Confirmation sponsor

[Timothy524]

Should a confirmation sponsor be the same sex? Is it highly recommended that they are or does it not make that big of a difference?

 

[msammiem]

I’m not aware of any teachings or rules regarding this. I only sponsor people who are the same sex as me. I find it to be a good practice.

 

[1ke]

Should a confirmation sponsor be the same sex?

Is it highly recommended that they are or does it not make that big of a difference?

no, there is nothing in church teaching that recommends, highly or otherwise, that the sponsor be the same sex as the confirmand. Choose someone who is a practicing Catholic who is close to you or that you look up to. If you don’t know many or any Catholics, your sponsor can be someone from the parish that your RCIA coordinator helps you with.

 

[Fauken]

Should a confirmation sponsor be the same sex? Is it highly recommended that they are or does it not make that big of a difference?

So long as the other person is not your significant other or your spouse, you’re allowed to, and their sex makes no difference. There is no preference for the sponsor to be of the same sex either.

 

[TheDoctor]

So long as the other person is not your significant other or your spouse, you’re allowed to, and their sex makes no difference. There is no preference for the sponsor to be of the same sex either.

I am not aware that there is any prohibition against a spouse of fiancee being a confirmation sponsor. In fact, a few years ago a friend sponsored her fiancee into the Church. Is this a local custom in your area or is there something in Canon Law I have missed perhaps?

 

[thistle]

Should a confirmation sponsor be the same sex? Is it highly recommended that they are or does it not make that big of a difference?

CHAPTER IV : SPONSORS

Can. 892 As far as possible the person to be confirmed is to have a sponsor. The sponsor’s function is to take care that the person confirmed behaves as a true witness of Christ and faithfully fulfils the duties inherent in this sacrament.

Can. 893 §1 A person who would undertake the office of sponsor must fulfill the conditions mentioned in can. 874.

§2 It is desirable that the sponsor chosen be the one who undertook this role at baptism.

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.

 

[1ke]

So long as the other person is not your significant other or your spouse, you’re allowed to, and their sex makes no difference.

There is nothing preventing a spouse or fiancé from sponsoring someone.

In some cases, it might not be prudent, but in all cases it is allowed.

The only canonical prohibition on sponsoring from a relationship standpoint is that it cannot be a parent of the one being baptized or confirmed.

 

[dconklin]

There is nothing preventing a spouse or fiancé from sponsoring someone.

In some cases, it might not be prudent, but in all cases it is allowed.

The only canonical prohibition on sponsoring from a relationship standpoint is that it cannot be a parent of the one being baptized or confirmed.

To add to this (I love it when I can add something to the all-knowing 1ke’s answers), the prudence comes from the fact that the relationship could end or because of emotions, the sponsor cloud have trouble being an effective guide/influence.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Since this is posted in the Traditional Catholicism forum, it seems worth noting that the reason this question arises is that previous discipline did require a sponsor of the same sex.

1917 Can 796 Ut quis licite ad patrini munus admittatur, oportet:

1. Sit alius a patrino baptismi, nisi rationabilis causa, iudicio ministri, aliud suadeat, aut statim post baptismum legitime confirmatio conferatur
2. Sit eiusdem sexus ac confirmandus, nisi aliud ministro in casibus particularibus ex rationabili causa videatur;…]

My translation:
In order for someone to be admitted licitly to the office of sponsor it is required that:

1. The person be someone other than the godparent [literally, the sponsor of baptism], unless for a reasonable cause, in the judgment of the minister, something should persuade otherwise or confirmation is legitimately conferred immediately after baptism;
2. The person also be of the same sex as the confirmand, unless something else seems fitting to the minister in particular cases for a reasonable cause;

So does the Church currently recommend that a sponsor be of the same sex? No. If someone is trying to approach things from a more traditional standpoint, it seems likely that, yes, this would be the preference, though I can’t speak for how well-established that norm was before 1917 (and thus whether it might not also be just another tiny window onto practice as opposed to centuries-established tradition).

PS - 1917 Can. 795 also barred spouses from serving as sponsors, though no prohibition of the betrothed even then.

 

[Phemie]

Since this is posted in the Traditional Catholicism forum, it seems worth noting that the reason this question arises is that previous discipline did require a sponsor of the same sex.

1917 Can 796 Ut quis licite ad patrini munus admittatur, oportet:

1. Sit alius a patrino baptismi, nisi rationabilis causa, iudicio ministri, aliud suadeat, aut statim post baptismum legitime confirmatio conferatur
2. Sit eiusdem sexus ac confirmandus, nisi aliud ministro in casibus particularibus ex rationabili causa videatur;…]

My translation:
In order for someone to be admitted licitly to the office of sponsor it is required that:

1. The person be someone other than the godparent [literally, the sponsor of baptism], unless for a reasonable cause, in the judgment of the minister, something should persuade otherwise or confirmation is legitimately conferred immediately after baptism;
2. The person also be of the same sex as the confirmand, unless something else seems fitting to the minister in particular cases for a reasonable cause;

So does the Church currently recommend that a sponsor be of the same sex? No. If someone is trying to approach things from a more traditional standpoint, it seems likely that, yes, this would be the preference, though I can’t speak for how well-established that norm was before 1917 (and thus whether it might not also be just another tiny window onto practice as opposed to centuries-established tradition).

PS - 1917 Can. 795 also barred spouses from serving as sponsors, though no prohibition of the betrothed even then.

Except that the spiritual relationship created by being the godparent became a minor impediment that required a dispensation to marry said godchild.

It’s interesting to see in many old registers that one woman is listed as the sponsor for all the female confirmands and one man is listed as sponsor for all the male confirmands. I cannot, for the life of me, remember one word mentioned about sponsors in our preparation for Confirmation, yet I can remember the dove mobile made by Sister.

 

[The_Apostolate]

I believe that a Confirm sponsor,should make sure that the person making his confirmation remain,s true too his Faith, and is their for that person when needed,
As about does it matter if they are the same gender,well I won,t get into about that.,