Part 23 of A History of the Franciscan Order in Ireland

Corpus of Electronic Texts Edition

A History of the Franciscan Order in Ireland (Author: Donagh Mooney)

Subsection 17

{journal issue 6:5}

Cashel

This convent is situated in the metropolitan city of Cashel, but outside the walls. A strong fence surrounds the grounds on every side. It was formerly occupied by the Conventuals, who possessed some wood lands and other property. And was commonly called Hackett's Monastery. I am not aware of the reason, nor have I been able to ascertain the name of the founder, or the date of foundation.⁵⁸

The street within the city, which leads towards the convent, was known by the name of Friar-street, perhaps because all that ground, or the greater portion of it, as it is generally believed

p.130

belonged to the friars. A great number have burial places in the precincts, and some of the monuments are of polished marble. I have utterly failed in my attempt to learn anything of the friars, who formerly occupied the place. All the roofs have fallen in, through the decay of time. The walls are still standing. The convent was not very well built, except the church, which was of ample size, though of simple architectural style. The great aqueduct by which the water is brought into the city, from a distance of two miles, is said to have been constructed by the friars. For the truth of this I cannot vouch, but vestiges of the channels by which the water entered the monastery may yet by seen in some of the out-offices.

A Catholic named Cooney, who is nephew to the Archbishop,⁵⁹ has at present possession of the convent. His father, Denis Cooney, bought it from a person who held it without any just title. He was a wealthy man, and left a rich inheritance to his son, who has so mismanaged affairs that he is now poor and needy. However, thanks be to God, he remains a Catholic, and a man of good character. The archbishop himself, in conversation with me on this matter, expressed his decided conviction that the poverty had fallen upon him because he held possession of the friars' property, and this although he does so without scruple of conscience, and therefore it may be without guilt before God. For this reason the Archbishop requested me to condone our rights, and to allow him to keep possession of the place so long as it remained possible for us to occupy it. I answered that as far as in me lay (I was then Provincial) I would willingly forego our claim, and grant the required permission, but the dominion of our property was vested in the Holy Roman Church, and not in ourselves, and that, therefore, I could do nothing. There was, however, I added, a Syndic appointed for us, who had authority from the Apostolic See in such matters, and I would, as a mark of respect for the Archbishop, recommend him, not in an authorative way, but as an act of charity, to consent to this application

p.131

on the following conditions — that Cooney himself should apply for such consent; that he should renounce the usurped title by which he now held the grounds; and that he should give security that he would not, by himself or others, directly or indirectly, seek to hinder us from enjoying full possession of the monastery and all its appurtenances, whenever the Royal Authority should so permit. I have not yet seen any petition from Cooney, and suspect, not without sufficient reason, that he has been inducted by other ecclesiastics to refuse these conditions, and to rest content with a dispensation from the Jesuits or other who lay claim to this privilege. For faculties have been given viva voce to certain person in Ireland, for the salvation of souls and to allay scruples of conscience, to dispense, during the schism, with those who hold ecclesiastical property, on the condition of their distributing each year, in pious uses, a certain amount of alms, according to the judgement of their confessor. There are prudent men who consider that this confession holds good only when the true owners, or their representatives are unable themselves to dispense of their property, and that in such cases the alms is to be expanded in their use and support. But there are others, who having nothing of their own to lose, are more liberal in disposing of the goods of others, and extend this faculty to the Episcopal and Parochial property, to the possessions of Abbeys, no matter of what dignity, and of monasteries, even when the true owners are present, and enter their protest. So some think, but I hold to the former opinion.