MIRACLE. -
I. Concept and Classification
From the Latin *mirari*, it denotes a fact that surprises, arouses wonder or amazement. It is usually defined as: "A sensible fact, wrought by God, outside all the forces and laws of nature." And since the miracle can in three ways surpass the laws of nature, theologians, following St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 1ª, q. 105, a. 8), classify miracles into three categories, according as they surpass the power of created nature: either in their constitutive principle, or in relation to the subject in which they occur, or in the manner in which they take place. In De potentia, q. 6, a. 2 ad 3, the Angelic Doctor proposes another division, which does not perfectly coincide with the preceding one: miracles *supra*, *contra*, and *praeter naturam*. *Supra naturam* are miracles that surpass natural forces either absolutely or relatively to the subject in which they occur; *contra naturam*, those that oppose a particular inclination of some creature; *praeter naturam*, phenomena which nature cannot produce in the way in which the Creator brings them about.II. POSSIBILITY OF THE MIRACLE
God is omnipotent; He can therefore bring about what is not repugnant to being, and thus also the miracle. Moreover, He created with full freedom: for while He willed the laws of nature, He did not renounce the faculty of manifesting His power outside of them. He can therefore in some cases withdraw, limit, or modify the concurrence [of secondary causes], and then the miraculous phenomenon will occur. Nor is the miracle repugnant to divine immutability, as if God were to change His pre-established decrees. With one and the same act of will He has established from eternity both the laws and the miraculous exceptions. All the change lies in the creatures, not in God: one must not confuse the will to change with the change of will. Nor is the miracle a correction that God makes in His work, which is perfect in its order. Nor is it wrought idly or capriciously; if God works miracles, He always does so for a higher end: either to manifest a particular benevolence toward some creature, or to inculcate His dominion, or to accredit some revealed truth. The miracle is therefore not a rent in the web of phenomena, but an embroidery, an ornament, which better sets off the goodness and wisdom of the divine Ordainer.Without doubt, science presupposes the stability of natural laws, but a physical stability, not a metaphysical one: the laws, left to themselves, always act in the same way. They are not such, however, as to exclude every exception on the part of the Creator. The scientist who moves within the field of sensible experience cannot, as such, enter the metaphysical field to deny the Transcendent or His intervention in the world; in no way can he demonstrate absolute or metaphysical determinism so as to exclude every modification wrought by the Supreme Being.
Some physicists object that the laws of nature are so intimately connected with one another that one cannot suspend one without suspending them all.
With the miracle, however, God does not suspend the law, but its application; the effect is modified, not the law, which remains always in full force of application. The mutual interference of physical laws is not denied, but it is not such as to be disturbed by miracles. The repercussion of the miracle in the universe takes place according to natural laws, and so is not a cause of cosmic disorder, any more than is any human action.
Some physicists, since the energy of the universe is constant, believe themselves justified in denying miraculous phenomena that would imply the subtraction or addition of cosmic energy. In reality, the principle "nothing is created, nothing is destroyed" does not have so universal a scope as to exclude the creation of new elements, nor can it be extended to energies pertaining to the spirit. It holds only in the physical field and finds certain application in the sphere of natural causality; under the hands of the naturalist nothing is created or destroyed: transformations occur. But the principle cannot be extended to divine omnipotence, as if God could not create or destroy. Moreover, miraculous action does not imply the creation of new elements, but the impressing of a new direction upon existing cosmic energy. God can multiply loaves and form tissues with existing cosmic elements, without creating new energies.
Against the possibility of the miracle is opposed contingentism or physical indeterminism, which denies the existence of constant laws. For how could God derogate in particular cases from laws if these do not exist? It is to be noted, however, that when one speaks today of indeterminism, it is almost solely in the field of atomic and nuclear physics, in that the position of corpuscles, their velocity and direction, and the consequent phenomena can be known only approximately, unlike what occurs in the ordinary macroscopic and microscopic world. It is clear, however, that one is faced with a subjective indeterminacy and not an objective one: it would be arbitrary to consider corpuscles outside law, and thus to speak of objective indeterminacy.
In reality, great physicists, when they speak of the "principle of indeterminacy," mean to say that one cannot have precise knowledge of the position and motion of corpuscles so as to foresee their actions with certainty, as occurs in classical physics, but they do not mean to exclude an objective determinism. Indeterminism is the impossibility of foreseeing future phenomena, due to the imprecision of physical measurements: thus L. De Broglie (I quanti nella fisica moderna, Torino 1938, p. 220). Max Planck, Nobel laureate in physics, after affirming that "our observations are too coarse to be applied to a direct control of the law of causality," adds: "It is unnecessary to dwell further to explain that physics, in all the problems of the atomic and molecular world, tends... to substitute statistical laws with rigidly causal dynamic laws, and in this sense it is permissible to say that physics... in all its fields is founded on the validity of the causal law" (La conoscenza del mondo fisico, Torino 1942, p. 121). Atomic and nuclear phenomena take place in the field of material energies, and so have physical laws: it is not presumable that they are endowed with free will, capable of self-determination.
III. HISTORICAL KNOWABILITY OF THE MIRACLE
The miracle is a rare fact, but this increases attention and prompts more careful investigation. Moreover, as a sensible fact, it is a fact like any other and can be known in the same way, namely: either by direct vision, possible only to those who witness it; or by the testimony of those who have witnessed II. It is objected that for the most part miracles are attested by people of the people, untrained in criticism and prone to superstition. One cannot therefore trust their judgment. It may indeed be presumed that they have mistaken for a miracle what was not in fact such. It is replied, however, that it is one thing to attest that a fact has occurred, and another to attest that it is miraculous. To testify that a fact has taken place does not require great science or culture. If then the historically ascertained fact is or is not miraculous, this will be judged in the light of modern knowledge.Some rationalists, following Hume, affirm that even the most historically attested miracles, since they are in contradiction with scientific laws, cannot be admitted as true. But the alleged conflict does not exist: the data of science and history can agree. It is known with scientific certainty that physical laws, left to themselves, always act uniformly and that an exception wrought by the Supreme Ordainer is not repugnant. In other words, the scientific law attests a rule, historical testimony an exception. It is illogical not to accept both.
IV. PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWABILITY OF THE MIRACLE
The question arises whether it is possible to know that a phenomenon transcends every physical causality and represents an exception to the laws of nature. It is said, moreover, that such a phenomenon might depend on unknown material energies. Yet it is certain that some phenomena nature cannot produce at all. Everyone knows, for instance, that a single word cannot truly raise a dead man to life, nor can a little water instantly cleanse from gangrenous ulcers or leprosy. This has always been acknowledged by all peoples, of every age and culture. Common sense finds confirmation of this in science. It is therefore known that some phenomena are naturally impossible; hence, if a fact occurs that falls within this category, it must be said to depend on a cause transcending the physical order. If the preternatural character of any phenomenon remains doubtful, the miracle will be called doubtful: this does not, however, negate the existence of certain miracles.No matter how great physical forces may be, they are always material: to act, they must be applied, and their effects are proportionate to them. Since material agents have a specific nature and a determined structure, the phenomena that follow will always be determined, not disparate. If, therefore, phenomena with the characteristics or in the circumstances mentioned above occur, it must be said that they transcend material causality and depend on a free spiritual agent. Christianity abounds with such phenomena. A word that heals at a distance, a voice that calms a storm, changes water into wine, multiplies loaves, frees a demoniac, causes fever to cease, makes a paralytic walk, raises a man dead for four days—none of these can be considered an adequate cause of such disparate effects. Such phenomena, by their variety and irregularity, bear no proportion to their physical antecedents and postulate a free cause transcending matter.
V. PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE MIRACLE
The miracle is an absolutely certain criterion of Revelation if it is closely connected with II. This connection may be explicit, if the thaumaturge performs prodigies to show the divine origin of his mission, or implicit, if this results from the circumstances. The miracle is, in fact, a divine work: man can only implore II. If, therefore, the thaumaturge asks it as confirmation of a doctrine, it is God Himself who confirms it; if a person claims to speak in the name of the Most High and to announce to men a revealed religion, and performs miracles, these are like the seal impressed by God to authenticate the assertions of His envoy. God is free, but He cannot do evil. If, in the circumstances recalled, He were to perform a miracle without intending to approve the doctrine of the thaumaturge, He would become a witness to falsehood and lead those present into an insurmountable error: for, basing themselves on common sense, they would take the miracles as a divine confirmation and accept as revealed a doctrine that is not.
pp. 7-83; A. Gottardi, La discernibilità del m. e il suo valore probatorio, Venice 1936; F. Fabbì, Il cristianesimo, Assisi 1949, pp. 119-42.
VI.
I. MIRACLES OF JESUS
Jesus Christ Himself had said to the two disciples sent by John the Baptist: “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised” (Mt 11:5). The same Redeemer, when the Jews asked Him if He was truly the Christ, had replied: “The works that I do in the name of My Father, these are the works that bear witness to Me” (Jn 10:23 ff. and 5:36).The earliest representations of the Lord’s miracles in Christian funerary art appear in the so-called Greek Priscilla (v.), with scenes of the raising of Lazarus, the healing of the paralytic, and the multiplication of the loaves with the seven baskets of fragments, alluding to the miracle of the multiplication (mid-2nd century). In the 3rd and 4th centuries, in funerary frescoes and on sarcophagi, scenes will appear of the changing of water into wine at the wedding in Cana, the healings of the woman with a hemorrhage, the Canaanite woman, the woman with a bent back, the possessed, the man born blind and other blind men, and the raising of the daughter of Jairus and the son of the widow of Nain.
In non-funerary art, scenes of the Lord walking on the water and St. Peter being saved, as well as the healing of the paralytic, DUBA EUROPOS (v.) from the mid-3rd century.
According to the text of the Synoptics (Mt 8:2-3; Mk 1:40-42; Lk 5:12-13), at the mere touch of the Lord’s hand the leper is healed (Wilpert, Sarcofagi, pl. 220, 1st fragment on the left). At the mere gesture of Christ’s right hand the demoniac is freed, as shown in a fresco from the first half of the 3rd century in the Catacombs (G. Mancini, Scavi sotto la basilica di S. Sebastiano sull’Appia, in Notizie degli scavi, 20 [1923], pl. 10, 1 and 2), an ivory in the Louvre Museum from the 5th century (G. Duthuit and F. Volbach, Art byzantin, Paris 1903, pl. 10 B), and one from the museums of S. Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna dated between 493 and 526 (C. Ricci, Tavole storiche dei mosaici di Ravenna, S. Apollinare nuovo, Rome 1934, pl. 1, fig. 2). Artists represent Jesus Christ performing miracles through different gestures, as read in the Gospel texts, namely the Lord is implored to lay hands (in the Greek text), the hand (in the Latin text [Mk 5:23; 7:32; Mt 7:32]) on the sick, or simply to touch them (Mk 8:22); He places His fingers in the ears of the deaf-mute and moistens his tongue with His saliva (Mk 7:33); He lays hands on the eyes of the blind man of Bethsaida (Mk 8:23) and on the woman with the bent back (Lk 13:11-15); He touches the leper (Mt 8:2-3; Mk 1:40-42; Lk 5:12-13), the blind (Mt 9:2-3; 20:29-34); yet He also restores sight by anointing the eyes with earth moistened with saliva (Jn 9:1-38); the woman with a hemorrhage is healed by the mere contact with the Lord’s garments; the sister of Lazarus approaches the divine Master suppliantly (Wilpert, Sarcofagi, pl. 125, 5; 126; the artist, to represent the foul odor of the Johannine text, has her carry her fingers to her nose [id., ibid., pl. 115, 1]) or, full of gratitude, kisses the hand of the Saviour (id., ibid., pls. 91, 207, 2 and fig. 186), a gesture also performed by the Canaanite woman with veiled hands, presented to Christ by a disciple (id., ibid., pl. 116, 1). All these scenes do not have a historical meaning, but have been chosen by the magisterium of the Church and reproduced to attest to the living faith in Jesus Christ, the divine thaumaturge who came down from heaven to heal humanity. Thus St. Augustine indicates Him: “ad sanandum grandem aegrotum descendit omnipotens medicus” (Sermon 87, 11: PL 38, 527) and again: “Dominum nostrum est Salvatorem Jesum Christum medicum esse nostrae salutis aeternae” (Sermon 88, 1: ibid., 38, 539).
An inscription discovered at Timgad expresses the same concept very well by invoking Jesus Christ as the only physician: “I beg You, Lord: come to the aid of Your saints and penitents, O Christ, You alone are the physician” (G. Carcopino, L’invocazione di Timgad au Christ médecin, in Rendiconti della Pont. accad. rom. di arch., 3rd ser., 5 [1928], pp. 79-87).
The same representations, especially that of the raising of Lazarus, the multiplication of the loaves, and Christ walking on the water, recur in ivories, in gilded glass, and in the iconographic cycles of basilicas from Dura Europos in the mid-3rd century to the grand schemes of ancient, medieval, and Romanesque churches. In these, the scenes of the Lord’s miracles are at once narrative and didactic. St. Gregory the Great (590–604), echoing a concept already expressed by Paulinus of Nola, affirms that “the image is for the illiterate what writing is for those who know how to read; through images the illiterate learn what they ought to imitate; images are the reading book of the illiterate” (Ep., IX, 105: PL 77, 1027).
VII. MIRACLES IN CAUSES OF BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION
Miracles performed in life by servants of God do not, in themselves, constitute proof of holiness; therefore, only those wrought through their intercession after death definitively confirm such holiness with divine authority. For this reason, the Church has always held this supernatural element in high regard in causes of beatification and canonization, and even today, albeit with differing criteria, it remains an indispensable factor, at least in ordinary cases.Proof of a miracle is required for every canonization; for beatification, two exceptions are made: that of martyrs, when martyrdom is manifestly evident and no miracle is required (can. 2116 § 2), in which case a papal dispensation from this supplementary proof is possible; and that of “equivalent” beatifications, confirming a cult already legitimately in practice (can. 2134). For canonization, two miracles are always required, unless preceded by an equivalent beatification, in which case three are needed (can. 2138); for formal beatification, the number depends on the value of the proofs adduced in the processes on heroic virtue. If these were constituted by direct or immediate testimony, two duly approved miracles suffice; if only partly direct, three are required; if all were indirect or documentary, the Code of Canon Law demands four (can. 2117). Miracles admitted in causes of saints must consist of instantaneous and perfect cures from incurable or grave organic diseases of a non-psychic or functional nature, obtained through invocation of the servant of God. For each miracle, the following must be certain: the diagnosis of the disease, the prognosis, the fact of the instantaneous and perfect cure inexplicable by natural laws, and the recourse to the intercession of the servant of God. The proofs must be furnished by immediate witnesses (can. 2020 § 7), corroborated by medical or other documents, collected under the scientific control of an official expert (can. 2088 § 8) or other physicians of the Sacred Congregation of Rites; among the witnesses, the attending physicians cannot be lacking (can. 2028). Moreover, practice requires, in accordance with can. 2031, that two inspecting experts examine the miraculously cured person if still alive and report in writing to the investigating tribunal. The interrogations are conducted on the basis of special questions prepared by the Promoter General of the Faith. No less rigorous is the discussion of the proofs. A preliminary examination is today entrusted to a medical board recently established within the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which examines and discusses in one or more plenary sessions the two expert opinions that can. 2118 § 1 requires for each miracle. The board has at its disposal the entire body of evidence collected, which it may also supplement, and must respond to a twofold question already posed to the two official experts: whether it is a true cure from a specific disease; and whether such a cure is inexplicable according to natural laws (can. 2119). The collegial response, accompanied by a reasoned report on the discussions held, is delivered to the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation and then submitted to the formal discussion of cardinals, prelates, and consultors convened in a preparatory congregation, together with all the evidence collected in summary form, the arguments of the defense, and the objections of the Promoter General of the Faith, who may avail himself of the technical council of a private expert of his trust. All this, printed in a volume, is called the “positio.” The preparatory congregation discusses the miracles (no more than two at a time) from all scientific and theological aspects, and by decision of the cardinals, decrees whether the process may proceed further. If affirmative, in the so-called general congregation, the cardinals, prelates, and theologians submit to the pope their consultative vote on the individual miracles proposed for the beatification and canonization of the servant of God in question, and the pope, if and when he deems fit in his supreme judgment, orders the promulgation of the decree of approval, or in another instance, orders further clarifications.
VIII. MIRACULOUS CURES
These are cures that occur exceptionally, accessible to sensory verification, and due to the intervention of God. For a physician, on an objective scientific plane, to declare a cure miraculous, five factors must be demonstrably present.1) The persistence of a grave illness accompanied by anatomical alterations (modifications, loss, or hyperproduction of tissues), with a diagnosis confirmed by the most reliable investigative methods and a prognosis at least infaust for the affected organ. 2) The repair of every organic lesion in a time so brief as to be considered instantaneous (either absolutely or at least relatively). 3) The inefficacy of all therapeutic means, or at least of those employed. 4) The absence of the normal period of gradual recovery of function (the cured person can immediately walk or eat and digest with full normality, etc.) or necessary for the resorption of edemas, ascites, pleural effusions, destruction of tumor masses, etc., though this does not exclude a rapid progression of their state of health (increase in weight, strength, etc.). 5) A lasting cure, that is, one that does not fade into an ephemeral improvement but, beyond being perfect, persists in subsequent checks made after a considerable lapse of time.
Lourdes (v.), for example, the “Bureau des constatations médicales” invites the “beneficiary” to undergo a collegial examination after at least one year, bringing certificates and reports from attending physicians, weight-gain curves, and whatever else may be useful for judgment; this is followed by a very rigorous examination, supplemented by radiological and laboratory tests; if all members of the commission agree, the cure in question is declared to be of a preternatural order.
Moreover, a characteristic of miraculous healing is its constant correlation with religious acts performed by the sick person or others (prayers, pilgrimages, applications of relics, images, water, earth, oil, etc.), immersions or ingestion of blessed water. Sometimes, though not always, at the moment of healing the subject experiences particular, strange, painful sensations, states of anguish, or loses consciousness; all of brief duration, immediately followed by a sense of calm, well-being, and the impression of being healed. Occasionally, coinciding with the healing, the healed person is pervaded by a wave of sweet, indescribable fragrance (osmogenesis).
Positive science has attempted various explanations of miracles that exclude God and His intervention. The most common is that of suggestion (q.v.): in the mind of the sick person there insinuates the conviction that the illness is curable, that it is gradually ending, that it no longer exists, and that health has now been restored. To support this thesis, reference is made to the instantaneous healing of certain nervous and psychic illnesses, by diagnosing them as "hysteria" (q.v.). In doing so, however, the essential difference between the healing of a functional disorder and the disappearance of an organic disease caused by controlled anatomical alterations is overlooked. Even Bernheim himself has said and taught that suggestion is the therapy of functions, and no scientist worthy of the name can seriously and honestly explain by suggestion the instantaneous healing of a tumor, a bone fracture, or an abscess that has long been suppurating.
Charcot, referring to the work of suggestion and autosuggestion, wrote that the cause of miraculous healings must be sought in the "faith that heals"; faith, of course, not understood by the author in the theological sense of the word, but as a psychic force capable of shaking the mind of the sick person. The "modernists," led by E. Le Roy, generally accept this theory; for them faith ("la foi qui guérit," "the faith healing") under certain circumstances is capable of unleashing a beneficial psychic-nervous shock, of releasing a force that acts by stimulating the imagination, promoting emotion, heightening hope, the intense desire, the longing for healing, until, through the power of suggestion, it leads to the conviction and the fact of healing.
The scientific inconsistency of such reasoning is evident; but, apart from that, how can suggestion explain the prodigious healings in infants of only a few months, truly physically incapable of feeling the "faith that heals"; or in those who go to shrines as skeptics, hostile, desperate, or far from the enthusiastic manifestations of collective faith, or during a disheartened return journey or in their sleep?
Many other theories attempt to explain miraculous healings by invoking the supposed healing efficacy of psychic actions. They resort to the so-called "psychotherapy" (q.v.; to which, moreover, suggestion and autosuggestion also belong). Psychotherapy can be empirical or systematic, and in all its various forms, whether it aims to create psychic excitations capable of reflecting on the somatic part through the subconscious, or whether it proposes, as psychoanalysis (q.v.) does, to transform unconscious psychic complexes, the cause of the illness, into conscious psychic processes thus controllable by higher faculties; in all its forms it is used by some deniers of miracles to explain extraordinary healings, arguing that through the psychic path some therapeutic influence can even be exerted on organic lesions. Apart from the fact that not all scholars agree on this last assertion, even if we fully accept this theory, it must be said that it proves entirely insufficient to explain miraculous healings. The healing action, in fact, as they themselves admit, is limited, whereas in miracles the healing is total; to observe any modification in the state of illness and in organic lesions, even if it occurs, requires a very long time and numerous sessions carried out by the specialist on the suitably prepared subject, in particular environmental conditions of recollection, etc., that is, a procedure and mechanism in contrast with the instantaneous transformation wrought by miracles.
With regard to theosophical theories that presume to explain miracles by the direct influence of strong faith and full conviction in the "unreality of evil" ("Christian science"), see BAKER, MARY EDDY.
Other theories attempt to explain miracles by invoking causes beyond our sensory experience. Thus the theory of the "fourth dimension" (Zöllner), defined by Schiaparelli as "the most ingenious and the most probable that can be imagined"; or the "spiritualistic" explanation (Schrenck-Notzing, Koehler; for these see METAPSYCHICS; SPIRITISM). In particular, it should be added that the followers of these various conceptions believe that miraculous healings are phenomena due to the intervention of spirits, that is, of disembodied souls. Granted and not conceded, insurmountable objections arise. In fact, the alleged sensible intervention of the disembodied is manifested only when certain conditions proper to spiritualistic séances are fulfilled (chain, medium, evocation of the deceased, semi-darkness, etc.), which no one has ever seen take place in our shrines or be employed by the healed sick. Moreover, the power of disembodied souls, according to spiritualists themselves, is not "materially" superior to our own; therefore it is absurd to claim that the souls of the dead, with their "astral" bodies, can produce those material phenomena, those instantaneous healings, which living men, complete in soul and body, were not able to produce.
Another class of explanations attributes miraculous healings to the healing virtue of certain "intermediary agents," material substances (relics, oils, earth collected in shrines or water flowing therefrom, etc.) applied to the diseased parts or taken as drink or bath. It is thought that such "intermediary agents" may contain some powerful curative energy. This hypothesis is particularly applied to the water of the pools and the earth of the grotto at Lourdes. It is well known, however, that repeated analyses of the water and earth of Lourdes, carried out in various laboratories with the most modern methods of investigation, have yielded completely negative results. Moreover, it is characteristic of medicines to act selectively and constantly for a specific disease. At Lourdes, however, and so in every other place of miracles, the most diverse forms of illness can disappear under the same apparent action, while completely similar sufferers react in entirely different ways to the same "intermediary agents."
Other hypotheses advanced (properties of the chlorophyll of local plants, watery or magnetic effluvia from herds, odors of certain kinds of hay, perfumes and aromas of the floral vegetation near shrines) do not even have the merit of seriousness.
Finally, to explain miracles, recourse is had to the "forces of nature," mysterious and disseminated everywhere. It is asserted that there cannot exist in nature a phenomenon that does not depend on natural forces and is not subject to the laws of nature or superior to them.
For naturalists, therefore, miraculous healings are not phenomena beyond natural forces, but merely beyond our present knowledge; events not in opposition to the laws of nature, but effects of natural forces that are not yet known today. It is for this reason that naturalists do not seek the cause of miraculous healings in the known forces of nature (animal or terrestrial magnetism, emanations of rare metals, cosmic waves, etc.), but focus on the unknown forces of nature, which, according to their faith, will be discovered by science in the future, and then miraculous healings will be explained naturally.
To this theory, an answer has already been given above in the theological treatment of miraculous healings; here, a special observation can be added regarding miraculous healings. Biology teaches that when a bone is fractured or any organic lesion occurs, the consolidation and repair of the lesions take place gradually, progressively; that is, the blood must supply the necessary elements for the reconstruction of the new tissue, in a time more or less long according to the individual and the circumstances in which they live, a time that can never be eliminated. If miraculous healings depended on natural forces (known or unknown), if they were, that is, effects of causes immanent to nature, then there would be forces in nature in opposition to other forces, laws contrary to the laws of nature, which is contradicted by the order that is seen to govern phenomena. In the study of nature, one must consider the forces that act and the laws that govern them. Natural forces have existed since the moment of creation; the laws, obviously, were not all known at once, but were discovered subsequently and laboriously as science progressed. Other laws will come to supplement our knowledge, new laws, but not new forces; it is impossible that new forces should be discovered, that is, that at a certain moment they begin to exist, to act, to make their effects felt. This, on the contrary, would have had to occur at the sanctuary of Lourdes, where mysteriously, suddenly, since 1858 (the time of the Virgin’s apparition to Bernadette), natural forces hitherto unknown, endowed with such curative virtues, would have had to appear.
IX. FOLKLORE
Popular devotional and moralizing literature has found abundant inspiration in miraculous healings. Sacred dramas, narrative songs, and prose legends have evoked and transmitted among the people the memory of a vast array of miracles performed by the crucified Christ, by the saints, and especially by the Virgin.
In medieval theater, miracles constituted almost a genre of their own: suffice it to recall the *Miracles de Notre Dame par personnages* of a Parisian confraternity of the 14th century (published by G. Paris and N. Robert in 7 vols., Paris 1876-83), and the various miracles staged in the sacred representations of 15th-century Tuscany. Italian popular and semi-popular poetry contains numerous “stories” in ottava rima and short-meter songs that recount this or that miracle of the Madonna, the Crucifix, or the saints—among the latter especially, St. Anne, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Anthony the Abbot and St. Anthony of Padua, St. Cajetan, St. Jerome, St. John, and St. Nicholas. All these poems or narrative songs have a clear moralizing purpose, but rarely attain the climate of true poetry. They are also transmitted through popular booklets. Numerous legends of miracles circulate moreover in oral tradition in unfixed form.
An interesting reflection of miracles is also found in popular art through the painted tablets made as ex-votos, which depict the scene of grace obtained in a miraculous manner: some of these ex-votos, due to their particular ingenuity and spontaneity of inspiration, achieve a rare expressive power. In this case too, most of the miracles depicted are attributed to the Madonna.