French Court Rules in Favor of De-baptism

[Rence]

I’ve heard of another bizarre case like that, where a Jewish man wanted to become a non-Jew. Both cases sound counter-intuitive, to say the least. Aren’t you implicitly affirming the legitimacy of the “organisation/system” you’re trying to leave for good? Whatever happened to doing what you fancy anyway? Or is this gentleman’s suit really an attempt to embarrass or harass the Church?

I don’t think it’s implicitly affirming legitimacy. I think it’s affirming that it doesn’t have legitimacy because if you think they have legitimacy and authority, you wouldn’t be taking them to court. I would think it’s his way to get closure.

 

[Rence]

I believe that you may have misunderstood the application and the court’s ruling. From the little that I have seen LeBouvier wants his name stricken from the CC’s baptismal records. The court granted Lebouvier’s request and ordered the CC to amend its records. It isn’t a matter of denying an historical event…it is a matter of ruling who controls the records with respect to that event. With the lower court’s ruling, until success is achieved at appeal, it has been decided that the individual controls the records WRT his baptism (unless the CC wants to face an Order of contempt…or the French equivalent) I would be curious as to what degree LeBouvier’s age at baptism, if any, was a factor in this ruling. In other words, if he was baptized as an infant and therefore, never provided legal consent to his own baptism, did that factor into the court’s decision to grant the relief that LeBouvier requested? Perhaps we’ll see a law giving a person (baptized in infancy) two years or so from reaching adulthood to decide on whether he wants his name included within the baptismal records of the CC.

Well the Church teaches that Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the person receiving the Sacrament. So that’s why they’re appealing the court’s decision. Though, according to the teachings of the Church, removing his name from the records won’t change that indelible mark either.

 

[Radical]

I should also add that the use of those records by the CC may have also been a factor in the court’s decision. If the CC is claiming membership based on baptismal records and particularly, if any government funding or other benefit, is derived from such a membership, then the CC’s use of LeBouvier’s name (on its list) would benefit the CC (an organization Lebouvier now opposes)…shouldn’t LeBouvier be entitled to determine who benefits from the use of his name?..I have no idea as to whether this type of consideration was a factor at all.

 

[Radical]

Well the Church teaches that Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of the person receiving the Sacrament…Though, according to the teachings of the Church, removing his name from the records won’t change that indelible mark either.

If so, then it is the list that God keeps (in heaven) and not the list that the CC keeps here on earth that really matters. If the decision of the lower court is not overturned, then I expect that the CC will have to bow down to the secular authority on this issue. I don’t know French law, but refusal to comply with the order would likely meet with something like a fine (and wouldn’t all those with a beef with the CC like to join the queque and ask the court to order the striking their names too)…The choice: fine after fine after fine, or amend the baptismal records. I’m pretty sure that I know where that would end.

 

[vsedriver]

This is not an attempt to leave the Church, but an attempt to force the Church to leave what she believes.

and if a French court thinks it can force the Church to unbaptize someone how long before someone sues to be ‘unmarried’ in the Church?

even my spell checker doesn’t recognize ‘unbaptize’.

 

[Rence]

and if a French court thinks it can force the Church to unbaptize someone how long before someone sues to be ‘unmarried’ in the Church?

even my spell checker doesn’t recognize ‘unbaptize’.

Well, the thing is, annullment has specific criteria. If the criteria isn’t proven to be met, then no decree of nullity is awarded. So I think that’s something different. With regards to “unbaptizing”, it’s really a moot point. Just because it’s not on a written list doesn’t mean the indelible mark isn’t there, right?

 

[Bezant]

I don’t think it’s implicitly affirming legitimacy. I think it’s affirming that it doesn’t have legitimacy because if you think they have legitimacy and authority, you wouldn’t be taking them to court.

But as Nine-Two pointed out – if he believes the Church is nonsense, why appeal to it?

I would think it’s his way to get closure.

Fair enough, but if I didn’t have closure so many years after leaving the Church I would probably spend my time and money on something better.

 

[Rence]

But as Nine-Two pointed out – if he believes the Church is nonsense, why appeal to it?

Fair enough, but if I didn’t have closure so many years after leaving the Church I would probably spend my time and money on something better.

Well, I agree with you, but of course, we’re all different

 

[seeker57]

Just wanted to say thanks to all who so thoughtfully responded and answered some of the questions I posed.

I had no frame of reference for baptism and my only real interaction with it was from Protestant Christans, who kept saying it was their acceptance of their particular belief in Jesus, or some such. (They were now “saved,” etc.), or from the Mormons who had discussed baptizing the dead (which I sort of understand, but still really struggle with.)

As I said, we don’t have baptisms, or original sin (which I had to look up.)

I came here to learn about Catholics, and I am.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[onemangang]

Who knows maybe the french court will rule next that we can only baptize the willing who consent to it, and put an age of reason to it.

Nothing surprises me, when it comes to attacking the Church by secular means and sanctions. :ehh:

 

[vsedriver]

.

As I said, we don’t have baptisms, or original sin (which I had to look up.)

I came here to learn about Catholics, and I am.

Peace,

Seeker

That’s very interesting. I had heard of Unitarians but never Unitarian Universalists. Does the Catholic Church consider UU Christians? I would think without acknowledging Baptism they wouldn’t probably don’t. Is this a completely different group or the same group with a slightly different name?

 

[ltwin]

That’s very interesting. I had heard of Unitarians but never Unitarian Universalists. Does the Catholic Church consider UU Christians? I would think without acknowledging Baptism they wouldn’t probably don’t. Is this a completely different group or the same group with a slightly different name?

Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement, named for its understanding of God as one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being. Thus, Unitarians adhere to strict monotheism, and maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself.

Unitarians still exist, but many merged with the Universalists (another group) to form Unitarian Universalism which is a religious community characterized by support for a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning”. Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth and by the understanding that an individual’s theology is a result of that search and not obedience to an authoritarian requirement. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.

 

[x1980x]

…

Baptizing an infant isn’t an infliction. Why would a Catholic parent not baptize their child into the faith in which they believe and follow? Boggles my mind, this train of thought.

But the CC claims that baptism itself has an ontological effect that can’t be erased. I think this is the gravamen of the matter. How would you feel if your parents had had you inducted into a Communist Party at the age of 10 days (before you could even talk, let alone understand politics). Afterwards, you attempt to renounce your membership, but the Communist Party claims that your soul has been marked forever as belonging to the Red Army, and you are currently a soldier in the Red Army who has gone AWOL. Wouldn’t you be mad? Wouldn’t you consider it a human rights violation?

 

[Nine_Two]

But the CC claims that baptism itself has an ontological effect that can’t be erased. I think this is the gravamen of the matter. How would you feel if your parents had had you inducted into a Communist Party at the age of 10 days (before you could even talk, let alone understand politics). Afterwards, you attempt to renounce your membership, but the Communist Party claims that your soul has been marked forever as belonging to the Red Army, and you are currently a soldier in the Red Army who has gone AWOL. Wouldn’t you be mad? Wouldn’t you consider it a human rights violation?

If Communists had a belief stating that my former membership forever marked me, but still allowed me to leave completely, I wouldn’t care. I would think those Communists are a bunch of loons.

The comparison with the Red Army isn’t valid, as going AWOL exposes you to some very real, very immediate disciplinary measures. If you convert away from Christianity there are no such things.

 

[Indiana_Jones]

But the CC claims that baptism itself has an ontological effect that can’t be erased. I think this is the gravamen of the matter. How would you feel if your parents had had you inducted into a Communist Party at the age of 10 days (before you could even talk, let alone understand politics). Afterwards, you attempt to renounce your membership, but the Communist Party claims that your soul has been marked forever as belonging to the Red Army, and you are currently a soldier in the Red Army who has gone AWOL. Wouldn’t you be mad? Wouldn’t you consider it a human rights violation?

I would truly and honestly not care what they thought. I did all sorts of things as a child that I no longer do. Some of those things involved clubs, teams, schools, and even a church that I don’t care about today. I even disagree strongly with a few of those organizations now that I am an adult.

I don’t, though, try to pretend that they historically never happened or had any impact on me, even if I played on that team or joined that club because my parents “made” me do it.

It just seems to me that if you’re part of something and they tell you that you always will be, you can just quit and say “no I won’t” and that’s that.

EDIT: In no way does my last statement reflect my understanding of baptism or membership in the Catholic Church.

 

[Link0126]

But the CC claims that baptism itself has an ontological effect that can’t be erased. I think this is the gravamen of the matter. How would you feel if your parents had had you inducted into a Communist Party at the age of 10 days (before you could even talk, let alone understand politics). Afterwards, you attempt to renounce your membership, but the Communist Party claims that your soul has been marked forever as belonging to the Red Army, and you are currently a soldier in the Red Army who has gone AWOL. Wouldn’t you be mad? Wouldn’t you consider it a human rights violation?

Their opinion VS. yours… human rights violation? Far from it.

 

[Radical]

If Communists had a belief stating that my former membership forever marked me, but still allowed me to leave completely, I wouldn’t care. I would think those Communists are a bunch of loons.

Agreed. x1980x could have added that the Communist party is engaged in activities that you believe to be criminal (as per LeBouvier’s actual view)…you can’t change the beliefs and actions of the Communist party, but you could apply to have a court force the CP to amend it records so as to remove your name from association with the allegedly criminal institution. The loons can have their beliefs, just not their list.

 

[Radical]

I would truly and honestly not care what they thought. I did all sorts of things as a child that I no longer do. Some of those things involved clubs, teams, schools, and even a church that I don’t care about today. I even disagree strongly with a few of those organizations now that I am an adult.{/quote] and if LeBouvier cares…then he must change to become like you?

I don’t, though, try to pretend that they historically never happened …

 

[Indiana_Jones]

and if LeBouvier cares…then he must change to become like you?

He’d be much happier if he did.

I haven’t seen anything that suggests that LeBouvier is pretending that his baptism never happened

Obviously he isn’t, or else this case would not have taken place. He wants to proceed as if it had never happened, but it still did.

It isn’t about impact either…

Are you sure about that? But it’s pretty clear that we’re not approaching this from the same perspective, and I’m not going to debate it.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

I believe that you may have misunderstood the application and the court’s ruling. From the little that I have seen LeBouvier wants his name stricken from the CC’s baptismal records. The court granted Lebouvier’s request and ordered the CC to amend its records. It isn’t a matter of denying an historical event…it is a matter of ruling who controls the records with respect to that event. With the lower court’s ruling, until success is achieved at appeal, it has been decided that the individual controls the records WRT his baptism (unless the CC wants to face an Order of contempt…or the French equivalent) I would be curious as to what degree LeBouvier’s age at baptism, if any, was a factor in this ruling. In other words, if he was baptized as an infant and therefore, never provided legal consent to his own baptism, did that factor into the court’s decision to grant the relief that LeBouvier requested? Perhaps we’ll see a law giving a person (baptized in infancy) two years or so from reaching adulthood to decide on whether he wants his name included within the baptismal records of the CC.

Why wouldn’t/shouldn’t the Catholic Church control the records of a valid , sacramental Baptism conducted in their own church ? It does make sense to maintain these records . Even if this man leaves the CC , if he ever would decide to return to the CC and requested another baptism , it would be unnecessary . The CC does not baptize twice . But without these records , how would the CC know he hadn’t already been baptized ? If this man was close to death and expressed a desire to be buried in consecrated ground and to have a funeral mass( obviously not in that order ) , the CC would possess the records indicating that he had indeed been validly baptized . If this man would have a change of heart and wanted to be married in the CC , the records would indicate his valid baptism and preclude the need for an unnecessary and duplicative baptism .
So , indeed there are sound administrative , theological , pastoral and religious liberty reasons for the CC to maintain these records .

Why do you think it is prudent to demand that a religious event ( in this case a sacrament ) be stricken from the records ? Should we do this for weddings , Confirmations , funerals , first communions ? Should we destroy the records of parish hall rentals for wedding receptions ?

This event occurred in a CC and it is THEIR record , they own it .

Why isn’t this man taking his parents to task for their decision ? It seems to me that his real beef is with them . If they are dead , well , he can’t hold their feet to the fire now .This strikes me as petty petulance .

Why isn’t this an infringement of religious liberty ?