The Miracle of Calanda
They say God doesn't heal amputees... but apparently he did, once. Or did he?
Filed under Religion
| Skeptoid #247 March 01, 2011 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 247, March 01, 2011
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4247
 |
| 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:
- Documentation of Miguel Juan Pellicer's baptism, confirming that he was a real person.
- Registration of Pellicer's admittance to the hospital at Valencia.
- The delegation's original notarized report of the statements collected in Calanda, including statements by people who saw him come to town with one leg and wake up with two.
- A certified and notarized copy of the original minutes of the trial at Zaragoza, including many statements of people who knew Pellicer as a one-legged beggar.
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.
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.
© 2011 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Aranda, J. Luis Buñuel: A Critical Biography. London: Secker and Warburg, 1975. 7-17.
Domingo Pélrez, 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 Histórico. 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.
26 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4247>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 140 comments
I have read the process, and the case is slightly more complex. The doctors at Zaragoza, Juan de Estanga, Diego Millaruelo and Miguel Beltrán did declare, and confirmed they had decided to cut the leg, which was phlegmous and damaged.But they did not operate themselves, the work was done by their assistants ("mancebos"). Those also declared, with Juan Lorenzo García, the one who later buried the leg confirming the history. The leg was, by the way, buried in a communal grave, so it makes sense that it was never recovered. The weak point of this testimonies is that they also declared that they got to know Pellicer after the fact, when he was a famous one legged beggar, and could not be totally sure he was the amputee. So we know for sure someone was amputated around that time, but that must not have been uncommon in XVII century Spain.
I said famous beggar, and apparently Pellicer became something of a minor celebrity. He had his spot in front of the cathedral and used to show his leg and let people touch the scar. He also used to rub the oils of the cathedral on it, something that irked Juan de Estanga to no end. The doctor seems to have seen the beggar from time to time, but he was not allowed to touch the scar. It is not implausible that Pellicer was faking it, with the weakened leg hidden behind his body.
Some time later, a priest from Calanda, his hometown, locates him and advices him to go back to his parents. He had run out of home to work with an uncle years ago...
Leirus, Madrid
March 26, 2012 6:20pm
I have it on the greatest authority that scams are better when people can be easily fooled.
I maybe talking to a one man audience...myself..
Fr. Mud, Sin City, NSW, Oz
March 26, 2012 9:08pm
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
since you dont know the guy u clearly cant say anything
FRGAEWRGw, dfbgagfreag
May 18, 2013 2:25pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
Presumably they answered that way because they did not know him apart from the hospital, two and a half years previously. Estanga expressed no doubt regarding his identity, however (he had frequent contact with him after the amputation), nor did any of the others who knew him personally.
This comment section does not allow the posting of links, however if one searches for "Copia literal y auténtica del proceso", one can find (naturally in Spanish) a copy of the process, including the testimony of those from the hospital.
Fr. Thomas, Norcia, Italy
March 23, 2012 9:16am