Question about Godparents

[smog]

Hi, I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, wasn’t sure where to put it.

I just saw a thread in the Ask An Apologetist forum about Godparents and how it has to be one female and one male. When my son was baptised in the Catholic Church we asked priests at the 2 churches in our town, one we were previous members at and the other was our current church, but we felt comfortable at both. Anyway, we wanted to have 2 females be Godparents. My sister as one and my husbands sister as the other. My sisters husband is not Catholic and my husbands sister has never been married and there is a shortage of men in both our families.

According to what the AAA forum states, even though both priests approved having 2 female Godparents, it appears that it is not allowed. Now I know you only need one, so I guess we could just call one of them Godparent and the other as a witness, but I’m not sure if there’s anything I need to do about this or if it even is an issue since it occurred 4 years ago and is already done.

Thanks for your time!

Susan

 

[mchale]

Just a guess, but since god parents are not an essential to the sacrement of baptism, I doubt that the break in form from the normally canonically recognized requirements and limitations on god parents is something to be concerned about. I suppose technically only one of the women is the godmother, but how do you determine which one? And certainly after the baptisim has been completed, even one who is not a godparent can help fulfill the role of ensuring that the child is properly raised in the faith.

–
Bill

 

[teachccd]

Hi, I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, wasn’t sure where to put it.

I just saw a thread in the Ask An Apologetist forum about Godparents and how it has to be one female and one male. When my son was baptised in the Catholic Church we asked priests at the 2 churches in our town, one we were previous members at and the other was our current church, but we felt comfortable at both. Anyway, we wanted to have 2 females be Godparents. My sister as one and my husbands sister as the other. My sisters husband is not Catholic and my husbands sister has never been married and there is a shortage of men in both our families.

According to what the AAA forum states, even though both priests approved having 2 female Godparents, it appears that it is not allowed. Now I know you only need one, so I guess we could just call one of them Godparent and the other as a witness, but I’m not sure if there’s anything I need to do about this or if it even is an issue since it occurred 4 years ago and is already done.

Thanks for your time!

Susan

As a teacher of the pre-baptism classes at my parish I can tell you that canon law is very specific that when two godparents are chosen they must be of both genders. So it is true one would be considered a witness. This is the unfortunate circumstance when being misled even by priests sometimes. The baptismal certificate should state the godparents names. It should have been obvious then that something was not correct. Godparents are spiritual parents and therefore mirror the parents’ roles as far as bringing up the child in the faith.

Anyway, not to worry. Just be happy if both ladies are helping in their roles as spiritual examples and move on. The baptism was valid so all is well…God Bless

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I would not sweat the past I suspect the first name listed in the church’s recorded Sponsor, however the duty which is the important part can be perfrmed with out offical function.

*vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Y.HTM
CHAPTER IV.

SPONSORS

Can. 872 Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

Can. 873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.
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.

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.*

 

[puzzleannie]

If there was any mistake on the part of the parish where you baptized, it was not your fault and you need to take no action whatever. In any case, it does not affect the validity of the baptism.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi, I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, wasn’t sure where to put it.

I just saw a thread in the Ask An Apologetist forum about Godparents and how it has to be one female and one male. When my son was baptised in the Catholic Church we asked priests at the 2 churches in our town, one we were previous members at and the other was our current church, but we felt comfortable at both. Anyway, we wanted to have 2 females be Godparents. My sister as one and my husbands sister as the other. My sisters husband is not Catholic and my husbands sister has never been married and there is a shortage of men in both our families.

According to what the AAA forum states, even though both priests approved having 2 female Godparents, it appears that it is not allowed. Now I know you only need one, so I guess we could just call one of them Godparent and the other as a witness, but I’m not sure if there’s anything I need to do about this or if it even is an issue since it occurred 4 years ago and is already done.

Thanks for your time!

Susan

What is done is done, it was illicit. We need to do everything we can to educate the faithful about this. It did not affect the validity of the Baptism.

Just for clarification, even when there is only one Catholic Godparent the Christian Witness should also be of the opposite gender of the Catholic Godparent.

 

[teachccd]

What is done is done, it was illicit. We need to do everything we can to educate the faithful about this. It did not affect the validity of the Baptism.

Just for clarification, even when there is only one Catholic Godparent the Christian Witness should also be of the opposite gender of the Catholic Godparent.

Just for my clarification, how is the baptism illicit when only one godparent is required and can you support your second statement concerning Christian witnesses?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Just for my clarification, how is the baptism illicit when only one godparent is required and can you support your second statement concerning Christian witnesses?

Something that is done that is not in accord with the rules, rubrics or laws is illicit, it may or may not also be invalid. One may celebrate a valid Sacrament, but do so illicitly. Even more so when one intentionaly does so.
My opinion is since Canon Law seems to be specific about the opposite gender of Godparents. It seems to me based on my understanding of the theological meaning or symbolism, that the same would apply to a Godparent and a Christian Witness. That they too should be of opposite genders. Simply because the faithful in the pews witnessing the Baptism usually do not know that the two men or two women standing with the parents are not same-sex Godparents.

 

[teachccd]

Something that is done that is not in accord with the rules, rubrics or laws is illicit, it may or may not also be invalid. One may celebrate a valid Sacrament, but do so illicitly. Even more so when one intentionaly does so.
My opinion is since Canon Law seems to be specific about the opposite gender of Godparents. It seems to me based on my understanding of the theological meaning or symbolism, that the same would apply to a Godparent and a Christian Witness. That they too should be of opposite genders. Simply because the faithful in the pews witnessing the Baptism usually do not know that the two men or two women standing with the parents are not same-sex Godparents.

While your understanding of the two being different genders sounds very reasonable to me, to my knowledge canon law does not prohibit this. But, again, understanding the symbolism I totally agree with your opinion.

As far as the baptism being illicit, I still do not agree that is was. Only one godparent is required. So just because another person acted as a godparent, through no fault of their own, should not take away from the sacrament being licit. I think that we put too much emphasis in the incidental items where more pressing concern is needed elsewhere. There was one godparent. That’s what is required in a ceremonial baptism so it was licit. In fact, in emergency circumstances, no godparents are required and the baptism is not considered illicit. Please provide me with references if I am indeed wrong as I am always willing to humble myself.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

While your understanding of the two being different genders sounds very reasonable to me, to my knowledge canon law does not prohibit this. But, again, understanding the symbolism I totally agree with your opinion.

As far as the baptism being illicit, I still do not agree that is was. Only one godparent is required. So just because another person acted as a godparent, through no fault of their own, should not take away from the sacrament being licit. I think that we put too much emphasis in the incidental items where more pressing concern is needed elsewhere. There was one godparent. That’s what is required in a ceremonial baptism so it was licit. In fact, in emergency circumstances, no godparents are required and the baptism is not considered illicit. Please provide me with references if I am indeed wrong as I am always willing to humble myself.

You are correct that a Godparent or witnesses is not required in an emergency, if possible they are desired. As I said it has no effect on the validity. Canon Law does specify that a non-Catholic cannot be a Godparent. That is absolutely clear. That Godparents must be of opposite genders is clear. That a Christian Witness must be of the opposite gender of the Catholic parent is not explicit in the law, but I see it as implied. But then my opinion is only that, my opinion.

 

[teachccd]

You are correct that a Godparent or witnesses is not required in an emergency, if possible they are desired. As I said it has no effect on the validity. Canon Law does specify that a non-Catholic cannot be a Godparent. That is absolutely clear. That Godparents must be of opposite genders is clear. That a Christian Witness must be of the opposite gender of the Catholic parent is not explicit in the law, but I see it as implied. But then my opinion is only that, my opinion.

Br. Rich SFO, Thank you for your response. Like I said in my earlier post, I teach the pre-baptism classes at my parish so I want to make sure that I’m right on track when I give out information. God Bless you and thanks again…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am with Brother Rich on this one, if the original plan violated the Canon it is improper so illicit is the “plan” (to violate Canon 873) or in the earlier case the past action. However the Baptism is valid, assuming all the appropriate Canons were followed.

My bet is the record is valid listing a single woman sponsor

 

[teachccd]

I am with Brother Rich on this one, if the original plan violated the Canon it is improper so illicit is the “plan” (to violate Canon 873) or in the earlier case the past action. However the Baptism is valid, assuming all the appropriate Canons were followed.

My bet is the record is valid listing a single woman sponsor

How is canon law #873 being violated when only ONE godparent is required??? That was followed and the additional woman was a witness unknown to her at the time. Nothing is illicit as I don’t think that the OP “planned” to violate section 873 of canon law. ALL I repeat ALL of the elements for a licit baptism were present except for one lady who was not in the role that she thought that she was in.

The ignorance of the priest still did not remove all of the essential elements for a valid and licit baptism. **If a theater says that you must pay for one ticket to see a movie and instead you bought two you did not break the law. :banghead: **

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…I just saw a thread in the Ask An Apologetist forum about Godparents and how it has to be one female and one male. When my son was baptised in the Catholic Church we asked priests at the 2 churches in our town, one we were previous members at and the other was our current church, but we felt comfortable at both. Anyway, we wanted to have 2 females be Godparents. My sister as one and my husbands sister as the other. My sisters husband is not Catholic and my husbands sister has never been married and there is a shortage of men in both our families.

According to what the AAA forum states, even though both priests approved having 2 female Godparents, it appears that it is not allowed. Now I know you only need one, so I guess we could just call one of them Godparent and the other as a witness, but I’m not sure if there’s anything I need to do about this or if it even is an issue since it occurred 4 years ago and is already done.

Thanks for your time!

Susan

How is canon law #873 being violated when only ONE godparent is required??? That was followed and the additional woman was a witness unknown to her at the time. Nothing is illicit as I don’t think that the OP “planned” to violate section 873 of canon law. ALL I repeat ALL of the elements for a licit baptism were present except for one lady who was not in the role that she thought that she was in.

The ignorance of the priest still did not remove all of the essential elements for a valid and licit baptism. **If a theater says that you must pay for one ticket to see a movie and instead you bought two you did not break the law. :banghead: **

Lets try this: No one had authority to conduct a ceremony in which two women were identified as the Godparents of the baby being baptized. That is the violation of the Canon and why the word illicit is being used. Because we know of no disqualifying condition the baptism is assumed valid. The principle here is a common one in which error is found present (illicit) but the error does not prevent the accomplishment of the task (valid ceremony). Does that explain it?

 

[teachccd]

Lets try this: No one had authority to conduct a ceremony in which two women were identified as the Godparents of the baby being baptized. That is the violation of the Canon and why the word illicit is being used. Because we know of no disqualifying condition the baptism is assumed valid. The principle here is a common one in which error is found present (illicit) but the error does not prevent the accomplishment of the task (valid ceremony). Does that explain it?

Job well done, Texas Roofer. After seeking further reflection, I can see how ignorance and bad catechesis resulted in an illicit action on the part of the parents and priest. But the one thing that is most important to me when following canon law is to make sure that legalism doesn’t overlap the sacredness of the intended sacrament. Canon law is just that, laws that can be changed. It is not doctrine. While the Church insists in complying with canon law we must, for pastoral reasons, be careful not to undermine the understanding of doctrine to those who may be compelled to leave because of stringent laws.

Again, let me be clear. Canon law must be adhered to, but in light of doctrine which is to be understood as unchanging and sacred. Jesus condemned the legalism of the Pharisees in favor of His mission of love. Let’s keep that in perspective. God Bless you all…

 

[WestonGrant]

After reading through all of this I understand the problem. I’ve been there. But I agree most with the “don’t worry too much” vein. Some of this seems a little bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[teachccd]

After reading through all of this I understand the problem. I’ve been there. But I agree most with the “don’t worry too much” vein. Some of this seems a little bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And I’m absolutely sure that if you started a thread with that question there would many who would insist that there is a definite answer. Jesus condemned legalism yet we find the most petty things so binding. Oh, one last question, can those angels dance on Sunday or would that be considered unnecessary work?And is that liturgical dance?