I read through this news item, not that interested in the carry-on of the man, who just seemed to want a row.
news.sky.com/story/pensioner-attacks-female-chaplain-in-row-about-crazy-golf-at-cathedral-11801947
But my eyebrows rose a bit when I got to the charge, and what he pleaded guilty to 
Mr Feeney pleaded guilty to engaging in riotous, violent or indecent behaviour in a church, chapel or churchyard under the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act 1860.
Is it me, or is the cathedral pulling a bit of a fast one? "We're entitled to use the cathedral for Crazy Golf, but if you object you'll be charged because it's a church." Why not just charge him with violent behaviour? It smacks of 'it's not a church if we want to put Crazy Golf in it, but it's a church if you kick up a stink about the Crazy Golf".
Am I being unfair? In the interests of full disclosure, I have no interest in religion, don't believe in anything.