Ah, OK. Thanks. That makes sense.
In that case, I wonder whether these kinds of miracles can be used defensively. In other words, they’d only used to show that miracle claims from other belief systems are less impressive than their advocates claim.
For example, many false religions rely upon healing miracles. Although a Christian might want to stick with the Resurrection for his own positive case, it would seem legitimate to reply to alleged healing miracles from another religion by saying something like, “Your healing miracles aren’t that impressive or unique, though. There’s a well-attested account of a Catholic miracle where somebody literally regrew a leg.”
Or, to use another example, lots of religions claim visions. Once again, I wonder whether a Christian could reply with something like, “Yes, but your visions aren’t unique either. Fifty thousand people saw the sun dancing at Fatima, and there’s a ton of documented evidence for it. So let’s get back to unique claims, like the Resurrection, which involved a clear suspension of the laws of nature…”
One odd area where this kind of defensive use of Catholic miracles pops up is atheist vs. Orthodox Jewish debates. When Orthodox Jewish apologists argue that God appeared at Sinai, the atheists have replied by citing Fatima. It’s interesting to read these debates from the outside, because a Catholic would presumably be free to respond, “Yes, and?”
