MARRIAGE IN LENT

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12531, 17 April 1935, Page 7

M ARRIAGE IN LENT

I N GLIOAN church view; I lacK OF UNIFORM rule fflje attitude of flic Church of Eng- , to marriage in Lent is the sub- . 0 f an interesting article in the ur ch News” whpih deals wi;th ji • ' ia tter as discussed at a. recent acting of Christchurch clergy. In \ n ' infl |To and by ancient rule, it totesf eUt a -hu'bidden season L r marriages, but the lack of UnitmiitT i n pi' aC^c - 0 has gradually trokfen this rule dolw'n. While it agreed concessions had to be Ldo, the suggestion was made that such marriages should be by bishop’s Hccnsc (itseif a dispensation) rather than by banns, which advertise the exceptions‘‘ln the. discussion it became clear loffever, that the clergy, representdifferent types of Cnurchmansliip % practically agreed that even nn- £ t our antipodean and modern conditions if should be a general practjrC t 0 discourage marriages in Lent and definitely to 'refuse to solemnise them at. all in Holy Week. It- was recognised that there can be no hard and fast rule-—there never has been f a ct forbidding solemnisation ot marriage in Lent, mad that there must be some exceptions made, ns irlicn a man cannot possibly get away from liis work at any other time. “It was agreed that such exceptions should be real . exceptions to the general rule, and the request for dispensation based on valid necessity When such marriages take place there should be no change in the colour of the season in the chancel liangjirs and no -special decorations (as of scats, etc) so that there might be no glaring' incongruity. Those who arc obliged to choose this' season should 1)0 asked : to ha ve everything as quiet as possible and those who arc not obliged, .to get married ,in a penitential season should be asked to postpone their 'marriage to a more seasonable time for the sake of gen eral Church discipline. v”lt is probably correct enough, to M y that ‘the Church’ has no objection to marriages per se in Lent, but to the social festivities inevitably and properly accompanying them. They involve the breaking of the general Lenten rule of self-denial of luxuries by all taking part—the parties, tlie guests, the friends who get up 'kitchen evenings,’ etc. The whole penitential spirit- of Lent is broken. The bride properly wants to look like a. bride she wants the contetti, the wedding breakfast-, the toasts, the tiered wedding cake nil the ‘ballyhoo’ of the normal wedding. Tuy bridegroom notoriously doesn’t. go that, it is the woman in the- case who complicates the matter for the parish priest. But even she would shun Lent if the old universal and definite rule wer 0 still observed by the Church —i,-e., Hie clergy and the laity. “The laity would he content if o-'-ly there wore common , practice th c clergy. But there isn’t ■and there's the rub. Ignoring those ivho only use the church service- for its pageantry, the parish priest who oh jeots would.probably find that he would be less often asked’ to- break the rule if he gave timc-l.v reminder before Lent each year that be would not solemnise marriages in Lent save lor genuinely exceptional reasons. Usually he js consulted after the date las been fixed and refusal means upsetting arrangements already in train. The main thing is to. persuade ordinary Church people that they shouldn’t get married in Lent at all except for special cause, ami that, will never be until the clergy agree among themselves or authority steps in to require them to observe a uniform rule. Wc suggest that in any case such marriages should always he by bishop’s license (itself a. dispensation) rather than by ba.nns, which advertise the exceptions.”