Mary appeared at the Belgian village of Beauraing in 1932 and 1933.

The reality of the apparitions was contested by the famous sceptical priest, Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J.. He “wrote of Beauraing almost as soon as the apparitions were recorded” according to the booklet, Our Lady of Beauraing consulted by the author.

Thirty-three visions occurred inside five weeks. There were five young witnesses.

They were tested with burning matches and with a penknife and were found insensible during an apparition. But the fear of being found out can make one resist the temptation to react. You don’t feel pain when you are excited.

The Lady said she was the immaculate Virgin, the mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. A secret was confided to the three youngest children. All of these titles are in conflict with reason. God would be evil if he kept Mary immaculate – free from all sin – and did not do the same for us. The Bible does not say that Jesus was God in person. And Mary could not be queen of Heaven if God is perfect for she would have to have authority to be queen but if God is perfect and the creator and sustainer of all this could not be.

One child saw the apparition’s golden heart which the rest who were having the vision did not see. Three of them did not see it for the first time until the following day and they all saw it together later. This strikes one as odd – as if miscommunication between the visionaries had taken place and then later they agreed to say they all saw the heart. Could you imagine the Virgin behaving so oddly and failing to be clear?

The booklet says that the Church approved two cures in 1949. Miss Marie Van Laer’s cure “from a serious disease, deemed incurable, and of a tubercular nature, or more probably staphylococcus, in the region of the cervical vertebra and in the right leg, which had progressed to the final stage, has been immediately and finally cured on the 24th June, 1933, on the day after a pilgrimage made to Beauraing for the purpose of obtaining a cure (page 22). A Mrs Acar-Group was cured after arriving home from a pilgrimage (page 22). These ladies had many people praying for them to different people and so undoubtedly had come into contact with many relics. So, there is no proof that their cure was connected with Beauraing. When they were not even there when healed it is unlikely that the miracles happened to authenticate it. The Virgin was asked during the apparitions by Albert to cure a young girl with a bone disease (21). She did not answer but merely smiled. Albert was being crafty here. He said the smile must mean the Lady would cure her so that if the cure did not happen the apparition would not blamed but his interpretation of her behaviour would be. He was being careful in case the cure would not happen – he saw nothing at all. And the girl had to wait for her cure until the February after (page 21). And it was not officially accepted. It would have been if the Lady had smiled to say yes – the most likely interpretation of her behaviour. The Virgin would not promise a miracle that won’t and can’t be accepted when she has ones accepted later that she never specifically promised.

The apparitions cannot be from God when the cures were not authenticated and official before the acceptance of the apparitions. The cures would be the nearest you can get to evidence for the supernatural and are better than mere testimony. But the church put the cart before the horse in its own dishonest way. This shows unfair prejudice in favour of the visions in the Church.

Lourdes etc
Free Books