INVESTIGATIVE FILESJ O E N I C K E L L

Belgian Miracles

12 VOLUME 34, ISSUE 1 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

Amember of the EuropeanUnion, Belgium is locatedbetween the Netherlands,

Germany, and France. The coun-try takes its name from its firstrecorded inhabitants, ancient Celtsknown as Belgae, and has a richhistory, having been a province ofthe Roman Empire, the heart ofthe Carolingian dynasty, and acelebrated medieval textile center.Today, among its many greatattractions are such historic citiesas Brussels, Ghent, and Bruges,together with museums of Flemishart. While it is a country of scien-tific advances (a world leader inheart and lung transplants as wellas in fertility treatments [World2000, 129]), it is also, according tomany, a place of miracles.

I made my first investigative pilgrimage to Belgium in 1998(accompanied by local skeptic TimTrachet). I returned in 2006 (withDutch science writer and translatorJan Willem Nienhuys) as a side excur-sion from travels in the Netherlands(Nickell 2007a). On both occasions, Ilooked at purported wonders such as thehealing shrine known as the BelgianLourdes, an ancient miracle statue, and avial of the Holy Blood of Christ.

The Belgian LourdesI have twice visited the Shrine of OurLady of Lourdes (named after thefamous healing-spring grotto in theFrench Pyrenees) at Oostakker, Belgium.The shrine’s most celebrated miracle isthe healing of a laborer named Pierre DeRudder, whose lower left leg was brokenby a felled tree in 1867. Reportedly, DeRudder refused amputation and for eightyears suffered constant pain from his

open and festering wound. Thenin April 1875, he visited theOostakker shrine where, allegedly,he was instantaneously healed,after which he “walked normallyuntil his death in 1898” at age sev-enty-six (Neiman 1995, 100–101).On July 25, 1908, the Holy Seeof Bruges declared the healingsupernatural.

Over time, a number of leg-ends grew up about the case, in-cluding a claim that De Rudderhad been treated by professorThiriar, physician to King LéopoldII (a claim dropped by the mirac-ulists after a denial by Thiriar him-self). More significantly, it wasclaimed that prior to 1875 DeRudder’s unmended leg could betwisted at the fracture point to theextent of revolving the foot half aturn (i.e., putting the heel infront). Then, when De Rudderwas allegedly cured in 1875, themending was “instantaneous.”Unfortunately, most of theimportant testimony in the case

went unrecorded for eighteen years, andmemories of this age are subject to error(Delcour 1987).

For example, Dr. Van Hoestenbergheclaimed that he had performed thetwisting movement on De Rudder’s leg,when in fact the physician’s recollectionwas a false memory. A letter he had writ-ten on May 12, 1875 (which had be-come lost by the time of a canonicalinquiry in 1893 but was rediscovered by

Figure 1. The lower left leg bones of Pierre De Rudder,allegedly healed by a miracle in 1875.

Joe Nickell, CSI’s senior research fellow, isauthor of many books, including Lookingfor a Miracle and Relics of the Christ.His Web site is at www.joenickell.com.

Copy

pho

to fr

om s

hrin

e at

Oos

takk

er,B

elgi

um,b

y Jo

e Ni

ckel

l

SI Jan Feb 2010 pgs 11/12/09 10:17 AM Page 12

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER January / February 2010 13

1957) revealed that he had not per-formed the twist, nor even seen it, buthad only heard persons talk about it.

Moreover, the twist was apparentlynot demonstrated at the point of thefracture by showing the naked leg.Instead, it was done with the leg clothed,so the observers could not know wherethe twist actually occurred. This is a cru-cial point because certain supple personscan turn their feet almost completelyaround, like De Rudder, withoutbenefit of any abnormal mobility.1

Although some claimed the leg wasuncovered when they saw DeRudder twist it, two men who werepresent for his demonstrations “wellover a hundred times” stated the legwas never naked on those occasions(Delcour 1987). De Rudder’seagerness to demonstrate the effectat every opportunity suggests not asuffering man happy to suffer morebut someone performing a stuntwith a purpose—one that will soonbecome clear.

As to the supposed instanta-neous nature of the healing, thatclaim depends on the dubious testi-mony of just three persons: an illit-erate woman who was apparentlyrepresented by hearsay and a fatherand son who seemed eager to helpcertify a miracle. (Their story evenimproved over the years.)

In contrast is the evidence thatDe Rudder had actually undergone“a certain improvement” aboutfourteen months after the accident.We know that the Viscount whoemployed De Rudder at the time ofthe accident gave the invalidworker a pension, characterized as a “nicesalary.” It was rumored about the villagethat De Rudder was malingering in orderto effect a life of ease.

After the Viscount died on July 26,1874, his heir stopped the pension,whereupon De Rudder’s wife and daugh-ter had to begin working. Some eightmonths later, De Rudder may have hiton a clever plan that would allow him toabruptly end his pretended disability sohe could, necessarily, return to work: hewent to Oostakker and claimed a mirac-ulous cure. However, he returned home

with a scar that, reported by Dr. VanHoestenberghe, was “such as one finds along time after a healing” (qtd. inDelcour 1987).

Other medical evidence likewise sup-ports the view that De Rudder’s healingwas less than miraculous. A broken legsuch as he suffered could—with immo-bility and good hygiene—have healedwithout amputation. Besides, the bones(see figure 1) grew together obliquely in

a fashion a surgeon would not have beenproud of. Also, that which would haveindeed been beyond nature—the recon-stitution of De Rudder’s dead tendon—did not occur (De Meester 1957, 106).One touted proof that the cure wasinstantaneous comes from the absence ofthickening of the bone callus at themending site, but this thickening couldhave been reabsorbed by the body in sev-eral months or a few years (EncyclopediaBritannica 2009, s.v. “callus”). AdrienDelcour (1987) concludes that the

physicians who consider the De Ruddercase miraculous almost unanimously doso on the basis that the cure was instanta-neous, and that, as we have seen, is depen-dent on dubious testimony. Indeed, thereis evidence to the contrary.

The De Rudder case gives one pauseregarding other claims of miraculoushealing at Oostakker, Lourdes, and else-where. Such certifications are often vagueand unscientific. Miracle is not a scientific

concept, and miracle claims aretypically only those found to be“medically inexplicable.” Thus,claimants are engaging in a logicalfallacy called “arguing from igno-rance”—that is, drawing a conclu-sion based on a lack of knowledge(Nickell 2007, 202–205). The DeRudder case is even worse, sincethere is evidence that an injury,healed long before, was passedoff as instantaneous—a miraclethat wasn’t.

Miracle StatueBelgium’s most frequented pil-grimage site is Scherpenheuvel(Dutch for “sharp hill”) in thenorth-central part of the country.There, in the Middle Ages, stooda great, solitary oak that was visi-ble from all around. The spotwas a center of superstitiouspractices and pagan worshipuntil, in the fourteenth century, asmall wooden figure of theVirgin Mary was affixed to thetree, and the makeshift shrinebegan to gain fame. In time, mir-acles began to be attributed tothe little statue (see figure 2).

The first reputed miracleoccurred in 1514 when, according to apious little legend, a shepherd or shep-herd boy discovered the figurine lyingon the ground and intended to take ithome. However, the Virgin Mary mirac-ulously transfixed him—froze him inplace—preventing the statue’s removal.Subsequently, the shrine became morewidely known.

In 1602, a little wooden chapel wasbuilt at the site, and the following year anew miracle was reported: the statuewept bloody tears, reportedly in protest

Figure 2. This little statue of the Virgin at Belgium’s most-frequented pilgrimage site is said to be miraculous despitebeing a replacement.

Phot

o by

Joe

Nick

ell

SI Jan Feb 2010 pgs 11/12/09 10:30 AM Page 13

14 VOLUME 34, ISSUE 1 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

over the religious schism then plaguingthe Low Countries.

Still another miracle was said to haveoccurred in 1604 when troops of theArchduke Albert (the Spanish-appointedgovernor of the Low Countries) routedthe Protestants and retook Ostend. Albertand his wife, the Archduchess Isabella,determined to thank God by commis-sioning the erection of a monumentalbaroque basilica at the site, inaugurated in1627. Albert died in the meantime, but

Isabella walked to the inauguration, giv-ing rise to pilgrimages that have contin-ued ever since, supplicants seeking theirown miracles in the form of healings andother blessings (Scherpenheuvel n.d.;Scherpenheuvel-Zichem n.d.; “Scherpen-heuvel-Zichem” 2009).

What are we to make of the allegedmiracles of Scherpenheuvel? First, weshould remember that the site was con-sidered magical before it was taken overby Catholic Christians, part of a com-mon process known as syncretism inwhich one religion is grafted ontoanother. (For example, Catholic con-

quistadors in Mexico erected a shrine tothe Virgin Mary on a hill where theAztecs had a temple to their virgin god-dess Tonantzin [Mullen 1998, 6; Smith1983, 20; Nickell 1993, 29–34; Nickell2004, 51–55].) In short, one may ask,are the alleged miracles of Scherpen-heuvel attributable to the statue of theVirgin and the power of the Virgin her-self or to pagan deities? Or might therehave been no miracles at all?

The story of the transfixed shepherd

boy is one of those vague, pious folktaleslacking any evidence to support it. If weare prepared to believe a shepherd boyconsidered taking the statue, we can alsobelieve it was only an attack of con-science that stayed his hand, and the restof the tale is attributable to exaggeration.

As to the statue’s bloody tears, thatfigurine was not the same one that hadtransfixed the shepherd boy. The origi-nal had been stolen in 1580 when theregion was pillaged by Dutch Protestanticonoclasts (those hostile to the worshipof images). In other words, the statuethat legendarily saved itself from a shep-

herd’s grasp was unable to stave offmarauding anti-idolaters, suggesting atbest its powers were limited.

Thus the bloody tears were producedby a replacement statue, and in any case,the phenomenon—judging from numer-ous modern examples—was likely apious fraud. In 1985, for instance, astatue of the virgin that wept and bled inthe home of a Quebec railroad workerproved on examination to have anapplied mixture of blood and animal fat.

When the room warmed from the bodyheat of the pilgrims, the substance lique-fied and trickled realistically. In anothercase in Sardinia, Italy, in 1995, DNAtests on the blood revealed that itbelonged to the statue’s owner (Nickell2007b, 227–228). (Her attorney ex-plained, “Well, the Virgin Mary had toget that blood from somewhere.”)

The 1604 military victory at Ostenddoes not seem so miraculous if one adoptsthe perspective of the Protestants or if onewonders why we should think statuesmiraculous when desirable things happen(a statue’s theft is prevented, a battle

Figure 3. Joe Nickell appears to be venerating the Holy Blood at Bruges but is really only getting a good look at it!

Phot

o by

Jan

Wille

m N

ienh

uys

SI Jan Feb 2010 pgs 11/12/09 10:31 AM Page 14

won) but not unmiraculous when badthings occur (a statue is stolen, maraud-ers overrun the land).

Given the image of the Virgin Mary ashealer and protectress (Mullen 1998, 10),it is not surprising that desperate peoplestill seek miracles at Scherpenheuvel,where I have witnessed the votive candles,the fervent prayers, the posted notesbeseeching “Moeder Maria” for supernat-ural assistance. Such help may seem tocome to those who count only the goodluck; otherwise they discount the bad oreven—sad to say—blame themselves fornot praying hard enough.

The Holy BloodJohn Calvin (1543, 226) critically ob-served that alleged blood of Jesus “isexhibited in more than a hundred places,”one of the most celebrated being theBasilica of the Holy Blood in Bruges. Itwice visited the site, and on the secondoccasion (October 25, 2006) I was able tohold in my hands the reliquary suppos-edly containing the very blood of Christ(figure 3). It has been called “Europe’sholiest relic” (Coupe 2009, 132).

According to legend, the Bruges relicwas obtained in Palestine in the mid-twelfth century, during the SecondCrusade, by Thierry of Alsace. He al-legedly received it from his relativeBaldwin II, then King of Jerusalem, as areward for meritorious service. How-ever, chronicles of the crusades fail tomention the relic being present inJerusalem (Aspeslag 1988, 10). Sourcesclaim that Thierry, Count of Flanders,brought the relic to Bruges in 1150, whileanother source reports it arrived in 1204.In any event, the earliest document thatrefers to it dates from 1270 (CatholicEncyclopedia 1913, s.v. “Bruges”; Aspeslag1988, 9–11).

The reliquary, housed in the twelfth-century Basilica of the Holy Blood, is nowbrought out daily for veneration by thefaithful. Although mistakenly character-ized by at least one source as “a fragmentof cloth stained with what is said to be theblood of Christ” (McDonald 2009, 145),it in fact consists of “clotted blood” con-tained in a vial set in a glass-fronted cylin-der, each end of which is covered withgold coronets decorated with angels. The

vial (made of rock crystal rather than glass)has been determined to be an eleventh-ortwelfth-century Byzantine perfume bottle.

In 1310 Pope Clement V issued apapal bull granting indulgences to pil-grims who visited the chapel at Brugesand venerated the blood. At that time,believers claimed the blood miracu-lously returned to its original liquid stateevery Friday at noon. This not onlysounds like a magic trick, but it evokes thesimilar “miracle” of the blood of St.Januarius at Naples—a phenomenon thatforensic analyst John F. Fischer and Ireplicated, utilizing a mixture of olive oil,melted beeswax, and red pigment. Inaddition to St. Januarius, some twentyother saints have reportedly yielded magi-cally liquefying blood. My Italian col-league, chemist Luigi Garlaschelli, exter-nally examined one of these in its sealedvial and discovered that the “blood” sim-ply liquefied whenever the temperaturerose (Nickell 2007c, 44–49, 169–170).

Unfortunately, the Holy Blood atBruges soon stopped liquefying, suppos-edly as the result of some blasphemythat occurred later in 1310. The miraclerecurred only one more time, in 1388(Aspeslag 1988, 11).

Naturally, I wanted to get a goodlook at the “blood,” so I twice stood inthe pilgrims’ line, supposedly to prayover the reliquary (again, see figure 3).In fact, although I bowed respectfully, Iused the two brief occasions to scruti-nize the substance. I observed that it hada waxen look and was bespeckled with“coagulated drops” that have suspi-ciously remained red (Bruges 1998, 28)unlike real blood, which blackens withage (Kirk 1974, 194–195).

In brief, the Holy Blood of Brugeslacks a credible provenance, since it hasno record for a dozen centuries after thedeath of Jesus and is contained in amedieval bottle. It appeared with a pro-fusion of other dubious blood relics,including several with which it had incommon the property of liquefying andresolidifying, suggestive of a magic trick.Both that behavior and its currentappearance are incompatible with gen-uine old blood and are instead indicativeof a pious fraud.

Note1. States Adrien Delcour (1987): “At the price

of slight hip dislocation certain rather supple per-sons (the author of the present lines, for example)can manage without effort to turn their footaround, with the great toe almost to the back byrotation [of ] the ankle. This exercise should havebeen easier for De Rudder because he had lost theextender tendon of the big toe.”

ReferencesAspeslag, Pierre. 1988. Chapel of the Holy Blood,

Bruges. Ostend, Belgium: s.v. Van Mieghem A.Bruges Tourist Guide. 1998. Brussels, Belgium:

Editions THILL S.A.Calvin, John. 1543. Treatise on Relics, trans. Count

Valerian Krasinski 1854; 2nd ed. Edinburgh:John Stone, Hunter, and Col., 1870, 217–218.(Reprinted without translator’s notes but withan introduction by Joe Nickell, Amherst, NY:Prometheus Books, 2009.)

Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913. New York: Encyclo-pedia Press.

Coupe, Alison, ed. 2009. Michelin BelgiumLuxembourg (travel guide). Watford, Herts,England: Michelin Apa Publications.

Delcour, Adrien. 1987. A great ‘Lourdes miracle’:the cure of Pierre de Rudder or, what is thevalue of testimony? A paper by Delcour ofBrussels, Belgium, translated by Jan WillemNienhaus.

De Meester, Canon A. 1957. Report of the HolySee of Bruges; cited in Delcour 1987.

Kirk, Paul L. 1974. Crime Investigation, 2nd ed.New York: John Wiley and Sons.

McDonald, George. 2009. Frommer’s Belgium,Holland & Luxembourg, 11th ed. Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.

Mullen, Peter. 1998. Shrines of Our Lady. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press.

Nieman, Carol. 1995. Miracles: The Extraordinary,the Impossible and the Divine. New York:Viking Studio Books.

Nickell, Joe. 1993. Looking for a Miracle. Amherst,NY: Prometheus Books.

———. 2004. The Mystery Chronicles: More Real-Life X-Files. Lexington, KY: University Press ofKentucky.

———. 2007a. The Netherlands: Visions and re-visions. SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 31:6(Nov./Dec.),16–19.

———. 2007b. Adventures in ParanormalInvestigation. Lexington, KY: University Pressof Kentucky.

———. 2007c. Relics of the Christ. Lexington, KY:University Press of Kentucky.

Notre Dame de Lourdes a Oostakker. 1975. Souvenirbooklet in French (“Imprimature Gradae,7–4–1975, O. Schelfhout, vic. Gen.”), distrib-uted at the shrine.

Scherpenheuvel: Famous Shrine of Our Lady. N.d.Pilgrimage information sheet in English, pro-vided at the basilica.

Scherpenheuvel-Zichem. N.d. Large color folderwith text in four languages. Brabant, Belgium:Hageland.

Scherpenheuvel-Zichem. 2009. Available online athttp://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Scherpenheuvel-Zichem (accessed August 4, 2009).

Smith, Jody Brant. 1983. The Image of Guadalupe.Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

World Desk Reference, 3rd ed. 2000. New York:Dorling Kindersley Publishing.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER January / February 2010 15

!

SI Jan Feb 2010 pgs 11/12/09 10:31 AM Page 15