Wedding Dilemma: Our child isn't invited to the wedding reception... should we attend?

[Matthew_Holford]

Not quite. I think a hen night is more akin to what we call a bachelorette party and is comparable to the guys’ stag night. A Shower might have a theme (Kitchen Shower, Lingerie Shower) and involves silly theme games as much as ‘showering the bride with gifts’.

Shower gifts and wedding gifts are two separate animals. Etiquette says that, even if you don’t attend, a wedding gift is required if you are invited to the wedding; there’s no such requirement for a shower, only those who attend need buy a gift. If you go to both, two gifts are “required”.

On this side of the ocean, it’s not rare to see a gift table at the reception but it’s a drop-off point for those who brought their gifts with them, rather than a display area. It’s quite common around here for couples to delay the honeymoon for a day or so and gather with their friends and family for brunch the day after the wedding to open the gifts and ooh an ahh over them.

I did use the words “might have” very advisedly. I suppose as I’ve just said in another post we have nothing this side of the big pond that equally matches the shower. There’s no specific occasion when gifts for the couple are delivered. Many people bring them on the wedding day itself. Someone else such as say the bride’s parents or the best man may take responsibility for the gifts after the wedding until the couple return from honeymoon. Then they should on their return, if traditions still apply, set about sending a written thanks to all gift senders.

 

[EasterJoy]

With a bit more thought I might not have said they were the same. I suppose the ‘shower’ would be called the ‘hen night’ for the bride and the ‘stag night’ for the groom. It sounds from what I’ve been told in this thread that the wedding gifts are given to the bride at the shower. In the UK gifts are given to the couple early on the day of the wedding and are displayed at the reception. Of course we have a best man for the groom and a maid/matron of honour (and bridesmaid(s)) for the bride. We do not say ‘standing’ at the wedding and I don’t think we have a particular term for doing this.

A typical British wedding (and of course there’s many variations) would be the wedding (often mid-afternoon) followed by a three-course meal (late afternoon or early evening) called the wedding breakfast. Those who attend the Nuptial Mass/Marriage Service are invited to the wedding breakfast. In the evening there’s a reception with music, dancing, and a buffet. All guests who come to the Nuptial Mass/Marriage Service and wedding breakfast come to the reception as do additional guests not invited to the Nuptial Mass/Marriage Service and wedding breakfast.

The shower started as a party for giving a bride fresh out of her parents’ home the humble little things that are needed to start a home: kitchen towels, spatulas, oven mitts, aprons, soap dishes, and whatnot. The little stuff that you need but that no one is going to want to give you as a wedding gift. This probably came out of women losing the custom of having a hope chest, where they socked away this kind of stuff in the years of their girlhood.

This bachelor/bachelorette custom is, I think, a post-WWII thing that came out of the long period of single adulthood spent dating but not looking for a spouse. Goodbye long nights out with my buddies, goodbye looking at pretty girls, and so on. When courtship was used to find someone to marry and when working men, married or not, could only spend so much time out “having a good time”, I don’t think they had such things.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The shower started as a party for giving a bride fresh out of her parents’ home the humble little things that are needed to start a home: kitchen towels, spatulas, oven mitts, aprons, soap dishes, and whatnot. The little stuff that you need but that no one is going to want to give you as a wedding gift.

That is what wedding gifts were at least once upon a time over here. They were things to help a couple get set up in their home. Most of our wedding gifts were that: practical things for our home.

 

[happymommy]

When we got married I had family coming in from all over the country. We had my nieces and nephews at both the wedding and reception. Got the kids special food and even had special favors with gummy bears for them. For the children of out of town guests, my mother hired several college girls from church to babysit at their house. The parents got to enjoy a nice meal and dancing and didn’t have to pay for a sitter. It worked out well. My brother and his wife brought their boys to the reception for awhile and then after cake, they had my sil’s parents take the boys home, so they could stay and not have watch what 3 little boys were getting into

 

[EasterJoy]

That is what wedding gifts were at least once upon a time over here. They were things to help a couple get set up in their home. Most of our wedding gifts were that: practical things for our home.

That is the way here, too, but I think there was a time when some guests would rather give a durable gift such as china or a platter or something like that rather than a fistful of wooden spoons. The couple would find themselves with the family things they couldn’t afford but without the various inexpensive necessities that they needed right away.

 

[Aramis]

I think that by its simple definition of a Catholic wedding everybody is invited to the wedding children included.

This is true under canon law; no sacrament is “closed to attending as witness”… to anyone who can access the chapel it’s held in. Technically, a bum off the street has to be allowed in if in a parish, provided he’s not disruptive…

When it comes to the reception, than it is up to the groom and bride.

And this is, sadly, also true.

I’d suggest saying, “No, sorry, if we can’t bring the baby, we can’t go.” If they say “Sure, just not to the reception,” again, I’d say, “Fine, we’ll be at the wedding, but not the reception.”

It really shows them to be badly lukewarm to the real meaning of marriage, IMO.

And “destination weddings” are NOT appropriate; the home parish of one or the other is the appropriate venue. Anyplace else requires pastor’s permission of both venue and home parishes.

 

[Phemie]

And “destination weddings” are NOT appropriate; the home parish of one or the other is the appropriate venue. Anyplace else requires pastor’s permission of both venue and home parishes.

As long as both parishes agree, why say it’s not appropriate? Nobody would suggest that it’s inappropriate for the bride or groom to return to one or the other of their childhood parishes to be married, even if they live elsewhere, so why should opting for Hawaii instead make it inappropriate as long as the proper paperwork is done.

 

[PatriceA]

As long as both parishes agree, why say it’s not appropriate? Nobody would suggest that it’s inappropriate for the bride or groom to return to one or the other of their childhood parishes to be married, even if they live elsewhere, so why should opting for Hawaii instead make it inappropriate as long as the proper paperwork is done.

I think when most people hear the words “destination wedding” they think of the couple getting married on a beach or some other exotic location, not in a Catholic Church.

Like you said, if all the paperwork is done, and they get permission to marry at a Catholic Church/chapel at a destination or special dispensation from their bishop to marry at another location, then there’s really nothing wrong with it. BUT, most couples do not do that when they want a destination wedding.

 

[Aramis]

As long as both parishes agree, why say it’s not appropriate? Nobody would suggest that it’s inappropriate for the bride or groom to return to one or the other of their childhood parishes to be married, even if they live elsewhere, so why should opting for Hawaii instead make it inappropriate as long as the proper paperwork is done.

Because Canon Law says the proper place is the Groom’s parish, or the Bride’s.
Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

1/ a marriage of transients;

2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;

3/ a marriage of a person who is bound by natural obligations toward another party or children arising from a previous union;

4/ a marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith;

5/ a marriage of a person who is under a censure;

6/ a marriage of a minor child when the parents are unaware or reasonably opposed;

7/ a marriage to be entered into through a proxy as mentioned in ⇒ can. 1105.

§2. The local ordinary is not to grant permission to assist at the marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith unless the norms mentioned in ⇒ can. 1125 have been observed with necessary adaptation.

Can. 1115 Marriages are to be celebrated in a parish where either of the contracting parties has a domicile, quasidomicile, or month long residence or, if it concerns transients, in the parish where they actually reside. With the permission of the proper ordinary or proper pastor, marriages can be celebrated elsewhere.
Underlining & emphasis mine.

This has as much to do with proving the requirements of preparation as it does the communal and public aspects of marriage.

Marriage is a PUBLIC sacrament. It’s the only sacrament bound also by civil laws. It requires, except in severe and dire cases, public recording. (Yes, there’s a whole section on secret marriages… but it’s also pretty clear that they are not to be used except in really odd cases.)

Further, in the Eastern Churches, the approach to the “adult” sacraments is very different from the Roman Church, but it underscores what is most important:
For marriages, they are celebrated outside the Divine Liturgy; the celebration traditionally begins in the home of each, with a priest or deacon going and verifying that both parties, separately, agree to the marriage, and have the support of the families. Then they proceed to the parish, give their consent outside, and then proceed to enter, and are bound together by the priest, and crowned by the priest as a new adam and new eve. Traditionally, weddings are done on saturday mornings. The couple then usually receives honored place the next morning by being communed at the same time at the start of communion, to give public witness to what was done.

Ordinations and Solemn Professions (of Vows or Promises) in the East are done DURING divine worship services only, and are ordinations supposed to be scheduled in the home parish on a sunday… given that the east usually restricts to one liturgy per day per altar, this means at the regular sunday liturgy. The Catholic East is more lax about the one per day than the Orthodox East…

 

[Phemie]

Because Canon Law says the proper place is the Groom’s parish, or the Bride’s.
Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

1/ a marriage of transients;

Can. 1115 Marriages are to be celebrated in a parish where either of the contracting parties has a domicile, quasidomicile, or month long residence or, if it concerns transients, in the parish where they actually reside. With the permission of the proper ordinary or proper pastor, marriages can be celebrated elsewhere.
Underlining & emphasis mine.

This has as much to do with proving the requirements of preparation as it does the communal and public aspects of marriage.

Note that both canons say that with permission marriages can be celebrated elsewhere and they don’t say that the couple has to have a ‘good reason’ for requesting that permission.

I’ve dealt with these often over the last 10 years and it’s never been a problem. As long as the couple can provide the name and address of a Catholic priest willing to officiate, we fill out the paperwork and submit it to the bishop. Couples usually have very valid reasons for opting to marry in another parish. 90% of the time it’s because they are going back to the parish where one or the other or both of their extended families live. Once it was because the groom’s parents were flying in from Holland and the parish where the couple eventually married was in the city where these parents would first land. It was done to avoid their having to pay a few thousand more dollars to fly to our town.

Only twice have I experienced couples wanting permission for true ‘destination’ weddings. One failed because they had misunderstood what the resort was offering, which was not a priest or a Catholic ceremony, and the other was successful because the priest who had agreed to marry them was the vicar general of his diocese. The second couple had truly done their homework.

The required paperwork never went to the Bishop before the couple had completed the marriage preparation required by our parish.

 

[Sarabande]

I haven’t read all the replies, but this is my take on it.

First, with you wife being very pregnant when the wedding will take place, she may not be allowed to travel by air, so that is something to take into consideration.

Next, a couple technically cannot say that children are not allowed to the actual wedding mass/ceremony. It is a public sacrament so anyone can technically attend it. You cannot tell non-guests entering the church that they are not allowed to enter because a wedding is taking place. We were married at a cathedral in a city. There were a few homeless people sitting in the very back of the cathedral while we got married and were very much into the joyous celebration. They never made a problem and we didn’t know they were there until we were processing out. Actually, we have a picture of my husband shaking the hand of one of the homeless men as we left the cathedral. I’m sure there were some tourists coming in and out as well, as I used to see it all the time when I was a cantor/soloist for other weddings. I have seen it happen at various other churches as well. So, I would say that children could come to the ceremony. If they start to act up, just take them to the vestibule of the church or outside. That’s what most guests and people who weren’t even guests at these weddings I cantored for did.

In terms of the reception, it is the right of the bride and groom to decide who is and is not invited. When I got married, we invited our young cousins and the children of our older cousins. We both believed that it should be a celebration for the entire family. So we had a good number of kids at the reception. About 12 or 15… I can’t remember the exact number, but I know it was at least 12 since the reception place had this special addendum added to our contract so that we weren’t charged extra for having more than 10 children there. (Original contracted charged extra for insurance reasons, but that was more for bar/bat mitzvahs and other kid events and they waived it for us) BUT we were able to do it because my parents were financially able to afford doing it.

Actually, in my area many people do not include children. In the past, when I was growing up, one of the reasons was because it was considered an adult affair. You could go to the actual ceremony, but not to the evening reception. I only attended one wedding as a child and that was because I was the flower girl. The other reason was cost, especially if people were on a tight budget.

Today, from the brides I deal with, I know that the main reason has to do with cost. It’s very expensive where I live and was very difficult for us to find a place that provided food for less than $100 per person all-inclusive. I was eventually able to find something that was all-inclusive and was less than $100 per person, but the majority of places ended up being much more for their least expensive plate or ended up being much more if it wasn’t all-inclusive (looked good initially, then you were nickel and dime per dinner plate, then per cake plate, drinks, hors d’ourves, etc.)

So, although I personally prefer weddings that include children, I don’t begrudge anyone who don’t include them, especially where I am from. I don’t look at it as a moral issue. I think your wife should just be up front with the friend and just mention that you can’t leave your child at home. The bride might make an exception, especially since she is part of the wedding party (I’ve seen/heard of that done a few times for family/friend weddings). I personally wouldn’t ask to bring your child though. Let the bride/groom make the suggestion themselves. If they really want you there, they will make the exception. If not, then she could just politely back out of it citing not being able to bring your child and also citing her pregnancy. One of my close friends had to back out of my wedding party because she was due around the same time as my wedding. I was sad, but completely understood. She still was very much involved with the wedding plans, though, and attended. But even if she couldn’t come, I would have understood and not have been upset with her.

One more thing, the bride might have already thought of out of town guests and their children and hired a babysitter. I have heard of that happening more often now.

I hope it all works out for you and your wife, whatever your decision is.

 

[rebeccanew]

I just had the pleasure of attending a fabulous wedding reception. It was very formal and it was a 10 course sit down dinner. Children were invited and were cared for. One of the highlights of the evening was the entertainment. There were 30 male dancers who did dances from every part of the world. Then this adorable 2 year old little guy just couldn’t take it anymore and got on the dance floor and really did some cute dances. Everyone clapped and enjoyed his dancing, even the other dancers. I especially enjoyed the excitement of the children and thought what a great memory of marriage they were forming, even if they were too young to remember the event, the experience will remain. Plus the parent/child experience will have a long term beneficial effect.

 

[maryjk]

I just had the pleasure of attending a fabulous wedding reception. It was very formal and it was a 10 course sit down dinner. Children were invited and were cared for. One of the highlights of the evening was the entertainment. There were 30 male dancers who did dances from every part of the world. Then this adorable 2 year old little guy just couldn’t take it anymore and got on the dance floor and really did some cute dances. Everyone clapped and enjoyed his dancing, even the other dancers. I especially enjoyed the excitement of the children and thought what a great memory of marriage they were forming, even if they were too young to remember the event, the experience will remain. Plus the parent/child experience will have a long term beneficial effect.

See, and I remember my cousin’s wedding. She had the most beautiful dress, lovely flowers. The Mass was breathtaking. All of our young cousins were at the reception. While I was standing next to the bride, talking to her and a group of adults, there were children running around. One was running around with a cup of punch. Well, I am sure you know what happened. The one with the punch tripped and spilled the punch in the direction of the bride. I pushed her out of the way and knocked the cup away from the dress. She ONLY got a few drops of punch on her dress.

Oh, and the parent of the boy? They were outside have a smoke. They thought he would be fine since he was playing with his cousins.

I wonder how much of a beneficial effect that experience will have.

It really comes down to a choice. It is up to the person paying the bills and the bride. If they want children at the reception, great. If they don’t, great. It is simply up to them.

 

[EasterJoy]

It really comes down to a choice. It is up to the person paying the bills and the bride. If they want children at the reception, great. If they don’t, great. It is simply up to them.

Great or not, it is their decision, you are right about that. The wedding plans aren’t going to be changed now. The only question the OP has to answer is whether or not parenting duties or legitimate health concerns prevent him or his wife from participating as originally planned.