- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I agreed with Cary's advise here. He's spot on. LW needs to start thinking of this as a church ceremony.
I was baptized, confirmed, etc. For my child's christening, we had to take 6 weeks of classes before we could even schedule it, and those classes are on a schedule. We did not just "contact the church". This is NOT a Roman Catholic event. The Lutherans and Episcopalians here are similiar.
We did have out of town guests: the godmother and godfather. The rest were in town. We sent notices, not invitations, to the out of town guests. I'd say the invitations were mistake #1.
Referring to her relatives as "univited" is mistake #2. I'll bet her fiance' did invite them to stay. He didn't do it in earshot of her, because he knew how she felt about his relatives, and how she'd act. This may be the first time some of these people have seen the baby. She should be more gracious, and have better manners. I smell Bridezilla in the making here.
She has a child. They probably think they are helping her, not hijacking. Lighten up.
And yes, as a Catholic, the marriage comes before the Christening if the couple is engaged. Some priests and conservative dioceses enforce that rule for engaged couples. While other priests would not turn them down, they would be vocally frank about how disrespectful it is to christen the child in the Church while in a state of mortal sin. They have, in the past, tried to force the couple to live apart, etc. Conservative churches would see this as hypocritical, too. More liberal ones would not. I do know of a few Baptist ministers who would have thrown the couple out. They would have welcomed a single mother, but not a couple actively living in sin.
Good job, Cary. Spare us Bridezillas and now Christeningzillas.
