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. :-B

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 &euro 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?