When science can't explain it, aren't you just putting God in the gap?

🔥The question: “There's a big logical gap between ‘we don't know the cause’ and ‘God did it,’ isn't there?”

🛡️The Church's answer: That's right. So what a medical board can normally say goes only as far as “with current medical knowledge this recovery is difficult to explain adequately.” That judgment by itself doesn't mean God has been detected scientifically. After it, theologians separately examine the relationship between one specific prayer of intercession and the event, and whether anything in it runs contrary to the faith. Medically unexplained and a theological judgment of a miracle are two stages with different questions and different methods.

📜What the Church has actually recognized: The Church doesn't turn a blank space in science straight into proof of God. If new medical information appears, the judgment about a natural explanation can be examined again.

🎨An analogy — two people asking different questions

A mechanic investigates “why did the car stop?” mechanically, and a judge decides “who bears what responsibility?” through testimony and law. Neither one can produce the other's conclusion. Medical judgment and theological judgment cooperate too, but they aren't the same question.

🧐If they press further: “So a miracle isn't a scientific proof?” — Correct. Catholics don't call a miracle a repeatable experiment in the natural sciences either. It's a limited judgment reached by gathering several kinds of evidence about a historical event.

✨In one sentence: “‘Not yet explained by medicine’ is not the same as ‘proof of God.’ The Church examines the medical judgment and the theological judgment separately.”