Ship of Fools: Purgatory: The till at the doorway

Thread: Purgatory: The till at the doorway Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000644

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I am fully aware that cathedrals and other church buildings require large maintenance costs, and that some visitors are, let us say, at Saint Paul's Cathedral to view where Diana got married rather than for religious reasons. Nonetheless, I am very sorry that the fees (and tills at the door) can prevent those of us who are entering to pray from doing so.

I'll not go into details here, but I occasionally have reason to be in the areas of great cathedrals. I try to attend a service, but sometimes am not there at a time when one is scheduled. Though the fees being asked would not be unreasonable were someone visiting a 'tourist attraction,' I am embarrassed to admit that, since my income is very limited, I cannot afford to pay the requested amounts. Yet I am concerned that, if I say so, it may seem that I'm looking for a 'free tour.'

When I'm reviewing notes and preparing essays, I love to pray in such churches, then sit in the close or garden. I find it very embarrassing to tell those at the door, the more because I indeed am aware of the large costs associated with maintaining buildings.

What do other Ship mates suggest I (or others in a comparable situation) do? (I hesitated to mention it here, though it seemed the right place, after, on a thread a few months ago, I learnt that some mystery worshippers leave donations in the plate, just attending a service, which would feed me for a week.)

[ 23. October 2007, 12:03: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

"I'm afraid I don't have my purse with me. I've just come to say a prayer or two and then be on my way." (Of course, won't work if you have purse in tow.)

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

"Can you please direct me to the Blessed Sacrament? I've come to pray."

Posted by The Gentle Duffie (# 10901) on :

I often leave a small donation all the same. After all, if it goes to support the fabrick, or the continued availability of an open church, I'm eager to contribute.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
When I'm reviewing notes and preparing essays,...

You're reviewing notes and preparing essays? And that makes you superior to the tourists in some way?

quote:
... I love to pray in such churches, then sit in the close or garden.

And of course not a single one of the tourists feels the same way or is looking for the same experience.

quote:
I find it very embarrassing to tell those at the door,...

If you're legitimately an impoverished devout, why would you be embarrassed?

quote:
...the more because I indeed am aware of the large costs associated with maintaining buildings.

Once again, if you are legitimately an impoverished devout, your prayers will make up for your lack of money. Or simply give what you can (25 cents is more than nothing), forget about it and move on.

quote:
What do other Ship mates suggest I (or others in a comparable situation) do?

I've given my suggestions.

quote:
(I hesitated to mention it here, though it seemed the right place, after, on a thread a few months ago, I learnt that some mystery worshippers leave donations in the plate, just attending a service, which would feed me for a week.)

What on earth or in heaven does the donation made by someone else (of means unknown to you) have to do with what you should be doing?

And what sort of passive-agressive shit is it that makes you point out that what they donated would feed you for a week?

If you simply want to enter a church to pray, then do so and make it clear to any officials at a Very Public Church that that is your only intention.

In case you don't understand, part of this will be going to a particular place, praying, and then leaving the church.

If you wish to pray a bit and then spend the rest of the day hanging out in the lovely public gardens while doing your student work, you are barely one rung above the tourists. So cough up something (figure out the one day fee spread over one month or week and pay that) and stop complaining.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Is it possible for you to arrive for the daily office or the Holy Eucharist and then just stay a bit longer?

[Tangent] I'm surprised these large churches such as St. Paul's don't have large endowment funds that pay for the upkeep and staffing. If the Diocese of London (or whoever is in control) suddenly announced it was closing down St. Paul's due to expensive upkeep and instead opening a Cathedral Center, millions of pounds would drift in from interested parties who want to save St. Paul's. [/Tangent]

[ 08. August 2007, 03:17: Message edited by: Martin L ]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Newman's Own,

I understand, also having no money. Some friends went to London back in 05 and having no money either, but the security people just waved them through (they were habited).

AFAIK, houses of worship don't really charge, they just have SUGGESTED fees. Unless they have changed recently their policies.

Drop in what you can. Not having enough money is embarrassing when most of the people you know do have enough. Be honest and say you don't have enough money if they get huffy. You don't have to be ashamed about it. It's a simple truth. But if one day you do have, go ahead and pay the three pounds fifty or whatever and fast for lunch! But if that is your only money for the whole day or two, just be honest. Or maybe go to a park instead. I don't think they'd kick anybody out wasn't a drunk or crack-head.

Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :

My impression is that the voluntary schemes in many Anglican cathedrals completely failed to cover the costs of upkeep, security and other facilities to support the thousands of tourists who visit every day.

So the language you see at places like St Paul's, Canterbury Cathedral and Westminster Abbey is not of donations or voluntary contributions but of charging admission fees and selling tickets (you can even buy them online in some cases). There was a bit of a fuss when this started, but it now seems to have been broadly accepted in the UK. Tickets in London are normally on the order of GBP 10.

My guess is that if you say that you've come to pray, they will let you in, whether or not a service is in progress. But if you do that, then to me it seems right to leave after your worship, not to use the place as a study area without paying something.

Of course you could always go to the local RC cathedral. They don't sell tickets or charge admission fees...

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Wonder how the RCs pay for the upkeep of their buildings? Why doesn't the British goverment help with the upkeep? They belong to the nation, don't they?

I'd get really nervous if they started having money changers. That would be cool in a way. "What do you do?" "I'm a money changer in the Temple Church." Hmmm....

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jlg:

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
When I'm reviewing notes and preparing essays,...
You're reviewing notes and preparing essays? And that makes you superior to the tourists in some way?

If you wish to pray a bit and then spend the rest of the day hanging out in the lovely public gardens while doing your student work, you are barely one rung above the tourists. So cough up something (figure out the one day fee spread over one month or week and pay that) and stop complaining.

Is this ecclesiantics or Hell?? Whoa! [Paranoid]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

The RC churches in the UK that I have visited do have a box by the door and what you drop in is up to you. I am told it costs the ArchDiocese of Westminster no less than 3000 pounds a day to keep the old barn open and considering the number of times I've nicked in there for Mass or for sung Vespers or just for a sit, then a couple of pounds is a fair thing.

Mind you, I was somewhat peeved back in 1999 when I realised that it was 5 pounds to get in to either St Paul's or Westminster Abbey, unless you were there for a service. So I went to both places for Evensong.

m

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
What do other Ship mates suggest I (or others in a comparable situation) do? (I hesitated to mention it here, though it seemed the right place, after, on a thread a few months ago, I learnt that some mystery worshippers leave donations in the plate, just attending a service, which would feed me for a week.)

In Ely diocese, we have a scheme where anyone on the electoral roll of a parish in the diocese can apply at the end of each (calendar) year for a pass to allow free entry to the cathedral for the next (calendar) year.

Unfortunately, due to some sort of administrative cockup, the passes for 2007 only arrived at our church in June!

In the absence of such a scheme where you are, simply tell the person on the desk you are here to pray. I can't imagine they won't let you in for nothing. And you can always leave a small donation if you feel moved to.

And don't judge yourself by others' standards. Or others by yours. Leave what you can, if you can, and remember the widow's mite.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

A number of cathedrals - certainly including St Paul's - have a chapel set aside for prayer which it is possible to enter without paying. Canterbury is the 'worst', in my experience, for entrance charges - you can't even get in the close without paying (unless you're going to a service). They're not limited to Anglican cathedrals either; when I visited the Orthodox cathedral in Nice there was an entrance charge.

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

When I visited St. Denis in Paris in '04, we were free to see the nave and say our prayers, but had to pay 5 Euro to see the monuments and tombs inside. No such thing happened in Sacre Coeur or Notre Dame, though.

Down here, one can visit the Manila Cathedral free of charge (but there's nothing to look at, despite being the seat of the first see of the land), while San Agustín is a museum and requires one to pay entrance fees. Then again, I don't recall seeing anyone going to San Agustín's to pray.

[ 08. August 2007, 07:50: Message edited by: Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I am always sorry that one has to pay to get into churches,such as York Minster or St Paul's Cathedral.Yet I understand the demands made on the fabric and its upkeep by the huge numbers who come in the door each day.

York minster is open free at time of services. If I am in york with tour groups I will usually try to go to Evensong in the Minster but during that time one can also wander at will around the nave,listening to the music on the other side of the choir screen.If I am in the york area with tourists during the day then I would normally take them instead to the absolutely beautiful Ripon Cathedral,- in many ways,at least on a oersonal level, much more devotional than York.

Posted by Saint Hedrin the Lesser-Known (# 11399) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
The RC churches in the UK that I have visited do have a box by the door and what you drop in is up to you. I am told it costs the ArchDiocese of Westminster no less than 3000 pounds a day to keep the old barn open and considering the number of times I've nicked in there for Mass or for sung Vespers or just for a sit, then a couple of pounds is a fair thing.
....

m

Three thousand per diem=1.1 million per annum; in my currency, it will be close to a hundred million Philippine pesos.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
Wonder how the RCs pay for the upkeep of their buildings?

It's nowhere near as much of a problem, because the C of E got all the pre-Reformation ones.

quote:
Why doesn't the British goverment help with the upkeep? They belong to the nation, don't they?

Technically, they probably belong to the Church Commissioners.

But yes, in France (or pretty much anywhere else), the government would help pay for maintenance of such historic buildings.

ETA - I've never had a problem getting into cathedrals at times of services without being forced to pay. Only a very few require you to pay anyway, and they usually have plenty of times when they let people in free.

[ 08. August 2007, 08:30: Message edited by: Custard. ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Canterbury is the 'worst', in my experience, for entrance charges - you can't even get in the close without paying (unless you're going to a service).

A friend of mine (a priest) had been working abroad for a number of years and on his return to Britain decided to visit Canterbury.

He arrived at the Cathedral gate, wearing his clerical shirt to be told he'd have to pay to get in. When he pointed out he wanted to go in to pray, the response was "You'll have to come back after six to do that".

Posted by radagasty (# 11628) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Technically, they probably belong to the Church Commissioners.

But yes, in France (or pretty much anywhere else), the government would help pay for maintenance of such historic buildings.

Does the British government not help at all with the upkeep? After all, the CofE is the established church, and churches like Westminster Abbey are host to state ceremonies, e.g., the coronation of a monarch.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Westminster Abbey may be in a different situation being a Royal Peculiar, but normal CofE churches and cathedrals get nothing from the government towards maintenance AIUI.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

Except regulations making it more expensive and difficult.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The parishes of the Church of England have to raise enough money to pay their Parish Share* to the Diocese and the upkeep of their historic buildings. Most churches are permanently fundraising to keep the roof on/make sure the electrics are safe/conserve the stone/brickwork/make sure the organ works.

*The Parish Share is the amount calculated by the Diocese to fund the Diocese and the priests in charge (pensions, salaries, housing), plus in some areas a bit to subsidise some of the struggling parishes - it depends on the Diocese.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Ely let those who are on their selection conferences at the retreat house over the road in for free. They even let me store my bags behind the desk whilst I looked round.

When I first went there ... I was going to say 'a few years ago' but I now realise it was nearer 'nine years ago', I was in an arsey mood and told them that I hugely resented having to pay to pray. They told me that there was a side-chapel reserved for prayer by the entrance but I pointed out that I didn't want to pray there. Eventually, we agreed that as long as my donation was roughly the same as the admission charge, I could go in for free.

Thurible

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Canterbury is the 'worst', in my experience, for entrance charges - you can't even get in the close without paying (unless you're going to a service).
A friend of mine (a priest) had been working abroad for a number of years and on his return to Britain decided to visit Canterbury.

He arrived at the Cathedral gate, wearing his clerical shirt to be told he'd have to pay to get in. When he pointed out he wanted to go in to pray, the response was "You'll have to come back after six to do that".

Even more than the charges, I resent the 'sheep and goats' implications behind all this. The last time I visited Canterbury we were forced to follow a 'tourist itinerary' along roped walkways. Hence any possibility that a mere tourist would become a devout pilgrim, or even have a glimpse of a pilgrim moment, was virtually ruled out. And the idea of having special chapels, or special times, for prayer carries the implication that prayer is not what the building exists for most of the time.

But although the large collection boxes can sometimes be intimidating, most cathedrals still don't have turnstiles and formal admission fees. If you're in London, why bother with St Paul's (unfriendly even without turnstiles) when you can nip over London Bridge to welcoming Southwark?

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

Which ones actually do have admissions charges?

London, Canterbury, Ely have been mentioned here.

I've heard that Chester have scrapped theirs (which was only part time anyway); Liverpool, Lichfield and Durham didn't have them last time I visited.

Posted by Real Ale Methodist (# 7390) on :

I was deeply upset when I discovered that Yorkminster was going over to paid entrance. Before then when I had visited I had still made a donation, as is my want, but less than the fiver they were requesting. I prefer the attitude at other Cathedrals where there are bits, the crypt say, a special chapel(like the Thistle Chapel in St Giles, Ed.) where one has to pay, but you can get part of the experience for free.

Nonetheless last time I was in York I paid to go in, and it was worth it. I became fair less antagonistic to such charges when I realised how rarely and how little tourists donated.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Of course you could always go to the local RC cathedral. They don't sell tickets or charge admission fees...

Nor does Southwark cathedral just the other side of the river. Or (as far as I know) those of the ancient City churches that are open.

Or, if looking for an Anglican shrine to pray or read in, neither do places like St Martin in the Fields, or All Saints Margaret Street, or All Souls Langham Place or Holy Trinity Brompton. London caters for all megachurchmanships.

Even though I live in London I've never been into St. Paul's. I nearly did once, but the entrance charge put me off. I know they would have let me in if I'd insisted, but that looks like pompously drawing attention to oneself, which is a bad start if you really do intend to pray.

[ 08. August 2007, 11:22: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by J Whitgift (# 1981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Which ones actually do have admissions charges?

London*, Canterbury, Ely have been mentioned here.

I've heard that Chester have scrapped theirs (which was only part time anyway); Liverpool, Lichfield and Durham didn't have them last time I visited.

* Which of the 4 Cathedrals in London would that one be Custard? [Razz]

(As far as I'm aware only one of them charges. [Roll Eyes]

)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:
Why doesn't the British goverment help with the upkeep? They belong to the nation, don't they?
Technically, they probably belong to the Church Commissioners.

I don't think so. They will be corporately "owned" in something like the same odd mediaeval way that parish curches are. Presumably collegiately by the Chapter rather than by a single incumbent. Though many (most?) of them are parish churches as well.

English parish churches are in a sense public property but they are not government property.

My guess is (I bet there will be lawyers along to tell the facts soon) that an English cathedral is owned by a corporation whose members are the Dean and Chapter but that they have no legal right to make any significant changes to the building or its worship without permission from the diocese (perhaps via Achdeacons) and (if it is a parish church) from the equivalent of a PCC. But I'm not really sure.

Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :

St Paul's and Westminster did last time I went, as has been said St Paul's used to have a chapel for prayer through the side door but I thought it had been closed.(maybe that was just during the renovations)
In Europe (the ones I have been to)you only pay to get into special bits. Bruges (St Mary's I think) was really strange, you could see the Michelangelo (the only one outside Italy) for nothing but paid to see the tomb of Charles the Bold.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by J Whitgift:
Which of the 4 Cathedrals in London would that one be Custard?

Only four?

Now I'm wondering which of the three Orthodox cathedrals you are counting [Smile]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
Nonetheless last time I was in York I paid to go in, and it was worth it. I became fair less antagonistic to such charges when I realised how rarely and how little tourists donated.

I remember friends who went to Canterbury being semi persuaded at least by the charges by a leaflet that explained that before the charges the average donation per visitor was 17p! I dislike the idea of charging, but if that's the level of generosity, then I can see why Cathedrals feel the need to do it.

Carys

Posted by Liturgy Queen (# 11596) on :

I have a fond memory of visiting Notre-Dame Basilica in Montreal with my middle school class. It remains the loveliest church I have ever seen, and I have since been to St. Paul's Cathedral, London (the real one, not Ontario [Biased]

). Being a good RC child at the time, I was chagrined at the way my young colleagues trampled through the pews on the tour, and ensured that I was always on the end of the pew, so that I could enforce a slowdown by laboriously genuflecting on the way in and out of every pew we entered.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Which ones actually do have admissions charges?

London, Canterbury, Ely have been mentioned here.

I've heard that Chester have scrapped theirs (which was only part time anyway); Liverpool, Lichfield and Durham didn't have them last time I visited.

Winchester does if IIRC. Others seem to make sections of the church free to all, but charge extra for things like the Crypt etc. It can seem pricey, but it's probably less expensive than the entrance charges at a National Trust property or similar.

The ones that seem to charge are the ones that are on the Tourist Track. (Which explains why Southwark and some of the others are free [Biased]

)

All the catherdrals I've visited don't charge for entrance at services times - but they do try and keep the tourists away from the area where the service is taking place.

The basic rule of thumb seems to be that people who come outside service times aren't there to worship, they're here to see the lovely historical buildings and enjoy the atmosphere. That makes them a source of potential income. In some ways, that seems fair enough. Voluntary donations don't seem to work – 17p wouldn’t even buy you a chocolate bar! The money to keep the buildings maintained and staffed needs to come from somewhere.

Tubbs

PS Newman’s Own, the standard charge seems to be about £10 or less. If you can really feed yourself for a week on that, I'm not sure whether to be either impressed or worried about the quality of your diet [Eek!]

[ 08. August 2007, 12:35: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by J Whitgift:

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Which ones actually do have admissions charges?

London*, Canterbury, Ely have been mentioned here.

I've heard that Chester have scrapped theirs (which was only part time anyway); Liverpool, Lichfield and Durham didn't have them last time I visited.
* Which of the 4 Cathedrals in London would that one be Custard? (As far as I'm aware only one of them charges. )

The one that belongs to the Diocese of London, perhaps? [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I nearly did once, but the entrance charge put me off. I know they would have let me in if I'd insisted, but that looks like pompously drawing attention to oneself, which is a bad start if you really do intend to pray.

I was young and naive. And arsey. (And yes, before anyone says it, some things never change!)

Thurible

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jlg:

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
When I'm reviewing notes and preparing essays,...
You're reviewing notes and preparing essays? And that makes you superior to the tourists in some way?

quote:
... I love to pray in such churches, then sit in the close or garden.
And of course not a single one of the tourists feels the same way or is looking for the same experience.

quote:
I find it very embarrassing to tell those at the door,...
If you're legitimately an impoverished devout, why would you be embarrassed?

quote:
...the more because I indeed am aware of the large costs associated with maintaining buildings.
Once again, if you are legitimately an impoverished devout, your prayers will make up for your lack of money. Or simply give what you can (25 cents is more than nothing), forget about it and move on.

quote:
What do other Ship mates suggest I (or others in a comparable situation) do?
I've given my suggestions.

quote:
(I hesitated to mention it here, though it seemed the right place, after, on a thread a few months ago, I learnt that some mystery worshippers leave donations in the plate, just attending a service, which would feed me for a week.)
What on earth or in heaven does the donation made by someone else (of means unknown to you) have to do with what you should be doing?

And what sort of passive-agressive shit is it that makes you point out that what they donated would feed you for a week?

If you simply want to enter a church to pray, then do so and make it clear to any officials at a Very Public Church that that is your only intention.

In case you don't understand, part of this will be going to a particular place, praying, and then leaving the church.

If you wish to pray a bit and then spend the rest of the day hanging out in the lovely public gardens while doing your student work, you are barely one rung above the tourists. So cough up something (figure out the one day fee spread over one month or week and pay that) and stop complaining.

I see everyone else is ignoring this less-than gracious series of comments, so I probably should do the same, but what the heck.

At the level of fact, of which you seem ignorant, the large turnstiles and tellers' cages at the doors of many English cathedral make it literally impossible to enter for any purpose, such as prayer, except in the 10-15 minutes before a service or without a pass from someone in authority. The former practice of allowing a chapel near the doors to be used for prayer out of service time seems to have fallen out of use in many of these places.

Simply put, the poor and the indigent and those on tight budgets or without ready cash to the tune of $5-10 (I translate for your benefit) can whistle for any chance to pray in some English cathedrals.

John

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I see everyone else is ignoring this less-than gracious series of comments, so I probably should do the same, but what the heck.

We're English; we're ignoring the distasteful, which I fear jennifer's comments really were.

Thurible

Posted by Liturgy Queen (# 11596) on :

The question is: who's job is it to tell the Hosts to take it to Hell? [Disappointed]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

She was posting as a shipmate so anyone's. I doubt NO would, but who knows? To be fair to jlg, she's not around yet so she may well apologise on reflection when she gets 'in'.

Thurible

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

IIRC Salisbury also makes a charge.

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Canterbury is the 'worst', in my experience, for entrance charges - you can't even get in the close without paying (unless you're going to a service).

I too was shocked when I took the Smudgelets to visit Canterbury Cathedral on our way home from France last week. Having been a student at Canterbury many moons ago, I was keen to show them one place where I had spent a lot of my time.

We paid to go in, despite it being something I quite resent being forced to do, as it had been the prime reason for us going to Canterbury. It was put as paying to get into the precinct, rather than into the Cathedral (not sure how one would do the latter without doing the former, mind) and cost us nearly twenty pounds which really hurt the pocket at that stage. Apparently we could have gone in for a service for free, but my boys are too young (or rather, too teenaged) to sit through evensong on the last day of their holidays and benefitted more from simply being in a church atmosphere, saying a prayer as part of their touristy look around the church, talking about the history of people worshipping God and different ways of expressing it.

But what really stung was that, with no warning, we discovered that a large part of the cathedral was closed to visitors due to special events taking place. It seems to me as though they want to have their cake and eat it. If they are running it like a commercial venture and charging tourists the price of other tourist attractions, then they should be reducing the entrance fee when parts of the Cathedral are out of bounds. I came away feeling doubly robbed - first by the high entrance fee and then by the poor value for money.

A difficult dilemma, balancing the cost of maintenance against the importance of welcoming people into God's house. I don't think Canterbury (of all places!) have got the balance quite right.

Posted by Love the You you hide (# 12249) on :

I'm another fortunate who has an Ely pass.

Prior to this though I used to go and pray in the "free" side chapel... no good if you want to go and pray before the Blessed Sacrament though. Or go in before 9, after 5pm or on a Sunday...

I have heard tell they'll let you in free with a dog collar...

Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Smudgie:
A difficult dilemma, balancing the cost of maintenance against the importance of welcoming people into God's house. I don't think Canterbury (of all places!) have got the balance quite right.

I come from Canterbury and there's definitely a love-hate relationship between the Cathedral and local residents. With the balance landing on the hate side. There's a strong feeling in town that the Cathedral just operates like a big commercial enterprise - as a major landlord in the city it charges as much as it can in rent (ostensibly because they have a duty to maxmimise their revenues, but with the result being that chain shops, bars, cafes and restaurants dominate over the little local independents - hence people take a very negative view of the church being something that's only about money and not about people and communities)

As you say, they haven't got it quite right.

Mind you - nothing's new - just reach Barchester Chronicles!

Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :

I am in sympathy with N.O.'s comments. Reading this thread brought up a number of thoughts. We were in London and York last September, and paid to tour Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's and Yorkminster. I did not really mind, as we were there as tourists. I would not have found any of the churches to be conducive to prayer, with so many people wandering around, not so quietly. However, the day we visited St. Paul's we were walking up from Blackfriars Bridge and came across St. Mary le Bow, which was open. What a gem of a little church! In the months since our visit to England, St. Mary has come up in many more conversations than St. Paul's.

We visited Yorkminster and loved it. We came back the next Sunday morning and experienced the building as a house of worship, and that was the experience I will always remember when I think of the minster.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

In Britain we are lucky that most national art galleries and museums are free of entrance charges. This is as it should be, because if people are to gain real benefit from art it's by going regularly, and being able to sit in front of the same painting or whatever, over and over again. If you had to pay £5 or £10 each time it would turn art into a commodity (OK, it probably already is, but it doesn't have to be made worse).

In the same way, a cathedral might make an impression on you the first time you visit. But it takes time for the subtleties to work their magic on you, and maybe for the building's spiritual power to become apparent. So an admission charge is an admission (pun deliberate) that a cathedral is just a big tourist attraction. In which case why not install Alton Towers style thrill-rides etc and make the most of it? Few people are going to pay Alton Towers or even National Trust type charges (especially for a whole family) more than once a lifetime or at most once a year.

If the Deans and Chapters really are committed to mission and evangelism, this seems a daft way to go about it. But museums can do without charging because of Government subsidies. Why isn't the church lobbying the Government to have its cathedrals similarly subsidised?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I do sympathize with the Cathedrals' difficulties. The ancient endowments which financed them have often gone or are unequal to modern costs, and donations from visitors come nowhere near the cost - in some cases it would be cheaper to close the doors outside service times than to carry the costs of staffing the building for visitors. Many parish churches in tourist areas find themselves in similar situations. In the end, though, however 'financially necessary' it may be, charging still seems wrong to me.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If the Deans and Chapters really are committed to mission and evangelism, this seems a daft way to go about it. But museums can do without charging because of Government subsidies. Why isn't the church lobbying the Government to have its cathedrals similarly subsidised?

Basically, it is - the trouble is the Government has seen what the costs are.

Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Simply put, the poor and the indigent and those on tight budgets or without ready cash to the tune of $5-10 (I translate for your benefit) can whistle for any chance to pray in some English cathedrals.

At some London cathedrals it's more like $20 at current exchange rates: St Paul's "tickets" cost £9.50, Westminster Abbey £10. More if you want optional extras. It's a worthy cause and good value, in my view, but not cheap.

As noted above, most of these RC cathedrals seem to date from the mid-19th century -- funny that! -- and their upkeep is no doubt less expensive.

RC churches and cathedrals also give you plenty of opportunities to lighten your wallet. On Sunday at my parish there is a newspaper stand, votive candles to pay for, a bookstore, the main offertory, often a retiring collection, a donation basket at the coffee hour, and another little "shop" at the coffee hour selling books, gifts, etc. Not to mention the folks who stand outside the church soliciting alms. No ticket sales, but plenty of opportunities to give.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

More countries than the Good Ole U. S. of A. denominate their currencies in dollars.

So, £20 is approximately $21 in the US and Canada, but about $23.50 in Australia and $26.50 in NZ.

I'm a student. Tariffs like that would keep me out.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

The pound is almost double the dollar, so £20 would be closer to $40 US.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

This from a slightly different perspective, but I feel moved to come to some sort of "defence" of Canterbury:

A few years ago (maybe 7?) I was tour manager for a group of about 20 folks from a US cathedral congregation. Our itinerary covered London, Canterbury, Winchester, Gloucester, Coventry, York, Durham & Edinburgh - lots of the "biggies." With so much ground to cover there was not much flexibility in our plans, so I had written months in advance to the various deans and provosts, explaining that this was a sort of pilgrimage, and that while we were interested in touristy things, we were most concerned to worship at each of the sites.

All of the authorities addressed were unfailingly gracious, and no fees were charged nor donations suggested.

And the point of this posting is:

Canterbury agreed to our visit, though it was on a day when the cathedral was closed for cleaning (it was the day after the Flower Festival, IIRC). A staff member was deputed to guide us about and answer our questions, and he was most gracious.

So you never know.

BTW, before my very first visit to England many, many years ago, a knowledgeable friend said "Always carry a prayer book, and say you're there for the service." Worked every time for me - though it has to be at service time.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Foolishly posted by The Silent Acolyte:
So, £20 is approximately $21 in the US and Canada, but about $23.50 in Australia and $26.50 in NZ.

Oops. Too right. Please make that: "So, £10 is approximately $21 in the US and Canada, but about $23.50 in Australia and $26.50 in NZ."

Posted by Pure Sunshine (# 11904) on :

Re. York Minster - it is at least free to local residents (they can get a free "York Card" which gives free entry to the Minster, Yorkshire Museum, acts as a library card and doubtless does other wonderful things).

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

jlg,
I do not consider myself superior to tourists or anyone, and, as for being 'genuinely' impoverished, I can assure you that I do not lie here or anywhere else.

I am not suggesting that I am superior in saying that I cannot afford the amounts of the donations some of these places request. I far preferred when there just was a donation box, where I could leave what I could afford.

There was absolutely no reason for your personal attack on me here. One of the justifications I have seen for the 'till at the door' (with set amounts - perhaps six pounds) was that tourists are not coming to pray at all. I am merely asking a discreet fashion to offer what I can pay rather than the standard donations. I do not think that my praying and reflecting to write essays on theological topics makes me superior.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

/commercial break/

For those who (like Smudgie) found their visit to Canterbury less than edifying, may I suggest calling in just up the road at Kent's second Cathedral, to wit, Rochester? No entry charges and plenty of space in which to pray, meditate or simply stroll around!

Ian J.

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :

I, too, had experiences similar to those of the priest who went to Canterbury.

I wanted to add this (before I leave the board, which I assume is jlg's wish in any case) - it was someone I knew who was employed at Westminster Abbey who had told me that the huge influx of tourists in recent years was largely because people wanted to see where Diana's funeral was held, and that it was similar at Saint Paul's (Diana's wedding). This was not an assumption of mine.

I have found that praying before the sacrament, and reflecting on scripture and patristic writings in the area of cathedrals, is helpful in preparing theological essays. One of the main reasons why I have read of and seen large entrance fees (in US dollars, it would come to 20 or more in some cathedrals) justified was that (according to the authors, not according to me) most tourists are not coming to worship / pray, but to view an attraction, and therefore fees similar to those for royal properties and the like were reasonable.

Posted by Scott Knitter (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Or, if looking for an Anglican shrine to pray or read in, neither do places like St Martin in the Fields, or All Saints Margaret Street, or All Souls Langham Place or Holy Trinity Brompton. London caters for all megachurchmanships.

I deeply wish my parish in Chicago could be open all day for prayer, reading, meditation, etc. But there would need to be volunteers or, more likely, a paid person to supervise the church during those hours to discourage bad behavior. Enough really bad behavior has happened in the past to require the lockup of the building between the morning and evening sets of services.

There really aren't many churches in Chicago that are open for prayer all day, other than the RC cathedral, St Peter's (the 41-Masses-per-week Franciscan parish downtown), and possibly the chapel of the Episcopal cathedral. I live two blocks from St Gertrude's RC, which would be lovely to pray in, but one has to get special permission and be let in by the parish office manager, and I don't want to put him through that every day. I also don't need to sit in a locked church by myself; the openness to all is important. Oh, there's also Fourth Presbyterian, which is open all day and quite nice to sit in and pray.

None of the churches here charge an admission, AFAIK.

Posted by lukacs (# 11865) on :

To expand on Ken's idea, here is a list of one prominent US Anglo-Catholic priest's favorite 100 churches in England:

http://tinyurl.com/yur5zl

Perhaps this might provide some low- or no-cost alternatives to the pay-to-pray policy at the cathedrals under discussion.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

It's funny but the more I ponder this question, the more irritated I get at the very idea of charging a fee to enter a cathedral. Cathedrals are churches, the most visible churches to many people, and how we act towards people with respect to such churches is deeply symbolic.

Yes, we recognise that you might be moved to worship in here, you might have an experience of God, you might feel a connection with the Church through the ages, and if you hand over your eight pounds fifty we'll give you that chance but otherwise piss off. [Projectile]

It's like selling indulgences.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Hostly Hat On

jlg, as you well know, personal attacks outside of Hell are not allowed.

Autenrieth Road
Ecclesiantics Host

Hostly Hat Off

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I, too, had experiences similar to those of the priest who went to Canterbury.

I wanted to add this (before I leave the board, which I assume is jlg's wish in any case) - it was someone I knew who was employed at Westminster Abbey who had told me that the huge influx of tourists in recent years was largely because people wanted to see where Diana's funeral was held, and that it was similar at Saint Paul's (Diana's wedding). This was not an assumption of mine.

I have found that praying before the sacrament, and reflecting on scripture and patristic writings in the area of cathedrals, is helpful in preparing theological essays. One of the main reasons why I have read of and seen large entrance fees (in US dollars, it would come to 20 or more in some cathedrals) justified was that (according to the authors, not according to me) most tourists are not coming to worship / pray, but to view an attraction, and therefore fees similar to those for royal properties and the like were reasonable.

I very much hope that NO will not leave the board, or even this thread.

It was an excellent OP made all the more meaningful by paritcular personal circumstances which give strong reasons why the turnstile approach is the wrong one.

And if Deans and Chapters really think that most visitors to their cathedrals are unspiritual tourists then they [a] need a strong dose of incarnational theology, and [b] a much more Christ-centred pastoral approach. Since this is not Hell I'll refrain from saying any more, except that I suspect the reason many (not all, as I can vouch from experience) cathedral clergy gravitate to such jobs is their lack of pastoral concern.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
To expand on Ken's idea, here is a list of one prominent US Anglo-Catholic priest's favorite 100 churches in England:

http://tinyurl.com/yur5zl

Perhaps this might provide some low- or no-cost alternatives to the pay-to-pray policy at the cathedrals under discussion.

For someone who likes Bodley and Kempe churches he missed more than a few. See here for some more churches.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

My apologies to Newman's Own for my response, which should have been posted in Hell (or not at all).

As Scott Knitter pointed out a few posts above this one, churches here in the US are usually locked up or open to all (which perhaps an obvious sign and plea for donations at each entrance). Even most museums that I have visited describe their fees as "suggested donations", thus implying that any visitor has the right to donate some other amount. (I've never actually tried offering a lower amount, so I don't know how it's handled when it happens.)

So I assumed that an impoverished student visiting often at local places would be able to work out some arrangement (either officially with the powers that be or simply something that met the need to be seen dropping some coins in a box with a clear conscience) that would allow access to a church on a regular basis for prayer and reflection without having to pay the standard tourist tariff.

The many posts by others since I made my responses to you, Newman's Own, have described a much different situation at the major cathedrals in the UK. It's a very sad one, where the need to milk the tourist coins in order to maintain the physical structure and the expense associated with handling hordes of tourists is interfering with the actual purpose of the buildings as churches.

I stand corrected.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Thank you, Jennifer. You and Newman's Own are two of my favorite posters, and the misunderstanding and ruffled feathers disturbed me considerably.

Greta

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Okay, so a building that's only a hundred years old may not seem impressive to some of you all in England or on the continent, but the church I go to is a beautiful building and so its age gets noticed here. We also try to keep out building open as much as possible--almost all day but not at night). Most people don't come to pray as far as I can tell but lots of worship groups and even non-profits do meet in our building and one can usually find an interesting cross-section of the local community in our lobby. We would never dream of charging anyone but I can tell you that the costs are deadly. I think we've fixed most of the places that the roof leaks but that doesn't count the paint needs, the lack of an accessible upstairs bathroom, the holes, the ancient (behind code) electrical system, the water-damage etc. And oh yes, apparently the building is sinking. We're thousands of dollars in the red at the moment, but we have enough caring volunteers to keep teh place open and clean.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

In my youth, I attended a Mass at the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, MI. At the entrance, there was a table bearing a large sign stating, "Low Mass: $5.00 - High Mass: $10.00".

Everyone who entered was herded past the table by a platoon of ushers. Royal Oak was, at the time, a rather affluent suburb, but I still found the practice quite insensitive. Surely, from time to time, there would have been visitors, who simply would not have been able to afford that kind of admission charge.

Greta

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Even most museums that I have visited describe their fees as "suggested donations", thus implying that any visitor has the right to donate some other amount.

I learned recently from a reliable source that, in many jurisdictions, if you charge admission to an event, you are subject to all sorts of licensing, taxing, occupancy, and fire code requirements, etc. that can all be avoided by charging a "suggested donation" instead.

So, according to my source, the "suggested donation" should be regarded as a fairly set price for the service or entertainment being offered.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

As a sort of very major tangent, in a church which I used to attend regularly, wine at things like the Nine Lessons and Carols was 'sold' at "Recommended donation: £1 per glass".

At a recent church do, I was astounded to see "Wine: £1.50 a glass; Fruit Juice: 50p a glass." Given that there were no free drinks and that the fruit juice was about 40 p a carton from Tesco, I was really rather cross.

Thurible

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Which is much to much for almost anybody. Are they turning houses of prayer into robbers' dens? Any other way at all? I know the buildings bave to be preserved, but for what?

I have been to services in these places. The weekday Evensong at Westminster Abbey IS for the tourists, nearly all of whom are from overseas.

Wonder if Westminster Abbey has a congregation at all. "O our family's prayed at Westminster Abbey for generations, all baptised there, and Barbara married there last week." Never heard that before!

So maybe they are more like museums than places of worship.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Tangent:

quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
To expand on Ken's idea, here is a list of one prominent US Anglo-Catholic priest's favorite 100 churches in England:

http://tinyurl.com/yur5zl

Perhaps this might provide some low- or no-cost alternatives to the pay-to-pray policy at the cathedrals under discussion.

I think I'm going to start another thread on that.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Okay, so a building that's only a hundred years old may not seem impressive to some of you all in England or on the continent, but the church I go to is a beautiful building and so its age gets noticed here. We also try to keep out building open as much as possible--almost all day but not at night)....

OK. Now imagine trying to do the same with a building that is 500-800 years old, when the law says that you have to use appropriate materials (e.g. replacing leaded glass with leaded glass even when black aluminium is much cheaper, easier and stronger than lead).

Now imagine that there's one of those buildings for every hundred or so churchgoers.

ETA - And I'd be surprised if any of the old cathedrals has enough congregational giving to be self sufficient.

[ 08. August 2007, 23:55: Message edited by: Custard. ]

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :

The 100 years old does amuse me in a way. Most peoples houses I know are nearly, if not 100 years old. I think like custard said, the problems in the uk are that many (most?) churches are a lot older than that and many being supported by very small congregations.

I instinctively don't like having to pay to visit a cathedral but I'm not sure how else they could work. Unless they became historic buildings first (looked after by national trust or some such) and then used by religious groups to meet in by agreement. (I think Iona is a bit like this?) As someone who happily does church in a school that would suit me, but I would also want to preserve many of these old buildings for their tradition etc.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

The age wasn't the point. I already said that 100 years wasn't going to impress you all. Yes, my app't building is almost 100 years old. The point is the renovation not the age. Just because we aren't rich and don't charge oodles of money to let people pray doesn't mean it's not hard to keep our church

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :

Didn't Jesus say something about a woman who gave two pennies to walk into a huge ass cathedral somewhere...?

And I've heard preachers say that this line was a criticism of said cathedral and the people who spent oodles of money on material structures to the expense of the people around them (not criticism of anyone intended, but it's a thought).

It's not about the freaking building, even if it is a historical landmark (and I agree that some of the laws with regard to "historical landmarks" are bit deranged, speaking of idolatry).

It's also a real shame that our beautiful middle-aged church building is a money sink, but it is, and our congregation can't really afford to pay for it. It's a managed crisis I imagine is not unique to our church, and it's something I imagine middle aged mainline churches need to find a way to deal with.

Charging admission to visitors who wish to pray seems a bit odd. The point of an offering is that it's voluntary.

Posted by Love the You you hide (# 12249) on :

I still feel ill when I see the window in Ely Cathedral's Lady chapel that is "sponsored by Tesco" - it tells us so in the glass itself! [Mad]

(edited to correct grammar)

[ 09. August 2007, 03:31: Message edited by: Love the You you hide ]

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
The point of an offering is that it's voluntary.

As has been said, though, and will be said again, cathedrals such as Durham cost about £4,000 per day to run. I'm pleased that Durham is still able to ask for a voluntary contribution but those voluntary contributions tend to add up to a few hundred pounds. Even taking into account the proceeds from the exhibitions, the tower and the undercroft restaurant, that's a large shortfall!

Thurible

Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
As a sort of very major tangent, in a church which I used to attend regularly, wine at things like the Nine Lessons and Carols was 'sold' at "Recommended donation: £1 per glass".

At a recent church do, I was astounded to see "Wine: £1.50 a glass; Fruit Juice: 50p a glass." Given that there were no free drinks and that the fruit juice was about 40 p a carton from Tesco, I was really rather cross.

Thurible

If they are able to actually sell alcohol rather than do the 'donation' route then they will have to hold a licence and that is very expensive.

Even churches have to be financially astute nowadays.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Quite. They didn't have a licence...

Thurible

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Love the You you hide:
I still feel ill when I see the window in Ely Cathedral's Lady chapel that is "sponsored by Tesco" - it tells us so in the glass itself!

(edited to correct grammar)

Well, guilds etc used to give money for the building of cathedrals. Is it so different? And it's common for windows to have `To the glory of God and in memory of X' in them.

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
ETA - And I'd be surprised if any of the old cathedrals has enough congregational giving to be self sufficient.

Depends on quite what you mean by self-sufficient. Llandaff does fairly well on congregational giving; it's the parish church as well and has good congregations for both the Parish and Sung Eucharists on a Sunday. But it's been appealing for money for new lights and wiring and now for a new organ (which was always in the plan but the lightening strike made it more urgent). But that's fairly normal for large scale projects. It does not however charge for entry and I don't even recall much in the way of donations boxes though I'm usually there outside tourist hours as it were and haven't been for a while.

Carys

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

What I don't understand is how Durham can cost over a million quid a year to run. What exactly is that being spent on?

I know the stonework needs repair from time to time and church roofs are notorious fund-sponges, but a million pounds every year?

Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What I don't understand is how Durham can cost over a million quid a year to run. What exactly is that being spent on?

I know the stonework needs repair from time to time and church roofs are notorious fund-sponges, but a million pounds every year?

Staff.
Heating/lighting/cleaning.
Insurance (the insurance bill for my church is horrendous).
General maintenance tends to be pricy.
Then there's things like admin costs, printing/stationery/advertising.
Music and liturgy.
The list is endless....

And remember the cathedral also has various other buildings etc attached.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I attended an evensong at Westminster Abbey.
They escort you to your seat at the start and back to the exit at the end. Since you haven't paid anything, they want to make sure you don't see any of the building while you are in there.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I attended an evensong at Westminster Abbey.
They escort you to your seat at the start and back to the exit at the end. Since you haven't paid anything, they want to make sure you don't see any of the building while you are in there.

Do they blindfold you as well?

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

I wonder how these things were paid for when they were monasteries. Should we be putting the Canons to work brewing mead, or something?

More seriously, there's got to be a better way to fund cathedrals than entrance charges. To me they seem to be the worst of the options.

Posted by radagasty (# 11628) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I attended an evensong at Westminster Abbey.
They escort you to your seat at the start and back to the exit at the end. Since you haven't paid anything, they want to make sure you don't see any of the building while you are in there.

When I heard Evensong there (Easter Day this year), we were allowed to wander about the abbey for a while (10 mins or so) after the service, so perhaps they're no longer so strict.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

a) they were newer then
b) indulgences

Oh, and the tithe from the whole population, and the income from glebe lands.

Posted by Saint Chad (# 5645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What I don't understand is how Durham can cost over a million quid a year to run. What exactly is that being spent on?

I know the stonework needs repair from time to time and church roofs are notorious fund-sponges, but a million pounds every year?

From time to time? [Eek!]

It's like the Forth Bridge - they finish painting it then go back to the other end and start again.

Maintaining large old buildings is a never-ending process. Keeping a parish church intact is bad enough, I can't even begin to imagine what the maintenance of a Cathedral must be like.

I detest the practice of charging an entrance fee, but I can understand why it it happens.

A building doesn't need to be old to be listed - if it was designed by a noteable architect, or is an unusual design, or typical of a particular style, then it may recieve a listing.

With that may come eligibility of grant-aid for maintenance, or repairs, but it also brings with the the 'jobsworths' of English Heritage.

The worst offenders, in my opinion and experience, are the Victorian Society. They will willingly tell you what you can't do and what you must do, but I've never heard of them coughing up any cash to help!

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

According to its web site , Durham Cathedral costs £50,000/week to run (£2.6M p.a.). Winchester Cathedral is reported to be budgeting for running costs in 2007/8 of £2.2M. The cathedral's annual report and accounts are available online (PDF).

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I wonder how these things were paid for when they were monasteries. Should we be putting the Canons to work brewing mead, or something?

More seriously, there's got to be a better way to fund cathedrals than entrance charges. To me they seem to be the worst of the options.

No heating.
No electric (or gas) lighting
free priestly services
free cleaning and maintenance
no printing/admin costs

Large income (relatively speaking) from visits to shrines/relics.

Ownership of land either used for farming or, in towns, let to businesses.

Bequests and endowments from the faithful in return for promises of prayer.

John

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
According to its web site , Durham Cathedral costs £50,000/week to run (£2.6M p.a.). Winchester

Costs have gone up from when I worked there, then, and that was only a few years ago! Not really surprising, I suppose.

Thurible

Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
In my youth, I attended a Mass at the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, MI. At the entrance, there was a table bearing a large sign stating, "Low Mass: $5.00 - High Mass: $10.00".

Charging an attendance fee for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is bloody outrageous and they should be ashamed of themselves.

The collection is different, since that is voluntary, and on several occasions when feeling impecunious I've put pennies in, but an admission fee for Mass? It's wrong.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Might have been a suggestion offering for the collection, phrased particularly badly?

Fingers-crossed!

Thurible

Posted by Jimmy B (# 220) on :

[ETA: Harking back over the page on currency equivalence]

1 Brit pound is roughly Oz$2.50. (closer to 2.40, but x 2/5 to pounds or x 5/2 to dollars is a good rule of thumb.

So 20 pounds is 50 Oz dollars. Which is a fair chunk of change. As is 10 pounds (Oz$25), but the cost of living is more expensive in the UK.

[Oooh tricked by pg 1.]

[ 09. August 2007, 13:13: Message edited by: Jimmy B ]

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Might what CorgiGreta saw have been the fee for requesting a Mass to be said for your own 'intention' ?

I am not sure if I have the terminology right as I am not Catholic.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

Discussion of how, when, why and what restrictions are placed on churches raising funds for maintenance isn't anything to do with worship practice except for the fact that many liturgical churches have a set time for collecting offerings. So I'm sending this up to Purgatory.

Autenrieth Road
Ecclesiantics Host

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
...

Wonder if Westminster Abbey has a congregation at all. "O our family's prayed at Westminster Abbey for generations, all baptised there, and Barbara married there last week." Never heard that before!

So maybe they are more like museums than places of worship.

Depends. Some Catherdrals are in areas where there is a residential population - so they may have people who live locally and worship there. There may be others that travel in from elsewhere to worship there but I suspect that there won't be that many. Others will draw in their congregation from people who work locally so they'll run more evening / lunch time services than weekend stuff.

Tubbs

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
...

Wonder if Westminster Abbey has a congregation at all. "O our family's prayed at Westminster Abbey for generations, all baptised there, and Barbara married there last week." Never heard that before!

So maybe they are more like museums than places of worship.
Depends. Some Catherdrals are in areas where there is a residential population - so they may have people who live locally and worship there. There may be others that travel in from elsewhere to worship there but I suspect that there won't be that many. Others will draw in their congregation from people who work locally so they'll run more evening / lunch time services than weekend stuff.

Tubbs

Some double up as parish churches. Llandaf Cathedral does (actually this might be true of all the Welsh Cathedrals) and many of the cathedrals of newer dioceses do -- the so-called `parish church cathedrals' where an old parish church became the cathedral for example Wakefield rather than than somewhere like Liverpool where a new cathedral was built.

Carys

Posted by aj (# 1383) on :

Well, I went to St.Paul's in 1999, paid at the gate, paid again to go upstairs, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Posted by Codepoet (# 5964) on :

Like other I do not like charges to enter cathedrals, but what I dislike more is when cathedrals guides intercept me on the way in and try to enhance my visit, but treating me like a tourist, and whitering on about the display of artwork in the nave etc etc. I find that the phrase "I am here to pray" defuses most situations.
What I hate the most is when having found a quiet chapel in a corner somewhere, possible behing a half closed door or curtain, my prayertime is interupted with a series of toursists who walk in, stand between me and the focus of devotion, look all the way around, talk loudly to a fellow tourist and then leave. The fact that they have had to pay £5 to get in seems to make them more determined to get their money's worth, even if thay means interupting the peace in a side chapel set asside for private prayer.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I used to attend a lunchtime Eucharist at a nearby cathedral fairly frequently. Crossing oneself upon entering was a good way of preventing the tourist treatment by the cathedral guides.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

At Coventry (where they don't charge - at least they didn't last time I went), they don't have an holy water stoup - but do have the font which generally had a dribble of water in. Making one's way straight over was always a good way to flummox the stewards and vergers.

Thurible

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Max and I once tried to get into Bath Abbey requesting to say the Angelus as it was 6pm - but they said they were locking up.

I once went to evensong at Westminster Abbey followed by the inaugural service for the Week of Prayer for World Peace. Once evensong and the organ voluntary were finished, the till started making loud noises, ignoring the multi-faith pressence in the chancel.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

I should have made it clear that there were people behind the table who collected the entrance fee. It was apparent that one was expected to give the amount posted. My friend tendered a twenty, and she was handed a ten in change.

This may have been a legacy of Fr. Coughlin, who was anything but subtle regarding raising money or, for that matter, expressing his political views.

Greta

Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :

Our rule of thumb in Europe was to contribute to the till in various churches, cathedrals, etc., if it was required, or if we took literature.

I don't see the till at the door in many churches in the U.S., but once in a tourist-infested U.S. city, the door was ajar at a lovely Episcopal church (possibly cathedral, I don't remember). We entered, and were quickly intercepted by an officious sort who told us we weren't allowed in except as members of a tour. My retort as we left: "I'm sorry, I thought this was a church."

Wm Duncan

Posted by Cameo (# 12903) on :

After lurking for a while, this topic has finally made me register! I have alot of sympathy for Newman's Own.

I have a deep aversion to turnstiles in cathedrals which turn a voluntary donation into what feels very close to a compulsory charge for entry.

I lived in Belgium for a brief period and went through some very significant personal struggles there. I spent long hours just sitting in the cathedral praying - a place of peace and security which I didn't feel in most other locations. There was a donation box but no turnstile or manned booth.

Similarly, my sister lived in Salisbury for a while and during this time she began to reconnect with God. She would sit in Salisbury Cathedral just to be at peace, to cry and to pray. But you can't get into Salisbury Cathedral without walking past a manned turnstile with staff who expect a hefty 'donation' before they will let you through.

My sister, though not a Christian at the time, thought it was totally wrong for a church to charge people to come in and pray. She can be pretty bolshy when she chooses so she would simply walk through the turnstile and flatly refuse to pay as a point of principle.

I really think it would be better if the building maintenance could be taken over by English Heritage or the National Trust and just leased back to the church (or some similar scheme).

Cameo

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Hello Cameo and welcome! Pop down to the Oz thread in All Saints and say 'Hello'.

I'm upset to read about the turnstiles and such things such as the forced march to Evensong at Westminster: how very odd. I'm happy to contribute, but forced rates and turnstiles seem a bit much -- and I can well understand NO's, and others', unease as to enquiring about a 'free entry' or discount.

I remember visiting St Paul's in 1998 and only paying for the Tower; I did go to Salisbury as well but I can't recall what happened there. How much is Canterbury? I'm planning on going to a Service and praying at Thomas Becket's shrine sometime soon.

[ 10. August 2007, 03:27: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

Ian, if Canterbury turns out to be too expensive you could always head up here and visit St Cuthbert and St Bede. As has been said, Durham has no entrance fee.

Oh, and I believe you could catch a mostly English language Divine Liturgy in the Castle next door if you timed it right.

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :

Ian, Canterbury did say that it was free entry if you were going in for a service. Surely, as a place of pigrimage, they can't charge pilgrims a tenner a time? Or can they?

My sorrow, as a single mother of two boys who rather like cathedrals, is that the high level of charge means that a visit to a cathedral has to be a one-off, rather than somewhere we might pop into each time we're in the city. It forces my children to view it as an item on the tourist trail rather than having a feeling similar to "dropping in on relatives" when we're passing. When we were in Salisbury recently, for example, we thought of going to the cathedral as I have never been, but because the boys have been before I couldn't really justify the cost of visiting again.

My kids wouldn't choose to spend part of a day out/holiday sitting through a service when we attend regularly at home, but they would enjoy wandering round and certainly do feel close to God in that setting - often choosing to light a candle. For some children it might be their one experience of being in a church. Having shown groups of school children round a cathedral, I've been moved to tears by the sense of awe and wonder they've expressed at the size, beauty and Godly atmosphere; and the discovery that Christians have been worshipping there for hundreds of years has often had an influence on how seriously they take the concept of Christianity. Slap on an exhorbitant entrance fee and suddenly those incidental meetings with God are taken away. It's no longer somewhere which is graciously welcoming you in, offering hospitality. It takes away from the visitor, reducing them to a tourist and a source of income. And it takes away from the building, turning it to a mere tourist attraction - a building.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
.

Oh, and I believe you could catch a mostly English language Divine Liturgy in the Castle next door if you timed it right.

In the Castle? Have the Orthodox moved from John's Chapel? How disappointing.

Thurible

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Ian Climacus said:
How much is Canterbury? I'm planning on going to a Service and praying at Thomas Becket's shrine sometime soon.

There's info about visiting Canterbury on the visiting page of the cathedral's website. The normal adult entrance charge is £6.50. I have to say that it seems to clash slightly with the statement on another page that "Visitors have always been made welcome, in the ancient tradition of Benedictine hospitality. We continue the tradition, warmly inviting everyone to share with us the beauty and the unique atmosphere of one of the great holy places of Christendom."

When I visited, I attended Evensong (asking "Which way for Evensong?" at the admission gate sorts it all out for you) and went to the shrine for a prayer afterwards.

[ 10. August 2007, 09:28: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :

To turn this on it's head, there's the old joke (which I've heard from the pulpit of at least two synagogues):

quote:
A young man runs to the synagogue on Yom Kippur with an urgent message for his Uncle Bernie. He's blocked at the door by a stern usher, who demands to see his ticket. “But I'm just going in there to give a message to my Uncle Bernie,” he protests. “All right, the usher relents. “You can go in. But don't let me catch you praying!”

Sometimes you have to pay if you want to pray.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

IIRC, it's illegal to charge for admission to regular services.

And I think that's right (well, it should probably be in canon law somewhere).

The idea of us having to pay seems inimical to the gospel.

But on the other hand, if a church chooses to meet in a fancy or historic building, I see no problem whatsoever with charging for admission outside service times, because it's essentially about tourism not worship.

Of course, it's much nicer if they don't, and staff it with volunteers (as my last church did), but that depends on resources.

If a congregation can't afford to pay for the building they are in, it needs to be asked whether they are making good use of resources. I suggest not. If a school hall offers better value for money, which it sometimes does, then it's a better option.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
If a school hall offers better value for money, which it sometimes does, then it's a better option.

I fear this is the spiritual equivalent of knowing the true price of everything and the true value of nowt.

At our parish, I'm sure the school hall would be cheaper in our village than maintaining the church, especially since it's a church school. The scaffolding's just gone up around the spire and it won't come cheap.

But the school hall would not be a better option. The church is a worship space designed from the beginning to be conducive to worship. It's written (albeit via our cultural expectations) into the very architecture. By the fact it's been consecrated for that very use. By the decoration and ornamentation. The school hall, by comparison, is an all-purpose space with no organ, no decoration, no statues, icons or painted glass windows. Nor even an organ. Its architecture does not breathe worshipfulness. It would therefore be a poor substitute.

[ 10. August 2007, 10:52: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In the Castle? Have the Orthodox moved from John's Chapel? How disappointing.

Don't know - I've never been to the Liturgy and I don't know the layout of the buildings. My information is they're in the Norman Chapel of the Castle, wherever that may be but that might be out of date.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In the Castle? Have the Orthodox moved from John's Chapel? How disappointing.
Don't know - I've never been to the Liturgy and I don't know the layout of the buildings. My information is they're in the Norman Chapel of the Castle, wherever that may be but that might be out of date.

They used to meet (certainly 2002-06) in the Norman church, S. Mary the Less, which is also the chapel to S. John's College.

I assumed they still did.

Thurible

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I see no problem whatsoever with charging for admission outside service times, because it's essentially about tourism not worship.

Forgive me, but this is absolute rubbish.

I often enter churches in order to pray. They are good places to do that, for various reasons which I'm surely you understand yourself. You might argue that the best way to do this is to attend a service, but I'd take serious issue with that.

There have been times in my life, particularly in my unchurched years, when I wouldn't have contemplated going to a church service but would have benefitted greatly from being able to enter a quiet church and just pray, or just feel in the presence of God (yes, I know there's a theological argument to be had here but let it pass). Cathedrals are excellent for that, particularly ones that don't require a ticket.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

Sounds like I've got confused then, my information's from around that time and you were there.

Ian, Thurible's right again. Careful, this is getting to be a habit. [Biased]

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
If a school hall offers better value for money, which it sometimes does, then it's a better option.
I fear this is the spiritual equivalent of knowing the true price of everything and the true value of nowt.

At our parish, I'm sure the school hall would be cheaper in our village than maintaining the church, especially since it's a church school. The scaffolding's just gone up around the spire and it won't come cheap.

But the school hall would not be a better option. The church is a worship space designed from the beginning to be conducive to worship. It's written (albeit via our cultural expectations) into the very architecture. By the fact it's been consecrated for that very use. By the decoration and ornamentation. The school hall, by comparison, is an all-purpose space with no organ, no decoration, no statues, icons or painted glass windows. Nor even an organ. Its architecture does not breathe worshipfulness. It would therefore be a poor substitute.

I didn't say cheaper; I said better value for money. If using the old building is better value for money (given the resources of the church), even if it's more expensive, that's fine.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

Greyface - I do understand your argument (I think), and I like visiting cathedrals and churches partly for that reason. If I'm on foot in a town I don't know, I'll often go to the church or cathedral for a bit.

But why pray in the cathedral rather than outside, or on a quiet hillside? At the end of the day, it seems to me that it is just a form of spiritual tourism.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But on the other hand, if a church chooses to meet in a fancy or historic building, I see no problem whatsoever with charging for admission outside service times, because it's essentially about tourism not worship.
<snip>
If a congregation can't afford to pay for the building they are in, it needs to be asked whether they are making good use of resources. I suggest not. If a school hall offers better value for money, which it sometimes does, then it's a better option.

As others have remarked it is a very sweeping assumption that people only want to enter a church outside service times for reasons of tourism. The building which I share responsibility for is one which is visited by thousands every year (avg donation about 20p/head!) many come to pray, some come as tourists but are moved to pray. [ETA where our church is it is the quiet place and it also happens to be a suitable place to pray when it rains (frequently here) or the weather is otherwise foul.] We are working on finding ways to enable people to discover something of faith through their visit to the building. IMHO charging would substantially negate that.

It is a financial struggle to go on maintaining our building but it is not our choice whether to worship there or not. We can't sell it, nor as long as there is a viable congregation could it be declared redundant, and while we have a Grade A listed building we have a legal obligation to maintain it. Since we are obliged to maintain it, it makes sense to use it for our worship.

Whether there is logical psychological or theological reason for it I don't know but many testify to the significance of a place that has been prayed in for over 500 years on a site that has been prayed on for over 800 years - maybe over 1000 years. I know if we had the option to close it down and walk away from it there would be a very clear negative message to our local community as a result - even though there would undoubtedly be some gains as well.

[ 10. August 2007, 11:52: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Joan_of_Quark (# 9887) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But why pray in the cathedral rather than outside, or on a quiet hillside? At the end of the day, it seems to me that it is just a form of spiritual tourism.

For me...
Because in England it's likely to be too wet to sit down on the grass out in the "real" countryside (vs park benches) most of the year.

Because other people are less likely to come and interrupt you in a church (even a touristy church) than they are in a park.

Because, although I get a very valued sense of Something out on a hillside, I get a slightly different sense of Something in a church that is open all day, where I know people have come to pray and think in this particular space for centuries. It's because of the two of these together that I ended up becoming Christian.

Posted by caty the southerner (# 11996) on :

The last CofE cathedral I was in (incidentally, one asking for donations) publicised a running cost of £40,000 a week, and from memory I think most others I have been to are similar. In the tubs, alongside the (few) gift-aid envelopes and the (very) occasional £20 note, was an awful lot of small change. Very small change. A large quantity of coppers. I accept that people who are visiting may not have much money; however, for the person who has to find the £40k each week, a large number of people putting in a nominal bit of small change when they're being asked to donate (not charged) £4 a head, and told why, must stretch the limits of Christian charity.

I don't like entrance fees for Cathedrals, but I'd rather they charged them than that the Cathedrals fell into disrepair because many of the people who visit as tourists, creating wear and tear and saying how important the buildings are for the nation's heritage, are too mean to stick more than 20p in the donation tub.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

In the same way, a cathedral might make an impression on you the first time you visit. But it takes time for the subtleties to work their magic on you, and maybe for the building's spiritual power to become apparent. So an admission charge is an admission (pun deliberate) that a cathedral is just a big tourist attraction.

FWIW, York Minster have a scheme where gift-aiding your entrance fee gets you a pass for a year's free entry instead of just the entrance ticket. Not much use if you're not a UK taxpayer, but I'd guess that most people who want to make repeat visits* are. I think there's also some provision for all York residents - but since I'm not one, I haven't paid close attention to that.

*those who visit, as opposed to those who go regularly because it's their regular place of worship.

[ 10. August 2007, 12:03: Message edited by: caty the southerner ]

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

Yes, the free for local residents thing does seem a good idea. I think Chester used it too in its brief flirtation with charging.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:

Ian, Thurible's right again. Careful, this is getting to be a habit.

Custard,

The Blessed Sacrament doesn't tend to be reserved on hillsides and the tombs of Saints are often inside.

Thurible

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Thank you Greyface, Smudgie, Thurible and seasick: £6.50 isn't beyond my means [if I can travel to the other side of the world...], but more than I expected. I couldn't imagine making it a regular occurrence to visit outside of services.

[and I'll try and get up north if I can, but time is very limited. [Smile]

]

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But why pray in the cathedral rather than outside, or on a quiet hillside? At the end of the day, it seems to me that it is just a form of spiritual tourism.

You have a point, up to a point [Biased]

but aren't you also hovering around the edges of a gnostic-like error? You seem to be arguing that it doesn't matter where you are or what you're doing, which is almost to say that the material world is irrelevant.

Our environment affects the way we think and the way we feel, so simplistically it is either conducive or not to prayer and to particular kinds of prayer. I'm not averse to praying on quiet hillsides myself incidentally but it evokes different feelings and thoughts from those I encounter at St Cuthbert's shrine, for example.

I think if you agree (and you may not) that for some people the use of aids to prayer like lighting a candle, or incense, or having worship music of some sort playing in the background, or kneeling, or reading a passage of Holy Scripture as a preparation are genuinely helpful and valid means of acquiring an attitude whereby they can better seek God in prayer, then you've conceded the point haven't you?

So dismissing it as tourism I take issue with, but spiritual tourism sounds like an excellent idea - it's seeking out places which enable us to better perceive God's presence.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
So dismissing it as tourism I take issue with, but spiritual tourism sounds like an excellent idea - it's seeking out places which enable us to better perceive God's presence.

Interesting tangent provoked here. 'Tourism' as a Wallace Arnold air-conditioned glide between bland 'international' hotels with bland international cuisine is one thing. If tourism is more than that, and an engaging with different cultures and perspectives on life (not to mention Real Food), it's another. The first, dismissive, view of tourism implies that it's a diversion from real life. The second suggests it might enrich our understanding of real life.

Custard's view (with the greatest respect, and apologies if I've misunderstood) appears to be nearer the first. Real Worship is what goes on in the heart, and the context in which this is offered is irrelevant. If you visit cathedrals or shrines of any sort, it's like seeing the Eiffel Tower through the coach window: interesting perhaps, but nothing to do with the important things of life.

Whereas the traditional view is that pilgrimage to holy places is a good thing, spiritually beneficial, and enriches our awareness of what is important. If that's 'spiritual tourism' I'm all for it. But it's not the icing on the cake, it's a much nicer cake altogether.

I don't imagine that the deans and chapters who have imposed fees have done so without a great deal of agonised soul-searching. I'm sure that most of them see the spiritual value of their cathedrals and don't just see themselves as custodians of ancient monuments. But the implication that anyone who is not attending a formal service, or seeking out a utilitarian side-chapel in which to pray, is just a 'tourist' (in the Wallace Arnold sense) strikes me as condescending and elitist in its effects if not in intention.

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :

It's not that I mind making a donation - although, when I used to take all the children, it could get a bit pricey, it's when the cathedrals with ticket offices seem only interested in selling the tickets.

A few years ago I took the children to London and we looked at several of the sights. I had to choose between going in to St Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey because I couldn't afford both so we saw St Paul's from the outside and then went to the abbey. We went in and paid for our tickets, then went further in to be told that it took forty minutes to go round, we weren't allowed to go around by ourselves, we had to go round with a tour guide, the last tour of the day had gone and so we couldn't go any further than the entrance. I think the only thing we could see was the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The people on the ticket office hadn't said anything; just taken our money (I think they were still selling tickets to unsuspecting tourists as we left). It left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Posted by Cantiones Sacrae (# 12774) on :

I've always been offended by anything resembling turnstiles and obligatory charges, particularly for Church of England buildings which, as others have implied, feel as though they belong to the nation (whatever the legal position).

On the other hand, I once heard an argument for charging along the lines of: Canterbury and other great mediaeval cathedrals and abbeys were built with such grandeur in order specifically to attract visitors/pilgrims in large numbers and the large amounts of money that could be extracted from them.

Around 30 years ago I paid £4 for a hand-calligraphed document that recorded my contribution to the upkeep of Norwich cathedral. I think £4 represented 1 minute of the running costs.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Interesting tangent provoked here. 'Tourism' as a Wallace Arnold air-conditioned glide between bland 'international' hotels with bland international cuisine is one thing. If tourism is more than that, and an engaging with different cultures and perspectives on life (not to mention Real Food), it's another. The first, dismissive, view of tourism implies that it's a diversion from real life. The second suggests it might enrich our understanding of real life.

Custard's view (with the greatest respect, and apologies if I've misunderstood) appears to be nearer the first. Real Worship is what goes on in the heart, and the context in which this is offered is irrelevant. If you visit cathedrals or shrines of any sort, it's like seeing the Eiffel Tower through the coach window: interesting perhaps, but nothing to do with the important things of life.

No - I think tourism involves real involvement usually. Climbing the Eiffel Tower (or even getting the lift!) is quite an experience. I can even see that people could be changed by it. But we still see it as right that people should pay to climb it, because although it is wonderful and although the people of Paris might think it belongs to them, it obviously costs quite a lot of money to maintain.

It is nice and maybe even helpful to climb the Eiffel Tower, but it is not essential. It is essential (or at least very important) to meet together with other Christians for worship. It is essential (IMHO) to pray to God. It is nice and often helpful, but not essential, to do that in a space which has been set apart for that purpose for hundreds of years. It's not an essential part of the Christian life. Like reading "Mere Christianity", it's useful, but not essential. And if the publishers of Mere Christianity need money to keep their publishing going, we don't object to that.

Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saint Chad:

It's like the Forth Bridge - they finish painting it then go back to the other end and start again.

This is a total tangent, but the Forth bridge is no longer like the Forth Bridge - they are currently putting some sort of permanentish coating on it and will no longer need to paint it all the time.
I heard that this came about partly because the person who had been in charge of the painting didn't know what every British schoolchild knows, and had let the painting contract lapse to save money!

Mrs Whibley

Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on :

*Churchwarden's hat on*

Most of us would not be surprised or outraged to pay to visit a stately home. We understand that the owners need to money to keep the place standing. If people go to sight-see the house of God, it seems they expect others (ie the parishioners) to keep the place standing.

I am humbled to report today that when I counted the collection after Mass, I found that one visiting American had placed more in the collection plate than the rest of the congregation put together!

*Churchwarden's hat off again*

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

There is a real conflict of ideology here in this debate. It's parallelled by several others in current (British at least) society, for example that over public transport. Some of us would argue that for the health of the environment and the general efficiency of the nation, the railway system should be improved and extended by massive and unprecedented government subsidies, ie. from the rest of us, whether we use trains regularly or not. Others would claim that this is unfair and that those who get the (immediate, short-term) benefits should be the ones who pay.

In the same way, the logic of cathedral admission charges seems to be saying: we're offering something of value which if you want it enough you'll be prepared to pay for it. But it's not fair that it should be subsidised by those who don't want it or don't (on the surface) appear to benefit from it.

This does seem to stem from an individualist and not a catholic perception of spiritual value. And for those who believe in the value of an established church (ie, a national church which exists for all whether or not they actively support it or appear to need it) somewhat contradictory.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
This does seem to stem from an individualist and not a catholic perception of spiritual value.

I think that fails adequately to make the distinction between cathedrals as a place for corporate worship and cathedrals as a place for individual worship / pilgrimage / tourism.

I want to make that distinction precisely because I think there is a difference between an individualist attitude and a catholic one. The question is not whether they should charge for admission to catholic (i.e. corporate) worship - we all seem to be agreed on that - but whether they should be allowed to charge for an act which in itself already assumes individualism.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
This does seem to stem from an individualist and not a catholic perception of spiritual value.
I think that fails adequately to make the distinction between cathedrals as a place for corporate worship and cathedrals as a place for individual worship / pilgrimage / tourism.

I want to make that distinction precisely because I think there is a difference between an individualist attitude and a catholic one. The question is not whether they should charge for admission to catholic (i.e. corporate) worship - we all seem to be agreed on that - but whether they should be allowed to charge for an act which in itself already assumes individualism.

With respect, Custard, I think your reply shows why you are not a catholic! No catholic would say that 'private' prayer (a misleading adjective in any case) is 'an act which assumes individualism'. We are all members of one Body and when we pray we are never alone. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why catholics prefer to pray in places sanctified by the prayers of generations of saints who are still part of the one Body.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
I think that fails adequately to make the distinction between cathedrals as a place for corporate worship and cathedrals as a place for individual worship / pilgrimage / tourism.

I don't think there is a distinction to make there. Its a spectrum or a field rather than two distinct things. And going into something like a cathedral sometimes moves people along in the direction of worship. Just a little nudge.

Just as a matter of records lots of people report their conversions as having been sparked off by visiting a church building such as a cathedral. Just a few weeks ago I heard a woman give her testimony in church and she said that she had come to believe when a tourist in Italy. Actually in St Peter's in Rome. She started thinking about the Christian story as a historical report, and about the martyrdom of the apostles, and the continuous Christian witness and became convinced. (her background is neither European nor Christian so the whole idea was genuinely new to her) Later on, in Britain, she joined an evangelical church and was baptised. She went as a tourist and came back as a believer.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

I see both sides.

The problem from the cathedral's point of view is that, at large cathedrals that draw significant numbers of tourists, the vast majority of tourists have no interest in prayer or in the role of the cathedral as a physical point of the faith. Many if not most of them are on guided tours and are adverse to what they see as "hidden charges" in addition to what they have paid the tour operator; many of those who are not are trying to see the sites as cheaply as possible.

I would liken the situation to the one of an accordion dealer in downtown Madison, Wisconsin. They sold high-end accordions that appealed mainly to serious amateurs and part-time professional musicians. The problem they had is that the store was enough of a curiosity, and had enough foot traffic, that they had to pay a sales rep to entertain people who came in. People who would never buy, because someone happening by isn't going to drop US$ 3000 on a custom accordion. The visitors were a distraction from the core mission of selling accordions.

They moved to more remote location in a sort of industrial area and solved the problem.

I think this is a harbinger of what the cathedrals face. Tourists are as a rule not especially open to the message of Christ. They are on holidays and are on a vacation they have saved for and they want maximum entertainment at minimum cost with zero commitment or engagement. In short, they are in a consumer mindset. Like the tourists at the accordion shop, they are a distraction from the core mission rather than the focus of it.

The fact that some cathedrals have adopted policies that have the effect of discouraging the devout from engaging in private prayer in a suitable setting is unfortunate but is by no means a unique or even novel manifestation of foolish facilities policy on the part of the church. Many smaller churches are locked, or unheated, or otherwise discourage casual visits for prayer even by church members.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
I think this is a harbinger of what the cathedrals face. Tourists are as a rule not especially open to the message of Christ. They are on holidays and are on a vacation they have saved for and they want maximum entertainment at minimum cost with zero commitment or engagement.

Evidence for this sweeping statement? I would have thought that people on holiday, freed from the pressures of everyday life, would be more, not less, open to the possibility of an encounter with God. You might well be right that modern western citizens in general are 'not especially open to the message of Christ', but I wouldn't expect tourists, per se, to form a higher proportion of them. Especially as those visiting cathedrals are not usually the same people as the 'sun, sex and sangria' types who flock to the beaches.

Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :

It was a small village church rather than a catherdral, but I think the principle is the same. Myself and a friend were on a geography field trip, and had dropped into the parish church in search of leaflets about local social events. Whilst I was rifling through the table of leaflets at the back, my friend was transfixed by a shaft of sunlight that came through the window above the altar and rested in the middle of the nave tiles. The sense of peace, permanence and accepting love was overwhelming. Later, my friend told me that it was at that moment that she began to believe in God. We had been in there for purely tourist/academic reasons, and God had taken the moment to bring my friend something wonderful. Someone who enters a church as a tourist may well not leave as one.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
... Tourists are as a rule not especially open to the message of Christ. They are on holidays and are on a vacation they have saved for and they want maximum entertainment at minimum cost with zero commitment or engagement. In short, they are in a consumer mindset. Like the tourists at the accordion shop, they are a distraction from the core mission rather than the focus of it.

I'm not sure where I fit into this stereotype. I'm not a Christian, I've visited many cathedrals, and when travelling, I make an effort to attend services at those cathedrals if possible because I think they give a better sense of the place and its people. And I don't mind contributing, whether at the door or into the plate. And I loved Durham. <waves> OliviaG

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
There have been times in my life, particularly in my unchurched years, when I wouldn't have contemplated going to a church service but would have benefitted greatly from being able to enter a quiet church and just pray, or just feel in the presence of God (yes, I know there's a theological argument to be had here but let it pass). Cathedrals are excellent for that, particularly ones that don't require a ticket.

Yes, I've used churches that way. Nothing should interfere with that, IMHO.

Posted by My Duck (# 11924) on :

Am I to assume that those who object to contributing to the upkeep of a cathedral when visiting also object to putting money in the collection plate when worshipping?

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Am I to assume that those who object to contributing to the upkeep of a cathedral when visiting also object to putting money in the collection plate when worshipping?

No, they're objecting to being told to put a £5 in the plate and being stared at until they comply.

I don't think anyone has said that they object to give a donation (of what they can afford) when they visit but that they object to being charged for entry.

Carys

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by My Duck:
Am I to assume that those who object to contributing to the upkeep of a cathedral when visiting also object to putting money in the collection plate when worshipping?

No-one's refusing to contribute to the upkeep of a cathedral. They're objecting to being told they can't go into a cathedral to pray unless they pay an entrance fee.

John

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Speaking for myself, I'm also bothered at the impression that charging for entrance gives to those who are not regular church attenders. To an extent, it doesn't matter if I (for example) feel off-put by something I encounter when visiting a church, especially if from my experience I know it to be out of the ordinary. Many who are not familiar might well think that all churches are like that, or that payment is also necessary to attend worship or whatever. There's enough of a popular perception that the church is out to get your money without encouraging it.

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :

I agree that it's a bad impression. I agree that the ideal is not charging. My last church went to a lot of effort to keep the building open, entrance free and there to be someone there to chat to or pray with anyone who wanted it.

But I think that if the congregation can't support the building, they should do one of the following:
1. find someone else who can (government?)
2. charge money for those wanting to be tourists, even spiritual tourists
3. move buildings

I don't see there's any other option. And if 1. doesn't work, then it's 2. or 3.

[ 18. August 2007, 20:19: Message edited by: Custard. ]

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :

I was very impressed by the arrangement at Chichester cathedral when we visited today. It was very welcoming, we were greeted by helpful guides and given a plan of the church and contributions were entirely voluntary, with a box halfway around the church and another at the end.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

In London, Vicars and/or Church Administrators get given free passes to St Paul's Cathedral for members of their electoral rolls.

I know someone in Canterbury who had a pass to get into the Cathedral. I don't know if it was obtained through city residence or church electoral roll membership.

Cathedrals and their lands are shown as part of the Church Commissioners' estate.

Christ Church Meadow, Oxford

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

Newman's Own seems to have disappeared from these boards and it seems this thread had much to do with it. I for one truly miss her insights and hope she returns.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Ditto, Seraphim Sarov.

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :

I had the opportunity to call in briefly (only had 10 minutes to spare) to Chester Cathedral last week. They do ask for a donation of £4, and have a staffed entrance area, but the signs also are careful to make it clear that people visiting for private prayer are welcome without having to pay. As my purpose in visiting was to light a couple of candles, I just said I was not there as a tourist and was waved through with a friendly smile. I made a small donation towards the cost of the candles as is usual, and enjoyed the peaceful 10 minutes in the cathedral side-chapel. Chester's approach felt like a reasonable and comfortable compromise, given the differing needs and wishes of its many visitors.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0