From: William Putnam
To: Curtis Johnson
Date: Feb 22 1998 4:01:00 pm
Subject: Case #5 2/4
Parent message · Link to this message · Link to this thread ·
More messages from this author · Toggle pseudo-headers
CURTIS JOHNSON spoke thusly about: Case #5  2/4

WP> I just covered it!  I sure want to know how
WP> self-hypnosis can have the body subsist with
WP> only the Blessed Sacrament!  Got an answer for

>	The autohypnosis is my suggestion for the stigmata.
> The anorexic "miracle" is bogus, pure and simple.  Except
> possibly for a two-week fast, she simply sneaked food when
> no one was looking and lied about it.  But you strain at
> this gnat and swallow a whale.

Oh, you know she sneaked food!  Goodness, how
do you know that, Curtis?

WP> the only solid food taken was the Eucharist (the consecrated
WP> bread of Holy Communion.) She subsisted on only this meager meal
WP> for many years and up until her death.  She was closely monitored,
WP> and her every move was documented, and it has been carefully
WP> determined that indeed, the Eucharist was her ONLY meal.

CJ> Scurvy weakens the walls of blood vessels.  It's the
CJ> first deficiency of a bread-and-water diet, which would take
CJ> well over a year to kill through diet deficiencies.

On bread? Sure, if sufficient bread is given,
but the host of communion is only about an
inch in diameter!  Once a day is hardly
sufficient under normal circumstances, is it?

WP> Is this relevant to the issue at hand? What has
WP> this to do with a woman who remained the same
WP> weight throughout this period?  How do you
WP> explain that?

>	Quite relevant.
>	The scurvy effect of weakening the walls of blood
> vessels would make the stigmata even easier to produce.
> That one can live on bread and water for a long time
> is also quite relevant when that is the diet you claim--
> and which also would her a waiting time before she
> went off her diet.

As a matter of fact, she gained weight!  Again,
subsisting on the tiny host is quite different
then subsisting on bread - like a loaf of bread
per day?  (As in prisoners punished with a diet
of bread and water.)

>	Well, let's just see how well this claim of subsisting
> through the host alone is, shall we?

WP> Good!

.....<abridged>...........

>	Putnam, if you don't feel a great anger at having been
> hoodwinked by your source, you are indeed hopelessly gullible.

WP> Curtis, do you notice something strange about the
WP> information you give above?  Now, I don't have the
WP> Encyclopedia Britianica to refer to, but I find it
WP> very strange that you gloss over the fact that the
WP> CHURCH (I say again, C-H-U-R-C-H, as in "Church
WP> authorities" above) that is the most skeptical! Is

>	IOW, William, are you not going well out of your way
> to be gullible?

Am I gullible after I wait for the findings of
the Church?  Am I gullible when I wait for the
findings of doctors and scientists who study
such cases?  If that is gullibility, then I have
no idea how it would be to stir you out of your
stubbornness if you will not at least consider
the case.

WP> that the most obvious stance that the Catholic
WP> Church would take under the circumstances?

>	When faced with a mental basket case and palpable
> fraud that could blow up on them?  Of course!

Absolutely!  The Church is the last agency to
agree that it is at least "worthy of belief."
That takes a very long time, Curtis.

WP> ABSTINENCE FROM FOOD AND DRINK

WP> In the years when she was suffering for the seminarian,
WP> Therese was not able to swallow the whole Host at daily
WP> Communion. Father Naber therefore decided that she should
WP> be given a very small particle of the Host and just enough
WP> water to enable her to swallow the sacred species.  At this
WP> time, in the spring of 1922, Therese had lost the urge
WP> to eat anything whatever and felt no need for food.  It
WP> is an established fact that after that time she did not
WP> take any solid food in any way, shape or form for the
WP> rest of her life; thus her total abstinence lasted 40

>	That "established fact" is an outright lie.  As the
> Encase. Brit. noted, she flatly turned down twice a request
> by the Church to establish that, with the incredibly lame
> excuse that her father wouldn't let her.

Your opinion noted, Curtis.  The Encyclopedia
Britannia is infallible, and does not at times
make factual errors.  How do you know that,
Curtis?

>	I see that it doesn't bother you at all that your
> book omits this.  You are indeed hopelessly gullible.

Then that about ends it, doesn't it, Curtis?

If you don't want to look into it, fine. Go
ahead and remain aloof of it and continue
to disbelieve.  Actually, it does not surprise
me, but I tried.  I think this thread is
about concluded, don't you think?  But it
is your choice..........

Regards,

Bill

---
* PW * I believe in one God, The Father almighty.

--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: Serendipity BBS. Pensacola Fl. 1-850-457-4066  (1:3612/63.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/12 218/890 1001 221/100 270/101 396/1 3615/50 51 3804/180
PATH: 3612/63 3662/51 396/1 3615/50 218/1001