To be reluctant to be a Godparent to a child about to be adopted

[LoveMyPiano]

I have previously posted about the situation with my neighbour/friend (younger than my own daughter), who - after a lengthy process - is about to lose her daughter, after the baby has spent nearly 7 months in Foster Care (starting after her birth). Earlier this month, a Final Order was made by the Court and she will be placed with an adoptive family, in the next month or so I think.

A concession (amongst others that have been made) is that she can be Christened (not sure how that will work wrt to her name after adoption), and, at the last minute (...) I have been asked to be Godmother.

In view of the adoption proceess, I am not really sure of how my being Gp would work, or have any relevance whatsoever in her future life. I AM prepared to do it for my "friend", as I feel so very very sad for her, and she does need all the support she can get.

But I am not sure of the wisom of it, and how that is affeced also by her being Roman Catholic (and I am pretty much agnostic, Methodiist at a push and Buddhist by preference.... not that ANY of that will come into it); I would hate to just pay lip service to it - but really do wish that I had not been asked.

(My daughter's Godparents have been 100% hands off, I am sorry to say.)

I would welcome any thoughts, suggestions, opinions....
(Oh yes, it so last minute that the Christening [Baptism?] is on Sunday...) Help?

@LadyinRead

Havent RTFT, but you won't be allowed if you aren't a confirmed Catholic.

I only have tomorrow to check that this is the case.....Do I need to contact the Church/Father? Or wait until I stand there for them, and be told I can't - obviously I would prefer that not to happen. But PPs are telling me that it will be OK - especially as this is a non-standard Baptism (is there such a thing though?) - due to baby not staying with birth family.....

Re the issue of the baptismal certificate for later use:

Code of Canon Law 877
§3. If it concerns an adopted child, the names of those adopting are to be inscribed and, at least if it is done in the civil records of the region, also the names of the natural parents according to the norm of §§1 and 2, with due regard for the prescripts of the conference of bishops.

The original parish record will have the birth surname and parents 'parenthesized' and the surname and the names of the adoptive parents added to the original record. Any Baptismal Certificate issued for the adopted child will have only the surname of the adoptive parents, and will show the adoptive parents listed as the parents on the certificate.

So no, the 'original baptism' names will not follow the child. The adoptive parents, if they are Catholic, will be able to obtain a new certificate with amended information.

TBH my parents would have had no idea if I had gone through any kind of religious ceremony as a baby. That information wasn't part of the adoption. I suppose it may be different now.

But honestly (or dishonestly depending on your 'take'), all the adoptive parents would need to do is have the child 're-baptised' using the amended birth certificate showing their surname and their names as parents. A church isn't going to know that 'Mary Smith' is the same baby that was baptized as 'Mary Jones' unless it's the same church, same priest, and he has a great memory for 'baby faces'.

@Peoniesandpeaches

The issue really arises if the adoptive family is catholic as they won’t be able to baptize the baby again and will need to have/use the original baptismal record for things like school, confirmation, marriage and if they want to teach in a catholic school. It doesn’t feel like a loving act for the mother it feels like a fuck you to the people who will be raising her child and a way of exerting control.

I would hope that the adoptive family, if they are practicing or cultural catholics, would be able to find a priest who would bend the rules and redo the baptism if necessary (as in, should the growing child or her new parents give a flying fuck). It's not a legally-binding thing, after all.

And if this young woman is doing it as something of a fuck-you to the people who are, after all, taking her child from her against her will then good luck to her.

But the Control - yes, both of what happens before she loses her, of the people (including me ) whose presence she will expect/request; and of this significant occasion that will be the only one she - wrongly or rightly - CAN control.

Well of course. Every bit of control has been taken from her up to now. Having no control over your life and your own child's life must be unspeakably awful. Of course she wants something to happen between her and the baby that she can choose to happen and to control. That ceremony will be something she will always remember and cling to. Something she chose for her child herself, in those last days.

That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

[quote Meadowbreeze]@LoveMyPiano I appreciate you trying to put it kindly but 'leaving religion out of it' is really impossible and actually, rude.
Baptising is the single most significant thing for many religion, whether you agree with it or not. I'm not from a religion that's in the business of baptising babies, but regardless of my view of this, I find it really rude that someone would treat an act of massive significance in a religion, as a favour. It's a sacred thing and it seems to be treated as a favour to make someone feel better. There are lots of ways you can help someone in this situation. One of those can also be saying no. I do not envy you, it sounds like an awful situation for all, but my goodness please don't agree to this if your view of it is really as you describe.[/quote]
I have met quite a few religious ministers. The ones who were decent human beings were far more concerned with kindness than the 'rules' of whatever myth system they represented. My understanding of Christian religions (being middle aged, white and British I was brought up at least culturally Christian) is that the main priority is to be kind to other people. I'm sure there are even Christian myths on the topic of doing the kind thing versus obeying the traditions and that being the right thing to do.

LoveMyPiano I honestly don't know how you can get around it but I would ask the officiating priest well in advance of the ceramony. I only know about this as I was to be godmother to my friend's child but was disqualified on those grounds so was demoted to "sponsor".

This is from the Code of Canon Law:

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.

I'd do it in a heartbeat. It's a very sad situation but you will help mum and you won't harm the child by doing this. And you can pray for them in the weeks and months and years to come inwhatever way seems best to you, that's always helpful.

Sorry, I meant I was demoted to "witness" rather than "sponsor".

I work with churches, church charities and multifaith groups and number a large number of clergy amongst my friends. I would do it. We have no stronger instinct than to care for our children. For good and important reasons your friend has been told at the most basic level that she cannot be allowed to do that.

You will be giving her a memory to warm her - that she did the one thing she could. Conversely, her baby will know that his/her biological mum cared and wanted to do this for her. The religious bit of it is functioningly irrelevant.

I attended a baptism of a child who was going to be adopted. The mother had mental health problems at the time, but understood that she was not in the right place for a child at the moment and did want the best for him. I bumped into her recently and she is doing well. She has another baby - who she is in the right place to look after and is growing well. I think if you are able to do this and say a prayer for the child, you would bring comfort to the mother.

Havent RTFT, but you won't be allowed if you aren't a confirmed Catholic.

A few people have pointed out that this doesn’t matter because you can just lie

I have met quite a few religious ministers. The ones who were decent human beings were far more concerned with kindness than the 'rules' of whatever myth system they represented

It would be nice to believe this, but it can’t be true. Religion is pretty much the opposite of “just be kind”.

Also it’s not true that adopted children keep their original name. They may do, but it can also be changed. Sometimes it must be changed for good reason.

The issue really arises if the adoptive family is catholic as they won’t be able to baptize the baby again and will need to have/use the original baptismal record for things like school, confirmation, marriage and if they want to teach in a catholic school

I don’t know where you go to church but being catholic is not a requirement to teach in a catholic school. Even in the 80’s we had non catholic teachers, and my dc have a hijabi teacher.

You can get married without being catholic too. My dh isn’t catholic. I’ve never been asked to “prove” my catholicism, church attendance was enough.

If the child needed to change their name for safeguarding reasons and needed a new cert I’m sure most priests would facilitate this.

When DD was baptised, she had one Catholic godparent and one Buddhist godparent
The priest said that this was fine !

I’m a non Catholic who was married to a Catholic man. It was important to him that our child was baptised. Baptism was a lovely ceremony in very small traditional church but neither god parent was Catholic.

So pp saying that one god parent must be Catholic are wrong I’m afraid. Might be policy in particular church that they have experience of, but Is def not wider or blanket policy.

You sound a lovely friend. I think if I were you, I’d do it.

A random baptism does not grant de facto kinship adoption rights!

I heard this once in an American group stated as common knowledge, I was shocked

I hope that you can get clarification OP. If for any reason the baptism can't go ahead, perhaps the priest would be able to conduct a short service of blessing/prayers with the baby, mother and those supporting her. I can't see how anyone would have a problem with that.

So pp saying that one god parent must be Catholic are wrong I’m afraid

I think most people are just saying it is worth checking with the priest.

Here are the rules at a church in Gosport which says the rules are universal and don't vary. Perhaps some priests are easy going but I'm afraid this can't be relied upon in the Catholic church!

www.stmarysgosport.org.uk/copy-of-sacraments

These days surnames are changed not first names. Genetically you are of course still siblings even if the legal ties are broken, you would be able to track them down through the authority they were adopted through or via a national charity.

[quote RonCarlos]So pp saying that one god parent must be Catholic are wrong I’m afraid

I think most people are just saying it is worth checking with the priest.

Here are the rules at a church in Gosport which says the rules are universal and don't vary. Perhaps some priests are easy going but I'm afraid this can't be relied upon in the Catholic church!

www.stmarysgosport.org.uk/copy-of-sacraments[/quote]
It is down to your priest, some are more traditional some more liberal. They are human afterall. It is like getting absolution if you are using contraception, some priests will be supportive and some not.

I find more are liberal these days but maybe that is just down to the luck of the draw. I do remember the hellfire and damnation types when I was a child but I haven't seen any like that is the last 50 years.

The issue really arises if the adoptive family is catholic as they won’t be able to baptize the baby again and will need to have/use the original baptismal record for things like school, confirmation, marriage and if they want to teach in a catholic school

I think they could speak to the priest, I'm sure priests have dealt with this issue in the past and there must be guidelines. A priest would not wish to exclude a Baptised child from the family of the church.

These days surnames are changed not first names.

I don't know why this keeps getting said. First names can be changed. My niece is adopted, she has a different first name to that which she was given by her family of origin. This is for her own protection.

@2holibobssofar

At no point did I say it was a legal thing, but taking the children after the parents die (which would be written in the parent’s will and obviously thoroughly vetted by authorities before any legal decisions were made) is the intended purpose of being a godparent at a catholic baptism (alongside the removal of original sin from the child’s soul) but most people aren’t deeply religious and don’t understand this, hence all the comments saying it’s rubbish.

Not so. Yes, there was a marriage bar around godparental relationships formalised at the Council of Trent, though it had been less formally in practice since the emergence of infant baptism in the early years of Christianity (not Catholicism), and which was abolished post-Reformation in the C of E, but there has never been anything in Canon Law that makes godparents legal guardians — it has always only stipulated adulthood and being a baptised (and later also confirmed) Catholic who is not the child’s natural parent. In practice, in some countries, it was sometimes the case that the godparent would often take on the child if the parents died, but it was an issue of local cultural practice, rather than religious belief, and often because the godparent was an uncle or aunt of the child, who would likely have brought up the child anyway. At other times and places the godparent would be chosen because they were considered able to give the child a start in business/work, or because they might help them financially, or leave them a legacy if childless.

I actually blame the Harry Potter books for propagating the widespread myth that being a godparent confers a legal guardian-type responsibility to raise the child if the parents die (Sirius Black asking Harry to live with him, and his signature on the Hogsmeade permission letter appearing to be valid in the school authorities’ eyes) — not that having a godparent makes a lot of sense in a Wizarding world that doesn’t appear to have any religious belief, anyway.

@ancientgran

The issue really arises if the adoptive family is catholic as they won’t be able to baptize the baby again and will need to have/use the original baptismal record for things like school, confirmation, marriage and if they want to teach in a catholic school

I think they could speak to the priest, I'm sure priests have dealt with this issue in the past and there must be guidelines. A priest would not wish to exclude a Baptised child from the family of the church.

It’s not so much that a priest wouldn’t want to allow it, it’s just that as you can’t be ‘rebaptised’, the child and adoptive parents would need to use the original baptismal certificate etc with the child’s birth name and the birth mother’s name etc —generally after the adoption certificate (which functions as a birth certificate) is issued, all admin relating to the child’s birth identity is decoupled from their new one (NHS stuff, for instance).

The baptism/Christening is a symbolic way of saying good bye to her child. I would support her, but expect to here from the dc in the future because godparents are named (mine are) on mementos from the church.