MODERN MIRACLES HAVE STRICT RULES

By DAVID VAN BIEMA

MONSIGNOR MICHELE DI RUBERTO SITS IN AN OFFICE IN THE VATICAN surrounded by 250 red-bound books, each of them a would-be miracle. Of all the faiths that recognize the continuing eruption of the divine in human affairs, Catholicism has gone farthest to systematize that belief; and Di Ruberto, the Under Secretary at the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints, sits near the pinnacle of miracle verification.

For the 60-year-old priest, the occupation is a necessary step toward a greater goal: the naming of saints. The church assumes that a saint will be active after death; that once in heaven, he or she responds to the prayers of the devout by persuading God to help specific sufferers down below. God responds with miracles; and proponents of a candidate for sainthood must prove to Di Ruberto's satisfaction that their nominee is responsible for one or more.

The paradox of human miracle assessment is that the only way to discern whether a phenomenon is supernatural is by having trained rationalists testify that it outstrips their training. Since most wonders admitted by the modern church are medical cures, it consults with doctors. Di Ruberto has access to a pool of 60--"We've got all the medical branches covered," says his colleague, Dr. Ennio Ensoli--and assigns each purported miracle to two specialists on the vanquished ailment.

They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. "Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable."

"Inexplicable," or inspiegabile, is the happy label that Di Ruberto, the doctors and several other clerics in the Vatican's "medical conference" give to a case if it survives their scrutiny. It then passes to a panel of theologians, who must determine whether the inexplicable resulted from prayer. If so, the miracle is usually approved by a caucus of Cardinals and the Pope.

Some find the process all too rigorous. Says Father Paolino Rossi, whose job, in effect, is lobbying for would-be saints from his own Capuchin order: "It's pretty disappointing when you work for years and years and then see the miracle get rejected." But others suggest it could be stricter still. There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone. "Are we too severe?" he wonders out loud. "Are they really using the same criteria?"

Pilon believes that as medical science and psychology uncover rational explanations for more cures, it becomes increasingly difficult to name something a miracle. He regrets the trend and, without relaxing his own stringent standards, suggests that the church give more importance to instances where the divine can be said to have been present in a cure, without being its sole explanation. "Ordinary Christians want to see the action of God," he says bluntly. "People are hungry for signs."

--Reported by Greg Burke/Lourdes

With reporting by GREG BURKE/LOURDES