Padre Pio - Fraud or not?

[morondog]

(06-06-2015 07:11 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  One dingbat necroposts, and alla sudden it's a landslide.

Well ya know. Safer to bury 'em first and check for vital signs later...

[horsecrazygal4110]

(23-01-2012 11:05 AM)iakhovas Wrote:  Greeting brothers in no-faith, I come to You with a question regarding Padre Pio. Im having some family discusions regarding faith and religion, and I keep loosing when Padre Pio is being put up as example. All I know is he is believed to have faked his Stigma wounds using carbolic acid during his hospital service. Since my resources and knowledge is limited, is there any other sceptical material regarding him? Id like to know more before ending up in another discussion.

actually Padre Pio was not a fake, the wounds on his hands were there for 30 years roughly, they would bleed, he lived in a small room, where would he have kept and stored all that acid for that length of time? People were healed in miraculous ways, a young girl blind, touched by Padre Pio was able to see at that moment, sorry that is a miracle, not fake. When he had Mass one time, the crucifix started to bleed real blood, more than the little carving could hold. There are things in the world that happen whether one wants to be a non-believing person or not, we have to remain open minded and not just think things are fake because we do not understand or wish to not understand. This man healed too many people in ways that were out right miracles and had no other explanation, that is FACT. When he died, his stigmata disappeared within a few minutes, that is not fake. So what explanation is there for it, supernatural? an amazing healer? God, Jesus, higher power? what is the answer? What scientific reasons explain this?

[horsecrazygal4110]

(17-11-2012 03:29 PM)PatrickHGormley Wrote:  Pio was a stigmatic
miracle-working monk who died in 1968 and who canonised by Pope John Paul II.


Pio claimed that Jesus gave him a copy of the
five wounds of the crucifixion. In 1923,
Rome declared
that nothing supernatural had been proven about the marks. This is very important for less was known
then about magic tricks and chemicals that keep wounds open and the power of
the mind than is known now. The wounds
then could have seemed supernatural indeed - more than they would nowadays - for the same reason that the cures
for smallpox would have seemed miraculous to many. This shows that the Church did find
indications of possible fakery.



In the pro-Pio book,
Padre Pio
Under Investigation, Francesco Castelli states that a Monsignor Rossi
(in 1921) examined Pio's stigmata and found no wounds in the palms even though there
was a scab of blood in each palm. He found two white button like marks
on the feet but no blood or wounds there. Rossi described the marks
not as wounds but as the effusion of blood - like blood getting out through
skin. This book admits that Pio was ordering carbolic acid but says
without proof that he needed it to sterilise needles.


The book says that Rossi found no lesions but yet Pio
told him that his hands were very sore. Why would they be sore when
there were no wounds but only scabs?




This book says that in order the doctors who examined
the alleged wounds were
Doctor Romanelli in 1919. Asserted there was a
side wound "lacerated" and "linear". Stated that
he thought the wounds in the hands went right through.

Professor Bignami in 1919. Asserted there was no side
wound. Denied there were any deep fissures.

Doctor Festa in 1919. He contradicted Romanelli
who said the wounds in the hands went right through. Asserted there
was no side wound. Denied there were nay deep fissures.

Doctor Festa conducted a second examination in 1920.

Doctor Festa conducted a third examination in 1925.

Festa regarded the marks
as supernatural. He reached this opinion merely from the fact that they were perfumed. He obviously just took Pio's word for it that no
cologne had been applied!

Its uncertain that
Pio ever really had wounds.



Nobody ever said he could press on each
side of the hand "wound" and get his fingers to touch one another through the
alleged wound. Doctor Romanelli said he had the
impression that the hand wounds were through the hands but he admitted it was
only an impression. He tried but assumed that
his fingers would meet if he tried harder. But he was afraid to for it
gave Pio great
pain (page 14, The Stigmata and Modern Science). The priest was crying and struggling and
wincing with the alleged pain enough as it was so would the examination have been done right? Romanelli is the weak leg that the pro-Pio devotees have to stand on.

How convenient that Pio was not put under
anaesthesia for examination of the wounds.
That shows that neither Pio or those who organised the tests were very
particular though they did a bit to look particular. Pio was not
seriously interested in having the wounds cured for as far as he was concerned
he knew how to handle them. Pio wanted
the appearance of being verified as a true stigmatist. And Pio was able to undergo two operations
without anaesthetic which is a phenomenon known as auto-anaesthesia (page 89,
The Bleeding Mind)– many people with trained minds are - which makes his
behaviour very suspicious. It looks as
if he wanted to use the pain as an excuse for getting the tests rushed and to
prevent anything suspicious being found.
It paid off.

Pio’s Provincial said he would testify on
oath that he could see through Pio’s hand wounds (page 68, The Bleeding Mind). But no doctor ever could so that is
worthless. A piece of a mirror in the
middle of the encrusted blood could be used to give the impression that the
hand could be seen through just like a magician could do it.


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 which some thought Pio was using on the wounds.
Superficial wounds would explain why
there was not a mark on Pio when he died.
When there is conflict of testimony the testimony that is closest to a
rational or simplest interpretation has to be preferred. And in this case we have disposed of
Romanelli’s reliability – remember when we refute his testimony that is all we
need to do for he was the only one that was nearly any good - so we can be
confident that Pio’s wounds were superficial and that naturally he exaggerated
the pain from them to avoid detection and so he was consciously deceiving.


It is absurd to think that the wounds would
change so much as from superficial to complete perforations if they were
miraculous. They might change if they
were natural.


Pio was certainly dodgy and has recently
been exposed for surreptitiously sending for chemicals amid great secrecy
as if he needed them to make his wounds. Pio himself claimed that he
only insisted on secrecy so that those delivering the chemicals to him would not
know they were carrying such dangerous materials! What kind of excuse was
that?

If Pio's stigmata was
dubious, how can we be confident in the other miracles ascribed to him?

Pio was famous for the miracle of perfume
which surrounded him. One thing is for sure when a person has a nice smell that
is supposedly a miracle you can be sure that it is not. No sensible God would do such a mundane and
easily duplicated miracle.


Pio drew attention for his alleged (and
unsubstantiated for he was alone when they happened) nocturnal battles with
demons who used to hit him. Demons would
not have drawn attention to him unless they had some secret pact with him for
if God was with him they could not hope to win.
They would have been promoting him.

Padre Pio had so many people against him, especially those inside the Catholic Church who opposed him. It is lies about the acid as he would not have been able to order it in a monastry back then, in fact nobody hardly promoted him, inside the Church they were against him mainly out of jealousy, the healings were real miracles, no means fake, and there were even Dr's that supported Padre Pio as miracles, and even Dr's knew a man could not have had enough acid hidden in a little room to keep a stigmata going for 30 years, when he died it was gone within minutes.Explain that. just because one doesn't believe in God doesn't mean there are things that happen in the world we don't understand, or that we shouldn't be open minded about. Padre Pio suffered immensely due to his physical pain of the stigmata, and due to the villlification he received. He had many times said he wanted no-one to experience the pain he had suffered.

[horsecrazygal4110]

(06-06-2015 01:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  It's a shame that his god was so busy making the father bleed that the god couldn't be bothered to help the poor, the hungry, the diseased.

I guess glory to god is more important than alleviating the suffering of the humans he created -- suffering that he himself created.

Weird blaming a god for human misery, why are people starving? because some people have too much, some have too little, capitalism? communism? to me it is all man made greediness, can't see any god creating all this greed and cruelty, humans are pretty rotton really, we destroy the environment, kill animals, kill each other, our doing, not no gods' doing

[Old Man Marsh]

(08-03-2016 05:40 AM)horsecrazygal4110 Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 01:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  It's a shame that his god was so busy making the father bleed that the god couldn't be bothered to help the poor, the hungry, the diseased.

I guess glory to god is more important than alleviating the suffering of the humans he created -- suffering that he himself created.

Weird blaming a god for human misery, why are people starving? because some people have too much, some have too little, capitalism? communism? to me it is all man made greediness, can't see any god creating all this greed and cruelty, humans are pretty rotton really, we destroy the environment, kill animals, kill each other, our doing, not no gods' doing

We have a live one.

[TheInquisition]

(08-03-2016 05:40 AM)horsecrazygal4110 Wrote:  

(06-06-2015 01:40 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  It's a shame that his god was so busy making the father bleed that the god couldn't be bothered to help the poor, the hungry, the diseased.

I guess glory to god is more important than alleviating the suffering of the humans he created -- suffering that he himself created.

Weird blaming a god for human misery, why are people starving? because some people have too much, some have too little, capitalism? communism? to me it is all man made greediness, can't see any god creating all this greed and cruelty, humans are pretty rotton really, we destroy the environment, kill animals, kill each other, our doing, not no gods' doing

You're casting off all bad things to humans while preserving your unfounded belief in god's goodness.

A god that allows suffering is:

1. Non-existant
2. Powerless
3. Apathetic towards suffering
4. Unaware of suffering

[unfogged]

(08-03-2016 05:21 AM)horsecrazygal4110 Wrote:  actually Padre Pio was not a fake, the wounds on his hands were there for 30 years roughly, they would bleed, he lived in a small room, where would he have kept and stored all that acid for that length of time? People were healed in miraculous ways, a young girl blind, touched by Padre Pio was able to see at that moment, sorry that is a miracle, not fake.

No, that is a claim. To believe anything happened we'd need evidence from qualified medical practitioners before and after the event and even then we wouldn't have evidence that it was a miracle, only an unexplained occurrence.

Quote:When he had Mass one time, the crucifix started to bleed real blood, more than the little carving could hold.

This was documented by unbiased investigators? The liquid was tested to determine that it was actual blood? Stage magicians can easily duplicate that sort of visual and anecdotal reports tend to get exaggerated.

Quote:There are things in the world that happen whether one wants to be a non-believing person or not, we have to remain open minded and not just think things are fake because we do not understand or wish to not understand.

Being open-minded and being openly gullible are two very different things. The time to believe something is when there is actual evidence for it. The time to believe in a specific cause is when a causal relationship can be shown. Accepting vague, anecdotal claims and jumping to "miracle" is not being open minded.

Quote:This man healed too many people in ways that were out right miracles and had no other explanation, that is FACT.

No, it is a claim. There is no good evidence to believe the stories are accurate and, even if there is a well documented case that has no known explanation it leaves us with an unknown. Slapping a "miracle" label on an unknown doesn't accomplish anything productive.

Quote:When he died, his stigmata disappeared within a few minutes, that is not fake.

What evidence backs up that assertion? Was it filmed? Was he examined by qualified medical experts before and after death? Miracles are never as likely as unknown physical cause or deliberate fake or incorrect reporting of events.

Quote: So what explanation is there for it, supernatural? an amazing healer? God, Jesus, higher power? what is the answer? What scientific reasons explain this?

Not having an explanation is insufficient grounds to assume a supernatural cause. Perhaps he was an accomplished fake. Perhaps he had an uncommon medical condition. Perhaps many of the stories are exaggerations or outright fabrications. The best case that can be made is that there are some unanswered questions.

You appear to be an extremely gullible person with incredibly low standards of evidence and a low threshold for ambiguity.

[TheInquisition]

This stuff is so stupid, it's a stunt that's old hat for pro wrestlers:





There's an evangelical con artist by the name of Lucy Rael that has stigmata on her hands (wrong place) at her crusades. She probably uses something like blood capsules to put on her show.

Why should anyone believe this crap when there are laughable examples of this carnival trick every day?

[morondog]

(08-03-2016 07:01 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Why should anyone believe this crap when there are laughable examples of this carnival trick every day?

Wishful thinking.

[Szuchow]

(08-03-2016 07:01 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Why should anyone believe this crap when there are laughable examples of this carnival trick every day?

What else you can expect from people believing in existence of talking snakes or some Jewish dude resurrecting the dead?