Is it right for some cathedrals or basilicas to charge money for entry?

[CmGuy89]

One of the arguments I’ve heard for the grandness of various churches and basilicas (besides giving glory to God and serving as an appropriate home for Jesus in the Tabernacle) is that the treasury of art there is free for everyone to appreciate. While museums and individuals may hoard art treasures to make a profit, the treasures under the Catholic Church are for all to enjoy.

Yet there are some famous grand churches that charge money for entry outside of Mass. I find this rather questionable, as it not only makes it difficult for the faithful to pray there, but also discourages those curious about our faith to enter. Traditional churches are designed with imposing facades and mysterious narthexes to draw people in to an otherworldly building, and the “journey” from the narthex to the altar symbolizes the sanctification of the soul as it draws closer to the Divine Eucharist and away from the outside world. Art in churches are supposed to both glorify God and evangelize. However this would be effectively shut off if payment was required for entry.

Another similar peeve I have, is the prohibition of photographs in some churches, even outside of Mass and events, only to have photos sold as postcards or other material in the parish bookstore. I guess there might be a stronger justification for this, although I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it.

Please do correct me if I’m wrong, and perhaps you could enlighten me on the reasons some churches do this.

 

[twopekinguys]

I have never heard of this. Could you provide an example or two?

In the mean time, I think you might have a Catch 22 on your hands.

If you open the Church, and have a large influx of “toursists” wandering about, you need security, lighting, cooling, staff, etc. in order to safeguard the art. That isn’t free. Money for these things has to come from somewhere.

Also, if you open it up for tourists to wander about, then those people who come there to pray won’t have a very serene environment, and it will be hard for them to stay focused.

Tourists today aren’t nearly as respectful as they were 10, 15, or 20 years ago. Many feel like, “I paid my fee, I’ll talk if I want.”

So, if you open it up for only the faithful to pray, you’re excluding tourists. If you open it up for tourism, you’re excluding the faithful.

See what I mean?

 

[CmGuy89]

I have never heard of this. Could you provide an example or two?

In the mean time, I think you might have a Catch 22 on your hands.

If you open the Church, and have a large influx of “toursists” wandering about, you need security, lighting, cooling, staff, etc. in order to safeguard the art. That isn’t free. Money for these things has to come from somewhere.

Also, if you open it up for tourists to wander about, then those people who come there to pray won’t have a very serene environment, and it will be hard for them to stay focused.

Tourists today aren’t nearly as respectful as they were 10, 15, or 20 years ago. Many feel like, “I paid my fee, I’ll talk if I want.”

So, if you open it up for only the faithful to pray, you’re excluding tourists. If you open it up for tourism, you’re excluding the faithful.

See what I mean?

I have thought about that and I guess it does make sense on a logical level. I’m still not so sure if it’s justified or not. A lot of large churches also use this argument to move the tabernacle to the side for private prayer for the faithful, and while I can understand this, I’m still not so sure if it’s wise.

One specific example was my friend (a non-Catholic) saying she didn’t want to go into the Basilique du Sacré Coeur in Paris because she had to pay. Another (this time, a Catholic deacon) mentioned a basilica in Italy (I can’t remember which) that he and his pilgrimage group had to pay to get entry. However, I realize that these are third party examples so they may be incomplete accounts.

 

[starryheart]

I know there’s one in Canada that has this… we went there once… I can’t remember the name … I think Notre Dame… anyways I don’t like that. It become a tourist trap. I understand if you want to see churches and admire them, but it seemed like it was a less reverent church. Everyone was talking and walking around. If you’re there for prayer you may be easily distracted.

I know the churches do it for income, but it doesn’t seem right to me. It’s as if you’re paying to visit Jesus.

 

[jilly4ski]

hmm when I visited the Cathedral in kohn (Colonge) entry was free. You only had to pay if you wanted to climb the famous bell tower (which I was happy to do to help support the Church, they are constantly doing work on the building to keep it in working order). However, even there the atmosphere was loud and rowdy because of the many tourists packing the church.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I know there’s one in Canada that has this… we went there once… I can’t remember the name … I think Notre Dame… anyways I don’t like that. It become a tourist trap. I understand if you want to see churches and admire them, but it seemed like it was a less reverent church. Everyone was talking and walking around. If you’re there for prayer you may be easily distracted.

I know the churches do it for income, but it doesn’t seem right to me. It’s as if you’re paying to visit Jesus.

Well, Notre Dame in Paris doesn’t charge, and there is still a noisy and irreverent atmosphere inside. In fact, tourists will stand on the edge of the sanctuary and take PHOTOS of the Mass being celebrated!!! It’s like being the favorite display at the zoo. Last time I was there I confronted one group of tourists and pointed at the sign, “Please be quiet! Worship is taking place!” They seemed shocked but were talking LOUDLY all the way through the cathedral.

 

[Soler]

I have thought about that and I guess it does make sense on a logical level. I’m still not so sure if it’s justified or not. A lot of large churches also use this argument to move the tabernacle to the side for private prayer for the faithful, and while I can understand this, I’m still not so sure if it’s wise.

One specific example was my friend (a non-Catholic) saying she didn’t want to go into the Basilique du Sacré Coeur in Paris because she had to pay. Another (this time, a Catholic deacon) mentioned a basilica in Italy (I can’t remember which) that he and his pilgrimage group had to pay to get entry. However, I realize that these are third party examples so they may be incomplete accounts.

You have to pay to ascend the dome or enter the crypt of the Sacré-Coeur, but access to the main body of the church is free.

 

[CmGuy89]

Well, Notre Dame in Paris doesn’t charge, and there is still a noisy and irreverent atmosphere inside. In fact, tourists will stand on the edge of the sanctuary and take PHOTOS of the Mass being celebrated!!! It’s like being the favorite display at the zoo. Last time I was there I confronted one group of tourists and pointed at the sign, “Please be quiet! Worship is taking place!” They seemed shocked but were talking LOUDLY all the way through the cathedral.

I think in such cases tourists can reasonably be asked to leave during Mass. I went to the cathedral in Savannah, Georgia, USA, and we were politely asked to leave if we weren’t attending Mass, and that we could re-enter after Mass. That would make sense.

You have to pay to ascend the dome or enter the crypt of the Sacré-Coeur, but access to the main body of the church is free.

I guess I didn’t get the full story. It could also be possible that there might be a third-party scammer.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think in such cases tourists can reasonably be asked to leave during Mass. I went to the cathedral in Savannah, Georgia, USA, and we were politely asked to leave if we weren’t attending Mass, and that we could re-enter after Mass. That would make sense.

I guess I didn’t get the full story. It could also be possible that there might be a third-party scammer.

I think that is a wonderful idea, but unfortunately Notre Dame has no enforcement, either of the photography ban or the noise ban. Of course, tourists could just pretend to go to Mass and still gawk, but they probably wouldn’t have the nerve to take photos during the celebration.

St. Paul’s (C of E) in London charges to climb up to the Whispering Gallery and the next 2 levels of the spire.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

One of the arguments I’ve heard for the grandness of various churches and basilicas (besides giving glory to God and serving as an appropriate home for Jesus in the Tabernacle) is that the treasury of art there is free for everyone to appreciate. While museums and individuals may hoard art treasures to make a profit, the treasures under the Catholic Church are for all to enjoy.

Yet there are some famous grand churches that charge money for entry outside of Mass. I find this rather questionable, as it not only makes it difficult for the faithful to pray there, but also discourages those curious about our faith to enter. Traditional churches are designed with imposing facades and mysterious narthexes to draw people in to an otherworldly building, and the “journey” from the narthex to the altar symbolizes the sanctification of the soul as it draws closer to the Divine Eucharist and away from the outside world. Art in churches are supposed to both glorify God and evangelize. However this would be effectively shut off if payment was required for entry.

Another similar peeve I have, is the prohibition of photographs in some churches, even outside of Mass and events, only to have photos sold as postcards or other material in the parish bookstore. I guess there might be a stronger justification for this, although I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it.

Please do correct me if I’m wrong, and perhaps you could enlighten me on the reasons some churches do this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If the Church would normally be closed outside of times of various ecclisiastical celebrations, then charging for admission makes sense. Someone has to pay the extra utility, maintenance, and protection costs.

On the other hand if the Church is normally open during the daytime there should be no cost.

Always, in either case, the Church should enforce proper decorum.

 

[triumphguy]

Ancient Churches and Cathedrals take a great deal of money to support them.

So if you are just going to such a place as a tourist I think you should pay. However, if you are going to pray or attend a service then tell the people at the door and they will usually let you in for free.

 

[bilop]

One of the arguments I’ve heard for the grandness of various churches and basilicas (besides giving glory to God and serving as an appropriate home for Jesus in the Tabernacle) is that the treasury of art there is free for everyone to appreciate. While museums and individuals may hoard art treasures to make a profit, the treasures under the Catholic Church are for all to enjoy.

Yet there are some famous grand churches that charge money for entry outside of Mass. I find this rather questionable, as it not only makes it difficult for the faithful to pray there, but also discourages those curious about our faith to enter. Traditional churches are designed with imposing facades and mysterious narthexes to draw people in to an otherworldly building, and the “journey” from the narthex to the altar symbolizes the sanctification of the soul as it draws closer to the Divine Eucharist and away from the outside world. Art in churches are supposed to both glorify God and evangelize. However this would be effectively shut off if payment was required for entry.

Another similar peeve I have, is the prohibition of photographs in some churches, even outside of Mass and events, only to have photos sold as postcards or other material in the parish bookstore. I guess there might be a stronger justification for this, although I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it.

Please do correct me if I’m wrong, and perhaps you could enlighten me on the reasons some churches do this.

I think it makes sense.

As long as there’s free admission for Mass, confession, and a chapel to pray, tourists should be made to help support the maintenance.

God Bless

 

[peter26]

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
Matthew 21 12-13

That’s a pretty strong condemnation of “temple taxes” in my view. Of course, asking for voluntary donations is one thing. But actually charging for admission to a church is wrong.

 

[mikae746]

Ph?n m?m g?i tin nh?n yahoo online vÃ* offline hÃ*ng lo?t

Luu ý :
**Ph?n m?m g?i tin nh?n t?i yahoo dang online ho?c offline **
G?i 1 l?n 100-150 nick
D?i nick khác g?i ti?p t?c cách nhau 30 phút yahoo qui d?nh 1 IP
Ki?m tra nick yahoo xem g?i du?c không r?i m?i dang nh?p vÃ*o ph?n m?m
Khi có d?u hi?u không g?i du?c vui lòng thêm proxy tru?c khi g?i
[](http://www.mediafire.com/?07z7d72pakj4m33)
Luu ý :
**Ph?n m?m g?i tin nh?n t?i yahoo dang online ho?c offline **
G?i 1 l?n 100-150 nick
D?i nick khác g?i ti?p t?c cách nhau 30 phút yahoo qui d?nh 1 IP
Ki?m tra nick yahoo xem g?i du?c không r?i m?i dang nh?p vÃ*o ph?n m?m
Khi có d?u hi?u không g?i du?c vui lòng thêm proxy tru?c khi g?i
[](http://www.mediafire.com/?07z7d72pakj4m33) [bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278http://www.bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278](http://www.bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278http://www.bygsunflower.net/mod/pdetail/pid/108278)
phan mem dang tin,ph?n m?m dang tin,ph?n m?m seo,phan mem seo,ph?n m?m dang tin 2013,phan mem dang tin 2013

 

[bilop]

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
Matthew 21 12-13

That’s a pretty strong condemnation of “temple taxes” in my view. Of course, asking for voluntary donations is one thing. But actually charging for admission to a church is wrong.

Except they don’t charge for access for Mass, confession, or prayer. That’s always free.

They charge for people who want to walk around and gawk as tourists.

God Bless

 

[Patti_RCIA]

Another similar peeve I have, is the prohibition of photographs in some churches, even outside of Mass and events, only to have photos sold as postcards or other material in the parish bookstore. I guess there might be a stronger justification for this, although I can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint it.

Please do correct me if I’m wrong, and perhaps you could enlighten me on the reasons some churches do this.

The first time I heard anything like this was about 25 years ago when I went to the Sam Butler “Precious Moments” chapel (this is a Christian chapel near Carthage, MO) and we were told we couldn’t take photos but they sold postcards in the bookstore. The reasoning for this is that flash photography depredates the finish of the artwork.

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

I came across this when I was on my honeymoon in Malta. Many of the churches there are beautiful, ornate and highyt decorated with sacred art. But the Cathederal charged money to enter. It was exceptionally beautiful, but it felt wrong to pay to go in and pray. I would have happily given money if they had suggested a donation. I was saddened that some people were turned away because they couldn’t afford the fee. I don’t know about the official stance on this subject, but I feel it turnes a house of worship, that should be free for all, into a museum at best, and into a money making scheme at the worst. Our Lord chased people out of the temple when they turned His Father’s house into a market. I don’t see why he would view this any differently.