"Padre Pio called me to him in complete secrecy and telling me not to tell his fellow brothers, he gave me personally an empty bottle, and asked if I would act as a chauffeur to transport it back from Foggia to San Giovanni Rotondo with four grams of pure carbolic acid. He explained that the acid was for disinfecting syringes for injections. He also asked for other things, such as Valda pastilles."
Source: Telegraph
There is no way to verify the claims and even if it's true that Padre Pio was being supplied with carbolic acid, there's no way to prove that he used it to fake his stigmata. Maria De Vito and Sergio Luzzatto are being harshly attacked, though — perhaps because there is also no way to refute the claims.
The new allegations were greeted with an instant dismissal from his supporters. The Catholic Anti-Defamation League said Mr Luzzatto was a liar and was "spreading anti-Catholic libels".
Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.
"We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."
So, it's not possible that Padre Pio was a fraud simply because, in being canonized, the veracity of his claims has been guaranteed by the pope's infallibility? Well, there's an argument that's impossible to refute — but only because it's such utter nonsense. You can't establish the truth of a proposition, or even just make it more likely to be true, by insisting that it is vouchsafed by an allegedly "infallible" authority. It's little more than an admission that one has no serious and rational arguments to offer.
Luzzatto is getting all his information from the Vatican archives and apparently everyone was well aware of the allegations of fraud:
The allegations are not new: two successive popes regarded Padre Pio as a fraud. By 1920, when Pio was 33 and was already exhibiting his scars before masses of pilgrims, the church was worried that his cult was spinning out of control. Reports commissioned by the church claimed Pio regularly scourged himself with a metal-tipped whip, and had sex with women twice a week. For many years Pio was banned from celebrating mass in public.
Of particular concern to the church were the ugly, weeping wounds which Pio concealed under those fingerless gloves. The friar claimed that he had received the stigmata of Christ – wounds to his hands, feet and side like those suffered by Christ during his crucifixion – at the culmination of a mystical seizure.
A doctor sent by the Vatican to examine them concluded that the wounds were probably caused and maintained artificially. To test the hypothesis he bound the wounds and sealed the bandage to prevent it being tampered with. But on examination a month later the doctor was nonplussed to find that the wounds had failed to heal.
Source: The Independent
Padre Pio wouldn't be the first member of the Catholic Church — or the first friar — who was at first rejected by the establishment but later embraced after developing a tremendous popularity that threatened established lines of authority. The question is, what role did Pio's popularity play in the Vatican's decision to embrace and later canonize him? If they hadn't, the cult surrounding him might have created problems for Vatican leaders themselves. It's arguably better to incorporate such a person and his followers into the established system than to allow them room to develop outside their control.
There has never in the histoy of this planet ever been a so-called miracle, let alone a stigmata of the kind Pio had. I was born not to far from the region of Pio’s parish and allways stated the man was a fraud from day one. I believe there were quite a few people from this parish who knew the truth that he was a fraud but were afraid to speak up in case the church castigated them.
Interestingly, “stigmata” used to appear on the palms of the hands, until it was discovered that nails would break through because hands could not support the weight of the body, but that the nails would have been driven through the wrists, which is where “stigmata” now shows up for those “in the know.” Coincidence? I think not.
Leave it alone!
Too bad the author of this 2007 book didn’t do more research.
In his 2005 book Padre Pio and America, author Frank Rega reveals what carbolic acid was used for in St. Pio’s friary:
“The boys in the Seraphic College could not understand why their instructor seemed to be hiding
his hands under his garments during the classes that he was teaching. The Father Guardian, Padre Paolino, noticed that Pio appeared to be covering up red spots on his hands with the sleeves of his habit. However, he was not too concerned since he and Padre Pio had recently received burns on their hands from carbolic acid. The boys had needed
injections to fight the Spanish Flu which was raging at that time. Due to a shortage of doctors, Padres Paolino and Pio administered the shots, using carbolic acid as a sterilizing agent.”
God Isnt: Whose stigmatas have conveniently shown up on the wrists? What are you talking about??? At a time it was beleived the nails of a crucified victim would be driven through the wrists because of weight support issues. That idea has now been reversed, as archeolgists and historians agree that the wrists were tied to the wood in order to support the person’s weight. To that end, the consensus is that the nails WERE driven through the hands of the crucifed. And yes, the author did not research the topic well as per Frank Rega’s book. I’m not supporting one side or the other–but it seems that atheists can be just as zealous–even moreso–than religious fundamentalists. If you’re going to write about topics like this and expect to be taken seriously and objectively, at least do the research first…
The main problem is that first and foremost the comment that “more people pray to Padre Pio then to Jesus and Mary is just a kind of an idiotic statement. Who personally went to San Giovanni Rotondo and asked the people there who they pray to more? How many people did they ask and what questions were posed to them. Please supply the research and where I can look up this research. Secondly the “research” done by Luzzatto is awful at best and at worst just plain crap. Dr. Luigi Romanelli physician in chief at the hospital of Barleta examined Padre Pio in 1919 several times and noted there was no “necrosis” no swelling and no infection. He examined Padre Pio numerous times over an extended period. Even if Padre Pio was causing his own stigmata there certainly would have been infection and swelling. Dr.Amico Bignami Professor of pathology at the university of Rome examined him and found the same. He examined Padre Pio over the period of a week and Dr. Bignami was an atheist. His notes are still around to be examined. Padre Pio was examined time and time again by reputable physicians and all of them concluded the same thing that the stigmata was no created by Padre Pio and conclude that it was unexplainable.
Funny but I have searched high and low and it doesn’t appear if Mr. Sergio Luzzatto has a book on this subject then it certainly isn’t very popular because I will be darned if I can’t find it. I have looked amazon and everywhere and the only thing I can find is a book by this author is a book about Mussolini.
“Padre Pio Sotto Inchiesta: l”Autobiografia Segreta’” (“Padre Pio Under Investigation: The ‘Secret Autobiography’”). The volume is prefaced by Vittorio Messori and edited by Father Franceso Castelli, historian for the beatification cause of Pope John Paul II and professor of modern and contemporary history of the Church at the Romano Guardini Institute for Religious Sciences in Taranto, Italy.
I don’t quite understand what papal infallibility has to do with this, as it does not pertain to the canonization of saints.
And your indication that the Church reluctantly embraced him because they didn’t want to cause problems is entirely false. If that WAS true, then they would have accepted the apparitions at Medjugorje as “worthy of belief” a long time ago.
The Church is not a democracy, and they don’t do things to “satisfy” the people. Canonization of saints and any supernatural activities go through rigorous investigations that sometimes last over a hundreds years.
Not according to Pietro Siffi.
Then perhaps you can offer an alternative explanation of the evidence.
Then can I assume that you object to how much faster the process has been recently?
I would like to point out that the president of the Catholic anti-defamation league brought up papal infallibility because Luzzatto is a theologian, not in order to “prove” that the claims are false. Asserting that the latter is the case is a distortion of the president’s intent and is nothing more than a straw man construct.
As a Catholic theologian, Luzzatto has a moral duty and knows he has a moral duty to respect the doctrines and teaching authority of the Church. By writing such a book, he is undermining what he has a duty to support. Thus he should either acquiesce to papal authority or cease calling himself a Catholic.
There’s something I don’t get. And it’s this: why atheists like you care whether believers like me make up nice little fantasies for themselves to stay high on? Cause if we’re all just a bunch of atoms, why does it matter if I live in lala land, if it makes me happy? And what else is there to live for but happiness, if there’s no God? What value does truth have if, in the end, it makes no difference whether we knew it or not? I might as well live in my happy bubble of fabricated religion, even if it is all bologna, and you would be doing me a disservice by deliberately spitting all over my wonderful, if illusory, picture. Why do you care if thousands of people believe that a fake is an awesome, wonder-working, miraculous man of God, if it makes them happy and isn’t doing you any harm? What harm could it possibly do you? Maybe it annoys you. But is that a good enough reason to disillusion the happily intoxicated masses? It doesn’t matter, anyway. We’re all just particles. It just makes them happy. Why do you care?
Rhonwen:
One of the problems with just letting the opiated masses keep their little fantasies is that these fantasies are used by unscrupulous people to manipulate them and the societies in which they live. It just so happens that non-believers live in those societies, too! Groups of people who believe in ancient books have this annoying tendency to want to force the rules, practices, and traditions of those books on society as a whole. In short, I feel compelled to resist religious thinking because I find that it is being forced upon me! Call it self-defense.
Also, I find that people who think that the world around us functions on magical, non-rational principles can be a “burden on society” because that kind of thinking leads to poor decisions that affect not just those people. For example, the major investment of public funds into research of disproved and highly unlikely “alternative” medical practices.
If religious people kept that religion to themselves, then I would be far less likely to give a damn.
There’s something I don’t get.– Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Fortunately for you, I am a giver.
And it’s this: why atheists like you care whether believers like me make up nice little fantasies for themselves to stay high on? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Could it be that you overestimate how much atheists like me care about the fantasies of believers like you?
Cause if we’re all just a bunch of atoms… — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Who told you that we’re all “just” a bunch of atoms? You need to trot down to the local library and read about emergent properties.
…why does it matter if I live in lala land… — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
It doesn’t matter to me, as long as you and your fantasies are content to reside in the land of lala.
…if it makes me happy? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I do not understand why your happiness ought to be the gold standard for judging the value of anything. Maybe you’ll explain.
And what else is there to live for but happiness, if there’s no God? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
All the same things that there are to live for if there was a god, except for the god-related parts.
What value does truth have if, in the end, it makes no difference whether we knew it or not? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Statements such as this makes me wonder who in the hell you have been talking to. Whoever told you that it doesn’t make any difference whether we know the truth?
I might as well live in my happy bubble of fabricated religion, even if it is all bologna, and you would be doing me a disservice by deliberately spitting all over my wonderful, if illusory, picture. — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
A drunken man may be happier than a sober one, but that doesn’t mean I want to share the highway with him.
Why do you care if thousands of people believe that a fake is an awesome, wonder-working, miraculous man of God, if it makes them happy and isn’t doing you any harm? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I don’t care, as long as they really do me no harm. In the long run, people whose beliefs are divorced from reality always seem to get around to doing some harm, though.
http://originalblessing.ning.com/profiles/blogs/christian-atrocities-committed
http://www.likeanorb.com/wtc/
http://www.christian-faith.com/forjesus/hindu-atrocities-against-christians-in-india
What harm could it possibly do you? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_not_Great
Maybe it annoys you. But is that a good enough reason to disillusion the happily intoxicated masses? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
It’s good enough for me. Being annoyed gets in the way of my happiness, which you yourself have identified as the ulimate aim of human existence.
It doesn’t matter, anyway. — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
What doesn’t matter?
We’re all just particles. — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Maybe you ought to culivate greater appreciation for particles.
And do read up on emergent properties.
It just makes them happy. — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
You think so? Please consult the Gospel of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35.
Why do you care? — Rhonwen on March 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I care a moderate amount. It makes me happy.
Zack.
Or is it Thor? You are stealing Austin’s thunder. AND beating me to the punch.
Rhonwen, why do atheists care about the beliefs of others ? So you are observing that atheists are caring people. OK good.
Have a look at what some people do to their own children in the name of their religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMIK4u65s&feature=related
There are many other examples to find… I say that if you do not take a stand against childhood indoctrination, you are doing a bad thing by omission, like not reporting someone who is mistreating an animal.
Rhonwen.
Atheists are individuals with their own individual attitudes. Personally I don’t care at all what you believe. What I care about is how your beliefs affect me, and more importantly how they affect those unable to defend themselves from the vicissitudes of indoctrination. The children and the poorly educated.
I also care that so often religious organisations, who you point to as philanthropists , are also the biggest tax evaders,are amongst the richest organisations producing nothing for the country.
I also care that, in the name of religion, your country has murdered millions in Iraq. tortured thousands worldwide, stolen land from Muslims in the, now named, Israel and in Diego Garcia. George Bush said it. God told him to do so. I also care that in the name of religion there has been imposition on non believers of religiously motivated laws such as restrictions on access to family planning, and birth control measures, not only in your own country but in foreign climes.
I care that your country with only 5% of the world’s population has 25% of the world’s prison incarceration. Most of those inmates being Christian. Many in there only because someone is making a buck from the misery of their fellow Christians.
I care more than anything that with power it is possible for the religious organisations to impose their myths on those least able to defend themselves.
Oh yes I care. Not about your beliefs but what people do to others motivated by their individual beliefs. Yes there are some to whom an accusatory finger cannot be pointed.
My Quaker wife for one and my Church of the Nazarene Pastor/Friend for another. Both Pacifists, both caring. You exalt yourself when you think atheists care about what you believe. It’s what you do that worries the bejezas out of us.
@ Rhonwen
WE DON’T CARE!! – What we don’t want is the fairy tale people constantly trying to proselytize their fantasy, or even worse attempting to erode our personal freedoms by infusing it into our government! Why do you think atheists are concerned with voicing themselves? Theists are militant and extremely bigoted! I’ve had a number of customers over the years who were extremely satisfied with my company’s services until they perceived I didn’t support their bible thumping beliefs. Just as you would put up a tremendous fight if we continued to attempt to tell you America is an atheist country and you must conform! Wake up!
You are stealing Austin’s thunder. — Tom Edgar on March 13, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Not only does Austin think faster than I can think, he types faster than I can think.
Ah Zack
You Donner,Austin Blitzen
I’m a skeptic myself, but you didn’t even make it through two sentences before you posted a glaring inaccuracy: “This is causing a bit of a sensation in Catholic circles because the stigmata are the basis for Pio’s canonization as a saint and his widespread popularity, especially in Italy.”
The Catholic procedure for canonization requires two allegedly verified miracles. In the case of Pio, the evidence consisted of two allegedly miraculous healings. Not only was his stigmata not officially cited as relevant to his canonization, it wasn’t even officially verified; i.e., the Vatican hasn’t authenticated his stigmata.
I’d welcome conclusive evidence proving that the guy was a fraud; but if you’re going to be a credible skeptic yourself, don’t offer such shoddy research as the evidence in support of your argument. Whether you’re promoting atheism or piety, starting with a conclusion and then adjusting the evidence to support it constitutes a pathetic, illegitimate excuse for a persuasive argument. Do your homework, or don’t waste our time.
And atheists don’t prosyletize their “faith” and brainwash their children – you’re joking. Atheists are as activist in pushing their view as any religion. In fact it was the state religion (and still is) of Communist totalitarain regimes.
Prove it.
No, atheism was one facet of communist ideology. You need to spend a little time reviewing history.
I am thrilled to have found this website! I am agnostic mostly although my consciousness is deeply ingrained in the Catholic faith. However I find atheists fascinating people…but I would like to know…How old are most of the atheists here? Are you youngish people? Mainly youngish? I ask because as you grow older and quoting Tennessee Williams briefly: “sometimes there is God so quickly”…I don’t mean it the way he meant it. Not the nice way…I mean at times you need God so fast…Where do you turn to? Who would you turn to? If you answer “myself” I am leaving and never reading this blog again. It seems interesting but I don’t want a lot of childishness at this point in my life. I hope you have a better answer than that. It is a question that has plagued me my whole life. I would like an intelligent answer. And no; turning to one’s self for strength in certain situations in life; God forbid anyone ever has to face them is not a viable answer. If you have one I want to hear it. And please stop the nonsense about the infallibility and the stigmata. The church has spoken in Ex Cathedra only a handful of times (the only and unique time infallibility comes into play). The pope is not an oracle and the new pope said it best a year ago: “Popes speak in Ex Cathedra rarely if ever”. The making of a saint is far from anything remotely Ex Cathedra!! Come on! Read some before you speaketh!! Saints are nothing more than examples in the Catholic faith. They are NEVER prayed to directly! NEVER! And at best are emissaries or mailmen to God! Nothing else. And the stigmata is not something the church has now or ever dealt with lightly. In fact they would rather not deal with it at all. Thanks.
How old are you?
So, you don’t mean to be nice to other human beings?
I, personally, don’t experience any need for any gods. Why do you?
Other human beings.
Why, do you find it incomprehensible that people might turn to and rely upon other human beings — friends, family, neighbors?
And what kind of threat is it to “leave and never read this blog again”?
And do you think you are behaving in a mature manner by saying: “if you give that answer I’m leaving and never coming back!”? Honestly, I can’t read those words without envisioning a toddler with a pout and stamping their feet.
If you have a good reason for why that’s not a viable answer, I’d love to hear it.
For someone whose “consciousness is deeply ingrained in the Catholic faith,” you seem a bit ignorant of the Catholic faith.
Prayer to saints is an ancient Christian practice.
You say: How old are you?
I am old enough and older than your picture seems to portray u. Is that photoshopped?
You say: So, you don’t mean to be nice to other human beings?
Now, now…are we already not too defensive here? How did you in your wisdom above your apparent years extract that from my statement? I was referring to the way the line is used in the play…have you read it?
It is used in a grateful manner as in thanking God…I was using it in a way as to imply that at times life throws you curves where God seems to be a necessity. Get it? Maybe I did not make myself sufficiently clear.
And listen; quoting Tennessee Williams is not a sign of ageing if that is what you implied…He is still taught today in literature classes all over the world. Are you aware?
Now I will be as petulant as you and here I have to ask: have you gone to school for real? Or you just google your insipid answers?
You say: I, personally, don’t experience any need for any gods. Why do you?
Well, this is what I wanted to know except that I wanted a little more detail. Not to contradict you just to gain knowledge. Thou are too defensive I tell thee…
Why do I? Well I will be as curtly as you and just as creative: I just do!
How is that to match your explanation? Not very intelligent of me to answer like this and certainly not very intelligent of you…But if you lower the bar…for someone with such faith in mankind you seem recalcitrant to share your lovely theories and or believes…Think of all the good you could do by being more eloquent about your own personal feelings about God or the lack of, instead of maligning religion in general.
Let alone the fact that u are ignoramus about so much of that religion u so attack!
You say: Other human beings.
Well this is better! We could have gotten somewhere here. But as the substance to my question it lacks generosity.
Human beings are people we turn to all the time from friends and family to strangers that in time can be surprisingly kind. OK! That was good…
At least I did not get the dreaded “myself”…Other people will do…for now…for you…I hope it stays that way always.
You say: Why, do you find it incomprehensible that people might turn to and rely upon other human beings — friends, family, neighbors?
I do not! As stated in my preceding answer. I just wrote to the effect that I did not want to hear you say “myself” as the reliance force in times of hardship.
There is a place for cliches but I wanted to avoid this one. How did you surmise that it meant “other people”? I said do not tell me “Myself”… and you take it to mean “other people? I was asking your personal believes dear. Not in general.
You say: And what kind of threat is it to “leave and never read this blog again”?
Dude, I meant that as a joke, please.
If anything it could have implied that I took u seriously and thus that answer would bring the integrity of the blog down a huge notch…I realize the nuances of electronic writings are few and hard to pinpoint but really….It was a manner of speech meant to be somewhat jocose…sorry, I will try to explain myself better as obviously my limited writing abilities are not your cup of tea (that being said as another “manner of speech” and not really meaning my writing is an actual cup of tea to you)…
I wrote: And no; turning to one’s self for strength in certain situations in life; God forbid anyone ever has to face them is not a viable answer.
You say: If you have a good reason for why that’s not a viable answer, I’d love to hear it.
Well, I do not really want to waste any more time. I hope you never are in a position to find out why that answer is not a viable one.
Why?
Because of this:
Your last answer to my remarks of : “Saints are nothing more than examples in the Catholic faith. They are NEVER prayed to directly! NEVER!”
…the way you answered me: “The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century.”
It told me too much and disenchanted me. You are ignorant and not worth having an intelligent discussion with.
You single handedly will destroy the atheistic movement! LOL!
You are telling me exactly what I told you and yet you place this answer there triumphantly as if you had me trumped with such a clever quip…Asking for intersession is not asking the advocate to do our bidding. OK? We agree on that I hope. Advocate and dispenser are very different. The purveyor of fate is never the advocate…
And so you see dear boy…your article “Padre Pio Faked Stigmata with Carbolic Acid? No, Because Pope is Infallible” is a bunch of crap meant to impress the uneducated and the one eyed thinker.
You spoke of infallibility as if YOU ACTUALLY KNEW what it meant…and you do not…and yet you are recalcitrant in explaining why you have no need for a “GOD or power higher than yourself…funny you have no need to regale us with words when asked a simple question and yet go on and on about a religion you obviously know little about.
AND MIND you: I am not a practising Catholic and find holy mother church to be complex, intransigent and down right tyrannical…Let alone too shrouded in mysteries.
So honey, imagine how many people that are truly religious and as narrow minded as yourself will really take you seriously…NO ONE! You are a little boy that life has not broken in yet…it will….give it time…then remember my email address and tell me all about your not needing GOD. AND no! I do not wish for life to break you! Please! But it is common knowledge that in this fair game (life) we all get a chance at breakage at one time or another…and at times we get to dance too. Hope you get to dance a lot. Best to you but read more before you try to represent a movement that is weak and needs supporters at any cost. You do it a disservice.
But not old enough to refrain from using abbreviations like “u”.
No.
No, just asking a question.
You said you don’t mean the statement “the way he meant it. Not the nice way.” So, if you don’t mean it the “nice way,” what does that leave?
No. What is “God” necessary for?
So when you threatened to leave and never come back, that wasn’t being petulant?
Yes, for quite a few years in multiple countries. And what schools did you attend?
Oh, harsh. Care to point out what was “insipid” in anything I wrote? Shouldn’t be too hard.
You didn’t ask for any detail.
Feel free to show where and how.
That doesn’t actually answer a “why” question. As a point of contrast, you didn’t ask me what I don’t need any gods, so you have no basis for complaining that I didn’t go into greater detail.
It’s not “intelligent” of me to not give you information you haven’t asked for?
Maligning religion in general? Please, do elaborate.
That’s a pretty serious accusation. I expect you to be able to support it.
It was as generous as your hostile tone and attitude deserved.
Please what? If you expect that others can read your mind, you’re sorely mistaken.
If supporting and explaining your assertions is something you consider a “waste of time,” then you are definitely in the wrong place. Around here, people actually expect others to do this. It’s considered very basic in terms of intellectual honesty and common courtesy.
So, quoting Catholic sources on Catholic beliefs is “ignorant”? How curious. And I suppose that in contrast, the word of an anonymous blog commenter should be taken at face value?
You said that Catholics never pray to saints; I corrected you by pointing out that they do. Those are not the same thing.
Of course not, but asking for intercession is still praying to them.
I do. It seems to have escaped your keen powers of observation that I am quoting someone else — a Catholic — making an assertion about papal infallibility, then ask if that should be accepted as true and point out how ridiculous it would be if, in fact, this were the church’s position.
Well, let’s review what constitutes doing atheism (which is not a movement, by the way) a disservice: I have decent powers of reading comprehension which allow me to distinguish quotes from original text, I can spell full words rather than use texting abbreviations, I base my positions on original sources rather than bluster or personal attacks, and I value supporting my claims. None of these seem to characterize you, at least insofar as your writing is an accurate reflection of your character. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Got me! U win!!! It’s your blog but its mediocre. Sorry!
I had no intentions in challenging your believes only wanted knowledge of them.
You thought me hostile in the manner I started to ask for your opinions and enlightenment?
Wow! You are a petite fleur easily bruised!
Babe, I was just hoping for some intelligent repartee…And yes, maybe you are quoting “catholic sources”…I do not doubt that…but not all sources are created equal.
And quoting blindly and not going to the right well for information is typical of the marginally interested party.
You just want to quote what suits your statement at the moment you are writing. The source is of little value to you. I remember on a trip to Peru I saw people touching a tree they felt was miraculous.
And aghast to see a priest next to it watch the whole procedure…I asked him why do u allow this and he said: What are we going to do when they can barely speak Castilian?…So please the quoting Catholic sources is not an excuse for ignorance!
The catholic church caters to all kinds of people with different levels of education. There are the basic easy to understand sources and then there are the theological centers for more advance research.
With your supposed pedigree I would
think you would go to the top of the knowledge fountain.
Go to the Catechism and actually read! Madelyn Murray O’Hair u are not!
At least this woman was well informed. And congenial and funny.
Dearest susceptible one; do not take yourself so seriously because I think by the way you write no one else does either. No need to answer me. Around your blog you are king. A small fish in a tiny pond!
PS: My schooling? Limited, really. By my standards anyhow…. Could I match your bragging? I wouldn’t anyway. And if in fact “you” (notice I have used the whole word as to not offend your fine sense for details) have had the education you say you have…then I really could not match it…But I am still attending the University of Life. And that one is brutal! Keep me in mind when you grow pubic hair and tell me about how things are hanging then.
Yet, you’re unable to offer any positive suggestions or contributions.
Yet you didn’t actually ask about any “believes.” Or beliefs. You asked one narrow question and then got huffy when it wasn’t answered in quite the manner you expected.
It wasn’t a thought, it was an observation.
Noting your hostility doesn’t mean that I was “bruised” by it. I can, for example, note when a person is being insulting without actually feeling insulted — like when a person’s opinion just isn’t important or informed enough to care about. Just because a person lacks the manners or ethics to behave in a mature, decent manner doesn’t mean that others forced to watch that behavior are personally harmed by it.
Ultimately, it is only the one who behaves that way who is really harmed.
A person tends to get out of a conversation what they put into it. You started with negative, personal, catty comments and shouldn’t be surprised if you aren’t taken very seriously as a consequence.
True. I notice that you don’t quote any superior sources. All you “quote” is yourself.
Do you regard yourself as an authoritative source on Catholic doctrine?
In fact the only sources I can find that deny that Catholics pray to saints are Protestant sources which are hostile towards Catholicism.
If you had a serious, substantive argument here then you’d quote a more authoritative source that Catholics don’t pray to saints. If you have a position that deserved to be taken seriously, you’d be able to explain how and why the source I quoted actually gets Catholic doctrine wrong.
You don’t do that — you don’t even try. All you can manage are weak personal attacks, so I think it’s safe to conclude that you have no such argument. You were caught making an obviously false assertion and now are just trying to attack me personally rather than be mature by addressing the issue. Speaking of which, I notice your failure to address the fact that it was someone else being quoted linking sainthood with infallibility. Is it really so hard to admit to error and misreading?
There you go, trying to personalize things again. I notice that that is what you tend to do: get personal rather than deal with actual issues, ideas, or arguments. It’s really not relevant how “seriously” I do or do not take myself, just as all the things you try to say about me personally are also not relevant. What’s relevant are the claims you have made and your complete, utter failure to support any of them. You make not one argument. You cite not one source. You don’t even try, as if the entire concept of supporting a claim with arguments and evidence were completely foreign to you.
Apparently, what’s not to be taken seriously are your ideas. After all, you can’t take them very seriously, otherwise you’d invest a few moments to think about and support them. If you treat them with such disdain, I’m certainly not going to give them any greater consideration.
When was the last time you tried to support a serious position with an organized array of logical arguments and evidence? When was the last time you had to defend such a position against tough questions and pointed critique of your logical reasoning? There’s no need to tell me, but if the answer is “never” or “I don’t know,” you need to think about the implications of that.
I’m shocked. Really.
I’m concerned that your University of Life lacks basic courses on logic and reasoning. I’m sure that if you adopted a strongly proactive role in your own education, you’d be able to remedy that. All you need is to purchase a couple of basic logic texts; even used, older editions would be more than sufficient. You should seriously consider doing this.
Once again, it’s all about personalizing things — personal attacks rather than reasoned discourse, substantive thinking, or sound logic. Do you even know how to express an idea or articulate a position without launching into personal attacks against others? Do you have the slightest idea how to construct a logical argument in defense of a proposition, or is the sum total of your repertoire the use of puerile personal attacks and snide comments — all made in the hopes of intimidation, or at least distracting others from the substantive issues?
Well, it won’t work here. You don’t intimidate and your attacks really don’t matter enough to actually be insulting — I can’t feel insulted by anything said by a person who can’t behave in a respectable manner because a person has to be worthy of respect before their opinion can become insulting. I’m certainly not going to respond in kind with my own catty attacks, if that’s what you were hoping for. I’ll leave that to you, and allow that behavior to speak for your character.
You missed the point. I guess with all that verbiage…
It was ME asking YOU the question.
REMEMBER?
Maybe you needed the quotes as you were supposed to be answering me?
I had to preface my question with a quote to make it valid in your scholarly eyes!!????…
Funny…you pick and choose what to answer from each communique you receive…cushy position to place yourself in.
You address what is convenient or what you are capable of addressing…You do not address the full concept of the message. That is not personal? To pick apart the essence of one’s personal message to you and instead answer what you can? I think that is called taking items “OUT OF CONTENT”? Yes?
That is a personal attack on the integrity of the message entrusted to you.
Thank SOMEONE (GOD?) at least you have the cunning of showing the full document in its original form. Otherwise…You would not have a leg to stand on. But you know that. By showing the full message you give the appearance of impartiality wile in fact you later dissect it and address only what suits you best. Talk about a personal blow to the writer!
Sorry if you don’t like the reflection in the mirror. I got down to your level after that first angry answer real fast!
You seem very mad. Or at least not having a good day.
News flash for you: everything in life is personal. This silly tit for tat is personal. You are a person and so am I. We are personal! Much to your surprise probably… OOOPS, sorry!
There I go again….Should I quote Gray’s Anatomy of the Human Body as to what makes us a person?…Anyone reading these messages can see you only want your way and anything that strays from that is anathema.
Am I an authority on Catholic doctrine? Probably, to a degree.
Hate to say it as I do not want to sound like you but I have to. I can quote the Summa and I can quote St. Augustine if I have to and more relevantly I can quote lots of Santa Teresa…but why?
Because I asked you originally what makes YOU not need a God? Give me a break.
And hey, look up the definition of prayer! Is only communication except when u are talking to God. OK?
I am praying right now to you to stop being the pompous personage you want to create for yourself!
And I am not worshiping you nor adoring you…but I am praying…
My original question was a little question and not posted with malice at all as you have tried to twist and depict in your subsequent writings.
What do I have to quote for??
Are you that egocentric that you do not even realize you are making no sense at all. The burden of answering was on your side had you chosen to do so. Not on mine.
You seem to be quoting for all of us.
But since you like them so much…
Looky, look from the same source you quoted before and conveniently LEFT OUT:
“But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).”
Catholic Answers.
Get this? Saints are asked to pray for us. Saints are not directly entrusted with our needs. Saints are not prayed to in the sense prayer is applied to God. Not unless you are ignorant and or confused. Sadly the Catholic faith can be confusing…and complex as I stated before. But doctrine is doctrine. Just because my next door neighbor says I am going to pray to Saint whoever for you does not mean she is correct.
Nor does it mean she is asking that saint to actually “do” on his own whatever she is asking for…she is in fact asking the saint to ask God…
Are we clear on this point now? So all prayers usually end “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen!”
Is all about God not the saint.
But go on; ignore this too…
And you did get down and dirty…the school shot! You fell for it! I knew you would….easy…Gave you bate and the truth came out! So much for personal attacks!! The ones u do not indulge in because u are….above all that??
Sorry sir! You are not credible at all. Not even in your own domain!
You think words like “substantive thinking”, “logic” and “logical argument” can disguise your contempt and belligerent reaction to my one simple question from the beginning? It does not!
You think clicking on a web site; the first you come to as a manner of fact when you Google “saints and prayers” make you authoritative enough to discuss the Catholic religion?
I think not!
I think you know it does not!
AND if this is too personal for you or you think it is a personal attack on your persona; sorry! I am writing to you and I am addressing You! Not the man next to you…Who am I going to tell this to? I am answering YOU! So you see it is all about you! Personally for you! From me to you in a most personal way.
Have a lovely September!
Oh, and one more thing: our positions have not changed any. I asked a question and you did not answer it at all. When I wrote in good faith I was not thinking petulance on your part was an option.
Personal petulance towards me that I did not merit. And so personally I feel you did not answer because you do not know how. That’s my opinion and as you said it matters little but if others discover you for the charlatan that you are…
I bet it would matter then. Obviously this is your calling (I was going to say “life” but I tried to keep the personal touch out of it. But hell, I will say it: You really have none do you?) and the prospects lurking on the horizon must be grim…
So be careful… an unmasked preacher (and you are a preacher…hate the word) is worse than a fallen whore!
In any case I think we just do not see eye to eye and people can not communicate in a constructive way unless they are personally amicable with each other. But remember: I asked. You did not answer me… And your thousand and one words will never alter that fact. I was seeking knowledge. You gave none.
And I answered it.
However, I also challenged some of your statements and by posting them in the first place, you open yourself up to questions. You don’t get to say “I only want my questions answered, not to have to answer anyone else’s”.
I address what I find relevant. You add a lot of useless, pointless verbiage to say very little.
It’s not personal to go through a comment and address specific points, leaving out the most pointless passages. If you think something genuinely important has gotten left behind, you’re more than welcome to bring it up.
No, taking things “out of context” means eliminating a context which gives words one meaning in order to make it appear that a person’s words have a very different meaning. It’s very serious to accuse a person of dig this and if you’re going to, you had better be able to back it up.
That, too, is a pretty serious claim; a person with integrity would support it.
I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m guessing you’re learning some of the wrong lessons in your University. Or maybe it’s not quite the “University” you imagine it to be.
Then you should be able to demonstrate how and why. At least, a person with integrity would be able to.
OK… and this supports your false claim how? You seem to be missing the fact that the broad definition of “prayer” actually undermines your original assertion — if “prayer” can be any communication, then obviously an attempt to communicate with saints can occur as a prayer.
FYI, it’s not “pompous” when a person dares to challenge your claims and insist that you support them. Perhaps you just aren’t used to that, but it’s definitely not “pompous.”
Oh, no. People who preface questions with things like “How old are most of the atheists here? Are you youngish people?” are actually filled with generosity and kindness, not hostility or malice at all. People who insist on excluding one possible answer entirely and who feel the need to point out that they need an “intelligent” answer are only acting from positive feelings.
Citing authoritative sources would be considered by most as a reasonable and proper means for settling a dispute about something like the nature or contents of Catholic doctrine. If your position is correct, it should be reflected in authoritative sources — and it should be easy to find them stating your position. The fact that you have as of yet failed to find any such source is instructive.
Um, I did answer your one question. You even acknowledged that answer. What’s wrong with you that you now have to falsely claim the opposite?
I never claimed that saints are prayed to in the same sense that prayer is applied to God. I didn’t “conveniently” leave this out; I left it out because it wasn’t relevant to your claim. Your claim was only that saints weren’t prayed to. Ever. And you were wrong — absolutely, completely, and unambiguously. You also can’t cite any authoritative sources to support your position; instead you just claim authority for yourself without providing any reason to believe it and then quote the source I offered. Your statement was false and a person with integrity would admit it.
Now, if you had said that prayers to saints were very different from prayers to God, then your claim would have been correct — absolutely completely, and unambiguously. But you didn’t make that claim and now you appear to be trying to make it appear that you did. You can’t admit to error, so you’re trying to rewrite history to cover it up.
A mature, serious, and honest person would admit the original error and perhaps explain that they had something different in mind from what their words clearly expressed. You’ve had more than enough opportunity to take that route.
I answered your one simple question directly and honestly, without any contempt or belligerence.
No, but unlike you I don’t necessarily expect others to take my word for it. I know a great deal about Catholicism — the fact that Catholics do pray to saint as well as the fact that such prayers are very different form how Catholics pray to God. However, as I have already noted above, citing authoritative sources are a good means for resolving disputes.
I used that site because it was more comprehensive than most in its explanation. However, I can cite other sources as well. How about the New Catholic Encyclopedia:
Let us compare your statement with theirs.
Which source is most authoritative? Which source is most believable?
You make the choice to focus on personal attacks rather than substantive arguments, so you’re in no position to “apologize” for a choice you are in the midst of pursuing. The fact is, you cannot either support your position or critique anything I have said through any personal attacks or comments. Nothing about me personally can either validate or undermine the positions I have expressed; my ideas must stand or fall on their own.
This is ad hominem attacks and arguments like what you offer are informal logical fallacies.
Since you have already acknowledged that I answered the question, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to lie about it now.
FYI, challenging your catty behavior isn’t “petulance.” I can only assume that you are so unaccustomed to being challenged and questioned that you just don’t know how to handle it except through personal attacks like this.
FYI, just because a person corrects your mistakes and misconceptions doesn’t make them a “preacher.” Not everyone who knows more than you and explains things to you is preaching. Some are just answering questions, even those presented in a hostile manner.
That’s interesting. If you really believe this, then the fact that you planted such clear un-amicable seeds in your original post was arguably a deliberate attempt to sabotage any possibility of productive communication. Whether consciously or unconsciously, you made sure that substantive conversation could not occur by ensuring that no one could be personally amicable with you.
Congratulations.
To seek knowledge, a person must ask sincere questions with as few prejudices as possible. You were clearly prejudiced (“Are you youngish people?”) and by refusing to consider certain answers, I don’t think your question was very sincere. I am more inclined to suspect that you were seeking to have your prejudices confirmed in some way, not to learn, and now you object to that not proceeding according to your expectations.
Mr. Cline,
I believe you misunderstand the Roman Catholic Church. Your (mis)understanding of the Catholic faith and how the church works leads you to make accusations which don’t have any merit. Let me try and explain:
(your article) “This is causing a bit of a sensation in Catholic circles because the stigmata are the basis for Pio’s canonization as a saint and his widespread popularity, especially in Italy.”
– His stigmata is not the basis for Pio’s canonization – it can’t be by definition of the canonization process. The process of canonization involves investigating if the person led a holy life, and the investigation of two miracles which can be attributed to his intercessory prayer which must occur AFTER his death. St. Pio’s stigmata (if believed) is a reflection of God working in his life, however it cannot be a cause for his canonization because it occurred while he was alive. Basically, he could have been canonized & declared a Saint WITHOUT ever having suffered the wounds of stigmata. The stigmata is a blessing & a miracle, but it is not essential or the basis of of his canonization.
(next your article states):
Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: “We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.
…
(you answer)So, it’s not possible that Padre Pio was a fraud simply because, in being canonized, the veracity of his claims has been guaranteed by the pope’s infallibility?
– You misunderstand the doctrine of infallibility, canonization, and what Pietro was saying. First a person is canonized and approved, then they are declared a Saint. When the Pope declares someone a Saint, he is speaking on behalf of the Church, in his official office & position of authority as Pope. Therefore his declaration on behalf of the Church of someone’s Sainthood carries the weight of infallibility. If you are “Roman Catholic” then by definition you accept ALL of the Church’s doctrines, teachings, and guidance. If the Church in her wisdom has declared someone a Saint; then there’s no discussion about it – if you say that the person IS NOT a Saint, then you are excommunicating yourself and no longer Catholic by virtue of the fact that you are not believing ALL of the Faith. Pietro was reminding Luzzato that as a Catholic, he ceases to be Catholic when he contradicts Church teachings and declarations of Sainthood.
other points:
Catholics PRAY to people and Saints all the time. Prayer, in the Catholic sense, means to converse, or talk to… in intercessory prayer we ask people, or Saints to speak to God on our behalf. PRAYER is NOT WORSHIP. Worship is adoration in the sense that you would worship God. In your responses you have been equating “prayer” with “worship” and that has caused some miscommunication. The “catholic answers” quote is perfectly correct when it says that intercessory prayers are an ancient Christian practice. Catholic’s pray (converse) with/to different people, but we do not Worship anyone but God.
Also, canonization and declaration of Sainthood simply means that the Catholic Church knows with absolute truth that the person is in Heaven. Padre Pio being declared a Saint means that the Church knows he will be in Heaven, it doesn’t say anything more.
Mr. Cline, hopefully this explains some Catholic practices so you won’t be so quick to attack without merit next time. You have faith in Atheism; I have faith in God. If your belief in Atheism was anything more than faith, then you would be able to prove conclusively that there is no God. I cannot Prove there is God, you cannot Prove that there is no God; ultimately it comes down to a question of faith and what side you put your faith in.
I’ll pray for you, and you send good mojo thoughts my way.
-isaac
You might want to talk to the Italian press about that, then.
Actually, it’s Siffi who misunderstands it. My question points out the absurdity of Siffi’s position.
OK, so you misunderstand infallibility as much as Siffi. The pope is only “infallible” when speaking “ex cathedra,” and that requires actually saying that he’s doing so.
It is true that many theologians regard canonization as falling within infallibility, but this is not something that has been taught as a doctrine by the Magesterium. Maybe it will be someday, but right now it is not.
Yes, I know. If you look more closely, you’ll find that to Erika.
Yes, I know, if you look more closely you’ll find that I said this.
I have done no such thing. On the contrary, I have specifically linked to a site that explained the difference.
If you are going to lie about a person you should at least be sure that they haven’t stated the exact opposite recently enough to notice.
Thus far, you have failed to point out any errors of mine but you have made several of your own.
Ah, three more errors: First, atheism is not an ideology or philosophy which should be capitalized; second, atheism is not something that one can have faith in; third, I don’t have faith in atheism — you should learn to ask what people think before presuming to tell them what they think. Such presumptuousness only makes a person look foolish.
Depends on how “god” is defined.
One mighht as well say the same about Bigfoot.
If you think it reasonable to be so presumptuous as to pray for me, would you therefore not mind if I were similarly presumptuous and offered to think for you? I doubt it. If you don’t want others to imply that you need them to think for you, maybe you shouldn’t tell them that they need you to pray for them?
Mr. Cline,
I am responding to your post; not the Italian press. It appears that you are giving your opinion when you write, ‘stigmata are the basis for Pio’s canonization as a saint’. The article you reference does not say that, nor do you provide any reference to what Italian press you are quoting or paraphrasing. That’s why I felt the need to clarify the official Catholic teaching on the canonization process & how the stigmata could not be the ‘basis’ for his canonization.
I may have misunderstood your point with the Siffi comment. To clarify – you are correct to point out Siffi’s incorrect line of reasoning. Pio’s canonization simply states he will be in heaven, nothing more – it does not speak to confirm/deny the authenticity of his stigmata. The authenticity is implied by virtue of the fact that he was cannonized, BUT it does not explicitly confirm that the stigmata is authentic (doing so is not part of the cannonization process). If Luzzatto has an issue with Pio’s stigmata, that’s perfectly fine and acceptable; however if he denies that St. Pio is in heaven, THEN he is no longer Catholic because he is not accepting the full deposit of faith & teaching of the Church.
On the subject of declaration of Sainthood being infallible: It is generally understood by the Church (magisterial teaching and tradition included) that when the Pope officially declares someone a saint, that declaration is guided by the Holy Spirit & therefore infallible. Theologians that do not agree would have to be in the minority, and hardly mainstream – basically they do not merit quoting because they are borderline close to not being Catholic. There is no explicit doctrine stating that decrees of canonization fall under the doctrine of infallibility because it is already understood and is not in dispute. If people start believing otherwise or the faithful are being led astray, THEN the church will act and define the belief in the form of a doctrine/dogma. Presently it is not explicitly defined because there is no need for it. You are correct when you state that the Pope has to speak ‘ex cathera’ for his teaching to be considered infallible, however he does not have to ‘say that he’s doing so’. ‘Ex cathera’ just means that he is speaking authoritatively in his official position as leader and shepherd of the Church. The basic conditions for the Pope’s decree to be infallible are that:
He must be speaking ‘ex cathera’, which he is when he publicly declares a Saint worthy of veneration by the WHOLE church.
He must be guiding the church and instructing on the matters of faith or morals. Declaring a Saint is a matter of faith.
And it must be a formal declaration, i.e. he can’t be making the announcement at the dinner table. In the case of canonization it’s a solemn declaration that he makes and presents to the whole church and the world.
These are the basic reasons why it is understood that canonizations are considered infallible. And as for ‘theologians that disagree’; as I said previously, they are in the fringe and basically very close to being outside of the faith that defines Catholicism. They are entitled to their opinion, however they cannot call it Catholic when it is not.
As for you knowing the difference between what Catholics mean by ‘prayer’ and ‘worship’; good to hear! I believe I misread your responses and unfortunately missed it, so I apologize for being redundant.
As for pointing out errors; I’m not trying to point out errors, I’m merely trying to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches and believes as opposed to what you THINK it teaches & believes.
I capitalize Atheism because it’s my opinion that it is a religion. Meaning you have to have faith to be an atheist. I’m defining Atheism as the belief that God doesn’t exist. And I’m defining God as the uncreated Creator – a personal God, the Judeo-Christian God. If I am mistaken about what Atheists’ believe and what defines an Atheist, then please inform me as I am by no means an expert. I assumed you were an Atheist in this sense because your blog is titled “Austin’s Atheism Blog” – however you are completely right, I was assuming… so please correct my assumptions so I can better understand what you believe.
Me offering to pray for you was a gesture of goodwill. Sorry if I offended you; however by me offering to pray for you, I am offering to ask God to provide you with whatever it is you need to get into heaven. If there is no God then it is a waste of my time; if God exists (in the Christian sense), then it can’t hurt, and can only help! I don’t think the analogy with somebody ‘thinking for me’ is valid at all. When I offer to pray for you, it is not an offer to pray in your place, as a substitute for you. It is an offer to pray on your behalf, to supplicate on your behalf. It’s not that you NEED me to pray for you, however, i offer it as a gift!
Gotta Run,
God Bless!
Isaac
And I’m responding to his popularity in the Italian press & public. The Catholic Church is not a computer; it can’t help but to respond to the popular public sentiment. Notice how quickly the Vatican started moving on the desire for Pope John Paul II to go down the road to sainthood — what, do you imagine that the popular public pressure was totally irrelevant?
That is the opinion of some theologians; it is not an official doctrine taught by the Magisterium.
You have no access to my thoughts, only to my words. Thus far, you have not identified any errors in my words.
Your opinion is false.
That’s a falsehood as well.
When you start from falsehoods, of course the conclusions will be false.
However, even if we accept for the sake of argument that “atheism” is defined as “the belief that one particular type of god does not exist,” that wouldn’t qualify as a religion. A religion is, at a bare minimum, a type of belief system. However, a single, isolated belief cannot under any circumstances qualify as a “belief system.” A belief system is a system of beliefs — notice the plural. Your definition of atheism isn’t a belief system.
What’s more, if we accepted your definition of atheism, then all people who are not Christians or Jews are all atheists. Greek pagans — past and present — are atheists. Native Americans are atheists. Hindus are atheists. Everyone who believes in a god which isn’t the “Judeo-Christian God” is an atheist.
To call that position “absurd” would be an understatement — those people are all theists, not atheists. It should be easy to see that atheism is a lot broader than mere denial of the god you happen to believe in, right?
Click on “Basics” above.
Did you ever think about asking first, or doing a little research into what atheists have to say? When I cited the Catholic position on praying to saints, I cited Catholic sources. I didn’t cite what atheists, Protestants, or Muslims have to say about Catholic doctrine. I may cite non-Catholic sources as part of a critique of Catholic doctrines, but only Catholic or academic sources on the basic facts of what Catholicism is or is not.
An offer to think for you might be a gesture of goodwill as well.
Of course, not everything that a person imagines is just “good will” will be accepted as such. This happens when a person only thinks of themselves and never considers the perspectives or interests of others. Just because you intend something as a gift doesn’t mean it will be taken as such.
This is another case where stopping to ask first would be a good idea.
Offering to think for you is offering to provide you with the reasoning and logic you need to have sound, reasonable beliefs. Since sound, reasonable beliefs are good things, then you shouldn’t mind someone offering that to you, right?
In either case, though, you are assuming a position of superiority as a person who can and should provide me with something that I need. You may not perceive it as a “superiority,” but that’s inherent in making such an offer – especially when you don’t ask before offering. Any time you just hand someone money, a lawn mower, a car ride, etc., a position of superiority as the offer-er is inherent. Even asking almost does this, but it gives the offered-to a chance to say “no” and thereby not enter into a relationship where you are the one doing the providing and they are the one receiving.
It’s arrogant and presumptuous to treat others as if they would be happy to receive whatever you want to give, as if they value what you’re giving as much as you do, as if they would want to be in a position of receiving whatever you want to give.
Oh, you can do some thinking on your own as well, if you want, but my offer to think for you clearly implies that I must be in a position of superiority and am offering you something you need.
If I don’t really need it, then there is no reason why you should do it without asking for it. If I don’t need it, then of course you should ask first. And if I don’t really need it, then you wouldn’t be the least bit troubled if I said not to do it, right?
My offer to think for you is also a gift. Surely you don’t object to a gift that will provide you with something so useful and valuable.
May Odin Bless You.
Austin, I read your bio, which consisted of little more than a curriculum vitae.
I assume you weren’t in your mother’s womb for 12 years like the legendary Emperor Fu Hsi; so you must have had some kind of upbringing before you attended college.
What I’d like to know is: were either of your parents religious in any sense? More particularly, were you raised a Catholic or at any time instructed in the teachings of the Catholic religion?
Why?
I should think that would be obvious. Why are you avoiding the question?
There have been many comments on the nail placement of Padre Pio’s stigmata, and I want to clear up a few things. The common belief here is that every Roman crucified thieves by nailing their wrists to the cross. NOT NECESSARILY. Josephus recorded several crucifixion positions in his writings. It could either be a stake, a T shaped cross, or the common Christian cross. Also, the Greek word “χείρ” which is recorded in many historical accounts can either mean hand OR arm. A possibility could be that Jesus WAS nailed in the wrists (but that could possibly hit a large vein) or in the palms (hitting a TON of nerves which would be super painful). How is the “palm” scenario possible? In 1968, a crucified heel was found in Jerusalem from the 1st century A.D. If a victim were crucified in the ankles then all their weight would be supported by their lower body, so the palm could support the upper body. All of these scenarios could work, but I don’t think we’ll ever figure out how exactly Jesus was crucified because no one knows!
Thus the Catholic Church has supported a variety of stigmatas because they themselves don’t know how Jesus was crucified. Now that gets back Mr. Pio. He didn’t become a Saint for his stigmata (several verified stigmatists have never reached sainthood), but he became a saint because he lived heroicly and virtuously through all his struggles. As for the sex scandal attempts, Father Maccari later took back his statement on his death bed and even asked for Padre Pio’s intercession.
Personally, I don’t believe the carbonic acid theory simply because he didn’t order that much carbonic acid to keep his wounds there for 50 years and there are few records of him ordering it. Those boys who were at that hospital REALLY did need it too. Since Padre Pio lived in a monastery, secrets were very hard to keep, so scandals that he is accused of would have been more obvious than what evidence you are giving me.
BTW, the Pope doesn’t determine if a guy/girl is a Saint. It’s the magisterium which is made up of over 3,000 bishops which ALL have to agree on a guy’s Sainthood and they need two leakproof miracles. Which is NOT easy to obtain.
Lastly, the Church will always be doubted. Even by its members. Padre Pio and ALL other Saints were doubted by their fellow Catholics because Catholics ARE human. Same goes along with normal human beings. Did anyone REALLY think a dude name Jesus would break off from Judaism and create a new religion? Did anyone think Napoleon would take over a majority of Western Europe? Did anyone believe Galileo’s heliocentric ideas? Nope. But they proved them WRONG!!!! Haha, history.
So that’s my oppinions on Padre Pio. Take em or leave em.
This has resurfaced again in 2011. But the last comment I read, from Roman Know-It-All, says alot of what I would like to say, so I will not wax on it forever, just support it abit.
The Romans were masters at their craft, namely torture, right down to knowing how much to inflict on a particular human being in order to bring the most pain and suffering. Crucifixion has been depicted in several different ways over the years, with the palm vs wrist argument taking center stage, but several scientists, Frederick Zugibe to mention one, have noted that His palms would indeed support His weight considering the position He would be in and the fact that feet were secured to the stipe of the cross.
The stigmata itself was not even the reason he was canonized. It was a sore spot for the church, but only because it should have been. No such happenings should be taken lightly and the Church has a duty to be the most skeptical of all in such matters. St Pio’s miracles occurred while he was still alive. Numerous accounts of healing, his uncanny (divinely gifted?) instincts in the confessional and even bilocation to name a few.
Even if one wanted to bring the stigmata into question, which is fine and should be welcomed, does it make sense for this particular man to pull such a weak stunt. That a man such as this should reverse his character in such a fashion that he should make the rest of his life a LIE? I am thinking not.
Let’s use Occam’s Razor here. Does a man reverse his whole life’s work and beliefs for a sophmoric stunt like this when, even if the stigmata did not exist, he is still would be one of the greatest saints of the Church and be able to spread the word of Christ? Nah, the more obvious solution is that he lived his life as he always did, the explanations for the acid are legit and sometimes, you cannot always explain why things happen (like the stigmata).
He is one of the greatest saints in Catholic Church history.
Why not? Lots of people have pulled weak stunts, including people who should have known better.
Actually, let’s use it correctly. Occam’s Razor means eliminating unnecessary assumptions or entities from a system.
There is nothing the least bit unnecessary about the premise “people do stupid things for attention, status, power, privilege, etc.” On the contrary, such behavior is pretty common for human beings and insisting that some person could not possibly do such a thing would be unusual enough to require strong support.
Wow, you truly are a cynic.
Your argument still does not hold water, however. St Pio is NOT your typical person. No saint usually is. Not that they are infallible, but they are infinitely more dedicated to Christ. And St Pio’s whole life is a statement of humility, holiness and NOT looking for the limelight, or credit or popularity.
Not only would St Pio have known better, the very act would have been abhorrent to him. He would considered it a defilement to Christ himself. He also thought himself unworthy of the Stigmata, praying to have it taken away.
So you need to know the man in order to make the accusation stick. Knowing the saint, at least what I have seen and heard, I would say it more likely, though I am not making an accusation, that the historian is making more of his facts than is actually there and HE might be acting as you suggested St Pio is. Just a thought.
If you think my comments are factually mistaken, make your argument. Simply making personal accusations, though, is not only lame but undermines your own credibility.
Begging the Question.
And if a person tends to behave in that manner – at least in so far as public records created by supporters tell you – there’s no way a person might ever act differently.
Speaking from extensive, first-hand personal knowledge of the man? Your statement is blind arrogance otherwise.
And how well do you feel you need to personally know him in order for your claims to be treated as legitimate?
Seen and heard… exactly the same level of knowledge as I have. And I’m only “accusing” him of being a regular human being. You’re the one asserting that he is better than average, which means the burden of proof is yours
You certainly can’t legitimately reject the idea that someone might be a regular human being by relying on the assumption that he isn’t – as already noted, that’s Begging the Question.
Yes, it is – an the “thought” is that while you are trying to exempt Pio from the standards you apply or hold everyone else to. Your reason is that he is a “saint,” which is precisely the issue in question – which means that you’re assuming the truth of what’s being questioned in order to refute the questions.
That’s Begging the Question, a basic logical fallacy.
That a great way to win an argument I must admit. “This has to be true because the Pope said so and the Pope is infallible”.
The Vatican tells us that the Pope has always been infallible although they didn’t come out and say as much until 1870. I guess they are hoping that the critic does not look back in the past too far when there were a number of Popes at the same time all having infallibility simultaneously – one would hope they did not contradict one another.
There were times in the history of the Catholic church I have read – “Sex in History” by G Ratteray Taylor I think – that the Vatican resembled a whore house more than anything else. I suppose the Pope during these times had some different ideas about “Gods will” than present day Popes. This is a testament to the flexibility of God I suppose whose will can be changed by these servants of his.
I admit I had no personal contact with him. I never met the man. He died when I was five. But I have done some serious reading and research on his life. And yes I can say the man lived a saintly life. I am sure he was not perfect and would probably be not only the first to admit it, but also the first to insist on it (that humility thing).
What I can say is that from all accounts I have studied, he lead a saintly life. And you are correct, I am saying that he is better than the average person, at least from a Catholic Christian perspective. His life was exemplary in that his total life was lived in his faith. He was still human, but much better at it. At least that is what I believe. It is a hard thing, to live as a Christian, at least in the way in which it was meant to be lived. That is what makes a saint a saint. They take it up a notch, as it were.
And just to set the record straight, the canonization of saints is NOT part of papal infallibility (unless you talk of the saints mentioned in Scripture ie the apostles, the Virgin Mary etc). Canonization is part of the Temporal Authority of the Church. This authority does not fall under infallibility, but allows for practical rulings and judgements. There is no obligation for any Christian to believe in any of the saints (unless mention in Divine Revelation [Tradition or Scripture], but they are held as extraordinarily exemplary Christians who died in the state of grace.
Whoever made this statement was in error.
Yes Gene, I think some of us have a good idea about how your Church churns out all the saints. The main stumbling block is finding miracles.
The Catholic Church is constantly on the lookout for miracles because they need one for every person beatified (getting the title “Blessed”) and two for every canonisation (making a Saint). Unfortunately in modern times there is a dearth of the kind of miracles that are so plentiful in the Bible. Nobody is turning rivers into blood, parting the sea, walking on water, or even the more modest achievement of turning water into wine.
The only kind of miracle to be found these days is the “miraculous cure” type and these are very difficult to prove. Miraculous cures always occur inside the body, rely on diagnosis that could be doubtful, and involve mechanisms that are still not fully understood by science. A panel of five medical experts assembled by the Vatican examine every claim carefully although the impartiality of their verdict may be questionable. A miraculous cure where an amputees limb grew back would be far more convincing demonstration, but we are still waiting for an example of this.
The late Pope John Paul II had a flair for creating saints and beatifying. He canonised 482 and beatified 1,338 during his 27 years as pontiff. It seems the continual search for miracles was proving very difficult, because he sort to dispense with this requirement. He would have found it much easier in the past when miracles where almost commonplace. About 200 Saints are reported as having mastered the art of levitation in the past. One of the most famous and recent was St. Joseph of Cupertino, (only 400 years ago), who used to fly down the road to get lunch for himself and his fellow monks.
Well, I did not know the actual figures for John Paul II’s papacy. Frankly, it does not really matter how many there are. I say “Praise God!” that the Christ was able to inspire so many exemplary figures to help guide His Church.
I understand the process of canonization. The miracles must also happen AFTER death, so that there is an intercession by God through the candidate. Even harder to find. That’s why every Catholic Tom, Dick and Harry who is a nice guy or even a good Catholic does not get to be a saint.
Not sure why people are so up-in-arms about sainthood and its process (especially here).
I am not “up-in-arms” about sainthood Gene, but do think the whole thing is so false and silly I am amazed that Catholics really believe in it.
When you contemplate how common accounts of levitation were in the past for example, and yet there has not been one case in modern times when it could be verified, does this not sow the slightest seed of doubt in your mind, about the veracity of the historical events?
Mind you, it’s probably just as well we do not have monks flying all over the place these days, it would make more work for air traffic controllers.
So, how do you feel about people idolizing athletes? Movie actors? Politicians?
Really, that is all the Catholic Church is doing. Except that, due to the nature of who we are and what we believe, we put a divine spin on it (a dramatic over-simplification). And we really do not ‘idolize’ them, but just look to them for inspiration.
I have a question for you and know that is going to sound more blunt and confrontational than I probably intend, maybe:
Why do you care? You do care, or else you would not even comment. You are obviously not Catholic, so why would you even bother? I find it funny that you comment on a religion that you do not even profess to. Rather like bashing it. I do not know if that is your intention, but that is certainly the way it comes across. And not even so much you (OZAtheist), as you have been fairly benign in your sarcasm, but others not so much.
Just trying to figure out why atheists (as general rule) seem to try and express opinions on matters on Catholicism when frankly, they do not have a “dog running in the race”. What stake do you have? Performing a public service, maybe (in your minds anyway)? Maybe the evil Christians will take over the world and their teachings might take hold! You know what I am talking about. That stuff about peace, love, community, “Do unto others…”, that stuff.
Sorry, my sarcasm came out a bit there. Seriously though, what is the beef with Catholicism/Christianity? I would really like to know if there is a common thread amongst all atheists or if it is because we are just such easy targets (I fully admit it is one of the challenges of being Catholic).
Just wondering…..
That’s only true if Catholicism has no impact on how Catholics behave in their lives. If it does have such an impact, then it affects others.
I have no time for the idolisation of celebrities Gene. There is altogether to much attention given to sporting “heroes” in modern times, and to little attention given to the real heroes, who devote their lives trying to make this world a better place.
I have been interested in the phenomenon of religious faith from an academic angle ever since I rejected belief in Christianity at the age of 16. Its amazing how clear things become once you rid yourself of this burden. The ridiculous stuff religious people believe in is astounding and you can see this in clear focus from the outside looking in.
No doubt you can see how absurd the beliefs of people of other religions are Gene, but can you appreciate that they are looking at you and your faith, and making the same assessment? Atheists like me can see they are all just as silly as each other – maybe we can attach an extra degree of silliness to the Mormons.
Your attempt at sarcasm is a little confusing Gene. The track record of Christianity has not been one of bringing peace and love to the world, but rather the opposite, as you know quite well. The bloody trail left by Christianity in the past makes the efforts of the Moslems, that we are so worried about today, look puny by comparison.
If you were to read more of the posts on this site you would realise why atheists like myself are concerned about the beliefs of theists like yourself Gene. It’s institutions like the Catholic church, that you support, that concern us. Institutions that hinder scientific progress, medical research, efforts to control the population explosion, the right of a woman having control of her own body, and so many other issues.
I must admit to being a little mischievous at times when poking fun at religious beliefs, but then humour can be an effective weapon at times.
I guess one man’s absurdity is another man’s faith. I respect your academic interest in all things religious, but, if I may say, that is a viewpoint that rather misses the point, if that is the only point of study. To objectively study faith is to subjectively study math. Math cannot be subjective, its very nature prevents it. Religion cannot be totally objective, as its very nature transcends human objectivity.
The Catholic Church does not hinder scientific research and study. It promotes ethical and moral research. It works hand in hand with such. Do scientists presume not to need such strictures? We have all seen the horror movies about mad scientists taking research that one forbidden step too far. While rather overdramatic, the point is still there.
Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, does have its……moments if you will. But remember it is populated and supported by humanity, which means it will be prone to mistakes, sins and corruption. But in all things spiritual, it still speaks truthfully, surely you see that. Even today, as there are certainly reasons for the unrest in the church, the message is still the same. And most of us who believe, believe that Christ’s message is still calling to us. Those of us who take the message for what it is, live the message the church professes, no matter how many mistakes our fellows make in trying to get it to us.
I also respect all other serious beliefs. I may not agree with them, but I cannot and will not bring myself to ridicule them.
I am a little confused as to how a Catholicism would or could affect an atheist’s life, unless he allowed it to.
Then it doesn’t concern facts about our shared reality. Thus it’s little more than fantasy and make-believe.
Tell that to Galileo and Bruno
That’s a kind way to put it. Would you feel comfortable saying that to the face of someone about to be burned or tortured?
And thus no more deserving of respect or deference than any other human institution.
Everyone thinks their beliefs are serious, even racists. So either you respect all beliefs, or this is just a rationalization for picking and choosing which to “respect” based on how well they fit with your preconceptions while pretending that you’re using some sort of objective measure.
No belief, opinion, or idea deserves automatic respect. Such respect must be earned. Otherwise, you might a well respect the “serious” beliefs of committed Nazis.
As it has already been pointed out to you: everything you sincerely believe affects your actions and your actions affect others. So if Catholics sincerely believe something, those beliefs will influence how they act – how they treat others generally, how they treat atheists in particular, how they vote, how they act in public, etc.
The only beliefs of yours that can’t possibly affect me are the ones that even you don’t take seriously, such that they have no impact on any of your behavior.
If there is any objective, fair, measure of what qualifies as a “serious” belief, that’s it: a serious belief is one that has an impact on your behavior. Anything else is weak rationalization.
I think Austin answered your last post quite comprehensively Gene, but I must add that your last line astounds me, after I gave you a list of the very things that your religious institutions do, that effect the lives of all others outside the walls of your cathedrals.
The statement that the Catholic Church does not hinder scientific research was answered well by Austin also, but I will add the point that in the present day stem cell research is being hindered.
Well I would tell Galileo and Bruno, if they were alive. But they are not, and the Church was not the only critic of such, were they? Just goes to prove that we are all slow to accept change, or the unknown, even the Church. We have come a long way since then.
I would talk to some of those burned or tortured, but again, they aren’t around anymore, unless you believe the Pope has them locked away in the Vatican basement somewhere. The Spanish Inquisition and such atrocities are reviled by all Catholics. I made the statement to be an understatement on purpose. No one more than a devout Catholic knows about and abhors the acts of the Church in that era and going forward. But that hardly defines who we are now. We have problems we as a Church are dealing with now, THAT is certainly not among them.
Not asking for MORE respect, nor respect not earned. But certainly respect of some sort. For all the faults you have pointed out and will point out, you have over looked 10x as much good that has been done. Certainly, that is deserving of respect. Heck, I would even take it if you gave it grudgingly.
Everyone takes their beliefs seriously. But neither racism nor Nazism are a religion, nor their beliefs spiritual in nature. I respect all beliefs that are spiritual in nature. I cannot believe that you would have considered otherwise.
I am still not sure I understand how my actions as a Catholic would affect you. Unless you consider that as human beings, we all affect each other with our actions everyday, though not directly. So are you criticizing all others in existence for their actions? Any kindness shown to you by a Catholic would make your argument silly, while any unkindness would just prove that he/she, like everyone else, is human and should be treated thusly (Punished for crimes, etc).
I am writing this and realizing that no matter what I say, you will have an argument for me. Fact is, I am rather enjoying this. Thanks.
Cold comfort for people being burned to death. Regardless, you make the point well that there is no reason to give any special respect or deference to your church.
No, they aren’t.
Well, then, there really isn’t much to offer because there isn’t much that’s been earned.
Actually, there are Nazi and racist religious groups. Not too hard to figure that out if you do a little research.
Simple: there is nothing about “spiritual” that merits automatic respect.
So, you don’t understand that beliefs affect actions? How hard of a concept is that, really?