Religions and mystics

Whereas previous waves of stigmatisation had not really been subject to medical interpretations or polemic – although the work of Benedict XIV^[1] in the 18^th century did refer to this – medicine and scientific psychology took hold of the phenomenon at the end of the 19^th century. Alfred Maury^[2] ,an erudite polymath with a keen interest in psychology, likened stigmatisation to a mental condition suffered by individuals subject to over-excitement from religious contemplation and excessive asceticism. Dr Désiré-Magloire Bourneville^[3] , a radically anti-clerical doctor, produced a pamphlet on the stigmatisation of Louise Lateau in the 1870's (a leaflet in the first place, then a full work which quickly sold out)in which he accused the Catholics of exploiting suffering for their own ends. , In the context of the fashion for hypnosis and holy experiences of dermographism^[4] , doctors Henri Bourru (1640-1914) and Prosper Burot (1849-1921)^[5] tried to reproduce stigmata in non religious patients under experimental conditions. Pierre Janet^[6] saw them as psychasthenics^[7] whose unique obsession was to do with suffering and the cross. Doctors and psychologists, fascinated by these social phenomena, sought a natural explanation. Their studies, which were often made available to the public, contributed greatly to this new model of female suffering.

Dr Antoine Imbert-Gourbeyre^[8] , a Catholic practician interested in psychic sciences and occultism, was present at the bedsides of Louise Lateau and Marie Julie Jahenny five years apart. He belonged to the legitimist network which was active in the propagation of 'panic' devotion. An opponent of Dreyfus, he produced a pamphlet vehemently denouncing the Salpêtrière doctors who were part of a group of academics advancing natural explanations for stigmatisation as plotting to dechristianise France. He defended the supernatural thesis of stigmatisation, framing his argument with medical vocabulary; in his words stigmatisation was the “sickness of the five wounds”. He considered Marie-Julie to be a saint, which later earned him the criticism of the Holy Office^[9] , which compiled a dossier on his publications. But the Catholic medical world was anything but homogeneous: Dr F Lefebvre^[10] , for example, who was also at the bedside of Louise Lateau, confined himself to observation and refused to apply a supernatural interpretation to the phenomena he reported on.

These affairs therefore also appear as a power game in the Church. Whereas the Catholic doctors were the first supporters of the stigmatics of Bois-d'Haisne and Blain, certain priests were also the first critics of these phenomena. They did this employing the medical science of their time. The curates of Blain, for example, quickly placed themselves in opposition to the interpretation of Dr Imbert-Gourbeyre. The concept of hysteria continued to be used by the local priests. One of the curates in the Nantes region insisted on the distinct lack of holiness in Marie Julie Jahenny's character: she was presented as vulgar, deceitful and incapable of complying with ecclesiastical discipline, thus the antithesis of the classic mystic who had to be humble, obedient and simple. For this reason she was refused the Eucharist for a decade by the ecclesiastic authorities. For these priests, as for the anti-clerical doctors, the stigmatics were often pathological cases manipulated by their confessor and their entourage for political ends.