Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

An EU court case over baptismal records could pit data protection laws against religious freedom, raising serious questions about whether governments can compel churches to erase sacramental history.

Forcing churches to erase baptism records could become a reality if a European Union court rules that keeping records breaches general data protection laws.

Any such precedent has wide-reaching implications beyond Belgium, where the case originated.

The pressing question, which is applicable to all Australian churches, will be whether the precedent encourages the state to think it has the power to sanction the deletion of a sacrament.

Theologian John Grondelski thinks so.

He argued in First Things that an EU decision for the plaintiff “would fundamentally abridge the right of Christians in Europe to be Christians.”

“The historical fact of a baptism is undeniable; what that fact means and entails is none of the state’s concern.”

A Challenge to the Church’s Autonomy

“State involvement in such matters,” he wrote, “would ultimately interfere with a Christian’s right to practice his faith.”

“For example, the Catholic Church holds that a marriage between two Christians is a sacrament. Altering baptismal records would therefore invite sacramental sacrilege, since it would obscure whether a potential spouse is or is not a Christian, and thus whether the marriage is sacramental.”

“The state,” he added, “has no right to demand ecclesiastical amnesia on the part of the Church vis-à-vis those who seek sacramental marriage.”

Grondelski wrote, “Baptism is a fixed point. It is, theologically, adoption as a child of God. A child of God may abandon God, just as a natural child may flee his parents. Juridically, a court might even cancel parental rights. But no court can cancel parental facts: The parent-child relationship cannot be erased.

“The same is true of our adoptive relationship with Him ‘from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth takes its name’ (Ephesians 3:14–15).”

Known as C-12/25 Bisdom Gent, the case involves a Belgian man referred to as JM.

He was unsatisfied with the standard practice colloquially known as “unbaptism”, where the Church crosses off an individual’s name and notes their departure.

JM is demanding that the Catholic Diocese completely erase his 1955 baptismal record.

A press release from the EU Court of Justice explained that JM wants all references to him removed from the Roman Catholic Church’s register or archives. It said: “Instead of deleting his personal data, the diocese added a note in the baptismal register stating he had left the Church.”

Acting on a complaint from JM, Belgium’s Data Protection Authority ordered the diocese to erase the record.

The Church challenged the order, and a Brussels Court of Appeal has asked the EU court to clarify whether deleting JM’s name sits within its data protection legislation (the GDPR).

Can Data Protection Laws Erase Baptism?

The request also asks whether a note added to the baptismal register saying JM left the church was enough to satisfy the law.

In an opinion to the court published on 1 October, the Court of Justice’s Advocate General, Laila Medina, said that the GDPR applies, in principle.

Effectively, the Belgian Data Protection demand forcing the church to erase JM’s baptismal records appears to be within the boundary of the law.

The Church’s information contains personal data held within a structured filing system. Therefore, the regulations apply.

Medina wrote, “The autonomy of churches and religious organisations does not call this conclusion into question. Consequently, the data processing in question – its storage and, where appropriate, retrieval and use – must be in line with the GDPR.”

She added that balancing individual rights with religious freedom “cannot be carried out in the abstract.

“The national court must consider the specific circumstances of each case. In particular, the national court should take into account the reasons for the request for erasure and the possible impact of a refusal on the person concerned.”

“In that regard, the Advocate General notes that the continued retention of personal data by a religious community from which a person wishes to dissociate himself may affect that person’s right to self-determination and, in particular circumstances, cause emotional distress.

“In that regard, only a genuine reconciliation of the interests involved can ensure a fair outcome for those concerned.”

The Clash Between Individual Rights and Religious Freedom

Archiving is only an exception if it serves society, meets legal obligations and involves some form of access for government and the public.

Holding onto the data for future academic research purposes is only justifiable when and where it benefits society.

If the court rules that the further processing of personal data by the church is not justified, crossing out JM’s name is not enough.

Neither is adding a note saying he left the church. This doesn’t meet the GDPR’s definition of erasure.

Medina stated that: “The data must be rendered illegible to the extent necessary to ensure that the person is no longer identified or easily identifiable, while information concerning the fact that a baptism took place at a given place and time may be retained.

“This does not require the physical removal of pages from the register. Appropriate measures may be used to conceal the relevant data while leaving other information intact.”

There is no published reason for JM’s demand to have his baptismal record erased. However, the 2021 request was made at a time when Belgians were protesting the Vatican’s refusal to bless same-sex unions.

The significance of an EU outcome in favour of full erasure would pit EU law against Christians because baptism testifies to the core of Christian identity.

Catholic law makes the same point. As translated by Zenit, a Church statement appealing to canon law said, “A minister cannot permit the celebration of other Sacraments if the reception of Baptism is not verified.”