Church Confirmed Miracles?

[Veritas6]

I was listening to a podcast where the hosts examined the miraculous Lourdes water. I take these episodes focused on faith and the supernatural with a grain of salt because these podcasters are pretty secular and evaluate everything with this inherent assumption of naturalism.

That being said, they discussed one miracle that magician James Randi purportedly “exposed” in one of his books. He writes:

Serge Perrin, 41 years old, claimed that he had recovered from “recurring organic hemiplegia” (paralysis of one side of the body) and recurring blindness in one eye. The Lourdes medical team declared the case “miraculous.” But an American team examined the data and discovered that the necessary tests—a spinal tap and a brain scan—had not been done to properly establish the cause of the condition. In fact, the American doctors said, Perrin’s symptoms are classic signs of hysteria; in the absence of appropriate medical tests, that was a much more probable diagnosis. Furthermore, hysteria is known to respond favorably to highly emotional circumstances like those encountered at religious ceremonies [and the placebo effect]… If Serge Perrin’s case is representative, there are good reasons to be distrustful of officially declared miraculous cures at Lourdes.

Now James Randi does seem to have an anti-religious agenda, but objectively can this case of a miraculous healing be considered completely accurate? If the Lourdes medical team didn’t conduct the proper tests to confirm this diagnosis, it would seem this specific healing is a little fuzzy.

Not surprisingly, Randi concludes that the Church falsified the healing, and the Lourdes Medical Bureau inflated a minor healing as a miracle. He believes the Church needed a reason to keep the faithful dedicated to Lourdes because the spring had not produced a miracle in 40 years up until Perrin’s healing.

Regardless of what caused Perrin’s suffering, he did seem to have a remarkable recovery through the water at Lourdes. Skeptics are bothered by this apparent error in the approval process, saying if this miracle was approved by the Vatican, it proves mistakes are possible and that other miracles might have been documented despite questionable details in the facts of the case.

My overall question is: how much authority is involved in approving miracles, or is this process from the Vatican infallible? I realize only the pope or ecumenical council can be infallible, and that Marian apparitions and/or other miracles (besides the Resurrection) are not required for belief, but could the process of approving miracles ever be in error?

 

[otjm]

He believes the Church needed a reason to keep the faithful dedicated to Lourdes because the spring had not produced a miracle in 40 years up until Perrin’s healing.

Well golly! Perhaps the skeptics could explain why the Church did not need a reason after 39 years, or 38 years, or… yuoi get the point.

And assumed in that is that the Church “needed” people to keep coming to Lourdes.

Also assumed in that bit is that attendance had been falling off on a clear decline (which would support the Church “needing” a miracle).

I don’t know enough about the case, and information is not given of all of his prior medical records to show that the “required” tests had not been made.

Nor, frankly, do I have a dog in the fight. Serge was born in 1929, and the miracle is dated as of 1970 - 50 years ago. Medicine has made massive changes in the last 50 years, so there is that also.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

We care about this why?

The faithful don’t go to Lourdes because a miracle happened there recently. The miracle already happened back in the days of St Bernadette, the apparition is Vatican-approved, and when there’s not COVID or a flood going on, pilgrims continue to show up in droves. The shrine does not need to show a miracle every X number of years to keep its status or reputation intact. Catholics go there in order to pray and be close to a place where they believe, with Vatican approval, that Mary appeared.

There is no pending canonization connected with Lourdes that needs a miracle associated with it to advance.

I’m sure many “miracles” take place daily at Lourdes that do not involve medical science, but rather the strengthening of someone’s faith.

This whole business is a non-issue in my book. If God wills a miracle fine, if he doesn’t will a miracle also fine.

 

[Inbonum]

Seems like they mixed different supernatural events on that podcast. It doesn’t look like some reliable source.

If Serge Perrin’s case is representative, there are good reasons to be distrustful of officially declared miraculous cures at Lourdes.

If you could post source for this quote it would be great.
Was Serge’s case really took as official Lourdes miracle for some time or it is just their theory without proof? Because it seems like it is just their theory.
It is Church who proclaims miracle in the end.

At the shrine’s French-language Web page (www.lourdes-france.com) the medical office explains that its objective is to be able to declare a cure “certain, definitive and medically inexplicable.”
To do so, it applies four criteria:
— “the fact and the diagnosis of the illness is first of all established and correctly diagnosed”;
— “the prognosis must be permanent or terminal in the short term”;
— “the cure is immediate, without convalescence, complete and lasting”;
— “the prescribed treatment could not be attributed to the cause of this cure or be an aid to it.”

---

It remains for the Church, through the intermediary of the bishop, to make an announcement on the miraculous character of the cure.
To do this, the bishop gathers together a diocesan commission made up of priests, canonists and theologians. The rules that guide the procedures of this commission are those defined in 1734 by the future Pope Benedict XIV in his treatise “Concerning the Beatification and Canonization of Servants of God” (Book IV, Part I, Chapter VIII No. 2).
How Lourdes cures are recognised as miraculous

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/lourdes-miracles-continue

He believes the Church needed a reason to keep the faithful dedicated to Lourdes because the spring had not produced a miracle in 40 years up until Perrin’s healing.

And why would Church do that?
Why don’t you listen some Catholic podcasts on that theme?

 

[Veritas6]

Seems like they mixed different supernatural events on that podcast. It doesn’t look like some reliable source.

The podcast is not primarily about debunking miracles, but it investigates “unexplained mysteries”. Of course they approach everything from a skeptical, scientific perspective, so I don’t give it much credence. It’s much more interesting learning about the case of DB Cooper or the Mystery of the Somerton Man - when they don’t have to pander into their inaccurate details of the supernatural.

If you could post source for this quote it would be great.

The source is just something skeptics assert that’s mentioned in the podcast. The episode is hyperlinked in the OP.

Was Serge’s case really took as official Lourdes miracle for some time or it is just their theory without proof? Because it seems like it is just their theory.
It is Church who proclaims miracle in the end.

The podcasters state the miracle was confirmed by the official Lourdes Medical Bureau and in essence confirmed by the Vatican. They don’t say where they get their information.

It remains for the Church, through the intermediary of the bishop, to make an announcement on the miraculous character of the cure.
To do this, the bishop gathers together a diocesan commission made up of priests, canonists and theologians. The rules that guide the procedures of this commission are those defined in 1734 by the future Pope Benedict XIV in his treatise “Concerning the Beatification and Canonization of Servants of God” (Book IV, Part I, Chapter VIII No. 2).

My primary question is could a bishop ever err in confirming a miracle, or could mistakes happen when approving any type of miracle?

And why would Church do that?

You have to ask Randi. I am not convinced of Randi’s conclusions, but he writes the Lourdes Medical Bureau didn’t perform medical tests to confirm the existence of a recurring organic hemiplegia. I am not sure where he got this information, but obviously the skeptic will try to debunk this miracle claim.

Why don’t you listen some Catholic podcasts on that theme?

I have been enjoying their non-religious mysteries - DB Cooper, the Somerton Man, the Zodiac, the Bermuda Triangle - I wasn’t trying to find accurate Catholic information. I stumbled onto the episode and was interested in seeing what a secular source would say. I am at to the point where skeptical inquiry doesn’t challenge my faith, but it’s interesting to discover how inaccurate these sources portray most religious themes.

I know what the Church teaches and I’m not denying Mother Mary’s appearance at Lourdes or any of these miracles, I’m just generally inquiring about the the miracle approval process.

 

[OddBird]

He believes the Church needed a reason to keep the faithful dedicated to Lourdes because the spring had not produced a miracle in 40 years up until Perrin’s healing.

I pray the Rosary along with the folks in Lourdes most days. The French Rosary (don’t know how it works with other Rosaries in different languages) begins with broadcasting pre-recorded prayers intentions from normal people who ring up the Sanctuary.

There are so many people who simply want to thank Our Lady for small or big graces they received.

I’m not sure why Lourdes would “need” miracles.

 

[Veritas6]

I’m not sure why Lourdes would “need” miracles.

It probably comes from Randi who just doesn’t care to study or understand religion, but simply insult it and demean it. This method of portraying Christians as “desperate” to keep “miraculous hoaxes” relevant is common among strong anti-theists.

I highly doubt there was a cover-up or falsification of a miracle claim, but my original question was can the Church ever be in error when confirming a miracle? Thanks.

 

[Inbonum]

Of course they approach everything from a skeptical, scientific perspective, so I don’t give it much credence.

Well they can use science but they must have right premises in their investigation. Church uses science to eliminate some causes when investigates miracles.

My primary question is could a bishop ever err in confirming a miracle, or could mistakes happen when approving any type of miracle?

Did you read process for proclaiming miracles? Because that proces eliminates everything that could be explained in natural way or other ways that wouldn’t be God’s extraordinary grace - miracle. Miracles are very rare. In Lourdes there were hundreds of healings but only 70 of them are proclaimed as true miracles.

How Lourdes Cures Are Recognized as Miraculous | EWTN

 

[Veritas6]

Did you read process for proclaiming miracles? Because that proces eliminates everything that could be explained in natural way or other ways that wouldn’t be God’s extraordinary grace - miracle.

I understand the process, but my question is can a bishop ever make an error when approving a miracle? How much authority does that carry, especially because all miracles outside of the Resurrection are not required for belief?

 

[Inbonum]

I believe that he cannot because there are rules made by Church. Those rules are only authentic measure to accept or deny miracle. So, it is yes or no. There is no middle.
Miracles aren’t same as apparitions and I would say that sometimes it is easier for Church to recognise miracle than apparition which would be worth of belief.
I also think it is pretty hard to go wrong with this approach

The committee comprises 30 specialists, surgeons and professors or heads of department, from various countries, who meet once a year. The current president is professor Jean-Louis Armand-Laroche.
It allows an assessment to continue over several years in order to observe the development of the patient.
If the International Medical Committee gives a favorable opinion, the file is then sent to the competent Church authorities.
When the file is sent to the bishop of the place where the cured person lives, the case is already recognized as extraordinary by science and medically inexplicable.
It remains for the Church, through the intermediary of the bishop, to make an announcement on the miraculous character of the cure.
To do this, the bishop gathers together a diocesan commission made up of priests, canonists and theologians.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Bishops and humans aren’t infallible, so theoretically, yes, there could be an error.

However, the Church takes great pains to avoid declaring miracles without a very strong case for there being no natural or scientific explanation. Hence the very stringent review process. It is also unlikely to have an error in a situation such as Lourdes where, as someone noted, many alleged miracles are reported but very few of them are accepted as miracles by the Church.

Science and skepticism being what it is, you will always be able to find some purported expert second-guessing other experts’ conclusions after the fact.

 

[Veritas6]

However, the Church takes great pains to avoid declaring miracles without a very strong case for there being no natural or scientific explanation. Hence the very stringent review process. It is also unlikely to have an error in a situation such as Lourdes where, as someone noted, many alleged miracles are reported but very few of them are accepted as miracles by the Church.

I agree, the case of Serge Perrin where the Lourdes Medical Bureau didn’t conduct the proper tests doesn’t necessarily prove he didn’t have recurring organic hemiplegia, but the skeptic would most likely settle on another explanation to just to avoid the supernatural (i.e. hysteria).

I’m not sure where these sources come from, so I don’t know if the Bureau listed it as a miraculous healing specifically from organic hemiplegia or not. If in fact he wasn’t suffering from hemiplegia (and perhaps hysteria), I think even skeptics acknowledge Perrin did have some sort of recovery.

If the bishop deemed this a miraculous healing from something, I don’t think it’s on the Church if the medical experts somehow messed up a diagnosis or something. It’s hard to say without any sources.

 

[Raxus]

I’m not sure where these sources come from, so I don’t know if the Bureau listed it as a miraculous healing specifically from organic hemiplegia or not. If in fact he wasn’t suffering from hemiplegia (and perhaps hysteria), I think even skeptics acknowledge Perrin did have some sort of recovery.

It’s pretty interesting to me how a lot of the strong skeptics out there, especially anti-theists, tend to throw Occam’s Razor right out the window when trying to prove their own points. Like, “Oh this was totally a hoax, because the Church and medicine and timing and temperature and the angle of the sun that day and everyone was wearing polka-dots and, and, and,…”

The dude went and experienced a miracle that was rigorously examined by scientists before being declared as such. Occam’s Razor.

 

[JerryZ]

I really cannot say anyone would answer these assertions and be charitable at the same time.

The bolded section speaks of 2 diagnostic procedures:

Spinal tap, a quick search with google brings this from wikipedia
Lumbar puncture was first introduced in 1891 by the German physician Heinrich Quincke.

While the brain scan procedures have had a development that goes back to 19th century it’s help in determining brain function has had ups and downs. There is a website where one can read all about it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653214/

There have been cases of miraculous cures at the site that defy the medical knowledge and have been documented for ages.
The Church cannot expect GOD to perform miracles every day lest we become dull to the day to day smaller miracles that occur to all of us.
It is obvious that purpose of the article is to “debunk” Lourdes but our confidence rests in GOD and they will not prevail.
These are our modern day Pharisees committing the “unforgivable sin” spoken of by Jesus Christ. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit. May GOD have mercy on their souls when they will be called.

Peace!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

where the Lourdes Medical Bureau didn’t conduct the proper tests doesn’t necessarily prove he didn’t have recurring organic hemiplegia,

You are taking the word of the skeptics that they “didn’t conduct the proper tests”. Which could be totally wrong.

When reading stuff by skeptics, please remember that there is a 99.9999 percent chance that the Church is privy to a LOT of information that Mr. Skeptic is either not aware of or is ignoring in an effort to cherry-pick the facts to make the Church look bad.

The Church does not set out to prove the validity of miracles. The majority of all the miracles it investigates will not pass their tests, and it doesn’t “need” miracles for any reason. The Church approaches purported miracles with a very skeptical eye of its own.