Astonishing behavior from the marriage officiant

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>I agree with Lannie. Why on earth shouldn't be discuss the priest? We discuss MOBs, MOGs, brides, grooms, errant Uncle Bobs .... we have every right to discuss the behaviour of the priest, and indeed the behaviour of anyone or any group we are faced with in the course of our work. The notion that anybody in a turned collar is automatically above reproach is wearing thin. I have witnessed truly shocking behaviour before from a vicar and I'm not alone in that.</p>

<p>If the priest has had a bad day he should hold his feelings at bay until he's finished the job he's being paid to do - much as we all have to. Irrespective of what was said beforehand, if the photographer is proving intrusive then the couple are free to speak up, or the officiant can take more appropriate steps to curtail them. But instead he showed little regard for his clients, the couple, who no doubt wondered if he was going to marry them at all. </p>

 

<p><blockquote>Moderator Comment:</p>

<p>This is a multifaceted and useful conversation.</p>

<p>The Wedding and Social Events Forum Guidelines and the Photo.net Guidelines and Terms of Use allow for the discussion of the situation and discussion of the ACTIONS of all the people in that situation, provided it is generally relevant to the broader discussion of Wedding and Event Photography.</p>

<p>What is not permitted - are personal attacks upon those who comment and/or personal attacks on the people in the situation whose ACTIONS are being discussed.</p>

<p>Thank you all for thus far adhering to these policies and accept appreciation in anticipation for continuing the discussion in the same manner.</blockquote> </p>

[lawrence_jones]

<p>Given the short nature duration of the video and the lack of people being available to defend themselves we really have little to no basis to accurately judge this situation. We also have the issue that the video information is from one side who had control over length and content. As the book of Proverbs states. "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." We simply have too little information to judge, that is, assuming we have that right in the first place. I would submit that we have neither.<br /><br />That said, as a photographer who has shot at weddings as well as an Anglican priest I would like to clear up a couple of misconceptions that people seem to have regarding the nature of the wedding in a liturgical Christian setting. I offer this so that there will be a greater understanding of context. While you may not agree with it, it is important that respect is showed to the couple and their church. You never know when a priest may be one suggesting a photographer to a couple when asked if he knows of any during pre-marital counseling.<br /><br />The Christian wedding is a symbol of the union of Christ and His Church where the couple come forward and enter into covenant with God. The bride portrays the Church (bride of Christ) being united with Christ. This is not just "their day" nor is it "their service" nor are they the only two being joined but rather they are joined together in their union by God, the only one who can create true unity out of diversity (two into one). Again, I am not asking that anyone here buy into that particular religous imagery or even agree with it, but only that you understand as working professionals the cultural/theological context of the event in which you may find yourself. <br /><br />Therefore this is a worship service - not merely a secular ceremony or familial event. Often, if a priest officiates, Holy Communion is offered to the couple (even outside) meaning a table/altar is set up. We cannot be sure if it was or was not in this case. In the context of worship the minister is not the "vendor" and in many cases does not even get paid (I do not)as this is part of his normal function as a priest in service to God, nor are the bride and groom his "clients". They are parishoners engaged in a religious ceremony as a part of the life of the Church. Although the priest can and should do all he can to accomodate their personal desires within reason while maintaining proper decorum, this is still a primarily a worship service.<br /><br />Some have commented that people have married for thousands of years and outside a Church as well. This is quite true, but also absolutely irrelevant to taking pictures in this environment. The same for the issue of the bride and groom paying the photographer for although they may be paying the photographer, the bride and groom are not granted authority over the worship of the Church. Not all traditions are this way, even among Christians, which is why some church weddings have dancing clowns and what not and others do not, but on the main I would say this is the case in many liturgical based settings. It is important to understand the context in which you are operating and remember that even within a single denomination different parishes can be somewhat different. <br /><br />Photographers should always show respect by checking on the cultural and religous peculiarities of a situation with the minister first and do what he says to do regardless of faith - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. If the minister is unclear ask for clarification. Some will be unreasonable as people are people in all walks of life although I suspect if most know you are trying your best to be respectful to their traditions and are seeking not to offend they will be accomodating. Being respectful is always good for business.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Lawrence. We now live in the 21st century. And unfortunately rigid adherence to dogma and ancient tradition does little to enhance the reputation of the church. What the church apparently fails to realise is that times have changed, the nature of our beliefs and the nature of "worship" has also changed and therefore the requirements of the marriage service (and officiant) should perhaps evolve if the church is to continue. But unfortunately the decline of the church is almost entirely attributable to the fact that the church will not acknowledge the developments which society naturally undergoes as time marches onward. I mean no disrespect, but I'm afraid your comments are testament to that.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Certainly, as discussed, the context of the situation would be better understood knowing more background information than shown on the clip. I find it difficult, however, to envision how the officiant's angered conduct is fitting under any circumstance no matter what the photographers did. Attempting a more subdued toned instruction, at first, would have been better if worth doing at all.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>As the book of Proverbs states. "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." We simply have too little information to judge, that is, assuming we have that right in the first place. I would submit that we have neither.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When the priest drops his pants and bends over, I've seen all I care to see. I think that that is exactly what we saw. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>It Made CNN. The couple were interviewed for their reaction... <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/09/20/newday-pereira-dnt-rude-wedding-priest.cnn.html">http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/09/20/newday-pereira-dnt-rude-wedding-priest.cnn.html</a></p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Tempest in a teacup. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

It seems to be missed here that the photographers have said they spoke with the fellow about the rules and all he said

was to stay out of the aisle. Well, they did....and he still blew up and splattered everywhere. Another point here....it is

about the couple....not about god.

[john_h.1]

<p>Now its about Youtube.</p>

[rick_chen]

<p>right or wrong...the photographer, the couple, the officiant...whatever....<br>

One thing for sure, the wedding guests and couple will remember the harsh officiant more than anything in the entire ceremony. The couple might simply forget their vows and I doubt the bride will shed any tears in all that tension<br>

Yep the photographer is at fault for not finding out ahead of time. But the officiant could bear with it for the sake of the couple, now the embarrassment is all they will remember</p>

[savagesax]

This actually happens more then we think. Being an outdoor wedding you would think it's laid back. It's not always the case.

 

For what it's worth I always ask if there are any rules to be aware of.

 

The poor bride and groom. Now the priest will never do a wedding again.

 

Perhaps this is a good idea!

[shawn_mertz]

<p>If churches throw away their dogma then they are just a social club.</p>

 

[hal_bissinger]

<p>Nothing to do with dogma. If this had happened during a regular mass or service in a church I could see the priest's point. But a wedding is a special occasion and accommodations have to be made that might not be appropriate during a normal service. Further, this wasn't in a church. From the CNN footage you can see where the photogs were shooting from which was from behind a makeshift altar with nothing but wide open lawn. So what's the problem? The priest conducted himself boorishly and from his dialog it sounded to me like the problem is he has a problem with photographers. He would be doing everybody a favor by excusing himself from doing weddings.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>The priest was rude but still, I believe a photographer should always check well beforehand what the officiant's rules are. It's just common courtesy and respect for the position. Sorry if I disagree with anyone, but that's how I would try to operate.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I can't see the link to the CNN Video/News item: perhaps it has been deleted?</p>

<p>I cannot see where anyone has discussed nor commented upon Michael Borriello's role in this incident.<br />Had he not posted this 41seconds on the internet, the incident would have remained more private.<br />If the B&G were embarrassed or hurt; or their Wedding day spoiled: it would be more so now spoiled, that the incident is reaching 'celebrity status' and being discussed and viewed in many forums.<br>

Maybe they both wanted the day to be a more private occasion?</p>

<p>WW</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>I don't see why the incident should remain private - this is a classic example of the issues that many very good professional photographers face every week, causing consternation or at times misery to brides and grooms across the Western world. If anything, this may be quite positive in that it will remind wedding couples to have a very important discussion with their officiant at the first meeting, then they will have the option to change their priest or venue if it is likely that the attitude of the officiant may become too overbearing. And I'm sure it will also remind photographers to do likewise. Who knows, it might even send a message to the clergy (though I don't hold out much hope on that one).</p>

<p>The damage was done during the wedding ceremony, not afterwards. I think the bride and groom have handled things very well, and reacted to the interview in a pleasant and light-hearted way without drama. They acknowledged the poor behaviour of the priest, but they did their best to tone down the after-effects. I'm sure they had the option to refuse an interview.</p>

<p>I'm sure this will all blow over fairly quickly and I would imagine the priest will carry on his business as normal, as tends to be the case.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>One reason why it should have remained private and possibly the B&G privacy was invaded - is that it could have been a Private Ceremony - that is to say: Invitees Only. It clearly was not held in a Church Building, where, (in some countries) that Service is open to the Public, by Rite.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I have no argument that Brides and Grooms should not be made aware of THEIR responsibility to CHOOSE the Celebrant (and the Photographers and Cake Makers . . . et al) <strong><em>most carefully</em></strong>.<br />Yes the incident posted on the www serves that purpose.<br /><br />Yes, I think it will blow over quickly nor is it about life or death: but, on the face of it, <strong><em>and from what is on the faces of the B&G</em></strong> . . . I would have not chosen to post the video on the world wide web: it was more their (the B&G) decision so to do, than anyone's.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>William, there would not be a question of a breach of privacy for something like this - privacy laws generally relate to capturing individuals engaged in "inherently private acts" (such as intimate acts, bathroom stuff, nudity etc) and a wedding would not be seen as such. In much of the world the item would be classified as newsworthy. And clearly the venue permits wedding photography, which by its nature tends to reach a fairly wide audience.</p>

<p>If the bride and groom had restricted publication of the photographs or filming as part of the contracts entered into with the photographers, then I think that would have become very clear from the outset. And of course the bride and groom agreed to be interviewed, on film. I think it is fair to assume they clearly have no objection to this being aired. </p>

<p>My take is that the bride and groom were quite put out, even upset, by the actions of the priest and were possibly involved in the decision to broadcast the video clip - or at the very least they did not try to curtail the broadcast in any way, which I feel is quite significant. That view is upheld by the fact they were happy to be interviewed about it on film, where the clip was shown once again. They were I suspect responding to the number of questions which were raised about their feelings, and so made their own video for the airwaves. A good move, actually, as I think it helped to put the record straight and diffuse things somewhat with no histrionics.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Hi Lindsay, I didn't really want to discuss the technicalities of the laws of privacy as such, but rather meant more to raise the point that it is was not necessarily so, that the B&G were active in the choice to broadcast the clip . . . as you say maybe they were: but maybe they were not.<br>

As I mentioned above, I could not see and did not view the CNN link before I made that last comment. <br>

The CNN link works for me now and I have looked at it a few times.<br>

The B&G seem quite relaxed about the whole affair: but the commentary of the CNN news item seems to imply that the B&G were not involved in the choice to post the original video on the www - and if that is so, then I think that is a poor choice by the person who did post it... irrespective, of what the 'law' is.</p>

<p>I am glad that the B&G are relaxed about the whole thing: that seems a very mature approach to me.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Hi William, if there were no specific restrictions on filming or the publishing of filming then I will continue to feel that there was nothing wrong with showing this clip. I think it's an important clip in many ways. After all, the Internet is full of wedding clips, I do not see why this one should have been withheld, irrespective of whether the ceremony was conducted by a religious or civil officiant. It's provoked a valuable debate, and has given all sides some food for thought. </p>

<p>One thing which does cause me considerable disquiet is this - there is often a knee-jerk reaction when members of the clergy are involved in anything which might be deemed controversial. There is a tendency to defend churchmen, often from the most unpalatable transgressions. I do not feel that, because this man occupies the role that he does, he should be afforded an entirely different level of consideration (or privacy) to the rest of the populace. That mindset tends to prevail throughout much of the Anglican and Catholic church - hence there is rarely any sense of accountability. Now this incident is in many ways trivial - but there is an underlying principle, worthy of discussion.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>... for clarity of my opinion: my saying that posting the original clip could have been a poor choice was concerning the B&G not being involved in that choice to post the clip and not because the clip contained a Priest. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Thank you for clarifying that William. I'm sorry if my prior response sounded accusatory - I should have made it clear I was speaking in general terms. </p>

<p>Luckily the couple seemed cool about the clip being aired. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Hi again . . .your response did not appear to me to be accusatory in any manner and I also understood the general nature of your comment. <br>

There are various points which have been made throughout the thread and it appears clear to me where one comment is connected or is a response to another; and where it is not.<br>

It was just that our two commentaries followed in reasonably quick succession and I wanted my point to be clear as there was a possibility of my meaning being missed.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the location was not easy for the photographer and videographer. There was water behind the 'altar' and apparently the front of the aisle was also a forbidden area for the photographers. The white linen seem to block the view of the bride and groom from the sides behind the

altar so they went for center behind the altar. This was a bad call from the photographers. Just thinking about it visually from the audience's point of view, it would be impossible to see the couple and priest without seeing that they're surrounded by cameras in their immediate vicinity. Looking at it in retrospect, staying behind the guests in the middle of the aisle probably would have

been possible but didn't offer a good view of the expressions of the couple. Still, embarrassment for everyone would have been avoided.

 

One thing that might have triggered the priest's reaction is the sound of the still camera. There are silent and virtually silent cameras available for such situations, again the photographers should have planned appropriately so that if they have to shoot from really close, they go about it quietly. Probably the priest didn't realize how loud the camera was going to be at such a close distance. Perhaps he thought if he can't hear his voice or that of the couple clearly, then probably the audience can't hear it either. In such a case what is he to do, but interrupt the proceedings.

 

I do think posting a video of a private event most likely without asking the permission of everyone who can be regognized in the feed, is

inappropriate irrespective of legal concerns. There was really no need for worldwide distribution of this. Even if the bride and groom are seemingly cool about it now, do they really want to remember this 20 or 30 years from now? Did everyone in the video say it is ok to post it? These days a lot of people seem to ignore the consequences of their actions.

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Ilkka, anybody attending a wedding is going to realise that most of the attendees will have a camera in their hand, and a lot of those people are going to share their photographs online in some way. So if you don't like having your picture taken, then a wedding is probably not the best outing for you. And by attending a wedding, and being made aware that photography and filming is taking place, you are consenting to your likeness appearing in those images and their likely usage (with the exception of commercial usage of prominently recognisable individuals). So if the videographer decided to flog that piece of film to a psychologist promoting anger management classes, then he would indeed require the express consent of the key personnel.</p>

<p>I'm suspicious of the notion that the priest would not know how loud a camera is at close quarters - I would guess he has conducted weddings before. To imagine that the sound of the camera eclipsed his voice and that of the couple is far-fetched. And he did a little more than simply interrupt the proceedings - his outburst was completely disproportionate to the situation - that is not how you speak to people, that is not a professional way of getting your message across (unless you want to look rather silly of course). Instead of publicly balling at the guys, a swift private word is likely to have been far more effective, and would certainly have prevented embarrassment on all sides. </p>

<p>I imagine this will fade away in 20 or 30 hours, let alone 20 or 30 years! </p>