Commentary on Statement of Most Rev. Michael Neary, Archbishop of Tuam, Regarding the public announcement by Mrs. Christina Gallagher that she intends closing the House of Prayer at Achill 3rd July, 1998 by DI

onelifeonecalloneresponse

Dialogue Ireland published the three statements issued by the Archdiocese of Tuam:
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/dialogue-ireland-publishes-statements-about-achill-house-of-prayer/
We are then writing commentaries on each statement as 16 years have elapsed since the first one was issued and we now have an archive available on our blog with evidence which is quite shocking which goes way beyond what was known in the early days and when the last statement was made in 2008 by Tuam.
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/category/christian/house-of-prayer/
Also we have noted over the years the complete dereliction of responsibility of the Cardinal who is the head of the Episcopal Conference. His replies and evasion and his refusal to exercise his knowledge of Canon law will follow him into retirement later this year. We have documented evidence of cheques made out to Fr McGinnity indicating not only his involvement in fundraising but we have heard the evidence of people present when these fund raising events took place.

220px-Cardinal_Sean_Patrick_Brady
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/let-us-draw-you-a-picture-of-the-house-of-prayer/

Also Cardinal Brady has put Michael Neary in an invidious position by allowing a priest in good standing to enter a HofP which has no recognition from Tuam and who are in flagrant disobedience to the ordinary. It is a studied insult and instead of reigning in his priest and as head of the Episcopal Conference bringing the HofP to account he allows this sorry unrecognised entity to continue.
When the last statement was made in 2008 the book by Jim Gallagher, Immaculate Deception (2009) had not been published which outlines the abuses and how this sordid empire was built.

Immaculate Deception

Just because the evidence concerning the HofP has not yet reached the level of proof required for a court case does not remove the need for the Tuam Archdiocese to move beyond its 2008 position. The representatives of the HofP keep claiming because the Sunday World is tabloid means that they are not able reach the truth. However, every single attempt they made to refute what was contained in the book was turned down by the Press Council:
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/office-of-the-press-ombudsman-hogan-and-the-sunday-world-decision6-july-09/
Furthermore the book never really reached the public as the Publishing House closed and as a result the book had a very limited circulation.
We have already made a commentary on the first Statement of 1997
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/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/
We now move on to write a commentary on the 1998 statement.

We are happy to receive comments or alternative views from the public. However, we go beyond most publishers and offer any stakeholder the right of an uncensored post unless it contains personal attacks which we will not tolerate. Any views we publish are fallible so we are open to correction but do note that members of the Catholic commentariat like the Irish Catholic, John Waters, David Quinn and Religious Affairs Newspaper columnists like Patsy McGarry have not addressed this issue for over a decade. We will soon again be contacting the TD’s for the Louth and Mayo as again they seem to have remained silent on this serious issue of the abuse and undue influence of mainly senior citizens. How are we aware of this? Because we have received requests for help from every part of Ireland.

Statement of Most Rev. Michael Neary, Archbishop of Tuam,
Regarding the public announcement by Mrs. Christina Gallagher that she intends closing the
House of Prayer at Achill
3rd July, 1998

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 bit 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.
I regret very much that Mrs. Gallagher believes herself to have been put under undue pressure by what I considered, and still consider, to have been sensible and fair measures adopted for the good of all. In this context I repeat my already stated doubts as to the wisdom and quality generally of the advice she has been receiving. Whatever the merits of her remarkable claims, and time may eventually clarify this, I had hopes that her work might have been amenable to integration into the life of this diocese. That it has not proved so amenable can only be a cause for regret, since I believe that good spiritual works of every kind are desperately needed today. I recognise that many people benefited spiritually from the House of Prayer, however, and I urge them not to be in any way discouraged but rather to hold on to and build on the good they have received.
I wish Mrs. Gallagher well and will pray that she finds happiness and peace.
Signed:_______________
+Michael Neary
Archbishop of Tuam.
Date: 3rd July, 1998.

Commentary on 3rd July, 1998 Statement.

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.

The statement does not seem to be a follow on the first one published in 1997 but seems to be occasioned by actions by Christina Gallagher. In 1997 she was asked to submit to the bishop and to make a proposal for a lay association, to accept her involvement in the local parish and to receive a spiritual advisor from the Archdiocese. In other words here we have Christina throwing the toys out of the pram and decidedly going solo with her entourage and enabler Fr McGinnity.

cg young

fr gm knockbridge2

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.
Christina Gallagher tries to give the impression she is a victim of the Archbishop and he sets the record straight. The HofP keep saying he is stopping them taking their story to Rome, but they fail the most basic test of a visionary which is to submit to the local bishop for evaluation. Also the sign of a genuine visionary is while their story is being examined they put a sock in it. By speaking up and misrepresenting the bishop they actually undermine their case.
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.

Here it is confirmed she has refused to submit… Non Serviam

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.

When confronted they continue to say they got permission from Dr Cassidy, but it was for a particular purpose they changed that and refuse to acknowledge this.

with Dr cassidy

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.

Little commentary is needed here it is so obvious what happened only those brought up on conspiracy theories can justify her behaviour. She changed the terms of reference within two weeks and wanted to make it the Christina and Gerard Show rather than the Jesus and Mary Centre.

house11

 
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 Archbishop repeats what he said in 1997, but he might as well be talking to the wall.

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”.

He again speaks as he did in the earlier statement about a Private Association of the Christian Faithful. He is surprised to hear from her that she is setting up such an Association, but then he sees the sting in the tail. She uses as her excuse for bypassing him that it has a “world-wide scope.” She does not grasp whether it has a world wide scope or a local one or the first mission to the moon, it has to be passed by the local bishop. Another attempt to bypass legitimate authority.
This article by a renowned Canon lawyer shows what her game plan is.
dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/sifting-the-wheat-from-the-tares-20-signs-of-trouble-in-a-nrms-peter-j-vere/

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 bit I am quite certain of the clarity with which the directives in question were stated.

No what you have here are the normal dimensions of people under influence and who can’t act in what most people would regard as normal. So Archbishop your views will be twisted and day will be turned into night.

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.

Now because she would not submit one can see the money trail that Jim Gallagher followed has led to her living a luxury lifestyle and to be a total fraud. She would not submit her accounts as that would have meant submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church. I repeat she is part of an unrecognised, schismatic entity and in secular terms a Marian scam.

I regret very much that Mrs. Gallagher believes herself to have been put under undue pressure by what I considered, and still consider, to have been sensible and fair measures adopted for the good of all. In this context I repeat my already stated doubts as to the wisdom and quality generally of the advice she has been receiving. Whatever the merits of her remarkable claims, and time may eventually clarify this, I had hopes that her work might have been amenable to integration into the life of this diocese. That it has not proved so amenable can only be a cause for regret, since I believe that good spiritual works of every kind are desperately needed today. I recognise that many people benefited spiritually from the House of Prayer, however, and I urge them not to be in any way discouraged but rather to hold on to and build on the good they have received.
I wish Mrs. Gallagher well and will pray that she finds happiness and peace.
Signed:_______________
+Michael Neary
Archbishop of Tuam.

 
Surely now the Archbishop is in no doubt that after 16 years she has no intention of submitting to his authority. She is absolutely and resolutely holding up the two fingers to him and saying take a jump. Relying on the previous statement that she is not recognised is like telling a burglar each time he robs your shop you do not recognise his burglary. This position was possibly ok in 1997/8 but now it actually appears quite weak and what is needed rather is a move to condemn and to actually excommunicate her. She is doing terrible damage to families throughout this state and in other countries. Archbishop please act. Act for the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emily, the Archdiocese of Dublin and finally act for the Archdiocese of Armagh. Cardinal Brady has not got the bottle to confront his absentee parish priest. However you have the power to deal with those coming to Achill. Please help the victims of this Christina Gallagher and her enabler Fr Gerard McGinnity.

cg before altarmicgm

(Former Junior and Senior Dean of St Patrick’s College, Maynooth, PhD in Classics from the University of Dublin, Trinity College on Ambrose of Milan. Courageous whistleblower and exile. Now big fish in small pond, formerly small fish in big pond.)

 

 

 

4 Responses

  1. ‘She frightened people to death with these so called messages from Heaven always threatening those who opposed her with the threat of eternal damnation….’
    That is the crux of it:
    Extortion through fear.
    Extortion of the worst kind, using false religious dogmas as a weapon, against the elderly. While massive luxurious mansions Gallagher lives the high lifestyle.
    It would be like a scene from from Fr Ted if it wasn’t so serious.
    Ted: ‘The money was only resting in my account’
    CG: ‘I don’t have any wealth, sure I only use two of the rooms of each of these houses, even though I have full and exclusive use of them all. I just don’t bother. It was our lady *cough* who told me I needed a refuge, I said a tent would do, but I didn’t exactly want to argue with her, if you get my drift, with her threats of damnation and that. I’m a bit of a pauper, really, thank God…’
    If you don’t believe me, check the land registry.’

    Like

  2. Thanks

    Like

  3. One of the most important factors in discerning the authenticity and true discernment of apparitions and private revelation is total and true obedience to the catholic church ie.her local bishop….CG has demonstrated gross disobedience as also Fr G Mcginnity in ignoring the recommendations of Archbishop Neary….When Christina claimed to receive a message that her mission as per. Our Lady was to to continue to bring people to the HOP despite disobeying her Bishop and obeying his generous guidelines she showed herself to be in complete enmity with the catholic church…I do believe at the time she was furious when requested to provide all details of the financial affairs of the HOP…Thus with the removal of the Blessed Sacrament she now was able to turn the HOP into a private organisation owned by her and thus the direct beneficiary of the extremely large donations in which she exploited so many innocent and mainly elderly pilgrims….She frightened people to death with these so called messages from Heaven always threatening those who opposed her with the threat of eternal damnation….Our Lord is portrayed as someone always judgemental and ready to cast us out if we do not support Christina and ready to cough up money to support her latest project…Our Lady is portrayed as a largely vindictive person and quite threatening…….Here we are talking about the most beautiful creature God ever created….This has to be total blasphemy……She could have passed as being a very good auctioneer judging by the number of high end properties that she guided Christina to invest in…..Humour aside this is a tragic story and I can only say May God have mercy on you Christina and Fr McGinnity…..You have a lot to answer when your day of reckoning comes…..Mick

    Like

  4. Archbishop Neary is very damning of Christina Gallagher in this statement.

    He states that she has lied publicly about her dealings with the Archbishop of Tuam.

    He states that the house of prayer has not been operated as agreed by Archbishop Cassidy of Tuam since it opened.

    He states that she has refused to integrate the house of prayer into the archdiocese.

    He states that she has been in direct contravention of his express instructions by allegedly having Sunday Mass celebrated at the house of prayer.

    He is concerned about the details of monies donated.

    He has major doubts about the quality of advice she received with regard to her dealings with the archdiocese.

    He states that she has repeatedly refused the services of a canon lawyer.

    It’s a very clear statement and it’s hard to understand how anyone could support the house of prayer after reading it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: