The following statement was issued by the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral this morning:
The Dean & Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral issued the following statement this morning (Monday 17th October):
"Services at St Paul's Cathedral were able to take place as normal this weekend but the last few days have not been without various challenges. Our chief concern is that St Paul's be allowed to operate as normally as possible and for all people to be respectful of this need.
Public safety has been a major concern. We have been in constant touch with the police and community leaders. As the City of London returns to work this morning we are monitoring the situation carefully.
On Sunday the protestors did reduce their presence on the landing and steps of the West Doors enough to allow people to come in to worship throughout the day.
It is also now important that the thousands of visitors wishing to visit the cathedral and to enjoy our hospitality this week are able to do so freely and that the daily life of St Paul's Cathedral can continue without serious interruption."
It's an extraordinary comment to issue. What's important to them? That the Cathedral can carry in as normal. What does that really mean? That its turnstiles can continue to take the money. That is what that statement really means. This, as they make very clear, is their chief concern.
Any mention of the poor and those protesting on their behalf? No, none at all. Any Christian message at all? No, none. Just a wish that things carry on as normal and the cash keeps flowing.
That's appalling. And what it confirms is that they really do think two things. The first is that their neighbours in the City have no questions to answer. The second is that the prime concern of the Dean and Chapter is running a tourist attraction.
Shame on them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Oh, but it’s better than that, Richard. What they fail to mention is that those wishing to visit the cathedral have to clear a turnstile to get in, and pay £14.50 for the privilege… (full adult ticket price as advertised on website)
What was that about the Father’s house being turned into a den of thieves?
James
It is of course free to worship in there, James. All of England’s cathedrals are very old, being built centuries ago, and their upkeep and restoration costs are accordingly very high. It is unrealistic to expect free entry outside services, and I’m sure the answer is not to nationalise all churches and have repairs paid for out of taxation. Since it is not as if vast profits are going to private equity shareholders in Switzerland, your allusion to thieves is wide of the mark and unfair. Giving it to the National Trust is going to stop admission fees either.
The church does not have to take sides in this, and is certainly under no obligation to. People who want to walk around the cathedral should be allowed without disruption.
The church does take a side in this. Every day the Magnificat is sung in St Paul’s and makes very clear it takes sides – and has no choice since its founder demanded it’s bissau to the poor
Your argument is therefore just wrong – and profoundly so
Craig,
I have visited St Paul’s more than once. I am fully aware that anyone who wishes to may enter, and may expect to do so at no cost. But the St Paul’s authorities make damned sure that they do not advertise this fact, and they attempt to intimidate those who wish to use the building for its proper purpose into paying with everyone else.
Buildings do require maintenance, and cathedrals considerably more than most. But (i) No statute now or at any point in the past has ever required the Church of England to have large, high maintenance buildings. (ii) Most cathedrals are content to place a large offertory box in a prominent place at the entrance to collect money to defray expenses. The placing of a turnstile is an entirely different matter.
I stand by my comment.
You are now beginning to do the demonstration and the participants a huge disservice with your vitriol aimed at St Paul’s and the church in general.
A demonstration is exactly that, it is not intended to affect the rights and freedoms of those who have decided not to join in. You seem hellbent on anarchy.
And yes, St Paul’s is among other things a tourist attraction, it does need to have funds to exist – or would you like to see it fold and become the HQ of a multinational bank.
And if you think this is a protest about poverty only perhaps you should do a little more research and realize that many people are suffering and will suffer again unless the banks stop using their clients money as casino chips underwritten by the state.
I find your comment quite confusing.
Re the church – my point is a simple one – it has I suggest no choice but take sides. That is of course not true of everyone. So your hypothesis I unfounded
As is your suggestion that I am am unaware of the wider issues in banking – about which I have written many times
As for the infrastructure of the church – candidly give it to the national trust if what is done there has no meaning
I’m not a religious man, Richard, but do often listen to Thought for the Day (while listening to the Today programme when driving to work). I’ve often wondered how much of what the speakers say is humbug. As far as the Dean of St Paul’s is concerned I guess I no longer have to wonder.
“Our chief concern is that St Paul’s be allowed to operate as normally as possible and for all people to be respectful of this need.”
Sorry Richard, but the managing the operation of the Cathedral *is* the job of the Dean and Chapter, and allowing services to take place and letting people visit is their first concern.
Oh that is so arrow a view
It’s a bit like a transport manager in apartheid South Africa saying it was his / her job to run buses for blacks, whites and coloureds without ever asking why
To have services wihout content is meaningless
And remember they will sing the Magnificat every day in St Paul’s – they can’t avoid it. That means they cannot deny the relevance of the issue now outside their door
So I simply cannot agree with your claim. I would go further. If you and they think that you ae seriously wrong
Oh,now politics AND religion-great,and I was just beginning to think that only rational and calm contributions were prevailing on here.
I would add ,that to anyone who has been through a picket line as I have,even if just noisy and crowded,scenes like these could be very intimidating and indeed frightening to worshipers and visitors alike if some sort of control was not in place.It is a public place of worship,as well as a historic monument of importance with huge maintenance costs.-regardless of the attitudes or opinions of the incumbent clergy. And before anyone asks-I was not strike breaking.
I feel the comparison to apartheid South Africa was disingenuous-but if what I read comes true,once the present generation of C of E parishioners has gone.the only people in the churches will be the clergy.
And if that happens it will be because no on will see the relevance of faith as those who proclaim stand back and watch neoliberals attack the poor
Want another comparison? Try most of the church in Germany that acquiesced tonthe Nazis – notable exceptions like Bonhoffer apart
Faith akes courage and we aren’t seeing it
Richard is correct. The beautiful building which is St Paul’s exists for one purpose only and that is to witness to the scriptures. The fact that the building is beautiful and attracts tourists etc is just a side issue. Furthermore the Dean is first and foremost a priest not a janitor. If the building is a hindrance to the work of the church, they should just get rid of it. Jesus himself said that if your eye offends you, pluck it out. I think this is the sort of thing he meant.
I disagree, Richard. I think the decision to do what was done was brave, and I see the good in it. I wasn’t expecting Giles Fraser to say what he did when I was there on Sunday morning, still less on Saturday afternoon and evening. It came as a welcome surprise. I suspect that many of those gathered before the cathedral would not be comfortable going inside, and in any case I don’t believe they have asked to. There is a lot of hostility to organised religion (though interestingly, I’ve heard one or two people at the camp say their opinion of the C of E has improved as a result of Giles Fraser’s actions yesterday). And my impression from these conversations is that many of those at the camp were happy to have had the support they have.
All that said, I am sure that some more access to toilets would be welcome, and changing weather conditions will of course change the extent to which people are prepared to be in tents outside.
Have you asked anyone there or the organisers for their feelings?
As a Quaker and a Christian as well, I do share your wish that the Church would give more whole-hearted and radical support, but those who are dragging their feet will not be rushed into agreement by accusations.
We will hav to agree to differ
But I see only cowardice and Mammon in what was said and done
But it may also be true I come from the George Fox school of Quakerism. And he was not a reasonable man!
Perfectly happy to agree to differ.
But I think cowardice would have been not to make a stand. And I think it’s perfectly possible that Giles Fraser was asking himself a variation on: “What canst thou do?” And George Fox also told William Penn to wear his sword as long as he could.
I didn’t tick the email update box before, so am leaving this second comment so I can receive them.
I thought the church was one of the wealthiest organisations in the country anyway, why are they charging an entry fee?
Whilst I agree with a lot of what you say, and have sympathy and support for the protestors, I do think that the church should keep out of this. We have a secular society in the UK and I suggest we keep it like this. By opening the doors of St. Paul’s to the protestors sets a dangerous precedent for the church. We all know how the words of the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) can be molded by different religious factions for their own good. We have seen many examples of this, not only in the Middle East but in the Bible belt of America.
However, in conclusion, what was said by the Dean of St. Paul’s was particularly inappropriate and their PR could have been handled differently.
Why should the church be secular because society is?
That should liberate the church to be anything but secular!
I guess the reason for this statement is quite simple. To avoid getting involved in a political situation and perhaps more importantly to remain open to those that wish to pray/ attend services.
And how often do I have to say that if the church see itself as having a duty to avoid conflict so the turnstile stays open it has failed
“The Church of England has huge assets as well as large responsibilities. In 2009 it lost £1.3 billion through its investments in shares and property. In April 2011 it announced that its assets increased in 2010 from £4.8 billion to £5.3 billion”
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/research/church_of_englands_investments
On 2 December 1697 Sir Christopher Wren’s masterpiece came into use and the Right Reverend Henry Compton, Bishop of London, delivered the inaugural sermon based on the text of Psalm 122.
“I was glad when they said unto me: Let us go into the House of the Lord.”
Over three hundred years later it appears that a trip to the House of the Lord produces something rather less than “gladness”.
Is there nothing that cash won’t buy and has the insidious City of London hijacked religion as well as UK government and world finance?
A diversion – but Rutter’s new setting of that psalm for the royal wedding is brilliant
Actually, surprisingly perhaps, I am with you on this one RM. That’s all.
St Paul’s is very symbolic for Londoners, and I expect for people well beyond the capital, not in terms of conventional ‘religion’, but as the heart of London. As such it would be very significant if the cathedral was opened to protestors, beyond usefulness, though it would be that too.
I think it’s good to highlight the choice that is being made, at this point in time. When things get really bad – possibly v soon – will the Church make the same ‘business as usual choice’ then?
In fact any institution that cruises along on a vague benign vibe needs to think through and decide where it stands now or take the criticism.
That goes for the Queen too. She heads the Church of England. We need all hands on deck now.