The EWTN News portal reports that the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Laila Medina, has issued an opinion stating that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may compel the erasure of personal data from Catholic baptismal registers upon individual request. The case originates from the Diocese of Ghent in Belgium, which refused a demand for deletion, opting instead to strike through the name while retaining the entry. The “Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union” (COMECE) and the antipope “Leo XIV” (Robert Prevost) have voiced opposition, arguing that baptismal registers are “records of historical events” and that erasure would “infringe on the substance of the sacrament.” The court’s ruling is expected in 2026 or 2027. This controversy lays bare the total capitulation of the conciliar sect to the secular state and its utter loss of the supernatural sense of the sacraments, reducing the indelible character of Baptism to a mere data entry subject to the “right to be forgotten.”
The Juridical Farce: Rendering unto Caesar the Things of God
The very fact that the “Diocese of Ghent” and the “bishops’ conference” are pleading before a Masonic tribunal—the Court of Justice of the European Union—is a scandal crying to heaven for vengeance. They have voluntarily submitted the jus divinum (divine law) to the jus humanum (human law), acknowledging the competence of a secular court to adjudicate the validity and permanence of sacramental records. This is the direct fruit of the heresy of religious liberty proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council in Dignitatis Humanae, which taught that the civil state has no duty to repress false religion—a doctrine explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Proposition 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”—Condemned).
Pius IX taught infallibly: “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits” is an error (Prop. 39). Yet the neo-church operates as if the EU is the supreme legislator. The “bishops” argue that erasure would require a “shift in theological reflection” which is “protected by Church autonomy.” Autonomy? The Church does not possess autonomy; she possesses jurisdiction and infallibility derived from Christ the King. As Pius XI thundered in Quas Primas: “When God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The “bishops” do not appeal to the Kingship of Christ; they appeal to “Church autonomy”—a Masonic category designed to confine religion to the sacristy.
The Theological Bankruptcy: Baptism as “Data Processing”
The linguistic degradation in this affair is a precise indicator of the theological rot. The Advocate General speaks of “data processing in question,” “compelling legitimate grounds,” and rendering data “illegible.” The “bishops” concede the terminology, describing registers as a “fundamental evidentiary instrument” for managing “other records related to marriage and confirmation.” Nowhere is the word character indelebilis uttered. Nowhere is the Council of Trent cited.
The Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 9 on Baptism, declares: “If anyone says that in three ministers… the one who baptizes does not confer grace… let him be anathema.” And Canon 13: “If anyone says that the received Baptism can be repeated… let him be anathema.” The character impressed on the soul is indelibilis—it cannot be erased by any human power, not by the baptized, not by the priest, not by the bishop, and certainly not by a Euclidean algorithm in Luxembourg. St. Augustine, against the Donatists, taught that the sacrament is valid ex opere operato; the character remains even in the damned. To speak of “erasure” is to deny the ontology of the sacrament. It is to treat Baptism as a civil contract—a conventio—rather than a sacramentum.
The “bishops'” defense—that registers are “not merely a list of members” but a “record of historical events”—is a surrender of the supernatural order to the historical-critical method. They implicitly accept the Modernist premise condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (Prop. 53: “The organic structure of the Church is subject to change… subject to continuous evolution”). If Baptism is merely a “historical event,” then it is subject to historical revisionism. If it is a res sacramentalis, it is eternal. The “bishops” have chosen the former.
The Antipope’s Complicity: “Leo XIV” and the Religion of Man
The article notes that “Pope Leo XIV has also expressed concern… he ‘considers the issue very important.'” Robert Prevost, the current usurper of the See of Peter, manifests once again that he is not the Vicar of Christ but a functionary of the New World Order. A true Pope would not “express concern” to a Masonic court; he would issue a Syllabus condemning the GDPR as an instrument of the synagoga Satanae, forbidding any cooperation under pain of excommunication latae sententiae.
Pope Paul IV, in the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (1559), declared that any prelate who “has defected from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy” loses his office ipso facto, and his promotion is “null, void, and of no effect.” The “bishops” of COMECE and the antipope “Leo XIV,” by submitting the sacramental order to EU regulation, have defected from the faith. They have accepted the principle that the civil power has authority over the sacraments—a proposition condemned by the Syllabus (Prop. 44: “The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government”).
St. Robert Bellarmine, cited in the defense of sedevacantism, teaches: “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope… he cannot be the head of something of which he is not a member.” By recognizing the EU’s jurisdiction over baptismal registers, “Leo XIV” proves he is not a member of the Catholic Church, but the head of the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) occupying the Vatican.
The Symptomatic Level: The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution
This case is not an anomaly; it is the logical terminus of the conciliar revolution.
- False Ecumenism and Religious Liberty: The neo-church’s embrace of “religious freedom” (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae) emptied the Church’s coercive jurisdiction (potestas coactiva). Having renounced the right to bind consciences by law, she now finds herself bound by the laws of the secular state. Qui non habet potestatem ligandi, non habet potestatem defendendi (He who has not the power to bind, has not the power to defend).
- The “Hermeneutic of Continuity” Exposed: The pseudo-traditionalists (Lefebvrians, FSSP, Indultists) claim the “Traditional Latin Mass” can coexist with the new ecclesiology. This case proves the lie. The “bishops” defending the registers are the same men who implement the Novus Ordo, commune with heretics, and teach religious liberty. Their defense is not rooted in Quo Primum or Trent, but in “data protection impact assessments” and “legitimate interests.” They are those pretending to be traditional Catholics who conserve the rite but surrender the reality.
- Masonic Architecture: The EU is a Masonic construct (founded 1957, Treaty of Rome—year of the false Fatima “miracle” anniversary). The Advocate General’s name, Medina, and the ritualistic dates (2026 (current year)) follow the pattern exposed in the analysis of the Fatima operation: symbolism of dates, mass manipulation, disinformation strategy. The “miracle of the sun” was a natural phenomenon; the “miracle of GDPR compliance” is a juridical phenomenon. Both serve to dismantle the Church’s visibility.
The True Catholic Position: Non Possumus
The true Church, subsisting in the remnant faithful adhering to the integral Faith and valid sacraments (bishops ordained before 1968, priests of the old rite), gives one answer: Non possumus. We cannot erase what God has written on the soul. The baptismal register is not a database; it is a testimonium of the character indelebilis. If the secular power demands its destruction, the answer is that of the Martyrs: Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
Pius XI in Quas Primas instituted the Feast of Christ the King precisely against this plague: “This plague is the secularism of our times, so-called laicism… It began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations.” The GDPR is laicism codified. The “bishops'” appeal to “autonomy” is the whimper of a slave who has forgotten his Master.
Conclusion: The Registers of the Elect vs. The Databases of the Damned
The Book of Life (Apoc. 20:12) knows no “right to erasure.” “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the pool of fire.” The neo-church, by entertaining the possibility of erasure, reveals it does not believe in the Book of Life, but only in the spreadsheets of the EU. The Diocese of Ghent, COMECE, and “Leo XIV” have chosen their master: the Prince of this World.
Let the faithful flee the “sacraments” of the conciliar sect, which are administered by men who treat the character indelebilis as a GDPR liability. Let them seek the true Mass, the true priesthood, the true bishops—those who, like St. Athanasius, would rather die than allow a single iota of divine truth to be subjected to human legislation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The registers of the true Church are written in heaven; the databases of the neo-church are written in sand, soon to be erased by the tide of history—and by the just judgment of God.
Source:
European data rules may allow erasure of baptismal records, EU court adviser says (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 01.10.2026