OCCUPY AND BLOGGER'S BLOCK

The two iconic churches, Trinity Church Wall Street in New York, pictured to the left, and St Paul's Cathedral in The City of London, pictured below, have been much on my mind for the past several days.  The famous churches are coincidentally(?) located in the financial districts of the two great cities.  What I've thought of is the face-off between the churches and the Occupy groups in both cities. After a period of time, the authorities in the churches decided that the Occupiers had to go, and the groups were forcibly removed.  The right choice for the churches, to come down on the side of the 99%, seemed stark and obvious to me, but both chose to move against the Occupiers.  These are churches, for heaven's sake, the Body of Christ.

Occupied Bishop George Packard, a retired bishop in the Episcopal Church, gets it.  He joined the Occupiers and has been arrested twice in connection with Occupy protests.

Giles Fraser, former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, gets it, too.  He resigned his position when the authorities in the church decided to remove Occupy London protestors by force from the grounds around the cathedral.  He now serves as priest-in-charge at St Mary's Newington, a parish in one of the poorer neighborhoods in South London.

The Occupy movement is by no means finished.  Just because the groups are not occupying parks and squares in their tents or marching in protests every day does not mean that they have disappeared.  Disdain for the elite and their absorption in prospering themselves and their near total disregard for the common good will not go away.

Now that this post is written, perhaps I'll be able to move on to other subjects besides the 'Story of the Day'...not that there's anything wrong with the stories, because if I didn't like them, I would not post them.   


Photo of Trinity from Wikipedia.
Photo of St Paul's from Cathedral & History.

UPDATE: An Occupy.com Profile: Bishop Packard

WHO'S THE CLEVERER?

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.

"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)

Bishop Chartres has only the protestors interests at heart. It's not the money or the messy encampment that troubles him.

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.

ST PAUL'S CATHEDRAL AGAINST THE PROTESTORS

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.

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.

From the website of St Paul's Cathedral:

The Revd Canon Dr Giles Fraser, Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, issued the following statement today (Saturday 22 October 2011)

"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."

What are the health and safety risks? Why won't the authorities at St Paul's say?

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.
....

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.

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.

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.