This is the rare situation where my agnostic-secular-but-nursing-a-crush-on-Catholicism adult self is in general agreement with my devout-Evangelical-but-Catholic-averse younger self. To wit: I'm entirely open to stigmata being a medical fact, but feel like its claim to being proof of the miraculous is weak.
To put it (too) simply: your hands are already full of blood. How cosmically significant would it be to move some of that blood a millimeter up?
(Now Francis's nails growing through his hand: that's something I hadn't heard before, and if it could be proven, would be more impressive as evidence!)
I think the "miracle" of stigmata is less, "Look, this guy bleeds" and more, "Look, this guy has been bleeding for years without any sign of infection, putrefaction, or disease." But I do understand what you're saying.
Yay! Ask a Church Receptionist returns!
Whoa! I have a fan?
This is the rare situation where my agnostic-secular-but-nursing-a-crush-on-Catholicism adult self is in general agreement with my devout-Evangelical-but-Catholic-averse younger self. To wit: I'm entirely open to stigmata being a medical fact, but feel like its claim to being proof of the miraculous is weak.
To put it (too) simply: your hands are already full of blood. How cosmically significant would it be to move some of that blood a millimeter up?
(Now Francis's nails growing through his hand: that's something I hadn't heard before, and if it could be proven, would be more impressive as evidence!)
I think the "miracle" of stigmata is less, "Look, this guy bleeds" and more, "Look, this guy has been bleeding for years without any sign of infection, putrefaction, or disease." But I do understand what you're saying.
Huh — I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!