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?

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 leave them to fall into disrepair and all of the associated safety and security costs will fall on who? The local council? So you can be sure it's taxpayers who are meeting the cost, not the people who visit and enjoy the buildings? Or perhaps they should all be razed to the ground and a couple more Aldis or Starbucks could be put on site instead.

Flyingflipflop They are not charities. They are businesses. Their main goal is to celebrate God. They also give to charity. But they are not solely charities.

A million quid is cheap in cathedral terms - Canterbury costs 6.5 million a year to run! There seem to be two questions to your OP - one is why does it cost that much, which is - well it clearly just does, I know nothing about why large old buildings cost so much money to upkeep, but it clearly isn't all going on 5-course dinners for the archdeacons! The second question is 'is that kind of money justifiable' - well, personally, as an ardent atheist I'd still say yes of course it is. You really think we should let important historical buildings go to ruin? There are other ways to ensure people don't go hungry without living in a cultural desert as a result. By your reckoning, there should be no public funding for the arts at all, is that right?

It would just like to comment on the church being super wealthy as that comes up a lot. Yes the Church of England has lots land and money. This is spent on things like bishop's salaries, diocesan staff and buildings, clergy wages, houses for vicars etc. It is NOT spent on the upkeep and maintenance of individual buildings. It is the responsibility of the local congregation to pay for their own building. Which is great if you have a thriving urban congregation in a modern, efficient building. It is incredibly hard if you have a beautiful, medieval church in an area with a small regular congregation and a small group of (often) older volunteers doing everything. You know, the sort of chocolate box pretty building that people want to see in the countryside and complain if they are altered but don't actually go into...

Most church communities are incredibly aware of their role in the community and want to be involved whether that is with concerts or providing a place for drop in services for the homeless (what is needed is going to depend on the area!). But they can't provide anything if the building is freezing, has no toilets and lumps of stone are falling on the congregation due to poor repair - so they have to ask for donations in order to be able to do things for the local community.

And for those saying just turn the buildings over to the National Trust. Part of what makes historic churches so special is knowing that you are worshipping where people have worshipped for thousands of years. Not to mention that the NT won't take them on. Closed churches these days are sometimes sold for a change of use (houses, cafes) but they can also just end up languishing unless they are significant enough for the closed churches trust or similar to take them on.

I'm sure there is a middle ground
Really? I would love to hear about it.

@TittyGolightly has it. Why does an institution that is one of - if not THE - wealthiest in the country think that charging people to enter is okay?
Beautiful buildings are fine - it's the hypocrisy of 'It'll fall down unless you fork out £16 to come in' that gets to me... Put your hand in your own pocket, not ours.

You do understand that you don't have to visit churches, cathedrals or historic buildings if you don't want to pay for them. Just don't. Why give a toss if other people do and are happy to donate?

CHRISTIANITY IS NOT A CHARITY FOR PRESERVING OLD BUILDINGS.

Fgs. If a private individual cannot afford to maintain a building, they are advised to sell it and move somewhere more affordable. Why should this be different for a large organisation?

There are organisations which ARE specifically for protecting our historical and interesting buildings; and I'm all for that. But that's not what the church is for - or shouldn't be. Preaching helping the poorest and neediest whilst pouring donations into an expensive to run building (which is NOT necessary for worshipping purposes - that can be done in any building) is hypocrisy.

They are businesses.

So where's the profit?

Minoandolphin but clearly it actually is!! Well, not christianity, but the church. They are a national institution with a centuries-long history and corresponding responsibilities to preserve our national heritage.

minoanddolphin but they're using those donations for the purpose for which they've been donated. It would be hypocritical to solicit donations for one thing and then use them for another. If they don't have the buildings, they don't have the visitors, and they don't have the donations. They wouldn't suddenly have £4000 a day to spend on feeding the poor or housing drug addicts or whatever you think they should be doing (because apparently it's correct to direct your ire at the church not the government).

"YABU Admission is free. They are welcome to ask for donations and you can decide whether or not to give one."

^^ This.

I visit our local cathedral and most of the time I put in some money, sometimes I don't. I have never been harrassed in to paying. I also visit and contribute whatever I can afford to free to access museums. Unless you are going to a cathedral to pray or take part in a service its the same thing isn't it? The British Museum must cost a lot to run and own a lot of assets but I'm still happy to put my voluntary contribution in there.

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.

Then are left open and unstaffed here and that doesn't happen.

OP, I love the idea that you think that £4k would actually go a long way in helping people every day and cure all world problems.

But I'm just cynical.

ErroltheDragon, you can go in to worship for free at any cathedral. It's tourists who are being asked to contribute, and they are part of our heritage.

I don't really think there was a good reason to have them in the first place, it doesn't fit with Jesus' teaching but that's not being debated right now.

It's the same in our local cathedral.

Nobody is charged admission but donations towards the huge running costs are certainly requested at every opportunity.

I wouldn't like the ethos of charging entry, as a church needs to be accessible to all doesn't it? The poor as much as the wealthy? But I have no problem with them pointing out that the place isn't free to maintain and that the money needs to come from somewhere.

No-one working in the church is well paid, so it's not as though your donations are being spent on inflated salaries etc.

Also ignoring whether the buildings fit Christian doctrine in the first place, the fact is that many of them have been around for centuries. They have significance to the surrounding community - peoples families have been married, christened, buried there for generations. There are memorials to real people and their families. People have donated towards furniture, towards windows etc. This is where they worship. And sure some congregations hate their buildings and would love something more modern but many would be absolutely appalled at the suggestion that you should just tear down an important part of their religious, social and cultural heritage or hand it over to some a.n.other body to look after. The decision to close church buildings is not taken lightly!

I was at York Minster over Easter for the devotion and had this same thought. There was an elderly homeless man in an absolute state on the floor under a sign saying it costs £25,000 a day to keep York Minster running and I felt a bit sick. (And gave the poor bugger some money!)

And one final thought (!) because a pp mentioned selling gold and art. Individual churches aren't allowed to sell their treasures without court permission. Permission is highly unlikely to be given for a sale to fund a repair or make a charitable donation - it would be seen as deprivation of assets for a one off, short term gain rather than long term financial planning.

Accrual Where exactly did I say the government shouldn't be dealing with poverty? Of course they should. That's not what the threads about though is it? So why would I bring it up?

And it's about what they're focussing on. Maintaining old buildings, gathering donations for it etc is an enormous undertaking. It's the fact that the church is spending so much effort on this when it is directly opposed to what they preach.

I love the innocence of the poster who thought you could replace a cathedral roof for £100,000!

Notre Dame has just opened an appeal to replace the roof and they need 100 million euros. A distant relative has been involved in fundraising for the upkeep of Canterbury Cathedral, and her efforts have brought in some £12 million over a decade.

I would rather churches did not have expensive buildings to run. the churchof England is rather stuck with buildings from the past. a local one is hiringout one of their spaces but there has been grumbling about it being inappropriate, but better to raise an income from assets. there needs to be a happy medium.

allegretto, that's interesting, we went to Winchester last year and were told we had to pay by the lady at the front. If I hadn't been with other family members I'd have buggered off!

minoandolphin

So do you really think in the absence of historic cathedrals, the church (whether C of E or Catholic) would suddenly have masses of resources at its disposal to do whatever it is you think they should be doing? The historic buildings generate income from tourists, and it's right that this income should be used to maintain them. Without the buildings, they wouldn't have the income. It's not that they are choosing to focus on one thing to the exclusion of the other.

If the Church sold all its land, divested itself of all investments sure it could spend the lot on some kind of super duper food bank but those ongoing revenue streams would be gone for good. They would need to start raising money in other ways to fund the clergy and other staffing, to pay for other sites for parishioners to worship, and the country would be culturally much poorer, imo, for the loss of all of these historically significant sites. The Church pays for itself, the Church and visitors pay for the upkeep of its sites and that's entirely correct.

I can guarantee that £4000 a day does not come solely from tourist donations no it doesn't, look at the website, the biggest part of that money comes from renting out business premises on the cathedral property