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

[YmirGF]

I'm feigning nothing. This case IS important to me.

It isn't important to you. Fine.

Sadly. that does not make your position any less moronic.

 

[Quiddity]

**MOD POST**
We ask everybody to please refrain from any personal references and keep the discussion civil.​

 

[McBell]

He should be allowed to disassociate himself from the RCC officially.

He should not be allowed to revise history.

This is exactly my position on the whole mountain made of a molehill situation.

 

[Me Myself]

He should be allowed to disassociate himself from the RCC officially.

He should not be allowed to revise history.

I agree with this.

 

[McBell]

Say, this goes through and the RC has to do what the court says. Can someone tell me why the RC should be the only ones to do this?

What about companies?

What about divorce (as others noted)?

What about the myriad of organizations out there?

It takes time and money to delete millions from the various systems.

Why should they have to pay for your (or your parents) mistake?

Not to mention that you are deleting valuable information for courts to use.

What about Newspapers?
Magazines?
Websites?
Police records?
Credit reports?

Why should the RCC have to completely remove someones name and not any of the above?

Edit:

i know youa re not saying that they should, I was merely adding more to what you said.

 

[Me Myself]

So to finalize my position I say it´s okay if they want to de-baptize people or to erase the record or whatever. They can. It should also be legally unquestionable that they cannot be forced to do so.

 

[Desert Snake]

I brought this up earlier in the thread however I think that it bears repeating, there is a big difference between being on the register at the RCC than say being registered at a quilting club. The RCC is not, especially nowadays, an 'average' church/organization, being a member can falsely indicate that said member supports certain actions and doctrines held by the "church".

 

[Me Myself]

Who can see this lists of baptism?

 

[HerDotness]

I brought this up earlier in the thread however I think that it bears repeating, there is a big difference between being on the register at the RCC than say being registered at a quilting club. The RCC is not, especially nowadays, an 'average' church/organization, being a member can falsely indicate that said member supports certain actions and doctrines held by the "church".

That's an important point, I think, and I think not wanting to seem to support the RCC's stance on contraception and the way it's dealt so ineffectively with pedophile priests (as well as resisted their being prosecuted by secular authorities for decades) is reportedly why Mr. Lebouvier wants his name expunged from baptismal records.

 

[Me Myself]

If the fact that he left is noted then it should be clear he doesn´t support it.

 

[HerDotness]

If the fact that he left is noted then it should be clear he doesn´t support it.

It's a matter of principle to him, I expect, which is why he chose to carry the matter further as a protest.

Consider, please, that had he left this at the traditional point, that of a notation next to his name that he had left, he would still be counted as a member by the RCC. They include all baptized Catholics, even those noted as having left.

He's attempting to make a statement that this is not a morally upright institution, and he wants no association whatsoever with it.

 

[Kathryn]

OK but that doesn't mean that his baptism never occurred. He wants to LEAVE the roles of the RCC. That means that at one point he was counted as a member. Now he doesn't want to be counted as a member.

I was baptised as a Southern Baptist. I was also baptised as a Presbyterian. I am neither. That doesn't mean that I should go back and get those churches to strike out the reference in their records to my baptisms - even though I was a small child/infant and had no authoritative say in the matter.

Because - well, because it happened.

Oh these inconvenient things called facts! Always getting in the way!

 

[Me Myself]

It's a matter of principle to him, I expect, which is why he chose to carry the matter further as a protest.

Consider, please, that had he left this at the traditional point, that of a notation next to his name that he had left, he would still be counted as a member by the RCC. They include all baptized Catholics, even those noted as having left.

They have the right to count him as a member if they please to. His leaving is noted. They have every right to read their records however they please o.0

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh these inconvenient things called facts! Always getting in the way!

It's also a fact that being associated with the RCC can have negative connotations.
It's also a fact that some people disagree with the RCC to the point that they don't want to be associated with it at all. As was stated earlier, it's about making a statement.

 

[Kathryn]

It's also a fact that being associated with the RCC can have negative connotations.
It's also a fact that some people disagree with the RCC to the point that they don't want to be associated with it at all. As was stated earlier, it's about making a statement, leaving the RCC completely, this shouldn't be too much to ask.

Sigh. Which is why I could support legislation or legal action that required the RCC to remove names from membership lists if people inform them that they no longer consider themselves a member of the RCC.

In other words, "I am not a member. Remove me from your membership list."

That differs significantly from, "I am not a member. Remove historical facts from your records."

 

[Me Myself]

It's also a fact that being associated with the RCC can have negative connotations.
It's also a fact that some people disagree with the RCC to the point that they don't want to be associated with it at all. As was stated earlier, it's about making a statement.

Running naked through my neighborhood may have negative connotations. Should newspapers be forced to not put on the news as if it didn´t happen or should my criminal record be clean after I neglected a pair of public decency policies?

 

[HerDotness]

Okay, Kathryn, you say that the person's name ought to be removed from the RCC's membership list if the person states that s/he no longer wishes to be considered a member.

The problem is that there's no separation between baptismal records and list of members. The baptismal records ARE the RCC's membership list. They are one and the same.

 

[Desert Snake]

Running naked through my neighborhood may have negative connotations. Should newspapers be forced to not put on the news as if it didn´t happen or should my criminal record be clean after I neglected a pair of public decency policies?

Completely different scenarios, you really don't have an argument if you're using that as an analogy.

 

[Kathryn]

Okay, Kathryn, you say that the person's name ought to be removed from the RCC's membership list if the person states that s/he no longer wishes to be considered a member.

The problem is that there's no separation between baptismal records and list of members. The baptismal records ARE the RCC's membership list. They are one and the same.

Then they should change their system of logging membership, rather than resort to revising historical facts such as "this person was baptised on this day at this location."



It's really not that complicated to either understand or implement. Certainly no more complicated than erasing historical facts.

 

[Me Myself]

Completely different scenarios, you really don't have an argument if you're using that as an analogy.

Why?

Both are talking about registering facts that happened.