Baptism- two godparents (sponsors) of the same sex

[josephnicolas]

Here is the situation:

Two men were chosen by the parents of the child to be the godparents and this was OK’d by the local priest.

The Code of Canon Law forbides this. So what happens now? Was the baptism illicit? Invalid? And are they both sponsors to the child? What should be done now? Should the parents be informed?

Sorry for all the questions

Thank you for the help.

 

[nightwalker]

Illicit, not invalid (which would require a defect in matter or form, neither of which include the sponsor(s)).

Someone should ask the priest (politely) to explain it, and depending on his response to raise the issue with the bishop, but definitely talking to the priest must come first.

If you are close to the parents you could also raise the issue with them.

 

[Phemie]

Illicit, not invalid (which would require a defect in matter or form, neither of which include the sponsor(s)).

Someone should ask the priest (politely) to explain it, and depending on his response to raise the issue with the bishop, but definitely talking to the priest must come first.

If you are close to the parents you could also raise the issue with them.

I wouldn’t raise it with the parents since there is nothing they can do about it. But I would definitely approach the priest with an "I’m curious and wondered why there were 2 godfathers at this baptism – I thought Canon Law said it had to be one man, one woman?

OTOH, I’ve seen literature that said that if it was a sponsor and a Christian witness the Christian witness didn’t have to be of the opposite sex. I don’t see any support for that in Canon Law but the different gender rule definitely refers to sponsors.

 

[nightwalker]

I wouldn’t raise it with the parents since there is nothing they can do about it. But I would definitely approach the priest with an "I’m curious and wondered why there were 2 godfathers at this baptism – I thought Canon Law said it had to be one man, one woman?

I’m unclear on whether the Baptism has happened?

If not, then the parents could correct it, otherwise you could still ask them why (if you have some prior relationship with them) they had two men, and casually remark that you “didn’t know that was allowed”. (thinking of future baptisms here)

I absolutely agree with the rest of your post, however.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As I recall it is illicit, but valid. All that is needed for validity is the water and the right words.

 

[Joannm]

The baptism is valid, however in the baptismal record of the parish only one of the two may be recorded as the Godparent since, as stated, you cannot have two Godparents of the same sex.

 

[Phemie]

The baptism is valid, however in the baptismal record of the parish only one of the two may be recorded as the Godparent since, as stated, you cannot have two Godparents of the same sex.

But believe me when you look at the registers you see all kinds of weird and wonderful things in them over the years: 4 godparents, 2 godmothers and 1 godfather, parents and godparents who signed the register (including the 4 godparents mentioned which was what told me it wasn’t a case of ‘proxy’), and in some cases in two parishes I deal with, the wrong people listed as the parents (baby given to a couple to raise, but not legally adopted, and given the name of the foster parents).

 

[Archerette74]

My oldest son has what we call 2 Godfathers (and no Godmother). But that’s not really the case. From what I understand (I could be wrong though) the one listed first was the Godfather and the other was a witness and is listed as such on the Baptismal Certificate.

And I have had other children baptized where one of the Godparents are Catholic and the spouse was not - so there is only officially one Godparent and the other was a witness. But they are both referred to as Godparents by my family.

I thought for a baptism you only HAVE to have ONE Godparent.
Is Canon Law clear on that? I don’t know. It could have been a priest that didn’t want to hurt my feelings wasn’t perfectly clear on it to me to avoid conflict?

 

[Phemie]

My oldest son has what we call 2 Godfathers (and no Godmother). But that’s not really the case. From what I understand (I could be wrong though) the one listed first was the Godfather and the other was a witness and is listed as such on the Baptismal Certificate.

And I have had other children baptized where one of the Godparents are Catholic and the spouse was not - so there is only officially one Godparent and the other was a witness. But they are both referred to as Godparents by my family.

I thought for a baptism you only HAVE to have ONE Godparent.
Is Canon Law clear on that? I don’t know. It could have been a priest that didn’t want to hurt my feelings wasn’t perfectly clear on it to me to avoid conflict?

Canon Law says ONE sponsor is required, male or female (some parishes insist on same-gender sponsors for adults going through RCIA but Canon Law doesn’t require that). It further adds that if TWO are used they must be one male, one female.

Canon law says nothing about the gender of a Christian witness and some of the teaching material I’ve read says that the gender of the Christian witness doesn’t matter vis-à-vis the gender of the Godparent.

In order to avoid confusion & upset, my parish requires different gender whether the second person is godparent or witness because often people stop listening at “No, I’m sorry you can’t have 2 godfathers” and just become furious because “Joe down the street had 2 godfathers for his son” and no amount of explanation will get past that initial fury.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Here is the situation:

Two men were chosen by the parents of the child to be the godparents and this was OK’d by the local priest.

The Code of Canon Law forbides this. So what happens now? Was the baptism illicit? Invalid? And are they both sponsors to the child? What should be done now? Should the parents be informed?

Sorry for all the questions

Thank you for the help.

The problem with this issue and many others in the Church is that of Catechesis. These parents who are presenting their child for Baptism have no sense of what the teachings of the Church are. Why we have Godparents and what they mean? Most don’t have a clue what the Sacrament of Baptism is about. The Sponsors themselves have no clue most of the time about Church teaching and practice. I’ve talked with a Godparent after a Baptism and they told me they hadn’t been in a Catholic Church in more than 15 years! But they were thinking about returning after that service. Well that’s good, BUT!

 

[CradleCath]

The problem with this issue and many others in the Church is that of Catechesis. These parents who are presenting their child for Baptism have no sense of what the teachings of the Church are. Why we have Godparents and what they mean? Most don’t have a clue what the Sacrament of Baptism is about. The Sponsors themselves have no clue most of the time about Church teaching and practice. I’ve talked with a Godparent after a Baptism and they told me they hadn’t been in a Catholic Church in more than 15 years! But they were thinking about returning after that service. Well that’s good, BUT!

AMAZING. Why would people who are members of the Church in name only go to all the trouble & expense (though it’s minor) to have their child baptized?? I think maybe I can answer that myself, but would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on this answer:

  Baptism to them is a "cute" ceremony & an opportunity to  
  have a party at their home.

  These parents really love their faith, but something (or 
  someone is holding them back from practicing it. Still they 
  want more for their child.

I have a friend whose son married a non-Catholic in a Protestant Church. She was pregnant & they felt they couldn’t wait the nine months required for the Sacrament of Matrimony in the Church.
(Big mistake, imo., pregnancy is not a good reason to enter marriage.)
At the time, the bride said that they would have their marriage blessed in the Church, but after the marriage she changed her mind. YET, she agreed that their babies could be Baptized in the Church??? I don’t understand this mentality at all.

Also, I was taught that the purpose of the Godparents was to act as Catholic parents should something happen to the biological Mother & Father. This does not necessarily mean that the GP would physically raise the children…though often in past times, that’s exactly what happened. It DOES mean that the Godparents promise to do their VERY BEST to assure that said children are brought up in the true Faith should the biological parents die. This was, of course, more pertinent when life expectancy was far shorter than it is today. Still, that’s exactly what I expected from my children’s God parents if something had happened to us.

Being a God parent is a big responsiblity.
Could the OP let us know whether these two men were a homosexual “couple” or were they simply each a good friend to the parents?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

AMAZING. Why would people who are members of the Church in name only go to all the trouble & expense (though it’s minor) to have their child baptized?? I think maybe I can answer that myself, but would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on this answer:

Baptism to them is a “cute” ceremony & an opportunity to
have a party at their home.

These parents really love their faith, but something (or
someone is holding them back from practicing it. Still they
want more for their child.

I have a friend whose son married a non-Catholic in a Protestant Church. She was pregnant & they felt they couldn’t wait the nine months required for the Sacrament of Matrimony in the Church.
(Big mistake, imo., pregnancy is not a good reason to enter marriage.)
At the time, the bride said that they would have their marriage blessed in the Church, but after the marriage she changed her mind. YET, she agreed that their babies could be Baptized in the Church??? I don’t understand this mentality at all.

Also, I was taught that the purpose of the Godparents was to act as Catholic parents should something happen to the biological Mother & Father. This does not necessarily mean that the GP would physically raise the children…though often in past times, that’s exactly what happened. It DOES mean that the Godparents promise to do their VERY BEST to assure that said children are brought up in the true Faith should the biological parents die. This was, of course, more pertinent when life expectancy was far shorter than it is today. Still, that’s exactly what I expected from my children’s God parents if something had happened to us.

Being a God parent is a big responsiblity.
Could the OP let us know whether these two men were a homosexual “couple” or were they simply each a good friend to the parents?

May times these parents are simply “Cultural Catholics”. They are Catholic because they are supposed to be. They don’t know why they are supposed to be, just that they are supposed to be. They have no idea what the Church teaches or why. They don’t practice the faith or incorporate it into their everyday lives. Many have never fruitfully received the Sacrament of Confirmation either. If they did, they did it just because they were supposed to.

Catechesis, we need to be willing to put effort into teaching the faith, no matter how few seem to be willing to listen.

 

[Archerette74]

I’m having a hard time not taking these comments personally because I have chosen Godparents for 2 of my 4 children that are not the “norm”.

I feel the need to explain to make sure you all understand that not everyone makes these important decisions lightly or for the wrong reasons.

My first son has no Godmother and had 2 men stand as Godparents (officially only one of them a Godfather). They are not gay. One was my brother (unmarried and the time) and the other was my cousin (also unmarried at the time). We have already made arrangements for the children to be raised by Catholics upon our death. So these men stood to make a commitment to help raise our son in the Catholic faith and to be there for him throughout his spiritual growth in the RC faith. I had no Catholic female friends at that time to ask to be a Godparent and was unwilling to just ask someone I kinda sorta knew from church to step in. We knew we wanted to choose people who would help set a good Catholic example for our child throughout his entire life and so we knew we needed someone close to us and who would always be close to our family so that they could always be near to fulfill that important Godparent Commitment.

Another one of our children has one Godfather who is Catholic and his wife is not - she is not officially a Godparent but a witness - we refer to her as our daughters Godmother. They were engaged to be married at the time of our daughter’s birth and the “Godmother” was just starting RCIA then.

While I agree whole-heartedly with the comments about needed Catechesis among adults in the RCC, I also wanted to make sure that nobody assumes that any Godparent decision made outside the “normal” one Godmother one Godfather is NOT always made out of ignorance of Church teaching and certainly NOT out of making light a sacrament that isn’t really understood or appreciated. While I’m sure all the reasons listed above from other posters is sometimes the reasons Godparent decisions are made - it cannot be a blanket statement to apply to all.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m having a hard time not taking these comments personally because I have chosen Godparents for 2 of my 4 children that are not the “norm”.

I feel the need to explain to make sure you all understand that not everyone makes these important decisions lightly or for the wrong reasons.

My first son has no Godmother and had 2 men stand as Godparents (officially only one of them a Godfather). They are not gay. One was my brother (unmarried and the time) and the other was my cousin (also unmarried at the time). We have already made arrangements for the children to be raised by Catholics upon our death. So these men stood to make a commitment to help raise our son in the Catholic faith and to be there for him throughout his spiritual growth in the RC faith. I had no Catholic female friends at that time to ask to be a Godparent and was unwilling to just ask someone I kinda sorta knew from church to step in. We knew we wanted to choose people who would help set a good Catholic example for our child throughout his entire life and so we knew we needed someone close to us and who would always be close to our family so that they could always be near to fulfill that important Godparent Commitment.

Another one of our children has one Godfather who is Catholic and his wife is not - she is not officially a Godparent but a witness - we refer to her as our daughters Godmother. They were engaged to be married at the time of our daughter’s birth and the “Godmother” was just starting RCIA then.

While I agree whole-heartedly with the comments about needed Catechesis among adults in the RCC, I also wanted to make sure that nobody assumes that any Godparent decision made outside the “normal” one Godmother one Godfather is NOT always made out of ignorance of Church teaching and certainly NOT out of making light a sacrament that isn’t really understood or appreciated. While I’m sure all the reasons listed above from other posters is sometimes the reasons Godparent decisions are made - it cannot be a blanket statement to apply to all.

I will agree that sometimes it is other family members also that push things in the wrong direction. I wonder why no one ever told you that only one Godparent was required for Baptism and just a Godfather was perfectly OK.

The other child’s Baptism situation is most acceptable. A Catholic Godparent and a Christian Witness of the opposite gender. Especially if they are engaged and the non-Catholic is considering becoming Catholic.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

You folks in Canada have it even rougher than we, as there are so many Anglicans. Anglicans traditionally have 2 godparents of the same gender as the baby, and one godparent of the opposite gender (www2.anglican.ca/search/faq/011.htm). So I can see where Canadians might be all over the map on this, when it comes to mixed marriages.

 

[John_Lilburne]

… Someone should ask the priest (politely) to explain it, and depending on his response to raise the issue with the bishop, but definitely talking to the priest must come first. …

Why is talking to the priest important?

He could be dead, overseas or sick. He may speak another language. He may have been laicized or imprisoned.

Or simply he may be hostile, uninterested or busy. It is understandable if people want to protect their identity in reporting liturgical abuses, fearing retribution.

I do not agree with this absolute “definitely talking to the priest must come first”. It is not the approach in the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters
[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.
[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.”

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Why is talking to the priest important? . . .

Because the first thing the Bishop, or the diocesan mail-opener to be precise, is going to do is to send your complaint to the priest for comment. If the priest hasn’t seen it already this is going to make him hostile, and you have lost any chance of having him resolve the issue.

Are you seeking a battle or a resolution?

 

[nightwalker]

Why is talking to the priest important?

He could be dead, overseas or sick. He may speak another language. He may have been laicized or imprisoned.

Or simply he may be hostile, uninterested or busy. It is understandable if people want to protect their identity in reporting liturgical abuses, fearing retribution.

Or he may be simply ignorant, or he could be open to correction, or it could just be the right thing to do.

Priests have a hard enough time without everyone who has a complaint running to the Bishop.

 

[CradleCath]

Here is the situation:

Two men were chosen by the parents of the child to be the godparents and this was OK’d by the local priest.

The Code of Canon Law forbides this. So what happens now? Was the baptism illicit? Invalid? And are they both sponsors to the child? What should be done now? Should the parents be informed?

Sorry for all the questions

Thank you for the help.

No problem about the questions. They got me thinking. I found the following & I’m not SURE that canon law forbids two Godparents of the same sex???

CHAPTER IV : SPONSORS

Can. 872 In so far as possible, a person being baptised is to be assigned a sponsor. In the case of an adult baptism, the sponsor’s role is to assist the person in christian initiation. In the case of an infant baptism, the role is together with the parents to present the child for baptism, and** to help it to live a christian life befitting the baptised and faithfully to fulfil the duties inherent in baptism. **
Can. 873 **One sponsor, male or female, is sufficient; but there may be two, one of each sex. **
Can. 874 §1 To be admitted to undertake the office of sponsor, a person must:

1° be appointed by the candidate for baptism, or by the parents or whoever stands in their place, or failing these, by the parish priest or the minister; **to be appointed the person must be suitable for this role and have the intention of fulfilling it; **2° be not less than sixteen years of age, unless a different age has been stipulated by the diocesan Bishop, or unless the parish priest or the minister considers that there is a just reason for an exception to be made;

3° be a catholic who has been confirmed and has received the blessed Eucharist, and **who lives a life of faith which befits the role to be undertaken; **4° not labour under a canonical penalty, whether imposed or declared;

5° not be either the father or the mother of the person to be baptised.

§2 A baptised person who belongs to a non-catholic ecclesial community may be admitted only in company with a catholic sponsor, and then simply as a witness to the baptism.

The only thing I could find is in canon 873 One sponsor, male or female, is sufficient; but there may be two, one of each sex.
This leads me to believe that when there are 2 sponsors there should be one of each sex…but the word “may” makes it ambiguous. It seems that the underlying continuous thread that runs through these canons is that the sponsor (or sponsors) must be faithful practicing Catholics.

 

[CradleCath]

Or he may be simply ignorant, or he could be open to correction, or it could just be the right thing to do.

Priests have a hard enough time without everyone who has a complaint running to the Bishop.

Absolutely. Ask your priest in a kind & charitable way, first. If you don’t receive a plausible answer for his action, then go to the Bishop, but first give the man a chance to explain his actions. Following the chain of command has kept many a complainer from embarrassing him/herself.