Oswald

@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.

@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.

@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 development”. FOSCC should not have expected the Appeals Board to intervene in the internal affairs of a religious denomination.

@Gianlorenzo wrote:

How many times does it have to be said that the changes proposed for St. Colman’s are not liturgically required. At the oral hearing in Midleton this was stated ad nauseum by the FOSCC. When the Applicants had an opportunity to explain to the Bord just how these proposals were required for the Liturgy they singularly failed to take that opportunity. In fact the Trustees and their agents have been very careful not to say they were liturgicaly required in any public forum, other than the one document submitted to Cobh Town Council.

Even Richard Hurley writing on behalf of the Arts Council says that the changes are not required but desireable. This is precisely the point that FOSCC has been making from the beginning.

Maybe Oswald can enlighten us as to how these proposals are required and by whom ?

The matter has now been resolved but not in the way Gianlorenzo assumes. According to Praxiteles:
“the Rabbit Report has been binned in its totality and, hence, there is little or no need for the Cloyne diocesan authorities to stretch their ample brains on it. Just concentrate on the single page Order made by An Bord Pleanala, if that is not too taxing or tiring, and they should know what they have to do fairly fast”.
If you concentrate long enough on that single page you will find in the third reason for refusal that: “the Board accepted that changes to the interior arise from liturgical requirements, but considered that this does not bind it to accept this particular design solution.”
The liturgical argument has been won by the diocesan authorities – the changes are based on liturgical requirements rather than liturgical preferences. The issue that remains to be decided is the appropriate architectural response to those requirements.

@Gianlorenzo wrote:

Oswald. GET A LIFE !!!!

There is no vendetta against Bishop Magee and, even if there were, he is a big boy and can defend himself.
If you are concerned with Liturgy- read up on it. You may be surprised to learn that what was proposed for Cobh Cathedral is nowhere mention in relevant Vatican document.
Regarding the infamous Guidelines on Architectural Heritage protection read what Noel O’Driscoll of An Taisce has to say.
Finally – Grow Up. Coming to the discussion at this stage and getting personal is childish to say the least. Try coming with constructive and original points.

An Taisce insist on strict compliance with the “infamous” Guidelines when it suits their purpose.

It was considered to be “a threat to democracy” when An Bord Pleanala overruled its Inspector, and ignored the outcome of the oral hearing, in granting permission for the incinerator at Ringaskiddy. Where are the outraged democrats now?

The Board’s role in the planning process is often described as that of a referee. Having been howled at for a dubious decision in Ringaskiddy was it not inevitable that they would use the opportunity of the St. Coleman’s appeal to even things up – particularly as we head into an election year.

Should planners be allowed to dictate to a religious denomination that only Victorian liturgy may be celebrated in a Victorian church?

@Praxiteles wrote:

Yes indeed. I absolutely agree with Thomond. The very best congratulations are in order for the FOSCC who have done trojan work in the face all sorts of mean and base-bred tricks to stifle the voice of the ordinary citizen whne they had something important to say.

This morning’s newspapers report that Fr. Jim Killeen, the Chris-ologos public relations officer for the diocese of Cloyne, is studying the 90 page Rabbitte Report before deciding what hnext to do. Perhaps he did not notice that the Rabbit Report has been binned in its totality and, hence, there is little or no need for the Cloyne diocesan authorities to stretch their ample brains on it. Just concentrate on on the single page Order made by An Bord Pleannala, if that is not too taxing or tiring, and they should know what they have to do fairly fast. Indeed, most of the luminaries involved in recommending Prof. O’Neill’s mad-hatter scheme should simply resign – starting with the over qualified members of the Historic Church Commission of the diocese of Cloyne who obviously cannot be trusted to safeguard the interests on one of the most important monuments in the country. Even the good Bishop, who staked so much on bulldozing his way over his own flock, should also consider sending in a little letter to BXVI.

Although Praxiteles insisted during the appeal that we should read the tendentious documents produced by FOSCC, we are now advised to “bin” the objective Inspector’s Report “in its totality” without reading his assessment or considering the implications of the Board’s decision for the conservation of protected structures which are used as places of worship. One important difference between the Inspector and the Board appears to be that the Inspector took account of Chapter 5 of the Guidelines on Architectural Heritage Protection and the Board did not. Even if we concentrate on the Board’s Order, as Praxiteles advises, we find that the Board accepted that reordering is justified to meet liturgical requirements but decided it could not support the particular design solution proposed. The question to be addressed – by anyone pursuing a genuine interest in architecture and conservation, rather than a vendetta against Bishop Magee – is how the design should now be amended to meet the liturgical requirements while retaining more of the existing fabric of the cathedral.