Is charging a fee to enter historical churches simony?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maeglin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maeglin

Guest
I recently returned from a beautiful trip to Italy. It was a wonderful trip, but one aspect of it really bothered me. While there, I visited and prayed in many of the churches in Rome, Florence, Venice, Pisa, and Sienna. The thing that greatly shocked me was that the notable cathedrals and churches charge nominal entrance fees of 2-6 euros.

Not all the notable churches do this - the major basillicas (St. Peter’s, St. Mary Major, St. Pauls, and St. John at the Lateran) do not. But some of the cathedrals outside Rome were pretty bad about this. In fact, St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice nickel and dimed you for any thing you wanted to see. They let you in free (although most of the church was blocked off with waist high barricades and I couldn’t see any place to kneel or sit and pray). Unfortunately they charged for everything else. A trip to the altar to see the relics and burial spot of St. Mark cost a few euro extra. Want a trip to the dome? That’s a few more Euro. How about the side chapel with some religious art? It’s all yours for two more Euro. In fact, the cathedral at Sienna was charging to use the bathroom.

I got angry at the first few churches I saw and refused to pay for any of this. As a result, I missed out on entering a couple of the churches and didn’t see any of the domes or extra chapels that charged entrance fees. Paying for these things seemed like simony. The other sad part is that the churches I could visit were swamped with tourists looking at art and there didn’t seem to be much prayer or respect. My wife sadly noted that perhaps this was the future of the church in the West - gorgeous buildings abandoned by the faithful and treated like museums of art.

At the end of my trip, I did break down and pay six euro to enter the Cathedral at Pisa and look around and pray with my wife. By that point, I convinced myself that perhaps collecting small entrance fees makes sense since tourists like myself cause a lot of wear and tear on the buildings and create a need for extra security. It makes sense from that perspective, but paying to enter the church felt wrong. I wish they had simply asked for voluntary contributions.

Does anyone think it’s justifiable for popular churches to charge enterance fees during non-mass hours? Or did I participate in simony by paying a fee to pray in the cathedral at Pisa and enjoy its beauty?
 
Things must have change since I was last in Italy.

I’m guessing that these fees were to enter outside of Mass times?
 
Yes, this is true. I believe you could enter for free during mass times although I was warned that if they didn’t see you worshipping you would be asked to leave. I attended mass at the major basillicas and once in a normal parish church in Florence, so I never saw this for myself.

Charging to enter during mass times would be clear simony in my mind. What I experienced seems to be more of a grey area.
 
As a fee, it would be a donation for the upkeep of the historic churches. This should be made clear at the site

newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm

"(From Simon Magus; Acts 8:18-24)

Simony is usually defined “a deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of annexed unto spirituals”. While this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simoniacal. Nor is the giving of the temporal as the price of the spiritual required for the existence of simony; according to a proposition condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger-Bannwart, no. 1195) it suffices that the determining motive of the action of one party be the obtaining of compensation from the other."
 
I can see how defraying the cost of visiting makes sense during non-mass hours. What about charging to see the relics? St. Mark’s in Venice charged to enter the treasury which houses relics of the saints along with other art work. The treasury is a side room in the cathedral. I have no idea if it is possible to pray in front of the relics during worship hours.
 
As a result, I missed out on entering a couple of the churches and didn’t see any of the domes or extra chapels that charged entrance fees. Paying for these things seemed like simony. The other sad part is that the churches I could visit were swamped with tourists looking at art and there didn’t seem to be much prayer or respect.
So were you there to worship, or were you there to gawk at the art like the other tourists?

If you were there to worship, why would it bother you to help with the cost of maintenance? Surely you had other places in which you could worship for free, so its not as if you were being charged for worship itself.
 
I can see how defraying the cost of visiting makes sense during non-mass hours. What about charging to see the relics? St. Mark’s in Venice charged to enter the treasury which houses relics of the saints along with other art work. The treasury is a side room in the cathedral. I have no idea if it is possible to pray in front of the relics during worship hours.
Again, no.
 
It is not simony because climbing domes, visiting relics, etc, are not part of worship. These are tourist activities, and because the extra bodies in tourism add to the cost of maintenance, said bodies are asked to defray that cost. Particularly since in churches as old as San Marco in Venice, any maintenance will be astronomical in cost.

It would be simony if they charged to go to Mass, which they do not.

It’s not just Italy. Saint Paul’s, London and Notre Dame de Paris have charged for tourist access since before the turn of the century.

ICXC NIKA
 
6E, however, does sound quite steep. But having gone all that way, I’d not have let it stop me.

ICXC NIKA
 
So you paid probably several thousand $$ for airfair for you and your wife, likely several hundred (if not thousand) for various hotel rooms, several hundred for food, but refused to pay a few euro to actually see the notable cathedrals, domes and sites of Italy? Seems penny wise, pound foolish to me. 🤷
 
Simony, I don’t think so, as long as they weren’t charging to attend mass, receive sacraments, etc. Also if they charged money for something that was specifically indulgenced I would be concerned, even if it wasn’t technically the indulgence that was being sold.

Is it in bad taste? In my opinion, yes. I understand their desire to make money to be able to be able to maintain these old buildings and so forth, but it shouldn’t be at the cost of the spiritual value of the church. Maybe charge money to do something silly like climb to the top of a tall tower, but not to approach the alter or relics or functional religious art.

When I was in Russia I don’t recall being charged money to go into the big cathedrals and monasteries we visited, but we had to be dressed properly (including women covering their heads), be quite and respectful of the worshipers there, not take any pictures, in general not act like rude Americans. I thought it was a pretty good policy.
 
I recently returned from a beautiful trip to Italy. It was a wonderful trip, but one aspect of it really bothered me. While there, I visited and prayed in many of the churches in Rome, Florence, Venice, Pisa, and Sienna. The thing that greatly shocked me was that the notable cathedrals and churches charge nominal entrance fees of 2-6 euros.

Not all the notable churches do this - the major basillicas (St. Peter’s, St. Mary Major, St. Pauls, and St. John at the Lateran) do not. But some of the cathedrals outside Rome were pretty bad about this. In fact, St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice nickel and dimed you for any thing you wanted to see. They let you in free (although most of the church was blocked off with waist high barricades and I couldn’t see any place to kneel or sit and pray). Unfortunately they charged for everything else. A trip to the altar to see the relics and burial spot of St. Mark cost a few euro extra. Want a trip to the dome? That’s a few more Euro. How about the side chapel with some religious art? It’s all yours for two more Euro. In fact, the cathedral at Sienna was charging to use the bathroom.

I got angry at the first few churches I saw and refused to pay for any of this. As a result, I missed out on entering a couple of the churches and didn’t see any of the domes or extra chapels that charged entrance fees. Paying for these things seemed like simony. The other sad part is that the churches I could visit were swamped with tourists looking at art and there didn’t seem to be much prayer or respect. My wife sadly noted that perhaps this was the future of the church in the West - gorgeous buildings abandoned by the faithful and treated like museums of art.

At the end of my trip, I did break down and pay six euro to enter the Cathedral at Pisa and look around and pray with my wife. By that point, I convinced myself that perhaps collecting small entrance fees makes sense since tourists like myself cause a lot of wear and tear on the buildings and create a need for extra security. It makes sense from that perspective, but paying to enter the church felt wrong. I wish they had simply asked for voluntary contributions.

Does anyone think it’s justifiable for popular churches to charge enterance fees during non-mass hours? Or did I participate in simony by paying a fee to pray in the cathedral at Pisa and enjoy its beauty?
No it is not simony.
 
Guys, give him a break. He seems like a very honest, faithful Catholic. You don’t need to criticize him to the point of bordering on uncharity, or give a one word answer without explanation in response to his questions.
 
yes that is simony. It happened to me in Montreal at Notre Dame.

You should not pay to go into a church. What if you have to go to Confession?
 
Find out when confessions take place and show up then. Most churches do not have full-time confession.

As I imagine that local worshippers are not charged, no one will charge you at the confession line. Bear in mind that in a foreign country, the priest might not speak your language (except in world shrines such as the Vatican).

Really, visiting a church as a tourist is a privilege, and charging for it is NOT simony. Unless the charge were egregiously high (20E or more) I’d not be too bothered. Some places (Oviedo Cathedral in Spain, when I was there) don’t even let visitors in, charge or no charge.

ICXC NIKA
 
yes that is simony. It happened to me in Montreal at Notre Dame.

You should not pay to go into a church. What if you have to go to Confession?
Charging admission to a tourist site is not simony.

From the Catechism:

2121 Simony is defined as the buying or selling of spiritual things. To Simon the magician, who wanted to buy the spiritual power he saw at work in the apostles, St. Peter responded: “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!” Peter thus held to the words of Jesus: “You received without pay, give without pay.” It is impossible to appropriate to oneself spiritual goods and behave toward them as their owner or master, for they have their source in God. One can receive them only from him, without payment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top