Those who expect to get healed in Lourdes irrespective of their state of mind (faith or no faith) as after a surgery, are like that English couple who adopted a French baby because they wanted to learn French.

Dear Foxy,

Looking at religion with Westerm, Judeo-Christian eyes is perhaps less of a bias than looking at the phenomenon of religion through Emile Durkheim’s ritual-definition (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4898#130804).

On the other hand, in my opinion, your definition of religion as “a system of communally shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward some sacred, supernatural realm” is wide enough, covering Durkheimian as well as other perspectives.

Is Mise,
Re “spontaneous remission”:

Allegedly happened in the 19th century, somewhere in the “Wild West”: A train full with passengers was rushing along, while the pious engine-driver was praying. Suddenly an angel appeared before his locomotive, frantically waving his wings, until the driver stopped the train. They found themselves a few feet in front of a collapsed bridge. When he told passengers what he saw, they prayed, thanking God for sending an angel to save them. Only one atheist among them could not believe it, and indeed, found out that what the driver saw was in fact the shadows of a butterfly or night moth caught in the lantern. So the other passengers now thanked God for sending a butterfly (and a pious engine-driver) that save them.

So maybe also in some of the Lourdes healings God uses what can be seen as “spontaneous remission” like that butterfly in the case above.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Thank you for those detailed descriptions of Lourdes miracles N° 61 and N° 63 of the 67 officially promulgated by the Vatican.

I am sure they bring hope to many of those unfortunate persons who find themselves in a similar situation. Perhaps they ask why them and not me? It does seem something of a lottery.

You ask : « Can anyone point to, or give, a scientific explanation of this reported happening? »

That, of course, is sheer provocation. Who could doubt that you know full well that in order for any competent specialist to offer “a scientific explanation” he would need to carry out a full, in-depth study of each case ? And if he were to examine the Sicilian, Ms Elisa ALOI and the Italian, Mr. Vittorio MICHELI, today, it would seem he could only declare them healed from whatever illness they may possibly have had some time in the past.

Presuming there was no cheating on the part of the persons themselves nor on the part of the medical experts involved, he could only conclude that there had been either spontaneous remission or an error of diagnosis of their ailment, due, perhaps, to lack of specialist knowledge.

Who could doubt, also, that you are also fully aware that, for many years now, the Vatican has taken the precaution of systematically investigating each case with the aid of qualified specialists before officially promulgating them bona fide miracles.

By definition, the findings of competent medical experts are exactly the same irrespective of whether they are totally independent or acting on behalf of the Vatican. It is only after the experts have deposed their conclusions that the religious authorities of the Vatican decide whether or not to attribute the healings to divine intervention.

The Vatican’s decision is not based on medical evidence or knowledge but on the lack of them. It is a religious interpretation of the unknown. The medical interpretation of the unknown is spontaneous remission or error of diagnosis (presuming all parties involved to be honest).

(Continued ... )

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The Vatican created the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1603. In his speech to the Academy in 1979, Jean-Paul II declared:

« We cannot but deplore certain attitudes deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science: they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into thinking that faith and science are opposed »

He further declared to the Academy in 1992 :

« A tragic mutual incomprehension has been interpreted as the reflection of a fundamental opposition between science and faith. The clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past.

From the Galileo affair we can learn a lesson which remains valid in relation to similar situations which occur today and which may occur in the future.»

Despite those admirable, noteworthy declarations, the Vatican continues to give a very different interpretation to “miraculous” healings from that of the medical profession.

To be quite honest, it should clearly indicate, on each occasion, that its interpretation is purely religious and not that of the medical profession.

Here is a link to the Papal speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences from 1917 to 2002 :

http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv100.pdf

.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for that delightful story about the pious train driver and the moth. As I am not very good at remembering jokes I shall record it on my PC for future reference.

Allow me simply to remark that mistaking the shadow of a moth for an angel is more of the order of an “error of diagnosis” than of “spontaneous remission”.

But, then , perhaps God uses “errors of diagnosis” too, as you suggest he uses “spontaneous remission”, in order to make some of Lourdes healings appear to be miracles.

.

Dear Banjo,

I think not only Is Mise but also others provided here enough material indicating that the Vatican went through very thorough investigations by independent doctors (passing only 69 of the 7000 cases) to make “error of diagnosis” much less likely than “spontaneous remission”, at least in cases of cancer.

.

Dear George,

.

I agree : “errors of diagnosis” are probably less likely than “spontaneous remissions”, but can’t be ruled out – and may not necessarily be detected after the symptoms have more or less disappeared.

The fact that there is an “error of diagnosis” does not mean that the patient does not have some serious illness. The problem is he receives treatment for an illness he does not have and no treatment for the one he does have. That can go on for quite some time before he finally dies or, perhaps, gets better as a result of “spontaneous remission”, if his natural defences are strong enough, despite the double dose of medical neglect and ill treatment.

But that is not the point I was making.

Going back to your amusing story, the way I see it, a pious train driver who looks at the shadow of a moth and thinks he is seeing an angel is a bit like a doctor who looks at the symptoms of one illness and interprets them as the symptoms of another. Both may be said to be making an “error of diagnosis”.

.