What was seen?
In the village
of Knock, Co Mayo, Ireland, 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 for a few hours. Fifteen people
witnessed the vision including a child of five (page 60, The Evidence for
Visions of the Virgin Mary) and stood watching it for two hours in
torrential rain. Why the
whole village didn’t turn out is a mystery.
Did the apparition really start before dark?
The vision reportedly occurred before it got dark and continued until darkness fell lasting for a couple of hours. Mary Mc Loughlin, housekeeper to Archdeacon Cavanagh, Parish Priest of Knock, said that the images were on the gable when it was daylight. She thought they were statues. This was about 7.00 pm or slightly after but in modern time it would be 8.30 pm. She was the first person to see the images. She stayed half an hour at Widow Beirne’s house. Mary and Mary Beirne passed the Church again and looked at the figures. Other people joined them about 8.15 pm (modern time would be 9.45) and it was getting dark (page 23, The Apparition at Knock). The images became clearer once darkness fell (page 61, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary). The images were then surmised to be exuding or emitting some kind of light. Perhaps it was just a light that shone on them.
God would have made sure that the first witness would have known that they were not statues from the start. And would Mary and co appear there and stay there when there was nobody about? And could God not make the images brighter until it got dark? Why did Mc Loughlin not see any light? There could have been no light when she was so sure they were statues. This suggests that whatever she saw it was not an apparition. She never mentioned about what she thought were statues in the Beirne house. It looks as if she and Mary Beirne didn't see anything until it was dark and when they passed the Church. Then Mc Loughlin lied that there was something there when it was full daylight. She was a friend of and a housekeeper to the Archdeacon. She may have lied to cut out any suspicions of fraud such as a magic lantern being used. There is reason to be suspicious of the Archdeacon and therefore of her.
Consignments of statues had been sent to Knock recently and broken. She said she thought that the Archdeacon had ordered new statues placed at the gable and never told her. Strangely she never said that the gable would have been a strange place to put the statues. And what about the altar and the lamb supposedly floating about half way up the gable? She said she saw a white light. Incredibly, just a few minutes later she was in the Beirne house and still said nothing after seeing all these strange things? It doesn't ring true. She saw nothing.
There is no reason to believe the claim that the figures were seen in daylight. They were seen at twilight and in the dark.
Some investigators make a lot out of the apparition appearing in daylight. They say that it indicates for example that it eliminates the idea that a projector may have been used to make the images. A projector would need the dark.
Inconsistencies
Mary McLoughlin lied that she went to Beirnes at 7 for Mary Beirne said she didn't see her until 7.30.
There is a serious contradiction between Margaret Beirne going to lock the Church at a certain time and Mary Beirne her sister going to do it at a different time. They were sisters living together. Also we have three different members of the Beirne family who lived in the house together making three separate journeys to tell the household of the apparition. Mary goes to get Dominick at 8 pm. Catherine Murray a niece goes to get Margaret at 8 pm. Margaret goes back at 8.15 to get her mother Widow Beirne out (page 248, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). The Beirnes were being very untruthful and yet they were considered the main witnesses.
The Beirne house was nearly level with the gable of the Church and was only a short distance from the Church. It would not have been possible to see the vision from the house. But it would have been possible to see the light. The light would have been very noticeable had the likes of Patrick Walsh been telling the truth. Yet we have the people in the house behaving as if it was not noticeable and having to have a number of trips made to them after dark to let them know!
It is strange too that the Archdeacon wouldn't go to the gable to see the apparition. He wouldn't even go to his door or window to look out. He had a good view of the Church gable from the back door and back windows of his house. Moreover, if there really was a bright light at the gable as witnesses said it should have shone in his windows. He could not have missed it. His behaviour was extremely odd. As we shall see, this may have been because he was part of the hoax to create the apparition. A real believer wouldn't sit by the fire when the Virgin Mary was outside. He acted like he knew something and wanted to play the innocent.
All this suggests that
there was truth in the suggestion that the apparition was a trick. The
witnesses may have lied or perhaps they were deceived thanks to a policeman using a projector or magic lantern as it was
called.
Mary Beirne stated
that the Virgin’s crown was somewhat yellow.
A real miracle would have had a gold crown. The crown was meant to be gold so why did
the yellow colour not come out right?
It was because the vision was a trick.
And why did the image of
Patrick Walsh
who was half a mile from the Church alleged that he saw the light from one of his fields.
He said he noticed just a golden light on the gable that night. How then could the stars have appeared to
be gold when the light was gold? They
wouldn’t have been visible then or even noticeable. The witnesses certainly
exaggerated what they had seen. They
allayed their own doubts by this means.
Problems with who did the witnessessing
There is a
serious problem as to why the vision was only witnessed by the family and
friends of the first visionary though there were plenty of other people in
Knock. Did she know that there was
something odd about the whole thing that made her afraid to go to unbiased
people?
Another
interesting point is that Mary Beirne could have
moulded the perception of the others of what was seen at the gable for she
quickly took on a leadership role and was the first to suggest it was the
Virgin Mary (page
206, The Cult of the Virgin Mary).
She seems to have been behind the acceptance by the witnesses that the
bishop was
Did the images move?
Most of the witnesses said the figures showed no sign of life. Unreliable Mary McLoughlin said they moved but movement is a very easy thing to imagine. Bridget Trench said they didn’t move (page 29, The Apparition at Knock) and Mary Beirne said they showed no signs of life (page 48, The Apparition at Knock). It is accepted that all the visionaries came to agree that the figures never moved (page 185, 197, 211, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). Archbishop Murphy of Tasmania asked pilgrims to pray that the figures of Mary had not been an image of her but really her (page 197, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). To me, the fact that the vision was not really a visitation by heavenly beings is sufficient proof that it was the waste of a miracle and has led most believers in the vision astray for they think it was a visitation. The miracle was not from God for it caused error. Protestants might say that the absurdities of the vision would show that it was Satan at work.
Evidence for a projector being used
The book, The Apparition at Knock, A Survey of Facts and Evidence by Fr Michael Walsh is a good read. Page 20 tells us that the figures seemed to move out and then backwards according to Patrick Hill’s testimony. That is what something being projected from a machine would do. Claims such as that the witnesses never mentioned the beams of light that would come from a lantern, or mentioned that shadows appeared as if they were standing in front of some light source so the magic lantern idea is false are inconclusive. The witnesses didn't say everything in their testimonies. They would not have liked to think about beams and shadows and things if they had happened.
The figures stood on top of the long grass at the gable. Could the light source have been hidden in the grass?
The
visionaries also said that the figures seemed to be out from the wall. But if you project a picture of a person on
a wall and pretend that it is a ghost you will find that your imagination
does seem to think the image is not on the wall but in front of it. Mary Beirne
contradicted the witnesses who said there was a cross on the altar that
appeared for she said she saw no crucifix or cross (page 25). Margaret Beirne
also didn’t see the cross (page 27).
Dominick Beirne contradicted Patrick Hill
who said the altar was totally plain (page 21). Hill said that it had symbols and
pictures of angels on it (page 33). It
is not even certain that the 1879 commission took more than a day to work on
showing the witnesses were telling the truth (page 37). Page 47 has top witness Mary Beirne saying the vision of Mary had a yellow
whiteness. She didn’t see the vision’s
feet but Bridget Trench said they were visible and tried to touch them (page
29). She also said that the images
seemed to retreat into the wall when approached – maybe that was an
illusion. When you are far off a
projected image it is easier to think it is three dimensional but when you
get close it is easier to see that it is on the wall. She added that she saw attempts to recreate
the vision using slides but there was no comparison (page 50). In 1936, she said she couldn’t remember
seeing a lamb on the altar (page 52).
She stated that close up the images seemed painted on the wall (page
62).
Was the apparition at Knock caused by trickery? Many suspected that it was caused by a magic lantern, a projector. Indeed 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). A soft light! This refutes the lying witnesses who swore the light was very very bright. And it proves that it could have been the light that comes from a magic lantern which would not be exceptionally bright. Patrick Beirne in 1932, testified, "I saw three figures on the gable surrounded by a wonderful light. They appeared to be something like shadows or reflections cast on a wall on a moon-light night" (page 53, The Apparition at Knock). This sounds like a perfect description of what a lantern would produce. Later in August 1936, under oath he lied that the whole gable was as white as snow with the brilliant light and that the figures were as clear and distinct as any human being (page 54, The Apparition at Knock). He was known to be odd and consider himself a person of some importance but generally truthful (page 55, The Apparition at Knock). He liked to be held important. When he said that the light was like moonlight and the apparitions like shadows that was the truth. Later he embellished all this to be important.
Read http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eop_01/eop_01_02624.html
"The magic lantern theory was again revived in a British television program, "Is There Anybody There?" produced by Karl Sabbagh and telecast on October 31, 1987. In this production Nicholas Humphrey demonstrated how a passable magic lantern image could be projected from within the gable of a Cambridge church, using a right-angled shaving mirror. Humphrey suggested fraud by Archdeacon Cavanagh, parish priest of Knock one of the three commissioners. In support of the theory, a document from the State Papers in Dublin Castle was cited in which Cavanagh was reported by a spy as criticizing rebels and consequently endangering his prestige in the area by championing landlords and attacking local Fenians or Land League leaders. The idea that Cavanagh, widely respected in his parish, might resort to fraud was not well received."
It is typical of the Catholic Church to use people who have academic prestige but who are not qualified or experienced to refute people's doubts about the reality of miracles. It is really a magician who should be deployed. Even scientists can be fooled by good trickery. Magicians in the 19th century were known to be able to project ghostly images unto glass sheets. This stage trick fooled the audience into thinking they were seeing ghosts.
Did the rain affect the vision? Read this statement by Mary Beirne: "On the body of the Lamb, and around it, I saw golden stars, or small brilliant lights, glittering like jets or glass balls, reflecting the light of some luminous body". It sounds like some light source shining on the rain.
It is bizarre how the visionaries could say that they saw that St Joseph had a grey beard when the Virgin's face was white but a yellower white than the white robe she wore (page 47, The Apparition at Knock). The Virgin did not have a natural colour while Joseph did. Beirne said that the Virgin, "Wore a beautiful crown; it looked like gold; and the face appeared to be a yellower white than the body of the cloak". The yellowness is what you would expect from a magic lantern. It was hard to produce pure white images in those days. All that suggests a projector was being used. We can't accuse God of producing poor images!
Mary Beirne later described the Virgin's crown as white (page 49, The Apparition at Knock). Catholics say that small errors like that do not discredit the story. But who would think of saying a crown was white unless it was? We tend to think of crowns as gold. A white crown would suggest that the vision was a hoax.
In 1936, Michael McConnell, a Knock villager residing in Belfast sent a letter to the Archdiocese of Tuam of which Knock is a part. He testified in the letter that he knew of a policeman who had been projecting images from the Barracks in Knock on to the wall of the Church and some people saw the images and took them for visions. The latest edition of the book, The Apparition at Knock by Father Walsh dismisses this testimony for there is no corroboration and mainly because an image cannot be projected to the gable wall from the Barracks.
The testimony was written a long time after the event. Mr McConnell may have confused the information he received. He may have been told that a policeman had been projecting images from the Barracks with a magic lantern and that he projected them unto the gable. He may have taken it to mean the images were projected from the Barracks. He misunderstood or misremembered. The error certainly does not make him a liar for he knew being a Knock resident that experiments had been done in attempts to see if the vision was the product of a magic lantern or not. He said he thought he was told the images were projected from the Barracks because he really did think that. How else could you explain him saying the image was projected on the church from the Barracks when he must have known it was impossible. Michael McConnell was known as a decent man. He was not a liar.
There is a report of lights being seen on January 5 and 6 1880 on the
gable at 11.00 pm. Mrs Kileen from Knock, Miss Anderson and Miss Kennedy saw the
lights. They saw lights on the gable
of the Church that were not too bright and then dimmed and moved around. At one stage,
Archdeacon Cavanagh at the time was not very popular in his parish. If people were going to speculatively gossip that someone performed the apparition hoax then why didn't they blame the Archdeacon? Why pick a policeman of all people?
The apparitions could have been luminous paintings
The Apparition at Knock rejects the idea that the images were painted using luminous paint or phosphorus on canvas hung on the wall for at 300 yards they were mistaken for statues which wouldn’t have happened. But we must remember that if you saw strange shapes in vague bodily form at that distance in the grounds of a Catholic Church you would take them for statues for that is what you would expect. What you expect to see influences what you think you see. The paint would have looked white or greenish in the daytime so the book is wrong to say that the apparition being seen in daytime at that distance means it was not a luminous painting. I’d say that four canvases were used and each one cut into the shape of the thing represented. That would explain this. The mysterious light was from a hidden lamp. This would have kept the phosphorus stable because normally it would fade out in parts. The painting was done in such a way that it looked real and detail could be seen. Something must have been erected to keep the rain off the images for rain would ruin the phosphorus. The book debunks the possibility of illusion but ignores the fact that these images painted by phosphorus might have done so much and illusion and imagination did the rest. The contradictions between the witnesses show that hallucination was at play to some extent. A crude trick could have been played and the witnesses imagined the rest, they could have imagined the things that make the vision seem convincing.
If a canvas was used, perhaps the magic lantern was behind it? In that case, the lantern was just used not to project images at all but to brighten up images on the canvas.
The witness who said the ground was miraculously dry below the apparition would have wet hands. If you expect the ground to be dry and your hands are wet then you will think the ground is dry. Perhaps a shelter that wasn't seen was attached to the wall by the hoaxer to keep the phosphorous figures dry? Or was a sheet of glass used and a light source used to project images on to it or to light up images already on it? Did the glass protect the ground from the rain?
Was the ground miraculously dry?
Bridget Trench
tried to touch the Virgin’s feet but there was nothing there. Her hands just touched the wall which
suggests that the image of the feet was on the wall and not in front of
it. She felt the ground below the
vision and it was dry despite the torrential rainfall that was happening. But we are not
told if she just touched one part of the ground so she failed to prove that
she hadn’t touched a part of the ground that was sheltered from the rain
beating against the gable by the people being in the way of the rain.
The apparition encouraged sacrilege
The apparition
led to people picking the cement out of the Church wall and putting it in
danger of collapsing (page 89). Would
the Virgin knowing people would do this have appeared at Knock and caused the
desecration of a Church? They were stealing. Strangely it
got so bad that stones were being pulled out before anything was done
about it. Yet the Church held that
many of the early miracle cures at Knock were connected to the pious use of
the cement (page 88, The Apparition at Knock). Apparitions of lights on the gable and
even of the Virgin herself were seen after the vision but the Church
dismissed those stories.
The apparition caused danger
The Knock
apparitions were not the work of God.
The fact that an old lady, Brigid Trench 75, was led to stand for an hour in
pouring rain honouring a vision helps prove that. A vision being
optional for belief cannot have the right to encourage an old lady to risk
death by pneumonia.
Even if we cannot find an explanation for the vision then that does not mean that we
cannot keep looking for one or that there is none.
The visionaries abandoned a dying woman
Judith Campbell was an apparition witness. In her testimony, she declared that Mary Beirne called at her house at 8 and asked her to go and see the apparition (page 31, The Apparition at Knock). She did not say how long she stayed. She did not mention abandoning her dying mother and leaving her on her own. Her mother was dying and Judith left her in her sickbed to look at the vision. Manipulator!
Bridget Trench 75 was in Campbell's house. She left at 7.30 upon hearing of the apparition which she prayed at for an hour (page 30, The Apparition at Knock). That means she could have gone back to keep an eye on dying Mrs Campbell when Judith appeared at 8 but didn't.
The visionaries left the vision because Mrs Campbell had been found unconscious at her door and needed help. Judith had thought she was dead when she discovered her (page 82, The Apparition at Knock). The old lady heard about the vision and wanted to see and and got out of her bed and made it to the door where she fell. She died the next day.
Why does the Church say that if the witnesses hadn't run off and abandoned the vision to help dying Mrs Campbell, it would be a sign that the apparition was false? (page 83, The Apparition at Knock). Surely a vision taking a daughter away from her mother is false then with that logic? And the apparition did that! Keeping the daughter away from the dying mother is more serious than keeping people at a gable when an old and abandoned woman is dying. Judith left her mother's sickbed unattended. Because of the apparition, nobody was with the old woman. Why did the vision not vanish the very moment the alarm was raised about Mrs Campbell? It lingered on as if disapproving of them going away. God will not send a vision unless he wants people to see it. Yet in Knock we have an apparition that was around before the first witness saw it. She ignored it for a while and it was still there when she and friends went to see it. It was still there when they all left the apparition site. However, they helped Mrs Campbell and when they returned to the gable the vision was gone. It vanished during their ten or fifteen minute absence. It is strange that Judith didn't have her mother carried out to see the vision in the hope of a miracle. Why is the apparition nearly killing a dying woman not a disproof of its authenticity?
Why did all the visionaries have to leave? They behaved strangely. Even more so when they stayed fifteen to twenty minutes away.
There is no way that people in a rural community in Ireland would have let it happen that an old woman would be left alone to possibly die. It is enough to make one think that there was nobody at the gable that night.
Who was the bishop in the apparition?
The witnesses saw a bishop with a mitre and a hand raised in blessing holding a book in the other hand. They strangely decided that this was St John the Evangelist. Why not St Patrick? That would have been a more natural assumption. It was said the image matched a statue of St John in Lecanvey but it has never been established that this statue existed and it didn't wear a mitre. A true vision would not leave people guessing. A Protestant policeman engineering a hoax might. He wouldn't understand the Catholic religious mentality.
The Apparition at Knock (page 79) says that because the altar and the lamb in the vision come from the book of the Apocalypse written by the apostle John then its a hint that the bishop was John. First, of all, modern scholarship says that the apostle John did not write the Apocalypse. Tradition which is unreliable says he did. So if the vision intended to hint that John wrote the Apocalypse the vision was certainly not from God. Secondly, would it be wise for a true apparition from God to get involved in the dispute about who wrote the Apocalypse? Of course not. Thirdly, it is not flattering to make a link between Knock and a vindictive Bible book where Jesus and the saints are portrayed as vindictive. There God and Jesus plot new ways to torment the world and the saints cry for vengeance.
It has been observed that the image of the bishop could have been of widely adored Archbishop John MacHale. As he was not dead, the witnesses could not say the bishop was him. If it was meant to be a representation of MacHale, then clearly the apparition was a joke. There are some pointers that Archdeacon Cavanagh manipulated the facts to make it seem like that the bishop was John the Evangelist (page 196, Knock, The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century).
Why did nobody admit to the hoax?
Who would have wanted to refute an apparition that was bringing money into the impoverished village? Soon after the apparition, it cost a fortune, a shilling and sixpence, to sleep in Knock in an armchair (page 67, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary).
The dubious testimony of Patrick Walsh
It is thought that as Patrick Walsh, 65, who lived at Ballinderrig about a mile from Knock saw such a bright light that it seemed as if the Church was on fire that a brightness of that potency could only be miraculous. It is thought that luminous paint and magic lanterns can't account for it. He said the light he saw was "quite stationary" and "circular" and "appeared high up in the air above and around the chapel gable" (page 26, The Apparition at Knock). He reported that he saw the light from a half mile from the chapel. His testimony is used to verify that the apparition was not mass hallucination - he alone stands as its seeming refutation. So his testimony is very very important - but is it true?
No effort was made to ensure that Walsh mentioned this light before he was told of it. All we know is that he was asking the people about the light the next day. This is only hearsay. The story of the apparition would have been so arresting that the first person he met would have told him of it before he got the chance to ask about any fire.
The problems are that if his story was true, then why was he the only person at a distance that saw the light? A light that bright and big should have been seen by more than him. The area after all was quite flat with few trees. It should have been seen for miles around.
Why didn't the police investigate? They must have seen the light and they had a barracks nearby. Was it because there was nothing remarkable about the light?
Surely somebody only a half a mile away from a church wrapped in light would have went to investigate - it would have looked as if the Church was on fire. Indeed there are reports that Walsh thought it was on fire but went to rest for the night nonetheless (page 66, Mother of Nations). Reliable and dependable wasn't he? Surely when he went home his family would have went out to see if there was a light upon hearing his story?
People seeing lights is common enough - especially at apparition sites. Why take Walsh seriously?
The problem of the cures
Even by the bad
standards of the 19th Century the Church was unable to verify any
of the cures that took place as authentic miracles in 1882. But that didn’t stop it from saying they
were happening.
We don't need an explanation
Even if we cannot explain the Knock apparition, we can explain that it is not a miracle for there is no good evidence that it is a miracle and that is enough.
The apparition
of
The Knock commissions of Investigation
Knock cannot be from God because the first commission was careless and did not ask the right questions or work out why the witnesses were sometimes contradicting one another (page 66, The Cult of the Virgin Mary). God would do better than that. The first commission is the most important one. They did not try to explain why there was a dispute about if there was a Lamb there or not or if there were glittering stars or if the crown was somewhat yellow or gold or if there were angels flying about or if there was a cross on the altar that appeared in the vision with the Lamb standing on it. Patrick Hill was known to have added a lot to his original description when he was interviewed in 1897. Patrick Beirne only looked at the vision for ten minutes and then left so he was not too impressed by what he had seen and only testified in its favour for the sake of the rest in the group.
The first commission was held for only one day 8th October 1879 (page 174, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). We don't know who set it up or who the members were or how many. We don't know who it was supposed to report to. Early sources say Archbishop John MacHale set it up. Later reports say it was MacEvilly (page 175, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). A reliable source, Monsignor D'Alton of Tuam stated that it was indeed MacEvilly. All these things are important. If the commission was in any way illegitimate then we can't accept its authority. The questions we are left with make us wonder if the commission knew what it was doing at all.
The depositions made by the witnesses are generally agreed to have been the product of many stages of development (page 185, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). The commission members seem to have perverted the accounts and the testimony to make it more convincing (page 211, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century).
It is a serious problem how the signatures on three of them were penned by the same person (page 185, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). Scholars have determined that the commission was putting words in the visionaries mouths (page 189). The eloquence of the testimonies was far beyond the abilities of the simple speakers. The depositions did not state the name of the priests to whom they were made. The priests did not sign. Worse some of them were probably made to only one priest.
It is known that Archdeacon Cavanagh was a member of the commission despite claiming bizarre visions of lights at the Church and columns of light (page 115, The Apparition at Knock). Also he was bottling rainwater that washed down the gable the morning after the apparition to make holy water with healing powers. He did not have an open mind. He was hell bent on affirming the miracles and the reality of the vision. He was disqualified thereby. And the other members of the commission were disqualified merely by letting him in the door.
Why would the Archdeacon say the things he said? - he must have been warned that his credulity was dangerous to the credibility of the apparition. Was it because he felt the 21 August vision at the gable was somehow dubious or absurd and that he needed to bolster its believability? There can be no other explanation. Also he didn't go to see the 21 August vision when invited and stated that it was probably a reflection from a stained glass window! Yet the next day started him on an extraordinary course of credulity. His actions on 21 August are contrived. He acted suspiciously. He acted like a man who knew the vision was a hoax and pretended to be sceptical and therefore innocent of any collusion. Then when the hoax had taken place he became determined to have it thought to be a miracle.
The accounts made by the visionaries to the commission describe Mary standing between two saints one of whom was a bishop wearing a low mitre. The scene matches the depiction of Mary between a saint and a bishop like that in a stained glass window in nearby Ballyhaunis (pages 237-240, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century) to be a coincidence. Patrick Hill (same source) declared that the images he saw on August 21 resembled holy pictures he had seen. The Ballyhaunis window has Mary dressed in white standing higher than the other two figures. One figure is bowed to her. All this was duplicated at Knock. And there was a mitred figure on the other side of her as well in the Ballyhaunis image. The bishop figure there was St Augustine. He resembled the John figure at Knock.
The Temperance medal, which would have been familiar to many at Knock, which showed an altar with angels flying around it and a lamb on it with a cross behind the lamb is a perfect match for the altar seen at Knock (page 240, Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century). The medal and the vision depicted the altar as emitting light. Some visionaries denied seeing the cross and the altar.
All this suggests that the visionaries were not sure what they saw and their memories got mixed up with other things they had seen.
There are discrepancies and contradictions between the accounts. Believers say that the errors do not refute the vision for they are not part of the main and important details. But then they contradict this by calling upon the smallest details to bolster the claim that the vision was supernatural. The main details fail to do that.
The evidences for the supernatural being at work are very small if not non-existent. That is why we should not take the evidences for something supernatural very seriously. Sometimes people can misremember something or make some mistake in a tiny matter that affects the bigger interpretation. When the police investigate a case and there are minor discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses the police regard the the errors as a sign of honesty among the witnesses. And nothing more.
Why do many people believe the vision was supernatural?
One reason is the brightness of the light. Reason two is the dryness of the ground under the apparition. Reason three is that no shadow was mentioned - if the image had been projected the rain battering down or somebody going in front of the light source would have made shadows. Reason four is that the images were detailed - they were too clear for a magic lantern production. Reason five is the statement of a visionary that the images had roundedness - ie were three-dimensional. But all of these elements could be explained by error, illusion, imagination. They can be explained naturally. The case for the supernatural nature of the vision rests on very small things - and it is the small things that most of the discrepancies appear in relation to. For example, the witnesses said that the images seemed to dissolve and go back into the wall when you went near them so they only looked detailed from a certain distance.
The three dimensional thing is refuted by the idea that the figures went from outside the gable to onto the gable when approached. A miracle wouldn't need to do that. It is easy to look at your television and imagine that the figures are standing outside it and are rounded. Try it. The images going flat on the gable indicate that they never had any three dimensional quality at all.
Surely God could have made sure the events were recorded in a more accurate and more credible fashion and by more reliable people?
What does the vision mean?
Mary wears a crown and is the highest figure and stands in the pose of a priest at Mass with hands facing each other with her eyes raised to Heaven. Joseph is praying to her on her right. St John faces out to the people as if he was ignoring her and has his hand raised in blessing - he is blessing the people. He holds the gospel book in the other hand. Then there is the altar that looks like the altar on the temperance medal.
Catholic doctrine says Mary prays to God for us. But to have a saint, Joseph, praying to Mary, would imply that the saints pray to Mary which contradicts Catholic doctrine. A saint who is with God and who experiences God directly does not need to ask another saint to pray or to pray to a saint. Mary wears a crown to indicate her superiority to the other figures including the lamb - the symbol of Jesus the Lamb of God. She acts as a priest and looks directly to God and ignores her son on the altar. She tells the people they can go directly to God and don't need the Mass for that. They can go to her instead of a priest for she acts like a priest. The bishop blesses the people and his holding the gospel book implies he has taught the gospel to them and is blessing them now. The bishop then is none other than John McHale, the Archbishop of Tuam who taught the people and was the only bishop they probably ever had seen. This is the best identification. The apostle John would not be properly depicted in episcopal robes and in a mitre - these did not come into being much later. The apostle John wrote his gospel on a scroll. He would have been unlikely to appear holding a codex or book.
Mary is higher even than the bishop which contradicts Catholic doctrine. Though Mary is the greatest of the saints and Queen of Heaven Catholic doctrine says she has no right to function as a bishop or better than a bishop or to exercise episcopal powers.
The altar tableau indicates a call to temperance is being made. That this was never realised is a sign that divine grace was not working to promote this apparition and explain it. In other words, the apparition was not from God. It contradicts Catholic doctrine and supports the crude folk Catholicism in which priests were often disparaged and Mary was preferred and which didn't concern itself very much with going to Mass. This kind of Catholicism is documented in the book Knock The Virgin's Apparition in the Nineteenth Century.
Knock and the resurrection of Jesus
How could God
give us fifteen modern witnesses to a miracle when he only gave us a handful
of obscure and legendary witnesses to the resurrection? Why is Knock
more believable than the resurrection of Jesus though the latter is
essential for belief? In
relation to the resurrection, none of the witnesses were cross-examined and
no eye-witness reports were left behind.
Knock didn’t have that problem.
Knock certainly can claim to be more believable and authoritative than the
resurrection of Jesus.
Apparitions today at Knock
Knock hit the headlines in October 2009. Clairvoyant Joe Coleman predicted that Mary would appear to him and others there. Thousands gathered into Knock to witness the visions. Thousands ignored an invitation to attend Mass in the basilica because they wished to stay outside looking at the sun in the hope of a sign instead. The fact that those people showed more enthusiasm for "visions" predicted by somebody engaging in the sin of clairvoyance than for the allegedly true visions at Knock in 1879 and for the Mass raises the question of, "How Catholic are those people?" A genuine Catholic would not believe that Mary would give messages to a practicing clairvoyant. The Knock "Catholics" preferred signs to Masses and believing the Church that clairvoyance is wrong. It is certainly a testament to the fact that most people who are into religion are only after spiritual thrills and pleasures. And many did report seeing things in the sun at Knock.
If miracles happen too often and if they are absurd like people seeing the sun turn blue etc such as at Knock they cease to be impressive. They also cause trouble. They appeal to people who need to believe they saw something so that they can feel special and chosen. The fact that the bishop who appeared at Knock in 1879 carried a gospel book shows that the apparition was evil or a fraud. How? Because it indicates approval for the gospels which report that Jesus did many miracles - many of them totally unnecessary just to get a following. Jesus gave a really bad example.
If I go to Knock and see something strange such as the sun turning blue and apparently spinning, that is obviously a false sign and wonder like the ones Jesus talked about. If it is a real sign, then there is no way to tell false signs apart from real ones. If seeing the sun change is not a false wonder then what is? To suggest somebody who already believes needs such a useless sign is an insult to God. Is God more interested in showing off with his miracle power instead of helping some sick person? It encourages those who run to fraudulent apparition sites and who imagine they see the sun change.
A false sign happening at an apparition site may indicate that the apparition is a hoax or from Satan. If the sign is an illusion, Satan the deceiver has had something to do with it at least indirectly. Satan would not do any sign, even a bad one, that seems to attract attention to a real apparition from God. Would he do a false sign to make it seem that the apparition must have been from him even though it was not? That would not be a very good way of discrediting an apparition. A miracle or sign you see yourself is more important than a miracle or sign that has been reported by others. A miracle is so out of the ordinary that you should only believe in it if there is no doubt that it is real. If you experience a miracle that is absurd and which purports to support a claim made by someone else that they had an apparition, then you will certainly disbelieve in the apparition if you have any sense. The sign is that some deceiving miraculous power is trying to fabricate evidence for the apparition and draw attention to it.
Conclusion
Knock The Virgin's Apparition in Nineteenth Century Ireland shows that the original Knock apparition was reported by people and a society that delved heavily into superstition and often couldn't separate reality from religious fantasy. The apparition then in that context would certainly be an encouragement to such a society. If you honour Mary, don't insult her by claiming that the Knock apparition was really her! If you claim that it was, you are saying she was a catalyst for superstition.
Knock The Virgin's Apparition in Nineteenth Century Ireland, Eugene Hynes, Cork University Press, Cork, 2008
Knock: Some New Evidence. The British and Irish Skeptic, Berman, David. Vol 1, no. 6, November/December 1987
Knock 1879-1979, Rynne, Catherine. Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1979
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993
Our Lady of Knock, John MacPhilpin, Tom Neary, London: Catholic Truth Society, 1976
Our Lady of Knock. William D Coyne, New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1948
"Papal Visit Resurrects Ireland's Knock Legend." The Freethinker (October 1979). Reprinted in The British and Irish Skeptic 1, no. 1 January/February 1987
The Apparition
at Knock, A Survey of Facts and Evidence, Fr Michael Walsh, St Jarlath’s
College, Tuam, Co Galway, 1959
The Apparitions and Miracles at Knock, also Official Depositions of the Eye-Witnesses. Tuam, Ireland, 1880. 2d ed. Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son, 1894.
Mother of Nations, Joan Ashton, Veritas, Dublin, 1988
The Book of Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline, London, 1996
The Cult of
the Virgin Mary, Michael P Carroll, Princeton University Press, 1986
The Evidence
for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure Aquarian Press,
Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1985
The Thunder of
Justice, Ted and Maureen Flynn, MAXCOL, Vancouver, 1993
The Wonder of Guadalupe, Francis Johnson, Augustine, Devon, 1981