Proxy Baptisms

There is a blog I like to read, www.timesandseasons.org, and while I read lots of the posts, I also like to read the "notes from all over" section on the right (when you scroll down). It is a list of links to various articles, blog posts, etc., that are of intereste to various members of times and seasons. I read one yesterday that I thought was worth sharing:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDU4NDgzYTdjMzE5NTJmYTk5YWMyYTMwMTg2MmRiMGQ=
This is a great article basically about the hypocrisy of the public schools in resisting "abstinence-only" in sex education, while embracing other "abstincence only" teachings.

There was also a regular posting on T&S about the following article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2010359/posts?page=1
Apparently the Catholic church has recently instructed all their dioces not to make church historical records available to the LDS church. This is disappointing. I found the comments to be very interesting. I boiled down the opposition into four categories:
a) Baptisms for the dead is an "insult to the memory" of deceased Catholics. The evidence for this is given by several commentors who asked "wouldn't LDS people be insulted if other people used LDS historical records to nullify ordinances (or other variations on this theme)?" I thought this was just a silly question. Of course I wouldn't be insulted. I sincerely can't think how I would care in the slightest. I really can't think that people are really so outraged by this "proxy offense" alone, at least, not if they had even the slightest understanding of what proxy baptism really is.
I have to say, I think the concept of being insulted on someone else's behalf is bewildering. And also the root cause for the political correctness that is strangling this country. I highly doubt my deceased ancestors are "insulted" by anything happening on this earth right now. Saddened, maybe, happy, sure, but insulted? I doubt it. I think they probably have a little broader perspective than we do by now. So why on earth (or in Heaven) should I be insulted on their behalf, by anything? Especially for something that I think is completely meaningless?
b) Giving the LDS church access to these records for purposes of proxy baptisms is in effect giving legitimacy to the church and its practices. "Encouraging" us if you will. The only way I can see that this would be a real sticking point for anyone is if they really just plain don't like Mormons. I personally think this is at the real root of the opposition. No logical reasons, just plain antipathy. They don't like us, don't like our teachings, and don't want to give us anything to feel good about.
c) By performing proxy baptisms, the LDS church is essentially saying that other faiths "aren't good enough," and that is insulting. Well, of course this is true! I'm not sure why this is such a shock. It's not exactly a secret that we believe we are the only true church, and that ordinances performed by the priesthood as restored by Joseph Smith is the only way to salvation. It's sort of the whole point of the restoration, the whole theme of the Joseph Smith story. Other religions should be insulted just by our existence (and I think many are), not necessarily by proxy baptisms.
But the shoe also fits the other foot. The Catholic church has said that LDS baptisms will not be considered valid should a previously LDS baptized person wish to join the Catholic church (although the Catholic church will accept other protestant baptisms). The same is true for other (all?) protestant churches. So... shouldn't we have just as much right to be offended as they say they are by our proxy baptisms?
d) The LDS church agreed not to perform proxy baptisms for Holocaust victims, so what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. The church should therefore not perform proxy baptisms for ancestors of any group of people who proclaim to be insulted by the practice.
But the reasoning doesn't apply to other groups. I can understand why the church has agreed not to perform proxy baptisms for holocaust victims-- the emotions of the families of these victims are understandably raw. Even though they really don't have anything to be offended about, we should show respect for the sensitivity the victim's relatives have regarding anything to do with their loved ones who died under such horrific circumstances, and for their religion, no less. We don't want to add to their pain in any way, even if the pain they would feel was based simply on a misunderstanding of our intentions.
However, this reasoning simply does not apply to other groups.

For the time being, I think the Church should definitely respect the Catholic church's wishes (as if we have a choice). And try to maintain good relations, and hopefully in the future there will be enough communication and understanding that the records will once again be made available.

I know the LDS church is widely misunderstood. It's still distressing to see the extent to which we are misunderstood.