Bernadette is covered with a wax mask, although the body was in a good state of incorruptability. Padre Pio was the same, in good condition, but not perfect. Again, a wax mask was used at his “viewing” in recent months.

Faith need not be based upon such elements as these. Pope John XXIII, as the Vatican admits, is not a miracle per se, but he, too, is remarkably well-preserved.

I do not need well-preserved corpses to prove anything to me.

Thanks

Mikey: I’m still waiting for some evidence regarding your assertion that the Vatican says the body of “Good Pope John” is no miracle. Obviously, if that is true, I’ll stop referencing his particular case as belonging to the “incorruptibles”. By the way, I’m not “lying” to my friend, because as far as I know, he is incorrupt. Besides, the evidence of the incorruptible saints are hardly the crux of my argument as to the authenticity of the Church.

Back to Pope John for a moment – even if you are correct (again, I have yet to see any official statement that he’s not incorrupt), that still doesn’t negate the evidence of all the other cases…St Bernadette (the crux of the article, was, after all, about her), St. Padre Pio (a quick Google image search on him will provide plenty of evidence that his own recently unearthed body was found incorrupt), and all the other incorruptible saints of the Catholic Church.

Also, what of the numerous healing miracles reported at Lourdes? As far as the miracles recorded in the Gospels being allegedly bogus…give the ancients some credit. They were not easily duped. For example, we still can’t figure out exactly how they built the Egyptian pyramids without the aid of hydraulics. Jesus’ own contemporaries thought he was a miracle worker, and this is recorded by secular historians of the time (I’d be happy to provide some references if you’re interested). “St Albert’s” above comment is quite relevant to the issue as well, regarding God intentionally leaving room for faith.

John: “No one can have skin like that after being dead for so long.” I agree that this is not naturally possible. But that’s the point: it’s a supernatural miracle.

Mary: A thin layer of wax cannot prevent a body from decomposing. I’m not sure if that’s what you were trying to say – please correct me if I’m wrong here. Are you suggesting that the bodies of Bernadette and Pope John are artificially preserved? If so, do you have any evidence for that?

Again, thanks for taking the time to read, folks!

Cale Clarke

http://www.windgaz.com/mike_cereal.jpg

Now, the second part of Mikey’s post. I’m not sure what to make of it. The fact that miracles appear in the gospel is not proof of their authenticity? If Christ multiplied loaves and fishes to feed 5 thousand, what does that mean? That there is a natural explanation? Or is Mikey suggesting that although the gospels may contain certain narratives about miracles, that does not mean they ever happened? In other words, they were just made up?

Was it made up that Christ rose from the dead? That he healed many of their diseases? That he cured the two blind men? That he raised a young girl from the dead, not to mention Lazarus? If anyone thinks that all these things were just fabricated, how does he explain Christ’s popularity? I think I’d argue that there’s more blind faith in rationalism than there is in the biblical testimony of miracles. The difference is that the faith of the rationalist is directed towards himself.

In any case, consider Padre Pio, the stigmata, the witnesses of this, the medical testimony, the testimony of his bilocation. Just attend a healing service with Fr. Ralph DiOrio and witness all sorts of miracles. A great book to read is Alexis Carrel’s book The Voyage to Lourdes. He was a skeptic, until he was invited to accompany a dying patient to Lourdes. He describes what happened under his very nose one night. He was stunned. He knew his patient could not have been healed psychosomatically. It’s quite interesting. I can post that section, I have the book.

The thing about miracles, though, is that God always leaves room for doubt. They still require faith. God gives us enough room to doubt the miracle, so there’s even merit in believing that a miracle occurred, the merit that comes from the virtue of faith.

I thought Cale’s article was one of the best I’ve read.

Now on to the larger issue. The fact that miracles appear in the gospel is not in itself proof of their authenticity. To make this claim is glib and disingenuous, and only serves as proof that anything can be asserted as fact when blind faith is applied.