More work for Donal Foley

In 2006, religion writer Donal Foley published his book, Understanding Medjugorje; Heavenly Visions or Religious Illusion?. Since then, it’s been the leading critical book on this subject in the English language, praised by experts in the field of Mariology, and in the past five years, nobody on the pro-apparition side has been able to find any substantial faults with it. And with reason: it’s well-researched, prudent in its conclusions, and focuses on critical source materials generally neglected by the naive books of writers who don’t know better.
A few weeks ago, some graduate student at CUA posted a blog article against Foley’s book, thinking he’d offered a very scholarly critique, but it just amounted to an opinionated, unsubstantiated rant. God help the poor kid if he submits such horrible prose to his professors. Anyway, Foley has published a response — and you can find a link to the critique from there.
I suppose it must be a bother for Foley: as a sometime apologetics writer, I know that defending a position from cheap attacks is more work for the defender than it is for the attacker. But at least the experience will give Foley, who is preparing the second edition of his book, some new insight as to what is needed in order to correct the lingering confusion of Medjugorje diehards.

14 comments

  1. I think his new book should cover some more basics on the Catholic Faith, like Mary’s sinlessness, the relationship of the Bishop and faithful, etc.
    That’s what I always see lacking in pro- and anti- Medjugorje books. It baffles me. You cannot tell someone something unless they understand, and how can they understand if they don’t know the basics?

  3. Read both articles – Klimek’s and Foley’s. I don’t think it’s much of a response Foley gave. It’s clear that he distorted Sullivan’s and Nolan’s work when he cites them. Plus it’s clear he distorted the medical statement about the visionaries’ ecstasies. I guess he’s gotta try something with a response. Much of his credibility has been destroyed, though. A last ditch effort wouldn’t be surprising.

  4. Obviously you have a different meaning of “distort” than I do. Taking particular factual points from an author and showing that they support your case is not distortion, as long as you present the author’s statements accurately.

  5. Honestly, there’s no arguing with Medagorje fans. I’ve been trying redirection instead.
    MF: “The Gospa…etc..etc…”
    Me: HEY! Guess what! Up in Green Bay, they’ve just approved an APPARITION! With healings and miracles and everything! And she has a great message for our times, too! Hey! It’s only a few hours up the road! It’s an AFFORDABLE pilgrimage!
    I think people really are thirsting for apparitions…. so much so, they forget that one thing Mary always is is HUMBLE. (i.e. Telling the visionary to go catechize the kids, rather than threatening bishops….)

  6. Yes Richard, but it’s clear that Foley did not present the author’s statements accurately. It’s clear that Dr. Margnelli said that the ecstasies the visionaries enter are so profound they cannot be reached through such self-induced techniques like auto-training, but Foley still distorts the medical statement to fit his predetermined conclusion that the ecstasies are self-induced.
    This is shameful spinning on his part. I’m glad somebody finally exposed the joke that his book is. On a scholarly level, Foley’s methods are clearly laughable.

  7. Let’s look at the details. If you have Dr. Margnelli’s comments in print (i.e., in a book or magazine article), please post the relevant quotation, and Foley’s version, so we can all make a judgment about whether there was any distortion. Foley is a fair-minded guy, and if there’s any gap, I trust he’ll want to correct it in the second edition.

  9. Paul, you said: “ecstasies the visionaries enter”
    I’ve seen videos on the Medjugorje Youtube channel and pro-Medjugorje websites showing the visionaries during the apparition’s visitation.
    During ecstasies the body is completely still – it cannot even move an eyelid – and the soul can see and hear nothing but the apparition and its voice.
    In those videos I have seen, the visionaries move. In one video, they moved their heads. In another video, they moved their upper bodies. In yet another video, they opened and closed their eyes.
    They aren’t having ecstasies from what I have observed.
    The Montanists were heretics in the early Church who said visionaries could move during ecstasies. But the Church ruled against them.

  10. Richard, Dr. Margnelli’s original statement and Foley’s clear distortion of it are both documented in Klimek’s article. Maybe you should actually consider reading the article before condemning it.
    Nick, of course the visionaries move their upper bodies when experiencing their apparitions: everyone knows that their lips and faces are functioning as if in communication with someone – even the doctors and neuroscientits who explained that they enter a genuine ecstasy know this. It seems that you don’t really understand what the word “ecstasy” means – the term does not mean that the body must be immobile – for that could constitute a cataleptic state. “Ecstasy” means a state of alternative consciousness – something that is measurable in the brain through EEG scan tests. Also ecstasy, from the orginal Greek, is defined as a coming out of the self. On numerous occassions the visionaries, while in ecstasy, were tested whether they experience any pain – all tests showed that they’re impervious to pain, as if they came out of the “self.” This is mystical ecstasy defined, Nick. It has little to do with immobility but everything to do with one’s interior state of consciousness.

  11. Paul, I’ve looked at the passage in Mr. Klimek’s article about Foley’s use of Margnelli, and if that’s all that you are relying on for your argument, Foley’s treatment of it looks reasonable to me.
    Here are the details:
    Margnelli stated that in 1985 the visionaries’ mental state was of a type that can be reached through meditation techniques such as auto-training, and he stated that the visionaries’ state was more profound.
    So these are the two points from Margnelli:
    1. The visionaries’ state was “a condition that one can also reach through meditation techniques”.
    2. Their state is more profound than what can be achieved by such techniques.
    Statement #1 is helpful to Foley: Margnelli says that the mental state is of a type that can be produced by technique. That assertion does not support claims of supernatural ecstasy.
    Statement #2 is an opinion of the doctor, and it may not be fully justified.
    I say that because I question whether Dr. Margnelli was taking all the possibilities into account.
    People can go into states of altered consciousness, using hypnotic techniques, that include anesthesia effective enough for surgery (the so-called “Esdaile state”). I’m not a psychiatrist, but it looks plausible that such a condition is a more profound one than the visionaries’ state observed in 1985.
    So I think Foley is within reason to treat the two statements differently: accepting Statement #1 as reflecting Margnelli’s expertise, while not relying on his opinion in Statement #2.
    And note that Foley did present both statements, so that readers of Foley’s book are not being misled about Margnelli’s overall view. This belies the accusation of “distortion”.
    Therefore, Paul, Mr. Klimek’s argument is not really strong enough to show a fault on Foley’s part.

  12. Richard, your doing much spinning here to defend Foley’s obvious distortion. Your dividing one statement that Dr. Margnelli made into two statements in order to justify Foley’s conclusion – a conclusion that Dr. Margnelli denied. Dr. Margnelli’s statement clearly stated that the profundity of the states that the visionaries enter cannot be reached through such self-induced techniques like auto-training. That’s very simple. Anyone who’s interested in observing this case objectively can see that – except those who do not want to see the facts for what they are.

  13. Well, now that we’ve seen what you and I have respectively said on the matter, the readers can judge for themselves where the better argument is. God bless!

  14. “Nick, of course the visionaries move their upper bodies when experiencing their apparitions: everyone knows that their lips and faces are functioning as if in communication with someone – even the doctors and neuroscientits who explained that they enter a genuine ecstasy know this. It seems that you don’t really understand what the word “ecstasy” means – the term does not mean that the body must be immobile – for that could constitute a cataleptic state. “Ecstasy” means a state of alternative consciousness – something that is measurable in the brain through EEG scan tests. Also ecstasy, from the orginal Greek, is defined as a coming out of the self. On numerous occassions the visionaries, while in ecstasy, were tested whether they experience any pain – all tests showed that they’re impervious to pain, as if they came out of the “self.” This is mystical ecstasy defined, Nick. It has little to do with immobility but everything to do with one’s interior state of consciousness.”
    Where did you get this information from?
    I got mine on ecstasy from the New Advent on Montanism.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.