If you would like a copy of this or any other document on the FLAME site in RTF or WORD format please email me with your request
ASPECTS OF MARRIAGE LAW REVIEW GROUP
A RESPONSE TO THE ARCHBISHOPS' COUNCIL from
FLAME (Family Life & Marriage Education Network)
FLAME is a network of Family Life Officers and groups appointed
within the majority of dioceses in the Church of England. The
FLAME network has been heavily involved in providing effective
training and support for marriage preparation. This paper is
based on a consultation within the network, involving both FLAME
Officers and Trustees.
1. To
review the following aspects of the law relating to marriage
according to the rites of the Church of England and marriage in
Church of England churches;
1(a) Preliminaries
to marriage, including banns and also the possibility of
universal civil preliminaries i.e. a system under which the
preliminaries to all marriages, including those according to the
rites of the Church of England, were dealt with by a civil
registrar, thus replacing banns and certain ecclesiastical
licences.
The context for weddings today includes a number of key elements,
which we look at separately:
a) information and communications:
Currently, banns are heard by an unrepresentative minority of
the local communities, but it is doubtful whether the posting of
names at a Registrar's office achieves much more. However, it is
a relatively straightforward system, saving the couples making
additional arrangements with the registrar.
We suggest that:
i) If there is a desire for a universal system of preliminaries,
banns be replaced by a process whereby the church clerk, (as part
of the wedding arrangements) completes the notice of marriage,
posting it on the church notice board and passing the information
to the registrar for publication. The church may then use the
notice for pastoral support and prayer by the congregation, much
as some churches do now with banns.
ii) If the preliminaries are genuinely intended to inform the
public, banns could include a notice in the local newspaper,
alongside similar notices from the registrar.
iii) With today's mobile population, any system relying on
members of the public in a locality knowing personal information
about intending parties to a marriage is anachronistic. Checking
the couples' entitlement might be done more effectively by
developing computer records for registrars, cross-checked with
the Inland Revenue or other sources of information. Clearly banns
are an inadequate check against false claims for eligibility,
particularly if the person involved has had limited or short-term
residence in the locality.
b) competition from other venues:
i) Couples on the whole choose a venue rather than a particular
type of ceremony. Most couples are unaware of the unique status
of the Church of England, and therefore of the different rules
about eligibility, residence and preliminaries required for a
parish church, as opposed for example to a hotel. A consistent
process could reduce confusion and frustration.
ii) How the preliminaries are handled depends also on the
attitude and processes at the parish church. Churches may have a
great deal to learn from other venues, keen to attract weddings
in terms of positive service and personal attention.
c) support and affirmation:
i) Whilst the calling of banns is anachronistic, some churches
have used the requirement as an opportunity for prayer, and to
encourage the couple to attend services. Their attendance can
prove fruitful, both as part of their preparation, and for
strengthening their contact with the church.
ii) Hearing their banns read out and heard by others offers
public affirmation to the couple for their marriage plans.
d) the wider community:
There is a sense in which actually calling the banns aloud
'announces' the forthcoming marriage, and brings it into the
awareness of the wider community.
1(b) The place where the marriage is
solemnized, including residence qualifications, solemnization in
places other than a parish church, and marriage in military,
naval and air force chapels.
a)Venue
i) The present rules do not permit the use of a religious
rite at a secular venue. Our feeling is primarily that Christian
marriage ceremonies should take place only in churches and
chapels, places recognised as set aside for public Christian
worship.
ii) However, there may be situations where a couple would like
some religious input, such as a prayer or blessing, but that a
full Christian rite is inappropriate. This could be done in a
place of worship, but bearing in mind we live in a plural society
this may prove difficult to arrange, or insensitive. The
implication of insisting that to be allowed Christian content
within their wedding, a couple must have a full Christian
ceremony in a church may compromise the integrity of both the
church and the couple. We suggest it is the role of the Church to
meet people where they are and nurture their spirituality in
these, as in all, cases.
iii) We are aware of some venues hosting wedding receptions only
if the marriage is held there as well. This needs to be
investigated, and ways found of removing such pressures from
couples. This may prove difficult, as these pressures are clearly
commercially driven. It may not be possible to insist on a
wedding in a church in such circumstances, in which case some
flexibility would be helpful.
b) Residence
We identify some difficulties with the present system of
qualification by residence:
i) There is inconsistency across the Church about how the
residence criteria are interpreted, particularly in the case of
young people quoting the address of their parents. Here is also
apparent inconsistency about dealing with qualification through
membership of the Electoral roll. These variations in
interpretation reflect the inadequacy of the present system in
meeting the needs of couples, and indeed the desire of churches
to respond in a positive, supportive and welcoming manner to
couples.
ii) The church that most people think of as 'their church' is the
one with which there already exist family connections, however
tenuous these may be. Enforcing eligibility solely on residence
contradicts the understanding of church as a body of people, and
all that goes with that – their relationships, personal and
significant experiences and family events.
iii) Denying couples a ceremony at the church of their choice can
give the impression that the Church does not wish to serve them,
but rather to re-educate them. This can create a lasting negative
impression of the Church, and of the legalism rather than
spiritual life and hope of the Christian faith.
iv) Increased mobility and the length of time between booking a
ceremony and it taking place can cause great difficulty. Couples
may move once or more in the intervening period. This makes the
present system of residence qualification inappropriate, and
almost impossible to administer equitably or sensibly.
We recognise that doing away with the residence qualification
will lead to pressure on attractive or well-located churches.
Some churches would have no weddings at all were it not for the
residence rule, because of lack of contact or lack of attraction.
However, being denied their choice may mean some couples opt for
a non-religious ceremony, or for an application for an
Archbishop's Licence. This is in fact an internal issue for the
Church to resolve, rather than making life awkward or
unsatisfactory for couples. The main priority is to present a
warm and positive response to couples seeking church ceremonies,
as this will be the most likely route to nurturing their faith
and opening their understanding of the Christian insights to
marriage and family.
Marriages in Forces' Chapels
i) No pastoral or theological problem seems to exist where the
venue is a recognised place of Christian worship with which one
of the couple has a genuine connection. The difficulties which
arise are practical and administrative. For instance York Minster
has a number of Regimental Chapels and in theory any member of
any of these regiments could be married in the appropriate
chapel. Yet the Minster, not being a parish church, does not even
possess its own register books and because of pressure on
resources cannot reasonably be expected to allow many such
ceremonies. Marriages in Garrison churches however should present
no problem regarding resources but here the difficulties arise
from the fact that these again are not parish churches with their
own registers and preliminaries can be unnecessarily complicated.
c) The times between which a marriage may be celebrated
i) The medieval reasons for restrictions in the hours of marriage
no longer apply
ii) Many couples are now opting for a single evening reception
and there seems no logical reason why a ceremony at 6.00 or 7.00
p.m. should not be permitted.
d) Ecumenical issues relating to the formation of marriage, in
particular the participation of non-Anglican ministers in
marriages according to the rites of the Church of England, and
the use of the Church of England churches for marriages according
to the rites of other Churches.
In practice non-anglican ministers already participate in
anglican ceremonies and vice-versa. The rule of thumb seems to be
that the minister of the church whose rite and premises are being
used must preside at the exchange of vows although it could be
argued that under civil law he or she only needs to be present to
witness the vows being made and to endorse the register
accordingly. This situation needs to be regularised particularly
as ecumenism is further advanced in many parishes than the
hierarchies seem to realise.
Inter-faith marriages are an altogether bigger question but one
which requires detailed theological discussion.
The use of Anglican churches for weddings according to the
ceremonies of other faiths was generally thought to be
inadvisable especially in view of the widely expressed view that
the building gives a strong message about the faith of those
contracting the marriage.
2. To consider any possible implications
for marriages according to the rites of the Church of England of
current Government proposals in relation to marriage, including
proposals regarding the civil registration system.
i) Communities in contemporary society are no longer
geographically based.
ii) It is still sensible to register births and deaths
geographically because this only involves recording an event
after it has occurred.
iii) Marriage Law is complex because it involves giving authority
for particular individuals to marry on a certain date (or between
certain dates) in a given location according to a set of rules
which appear increasingly anachronistic, bizarre and irrelevant
to the way most people conduct their lives and relationships.
iv) Respondents were unable to comment on current Government
proposals in relation to marriage and the civil registration
system as they had no information about these proposals.
3. To
report with recommendations for legislation or other action as
appropriate
Preliminaries and residence qualifications
i) Authority for marriage should be issued nationally by licence.
Couples would apply for a licence to marry in the same way that
they apply for a passport.
ii) This would enable a central register to be kept of the
marital status of every resident which could be linked with and
checked against other public databases.
iii) Such a licence would allow the couple to marry at any
approved venue subject to restrictions applicable to that venue.
This is not very different to the way in which a registrar's or
coroner's certificate for disposal allows burial in any
churchyard or public cemetery. In practice we do not find
particular churches overwhelmed by requests for burials despite
the fact that strict residence requirements are not often
enforced.
iv) In the case of the Church of England the church authorities
would be free to define nationally their own rules about
eligibility to marry at a given church. This could still involve
the calling of banns for internal church reasons but enable the
church to experiment and develop a more flexible policy over time
without continual reference to parliament. It is expected that
whatever provision was made, couples holding a licence to marry
would be able to choose between a number of churches on the basis
of locality, family connection or resident minister to name only
a few. This would include their own parish church (however that
was defined). It would be up to the church to regulate the
process and apply the necessary balances.
Use of authorised Church of England rites and involvement of
Church of England clergy.
i) Approved Church of England rites of marriage should only be
used at places where worship within the anglican tradition takes
place regularly.
ii) Church of England clergy should only preside when an
authorised anglican rite is being used
iii) Church of England clergy should be allowed to participate in
marriage ceremonies conducted by ministers of other
denominations/faiths or civil registrars at any venue when
invited to do so by the couple.
These pages have
been prepared by The Revd Jim Butterworth
If you would like a copy of this or any other document on the
FLAME site in RTF or WORD format please email me with your
request
Or contact:
The Revd Jim
Butterworth
St. John's Vicarage, 48 Greenside
Mapplewell, Barnsley
S. Yorks. S75 6AY
England
Tel: + 44 (0) 1226 382261
Back to FLAME home
page
Back to Jim
Butterworth's home page