I am not a believer. I am fascinated by belief. One of the most fascinating of beliefs I believe (see what I did there?) is the widespread Catholic belief in miracles. I don’t mean 'the recovery of someone from ‘flu’ or ‘an unexpected donation’ or ‘the fact that a house was not flooded’, all of which I have seen described as miraculous.
I mean belief in ‘miracles’ that are plaining originally events such as the occasional partial preservation of a corpse of a saint. On past experience, someone will shortly post a picture of the wax mask of St Theresa and say this is a miracle.
I would be impressed by any of the NT miracles performed under controlled conditions, in particular the rising of hundreds of people from their graves after the resurrection of Jesus and instant cures of leprosy. But modern causes of sainthood usually feature ‘miracles’ that match other events in medical literature such as spontaneous remission of cancer. The Church does not publish full scientific information on these cases and relies on ‘cannot be explained’ comments from scientists. Well, I have an annoying condition at the moment which ‘cannot be explained’ but I don’t think it is a miracle.
In my view the Church would be wise to cease all public endorsement of miracles except those (should there be any) that pass very high standards of scientific proof. All others should be seen as ‘pious practices’ that do no harm. Claims of miracles that are impossible to believe for non-believers are bad PR.
Proof of this is that (as far as I know) there is no flood of people from Protestantism to Catholicism as a result of ‘miracles’. If they were convincing, there would be, just as there would be a flood of Catholic converts to televangelists’ causes if their on-screen ‘healing miracles’ were credible.