Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
Home › Forums › Ireland › reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches › Re: Re: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
There was nothing to stop FOSCC playing their liturgical card. However, as they also had the option of the ecclesiastical courts, the Inspector could invoke Subsection 34 (13) in order to keep out of the liturgical dispute.
Stephen Dodd, in his commentary on the 2000 Planning Act, says that Subsection 34 (13):
“reflects the fact that planning permission is permissive in nature rather than granting rights to carry out the development assertable against all persons. Other permissions or rights may need to be obtained before the development can occur”.
There is plenty of case law on this point, e.g. Convery v Dublin City Council and Houlihan v An Bord Pleanala.
One final point. FOSCC is not about attacking the bishop or the Church. They will take no action against them if it is not necessary. Just because options are available does not mean they have to be used. FOSCC was elected by the people of Cobh to represent them regarding the proposed re-ordering of the Cathedral and that they did in the only way open to them at the time.
As no official Decrees were issued regarding the HCAC or the proposed re-ordering they could not take recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship. The other option of going to the High Court, while still available, would be very expensive and would bring the bishop and the diocese of Cloyne into disrepute – not something FOSCC desires.
The Trustee brought this into the civil forum by applying for planning permission without any effort to engage with the people of the parish or the diocese. FOSCC merely reacted.