Improbable Miracles

What implausibility does not prove on its own

The historian Joachim Bouflet, whose reference work serves as the methodological thread of this article, warns against confusing the spectacular character of a fact with its religious value. He quotes on this subject a formula he makes his own:

"The value of a miracle is not its implausibility, but the work it accomplishes." — Henry Leenhardt, article "Miracle", in André Westphal (ed.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible, vol. II, 1973, p. 168^[1]

A miracle is therefore not primarily a performance that impresses: it is a sign that must lead to God and serve the good of mankind^[2]. But this sound theological reserve does not preclude recognizing that, on the strictly probative plane, the extremity of a fact can strengthen a case: the greater the gap between the prior state and the subsequent state, the more costly the competing natural explanations become to sustain — massive misdiagnosis, statistically extraordinary coincidence, fraud organized over several years, or witnesses too numerous to all have been mistaken in the same way.

The first lock: without a prior state, no serious judgment

Bouflet illustrates this first lock with the votive healings of the ancient sanctuary of Epidaurus, where the name of the sick person and his ailment were recorded, but never a diagnosis established before the event:

"This deficiency does not allow one to measure the exact extent of the diseases cured, and therefore of the alleged healings." — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 23^[3]

This is the criterion that structures this entire article: a spectacular "before" recounted after the fact is worth less than a clinical comparison established by a qualified third party before the extraordinary event occurs. Each of the cases retained below has a diagnosis, a certificate, an operative report or a sworn deposition predating the healing — this is the filter that separates anecdote from case file.

Two traditions, one and the same framework

The philosopher and physician Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope Benedict XIV, sets out in the eighteenth century the criteria that still govern the medical examination of Catholic miracles today: a serious illness, difficult or impossible to cure, absence of foreseeable regression, ineffectiveness of the treatments used, sudden and instantaneous healing, complete, not preceded by a decisive crisis, without subsequent relapse^[4]. Since the creation of the consulta medica by Pius XII on 28 October 1946, medical examination has been institutionally separated from theological judgment:

"From that date on, there has been a double examination, medical and theological, of extraordinary facts with a view to establishing or refuting their miraculous character." — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 189^[5]

What strikes one in the corpus studied for this article is that a North American evangelical author wholly foreign to this institutional tradition, Joel B. Lantz, independently formulates a three-part framework of discernment for his own collection of testimonies: the reliability of the witness, the reliability of the medical evidence, and the plausibility of a competing natural explanation^[6]. Having never read Lambertini, he sets out the same locks: documentary evidence preferably on official letterhead, absence of suspicious medical collusion, explicit elimination of any "already-known remission" in the same patient before concluding to irreversibility.

This convergence between two independent systems of verification — one institutional and Catholic, the other individual and Protestant — is not a denominational argument: it is a sign that these criteria are not arbitrary, but impose themselves logically as soon as one seriously seeks to investigate this type of case.

An ancient precedent: the healing of Marguerite Périer (1656)

The recourse to an outside physician, and if possible a sceptical one, is not a modern requirement. On 24 March 1656, Marguerite Périer, niece of Blaise Pascal and a resident of Port-Royal, was healed of a chronic lacrimal fistula that threatened her life, after contact with a relic of the Holy Thorn. Two highly ranked surgeons attest to the fact:

« Messrs Guillard, surgeon to Queen Anne of Austria (who does not believe in the miracle), and Félix, the King's First Surgeon, attested to the little girl's inexplicable healing [...] » — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 45^[16]

The detail is crucial: Guillard, the Queen's surgeon, does not believe in the miracle — and yet he attests to it. A witness hostile to the religious conclusion of the file, yet unable to deny the clinical fact, is all the more powerful a witness. It is the same mechanism that will shape, a century later, Lambertini's criteria, and three and a half centuries later, the American administrative inquiry into the Greg Spencer case.

Calanda, 1640: the leg returned to Miguel Juan Pellicer

The most famous file of this kind now has its own detailed article on Ignispedia; it is only summarised here to establish the level of documentary rigour expected in the rest of this file. Miguel Juan Pellicer, a young Aragonese farmer, had his right leg crushed by a cart in late July 1637; gangrene forced an amputation at the Hospital of Our Lady of the Pillar in Zaragoza, four fingers below the knee, the stump cauterised with a red-hot iron^[17]. For more than two years, inhabitants of Calanda and Zaragoza saw him begging daily with his wooden leg — a public, repeated fact, hard to conceal. On the evening of 29 March 1640, his mother found him with two legs; the restored leg bore old scars that identified it as his own, and the place where the amputated limb had been buried was found empty^[18].

The inquiry opened sixty-eight days after the event; the Archbishop of Zaragoza presided over a tribunal of nine judges, heard dozens of witnesses, and delivered his sentence on 27 April 1641^[19]. Bouflet sums up the strength of the file in a single sentence:

« One would say today that there is perfect “traceability” of the events. » — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 76^[20]

The full detail of this file — notarial deeds, depositions, the archiepiscopal sentence — is set out in the dedicated article The reattached leg of Miguel Juan Pellicer.

Vittorio Micheli, 1963: a pelvis destroyed by a sarcoma, rebuilt

In April 1962, the Italian soldier Vittorio Micheli, twenty-two years old, developed hip pain that rapidly worsened. An X-ray on 22 May 1962 confirmed an osteogenic sarcoma of the pelvis — a primary bone cancer of extreme aggressiveness^[21]. Within a few months, the tumour destroyed almost the entire left iliac bone; the X-rays document the condition:

« Near-complete destruction of the left hemi-pelvis. Only part of the ischio- and ilio-pubic rami, and the upper third of the iliac wing, remain. Very marked osteoporosis of the femoral head. » — radiological file cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 288^[22]

Treatments were abandoned for lack of hope. In May 1963, Micheli travelled on a military pilgrimage to Lourdes; on his return he reported the disappearance of the pain. In April 1964, when his plaster cast was removed, a new X-ray showed the iliac bone rebuilt and a new joint cavity for the femoral head:

« Remarkable reconstruction of the bony tissues of the left hemi-pelvis, which had been completely destroyed; the femoral head has formed a new joint cavity for itself... » — radiological report of April 1964 cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 289^[23]

Professor Fabre, an anatomical pathologist in Toulouse, carried out an independent counter-expertise; the International Medical Committee of Lourdes unanimously approved Professor Salmon's report on 3 May 1971, concluding that the disease was "real, certain, incurable" and that "no medical explanation can be given for this healing"^[24]. The Archbishop of Trento recognised the miracle in 1976. This file — thirteen years between the event and the canonical judgement — is treated in detail in the article The miracles of Lourdes.

Natalia Garcia Mora: a damaged spinal cord, walking regained

On 1 September 1993, in Medellín, Colombia, Natalia Garcia Mora, eight years old, was struck by a .38-calibre bullet. The examinations document fractures of the D7, D8 and D9 vertebrae, intramedullary metallic and bony fragments, and a right haemopneumothorax^[25]. A laminectomy was performed on 10 September 1993; the medical diagnosis, entered into the canonisation file, was unequivocal:

« Diagnosis: vertebral-spinal trauma with partial lesion of the spinal cord at the level of vertebrae [dorsal] D7-D10, resulting in severe paraplegia and sphincter disorders. » — medical file cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 198-199^[26]

Discharged from hospital on 20 September, paralysed, the child rapidly recovered walking and sphincter functions, without any rehabilitation. The consulta medica voted unanimously on 8 July 1999 for a conclusion that rejects any premature triumphalism while recording the absence of any explanation:

« very rapid, almost complete, lasting functional recovery, scientifically inexplicable, given the absence of any rehabilitation therapy. » — conclusion of the consulta medica cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 198-199^[27]

The "almost complete" of this formula deserves emphasis: the file has never claimed absolute perfection, which strengthens rather than weakens its credibility — a file that glossed over its own limits would be more suspect than one that acknowledges them. Pabla Montal, the intercessor invoked, was canonised on 25 November 2001 on the basis, among other things, of this miracle.

The reservation concerns a slight weakness of the left Achilles tendon, whereas photographs taken before the accident already showed a slight deviation of the left foot — a detail unrelated to the healing that was asked for^[28].

Matthew Pelissery: club feet straightened with no surgery

Matthew Kuruthukulangara Pelissery was born on 9 July 1956 in Kerala, India, with severe bilateral club foot (talipes equino-varus). For fourteen years, he walked on the edges of his feet. On the night of 21 June 1970, his right leg straightened; the left followed on 5 August 1971^[29]. Twenty-two years later, in 1992, specialists convened by the canonisation cause studied the old photographs, X-rays and clinical examination of the adult patient. Their finding rules out the simplest hypothesis, that of a concealed surgical correction:

« The appearance of the feet resembles that of operated club feet. Yet there is no scar of surgical intervention, nor any trace of plaster cast, manipulation, massage or splint treatment. » — expert report cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 194^[30]

The miracle was recognised on 27 January 2000 following a unanimous vote of the consulta medica. This file illustrates a different type of proof from Calanda or Micheli: it is not the disappearance of an acquired lesion, but the correction of a congenital malformation — without any of the interventions that alone normally make such a result possible.

Borderline cases: when a piece is missing from the file

(No further text remains.)

Not every case reported by the corpus studied for this article reaches this level of documentation, and intellectual honesty requires saying so. Three healings attributed to Padre Pio in 1947–1948 are, taken individually, as striking as those retained above. Gemma Di Giorgi, seven years old, born without pupils and blind from birth, is said to have recovered her sight after receiving Communion from the religious' hands; a physician later notes that the anatomical anomaly persists:

"Yet, still without pupils, she now sees perfectly!" — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 150^[31]

The same year, Rosetta Polo Riva, suffering from pulmonary emphysema and acute endocarditis, and Giuseppe Canaponi, whose knee, destroyed after several unsuccessful operations, instantly regains its mobility, are examined by physicians who judge their recovery inexplicable given the state of knowledge at the time^[32]. But Bouflet adds, regarding these three files, the precise reservation that excludes them from the evidentiary corpus retained here:

"Yet no commission was ever established for this purpose." — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 150^[33]

Without adversarial inquiry, without counter-expertise, and without an active search for a competing natural explanation, these cases remain at the level of striking testimony — not of a properly examined file. The same principle explains why this article has not built a third "resurrection" pillar on sources more fragile than those retained for the first two pillars.

The four previous files have in common that they were examined by a Catholic ecclesial authority. The corpus assigned to this article also includes cases documented outside any Catholic procedure, in North American evangelical apologetic literature. They enjoy no ecclesial recognition — no bishop, no consulta medica, no international medical committee — and the article states this unambiguously at every use. Their interest lies elsewhere: they are first-hand medical and administrative files, with named physicians, identifiable institutions, and reproduced documents, showing that the same standard of documentary rigor can be applied outside the Catholic framework — and produce results of the same order of rigor there.

The Greg Spencer case: legal blindness from macular degeneration

A former police officer turned truck driver, Greg Spencer gradually loses central vision in both eyes in adulthood. The diagnosis is made by Dr. Richard G. Weleber, an ophthalmologist at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), a recognized specialist in retinal dystrophies and macular degeneration, both clinician and researcher^[34]. His letter, dated and reproduced in facsimile by the author who collected the file, sets out the context of the examination:

"On May 21, 1999, I examined Greg Spencer, a forty-year-old man referred to me for evaluation because of the decline in his central visual acuity." — Dr. Richard G. Weleber, letter cited by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016, appendix devoted to the Spencer case^[35]

"His visual acuity was still 20/40 in August 1998, but by April [1999] it had fallen to 20/60, and he had stopped driving altogether." — Dr. Richard G. Weleber, letter cited by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016, appendix devoted to the Spencer case^[36]

On the pinhole test, which is supposed to isolate any purely optical problem, no improvement is observed: the loss is therefore not due to a simple need for glasses, but to organic damage to the retina itself^[37]. The State of Oregon grants Greg legal blind status and assistance from the Commission for the Blind. A second independent physician, optometrist Dr. John Boyer, confirms and worsens the finding shortly before the healing:

"Dr. Boyer then independently confirmed severely compromised visual acuity, in fact further deteriorated since: 20/300 and 20/500, compared with 20/200 and 20/400 previously." — summary of Dr. Boyer's letter, addressed to the Oregon Commission for the Blind, cited by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[38]

A retinal ophthalmologist consulted later by the author, initially skeptical, states the anatomical diagnosis that makes the condition deemed irreversible:

"The mottling of the retinal pigment epithelium, once present, never disappears." "If the retinal pigment epithelium is damaged, the photoreceptors die, and clinically, they do not come back." — retinal ophthalmologist cited by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[39]

The healing and its witnesses

During a spiritual retreat in April 2002, Greg suddenly recovers normal vision during a time of collective prayer. The author who documented the case interviewed two eyewitnesses separately, without either knowing beforehand what the other had said. Their accounts converge on an immediate and concrete verification of the restored sight:

"We went out into the parking lot [...] ; he was standing there, reading aloud the license plates at the other end of the parking lot [...]. It was at least forty-five to sixty metres away." — Randy Webb, pastor present at the retreat, testimony collected by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[40]

Five days later, Dr. Jon Burpee writes a letter confirming the change, with a clinical description of the fundus radically different from Dr. Weleber's:

"Examination shows slight macular pigment dispersion, but no oedema or macular deposit at present" — versus the "fairly striking mottling of the pigment epithelium, bilateral, over an oval area of about one disc diameter" noted by Dr. Weleber before the healing. — Dr. Jon Burpee and Dr. Richard Weleber, comparison cited by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[41]

The anti-malingering argument

An immediate objection arises: what if Greg had simply lied about the extent of his blindness, before being "healed" of a partly feigned ailment? The initial examination relies on Goldmann perimetry, a test that the specialized literature on visual deficit malingering identifies precisely as difficult to tamper with:

"A Goldmann test technician constantly monitors, through a peephole, the fixation of the patient's gaze [...]. Malingerers must guess the angle from which the light comes — but they cannot see it before their eye is able to detect it, at which point the technician records data they cannot influence."

— Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016, citing the Goldmann test protocol^[42]

An external technical source, cited by the author to make this criterion objective, lists the typical signatures of malingering on a Goldmann chart — signatures absent from Greg's file:

"Certain characteristic deficits betray a malingerer: spiral isopters, crossing isopters, severely constricted fields." — Inci Dursu et al., Understanding Visual Fields, Part I: Goldmann Perimetry, cited by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[43]

The consultant notes, however, with a honesty that strengthens the credibility of the whole, that the patient's cooperation was itself demanding given the severity of the deficit:

"Given the size and density of such a central scotoma, even if the patient cooperated as best he could, maintaining fixation during the test would have been very, very difficult." — consulted ophthalmologist, cited by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[44]

The argument also turns around on the "healing" side: lying about poor eyesight is relatively easy; faking good eyesight at a modern digital examination is not.

"If I falsely claim to have good eyesight, a few failures to read the letters on an optometric chart will reveal my lie. [...] It is practically impossible to cheat with digital charts, whose letter layout, randomly generated, cannot be memorized." — Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[45]

An unexpected control: the Social Security Administration

Five days after the healing, Greg informs the U.S. administration that he is no longer blind — triggering a one-year investigation by the Social Security Administration for potential disability fraud. The investigation concludes, on June 12, 2003, with the official termination of benefits, in a document that itself acknowledges a "remarkable" change^[46]. This administrative detail constitutes a reversed negative control, structurally different from all the other files in this article: the institution conducting the verification here has no religious interest and, on the contrary, a financial interest in demonstrating fraud rather than a genuine healing.

"What could have pushed him to inform the Social Security Administration of the improvement in his eyesight [...] when he could have continued, effortlessly, to collect benefits indefinitely, given the natural irreversibility of macular degeneration?" — Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[47]

Ruling out the simplest hypothesis: this is not a "second remission"

As a teenager, Greg had already experienced an episode of vision loss followed by gradual recovery over about ten months — most likely cystoid macular edema, a condition that generally resolves. The most obvious objection to rule out is therefore that the adult episode was merely a repetition of this earlier benign one. The author devotes an entire section to establishing the difference between the two episodes:

"Greg's vision loss in adulthood, and its sudden restoration, were clearly not a rehash of the youth scenario." — Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[48]

The author concludes his appendix devoted to this case with a methodological remark, transferable to the whole of this article:

"Does this evidence and analysis demonstrate that a supernatural intervention took place? No, they do not [in the sense of mathematical proof]. [...] It is legal standards of proof — not the standards of experimental scientific research — that apply to this kind of unique event. I submit that if miracles were judged like criminal cases, the evidence produced in this file would be more than sufficient to convince any legitimate court." — Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[49]

This distinction between a "judicial" standard of proof (based on a convergence of clues) and an experimental scientific standard of proof (reproducible in a laboratory) is decisive: it explains why historical files like Calanda can remain solid without having been "reproduced" — a miracle is by nature a singular event, judged as one judges a unique historical fact, not as one validates a physics experiment.

Bruce Van Natta: a severed intestine, a lengthening deemed naturally impossible

On November 16, 2006, American mechanic Bruce Van Natta is crushed by the axle of a logging truck; his small intestine is largely destroyed. He undergoes emergency surgery at the University of Wisconsin Hospital in Madison; the operative reports, written by the resident surgeon Dr Fumito Ito and signed by the senior surgeon Dr Michael J. Schurr, document an extensive resection of the duodenum and the small intestine^[50]. After a long convalescence marked by several further operations, a 2007 imaging series leads the treating radiologist to estimate that the remaining intestine has regained a length well beyond that measured after the initial surgeries. Consulted separately, two American gastroenterologists — Dr Michael Frankel (Gastroenterology Associates, Cleveland, Ohio) and Dr Jon A. Vanderhoof, lead practitioner of the Short Bowel Syndrome Foundation — judge that such a lengthening of the resected adult small intestine is, given the current state of medical knowledge, naturally impossible^[51].

This file calls for particular caution: the precise measurement of intestinal length by imaging remains, by the treating radiologist's own admission, approximate — the small intestine is too winding to be measured "with a ruler"^[52]. The article therefore retains this case for its most robust fact — the existence of named operative reports and the convergent opinion of two independent specialists on the natural impossibility of the observed phenomenon — without adopting the precise numerical assessments (centimeters, percentages), which belong to reconstruction rather than direct medical measurement.

Van Natta himself anticipates the most predictable objection — why is this healing not complete? — with a disarmingly simple answer, which spares the article from having to invent one:

"My abdominal muscles are gone. I have a kind of net. When I eat, my belly swells. When I have a bowel movement, it goes back down. If I had gotten all my intestines back, I'd have a crazy amount of hernias." — Bruce Van Natta, quoted via the author Max Davis, reported by Joel B. Lantz, Bridges for honest skeptics, 3rd ed., 2016^[53]

The third pillar announced by this article — the return to life after a death has been certified — is the most demanding one to document, and the corpus assigned for this task has provided no modern case that simultaneously satisfies the two required criteria: a death certified by a qualified third party and a prolonged absence of any vital signs with no resuscitation in progress. Rather than artificially inflating this pillar with second-hand accounts, this article acknowledges this limitation and addresses it with the same rigour as the rest of the dossier.

Jérôme Genin (1623): the canonically investigated case

The best dossier available on Ignispedia for this pillar long predates the corpus of this task, but bears directly on it: in May 1623, the Savoyard teenager Jérôme Genin spends about eight hours submerged in the River Fier after a fall, then lies as one dead for about nineteen hours before reopening his eyes^[54]. The second canonization process of Saint Francis de Sales, in 1656, collects under oath the depositions of ten direct witnesses; the case heads the list of miracles retained in the bull of canonization of the saint, promulgated by Alexander VII on 19 April 1665^[55].

This dossier obviously lacks the modern clinical rigour of the Catholic cases of the first pillar: no physician signed a death certificate in 1623, no such procedure existing at the time. This is precisely why the article devoted to this case provides an in-depth discussion of the ten objections a critical reader may legitimately raise — and answers them one by one. The full analysis, the depositions, and the discussion of the reliability of judicial testimony are set out in the article The Resurrection of Jérôme Genin (1623).

Margit Heim: a resuscitation, not a resurrection

One contemporary case, often described imprecisely, deserves to be distinguished with the greatest clarity. On 23 June 1986, in Bavaria, Margit Heim, thirteen or fourteen years old, is sucked into a whirlpool and remains submerged for forty to fifty minutes. Pulled out with no heartbeat, dilated pupils, and a flat electrocardiogram, she is given immediate intubation, ventilation, cardiac massage, and defibrillation:

"She was clinically dead, pupils dilated, with no heartbeat at all, the electrocardiogram flat." — Dr Forster, testimony reported by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 200^[56]

On arrival at Kempten hospital, at 16:40, the record notes a score of 3 on the Glasgow scale and a rectal temperature of 29.4 °C. Dr Forster considered the cooling insufficient to explain survival without brain damage; this assessment accompanies his account of the heartbeat's return, obtained through resuscitation^[57].

The heart restarts as a result of the resuscitation; the extraordinary, therefore, lies not in a spontaneous return to life without intervention, but in the total absence of neurological sequelae despite prolonged cerebral anoxia, confirmed by tests in 1988 and again in 1998. The consulta medica concluded unanimously on 11 January 2000:

"Established clinical death by drowning, with prolonged cerebral ischaemia. Rapid, complete and lasting recovery, with no neurological sequelae whatsoever, scientifically inexplicable." — unanimous conclusion of the consulta medica, cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 204^[58]

This case — remarkable in itself — is therefore neither an instance of "regrown limb" nor of "resurrection": it is the third type of evidence medicine can furnish, neurologically intact survival after a cerebral insult that, statistically, almost always leaves severe sequelae or results in death. The article devoted to the Genin case develops this same distinction in detail.

Resurrection accounts in evangelical circles: added caution

Contemporary evangelical apologetic literature, for its part, reports cases presented as resurrections in the strict sense — a person pronounced clinically dead by caregivers, remaining without any vital signs for several hours or even several days, then returning to life with no resuscitation in progress. The American theologian Craig S. Keener counts more than a hundred of these, drawn for the most part from missionary settings in Africa, Asia, or Latin America^[59]. These accounts raise a recurring methodological difficulty that critics consistently point out: the certifications of death are often cursory, carried out by non-specialist personnel, in material conditions that make a misdiagnosis — deep coma, extreme slowing of the pulse — harder to exclude than a flat electrocardiogram in a Western hospital setting. This article therefore retains none of these cases in its body of evidence: not because they are necessarily false, but because, given the state of the available documentation, they do not meet the same standard of rigour as the dossiers retained above. The absence of such a case in this article is therefore not an embarrassed silence: it is the consistent application of the same filter that enabled the rejection, earlier on, of accounts lacking any documented prior condition.

A file that systematically accepted every reported extraordinary event would have no evidential value. The corpus studied for this article, on the contrary, documents several cases in which the investigation actively sought — and found — a natural explanation, or was simply never opened because the beneficiary never came forward.

Mourão: a face explained by the refraction of light

Between 1996 and 1998, thousands of people claim to see the face of Christ in a host exposed in the church of Mourão, Portugal. The Archbishop of Évora opens an investigation and brings together scientists. Their conclusion rules out the prodigy:

"a natural phenomenon, caused by the refraction of light on the figures inlaid in the monstrance" — conclusion of the scientific commission cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 141^[60]

The parish priest himself, Father Miranda, saw it as others did: he tried his own experiments — moving the monstrance and changing the lighting — before concluding, wrongly, that it was a supernatural event^[61].

Kaufbeuren: a bombing averted, then explained

In the canonization file of Kreszentia Höss, a first prodigy — the town of Kaufbeuren spared by a bombing in 1944 — had initially seemed extraordinary. The opening of the military archives in 1983 made it possible to find a natural explanation, removing this fact from the file retained for the cause:

"it was eventually admitted that, despite extraordinary circumstances, the case was explicable by natural causes." — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 201^[62]

This rejection, occurring within a canonization cause that was otherwise pursued, shows that a single file can retain certain facts and rule out others — the proof of a genuinely adversarial investigation, not of systematic endorsement.

Symphorose Chopin: a healing never submitted to investigation

Symphorose Chopin is said to have been instantaneously healed, on 15 August 1954, of a paralysis resulting from the accidental severing of the sciatic nerve — a recovery her doctors considered absolutely inexplicable. She nevertheless always refused to take the steps that would have allowed the file to be investigated:

"she always refused to take the steps that would undoubtedly have endorsed the miraculous character of a recovery that the doctors considered absolutely inexplicable." — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 292^[63]

This case is a reminder that official statistics of recognized miracles do not count every healing judged extraordinary: the absence of a proclamation may result from a simple failure to bring the case forward, not from a refutation.

Bassam Assaf: when a magician exposes a medical commission

A medical commission had once concluded that there was no natural or rational explanation for an exudation of oil attributed to Bassam Assaf — before the professional magician Gérard Majax brought to light a fraud that the doctors had failed to detect. Bouflet draws from this a methodological lesson directly applicable to the selection made in this article:

"The most wary doctor can be mystified; he should be assisted by someone versed in juggling and conjuring tricks." — Jean Lhermitte, Mystiques et Faux Mystiques, Bloud, 1952, p. 101, cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 107^[64]

Bouflet reports that the oil flows had been filmed by French television channels, but that no phenomenon occurred during Gérard Majax's inspection, accompanied by a bailiff. He then cites Le Monde of 17 August 1991: Bassam Assaf had confessed to the fraud; he and his brother Jouhar had been indicted for fraud on 14 August. The passage establishes an indictment, not a conviction. Bouflet notes that at the earlier stage of the religious investigation he describes, no official conclusion had been handed down; he leaves as hypotheses the explanations put forward at the beginning of the affair and the flows reported among assistants^[65].

It is this same requirement that makes decisive, in the files retained above, the seemingly technical details: the independent counter-appraisal by Professor Fabre for Micheli, the impossibility of forging a modern Goldman tracing for Spencer, or Greg Spencer's self-report to an administration that had, for its own part, an interest in demonstrating a fraud rather than a healing.

One Competence, Two Orders

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith's most recent norms, published on 17 May 2024, concern above all the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena such as apparitions, and recall the need to avoid hasty conclusions and to distinguish the levels of certainty before any public recognition^[66]. The same principle of institutional prudence has governed, for far longer, the examination of healings and extraordinary physical facts discussed in this article.

The physician establishes a diagnosis, observes the course of events, actively looks for a natural explanation or fraud, and declares — or does not declare — the fact medically unexplained. It is not, however, the physician's place to qualify a fact as miraculous: that assessment belongs to a different order of competence, theological and canonical.

"They are not qualified to diagnose the supernatural, still less the miracle." — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 108^[67]

A letter from 1946, sent by a physician of the Lourdes Medical Bureau to a colleague, sets out this division of roles with a clarity that still structures Catholic procedure today:

"To the doctors of medicine falls the task of recognizing whether a given person passed instantaneously from a state of illness to a state of health, without the use of medication, without convalescence. To the doctors of theology falls the task of assessing whether this change of state, given the circumstances in which it occurred, bears a miraculous character or not." — Dr Vallet, letter to Dr Cornet, 2 February 1946, cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 279^[68]

For non-medical phenomena (multiplications, unexplained physical phenomena), the Church does not call upon the consulta medica but convenes a panel of experts suited to the field concerned:

"In that case, the examination falls not to physicians, but to a panel of technical experts who examine every element of the fact in minute detail." — Michele Di Ruberto, "La necessità dei miracoli", 30 Giorni della Chiesa e nel mondo, March 2004, cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 204^[69]

The Procedure of the Lourdes International Medical Committee

The Lourdes International Medical Committee (CMIL), which brings together some thirty specialists of different nationalities and disciplines, is a good illustration of the adversarial working expected of this kind of body: a rapporteur studies the case, the members debate, and then a vote decides between acceptance, rejection, or adjournment pending further investigation.

"It concludes with a vote on the report's findings, with three possible options: outright acceptance, rejection of the report's findings, or adjournment pending further investigation [...]. The CMIL in fact eliminates any healing that is not obviously "organic" in nature." — Dr Alphonse Olivieri and Dom Bernard Billet, Y a-t-il encore des miracles à Lourdes ? 22 dossiers de guérison, Lethielleux, 1990, p. 40, cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 280^[70]

A well-instructed case file is not limited to a one-off assessment: it accumulates evidence over time. The file of Jeanne Fretel, healed of tuberculous peritonitis on 8 October 1948 after three years of bed rest, includes thirty temperature charts, daily observations over six months, and follow-up by several physicians:

"The impressive medical history, the bulk of the file, which includes thirty temperature charts (eighteen before the healing, twelve after), the calibre of the physicians who examined the patient, the meticulous details of the observation [...] must command prolonged attention and made it possible to conclude that the healing was inexplicable." — CMIL conclusion of 14 March 1950, cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 287^[71]

This documentary density — rather than the sheer spectacular nature of the event — is what distinguishes a publishable case file from an anecdote, however striking it may be.

The interval between the initial finding and canonical recognition is not necessarily a sign of a weak case file: it may, on the contrary, guarantee the absence of relapse. Such is the case of Francis Pascal, whose first examination was delayed eight years by the war:

"This delay in verifying the healing, far from being an objection, is a further guarantee of the reality and the permanence of this extraordinary healing." — Dr Leuret, conclusion of 1 September 1948, cited by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 283^[72]

Selectivity as a Guarantee

The figures available in the corpus studied — dating from the state of the file in 2008 — show an institution that actively filters rather than validates as a matter of course. Since 1946, the CMIL has declared some thirty healings unexplained out of roughly a thousand alleged healings, of which twenty-seven were subsequently proclaimed miraculous by ecclesiastical authority^[73]. For the incorruptibility of bodies, the selectivity is even stricter: of more than three hundred cases recorded in the history of the Latin Church, only six have been formally recognized as miracles^[74]. The case of Maria Giuseppina di Gesù Crocifisso Catanea, where some thirty physicians attest under oath to the arrest of putrefaction without the fact being retained for her beatification, illustrates this exacting standard:

"As astonishing as the phenomenon was, it was not retained as a miracle for the cause of beatification." — Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 124^[75]

A physician who long presided over the consulta medica sums up, in a formula often quoted, the impression left by these case files once assembled:

"You cannot understand how fantastic these cases are, unbelievable... and how well documented they are. They are more improbable than novels. Science fiction is nothing by comparison." — Prof. Raffaello Cortesini, cited by Kenneth L. Woodward, Comment l'Église fait les saints, Grasset, 1992, p. 215, reported by Joachim Bouflet, Une histoire des miracles, Seuil, 2008, p. 191^[76]

Objection 1 — "Improbability is not proof in itself"

The objection is sound in its strict formulation: a very astonishing fact is not, by virtue of its astonishingness alone, guaranteed to be true. But the article never rests a case on improbability alone. Each case retained combines improbability and a prior condition documented by a qualified third party and the absence of a natural explanation actively sought. It is this combination, and not isolated implausibility, that constitutes the argument — exactly what the Lambertini framework and the Lantz framework formalize, independently of one another.

Objection 2 — "Without a prior diagnosis, no serious judgment is possible"

This is the first safeguard laid down at the very opening of this article, in connection with the votive healings of Epidaurus. It is precisely the reason why otherwise striking cases — such as certain healings reported around Padre Pio, never submitted to an official commission — do not appear in the probative dossier of this article, even though they could have served the demonstration had they been examined.

Objection 3 — "What if it were fraud or simulation?"

The Spencer case provides the most detailed answer in the corpus: a Goldmann test that is practically impossible to rig, a self-incrimination contrary to Greg's immediate financial interest. The Micheli and Calanda cases illustrate the point differently: an independent counter-examination by Professor Fabre for the former, identification scars and the empty location of the buried limb for the latter. The Bassam Assaf case, retained as a negative control, shows that this vigilance is not mere rhetoric: a fraud was indeed exposed in a neighboring case.

Objection 4 — "What if it were a spontaneous remission already known elsewhere?"

This hypothesis — which Lantz calls an "encore performance" (encore performance) — is treated in detail for the Spencer case, with an explicit comparison table between the teenage episode and the adult one. The same methodological reflex — actively seeking a similar antecedent in the same patient before concluding to irreversibility — must be applied systematically, and is applied, to each of the cases retained in this article.

Objection 5 — "The physician cannot establish a miracle"

That is true, and it is precisely why the article insists on the separation between the medical finding (inexplicable given the current state of knowledge) and the theological judgment (miraculous). The quotation from Dr. Vallet, in the previous section, sums up this division better than any paraphrase could.

Objection 6 — "The Church canonizes too readily; it would validate anything"

The figures answer the objection directly: six formal recognitions out of more than three hundred cases of incorruptibility, some thirty unexplained healings out of a thousand alleged healings at Lourdes since 1946. The negative controls documented above — Mourão, Kaufbeuren, Symphorose Chopin — show a system that knows how to say no, or to abstain for lack of any process undertaken, rather than a system that would automatically validate every reported extraordinary event.

None of the cases assembled in this article claims to close the debate by its sheer extravagance. What their assembly shows is rather that extreme improbability, once filtered through a demanding method — documented prior condition, suddenness, absence of effective treatment, durability, active search for fraud — does not weaken a case: it raises the cost for any competing explanation. To explain naturally the restoration of a leg amputated two and a half years earlier, the radiographically documented reconstruction of a pelvis destroyed by sarcoma, or the fourteen-day healing of a retina whose mottling is held to be irreversible, requires an accumulation of hypotheses — massive and repeated diagnostic error, a statistically extraordinary coincidence, organized fraud spanning several years and foiling independent counter-examinations — that becomes, past a certain threshold, less economical than the hypothesis of a sign.

That is also why this article deliberately refrained from forcing a third "resurrection" pillar on the basis of sources too fragile: the rigor that makes the retained cases probative is the same that forbids accepting, for convenience's sake, what the corpus assigned to this task could not establish. A dossier that knows how to recognize its limits — and does so on Ignispedia, in the article devoted to the Jérôme Genin case — deserves more credit than a dossier that would claim to have none.

• What is a miracle? — theological definition and ecclesial investigation.
• The reattached leg of Miguel Juan Pellicer (Calanda, 1640) — the complete dossier of the first pillar.
• The miracles of Lourdes — the Vittorio Micheli case in detail, plus seventy-two other dossiers.
• The resurrection of Jérôme Genin (1623) — the only canonically investigated dossier in the "return to life" pillar.
• Miraculous healings — biblical, patristic and institutional foundations of Catholic discernment.