Is it allowed to marry the daughter of my sponsor in baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ikedaddy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ikedaddy

Guest
I am in love with the daughter of my sponsor in baptism. A priest friend told me that it is not allowed and that the canon law rules against it. I have tried to do elementory research and found out that there is no code of canon law prohibiting this, at least no in the marriage session. Is anybody out there ready to help me.
 
Ikedaddy said:
I am in love with the daughter of my sponsor in baptism. A priest friend told me that it is not allowed and that the canon law rules against it. I have tried to do elementory research and found out that there is no code of canon law prohibiting this, at least no in the marriage session. Is anybody out there ready to help me.
Click to expand...
There’s no such prohibition in canon law.

The point though, is that there used to be such a prohibition–relationship by affinity (not blood) in the 1917 code of canon law. That impediment was removed in the 1983 code. Any priests who were trained before 83, and many who went to seminary afterwards (taught by the pre-83 crowd) spent many years thinking that way, and never “got the message” that it no longer applies.
 
Ikedaddy said:
I am in love with the daughter of my sponsor in baptism. A priest friend told me that it is not allowed and that the canon law rules against it. I have tried to do elementory research and found out that there is no code of canon law prohibiting this, at least no in the marriage session. Is anybody out there ready to help me.
Click to expand...
it used to be forbidden under an older version of canon law, because the relationship of godparent was back then considered to form also a familial relationship. It is no longer forbidden. Ask the priest to refer you to the canon law specialist for the diocese for an answer applicable to your own personal situation.
 
Here are the 1917 canons:

Canon 1079: Only the spiritual relationship discussed in Canon 768 invalidates marriage.

Canon 768: From baptism a spiritual relationship is contracted only between the one baptizing, the one being baptized, and the sponsor.
 
One possiblity,
Is your sponsor a family member, Uncle or aunt, that would make the daughter a first cousin, then you would have a problem. If it is just a friend of the family, no relationship, then no problem.
 
In this diocese the particular law specifically says the sponsor for Confirmation or RCIA should not be the spouse, fiance or novio of the candidate.
 
puzzleannie said:
In this diocese the particular law specifically says the sponsor for Confirmation or RCIA should not be the spouse, fiance or novio of the candidate.
Click to expand...
Oh. I could have sworn one of the other guys at RCIA (in 1998) had his spouse for sponsor.
 
JHow said:
Oh. I could have sworn one of the other guys at RCIA (in 1998) had his spouse for sponsor.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have seen that in our diocese too. I think it can be a diocisan policy but isn’t a universal one everywhere.
 
Corki said:
Yes, I have seen that in our diocese too. I think it can be a diocesan policy but isn’t a universal one everywhere.
Click to expand...
It’s my understanding that spouses and fiancé(e)s are not the best people to have as sponsors as they lack objectivity, and sometimes it’s difficult for the person in RCIA to really tell the significant other what he/she is truly feeling or wanting. I’ve also heard of parishes where men must have male sponsors and women a female sponsor, and where a spouse or fiancé(e) is not allowed I think that makes perfect sense.
 
This year one of our catechumens was getting married to his sponsor and the priest that was marrying said he couldn’t marry them if she was his sponsor. He was not from our parish or our diocese and would not accept our explanation that it was allowed. So he chose his fiancee’s mom as his sponsor.
 
My fiance at the time was my sponsor. We are now divorced. Even after the decree of nullity is done I will live with that the rest of my life. While it is allowed I certainly would not recommend it to anyone who had not shown they had a long stable marriage.
 
joanofarc2008 said:
My fiance at the time was my sponsor. We are now divorced. Even after the decree of nullity is done I will live with that the rest of my life. While it is allowed I certainly would not recommend it to anyone who had not shown they had a long stable marriage.
Click to expand...
Do you feel the sponsorship somehow contributed to your situation? Or do you mean that it is terrible to have to divorce your spouse (and sponsor) later?

The couple I might in RCIA were married at least a decade, still are, and were very nice. They were both FBI agents, in fact. The guy worked on bank fraud cases and was kind-of part acccount part policeman.

Anyhow, interesting topic. I can see why it is probably not a good idea.
 
JHow said:
Do you feel the sponsorship somehow contributed to your situation? Or do you mean that it is terrible to have to divorce your spouse (and sponsor) later?

The couple I might in RCIA were married at least a decade, still are, and were very nice. They were both FBI agents, in fact. The guy worked on bank fraud cases and was kind-of part acccount part policeman.

Anyhow, interesting topic. I can see why it is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...
No, sponsorship did not contribute to the situation - I apologize if I gave that idea. In fact if everything had been good it would have been beautiful as he should have been the spiritual leader of the household. Unfortunately I was. He fell away and whenever I brought up going to Church it was that he knew better after all he sponsored me. But that is a very small part - my story is in the archives of CAF. :rolleyes: Now it is just terrible that every time I look at that certificate I see his name or I remember that event that should have been so joyous I remember him next to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top