¿Quién dice quién es católico?

Hoy el periódico Reforma presenta en su sección nacional el mismo caso que mostré aqui hace unos días, de como algunas iglesias usan el membrete de "católicas", pero Roma dice que no lo son...

Pero la pregunta es: ¿tiene el Vaticano el derecho de decir quién o qué es católico o no?
Y es una pregunta más truculenta de lo que parece...
¿Acaso tiene la jerarquía romana derechos exclusivos sobre la palabra "católico"?
La revista en línea Slate hace poco pensaba sobre el tema:

"Lots of people who don't recognize the Bishop of Rome consider themselves just as Catholic as John Paul II. Many Protestants on Sunday recite the Apostles Creed, which contains the affirmation "I believe … in the holy catholic church."

Whether the "c" is capitalized or not, "Catholic"—the etymology is from the Greek katholikos for "universal"—has been a contested term in Christian theological polemics for centuries. After the churches of Rome and Constantinople split in a schism usually dated to the 11th century, the Church of the West became known as the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of the East as the Orthodox Church. (To complicate matters further, there are other ancient churches that went their own way because of doctrinal disputes even before Rome and Constantinople split.)

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that it is not only orthodox (correct in its teaching), but also Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church likewise considers itself to be orthodox in doctrine. In emphasizing one term over another in their "trademarks," these two branches of Christianity are not relinquishing their claims to both attributes. (For a secular analogy, consider the names of the two major political parties in America: Democrats would tell you that they believe in a republican form of government; Republicans like President Bush trumpet the virtues of small-d democracy, at least in Iraq.)

Of course, "Catholic"—especially when the "C" is capitalized—has other connotations besides "universal." As a result of the 19th-century Oxford Movement in the Church of England, some Anglicans began to identify themselves as "Catholics" in the sense of incorporating Roman Catholic rituals and vestments (what some called the "rags of popery") in their worship. To this day some so-called Anglo-Catholic churches are "more Catholic than the pope" in the sense that they preserve older practices (like priests celebrating Mass with their backs to the congregation) that have been suppressed in post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Some High-Church Anglicans even offer prayers during Mass for the pope (and for the patriarch of Constantinople, for good measure)....

To add to the confusion, some Eastern Rite Catholics—whose churches recognize the authority of the pope in Rome but follow rituals similar to those of Eastern Orthodoxy—don't like to be referred to as Roman Catholics. Then there are the churches that don't acknowledge the pope in Rome but incorporate the term "Catholic" in their title. Some, like the "Old Catholic" churches that broke from Rome over papal infallibility, have what the Vatican considers "valid" holy orders. That means that an Old Catholic (or, in this country, Polish National Catholic) priest has the power to consecrate the Eucharist.

Even the presence of "Roman" in a church's name doesn't guarantee a connection to the Vatican. According to the Web site of the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America, schisms in its flock produced the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America—Diocese of Michigan and the Central States; the North American Old Roman Catholic Church; and the Old Roman Catholic Church—Diocese of Florida within the Historic See of Caer Glow (!).

Lest that litany seem fantastic or facetious, consider the "Catholic Mass" celebrated every Sunday evening at the Episcopal church in my Dupont Circle neighborhood in Washington, D.C. The Mass is sponsored by Dignity, a group of gay and lesbian Catholics that takes issue with the Vatican's condemnation of homosexual acts.

Peggy Hays, a spokeswoman for Dignity says, that "we never hide our status" as an autonomous group or pretend to be approved by the American hierarchy (though some priests who celebrate Mass for Dignity are members in good standing of religious orders who are acting with the tacit approval of their superiors). Hayes says she knows of no attempt by the hierarchy to move against Dignity for (mis)use of the term "Catholic." Given the multiplicity of meanings of "Catholic," that seems like a prudent policy even after the Archdiocese of Atlanta's legal victory."

Y esperense... el mismo dilema lo tienen los judíos y los musulmanes!
Un judío se supone que solo lo es si su madre lo es, ah, pero uno puede convertirse al judaísmo, pero después de largos estudios. Y recomiendan que si uno es hombre, que se realice la circunsición y aprenda hebreo...

Un amigo musulman mío, un chico londinense, fue a Egipto este otoño a una reunión, y los demás musulmanes lo veían con suspicacia por ser "occidental". Hace como dos semanas ví un documental muy bueno en el National Geographic Channel sobre la peregrinación a la Meca. Un joven sudafricano musulman fue, pero en contra de lo que el Islam promulga, fue enviado a rezar con los demás peregrinos negros... Se supone que en el Koran, Dios afirma la igualdad de todos los seres humanos...

Y ese es el problema yo creo... Serán Papas, Mullas, Rabinos o lo que sean, pero no creo que ellos puedan adjudicarse el derecho divino de quién pertenece a cierta comunidad religiosa o no. Eso lo decide la conciencia moral de cada quien.

El tema promete calentarse más con la creciente globalización, y qué bueno. Es hora de decirle a la élite religiosa lo que siempre se ha sabido: vox populi, vox dei.