KNOCK - Vague Apparition like the moonlight?
On the night of the 21st of August 1879 the Virgin Mary flanked by St Joseph and a bishop thought to be St John the Evangelist and an altar with a lamb and cross on it allegedly appeared on the gable wall of the Parish Church of Knock for a few hours. Fifteen people witnessed the vision including a child of five (page 60, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary). Witness statements were published in a highly altered and edited form that differed hugely from the real ones the witnesses made. That witnesses didn't do the slightest thing about the lies speaks strongly against them as honest people.
Patrick Beirne made the following declaration before a
priestly board of investigators of the apparition in 1932.
"I saw three figures on the gable surrounded by wonderful light. They appeared
to be something like shadows or reflections cast on a wall on a moon-lit night."
This contradicts the usual line that the vision was
impressive. The more banal the sight the more likely a natural explanation is.
EVIDENCE THAT PATRICK BEIRNE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE VAGUE APPARITION
There is evidence that Patrick Beirne was telling the truth about the vision
being like moonlight images. The best evidence comes from the "best" witness,
Mary Beirne.
In 1935, Liam Na Cadhain interviewed Mary Beirne then Mary O Connell and she
declared, "The light about the figures was not like any light I ever saw but
more like the soft silvery light of the moon" (page 50, The Apparition at
Knock). She said in her authentic July 1880 deposition, "I saw 3 figures on the
west side of the gable." The on is of utmost importance.
The accounts agree in the biggest things but there is evidence that what they
saw was not totally clear. There are some contradictions among some of the
witnesses about the cross on the altar. It is best to take all that as evidence
that the visionaries did not see a vision as clear as you see your friends in
the coffee shop. The vagueness of the vision led to some misperceptions.
Judith Campbell said the lamb carried the cross. She had went up close to the
vision. Patrick Hill also went up close and denied the lamb carried the cross.
The cross stood erect behind the lamb: "behind the Lamb a large cross was placed
erect or perpendicular on the altar".
This forgery was put in Mary McLoughlin's testimony, "Behind the Lamb appeared
the cross ; it was away a bit from the Lamb, while the latter stood in front
from it, and not resting on the wood of the cross."
She protested when newspapers said she saw the cross. She claimed that was not
true - see page 191, Knock: The Virgin's Apparition in Nineteenth Century
Ireland.
Mary Beirne said, " I saw no cross nor crucifix". Her mother said, "I did not
see the cross on the altar".
Mrs Flatley's testimony says she saw the three figures and thought they were
statues the priest left outside. It is safe to assume she saw no altar. If she
had, that would have got her attention for leaving an altar outside would have
been a strange thing to do. And she would have remarked, "Strange the priest
never said he was getting a new altar." The altar is the focus of the Church in
Catholic churches. She mentions only thinking that the priest was ornamenting
the Church. That is referring to statues for statues come and statues go. They
are not as important as the altar. An altar is not an ornament, a statue is.
Mary Beirne's sister Margaret stated, " I saw there an altar. I did not see a
lamb and a cross." I did not see a lamb and a cross was crossed out.
Dominic Beirne Senior, "I saw an altar there, and figures representing saints
and angels traced or carved on the lower part of it" is contradicted by Mary
Beirne's "I saw only a plain altar."
Some witnesses never mentioned the altar and the lamb at all never mind the
cross.
Imagination had a role to play in the apparition too. For a time, there were a
number of dubious tales about lights been seen at the gable. When an apparition
story engrosses the people, such experiences are common.
PATRICK HILL'S LYING TESTIMONY
Patrick Hill expresses no doubt in his existing testimony that the vision was
ultra-clear and distinct. Nobody knows how much altering his testimony got.
His testimony also says, "I saw St. Joseph to the Blessed Virgin's right hand;
his head was bent, from the shoulders, forward ; he appeared to be paying his
respects ; I noticed his whiskers ; they appeared slightly gray ; there was a
line or dark mearing between the figure of the Blessed Virgin and that of St.
Joseph, so that one could know St. Joseph, and the place where his figure
appeared distinctly from that of the Blessed Virgin and the spot where she
stood." So without the line you wouldn't tell Mary and Joseph apart. That does
not sound like a super-clear vision. Mearing means boundary. It is an old
Anglo-Saxon word and was used in the days of the apparition to refer to the
permanent boundary that a landlord needed to know where his property started and
finished. Please read up on mearing on page 70 of The Apparition at Knock, The
Ecumenical Dimension. I think that the line must have been very big and dark in
order to warrant being called a mearing. Why not just call it darkness or a
line?
MARY MC LOUGHLIN AND NON-CLARITY
Testimony of Mary M'Loughlin " I saw a wonderful number of strange figures or
appearances at the gable, one like the B. V. Mary, and one like St. Joseph,
another a bishop". Her expressions suggest that it was hard to tell if what was
there were images or just shapes or figures. She says they were like Mary and
Joseph and a bishop - this suggests that the images were not as clear as the
Church would like you to think.
The original testimony is lost. Sullivan transcribed her testimony and it seems
his transcriptions were close to the originals. It is strange that her detailed
account of what she saw has been eliminated from the accepted version. In
Sullivan's version of her testimony we read that "the figures were, as appeared
to me, nearly life-size" and "they were all radiant with a silvery whiteness,
which appeared like silver, to reflect a bright light, which attracted my
attention". If the figures were too small and looked like silver paintings that
a light was shining on then we can understand why her stuff was excised. You can
read Sullivan's transcription of her testimony on page 114, The Apparition at
Knock, The Ecumenical Dimension. The same resource remarks that it is
interesting how she could see all the details that the Sullivan version of her
testimony says she saw for she stood at a distance of about 30 feet away from
the vision (page 133, ibid.).
She worked for the parish priest and went to tell him about the vision at the
gable and he told her he didn't believe it and would not go to the gable. The
trouble is he had a clear view of the gable. The light, if really bright, should
have shone in his back windows. Surely he would have been looking out of his
windows at some point? There was no street lighting in those days. The strange
light at the gable if it were really as bright as some said would have drawn his
attention on that reportedly exceptionally dark night.
Mary Beirne testified in 1936, "Mary McLoughlin, housekeeper to Archdeacon
Cavanagh, went to the parochial house to acquaint the parish priest, of the
occurrence. He, however, did not visit the scene, believing, as he told his
housekeeper, that it was a reflection from a stained-glass window erected some
time before." She gave the same testimony during the 1880 interview with the
Weekly News. Sounds like Mc Loughlin described a vague apparition to him that
could pass for a reflection.
The next day he had to be informed about the apparition on the way to say Mass
and said he had forgotten that he had heard about it from the housekeeper (page
9, The Apparition at Knock). Mary McLoughlin his housekeeper testified that this
was so (page 23, The Apparition at Knock). He doesn't seem to have been
impressed.
Canon Bourke took down McLoughlin's testimony and declared, "Mary M'Loughlin had
gone away before Patrick Hill came. Their testimony relates to two distinct and
separate times while the Apparition was present. She saw it, like one who did
not care to see it, and in a transverse direction, not straight ; he saw it
directly and fully, and like confiding child, went up calmly to where the
Blessed Virgin stood." Bourke wanted this note kept with her testimony. Nothing
in her existing testimony necessarily contradicts what Patrick Hill said in his
existing testimony. It is clear that the two did not agree so the Church began
to argue for a changing apparition to account for contradictions. The original,
the authentic, testimonies would be interesting but are sadly lost.
The claim that Bourke wanted to diminish the importance of her testimony so that
Hill's would be reckoned more important is pure speculation. It is nonsense.
Bourke was merely stating that as she looked at the apparition ALL THE TIME from
an angle and a distance, it might not be that dependable. She supposedly got a
short look at the vision on the way to visit in Beirne's house. She looked at it
for an hour on the way home. None of that was a close examination or a
straight-on view like Hill's That was all he intended to convey. Those who
accuse Bourke of being that petty and biased need to ask why they trust the
testimonies he got from the witnesses and which he recorded for them?
CATHERINE MURRAY DID NOT FIND THE IMAGES VERY CLEAR
Testimony of Catherine Murray - a girl of about eight years and six months,
grand-daughter of Mrs. Beirne. I am living at Knock ; I was staying at my
grandmother's. I followed my aunt and uncle to the chapel ; I then saw the
likeness of the Blessed Virgin Mary and that of St Joseph and St. John, as I
learned from those that were around about where I was ; I saw them all for fully
twenty minutes or thirty minutes.
A young Catholic girl would have known from pictures and statues which were
everywhere what Mary and Joseph looked like. If she didn't figure out that one
image was of Mary and another one was Joseph then the images must have been more
than a bit hard to make out. "I saw the likeness of the Blessed Virgin Mary and
that of St Joseph and St. John, as I learned from those that were around about
where I was" implies that the images were so unclear that she needed to be told
what they were. She should have known from religious statues what the images
were - unless they were indistinct.
OTHER WITNESSES
The above testimony of Judy Campbell says she ran up and
saw three figures of Joseph and John and the Virgin. This had to be altered to
three figures representing Joseph and John and the Virgin. Why the change or
tampering? She was denying that what she saw should be considered images of
those beings.
The testimony of Brigid Trench is a fabrication. This is her real testimony, "
LIVES IN THIS PLACE. ON THE EVE OF 21 AUGUST A PERSON SICK SENT FOR HER THAT SHE
MIGHT SEE HER. SHE CAME THAT EVENING TO THE CHURCH [SOMETHING ERASED]. SHE WAS
IN THE HOUSE OF THE SICK WOMAN. SHE CAME BY THE ROAD AND SAW GREAT LIGHT. SHE
ENTERED AT HER RIGHT HAND. SHE LEFT HER HAND ON THEM. SHE SAW ST JOSEPH AND THE
BVM AND ST JOHN AND THE ALTAR AND THE LAMB. THEY WERE NOT STANDING ON THE GROUND
BUT PROBABLY TWO FEET ABOVE THE GROUND.
The fabricated testimony speaks of an apparition which was detailed and clear.
It says she reached to touch the Virgin's feet and despite the images being so
lifelike and clear her hands passed through the feet.
The need to fake a testimony designed to refute the indistinctiveness of the
apparition is telling.
Trench died a couple of years after the apparition which was advantageous to the
Church and to those who said she tried to touch the image - if the Church and
they were lying.
Mary Beirne's brother Dominic testified "the eyes of the images could be seen:
they were like figures, inasmuch as they did not speak." This is an odd
statement. You don't say things are like statues or figures just because they
don't talk.
JOHN CURRY
John Curry was a young boy, about six years old. The record of the testimony of
John Curry is as follows, "The child says he saw the images — beautiful images —
the Blessed Virgin and St Joseph. He could state no more than that he saw the
fine images and the light, and heard the people talk of them, and went upon the
wall to see the nice things and the lights."
Even a child could notice the images were only things not people. What is
astounding is that the lad said they were images several weeks after the event.
He prefers the nice things and the lights to the images. That could be
significant.
Despite everybody saying three people appeared at the gable or three statues he
stated that they were images. He didn't let them pressure him to say what they
said. He said what he saw was a picture! Worse for Catholics, the testimony
tells us, "He could state no more than that he saw the fine images and the
light". Thus the priest writing the testimony was making it clear that Curry did
not actually say he saw the "the Blessed Virgin and St Joseph". This was the
priest's note. The priest was introducing his own interpretation. Curry was
allegedly put on the wall to see the images by Patrick Hill. Curry's testimony
does not fit the detailed and obviously exaggerated account given by Hill.
John Curry told the newspaper New York Tribunal in 1937, that Brigid Trench
touched the picture. The images were then flat on the wall. He says the images
appeared to be alive. But this contradicts his claim that Mary had a face like a
statue. He said the Lamb may have been under Joseph's arm and not on the altar
like the others said. All this indicates that the vision was not as clear as
crystal.
FINALLY
The Church says heavenly beings miraculously appeared at Knock. But evidence
for a miracle at Knock is weak. The vision was nothing to write home about. It
was dull white images of statues. There is no need to bring the miracle
hypothesis in at all. And we have to remember how human nature can see patterns
and familiar shapes in strange lights that are not there or not clear. Do not
forget that the vast majority of the Knock witnesses (11) were told what to
expect to see before they went to the gable - this predetermined their
perception (page 204, 207, The Cult of the Virgin Mary, Psychological Origins,
Michael P Carroll, Princeton, New Jersey, 1986). They feared imminent eviction
so they had a psychological need to believe that somebody in Heaven cared (page
211, ibid). Cynics might say they made the story up to lift the economy up and
be able to afford the rent!
And it is odd how nobody mentioned how they felt inspired by the vision to be
better people and better Catholics and how they were gripped by the beauty of
the Virgin. Nobody even cared to ask them. The so-called miracle is not about
what the Bible calls real religion but about superstition and magic.