Paul Kengor: Do you believe in miracles? |
Featured Commentary

Paul Kengor: Do you believe in miracles?


Do you believe in miracles? That’s a line made famous, of course, by sportscaster Al Michaels regarding the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. But that’s nothing compared to the miracle I heard about two weeks ago.

I was at Eureka College, alma mater of Ronald Reagan, speaking on Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Bishop Fulton Sheen. There I met Bonnie Engstrom, who graduated from Eureka many decades after Reagan, and her husband Travis.

Those familiar with my work know I’ve done a book on Reagan and John Paul II, but for years I’ve likewise studied Sheen. He was enormously popular, watched and beloved by huge numbers of Protestants as well as Catholics. He was on the cover of everything from Time to TV Guide. His No. 1 television show was “Life is Worth Living.”

Sheen lived not only a prolific life but a holy one — so much so that the Vatican in June 2012 declared him “venerable.” The cause for his canonization has been in process. It requires not only affirmation of holiness but the miraculous — which brings me to Bonnie Engstrom.

In 2010, Bonnie gave birth to a stillborn baby boy who showed no signs of life for 61 minutes, until he suddenly came to life with a perfectly normal heartbeat, vital signs, everything. No brain damage. That’s unheard of. Few to none escape brain damage after merely a few minutes of death. 61 minutes?

Today, James Fulton is a healthy 8-year-old.

Bonnie and her husband prayed specifically and solely to Fulton Sheen for his intercession to God. She already had a special fondness and devotion to Sheen, who hails from the same Peoria area. Bonnie kept praying to Sheen as she lay in shock, on the floor, near her bed, giving birth at home. Travis called 911 and performed an emergency baptism. The ambulance arrived and rushed the baby to nearby St. Francis Hospital.

Still with no pulse after over an hour, the ER crew gave up resuscitation to declare the child certifiably dead. Just then, his heartbeat instantly started at 148 beats per minute. What happened is not medically explainable.

This short column doesn’t allow space to go into detail, but the many confirmed facts of the case, including by medical personnel and experts, and the official Vatican team that has probed the account with microscopic scrutiny, is truly remarkable. In March 2014, the Vatican’s seven-member board of medical advisers unanimously recommended the case as a miracle. In June 2014, the team of official theologians who advise the Congregation for the Causes of Saints approved the miracle.

Non-Catholics, not to mention many Catholics, have no idea how intense the process is for authentication of a miracle. The Vatican has an official Devil’s Advocate, Advocatus Diaboli, tasked with the duty of trying to find flaws or falsity in claims of the miraculous. I was doing something of the same to the Engstroms when I met them at Eureka — a skepticism I’ve had my entire life, particularly back to my agnostic-atheist days as a pre-med biochem/biophysics major at Pitt. I’ve never blindly accepted things.

The vast majority of what people think are miracles do not pass muster in Rome. The case of James Fulton Engstrom, however, has. This, it appears, is a miracle to believe in.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science and chief academic fellow of the Institute for Faith & Freedom at Grove City College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.