Mother as Confirmation Sponsor

[dmission]

So I got confirmed last year after going through RCIA. My mother was my sponsor. I just learned that parents cannot, in fact, be their own children’s sponsors! I guess no one knew this at my parish or something. Anyway, I’m not asking for any resources as to why parents cannot be sponsors. I’ve seen them. I’m just wondering since it was my mother, do I even have a valid sponsor? Do you need a sponsor for Confirmation?

Bonus question: I also didn’t choose a Confirmation name. Only a few in our group did. Is choosing a Confirmation saint more of a tradition or is it required?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Confirmation names are not a requirement, only a tradition.

As far as your mother being your sponsor, did the pastor of the parish know that this was the case?
If he did, and he did not have a problem with it, you should put your mind at ease. While not recommended, it is not strictly forbidden either.

Please, trust your Pastor.

 

[1ke]

I’m just wondering since it was my mother, do I even have a valid sponsor?

It would seem you do not. This does not impact validity of the sacrament.

Do you need a sponsor for Confirmation?

The canons state, “Insofar as possible”. You can be confirmed without a sponsor.

Is choosing a Confirmation saint more of a tradition or is it required?

It is a tradition. It is not required.

 

[Crusaderbear]

No problems. I think it’s a preference to be unrelated to your sponsor, ( to reduce any appearance of coercion maybe). I tried to sponsor my wife this easter and got shot down…there was at least one individual with no sponsor.

I imagine you will still turn to mom with your faith questions (which is the main function of a sponsor) anyway, so no problems! And welcome to the faith!

 

[egretps]

Back 35 years ago, the sister in charge of my confirmation class told my mom that ‘we don’t need to pick a saints name for confirmation anymore’ at my parish. “Just use your given name.” So disappointed, I had been looking for a patron and couldn’t really make up my mind, so I resigned to use my name.

Turns out everyone. EVERYONE had picked a patron saint. There I was using my own name.

A few years ago I found out my name was actually related to a little known Spanish saint! La dee da. I got a patron saint anyway!

God Bless you, you may do a little digging and find a saint with your name, or a variant of it anyway.

 

[Phemie]

No problems. I think it’s a preference to be unrelated to your sponsor, ( to reduce any appearance of coercion maybe). I tried to sponsor my wife this easter and got shot down…there was at least one individual with no sponsor.

I imagine you will still turn to mom with your faith questions (which is the main function of a sponsor) anyway, so no problems! And welcome to the faith!

It’s not a preference, it’s canon law. The same rule applies for Confirmation sponsors as for Baptism sponsors, per canon 893:

Can. 893 §1. To perform the function of sponsor, a person must fulfill the conditions mentioned in ⇒ can. 874.
§2. It is desirable to choose as sponsor the one who undertook the same function in baptism.

Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:
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 and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;
2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;
3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;
4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;
5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

 

[Digitonomy]

It’s not a preference, it’s canon law. The same rule applies for Confirmation sponsors as for Baptism sponsors, per canon 893:

Out of curiosity, was this same rule in place prior to the current Code of Canon Law?

 

[Phemie]

Out of curiosity, was this same rule in place prior to the current Code of Canon Law?

Yes, it was.

In addition, under the 1917 Code, a spouse couldn’t be a sponsor. Because of the spiritual relationship that arose from it, being someone’s baptismal sponsor was an impediment to marriage to that person. But the bishop could grant a dispensation.

Being a Confirmation sponsor had been an impediment before the 1917 Code but was dropped in that Code. The 1983 code no longer forbids a spouse from being a sponsor and being someone’s sponsor is no longer an impediment to marrying them.