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

[blackout]

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

I do.

Many of us do.

 

[HerDotness]

Look, the point of Lebouvier's demand that his name be removed altogether from baptismal records is a protest against the RCC's stance on some social issues as well as against its documented corruption.

Frankly, I feel somewhat the same way myself.

Sure, demanding that my name be removed from the records altogether is somewhat silly when you think about it because baptismal records can be used to establish identity and are sometimes sources for genealogists. Thus, I'd settle for a document stating that my association with the RCC is officially severed.

However, when you consider that this is a church that touts honesty and morality to the utmost but yet considers itself having the right to count as a member someone who's declared they've left, what does that say about the RCC's essential morality and decency? Excommunicants are also still counted as members, because excommunication doesn't actually mean you're kicked out of the church as it's so commonly understood. It only signifies a form of censure since the excommunicant cannot actively participate in or receive sacraments and some other benefits. An excommunicant cannot stand as godparent to a child being baptized, for instance.

It's one thing to consider and count excommunicants as members and quite another to continue counting someone who's declared they no longer wish affiliation with the RCC. The latter is patently dishonest, and "Baptism leaves an indelible mark upon the soul" is simply an excuse.

 

[Sunstone]

In so far as Lebouvier's demand to have his name removed constitutes free speech, I think he has a right to have his name removed. That is, it seems that his demand should be seen in the context of a protest against the Church. A free speech issue. To say that he cannot do it might be regarded as tantamount to arbitrarily limiting his speech.

 

[HerDotness]

In so far as Lebouvier's demand to have his name removed constitutes free speech, I think he has a right to have his name removed. That is, it seems that his demand should be seen in the context of a protest against the Church. A free speech issue. To say that he cannot do it might be regarded as tantamount to arbitrarily limiting his speech.

Not an issue of concern to the RCC, I shouldn't think.

What they're worried about is that they may be forced to quit counting all baptized Catholics as members since some countries levy church support taxes on those listed as members. Having to remove large numbers of people from membership could mean a significant reduction in income.

Plus, having significant numbers demanding to be removed from membership is not the best reflection upon the Church's image by any means. The fear is that this case will open up the floodgates if Lebouvier prevails.

 

[blackout]

Well hopefully this win will set a new precedent.

Sometimes it just takes a small handful of people
willing to fight the fight,
to Set a larger change in motion.

The RC is arrogant. (and certainly in this regard)
I personally like to see arrogance dethroned.

 

[YmirGF]

It sounds more like the actions of a person with too much time on their hands.

 

[Nakosis]

I do.

Many of us do.

Fair enough, but why?

Why does the actions of the RCC have any weight/worth/value what-so-ever?

Why allow the actions of the RCC to affect you life in any way? Assuming one doesn't want anything to do with them anyway?

 

[Nakosis]

Well hopefully this win will set a new precedent.

Sometimes it just takes a small handful of people
willing to fight the fight,
to Set a larger change in motion.

The RC is arrogant. (and certainly in this regard)
I personally like to see arrogance dethroned.

To dethrone them mock them...

Or perhaps just refuse to acknowledge their actions as having any value.

 

[HerDotness]

So, are you saying that the RCC has every right to count as members people who've designated that they've left the church?

That's what I object to most strongly. Even if my baptismal record has a "left" notation on it, I'm still counted as a member simply because I was baptized in infancy.

 

[blackout]

To dethrone them mock them...

Or perhaps just refuse to acknowledge their actions as having any value.

Well sure, but it's a 'principle' kind of thing.

Also an icing on the cake kind of thing.

 

[Kathryn]

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.

I'm fine with that. But MY point is that something like that should suffice. Erasing documentation of actual events should not be required.

 

[Kathryn]

In so far as Lebouvier's demand to have his name removed constitutes free speech, I think he has a right to have his name removed. That is, it seems that his demand should be seen in the context of a protest against the Church. A free speech issue. To say that he cannot do it might be regarded as tantamount to arbitrarily limiting his speech.

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

He should not be allowed to revise history.

 

[blackout]

If you WANT your record expunged,
honestly, WHAT is the big deal to the RC,
that they won't just accommodate.

Its less useless unwanted papers and used computer memory for them anyway.

 

[Quiddity]

I can't wrap my mind around why this matters so much other then someone having some issues that go beyond disagreements.

As long as this erasing of documents is extended to any organization that one happens to hate.

It's rather easy to see just how silly this gets.

Whatever happened to the good ol days where people hate the RC for more substantiated reasons?

May I suggest a hobby?

 

[Kathryn]

Not an issue of concern to the RCC, I shouldn't think.

What they're worried about is that they may be forced to quit counting all baptized Catholics as members since some countries levy church support taxes on those listed as members. Having to remove large numbers of people from membership could mean a significant reduction in income.

Have you got any documentation about these church taxes and how they are calculated?

 

[HerDotness]

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

He should not be allowed to revise history.

The man wants his baptismal record expunged as a PROTEST. It means something to him. I can understand why he might feel that way.

You prefer to regard what he wishes as an unreasonable request that records be altered.

There are two dramatically different perceptions of the situation operative here, yours and his.

 

[YmirGF]

May I suggest a hobby?

My thoughts, exactly. It is difficult to imagine why this matter is of any importance, whatsoever.

 

[YmirGF]

The man wants his baptismal record expunged as a PROTEST. It means something to him. I can understand why he might feel that way.

You prefer to regard what he wishes as an unreasonable request that records be altered.

There are two dramatically different perceptions of the situation operative here, yours and his.

Perhaps he should sue his parents as well for having him baptized against his future wishes. No wonder France is going down the tube.

 

[Storm]

I can see both sides of this one, honestly. That said, in the end I agree with Kathryn.

He should be allowed to officially leave the Church and have them acknowledge it. But deleting his name from a ledger? I don't think they should have to go that far.

I've only checked the thread sporadically, but I vaguely recall someone comparing it to divorce. You may wish it had never happened, but it did, and the records should reflect that.

 

[Kathryn]

So, are you saying that the RCC has every right to count as members people who've designated that they've left the church?

That's what I object to most strongly. Even if my baptismal record has a "left" notation on it, I'm still counted as a member simply because I was baptized in infancy.

So if there's going to be legal action and a legal precedent, then set the precedent to remove people who are no longer members. Removing baptismal records is not the same thing though.

There's a more logical way to handle this.