Regarding the July 12 column “Pope John Paul II & the trouble with miracles” concerning the Catholic Church's reliance on miracles to support the cause of sainthood, I have a few observations:
• The writer, Lawrence Krauss, is a physicist who relies on empirical evidence to back up his beliefs.
While the church also relies on physical evidence, it does not ignore the possibility of divine intervention to bring about a miracle.
Hundreds of years before Christ became a man, it was prophesied that the Messiah would manifest his divinity by curing the sick (the lame will walk, the blind will see, etc.). These miracles were witnessed by hundreds, even thousands, who were not yet believers.
• In the work of his salvific mission, Christ gave his disciples and their successors the power to perform these same kinds of miracles. As a necessary ingredient, a strong faith and intercessory prayers preceded these miracles.
In many cases, perfectly natural phenomena may explain the miracle's occurrence but they do not preclude that a miracle took place.
The church strongly believes that the power of prayer can bring about miracles.
Having faith in miracles does not run counter to reason — it transcends reason.
As the only creatures with intellect and a will, humans are given the means to know some attributes of their creator, but not to know his creator as he is: “(in Heaven) we will see Him face to face” (Corinthians).
We need to ask ourselves why we are here. Miracles have a way of bringing us closer to understanding those questions.
I'm reminded of a song from the musical “The Flower Drum Song” — (A hundred million miracles are happening every day).
And so they are!
Robert (Bert) Welsh
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.