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?

Best use of a church I've seen is one that had obviously been sold due to dwindling attendees and was now an art gallery, music venue, flexible workspace and a community centre. Far more valuable to the community frankly.

Thankfully we are seeing church attendance reduce exponentially and these buildings will be put to better use rather than a place to spout the vile teachings of the Catholic Church to 4 attendees every Sunday.

For what it's worth 500 years on, CofE cathedrals most certainly were not "stolen" from the Catholics.

Legal ownership of cathedrals was, historically, vested in the local bishop. They were not owned by the Vatican, the Pope, some other institution of the Catholic Church. What happened in England in the 1530s was that the English church, ie, the bishops, disaffiliated themselves from Rome.

To give a comparison, if Scotland had become independent, public property in Scotland would have vested in the Scottish government. When you consider how absurd the alternative is (ie, Scotland having to buy their own assets off the English) you can see that saying there was theft is a silly idea, although I've no doubt that some popular historian has made the claim.

I will give a couple of relevant examples.

Back in 2010 there was an earthquake in Christchurch. Some of you may remember this. The Anglican cathedral, the city's most iconic building, fell down. The Anglican diocese has built a temporary cathedral to replace it. They want to bulldoze the ruin of the old cathedral and replace it with something paid for by the insurance money.

Simple? No. Enter stage left various pressure groups saying the Anglicans should restore the cathedral at 5 times the cost, including restoration of a stone spire (a ridiculous thing to build on a known fault line) and that they've got "loads of money". The bishop has been slandered and litigation has been brought to prevent the demolition. In the meantime, the diocese scarcely has enough money to maintain its existing churches, and would probably only be able to sell them for a song if it tried.

Are the pressure groups putting up their own money? Err.. no. The diocese has even considered selling them the site, ie, you want it, you fix it. That option hasn't proved at all popular either.

Another example: this time in England. I know a church with a tiny parish, built in the 1850s. When its regular congregation was reduced to 10, the diocese decided to close the church. Cue local outrage, including claims of embezzlement of parish funds because "the church is rich". There was a meeting in the church. The parish treasurer said how much it cost per week to keep the church operational, and invited regular donations.

Massive tumbleweed moment.

What made matters even more ridiculous was that the church then survived by being "planted" by a lively crowd from Holy Trinity Brompton, who brought in guitars etc. Do you think people were pleased. No they weren't. They basically wanted a nice old respectable local CofE church but didn't want to put their hands in their pockets or, for that matter, darken its door.

Having some handsome buildings doesn't mean an organisation is wealthy, nor is there anything hypocritical about a church owning some handsome buildings. And the general rule is that if you want to use those buildings for what they're for (ie, worship) you can go to the service. Otherwise, be reasonable and put your hand in your pocket.

Great posts, Toad

From the OP, referring to how to use £4000 a day:
how many people could be helped with this amount of money?

I would say that they are already helping lots of people with this money.

OP YABU in my opinion.

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.

Take the leading off the roof (I presume that Cathedrals still have lead on the roof) and just let them slowly crumble into ruin.

Or get some over-enthusiastic Roundhead re-enactors to pay a few stealthy visits.

Is it only acceptable to charge entry to stately homes, historic buildings etc if the owners are strapped for cash then? Try telling that to the National Trust.

I'm very much an atheist and have no love of organised religion but am perfectly willing to pay to visit a cathedral as a tourist.

Seeingadistance A well balanced post, with a realistic look at what established churches are doing. Thank you.

They only put up posters? I have never returned to Coventry Cathedral after a very unpleasant lady demanded a 'voluntary contribution' from us.

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.

I expect that middle ground would be the private donations they are requesting then. Or I guess they could sell the building and it could be turned into shops. I don't understand your post. You went to a visit a cathedral, as a visitor attraction, then complain about a request to donate?

If there were no visitor donations, which are primarily being used keeping the building open, then the building would have to close to visitors, and just open for worship services.

I guess that's the middle ground.

And what a loss that would be to the community. Visitors to cathedrals put a huge amount of money into the local economy, and the cathedral is often the main reason visitors will go to that town. Not only is this is in direct employment by the cathedral, but also in shops, pubs, and tea rooms in the local area.

A place like Norwich Cathedral employed about 45 people FTE. At least 30 of those posts will be attributed to keeping the cathedral open for visitors.

Yes it is completely hypocritical and self serving, which all religions are. Religion is also tax exempt. I strongly object to this - something to think about if we changed this.....
m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5144964

guestlist.net/article/89797/someone-please-explain-why-the-church-isn-t-paying-tax

Religion must be held to account, like all institutions.

Held to account? Do explain in your own words.

Tax exemption is fair enough for activities which are genuinely serving others. But a lot of what the church does is essentially self-serving.

A while ago, my DH was for some reason curious about how different organisations approached this. He took a look at the accounts of a local Buddhist group and a church (a methodist 'free' one, as it happens, less complicated than Cof E I expect as not part of a large organisation). Anyway, the latter basically claimed tax exemption on everything. A proportion of what they did was of benefit to others but a lot was really supporting their 'club' and 'clubhouse'. In contrast, the Buddhists had separated these things e.g they didn't look for tax breaks on their building (even though it did accommodate a couple of people who'd have otherwise probably been homeless). It would be good if all religions (and maybe some other 'charities' were so scrupulous about taking taxpayers money, wouldn't it?

What do you think churches should be taxed on given that they don't make any profit?

Since their activities are all classified as charitable, why should they (along with independent schools) be single out as charities that should pay tax.

Paying VAT and not being able to claim tax back on donations would simply mean that churches would have to do less mission work. For example, a church might have to lose its student worker which would be a huge loss to that needy community.

The outreach and social work carried out by churches would have to fall to local councils, the police, university authorities etc. It's very short-sighted to say the churches should be taxes.

It costs us very little to run our services. It's everything else we do that needs funding.

Perhaps they could put all the money they don't pay in taxes to use. Or charge people admittance.

I hate the church though so I'm bias.

Believe me, every penny of gift aid is put to good use.

Charging admission? Refer to post #1.

But they do put their money to good use. Food banks, night shelters, giving to third world countries. The list is endless.....

There is a great deal of ignorance on this thread.

Independent schools probably shouldn't be totally tax exempt either, where they are only serving their 'clients'.

If the Buddhists managed to distinguish internal and external activities, then evidently it is possible. And what you classify as 'good use' ... not all taxpayers would agree that the 'mission' of the church is good.

I'd prefer the money did go to social services etc.

Night shelters and food banks are not good use

What on earth are you talking about, Errol?

What are internal and external activities? How are we not distinguishing or reporting them?

The Buddhists are really quite insignificant in the majority of parishes. They are well below the radar screen, so any mention of them is just to muddy the waters.

Night shelters and food banks are not good use

Sure, they're good (though there are questions about how organisations such as the Trussell Trust operate....) - some of what the church does deserves tax breaks, as I've clearly said. But does everything?

I used to be a Christian- it was a lovely church which did do some good work, but in all honesty a lot of it was a pleasant social club and the worship could have been done in a simple multipurpose building (as many are, of necessity, moving towards).

I'm a Catholic and you are not charged for wanting to pray. You are charged for visiting a historical building, like any other building. Most churches are locked now because of theft and vandalism. Stop bashing the church. Churches all over the country do a lot of fundraising for the poor and dying in other countries. As well as work in this country. How are your clothes made? Where is your phone made? Sweatshop or a factory in China. My local church shut down recently because they couldn't afford the £500,000 repair costs. Did the Vatican stump up the money, not a chance. That is ridiculous. Why shouldn't you pay for a building you chose to visit.

The number of Buddhists is irrelevant, its the fact this demonstrated that it was possible for them to discern what was of benefit to the community versus what was for their own benefit that is illuminating. And the fact that they had the ethical integrity to make this distinction.

It would be good if this applied to all organisations claiming charitable status, not just religions, of course.