Saint John Paul II real soon!

[rug]

62. That depends on the claim.

There are two claims here.

One, the Catholic Church sees the cure as divine intervention. That , of course, is not susceptible to what you consider proof.

Two, the claim is that it's the result of something natural, despite the lack of any evidence of that. That burden remains to be explained naturally. ("Yet" is not adequate proof.)

If you are really interested in what the medical evidence is on these two instances, I invite you to look into it. Whether you think it's a miracle or not, it's a quite interesting phenomenon.

And you have it wrong. I neither see nor need miracles to have belief. I do hold, however, that a miracle is perfectly plausible if one also believes in a supernatural creator.

And, no, St. Christopher never bothered me. Saints were proclaimed by acclamation and legends sprung up all the time about apparently holy people. What interests me about this snarky OP is that the modern process of investigating claims of supernatural events have been subject to scientific investigation but many remain unexplained.