Fr McGinnity move from whisleblower and abuse victim of the Catholic Church to enabler and cultist victimiser in the House of Prayer

58 Responses

JC's MOM, on 1 February 2015 at 3:43 am said:

Neceda Wisconsin had an alledged apparition of the Blessed Mother at a farm, and thousands came praying the rosary, from all around and Canada as well, the woman was directed to have a “house of prayer” built with very specific details, but with review of the local bishop it was not approved, and even ended with the seer being ex-communicated. Now it is taken over by a schismatic group. What I learned is that even if an alledged apparition is a fraud, either intentional or not, there can still be spiritual good to those who are sincere in their prayers. This woman did not seek any financial support as far as I could discern. She claimed to see the Blessed Mother and receive messages.

It was very surprising that she also had used the “House of Prayer” terminology instead of “chapel” or “church” as all of the approved apparitions had requested–Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, all had requests to be brought to the “local bishop” that these be built.

Also, in other saints receiving communicatins with Heaven; they have ALWAYS been told to “obey the bishop” of their “Mother Superior”, etc. even if obeying their superior would be in conflict with what the apparition was telling them!!! So by this means one can discern an authentic apparition: does the so-called seer obey his/her bishop? If yes, that is a good sign; but if they do NOT OBEY the local bishop, then that is a clear sign that this is not coming from Heaven.

The so-called messages that Christina claims come from the Blessed Mother, in my humble opinion, are very insulting to the Blessed Mother, making her into a personality in conflict with her true self. That a person can believe that after paying over $400 for the framed image of Our Lady, that they will be especially privileged and protected in an extraordinary way in some future threat is actually in my opinion, participating in the SIN of SIMONY…..using and believing that you can use money for spiritual gain. Read what happened to the people who did that with St. Peter’s condemnation!

Christina and Fr. McGinity desperately need prayers of deliverance! St. Michael deliver them!

LikeLike
The People, on 3 December 2013 at 9:56 pm said:

It was not a threat Chris, it was a statement that this thread is “out and out slander and defamation”. I don’t take your comments seriously because I believe you anti-cults have actually lost the plot.

LikeLike
Chris Chandler, on 3 December 2013 at 12:00 am said:

Rolls out the : No. 5 ‘defamation of character’ threat

You are like cookie-cutter trolls , no matter what the cult being discussed. Do you all go to cookie-cutter anti-anti-cult training seminars to learn how to divert, attack and derail anything of value on these sites? .

You all use the same tactics. Boring.

LikeLike
The People, on 2 December 2013 at 9:23 pm said:

This is out and out slanderous defamation of character condoned and promoted by dialogue ireland, as part of their hate campaign.

LikeLike
Chris Chandler, on 2 December 2013 at 9:00 pm said:

Sounds like Fr. McGinnity was under great stress and humiliation and this was a time of great vulnerability for him. Cults often ‘hook’ people when they are suffering. transition. So there is nothing odd about the two Fr. McGinnitys . One can be a normally functioning person of integrity and sanity and then a major life event happens, and one can be ‘hooked’ by a cult. It’s what cults rely to recruit, on , fear, trauma, vulnerability, life transitions, life events that leave one more vulnerable and ‘open’ to influence.

In Fr. McGinnity’s own words:

“Recalling the week of the events leading to his removal from the position of Senior Dean of the College he said, “I was acting conscientiously and honourably at the time, as I thought I was making the Bishops aware of the concerns of what students had appraised me. For trying to make the Bishops aware of the situation I was ousted from my position and that has been a cause of severe suffering and enormous humiliation.”

“Going from a prominent position was a very public humiliation which seemed to undermine my credibility. I was only doing what I saw as part of my job and if I had failed to act, to me it would have been a dereliction of my duty and it would have rendered the students more at risk,” he said. Although gratified that the Church had apologised to him he still awaits restitution. “A little apology”, he said, “can’t undo the enormity of the damage. Even though they have apologised at this late stage, they cannot bring back those twenty years of my life, the twenty most vital and dynamic years of anyone’s life.”

After one major public humiliation, however, it is unlikely that Fr. McGinnity would ever be able to face another and admit he was duped.

LikeLike
The People, on 2 December 2013 at 8:45 pm said:

You would rather defame the character of good people without evidence, well respected people who you know nothing about and in a religion you are ignorant of. Here’s the thing Angie, the HofP is a centre of Catholic prayer. The prayers we pray at the House of Prayer are the regular, universally used prayers of our Catholic Church known and recognised as such by any practising Catholic.

LikeLike
Angie, on 2 December 2013 at 8:15 pm said:

I do not take the above seriously. I know, from experience, how people are manipulated to endorse ‘religious’ and ‘philosophical’ experiences for the benefit of their cults.

LikeLike
The People, on 2 December 2013 at 7:49 pm said:

Angie, dialogueireland, you talk pure rubbish and publish deception. You obviously know nothing about the Very Rev Dr McGinnity. He is today a well respected member of the clergy of the Catholic Church. To state otherwise is totally wrong and deceitful. Again, I ask what permission do you think he needs? You have no answer. You are again revealing your ignorance by even suggesting this.

One need only read the testimonies of the people who have come into contact with this work, with CG and with FMcG to see that your ramblings are nonsense, driven by your desire to defame these people and crush this work. “By their fruits shall you know them.” Quote from Our Lord. (Do you know who He is?)

Here is just a small sample of the fruits of this work…

Young Man’s Life Totally Changed after Visit to House of Prayer Achill in May 2012 by Young Man, Dublin, Ireland
“During the Night Vigil as I was praying the Rosary I just closed my eyes, when some very strong and powerful sensation went through my whole body, and I was brought to tears. I cried and cried… I knew some great change had taken place within my entire being. From that moment onward, I have had no urge to touch drugs, thank God,” he explained. “Not just that, but I have had the desire for daily Mass, Holy Communion, Prayer, the Rosary” he added, explaining how he had gone back to God and received the sacraments…”

A ‘Lost’ Child Returns to the Church by Mary Devine Bell, Co Louth, Ireland
“I had been a Jehovah Witness for fifteen years until I heard the teaching of Fr Gerard McGinnity in 2005. From coming back to the Church with Fr McGinnity’s help, I appreciate my Catholic religion so much. Finally I am spiritually fulfilled. I’ve had so many blessings from the House of Prayer Achill.”

“House of Prayer Achill – A Blessing for the Irish Church” by Sr Sheila Cotter, Co Dublin, Ireland
“My prayer life grew in depth as a result of my visit to the House of Prayer Achill in 1999. I found my spiritual experience at the House of Prayer very enriching and Christina’s experiences and messages so full of tracings to the Bible and in harmony with previous spiritual masters. It was clear God had blessed Christina in a marvellous way, and with her the Irish Church. “”

Hundreds give witness to healing and conversion through the House of Prayer, Mrs Gallagher and Fr McGinnity. http://www.christinagallagher.org/en/Achill_conversions.htm

LikeLike
Angie, on 2 December 2013 at 6:23 pm said:

Dialogue, it was a fair and accurate report and I understand it was not until he met Christine Gallagher that he noticeably changed. Having exposed sexual abusive behaviour by members of the church he WAS treated very unfairly and it is no surprise his career was hindered and not going in the way he had envisioned. His anger about this is understandable, however, it does not at all explain how he continues to give the false impression that he acts under the approval of the Catholic Church in his association with the House of Prayer.

I understand also that Dialogue has continuously asked for clarification on this from the Catholic Church and I believe it is long overdue. I honestly do not understand why they do not heed this request as they are responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of their parishioners.

LikeLike
The People, on 2 December 2013 at 6:06 pm said:

Dialogue ireland, why do you persist in obsessively waffling on about FrMcG when your every comment reveals how little you actually know about the Catholic Church. What permission do you imagine FrMcG needs? Fr McGinnity is a priest in good standing with the Church, he is highly respected and admired by many both clergy and lay people alike. Your suggestions about him are utterly ludicrous and are defamation of his character and good name.

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 2 December 2013 at 5:23 pm said:

Part One Biography: http://www.gerardmcginnity.info/index.html#Author

Many people do not know the background to events which shaped
Fr Gerard McGinnity so as a means to provide public education we are publishing the substantial biography and background published on Christina Gallagher’s site. We will break it into different sections for clarity.

We will make a full commentary on the section which is connected around his involvement with the House of Prayer. In the earlier section s you will note a clear description of his earlier life with reference to sources, but after his involvement with Christina this shanges and there are no references of any consequence. That having been said, we should say that the references seem out of sequence and do not not reference the points being made?
In other words the earlier academic seems to be subverted by a cultist takeover by Christina Gallagher.

Fr Gerard McGinnity of the House of Prayer in his own words….

Fr Gerard McGinnity – The Author

Fr McGinnity, whistle blower, scapegoat victim of vicious abuse by the Irish Catholic Hierachy

We note that though we have reported accurately the early life of Fr Gerard McGinnity the trolls from the House of Prayer do not wish their members see a supportive piece about him, as that distorts their black and white views. Also they want to pretend that Fr Gerard McGinnity is actually operating as a normal Catholic priest when operating without permission in the Tuam Archdiocese.

LikeLike
Angie, on 2 December 2013 at 5:19 pm said:

I did not see anyone ever speak out for the House of Prayer on any programme broadcast for the last number of years accept the interview with Gallagher and McGinnity talking about their simple account book that they both, and only they, had access to. The reason why they do not appear for interviews is because they made asses of themselves and were so ‘transparent’ anyone with a brain could see through their scheme. Psychopathic liars the pair of them. The courageous people who spoke out made us aware that McGinnity had total control over them to the point where they were not able to leave a room until they had given or promised thousands of Euros to enable Gallagher to fulfil her mission i.e. live in luxury.

Thank God, the vast majority of people in Ireland are not impressed at all with her ‘holy’ physical positions, supposed to be proof, of her ‘divine’ messages. I cannot fully express how sickeningly disturbing it is to watch Gallagher and McGinnity in action and it is even more disturbing that they would have people believe that what they do is God’s work. As I said before, it is time the Catholic Church made a statement to inform the public where they stand with the House of Prayer. It is highly unlikely that an investigation carried out by “canonists, doctors, theologians and psychologists who must interview the visionary and witnesses” will take place. I would recommend that an investigation be carried out by doctors and psychologists. Now, that would be very informative.

LikeLike
His Holiness, on 2 December 2013 at 4:35 pm said:

My dear Angie, remember one must have credibility and if any of you at dialogue ireland were Catholic you would know that it is not possible to say 100 Rosaries a day. To insist this is true from a ‘hidden’ position does not lend credibility. There is that ‘hidden’ element again.

On the subject of the supernatural phenomena, the power does not rest solely with the bishop of the diocese. He has his time and then, if he does not act, it is passed on to others who will initiate the proper ecclesiastical investigation. And yes an earlier contributor mentioned that such an investigation must have canonists, doctors, theologians and psychologists who must interview the visionary and witnesses. Bless you all.

LikeLike
The People, on 2 December 2013 at 4:08 pm said:

The people who freely attend the House of Prayer have been utterly transparent in their statements on the House of Prayer website. They have stated that they are appalled at the obsessive hate campaign of which this blog dialogueireland is a part, as is the farcical TV3 programme. No-one is hiding from the public except the blacked out figure of a woman in your farcical programme, who was afraid to show her face, afraid to stand up for what she was saying and put her name to it, unlike the hundreds of people who have made the statements on the House of Prayer website and who have given witness to the supernatural phenomena. Your questions here only continue the same farce and are unworthy of comment.

This thread is a further demonstration of that obsessive hate campaign against the Very Rev Dr Gerard McGinnity further to the peoples’ publication of his biography which can be read without dialogue ireland’s hate-filled additions at http://www.gerardmcginnity.info

LikeLike
Angie, on 2 December 2013 at 3:15 pm said:

Are you saying that anyone who has the courage to speak out about the H of P is lying? What about the people who took part in the recent programme on TV3 to inform the public about cultic groups that use religion to con people out of their money, the House of Prayer being one of them, are you saying we should take your word rather than theirs? Why would the guests go on national TV and inform the public unless they were very distressed about the disturbing tactics used by McGinnity and Gallagher to get money from the congregation? Why are they hiding from the public? Why has no-one brought McGinnity and Gallagher to court to answer for the damage they do to vulnerable people? It disgusts me that the government and the church have done nothing to aid the families who are affected by the H of P.

LikeLike
The People, on 2 December 2013 at 1:34 pm said:

Angie, you at dialogueireland (lots of names, but the same dialogueireland) do not understand the process or Catholicism, that is clear. Given that you are not Catholic and have no real knowledge of Catholicism and that dialogueireland is predominantly anti-Catholic your assessment about misinterpreting and misguiding people is meaningless. Your comment about ‘bad language’ is just another attempt to smear The People.

LikeLike
Angie, on 2 December 2013 at 12:27 pm said:

So the Catholic Church’s ‘silence’ is part of the process? They do not want to associate with the H of P yet the congregation are fully expecting an investigation into alleged ‘miracles’? I think it is time they set the record straight by issuing a statement that clarifies their position as it seems Gallagher an McGinnity are misinterpreting and misguiding people who attend the H of P. It does not say a lot of yours and their state of mind when you lie about it to control others. I have not been counting the different names being used in H of P sockpuppetry, however, at least the above does not use foul language; your comments are sheer nonsense and not taken seriously.

LikeLike
His Holiness, on 2 December 2013 at 10:42 am said:

My dear Angie, I have looked into this and can assure you that there is no such threat. McGinnity is highly respected in the Church and among the laity, you are barking up the wrong tree. I was only wondering if the ‘hidden’ activity of Tuam may lead to revelations that none of us had expected. hmmmm. I wonder! but I know that here at dialogue ireland, being non-Catholics, you are ignorant of the Catholic Church and of Church processes. Bless you.

LikeLike
Angie, on 1 December 2013 at 9:35 pm said:

I wonder why you bothered with yours? Lets be clear about the situation. The Catholic Church seem very reluctant to face up to H of P and I understand that McGinnity is relying on the information he has to keep them quiet. Does this sound like a healthy relationship? Does it look like the Catholic Church is going to instigate an investigation in ‘miracles’ while under a threat?

LikeLike
His Holiness, on 1 December 2013 at 4:51 pm said:

My dear Angie, your response conveys your total lack of understanding of the Catholic Church.

LikeLike
Angie, on 1 December 2013 at 3:33 pm said:

Who is Pope Urban VIII?
“The official investigation has not yet been instigated!”
I understand the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the H of P. Why do you continue thinking it will instigate an investigation?

LikeLike
His Holiness, on 1 December 2013 at 2:37 pm said:

dialogue ireland said “Answer is no! …”
I suggest that you have deliberately misundersood the wonderings of an outside observer, trying to throw me off the scent. Who is talking about the House of Prayer decision. Not me. It seems to me not unreasonable to suggest that there is some connection with this ambush of McGinnity, following his whistle-blowing of the clergy sex abuse scandal and the Archbishop of the Tuam Diocese. Given that another of your contributors has also drawn our attention to similar underhand tactics we have to wonder! Certainly worth probing deeper.

LikeLike
Anon, on 30 November 2013 at 10:10 pm said:

mono! one supporter making such an attack! what has amazed me in asking a question, it is seen as an attack, in that one has not the right to ask. surly, believing the Catholic faith, we are given the gift of discernment to decide yes or no. to ask questions etc. but this person or as I thought people, has a major issue with asking or making suggestion.

LikeLike
themadhair, on 29 November 2013 at 8:51 pm said:

Unless you can give evidence we will have to delete this personal attack.

I’d like to keep that up tbh, as evidence of what the HoP really believe regarding him as compared with their PR statements.

Agreed will use it for educational purposes.

LikeLike
themadhair, on 29 November 2013 at 8:49 pm said:

@ anon

it uses the very same sort of terminology as the last statement and that of the voice of the people statements, that is something, that would make me wonder, who if one person is control of these statements

I know we have mentioned this in other threads, but the HoP post on this thread are all made by the same person. Sockpuppetry is where a poster pretends to be other people in order to make a position seem more supported than it actually is – and for years now the same House of Prayer poster has been doing this.

The amusing thing is that, no matter how many times this poster gets caught doing this, they still keep persisting – and seem to think that using proxies is enough to disguise their activity.

@ Sockpuppet

So it seeems that Dr Neary is someone who strikes in a hidden way.

So after insisting on quote mining his statement in order to continue your pretence of the HoP being Catholic, you now throw him under the bus…..??? Seriously?

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 29 November 2013 at 8:38 pm said:

And I have been wondering if, when he was in Maynooth, when the three bishops ambushed him and forced him to resign his position because he blew the whistle on the sex abuse scandal there, was one of those bishops our very own Archbishop Neary?

Answer is no! When the House of Prayer was established it was his predecessor AB Cassidy who was there, so AB Neary could not have been part of the decision.

and is he still raging so much that he would block the work of heaven?

Is best answered by your own comment,

How easy it is to make accusations without having to give ones name, or to stand up and be accountable for what one says, speculating without any evidence?

LikeLike
Anonymous, on 29 November 2013 at 12:40 pm said:

What is very well known is how Archbishop Neary of Tuam Diocese made several efforts to spread negativity and foster ill will in USA against The Chain of Houses there…So it seeems that Dr Neary is someone who strikes in a hidden way.

LikeLike
His Holiness, on 29 November 2013 at 11:05 am said:

And I have been wondering if, when he was in Maynooth, when the three bishops ambushed him and forced him to resign his position because he blew the whistle on the sex abuse scandal there, was one of those bishops our very own Archbishop Neary? and is he still raging so much that he would block the work of heaven? How easy it is to make accusations without having to give ones name, or to stand up and be accountable for what one says, speculating without any evidence?

LikeLike
Anon, on 28 November 2013 at 8:37 pm said:

It would be most interesting to hear from people who knew Fr. Mac Ginnity prior to his experience in Maynooth. is he a victim? trying to get his own back on the church? does he believe what he stands for now? Is he a player, using people for what he can benefit from? is he in control as a spiritual director? does ms. Gallagher respond to his instruction? or is it, she, that is in control of him? reading posts, and the house of prayer website, it is hard when considering these points. one thing that stands out is, the latest post from the directors and the people, it uses the very same sort of terminology as the last statement and that of the voice of the people statements, that is something, that would make me wonder, who if one person is control of these statements. and in trying to be open – minded, it is hard to understand why Our Lady would expect people in a recession, not to expect answers as why She needs life savings (earned by hard work and sacrifice)

LikeLike
The People, on 27 November 2013 at 5:07 pm said:

dialogueireland, on November 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm said:
…in his own words….

Written and put up by the People. http://www.gerardmcginnity.info

LikeLike
themadhair, on 27 November 2013 at 5:06 pm said:

I said you are not Catholic, your writings are anti-Catholic and you misunderstand the processes of the Catholic Church.

I get that you want to ignore the negative result that the investigation had, we all get that.

But why have you ignored the question posed? How can the HoP demand any investigation or action by the Catholic church while refusing to accede to its authority? That sounds very much like wanting your cake while refusing the baker permission to start no?

I said you are not Catholic, your writings are anti-Catholic and you misunderstand the processes of the Catholic Church.

Then how is that I am fully willing to quote statements from Catholic officials, in full and without any deceptive quote-mining, while the House of Prayer are not…?? Why are the full statements by the Archbishop available in this thread, supposedly an anti-Catholic thing, while the same is not available on the House of Prayer websites, which you are claiming to be Catholic?

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 27 November 2013 at 4:37 pm said:

Fr Gerard McGinnity of the House of Prayer in his own words….
Fr Gerard McGinnity – The Author
Fr McGinnity, whistle blower, scapegoat victim of vicious abuse by the Irish Catholic Hierarchy
http://www.gerardmcginnity.info
QED?

LikeLike
The People, on 27 November 2013 at 4:12 pm said:

themadhair, on November 27, 2013 at 2:13 pm quoted the Archbishop:
“The Committee, composed of two priests and a religious sister, has recently submitted its report.”

Madhair, that tells you that it was not the proper ecclesiastical Investigation. Two priests and a religious sister do not equate to canonists, doctors, theologians and psychologists who must interview the visionary and witnesses as part of the proper ecclesiastical process of investigation into these apparitions and experiences.

I said you are not Catholic, your writings are anti-Catholic and you misunderstand the processes of the Catholic Church.

LikeLike
Read the Messages of Our Lady Queen of Peace, on 27 November 2013 at 3:42 pm said:

dialogueireland, do you think that people will not be able to spot that you have defamed this priest even in your title? a priest who is in good standing and highly respected by many? Read this version http://www.gerardmcginnity.info and then you will see the outrageous additions made, one only can imagine, out of your hatred of him.

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 27 November 2013 at 3:19 pm said:

My guess you were drafted in without having read the posts which we put up. See below
You need to clean up your communication skills. We were the ones to put up his story, get it?:

My guess is that they are raging mad in a fury about the people putting up the biography of FrMcG. Someone put up a link to it earlier but it was deleted. So anyone wanting to read the proper version unpunctuated by dialogueireland ramblings go to http://www.gerardmcginnity.info

Fr Gerard McGinnity of the House of Prayer in his own words….

Fr Gerard McGinnity of the House of Prayer in his own words….

Fr Gerard McGinnity – The Author

Fr Gerard McGinnity – The Author

Fr McGinnity, whistle blower, scapegoat victim of vicious abuse by the Irish Catholic Hierachy

Fr McGinnity, whistle blower, scapegoat victim of vicious abuse by the Irish Catholic Hierachy

Now we expected you to not read what we wrote in defence of Fr McGinnity, but to make such a mistake shows you are not up to the job of supporting your H of P.
We expected you to attack on this, but your selective comments show you missed the bus.
Fr McGinnity move from whisleblower and abuse victim of the Catholic Church to enabler and cultist victimiser in the House of Prayer

Fr McGinnity move from whisleblower and abuse victim of the Catholic Church to enabler and cultist victimiser in the House of Prayer

LikeLike
Read the Messages of Our Lady Queen of Peace, on 27 November 2013 at 3:07 pm said:

The People, yay!!! It is great to see your posts appear on this blog. Some sanity amongst a sea of unadulterated hatred.

You have put the case up very clear and I agree with it but sadly the posters who support this blog will not be able to accept the truth. My guess is that they are raging mad in a fury about the people putting up the biography of FrMcG. Someone put up a link to it earlier but it was deleted. So anyone wanting to read the proper version unpunctuated by dialogueireland ramblings go to http://www.gerardmcginnity.info

Yes you don’t hear this blog or the Sunday World mentioning the supernatural phenomena, the physical healings, the conversions, all the testimonies etc. They just ignore that because it does not suit the agenda. Yes, they keep harping on about the commission in 1996 but deliberately ignore the supernatural phenomena of major healings in 2000 and the long awaited Ecclesiastical Commission that has yet to begin. It is not that dialogueireland do not know the correct information, it is a blatant attempt to repeatedly put out false information and hide the truth. It is deception. I would like to know who is backing this hate campaign, someone is driving it and financing it.

LikeLike
themadhair, on 27 November 2013 at 2:13 pm said:

The official investigation has not yet been instigated!
…
Your whole argument hinges on Archbishop’s diocesan commission in 1996 being the official ecclesiastical investigation but you are wrong. It is not.
…
And yet the official ecclesiastical investigation has not even started!

And yet, per the Archbishop’s own words (my emphasis):
“In June of 1996 I constituted a Special Committee of Enquiry for the purpose of carrying out an investigation into the claims and work of Mrs. Christina Gallagher, resident at the ‘House of Prayer, Achill Sound, Achill, Co. Mayo in this archdiocese. The Committee, composed of two priests and a religious sister, has recently submitted its report. In the light of this report, and after due reflection and consultation, I wish to make the observations and announce the provisions listed below.”

And commenting on that report:
“While recognising the difficulty involved in treating such matters, I find myself obliged to state that no evidence has been presented which might prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of supernatural phenomena of whatever kind in this situation other than that of faith. Mrs. Gallagher and her associates retain, of course, the right to believe and state their belief that such have indeed occurred and continue to occur. The question, as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven.”

Stripping the comment “open and unproven” out of this very clear context would seem to be another example of what Archbishop meant when he wrote (my emphasis):
“I found myself furthermore obliged to note in the same letter her tendency, persistent throughout my dealings with her, to misunderstand and misinterpret legitimate directives and to consequently misinform her associates and supporters.”

But, apparently, for adhering to the very clear reading of the Archbishop’s words, while the HoP has contravened such, we are, apparently, anti-Catholic.
Also, for pointing out that alleged miracles do nothing to address the luxury mansions (worth MILLIONS of euro) that have been purchased is also, apparently anti-Catholic.
Also, pointing out the use of apocalyptic messages used in fundraising (video recorders are handy things sometimes) is also, apparently, an act of being anti-Catholic.
So pointing out true evidence-supported and independently verifiable facts concerning the HoP (the mansions, fundraising, and statements made by the Archbishop regarding the HoP) is anti-Catholic?

There are so many snippets of disingenuousness and inconsistency here that it beggars the mind that you expect anyone to take you seriously. On the one hand you are trying to claim the church has yet to examine your alleged miracles while, on the other hand, conveniently ignoring the consistent refusal of the HoP to submit to diocesan authority (a requirement I would have thought for such an examination to occur)??? And you also expect people to ignore, as stated clearly in the Archbishop’s words, the results of when he did perform an investigation??? Good luck with that.

Let’s start small with one very pertinent question. It’s a very simple question.
Why have you not included any of the full statements from the Archbishop on any of your websites, nor any links to where people could find such statements in full, and instead chosen to blatantly quote-mine* from them?
You’re accusing us of being anti-Catholic, yet the HoP are the ones who seem hesitant to publicise, link to, or otherwise help facilitate access to full statements made by official representatives of the Catholic church as pertains to the HoP.

*For note: Quote mining is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

LikeLike
The People, on 27 November 2013 at 12:41 pm said:

dialogueireland, on November 27, 2013 at 1:47 am said:
… has NO.. – Get it no approval, not some or a bit or maybe, just no, niente, nein, non Get it guys who post without reference to logic or respect of lawful authority… …The work, get it DOES NOT NOT, again do you not get it.”

Well I must admit, I am not a rabbit ! but know dialogueireland, themadhair, anon, that I am completely sane and am accusing you of publishing a slanderous hate campaign against FrMcG and Mrs Gallagher. I am the people who are appalled with your continued ‘hate’ attacks on FrMcG and Mrs G. They are unacceptable and unlawful. And you talk about respect for the law!

Dialogue Ireland, you are not a Catholic, your writings are decidedly anti-Catholic and you are incorrect in your understanding of the Catholic Church.

The HOP website is published in conformity with the decrees of Pope Urban VIII, the publishers of these writings and revelations submit to the future judgment of the Holy See. It is permitted to publish texts referring to alleged revelations, apparitions, prophecies, or miracles, without engaging the Holy Roman Catholic Church, given that the writers willingly submit themselves to the ultimate official pronouncement of the Church on the matter. And there is the thing. The official investigation has not yet been instigated!

Your whole argument hinges on Archbishop’s diocesan commission in 1996 being the official ecclesiastical investigation but you are wrong. It is not. The job of determining the truth of an apparition falls to the local bishop yes, but he does this using the set of norms established by the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation in 1978. This guides the process of discernment and the investigation. As part of this process the visionary and witnesses must be interviewed and fruits of the apparitions, such as conversions, miracles and healings all must be examined. However, the Archdiocese of Tuam has not yet interviewed the visionary Christina Gallagher, or the witnesses, nor have they set up a commission composed of canonists, doctors, theologians and psychologists to examine the fruits of the apparitions – miracles, healings, and conversions. Fully documented major healings were submitted to the Church in 2000 described by medical professionals as being medically and scientifically inexplicable. The people who witnessed these supernatural phenomena have not yet been questioned. Saying that the investigation is complete is wrong. You are aware of this, dialogueireland, madhair, anon, and yet you continue to peddle this falsity.

Even after these supernatural phenomena were submitted to the Bishop in 2000, many hundreds of conversions and healings have been and continue to be reported at the House of Prayer. And yet the official ecclesiastical investigation has not even started! So, I reiterate that the overriding comment from Archbishop Neary’s statements about Mrs Gallagher and the HOP is that “the question as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven”

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 27 November 2013 at 10:25 am said:

You have madhair revealed a most grotesque attempt to distort material, but as a lot of people will not follow up on the link, just a sample:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Prayer,_Achill#From_the_Article_:_.22and_has_no_official_status_with_the_Roman_Catholic_Church.

Possible POV pushing*

StPhilomena has made a large number of edits, citing sources that fail WP:RS. I’ll revert to an earlier edit.Autarch (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Reliable source issues

This source seems to be a copy of an online article rather than a link to the online article itself.
Christina Gallaghers’ autobiography is used as a reference – this may fail WP:SPS.
[1] is a website that seems to be linked to Christina Gallagher – fails WP:SPS.
[2] is a website that seems to be linked to the House of Prayer – fails WP:SPS.

Also, FluffyRug seems to be a single purpose account devoted to editing the article in question.Autarch (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Tags

The article was tagged as having the following issues: COI, disputed, notability and ref improve.

COI: this issue may have been addressed by backing out much of the contributions since late October.
Disputed: I have tried to add balance, though something which may be added further (not too much) detail on the actual work of the center and how popular it was
Notability: I don’t agree that this article would fail WP:NOTABLE. I suggest the appropriate way to go ahead with concerns about notability if they continue to be held is through an AfD.
Ref improve: Much of the content added since October was not correctly cited. Even parts which were cited, did not use references appropriate.

Can we remove the tags as of this revision? –RA (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with it if you remove the COI, ref and disputed tags. For the notability tag I like to have a bit more input. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Done. –RA (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed_Poor/POV_pushing

POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia’s neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view.

POV pushing should not be permitted on any Wikimedia server. The purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create an unbiased and comprehensive encyclopedia which makes the world’s knowledge freely available to all people.

It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics — such as politics, morality, and religion. But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of NPOV or simply do not wish to abide by it, and hence they routinely and deliberately engage in POV pushing.

The reason they do this is probably that they believe that a neutral presentation of the views they advocate will look bad in comparison to opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make its argument. Failing that, the goal may just be to make the other side look bad (ad hominem) or to distort that side’s views.

Ironically, this is often done with the excuse that it’s required by Wikipedia:Undue Weight. However, what WP:NPOV actually says is that all viewpoints should be described fairly. If a viewpoint opposed to the majority is tiny, we should report how tiny it is. Some viewpoints are held by only 10%, 1%, or even a fraction of a percent of the experts who study a certain field of knowledge.

Thus, adding information to an article which “advances a point of view” does not violate our neutrality principle, provided we make sure to tell our readers how few people (or experts) give it credit. We can even have an article more than half the size of a regular article (see flat earth), describing a view which runs counter to the scientific mainstream. All we have to do to preserve such content is to avoid making any claim that the viewpoints the article describes are “as valid” as the mainstream.

The key is to remain neutral when describe minority viewpoints. Tell why the minority believe the way they do, but do not imply that they are right or that their numbers are larger than they actually are.
I am not trying to divert from the conversation the Madhair is having here, but just making the point that it is clear your sock puppetry has come to the attention of people interested in proper research. Whether they are Catholic or not is irrelevant to to the facts of the matter.

LikeLike
themadhair, on 27 November 2013 at 2:01 am said:

@ anon

I think you have your (non) answer to your question. The HoP really have little more to offer than quote-mining the Archbishop’s very clear words on the matter, as well as calling us an Jim names (while failing to highlight any factual inaccuracy in the reporting).

Reading through the latest the following are the only factual challenges to what I wrote that I could see (and they don’t stand up to much):

@ madrabbit/HoPsock

As a non-Catholic you must not grasp the fact that the Church does not give approval until after the official ecclesiastical investigation has been completed. As this investigation has not even started….

You’ve been trying to peddle this same falsehood on Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Prayer,_Achill#From_the_Article_:_.22and_has_no_official_status_with_the_Roman_Catholic_Church..22 ) and the editors there have been more than patient with you in explaining why you are wrong. Also amusing that Wiki editors have had to deal with the same sockpuppetry as you have tried on our site. Quelle surprise.

Contrary to your claim, an investigation has not just been started, but has been completed! I quoted from the public statement relaying the very results of that investigation. I quote the relevant portion from the statement:
“In June of 1996 I constituted a Special Committee of Enquiry for the purpose of carrying out an investigation into the claims and work of Mrs. Christina Gallagher, resident at the ‘House of Prayer, Achill Sound, Achill, Co. Mayo in this archdiocese. The Committee, composed of two priests and a religious sister, has recently submitted its report. In the light of this report, and after due reflection and consultation, I wish to make the observations and announce the provisions listed below.”

Basically the HoP presented evidence and the Archbishop concluded it wasn’t sufficient to prove the HoP claims. Trying to quote-mine a single line from the very clear context of his statement, and in particular deliberately misrepresent his use of the words “open and unproved“, is sheer desperation.

Mrs Gallagher and the HOP have done nothing of the sort.

You do realise that ye have been caught on camera doing the very thing you are claiming wasn’t done? And that even the anon poster has made reference to one such example…????

the House of Prayer was “never formally part of the diocesan set-up it was not the business of the diocese to see the accounts, even though they were offered at the time

Reading your website gives a very different impression. From the FAQ: “Is the House of Prayer Catholic? Yes, Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer is Catholic…”

The HoP is giving its visitors the impression that the HoP is Catholic. But when challenged with the Archbishop’s words you try and duke out of the whole thing by claiming the HoP was never Catholic to begin with???? Now that shows some serious lack of scruples and willingness to distort the truth on your part.

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 27 November 2013 at 1:47 am said:

the mad rabbit, or is it sad or bad rabbit?…………… I would have to agree that you have totally distorted the record.
Irish Prelate: “House of Prayer” Not OK’d by Church
Achill Center Founded by Woman Who Claims to Hear Virgin Mary
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/irish-prelate-house-of-prayer-not-ok-d-by-church
March 03, 2008 |

Here is an objective report with my highlighted text.
I have also made some comments which are in brackets by way of commentary:

TUAM, Ireland, MARCH 3, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of Tuam clarified that the “House of Prayer,” founded by a woman who claims to have been visited by the Virgin Mary,

does not have Church approval

.
Archbishop Michael Neary released a public statement last week clarifying the Church’s stance on the Achill Island prayer house, founded by Christina Gallagher, with other sites in the United States and Mexico.

Archbishop Neary explained the situation of the House of Prayer, saying that since 1996, he had established a diocesan commission to “investigate certain claims regarding and emanating from this work.”

Gallagher claims to receive regular messages from Our Lady and to have the stigmata.

In 1997, the archbishop noted, “acting on foot of a report from the commission, I issued a lengthy public statement to the effect, in essence, that no evidence of supernatural phenomena had been observed but that the persons involved gave every evidence of good faith.

Arising from that, I proposed a basic canonical structure that would gradually

integrate the work of the house into the life of Achill Parish and the archdiocese.”

(Note gradual integration into the diocese… However, non serviam She would not submit and then the houses started to come as instead of the work being under proper jurisdiction she became a delinquent and the life of luxury flowed from this act of disobedience aided and abetted by McGinnity.)

However, Archbishop Neary stated: “While this was then attempted by the archdiocese, I became increasingly perturbed by an apparent absence of enthusiasm on the parts of Mrs. Gallagher and her associates.

“The relationship deteriorated to the extent that Mrs. Gallagher, in July 1998, closed the House of Prayer at Achill, expressing to the media at the time a sense of having been harshly treated by the archdiocese. In order to clarify the issue for the faithful I issued another statement, regretting the development and expressing grave misgivings as to the wisdom with which Mrs. Gallagher had been advised and had acted in the matter.”

The 61-year-old prelate clarified that diocesan efforts to integrate the

work ended in 1998

, when Gallagher closed the house.

(She would not submit, so no process of integration could take place, she removes the Eucharist and throws the toys out of the pram in a huff. Now she decides to live the life of reilly, pretending to be a holy one, while in reality she is a holy show.)

“Celebration of the sacraments and reservation of the Blessed Sacrament at the House of Prayer are not permitted,” he continued.

“Any work carried on since then has been entirely of a private nature and has no Church approval whatever.

(She is not part of the public proclamation of the Church, and her place is a private centre without one shred of Church approval. You can continue to fill pages with your warped logic, but it is as clear day you have received a red card.)

Neither, for reasons given above, does such work enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities.

(You can’t tell the bishop to get stuffed and then act like a holy Mary as if nothing has happened. Simple question to you? If the papal nuncio was to intervene would you be willing to submit your work to him as mediator with the bishop?
Yes or no.. ok?)

Nothing has been brought to my attention to indicate that I should change from this position in the future. Over the years since then, the Tuam Diocesan Office has clearly and consistently replied to enquiries in respect of this work, which Mrs. Gallagher recommenced.”

“I respect the faith and devotion of many people who have been impressed by this work in the past, some of whom have expressed their sadness at my stance,” the archbishop acknowledged. But, he concluded,

“The House of Prayer has no Church approval and the work does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities.”

(The House of Prayer has NO Church approval – Get it no approval, not some or a bit or maybe, just no, niente, nein, non Get it guys who post without reference to logic or respect of lawful authority. The reason is quite simple you are so under influence you are like a guy who has drunk a bottle of whiskey and keeps shouting out I am on club orange.)

the work does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities.

(The work, get it DOES NOT NOT, again do you not get it. We await the next installment of utter nonsense saying the bishop can’t say that because… put a sock in it he has and go take a big jump.)

(March 03, 2008) © Innovative Media Inc.

LikeLike
themadrabbit, on 27 November 2013 at 12:18 am said:

Anon, on November 26, 2013 at 8:36 pm said
Madrabbit, how do you answer the above well stated comments? …?
Anon, these points are easily answered as follows:

themadhair, on November 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm said:
“You seem to like accusing others of the very thing you yourself are doing…”
That is laughable! Be under no illusion, dialogueireland, I am accusing you of publishing one slanderous accusation after another on this blog, every one of them full of hatred and inciting others to hate.

themadhair, on November 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm said:
“However you and the House of Prayer quite deliberately neglect to mention the public statement made by Archbishop Neary in 2008, which included the following comments (my emhpasis): “In 1997, acting on foot of a report from the commission, I issued a lengthy public statement to the effect, in essence, that no evidence of supernatural phenomena had been observed”
Well I’m glad you brought this up! Why is it, we all wonder, that the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Michael Neary has not set in motion an official ecclesiastical investigation into the ample evidence of supernatural phenomena. The people await the interviews with the witnesses, with those who saw the crippled man John Garbutt restored to health in front of their own eyes; the woman whose file was placed among the deceased, dying of pancreatic cancer who returned to full health after her visit to the HOP. You know I could go on and on and on and on, with one piece of supernatural phenomena after another. Then there is the over-abundance of spiritual conversions… Just one example in May 2012 is the testimony of a young man from Dublin. He publicly testified how, from a life of drugs which had taken the lives of his two brothers, he had been instantly healed during the prayers at the HOP. He stated how he immediately, and inexplicably instantly and totally lost his dependence on drugs and instead gained a total conversion”.

themadhair, on November 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm said:
“Any work carried on since then has been entirely of a private nature and has no Church approval whatever”
As a non-Catholic you must not grasp the fact that the Church does not give approval until after the official ecclesiastical investigation has been completed. As this investigation has not even started, the overriding comment from Archbishop Neary’s statements about Mrs Gallagher and the HOP is that “the question as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven”

themadhair, on November 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm said:
“And that justifies buying ….? I don’t see how this claim…
This comment of yours is full of distortion. The people wish Mrs Gallagher to be where she is. They do not wish that the refuge they have put in place for her many times over be now destroyed again by the stalking activities of the Sunday World and Dialogue Ireland who have been guilty of incitement to hatred against her, seen clearly in their presentation of her, pictured as she is in their paper, through the crosshairs of a rifle-sight. Had she not been hunted down by this vicious campaign of hate, the place of retreat planned by the people for her would not have been ruined.

Furthermore, Yes, “The People” have identified themselves by name and address and have declared their intention for Mrs Gallagher’s safety and retreat. It could not be more clear. There is no distortion.

themadhair, on November 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm said:
I think this command does absolutely nothing whatsoever to address the video clips showing the use of such apocalyptic threats for soliciting money. It’s a neat sidestep, but it utterly ignores the need to respond to the criticism – that the House of Prayer has used the fear of apocalyptic messages as a fundraising tactic.
Mrs Gallagher and the HOP have done nothing of the sort. The people have answered this false allegation succinctly on their website http://www.voiceofourladyspilgrims.com/Fundraising.html You already know this and yet you continue to publish this distortion.

themadhair, on November 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm said:
Why do you insist on only quoting from comments made in 2000,?…
themadhair, I was answering a direct question from Anon!! Why it is clear. In his book “Listen to My Prophets, Divine Mercy and Divine Justice” Fr Edward D O’Connor C.S.C. describes it thus; “At Mary’s request, Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer was opened in 1993 on Achill Island, just off the western coast of Ireland, by Archbishop Cassidy. However, his successor, Archbishop Michael Neary, placed such severe restrictions on the celebration of the sacraments there in 1997 that Christina was led to close the House as inoperable”.

Another thing, you will remember dialogue Ireland, that Rev Fintan Monahan confirmed in writing that as the House of Prayer was “never formally part of the diocesan set-up it was not the business of the diocese to see the accounts, even though they were offered at the time” He further stated that “The public statements that I e-mailed to you last week point out clearly that the ‘House of Prayer’ is of an entirely private nature and is not under our responsibility or care…”

LikeLike
Anon, on 26 November 2013 at 8:36 pm said:

Madrabbit, how do you answer the above well stated comments? you were very adamant that viewers were misled by dialogue Ireland, sunday world. the statements of the bishop are strong are they untrue?

LikeLike
themadhair, on 26 November 2013 at 4:13 pm said:

I think the following quote, from the 1998 statement from the Archbishop, is worth repeating for extra emphasis:

I found myself furthermore obliged to note in the same letter her tendency, persistent throughout my dealings with her, to misunderstand and misinterpret legitimate directives and to consequently misinform her associates and supporters.

Says it all really.

LikeLike
themadhair, on 26 November 2013 at 4:07 pm said:

It is appalling how you speak in distortion and defamation about these two people on this blog.

You seem to like accusing others of the very thing you yourself are doing, but let’s get to the facts of matter shall we?

You reference comments attributed to Archbishop Neary and first published in 2000 thusly: “Mrs Gallagher never was banned and has never been the subject of any action corresponding to that term and that Mrs Gallagher was and is a Catholic of good standing within the Church.”

However you and the House of Prayer quite deliberately neglect to mention the public statement made by Archbishop Neary in 2008, which included the following comments (my emhpasis):
“In 1997, acting on foot of a report from the commission, I issued a lengthy public statement to the effect, in essence, that no evidence of supernatural phenomena had been observed but that the persons involved gave every evidence of good faith.”
“The relationship [between the diocese and the House of Prayer] deteriorated to the extent that Mrs. Gallagher, in July, 1998, closed the ‘House of Prayer’ at Achill, expressing to the media at the time a sense of having been harshly treated by the Archdiocese. In order to clarify the issue for the faithful I issued another statement, regretting the development and expressing grave misgivings as to the wisdom with which Mrs Gallagher had been advised and had acted in the matter.”
“Any work carried on since then has been entirely of a private nature and has no Church approval whatever. Neither, for reasons given above, does such work enjoy the confidence of the Diocesan authorities.”
“Finally, I wish toremind all Church members that they should not hesitate to enquire, as a matter of course, at local diocesan offices regarding the standing of any work describing itself as Catholic, should they be in doubt.

In summary the ‘House of Prayer’ has no Church approval and the work does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities.”

Gee, I can’t for the life of me figure out why House of Prayer representatives would continue to use comments from 2000 while utterly ignoring later public statements from Archbishop Neary. It almost seems like an act of distortion doesn’t it?

The people have made it clear in their statement on the HOP website that they wish Christina to be housed in a private refuge away from the stalking media.

And that justifies buying EIGHT luxury mansions, worth MILLIONS OF EURO, how exactly….? I don’t see how this claim (which is pretty ludicrous on its face to begin with) even comes close to explaining the need for those luxury Jacuzzis, the gyms, the extensive landscaping, the €120,000 Mercedes, the four poster bed imported from Harrods, etc. etc. etc. If this was ‘The People™’ and there was no issue, then why not inform ‘The People™’ about the extravagance of these luxury mansions ‘The People™’ apparently were ok with buying….?

Reading the HoP websites I almost get the impression that you are trying to convince ‘The People™’ that ‘The People™’ only bought her a simple house, and that you are trying to get ‘The People™’ to be unaware that ‘The People™’ bought her such an array of properties that would do any portfolio proud.

It’s almost as if it is an act of distortion isn’t it?

Mrs Gallagher made no mention of ‘the Chinese etc’ so do not attack her for something someone else said.

I think this command does absolutely nothing whatsoever to address the video clips showing the use of such apocalyptic threats for soliciting money. It’s a neat sidestep, but it utterly ignores the need to respond to the criticism – that the House of Prayer has used the fear of apocalyptic messages as a fundraising tactic. Now why would someone ignore this criticism and, instead, attack a blatant strawman? It’s almost like an attempt to distort isn’t it?

Give evidence that the HOP has not complied with any diocesan request?

Why do you insist on only quoting from comments made in 2000, which do not address the above question in any way, and utterly ignore other statements that do address the above question?

Take this extract from a 1998 statement from the Archbishop which seems clear cut (emphasis added):
I learned today, with considerable surprise, that Mrs. Christina Gallagher has decided to close the House of Prayer at Achill. This information was transmitted to my office by the local radio station to which Mrs. Gallagher had already made a statement of her intention. In the course of various statements made by Mrs. Gallagher on radio throughout the day, and in the course of the ensuing public discussion, a number of points have been made which I feel bound to address in an equally public manner.

I wish to state clearly and emphatically that at no time have I ever instructed Mrs. Gallagher, either verbally or in writing, to take this step. On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated, both verbally and in writing, that it was not my intention to close the House of Prayer. This decision had been made by Mrs. Gallagher and if she has taken advice on the matter it was not requested of me or of my office.

I have had occasion in the past to question, both privately and in conversation and correspondence with Mrs. Gallagher, whether she had indeed been well advised at various stages in her dealings with the Archdiocese. I repeatedly offered the services of a canon lawyer, in order to make absolutely certain that justice would be served, but this offer was not availed of. I remain unconvinced that she has ever, in this matter, had the benefit of advice which might be called sound in every relevant sense.

My predecessor, to the record of whose earlier decisions in the matter Mrs. Gallagher has chosen to appeal, officially opened the House of Prayer in 1993. Dr. Cassidy explicitly and repeatedly stated at that time and afterwards that the House of Prayer was intended to be a place of quiet where the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the recitation of the Rosary and the provision of a place of retreat for some priests would be the only activities. Within a fortnight after the opening he found himself obliged to write to Mrs. Gallagher in protest against persistent deviation on the part of the House of Prayer from that original simple vision. This tendency to stray from the terms of which the Archbishop had permitted the House of Prayer to function was to continue. Instead of a quiet place of retreat a de facto shrine was coming into being, attracting large crowds of visitors weekly. In a letter to Mrs. Gallagher of 15th September, 1994, Dr. Cassidy criticised these developments again and refused permission, as requested by Mrs. Gallagher, for an extension of the actual premises.

My own initiatives with regard to the House of Prayer are a matter of public record. My intention throughout was to facilitate a far greater degree of integration of the House of Prayer into the local church community and to encourage Mrs. Gallagher to proceed cautiously and wisely in the gradual development of her work. I believed and still believe that the measures which I adopted and the mode of development which I proposed would have guaranteed a future, perhaps a significant one, for Mrs. Gallagher’s work insofar as that work might have been inspired by God and for the good of the church.

The model of existence and operation which I had hoped Mrs. Gallagher would adopt for her work was that of the Private Association of the Christian Faithful, the most basic and flexible model of association presently available in Canon Law. I was pleasantly surprised when, after months of delay and apparently fruitless correspondence, Mrs. Gallagher contacted me recently to tell me that she had set up such an association, as she had indeed a right to do. I was surprised further, however, to be informed in the same letter that not my approval but rather that of Rome would be requested for the statutes of the new association since this work was to be “of world-wide scope”.

In my most recent letter to Mrs. Gallagher I was obliged to ask for clarification in the matter of Sunday Masses being allegedly celebrated in the House of Prayer in direct contravention of my express instructions in the matter. I found myself furthermore obliged to note in the same letter her tendency, persistent throughout my dealings with her, to misunderstand and misinterpret legitimate directives and to consequently misinform her associates and supporters. I am unsure as to whether this tendency resulted from genuine confusion or not but I am quite certain of the clarity with which the directives in question were stated.

My letter also contained a request for detailed accounts concerning any monies which might have been willed or otherwise donated for “pious causes” of whatever kind since the House of Prayer had been opened. This is an area which comes under the jurisdiction of any diocesan bishop but I had not addressed it previously, preferring to wait for the establishment of the Private Association and, with that, a more structured mode of supervision. It remains a legitimate matter of interest for my office and will be pursued in spite of the decision to close the House of Prayer. “

If you didn’t know about the 1998 statement then fine, but if you did and are neglecting to mention it then…that’s deliberate distortion isn’t it?

The facts about the Blessed Sacrament and the HOP are clearly stated here. http://www.christinagallagher.org/en/Achill_FAQ.htm and it was following this that Archbishop Neary failed to acknowledge evidence of the supernatural which as is stated “opened the door to hostile individuals behaving in this manner”.

So many ‘facts’ have been deliberately left out. Consider this claim:
“Archbishop Joseph Cassidy (RIP) had opened the House as Our Lady requested. It was he himself who put in place the daily sacraments within it. Christina was unable to undo the request of Our Lady which Archbishop Cassidy had honoured and blessed in this way. She closed the House at that time, when those original facilities were being stripped away.”

This utterly ignores the Archbishop’s wishes, and falsely paints a picture that Archbishop Cassidy was in support of the vision Christina was proposing (eg: his 1994 letter, referred above in the 1998 statement, rubbishes this).

From the FAQ:
“The medically approved healings (declared by consultants to be medically, scientifically and psychologically inexplicable and far exceeding the proof rountinely accepted by the Church) which were brought to Christina’s notice were handed to archbishop Neary and she was told he had read them and handed them back but never acknowledged the fact that the supernatural was at work, having previously stated in so many words that the supernatural was not at work (“no evidence presented which might prove…supernatural phenomena…”).”

No wonder a butchered quote was used to represent the Archbishop’s position, with the reality being very different from this distortion of it. In 1996 he set up, in his words, a “Special Committee of Enquiry for the purpose of carrying out an investigation into the claims and work of Mrs. Christina Gallagher”. In 1997 he reported the findings, and he wrote: “While recognising the difficulty involved in treating such matters, I find myself obliged to state that no evidence has been presented which might prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of supernatural phenomena of whatever kind in this situation other than that of faith. Mrs. Gallagher and her associates retain, of course, the right to believe and state their belief that such have indeed occurred and continue to occur. The question, as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven.”

I wonder why this quote was butchered so? Almost like the FAQ is perpetrating a distortion isn’t it?

From what you have read?? Well I ask you, is the Sunday World what you would call a reliable source? No. Theirs is the business of making money, not telling the truth, not reputable journalism.

But it isn’t just the Sunday World. Are TV3, RTE, The Irish Times, The Independent, etc. etc. all wrong when they report facts regarding her luxury mansions? Are they wrong when they mention that the House of Prayer “does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities“? Are they wrong when they report that the House of Prayer lost charitable status?

Trying to portray questions like the above as if they solely emanated from the Sunday World, while utterly ignore the wealth of evidence those questions are based as well as the multitude of media outlets that reported such, is extraordinarily disingenuous. It’s, dare I say it again, another example of outright distortion?

Dialogue Ireland, Anon, Ann, etc please tell the people who is paying you and the Sunday World to wage this campaign of hate.

Personally, I have received no compensation for making this comment.

The reason I wrote it is because, frankly, your bare-faced stating of untruths/half-truths/mistruths and deceptive use of strawmen combined with blatant cherry-picking of the Archbishop’s comments represent a toxic combination of arrogance, brazenness, delusion and duplicitousness underpinning a deliberate and concerted intent to deceive others. That such is being use to prop up what amounts to little more than a money making scam is something I find objectionable, morally reprehensible and a disgusting assault on those whose deeply and sincerely held faith is being so grotesquely abused and exploited.

I. Do. Not. Like. Those. Who. Hurt. Others. And. Lie. To. Cover. It. Up.

I’ve quoted over a thousand words penned by Archbishop Neary himself that directly and unambiguously rubbish several of the claims you have tried to peddle on this thread. If you were unaware of such then you were ignorant. If you were aware of such, but did not understand or grasp the clear meaning of his words, then you were either confused or mistaken. If you were aware of such , and did indeed understand and grasp the clear meaning of his words, then you are deceitful. I do not see any alternative scenarios that would apply here, and in each and every one the same conclusion apples – that your comments, distortions, strawmen, cherry-picking, deceit by omission, etc. are indefensible, untrue and misleading.

Now, it is about this time that you usually go back to blaming the Sunday World for your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge all of this.

LikeLike
Kate, on 26 November 2013 at 1:13 am said:

I met Fr. Mc Ginnity a few years ago at the house of prayer while holidaying in Achill. I found him to be a caring, unassuming person, not someone interested in notiorioty or position. He was very pleasant and we liked him. I’m sorry to hear bad things said about him as I’m sure he is a good, genuine person, with his heart in the right place. He seemed to be helping and healing lots of people, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Leave them be, if they’re happy, if other people are put out that’s their problem.

LikeLike
themadrabbit, on 26 November 2013 at 12:40 am said:

The facts about the Blessed Sacrament and the HOP are clearly stated here. http://www.christinagallagher.org/en/Achill_FAQ.htm and it was following this that Archbishop Neary failed to acknowledge evidence of the supernatural which as is stated “opened the door to hostile individuals behaving in this manner”. I refer you to my comment above (at 6.38pm).

Clearly you cannot provide evidence that the HOP has not complied with any diocesan request because the HOP is not in dispute with the diocese in any way shape or form. You have stated as ‘fact’ something you have no evidence for!

Do not judge Mrs Gallagher on the words of others, only on her own words. Never, repeat never, did she ask people to pray hundreds of rosaries and she did not ask people to starve themselves. It is absurd. She asked people to pray the rosary.

From what you have read?? Well I ask you, is the Sunday World what you would call a reliable source? No. Theirs is the business of making money, not telling the truth, not reputable journalism.

Archbishop Neary has stated that “Mrs Gallagher was and is a Catholic of good standing within the Church”. Nothing has changed on this status. It is the wish of the people that Christina is where she is and they are within their rights. Do not attack Mrs Gallagher, take on the people who have made their wishes clear and their names public.

Dialogue Ireland, Anon, Ann, etc please tell the people who is paying you and the Sunday World to wage this campaign of hate.

LikeLike
Anon, on 25 November 2013 at 11:12 pm said:

thank you themadrabbit, but who removed the Blessed Sacrament? I have read the document from the tuam archdiocese. in summary, it states that it was the House of prayer (Christina Gallagher) because it did not want to have its financial statements under question? the comment about the Chinese came from an official of the house of prayer. it was publicised at the time. I am only asking the questions not providing any evidence as you request, and in that light, when did Tuam made that statement about been in good standing? before or after all these properties for personal and family use were purchased? from what I have read, trying to keep an open mind. it is very difficult. people starving and yet, the mother of God ( with respect) would want an individual family, with little employment to have properties, no hassle. it does not ring true to Our God of love.

LikeLike
themadrabbit, on 25 November 2013 at 10:57 pm said:

The people have made it clear in their statement on the HOP website that they wish Christina to be housed in a private refuge away from the stalking media. The people are within their rights to do this.

The people have clearly stated that the allegation of ‘fear mongering’ in fundraising is completely false. Hundreds of people have stated this and published their disgust at such suggestions as yours on their website. http://www.voiceofourladyspilgrims.com.

Mrs Gallagher made no mention of ‘the Chinese etc’ so do not attack her for something someone else said.

Give evidence that the HOP has not complied with any diocesan request?

Again I emphasise that Archbishop Neary stated that “Mrs Gallagher was and is a Catholic of good standing within the Church”

LikeLike
Anon, on 25 November 2013 at 10:20 pm said:

facts, where did the enormous amounts of funds come from to purchase these personal properties themadrabbit? also, are the allegations not true, that fundraising included fear mongering by means of telling people of calamities including the Chinese coming to rule the world? this was told by an official of the hofp not been realised he was recorded? did Mrs Gallagher when not happy with diocesan requests, of asking to see the financial record of the hofp, choose to have the Blessed Sacrament removed, rather than not been in control of finances? surly, you cannot say were in good standing etc and not answer basic questions?

LikeLike
themadrabbit, on 25 November 2013 at 9:19 pm said:

It is appalling how you speak in distortion and defamation about these two people on this blog. Your loathing for them is palpable. Let me clarify to anyone who is reading this and I will emphasise it; Mrs Gallagher is in good standing with the Catholic Church, a fact confirmed by the Archbishop himself. The House is in no dispute with the Archbishop. The Guards have investigated your wild accusations and have found no reason to take any prosecution at all against her or the HofP. Your comments about FrMcG are ludicrous. He is entirely within his rights to visit the HofP or any other parish in the land. FrMcG is a well respected priest with no reason under heaven for discipline.

Maybe dialogue ireland, you would tell people who is paying you to drum up this campaign of hatred?

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 25 November 2013 at 8:24 pm said:

The statement on the HofP website has publicly put the blame with Archbishop Neary. It is he who needs to open the proper investigation which he has never done. The statement says;

It is he who would do the investigation, but he can’t investigate the hofp until she sumbits to his jurisdiction, she has failed to do so. What needs to happen now is for the hofp to be condemned for its failure to accept the authority of the ordinary. If she does not then submit move to excommunicate her.

So it would be great if Cardinal Brady took over where Archbishop Neary failed to start. In the meantime the case of the HofP remains “open and unproven”.

The Cardinal or for that matter the Pope has no jurisdiction in Tuam. Only the bishop of that Diocese can discipline anyone in his diocese. What Cardinal Brady has failed to do is to discipline Fr McGinnity. In fact he has washed his hands and like Pilate handed him over to Herod. He told TV3 to raise the issue with Tuam, when as a canon lawyer he knows what he is saying is off the wall.
Cardinal Brady needs to with immediate effect stop him from leaving his parish and stop him going into Tuam. If he refuses to respond he needs to be sent to a monastery or like Iggy O’Donavan who did nothing at variance with canon law he needs to move him on into a role where he does not bring the Catholic faith into disrepute.

LikeLike
themadrabbit, on 25 November 2013 at 6:38 pm said:

The statement on the HofP website has publicly put the blame with Archbishop Neary. It is he who needs to open the proper investigation which he has never done. The statement says;

“Sadly, long before the sustained newspaper and media attacks began, a great deal of misunderstanding was permitted to come about following the removal of the Sacraments from the House of Prayer in Achill in 1998 and also through failure to acknowledge evidence of the supernatural at work there. We understand that thirteen years ago a full account of the most remarkable medically investigated healings reached the local archbishop but there was no change in the situation. The removal of the Sacraments provided an open door to hostile individuals to behave in this manner. Sadly, we the people see the grave injustice as we witness the failing health of Mrs Gallagher due to all this. There is a law for bullying and harassment. Why isn’t there as law for Mrs Gallagher? Even though she is cruelly setup as a marked person, as well as being bullied and harassed, there doesn’t seem to be a law for her. Where are people who are subjected to such wanton media attacks supposed to go in order to gain some protection? Can media people write what they like or say what they like without being called to account? When we last sought balance and fairness in discussions with TV3 about our participation in a programme they wouldn’t grant the conditions we requested. As of now we would not trust them. There is no other word for it than ‘trial by media’.”
http://www.christinagallagher.org

So it would be great if Cardinal Brady took over where Archbishop Neary failed to start. In the meantime the case of the HofP remains “open and unproven”.

LikeLike
themadhair, on 25 November 2013 at 12:31 pm said:

Recent bout of trolling moved to here: https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/commenting-policy/#comment-36219

LikeLike
Ann, on 24 November 2013 at 9:40 pm said:

DI, thank you for this perspective. It was a disgrace the way the Catholic church systematically and cruelly isolated an honourable priest for standing up for justice. In speaking out against abuse he demonstrated the kind of morals that we expect from our Church and the inaction and attempts to cover up the abuse by the Church is deplorable. Their actions isolated Fr. McGinnity, a priest of huge potential and destroyed his reputation. As you point out its clear that as a result of this bullying, Fr McGinnity became disconnected from his colleagues in the Catholic Church. If Fr. McGinnity had been in a position to talk openly and freely about Christina Gallagher and these alleged visions with other experts in Marian theology things might have been very different, only through honest discussion with people of different viewpoints can you gain the clarity and objectivity you need to make such decisions to endorse this. Perhaps through discussion with others of similar experience, he would have become aware of her undue influence and recognised the danger. It is interesting that the followers repeat that the attacks are by people ‘who have never met Christina’, as if this contact with her would change anything? She is objectively judged by her actions and her actions are abusive. Through isolating Fr McGinnity and not denouncing the House of Prayer, the Catholic Church (particularly the most senior) have made the situation with the House of Prayer worse.
Indeed, the church does seem to pounce on transgressions readily enough, I have recently heard of a couple who wanted to baptise their child in the Catholic Church, they may have added some lines to the baptismal ceremony having thought about the significance of their undertaking and following the baptism, someone put in a written complaint to Cardinal Brady that correct order was not followed. Within a very short space of time, Cardinal Brady had ordered the baby to be re-baptised!! I am amazed at how quickly Cardinal Brady responded to this couple who only had the best of intentions for their child. In contrast I have written to him several times asking for help to get my mother away from the undue influence of the House of Prayer because it is destroying our lives, he has never replied nor acknowledged my letters. My mother is a good woman and thinks she is doing the right thing. Her life has been eaten up by this, we don’t know her anymore, she’s a different person. Christina and her ‘messages’ continue to strike fear into her heart. I just don’t understand why Cardinal Brady will not publically and repeatedly if that’s what it will take, denounce the House of Prayer? Why are they willing to sacrifice anybody to this kind of abuse? This problem will not just go away.

LikeLike
dialogueireland, on 22 November 2013 at 11:01 pm said:

Hopefully you are not linking to the famous TV programme Mr ED
about a horse?

LikeLike
Angie, on 22 November 2013 at 6:08 pm said:

Very informative and very well presented. I would like to see a programme focusing on The Tony Quinn centre that starts at the beginning of his cult right up to the present day. As there are so many similarities between the cults I cannot watch the videos without remembering what it was like in the Educo cult. From conversations with a member of this cult many years ago, I understood that the original idea of Quinn was to start a new religion and they believed he was Jesus and later on I heard Aideen Cowman referring to him as God! It did not quite work out this way as it became too obvious their goal was to make a lot of money, the same underlying factor found in Scientology and the House of Pray. First and foremost, they are commercial enterprises that focused/focus on making millions from gullible people, most of whom had/have very modest incomes who were/are, over a period of time, indoctrinated into accepting the cult leader as their ‘saviour’ or mouthpiece of ‘divine guidance’. There is no such thing as ‘freedom of religion’ in cultic groups when members are brainwashed into accepting beliefs and very telling that it is fear that holds them in obedience to the cult and fear that prevents them from speaking out about the psychological effects suffered as a consequence.

LikeLike
Anonymous, on 22 November 2013 at 2:44 am said:

Great presentation, Mike. Like in the case of our ‘friend’ Mr. Ed, these places also offered PRIVELEGE to the ‘Faithful’ followers.

LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Dialogue Ireland

Important posts

Dialogue Ireland

External Links

Recent Comments

Fr McGinnity move from whisleblower and abuse victim of the Catholic Church to enabler and cultist victimiser in the House of Prayer

58 Responses

Leave a comment

House of Prayer

Categories

Dialogue Ireland

Important posts

Dialogue Ireland

External Links

Recent Comments

Fr McGinnity move from whisleblower and abuse victim of the Catholic Church to enabler and cultist victimiser in the House of Prayer

Share this:

Related

58 Responses

Leave a comment

House of Prayer

Categories