Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

duchy

Trixi wrote: »

Off topic completely but does anyone know why I can 'thank' some posts but not others? The ones after my first response have no 'Thanks' button visible?

If you refresh the page the thanks button will appear

onlyroz

tea_lover wrote: »

But can you not see how offensive that could potentially be to those people for who the building is special?

The thing is a non-believer just doesn't understand and probably can't understand what makes a church more special than an equally beautiful non-religious building.

We also don't understand, and can't understand why a Christian marriage ceremony is viewed differently to a civil marriage ceremony. Both result in a couple who is legally married, and who love each other in the same way. I've tried reading the wikipedia page on sacraments but it goes right over my head.

And we don't understand, and can't understand why a Christian is so opposed to their building being used for a non-religious purpose.

Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion and I've learned a number of things that I didn't know about weddings, funerals and civil partnerships.

ViolaLass

duchy wrote: »

I think the point is that the church to Christians is a building built to honour God - a building designed to facilitate worship and decorated with Christian symbols. It's sacred (which to me means more than "special because Mum and Dad or Granny got married there) and for someone to say "Nice building-I want to use it but I don't want any of that God nonsense included" is rude and disrespectful .

I imagine I'm not the only person who got married in a church whilst having no interest or belief in a god. Is that more polite? (my disinterest was never stated to the priest, nor did he enquire)

I justified a church wedding to myself on family grounds - it was a church that meant an awful lot to my husband's family, otherwise I wouldn't have wanted to get married there.

heartbreak_star

I'm a near-militant atheist but would never ask for a civil ceremony in a church/temple/synagogue, no matter how pretty the building! It would just be disrespectful and trampling over peoples' feelings.

Equally, I thoroughly agree with the civil ceremony being required to make no reference to religion. To allow otherwise would be disrespectful to those who do not believe.

#lackofcaffeineramble

HBS x

onlyroz

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Because marriage is regarded as sacred in many religions. The legal aspect is just a necessary add-on to satisfy the laws of the land. A civil wedding is almost a kick in the teeth as it ignores the religious aspect all-together.

The institution of marriage predates recorded history, and the church didn't become involved properly until the middle-ages.

duchy

onlyroz wrote: »

The thing is a non-believer just doesn't understand and probably can't understand what makes a church more special than an equally beautiful non-religious building.

We also don't understand, and can't understand why a Christian marriage ceremony is viewed differently to a civil marriage ceremony. Both result in a couple who is legally married, and who love each other in the same way. I've tried reading the wikipedia page on sacraments but it goes right over my head.

And we don't understand, and can't understand why a Christian is so opposed to their building being used for a non-religious purpose.

Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion and I've learned a number of things that I didn't know about weddings, funerals and civil partnerships.

It feels to me that it is "won't" rather than "can't"

We all have something that is precious (even if not sacred ) that we wouldn't want people treating casually or with disrespect - even a non believer can understand that .

tea_lover

heartbreak_star wrote: »

I'm a near-militant atheist but would never ask for a civil ceremony in a church/temple/synagogue, no matter how pretty the building! It would just be disrespectful and trampling over peoples' feelings.

Equally, I thoroughly agree with the civil ceremony being required to make no reference to religion. To allow otherwise would be disrespectful to those who do not believe.

#lackofcaffeineramble

HBS x

Exactly. You don't need to share someone's beliefs, or even be able to understand them, to know that trampling on them is just plain rude. Basic manners.

Trixi

My "wants" trump her beliefs"

I think the wants of the husband might trump both in this situation - if the 'other woman' wants him and is happy to sleep with him then he's the one with the final say here!

But it is a good analogy - that wants of the Church (the owner of the buildings in question I guess) are the deciding factor - no matter what the various worshippers and visitors think of the decision.

Thank you all for being patient with me - I appreciate it. I know it was annoying of me to jump in without reading the rest (I'm going through them now).

duchy

Trixi wrote: »

I think the wants of the husband might trump both in this situation - if the 'other woman' wants him and is happy to sleep with him then he's the one with the final say here!

But it is a good analogy - that wants of the Church (the owner of the buildings in question I guess) are the deciding factor - no matter what the various worshippers and visitors think of the decision.

Thank you all for being patient with me - I appreciate it. I know it was annoying of me to jump in without reading the rest (I'm going through them now).

No the law actually trumps all and it says no.
Even if a vicar wanted to - they couldn't do it -well they could but the marriage wouldn't be valid or legal.

(already covered up-thread)

adouglasmhor

tea_lover wrote: »

For me (and only speaking about my own church here), the difference is that any secular activities would be held in the non-consecrated space of the church hall. That is used as a polling station and for private bookings (things like children’s parties). We wouldn’t allow activities such as yoga in any of our buildings.

Personally I think it’s the choosing an alternative aspect that’s makes a difference - iyswim. So an activity like voting is allowed as it’s using the facilities for the benefit of the community. That’s different (imo) to making a choice between a religious or civil ceremony. If people want civil ceremonies fair play to them , obviously – but it should be accepted that you don’t make that choice then expect to be allowed to carry it out in a consecrated space. Those chosing a civil ceremony have actively rejected the religious aspects, that should preclude use of consecrated buildings.

On the other hand the CofE have to marry non religious people and people of other faiths in their churches in England by law, how is this that diferent.