French Government Angers Catholic Church in Allowing Debaptization

[iwakar]

Legal precedent versus religious/historical precedent

NPR Story

In France, an elderly man is fighting to make a formal break with the Catholic Church. He's taken the church to court over its refusal to let him nullify his baptism, in a case that could have far-reaching effects.

As he didn't believe in God anymore, he thought it would be more honest to leave the church. So he wrote to his diocese and asked to be un-baptized.

"They sent me a copy of my records, and in the margins next to my name, they wrote that I had chosen to leave the church," he says.

That was in the year 2000. A decade later, LeBouvier wanted to go further. In between were the pedophile scandals and the pope preaching against condoms in AIDS-racked Africa, a position that LeBouvier calls "criminal." Again, he asked the church to strike him from baptismal records. When the priest told him it wasn't possible, he took the church to court.

Last October, a judge in Normandy ruled in his favor. The diocese has since appealed, and the case is pending.

"One can't be de-baptized," says Rev. Robert Kaslyn, dean of the School of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America.

Kaslyn says baptism changes one permanently before the church and God.

"One could refuse the grace offered by God, the grace offered by the sacrament, refuse to participate," he says, "but we would believe the individual has still been marked for God through the sacrament, and that individual at any point could return to the church."

French law states that citizens have the right to leave organizations if they wish. Loup Desmond, who has followed the case for the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, says he thinks it could set a legal precedent and open the way for more demands for de-baptism.

"If the justice confirms that the name Rene LeBouvier has to disappear from the books, if it is confirmed, it can be a kind of jurisprudence in France," he says. Up to now, observers say the de-baptism trend has been marginal, but it's growing.

Two questions:
Should the French government support this ruling in favor of the ex-Catholic?
What does the Catholic Church or the French citizen have to lose/gain from this precedent?

 

[1487610420]

Legal precedent versus religious/historical precedent

NPR Story

Two questions:
Should the French government support this ruling in favor of the ex-Catholic?
What does the Catholic Church or the French citizen have to lose/gain from this precedent?

Yes.
Power to the people.

 

[Lark]

I dont understand this, he has left the church, that's fine, there is no such sacrament as debaptism, you can not be unbaptised and I would not expect that sacraments can or should be innovated in this way.

The state should have no powers to compell the Church, WTF?! Dont you liberals believe in freedom of religion or conscience?!

Not even Stalin or Hitler or Mussolini sought to try and compell capitulation like this from private religious institutions.

 

[iwakar]

I dont understand this, he has left the church, that's fine, there is no such sacrament as debaptism, you can not be unbaptised and I would not expect that sacraments can or should be innovated in this way.

The state should have no powers to compell the Church, WTF?! Dont you liberals believe in freedom of religion or conscience?!

Not even Stalin or Hitler or Mussolini sought to try and compell capitulation like this from private religious institutions.

I'm not sure I understand why removing your name from a baptismal record would even be considered debaptization by the Catholic Church.

 

[Lark]

I'm not sure I understand why removing your name from a baptismal record would even be considered debaptization by the Catholic Church.

I've never heard of this debaptism at all, which makes me think that its a damned anti-church stunt, which will be seized upon as progressive by a lot of people who've not thought out whether or not its a good idea to give the state the power that's in question. A fantastic misdirection trick which is so, so easy for authoritarinans in the state when they've got the right scapegoat for the job.

 

[iwakar]

I've never heard of this debaptism at all, which makes me think that its a damned anti-church stunt, which will be seized upon as progressive by a lot of people who've not thought out whether or not its a good idea to give the state the power that's in question. A fantastic misdirection trick which is so, so easy for authoritarinans in the state when they've got the right scapegoat for the job.

The ex-Catholic didn't call it a debaptism. The church did. I think they're the ones being melodramatic. They make it sound like he wants some unholy, voodoo ritual to rescind the holy light. He just wants his name removed from the church's religious roll call. Is that really an anti-church stunt? It's clerical and I'm not trying to be punny! It sounds more like an anti-nonbeliever stunt.

 

[Rasofy]

Should the French government support this ruling in favor of the ex-Catholic?

Yes. To use a legal analogy, when you change your sex, you have the right to change your name not only in your ID, but in every public and private department.

What does the Catholic Church or the French citizen have to lose/gain from this precedent?

There's not much gain for anyone...I'm guessing it's a list no one bothers with unless the person wants a Catholic marriage. But the intolerance makes the Catholic Church look silly.

 

[EcK]

The ex-Catholic didn't call it a debaptism. The church did. I think they're the ones being melodramatic. They make it sound like he wants some unholy, voodoo ritual to rescind the holy light. He just wants his name removed from the church's religious roll call. Is that really an anti-church stunt? It's clerical and I'm not trying to be punny! It sounds more like an anti-nonbeliever stunt.

I actually considered taking myself out their damn ledgers. Of course it would be silly to ask to undo something that i believe has no more actual effect than taking a quick bath. maybe I could skip washing my hair for a day or something, should do the trick.
Also 'authorising it' is silly. It's something that according to their own belief is a major and meaningful act done without the child's agreement. In today's society they shouldn't even authorize the baptism in the first place. You need to be 13 to play most non disneyish video games yet anybody can do wierd shit to a child they believe will bind him or her literally forever. Can we really condemn such a willingful denial of one's ability for self determination. Intent counts, however silly the act the intent is to bind an unwilling participant beyond even death and then is generally followed up by an institutional brain washing leading to a belief system that is largely incoherent with observed reality to the point of clearly presenting the clinical symptoms of a delusion.
The church and its representatives should be prosecuted, not kindly asked how shocked they feel about people asking to be taken off their hit list.

 

[Lark]

The ex-Catholic didn't call it a debaptism. The church did. I think they're the ones being melodramatic. They make it sound like he wants some unholy, voodoo ritual to rescind the holy light. He just wants his name removed from the church's religious roll call. Is that really an anti-church stunt? It's clerical and I'm not trying to be punny! It sounds more like an anti-nonbeliever stunt.

I do think it sounds like an anti-church stunt, I think its being deliberately spun to make it appear like someone is being victimised and the church is an oppressive ogre. Now what agenda could that possibly fit?

 

[iwakar]

I do think it sounds like an anti-church stunt, I think its being deliberately spun to make it appear like someone is being victimised and the church is an oppressive ogre. Now what agenda could that possibly fit?

Stop spinning for a moment and consider: is requesting a clerical edit in a baptismal book of records a ploy for victimhood? He has asked for his name to be struck from the record. That's it. Why on earth would a religious institution insist on clerically (not generally) maintaning a man within their ranks that vehemently opposes being there? This is bewildering. Would you want his name in your church, on your roster if he publicly denounces you all? I cannot make sense of this.

 

[Lark]

I actually considered taking myself out their damn ledgers. Of course it would be silly to ask to undo something that i believe has no more actual effect than taking a quick bath. maybe I could skip washing my hair for a day or something, should do the trick.
Also 'authorising it' is silly. It's something that according to their own belief is a major and meaningful act done without the child's agreement. In today's society they shouldn't even authorize the baptism in the first place. You need to be 13 to play most non disneyish video games yet anybody can do wierd shit to a child they believe will bind him or her literally forever. Can we really condemn such a willingful denial of one's ability for self determination. Intent counts, however silly the act the intent is to bind an unwilling participant beyond even death and then is generally followed up by an institutional brain washing leading to a belief system that is largely incoherent with observed reality to the point of clearly presenting the clinical symptoms of a delusion.
The church and its representatives should be prosecuted, not kindly asked how shocked they feel about people asking to be taken off their hit list.

I find that language of "binding" and "hit lists" highly emotively charged and ill served to proper objective discussion of what is taking place here.

If it is a simple matter of removal of a name from parish lists then that could and should be considered for all it is, perhaps there are other issues at stake here, are the parish lists used to determine the amount of parishioners, in which case this move could have consequences for financial aid either from the state or Rome. Which makes greater sense in an age of public austerity and when the RCC has been closing churches and merging parishes or masses.

Although if this person were to insist that they wish to have themselves removed and disassociated that's fine, I even dont mind if they are choosing to remove themselves symbolically from the congregation, however, it would be a new development in secular hostility towards the church if individuals shunning the church in adulthood were so driven in doing so that they are unhappy with the historical "lapsed catholic" tag. Not that I would not believe that that would happen, I see lots of threads attacking religion and religious belief, let alone institutional or organised religious tradition, on this forum alone. It is probably not too mistaken to consider that as representative.

There is no element of abuse or usurping of an individuals right or freedom of conscience within sacramentalism, including baptism, there is no binding, if you dont believe in the ritual it should be of no consequence to you, if you do then it is in fact a form of exorcism and forgiveness of sins and positively in the interests of the child's welfare.

What I suspect IS the problem is that atheists and secularists and those who resent their personal histories and family traditions and have betrayed or abandoned them resent the symbolic induction into a religious community and the continuity and renewal it could provide to the very things they dislike. It is cloaked in all sorts of high minded language about respecting choice and independent formation of opinions but in reality what is desired is the non-religious and secular secondary socialisation, in home, school and community which it is hoped will translate into choosing secular and anti-religious opinions in later life.

 

[Lark]

Stop spinning for a moment and consider: is requesting a clerical edit in a baptismal book of records a ploy for victimhood? He has asked for his name to be struck from the record. That's it. Why on earth would a religious institution insist on clerically (not generally) maintaning a man within their ranks that vehemently opposes being there? This is bewildering. Would you want his name in your church, on your roster if he publicly denounces you all? I cannot make sense of this.

I'm not spinning.

What is being proposed here, right, and, as I've said already, as a PROGRESSIVE move is, first, the state compelling a private religious institution into compliance and, second, to amend their records inorder to reflect historical revisionism of the first order, practiced by Stalin, satirised and novelised as among the worst possible crimes by Orwell in 1984 and now considered proper order and a not unreasonable request by secularists hostile to anything with the trappings of religious conscience.

Way to go guys. Way to go. Right on.

 

[iwakar]

What is being proposed here is the state compelling a private religious institution into compliance.

I edited your post so it made sense to me. So you believe that religious institutions are not subject to the laws of the nation they reside in?

 

[EcK]

I find that language of "binding" and "hit lists" highly emotively charged and ill served to proper objective discussion of what is taking place here.

If it is a simple matter of removal of a name from parish lists then that could and should be considered for all it is, perhaps there are other issues at stake here, are the parish lists used to determine the amount of parishioners, in which case this move could have consequences for financial aid either from the state or Rome. Which makes greater sense in an age of public austerity and when the RCC has been closing churches and merging parishes or masses.

Although if this person were to insist that they wish to have themselves removed and disassociated that's fine, I even dont mind if they are choosing to remove themselves symbolically from the congregation, however, it would be a new development in secular hostility towards the church if individuals shunning the church in adulthood were so driven in doing so that they are unhappy with the historical "lapsed catholic" tag. Not that I would not believe that that would happen, I see lots of threads attacking religion and religious belief, let alone institutional or organised religious tradition, on this forum alone. It is probably not too mistaken to consider that as representative.

There is no element of abuse or usurping of an individuals right or freedom of conscience within sacramentalism, including baptism, there is no binding, if you dont believe in the ritual it should be of no consequence to you, if you do then it is in fact a form of exorcism and forgiveness of sins and positively in the interests of the child's welfare.

What I suspect IS the problem is that atheists and secularists and those who resent their personal histories and family traditions and have betrayed or abandoned them resent the symbolic induction into a religious community and the continuity and renewal it could provide to the very things they dislike. It is cloaked in all sorts of high minded language about respecting choice and independent formation of opinions but in reality what is desired is the non-religious and secular secondary socialisation, in home, school and community which it is hoped will translate into choosing secular and anti-religious opinions in later life.

I meant binding in a quasi legal term. It is technically exactly that. I mean it is supposed to be some covenant with a divinity that changes your very nature. I would call that binding.
No time to answer the rest of the post now, will try to make up for it later
Hit list was actually more of an experiment in charged utterances.
All I am saying is that religions constantly get a free pass for emotional manipulation, child indoctrination, even siphoning public funds. Not the mention the countless cases of willing harboring of child rapists motivated by a stronger desire to avoid losing face than to protect the victims. It's only understandable that some individuals don't want to be associated with them in any way.

 

[EcK]

I find that language of "binding" and "hit lists" highly emotively charged and ill served to proper objective discussion of what is taking place here.

If it is a simple matter of removal of a name from parish lists then that could and should be considered for all it is, perhaps there are other issues at stake here, are the parish lists used to determine the amount of parishioners, in which case this move could have consequences for financial aid either from the state or Rome. Which makes greater sense in an age of public austerity and when the RCC has been closing churches and merging parishes or masses.

Although if this person were to insist that they wish to have themselves removed and disassociated that's fine, I even dont mind if they are choosing to remove themselves symbolically from the congregation, however, it would be a new development in secular hostility towards the church if individuals shunning the church in adulthood were so driven in doing so that they are unhappy with the historical "lapsed catholic" tag. Not that I would not believe that that would happen, I see lots of threads attacking religion and religious belief, let alone institutional or organised religious tradition, on this forum alone. It is probably not too mistaken to consider that as representative.

There is no element of abuse or usurping of an individuals right or freedom of conscience within sacramentalism, including baptism, there is no binding, if you dont believe in the ritual it should be of no consequence to you, if you do then it is in fact a form of exorcism and forgiveness of sins and positively in the interests of the child's welfare.

What I suspect IS the problem is that atheists and secularists and those who resent their personal histories and family traditions and have betrayed or abandoned them resent the symbolic induction into a religious community and the continuity and renewal it could provide to the very things they dislike. It is cloaked in all sorts of high minded language about respecting choice and independent formation of opinions but in reality what is desired is the non-religious and secular secondary socialisation, in home, school and community which it is hoped will translate into choosing secular and anti-religious opinions in later life.

Would you like to be counted as a member of an organization you find yourself in strong ethical disagreement with?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I believe the Church should comply with the ex-Catholic's wishes, and if no mechanism is in place to formally resign membership, one should be created. However, the most absurd and foolish party in this story is clearly the French court. Since when is government the authority on spiritual matters? The decision is akin to a court deciding that keeping kosher isn't part of Judaism or that only eight of the ten commandments really count. This guy, though his frustration is understandable, appealed to the wrong authority. This decision makes no more sense than a church demanding a murderer go free from prison because he went to confession and was absolved.

 

[violaine]

This is my little breadcrumb thought trail: I'm not in favor of rights being stomped, regardless of whether or not I agree with the stance. But I think governments do have some form of jurisdiction in church matters at certain times when there is conflict between church and country, e.g. in matters that require criminal prosecution instead of just confession/absolution. (Though this is not that). A person has the right to withdraw their support from any organization. If this person sees himself as something outside of the church, his only recourse would be through the court of the land, the only similarly empowered entity.

It didn't have to come to this, the church should respect a person's wishes in this respect. Especially as it seems a matter of conscience. (And most especially if this man was baptized as an infant, before he could make his own decisions). It's not the first time someone has wanted to disentangle themselves and makes me wonder how many unwilling enrollees are on the books. The church has a lot to lose but inflating numbers artificially surely doesn't help.

A person has the right to decide what is best for themselves, it's not for the church to overrule a person in that "parental" way that some religious cultures adhere to. I wonder what kind of precedent this may set, and I know the French gov keep close tabs on the varying religions, but I don't foresee religious persecution and this situation isn't right.

 

[CzeCze]

Being de-baptised and leaving the church are two different things. He's already left the church and even Catholic records cite this. What he wants is symbolic, purely religious, and something the state has no power over.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of the Catholic church so any disillusioned non-practicing Catholics can stick it to 'em, I'm all for.

:edit:

Oh wait, you asked two questions.

1) The Catholic Church has a lot to lose. It's not just about numbers it's about any perceived slight to their ultimate authority. I've never even heard of 'de-baptism'. I think it's kinda ridiculous that it's an "official thing" but if you're thoroughly disgusted with the Catholic Church I understand why you'd want to symbolically F U them.

2) I guess any citizen who can formally declare themselves 'de-baptized' has gained a significant symbolic legal right. I keep on saying 'symbolic' because to the individual that's what it is. Now, if we were talking about a real loony organization like Scientology, then I would say oh hell yes, people need to be legally separated and protected from those people. Who could be like telemarketers from hell. Who also have access to your bank information.

 

[iwakar]

Being de-baptised and leaving the church are two different things. He's already left the church and even Catholic records cite this.

Incorrect. They merely provided him a COPY of his records. They removed him from nothing. There is also no clarity on whether they even wrote the note in the margins on just the copy or the original.

 

[Red Herring]

If he had joined the Boyscouts or the Red Cross or the Communist Party as a youngster and now wanted to be struck from their member list, this would be a non-issue.

It just so happens the organisation from whose member list he wants to erased does not think that is possible and has no corresponding clerical procedure installed. They should, unless they consider themselves to be above and beyond secular law (which they seem to do). That is the whole point. From inside a religious worldview his request is ludicrous, but only IF you accept the premises used inside the church. From outside a religious worldview his request is the most normal thing in the world. I don't see it as a publicity stunt against the church (nor as others have suggested as a stunt BY the church to demonstrate how far those evil apostates have gone by spreading the misinformation that he wanted to be "debaptised") but simply as a conflict between two different interpretations of reality that come down to what has priority - divine law (and to accept that you have to be religious) or secular law.

This reminds me of those people who say Salman Rushdie is an idiot for thinking he is no longer a muslim and the laws of islam don't apply to him since he is an apostate. They say once a muslim always a muslim...so he shouldn't be surprised about the fatwa.