Miraculous healings hold a singular place in the Catholic faith: they are at once a spiritual reality affirmed since the Gospels and a field where modern medicine is explicitly invited to investigate. Since the eighteenth century, the Church has not been naive about this — it demands evidence, commissions experts, extends its inquiries over decades, and recognizes very few healings as miraculous in the proper sense. The 72 miracles officially proclaimed at Lourdes since 1862[1], out of more than 7,000 initial reports, illustrate this prudence, which is itself part of the record.
A healing is not miraculous because it is moving, unexpected, or provisionally unexplained. The Catholic tradition rigorously distinguishes three levels: the astonishing (which may have an unidentified natural cause), the currently inexplicable in light of medical knowledge, and the miraculous in the proper sense — that is, what freely manifests an action of God, in a coherent spiritual context, as a sign of a transcendent reality. This hierarchy protects the sick from credulity and disappointment.
The First Vatican Council set out the apologetic scope of miracles: "In order that the service of our faith might be reasonable, God willed to join to the inward helps of the Holy Spirit outward proofs of His revelation, that is, divine deeds, and above all miracles and prophecies."[2] A miracle is therefore not merely an extraordinary event; it is a sign that the intellect can examine as external evidence of Revelation — provided the criteria are respected that make it possible to establish that an event truly surpasses natural causes.
The present article examines the biblical and patristic foundations of miraculous healing, the gradual institutionalization of criteria since the Middle Ages, the two modern paths of ecclesial discernment (Lourdes and the canonization procedure), emblematic cases drawn from recent beatification causes, the main scientific objections and their limits, and the theological meaning of healing as a sign of the Kingdom. It is distinct from the article The Miracles of Lourdes, which studies in detail the 72 official healings of the Marian shrine, and from the article What Is a Miracle?, devoted to the general theological definition.
Healings in the Gospels and Acts
Miraculous healing is not a marginal phenomenon in the founding texts of Christianity. It is central, repeated, and theologically significant — and this is precisely what forbids the Church from treating it with indifference or systematic skepticism.
The inventory of Jesus's healings
The exegete John P. Meier, in his inventory of the historical Jesus, counts twenty-six individual healings in the four Gospels, along with several collective healings.[3] The pathologies covered are medically varied: paralysis (Mk 2:1-12; Jn 5:1-15), congenital or acquired blindness (Jn 9:1-38; Mk 10:46-52; Mk 8:22-26), deafness with speech impediment (Mk 7:31-37), leprosy (Lk 17:11-19; Mk 1:40-45), chronic haemorrhage of twelve years (Mk 5:25-34), withered hand (Mk 3:1-6), dropsy (Lk 14:1-6), raisings from the dead (Jairus's daughter Mk 5:21-43; the widow's son at Nain Lk 7:11-17; Lazarus Jn 11:1-44). To which are added unnumbered collective healings (Mk 1:34; Mt 4:23-24; Lk 7:21).
These accounts display a constant theological structure: the healing is never a spectacle in itself. It is almost always linked to an act of faith, a word of forgiveness, or an invitation to conversion. Jesus heals the haemorrhaging woman while emphasizing "Your faith has saved you" (Mk 5:34); he raises Lazarus while proclaiming "I am the resurrection and the life" (Jn 11:25); he refuses the miracle demanded as proof by the Pharisees (Mk 8:11-12).
"Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them." — Jesus, replying to the disciples of John the Baptist, Matthew 11:4-5[4]
This list explicitly echoes the messianic promises of Isaiah (Is 35:5-6; Is 61:1), indicating that Jesus's healings are signs of the Kingdom — not medical curiosities or a wonder-worker's displays. The Catechism summarizes: "The signs performed by Jesus attest that the Father has sent him. They invite belief in him."[5]
The apostolic healings in Acts
The Acts of the Apostles extends and amplifies this dynamic: Joseph Fitzmyer's commentary counts eight individual healings there,[6] the most striking being the man lame from birth healed by Peter at the Temple Gate, the healing of Aeneas, paralysed for eight years, at Lydda (Acts 9:32-35), the raising of Tabitha at Joppa (Acts 9:36-42), and the healing of the father of Publius at Malta (Acts 28:7-8).
"I have no silver and gold, but what I have I give to you: in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, stand up and walk." — Saint Peter, to the man lame from birth, Acts of the Apostles 3:6[7]
These accounts serve a twofold narrative function: to attest that the power of the risen Christ continues to act in the nascent Church, and to present healing as a sign accompanying the proclamation of the Gospel in the Greco-Roman world. For Paul, these "signs and wonders" are the mark of authentic apostleship (Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12).
The sacramental foundation: Saint James and the anointing of the sick
The letter of Saint James establishes the liturgical foundation of the Catholic practice of the anointing of the sick:
"Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." — Epistle of James 5:14-15[8]
This text, at the heart of the Tridentine definition of the anointing of the sick as a sacrament, indicates that the expected physical healing is inseparable from the salvation of the whole person — the Greek verb sôzein (to save) designating first and foremost the totality of salvation.[9] The anointing of the sick is not a magical rite, nor even mere consolation for the dying: it is an act of the Church that asks for healing and reconciliation, in trust that God's will shall be done.
The Patristic and Medieval Tradition
Origen, Tertullian, and the Continuity of Signs
The idea that miracles ceased with the apostles — known as cessationism, defended from the sixteenth century onward by certain Protestant theologians — is not that of the Church Fathers. Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253) attests that healings continue to occur in the Church of his time, though less frequently than in its earliest days:
"We have ourselves seen healings carried out by Christians, which took place through the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, and the expulsion of demons that inflict harm." — Origen, Against Celsus, III, 24, trans. Borret, Sources Chrétiennes no. 136, Cerf, 1968, p. 451[10]
Tertullian (c. 160–220), in his Apology, likewise cites exorcisms and healings observable in the North African Church as rational arguments addressed to the Roman authorities.[11] These patristic testimonies show that miraculous healing in Christian antiquity was not a purely rhetorical or hagiographic phenomenon: these were facts publicly claimed, in a context of persecution where fraud would have been immediately exploited by adversaries.
Saint Augustine and the libelli of Hippo
Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430) is the first Church Father to document contemporary miraculous healings with a rigor resembling a proto-investigation: in the final chapters of Book XXII of The City of God (written c. 426), he devotes several pages to miracles he personally verified in his community at Hippo.
His method is remarkable: Augustine requires the healed person to provide a written account (libellus), which he himself reads aloud to the liturgical assembly, in the presence of the person who received the miracle. He lists several cases: the healing of a blind man in Milan at the tomb of the martyrs Gervasius and Protasius, the healing of a woman with a fistula at the neighboring church, and the healing of a family from Carthage — several members afflicted with convulsions since birth.[12]
"These miracles do not last as long as those of ancient times, lest the soul grow accustomed to them and no longer regard them as wonders. But let those who think that God no works of such miracles ask themselves about all those they may have seen." — Saint Augustine, The City of God, XXII, 8, trans. Combès, Bibl. augustinienne vol. 37, Desclée, 1960, p. 611[13]
The apologetic value of this testimony is twofold: it comes from a theologian renowned for his intellectual rigor, and it concerns facts publicly verifiable by the assembly — not posthumous hagiographic accounts.
Gregory the Great and Systematic Documentation
Gregory the Great (c. 540–604), in his Dialogues (c. 593–594), produces the first systematic corpus of miraculous healings attributed to contemporary or recent Italian saints.[14] Unlike legendary hagiography, Gregory cites his sources: he names the witnesses, specifies places and dates, and distinguishes what he knows at first hand from what he has received second-hand. Book II, devoted to Saint Benedict of Nursia, contains several healings whose narrative structure reproduces that of the Gospels: a request from a relative, a gesture or prayer by Benedict, a healing attested by those present.
This documentary practice on Gregory's part constitutes a founding precedent: the Church does not accept miracles on hearsay; it records and transmits them with the available evidence.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Metaphysics of the Miracle
In the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) established the metaphysical framework in which Latin theologians would think about miracles for more than seven centuries. In the Summa contra Gentiles (Book III, chapters 99–103), he distinguishes, as the Greek Fathers did before him, between what transcends nature and what lies within it, and he proposes the tripartite division that would be taken up word for word by Lambertini four hundred years later: what God accomplishes above nature (the resurrection of a dead man), what he accomplishes contrary to the order of nature in a particular case (a man blind from birth who sees instantly), and what he accomplishes by hastening an action that nature could produce over time (a fever that is cured at once).[15]
"The works wrought by God outside the order usually observed in things are called miracles, properly speaking." — Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Book III, chapter 101[16]
For Thomas, the miracle is not a violation of nature in the sense that God would be external to it: God, as first cause, always acts by himself, and he can produce in nature effects that surpass the capacities of secondary causes. The technical Scholastic distinction between first cause and secondary causes thus makes it possible to avoid both magical supernaturalism (God breaking nature) and modern naturalism (God being absent from nature). This Thomistic synthesis remains the implicit reference point of the entire modern Catholic investigation of healings, including the present-day protocols of the Lourdes Medical Bureau and the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints.
Medieval Papal Canonization and Its First Criteria
With the rise of papal canonization from the tenth century onward, miraculous healing became a formalized institutional criterion. Pope Alexander III reserved canonization to the exclusive Roman authority in 1171 (the decretal Audivimus), establishing a quasi-judicial procedure: witnesses heard under oath, counter-investigation possible, refutation admitted.[17] On-site in situ investigations were dispatched by the popes to verify the miracles alleged at the tomb of a servant of God. The medieval Church was not naive: causes of canonization were rejected, procedures dragged on, and alleged miracles were judged insufficient.
Institutional criteria: from Lambertini to the present day
Prospero Lambertini and the Church's first medical code (1734-1738)
The decisive turning point came in the 18th century with Prospero Lambertini (1675-1758), a jurist of the Roman Curia and the future Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758). In his four-volume treatise De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione (Bologna, 1734-1738),[18] he systematised the medical criteria the Church must apply in order to discern a miraculous healing in beatification proceedings. The medical historian Jacalyn Duffin (Queen's University, Canada) describes this work as the "first medical code of the Catholic Church".[19]
Lambertini distinguishes three categories of miracles according to their relationship to natural forces: miracles supra naturam (the raising of a dead person, which entirely surpasses nature), contra naturam (the instantaneous re-knitting of a fractured bone, which runs counter to biological processes) and praeter naturam (an extraordinarily rapid healing, which falls outside the ordinary course of events without violating it).[20] He then sets out four cumulative conditions for recognising a miraculous healing:
| Condition | Content | Reason for the criterion |
|---|---|---|
| Certified gravity | Serious, documented illness, incurable by the contemporary medical art | To exclude ordinary healings that do not exceed natural powers |
| Unfavourable prognosis | No treatment in progress or available can adequately explain the healing | To exclude treatments that were underestimated or undocumented |
| Swiftness | Healing occurring abruptly or in a time too short to be natural | To exclude gradual remissions explicable by biology |
| Completeness and durability | Total healing, without relapse, verified over several years of follow-up | To exclude passing or partial improvements |
« A miracle is a sensible fact, perceived by the senses, which exceeds the forces of visible nature, wrought by God alone or with the ministry of an angel or a saint. » — Prospero Lambertini (future Benedict XIV), De Servorum Dei Beatificatione, vol. IV, ch. I, § 14[21]
These criteria, devised in the 18th century, are still applied by the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints and by the Lourdes International Medical Committee in the 21st century. Their longevity testifies to their relevance: they have withstood the rise of modern medicine because they do not define the miracle as what current science cannot explain, but as what structurally surpasses the powers of nature — a claim of a metaphysical order, not merely an empirical one.
The two modern paths of discernment
Today, two parallel institutional paths exist for the examination of alleged healings:
The Lourdes path (since 1883) operates in two stages: the Medical Bureau of Verifications (BMI), based at the shrine, examines each report on site; the Lourdes International Medical Committee (CMIL), founded in 1947, brings together some twenty specialists of all denominations to adjudicate the retained cases by a qualified two-thirds majority. The highest medical conclusion is "a healing medically unexplained in the light of current knowledge" — a deliberately cautious formulation which does not proclaim a miracle but records a medical limit.[22] The diocesan bishop of the person healed then decides, after a canonical inquiry, whether the healing may be proclaimed miraculous. It is only at this stage that the Church — not the doctor — affirms a sign of God.
The canonical path (Dicastery for the Causes of Saints) proceeds differently: each cause for beatification or canonisation requires the examination of a miracle attributed to the intercession of the servant of God. A college of independent medical experts, a college of theologians, and then a college of cardinals examine the file before the papal decision.[23] Here, the medical question (inexplicability) is supplemented by a further theological question: can this healing reasonably be attributed to the intercession of the candidate for beatification?
Dr Patrick Theillier, director of the Lourdes Medical Bureau from 1998 to 2009, explains the complementarity of the two levels:
« Our role as doctors is to establish facts, to examine files and to say: here is what we have examined, here is what we have found, here are the limits of our explanation. The rest belongs to the Church. » — Dr Patrick Theillier, Lourdes — Des miracles pour notre guérison, Presses de la Renaissance, Paris, 2008, p. 87[24]
Emblematic healings in beatification and canonization causes
Canonical procedures regularly generate rigorous medical investigations into healings whose files will never pass through Lourdes. Two recent, well-documented and public cases illustrate this second channel.
Floribeth Mora Díaz and the canonization of John Paul II (2014)
On 27 April 2014, John Paul II was canonized by Pope Francis at the same time as John XXIII. The miracle accepted for the canonization of John Paul II is the healing of Floribeth Mora Díaz, a Costa Rican woman diagnosed in April 2011 with an inoperable brain aneurysm — a pathology whose prognosis is fatal in the short term, the doctors giving her only one month to live.[25]
On 1 May 2011 — the day of John Paul II's beatification, in Rome — Floribeth Mora watched the ceremony on television from San José, confined to bed. She states that she heard an inner voice speaking a word of reassurance to her, which she immediately attributed to the intercession of the pope she saw being honoured at that very moment.
"Get up and do not be afraid." — Words reported by Floribeth Mora (testimony in Spanish), heard on 1 May 2011, the day of John Paul II's beatification[26]
She got up. At the next medical examination, the angiographies showed no further trace of the aneurysm. Her case was examined by a commission of five neurosurgeons of different nationalities mandated by the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, then by the college of theologians and cardinals, before being presented to Pope Francis.[27]
The documented sequence: aneurysm diagnosed in April 2011 → alleged healing on 1 May 2011, the day of the beatification → subsequent medical examinations showing no further trace of the aneurysm → validation by the Dicastery's medical experts, then by the theologians and cardinals, before presentation to Pope Francis. The attribution to the intercession of John Paul II rests on the prayer explicitly addressed to him and on the coincidence with his beatification.
Mayline Tran and the beatification of Pauline Jaricot (2022)
The beatification of Pauline Jaricot (1799-1862), foundress of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, proclaimed on 22 May 2022 in Lyon by Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, delegate of Pope Francis, is founded on the miracle of Mayline Tran.[28]
Born in 2008, Mayline choked on a piece of food on 29 May 2012, at three and a half years old: after several cardiac arrests, she fell into a deep anoxic coma deemed irreversible by the medical team. A novena to Pauline Jaricot, led by her Catholic school in Lyon, was prayed from 15 to 23 June 2012. The neurological recovery, gradual then complete and without sequelae, was judged inexplicable after an investigation by the Dicastery; the decree on the miracle was promulgated on 26 May 2020.[29] The Ignispedia article Mayline Tran deals with this case in detail.
The healing of the newborn Emanuele Lo Zito and the canonization of Mariam Baouardy (2015)
The canonization of Mariam Baouardy (the Little Arab, 1846-1878), a Carmelite of Bethlehem, by Pope Francis on 17 May 2015, is founded on the healing of the newborn Emanuele Lo Zito, in Augusta (Sicily). Born on 17 April 2009, the child developed pulmonary hypertension and then a complex congenital heart defect — the pulmonary veins not returning to the heart — with a life-threatening prognosis. After a prayer chain through the intercession of Mariam, supported notably by a relic applied to the child's body, the sudden and total healing, without sequelae, was judged medically inexplicable; the decree on the miracle was approved by Pope Francis on 6 December 2014.[30]
These cases show that miraculous healing in canonization causes is not confined to one type or one era: it concerns varied pathologies (brain aneurysm, anoxic coma after cardiac arrests, congenital heart defect in a newborn), people from different countries, and contemporary periods — which rules out reducing it to an archaic or culturally circumscribed phenomenon.
Scientific objections and their limits
An honest examination of miraculous healings requires taking naturalistic hypotheses seriously before drawing conclusions. The Church itself demands this: the Lourdes Medical Bureau always begins with ordinary medical hypotheses.
The placebo effect: actual scope and anatomical limits
The placebo effect refers to a genuine physiological improvement triggered by a pharmacologically inactive intervention.[31] Its existence is well established in specific areas: pain, anxiety, nausea, functional symptoms, certain cardiovascular parameters. Psychoneuroendocrine modulation is a real biological mechanism.
Its limits are just as well documented:
- A placebo does not rebuild a bone destroyed by a sarcoma. Bone regeneration is a molecularly complex cellular process, with identifiable biological stages unfolding over months to years.
- A placebo does not rejoin a fracture with floating bone fragments separated for eight years by interposed scar tissue.
- A placebo does not restore the myelin sheaths in nerve pathways damaged by secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, whose irreversibility is a fundamental pathological feature.
Biologist Anne Harrington (Harvard University) notes in her analysis of healing studies that the placebo effect reaches its own biological limits when faced with "objectively documented anatomical lesions", as opposed to functional symptoms where psychoneuroendocrine mechanisms play a real role.[32]
Spontaneous remission: definition and rates
Spontaneous remission — the regression of a disease without conventional treatment — is a documented phenomenon, mainly in certain cancers (childhood neuroblastoma, melanoma, choriocarcinoma).[33] But its rates are known, and so are the precise conditions of its application.
Against the cases recognized as miraculous:
- Osteogenic sarcoma (Vittorio Micheli, Lourdes): no spontaneous regression is documented in the world medical literature for this pathology; and spontaneous bone reconstruction is biologically unknown.
- Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (Jean-Pierre Bély): progressive forms are defined by the absence of remission — this is a diagnostic criterion, not a prognosis.
- Primary lateral sclerosis (Antonietta Raco): an irreversible neurodegenerative disease; no case of spontaneous regression is reported in the literature.
- Inoperable aneurysm (Floribeth Mora): an aneurysm does not disappear without treatment — it ruptures or remains stable, but does not resolve on its own.
The general spontaneous remission argument is valid as a working hypothesis to be examined case by case. It does not hold as a blanket refutation of the cases investigated, precisely because the Lambertini criteria require selecting pathologies for which spontaneous remission is medically improbable or impossible.
Diagnostic error and the institutional response
The objection of diagnostic error is the hardest to refute absolutely — any medical error being theoretically possible. But the institutional system is precisely designed to minimize it:
For cases to be investigated, they require prior medical records (hospitalizations, surgical reports, X-rays, histological biopsies), longitudinal follow-up of several years after the healing, the opinion of multiple specialists (not just the treating physician), and an adversarial review by the CMIL or the Dicastery's medical board. For Vittorio Micheli, the X-rays of 22 May 1962 showing the bone destruction caused by the sarcoma are preserved and comparable with the post-healing images; the histological biopsy confirming the sarcoma is included in the file. An initial diagnostic error is rendered improbable by the accumulation of converging evidence.
Dr Theillier notes that the Lourdes Medical Bureau rejects at first examination the great majority of reports — not out of skepticism, but because they are not documented prior to the healing: "Without a prior medical record, we can establish nothing."[34]
Systematic skepticism: a metaphysical position
The most profound epistemological critique is that of David Hume in his essay Of Miracles (1748): since the probability of a miracle is by definition lower than that of the witness being mistaken, no testimony can ever prove a miracle.[35] This argument appears formal, but it presupposes what it purports to demonstrate: that nature constitutes a closed system in which no free act of God can occur — a metaphysical presupposition, not a scientific conclusion.
Philosopher G. E. M. Anscombe (Cambridge) showed that Hume's argument is circular: the probability assigned to testimony as being more reliable than miracles already presupposes an inductive framework based on the regularity of natural laws — a regularity that cannot itself be established independently of experience.[36] In other words, the Humean definition of probability forbids the miracle before any investigation, which is no longer science but metaphysical dogmatism.
On a practical level, systematic skepticism is incompatible with the scientific method, which requires examining the data before drawing conclusions. What is more, it is applied unevenly: no historian refuses to examine the fall of Rome because it is improbable that so powerful an empire should collapse; no physicist refuses to examine the data of an experiment because the result seems a priori improbable.
« An honest doctor looks at the records. He does not begin by saying that miracles are impossible — otherwise, he is no longer a scientist, but a believer in the impossible impossibility of the supernatural. » — Dr Patrick Theillier, interview with Aleteia, 16 February 2025[37]
The theological meaning
Healing as a sign of the Kingdom
In Catholic theology, miraculous healing is not an end in itself. It is a sign — and every sign points to what it signifies. The Eucharistic sign points to the Body of Christ; the baptismal sign points to death and resurrection; the sign of healing points to the full reconciliation of man with God, announced by the coming of the Kingdom.
This is why miraculous healings are almost always accompanied, in the Catholic tradition, by a dimension of conversion: Alexis Carrel, a skeptic, is transformed into a spiritual seeker by what he observes at Lourdes. Jean-Pierre Bély, miraculously cured of multiple sclerosis, testifies that his physical healing is inseparable from a spiritual rebirth that is its deepest aspect.
« The spiritual healing preceded the physical healing. I then understood that I was not alone, that I was loved. That is the essential thing about my experience. » — Jean-Pierre Bély, 66th recognised miraculous cure of Lourdes (healed in 1987, recognised in 1999)[38]
The Gospels recount the healing of the ten lepers (Lk 17:11-19), emphasizing that only one returns to thank God — the sign of healing calls for gratitude and faith, not merely for health. The Second Vatican Council, in Lumen Gentium, recalls this integral dimension of Christian care:
« Journeying through trials and tribulations, the Church is strengthened by the power of God's grace promised to her, [...] continuing to pray for the sick and to relieve them, [she] shares in them the anguish and the hopes of all who suffer, and makes visible in them Christ who passed among us doing good and healing all the sick. » — Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, § 8 (excerpt), 21 November 1964[39]
The Church is not in competition with medicine: she is the physician of the whole person, of soul and body.
The sacramental dimension: the anointing of the sick
The anointing of the sick, the seventh Catholic sacrament, is the pre-eminent liturgical setting in which the request for miraculous healing is inscribed in the ordinary life of the Church. The Catechism sets out the sacramental foundation:
« The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially destined to comfort those whom illness afflicts: the Anointing of the Sick. » — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1511[40]
This sacrament « gives the sick person the grace of the Holy Spirit for salvation and for healing » (CCC 1520), and may bring about, « if such is the will of God, physical healing » (CCC 1520). The formula « if such is the will of God » is not a timid restriction but an act of faith: the Church asks for healing because she believes in a God who can heal, and freely entrusts herself to his wisdom if healing is not granted.
Several of the healings recognised as miraculous at Lourdes took place precisely during the anointing of the sick — notably the cases of Serge Perrin (1970, 64th miracle) and Jean-Pierre Bély (1987, 66th miracle) —, which gives a profound sacramental dimension to the very institution of the Marian pilgrimage.
Suffering, healing and the Catholic sense
Miraculous healing is not the Christian norm. The vast majority of the sick who go to Lourdes are not physically healed, and the Catholic tradition does not interpret this as a lack of faith or as divine indifference.
« Suffering, inevitable in human life, takes on a new meaning: it becomes a participation in the sufferings of Christ and a union with his redemptive sacrifice. » — John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, § 19, 11 February 1984[41]
This tension — healing possible, suffering possible, both in the service of love — is characteristic of Catholic anthropology. It stands apart from the radical charismatic current, which makes healing a right or an automatic sign of sufficient faith, and from a Christian stoicism that would give up praying for healing in the name of a fatalistic resignation.
« I count as nothing to suffer, I count as nothing to die, if only, in dying, you grant me the grace to acquire in you a little more love. » — Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus (Thérèse Martin), Letter 108 to Sister Marie of the Sacred Heart, 1896, in Œuvres complètes, Cerf/DDB, Paris, 1992, p. 482[42]
The Catholic balance is this: to pray with confidence for the healing of the sick, to examine remarkable healings honestly, to recognise with prudence those that surpass natural powers, and to welcome in faith the suffering that remains — not as defeat, but as participation in the Paschal mystery.
For further reading
- The miracles of Lourdes — the 72 recognised healings, case by case, with details of the procedures
- What is a miracle? — general theological definition of the Catholic miracle
- The miracle of Calanda (1640) — restoration of an amputated limb, canonical process of 1641
- Discernment of supernatural phenomena — new DDF norms, 17 May 2024
- Eucharistic miracles — another major category of documented Catholic miracles
Notes and References
Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, Les miracles [The miracles] (lourdes-france.com, consulted October 2026): 72 healings recognised as miraculous, the most recent being that of Antonietta Raco, dating from 2025; more than 7,000 healing files recorded by the Medical Bureau of Observations. 71st miracle: the healing (1923) of John Traynor, a British soldier, declared miraculous by Mgr Malcolm McMahon, Archbishop of Liverpool, on 8 December 2024. 72nd miracle: the healing (2009, while on pilgrimage) of Antonietta Raco (primary lateral sclerosis), judged medically inexplicable by the CMIL in November 2024, proclaimed miraculous by Mgr Vincenzo Carmine Orofino, Bishop of Tursi-Lagonegro, on 16 April 2025.
1First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, chap. III, in Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, § 3009, 24 April 1870. French translation: Heinrich Denzinger, Symboles et définitions de la foi catholique, bilingual ed., Cerf, Paris, 1996, p. 517.
2The twenty-six individual healings of the Gospels are catalogued in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew — Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. II, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, Doubleday, New York, 1994, ch. 18-21, pp. 617-878. ISBN 978-0-385-46992-0.
3(source introuvable : mt11-4)
4Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 547: "The signs performed by Jesus bear witness that the Father has sent him. They invite belief in him."[^mt11-4]: Gospel according to Saint Matthew 11, 4-5. Jerusalem Bible translation, Cerf ed., Paris, 2000.
5Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible vol. 31), Doubleday, New York, 1998, pp. 277-282, 437, 442, 659, 673, 697-699, 777-780. ISBN 978-0-385-49020-7.
6Acts of the Apostles 3, 6. Jerusalem Bible, Cerf ed., Paris, 2000.
7Epistle of Saint James 5, 14-15. Jerusalem Bible, Cerf ed., Paris, 2000.
8On the polysemy of sôzein in Jas 5, 15: Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James (NIGTC), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1982, pp. 194-196: the verb denotes the salvation of the whole person (soul and body), not exclusively bodily healing.
9Origen, Contra Celsum, III, 24, French trans. Marcel Borret, Sources Chrétiennes no. 136, Cerf, Paris, 1968, p. 451.
10Tertullian, Apologeticus, XXIII, 1-6, ed. and trans. Jean-Pierre Waltzing, Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1929, pp. 89-93.
11Saint Augustine, De la Cité de Dieu [The City of God], XXII, 8 (§ 1-22), French trans. Gustave Combès, Bibliothèque augustinienne vol. 37, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1960, pp. 600-635.
12Saint Augustine, De la Cité de Dieu, XXII, 8, trans. Combès, op. cit., p. 611.
13Gregory the Great, Dialogues, book II (on Saint Benedict), c. 593-594, ed. Adalbert de Vogüé and Paul Antin, Sources Chrétiennes no. 260, Cerf, Paris, 1979.
14Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, book III, chapters 99-103 (on the miracle, its nature, its divisions, and the fact that God alone can work a miracle in the strict sense); critical Leonine ed., Opera Omnia, vol. XIV, Rome, 1926; French trans. Lucien-Joseph Moos, Somme contre les Gentils, book III La Providence, Cerf, Paris, 1993, ch. 99-103. See also Summa Theologiae, Iª q.105, a.7-8 and IIª-IIae q.178, a.1.
15Saint Thomas Aquinas, Somme contre les Gentils, book III, chapter 101, no. 1: "Miracula proprie dicuntur quae divinitus fiunt praeter ordinem communiter observatum in rebus." [Those things are properly called miracles which are divinely wrought apart from the order commonly observed in things.] French trans. Lucien-Joseph Moos, op. cit., p. 425.
16Alexander III, decretal Audivimus, 1171, in Emil Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. II, Leipzig, 1881, col. 735; cf. Eric Waldram Kemp, Canonization and Authority in the Western Church, Oxford University Press, 1948, pp. 82-99.
17Prospero Lambertini (the future Benedict XIV), De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, 4 volumes, Bologna, 1734-1738; anastatic Latin reprint: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Rome, 2010.
18Jacalyn Duffin, Medical Miracles — Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009, p. 5. ISBN 978-0-19-533650-7. Duffin, a medical historian and haematologist, examined the entire medical files of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints: her study draws on 1,400 documented cases.
19Lambertini, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione, vol. IV, ch. I, §§ 3-7. The tripartite division supra/contra/praeter naturam lies at the heart of the Catholic theology of the miracle down to the twenty-first century.
20Prospero Lambertini, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione, vol. IV, ch. I, § 14, author's own translation.
21Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, Le discernement médical et ecclésiastique [Medical and ecclesiastical discernment], official page consulted May 2026: description of the BMI → CMIL (two-thirds majority vote) → diocesan bishop procedure.
22Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, Norme per la trattazione delle cause di canonizzazione, 7 February 1983 (partially revised in 2016), §§ 46-53: the medical procedure for miracles of beatification and canonisation.
23Dr Patrick Theillier, Lourdes — Des miracles pour notre guérison [Lourdes — Miracles for our healing], Presses de la Renaissance, Paris, 2008, p. 87. ISBN 978-2-75-040469-8.
24Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, canonisation file of John Paul II, decree on the miracle of Floribeth Mora Díaz, 2013; summary published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. CVI, 2014.
25Floribeth Mora Díaz, testimony in Spanish reported by the international press at her press conference in San José (July 2013): "Get up, don't be afraid" (English translation of her account), cf. Catholic News Service, 9 July 2013, and Religion News Service, "Meet the women behind the miracles", 24 April 2014. Relay in Italian: Andrea Tornielli, "Floribeth, miracolata di Giovanni Paolo II", La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 30 April 2014 ("Alzati, non aver paura", Italian translation of the Spanish account, not the original text — the miraculously healed woman is a Spanish-speaking Costa Rican).
26Jim Yardley and Elisabetta Povoledo, "Two Popes to Be Made Saints by Francis", New York Times, 28 March 2014: reference to the college of five neurosurgeons commissioned by the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints.
27Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, decree on the miracle of Mayline Tran promulgated on 26 May 2020; beatification of Pauline Jaricot celebrated in Lyon on 22 May 2022, Mass presided over by Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, delegate of Pope Francis (cf. Vatican News, 22 May 2022; National Catholic Register, 22 May 2022).
28Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, file of the miracle of Mayline Tran for the beatification of Pauline Jaricot, decree promulgated on 26 May 2020; cf. "Deep Paleoproteotyping and Microtomography Revealed No Heart Defect nor Traces of Embalming in the Cardiac Relics of Blessed Pauline Jaricot", International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24(3), 2023 (choking on 29 May 2012, coma, novena, decree of 26 May 2020, beatification on 22 May 2022); cf. Ignispedia article Mayline Tran.
29Anita Bourdin, "Blessed Mariam Called to the Aid of a Newborn", Zenit, 11 December 2014: healing of the newborn Emanuele Lo Zito (Augusta, Sicily, born 17 April 2009; pulmonary hypertension then complex congenital heart disease), prayer chain through Mariam's intercession, relic applied to the child, sudden and total healing without after-effects. Decree on the miracle approved by Pope Francis on 6 December 2014; canonisation on 17 May 2015.
30Ted J. Kaptchuk and Franklin G. Miller, "Placebo Effects in Medicine", New England Journal of Medicine, 373 (1), 2 July 2015, pp. 8-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1504023.
31Anne Harrington, The Cure Within — A History of Mind-Body Medicine, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2008, pp. 214-218. ISBN 978-0-393-33416-8.
32T. C. Everson and W. H. Cole, Spontaneous Regression of Cancer, W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1966 (first systematic medical monograph on the subject); update: R. O'Regan and C. Hirshberg, "Spontaneous Remission: An Annotated Bibliography", Institute of Noetic Sciences, 1993 (cataloguing 3,500 cases in the medical literature).
33Dr Patrick Theillier, op. cit., p. 72: "Without a medical file established before the healing, we cannot examine anything. The first stage eliminates 85% of cases."
34David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, section X: "Of Miracles", 1748; French trans. André Leroy, Enquête sur l'entendement humain, Aubier, Paris, 1947, pp. 163-191.
35G. E. M. Anscombe, "Hume on Miracles", in Faith in a Hard Ground — Essays on Religion, Philosophy and Ethics, eds. Mary Geach and Luke Gormally, Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2008, pp. 147-164. ISBN 978-1-84540-121-1.
36Dr Patrick Theillier, interview with Marie-Lucile Kubacki, Aleteia France, 16 February 2025.
37Jean-Pierre Bély, L'Improbable Guérison [The Improbable Healing], Presses de la Renaissance, Paris, 1999, p. 191. ISBN 978-2-85616-799-2. Bély, paralysed by secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, is healed on 9 October 1987 during the anointing of the sick at Lourdes; recognised as the 66th official miracle by Mgr Claude Dagens, Bishop of Angoulême, on 9 February 1999.
38Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, § 8, 21 November 1964, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 57 (1965), pp. 5-71.
39Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1511; cf. §§ 1499-1532 for the whole of Catholic doctrine on the anointing of the sick.
40John Paul II, apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris, § 19, 11 February 1984, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 76 (1984), pp. 201-250.
41Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus, Letter 108 to Sister Marie of the Sacred Heart, 1896, in Œuvres complètes, ed. Conrad de Meester, Cerf/Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1992, p. 482. ISBN 978-2-204-04539-3.
42