Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

@Praxiteles wrote:

Yes indeed. I absolutely agree with Thomond. The very best congratulations are in order for the FOSCC who have done trojan work in the face all sorts of mean and base-bred tricks to stifle the voice of the ordinary citizen whne they had something important to say.

This morning’s newspapers report that Fr. Jim Killeen, the Chris-ologos public relations officer for the diocese of Cloyne, is studying the 90 page Rabbitte Report before deciding what hnext to do. Perhaps he did not notice that the Rabbit Report has been binned in its totality and, hence, there is little or no need for the Cloyne diocesan authorities to stretch their ample brains on it. Just concentrate on on the single page Order made by An Bord Pleannala, if that is not too taxing or tiring, and they should know what they have to do fairly fast. Indeed, most of the luminaries involved in recommending Prof. O’Neill’s mad-hatter scheme should simply resign – starting with the over qualified members of the Historic Church Commission of the diocese of Cloyne who obviously cannot be trusted to safeguard the interests on one of the most important monuments in the country. Even the good Bishop, who staked so much on bulldozing his way over his own flock, should also consider sending in a little letter to BXVI.

Although Praxiteles insisted during the appeal that we should read the tendentious documents produced by FOSCC, we are now advised to “bin” the objective Inspector’s Report “in its totality” without reading his assessment or considering the implications of the Board’s decision for the conservation of protected structures which are used as places of worship. One important difference between the Inspector and the Board appears to be that the Inspector took account of Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on Architectural Heritage Protection and the Board did not. Even if we concentrate on the Board’s Order, as Praxiteles advises, we find that the Board accepted that reordering is justified to meet liturgical requirements but decided it could not support the particular design solution proposed. The question to be addressed – by anyone pursuing a genuine interest in architecture and conservation, rather than a vendetta against Bishop Magee – is how the design should now be amended to meet the liturgical requirements while retaining more of the existing fabric of the cathedral.