It is not your cathedral

Jim Anderton and various other busy bodies have had a rally to tell the Anglican Church what they think should be done with a rooted cathedral. They conveniently ignore that they don’t own it, the Church does.

The rally came on the day an opinion poll showed the fate of the Anglican cathedral has divided the region, with 54 per cent of those polled favouring demolition and 42 per cent calling for it to be saved.

Former MP Jim Anderton told the crowd that 100 engineers had confirmed the Cathedral could be saved and restoration should go ahead regardless of the cost. If the city could afford to spend money on a new rugby stadium it could afford to restore the city’s most iconic building.

Long-time heritage campaigner and former city councillor Anna Crighton said the Anglican Church should take heed of both the New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s and the Christchurch City Council’s call for a pause to demolition work.

“Pause, consult the experts and let the public … have a say about their Cathedral,” Crighton said.

Jim Anderton wants to spend council money on a private building and Anna Crighton thinks the whole of Christchurch owns the cathedral…newsflash folks….it ain’t yours to decide.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Scanner

    During the many years I lived in Christchurch Anna Crighton was one of the single biggest problems to growth in the central city, her attempts to save every dirty old grey building that stood as warts on the arse of the city forced people and businesses out of the city centre, and eventually what those that knew had told her, came true, the earth shook and they all fell down.

    Both her and Silly Jim ( who wouldn’t know the postman was up him till he heard the whistle blow) should now be ignored and the city allowed to grow back into a modern low rise clean open city centre, and not some dirty old relic of the past as both she and Jim are.

    • Le Sphincter

      80% of loss of life was from  newer  moderate and high rise buildings. Not dirty old relics of the past.

      The point with the cathedral is the public will be expected to pay for its replacement.

      And if its not ‘our cathedral’ why did McCully put taxpayers money($30 mill) into a gym and swimming pool in his electorate-( Millenium)

      • The public isn;t going to pay Arsehole…the Church is paying and that gives them the right to say what happens.

      • Le Sphincter

        Even the temporary structure will need funds from the public
        The bulk of the money is in hand but there will be further fundraising to meet the costs of building the temporary structure 
        The permanent building will need lots of public/council/government cash as well.

        As for the its ‘not your building’ theme, this from the Bishop of Taranaki
        The Anglican Bishop of Taranaki has severely criticised the impending closure of New Plymouth Prison, predicting an increase in reoffending, increased stress and costs to families and the community 

      • AngryTory

        The public isn;t going to pay Arsehole…the Church is paying and that gives them the right to say what happens.

        Now who’s being an Arse Whale?  just because you hate Christians? 

        The “public” paid for the last cathedral. They paid for the cathedrals in the rest of the country, they paid for the extension to the Wellington Cathedral, and they can pay for the rebuild.   

        Go to Barcelona – they’ve been building Sagrada Família since 1882, only private donations, no public moony and no church money either. 
        Given Spain is about to leave the Euro, it will probably take another hundred.

        what’s the big deal?

      • AT, how can I hate Christians? I am one.

      • Pukakidon

         If the Cathedral is not going to be in the Square, which is what is happening. Then the Anglican church should be pushed out of the Square once the land is cleared.   The only reason it is there is because of its historical architectural significance.   The land should be taken off the church using the public works act and they should be told to get out of the central CBD.  There is no need for a modern designed church in the CBD.

        Actually, I would rather see it rebuilt, re-engineered and it used for another purpose.   A lot of CHCH ratepayers money including mine has gone into repairs and sustaining this building, as happens with many historical buildings around NZ.

        The Anglicans have been bloody minded about this, the $30million to reconstruct is nothing compared to the historical importance and tourism CHCH has received.  It is the most significant building in the South Island.

      • Mediaan

        Sfink, may I suggest you choose a name that is other than Sphincter, which refers to arseholes. You might get a better reception.

  • BJ

    They could just leave the cathedral as it is – a relic from the past  – like the ancient ruins of Rome, cordon it off in some tasteful way and then get on with building a new church on another site. That way, the people that want to keep the cathedral for its aesthetic  appeal get to admire its ruins and the other s get a new modern quake-proof church.
     The ancient ruins of Christchurch Cathedral could be the monument that best provides the memorial tribute to the Christchurch earthquake event. 

  • Kosh103

    As an Anglican myself I would like to know how many of these protesters have actually set foot in a church in the last few years, or have a faith full stop.

    Yes it is very sad that this amazing building is coming down, but bloody hell what would these same people say about the Anglican church if they left it standing and then in an after shock it comes down and kills people. They would prob be first in line to condem the church for not acting to protect lives.

    Christ is in us not in bricks and stone.

    • Le Sphincter

      It wouldnt be left standing as is, it would be strengthened. In Italy they do it !

      • Kosh103

        Given its damaged state and the aftershocks it needs to come down. This is not a building that has fallen over 2000 years. This is a building that was feld by an earthquake and is now in an area that is experiencing aftershocks.

      • Le Sphincter

        most of the building was still standing.  It had virtually no reinforcing for earthquakes which could be added. As well the foundations would be strengthened or rubber pads added to absorb after shocks

      • Jester

        Italy is financial fucked!

        It’s fine restoring old buildings when you have the money to do it. But I guess from your leftist view your happy spending money you haven’t got.

        Fucking dimwit!

    • Kimbo

       “As an Anglican myself I would like to know how many of these protesters
      have actually set foot in a church in the last few years, or have a
      faith full stop”.

      Whilst for one of the few times I find myself in agreement with your general sentiments, Kosh 103, since when has regular church attendance ever been a requirement to label oneself Anglican?

      And faith?! Why require of ordinary people what is lacking in the clergy. As Louis XVI remarked when a particularly bad nomination requireing his approval was suggested to him: “No, no, no! The Bishop of Paris must at least BELIEVE in God!”

      • Kosh103

        I might have more sympathy for these peoples protest to save a CHURCH if they themselves were actually of that faith.

        The want to save a building that in a good shake could come down and kill people – so sorry the faith that owns the church gets to decide what happens.

      • Kimbo

         @ Kosh103

        “The want to save a building that in a good shake could come down and
        kill people – so sorry the faith that owns the church gets to decide
        what happens”.

        Yeah – and again, I don’t disagree, but two problems: –

        1. Ever since Marsden performed the first Christain worship service in NZ (Christmas Day, 1814) Anglicans have always considered and marketed themselves as the de facto national state church – despite the fact that we are secular, and the troublesome presence right from the beginning of Wesleyan missionaries, the Free Church of Scotland settlement in Otago in 1847, and (gasp!) the arrival of Irish Catholics in the wake of the Potato Famine as a follow-on from Pompallier’s mission. Like silly Paul Reeves and his stupid Hikoi of Hope – if you think you have a right to tell the state and nation what they should do (and the Church’s prophetic mission is such that it does), then it is a two-way street. Non-Anglicans think they get a corresponding right to have a say on what the Anglicans do, especially when…

        2. …Anglicans aka quasi-Catholics make such a big bloody deal over their stupid buildings. You are right – the chuch is the people, not the building. However, the way Anglicans, especially their clergy bleat like fat little baby sparrows requiring feeding and cajoling money for the upkeep of their “historic” buildings, not just from their parishoners, but also from businesses, local councils and central government, is it any wonder non-Anglicans consider they have a stake and a right to have a say?! The folks of ChCh Cathedral (and practically every other Anglican building for that matter) considers they are the central spiritual focal point of the “parish”, i.e., district – which includes non-Anglicans.

        I used to belong to an Anglican church. Thought beloging to a church was about serving Jesus. Funny how your time gets quickly eaten up on committees faffing around with stuff that has little to do with Christian faith, particularly building maintenance.

        Bulldoze every church building for all I care, and worship in a warehouse, or similar Spartan Box. Now put that to the Anglican Church and listen to the bleating about the necessity of historic community focal points for worship.

        Now you know why non-Anglicans think they get to have a say…

      • Kosh103

        The people can think they have as much say as they like. Its an Anglican church, and as such they get to do with it what they like. Not what the general public think.

      • Kimbo

         “Its an Anglican church, and as such they get to do with it what they like”.

        Fair enough, although again, I call your attention to two matters: –

        1. If you don’t like outsiders telling you what you should do, stop parading yourself with the deceitful message that you are the church of New Zealand.

        2. Technically it isn’t Anglicans who decide – it is the bishops, who have an inordinate amount of power courtesy of the dreadful episcopalian system, which gives the Bishop the power of veto over any lay or clerical decisons at synod.

        I’m often amused by Anglicans who assume their church is “democratic” and find, much to their surprise when the crap hits the fan, that it is nothing of the sort. I may be letting my Calvinist/Presbyterian/Reformed bias intrude, but the English Civil War that resulted in the execution of Chrales I began when that pious idiot of a sovereign tried to impose the system of bishops on the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Good Protestants know a devilish system when they see it!

    • starboard

      What ? I thought you were a homosexual. You cant be both.You know what the bible says about buggery…dont ya ?

      • Kosh103

        Yes I am gay SB, and I am a christian of the Anglican flavour. And I am well aware of what the Bible says as well as the actual meaning of it. Not the spin put on it by the haters.

      • Rodger T

        Maybe SB you can enlighten us to what the bible has to say on slavery, disobedient children, picking up sticks on the sabbath and wearing of a garment containing two different woven fabrics?
        Be truthful now ,you know what it says about bullshitters.

    • bruce from taihape

      Anglican church ….prints cash get them to pay for it

    • Pukakidon

       No cathedral, then Anglicans can build outside the CBD then.  Take the land off them and build an appropriate non secular building in its place. 

      • TravisPoulson

        like…..a Hells Pizza franchise?

      • Pukakidon

         Maybe a good pub?  It is a waste of good commercial land for it to be used on a Sunday by a minority of Christchurch.   It was a good tourist attraction when it had history.   We dont have much in this country.

  • davcav

    Kosh, I have many times in the last few years and I believe it should be pulled down. It was a miracle that nobody was killed in there. Initial reports were that they thought over 20 were dead from the initial shake.

    Chch icon…yeah, maybe.
    Chch’s responsibility to rebuild? No.
    Chch’s right to demand how it is done? None.
    Cathedral to take priority in Council budget over other community rebuilding? Hell no. Public rates should go to Council core business at this time and rebuilding infrastructure, not cathedrals.

    Asshole, do they strengthen/rebuild 150 year old buildings in Italy or ones that actually have a history. Who strengthens them, the government or the church? And, are you meaning Vatican City or Italy?

    • Roland

      They tell me that the Catholic Cathedral is being rebuilt, stone by stone, minus the copper and lead roof that was stolen from inside the ‘red zone’, maybe that is in the notes stolen from Vatican and now in the possession of Saddy Powden, just want to continue their buggering in the city of ‘shattered dreams’

  • davcav

    Le Sphincter
    of the building was still standing.  It had virtually no reinforcing
    for earthquakes which could be added. As well the foundations would
    be strengthened or rubber pads added to absorb aftershocks”

    Sections of the Cathedral, including the bell tower, had been strengthened. To do what you are suggesting would require a total demolition, structural redesign and rebuild. Are you going to pay for that?

    • AngryTory

      . To do what you are suggesting would require a total demolition, structural redesign and rebuild. Are you going to pay for that?

      Christchurch – not just the Anglicans – paid for the Cathedral to be built the first time.
      Christchurch can pay for it to be rebuild.
      It’s a cathedral, it may take 100 years to be rebuild, it could last 1000 years. 
      What’s the problem?

      • Kosh103

        The Anglican chruch owns it. They get to do what they want with it.

      • Pukakidon

         I agree Kosh and once they knock it down they can get out of the CBD.

      • Kosh103

        No, once they knock it down they can replace it with a new one.

      • Pukakidon

         Yes outside the CBD.   The land belongs to the community and once they have vacated it.   Take it from them using the public works act.

      • Kosh103

        No, put a new Catherdral on the same spot.

  • davcav

    My own opinion it that the Cathedral can wait. There are more important and pressing things needing to be done for the rebuild . This is just a waste of time, money and resources that can be better applied elsewhere. 

    • Taylors Creek

      couldnt agree more…churches are just hiding places for people who believe in fairy tales …then again they are tourist attractions and ultimately examples of weak reasoning.
      Maybe they do have a future!

  • Hagues

    “Former MP Jim Anderton told the crowd that 100 engineers had confirmed
    the Cathedral could be saved and restoration should go ahead regardless
    of the cost.”

    I call bullshit on that.

    • Cadwallader

      The nub of the problem is that Jim Il Soong never understood the distinction between collectivism and private property rights. Here is yet another exhibit of his stupidity.

  • starboard

    You will find Jim wheeling himself out in front of the cameras more often now with the local body elections coming up next year…any ” wrongdoing”  will long as he gets his croaky old voice out there. He still has a hard on for the chc mayoralty role . Thanks but no thanks Jim…if we wana be timewarped back to the 1960’s we’ll let ya know  ,…getting back to the cathedral…nuke it.

  • Mediaan

    The Sagrada Familia is beautiful. I would go look at it.
    The best we can do for the Square is put a wall around it, put up a sign, “Museum of Kitsch”, and charge admission.

  • Johnbronkhorst

    To all you arseholes that want to keep it…2 words….PROPERTY RIGHTS…….I don’t CARE what you THINK!!! The facts are, the Anglican Church owns it, it is THEIRS, not yours. So even if there was nothing wrong with it, it would still be their’s, and only their right to determine what happens to it!!! Otherwise maybe we should come round your house and decide whether or not to demolish it!!???

    • Patriot

      Go JohnBronk ,
       Exactly – The property owner deciedes the fate of the Cathedral  .

      Those that want to save it should front with the $50 or 100million  or however much — and say to the Church owners  — ” here is the $millions of money to save it  – if you wish ”   or Jim Anderton and Co should shutup , if they dont have the money — which they dont  .


    • Roland

      I wish you would fuken hurry and come around to decide my property then, TC3 Green Blue sucks…. Preferably I would like demolish but I think the decision is being made by Catholics, Johnbkhorst, I can wait for you tomorrow morning, hurry and bring your cheque book, ex COE

  • Johnbronkhorst

    Besides isn’t jimbo a died in the wall SOCIALIST, by admission, so why does he care if a church is knocked down? Religion being the opiate of the masses according to his spiritual leader…MARX!!…Or is this just his first step towards another Mayoral tilt???

    • Johnbronkhorst

      Either way, it still shows his absolute hipocracy and insincerity

    • Roland

       Of course it’s his first tilt, he would have been in last time if it wasn’t for the ‘event’, should stick to his Wigram ex electorate and continue with his bullshit there, the mans a twot and aligned to nothing that any right thinking person would have anything to do with. Unfortunately he is just as likely to come in through no fault of his own, sometimes I want to sack my employee of 43 years for his stupidity….

  • Rodger T

    Wow, millions to be spent on a delusion, I suppose its a bridge too far to expect it to be spent on something useful like a Hospital or a School?
    Far more important to keep the sheeple docile.

  • Arnold

    I am so over Christchurch and for that matter Pike River as well. I am a 53 year old who works his butt off..i have 3 kids who don’t live with me but i pay close to $1000 a fortnight for their upkeep plus all the other things that come up. I take time off work to go to sports days, school productions and other things…..if people want to save this fallen down building let them pay for it…don’t come and ask me as a taxpayer!!!!!

    • Roland

       Arnold, your a blessing, sure makes for pleasant reading when I see that some one is taking responsibility for their children, you will be rewarded 10 or 100 times for your commitment, forget about some useless ‘Cardboard Cathedral’ and keep up with the good work, I am for the rebuilding of some ‘Historic’ buildings in ChCh, but before all else is the caring for the Children…They will look back and think what a great dad you are