Dr. Ricardo Castañon Gomez is not well-known to many Catholics. But he should be.
Atheist Richard Dawkins has apparently never heard of Dr. Ricardo Castañon Gomez either. Dawkins tweeted recently that Catholic belief in the Eucharist is madness. Had Dawkins heard of Gomez and the results of Gomez’s scientific investigations into the Eucharistic Miracles of Argentina and Tixtla, Mexico, he might not have tweeted his tweet!
Dr. Gomez is a scientist. He’s also a former atheist. He became a Catholic after leading his first scientific investigation to examine what appeared to be a bleeding consecrated host. Recently he led a second investigation. Both investigations, as far as I’m concerned, provide proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Eucharistic Miracles
Dr. Gomez led the scientific investigation into the 1996 Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires, Argentina (detailed in three separate PDFs, #1, #2, and #3). He also led the investigation into the 2006 Eucharistic Miracle in Tixtla, Mexico.
In both instances, consecrated hosts appeared to be bleeding. In both instances samples taken from the hosts proved to be blood and living human tissue. And in both instances the tissue was living muscle tissue from an inflamed human heart. Also in both instances, the blood was type AB.
These findings match the findings of a 1971 scientific investigation into the 8th Century Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. What’s more, the AB blood type in all three cases matches the AB blood type found on the Shroud of Turin.
And even more recently, in 2013, in Legnica, Poland, samples taken from a consecrated host that appeared to be bleeding were also scientifically examined. The tests once again showed that the samples were of inflamed heart muscle.
So in four separate scientific investigations, in four different countries, samples of consecrated hosts that appeared to be bleeding have been scientifically examined. And in all four instances scientists said the samples were living human heart muscle tissue. If this does not prove the Real Presence in the Eucharist, I don’t know what would.
More Proof
But it gets even better.
In 2004, eight years after the host in Argentina was first found to be bleeding, Dr. Gomez brought another sample of the host to Dr. Frederick Zugibe. Zugibe was then one of the United States’ most prominent forensics experts. Gomez asked him to examine the sample, but Gomez did not tell Zugibe anything about the sample.
Dr. Zugibe told Dr. Gomez that the sample he examined was that of living muscle tissue from a human heart. Zugibe also said the tissue came from a person whose heart had been severely traumatized.
Dr. Zugibe was amazed when Dr. Gomez informed him that the sample had been obtained eight years earlier. Zugibe told Gomez that the cells were still living when he examined them. He asked Gomez to explain how this could be so when the sample was eight years old. Gomez then told Zugibe that the sample was from a Consecrated Host. Zugibe’s amazement turned to astonishment.
Also, in the samples taken from the hosts in both Lanciano and Argentina, live white blood cells were present. Yet white blood cells ‘die’ within a few hours after being exposed to air. The Lanciano blood samples were over 1,200 years old
To me these miracles show that what the Catholic Church teaches on Transubstantiation and the Eucharist is true. And no other religion on earth can say that science has proven what it teaches is true.
Catholics Should Know This
But atheists like Dawkins think Catholics are mad to believe in the Real Presence. Practitioners of other religions may think Catholics are crazy as well. And even members of other Christian denominations might think Catholics are crazy to believe in Transubstantiation.
But every Catholic should know that we are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist when we receive Communion. Yet as the July 2019 Pew research revealed, many Catholics also do not believe in the Real Presence.
If only more people knew what science has to say about the Eucharist!
Uninformed?
You will get “about 550,000 results” if you Google the phrase “Eucharistic Miracle of Argentina.” And you will get “about 28,500 results” if you Google “Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.” So there is plenty of information available about these two Eucharistic Miracles. Why more people, and especially Catholic people, are not aware of these miracles is curious.
My wife and I make it a point to tell the kids in the eighth grade Faith Formation class we teach about these two miracles. When we tell them about the miracles and the results of the scientific investigations they are spellbound. When we talk about these miracles, we have the complete and undivided attention of the entire class. The Real Presence becomes real.
Faith Formation instructors in classes throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world should make note of this. Miracles – the Eucharistic Miracles, along with the Marian Miracles at Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe – ought to be at least one lesson in the lesson plan for the year. Young people are being told today that science has all the answers. In these four Eucharistic Miracles, science speaks quite loudly.
It’s possible your children or grandchildren have not heard about any of these miracles. Or perhaps they have not heard of the scientific investigations into them. Maybe you should make it point to educate them!
41 thoughts on “Science has Proven the Real Presence”
Pingback: Bring ‘Em Back! Part 5 - Catholic Stand
Thank you for the article. I am doing a deeper dive on the scientific evidence for Eucharistic Miracles. Do you happen to know where I could find the actual lab results, or the published documents from the labs? I am looking for the primary sources.
Pingback: Probability and Gullibility in Dawkin’s Lock - Catholic Stand
Is the shortening of the Eucharistic Fast partly to blame for the decline of belief in the Real Presence?
That’s a good question Ken. I don’t have an answer. I do think, though, there may be multiple reasons. My wife and I do a survey of the 8th grade Confirmation Prep class we teach and in the 2019-2020 class (no 2020-2021 class because of Covid), out of 16 kids only 7 correctly said the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Of the other 8 kids, 7 said it was a symbol of Jesus Christ, and 1 said it was a wafer that is blessed by the priest. These are 8th graders, mind you.
So, thinking on the fast required before receivng Holy Communion, do we keep in mind that Jesus consecrated the bread and wine at a supper at which food was eaten? That a fast was not required at that time?
Perhaps the children who are having a difficult time believing the results of the consecration are influenced by others, important to them, and so wonder who is correct as far as Christ’s real presence is present under both species.
Children can be told and taught, but if their main influencers are not certain that Jesus meant what He said, then the children may well wobble in their belief, too.
Again, all one needs to believe is that Jesus meant what He said at the Last Supper. There is no need for other “proofs”, “miracles”, nor even proclamations. Just believe Him.
Monies spent “proving”, could be better spent for those in need.
God bless, C-Marie
Not everyone is blessed with such faith, C-Marie. Even Thomas needed to see the risen Christ for himself before he could believe.
Catholics this is your chance to PROVE transubstantiation rigorously. Professor Castanon of Argentina, http://www.therealpresence.org/…/engli…/BuenosAires2.pdf “On October 21, 1999 I went to the Forensic Analytical genetics laboratory in San Francisco, which was supposed to perform the analysis of the samples
that I had brought. On January 28 of 2000 they found some fragments of human DNA in the samples, it was human blood that contained the human
genetic code.” We will not question the testing they performed but what we need to ask is what was the condition of the RAW flour before it was processed, you need to PROVE that there was no contamination during the making of bread and the host container wasn’t contaminated, how about handling, during consecration, were the priest’s hands not contaminated and the host that fell – where did it fell?. NOW since you cannot PROVE that there was no contamination with human tissue/blood with the PAST events. You can EASILY REPLICATE the miracle every MASS. You can initiate a rigorous scientific inquiry beginning with 1.) RAW flour -verified not contaminated with human tissue, blood 2.) PROCESS – machines, containers uncontaminated 3.) Separate 3 host samples to verify no human DNA fragments 4.) Consecration – priests hands not contaminated 5.) Take 3 host samples after consecration and send for testing to 3 labs, samples will be exchanged between labs so each sample is tested thrice 6.)There should be 9/9 results with same human genetic code in all samples.
We need no more than Christ’s Words at the Last Supper. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Believe Him.
God bless, C-Marie
Reply to Gene on Faith …. but we have the indwelling Holy Spirit Whom we only have to, in Faith in Jesus, believe, while Thomas was not as yet filled with the Holy Spirit as he would be at Pentecost.
Jesus did say “Receive ye the Holy Spirit…” when He gave to His Apostles the power to forgive sins, but the power and might of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost, was the fullness of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which we have, though how many of us spend much time with God our Father as Jesus did, and actually come to know Him with much confidence and to recognize the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. Do read of Christ’s nights with God our Father in prayer.
If people are willing to believe God’s Word, the Holy Spirit will “solidify” that belief. Ask, and you shall receive!!!
God bless, C-Marie
You are absolutely correct C-Marie, that we receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism and again in Confirmation. Yet every year tens of thousands still become lapsed Catholics. There are many reasons why this is so. I used Thomas only as a simple example to show that even someone who witnessed first-hand the many miracles Christ performed still doubted His Resurrection.
Faith is ultimately a gift from God and, unfortunately, not everyone does what they should to develop their faith to its fullest. Maybe the reason the Blessed Virgin has appeared to so many saints and why Jesus allows Eucharistic miracles to take place is to strengthen the faith of those like Thomas who are need of “seeing.”
But why believe science rather than Jesus’ own testimony??
All of the Apostles, prior to Pentecost had some kind of need to “see” …. as Peter and John running to the tomb to “see” if Jesus was truly risen from the dead, and the others in their reception? of the witness of the disciples from Emmaus, and more. And Jesus appearing and asking for something to eat and drink, and calling them hard-hearted for not believing those who had seen Him, risen from the dead. And more.
But in John’s Gospel John says that he has given us all we need to believe.
And we, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jesus is alive!! He is risen from the dead!! If you believe, you will see.
When Jesus saw Mary Magdalen after He had arisen from the dead, He told her to go to the Apostles “… 16Jesus *said to her, “Mary!” She turned and *said to Him in [a]Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” John 20: 16-17.
Right there Jesus says that His God is our God and that God His Father is our Father too. Believe Him in all that He says and does. He has already proven Himself as to Who He Is.
God bless, C-Marie
Perhaps because the devil is working real hard to keep people from believing “Jesus own testimony.” Not everyone is blessed with your strong faith C-Marie. Gaudete in Domino semper!
One last thought on this regarding Faith and the Holy Eucharist ….
The Consecration of the Bread and Wine at the Last Supper, is the only miracle, (as we have no better word that I know of to describe that which Jesus did), is the only miracle which was performed with no accompanying outward sign of any kind other than Christ’s Words.
All of Jesus’ other miracles did including outward signs as in healings, raising the dead, withering tree, water into wine, nets filled with fish, prophecies, and more.
And so, we are to believe by Faith, just as the Apostles, Mother Mary, and all believed, Jesus’ Words that the Bread and Wine have become His Body and His Blood. And as or if needed, to ask of God our Father for Faith to believe the words of His Son Who is the Word of God, and Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
God bless, C-Marie
Pingback: Реальна присутність Христа у Євхаристії — науковий факт | CREDO
Invoking science to draw a conclusion requires meeting the standards of science. I would like for this all to be true but I don’t understand why, if it is, no Catholic scientist (or even non-Catholic/non-Christian scientist, for that matter) has ever written a peer-reviewed article documenting these similarities for a scientific or medical journal. I ran several google searches and could not come up with any write-ups examining evidence meeting the usual standards of scientific research. Rather, the church seems to appoint non-expert panels to investigate and those panels, in turn, might choose to direct a chosen “scientist” to conduct one or a few limited, specific studies. Let’s get a panel of randomly chosen, eminent scientists to examine the Hosts and have the panel compile a scientifically verifiable account of what they consist of and what similarities they do and do not share. Only then can we say with any degree of credibility that science supports our religious belief.
John, the articles (and books) Dr. Gomez has written about his investigations seem to have all been written in Spanish. It’s possible that he has done a write up for a South American medical or scientific journal. Do a search on his name and you will get 312,000 results. The majority are in Spanish. I am not fluent in Spanish so I had to rely on the English translations and summations that I could find for this article. (He also has over a dozen videos on YouTube, but they are in Spanish as well.)
What about using reason? I don’t need an authority to confirm because I can think for myself. Limiting knowledge to science is for mechanical minds, not for superior minds who seek universal knowledge. The fool uses the same tool for every task, the wise man the right tool for the right task. Aim for truth not science.
Thank you for this article Sir Gene. I can make use of this article to be circulated to my friends in social media.
Catholics this is your chance to PROVE transubstantiation rigorously. Professor Gomez of Argentina, http://www.therealpresence.org/…/engli…/BuenosAires2.pdf “On October 21, 1999 I went to the Forensic Analytical genetics laboratory in San Francisco, which was supposed to perform the analysis of the samples
that I had brought. On January 28 of 2000 they found some fragments of human DNA in the samples, it was human blood that contained the human
genetic code.” We will not question the testing they performed but what we need to ask is what was the condition of the RAW flour before it was processed, you need to PROVE that there was no contamination during the making of bread and the host container wasn’t contaminated, how about handling, during consecration, were the priest’s hands not contaminated and the host that fell – where did it fall?. NOW since you cannot PROVE that there was no contamination with human tissue/blood with the PAST events. You can EASILY REPLICATE the miracle every MASS. You can initiate a rigorous scientific inquiry beginning with 1.)RAW flour-verified not contaminated with human tissue, blood 2.)PROCESS –machines, containers uncontaminated 3.)Separate 3 host samples to verify no human DNA fragments 4.)Consecration – host container and priests hands not contaminated 5.)Take 3 host samples after consecration and send for testing to 3 labs, samples will be exchanged between labs so each sample is tested thrice 6.)There should be 9/9 results with same human genetic code in all samples. All of the steps must be witnessed by a priest, scientist and pastor and video recorded.
There is a problem involved in viewing these miracles as proof of the Real Presence. The point is that the Church has defined as dogma that the Real Presence is under the species of bread and wine exclusively. This implies that when (parts of) the eucharistic species are changed into something else, e.g. human blood, then there are two possibilities: (1). This human blood is itself a substance, or (2) this blood is only a bundle of accidents, i.e. the appearance or species of blood.
In both cases it is impossible that Christ is present ”under” or ”in” this human blood. It cor cannot be ”under” or ”in” this blood or its appearance, because neither of these are the species of bread or wine.
How Christ can be physically present in bread and wine (transubstantiation) is one of the mysteries of our Faith, but there really is no problem saying these miracles are proof of the Real Presence. Science has no explanation for these miracles. It can only be as Christ said – “This is my body.”
Also, as CCC 1374 says, “The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. . . . In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ – BY WHICH IS NOT INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THE OTHER TYPES OF PRESENCE AS IF THEY COULD NOT BE ‘REAL’ TOO, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
Christ has allowed His Real Presence in Consecrated Hosts to be revealed through miracles on four different occasions and through the scientific investigations of each miracle. And this is certainly possible because for God, nothing is impossible!
Gene, my purpose was not to belittle the miracles of private revelation. I wished to note the paradox of Eucharistic miracles and also to note the necessity of one’s personal experience of a miracle, required to elicit assent to the Catholic revelation.
I have read the flippant challenge, “If the wine is the blood of Christ after the consecration, let it be tested for hemoglobin.” To expect a positive result of such an assay would not be in accord with the Catholic Faith. Paradoxically, comparable results are those of Eucharistic miracles.
Miracles are fundamentally for those who witness them. The miracle I witness is the intellectual and moral beauty of the Faith taught and lived by the Catholic Church, or in the words of your quote, “the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability”. The Catholic Church is beyond human explanation. Belloc expressed the miracle he personally witnessed to elicit assent to revelation, thusly, “The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine – but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
I accept the validity of private revelations. However, I must admit that I am not as impressed with the reported miracle of the sun at Fatima, as I am with the beauty of the prayer for forgiveness and mercy, which Our Lady taught the children of Fatima and which we append to each decade of the rosary. I have read of the former. I experience the latter.
Some here are taking exception to the notion that these tests prove anything. But it seems reasonable to posit that It’s proof enough to rebut the notion that, per Dawkins, belief in the Eucharist is “madness”. And I’d submit it’s compelling enough proof for any fair minded person with basic common sense.
It’s kind of ridiculous that many deniers of Christ demand verifiable “proof”, yet when it’s provided they fall back on philosophical notions and categories and scoff that in some sort of reality of their own making, it proves nothing. Those denying these sorts of scientific proofs, are invited to come up with an explanation as to why the findings are as they are.
Thanks for this article. I take some issue with the idea however that this is “proof,” which is just not correct. The Real Presence is categorically not demonstrable from empirical observation, despite evidence which points toward the plausibility of its truth. It’s important not to lean on such things too much, not only because of the possibility of error but also due to the category mistake… We don’t and can’t derive the data of faith from anything except the Word’s authority, and unbelievers need to know that this is the root and exclusive guarantor of veracity… St. Thomas talks about this kind of problem when discussing the truth of God as Triune, in the Prima Pars. FWIW…
It’s a shame we don’t talk about these things more though, that’s for sure!
As you and others here have said, science cannot “prove” the Real Presence as such. The headline is literary license on my part. The science here is telling us that what has occurred is not possible. So in effect science is saying here is that our belief is actually very reasonable. I take that as proof — science cannot provide any other explanation.
Pingback: SVNDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
I was not aware of the Eucharistic Miracles. Thank you Gene for sharing this information.
When I receive the Holy Eucharist, it fills and nourishes my soul and me. That I know as a fact and it is very real to me.
Yes, kids (and adults) need to learn about the Eucharistic Miracles and the Marian Apparitions. Science and faith working together is a plus.
Thank you Gene, for an interesting article. I’ve also written about the real presence (see “Quantum Mechanics and the Real Presence–which Reality Should We Believe?” https://catholicstand.com/quantum-mechanics-and-the-real-presence-which-reality-are-we-to-believe/). I’ve also written about Eucharistic Miracles, which, as you point out, have been factually confirmed. But the occurrence of Eucharistic Miracles does not prove the Real Presence. That is Mystery and part of Faith. One can draw analogies, but transubstantiation is not something that can be either proven or, more importantly, disproved, by scientific methods.
Bob, see my reply to Bob Drury.
It is only in the context of private revelation that the Eucharistic miracles are credible. Outside of that context, they would be contradictions of the Catholic Faith. After the consecration, what appears to be bread and wine in all of their properties, is the Body and Blood of Our Lord. That human flesh and blood, albeit glorified, could support the properties of bread and wine is not self-contradictory because an entity does not consist in the sum of its properties, whether visual or biochemical. Thus, a biochemical analysis of the host after consecration, in accord with the Faith, would be that of bread. Acceptance of private revelation is a matter of individual judgment. In the cases cited, none of the readers of Catholic Stand performed the biochemical analyses, so acceptance of them is based on human faith in the competence and veracity of those who claim to have done the assays. None of this is to say anything of an occasion of grace, which may be accorded to any individual.
With regard to Richard Dawkins’ atheism, it should be more effective to point out the errors in his foundational argument in which he claims to solve mathematically ‘the problem of improbability’, which solution does not solve the ‘problem of improbability’ of God. I have attempted this again in my two most recent posts to my blog, theyhavenowine.wordpress.com. Fortunately, Dawkins presents his arguments quite clearly, so his mathematical errors are apparent with a little study. Also, we do not need to depend upon anyone else when it comes to mathematical arguments.
If we apply the 1998 Weizmann double slit experiment using observer effect as true,
does a conscience mind (an unbeliever in transubstantiation ) receive only bread if they
partake along with the faithful. And if not, would an unbeliever be spiritually effected
by partaking of the Real Presence ? Or is this a question for an advanced theologian ?
Church teaching is that a Consecrated Host is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ regardless of state of the recipient’s soul or his/her beliefs. This is why only Catholics who are in a state of grace should receive Holy Communion. It is sacrilege for an unbeliever or someone with mortal sin on his/her soul to receive Holy Communion. If you are Catholic you should know this. But I think (and I am certainly not a theologian) that only God knows how or whether or not an unbeliever or someone in a state of mortal sin would be spiritually affected if he/she receives the Eucharist.
Interesting observation, Ordinary Papist, but I don’t believe the use of the double slit experiment (or even the delayed double slit experiment) as an analogy is altogether appropriate.
Yes, the Church teaches that private revelations and miracles like Fatima do not have the same status as the public revelation God has given us in Scripture and Tradition. But as Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., S.T.D., wrote at Catholic Answers in “Don’t Dismiss Miracles” (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/dont-dismiss-miracles):
“. . . the Church sets rigorous standards for the thorough scientific investigation and verification of reported miracles before approving them as evidence for the authenticity of private revelations, or as prerequisites for every beatification and canonization she carries out.
“In my own pastoral experience, presenting doubters with the rational, scientific evidence and sworn testimony that undergird officially approved miracles by no means “disturbs and confuses” [people]. On the contrary, it often begets new faith or strengthens a wavering faith—just as the Church teaches it is supposed to do.”
CCC 156 also says: “Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.
1. Why would the host be bleeding? That’s supposed to be the body. It’s the wine which is supposed to be the blood.
2. They bothered to get the blood type but oddly not the DNA. Why not? That would have gone a long way to either proving or disproving.
The Church teaches that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration and that Christ is present “body and blood, soul and divinity” in both items. Also, mature human red blood cells do not contain DNA.
White blood cells contain DNA. So does “heart muscle”. Both of which were supposedly found.
There is an article written in 2012 that says Doctor Gomez had the lab reports from the Buenos Aires sample compared to those of the Lanciano sample. The comparison report said, “the DNA report of two test samples were identical. Therefore, the Lanciano sample and the Buenos Aires sample must have been taken from the same person.” I was not able to confirm this, however, so I did not include this information.
Here is a link the article: https://www.catholicjournal.us/2012/03/30/this-is-my-body-this-is-my-blood/
I would hazard a guess that Dr. Gomez is not fluent in English. The articles Dr. Gomez has written about his investigations seem to have all been written in Spanish. He also has over a dozen videos on YouTube, but they are in Spanish as well. I had to rely on English translations and summations for this article.
Red blood cells have no nucleus; therefore no DNA.
I had no clue. Wish parish priests would include this in their homilies. It would spellbind parishes. Good job Gene. Really informative.