Doubting Thomas
Mark at Minute Particulars makes a point I cannot help but address regarding the culpability of Doubting Thomas.
Thomas's doubt is not a problem because he wishes to see, to have evidence he can touch; this is proper and a fully human desire. But he still doubts even after he has been told by those whom he knows and ought to believe. While he may not have known that his fellow apostles had received the Holy Spirit,And when [Jesus] had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."I think we can know that their account to him must have been told with integrity and was believable within the context of their relationships. Hence the problem with Thomas's doubt.
But I must disagree. Several "reliable" bishops tell me about apparitions at Mudjegorje (I cannot seem to spell it right). They are relating what they saw with all due integrity and with believability due to bishops--must I believe? Rather, I believe I must owe prudence the courtesy of following my own understanding when it comes to extraordinary events. It would be imprudent of me to accept the opinion of others regarding someone being raised from the dead. Yes--I had witnessed it before, but that was not auto-resurrection, but someone I regarded as miraculous with wonderful healing powers raising someone else. However, can the dead raise the dead? Isn't it far more likely that sick at heart as they are they have invented these meetings? They imagined that they saw Him?
No, I see no culpability in following reason--the culpability would have resulted if Thomas, following reason to its logical extreme (as many moderns tend to do) said to Jesus--"I still don't believe because this has no scientific plausibility--therefore it did not happen."
