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

[HerDotness]

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?

 

[Kathryn]

It's a baptismal record. The baptism occurred. What it accomplished has yet to be determined, but whether or not the person leaves the church, the baptism did occur.

A person should be allowed to clarify however, that they are no longer Roman Catholic.

To me, there's a difference. One is an event, the other is a belief - two different things.

 

[beerisit]

Extremism comes in rainbows.

 

[vepurusg]

A person should be allowed to clarify however, that they are no longer Roman Catholic.

To me, there's a difference. One is an event, the other is a belief - two different things.

Yes, the problem is that the church is confounding the two.


I won't speak for a church's right to keep records (because I won't speak for a church's right to exist at all), but in a sense of secular business, a company has the right to keep records of past events.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a baptismal record. The baptism occurred. What it accomplished has yet to be determined, but whether or not the person leaves the church, the baptism did occur.

A person should be allowed to clarify however, that they are no longer Roman Catholic.

To me, there's a difference. One is an event, the other is a belief - two different things.

I think out of common decency the church should remove names upon request. But, asking for common decency is a bit much I suppose.

 

[ChristineES]

Makes no sense to me, but a lot of things don't make sense. I was baptized as a baby as a Catholic and I am not, nor have I ever been a Catholic. I don't see what removing my name from some list would accomplish. But if people want chase rainbows, it is their time they are using.

 

[averageJOE]

I didn't know god needed a list of baptized people to remember who they are.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The Catholic church allows anullments to make it as if a marriage had never existed in the first place (it is different from divorce); so why no de-baptisms? Seems logical to me.

I won't speak for a church's right to keep records (because I won't speak for a church's right to exist at all), but in a sense of secular business, a company has the right to keep records of past events.

However these rights are constrained - as should also be the case for a religious organisation.

 

[Me Myself]

I have no problem with "de-baptism", but I don´t think the church is nor should be forced to do so by the state or some other silly thing like that.

It´s their records. Why would you have any say into what they put there?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Well we do have a degree of say over business records.

Also, if it is information that infers certain spiritual connotations, then supposedly we have a right to control our own spirituality - therefore we should be able to alter those records in so far as they pertain to us.

 

[Me Myself]

Well we do have a degree of say over business records.

Why?

Also, if it is information that infers certain spiritual connotations, then supposedly we have a right to control our own spirituality - therefore we should be able to alter those records in so far as they pertain to us.

This wouldonly make sense if government decided to accept that the text holds any supernatural value, which... huh, would be weird :areyoucra

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Why?

For a host of reasons, such as protecting privacy - you can for example have your personally identifying information removed from records in many businesses (obviously this is not allowed for some such as credit histories) but then again this would largely depend on your jurisdiction.

This wouldonly make sense if government decided to accept that the text holds any supernatural value, which... huh, would be weird :areyoucra

Or if they accept that someone has the right to control information they believe has supernatural implications over them - most likely excluding certain domains such as their financial information, criminal history etc. One does not have to accept that something holds any value to recognise that it has negative implications.

 

[Me Myself]

For a host of reasons, such as protecting privacy - you can for example have your personally identifying information removed from records in many businesses (obviously this is not allowed for some such as credit histories) but then again this would largely depend on your jurisdiction.

And which information would the church have on you when you baptize besides information that can honestly be got anywhere else? Isn´t it just like your name and father´s names and things like that?

For a host of reasons, such as protecting privacy - you can for example have your personally identifying information removed from records in many businesses (obviously this is not allowed for some such as credit histories) but then again this would largely depend on your jurisdiction.

Or if they accept that someone has the right to control information they believe has supernatural implications over them - most likely excluding certain domains such as their financial information, criminal history etc. One does not have to accept that something holds any value to recognise that it has negative implications.

That would be a mess if you think about it just a little. Let´s say I believe photos capture my soul. Let´s say that I believe putting my name anywhere makes some spiritual damage to me.

Blah, many silly things could be argued. Ultimately, that law would be a mess.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Right, yet we are not arguing about whether or not you are making up things, but as opposed to a long standing traditional interpretation of negative spiritual implications (eg always being a catholic) about something that the person had no control over (baptised when young) which can easily be removed without any functional implications.

 

[blackout]

Last October, a court in Normandy ruled in favor of his lawsuit to have his name permanently deleted from church records—......

I think that's awesome.

really.

I would love to have my name permanently deleted from RC church records too.

Then again... I'll be legally changing my name. heh.

(they've got the wrong gal) lol

 

[HerDotness]

I have no problem with "de-baptism", but I don´t think the church is nor should be forced to do so by the state or some other silly thing like that.

It´s their records. Why would you have any say into what they put there?

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.

 

[HerDotness]

The Catholic church allows anullments to make it as if a marriage had never existed in the first place (it is different from divorce); so why no de-baptisms? Seems logical to me.

Seems to be a good comparison--except anullment signifies that there was no valid marriage to begin with. And it must be proven that conditions existed which rendered the marriage an invalid one.

Someone would have to prove that there was no valid baptism to have a baptism "annulled." Which is my contention--there cannot be a valid baptism of an infant who hasn't the maturity as yet to understand what baptism requires and to consent freely and willingly to be baptized. The fact that an infant cannot give consent is gotten around by having the chosen godparents speak for the baby.

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.

 

[Infinitum]

I've followed the name removal discussion both locally and internationally for some time now. Having your name removed from the records is a powerful spiritual and social statement. Psychologically it lets you free yourself from an organisation you strongly disagree with. Even if there's no contact between the individual and the church anymore, many have the feeling that the church have a control over them on some level. Name removal is also a good way to send the church a message, to shake them up a bit. One person might not feel like much, but suddenly when something happens it can become a landslide.

In my country it's been possible to remove your name from the church records via the Internet for a few years. According to the site statistics there are around 1500 name removals a week, but two years back after a television interview the numbers skyrocketed to 30 000 names! That's not something a church can just shrug at anymore. After that the public discussion has changed and the church has started to open up to the people, instead of closing in on itself, which I think is a very good thing.

So I'm strongly in favour of it. I requested my name to be removed from the church I grew up in too, because I really disaprove of some of their practices and want to have nothing to do with them anymore. Being a part of a strong organisation leaves a mark on you and if you can't psychologically free yourself, it has the power to press you down and make you feel insecure about yourself. I know many whom it doesn't affect like that, but I know even more whom it does.

 

[Kathryn]

I think out of common decency the church should remove names upon request. But, asking for common decency is a bit much I suppose.

I don't work for a particular company any more. But I did work there. It's part of my work record. The past can't be changed and I don't believe a church should be required to ERASE the record of an event that did happen.

Now - removing his name as a CURRENT MEMBER OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is a whole other story. He's obviously not Roman Catholic anymore. But he was baptized in the past. It is what it is.

 

[Kathryn]

The Catholic church allows anullments to make it as if a marriage had never existed in the first place (it is different from divorce); so why no de-baptisms? Seems logical to me.


However these rights are constrained - as should also be the case for a religious organisation.

The RCC would have a record of the marriage ceremony if it happened in the Church, and then a record of the annulment.

Both events happened. Both are recorded.