THE LOURDES CURES

New Zealand Tablet, 17 November 1910, Page 1873

THE LOURDES CURES

The series of articles by materialistic writers on * Faith healing and miracles,’ which appeared recently in the British Medical Journal, has called forth replies from the Right Rev, Francis Aidan Gasquet and the Rev. Herbert Thurston, S.J. Both point out (remarks the Freeman' s Journal) that the Church requires absolute evidence of a violation of the law of nature before a miracle can be allowed. Father Thurston cites the cases of a number of young children under two years of age in whose cases such faith-healing as that known to Christian Science or healing by suggestion is impossible. He gives details of a number of cases of organic disease or-injury (as distinct from functional disorders which might be treated by suggestion) ‘ which could not be cured without the destruction of and reconstruction of matter.’ Amongst these is the case of Joseph Duncan Boothman, son of an English rector, whose father and medical attendantssurgeons and physicians in London, Dover, and Brusselsfound ‘ destruction almost complete of the drum of the left ear with chronic suppuration,’ and all urged an operation lest the inflammation should reach the brain. Someone suggested a pilgrimage to Lourdes, and the boy attended Mass at the commencement of a Novena. At the Elevation ‘he felt a sharp pain in the ear,’ and when Mass was over returned home cured; the suppuration was stopped, and his hearing restored. The eminent surgeon, Dr. Lake, pronounced him cured, and the cure has persisted up to the present.’ Amongst the cases quoted by Dr. Gasquet is that of Gabriel Gargam, who was injured in a railway accident. The Orleans Railway Company on being sued obtained a medical report on the case, and their doctors recommended that an annual pension of 3000 francs be paid. The company notwithstanding fought the case, and medical evidence on both sides testified to the injuries. The Court awarded an annual pension of six thousand francs (£240), in addition to an indemnity of 60,000 francs (£2400). The company appealed, and though their doctors recommended that they should offer 12,000 francs a year instead of the 60,000 francs indemnity, as £ M. Gargam was certain to die soon,’ the appeal went to trial, and the 60,000 francs had to be paid oyer at once, and the pension paid from the day of the accident. Gargam, who had not for years been a practising Catholic, was persuaded to go to Lourdes. He had to be taken out of his bed, which he had not left for eighteen months, and borne from the Bordeaux Hospital to Lourdes, which he reached in a seemingly dying condition. During the blessing of the sick by the Host he was instantly cured. Sixty doctors, counting hospital surgeons, examined him, and professors, foreigners, believers, sceptics, and pressmen were present. Signs of sores recently healed were visible on the body, the gangrene of the foot had suddenly disappeared, strength was restored, and this man who had lost his faith now offers his services to help to carry the sick who come to Lourdes. This pious work he has been discharging in health and strength since July, 1900. The British Medical Journal acknowledges the authenticity of these cases. It writes in a leading article: ‘ln the present state of a large proportion of the French people in regard to religion the evidence must be strong indeed which secured what is virtually a verdict for a miracle from two courts of justice.’ These cases, it adds, ‘ must give food for thought to those who, with Hume, think that miracles are violations of the laws of nature, and are therefore not to be believed though one rose from the dead.’ But in the same article the writer himself shows himself as unreasonable in unbelief. But is it a miracle?’ he asks, in the case of M. Gargam. ‘ There’s the rub. Do we, as a matter of fact, know the “law of nature” so fully that we can decide offhand that anything which happens to be contrary to general experience is a “ violation ” of these laws?’ He claims that medical science can afford an explanation of some of the miracles at Lourdes, where * pain has been charmed away under the influence of nervous centres stirred into violent activity by religious emotion.’ ‘lf it cannot explain all, that is "due to its limitations.’ This reasoning would deny a miracle ‘though one rose from the dead.’ Whatever "happens that you cannot explain is explainable; that you cannot explain it is due to your limitations. And these men call themselves ' rationalists.’