Cathedral completely gutted

manlad

Just seen in the news that a cathedral was completely gutted in longord

On Christmas day of all days.
Wonder is it a sign from God about all the recent goings on

philologos

Article here.

uncle-mofo

What was the church gutted about?

punkindrublic

theres a thread already in the longford forums i believe but yes its very sad!

manlad

it was gutted that it got set on fire and burned to the ground

Archeron

Dreadful news.

jumpguy

uncle-mofo wrote: »

What was the church gutted about?

Probably the dwindling numbers going to Christmas night mass.

Was it suspected arson or an accident? The article isn't clear.

o1s1n

That article is so badly written I've read it several times and still don't know what it says.


He said that the building is just a shell and its burned out from end to end.
He said it was a dreadful day for him personally and quite devastating.
He said it was an extraordinary achievement at the time. He said that the building was so central to Longford's history.
He said he celebrated midnight mass last night to a packed Cathedral.
He said that it was an extraordinary contrast this morning

Buceph

Bloody Norwegians!!!

jumpguy

RTE must been watching us...the article has been reworded. :eek:

Buford T Justice

Clearly they didn't reword it properly

St Mel's Cathedral was built in the 1940s and opened in September, 1856.

Is time travel possible?

MagicMarker

One down.

Robbo

I heard the landlord's a bit skint and did it for the insurance money.

Saint_Mel

On the upside, it'll create some jobs for the rebuild!

04KY

amovingstatue wrote: »

Amen. Thank christ the voice of reason. I couldn't believe the woman on the six one news bawling about it. That part of the problem, there's more obsession with symbolism and ritualistic nonsense in the catholic church than anything to do with being a good person. And individual materialism is denounced as sinful.

I grew up in Longford. I'm not overly religious. But hearing the news this morning upset me greatly. It was the most prominent building in the town, beautiful architecture and steeped in history. I assume the museum was destroyed by the fire too.

MagicMarker

04KY wrote: »

I grew up in Longford.

Sorry about that.

Coriolanus

Who foots the bill for the 2m refurbishment? Will the parishioners be asked to, via collections and fundraising or will Il Pape sell off one of his gold encrusted mitres?

GhostInTheRuins

Saint_Mel wrote: »

On the upside, it'll create some jobs for the rebuild!

You've the most perfect username for this thread.

04KY

Nevore wrote: »

Who foots the bill for the 2m refurbishment? Will the parishioners be asked to, via collections and fundraising or will Il Pape sell off one of his gold encrusted mitres?

I'm hoping Mel Gibson, since he was apparently named after the place!

Capt'n Midnight

Nevore wrote: »

Who foots the bill for the 2m refurbishment?

Insurance :rolleyes:

Saint_Mel

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

You've the most perfect username for this thread.

Haha, never even copped that when I was posting. Thankfully I've no affiliation to Longford

The_Minister

MagicMarker wrote: »

Meh. Indifference is all I feel, the destruction of a cathedral is miniscule in comparison to the destruction caused by the church. I certainly won't be shedding a tear. I doubt that it's a coincidence that a Cathedral is burned down on Christmas day in the midst of a sex scandal.

Tbh, it was one of the best (read: only) things about Longford.

It was architecturally significant (If you are like me then that means "Oh, pretty"), contained several works of art, was a well-known landmark, and had a good bit of history behind it.

It's a real pity it was destroyed, regardless of whether or not you like the Church.

Fanny Cradock

I'm afraid I just don't see the link between the topic of this thread - a building destroyed by fire - and the sexual crimes committed by some members of the RC clergy. They are separate issues.

Capt'n Midnight

The_Minister wrote: »

Tbh, it was one of the best (read: only) things about Longford.

You are forgetting about the road to Dublin ?

TheZohanS

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm afraid I just don't see the link between the topic of this thread - a building destroyed by fire - and the sexual crimes committed by some members of the RC clergy. They are separate issues.

Good point.

Folks keep it on topic or the thread gets closed.

Fanny Cradock

lugha wrote: »

Yes they are separate issues. But it would be a tad naive to expect that the understandable anger at the latter would be focused where it should be with any kind of precision. Anybody or any institution linked to the RC church (or even any Christian church) can expect, however unfairly, to be on the receiving end of some hostility. Such is the nature of anger.

That they are separate issues is entirely the point. I don't believe anyone here has attempted to defend those who sought to committed sexual abuses. So the unfocused anger and outrage that we see here - however warranted - eventually becomes less effective in implementing change as it falls into an unintentional caricature of a "RCC basher". I dare say that actively maintaining such unfocused anger can ultimately be counter-productive to the individual and their cause. This thread is about a building burning down, so why not talk about that. There are 100's of other threads that deal specifically with child abuse and the apparent insanity of believing in God.

Fanny Cradock

TheZohan wrote: »

Good point.

Folks keep it on topic or the thread gets closed.

Apologies, I was typing my last post as this was being posted

amovingstatue

04KY wrote: »

I grew up in Longford. I'm not overly religious. But hearing the news this morning upset me greatly. It was the most prominent building in the town, beautiful architecture and steeped in history. I assume the museum was destroyed by the fire too.

Nobody died in the fire, it would have been a tragedy if there was . It may have been as a result of arson or else sloppy curation in maintaning fire safety standards.

some people look at a cathedral and see magnificent architeture/design etc etc. I see stone lifted into place by slave labour.

i do agree that the current situation re handling the sex abuse cases in the church is a completely separate situation unless it's found to be an arson attack by someone motivated as a result of those scandals.

The_Minister

amovingstatue wrote: »

some people look at a cathedral and see magnificent architeture/design etc etc. I see stone lifted into place by slave labour.

I am nearly sure that no slave labour was used to build the cathedral.

Now you can feel sad.

amovingstatue

The_Minister wrote: »

I am nearly sure that no slave labour was used to build the cathedral.

Now you can feel sad.

Fair point, not literally slave labour but i'm willing to bet that the lifestyle of the labourers was quite different from that of "Bishop O'Higgins in 1840, a man noted for his extravagant taste and ambitious plans. The foundation stone was reputedly moved from the original St. Mel's Cathedral at Ardagh. Work was suspended in 1846 after the onset of the Great Famine (1845 - c. 1849) and recommenced in 1853."

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=LF&regno=13002327

Fanny Cradock

amovingstatue wrote: »

Fair point, not literally slave labour but i'm willing to bet that the lifestyle of the labourers was quite different from that of "Bishop O'Higgins in 1840, a man noted for his extravagant taste and ambitious plans. The foundation stone was reputedly moved from the original St. Mel's Cathedral at Ardagh. Work was suspended in 1846 after the onset of the Great Famine (1845 - c. 1849) and recommenced in 1853."

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=LF&regno=13002327

Your link mentions nothing of the sort. He could have been a wonderful humanitarian for all you know. That you automatically think the worst of him seems to be a function of something other than the facts.

R0ot

I call insurance fraud by the church!

TheZohanS

R0ot wrote: »

I call insurance fraud by the church!

Probably not covered by insurance...wouldn't that be an Act of God?

oppenheimer1

amovingstatue wrote: »

Fair point, not literally slave labour but i'm willing to bet that the lifestyle of the labourers was quite different from that of "Bishop O'Higgins in 1840, a man noted for his extravagant taste and ambitious plans. The foundation stone was reputedly moved from the original St. Mel's Cathedral at Ardagh. Work was suspended in 1846 after the onset of the Great Famine (1845 - c. 1849) and recommenced in 1853."

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=LF&regno=13002327

It is true that Bishops led totally different lifestyles to those of ordinary labourers back in the 1850's but that hardly means it was slave labour. The men would have been given a wage for the work which they completed.

I was sad to hear the news that the Cathedral was gutted by fire this morning. It was one of the few things that Longford had to be proud of, and was one of the top free attractions in the country last year. I think, but I am open to correction, that it attracted a quarter of a million visitors. It was the focal point of Longford town.

People seem to forget that a church plays an important part in peoples lives. The births, marriages and deaths of an entire town centred on this beautiful building. Perhaps this explains why Longford people were upset to see it distroyed. All that history gone too - the church records, the museum, the priceless stained glass windows, other art and statues.

It also upsetting to see that people here seem to think that Longford deserved this, as some form of retribution of the scandals within the RC Church. Its hardly fair to link these two incidents to one another. Communities and churches do not need to be attacked for the evil deeds of the few.

Sure we can restore and rebuild, but it will never be the same. It was something that was always there for us and generations before. The place where some of us shared a lot of emotion is now gone, and its this which saddens me the most.

The_Minister

amovingstatue wrote: »

Fair point, not literally slave labour but i'm willing to bet that the lifestyle of the labourers was quite different from that of "Bishop O'Higgins in 1840, a man noted for his extravagant taste and ambitious plans. The foundation stone was reputedly moved from the original St. Mel's Cathedral at Ardagh. Work was suspended in 1846 after the onset of the Great Famine (1845 - c. 1849) and recommenced in 1853."

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=LF&regno=13002327

If your standard for slave labour is the guy paying them to do the work has a better lifestyle than they do, then most of the world are slaves, and all the buildings are products of slave labour.

By casting the net of slavery so wide, you have reduced the state of slavery to one without consequence, and one which cannot be morally condemned with any real credability.

pacman.podge

is it being treated as suspicious?? or was it after candles after mass .....

UpTheSlashers

Definitely some lad who REALLY didnt want to go to christmas mass

R0ot

TheZohan wrote: »

Probably not covered by insurance...wouldn't that be an Act of God?

/thread

TheZohanS

Folks lets stay on topic...

g-whizz

UpTheSlashers wrote: »

Definitely some lad who REALLY didnt want to go to christmas mass

philly?

bSlick

TheZohan wrote: »

Folks lets stay on topic...

Is this for real? Why was my post deleted? Because you didn't like my opinion? I can't see where I broke the charter....it is an opinion I'd imagine is shared by a fair % of the population and is no worse than lots of stuff that gets posted on AH.

I can also see that amovingstatue's post where he mentions that some of his posts seem to has been deleted now too. So what gives?


Edit: I see that oppenheimer and jakkass have thanked you straight after the deletions. So if these posters have a problem with a post it gets deleted? I would hardly agree with anything jakkass has to say but I would never ask for anything he writes to be deleted. If it's not because of them can you tell me why posts are being deleted from this thread then?

amovingstatue

bSlick wrote: »

Is this for real? Why was my post deleted? Because you didn't like my opinion? I can't see where I broke the charter....it is an opinion I'd imagine is shared by a fair % of the population and is no worse than lots of stuff that gets posted on AH.

I can also see that amovingstatue's post where he mentions that some of his posts seem to has been deleted now too. So what gives?

I can understand that there may be concerns about the legal situation re the sex abuse scandals (which are referred to in the 1st post btw) but my posts had nothing to do with that.... still that's the way it is here i suppose.

an explanation for the deletions does seem merited, but then again i'm new here so may not be playing the right way/game....

philologos

bSlick: My posts were deleted too.

I think it's only apt that people discuss the topic (Cathedral burning) rather than child abuse.

TheZohan keeps good order here.

bSlick

amovingstatue wrote: »

I can understand that there may be concerns about the legal situation re the sex abuse scandals (which are referred to in the 1st post btw) but my posts had nothing to do with that.... still that's the way it is here i suppose.

an explanation for the deletions does seem merited, but then again i'm new here so may not be playing the right way/game....

I never once mentioned anything that could be considered legally problematic. I just criticized the instituation of the church as a whole. As many on here do daily.

Jakkass wrote: »

bSlick: My posts were deleted too.

I think it's only apt that people discuss the topic (Cathedral burning) rather than child abuse.

TheZohan keeps good order here.

Well why is he stiffling the discussion in here? Nothing that breached the charter was posted. I alluded to the cathedral fire and how I have no sympathy for the church and that I think it is actually a welcome sign. Obviously we don't agree on this jakkass but I'm sure you can agree that everyone is entitled to their point of view and the last thing that is needed is people's opinions being silenced on a thread to do with church matters.

oppenheimer1

bSlick wrote: »

Is this for real? Why was my post deleted? Because you didn't like my opinion? I can't see where I broke the charter....it is an opinion I'd imagine is shared by a fair % of the population and is no worse than lots of stuff that gets posted on AH.

I can also see that amovingstatue's post where he mentions that some of his posts seem to has been deleted now too. So what gives?


Edit: I see that oppenheimer and jakkass have thanked you straight after the deletions. So if these posters have a problem with a post it gets deleted? I would hardly agree with anything jakkass has to say but I would never ask for anything he writes to be deleted. If it's not because of them can you tell me why posts are being deleted from this thread then?

While I wish I had enough influence to get peoples posts that I don't agree with deleted, this is not the case, nor did I report your post.

Catholic church bashing doesn't belong in this thread. This building was the only building of significant architectural merit in Longford which has been the scene of some of the most joyous and heartbreaking moments for the people of the community. You have chosen to cheapen their loss by calling it a "poxy building". While it may have been that to you, just stones stacked on one another, the building was more than that to Longfordians. The emotion expressed on the news tonight made that clear.

The fact that the church has been involved in scandal of late is totally irrelevant to what happened on Christmas morning. The fact that you try to link the two is offensive to people in Longford.

I hope its rebuilt soon and as much as possible of its former glory restored. We have lost much that cannot be replaced though.

amovingstatue

bSlick wrote: »

Edit: I see that oppenheimer and jakkass have thanked you straight after the deletions. So if these posters have a problem with a post it gets deleted? I would hardly agree with anything jakkass has to say but I would never ask for anything he writes to be deleted. If it's not because of them can you tell me why posts are being deleted from this thread then?

yep, two of my posts that were deleted were replies to posts by these two users which were taking issue with the points I was making, so they are able to supposedly go off topic with me and challenge my points but I'm then unable to reply for an unknown reason.

btw i have seen other posts that deserved to be deleted but that is my opinion... and as i say before i'm new here...

hey, this will probably all be gone in 10 more minutes, is there a log of moderator's activities kept i wonder?

The_Minister

If you have a problem with moderation, we have a Feedback forum.

It is found under Sys.

bSlick

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Catholic church bashing doesn't belong in this thread. This building was the only building of significant architectural merit in Longford which has been the scene of some of the most joyous and heartbreaking moments for the people of the community. You have chosen to cheapen their loss by calling it a "poxy building". While it may have been that to you, just stones stacked on one another, the building was more than that to Longfordians. The emotion expressed on the news tonight made that clear.

To you it might symbolise great things. But to me it symbolises the untold grief and pain Irish society suffered over the years. I see the churches and cathedrals as daily reminders of an institute that got rich off the Irish public while controlling them and abusing their children. You have your opinion, which I strongly disagree with, and I have mine.

The fact that the church has been involved in scandal of late is totally irrelevant to what happened on Christmas morning. The fact that you try to link the two is offensive to people in Longford.

It is not completely irrelevant. A church got burnt down by a fire that may or may not have been started deliberately. A few people I have talked to, and I myself, reckon there is a possibility that this fire may have been started by someone disgusted by what we've learned of the Church in the last year, or that it may have been started by someone who themselves (or one of their family members) suffered at the hands of the church. It is certainly a reasonable conclusion to draw and it was the first thing my Aunty, who goes to mass weekly, said herself when it came on the news this evening.

amovingstatue

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

... Catholic church bashing doesn't belong in this thread. ...

Who is deciding what belongs in this thread? The original post suggests to me that it is a valid part of this thread - "Wonder is it a sign from God about all the recent goings on"

whiskeyman

bSlick wrote: »

To you it might symbolise great things. But to me it symbolises the untold grief and pain Irish society suffered over the years. I see the churches and cathedrals as daily reminders of an institute that got rich off the Irish public while controlling them and abusing their children. .

Do you associate Mosques with terrorist attacks?

just wunderin loike...



On topic - Awful shame for so many. Glad no one hurt though.

Cunny-Funt

manlad wrote: »

Wonder is it a sign from God about all the recent goings on

lol?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm afraid I just don't see the link between the topic of this thread - a building destroyed by fire - and the sexual crimes committed by some members of the RC clergy.

Really? Cause I dunno, you never heard of motive being a link? Not that I agree with attacking buildings or anything at all.

I'm not a fan of the church but these buildings are landmarks and I would not agree with such actions at all. But given the day, its highly likely its intentional, and if its intentional, its highly likely stuff that you consider not a link are in fact the reason this was done in the first place.


Or is that not reasonable?