Church Admission Fee

[jimrob]

I understand that some of the more famous churches and cathedrals in the UK, especially in London (St. Paul’s, Westminster Abbey) now charge admission to deter groups of tourists being herded in as part of their tour of Europe. It was felt that they were just ticking off the sights with no real interest or idea how to behave, and spoiling the experience for others.

I don’t know how much of a deterrent charging is, actually, as presumably it would just be included in the cost of the trip.

It is true that many of the Anglican Cathedrals and Westminster Abbey have an admission charge. You can’t even enter the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral without paying to go through the turnstile. Catholics have been encouraged to refuse to pay to enter those Anglican buildings that were once Catholic churches - yet our own churches in many parts of the world charge us to enter.

Tour parties come in on a group ticket which includes the guide and the coach fare. I can see no problem with churches charging commercial organisations a fee for the use of the building, in the same way as we charge for weddings etc. However, if those individuals want to make a private visit without being part of an organsed trip, they should not be charged.

When Venice was flooded in the 1960s, an international appeal was made and many millions of pounds were raised in the UK and USA. There is no turnstile on the Via Libertá. I am sure that the faithful and the less faithful world would rally to the support of the world’s great churches if they were ever at risk.

My Father’s house was a house of prayer, but you have made it into a tourist trap.

 

[AuntyP]

My Father’s house was a house of prayer, but you have made it into a tourist trap.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments about having to pay to pray, I think the above sentiment is a little harsh. As I see it, there’s no one size fits all solution. Take Malta for example. It’s a tiny country with lots of ornate churches that must cost a fortune to maintain. If the Catholic Church in Malta were to decide they could use smaller, cheaper buildings, they would need money to build or buy those buildings. Maybe they could get the funds by selling the old churches, but could they? Who would buy them if not the Maltese government? Governments are not too fond of laying out money for high maintenance buildings.

There must be a practical solution but I’m not so sure that simply vacating and de-sanctifying (I’m sure that’s not the correct term) the churches is the ideal solution.

 

[jimrob]

Whilst I agree with your sentiments about having to pay to pray, I think the above sentiment is a little harsh. As I see it, there’s no one size fits all solution. Take Malta for example. It’s a tiny country with lots of ornate churches that must cost a fortune to maintain. If the Catholic Church in Malta were to decide they could use smaller, cheaper buildings, they would need money to build or buy those buildings. Maybe they could get the funds by selling the old churches, but could they? Who would buy them if not the Maltese government? Governments are not too fond of laying out money for high maintenance buildings.

Malta has a population of over 400,000 of whom 93.7% are Catholic. Catholicism is recognised as the State Religion. The GDP of Malta is just short of $9 billion. Malta is far better placed to maintain its churches than most of the countries in Europe.

 

[Vincent1984]

We need to decide which of our buildings are for liturgical use and which are tourist attractions. We can then decommission those that are principally museums and sell the buildings to the local authority to use as a cash cow. I’d have no objections to being charged to enter a decommissioned church.

Could not disagree more. The Church intends a church building to be dedicated in perpetuity. Closing a church building requires a grave cause; a much higher bar than (say) merging parishes. The example given in canon 1222 is if “a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship and there is no possibility of repairing it;” saving a bit of money or keeping tourists away does not come close. I think you do not appreciate how closely our liturgical worship is tied to the consecrated edifices built to to glory of God and intended to house that worship.

I always feel that a decommissioned church is a tragedy. It’s a bit like a divorce. In very rare circumstances it may be among the least bad options, but no-one should be eager for it.

 

[jimrob]

Could not disagree more. The Church intends a church building to be dedicated in perpetuity. Closing a church building requires a grave cause; a much higher bar than (say) merging parishes. The example given in canon 1222 is if “a church cannot be used in any way for divine worship and there is no possibility of repairing it;” saving a bit of money or keeping tourists away does not come close. I think you do not appreciate how closely our liturgical worship is tied to the consecrated edifices built to to glory of God and intended to house that worship.

I always feel that a decommissioned church is a tragedy. It’s a bit like a divorce. In very rare circumstances it may be among the least bad options, but no-one should be eager for it.

There a a number of decommissioned churches in Italy, used as concert halls and museums and I have no problems paying an entrance charge.

The purpose of a church or any sacred place is for divine worship. Running it as a tourist attraction - with early morning mass as a sideline - hardly complies with Canon 1210 even if the Ordinary is allowed to change the rules. My objection is about charging and paying to enter a church. If it can no longer be maintained as a full time church, it should be decommissioned, not funded by entrance charges.

I find it difficult to see a difference between putting a turnstile at the entrance to a church and selling indulgences.

 

[liturgyluver]

There a a number of decommissioned churches in Italy, used as concert halls and museums and I have no problems paying an entrance charge.

The purpose of a church or any sacred place is for divine worship. Running it as a tourist attraction - with early morning mass as a sideline - hardly complies with Canon 1210 even if the Ordinary is allowed to change the rules. My objection is about charging and paying to enter a church. If it can no longer be maintained as a full time church, it should be decommissioned, not funded by entrance charges.

I find it difficult to see a difference between putting a turnstile at the entrance to a church and selling indulgences.

Many of the great Cathedrals in Europe are able to provide a dual role - having a loyal and supportive cathedral community who attend daily mass and office supported by great choral traditions, supplemented by visitors who worship alongside them both on Sundays and for daily worship. Equally vistors get a first-hand opportunity to visit and admire a sacred space, find out about the history of the church, and contribute to the upkeep of the building. Many people have their first spiritual experiences when visiting a cathedral and being drawn into the beauty of prayer and choral music.

As for the point about indulgences, this is completely irrelevant. No cathedral would charge admission to attend services, this is limited to the time when the building is not being used for divine worship, and last time I visited a cathedral I wasn’t given any kind of absolution!.

 

[jimrob]

Many of the great Cathedrals in Europe are able to provide a dual role - having a loyal and supportive cathedral community who attend daily mass and office supported by great choral traditions, supplemented by visitors who worship alongside them both on Sundays and for daily worship. Equally vistors get a first-hand opportunity to visit and admire a sacred space, find out about the history of the church, and contribute to the upkeep of the building. Many people have their first spiritual experiences when visiting a cathedral and being drawn into the beauty of prayer and choral music.

As for the point about indulgences, this is completely irrelevant. No cathedral would charge admission to attend services, this is limited to the time when the building is not being used for divine worship, and last time I visited a cathedral I wasn’t given any kind of absolution!.

If only this were the case in all Cathedrals. It’s hardly a first hand opportunity to obtain a spiritual experience if it cost you €10 to pass the door. Daily Mass typically takes place at 8:00am to avoid conflicting with the paying public. This is commercialism, not spirituality.

A few years ago, I performed the Roman pilgrimage on my own, visiting all 5 major and 7 minor basilicas, carefully timing my visits to attend Mass as far as possible, and saying the prescribed prayers for a Plenary Indulgence. If any of the churches had imposed an entrance fee, I would have been nailing my treatises to the door.

 

[liturgyluver]

If only this were the case in all Cathedrals. It’s hardly a first hand opportunity to obtain a spiritual experience if it cost you €10 to pass the door. Daily Mass typically takes place at 8:00am to avoid conflicting with the paying public. This is commercialism, not spirituality.

A few years ago, I performed the Roman pilgrimage on my own, visiting all 5 major and 7 minor basilicas, carefully timing my visits to attend Mass as far as possible, and saying the prescribed prayers for a Plenary Indulgence. If any of the churches had imposed an entrance fee, I would have been nailing my treatises to the door.

The point is that you don’t need to pay to attend a service. All cathedrals are open to all on Sundays, and, alongside those that don’t charge, the main services are held towards the end of the day - eg Westminster Cathedral has Choral Vespers at 5pm and Solemn Mass at 5.30pm sung by the choir, and the Anglican cathedrals have Evensong or Eucharist at 5pm. You don’t have to pay either to attend the midday Eucharist.

 

[jimrob]

The point is that you don’t need to pay to attend a service. All cathedrals are open to all on Sundays, and, alongside those that don’t charge, the main services are held towards the end of the day - eg Westminster Cathedral has Choral Vespers at 5pm and Solemn Mass at 5.30pm sung by the choir, and the Anglican cathedrals have Evensong or Eucharist at 5pm. You don’t have to pay either to attend the midday Eucharist.

What started me on this thread us that there is a charge to enter the Cathedral in Sienna on Sundays. There is no charge to attend Masses in the Cathedral, early in the morning and in the evening. Later in the morning, Mass is at other churches in the city, leaving the Cathedral for paying visitors. To my mind, this is an abuse. The Archbishop of Siena apparently thinks otherwise.

 

[liturgyluver]

What started me on this thread us that there is a charge to enter the Cathedral in Sienna on Sundays. There is no charge to attend Masses in the Cathedral, early in the morning and in the evening. Later in the morning, Mass is at other churches in the city, leaving the Cathedral for paying visitors. To my mind, this is an abuse. The Archbishop of Siena apparently thinks otherwise.

Well in that case I agree with you. It is wrong to charge admission on a Sunday and to sideline mass in the way described. That is the day when the Cathedral should be holding more services, not less, and welcoming all within its doors to worship. All the English Cathedrals - Catholic and Anglican - hold at least 6 services on a Sunday spread throughout the day to which all are welcome.

 

[jimrob]

I’ve now discovered that as an elderly EU citizen, I can join the queue at the ticket office, show my passport and get a free ticket to Siena Cathedral. I’ve yet to decide whether that makes things better or worse.

 

[Vincent1984]

Later in the morning, Mass is at other churches in the city, leaving the Cathedral for paying visitors.

You have said a few times that you think Masses are pushed to inconvenient times, to get the paying crowd later in the day.

I wonder if there might be an alternative explanation. Perhaps the Mass is put to a time when there won’t be tourists, in order to avoid disturbing Mass with throngs of disinterested holidaymakers oohing and aahing around the church, oblivious to the sacred action taking place on the sanctuary.

 

[malphono]

You have said a few times that you think Masses are pushed to inconvenient times, to get the paying crowd later in the day.

I wonder if there might be an alternative explanation. Perhaps the Mass is put to a time when there won’t be tourists, in order to avoid disturbing Mass with throngs of disinterested holidaymakers oohing and aahing around the church, oblivious to the sacred action taking place on the sanctuary.

Good point. And perhaps, too, they might be trying to keep a certain element of tradition: it was for many centuries the case that Masses were early, and always before noon. Often, (and particularly in Europe more so than in the US), the principal Mass of the day, aka the Parochial Mass, (and which was usually a Missa Cantata if not a Missa Solemnis) was one of, if not, the first. Either way (or both ways) it leaves the church or cathedral, as the case may be, essentially unused for the rest of the day except, perhaps, for Vespers.

 

[bben15]

Are they charging you a fee to attend Mass, or are they charging you a fee to look around the church? There is a difference between coming there as a tourist and coming there as a parishioner.

 

[jimrob]

We live in a world where making money is seen as a legitimate Church activity. Christ’s message of love and inclusiveness takes second place to financial expediency. People want to come and look at “our” church, so let’s put a turnstile on the door. No wonder the Catholic Church is seen by outsiders as an excuse for making money. Whatever happened to the concept that the church buildings belonged to God and that all are welcome? Differentiating between “parishioners” and “tourists” is not a feature of Christ’s Universal Church.

The love of money is the root of all evil.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

The last time I was in southern Germany, the only churches that charged admission outside of Sunday services were the Lutherans. Catholic churches in that area were always open to the public, including the cathedrals.

 

[jimrob]

I see from the Siena Tourist Office site that the Cathedral is on their list of museums. (That’s in addition to the exhibition in the crypt and the diocesan museum next door). Fair enough - but the appropriate place for reserving the Blessed Sacrament and maintaining the Archbishop’s chair is a church - not a museum that charges for entry.

 

[canis73]

First time I hear of such thing as an admission fee and I visited hundreds of churches in several countries. Hope is not a trend, just doesn´t feel right, even though I can understand the point made regarding security cost.

 

[Allegra]

The Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal does charge an entrance fee, but you are not required to pay it if you’re going there for prayer, Holy Mass, or receive the sacraments. I showed up at the entrance and the employee let me in for free since I told her I was there for confession. You can show up with a missal and rosary beads to appear more credible .

I’ve been there before and I wasn’t charged. I didn’t take a tour though. I just went in for a while and prayed in the pew. I’ve never paid simply to go into any Church, however, I can see paying for a guided tour or to see a concert or something. Our local basilica has several free guided tours every day.

 

[ServantPD]

There are people than under-value cathedrals to pure art museums, and there are people that give churches their rightful value for prayer and receive the sacraments and what not. It’s normally usual to fee the first and let the second go for free.

Tourists are more dangerous than you might think, especially when they are not just there to stare at the art for decoration, are having stuff out there saying that churches have secret passages. Not that they don’t exist or anything (as an acolyte, I know a couple in my own church), but there’s the consequence that one is lacking respect for the house of the Lord when doing such non-worshipping things where they don’t belong (grab your rope whips, everyone! ), and may be breaking a bit of privacy to who works/lives there.

Placing fees discourages that, lets the art remain well conserved by restoration and may put security in place for the benefit of everyone, as long as they allow the faithful from going into the church to speak with Our Boss.