St Gemma Galgani

[Rochester]

Yes, I have a deep devotion to Gemma Galgani. I’m looking at her right now, her picture sits on my desk.

 

[Student09]

There was one report where a doctor investigated her and came back with the conclusion that there were no stigmata. On that occasion, he saw the blood, but he could find no sign of injuries in her body, which indicated to him that there were no stigmata. However, Gemma predicted beforehand that Jesus was displeased with the planned investigation and would keep the doctor from finding anything. She had not been told by any human of the planned secret visit from the doctor, yet she foretold that this would happen. The doctor’s negative report was not that there were self-inflicted stigmata, but that there were no stigmata. .

Yes, that’s the incident I was referring to. Thank you for your whole post and for stating so clearly what I was trying, rather ineptly, to say.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Student09 is absolutely correct that if God could create the universe, He certainly could create wonders in Gemma like He did. In fact, He has done this many times in great saints for 2,000 years, so there is a TON of evidence for this kind of event, which should make it less shocking, though always delightfully wondrous and beautiful! In view of how much God has done in so many saints, and in view of the inexpressible power of a God who created the universe, of course God could work such wonders in Gemma!

I would just like you to consider the actual argumentation used in defending the position of God as the creator of the universe. Particularly, the line of reasoning that dismisses any necessity for much empirical evidence. Now take that style of argumentation and try to see if it can be used in defense of Gemma’s miracles. I personally find that while such a line of reasoning can be used to defend claims regarding an omnipotent being, I am not so confident in its ability to defend claims made in regards to a human being (no matter how holy they may be).

Simply put, just because God created the universe, doesn’t mean the mechanics of how He did it can be defended the same way you can defend the mechanics of how St. Gemma’s miracles happened.

However, Gemma predicted beforehand that Jesus was displeased with the planned investigation and would keep the doctor from finding anything. She had not been told by any human of the planned secret visit from the doctor, yet she foretold that this would happen.

Again, I see a danger in reinforcing disbelief here. Why exactly would Jesus be “displeased”? One would think we were making Him out the same way the Greeks and the Romans made out their gods: petty.

Yes, but sometimes when people have asked Jesus for a sign, He has said no. For instance, once, the Pharisees approached Him, asking for a sign, and He gave them no sign “except the sign of Jonah,” a sign they would become aware of on Easter, but not before. And another time, we read of a town where He performed very few miracles because of the lack of faith in the place.

So sometimes God does keep His power to Himself.

I have trouble with what you’re implying as a “lack of faith”. Surely one can believe in God and the immortality of the soul purely within intellectual bounds and not necessarily resort to claims of supernatural phenomenon that would only add to the burden of proof. (In some cases, it might even make it heavier.) However, when one insists of making such claims, I see no reason why one should be labeled as “lacking in faith” when he/she demands proof.

Suppose I am a traveling philosopher who is simply in search of truth. I am neither an atheist nor am I for or against any particular religion. Enter an enthusiastic religious, who makes claims of someone capable of miracles and attempts to convert me to believe. He speaks only of faith and faith only, insisting only on the miracles as the argument for his case. Suppose then, I decide to test the man’s claim seeing as how I cannot argue with him on any other grounds but the miracles.

Would you then say I “lack faith”? Is it so morally deplorable to test extraordinary claims when one simply wishes to see if they are true?

 

[Student09]

I would just like you to consider the actual argumentation used in defending the position of God as the creator of the universe. Particularly, the line of reasoning that dismisses any necessity for much empirical evidence. Now take that style of argumentation and try to see if it can be used in defense of Gemma’s miracles. I personally find that while such a line of reasoning can be used to defend claims regarding an omnipotent being, I am not so confident in its ability to defend claims made in regards to a human being (no matter how holy they may be).

I’m guessing that you are referring to the ontological argument first proposed by St. Anselm and later refined by others? Of course the ontological argument can only be applied to God. However, there are a couple things to keep in mind with this argument:

1. the ontological argument is not decisive, nor did Anselm intend it to be. In his Proslogium, where he set forth the argument, St. Anselm said "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe - that unless I believed, I should not understand."

He was right about this. I have discussed the ontological argument in its Anselmian form at length with atheists, and they were not convinced at all. Immanuel Kant acknowledged the ontological argument with great respect in his Critique of Pure Reason, but also demonstrated that it is not decisive from the standpoint of pure reason, without faith. St. Edith Stein, a philosopher and convert from Judaism and atheism, observes in her book Endliches und Ewiges Sein also that the argument is not completely convincing to those who lack faith - that there is still a “leap of faith” that must be taken.

As Aristotle said, and St. Thomas Aquinas after him, the things that are most evident in themselves are least evident to us, and vice versa. Hence, we see that people are sometimes led to faith in God because they witness miracles, and Jesus mentions this in the New Testament - people should have believed for the sake of the miracles, if nothing else. This is not because the miracles are better evidence in themselves, but because we are weak, sinful, kind of stupid creatures from whom the things of God - which should be self-evident - are veiled. St. Thomas says that the existence of God is self-evident in itself, but not to us.

1. The Catholic Church obliges us to believe many things other than the existence of God, that is, we must believe many things which cannot be demonstrated by means of the ontological argument. In other words, if an atheist is intellectually convinced by the argument that there is a first existent, a supreme being, a “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived” (in Anselm’s terminology), even so it will not follow - in his mind - that this being is the Christian God and that this being became a man in order to save us and was crucified, etc.

Along these lines, St. Edith says:

“Faith and theology enlighten natural reason as to the true nature of the first existent whom it had previously reached by its own efforts, and they also throw light on the relationship which obtains between all that which is and the first existent. This illumination natural reason could never have gained unaided. Reason would turn into unreason if it would stubbornly content itself with what it is able to discover with its own light, barring out everything which is made visible to it by a brighter and more sublime light” (22, her italics, my underlining).

She is speaking here about the ontological proof and its relation to faith, basically saying what Anselm said but in different words and with a slightly different emphasis.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I would just like you to consider the actual argumentation used in defending the position of God as the creator of the universe. Particularly, the line of reasoning that dismisses any necessity for much empirical evidence. Now take that style of argumentation and try to see if it can be used in defense of Gemma’s miracles. I personally find that while such a line of reasoning can be used to defend claims regarding an omnipotent being, I am not so confident in its ability to defend claims made in regards to a human being (no matter how holy they may be).

Simply put, just because God created the universe, doesn’t mean the mechanics of how He did it can be defended the same way you can defend the mechanics of how St. Gemma’s miracles happened.

I agree with this.

It doesn’t contradict my point at all.

Again, I see a danger in reinforcing disbelief here. Why exactly would Jesus be “displeased”? One would think we were making Him out the same way the Greeks and the Romans made out their gods: petty.

That presumes He has no good reason for being displeased. People’s motives for requesting proof, or a sign, can vary a lot. One person might sincerely be seeking truth, which is good, and in this case their search for evidence is valid and worthy. Other people only demand proof to mock or to justify their own rejection of the Gospel. They want to hear the answers so that they can find a way (however irrational) to try to tear these answers apart. Sometimes God has good and just cause to deny people an answer to their petitions for proof.

There also can be times when someone asks a question with a sincere of heart, but God refrains from giving the answer because He knows the asker is not in a position where he could handle, appreciate or understand the answer.

There also are times when God wants to keep elements of His Truth and Beauty secret for reasons of intimacy and love. For instance, the marital intimacy of a husband and wife is an extremely beautiful secret, but it is a secret, and it would be wrong for everyone to know everything that’s going on. In the same way, some of the treasures of God are kept secret, are beauties and ravishing delights only intended for some and not for others. The saints kept many of their intimacies with God secret from all but their spiritual directors, to whom they were required by obedience to share these things, so that the risk that they fall secretly into error and sin would be lessened.

There are treasures in our households which we keep inside the house. For instance, beautiful paintings, if we have them, we will hang on the walls in the house. In that way, weather conditions will not ruin them, and thieves will not snatch them. And we will keep the garage door closed so that thieves will not come in and plunder while we’re in another room. Sometimes we keep our valuables away from the public eye. But when we make friends with people, when we love them, see that they mean well, and trust them, we will allow them into our homes and show them our treasures. Though some things (such as the marriage bed, and other intimate family matters), we will even keep secret from these souls.

Pope Benedict XVI made a beautiful analogy to the secret beauty of the Kingdom by comparing it to stained glass. He said that from the outside, a cathedral’s windows look dark and are impossible to see through. Yet when you step inside, the most magnificent beauty shines through them. In the same way, he says, the beauty of the Church is often visible only to those who are inside it, or who are drawing near to it through Baptism of Desire. God be praised .

A senseless secrecy would be petty, as you say. If one presumes that God has no good reason to keep anything secret, then it follows from that presumption that His decision to sometimes keep matters secret is petty. However, the presumption itself is unreasonable. There are secrets of beauty and holiness that are rightly kept secret.

But when God sees a heart that is open and seeking the truth, He will give that soul what He can, and what it can rightly receive.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have trouble with what you’re implying as a “lack of faith”. Surely one can believe in God and the immortality of the soul purely within intellectual bounds and not necessarily resort to claims of supernatural phenomenon

Yes, that’s true.

that would only add to the burden of proof. (In some cases, it might even make it heavier.)

If hundreds of the miracles of the saints were disproven, that would not add to Christianity’s burden of proof, because we don’t depend on these miracles. The only miracle we depend on is the Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, the “sign of Jonah.”

The saints’ miracles can only confirm the truth of the Catholic faith. Disproving them could not disprove the faith.

However, there is plentiful evidence for the miracles of the saints, praise God! They are a beautiful sign He has given the Earth to show it that Christ Jesus is Lord.

However, when one insists of making such claims, I see no reason why one should be labeled as “lacking in faith” when he/she demands proof.

Suppose I am a traveling philosopher who is simply in search of truth. I am neither an atheist nor am I for or against any particular religion. Enter an enthusiastic religious, who makes claims of someone capable of miracles and attempts to convert me to believe. He speaks only of faith and faith only, insisting only on the miracles as the argument for his case. Suppose then, I decide to test the man’s claim seeing as how I cannot argue with him on any other grounds but the miracles.

Would you then say I “lack faith”? Is it so morally deplorable to test extraordinary claims when one simply wishes to see if they are true?

Not at all! You’re assuming that the person is sincerely seeking truth, here. That is good. Many people claim and believe that they are seeking truth, when in fact their hearts are closed to the truth, and they are truly seeking a lie. Often they are seeking a belief system or religion that matches certain preconceived conditions they have, such as a worldview that justifies certain habitual sins or allows them to relax and enjoy life without striving for virtue to the point of self-denial. Many people don’t want to know why the doctrine of Hell is true, but rather are looking for a way to get rid of it altogether, even though they continue to say and think that they are seeking truth. They are not. They have already rejected Christianity and are simply looking for more ways to justify themselves in their unbelief.

There are sincere searchers and insincere ones, and even among the sincere, often they are only at a point where they can receive part of the truth and not more. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, Marian theology is something I can generally only show Protestants bit by bit. I start small, with an easier teaching, and move on to something harder only later and over time. God introduced me to Marian theology in this way too. I wasn’t initially ready for a book so deep as “True Devotion to Mary,” by St. Louis de Montfort. If I’d read that in the beginning, I’d surely have taken that as a sign that Catholicism is wrong and Catholics worship Mary. God only led me to that book after I already had been Catholic for half a year and had accepted the preliminary theology that one needs to understand and accept first.

When God was leading Israel, He initially led them by covenant bonds with Abraham and Adam and Eve and Noah, but He didn’t give them the Law for many years. Finally He felt they were ready and the time was right, so He gave them the Law on Mount Sinai. Only thousands of years after that, after their understanding had been developed for a vast amount of time by the prophets’ wisdom, were they ready for the Incarnation of the Lord, and even when He came, most of the Jews failed to believe.

The Scripture speaks several times of secrets shared between lovers, God and the soul, God and Mary or God and the Church, which are kept secret from others. The secret and beautiful intimacies between a husband and his spouse reflect these higher, spiritual, secret intimacies.

There are good reasons whenever God keeps something private. He acts in these ways always with love and wisdom. I think that I would be quite vain if I, in my ignorance, questioned His wisdom in these matters.

Prov. 25:2, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.”

 

[Dj87]

Padre Pio is another of my favorite Saints and ironically had a devotion for Saint Gemma Galgani.

Stigmatics have always fascinated me. Padre Pio had the wounds bleeding for fifty years. Saint Gemma would receive the five wounds of the stigmata on Thursday Night and by Saturday they were healed up. For all the cynics, how could that ever be self inflicted. In addition to the five wounds Saint Gemma also had the wounds from the crown of thorns, scourging, and sweat blood. Science could never explain that away, it’s a true miracle and gift from God.

 

[dailey]

Thanks Monica for posting about her! Can’t wait to learn more.

St. Padre Pio existed in the 20th century. He lived from1887-1968. He also received the stigmata & in his lifetime was investigated by the Vatican & was studied extensively by the doctors to make sure that the wounds were not self inflicted & that he was of sound mind. They tried to cure the wounds but it would not heal. His visible stigmata bled daily & he lost about 1 pint of blood daily for 50 years but it was miraculously healed on his death.

He is one of the most gifted saints. With his stigmata, he possessed all 5 wounds- on his hands, feet & on his side. Unlike the other saints, some of them only possessed 1 or 2 of the wounds. Some saints never had a stigmata. He also knew people’s thoughts & can read their hearts accurately describing their sins when they went to him for confession. He bilocated (be at two places at the same time). Communicated daily with his guardian angel & would even deliver the letters of St. Padre Pio. His guardian angel would sometimes tell him the contents of unopened letters. He had a gift of prophecy, odor of sanctity, and numerous miracles witnessed by so many people. He also was physical attacked by the demons frequently. He had such a devotion to Our Blessed Mother & was able to see her.

There are many books written about him. About his life, his gifts, the miracles, the sufferings, even the letters/ communications he had with his spiritual director. His story is definitely one of the most interesting, inspiring books to read. And to think that he existed in the 20th century, having personally met Pope John Paul II before he became the Pope, is such a blessing to us from Our Good God.

michaeljournal.org/stpio.htm

ewtn.com/padrepio/index.htm

May God’s Peace, Love, Mercy, Healing, Graces & Blessings be with you and to all!

I went to the bookstore to get a book on Padre Pio but was overwhelmed with all of the different ones to choose from. Do you have favorite that you can suggest?

 

[OnceLostSoul]

He is one of the most gifted saints. With his stigmata, he possessed all 5 wounds- on his hands, feet & on his side. Unlike the other saints, some of them only possessed 1 or 2 of the wounds. Some saints never had a stigmata. He also knew people’s thoughts & can read their hearts accurately describing their sins when they went to him for confession. He bilocated (be at two places at the same time). Communicated daily with his guardian angel & would even deliver the letters of St. Padre Pio. His guardian angel would sometimes tell him the contents of unopened letters. He had a gift of prophecy, odor of sanctity, and numerous miracles witnessed by so many people. He also was physical attacked by the demons frequently.

Isn’t it strange that God sometimes allows demons to physically attack His saints like Padre Pio, St John Marie Vianney, Blessed Catherine Anne Emmerich, Father Giovanni Calabria and Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified ?

Why did the guardian angels or St Michael not instantly intercede to fight on their behalf against demonic foes?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Isn’t it strange that God sometimes allows demons to physically attack His saints like Padre Pio, St John Marie Vianney, Blessed Catherine Anne Emmerich, Father Giovanni Calabria and Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified ?

Why did the guardian angels or St Michael not instantly intercede to fight on their behalf against demonic foes?

The Lord allows His holy ones to suffer many afflictions, because through suffering, the saints can become saints. They become holy, detached from themselves, and they offer up their suffering for the salvation of their own souls and of other people’s souls. The suffering purifies and redeems, like Christ’s own suffering did.

 

[AnnaRose]

I too have recently discovered this holy beautiful person, St. Gemma. I had an aunt that was in the convent in Italy (in the 50’s) and her name was Gemma. I often wonder if she was named after her and entered the convent because of her. I pray to St. Gemma each day to help me grow closer to Jesus.

 

[therese14]

Me too!