Therefore, questions of religious freedom and conscience feature prominently in the bishops’ comments on the ongoing case.
The COMECE paper also seeks to clarify certain questions considered to be of particular importance to the proceedings, such as the nature of baptismal registers.
The Nature of Baptismal Registers
The document noted that during the public hearing held on 30 June, it was implied that baptismal registers may be considered as “lists of members”, as the practice of annotating or noting in the margins seemed to entail a sense of membership.
However, in the position paper, the secretariat of COMECE reiterated that such a view is at odds with the Church’s interpretation of baptismal registers as records of historical events – that is, records of baptisms administered within the Church.
The paper stated that the baptismal register constitutes a “fundamental evidentiary instrument” for numerous matters relating to the internal life of the Church, adding that without a reliable register, it could not carry out its mission or administer its internal affairs properly.
It justified this view by explaining that, in accordance with the Catholic Church’s teaching, baptism is a sacrament that is administered only once and that it is the “gateway” to other sacraments in the Church, among which are the Eucharist (Communion), confirmation and matrimony.
Erasure from baptismal registers, as is being requested in the Belgian case, would affect future actions within the Church, it said, by making verifications needed for the proper administration of the sacraments impossible.
COMECE also argued that erasure from baptismal records would impact third parties, such as the minister of baptism, the child's two parents and the two godparents, who have a legitimate interest in preserving the record as an authentic account of their participation in the sacramental act.
The experiences of a number of national bishops’ conferences were cited by the COMECE secretariat to highlight the role baptismal records can play as evidence in civil proceedings, “beyond the internal legal order of the Church”.
Among other jurisdictions, it pointed to Poland, where Church records serve as evidence of birth in cases where civil records were destroyed during the Second World War, and Italy, where baptismal registers can be used as proof of “family bonds” in the context of succession proceedings or the acquisition of citizenship.
Freedom of Religion at the Case's Core
However, the position paper identified freedom of religion as being at the core of the case.
“The baptismal register is the fundamental basis for establishing the juridical status of the person in the internal legal order of the Church.
“Requiring the Catholic Church to erase the data contained in it, thereby intervening directly in its organisation, would constitute a serious infringement upon Church autonomy and institutional freedom of religion”, it said.
Acknowledging that freedom of thought, religion and conscience, as protected by various charters and constitutions, guarantees every person the right to leave the Catholic Church or dissociate themselves from it, the position paper held that such protections do not confer a right to require the erasure of the “historical fact that the individual once belonged to that religious community”.
The requirement to erase baptismal records would also threaten the space that EU law leaves for churches to “live and organise their faith” in accordance with their own convictions, COMECE argued.
The bishops’ group noted that non-interference works both ways: just as the Church is required not to interfere in secular state affairs, the state is required not to interfere in Church affairs.
“No State can determine the internal rules governing the Church’s operations - least of all in the European Union”, COMECE added.
The opinion of the Advocate General on the case is expected on 1 October.
