Archbishop of Canterbury - Capitalist?

In the news we read that the Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken out about the so called invasion of St Paul's.  Apparently he backs the protesters.

First I think it is necessary to correct the media, no invasion of the cathedral took place as the protesters were outside the building and were at the time given permission to be on the church land by the chancellor of the church.

Secondly the target was not the cathedral but the nearby London Stock Exchange.

My understanding is that the protest is about capitalism.  So perhaps they do want to target the church.  We have seen in recent days that the church is threatening to withdraw their investment from Internet service providers if they do not address the issue of porn.

I find it commendable that the church wishes to address porn but do think that they ought to address issues in the church before telling the rest of the world what to do.

What does strike me as odd is the fact that the church has so much money invested in this way.  What we are seeing is just one element of a massive financial organisation.  Investing in ISPs is a very roundabout way of supporting the needy (I think that was one of the stated aims of the church).

So is the church just a capitalist organisation just like the others the protesters are attacking?  It seems to me that it is, after all it raises considerable income (including admission charges for cathedrals and profit from trading on Sunday (making people work on Sunday by definition), which it then invests in a variety of portfolios to make profit.

Yet when a church needs a new roof, or the bells need work we see the familiar thermometer on the side of the building and a plea for donations - this should be covered by existing funds.

When there is a disaster in this country, for example the flooding in Cumbria from which many are still recovering, how much input is there from the church?  Not a lot that I have seen, though the community supports itself and often companies offer support to those affected.

I have long since wondered about the openness of the church and it's accounting.  When I was younger and before I recovered from religion I remember two things. 

The first was thinking how much money must be taken in the collection plate, or nowadays by direct debit from the faithful. 

The second was at my wedding - my wife and I had to pay various fees, which I have no problem with, but in cash in envelopes.  Some would say that that was to avoid banking charges but to be fair the charge for banking a cheque is trivial compared to the amounts involved.  So the other possible explanation is that the moneys received were perhaps not accurately recorded and accounted for.

Before anyone gets on their soapbox, I am merely speculating here and not accusing any one of wrongdoing - but the method used leaves itself open to such speculation.

The accounts for the Church of England for 2010 make very interesting reading, both in terms of the amount of assets the church has but also for little nuggets like the fact that seventeen members of staff within the church have emoluments (good word) of between £60,000 and £310,000 with five of them getting over £100,000. 

Clearly doing god's work pays quite well.

As a final humorous note, if the local church went on Dragon's Den to seek investment for roof repairs or the like, the dragons would ask what assets the parent organisation had.  After reviewing this they would all declare themselves out on the grounds that the need should be addressed with existing funds.