When guests choose to not attend the ceremony?

View Quoted Comment There’s a difference in feeling unwelcome and uncomfortable. I’m Jewish. I have felt welcomed in my experiences going to church by the members, etc. However, especially in my experience with a Catholic Church, I have been very uncomfortable with some of the things that were said. Things taken from the Bible or prayers that you may find touching and beautiful may be offensive or violating to others without you realizing it. If people don’t feel comfortable in a certain environment they shouldn’t be made to feel bad for letting you know ahead of time that they won’t be participating in that part.

It is rude to skip the ceremony but is very common with a gap. If you don’t have a gap, which can be done, but you have to be flexible with venue choices going for something that has an earlier start time such as any blank slate venue that allows outside catering including those owned by the parks department, then you will have nearly in attendance. Many couples choose not to be flexible with the venues.


I’m sure it is annoying and upsetting, but look at it as you now know who your closest people are. Best of luck!

Not offended at all. Whether a Christian non Catholic who is able to the take the Eucharist a ny time and place except in a Catholic Church, or of a different religion, people may fully support your marriage all your life, help you and family in the of need or sickness, but simply practice a different religion themselves. Depending on how much conflict between religions this may be the best way.

No. The only time I think it would be a little weird is if the ceremony and reception are at the same place. But if there's a gap or a long drive in between the two locations, I don't think you can hold it against people for only going to the reception.

I mean, I think it's understandable with that gap, and especially if those people are not of the Catholic faith, but I also understand how this would be hurtful to you. The marriage doesn't exist without the ceremonial part - it's why we're all there!

That said, just acknowledge and accept that you are hurt, and then let it go.

View Quoted Comment

You could have started your cocktail hour and reception shortly after the ceremony ended, regardless of what time the ceremony was.

View Quoted Comment Yes I understand what you're saying, but my partner chose a black tie plated dinner & dancing reception elsewhere. We moved up the cocktail hour to 5 to reduce gap, but again a wedding is not simply a convenient party for others.

I would be offended if there was no gap and ceremony and reception are in the same place. Since you have guests traveling, and there is a gap between ceremony and cocktail hour, I would give them a pass. It’s annoying to travel a long distance to wait around for a few hours.

View Quoted Comment But you have to understand wedding are usually a boring inconvenience to guests. They have to spend money on gifts and outfits. Then have to spend time traveling if it's far away. And with a gap between it makes it even more of an inconvenience to your guests. I'd just let it go and give these guests a pass.

View Quoted Comment It also shouldn’t be inconvenient for others. It sucks you’re disappointed but I think there have been many valid reasons provided here as to why you may be seeing that. I would focus on the positives of an extra intimate church ceremony that you originally made you choose to go that route.

View Quoted Comment This right here!

View Quoted Comment

You could have still had the formal wedding and gone with a more flexible venue. For example we live in a major city HCOL area and there are very few if any formal event spaces that require you to start at 5pm. They have at least 8 hour blocks including setup/tear down but no where does that mean your party has to be 8 hours. If you require an earlier cocktail hour to eliminate the gap, then you do that as a host without complaint. If you feel a wedding is an inconvenience for both you and guests, your best option is go elope without guests. Anytime you host an event, you make it convenient for the guests or don’t invite any.

View Quoted Comment I agree with this

View Quoted Comment

Actually it is. The reception is meant for you to host your guests. It should be made to be convenient for others, that's the goal of being a good host.

View Quoted Comment To the guests, some of the day is about the nuptials, some about driving, some about meals and hanging out. They are not consumed all day with all things wedding. And those who have different religions or social issues may not want to visit other churches. It does not mean they came to party. Only of ceremony and reception, reception is for them the lesser evil. Many people will go to only the ceremony . Let them choose, and for what reasons, don't guess why. A lot will only show up because they hope to see other people they do not seen often, and don't care a hoot about your nuptials. Often it is best to think of your own reasons, but not project them onto others.

View Quoted Comment

A reception is a thank you for your guests. Convenience should be one of the top priorities, frankly.

View Quoted Comment

If we use that criterion, the reception is actually a thank-you for witnessing the marriage ceremony. Even if it was a timely cake and punch in the church garden, only those who attended would receive said thank-you's. However, if guests don't attend the ceremony, what exacty am I thanking them for with a reception? We are not thanking guests for presents because we're not accepting any. The thank-you for being in our lives was the extension of the invitation, to which they picked and chose the parts they wanted. If it was not convenient for them, they could have declined the entire day and that would have been acceptable.

View Quoted Comment Will you be standing at the door actually turning guests away if they have any gifts, including cash in a card? That’s seriously overstepping and you are better off eloping. If you don’t want to celebrate with people and you want to exert control with conditions, then don’t invite them.

View Quoted Comment

You're not wrong! That's why I said it sucks.

There are groups in my family who as indigenous people were taken away from their familes for 5- 10 years and housed and ? cared for by Catholic or Lutheran churches that will never step in one again. *( I do not want to start a political argument, just to say, you do not know burdens people carry, and assume none are related to churches themselves. )* Don't assume sometimes it is not the churches.