reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches
- This topic has 7,926 replies, 103 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Thomond Park wrote:
This is where you seem to miss the entire point it is the works that are the issue and not the bishop however it would appear that if the proponent of the works refuses to accept the views of the majority of his parishioners, the majority of the people in Cobh, the National Trust, a leading architectural heritage organisation and the statutory planning appeals bord then it is reasonable to consider that in fact he is wasting copious amounts of funds.
How much has been spent to date on
Architects fees
Planners Fees
Solicitors fees
Barristers FeesIn this case, it is rumoured that the bishop of Cloyne has been charged something in the region of 50,000 Euro for the barrister’s fee alone.
The solicitor’ fees are likely to be something in the region of another 60,000 Euro since Ronan Jermyn and Daly have been retained on almost a daily basis to draft replies to the FOSCC for the bishop.
McCutcheon and Mulcahy have been working on this project for over a year. Even a conservative estimation of their fees must leave the bishop with a bill of soemthing around 100,000 Euro.
It is difficult to say what was paid to the great Professor O’Neill for hie various doodlings but in the returns made to the Registrar of Companies by the St Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Fund there is an item of something in the region of 34,000 Euro which may have been a down payment.
All told,Bishop McGhee’s folley must have generasted a bill of something in the region of 250,000 Euro.
The curious thing about this bill is that it was incurred by the TRUSTEES of the St. Colman’s Cathedral.
During the course of the Oral Hearing, it was mentioned that the bill would be picked up be another entity: The St. Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Fund which is a public company with charitable status and therefore is non tax paying.
The question is: is a company such as the St Colman’s Cathedral Restoration Fund (which collected money for the RESTORATION of the Cathedral) entitled to pay out funds to cover debts incurred by another independent company, The Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral?
An another question; is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cloyne, which is a registered public charity, entitled to dispurse funds to pay debts incurred by a another independent group just like the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral?
Put another way: why are the Trustees of St. Colman’s Cathedral not paying the debts incurred by themselves as a result of the planning debacle?
Should this matter be submitted to the Coorporate Enforcement Agency so taht they can investigate the various ins and outs of teh matter?
Does anybody have any ideas on this subject?
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
I object to a liturgical campaign against one particular bishop being presented as a general concern about architectural heritage.
Some of my best friends are masons.
Chuck, the general concern here and in Cobh is about our architectural heritage and in this case ecclesiatical architectural heritage. It was the applicants, ie Trustees of St. Colman’s , who brought the liturgical question into play by insisting in their application that these intrusive changes were ‘liturgically required’. This was not something that could be ignored. This is not and never was about ‘one particular bishop’. It just so happens that Cobh was the first of the Irish Cathedrals to fall under the 2000 Planning Act. and thank God for that. If you look back on this tread you will see the wholesale destruction which has occurred in our ecclesiatical architectural heritage and mostly justified by the same ‘pseudo liturgy’.
The people in Cobh were fortunate that they were able to get authentic liturgical and canonical advice in addition to access to excellent architectural and conservation assistance.Here is a link to an interesting article on the neo gothic revival in France which seems useful in pursuing the backgrounng to J-B Lassus:
@Praxiteles wrote:
All told,Bishop McGhee’s folley must have generasted a bill of something in the region of 250,000 Euro.
The folly was surely the responsibility of whoever asked for the oral hearing, which I assume in this case was the appellants. If the appeal was decided by written correspondence the fees would have been less than one tenth of the cost of the hearing.
So it should be swept under the carpet so that an estimated €250,000 isn’t squandered by an applicant who was not using private funds?
The costs of reversing the scheme if it were to go ahead could add another a zero to the above figure at a future date and the purpose of the oral hearing was to give transparency to the process which otherwise would have been lacking.
@Dieter wrote:
The folly was surely the responsibility of whoever asked for the oral hearing, which I assume in this case was the appellants. If the appeal was decided by written correspondence the fees would have been less than one tenth of the cost of the hearing.
Dieter:
I think that you are engaged in a defective if not a selective application of the principle of causality. If we are to take that approach to the planing case of Cobh Cathedral, then I think thta you might move the cause another degree further back – to the Applicants who lodged a disgraceful and deeply unpopular plan to wreck Cobh Cathedral without consulting anyone in Cobh.
If we must use the causality principle to understand this process, then, I am inclined to think that the unmoved mover in the process must be the Applicants.
That an Oral hearing was needed to serve transparencey and the public interest was more than adequately proven by the degree of mendacity exhibited by the Apllicants (e.g. that they had the approval of the Holy See when they had not; that they had a letter of approval from Cardinal Arinze when it transpired that they had a letter of commendation for those involved on the project of drawing up the plans: that all of the 214 objections lodged against the planning application had been read when in fact 95 had NOT). This list could be extended.
Do, Dieter, you see, in ireland, cartogra[phic efficiency is not always the most cost effective.
I do not know what heppened to Armandd and his photographs from Nantes but while awaiting his return I am posting this one of St. Nicholas in Nantes, Jean Baptiste Lassus first neo gothic church:
Praxiteles wrote:Dieter:I think that you are engaged in a defective if not a selective application of the principle of causality. If we are to take that approach to the planing case of Cobh Cathedral, then I think thta you might move the cause another degree further back – to the Applicants who lodged a disgraceful and deeply unpopular plan to wreck Cobh Cathedral without consulting anyone in Cobh.
If we must use the causality principle to understand this process, then, I am inclined to think that the unmoved mover in the process must be the Applicants.
That an Oral hearing was needed to serve transparencey and the public interest was more than adequately proven by the degree of mendacity exhibited by the Apllicants (e.g. that they had the approval of the Holy See when they had not]
The point at issue here is a general one concerning the planning appeal process and not specifically about Cobh Cathedral. The sequence of events was as follows:
1. The Applicant sought planning permission in accordance with a layout that had been agreed with the planning authority.
2. The Third Party objected.
3. The Planning Authority decided to grant permission.
4. The Third Party lodged a detailed written appeal and requested an oral hearing.
5. The Applicant had made a detailed written response to the appeal before the Board decided to hold an oral hearing.
6. The Board decided to hold a 3 day oral hearing at the end of which the Inspector found in favour of the Applicants and the Planning Authority.
7. The Board ignored the outcome of the oral hearing and decided to refuse on the basis of the written submissions.
8. As the oral hearing lasted 3 days and let us assume that each party incurred costs of €100,000 (i.e. five times more than the €20,000 that might have been involved if the appeal was decided on the basis of written submissions).
It is suggested by Praxiteles that in such situations the Applicants should have avoided this expense by throwing in the towel as soon as the oral hearing was announced.
Is there anybody out there who would recommend such course of action to an applicant who has received a decision to grant permission?
That is exactly the advice given to the princpal Trustee on the morning of the Oral Hearing by a member of the Cobh Cathedral Restoiration Fund so as to save himself further embarrasment. It was not taken and the embarrassment followed both at the hearing – by the level of mendacity uncovered – and subsequently by the ABP decision. Tough you know what as they say…
Armandd
Thank you so much for those superb pictures of St. Nicholas. They were worth waiting for. I particularly liked the ones showing the massing of the east end; the magnificent Porta Coeli arch; the vaulting; and of the turret on the High Altar which is so reminiscent of JJ. McCarthy’s High Altar in St. Peter and Paul’s at Kilmallock, Co. Limerick.
Praxiteles wrote:ArmanddThank you so much for those superb pictures of St. Nicholas. They were worth waiting for. I particularly liked the ones showing the massing of the east end]
I sometimes wonder whether Praxiteles, who claims to be a sculptor, has all his/her marbles. The photographs presented by Armand, which brought Praxiteles to an architectural orgasm, were to any rational person une piece de merde. The only thing these photos show is that the poor demented La Rochellais was on his ear. He seemed to be incapable of holding the camera in the vertical position presumably because of a lifelong addiction to absinthe.
Well our dear militant friend has been back on and does not seem to appreciate feeling the drunkness of things being varied. Armandd did a wonderful job and has provided pictures not otherwise available even on the net.
From what I reacll of my school French, “piece” means either “a coin” or “a roomt”. Chuck’s grammar is also as wobbly as his frog vocalary.
What ever you do do Chuck, do not start teaching French in Belfast or we will have a right mess.
@Chuck E R Law wrote:
I sometimes wonder whether Praxiteles, who claims to be a sculptor, has all his/her marbles. The photographs presented by Armand, which brought Praxiteles to an architectural orgasm, were to any rational person une piece de merde. The only thing these photos show is that the poor demented La Rochellais was on his ear. He seemed to be incapable of holding the camera in the vertical position presumably because of a lifelong addiction to absinthe.
It says a lot that Chuck should describe Praxiteles as A sculptor!
As for “rational person”: well the same rational person would probably feel a discrepency between the premise and conclusioon of that syllogism. Enough said.
Is “La Rochellais” a correct French description for an inhabitant of La Rochelle?
@Praxiteles wrote:
Is “La Rochellais” a correct French description for an inhabitant of La Rochelle?
I had the impression that The Three Masons (Praxiteles, Sangallo and Gianlorenzo) had modelled themselves on The Three Musketeers at the Siege of La Rochelle, i.e. relying on extravagant (s)wordplay to escape from impossible situations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
