to be really quite disgusted with the Church?

[CopperHandle]

Visited Norwich Cathedral and the place was plastered in begging signs asking for donations. They were boasting that it costs almost £4000 a DAY to run the building, not including major repairs which regularly run into six figures in a year.

For an institute that preaches charitable giving, putting others before self etc etc is it not massively hypocritical to run in such a way that is so incredibly costly?
£4,000 a day for a single building... so there are more than 80 cathedrals in the UK - just on this alone - how many people could be helped with this amount of money?!

AIBU to think this is massively hypocritical and, well, just plain wrong?

But how much more could they do if they spent the money they are sitting on?

I don't know if anyone objected. I was just visiting, but I can't see why else it would be blocked off. Any safety issue would mean no one could enter the grounds. Iirc residents can get passes to cut through, but not 100% on that.
Anyway, it just struck me as a bit mean. As a student I used to love cutting through the grounds. It was so beautiful.

Avoiding,

Where exactly do you think the church's wealth is? We can't really turn bricks and mortar into food for the poor, can we?

And why do you think the church's income should be used for soup kitchens? Surely this is the responsibility of social services?

I know a lot of inner city churches will provide "soup kitchens", run by church volunteers, but I doubt that the actual cost of the food comes from church funds - more likely from ring-fenced donations from individuals (this is how it works in my church). For our church kitchen, we brazenly ask local restaurants to provide the food, and they do quite willingly.

Just like foodbanks, the church provides the volunteers and space, but not the food itself.

What a church importantly does with kitchens and foodbanks is provide pastoral care and counselling, so that the service users can be helped out their situation, e.g. Through debt counselling.

I think the purpose of the church is to do good and help people, so having money banked while there is so much good it could do seems wrong to me. The wealth isn't just in owning churches.

Wealth "banked" means investments presumably? Which give an income stream? If the Church divests itself of its investments, spends the money doing the good you think it should be doing - then what happens when it runs out? It won't have the income stream it had before so will be able to do less than it does now.

The purpose of the church is to preach the gospel anew in each generation and administer sacraments - official.

The church has investments but these are carefully managed and budgeted for. I don't really know what you think should happen with them. If they are sold to cover something that government should be dealing with, then they'd be gone for good. This would be illegal, of course, as it would mean dipping into pensions.

Please let us know exactly what you mean, on a practical level.

At the same time, do you fancy selling up all you own assets to give to the poor?

The Church of England has assets of over £22bn. Each Diocese is its own charity but exempt from reporting its actual assets for some reason. Possibly because the 17% return on investments in 2016 might be deemed a little obscene when seeking government assistance to keep disused buildings in place.

If the Church of England was open about what it does with its assets and what it did with the money it has, before making appeals for more, then I think people could make value judgments about how much and when to donate.

When the Church of England owns the Hyde Park Estate or even the Mertocentre Mall on Tyneside, you wonder how much of that is because it wants to help the poor......

It doesn't "own the Metro Centre", if that's what you were attempting to say. The Church Commissioners hold a 10% stake and receive income accordingly. Why is a 17% return on investments a bad thing? Where do you think the money comes from to deliver its services?

Operating income comes from people. Which is why there is confusion and a better, more open approach should be welcomed.

The Church of England is funded bottom-up. The PCCs persuade their members to voluntarily 'gift' money and also raise funds via trading and investment activities. The Diocese then asks the PCCs to pass money up. This is the 'Parish Share' and the diocese calculates a figure based on what it thinks a PCC can afford, based on the wealth of each parish. The diocese pressures the PCC to pay up and can shutdown any that fails to meet their target. Any money left over is kept by the parish and can be used locally to support church activities.

Finally each diocese passes a share of their income to the national church, again depending on how wealthy the diocese is. The region retains funds over and above the requested amount.

So when you give to a Church it is not for local things. It includes charges and franchise costs at every level.

If the 17% were going on the poor (or the buildings which frees up money for the poor then its wouldnt be bad). But what does the Church of England spend its money on, other than accumulating more money through investments. Local foodbanks are local people spending their money locally.

The great Cathedrals are open for worship No charge ever. No harm in going to a service and drinking in the atmosphere the music the flowers, the beautiful ancient building. . If you only want to be a tourist, then you pay Simple. . I often take non Christian visitors to a service. Not an attempt to convert, just the best way to see the Cathedral at work.

What should we do to beautiful buildings like Cathedrals then?

How do you think an Episcopal church should operates its finances, SD? I am truly bewildered.

It is difficult for me to listen to people like the Archbishop of Canterbury on TV berating the government for not doing more for the poor etc. The last time this happened the Arch B. was wearing a heavy gold cross that would have been worth thousands, and an elaborate robe that no doubt also cost a great deal of money. He also lives in a palace which would house many people. Have these churchmen lost sight of what it's all about, and do they think about the parable of the 'camel passing through the eye of a needle' ? The Church of England is incredibly rich, one of the largest landowners in the country, and yet their lowly vicars get paid little, lose their homes when they retire, and have to rely on local authority housing. The Catholic Church seems just as bad - the wealth of the Vatican is eye popping, and I don't think this was the kind of asset accumulation that Jesus, a carpenter, would have expected from his followers.

"What I really hate is ticketed entry into churches or cathedrals. York Minster, St Paul's... so sad. You can still get in for masses and evensong etc for free but I think it puts off those on lower incomes from just going in to pray or see how it feels to be in a place of worship."

Your local church will have free passes to cathedrals. Just ask.

Vicars aren't badly paid. Their remuneration, which takes account of housing, is designed to be in the region of "an average primary school teacher".

Justin Welby is a particularly modest ABC. HE really doesn't like the vestments. HE goes along with what he has to. As for living and working at Lambeth Palace, it's hardly his fault!

What should we do to beautiful buildings like Cathedrals then?

Let the church use its assets to look after them as denominational buildings. Once a church not longer wants to do that then they are fantastic places for conversions into homes (social or homeless of course), conference centres, tourist hubs or even local authority managed broad based ecumemical centres of worship. Like St. Magnus Cathedral.

How do you think an Episcopal church should operates its finances

However it wants but not claiming any level of poverty when that is remarkably false, not seeking government funding when its not required and being open about how much every donation leaves the parish.

SD,

You are addressing non-existent problems.

The church does look after its own buildings. What it is asking for help via voluntary tourist contributions is to keep cathedral buildings open outside normal worship services - for the benefit of tourists.

As for your rather incoherent rant about parish share, an Episcopal church needs parishes to support administrative activities of the diocese, and, in turn, the national church. Rocket science, eh?

Rich parishes pay more than poor ones. Poor parishes can even receive from the diocese, so a negative parish share. Sounds fair enough to me. Now we occasionally hold the diocese to account when we receive a particularly hefty bill, i.e. Are they being as prudent as they should with finances?

We get a lot of expert advice from our diocese, such as safeguarding, health and safety, education, Human Resources.

The problem again?

The problem again?

The church does look after its own buildings - mmmm. And the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme is what exactly?

"asking for help via voluntary tourist contributions is to keep cathedral buildings open outside normal worship services"

Friends of Norwich Cathedral - "Current and future work includes contributing towards the restoration of the Cloisters, as well as to the Cathedral’s lighting and organ projects." - not exactly under the banner of tourism development.

My main problem is that rich institutions should not be seeking government support and should be clearer to donors where the money goes. And, by any definition, the Church of England is a rich institution.

But not particularly flush with cash. Having assets that can't be sold doesn't mean you can splash the cash. Just think about that for a moment.

Most U I am afraid, and bordering on the philistine

"Having assets that can't be sold doesn't mean you can splash the cash."

Actually they can be sold but are not as other sources of income are currently available to be exploited. I donate to charities, as do many people. Interestingly, the charities that need the donations the most are those without billions in the bank amassed over centuries. I do donate to one very small one that sold its only asset to fund services and asked donors to help build an investment portfolio to give a clear level of income each year but it provides updates, asks for no government money and, in good years, seeks donor ideas for uses of any (small) surpluses.

I loathe organised religion, but I love old buildings. I'm happy to pay to enter cathedrals to help them stay safe and usable (though I would prefer them to be able to raise enough money through voluntary donations)

It's a real problem across the Anglican community

Not all the cathedrals are ancient though - Guildford and Liverpool are modern as is Coventry. Liverpool was finished in the late 1970s when Britain was going through a very bad economic time.

Guildford is on the verge of bankruptcy due to asbestos removal. This is a modern problem which ancient cathedrals don't have.

Despite being modern, it's a glorious building not like that ghastly wigwam in Liverpool. Unfortunately for Guildford, it doesn't get a tourist trade - it's separate from the town, and the town is not touristy. However, it is extremely vibrant with concerts and other activities. Their schedule is action packed.

It's a brilliant diocese too.

(though I would prefer them to be able to raise enough money through voluntary donations)

Voluntary donations from family or tourists?