The Miracle of Calanda

They say God doesn't heal amputees... but apparently he did, once. Or did he?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Religion

Skeptoid #247
March 1, 2011
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
 

Miracle of Calanda
The Basilica of Our Lady of the
Pillar, in Zaragoza, Spain.
(Photo credit: Wikimedia)

A favorite question asked by skeptics, when confronted with stories of miraculous religious healings, is to ask "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" The answer? He did, once.

It happened in Spain in 1640, when a young man's injured leg was amputated. Two and a half years later, his leg was miraculously restored. It's become known as the Miracle of Calanda, and it's perhaps one of the best documented of miracles. The faithful have hard evidence to back it up, and the skeptics have no answer. Was the event truly miraculous and unexplainable? Maybe it was; but this is Skeptoid, so we're going to take a hard look at what's actually known, and see if we can uncover the most likely explanation.

Miguel Juan Pellicer, a strapping young fellow about 20 years old, was working at his uncle's farm in the village of Castellón in 1637. A mule-drawn cart ran over his leg, fracturing the tibia. Quickly, his uncle drove him to the hospital at Valencia. The story, as recorded, says that Pellicer stayed in the Valencia hospital for five days, until it was decided that he needed better help than they could provide. Pellicer was sent, on foot, with a broken leg, to the larger hospital in Zaragoza, a journey which took him 50 days.

Once he arrived in Zaragoza, feverish and ill, doctors found his leg to be gangrenous and in a grievous state. Pellicer's right leg was amputated "four fingers below the knee" and it was buried in a special plot at the hospital. He stayed in the hospital for several months, and was provided with a wooden leg and a crutch. He then applied to the church authorities at the Basilica of Our Lady of the Pillar in Zaragoza for authorization to make a living as a beggar, which was granted. Pellicer lived in Zaragoza for two years, attending mass daily at the Basilica, and accepting alms from the citizenry. The pious young amputee was a familiar face in town.

At last he decided to return home. He rode a donkey all the way to his parents' home in Calanda, where he'd grown up. His family was overjoyed to see him, but since he couldn't work, he spent a couple of weeks riding his donkey to neighboring villages begging. And then one night, it happened.

A traveling soldier was spending the night in Pellicer's own room, so Pellicer took a bedroll on the floor in his parents' bedroom. In the morning, his parents saw not one, but two feet protruding from the end of the short blanket! They excitedly woke their son, who was as surprised as anyone, and the news quickly spread throughout the village that the young amputee had been miraculously healed.

An examination of the leg revealed it was the same leg he'd always had. It bore a scar from where a cyst had been excised when he was a child, two scars made by thorns, and another from a dog bite on his calf. Most notable was a scar where the cart wheel had crushed his tibia. The leg was said to appear thin and atrophied, but within a few days he was using it normally.

As the story spread, it drew in the curious and the official. A few days after the miraculous restoration, a delegation consisting of a priest, a vicar, and the local royal notary came to Calanda to see for themselves and to prepare an official record of the event. They took statements from witnesses and carefully documented Pellicer's story.

Two months later, a trial was opened in Zaragoza where more than 100 people testified that they had known Pellicer with only one leg, whereas now he had two. Ten months later, the archbishop rendered a verdict that the restoration of the leg was canonized as a true miracle. Since that date, skeptics have no longer been able to charge that God does not heal amputees.

The most authoritative work on the Miracle of Calanda is the 1998 book Il Miracolo by Catholic scholar Vittorio Messori which identifies and records the pieces of written evidence collected by the delegation, and which survives today. They are the following:

There are also many other documents that do not necessarily support the miracle claim, but that support other parts of the story; for example, proof that other people named in the story exist, proof that after the miracle Pellicer was invited to the royal court in Madrid, and books and other publications retelling the event.

If we accept that these documents are indeed legitimate, and I think we can, is there any wiggle room left? Do the documents consist of proof that a miraculous restoration of an amputated limb occurred?

Medically, Pellicer's story is improbable, but not impossible. 55 days after the injury, he said, his leg was amputated due to advanced gangrene. In a crushing injury like the one he suffered, gangrene may take from 48 to 72 hours to set in, and once it does, you're gone from sepsis in as little as a few hours. Nobody lives 55 days with a gangrenous injury. If his skin was not broken, or if any breaks healed cleanly, it is still possible that the wound could have developed internal gas gangrene weeks, months, or even years later. But the appearance of gas gangrene is inconsistent with the condition allegedly reported by the doctors, which was "phlegmonous and gangrenous", meaning open and wet, and "black". Without an actual examination, we can't say for certain that Pellicer's story is impossible; but the version of the story that's been reported raises a huge medical red flag.

This red flag is sufficient to prompt a closer examination of the documented evidence. And there is one thing that jumps out. It's a giant, gaping hole. In case you haven't fallen into it yet, or seen any large buildings or 747s get swallowed up in this hole, I'll point it out: There is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone.

But what about all those witnesses who knew him with one leg? Allow me to offer an alternative version of what might have happened, that requires no miraculous intervention, and is still consistent with all the documentary evidence we have. Pellicer's leg was broken in the accident as witnessed and reported, but like most broken legs, did not develop gangrene. His uncle took him to the hospital at Valencia (a documented event), where he spent five days — during which his uncle presumably went back to his farm — and his broken leg was set.

The next 50 days he spent convalescing as his leg mended. Unable to work during this time, he was forced to earn a living as a beggar, and found that the broken leg did wonders for the collection of alms. Once his leg was sound, he reasoned that if a broken leg was good, a missing leg would be even better. He bound his right foreleg up behind his thigh, got ahold of a wooden leg, and traveled to Zaragoza, home of the great Basilica — someplace where he wasn't known. For two years, the young Pellicer enjoyed the relative financial success of panhandling among the Basilica's devotees as an amputee with a sad story.

Eventually he made it back home to Calanda, where his plans were accidentally foiled when the existence of his complete, sound leg was revealed when his parents saw his feet sticking out of his blanket. At that point, the miracle story was a perfect cover. Many, many people had known him as the man with one leg, and now everyone could quite plainly see that he had two. There was no way he could lose.

I'm not accusing Miguel Juan Pellicer of being a fraud, but I am pointing out that there is a far more probable alternate explanation. Faking blindness, infirmity, poverty, and all manner of ailments is hardly unheard of among beggars. It is now, and has been for millennia, a pillar of the profession.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial. The trial did find that no leg was buried where he said it was at the hospital, but this is exactly what we'd expect to find if it had never been amputated. Although this lack of a buried leg is often put forth as evidence that the story is true, it is actually a lack of evidence of anything.

We have evidence that he was admitted to the hospital in Valencia with his uncle. We have notarized first-hand statements that a scar was visible on his leg where he had been injured by the mule cart. We have numerous statements that he was well known in Zaragoza as a one-legged beggar. All the evidence supports Pellicer being a beggar with a popular and time-honored gimmick who was caught, not with his hand in the cookie jar, but with his feet out of the blanket. It is only through the introduction of a new assumption, that of the existence of unprecedented supernatural intervention, can the alternate explanation of a miraculous restoration be found consistent with this same evidence. This is where Occam's Razor comes into play: The most likely explanation is the one that requires the fewest new assumptions.

We can't say that the Miracle of Calanda is not genuine, and we can't prove that Miguel Juan Pellicer's leg was not miraculously restored. But we can say that the evidence we have falls short, and is perfectly consistent with no miracle having taken place.

Brian Dunning

© 2011 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Aranda, J. Luis Buñuel: A Critical Biography. London: Secker and Warburg, 1975. 7-17.

Domingo Pélrez, T. El Milagro de Calanda y sus Fuentes Históricas. Zaragoza: Caja Inmaculada, 2006.

Marie, A. "Spiritual Newsletter." Saint Joseph de Clairval Abbey in Flavigny. Abbey of Saint-Joseph de Clairval, 8 Dec. 2006. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. <http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/2006/12/08/2061206.htm>

Naval, L. El Milagro de Calanda a Nivel Histórico. Zaragoza: Iglesia Católica, 1972.

Sanz y Martínez, M. Calanda. Reus: Artis Gráf, 1970. 1-41.

Vittori, M. Il Miracolo. Milano: Rizzoli, 1999.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "The Miracle of Calanda." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 1 Mar 2011. Web. 31 Oct 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4247>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 143 comments

I wonder if this case meets the technical requirements for a miracle as they are applied today, even assuming everything as presented was correct. In one of the cases examined for the beatification of Mother Teresa, a cure of blindness was not accepted as a miracle because full sight was regained only in one eye, and the examiner stated that God would not permit an "incomplete" miraculous cure. Pellicer was left with scars on his leg after his "miracle"; under the current rules this strikes me as an incomplete healing and thus not a miracle even according to the church.

Edward, Tennessee, USA
July 24, 2012 1:35pm

I believe Christ heals and miracles do happen. However, there are a few problems in this story. (l There seems to be no report of when, where, or how the miracle actually took place. The moment of it happening would have been known to all. In the Gospel accounts Christ healed before the eyes of the people to bring glory to the Father. (2) I woud expect God to give this man a new leg that was whole and healthy not replace the old one that seems to have been in terrible condition. Sincerely, Rev. Donad G. Hill, Director of Livig Hope Ministries

Rev. Donald G. Hill, Orillia, Ontario, Canada
October 10, 2012 2:35pm

In this article I see at least one lie:"
Note that no evidence exists that his leg was ever amputated — or that he was even treated at all — at the hospital in Zaragoza other than his own word. He named three doctors there, but for some reason there is no record of their having been interviewed by either the delegation or the trial."
It's lie according to the notarized report. It says that de Estanga(surgeon) was testifying.

This article has one purpose: to mute obvious facts.

Krzysiek, Pilzno Poland
October 21, 2012 2:49pm

How can I see documents? Are it exist in electronic format like .doc or PDF?

Evgeny Kulik, Everett
November 15, 2012 3:56am

We can certainly invoke Occam's Razor on this and say that it's more likely he faked the loss of a leg to gain sympathy in begging than had it miraculously healed. Still, even if it were proven beyond doubt it was a miracle, there is the matter of this being the only lost limb restoration I've ever heard anyone claim. Why did one Spanish peasant in the 1600s hit the divine jackpot? Of all the amputees since (and before) do none show the piety sufficient to warrant a miraculous restoration?

Michael, Denver, CO USA
January 30, 2013 9:50pm

Of course the doctors would attest, after the "miraculous healing", that they decided to cut off his leg. Who are they to dispute a "divine miracle" like this, even if it doesn't actually jive with what really happened? Not to mention that it would get them a lot of positive attention, being tacitly involved with a limb regeneration, or reattachment, or whatever it was.

It's true that we can't outright disprove it, 400 years after the fact. But given the circumstances, given that a time-honored tactic of beggars is making themselves look like they're severely injured when they're not, and given that it was actually his leg, the one supposedly amputated, I think we can safely dismiss it.

jaimehlers, Oklahoma, USA
March 17, 2013 3:51pm

Faith is faith and science is science. Never the twain shall meet.
Seriously??!!
Brian, I'm with you on this one!
I don't want to offend or step on anyones' toes... but if you look at it objectively... f'rinstance the Inquisition... the Catholic Church isn't exactly the paragon of truth and virtuousness one would expect from arguably the most influential factor in western civilization for the past millennium or so.
I would just say that any info from the church should be taken with a grain of salt..

old bald guy, Sears Kenmore wa
September 23, 2013 6:57pm

Brian, In response to your statement: "There is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone."

According to the document mentioned by Fr. Thomas, (in the first comment beneath your post, entitled "Copia literal y authentico" --you can google this document), one can read on page three of the introduction that a Dr. Meurath testified that he knew the young man before, he saw him after his injury without a leg, he saw him in Madrid with two legs (and saw the scar from the amputation) and he met with the surgeon who removed the leg. There is also the testimony of a Count who gave him alms and saw him with only one leg, then later with the leg restored. I have only read through the first few pages, but there are witnesses who saw that his leg was gone.

Kind regards

Sarah, Atlanta, GA
June 19, 2014 8:08am

Sarah, I'm not sure you actually read the transcript or listened to the episode, because I discussed this in detail. If I tie my calf up behind my leg and wear a long gown, you might well believe you're seeing me with one leg. The trial included many witnesses who reported seeing a young man with what they believed was one leg, and then later with two.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
June 19, 2014 10:23am

No, I did not. I am only calling into question the statement you made in this quote, which is not true. My point is that these people testify to seeing the remainder of the man's leg after it had been amputated, not a long cloak hanging down, but the actual leg. Of course, you don't have to believe that, but that is what is in the document, so your statement that there were no witnesses to the man having an amputated leg is not accurate.

Regards

Sarah, Atlanta, GA
June 19, 2014 12:17pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply

 

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 

Newest
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Skeptoid #438, Oct 28 2014
Read | Listen (11:56)
 
Tube Amplifiers
Skeptoid #437, Oct 21 2014
Read | Listen (14:57 )
 
Ionithermie
Skeptoid #436, Oct 14 2014
Read | Listen (10:11)
 
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Skeptoid #435, Oct 7 2014
Read | Listen (13:56)
 
The Braxton County Monster
Skeptoid #434, Sep 30 2014
Read | Listen (11:26)
 
Newest
#1 -
Read | Listen
#2 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#3 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#4 -
The Baldoon Mystery
Read | Listen
#5 -
Listeners Have Another Say
Read | Listen
#6 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen
#7 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#8 -
6 Problems with Wind Turbine Syndrome
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Name/Nickname:  
City/Location:
Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
Comment:
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.