Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

System

I would have said no too. Any decent vicar or minister who has a shred of respect for his faith and for the Christians who attend his Church would refuse such a vulgar request.

They had one on Emmerdale... that was before she was sacked.:D

Gloomendoom

cr1mson wrote: »

The difference with Christianity is that a lot of churches have a duality that other religious buildings don't. For instance as the only community building in our hamlet it was used as both a place of worship and as just a space for events, talks sales etc regardless of whether they were connected to the church.

[pedant]Hamlets don't have churches [/pedant]

cr1mson

Gloomendoom wrote: »

[pedant]Hamlets don't have churches [/pedant]

Now I was told that it can be a hamlet if it has a church as it would have to be a primary church for it not to be so ie. not subservient to a larger parish which ours was!

Gloomendoom

cr1mson wrote: »

Now I was told that it can be a hamlet if it has a church as it would have to be a primary church for it not to be so ie. not subservient to a larger parish which ours was!

That's a good point, and I doubt non CofE churches or chapels count either.

jackyann

I broadly agree with those who say that it seems ridiculous to have a non-religious wedding in a church (although I have known non-religious funeral - see previous post), although some of the replies seemed unnecessarily rude.
However, certainly in my area, the church building has a broad function. A large number of non-believers have been involved in fund raising so it can have a servery & toilets, so that we can all benefit. most of us non-believers wouldn't (as I also said) ask for a service there for ourselves.
But we do care about the church and its place in our community, and it benefits from us (if only the believers did the fund raising there would be no servery or toilets!)

So I do think that in some areas, especially where families have lived for generations, the distinction is less apparent than to those who have moved away from their place of origin, and have no family connection with a church. Not a criticism of any decision made for good reasons and with a good heart.

BarryBlue

fairy_lights wrote: »

I'm not sure it's necessarily hypocritical, a person may have been a church goer when growing up, have strong family ties to the church and have had many happy times there, but not be a believer themselves. Traditionally churches were the heart of a community so I don't think it's necessarily that strange that someone would want to get married in one without being religious. At least OP is being honest, I know a lot of people who suddenly become Christians right before their wedding and abandon their new found faith in time for the reception!

I don't see why it is hypocritical at all. Churches are just buildings and some people want pretty surroundings for their weddings. The CofE gets taxpayers' money and you can't opt out of paying, so why should the non-religious be excluded if they want to avail themselves of what the churches like to market as community facilities.


I would never consider a church for anything but I know plenty of people who married in their local church despite having no religious belief whatsoever. At the end of the day churches are businesses with bills to pay. According to people I know they seem only too willing to take your money. Religions are big on hypocrisy in my experience so why worry about it. It's not as if anybody will be going to hell or anything.


I should also point out that all marriages are civil ceremonies in this country. Marrying in a church confers no different status from getting married anywhere else.

Gloomendoom

BarryBlue wrote: »

I should also point out that all marriages are civil ceremonies in this country. Marrying in a church confers no different status from getting married anywhere else.

You should also be aware that you are wrong. Purely religious wedding ceremonies take place every day up and down the country.

Do the CofE get taxpayers' money?

BarryBlue

Gloomendoom wrote: »

You should also be aware that you are wrong. Purely religious wedding ceremonies take place every day up and down the country.

Some ceremonies may have a religious content. However, there is only one status of marriage. It is covered by civil registration and has been since 1837. The wording of the ceremony makes no difference as long as the legal (civil) parts are covered. The idea of a "purely religious" wedding is preposterous. CofE vicars are permitted to act as registrars in order to conduct weddings under the law.


Look at the recent budget. Osborne allocated £40m in additional funds to repair churches. So that looks like taxpayers' money to me.

Georgiegirl256

BarryBlue wrote: »

I don't see why it is hypocritical at all. Churches are just buildings and some people want pretty surroundings for their weddings. The CofE gets taxpayers' money and you can't opt out of paying, so why should the non-religious be excluded if they want to avail themselves of what the churches like to market as community facilities. .

You do know what the purpose of a church is don't you? If so, then read the above again and tell me how that makes any sense at all.

Gloomendoom

BarryBlue wrote: »

Some ceremonies may have a religious content. However, there is only one status of marriage. It is covered by civil registration and has been since 1837. The wording of the ceremony makes no difference as long as the legal (civil) parts are covered. The idea of a "purely religious" wedding is preposterous. CofE vicars are permitted to act as registrars in order to conduct weddings under the law.

There is only one legal status of marriage.

The idea of a purely religious is preposterous only to you and like minded individuals. It is the norm for many sections of UK society.