Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

@Gianlorenzo wrote:

How many times does it have to be said that the changes proposed for St. Colman’s are not liturgically required. At the oral hearing in Midleton this was stated ad nauseum by the FOSCC. When the Applicants had an opportunity to explain to the Bord just how these proposals were required for the Liturgy they singularly failed to take that opportunity. In fact the Trustees and their agents have been very careful not to say they were liturgicaly required in any public forum, other than the one document submitted to Cobh Town Council.

Even Richard Hurley writing on behalf of the Arts Council says that the changes are not required but desireable. This is precisely the point that FOSCC has been making from the beginning.

Maybe Oswald can enlighten us as to how these proposals are required and by whom ?

The matter has now been resolved but not in the way Gianlorenzo assumes. According to Praxiteles:
“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 the single page Order made by An Bord Pleanala, if that is not too taxing or tiring, and they should know what they have to do fairly fast”.
If you concentrate long enough on that single page you will find in the third reason for refusal that: “the Board accepted that changes to the interior arise from liturgical requirements, but considered that this does not bind it to accept this particular design solution.”
The liturgical argument has been won by the diocesan authorities – the changes are based on liturgical requirements rather than liturgical preferences. The issue that remains to be decided is the appropriate architectural response to those requirements.