 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Lourdes
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Lourdes From: SINSULL Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:02 AM My cousin has three children, two of them suffering from cystic fibrosis. Her daily routine includes trips to the Emergency Ward and long hospital stays. Local churches and civic groups have banded together and raised enough money for her and her husband to take the three children to Lourdes. Though an atheist, I am a firm believer in miracles. And I am praying for one now. Has anyone on Mudcat made the pilgrimage? Any comments? All prayers and wishes of support are welcome. SINS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Gervase Date: 14 Sep 03 - 12:00 PM I've been to Lourdes, as a reluctant youngster on an organised school trip (Catholic school - bringing youngsters to act as wheelchair pushers, stretcher bearers and mass-fodder, essentially). I hated the place and was sickened by its exploitative nature. Now I'm a secular humanist who finds the whole idea frankly potty. And yet. If people have gone to the trouble to raise the money to pay for the trip, and the kids will gain something culturally, spiritually or socially from it, and it helps make the family stronger through sharing the experience then they should go. Heck, it's got to be a change from the awful daily routine that goes with having CF. As for miracles - I don't know, but it sounds as though your cousin and her family certainly deserve something special. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Frug Date: 14 Sep 03 - 12:10 PM Sinsull I've been there, not on pilgrimage but just passing thru' and was interested to see what it meant to believers.(Personally I'm not even tho' I was bought up in a staunch Irish Catholic family)It is difficult not to be affected by the power and atmosphere of the place. There is something overpowering and spooky when you get to the grotto, particularly when viewed alongside the hysteria of some of the genuine pilgrims. Hey anythings worth a shot and the experience I would advocate for anyone..................you never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: michaelr Date: 14 Sep 03 - 04:02 PM Sinsull, I find it incredible that sane people would waste hard-earned money on medieval superstitions. That money would be much better used for medical research. This is the 21st century, for Pete's sake! And would you please explain how someone can be both an atheist and a believer in miracles? Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 14 Sep 03 - 04:21 PM an anaylsis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:32 PM The problem is that even in the 20th/s/be 21st century these things do happen. I seen a show on TV about some lady who got cured of drug addiction by going to Croatia. Anyway she says she was cured by the Virgin Mary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Peg Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:39 PM does anyone dispute the connection between body and mind? between positive attitude and health? The so-called "placebo effect" is evidence that one can harness the power of positive thinking for healing, and a number of studies have shown that prayer does indeed have some sort of beneficial effect. If your loved ones think going to Lourdes will help them, it probably will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Sep 03 - 06:46 PM The nearest I've been is to alight at Lourdes airport for another destination. That was near enough. I have every sympathy for the children in this particular case, knowing that CF is a most terrible disease, but if they are intelligent people they will go home utterly sickened by the whole experience and feeling that they have been heartlessly exploited. Believers and Sinsull need to consider this, among many other pardoxes: if there is a superhuman force, Godhead or whatever, capable of working miraculous cures, and disposed to do so, why make it conditional on invalids trravelling to Lourdes? Why require these invalids to partake in a monstrous commercial circus? One is bound to wonder if this God character might be taking a cut from the racket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Sorcha Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:00 PM Sinsull, does she have one of the 'shaking vests'? If not look into them. There are grants out there that will pay for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST,Pip Date: 14 Sep 03 - 07:14 PM I travelled to Lourdes on about six occasions on the enormous Jumulances with the UK charity Across. We took ten unable, ten helpers, a doctor, two nurses, two priests, and I went as a physiotherapist. The buses had bunk beds, a fully equiped kitchen, toilets , medical facilities etc. It was a 27 hour trip and was a truly remarkable experience, we very quickly bonded as a family and really grew to love each other, We stayed at specially adapted chalets high above the town, where we had wonderful distant views of the snow covered Pyrenees. Yes, we did visit the shrine of St Bernadette, attend services in the huge underground basilica, go through the baths, and best of all the torchlight procession. Imagine up to 15,000 people with their sick folks walking about 3/4 mile carrying lit candles in holders and all singing the Lourdes hymn. I am not a Roman catholic, but found the whole experience wonderful and inspiring. Certainly the people I was with didn't expect dramatic miracles, the miracle for them was that they gained strengh and inspiration to face their illnesses. Also the knowledge that that they were loved and cared for. We met people from all over the world and they shared experiences and hopes. I made very many friends and met wonderful never to be forgotten people there. I belong to the Medical Association of Lourdes, and hear from them regularly. The town of Lourdes is very touristy, but you don't have to get involved in it. All the best to your friends on the trip. Pip. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 14 Sep 03 - 08:17 PM My Aunt and uncle regulary take my two cousins to Lourdes, they have severe disabilities, My own thoughts are that it is maybe building false hopes up in them, [the doctors have said there disabilites can not be cured].But, they do seem to look forward to, and enjoy going, and it's none of anyone elses business what they do. I wish your freinds well.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:27 PM Peg is correct that 'positive thinking' can do a lot..we have not learned all there is to know about the ability of the mind to affect many things about the body..."Bio-feedback" is an accepted concept. Whether one needs to go to someplace like Lourdes to achieve results depends, I guess, on the basic beliefs of the people involved....it may just provide 'focus'. If friends who share these beliefs willingly offer to finance the trip, it is not for me to say "don't do it", although I wouldn't go myself. I wish them well, whatever they decide....that is a nasty disease to live with.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: SINSULL Date: 14 Sep 03 - 10:49 PM Sorry, Michael. A poor choice of words. I firmly believe in the ability of the mind to cure. If a place like Lourdes serves as a catalyst, fine. Divine intervention? No. If either of these children walks away cured, I will be the last to question "How?" and "Why?" If they and their parents walk away stronger and better able to cope with the illness, the money is well spent. Medieval???? The sightings occurred in the mid 1800s. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 03 - 12:31 PM Local churches and civic groups have banded together and raised enough money for her and her husband to take the three children to Lourdes. Y'know, whether Lourdes heals or does not, you already have something of a miracle right there. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 03 - 12:57 PM It's not about expecting miracles, that's the one thing everyone involved in organising trips to Lourdes will always emhasise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 03 - 03:00 PM The whole of organized religion is based on superstition...that is why it is so potent. A good helthy superstition is not a bad thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: ard mhacha Date: 15 Sep 03 - 03:13 PM Whereever these poor unfortunates go may they benefit from the experience, as it is my heart goes out to them. Ard Mhacha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 03 - 03:21 PM I can only wonder what a "good, healthy superstition" could possibly be.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Sep 03 - 03:46 PM One that doesn't push you into doing bad things and encourages you in doing good things, I'd say, Amos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 03 - 04:05 PM So if a community raises money to send a family troubled by a member's poor health to Lourdes for "healing" or "miracles" and the family member isn't helped, it is superstition. But if a community raises money to send a family troubled by a member's poor health to Sloan Kettering, or Johns Hopkins, or UCLA Medical Center and the family member isn't helped, it is... Rational? I'm always amused by the suggestion of rational types, who don't understand that when a body can't be cured, the spirit can still be healed. Friends of our family had a child with an extremely rare form of cancer. They were fortunate enough to have access in their local city, to receive treatment for the child from one of the three medical experts in the world on the disorder. When the father asked the doctor what was the most important factor in curing the disease (he was asking the question in a medical sense, in terms of treatments, drugs, etc) he was startled to hear the doctor reply "The belief of the parents that the child will be cured. It is the only constant we have found that seems to make a significant difference." The same doctor also insisted that the child, then 11 years old, get therapeutic massages three times a week. Yes, there was surgery, drug therapy, etc. There were also religious ceremonies (non-Chrisitan, the family is Asian American) held by the family, and their community. The child was cured. So what, do you suppose, cured the child and healed the family and community's spirit at the same time? Medical science? Magic (or superstition as some have called it)? Religious miracle? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 03 - 04:22 PM well, the simple answer is that you cannot do a double-blind experiment on an individual case. No one will EVER know how much 'cure' X was related to 'positive thinking' or religious intervention. It is when people disdain medicine in favor of ONLY religion or faith healing that I fret. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 03 - 04:46 PM A trip to a religious shrine like Lourdes is rarely the only treatment used though BillD. It is, however, often a measure of last resort, to bring healing to the person suffering and their loved ones. Religious ceremonies and services in all religions regularly do this for the sick and their families. Even for those who aren't religiously inclined devise some sort of ritual for healing for themselves and/or loved ones. Just as there can be no double blind experiment on an individual, there can also be no double blind experiment done to prove "faith" was the cure. Because no scientific study or experiment can be devised to measure results, doesn't prove or disprove the efficacy of belief and/or faith (not the same thing in my book) in recovery on the one hand, and healing on the other (also not the same thing in my book). A patient can be healed and still die or not be cured in the conventional sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 15 Sep 03 - 05:09 PM I believe in miracles, and offer my sympathy to those who don't. Unfortunately, miracles don't happen very often - but that's what makes them miracles. And sometimes the miracle is different from what you expect or want. Agreed with Amos - it's remarkable that people have raised the money for them to go. I say, Go! Sometimes the Universe guides us into unlikely and illogical situations that turn out for the good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 03 - 05:37 PM there are, indeed, fine distinctions to be made about 'faith' and 'belief' and about concepts of proof. The only reason I can abide things like Lourdes at all is that they may provide some focus for the mind to aid in whatever 'healing' is possible. I would, from my viewpoint, wish that other ways were found to do that focusing, but we are very far from that in most cultures. Sceptics have asked for many years why there are a few seemingly miraculous cures, but literally millions of failures among good, honest, decent, faithful people who believed and prayed. (Yes, I know the replies that the sceptics are given...and I accept that people must seek their own answers and come to terms with mortality in their own way...I just would like [10 minutes thinking here what I want to say] to see the struggle against adversity and for inner peace addressed in more productive ways than tedious, expensive pilgramages to dubious spots that have become more 'industry' than shrines.) No, I do not necessarily expect anyone to change their behavior or beliefs because of my soapbox speeches and musings, but over the centuries, attitudes and beliefs have changed as human beings debated and thought and argued and discussed their world....and we are never finished. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 15 Sep 03 - 05:57 PM I agree wholeheartedly with your discomfort at the crass commercialism associated with sites like Lourdes, BillD. I think we aren't far apart philosophically. However, I must add this--I find the sceptic's view very tiresome. Sceptics never create anything, they just tear the off beat and unusual--people, ideas, creative imagining of non-conventional possibilities--down. I find that sort of attitude debilitating in the extreme, due to what I perceive as it's nihilism and hopelessness. Hence my reaction. Also, I think there is as much hocus pocus and crass commercialism to be found in medical science as there is in Lourdes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 03 - 06:44 PM " Sceptics never create anything, they just tear the off beat and unusual--people, ideas, creative imagining of non-conventional possibilities--down." Sceptics, like believers, come in 57 varieties...I consider myself to be FAR from "nihilism and hopelessness" ....also, the first 4 words of your sentence are a bit extreme, I think! "Never create anything"? To quote 'me', "pooh"! Ask yourself what you really meant by that. Properly understood and practiced, scepticism merely implies not accepting everything that you are spoon-fed or offered by those with vested interests in the results, and does NOT mean automatic rejection and denial of everything you haven't 'proved'. You wouldn't want me to judge all religious people by the example of bin Laden or Pat Robertson, would you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: michaelr Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:33 PM Bill D - thanks for your point about scepticism! Sinsull - the Lourdes visions may have occurred only a couple of hundred years ago but the mindset that produced them and the Lourdes cult that followed are firmly rooted in medieval Catholic mysticism. This may be a bit of thread creep but it's also somewhat on-topic: A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law had a heart attack followed by a mild stroke which put her in the hospital. While examining her, the doctors found that she also suffered from a bleeding gastric ulcer which caused her blood pressure to drop to a life-threateningly low level. The doctors told her it would take one or more blood transfusions to save her life. Being a lifelong Jehovah's Witness, she refused the transfusions, knowing this could kill her. The family supported her decision, prayed a lot, and she survived and is now recovering. I think that refusing a life-saving medical procedure on religious grounds is the height of idiocy. But then to me, all religion is superstition. I'd like to ask whether anyone here agrees with my point of view, and further, whether anyone would say that it was the prayer, or a miracle, that saved my mother-in-law? Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST,banjoman Date: 15 Sep 03 - 07:48 PM Lots of food for thought on this thread. I was fortunate to be in Lourdes in 1958 for the centenary of the apparitions. I personally witnessed one "cure" but felt that the real miracle of Lourdes was the overwhelming sense of peace which pervades the whole town. In later years my brother in law who suffered MS and was not a catholic asked to go to Lourdes. He didn't go looking for a miracle, but he was a changed man on his return, in that his ability to come to terms with his condition and the effect on his family was truly amazing. The truth about Lourdes is that it inspires hope and not just for the sick and disabled. This is the essence of the message given to Bernadette in the apparitions. I cite the example of the many years of prayer for the people of Russia said in every catholic church for many years - we now see a changing society there which attempts to be just and fair. I also suggest that the sceptics look up the story of Jack Traynor, one of the more famous "miracles" I won't go into detail here but worth the effort. Its great that such a subject can be discussed so openly on this site - that in itself is something of a miracle Good luck |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Amos Date: 15 Sep 03 - 10:19 PM Michael, Probably the prayer, but not necessarily the content of the prayer. The best survey of this area is in the books of Larry Dossey, an MD who spends a lot of time investigating the various claims of alternative therapies and seeing what actually makes any difference. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Wolfgang Date: 16 Sep 03 - 07:49 AM If there are new control group studies (not anecdotal reports) on the effect of prayer on health I'd love to get a reference. The older ones I know show no benefical effect on the balance of the evidence of all studies. The placebo effect is much overrated and less general than we'd love to believe. A recent metaanalysis about it showed that it is nil with binary outcomes, very weak to nonexistant with 'hard' (physiological etc.) success variables and strong only with 'weak' (e.g., subjective report of improvement) outcome variables. Undoubtedly there is a strong placebo effect on felt pain. In sum, placebo works but only on a subgroup of indications. SINSULL, I wish your relations all the best and even a wonder. In one sense I also do believe in wonders: Positive outcomes against all odds with no ready explanation. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 16 Sep 03 - 11:54 AM From m-w.com: Main Entry: skep·ti·cism Pronunciation: 'skep-t&-"si-z&m Function: noun Date: 1646 1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object 2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics 3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation) Considering the dictionary definitions, it doesn't appear to me that skepticism is the sort of attitude that allows creativity to function. Creativity, it seems to me, requires faith and belief in the ability to create, not skepticism about the ability to create. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 16 Sep 03 - 01:30 PM Well said banjoman, that was my experience of Lourdes as well. Peace, wonderful fellowship with others, hope, ability to cope with the future, and we all had fun and pleasure with being together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 16 Sep 03 - 03:33 PM ".. it doesn't appear to me that skepticism is the sort of attitude that allows creativity to function. Creativity, it seems to me, requires faith and belief in the ability to create, not skepticism about the ability to create." Now, that is just plain silly! Sure..scepticism DOES involve doubt, but doubt does not mean total rejection! It means...well...doubt!...like I said before, " not accepting everything that you are spoon-fed" automatically. I would argue that most real creativity is done by those who DO doubt and question. What is there to create if all the important answers are already laid out for you? This is the problem Descartes had with the church when he set out to formally 'doubt' their teachings in order to test his idea that morality and God could be defended by reason alone. The church, as we know, couldn't wrap its narrow mind around ANY form of doubt or scepticism, and Descartes had to publicly disavow his plan and keep a lower profile after that. part 2a of those definitions " the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain" is pretty clear and important! "Uncertain" does NOT mean 'wrong'...it means 'uncertain'. It leaves open the possibility that something may be wrong...or right.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 16 Sep 03 - 05:12 PM Speaking strictly for myself, and not invoking any philosophers, moralists, theologians, creativity isn't a right/wrong proposition. It is about possibilities, and having faith that what you are doing will succeed. Without that unshakable faith, IMO, you don't create much of consequence. Why? Because doubting one's creative ability is akin to poisoning the well, at least in my experience. Doubt and skepticism about one's own creative acts is a sure fire recipe for creative blocks. But that's just me and my opinion. I just can't figure out how a person could be skeptical about what they are creating, and actually create the damn thing at the same time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Banjo-Flower Date: 16 Sep 03 - 07:35 PM Michealr, as a donor of 50+ units of blood I find it difficult to understand why anyone should refuse to accept blood to save their life (would she also refuse to donate blood if one of her offspring was dying for want of a transfusion) Gerry(agnostic) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Sep 03 - 07:44 PM I just can't figure out how a person could be skeptical about what they are creating If "sceptical" means self-questioning I can't see how you could make anything without it. Like using a measuring device when you are building something. Or checking the tuning on a guitar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 16 Sep 03 - 08:55 PM well, Guest,(lordy, I wish people would use an identity, registered or not!) you have moved the discussion by gradually changing the referent of the terminology! "doubt" & "faith" are not being used the same way in your last couple of posts as they were earlier. You have moved it from a question of religious/moral scepticism to one about something like 'self-confidence', and that is a totally different issue. I can easily agree with you that a creative person needs to have confidence, but that is not what this started to be about. I think I'll retire to the Old Pedants Room and polish my soapbox..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 16 Sep 03 - 09:33 PM BillD, I tried to give us all a common definition to work from, to help aid in our understanding of one another's comments regarding the use of the word skeptical. I didn't introduce that word, but I wanted to try and make it clear that I was reacting to it the way the dictionary defines it, not the casual way I feel you, and now McGrath, are suggesting it be defined. I don't think of the word as being synonymous with either the word 'doubt' or the word 'self-questioning'. I define it as meaning something along the lines of 'balking at other's beliefs and faith'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: SINSULL Date: 16 Sep 03 - 09:49 PM I appreciate your thoughts and posts. When the family returns, I will let you know their feelings, observations, etc. You who have healthy children, treasure them. There is, I think, no worse pain than watching your child suffer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Grab Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:38 AM Medical science rarely says "this will not get better". All it says is "we do not know any way of making it better". The human body is an amazing thing, and variations from person to person mean that some people are naturally protected in some way against diseases. For example, people have been found who are immune to HIV. In contrast, medical science has lots of techniques which have a good chance of making you better, but each one only works in some situations and each one has some kind of probability of success/failure attached. So in answer to the question about miracles, "what saved them?", I can only answer that that person's body saved them. There is plenty of evidence that positive attitude has an effect on the immune system. As far as the placebo effect goes, there is also evidence of a strong placebo effect on animals which can only be due to the *owner's* belief in a cure, so I'm not surprised that hanging around a group of people (religious, medical or otherwise) who believe in a cure can help. Regarding scepticism, it *is* creative. If you're unsure that path A is the One True Way, it follows logically that a sceptic (a *true* sceptic) will look around for paths B, C and D which get the same result or better; or vice versa will demonstrate that there is no alternative to the One True Way so that it's placed on a level of knowledge rather than belief. Sounds pretty creative to me. And for the second guest's comment that you can't create something whilst being sceptical about it, that flies in the face of every principle of science and philosophy. Suppose you give a drug to some lab rats, and it cures their cancer. It's what you were hoping for, and it's the pinnacle of your lifetime's achievement. But you don't immediately shout to the world "I've done it!!!" Instead you double-check that the cancer doesn't recur in the rats, you check that there are no side-effects, you check that the rats you've tested were the same ones that had cancers and that they were the ones that got the drug, you check on some more rats of a different kind to check that it's not some hereditary thing in the rats themselves, etc, etc. In other words, you are sceptical of your own results! If you aren't, you're working on a foundation of sand, and a single mistake can wipe out years of work. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Amos Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:53 AM The problem comes in when the banner of rational skepticism -- the requirement to compare all data against observation rather thasn blindly accepting it -- is taken as cover by the practitioners of irrational nihilism, the desire to make nothing out of others and their positions, creations, statements, dreams, belongings and identities. This difference is particularly telling in cases of observing psychic phenomena which are often sensitive to the observers' expectations. Or so I have been told. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 17 Sep 03 - 03:42 PM thanks, Grab..nicely put. sorry, "guest", but you don't GET to define all the words, and when you claim you used the dictionary definition, you missed the point. One of the problems with many arguments/discussions is that too many people say, "well, what *I* mean by it is..."...some words absolutely must have a technical usage in order to be seriously debated...and sceptic is one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: GUEST Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:37 PM If what you say is true then, Bill D, then why not agree to use the dictionary definition, rather than your own subjective definition? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Bill D Date: 17 Sep 03 - 05:45 PM I did...and I pointed out how you misunderstood the point of the dictionary definition in my earlier post. It's too bad you can't be a member, so that we could do this without messing up the main point of the thread. I think that I will finally call a halt to this, as we seem not to be able to agree on the language necessary to continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: LadyJean Date: 17 Sep 03 - 10:45 PM If I had three children who were not likely to live to be 25, I would grasp at every straw there was, no matter how improbable. I'm praying for three miracles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Lourdes From: Grab Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:04 AM Guest, your own personal definition doesn't match the dictionary definition. "Balking at someone else's faith" is not the same as "believing that the doctrine of true knowledge is uncertain". Me, I believe in a god. Not particularly the Christian God or anything like that, but it's difficult to go walking in the hills and not think religious thoughts occasionally. However, I'm sceptical of any church's "doctrine of true knowledge" as regards the areas of science, technology, sociology and medicine, because the various churches have a very well-proven history of being badly wrong about all these, and in being badly wrong has damaged (or ended) many people's lives. Catholicism is the most egregious offender, but there are others. Hence the scepticism because of the bad track record. As for the children affected here, that's a particularly bad case. I do hope they get better, and if Lourdes provides the emotional support that's being talked about then it can only help. Maybe a local support group or hospice could help more with that money, but I'm not in a position to say either way. Graham. |
|
Subject: Lourdes and other shrines From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Sep 03 - 12:45 AM
I agree partly, Michael - but I think that the real problem with these shrines is that after the initial event (Lourdes, Knock, Fatima, Guadalupe, Medjugorje), the mystics fade into the background and are replaced by marketing and hysteria. Generally, the Roman Catholic church is officially "nervous" about most of these shrines and apparitions - although Rome has to make some acknowledgement of many of them because they mean so much to so many people. As one who has taught in Catholic parishes all my life, those things make me nervous, too. They tend to distract from what's supposed to be the real focus of the Christina faith - the gospel, loving one's neighbor, serving the poor, and such. Somehow, there always seems to be a right-wing political and religious agenda connected with Mary's appearances on earth. You'd think the Blessed Virgin was a card-carrying George W. Bush Republican, or something (from little on, however, I've been assured that Jesus was a Social Democrat). Still the shrines are a source of hope and inspiration for many who would otherwise be hopeless. Yeah, they're superstitious, and the Catholic Church is (privately) embarrassed by the superstition - but these phenomena have a lot of meaning for a lot of people whose lives are starved for meaning. Why shoot down their balloons? For that matter, maybe there is a reality and a mysticism to it. I guess I'd describe mysticism as a direct, non-verbal, non-ritual experience of the Divine Presence. Mystics come from all religious, ethnic, and economic backgrounds, and there is much they share in experience that crosses religious boundaries - by definition, their experience cannot be adequately described in words. While this shrine stuff makes me nervous, I know many people who have felt a phenomenal lifting of spirit from visiting shrines. I suppose I got some of that from following the footsteps of Jesus in Israel and Paul in Greece, but the Mary shrines don't do it for me. Sorry, Mary. -Joe Offer- |
