Saturday, April 09, 2016

When confusion reigns

Towards the end of the nineteenth century Émile Zola wrote an interesting novel about Lourdes, the claimed miracles, the character and visions of Bernadette Soubirous and the huge pilgrimage site Lourdes became. He wrote the novel through the eyes of Pierre Froment, a priest struggling with his loss of faith.

The passage below shows how in Zola’s view confusion can be a vehicle for human hopes and passions even when faced with the stark realities of death and incurable disease. Over two centuries earlier Baruch Spinoza saw confusion as the essential element of misguided human thought. Whatever one thinks of the Lourdes phenomenon, it is very far from being the only area where confusion has bypassed painful or inconvenient realities. 

Pierre had now begun to understand what was taking place at Lourdes, the extraordinary spectacle which the world had been witnessing for years, amidst the reverent admiration of some and the insulting laughter of others. Forces as yet but imperfectly studied, of which one was even ignorant, were certainly at work — auto-suggestion, long prepared disturbance of the nerves; inspiriting influence of the journey, the prayers, and the hymns; and especially the healing breath, the unknown force which was evolved from the multitude, in the acute crisis of faith.

Thus it seemed to him anything but intelligent to believe in trickery. The facts were both of a much more lofty and much more simple nature. There was no occasion for the Fathers of the Grotto to descend to falsehood; it was sufficient that they should help in creating confusion, that they should utilise the universal ignorance. It might even be admitted that everybody acted in good faith — the doctors void of genius who delivered the certificates, the consoled patients who believed themselves cured, and the impassioned witnesses who swore that they had beheld what they described.

And from all this was evolved the obvious impossibility of proving whether there was a miracle or not. And such being the case, did not the miracle naturally become a reality for the greater number, for all those who suffered and who had need of hope?

Émile Zola – Lourdes (1894)


All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.


Sackerson said...

Zola took a position, and wrote from it. In fiction, you can make your creations say, do and think what you wish them to do.

I read somewhere that atheists with a Protestant background were gloomy, but ex-Catholics cheerful. Perhaps Zola is the exception that proves the rule.

A K Haart said...

Sackers - I wasn't left with a particularly negative view of Lourdes. The heroine is dramatically cured of her paralysis but the priest has good reason to ascribe her cure to natural causes, as Zola would have done.

I was left with an overall impression that for believers the main benefit of Lourdes may be spiritual.

Sackerson said...

Well, logically that would be the thing to ask for, since all physical improvement must be temporary.

Paddington said...

If you check out the references in 'The Faith Healers', I recall that there have been zero healings at Lourdes.

Sackerson said...

How would I judge? But there appears to be an official list of 67 miracles at Lourdes:

Paddington said...

Well, one would wonder about the 'shy God' nature of these incidents, given that none appear to be validated once we had things such as X-rays.