Church vs Humanist wedding

obriendj

Hi there

Just wondering if there is any advice on how to deal with an upcoming wedding. Myself and the OH are only engaged a few weeks but this has become an issue

I am sure this that this has been discussed before when people cant decide how to resolve this conflict.

My OH always wanted to get married in a church when she was growing up. I presume this was down to a fairy tale wedding. But since we got together she has known that I am not religious so she got used to the idea that a church wedding was unlikely.

But since the recent engagement her mother has been asking her what her plan is, she was told that we haven't decided, but started an argument with her over it. Telling her that Civil Ceremonies are not correct. She hasn't been to a humanist wedding so considers them the same.

She told me what happened later and my OH got upset and I agreed that I should give in and allow the ceremony to take place in one of 2 churches. One close to her home and one close to her grannies and not have a full mass. But this limits where we can have the reception.

My reasoning for having a humanist would be the following
- I am not religious - its not just the catholic church, i dont believe in spiritual world - i could be wrong but that is what i think.
- I find sitting at a church wedding for 90 mins is not something i want to do or want my guests to go through. The day is dragged out enough with out the extra 2 hours - if you want to go to mass go on Sunday.
- I don't go to Mass neither does she. I don't want to be a hypocrite. There is an argument that loads of other couples get married in a church who are not religious. I don't care what anyone else does, this is our day and our choice.
- I am angry at her mother for this. My family wouldn't care if I was getting married in a drive thru chapel in Vegas they would still be there for me. I now worry that every decision that we make might have to get the in laws approval.

After I had agreed, she was delighted but woke up thinking I have done the wrong thing. I do need to talk to the OH and perhaps her mother but she won't change her mind, (because what would the neighbours say...)

But I am wondering should I dig my feet in or to just let it go. Any one in a similar boat?

Thanks

December2012

Talk to your fiancé now and tell her that you have changed your mind. You can work out the details later but tell her now so nobody gets carried away.

Harika

Me and my fiancee were in the same situation, with small differences like that she never would have agreed to a humanist wedding. Anyway, I decided to agree to the church wedding with her for several reasons.

- First, it is her dream, maybe even every woman's dream of a fairy tale wedding, who am I to deny her this?
- Her parents are heavily catholic and also for them it is very important, I have a very good relationship with them even as they know I am an atheist, although I am quite sure that they think it is just a "phase" So does my stubbornness damage this relationship, for what?
- Sitting 90 minutes in a church does also not sound to appealing to me, but at the end, I can phase out for 90 minutes while she can have these memories until the end of her life

Sure you can run with your head in front through the wall but what do you gain from it? A ****ty argument for a small ceremony.
But be prepared for several things in future, first of all baptizing of your children will come up sooner than later. There you will defo have the same head to head again.
If you decide to go ahead: When then talking with the priest, be aware that those can be very demanding, like that they want to see you in church each Sunday. I heard horror stories, that the priest threatened couples, if they don't come to church, the church wedding is off. Depending on how liberal or conservative the priests are, they might wave you through or again become a pain in the ass.
Be prepared for the pre-marriage course, this is far more worrying than the church, paying 200 Euros to loose 1 1/2 day of your life for nothing. (Funny story of mine where the complaint is still running, when this has resulted in some conclusion I might post the whole story here, still undecided which forum is the right one MOD?) Again here the priest can let you out of this or you have to go.
And marrying in a Chapel in Vegas, sounds for me cool. :cool:
Anyway discuss this with her asap and religion in general how you want to proceed in future, cause her parents will defo ask for baptism and so on.

stinkle

We were kinda similar, although both of us were adamant we wouldn't have a religious wedding from the start. Like yourself, not a protest vote or anything, just not our cup of tea. My family were grand about it but we did get some flak for it from elsewhere, and it was "a big deal" which really was upsetting as all we were saying no to was swearing solemn vows to a deity we dont believe in, and refusing to be hypocrites and start married life with a day of lies. Your situation seems a bit more awkward as you say she was into a church wedding for years, and it must be tough if her mam is on her case now.

It's a difficult one, but not impossible. You make a good point that having ceremony in a church narrows down reception options. There are many venues with lovely spaces to have civil and humanist ceremonies, and some have deconsecrated church buildings (Brook Lodge springs to mind) which might be a compromise - there's the churchy sense of occasion without religious obligation! Don't forget that humanists are able to conduct outdoor ceremonies now too. The travel time from church to reception was something I'd never considered one way or another till after our own (humanist) wedding this year - it was really great to have everyone in the one location, we just nipped off for a bit for photos and the entire day ran smoothly cos there was nowhere for anyone to get lost/get delayed in pub etc. Short ceremony followed by champagne as soon as our guests stepped out of the room was a recipe for a very relaxed and fun day. So logistics alone could influence a nice compromise.

As regards more serious stuff, if it's a Catholic wedding that you opt for, there are long term effects of this, such as promising to bring up any children as Catholic. That's a promise you make to the Church, but it also means that people will understandably assume Catholic wedding=baptising any kids. In our experience, if we end up having kids then no one will be a bit surprised when we don't have a baptism. The precedent is now set, we've shown that we won't bow to guiltripping from extended family now or in the future, and the world didnt end.

The pre-marriage course sounds like a pain in the neck too, and you do hear stories of some priests being very difficult. You also hear of lovely understanding ones too though. As the bride, I was flipping delighted in the run up to our wedding that we didnt have to bother with choosing prayers/readings/hymns that are meaningless to us, nor did we have to pay altar boys/organists etc. I don't know much about this but not having to get letters of freedom from other parishes was one less headache too (OH moved around A LOT, and never so much as went near a church in recent years anyway! I'd have gone mad if we'd needed to to contact places he lived in as an adult).

eviltwin

Its a tough situation to be in. I personally don't get the whole keeping the parents happy bit but its your choice and I respect that. I had a lot of hassle over my civil marriage but I stuck to my guns. I could have done the church thing but it wouldn't have been me. You do need to talk about this and sort it out because if your future MIL is that kind of person what else will she insist on? Will she insist on adding people to the guest list and other aspects of the day? What about when you have kids? You don't want to start your married life with an overbearing mother in law.

lazygal

We had a humanist ceremony. There would be no circumstances in which we'd agree to a church wedding and make promises in a ceremony we didn't believe in, regardless of any fuss from our parents. This has set the boundaries for us as a family, especially now we have children and aren't raising them in any faith.
I would think long and hard about letting your parents dictate your wedding.

Arbiter of Good Taste

I was at a wedding in a church recently that wasn't a full Catholic Mass. It was carried out by a priest and there were the prayers and readings and vows, but no consecration or communion. The entire ceremony lasted 30 minutes.

Perhaps something like that might be a reasonable compromise?

To Elland Back

You answered your own question. Your partner wants the show but not the religious part, your task is to make her see that.

athtrasna

I feel your pain OP but from the other side. I was the bride. In the end I agreed to a church wedding far from my home town but I always referred to it as the wedding I didn't want for the marriage I did. It was a great day but I felt like a sell out like I wasn't being true to myself. We've since separated, largely because in time being true to myself became more and more important

Boom__Boom

Tell the mother-in-law you're not happy giving any money to the Catholic Church because of their treatment of the victims of abuse.

rainbow kirby

There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell I was agreeing to a church wedding. I was never the girl who grew up with dreams of the big church wedding and I do not want the RCC playing any part in my life. We looked at civil, humanist, spiritualist and Unitarian ceremonies, and we ended up choosing to have a humanist ceremony in the hotel where we're having the reception. If we'd chosen a London wedding rather than Limerick, we probably would have had our ceremony in the Unitarian chapel in Hampstead, it's a lovely 17th century building and would make a really nice setting.

obriendj

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

I was at a wedding in a church recently that wasn't a full Catholic Mass. It was carried out by a priest and there were the prayers and readings and vows, but no consecration or communion. The entire ceremony lasted 30 minutes.

Perhaps something like that might be a reasonable compromise?

Thanks for this. I have been to a wedding before that was led by a Deacon. It removed the Mass bit from the ceremony.

obriendj

Harika wrote: »

Me and my fiancee were in the same situation, with small differences like that she never would have agreed to a humanist wedding. Anyway, I decided to agree to the church wedding with her for several reasons.

- First, it is her dream, maybe even every woman's dream of a fairy tale wedding, who am I to deny her this?
- Her parents are heavily catholic and also for them it is very important, I have a very good relationship with them even as they know I am an atheist, although I am quite sure that they think it is just a "phase" So does my stubbornness damage this relationship, for what?
- Sitting 90 minutes in a church does also not sound to appealing to me, but at the end, I can phase out for 90 minutes while she can have these memories until the end of her life

Sure you can run with your head in front through the wall but what do you gain from it? A ****ty argument for a small ceremony.
But be prepared for several things in future, first of all baptizing of your children will come up sooner than later. There you will defo have the same head to head again.
If you decide to go ahead: When then talking with the priest, be aware that those can be very demanding, like that they want to see you in church each Sunday. I heard horror stories, that the priest threatened couples, if they don't come to church, the church wedding is off. Depending on how liberal or conservative the priests are, they might wave you through or again become a pain in the ass.
Be prepared for the pre-marriage course, this is far more worrying than the church, paying 200 Euros to loose 1 1/2 day of your life for nothing. (Funny story of mine where the complaint is still running, when this has resulted in some conclusion I might post the whole story here, still undecided which forum is the right one MOD?) Again here the priest can let you out of this or you have to go.
And marrying in a Chapel in Vegas, sounds for me cool. :cool:
Anyway discuss this with her asap and religion in general how you want to proceed in future, cause her parents will defo ask for baptism and so on.

You are dead right, not much point having an argument over a quick ceremony.

And looking forward to the baptism argument in the future too. But unfortunately Irish schools require for a catholic baptised child. I think its wrong that the church still has a stranglehold on the education system but thats another forum.

And sure if the Wedding is not in Vegas perhaps the stag do might be...

obriendj

But thanks for the input
Its a great help

I probably knew that I would have to go for the church wedding. And wanted to vent and see if i was being unreasonable. and like some have said I hope that the input from MIL will be limited once a venue is agreed.

Thanks again.

December2012

[quote="obriendj;93670734". But unfortunately Irish schools require for a catholic baptised child...[/quote]

That's not true. Look at the Community National Schools and the Educate Together schools. Neither require baptism nor teach under a religious doctrine.

fits

We went with a humanist ceremony after much thought and soul searching. Did not get on with local priest and would have to jump through hoops to get one elsewhere, and we dont practice. Parents were upset at first but they've come around although still dubious. I wouldnt really have cared so much as they are legal solemnizers. The schools thing boils my piss though.

fits

December2012 wrote: »

That's not true. Look at the Community National Schools and the Educate Together schools. Neither require baptism nor teach under a religious doctrine.

Not available everywhere unfortunately.

lazygal

December2012 wrote: »

That's not true. Look at the Community National Schools and the Educate Together schools. Neither require baptism nor teach under a religious doctrine.

It depends on the school and area. I know of schools where everyone in the area got in regardless of baptism. I certainly wouldn't have a church ceremony because of baptism of children into a faith I didn't believe. I'd rather home school than lie about what religious doctrine I would impose on my children.

lazygal

obriendj wrote: »

You are dead right, not much point having an argument over a quick ceremony.

And looking forward to the baptism argument in the future too. But unfortunately Irish schools require for a catholic baptised child. I think its wrong that the church still has a stranglehold on the education system but thats another forum.

And sure if the Wedding is not in Vegas perhaps the stag do might be...

I think this is worth having an argument over. That's me though. I would not let my in laws dictate where and how I married my partner. They weren't getting married, we were, and as such their preferences were irrelevant.

Faith

We had fully intended on having a church ceremony until we started looking at churches. Seeing signs up about children protection and preventing abuse, signs about why gay marriage is a sin and signs about how abortion ruins lives reminded us that we do not support the church on pretty much every social issue. We were prepared to pretend to be Catholics for the day until we realised just how much we were not part of the Catholic church. We very quickly decided to have a humanist ceremony (albeit in a deconsecrated church, so we still get the grandeur ).

I'd agree that it's worth having an argument over. It's not a small thing. Firstly, it gives your in-laws unnecessary control over your lives, and it also opens the door for religion to control other aspects of your lives, like baptising your children.

obriendj

lazygal wrote: »

I think this is worth having an argument over. That's me though. I would not let my in laws dictate where and how I married my partner. They weren't getting married, we were, and as such their preferences were irrelevant.

I see where you are coming from and would agree if the OH was fully on board on having a Humanist ceremony. But following the discussion she has said she would prefer a church ceremony, I just thought that she was open to a humanist but perhaps I just thought.

I don't plan to lie to a priest and tell him that i attend mass regularly so it might not be plain sailing. (not that i see anything wrong with lying to a priest but i am proud to be a non-believer so shouldn't be ashamed)

obriendj

Faith wrote: »

We had fully intended on having a church ceremony until we started looking at churches. Seeing signs up about children protection and preventing abuse, signs about why gay marriage is a sin and signs about how abortion ruins lives reminded us that we do not support the church on pretty much every social issue. We were prepared to pretend to be Catholics for the day until we realised just how much we were not part of the Catholic church. We very quickly decided to have a humanist ceremony (albeit in a deconsecrated church, so we still get the grandeur ).

I can totally see where you are coming from, I don't expect this to be plain sailing regardless of what decision is made.

Faith wrote: »

I'd agree that it's worth having an argument over. It's not a small thing. Firstly, it gives your in-laws unnecessary control over your lives, and it also opens the door for religion to control other aspects of your lives, like baptising your children.

It almost feels like they are already, comments were already made about a possible venue today.

Faith

obriendj wrote: »

It almost feels like they are already, comments were already made about a possible venue today.

It's a slippery slope, to be honest. If you have parents or in-laws who are inclined to be controlling, the best option is to give them no say in anything that is important to you. Don't discuss venues or anything like that. Just smile and say "We're still considering our options" until something is firmly booked and unchangeable.

Of course, that only works if both you and your fiancée are on the same page. Is she happy with her parents giving their input into everything?

eviltwin

Op sorry if this is blunt but you are going to have to put the foot down here and together with your fiancee tell your in laws to butt out. Its ridiculous that what should be one of the most exciting times of your live is being railroaded by someone else. Its not their day, its yours, it should be a reflection of the kinds of people you are, not some carbon copy of what your mother in law wants. As I said before I can understand why you might feel its a battle not worth having but it is worth it in order to have the day you want and set the ground rules about the type of interference you are willing to accept. It won't get any easier once you are married. Don't under estimate the impact that nosy inlaws can have on your relationship. You don't need to update them on everything you are doing, its okay to keep your cards close to your chest and be vague about your plans.

obriendj

Faith wrote: »

It's a slippery slope, to be honest. If you have parents or in-laws who are inclined to be controlling, the best option is to give them no say in anything that is important to you. Don't discuss venues or anything like that. Just smile and say "We're still considering our options" until something is firmly booked and unchangeable.

Of course, that only works if both you and your fiancée are on the same page. Is she happy with her parents giving their input into everything?

No, the comments about the venue were not welcome.
It wasnt that she was looking for input just trying to include them and let them know how we are getting on. But we will be considering our options from now on.

Faith

Honestly, this is bigger than the church v humanist discussion. I think this happens to most couples a while into the engagement. You both need to sit down and discuss what level of involvement you want others to have. If you have people who are likely to try to railroad you, you need to be sure to always present a united front. Including people is all well and good, but only as long as they respect the boundaries.

lazygal

obriendj wrote: »

No, the comments about the venue were not welcome.
It wasnt that she was looking for input just trying to include them and let them know how we are getting on. But we will be considering our options from now on.

Including them doesn't mean letting them decide on things. I included my mum in the dress shopping and went shopping for her outfit and had a pamper day before the wedding. I included my dad in other ways. My husband did the same. Including them could mean asking them about what menu they think is best or what wines they'd recommend, after the main decisions are made. Trust me, from experience I wouldn't allow family to have the final say on anything if you're not happy. It only sets you up as doormats. There's people who give into a church wedding and then the children are being baptised against their wishes

pwurple

obriendj wrote: »

My reasoning for having a humanist would be the following
- I am not religious - its not just the catholic church, i dont believe in spiritual world - i could be wrong but that is what i think.

You may be uncomfortable with humanism also here... It is spiritual. Sounds like you may be leaning towards civil rather than humanist. Why not use the civil registrar rather than just a different set of spiritual beliefs to catholicism?

I find sitting at a church wedding for 90 mins is not something i want to do or want my guests to go through. The day is dragged out enough with out the extra 2 hours - if you want to go to mass go on Sunday.

My wedding cermony, with priest, took 20 minutes, and wasn't in a church. I am no fan of the split venue wedding myself, so we asked our priest to come to our reception venue.


Parents will involve themselves at some point, they are interested in you, your lives and weddings are large enough milestones in someone's life. Mine picked the guestlist to kick up a fuss about, but I think it happens to everyone. We mostly stood our ground on the guestlist, with some small compromises... two additional guests. Treat it as a negotiation, attempt keep them appeased in some way while also achieving what you would like yourself. You have a long life ahead of you with them as your family. It's a balance between being firm enough to avoid being a pushover, while also taking their feelings into account.

Faith

Humanism doesn't involve a spiritual aspect. You may be thinking of a spiritualist ceremony, pwurple

lazygal

Humanist ceremonies are secular. We had no references to spiritual things at all, as we don't have any spiritual leanings.
Eta the hse only offer Monday to Friday weddings and getting an off-site ceremony at a time that suits can be difficult. One of the reasons the humanist option is popular, especially as you've more freedom than with a civil ceremony. Possibly to appease parents a prayer could be included but it's up to you. There's no such option with the hse.

pwurple

obriendj wrote: »

I don't plan to lie to a priest and tell him that i attend mass regularly so it might not be plain sailing. (not that i see anything wrong with lying to a priest but i am proud to be a non-believer so shouldn't be ashamed)

The irish priest-fear is so weird!

Priests in my experience, couldn't give a rat's ass whether you attend mass or not. None of the priests I know are in any way bothered about how, when or where I attend mass, if at all. It's not an exam. They are there to provide a set of services, not interrogate you. If anyone should be doing the questioning about what is going to happen, it's you!

pwurple

Faith wrote: »

Humanism doesn't involve a spiritual aspect. You may be thinking of a spiritualist ceremony, pwurple

Oh my mistake... I thought they had a set of ethic and moral guidelines (fairly closely overlapping with christianity I thought!) Why not just use the registrar though?

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

Oh my mistake... I thought they had a set of ethic and moral guidelines (fairly closely overlapping with christianity I thought!) Why not just use the registrar though?

See my post above. Hse ceremonies are limited in timing and content unlike humanist ones. We were able to meet our celebrant and discuss loads of things with him. We found the hse much less flexible and personal.

stinkle

Registrar is Mon-Fri only, with onsite ceremonies at set times (12.30 and 3/3.30 spring to mind from friends' experiences). Might not suit everyone. Humanism philosophy is basically dont be an arse while you're alive, there's probably no god/afterlife so do good for the sake of it, not cos you're terrified of some deity passing judgment.

lazygal

stinkle wrote: »

Registrar is Mon-Fri only, with onsite ceremonies at set times (12.30 and 3/3.30 spring to mind from friends' experiences). Might not suit everyone. Humanism philosophy is basically dont be an arse while you're alive, there's probably no god/afterlife so do good for the sake of it, not cos you're terrified of some deity passing judgment.

We couldn't get a Friday offsite ceremony at 330pm in Dublin for at least a year when we inquired. We went for a legal ceremony and a humanist big day as we didn't want a long engagement. Dublin can be very difficult to organise a civil ceremony off-site if you want a Friday.

stinkle

lazygal wrote: »

We couldn't get a Friday offsite ceremony at 330pm in Dublin for at least a year when we inquired. We went for a legal ceremony and a humanist big day as we didn't want a long engagement. Dublin can be very difficult to organise a civil ceremony off-site if you want a Friday.

Yeah we looked into that ourselves as humanists werent legal solemnisers during our initial plans, but were so much more flexible than HSE. Then they got legal recognition so it worked out ok and we had the Saturday wedding we preferred. Initial enquiries for reg office then our own humanist or registrar coming onsite was awkward enough, despite having around a year's notice.

pwurple

stinkle wrote: »

Humanism philosophy is basically dont be an arse while you're alive, there's probably no god/afterlife so do good for the sake of it, not cos you're terrified of some deity passing judgment.

Probably wouldn't be cool with OP's thinking that lying is ok then...

That service actually sounds fairly handy. I'm sure it suits OP. What about the pesky fiance though!

If it was me, I'd go have a chat with the local priest to see how old-school he is. Ours was one of the modern thinking guys, so he happily cut down the ceremony to exactly what we wanted. No mass at all, some non-religious readings, no church building, etc.

If OP could get the local church to accomdate him, it might be the compromise that works for all. They might not be on for it at all, some parishes are very stuck in their ways, but I'd consider it worth a shot.

lazygal

I've never heard of a priest agreeing to an off-site ceremony, and I've been to a lot of weddings given my current lifestage. I've been to a wedding conducted by a Celtic monk that had some religious elements. I know friends who've been told they have to attend mass for x number of weeks if they want a church wedding, have to do x premarriage course etc. If you don't really want a church wedding that's a lot to put up with.

Faith

pwurple wrote: »

Oh my mistake... I thought they had a set of ethic and moral guidelines (fairly closely overlapping with christianity I thought!) Why not just use the registrar though?

No, they're totally secular. From www.humanism.ie:

Humanism is a view of life that combines reason with compassion. It is based on a concern for humanity in general, and for human individuals in particular. It is for people who base their interpretation of existence on the evidence of the natural world and its evolution, and not on belief in the supernatural (theistic god, miracles, afterlife, revealed morality etc.)
...
Humanists embrace secular ethics believing in the common moral decencies of altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness and responsibility – essentially being ‘good without god’. A Humanist believes that the happiness of individuals and of humankind depends on people, rather than on religion and dogma.

A HSE ceremony is a fairly rigid, inflexible ceremony that follows specific guidelines and scripts (afaik anyway). As the others have said, they're only available at limited times in limited places.

A Humanist ceremony is totally flexible and customisable, and they're available every day at the location of your choosing.

iusedtoknow

We had a civil ceremony (necessary in Spain if not in a catholic church) on a Thursday followed by a humanist ceremony in the hotel grounds on the Saturday...with all the trimmings- wife's step father walked her down the aisle, she had a wedding dress on etc. We're both atheist (i probably go a bit further beyond atheism personally) and felt it would have been extremely hypocritical to marry in a church.

There was the whole 9 yards but was the least religious ceremony in the world. The wife's grandparents were horrified, but when we told them that we hadn't once been to church together, they got it. The officiant was a friend of us both that was heavily involved in the humanist movement in Spain. He did a great job - it was serious enough, but he also kept some parts light and breezy, and because he knew both of us was able to have it extremely personal.

pwurple

lazygal wrote: »

I've never heard of a priest agreeing to an off-site ceremony, and I've been to a lot of weddings given my current lifestage. I've been to a wedding conducted by a Celtic monk that had some religious elements. I know friends who've been told they have to attend mass for x number of weeks if they want a church wedding, have to do x premarriage course etc. If you don't really want a church wedding that's a lot to put up with.

Well, there's mine, and two of my brothers. So now you've heard of 3!
None of us did that premarriage craic either.

I think people literally just don't ask. "God is everywhere" was what our priest said.

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

Well, there's mine, and two of my brothers. So now you've heard of 3!
None of us did that premarriage craic either.

I think people literally just don't ask. "God is everywhere" was what our priest said.

I think the problem is it is down to the parish and priest. I don't know anyone who didn't have to do the premarriage course and lots who had to go with a cap in hand approach. My friends who married in a COfI church had a lot of churchgoing to undertake.

pwurple

lazygal wrote: »

I think the problem is it is down to the parish and priest. I don't know anyone who didn't have to do the premarriage course and lots who had to go with a cap in hand approach. My friends who married in a COfI church had a lot of churchgoing to undertake.

It is at the discretion of the priest and parish, we had a fairly solid relationship with ours, I get on well with priests and find talking to them interesting... such a different life experience to my own, especially the missionaries. So that meant I wasn't shy about asking for what was possible, and they knew me well enough to understand we weren't being disingenuous.

We didn't investigate COI weddings, but I suspect it is stricter alright. We're sending our children to a COI school and the letters home so far are fairly full-on with the faith side of things.

Toots

obriendj wrote: »

No, the comments about the venue were not welcome.
It wasnt that she was looking for input just trying to include them and let them know how we are getting on. But we will be considering our options from now on.

The best phrases I ever learned when I was getting married are:

"That sounds interesting/nice, we'll have a look into that." and

"We're still deciding on that."

They'll get you out of a multitude of situations where people try to stick their oar in. Your best bet is not telling anyone which venue/cake/car/photographer etc you've chosen until it's booked and then there's nothing anyone can do about it anyway.

If your fiancée wants her parents to feel involved then she could text/phone/call in to them with updates as each thing is booked, so she's keeping them in the loop, but not giving them any opportunity to try and control your choices. I know a lot of the time the bride brings her mum to get the dress, and that's a fairly big deal, so hopefully that would stop the mum feeling too left out.

Regarding the ceremony, I know how you feel. I ended up having to kowtow to a church wedding when I really didn't want to. There was a huge row about it, and we nearly ended up breaking up about a month after we got engaged. In the end the church wedding was really nice, our priest was sound and he knew I wasn't religious and he was ok with it. I chose all the songs and readings in the ceremony. They were ones that meant something to us so it made the ceremony more about us as a couple instead of about religion.

obriendj

Toots wrote: »

The best phrases I ever learned when I was getting married are:

"That sounds interesting/nice, we'll have a look into that." and

"We're still deciding on that."

They'll get you out of a multitude of situations where people try to stick their oar in. Your best bet is not telling anyone which venue/cake/car/photographer etc you've chosen until it's booked and then there's nothing anyone can do about it anyway.

If your fiancée wants her parents to feel involved then she could text/phone/call in to them with updates as each thing is booked, so she's keeping them in the loop, but not giving them any opportunity to try and control your choices. I know a lot of the time the bride brings her mum to get the dress, and that's a fairly big deal, so hopefully that would stop the mum feeling too left out.

Regarding the ceremony, I know how you feel. I ended up having to kowtow to a church wedding when I really didn't want to. There was a huge row about it, and we nearly ended up breaking up about a month after we got engaged. In the end the church wedding was really nice, our priest was sound and he knew I wasn't religious and he was ok with it. I chose all the songs and readings in the ceremony. They were ones that meant something to us so it made the ceremony more about us as a couple instead of about religion.

Glad I am not the only one in this boat.
But at the risk of breaking up, I will probably end up doing the same. It sounds like you had a approachable easy-going priest which does help. Choosing the readings is a good idea too. I suppose it depends on the priest but did the reading have to come from the bible is there room to have the second one based on something relevant to today rather than a letter St. Paul sent to the Corinthians.

But thanks for the advice on what to say when asked about the event.
Can I ask was your OH adamant on having a church or was it something that she was expected to do?

obriendj

Faith wrote: »

Honestly, this is bigger than the church v humanist discussion. I think this happens to most couples a while into the engagement. You both need to sit down and discuss what level of involvement you want others to have. If you have people who are likely to try to railroad you, you need to be sure to always present a united front. Including people is all well and good, but only as long as they respect the boundaries.

You are right with some more great advice.

Thanks

Toots

obriendj wrote: »

Glad I am not the only one in this boat.
But at the risk of breaking up, I will probably end up doing the same. It sounds like you had a approachable easy-going priest which does help. Choosing the readings is a good idea too. I suppose it depends on the priest but did the reading have to come from the bible is there room to have the second one based on something relevant to today rather than a letter St. Paul sent to the Corinthians.

The readings were from the bible, but I went through a load of ones and chose ones I liked that weren't overly 'preachy' if you get me. I can't remember exactly which ones they were (I'm a disgrace, I only got married in 2010) I'll see if I can dig out one of my mass booklets and check. For the music we had a string quartet so it gave me a bit of flexibility with the music because pretty much everything sounded classy when you have it played by one of those. I walked up the aisle to a Led Zeppelin song

But thanks for the advice on what to say when asked about the event.
Can I ask was your OH adamant on having a church or was it something that she was expected to do?

Well my OH is a "he", I was the bride. It was a bit of both really. His family are very religious (except his dad) and a lot of them would be in mass every sunday. His mum is very involved in our local church. My hubby used to be one of those who'd go to mass on easter and christmas, and then in between times when there was a wedding/funeral/christening.

Before we got engaged, we'd chatted a bit about what we'd do about a ceremony, and we'd loosely argeed that it would be a civil ceremony at the venue, and then a blessing afterwards. And then when we got engaged he was asking his mum how we'd go about getting a priest for a blessing and she wasn't impressed and told him that we wouldn't really be married unless we had it in a church blah blah blah. So of course, he came home and started spouting all this, and we ended up having a huge row and he told me that he'd never see us as being properly married unless we were married in the eyes of god, and if we weren't getting married in a church, that we might as well stay the way we were. After much tears and arguing, I caved. I sat down and had a think about which I wanted more - to not get married in a church, or to get married to my husband. Also my mum pointed out that it'd be easier to have a church wedding on a saturday, so that was one advantage.

I know all of this sounds awful, but will say that my wedding day was one of the best days of my life (tied in first place with the day my son was born) and I'm very happily married. I wouldn't change anything.

obriendj

Toots wrote: »

I walked up the aisle to a Led Zeppelin song

Class

Toots wrote: »

Well my OH is a "he", I was the bride.

Oops sorry for assuming

But I don't think it sounds awful, it sounds like you both had a frank discussion and you choice to "give in" was one of the best decisions you ever made

Thanks Toots

Toots

You're welcome! And good luck with all the planning, it can be stressful but it's all worth it in the end!

An Bhanríon

Best of luck with your decision on this. I would have to agree with the others who say not to tell anyone anything about your plans until they are made. Part of organising a wedding is managing your families' and friends' expectations!

Regarding a church wedding, we had one although we are not madly religious. Our main reason was that we knew a priest we really liked and he was prepared to do our wedding. It also made our mothers happy (although neiither of them ever said anything - they are not the interfering types, thank God!).

What I will say is that our Catholic mass and wedding ceremony was a most joyful occassion. It totally flew, not just for us but for the congregation too. We chose hymns that lots of those attending would know and everyone joined in (we had no choir or singer). There was lots of laughter and it was a most relaxed affair.

As I was putting the mass booklet together I read some of the stuff the priest had given us about Catholic marriage and I found it very interesting. People always emphasise the stuff about sex before marriage and all that. What I found interesting is that there is a big emphasis on the couple coming to get married as equals, also and the fact that it is the couple who marry each other and that the priest is just a facilitator, i.e. he does not pronounce you man and wife, you do that yourselves. I have to say I really liked that.

Anyway, enough about my wedding ceremony. Sit down with your fiancée and work out what you would like for your day. They are a lot more possibilities to a church wedding than you might think... and best of luck with the interfering family members - the joys!

obriendj

Hi again folks

Since I last posted there has been some more development.

About 5 weeks ago we were asked down to the in-laws for a chat. I presumed it would be about the church situation but hoped it wouldn't.

It was agreed beforehand that we would have a church ceremony but instead of a priest, have a deacon do the ceremony. It was a compromise that myself and the OH decided on. However the In-Laws got wind of this and wanted to discuss.

The discussion was not a pleasant event. and without going into too many details it ended with both of them saying they wont go to the wedding unless it is in a certain church and with a priest.

Since then its been a living nightmare. Her folks haven't been in touch in weeks until her mother rang yesterday to say that they are only asking for 1 hour from the day and why is she being so mean to them and this is not how they raised her etc.

Of the people I have spoken to about this, they seem to say that you can please everyone and if i really care if its with a priest or not. (I do care but i know that it will probably be a priest in the end) But I won't compromise again unless there is some sort of compromise from the in-laws.

This has been really hard so maybe some impartial advise?
Thanks Boards