For believers, the question is literally sacrilegious: When should a church charge an admission fee? After all, a church is where many people go to be with God. It is a place of refuge. And it should be open to all, regardless of wealth. If Satan tempts, a church is a sanctuary.
And yet the most famous cathedral in the world, Notre Dame in Paris, is contemplating an admission fee when it reopens in December. French Culture Minister Rachida Dati has argued for a fee of five euros, claiming it would raise €75 million, which would be enough to “save all the churches in Paris and France.” That, too, might be seen as a religious priority, especially given France’s fiscal difficulties.
The Catholic Church opposes the plan, citing a 1905 law stipulating that churches must stay open to the public for free. The government says that charging “cultural visitors” is permissible, provided they are not there for religious services.
I am neither a Catholic nor a proponent of the French cultural policy, and reject the premises of both sides. I am, however, a relatively frequent visitor to Paris as well as Notre Dame, so have a modest stake in this debate. I am also an economist, and would like to propose a compromise: Use the revenue from an admission fee to help support the cathedral’s original purpose.
The commercialization of churches has some major downsides — but an admission fee can be a partial antidote to commercialization, not its apogee. To be honest, European churches are already pretty commercialized; before the fire, Notre Dame charged a fee to enter its bell tower. Meanwhile the cathedral was often so crowded it was difficult to appreciate, from either a religious or aesthetic standpoint. So if a fee drives some visitors away, that could be a good thing.
To put it another way: Extreme crowding is a fee of another sort, even if its nominal price remains at zero. Notre Dame, because of its role as a tourist attraction, has long been driving away and discouraging truly religious uses.
And why are so many tour groups welcome in Notre Dame? Because they bring significant income to Paris and France. Local businesses of course favor this outcome, and can pressure the government to continue to encourage the flow of visitors. To acknowledge this reality is also to accept that the status quo ex ante, that is without a fee, was based on rampant commercialization of church property.
So here is my proposal: First, charge a fee — but make it €10 rather than €5. If seeing Notre Dame is worth only €7 or €8 to someone, I don’t mind excluding them, for the benefit of those who really want to see the place. The crowds should diminish — and if they don’t, just raise the admission fee. St. Paul’s in London, by the way, charges £25 for adult admission, and Saint-Denis in Paris charges €11. Anyone who can afford to visit Paris can afford to pay more than €5 to see Notre Dame.
Second, assign a priest, nun or other religious counsel to the church, to service any religiously minded visitor who might require assistance in matters of the soul. If need be, that person can walk the God-searching visitor to a nearby church where visits are free. Admission fees will help fund this service, which would be symbolically important even if little used.
Third, set aside further time for Notre Dame to be a quiet and more religious place. Maybe make admission free for one day per week — but only for residents of Paris. Since most visitors stay in Paris for more than a day, the determined tourist still should be able to see the church.
If nothing else, this special day can serve as a referendum on whether one of the world’s most inspiring Catholic sites can generate local loyalty. If not, that is valuable information in its own right. Perhaps it can serve as a prod to improve aesthetic education in local schools. For the religiously minded, this plan has another benefit: If even a single soul is saved by this arrangement, it is worth it.
One of the fundamental insights of economics is that a price can be more than just monetary. Religion might benefit from recognizing this, too.
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and a professor of economics at George Mason University.
