-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Utah Catholic Bishop Clarifies Vatican Directive No To Release Parish Names
- Thread starter zippythepinhead
- Start date
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Just FYI.... I don't know who decided to stir up this hornets nest... the Bishop there seems to invite trouble. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (the Bishop's boss) has a clear directive not to release private information other than to family members... why this letter was needed in addition to that I have no idea....????
Smoke
Done here.
The bishop's "clarification" is pretty stupid, anyway:
"In a baptismal record, for example, there could be a whole list of maiden names that somebody might want to use for not-so-good purposes, to break into a computer and get that like a password. Maybe somebody was adopted and the natural parents are not known, that kind of thing," Bishop Wester said.
Now, I know for certain the the Mormons will take information on living people if it's offered; I've seen church records going up to 1965 or so myself. However, that's not really what they're after; they're certainly not performing proxy ordinances on living people. If that were the real issue, the Catholic Church would happily continue to allow microfilming of records prior to, say, 1900.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
No damage control... none needed... it's not like the RCC position on the LDS is a secret... and that is what makes the letter just plain overkill.
On all the church databases I've ever looked at, the name is missing/blocked if the person is still alive. There may be databases where that isn't the case, but I haven't looked at them before.
There is damage done. I never had bad feelings towards the Roman Catholic church. I do now. I know I'm not alone because I've talked with people about this.
The pope is within his right to parade around and continue his arrogant approach to inter-faith relations (he's also created some bad feelings with the protestant churches, if you remember), but don't be surprised when people don't smile after he slaps them.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
You do now? Because of this letter?
The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize LDS baptisms as valid (the only non-Catholic Christian group to get this disctinction) and don't consider the LDS a valid "church".... but this letter got ya mad?
Yep. I don't care if they recognize our baptisms - I think it's silly that they recognize the baptism from any other church because I consider baptism not only a commitment to Christ, but also a commitment to the church. I guess you wouldn't see it that way since a baby can't make a commitment to anything. As for whether or not we're a "church," the Catholic church doesn't consider protestants a valid "church" either. Big whoop. We believe that the Catholics are apostate, you believe we're heretics. If we believed any differently, then we'd probably be converting to a different religion.
I do care when the Catholic Church starts trying to put up roadblocks that target a specific church in an aim to prevent its members from practicing their religion. You know as well as anyone that the only old records of births, marriages, deaths, etc. in many countries are the church records. The SL parish is saying that if an individual came in that they'd let them look at the records, but I know from experiences in my family that it's hard enough to do genealogy in some of these churches when they find out that you're Mormon. This letter aims to make that even more difficult.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
OK... I was just confused.
Easy now... this is not a debate thread and you don't know what you're talking about....
I understand now.. thanks.
Peace,
S
Smoke
Done here.
Oh, no, I haven't seen them in databases, just on microfilms. German churches during the 1970s sometimes allowed all their archived records to be microfilmed on the condition that the films not be loaned in Europe.
Anyway, I'd never use my mother's maiden name for security purposes; it's too easy to find out. Obituaries, for instance. When asked for my mother's maiden name, I always give a fake name.
Gotcha. I've never looked at the microfilm. They extract the names out of them into databases, and I've only searched these. It would be possible that living people are included in these, but they don't make them available on the internet. My understanding is that you have to go to a Family History Center and order them.
I guess there's no reason for me to care about this personally. My genealogy is pretty much done (one of the benefits of having lots of professional genealogists in the family). I'd like to go through and verify the information, but every time I've tried my head feels like it will explode.
I guess there's no reason for me to care about this personally. My genealogy is pretty much done (one of the benefits of having lots of professional genealogists in the family). I'd like to go through and verify the information, but every time I've tried my head feels like it will explode.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Since you brought it up.... yes.... Confirmation completes the initiation process started by baptism.
Well, at least I got something right.
I'd better go to bed before I push my luck. I remember reading on your blog that you don't like discussing religion with Mormons, and I don't want to do any more damage than I've already done.
idea
Question Everything
If they do not recognize our baptisms, what does it matter to them? When I was little my grandmother had me "sprinkled" in a Catholic church behind my parents back - my parents could care less because they knew it did not mean or change anything, if it made her feel better, then whatever.
Anyways, if the Catholics really thought it did not mean anything, they would not be worried about it. They are worried about it, meaning that they do think it means something. They are right, our baptisms actually do something
madhatter85
Transhumanist
If they do not recognize our baptisms, what does it matter to them? When I was little my grandmother had me "sprinkled" in a Catholic church behind my parents back - my parents could care less because they knew it did not mean or change anything, if it made her feel better, then whatever.
Anyways, if the Catholics really thought it did not mean anything, they would not be worried about it. They are worried about it, meaning that they do think it means something. They are right, our baptisms actually do something
I woudl be ****** if my mother-in-law (she is RC) did that to my daughter when she is born.
not because i think it changes anything, but because of the deciet and mistrust. They know i'm LDS they know thier daughter is LDS, it should not matter to them at all.
zippythepinhead
Your Tax Dollars At Work
Would you allow Catholic baptism if it made your mother-in-law feel better, even though you would have your child properly baptized at age 8?
SoyLeche
meh...
Living people can have "Ancestral File Numbers" - but I'm not sure what good that does.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
No because it is up to the child and not her.
also, because of Moroni Chapter 8, "Infant baptism is an evil abomination before the Lord"
would you want your child to participate in anything you consider to be an "Evil abonination?"
Please our catholic friends, do not take offense, we can still be friends while recognizing doctrinal differences. It's just how the Book of Mormon puts it and i am trying to make a point.