Ive looked at both shots, and this is essentially the same as the first, with some brightening of the trees.
So I will start from the first shot, and answer your questions along the way.
First observation, and its the same for both versions is that the shot is underexposed. Bren mentioned this in the last shot, that you can tell by looking at the histogram graph. It doesnt extend to the right, which indicates its underexposed. So this is not simply a subjective viewing of the image on the screen, it is measured by the distribution of light from the cameras sensor.
You can easily resolve this in a few ways. I dont know what software you have, but if it Photoshop Elelements, open levels, and drag the right slider to the left until it meets the graph. Other versions has different and more effective ways to do this.
Why is it underexposed? I see you used manual exposure, - so I cant tell how you came up with your settings. If you had used the cameras meter and adjusted setting until it looked right on the meter, you would have needed to take the large amount of sky into your calculations and added about +2/3 to compensate for the sky, - otherwise the shot will be underexposed. hats the why.
Why use f/22? You can use f/22, however, it has some advantages, and disadvantages. The first, and only advantage it has is it provide a very deep depth of field, - and area of "apparent" sharpness from the camera to the horizon.
The serious disadvantage it has is how optical systems behave with small apertures. Beyond approx f/11, the level of sharpness of your image will steadily decrease beyond its optimal, which is found around f/5.6 - f/8. Small apertures below f/11 are almost exclusively used for deep landscape shots, and even then, f/16 is usually as far as you need to go. You shot is not a landscape shot, as you are only concerned with the depth of the church and the trees behind, so a larger aperture would have provided a sharper image, with a faster shutter speed. In addition, - focal length also plays a role, so at 25mm, the depth of field you will achieve at f/8 is well beyond what you need for this shot.
I will attach a reference link you will find helpful.
So thats the answer.
I have used your original shot, and loaded 2 mods. Mod1 has the exposure corrected, and the saturation slightly reduced; the second has the verticals corrected, which can be done if desired. In my opinion, it better to leave the original, ans straightening a tilted image which has been shot from anywhere but straight on will cause some problems. The converging verticals are caused by lens distortion which is normal for a 24mm lens, and with this shot, I think it enhances the appearance.
heres the link:
Hope this helps,