D
Della
Guest
If the bishop had been told it was merely mold he would have made another decision. What I’m saying is that once the bishop has spoken, then we are free to believe in the miracle. I certainly never said nor implied that anyone must believe in it. And sure labs make mistakes, but I seriously doubt any lab tech worth his salt can’t tell the difference between heart muscle and mold.Gently, folks! “Worthy of belief” does not mean “forbidden to believe something else” or “forbidden to wonder about lab procedures”. Scientists who believe in miracles are supposed to be more rigorous about investigating them, not less.
Eucharistic miracles are possible and they happen. On the other handy, there is a strain of red mold in Europe which has caused a lot of false alarms mistaken for miracles, and other honest mistakes and dishonest frauds have occurred in the past. It would be sacrilegious to mistake mold for Jesus, so it is proper to be cautious. The faithful are supposed to use their own God-given prudence, as well as consulting that of the bishop.
There’s no good reason to cast suspicion on the lab other than to discourage others from accepting the bishop’s decision, as far as I can see. Still, it’s not part of the deposit of the faith, which I made clear in my post, so objections of this kind say nothing about the miracle itself, but tells me that some people need to object to the process by which the bishop made his decision, for whatever reasons known only to themselves.