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

[Me Myself]

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.

But that part is only true in the people´s mind, not on paper. In people´s mind being baptized means you belong, no mattter what you do next. So you want to feel this is not "official" by scratching the paper as if that would scratch the fact so you can feel better about it.

The church may want to grant that... or not. And quite hoenstly, is for them to choose. Is THEIR records, and THE RECORDS only say that the baptism occur, and even point out that you "left" the faith. Is as reasonable as it gets while olding the belief they hold and have the right to hold.

 

[Nakosis]

From the side of the RCC baptism is a sacrament. It is important to their belief from what I've read to keep record of who has been baptized in the church. I think they see it as a religious obligation which to them holds more authority then civil law.

Maybe I'm wrong but if this isn't true why would they be making issue out of it?

 

[Desert Snake]

But that part is only true in the people´s mind, not on paper. In people´s mind being baptized means you belong, no mattter what you do next. So you want to feel this is not "official" by scratching the paper as if that would scratch the fact so you can feel better about it.

The church may want to grant that... or not. And quite hoenstly, is for them to choose. Is THEIR records, and THE RECORDS only say that the baptism occur, and even point out that you "left" the faith. Is as reasonable as it gets while olding the belief they hold and have the right to hold.

Seems like a cult would take those actions, not a supposed legitimate "church".

 

[Me Myself]

Seems like a cult would take those actions, not a supposed legitimate "church".

What you say not only does it sound subjective but misinformed, I am sure you say this thinking "cult" means something bad.

Instead of answering what you did you could as well just said "gut feeling"

 

[Me Myself]

A cult could and should be legaly permited to take "such" actions. Nothing wrong in them. Not that you could have explained at least. Untill now my analogy still seems perfectly fitting.

 

[Desert Snake]

What you say not only does it sound subjective but misinformed, I am sure you say this thinking "cult" means something bad.

Instead of answering what you did you could as well just said "gut feeling"

no, I'm referring to the action of not taking off someones name from the record when they rquest it, it's bizzare IMO.

 

[HerDotness]

From the side of the RCC baptism is a sacrament. It is important to their belief from what I've read to keep record of who has been baptized in the church. I think they see it as a religious obligation which to them holds more authority then civil law.

Maybe I'm wrong but if this isn't true why would they be making issue out of it?

Fueling this whole issue is the fact that the RCC considers baptism something that cannot be revoked. From the clergy's standpoint, asking to remove a baptized Catholic from the records means to defy God's will, since there is the belief that the child was born to a Catholic family by God's Will, and baptism only confirms the acceptance of God's Will that this child become a Catholic.

As the clergy sees it, there's an element of denying the Will of God by seeking to leave the RCC.

 

[Me Myself]

Fueling this whole issue is the fact that the RCC considers baptism something that cannot be revoked. From the clergy's standpoint, asking to remove a baptized Catholic from the records means to defy God's will, since there is the belief that the child was born to a Catholic family by God's Will, and baptism only confirms the acceptance of God's Will that this child become a Catholic.

As the clergy sees it, there's an element of denying the Will of God by seeking to leave the RCC.

It is still their right to believe so and to keep those records of your baptism if ANYTHING because it is an actual event that took place.

The fact that their beliefs about the event are anoying, condescending, or whatever you wanna call them, doesn´t mean it is not their right to have them.

 

[Me Myself]

no, I'm referring to the action of not taking off someones name from the record when they rquest it, it's bizzare IMO.

They are not taking the name of the record for baptism because they baptized.

What is bizzarre to you it´s not automaticaly moraly wrong. It is merely bizzare to you.

While I don´t share their views on it, I understand them. Not bizzarrer than many other religious views I´ve heard.

 

[Desert Snake]

A cult could and should be legaly permited to take "such" actions. Nothing wrong in them. Not that you could have explained at least. Untill now my analogy still seems perfectly fitting.

You continually bring up the "legality" of the issue, however don't you think there is more to this than just "legality"? The RCC claims to be a religious organization, it claims to be the authority on spritual morality, if it is not a religious organization, and many people would claim that it is not, then, yes, this issue merely becomes one of "legality".

 

[Nakosis]

Fueling this whole issue is the fact that the RCC considers baptism something that cannot be revoked. From the clergy's standpoint, asking to remove a baptized Catholic from the records means to defy God's will, since there is the belief that the child was born to a Catholic family by God's Will, and baptism only confirms the acceptance of God's Will that this child become a Catholic.

As the clergy sees it, there's an element of denying the Will of God by seeking to leave the RCC.

I assume from this then that it is a battle. It is an attack on the beliefs of the RCC. An attempt to get the RCC to acknowledge they hold no divine authority over an individuals life.

I suppose I was wrong in seeing this as a neurotic need to remove a name from a piece of paper.

 

[Me Myself]

You continually bring up the "legality" of the issue, however don't you think there is more to this than just "legality"? The RCC claims to be a religious organization, it claims to be the authority on spritual morality, if it is not a religious organization, and many people would claim that it is not, then, yes, this issue merely becomes one of "legality".

legality is still an issue wheter or not they are a spiritual organization.

About the spiritual aspect they keep the records in importance because to them, you have a "spiritual" change when you become baptized that can never be erased. It would be spiritualy incorrect to pretend you never had it when they "know" you did and you are still under it´s spiritualy changing influence.

Now we are talking of wheter this spiritual ideas are "right" or not we can only give opinions. I don´t believe in it. Still, they do, so they are making the right choice according to their sense of spirituality.

 

[Me Myself]

There is no reason to believe it is neurosis. It simply makes sense to their spirituality. They believe baptism changes you deeply. Why having records that acknowledge that fact be more neurotic than acting in concordance to anyone´s religious beliefs?

 

[HerDotness]

I assume from this then that it is a battle. It is an attack on the beliefs of the RCC. An attempt to get the RCC to acknowledge they hold no divine authority over an individuals life.

I suppose I was wrong in seeing this as a neurotic need to remove a name from a piece of paper.

There is an element of wanting the RCC to acknowledge that they no longer have any authority over the individual from a personal standpoint.

I don't know that it's an "attack on the beliefs of the RCC" so much as a protest that a person who wishes to withdraw from membership completely has no way at all to do that presently. It's the factor that you're still considered a member by the church even with the "left the church" notation on your baptismal record.

It was God's Will, accepted by your parents, that brought you into the world, because God willed you to be born Catholic. Therefore, attempting to sever relationship with the Church represents defiance of God's Will. You're still "marked by God" with the indelible mark of Baptism upon your soul eternally, according to the RCC.

 

[Me Myself]

There is an element of wanting the RCC to acknowledge that they no longer have any authority over the individual from a personal standpoint.

I don't know that it's an "attack on the beliefs of the RCC" so much as a protest that a person who wishes to withdraw from membership completely has no way at all to do that presently. It's the factor that you're still considered a member by the church even with the "left the church" notation on your baptismal record.

It was God's Will, accepted by your parents, that brought you into the world, because God willed you to be born Catholic. Therefore, attempting to sever relationship with the Church represents defiance of God's Will. You're still "marked by God" with the indelible mark of Baptism upon your soul eternally, according to the RCC.

And that´s exactly why they keep the record.

Still no reason to FORCE them to scratch it.

 

[Reptillian]

PARIS (RNS) A decade ago, Rene Lebouvier requested that his local Catholic church erase his name from the baptismal register.

One thing I know for sure about Monsieur Lebouvier...one of his ancestors was a cow herder.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no reason to believe it is neurosis. It simply makes sense to their spirituality. They believe baptism changes you deeply. Why having records that acknowledge that fact be more neurotic than acting in concordance to anyone´s religious beliefs?

I think it's an established fact that they keep names on the registry to increase the number of church attendees, so it's merely about statistics. This is what I'm getting at, for an organization claiming to be the authority on religious matters, it seems a bit non-ethical, IMO.

 

[Me Myself]

Talk me more about it and you may sell the idea to me.

In what way have they used the number of baptized people as an accurate way to tell how many people go to church?

 

[HerDotness]

I think it's an established fact that they keep names on the registry to increase the number of church attendees, so it's merely about statistics. This is what I'm getting at, for an organization claiming to be the authority on religious matters, it seems a bit non-ethical, IMO.

What you mean, I think, is that counting as members people who've declared they've left the church inflates the number of members claimed by the RCC.

I'll put a figure on it to give you an idea of why this is a morally bankrupt thing the RCC is doing. Let's say there are 3 million people worldwide with "left the church" notations on their baptismal record. 3,000,000.

Think about the implications--that's 3 million more people claimed as Catholics than are in actuality active practicing Catholics.

The problem is that claiming that baptized people are forever members of the Catholic Church is a lie and a fraud when you're including in your statistic people who haven't been associated with the church for decades and do not wish to be counted as Catholics. And because the RCC considers baptism something that makes you a Catholic for eternity, they would be counting as members 3,000,000 people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the church.

How very befitting an institution whose purpose is that which is right, ethical and moral!

 

[Me Myself]

The problem is that claiming that baptized people are forever members of the Catholic Church is a lie and a fraud when you're including in your statistic people who haven't been associated with the church for decades and do not wish to be counted as Catholics.

Depends on who you are talking with.

If a reporter asks a priest how many people are catholics and the priest says *insert number of baptized members without excluding the ones who left the church* then I agree that THAT PRIEST was being fraudulent.

If the question is one coming from a catholic that does believe (as it is catholic doctrine) that once baptized, you are always a member asks the same question for curiosity´s sake, it would be fitting to say the number of those baptized without exclussions, because the context is different.