Commentary on the Public Statement of the Archbishop of Tuam, Most Rev. Dr. Michael Neary, with regard to the claims and works of Mrs. Christina Gallagher and the ‘House of Prayer’ at Achill, Co. Mayo, 16th December, 1997.

Dialogue Ireland will write a commentary on each section of this Statement and it will be in quotation marks :

Public Statement of the Archbishop of Tuam, Most Rev. Dr. Michael Neary, with regard to the claims and works of Mrs. Christina Gallagher and the ‘House of Prayer’ at Achill, Co. Mayo.

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.

 

First we note that the archbishop did in fact set up an Enquiry to evaluate the HofP in June 1996. We are continuously told by people representing the HofP that the  archbishop is an abuser because he did not set up an enquiry! For the moment let us be clear that he did set up such a committee.

Observations

I have had submitted to me no evidence which would give cause for questioning the integrity, good will, sincerity of spiritual devotion or orthodoxy of faith either of Mrs. Christina Gallagher or of her collaborators in the work termed ‘The House of Prayer’ at Achill.

Nearly 20 years ago the commission formed the opinion that that the representatives of the HofP were in fact genuine and they accepted their testimony in good faith.

 

Further to the above, it appears that there is a great deal in the same work which is wholesome and good and which has been a force for good in the faith, prayer and lives of many people who have, in whatever manner, been associated or otherwise in contact with it.

 

The next paragraph continues in the same vein and having said they were a force for good the conclusion though is that this does not of itself provide a basis for accepting what was happening was of a supernatural nature.

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.

Here the committee are extremely clear in their conclusion:

“No evidence has been presented which might prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of supernatural phenomena.”

Nothing could be clearer and the Archbishop states this clearly and succinctly.

 

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.

He does not impose his evaluation on them and as Catholics the HofP has the right to private revelation and he recognises this. They have a right to their views but if they wish to be recongnised they must submit to the safe guards he suggests.

The question, as far as competent ecclesiastical authority is concerned, remains open and unproven.

Clearly the bishop as the determiner of doctrine and practice in his diocese has spoken clearly and openly. He now tries to find a way to proceed which is both logical and allows for the HofP to move with him to discern whether this group is from God or not.

 

My chief concern at this point is that the work termed ‘The House of Prayer’ be integrated into the life of Achill parish, of this Archdiocese and of the Church in general in a more stable and ordered manner than has heretofore been the case.

In 1996/7 the HofP was in his Diocese but in the parish of Achill. He wants to integrate them into the local church. He felt they were nearly like an independent ‘Church’ doing their own thing.

I am also concerned that it should be helped to adhere more closely to the original understanding, which obtained with both my predecessor, Archbishop Cassidy, and Mrs. Gallagher, of what it would in fact be and strive to achieve.  To these ends I am to make certain provisions, summarised below, in its regard.

 

The Archbishop feels that Christina Gallagher has shifted from the original vision for the House and is in fact deviating from what was agreed with Archbishop Cassidy.

Provisions

By Agreement with Mrs. Christina Gallagher and her associates, the work termed ‘The House of Prayer,’ located in premises of the same name at Achill Sound, Achill, Co. Mayo, is to take the form of a Private  Association of the Christian Faithful.  Such associations consist of persons who freely choose to collaborate in a particular kind of apostolate or in pursuit generally of some end related to the Church’s mission in the world. They exist and operate in conformity with canon law which expressly envisions and provides for them.

 

He could not be clearer as to how they could proceed to be accepted and have their vision checked and discerned.

This new Private Association will be erected in a lawful manner and will, in continuing conformity with canon law, draw up governing statutes and submit them to me as diocesan bishop for approval.

Note the clear assistance being offered. They have been given an open door to proceed.

The same statutes will include, as in canonically required, a clear and unambiguous statement of the ends which the Association intends to pursue and the means to be employed towards these ends.

Here there is a request for them to clarify their charitable objectives and to focus on what means they are going to use to achieve them.

Chief among the statutory ends, in the case of the ‘House of Prayer’ at Achill, will be the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the recitation of the Rosary and the provision and proper maintenance of a place of spiritual retreat for priests.

Note the first aim, the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is now in 2014 missing, but the this, along with the recitation of the Rosary and the provision and proper maintenance of a place of spiritual retreat for priests were the original reasons Archbishop Cassidy gave permission for HofP to get his blessing. The objectives are clearly understood by the current Archbishop.

These ends are those originally agreed upon by my predecessor, Archbishop Cassidy, and Mrs. Gallagher and I observe that the clarity of this agreement may have become somewhat obscured during the intervening years.

Here again the Archbishop of Tuam notices a shift away from the permission which was sought. The beginnings of the refusal to actually do what was asked for is becoming evident, but not yet with a red flag.

As is required by canon law, the new Association will be subject to my authority as diocesan bishop in all matters concerning the administration and disposition of funds either donated or left in bequests to it for pious causes.  Furthermore, although such associations are normally free to administer their other goods and property as they see fit, subject to their statutes, it remains my duty to ensure that all such goods and property owned by such an association in my diocese are used for the statutory ends of the Association.  In order to ensure that everyone involved is allowed to discharge their proper duties in these matters the Association will be required to consult regularly with diocesan authorities and to submit accounts.

Note here:

1. “The new Association will be subject to my authority as diocesan bishop in all matters concerning the administration and disposition of funds either donated or left in bequests to it for pious causes.”

There is a clear hierarchical structure subject to canon law. The bishop decides the Association submits. A clear line of authority.

2. “Furthermore, although such associations are normally free to administer their other goods and property as they see fit, subject to their statutes, it remains my duty to ensure that all such goods and property owned by such an association in my diocese are used for the statutory ends of the Association.”

3. “In order to ensure that everyone involved is allowed to discharge their proper duties in these matters the Association will be required to consult regularly with diocesan authorities and to submit accounts.”

They have to show that they are exercising their stewardship and obviously keep in touch with the bishop and for obvious reasons present accounts.

 

Notice once properly constituted and accountable they have great freedom to actually administer their charity.The chapel which is located on the premises occupied by the ‘House of Prayer’ at Achill Sound is to be formally designated and established as a Private Chapel in the sense of this term as it is understood in canon law.

Everything is so clear and following its establishment all the benefits of the Catholic faith result, “they have great freedom to actually administer their charity.”

 

As such, it may only be used for the celebration of Mass and other sacred celebrations subject to my permission and supervision in my capacity as diocesan bishop.

The bishop is generous in his offer and again this is the normal practice. Let see what the conditions are?

The Parish Priest of Achill will, ex officio, be Chaplain and the curate in Achill Sound will, by virtue of his appointment, be Assistant Chaplain.  These two priests along will have faculties to preach and hear confessions in this chapel.

He clearly defines the conditions for his permission being granted in the HofP for the smooth operation of the charity.

Furthermore, no priest, other than these two, may celebrate the Mass in the Chapel without permission from me.

Note he gives a clear signal that only these two priests may celebrate Mass at the Chapel. Note he does not say that other priests can’t say Mass there, but it is conditional on the bishop being the reference point. Set up your Association work with my local priests, show you are part of the local church and then we can allow other priests to come in.

Should the Association as such require a spiritual advisor, as distinct from the chaplain and assistant chaplain whose duties do not necessarily include such a service, its members are perfectly entitled by canon law to choose any priest from among those legitimately exercising ministry in the archdiocese, subject to my confirming such an appointment.

Here we begin to see how a problem is going to develop in regard to Fr. Gerard McGinnity. First he is from another diocese, that of Armagh. Normally a spiritual adviser should be located as close to the the place where spiritual direction is required.  The Archbishop of Tuam could not be clearer, “Its members are perfectly entitled by canon law to choose any priest from among those legitimately exercising ministry in the archdiocese, subject to my confirming such an appointment.”

Note why Fr. Gerard McGinnity is not suitable:

1. He has duties as a Parish Priest in Knockbridge, Co Louth. That means his traveling there really undermines his pastoral presence in his own parish. He is in fact preaching and praying in Achill and then traveling excessive distances to get back to his flock. By definition he is neglecting them, by his presence in both places. Unlike Jesus Christ who is everywhere by the Holy Spirit Fr. Gerard McGinnity can’t bilocate. Also as he is doing so many roles he can hardly spend time in spiritual direction when he is so occupied when there. Also irony of irony there is no Mass at the House!

2, Christina could buy a small place near the Priest, but she is not even at Achill with her extensive portfolio of Houses to attend to. We will address these issues later as they do not feature as yet in 1997. Furthermore,  Cardinal Brady by his enabling and refusal to act in regard to the trespassing of Gerard McGinnity in Tuam undermines the position and discipline set out by The Archbishop of Tuam. His inaction is also bringing the Catholic Church into disrepute.

The Association, finally, will have as its headquarters the premises presently occupied by the ‘House of Prayer’ at Achill Sound.  The work of the Association will be carried on at this location and at no other within the territory of the Archdiocese.  The same will be noted and confirmed in the statutes of the Association and will be strictly adhered to.

Again one notes the problem when Visionaries do not submit. Christina wanted to create an Empire. Rather than call it the House of Prayer it was going to become the Houses of Prey. The Archbishop of Tuam wanted to earth her Association in Achill, unlike someone like Bernadette she would not submit or serve.

I earnestly hope that the work of Mrs. Gallagher and her associates in the ‘House of Prayer’ at Achill will benefit from its new form and standing within this diocese.  While the Church is obliged to exercise the greatest caution in approving such works it cannot ignore the possibilities presented by the dynamism which has characterised this particular one so far.  I believe that it shows genuine potential for growth and for making a valuable contribution to the life of the Church.

The Archbishop of Tuam goes on to recognise the potential of the HofP to enrich the wider Catholic community… but

In this regard I look forward to working closely with the members of the new Association as they integrate their dedicated approach with that of the parish of Achill and of the Archdiocese of Tuam in general.

We will see that this hope was not realised but instead the HofP was to move on to become schismatic, totally rejecting the authority of The Archbishop of Tuam. They brought on board a priest of great intellect who had obtained a doctorate in Patristic studies at TCD on Ambrose of Milan. He had the potential to become a leader in the Church in Ireland. He had been a whistle blower, and as a person  of great integrity who was sacrificed for the sake of the institution. Now he had become very resentful, and had a sense of entitlement to office. In his great distress  he came under the influence of Christina Gallagher. Now his intellectual gifts were sacrificed for the power of being a big fish in a small pond. See how this likely  influence is likely to work.

Cultism

See from a great canon lawyer what happens to groups who will not submit to legitimate authority. Please read this significant article to understand the processes we are dealing with as we go onto to see developments one year on as we come to the next statement of 1998.

 

Sifting the Wheat from the Tares: 20 Signs of Trouble in NRMs Peter J. Vere

https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/sifting-the-wheat-from-the-tares-20-signs-of-trouble-in-a-nrms-peter-j-vere/

 

Signed: __________________
+Michael Neary
Archbishop of Tuam.

Dated: 16th December, 1997.