Following the publication of a highly influential opinion on a legal case in the European Union (EU) that could compel Catholic parishes to delete baptismal records, the legal advisor for the EU’s bishops’ conferences said the opinion is disappointing and concerning.
Speaking to Crux Now, Alessandro Calcagno, Adviser on Legal Affairs for the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE), said that last Thursday’s opinion by Advocate General Leila Medina suggested an “insufficient understanding of the nature and importance of recording baptism in a Church register”.
He also said it could lead to an infringement of the Church’s religious freedom.
While the opinion of Medina is non-binding, the opinions of advocate general’s in EU cases are often followed.
“We are disappointed and concerned. The opinion proposes to reject the solution of having a marginal annotation of the wishes of the baptized added in the register in case of erasure requests,” Calcagno told Crux Now.
The Bisdom Gent case involves a Belgian national who was baptized as a child and subsequently asked the diocese of Ghent to delete all reference to him from any physical or digital register or archive, relying on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The diocese struck through all reference to him, while keeping his data in a legible form. He lodged a complaint with the Belgian Data Protection Authority which then ordered the diocese to delete his personal data entirely.
The diocese then challenged that decision in a Belgian court, which then sought the input from the European Court of Justice.
While the case has not been decided yet, Medina found that the right to erasure under GDPR may in principle be applied to personal data contained in baptismal registers.
Calcagno said that the opinion showed that the Church’s understanding of baptism was not properly understood, and forcing the Church to delete baptismal records would be an infringement on religious freedom.
“Baptism reflects the covenant between God and the human person and the enduring faithfulness of God. The lasting character of baptism is therefore not only a matter of administration or canon law, but it is rooted in the Church’s faith and sacramental understanding,” he said.
“Seen in this way, the case also touches upon the freedom of the Church to give institutional expression to what it believes. An obligation to erase data from baptismal registers would therefore affect more than a system of record-keeping; it could affect the way in which the Church expresses and safeguards a central element of its sacramental faith,” he added.
“Requiring the Catholic Church to erase the data contained in it, thereby intervening directly in its organization, would constitute a serious infringement upon Church autonomy and institutional freedom of religion,” he emphasized.
Calcagno said that what was at stake was a lot more than just deleting data.
“It [the case] also raises a deeper question: to what extent may EU data protection law require a church to change the way in which it gives visible and juridical expression to its faith?” he asked.
The full interview between Crux Now and Calcagno is below.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Crux Now: The advocate general said that the right to erasure under GDPR could apply to this case. What is your reaction to this?
Alessandro Calcagno: We are disappointed and concerned. The opinion proposes to reject the solution of having a marginal annotation of the wishes of the baptized added in the register in case of erasure requests. Jurisprudence at the national level in the EU member states had been consistently in favor of this option, on the basis of extensive and solid legal arguments.
I would quote two examples from the many countries which adopted this approach in the EU: the data protection authority in Ireland in 2023, which contained an extensive and meticulous analysis of the question, and the highest courts in France, which also followed the same line, most recently in 2024.
While in a number of regards the opinion proposes to leave room to the national courts, we feel that the vital nature of baptismal registers has not been taken into sufficient consideration.
We are concerned about the legal uncertainty that the orientation provided could create, if confirmed by the Court, for thousands of parishes across the EU, as well as about the unnecessary burden it would cause on parishes with limited administrative capacity.
The advocate general also said a religious community keeping records when a person wishes to disassociate themselves could cause “emotional distress” and affect that person’s “right to self-determination.” What is the significance of this?
We believe it is juridically problematic to give significant weight to emotional aspects in assessing this legal question. This may also open the door to instrumentalizations and abuses.
We hope the Court will not take these elements into account in its final ruling, also considering that the arguments put forward by the opinion in support of them are, in our view, unconvincing.
Is there anything in the advocate general’s opinion that you find encouraging?
Certainly Church autonomy, institutional freedom of religion and the importance of correct administration of the sacraments are taken into account in the extensive opinion issued by the Court’s advocate general.
The detailed analysis concerning ‘legitimate interest’ as a ground for processing within the Church, formulated in the first part of the opinion, is very important and positive, as it concerns the main ground used by the Church to process data in its daily activities.
Furthermore, although this is by no means sufficient, no general or automatic right to erase data from baptismal records is recognized in the opinion.
The Church has argued strongly against erasing baptismal records. Why? What is at stake in this case?
This case is not only about whether certain personal data should be retained. It also raises a deeper question: to what extent may EU data protection law require a church to change the way in which it gives visible and juridical expression to its faith? This is especially important in relation to baptism.
For the Church, in fact, baptism is not simply a historical event that took place once and was later recorded. It’s registration also expresses a content of faith.
Baptism reflects the covenant between God and the human person and the enduring faithfulness of God. The lasting character of baptism is therefore not only a matter of administration or canon law, but it is rooted in the Church’s faith and sacramental understanding.
Seen in this way, the case also touches upon the freedom of the Church to give institutional expression to what it believes. An obligation to erase data from baptismal registers would therefore affect more than a system of record-keeping; it could affect the way in which the Church expresses and safeguards a central element of its sacramental faith.
As it is easy to understand, this is not only about an administrative interest of a data controller, but it concerns the institutional dimension of freedom of religion and the freedom of the Church to live, organize and express its faith.
How does this case effect religious freedom?
The Church’s freedom of organization is not merely institutional in an abstract sense. The registration of baptisms is not simply an administrative record, it also reflects a theological reality and has continuing relevance within the ecclesial structure of the Church.
It also expresses the particular relationship which, from the Church’s perspective, remains relevant even when a person later distances himself or herself from the Church. This in no way impedes or prevents the person concerned from exercising freedom of conscience or from making clear that he or she no longer wishes to be regarded as a practising or believing Catholic.
All these elements have been expressed in a clear and concise way in the note issued by the Holy See’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts in April 2025. 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 organization, would constitute a serious infringement upon Church autonomy and institutional freedom of religion.
It seems this case hinges on a fundamentally different understanding of what baptism is. How can these differences be reconciled?
Indeed, we note an insufficient understanding of the nature and importance of recording baptism in a Church register. Erasing the name and surname of a baptized person from a baptismal record effectively deprives the record of the baptism itself of its meaning, value and purpose.
This crucial aspect seems to have been neglected. Moreover, the impact of erasure on the interests and rights of third parties, which is linked to this question, is also lacking in the Opinion.
In general, it will be important that the Court does not link baptismal registers with the concept of ‘membership’ applicable e.g. to associations under civil law. Baptismal registers are not ‘lists of members’.
If the Court eventually rules that the Church must delete baptismal records to comply with GDPR, are there any other steps available?
At this stage, it is too early to draw conclusions or envisage concrete tools, and therefore, it is not yet possible to answer this question.
As the opinion already demonstrates, even if the EU Court should ultimately rule in favor of erasure, there are many nuances to consider, which can only be assessed once the Court has had its final say.
In case of a negative decision, extensive reflection will be required involving COMECE, its member bishops’ conferences and respective legal experts, as well as the Holy See, to determine how best to respond in practice, taking into account the applicable national legal system.
