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

[HerDotness]

I DON'T care about RCC doctrines that don't harm anyone.

Fine. You're entitled not to and have made that point clearly.

Bye, now. Cya on a thread that you care about.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, at least he won that case. The last thing society needs is controversial religious sects getting 'special rights' over common sense. It doesn't hurt the RCC to erase those records, they were clearly just being obstinate.

 

[Nakosis]

PARIS (RNS) A decade ago, Rene Lebouvier requested that his local Catholic church erase his name from the baptismal register. The church noted his demands on the margins of its records and the chapter was closed.

But the clergy abuse scandals rocking Europe, coupled with Pope Benedict XVI’s conservative stances on contraception, hardened Lebouvier’s views. Last October, a court in Normandy ruled in favor of his lawsuit to have his name permanently deleted from church records—making the 71-year-old retiree the first Frenchman to be officially “de-baptized.”

Story continues... Here

For those who don't know Roman Catholic doctrine, baptism is regarded as placing a mark upon a person's soul which cannot be removed. Thus, the saying, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic."

Until this case, which the church is appealing, all that the church would do is to add a note to a person's baptismal record to the effect that the individual had left the church. The name could not and would not be removed from the records. This is done in the hope that the person will someday repent and wish to return to full and active participation in the RCC.

What's problematic about baptism is that the RCC baptizes infants. You don't have an option to wait until you get old enough to decide if Catholicism is for you or not; you have no choice when you're baptized as an infant.

It's going to be a fight to get the RCC to give in on this issue. I'd like to get my own self "de-baptized," so I'm watching what results from this case with much interest.

What do you think of this man's case? Does/should the Catholic Church have the right to say, "No. We're not taking your name off the records," and refuse to do so because the secular state has no authority over what the church decrees?

Seems kind of silly to need some official action from a religious group in order to disassociate with it. I suppose the RCC could just claim to have taken the name off the record and not actually just for the sake of this individual's need to have a perception of not being associated with the church.

Lie about the truth, everyone walks away happy.

 

[HerDotness]

Well, at least he won that case. The last thing society needs is controversial religious sects getting 'special rights' over common sense. It doesn't hurt the RCC to erase those records, they were clearly just being obstinate.

Yes, he won...but it's not over. The church is appealing the ruling.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

So in otherwords, you want to legaly force them to think they way you want them to think about you.

 

[HerDotness]

So in otherwords, you want to legaly force them to think they way you want them to think about you.

No, I obviously can't control anyone's thinking.

What I want is a certificate stating that I have been "de-baptized," that I am no longer affiliated with the RCC at all.

A note on my record that I have left the church is not an official acknowledgment that I am no longer a member.

I've belonged to two Protestant churches. Each one asked for a letter of resignation when a person decided to withdraw from membership. Upon receiving your letter of resignation, the church sent one on official letterhead stating that you were officially withdrawn from membership, usually adding a few nice things about doing their best to welcome you back should you care to return in future if you're leaving because you don't think the church works for you.

As I said, the RCC can and probably does still count as members those listed as baptized Catholics. The dogma about baptism being something that can't be removed or altered would give them grounds for doing so. The note that you have left simply indicates that YOU left, but they consider you a fallen sheep who may be persuaded to repent and return someday.

There needs, for a lot of people like myself, to be a formal severance of ties. That's what I think people want who support Lebouvier's cause.

 

[Me Myself]

No, I obviously can't control anyone's thinking.

What I want is a certificate stating that I have been "de-baptized," that I am no longer affiliated with the RCC at all.

A note on my record that I have left the church is not an official acknowledgment that I am no longer a member.

As I said, the RCC can and probably does still count as members those listed as baptized Catholics. The dogma about baptism being something that can't be removed or altered would give them grounds for doing so. The note that you have left simply indicates that YOU left, but they consider you a fallen sheep who may be persuaded to repent and return someday.

There needs, for a lot of people like myself, to be a formal severance of ties. That's what I think people want who support Lebouvier's cause.

You may invent it yourselves. Quite honestly, they have every right to decide you are a member of their church.

If I decided to found a religion right now and say it is all "Phonism" or whatever, and then made a list of everybody in my phonebook saying they are all members because they are in the phonebook, then they would be. In my head and in my list.

If you came to my house and told me youdon´t want to be part of my religion and to scratch your name from my list, I will still have no moral nor legal obligation to do so. It´s my list. It´s my definition of who are or are not members.

 

[HerDotness]

Here's some info that may clarify how bound a baptized Catholic is--one baptized as an infant who clearly had no choice:

Its own Church laws allow it to keep on inflating membership statistics by counting everyone who's been baptised. The Dublin Archdiocese denies this, but provides no proof. Similar claims by the Church of England have been found to be untrue.

According to Catholic doctrine, undoing a baptism is simply not possible. Any attempt to have the record of the baptism removed runs up against the brick wall of Canon 849 which asserts that baptism is “indelible”. Anyone who has been baptised remains bound by Church (Canon) law and, theologically speaking, is not able to leave the Church. Even those who left when formal defection was still possible were considered to have excommunicated themselves, but to have remained Catholics, nevertheless.

Source

So, even those who were allowed to leave during the brief time when one could ask to be officially removed from membership are still considered Catholics and counted as members. Excommunication doesn't remove the person from membership in the RCC; you're still a Catholic, but not one entitled to full participation in sacraments and some rituals.

 

[HerDotness]

You may invent it yourselves. Quite honestly, they have every right to decide you are a member of their church.

If I decided to found a religion right now and say it is all "Phonism" or whatever, and then made a list of everybody in my phonebook saying they are all members because they are in the phonebook, then they would be. In my head and in my list.

If you came to my house and told me youdon´t want to be part of my religion and to scratch your name from my list, I will still have no moral nor legal obligation to do so. It´s my list. It´s my definition of who are or are not members.

You have got to be joking! You're saying that's right or fair? That would be completely unreasonable--nutty even--and you know it.

 

[Quiddity]

Unfortunately, one can never erase from one's mind; it really did happen. Whatever connections one wishes to break will always just be legalistic and never where it matters.

 

[McBell]

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?

Does this mean that you think newspapers should have to erase your name if you no longer associate with a group that got your name in the paper?

 

[Me Myself]

You have got to be joking! You're saying that's right or fair? That would be completely unreasonable--nutty even--and you know it.

Why?

You say you would have the legal or moral right to force me to erase your name from such list?

 

[Desert Snake]

Why?

You say you would have the legal or moral right to force me to erase your name from such list?

It is ironic how there have been two analogies involving what the RCC could do in this situation, one involves lying outright, and the other is a comparison to a homespun cult.


Perhaps this is somewhat of the average way the RCC is actually viewed.

 

[Me Myself]

It is ironic how there have been two analogies involving what the RCC could do in this situation, one involves lying outright, and the other is a comparison to a homespun cult.

Which one involved lying? about the homespun, well, don´t expect me to do an actual religion just to clear up a point .

 

[Desert Snake]

Which one involved lying? about the homespun, well, don´t expect me to do an actual religion just to clear up a point .

It was a few posts back.

 

[Me Myself]

 

[Desert Snake]

Seems kind of silly to need some official action from a religious group in order to disassociate with it. I suppose the RCC could just claim to have taken the name off the record and not actually just for the sake of this individual's need to have a perception of not being associated with the church.

Lie about the truth, everyone walks away happy.

^ Here it is.

 

[Kathryn]

Fine. You're entitled not to and have made that point clearly.

Bye, now. Cya on a thread that you care about.

Oh I'm not gone.

 

[Kathryn]

It is ironic how there have been two analogies involving what the RCC could do in this situation, one involves lying outright, and the other is a comparison to a homespun cult.


Perhaps this is somewhat of the average way the RCC is actually viewed.

Actually I suggested that the RCC document when people request to withdraw their membership from the Church.

That would require no more effort than "making a note in the baptismal record."

By the way, no one can force you to be Catholic if you don't want to be. My gosh. How is there any harm being done here? It's a record of an actual event that DID happen.

 

[HerDotness]

The point to all this is that even though a notation is made on the baptismal record that the person has left the church, as far as the RCC is concerned you're still a member and can be counted as one. That's fraud.

Complete severance is the point as is having official documentation to prove that.