reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches

Very bad feeling registeded in Cobh on Saturday and Sunday with the reading of Bishop McGhee’s daft letter about constitutional infingement in the wake of ABP’s decision not to permit the wreckage of Cobh Cathedral. Several walked out of Masses as the bishop’s ponderous words were droned out over the congregation as inappropriately as a the harbour boon on a fine day.

The FOSCC has replied and made a right fool of the bishop’s claim by p[ointing out that Cobh Cathedral is not owned by any religious denomination but by a secular trust established in Irish law of which Mr. Tidy Towns (aka Tom Cavanagh) of Fermoy, Fr. Timmy Foughy and bishop McGhee are the trustees.

TEXT OF BISHOP’S Letter

My Dear People, July 25th 2006

I write to you today concerning our much admired Diocesan Cathedral – St Colman’s in Cobh. The Diocese had proposed changes to St. Colman’s which involved replacing the present temporary plywood altar with a permanent altar, something worthy of the Cathedral, as well as extending the sanctuary so that the altar would be more visible to the congregation and so make it easier for people to experience full, active and conscious participation in the Mass. As you may be aware, An Bord Pleanala recently has refused planning permission for the proposed changes.

Whilst the An Bord Pleanala decision is of particular importance for our Diocese, the Irish Bishops, as a group, have also expressed their concern. The decision could have serious implications for all places of worship in the State that are also protected structures. It must be viewed in the context of the Constitutional right of every religious denomination “to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable or immovable” which is contained in Article 44.2.5 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann.

In its decision, An Bord Pleanala accepted that changes in the sanctuary arose from liturgical requirements, but considered that this did not bind it to accept the particular design proposed. An Bord Pleanala believed that the changes proposed “would constitute an excessive intervention in the protected structure”, but they did not give any guidelines as to what design would be acceptable.

As a result of An Bord Pleanala’s decision, the situation concerning the temporary plywood altar still remains unresolved and needs to be addressed. The Diocese will initiate discussions with the planning authorities in an attempt to find a solution, which would be acceptable from both the liturgical and heritage points of view. I will keep you fully informed of the outcome of these discussions.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for your outstanding financial and moral support, which has enabled the undertaking of excellent work to conserve and preserve the fabric of the Cathedral building. Through your generosity €4,000,000 (four million euro) has already been spent on restoring the Cathedral. The excellence of the workmanship has brought praise from many quarters, including a European Architectural Heritage Award. Without your generous assistance this would not have been possible.

I appreciate that some members of the faithful may find it difficult to understand why it is necessary to continue with the process for the internal re-ordering of St. Colman’s. I do so because of my concern, as your Bishop, that the present sanctuary layout of our beautiful and historic Cathedral does not satisfactorily meet the current liturgical requirements for a Diocesan Cathedral.

With every good wish and blessing,

+John Magee, Bishop of Cloyne

It looks a though the poor beknighted bihsop overlooked the apparent contradiction between saying his property rights were infringed by the state and his surprise at not having been issued with directives on how he should liturgically reorder the sanctuary in Cobh by the planning authority aka the State. This is another example of the disorganised state of “reasoning” prevalent among those wishing to wreck the Cathedral.

The bishop of Cloyne is on about his constitutional rights having been infringed by ABP. This old chestnut was already dealt with on this thread a month ago but, it seems, both the good bishop and his advisers all seem to be in the slow-learners class and, at this point, face demotion to ultra remedial level as they do not seem able to get the poit at all. It was Brian McCutcheon of McCutcheon and Mulcahy planning consultants who dreamt up this scare tactic in an attempted rebuttal of the FOSCC objection made to ABP. Brian’s musings are available in his November 2005 submission to ABP.

Despite having expressed “concern” the Irish Cathoplic Bishops clearly did not place any great confidence in whatever they were told by bishop McGhee and, sensibly, do not seem to have been wiulling to underwrite a quixotic outiong in the High Court. It really is time the good bishop got the message that he is really beginning to annoy people at this stage with his silly posturings.

By a complete chance, I happened on this firm of architects who spesialize in “reorderings”. It operates out of Belfast but seems to have operations’ field extending at least as far as Co. Louth. I think it may deserve a closer inspection and examination of liturgical and conservationist outlook.

The following description of the practise is certainly arresting: “
Rooney & McConville do not have a ‘house style’ as such. This is deliberate as we employ a collaborative style of working, developing the architecture in response to the need of the Christian community we are serving. Our work is specific to each circumstance, to each site and to each religious community. Consequently, every project has a unique set of circumstances,………. and a unique outcome”.

Unique outcomes…hmmmm?

Here is the link: http://www.rooney-mcconville.com/whoweare.aspx

An interesting point.

And another little item from the Cork Examiner

Bishop McGhee mentioned article 44.2.5 recently in a public letter. I wonder did he read article 44.2.6?

5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

Hi Luz,

Brian Quinn here and Rooney & MConville is my company.

You said: @Luzarches wrote:

Unique outcomes? They all have square altars. All projects consectrated to the Holy Trinity: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

I don’t understand your point about Liberty etc. Maybe you can clarify?

As regards unique outcomes take a closer look at the projects on our web site. No two are the same?

BQ

Hi Prax

You said @Praxiteles wrote:

The Cobh saga now appears to be focusing on the altar and on the distance between the altar and the nave. The spokesmman for the Trustees has been rabbiting on again about reducing the distance between the altar and the congregation. He believes that this is something “required” by Vatican II liturgy. Clearly, he does not eother know or realize that the source of this idea in modern church architecture has nothing to do with the lirurgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and a great deal to do with application of universal space to church architecture by Ruudolf Schwarz

BQ: I don’t think you’re correct here. The desire for a more appropriate proximity between altar and congregation is now – if maybe not directly after Vatican 2 -about expressing more clearly the nature and reality of the People of God. When we gather for worship Christ is truly present. We gather as one people within which the priest has a special ministry. Christ is truly present in the priest when he presides over the assembly as well of course but the guidelines produced by the Irish Bishop’s conference are clear that the primary symbol is the unity of the assembly – the People of God. This undestanding of the People of God has developed slowly since the beginning of the Twentieth Century and reached a high point in Vatican 2. It’s still developing now. The question is how should our understanding of the People of God be manifest in the church interior? We have come to realise that perpetuating an exclusive zone into which only male ordained may enter contradicts the reality of what the People of God is and this in turn undermines the liturgy. Does that mean the wholesale reorganisation of historic church interiors? No. Whatver is proposed must take into account the integrity of the architecural setting and must be sensitive to the particular faith community. However, to freeze the interior in a moment of time is to deny the constant striving for understanding of who we are and of our Christian mission.

@Praxiteles wrote:

Prax: If some philantrophist might be persuaded to put copies of this book in the christmas stokings of the above, they might just stop telling us (incorrectly) that Vatican II came up with this idea or that Vatican II canonized Schwarz’s ideas – which it most definitely did not.

BQ: I think in logic this is called a ‘straw man’ argument?

BQ