The Catholic Church preferred to mention the “denial” of the baptism of a Catholic who, for his part, requested the erasure of all mention. Taking advantage of the GDPR, he came up against the Council of State. Clubic deciphers the decision.
It’s a matter of personal data, let’s say, rather unusual, that the members of the Council of State had to decide. An individual of Catholic faith, who wanted to be rebaptized, was faced with refusal from the Church and therefore, in February 2020, contacted the CNIL to win his case. But the data policeman preferred to refer the file to the Council of State, which ended up deciding… in favor of the diocesan association of Angers. But why then?
The GDPR does not apply to an individual who wishes to be “unnamed”
The refusal to be renamed in the name of the GDPR, the European regulation on data protection, sparked debates up to the Council of State, when deciding the request of a Catholic who wished to exercise his right of erasure and opposition to the processing of data appearing in the baptismal register of the diocese of Angers.
The Church refused, explaining that the register was only used to “ keep track of an event » which, in his eyes, constitutes the entry of an individual into the Christian community. The diocese explained that baptism was notably required “ to get married “. Removing the trace of baptism would then amount to depriving the individual of their right to a Catholic religious marriage.
This argument, in part, hit the mark with the Council of State, in its decision of February 2, 2023 read on February 2, 2024. The highest administrative court approves the Church’s decision and the explanation according to which erasing a baptism would pose problems for those who wish to reintegrate the Christian community, with a view to a religious marriage for example, as we explained.
The Church proposes an unusual intermediate solution, accepted by the CNIL and the Council of State
The CNIL had already considered, at the time, that there was no valid reason for erasure within the meaning of the GDPR. The Council of State also validated this reasoning, emphasizing that the inclusion of data in the baptism register does not constitute unlawful processing of information. He also mentions the need to keep this data until the death of the person baptized.
For advisors, the retention of data on marital status, parentage and contact details is necessary. To “compensate” for the refusal to delete the mention from the register, the Angevin diocese was ready to mention, opposite the name of the person concerned, that he had “denied his baptism”. The CNIL, approved by the Council of State, found this proposal “satisfactory”, adding that it was sufficient to respond to the applicant’s right of opposition.
This decision by the Council of State in any case establishes a precedent concerning requests for renaming in the name of the GDPR. It highlights the importance of balancing individual rights and institutional interests, while preserving the specific nature of baptism records and the freedom of the Church to retain this data for legitimate reasons.
Sources: Board of state, LegalisClubic
12