Proxies

A reader writes:

I’ve been coordinating the sacrament preparation @ my parish for 10 years.  Early on, the issue arose of a would-be Confirmation sponsor unable to attend the actual Confirmation liturgy.  In some places, pastors allow sponsors by "proxy" — they are listed in the official Church record, but someone physically stands in for them at the time of Confirmation.   (This practice is not written into canon law.)  When this idea was put forth here, an assistant pastor – a canonist – advised (and strenuously maintained/demanded) that no "proxy" was possible, but in fact a sponsor is the physical witness to the Confirmation.

Since that time, we’ve changed pastors/assistants and the new staff are not as certain/adament with regard to the proxy issue.   I maintain that the logic used with the first resolution of this issue still is reasonable & defensible.  However, I am not a canonist, but a laywoman – and, to make matters worse, the priest whose opinion carried so much weight years ago has since left the priesthood.  So, my source of information is "tainted." 

Now, my son was asked to be a Confirmation sponsor in another diocese, with the plan to have a proxy stand in for him at the liturgy while he is out-of-state.  I told him that the proxy solution was not a true solution, but that whoever is present is the actual sponsor, (according to our errant priest-friend). 

What is correct?

You are correct that the use of proxies as sponsors in confirmation is not found in the Code, however this of itself does not mean that the use of proxies is illegitimate.

There are all kinds of acts for which we can designate someone to act on our behalf, and canon law does not specifically have to name all of them. In general, people can ask someone to act on their behalf (i.e., serve as a proxy) unless this is specifically prohibited or otherwise impossible for some reason.

The ability to use proxies goes so far as to inject itself into the sacraments. Canon law allows the use of proxies in the exchange of matrimonial consent, for example, and one could argue that confession is made by proxy when a person confesses through a translator–something else canon law also explicitly envisions. You can even argue that the parents are serving as proxies of a sort at the baptism of an infant and requesting baptism on his behalf.

There are limites to what a proxy can do for you, though. They cannot be baptized or absolved or married for you–only you can receive the sacrament. But proxies can act as your agent in doing things attendant to the sacrament, such as requesting it, making confession in a form the priest can understand, or conveying your consent to be married.

Given that, it would seem in principle that a godparent could make use of a proxy. If the person who will be receiving the sacrament can make use of proxies to perform certain functions for him then it would seem that a godparent–whose role is much less central to the sacrament–could do the same.

At the very least, there is no in principle impossibility of this (the way there is an in principle impossibility of anyone receiving the sacrament for you). That would seem to kick the question into the realm of what ecclesiastical law says.

As always in law, liberty is presumed unless the law provides otherwise, and there is no law barring the use of proxies by godparents at either baptism or confirmation.

In fact, the green CLSA commentary specifically notes:

Although the canon [i.e., 872] says nothing about a sponsor’s presence ethrough a proxy, this silence is not to be understood as barring the use of a proxy to stand in for an absent sponsor [at baptism] [p. 1061].

Regarding your former assistant pastor’s statement that the godparent must be present because he is the physical witness to the confirmation, this is incorrect, as is shown by several factors:

1) There is no strict mandate to even have a sponsor at confirmation. Canon 892 only says that there should be a sponsor "insofar as possible." If he was the witness to the event then the use of a sponsor would be mandated.

2) The canons on proof of confirmation (894-896) make no mention of the sponsor attesting to the event. Canon 895 does say that the sponsor’s name is to be put in the registry along with the names of the confirmand, the minister, and the parents, but that is so we can tell how who is related to whom–not who witnessed the event. (E.g., if a confirmand’s mother is in the hospital due to a car crash and can’t attend the confirmation, that doesn’t mean that her name gets left out of the "Mother" slot in the confirmatin registry.)

3) The role of confirmation sponsors is expressly modelled on baptismal sponsors in the Code, and when we look at the proofs of baptism section the Code EXPLICITLY envisions someone other than the sponsor serving as witness to the event (canon 875). If a baptismal sponsor is not a necessary witness to baptism then a confirmation sponsor (whose witnessing function isn’t even mentioned in the Code) certainly is not a necessary witness for confirmation.

YOU CAN LOOK UP THESE CANON HERE.

I therefore do not see any legal barrier to the idea of a confirmation sponsor using a proxy to stand in for him on the day of the event.

20

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin