[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is almost everyone ignoring my question? I am simply asking whether you would believe a respected Pope who claimed he did a miracle given the feat could be duplicated by non miraculous, albeit very sophisticated, means.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the absence of evidence that the pope had cheated by using scientific means, or that another person had even without the pope's knowledge, then yes I would tend to believe him. Note that this belief of this act as miraculous cannot be compelled as it is outside of general revelation which ceased with the death of the last apostle.

The key factor though would be whether such a result could have occurred naturally even though rarely. However, praying for same and it occurring at a specified time or within a very short timeframe could to me be convincing evidence for same, though not to the point of 100% certainty.

The Church has made judgements that various miracles have occurred, such as the Marian apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima, as well as miracles experienced/performed by various saints. But again with the above doctrinal point, the Church merely says that such beliefs are worthy of belief and free from doctrinal error, not that believers are compelled to believe them which it can't compell. So one can be a good Catholic and refuse to believe in the Marian apparations of Lourdes and Fatima. (I personally believe in same.)