Concerned Thoughts About Padre Pio...(Merged Threads)

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
alright so really for the first time someone cam out and said padre pio was a fraud, when I asked him why he just told me to go to google and look it up

here is what I found,

some articles claim that Padre pio faked his stigmata, the pictures don’t make sense, why would he wear a glove, its obvious so he doesn’t have to do it all the time. Some even claim he used acid to burn his hands to make it look like a stigmata.

Some claim that he gained a cult following and he just wanted to be in the limelight.

one claim says that he had sex with a women in the confessional 😦

they brought up some qoutes
“Padre Pio called me to him in complete secrecy and telling me not to tell his fellow brothers, he gave personally an empty bottle, and asked if I would act as a chauffeur to transport it back from Foggia to San giovanni Rotondo with four grams of pure carbolic acid.”
Click to expand...
I think some popes didn’t approve of this guy

Padre Pio was removed from ministry for a short time.

What are your thoughts on this stuff.

BTW I love how Padre Pio responded to these accusations that people brought on him, he accepted what he was accused fo and the disciplinary actions the church took on him, and he simply lived a life of prayer and sacrifice. If Padre pio was really a fraud and faked all this stuff, I’ll say this he was at-least an obedient and humble man.
 
Innocent until proven guilty…people can accuse all they want until they can bring forth something besides anecdotal evidence.
 
I don’t even take these accusations seriously. If you read about his life it’s so obvious that he wasn’t a fake, especially considering all the miracles. I read an article disproving the whole stigmata hoax theory. As for St Padre Pio wanting to be in the limelight… nothing is further from the truth!! and as for him being removed from ministry for a while, yes he was removed and this was a trial for him but he was totally obedient to the Church, and later on the Pope saw this and he was accepted back into full ministry. He was removed because of a misunderstanding someone had. The other accusations, such as the one about the woman in the confessional, that is absolutely ridiculous and not even worth considering imo. The devil hated St Padre Pio while he was on earth and he still hates him so no wonder these rumours exist.
 
From Wikipedia:

His stigmata, regarded by some as evidence of holiness, was studied by physicians whose independence from the Church is not known.[17][18] The observations were reportedly unexplainable and the wounds never became infected.[17][18][34] His wounds healed once, but reappeared.[35] The wounds 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.[36] 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.[37]

It was reputed, however, that his condition caused him great embarrassment, and most photographs show him with red mittens or black coverings on his hands and feet where the bleedings occurred.[18] At Padre Pio’s death in 1968, his body appeared unwounded, with no sign of scarring. Allegedly there was report that doctors who examined his body found it empty of all blood.[38]

Historian Sergio Luzzatto and others, both religious and non-religious, have accused Padre Pio of faking his stigmata. Luzzatto’s theory, namely that Padre Pio used carbolic acid to self-inflict the wounds, is based on a document found in the Vatican’s archive — the testimony of a pharmacist at the San Giovanni Rotondo, Maria De Vito, from whom he ordered 4 grams of the acid. According to De Vito, Padre Pio asked her to keep the order secret, saying it was to sterilise needles. The document was examined but dismissed by the Catholic Church during Padre Pio’s beatification process.[39]

**One commentator expressed the belief that the Church likely dismissed the claims based on witnesses that stated the acid was in fact used for sterilization: "The boys had needed injections to fight the Spanish Flu which was raging at that time. Due to a shortage of doctors, Padres Paolino and Pio administered the shots, using carbolic acid as a sterilizing agent.”**39][40]
 
catholictiger said:
some articles claim that Padre pio faked his stigmata, the pictures don’t make sense, why would he wear a glove, its obvious so he doesn’t have to do it all the time.
Click to expand...
Stigmata is, by definition, an open wound. I think that alone makes a covering much of the time to be a prudent choice.
 
catholictiger said:
alright so really for the first time someone cam out and said padre pio was a fraud, when I asked him why he just told me to go to google and look it up

here is what I found,

some articles claim that Padre pio faked his stigmata, the pictures don’t make sense, why would he wear a glove, its obvious so he doesn’t have to do it all the time.
Click to expand...
The wounds often bled, so the gloves had a practical purpose. Also, he was embarrassed by the wounds due to the attention they garnered, and this was a way of hiding them.
Some even claim he used acid to burn his hands to make it look like a stigmata.
Click to expand...
Padre Pio’s wounds were examined a number of times by others, including doctors. They were described as open wounds. At the end of his life, the wounds of the stigmata healed without leaving any scars. As far as I know, there is no medical explanation for this. Had Padre Pio been using carbolic acid (or any other means) to keep his wounds open for decades then scars would have formed when they eventually healed over.

There is documentation that Padre Pio ordered some carbolic acid from a pharmacy and the reason he stated was to sterilize needles. Witness collaboration demonstrated that the Spanish Flu was in the area and, due to a shortage of doctors, Padre Pio assisted in giving people injections. During his canonization process, the investigation delved into this whole situation regarding carbolic acid and concluded that the acid was not used by him to fake the stigmata.
Some claim that he gained a cult following and he just wanted to be in the limelight.
Click to expand...
one claim says that he had sex with a women in the confessional 😦
Click to expand...
At a shrine in Pennsylvania I have seen a confessional that Padre Pio actually used. It is typical of the ones found in Italy (and other parts of Europe). The priest sits in a very small, open faced box and is clearly seen by people in the church. There is only room in this part of the confessional for one person. Penitents kneel on either side of the walls of the box (and speak to the priest through a screen), and are likewise clearly seen by people in the church. There is neither the space nor the privacy for having sex.
I think some popes didn’t approve of this guy
Click to expand...
It is possible for pope’s to be misinformed. For example, Pope Pius XI was the one who initially approved of the ban preventing Padre Pio from celebrating public Mass. The pope later reversed the ban, stating, “I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed.”
Padre Pio was removed from ministry for a short time.
Click to expand...
He was removed from public ministry but this was not a disciplinary action resulting from proven infractions committed by Padre Pio. Rather, Church officials felt it was prudent due to the allegations and controversies surrounding him. I think they wanted to keep Padre Pio out of the limelight as much as possible until they had time to sort this all out.
 
thanks for all of the responses Padre Pio is my favorite saint, I just hate when people attack him 😦
 
catholictiger said:
thanks for all of the responses Padre Pio is my favorite saint…
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got that impression considering your avatar and signature line. 👍

As a follow-up to my earlier statements about Padre Pio and the accusations that he had sex with women inside confessionals, here are some photos of actual confessionals used by Padre Pio.

Here is an actual photo of Padre Pio heaing a confession. He is in the full view of anyone in the church (including, of course, the camera man):

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Notice in the next photo how small the inside of a typical confessional used by Padre Pio is. And, once again, the priest hearing confessions is in full view.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And finally, this one has a curtain, but the curtain is not floor length. Anyone can easily see if there were more than a single pair of legs in the confessional. Also, it is hard to imagine a woman going through the railing and squeezing behind the curtain to engage in any sort of “hanky-panky” without this being easily discerned by anyone else standing around in the church. Given the small space involved, it is comical simply trying to imagine this being attempted.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
The refutation is right in his name. SAINT Pio.
Click to expand...
Well said!

And just to elaborate a little further on Inego’s comment for the sake of the discussion at hand, I will point out that St. Pio was an object of controversial during his life as well as ever since his death. But when investigating the possible canonization of a person, the Church always does so with an appropriately high degree of skepticism in order to avoid (as much as possible) canonizing someone whose holiness was not authentic. Rest assured, the Church painstakingly investigated all the various accusations made against Padre Pio, and in the end officially declared him to be a saint.
 
EricFilmer said:
Well said!

And just to elaborate a little further on Inego’s comment for the sake of the discussion at hand, I will point out that St. Pio was an object of controversial during his life as well as ever since his death. But when investigating the possible canonization of a person, the Church always does so with an appropriately high degree of skepticism in order to avoid (as much as possible) canonizing someone whose holiness was not authentic. Rest assured, the Church painstakingly investigated all the various accusations made against Padre Pio, and in the end officially declared him to be a saint.
Click to expand...
And to top that off Canonization is an infallible declaration that the person is in heaven.
 
This isn’t unique to any particular saint. Many were misunderstood,and even persecuted by their contemporaries.

-Tim-
 
The part about there being no sign of injury (no scars left over from the Stigmata) as proof that it was a sham:

That itself is actually evidence that it was miraculous. Previously, the wounds were investigated by doctors, who said that the holes are so profound that you can see through them.

Now, we know what it is like to have wounds. They leave scars. If they were naturally-inflicted, they still should have left scars and marks, right? Nobody can reasonably claim that he never had wounds there in the first place, naturally-inflicted or not.

For crying out loud, I still have a scar on my wrist from when I fell off my bike as a kid. If that’s still there, surely deep punctures in flesh – which nobody can deny Padre Pio had, even though they might disagree on the cause of them – would have left marks behind.

Yet his wounds left no trace – they disappeared as mysteriously (I would say miraculously) as they came. It’s ironic that this is evidence that it is miraculous, yet it’s being used as evidence that it wasn’t.

The misappropriation of funds claim

This is such a general claim. Nothing specific. It’s like saying “You are a bad person” instead of saying “You are a bad person because…” to at least back it up. If he misappropriated it, where’s the evidence?

About the wounds supposedly being kept open because of carbolic acid

At one time, some doctor investigated Padre Pio (I have to look up the name, I can dig it up if you want). The doctor wrapped Padre Pio’s hands and sealed the wraps with wax, so if they are opened and tampered with, the seals would be broken. In that time, the wounds should either have started to heal or become infected, because the wraps were on his hands for days. Yet they didn’t change.

They didn’t heal even though they should have. They didn’t get infected even though they should have.

About the mystical experiences being anectodal

Generally what we know about saints are either anectodal or based on their writings. So that’s no surprise.

But there was a case where Padre Pio met a man who supposedly was dead, visited from purgatory

There is one miracle that Padre Pio performed. A woman born without corneas (and thus couldn’t see) was brought to him; he traced the Sign of the Cross on her eyes and she was able to see. Funny thing is, when doctors look into here eyes, the corneas still aren’t there – yet she is somehow able to see colours clearly and read clearly.

Other healings that he was known to perform were similar. I saw an old documentary about him on EWTN and there was a guy with a bone problem (I forget what) that kept him from being able to walk. After Padre Pio prayed over him, he was able to walk. Doctors examined and still found the bone problem there and were baffled that the man was able to function normally.

Here’s a good segment on Padre Pio from that old TV show Unsolved Mysteries

youtube.com/watch?v=ixq0tHbL9SQ
 
PazzoGrande said:
The part about there being no sign of injury (no scars left over from the Stigmata) as proof that it was a sham:

That itself is actually evidence that it was miraculous. Previously, the wounds were investigated by doctors, who said that the holes are so profound that you can see through them.

Now, we know what it is like to have wounds. They leave scars. If they were naturally-inflicted, they still should have left scars and marks, right? Nobody can reasonably claim that he never had wounds there in the first place, naturally-inflicted or not.

For crying out loud, I still have a scar on my wrist from when I fell off my bike as a kid. If that’s still there, surely deep punctures in flesh – which nobody can deny Padre Pio had, even though they might disagree on the cause of them – would have left marks behind.

Yet his wounds left no trace – they disappeared as mysteriously (I would say miraculously) as they came. It’s ironic that this is evidence that it is miraculous, yet it’s being used as evidence that it wasn’t.

The misappropriation of funds claim

This is such a general claim. Nothing specific. It’s like saying “You are a bad person” instead of saying “You are a bad person because…” to at least back it up. If he misappropriated it, where’s the evidence?

About the wounds supposedly being kept open because of carbolic acid

At one time, some doctor investigated Padre Pio (I have to look up the name, I can dig it up if you want). The doctor wrapped Padre Pio’s hands and sealed the wraps with wax, so if they are opened and tampered with, the seals would be broken. In that time, the wounds should either have started to heal or become infected, because the wraps were on his hands for days. Yet they didn’t change.

They didn’t heal even though they should have. They didn’t get infected even though they should have.

About the mystical experiences being anectodal

Generally what we know about saints are either anectodal or based on their writings. So that’s no surprise.

But there was a case where Padre Pio met a man who supposedly was dead, visited from purgatory

There is one miracle that Padre Pio performed. A woman born without corneas (and thus couldn’t see) was brought to him; he traced the Sign of the Cross on her eyes and she was able to see. Funny thing is, when doctors look into here eyes, the corneas still aren’t there – yet she is somehow able to see colours clearly and read clearly.

Other healings that he was known to perform were similar. I saw an old documentary about him on EWTN and there was a guy with a bone problem (I forget what) that kept him from being able to walk. After Padre Pio prayed over him, he was able to walk. Doctors examined and still found the bone problem there and were baffled that the man was able to function normally.

Here’s a good segment on Padre Pio from that old TV show Unsolved Mysteries

youtube.com/watch?v=ixq0tHbL9SQ
Click to expand...
Well,here are things that I noticed might make your defense imperfect.

First,about the stigmata disappaering after death:As one of the skeptics said that I have talked to:

''Most physicians believed Pio’s wounds were superficial.

The determination was made difficult by their supposed painfulness and their being covered by “thick crusts” of what was thought to be blood. A distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was a lack of “any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass.”

Indeed, he concluded that the side “wound” had not penetrated the skin at all. And while in life Pio perpetually kept his “wounds” concealed (wearing fingerless gloves on his hands), at death there was only unblemished skin (Ruffin 1982, 146-154, 305).

Reason bids us believe the doctors who said the wounds were superficial for that would explain why they were not septic – as can carbolic acid!

It would explain why there was not a mark on Pio when he died.’’

Next about the carbolic acid:People actually said this:Padre Pio had his wounds concealed most of the time which would mean he did not have to use acid a lot to keep his wounds constantly.Which means Padre Pio could avoid most of the ailments from using carbolic acid.He didn’t bleed a lot.He did bleed sometimes though,but it does not mean carbolic acid would stop the bleeding if he used carbolic acid to fake the wounds because the cauterisation would have been limited by the presence of the dense scabs so bleeding was still possible.

Some people point out that Padre Pio appaerently said he cleaned the wounds every morning.

But this would mean Padre Pio would sometimes lie and not clean them as in some pictures there is a lot of solidified blood on him.Sometimes the wounds on his hands are more bloody to the upper side of the hand not in the middle like a stigmata.

There is even the case with the boys at the Seraphic College.When the Father Guardian, Padre Paolino, noticed that Pio appeared to be covering up red spots on his hands with the sleeves of his habit.

But the human eye easily sees the difference between a red spot and a wound. Have you ever mistaken a red birth mark for a wound?Paolino observed only that Pio had red spots. He even thought they matched carbolic acid marks.
 
EricFilmer said:
The wounds often bled, so the gloves had a practical purpose. Also, he was embarrassed by the wounds due to the attention they garnered, and this was a way of hiding them.

Padre Pio’s wounds were examined a number of times by others, including doctors. They were described as open wounds. At the end of his life, the wounds of the stigmata healed without leaving any scars. As far as I know, there is no medical explanation for this. Had Padre Pio been using carbolic acid (or any other means) to keep his wounds open for decades then scars would have formed when they eventually healed over.

There is documentation that Padre Pio ordered some carbolic acid from a pharmacy and the reason he stated was to sterilize needles. Witness collaboration demonstrated that the Spanish Flu was in the area and, due to a shortage of doctors, Padre Pio assisted in giving people injections. During his canonization process, the investigation delved into this whole situation regarding carbolic acid and concluded that the acid was not used by him to fake the stigmata.

At a shrine in Pennsylvania I have seen a confessional that Padre Pio actually used. It is typical of the ones found in Italy (and other parts of Europe). The priest sits in a very small, open faced box and is clearly seen by people in the church. There is only room in this part of the confessional for one person. Penitents kneel on either side of the walls of the box (and speak to the priest through a screen), and are likewise clearly seen by people in the church. There is neither the space nor the privacy for having sex.

It is possible for pope’s to be misinformed. For example, Pope Pius XI was the one who initially approved of the ban preventing Padre Pio from celebrating public Mass. The pope later reversed the ban, stating, “I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed.”

He was removed from public ministry but this was not a disciplinary action resulting from proven infractions committed by Padre Pio. Rather, Church officials felt it was prudent due to the allegations and controversies surrounding him. I think they wanted to keep Padre Pio out of the limelight as much as possible until they had time to sort this all out.
Click to expand...
Well,first about the claim the wounds disappaered after his death

There are two arguments against the claim the wounds disappaered after death I came across and are used by skeptics:

1:Most physicians believed Pio’s wounds were superficial.

The determination was made difficult by their supposed painfulness and their being covered by “thick crusts” of what was thought to be blood. A distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was a lack of “any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass.”

Indeed, he concluded that the side “wound” had not penetrated the skin at all. And while in life Pio perpetually kept his “wounds” concealed (wearing fingerless gloves on his hands), at death there was only unblemished skin (Ruffin 1982, 146-154, 305).

Reason bids us believe the doctors who said the wounds were superficial for that would explain why they were not septic – as can carbolic acid!

It would explain why there was not a mark on Pio when he died.

2:There is no evidence at all against the following theory.

Some skeptics say that Pio made superficial wounds but only when he intended to show them off. Otherwise he just pretended to have them and that was the real reason for wearing the mittens.

Why mittens and no bandages? Skeptics say the daily blood may have come from a wound created just for the purpose of making blood. Sometimes Pio could have just made scabs on his unblemished hands as if they had been wounded and bleeding.

Plus Pio settled for just having a mark instead of a side wound and marks on his feet instead of foot wounds.

He might have had hand wounds and lets suppose he had. The hand wounds seem too convenient. Why wounds there and nowhere else? Were they there just for show?

Skeptics point out Pio having unblemished skin on the side and on the feet cannot be taken as evidence that he was not making the wounds himself. Perhaps there were no wounds or they were too light to leave scars!

And we only have the word of a few people that there were no scars. Nobody knows. Pio’s body was displayed with the mittens on.
 
EricFilmer said:
The wounds often bled, so the gloves had a practical purpose. Also, he was embarrassed by the wounds due to the attention they garnered, and this was a way of hiding them.

Padre Pio’s wounds were examined a number of times by others, including doctors. They were described as open wounds. At the end of his life, the wounds of the stigmata healed without leaving any scars. As far as I know, there is no medical explanation for this. Had Padre Pio been using carbolic acid (or any other means) to keep his wounds open for decades then scars would have formed when they eventually healed over.

There is documentation that Padre Pio ordered some carbolic acid from a pharmacy and the reason he stated was to sterilize needles. Witness collaboration demonstrated that the Spanish Flu was in the area and, due to a shortage of doctors, Padre Pio assisted in giving people injections. During his canonization process, the investigation delved into this whole situation regarding carbolic acid and concluded that the acid was not used by him to fake the stigmata.

At a shrine in Pennsylvania I have seen a confessional that Padre Pio actually used. It is typical of the ones found in Italy (and other parts of Europe). The priest sits in a very small, open faced box and is clearly seen by people in the church. There is only room in this part of the confessional for one person. Penitents kneel on either side of the walls of the box (and speak to the priest through a screen), and are likewise clearly seen by people in the church. There is neither the space nor the privacy for having sex.

It is possible for pope’s to be misinformed. For example, Pope Pius XI was the one who initially approved of the ban preventing Padre Pio from celebrating public Mass. The pope later reversed the ban, stating, “I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed.”

He was removed from public ministry but this was not a disciplinary action resulting from proven infractions committed by Padre Pio. Rather, Church officials felt it was prudent due to the allegations and controversies surrounding him. I think they wanted to keep Padre Pio out of the limelight as much as possible until they had time to sort this all out.
Click to expand...
Now,about the doctors describing the wounds as open and almost see-through wounds:

I have heard atheists use this claim against the doctors and the open wound theory:

Dr. Alberto Caserta took X-rays of the hands in 1954. Nothing strange was found about the bone structure. A wound going through would have had to go through the bone.

The doctors who examined the supposed wounds did not agree on whether or not fingers could meet through the hands. Dr Romanelli could not get his fingers through because it caused too much pain for poor Pio but he said that feeling the fissures suggested that there was a void between them (The Bleeding Mind, page 68).

But he could not penetrate them for there was what appeared to be a thin membrane across the fissure (The Stigmata and Modern Science, page 14). He only thought it was a membrane for he could not see or feel through it so was it a blister or just the skin?

Real stigmata would not have a membrane for Jesus had open holes. If Pio had been using chemicals to make the wounds then it is clear we are not talking about ordinary hands here and so the chemicals might have affected the skin in such a way that the hands seemed very soft or perhaps a blister was created thus creating the illusion of a void for there is no sense easier to fool than touch.

The doctor would have been very excited by Pio and might have imagined things – it is very very easy to delude your sense of touch. For example, you can imagine a ghost touching the back of your neck if you think you are in a haunted house and it will seem real. Romanelli did not confirm that there were miraculous open wounds. He only guessed that the wounds might be open.

The hand wound supposedly went through the hand. Nobody ever said he could press on the front and back entry of the wound and get his fingers to touch one another through the hole. Romanelli tried.

But with the priest crying and struggling and wincing with the alleged pain would it have been done right? Romanelli assumed that his fingers would meet if he tried harder but was afraid to for Pio was in great pain (page 14, The Stigmata and Modern Science). So Romanelli was only assuming.

Doctor Romanelli described his opinion that there was a fissure as being an impression for he said he got the impression of a void (page 7, The Bleeding Mind). He further underlined this by saying he could not feel properly for a complete fissure for Padre Pio found the examination which entailed trying to insert fingers into the wounds very painful.

The doctor stated that he could not tell if the wounds on each side of the hand were joined. All he could tell was that there was a wound on each side of the hand he examined and each wound was deep but could not be sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top