Baptism- two godparents (sponsors) of the same sex

[Phemie]

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???

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.

“May be two” is giving us permission to have two even though only one is required – all the canon commentaries I’ve read speak of this canon’s resemblance to one from the 1917 code, both of which had the goal of preventing a multiplication of godparents. We must have 1, we have permission to have 2 but if we do they must be of opposite sex. I see no ambiguity in this canon.

OTOH, it says nothing about the Christian witness and the godparent needing to be male & female.

The problem we often run into and which nobody in my parish seems to want to address is that often the Christian witness is Pentecostal or Salvation Army. Members of the SA are definitely not baptized and don’t meet the requirement and Pentecostals, if baptized, are often not a Trinitarian baptism. It is a difficult topic because, with so many ‘disparity of cult’ marriages in our community, the ‘Christian witness’ is often an uncle or aunt. I keep bringing this up to the team but they seem to think I’m nitpicking. At least they’ve accepted that the godparent needs to have been confirmed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

The word “May” relates to the number, NOT the gender.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“May be two” is giving us permission to have two even though only one is required – all the canon commentaries I’ve read speak of this canon’s resemblance to one from the 1917 code, both of which had the goal of preventing a multiplication of godparents. We must have 1, we have permission to have 2 but if we do they must be of opposite sex. I see no ambiguity in this canon.

OTOH, it says nothing about the Christian witness and the godparent needing to be male & female.

The problem we often run into and which nobody in my parish seems to want to address is that often the Christian witness is Pentecostal or Salvation Army. Members of the SA are definitely not baptized and don’t meet the requirement and Pentecostals, if baptized, are often not a Trinitarian baptism. It is a difficult topic because, with so many ‘disparity of cult’ marriages in our community, the ‘Christian witness’ is often an uncle or aunt. I keep bringing this up to the team but they seem to think I’m nitpicking. At least they’ve accepted that the godparent needs to have been confirmed.

The Christian Witness must be a valdily Baptized Christian. It is also reasonable to assume that the gender in relation to the Catholic Godparent is the same as that of two Godparents. Since nothing specifically says otherwise. It does not say that the “Christian Witness may be of the opposite or same sex as the Catholic Sponsor/Godparent.”

 

[josephnicolas]

The two men were just two friends of the parents, they were not homosexual.

 

[kycanonist]

I agree with the previous poster that there was likely only one “Godparent” of record… and the other one was merely a “Christian witness”.

If you look at the baptismal records of a parish, it’s very clear that there is one line for “Godfather” and one line for “Godmother”. There would only be one name listed as the Godparent of record.

Honestly, no one can change what people want to call the other people in their lives… so, if parents want to call both of these men “Godfather” then there’s really nothing the rest of us in the world can do about it, kwim? Yes, the word “Godparent” has a very specific meaning in Church parlance, but it doesn’t mean that it has differing meanings out in the rest of the world…

 

[Petergee]

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.

IMO both of these are common. Other common “reasons” are:

• that the miracle of birth imparts a respect for God in the parents which alas is very temporary; and
• to facilitate the child’s enrolment in a Catholic school which they desire for non-religious reasons.
  Also there are some people who think religion is a fine thing for children but not for adults.

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.)

Neither is pregnancy a reason NOT to enter marriage. Sorry if I misunderstand you but you seem to imply that a Catholic bride cannot be pregnant, and that 9 months notice is required for a Catholic wedding. Both of these are false. Yes, the Church expects engaged couples to undertake adequate preparation before marriage, but this can be reduced to a few weeks or even dispensed with if there is a serious reason to marry within a short time.

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.

Could be the reasons I mentioned.

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.

Yes, in fact the godparents are ALSO expected to step in if for any other reason the parents, though alive, fail in their sworn duty to bring the child up in the Faith. Of course this would initially be in the form of casually reminding the parents of their duty. Then demanding that they do so if necessary. If the parents flatly refuse, civil law in most places requires that the child reach a certain age (usually 16 to 18) before s/he can receive religious instruction and Sacraments against the parents’ will.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

IMO both of these are common. Other common “reasons” are:

• that the miracle of birth imparts a respect for God in the parents which alas is very temporary; and
• to facilitate the child’s enrolment in a Catholic school which they desire for non-religious reasons.
  Also there are some people who think religion is a fine thing for children but not for adults. Neither is pregnancy a reason NOT to enter marriage. Sorry if I misunderstand you but you seem to imply that a Catholic bride cannot be pregnant, and that 9 months notice is required for a Catholic wedding. Both of these are false. Yes, the Church expects engaged couples to undertake adequate preparation before marriage, but this can be reduced to a few weeks or even dispensed with if there is a serious reason to marry within a short time.Could be the reasons I mentioned.Yes, in fact the godparents are ALSO expected to step in if for any other reason the parents, though alive, fail in their sworn duty to bring the child up in the Faith. Of course this would initially be in the form of casually reminding the parents of their duty. Then demanding that they do so if necessary. If the parents flatly refuse, civil law in most places requires that the child reach a certain age (usually 16 to 18) before s/he can receive religious instruction and Sacraments against the parents’ will.

Actually a Catholic who is pregnant should not consider Marriage until the child is a year or two old, IMO. Many Pastors suggest this also when someone comes to them and says “We are pregnant and want to get Married!”

 

[Petergee]

Actually a Catholic who is pregnant should not consider Marriage until the child is a year or two old, IMO. Many Pastors suggest this also when someone comes to them and says “We are pregnant and want to get Married!”

You and those pastors are perfectly entitled to this opinion, and obviously every case must be judged individually depending on the many possible variables involved. My point was that there is nothing in Church law that would prevent a pregnant woman getting married in the Catholic church if she, her fiance and the priest think that it is prudent to do so in their case.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

You and those pastors are perfectly entitled to this opinion, and obviously every case must be judged individually depending on the many possible variables involved. My point was that there is nothing in Church law that would prevent a pregnant woman getting married in the Catholic church if she, her fiance and the priest think that it is prudent to do so in their case.

I agree nothing prevents the Marriage from taking place. Statistically the deck is stacked against them. We all know the Divorce rate and I have read that the divorce rate for those who were pregnant at the time of the Marriage was 4 times that.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Please take any side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.