Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

itsanne

I don't see why it's remotely hypocritical to want a civil ceremony in a church. For someone who is not religious, why would the 'pretty' aspect be any less valid there than for any other building chosen for it's appearance?

[img src="http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused013.gif"][/IMG]

mustang121

Why is odd and "hypocritical" to hold a civil ceremony in a Church providing that both people are religious?


Surely its more hypocritical for non-religious folk to choose to get married in a church?

Lily-Rose_3

I can't believe that anyone can't see why it's hypocritical.

I just give up. :huh:

seashore22

I also don't understand why anyone would want a non religious ceremony in a religious building. It's not as if the church has a monopoly on lovely buildings. There are plenty of truly beautiful buildings which would do just as well.

As for a priest or vicar conducting a ceremony with all religious references removed, why on earth would they?

tea_lover

itsanne wrote: »

I don't see why it's remotely hypocritical to want a civil ceremony in a church. For someone who is not religious, why would the 'pretty' aspect be any less valid there than for any other building chosen for it's appearance?

If people wanted a civil ceremony in a pretty mosque, or synagogue, or gurdwara would you think that was hypocritical? Is it just Christian churches that you think should be used in this way? Some of the buildings of other religions are stunning, but I wouldn't dream of asking to use them for a non-religious ceremony just so I had nice photos.

Lily-Rose_3

seashore22 wrote: »

I also don't understand why anyone would want a non religious ceremony in a religious building. It's not as if the church has a monopoly on lovely buildings. There are plenty of truly beautiful buildings which would do just as well.

As for a priest or vicar conducting a ceremony with all religious references removed, why on earth would they?

tea_lover wrote: »

If people wanted a civil ceremony in a pretty mosque, or synagogue, or gurdwara would you think that was hypocritical? Is it just Christian churches that you think should be used in this way? Some of the buildings of other religions are stunning, but I wouldn't dream of asking to use them for a non-religious ceremony just so I had nice photos.

Exactly! It's just plain rude to expect a vicar to conduct a CIVIL ceremony in a Christian Church. Like tea lover said, if you asked someone from another religion to do it, I reckon you would get a short shrift.

A Church is a RELIGIOUS place, for RELIGIOUS ceremonies. The very idea of someone demanding a civil service in a Christian Church, is somewhere between a joke, and actually quite offensive. I can't believe some people don't get it. :huh:

(Not aimed at the OP by the way, as she was actually just enquiring and not demanding or expecting or insisting there is no reason why she shouldn't get her own way.)

onlyroz

Fundamentally, what's the difference between holding a civil ceremony in a church, and using the church for (e.g.) a concert or a yoga class or as a polling station?

tea_lover

onlyroz wrote: »

Fundamentally, what's the difference between holding a civil ceremony in a church, and using the church for (e.g.) a concert or a yoga class or as a polling station?

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.

missbiggles1

mustang121 wrote: »

Why is odd and "hypocritical" to hold a civil ceremony in a Church providing that both people are religious?


Surely its more hypocritical for non-religious folk to choose to get married in a church?

Why would people of faith want to have a civil rather than a religious ceremony?

TonyMMM

There is no discretion at all available for the vicar or priest .... a church or other religious building cannot be licensed for the performance of a civil marriage ceremony.

If the building has been de-consecrated or out of religious use for a period (usually at least 12 months), then the owners can apply for it to become a civil ceremony venue ( but it can't continue as a religious building in any way whatsoever).


This is one such example (an old 18thC baptist chapel) -

http://www.kings-arms-hotel.com/Weddings