Minister threatens to stop wedding

[Anonymous]

Because of photographers. The couple are appalled.

Isn't anger a sin???

https://www.facebook.com/NoTeaParty/posts/736969312995249

[Anonymous]

No, I am (surprisingly) with the priest. Although he should (and may have) made this clear earlier. Based upon his collar, I think he is either Episcopalian or Anglican. When i was married in the Episcopalian church 20 years ago, the priest was clear that there was to be no photography whatsoever in the church during the service and we both thought that appropriate. We could take the "before" and "after" shots but nothing in the church. It is a sacred moment. Since then I've seen weddings ruined by photographers running all over the place, up on scaffolding and ladders, and also, most recently at a niece's wedding where they were right behind the priest, as in this case. it really did ruin the moment for me.

I don't think the priest is expressing anger. I think he is being firm and I could see myself doing this. And I strong suspect he told the couple before he agreed to marry him what his expectations or rules about cameras was and they either chose to ignore him or didn't tell their photographers.

Finally, a true professional would be using a "mirrorless" camera so there would be no click. Although you cannot see the photographers, you can hear the annoying clicks and tell by the number of clicks that there are several photographers. I do think that is obtrusive and out of line. But I'm sure others will disagree.

[Anonymous]

OP here, I think he could have handled it graciously and with kindness. He sounded pretty damn pissed off to me. I think every couple should be forewarned about this guy before choosing to have him for an officiant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I am (surprisingly) with the priest. Although he should (and may have) made this clear earlier. Based upon his collar, I think he is either Episcopalian or Anglican. When i was married in the Episcopalian church 20 years ago, the priest was clear that there was to be no photography whatsoever in the church during the service and we both thought that appropriate. We could take the "before" and "after" shots but nothing in the church. It is a sacred moment. Since then I've seen weddings ruined by photographers running all over the place, up on scaffolding and ladders, and also, most recently at a niece's wedding where they were right behind the priest, as in this case. it really did ruin the moment for me.

I don't think the priest is expressing anger. I think he is being firm and I could see myself doing this. And I strong suspect he told the couple before he agreed to marry him what his expectations or rules about cameras was and they either chose to ignore him or didn't tell their photographers.

Finally, a true professional would be using a "mirrorless" camera so there would be no click. Although you cannot see the photographers, you can hear the annoying clicks and tell by the number of clicks that there are several photographers. I do think that is obtrusive and out of line. But I'm sure others will disagree.

+1 A good friend's wedding, IMO, was ruined by the photographer moving around constantly. It was extremely distracting.

My DH and I were not allowed to have photographers during ceremony and I'm now happy about that. It is a very special moment that shouldn't be ruined by photographers and cameras.

[Anonymous]

I'm the long-winded person above. I wanted to add that the photographers fought back to the priest. So what you might see as anger I see as frustration that the photographers didn't immediately reply with his request. His first request was direct and polite. Then nothing happened but the videographer clearly still has his camera running (because we can now see the video) so the priest gets further hacked off. i went to one wedding that was totally ruined by three teams of photographers and videographers. There were all over the church and all over us (taking photos of guests, which I hate - actually it's the videographer putting the guest on the spot to say something which I hate because it's awkward and I never know what to say). The ministers (Presbyterian) did allow the ceremony to stop so that the cameras could move their equipment but I must say it was bizarre and the sacredness of the ceremony was totally lost.

[Anonymous]

*comply" with his request. Sorry. And yes there were mutliple ministers at that wedding so at least that's not a typo.

[Anonymous]

I just watched this. The clicking started and it's clear there are at least two, I suspect three or more cameras and videographers: two cameras w/o the mirrorless feature which a pro would have used because it's silent and the videographer. The priest turns to them and says "Please, Sirs, leave . . Please". How more professional can you be than that. Can you hear the response? One of the jerks says "What does that mean?". How disrespectful. It's obvious that the photographers are challenging the priest who is trying to conduct the wedding. And the videographer doesn't put his camera down so this poor priest - who probably didn't want to be there in the first place - is caught in a hard place. The photographers are making fun of him and he knows the videographer is still going at it (you can tell because he's looking straight into the camera). So I think the priest was entitled to do whatever he thought proper and besides I'm sure he covered this all beforehand and either the bride and groom or wedding coordinator didn't convey the message, or chose not to convey the message, or the photographers were belligerant.

[Anonymous]

what is this no pictures in a church rule , wtf

[Anonymous]

Because it is a sacred, religious ceremony about joining two people together to start a new family unit. Same as not having cameras at a funeral.

Plus cameras distract (as you can hear in the video, which is tres annoying to everyone in the church) from the solemnity of the occasion. This was the rule in most, if not all Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican and some other Christian denominations until things started to break down. When I married it was a clear-cut rule. No cameras in the church. And I'm glad we did it that way. I have plenty of photos before and after and at the reception. Even when our son was baptized a few years back the episcopalian priest said "no photos; no photographer". But a friend discretely snapped a quickie with her cell phone for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what is this no pictures in a church rule , wtf

No, you can have pictures taken in the church. Just not during the actual ceremony. Can you understand the difference?

The ceremony is exactly that, a ceremony. It's not a performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what is this no pictures in a church rule , wtf

Most churches are like this and I think more weddings need to be like this. It's a very intimate and special moment that needs the full attention of the bride, groom, and all the guests. We don't have to document everything with pictures for it to have happened.

[Anonymous]

My rabbi told us when we asked him to marry us that he did not allow pictures or video during the ceremony and it was announced at the beginning of the service.

The service is sacred. It's not an opportunity for Facebook.

[Anonymous]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Anonymous]

I agree the priest's reaction was reasonable. There are some moments in life that aren't facebook moments, and a wedding ceremony is one of them.

[Anonymous]

I think the same person is repeatedly posting.
I have NEVER heard of no photogs at a wedding.
If you don't want them that is fine, but acting like it is a sin is a whole 'nother matter.
If the officiant asked for it to stop, they should have stopped.
But is this some new trend?
I have been to plenty of church weddings with photogs and those people felt their ceremony was sacred and they loved the Lord just as much as anyone else.