.
• Another Anglican bishop converts to Catholicism.
• Pregnant woman who threatened pro-life sidewalk counselor decides not to abort.
• U.S. speedskater enters the religious life.

God is working all around us – we just need to open our eyes to see it!

Australian Anglo-Catholic group votes to explore conversion to Catholicism

One of the favorite punching bags of orthodox Catholics is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). And often, for good reason. It seems that frequently we hear reports of people deeply involved with the USCCB also being involved with organizations which promote activities in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The latest brouhaha erupted when it was discovered that John Carr, the Executive Director of the Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development for the USCCB, was formally a member of the pro-abortion Center for Community Change (note: Carr insists strongly that he is pro-life and his work with the CCC never involved in any way defending abortion). The litany of scandals that have erupted surrounding the USCCB over the years have led some Catholics even to call for the abolishment of the institution.

One of the most common refrains you hear from critics of the USCCB is that it has “no theological basis”. That it is, in other words, just a bureaucratic institution which has no true authority within the Church. Is this the case? Is it true that national ecclesial conferences,  of which USCCB is just one, are not theologically justified and have no authority in the Church? Well, yes and no.

The foundations of authority within the Church comes from the actions of Christ himself. He appointed twelve men with a special authority within the Church, and he placed one of those men – Peter – with a unique role among the Twelve. So we can clearly see that each successor to the apostles – the bishops – and the successor to Peter – the pope – have authority within the Church.

However, very quickly the Church recognized that groups of bishops also had a special authority in the Church. Throughout the early Church, we see regional synods of bishops gathering to make decisions, and these decisions had binding authority. Of course, the greatest grouping of bishops is an ecumenical council, in which all the bishops of the world gather together and have authority to define dogma definitively. But even after the first ecumenical council at Nicea, we continue to see regional synods of bishops which exercise a key role in administering the Church.

So the Church came to recognize three levels of authority within the Church: local, regional, and universal. (You can see an ecumenical discussion of these three levels in the Ravenna Document, which is at the Vatican website). Over the years, the East came to emphasize the authority of the local and regional church (i.e. bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs), whereas the West came to emphasize the authority of the universal Church (i.e the pope). But each level has true authority within the Church.

One thing it is important to note at this point is that these levels are not equivalent to a corporate organizational chart. It is not the case that the local bishop works for the regional synod of bishops, and they then in turn work for the universal head. Authority in the Church is based on service, not power. Each authority figure and grouping works for the service of the people of God under their care. In practice, moreover, a local bishop has almost unlimited authority in his diocese – he is the head of the local church and has the power to establish discipline within its boundaries. But he also is a member of a region, and he works with other bishops in his region as the need arises. This regional application of authority reflects the incarnational nature of the Church: it exists within cultures and specific geographies, and so it works within those human constructs to preach the Gospel.

So we come to the institution of national ecclesial conferences. These are new entities, established by Vatican II, which are (very) loosely similar the Eastern national churches. But they were established as a new way of implementing the ancient practice of regional synods, and as such, they have a legitimate place within the Church. They are a way in which the Church can implement its teachings along the lines of cultural and national boundaries.

But does that mean that everything that comes out of the USCCB is to be obeyed blindly? Does it mean that individual bishops must follow exactly everything that the USCCB proclaims? And what about the role of those who work for the USCCB – such as laypeople and even priests – what authority do they have?

Let me take the last question first: only bishops (and priests representing them) have binding authority in the Church, so employees who work for the USCCB do not have any theological basis for authority in the Church. But that does not mean that they should be disrespected or ignored. They do work for the bishops and ostensibly have their blessing. So their work should be listened to with respect.

Now the second question: do individual bishops have to follow the USCCB directives blindly? The Church has always respected the true authority a local bishop has, and that authority comes from Christ, not from being a member of a bishops’ conference. So they do not have to follow the directives of the USCCB if they feel it is in the best interests of the people of their diocese. But I don’t think there is any bishop who would not treat directives of a gathering of all the bishops in his country with respect.

Finally, what is the lay Catholic to do? Do we have to obey the USCCB? I think my previous comments show that I do think we must give them respect. The gathering of bishops is a powerful exercise of episcopal authority within the Church, and we are bound to treat it deferentially. Ultimately, we must be obedient sons and daughters of our local bishop, but if he does not explicitly reject a proclamation of the USCCB, then we should not either (note that I am assuming the normal rights of the laity in regard to prudential matters that are outside the purview of the bishops).

Nothing I said above should be taken as a defense of mistakes made by members of the USCCB. If a local bishop does something erroneous, we are allowed to criticize him in good faith (always respecting his office, of course). Likewise, if the USCCB makes a mistake, it is not above criticism either. But I think it does no good to try to dismiss it as having “no theological basis” or calling for its abolishment. What is needed is respect and reform, not dismissal and destruction.

By now most people have probably seen the cute Google Super Bowl ad called “Parisian Love”, which follows a relationship through Google searches (if you haven’t seen it, click here).

I thought I’d make my own video for a higher love – I call it “Divine Love”:

When I was a teenager, I was very involved in my (Methodist) youth group. It was a wonderful time in my spiritual life, and I am very thankful for all the things I learned during that time. I think there are many Christian adults today who can look back at their time in high school youth group as a time of spiritual growth and advancement. Yet I have to admit that I have for a long time had an uneasy feeling about the culture of youth ministry within the church.

My concerns revolve around two common aspects of many youth groups: the lack of parental involvement and the “consumer” mentality of many of these groups. The fault for the first problem often does not lie with the youth ministers, but with the parents, who consider the parish’s youth group a means to “outsource” their duties to raise their kids Catholic. I’ve known many youth ministers who practically beg parents to get involved to no avail.

But the origin of the other problem – the “consumer” mentality of youth ministry – I think falls more closely to the nature of modern youth ministry itself. I recently ran across an article (entitled “I think I’m doing youth ministry all wrong“) by Tim Schmoyer, a youth minister who articulates my concerns quite nicely (emphasis added):

Despite knowing otherwise in my head, the way I actually lead my church’s youth ministry is mostly from the mentality that our youth ministry is a program or service we provide to families. It’s almost like I’m unintentionally feeding the consumeristic perspective by sometimes using language like, “We offer small groups…” and, “We provide connection points for your teens…” Since when was ministry ever supposed to be about what a paid staff member and a couple adult volunteers are expected to spiritually provide for teens and families?

Youth ministry should not be about how the church can serve the youth or even how we can provide programs that help them grow spiritually. That’s the parents’ responsibility. In fact, I don’t think youth ministry should even accidentally enable parents to outsource their God-given responsibility to us, something I know my ministry is all too guilty of. Support parents, yes, but enable them to outsource? No.

The Greek word for “church” is literally “ekklesia,” a community of believers who are “called out” to serve and edify each other and the people around them.

Instead of fueling the consumerism mentality of what a church “offers” or “provides” and which church in town does it best, youth ministry should probably be about helping teens use their God-given gifts to serve the body. It should teach families that youth ministry isn’t just about what the church does for them, but that they are “called out” to think beyond themselves with a servant’s heart. I bet teen church drop-outs would decrease if they actually served as a valuable and essential part of the local body of Christ.

Note the first section I highlighted: it is the parents’ responsibility to help their children grow spiritually. This cannot be out-sourced. A youth program’s purpose is to simply assist the parents in this task. But it is not the job of the youth program to “sell church” to teenagers. It is to give teens an outlet for practicing the faith that has already been imparted by the parents to them.

I recognize of course that in the real world many, many parents are not doing this job, and many youth ministers are heroically trying to fill that gap as best they can. But no matter what, the focus of youth ministry should be less about making the Church conform to the desires of teenagers as it is making teenagers conform to the demands of the Church.

The average Catholic – as well as the average non-Catholic – believes that the Catholic Church is one monolithic church, with one way of celebrating Mass and a single hierarchy which rules that church. However, the truth is much more complex, so much so that I’m reminded of the saying, “I don’t believe in organized religion, I’m Catholic.”

In reality the Catholic Church is made up of over 20 sui juris churches. What does sui juris mean? That each of these churches is under its “own laws”. In other words, each church can have its own canon law, its own liturgy, and its own governing hierarchy. Some of these churches are headed by a Patriarch, some by a major archbishop, some by a Metropolitan, and some simply by a bishop. Each of these churches, however, it in communion with the bishop of Rome, and, according to Vatican I, he has universal jurisdiction over all the churches.

There are currently 23 sui juris churches that make up the Catholic Church. They include:

1. Latin Catholic church
2. Coptic Catholic church
3. Ethiopian Catholic church
4. Maronite church
5. Syriac (Syrian) Catholic church
6. Syro-Malankara Catholic church
7. Armenian Catholic church
8. Chaldean Catholic church
9. Syro-Malabar church
10. Albanian Greek Catholic church
11. Belarusian Greek Catholic church
12. Bulgarian Greek Catholic church
13. Byzantine church of the Eparchy of Krizevci
14. Greek Byzantine Catholic church
15. Hungarian Greek Catholic church
16. Italo-Albanian Catholic church
17. Macedonian Greek Catholic church
18. Melkite Greek Catholic church
19. Romanian church United with Rome
20. Russian Catholic church
21. Ruthenian Catholic church
22. Slovak Greek Catholic Church
23. Ukrainian Greek Catholic church

As you can see, 22 of these 23 churches are Eastern churches; only the Latin church is Western. But the primary reason most people don’t know about all these Eastern churches is that the Latin Catholic church makes up 98% of all Catholics worldwide. So, if you meet a Catholic on the street, there is a very good chance that he is of the Latin church.

Another thing that people often confuse is the difference between a “rite” and a “church”. The churches above are NOT rites; instead they each practice a rite. A rite is a liturgical patrimony: it is the way in which a church worships. There are primarily six different rites within the Catholic church (with many variations within the different churches). They are:

1. Alexandrian
2. Antiochian
3. Armenian
4. Byzantine
5. Chaldean
6. Latin

So one might ask themselves: why all the diversity? How did it happen that the Catholic Church has so many churches and rites? Why isn’t there just one church and one rite for all Catholics? Because historically, as the Christian Faith spread throughout the Roman Empire, and even beyond, Christians appointed leaders for their local church and developed different forms of worship and church law. These churches were all united in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” yet they expressed this faith in varying ways. Over time, these differences were formalized into the various churches and rites. I recently found a very helpful graphic which shows this development (click to enlarge):

Source.

The diversity of the Catholic Church is a wonderful thing. We finite humans cannot ever contain the many ways to worship our infinite God. Praise God for all the churches of the Catholic Church!

Today is the Feast of the Presentation, and also in America it is Groundhog Day. Last year I discovered that the two are actually related. Another name for today’s feast is Candlemas, and according to Wikipedia:

In the United Kingdom, good weather at Candlemas is taken to indicate severe winter weather later: “If Candlemas Day is clear and bright, / winter will have another bite. / If Candlemas Day brings cloud and rain, / winter is gone and will not come again.” It is also alleged to be the date that bears emerge from hibernation to inspect the weather as well as wolves, who if they choose to return to their lairs on this day is interpreted as meaning severe weather will continue for another forty days at least. In the United States and Canada, Candlemas evolved into Groundhog Day celebrated on the same date.