Letter 36

From: Braulio of Zaragoza, bishop To: [Recipient unknown] Date: ~642 AD Context: Letter 36 of Braulio of Zaragoza; on the question of miraculous healings reported at a local shrine and the proper episcopal response. To my dear brother, The reports coming from the shrine you mention are ones I have been following with a mixture of interest and caution. That God grants healings through the intercession of the saints is not in doubt; the tradition is clear and the reports from reliable witnesses over many centuries are too numerous to dismiss. That every reported healing at every local shrine is what it is claimed to be is, however, a different matter. My approach to these situations — and I think it is the correct approach canonically as well as pastorally — is to investigate carefully before saying anything publicly, and to set a high bar for what I am willing to formally recognize. The questions I ask: Are the witnesses credible? Are there natural explanations that have been ruled out? Has enough time passed to establish that the cure is lasting? Is there any financial interest being served by the reports — any collection of offerings, any pattern of the shrine's keepers promoting miracles in ways that benefit them? I am not cynical about miracles. I am careful about them. A false or exaggerated miracle, once promoted by the church and later revealed to be false or exaggerated, does more damage to the faith than if it had never been reported. The church's credibility depends on not claiming more than can be sustained. If after investigation the healings appear genuine, I will be glad to say so. If they appear natural or exaggerated or the product of wishful thinking, I will say that too. Your brother in Christ, Braulio