Bogus Miracles
There is a very great misunderstanding today about what constitutes an authentic miracle, sufficient for the determination of whether a deceased Catholic is a saint.
A miracle strictly speaking is any divine intervention which manifests itself as such by the accomplishement of that which is beyond the order of nature. There are miracles which are beyond the order of nature, inasmuch as they accomplish what nature rarely does, never does, could never do; miracles which any nature rarely does, no nature ever does, and no nature ever could do.
Here we have 2 classes of miracles and 3 subcategories for a total of 6 genera of miracles.
What human nature rarely does: Thus we can say that the works of Shakespear are miraculous, or the writings of Einstein. Each require nothing extraordinary per se, since human nature itself without grace is capable of such art or science. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What human nature never does: Thus we can say that if someone's skin would turn the color of silver or gold, or if someone could see a shoe print left by an astronaut on the Moon, while himself remaining on earth, we could say that it was miraculous. But though nature never does it, it is not beyond the power of nature, per se, to do. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What human nature never could do: Thus we can say that if someone can turn into liquid and turn back into himself, that it would be miraculous. But human nature can never such such a thing. However, such is not a sign of holiness.
What any nature rarely does: Thus we can say that if any living thing lived twice as long as the oldest known member of its species, or had some other unique quality, that was singular in all of creation, that it would be miraculous: but such is not the proof of divine intervention, since the order of nature itself being a divine handiwork, we can presuppose that it contains such extraordinary perfections. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What any nature never does: Thus if a living thing never died, such as would have happend if Adam did not sin, he would not have died, we could say that it is miraculous, though in reference to Adam, it would only be such in comparison to the present state of man, after the fall, since before the Fall there was no death. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What no nature could ever do: Thus neither an angel nor a man nor anything natural or created, would do or ever could do: such as to be in 2 places at the same time or to transmute one thing into another in an instant. Such miracles are not always proof of holiness.
Why?
Because God can give Catholics extraordinary graces to elicit the faith of others, such as the working of miracles, which can be had even if the one having them is not in the state of grace.
What then are miracles which are certain signs of a Saint?
Traditionally these would be considered those things which occured after the death of the Saint, which also occured after invoking the Saint explicitly and in cases where there were no other active causes, and in which that which occured (the miracle) was essentially supernatural, such that no human nature nor any angelic or lesser nature ever could do.
Some Examples of What is not a Certain Miracle:
Some of the recent miracles alleged for recently canonized or to be canonized individuals do not meet the traditional criteria for Sainthood.
E.G. the miracle attributed to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, in which a miraculous medal was placed on her tomb, and then touched to a patient suffering cancer, who was undergoing medical treatments for cancer. These other causes or the intervention of Our Lady are sufficient explanations. Therefore since there were other active possible causes, the cure is not a sure sign nor the requisite kind of miracle.
E.G. the recent miracle attributed to John Paul II, in which a man with cancer from Salerno Italy was entirely cured after his wife had a dream in which she saw the last Pope holding a baby. There being no correlation to the dream, nor any apparent signification to it, and the man having been under medical care for the treatment of cancer, the remission of his cancer, even suddenly, could be attributed to that care or to nature itself, since the immediate cure of cancer is possible by nature, it having been proven that the body does have a power, howeverso minimal, which can kill cancer cells.
E.G. many of the miracles alleged at Medjegorgie, such as rosaries turning the color of gold. Most rosaries are made from metal links which are plated; when the plating wears off you can see the gold colored undercoat; such a plating can naturally dissolve in just a short time, since it is only one-atom in thickness. Such an event can occur naturally or by the intervention of a devil. It is not clear sign of divine intervention.
E.G. the alleged miracle of John XXII, in which after his death a nun who was gravely ill with a disease that was not clearly diagnosed, invoked Our Lady and John XXIII and was eventually cured. Since the disease had no clear origin or form, it could well have been a diabolic manifestation, which is always of the most obscure or undeterminate form, especially since when Our Lady was invoked the nun got more sick, which does not seem reconcilable with what we know about God's love for the Virgin, or Her Power over all nature, granted to Her by Her Son.
A miracle strictly speaking is any divine intervention which manifests itself as such by the accomplishement of that which is beyond the order of nature. There are miracles which are beyond the order of nature, inasmuch as they accomplish what nature rarely does, never does, could never do; miracles which any nature rarely does, no nature ever does, and no nature ever could do.
Here we have 2 classes of miracles and 3 subcategories for a total of 6 genera of miracles.
What human nature rarely does: Thus we can say that the works of Shakespear are miraculous, or the writings of Einstein. Each require nothing extraordinary per se, since human nature itself without grace is capable of such art or science. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What human nature never does: Thus we can say that if someone's skin would turn the color of silver or gold, or if someone could see a shoe print left by an astronaut on the Moon, while himself remaining on earth, we could say that it was miraculous. But though nature never does it, it is not beyond the power of nature, per se, to do. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What human nature never could do: Thus we can say that if someone can turn into liquid and turn back into himself, that it would be miraculous. But human nature can never such such a thing. However, such is not a sign of holiness.
What any nature rarely does: Thus we can say that if any living thing lived twice as long as the oldest known member of its species, or had some other unique quality, that was singular in all of creation, that it would be miraculous: but such is not the proof of divine intervention, since the order of nature itself being a divine handiwork, we can presuppose that it contains such extraordinary perfections. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What any nature never does: Thus if a living thing never died, such as would have happend if Adam did not sin, he would not have died, we could say that it is miraculous, though in reference to Adam, it would only be such in comparison to the present state of man, after the fall, since before the Fall there was no death. Such miracles are not proof of holiness.
What no nature could ever do: Thus neither an angel nor a man nor anything natural or created, would do or ever could do: such as to be in 2 places at the same time or to transmute one thing into another in an instant. Such miracles are not always proof of holiness.
Why?
Because God can give Catholics extraordinary graces to elicit the faith of others, such as the working of miracles, which can be had even if the one having them is not in the state of grace.
What then are miracles which are certain signs of a Saint?
Traditionally these would be considered those things which occured after the death of the Saint, which also occured after invoking the Saint explicitly and in cases where there were no other active causes, and in which that which occured (the miracle) was essentially supernatural, such that no human nature nor any angelic or lesser nature ever could do.
Some Examples of What is not a Certain Miracle:
Some of the recent miracles alleged for recently canonized or to be canonized individuals do not meet the traditional criteria for Sainthood.
E.G. the miracle attributed to Mother Teresa of Calcutta, in which a miraculous medal was placed on her tomb, and then touched to a patient suffering cancer, who was undergoing medical treatments for cancer. These other causes or the intervention of Our Lady are sufficient explanations. Therefore since there were other active possible causes, the cure is not a sure sign nor the requisite kind of miracle.
E.G. the recent miracle attributed to John Paul II, in which a man with cancer from Salerno Italy was entirely cured after his wife had a dream in which she saw the last Pope holding a baby. There being no correlation to the dream, nor any apparent signification to it, and the man having been under medical care for the treatment of cancer, the remission of his cancer, even suddenly, could be attributed to that care or to nature itself, since the immediate cure of cancer is possible by nature, it having been proven that the body does have a power, howeverso minimal, which can kill cancer cells.
E.G. many of the miracles alleged at Medjegorgie, such as rosaries turning the color of gold. Most rosaries are made from metal links which are plated; when the plating wears off you can see the gold colored undercoat; such a plating can naturally dissolve in just a short time, since it is only one-atom in thickness. Such an event can occur naturally or by the intervention of a devil. It is not clear sign of divine intervention.
E.G. the alleged miracle of John XXII, in which after his death a nun who was gravely ill with a disease that was not clearly diagnosed, invoked Our Lady and John XXIII and was eventually cured. Since the disease had no clear origin or form, it could well have been a diabolic manifestation, which is always of the most obscure or undeterminate form, especially since when Our Lady was invoked the nun got more sick, which does not seem reconcilable with what we know about God's love for the Virgin, or Her Power over all nature, granted to Her by Her Son.
posted by Br. Alexis Bugnolo at 11/09/2006 12:49:00 PM
4 Comments:
Q. Does the doubt of the validity of a particular act of canonization of a person after Vatican II require necessarily that one hold that the pope who canonized that person was not the true Pope?
A: The question of the validity of a canonization does not involve per se the denial of the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff, nor the indefectibility of the Church, because by canonizing an individual the pope places his or her name on the Roman Calendar, and there are 16 other calendars in the Church, and so it is not a universal law. Also a pope can err, according to all the Doctors of the Church who have touched on this topic, in matters of fact, and so can be lied to by experts or promoters of a cause, and thus canonize someone who is not a saint. Also someone could be a saint, and yet the miracle alleged is not a true one, whereas other true miracles are not brought to light or known: you can, e. g. be a saint without working miracles. A pope also can maliciously advance error, since he is only protected from imposing heresy upon all of us, he is not protected from imposing error on some of us, and so e.g. in the case of John 23rd, who was beatified for the virtues of "ecumenism", "dialogue", "promoting religious liberty" etc., there is no authentic magisterium being involved, since as Vatican I said, the Pope's authority is not to advance new doctrine: and hence implicitly he has not authority to canonize someone for novel virtues. If those who follow Vatican II claim that before Vatican II some persons were venerated as saints who were not saints, or who never existed, then obviously the toleration of this opinion by the Popes means that one can equally claim that saints after the counsel may not be saints and their "miracles" false, by an equal logic. None of this requires one to hold the pope is not the pope, nor that he is even malicios, even if he were, but it does require human error, of which he is capable as a man an a judge of temporal things.
I'd be interested to hear what you make of the abundant miracle reports coming from charismatic and pentecostal Christian communities, e.g. healings, speaking in tongues, prophetic words and visions, etc.
My own view is that one should probably disbelieve such reports, and at any rate, should be skeptical of them. I say this because (1) such communities have proved remarkably susceptible to believing false miracle stories (2) display too much of a desire to bring the miraculous about (which decreases one's confidence that they're not manufacturing the experiences out of nothing) and (3) almost always, the miracles attested to aren't very impressive, e.g. the healing of headaches, the giving of very-general prophetic words, and in the case of tongues, such that a really excited person could pull it off.
Do catholics generally take this sort of line? Should they?
Dear Patrick,
Such kinds of "miracles" are the works of what are termed Charismatic gifts of grace, of the kind known as graces freely given (gratiae gratis datae): These are NOT signs of the holiness of the individual who works the miracle, but are, if they are true miracles worked in the matter I have discussed in the article above (above the possibility of nature) AND signify that faith ought to be given to the true Church and the true Faith of the Church, THEN they are signs of God's Will that men should and ought to believe in the true Faith and join the true Church.
Otherwise, when this significative value is not present, you will always find, after due investigation, that the miracle was a bogus one.
Why?
Becasue God does nothing without meaning and nothign without a reason.
And the Reason for all His interventions in this world is to lead us to His Son, Jesus Christ, through His Holy Spirit, which can only be really and truly and authentically done IN the Catholic Church, by Faith, Hope, Charity, Penance and a change of heart, with the sacraments and under the care and rule of the Pope, Bishops and His priests.
"Miracles" that do not lead to that are always suspect, because God cannot deny Himself, and thus can never work against the order of the Divine Providence which He has established.
Thus there are no true miracles among protestants or pagans, or false religions (such as Islam or Buddhism). Though miracles can be worked among Schismatics, becasue in encouraging them to believe in the Catholic things they have, the Lord wishes to encourage them to return to unity with the Church.
Likewise, the Lord does work miracles among Catholics who are in error, but this is to lead them out of error, by encouraging them in the Faith.
However, as St. John of the Cross says in his "Ascent of Mt. Carmel", the Devil makes much mischief of such miracles and graces, causing most to badly interpret them. And that is why they are so rare, because our Heavenly Father does not want us mislead, even if it is by means of our bad understanding of His own Gifts, which in themselves only do good and lead to what is good for us.
Here is another article which shows that western culture has completely lost its ability to discern spirits:
Devout Christians flocking to French church after sightings of Jesus
Post a Comment
<< Home