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?

There are some 20 Catholic Cathedrals in England and around 44 Anglican Cathedrals.

Of all things to be disgusted with the church about! They do need money to run the buildings, at least they're not charging people to go in.

And Christians do willingly help others, just as Jesus did.

However, Jesus said to spread the "good news" and that is the main aim.

Flyingflipflop No local churches are open in the City I live in. If you went in churches that were open with nobody else being there, I would guess it was a posh area.
But then it doesn't matter if poor people can't pray in local churches or pay to go in the local Cathedral to pray I guess.
The traditional church is for the well off.

This is actually a big problem. They're in a catch 22 situation. If you leave an unattended church open in a city or town they either become magnets for teenagers to hang around in (thereby putting off people in need) or have stuff stolen or vandalised.

The cost having a vicar in every church is prohibitive when you consider attendance and donations are falling.

I don't think church is for the well off only, however they do need to find ways to reach out to those not wishing or unable to go to mainstream services. There is a phrase. Keep the doors open and the lights on. It's difficult to achieve though.

So you're going to look and presumably admire an old, and I assume, beautiful building and then you complain that they're asking for money towards the upkeep.

Where do you think the money comes from to keep these old buildings in a good enough condition for you to go and admire them?

When you go to places like Longleat for example, or any of the big houses, you pay an entrance fee, does that make them hypocrites? Think of all the things the money they make could be used for instead of keep a bunch of lions in comfort.

Don't understand your reasoning OP.

at least they're not charging people to go in

Lots do, though. Not to pray, but if you want to view certain parts, lots of cathedrals charge people to enter.

'Catholic church has more money than it knows what to do with... they could fund their own restoration.'

Hissy, Norwich Cathedral is CoE. I think you'll find that most cathedrals in the UK are either CofE or Kirk of Scotland these days, like, for the past few centuries.

OP, this 'disgusts' you? They're historical buildings. National Trust places also have contribution points in their properties, like churches.

Don't like it, don't go. You can go for free to attend services.

Get a life!

But they are a thing of amazing skill and beauty. They took hundreds of years to build... lifetimes and lives. people lived, had babies, worked and died in cities that were built up around cathedrals. We don't have the skills nowadays to construct in the same manner.
For the above alonewe should maintain and respect them. The religion part matters far far less in my opinion

Old historical buildings do cost a lot in unkeep. It's a fact. Money doesn't come out of thin air so they will have to rely on different ways to raise the cash. I'm not remotely religious but these beautiful buildings are part of our heritage and it would be a devastating loss to lose them.

Sorry, I went for lunch. Didn't mean to disappear there.

I guess my issue isn't with the buildings specifically, I shouldn't have targeted that directly, but the general cost of running the religion/s that is hypocritical.

I think that old buildings are beautiful and should be preserved where possible - but when do we draw the line for that? At what cost?
Some people here seem to be saying that £4000 a day is best spent on maintaining a building over helping people.

And I'll reiterate that that £4000 a day does NOT cover the large maintenance costs.

Then there's the whole not taxing religion argument, which is frankly ridiculous.

I'm no fan of organised religion and I'm an atheist but I don't begrudge these beautiful buildings their running costs. They are more than just churches they are part of our history.
Norwich Cathedral has been there since the 12th century do you really think it isn't worth preserving? What kind of society do we have if we can't appreciate art and architecture as well as look after the poor?

I am not a christian but I believe our old buildings add depth and richness to our towns and are worth preserving. They have a power of place and give towns identity, history is important. You can donate a fiver to a beautiful old building and support Oxfam.

It is a beautiful historic and very expensive building to maintain. Absent donations, it would fall into ruin. You are being naive and unreasonable

Why go and visit if you dislike the church and its double standards? Just because this keeps being repeated, not that I feel that it is relevant to the overall argument, its perhaps worth noting that I went with family who wanted to visit, I would not have chosen to go in. But that's not really the point I'm making.

Gilead - Winchester and Salisbury ask for voluntary donations. You can actually go in without paying if you're willing to brazen it out

Copperhandle - are you suggesting they should be demolished then? I'm not sure what you're solution is. They ARE costly to keep open. There's no way round that.

That's quite economical for a cathedral. Most that I have been to cost around £1[m] pounds a year.

How is £4k a day more economical than £1M a year?

Historically it was stolen from the Catholic Church. But it's C of E now so the Queen should pay. She is head of the C of E after all. I wouldn't give them a bean.

As I say, I'm not disputing that old buildings are beautiful and valuable and wonderful etc etc. But how much is too much to spend on them? People are literally dying, and I can guarantee that £4000 a day does not come solely from tourist donations.

Churches are really just businesses these days, if they are not a tourist attraction they should be sold off or made profitable. We need homes more than we need empty churches crumbling into dereliction.

a very odd view point seeing as well over 95% of the cold weather shelters for rough sleepers in London are in churches. Where else would these shelters be run?

Then there's the whole not taxing religion argument, which is frankly ridiculous.

Why ridiculous? Most churches are charities and charities aren't taxed. Whether you agree with religion or not, they collect money and use for 'good causes'.

Do you begrudge the RSPCA? Or the RNLI? Both huge charities that could probably afford the tax, but that would only reduce the amount they use for their causes.

Also, churches provide comfort to those in times of need. Would you begrudge The Samaritans or a cot death charity their tax status? They provide comfort.

are you suggesting they should be demolished then?

I'm sure there is a middle ground between keeping a building open for a wander and religious services at the cost of £4000 a day and demolishing it.

So if the cathedrals were closed down, the bills would stop and you think the money should then be spent on people? What sort of people? homeless? drug addicts? single parents? who decides where the money goes?

People would stop donating if the money is not for church upkeep, there are probably bequest made etc which are tied to the church, and there would be no income from it once it is closed, therefore at some point, there would be no money to give to people anyway?

We went to Bath Abbey last year. It was beautiful and interesting, and they had a sheet for my daughter to go round and find things. They suggested a donation of £2.50, which was per group not per person as I had thought. I happily gave them £5 for 3 of us to go in. It was educational and worth a look around.

As I say, I'm not disputing that old buildings are beautiful and valuable and wonderful etc etc. But how much is too much to spend on them? People are literally dying, and I can guarantee that £4000 a day does not come solely from tourist donations
So? What's the solution?

Our local church was a nightclub up until 10 years ago, which makes me laugh, as it's usually the other way round!
I can't see how it could cost £4,000 a day, theatres can cost that due to staff wages , electricity, etc but not a church.