A "Remarkable" Cure

A miraculous cure at Lourdes has been officially acknowledged by the Catholic Church. The event occurred in April of 2002. Le Salon Beige reports:

(…) Serge François, an artisan from Anjou now retired, had been suffering for years from a herniated disc despite two operations, and from a near total paralysis of the left leg with intense pain when, on April 12, 2002, he went to the Massabielle grotto in Lourdes. There, he was seized with a pain so sudden and intense he thought he would die, according to his narration. After a few minutes, the suffering gave way to an intense feeling of well-being and warmth. His leg felt better and gradually returned to normal motions. During a new pilgrimage in 2003, he reported his cure to the Medical Bureau of Lourdes.

On December 1, 2008, after years of investigation, the International Medical Committee of Lourdes (CMIL), composed of twenty doctors, recognized that Serge François' cure was remarkable because it was sudden, complete, not related to any therapy, and long-lasting.

But it was up to the bishop of his diocese to make a pronouncement, which Emmanuel Delmas, bishop of Angers, did today (March 27):

"In the name of the Church, I recognize publicly the 'remarkable' nature of the cure that Monsieur Serge François benefited from in Lourdes. This cure can be considered as a personal gift of God for this man, as an occurrence of grace, as a sign from Christ the Savior."

One Salon Beige reader wonders why the bishop used the phrase "remarkable nature of the cure" instead of "miraculous cure" that was the term formerly used by the Church. Another reader refers him to an article in Le Figaro that explains the changes that have been made in the verification procedure:

Jacques Perrier, bishop of Lourdes, insists that Lourdes is "above all, the apparitions of the Virgin! They do not need cures in order to be authenticated."

In 2006, the bishop finally decided to reform the procedures for recognizing cures. Serge François is the first to go through this new maze of analyses. On the medical level, the Church now includes the complexity of research dealing with the diagnosis of illnesses and the effectiveness of modern treatments. On the theological level, it can now recognize "cures that science cannot explain" without necessarily speaking of a "miracle".

"We have at last emerged from the binary logic of 'miracle or not a miracle'", bishop Perrier happily declares. (…)

Catholic writer Yves Daoudal is not at all pleased with the new regulations. In his weekly newsletter Daoudal Hebdo #121, he expresses his surprise that it was the bishop of Lourdes himself who made the decision to change the rules:

Since 2006, the Holy Virgin does not have the right to make miracles in Lourdes. To be more precise, she is no longer able to make them. We cannot deny that there are still unexplained cures, but they are not miracles.

Using documents from the International Medical Committee of Lourdes (CMIL), Yves Daoudal lists in detail the medical treatments followed by Serge François - operations, tests, medication (including morphine), etc… and their ineffectiveness.

Even if the CMIL calls the cure sudden, complete, not related to a therapy and long-lasting, for bishop Perrier it is not a miracle… The extraordinary thing is that the 2006 reforms (…) still speak of a miracle at the end of the third phase of the investigation, that of a "ratified cure". The CMIL first must certify the cure as exceptional, then the bishop of the diocese recognizes it as a miracle.

But bishop Perrier decided that they could not go that far because "the application of certain criteria for a miracle, set down by cardinal Lambertini (future Pope Benedict XIV, 1740-1758), is nowadays almost impossible." For one thing a diagnosis is rarely considered infallible, most sick people have had some kind of treatment, and there is always a psychic dimension. (…)

Since Lambertini's criteria make no mention of a psychic dimension, and since there is a psychic dimension in any cure, whatever it may be, that eliminates any possibility of a miracle. This is why bishop Delmas of Angers, in his declaration that resembles a gendarme's report, was content to recognize "the 'remarkable' nature of the cure of Serge François". The word "remarkable" was in quotes because bishop Delmas leaves the responsibility to the doctors…

Yves Daoudal concludes by saying that bishop Perrier of Lourdes cannot be given the power to make such decisions:

(…) his decision, which is an affront to the Holy Virgin and to God himself, is totally illegitimate. If it is not, then it is urgent that he explain to the Pope that there must not be any more beatifications or canonizations (except in the case of martyrs). For a Christian to be beatified, then canonized, a miracle must be recognized. But how can the Congregation for Saints recognize a miracle? They must refer to Lambertini's criteria, since cardinal Lambertini had drawn up these criteria expressly for the purpose of canonizations. In Rome they still do not know that "the application of certain criteria for a miracle, set down by cardinal Lambertini, is nowadays almost impossible."

Note: I feel the bishop has denatured completely the meaning of a miracle. I cannot speak as a doctor or as a priest or theologian, but a miracle without a psychic element is impossible to imagine. In any cure there are many forces at work. The divine healing powers that are within us are activated at the moment when CONTACT is made with the being beyond us that created us. To assume otherwise would be to say that a sick person who is emotionally, psychically, and spiritually passive can be cured by the miracle of divine intervention. But that is impossible. So the psychic element is essential. The bishop is saying that the psychic element makes a miracle impossible. But the very fact that sick people go to Lourdes is proof that their will to be cured precedes the cure itself. Moreover, in addition to our conscious will there is the unconscious will, a more powerful force, that may trigger a cure. More importantly, the unconscious will opens a conduit to the deity, thus initiating the cure. So the cure is miraculous because the physical and psychical mechanisms in us that suddenly begin to function normally are there by divine mandate.

I realize that for some this is sheer nonsense. If you believe only in "scientific" solutions to medical problems, you will no doubt think I'm nuts. But I believe sickness and health depend on more than drugs, important though they may be.

FYI, here is an article, copied verbatim, from the New York Times on Lambertini's criteria:

Catholic Church rules devised in the 1730s to determine whether an unexplained cure was miraculous.

In December 2008, The A.P. reported that the International Medical Committee of Lourdes would cease to describe unexplained cures as miracles, calling them instead “remarkable.”

Appointed by the Roman Catholic Church, the Committee has ruled on unexplained cures at Lourdes since 1954, using the Lambertini Criteria established by Cardinal Prospero Lambertini (later Pope Benedict XIV) in 1734-38. The criteria are:

[1] The disease must be serious and impossible (or at least very difficult) to cure by human means; [2] The disease must not be in a stage at which it is liable to disappear shortly by itself; [3] Either no medical treatment must have been given or it must be certain that the treatment given has no reference to the cure; [4] The cure must be instantaneous; [5] The cure must be complete; [6] The cure must be permanent; [7] The cure must not be preceded by any crisis of a sort which would make it possible the cure was wholly or partially natural. (Patricia Treece, “Nothing Short of a Miracle,” 1994)

The Lourdes Medical Committee’s reluctance to describe cures as miraculous seems pragmatic and political. One official told The A.P. that the application of the Lambertini criteria is nowadays “almost always impossible,” and the Committee’s secretary said, “It’s a sort of rebellion, if you will, against laws that don’t concern us – and shouldn’t.”

Note: These criteria make a clear distinction between the "natural" and "supernatural", since the cure must not be preceded by any crisis that could have triggered a "natural" cure. I repeat that I cannot speak as a theologian or a doctor. For me this distinction cannot exist. There has to be some connection between the sick human being and the Healer. What is prayer if not a connection to the Healer?

Could Lambertini's criteria really be too strict to be applicable? Or was bishop Perrier wrong to shun the word "miracle", even though a "psychic" element is unavoidable? Was the bishop merely complying with the current anti-Catholic sentiment that prevails in so much of the Western world?

Below, Serge François, the man who was cured at Lourdes.