reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
Sirius,
The appeal decision has advanced the protection of our ecclesiastical architectural heritage and hopefully what remains of a great period in Irish architecture as well as Irish Catholicism will not (sic) [did you mean “now”?] be preserved and appreciated for what it is.Should church architecture be preserved in a way that physically restricts liturgical change? In this particular case the decision happens to suit the liturgical conservatives. But what if a future Bishop of Kerry wanted to reorder St. Mary’s Cathedral and An Taisce insisted that the present layout of the sanctuary be preserved as one of the finest examples of late 20th century iconoclasm?
The appeal decision is a Pyrrhic victory. If you hand over control of the sanctuary to the secular authorities will you ever be able to take it back? The liturgical debate should be resolved within the church and should never be brought into the planning process.
FOSCC should support the Bishop’s right under the planning code to reorder the sanctuary in accordance the diocesan liturgical requirements. At the same time they should seek to influence those requirements by using the internal church procedures outlined by Dr. Kershaw.@Sirius wrote:
You don’t have to distance yourself from somebody who is attacking you.
I am beginning to think you sound like Gerry Adams
I disagree I feel it is you that is apologising for the intended actions of another which have been regarded in many quarters as representing the destruction of a very precious and sacred building; whilst Praxiteles and many others have relied solely upon the statutory process to acheive their goal by entirely legitimate and dignified means without descending into rancour or personal attack.
@Sirius wrote:
You don’t have to distance yourself from somebody who is attacking you.
I am beginning to think you sound like Gerry Adams
Sticks and stones etc. etc.
Please keep to the point. FOCSS has made its position perfectly clear. There is no hidden ‘Tridentine’ agenda. Talk to the point and stop throwing mud at people it won’t stick to.
Once again I ask you to be specific and tell me what are the particular liturgical requirements you keep referring to in the abstract. Give me concrete examples and please quote from the relevant Vatican II documents.Sirius is still not getting the point:
1. The FOSCC did everything possible to resolve the Cobh crisis in an in-house manner. The Trustees would have nothing to do with FOSCC.
2. By making a planning application, the Trustees dragged the liturgical question into the civil instances. The outcome, as they knew or should have known was inevitable. Do not blame the FOSCC for this. Blame the TRUSTEES. Indeed, the Trustees based their legal argument almost entirely on the liturgical question at the Oral Hearing. FOSCC tried to avoid mentioning that subject as much as possible.
3. The Bishop of Cloyne may not yet be out of the woods as regards a contentious case being brought against him by any member of the faithful in the diocese of Cloyne – and he has given sufficient canonical grounds under several headings to have such launched against him. The Roman tribunals can be pretty mean places when they start listening to how ecclesiastical (and civil) authority was abused in efforts to suppress Christ’s little ones. They could quite easily hand down a sentence that would make An Bord Pleanala look like a garden party at Buckingham Palace.
4. The are no such things as “diocesan liturgical requirements”. A bishop may decide in relation to liturgical matters in his diocese. But, he should remember, that every decision he makes is open to appeal to the justice tribunals of the Holy See. As far as the Catholic liturgy is concerned, there is only one head of the Roman Rite and that is the Bishop of Rome who is the highest authoirty on the matter and his decisions are final and without appeal.
The absurdity of the assertion of the Cloyne HACK that it decided what was liturgy in Cloyne should be clear. It is a position that I can imagine would warm the heart of any Inquisitor. It was not without reason that I refer to this body as semi-zwinglian.
5. I do not know what your problem about the civil authorities is. It is the norm in practically every european country that government conservation offices look after historic churches.
Of course, if the the Guardians of Faith and Morals in Ireland were a bit brighter, they might be able to see that if the civil authorities claim rights over ecclesiastical buildings in Ireland, then they must surely also have DUTIES in relation to them as well. If they thought about it, as they did in France after 1905, the penny might begin to drop that money for the upkeep of historical churches can now be wrung from the Irish government.
Re posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
On the one hand, it was made to seem suspicious, at the least, that FOSCC did not distance itself from a particular view, while for others it is asserted that there is no necessity for them to distance themselves from the same particular view!!
This makes abslutely no sense or reason. Logicallly, both goose and gander must use the same sauce.
Or are we dealing with someone who thinks that FOSCC must establish its credentials while the others need not?
If a future Bishop of Kerry ever wanted to redstore KIllarney and An Taisce object to it, then that Bishop of Kerry should blame the infamous Bishop of Kerry who wrecked it in the first place. It has been observed that one who will damage a church will also damage the Church. It was certainly true in the case of Killarney. BUt, I think it better we do not get any further into that.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
On the one hand, it was made to seem suspicious, at the least, that FOSCC did not distance itself from a particular view, while for others it is asserted that there is no necessity for them to distance themselves from the same particular view!!
This makes abslutely no sense or reason. Logicallly, both goose and gander must use the same sauce.
Or are we dealing with someone who thinks that FOSCC must establish its credentials while the others need not?
Prax. Gerry Adams must be one of those conservative/conservation zealots referred to earlier.
Fra Angelico. The naming of ST. John the Baptist, 1434
The Preaching of St. John the Baptist by Bachiacca (1530)
The WIlton Diptych, St John the Baptist (1395)
Jan van Eyck, The Ghent Altarpiece, St. John the Baptist /1425)
Rogier van der Weyden, The Birth and naming of St. John the Baptist (1455)
Rogier van der Weyden, The Decollation of St. John the Baptist (1455)
El Greco, St. John the Baptist (1600)
@Gianlorenzo wrote:
FOSCC enlisted an eminent liturgist Dr Alcuin Reid and an eminent canon lawyer Dr Alan Kershaw, to put their point across. Have you read what they had to say? FOSCC has never deviated from the Vatican line, albeit pre or post Vatican II.
If you could put your prejudices on hold for a short time and read the entire FOSCC submission to the oral hearing you might learn something. Do not judge them on what they did not say, judge them on what they said.I have read through the FOSCC submission and I agree that the evidence given by Dr. Reid was impressive. However, the implication of Dr. Kershaw’s evidence was that Dr. Reid had come to the wrong forum. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments appears to be the appropriate body to review the Cloyne HCAC’s statement on the liturgical requirements. The Inspector noted that under Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, “a person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any developmentâ€. FOSCC should not have expected the Appeals Board to intervene in the internal affairs of a religious denomination.
Oswald is correct in saying that an authoritative judgement on the liturgical document submitted to the Cloyne HACK can only be given by the Holy See, which in this cse, operates through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. (see the posting I put up quoting from Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Did the HACK ever think of sending it to Rome before proposing and accepting it unaninously? I do not think so.
I am not sure what your point about a permission is. Are not permissions given to carry out minor repairs without having to resort to planning applications? Indeed, some of the “authorities” in Cloyne were trying to persuade the p.a. for years that they were only carrying out mminor works tot he Cathedral in implementing the O’Neill scheme.
I cannot see how the FOSCC can be involved in this.
@Praxiteles wrote:
I am not sure what your point about a permission is.
I cannot see how the FOSCC can be involved in this.Dr. Kershaw pointed out that “regardless of what the Appeal Board should decide the entire matter must still receive approval by the Holy See which will exercise its authority by evaluating and establishing whether liturgical laws have been scrupulously followedâ€. He also stated that “all of the decisions of the bishop are open to administrative recourse to the competent Dicastery of the Roman Curiaâ€. This implies that that there is a separate appeal procedure on liturgical matters available to FOSCC within the administrative structures of the Church. If that is the case there was no purpose in challenging the HCAC’s liturgical requirements during the oral hearing.
@Oswald wrote:
I have read through the FOSCC submission and I agree that the evidence given by Dr. Reid was impressive. However, the implication of Dr. Kershaw’s evidence was that Dr. Reid had come to the wrong forum. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments appears to be the appropriate body to review the Cloyne HCAC’s statement on the liturgical requirements. The Inspector noted that under Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, “a person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a permission under this section to carry out any developmentâ€. FOSCC should not have expected the Appeals Board to intervene in the internal affairs of a religious denomination.
Oswald:
The sentence beginning “The inspector noted….” seems somehow unceoonected with the preceding sentence and the following sentence. That is my trouble with this posting. Is it part of some other text that was cancelled and this sentence inadvertently left behind?
Oswald wrote:Dr. Kershaw pointed out that “]That there are juridical and administrative recourse systems to the Holy See available to Christ’s faithful is simply a matter of fact. Indeed, the FOSCC may well take an action against the HACK before the competent Dicastery of the Holy See. I would encourage them to do so.
Simply because a range of options is available to someone does not mean that they are automatically obliged to use only one option.
I would also point out that the FOSCC could take a civil action in the Irish High Court to have the bishop of Cloyne apply the norms of Canon Law to the set up, structure, and functioning of the HACK. The precedent is there for this in the famous O’Rourke/McGrath before the Irish Supreme Court which was provided by the bishops themselves. So far, they have not chosen to do that.
@Praxiteles wrote:
Simply because a range of options is available to someone does not mean that they are automatically obliged to use only one option.
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.
Oswald you are taking Dodd’s remarks entirely out of context his remarks are deliberately intended to illuminate that in particular situations concerning large scale commercial projects there may be a requirement to source permission or consent from another government body or a landlord other than the Local Authority or Bord Pleanala examples of this include:
a> An Integrated Pollution Control Licence in the case of a factory or incinerator
b> A seven day on sales licence in the case of a bar
c> Landlords consent in the case of an application for development where the property is held on a long building lease
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
