Any evidence that could not be explained naturally was attributed to insufficient investigation, which meant that no investigation could ever be sufficient to conclude supernatural causation.

The standard of evidence required to conclude miracle was infinitely high.

And I had congratulated myself for maintaining this standard without recognizing that an infinitely high standard is not a standard.

It is a predetermined conclusion.

Carlos methodology had no such loop.

He documented cases that resisted natural explanation and recorded them as resisting natural explanation.

He did not claim certainty about causation.

He simply documented the gap between what happened and what medicine could account for and let that gap speak for itself.

The third was personal and the hardest to describe.

Somewhere in those 3 hours of silence, I understood that what I had been doing for 32 years was not primarily about truth.

It was about identity.

I had built my sense of who I was, my competence, my usefulness to my community, my intellectual self-respect on a particular framework.

And that framework had served me and my community as protection against something that threatened it.

And the protection had been so effective that I had never questioned whether what we were protecting against was actually dangerous.

I had been afraid of the Catholic Church in a way I had never admitted to myself.

Not personally afraid, intellectually afraid, afraid that if I looked at it honestly, with the full rigor I applied to everything, it might turn out to be more than I had classified it as.

And so I had not looked honestly.

I had looked with the specific kind of care that finds what it is looking for.

Carlo Autis had looked honestly at 15 years old with his catalog and his databases and his careful documentation of evidence.

He had looked at the miraculous with complete honesty and recorded what he found.

I had spent 28 years trying to undo that work.

Standing at his tomb, speechless, I understood that I had failed completely and that the failure was the most important thing that had ever happened to me.

I left the sanctuary in the early afternoon.

My voice did not return that day.

I sat in my hotel room and wrote in my notebook, filling pages with the disassembled architecture of 32 years of certainty, recording what I had experienced with the same methodical care I had always applied to religious phenomena.

Applying the honesty I had not previously applied.

I should say something about the experience of losing your voice while retaining the ability to write, think and feel.

It is a specific condition.

Speech I had not understood before I lost.

It is the primary way I process.

I think through speaking, in the privacy of my own mind, in conversation, in the formulation of arguments.

Without it, I was forced into a different relationship with my own thoughts.

I could not narrate them, could not organize them through the process of expressing them.

I could only have them.

What I had across three days was a great deal.

I thought about the people whose fraudulent miracle claims I had investigated.

I thought about the specific cases I had classified with confidence as natural remission or misdiagnosis.

I thought about what it would mean to reapproach those cases with the honest methodology I had failed to apply, not predetermined to find natural causes, but genuinely open to following the evidence.

I thought about the congregation members who had come to me with questions about Carlo Autis and whom I had been asked to protect from the dangerous fascination of his story.

I thought about what it meant that the fascination had been theirs arising naturally from their encounter with his life and that the protection they needed was protection not from his story but from the closed framework that prevented them from engaging with it honestly.

On the second day, I wrote a letter to my congregation’s leadership.

I did not send it immediately.

I wrote it as an act of honesty toward myself, acknowledging what I had experienced, acknowledging the inadequacy of the framework I had used, acknowledging that the investigation I had come to a CC to conduct had instead conducted itself on me.

On the third day, I went back to the sanctuary.

I did not go to the tomb immediately.

I sat in the back of the space and watched the pilgrims for perhaps an hour.

I watched them with the same observational attention I had always brought to religious sites, but without the classification system that had previously organized what I saw.

I tried to watch them the way Carlo had watched the evidence for miracles directly without a predetermined conclusion about what I was seeing.

What I saw was people in genuine contact with something real.

Not all of them.

Some of them were tourists present out of cultural curiosity.

Some were performing devotion in the mechanical way that all religious practice can become mechanical.

But some of them, a woman in her 50s who knelt at the tomb for 20 minutes, a young man who stood at the glass with his forehead pressed against it, a family with a child in a wheelchair who had come a very long way, were in genuine contact with something that was present there.

I was not able to dismiss what I saw.

My classification system was broken, and without it, I was seeing what was actually in front of me.

I walked to the tomb.

My voice returned as I arrived.

Not dramatically, simply there, the way it had been before, as if it had been waiting for this moment to come back.

I stood at the glass.

I did not have a prepared prayer.

I said the only thing I had.

I was wrong.

I’m sorry for what I tried to do.

Thank you for stopping me.

Nothing external changed, but something internal settled in a way that I can only describe as recognition, as if I had arrived at a position that was actually mine, from which I could see clearly after a long time in a position that had been maintained through effort.

If you are someone who has built certainty at great cost and who senses somewhere beneath it that the cost may have been paid for the wrong thing.

7 days with Carlo is for you too.

His specific approach to evidence, to honesty, to the willingness to record what he found rather than what he needed to find.

7 days.

The link is in the description below.

Let me tell you what happened in the following months.

I returned to Birmingham without the investigation I had come to produce.

I told my congregation’s leadership that I had been unable to complete the investigation in the form they had requested.

I did not explain the full experience immediately.

I needed time to understand it well enough to describe it honestly.

I said that what I had found in a CCI required more thought than I had anticipated.

Over the following weeks, I began the research I had never honestly done.

Approaching Catholic theology, history, and practice with the methodology I had claimed to use for 30 years, but had never actually applied.

reading primary sources without the framework that predetermined their meaning, looking at the arguments for doctrines I had dismissed without genuinely engaging with the strongest form of those arguments.

The work was disorienting and in a different way from the disorientation at the tomb, destabilizing.

When you have organized your intellectual life around a set of positions for 30 years, discovering that the positions are significantly more contestable than you believed is not a comfortable experience.

It is not, in the immediate term, pleasant at all.

What carried me through it was the memory of 3 hours at Carlos tomb.

Not as an emotional anchor.

Emotions are unreliable and I have always known this as an evidential anchor.

I had experienced something that my framework could not account for.

My framework was therefore inadequate.

Inadequate frameworks should be revised.

This is the basic logic of honest inquiry and I had taught it to others for 30 years while failing to apply it to myself.

After 6 months of serious study and discernment, including extended conversations with a priest who had the patience to engage with someone whose approach to religious questions was shaped by three decades of adversarial apologetics.

I was received into the Catholic Church.

I will not tell you this was simple or clean or without significant cost.

My congregation which had been my primary community for 32 years did not understand the change and some of them could not maintain the relationship.

My professional identity within that community ended.

The sense of certainty that had organized my life for decades was replaced not immediately by a different certainty, but by a different kind of orientation, less defended, more open, more genuinely uncertain in ways that feel more honest than the certainty had felt.

Carlos story, which I had gone to Aisi to destroy, I now carry differently.

He was born the same year I began my active apologetic work.

He died the year I was completing what I considered my most significant investigations.

While I was building cases against miracles, he was documenting them.

While I was training myself to find natural explanations for everything, he was building the strongest possible evidence base for the reality of the supernatural.

He was right and I was wrong and he knew it before he was 15 and he did not argue about it.

He simply documented the evidence and let it exist.

I think about this a great deal.

I am not going to tell you that certainty is bad.

Some certainties are correct and worth holding.

I believed some wrong things for 32 years.

But the belief that honesty matters and that evidence should drive conclusions was not wrong.

It was applied incorrectly.

It was applied inside a framework that prevented it from functioning as it should.

What I want to tell you is what I wish someone had told me 20 years ago.

The difference between honest investigation and defended conclusion is not a difference in rigor.

It is a difference in direction.

Honest investigation begins by asking what is true and moves toward whatever the evidence indicates.

Defended conclusion begins by knowing what is true and arranges evidence to support it.

They can look identical from the outside.

They are completely different from the inside.

Carlo Autis 12 years old building a miracle database with his best friend was doing honest investigation.

He was not building a case for what he already believed.

He was documenting what existed and letting it speak.

His catalog is the work of a person oriented genuinely toward truth and it shows.

I spent 28 years building defended conclusions.

My investigations looked rigorous.

They were conducted with care.

But they were not honest in the deepest sense because they were not designed to find what was actually there.

They were designed to confirm what I had already decided.

The silence at Carlos tomb was not punishment.

I do not believe God punishes curiosity, even hostile curiosity, even 32 years of applying it in the wrong direction.

The silence was, I understand this now, the only possible response to the specific structure of my situation.

Argument would not have reached me, evidence I was prepared to dismiss.

What could not be dismissed was the complete physical inability to continue doing what I had come to do.

I could not speak.

So I listened.

This is what I want to offer to anyone who is working very hard to maintain a position against evidence that keeps presenting itself.

The silence is available not as punishment as the specific grace that belongs to someone whose next move is to listen rather than to speak.

Carlo Akutis is a young man who spent his short life doing what I should have been doing.

Following the evidence honestly documenting what he found, trusting that truth does not require protection from scrutiny.

He was not afraid of the questions.

He asked them more carefully than anyone.

And he let the answers be what they were.

He converted a professional skeptic not through argument but through the simple irrefutable presence of what he actually was.

Leave me a comment.

Tell me if you have ever encountered something your framework could not account for and what you did with it.

Tell me if you are currently in the position I was in, maintaining a certainty at cost, sensing at the edges of it the possibility that the cost is too high.

I will read everyone.

I understand that position from the inside.

Share this with someone who is working hard not to believe something that keeps presenting itself as true.

with the skeptic who is actually more afraid of being wrong than of being right with the person who is using rigor as a defense rather than a tool.

Carlo does not argue.

He did not argue with me.

He simply was what he was and what he was was sufficient.

St.Carlo Acutis, who documented miracles with the honesty that investigation requires, who never defended a conclusion but followed the evidence wherever it went, who silenced a man who had spent three decades in noisy opposition with 3 hours of quiet presence.

Pray for us.

Pray for the skeptics.

Pray for the people who are using their intelligence against the truth instead of toward it.

Give them the silence they need to hear what they have been too loud to receive.

And pray for Marcus Thompson who went to Aisi to debunk a saint and came home converted by one.

Amen.

« Prev