A MAN who attended Mass in Carlow Cathedral all his life has lost a High Court application to prevent the removal of its altar, altar rails and pulpit.
Mr Justice Barron granted a stay until Friday on his order and an appeal could be brought against yesterday's decision.
On November 11th Mr Justice Barron granted a temporary injunction to Mr Sean Connolly, Chapelstown, Co Carlow.
The defendants were Father John Byrne, administrator of the cathedral, and the trustees of the Diocese of Kildare and Leighlin.
Mr Connolly, in an affidavit, said the high altar of white Sicilian marble had been erected in 1890. The fine marble side altars were erected in 1903-04. The marble altar rails had been presented to the people of Carlow in 1903.
Since 1995, added Mr Connolly, the present bishop had sought to remove those architectural features and radically remodel the interior of the cathedral.
Before Christmas, Mr Justice Barron heard an application by Mr Connolly for an interlocutory injunction and reserved his decision. Giving judgment yesterday, he refused Mr Connolly's application.
The judge said that when the original proposals were made known, there was considerable opposition in the local community.
This resulted in two separate reports, one by the Heritage Council and one by an independent forum. As a result, the proposals had been altered. They were still strenuously opposed by Mr Connolly.
Mr Justice Barron said it was not part of the function of the court to express views as to the suitability or otherwise of the proposed works. That was a matter for the bishop and his advisers. What was of concern to the court, and the only matter with which it was concerned, was whether the bishop had the legal power to carry out his proposals.
Carlow Cathedral was church property. The legal title was vested in trustees for the benefit of the community of the diocese. There was no written trust instrument.
The real issue was whether Mr Connolly could show an arguable case that in carrying out the alterations, the defendants would be in breach of the trust under which the cathedral was held.
Mr Connolly's sole argument under this heading was that the changes proposed were not mandatory under church law. But to make this submission, Mr Connolly relied upon a document which stated further that it was the right and duty of the local bishop to decide questions of the type at issue.
The defendants maintained that the property was held subject to canon law and that they had the right under canon law to do as they proposed. Nothing which Mr Connolly had submitted raised a substantial issue as to the validity of that contention; the contrary was the case.
On the application of Mr Martin Hayden, counsel for the defendants, costs were awarded in favour of Father Byrne and the trustees.