Padre Pio was a man of God who was the greatest Saint of the twentieth century. He had the stigmata for over 50 years. One person said he used acid to fake it. One person found this out over a fifty year period. I’m sure if Padre Pio was faking his stigmata more than one person would of known about it? Also when he died there were no marks on Padre Pio. Now if he would of been applying acid I would imagine scars would of been left? This claim by Luzzatto has made me very angry and upset. Padre Pio is no longer on this earth to defend himself and it’s up to us Catholic to defend him. Already atheist sites are jumping on the band wagon and deriding Padre Pio. We know how holy Padre Pio was and I for one wouldn’t of remained a Catholic with out Padre Pio. Why? Because I realised what happened in Jesus’ life occurred because Padre Pio performed similar miracles in his life. And there is your clue as to why Padre Pio is attacked because the secular world doesn’t want people to follow the Christian faith. Let’s call Luzzatto what he is - a follower of Satan trying to lead the Faithful astray and denying them eternity in heaven with Jesus.
Now,I am sorry but the skeptics are so angry at Padre Pio they managed to almost debunk a few of the defenses Catholics use.
I will only cite one of them to see if people can answer them,as I myself don’t like Pio getting attacked:
Here is a quote of one of the bigger skeptics,and he makes two different responses to the argument the wounds disappaered after death:
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:’'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?
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?
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 who say that there were no scars. Nobody knows.
Pio’s body was displayed with the mittens on.’’
The guy is really reaching for this one.