Must your Confirmation Saint and Sponsor be the same gender as you?

[EMFrost]

I am now an adult, but recently people have been questioning (and by questioning I mean trying to gently tell me I was wrong) about these two decisions I made when I was Confirmed.

Firstly for Confirmation sponsor: told it couldn’t be our parents, and to choose someone of the same gender.
I understand why, I’m sure they’ve dealt with many awkward situations where the sponsor was a girlfriend or boyfriend and there was a breakup. I think that choosing parents was viewed as a cop-out and only allowed in certain circumstances. Thing was I wanted my Confirmation sponsor to be my big brother. I didn’t see any actual Church teaching to prove these were anything more than suggestions, so despite the decry of my instructors, I insisted my brother would be my sponsor. They eventually yielded.

Secondly for the Saint, I have had a very deep connection with St. Stephen the martyr since I was in fifth grade and had known since fifth grade I wanted him to be my Confirmation Saint. Again this was discouraged since I’m a girl, but when I held my ground, no one stopped me.

Did I break any rules or was I right that these were simply suggestions that I am not bound to follow? If I did break any canon law or code, where are these rules so I can see them for myself? Is my Confirmation tainted because I was obstinate?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Regarding parents being sponsors, this does violate canon law:

Can. 874 §1 To be admitted to undertake the office of sponsor, a person must:

… 5° not be either the father or the mother of the person to be baptized.

You didn’t know this, so if any penalty is attached to that canon, I doubt it would apply. That said, it was imprudent to go against your instructor, and it might be a good idea to bring this up at your next Confession. The priest should be able to tell you whether you committed a sin and whether you incurred any canonical penalty (but I seriously doubt it).

As to the gender of saints, there is nothing wrong with picking a saint of the opposite gender. Even monks and nuns sometimes do this when choosing a religious name (but sometimes give a masculine or feminine ending as needed). As a matter of fact, I know a Sister Stephen. So don’t worry about that at all.

As to your confirmation being “tainted,” unless there is some defect or impediment you haven’t mentioned, in my lay opinion, your Confirmation was a valid sacrament.

 

[Jack007]

confirmation saint and sponsor can be of any gender

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Confirmation saints are a pious custom, not something required for the validity of the sacrament. You can choose anyone you like or choose none at all.

There are requirements for sponsors, but being the same gender as the candidate isn’t one of them.

On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for being obedient to those in authority over you, like your instructors. At the very least, say a prayer on their behalf in thanksgiving for them putting up with an obstinate teenage girl.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I am now an adult, but recently people have been questioning (and by questioning I mean trying to gently tell me I was wrong) about these two decisions I made when I was Confirmed.

Firstly for Confirmation sponsor: told it couldn’t be our parents, and to choose someone of the same gender.
I understand why, I’m sure they’ve dealt with many awkward situations where the sponsor was a girlfriend or boyfriend and there was a breakup. I think that choosing parents was viewed as a cop-out and only allowed in certain circumstances. Thing was I wanted my Confirmation sponsor to be my big brother. I didn’t see any actual Church teaching to prove these were anything more than suggestions, so despite the decry of my instructors, I insisted my brother would be my sponsor. They eventually yielded.

Secondly for the Saint, I have had a very deep connection with St. Stephen the martyr since I was in fifth grade and had known since fifth grade I wanted him to be my Confirmation Saint. Again this was discouraged since I’m a girl, but when I held my ground, no one stopped me.

Did I break any rules or was I right that these were simply suggestions that I am not bound to follow? If I did break any canon law or code, where are these rules so I can see them for myself? Is my Confirmation tainted because I was obstinate?

I asked that of a nun once and I was told that it didn’t matter. For me it was between Francis of Assissi and Thérèse of Lisieux. Eventually I chose Francis, but not because of gender. (I saved St. Thérèse and her poem Exiled Child for my CAF handle!) I’d say you made the right choice; it’s a very personal decision.

 

[EMFrost]

I’m not sure how to describe my insistence without sounding quite disobedient.

When they confronted me, they told me these caveats were the Church’s. I asked them why (out of curiosity), but their answers made me suspicious (what canon law declares something wrong because it’s “awkward”?), and I asked where in Church law. They avoided answering. I asked again. They didn’t answer and let me be (until the saint thing, then the scenario just repeated itself) I have tried to go back and double check multiple times but ironically the only one of these caveats they willingly allowed exception to was the one that is in fact Church law (that your parents shouldn’t be your sponsor).

I really don’t think this is disobedience. No one saw the confrontation. I did not violate Holy Mother Church (as far as I know).

I feel like this is similar to when a guy asks you out (bare with my analogy please)
Some people assume that you should always say yes to the guy or else you’re a prude.
But the fact the he is “asking” should mean that you should just as rightly be able to say no.

These were suggestions, I quietly but firmly declined. Declining shouldn’t equal disobedience in this case. (If it is in fact Church teaching that’s another matter)

 

[Jack007]

Did I break any rules or was I right that these were simply suggestions that I am not bound to follow? If I did break any canon law or code, where are these rules so I can see them for myself? Is my Confirmation tainted because I was obstinate?

you did not break any rules. these were simply suggestions that you are not bound to follow. if having a male as your saviour is not awkward,having a male as your confirmation saint or sponsor is not awkward.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P33.HTM says nothing about gender of sponsor, so you did not violate the code of canon law.

your confirmation is valid and licit.

 

[Jack007]

When they confronted me, they told me these caveats were the Church’s. I asked them why (out of curiosity), but their answers made me suspicious (what canon law declares something wrong because it’s “awkward”?), and I asked where in Church law. They avoided answering. I asked again. They didn’t answer and let me be (until the saint thing, then the scenario just repeated itself) I have tried to go back and double check multiple times but ironically the only one of these caveats they willingly allowed exception to was the one that is in fact Church law (that your parents shouldn’t be your sponsor).

i will answer what they avoided
nowhere in canon law

I really don’t think this is disobedience. No one saw the confrontation. I did not violate Holy Mother Church (as far as I know).

These were suggestions, I quietly but firmly declined. Declining shouldn’t equal disobedience in this case. (If it is in fact Church teaching that’s another matter)

you did not disobey the church.

 

[graciew]

I’m not sure how to describe my insistence without sounding quite disobedient.

You need not describe it to me…I’ve got one just like you at home…
Now try this one next time: if a boyfriend suggests something which will make you break the rules,say NO. Period.
If your teachers or parents are not breaking any rule by suggesting something: say YES,and be grateful for all their love and patience
Take care and happy Confirmation!

 

[EMFrost]

I’m really glad to know I did not violate canon law.

Every now and again though people hear about what I did and they immediately testify this part of canon law, which they swear/are pretty sure they read, that states genders are to be the same. I don’t want to flat out tell them they are mistaken (after all, I could just as easily be the mistaken one) But this ghostly “law” that keeps appearing to them has never manifested itself to me no matter how hard I search. I hope it’s safe for me to assume it’s not there.

Thank ya’ll for all of your responses. It helps a great deal to know I’m not crazy- I’m not the only one who’s never found/seen this law.

 

[Jack007]

I’m really glad to know I did not violate canon law.

Every now and again though people hear about what I did and they immediately testify this part of canon law, which they swear/are pretty sure they read, that states genders are to be the same. I don’t want to flat out tell them they are mistaken (after all, I could just as easily be the mistaken one) But this ghostly “law” that keeps appearing to them has never manifested itself to me no matter how hard I search. I hope it’s safe for me to assume it’s not there.

Thank ya’ll for all of your responses. It helps a great deal to know I’m not crazy- I’m not the only one who’s never found/seen this law.

Can. 873 One sponsor,male or female, is sufficient; but there may be two, one of each sex.
(baptism)

Can. 893 (confirmation)
§2 It is desirable that the sponsor chosen be the one who undertook this role at baptism

.

This proves without doubt that they are 100% wrong and you are right. it is safe to assume that there is no canonical obligation.
you are not crazy and no one has ever found or seen this “law” .

 

[Exiled_Child]

If having a male as your saviour is not awkward,having a male as your confirmation saint or sponsor is not awkward.

 

[Jack007]

thank you

 

[EMFrost]

You need not describe it to me…I’ve got one just like you at home…
Now try this one next time: if a boyfriend suggests something which will make you break the rules,say NO. Period.
If your teachers or parents are not breaking any rule by suggesting something: say YES,and be grateful for all their love and patience
Take care and happy Confirmation!

I do appreciate your response mam, however, declining doesn’t mean I’m ungrateful either. Not that you said I was. It’s just people have an awful habit nowadays of equating declining to being disobedient, hateful, ungrateful, etc.

I think it would be quite ungrateful of me to so readily dismiss all the years St. Stephen interceded for me, my brother’s constant example, and the Church’s stance at the whim of a teacher who knows neither me nor Church teaching all that well. I’m not saying the teacher gave me nothing, but you must understand I am far more indebted to these two.

Even if their suggestion doesn’t break a rule, I am not disobeying by declining.
Except my parents, even though I’m an adult now, I’m always going to be their baby girl. <3

 

[EMFrost]

Quote:
Can. 873 One sponsor,male or female, is sufficient; but there may be two, one of each sex.
(baptism)

Can. 893 (confirmation)
§2 It is desirable that the sponsor chosen be the one who undertook this role at baptism
.

This proves without doubt that they are 100% wrong and you are right. it is safe to assume that there is no canonical obligation.
you are not crazy and no one has ever found or seen this “law” .

What? Oh my goodness, thank you Jack! You don’t know how happy I am to see this. I can put that nagging little voice to rest now. Phew! I’ve been questioned about this for so long it’s so weird to finally have a solid answer. Wow

 

[Jack007]

What? Oh my goodness, thank you Jack! You don’t know how happy I am to see this. I can put that nagging little voice to rest now. Phew! I’ve been questioned about this for so long it’s so weird to finally have a solid answer. Wow

Thank you very much
i feel honoured, being able to calm a distressed fellow catholic who doubts the licity and perhaps even the validity of so great a sacrament

 

[Phemie]

The 1917 Code of Canon Law the required the Confirmation sponsor to be of the same sex as the one being confirmed “unless in particular cases it seems to the minister there are reasonable causes to do otherwise”.

That requirement was removed from the 1983 Code.

The 1917 Code also required that each person confirmed have a different sponsor but that a sponsor could serve for two people for a just reason. That was a change because the registers in my birth parish show that, at least from 1891-1916, there was one woman as the sponsor for all the girls and one man for all the boys. In 1919 there was a change but definitely not to 1 confirmandi/1 sponsor. Instead, that year there were 2 men and 2 women for 37 boys and 22 girls. Guess the promulgation of the new Code hadn’t made its way to our small rural parish in New Brunswick, Canada. Today you’d have access to it the same day it was published in Latin. It might take a little bit longer to get it in the vernacular.

There were other rules on Confirmation sponsors in the 1917 Code which were dropped or changed in the 1983 Code:

sponsor was not to be the same person as at Baptism unless both were occurring at the same time;
sponsor couldn’t be a spouse;
sponsor/confimand now had a spiritual bond which became an impediment to marriage.

It was interesting to note that under the 1917 Code there was no requirement that a Baptism sponsor have already been confirmed. I suppose that’s not surprising since they could be a sponsor at age 14 (my sponsors, in 1953, were actually 10 & 12) and might not yet have had the opportunity to be confirmed depending on where they lived.

In my birth parish, Confirmation was conferred approximately every 3 years in the early years when the diocesan see was in a town 100 miles away. When the dioceses were realigned, our new diocese had its see in a town 50 miles away and served fewer parishes so Confirmation started being conferred every 2 years.

 

[randomusername]

My sponsor was a different gender too. I hope it’s still valid.

EDIT: Just read up on Confirmation and now I’m more confused. Apparently you are meant to be Confirmed at the age of reason, 7, but while I had Communion and Penance at around 7 or 8, me and my class in school only got Confirmation at 11 years old. The more I read about the Church the more worried I get about basically everything got to do with the Faith.

 

[Jack007]

My sponsor was a different gender too. I hope it’s still valid.

EDIT: Just read up on Confirmation and now I’m more confused. Apparently you are meant to be Confirmed at the age of reason, 7, but while I had Communion and Penance at around 7 or 8, me and my class in school only got Confirmation at 11 years old. The more I read about the Church the more worried I get about basically everything got to do with the Faith.

Age of confirmation is not that important,you can never be too old to recieve it, you can be too young,though.imho. people in my area get it around 11. Some even later.

If you get worried, read only the ccc.

 

[Phemie]

My sponsor was a different gender too. I hope it’s still valid.

EDIT: Just read up on Confirmation and now I’m more confused. Apparently you are meant to be Confirmed at the age of reason, 7, but while I had Communion and Penance at around 7 or 8, me and my class in school only got Confirmation at 11 years old. The more I read about the Church the more worried I get about basically everything got to do with the Faith.

Don’t be confused. Confirmation is meant to be the second sacrament of initiation and it used to happen that way when First Communion happened at a later age (12 or 13 or so).

In 1910, Pope Pius X decreed that children could receive Communion at the age of reason and so First Communion started happening around the age of 7 and back then that meant that many received First Communion before they’d been confirmed.

Confirmation varied by diocese. In ours, anyone who’d received First Communion was confirmed the next time the bishop came town. I made my First Communion at the end of grade 1 (age 6) and was confirmed at the end of grade 2. Later in the 60s Confirmation started being pushed back to keep kids in religious ed, particularly in parishes where there were no Catholic schools and religious ed was provided at the parish level. Silly, really, to deny teens the graces they need at the time when they most need them.

Canon Law says that one MAY be confirmed at the age of reason but doesn’t say that one must be. Bishops are free to decide for their dioceses at what age Confirmation will happen. For 9 years our bishop conferred Confirmation at the same time as First Communion. Then we merged with a diocese that conferred Confirmation in grade 10 (age 15 or 16) and the bishop decreed that Confirmation would henceforth be conferred on kids from grades 6-10. We were very saddened by that decision but it was his prerogative to decide.