About Padre Pio and his Stigmatas

[lylebr]

First of all i’d like to apologize, cause I’m brazilian and my english is not so good.

I was talking to my friend, about Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, the Saint of the Stigmatas.

He told me: “how could the Catholic Church gives him the title of Saint when the Church knows nothing about his stigmatas. I mean, he hid his stigmatas during 50 years, and no one never saw if he really had it, at least we should be sure that he really had the stigmatas. He may be a phony. In a world that we have a lot of people who claims to have paranormal powers, like Uri Geller, fortune-tellers and many others deceitful persons, Padre Pio could be just one of them. In the absence of good evidence, the wisest position to the catholic church would be to suspend the judgement about him. So what about the infalibility of the Catholic Church? What if the church is wrong about him? Then all the infalibility falls down?”

Please guys, help me, how can I solve this?

 

[PennyinCanada]

I believe the stigmata of the good Father was looked at closely by a number of doctors on different occasions.
If Padre Pio did not have the stigmata, he would still be a saint, because of his holiness. The stigmata was for us, to help us in our unbelief.

“In the absence of good evidence, the wisest position to the catholic church would be to suspend the judgement about him.” There is no ‘absence of good evidence’! There is plenty of evidence and the Church in her wisdom has decided. Anyone that the Church declares a saint is because they have 2 miracles that are thoroughly documented and studied, after the person has died. There is no need to worry that the Church was hasty in her decision regarding this man.

 

[PJD1987]

This was obviously looked into extensively by the Church, St. Pio’s stigmata was deemed legitimate and no authoritative or credible evidence ever surfaced to the contrary. There is no reason to doubt the Church and her judgment simply because of your friend’s misconception about the Catholic Church.

Rest easy, the Church is our Rock and will not lead us astray.

St. Pio, ora pro nobis!

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Trishie]

As Penny says, your friend’s information is incorrect. Padre Pio’s wounds and life were scrupulously investigated by the Church and his wounds were examined by doctors during his life. You may find it helpful to read an authorized biography of the saint rather than be confused by a friend’s misconceptions.
There are in fact photos of his wounds

 

[Trishie]

Dr. Bignami examined the wounds shortly after Padre Pio received them.
Then in May 1919 Doctor Angelo Maria Merla examined Padre Pio’s wounds at the request of his superior Father Guardian Superior of the convent of San Giovanni Rotondo.
Dr. Luigi Romanelli, head surgeon of the hospital in Barletta, examined Padre Pio five times between May 15,1919 and July 1920 at the request of Padre Benedetto di San Marco in Lamis, Provincial Superior of the Capuchins.

Dr Luigi reported that “The lesions on the hands are covered by a red brown membrane, without bleeding, no edema and no inflammation of the surrounding tissues.
I am certain that these wounds are not superficial because, putting my thumb in the palm of the hand, and the index finger on the back, and applying pressure, I have the exact perception of a void existing.
The etiology of the lesions of Padre Pio is not natural.
The agent producing those lesions needs to be searched, make no mistakes, in the supernatural. The fact in itself it’s a phenomenon that cannot be explained with the sole human science.”

Professor Giorgio Festa examined Padre Pio on three occasions. The first on October 28, 1919, upon request by Padre Venanzio da Lysle, Superior General of the Capuchin Order. The second from 9 to 15 of July 1920 together with Professor Romanelli. The third on September 28, 1925.

Pope Benedict XV sent Archbishop Anselm Edward Kenealy to examine Padre Pio on March 24-27, 1920:
‘I am deeply convinced that we have a true saint here. The Lord has given him great gifts, and he is completely at ease. If he knows how to suffer, he also knows how to laugh.’
Later, the pope sent archbishop Bonaventura Cerretti to examine Padre Pio.
He too was deeply impressed, and gave the pope a very positive evaluation,
On July 20, 1920 prof. Giuseppe Bastianelli, the personal physician of pope Benedict XV was sent by him to examine the wounds of Padre Pio.
He also gave a very favorable report.

IN 1921, bishop of Volterra Raffaello Carlo Rossi, future cardinal, was sent as secret investigator by the Holy Office. He started on June 14, 1921, and left after eight days. He reported:
‘Padre Pio is a good religious, exemplary, accomplished in the practice of the virtues.’
“In conversation, Padre Pio is very pleasant; with his brothers, he is serene, jovial, even humorous. The religious Community in which Padre Pio lives is a good Community and one that can be trusted.”
“The very intense and pleasant fragrance, similar to the scent of the violet, I have smelled it. I have examined the monk’s cell and could find nothing that would cause such a scent. There was only plain soap.”

I think that you can reassure your friend that Padre Pio is in fact a true Saint and that his case was thoroughly examined, in life and after death

Some information regarding the Saint:
ewtn.com/padrepio/man/biography2.htm

 

[Trishie]

catholictradition.org/Padre-Pio/padre-pio5a.htm

vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20020616_padre-pio_en.html

caccioppoli.com/02%20Padre%20Pio;%20San%20Giovanni%20Rotondo.html

padrepio.net/PioIntro.html

 

[Hokomai]

If the Church allowed any examination of this stigmata, why limit it to local Catholic doctors and a ‘personal physician’. Why not a team of scientists and experts, like magicians able to detect fraud. If they found no evidence of fraud or self-delusion, and nothing that has a parallel in psychosomatic illness, the alleged miracle would stand a greater chance of doing what,if real, it was presumably intended to do: demonstrate the power go God and his closeness to Padre Pio.

 

[Trishie]

You are assuming that all doctors who examined him were Catholic!
As regards his spiritual authenticity, secular persons are less well qualified to discern how genuine a person’s spirituality is. If there is any doubt, it will certainly find detection. Padre Pio was actually placed under severe restrictions during a period of careful examination of his authenticity during his life. Yes some people can be very credulous, but a Church authority examining the sanctity of a person is more severe and careful than any unbeliever could wish for.

 

[PJD1987]

If the Church allowed any examination of this stigmata, why limit it to local Catholic doctors and a ‘personal physician’. Why not a team of scientists and experts, like magicians able to detect fraud. If they found no evidence of fraud or self-delusion, and nothing that has a parallel in psychosomatic illness, the alleged miracle would stand a greater chance of doing what,if real, it was presumably intended to do: demonstrate the power go God and his closeness to Padre Pio.

This is just a lack of understanding of how this process works. The Church in fact did NOT believe him at first and the first inquiry concluded by Dr. Agostino Gemelli, O.F.M. concluded that St. Pio was “an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people’s credulity.”

So to suggest that he wasn’t thoroughly examined and was given a “free pass”, if you will, by sympathetic Catholic doctors, is simply not true. He was persecuted by his own Church for years, people of his own faith who did not believe him.

Also, from Wikipedia: “They were examined by Luigi Romanelli, chief physician of the City Hospital of Barletta, for about one year. Dr. Giorgio Festa, a private practitioner also examined them in 1920 and 1925. Professor Giuseppe Bastianelli, physician to Pope Benedict XV agreed that the wounds existed but made no other comment. Pathologist Dr. Amico Bignami of the University of Rome also observed the wounds but could make no diagnosis.[40] Both Bignami and Dr. Giuseppe Sala commented on the unusually smooth edges of the wounds and lack of edema. Dr. Alberto Caserta took X-rays of the hands in 1954 and found no abnormality in the bone structure.[41]”

One would think, if the Church wanted to fake a miracle they would be quick to jump on the bandwagon, but no, they intensely scrutinized St. Pio’s wounds and were very skeptical. Doesn’t make sense if they wanted to fake something…

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Hokomai]

This is just a lack of understanding of how this process works. The Church in fact did NOT believe him at first and the first inquiry concluded by Dr. Agostino Gemelli, O.F.M. concluded that St. Pio was “an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people’s credulity.”

So to suggest that he wasn’t thoroughly examined and was given a “free pass”, if you will, by sympathetic Catholic doctors, is simply not true. He was persecuted by his own Church for years, people of his own faith who did not believe him.

Also, from Wikipedia: “They were examined by Luigi Romanelli, chief physician of the City Hospital of Barletta, for about one year. Dr. Giorgio Festa, a private practitioner also examined them in 1920 and 1925. Professor Giuseppe Bastianelli, physician to Pope Benedict XV agreed that the wounds existed but made no other comment. Pathologist Dr. Amico Bignami of the University of Rome also observed the wounds but could make no diagnosis.[40] Both Bignami and Dr. Giuseppe Sala commented on the unusually smooth edges of the wounds and lack of edema. Dr. Alberto Caserta took X-rays of the hands in 1954 and found no abnormality in the bone structure.[41]”

One would think, if the Church wanted to fake a miracle they would be quick to jump on the bandwagon, but no, they intensely scrutinized St. Pio’s wounds and were very skeptical. Doesn’t make sense if they wanted to fake something…

God bless.

-Paul

This does not respond to my post. Examination by people of this sort will never convince anyone. It is not good science. And it is meant to b e science, not faith that is being done. Extraordinary claims don’t need extraordinary evidence to be true, but they do to be believed by reasonable people. If you believe on faith, fine. But when you talk about examination by people on a science basic, you should be willing to put up proper science, or stop claiming scientific authority.

 

[PJD1987]

This does not respond to my post. Examination by people of this sort will never convince anyone. It is not good science. And it is meant to b e science, not faith that is being done. Extraordinary claims don’t need extraordinary evidence to be true, but they do to be believed by reasonable people. If you believe on faith, fine. But when you talk about examination by people on a science basic, you should be willing to put up proper science, or stop claiming scientific authority.

Why do these people not pass your test of “scientific authority”? Why are you the sole authority on what is “scientific authority”? Why should I trust your skepticism over the six…SIX…doctors who examined the man?

No matter what the Church does, there will always be skeptics like you. There is nothing I or the Church can do to convince you otherwise, but don’t act like there is no thorough investigation here. The Church takes these things just as seriously as you do. Besides, your post does not address the logical inconsistencies I raised, rather you resort to questioning the “scientific authority” of six doctors instead. That becomes irrelevant when you think about the logic of it all.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[Trishie]

caccioppoli.com/Padre%20Pio%20time%20line,%20words,%20facts%20%28July%202012%29.pdf

This 123 page book gives some more details of Padre Pio’s life and spirituality, for the OP’s information.

Hohomai, it wouldn’t matter how much integrity characterized the doctor/scientist, his testimony would still prove nothing to an unbeliever. It wasn’t your personal examination and assessment, so even if it was the greatest rational scientist of the time you could still regard him as deceived.

An unbeliever still would not, could not, be convinced by a non-believing and even cynical scientific assessment of Padre Pio. Would you not have to rationally decide that he was in some way deceived or fooled?

The Church’s concern was to critically assess, from an authentic Christian viewpoint, for those responsible for Padre Pio, that he was no fake or hysteric. Of if he were. Either way, they needed to know to protect the faithful, especially as there some who were tempted to go overboard.

 

[PJD1987]

Also, Padre Pio: The True Story by Fr. Bernard Ruffin

 

[Trishie]

Also, Padre Pio: The True Story by Fr. Bernard Ruffin

Yes, I have that and some others. A good source.

 

[Hokomai]

Why do these people not pass your test of “scientific authority”? Why are you the sole authority on what is “scientific authority”? Why should I trust your skepticism over the six…SIX…doctors who examined the man?

No matter what the Church does, there will always be skeptics like you. There is nothing I or the Church can do to convince you otherwise, but don’t act like there is no thorough investigation here. The Church takes these things just as seriously as you do. Besides, your post does not address the logical inconsistencies I raised, rather you resort to questioning the “scientific authority” of six doctors instead. That becomes irrelevant when you think about the logic of it all.

God bless.

-Paul

I have not of course claimed to be an authority of any sort. I accept standard definition of scientific methods. You could ask, perhaps, what peer-Reviewed journals would accept evidenced of the type you cite as scientific.

 

[Hokomai]

caccioppoli.com/Padre%20Pio%20time%20line,%20words,%20facts%20%28July%202012%29.pdf

This 123 page book gives some more details of Padre Pio’s life and spirituality, for the OP’s information.

Hohomai, it wouldn’t matter how much integrity characterized the doctor/scientist, his testimony would still prove nothing to an unbeliever. It wasn’t your personal examination and assessment, so even if it was the greatest rational scientist of the time you could still regard him as deceived.

An unbeliever still would not, could not, be convinced by a non-believing and even cynical scientific assessment of Padre Pio. Would you not have to rationally decide that he was in some way deceived or fooled?

I do not know on what basis you assume this level of irrationality and intellectual dishonesty on my part. I have simply suggested scientific investigation of scientific claims. Of course I will accept the results as scientific. That does not mean I would accept them as the absolute truth. Science does not do that. It is the Church that would not act to produce the results in the first place.
The Church’s concern was to critically assess, from an authentic Christian viewpoint, for those responsible for Padre Pio, that he was no fake or hysteric. Of if he were. Either way, they needed to know to protect the faithful, especially as there some who were tempted to go overboard.

 

[Hokomai]

caccioppoli.com/Padre%20Pio%20time%20line,%20words,%20facts%20%28July%202012%29.pdf

This 123 page book gives some more details of Padre Pio’s life and spirituality, for the OP’s information.

Hohomai, it wouldn’t matter how much integrity characterized the doctor/scientist, his testimony would still prove nothing to an unbeliever. It wasn’t your personal examination and assessment, so even if it was the greatest rational scientist of the time you could still regard him as deceived.

An unbeliever still would not, could not, be convinced by a non-believing and even cynical scientific assessment of Padre Pio. Would you not have to rationally decide that he was in some way deceived or fooled?

The Church’s concern was to critically assess, from an authentic Christian viewpoint, for those responsible for Padre Pio, that he was no fake or hysteric. Of if he were. Either way, they needed to know to protect the faithful, especially as there some who were tempted to go overboard.

I do not know on what basis you assume this level of irrationality and intellectual dishonesty on my part. I have simply suggested scientific investigation of scientific claims. Of course I will accept the results as scientific. That does not mean I would accept them as the absolute truth. Science does not do that. It is the Church that would not act to produce the results in the first place.

 

[User124]

Does this mean the Shroud of Turin is fake?
The one in the shroud was crucified in his wrists, not hands.

 

[thistle]

Does this mean the Shroud of Turin is fake?
The one in the shroud was crucified in his wrists, not hands.

If you want to discuss the Shroud then join existing threads on that. Do not derail this thread which is about a different topic.

 

[Hokomai]

If you want to discuss the Shroud then join existing threads on that. Do not derail this thread which is about a different topic.

The thread is about an alleged case of stigmata. In this case, the wounds of Christ appear on the palms of the hand. User124 was asking, in view of this, whether those who accept the miraculous nature of this event, also reject the shroud of Turin as a miraculous object, since the wounds are in the wrists, not the hands. It seems perfectly in order to me to ask people to resolve, miracles which appear to contradict each other.

The point about miracles is that when you say they happen you assert that real things have happened in the real world. Those are scientific claims, and you must accept that they will be tested against scientific tests. When you make non-scientific claims, such as what happens to the ‘substance’ as distinct from the ‘accidents’ of bread and wine at Mass, science will not challenge you. But it will when you say that hands and cloths are marked by God in particular ways. Science will look not only at each claim but at its consistency, or lack of it, with similar claims. User124 has made a point I have not seen before, and deserves our congratulations for a perceptive brief contribution to this thread. :tiphat: