my parish because that 10 years. At an early stage on, the issue occurred of a would-be confirmation sponsor unable to to visit the actual confirmation liturgy. In part places, pastors allow sponsors through "proxy" — castle are noted in the main Church record, however someone physically stands in because that them at the time of Confirmation. (This practice is no written into canon law.) as soon as this idea was placed forth here, an assistant pastor – a canonist – advised (and strenuously maintained/demanded) that no "proxy" to be possible, yet in truth a sponsor is the physical witness come the Confirmation.

You are watching: Can a parent be a proxy sponsor for confirmation

Since the time, we’ve readjusted pastors/assistants and the new staff are not together certain/adament with regard to the proxy issue. I maintain that the logic supplied with the very first resolution of this issue still is reasonable & defensible. However, ns am not a canonist, yet a laywoman – and, to make matters worse, the priest whose opinion brought so much weight years earlier has because left the priesthood. So, my resource of details is "tainted."

Now, my child was inquiry to be a check sponsor in another diocese, v the setup to have a proxy stand in for him in ~ the liturgy while that is out-of-state. Ns told him that the proxy systems was not a true solution, but that everyone is present is the yes, really sponsor, (according come our errant priest-friend).

What is correct?

You room correct that the usage of proxies together sponsors in check is not uncovered in the Code, but this of chin does not median that the usage of proxies is illegitimate.

There are all kinds of acts for which we deserve to designate who to act on our behalf, and canon legislation does no specifically have to name every one of them. In general, people can ask someone to plot on your behalf (i.e., offer as a proxy) uneven this is specifically prohibited or otherwise difficult for some reason.

The capability to use proxies goes for this reason far as to inject itself into the sacraments. Canon law permits the use of proxies in the exchange of matrimonial consent, because that example, and one can argue that confession is make by proxy once a human being confesses with a translator–something else canon law also explicitly envisions. Friend can even argue that the parents space serving together proxies of a type at the baptism of an infant and also requesting baptism on his behalf.

There space limites to what a proxy deserve to do because that you, though. They can not be i was baptized or absolved or married because that you–only you have the right to receive the sacrament. However proxies can act together your certified dealer in doing points attendant come the sacrament, such as requesting it, making confession in a kind the priest have the right to understand, or conveying her consent to it is in married.

Given that, it would seem in principle the a godparent could make usage of a proxy. If the human being who will certainly be receiving the sacrament can make use of proxies come perform specific functions because that him then it would seem the a godparent–whose role is lot less central to the sacrament–could carry out the same.

At the an extremely least, there is no in principle impossibility the this (the means there is an in rule impossibility of anyone receiving the sacrament because that you). That would seem to absent the question into the kingdom of what ecclesiastical legislation says.

As always in law, liberty is presumed unless the law offers otherwise, and there is no regulation barring the usage of proxies through godparents at one of two people baptism or confirmation.

In fact, the eco-friendly CLSA commentary particularly notes:

Although the canon says nothing around a sponsor’s existence ethrough a proxy, this silence is not to be construed as barring the usage of a proxy to stand in for an lacking sponsor .

Regarding your previous assistant pastor’s statement that the godparent need to be present because he is the physics witness to the confirmation, this is incorrect, as is presented by several factors:

1) there is no strictly mandate to also have a sponsor at confirmation. Canon 892 only says that there need to be a sponsor "insofar as possible." If he was the witness come the event then the usage of a sponsor would be mandated.

2) The canons on evidence of check (894-896) do no point out of the sponsor attesting to the event. Canon 895 go say that the sponsor’s surname is come be placed in the registry along with the names of the confirmand, the minister, and also the parents, however that is for this reason we have the right to tell exactly how who is regarded whom–not who witnessed the event. (E.g., if a confirmand’s mom is in the hospital due to a vehicle crash and also can’t to visit the confirmation, that doesn’t median that her surname gets left out of the "Mother" slot in the confirmatin registry.)

3) The function of confirmation sponsors is expressly modelled on baptismal sponsors in the Code, and also when we look at the proofs of baptism section the Code explicitly envisions someone other than the sponsor serving as witness come the event (canon 875). If a baptismal sponsor is no a important witness to baptism then a check sponsor (whose witnessing function isn’t even mentioned in the Code) certainly is not a essential witness because that confirmation.

YOU deserve to LOOK UP this CANON HERE.

See more: Freightliner Fld 120 Fuse Box Location, Freightliner Fld 120 Fuse Panel Diagram

I as such do not see any kind of legal barrier to the idea of a confirmation sponsor making use of a proxy to stand in because that him on the day of the event.