Mary at Medjugorje: A Critical Inquiry by Hector Avalos
Has the Virgin Mary, under the title of Our Lady, Queen
of Peace been appearing in Medjugorje in the former Yugoslavia since 1981? Six
young people have reported these visions and have been subjected to tests.
Let us present what Hector Avalos says on the subject.
The `Scientific' Investigation of Henri Joyeux
According to his own account, Henri Joyeux, a surgeon and a professor of
oncology in the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier, France, carried out an
extensive battery of tests in four separate missions between March and December
of 1984. Joyeux and Father Ren Laurentin, an ardent Marian apologist and
historian, then synthesized their findings in the definitive work Scientific and
Medical Studies on the Apparitions at Medjugorje.
Joyeux concluded that the visionaries had no mental illness of any sort. The
apparitions are not sleep or dream or hallucination in the medical or
pathological sense of the word. This is scientifically excluded by the
electro-encephalogram and by clinical observation. He also excludes "any element
of deceit."
Since Joyeux could not find any condition that he would label "pathological," he concludes, "We are dealing with a perception which is essentially objective both in its causality and in its scope." As to the cause of the youngsters' experience, he says, "The most obvious answer is that given by the visionaries who claim to meet the Virgin Mary, Mother of God." In sum, Laurentin and Joyeux conclude that there is no scientific or natural explanation available to account for the reports of the visionaries. More important, they conclude that the absence of any condition labeled as "pathological" is evidence that the reported experience of the visionaries is authentically supernatural.
Can `Normal' Persons Report Seeing and Hearing
Non-Occurring Events?
Contrary to the conclusions of Laurentin and Joyeux, abundant and empirically
verifiable evidence and experiments demonstrate that persons with no known
pathological conditions can report hearing and seeing events that are not
occurring. Psychological experiments show that such reports of non- occurring
events are part of well-known and relatively natural psycho-social processes
experienced to some degree by most human beings.
One of the most noted of such experiments was published by T. X. Barber and D.
S. Calverley in 1964. Seventy-eight unselected "normal" female secretarial
students had volunteered for what was described to the subjects only as a
"psychological experiment." Barber and Calverley divided these seventy-eight
subjects into three groups of twenty-six. One group was subjected to suggestions
to see and hear non-occurring events under hypnosis. A second group was given
"task-motivating instructions" without the use of hypnosis. The third group
served as a control that received the same instructions without hypnosis or
task-motivating requests.
The second group's "task-motivating instructions" consisted of asking subjects
to see and hear events that were implied to be real but were actually
nonexistent. The subject was told, "I want you to close your eyes and to hear a
phonograph record with words and music playing White Christmas. Keep listening
to the phonograph record playing White Christmas until I tell you to stop." The
astounding result was that 38 percent of the "normal" subjects in the second
group stated that they clearly heard White Christmas, even though nothing was
played. Sixty-five percent of the subjects in the control group reported the
same result. An average of 5.1 percent of these unselected people in each
experimental group state that they not only heard the record, but they also
believed that the record was actually playing.
Immediately after this portion of the experiment, the subject was instructed as
follows, in a firm and earnest tone of voice: "I want you to look at your lap
and to see a cat sitting there. Keep looking at the cat until I tell you to
stop." An average of 33.3 percent stated they saw the cat clearly even though
they believed it was not there. However, an average of 2.5 percent of the
subjects in each group (3.8 percent in the second group) reported they not only
saw the cat clearly but also believed it was actually present.
Similar results were reported in experiments performed by K. S. Bowers and by N.
P. Spanos and T. X. Barber. Even if many subjects reported non- occurring events
only to please others (Bowers), these experiments clearly showed that otherwise
"normal" people under relatively "normal" conditions can and do report hearing
and seeing events that, by recognized objective measures, are nonexistent.
The Barber and Calverley experiments also showed that the subjects used the
strongest objective terminology available to describe non-occurring events. For
example, the subjects in the experiments used the terms see and hear to describe
their experience.
Why do otherwise normal people come to believe that they are witnessing
non-occurring entities and events? The Barber and Calverley experiment, as well
as a host of recent research, indicates that human acts of perception always
involve interpretations and inferences that may be held in common by large
groups of people. Raw visual and auditory data are combined with inferences
about what was thought to be seen and heard. We often select out of the large
raw input of visual and auditory data those that we regard as important and that
confirm expectations, especially if they are desirable.
Many recent experiments show that the human mind is biologically wired to
interpolate many expected images or portions thereof, even if such images are
not objectively present. People often form mental images of all types of
objects, real and unreal. We've all heard how difficult it is not to form an
image of a pink elephant when someone tells us not to. One can also form mental
images that are believed to be situated in real time and space (e.g., imagine a
pink elephant in the middle of a parking lot).
Believers may be following a rationale with premises that can yield, at least in
their minds, very solid conclusions. Once a believer is convinced that an
inference is valid, then the conclusion may be considered sufficiently certain
to contradict or suppress raw visual data. Any further disconfirmation of their
interpretation may be either ignored or disregarded in favor of the inference.
This type of avoidance of disconfirming data among Marian devotees is clearly
manifested in the oft-repeated dictum: "To those who believe, no proof is
necessary; to those who doubt, no proof is sufficient."
The implications of these experiments for the reports of Medjugorje are quite
clear. If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiments, an average of at least 33
percent of people with no obvious pathology can report clearly seeing or hearing
events that are not occurring, then it would not be extraordinary to find 333
"normal" people in a parish of at least one thousand believers who could report
seeing or hearing non-occurring events, especially when, as is the case with
supposed Marian apparitions, the events in question are believed to be not only
possible but desirable as well.
If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiment, at least 2.5 percent believe what
they are seeing or hearing is actually present, then it would not be
extraordinary to find at least twenty-five people in a parish of one thousand
members who actually believe what they are seeing and hearing is present in real
time and space. In fact, there are many more reported visionaries in the parish
who did not receive the attention of the six principal ones.
If the results obtained by Barber and Calverley occurred after only one
suggestion to hear and see non-occurring events, then what would we reasonably
expect from persons, and especially impressionable youngsters, who are
repeatedly requested to see non-occurring events? Does anything akin to the
task-motivating suggestions exist in the subculture of the visionaries?
Imagine living in a subculture that constantly and repeatedly suggests to its
members the desirability of experiencing a Marian apparition. Imagine living in
a subculture where young people who have claimed to have seen Marian apparitions
at Lourdes, Fatima, and other places also are beloved role models. Suggestions
presented to believers in sermons, prayers, and written materials may be just as
effective as the simple requests made by Barber and Calverley. Although
conspiracy or formalized coaching is not required to produce people who will
report non-occurring events, it should be noted that Bishop Zanic declared that
the visionaries were indeed coached and manipulated by the Franciscans.
Not only can the subculture of the visionaries encourage the apparitions with
words, it also provides detailed and coherent imagery of how the Virgin Mary
ought to look and speak. According to P. and I. Rodgers, a picture of Mary
supported by a cloud rising above Medjugorje has been present in the church of
the visionaries since about 1971. Not surprisingly, the youngsters' description
of the Virgin is quite consistent with the picture to which they were exposed
for years.
----
The Incoherence of Laurentin and Joyeux's View of `Objectivity'
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the conclusions of Laurentin and Joyeux is
that they use the word objective in a wildly inconsistent manner, resulting in
special pleading and in logically absurd conclusions. For example, in a
discussion of whether the phenomena exhibited by the visionaries are
supernatural, they state, "As research has not reached any objective proofs, it
would be difficult to discuss the matter in the absence of definite criteria."
But they still purport to have proof in favor of the objective experience of the
visionaries. Note their reasoning: The mere fact that others present do not see
the apparition which is visible only to the visionaries in no way proves that it
is a perception without an object. It simply proves that the manner of
perceiving is not the same as that involved in the perception of other ordinary
material objects. . . . Bats, for example, are capable of discerning certain
radiations that escape us. Other, more radically different, means of perception
may well exist. A claim for an ability does not prove that one possesses the
ability, and Joyeux's example of animals who possess abilities that humans do
not will not help his case. And in the case of bats, the existence of their
ability to hear high frequency sounds is not based on a claim made by the bats.
We can verify empirically (e.g., by means of instruments) and with mathematical
precision the existence of both the object (high frequency sounds) and the
special and quantifiable ability of bats to perceive that object. The
criteria and methodology are sufficiently objective to elicit the agreement of
both atheists and Christians.
Such is not the case with the visionaries. Laurentin and Joyeux themselves admit
that no experiments, videotapes, or other instruments have been able to detect
the object that the visionaries claim to perceive with an equally unverifiable
and non-quantifiable ability. They are apparently aware of this difficulty in
their logic, and so they attempt to plead the case of the visionaries by using
even more speculative hypotheses and conclusions. Our tests tend to lead us to
the hypothesis of a person-to-person communication which takes place at a
spiritual level, analogous to the angelic act of knowing. Such statements
clearly show that theology, not rigorous science, motivates their plea for the
visionaries.
Note also the logical problems produced when they discuss the definition of a
"hallucination." The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines hallucination as
"apparent perception of external object not actually present," which might fit
the case of Medjugorje if a priori one held that an object from another world
does not exist or if one understands "not actually present" in a purely
empirical way. Medically speaking "hallucination" indicates a pathological state
and it would appear to us that use of the word should be restricted to
psychiatric illness. But if one does not deny a priori the existence of the
object that the "psychiatric" hallucinator claims to see, then it follows that
the claims of the latter have no less validity than those of the Medjugorje
visionaries. Since the objects seen by the psychiatric hallucinator and the
Medjugorje visionaries are equally invisible to other people and to cameras,
then it is only special pleading, not verifiable criteria, that leads Laurentin
and Joyeux to affirm the credibility of the Medjugorje visionaries while denying
credibility to the "psychiatric" hallucinator. Thus, Laurentin and Joyeux
provide no verifiable reason to ascribe accuracy to the perception of the six
who claim to see Mary, and yet deny the accuracy of the perception of the
thousands who claim to be equally certain that they do not see Mary.
Conclusion
A supernatural explanation for reports of Marian apparitions is unnecessary,
unverifiable, and ultimately self-defeating for believers. It is unnecessary
because we have verifiable and repeatable experiments that show that otherwise
"normal" people can and do report seeing and hearing non- occurring events. It
is unwarranted because the criteria, methods, and assumptions are unverifiable.
It is ultimately self-defeating because believers themselves would have no way
to refute, by verifiable means, the claims of "apparitions" made by
non-Christian religions.
We need not firmly diagnose the experience of the visionaries as a
psychiatric hallucination or a delusion in the sense of the authoritative
definitions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-
III) (American Psychiatric Association [APA] 1980). Though we do not a priori
exclude psychiatric factors, our point has been that the normal social processes
and internal logic of their Marian subculture are sufficient to explain their
behavior. To refute Joyeux,, we also need not enter into the recent debates
about whether the criteria of the APA are subjective or culturally biased
against religious phenomena.
The refutation of Joyeux ultimately rests on the fact that he does not fulfil
the requirements of the two adjectives in the title of his own book: Scientific
and Medical Studies on the Apparitions at Medjugorje. By his own words science
has not reached any "objective proofs," and all the evidence he offers is
unverifiable theology (e.g., "the angelic act of knowing"). Since the main
principle of scientific inquiry is verifiability, his constant use of
unverifiable theological hypotheses to support the visionaries nullifies any
claim to scientific or medical validity for his studies and conclusions. It is
no miracle that a supernatural explanation for the Medjugorje apparition reports
has been rejected by both a Catholic bishop and secular humanists.