OK, you caught me. I confess.
When I wrote yesterday’s post, Saints Preserve Us, I intentionally avoided the question of miracles. It’s not that I don’t believe in
miracles. I do, maybe more than
most. The truth of the matter is that
miracles are hard to explain, and the post was already long enough, so I
skipped the miracles. Well, my friend
Peter called me out on it and raised some good questions. While I would have preferred to discuss these
with Peter over a glass of locally-produced wine, I’ll do my best to answer
them here in case others among you share his questions.
One of the more controversial
practices in the Catholic canonization process is the requirement that two
miracles be attributed to the proposed-Saint’s intercession. Note that I say “attributed to the
proposed-Saint’s intercession.” Saints
do not cause miracles – only God causes miracles. We look for the success of a Saint’s prayer to
God on our behalf (the Saint’s intercession) as proof that the person is, in
fact, in heaven. I guess it shows that the
person must be within earshot of God, so to speak. The Church usually requires two
miracles: one for the person to be
declared “blessed” and a second for the person to be declared a Saint. The miracles attributed to the intercession
of Pope Saint John Paul II were the healing of a French nun who suffered from
Parkinson’s disease, which JP II also had, and the healing of a Costa Rican woman
with an inoperable brain aneurysm. There
was only one miracle attributed to the intercession of Pope Saint John
XXIII: the healing of an Italian nun who
suffered a gastric hemorrhage. Pope
Francis waived the requirement of a second miracle because of the great affection
generally held for John XXIII, and because the Church fathers called for his canonization
at the close of the Second Vatican Council, which John convened.
Now onto Peter’s questions. First, “What
is a miracle?” The Catechism of the Catholic
Church defines miracle as “a sign or
wonder, such as a healing or control of nature, which can only be attributed to
divine power.” (CCC glossary) In my view, there are two ways to look at
this definition. One way would see miracles
as events that surpass the laws of nature, so they can only be attributed to God’s
intervention. From this understanding,
miracles are, so to speak, out of this world.
Albert Einstein is credited with a great explanation of the other way to
look at this definition: “Either
everything is a miracle, or nothing is a miracle.” I ascribe to Einstein’s point of view because
I view things like the birth of a child and the regeneration of the world each spring
as miracles, even though biology explains them perfectly well. That said, in the making of Saints, the Church
is generally looking for the unexplainable type of miracle.
Second, “How is one – at least in modern times – proven?” Miracles are proven through testimony, to
establish the facts, and by the review of scientific experts. A proposed miracle undergoes several layers
of review: first by a local bishop and
his experts; next by the individual charged with advancing a person’s sainthood
cause and his or her experts; and last by the Vatican’s Congregation for the
Causes of Saints. All of this evidence
is placed before the Pope, who makes the final call.
Third, “What is the role of a miracle in the present day, when our scientific
knowledge is so much greater than it was even 100 years ago?” Well, in my opinion, the tremendous advances in
our scientific knowledge make miracles all the more miraculous. I recently read that most of the miracles
attributed to future Saints are healing miracles. Because medical science is so advanced, the
Church gives great weight to the opinion of medical experts – if a group of
expert doctors is stumped by the healing, it must be a miracle! One would think that with the advances in our
knowledge of the world around us, there would be fewer Saints made for lack of
miracles. But that’s not the case. Pope John Paul II, who reigned from 1978 –
2005, canonized more Saints than any other Pope in history.
Lastly, and I’m paraphrasing, “How do we balance our hope for a miracle
with our need to take care of ourselves?”
With this question Peter cites his devout, Irish grandmother who refused
physical therapy after a fall in the expectation that God would heal her if he
were inclined to do so. Believe it or
not, this attitude is very common, and is often paired with a profound sense of
divine rejection if God does not deliver on the miracle. I don’t know why some miracles occur and
others do not. I do know that God loves
us all equally and more than we can imagine.
God doesn't have favorites. As I
explained in Pray Without Ceasing, “God sees the whole picture – the whole plan – and knows the
best way to get to the final destination. God’s in the driver’s
seat. We have to sit back and trust that God loves us; that he always
wants what's best for us.” If a miracle is the best way to get to
that destination, God will grant a miracle.
Now, as for waiting for a miracle instead of helping ourselves, I’m
reminded of a story of a seminarian who was flunking all of his theology classes. One day, his professor called him aside and
asked what was going on. The seminarian
proudly and faithfully said, “The Holy Spirit, in his time, will provide the inspiration
to help me with my classes.” The professor
sternly replied, “Well, I hope the Holy Spirit inspires you to spend more time in
the library.” God gave us the smarts
that has led to wonderful advances in the hard sciences, the social sciences
and the arts. He expects us to use
them. He’ll fill in the gaps when
needed.
For those of you who can't get enough of miracles, click here for Barry Manilow's "It's a Miracle."
No comments:
Post a Comment
God is listening . . . comment accordingly.