Photo-a-Day  (Saturday, 18th August, 2012)

Its cost a lot of money just to save a church that poorly attended.

It would have been better to knock it down and build a new low level chapel type of modern church and by doing this it would have given the locals a lot more light into there houses.

Not much progress being done Thomas, been like that afew weeks now.

must be a rich church with its own heli-pad.Nice to see a church spire renovated instead of pulling the church down.

I believe the church is short of money to complete the job? Does anyone know how to make a donation?

I believe they got a grant to do the job
Maggie
If you want to give a donation you can go to a service on a sunday and they send a plate round for people to put offerings on
Alternatively you can covenant your gift, that way the church gets something from the government too
Thats how i normally do it

That building is ugly,real ugly,it just goes to show what idiots are running things. Too much money not enough sense .My old Sergent used to say ,that when education walks in the door ,common sense flies out the window.

it will be nice to see the spire in situ once more. It's a lovely little church and will be 200 years old in 2018.

how can the church be short of money (aswell has a spire) when they got lottery funding? someone as been dipping the pot then naughty.

I think it's quite harsh to describe St.Catharines as ugly it's typical of its time,and many of a similar design can be seen throughout the country,if set in a typical
English village it would no doubt attract visitors.It has been part of Wigans skyline for almost two centuries,and many thousands of people have loved it, and worshipped there. The cost of the project is another matter,and it's very difficult to justify the outlay.Grant or no grant. I think on balance it is right to save the structure ,but I can see the other side of the argument .Something like this debate will go on all over the country as churches become redundant ,because of falling congregations,and it won't be possible to save all of them. It will be an increaseing dilemma for communities up and down the land,with uncomfortable decisions needing to be taken.

The project is not short of money to complete the job, it's been underpinned and this takes time the spire and completion of the job is projected to be completed by november.

Who was the original architect?

Tom the church isn't redundant.Most of the people who attend it would like it pulled down ,and a small comfortable one built to replace it.They where bullied into having this done by the heritage lot. It will be known in the future as the crooked church.

You are a Philistine Ron, I would rather see this than the Grand Arcade.

David, the architect was Edmund Sharpe from Lancaster.Built in 1839/1841,It was realised as early as 1860 that it had been built on a geological fault,caused by coal mining,major repairs were carried out in 1864/ 1865, funded by local mine owners.

I'm not religious but I like churches of this type. If it was in Skipton or somewhere similar it would be visited by tourists. I reckon the building is an asset to Wigan. Wigan needs landmarks of this kind as there's a shortage of high quality buildings in the town.

I agree with 'kingdom brunel'
Wigan is crying out for some top notch architecture.
There are very few buildings in the town of real merit.

In 1904 all French churches were appropriated by the State and became the responsibility of the local authority where they stood. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this, but it does mean that the congregation which worships in the buildings does not have to worry about the maintenance of the building. Generally, the churches are well-maintained, despite often being in very small communities which must struggle to do this. From the signs seen frequently on buildings undergoing restoration, regional, national, and European funding is available to assist.
Perhaps we should have our churches nationalised in this way. As many comments reflect, the wider community values such landmark buildings, but the shrinking congregations feel encumbered by responsibilities they bear on behalf of that community.

I expect that if there was a 'good' reason for more attendances at churches, more cash would be forthcoming.
Why do less and lees people attend churches? Is it lack of faith or is it because its boring?
I guess its both.(and more)
Believing in a being that insists on keeping 'in light' inaccesible. (In the dark too!) doesn't help matters.
Perhaps this 'god' should now show himself?