An article in the Telegraph on the Occupy the London Stock Exchange protestors who are camped out on the grounds of the West front of St Paul's Cathedral headlines their story 'A sullied cathedral'. Now at first you may think that the cathedral is sullied by the unwelcoming stance of the staff of the cathedral and the decision to close off the church to all worshipers and visitors, except if you are at all familiar with the newspaper, you'd know better. The writer is shocked...shocked:
So far, there has been a deafening silence from the Anglican hierarchy. Isn’t it time we learnt what the Bishop of London, or even the Archbishop of Canterbury, have to say about this squalid occupation? In a free society, people have a right to demonstrate. They do not have a right to wreak havoc on one of the capital’s most sacred spaces.Just look at the picture of the squalid rabble in their masks, and costumes, and ramshackle tents. Who would want them hanging around sullying London's most sacred space? Besides St Paul's is losing about £20,000 a day, and if the occupation continues until Christmas, the cathedral stands to lose over a million pounds.
On the other hand
Alison, a Facebook friend, says:
Am not clever enough to join in this debate. All I know is that I walked past St Paul's yesterday and wondered what the hell the Dean & Chapter are making such a ridiculous fuss about. I won't be returning to St Paul's in a hurry (if they open again, that is...). I think their decision to close is making them look more and more stupid (and suspect) by the day...It's only my humble opinion, of course, but Alison's words seems far cleverer than the the words of the writer in the Telegraph. It's quite sad that St Paul's Cathedral is no longer 'a house of prayer', but it seems to me that the cathedral would stand to lose a lot less money if they'd reopen to worshipers and visitors once again, if not for lofty reasons, in their own self interest.
UPDATE: Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, weighs in on the protests:
A statement by the Bishop of London on the protest outside St Paul's Cathedral.Bishop Chartres has only the protestors interests at heart. It's not the money or the messy encampment that troubles him.
"This demonstration has undoubtedly raised a number of very important questions. The St Paul's Institute has itself focused on the issue of executive pay and I am involved in ongoing discussions with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration.
"Nevertheless, the time has come for the protestors to leave, before the camp's presence threatens to eclipse entirely the issues that it was set up to address. The Dean and the Chapter, who are responsible for St Paul's, have already made it clear that the protest should come to an end and I fully support that view." (My emphasis)
It strikes me that the issue of the injustice inherent in huge wage disparities is an issue worth pursuing whether the protestors are present at St Paul's or not. Will the St Paul Institute discontinue the discussion of the injustice, if the protesters don't leave? Lame, truly lame.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe St Paul's Institute has itself focused on the issue of executive pay and I am involved in ongoing discussions with City leaders about improving shareholder influence on excessive remuneration.
ReplyDeleteFor how long and to what effect? We knew the Occupy group was there within hours, but Chartres has to tell us about the church's efforts? Pathetic. Maybe the objection to the occupation is about how much more effective it is than the church has been. How can they effect change if they're part of the system thriving on the status quo?
Indeed, Mark, how can they?
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Telegraph = Fox but with better qualifiacations and a better vocabulary.
ReplyDelete"Sir", I know, but linking to the Telegraph report makes for a more interesting post, don't you think? A cathedral 'sullied' by 'squalid' protestors is splendid in its own way.
ReplyDelete