Vatican Orders Records Withheld from Mormons

The Catholic News Service has published an article about new Vatican orders to not cooperate with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the microfilming of records. The Vatican wishes to block posthumous rebaptisms by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a practice that Catholics, Jews, and some others find objectionable.

Catholic dioceses throughout the world have been directed by the Vatican not to give information in parish registers to the Mormons' Genealogical Society of Utah.

An April 5 letter from the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, obtained by Catholic News Service in late April, asks episcopal conferences to direct all bishops to keep the Latter-day Saints from microfilming and digitizing information contained in those registers.

The order came in light of "grave reservations" expressed in a January 29 letter from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the clergy congregation's letter said.

You can read more at http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802443.htm.

Comments

[Gloria Ishida]

As a Lutheran I also object in principle but actually, because of my denomination's beliefs, re-baptism doesn't mean a thing, especially posthumous. I have only come across one ancestor's "re-baptism" - an English Sussex gggg grandfather from the 1700's - in Seattle. It is ironic, however, that until, perhaps Vatican II, the Catholic church required the "re-baptism" of Protestant converts (living ones, of course). I know this as a fact as my Dad's family are Roman Catholic.

[Genie]

If the Catholic church doesn't recognize the validity of the LDS baptism, then what is the problem? Just sounds very controlling of the Catholic church. It's a shame they couldn't have exercised this much control over their abusive priests.

[Lois Mackin]

I respect the Vatican's concern about LDS church members potentially using microfilmed records to perform a practice that Catholics find objectionable.

However, this Vatican position begs the real question--the LDS church, by microfilming and digitizing parish register records, is preserving those records and making them available to researchers all over the world.

How does the Vatican, as the steward for these records, propose to preserve them and make them available for legitimate historical research?

[Sherri]

I sometimes go to the Mormon Genealogical Library. No one checks on my religion. They let me in to use their records freely. Why do the Catholics care about the posthumous baptism if they believe it has no effect? It makes me wonder if they are actually poised to exchange information for money...

[Diane]

Based on the excessive charges I've been quoted for seeking information regarding burials at cemeteries and other church records, it does make one wonder.

[Dae Powell]

Diane:

Huh? WHAT excessive charges have you been quoted by the LDS Church? All their information has been gathered by volunteers and offered freely. Does the Catholic Church excessively charge for access to their records? I'm confused.

Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com

[Oxa]

For all those who don't understand what the big deal is, it isn't just that posthumous baptism is considered "objectionable" by the Catholic Church. Per Catholic doctrine, it's heresy. Giving sacramental records to the LDS, knowing full well that they will commit heresy with them, simply facilitates a grave sin. What you're asking the pope and priests to do is compromise their principles and faith, risking the loss of salvation, simply so some hobbyist genealogists can have access to sacramental records. Sounds pretty self-centered to me.

As to record preservation, the FHL isn't the only organization capable of microfilming, digitizing, or preserving records. If the Catholic Church wants to preserve its sacramental records in that way, it will, without the FHL's help. It does have a history, after all, of preserving a large share of the great works of art from the Renaissance for all of humankind's benefit.

Bottom line-- these are private records, and they can and will do what they want with them.

[Lindsey]

The only cemetery in the area that is abandoned is an old Catholic one. The land is still owned by the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles The 'modern' Catholic cemetery in the area is the least cooperative and usually sends out a security guard to shoo-away grave photographers.

A long time ago I realized that Catholics tend to be embarrassed by their ancestors, almost as if unconfessed sins lay hidden in the grave with them, and that genealogy can only expose dark secrets, mortal and venial, and can posthumously turn a saint into a sinner.

[Keith R. Armstrong-Bridges. CITP. MBCS]

Parish records are NOT private, they are and should be a public resource for use of any researcher.

Secrecy leads to Nazism.

[Jay]

I am responding to this because of the comments of Genie above.

I take offense to someone who says the Catholic Church couldn't control abusive priests. In the same mean-spiritedness, someone could question the Mormon's polygamist history and all of the splinter LDS branches like the compound that was recently busted in Texas where hundreds of children are abused by so called bishops. There is abuse in all religions, races & societies. This is a human problem not a religious problem.

The Catholic church microfilms its own records and is not a public institution. If they want to maintain their own records for whatever there purpose maybe no one is entitled to it. It costs money to maintain old documents and records and if charging a fee for a look up preserves the records than so be it.

I live in South Louisiana where the predominant religion is Roman Catholic. All of our Dioceses have published their sacramental records in easy to use volumes, by year, alphabetically. In one afternoon you can trace an entire family tree back to the early 1700s usually to France, Germany, Spain or Canada depending on where the family originated. There is no need to have these books on mircofilm. Anyone can purchase the books and most major genealogical libraries should have a set.

I have been to the FHL in SLC 5 times over the years, and I am very grateful for the Mormons' generosity and am truly amazed at their voluminous collection of microfilms. I am often asked by the personel or by other researchers if I am "LDS" and I simply say "no" and there is no further discussion on the matter. In other words, no one is trying to convert me over. So it's nice to that there can be friendly relations amongst people of different religions.

Most of the European church records prior to the 20th century have been microfilmed already. At least from my experience at Salt Lake there is the whole B1 Floor dedicated to European microfilms, thousands upon thousands of which are church records.

I do not think releasing current information to the LDS will hinder anyones genealogy research. Enough civil public records will exist for future generations to conduct genealogical research, and that's if the Federal & State Government don't clamp down on "Privacy laws" where one day in the future you won't even be able to look up a marriage document in a courthouse.

Those of around today are aware of the Mormon church and can join freely if we like. One of the tenets of genealogy playing so important of a role in the Mormon church, as I understand it, is that sealing names of dead ancestors in temples gives the dead the opportunity to be a part of the church that was started in the mid-1800s (in Religions, rather recently) and never heard the message of Joseph Smith.

[John McCoy]

Are church records "private records"? In modern times, this argument might hold water. However, before the advent of true civil registration, as late as the early 1900's in some parts of the US, church records were regarded by civil authorities in many places as proof of citizenship, proof of marriage, etc. When the US government wanted veterans applying for pensions to provide proof of marriage, proof of death of a previous wife, birth dates of children, etc., church records were one of the possible sources for this information. In many areas where I have research experience, church records were regarded as the equivalent of "civil registration", and in many archives, these records are actually labeled as such. Governments that recognized this fact have required these records to be deposited in civil archives in many parts of the world. While it is true that church records document various sacraments, they are also history and legal proof of events that have significance in civil law, and have been recognized as having this significance for almost as long as these records have been kept.

[Christopher Barttels]

I see that "Catholic bashing" is alive and well, even in the genealogy field. I find it disgusting.

[Leslie in Canada]

Posting by Jay says it all. Please refrain from Catholic bashing... it is every bit as nauseating as anything done and already apologised for by that denomination. I am not Catholic, but respect their faith and I think they have a right to their own material and we do not. Anything given out should be considered a privilige and we should be thankful for it. Since when do Muslims or Jews or Hindu's give out information they gathered? Would they be under such blatant attack if they witheld information because they considered it private? Think before you bash just because you can't have something for free.

[Oxa]

The significance of records has nothing to do with their ownership. The argument that Catholic Church records are public because of the uses to which they have been put is specious, at best. If that were the case, then probably every record type in the world is public because at some time or other it was used as a source of information in a government proceeding. Tell that to funeral homes, fraternal organizations, funeral homes, corporations, etc.

Governments that have required the public archiving of church records are primarily those that have had established state religions. The US has never had an established state religion.

[Ed]

I have a problem!
Is the issue that Mormons "rebaptise" previously baptised people without their knowledge? I.e.straight from some record and not in person?
If so, why would Catholics go into a quasi theological dither by arguing they are saving someones's soul by refusin a public record? It would seem to me that such a rebaptism under those conditions has no validity. It's like a foreign goverment copying my passport (say China) and making me one their citizens. Does that make me a communist ? Dear Lord, that would frighten me more than if I discovered in the hereafter I'd have to chose whether I'm Catholic or Mormon. I do believe that Jesus would judge me otherwise (like how many times I have missed turning the other cheek).

[Dennis]

The LDS church doesn’t release baptism or temple records to the public, what is the difference?

[Mariann Michaels]

Well said Jay; and thank you Christopher and Leslie. I get very tired of the constant comments made against the Catholic Church. Sorry but no religion is 100% perfect and only God will make the decision in the end of who will get into heaven. There are some genealogy records that belong to private individuals (ex. bibles and letters) and organizations (try to get records from the masons) and churches. Whether or not they are released to anyone else is solely at their discretion. Be grateful for what you do have and get on with your life and research.

[Liza]

I have to say this issue has crossed my mind many times--just what might I be subjecting my ancestors to when I share my information and research? The answer all depends on your faith and belief of course. Following the old adage "better safe than sorry", it has been my practice to NOT share my research with LDS as none of my family or ancestors are members, yet somehow some of my research has ended up there in their IGI in anyways. Obviously someone I've shared my research with has had LDS connections. This re-purposing of my research is disturbing to me. And this brings us back to the copyright issue. So what do we do? Close our research/archives as the Catholic Church is doing? Perhaps. The bottom line is it is near-impossible to control information once you release it.
And just to indicate my bias, I consider myself a spiritual athiest who, I hope, demonstrates respect for other faiths and beliefs.

[Ross]

I'm laughing on the outside while crying on the inside. Apparently small minds needs small issues to keep them busy. This is just one more example of how large groups of people are kept at each others throats in the name of religion. We could well do without any of it.

[Seth Bookey]

While I have benefited greatly from the LDS microfilming everything in sight and helping me find a variety of Jewish family records, I am offended by their repeated "baptising" of the Jewish dead. It's patently offensive, but, what can you do?

It would be great if the Vatican created its OWN repository and made it widely available. Even if they had a nominal charge, so what? At least it would be available.

There's room for more than one genealogical powerhouse in this world.

[Eileen Cook]

I also am Lutheran and what the LDS church does is not of importance to me. It means nothing. I cling to the Bible as truth and there is not one notation that I know of that commands REbaptisim. My heart is at ease.

[An innocent bystander]

Here's an interesting article by the former Harvard Dean of Divinity, Krister Stendahl, about the ancient Christian practice of baptism for the dead. After he retired he became the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/baptism_history.html

The Apostle Paul approved of baptisms for the dead according to Stendahl, but the practice was later outlawed by the Roman Catholic Church. Very interesting.

I've reviewed the article in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. There is abundant evidence that early Christians performed baptisms for their dead family members and friends.

[Art]

Catholic Church records are not public records. They are church records that are made available to those that have a need for the information. I would imagine that most churches would charge for the information simply because they need the revenue, however small that charge may be. If you don't like a fee, that is not a church's problem - it's your problem.

[An innocent bystander]

In this YouTube Video you can listen to Lutheran Bishop Stendahl and Jewish scholars discuss LDS temples in positive terms: http://mormonvideos.blogspot.com/2008/04/mormon-temple-video-ancient-and-modern.html

[Rose]

Very interesting to hear of this ruling by the Catholic church. Then where will we get the information we seek? I tried to get information on my uncle from a local Catholic church and I was told that it was the practice of the church not to give out information on deceased members.