Non - Catholic Wedding = Unhappy Catholic Parents

matrim

Swanner wrote: »

It's an assumption (and i never claimed it was anything else) based on the fact that the numbers of people choosing the humanist option have only increased exponentially since it became popular and convenient to do so.

You will no doubt assert that all these people have thought long and hard about it and have come up with humanism because it's right for them.

But if that's the case why weren't they opting for it before it became popular and convenient ?

I'll give you a hint....

It's because it was neither popular nor convenient..

They weren't opting for it before because it didn't cover the legal aspects of the wedding. Now that it does cover the legal aspect people want to use it. How many people do you think would opt for a catholic wedding if the church had gone through with it's threat to stop doing the legal part after gay marriage became legal?

You have to also remember that because of overly strict rules on who can marry you, the humanist society are the only legal secular wedding providers outside of the HSE. And the HSE are a lot more strict on when, where and how you can do your ceremony.

If you have a bee in your bonnet and don't like the humanists then why don't you write to your local TD asking them to allow more non-religiious celebrants from other organizations. Personally if I was getting married now I'd be likely to go with a humanist celebrant because of the reasons I stated above. However if there were other secular options that were as flexible as them I probably wouldn't care which one I ended up with.

Smondie

matrim wrote: »

How many people do you think would opt for a catholic wedding if the church had gone through with it's threat to stop doing the legal part after gay marriage became legal?

You'd be surprised I think. How many currently go for the civil ceremony and church blessing?

lazygal

Smondie wrote: »

You'd be surprised I think. How many currently go for the civil ceremony and church blessing?

Difficult to say because it depends on the church. Some catholic priests won't bless a civil union, because in the church's eyes the couple are not actually married without the church sacrament of marriage. And such blessings aren't recorded by the state, maybe the churches keep records of the numbers so you could ask them.

When we got married, our marriage was registered as a civil marriage because humanist ceremonies weren't legal, so even though we had a humanist wedding that won't be in any official statistics anywhere.

Hotblack Desiato

Swanner wrote: »

Prejudice - Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Yes indeed. You claimed that 'a significant number' of couples having humanist weddings have not thought it through and that if they did, would find their views in conflict with humanism.
Despite several requests, you have provided NOTHING whatsoever to back up these assertions.
You are criticising the life choices of a large number of people based on no rational reason whatsoever.
Therefore what you posted is indeed prejudiced.

Stating that the majority of Christian parents would refuse to attend their Child's wedding should they opt for a secular ceremony, with zero evidence to support it, is a prejudiced statement.

Perhaps. I didn't make it. It's of no relevance to the question I've asked you three times now.

Stating that some people are just following the crowd because the data shows that people only started taking the humanist option in their droves once it became popular and convenient to do so, is not a prejudiced statement.

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, they started taking the humanist option when it became LEGAL to do so. A 'wedding' of no legal standing might be a nice day out, but apart from that it's worthless.
Also there were far fewer humanist celebrants until recently (and there's still a shortage.) You can't have a humanist wedding if no celebrants are available.

It's an assumption (and i never claimed it was anything else) based on the fact that the numbers of people choosing the humanist option have only increased exponentially since it became popular and convenient to do so.

A prejudiced assumption.

You will no doubt assert that all these people have thought long and hard about it and have come up with humanism because it's right for them.

A non-religious ceremony which they can have at the weekend if they wish, and in (most) venues. Why wouldn't it be right for them? Another question you refuse to answer.

It's a classic case of monkey see, monkey do.

Prejudiced bilge, for all the reasons set out above.

To be honest, I'd forgotten what an angry little corner of boards this place is.. I try and avoid it for that reason and this thread serves as a timely reminder..

You're attacking people and their choices for no reason, and then saying that everyone else is angry. OK.

lawred2

BlueLagoon1 wrote: »

Myself and my fiancée have recently got engaged after five years together and are planning a non-religious ceremony. We were both raised as Catholics in the West of Ireland by Catholic parents. Growing up and making up our own minds separately we have both become disillusioned with the Catholic Church and we do not feel it reflects our beliefs.

Neither of us attend mass regularly and we believe it would be dishonest to both us and practicing Catholics to go with tradition and use the Church for our ceremony.

We have decided we do not wish to raise our family (should we be lucky enough to have one) as Catholic. We firmly believe that our parents had a choice to choose our religion and now we as adults have the right to choose what is best for us as our own family unit.

We recently told our parents we would not be having a church wedding but rather a humanist ceremony. Both mothers were totally unhappy - one has said she will not attend the ceremony and will not see our marriage as 'real'. The other is more concerned about what others will think and is acting as if we are being rebellious children.

I am so hurt by their reaction and I am now finding it difficult to be excited about marrying the love of my life. It feels as if the two of the people who are supposed to care the most about us are choosing religion over their children.

This has got to be happening more and more in Ireland and I am wondering if anyone is experiencing this same hurtful reaction. Has anyone got any advice for this difficult time?

That sounds familiar. Stay the course.

Good luck to you all.

lawred2

lazygal wrote: »

You're supposed to be in a state of grace to receive communion so maybe she was wondering why people who aren't were partaking of the sacrament.

a what?

lawred2

mfceiling wrote: »

The sooner the whole church nonsense dies away the better.

Oul ones with a bee in their bonnet about mass, the priest, the communion and everything in between. Go on with themselves.

It's your choice OP...feck everyone else.

*if you are a practicing Catholic and you want the whole church ceremony then the very best of luck to you...if you don't then please let the rest of us do as we want without making a song and dance about it*

I'm not too bothered about that but I can't stand the whole being worried about what other unrelated irrelevants will think?

Seriously Mom; grow up eh

lawred2

An Claidheamh wrote: »

The difference is civil ceremonies are for people who just want to be married.

Humanist ones are for fad followers who make childish snide remarks about symbolic age-old Catholic ceremonies..... and then hypocritically invoke the same stuff in a Humanist ceremony.

Not noting the irony.

Snide remarks

Not noting the irony indeed

lazygal

lawred2 wrote: »

a what?

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

lawred2

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.

golly

I'd say pretty much close to the entire congregation don't come within an asses' road of being in a 'state of grace'

looksee

lawred2 wrote: »

golly

I'd say pretty much close to the entire congregation don't come within an asses' road of being in a 'state of grace'

Well since you didn't know what it was and presumably are not a communicant, it doesn't really matter what you'd say.

lawred2

looksee wrote: »

Well since you didn't know what it was and presumably are not a communicant, it doesn't really matter what you'd say.

touché if a little snippy



Actually I'll retract anyway - I just noticed the qualifier 'mortal' sin... Missed it the first time. Thought there was an implied requirement for almost daily confession.

I'm sure most people believe.

Hotblack Desiato

Can't say I ever believed in transubstantiation even when I was still going to mass.

Oops.

StupidLikeAFox

Swanner wrote: »

But if that's the case why weren't they opting for it before it became popular and convenient ?
I'll give you a hint....
It's because it was neither popular nor convenient..
It's a classic case of monkey see, monkey do.
That i get attacked and called prejudiced for the latter statement which is supported by data, while no one bats an eye lid at the former statement, which is supported by nothing, is not a good reflection on this forum or atheism in general.
To be honest, I'd forgotten what an angry little corner of boards this place is.. I try and avoid it for that reason and this thread serves as a timely reminder..
So cheers and good luck

But you are not basing your opinion on data. You are saying that there is a increase in humanist weddings (correct) and it is due to people just following the latest fad (a completely unfounded, personal opinion)

There are a number of reasons why someone would choose against a Catholic wedding. I shouldn't really have to give you examples, but it is extremely unfair to suggest people are choosing humanist ceremonies "to try and be cool". Weddings are very personal to most people and its a very nasty standpoint to take.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

But you did tell me what your point was...

I did, which is why I am surprised you keep insisting on pretending my point was something different to what I am telling you it is. I think I know why you would do that of course, but THAT you are doing it is clear.

Swanner wrote: »

you did dispute that anyone propagates cycling.

Again no, that is not my position. In fact I very much said people do when I said that they might feel the pleasure and benefits of it and wish to spread that to others. So how could I be disputing it when I MYSELF said it? At least TRY to make sense please.

What I AM disputing is that this is remotely comparable to christianity and other such religions.

Swanner wrote: »

I understood your point and responded.

I really am not seeing anything to suggest you did understand it at this point.

Swanner wrote: »

you denied ever making it

I denied making the points YOU put into my mouth. Nothing else.

Swanner wrote: »

you're still claiming you meant something different.

Yeah funny that when you keep telling me my point is other than it is, I might keep correcting you. Mad huh?

Swanner wrote: »

It's pointless...

Then stop doing it and address my actual point instead.

Swanner wrote: »

There's no point going any further with this..

Yet not 4 posts later you keep going further with it. Particularly odd.

Swanner wrote: »

I'm not in any hole.

Except the hole of having made a COMPLETELY comically ridiculous analogy that rather than withdrawing when it was explained how and why it is ridiculous, you doubled down on and just got MORE ridiculous.

And when you flappingly tried to come up with an example to support your ridiculous analogy you came up with an example that was not even an example of what you thought it was.

So yes, quite the hole, and you are still digging. And digging. And digging.

Swanner wrote: »

For the last time and for the record before I bow out of this madness...

The last time after the last last time you mean? Or the last time before the next last time that is still to come? I long ago made up "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting" which states "The probability of a user replying to a thread goes UP in proportion to the number of times they claim they will NOT". Let us see if you verify the law again.

Swanner wrote: »

But I was told...

Ah yes, the bit where I acknowledged some people do it, despite you then later claiming that I said NO ONE does it? That bit you mean? Glad you quoted it because your putting words in my mouth made it look like you missed it. Now I just know you put words in my mouth willfully and in a contrived fashion. For shame. For. Shame.

Swanner wrote: »

Then a slight softening in response..

That was not a "softening" that was a rebuttal to an example you gave when I pointed out it was not an example of what you pretend it was. But nice bit of historical revisionism from you there. I will add it to the list of distortions of my actual words from you which is now QUITE long indeed.

Swanner wrote: »

And in response i get a complete backtrack and denial..

Except there is no back track there, just in your imagination. The back track was ENTIRELY invented by you in a crass and rampant distortion of what I originally said. And it is there in black and white for all to see now.

Swanner wrote: »

It's all there in black and white. i'm not misquoting anyone

Except you are, and everyone can now see how and where. Thanks for that. Saved me the trouble.

Swanner wrote: »

If people can't be honest about what they're saying, there's zero point engaging in discussion.

Then since you can not be honest about what you are saying, or what I have been saying, how come you keep engaging in discussion?

Swanner wrote: »

t's actually all a bit nuts here so i'm going to respectfully bow out now and leave you all to agree with each other...

Yet not TWO posts later you replied again to the thread. Nozzferrahhtoos first law of internet posting strikes again. I notice also that you ENTIRELY ignored and dodged another post from me asking about the basis for your "I cant help get the feeling" post. Any reply to that forthcoming either?

Ragnar Lothbrok

This seems to happen in so many threads :mad:

An OP will ask a genuine question hoping for advice (in this case, what to do about convincing parents to attend their humanist marriage) - yet within a few posts it degenerates into a slanging match between two points of view. Christians v Atheists; Pro-life v Pro-choice; Liberals v Conservatives; Landlords v Tenants; Cyclists v Motorists; etc, etc.

I'm sure by this stage the OP here has stopped bothering to read their own thread as it is of no use whatsoever to them.

intheclouds

The multi quote posts are just too tedious to read imo.

looksee

The OP would have got a more useful answer in Personal Issues or the Weddings forum. Instead they posted in A&A which was inevitably going to turn into ... what it turned into. It was doing quite well to start with.

Duggy747

Had a humanist wedding back in July and my parents were full of queries about what it was (though they were used to civil ones but they couldn't wrap their heads around this one), I think they were being obtuse because there was only so many times I could explain simple stuff like:

"Yes, it'll be legal................Yes, there' be food after........and a band...........it'll all be the exact same craíc as a usual wedding........Yes, it'll be legal..................Yes, there will be a band.............."

Throughout the years leading up to it the mother would say things like "I know I shouldn't say but a lot of people you're age were at Mass this morning" or "Why did your girlfriend turn away from God?" :pac:

Anyways, being the last in my family to get married I learned the valuable lesson from the others and didn't let them know any details about the wedding. The mother had a knack for putting her nose into the others plannings and how they went about things, controlling behaviour in a way that they enabled.

None of that craíc was flying with me though and it made the entire experience so easy and relaxed. If there was something somebody didn't like then that was their problem, we were the ones paying for the wedding we wanted so they could sulk all they wanted.

Wedding went perfectly, everybody including the aul folk loved it and not a word has been mentioned about it since except about how great the food and band were!

I have heard people like the OP being told similar by relatives; that they'll refuse to come to the wedding because it's a humanist one. The funny thing is though is that it reflects more badly on them because other people and relatives find it bad form and disrespectful.

If your mother doesn't want to go to your wedding then it's completely her loss though I suspect she wouldn't follow that bluff through.

Giacomo McGubbin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

This seems to happen in so many threads :mad:

An OP will ask a genuine question hoping for advice (in this case, what to do about convincing parents to attend their humanist marriage) - yet within a few posts it degenerates into a slanging match between two points of view. Christians v Atheists; Pro-life v Pro-choice; Liberals v Conservatives; Landlords v Tenants; Cyclists v Motorists; etc, etc.

I'm sure by this stage the OP here has stopped bothering to read their own thread as it is of no use whatsoever to them.

to save you the bother reading, in this case i think it's athiest vs athiest, one of them is not falling in line and following the script enough to the others disgust.

Hotblack Desiato

Giacomo, it's just the usual "I'm an atheist, but... I stick up for religion at all costs, and thank every witless attack on non-catholics" guff we've come to expect from some quarters.

Daniel Dennett wrote:

Today one of the most insistent forces arrayed in opposition to us vocal atheists is the "I'm an atheist but" crowd, who publicly deplore our "hostility", our "rudeness" (which is actually just candour), while privately admitting that we're right. They don't themselves believe in God, but they certainly do believe in belief in God.

(from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/16/daniel-dennett-belief-atheism )

Ragnar Lothbrok

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

to save you the bother reading, in this case i think it's athiest vs athiest, one of them is not falling in line and following the script enough to the others disgust.

But I did read the entire thread before I posted. The examples I gave were the usual suspects across all of Boards, not specific to this particular thread.

beach_walker

Hi OP (I normal don't come here but saw the thread on that weird new front page).

While we wouldn't see eye to eye on belief, I do commend you for not using a church if neither of ye are practicing or believers. I know boards can be a bit of an echo chamber but yes, your humanist/civil weddings are still very much in a minority. It sucks that the mother's reactions to this has caused you distress. It seems like one is concerned about the reflection on her/the family. Tbh while it's still rare, I think it's more noteworthy in circles rather than anything bad. Maybe you could point out some local civil/humanist ones that have occurred recently? If not, I can see her being placated in the aftermath of the event and how well I'm sure it will go down.

The other, well I think given her apparent religiosity is feeling a mix of i) that she is at "fault" for your non-belief and ii) probably worried about any potential kids that come along. I can't really address i) but for the latter you could talk and maybe outline that the kid(s) are free to pursue religious freedoms when older/grown up? Plenty do

one has said she will not attend the ceremony and will not see our marriage as 'real'.

I think not attending is a bit childish but tbh the 'real' part... well I'll put myself in that camp. Again it comes back to lack of a sacrament being imparted. It's actually why I was interested in this thread. I've been experiencing this from another side in a reduced way.

Has anyone got any advice for this difficult time?

Tbh I'd get the Dad's and siblings to have a talk with the Mam.

Hotblack Desiato

OP if you have a celebrant lined up, have you discussed this with them? Can't be the first time they have come across this sort of issue and they may be willing to e.g. make contact with the mothers to reassure them. Or perhaps they will have a ceremony in your area in the near future which, with that couple's permission, the mothers and you could attend to see what happens (won't be a dry eye between them I'll bet - if they agree to go!)

Non-religious weddings are no longer rare but if there hasn't been one in your extended families before, unfortunately you're the ones blazing a trail.

Interesting stats:

Civil marriages 2011 29% - humanist weddings 0% (as a % of legal marriages)
Civil marriages 2015 28% - humanist weddings 5.7%

source - CSO http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/mcp/marriagesandcivilpartnerships2011/ http://cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/mcp/marriagesandcivilpartnerships2015/

which means the proportion of religious ceremonies has fallen by 4.7% in only four years

Edit: more stats here http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2009pressreleases/marriages2006/ so along with the above we can deduce:

Non-religious marriages 1996 - 6%
Non-religious marriages 2006 - 23%
Non-religious marriages 2011 - 29%
Non-religious marriages 2015 - 33.7%

Quite a trend. Now, where are all the non-denominational schools for the resulting children

Nick Park

BlueLagoon1 wrote: »

I am so hurt by their reaction and I am now finding it difficult to be excited about marrying the love of my life. It feels as if the two of the people who are supposed to care the most about us are choosing religion over their children.

This has got to be happening more and more in Ireland and I am wondering if anyone is experiencing this same hurtful reaction. Has anyone got any advice for this difficult time?

Some of us who belong to religious minority groups have been experiencing this kind of stuff for many years.

If you genuinely believe that you are marrying the love of your life then be very excited! And if others can't share that excitement with you, then that is their loss.

kylith

beach_walker wrote: »

I think not attending is a bit childish but tbh the 'real' part... well I'll put myself in that camp. Again it comes back to lack of a sacrament being imparted. It's actually why I was interested in this thread. I've been experiencing this from another side in a reduced way.

But surely you accept that if the bride and groom don't believe in the sacrament then having a religious ceremony is pointless? So I would hope that, from the other side, you're supportive of the bride and groom.

Not to mention that without the signing of the civil register the wedding could be conducted by the pope himself but would not be legally recognised. So, if anything, despite all the pomp and ceremony a church wedding is less 'real' than a civil one.

smacl

beach_walker wrote: »

Tbh I'd get the Dad's and siblings to have a talk with the Mam.

Good advice this, though poor old Dad could end up in the dog house as a result, and it maybe just adds another extra spanner in the works. Siblings are probably less of an issue.

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

Some of us who belong to religious minority groups have been experiencing this kind of stuff for many years.

Would that be due to the shunning those marrying outside the minority group experience?

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Some of us who belong to religious minority groups have been experiencing this kind of stuff for many years.

Can you expand on this, please?

Absolam

My experience of weddings is, no matter what you do, someone somewhere will find reason to be unhappy. Generally, they all get over it eventually. OP I think if you focus on making it a great day for yourself and your partner, you'll find almost everyone will turn up on the day (and I think you can guarantee the mums will, even if they pout), and most of them will have something good to say about afterwards (and again I think you can guarantee the mums will, even if they pout). Those who don't will be hushed up by the mums in the end.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Can you expand on this, please?

Certainly. Over the last twenty years thousands of Irish young people from Catholic backgrounds have got married in Protestant, Evangelical or Pentecostal churches. Many of them have encountered opposition from their parents. This opposition has ranged from snide remarks about it not being 'a real wedding', through refusal to attend the wedding, all the way to a total cutting off of contact with their children.

Sad to say, I have also heard of cases where parents who belong to other churches have acted in similar ways when their children got married in a Catholic Church.

In every case that I've been involved with, I've advised the young people involved to fully celebrate one of the greatest days of their lives and not to let the bigotry of others to spoil it.

Parents, like most other people, do have the capacity to be extremely stupid. But grown up children don't have to allow the stupidity of their families to spoil their wedding day.

Walter H Price

OP , just sit down with your Mum and explain that your just not comfortable with going through a catholic ceremony when it conflicts with your personal beliefs. We have had a similar issue with one of my aunts who is very religious and was oridginaly quite put out by us changing our mind and deciding for a Humanist wedding. But we sat down with her and just explained they fundamentaly we disagee with the churchs teaching and stance on allot of issues and that we felt we would be lying to ourselves , the priest and everyone in attendance if we took catholic vows , promised to baptise kids which we wont be doing etc.

Ultimately it kinda got through to her that if we didn't believe in any of it and were only having a church wedding to keep her or the granny's happy then really that was somewhat making a mockery of the thing , she had to concede that a personalised humanist ceremony would be far more meaningful to me and my fiance then the standard catholic template.

Times are changing and cilvil ceremony's are becoming way more common place , i'm sorry to your family are being so difficult about it but i think if you can just explain to them why its not a fit for you , i think they will come around.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would that be due to the shunning those marrying outside the minority group experience?

I doubt it. You might get that with cults that believe that they, and they alone, are the one true church, but that wouldn't apply to most minority religious groups. I've never encountered such a scenario first-hand.

rainbow kirby

My husband and I were married in a humanist ceremony in May 2015 - despite the fact that his family would be quite religious everyone had a wonderful day and there wasn't a single word of complaint. We went for a humanist ceremony because we would agree with humanist beliefs in general and we specifically wanted to get married on a Saturday as us and many of our guests had to travel for it (we live in London, my family are from Dublin, we got married in Limerick). A church wedding was never an option for us, the idea of having to promise to raise any children as Catholic makes me feel sick to the pit of my stomach.

Walter H Price

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The idea of having to promise to raise any children as Catholic makes me feel sick to the pit of my stomach.

That was what got us as well , the notion of promising to automatically sign your kids up to an organisation which has been proven to have systematically abuse hundreds of thousands of kids over the past 40 years across the globe and cover it up and protect known pedophile from any sort of justice was just beyond wrong for me.

I don't believe in God or an afterlife anyway , but to be honest i have absolutly no time for organised religion it think it just brings out the absolute worst in people, From Magdalene Laundries and industrial schools , to Jihad , Sharia Law and Halal slaughter to the Jew's believe that they are the chosen people and have the right to a country that didn't exist before the 50's , it all just seems to bring out the worst in humanity.

beach_walker

kylith wrote: »

But surely you accept that if the bride and groom don't believe in the sacrament then having a religious ceremony is pointless? So I would hope that, from the other side, you're supportive of the bride and groom.

Yes, and yes (to a degree).

Quick story on what I was referring to recently. A couple I know back home decided to get married. As atheists they decided on a humanist ceremony, and to give some context have been living together for well over ten years at this stage (have bought a house etc etc.) and have been the types to decry marriage as being for idiots/just tradition etc so were doing it mainly for the legal side of things. I didn't go (for other reasons) but I didn't feel guilty about it despite getting a bit of a backlash.

Not to mention that without the signing of the civil register the wedding could be conducted by the pope himself but would not be legally recognised. So, if anything, despite all the pomp and ceremony a church wedding is less 'real' than a civil one.

Well not to me. The legal side of it is far the lesser than the sacrament/declaring yourselves together before God imo.

I suppose an example would be in countries (like France iirc?) were the legal marriage has to be conducted in a civil place (town hall or the likes) and you can have a religious ceremony separate from that. I would consider the latter the "real" part were I going through with it. I don't expect people here to agree, just stating my own opinion on the matter.

Peregrinus

kylith wrote: »

. . . Not to mention that without the signing of the civil register the wedding could be conducted by the pope himself but would not be legally recognised. So, if anything, despite all the pomp and ceremony a church wedding is less 'real' than a civil one.

A common misconception, but a misconception nevertheless. Legally, the marriage is constituted by the couples' public exchange of promises before a solemniser. This is true whether your solemniser is a religious solemniser, a humanist solemniser or a civil solemniser. Registration is something you do after you have been married, just like you register births and deaths after they have occurred. Failure to register doesn't mean that the birth, death or marriage hasn't happened; it just means that it hasn't been registered (which is an offence).

So, a church wedding is just as real (as far as the State is concerned) as a humanist wedding or a civil wedding. It's precisely because it's a real wedding that there is an obligation to register it.

Of course, as far as the couple is concerned one of these forms of wedding may be more meaningful or significant to them than the others. And the same could be true as far as their family, friends or community is concerned. And the problem in the OP is that the wedding that seems most fitting to the couple is not the wedding that seems most fitting to (some of) the family that they are asking to witness their commitment, and whose support for their commitment they are seeking.

I'm of the view, as I've said in previous threads on this subject, that the couple should have the wedding that is significant and meaningful for them, and the job of their family, friends, etc is to support them in that and to celebrate with them. Sadly, there may be some family members who don't take this view. All you can do is talk this through as honestly, lovingly and respectfully as you can.

learn_more

Cabaal wrote: »

OP, I would say stand by your ground,

Went through this a few years ago with the wife's mother, mother said she wouldn't attend the wedding if it wasn't in a church. In the end we went ahead with church wedding, however despite me saying countless times before and even on the wedding day that the church bit was meaningless to me and all that matter was the state part she was happy...just odd.

!

Not odd at all, rather exactly what you'd expect. Let me explain.

The OP's story just shows to me exactly how religion ever got a grip on the masses. It's hardly ever about being devout, it's about conformism and appearances. This is the one thing I learned from my observations whilst growing up in Ireland and going to mass in the early 80's. I was especially observant of my mothers and my aunts behaviour. They weren't particularity religious at all in my view, they just behaved like they were; it was all just an act, for the sake of appearances.

This is why some people throw a wobbly when they are seen not to conform in society. The parents don't care at all if you believe in god, they only care if you appear to do in front of your neighbours and friends. This rather sad behaviour is always worse in rural settings where everyone knows everyone. This is exactly why the church was so influential in Ireland, because Ireland is mostly rural.

Holding people to random, withholding approval, putting their foot down, all essential ingredients to make one conform and help make a religion flourish.

Heartening to see now though that all that has changed as show by the OP's refusal to go church, in other words, not to conform. The OP's parents' may be having a harder time than others getting with the times, but the sooner they do, the happier they will be. Just like my mam who wouldn't bat an eyelid at the though of her son not going to Sunday mass, whereas 20 years ago she would have given herself a nosebleed about it.

Absolam

Though... if Mass attendance is between 2 and 22 percent of the population, then Mass attenders are the minority. So that means the people who are not going to Mass are the ones who are conforming. Doesn't it? I wonder is it all just an act, for the sake of appearances, and secretly they long for the sweet sweet smell of incense and judgement. But the peer pressure is too much and they just go with the flow instead, lest the neighbours gossip about them and they don't get invited to dinner parties just because they're suspected of saying Grace....

evolving_doors

The priest told us " I'm not marrying ye, ye marry each other ".

But ya I've witnessed cases of parents (farmers) threatening to write any offspring out of the will if they attended their siblings non Catholic wedding. Really sad. People just want a bit of happiness in their lives and ain't harming anyone.

Vojera

OP, I know a couple who got married in a civil ceremony recently and they had similar issues with the older generation of the family. In the end it was actually one of their uncles, who is a priest, who stood up to the rest of them and said that he thought it was great that they were making a commitment to each other and that he wished more would do the same as he finds it very disrespectful when couples come to him looking to be married when they don't go to mass from one end of the year to the other.

Obviously that's not the official Church line, but if your local priest was that way inclined it might help your case.

Nick Park

Gebgbegb wrote: »

The priest told us " I'm not marrying ye, ye marry each other ".

Which is how marriage was conducted in the western world for centuries. The idea of a priest officiating at a marriage didn't start till the 13th Century, and the Church didn't start insisting on it until the 16th Century.

The State didn't start sticking it's sticky beak into the private business of marriages until even later (in Ireland it wasn't until 1864 that the Government began insisting that they had to issue a license to make a marriage 'real').

Maybe we should get back to people going and marrying each other and telling those who want to control their marriage to butt out and mind their own business.

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

Which is how marriage was conducted in the western world for centuries. The idea of a priest officiating at a marriage didn't start till the 13th Century, and the Church didn't start insisting on it until the 16th Century.

The State didn't start sticking it's sticky beak into the private business of marriages until even later (in Ireland it wasn't until 1864 that the Government began insisting that they had to issue a license to make a marriage 'real').

Maybe we should get back to people going and marrying each other and telling those who want to control their marriage to butt out and mind their own business.

Nitpick no. 1: The state in Ireland didn't insist, from 1864, that you need a marriage licence to make marriage "real". From 1864, if you got married you had to register the fact with the State, but if you failed to register it you were still married. Your marriage was entirely real; you had just committed the offence of not registering it.

It;'s only since (from memory) 2004 that a couple wishing to marry in Ireland has to give advance notice to the Registrar, and get a marriage registration form from him, before the marriage will be considered valid. (And, even then, if you get the marriage registration form and celebrate the marriage, your marriage is real and valid even if you fail to complete and return the marriage registration form).

Nitpick no. 2: Marriage isn't a "private business"; the whole point about marriage is that it changes the relationship not only between the spouses, but between the couple and their wider society - socially, legally, administratively, in lots of ways. The whole community is affected by marriage and marriage, is, therefore, a public concern. (Which is why the State wants marriages to be registered.)

The increasing regulation of marriage by the church, and in due course by civil society, reflects this. The late medieval/early modern insistence on celebration in the parish church, before a priest, wasn't about ensuring that marriage was adequately spiritual; in the Christian theology of marriage, that was never in any doubt. It was about ensuring that marriage was adequately public. All the discussion and controversy at the time revolved around the question of "clandestine marriages". Nobody doubted that they were valid and real; they just though they were a considerable social evil, and ought to be stopped, and they way to stop them was to require publicised, formal celebration of marriage.

magicbastarder

do i recall a clause that marriage has to be conducted in a public place, or one easily accessible to the public?

OT, but i do remember wondering if that meant you could not refuse anyone entry to your wedding.

looksee

I believe you cannot refuse entry to anyone to your actual marriage service, though you can of course prevent them going to any subsequent celebration.

Agree with Peregrinus that the marriage ceremony is a public business for legal and public purposes. It is of course an occasion for a couple to make vows to each other, but the point is that the vows are public and binding.

Peregrinus

The classic rule was that marriages had to be celebrated in churches with the doors open. Anyone could come. (This doesn't prevent the church turning people away because, e.g, the building is full, etc.)

When they introduced civil marriages in registry offices, registry offices are also public. Anyone can come to your registry office ceremony.

Now that we licence marriage venues in other places, I think the rule is that the place must be somewhere that is generally open to the public (like a hotel) even if on the occasion of the particular wedding the management restrict entry. The need to restrict entry is pretty well essential for, e.g., celebrity weddings, and the requirement for publicity is taken to be satisfied by the notice and registration requirements.

looksee

nomo wrote: »

I am currently in the midst of a very similar situation, though I am the target of blame as the person who feels strongest about not having a catholic ceremony. I have been told that I am unwelcome in the family and will be blamed for the inevitable family divide. My own family will be happy with whatever we decide to do.

It's extraordinarily upsetting. OP, how did it work out for you in the end?

It doesn't really matter how the OP's situation worked out, all circumstances are different.

In your case, who is doing the blaming, and is your partner supporting you or is he/she tending to say, maybe we should do the church bit?

Are you living together at the moment? There is now a situation where most couples live together or at least until marriage, and parents have had to learn to put up with it. Is there anyone in the complaining family going down that route? You can easily point out that the alternative to a humanist ceremony is to just not get married. However it would be better to let your partner deal with his/her own family.

If your partner is not fully supportive of the plan, and it does sound as though this is the case, then maybe you need to have a serious discussion with your partner about how your marriage will progress - according to your agreed principles or according to your parents/inlaws.

lazygal

Why reply to such an old thread?

nomo

August last year? Not really that old?

mayway

What a great thread!