Excellent post! You write that your goal is to see a team form to follow Dr. Kearse’s protocol so that all samples still available can be tested genetically. Have you tried to form such a team, or direct others to form such a team? I would encourage you to do so, since this is a pretty important topic! If you have, I would also be curious about whether your team can somehow contact the bishop who has prompted investigation into another recent Eucharistic miracle claim in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA1bLuDswgc&pp=ygUga2VyYWxhIGluZGlhIGV1Y2hhcmlzdGljIG1pcmFjbGU%3D
Thanks again Stacy for your well informed and equally thoughtful reasoning. I think it irresponsible to promote faith in the Eucharist based upon natural science claims. Neither should we put too much emphasis on the expression “transubstantiation”. It is a venerable term, however it simply means that the bread and wine have been changed. Furthermore, it is only a venerable term within Western scholastic tradition. Eastern Orthodox Catholic Rite Churches together with Eastern Orthodox Churches do not use the term and it generally discourage because it seems to suggest that we humans have “figured out” how God makes it so. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Richard. I never heard that caution about transubstantiation before, but it makes sense. Even fancy theological words do not mean we have fully grasp it!
This is certainly something we need to be stringent about. We risk doing damage to the credibility of the faith if we aren't careful with the examination and testing of these things. There is certainly commendable desire for it all to line up and be just so, but we can't assume it is.
I commend you for this essay. We do need to be cautious on the evidence we cite. My former pastor gave a great homily on this subject, and I had to tell him afterward that the 23 chromosome story was fake. The poor man seemed to deflate right before me.
I do want to point out, though, that in his "A Cardiologist Examines Jesus: The Stunning Science Behind Eucharistic Miracles," Dr. Franco Serafini does seem to sidestep the bacterial hypothesis in one case. Here is the relevant text:
“Prof. Gérard Lucotte, the outstanding French geneticist who is certainly the greatest expert of the Tunic of Argenteuil, wrote about two investigations aimed at determining the blood group of the many red blood cells present on the relic in his 2007 book Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ)...the feisty geneticist surprised his readers with something groundbreaking by nonchalantly hinting in a footnote (no. 127 on page 149) that in the 2000s, Prof. Lucotte used the versatile laboratory technique of flow cytometry for the purpose of blood group determination. Having access to an abundant number of whole red blood cells, he tagged them—whenever they had the appropriate surface antigens—with monoclonal anti-A and anti-B fluorescent antibodies. He then let these red blood cells flow, one by one, in front of a laser beam. The presence of fluorescent antibodies could be detected by a light detector that precisely quantified the cells. The result was a twofold peak distribution of cell density for both anti-A and anti-B tagged red blood cells: the unequivocal demonstration that the blood was of the AB type.”
OK, this is very interesting. I can see where there is not enough information to be 100% certain about the red cells being AB. What does 'tagging' mean? How many cells were examined? But if this can be replicated to control for external contamination of the red cells then [it seems to me] then we would be more certain of the presence of the AB type.
Thank you for your comment, Thomas. I appreciate it, and I appreciate a lot of Dr. Serafini's book. Most impressive is the work he did himself to track down the WHO report on the Lanciano miracle. He went to the monastery and discovered that the document was a fake. He writes about it in his book. I had looked for that report for years.
As for this test, it's hard to track (as are so many other tests) the method or data, and there are too many questions. How did he know there was an abundance of red blood cells? This by itself is an extraordinary claim. Elsewhere, Serafini says Lucotte used TEM to identify red blood cells. In a scientific journal, a claim like that would be supported with an image from the TEM. They would look biconcave and be of a certain size distribution. But then, why would they all be intact after so many years? More importantly, why would the white blood cells still be there? They are known to corrupt in hours to days after removal from the body. That by itself would be miraculous. And then the DNA profile isn't consistent at all with the claims made by the Buenos Aires investigators. They *could not* find DNA, even though they said white blood cells were also present, and concluded that DNA was present, but that Christ's DNA would not have a paternal contribution. Yet, Serafini opines that the DNA profile for Lucotte's work is "the Holy Spirit's DNA."
So, unless we are sure that there were, in fact, red blood cells, then the possibility of bacterial contamination, as far as I know, still exists. (Tagging means they chemically altered the antibodies with a unit that fluoresces.)
I don't mean to be so skeptical, but in scientific journals all of this would be explained and supported with data. Yet, for these miracles, there are mostly claims. I would expect the data to be abundant on something like this so as to prove the point.
Yes. In my opinion, your cautions are needed to direct future research. Science is, after all, dependent on reproducibility. I think we do need to be skeptical so that science can be done properly.
For example, look at the tagging of the red blood cells. Was a control sample processed without tagging? What steps were taken to account for tagging of cells other than red blood cells, or of raw antibodies that are untagged? I know that individual cells can be imaged in ways that show the tagged antibodies.
We are currently in a position where the science is fascinating but not unequivocal. We certainly can improve this situation.
Excellent post! You write that your goal is to see a team form to follow Dr. Kearse’s protocol so that all samples still available can be tested genetically. Have you tried to form such a team, or direct others to form such a team? I would encourage you to do so, since this is a pretty important topic! If you have, I would also be curious about whether your team can somehow contact the bishop who has prompted investigation into another recent Eucharistic miracle claim in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA1bLuDswgc&pp=ygUga2VyYWxhIGluZGlhIGV1Y2hhcmlzdGljIG1pcmFjbGU%3D
Yay! We are talking soon! I'm so glad. Thank you.
Thanks again Stacy for your well informed and equally thoughtful reasoning. I think it irresponsible to promote faith in the Eucharist based upon natural science claims. Neither should we put too much emphasis on the expression “transubstantiation”. It is a venerable term, however it simply means that the bread and wine have been changed. Furthermore, it is only a venerable term within Western scholastic tradition. Eastern Orthodox Catholic Rite Churches together with Eastern Orthodox Churches do not use the term and it generally discourage because it seems to suggest that we humans have “figured out” how God makes it so. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Richard. I never heard that caution about transubstantiation before, but it makes sense. Even fancy theological words do not mean we have fully grasp it!
I admire the way you maintain such deep faith and ardor for truth. This is an interesting project you have undertaken!
This is certainly something we need to be stringent about. We risk doing damage to the credibility of the faith if we aren't careful with the examination and testing of these things. There is certainly commendable desire for it all to line up and be just so, but we can't assume it is.
I agree! It may never line up just so, but either way the truth needs to be reported and not exaggerated. Thank you!
Thank you. Keep up the good work. I enjoy hearing you every time you're on Catholic Answers!
I commend you for this essay. We do need to be cautious on the evidence we cite. My former pastor gave a great homily on this subject, and I had to tell him afterward that the 23 chromosome story was fake. The poor man seemed to deflate right before me.
I do want to point out, though, that in his "A Cardiologist Examines Jesus: The Stunning Science Behind Eucharistic Miracles," Dr. Franco Serafini does seem to sidestep the bacterial hypothesis in one case. Here is the relevant text:
“Prof. Gérard Lucotte, the outstanding French geneticist who is certainly the greatest expert of the Tunic of Argenteuil, wrote about two investigations aimed at determining the blood group of the many red blood cells present on the relic in his 2007 book Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ)...the feisty geneticist surprised his readers with something groundbreaking by nonchalantly hinting in a footnote (no. 127 on page 149) that in the 2000s, Prof. Lucotte used the versatile laboratory technique of flow cytometry for the purpose of blood group determination. Having access to an abundant number of whole red blood cells, he tagged them—whenever they had the appropriate surface antigens—with monoclonal anti-A and anti-B fluorescent antibodies. He then let these red blood cells flow, one by one, in front of a laser beam. The presence of fluorescent antibodies could be detected by a light detector that precisely quantified the cells. The result was a twofold peak distribution of cell density for both anti-A and anti-B tagged red blood cells: the unequivocal demonstration that the blood was of the AB type.”
OK, this is very interesting. I can see where there is not enough information to be 100% certain about the red cells being AB. What does 'tagging' mean? How many cells were examined? But if this can be replicated to control for external contamination of the red cells then [it seems to me] then we would be more certain of the presence of the AB type.
Thank you for your comment, Thomas. I appreciate it, and I appreciate a lot of Dr. Serafini's book. Most impressive is the work he did himself to track down the WHO report on the Lanciano miracle. He went to the monastery and discovered that the document was a fake. He writes about it in his book. I had looked for that report for years.
As for this test, it's hard to track (as are so many other tests) the method or data, and there are too many questions. How did he know there was an abundance of red blood cells? This by itself is an extraordinary claim. Elsewhere, Serafini says Lucotte used TEM to identify red blood cells. In a scientific journal, a claim like that would be supported with an image from the TEM. They would look biconcave and be of a certain size distribution. But then, why would they all be intact after so many years? More importantly, why would the white blood cells still be there? They are known to corrupt in hours to days after removal from the body. That by itself would be miraculous. And then the DNA profile isn't consistent at all with the claims made by the Buenos Aires investigators. They *could not* find DNA, even though they said white blood cells were also present, and concluded that DNA was present, but that Christ's DNA would not have a paternal contribution. Yet, Serafini opines that the DNA profile for Lucotte's work is "the Holy Spirit's DNA."
So, unless we are sure that there were, in fact, red blood cells, then the possibility of bacterial contamination, as far as I know, still exists. (Tagging means they chemically altered the antibodies with a unit that fluoresces.)
I don't mean to be so skeptical, but in scientific journals all of this would be explained and supported with data. Yet, for these miracles, there are mostly claims. I would expect the data to be abundant on something like this so as to prove the point.
Yes. In my opinion, your cautions are needed to direct future research. Science is, after all, dependent on reproducibility. I think we do need to be skeptical so that science can be done properly.
For example, look at the tagging of the red blood cells. Was a control sample processed without tagging? What steps were taken to account for tagging of cells other than red blood cells, or of raw antibodies that are untagged? I know that individual cells can be imaged in ways that show the tagged antibodies.
We are currently in a position where the science is fascinating but not unequivocal. We certainly can improve this situation.
Exactly! Thank you.