Director of Dialogue Ireland meets Michael Caulfield in Drumcondra

Last May DI published a post on   The Congregation Of Our Lady of Refuge entitled:

Michael Caulfield and Bishop 

Ralph Napierski?

Today April 4, after a few weeks seeking to understand the actual work that Michael Caulfield is involved with it was agreed that the Director will travel to the location in Roscommon to discuss with them what they are engaged with. I spent over two hours with Michael today and it was at times extremely difficult to communicate as he moved onto so many tangents it was unbelievable. He is a builder and is working on a property in Drumcondra.priesthood-congregation-our-lady-of-refugeFR Michael Caulfield?

It took some time to get over the point that my role was not to debate with him whether he is validly or licitly ordained. Having studied about Bishop Ralph Napierski I have formed the opinion that he is a fraud, and consequently Michael relying on him for his ordination is a waste of space. However, I must stress we have no interest in this issue in DI as it is an issue for his Bishop Brendan Kelly, though Michael does not seem to recognise his authority over him.

We stated this clearly last May:

DI is not concerned about the beliefs of this group, but rather the undue influence exercised over individuals through the group. In other words our remit is the abuse of the human rights of vulnerable adults, not whether this is an Orthodox Catholic community. We invite comments to get more background on this group.


The Director hopes to visit  The Congregation Of Our Lady of Refuge on Saturday May 3rd next. Already some areas of agreement were reached. They are apparently in the process of producing a web site where they will address their detractors and also promote their views. They have taken exception to some of the comments on our blog.

I was able after quite some time to explain to Michael that we do not necessarily agree with the comments on our blog and if he or his web master bring to our attention items they regard as defamatory to either amend or modify them and if we do not find a solution delete such comments. We will also request those leaving their comments to give evidence for points made. This was an important breakthrough for Michael, as he was concerned about his reputation and the effect it could have on his family. Not only will we consider requests to edit comments, but we have offered them the right to publish an article on our site without censorship.

Our views and how we operate are based on the law of 2009:

The Defamation Act 2009, signed into law on 23 July 2009, has abolished the separate torts of slander and libel, replacing them with “the tort of defamation’; defined as “the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person’: The Act provides that defamation is actionable in itself without needing to prove special damages.
The Act also created a new defence to an allegation of defamation, namely “fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest’: This defence has been welcomed by media outlets, who have long campaigned for reform of the libel laws. Significantly, the new Act also allows judges to guide juries on the amount of damages that may be awarded. A person who believes themselves to have been defamed can now seek a Declaratory Order from the Court that a statement was false and defamatory. This is a fast track procedure which can be heard by a sitting judge alone. The plaintiff must have sought and been refused a retraction/ correction/apology by the defendant. Plaintiffs seeking a Declaratory Order are not entitled to damages as the order itself is considered remedy enough. For the first time in Irish Law, Section 12 of the Act allows a company to bring a defamation action whether or not it has incurred a financial loss as a result of the alleged defamation. We wait with interest to see how actions of this type will be received.


I stressed this point to Michael, “The plaintiff must have sought and been refused a retraction/ correction/apology by the defendant.”

My understand is that this must be done before 12 months have elapsed. Application can be made for an extension for another 12 months.


When questioned about  Joe Coleman he stated that he Joe had been to see them but was now in disagreement with them. He also expressed support  for the House of Prayer, however, when offered the evidence of the involvement of Christina in financial scams he resorted to the usual defence of her miracles. He refused to accept a copy of the Immaculate Deception by Jim Gallagher. Concerns were raised about William Kamm but again Michael claims he now believes he is not from God, but he still seemed to be defending him? These and other issues can be discussed on May 3rd.


Bishop Ralph Napierski was obviously the person who ordained him and he sees no problem in being married at the same time as exercising his priestly duties. Of interest is that he did not agree with Bishop Ralph Napierski when he put these picture above and below on the internet. I formed the opinion he had only used the Bishop as a means to ordination, but had fallen out with him? Or is he just distancing himself from him because of activities like this?


Here is the Bishop with some of those ordained?


We look forward and would ask those who have expressed concerns to give us further evidence around these concerns. We look forward to meeting with Michael Caulfield and some of his members in May.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: