Frenchman wins case seeking to be "de-baptized" Roman Catholic

[Kathryn]

The problem is that technically you are still an official member of the Catholic Church even though you do not wish to be when all they'll do is put a note next to your name indicating that you've left the church. That doesn't mean that you are regarded by the RCC as a non-member, quite the contrary in fact.

Protestant churches will designate on their membership roster that the person is released from membership. That's a different thing.

The suspicion Catholics seeking "de-baptism" have is that the RCC is still counting them as members...and that may be valid since the Church's belief is that baptism is from God and leaves an indelible mark on the person's soul. Thus, the notation is that YOU have left the church, but the church still includes you in its ranks hoping that you'll repent and return to being an active Catholic.

So what? Who gives a rat's ***?

 

[Kathryn]

I think that the RCC should abandon infant baptism. Do something similar to Protestant churches which permit an individual to be baptized only after examination to be certain the person understands the significance of baptism and the future obligations it places upon the person and that the person fully consents to be baptized. Some such won't baptize any child under the age of 12 or even older.

Good luck with that one.

Do you think there should be a law against infant baptism?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So what? Who gives a rat's ***?

Well, obviously, they do.

If you belonged to a group or movement, but over time decided that you no longer agreed with the morals or practices of that particular movement, wouldn't you seek to no longer be associated with it?

 

[HerDotness]

So what? Who gives a rat's ***?

Why thank you for that kind acknowledgment that this is an issue *I* happen to be concerned about.

Do you have any substantive remarks about why what I said isn't reasonable or shouldn't be a matter of concern to anyone? Or are you simply taking potshots?

 

[HerDotness]

Good luck with that one.

Do you think there should be a law against infant baptism?

I think that the RCC needs to re-evaluate its practices and raise the age of baptism somewhat--to an age where a person would have the maturity and judgment (and could be questioned to see if the person does) to understand what baptism signifies and whether or not the person is ready to accept the responsibilities of the baptized.

That is what I think needs to be changed as well as agreeing to expunge the baptismal record upon request for anyone baptized as an infant who requests that this be done. If baptismal practices change, then the church might be justified in making a notation rather than removing the record, because the person would have known what baptism involved and would have freely consented to it.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, obviously, they do.

If you belonged to a group or movement, but over time decided that you no longer agreed with the morals or practices of that particular movement, wouldn't you seek to no longer be associated with it?

I have made it clear that I feel a person should be able to "cancel their membership" in the RCC.

What I am saying is that a record of a baptism is a record of an event. You can even use baptismal records as legal documents proving your ID.

When you get a divorce, you don't get to expunge the record of your marriage. Now you have a record of your marriage, and of your divorce. Both things happened.

 

[Kathryn]

Why thank you for that kind acknowledgment that this is an issue *I* happen to be concerned about.

Do you have any substantive remarks about why what I said isn't reasonable or shouldn't be a matter of concern to anyone? Or are you simply taking potshots?

Calm down. Pot, meet kettle by the way. Oh, the irony...

I've made my position quite clear through various posts on this thread.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have made it clear that I feel a person should be able to "cancel their membership" in the RCC.

What I am saying is that a record of a baptism is a record of an event. You can even use baptismal records as legal documents proving your ID.

But in the Catholic church, a record of a baptism isn't just considered a record of an event that occurred. A baptism is an event seen as an induction into the church, and as long as that induction is recorded they can choose to continue considering you as a member of their church.

When you get a divorce, you don't get to expunge the record of your marriage. Now you have a record of your marriage, and of your divorce. Both things happened.

Unless you get an annulment. In any case, that's apples and oranges. If you get a divorce, you win the legal right to no longer associate yourself being being presently married. Whereas the Catholic church believes that, once you are baptized, you are continually counted amongst their flock. In fact, you have no legal say (until this case) in how they choose to interpret that information whatsoever.

 

[HerDotness]

Calm down. Pot, meet kettle by the way. Oh, the irony...

Another potshot when I've made it clear I'd like to keep this discussion on a civil level.

I've made my position quite clear through various posts on this thread.

Then, clarify, please.

The "So what? Who gives a rat's ***?" was restating your position, and I was supposed to regard that as a reasoned statement of position?

Try persuading me that's all it was.

 

[HerDotness]

I have made it clear that I feel a person should be able to "cancel their membership" in the RCC.

What I am saying is that a record of a baptism is a record of an event. You can even use baptismal records as legal documents proving your ID.

When you get a divorce, you don't get to expunge the record of your marriage. Now you have a record of your marriage, and of your divorce. Both things happened.

I agree. I think the person should be given a certificate of "de-baptism," and any inquiry would then result in provision of a copy of that certificate, perhaps referring on it to the date of the baptism as well as the date of its expungement.

 

[Kathryn]

But in the Catholic church, a record of a baptism isn't just considered a record of an event that occurred. A baptism is an event seen as an induction into the church, and as long as that induction is recorded they can choose to continue considering you as a member of their church.

But how does this impact your life in any way? So what? You know you're not a member. Your friends and family and coworkers don't consider you a member. The government doesn't consider you a member.

Unless you get an annulment. In any case, that's apples and oranges. If you get a divorce, you win the legal right to no longer associate yourself being being presently married. Whereas the Catholic church believes that, once you are baptized, you are continually counted amongst their flock. In fact, you have no legal say (until this case) in how they choose to interpret that information whatsoever.

An annulment given by the Catholic Church carries no legal weight outside the Catholic Church.

If you seek a legal annulment outside of the church, both your marriage and your annulment are recorded. Heck, even within the Church, your marriage and annulment are recorded.

As for the Catholic church considering people who have left the church and who request that they are no longer considered members, to still be members - I've stated repeatedly that I believe that people should be able to renounce their membership. But I do not believe the Church should be forced to expunge baptismal records, anymore than I believe the state should be forced to expunge marriage records.

It happened. It's reality.

 

[HerDotness]

This concerns me, because I don't want to be considered against my will as one of the millions of Catholics worldwide. The Church counts baptized Catholics as members.

It may not be important to you, which is your right, but it IS important to me and was to Mr. Lebouvier.

 

[Kathryn]

This concerns me, because I don't want to be considered against my will to one of the millions of Catholics worldwide. The Church counts baptized Catholics as members.

It may not be important to you, which is your right, but it IS important to me and was to Mr. Lebouvier.

I don't see how it harms you in any way.

I am a former Catholic myself. I couldn't give two figs whether or not the RCC still considers me a member.

 

[HerDotness]

I don't see how it harms you in any way.

I am a former Catholic myself. I couldn't give two figs whether or not the RCC still considers me a member.

Fine. YOU don't see how it harms me. You don't care whether or not the RCC still considers you a member; I do care, and I don't feel comfortable still being considered a member of the Church.

So, you've made your point that I'm making a big to-do out of nothing as you see it. Opinion registered.

 

[Kathryn]

Fine. YOU don't see how it harms me. You don't care whether or not the RCC still considers you a member; I do care, and I don't feel comfortable still being considered a member of the Church.

So, you've made your point that I'm making a big to-do out of nothing as you see it. Opinion registered.

The issue here is that people are asking for the record of their baptism to be expunged.

That differs greatly from asking to be dropped from membership rosters.

If you've got enough energy and spare time to fight for something, fight for the right thing.

You WERE baptised. You now want to be dropped as a member of the RCC. Those are the facts. When you try to drop your membership by insisting that the Church erase facts, then you're fighting for the wrong thing.

That's my opinion. Feel free to register it as well.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't see how it harms you in any way.

I am a former Catholic myself. I couldn't give two figs whether or not the RCC still considers me a member.

Some people do. Many people don't view the RCC as anything positive, in fact it is widely viewed with negativity, this is why people don't want to be 'associated' with the RCC.

 

[Kathryn]

Some people do. Many people don't view the RCC as anything positive, in fact it is widely viewed with negativity, this is why people don't want to be 'associated' with the RCC.

So they should fight for their names to be removed as members - which is not the same thing as fighting for the Church to remove documentation of actual events.

 

[HerDotness]

This is what I agreed I would find appropriate to do, as stated previously:

I agree. I think the person should be given a certificate of "de-baptism," and any inquiry would then result in provision of a copy of that certificate, perhaps referring on it to the date of the baptism as well as the date of its expungement.

Okay, if you prefer a change of wording--Upon requesting "de-baptism," the person would receive a certificate stipulating that all connections with the RCC are dissolved, the person is no longer a member.

Any future inquiry would result in being sent a copy of a certificate showing the original date of baptism and the date of "de-baptism" so that someone wishing proof of citizenship or the like for establishing ID would have an all-in-one certificate. "Person was a member of RCC, no longer is officially."

However, the RCC's resistance to providing formal documentation that the person is removed from membership stems from the belief that baptism puts an indelible mark on the soul that cannot be removed by simply wishing to withdraw from the RCC. And as long as they maintain "once baptized, always baptized" they will claim grounds for counting the baptized as members. The notation that the person has left the church leaves the RCC with the option to claim that the person must be retained on the rosters in case s/he repents and returns just as a parent hopes an erring child--still their child--will come home. There isn't any provision currently for someone to be no longer a member...unless Mr. Lebouvier's case establishes a precedent.

And the resistance to granting such requests is largely due to the enormous numbers of people the RCC fears will request "de-baptism" thereby affecting church upkeep in countries which have taxation to support churches.

 

[vepurusg]

This concerns me, because I don't want to be considered against my will as one of the millions of Catholics worldwide. The Church counts baptized Catholics as members.

It may not be important to you, which is your right, but it IS important to me and was to Mr. Lebouvier.

I can see what you mean now, you're right, and I agree with you; it's definitely more emotionally pressing than just some receipt some company kept- it's an emotional issue, perhaps one of closure.

The relationship between a person and a church is a bit different from that with a typical company.

Immortalflame also made a good legal argument.


I also agree that banning churches from baptizing until the age of majority would be good. If somebody is of legal age and wants to be indoctrinated, it's hard to stop them- but doing it to children is even more unethical (they never get a chance to think for themselves and make the decision).

 

[HerDotness]

I can see what you mean now, you're right, and I agree with you; it's definitely more emotionally pressing than just some receipt some company kept- it's an emotional issue, perhaps one of closure.

The relationship between a person and a church is a bit different from that with a typical company.

Immortalflame also made a good legal argument.

Thanks for saying so. I resent that they can consider me a member against my will when I had no choice about being baptized in the first place. I was baptized a little over two weeks after my birth...some choice.