A Quest For De-Baptism In France

Delirium

An eldery man in France is currently involved in a court case to make the Catholic church de-baptise him.

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.

Seventy-one-year-old Rene LeBouvier's parents and his brother are buried in a churchyard in the tiny village of Fleury in northwest France. He himself was baptized in the Romanesque stone church and attended mass here as a boy.

LeBouvier says this rural area is still conservative and very Catholic, but nothing like it used to be. Back then, he says, you couldn't even get credit at the bakery if you didn't go to mass every Sunday.

LeBouvier grew up in that world and says his mother once hoped he'd become a priest. But his views began to change in the 1970s, when he was introduced to free thinkers. 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. In neighboring Belgium, the Brussels Federation of Friends of Secular Morality reports that 2,000 people asked to be de-baptized in 2010. The newspaper Le Monde estimated that about 1,000 French people a year ask to have their baptisms annulled.

There is much anger across the continent by the recent pedophile scandals. In September, Germans marched to protest the pope's visit.

Christian Weisner, who is with the German branch of the grassroots movement We Are Church, says Europeans still want religion, and they want to believe, but it has become very difficult within the Catholic Church.

"It's the way that the Roman Catholic Church has not followed the new approach of democracy, the new approach of the women's issue," he says, "and there is really a big gap between the Roman Catholic Church and modern times."

Back at the church in Fleury, LeBouvier stands by his parents' grave. When asked if the case has ruined his chances of being buried in the family plot, he says he doesn't have to worry about that. He's donating his body to science.

Source

.

Beruthiel

Allez Rene!

Peregrinus

There seems to me to be a bit of a gap in this story.

The quest for “de-baptism” has of course been much discussed on this board, even if the actual term “de-baptism” isn’t usually the language of choice. But what’s unusual in this story is this bit:

“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.”

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t recall any previous case in which a court has given a ruling like this. So, naturally, I’m curious. What was the basis for the court’s ruling? Does it have any application beyond France?

The only hint at an answer is this:

“French law states that citizens have the right to leave organizations if they wish.”

Fair enough, but it doesn’t explain the judgment. LeBouvier had already left the church, and the church had acknowledged this ten years previously. They sent him a copy of their own record stating that he had left the church. So whatever LeBouvier is seeking in the current proceedings, it is not either the right to leave the church, or the right to have the church acknowledge that he has left. Both of these rights have already been afforded to him.

It seems from the NPR report that what LeBouvier is asking for is to have the church “strike him from the baptismal records”, which I think can only mean that he wants the church to delete any record it holds that he was ever baptized. If that’s what he wants, it strikes me as a slightly odd thing to want, since it would also involve the deletion of the church’s record of the fact that he left the church. Deleting the record won’t change the historical reality that he was, as a matter of fact, baptized into the Catholic church. But it will result in the deletion of the only documentary evidence that he is not now a Catholic, and that the church acknowledges this. Is that really a desirable outcome?

The other odd thing is why the court has made the order requested. It’s not a consequence of LeBouvier’s right to leave the church, since (a) he has already left the church, and this has been acknowledged, and (b) even if he hadn’t, deletion of the record of baptism would not have the result that he would not be a Catholic, any more than destruction of your birth certificate could mean that you are no longer Irish.

If the church were now to make a claim that LeBouvier was, in some sense, a member, that claim would rest on the record of his baptism but on the fact of his baptism. Baptisms are recorded because they are thought to be important. But if the records are destroyed or deleted, neither the reality of the baptisms nor the importance attributed to them is altered in any way.

Bottom line: LeBouvier isn’t a Catholic, and the Catholic church acknowledges this, and has created a record of the fact. No destruction or deletion of records is needed to vindicate or give effect to this state of affairs; it is already fully effective. If anything, the destruction of records can only cast doubt on the situation. Given all this, I’d dearly like to know the basis on which the court ordered this.

It may be - wild speculation coming up here - that in France the mere existence of a record that you have ever been baptized has civil, legal or administrative consequences from which you cannot be released without the record being deleted. I’d find that very surprising, but it would at least provide some basis for the judicial decision.

- After some more googling -

Ah, here we go. From La Croix, a French Catholic newspaper:

“C’est une première en France. Jeudi 6 octobre, le Tribunal de grande instance de Coutances (Manche) a donné raison à une personne qui avait exigé que son nom soit effacé du registre de baptême dans lequel il figurait depuis qu’il avait reçu ce sacrement. Dans son jugement, le tribunal estime que la présence du nom du plaignant dans les registres de baptême est contraire aux principes garantissant la vie privée.

‘Le fait d’avoir été baptisé par l’Église catholique est un événement intime constituant une information personnelle sur un individu’, peut-on lire dans le texte. Or, ‘l’existence de ce baptême sur un registre accessible à des personnes tierces à l’individu concerné (…) constitue en soi une divulgation de ce fait qui porte par conséquent atteinte à la vie privée.’

Les juges ont ainsi condamné le diocèse à effacer définitivement, dans un délai de 30 jours, toute mention de ce baptême, ‘par exemple par le surlignage à l’encre noire indélébile’. Jusqu’à aujourd’hui, lorsqu’ils recevaient une lettre d’une personne souhaitant renier son baptême, les curés étaient tenus de le mentionner en marge du nom du demandeur, dans le registre concerné. Ils n’étaient, en revanche, pas contraints de faire disparaître l’identité.

Le diocèse, par la voix de son chancelier, le P. Émile Harel, déplore la décision de la justice. ‘Elle est contraire à la jurisprudence constante des tribunaux supérieurs en matière d’atteinte au respect de la vie privée’, affirme-t-il, avant d’annoncer que Mgr Stanislas Lalanne, l’évêque de Coutances, a décidé d’interjeter appel. En attendant l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel, le diocèse n’est pour l’instant pas tenu d’appliquer la décision des juges normands. Mais si elle devait être confirmée, elle constituerait une jurisprudence qui pourrait s’appliquer dans toutes les paroisses de France.”

My schoolboy French is rusty, but it looks to me like they are grounding this decision in French law on privacy (or data protection?). The fact of your baptism is a personal matter, and therefore the maintenance of a record about it is forbidden, at any rate if your consent is explicitly withdrawn.

If that is where the decision comes from then, yes, it might have implications outside France, since privacy laws, and even more so data protection laws, are matters in which the EU takes an interest, and prescribes standards. I note that the diocese has appealed the decision, arguing that it contravenes established case law on how the privacy principles apply. It will be interesting to see which way the appeal goes and, if M. LeBouvier is successful, whether simlar cases are mounted in other countries, and what outcomes they have.

sipstrassi

Just wondering...if the church can annul a marriage, why not a baptism?

I seem to remember (maybe incorrectly) that one of the reasons a marriage may be annulled is that either party was coerced, so didn't enter the marriage of their own free will. Could the same be said of babies being baptised?

Penn

Peregrinus wrote: »

There seems to me to be a bit of a gap in this story.

The quest for “de-baptism” has of course been much discussed on this board, even if the actual term “de-baptism” isn’t usually the language of choice. But what’s unusual in this story is this bit:

“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.”

I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t recall any previous case in which a court has given a ruling like this. So, naturally, I’m curious. What was the basis for the court’s ruling? Does it have any application beyond France?

The only hint at an answer is this:

“French law states that citizens have the right to leave organizations if they wish.”

Fair enough, but it doesn’t explain the judgment. LeBouvier had already left the church, and the church had acknowledged this ten years previously. They sent him a copy of their own record stating that he had left the church. So whatever LeBouvier is seeking in the current proceedings, it is not either the right to leave the church, or the right to have the church acknowledge that he has left. Both of these rights have already been afforded to him.

It seems from the NPR report that what LeBouvier is asking for is to have the church “strike him from the baptismal records”, which I think can only mean that he wants the church to delete any record it holds that he was ever baptized. If that’s what he wants, it strikes me as a slightly odd thing to want, since it would also involve the deletion of the church’s record of the fact that he left the church. Deleting the record won’t change the historical reality that he was, as a matter of fact, baptized into the Catholic church. But it will result in the deletion of the only documentary evidence that he is not now a Catholic, and that the church acknowledges this. Is that really a desirable outcome?

The other odd thing is why the court has made the order requested. It’s not a consequence of LeBouvier’s right to leave the church, since (a) he has already left the church, and this has been acknowledged, and (b) even if he hadn’t, deletion of the record of baptism would not have the result that he would not be a Catholic, any more than destruction of your birth certificate could mean that you are no longer Irish.

If the church were now to make a claim that LeBouvier was, in some sense, a member, that claim would rest on the record of his baptism but on the fact of his baptism. Baptisms are recorded because they are thought to be important. But if the records are destroyed or deleted, neither the reality of the baptisms nor the importance attributed to them is altered in any way.

Bottom line: LeBouvier isn’t a Catholic, and the Catholic church acknowledges this, and has created a record of the fact. No destruction or deletion of records is needed to vindicate or give effect to this state of affairs; it is already fully effective. If anything, the destruction of records can only cast doubt on the situation. Given all this, I’d dearly like to know the basis on which the court ordered this.

It may be - wild speculation coming up here - that in France the mere existence of a record that you have ever been baptized has civil, legal or administrative consequences from which you cannot be released without the record being deleted. I’d find that very surprising, but it would at least provide some basis for the judicial decision.

- After some more googling -

Ah, here we go. From La Croix, a French Catholic newspaper:

“C’est une première en France. Jeudi 6 octobre, le Tribunal de grande instance de Coutances (Manche) a donné raison à une personne qui avait exigé que son nom soit effacé du registre de baptême dans lequel il figurait depuis qu’il avait reçu ce sacrement. Dans son jugement, le tribunal estime que la présence du nom du plaignant dans les registres de baptême est contraire aux principes garantissant la vie privée.

‘Le fait d’avoir été baptisé par l’Église catholique est un événement intime constituant une information personnelle sur un individu’, peut-on lire dans le texte. Or, ‘l’existence de ce baptême sur un registre accessible à des personnes tierces à l’individu concerné (…) constitue en soi une divulgation de ce fait qui porte par conséquent atteinte à la vie privée.’

Les juges ont ainsi condamné le diocèse à effacer définitivement, dans un délai de 30 jours, toute mention de ce baptême, ‘par exemple par le surlignage à l’encre noire indélébile’. Jusqu’à aujourd’hui, lorsqu’ils recevaient une lettre d’une personne souhaitant renier son baptême, les curés étaient tenus de le mentionner en marge du nom du demandeur, dans le registre concerné. Ils n’étaient, en revanche, pas contraints de faire disparaître l’identité.

Le diocèse, par la voix de son chancelier, le P. Émile Harel, déplore la décision de la justice. ‘Elle est contraire à la jurisprudence constante des tribunaux supérieurs en matière d’atteinte au respect de la vie privée’, affirme-t-il, avant d’annoncer que Mgr Stanislas Lalanne, l’évêque de Coutances, a décidé d’interjeter appel. En attendant l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel, le diocèse n’est pour l’instant pas tenu d’appliquer la décision des juges normands. Mais si elle devait être confirmée, elle constituerait une jurisprudence qui pourrait s’appliquer dans toutes les paroisses de France.”

My schoolboy French is rusty, but it looks to me like they are grounding this decision in French law on privacy (or data protection?). The fact of your baptism is a personal matter, and therefore the maintenance of a record about it is forbidden, at any rate if your consent is explicitly withdrawn.

If that is where the decision comes from then, yes, it might have implications outside France, since privacy laws, and even more so data protection laws, are matters in which the EU takes an interest, and prescribes standards. I note that the diocese has appealed the decision, arguing that it contravenes established case law on how the privacy principles apply. It will be interesting to see which way the appeal goes and, if M. LeBouvier is successful, whether simlar cases are mounted in other countries, and what outcomes they have.

I think this is part of the issue:

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."

It seems that instead of something to show that he left the church, he wants it to be like he never joined the church in the first place. After all, it wasn't his decision to join the church. Even with the note beside his name in the baptismal records saying he no longer wanted to be part of the Church, he's still counted as having once been a member. He doesn't want that. He rejects the claim that he was 'changed permanently before the church and god'.

On one hand, I doubt I'd ever go that far into it. I'm kinda glad I was raised in a faith, because it means I definitely know that, for me, not having a faith is better. Yes, baptised, confirmed etc against my will because it's what my parents chose for me. I can live with that so long as the church aren't still counting me as being a Catholic.

On the other hand, I hope he wins just so it sets a precedent and loads more people start doing it.

sbsquarepants

It's a very interesting case, not neccesarily one i'd bother pursuing myself but fair play to old guy for going for it!
But that being said, i don't see how the court can really force it upon the church. You're dealing with a belief, an order of court can't change that. If the court say strike him from your records i'm sure the church could do that if they so desired, but they would still BELIEVE him to have been changed by the ceremony. Surely they don't believe you get to the pearly gates and St Peter looks up a fúcking list to see if you get in or not?
Or, i suppose, they could create some some new mumbo jumbo that cancels out the previous mumbo jumbo, but we're very much in the territory of total bullshít at that stage - ie if the man believes the baptism done nothing - why would mumbo jumbo number 2 be required to undo that nothing? And why would that not do nothing also? Or do 2 nothings make a something now?

Gregor Samsa

Surely all there is to de-baptisism is an atheist rubbing a towel on your forehead? And a party afterwards.

seamus

It is an interesting one, even in an Irish context. The data protection act only allows an organisation to hold information on a person if they have good reason to do so. If a person has chosen to leave the church, then what reason would the catholic church have for maintaining a baptismal/confirmation record for that person?

However, in reality it needs to be looked at as two separate pieces of information:

1. A baptismal certificate which declares that Joe Bloggs is or was a member of the cult. In this case, I think it is only right that the church destroys/deletes this record when Joe declares that he has left that church. The church has no good reason for keeping a record about anyone who was previously a member of their organisation.

2. An historical record of the day which lists, "Baptism of J. Bloggs" as one of the ceremonies performed that day. Joe has no real right to ask for that to be expunged because it's neither incorrect nor does it imply that he is a part of that religion. Rather it is a record about the church that they have maintained themselves.

It's in the first case that the Catholics will fall foul of Europe. They declare that it's not possible to leave the organisation and therefore they have a right to maintain the record. Simple fact and logic will bear out that it is perfectly possible to leave the organisation and Europe may even force them to adopt a formal process for leaving their church.

There is the obvious question of "why bother". To stop being a Catholic all you have to do is not agree with their beliefs. However, there is a certain importance in preventing them from counting a non-believer in their numbers, because this gives them a certain amount of power and licence. It would be a little like allowing a political party to say that, "1,000 people who voted for us last time, didn't vote for us this time, but we'll presume that they would have, so that's 1,000 votes for us".

Although church figures are utterly useless as a basis for anything, it's still being done. Today FM declared today that "Portlaoise is the baby boom capital of Ireland", on the basis that 365 babies were baptised in the local reprogrammarium church. Which is obviously a completely flawed interpretation of the figures. But it won't stop other media outlets repeating this same falsehood over the next few days.

MrPudding

This is quite interesting...

Going from the excerpt from le croix, it seems that it is based on simple privacy.

The church is arguing that this goes against previous rulings from higher courts. What would be interesting to know here is if those rulings where since the European Convention on Human Rights came into effect. If they were then I fully expect the request was refused.

This might simply be a case of a judge making a decision taking into consideration a persons rights under articles 8, 9 & 11. The text from le croix seems to be pointing more towards art 8...

It will be interesting to see how this goes.

MrP

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

. . . It's in the first case that the Catholics will fall foul of Europe. They declare that it's not possible to leave the organisation and therefore they have a right to maintain the record. Simple fact and logic will bear out that it is perfectly possible to leave the organisation and Europe may even force them to adopt a formal process for leaving their church.

Just to clarify, that’s not the Catholic position. They do not declare that it’s impossible to leave, and their grounds for maintaining a record of someone’s baptism do not include any claim that he is still a member of the Catholic church despite his desire to leave.

Peregrinus

Penn wrote: »

. . . On one hand, I doubt I'd ever go that far into it. I'm kinda glad I was raised in a faith, because it means I definitely know that, for me, not having a faith is better. Yes, baptised, confirmed etc against my will because it's what my parents chose for me. I can live with that so long as the church aren't still counting me as being a Catholic.

On the other hand, I hope he wins just so it sets a precedent and loads more people start doing it.

I see where he’s coming from, but my inner frustrated historian is uncomfortable with what he is demanding. The simple fact is that he was baptized, and the fact that he is unhappy about that event, or is unhappy about the construction some people place on that event, doesn’t strike me as a good enough reason to try to expunge the historical record and make it look as though this event never occurred. It’s a bit . . . Stalinist, isn’t it?

Galvasean

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s a bit . . . Stalinist, isn’t it?

No.

Peregrinus

Galvasean wrote: »

No.

No?

Galvasean

Peregrinus wrote: »

No?

No. :pac:

Peregrinus

Galvasean wrote: »

No. :pac:

Right, so. Thanks for sorting that out!

Peregrinus

sipstrassi wrote: »

Just wondering...if the church can annul a marriage, why not a baptism?

I seem to remember (maybe incorrectly) that one of the reasons a marriage may be annulled is that either party was coerced, so didn't enter the marriage of their own free will. Could the same be said of babies being baptised?

Good question.

Two thoughts in response:

First, deletion of the record of a baptism doesn’t annul the baptism. Whatever spiritual or sacramental effect a baptism does or doesn’t have has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of a record of the baptism. M. LeBouvier cannot be “debaptised” by deleting the record of his baptism any more than he can become unborn by deleting the record of his birth.

And, connected with this, when the Catholic church annuls a marriage, it doesn’t delete the record of the marriage. It adds to the record a note about the nullity of the marriage. (And of course something somewhat like this has already been done for M. LeBouvier.)

Secondly, the Catholic church annuls forced marriages on the basis that the true intention of the ministers of the sacrament - the couple marrying - was not, in fact, to marry. But the minister of the sacrament of baptism is not the baby, but the bloke with the jug of water. You can get a baptism annulled if you can show that he didn’t, in fact, intend to baptize. But the baby’s intentions - even if that phrase made any sense, which I don’t think it does - are not relevant.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, deletion of the record of a baptism doesn’t annul the baptism. Whatever spiritual or sacramental effect a baptism does or doesn’t have has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of a record of the baptism. M. LeBouvier cannot be “debaptised” by deleting the record of his baptism any more than he can become unborn by deleting the record of his birth.

This depends on the church believing that the record of baptism is only a record of a historical fact.
The priest's comments in the article indicate that this is not the case. He says that the baptism makes the man in question a catholic forever (or at least still somehow special), regardless of what other stuff he does after.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

This depends on the church believing that the record of baptism is only a record of a historical fact.

The baptismal record is simply a record of the fact - the historical fact - that someone has been baptized. It says nothing else.

Look, here’s one I found on Google. There’s no universal form, but they all look more or less like this:



If M. LeBouvier wants, he can get a certificate of de-baptism from an outfit called “American Atheists”. (True, M. LeBouvier is not American, but anyone can download and complete the certificate from their website.) Look:



This certificate does make a variety of untested and frankly improbable claims about the implications of debaptism, but the Catholic church records and certificates are more modest in their objectives, and confine themselves to recording objectively verifiable facts.

King Mob wrote: »

The priest's comments in the article indicate that this is not the case. He says that the baptism makes the man in question a catholic forever (or at least still somehow special), regardless of what other stuff he does after.

The priest does not say, and I’m sure does not believe, that this fact “makes the man in question a catholic forever”. This is not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is that baptism does have permanent and indelible spiritual consequences, but continuous membership of the Catholic church is not one of them.

Plus, it’s important to note, the baptismal record does not assert, or found, or record, those consquences; it merely records that the person in question has been baptized.

By analogy, my birth certificate records that I was born in the Coombe Hospital. By virtue of having been born in the Coombe, which is in Ireland, I am an Irish citizen, but my birth certificate doesn’t say that; it simply records the historical fact of my birth in the Coombe. And if I somehow secured the deletion of the registration of my birth, this would not alter the fact that I was, in fact, born in the Coombe and I am, in consequence, an Irish citizen. And if I want to stop being an Irish citizen I will not achieve that by having my birth record deleted, and I can achieve it without having my birth record deleted.

If I want to never have been an Irish citizen, tough. Mere wishing is not going to alter what has happened.

M. LeBouvier may not share Catholic views about the spiritual significance of his baptism, but the existence of a record of his baptism does not imply that he does share them, or oblige him to share them. M. LeBouvier may even resent the fact that other people consider his baptism to have enduring spiritual consequences, but (a) he doesn’t get to dictate what other people think about this, and (b) even if he does, deletion of the record does not result in them changing their opinions.

I can’t get around the fact that M. LeBouvier is trying to alter the historical record to make it look as if history unfolded in a way different from the way in which, in fact, it did unfold. That doesn’t strike me as a healthy or mature way of trying to come to terms with events which did in fact occur, but which you find unpleasant. A sceptic should seek the truth, surely, not seek to deny or suppress it?

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

The priest does not say, and I’m sure does not believe, that this fact “makes the man in question a catholic forever”. This is not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching is that baptism does have permanent and indelible spiritual consequences, but continuous membership of the Catholic church is not one of them.

Plus, it’s important to note, the baptismal record does not assert, or found, or record, those consquences; it merely records that the person in question has been baptized.

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."

So again, they are stating that recording a baptism is more than a historical record, hence your argument is invalid.

Peregrinus wrote: »

By analogy, my birth certificate records that I was born in the Coombe Hospital. By virtue of having been born in the Coombe, which is in Ireland, I am an Irish citizen, but my birth certificate doesn’t say that; it simply records the historical fact of my birth in the Coombe. And if I somehow secured the deletion of the registration of my birth, this would not alter the fact that I was, in fact, born in the Coombe and I am, in consequence, an Irish citizen. And if I want to stop being an Irish citizen I will not achieve that by having my birth record deleted, and I can achieve it without having my birth record deleted.

That's great, but again all hinges on the premise that the baptismal record is just for history, it's not.The Catholic church clearly believe otherwise.

Nor does this analogy address the fact that since the Catholic church do not really count out the people that do want to leave, they can (and most likely do) use the baptismal for other tangible purposes, such as using it as proof of their "growing numbers" and so on.
This guy and a lot of others don't want to be part of this, so wish to have their names totally discounted as they never chose to have them included.
The church used to provide a much more clear way of doing this, but they changed the rules.

The guy isn't trying to change history, this is a silly strawman you are trying to construct.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

So again, they are stating that recording a baptism is more than a historical record, hence your argument is invalid.

No, they’re not saying that. They’re saying that the record of a baptism is a record of a historical event (in the sense of "an event which actually happened"), and that historical event has enduring consequences.

That doesn’t mean that the record is not a record of a historical event, though. Most of the historical events that get systematically recorded get recorded precisely because somebody thinks they have enduring consequences. But those records are still records of historical events.

Note, though, that the events don’t have enduring consequences because they are recorded; they get recorded because they have enduring consequences. You can’t somehow nullify the consequences by omitting to make the record, or by deleting it if is has been made.

King Mob wrote: »

That's great, but again all hinges on the premise that the baptismal record is just for history, it's not.The Catholic church clearly believe otherwise.

If you can find an authoritative Catholic voice saying that a baptismal record, as distinct from an actual baptism, has indelible spiritual consequences, now would be a good time to cite him. The fact is that Catholics simply do not believe this. In the Catholic perspective, baptisms are recorded because they have enduring spiritual consequences, not the other way around. Whatever consequences the Catholic church claims for baptism, they do not disappear if the record of baptism is deleted.

King Mob wrote: »

Nor does this analogy address the fact that since the Catholic church do not really count out the people that do want to leave, they can (and most likely do) use the baptismal for other tangible purposes, such as using it as proof of their "growing numbers" and so on.
This guy and a lot of others don't want to be part of this, so wish to have their names totally discounted as they never chose to have them included.

And this argument ignores the fact that Mr. LeBouvier was “counted out”, as you put it, by the church ten years ago, and already has a document issued by the church which confirms the fact, and his baptismal record still held by the church notes the fact. Someone who had been refused such an acknowledgement might be able to mount a claim on that basis, but M. LeBouvier certainly cannot.

King Mob wrote: »

The guy isn't trying to change history, this is a silly strawman you are trying to construct.

I’m not saying he’s trying to change history. I’m saying he’s trying to change the record of history; to delete a record of an event which did in fact happen because he would prefer that it had not happened. And I think that looks more like concealing than truth than uncovering it. I don’t think it’s a good way to deal with an unpleasant reality.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not, they’re not saying that. They’re saying that the record of a baptism is a record of a historical event (in the sense of "an event which actually happened") which has enduring consequences.

That doesn’t mean that it’s not a record of a historical event, though. Most of the historical events that get systematically recorded get recorded precisely because somebody thinks they have enduring consequences.

Note, though, that they don’t have enduring consequences because they are recorded; they get recorded because they have enduring consequences. You can’t somehow nullify the consequences by omitting to make the record, or by deleting it if is has been made.

But they are also saying that by being baptised, the person is still counted at least part way as catholic as per the comments made by the church in the article.
So it's not just a record of what happened.

The guy does not want to counted as such, the church does not allow him to be discounted in that way, and this is unfair since he never wanted to be counted at all in the first place.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you can find an authoritative Catholic voice saying that a baptismal record, as distinct from an actual baptism, has indelible spiritual consequences, now would be a good time to cite him. The fact is that Catholics simply do not believe this. In the Catholic perspective, baptisms are recorded because they have enduring spiritual consequences, not the other way around. Whatever consequences the Catholic church claims for baptism, they do not disappear if the record of baptism is deleted.

Again, the comments I indicated show that they consider you special (if not still catholic) once you are baptised.
This makes them more than a historical record.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And this argument ignores the fact that Mr. LeBouvier was “counted out”, as you put it, by the church ten years ago, and already has a document issued by the church which confirms the fact, and his baptismal record still held by the church notes the fact. Someone who had been refused such an acknowledgement might be able to mount a claim on that basis, but M. LeBouvier certainly cannot.

But again you're ignoring what both I and the article said.
One the church still counts him in some way even though he never wanted them to or agreed that they could count him.

And two, this does not stop the Church from using him as a statistic for tangible means anyway.

Oh and the church no longer allows people to be "counted out" like he was any more.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not saying he’s trying to change history. I’m saying he’s trying to change the record of history; to delete a record of an event which did in fact happen because he would prefer that it had not happened. And I think that looks more like concealing than truth than uncovering it. I don’t think it’s a good way to deal with an unpleasant reality.

So you're not saying his trying to change history, you're claiming that he's trying to cover up the record of what actually happened? :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

But they are also saying that by being baptised, the person is still counted at least part way as catholic as per the comments made by the church in the article.

You keep saying this, but you don’t quote what the bloke actually says. Wisely, because what he says doesn’t support you.

LeBouvier is not “part way Catholic”, and at no point is the priest quoted as saying that his is. On the contrary, he explicitly says that LeBouvier can “refuse the grace offered by God . . refuse to participate” , and when he says that LeBouvier can “return to the the church”, that’s an acknowledgement that he isn’t now in the church. (You can’t “return” to somewhere that you haven’t left, can you?)

King Mob wrote: »

So it's not just a record of what happened.

Yes, it is just a record of what happened, just like a birth certificate is a record of a birth that happened, and a death certificate is a record of a death that happened. The priest is pointing out that, in the church’s view, the fact that the baptism happened has enduring consequences, but that does not mean that any record of the event is also a record of those consquences.

King Mob wrote: »

The guy does not want to counted as such, the church does not allow him to be discounted in that way, and this is unfair since he never wanted to be counted at all in the first place.

As pointed out, the church does allow him to be discounted. More than ten years ago, the church records were altered at his request to show that he is not a Catholic, and he was given - and still has - a copy of that altered record.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, the comments I indicated show that they consider you special (if not still catholic) once you are baptised.
This makes them more than a historical record.

I don’t think the word “historical” means what you think it means.

Look, it’s a historical fact that, in 2008, Barack Obama was elected President of the US. It’s “historical” because it actually happened; this isn’t an event that someone has imagined, or that someone put in a novel. It’s a historical event.

There are abundant records of that event. There’ll be an official record in some government archive in the US of the votes cast in the electoral college, and a certificate signed by some judge or other official saying that, in light of the votes, Barack Obama has been elected. And there will be less official, but still very persuasive, records in the form of newspaper reports of his elections, archived footage of television coverage, etc, etc. There are many, many records of this historical event.

Because this event happened, we are still living with certain consequences. Barack Obama, and not John Cain, gets to make certain decsions that arise today, or that will arise in the future, and some of those decisions are very important and affect a great many people. So this the historical event of Obama’s election has lasting and significant consquences which endure after the event itself has occurred. But the event remains a historical event, and the records of the event are therefore records of a historical event.

Right. The baptism of M. LeBouvier was a historical event - as in, it actually happened. A record of the baptism is therefore a record of a historical event. The church alleges that it has certain consequences. M. LeBouvier may dispute whether it has those consequences; he certainly doesn’t want it to have those consequences. But, whether it has those consequences or not, the fact remains; his baptism was a historical event, and the record of his baptism is a record of a historical event.

And, for what it’s worth, arguments about whether his baptism did or did not have the consequences claimed for it will not be resolved or made moot by the destruction of the record. The consequences are claimed because the baptism happened, not because it was recorded.

King Mob wrote: »

But again you're ignoring what both I and the article said.
One the church still counts him in some way even though he never wanted them to or agreed that they could count him.

Far from ignoring the fact that you are saying this, I keep pointing out that you are wrong to say this, and that contrary to your claim the article does not say this.

King Mob wrote: »

And two, this does not stop the Church from using him as a statistic for tangible means anyway.

If the fact that the church holds a record saying that he is not a Catholic is not going to stop them from “claiming him as a statistic”, how will the destruction of the record stop the church from claiming him as a statistic?

But, just to keep this discussion grounded in reality, I should point out that nothing in the newspaper report suggests that the church is claiming M. LeBouvier as a statistic, or that M. LeBouvier objects that they are, or that the possibility that they might do features at all in the case that he makes. There isn’t a shred of evidence that the Catholic Church in Coutances claims M. LeBouvier as a member. In fact, they explicitly acknowledge that he is not.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh and the church no longer allows people to be "counted out" like he was any more.

The truth is a bit more nuanced than that. Between 2006 and 2009 a certificate from the church that somebody had indicated in writing a desire to “defect” from the church had certain canonical significance, and all dioceses therefore issued these certificates to anyone who requested them in writing. Since 2009, however, these certicificates have had no canonical significance, and some dioceses have therefore stopped issuing them. Bujt other dioceses continue to issue them, and in other threads on this very board you will find testimony from people who have applied for, and got, certificates from some of the Irish dioceses.

King Mob wrote: »

So you're not saying his trying to change history, you're claiming that he's trying to cover up the record of what actually happened?

Not cover up, delete. He’s trying to delete the record of a baptism which actually happened.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep saying this, but you don’t quote what the bloke actually says. Wisely, because what he says doesn’t support you.

LeBouvier is not “part way Catholic”, and at no point is the priest quoted as saying that his is. On the contrary, he explicitly says that LeBouvier can “refuse the grace offered by God . . refuse to participate” , and when he says that LeBouvier can “return to the the church”, that’s an acknowledgement that he isn’t now in the church. (You can’t “return” to somewhere that you haven’t left, can you?)

So since we're not going to be getting any where with you posting oddly self contradictory statements, lets start with this:

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."

If what you are saying is true and that baptism is only a record and that it does not make at least partly Catholic or in some way special or different (from non catholics) what do the bolded phrases mean?

Because to me that read that a baptised person is still marked by god and considered to be Catholic.

You can still be Irish and not live in Ireland and still return to Ireland.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

So since we're not going to be getting any where with you posting oddly self contradictory statements, lets start with this:

If what you are saying is true and that baptism is only a record and that it does not make at least partly Catholic or in some way special or different (from non catholics) what do the bolded phrases mean?

Because to me that read that a baptised person is still marked by god and considered to be Catholic.

First, I’ve never said that “baptism is only a record”, and I’ve never said anything remotely resembling that. A baptismal certificate, or an entry in a baptismal register, is only a record.

Secondly, and more to the point, you keep inserting this “partly Catholic . . . considered to be Catholic” language, despite the fact that it’s not in the quote.

You are not justified in doing this. Baptism doesn’t make you Catholic. It never did. Bear in mind that most baptisms are performed outside the Catholic church - by Anglicans, Presybterians, Orthodox Christians, etc. These baptisms are perfectly valid and sufficient in Catholic eyes - the Catholic church will not baptize these people again if they decide to become Catholics. Do you suppose that the Catholic church imagines that all these baptisms result in little Catholics?

Baptism is necessary to be a Christian, in the Catholic view (though, in itself, it’s not enough to make you a Christian; that also requires faith). In the Catholic (and other Christian) view it is effective for the forgiveness of sins, it initiates the baptized person into new life in Christ, and it gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers. But it doesn’t confer any particular denominational identity.

To be a Catholic Christian, you need to be a member of a eucharistic community gathered around a bishop who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. M. LeBouvier was once a member of such a community, but he no longer is, which is why the Catholic church has no difficulty in recording, and acknowledging, that he is not a Catholic. And the fact that the church has given M. LeBouvier a formal acknowledgement that he is not a Catholic should have led you to reconsider your fixed belief that it thinks that he is Catholic simply by virtue of having been baptized.

In summary, the change effected by baptism is not that it makes you a Catholic, and you are simply not justified in sticking these words in and pretending that they are a fair summary of what the priest said.

sipstrassi

Peregrinus wrote: »

Good question.

Two thoughts in response:

First, deletion of the record of a baptism doesn’t annul the baptism. Whatever spiritual or sacramental effect a baptism does or doesn’t have has nothing to do with the creation or maintenance of a record of the baptism. M. LeBouvier cannot be “debaptised” by deleting the record of his baptism any more than he can become unborn by deleting the record of his birth.

And, connected with this, when the Catholic church annuls a marriage, it doesn’t delete the record of the marriage. It adds to the record a note about the nullity of the marriage. (And of course something somewhat like this has already been done for M. LeBouvier.)

Secondly, the Catholic church annuls forced marriages on the basis that the true intention of the ministers of the sacrament - the couple marrying - was not, in fact, to marry. But the minister of the sacrament of baptism is not the baby, but the bloke with the jug of water. You can get a baptism annulled if you can show that he didn’t, in fact, intend to baptize. But the baby’s intentions - even if that phrase made any sense, which I don’t think it does - are not relevant.

Sorry, didn't mean that removing the record would be equivalent to an annulment.

I don't know how the church records an annulment but I know it is a statement that a (valid) marriage did not take place. So the person awarded the annulment was never married and can go on to marry again within the church.

With the amount of people wanting to leave the church, they should be able to come up with a way to do the same for baptism.
Of course, as all baptisms are pretty much the same, I suppose that would invalidate all baptisms so not going to happen!
Maybe they could apply it to confirmation instead - as that is (supposedly:rolleyes:) where it's your decision to say 'yes, I reaffirm what my parents did for me at baptism'.

A note written in to the margin to say someone contacted them to say they are no longer calling themselves catholic is very informal. Something official seems to be what people are looking for. Not everyone. But annulments are expensive - so 'official' costs!

magicbastarder

sipstrassi wrote: »

I seem to remember (maybe incorrectly) that one of the reasons a marriage may be annulled is that either party was coerced, so didn't enter the marriage of their own free will. Could the same be said of babies being baptised?

no, because every decision made for you at a few months old is made on your behalf by your parents. which is the way it should be.

sipstrassi

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, because every decision made for you at a few months old is made on your behalf by your parents. which is the way it should be.

I suggested confirmation instead in my second post... which is supposed to be your own decision.

Though I could argue my parents were not of sound mind when they made that decision about my baptism (not to their faces! ). Which is one of the arguments made for annulment (the person making the decision is not of sound mind I mean).

Peregrinus

sipstrassi wrote: »

Though I could argue my parents were not of sound mind when they made that decision about my baptism (not to their faces! ). Which is one of the arguments made for annulment (the person making the decision is not of sound mind I mean).

Your parents weren't the ministers of the sacrament either. The priest was. What you would need to show is that he didn't have, or couldn't have had, the intention to baptise you.

sipstrassi

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your parents weren't the ministers of the sacrament either. The priest was. What you would need to show is that he didn't have, or couldn't have had, the intention to baptise you.

I don't follow that - is it not your parents who bring you to be baptised, make a load of vows on your behalf etc. much the same as a bride and groom go to the church and say they want to be joined together?
In an annulment of marriage, the decision is based on the two people who made the vows, not the person performing the ceremony so why is a baptism based on the person performing the ceremony and not the person(s) making the vows?

Not trying to be thick, am genuinely interested.

Mark Hamill

Maybe a better way to look at baptism is as a form of life-long contract. If your parents signed you into any other life-long contract as an infant, you could get out of it when you got older, couldn't you?

MrPudding

That would, apparently, depend on the terms...

MrP

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

In summary, the change effected by baptism is not that it makes you a Catholic, and you are simply not justified in sticking these words in and pretending that they are a fair summary of what the priest said.

And with all that waffle you failed to actually address the question I posed to you.
You avoided doing so because the answer supports my point.

Once again, it's clear trying to get you to discuss something honestly and straightforwardly is pointless and I regret trying.

Feathers

King Mob wrote: »

And with all that waffle you failed to actually address the question I posed to you.
You avoided doing so because the answer supports my point.

Once again, it's clear trying to get you to discuss something honestly and straightforwardly is pointless and I regret trying.

King Mob wrote: »

If what you are saying is true and that baptism is only a record and that it does not make at least partly Catholic or in some way special or different (from non catholics) what do the bolded phrases mean?x

Catholics believe that:

1. baptism isn't only a record, it has permenant affects on the individual being baptised
2. and that these affects aren't tied-up in the written record of the event, but in the performing of the event to begin with
3. but that said, the affects of baptism, by themselves, don't make that person a Catholic

So it does make someone 'different' to non-Catholics who have never been baptised. But, by virtue of them removing the record, this won't have changed one iota — the church will still consider them different (but not consider them Catholics).

From reading the thread, it seems like Peregrinus said this multiple times, rather than trying to dodge your question.

King Mob

Feathers wrote: »

Catholics believe that:

1. baptism isn't only a record, it has permenant affects on the individual being baptised
2. and that these affects aren't tied-up in the written record of the event, but in the performing of the event to begin with
3. but that said, the affects of baptism, by themselves, don't make that person a Catholic

So it does make someone 'different' to non-Catholics who have never been baptised. But, by virtue of them removing the record, this won't have changed one iota — the church will still consider them different (but not consider them Catholics).

From reading the thread, it seems like Peregrinus said this multiple times, rather than trying to dodge your question.

And that's my point, because they claim that it makes people different baptism is not just a record of an event.

And since there is apparently no way out of such thing, and especially because the person in question did not choose to be be baptised, it is unfair.

Peregrinus has be alternatively claiming that baptism is only a record of the event and nothing more, despite the direct quote I pointed to several time, or has tried to alter the definition of words to avoid points.

Feathers

King Mob wrote: »

And that's my point, because they claim that it makes people different baptism is not just a record of an event.

And since there is apparently no way out of such thing, and especially because the person in question did not choose to be be baptised, it is unfair.

Peregrinus has be alternatively claiming that baptism is only a record of the event and nothing more, despite the direct quote I pointed to several time, or has tried to alter the definition of words to avoid points.

No, he mentioned that the baptismal record, as in the physical paper it's written on, is only historical. Baptism — the actual ceremony where the person is blessed with holy water/oils, in front of witnesses, etc. — this is what Catholics consider to be important.

The baptismal record is just administration & removing it changes nothing in the eyes of the church — the ceremony has still taken place & so the man would still have been baptised & 'different' (even if no longer Catholic).

I think this is the distinction that Peregrinus was pointing out — between the piece of paper saying he'd been baptised & the ceremony itself.

King Mob

Feathers wrote: »

No, he mentioned that the baptismal record, as in the physical paper it's written on, is only historical. Baptism — the actual ceremony where the person is blessed with holy water/oils, in front of witnesses, etc. — this is what Catholics consider to be important.

The baptismal record is just administration & removing it changes nothing in the eyes of the church — the ceremony has still taken place & so the man would still have been baptised & 'different' (even if no longer Catholic).

I think this is the distinction that Peregrinus was pointing out — between the piece of paper saying he'd been baptised & the ceremony itself.

Then if this is the case, what's wrong with trying to get the baptism undone?

Because so far Peregrinus has only provided the strawman argument that the guy is trying to alter or cover up history which is based on the idea that a baptism is just a record of an event.

Feathers

King Mob wrote: »

Then if this is the case, what's wrong with trying to get the baptism undone?

Because so far Peregrinus has only provided the strawman argument that the guy is trying to alter or cover up history which is based on the idea that a baptism is just a record of an event.

It depends on what you mean when you say "baptsim". To Catholics, this means the ceremony that was performed in which the person received the sacrament (which Catholics believe cannot be undone), not the record of that event.

If you mean, can the piece of paper be removed — yes, but this is only a record, which is what Peregrinus was saying. Removing the record doesn't undo the baptism, it merely removes the record that the baptism took place.

King Mob

Feathers wrote: »

It depends on what you mean when you say "baptsim". To Catholics, this means the ceremony that was performed in which the person received the sacrament (which Catholics believe cannot be undone), not the record of that event.

If you mean, can the piece of paper be removed — yes, but this is only a record, which is what Peregrinus was saying. Removing the record doesn't undo the baptism, it merely removes the record that the baptism took place.

I am refering to both the sacrament and the record.
Peregrinus is trying to argue that as if it is only a record and that's it. (Though he tried to also move the goal posts.)
However the Church believes that it is more than a record.

Now since the Church do not offer any means by which to get out of baptism, the person is arguing that the Baptism should have never been valid at all and that claiming that some one who didn't choose to be baptised was baptised (and therefore someone marked, or more catholic than the unbaptised) is unfair since they neither get the choice or a way of undoing it.

Feathers

King Mob wrote: »

I am refering to both the sacrament and the record.
Peregrinus is trying to argue that as if it is only a record and that's it. (Though he tried to also move the goal posts.)
However the Church believes that it is more than a record.

Now since the Church do not offer any means by which to get out of baptism, the person is arguing that the Baptism should have never been valid at all and that claiming that some one who didn't choose to be baptised was baptised (and therefore someone marked, or more catholic than the unbaptised) is unfair since they neither get the choice or a way of undoing it.

From what I read, it didn't seem like Peregrinus was saying that baptism was only a record, but sure, I'll let him speak for himself & not be putting words into his mouth.

That said, from what I read of the post, we're talking about two things — baptism & the record of baptism. Catholics would say that, if push comes to shove, the record can be removed but the only reason it's there in the first place is to record the event as having taken place.

On the other hand, it's fairly central to Catholic belief that baptism itself (i.e. what you're calling the ceremony that makes someone "more catholic than the unbaptised") can't be undone. I don't think you can stop Catholics from believing this, regardless of what laws/court judgements you make on the issue.

So with that in mind, are you saying that you'd prefer if the record was deleted even though this doesn't revoke the baptism (in the eyes of Catholicism, and it doesn't have any standing outside of the church)?

King Mob

Feathers wrote: »

So with that in mind, are you saying that you'd prefer if the record was deleted even though this doesn't revoke the baptism (in the eyes of Catholicism, and it doesn't have any standing outside of the church)?

Yes, as it's the only option left since the Church clearly does not care for fairness and prefers to pretend more people are Catholic than actually are.

But then the person is trying to get the record deleted because he is arguing that it should never have been valid in the first place because he never chose it in the first place and the church offers no alternative to undo the baptism.

Feathers

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, as it's the only option left since the Church clearly does not care for fairness and prefers to pretend more people are Catholic than actually are.

But then the person is trying to get the record deleted because he is arguing that it should never have been valid in the first place because he never chose it in the first place and the church offers no alternative to undo the baptism.

Well I guess that you either believe in baptism or you don't. If you believe in it, it can't be undone & if you don't, there's nothing to undo.

I'm at a loss as to what the middle ground could be — unless the church told you that they could unbaptise you (even though they really believed this to be false) & when ahead with a mock ceremony to carry this out. I would consider this dishonest on their part but also extremely patronising.

Regarding the record of the baptism though — I wouldn't see it as a big issue which or whether, apart from as a nice to have for historical reasons.

With deleting the record to separatee yourself from the church, I would've thought it would be better to have a publically accessible record that shows the number of people that have defected — both on a personal level & to make a stand from the matter.

People claim that the church uses the records to justify numbers, but if that's true, at least this way there's a note against someone's name saying that they have defected & it is open to examination. Otherwise they can just keep an anonymous tally of the amount of people they've baptised each year which can't be challenged half as easily.

King Mob

Feathers wrote: »

People claim that the church uses the records to justify numbers, but if that's true, at least this way there's a note against someone's name saying that they have defected & it is open to examination. Otherwise they can just keep an anonymous tally of the amount of people they've baptised each year which can't be challenged half as easily.

But it's not just that they use it to justify inflated numbers, its that the church wouldn't see any moral problems with counting non-catholics as catholics because baptism always marks them as special.

But of course, the Church has now since removed the possibility to defect.

Feathers

King Mob wrote: »

But it's not just that they use it to justify inflated numbers, its that the church wouldn't see any moral problems with counting non-catholics as catholics because baptism always marks them as special.

But of course, the Church has now since removed the possibility to defect.

Except they don't count non-Catholics as Catholics.. The biggest problem with over-inflated numbers of Catholics are the people who keep calling themselves Catholic on the census even though they aren't. & can't really blame the Church for that one

King Mob

Feathers wrote: »

Except they don't count non-Catholics as Catholics.. The biggest problem with over-inflated numbers of Catholics are the people who keep calling themselves Catholic on the census even though they aren't. & can't really blame the Church for that one

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/number-of-baptized-catholics-in-the-world-grows-by-15-million/

If baptism doesn't make them Catholics, perhaps then they should stop making a big to do about it in their fancy book.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

Then if this is the case, what's wrong with trying to get the baptism undone?

Because so far Peregrinus has only provided the strawman argument that the guy is trying to alter or cover up history which is based on the idea that a baptism is just a record of an event.

Honestly, it’s like talking to a turnip.

I have never said that baptism is a record of an event. I have denied this explicitly several times, explaining at considerable length what I mean, and you keep ignoring what I say.

It’s actually quite simple. Try to concentrate:

Birth is not a record of an event; it is an event.

Baptism is not a record of an event; it is an event.

Marriage is not a record of an event; it is an event.

Death is not a record of an event; it is an event.

The records of these events are the entries in birth, baptismal, marriage and death registers which show that they happened, and the birth, baptismal, marriage and death certificates that set out what is contained in the register. The records could be lost or destroyed - e.g. in a fire - but this would not affect the reality, actuality and historicity of the event. The people who were born would still be born. The people who had died would still be dead. The people who married would still be married. And the people who were baptized would still be baptized.

M. LeBouvier is not trying to have his baptism undone. He grasps something that you apparently have difficulty grasping; once an event has happened, it can never not have happened. We can speculate that there might be an alternative universe in which it did not happen but in this universe, the only one we know of, it happened.

M. LeBouvier was baptized some time around 1920. He cannot alter this; nobody can. He is not trying to alter this. He is merely trying to compel the church to delete the record it holds which shows that he was baptized. He wants to start - I speak metaphorically - a small, local fire which will destroy just the record which mentions his baptism.

Neither he nor anybody else - except, possibly, you - imagines that this will make his baptism “unhappen”, or reverse the consequences (whatever they are) of the of the undeniable irreversible cold hard historical fact that he was baptised.

Can I put it any more clearly that that?

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither he nor anybody else - except, possibly, you - imagines that this will make his baptism “unhappen”, or reverse the consequences (whatever they are) of the of the undeniable irreversible cold hard historical fact that he was baptised.

Can I put it any more clearly that that?

Or he could have the baptism declared invalid as he did not make the decision to have one and is unable to get himself de-baptised by any other means.

But please, continue to make strawmen and insults in place of an argument.

ShooterSF

Feathers wrote: »

It depends on what you mean when you say "baptsim". To Catholics, this means the ceremony that was performed in which the person received the sacrament (which Catholics believe cannot be undone), not the record of that event.

If you mean, can the piece of paper be removed — yes, but this is only a record, which is what Peregrinus was saying. Removing the record doesn't undo the baptism, it merely removes the record that the baptism took place.

The bit in bold seems to be the illegal part in France. Perhaps the church should change this rule or be closed down as an illegal organisation? That would make more sense than deleting a "historical record".

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

The bit in bold seems to be the illegal part in France. Perhaps the church should change this rule or be closed down as an illegal organisation? That would make more sense than deleting a "historical record".

There’s nothing illegal in France about believing that baptism has irerversible spiritual effects. On the contrary, the French constitutional tradition is pretty strong on freedom of belief and freedom of religion, and on the role of the state in guaranteeing it.

ShooterSF

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s nothing illegal in France about believing that baptism has irerversible spiritual effects. On the contrary, the French constitutional tradition is pretty strong on freedom of belief and freedom of religion, and on the role of the state in guaranteeing it.

Are you sure? "French law states that citizens have the right to leave organizations if they wish." For me "leaving" should mean you are in the same position as never being in an organisation. I'm not sure of the French judical's interpretation but that would be mine and it doesn't seem to be in line with, all imo of course.

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

The bit in bold seems to be the illegal part in France. Perhaps the church should change this rule or be closed down as an illegal organisation? That would make more sense than deleting a "historical record".

There’s nothing illegal in France about believing that baptism has enduring spiritual effects. On the contrary, the French constitutional tradition is pretty strong on freedom of belief and freedom of religion, and on the role of the state in guaranteeing it.

King Mob wrote: »

Or he could have the baptism declared invalid as he did not make the decision to have one and is unable to get himself de-baptised by any other means.

Couple of points.

First, he’s not seeking to have the baptism declared invalid.

Secondly, if he wanted the baptism declared invalid, he could declare it invalid himself. Does he accept that anyone other than himself has a greater authority?

Thirdly, if he want the baptism declared invalid by the church, he’ll need to persuade the church that something which was essential for validity was missing. Since the church doesn’t consider that his personal decision to be baptized was essential for validity, pointing out that he didn’t decide to be baptized is not going to do the trick. M. LeBouvier might wish that the church did believe his personal decision was necessary for validity, but he doesn’t get to compel other people to hold the beliefs that he chooses for them.

Fourthly, M. LeBouvier may not have chosen to be baptized as an infant, but he certainly ratified the choice his parents made by his own acts as an adult. He was active in the church until the 1970s, by which time he was in his fifties. M. LeBouvier does not claim that he was mentally and morally incompetent until he was in his fifties . His claim is based not on his lack of capacity to choose as a newborn, but on his capacity to choose, and his right to choose, and the choice he has actually made when he was in his fifties, and to which he is still committed. But nothing in the reports suggest that he repudiates his earlier adult position on church participation, or claims that it was somehow invalid. M. LeBouvie is not someone who never chose to participate in the church; he is someone who at one time chose to do so, and later changed his mind.

Fifthly, if M. LeBouvier cannot get himself de-baptised by any other means, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he can get himself de-baptised by this means. You’re overlooking the possibility that, perhaps, he cannot get himself de-baptised at all. For the reasons already given, I think that is the case, and I don’t see you making any serious effort to explain why you think de-baptism is necessarily possible, or how it can be achieved.

King Mob wrote: »

But please, continue to make strawmen and insults in place of an argument.

You persistently attribute to me views I do not hold, views I have explicitly disclaimed in posts addressed to you, and then you respond to those views, and I’m making strawmen?

johnners2981

Peregrinus wrote: »

Fourthly, M. LeBouvier may not have chosen to be baptized as an infant, but he certainly ratified the choice his parents made by his own acts as an adult. He was active in the church until the 1970s, by which time he was in his fifties. M. LeBouvier does not claim that he was mentally and morally incompetent until he was in his fifties . His claim is based not on his lack of capacity to choose as a newborn, but on his capacity to choose, and his right to choose, and the choice he has actually made when he was in his fifties, and to which he is still committed. But nothing in the reports suggest that he repudiates his earlier adult position on church participation, or claims that it was somehow invalid. M. LeBouvie is not someone who never chose to participate in the church; he is someone who at one time chose to do so, and later changed his mind.

Not sure why you think he was in his fifties in the 1970s. In 1970 he was 29, in 1979 he was 38. Looks like he was in his twenties and thirties, your argument is invalid