Should Churches Charge?

>...galls me when i have to pay to get into God's house! <

Since you are not there to worship, but only to gawk, I don't see why you should complain.

Another slow day at the office, PalQ?

As to a church being "God's house," here's a little joke. It's an oldie, so there's a good chance you've heard it before.

The parrish priest is walking through the village, and he comes upon Pierre working in his garden. The priest says, "My, Pierre, what a fine job you and God have done in that garden." Pierre responds, "Thank you, father, but you should have seen it when God had it to himself."

Ditto to what ira said.

Why should churches run tourist sites and venues for free? That's what they are under those circumstances. I'm sure voluntary donations are not adequate as a lot of people like you think they shouldn't have to pay because --- because why? YOu aren't going to a religious service.

Then let's not call it a church but label it a museum and deconsecrate it.

ditto to what ira says -it does not gall you to go gawp at God's house, but irks you to pay for the gawking?

It varies from country to country. Generally churches are open and free in France (and the property is controlled by the State), while churches in Spain were frequently closed, but free when open (the treasuries often have a museum charge in both countries). Churches in Venice charge a fee, except for St. Mark's, but not the one in Murano, while the churches in Bologna are free. It appears to depend on what the market will bear. I don't see it as a moral dilemma but I subscribe to Mitterand's reply when asked about his judgment day.

I assume they don't charge for attending a religious service so I don't see the big deal. If you want to view it as a museum, pay for it like a museum. If you want to attend a service, then go during a service and the view is secondary and free.

Heaven help me! I sound like some ogre but my point is that i do give a voluntary donation that is suggested and that i don't like mandatory - it's not that i don't believe in paying for what i see. See? Si?
Cow-girl Judy: It was a slow day at the office! Fodors should let folks retract postings - if there is a way let me know!

PalQ, it was naughty of me to make that remark about a slow day. Heck, it's a slow day for me too, otherwise why would I even open what was so obviously was a "slow day" thread?

Peace.

I believe some churchs charge "10%" to the members!!!

I'm going to channel one of my theology teachers from high school - Brother Jerome. (A very wise, very brilliant man who I didn't appreciate until talking with him at an alumni event a few years ago.)

Brother Jerome took a very practical view of Christianity and the Bible. His favorite theme was mixing religion with the reality of everyday life. I'm paraphrasing but he said something like "Just because the Lord will provide don't expect him to deliver takeout if you're hungry."

My point is this, a Church may be God's house, but God doesn't pay the light bill and the upkeep. If a church requires payment to help meet expenses and to fulfill its mission, then so be it.

A church charging people who view it like a musuem recognizes the reality of maintaining a high-traffic musuem. I doubt any reputable church would charge when it comes to a relgious service.

BTW, a church is simply a building. It isn't the religion it isn't the Parish. The community of people worshipping is a Church, the building is real estate.

I do not recall ever paying an entry fee for the sanctuary of a Catholic church (Notre Dame, St. Peter's, San Marco and countless others in Italy, Toledo cathedral), but only for extras such as an attached cloister, bell tower, or treasury. I was surprised, therefore, to be required to pay at the door of the protestant cathedrals in Dublin. I think the historic churches in Delft and Haarlem also required payment. However, since I am visiting them not as a worshipper I do not object to paying as I would at a museum.

A great deal of the major artwork in all of Europe stems from the churches. They were the ones with the money and could commission the work, so in a sense these churches certainly are museums. The easiest way out of all this is, if the church charges admission for you to go in and view and you object to that, then don't go in...or....go to the service, then it will be free.

The churches that charge will usually use at least some of that money for lighting, hiring attendants, and possibly heating, to make the art accessible. If you're lucky and they can afford it, they'll also use it for preservation and cleaning of the works of art. I don't have any problem with that, and I visit a LOT of churches for the art and architecture.

>>>>>>I do not recall ever paying an entry fee for the sanctuary of a Catholic church (Notre Dame, St. Peter's, San Marco and countless others in Italy, Toledo cathedral)<<<<<<

Matthias Church in Budapest charged an entrance fee for the main sanctuary in September 2004. It's a Roman Catholic church.

Another church that charged an entrance fee to the main sanctuary was one that faced onto the Old Town Square in Prague. I can't remember if it was Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

The Benedictine Abbey at Pannonhalma in Hungary charges for the excellent tour that it provides of its church and stupendous library. That perhaps is comparing apples with oranges, because one is not only seeing a church. However, one cannot gain access to the church without buying the whole package.

I don't mind in the least when churches charge entrance fees. I'm just observing that I have seen Catholic churches doing it.

Why not if you are treating the building as another museum? If you are not there to pray, hear Mass or use the building as a temple, but as a museum, then, by all means Church, charge away.

Thank you Ryan, and through you, Brother Jerome.

Re charging to enter the sanctuary at Catholic churches. The Frari in Venice has charged for quite a few years, and now a number of Venetian churches have begun charging a small amount.

If I were part of the diocese facing a dilemma like this, I'd favro a solution something like:

Free 6 to 8 am
Modest fee 8 to 9 am
Big fee, 9 am to sunset

Closed after sunset, except for events of a specific nature.

Best wishes,

Rex

I think it's safe to say that most churches in Europe face declining and aging congregations of regular parishioners. To expect those people to shoulder the burden of thousands of people tromping through their churches, bridling when someone objects to inappropriate dress in a house they hold sacred, talking loudly, with no respect for those there to pray.... Why on earth would I object if they ask me to subsidize some of the cost attendant with the wear and tear and disruption?

That said, it happens I've never been asked to pay to enter any church I've visited. For every tourist who might make a generous donation for the privilege of seeing such beauty, there are ten who won't give it a second thought if they take and don't give back.

I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that in Germany, the churches are subsidized by the government. It would make sense, in a way, because the German churches are phenomenal tourist attractions. However, folks would howl like banshees (as well they probably should) if a church in the US were subsidized, even if the church's value as a tourist attraction benefited the entire community financially.

I don't mind paying admission to a church or cathedral if I'm going as a tourist. Offering guided tours, audio guides, staff, maintaining gift/book shops, cafes, restrooms, etc... all costs money. Not to mention the upkeep of these historic buildings.

Even when attending a church service (anywhere in the world), there will be an offering plate passed around. The hard reality is churches need to stay in business, too.

Sorry PalQ -

The churches are not the houses of God. They're the houses of whatever religious organization owns them. And like any other organization they have the right to set their own rules. I fail to see any moral question here - other than that of someone trying to find a rationale for getting something for nothing.

(It reminds me of a friend who never wants to leave her share of the tip becuase she "only had the fruit cup" while everyone else ate more.)

I am of mixed emotions.

Yes, the church is being treated as a museum by the majority of the tourists and therefor should follow the custom of the country following admission of tourists.

But it is a house of worship.

Being familiar with the cost of upkeep of a church building itself and guessing the added cost of the the increased traffic I can understand the necessity.

Do you want the church to be clean? Free of dirt on the floors or trash? Do you want a plaque or brochure stating the history of the church? Do you want the structure intact or dilapidated? Sometimes voluntary donations are not enough to keep these old buildings in working condition. So to answer your question, yes I think it is ok to charge a fee if it helps maintain the church.

Agreed, charging is OK; i'm convinced. I always pay the voluntary fees and of course the mandatory ones if i want to go in. I have no problem with it even though charging to get into a church somehow doesn't seem right. In France all Catholic churches i believe are state property, since the Revolution, and upkeep is paid by state and thus all are free it seems for the main worshipping part. Anyway i agree, charging is OK for the many reasons posted here.

"Should Churches Charge?" If it served to discourage disrespectful tourists from entering, yes. I think the worst job in all of Paris is trying to enforce the no photography policy of Sacre Coeur.

And you are right, Mary Fran. I was sadly surprised to read recently that pastors in (at least) Lutheran churches in Germany are state employees.

I would and will gladly pay a fee to visit a church if the payment keeps out anyone who balks at "paying £$% to look at some old church." Not you PalQ (you've already made your distinction at donation v fee) but for those who have no respect or understanding of the religious AND historical significance of the place.

BUT I will admit I felt similar emotions as PALQ when asked to pay a photography/camera fee at a church in the UK. Upon reflection;that fee does make a lot of sense to me. -Camera toting tourist treating building as museum? Please pay a nominal fee.

NO.NO. The Vatican does not charge. The idea of paying to go into a church goes against the one of the princeples of the Christain faith. Always shocks me. What are they, places of worship or place to make money.
Richard
http://www.franceinfocus.net

do you really think that the churches make money from what they charge? Really?

The time may not be far off when governments have to steip it to protect the 'cultural heritage' element of both church buildings and things like (in England) choir schools, the 1662 prayer book and the King James Bible. And that would necessarily mean some combination of subsidy and appropriate charging. And maybe some sort of season ticket or loyalty card for the genuinely faithful - which would be fairer than expecting them to foot the entire bill.

The trouble with donations is that the vast majority of tourist visitors to churches fail to donate. So I can understand that churches are moving over to mandatory fees.

It's not about making a profit but about trying to bring in even a small % of the cost of maintenance and renovation.

If you are of that faith and want to enter in order to practice your faith, then you will probably be able to do so without paying a fee. For those whose sole reason to visit is to admire the historical, architectural, artistic aspects - why should it be free if museums etc aren't?

"If you are of that faith and want to enter in order to practice your faith, then you will probably be able to do so without paying a fee."

I had to chuckle at this as it reminded me of a scene in a film where a woman was registering children into a parochial school and was told they would have to submit to a blood test to confirm they were Lutheran.

rdkr asks the question, "What are they, places of worship or place to make money." Sadly, I believe history has proven that, even well before tourism, they've been both.

I am not au fait with situations in other countries, but in England, most(Anglican) cathedrals and some other prominent churches do make a charge for admission. The latest to decide to charge is York Minster, despite the misgivings of the Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope. The Dean and Chapter of York (the governing body) say that the cost of staffing, maintenance and repairs to one of the finest medieval buildings in Northern Europe runs to over £ 3.65 million a year and the average voluntary giving per visitor has been less than £2 a head, far smaller than required. Their charge of £4.50 per adult is a lot less than Westminster Abbey (£7.50) or St Paul's (£7). They receive no funding from the state or Church of England. http://www.yorkminster.org/index1.html

If you look at extensive repairs and maintenance work that have been carried out at English cathedrals, compared to often a sad state of disrepair on the Continent (where the state owns or subsidises churches), I don't mind paying relatively modest sums if it means my children and grandchildren will still be able to admire the great cultural heritage.

I went to school within the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral and in a Q&A session with the previous Archbishop, Geoge Carey, asked to know how they could justify asking visitors for money (it was then voluntary, it's now compulsory - if you ever want to go in free, however, tell them that you're OKS - Old King's Scholar - and that you're visiting the school, it works) - he could neither justify the alleged £12,000 a DAY that it costs to run the cathedral, nor was he actually aware that was the cost. Struck me that the head of the Church of England didn't appear to know a great deal....

Yes, they should charge. Do I want them to charge? Of course not, but like every beautiful church with wonderful architecture, paintings, sculpture, history, etc., the church is probably more of a museum during the average day than it is a place of worship. The religious of course, support their churches regularly, so of course they do not need to pay for visiting, but I, am a one-time visitor with no religious inclinations. Perhaps, the "free" policy is thought to encourage the non-religious like me, but it does not work. Chances are though if more churches charged, I would be more selective visiting them, especially as my dollar continues to decline. However, the answer continues to be yes, churches should charge.

No photography in the Sacré Coeur? It must be the only church in France that has that rule. I do not recall seeing it anywhere else. St. Denis offers an interesting case: the part of the church which is for worshippers is free, but the historical section which contains the tombs of French royalty is not.

In a perfect world (or even in a sort of OK world) it would not be necessary. Most churches have always had donation boxes - with a sign explaining how much it costs to keep the place open and in reasonable repair. But 80% of the tourists who have paid hundreds of dollars (or £ or €) to get there aren't aware enough to donate even a £ or two.

They just don't pay any attention and walk around gawking, talking and snapping terrible photos (Hey - if you want a good picture of stained glass you don't use your flash).

They don't charge for services, and in the vast majority you can enter free of charge to visit a side chapel for prayer or quiet contemplation.

Every "House of Worship" that I've ever attended for a service has always passed the collection plate. So while they might not charge you to go into the building, and while it is a voluntary thing, they're still asking for money. Man does not live by bread alone, and churches apparently need some to survive as well.

Pollyanna here--- I never go into a church without thanking God for its existence and our continued ability to worship him. Whenever a donation is possible/obvious/requested (direct appeal, box with a slot, basket with a sign) I donate the equivalent of $20. I would hate to see churches charge--especially in Europe, where actual communicant attendance is at all time lows, as that might prevent people from coming altogether. How could they tell the difference between a "tourist" and someone who is there for spiritual refreshment? And what of someone like me, who is both?

Churches do not charge people going to religious services, isn't that clear? Anyone who feels a need to go to a church for spiritual reasons does not have to go during the hours they allow in tourists for general sightseeing, nor do they have to go to the small handful of churches that are major tourist attractions for that purpose. The vast, vast majority of churches do not charge anything because they aren't major tourist atractions, and anyone who wants to go to one in a neighborhood, etc, can certainly do so if they want to make sure they are not charged for visiting a church solely for spiritual reasons.

They are business so why not. One of the oldest business in the world.