Talk:St Mary's Pro-Cathedral

Untitled

This page should be in as St. Mary's, not Saint Mary's, under wiki conventions. FearÉIREANN 18:09 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

references to Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic Church

I've changed the reference to the Church of Ireland from 'tiny' to 'minority'. As its adherents made up I think well over 10% of the population of Dublin (I haven't found a certain historical figure) during the earlier part of the period in question, 'tiny' seems inappropriate. Equally, the article covers the history of the Pro-Cathedral from well before partition, so the figure given in the earlier version of over 90% of the population being Roman Catholic is inappropriate as it refers to the situation in the Republic now. The figure for all Ireland, roughly calculated from the Wickipedia entries for Northern Ireland and Demographics of the Republic of Ireland, comes to about 76% Catholic. Palmiro

Category

Yes, it's not a full cathedral, but I think it deserves adding to Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland anyway. That's where anyone unfamiliar with it would expect to find it. Morwen - Talk 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture deletion

Oh look. One of the deletion nutters deleted MY image of the cathedral from the page! I gave the picture which I took to Wikipedia. I'm not giving it again. I guess Wikipedia just lost a high quality picture of the interior of the cathedral. No wonder this site has become a joke! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a pity, anyone know why a donated image was deleted? SeoR (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It happens a lot. Wikipedia has changed its commands and rules endlessly. A lot of users uploaded their own images using the correct commands at the time, only to find that the commands changed and instead of recognising that the 'problem' was with Wikipedia's constantly changing commands to be used, some users and some bots blanket deleted images claiming they were 'illegally uploaded.' I spent over a year trying to get the bot owners simply to fix their bots to change old legitimate commands to the new commands, to no avail. Instead they consistently insisted that it was always the fault of the uploader, even though the uploaders all followed the exact commands as they then existed. I spent months changing images I had uploaded from one set of commands to another, was away for 2 months and came back to find the new set had now been replaced by another set, and I was being accused by a bot of having invalidly uploading the images a second time. Eventually, when I day I was bombarding with 17 bot messages yet again accusing me of illegally uploading images I quit the site completely (as has practically everyone who was on the site when I was, in utter frustration. I am only back on a short visit.)

Even if I wanted to I couldn't upload the image for this page again. I lost the disk on which I had all the pictures I took of Dublin for Wikipedia during a house move last year. So all the images I took and gave to Wikipedia over three years using the then commands we were all supposed to use, and which were later deleted because the commands had been changed, are gone for good. I cannot replace them. That also includes some out-of-copyright 19th century images of Dublin where for some unknown reasons were deleted as breaching copyright - they couldn't have breached copyright. They were taken by my great-great grandfather who died in 1904! He owned the copyright, which expired decades ago!!! I own the negatives and gave the images to Wikipedia . . . only to be told I had "illegally uploaded copyright material"!!! And people wonder why I gave up in despair! lol FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. Perhaps I am glad I am only about to begin picture uploading... or fearful of what will happen later. It does sound more than a little crazy (but there do seem to be some in WP who would rather delete than accept that everything, even the smallest stub, has potential, and images etc. all the more so). But it sounds like a wonderful set of material, some heirloom! All the best. SeoR (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of 3 sections

I'm going to delete three sections, Primate of Ireland, Catholicism in Dublin, and The new Archbishop, Diarmuid Martin, since none of them seems to have anything directly to do with the cathedral. They're reproduced below, lest they can be redeployed elsewhere. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Primate of Ireland

While Roman Catholicism, like all Irish religions, remains organised on an all-island basis, notwithstanding the partition of the island into two states in 1920, in practice partition has led to the semi-partition of the two major faiths, Roman Catholicism and the Church of Ireland. Thus while the Archbishop of Armagh in both faiths remains Primate of All Ireland, the Archbishop of Dublin is known as Primate of Ireland and is seen as the premier churchman within the Republic of Ireland.

Catholicism in Dublin

After 1922, when most of Ireland achieved independence, Roman Catholicism came to hold a considerable degree of influence within the new state. In 1925, divorce, which had been nominally available by private member's bill through the Irish Senate, was prohibited. Tough laws were introduced restricting the availability of alcohol, contraceptives as well as censorship. Yet the Catholic Church never had absolute control, as it found when its stances on issues from the Spanish Civil War to the new Constitution were ignored, or only partially listened to, by Eamon de Valera, longterm Taoiseach in the 1930s to the 1950s.

The new Archbishop, Diarmuid Martin

Archbishops of Dublin came to be major players in the formation of Irish policy in the independent era, and none more so than John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin from the 1940s to the early 1970s. By the 1980s, however, and in particular in the 1990s, the Catholic Church lost much of its influence in all walks of life, from politics to the sexual mores of ordinary Irish Catholics. The sexual scandals of the 1990s, when it was revealed that a small number of Roman Catholic clergy had sexually molested young people, particularly hit the Archdiocese of Dublin, which was described by one priest who had done international studies of the issue as having one of the world's worst records in the handling of clerical child abuse cases. In the aftermath of one Radio Telifís Éireann exposé of alleged mishandling of clerical sex abuse cases by him, the Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell was openly heckled at Mass in the Pro-Cathedral. The decision of Pope John Paul II on 3 May 2003 to appoint as Coadjutor Archbishop of Dublin alongside Cardinal Connell a respected Vatican diplomat, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, was seen as a mark of how gravely even the Vatican saw Connell's and the Irish Roman Catholic Church in general's handling of the child abuse cases. Instead of choosing any current Irish bishop or priest for one of the most prestigious posts in Irish Catholicism, the Vatican chose an internationally renowned diplomat untouched by scandal and with proven communication and leadership skills.

Request for further deletion

I would like to request that someone with an especial interest in the construction of this (otherwise excellent) article on the pro cathedral delete the following:

"By 2011, some Anglicans were able to acknowledge that

"The forced alienation of sacred places from one community to another leaves lasting scars" "

- This quotation is taken from a letter by the Rev Michael Thompson printed in the Irish Times which was written in reply to a letter by another cleric Fr Thomas O'Flynn. While the sentiments expressed in the letter by Rev Thompson may be reasonable, I fail to see the relevance to this piece on the pro-cathedral. This church is not the one under discussion in the letters and moreover I feel that the inclusion of the quote here - taken out of it's proper context - is a slight. The person who included this quote is promoting - in my humble opinion - sectarian sentiments that modern Ireland could well do without. John2o2o2o (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this request. Any further comments? Hohenloh ⁺ 14:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)