Atheists/Agnostics on Eucharistic Miracles

They aren't anti-Catholicism, just pro-truth.

It’s Been a Year!

This is the seventh in the “Eucharistic Miracle Data Problems” project that began a year ago with this article, “Exaggeration and Eucharistic Miracles” at Crisis Magazine. For a long time, I ignored Eucharistic miracles, but I got involved because it became a religion and science issue with recent empirical testing.

Now that I am deep into the investigations of Eucharistic miracles and have criticized the lack of scientific rigor, I recognize this landscape. It reminds me of Young Earth Creationism. In years past, I was involved in the evolution and creation debate. YEC devotees often took my criticism of their self-dogmatized version of science as a sign that I was against God. For defending the legitimacy of evolutionary biology, I was called a wolf in sheep’s clothing (among other names). Likewise, with Eucharistic miracles people told me I’m damaging the faith for criticizing scientific claims. I want to clarify my position because it will not only help avoid the category error but also explain why authenticity is important to atheists and agnostics interested in these miracle claims.

What I am NOT arguing:

• I am NOT arguing that transubstantiation does not occur.

• I am NOT arguing against the Real Presence.

• I am NOT arguing that miracles do not happen.

• I am NOT even arguing that any of these cases are not miracles (though I’m getting close), nor that you should not personally believe them if you want.

What I am arguing:

• I am defending that truths of faith do not contradict truth in science.

• I am asserting the obvious point that we should evangelize with truth.

• I am arguing that the scientific data does not support a miracle in any of the cases investigated because natural explanations have not been ruled out.

(Different methods are needed to rule out various natural explanations regarding the presence of human tissue and blood, blood type, preservation, and genetics.)

• Therefore, I am against evangelizing with Eucharistic miracle claims.

Just as the Church leaves evolutionary science to the scientists and places theological guardrails on philosophical interpretations beyond science (like materialism), so too the Church does not require Catholics to believe in any private revelations, including those recognized by the authority of the Church as acceptable to help Catholics in their faith. Post-apostolic supernatural events (apparitions, visions, or miracles) neither add to nor complete the deposit of faith. It says so in CCC 67. Catholics are free to question the scientific claims.

Actually, we are obligated to demand good science for extraordinary claims that invoke scientific support. When I first realized how flimsy the data is for Eucharistic miracles, I was shocked. There is no way on God’s Green Earth I would claim that a consecrated Host or chalice of Blood became biological heart tissue and human blood (say it with me, “of type AB!”) unless I had the data to support it without ambiguity and in a way that others could critique. Even then, I would use cautious language and only make tentative claims. Heck, scientists everyday are asked to provide much more evidence for far lesser claims.

Along the way this year, I met atheists and agnostics who share this concern. They were particularly helpful in helping me prepare for a talk I gave last September at the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars convention in Washington, D.C. on Eucharistic miracles. In this post, I would like to thank them, tell you about their work, share some of their quotes, and encourage you to hear them out.

Kevin “Nontradicath”

In February of last year, Kevin O’Connor emailed to say that he and his friend, Joe Schmid, were intrigued by my call for the formation of a team to conduct a consistent investigation of current Eucharistic miracle claims. (See About Those Eucharistic Miracles.) Kevin grew up as a practicing Catholic and has been interested in Eucharistic miracles as long as he can remember. He lived through the breaking news about Buenos Aires, Tixtla, and Sokolka and knows about the ~750 AD Lanciano case. Kevin has a YouTube channel, Kevin Nontradicath. He has produced several videos on these and other miracle claims, as well as on the impact of the Traditionalist movement on young adults.

His friend, Joe Schmid, is a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Princeton University and produces the solid and very popular YouTube channel, Majesty of Reason. He tackles philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and more, with lots of interviews.

Kevin said that he and Joe believe a new investigation would reap many benefits. In their email, they explained the reasons they are excited about this prospect:

Spiritual fruits and conversion: If the results indicate something extraordinary, it has the real potential to strengthen people’s faith and convert people to the faith.

Correcting damaged credibility: If the results do not indicate something extraordinary, then this can help correct the rampant exaggerations and overstated conclusions about past Eucharistic miracles. These exaggerations and hastily drawn conclusions have damaged the credibility of many witnesses to the faith (Catholic apologists, Catholic organizations, etc.).

Involvement with ongoing investigations: We believe there may be ongoing investigations into recent reports of Eucharistic miracles, and this is a perfect opportunity to implement Dr. Kelly Kearse’s standardized protocols with the best medical technology available.

Clearly, they are open to good evidence. I agree about the benefits of a consistent round of testing, but I explained that I am not in a position to launch an investigation. Dr. Kelly Kearse, whom I wrote about in the Crisis article (above), said such an effort would have to be initiated by the Catholic Church. True. I went to Rome last month and spent several hours talking with a few priests who may be able to get this conversation going, but I have full-time work, a doctoral dissertation to complete, and a family. So, who knows where this will all go.

While I was preparing for my September talk at the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars convention, I asked Kevin and Joe for a response to this question: What impression do you have of the Catholic faith when you hear about these miracles? My talk was to be given the morning after the keynote from Fr. Robert Spitzer, when he would receive the Cardinal O’Boyle Award. He and I disagree on the legitimacy of the scientific claims of modern Eucharistic miracles, which means my talk (which I hope to post here) would directly contradict much of his talk (and yeah, I was nervous). I thought getting Kevin and Joe’s perspectives would be helpful. Here’s what they said in response to the question.

Joe Schmid’s reply:

When I heard about Eucharistic miracles, I was initially both intrigued and skeptical. I was intrigued because the miracles, if genuine, would surely lend credibility to the Catholic faith, and the Church seemed open to rigorous scientific corroboration of the purported miracles. I was skeptical, however, because naturalistic explanations of seemingly miraculous phenomena seem much more likely to me from the outset. This skepticism, however, didn’t prevent me from researching the miracles further. And what I learned was a bit disappointing. Some of the investigations behind the miracles are marred by poor methodology, mixed and inconclusive results, and questionable practices. While some of the findings are suggestive, my general takeaway is that many popular presentations of the miracles are infested by distortions, blatant exaggerations, and suspiciously convenient omissions of key facts. The pernicious effects of these distortions, exaggerations, and omissions extend well beyond Eucharistic miracle investigations — to my mind, they damage the credibility of the Catholic apologists, influencers, websites, videos, and organizations who propound them. When I see a Catholic defending some of these exaggerations or omitting some of these inconvenient facts, I immediately become more suspicious of their other claims and arguments. In short, I become less trusting of their Catholic witness. After all, they evidently haven’t done their due diligence concerning a matter they’re publicly defending, so why should I put much stock in the other Catholic miracles or arguments they’re publicly defending? This, I think, is why much more rigor, caution, and intellectual humility are needed in this sphere. Reputation, credibility, and general trustworthiness are on the line.

Joe Schmid, Majesty of Reason

NOTE: This testimonial represented Joe’s views at the time of being asked. He has since notified me that his views have changed but allowed me to keep the testimony as a record of his views at the time.

Kevin O’Connor’s reply:

I was a devout traditionalist Catholic until the age of twenty-two, when I ceased practicing the faith. At that time, I had just earned my bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering—a background that had trained me to recognize what rigorous, well-documented science looks like. When I informed my still-devout parents of my changing beliefs, they did everything in their power to encourage me to reconsider. One of their well-intentioned, yet ultimately counterproductive, strategies was to urge me to investigate Eucharistic miracles more closely.

What I found, however, left me deeply frustrated and disappointed. I had anticipated discovering peer-reviewed studies published in respected scientific journals, as I had seen in research on the Shroud of Turin. Instead, I encountered only fragmented reports scattered across devotional blogs and popular-level books, such as those by Ricardo Castañón Gómez. Some sources confidently asserted that the absence of complete DNA evidence was because Jesus—having no earthly father—would possess only half of each chromosome. Yet, paradoxically, those same sources claimed that Jesus had AB blood type, something genetically impossible without receiving DNA from both parents.

In short, what I found bore the marks not of genuine science, but of pseudoscience. The methodologies, documentation, and reasoning were so poor that my investigation had the opposite effect of what my family intended—it reinforced my decision to leave Catholicism. I began to ask myself: if the scientific case for Eucharistic miracles is this weak, should I view other widely accepted Catholic miracle claims with similar skepticism? To this day, I do. Once my eyes were opened to the reality behind the claims, the trust I once had was irreparably damaged.

Kevin Nontradicath

It’s about TRUST. I get the impression that Fr. Spitzer and others who defend Eucharistic miracle claims on the basis of science think they are helping skeptics. Conference attendees told me after my talk that even though I gave a presentation opposite of Fr. Spitzer’s, they felt convicted and would rethink what they heard about the cases and, more importantly, what they would repeat. Kevin and Joe’s statements are powerful. If you know either of them, you know they are not at all antagonistic to Catholicism. Joe is known for his ability to ‘steelman’ an argument and his openness to explore theism. Kevin, I suspect, is a lot like me. I would love to see good data so we can advance the discussion, but the entire issue is stuck at questionable data because miracle devotees seem unwilling to take a more objective and circumspect position that would admit natural causes.

Then Emmanuel Emailed

In March of last year, Emmanuel Porcher contacted me on Facebook Messenger after reading my article at Crisis Magazine and Behold, It Is I (where I first wrote about Eucharistic miracles). Like me, he was trying to make sense out of the claims made by Ronald Tesoriero and Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez on the Buenos Aires case in the 1990s, especially regarding the confusion about Dr. Frederick Zugibe’s involvement. (See Dr. Zugibe and the Living Heart Tissue of the Buenos Aires Eucharistic Miracle Case.) We exchanged emails, and Emmanuel explained more background about his interest in Eucharistic miracles.

Dear Dr. Trasancos,

As previously mentioned on Messenger, for the past several months, following a conversation with a Catholic friend who suggested I look into this miracle, I’ve developed an interest in the Buenos Aires Miracle. I got in touch with Absinners (Noé Gouttès), a YouTuber, and I’m assisting him in producing a skeptical video about the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires. During our research into the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires, we discovered that the friends and family of the late Dr. Zugibe are upset about how his involvement has been presented, feeling that there may have been some deception involved.

Although I no longer have faith today, I deeply appreciate my Catholic friends. Some of my very good friends have become priests or joined religious orders. My only wish is to restore sincere dialogue between believers and non-believers. I greatly appreciated the discussion you had with Marcelo Gleiser.

Officially, the Catholic Church has not endorsed this miracle. Therefore, it is difficult to see how any information provided could be used to attack or discredit the Church. Nevertheless, as you’re aware, this information is widely circulated by individuals and sources publicly perceived as representatives of the Catholic Church—apologists, and even parish presentations. Consequently, any critique of these claims could inevitably be viewed by some as an attack on the Church. Additionally, we may have certain criticisms of the Church for allowing misinformation to spread widely without issuing any clarification or guidance. This issue is even discussed in RCIA classes intended for those exploring the Catholic faith.

I responded because I have the same concern:

Hello Emmanuel,

I would very much like to work with you on setting this straight. I will be happy to help and serve as the Catholic voice. Catholics have no reason to be afraid of the truth.

Noé at Absinners

Shortly afterward, Emmanuel’s friend, Noé, published his video on his YouTube channel, Absinners. He focuses on the Buenos Aires case and mentions my criticisms of genetic testing. (See About the Divine DNA in Buenos Aires.) His documentary, however, goes far beyond the scientific problems. There are other serious inaccuracies being spread among Catholics. If you are at all interested in the Buenos Aires Eucharistic miracle account, I highly recommend the entire video. The atheists did the homework Catholics should have done themselves.

I’ve embedded the video below. (It was in the last post too.) It’s French, but for English subtitles, click the gear icon, “Subtitles/CC,” and “French (auto-generated).” Click “Subtitles/CC” again and “Auto-translate.” Select English, and the subtitles will appear in English or whatever language you choose.

Noé presents some disturbing background regarding the reasons why the investigations were done in the first place and how the investigators embellished the story once they started trying to collect data. I included some of this in my talk in Washington, D.C. last September after verifying Noé’s claims. He’s right.

For example, Fr. Spitzer often tells the story that Dr. Ricardo Castañón Gómez was an atheist when he was selected to investigate the Buenos Aires case because “he did not have a religious ax to grind’ (clip below). He also says the results were so compelling that Castañón Gómez became Catholic afterward.

But Castañón Gómez himself states in two different interviews that he became Catholic in 1992. In one, he says he converted after reading a book about Medjugorje. In a 1993 video, he attributes his conversion to the influence of the controversial mystic, Nancy Fowler (see here and listen for two minutes) who he believed spoke for Jesus. The Buenos Aires investigation did not begin until 1999 — seven years after his conversion and three years after the last reported phenomenon in 1996. So, the timeline simply does not support the narrative that the investigation caused his conversion.

Maybe it seems a small inconsistency, but I agree with Noé that the embellished narrative is misleading. “An atheist scientist became Catholic because of this miracle” is a more dramatic story than the reality: the investigator was already Catholic, already producing a documentary series on miracles, already involved in questionable “divine DNA” claims, and already influenced by a mystic who claimed to speak for Jesus.

Catholics should not twist facts or embellish timelines in the name of science to persuade atheists. They are not fools. This is about truth, trust, and basic intellectual honesty. It’s in Noé’s video. I’ll say more later.

For now, I want to express my sincere thanks to Noé and Emmanuel for wading through so much conflicting information. Please watch his video, especially if you are Catholic. Additionally, Noé and Emmanuel made a longer (three-hour, twenty minute) informal discussion-type video. It is in French, but again, you can request English subtitles. They explain how the Buenos Aires case is presented as incontrovertible scientific proof of the Catholic faith to atheists, namely that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but when they started looking for information, they found inconsistencies and missing information.

For my talk in Washington D.C., I asked Noé to respond to the same question I asked Kevin and Joe: What impression do you have of the Catholic faith when you hear about these miracles?

Noé Gouttès’s reply:

I believe it is extremely dangerous and reckless to claim to have material proof of the existence of the Creator of the universe. The very least, when making such a claim, is to cover your bases—making sure the work has been carried out with care, that the investigation has been conducted thoroughly, and that nothing has been left to chance. Where are the peer-reviewed publications? Where is the chain of custody? Why hasn’t any scientific journal even bothered to mention it? What do we have, apart from hearsay? I am concerned by the asymmetry between the claims of those promoting this miracle and the evidence they are willing to provide in return. I truly think that this friendly fire harms the Church more than it helps it.

Noé, Absinners

I wonder if the Catholic apologists who gain popularity speaking about Eucharistic miracles (and there are many) see this issue from the atheist’s perspective. Noé says it is “extremely dangerous and reckless to claim to have material proof of the existence of the Creator of the universe” but then to fail to deliver on the promised evidence. Again, it’s about TRUST. Yet, the misinformation keeps spreading. I find exaggerations, inaccuracies, and flat out lies repeated among Catholic regarding Eucharistic miracles whenever I check YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram. It’s painful that more Catholics do not understand what is at stake here. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the deepest and simplest truth of our faith, a tenet of FAITH on the testimony of Christ himself, and apologists, of all people, whose job it is to teach people about the truths of the Catholic faith, want to reduce the richness and beauty of the Eucharist to shoddy science and fake narratives. They should be talking about what it means to accept the gift of faith or why the Church is not opposed to science as the study of the handiwork of God. Instead, they make it sound like our faith depends on science to prove it, as if science is the measure of truth.

Bang! Enter Kerri aka, Skeptasmic

Noé and Emmanuel introduced me to the woman they mention in both of the above videos. Kerri publishes a blog, Skeptasmic, YouTube channel, and Substack, all with the same name. Oh my gosh! She is fantastic, and I love her willingness as an atheist to cut through the fluff and ask questions no one else is asking.

She has a degree in electrical engineering and is married to a Ph.D. biologist. Kerri went through RCIA in Canada, so she knows about Catholic teaching, especially related to miracles, how they are approved, and how the stories get twisted as they are retold to gullible audiences. She studies modern miracles as well as historical accounts, which are more disturbing than this science stuff. I greatly appreciate her research. I would LOVE to see some Catholic apologists read her work and take it seriously. (I suspect some have but are afraid of her.)

One thing I have repeated is the fact (yes, fact) that natural explanations have not been ruled out, not even close, for the recent Eucharistic miracle cases that Catholic apologists say were subjected to the best scientific testing. The testing is embarrassingly bad, with no methods, data, or reporting typical of any other scientific claim. What shocks me is that Catholics actually think atheists do not know any better, especially when it comes to science.

Well, Kerri ran her own controls. She wanted to know if the red blood color appeared when starchy foods, like pasta or a communion wafer, were left exposed to similar conditions as in the Eucharistic miracle cases. Then she produced time-lapse videos. The first one is a cooked/rinsed strand of spaghetti. The second is an unconsecrated communion wafer.

It looks like blood, no? But it’s not. She found (ding, ding, ding) multiple species of microorganisms, some of which appear red, growing on the specimen, as well as an abundance of fruit flies. Are Catholic apologists going to deal with this?

Kerri says why she films and writes:

I care about the truth. That’s ultimately why I’m here, I found that people were claiming something was true that made no sense and justifying it with science, and I dug until I found some answers. And I want to share what I found, because I don’t think you should have to spend 5 years and hundreds of dollars reading dozens of books and experimenting with mouldy crackers in your living room to find the truth.

She and her husband have traveled to over 60 countries and have been touring the Amazon (and other parts of the world) for several months, so when you read her work, be sure to imagine her thumbing posts on her phone while riding buses amid jaguars, anacondas, mudslides, treacherous cold, and such. Subscribe to Kerri’s Substack, get to know her, and spend time reading how her mind works.

Skeptasmic with a “k”.

More?

Yes, there are more people, but I wanted to thank Kevin, Joe, Emmanuel, Noé, and Kerri specifically. I hope you follow the links and read or watch their work. Let me know if you do, especially if you are up for a debate. I’ll pop the corn!

Until next time…