Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

System

Also be aware that not all religious buildings are licenced to carry out marriage/civil partnership ceremonies.

74jax

Lily-Rose wrote: »

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

I just give up. :huh:

i'm one of those sorry

i TOTALLY get it would be hypocritical to have a religious ceremony in a church if they aren't religious, I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would do that........... but having a civil ceremony in a building someone thinks looks pretty I do 'get'.

i pass a gorgeous church on the way to work, I'm not religious but can see how romantic and beuatiful it looks.

tea_lover

74jax wrote: »

i'm one of those sorry

i TOTALLY get it would be hypocritical to have a religious ceremony in a church if they aren't religious, I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would do that........... but having a civil ceremony in a building someone thinks looks pretty I do 'get'.

i pass a gorgeous church on the way to work, I'm not religious but can see how romantic and beuatiful it looks.

But do you not see that that could potentially offend those people for who the building is very special?

Imagine someone wanted to have a party in a graveyard where you have family. The space is very special to you, and feels like somewhere that should be treated with respect. But they totally ignore the meaning that space might have for you, and all of the other options they could have chosen - they just insist on wanted their party in that graveyard purely as it would look pretty. Would you find that ok?

That's probably a terrible example... am trying to think of a way of explaining how special consecrated space is and I'm clearly struggling :rotfl:! It's about respect for me. People may not understand why certain buildings or spaces are special to certain religions (and I'm including other religions here, not just Christianity), but imo they should respect that it is and not seek to impose their own use on them.

onlyroz

tea_lover wrote: »

People may not understand why certain buildings or spaces are special to certain religions (and I'm including other religions here, not just Christianity), but imo they should respect that it is and not seek to impose their own use on them.

But presumably you wouldn't object to your special place being used for an exercise class, or as a music exam venue, or for a polling station, or to host a concert or jumble sale? If your church is open for hire to paying customers for the above purposes then what's so different about letting people use your special place for a wedding? As long as they respect the space, pay the appropriate fee to the church warden and don't leave a mess behind then I don't see the problem with using a church for other sorts of function.

tea_lover

I've already answered that. The parts of the building complex that are used for secular purposes are just the hall. And there are still strict restrictions on what it can and can't be used for. The church space itself is not used for secular functions.

The hall building is more of a community building and its use reflects that (children's parties, polling station, scouts, etc). But the church is a sacred space.

seashore22

onlyroz wrote: »

But presumably you wouldn't object to your special place being used for an exercise class, or as a music exam venue, or for a polling station, or to host a concert or jumble sale? If your church is open for hire to paying customers for the above purposes then what's so different about letting people use your special place for a wedding? As long as they respect the space, pay the appropriate fee to the church warden and don't leave a mess behind then I don't see the problem with using a church for other sorts of function.

I can only assume that you've never been in a church. As has already been said the consecrated bit of the church that is used for the services is almost certainly never used for any of the activities that you listed. They usually take place in a separate hall or room, which is usually functional rather than pretty. I can't see couples beating down the door to have their civil ceremony in a church hall. I assume they would want the pretty, atmospheric, religious part of the building. Therefore inappropriate.

tea_lover

seashore22 wrote: »

I can't see couples beating down the door to have their civil ceremony in a church hall. I assume they would want the pretty, atmospheric, religious part of the building. Therefore inappropriate.

Exactly. Although it's not a problem we're likely to have as my current church building is definitely not picturesque! Think 1950s boxy concrete.

onlyroz

seashore22 wrote: »

I can only assume that you've never been in a church. As has already been said the consecrated bit of the church that is used for the services is almost certainly never used for any of the activities that you listed. They usually take place in a separate hall or room, which is usually functional rather than pretty. I can't see couples beating down the door to have their civil ceremony in a church hall. I assume they would want the pretty, atmospheric, religious part of the building. Therefore inappropriate.

I don't know which parts of a church are "consecrated" and which are not. I have, however, sat several piano exam in a church. My music teacher also used to organise concerts in his local church. I have also been to pet shows held in churches. In all cases we were not pushed into a side room, but were in the main room among the pews. Maybe different churches have different policies though.

Georgiegirl256

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.!

You could say I have strong ties to one of our local churches in that my Grandparents were married there, my Mam and her 3 brothers were christened and confirmed there, my parents were married there, I would have been christened there (but we were in a different area at the time), but I was confirmed there, and my grandparents and uncles funerals were held there.

So even though I'm not religious, I could have said that because I think it's a stunning church and have all those family ties to it, I wanted to get married there because of that. But to me, that isn't enough. It is a place of worship, a consecrated place and to go there and ask for a civil ceremony which removes all religious aspects in a religious place is not only hypocritical, but also extremely strange, and rude to those who do have faith.

Tealover makes a good point. No one would ever go to a mosque and ask of they could hold their wedding there, so why would they do the same in a church?

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?

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

I'm really flabbergasted that anyone can't see why it's hypocritical? It baffles me why people think it's ok, and I'm not really even religious.

rdr

Two points:
The church hall is a comparatively recent thing, churches used to be used for all sorts of things, from markets to storm shelters. It was the introduction of pews that forced these events out of the church and made church halls necessary.

Old churches are very expensive, to the point where their upkeep becomes the be all and end all of the parish. Weddings can be lucrative for this cause.

Certainly when we got married in 2000 there was a very strict barrier between civil and religion and this would not have been allowed.