I just finished writing about my late father’s own experience with it on my blog, Many Branches, One Tree, and have included a link to your post. If you’re interested, you can find it at http://manybranchesonetree.blogspot.com/2013/05/church-record-sunday-lifes-lessons-part.html

First, Catholic sacramental records are a treasure of the particular church (e.g., diocese and parish) responsible for their creation. A baptismal certificate is never denied to any Catholic who has a reasonable need for it. In my lifetime I have required certified copies of my own baptismal certificate prior to my confirmation and to my marriage. I have obtained copies of the baptismal records of many of my own immediate family members for legitimate needs (as an example, for establishing a delayed filing birth certificate for my late mother in law). Catholic families should take care to record this information within their own records, family Bibles, prayer books, and certificates; there used to be a page in every missal for this.

In many areas countries, Catholic registration of baptism is the only registration of birth available. Historically, this has been true for Mexico, Quebec, much of South America, and even in selected areas of the United States. Where the civil law requires that church records be divulged to civil authorities, they have been and will continue to be.

But here’s where the problem lies: not with the particular case, but with a general trend. Records management for these ancient (and arguably sacred) records has been a mixed bag. Some records have fallen out of Catholic control, just as some of our cemeteries have been sold over time as public parks. Contrapose this with LDS need: the LDS temple network stokes an undying hunger for “names” under which the faithful can stand proxy in vicarious rituals. Seemingly, the LDS have not yet developed a theology permitting anonymity of vicarious offerings; there must be a personal, historical attachment to a real, but formerly living, person.

Cash-poor diocesan authorities were falling into the trap of allowing the LDS missionaries to organize and microfilm the records in exchange for a “free copy” of the resulting microfilm. However, the microfilming contracts were apparently not reviewed closely; they surrendered literary rights to the material. Instant result, source for LDS “names”–and “controlled extraction”, or wholesale submission, of the aggregate contents of the records to the temples surely followed. An ongoing indexing effort even now is ensuring the “names” are processed even more efficiently; many of these records were filmed decades ago.

Yes, within the last year or so, virtual images of the actual documents are also appearing at http://www.familysearch.org. As a result, the names, birth dates, baptismal dates, First Communion dates, even confirmation dates of many living Catholics were suddenly being broadcast to the world from an LDS web site (I could cite examples of several prominent midwest dioceses for you!). Catholic records belong, by right and by canon law, to our ecclesiastic authority. The microfilm agreements compromised that, unwittingly. The LDS stance is that all the records of the world belong to them. Not so. The 2008 decree was vital, IMHO, to asserting the rights of Christ’s faithful to be secure in their own sacramental records. Again, IMHO, court action may be required to repeal or void the terms of the microfilming contracts.

Bottom line: diocese by diocese, world wide, the Church needs to do a better job of records management. Perhaps Pope Francis can encourage this by allowing the Vatican Archivists to complete their first-ever inventory of the collection!

If it had been the case, we would have known from his biography, since as a devout Catholic he would have grieved over it.

His priest was probably sceptical to Quenya and Sindarin, and to prove they were not diabolical he translated Our Father and Hail Mary into these languages.