The EWTN News portal (National Catholic Register) reports on an opinion by Advocate General Laila Medina of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dated October 1, 2026, asserting that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may compel the erasure of names from Catholic baptismal registers upon individual request. The Diocese of Ghent, contesting a deletion demand, had merely struck through the petitioner’s name while retaining the legible entry—a half-measure Medina dismissed as insufficient “erasure.” The “Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union” (COMECE) whimpered that baptismal registers are “records of historical events” and “fundamental evidentiary instruments,” while the usurper antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) reportedly deemed the issue “very important.” This sordid spectacle of the conciliar sect begging a Masonic superstate for permission to keep its own sacramental records is the inevitable fruit of Vatican II’s surrender to laicism and the repudiation of the Social Kingship of Christ.
The Conciliar Hierarchy Has No Standing Before God or Caesar
The very actors in this farce—”bishops” of Ghent, “cardinals” of COMECE, the “pope” Leo XIV—are canonical nullities. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, “a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church” (De Romano Pontifice). The “Defense of Sedevacantism” file demonstrates conclusively that the line of usurpers beginning with John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) has publicly defected from the Catholic Faith through the heresies of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality enshrined in Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Lumen Gentium. Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code declares that an office becomes vacant ipso facto “if the cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” No declaration is needed; the defection itself effects the vacancy. Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio confirms that promotion of a heretic “even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void, and of no effect.” Therefore, the “Diocese of Ghent” is a legal fiction, its “bishop” a layman, its registers the private archives of a schismatic sect. They possess zero ecclesiastical authority to negotiate with the EU, let alone to administer sacraments.
The EU Court Usurps Potestas Sacra: A Direct Violation of Quas Primas and the Syllabus
Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), proclaims with unshakeable authority: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The encyclical condemns the “plague of secularism, so-called laicism” which “began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations; the Church’s authority to teach men, to issue laws, to govern nations… was denied.” The EU Court’s claim to adjudicate the content of baptismal registers is the reductio ad absurdum of this laicism. The Syllabus of Errors (1864) anathematizes the proposition that “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights” (Error 19). It condemns the error that “The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government” (Error 20) and that “In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails” (Error 42). The Advocate General’s opinion is not merely a legal opinion; it is an act of war by the Civitas Diaboli against the Civitas Dei. That the conciliar “bishops” respond with bureaucratic pleadings about “historical events” and “evidentiary instruments” rather than anathematizing this usurpation proves they serve Caesar, not Christ.
Baptismal Registers Are Not “Data”: They Are Titles to the Kingdom
The linguistic surrender in the article is theological apostasy. The “bishops” reduce the Liber Baptizatorum to “personal data,” “a list of members,” “historical events,” “evidentiary instruments.” This is the language of the GDPR, not the language of the Council of Trent. The Roman Catechism (Tridentine) teaches that baptismal registers record the character indelebilis—the indelible spiritual mark configuring the soul to Christ the High Priest. St. Thomas Aquinas (ST III, q. 63, a. 5) teaches this character is “a certain spiritual power” ordained to the worship of God. It is ontological, not administrative. To “erase” a name at the demand of the baptized apostate is to simulate the annihilation of the sacramental character—a blasphemous impossibility. The “bishops'” argument that erasure would “constitute an infringement on the substance of the sacrament” is correct in conclusion but heretical in premise: they imply the sacrament’s substance is vulnerable to civil law. Non possumus. The register is a testimony to God’s act, not man’s record. As Pius XI writes: “You were redeemed not with corruptible gold or silver… but with the precious blood of Christ… We no longer belong to ourselves, for Christ has bought us with a great price.” The baptized man belongs to Christ; the EU owns nothing.
The “Case-by-Case Assessment”: Solomonic Judgment by the Synagogue of Satan
Medina’s proposal of a “case-by-case assessment” by secular judges over sacramental records is the apotheosis of Error 54 of the Syllabus: “Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.” It inverts the divine order. Lamentabili sane exitu (1907) condemns the Modernist proposition that “The organic structure of the Church is subject to change… Dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy… are merely modes of explanation and stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness” (Props. 53-54). The GDPR regime treats the Church as a mutable “data controller” subject to the “data subject’s” autonomy—the very autonomy of reason condemned by Pius IX (Error 3) and Pius X. The conciliar sect’s acceptance of this framework—evidenced by their engagement in the litigation rather than refusal in limine—is formal adhesion to Modernism.
Leo XIV’s “Concern”: The Antipope’s Theatrics
The article notes that “Pope Leo XIV has also expressed concern… he ‘considers the issue very important.'” This is the theater of the abomination of desolation. A true Pope would not “express concern” to a Masonic tribunal; he would issue a Motu Proprio forbidding any cooperation under pain of excommunication, citing Quas Primas: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate.” Leo XIV (Prevost) is a manifest heretic, a promoter of the Fratelli Tutti syncretism, a disciple of the “synodal” democracy. His “concern” is the concern of a usurper fearing loss of control over the assets of the neo-church. He cares nothing for the character indelebilis; he cares for the patrimonium of the conciliar corporation.
The Only Solution: Rejection of the Neo-Church and Return to the Catacombs
This case exposes the total bankruptcy of the “recognize-and-resist” delusion (Lefebvrians, FSSP, indult “traditionalists”). They recognize the usurpers as legitimate authorities, yet expect those authorities to defend the Faith against the very Modernism they embody. It is a contradiction in terms. The Defense of Sedevacantism file proves the See is vacant. The true Church—Ecclesia militans—subsists in the remnant clergy and faithful who hold the integral Faith, the Tridentine Mass, and the pre-1958 discipline. They keep their own baptismal registers, answerable only to Christ the King. The Ghent “diocese” registers belong to the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican. Let the EU erase them; they are already spiritually null. The true baptismal records are written in the Book of Life, which no Advocate General, no EU Court, no antipope can touch. Regnabit usque donec ponat inimicos sub pedibus suis (1 Cor 15:25). Christ the King reigns; the gates of hell shall not prevail.
Source:
European Data Rules May Allow Erasure of Baptismal Records, EU Court Adviser Says (ncregister.com)
Date: 01.10.2026