Struggle with Parents and Wedding Reception

[NSFrame]

I will stick to my “guns.” People spend too much money on weddings, dresses and receptions. I have seen so many spend thousands of dollars and start life in dept. Really? I have witnessed a few actually have the good sense to save money, not go on a honeymoon or have a reception and put a down payment on a house instead. Seems smarter.

I know, I know, everyone seems to love the party aspect and a good celebration. I have to admit I was, even as a child, not impressed by parties. So I am biased. Had I married I would have been one to put down a payment on a house and skip the fanfare. It is just me.

But in these economic times, and when folks are getting fussy about who is doing what, I still say go for no reception. Wait 5 years and then celebrate the fact you made it that far. Maybe that would be a better focus.

The reception is there for a very good reason - that the guests want to be able to say congratulations and have at least a short chat with the couple right after their big event. You don’t just have people come to watch you get married, and then ditch them. You welcome them and thank them for coming, even if it’s as simple as serving snacks at outside or downstairs in the church, just as you would for any event where you hae guests. Same reason there is a lunch after a funeral, for example.

 

[NSFrame]

Wow! So because your parents offered money for a wedding they essentially got to “buy out” your fiance’s say? Quite frankly, if I had been your fiance and I was told that my soon to be in-laws got more say over my wedding than I did, I would decline their offer to pay for the wedding and have something small and simple that we could afford as a couple. Money should NEVER be allowed to push a spouse, or soon-to-be-spouse out of their rightful position in their marriage or impending marriage.

You said it yourself, it is not a pageant for the bride, it is about two people joining their lives forever and the family joy that surrounds it. But now you’re saying that it is something that the bride’s family does for her. No, that is not the case. Either they are giving the wedding to the couple, or they shouldn’t give it at all. This should in no way be construed to mean that the person paying doesn’t get a say-they most definitely do. But the bride should work with the groom-not with her mother, to determine what they as a couple want and then they can negotiate as a team with the parents. Sorry, but the bride’s mom is not more important than the groom. Nor is the bride’s family more important than the groom’s. You don’t think that they are just as invested in and excited about their son’s marriage as the bride’s parents are about their daughter getting married?

The bride should never be on the side of her parents against her fiance. Sure, she can argue with him, and she can push for what her parents want, but these need to be private discussions between the couple, and they need to figure out how to compromise together. Then they can negotiate with parents. Never should a groom (or bride, if that’s the situation) be told “Sorry, but my parents’ opinion is far more important to me than yours when it comes to our wedding”. You make it sound like this whole celebration is for the bride and her mother!

The bride’s family is hosting. However the wedding turns out, it reflects on them and even more so the bride. The groom should be a gentleman and respect this and want the bride to have things the way she likes them. You may think I have a crazy, paternalistic, throwback viewpoint on this, but I’m being realistic about human nature as it is.

 

[phillylawyer]

The reception is there for a very good reason - that the guests want to be able to say congratulations and have at least a short chat with the couple right after their big event. You don’t just have people come to watch you get married, and then ditch them. You welcome them and thank them for coming, even if it’s as simple as serving snacks at outside or downstairs in the church, just as you would for any event where you hae guests. Same reason there is a lunch after a funeral, for example.

I dunno. Seems like kind of a catch 22 for the couple. The Catholic Church says that the wedding is supposed to be a community event and encourages the couple to invite their friends and family to support and give witness to them at the ceremony.

But, since family and friends should be invited to the wedding, the couple shouldn’t just “ditch them” right after the wedding. So, the couple should have a reception and food so that you can thank them for coming.

But, others have commented that you can’t have a reception with not enough chairs and inadequate food (all of which should be paid for by the couple, I presume?). Some complain that any reception without an open bar is not any good (I know most people here aren’t saying that).

At this point, then, it sounds like people are saying Catholic couples have a moral imperative to throw an expensive party (not to mention the cost of the church, pastor, etc.) for the right to get married. I understand the sentiment, but in an age when so many young people are avoiding marriage in the first place - and, the ones that do got married often focus more on the wedding than the marriage, is this really the message that should be sent to young people?

Maybe I’m naive (or completely missing the point on this one), but my feeling is if a couple invites you to the wedding and is getting married in the Church and is serious about preparing for and living a holy Catholic marriage as a public sign of faith, does it really matter what happens after the ceremony? If they want to have a big beautiful wedding with great food and an open bar, great. If they want to have a small reception with punch and cupcakes, fine. If they want to have a receiving line outside the church to thank everyone for coming with no food and drink and then jet off to their honeymoon, great.

If I fly in from out of town and the couple doesn’t throw a party for all the friends and family I want to see while I am in town, then I will invite them all out of a wonderful dinner/picnic while the couple is away on their honeymoon. If the extra cost of paying $10 for that meal, when you thought the bride and groom would provide it for you at the reception is too much, then just deduct 10 bucks from how much you would spend on their wedding gift.
Just my two cents.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The bride’s family is hosting. However the wedding turns out, it reflects on them and even more so the bride. The groom should be a gentleman and respect this and want the bride to have things the way she likes them. You may think I have a crazy, paternalistic, throwback viewpoint on this, but I’m being realistic about human nature as it is.

Paternalistic? Not at all. I actually think that the man’s opinion is being undervalued in favor of modern wedding culture. Again, the groom is more important than a party. It is not “gentlemanly” to shut up and let a third party dictate your wedding. I’m not even sure how a man could face his new in-laws after being shoved off to the side in favor of their party ideas on the most important day of his life.

 

[Joe_5859]

The bride’s family is hosting. However the wedding turns out, it reflects on them and even more so the bride. The groom should be a gentleman and respect this and want the bride to have things the way she likes them. You may think I have a crazy, paternalistic, throwback viewpoint on this, but I’m being realistic about human nature as it is.

Paternalistic? Not at all. I actually think that the man’s opinion is being undervalued in favor of modern wedding culture. Again, the groom is more important than a party. It is not “gentlemanly” to shut up and let a third party dictate your wedding. I’m not even sure how a man could face his new in-laws after being shoved off to the side in favor of their party ideas on the most important day of his life.

I’m trying to decide which one of you I agree with more through your dialogue as I can somewhat see both sides. On the one hand, I certainly wouldn’t want to be pushed off to the side and paid attention to less than the future in-laws. But on the other hand, I didn’t really have strong preferences for the colors of the bridesmaids’ dresses or the particulars of flower arrangements and pew bows.

 

[phillylawyer]

Paternalistic? Not at all. I actually think that the man’s opinion is being undervalued in favor of modern wedding culture. Again, the groom is more important than a party. It is not “gentlemanly” to shut up and let a third party dictate your wedding. I’m not even sure how a man could face his new in-laws after being shoved off to the side in favor of their party ideas on the most important day of his life.

My in-laws paid for the wedding. The one thing I wanted (other than the wedding being at a church and family and friends being there) was this elaborate, world cup themed groom’s cake. It would have cost $1,500. My in-laws (and wife) said they would prefer to spend that money on other aspects of the reception, like flowers. I said fine and settled for the fact that I was marrying the most amazing woman in the world.

I somehow managed to find a way to face my in-laws after this debacle.

 

[Xantippe]

Some complain that any reception without an open bar is not any good.

Yes. They’re called “alcoholics.”

 

[phillylawyer]

Yes. They’re called “alcoholics.”

Touche!

 

[Xantippe]

If I fly in from out of town and the couple doesn’t throw a party for all the friends and family I want to see while I am in town, then I will invite them all out of a wonderful dinner/picnic while the couple is away on their honeymoon. If the extra cost of paying $10 for that meal, when you thought the bride and groom would provide it for you at the reception is too much, then just deduct 10 bucks from how much you would spend on their wedding gift.
Just my two cents.

Sounds a lot simpler and more thoughtful to just have an actual reception so everybody can see each other there, rather than have to make separate arrangements to see each other at some other time and place. There could easily wind up being scheduling conflicts if everybody has the same idea and not everybody has the same must-see list.

Also, is it really going to cost $10 to invite out a crowd of people or do a picnic?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m trying to decide which one of you I agree with more through your dialogue as I can somewhat see both sides. On the one hand, I certainly wouldn’t want to be pushed off to the side and paid attention to less than the future in-laws. But on the other hand, I didn’t really have strong preferences for the colors of the bridesmaids’ dresses or the particulars of flower arrangements and pew bows.

Colors and such are one thing.

But if you go back in the conversation, you’ll see that I was standing up for the groom not getting a say on venue, the size of the wedding, and being told that if the bride wants to let him have (name removed by moderator)ut, he can.

This sort of disregard for the grooms preferences in favor of his MIL does not bode well for a marriage.

 

[NSFrame]

I dunno. Seems like kind of a catch 22 for the couple. The Catholic Church says that the wedding is supposed to be a community event and encourages the couple to invite their friends and family to support and give witness to them at the ceremony.

But, since family and friends should be invited to the wedding, the couple shouldn’t just “ditch them” right after the wedding. So, the couple should have a reception and food so that you can thank them for coming.

But, others have commented that you can’t have a reception with not enough chairs and inadequate food (all of which should be paid for by the couple, I presume?). Some complain that any reception without an open bar is not any good (I know most people here aren’t saying that).

At this point, then, it sounds like people are saying Catholic couples have a moral imperative to throw an expensive party (not to mention the cost of the church, pastor, etc.) for the right to get married. I understand the sentiment, but in an age when so many young people are avoiding marriage in the first place - and, the ones that do got married often focus more on the wedding than the marriage, is this really the message that should be sent to young people?

Maybe I’m naive (or completely missing the point on this one), but my feeling is if a couple invites you to the wedding and is getting married in the Church and is serious about preparing for and living a holy Catholic marriage as a public sign of faith, does it really matter what happens after the ceremony? If they want to have a big beautiful wedding with great food and an open bar, great. If they want to have a small reception with punch and cupcakes, fine. If they want to have a receiving line outside the church to thank everyone for coming with no food and drink and then jet off to their honeymoon, great.

If I fly in from out of town and the couple doesn’t throw a party for all the friends and family I want to see while I am in town, then I will invite them all out of a wonderful dinner/picnic while the couple is away on their honeymoon. If the extra cost of paying $10 for that meal, when you thought the bride and groom would provide it for you at the reception is too much, then just deduct 10 bucks from how much you would spend on their wedding gift.
Just my two cents.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure no one is saying that.

I’m saying the wedding isn’t a stage show, the guests are there to support the couple, and the couple should thank them by having at least a little something for them after the ceremony. When you host someone, you always offer them some sort of refreshment, I can’t think of a single instance where this isn’t the case.

 

[phillylawyer]

Sounds a lot simpler and more thoughtful to just have an actual reception so everybody can see each other there, rather than have to make separate arrangements to see each other at some other time and place. There could easily wind up being scheduling conflicts if everybody has the same idea and not everybody has the same must-see list.

Also, is it really going to cost $10 to invite out a crowd of people or do a picnic?

It may be simpler for the guests, but probably not simpler (and definitely more expensive) for the couple.

It won’t cost more than $10/person to do a picnic or go to chilis for dinner with family and friends who think it would be fun.

My wife and I had a 4 hour reception with food and champagne for everyone, and it was great. But, if another couple wants to do things differently, who am I to complain? The primary purpose of a couple getting married is not so that I have an excuse to hang out with family and friends and get a free dinner and a party to boot. If I feel like I am missing out on said party/family get together because that ungrateful young couple didn’t appropriately plan a party, I am more than free to organize one myself.

 

[Joe_5859]

Colors and such are one thing.

But if you go back in the conversation, you’ll see that I was standing up for the groom not getting a say on venue, the size of the wedding, and being told that if the bride wants to let him have (name removed by moderator)ut, he can.

This sort of disregard for the grooms preferences in favor of his MIL does not bode well for a marriage.

Ah, I missed that. Yes, those are different issues. My wife and I did decide all those things together.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure no one is saying that.

I’m saying the wedding isn’t a stage show, the guests are there to support the couple, and the couple should thank them by having at least a little something for them after the ceremony. When you host someone, you always offer them some sort of refreshment, I can’t think of a single instance where this isn’t the case.

Now it’s the couple? Don’t you mean that the bride and her mom should thank them?

This is exactly why I’m appalled by your outlook. It really is a thank you from the couple, and the groom’s wishes on how to thank their friends and family should be considered and respected. A lot of people went out of their way to be there to support him too.

 

[NSFrame]

Colors and such are one thing.

But if you go back in the conversation, you’ll see that I was standing up for the groom not getting a say on venue, the size of the wedding, and being told that if the bride wants to let him have (name removed by moderator)ut, he can.

This sort of disregard for the grooms preferences in favor of his MIL does not bode well for a marriage.

Well, we’ve been married for almost 9 years now, together for 14, and as far as I can tell we are quite happy together. We did make some wedding decisions together, it’s just that there were certain things he wanted that were impractical due to my family’s budget, location, and desire to invite all of my (large) family. I emphasized the mother-of-the-bride’s role in my original post because I wasn’t sure the OP understood her mother’s POV, which I didn’t “get” until well into the process.

 

[phillylawyer]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure no one is saying that.

I’m saying the wedding isn’t a stage show, the guests are there to support the couple, and the couple should thank them by having at least a little something for them after the ceremony. When you host someone, you always offer them some sort of refreshment, I can’t think of a single instance where this isn’t the case.

Of course noone is saying that in so many words. But, after hearing a number of family and friends complain about how so and so’s reception wasn’t “classy enough” or the food was “cheap,” that is what the expectation becomes.

Plus, after seeing how many friends of ours had huge elaborate weddings where the guests were treated to every “refreshment” imaginable, I say if a couple wants to have a small wedding, have a receiving line after the wedding, and then dashes off to their honeymoon, I say good for them.

I am being slightly provocative, and I agree with you that at least offering a small refreshment afterwards is probably the thoughtful thing to do from the perspective of the couple.

But, I still think that from the perspective of the guest attending the wedding, one’s attitude going to a wedding should be, “My job is to support and encourage that young (or old) couple to live a happy and holy and god-centered marriage in an age where marriage is constantly under attack. The point of this wedding is not about me, but about the couple and about me showing my support for them however I can. I don’t expect anything, and any form of reception/refreshment/dinner afterwards is just an added bonus. If I am not satisfied with the quality or quantity of the refreshment/party, then I will suggest that my family and friends all go out to dinner to hang out together. The point of the public celebration of the sacrament of marriage is not for me to have a great party.”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m trying to decide which one of you I agree with more through your dialogue as I can somewhat see both sides. On the one hand, I certainly wouldn’t want to be pushed off to the side and paid attention to less than the future in-laws. But on the other hand, I didn’t really have strong preferences for the colors of the bridesmaids’ dresses or the particulars of flower arrangements and pew bows.

How about the music, food, etc.? I don’t think the groom’s opinions should be disregarded on matters like those. I don’t think they have to carry the day either, but they should certainly be listened to.

phillylawyer:

I said fine and settled for the fact that I was marrying the most amazing woman in the world.

People gave me this line throughout the wedding prep process and it irritated the life out of me. I just found it insulting. There’s an implication there that my wife is “settling” for me.

Cricket2:

But in these economic times, and when folks are getting fussy about who is doing what, I still say go for no reception. Wait 5 years and then celebrate the fact you made it that far. Maybe that would be a better focus.

When we counted up the cash/checks that people gave us as gifts on our wedding day, it came out to about $50 per person, on average. Most of the people we invited were very important to us, so we didn’t care if they gave any gift at all—but they did. Maybe they would have adjusted their gifts down if we didn’t have a reception, but I doubt it.

So the way I look at it, you’re giving us a gift, we at least owe you a meal and a little face time. We ended up spending about $40 a person or so, so we came out ahead any way.

I see what you’re saying about the excessive commercialization of weddings. That aside, if a Catholic can’t celebrate a Catholic wedding, what can he/she celebrate? It’s one of the most joyous moments in life.

 

[phillylawyer]

People gave me this line throughout the wedding prep process and it irritated the life out of me. I just found it insulting. There’s an implication there that my wife is “settling” for me.

I get why that would annoy you. But, I think the point is that the husband should say that he is lucky and marrying up and the wife should say she is lucky and marrying up. Nothing wrong with that! Plus, in my case it’s actually true.

I see what you’re saying about the excessive commercialization of weddings. That aside, if a Catholic can’t celebrate a Catholic wedding, what can he/she celebrate? It’s one of the most joyous moments in life.

A Catholic couple certainly CAN celebrate (extravagantly if they want) a Catholic wedding. The question is whether they have an obligation to, if they don’t want (or can’t afford) to.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I get why that would annoy you. But, I think the point is that the husband should say that he is lucky and marrying up and the wife should say she is lucky and marrying up. Nothing wrong with that! Plus, in my case it’s actually true.

The way it was phrased to me was different than that. It was more like, for example, I wanted to have a say in the music. Not control it by any means, just have a say in it. And we had the first DJ that we interviewed tell me that I don’t get to have that say, because dictating every aspect of the wedding day is “her prize,” my “prize” was the fact that she chose to marry me.

Needless to say, we didn’t go with that DJ. But when I shared that story with others, they repeated similar lines.

I don’t dispute that my wife is a “prize” (not an object), but it was… OK, what are you calling me exactly? I don’t even think it was my pride that was offended but a universal sense of justice. When someone says to another, “you belong to gender X, therefore, your desires are irrelevant,” I am offended, regardless of the gender in question.

A Catholic couple certainly CAN celebrate (extravagantly if they want) a Catholic wedding. The question is whether they have an obligation to, if they don’t want (or can’t afford) to.

Hopefully it goes without saying that a Catholic couple can get married with the bare minimum present (Priest or Deacon, two witnesses) and there’s nothing invalid or wrong about that. Hopefully it also goes without saying that hospitality is a good thing, and a Catholic couple is obligated to take any reasonable steps they can take to be hospitable. So, “we’re struggling to pay our bills” is a sensible reason to go light on the reception, but “we want to keep more of our gift money just because” definitely isn’t.

 

[phillylawyer]

The way it was phrased to me was different than that. It was more like, for example, I wanted to have a say in the music. Not control it by any means, just have a say in it. And we had the first DJ that we interviewed tell me that I don’t get to have that say, because dictating every aspect of the wedding day is “her prize,” my “prize” was the fact that she chose to marry me.

Sounds like the DJ was out of line (and not a very good business man). There is definitely a stereotype that men don’t care as much about the details of the wedding as the women do. However, this is not always the case, and if a man has strong feelings on certain things, it is condescending to just tell him to shut up because he lucked out on getting any woman at all, especially this one.

Hopefully it goes without saying that a Catholic couple can get married with the bare minimum present (Priest or Deacon, two witnesses) and there’s nothing invalid or wrong about that. Hopefully it also goes without saying that hospitality is a good thing, and a Catholic couple is obligated to take any reasonable steps they can take to be hospitable. So, “we’re struggling to pay our bills” is a sensible reason to go light on the reception, but “we want to keep more of our gift money just because” definitely isn’t.

I think both of these are the extremes and are probably true (although, if someone gets invited to a wedding of a couple you know is well off and isn’t holding a reception because they are cheap, they are certainly under no obligation to get an expensive gift.

On the other hand, what if the couple wants to go light on the cost for the reception because they have student loans they want to pay off faster? Have money so that it would be easier for the wife to stay home with the kids when they had their honeymoon baby? More money to give to their parish? Who’s to say what is a reasonable reason?

It just seems that guests attending the wedding are under no obligation to give the couple an expensive gift, it’s up to them if they choose to do so, and the couple is under no obligation to throw a fancy reception for the guests. Both of these are “gifts” and thus should be freely given by the couple/guests if they so choose.