Who Can Say Who's Catholic?

Not the Vatican, saith the New York Times:

...the Times has decided that the views expressed by the Vatican and by Pope Benedict XVI are simply one viewpoint in the wider Catholic world. Doctrines that have been in place for 1,000 or 2,000 years are merely optional. Thus saith the Times.

Sorry, but to be a Catholic priest in the ancient Catholic church requires being in Communion with the pope of Rome. That is not a controversial statement. It’s a fact of history.

Journalists should cover disputes about the actions of Rome and the debates that result. Journalists should accurately report the views of those who dissent from Rome and, yes, accurately report their claims — the Womenpriests come to mind — that they are still Catholics.

However, it’s totally bizarre to say that “in the view of Rome” these independent believers are not Catholic priests who are leading Catholic rites. Why? The Vatican is the institution that ordains and retains Catholic priests, through its bishops around the world who are in a state of Communion with the pope of Rome. Love it or leave it.

This is not breaking news, folks. This is like saying that you can have an Eastern Orthodox priest who was not ordained by a bishop who is part of a canonical Eastern Orthodox church, serving under an Eastern Orthodox bishop. This is like saying that a Messianic Christian who calls himself a rabbi is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi simply because he says that he is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. Would editors at the Times do that?

This is like saying that someone can play for the New York Yankees without the legal permission of the New York Yankees. Or try this: Start your OWN gender-neutral New York Yankees squad and try to show up and play the canonical Red Sox team. Let’s see how the Times handles that one...

A lovely rant on something that frustrates me on a regular basis.