Godmother for Anglican child

[asd72]

My sister and her partner have decided to baptise their two children. They are agnostic themselves, although baptised Anglicans and have been to their first service at an Anglo Catholic Church. I have been asked to be Godmother but my sister understands I may not be able to do this as a Catholic. I definitely have to say no don’t I? My nearly two year old nephew and I spend lots of time together, this is really hard.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

You can’t be the godparent, but you can be a Christian witness.

This is from the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism:

1. It is the Catholic understanding that godparents, in a liturgical and canonical sense, should themselves be members of the Church or ecclesial Community in which the baptism is being celebrated. They do not merely undertake a res- ponsibility for the Christian education of the person being baptized (or confirmed) as a relation or friend; they are also there as representatives of a community of faith, standing as guarantees of the candidate’s faith and desire for ecclesial communion.

a) However, based on the common baptism and because of ties of blood or friendship, a baptized person who belongs to another ecclesial Community may be admitted as a witness to the baptism, but only together with a Catholic godparent.107 A Catholic may do the same for a person being baptized in another ecclesial Community.

 

[FrDavid96]

My sister and her partner have decided to baptise their two children. They are agnostic themselves, although baptised Anglicans and have been to their first service at an Anglo Catholic Church. I have been asked to be Godmother but my sister understands I may not be able to do this as a Catholic. I definitely have to say no don’t I? My nearly two year old nephew and I spend lots of time together, this is really hard.

First, there is no such thing as “Anglo Catholic”—one is either Catholic, or is not; and a community (parish, congregation, etc) is either Catholic or is not Catholic. There is an Anglican Use Ordinariate in Australia, but it doesn’t seem that this is what you’re describing.

If you agree to be a Godmother in this situation, you will be literally promising to raise the child as a non-Catholic; something that a Catholic cannot do in good conscience. Please consider what that means.

Is it better for the child to be raised a non-Catholic Anglican than an agnostic? Certainly. That’s why there are things you can do to continue to influence your nephew. This is a good start—having the children baptized. A very good start. It’s likewise a good opportunity for you.

I don’t know if Anglicans have such a thing as a Christian witness to a baptism–as far as I can tell, they do not. From the Catholic perspective, you can be a witness (but not a Godmother), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the function exists in Anglicanism.

 

[johnnykins]

If you agree to be a Godmother in this situation, you will be literally promising to raise the child as a non-Catholic; something that a Catholic cannot do in good conscience. Please consider what that means.

I don’t know if Anglicans have such a thing as a Christian witness to a baptism–as far as I can tell, they do not. From the Catholic perspective, you can be a witness (but not a Godmother), but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the function exists in Anglicanism.

I’m not so sure that you haven’t here conflated what a Godparent is in Catholicism and what it is in Anglicanism.

My suggestion is that the OP talk with the Anglican priest about what it means to be a Godparent in the Anglican Church, and then discuss it with her own Catholic priest. It MAY be the same as what it means in Catholicism, but it may NOT. It’s entirely possible that you could be an Anglican Godparent if the promises and expectations do not impinge on your Catholic beliefs.

What I have seen on the web, does not appear to me to necessarily be at odds with a Catholic being a Godparent…though I reiterate you need to confirm it with the Anglican, and your own Catholic, priest.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not so sure that you haven’t here conflated what a Godparent is in Catholicism and what it is in Anglicanism.

…

I am sure.

I have not conflated it.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

What I have seen on the web, does not appear to me to necessarily be at odds with a Catholic being a Godparent…

It’s not about what’s seen on the web.

It’s about how the Catholic Church sees thing. And the Church’s position is clear: a Catholic cannot be a Godparent for a non-Catholic (the Orthodox being the exception).

See post #2 and follow the link, if you like.

 

[johnnykins]

It’s not about what’s seen on the web.

It’s about how the Catholic Church sees thing. And the Church’s position is clear: a Catholic cannot be a Godparent for a non-Catholic (the Orthodox being the exception).

See post #2 and follow the link, if you like.

NO, the issue is what is the Anglican Church’s concept of being a Godparent. If it is not the same as that of the Catholic Church - if it is simply being a “witness,” then it is not being a "Godparent;’ as understood by the Catholic Church at all and MAY, therefore, be allowable. Clearly, if it is the same concept as the Catholic Church that is problematical. To that extent, what is on the web is helpful in understanding the Anglican concept. NOTE, however, I recommend asking an ANGLICAN PRIEST - so as not to rely simply on the web. NOTE, TOO, I recommend asking a Catholic Priest, as well. Presuming that Anglicans and Catholics understand Godparents in the same way (if one is simply assuming it) is certainly easier than trying to determine if that is the case. But, the easy answer is sometimes the wrong answer in many ways…not the least of which is pastorally advising the faithful.

As to the reference above in post #2, ¶98 is pertinent:

1. It is the** Catholic understanding** that godparents, in a liturgical and canonical sense, should themselves be members of the Church or ecclesial Community in which the baptism is being celebrated. They do not merely undertake a responsibility for the Christian education of the person being baptized (or confirmed) as a relation or friend; **they are also there as representatives of a community of faith, standing as guarantees of the candidate’s faith and desire for ecclesial communion.
   **
   a) However, based on the common baptism and because of ties of blood or friendship, a baptized person who belongs to another ecclesial Community may be admitted as a witness to the baptism, but only together with a Catholic godparent.107 A Catholic may do the same for a person being baptized in another ecclesial Community.

b) Because of the close communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, it is permissible for a just cause for an Eastern faithful to act as godparent; together with a Catholic godparent, at the baptism of a Catholic infant or adult, so long as there is provision for the Catholic education of the person being baptized, and it is clear that the godparent is a suitable one.

A Catholic is not forbidden to stand as godparent in an Eastern Orthodox Church, if heshe is so invited. In this case, the duty of providing for the Chris- tian education binds in the first place the godparent who belongs to the Church in which the child is baptized.108

Obviously, if the Anglican understanding of a “Godparent” is the same as the Catholic understanding of a “witness” then a Catholic could be such a Godparent - since it is simply a witness. The use of the terminology of “Godparent” when it means merely “witness” is the nub of the matter.

As to Orthodoxy, that’s irrelevant in the instant case.

 

[FrDavid96]

NO, the issue is what is the Anglican Church’s concept of being a Godparent. If it is not the same as that of the Catholic Church - if it is simply being a “witness,” then it is not being a "Godparent;’ as understood by the Catholic Church at all and MAY, therefore, be allowable. Clearly, if it is the same concept as the Catholic Church that is problematical. To that extent, what is on the web is helpful in understanding the Anglican concept. NOTE, however, I recommend asking an ANGLICAN PRIEST - so as not to rely simply on the web. NOTE, TOO, I recommend asking a Catholic Priest, as well. Presuming that Anglicans and Catholics understand Godparents in the same way (if one is simply assuming it) is certainly easier than trying to determine if that is the case. But, the easy answer is sometimes the wrong answer in many ways…not the least of which is pastorally advising the faithful.

As to the reference above in post #2, ¶98 is pertinent:

Obviously, if the Anglican understanding of a “Godparent” is the same as the Catholic understanding of a “witness” then a Catholic could be such a Godparent - since it is simply a witness. The use of the terminology of “Godparent” when it means merely “witness” is the nub of the matter.

As to Orthodoxy, that’s irrelevant in the instant case.

It is not allowed. It really is that simple. A Catholic cannot be a Godparent in a non-Catholic baptism. The Church’s position on this is unambiguous.

 

[johnnykins]

It is not allowed. It really is that simple. A Catholic cannot be a Godparent in a non-Catholic baptism. The Church’s position on this is unambiguous.

I guess we live in different worlds. Where I live many people and churches use terms also used by Catholics and the Catholic Church in ways that mean totally different things. People use “Marriage” “disorder” and, I’m pretty sure, “Godparent” in ways that Catholics and the Catholic Church don’t. Maybe you have not noticed that?

Why I’ve attended Episcopal baptisms with as many as 8 “Godparents” and I’m quite sure all or most were not “Godparents” in the way the Catholic Church means. Similarly I have heard Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists and even atheists use the word “Godparent” and mean something very different - much more akin to what a Catholic calls a “witness” or just an honored person. Like it or not, language is not always used by the average person (or other churches) in the way the Catholic Church does. Thus investigating how it is used seems to me to be the appropriate thing to do before one warns a person off an action that could cause familial issues. That’s just me.

I totally agree that a Catholic cannot be a Godparent in a non-Catholic Baptism…assuming that Godparent in such a Baptism is consistent with being a Godparent in a Catholic Baptism. I think it ridiculously, and inappropriately, rigid to simply apply the same meaning to the term which is often used loosely and may well have a different meaning - at least without investigating it.

 

[FrDavid96]

I guess we live in different worlds. Where I live many people and churches use terms also used by Catholics and the Catholic Church in ways that mean totally different things. People use “Marriage” “disorder” and, I’m pretty sure, “Godparent” in ways that Catholics and the Catholic Church don’t. Maybe you have not noticed that?

Why I’ve attended Episcopal baptisms with as many as 8 “Godparents” and I’m quite sure all or most were not “Godparents” in the way the Catholic Church means. Similarly I have heard Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists and even atheists use the word “Godparent” and mean something very different - much more akin to what a Catholic calls a “witness” or just an honored person. Like it or not, language is not always used by the average person (or other churches) in the way the Catholic Church does. Thus investigating how it is used seems to me to be the appropriate thing to do before one warns a person off an action that could cause familial issues. That’s just me.

I totally agree that a Catholic cannot be a Godparent in a non-Catholic Baptism…assuming that Godparent in such a Baptism is consistent with being a Godparent in a Catholic Baptism. I think it ridiculously, and inappropriately, rigid to simply apply the same meaning to the term which is often used loosely and may well have a different meaning - at least without investigating it.

I do know what I’m talking about. There is a reason why the Church sends potential priests to so many years of seminary training, instead of just telling them to do a few google searches.

I actually know what Anglicanism means when using the word Godparent. And I know that this role is something that a Catholic simply cannot do in good conscience; because to make a promise on behalf of the child to be a member of a non-Catholic religion, and to promise to raise that child in a non-Catholic faith is inconsistent with the Catholic faith.

If you want to read for yourself how Anglicans view the role of Godparents, see here:
churchofengland.org/weddings-baptisms-funerals/baptism/becoming-a-godparent.aspx
That is, for all practical purposes, the very same definition of Godparent used by the Church.

Since the OP is in Australia
6 Where children are to be baptised, the minister may say these or similar words.
Children are baptised in response to God’s all-embracing love. Parents and
godparents who have responded to that love come now to bring their children for
baptism. Before this congregation they must express their own trust and
commitment to the promises of God, and their intention to bring up their children in
the faith and practice of the Church. In due time these children should make their own
response to God, and be prepared for confirmation.

The priest says to the sponsors of those unable to answer for themselves
Will you accept the responsibilities placed upon you in bringing name/this child for
baptism?
I will.
Are you willing to answer on behalf of name/this child?
I am.
By your own prayers and example, by your friendship and love,
will you encourage name/this child in the life and faith of the Christian community?
I will, with God’s help.
anglican.org.au/docs/commissions/liturgy/Holy%20Baptism%20in%20Morning%20and%20Evening%20Prayer.pdf
Those references to the “faith and practice of the Church” do not refer to the Catholic faith—they refer to Anglicanism. No Catholic can make such a promise in good faith.

 

[johnnykins]

I do know what I’m talking about. There is a reason why the Church sends potential priests to so many years of seminary training, instead of just telling them to do a few google searches.

I actually know what Anglicanism means when using the word Godparent. And I know that this role is something that a Catholic simply cannot do in good conscience; because to make a promise on behalf of the child to be a member of a non-Catholic religion, and to promise to raise that child in a non-Catholic faith is inconsistent with the Catholic faith.

If you want to read for yourself how Anglicans view the role of Godparents, see here:
churchofengland.org/weddings-baptisms-funerals/baptism/becoming-a-godparent.aspx
That is, for all practical purposes, the very same definition of Godparent used by the Church.

Since the OP is in Australia
6 Where children are to be baptised, the minister may say these or similar words.
Children are baptised in response to God’s all-embracing love. Parents and
godparents who have responded to that love come now to bring their children for
baptism. Before this congregation they must express their own trust and
commitment to the promises of God, and their intention to bring up their children in
the faith and practice of the Church. In due time these children should make their own
response to God, and be prepared for confirmation.

The priest says to the sponsors of those unable to answer for themselves
Will you accept the responsibilities placed upon you in bringing name/this child for
baptism?
I will.
Are you willing to answer on behalf of name/this child?
I am.
By your own prayers and example, by your friendship and love,
will you encourage name/this child in the life and faith of the Christian community?
I will, with God’s help.
anglican.org.au/docs/commissions/liturgy/Holy%20Baptism%20in%20Morning%20and%20Evening%20Prayer.pdf
Those references to the “faith and practice of the Church” do not refer to the Catholic faith—they refer to Anglicanism. No Catholic can make such a promise in good faith.

1. Does the OP know that she has in fact been asked to be a Godparent - or has that term been used loosely? Could they have meant a witness? Would a witness be OK for all concerned because ‘Godparent’ was used loosely?
2. Does the parent who asked the OP to be a “Godparent” really mean a Godparent?
3. There are all manner of Anglican churches - does this one mean “Godparent” as the one you cite? Maybe if you actually did google around a bit you’d find a pretty wide divergence that might argue for some flexibility.
4. Even if all the above are yea, does this Anglican church allow for witnesses, which the Catholic Church would allow? Maybe the OP could simply ask that question.

What amazes me is that the seminaries, for all the years they find to teach the rules, seemingly don’t teach priests to be especially pastoral in finding solutions within the rules.

Let’s say this Anglican Church does use the word “Godparent” in a similar way to the Catholic Church. OK, the OP has her answer. What, if any, fall out accrues is unclear, but, hey, that’s the rule. Just suck up the fall out.

BUT, if the Anglican Church allows for witnesses - she could do that. By simply asking the Anglican priest she might find that out. The family member could well be OK with her simply being a witness - -which was all they might have meant in the first place.

Your answer while right in the limited sense - is limited and probably leads to family issues.

My answer simply asks questions that may get to a satisfactory answer that serves everyone. Which way do you think better serves this person, her family and the baby?

1. NOPE - can’t do it.
2. ASK AROUND - maybe there is a way.

In my experience. easy and rote answers usually don’t serve the Church or the faithful very well.

 

[Chatter163]

JohnnyKins, please stop arguing with Fr. David. Unlike you, he is a Catholic priest, and he knows what he is talking about. With all due charity, you are being disrespectful to him, whether you realize it or not, especially with the remark about not being pastorally sensitive. He has been quite patient with you, and has even provided the necessary references from Catholic teaching, which is really the only relevant concern here.

I was formerly an Episcopalian of the so-called Anglo-Catholic variety. I know exactly what the Book of Common Prayer and the Episcopal Church teach about baptism, as well as their catechism. I also know what it is like to be an Anglican who claims to be Catholic, but really is not. Everything that Father has said is absolutely correct, and one cannot have it both ways. Roma locutas; causa finita est…

 

[johnnykins]

JohnnyKins, please stop arguing with Fr. David. Unlike you, he is a Catholic priest, and he knows what he is talking about. With all due charity, you are being disrespectful to him, whether you realize it or not, especially with the remark about not being pastorally sensitive. He has been quite patient with you, and has even provided the necessary references from Catholic teaching, which is really the only relevant concern here.

I was formerly an Episcopalian of the so-called Anglo-Catholic variety. I know exactly what the Book of Common Prayer and the Episcopal Church teach about baptism, as well as their catechism. I also know what it is like to be an Anglican who claims to be Catholic, but really is not. Everything that Father has said is absolutely correct, and one cannot have it both ways. Roma locutas; causa finita est…

Chatter - how appropriately named - Fr D ain’t Rome.

His solution, and similar ‘I know better solutions’, are anything but helpful in real life.

A modicum of effort beyond pontification gets the OP almost certainly to a solution that is pastoral and within the rules. A narrow recitation of rules without exploring the issue gets one what?

BTW the “only relevant concern here” is the salvation of souls. I guess I don’t think that is best achieved by simply dismissing the issue as decided - especially when just a bit of effort likely gets to a solution. I don’t think rushing to a causa finita, so to speak, demonstrates much experience with real life issues and the need for pastoral sensitivity. But, that’s all prudential.

 

[FrDavid96]

Although he was speaking of a different situation, purely by coincidence I happened to read a recent post which quoted Cardinal Muller.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=864456

His words (again, a different topic) are very relevant to this discussion

The idea that doctrine can be separated from the pastoral practice of the Church has become prevalent in some circles. This is not, and never has been, the Catholic faith.

and later

Within this personal relationship with Christ, which embraces our minds, our hearts, the totality of our lives even, we can we grasp the profound unity between the doctrines we believe and how we live our lives, or what we might call the pastoral reality of our lived experience. Opposing the pastoral to the doctrinal is simply a false dichotomy.

The doctrinal is the pastoral.

Unfortunately, we are often presented with that false dichotomy—that somehow being “pastoral” means to compromise on matters of faith. In reality, being truly pastoral means upholding the matters of faith.

 

[johnnykins]

Although he was speaking of a different situation, purely by coincidence I happened to read a recent post which quoted Cardinal Muller.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=864456

His words (again, a different topic) are very relevant to this discussion

The idea that doctrine can be separated from the pastoral practice of the Church has become prevalent in some circles. This is not, and never has been, the Catholic faith.

and later

Within this personal relationship with Christ, which embraces our minds, our hearts, the totality of our lives even, we can we grasp the profound unity between the doctrines we believe and how we live our lives, or what we might call the pastoral reality of our lived experience. Opposing the pastoral to the doctrinal is simply a false dichotomy.

The doctrinal is the pastoral.

Unfortunately, we are often presented with that false dichotomy—that somehow being “pastoral” means to compromise on matters of faith. In reality, being truly pastoral means upholding the matters of faith.

[edited]

Since the question on being a “Godparent” used that word alone, we are constrained not to look into that word (a word anyone who thinks about it knows is often used very loosely) nor may we ask if another role that probably (might?) satisfy the request - say 'witness" which is allowed - is somehow prohibited???!!

Even if we conceded that Godparent = Godparent and always does mean the same, I think we all agree that the OP could be a witness - within the rules. Perhaps we could agree that the use of the term 'Godparent" even if tossed out there in its technical sense, might nonetheless satisfy all involved if we explore being a “witness.”. Perhaps we could agree that a bit of effort to solve a pastoral problem might come up with an acceptable answer beyond - “no.”

That is where life experience and pastoral answers come into play. The quote from His Eminence is inapt since the pastoral answer is to try to find a solution - and here one is almost certainly present but rejected for who knows what reason.

 

[felsguy]

So, let’s suppose the original question was “Is water necessary for baptism.?”

Answer A: Yes

Answer B: Not necessarily, it all depends on what you mean by “water” and what you mean by “baptism.”

Myself, I with the A Team on this one.

.

 

[FrDavid96]

So let me get this straight:

Since the question on being a “Godparent” used that word alone, we are constrained not to look into that word (a word anyone who thinks about it knows is often used very loosely) nor may we ask if another role that probably (might?) satisfy the request - say 'witness" which is allowed - is somehow prohibited???!!

Yes. You have it right. The Church makes it clear that a Catholic cannot be a Godparent in a non-Catholic baptism.

Since I know full well what the word Godparent means in an Anglican context, there is no need for me to go searching for alternate definitions of the word before answering the question. I also do not need to research the Anglican definition of Baptism—some things are simply taken as a given.

More to the point, the Catholic Church understands what is meant by the word “Godparent” and explains why a Catholic cannot be such in a non-Catholic baptism.

Even if we conceded that Godparent = Godparent and always does mean the same, I think we all agree that the OP could be a witness - within the rules.

I would agree that the OP might be a witness. Simply because the Church allows Catholics to be witnesses does not always mean that this is an appropriate choice. That’s what being pastoral means.

Perhaps we could agree that the use of the term 'Godparent" even if tossed out there in its technical sense, might nonetheless satisfy all involved if we explore being a “witness.”. Perhaps we could agree that a bit of effort to solve a pastoral problem might come up with an acceptable answer beyond - “no.”

If you would bother to actually read my first response to the OP before going off on a rant, you might notice that this is exactly what I did suggest.

Apparently, expecting you to actually read my response before criticizing it is expecting too much.

That is where life experience and pastoral answers come into play. The quote from His Eminence is inapt since the pastoral answer is to try to find a solution - and here one is almost certainly present but rejected for who knows what reason.

No. This is where reading what a person wrote before criticizing it, and accusing it of being other than pastoral comes into play.

I’m not rejecting the idea of the OP being a witness. Instead, you are ignoring the fact that I did suggest it.

You still don’t understand the definition of the word “pastoral.” The good Cardinal made a very good point about misunderstanding that word. Your posts prove him right.

 

[asd72]

Thanks everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut. I think I am just going to decline and try and explain why. I don’t really want to bring up being a Christian witness unless my sister specifically approaches me about that. I was asked to be a Godparent so will respond to that.

I’m sure she will understand.

 

[asd72]

When I spoke to my sister today, she said the vicar wants to meet with the Godparents which she considers over the top, and the Godparents must be Baptised themselves. She has Godparents in mind who are not Baptised, and me who can’t do it being Catholic. I think she didn’t expect it to be so complicated and she said they are now considering a naming ceremony instead of Baptism, but still wants to have Godparents.

I have looked up online at what this involves, and it seems Godparents in these ceremonies make promises to love and support the child, and be involved in their moral and ethical development. It wouldn’t involve pledging to guide them in their religious development in a Protestant church.

It seems to me that this may be acceptable. What do others think?

 

[FrDavid96]

When I spoke to my sister today, she said the vicar wants to meet with the Godparents which she considers over the top, and the Godparents must be Baptised themselves. She has Godparents in mind who are not Baptised, and me who can’t do it being Catholic. I think she didn’t expect it to be so complicated and she said they are now considering a naming ceremony instead of Baptism, but still wants to have Godparents.

I have looked up online at what this involves, and it seems Godparents in these ceremonies make promises to love and support the child, and be involved in their moral and ethical development. It wouldn’t involve pledging to guide them in their religious development in a Protestant church.

It seems to me that this may be acceptable. What do others think?

It’s really about what the Church thinks, and how the Church sees things. A Catholic cannot be a Godparent to a non-Catholic. The Church has good reasons for making rules like these. Please keep that in mind.

I did quote from the Anglican Church of Australia’s own rite of Baptism in an earlier post. Here’s the link again. anglican.org.au/docs/commissions/liturgy/Holy%20Baptism%20in%20Morning%20and%20Evening%20Prayer.pdf

It’s pretty clear that the Godparents must have the intention to raise the child in what Anglicanism considers to be the “faith and practice of the Church.” That’s problematic, to say the least, for a Catholic.

Children are baptised in response to God’s all-embracing love. Parents and
godparents who have responded to that love come now to bring their children for
baptism. Before this congregation they must express their own trust and
commitment to the promises of God, and their intention to bring up their children in
the faith and practice of the Church. In due time these children should make their own
response to God, and be prepared for confirmation.

I can help you understand it, and I can articulate the Church’s norms. What you do is ultimately your choice.

You did write that “they are agnostic.” That begs the question: why are they even asking for a baptism? Do they actually intend to raise the child as a Christian (of any kind), or to allow the child to be raised that way? or are they just looking for a ceremony? Don’t answer those—they’re just meant for your own consideration. In my experience, when people give up on asking for baptism that easily (things like “well, if we can’t have a cake in church, then just forget about the whole thing” or “if we need Godparents, then we just won’t do it”) they never really wanted it in the first place. It sounds like there’s some possibility there, that they might allow you to help raise him as a Christian, and I hope that’s true.

Again, I can help you understand it, and I can articulate the Church’s norms. What you do is ultimately your choice.