|
Objection 1: It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font
is not bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves
instructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and
ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font.
Therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound to
instruct him.
Objection 2: Further, a son is instructed by his father better than
by a stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son
receives from his father, "being, food, and education." If,
therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it
would be fitting for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the
godparent of his own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden, as
may be seen in the Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and
Dictum est).
Objection 3: Further, it is better for several to instruct than for
one only. If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their
godchildren, it would be better to have several godparents than only
one. Yet this is forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: "A
child should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a
woman."
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii):
"In the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have
raised children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for
those whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font."
I answer that, Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he has
undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above (Article 7)
that godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor.
Consequently they are bound to watch over their godchildren when there
is need for them to do so: for instance when and where children are
brought up among unbelievers. But if they are brought up among
Catholic Christians, the godparents may well be excused from this
responsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be
carefully instructed by their parents. If, however, they perceive in
any way that the contrary is the case, they would be bound, as far as
they are able, to see to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren.
Reply to Objection 1: Where the danger is imminent, the
godparent, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be
someone "versed in holy things." But where the danger is not
imminent, by reason of the children being brought up among Catholics,
anyone is admitted to this position, because the things pertaining to
the Christian rule of life and faith are known openly by all.
Nevertheless an unbaptized person cannot be a godparent, as was
decreed in the Council of Mainz, although an unbaptized person:
because the person baptizing is essential to the sacrament, wherefore
as the godparent is not, as stated above (Article 7, ad 2).
Reply to Objection 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from
carnal generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the
body; according to Heb. 12:9: "Moreover we have had fathers of
our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much
more obey the Father of Spirits, and live?" Therefore the
spiritual father should be distinct from the carnal father, unless
necessity demanded otherwise.
Reply to Objection 3: Education would be full of confusion if there
were more than one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one
principal sponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as
assistants.
|
|