Healing an amputated leg

[Mithrae]

In July 1637, a 20 year old fellow named Miguel Juan Pellicer was working at his uncle's farm in Castellón, Spain, when a mule-drawn cart ran over and broke his leg. He was taken to a hospital in nearby Valencia for five days, then traveled to Zaragoza in order to receive treatment in the hospital there dedicated to 'Our Lady of the Pillar.' He spent his next two years in Zaragoza as a one-legged beggar, saying that his gangrenous leg had been amputated below the knee when he'd arrived at the hospital.

In March 1640, Pellicer returned to his family home in Calanda, for a few weeks begging around the local villages. On the night of March 29th, Miguel's bed was billeted out to a soldier of the company passing through town, so he slept on a mattress in his parents' room. Passing by as he slept late that evening, Miguel's mother was shocked to see not one but two feet coming out from under his blanket!

• On April 1, Palm Sunday, Don Marco Seguer, parish priest of Mazaleón, a village fifty kilometres away, went to the place of the event, accompanied by the royal notary Miguel Andréu, who set up a certificate to express the testimony, confirmed by oath, of ten persons.
  
  On April 25 Pellicer and his parents went on a pilgrimage to Zaragoza to give thanks to Our Lady of the Pillar, and here too the young man was seen by a great number of people who had known him before with only one leg. Following a request from the city's authority, a formal inquiry was initiated in order to ascertain the veracity of the event. Legal proceedings, presided by the archbishop of the city began on June 5 and took about a year. All hearings were public and no voice of dissent was recorded. Twenty-four witnesses spoke out, selected as the most trustworthy from among the great number of people that knew Pellicer, both from Calanda and from Zaragoza.
  
  On April 27 of 1641 the archbishop of Zaragoza pronounced a judgment, thereby officially declaring the authenticity of the miracle. At the end of the year Pellicer was also invited to the royal court at Madrid. . . .
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

None of this information above is disputed by any of the sceptical sources I've checked (beyond the usual knee-jerk 'he didn't exist' assumptions from random forum-folk). Documentary evidence confirms that Miguel Pellicer did exist; he had two legs, then a cart accident; he was widely known as a one-legged beggar for over two years; then he had two legs, the alleged 'miracle' was carefully investigated, and the documentary evidence from those investigations remains available today.

The only part that is seriously disputed is whether the leg was actually amputated in the Zaragoza hospital, because of course that would definitely mean a miracle had occurred.



Investigation and alternative theory

The 'miracle' view of these events was most widely promoted in a book by journalist Vittorio Messori's 2000 book Il Miracolo. The most-cited alternative view of the events - including on Wikipedia - is the one advanced by Brian Dunning of Skeptoid in 2011. Dunning criticizes the official account based on the view that if Pellicer's leg had been gangrenous (the reason for its amputation in the first place), he couldn't possibly have survived a 50-day journey to Zaragoza. Instead, he speculates that rather than going immediately to Zaragoza, Pellicer initially spent some time in Valencia with his broken leg, unable to work and therefore begging for a living. Deciding that he enjoyed the life of a homeless beggar but knowing a broken leg wasn't a permanent excuse, Pellicer traveled to Zaragoza because he was unknown there, and faked an amputated leg by binding it up against his thigh. The gimmick was only discovered when, back home, he had to share a room with his parents.

This view has several problems: For starters there are types of gangrene which could have festered for weeks or even months, consistent with the story. Then, the idea that someone would prefer the life of a homeless beggar to that of a farmer with a roof over his head is an extremely dubious 'motive' to begin with, even before considering the added discomfort of keeping a leg bound up to the thigh. The discovery of the 'regrown' leg poses yet another problem for the theory, because its condition was consistent with a leg replaced using modern techniques - "cold and hard with contracted toes and blue in colour" and "initially a few centimetres shorter due to the loss of bone tissue" according to the Wikipedia article - but not with a leg that was only bound up during the days Pellicer ventured out in the public. (That description may or may not even be consistent with atrophy from constant binding; but if he unbound it at nights, it almost certainly doesn't fit.)

However the most critical problem for the theory is Dunning's false assertions about the available evidence:
"Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial."

This is entirely false; in fact the record of testimonies from all three doctors is readily available, along with a hospital Presbyter who'd seen the detached leg.

Thanks to the efforts of 'TheBigManOh' in a 2013 thread on atheistforums.org, I've learned how to find the minutes of the original investigation. According to the Wikipedia article:
"The minutes of the proceedings at Zaragoza. The original document, having been kept in the archives of Zaragoza chapter house, was handed over to a Benedictine monk, Father Lambert, in about 1930, who then took it to France. Unfortunately Lambert was killed in World War II and it is unknown what has become of the manuscript since. However, before it disappeared four printed editions had been published, the first of which in 1829. Two notaries certified that these corresponded exactly with original text."

A scanned version of this 1829 copy is available here. That scanned version has then been passed through some optical character recognition software to produce a text-only version, which can then be passed through Google Translate's heroic attempt to understand it as modern Spanish. Obviously, the results of this process are not ideal, but surprisingly coherent nonetheless.

Pages 43-44

Licentiate Juan de Estanga, Professor of Surgery at the University of the City of Zaragoza, and domiciled there, Surgeon of the General Hospital of her, family member of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of Aragon, aged fifty-one years and a half, and he has forty of good memory, testi-. tigo in the present case cited, produced, presented, sworn and by the oath loaned by him. . . . the depositor tried his cure, and although he They applied many, and different remedies, did not take advantage, because the leg is very phlegmatic Da and damaged;
with which the depositor decided to cut him off, because if it did not seem to die the said Juan Pellicero, and this said to be true per juramentum. The eleventh article of said cedula, being interrogated, replied, and said: That there will be two and a half years, more or less, as he has said, having done the above deliberation the depositor, through his speakers and nurses They cut off a leg to said Juan Pelli- zero four fingers below the knee, which he believes, and he is certainly the same one that has been taught to that depositor, and this he said to be true per juramen- tum. = To the tenth third article, being read he answered, and said: That the depositor continued the cure of this leg for a few months, until he was in state that the clothes could be given to him as is customary to the others , and this said to be true per juramentum. To the fourteenth article of said cedula, when he was read he answered, and said: Many days later, on several occasions, Juan Pellicero said the said Hospital at the time of the cure, and the wound was unwound, and He told the depositor that he was careful to enter the Chapel of the Virgin of the Pillar at the time that the lamps were down, and that he smeared his wound with the oil of said lamps, and that the depositor would scold him because he was doing it. , because the oil was not good for what he wanted, saving the faith of what the Virgin could do, and this said to be true er juramentum. = To the fifteenth article of said cedula, if he was read, he replied, and said: What the deponent knows, that after cutting said leg he walked with a wooden leg helping himself with a crutch; The depositor knows for having seen him several times per jurymenum.

Pages 47-48

Licentiate Pascual del Cacho, Presbyter Vee-
of the Holy Hospital of Our Lady of Grace of the Present City, of forty-four years of age, more or less, and has thirty of good memory, witness in the present Cause quoted, produced, presented and jury, and by the oath loaned by him, questioned about what is contained in the eleventh article of said cedula, if he was read he answered, and said: That the depositor what can be said of the article is, that there will be two years and seven months, more or less, this depository going through the Stables of said Holy Hospital, taking care of the sustenance of the sick, as this was his job, he saw a young man in a bed in the Cuadra de Cirujía, they had cut off a leg, as he heard him say to Licentiate Juan de Estanga and to other Mencebos who were with him, who had cut him off to that sick, and the depositor saw on the floor the said cut leg, and the sick man. He tried to work with some examples, which he saw was very He then heard the depositor say that said leg was buried, and with this he says, that the said Mozo, to whom as said, they cut the said leg, and the one that has been shown to him, it seems to the depositor is a person himself, and not diverse, because before and after cutting said leg, he has treated him little, and this said to be true per juramentum.

Page 48-49

Juan Lorenzo Garcia, Mancebo Platicante de Cyrjjano, a native of Torralva de los Frailes, and has lived in the present city of Zaragoza for ten years here, aged twenty-two years, more or less, and has the ten of good memory, witness in the present Cause cited, produced, presented, ju-
by the oath taken by him, questioned on what is contained in article ten of said cedula,. being told read, he said: That the depositor, who can say of the article, is, that he has been in the Holy Hospital for four years, and that at the occasion that the article says, the depositor was in the Stable of Surgery. He saw that a patient had been taken from the Cuadra de Alenturas, who seems to him to be the one who has been shown him, whom he does not know by name, only did he see him with a wounded leg, and that in said Cua- Mr. Juan de Estanga sought, in the article named, to apply him, the necessary remedies to cure him, and that seeing they did not take advantage of said remedies. God for putting that leg worse than it was, and saw the depositor, that the saying "Juan de Estanga, and Miguel, Beltran, Surgeons, neighbors of Zaragoza, came together and resolved to cut the leg, and es- To said article be true per juramentum. - To the article eleven, being read read answered, and said: That done the above deliberation, there will be the time that says the article, little more or less, said Juan de Es-o Licenciado Thong, through his Mencebos, the said leg, and the dean saw her cut, and it helped to raise the Cauterios, M, that, the same that has been shown to him and iguel Juan Pellicero, in the article named, is oneself , and not diverse, and this said to be true per jura- mentum. - To the twelfth article he answered, and said: That the depositor is the one who took that leg after being cut off and took it with another companion of his, and having been with her in the Chapel, they took her to bury the Sauto Cimenterio. Hospital, as in fact they buried her, making a hole like a handful of wave, and this said to be true per juramentum. - To the twenty-nine article, being read read him, and said: What refers to what he said because he does not know it before cutting off that leg, and then he has communicated little, and this he said to be true per juramen-a 7

Pages 51-52

Diego Millaruelo, Master in Surgery, domiciled in Zaragoza, aged twenty-nine years old, more or less, has the nineteen nine in good memory, witness in the present case cited, produced, presented, and sworn , by the oath loaned by him, questioned about what is contained in the tenth article of said cedula, if he read it answered, he said: That the depositor knows well the said Miguel uan Pellicero, for what he will say below, and with this he says: It will be two years, more or less, that the depositor going to the Hospital with the Licentiate Juan de Estanga, who was with whom he was talking, to visit the patients of the Cuadra de Cirugía, for whose account the cure of the patients who are in it, he saw in a bed the said Miguel Juan Pellicero with a gangrenous leg, that said Licenciado Juan de Estanga applied the various medications, and seeing they did not take advantage of 2, he saw this depositor , that said Licentiate Juan of this resolved short r said happiness, because he could not find another remedy for the said Juan Pellicero to live; the depositor knows, because, as it is said, he spoke with the said Licentiate Juan de Estanga, and he found himself in that deliberation, and this said true per juramentum.-To article eleven he was read, he answered, and said : Having made the above deliberation, they cut the leg, know it because it was present to cut it, and helped the draft, and saw it cut, and this said to be true per juramen- tum.-To article twelve of said cedula. He answered, and said: That he knows, and saw the depositor, that one of the Placists in said Stable took that leg, and the
2 took to bury, and heard say they buried her in the C-menterio; and this said to be true per juramentum.- To article thirteen of said cedula, being read, he answered, and said: That the depositor knows well, and saw, after said leg was cut, said Lic. uan de Estanga continued his cure of the residue of said leg, until it healed, and this said to be true perjuramentum.

Perhaps it says something that the most widely-cited 'rebuttal' of the miracle claim was one which took 10 years to surface and then turns out to be based on false information about the available evidence!



Final references and concluding thoughts

A few of the other sources I checked:
2015 sceptical thread on Reddit - there are some good critical questions about the nature of the alleged miracle here, especially by 'TacoFugitive' and 'TooManyInLitter.' The latter makes the claim (seen also in a comment on the atheistforums.org thread) that Dr. Estanga was "not allowed to examine the stump" of Pellicer's leg during his later examinations, but I cannot find any source for that claim - certainly it isn't indicated in his testimony above! Quite the opposite; both he and Millaruelo said that he (Estanga) treated the leg for a few months afterwards, and on Pellicer's later visits Estanga saw it "unwound." However aside from that there doesn't seem to be anything in this thread contradicting the details above, merely questioning the nature of the 'miracle' itself, which hardly invalidates it.

2013 thread on WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com forums - the discussion here is frankly disappointing, but provided for the sake of completeness.

2006 circular letter from a French abbey - A pro-miracle source which I looked at beacuse it's cited on Wikipedia and a couple of these other threads. Some details are included which I can't verify elsewhere. For example the claim that "On March 29, 1640 [the night of the miracle], the region celebrated the 1600th anniversary of the Virgin Mary's «coming in the mortal flesh» to the banks of the Ebro, according to the belief of the people of the area." 1640 was indeed the 1600th anniversary year of an alleged apparition of Mary to James the Greater, but the common celebration of that event is October 12th (while another source suggests the apparition occurred on January 2nd).

2012 article by the Times of Malta - a pro-miracle source referenced in the Reddit thread above. I found it interesting partly because I've previously posted a thread about the alleged miracles at Lourdes, and this article quotes "decidedly anti-Catholic" film-maker Luis Bunuel as declaring that "Compared to Calanda, Lourdes is a mediocre place."


My own thoughts are that, yes, the circumstances and nature of the alleged miracle are strange, but the evidence is compelling. Besides the four quoted above there were also numerous testimonies from folk who'd known the one-legged beggar over those two and a half years and - allegedly - no dissenting voices which contradicted the reports.

If I had to concoct my own alternative theory - speculation would be a more accurate term - I suppose it would have to be more or less the one advocated by Dunning, with a conspiracy theory on top to explain the doctors' testimony:
> Did 'the authorities' encourage Pellicer to fake the whole thing right from the very beginning with his arrival in Zaragoza? This is obviously pretty far-fetched to begin with.
> Did they discover his ruse in early 1940, but then plan the 'miracle' and its 'discovery' with him? Still somewhat implausible in conspiracy theory terms, with added problems of Pellicer initially choosing the life of a beggar (not to mention obtaining his permit to beg at the shrine, as if the licensing authorities wouldn't ask to examine the leg!).
> Or did 'the authorities' jump on the bandwagon after the 'miracle' had become popularized in Calanda? That's considerably more plausible as a conspiracy theory, but retains the latter two problems above, and adds the question of how Pellicer could be so clumsily discovered.

This was 17th century Spain, in the midst of the Franco-Spanish war and a time of growing discontent around the Spanish Empire (which later in 1640 would lead to an uprising in nearby Catalonia). Dr. Estanga himself was a "family member of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of Aragon" and many modern minds are naturally inclined towards distrust of that organization even moreso than kings and churches generally! Conspiracy theories are always problematic - they're invoked to explain away the evidence, rather than follow its conclusions - but obviously sometimes conspiracies do occur.

So my question is not whether this is indisputable proof of a restored limb - it's obviously not - but how likely would you consider the miracle to be? Or rather than expressing opinions about the likelihood of a miracle, which would be an exercise in futility and circularity, perhaps the opposite question is more appropriate for an objective consideration. In order to suppose that the four testimonies quoted above are all incorrect, it obviously would have to be some kind of conspiracy to deliberately and dishonestly promote a false miracle. For my part I would guess - and I imagine it will only ever be a guess, for all of us - maybe a 7 in 10 likelihood of conspiracy... a mere 30% likelihood of a genuine miracle, give or take... that the conspiracy-falsehood of the testimonies are twice as probable as their truth.

The 'miracle' is obviously far from certain, but one thing is for sure: We will still keep seeing folk insisting that there is 'no evidence' for miracles and raising amputations as if they were some kind of irrefutable trump card


How likely do you consider that this evidence is all the result of some conspiracy? And why?

[Mithrae]

This view has several problems: For starters there are types of gangrene which could have festered for weeks or even months, consistent with the story

In order to be as accurate as possible, let's note that gangrene happens when tissue starts to die. The tissue death occurs because oxygen and nutrients (oxygen being the most important obviously) are not getting to the affected area in sufficient quantity. The lack of removal of waste products can also be a contributing factor. So suffice it to say that gangrene is basically death of tissue arising from issues with the circulatory system.

It is certainly true that some forms of gangrene can take weeks or even months. Generally speaking this type of gangrene is brought on by coagulative necrosis, typically caused by infarction (tissue death due to inadequate blood supply) or ischemia (restriction in blood supply to tissues, causing a shortage of oxygen). Complications from diabetes is a well known example of this type of necrosis, and diseases are the typical underlying cause of this type of gangrene.

In Pellicer's story, disease was not the issue. He suffered a severe trauma (leg run over by a cart, broken tibia). Coagulative necrosis (the slow gangrene if you will) generally doesn't occur in trauma cases. Wet gangrene (the fast one in you will) is the likely type of gangrene to occur in such a situation. A blocked or crushed artery would cause blood to stagnate, causing rapid bacterial growth, toxicity, and septic problems.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that a severe trauma to Pellicer's leg could have merely restricted the blood flow (if the veins had been pinched for example), as opposed to crushing or severely damaging the artery and other blood vessels. Or perhaps a clot had developed as a result of the injuries and caused a blockage, and it just so happened to coincide with his arrival in Zaragoza after 5 days in the Calanda hospital followed by an arduous 50 day journey to Zaragoza on a broken leg. But I think we can all agree that such a thing is highly unlikely, given what we know about the development of gangrene due to serious trauma.

Thanks for the thoughtful response! Maybe you should ask Rikuo for the tokens I pre-emptively gave him

How certain is the rapidity of that highlighted point? One of the sources I stumbled across in my investigation suggested that in most cases, the infective bacteria aren't likely to constitute an immediate medical emergency:

• I am a General Surgeon who has personally treated many, many case of gangrene of many different areas of the body and many also of the feet and lower limbs. Gangrene simply means the tissue has lost its blood supply and has died. It does not necessarily imply an infection. When tissue on the leg dies for example. the skin turns black and shriveled. Dead tissue is a great medium for bacteria to grow and often the gangrenous tissue becomes infected and the infection spreads to the surrounding tissue. If the bacteria causing the infection is a clostridia species then it becomes a medical emergency and rapid high amputation is necessary to save the life of the patient. In most cases this is not the case and the infective agent is much more indolent. The decision to amputate is based on the amount of dead tissue present and the threat of spreading infection. The story of Miguel Juan Pellicer is entirely consistent with non-clostridial gangrene and could have reasonably lasted for weeks or even months before the decision to amputate was made.
  Michael P. Vercimak, M.D.,F.A.C.S.

If that's correct then there seem to be three possible scenarios:
- There was no initial gangrene, but a clot as you suggested (or I was thinking a secondary injury from a fall perhaps) occurred as he approached Zaragoza
- An artery was completely blocked, but non-clostridial infection on the wet gangrene didn't immediately endanger his life
- Blood flow was merely restricted leading to coagulative necrosis

So how "highly unlikely" is it that one of these scenarios occurred? If it's ten to one or even fifty to one, I don't think it makes a difference: The surgeons said that they amputated the leg due to gangrene, and fifty to one odds on a scenario leading to that really wouldn't make us doubt the testimony that it did happen. If the scenario were so unlikely as to border on the impossible that would be worth considering, but otherwise the real reason we're doubting is simply because it would lead to the miracle conclusion.

There's also a fourth possibility, that Pellicer exaggerated how arduous his pilgrimage to Zaragoza was to emphasize his supposed piety and faith; I'm not sure how much difference it'd make for the gangrene question if it were merely three days hitching a ride on someone's cart, but it'd be more plausible in its own right than fifty days on a broken leg.

Then, the idea that someone would prefer the life of a homeless beggar to that of a farmer with a roof over his head is an extremely dubious 'motive' to begin with

I don't see any documentation to suggest that he never had a roof over his head. He had the blessing to become a beggar from the Basilica in Zaragoza and went to church there everyday. Perhaps he stayed there. Perhaps he made enough to get a small dump somewhere in town. You ever work at a farm Mith? I have, and it's hard work, even from today's modern standards. Let's not forget that Pellicer was in the big city (Zaragoza maybe 100,000 verses Calanda at 1200 tops) away from the parents, maybe he didn't want to go home right away. I don't see being a beggar as a real objection, given we have no idea what Pellicer's motivations were back in the day.

It's not impossible, but it is highly unlikely. Begging is not a good life. Supposedly - and I'd take the Daily Mail with a grain of salt on this - Britain's most successful beggar made 50,000 pounds a year (compared to a London median income of 30,000); but that would be from seeing perhaps thirty to sixty thousand people every week at his train station, virtually all of whom would likely have disposable income, and comparatively little competition from other beggars. It would be astonishing if even the best beggar in 17th century Zaragoza managed to make a third or a quarter of the median income of the region.

It's hardly just a case of "didn't want to go home right away." You're imagining that Pellicer decided to fake an amputation - likely facing imprisonment at best if his false begging pretense were discovered, probably worse given that nasty Spanish Inquisition and the fact he was doing so at a holy shrine - and irrevocably commit himself to an entire lifetime of dubious begging prospects with the added discomfort of a bound-up leg. When by contrast he apparently had his own room at his parents' home, or if he didn't get along with them a job option presumably still available at his uncle's farm.

And then there's the question of whether he would have received a begging permit without having the leg examined in the first place.

This was 17th century Spain, in the midst of the Franco-Spanish war and a time of growing discontent around the Spanish Empire (which later in 1640 would lead to an uprising in nearby Catalonia. Dr. Estanga himself was a "family member of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of Aragon" and many modern minds are naturally inclined towards distrust of that organization even moreso than kings and churches generally!

That's not even the most important part of history from that period, in my opinion. There was a little thing still going on at the time, known as the Spanish Inquisition. 6 people were burned at the stake in Lograno in 1610 (Lograno is about 100 miles NW of Zaragoza), and hundreds of thousands of people around the country were interrogated over the centuries. The Church was the ultimate authority in Spain. I'm sure people in Calanda were well aware of that power.

I mention this because I find it hard to believe that anyone from a small farming village would dare to disagree with church officials about what happened. If a archbishop is investigating the claim of a miracle, or a doctor known to be in good standing with the Inquisition Office, who in their right mind is going to refute him?

After all, what better way to distract people from their growing unrest then the sudden appearance of a miracle, eh?

True, that's why I mentioned the unrest and Estanga's ties to the Inquisition. But the brutality of their reputation doesn't necessarily translate into dishonesty or insincerity. If it seemed at all likely that the 'miracle' was nothing more than a fraudulent beggar whose ruse had been discovered, I'd guess they'd be at least as if not more likely to dole out brutal retribution on Pellicer as proclaim a miracle and send him off so the king could kiss his leg! Promoting a false miracle is a plausible scenario, but not certain by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore fear of contradicting the authorities also obviously does not explain the initial reactions in Calanda, before any authorities were involved. Nor does it explain how Pellicer could be so careless in being discovered in the first place, unbinding his leg overnight even knowing his parents were in the same room.

None of this information above is disputed by any of the sceptical sources I've checked

I think there is reason to question this documentation. I don't mean I doubt that these documents actually exist. Clearly they do (or did before being destroyed or lost). I'm more interested in what they contain. The first document from the royal notary contains the sworn testimony of ten people. I'm curious how many of the farmers named in that testimony had any clue what was actually written down. It's very likely they were illiterate in that town in 1640 Spain. We have no idea that they actually swore to what is written down (not that they would go around disagreeing with the Church anyway, as we pointed out earlier).

You've provided quotes from the investigation done by the archbishop that also seems dubious to me. I think we can all agree that broken bones were common in 1640 Spain, and for that matter I imagine so was amputation. Someone working at a hospital in Zaragoza would have seen broken legs and amputations on a regular basis. Yet, amazingly, 2.5 years after some nameless farmer with a broken gangrene leg comes into the hospital, people are swearing they remember his face and remember his leg lying on the floor? They remember burying his specific leg? They remember all this years later?

Think back to a date 2.5 years from today. Tell me about the people you met at work, what they did, and what happened to them that day. I find it impossible to do, perhaps someone else will have better luck with it than me...

I can remember numerous specifics from even fairly run-of-the-mill work days. When Jill - a lass from a different company who I'd never met but spoke on the phone a couple of times a week - told me that she was coming down with a cold I said she needed plenty of hot bourbon and honey to kill the germs and she, being Irish, insisted on Hennigan's instead. (Admittedly I don't recall her specific beverage of choice.) When Andrew - a company sales rep who visited the warehouse every couple of weeks - was complaining about an issue he was having dealing with his car insurance, I'm pretty sure I accurately remember the very tone in which he said it "made his blood boil." He was a youngish lad and our office worker Sally was in her 40s, so I remember the joking, quasi-paternal way they interacted with each other while going over his claims for expenses each month.

Without anything specific to jog my memory there's plenty of stuff I don't recall, of course. But these guys did have specific stuff to jog their memory in their testimony. They might have done one or two amputations a week, but it seems this hospital was associated with or next to the Chapel of the Virgin of the Pillar, where Estanga and perhaps the others continued to see Pellicer on his visits. Where the witnesses were uncertain they seem to have said so, for example Garcia's response that "a patient had been taken from the Cuadra de Alenturas, who seems to him to be the one who has been shown him, whom he does not know by name, only did he see him with a wounded leg..." or Cacho's comment that "they had cut off a leg, as he heard him say to Licentiate Juan de Estanga and to other Mencebos who were with him..." The testimonies of Garcia and Cacho may be uncertain even on the points they seem clear on - perhaps, though I have no particular reason to think so - but the more senior surgeons Millaruelo and Estanga who actually performed the surgery, followed up with the patient and seem clear in their recollections are difficult to doubt, unless they were knowingly going along with a plan to promote a false miracle.

I think there is plenty of reason to doubt that this story is true. The medical facts about serious trauma and gangrene alone raises a major red flag. Add in the fact that we have no empirical evidence, but only testimony offered as a form of evidence, from illiterate people in a farm village and individuals working at a hospital who had no idea that this broken leg with gangrene that was cut off would somehow matter 2.5 years later, yet seem to remember exactly the day when it happened, makes the whole thing suspicious to me.

So how surprised would you be if you learned that these 'suspicious' circumstances and particularly the doctors' testimonies were indeed the result of a plan to promote a fraudulent miracle?

There is no evidence for that perspective after all, and the testimony of the doctors who amputated the leg, treated it until it finished healing and continued to see Pellicer around the place is powerful evidence. Other problems such as why Pellicer would choose become a beggar, how he'd get a permit if it was fraud, how he could be so clumsily discovered and why the folk at Calanda believed it all make for a rather unlikely scenario. Surely you don't think that the conspiracy theory explanation is a certainty?

As I said in the OP I don't think the 'miracle' is certain, or even particularly probable when all's said and done. But even if we imagine a 90% probability of alternative explanations being true - which would be dubious since the only reason to go so high would be bias against the miraculous - a 10% chance that an amputated leg was genuinely restored would still be something to think about.

[JJ50]

Unexpected healings occur from time to time, but there is a natural explanation and it has nothing to do with any god. However amputated limbs do not regrow and anyone claiming they do is lying, imo.

[Peds nurse]

Benchwarmer!!! I hope this finds you well!

So, what if God healed all the sick children? What if there were no rape victims, or mass shootings? What if natural disasters never happened or infants were born perfectly? How would that shape your belief in God?

If I can ask you a counter question Peds, how do you reconcile your believe in a god that, literally, IS love, with rape victims and mass shootings and so forth?

Hello Kenisaw! I hope this finds you well!

In the midst of terrible things, it does not disprove God's love, just as when our children make poor choices, it disproves our love for them. I dont think it's even a question of God's love, but rather our own love for Him. If we love the say His Son tells us to love, then rape and mass shootings wouldn't exist.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by Peds nurse]

In the midst of terrible things, it does not disprove God's love, just as when our children make poor choices, it disproves our love for them. I don't think it's even a question of God's love, but rather our own love for Him.

I tell you what PN, I don't hate anyone enough to do what God did to his children.
I certainly wouldn't do to my children what God did to his, even if my children did make poor choices, certainly it would be because of my influence, and certainly not because they made one poor choice.

The more Christians love such a horrid parent, the more horrible he becomes.

If we love the say His Son tells us to love, then rape and mass shootings wouldn't exist.

We've seen this, indeed see this in religious countries, they usually have worse crime, less education and more violence. Not to mention Inquisition, the Dark Ages ignorance, disease and horror.

Perhaps... its one of those twisted family "love" things, like Stockholm syndrome, or the abused interpret it as love...

Not my style, but, no, not my style.

[Peds nurse]

In the midst of terrible things, it does not disprove God's love, just as when our children make poor choices, it disproves our love for them. I don't think it's even a question of God's love, but rather our own love for Him. [/quote]

I tell you what PN, I don't hate anyone enough to do what God did to his children.
I certainly wouldn't do to my children what God did to his, even if my children did make poor choices, certainly it would be because of my influence, and certainly not because they made one poor choice.

Hi Willum!

Unfortunately, your assessment of the situation is purely one sided. It is you that deems God's work unorthodox. It is you that tries to make sense of an imperfect world. It will never make sense, for evil in this world can never be justified through our words. God however, doesn't need or require approval. He isn't a God of popularity, but prosperity. I'm not referring to money, but rather prospering in and through all situations. It isn't about His actions, but rather our own.

If we love the say His Son tells us to love, then rape and mass shootings wouldn't exist.

We've seen this, indeed see this in religious countries, they usually have worse crime, less education and more violence. Not to mention Inquisition, the Dark Ages ignorance, disease and horror.

I am referring to the Christian God. I would like to see your statistics, and not of which involves extremists. Wack doctors are out there, but we don't base medicine off their actions.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by Peds nurse]

Well, PN, you go ahead an love this God of yours.
People love their abusive spouse and parents, and defend them until they kill them.

It is foreseeable that this is a reasonable conclusion.
Remember this God of yours drowned a world of sinners so that he could replace it with a world of sinners.
Allowed two people to doom humanity for hundreds of generations.

I don't have much faith in your odds.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 26 by Willum]

And you Mr. wiilum, can have as little faith in God as you wish. As long as God is to blame for all the worlds hate, it frees up the consciousness of men.

Wishing you well.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 27 by Peds nurse]

What a strange statement to make to a non-believer!
Whenever I blame someone for the world's hate, I begin like Michael Jackson, I look at the man in the mirror.

You as a believer on the other hand, can blame God with impunity, and many very good reasons.

If only a few are going to Heaven, what is any one particular beliver's odds?
Especially when faced with such incredible callousness.

Or maybe we just don't understand the Big G.
In which case I really wouldn't have any faith in being rewarded by him.

[Kenisaw]

Benchwarmer!!! I hope this finds you well!

So, what if God healed all the sick children? What if there were no rape victims, or mass shootings? What if natural disasters never happened or infants were born perfectly? How would that shape your belief in God?

If I can ask you a counter question Peds, how do you reconcile your believe in a god that, literally, IS love, with rape victims and mass shootings and so forth?

Hello Kenisaw! I hope this finds you well!

In the midst of terrible things, it does not disprove God's love, just as when our children make poor choices, it disproves our love for them. I dont think it's even a question of God's love, but rather our own love for Him. If we love the say His Son tells us to love, then rape and mass shootings wouldn't exist.

Or the all powerful god could have made a world that didn't include those possibilities, which seems to me would have been a rather loving thing for a being is all love to do...

[Monta]

[Replying to post 29 by Kenisaw]



"Or the all powerful god could have made a world that didn't include those possibilities, which seems to me would have been a rather loving thing for a being is all love to do..."

He could have made us another variety of cats or elephants relying on instinct for our survival.
Free-will is too much responsibility; making decisions then held responsible for them.