From the Guardian:
Officials from St Paul's Cathedral and the wider City district are considering legal action to force protesters to remove a camp set up outside the church more than a week ago, following an impasse between the two sides.From the website of St Paul's Cathedral:
The cathedral has been shut since Friday afternoon after its dean, the Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, said the presence of more than 200 tents and marquees beside the building's western edge was an unacceptable fire, and health and safety risk. Both he and the cathedral's canon chancellor, Giles Fraser, have publicly urged the activists to leave. It is the first time the cathedral has been closed since the second world war, and church officials say it is costing St Paul's around £20,000 a day in lost visitor revenues.
The Revd Canon Dr Giles Fraser, Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, issued the following statement today (Saturday 22 October 2011)What are the health and safety risks? Why won't the authorities at St Paul's say?
"I remain firmly supportive of the right of people peacefully to protest. But given the strong advice that we have received that the camp is making the cathedral and its occupants unsafe then this right has to be balanced against other rights and responsibilities too. The Christian gospel is profoundly committed to the needs of the poor and the dispossessed. Financial justice is a gospel imperative. Those who are claiming the decision to close the cathedral has been made for commercial reasons are talking complete nonsense."
Also from the Guardian:
An impasse between St Paul's Cathedral and the protest camp that has spent eight days at its walls remains deadlocked, with activists saying they will not consider church officials' request for them to move elsewhere until they receive a fuller explanation as to why this is necessary.Why have the staff at the cathedral stopped talking to the representatives of the protestors? Leaving so many questions unanswered equals a PR disaster. It's not the protestors keeping worshipers and visitors out of the cathedral.
....
Some would-be worshippers were caught out. "We didn't know, so we're very disappointed," said a woman from a visiting American family forced to revise their plans for the day. But most tourists remained largely positive about the Occupy the London Stock Exchange camp, a protest against the perceived excesses of the global financial system.
"I suppose you could say we're part of the 99% as well," said Levin Brunner, an IT consultant from Munich, using the term coined by activists for the bulk of people who do not enjoy stellar salaries and annual bonuses. "We have similar protests in Germany, so we knew this was taking place and we have a lot of sympathy for it. It's very interesting for tourists to see, anyway."
....
The Occupy the London Stock Exchange movement says it has spoken to both the fire service and local health and safety officials and has been told there are no safety issues.
H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.
UPDATE: When I was in London in July, I attempted to attend a service at St Paul's, and three sides, including the churchyard, were blocked off by barricades or locked gates due to street construction. I understood the front facing the street being blocked off, but why the side, back, and churchyard blocked or locked off? I could see the staff entering and walking around, so the areas were not dangerous.
By the time I found my way around to the one door which was open, the service was nearly over. There were no signs on the barricades directing people to the open door to the cathedral, which made the church seem not at all visitor-friendly or worshiper-friendly the Sunday I was there.
Why is Giles Fraser, currently president of Inclusive Church, rather than the dean, getting stuck with looking like the bad guy in this? Deliberate or just co-incidental move to derail his career?
ReplyDeleteLapin, I don't know. Why didn't Giles Fraser just say to the dean, 'You make the statement.' Perhaps he's being punished for his initial welcoming response, which was from the heart. The Church of England comes off looking awful again.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how long it will be before pressure will be put on the fire service or the health and safety officials to find something wrong and order the protestors to move.
The Church of England in the upper levels is part of the establishment and conservative (don't forget that the Church still owned slaves in the West Indies when slavery was abolished [and was compensated for having to free them]). It dragged/drags its feet on marriage laws, divorce laws, women in the ministry, gays in the ministry, and even allowing other religions to solemnize same-sex civil unions.
ReplyDeleteTHE poor man's sins are glaring;
In the face of ghostly warning
He is caught in the fact
Of an overt act---
Buying greens on a Sunday morning.
The rich man's sins are hidden
In the pomp of wealth and station;
And escape the sight
Of the children of light,
Who are wise in their generation.
A Thomas Love Peacock poem I did not know. Thank you Erp.
ReplyDeleteThe church, the state, and the corporations are in cahoots. The rabble in their 'ramshackle tents', as the Daily Mail kindly pointed out, are being chased away from the church. I don't know what the powers at the cathedral could do now to dig themselves out of the hole.
ReplyDeletePS: Erp, thanks for the poem. It is fitting.
ReplyDeleteThe church, FORCE???
ReplyDeleteIf EVER there were words that, together, should be OXYMORONIC, those are the ones!
I'm just finding this all so desperately sad.
ReplyDeleteBy great irony the conservative Roman Catholic Pope is said to issue a report today that will strongly criticise capitalism without a social component and ask for a restructuring of the world economy!
http://www.ourdailythread.org//content/vatican-issue-radical-document-economy-thomas-j-reese-sj
The big cathedrals here need a bit of a wake up call in terms of their serving the public. They seem to think all they have to do is be there. They make little effort to meet the needs of the faith community.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJCF, you're right. Church + force = oxymoronic, or should.
ReplyDeleteErika, as I said at Counterlight's blog:
What else is there to do for people who have no voice but to show themseves?
As the OccupyWallStreet folks said:
'But the "one demand" that matters most is directed at our society, not our policymakers, and it's much more fundamental than these excellent ideas. The demand is this: "Come back to sanity." That's the underlying demand that unifies all those items on the #OccupyWallSt website. Our culture is insane today, and they recognize that. Create a transactions tax, and they'll simply rob us another way - until we restore our society to sanity.'
We are insane. Someone has to say it in a way that can be heard. What better than a peaceful disturbance in the public square or the churchyard or in the area of another powerful institution?
We have to stand up for ourselves. No one will do it for us.
I have not read your link, yet, but I think I may agree with the pope.
"Sir", after my struggle to find an open door at the Cathedral, I didn't have to pay, but I did leave a donation. The guard at the rope even let me go into the nave to attend what was left of the service, late though I was.
Well, MadPriest, I'm disappointed in Giles Fraser.
This is a sad situation indeed.
ReplyDeleteWhen I entered St Paul's in the brief time I had in London all I could sense was a monument to empire. I fled as though I had been at the throne of Satan and walked, clutching my rosary, to the Victoria Embankment. When I got to Westminster Abbey I found a church that felt like a place of worship in spite of tourist attraction. I doubt I would ever set foot in St Paul's again.
ReplyDeleteI find all of this doubly painful because I love St. Paul's.
ReplyDeleteI've been battling it out with some particularly nasty right wing Deng Xiaopeng wannabes over on Thinking Anglicans who are eager to send in the tanks and troops to clear out Tien Anmen, excuse me, Paternoster Square.
Count me among those deeply disappointed in Giles Fraser. He may join Thomas Friedman and David Brooks among the columnists I no longer bother to read.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhiteycat, it is sad.
ReplyDeletePaul, I must say that I was much less taken with St Paul's this time around, perhaps partly due to the difficulty getting in. I had tea in the tea shop and went back for a later service, and I noted that the acoustics in the church were rather less than satisfactory during Evensong.
I was a bit early arriving for the service, and no one was allowed to sit down yet, but I begged the guard to let me take a chair, as I had been on my feet quite a bit that day, and she very kindly obliged. Sometimes, it's a good thing to be old, but to have to get permission to sit quietly in a church seems not quite right.
Counterlight, I love the building structure and the Gibbons carving, but I didn't find the murals as attractive as I remembered from other visits. Of course, you know much more about the art work than I, but the colored murals beneath the dome and on the ceiling of the nave were not as impressive this time around - I should add with the exception of the monochrome on the interior of the dome itself, which I do like very much.
MadPriest, I should certainly have added that you warned us about Giles years ago. After all, you are always right. :-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGrandmere, you're instincts are more spot on than you take credit for. I like the murals in St. Paul's even less than you do. Christopher Wren hated Thornhill's paintings in the dome, and I agree with Wren. I mostly admire the architecture.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I agree with Paul about all the imperial stuff.
Some of the colored murals reminded me of pitiful imitations of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. As for the dome painting, I guess it may have come off better in comparison with the colored murals. I had another look, and I still don't dislike them. It's too bad that Wren had to have decorative elements that he didn't like in his gem of a building.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul about the imperial stuff too. I don't much like the Abbey either, truth be told - too full of statues and other gubbins that should not have been moved in there and that interfere with the beauty of the building itself.
ReplyDeleteYou have all just been given another, and a great thumping, reason why there should be a separation of church and state everywhere, including England.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I could not agree more. Please, if you comment again, make up a name and sign your comment. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul, I prefer the Abbey. The architecture of the Cathedral is lovely, but I just don't find the space or atmosphere inviting.
ReplyDeleteCathy, I LIKE the statues. It's a hodgepodge of history, a reminder that the church is of the world, not outside or above it. I find it rather like seeing a bunch of friends at church on a Sunday.
For me, the large icons that clearly clash with the building history and style in the Abbey nonetheless proclaimed this as a worship space and my heart sang when I saw them. That the "prayer in the central space" rule was enforced was also nice. A great many Polish boy scouts said their prayers while I was there.
ReplyDeleteCertain churches have a bare, stripped down look without statues. I remember walking into a great Gothic cathedral, in Switzerland, I believe, and being shocked at its naked appearance. Empty niches are especially sad to me. In my mind's eye, I could see the iconoclasts sweeping through smashing the sculptures.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that would make me like the statues would be if one came alive and gave the sermon. That would be all right. If it then sat with its fingers making the V-sign behind the Bishop of London's head for the rest of the service, that would be even better.
ReplyDeletewv - plopawne
As for preferring the Abbey over St. Paul's, I don't think I prefer either of them. I visited both, loved both, and found them to be such very different buildings from different times built for different purposes.
ReplyDeleteNeither St Paul's nor the Abbey would be my choice for regular Sunday worship. Both are too grand.
ReplyDeleteI'm very fond of St Paul's Covent Garden, the actor's church, myself.
ReplyDeleteHere's some tourism:
http://stpaulcathedral.blogspot.com/2010/09/churches-of-london.html
IT, St Paul's Covent Garden is lovely. Alas, I've never been inside. I looked at your blog post and saw St Martin in the Fields, which is one of my most favorites, and St Mary le Strand, where I have attended a service. You seem to like churches as much as I do.
ReplyDeleteI have still not been to St Paul's Covent Garden despite IT's recommendation and must rectify this very soon.
ReplyDeleteI haven't even been to St Bride's in Fleet Street, the journalists' church.
ReplyDeleteI prefer smaller churches to larger ones.
Oh I MUST recommend St Paul's Covent Garden. The walls are hung with plaques honoring a whole spectrum of actors from Pantomime Dames to film stars! Very wonderful for a theatre buff. And it's a very welcoming church. I've never been to a service there, but I've nagged BP enough that next time we're in London we're going there.
ReplyDeleteNext time....
ReplyDelete