Case L: Invalid Sponsorship

Maria, a Catholic girl, has had improper relations with Hermann, a Hebrew, which remained not without consequences. At the Baptism of her first child three members of her family were present, the elder brother in the capacity of sponsor. Some time after, Maria’s family severed all connection with Maria, because she persisted in her resolve to marry the Hebrew Hermann. The latter accepted the Catholic faith in order to marry Maria. Soon after a second child was born to them without Maria’s family knowing anything about it. As there was no sponsor at hand, Maria had her younger brother entered as sponsor, and afterward informed her elder brother of the fact, who, in turn, acquainted the younger brother of the honor that had befallen him. As there seemed nothing else to do the latter declared himself willing to assume the sponsorship, which his sister had imposed upon him without his knowledge or desire. Is this sponsorship valid in facie ecclesiae?

Answer. No. The sponsorship can of course take place per procuratorem, but the actual sponsor must be made aware of his appointment, give his consent thereto, appoint the proxy, or direct the appointment to take place through another; for the position of sponsor imposes certain obligations, the voluntary assumption of which requires a foreknowledge and assent as most necessary conditions. This is the self-evident teaching of all moralists; thus LEHMKUHL (Theol. Mor., II, n. 758): For sponsors it is required that they have validly been sponsors; therefore, that they have had the intention of performing the office of sponsor. GOEPFERT, in his Moral Theology, III, p. 52, declares: “In order that some one really be sponsor, and assume spiritual relationship, it is requisite that he or she should have the intention of undertaking the sponsorship; hence it is not contracted in an error in corpore, if there is a mistake in the one baptized, or if some one has been appointed to be a sponsor against his knowledge or wish, and only afterward apprised of the fact. Esser holds: “It is permissible for the sponsor to have a proxy at the sacramental act; he must, however, have knowledge of his selection as sponsor, and have the intention of becoming sponsor; otherwise spiritual relationship does not exist.”

Since the brother had not the least idea that he was named as sponsor, since, moreover, in consequence of the severed relations, not even his consensus praesumptus could be supposed, there can be no question of a valid sponsorship. The subsequent consent to the condition of things has no lawful effect as the sponsorship occurs in ipso actu baptismi, and at this moment also the consent must be present; a kind of sanatio in radice per subsequentum consensum is impossible, as the act of baptizing, to which the sponsorship is attached, no longer lasts; here may be applied the inversion of the axiom: Infectum factum fieri nequit.

J. Gföllner, D.D.