Secular Statutory Godparenthood
550 plus 600 words
This is a proposal for a devolved safeguard for children to add to, assist and enrich parental upbringing. It involves a modernisation and formal statement of customs which reach back into early Christianity, but without religious connotations. If you do not like the word “godparent” feel free to choose another expression. It is argued that the status of godparent should be anchored in law with binding rights and duties. This would enable social services, which have been widely discredited, to take a back seat.
At the end, material is briefly quoted from academic sources on the history of godparenthood. Separately, there are critical comments about secretive family courts and other state-sponsored institutions.
___________________________________
Background
In response to what are seen as widespread failings in upbringing. conservative voices appeal for a return to the nuclear family. But there are dynamic reasons there has been a departure from this model.
Elsewhere (https://www.character-and-ethics.com/family.html) I advocate instead that parents might often better live near each other, but separately, each taking turns to care for the child or children, with the maternal role diminishing as the father introduces each growing child to the wider world. That is not the topic here.
______________________________
The topic here is the proposal for a secular, statutory godparenthood.
By “statutory godparenthood” I mean that those assuming this role should have both rights and duties in law. They should cultivate a regular relationship with their godchild, and the parents cannot refuse them access without good reason. “Regular” might mean monthly, but would doubtless be determined by practicalities.
Ideally, the godparents should be unrelated to the parents. This is how it was when the role first emerged. This principle of non-relatedness encourages and enables a cohesion in society which extends beyond the blood ties of family. The godparents would give the growing child an alternative perspective on the world and present different adults to confide in or learn from.
In the event of child abuse, the statutory godparents, as registered guardians at arm’s length, would have to answer in court as to why they knew nothing and failed to intervene or alert the judiciary.
There is no compelling reason for the godparents to be related to each other. The assumption is that one would be male, one female, but slight variations, for example with a third godparent, might be enacted.
This author takes a conservative stance on novel constellations such as two men, or two women, adopting a child. Putting this discomfort aside, such parenthood might, arguably, be preferable to a child being without assigned parents. Godparents could then be chosen to restore or approximate the natural two-gender balance; that is, a child with two male parents might have all female godparents (or visa versa). Especially in this controversial constellation, it might make sense to require there to be godparents.
A requirement for godparents to be identified and registered might also be warranted in the case of single parents, i.e. a mother or father raising a child on their own and requiring state support.
Consideration of these outlier cases takes place against the background of the poor reputation of social services. These are sometimes accused of overreach. The principle advocated here is that responsibility should be devolved as much as possible rather than being concentrated bureaucratically. This can only be achieved via state recognition of the status of godparent.
______________________________
In France, by contrast, in some places it is possible to celebrate the birth of a child with a civil baptism (baptême civil) at the mairie (=village or town administration) where the family live. But the ceremony has no official purpose and does not result in any record of the event in the civil registry. However, some families opt to use the ceremony to celebrate and welcome the child into the community as well as to mark the designation of any godparents. The choice of someone as a godparent does not confer any particular legal right or responsibility, though people sometimes also designate them in a will, or in front of a notaire (=notary), as being their choice to take care of the child in case of parental death. (Adapted from an article by Liv Rowland in the newspaper Connexion).
______________________________
According to Elaine J. Ramshaw of Methodist Theological School, Delaware, Ohio, writing in Word & World 14/1 (1994), Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, “Rethinking the Role of Godparents,” page 43:
« ….…. there were terms in Latin for “coparents” (commater, compater), terms describing the relationship between godparent and parent of the same child, by the late sixth century, while precise terms describing the relationship between godparent and godchild did not appear until the eighth century (matrina/patrinus for godparent and filiola/filiolus for godchild …….
« In the beginning, a child’s sponsor was usually one of its parents. Hippolytus and Augustine both assume this as the norm, …..
By the beginning of the sixth century, however, there is significant witness to the practice of choosing persons other than the parents to be the sponsors. The pseudo-Dionysius refers to the practice, and, in the Frankish realm, Caesarius preached of the duties of those who “receive a child from the font.” Both understand the role as one of teaching and guidance. For Caesarius the dominant metaphor is that the sponsor is the guarantor (we might translate it, co-signer) of the contract with God; the parental metaphor has not yet established itself.
« From the existing evidence, it seems likely that the practice of asking someone other than one of the parents to sponsor a child was more a grassroots development than anything else.
« Parents would invite another person to “receive their child from the font” and thus establish a quasi-familial bond among that person, their child, and themselves, a bond which increasingly had significant social functions in addition to its spiritual benefits. The origins and exact reasons for the shift to non-parent sponsors are not well attested, though the role may have had some precursors in non-Christian initiatory rites. Whatever its origins, the role of non-parent sponsor grew tremendously in importance as a social institution from the fifth century throughout the early Middle Ages, ……. »
See also: Joseph H. Lynch, Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University,1986)
______________________________
There are widespread and credible reports of secretive family courts in many countries aiding and abetting the abuse of children, mostly by taking a child from the care of a devoted mother and into the hands of abusers.
It is also contended that children are often taken forceably into foster care on the flimsiest of grounds as part of a business model. State funding is miraculously found to provide lawyers, social workers and foster carers with substantial income and a steady stream of “work.”
Some reports on this can be found at UK Column. Otherwise, there are campaigners seeking to expose this corruption.
______________________________