Second Reading
Fr Kevin Hegarty
Religious activities on the island of Achill have a way of disturbing Archbishops of Tuam. In the 19th century the ‘Second Reformation’ movement attempted the conversion of Catholic communities, mainly along the western seaboard, to Protestantism. Achill became the focus of controversy in the 1830s when the Reverend Edward Nangle established a Protestant colony there and sought to augment its numbers by persuading Catholics to join it. The Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, John MacHale, opposed the project with ferocious intensity.
Now it is the House of Prayer in Achill that is in the news. There have been several newspaper reports recently querying whether monies donated to the House have been properly used for the furtherance of its spiritual activities. Two years ago the Revenue Commissioners withdrew its charitable status. I do not propose to comment on this matter. I will leave to Caesar the things of Caesar!
The House of Prayer has also been in the headlines because of a statement by Archbishop Neary of Tuam which advises that the House has ‘no Church approval’ and ‘does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities’.
Christina Gallagher set up the House of Prayer in the former Convent of Mercy in Achill in 1992. Since 1988 she claims to have regular visitations of the Blessed Virgin Mary and to receive messages from her. To me, some of these messages are contradictory of the Christian gospel of love and compassion.
A central theme running through these messages is that God is very angry with the ‘world’. Natural disasters, such as the tsunami over two years ago, in South East Asia, are God’s way of telling us how profoundly disturbed He is by modern living. Why a loving God would vent his anger on some of the most impoverished people in the world is something she does not explain.
Things, it seems, will get worse. God is only being held back from even more torrid expressions of his anger by the gentle touch of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This restraint, however, cannot last indefinitely and then we will realise the consequences. The ‘great chastisement’ will begin and we will, unless protected by the seal of the House of Prayer, be caught in its wake.
The House of Prayer, itself, is like an over-stocked theme park for pre-Vatican II Catholicism. By implication, the décor asserts that the Church has lost its way since the reforms of the Council. The altar is a chaos of statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Ms Gallagher’s spiritual director is Fr Gerard McGinnity, a priest of the archdiocese of Armagh. He helps to interpret the messages she claims to receive. Many of those who know Fr McGinnity find it inexplicable that he is now stranded on the wilder shores of Catholic fundamentalism. They would have expected a greater degree of theological sophistication from one who holds a doctorate in patristics from Trinity College.
Fr McGinnity seemed destined for a major role in the Church establishment. Soon after his ordination in 1972 he was appointed as a dean in St Patrick’s College, Maynooth. For over a decade the bishops entrusted him with the task of shaping clerical students into prayerful and obedient priests. Some people even reckoned that he had the required measures of conservatism and suavity to become a bishop.
His career in Maynooth ended abruptly. His support of students, who alleged inappropriate sexual behaviour by the then College President, Micheál Ledwith, found disfavour with the Church authorities. Since then Fr McGinnity has held a number of positions in his native diocese of Armagh, where he is now parish priest of Knockbridge in Co Louth.
Up to 1997, when Archbishop Neary prohibited the celebration of the sacraments in the house, Fr McGinnity often said Mass there. Paul Vallely, a Catholic journalist who writes for the London ‘Independent’, attended one of his Masses and found it a strange experience. The Mass lasted well over two hours. At times, he wrote, Fr McGinnity acted like a TV celestial game host and at significant points of the Mass he emitted heavy, troubled groans and gyrated somewhat. Vallely added that his followers believed that these histrionics were the result of the frenzied efforts of the devil to upset him. The devil looms large in the House of Prayer mythology.
Quite frankly, I found these claims of devilish intervention absurd, which point I made in a letter published by the ‘Independent’. I wrote that as a student for the priesthood in Maynooth, when Fr McGinnity was Dean, my most enduring memory is that he was a reasonably good actor who could never resist the exaggerated gesture.
Almost from its inception the House of Prayer has had a fractious relationship with the Archdiocese of Tuam. The then Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Joseph Cassidy opened the centre in 1993, believing that the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the recitation of the Rosary and the provision of opportunities for priests’ retreats would be its only activities. He soon regretted his decision to give it approval.
In 1996, his successor, Archbishop Neary, set up a commission to investigate the work of the House of Prayer. The Commission reported that no supernatural phenomenon had been observed. Dr Neary then sought to integrate the House into the prayer life of the diocese. His efforts at integration met with a poor response. Ms Gallagher closed the House, temporarily, in 1998, alleging she had been harshly treated by the Church authorities.
What is the position of the Catholic Church on the kind of phenomena which Ms Gallagher claims to experience? The Church teaches that the revelation of God to us has been completed in Christ. There is nothing to be discerned about God’s mercy, love, fidelity and justice that has not already been revealed in the Christ-event. All private revelations of God have to be in conformity with this standard.
The distinguished Catholic theologian, Richard McBrien offers five tests by which private revelations need to be evaluated:
(1) Is the revelation consistent with sacred scripture and its official interpretations?
(2) Does the private revelation build up the Body of Christ and the human family or is it divisive?
(3) Does the revelation contribute to our knowledge of God or is it concerned with the unusual or the bizarre.
(4) Are the bearers of the private revelation good examples of Christian witness or odd, eccentric or difficult to deal with?
(5) Are the devotions arising from the alleged private revelation approved by the local bishop, who is responsible for the faith of the diocese?
I believe that the leaders of the House of Prayer have some questions to answer under the above headings. It is not enough to hide behind glib assertions that all criticism is the work of the devil.
