A Quest For De-Baptism In France

Peregrinus

ShooterSF wrote: »

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.

I have to disagree. I don’t think that a right to leave an organization (or anything else) is the same thing as a right to be treated as if you were never in it.

I left Ireland in 2003 (and came to live in Australia). I had a right to leave Ireland, but in no sense does that imply that I now have a right to be treated as if I never lived there. For example, to my lasting regret, my tax liabilities in Ireland in respect of the years when I was a resident did not magically disappear when I emigrated.

I don’t see that leaving an organization is fundamentally different from leaving a country. If I retire from partnership in a law firm, say, does that mean that I am to be treated as never having been a partner, if the partnership is sued for something that happened when I was a partner? If I leave the IRA, does that mean I cannot be prosecuted for having been a member of the IRA? If I leave the government does that mean I have no legal, moral or political responsibility for my participation in government? (Or, conversely, no credit for what I achieved while in government?) All records to be altered to make it appear as if I was never a partner in the law firm, never a volunteer in the mob, never a cabinet minister?

In any event, as far as I can see M. LeBouvier’s case does not rest on his right to leave the Catholic church. It’s already common ground between him the Catholic church that he has left. No barrier was put in the way of his leaving, he left, and he is not now a member. I don’t think he has any beef about this.

If he claims a right to retrospectively leave the church - and I don’t think he does - then I’d need pretty clear evidence that French law confers a retrospective right to leave an organsation. The proposition is a very surprising one, you must admit. And in this context we must remember that there is more at stake than the fact that M. LeBouvier was not consulted about his infant baptism. There’s also the fact that for several decades of his adult life he was a willing and active participant in the church. Would we not find it suprising if French law gave him the right to airbrush this out of the historical record?

From the newspaper reports, the case doesn’t seem to rest on any right to leave organizations, but rather on French privacy law. The Diocese of Coutances holds a record about M. LeBouvier. (Several records, probably - a record of his baptism, his first communion, his confirmation, possibly his marriage, if he was married in church, and a record of his renunciation.) M. LeBouvier contends that the record of his baptism is “intimate”, and that the church has no right to hold it, at any rate when he is not a member of the church and when he has explicitly withdrawn his consent to the church holding them. At first instance, the court appears to have agreed with him. The issue has now been appealed to a higher court. We can only await the outcome of the appeal with interest, and with the hope that it will be reported rather more clearly and more fully than the outcome of the first trial was.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

.
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?

He wants the record to be deleted because he believes that it is invalid and he has no other way to get de-baptise.

He wants to get de-baptised because he does not wish the Catholic church to consider him any part of their organisation nor to claim that he is, as he would be if he never was baptised.

Peregrinus wrote: »

.
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.

Yes, and in every other instance, no other organisation is allowed to do this.
No organisation can claim you are part of them and that you support thier beliefs and that the organisation speaks for that person, without the person ever chosing to be part of that organisation and refuse to allow that person to leave. Except religions.

And since the Catholic church isn't for fairness or the truth or for listening to reason, he is attempting to get the courts to intervene.

Peregrinus wrote: »

.
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.

But he can get the record deleted since it is not vaild or fair.

Or the Church should change their canon law to the moral thing and either not do baptisms for children or allow people to leave.

Peregrinus

johnners2981 wrote: »

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

Yes, I'm wrong on the age. From the OP, it appears that he was 71 in 2011. That means he was born and baptised around 1940, and was in his thirties when he reconsidered his position on church participation in the 1970s, and round about 60 when he actually asked to have his departure recorded in 2000.

I don't think that invidates my argument, though. Throughout his teens and his twenties, and into his thirties, he was a church member. If you're going to argue that he was mentally and morally incompetent until some time in his thirties and his position until then is therefore a nullity, evidence please. If you're not going to argue that, I think my point stands.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

He wants the record to be deleted because he believes that it is invalid . . .

It’s not invalid. He was baptized on the date, and at the time, and by the person, set out in the record. (Or, at least, no-one is saying otherwise.) So it’s a true record of an event that actually happened. How is that “invalid”? That’s about as valid as a record can be.

King Mob wrote: »

. . . and he has no other way to get de-baptise.

He doesn’t have no other way to get de-baptised; he has no way to get de-baptized. Deleting the record is not going to “de-baptise” him.

King Mob wrote: »

He wants to get de-baptised because he does not wish the Catholic church to consider him any part of their organisation nor to claim that he is, as he would be if he never was baptised.

The church does not consider him part of the their organization. He has a letter from them saying so.

Whatever claims the church does make about the consequences of his baptism, it will still make after the record has been deleted. The fact is that he will still have been baptized, and that baptism will still have whatever consequences it ever had.

King Mob wrote: »

No organisation can claim you are part of them and that you support thier beliefs and that the organisation speaks for that person, without the person ever chosing to be part of that organisation and refuse to allow that person to leave. Except religions.

The Catholic church isn’t claiming that M. LeBouvier is a part of them, or that he supports their beliefs, or that they speak for him. Besides, M. LeBouvier did choose to be part of the church - not at his baptism, but later, as an adult. The church has not refused to allow him to leave.

I’ve pointed all this out before, and yet you still keep repeating it as though, if you say it, it will become true. No wonder you think the deletion of his baptismal record will have such a miraculous effect! But I’m afraid that’s not how reality works, King Mob.

King Mob wrote: »

And since the Catholic church isn't for fairness or the truth or for listening to reason . . .

There’s a certain irony in seeing those words in your post, King Mob.

King Mob wrote: »

Or the Church should change their canon law to the moral thing and either not do baptisms for children or allow people to leave.

Behold! Your wish is granted. Canon law does allow people to leave.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

I
The church does not consider him part of the their organization. He has a letter from them saying so.

The Catholic church isn’t claiming that M. LeBouvier is a part of them, or that he supports their beliefs, or that they speak for him. Besides, M. LeBouvier did choose to be part of the church - not at his baptism, but later, as an adult. The church has not refused to allow him to leave.

The church does consider him "marked before God". You refused to address the question I asked regarding what that meant.
I also posted a link which describes how the Church counts Catholics by baptism alone which you also missed.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Behold! Your wish is granted. Canon law does allow people to leave.

No it doesn't. It allows you to stop going to mass, but they still consider you part way catholic, count you as catholic and then claim your support and claim to represent you.
You cannot get them to stop doing this.
And now we cannot even get the little mark next to our name that this guys has.

However the closest you can get is to remove the record that you were baptised, meaning that while they can continue to claim all that stuff, there no longer is anything official to show it.

This is justified because they baptise you before you can give consent and do not offer the fair thing of a way to leave and be considered a Non-Catholic.

I've repeated this points several times but you are not addressing them.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

The church does consider him "marked before God". You refused to address the question I asked regarding what that meant.
I also posted a link which describes how the Church counts Catholics by baptism alone which you also missed.

I read your link. While it provides an estimate for the number of baptized Catholics, it does not say that the church counts everyone who has been baptized as a Catholic. If you claim that the church counts everyone who has ever been baptized as a Catholic, or that the church counts M. LeBouvier in particular as a Catholic, now would be a good time to produce your evidence for this claim.

As for what "marked before God" means, for the purposes of the present thread I don't think that I need to more than point out that it does not mean "is a member of the Catholic church", and I have already pointed to reasons why it cannot be taken to mean this.

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Canon law acknowledges that people can and do leave, and places no barriers in their way in terms of rituals they must observe, or procedures they must complete, or permissions or acknowledgements they must obtain, or forms they must fill out, or notifications they must give, in order to leave. They simply leave. A Catholic is absolutely free to leave the church at any time, and nothing in Canon Law impedes this.

If you maintain that canon law does not allow a Catholic to leave the church, can you quote any provision(s) of canon law which prevents this?

King Mob wrote: »

It allows you to stop going to mass, but they still consider you part way catholic, count you as catholic and then claim your support and claim to represent you.
You cannot get them to stop doing this.
And now we cannot even get the little mark next to our name that this guys has.

Sure you can. Lots of people have done it, as I pointed out before, and continue to do it.

Confusion arises because having it done used to have a specific canonical effect - it was necessary if you were to be exempt from certain provisions of Catholic marriage law - whereas now it no longer does. (You can still be exempted from these provisions; you just don’t need a certificate.) As a result some dioceses have stopped issuing certificates, on the thinking that the certificates have no canonical effect. But other dioceses continue to issue them, on the thinking that people want them.

There is a widespread but mistaken perception that getting one of these certificates was necessary in order to leave the Catholic church. This is wrong; the certificates never had this effect. You had to have left the church in order to get one of these certificates, but you could leave the church without getting one, and most people who left the church never did get one.

King Mob wrote: »

However the closest you can get is to remove the record that you were baptised, meaning that while they can continue to claim all that stuff, there no longer is anything official to show it.

Well, it remains to be seen whether you can get the record of your baptism removed. The appeal court has yet to rule on this.

And the irony is that, even if M. LeBouvier succeeds, the end result will be that the fact of his baptism will be far better recorded, and far more widely known, than it ever was before. A seventy-year-old pen and ink entry in a dusty ledger kept in a neglected cupboard in the sacristy of a Norman parish church will be crossed out. But court documents, enshrined for ever in the French national archives, plus scads of newspaper reports from France and abroad, will ensure that the fact of M. LeBouvier’s baptism is known to, and discussed by, a large number of people, and is potentially known to everyone with an internet connection. Far from deleting all records of his baptism, M. LeBouvier will simply replace one rather obscure record with a number of much more prominent records.

If his objective really is to prevent people from drawing conclusions about the significance of his baptism by concealing the fact of his baptism, this is not a well-thought-out strategy.

King Mob wrote: »

This is justified because they baptise you before you can give consent and do not offer the fair thing of a way to leave and be considered a Non-Catholic.

I've repeated this points several times but you are not addressing them.

Except to point out that it’s not true. You can stop being a Catholic at any time. Canon law acknowledges that people can and do do this, and puts no procedural or other requirements, obstacles or barriers in their way. What more do you want?

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

I read your link. While it provides an estimate for the number of baptized Catholics, it does not say that the church counts everyone who has been baptized as a Catholic.

You see, here's were it's pointless to try and argue with you, silly pedantry and attempts to redefine words and phrases.

The article states that there is over 15 million newly baptised Catholics in that period.
Now clearly these are not all from adult conversions. So the majority of these 15 million are baptised children.
These children could not possibly express the desire to be a Catholic or do any of the stuff you claim is needed to be considered Catholic.
Yet the article, the report and therefore the church call them baptised Catholics.

The people in the report are called and considered Catholics based solely on the fact that they were baptised.

But since you are so desperate to avoid this there's little point in trying to continue trying to discuss things with you.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

You see, here's were it's pointless to try and argue with you, silly pedantry and attempts to redefine words and phrases.

The article states that there is over 15 million newly baptised Catholics in that period.
Now clearly these are not all from adult conversions. So the majority of these 15 million are baptised children.
These children could not possibly express the desire to be a Catholic or do any of the stuff you claim is needed to be considered Catholic.
Yet the article, the report and therefore the church call them baptised Catholics.

The people in the report are called and considered Catholics based solely on the fact that they were baptised.

But since you are so desperate to avoid this there's little point in trying to continue trying to discuss things with you.

That’s right, when somebody scrutinizes your evidence, the mature response is to gather up your skirts and flounce off. People find that very persuasive. it proves how right you must be.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, you are quite right that the majority of the 15 million baptisms are likely to be of infants, and they are being treated as Catholic.

But we also observe that M. LeBouvier was baptized, and yet he is not being treated as Catholic.

“Evidence-based reasoning” doesn’t mean that you fall with glad cries on the evidence that is consistent with your preconceptions, and ignore the evidence that isn’t. You have to take account of all the evidence, and a proper understanding of the relationship between baptism and church membership has to take account of both of the above facts.

In Catholic thinking, a Catholic is (a) a baptized Christian, who is (b) in communion with the Catholic church.

“Communion” in this context is a relationship and, as all Facebook users know, relationships are not simple binaries. It can be on, or it can be off, or it can be complicated. What it means for an infant to be in a relationship with a community - whether that’s a church, a family, a nation or some other community - is very different for what it means for an adult to be in a relationship with a community.

For infants, relationships - along with much else - are part of their heritage. An infant doesn’t choose to be a citizen of Ireland - or any other country. He has no concept of allegiance, or loyalty, or patriotism. And yet we take it for granted that citizenship is something you have from birth, because of your inheritance or the circumstances into which you are born. Later on you may affirm or reject your citizenship, or you might seek out and obtain a different citizenship. Yet it would never occur to anyone to suggest that, until you grow to a point where you do these things, you have no citizenship.

The same goes for national or cultural identity. An infant cannot speak French, or display any of the other characteristics that we observe in a French adult. They don’t sit around in bars discussing philosophy. They don’t shrug and say “pff!” as a gesture of sympathy. They don’t play pétanque. But they’re still French.

A religious identity is a cultural construct and, like all cultural constructs, it doesn’t wait to be chosen. Your culture and identity is given to you from the outset by your family, your wider community, your nation. When you acquire the capacity to do so, you may choose to modify or reject the culture/identity that has been given to you, or any aspect of it. But you don’t remain “identity-free” until you make that choice.

Where a child is baptized at the instance of its parents, it’s a defensible presumption that the child is part of, and is being raised within, a Christian (in this case Catholic) culture. It is within a relationship of communion with the Catholic community through its parents and wider family (which is the only way an infant can be in any kind of relationship). I think its defensible to count that child as part of the Catholic community, unless and until you know that it isn’t - that its parents have ceased to be Catholics, and to raise the child as Catholic, and are instead raising it in some other tradition.

But it doesn’t follow from that that you will always treat it as Catholic. Just because it hasn’t now developed the capacity to control, form and terminate its own relationships, and we have no evidence that its parents have changed its relationships for it, doesn’t mean that we believe these things can never happen, or will never happen.

Hence there is no contradiction in saying that 15 million recently-baptised infants can be included in an estimate of Catholic numbers, but that a man baptized seventy years ago who has renounced his membership of the church is not a Catholic

Ellis Dee

Who cares whether a baptism is annulled or not? It's just a load of mumbo-jumbo anyway, and any ceremony to annul it would likewise be mumbo-jumbo.:rolleyes:

It would only matter if being baptised also meant being registered as a member of a religious community and thereby liable to pay church tax (as is the case in, for example, Scandinavia and Germany). But countries like that also make it possible for people to de-register and cease to pay the church tax. All they need do is fill out a simple form.

That was what happened in Finland last year when a woman member of the Synod of the Lutheran Church (she is also now a minister in the governing coalition and a member of a headbanging xian fundamentalist political party) came out with some grotesquely homophobic statements. Tens of thousands of men and women have since de-registered, i.e. renounced their membership of the Lutheran Church, which is actually rather liberal in most things. Even this hardened old atheist almost felt a twinge of sympathy for them being blamed for the stupid utterances of a loudmouth, antediluvian loose cannon.:)

I know xians are not supposed to curse people, but I bet quite a few of the leaders of the Lutheran Church have had at least a few unkind thoughts about the silly bitch that has caused them so much loss of revenue.:D:D

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you claim that the church counts everyone who has ever been baptized as a Catholic, or that the church counts M. LeBouvier in particular as a Catholic, now would be a good time to produce your evidence for this claim. [...] You can stop being a Catholic at any time. Canon law acknowledges that people can and do do this, and puts no procedural or other requirements, obstacles or barriers in their way.

Wrong.

Once you have been baptised, the Vatican asserts that (a) you have become a catholic and that (b) the ritual is irreversible. Prior to 2009, the baptised were free, within church law, to assert, via a formal act of defection, that you no longer consider yourself a catholic, and it allowed for a note to be appended to the baptismal record indicating that you had made this assertion. However there are two points to bear in mind concerning this. Firstly, while the church accepts that you want to leave it, the church will not accept that you can leave it (hence the very specific wording on the note). Secondly, since 2009, canon law no longer even mentions the act of defection, so even this door is closed.

Prior to its removal, he following interpretation of the act of defection had legal force within the church, since it was approved by Ratzinger:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

Cardinal Juli&#225 wrote: »

It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

I think that's really quite clear: the church considers that baptism is irreversible, and that's the point that M. LeBouvier wishes to change.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Who cares whether a baptism is annulled or not? It's just a load of mumbo-jumbo anyway, and any ceremony to annul it would likewise be mumbo-jumbo.

The issue is whether somebody wants to let the church claim, in their own manner, some part of them, even if it's only an imaginary part. The church refuses to renounce that claim and some people have a problem with that kind of arrogance.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Once you have been baptised, the Vatican asserts that (a) you have become a catholic and that (b) the ritual is irreversible.

Well, no. You’re conflating two things here.

Millions of people are baptized every years in the Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, etc, churches, and the Catholic church sees those baptisms as valid and as working irreversible spiritual effects. But it doesn’t consider that all the people so baptized have all become Catholics.

If you’re baptized in the Catholic church, the Catholic church considers that you have become a Catholic, because baptism in the Catholic church is evidence of partipation in the communion which constitutes the Catholic church. But there is no claim anywhere at any point that participation in that communion is irreversible and, in fact, it is readily acknowledged that it isn’t. So baptism in the Catholic church indicates that you have become a Catholic, but it doesn’t indicate that you will always remain one.

robindch wrote: »

Prior to 2009, the baptised were free, within church law, to assert, via a formal act of defection, that you no longer consider yourself a catholic, and it allowed for a note to be appended to the baptismal record indicating that you had made this assertion. However there are two points to bear in mind concerning this. Firstly, while the church accepts that you want to leave it, the church will not accept that you can leave it (hence the very specific wording on the note). Secondly, since 2009, canon law no longer even mentions the act of defection, so even this door is closed.

Prior to its removal, he following interpretation of the act of defection had legal force within the church, since it was approved by Ratzinger:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

But you’re overlooking a key point. The formal act of defection (which was introduced only in 1983) was never the only way to leave the church, or the way which anybody had to use. And, in fact, the great bulk of people who left the church never used it, which is largely the reason why it was dropped.

In Catholic thinking, you leave the Catholic church by ceasing to be in communion with it - by terminating your participation in the Eucharistic community which constitutes the church. No particular method of terminating the relationship was ever required. The relationship is, in Catholic thinking, a real relationship, and any act or omission which really terminates that relationship will be enough to make you not a Catholic any more.

The “formal act of defection” was introduced because in certain circumstances it was desirable (from the church’s point of view) to have certainty and clarity about whether somebody had, or had not, terminated their relationship of communion. Specifically, certain requirements apply to the marriage of Catholics which do not apply to the marriage of non-Catholics, and if the validity of a marriage is later called into question, the issue of whether somebody was, or was not, a Catholic at the time of his marriage is a relevant one.

Between 1983 and 2009 canon law provided for an “act of formal defection”, which basically involved:
- deciding to leave the church
- realizing that decision, i.e. actually leaving
- telling your parish priest or bishop that you had left
- getting written acknowledgement from him that you had left.

(You’ll notice that actually leaving the church is only the second of those four steps. This shows that leaving the church was always something distinct from making a “formal act of defection”. You could always actually leave the church without completing a “formal act of defection”, by simply not taking steps three and four. And you still can.)

If you did complete a formal act of defection, then you were taken to have left the church for the purposes of Canon 1124 (which deals with the marriage rules). But, crucially, canon 1124 (with the related canon 1117) is the only one which required you to make an act of formal defection. (And, of course, it no longer does require that.)

Many other provisions of canon law make reference to people who leave or have left the church - canons 171, 194, 316, 694, 1071, and quite possibly others. All recognize that people leave the church; none ever required a “formal act of defection”, or any other formality to leave the church. If you left, you left, and you were treated for the purposes of these canons as having left, whether or not you made a formal act of defection. The only requirement was that whatever you did to terminate your communion in the church had to be “public”, i.e. not secret (as, otherwise, how would the church know about it?)

The “act of formal defection” process didn’t work very well, largely because most people who left the church never bothered with steps 3 and 4, and so canon law required them to be treated as Catholics so far as the marriage rules were concerned. This was wholly at variance with the reality that they had in fact left, and consequently the system was first modified (in 2006) and, when that didn’t improve the situation, dropped entirely (in 2009).

The position, then, is that you never needed an “act of formal defection” to be accepted has having left for the purposes of canons 171, 194, 316, 694 and 1071, and you no longer need one for the purposes of canons 1117/1024. Since the “act of formal defection” no longer has any canonical significance, many dioceses have stopped issuing them.

You are correct to say that the Code of Canon Law no longer mentions the “act of formal defection”, but you should also acknowledge that it does mention defection, quite frequently.

robindch wrote: »

I think that's really quite clear: the church considers that baptism is irreversible, and that's the point that M. LeBouvier wishes to change.The issue is whether somebody wants to let the church claim, in their own manner, some part of them, even if it's only an imaginary part. The church refuses to renounce that claim and some people have a problem with that kind of arrogance.

If that really is his position, M. LeBouvier is pissing into the wind. He can wish it as much as he likes, but no amount of wishing on his part is ever going to make somebody else change their beliefs about anything. Even less is any amount of deleting baptismal records going to have that outcome.

You can believe that the church is arrogant, and no amount of wishing on the church’s part is going to change that belief, is it? Why would M. Lebouvier expect a different outcome? As you describe his position, he’s delusional, and I don’t think skeptics should encourage delusions.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you’re baptized in the Catholic church, the Catholic church considers that you have become a Catholic, because baptism in the Catholic church is evidence of partipation in the communion which constitutes the Catholic church. But there is no claim anywhere at any point that participation in that communion is irreversible and, in fact, it is readily acknowledged that it isn’t.

I give up. The Vatican's position on the ontology of the matter is what's documented above and approved by the pope. If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you take it up with Ratzinger.

As for M LeBouvier, all he wants is for the church to recognize that he's not catholic, presumably by recognizing that this "ontological bond" does not exist. While they're unlikely to do that, I don't see all that much "delusional" about trying.

magicbastarder

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.

but you don't believe in baptism. what matters is the actuality of that baptism, which neither means you are different in the eyes of god, nor does it mean you are a member of the catholic church.

(emphasis in quote added by me)

King Mob

magicbastarder wrote: »

but you don't believe in baptism. what matters is the actuality of that baptism, which neither means you are different in the eyes of god, nor does it mean you are a member of the catholic church.

(emphasis in quote added by me)

Yes, but the Catholic church can and does claim that since you were baptised, that you are catholic, that you believe everything they do and that they have your support and that they are representing you. (Or it's at least implied when they call you a Catholic.)

So the guy simply does not want to church to be able to claim all of this. They will anyway, but he can at try to remove any official, tangible support for this.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I give up. The Vatican's position on the ontology of the matter is what's documented above and approved by the pope. If you believe otherwise, then I suggest you take it up with Ratzinger.

I think you gave up before reading your own link, Robin. It confirms what I said above. The very first paragraph points out that the “act of formal defection” was relevant only to canons 1117 and 1024, and that for the purpose of all other canons - and they’re listed - any public defection is a good (i.e. effective) defection. Paragraph 1 confirms that “realizing” your decision to leave the church (i.e. actually carrying it out) is merely a step on the way to completing an act of formal defection, and paragraph 3 discusses how you leave the church.

robindch wrote: »

As for M LeBouvier, all he wants is for the church to recognize that he's not catholic, presumably by recognizing that this "ontological bond" does not exist. While they're unlikely to do that, I don't see all that much "delusional" about trying.

They recognized that he is not a Catholic in 2000, in writing.

The “ontological and permanent bond” claimed by the church is not that he is a Catholic, but that he “belongs to the Body of Christ that is the Church”, in the words of your own link. Since the church believes that baptisms celebrated by Anglican, Lutherans, Orthodox, etc creates the same “ontological bond”, it is plainly nonsense to equate this “bond” with being a Catholic.

M. LeBouvier has a right to withdraw from his relationship with the Catholic church. We all have the right to withdraw from our relationships. But, as we all know from common experience, we don’t have the right to dictate whether or how we have been changed by our relationships, and we don’t have the right to dictate how the other people in our relationships feel about them, or regard them after the event.

When you and I broke up, robin, after that mad but ecstatic summer fling, you got to cut up all your copies of snapshots of the two of us (and the, um, more intimate pictures we took on that weekend in Amsterdam). But you didn’t get to cut up mine.

M. LeBouvier is not a Catholic, and he has the right to have an acknowledgement from the church that he’s not a Catholic, and he has that acknowledgement. He doesn’t have the right to demand that the church forget that he ever was a Catholic, or to believe that his participation in the church has not marked him in any way. He can believe that, if he wishes, but his right to control beliefs extends only to his own beliefs.

Dades

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Who cares whether a baptism is annulled or not? It's just a load of mumbo-jumbo anyway, and any ceremony to annul it would likewise be mumbo-jumbo.:rolleyes:

I happen to agree. You can't nullify a supernatural event without another one.

Though perhaps something like this could work...

Pwpane

Peregrinus wrote: »

Honestly, it’s like talking to a turnip.

I had to laugh at this!

Peregrinus, you did well up until then and you've done well after it. I wish I knew the secret of your patience!

I don't think we believe in the same things, but I find your posts most informative. I know very little about Catholicism, due mostly to a Catholic education...

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think [...] own beliefs.

As I said above, M LeBouvier objects to the Vatican claiming ownership of a part of him. Admittedly it's an imaginary part, but they claim it all the same. And they refuse to renounce the claim, despite a clearly stated wish on behalf of the claimee. The permanent, unchangeable character of this claim is what's meant by the word "permanent" in Mr Herranz's quote above.

If you believe that the word "permanent" means something other than "permanent", then as above, I suggest you take it up with Ratzinger and ask him to clarify.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

As I said above, M LeBouvier objects to the Vatican claiming ownership of a part of him. Admittedly it's an imaginary part, but they claim it all the same. And they refuse to renounce the claim, despite a clearly stated wish on behalf of the claimee. The permanent, unchangeable character of this claim is what's meant by the word "permanent" in Mr Herranz's quote above.

If you believe that the word "permanent" means something other than "permanent", then as above, I suggest you take it up with Ratzinger and ask him to clarify.

My problem is not with the word "permanent", robin, but with the words "ownership", "Vatican" and "part of him". Ratzinger says that the "sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church" conferred by baptism "is an ontological and permanent bond". The only person saying that the Vatican claims ownership of a part of M. LeBouvier is you. You - not Ratzinger, not me, not even M. LeBouvier - must accept responsiblity for saying that.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

My problem is not with the word "permanent", robin, but with the words "ownership", "Vatican" and "part of him". Ratzinger says that the "sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church" conferred by baptism "is an ontological and permanent bond".

Is there some meaning of the word "bond" that doesn't mean a linkage, and "permanent" that doesn't mean "unbreakable"?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Is there some meaning of the word "bond" that doesn't mean a linkage, and "permanent" that doesn't mean "unbreakable"?

Do you pick these words at random, robin?

Surely the point is that there is a sense of the word “bond” which does not mean “ownership of a part of”, and there is a sense of the term “Body of Christ” which does not mean “Vatican”.

Your claim, in post #69, is that “M. LeBouvier objects to the Vatican claiming ownership of a part of him”. I’ve not seen any reports that M. LeBouvier has voiced this objection, but let that pass. You’ve attempted to defend the assertion that the Vatican makes such a claim by linking to a Vatican document approved by Ratzinger. The document in fact says something quite different, mentioning neither the Vatican, nor ownership, nor part of a person.

If you’re going to attack the claims the church makes, you need to attack the claims the church makes. Recasting them as something fundamentally different may make them easier to attack, but it also make the attach pretty pointless.

Dave!

Any Bill Maher fans around?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIwhUSsIBjY

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely the point is that there is a sense of the word “bond” which does not mean “ownership of a part of”, and there is a sense of the term “Body of Christ” which does not mean “Vatican”.

Gosh, more words with new meanings! This is exciting

Last time I checked, the Vatican and Ratzinger believes themselves to embody, on this planet at least, the "universal church" (the word "catholic" means universal), as referred to by Mr Herranz as "belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church". As above, if you believe that the "Catholic Church" is not generally synonymous with the phrase "The Vatican", then I suggest you add this item to your growing list of things to discuss with Herr Ratzinger.

Dave! wrote: »

Any Bill Maher fans around?

Maher's got the right attitude to this unbaptism business -- love the pointy hat and wand!

Peregrinus

You turn "sacramental bond of belonging" into "claims ownership of a part of", and they you accuse others of inventing new meanings for words? Don’t make me get sick into my own scorn, Robin.

Look, the bottom line here is pretty straightforward. It is a historical fact that M. LeBouvier was baptised. That fact tells us things – true things – not only about M. LeBouvier but also about other people named in the record of the event – his parents, who brought him to be baptised, his godparents, who filled that role because of a connection with his parents, etc. It tells us something about the role of the priest and his relationship to the community, and so tells us something about the place of the church in the community. And that baptism marked the start of a relationship between M. LeBouvier and the church of considerable duration, and possibly of some significance. All in all, the entry in the baptismal register is a historical record relevant not only to M. LeBouvier but to his family and his local community. Registers like this are meat and potatoes to social historians and local historians, because of the picture that they help to build.

The relationship between M. LeBouvier and the Catholic church has now ended, at M. LeBouvier’s wish. It may be that he regrets that the relationship ever existed. It may be that he disagrees with the view of the church about the significance and consequences of that relationship, or of the events included in it. It may be – we don’t know this – that he resents those views. And it may even be that his regret and his disagreement and his resentment are entirely justified.

You’ve tried very hard – possibly too hard - but you haven’t persuaded me that any of this even comes close to a case for destroying the baptismal record. For better or worse, the baptism occurred. M. LeBouvier has to come to terms with this, and get beyond it, and it is fundamentally unhealthy and wrong-headed to try to do this by demanding the destruction of the record of the baptism. The attitude behind this strikes me as somewhere between childish and delusional, and I am surprised and disappointed to find a sceptic supporting it. We cannot at the same time argue in favour of evidence-based reasoning, and approve of the destruction of evidence.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, the bottom line here is pretty straightforward.

Have a read of the original article again, since you're still missing the point here.

LeBouvier simply isn't happy with the church noting down that he's "chosen to leave the church" (ie, the church accepts that LeBouvier thinks he's not a catholic). LeBouvier would like, as is his right under French law, for the church to agree he's not a catholic. Nothing to do with denying that the baptism occurred, deleting his name from the baptismal register or anything more serious. Simply getting a letter from somebody in the church saying, in effect, "LeBouvier, you are not a catholic". This is really quite simple, though the church won't do it owing to its belief, clearly stated in the article, that "baptism changes one permanently before the church and God."

It will be interesting to see how it pans out and whether the church will submit to French law, should the ongoing appeal be denied, since it'll require a change to church doctrine, as approved by Magic Hat Rat. And in favour of a Frenchman? Naah...

BTW, it's skeptic. With a "k"

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of the original article again, since you're still missing the point here.

LeBouvier simply isn't happy with the church noting down that he's "chosen to leave the church" (ie, the church accepts that LeBouvier thinks he's not a catholic). LeBouvier would like, as is his right under French law, for the church to agree he's not a catholic. Nothing to do with denying that the baptism occurred, deleting his name from the baptismal register or anything more serious. Simply getting a letter from somebody in the church saying, in effect, "LeBouvier, you are not a catholic". This is really quite simple, though the church won't do it owing to its belief, clearly stated in the article, that "baptism changes one permanently before the church and God."

I have read the original article. Predictably, it doesn’t say that “LeBouvier would like . . . for the church toagree that he’s not a catholic”; it says that he’s asked the church to strike him from the baptismal records. And it certainly doesn’t say that he has a “right under French law” to have the church acknowledge that he is a Catholic; it says that French law states that citizens have the right to leave organisations. As I pointed out before, the French constitutional tradition is very strong on the freedom of religious belief and practice; there is absolutely no way that French law would make someone’s right to leave the church conditional on the church agreeing to his departure, or that it would seek to compel the church to profess a belief which it does not choose to profess. Besides, as I pointed out already, Catholic canon law acknowledges that people can and do leave the church, and deals with the canonical consequences of their having left. Acknowledging that someone has left doesn’t cause them a fundamental problem.

In post #3 I quoted at some length from an article in Le Croix which offers what seems to me a slightly more coherent account of the matter than the article in “Off the Record”. According to that article, the court held that fact of LeBouvier’s baptism is an “intimate happening constituting personal information” about LeBouvier, and the maintenance of a record of that event (without his consent) is an infringement of French privacy principles. Consequently the diocese was ordered to erase definitively all mention of the baptism. It seems, then, that as far as French law is concerned this is not about LeBouvier’s right to leave the church, but about whether anyone has a right to know that he was ever in it; it’s about privacy.

There’s nothing in the Le Croix report about ordering the church to tell LeBouvier that he’s not a Catholic, or indeed about ordering the church to tell LeBouvier anything at all. The only order made seems to be for the deletion of the baptismal record.

robindch wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how it pans out and whether the church will submit to French law, should the ongoing appeal be denied, since it'll require a change to church doctrine, as approved by Magic Hat Rat. And in favour of a Frenchman? Naah...

I think you misunderstand. The church might object to deleting the record, if the appeal court upholds the order of the lower court. But deleing the record wouldn’t involve any change to church doctrine.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out, but not for the reasons that you suggest. The lower court has held that LeBouvier has an interest in privacy which prevents the church from keeping a record of his baptism. I’ve no doubt that the church will point out that the baptism was a public event, and also that the baptism marks the start of a relationship involving both LeBouvier and the church in which LeBouvier cannot claim a unilateral right to privacy. And this could be relevant to relationships other than spiritual ones; if I had a sexual relationship in my youth which I now regret and am embarrassed by am I entitled to demand that you the other party to the relationship should shut up about it and destroy the evidence?

robindch wrote: »

BTW, it's skeptic. With a "k"

My dictionary – the SOED – tells me that the ‘k’ spelling is arch. and N. Amer.. But I won’t fall out with you over spelling; we have enough to disagree about already.

Peregrinus

I don't normally revive old threads, but I think I'm justified in making an exception here. This thread deals with a court case in France in which a M. Lebouvier sought a court order compelling the a French Catholic diocese to delete the record it held of his baptism. He won at first instance, and it was newspaper/blog reports of that decision which gave rise to the thread.

The decision has now been reversed on appeal. I can't find an English-language report of this and my French is - ahem - a bit rusty, but for what it's worth:

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2013/09/10/la-justice-se-prononce-en-appel-contre-l-effacement-d-un-bapteme_930801

Hedged about with qualifications due to my limited French, the reasoning seems to have been that the keeping a baptismal record was not an infringement of M. Lebouvier's privacy (this being the grounds on which he sought deletion) unless doing so had the object, or the effect, of discrediting the individual or creating discriminatory attitudes towards him. The court found that it was not established that keeping M. Lebouvier's baptismal record would have this effect.

There remains the possibility of a further appeal, but as far as I can see no appeal has been lodged yet.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hedged about with qualifications due to my limited French....

Google translate is far from perfect, but is a useful tool nonetheless http://translate.google.com/#fr/en/ From the translation;

"The revelation of religion or lack of religion is not intrusive to privacy if it has the purpose or effect of discrediting the person involved or create discriminatory attitudes towards" write the judges on appeal, noting that these conditions were not met.

In addition, if in another diocese (Tulle), the names on the "register have indeed been deleted at the request of the person baptized, Bishop of Tulle testified on March 15, 2013 it was an error in the chancery of the diocese, "said the court.

"It is therefore not a demonstrative event of a change in the doctrine of the Catholic Church transposed to the present case," the judge continued.

Peregrinus

Google translate is somewhat useful. It appears to say that "The revelation of religion or lack of religion is not intrusive to privacy if it has the purpose or effect of discrediting the person involved or create discriminatory attitudes towards [him]". Even my decripit schoolboy french can do better; what the court reportedly says is that "revelation of religion" is intrusive to privacy only if it has a discrediting/discriminatory effect.

Cabaal

So it lost on appeal, does that mean he won initially and the church then appealed?

smacl

Well spotted. My schoolboy French also finished up about 30 years ago. Off topic but interesting

Google translate:French wrote:

n’est attentatoire
est attentatoire
attentatoire

La révélation d’une appartenance religieuse ou d’un défaut d’appartenance religieuse n’est attentatoire à la vie privée

La révélation d’une appartenance religieuse ou d’un défaut d’appartenance religieuse n’est attentatoire à la vie privée que si elle a pour objectif ou pour effet de déconsidérer la personne en cause ou de susciter des attitudes discriminatoires à son égard

Google translate:English wrote:

is intrusive
is detrimental
intrusive

The revelation of a religion or lack of religion is detrimental to the privacy

The revelation of a religion or lack of religion is not intrusive to privacy if it has the purpose or effect of discrediting the person involved or create discriminatory attitudes towards

Typo in the article, or maybe a bit of eats shoots and leaves going on with Google Translate?

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

So it lost on appeal, does that mean he won initially and the church then appealed?

Yes. If you can bear to read through the thread that's all laid out. He had previously left the church and the church accepted this, made a note in his baptismal records to that effect and wrote to him confirming that they had done so. But about 10 years later he asked them to delete his baptismal record completely, which they declined to do, and he brought court proceedings looking for an order directing the diocese to delete the records, arguing that he had a right under French privacy law to have the record deleted. He succeeded initially, but the church appealed and won on appeal.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Typo in the article, or maybe a bit of eats shoots and leaves going on with Google Translate?

As far as I can see, usual disclaimers, the article is correct and Google translate has stuffed it up. The construction "ne [verb] que" translates to English as "only [verb]", whereas GT has translated it as "not [verb]"