This is the miraculous event that made Pope John Paul II a saint, as described in the article entitled 'Costa Rican woman who elevated the Pope to sainthood: "Praying to John Paul II saved me''':

Floribeth Mora Díaz was told there was no hope. Taken to hospital in Costa Rica, she was devastated to discover that her persistent headaches were the result of an aneurysm in the brain. The doctors said her days were numbered. [...] 

Alejandro Vargas Román, the neurosurgeon who treated Mrs Mora, is convinced that her recovery is the result of divine intervention.

"Of course it's true," he told Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion. "I am a Catholic, and as a doctor with many years of experience I do believe in miracles. No one has been able to provide a medical explanation for what happened."

Mr Román was questioned by Vatican authorities in San Jose, who concluded that she was saved by a miracle.

"I talked to the priests, but maybe they were specialised in something," he said. "They weren't doctors; they were theologians or lawyers, so my role was that of medical investigation."

But he is adamant that the science is sound.

"We have to remember that the arteriography [images of the blood vessels] was seen by various people within this hospital, and also shared at a symposium in Mexico. The images are stored here. Any person who needs to see the studies; they are here," he said. 

From another source:

"The neurosurgeon who admitted and diagnosed Mora, however, denies he gave her a month to live. Alejandro Vargas says he forecast only a 2 percent chance Mora could bleed into her brain again within a year of her diagnosis, possibly killing her. 

"She was sent home with medication that would reduce her blood pressure and was advised to improve her diet so as not to raise her cholesterol levels and thus decrease the chance of her having a second bleeding episode. She was sedated because the headaches were too sharp," he told Reuters. "We didn't send her home to be sedated and wait until she died in her sleep."

Thus, the God of the Gaps reigns supreme. Find a pocket of ignorance, add religion, some wild exaggeration, bake for 2 minutes, and God appears.

Crackpot: How do you explain X?
Me: I can't.
Crackpot: See? God did it. It's the ONLY explanation! The science is sound!

Tags: II, John, Paul, Pope, miracles, saints

Views: 2061

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Seriously, @arch, you seem like an intelligent fellow.  Surely you know how to do proper research and evaluation of the likely veracity of various sources.   This is all nonsense.

I'm only going to do the first paragraph for you or I'll be up all night.

By 500 CE, the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 CE, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate.

False.  And really quite funny, since "Vulgate" is a modernization of versio vulgata, which means "commonly used translation" or "translation into the common tongue".  It wasn't adopted as official by the Roman Church until the 16th century, and that only made it official alongside the older texts.

The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome

False.  At that time all five of the original Patriarchates were still thriving, in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.

and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin.

That would be pretty funny, given that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was, you know, in Greece, speaking Greek...

Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed!

Riiiight.  Off with their heads!

A full bible at that time cost a fortune, and was likely owned by either a church or some wealthy patron, like someone in the Emperor's Court.  I wonder who we sent to carry out the sentence, since Rome was busy fending off Visigoths at the time. ;-)

I can only assume you pulled this nonsense from some anti-Catholic site somewhere.  Exercise a bit of healthy skepticism.

Whew, Bob, I am SO relieved to hear that William Tyndale was never strangled, and that John Hus, John Wycliff's associate, was never burned at the stake.

You seem inordinately fond of Wikipedia and seem like a relatively intelligent fellow, let's take a look at what Wiki has to say about Hus:

He was burned at the stake for heresy against the doctrines of the Catholic Church, including those on ecclesiology, the Eucharist, and other theological topics. Hus was a key predecessor to the Protestant movement of the sixteenth century, and his teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe, most immediately in the approval of a reformist Bohemian religious denomination, and, more than a century later, on Martin Luther himself.

After his death, between 1420 and 1431, followers of Hus' religious teachings (known as Hussite) rebelled against their Roman Catholic rulers and defeated five consecutive papal crusades in what became known as the Hussite Wars. A century later, as many as 90% of inhabitants of the Czech lands were non-Catholic and followed the teachings of Hus and his successors.

And Tyndale:

Tyndale’s translations were condemned in England, where his work was banned and copies burned. Catholic officials, prominently Thomas More, charged that he had purposely mistranslated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views, In particular they cited the terms “church,” “priest,” “do penance” and “charity,” which became in the Tyndale translation “congregation,” “senior” (changed to "elder" in the revised edition of 1534), “repent” and “love,” challenging key doctrines of the Roman Church. Betrayed to church officials in 1536, he was defrocked in an elaborate public ceremony and turned over to the civil authorities to be strangled to death and burned at the stake. His last words are said to have been, "Lord, open the eyes of the king of England!"

"turned over to the civil authorities to be strangled to death and burned at the stake" doesn't that sound just a bit like the Sanhedrin to you?

Excellent, @arch.  Since you did not dispute any of my corrections above, I take it that you recognize that the original text you posted was inaccurate and highly biased, and should be dismissed as a valid source.  Well done.

Now you want to move from general claims about the Catholic Church over the course of an entire millenium to particular cases of the behavior of individual churchmen in countries relatively far from Rome, during the specific time period of the political and social upheaval of the Reformation.  History is not my field, but I guess I'm happy to try to point you to better sources.  I can always wander by colleagues in that department.

What I don't see is that it has any relevance to anything here on TA.  I'm perfectly willing to grant that individual Americans and groups of Americans have done bad things at various times in history, particularly during periods of social upheaval.  That isn't an indictment of America, or of the philosophy of American Democracy, however.

Would you also grant that the behaviors of individual churchmen, or groups of churchmen, are not sufficient to indict all of Catholicism, or the philosophy of Catholic theology?

RE: "Since you did not dispute any of my corrections above" - sorry, just as you decided (above) that you were only intending to address my first paragraph, my time, which is just as valuable as yours, allowed me only to dispute a couple of pieces of the comment you labeled, "nonsense."

I'm not like Gallup with his bulldog tenacity - I got my information from sources I consider reliable, and doubt that any of yours are any less biased - unlike Gallup, I have neither the time nor inclination to argue with you ad nauseam, refuting tiny tidbits of your assertions, or spending hours relocating my original sources that will fall on deaf ears anyway.

Then you need to rethink the reliability of your sources, since what they're espousing is the intellectual equivalent of Young-Earth Creationism.    Ignoring evidence and complexity in order to tell a simplistic tale in sync with their worldview.

Actually, I think it's worse than the YECs, since its intent is to vilify a whole group of people, rather than just argue a position on natural history. 

Excellent, @arch.  Since you did not dispute any of my corrections above, I take it that you recognize that the original text you posted was inaccurate and highly biased, and should be dismissed as a valid source.  Well done.

Robert: *Craps into his hand and eats it* Ah-ha! You didn't puke, Arch! Your lack of response means you're highly biased, inaccurate, dismissed and oh yeah, you owe me a keg of beer too! Yeah! That's how I take it!

You gotta admit the guy is fascinating Arch, albeit in a sideshow act kind of way.

unlike Gallup, I have neither the time nor inclination to argue with you ad nauseam, refuting tiny tidbits of your assertions, or spending hours relocating my original sources that will fall on deaf ears anyway.

I certainly don't do it for the benefit of Robert's deaf ears. Robert is beyond redemption, beyond reason, even beyond aluminium foil hats and K-Y jelly.

But there are readers and lurkers, including newcomers who are 'on the fence' and accustomed to bending knee. TA has an extensive membership. It's for their benefit (and admittedly for my amusement as well).

When Robert engages the haughty dishonesty for God and religion I'm only too happy to engage him further. When he shoots himself in the foot, I'm only too pleased to hand him more ammo. I consider it a public service: I shine a spotlight on a fool and prolong his performance. Time well spent.

@Gallup - you can shorten it all, really (although it has it's entertaining elements) with a picture (naturally).

LOL.  Sorry, not bald. ;-)

Ah, but you didn't reject the caption, therefore you wholeheartedly agree with it!

(Any similarity in the above sentence to Prof Bob's earlier behavior is completely intentional and intended as satire. No fronkeys were harmed in the making of this comment.)

@Gallup - you can shorten it all, really (although it has it's entertaining elements) with a picture (naturally).

@Strega. It's perfect. Look closely and you can discern the head of an altar boy at waist height under the robe.

Ah, but you didn't reject the caption, therefore you wholeheartedly agree with it!

As satire?  Sure.   Christians can be the most arrogant people in the world.

Glad you didn't harm any fronkeys, though!

Those people, about whom you seem so concerned, appear to have done a bang-up job of self-vilification without any help from me.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service