Sidestepping the Question

In its statement, the Catholic church avoids any logical discussion of the claimed healing phenomenon by simply declaring it to be a permanent mystery that cannot be examined and therefore need not be explained. This escape is not tolerable to rational people, though most if not all of the people involved in the cultural phenomena we are examining make no pretense of belonging to the rational mainstream. In fact, they proudly proclaim their refusal to tolerate any discussion, doubt, or examination of the notions they regard as absolute truths. Social psychologist Dr. Carlo Lastrucci, in his book The Scientific Approach, discusses what science is, and makes this observation:A discussion of the legitimate object of scientific study (i.e., the observed object or event) often raises the question of assumedly spiritual (i.e., extra-natural) or supernatural phenomena. Put another way, it is often asserted that science cannot study—and therefore cannot legitimately answer such questions about—supernatural events. The scientific answer to such an assertion is quite simple. Philosophically, science is neither theistic (i.e., a belief in god or gods) nor atheistic; but it is objective insofar as it studies phenomena having behavioral attributes or consequences. If something exists or occurs having such attributes that it can be objectively ascertained and confirmed, then it can be studied scientifically. Whether it has been “caused” by a “natural” or a “supernatural” force or agent is a separate and wholly different kind of question.

Of course the question we must answer before any other is whether or not there are any phenomena here to explain, and several years of investigation have produced no convincing evidence that this emperor has any clothes. This question of evidence for faith-healing will be discussed later.

The Heavy Burden of Guilt

Both his church and DiOrio disagree with the other TV faith-healers who insist on putting a guilt burden upon those who fail to summon enough faith to “keep the healing” they have been given, or to achieve it in the first place. In stating his position on this Father DiOrio says:Our prayers do not change the mind of God. Our prayers keep us in tune with the Lord’s will. As I continually stress, healing from God does not depend upon our quantitative faith or upon our good works. God’s gift of healing flows completely from the mercy and love of His bountiful goodness.

I have seldom encountered a more nonsensical, paradoxical statement from a supposedly educated person. DiOrio is saying, in effect, that the afflicted must ask God for His gift of healing. Because God has already made up His divine mind about the matter, all the afflicted can hope for is understanding of that decision. But even though that decision is unchangeable, the afflicted person is told to beg for an unobtainable divine “gift.” Why? Does God so much need and require continual abject groveling and vain pleading? From what Father DiOrio says, it appears that He does. At least the other faith-healers preach that you can ask—if not demand—favors from heaven. The paradoxes that present themselves are obvious. Finally, the Roman Catholic church, through the Jesuit magazine America, ran a damning critique of the Oral Roberts ministry and the healing claims made on his show. Titled “Faith-Healing Over T.V.,” it said in partThere is certainly a reasonable doubt that these programs are in the public interest. Of their very nature, they play upon the hopes and fears of the credulous and ignorant. There is no positive proof that some of the “cures” are not rigged. At any rate, standard medical treatment seems to be flouted. We can wonder how many, viewing such programs in their homes, are impelled to neglect ordinary medical treatment.

Does the fact that Father DiOrio wears a woolen cassock, rather than a tasteless polyester suit, make him more believable, more genuine, or less dangerous than Oral Roberts? If Father DiOrio and Reverend Roberts would favor me with a simple response to my inquiries, I might be able to tell if there is any qualitative feature by which to differentiate the two.   Plus exemplo quam peccato nocent.

14