EU bishops’ conferences await ruling on erasing baptismal entries
The Court of Justice of the EU is set to decide whether the Diocese of Ghent must delete a baptismal register entry requested by an individual, a dispute that could affect Church autonomy. COMECE issued a position paper arguing that erasing baptismal data would infringe on the Church’s institutional freedom of religion. The case, C‑12/25 Bisdom Gent, centers on Belgium’s practice of adding notes rather than removing entries when people request “debaptism.”. An Advocate General opinion is expected soon, and the final judgment could arrive late 2026 or early 2027, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases across the EU.
26 days ago
The European Union’s top court is considering whether a Belgian diocese must erase baptismal-register information at an individual’s request under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). European bishops’ conferences are urging the court to recognize that such records are historical and sacramental documents, not membership lists, and that compulsory deletion could affect Church autonomy, religious freedom, and the administration of Church law. 1
The dispute concerns the Diocese of Ghent and Belgium’s Data Protection Authority. In March 2021, an unnamed individual asked the diocese to remove their personal information from all Church files, including the baptismal register.
Rather than deleting the entry, the diocese added a notation stating that the person had left the Church. The entry was also marked with two diagonal lines. The individual rejected that response and complained to Belgium’s Data Protection Authority.
In December 2023, the Belgian authority ordered the Diocese of Ghent to erase the information. The diocese appealed, and in December 2024 the Brussels Court of Appeal referred five questions concerning EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Among the questions before the CJEU are whether the GDPR must be interpreted in light of religious freedom and whether an annotation stating that someone has left the Church legally qualifies as erasure of their personal data.
An Advocate General is expected to issue a nonbinding opinion before the court delivers its judgment. The ruling could come in late 2026 or in 2027, after which the Brussels court is expected to apply the CJEU’s decision to the Ghent dispute. 1
The Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) issued a position paper dated September 2 and published September 4. It was prepared at the request of member bishops’ conferences in connection with the Ghent case.
COMECE argued that baptismal registers are records of historical sacramental events rather than lists of current Church members. The paper said the registers do not establish a person’s present faith, affiliation, or participation in Church life. 1 2
The bishops described baptismal records as important evidence for internal Church matters, including whether someone has been baptized, confirmed, married, or made a profession in a religious institute. They argued that deleting entries would make such facts impossible or more difficult to verify. 1 2
COMECE also said the Ghent diocese’s specific annotation was “not ideal” and did not represent the way baptismal annotations are used across other EU member states.
The bishops maintained that a legal obligation to erase baptismal data would directly affect the Church’s ability to organize and express its faith. They characterized the issue as involving institutional religious freedom, rather than merely the data-management interests of a religious organization.
The position paper stated that requiring the Church to remove baptismal information would interfere with its internal legal order because the register helps establish a person’s juridical status within the Church.
The bishops also argued that compulsory deletion could require the Church to alter its theological understanding of baptism in response to an individual’s views or feelings. They said this would intrude on matters protected by Church autonomy. 1 2
According to the position presented in the paper, treating baptism as erasable could mislead people into believing that baptism is repeatable or optional. COMECE said this would affect the substance of the sacrament, not merely the way it is administered or recorded. 1 2
COMECE noted that baptismal entries contain information about more than the baptized person. They may also identify the minister, parents, and godparents, each of whom the paper said has an independent interest in preserving an accurate record of participation in the sacramental event.
The bishops further argued that removing an entry could affect legal certainty in marriage-related matters. They cited situations in which baptismal records might be relevant to determining a person’s status or to later Church proceedings involving a prior civil marriage.
The paper also referred to possible civil uses of baptismal registers. It identified Ireland, where a baptism certificate may serve as evidence of birth when other records have been destroyed, and Cyprus, where baptismal registers can be used in family real-estate disputes.
The dispute is connected to the Catholic teaching that baptism leaves an indelible spiritual mark. Under that understanding, a person may abandon or renounce the practice of the faith, but the sacramental effects of baptism cannot be reversed.
COMECE said baptismal registration expresses more than an administrative fact. It reflects the Church’s understanding of baptism as a covenant between God and the person and as an enduring sign of God’s faithfulness.
The bishops therefore maintained that erasing baptismal entries would affect how the Church safeguards and gives juridical expression to a central element of its sacramental faith.
Baptismal records: sacral permanence versus civil data rights
Catholic teaching distinguishes between the permanence of baptism itself and the administrative record of baptism.
Baptism imprints an indelible sacramental character and therefore cannot be repeated. The sacramental reality is not erased by later unbelief, departure from the Church, or any civil request.
The baptismal register, however, is not the sacrament. It is an ecclesiastical juridical record that documents an event and later facts affecting canonical status. Consequently, the Church can correct inaccurate entries, restrict access, and add subsequent annotations without claiming that the sacramental bond itself has been undone.
Under the 1983 Code, the pastor must record a baptism promptly, including the baptized person’s name, minister, parents, sponsors, witnesses, place and date of baptism, and place and date of birth. The register also records matters relevant to canonical status, such as confirmation, marriage, adoption, ordination, religious profession, and transfer between Churches sui iuris.
This gives the register several functions:
Because these records can have juridical importance, they must be signed, sealed, carefully preserved, and protected from outsiders.
A person may formally defect from the Catholic Church, and that fact can be annotated in the baptismal register. But the annotation does not mean that baptism has been cancelled. The competent ecclesiastical authority explicitly teaches that the baptismal bond is “ontological and permanent” and is not lost through defection.
Thus, the register should not simply be altered to state that baptism never occurred. It may instead contain an accurate marginal notation concerning the person’s subsequent canonical status.
This reflects an important Catholic distinction:
The supplied materials do not establish the civil law of any particular country, including the United States or the European Union. Therefore, the precise scope of rights such as access, correction, restriction, erasure, or objection remains legally unresolved here.
Nevertheless, Catholic practice provides principles relevant to the question. A parish should not treat a baptismal register as an ordinary commercial database. It is a restricted ecclesiastical archive containing records with sacramental and juridical significance. The Code expressly requires protection against unauthorized access.
At the same time, ecclesiastical recordkeeping does not justify inaccurate or defamatory information. The older canonical tradition emphasized completeness, accuracy, preservation, and the prohibition of derogatory notes, although that historical source should not be substituted for current civil or canonical regulations.
Accordingly, a sound approach is:
“Sacral permanence” applies primarily to the baptismal character and the fact of baptism, not to every detail of a parish database. Civil data rights can properly govern access, security, correction, minimization, and disclosure. They do not, on the evidence supplied, establish a right to require the Church to deny or erase an objectively true sacramental event. The unresolved question is how a particular civil jurisdiction balances those interests in concrete cases.