Defecting from Church

TheChizler wrote: »

The Church hold that exact view. They consider any person who has ever been baptised a Catholic, whether they have a note added to the baptism rigister, are officially excommunicated by the Pope (look it up!), or your entire parish burns down and all records are destroyed. The Church will never consider you anything but a Catholic no matter what you do, maybe a reluctant one . . .

No, they don't.

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, you can defect from the church, and canon law contains various provisions dealing with people who have defected from the church. Those provisions would be pointless and meaningless if the Catholic church considered defection impossible.

All that has changed in recent years is this: for a relatively brief period there was a formal defection process (involving writing to the bishop) which you could pursue if you wished. For certain purposes of canon law, your defection would not be recognised unless you went through that process. The idea was to establish a degree of certainty over whether someone had defected or not; if he went through the process, he had defected; if he didn't, he hadn't. (Or, at least, for canon law purposes it was presumed that he hadn't.)

This only ever applied for limited purposes - specifically, for certain aspects of Catholic marriage law. For other purposes - e.g. whether you could have a Catholic funeral - you could be recognised as having defected even without having gone through this process.

This was one of these things that looked like a good idea at the time, but in practice turned out to be a terrible one. Very, very few people actually went through the formal defection process. (Which you'd expect, really; most people who fall away from Catholicism, or any other religion, do so because they have lost interest. Why would we expect them to enter into correspondence with the Bishop about it?) The end result was that, for Catholic marriage law purposes, large numbers of people who had in reality ceased to be Catholics, and who did not consider themselves Catholic, were being treated as still Catholic because they had not filled out the forms. This was producing absurd results. (By which I mean, results even more absurd than the ones Catholic marriage law already produces.)

So they dropped the rule. For all purposes of canon law, you no longer have to go through any formal process in order to defect from the Catholic church; you just defect. The Catholic church will generally not take a position about whether you have defected or not unless and until it needs to (e.g. because you wish to marry in the Catholic church) which, for most people, never happens.

daithi84 wrote: »

I'm not really bothered in what the church is concerned with. Really i'd be doing it for myself. If its all about events, adding a note to the record should not be an issue since the event has occurred. Keeping or deleting the record from the register won't affect the event so i fail to see peoples opposition to it being deleted. From another point of view there is an organisation recording my personal information without my consent, i have the right to withdraw consent of my personal information being stored anywhere regardless if my parents gave consent when i was a child for it to be recorded. The Right to Privacy and Protection of Personal Information is considered a human right as it is enhanced under GDPR.

As linked by previous commenter the church has said a reason for not deleting the information was because "essential for the administration of Church affairs to maintain a register of all the people who have been baptised", i would love to know what the reasoning behind this is, since according to people here the register is purely a record of an event with no other purpose. Why do they care about one child baptised 35 years ago and why is that record so important to the "administration of Church affairs" if that information serves no other purpose??

There was a case a few years ago in France where an ex-Catholic, who had already had his defection noted on his baptismal record, subsequently sought to have his baptismal record entirely deleted, and took court proceedings to compel this. As far as I recall he succeeded at first instance, but the church appealed and the appeal was successful. His case wasn't based on the GDPR, of course, but on the relevant French privacy laws at the time, but some of the same issues would arise, so it might be an enlightening study. I'll see if I can dig up some notes about it.

I'll admit to not being completely on top of the GDPR, but one immediate thought strikes me; the Regulation controls the processing of data - that's what the "P" stands for - and it defines processing as "any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data". Simply having a record of some event is not an operation or set of operations (although creating a record would be). Simply having an existing record which was lawfully created at the time is not "processing", and the church probably doesn't require your consent to have the record.

There is a right to rectification of personal data but, assuming the entry in the baptismal register is correct - you were baptised on the date stated, and the other details regarding your parents, godparents etc are correct - that wouldn be no help to you.

And then there is the right to erasure. This one is a bit complicated. You would ask to exercise your right to erasure based on withdrawal of your consent to processing it. The church could respond to this in two ways:

First, they could argue that they don't need your consent. Under the Regulation data processing is lawful if one of six conditions is satisfied. The first condition is that they have your consent. But, if they don't have that, they're still OK if they are covered by one of the other five conditions. Some of these are clearly not going to be applicable (e.g. "processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party.")

The one they'd most likely argue is condition (f), "processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller", but this one is qualified: "except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data". So there'd be a row, basically, over whether the church's "legitimate interests" in being able to process its baptismal records were overridden by your "interests or fundamental rights and freedoms". (That's where a comparison with the French case I mentioned comes in, because if I recall correctly the same or a similar question arose under the applicable French law.)

The other line the church could take - and they don't have to choose between these two lines; they can run both - is to argue that they come within one of the exemptions to the right of erasure. There's no right of erasure where processing is necessary "for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes . . . in so far as the right [of erasure] is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing". In other words, they'd argue that baptismal records are an important source for historical, genealogical and social research, and shouldn't be deleted simply because people are unhappy about the fact that they were baptised.

Finally, they'd point out that, while maintaining a record is not processing it, deleting it is processing it, and the record in question contains information not only about you but also about your mother, your father and your godparents and, if your consent is required to any processing, so is theirs. (This problem goes away, of course, if your parents and godparents are dead, or join in your request for erasure).

If you're interested in pursuing this, you might want to open a thread in the legal forum. There are a few regulars over there who know a good deal about data protection who might have useful thoughts to offer.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you link or quote any of those provisions, Peregrinus? Because I've argued this before on this forum (very possibly with you) and the argument has always centred around how baptism is permanent and can't be undone by anything. Even when the old form was accepted pre-2010, the RCCs position (from here, possibly what TheChizler is referencing) was :

It's late where I'm living, Mark. I'll get back to you on this tomorrow with some links. The key to squaring this particular circle is this: in the Catholic view, baptism does have irreversible spiritual effects, but permanent membership of the Roman Catholic church is not one of those irreversible spiritual effects.

In support of that, I'd point to two things. The first I have already mentioned; the Canon Law provisions which deal with people who have defected from the Church, which wouldn't be there if the RC view was that people couldn't defect from the church.

The second is the fact that the paragraph you quote from the Catechism isn't discussing the effects of baptisms performed by a Catholic priest, but of all baptisms. The Catholic church regards the baptisms performed by all the major Christian denominations as entirely valid and effective such that, if a Presbyterian (say) joins the Catholic church, they won't baptise him. Whatever the permanent and irreversible effects of baptism are, he already has them.

Which means that, if they did think that membership of the RCC was a permanent and irreversible consequence of baptism, they would be counting all Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Orthodox Christians, etc as members of the RCC. And, as can be seen from a glance at their claimed membership figures, they don't.

Tl;dr: Membership of "the body of Christ that is the church" is not the same thing as being a member of the Catholic church. All baptised Christians are members of the Body of Christ and this is considered to be irreversible, but baptised Christians are only members of the RCC if they are, and for so long as they remain, in communion with the Catholic church. Communion is a dynamic relationship which can be ended (and resumed). Hence the Canon Law provisions about defection (and about baptised Christians who are not Catholic).

ifElseThen wrote: »

How does converting to another religion fit into this "members of the Body of Christ" tenet? If you convert to a non-Christian religion?

Well, you've defected from the church, obviously. But the sacramental effects of baptism are irreversible; you're still a "member of the Body of Christ", albeit one with, um, serious issues.

What does this mean? In practice, not very much. You're not a member of the Catholic church; the church doesn't claim jurisdiction over you. The effects of baptism that they assert are purely spiritual effects. If you'r an atheist materialist you presumably think that's nonsense but, by definition, nonsensical beliefs that others have, that don't lead to any kind of action, can't injure you in any material way. The fact that they have these beliefs may infuriate you, but there isn't a great deal you can do about it. If you have the right to assert your belief that baptism has no spiritual (or any other) effects, then they must have the right to assert their beliefs that it does.

Mark - since you asked, some references in the Code of Canon Law which accept that people can be baptised, and yet not br members of the Catholic church, and/or that people can defect from the church:

Canon 171: “One who notoriously defected from communion with the Church” cannot vote in a canonical election.

Canon 194: “One who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church” is automatically removed from ecclesiastical office.

Canon 316: “A person who has defected from ecclesiastical communion” cannot be received into “public associations” established by the church.

Canon 694: One who “has notoriously defected from the Catholic faith” is automatically dismissed from a religious order.

Canon 874: “A baptised person who belongs to a non-catholic ecclesial community” cannot be a godparent; he or she can be a Christian witness to a baptism, provided there is a Catholic godparent.

Canon 1071: Except in cases of necessity or with the bishop’s position, “a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith” can’t have a church wedding.

Canon 1117: A Catholic marriage ceremony must be used for the marriage of two people, at least one of whom was baptised into the catholic Church or received into it after baptism “and has not defected from it by a formal act”.

Canon 1118: “A marriage between catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptised non-catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church.”

Canon 1124: Except with the bishop’s permission, the church won’t marry two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised into the catholic Church or received into it after baptism “and has not defected from it by a formal act”, and the other of whom belongs to another Church.

Canon 1183: If their own minister is not available, “baptised persons belonging to a non-catholic Church or ecclesial community” may have a Catholic funeral “unless it is established that they did not wish this”.

You can navigate your way to all of these references from this page.

There are many others, but these will illustrate the point.

Canons 874 and 1118 show that the Catholic church considers that there do exist baptised persons who are not Catholics. Therefore it is not the case that the Catholic church considers that baptism makes a person permanently and irreversibly a Catholic. Catholics are a subset of baptised persons; Catholics are baptised persons who are in communion with the Catholic church. What constitutes “communion with the catholic Church ” for a baptised person is set out in Canon 205; what you need is “the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance”.

Baptism does not itself effect that communion (because otherwise you couldn’t have baptised persons who are not in communion with the Catholic church) and it is possible to end that communion (because the Code of Canon law is full of references to people who have done so, and it generally assimilates their treatment to that of people who have never been Catholic).

daithi84 wrote: »

Thanks for that. All very interesting. If these cases have failed under current data protection laws it will be interesting to see the outcome of a court case under GDPR. From my understanding so far of GDPR my rights to my data and who has control of is actually treated as a human right.

Your human rights are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and similar instruments. None of them identify a human right to control personal data. What the do is identify a human right to, e.g, privacy, and then instruments like the GDPR represent attempt to give effect to that right as it relates to personal data.

daithi84 wrote: »

I find it very interesting that the church state they need this information, i would love to know what for. No where in these cases has this been fully explained. Like my name is one page in a book from 35 years ago, what exactly could they be using that information for.

Yes, if we get to that point it will be interesting to see what "legitimate interests" the church will offer. We already know what they actually use the information for; they use it for very little. In practice, the following are the main uses that are (sometimes) made of baptismal records.

- Parents may seek baptismal certificates in order to get their child into a school which requires evidence of baptism. I'm going to guess that you're past the stage in life where this might be relevant to you.

- If your parents want you - or if you, in adult life, want - to receive other sacraments in the church, you'll need evidence of baptism.

- In particular if you want to marry in the church, you'll need evidence of baptism. And, once you've done that, they'll make a note of it in the baptismal register so that, if you later turn up at another church seeking to be married, they'll look for the necessary paperwork and when they see the note they'll say "hang on, aren't you married already"?

- I think that's about it, really.

I think it boils down to this: First, in so far as you continue to have any kind of relationship with the church, or if you have none but wish to resume one later in life, this record contains information which they will need that is relevant to that relationship. And, secondarily, this record plays a role in potentially preventing bigamy.

All in all, that's a pretty thin justification. On the first point, you're going to say that you have definitively parted from the church, you have a fixed intention of never returning, and any interest that they claim on the basis that you might possibly return is hypothetical and negligible. On the second point you'll say, yes, preventing bigamy is certainly a Good Thing, but in Europe in this day and age the state has more effective and robust mechanisms for preventing bigamy; this one isn't really necessary. And it particularly isn't necessary in your case since any marriage you might enter into in the future is unlikely to be be celebrated in the church.

Maybe they are going to advance some interest or argument that hasn't occurred to me. Possibly they will frame their own claimed interest in terms of defending their ECHR rights. They have rights of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience which means they are entitled to hold whatever view they like about your baptism and its consequences or effects, and to express those views not merely in speech but in the way they relate to you, should there be a relationship. Therefore, to exercise their ECHR rights they need remain aware of whether you have been baptised. Therefore, they have an legitimate interest in retaining the record.

All in all, it looks to me like a pretty tenuous case on the church's side.

As against that, I don't think the argument that there's a fundamental human right to have data deleted (if you were thinking of running that argument) is going to fly. If it gets to that point, what you will need to establish is that your interest, grounded in your rights and freedoms, in being able to have the record deleted outweighs their interest, grounded in their rights and freedoms, in retaining it. For that reason I think you should present your desire for deletion not as something that justifies itself, or that is justified simply because it will satisfy you, but as something that is justified by an appeal to one or more of the rights explicitly identified in the ECHR.

Let us know how it goes!