Remains of Padre Pio, beloved mystic monk, exhumed in Italy

[snopes]

The remains of Padre Pio, a hugely popular Italian saint whose body is due to go on public display later this year, have been exhumed.

Bishop Domenico D'Ambrosio, a Vatican-appointed envoy who oversaw the unearthing, said the body had been well preserved.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/art...ed0303-ON.html

Originally Posted by snopes

Bishop Domenico D'Ambrosio, a Vatican-appointed envoy who oversaw the unearthing, said the body had been well preserved.

The top of his skull is showing through the skin, but his nails look great!

[Admiraldinty]

Nitpick which is a munchkin of mine: Padre Pio, being a Capuchin Franciscan, was not a monk, but a friar.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Admiraldinty

Nitpick which is a munchkin of mine: Padre Pio, being a Capuchin Franciscan, was not a monk, but a friar.

Sorry. We meant monk-ey. :o

[Admiraldinty]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Sorry. We meant monk-ey. :o

Well played.

[Drama Queen Of Mars]

I remeber an episode of the show Unsolved Mysteries that discussed Padre Pio. I seem to remember it saying that his body was on display for some time after his death but now I can't find anything about it anywhere. Anyone know if I'm correct or am I just mis-remembering?

[Ali Infree]

Admiraldinty sez:

Padre Pio, being a Capuchin Franciscan, was not a monk, but a friar.

As Ambrose Bierce noted, "black friars in this life, fried black in the next.."

Ali "a flatulent" Infree

[Joostik]

Contrary to what the article says Padre Pio isn't a saint yet. He has only been declared Blessed by Pope John Paul II, which is only the first stage to sainthood. To be declared a Saint there has to be some proof of miracles. The reason for the exhumation -- much opposed by his admirers -- was to check his stigmata, which were rumoured to have been faked.

[Admiraldinty]

Originally Posted by Joostik

Contrary to what the article says Padre Pio isn't a saint yet. He has only been declared Blessed by Pope John Paul II, which is only the first stage to sainthood. To be declared a Saint there has to be some proof of miracles. The reason for the exhumation -- much opposed by his admirers -- was to check his stigmata, which were rumoured to have been faked.

No, he's been made a saint. He was beatified in 1999 and canonized in 2002.

[Rhysdux]

Originally Posted by Admiraldinty

No, he's been made a saint. He was beatified in 1999 and canonized in 2002.

Agreed, he was canonized. But according to this story, his coffin was opened on March 3, 2008, and there was no sign of stigmata:

http://www.agi.it/italy/news/2008030...n0015-art.html

[jw]

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/bre...breaking57.htm

As of tomorrow, the first of 750,000 people who have made reservations to see the body between now and December will file past the glass coffin at a rate of about 7,200 a day.

His face was reconstructed with a lifelike silicone mask of the type used in wax museums because it was apparently too decomposed to show when the body was exhumed.

Thousands will make the pilgrimage to see a mask?

[barbrainey]

I don't believe he received the "stigmata" from God. Why would God do that to anyone? That would make him look cruel. I think Padre Pio inflicted the wounds himself to make himself appear important and celebrated.


B. A. Rainey

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by barbrainey

I don't believe he received the "stigmata" from God. Why would God do that to anyone? That would make him look cruel. I think Padre Pio inflicted the wounds himself to make himself appear important and celebrated.

There are other possibilities. (I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis and his "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" forced trichotomy, where other possibilities should be considered.)

There seems to be some evidence for people (not necessarily Pio) developing "hysterical stigmata." The marks appear as a psychosomatic response.

Or, he might have gotten the marks by accident; most of us go through life with a succession of scrapes, nicks, bruises, and so on.

He might even have given himself the marks unconsciously. For example, he might have gripped the beads or the crucifix of a rosary necklace too hard, not intending to cause bruises, and not consciously realized that's how he got them.

I don't want to argue that any of these explanations is the actual case, or even that they are more likely than your suggestion. But I think that these suggestions should be considered as possibilities.

Silas (Can one be "a devil's advocate" for a "man of God?")

[Admiraldinty]

Here's a photo of his body, if you're all interested:

Saint Pio of Pietrelcina

[jw]

In regards to the stigmata, there may be other possibilities, but may I suggest most likely 'fraud'?
The stigmata disappeared a few weeks before he died. Why? I would imagine it wasn’t easy to buy bottles of acid when you’re on the flat of your back in a hospital. Also, nursing staff take a dim view of elderly patients pouring acid on their hands, no matter how saintly you might be.

As for the people who believe he healed them? Padre Pio is in a no-lose situation. If you recover, it’s a miracle. If you don’t get better, it’s God’s will. Padre Pio has been venerated here for as long as I can remember. IRC my mother giving us all a bit of the relic to wear around our necks when we were children.
The inhabitants of San Giovanni, the second most visited Catholic shrine in the world, must now all have the stigmata, from the amount of rubbing of their hands.

Padre Pio is in bits, because he’s been dead for forty years, and what you’re looking at in that glass case is nothing but a pile of bones stuffed with newspapers and a rubber Halloween mask.
There’s your miracle!

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by jw

In regards to the stigmata, there may be other possibilities, but may I suggest most likely 'fraud'? . . .

I agree that this is the most likely explanation. Occam's Razor and all that.

What I have always found interesting about Padre Pio's story is that it points up the vast spectrum of belief in the Catholic Church, from the "rationalist" wing to the "mystical" wing. The Church is large, and has room for all. There are deists, who hold that God set the universe in motion and then stood back to let it function, and interventionists and believers in daily miracles, who hold that we all have personal guardian angels who, minute-by-minute, use supernatural power to ward us from harm.

(Just this morning, when you spilled coffee, but didn't get burned: a miracle!)

Padre Pio and his followers were at one extreme of this spectrum.

If this were a Protestant church, there'd have been schisms over these diverse opinions...

Silas

[jw]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

interventionists and believers in daily miracles, who hold that we all have personal guardian angels who, minute-by-minute, use supernatural power to ward us from harm.

Indeed. I can imagine God getting pissed off with our favourite old fraud bellowing in his ear every few minutes, because of the amount of prayers for intervention that he gets, then giving in to him, or not.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Rhysdux

Agreed, he was canonized. But according to this story, his coffin was opened on March 3, 2008, and there was no sign of stigmata:

http://www.agi.it/italy/news/2008030...n0015-art.html

Silas, since you have posted in this thread...

You have, in the past, insisted that religions like Christianity are superior to animist ones that don't adapt to the times. I have disagreed because IMO a religion is a religion. To me, this whole "let's see if the corpse magically has cut-holes in its hands! That will be a sign of saintliness!" bit is 100% as absurd as casting a spell on a person in hopes that they will fall in love with you. Maybe even moreso, since at least the latter, if believed in, might cause the spell-caster to behave more confidently and present a better case for making a connection than otherwise.

I do not have children but if I had to choose between my theoretical child being molested a couple times and having them be indoctrinated with garbage like this... well, it's a coin flip.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Silas, since you have posted in this thread...

You have, in the past, insisted that religions like Christianity are superior to animist ones that don't adapt to the times. I have disagreed because IMO a religion is a religion.

Well, as seen in the thread about the couple who allowed their child to die of a diabetes-related crisis, praying over her rather than sending for a doctor, I think it is fair to say that some religions are much, much worse than others.

Would you rather live next door to Admiraldinty or, say, David Koresh? Or a nest of Kali cultists?

To me, this whole "let's see if the corpse magically has cut-holes in its hands! That will be a sign of saintliness!" bit is 100% as absurd as casting a spell on a person in hopes that they will fall in love with you. Maybe even moreso, since at least the latter, if believed in, might cause the spell-caster to behave more confidently and present a better case for making a connection than otherwise.

Personally, I see the exhumation as an absurd waste of time. After this long, how could you possibly tell? And it seems to me to be bad Christian theology, also: visible signs of God's favor would seem to be a threat to the legitimacy of apostolic succession: why vote for the Pope when God sends such clear signs? And what about old Abbott Jenkins: he doesn't have any stigmata, so he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about when he discusses faith and works. My stigmata are much larger than yours, so I'm clearly more favored, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, my prejudices are very much in favor of rationalism over mysticism....

I do not have children but if I had to choose between my theoretical child being molested a couple times and having them be indoctrinated with garbage like this... well, it's a coin flip.

If we were talking about indoctrination into a real cult -- a James Jones style cult -- I might agree. But I've had a number of friends who have been through the cycle of membership in hyper-evangelical "mystical" Christian sects, and they came out of it okay. They joined, they preached a lot, and then they outgrew it.

Again, to me, the danger is when they hold views that intersect with the real world in real ways. Withholding medicine from children is a gigantic red flag. One of my friends belonged to a Christian sect (or perhaps cult) that taught that, if you were "right with God," you could not be hurt. They taught him not to wear seat-belts in his car, because that showed a lack of faith!

Anything that interferes with the search for truth is a bad thing. But some bad things are a whale of a lot worse than others!

Silas

[Johnny Slick]

I like to separate the religion from the douchebaggery, myself. I flat-out do not accept the "but it's my religion" argument for anything, whether you are using it to deny your child basic medical care or if you are using the 15-items-or-less lane and you have 16 items in your basket. In that respect, sure, some religious people are worse than others but does that make their religion itself worse? No, since they're the ones who insist on believing in fairy tales in the first place, it makes *them* worse people.

Looking at a 40-year-dead saint for signs of stigmata to see if God likes him or not is... well, it's pretty much the same as looking at the entrails of a pig to determine your future. Both are harmless, I guess (except for the pig! Maybe if the pig was slaughtered for food and you wanted to check out the entrails just for the heck of it)(or maybe if you bought the entrails from the local butcher)(I am not sure how that works), but I want to stay a long ways away from whoever is doing it.

If we were talking about indoctrination into a real cult -- a James Jones style cult -- I might agree. But I've had a number of friends who have been through the cycle of membership in hyper-evangelical "mystical" Christian sects, and they came out of it okay. They joined, they preached a lot, and then they outgrew it.

But those are instances of (presumably) adults making their own decision. A 5-year old child is not in the position to be able to make these sorts of decisions for themselves. This is why it's illegal to have sexual relations with them. I know I'll come under fire for this but I feel that it's just as sick and perverted to twist their mind as it is their body.