On this December 8, 2025, as Catholics worldwide celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the story of Lourdes, France, stands as a beacon of faith and miraculous healing, intertwining divine messages with historical and modern acknowledgments.
The history traces back to 1858, when 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous, a humble shepherdess from a poor family, witnessed 18 apparitions of a “beautiful lady” at the Massabielle grotto. Bernadette entered ecstasies during these visions, which drew crowds despite initial skepticism from local clergy, including parish priest M. Peyramale. The lady revealed a hidden spring, instructing Bernadette to drink from it and urging priests to build a chapel and organize processions. On March 25, the apparition identified herself as “the Immaculate Conception,” affirming a profound message of penance, prayer, and healing. By 1862, the local bishop validated the events, leading to the construction of basilicas that now attract millions of pilgrims annually, with thousands of documented cures at the sanctuary’s medical bureau.
This revelation echoed the Vatican’s formal proclamation just four years earlier. In his 1854 encyclical Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX defined the dogma: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God… was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” The key message, drawing on Scripture, Tradition, and Church Fathers for unity and devotion, emphasized God’s gift of unique holiness to Mary, preparing her to be the Mother of God.
Tying this legacy to contemporary America, President Donald J. Trump’s 2025 presidential message honors Mary, who brought the Savior into the world. Highlighting Mary’s humble acceptance— “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” —Trump notes her influence from the Revolutionary War era to modern peace prayers. Trump also honors numerous Catholics who had lasting impacts on American history, medicine, and art.
The Lourdes apparitions validate the Immaculate Conception dogma, proclaimed by Pius IX, fostering global pilgrimage and healing, and now echoed in Trump’s call for faith-inspired peace. This underscores Mary’s intercessory power and promotes humility, peace, and unity, reminding us of the divine grace of God who sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for the salvation of the world.
And some wonder why people are falling away from the Faith. What utter rubbish. Spend your intellectual effort on something worthwhile instead of frittering it away on this gibberish.
What’s more likely: 1) Mary was the first and only woman in the history of the human race to experience Immaculate conception, or, 2) Joseph knocked her up and they needed a good story? You be the judge. Be honest.
MRAK’s desperation for content grows more obvious by the day.
Hello Hans, thank you for commenting! You pose an interesting question. When looking at only the likelihood of Mary’s immaculate conception vs a dubious cover-up story, it does certainly seem more likely and more human for it be a simple cover-up story. However, let’s look at the broader context that leads many people to believe the situation is divine, not merely human. What is more likely: 1) Jesus Christ coincidentally fulfilling numerous Old Testament prophecies written centuries before His birth or 2) Jesus Christ is the Son of the God and the subject of those prophecies? What is more likely: 1) Jesus’ earliest disciples being tortured and killed for a lie that gained them literally nothing or 2) Jesus’s earliest disciples being tortured and killed for the truth?
Ultimately, any theological claim about Mary comes back to what one believes about Jesus Christ and the veracity of the Bible. Our story celebrating Mary’s immaculate conception and also factually reporting Catholic beliefs and Trump’s presidential message is not “desperation.” It is the rightful expression of a genuinely held conviction.
Parthenogenesis is not possible in humans. The Bible is itself filled with contradictions and one can easily make any past so-called prophecy magically come true through engineering it and saying it happened. At the end of the day, it comes down to faith, which is the belief in something without evidence. That’s great for a personal belief, but not when it comes to deciding public policy and mixing religious belief with secular modern society.
Hello, cman, thank you for commenting! The claim “the Bible is itself filled with contradictions” is unsubstantiated. Lots of scholars have addressed supposed contradictions in the Bible. Also, how exactly can someone engineer a prophecy to be exact when the prophecy is written hundreds of years before Jesus’s life? Jesus is a real, historical person. His birth, life, death, and influence on the culture at the time is well documented, even by secular sources. If Jesus were only human, how could He have chosen when and where to be born? Or how he would die? How did he “manipulate” the Roman government to not only crucify him but even fulfill the detail of Isaiah’s prophecy that they cast lots for His garments? Or the fact that most crucified criminals have their legs broken to speed up their deaths, but the Roman soldiers did not break his legs, thus fulfilling even the small detail of the prophecy in Psalms that not a bone in the savior’s body will be broken.
Christianity is not simply a personal opinion; it is a worldview steeped in historical and logical reasoning, and it absolutely impacts public policy. If your secular worldview is allowed to mix with politics (as it absolutely is), then why should the Christian worldview not have the same right?
Because the US Constitution is a secular document, and the first amendment has an establishment clause that prohibits the mixing of religion with the state.
I don’t deny the historicity of Jesus, but there’s zero proof of his divinity. That aspect is completely based on faith. And one example of reverse engineering in the Bible is where Matthew says in his chapter 21, verse 4, ‘All of this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.’ The reference is probably to Zechariah 9:9, where it is said that when the Messiah comes he will be riding on an ass.” Well if you want to make sure that the prophecy comes true, you’ll just say well we’ll produce a donkey, there you go.
The gospel of Mark is the earliest of the gospel’s written, and that was written at least one or two decades after Jesus died. How you can expect any representation of any historical fact that long after it happened is beyond me, especially at a time when most people couldn’t read or right anyway. The Council of Carthage, met in 397 and finalized what was considered biblical canon. So you’re relying on something almost 400 years removed from when Jesus was alive. How are you can regard any book as accurate like that is beyond me. We’re still debating the accuracy of things that happened five years ago much less centuries ago.
Again, I’m all for religious belief of any stripe that people want to believe in, but it should remain a private one.
Hello cman,
1. The U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This does not mean religion is entirely barred from mixing with politics. Religion has always and will always mix with politics because when someone is truly convinced of a particular worldview, then that affects every single part of their lives, including political life. What your suggesting (complete secularization of politics) equates to the abolition of Christianity. Christianity is not a personal opinion; it is a worldview.
2. Congrats, you can explain away one prophecy. But you did not address the prophecies I brought up. Why? Because those prophecies are much harder to explain away. For your claim to have validity, you would have to prove every single prophecy can be reasonably explained as engineered.
3. Yes, that is reasonable skepticism when looking at the issue from a purely human, secular point of view. Again, the entire discussion comes down to what one believes about God and the Gospel. There is zero way to confirm the veracity of the Bible unless one accepts the reality of God and accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God. When one believes God is real and Almighty, and Jesus Christ is truly the Lord and Savior of the world, then it is quite reasonable to accept the Bible as 100% true. If one rejects God and the Gospel, then, yeh, there is no reason to accept the Bible as 100% true. So, the real question is “is it reasonable to believe in God and the Gospel?” I say, yes, it is. You say, no, it is not. It is good to have these conversations, and I am grateful to live in a country where open, respectful conversations like these are possible.
4. There are private religions and worldviews; Christianity is not one of them. Christians are called to share the Gospel, and to shape every single aspect of their lives (including their political lives) according to God’s will. You can keep your secular beliefs private because your beliefs don’t impact others’ eternal lives, or you can choose to share them if you wish. If you are right, then it won’t matter at all what you believe during life. However, someone who truly believes Christianity cannot keep their faith private because the love of God prompts us to care for people’s eternal souls. If I am right, then what you believe during life matters a great deal.
You are perfectly free here in America to believe whatever you like and express those beliefs in politics. Christians are also equally free to believe Christianity and express their faith in politics, and have often done so throughout American history.
And by the way, that’s 449 words. See? Some topics require more than 200 words to be fully discussed. Just sayin’.
But all 449 were well done and worth reading.
If one prophecy is a sham, they all are. Claims like yours that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And yes, your belief doesn’t really make you happy. You can’t be happy until others believe it too. Please keep it to yourself and leave me out of it. Thanks!
Very well said cman. Keep it private, don’t attempt to convert me, and don’t try to govern me with it. Simple as that.
I’m sorry, but so many are so hopelessly lost in this religion quagmire. Perhaps someday they will wake up, as have I, after decades of indoctrination into the Christian fallacy.
WOW. Disgusting! To blatantly mock the basis of the entire Christian Religion like that. How about we hear your “educated” or “enlightened” opinion on the basis of Islam or Judaism, as long as your at it? Surely you have that all figured out, too?
Yes, I pretty much do. Some parts of religion are good, but most if it is fantasy, and all of the theology is risible. Simple as that. No miracles. No Heaven. No Hell. No Virgin Birth. No Resurrection. No Triune God. No Satan. No nuthin’. Just stories conjured up by old shepherds thousands of years ago and for who-knows-what reason.
One need look no further than the origins of the Mormon cult to see how major religions can be created from whole cloth (or Golden Plates, as the case may be). Fantasy from tip to tail, and when backed into a corner, the theologian will always reply “that God works in mysterious ways”. How very convenient.
And we all give people a free pass when they spout this nonsense.
Natalie, you nailed it with “what one believes about Jesus Christ and the veracity of the Bible”. I’m an evidence-based critical thinker, an adherent to the scientific method. If there was EVIDENCE of pregnancy without sex, I’d be all in. But there isn’t. It’s destructive to society to believe in things that aren’t and can’t be true.
Hello Evan, thank you for commenting! I am also an evidence-based critical thinker and a strong supporter of the scientific method. That said, science has its limits. And not just when it comes to religion. The majority of Americans, and perhaps you also, believe in the principle that “just government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.” The scientific method cannot lead you to that conviction. Yet it is important, is it not?
Yes, there is absolutely no evidence of pregnancy without sex. Christians believe Jesus’s conception was a divine miracle. Miracles defy science by principle. The real question is “is there a God that can operate outside of science?” If you limit your mind only to science, then, yes, logically, you will have to reject God. And you would also have to logically reject every political theory, every ethical principle, every law, and any sense of justice. The scientific method cannot get you to those concepts.
You can’t have it both ways Natalie. You either guide your day by faith, hope and prayer and suffer the failures or you use evidence, reason and logic and make defensible decisions.
The claim in your last sentence is unsupportable.
Hi Evan, I would love to know how you think the scientific method can produce any sense of morality or legality. I find I would suffer far more if I had no steady compass for ethical decisions, justice, hope, or joy. I have dug into the Christian faith extensively. I purposely set out not to convince myself it was true, but actually to convince myself that it is false. I arrived at the conclusion that one must have some basis for morality, some worldview, and I have found Christianity to be the most sensible basis. The secular worldview has no logical anchor for any moral convictions.
Incorrect. Secular humanism works just fine.
Are you telling me that if Jesus was someday proved to never have lived, or been resurrected, or if Moses had never come down the mountain, that you would suddenly see fit to murder your neighbor, to become an embezzler, or perhaps an adulteress? After all, the historical basis for your ethical system would have suddenly vanished!
Do you give yourself so little credit as that?
And I dare say, especially in the current MAGA environment, that other world religions sure seem to beat Christianity when it comes to being exemplars of ethical behavior.
So put down your Bible and pickup some Hawkins, Hitchens, or Dawkins if you dare. The real light will start flickering to life.
Hello, Hans, thank you for continuing the conversation! No, I am not suggesting that if Christianity were proven false, I would suddenly be a reprehensible criminal. What I am saying is that if I were to base my morality entirely on science, then I would have no logical basis for that morality. Now, that doesn’t mean that my actions would be completely devoid of morality. I would continue to feel in my soul that murder and theft and adultery are horrible wrongs. The difference would be that I would no longer have any reason for why I felt that way, and I would need to seek out a new reason for those convictions. As of now, no one has proved to me there is a better foundation and explanation for my moral convictions than Christianity.
There is a lot that could be said about other religions. I am not particularly concerned with which religion as a whole seems more pious than another at a given time in history. There are and always have been many people who call themselves Christians and act entirely contrary to Jesus’s teachings. And there have certainly been worse times than today, such as the times of the Spanish Inquisition. All this tells me is that there are evil people who will misuse the name of God and twist the truth to justify their evil behavior. A terrible truth, but not one that actually tells you anything about God’s existence or identity or the veracity of the Gospel.
Thank you for the reading suggestions. I am open to reading anything (if I can find the time, haha)! I recommend to you C.S. Lewis (also an atheist for many years), G.K. Chesterton, J. Warner Wallace, and (if you are really brave) Thomas Aquinas.
After 60 years of being deeply steeped in Christianity, I have read or been exposed to most or all that you mention. Perhaps you are young enough to have not yet questioned the indoctrination of your youth as I have. Someday, Doubt will creep in. Even the Popes have admitted to it.
I finally cast off Faith altogether, and honestly I don’t miss a bit of it except for the occasional pageantry of a good Christmas or Easter service. And the guilt that came along with it is missed least of all.
Or to put it differently:
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” – Richard Feynman
A secular world view is fully capable of creating and enforcing moral behaviors. No reliance on the supernatural is required. The Golden Rule has a clear logical anchor, that being empathy for others and imagining oneself in the circumstance of another.
Neither faith nor reason can determine an ultimate moral statement because none can exist. In other words, it’s all relative.
Actually, an evolutionary basis for the ethical behavior of human beings can be found. Our species has advanced above others for many reasons, not the least of which is the ability to cooperate. Applied over time, cooperation wins out over aggression, and ethical behaviors rooted in this feature develop naturally.
You don’t need a God to figure out that wanton killing, destruction, and aggression isn’t a winning combination.
Faith is belief without evidence. Why would anyone choose to think this way, and even worse, to base their life decisions and actions on it?
Hint: They were indoctrinated by their parents from a young age, and now cannot bear to denounce it for fear of excommunication from their religious/social cohort. Nor are they eager to face the realization that they have been deluded both by others, and by themselves.
Hello, Hans, yes, faith is belief without evidence. But it is not belief without reason. Why would someone choose to think this way? That is an excellent question. I recommend G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy, which I have personally found to be the best explanation for why a Christian thinks the way he/she does.
Indoctrination requires the banning or at least suppression of literature and ideas contrary to the doctrine. I have not experienced this. In fact, my parents strongly supported my reading literature of all sorts of perspectives and faiths. My father was raised in a secular home and did not convert to Christianity until his 20s. He is well-read in various secular philosophies, and I have had many wonderful conversations with him about such philosophies. There is a great quantity of valuable secular literature.
Also, please keep in mind that different Christians have different reasons for why they believe the way they do. People who are not Christians also have varying reasons for why they think the way they do. I am sure you have your own reasons as well. I can only answer you from my perspective and experiences. Ultimately, what one believes is entirely up to the individual. There no such thing as forced faith, only faked faith. I am grateful to live in a place where open and respectful conversations like these are possible.
And there is a LOT of faked faith going around in MAGA world right now. I wonder if the proudly-borne crosses worn by many ever burn just a little.
Natalie, you wrote, “faith is belief without evidence. But it is not belief without reason.” It seems to me that evidence and reason are intellectual siblings. For example, there is no EVIDENCE for a virgin birth and without evidence it is impossible to REASON a way to believing a virgin birth is true. To me, Christianity, with its dubious claims of evidence, is not reasonable.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
Are you telling me that until the Jews came to the foot of Mount Sinai that that they were under the impression that murder and perjury were OK until Moses said, guess what guys, those things aren’t kosher after all? Please. Morality is innate in all of us or else we could’ve come this far as a species. We were around for hundreds of thousands of years before the arrival of anything resembling monotheism.
Hello cman, no that is not what I am saying. Yes, humanity in general has a deeply felt, innate sense of morality. What I am saying is that Christianity explains where that innate sense of morality comes from. And Christianity is certainly not the only proposed basis for where that shared morality comes from (though, in my opinion, it is the best explanation). But what I am saying is that science cannot tell you where that shared morality comes from. Why do we share similar ethics? Science cannot tell us why. Science can tell us, through observation, that the majority of humans (though not all– and that is also something one must contend with) do carry similar basic moral convictions.
Also, you are aware the Israelites had moral laws before the Ten Commandments, right? The Ten Commandments did not create morality; the Ten Commandments was the expression of pre-existing moral laws written into stone.
Human morality predates all religion. Just because science can’t currently answer a particular question doesn’t mean that therefore “God did it”. Science is ever expanding our knowledge of the cosmos and our place in it. I’m sure further wonders will be discovered. Religion made its last intelligible points long ago.
More to the point of morality, the basic tenants of Christianity are immoral themselves. The idea of vicarious redemption through human sacrifice or that sin of thought is a real thing (in other words thought crime) comes from desert dwelling peasants and the idea of scapegoating. There was no hell in the Jewish Bible; it’s only with the arrival of gentle Jesus meek and mild that we find out we can be tortured for all eternity after we die. Again, all of the above is immoral and it belongs to the balling infancy of our species.
Exactly.
The word in Hebrew originally used to describe Mary was “Alma”, which simply means a young woman. No relation to virginity whatsoever. Like the rest of the Bible, it (the virgin birth) is a manmade invention.
Our First Lady Catholic did not attend Mass today demonstrating her reverance
and your ignorance.
Thanks Todd. Go Catholics!
I like how you focused on the one Catholic teaching that drives Protestants crazy.
Do they really think Christians who mention, honor and teach about Jesus’s mother will be denied Heaven?
It’s the time of year when we ‘should’ be focused on the birth of our Savior, & Mary is really the focus of that story, isn’t she?
“Mary is really the focus of that story, isn’t she?”… No. Jesus is the focus, Mary was by her own admission “the handmaiden of the Lord”.
The visit by the angel, the visit to see her cousin, travel to Bethlehem, the birth of our Savior is the Christmas story and Mary, his mother, is at the center of that story (his birth)
How can you say this “handmaiden” was not the focus of that pregnancy & birth?
And why do you put her down?
She was his mom who brought him to Temple w/ 2 doves for his circumcision.
She brought him to Temple so he could teach.
She asked him to make wine in Cannan. (yet “Christians’ claim God doesn’t want alcohol)
Because she was his mom.