By / par Christian Tessier
| Miraculous healings…this is one aspect of André Bessette’s life that never fails to strike us. In certain biographies of André Bessette, though, attention is drawn mainly on the fact that he was a healer. He is even referred to more broadly as a thaumaturgist or a «miracle worker». According to sources, he accomplished no less than 125,000 healings. The figure is so impressive that one may wonder if it is the main reason for his canonization! But it is not the case. As mentioned by many, André Bessette always refused to be considered as a healer. He viewed himself as a mere instrument of Joseph, his patron saint. «It is faith in God that heals» he always claimed, and he was always confident that Joseph would heal the sick. | Les guérisons… voilà un aspect de la vie d’André Bessette qu’on ne peut ignorer. Dans certaines biographies d’André Bessette, on relève surtout le fait qu’il était un guérisseur. On lui attribue même le titre plus élargi de thaumaturge, c’est-à-dire « un faiseur de miracles ». Selon certains, il y aurait eu pas moins de 125 000 guérisons. Un nombre tellement imposant qu’on peut s’interroger à savoir si cela n’est pas le motif profond de sa canonisation. Or, tel n’est pas le cas. Comme nous l’avons souligné déjà, André Bessette a toujours refusé qu’on le considère comme guérisseur. Il se voulait l’instrument qui intercédait auprès de Joseph, son modèle. « C’est la foi en Dieu qui guérit », disait-il, et il avait une confiance absolue que les malades guériraient grâce à Joseph. |
| Then, why is he being canonized by the Church? What are the reasons for his canonization? Experts in both civil and canon law must conclude that his life was «examplary», as a condition for canonization. | Alors, pourquoi le canonise-t-on ? Quels pourraient être les motifs de sa canonisation ? Les experts en droit civil et canonique doivent nécessairement reconnaître que la vie de la personne est « exemplaire » avant de la canoniser. |
| We have put together here a few facts, quotations or witnesses, garnered from older biographies. | Nous recueillons ici certains faits, paroles ou témoignages recueillis dans certaines biographies plus anciennes. |
| oAndré Bessette commented one day: «I find it odd to be so often asked for a healing, but seldom for the gift of faith, or humility. And yet, they are so important. If the soul is ill, one must heal the soul first. Do you have faith? Do you believe God can do something for you? Go to confession first, receive communion, and then come back to see me.» | oAndré Bessette faisait remarquer : « C’est étonnant, on me demande souvent des guérisons, mais bien rarement l’humilité et l’esprit de foi. C’est pourtant si important. Si l’âme est malade, il faut commencer par soigner l’âme. Avez-vous la foi ? Croyez-vous que le bon Dieu peut faire quelque chose pour vous ? Allez vous confesser au prêtre, allez communier, vous reviendrez me voir ensuite ». |
| oHe would say: «The wonders that I am able to accomplish are only a favor that God grants in his mercy to get noticed by mankind.» | o« Ce que je peux faire de prodigieux », disait-il « est une simple faveur que Dieu accorde pour ouvrir les yeux du monde ». |
| oFor over 50 years, he consoled the afflicted, listened to and healed large crowds through the intercession of Joseph. He would always urge them to pray, to meditate, and above all to put their trust in God. | oPendant 50 ans ce consolateur des affligés a reçu, écouté, consolé, et parfois guéri des foules de visiteurs par l’intercession de Joseph. Il leur recommandait la réflexion, la prière, la confiance en la bonté de Dieu. |
| oHe once told someone in suffering: «Do not ask for the suffering to stop, but seek rather the grace to accept it well.» | oll dit à quelqu’un qui souffrait : « Ne cherchez pas à vous faire enlever les épreuves, demandez plutôt la grâce de bien les supporter… ». |
| oThrough hardship, he would persevere without uttering a word. He would unite his sufferings to those of Christ, instead of complaining. | oMême dans l’adversité, il persévérait sans la moindre protestation, voulant ainsi s’unir aux souffrances du Christ, au lieu de se plaindre. |
| oEven in death, he offered his sufferings for those that were in greater need than him. | oJusqu’à sa mort, il offrit ses souffrances aux intentions de ceux qui en avaient plus besoin que lui. |
| o«He spent his whole life recommending others to God, and to talk to others about God. » (Quoted by a good friend). | o« Il a passé sa vie à parler des autres au bon Dieu et du bon Dieu aux autres. » (témoignage d’un ami). |
| We can conclude that, for André Bessette, the impact of miracles on the salvation of souls was more important than physical healing. The latter had only one purpose, that of fostering a greater love of God and to stray away from sin. | Nous pouvons conclure que pour André Bessette, l’impact des miracles sur le salut des âmes était plus important que la guérison physique. Celle-ci n’avait qu’un objectif, celui d’orienter la personne vers un plus grand amour envers Dieu et la détourner du mal. |
| We must also acknowledge his deep understanding of suffering as part of growing in faith. Healing was never something magic, for André Bessette. | Nous devons aussi reconnaître qu’il comprenait bien la souffrance comme faisant partie d’un cheminement de foi. La guérison pour lui n’était pas quelque chose de magique. |
| By canonizing an individual, the Church recognizes that the individual can be an example to all. Other members of the Church can then pray that person to intercede for them in order to gain favors, like healing of the soul or the body, because of that close communion with God in heaven. | En canonisant quelqu’un, l’Église reconnaît que cette personne peut officiellement être un exemple pour tous. Nous pouvons la prier et obtenir par son intercession des faveurs de guérison de l’âme ou du corps car elle est en communion avec Dieu dans le ciel. |
| Can André Bessette’s life be cited as an example of «sanctity» to all, based on the facts of his life? | André Bessette, selon les faits rapportés au cours de son existence, peut-il être un modèle de sainteté pour tous ? |
| Those are the real motives behind his canonization. | Tels seront les vrais motifs de sa canonisation. |
Like you Christian, I am convinced that you are right. Saint Andre Bessette was really much more interested in the salvation of souls than the healing per se.
RM
Thanks for taking the time to read my blog, and for bringing it to my attention. I hope my future blogs will continue to generate interest, and who knows, maybe a collaboration through an exchange of ideas, a sharing of opinions.
Yes miraculous healings are signs of greater goods, faith and salvation but Jesus did a lot a them didn’t he? There must be some value in the healings per se…
@ Josh Petersen
Thanks for your comment. Knowing that our blogs are being read is important. It tells us a lot about which topics are important to you. So, I urge you to continue to send in your opinion/comments in the future. It is a way to make a grater contribution by becoming more of a collaborator, than just a commentator. Your opinion is valued.
The New Testament does provide several examples of Christ himself (and his disciples) performing physical healings. In most instances, Christ finds a way to emphasize that the healed is « saved » (physically, and spiritually) by his/her own faith. To that extent, healings accomplished by André Bessette were accomplished in the same spirit: he often said that faith in God is what healed the sick. The health of the soul was very important, so important that he would urge his visitors to go to confession, receive communion, and only then to come back to see him. The physical healing per se was a way for Christ to glorify his Father, and to show His power over creation.
You describe yourself as a man of science Christian. Are you not aware that, according to science as a « dogma », everything that is out of the grab of the « priests » of this modern religion, namely the scientists, can easily be deemed as heretic? Miracles are those out of reach « non existent realities » that continue to bog this cast and will for ever.
@ Josh Petersen
Yes I am a scientist, by trade, but first and foremost, a Christian. So, a christian scientist, not a scientologist. The scientist cannot pretend to « create » anything, or even to invent laws of nature. He is merely a privileged observer of laws and principles thad God designed into His creation.
That’s a fine statement Christian and I mostly agree with you but how do you cope with the triad faith/observation/interpretation in regard of all religious considerations like history (myths versus historic facts), miracles (interpretation versus observation) and self interpretation in religious conscience?
@ Josh Petersen
I am afraid I am not versed enough in the topics you are referring to in your comment. I hope some of my readers will address these elements of your multifaceted question. It would be very interesting. I look forward to it.
If you allow me, I would like to take a step back to acknowledge something in your second comment to this blog, your intervention on the “dogmatic” scientists.
The environment you describe where scientists behave as “high priests” of a caste, and anyone who does not grasp their theory, and does not share their beliefs, is considered as heretic, reminds me more of the beheavior of the scientific community during the Renaissance (end of Renaissance, beginning of modern era). The situation you describe could very well be exemplified by the life and trials of Galileo. He was persecuted by the “geocentrist” faction of the scientific community, for his advances in astronomy and for supporting Copernic’s theory (heliocentrism). You probably know the rest of the story: only the Church was accused to have persecuted Galileo. There are still controversies in the world of science today, but the “actors” involved behave in a more gentlemanly manner. A recent example is the controversy surrounding cold fusion. Even though its proponents (Fleischmann and Pons) encountered difficulties, and were not able to validate their results, they were never ostracized by their peers. Am I too naïve?
I was pretty sure that you would answer me along those lines. I was asking the question in light of the fact that you called your blog «blogging about the facts». It seemed to me that you hadn’t sufficiently thought out the consequences of such a title in a blog that would eventually deal with miracles.
Are you naive? Maybe not but the argument that you use to demonstrate your point of view is not to your advantage because the context that you describe limits itself to science’s closed boundaries. What bothers me is not the «controversies IN the world of science» but the possible controversies between the world of science and the OTHER worlds.
One of the scientific dogmas stipulates that there is no truth outside of experimentation and this causes a problem when being faced with the unknown. The Unknown is « unexperimentable », for lack of a better term. God doesn’t show up in experimentations therefore God does not exist.
I am oversimplifying here but I will continue to pursue my train of thought. What are facts? Are miracles facts? Are angels facts? Are all religious objects facts? I was reading one of your colleague’s blogs which dealt with demons. Does science consider the existence of demons as a fact? Certainly not but are they facts in the realm of faith?
It is however a fact that individuals can hide behind science’s infallibility to discredit what it can’t explain or goes beyond it. It is also a fact that science « magisterium » can position itself as the judge of the truth counter to what goes beyond it, especially when dealing with issues that we generally qualify as belonging to the realm of faith. But it is also a fact that faith can discredit science…
You say: «With me, science and faith go hand-in-hand: there is no contradiction, one complements the other». That’s a bold statement. What do we make of the almost total opposition that you pointed out and that you seemed to also assume that Andre Bessette made between healing and conversion? You seem to privilege the point of view of our future saint «We can conclude that, for André Bessette, the impact of miracles on the salvation of souls was more important than physical healing. The latter had only one purpose, that of fostering a greater love of God and to stray away from sin». Really? Is that a fact? Why would there be such a gap in the importance of healing in itself and the moral dimension. This implies that healing is a pretense in the same way that a good scolding or a good sermon to verify or strengthen one’s faith. Are you certain that this is Jesus’ point of view? Doesn’t physical integrity in itself have a meaning? Without necessarily meaning to do it, you and Andre Bessette are rejecting the importance of healing in itself, which I consider problematic since, isn’t it a fact, that we will resuscitate with a glorious body and that the healings have a prophetic significance and can be considered as a sign of the times.
@ Christian
I too was rather succinct the last time I commented on your blog, sometimes my thinking process takes a few days before I elaborate.
I’ve been following your conversation with Josh and I was thinking to myself, a more appropriate title would be ‘blogging about the Truth’ because blogging only about facts seems to limit something, as if it is incomplete.
I myself am very interested in the Truth and from my point of view facts are something that corroborate the truth but are not the truth in itself. Science definitely does not hold all the answers and although you consider that the two go hand in hand, scientists tend to always start from the scientific angle to go towards faith rather than coming in from the other side first.
When you say: ‘We can conclude that, for Brother Andre, the impact of miracles on the salvation of souls was more important than physical healing’, you seem to diminish the importance of physical healing.
As Josh pointed out, there are tons of physical healings and it must definitely indicate something important, otherwise, why would there be baths at Lourdes that heal so many, why would there be so many healings at the Oratory and around the world?
I understand that he was not just a healer, but he was also not just a ‘converter’. Healing someone glorifies God, isn’t that important?
I’m interested in knowing if there have ever been miracles that were used for a saint’s canonization that did not involve physical healing? If so please let me know.
I may be wrong, please correct me if this is so but if healings are on the side of science, conversions and faith are on the side of religion then faith is a personal thing, no public displays are allowed (being physically healed through the grace of God however is a public statement). That may be one of the reasons why miracles often involve physical healings because the medical and scientific community can’t explain it! the faithful will declare it as a miracle, the honest scientist will declare they can’t explain it ,,, how many of the latter will admit that it can be the work of God or will they just say it is an exception to nature?
In my opinion, scientists and those in with similar professions (the medical community for example) are definitely considered the ‘high priests’ of society. You simply have to go see a doctor and suggest an alternative or natural remedy to have them discredit you in a very condescending manner. You talk to an atheist and if it there is no scientific explanation then it does not exist, science holds all the answers.
You ask the question: Then, why is the Church canonizing him? What are the reasons for his canonization? Experts in both civil and canon law must conclude that his life was «examplary», as a condition for canonization. I’m not sure you answered the question; you left us hanging at the end.
Does the definition of an exemplary life not mean that it must be used as an example to follow, even in today’s world? Would the example that the Church is proposing us be: Go to Joseph, which was Brother Andre’s main theme? That he proved that having faith in God and recourse to Joseph worked wonders for all?
I do enjoy reading you and since you are a scientist that believes in God, what I am very interested in is if you, as a Christian scientist (no pun intended) , would show how science corroborates issues relating to faith or to show us science’s limits in explaining things or perhaps that is for your next blog…
Christian,
I am commenting under this blog because it seems to be the place for the English forum but I want to comment on your blogs about Reasons for Andre Bessette’s canonization and For or against poverty.
You mention that on his tombstone it is written: Poor and humble guardian. You elaborate greatly on the aspect of poverty.
Can you comment on humility and being a guardian as well?
I think it might be relevant in light of the fact that in today’s world we explain a lot of things via science or other means and that we often appropriate our discoveries rather than having the humility to recognize that we are not the author but the mere observer…and how would being a guardian fit into all of this?
@ Ryan McIllrick
Your comment is greatly appreciated. Welcome to the ongoing discussion on the virtues of André Bessette. The epitaph above his tomb reads «Pauper, Servus, Humilis». I want to make it clear that the accepted translation in english would read «Poor, Servant, Humble». The etymological meaning of «guardian» for «servus» disappeared over time, and the word kept the more modern meaning of «servant». With the canonization being so close, the influx of comments has doubled, and we have been pressed for time. But rest assured that my next two blogs will address the other two virtues, humble and servant (guardian). The two blogs should publish in the next few days. Francine Pelletier will officially announce on our home page, Blogue@rebours, what will happen between now and the end of the month. Stay tuned, there is more to come.
Hi,
I am going to continue my comments on the page: Poverty …. physical healings…..Join the debate!
Pauvreté …guérisons…..Prenez part à la discussion !
since no one has used it and its getting a little to long to scroll down on this page.
By the way, can I make a suggestion for your next blog?
Can you put two columns of comments on each page, one for English and one for French, that way it makes it easier to have the conversations on the right page.
Thanks
@ Theresa
It is good to hear from you again. It took a while to get back to you because we are in the process of making significant changes to our site. I need to communicate 2 pieces of information. First, with our current platform, it will not be possible to create two columns for comments. Unfortunately, we will have to keep all comments, whether in French or English, in a single column, in a chronological order of entry. Second, to facilitate the discussion on my blogs, several comments related to a question on humility («Humilis») from Ryan McIllrick will be removed from the comments to this blog, on physical healings. My reflection on humility will thus appear soon in the form of a blog in its on right, that will also show all the related comments. This will shorten significantly the list of comments to this blog, on physical healings. If you wish to comment on humility, I would recommend you do it on the new blog. There is also a blog on «Servus» (servant) that will publish very soon after the one on «Humilis». Please save your comments on «Servus», the third theme from André Bessette’s epitaph, for that specific blog.
@Josh Petersen
As I watched the television broadcast of the commemorative mass from Olympic Stadium on Saturday October 30th, the lyrics from one of the songs interpreted to honor saint André Bessette struck me, in light of an aspect of your comment on physical healings. The song, “Miracle of the mountain” (Miracle de la montagne) alludes to the impact of miracles on people, and whether miracles touch more the body or the soul. It reminded me that we had left that discussion unfinished.
When I say that “…for André Bessette, the impact of miracles on the salvation of souls was more important than physical healing”, I am merely quoting several other sources that have reached the same conclusion. The second part “…the latter had only one purpose, that of fostering a greater love of God and to stray away from sin…” is merely a corollary of the first, and within the context of André Bessette, it is true. Having said that of André Bessette, does not make the conclusion applicable “generally” to all cases of physical healings. This is simply how André Bessette saw it, and it is the aspect that he chose to priviledge. I do not think it diminishes the importance of physical healing in itself. But I could be wrong…
You make a good point in bringing out the prophetic significance of physical healings for physical integrity and the resurrection of the body, in which we should believe as Christians.
And if, as pointed out by Theresa in her comment, (and I paraphrase her) scientists tend to start their journey from the shores of science to travel towards faith, why not leave from the shores of faith to journey towards the scientific perspective. Why don’t we embrace the compelling facts surrounding the resurrection, as I think you suggest, and from there build our scientific reflection? For example, do you think that “prophetic significance” implies necessarily that our glorious bodies will have physical integrity completely restored? Some scars can also bear witness to how one did glorify the Father. For one, when the Lord appeared to his apostles in His glorious body, Thomas did put his fingers in the Lord’s wounds prior to confessing openly his belief in the resurrection.
Thanks for your well thought comment Christian.
You address two questions that I had alluded to in previous comments. I was wondering about the scientific aspect in relationship to the presentation of your professional profile. I wasn’t convinced that your status as a scientist was really reflected in these blogs. Blogging about the facts? Which facts? Those related to faith or those related to science?
One of the aspects of which I was regretting the absence of and that I still regret, is a solid presentation of the scientific approach in the acknowledgment of a miracle. For in effect this is greatly paradoxical since the miracle, as it is recognized by science, acts as a two-sided mirror.
On one hand, it objectively asserts that science cannot state everything about the reality and on the other hand, it indicates a direction that science can take in its investigations on truth. For the miracle is a fact that science cannot currently explain but nothing says that it will not be able to explain it someday. The miracle is the result of the observation and the interpretation by negation (non-explainable) approved by faith. It is this triad that I had alluded to in my comment on October 2nd. As you may have noticed, I am trying, via this triad, to escape from this regrettable science/faith dichotomy that invariably leads to an irreducible opposition that is used as a refuge for non-believing scientists. The idea that I would like to bring forth is that elements that are ordinarily qualified as objects of faith are just as much, if not more, facts, than those of science which, as time goes by, are constantly being questioned, exceeded, or contradicted by new « discoveries ». One should wish to have both science and faith.
But faith is a gift.
God is a hard fact, harder than any so called scientific fact but it takes faith to acknowledge Him/It. So it is not so much a question of travelling from one shore to the other in one direction or the other but to embrace the unique direction of the truth, wich is a vector through science and faith.
But faith is also a choice.
By the way, I intend to also address your very interesting considerations/questions on resurrection and glorious bodies a little later. I am not going to let you down… 😉
@ Christian
I really liked the last paragraph in your last comment especially the introduction of the theme of the scars. I didn’t think of Jesus’ scars in this context and it really made me reflect upon them because it makes perfect sense that Jesus was showing them AFTER his resurrection. You say: « Some scars can also bear witness to how one did glorify the Father. » You are referring to one of the classical considerations regarding Jesus’ wounds. I find that mystical tradition on the wounds are numerous but thoughts on scars are scarce. Must not we emphasize that the holy wounds became scars and stayed even so after resurrection and predictably forever… So they also bear witness to what one was/is.
It is for this reason that Jesus shows himself with his scars. He wants to demonstrate the continuity between our current condition and that, which will prevail in the kingdom, since we can extend the logic of the scars to our entire reality. We will be ALL that we are, all our experience/existence will in a certain sense be ‘scarified’ in our body, soul and spirit. Moreover, it puts into perspective the resurrection not only as a future reality but as a continuous present that encompasses our actual existence. Saint Paul says: we ARE resurrected.
We are therefore not only talking about « prophetic significance » here but « scientific signification » because complete restoration of our body would probably be the goal of any esoteric perspective looking for a false « perfection » and not God’s very concrete, realist, redemption logic. For me this constitutes a « proof » of the truth of the resurrection as portrayed in the gospels because it is not esoterically appealing. There is humility in there…
These are very interesting considerations…they’ve got me thinking.
I remember reading an article about the creation of the universe a few years back. What struck me was that it said that finally a certain group of scientists, faced with the complexity of the universe and the fragility of its equilibrium, had come to the conclusion that it could not be the mere fruit of hazard but rather that there must be a superior being or intelligence behind this whole thing. They didn’t go as far as to admit to the existence of God, but it was a start.
I also listen at times to friends of mine that work in the medical profession and I am amazed at the components and inner workings of the human body. In my opinion, scientists should use their knowledge to emphasize and reinforce the grandeur and beauty of creation. They must publicly admit that this cannot all come together without God’s intervention. Humans can’t possibly recreate or even imagine what it would take to create the universe and everything it contains. Evolution or no evolution, the masterpiece that God created cannot in any shape or form be the work of human hands nor of hazard.
Science should be used to study creation and use this study to better understand God, understand His magnificence and His love for us.
…I haven’t finished my train of thought…more to come later on.
I like this idea of scars being part of the resurrected body; it brings perfection down to another level as Josh points out.
Perfection is not at the human level but at a much deeper level. We are much more that what meets the eye.
@Theresa (votre commentaire du 19 novembre)
I agree with you that it is a start. Faced with the unexplainable, the creation of life, some scientists, short of being able to understand or explain everything, have concluded, by default, that creation of the universe could not be merely the outcome of a random process, but has rather been planned by a “superior being”. I sincerely believe that creation of life in itself is a miracle, and as such, by definition, is «an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God». Recognition of a miracle, hence God’s intervention in the «evolution process» requires faith. As Josh Petersen has mentioned in an earlier comment, faith is both a gift and a choice. I hope that we, as christian scientists, all become more vocal about that gift of faith we have received, and choose to take opportunities to witness of that faith and to recognize the magnificence of God’s gift. For the scientific community, there seems to be an urge to understand and harness the mysteries of life, not as much to glorify God but to misappropriate His powers. Isn’t this quest the «Garden of Eden» revisited? Often I feel that science is standing near the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God did not create evil. In His Creation, he saw that «it was good». But mankind can do evil things with that same knowledge. I think science has taken a good bite of the apple with genetic manipulations and cloning!