Talk:Lourdes

Well Done Everyone!

A few months ago it was bare bones: now with so many people involved its become a really brilliant article. Lots of great information. Well done everyone! Let's keep going. :O) Matt - London 12:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Severe vandalism in May: a number of the most egregious episodes came from IP addresses belonged to a related group (see HISTORY page), I took it upon myself to research the "skool" mentioned and emailed the selective (academically gifted elite) London secondary-education institution I believe the nickname refered to. The deleted elements have been restored (in one case the whole page by a wiki automated robot - great tool!) I hope to everyone's satisfaction. Mrs Clare Krishan - PA, USA 19:53, 24 May 2007.

Removal skepticism

Why did you remove?[1] Your edit summary was "removed content, as this should be added to Miracles of Lourdes or Our Lady of Lourdes," those "articles" are redirects. There is no need to remove that material when discussing the Sanctuary of Lourdes. C56C 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I deleted this, is because the article Lourdes is about the town - sceptism should be kept to "Miracles of Lourdes" - as its an article on the sceptism of the miracles. How can you be a sceptic of a town? Matt - London 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states the occurrence of the mircale, saying things such as 'During one of the Virgin Mary’s apparitions to St Bernadette in 1858, she asked that people come in procession to the Grotto' where it should say that she reportedly asked for this. In fact the whole article covertly states that the miracle did in fact occur. It is for this reason that skeptics out there who wish to have their say are drawn to comment. While the sceptisism section may not be an appropriate location, there is good reason for this response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.194 (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As the article discusses the Sanctuary of Lourdes. Also there is no other article about the Sanctuary of Lourdes, and so mentioning its most famous aspects as well as skepticism about those aspects is a must. The content is not about being skeptical about a town. It's being skeptical about something that has made the town famous. Arbustoo 04:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it discusses the Sanctuary of Lourdes. However, Lourdes is a generic article about the various areas of Lourdes, and not particularly about the miracles etc - whether they were true or not. Scepticism should be placed in an article about the miracles. At the moment, I disagree the following article should be added: "Critic of faith healing, such as James Randi's book The Faith Healers, criticized Father Ralph DiOrio, who is a Vatican-approved healer. DiOrio, influenced by Kathryn Kuhlman, claims he can cure such things as arthritis, but has never supplied any subjects to give to proof to this.."

It has no real relevance to Lourdes or its sanctuary, and is just an additional point about the Vatican, and a potentially dodgy priest. Although there have been claims of miracles in Lourdes, it is not the core of what Lourdes is about - a common mis-conception. Arguments about whether the miracles are real or not, should be in the Miracles of Lourdes article - where there is a good piece on sceptism. Please let me know what you think. Matt - London 10:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Sceptism should be taken away. TerriMerry 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you not understand? If purported miracles are going to be mention, then those who doubt those miracles will be mentioned. If you remove it again without reason, it is considered vandalism. C56C 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! What do you not understand? I have removed it with reason - your "doubting" miracles piece has NO relevance to Lourdes - its a generic piece about some Vatican guy. If you can find a proper critique of the Lourdes miracles then please put it up! Otherwise this should not be included, as is a seperate issue. I absolitely agree a bit on sceptism should be included - but yours is not relevant to Lourdes. Please can you continue this debate here, rather than my userpage. Matt - London 13:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If a town where supposed miracles happen is mentioned then those that doubt those claims will be included. It is wikipedia policy that science be given due weight. Ralph DiOrio was an important icon at this place, and thus criticism of his claimed miracles there is acceptable. Arbustoo 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes claims and counter claims. This is an appropriate inclusion. C56C 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just come upon this discussion. Scepticism about the nature of the apparitions and the associated claims of miracles is quite justifiable. However, this specific piece of text (as quoted above, about Ralph DiOrio) does not belong here. It has no connection to Lourdes, but instead seems more concerned with the Vatican. Even if DiOrio is practising faith healing, it would seem he is doing so without reference to Lourdes; he certainly is not practising in Lourdes. James Randi is a well-known critic and debunker of myth; if his book covers the subject of Lourdes, this would be a more appropriate point to mention. Finally, as it stands, the text is in very poor English. Remove. Preacherdoc 12:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He is the priest who supposedly did mircales at Lourdes; a very public figure at the peak the faith healing. C56C 19:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've had close associations with both the medical and spiritual officials at Lourdes for three decades. Based on this experience, it is highly unlikely that DiOrio would be acting as an officially-sanctioned ("Vatican-approved") faith healer in Lourdes, for two reasons. First, the Lourdes Church authorities are extremely careful not to officially sanction any healing activities: they specifically do not promise any sort of healing or miracle. Also, for a priest to practise in Lourdes, he must do so under the strict auspices of the Church in Lourdes. Secondly, any sort of claimed "miracle" would certainly be inspected closely by the Lourdes Medical Bureau, and has not been (to my knowledge). I have never heard of DiOrio.

However, I admire Randi's work a great deal, and am prepared to accept (although I have not read his book), that he has done his homework correctly. It is quite possible that DiOrio was practising outwith the auspices of the Church, or indeed practising somewhere else entirely and claiming to be some sort of conduit or link to Lourdes.

With all this in mind, I have considerably rewritten this paragraph, toning it down in keeping with a more balanced discussion, but without substantially altering its content.Preacherdoc 21:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Preacherdoc - this is exactly what I was getting at, and I completely agree with your changes. Looks good and is well balanced. Matt - London 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I would NOT regard this article as well-balanced. I've been to Lourdes, and several other "holy sites" in Europe. The comments made in this article strike me as snide and scurrilous. Case in point: "Although Bernadette herself APPEARED (nasty word) to shun attention and personal gain from the apparitions, IT IS CLEAR (Says who? Source, please!) that her family, previously in severe poverty, became VERY wealthy and influential as a result (Can you furnish examples, or financial records?). CRITICS ARGUE (Who are they?) that the family encouraged Bernadette in order to escape their poverty."

Here we go again: "Modern Lourdes has NO SHORTAGE OF GLITZ on display (Really? My impression was precisely the opposite. I was struck by the modesty of the shrine, and the souvenir shops I saw were hardly intrusive). MANY visitors (What percentage are we talking about here? Has anyone taken a poll?) are SHOCKED or REPELLED by the BLATANT commercialism which is still practised in Lourdes, with neon-emblazoned gift shops OVERFLOWING with tacky souvenirs and DUBIOUS holy artefacts (A biased observation if ever I saw one). Lourdes has been called the "Disneyland of the Catholic Church", and parallels with Las Vegas are occasionally drawn (By whom?). Critics argue that the Lourdes phenomenon is nothing more than a significant moneyspinner for the town and the region, which therefore has a strong vested interest in keeping the pilgrims coming."

Finally: "Many people remain sceptical about Lourdes and its supposed healing power, arguing that any improvement offered by the shrine is no more than the PLACEBO EFFECT." (My comment: Look, if you're going to try and debunk the Lourdes miracles, at least do it intelligently. Ever heard of Justin Bouhourt? He was born in Lourdes on 28.7.1856, and was cured of consumption at the beginning of July 1858, at the age of 2 YEARS. He was the 5th of the officially accredited miraculous cures certified by the Lourdes Medical Bureau as scientifically inexplicable. There are intelligent critiques of the Lourdes miracles - Donald West's "Eleven Lourdes Miracles" is a book which springs to mind. But smear campaigns are intellectually lazy and morally inexcusable.)

Well, that's enough from me. What do other readers think? Vjtorley 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)vjtorley

The text you describe was written by me. As mentioned above, I have been familiar with Lourdes and the Bernadette narrative for many years, and have a deep fondness for the place and its events; however, I do not feel that it is above criticism in certain key respects.

I feel that some of your points deserve further discussion. For example, Bernadette's poverty and illiteracy are accepted (indeed, perhaps, essential) parts of the Lourdes narrative. Her family were so poor they ended up living in the cachot, the former town jail. However, forward a few decades and the Soubirous family are rich enough to build the Moderne, Lourdes' (arguably) finest hotel (good enough for Pope John Paul II, who stayed there). There is a stone plaque on the wall of the Moderne describing all this, although I must admit the date of construction escapes me. At least one way of interpreting these points is to consider that Bernadette's family realised that the fame of her visions might potentially allow them to escape destitution. This may be uncharitable, but that's why people who take such views are labelled "critics".

"No shortage of glitz". Indeed, within the Domain itself, no commercial activity is sanctioned, except that relating to the Sanctuary itself (If you choose to call that "modesty", that's fine). However, the streets surrounding the shrine (by which I mean specifically the Boulevard de la Grotte, and the cluster of streets between the Pont Vieux and St Joseph's gate of the Domain) have gift shops which are open from dawn until after midnight, are decorated with brightly-coloured neon signs (many of which flash), and are heavily stocked (one might say "crammed") with cheap, plastic, mass-produced items with only a distant connection to Lourdes. Examples which spring to mind are hunting-knives with un cadeau de Lourdes inscribed on the handle; the minty pastilles which claim to be made with Lourdes water (most of which, surely, is evaporated out as the sugar crystallises?); and the small leaky plastic water bottles in the shape of the Crowned Statue. I would regard all of these as "dubious holy artefacts", in that their commercial nature far exceeds their potential spiritual or devotional purpose.

You're right, though: no one has taken a poll of visitors. However, in several newspaper and medical journals expressions of discomfort (about commercialism) have made it into print. I am currently working on several of the Lourdes-related articles, and when I track down these references, I will put them in. "Disneyland" and "Las Vegas" have already been edited out. I have personally read both of these, although it might not be possible to find the original references. Although I do not share this view, I accept that such views are not unreasonable.

I am not trying to "debunk" the Lourdes miracles. I do know, however, that even in the most recent of cases, an inexplicable cure cannot be determined because of diagnostic uncertainty in the first place. As a non-Lourdes example, some of the original type specimens used by Thomas Hodgkin to describe the disease which bears his name (back in 1832) have recently been examined and found to be, not lymphoma, but tuberculosis. It is very probable (and here I am speaking as a doctor) that some of the inexplicable cures of the past, if re-examined using the technology of today, would no longer be regarded as inexplicable.

Hardly anybody who comes to Lourdes gets a miracle. However, I am of the opinion that one of the main benefits of Lourdes is to make most pilgrims leave feeling a little better: a little stronger, a little more comforted, a little more able to cope. In the words of St. Francis of Assisi: "I thought I was unfortunate because I had no shoes; until I met a man with no feet". Taken in a spiritual context it is reasonable to consider this effect divine blessing, or spiritual healing. In a purely medical context (and again I speak as a doctor), this has all the hallmarks of the placebo effect: it only works on believers, it relies on drama or ceremony for its power, the effect is short-lived but may be quite significant, and so on.

Finally, and most significantly, this section of the article is not intended as a "smear campaign", but (I like to think) a balanced summary of criticisms which I am aware of about the Lourdes phenomenon. You may not agree with what I have written, but it is certainly not your place to call into question either my intellect or my morals in a forum of this type. Preacherdoc 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is a certainly a need for a scepticism section in the main sanctuary pages but this page is about the town itself. Shall I remove it? RoyalBlueStuey 11:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggested this a while back and no-one has repsonded. This article is about the town of Lourdes as opposed to the sanctuaries, I appreciate Lourdes is synonymous with it's shrines but the article should focus on the town itself rather than criticism or extolling of it's religious credentials. I will remove it shortly if there is no further respeonses. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Sceptics?

Aren't there people or sites that are skeptical of Lourdes? --66.2.149.42 00:57, 30 March 2005 (UTC)

Lourdes is a place and I doubt you'll find many people skeptical that it exists ;) If you mean detractors against the apparitions, that whole conversation is going on (and on, and on) at Talk: Bernadette Soubirous. --Bluejay Young 23:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding whatever skepticism exists, this article's skepticism and controversy section's tone and content needs to be cleaned up. I deleted some of it. NewCanada (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up

I have tidied up the appearance of the article, including removing the tabular info. Please put it back if you can find a way of so doing which doesn't spoil the layout. -- Laurence Boyce 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Namesakes

I removed the very short list of namesakes. The reason is that a comprehensive list of namesakes would probably number in the tens of thousands and make the article very cumbersome. A shorter list is simply inaccurate in that it severly underreports the extent of namesakes. Considering the two options, the article is better off without it. -- Johnn 7 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is with the gay thing and the reference? I do not seem to understand that sentence. Has someone edited it?

Tidying up

Added various bits and pieces including history, Hospitalite Notre Dame de Lourdes etc. A lot of it needs "expansion", and will be adding stuff over time. --Matt - London 12:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"I only hope they don't get rich"

This remark has been attributed to Bernadette in this article. There is little direct context, however, what there is suggests that Bernadette hopes that her family don't get rich as a result of her apparitions. Two problems. First, the remark seems colloquial to the point of flippancy. Secondly, it does not seem to be in keeping with other recorded remarks by Bernadette. If this is a somewhat loose translation of Bernadette's exact words, then perhaps the original French or Occitan could be supplied. If it is not a quote from Bernadette, it should be deleted. I have already done so, but it was replaced.Preacherdoc 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The author gives several quotations (all with refs) of Bernadette that are of a similar theme. She did not want her family to be involved in religious business side of Lourdes -- especially so when it involved Sunday work. The book in question is a translation of a French original that is based on a three volume scholarly set "Logia de Bernadette" I don't have access to this but since all the sentiments expressed by Bernadette point in the same direction there seems no good reason at present to assume that the this quotation/translation distorts Bernadette's position in the matter. The following short biog/blurb of the author is given on the back of the book and on the web:

"Father Rene Laurentin, one of the foremost Marian theologians of our time, holds a licentiate in philosophy, as well as doctoral degrees in literature, history and theology. He has taught in universities across France, Italy and the United States. Father Laurentin's research on the apparitions at Lourdes, begun in 1952, has been compiled in no less than thirty volumes. His study culminated in the publication of Bernadette vous parle, presented here in its entirety in a first-time English edition."[2]

I also agree that criticism should be supported by good citations or else be deleted. The last edit had to be reverted because inadvertently a matching reference for the deleted text was left in the article giving the impression that one of the negative sentiments had a reference and authority that it does not actually have at present. GoldenMeadows 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Former shrine of pagan goddess?

Numerous web sources state that the grotto of Lourdes was in ancient times a shrine to the goddess Persephone, and/or Nantosuelta. In fact, this Wikipedia article used to say as much, but there is no discussion on this page to indicate why that reference to Persephone was removed. Is there any truth to the assertion? Alpheus (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian criticism?

Numbering "Ukrainian Church" as 4 and "Skepticism and Criticism" as 4.1 implies skepticism on the part of the Ukrainians. I have renumbered the sections. 76.123.203.164 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

HCPT & Jumblanace sections

Are these sections appropriate to the Lourdes town, at the very least they should be moved to the Pilgrimage section RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

--- I am the poster, and they are relevant, because it is HCPT that is responsible for the idea of the modern Pilgrimage. HCPT have been the driving force behind the modernisation of Lourdes town, regards disabled accessibility. In the section that I posted, you would see that the city of Lourdes government work closely with HCPT, and HCPT definitely changed Lourdes, and made it more accessible to everyone who wishes to go there. Across, brought the Jumbulances into Lourdes, and they were and still are a key part of 1000's of people's trips to lourdes each year, without them, many could not go. They are part of Lourdes history, specific to Lourdes.

As for L'Astazou, the building that was the Across Trust's former accomodation for the groups that went to Lourdes with them, that building is still there and belonged to the descendants of St Bernadette, the Soubirous family, so that is highly relevant to Lourdes history. It's all part of the history of Lourdes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.145.26 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah like man  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.239.218 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 

Madonna, the singer.

Having done a little research, I think it's fair enough to leave that in now. I did add a little to the text, explaining the reason she named her daughter Lourdes, courtesy of her biography.

Please decide!!!

5,000,000 pilgrims or 6,000,000 pilgrims.

there is a little difference: --> 20%!!!

regards / dr.d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.133.241.115 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Floods

Do we need a section on the recent floods? (November 2012 & June 2013) RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)