Church saying no to your Confirmation Sponsors

[BartholomewB]

When an already baptized Christian comes to the Church, they meet with pastor who determines how much that individual needs to learn about Catholicism, it might be months or it might be they are ready tomorrow.

In my case it took about three months, from start to finish. My first meeting with the pastor was in September one year, and my Confirmation – along with two other adults – was on Gaudete Sunday, the third Sunday in Advent.

 

[1ke]

Does he have no authority here?

Not that kind of authority. People do have rights under canon law.

that the sponsor is able to “take care that the confirmed person behaves as a true witness of Christ and faithfully fulfills the obligations inherent in this sacrament”, then are they to be told that they’re in violation of the canons?

Uh, yeah.

I would think that this falls more in the range of “prudential judgment” than “adherence to canon law.”

There is nothing prudent in the way the parish is behaving towards this confirmandi and her chosen sponsor.

 

[Gorgias]

People do have rights under canon law.

Agreed. But… the ‘right’ to be a sponsor? I’m not seeing that, there.

There is nothing prudent in the way the parish is behaving towards this confirmandi and her chosen sponsor.

And that would be a good discussion to have. Without bringing in the notion of ‘canonical impropriety’, I’d think.

 

[Phemie]

1ke:

People do have rights under canon law.

Agreed. But… the ‘right’ to be a sponsor? I’m not seeing that, there.

I would see it more as the right to choose one’s own sponsor. And the right not to have rules imposed greater than those already imposed by the Church.

 

[Usige]

Agreed. But… the ‘right’ to be a sponsor? I’m not seeing that, there.

The right is not the sponsor’s, but the confirmandi’s right to choose their sponsor under Canon 874§1 1° (mentioned in 893§1).

The general requirement of law is that restrictions are to be read strictly and not interpreted overly broadly (canons 17 and 18).

 

[Mary888]

Yes you are right.

 

[Usige]

I disagree. A sponsor for confirmation is not less than a godparent. In fact having a godparent as a confirmation sponsor is strongly encouraged. However it is not always possible. A sponsor is encouraged to have conversations with their student about the faith.

They are not less, but are certainly different and have different roles. The God parent serves as an alter parent to help instruct and raise them in the faith. The sponsor is to stand as the community’s representative and present the confirmandi to the bishop. Strickly speaking sponsor’s do not have to serve as spiritual counselors, but only attest to the confirmandi’s standing.

The reason a God parent is encouraged to be the sponsor is that they should have been walking with their God children and therefore can attest to their character. But… that doesn’t mean someone else cannot attest to those facts even if they have not walked with them every step of the way.

 

[Gorgias]

The right is not the sponsor’s, but the confirmandi’s right to choose their sponsor under Canon 874§1 1°

Re-read the canon. That ‘right’ isn’t exclusively of the baptized; others can choose.

 

[Usige]

Usige:

The right is not the sponsor’s, but the confirmandi’s right to choose their sponsor under Canon 874§1 1°

Re-read the canon. That ‘right’ isn’t exclusively of the baptized; others can choose.

I don’t really need to re-read the canon because we covered it fairly well in canon law classes. But since you bring it up here is the actual text:

1° be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister…

Their is a hierarchy there. First it is the baptized (or confirmandi’s in this case). Second is parents or someone who stands in for them. This is only when the one receiving the sacrament is not capable of making the decision (generally because they are an infant). Pastors or other ministers are only to do so in the abscence of someone that stands in the place of someone who has the right by law (the confirmandi or parents of those under the age of reason).

I’ll happily put you in contact with my canon law professor if you believe he has taught us incorrectly.

 

[1ke]

That ‘right’ isn’t exclusively of the baptized; others can choose.

That’s referencing the parent of a baby. The confirmandi is not a baby. And there is no absence of either, which is when a pastor could designate someone.

 

[tafan2]

Canon law tells us that a confirmation sponsor “is to take care that the confirmed person behaves as a true witness of Christ and faithfully fulfills the obligations inherent in this sacrament.” Can a sponsor in Wisconsin fulfill this duty? You can make the claim, but on the face of it, that’s a rather high bar for the OP to fulfill, don’t you think, given that he lives a time-zone away?

What duty is difficult because if distance?

 

[babochka]

Canon law tells us that a confirmation sponsor “is to take care that the confirmed person behaves as a true witness of Christ and faithfully fulfills the obligations inherent in this sacrament.” Can a sponsor in Wisconsin fulfill this duty? You can make the claim, but on the face of it, that’s a rather high bar for the OP to fulfill, don’t you think, given that he lives a time-zone away?

We live in the modern world, where distance is no barrier to communication.

I think it is easier for a person who has a close relationship with a person to fulfill that role, in spite of distance, then for somebody who has no relationship, or only a superficial relationship, to fulfill that role.

.

 

[TheLittleLady]

What duty is difficult because if distance?

Especially in our modern age, when I can have a face to face talk with my niece any time, any where thanks to technology.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t really need to re-read the canon because we covered it fairly well in canon law classes.

Appeal to authority much?

And besides, what good is that response? What if I replied, “well my canon law professor said otherwise!”…? Would this now become a knock-down, drag-out battle of “my canon law professor can lick yours”?

Rather, I think I’d like to refer you to Beal and Coriden, which provides a nice reference for us non-canonists. The section on confirmation sponsors provides interesting commentary on the role of sponsors, and includes substantiation from the Rites themselves. I’d invite you to read their commentary.

Their is a hierarchy there.

Agreed. There is a hierarchy there. So, if you’re going to talk about a right – and only mentioning the baptized – then you’re mischaracterizing the canon.

That’s referencing the parent of a baby.

Are you certain? In the absence of a parent for a baby, how could we baptize a child? (Short of a danger of death situation, of course.)

And there is no absence of either, which is when a pastor could designate someone.

Remember: the issue here, apparently, isn’t that the pastor is designating someone, but that he seems (in a delegated fashion) to have set down guidelines to help confirmandi choose sponsors who are able to meet the obligations for sponsors set down in canon and ritual.

 

[Gorgias]

Especially in our modern age, when I can have a face to face talk with my niece any time, any where thanks to technology.

Aah… but does “FaceTime” ensure that you’d be able to meet the standards that the Church appears to be setting up?

We’re talking about what canon law does and does not do (and which @Usige quotes his professor with the well-known standard that “restrictions are to be read strictly”… but he doesn’t follow with the just as well-known adage that canon law is meant to work for the benefit of the Catholic person). In this case, if the pastor’s judgment that the benefit to the confirmand is to have a sponsor who is able to meet the stated role, then should he not have the ability to work for the benefit of the soul to whom is bound to minister?

This just feels to me like “the teen asked for it, so she should get it.” That’s not what “loving your neighbor” entails, as it were.

 

[Gorgias]

I think it is easier for a person who has a close relationship with a person to fulfill that role, in spite of distance, then for somebody who has no relationship, or only a superficial relationship, to fulfill that role.

.

Straw man argument. No one is suggesting that the pastor is requiring a sponsor “who has no relationship or only a superficial” one.

 

[Irishmom2]

It happened to my daughter. I don’t believe every pastor is fully aware of what goes on by the religious education director. It was only afterward that I found out, years later on CAF that there are no canon laws for the requirement of “residency” that the RE director placed on the group.

 

[BartholomewB]

he seems (in a delegated fashion) to have set down guidelines to help confirmandi choose sponsors who are able to meet the obligations for sponsors set down in canon and ritual.

Even conceding that that may have been the pastor’s original intention, the question that is being asked here is whether it has that effect, in practice. There’s always the danger that it may have the opposite effect, as I suggested in my post #25 on this thread.

 

[Gorgias]

Even conceding that that may have been the pastor’s original intention, the question that is being asked here is whether it has that effect, in practice. There’s always the danger that it may have the opposite effect, as I suggested in my post #25 on this thread.

Agreed. I’m not saying that it was good “prudential judgment”. Just making the case that perhaps that’s the relevant standard and not merely a case of “denied rights.”

 

[TheLittleLady]

We can have a relationship with people long distance.