Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

Peter333

tea_lover wrote: »

I think it could be considered hypocritical, in some respects. On the one hand people are saying "we don't believe what you're saying, we don't think your buildings or your services or your traditions are special". Then on the other hand saying "but they're special enough for me to want to use bits of them for my wedding".

Surely it's one or the other? One of the reasons I wouldn't want to use a synagogue or a mosque for my wedding is precisely because I don't share their beliefs. No matter how glorious the building, I wouldn't feel comfortable as I know I don't hold those beliefs.

So to me, wanting a wedding in a church building without holding any Christian beliefs could be seen as hypocritical, as well as potentially offensive.

duchy wrote: »

I'm another who thinks it's very shallow to want a secular ceremony is a religious setting.

I really can't believe anyone would be crass enough to ask a vicar to remove the religion though !

Perhaps that's the difference between wanting a marriage ceremony and a wedding ? Bells and a church gate just outside a church don't make a marriage even if they make for better wedding photos and video.

duchy wrote: »

It isn't a big deal to anyone but you apparently :rotfl:

Everyone else just accepts that is how marriage ceremonies work and there is no sane reason to change things just because a few posers fancy a church in their wedding photos . Basic respect for other people's beliefs is more important to everyone else.

:T to these posts.

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

There are three separate issues here: whether you're allowed to have a civil ceremony in a church (and it turns out you legally can't), whether anybody would ever want to (and I doubt many people would, but there might be circumstances where it was the best option), and whether such an arrangement would ever be acceptable to the church. My questions have only been about the last issue, which I still don't get and probably never will.

So I'll ask one more time: why would it be so abhorrent for a church to loan out their facilities for an hour so that a civil ceremony could be conducted on the premises? Nobody is asking a religious minister to conduct the ceremony, nobody is expecting the church to incur any costs, and nobody necessarily has to even touch any of the sacred objects within the church. The ceremony itself would not include any words that could possibly be offensive to any religion, because there would be no mention of God.

(Also note that churches are allowed to conduct Civil Partnership ceremonies - I'm not sure why this is perfectly acceptable when a civil wedding is not).

Because you are asking a church to become something it is not. A church is a 'community'. It is not just a building. It is something very precious with a meaning and a purpose, to a lot of people.

If you had something precious, say, an intricate piece of lace which had been passed to you through the generations, and it had been hand stitched by your great great grandmother and lovingly preserved. You may let others hold it, see it, enjoy it. However, you wouldn't give it to someone for a fancy dress party just because they liked how it went with the rest of their outfit.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

Because you are asking a church to become something it is not. A church is a 'community'. It is not just a building. It is something very precious with a meaning and a purpose, to a lot of people.

If you had something precious, say, an intricate piece of lace which had been passed to you through the generations, and it had been hand stitched by your great great grandmother and lovingly preserved. You may let others hold it, see it, enjoy it. However, you wouldn't give it to someone for a fancy dress party just because they liked how it went with the rest of their outfit.

But then we again get back to the difference between using a church to conduct music exams and using it to conduct a civil ceremony. Neither has anything to do with religion, but one is allowed and the other is not.

Or if you don't think the above is a valid comparison, what about conducting secular funerals in a church? Presumably that is allowed, and could even be conducted by a church minister. All we're talking about is a celebration of life or love that doesn't mention God. I'm not talking about spitting on your altar or sacrificing animals. Just a simple declaration of love and commitment between two people.

Peter333

Oh dear.

TonyMMM

onlyroz wrote: »

But then we again get back to the difference between using a church to conduct music exams and using it to conduct a civil ceremony. Neither has anything to do with religion, but one is allowed and the other is not.

Or if you don't think the above is a valid comparison, what about conducting secular funerals in a church? Presumably that is allowed, and could even be conducted by a church minister. All we're talking about is a celebration of life or love that doesn't mention God. I'm not talking about spitting on your altar or sacrificing animals. Just a simple declaration of love and commitment between two people.

Once again - a vicar can allow their church to be used for absolutely anything they or their bishop thinks fit - music exams, morris dancing, rock concerts, knitting groups council meetings ....and secular funerals if they want, but they can't hold a civil marriage ceremony because the law, designed to keep civil and religious marriages separate, specifically does not allow their church to be licensed as an approved premises ....simple !

duchy

onlyroz wrote: »

what about conducting secular funerals in a church? Presumably that is allowed, and could even be conducted by a church minister. .

You presume incorrectly ............ Most churches wouldn't allow it - and most families wouldn't want it . Why on earth would anyone who didn't believe in God want a funeral in a church ? It'd be insane !

Are you drunk by any chance ?

onlyroz

duchy wrote: »

You presume incorrectly ............ Most churches wouldn't allow it - and most families wouldn't want it . Why on earth would anyone who didn't believe in God want a funeral in a church ? It'd be insane !

For the same reason my atheist mum invited her preacher friend to say a few words at my Grandma's funeral. "Most" families these days want some sort of mixed service that celebrates life, maybe with a bit of God thrown in, rather than a collection solemn prayers and hymns read out by a minister that never met the deceased.

Interesting article here about funerals:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544496/Rise-of-the-funerals-that-leave-out-God.html

Are you drunk by any chance ?

Took 6 pages for the insults to start :rotfl:

duchy

Churches don't exist "to have a bit of God thrown in" They are houses of worship.

Why would they welcome anyone like you that is so disrespectful of their beliefs ? There's no reason why they should as nothing in it for them.,,,except a few quid - and most people tend not to sell their beliefs out for a few quid.

onlyroz

duchy wrote: »

Churches don't exist "to have a bit of God thrown in" They are houses of worship.

Why would they welcome anyone like you that is so disrespectful of their beliefs ? There's no reason why they should as nothing in it for them.,,,except a few quid - and most people tend not to sell their beliefs out for a few quid.

Where have I been disrespectful of anybody's beliefs?

Torry_Quine

onlyroz wrote: »

My understanding was that CofE churches were legally obliged to perform marriage ceremonies for anybody who met the residency requirements, regardless of their faith (or lack of it). If you were a CofE minister would you prefer to collude in a lie, or instead offer a cut-down service that removed references to God?

Living in Scotland I know little about the parish structure, if they do have to marry those who are non believers then in my opinion that is wrong. However I think that if someone gets married in church then expecting it to be non-religious is ridiculous.:(