By Daniel Ezeigwe
There appears to be a deliberate, or daft, attempt by some people to turn a straightforward Catholic practice into something it is ever not. So, for the avoidance of doubt, let us explain it plainly.
In the Catholic Church, a baptismal godparent, technically called a sponsor, is a person formally chosen to undertake that responsibility for the person being baptised. Canon 873 of the Code of Canon Law provides for one sponsor, either male or female, or one male and one female sponsor. The important point is this: the responsibility belongs to the person who is actually designated as the sponsor. If a woman is chosen as the godmother of a child, her husband does not automatically become the child’s godfather simply because she is married to him. Marriage does not transfer the canonical role of sponsor from one spouse to the other.
The Church’s own rules make the distinction clear. Canon 877 requires the names of the sponsors to be recorded in the baptismal register, alongside the names of the minister and the parents. Therefore, if a particular woman was the person designated as the child’s baptismal sponsor, that is what she is: the child’s godmother. Her husband’s consent to her accepting the responsibility, his presence at the ceremony, his friendship with the family, or even his personal relationship with the child does not, by itself, make him a baptismal godfather.
If two people were formally designated as sponsors, that is a different matter. Both would have a recognized role. But one cannot simply manufacture a second godparent because the person who was actually chosen happens to be married. This is not about sentiment, politics or personal loyalty. It is about what the Catholic Church actually teaches and records.
So when people argue that because a particular woman was godmother to a child, her husband must therefore also be the godfather, they are making an assumption that does not follow from Catholic canon law. And that distinction matters.
Peter Obi’s supporters are free to interpret relationships however they wish socially, but they should not present a personal interpretation as though it were the Catholic Church’s definition of baptismal godparenting. The relevant question is very simple: Who was formally designated as the child’s baptismal sponsor? That is what the Church recognises. Not who the sponsor is married to. Not who attended the ceremony. Not who gave consent to the arrangement. And certainly not what political supporters later decide the relationship should mean. Catholic practice is precise. The argument should be equally precise. Peter Obi’s aimless cheerleaders should find time to lend some common sense from logic.
The article was written by Daniel Ezeigwe, media assistant to Anambra first lady, Mrs Nonye Soludo .
