Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yellow_Belle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Link seems to not be working. Here is another link

As for the accusation, pure bunk but the MSM will run rampid with it just to bash the Church.
 
Who cares, why do people even bother with this anyways.

I’m sure with the “Vatican archives” full of his listed frauds, that JPII and the cardinals never bothered to check and stop his canonization.

Yea, great story with flawed premises
 
What a piece of yellow journalistic garbage. Do they just invent headlines in the U.K.? If one goes beyond the falsified title, what is really in the article is that one man, a pharmacist, claims to have sold Padre Pio 4 grams of carbolic acid for disinfecting needles. This testimony was part of his beatification investigation. 🤷
 
Is the newspaper even allowed to publish articles like that, that directly insults the person involved (padre pio)

It’s clear by the tone, and calling him charlatan and all. I mean when someone does an article about some terrorist they don’t have such a tone in the article.

I think we should complain, to keep them in check?
 
This article confirms my opinion that the MSM must be eliminated (by a complete boycott of them) from any influence in the world.
 
JFonseka said:
Is the newspaper even allowed to publish articles like that, that directly insults the person involved (padre pio)

It’s clear by the tone, and calling him charlatan and all. I mean when someone does an article about some terrorist they don’t have such a tone in the article.

I think we should complain, to keep them in check?
Click to expand...
funny… they seem to forget that miracles attributed to Saint Pio cannot be explained by man… i wont even check out that article. i don’t waste my time on anti catholic propaganda or websites. its an utter waste of my precious time.
 
While I agree that the title of the article is pretty unimaginative and sensationalist, if you actually read the article, they make the author of the book sound like an idiot for even trying this stunt. The article makes it clear that he has pulled one speck of evidence out of the Vatican Archives, and even the quote at the end of the piece makes the guy sound like an idiot for doing it.

I don’t have a problem with the article - and the reporter did what he set out to do - he got you to read his article with a sensationalist headline.

It’s what journalists are paid to do. I don’t see that he did anything wrong here. He did not distort the truth, he reported it. So what? 🤷

~Liza
 
Unfortunately, it’s been front page news on the most widely read newspaper here in Italy and it’s causing quite a stir (lots of "I told you so"s from non-Catholics). corrieredellasera.it/cronache/07_ottobre_25/padrepio.shtml
For those of you who don’t read Italian, the article basically says that Sergio Luzzatto, the author of the book, in addition to the “evidence” of Padre Pio’s self-induced wounds, has procured from the Holy Office “four small pages” (addressed to whom, it doesn’t say) written in 1960 by Pope John XXIII blasting Padre Pio for sexual misconduct, supposedly caught on film. It mentions the names of three women in paricular whom the pope suspects of being seduced by the saint. The tone is disparaging and John XXIII calls Padre Pio the author of an “immense deceit” that’s lead to “a disaster for souls” which was “diabolically prepared”. The pope supposedly points out how he hopes this will help bring an end to this “contamination”, implying that he had always believed Padre Pio to be a fraud.
The article goes on to point out that popes Benedict XV and Pius XI were skeptical of the saint (Benedict was “skeptical” because he sent Vatican officials to investigate), while popes Pius XII, Paul VI and, of course John Paul II looked upon him more favorably. The article finishes by applauding Luzzatto’s objectivity. :eek:
I personally think Luzzatto’s claims tend to be spurious and that they need more backing up. The mysterious “four little pages” and the “film”-where are they? Can he present proof of the existence of either? And to say that a saint was unpopular with some popes or those in the Vatican is like discovering hot water. St. Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Jesus and St. Maria Faustina Kowalska, to name a few, were all silenced or chastised at one time or another. What does that prove? And the acid thing? Inconsquential conjecture, as far a I can tell.
I admit that I’m fascinated by Padre Pio, but not (yet) a devotee. I’m just tired of the media touting every new book “debunking” the saints as another debilitating blow to the Church. Will it ever let up? Satan truly hates the holy…
 
pnewton said:
**Do they just invent headlines in the U.K.? **QUOTE]

No more than in any other country in my experience, and I’ve lived in four different ‘Western’ countries including the US.😃

This story was ‘breaking news’ in the UK and Ireland media this morning. As we’re several hours ahead of most folks who post here, I expect it will be coming to a news-stand near you shortly.
Click to expand...
 
does anyone here even entertain the possibility that this is a possibility?

if strong evidence was presented to back these claims, is there any evidence that could convince you?

just wondering. there are a lot of strong emotions in these posts and i know one thing, strong emotion and clear thinking make for bad company.
 
Didn’t John XXIII later talk to Padre Pio and say he had been badly misinformed about him?

Eitherways, John XXIII only did that because he had been badly misinformed by some rather nasty bishops.

Padre Pio will remain a saint, no matter what the main stream media says.

If you want to go searching for things against someone, you will always find it, whether it be grossly exaggerated or a result of misinterpretation or lack of evidence or just an outright lie.

It happened to Jesus, persistent atheists will love to find faults with Jesus’ teachings, so if Jesus is open to this scrutiny, so definitely will be his followers.

Best we can do is ignore the ‘fools’ or if you can be bothered debate them. The choice is ours 😉
 
Somehow, it think is was the report who was using ‘acid’, not the good Padre :rolleyes:
 
snowfly said:
Does anyone know what the acid is called and how we can obtain it so we can use it on the sick as-well ? :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
Its called Phenol (phenolic acid). I use it in my office in minor surgical procedures quite often.

It is one of the active ingredients in Campho-Phenique.

To extrapolate from Padre Pio using Phenol, to the claim that he used it to fake his stigmata, only proves just how demonic the main stream media has become in its attacks on the Church and its saints.
 
Since many people don’t read the whole story and only the headline and first two sentences it creates sensationalism. The uneducated believe, the unbelievers celebrate, and the believers know better.
 
universalindult said:
Its called Phenol (phenolic acid). I use it in my office in minor surgical procedures quite often.

It is one of the active ingredients in Campho-Phenique.

To extrapolate from Padre Pio using Phenol, to the claim that he used it to fake his stigmata, only proves just how demonic the main stream media has become in its attacks on the Church and its saints.
Click to expand...
I have some of this in my medicine cabinet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top