ODM Daily Inspirational Devotional Messages Bible Verse and Prayers ODM
Can EU Law Erase a Baptism Record? What the Advocate General Said and What It Means for Churches
For nearly two thousand years, churches have kept records of baptisms. In many places, these registers are among the oldest surviving documents in existence. They’ve been used by families tracing their ancestry, by historians studying communities, and by churches verifying who has received the sacrament.
Now a case before the Court of Justice of the European Union asks whether a person who has left the church can require it to erase his baptismal record. A recent report on The Daily Declaration by Rod Lampard describes the case and its possible implications, drawing on a warning from the theologian John Grondelski that an EU ruling for the plaintiff “would fundamentally abridge the right of Christians in Europe to be Christians.”
The case is real and important, but the details are more nuanced than headlines suggest. This post sets out what actually happened, what the Advocate General said, what is and isn’t decided, how Christians are reacting, and how believers might think about it, including in Australia.
The Case: C-12/25 Bisdom Gent
The facts, according to the Court’s own press release and reporting:
- The man. A Belgian national, identified only as JM, was baptised as a Catholic as a child in Ghent in 1955. He later left the Church.
- The request. On 25 March 2021, he asked the Diocese of Ghent to delete any reference to him from all physical and digital registers and archives, relying on the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Lampard notes that the request came at a time when some Belgians were protesting the Vatican’s refusal to bless same-sex unions, though JM hasn’t published his reasons.
- The diocese’s response. It didn’t erase his entry. Instead, it struck through his name, left it legible, and added a note recording that he had left the Church. This is the usual practice, sometimes called “unbaptism” in the media, though the Church doesn’t regard it as undoing baptism.
- The regulator. JM complained to Belgium’s Data Protection Authority, which in December 2023 ordered the diocese to comply with his request and erase his data.
- The appeal. The diocese challenged the order in court. The Brussels Court of Appeal asked the EU’s top court to clarify how the GDPR applies. Seventeen other parties joined the proceedings, and seven national governments and the European Commission took part as observers.
What the Advocate General Said
On 1 October 2026, Advocate General Laila Medina delivered her opinion. It’s important to understand what an Advocate General’s opinion is: it’s an independent recommendation to the Court. It’s not binding, and the Court may follow it, modify it or depart from it. The final judgment, which will bind all 27 EU member states, is still to come.
According to the Court’s summary and independent reports, Medina concluded:
- The GDPR applies. A baptismal register is a structured set of personal data, and so counts as a filing system under the regulation. The autonomy of churches doesn’t remove it from the law’s scope.
- Erasure may apply in principle. A person may in principle request the erasure of their data from a baptismal register, but there’s no general or automatic right. National courts must balance the individual’s rights, including data protection and freedom of religion, against the church’s autonomy and religious freedom, looking at the specific circumstances.
- Reasons matter. The court should consider the person’s reasons for the request and the likely impact of refusing it. She noted that a religious community’s continued retention of data can affect a person’s self-determination and, in some cases, cause emotional distress.
- A strike-through is not erasure. Merely crossing out the data while leaving it legible, and adding a note about departure, doesn’t meet the GDPR’s definition. At most it amounts to a correction of the record.
- The record need not be destroyed. She said the data should be made illegible to the extent necessary so the person is no longer identified or easily identifiable, while information that a baptism took place at a given place and time may be kept. Physical removal of pages isn’t required, and concealing the relevant details can be enough.
- The diocese’s argument about falsifying history was unconvincing. She reasoned that almost any erasure of personal data could be said to falsify a past event, and that this alone can’t defeat the right.
So the opinion doesn’t say that anyone who asks must have their baptism wiped from history. It says the GDPR applies, that a request has to be weighed, and that if erasure is justified, the Belgian practice of strike-through-and-annotate isn’t enough.
How the Church Has Reacted
The Catholic Church’s position has been consistent. Baptism is a sacrament that, in Catholic teaching, imprints an indelible mark on the soul, so it can’t be undone, and registers are a record of a historical fact that the Church needs for administrative and sacramental purposes. A Vatican explanation cited in the commentary notes that a minister cannot permit other sacraments to be celebrated if reception of baptism isn’t verified. For example, because the Church considers a marriage between two baptised Christians to be a sacrament, knowing whether someone has been baptised matters.
On 5 October, the Secretariat of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) responded. It acknowledged that the opinion did not recognise a general or automatic right to erase data from baptismal registers, but it warned that the opinion could create “significant legal uncertainty” because baptismal registers are a central pillar of the Church’s internal functioning. It was particularly concerned that the opinion rejected the existing practice of Belgian dioceses.
Grondelski, writing in First Things, argued that a ruling for the plaintiff would interfere with a Christian’s right to practise his faith and invite state involvement in sacramental matters. He also argued that, theologically, baptism is a fixed point, comparable to a parent-child relationship: a child may flee, and a court may cancel legal rights, but no court can cancel the underlying fact.
The Other Side of the Case
It’s important to give the opposing view its due, because the arguments aren’t one-sided.
The case for the individual.
- Religious belief is classed as especially sensitive personal data under European law.
- The right to leave a religion is a core part of freedom of religion or belief, recognised in international human rights law.
- Continued records of someone’s former religious affiliation can feel like an ongoing claim on a person’s identity, and the Belgian regulator found that lifelong processing of such data wasn’t proportionate or strictly necessary.
- The Advocate General noted that the diocese gave no specific examples of harm and that no centralised register exists.
The case for the Church.
- Churches have a legitimate interest in keeping records of their own sacramental acts, for pastoral, canonical and historical reasons.
- Religious freedom includes the freedom of religious communities to organise and manage their internal affairs.
- The GDPR itself contains a provision (Article 91) allowing churches with their own comprehensive data protection rules to keep them under certain conditions, and critics of the opinion note it was only mentioned in passing.
- Parish registers have enormous value for genealogists and historians, and the GDPR recognises archiving in the public interest as a possible ground for retention.
- Sacramental records can matter to third parties, such as future spouses, as Grondelski notes.
The middle path. The Advocate General’s suggestion, concealing identifying details while retaining the fact that a baptism occurred, is an attempt at balance. Whether it satisfies churches and complainants alike is another question. The Church might reasonably ask how it could then verify baptisms, while privacy advocates might ask whether concealment goes far enough.
Why Christians Should Care, Beyond Belgium
For Australian readers, this might seem far away. But there are several reasons it matters.
- It’s about how far the state can go in regulating churches’ internal records and practices. The principle that civil authorities shouldn’t dictate what a church believes, or which sacraments it recognises, is deeply rooted in Christian thought.
- It affects how privacy law applies to religious bodies. Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 applies to many organisations, and Australian reform proposals have included a right to request erasure of personal information. The status of those reforms should be checked, but churches of all denominations may want to follow how European courts handle the question.
- It affects genealogy. Many Australians trace their family history through parish records, and a rule that required the concealment of names could affect the historical record.
- It affects how churches treat people who leave. The case reminds us that some people leave churches with real hurt, and that how a church responds matters.
What the Bible Says
The Bible doesn’t address data protection law, but it speaks about baptism, belonging and the freedom to respond to God.
- Baptism is a sign of belonging to Christ. Paul says that all who were baptised into Christ have clothed themselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27), and Jesus commands his followers to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Christians of different traditions disagree about the precise meaning of baptism and the proper subjects of it, including whether infants should be baptised, but all agree that it’s significant.
- God’s faithfulness isn’t dependent on human records. Paul writes that if we are faithless, God remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). In Catholic teaching, this is behind the claim that baptism can’t be undone. Other Christians would put it differently, but many would agree that a church register is an administrative record and doesn’t determine anyone’s standing before God.
- The door stays open. The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15) pictures a father who watches the road for a child who has left, and Jesus says that no one who comes to him will be driven away (John 6:37). Whatever a church does with its registers, its posture toward those who leave should be one of grace.
- Faith can’t be coerced. Scripture presents faith as a free response (Joshua 24:15; Revelation 3:20). Christians who treasure religious freedom should defend the right of a person to leave, as well as the right of a church to practise.
- Names and books. Revelation 3:5 promises that the names of those who overcome won’t be blotted out of the book of life. That is a different book from a parish register, and it reminds us that God’s record of his people is not subject to any earthly court.
Our Take
Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.
1. The final ruling is still to come.
Headlines, including some that use phrases such as “forcing churches to erase baptism records,” run ahead of the facts. The opinion is not binding, it rejects a general or automatic right to erasure, and it requires a case-by-case balancing. We should wait for the Court’s decision before drawing firm conclusions.
2. But the concern isn’t baseless.
If the Court adopts the opinion’s reasoning, it could change how churches across the EU handle registers, and it sets a precedent for the state to supervise sacramental records. COMECE’s worry about legal uncertainty is reasonable, and so is the wider concern about church autonomy.
3. Take the person seriously.
Behind every legal case is a person. Some who leave churches carry real wounds, whether from the way they were treated, from disagreement over teaching, or from a sense that the church still claims them. Churches that want to be credible witnesses should respond with listening, not just legal argument.
4. Be careful with sweeping language.
Statements that the state is attempting to “delete a sacrament” or that a ruling would abolish the right to be a Christian are rhetorical, and they risk overstating the case. A court can order a church to conceal personal data; it can’t alter what Christians believe about baptism or how God regards the baptised.
5. Churches can prepare.
Whatever the outcome, churches can review their data practices: what they keep, why, who can access it, how long they keep it, and how they handle requests from those who leave. Clear, compassionate policies make good sense anyway.
6. Keep the focus on the gospel.
The most important question isn’t what a register says, but whether people know the love of God in Christ. A church that responds to a legal challenge with humility and a clear message of grace will serve its mission better than one that responds only with defensiveness.
What Readers Can Do
- Follow the case. The Court’s judgment will be reported, and the final ruling will matter more than the opinion.
- Read the primary sources. The Court’s press release and the Advocate General’s opinion are public.
- Pray for church leaders, judges and everyone who is working through hard questions of conscience and belonging.
- Review your own church’s practices, including privacy notices and how you handle requests.
- Reach out. If you know someone who has left the church, a kind, unpressured conversation may mean more than any argument.
Questions to Reflect On
- What does baptism mean to me, and why?
- How should a church balance its need to keep records with a person’s wish to leave?
- How would I want a church to respond if I had been hurt by it?
- Where do I think the line should be between the state’s authority and the church’s autonomy?
- How can my church show grace to those who have walked away?
A Short Prayer
Lord Jesus, you call us into your family by grace, and you remain faithful even when we are not. We pray for the Church in Europe and everywhere, and for the judges and lawmakers who must balance competing rights. Give your people wisdom to protect what is precious, humility to listen to those who have been hurt, and courage to keep the doors of your house open. Draw every wanderer home, and let our records never matter more to us than your people. Amen.
