How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12739360:

You asked for a list, I posted the actual, official process used in post #30. They are the most completely documented Vatican approved miracles. The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue. Clarity is the scientists friend. Why are you hesitant to address these? Let’s start with the clearest ones and see how far we can get with those.

.

Yes and that set is an actual list of official Vatican approved miracles (see post #30 ).

The detail makes it easier to determine what actually happened while eliminating hear say and other unsubstantiated information that could confuse the issue so you will get the most accurate results from them. Clarity is the scientists friend.

You didn’t answer the question,
.

I addressed the issue directly in terms of the thread title. The title of the thread is " How many Vatican approved miracles has science disproved?" In my post I asked " how many of those Vatican approved miracles in that actual list of official Vatican approved miracles I posted has science disproved?"
The language is directly from the thread title.

You haven’t even presented any scientific evidence against the miracles listed in Post #30… Do you concede that you can’t disprove them? If not, will you present some scientific evidence against them?

It seems you’ve switched the game and are now insisting that the only miracles worth talking about are the ones you’ve handpicked.
.

On the contrary, these are among the clearest, most detailed and well documented cases and there is the least unsubstantiated information. They are the most amenable to scientific investigation.

This is a set of cases which are fully documented and that can be easily subjected to full range scientific investigation. And yet you choose one case that is poorly documented and ambiguous, and not easily subjected to any scientific experiments, Why?

I am afraid that anyone who reads this thread may see that you are avoiding these cases which are the most amenable to scientific investigation because you are unable to do so.

 

[thistle]

My only point was that finding a naturalistic explanation does not 100% rule out divine intervention, any more than a lack of naturalistic explanation proves divine intervention.

Yes it does rule it out. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Kurisu35712]

AnimalSpirits. You claim that Monica Besra asserts that she experienced a miraculous healing due to the intercession of Mother Theresa. You provide evidence in the form of news articles relating to the topic.

You state that her doctor who was treating her condition claims the healing was due to treatment, not a miracle, with documentation in the form of news articles.

This thread concerns Vatican approved miracles and whether any have been disproved by scientific investigation.

There is a specific and documented process by which the Vatican officially approves miracles, as well as places where this information can be found, researched, and cited. These officially approved, documented miracles have followed a specific procedure and have been published as having done so. ANY other miracle, however commonly believed, is NOT official according to the Vatican, and will not have documentation. This thread is not about miracles. It is about Vatican approved miracles.

If the Vatican has in fact declared the healing of Monica Besra a de fide miracle, the Vatican will have also documented that decision. If not, while members of the Vatican council may believe it, even if the pope himself believes it, it is NOT an approved miracle and has not meet the criteria to be considered one.

If this disputed healing is an approved miracle, you will be able to find the document asserting such as published by the Vatican itself, not a British news report. If you cannot find this documentation, the Vatican has not approved it as a miracle.

Unless and until you provide this document, this alleged miracle cannot be used as evidence in this discussion. Until documentation is given that the Vatican approved this miracle as such, following proper procedure, it is inadmissible as an example of a Vatican approved miracle as requested in the OP.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

AnimalSpirits. You claim that Monica Besra asserts that she experienced a miraculous healing due to the intercession of Mother Theresa. You provide evidence in the form of news articles relating to the topic.

You state that her doctor who was treating her condition claims the healing was due to treatment, not a miracle, with documentation in the form of news articles.

This thread concerns Vatican approved miracles and whether any have been disproved by scientific investigation.

There is a specific and documented process by which the Vatican officially approves miracles, as well as places where this information can be found, researched, and cited. These officially approved, documented miracles have followed a specific procedure and have been published as having done so. ANY other miracle, however commonly believed, is NOT official according to the Vatican, and will not have documentation. This thread is not about miracles. It is about Vatican approved miracles.

If the Vatican has in fact declared the healing of Monica Besra a de fide miracle, the Vatican will have also documented that decision. If not, while members of the Vatican council may believe it, even if the pope himself believes it, it is NOT an approved miracle and has not meet the criteria to be considered one.

If this disputed healing is an approved miracle, you will be able to find the document asserting such as published by the Vatican itself, not a British news report. If you cannot find this documentation, the Vatican has not approved it as a miracle.

Unless and until you provide this document, this alleged miracle cannot be used as evidence in this discussion. Until documentation is given that the Vatican approved this miracle as such, following proper procedure, it is inadmissible as an example of a Vatican approved miracle as requested in the OP.

The miracle was used to justify a beatification- that is, the event was assumed to be an act of a divine actor following the intercession of Mother Teresa. This was a decision made by the Vatican, following their internal justification.

As such, this is not just an Indian woman’s account that a bunch of people happen to believe- either it had been recognized as divine by the Vatican and invoked in an official procedure.

I’m a bit perplexed by the focus getting a document from the Vatican. Your accept the article when it quotes Monica, you accept it when it quotes the doctors, but when it claims that the Vatican has approved this event as a miracle, we need official documentation? The Vatican’s approval is extremely well coroborated by other sources.

Is it your view that the Vatican beatifies/canonizes people based on events it doesn’t consider miraculous? It could be that other procedures for identifying miracles exist, but the use of a miracle to justify a beatification is certainly a seal of approval.

 

[PRmerger]

AnimalSpirits. You claim that Monica Besra asserts that she experienced a miraculous healing due to the intercession of Mother Theresa. You provide evidence in the form of news articles relating to the topic.

You state that her doctor who was treating her condition claims the healing was due to treatment, not a miracle, with documentation in the form of news articles.

This thread concerns Vatican approved miracles and whether any have been disproved by scientific investigation.

There is a specific and documented process by which the Vatican officially approves miracles, as well as places where this information can be found, researched, and cited. These officially approved, documented miracles have followed a specific procedure and have been published as having done so. ANY other miracle, however commonly believed, is NOT official according to the Vatican, and will not have documentation. This thread is not about miracles. It is about Vatican approved miracles.

If the Vatican has in fact declared the healing of Monica Besra a de fide miracle, the Vatican will have also documented that decision. If not, while members of the Vatican council may believe it, even if the pope himself believes it, it is NOT an approved miracle and has not meet the criteria to be considered one.

If this disputed healing is an approved miracle, you will be able to find the document asserting such as published by the Vatican itself, not a British news report. If you cannot find this documentation, the Vatican has not approved it as a miracle.

Unless and until you provide this document, this alleged miracle cannot be used as evidence in this discussion. Until documentation is given that the Vatican approved this miracle as such, following proper procedure, it is inadmissible as an example of a Vatican approved miracle as requested in the OP.

Was this alleged miracle not what was used by the Vatican to further the cause for canonization of Mother Teresa?

 

[ahs]

My answer to the question in the thread title is “at least one”, with the Mother Teresa case being the example.

nytimes.com/2003/10/20/world/her-legacy-acceptance-and-doubts-of-a-miracle.html

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2593073.stm

The woman received two treatments- a beam of light from a picture and several months of medication. The Vatican apparently believes that the beam of light caused the cure and that it resulted from divine intervention due to the intercession of Mother Teresa. Some doctors disagree.

Was this alleged miracle not what was used by the Vatican to further the cause for canonization of Mother Teresa?

PR, I am looking through some of the documents now and not seeing it. Maybe I could get some help on this.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20031019_index_madre-teresa_en.html

A few quick points I noted after reading one of the articles that I want to find answers to:

-Why doesn’t the doctor know how long he treated the patient (was it 9 months, or a year, or more or less)?
-What medication did he treat her with, and what is its efficacy for “cysts caused by tuberculosis”, which is what he said she had?
-Was the miracle officially approved by the Vatican, or was it merely casually mentioned at a ceremony?
-Did science really disprove it, or is it just the Doctor’s word vs. someone else’s, with no further investigation to determine if he really treated her, what he treated her with, and whether it was likely to stop the cyst/tumor?
-If all she had was a cyst from tuberculosis, why are other people calling it a cancerous tumor?
-Was it the “cure” that is being called the miracle, or the “beam of light” from the picture?

 

[ahs]

PR, I am looking through some of the documents now and not seeing it. Maybe I could get some help on this.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20031019_index_madre-teresa_en.html

A few quick points I noted after reading one of the articles that I want to find answers to:

-Why doesn’t the doctor know how long he treated the patient (was it 9 months, or a year, or more or less)?
-What medication did he treat her with, and what is its efficacy for “cysts caused by tuberculosis”, which is what he said she had?
-Was the miracle officially approved by the Vatican, or was it merely casually mentioned at a ceremony?
-Did science really disprove it, or is it just the Doctor’s word vs. someone else’s, with no further investigation to determine if he really treated her, what he treated her with, and whether it was likely to stop the cyst/tumor?
-If all she had was a cyst from tuberculosis, why are other people calling it a cancerous tumor?
-Was it the “cure” that is being called the miracle, or the “beam of light” from the picture?

Okay, so far I have poured through the Vatican website documents on her Beatification, and there is nothing there that answers any of these. The only thing I can find is from Wikipedia [rolls eyes] which says that the miracle in question was in regards to being a “Blessed” and that another would be required for Sainthood. It seems that the Missionaries of Charity has the medical records that would support or discredit the doctor’s claim:
*
"After Mother Teresa’s death in 1997, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the third step toward possible canonisation. This process requires the documentation of a miracle performed from the intercession of Mother Teresa.[120]

In 2002, the Vatican recognised as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, after the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa’s picture. Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Critics—including some of Besra’s medical staff and, initially, Besra’s husband—said that conventional medical treatment had eradicated the tumor.[121] Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who told The New York Times he had treated Besra, said that the cyst was not cancer at all but a cyst caused by tuberculosis. He said, “It was not a miracle… She took medicines for nine months to one year.”[122] According to Besra’s husband, “My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle.”[123]

An opposing perspective of the claim is that Besra’s medical records contain sonograms, prescriptions, and physicians’ notes that could prove whether the cure was a miracle or not. Besra has claimed that Sister Betta of the Missionaries of Charity is holding them. Time magazine received a “no comments” statement from Sister Betta. The officials at the Balurghat Hospital where Besra was seeking medical treatment have claimed that they are being pressured by the Catholic order to declare the cure a miracle.[123]

In the process of examining Teresa’s suitability for beatification and canonisation, the Roman Curia (the Vatican) pored over a great deal of documentation of published and unpublished criticism of her life and work. Concerning allegations raised by journalist Christopher Hitchens, Vatican officials have responded by saying that these have been investigated by the agency charged with such matters, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and that they found no obstacle to Mother Teresa’s beatification. Because of the attacks she has received, some Catholic writers have called her a sign of contradiction.[124] The beatification of Mother Teresa took place on 19 October 2003, thereby bestowing on her the title “Blessed.”[125] A second miracle is required for her to proceed to canonisation."* (Ye olde Wiki)

While it does not appear we can see the evidences for ourselves (not sure how current this article is), it also does not appear that this Vatican approved miracle has been disproved…only contested.

 

[ahs]

I’d hardly call the doctors that treated the woman “unaffiliated.” The Times article, which cites the doctor’s disagreement, is nearly a year later- it’s entirely possible that the doubters became aware and started speaking up sometime between dec 2002 and oct 2003.

And, dare I say it, the BBC is know for being relatively even handed- not just secular.

I would agree with this. But I don’t think you can say that this miracle has been disproven by any means. It’s only been called into question (like most miracles, I assume).

-We don’t know what the doctor was treating her WITH, and what its efficacy is in treating her condition.
-The woman claimed to be cured immediately (she had a tumor, the light from the picture touched her, and when she woke the tumor was gone). Medications don’t work like that.
-The doctor’s testimony that he treated her for 9-12 months, coupled with the testimony that the tumor still existed in her abdomen at the time of the alleged miracle, actually works against the doctor’s claim that it was medication that cured her.

At any rate, apparently not even the doctor has the medical records to back up any position, one way or the other. This case is far from disproved.

 

[ahs]

Do you agree Vatican considers the healing of Monica Besra to be a legitimate miracle?

Do you agree that her doctors consider the healing to be the result of medical treatment?

Please provide a clear yes or no for both.

1 - Evidently it does not. The only sources that claim it are wiki and the news agency from which wiki got its information. But there isn’t anything in the Vatican Library that I can find that says this. I am hoping someone can find something, though. It would be nice to know for sure.

2 - Yes. That is what the doctor claimed, and apparently what her husband initially claimed (According to wiki). That is hardly “proof” to disprove any alleged Vatican claim to the miracle. The fact that the doctor himself doesn’t have these records (or won’t release them) which would support his claim does damage to his own claim.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

While it does not appear we can see the evidences for ourselves (not sure how current this article is), it also does not appear that this Vatican approved miracle has been disproved…only contested.

What would constitute a disproof in your view? The Vatican never actually seeks to prove divine intervention directly, at least with regard to cures. Rather, they look for a naturalistic explanation and, if they don’t find one, posit that a supernatural force must be at play. They apparently reached this conclusion without contacting the doctors treating this woman.

Given that standard of evidence, a plausible naturalistic explanation should be considered a disproof- indeed, it is really the only possible disproof.

And on documents, it might be the case that this document does not exist in English or online.

1 - Evidently it does not. The only sources that claim it are wiki and the news agency from which wiki got its information. But there isn’t anything in the Vatican Library that I can find that says this. I am hoping someone can find something, though. It would be nice to know for sure.

2 - Yes. That is what the doctor claimed, and apparently what her husband initially claimed (According to wiki). That is hardly “proof” to disprove any alleged Vatican claim to the miracle. The fact that the doctor himself doesn’t have these records (or won’t release them) which would support his claim does damage to his own claim.

It’s not a one news agency- I’ve seen the BBC, daily telegraph, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times (among others) mention this, in connection with their coverage of the beatification.

Ultimately, we don’t have access to the whole of the library- we have the subset that’s been put on the Internet and translated into languages we can read.

Besra admitted that she was taking medication somewhere, as I recall. The medical records would show that the particular claims of the doctor were true, but the basic fact that she was cured of a disease she was being treated for holds regardless.

 

[ahs]

AnimalSpirits:

What would constitute a disproof in your view? .

Something more than a disagreement on the findings and news agencies reporting each others’ stories about someone disagreeing with the findings.

-There is still no actual evidence that the Vatican approved the miracle. (I happen to believe they did, but there is no evidence to support that.)
-No one seems to have access to the doctor’s records (not even the doctor himself) to show his treatment of the patient, what drugs were used, and what their efficacy is in treating the illness.
-All we have is a woman (and her witnesses) claiming that a tumor immediately went away after light from a picture touched her. We know of no medications that are applied to tubercular tumors for 9-12 months which suddenly make the tumor disappear as was described by the woman and her witnesses.
-The doctor says it was his treatment (and medication) that cured the woman, but offers no records for review. (Because he does not have them? Or he does not want to bring them to scrutiny? If it was a matter of doctor/client priveldge, how did the Sisters of Charity obtain them?)

“Disproving” something means you have to prove that something did not happen. But there isn’t a shred of evidence available (that you and I know of). All we have is personal testimony with no actual data to back it up.
Does that call the miracle into question? Sure it does.
Does it “disprove” it? Nope. Not in the slightest.

 

[ahs]

Given that standard of evidence, a plausible naturalistic explanation should be considered a disproof- indeed, it is really the only possible disproof.

I disagree. To “believe” something is “not” and to avoid any obligation to believe it, you are certainly correct. But to set out to positively “disprove” is to take the burden of proof upon oneself.

And on documents, it might be the case that this document does not exist in English or online.

I agree. The “English” issue is easily addressed with the translator tools available. Even Google has a simple tool that translates. It isn’t perfect, but it at least gets you close and would be useful in this particular case. So, such evidence either doesn’t exist, or it simply isn’t online. I hope that someone finds it if it exists.

It’s not a one news agency- I’ve seen the BBC, daily telegraph, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times (among others) mention this, in connection with their coverage of the beatification.

Which one of them cited a Catholic document or provided some quote from the Church that said the same thing as what they reported?

Besra admitted that she was taking medication somewhere, as I recall. The medical records would show that the particular claims of the doctor were true, but the basic fact that she was cured of a disease she was being treated for holds regardless.

Yet we don’t know which medication it was, its efficacy in treating the particular illness, whether the mass was growing or shrinking or staying the same, etc. Did the doctor not keep those records?

I’m not claiming that the miracle is “proven” on any basis I’ve mentioned. I’m saying that it can’t be “disproven” because there’s [evidently] no evidence one way or the other that you and I can find. We can’t even be 100% certain that the Church recognizes the miracle in the first place.

 

[Ignatius]

1 - Evidently it does not. The only sources that claim it are wiki and the news agency from which wiki got its information. But there isn’t anything in the Vatican Library that I can find that says this. I am hoping someone can find something, though. It would be nice to know for sure.

2 - Yes. That is what the doctor claimed, and apparently what her husband initially claimed (According to wiki). That is hardly “proof” to disprove any alleged Vatican claim to the miracle. The fact that the doctor himself doesn’t have these records (or won’t release them) which would support his claim does damage to his own claim.

Apparently some of the folks here don’t understand that to call into question is not the same as proving. I guess they confuse a question with a proof.