medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
he seven criteria for a genuine miracle as set out by Benedict XIV:
1. the disease must be serious and impossible (or at least very difficult) to cure by human means [medical science increasingly narrows this category]
2. the disease must not be in a stage at which it is liable to disappear shortly by itself
3. either no medical treatment has been given or it must be certain that the medical treatment given has no reference to the cure (e.g., in the case of Peter Smith, a newborn in Mother Cabrini's hospital in Brooklyn, into whose eyes a nurse mistakenly put 50 % silver nitrate solution instead of 2 %; the eyes and surrounding skin were burned away by the caustic effect of the solution; two doctors and several nurses observed the effects and told the nuns that nothing could be done except to pray [which the nuns did, all night]; they did put cold compresses on the baby's face but this treatment could ld not have cured eyes that were "grotesque edemic swellings" or skin that was charred through all layers -- to believe that the cold compresses could have done that is far more incredible than to believe that the prayers did it; the next morning the baby had perfectly formed blue eyes that were not fully focused, which is fully normal for a newborn; this miracle is one of the two employed on behalf of Mother Cabrini's beatification or canonization, I forget which; the newborn was present at the ceremony, with perfect unassisted 20/20 vision)
4. the cure must be instantaneous (to reduce the variables of possible natural cures over time)
5. the cure must be complete
6. the cure must be permanent (otherwise it is not really a cure)
7. the cure must not be preceded by any crisis of a sort which owuld make it possible the cure was wholly or partly natural (xxiv-xxv)
the examination of testimony from qualified medical experts takes place in a court-like setting, with all the protections against fraud or perjury that a court employs (other safeguards include unhurriedness, letting considerable time elapse before even starting to investigate, lest passions, emotions over recent death of the candidate distort empirical perceptions)
in some cases, the evidence is overwhelming in favor of a supernatural cure, yet if one of the seven criteria is technically not met, the miracle is discarded as far as the beatification or canonization is concerned
example: a man who can see but whose optic nerves and both retinas remain atrophied, as in one of the Lourdes cases.
For more information, see Louis Monden, _Signs and Wonders: A Study of the Miraculous Elements in Religion_ (New York: Desclee, 1966; originally in French at Bruges: Desclee, 1960). He deals with the psychological, scientific, theological, historical issues, including the limits of credibility in the light of all these methodologies. He includes a dossier describing a number of the authenticated Lourdes miracles, including the one involving the atrophied optic nerve. Alexis Carrel's account of his transformation from a typical 19thc skeptical, internationally known physician, to believer on the question of miracles as the result of one particular Lourdes case is also included here, but can be read as well in _Voyage to Lourdes_ (various editions)
My summary of the seven criteria is from Patricia Treece, _Nothing Short of a Miracle_ (Doubleday, 1988)--in the prologue and introduction she tells the Peter Smith story from Brooklyn in 1921 and gives the seven criteria. I can't immediately locate them in Monden.
The definitive work on the process of canonization in modern times is by Pope Benedict XIV [1740-58], _De Servorum Dei beatificatione, et beatorum canonizatione_ in Benedicti XIV Pontifici Maximi Opera Omnia, vol. 1-7 (Prati: Typographia Aldina, 1839-1847); a portion of it is translated in three volumes as _Heroic Virtue: A Portion of the Treatise of Benedict XIV on the Beatification and Canonization of the Servants of God_ (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1850-52)
Incidentally, in referring back to Monden, I discovered what Wendy Reardon has been looking for: a description of the miracles associated with Pius X 's canonization in 1954 (p. 247, quoting from the canonization proceedings): "Francesco Belsani, a Naples attorney is cured suddenly on August 25, 1951, of a fetid abcess of the lung with a prognosis pointing to a proximate fatal end; Maria Ludovica Scorcia, a Vincentian sister of Charity, cured instantly on February 24, 1952, of meningocephalomyletis caused by a neurotropic virus. According to the commission, these two cures were complete and permanent. Two miracles were investigated in 1951, before the beatification: cure of an osteosarcoma on the left thigh, and sudden disappearance of a malignant tumor on the left side of the abdominal cavity."
The source for this is the _Acta Apostolicae Sedis_, 47 (1955), pp. 122-124. The same volume, Monden notes, contains reports on miracles for the cases of St. Joseph Pignatelli, St. Gaspar del Buffalo, St. Louis Grignon de Montfort etc. He also cites R. Le Bec, _Les deux miracles pour la canonisation de Sainte Jeanne d'Arc_ (Paris, 1922), as a good example of how the Congregation of Rites proceeds in such matters. He also recommends J. M. Berthau, "Un proces 'super miraculis' abandonne pour insouffisance de temoignages," in _Revue apologetique_ 38 (1924), 727-740
He also describes the official reports of the Sacred Congregation of Rites as being published in _Acta processuum beatificationis et canonisationis_, in which each trial receives a separate volume containing the details of the discussions of miraculous cures presented by the promotor of the case. The decrees then are published in the _Acta Apostolicae Sedis_, with abbreviated mention of the miracles. Monden has used the latter source here. He recommends A. Seitz, "Neuzeitliche Wunder bei Heiligsprechungen," _Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift_, 71 (1918), 77-92 and F. Baumann, "Heilige und Wunder," in the same journal, 104 (1956), 22-42 as well as H. Bon, _Le miracle devant la science_ (Paris, 1957) for summary medical descriptions of many miraculous cures taken from canonization trials. (Before 1983, the canonization process involved a regular trial, with evidence presented and the "devil's advocate"(promotor fidei) cross-examining and trying to poke holes in the case). This has been modified to follow a less adversarial approach in which the scholars presenting the evidence are assumed to be professional enough to critically evaluate the evidence themselves. Experts called in to consult on medical miracles are chosen on the basis of specialized competence. Some are religious believers, some are not; they are expected to act as professionals regardless.
Since the reforms of 1983, so many saints have been beatified and canonized that the form of publishing described above probably has been changed, but I don't know the details. Between the 1640s and 1980s, only about 300 individuals were canonized, John Paul II has canonized that many and more in 20+ years
Is this relevant to medieval religion? Yes. Medieval investigations by bishops and, after the 12thc increasingly by popes (e.g., in the case of Hugh of Lincoln or Stephen bishop of Die, two with which I am familiar) were done by the critical methods available at the time. Our medical technology has changed drastically but the basics of evaluating evidence, including historical evidence and asking critical questions about historical testimony (which is the basis on which courts of law operate as well as the historical profession) are fundamentally the same. We just have much, much more sophisticated means of evaluating evidence. The Church has employed all advances in medical observation and medical miracles are now preferred precisely because they admit of clinical observation and evidence. But the basic efffort to distinguish truth from fraud has always been there. That's why Alexander III intervened in the first place. He, like the Church today, had nothing to gain by having fraudulent relics or miracles or saints being venerated. Guibert of Nogent was fully aware of the existence of fraudulent relics. His criteria for distinguishing genuine relics from fraudulent ones are not adequate by our standards (and his theology itself was defective--he argued that a supposed milk-tooth of Christ could not be authentic because to have a part of Christ's body left behind would deny faith in the Resurrection--this is bad theology: baby-teeth are designed to be discarded by the body and if one of Jesus' baby-teeth had been preserved it would in no way bring into doubt the bodily Resurrection--but that only shows that Guibert was a poor theologian). Today's assessment of miracles depends on state-of-the art medical science.
Finally, all a miracle testifies to is an otherwise inexplicable factum, something wondrous, marvelous. Science increasingly finds cures for hitherto incurable diseases and any curable disease is disqualified under Benedict's criteria, even if no cure was attempted.
Will that mean the Church will run out of cases for miracles? Kenneth Woodworth fears so (_Making Saints_). What he forgets is that new diseases also come along and initially, many of them are incurable. Moreover, the more we discover about the natural world, the more we realize how utterly complex it is and how little we really know about all of it. Miracles simple are glimpses of the patterns of nature that we as yet have not gotten the full picture of. There was a time when scientists thought the patterns were fairly simple (laws of nature) and that we had the big picture in hand (periodic table of the elements). We know now that was far too simplistic. We are even talking about "chaos theory" as a way of explaining how utterly complex the patterns are, so complex as to almost defy patterning. In that environment, the classic theology of miracles actually fits quite well. For more on this, see Benedicta Ward, _Miracles and the Medieval Mind_ Her description of the older theology (prior to Anselm) in Augustine actually is probably better suited to contemporary cutting-edge phsyics than the approach that came in with the 12thc.
Dennis Martin
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|
