mb pic

Last updated 6-8-13




Queen of Peace/House of Prayer and Christina Gallagher


By far, this appears to be the most viciously attacked private revelation, similar to La Sallette in its day, but, much worse.  One can find a multitude of accusations on the internet which have the feel of a personal, and quite frankly at times an outright evil vendetta.  It becomes even more necessary to investigate whether these claims can be verified and that’s what we did to our capacity. 

Christina, has the stigmata and is suffering constantly according to witnesses that can verify this.  If you go to their website (which it is vital to know is dedicated to The House of Prayer, Queen of Peace and Mrs. Christina Gallagher, but is done independently and it is trustworthy, in case anyone suspects Christina is promulgating it herself) you can read for yourself that many people and Priests have testified to her mystical gifts and have benefitted from the work that God has done through her. There are also verifiable miracles that can be read about on the website.  She has had some medical proofs of her supernatural experiences, (i.e. an elderly woman asked her son to take her there and he just happened to be a doctor of 18 yrs.  Well, much to his surprise, he witnessed, very up close, a miraculous account of Mrs. Gallagher receiving a miraculous Host on her tongue in ecstasy and he was so shaken by the experience that he gave a written testimony of the account. http://www.christinagallagher.org/en/continue.html.)

The Archbishop of Tuam has on his diocesan website all of the statements He has made regarding the House of Prayer and Christina Gallagher.  His final statement in 2008; “In summary the ‘House of Prayer’ has no Church approval and the work does not enjoy the confidence of the diocesan authorities.”

He is referring to the fact that at one time the House of Prayer was seeking to become a private association attached to his diocese, which it no longer seeks to do as it is seeking to be one under the Holy See itself.  It is not a Condemnation to not be approved by the diocese, especially under these circumstances.  And if they are simply “not confident” of the House of Prayer, that is also not a Condemnation.  The diocese simply has not issued a negative judgment on Christina Gallagher or the House of Prayer.  And yet the more one investigates, one can easily see that she has more and more a reputation of being a malicious fraud, disobedient to the Church and a moral degenerate, and that is no exaggeration.  


A Step by Step Analysis

16th December, 1997 Statement.  The Bishop mentions that he established a Committee to investigate which included 2 Priests and a Nun.  As a result of their findings he states;  

“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.”

So, nothing convinced him of a supernatural presence but he confirms that others may have and may profess it; and finally, that it remains “open and unproven” whether supernatural phenomena is occurring there.  Something which is very difficult to understand: if she has the wounds of the stigmata, the gift of knowledge, can read hearts, has prophecies which come true, and claims to have locutions and visions; clearly there is something supernatural going on here.  One may try to prove it is of demonic origin instead of from God, but it is obviously supernatural as it is above what the nature of human nature can produce on its own.  And there has never been any proof whatsoever that a human being can self-induce the stigmata. 

At that point the Diocese was working with Mrs. Gallagher and her associates together to incorporate the House of Prayer into a Private Association in the Church and many specifics are covered in the statement.

3rd July, 1998 Statement. The Bishop makes a statement about his surprise that Mrs. Gallagher closed the House of Prayer and that he had nothing to do with it.  This is explained in the first 2 paragraphs.  In the third paragraph he states that he thinks she has bad advisors and that she refused the Canon Lawyer he offered her.

Yes, Mrs. Gallagher closed it herself and she made this decision because the Bishop had stripped the House of Prayer of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the preaching of the Word of God at daily Mass, Easter services and finally of the Sunday Mass. While Archbishop Neary has the authority to make these decisions, Christina Gallagher felt it necessary to close the House of Prayer as she found that she was unable to fulfill her mission and that of the House of Prayer under these circumstances.

Priests, when they came to Our Lady Queen of Peace House of Prayer for a spiritual renewal and retreat, were no longer permitted to preach the Word of God, administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation or celebrate Sunday Mass publicly or privately on the grounds.  Pilgrims desiring to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation after receiving special graces at Our Lady's House of Prayer could no longer do so through the visiting priests. This led to the appearance that the priests had been defrocked.  Christina was concerned that this opportunity to bring the lambs back into the fold might be lost.

None of this was mentioned in Bishop Neary’s letter.  Under the circumstances it seems entirely reasonable that she would close the House of Prayer, and not for “self-interested” reasons.  Was the Bishop testing her and her associates and the Charism?  His “surprise” is actually surprising in light of the circumstance.  Did he not know there were people coming and having conversions and experiences of God, and then seeking the sacrament of reconciliation?  Did he not foresee that taking away their ability to have the visiting priests offer the sacraments would hinder the mission of the House of Prayer?  And if so, why did he not know; and as bishop should he not know?   And therefore it’s completely understandable that they would lose their confidence in working with him and refuse his choice of Canonical assistance.  All private associations have the right to choose their own canon lawyer to help them in writing their statutes and having their statutes approved if they choose to do so.  Not all types of associations need approval to be valid.  http://www.catholiccanonlaw.com/Associations.pdf  (look under heading- types of associations.)

In the fourth paragraph the Bishop recalls that his predecessor allowed for the House of Prayer to open apparently with the understanding of it being quiet and simple, but it attracted throngs of pilgrims with which the former bishop had a problem.  The description of the account puts Christina in quite a bad light, as if she were intentionally establishing a “Shrine.” 

In the fifth paragraph the Bishop repeats and elaborates on all of the things he believes he did to benefit the work.  He explains that his plan, if she had accepted it, would have ensured the “gradual development of her work” and states that it would have guaranteed its future.  Since he, as the Bishop, would be the one in position of authority and therefore the one who could guarantee its future, we can only deduce that he is saying it was only under these circumstances that he would allow for and assist in its development, and consequently give approval for their private association.  This, it seems, means that he did not want to encourage what Christina’s idea of the House of Prayer’s mission was but wanted them to adopt his own.  All private associations have the right to state what their mission is as they understand it in their own writing of their statutes.  The bishop can approve or not approve but can not in any way use pressure to induce them to change. 

While it may not have been intentional, Bishop Neary’s actions actually undermined his desire for their private association to be formally under his diocese by taking away the sacramental aspect of their apostolate.  They would not have sought out Rome’s jurisdiction over them if he had allowed them to exist as they were. 

In the sixth paragraph the Bishop more or less informs us that Mrs. Gallagher wrote him a letter informing him that she had set up an association where  “not (his) approval but rather that of Rome would be requested for the approval of the statutes of the new association since this work was to be “of world-wide scope.”  He expresses this account, showing himself again in a most favorable light and her in an unfavorable one.  But it does show a spirit of submission and respect on her part to inform him of their activity, not to mention obedience as she deferred to Rome.  All associations that intend to be international, or world wide, have the right to seek approval from Rome rather than the local bishop to better facilitate the particular aim for which the association was formed.  This seems perfectly natural for the chain of “Houses of Prayer”, since they intend to be in multiple countries.  If the association is under Rome, the local bishop has no governance over it.

In the seventh paragraph, he informs us of the letter he “was obliged” to write her for clarification on Sunday Masses being “allegedly celebrated” against his directive. (Note: Now, he alludes to his taking away the visiting priests’ ability to celebrate Sunday Mass privately or publicly on the premises as mentioned earlier, but only in context of an accusation against Mrs. Gallagher, and in such a way which makes the reader question her character as well.)  He goes on to state in the letter that he was “obliged” to note her “persistent tendency” to misunderstand him and misinform her associates. He wonders whether she is just confused or what?  His language is somewhat confusing.  If she is confused or misunderstanding things, there is no fault on her part.  But to use the phrase persistent tendency shows intent on her part which implies a fault on her part.  Which is his intent to imply on her part, that she is confused and guiltless or that she is purposely misinforming? 

We wrote Fr. McGinnity, Christina’s spiritual director to inquire as to this particular accusation.  We hope to post his response in the future.  But for now, it is not stated that she actually had Sunday Mass there but rather that she “allegedly” was.  If he was certain, why would he say “alleged”?  It’s a grave accusation and without certainty, it’s a defamation of character as it is a public statement.  It is also possible that, since they were now directly under Rome, that they have Rome’s approval for this and were no longer obligated to his previous directives in this regard.  We have asked Fr. McGinnity for clarification on this matter as well.

In the eighth paragraph he informs us that he has requested a detailed account of their entire financial affairs since the House of Prayer opened as it is his right as Bishop.  He hadn’t done it before when she was under his domain, but is doing this now when they are an association under Rome?  All private associations under a diocese have to give an annual financial report, but the House of Prayer is not under his diocese as he has repeatedly stated.  Another accusation related to this surfaced against Christina around this time so the explanation found on their website is shown here: 

“In addition, a rumor is circulating that the House of Prayer refused to satisfy the Archbishop's request for financial information. This is also false. The Archbishop requested this information on the last day of June, stating that his offices would be closed for July and that he would like to have the information made available to him upon his return in August. All information requested by the Archbishop will be provided upon the reopening of his offices. The House of Prayer is a registered charity and already receives annual audits. All of the donations to the House of Prayer are protected by the charitable trust.”

In the final paragraph the Bishop summarizes and repeats again that his efforts were good, that she has poor advisors, etc…  At the time of the closure of the House of Prayer it’s said she expressed to the media a sense of being harshly treated by the Diocese. The Bishop adds that her claims of “undue stress”  due to their treatment of her are “remarkable” and that “time may prove this.”  He ends by wishing her well and encouraging those in the good they have received from the House of Prayer.  He essentially insinuates that he has done nothing to cause her stress and therefore her claim has no substance and that this will eventually be proved.  His words about her always seem to insinuate that she is in the wrong without an actual accusation wrongdoing, giving the impression of wrongdoing without pronouncing official negative judgments and therefore having to back up any statements with facts of wrongdoing.  Whether this is intentional or not, it is what in fact is happening and the effects are that most everyone believes she has been condemned by the bishop while there has been no actual judgment made on her.

Note:  The House of Prayer did reopen in 1998 at the request of pilgrims. (Source)

December 1, 2009. Perhaps as a result of even more defamations of her character from recent television coverage on the subject, the Tuam diocese posted this final reply from various inquiries as to her current status reiterating some of the aforementioned things and in addition…

“Accordingly, while welcoming any and all sincere attempts to promote orthodox Catholic faith and piety, the Archdiocese cannot lend its approval to this work as matters stand and is obliged to note that the same work is entirely of a private nature and carries no ecclesiastical approval whatever.  The Archbishop would call on all persons of good will involved in the situation to reflect on what is best for the Church at large and to exercise the greatest responsibility and charity in the matter.”  Again, this is not a condemnation or disapproval. The private association which is seeking to be under Rome does not need approval to be valid since it is not seeking approval from the Tuam diocese.  And he leaves involvement by the faithful to their own good discretion.  If she were under sanction, or deemed harmful to the flock would he not tell the faithful to stay away to not be unduly influenced?  All private associations are of a private nature by definition and perfectly legitimate under church law.  Until it has approval from Rome it can not be considered approved, but that does not mean illegitimate.  His words give the impression that she is a rogue simply doing as she pleases without due reverence to the Church and its canonical processes. 

From a spiritual point of view it’s relevant to mention here just a few but entirely significant things.  In addition to many, many witnesses and beneficiaries of the outpouring of graces that were occurring through Our Lady’s use of Christina Gallagher, some crucial developments took place.

She was told and shown many things about the near future.  Some she announced some she didn’t, some prophecies have even come true and are verified.  This can all be found on the previous mentioned website.  And on July 3, 1999, July 16, 1999, and July 16, 2000, Our Lady through Christina, introduced and invited people to the House of Prayer to receive the gift of the “Seal of the Living God” which would grant them the ability to resist the Antichrist during a time of ultimate testing that is to come.  The offer would end on the same day the following year.  It was a guarantee that one would have protection through the Apocalyptic times that are approaching (those who wanted it but really were not able would be granted it as well.). In other visions she had details of the Antichrist.  At one point Our Lord told her that it was through her intercession that He would come and send the devil back to hell, and the world would be free from satan. (Ref from book of Rev re: the devil being bound for a thousand yrs.)  Our Lady also asked that people would work with Christina to establish Houses of Prayer all throughout the world because they are to be places of sanctuary where people could go once the apocalyptic times are in full force.  One can also find on the website various “gifts of infused knowledge” on the spiritual life that are immensely beneficial and show a divine wisdom that could not have come from her. 

This particular website http://www.voiceofourladyspilgrims.com/ is from a woman who has been responsible for all of the finances of the House of Prayer.  She felt it necessary to defend Mrs. Gallagher in the face of the ever increasing amount of calumny and hatred aimed at her.  She gives witness and testimony to various things and it is only the second voice we have found which defends her innocence.  Apparently, the worst thing that has happened recently, in 2008, is that a tabloid came to her house and created a story to show her as a complete fraud.  It was so horrific that hordes of people had misgivings about their donations and wanted them back.  She actually suffered a heart attack from this one!  They were sued and the House of Prayer gave back some 250,000 Euros in an out of court settlement.  And in “In March 2009 the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to take a prosecution against the House of Prayer after a lengthy Garda investigation.” (Source)  This shows he found insufficient evidence worthy of prosecution.

People continue to spread rumors that Mrs. Gallagher lives a luxurious life style in a mansion. Yet witnesses can testify that she continues to suffer intensely and bears the stigmata. Dr. Thomas Petrisko in his book on her tells us that she suffers the actual pains of abortion in reparation for this abominable sin. And that’s just the few things that we know about. It is complete stupidity to think for a moment that she could enjoy anything much at all living the life of what in effect is a “victim soul”, much like that of Padre Pio.  Since the facts, not alleged speculation, show that she is authentic, what must she be obtaining, co-redeeming and holding back in the way of God’s Wrath for this world!  I think we should not only want to keep her alive but comforted.  Do we want to go down as a Church that kills its prophets the same way the Jews of the Old Covenant did?  We are one tiny voice against an enormous clamor of vendetta that, as of yet, is proven to be unwarranted.  Would that Rome would intervene in one simple, but entirely thorough and official investigation of whether she is a fake or not as it would defend the good faith of so many weak souls who became prey to the media and like a wild animal have become as a pack of wolves that continue to go wild at the blood they derive at the cost of one woman.  If the Church authorities will not stand by her side and defend her as a mystic and a daughter, they should at least spare no effort in defending her as a fellow Christian…. for everyone’s benefit.

Here’s a rare interview with Mrs. Gallagher in 1997 that gives one an idea of her character.  http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/Mayo/News/ConnTel/9707Jul/97Jul23/Prayer2.htm

Also Dr. Thomas Petrisko has written a book: The Sorrow, The Sacrifice, and The Triumph, which is a biography and testimony to the supernatural character of her gifts and mission.   https://www.saintandrew.com/products.php?product=The-Sorrow,-the-Sacrifice,-and-the-Triumph