 |
| Sto. Niño de Providencia credits: lifestyle.inquirer.net |
What is a miracle?
A miracle is generally defined as an event in the Human world that is out of its established order and is only possible with intervention of divine power (Webster's). It also means "a wonderful thing" when used in Latin. Three Greek words can be derived from "miracle" to describe its nature: "tereta", "dynamis" and "semeion" (Driscoll, 1911).
"Tereta" literally means "wonders". A miracle is a phenomenon that runs against, and often unexplainable, by the laws of nature. That is why usually, miracles bring a feeling of amazement. It is the opposite to "natural". "Natural" according to Augustine in his De Trinitate, is when "things happen in a continuous kind of river of ever-flowing succession, passing by a regular and beaten track" (Houston, 1994, p.9).
"Dynamis" means "power". Miracles are supernatural because it is produced, not by natural powers, but of divine one. It is used by God to show His power over nature (Driscoll, 1911). Miracles can only be performed by God. Given that an event opposed the natural order of things, it is not enough to call it a miracle. Anything that is performed by an angel or other celestial bodies cannot be considered as a miracle. That is why miracles are sometimes associated with magic. Magic, as described by Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, are caused by intellectual substances such as demons. Magicians induce these substances to their bidding by using intellectual signs in the form of invocations and commands addressed to intellectual substances (Houston, 1994).
Lastly, "Semeia" generally means "sign". The purpose of miracles is to manifest God's glory. It must be worthy of holiness, goodness, and justice of God, and conductive to the true good of men (Driscoll, 1911). Would you call it a miracle if neon pink lightning struck your house down or if plants suddenly speak and praise the name of the devil?
From these natures of miracles, we can deduce the following: (1) A miracle runs against the laws of nature and should be unexplainable, (2) A miracle can only be performed by God, and lastly, (3) a miracle must have a positive outcome such as conversion of religion or construction of a church. Given these definitions, the next question would be how does the Catholic Church verify if a reported miracle is real? And if there is a process of verifying miracles, is it valid enough?
How are miracles verified?
Monsignor Michele Di Ruberto, the undersecretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints, works hundreds of red-bound books in his office, each a would-be miracle. His occupation is needed for approving and naming saints. If miracles in the intercession of the candidate saint happened years after his death, he would be beatified and called blessed. One more miracle would be needed for him to be canonized to become a saint (Cassily, 1942).
Last March 2000, there was a report about a "weeping" statue of Sta. Monica in Basilica del Sto. Niño. People gathered to see the miraculous image. But it turned out that the tears were just painted by an artist to better portray the image of a weeping saint (Tenchavez, 2000). This is one of the numerous examples of a fake miracle. From psychic healers to perverted lickers, some people are ready to fool others by promising a cure, of course in exchange for some bucks. With an important role in Sainthood, and with people dreaming to become rich saints, miracles should be thoroughly validated.
According to Patrick Theillier, the Director of Shrine's Medical Office in Lourdes, France, the scientific aspect should be distinguished from the spiritual aspect. Miracle reports, specifically what we call "healing miracles" are heavily scrutinized and examined by experts of the involved field. Di Ruberto has access to a group of 60, covering all medical branches. These medical rationalists should attest that it surpasses their scope of knowledge. Pope Benedict XIV established seven criteria in verifying "healing miracles". First, the illness should be serious and will inevitably lead to death. Second, the illness must be organic or is caused by an accident. Third, it should be incurable. Fourth, the "healing" should be sudden. Fifth, the "healing" should also be instantaneous. Sixth, the renewal of function must be total, and lastly, the recovery must be lasting (Zenit, 2004).
The patient must also recognize the spiritual meaning of the event. The incident will go through a panel of theologians to determine if it was a result of prayer. Lastly, the outcome of the incident must be positive or it should manifest the goodness of God (Zenit, 2004).
With his essay, "On miracles," David Hume believed that miracle reports should be heavily scrutinized, as what the current process do. He said that any reports should not be accepted readily but to believe it not to be true. Additionally, evidences for and against the miraculous incident should be weighed. We should believe a report only if its falsehood would be more unfavourable than its validity (Houston, 1994).
Aside from the definition that a miracle works against the laws of nature, Hume presents additional qualification in verifying miracle reports. These qualifications focus, not on the miracle, but on the witnesses. There should be a great number of eye witnesses and their character should be reliable. The matter of delivery must also be taken into consideration. The witnesses' stand should be consistent. The existence of personal motives is also important, whether they have their own interests to maintain in saying what they do. And of course, the content of their statements (Houston, 2004).
For centuries, the Vatican have been using this method. But is it valid enough? For a test to be accurate, it should be valid. Validity refers to the extent to which the test measures or predicts what it is supposed to (Mejico, 2004). In this case, does the current process filter out effectively genuine miracles from not?
Is the verification process valid?
The process of verifying miracles by the Church, in some ways, can be considered valid. By weighing the evidences for the miraculous incident and the scrutiny of scientific experts from the medical field, it tests whether that event really runs against natural occurrence. Likewise, the criteria established by Pope Benedict XIV determine the occurrence of a miracle based on the definition stated earlier. Miracle is defined as an event opposing natural order of things (Houston, 1994). If a person is suffering from an incurable and fatal disease, and he suddenly recovers with no trace of the illness, then we can say that the event opposed the "natural" path that the patient should have taken.
Somehow, the process also validates if an incident is a work of God. The miracle report should go through a panel of theologians to determine if the 'miracle' was a result of prayer (Zenit, 2004). If it does result from prayer, it is assumed that God "granted" the prayer and performed the mriacle.
But analyzing the procedures, we can see several flaws in it, making the process less valide. First, the procedure cannot ensure that all domains of a miracle can be touched. The "unexplainable" aspect and the consequence of a miracle can be seen through the naked eye; but, it is not the case with its other definition. Miracles can only be performed by God (Houston, 1994). In testing whether it resulted from prayer, God's participation is only "assumed".
The assurance of future events also explains why the process is less valid. The healing of the patient involved must be lasting (Zenit, 2004). But there is no assurance that the disease will not return after days, months or even years. That means the examiners should still observe the patient as long as she lives. If this will be taken into consideration, then the whole verification process may take a lifetime! Another criterion is that the illness cannot be cured by other treatments (Zenit, 2004). But in the future, there is a possibility of creating a cure for that specific disease. Likewise, miracles are labelled "unexplainable" and "amazing" because our human knowledge cannot explain the phenomenon (Hospers, 1997). But thousands of years to come, a possibility of human knowledge reaching the unthinkable may happen. Just like hundreds of years ago, going to space was just a dream. If ever a cure can be discovered, will the Church remove the already-proven miracles from the list?
Hume's additional qualification should be added to the criteria of the church. The whole process only tackled the event that happened. It is also important for the authorities to know the side of the witnesses in order to see the miracle from all perspectives.
Lastly, miracle claims are inevitably subjective (Hospers, 1997). From the person involved, to the witnesses, from the doctors inspecting to theologians, even the process itself, all may perform subjectively. For one, it may be a miracle, to other it is not. This causes an error to the unanimity and consistency of the reports. If a plague killed a hundred people except for an individual, his family and friends will call it a miracle. But will the families of those who died also call it a miracle?
The process of verifying miracles observed by the Catholic Church is invalid. It does not accurately determine the miracle's occurrence from all domains. The possibility of future events may alter some of the factors, making the verification process difficult, or frankly, impossible. The procedures are not enough to view the incident from all points, and the essence of subjectivity makes the whole process less valid.
The method is not valid enough to determine "genuine" miracles from fake ones. It would be very difficult or even impossible to do so. We can readily measure the miracle's "physical" properties, but its "spiritual" essence is already dependent on the spectators. The method may not be valid, but the favourable outcome, which is an uplift of one's faith, is what's important.
A speaking, burning stove and Hitler's revival… I can never know whether I can call it a miracle. It may be, it may be not. But miracles are mere signs anyway. Which miracles are real? Only heaven knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment