Civil ceremony in a Chapel/Church?

seashore22

In any case, in the current climate of dwindling church attendance I would have thought that ministers would be keen to encourage non-believers to visit their amazing special buildings.

Oh and churches are open to the public. You don't need to go to a wedding to visit one.

itsanne

I think some people have missed the point of my earlier post:

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]

You missed the 'civil ceremony' and 'For someone who is not religious'. You may consider such people to be ignorant, insensitive, cheeky, wrong .......... but there is no hypocrisy unless we are using very different dictionaries. In my book, hypocrisy is someone attending a couple of church services to pretend to be a member in order to get their child into the school of their choice, not someone who asks if he/she may use a church for their civil ceremony because they like the building, want their family to be happy they are marrying in a church, have a family connection with the church or anything else.

Whether or not churches should be available for civil ceremonies is a completely different matter. Some of you clearly feel they shouldn't be. If that view is shared by your branch / denomination / minister / priest / imam etc then presumably your church wouldn't be made available, but I would be very surprised if all churches took such a stance.

Ultimately it is up to individual churches to decide whether or not to allow a civil ceremony to take place, but I genuinely do not understand why someone simply posing the question is seen as a hypocrite and provokes such outrage.

tea_lover

It's not up to individual churches at all.

I'd also love to know where you've seen outrage on this thread. People are discussing and debating their differing opinions...kind of what a forum is all about.

itsanne

Lily-Rose wrote: »

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.)

Bit in bold - where was that suggested?



Tea lover, I would describe this quoted post as outraged. Yes, people are debating / discussing. Is there a particular reason why I shouldn't be doing that too?

Lily-Rose, I'm only 'picking on' this post because I'm responding to it anyway.

tea_lover

Really? That's a genuine question BTW. I wouldn't count a few capitals and the word 'rude' as outrage. Maybe I've just seen more in life to get genuinely upset about than someone else's caps lock.

Errata

Sounds bizarre, a bit like a couple of teetotalers getting married in a brewery.

Jagraf

I'm just thinking about our church. Two people who want a pretty building but a civil marriage in a church. At the alter, you have Jesus on the cross. In front of you on a pretty stain glassed window you have Jesus' ascension into heaven. All around you, you have bibles, crosses, candles and prayer books.

Why on earth would anyone want to get married in church when they are not religious? Its really odd.

Jagraf

seashore22 wrote: »

In any case, in the current climate of dwindling church attendance I would have thought that ministers would be keen to encourage non-believers to visit their amazing special buildings.

Oh and churches are open to the public. You don't need to go to a wedding to visit one.

Why would they 'need' none believers in their churches? They don't pay for the upkeep, they're not going to be converted, and they're not interested in anything religious. You make it sound as though the general public are doing the vicar a favour. And only some churches are open during the day, as many have the threat of vandalism.

Jagraf

itsanne wrote: »

I think some people have missed the point of my earlier post:



You missed the 'civil ceremony' and 'For someone who is not religious'. You may consider such people to be ignorant, insensitive, cheeky, wrong .......... but there is no hypocrisy unless we are using very different dictionaries. In my book, hypocrisy is someone attending a couple of church services to pretend to be a member in order to get their child into the school of their choice, not someone who asks if he/she may use a church for their civil ceremony because they like the building, want their family to be happy they are marrying in a church, have a family connection with the church or anything else.

Whether or not churches should be available for civil ceremonies is a completely different matter. Some of you clearly feel they shouldn't be. If that view is shared by your branch / denomination / minister / priest / imam etc then presumably your church wouldn't be made available, but I would be very surprised if all churches took such a stance.

Ultimately it is up to individual churches to decide whether or not to allow a civil ceremony to take place, but I genuinely do not understand why someone simply posing the question is seen as a hypocrite and provokes such outrage.

I would like my bank to sell eggs. They may decide to do that, but that's not really what they are there for.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

Why would they want none believers in their churches? They don't pay for the upkeep, they're not going to be converted, and they're not interested in anything religious. You make it sound as though the general public are doing the vicar a favour. And only some churches are open during the day, as many have the threat of vandalism.

We are talking about a church renting out their space for a few hours, which they do all the time for other non-religious events. Presumably anybody who wanted to do this would pay their way (thus contributing to the upkeep), and might be inspired to attend a church service in the future.

My local church is hardly ever open and apparently has a congregation of 20. Presumably they'd welcome the opportunity to open their doors a bit more often, make a bit of money, and possibly recruit some new members?