reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
In response to the argument put up by the Applicant’s legal team, the FOSCC did play the liturgical card and to excellenyt effect.
The Trustees tried to claim a role for the Bishop of Cloyne that would have made him appear not unlike the Maharaja of Maharafelt. The claim was advanced that he was was above and beyond the law.
A liturgical position was advanced, without a shred of support, that was presented as an OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church when it simply was not. Dr. Reid very quickly disposed of that pèarticular piece of mendaciousness.
Given FOSCC’s stated position they had no choice about playing the liturgical card as the whole emphasis of the Guidelines is that ‘Liturgical Requirement’ should be respected. FOSCC has no problem with that position if and only if what was proposed was actually required by the liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. In the case of St. Colman’s cathedral this was not the case. That being so the plans proposed were unnecessarily intrusive and destructive of the fabric of the building. That is FOSCC’s position.
Again they had no choice other than to challenge the HCAC’s document on Liturgy. The interesting thing is that the Trustees, at the oral hearing, made absolutely no effort to engage on this point and no effort was made to cross examine Dr. Reid or put forward a counter argument.@Oswald wrote:
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.Gianlorenzo!
Please do not think that because no official Decree was issued bu the Bishop of CLoyne in setting up the HACK and in deceding to re-order Cobh Cathedral thta you cannot make a recourse to the Holy See. This is a common and well known ruse. It is well known to canonical system. Believe you me that over the centuries several effective antidotes have been developed to cure this problem. A number of juridical preliminaries will quickly solve this problem and open the way, pretty speedily, for the FOSCC to plead before the Roman courts.
@Sirius wrote:
One of the options would be to build a new cathedral – but not on Great Island as Cobh no longer deserves the status of a cathedral town. Mallow is more centrally located to serve the diocese of Cloyne and has been designated as a “hub town” in the National Spatial Strategy. The Town Park there could provide an ideal site.
To return to this posting for a brief moment. Sirius seems thinks that the Cloyne Cathedra was set up in Cobh because Cobh had some special merit as a centre of population or for some other prestige motive. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Clearly, Sirius knows little of the recent history of the diocese of Cloyne.
Sirius should know that the Cathedra of Cloyne was set up in Cobh by a mere accident of history and the generosity of the Earl of Barrynore who afforded protection to the Catholic Bishop during the persecutions of the 18th. century. From 1749, the Bishop of Cloyne was sheltered by Lord Barrymore at Castlelyons. When the castle burned down in 1770, Lord Barrymore’s residence moved to Barrynore Castle at Carrigtwohill (and subsequently to Fota). With him moved the bishop who set up in Cobh. During the 18th. century, the Earls of Barrymore , especially James, the fourth Earl, prohibited priest-catchers from operating within their manorial domains in East and North Cork.
@Praxiteles wrote:
In response to the argument put up by the Applicant’s legal team, the FOSCC did play the liturgical card and to excellenyt effect.
The Trustees tried to claim a role for the Bishop of Cloyne that would have made him appear not unlike the Maharaja of Maharafelt. The claim was advanced that he was was above and beyond the law.
A liturgical position was advanced, without a shred of support, that was presented as an OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church when it simply was not. Dr. Reid very quickly disposed of that pèarticular piece of mendaciousness.
What result did Dr. Reid actually achieve for the FOSCC?
The Inspector ‘s conclusion was as follows :
“whether the bishop and the HCAC erred under canon law in determining that the re-ordering is a liturgical requirement, are not matters for the Board to adjudicate upon, in my opinion. In this regard it is important to note the provisions of 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 development.
Dr. Kershaw did note that regardless of what the Board should decide the entire matter must still receive approval by the head authority of the religious denomination.
I am therefore of the opinion that it is the religious denomination as represented by the applicants (as far as civil planning law is concerned) that determines the liturgical requirements. That is not to say that the bishop and the HCAC are correct and those liturgical experts opposing are incorrect, I simply don’t know, but that is not a determination I have to make. What is of importance to the planning process is whether Guidelines in relation to ascertaining the liturgical requirements are complied with”.
While the Board did not agree with the weight the Inspector gave to the liturgical requirements they accepted that the changes to the interior arise from liturgical requirements.
Dr. Reid achieved precisely what FOSCC wished in that he stated for the record the Official position of the Catholic Church regarding liturgy. And as I said previously he was unchallenged on this issue.
The question of “ascertaining” what liturgical requirements are is indeed of importance for the Cobh issue.
Dr Reid’s presence at the Oral Hearing was most important. The problem was that insular Ireland had no realization of the international standing of this scholar nor of the weight of his judgement on the question of liturgical requirements. His submission to the hearing should have made it absolutely clear that what had been presented by the HACK as and OFFICIAL requirement was no such thing but a personal private preference.
Hence, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned what the HACK presented was NOT a liturgical requirement.
Morever, presenting it as such was mendacious.
The fact that the Applicants legal team did not cross examine indicates that they had some realization that Dr. Reid’s submission had substance and consequences for the outlandish claims they had been instructed to represent.
As I understand it it is the terminology of the planning act that refers to ‘requirement’. Surely, in canon law, there is no mention of liturgical ‘requirements’ at all other than discharging obligations to the GIRM and the rubrics therein.
It is therefore somewhat a sleight of hand to import a certain interpretation of the liturgical law under the guise of a requirement, which is why Dr Reid’s contribution was of such use. In all deference to the authority to the bishop others in the diocese have been well reminded that the church is at once particular to a place and also universal. Given the terms of the act the apellants had no choice other than to engage with the applicants on this issue.
On reflection, I am inclined to think that the position advanced by the HACK might not have been entirely motivated by mendaciousness. You have to take into account the collective professional ignorance of that body when it come to the liturgical sciences. All of the clerics on it are parochial clergy and are not expected to have expert knowledge of the disciplinary norms of Catholic Liturgy. None of the laity on the HACK had the slightest clue as to what they were doing. Alex White proposed a document that was a piece of consumate ignorance. Proposeing it was like shooting into hedge.
@Luzarches wrote:
As I understand it it is the terminology of the planning act that refers to ‘requirement’. Surely, in canon law, there is no mention of liturgical ‘requirements’ at all other than discharging obligations to the GIRM and the rubrics therein.
I agree.
If you appeal to An Bord Pleanala you must present your case using the terminology of the Planning Acts and the Guidelines on Architectural Heritage Protection. If you decide instead to appeal to an ecclesiastical court you will refer to Canon Law and the GIRM.
Oswald, let us try to simplify matters:
1. If I am in an ecclesiastical tribunal, then I have to present my case according to the terms of that system of law.
2. If I am in a civil tribunal -such as ABP – then, I have to present my case according to that system of law.
When it comes to “requirements” as far as Catholic worship is concerned:
1. In an ecclesiastical tribunal I will have to refer to the relevant liturgical law: The Code of Canon Law; the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis; the Praenotanda of the Litrugical Books; and the authoritative interpretations given to these texts by the Congregation for Divine Worship. That is the system within which a case is presented and judged in an ecclesiastical tribunal.
2. In a civil instance tribunal, such as ABP, if we are talking about the “requirements” of Catholic worship, then that discourse must occur within the terms of that legal system. This is how you present what you have to say about “the requirements of Catholic worship” and it is within that system that a decision is made.
3. However, a definition of the “requirements” of Catholic worship can only be made in reference to the sources that I have outlined above: The Code of canon Law; the Institutio Generalis Romani Missalis, the Praenotanda of the liturgical Books and the authentic interpretation of these given by the Congregation for Divine Worship. This constitutes the objctive, public, OFFICIAL, definition of what liturgical requirement is for the Catholic Church.
It is this definition that has to be represented to the civil instance as Catholic “liturgical requirement”. Catholic liturgical requirement cannot be defined by reference to any other sources. If you do define “liturgical requirement” by reference to other sources, then it is not “Catholic liturgical requirement”.
It seems to me that it would be strange for a law to admit of a definition of “liturgical requirement” for every denomination according to the norms of their worship, except for the Catholic Church. Indeed, for ABP or any other civil instance to suggest that the liturgical requirements of the Catholic Church are to be defined by reference to sources other than those outlined above is an undue interference on the part of the civil state in the worship of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church has an official mechanism for ascertaining what a liturgical “rquirement” is. For a civil state to suggest that it can provide a substitute or an alternative for that system is not acceptable and an undue interference in Catholic worship.
All that one is saying here is to repeat a principle that is accepted in Irish law: when the law of a foreign state has a bearing on a case, the provisions of that foreign system are admitted by court in resolving the case. The Canon Law of the Catholic Church is regarded in the Irish law system as a foreign law jurisdiction. It has been admitted in cases. Precedents exists. In the Irish legal system, there should not per se be any difficulty about admitting the canon law regulating the liturgy if there is a difficulty about defining what “liturgical requirment” is.
P.S. Oswald:
If you are presenting a case to An BP, it should be presented in accordance with the terms of the LAW. That is the only thing that matters. Dump everything else, including the guidelines.
This little gem was posted on 15 June 2006 by the Catholic Communications Office in the wake of the last meeting of the Bishops’ Conference:
The decision of An Bord Pleanála regarding St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh
The Bishops’ Conference has noted with grave disappointment and concern the decision of
An Bord Pleanála to refuse planning permission for the liturgical reordering of the
Sanctuary of St Colman’s Cathedral, Cobh.The direction and order of the Board to refuse planning permission is being studied.
The extensive report of the Board’s Inspector, who conducted the oral hearing (28 February,
1-2 March 2006), and who recommended approval for planning, is also being studied.Perhaps they should tells us what is gravely dissapointing them and causing such concern!
Something of the history of the artistic representation of the Apostles Peter and Paul who feast is inscribed in the Christian Calendar on 29 June:
The Cross of Muiredeach at Monasterboice, Co. Louth
From the Cathedral of Guylafehevar, Hungry (1190):
Benozzo Gozzoli, Oue Lady with St Jerome, ST. John the Baptist andSts. Peter and Paul (1465)
@Praxiteles wrote:
Re posting #963:
Who is Gerry Adams? I am not following the drift of Sirius’ argument.
I am deeply shocked that a person with your knowledge and experience is not even aware of the existence of Gerry Adams. Here in Belfast he is idolised as a statesman of intentional importance. I warned Gerry that the day he signed the Good Friday agreement he would begin to slide into political obscurity. I never thought that it could happen so soon!
Chuck E R Law:
Well, we cannot know everything in life. Although the cadences of Munster Irish are a little different, I must say that I do like the interlinguistic pun!
I also like the ecumenical-interpolitical-reference suggested by the interposed initials and their their pun on a well-known cipher!
El Greco (1587), in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg :
The Apostles Peter and Paul
Domenikos Theotokopoulos (El Greco) 1587-92Oil on canvas; 121 x 105 cm
El Greco was one of the first painters in Spain to depict the apostles, St Peter and St Paul, together. This enabled the artist both to reflect on religious concerns and to contrast their different personalities: St Paul is devout and passionate, St Peter gentle and meek. The poses and gestures, the colours and expression, the superb technique, all these emphasize the contrast between the two. This painting comes from the high period of El Greco’s creative life, a period during which he executed a whole series of works on the subject of Christ and the Apostles.
@Praxiteles wrote:
P.S. Oswald:
If you are presenting a case to An BP, it should be presented in accordance with the terms of the LAW. That is the only thing that matters. Dump everything else, including the guidelines.
Having sifted through your postings on the Cobh appeal I am struck by the recurring images of waste disposal. Earlier we were encouraged to “bin†the Inspector’s report and now we are asked to “dump†the Guidelines. Your attitude to waste management seems to be as Victorian as your liturgical views. Why don’t you try recycling these documents?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
