About Padre Pio and his Stigmatas

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Trishie

http://caccioppoli.com/Padre%20Pio%2...%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.

[saveusfromhell]

i think the stigmata of st padre pio was of the least of the remarkable things about his life. the large number of self proclaimed atheists who went to him to prove that his ability to read the state of a soul in the confessional box and ended up converting,
also the miracles assosiated with him, like
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&...9vu6o5ZuzS1X5g

The eye reappears

More astounding still may be the thoroughly-documented cure of a construction worker named Giovanni Savino, who was severely injured on February 15, 1949, in a dynamite mishap. When Dr. Guglielmo San- guinetti, a physican, and Padre Raffaele, another Capuchin, and Father Dominic Meyer rushed to the injured man's side, “all three men noted that among Savino's numerous injuries, his right eye was gone entirely. They agreed that 'the socket was empty',” reports biographer Bernard Ruffin. Other doctors confirmed that the eye was completely annihilated and the other one badly damaged

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

i think the stigmata of st padre pio was of the least of the remarkable things about his life. the large number of self proclaimed atheists who went to him to prove that his ability to read the state of a soul in the confessional box and ended up converting,
also the miracles assosiated with him, like
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&...9vu6o5ZuzS1X5g

The link does not mention the word 'atheist' in relation to confession. It claims there is medical documentation of the reappearance of an eye. It does not say where this documentation may be found, but quotes a biographer as saying so. Do you, Saveusfrom hell, know where this documentation is? It seems odd that if it exists it is not easy to find.

[hannajomar]

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

i think the stigmata of st padre pio was of the least of the remarkable things about his life.

I agree with this.

[Trishie]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

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.

It is no assumption of irrationality or dishonesty on your part. In fact, the reverse.
You misunderstood completely
I was assuming your integrity, not impugning it!

Surely an 'unbeliever', of rational and scientific mind, couldn't simply accept the report claiming the source of Padre Pio's wounds was supernatural as a fact if even an atheistic scientist or doctor had examined Padre Pio, and affirmed that it was supernatural. There would always be cause to doubt whether or not the atheistic expert was in some way deceived.

The question then is how useful it would have been to bring in an atheist doctor to examine Padre Pio.
It remains that in examining Padre Pio's wounds and authenticity, the Church was considering the spiritual welfare of the faithful.

[saveusfromhell]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

The link does not mention the word 'atheist' in relation to confession. It claims there is medical documentation of the reappearance of an eye. It does not say where this documentation may be found, but quotes a biographer as saying so. Do you, Saveusfrom hell, know where this documentation is? It seems odd that if it exists it is not easy to find.

the link was for the miracle, not the atheist quote,
as for the documenatation, there is soooooooooooo many miracles attributed to his intervention both while alive and dead, that evidence is easy to come by, if you desire it, personaly i don't need it and if i was to produce it by the lorry load you still would not accept it. if I was to fly to Italy seek out the family of the doctor and produce his notes, find the family of the patient produce pictures, get a sworn affidavit from all I’m guessing it still would not suffice.

[Michael Francis]

6 off topic posts removed.
Please remain on the topic of "About Padre Pio and his Stigmatas"

[Charlene8]

For the person who is posting because he is interested in (presumable) studying religious beliefs:

I have read your posts, and I would say that you have beliefs, too - you just call them something else and therefore they seem more acceptable to you.

The scientific method includes having an open mind - do you have an open mind about the possible causes of the stigmata of St. Padre Pio? Or have you already made up your mind? Have you done any investigation yourself?

Does the testimony of 6 doctors qualify for the equalivent of peer review? And does a peer review make an article correct? Have you looked at the list of doctors who examined him? Unless you are saying that doctors of the late 19th/early 20th century (because of the time period in which they were born) are ignorate and naive and therefore likely to just not understand medical causes of things, these are some pretty heavy hitters for the times. Why are you dismissing their testimony on the subject?

It seems to me that your belief is in a system that would never allow for something like Padre Pio stigmata - and therefore it could not have occured. If it can not occur, that means that any proof that it has must be disregarded. That proof, by definition, does not reach your exacting standards - although I wonder if you have the same exacting standards for other scientific matters that you DO believe in?

[frankrega]

Hello,
There is a brand new book just out which clearly explains the truth about Padre Pio's stigmata. In fact, the name of the book is The Truth about Padre Pio's Stigmata.
It is at Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/dp/1478183918/...ZJKEZ8QNREGYE9

Frank

[Hokomai]

Charlene8;9613503 For the person who is posting because he is interested in (presumable) studying religious beliefs:

I have read your posts, and I would say that you have beliefs, too - you just call them something else and therefore they seem more acceptable to you

.

That would be me I think. I try to maintain a distinction between a 'belief' which may exist in the absence of evidence, because of evidence, or in spite of evidence; and a conclusion, which may only be drawn from evidence. I think it is likely that humans evolved a capacity for belief as a way of dealing with our long childhood and its attendant dangers. We had to 'believe' or elders. This does not always lead to truth. Instead of believing, I try to 'conclude' things from evidence. So there is a difference between my 'belief' in the historical reality of Jesus, and your 'belief' that Mary was conceived in a state of grace. I would be open to change my 'belief' that Jesus was a real person in response to good evidence to the contrary. You, I guess, would not be willing to say that about a fundamental tenet of your faith.

The scientific method includes having an open mind - do you have an open mind about the possible causes of the stigmata of St. Padre Pio? Or have you already made up your mind? Have you done any investigation yourself?

Yes, no and yes if you mean reading.

Does the testimony of 6 doctors qualify for the equivalent of peer review?

No.

And does a peer review make an article correct?

No, but it makes the evidence available for debate on the basis of facts.

Have you looked at the list of doctors who examined him?

Yes.

Unless you are saying that doctors of the late 19th/early 20th century (because of the time period in which they were born) are ignorant and naive and therefore likely to just not understand medical causes of things, these are some pretty heavy hitters for the times. Why are you dismissing their testimony on the subject?

I am not dismissing it. But their 'examinations' do not seem to me to reach an appropriate standard for 1) detail in reporting 2) tests applied 3) closeness and length of examination 4) neutrality of observers 5) repetition of tests over the duration of the claimed phenomenon.

It seems to me that your belief is in a system that would never allow for something like Padre Pio stigmata - and therefore it could not have occurred.

In fact, I think it is likely that there are cases of stigmata. There are fairly widespread reports. But they are not confined to Christians. Some Muslims, for example, are said to exhibit the battle wounds of the Prophet. On that basis alone, I would think it likely that there is no need to seek a 'spiritual' explanation.

If it can not occur, that means that any proof that it has must be disregarded.

I do not have this view of anything, except that where in some cases in which I have reached a conclusion (e.g. there is gravity) I would need extraordinary proof of a claimed phenomena to the contrary (e.g. levitation as a result of meditation) before I changed my conclusion about gravity.

That proof, by definition, does not reach your exacting standards - although I wonder if you have the same exacting standards for other scientific matters that you DO believe in?

Yes indeed. And I change my conclusions about things every day. Well, every day I learn and think, anyway.

[Charlene8]

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I appreciate seeing how you think about things.

Your view of the purpose of religious belief is very interesting. Which scientific methods did you use to determine your theory? You presented a very definiate conclusion - and I am wondering how you arrived at it?

You mentioned that you change your mind of things every day, based upon facts - do you have an example of a recently changed theory on a major point?

In your response, do I understand you to say that because you believe that stigmata (whether by Catholics or Muslims) is unlikely, there is no reason to investigate it? I certainly may have misunderstood you,, and I would like clarity on that.

Did you imply in your response that you have not concluded that Jesus was a real historical figure? There were comtemporary non-gospel (non-Christian) written references to Jesus. What additional proof would you need to see to believe that He actually lived (which, of course, I understand is separate from the issue of whether He is the Son of God)?

Thank you.

[Hokomai]

Originally Posted by Charlene8

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I appreciate seeing how you think about things.

Your view of the purpose of religious belief is very interesting. Which scientific methods did you use to determine your theory? You presented a very definiate conclusion - and I am wondering how you arrived at it?

You mentioned that you change your mind of things every day, based upon facts - do you have an example of a recently changed theory on a major point?

In your response, do I understand you to say that because you believe that stigmata (whether by Catholics or Muslims) is unlikely, there is no reason to investigate it? I certainly may have misunderstood you,, and I would like clarity on that.

Did you imply in your response that you have not concluded that Jesus was a real historical figure? There were comtemporary non-gospel (non-Christian) written references to Jesus. What additional proof would you need to see to believe that He actually lived (which, of course, I understand is separate from the issue of whether He is the Son of God)?

Thank you.

[Hokomai]

Charlene8;9616039]

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. I appreciate seeing how you think about things.

Your view of the purpose of religious belief is very interesting. Which scientific methods did you use to determine your theory? You presented a very definiate conclusion - and I am wondering how you arrived at it?

Thanks for your response. My comment about the possible evolutionary advanatge of a tendency to believe was that I think it likely. By this I mean that this is hypothesis - not a fact or a theory - which appears to fit facts I know and conclusions I have made. I would not call it a definite conclusion.

You mentioned that you change your mind of things every day, based upon facts - do you have an example of a recently changed theory on a major point?

Yesterday I changed my mind on the western strategy in Afghanistan. Last week I changed my mind (as a result of debate here) about the Catholic position on contraception. I had thought it hopelessly incoherent, but now I see it does have a complex internal coherence which had previously eluded me. (I still don't agree)

In your response, do I understand you to say that because you believe that stigmata (whether by Catholics or Muslims) is unlikely, there is no reason to investigate it? I certainly may have misunderstood you,, and I would like clarity on that.

I am all in favour of the scientific investigation of everything and the publication of results in peer-reviewed journals where the methods and conclusions cn be debated and tested.

Did you imply in your response that you have not concluded that Jesus was a real historical figure? There were contemporary non-gospel (non-Christian) written references to Jesus. What additional proof would you need to see to believe that He actually lived (which, of course, I understand is separate from the issue of whether He is the Son of God)?

No, I think there was such a person, and while the evidence is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' it is certainly strong on 'the balance of probabilities'. Whether the Jesus in which Christians believe, and who appears in the NT corresponds with the historical person is another question. The apparently widespread Christian belief that if Jesus existed he was therefore as described in the Gospels begs the question as to the accuracy of the Gospel descriptions.

Thank you.

And thank you!

[Angelsflight]

I totally believe that Padre Pio had the stigmata, but there is one thing I am confused about.

Was Jesus pierced through the hands or the wrists? If it was the wrists, why are the wounds for stigmatics through the hands? i have always wondered this...does anyone know?