Lourdes shrine closes healing pools

[Tired of the Nonsense]

CATHOLIC HERALD
March 3, 2020
Lourdes shrine closes healing pools as precaution against coronavirus
https://catholicherald.co.uk/lourdes-sh ... ronavirus/

What does this say about the church's confidence in the "miraculous" properties of the water at Lourdes?

[SallyF]

Of course on the flip side of the coin, many of those same critics would also condemn shrines or churches if they remained open: Such a damned if they do and damned if they don't approach would suggest that it's far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.

For three days and two pages of debate this statement has been ignored, but it seems to get at the heart of the matter.

Churches/shrines that stay open are condemned by non-theists.

Churches/shrines that close are condemned by non-theists.

I can see no away around the valid criticism that this is “far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.�

I'm SURE we wouldn't condemn then for opening if miracle healings through the power and grace of the Holy Spirit took place there …




The fact that they close demonstrates that Christianity is full of charlatanry.

[bluegreenearth]

Churches/shrines that stay open are condemned by non-theists.

I would think the action of remaining open during a pandemic would be condemned by people who understand how this virus spreads.

Churches/shrines that close are condemned by non-theists.

Only in so far as it points out that some theists realize 'god' won't save them with magic healing water in the case of Lourdes. In other words, even the people who run the pools at Lourdes know they won't save everyone who uses them from COVID-19.

They are 2 different 'condemnations'. The first is a condemnation for ignoring basic science in this day and age. The other is a condemnation of touting pools of water as having healing abilities when it's clear they don't and they know it.

So it's not really lose/lose since we are talking about two different things. I'm sure not all theists think Lourdes healing pools actually do anything other than cleanse some people of their money.

The description of a “lose/lose� is that someone finds different reasons to condemn a person no matter what action that person takes.

You have done exactly that.

Instead of showing that this is not a “lose/lose,� you have given a clear demonstration of how this criticism is an effort to justify a preconceived opinion.

What are your thoughts about the implications of Lourdes closing during the pandemic? Do you support the closing of Lourdes in the interest of preventing the spread of COVID-19? Would you prefer Lourdes had remained open during this pandemic? Whether you support the closing of Lourdes or not, do you affirm or deny that the waters at Lourdes is a miraculous cure for a variety of seemingly unrelated illnesses?

[Tcg]

Of course on the flip side of the coin, many of those same critics would also condemn shrines or churches if they remained open: Such a damned if they do and damned if they don't approach would suggest that it's far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.

For three days and two pages of debate this statement has been ignored, but it seems to get at the heart of the matter.

It doesn't even address the "heart of the matter." In the OP, this question is asked:

• What does this say about the church's confidence in the "miraculous" properties of the water at Lourdes?

The paragraph you quoted doesn't even attempt to address this question. There is no mention of the "miraculous water", no mention of the church's confidence in it, and no mention of Lourdes, the specific site asked about.


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

Churches/shrines that stay open are condemned by non-theists.

I would think the action of remaining open during a pandemic would be condemned by people who understand how this virus spreads.

Churches/shrines that close are condemned by non-theists.

Only in so far as it points out that some theists realize 'god' won't save them with magic healing water in the case of Lourdes. In other words, even the people who run the pools at Lourdes know they won't save everyone who uses them from COVID-19.

They are 2 different 'condemnations'. The first is a condemnation for ignoring basic science in this day and age. The other is a condemnation of touting pools of water as having healing abilities when it's clear they don't and they know it.

So it's not really lose/lose since we are talking about two different things. I'm sure not all theists think Lourdes healing pools actually do anything other than cleanse some people of their money.

The description of a “lose/lose� is that someone finds different reasons to condemn a person no matter what action that person takes.

You have done exactly that.

Instead of showing that this is not a “lose/lose,� you have given a clear demonstration of how this criticism is an effort to justify a preconceived opinion.

You have entirely missed the point.

I would NOT condemn them for closing the pools during a pandemic. I WOULD condemn them for leaving them open.

On a completely different issue, I DO condemn them for claiming they have magic pools of water that can heal people when they know full well they can't. We know that they know this BECAUSE they closed their pools.

I also condemn the Catholic church for mishandling abuse cases, wasting money on grandiose buildings, indoctrinating children with Sunday school, and a whole host (no pun intended) of other issues. Does that make this a lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/lose/etc situation?

Your point only makes sense if I actually would condemn them for both leaving the pools open and closing them. I don't, I only condemn them one way. Whether they leave the pools open or closed has no bearing on my condemnation for their many other faults.

[Mithrae]

It doesn't even address the "heart of the matter." In the OP, this question is asked:

• What does this say about the church's confidence in the "miraculous" properties of the water at Lourdes?

The paragraph you quoted doesn't even attempt to address this question. There is no mention of the "miraculous water", no mention of the church's confidence in it, and no mention of Lourdes, the specific site asked about.

You're right; those were the subject of the preceding two paragraphs in that post, which also have not been coherently addressed by any member: The only response of any kind we've seen was a leading question by Tired of the Nonsense in post #14, which switched the topic to one of God's existence and apparently implies (if it were to have any relevance even on that subject) that things which are not "obvious" in the course of day-to-day living can be presumed false or unimportant.


#####

You have entirely missed the point.

I would NOT condemn them for closing the pools during a pandemic. I WOULD condemn them for leaving them open.

On a completely different issue, I DO condemn them for claiming they have magic pools of water that can heal people when they know full well they can't. We know that they know this BECAUSE they closed their pools.

By analogy - as I pointed out in the post which BJS quoted - you must be inferring that if recipients of charity or welfare take any actions of their own to improve their circumstances they "know full well" that such assistance doesn't really exist. If you really believed someone can help you, you wouldn't do it yourself, right? Not only is that an irrational attitude in general, but it explicitly contradicts one of the foundational stories of the Christian religion in which Jesus, when told by the devil to throw himself off the temple to show off God's power to save him, replies that it's wrong to "put God to the test." So this criticism of Lourdes seems to fail both in terms of basic logic and understanding of Christian teaching.

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Some folk demand a God who will step in to rescue them every time they throw themselves off a building. I suppose to those people - be they Christians or critics - taking basic sensible precautions like not throwing yourself off the pinnacle of the temple or spreading a harmful disease must seem like a "lack of faith."

By analogy, those same people must be demanding that recipients of secular charity and aid should take no actions of their own to improve their circumstances, because to do so would demonstrate a lack of confidence or gratitude for that assistance If you really believe someone can help you, you wouldn't do it yourself, right? Maybe I'm just not smart enough to see why it's a good argument.

Of course on the flip side of the coin, many of those same critics would also condemn shrines or churches if they remained open: Such a damned if they do and damned if they don't approach would suggest that it's far more a matter of reaching for justification of a preconceived opinion than fairly assessing the merits or otherwise of those institutions' actions.

[benchwarmer]

By analogy - as I pointed out in the post which BJS quoted - you must be inferring that if recipients of charity or welfare take any actions of their own to improve their circumstances they "know full well" that such assistance doesn't really exist. If you really believed someone can help you, you wouldn't do it yourself, right? Not only is that an irrational attitude in general, but it explicitly contradicts one of the foundational stories of the Christian religion in which Jesus, when told by the devil to throw himself off the temple to show off God's power to save him, replies that it's wrong to "put God to the test." So this criticism of Lourdes seems to fail both in terms of basic logic and understanding of Christian teaching.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

Do the people who run the healing pools KNOW that the waters have healing powers or not. Simple yes or no question.

If they KNOW the water heals people then they should SHOW this by applying some to an infected person. You know, basic scientific method and all. Once the healing properties have been validated, they should be getting this to everyone they can.

What's that? They don't KNOW it heals people? They only believe it MIGHT? Or maybe it only heals some inner thing nobody can actually test?

Bottom line is that they know full well these healing waters are not effective against COVID-19 (or any other physical ailment), so they close the pools in order not to cause people to spread a virus when there is no chance the water will help.

Talking about people not testing God means they should not have these pools open in the first place. Right? I mean, they are creating an expectation that if you use the healing waters they must have a chance at doing something right? As soon as someone uses this water for anything 'God' related i.e. hoping for any healing in any manner whatsoever, they are testing God. So your analogy, IMHO, is null and void.

[Zzyzx]

.

Do the people who run the healing pools KNOW that the waters have healing powers or not. Simple yes or no question.

Wishful thinking

The 'healing waters' seem to have about the same success ratio as prayers -- not demonstrably better than no-prayers or chance.

Anyone disagree?

[Mithrae]

By analogy - as I pointed out in the post which BJS quoted - you must be inferring that if recipients of charity or welfare take any actions of their own to improve their circumstances they "know full well" that such assistance doesn't really exist. If you really believed someone can help you, you wouldn't do it yourself, right? Not only is that an irrational attitude in general, but it explicitly contradicts one of the foundational stories of the Christian religion in which Jesus, when told by the devil to throw himself off the temple to show off God's power to save him, replies that it's wrong to "put God to the test." So this criticism of Lourdes seems to fail both in terms of basic logic and understanding of Christian teaching.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

Do the people who run the healing pools KNOW that the waters have healing powers or not. Simple yes or no question.

If you really believed someone can help you, would you/should you still act first and foremost to help yourself? Simple yes or no question, but apparently one which critics in this thread are loathe to answer - presumably because it shows the irrationality of the conclusion they are trying to draw from the shrine's officials' sensible actions to help themselves and others.

If they KNOW the water heals people then they should SHOW this by applying some to an infected person. You know, basic scientific method and all. Once the healing properties have been validated, they should be getting this to everyone they can.

When did any Catholic officials claim that the water has healing properties? I'm not certain, but this looks like a strawman: The numerous rapid and medically-unexplained healing of serious illnesses which have been documented at Lourdes are attributed to God (or perhaps Mary as an intermediary), not to the location or the spring itself. The Wikipedia article on 'Lourdes water' says that "Saint Bernadette herself said that people were healed by their faith and prayers" and that devotion focused on the water has been "never formally encouraged by the Church."

Even in the case of state welfare (which is a somewhat automated, impersonal process) we generally recognize that wilful dependency and a decision to do nothing to improve one's circumstances when able is inappropriate, and arguably should disqualify one from receiving such assistance. So why on earth are you trying to argue that such wilful dependency and passivity should be encouraged given the possibility of personal intervention by God?

Maybe it's a good thing that you aren't religious, if your approach given half a chance is simply looking for others to do everything for you An attitude which some Christians do share, of course.

Bottom line is that they know full well these healing waters are not effective against COVID-19 (or any other physical ailment)

Perhaps you would deign to substantiate this claim for those of us who don't possess your telepathic abilities?

I'd wager that most workers and officials at the shrine absolutely believe that the rapid and medically-unexplained cures of serious illnesses which have been documented there are indeed genuine miracles. Perhaps there are some who merely hope that real miracles occur (belief in miracles is not a required doctrine of the Catholic church), but even in those cases your claim that they "know full well" that they don't is obviously total nonsense. Heck, even most critics on this forum don't claim to know that they don't! In all the times I've raised the topic for discussion the most common response has been to offer speculation that maybe there is some 'natural' explanation for the healings which medical science could one day confirm.

It's a little off-topic, but if you think that you know full well these Lourdes healings were not miraculous, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your verifiable evidence for that claim.

[brunumb]

About 6 million people visit Lourdes each year hoping for miraculous cures by partaking of the water. In all the time it has been in operation, there have only been 67 miracles accepted by the church. Any hospital with a success rate like that would have shut down long ago.

[Mithrae]

About 6 million people visit Lourdes each year hoping for miraculous cures by partaking of the water. In all the time it has been in operation, there have only been 67 miracles accepted by the church. Any hospital with a success rate like that would have shut down long ago.

Most pilgrims do go home without physical healing; it's obviously not science and it's obviously not magic. There's a pretty significant difference between requesting help from a deity and demanding it from a genie or expecting it from a formula. As I've highlighted throughout the thread - though it seems like such an obvious point to me that it's surprising so few critics seem to grasp it - anyone who presumptuously expects assistance for their woes, in almost any context but especially without taking their own action to help themselves, would seem to be rather undeserving of that help to begin with!

But it's also worth noting that your figures aren't the full picture. Many of those visitors to the shrine are merely tourists (in the 1980s, out of ~4 million total only some 65,000 per year were "registered and documented as sick" according to Dowling 1984), and similarly the thoroughly-investigated and officially-confirmed 'miracles' are merely the upper tip of a much larger number of reported cures. To reach the second major stage of the process (the more thorough investigation by the International Medical Committee of Lourdes), reported cures must first pass a three-quarter majority vote by a bureau convened of all doctors and healthcare workers present at the shrine regardless of religious belief, determining that the reported cure is worthy of deeper investigation as having likely been a rapid, permanent and medically unexplained healing of a serious physical ailment: Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s there were 693 files open with the Bureau (Francois et al 2012).

Only eleven of those in that period eventually made it through the rigorous investigation process to eventually be declared official 'miracles,' but I imagine that you'd have a hard time persuading the recipients of those other reported cures that their healing did not come from God merely because the medical documentation of their prior illness was inadequate, or because it took a few weeks or months for them to be fully healed, or because some speculation of an alternative 'natural' route to healing can be advanced. In a similar vein it's entirely probable that some recipients of remarkable healing don't report their cure to the Bureau at all, choosing not to have their deeply personal experience subjected to such rigorous scrutiny. I posted references and some further information in my 2017 thread Medical miracles at Lourdes?


Of course, even a single genuine miracle is more than enough to thoroughly undermine any atheist rhetoric about "no evidence" for the existence of a god. Perhaps that is why we see some of these, shall we say, less than perfectly reasoned attempts to claim that the shrine's officials know that those miracles aren't real - a claim which many critics on this forum wouldn't even make for themselves!