PADRE PIO
– NOT A TRUE SAINT
Who was Pio?
St Padre Pio was an Italian Franciscan who got the visible stigmata in 1918 after having pains in his hands and feet and side on and off since 1915. Jesus was supposedly nailed hands and feet to a cross and got stabbed in the side. A stigmatic is a person who carries similar wounds as the result of a miracle.
Belief in him is Counter-Intuitive
St Padre Pio has done too many miracles that remind one of showing off and conjuring tricks for comfort. There have been countless reports about the miracle perfume, appearing in dreams, Pio being in two places at the one time and healings. He was supposed to have the power to read minds but there would be no market for fortune tellers without similar claims. Such miracles are an insult to Pio if he really wanted, as he said, to hide his miracle powers and avoid appearing special. They also insult God’s dignity. God will only do a miracle as a sign for he cannot do a miracle just to fix errors for he doesn’t make any errors. He is almighty and in control. So God will only do miracles when the forces are in motion for the verification of the miracle by science and the Church. Too many showy miracles are taken to be a sign of suspicion of satanic agency among true Christians. Theologians say Jesus in the gospels only did practical miracles such as healing and avoided showing off and doing absurd miracles. But Pio has been the locum of more miracles than Jesus ever was and most of them are outrageous and that is suspicious.
Jesus warned about signs and wonders that could deceive even the elect - if this does not refer to miracles with inadequate proof then his warning was meaningless.
Pio by silence gave consent to his aggrandizement
Padre Pio has caused a lot of trouble. During his life, many totally reliable people and even the Church said they knew he was a hard-faced weirdo. He never repudiated the aura of sainthood he was invested with. He encouraged it and cultivated his popularity by building hospitals and screaming in his cell at night and claiming to have been attacked by Satan. He never said his claimed stigmata and miracles and his ability to be in two places at the one time should be forgotten about. A truly self-effacing saint would. Thus Pio was saying that a person could be condemned by everybody and by those in authority and who should be considered in a position of knowing and still be a misunderstood saint. This attitude has poisoned the Catholic chalice and promoted religious personality cults in the Church.
Pio lowered the standard. Today we have frauds like Christina Gallagher of Achill who mimic Pio and who have been thoroughly exposed by the media and by people in authority. Even her bishop didn't recognise her as a true visionary. Despite all the scandal, many of her followers stood by her and continued to give her loads of money to keep her in her opulent lifestyle which of course they pretended didn't exist. She continues to deceive and her faithful continue to kid themselves. They typically cite the case of Pio who was condemned by Church authorities and proclaimed a fraud as evidence of how crafty Satan is and how he sets it up so that truly holy mystics like Pio and Gallagher will look like hypocrites and charlatans when they are in fact genuine prophets of God. The result is that millions are being led astray by frauds like Gallagher. Pio cast the die and lowered the standard and the result is that vulnerable people are being lied to and severed from their life savings. If that is not a bad fruit then what is? Pio's work was not from God.
In relation to Pio, we can definitely agree that if a person is not part of the solution then they are part of the problem. He is no help or inspiration in a world riddled with religious frauds.
Pio and the Perfumes
The blood from Pio's allegedly miraculous
wounds was perfumed - the smell should have been rancid if he really
had long-term wounds - and he was thought to have made the wounds
himself and kept them open with carbolic acid and used eau-de-cologne for the
allegedly miraculous fragrance.
Carbolic acid does not cause wounds but burns but could certainly be
useful to prevent infection and avoid the need to keep re-inflicting the
wounds.
Archbishop Pasquale Gagliardi thought that Pio's stigmata was fraudulent and made with carbolic acid.
The Archbishop was not the only one remarking about the carbolic acid smell. A number of people reported a stench of carbolic acid from Pio. He did not pick this up by sterilising needles for the sick. Others who did the sterilising didn’t smell at all thanks to their protective clothing. And he would have worn it too.
Astonishingly, even a pro-Pio booklet confesses that there was a smell of carbolic acid from the wounds at times (Who is Padre Pio? page 15). The Archbishop, was found out to have engaged in illegal activities but that does not mean he lied about the stench. Pope John Paul II was an accessory to paedophilia for having done nothing about it and Pio’s supporters believe all he says about Pio who he canonised and they damn the Archbishop though his evil was nothing compared to that of the pope. The Archbishop had no need to falsely accuse Pio of having a carbolic smell in his wounds as if to suggest carbolic was being used to make the wounds for at that time it was popularly believed that autosuggestion and hypnosis could produce the wounds and it would have been safer for the Archbishop to use that line. Not only could an accusation of physically making the wounds end up being exposed as just a smear but he would have had more hope of winning over Pio’s fans had he taken the safe road.
Incredibly the
Who is Padre Pio? booklet claims that Pio occasionally exuded the smell of tobacco! And it adds that the smell was faint at
times and strong at other times. Pio
did nothing to hide the smell though his followers boast about how humble he
was and hated attention and was even ashamed of his stigmata. They might say Pio could not disguise the
smell for it was a miracle but that is too hard to believe. God would not pull off such mundane
stunts. When saints have an aroma (you
will understand why I do not designate the smell of tobacco as an aroma!) it
is regarded as a special miracle marking out a man as so holy that even his
body smells nice even though he has not been using scent. Pio had no problem then with this tobacco
substitute for an “I am holy and humble” tattoo on the forehead.
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. Those who believe in this miracle are
making the same mistake as those who say that the miracles of super-psychics
are real though there are professional magicians who can do exactly the same
things by trickery. Their prejudice and
selectiveness is disturbing and Pio is to blame for that. He and they didn’t think much of their
all-wise God.
Did Pio Fake His Stigmata?
The following information can be found in the outstanding book, Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age by Sergio Luzzato. (Despite Catholic lies in the reviews of this book, the book doesn't take a stand on the explanation for Pio's stigmata. It gives us the evidence and lets us draw our own conclusions. The Catholics simply dismiss the book and dismiss it with rancour. Dismissing is no good. They should be able to give us reasons for disbelieving the book and they give us none. By the tactic of merely dismissing, they show the weakness of their position.
In 2007 and in
the book (pages 89 to 94, it was
reported that Pio may have used carbolic acid to keep his wounds open and
uninfected. Bishop
Monsignor Salvatore Bella received sworn and signed statements testifying
that was possible. One such stateme
Pio
The consistent secrecy
clearly proves that Pio was up to something.
Why be so secretive if the acid really was for disinfecting
syringes? Why keep the brothers in the
dark? Why not get the acid from the
local doctors?
And thought Pio had pains in his hands? He would have been of little use among the
sick. It is not likely he sterilised
much and if he was we must ask then why would Pio have been so keen on
sterilising? Was it to get access to
the acid to make his wounds?
Padre Pio Under Investigation: The Chemicals
In pro-Pio book, Padre Pio Under Investigation, Francesco Castelli we read the following.
Pio had been ordering veratridine which can be used to make fake wounds according to his own Second Deposition which is kept by the Vatican (dated 1921). The book claims that he just, as he said, was using this substance only to play jokes on the other monks. Again no evidence is given that these jokes took place. There is no record of these jokes or testimony. Pio himself asserted as the book says that he only ordered a lot of it because he didn't know that this was too much and that it was poisonous! No evidence exists that Pio really didn't know. If Pio had been using it to play jokes it would have poisoned his friends.
The friars supposedly used a tiny amount of the veratridine powder once on Pio to make him sneeze. When he found out about this surely he would have been told that only a small amount was used? He knew fine well that he didn't need all that veratridine for a joke. And it was an expensive joke! The only practical joke was making the stigmata presumably! At least the Church is not lying and trying to explain away the order for veratridine as a hoax planted to discredit Pio or something.
The friars would have been disciplined for carrying out a joke like that on Pio who was never a well man. Perhaps the joke story was invented to cover up what Pio really wanted the veratridine for.
The book says that Pio ordered carbolic acid from outside the monastery in secrecy as he didn't want those who brought it to him to know he had got it without prescription. It is alleged by Pio himself in the same Vatican document that he did not hide this from his brother friars. Why did the pharmacists reveal his secret order? They would not have broken confidentiality over something as trivial as exposing somebody who merely gets stuff without prescription. Anyway Pio was not worried about people finding out he had no prescription. Why would pharmacists seek a bad name for giving out drugs without prescription? They spoke out because Pio was using their services to pretend to be a miracle man. What other reason would it have been?
In the Fourth Deposition, Pio was asked if he kept the order of the acid secret from his brothers. His response this time was that it did not concern his brothers. Evidently he is indicating he lied before when he said he didn't hide it from them. He said he wanted it because he knew how to administer injections to boys at the boarding school. If that was true then why hide it from his brothers for they did injections too? Where was it kept? It would have been put in a place where anybody could find it if it were needed. Pio as a monk was not allowed to keep things as if he owned them. And it is reported that Pio never did injections. His superior who knew him well stated that in 1921- see The First Deposition of Father Lorenzo of San Marco, Superior of the Capuchins, San Giovanni.
Pio also stated in that deposition that the secrecy was simply so that those bringing the acid wouldn't know they were carrying a dangerous chemical. Again that does not hold water. It was packed well enough. They would have carried chemicals before. The pharmacist would have warned them. Pio was lying.
Pio came across as childlike and innocent to many people who met him. This does not fit his above average knowledge of chemicals. He even used the term starch glycerolate in his Third Deposition to the Vatican. When the Vatican asked him about veratridine and carbolic acid they didn't need to clarify anything as he was so familiar with them. Why the interest in chemicals and in particular ones that could be used to fake stigmata?
The book responds to claims that Pio used iodine to preserve the wounds. Pio told the Vatican in his Fourth Deposition that he was using iodine for the bleeding and nothing else and said he used it on all his marks. Accordingly, the book uses the excuse that Pio used it not to preserve the wounds but to stem the bleeding. It did not work that well then according to most of the photographs! In the Fifth Deposition Pio declared that he used the iodine for two years. If it was not working why was he so keen on getting it and applying it so much? But why iodine? Using a substance that preserves wounds is a strange way of coping with bleeding. He evidently did want it to maintain the wounds. If we don't believe those medics who said the wounds were the result of the application of iodine then we are gullible idiots. Pio claimed later he stopped using the iodine.
Alarmingly, Pio swore on oath he was not making the marks himself in the Fifth Deposition after showing himself to be a liar.
Pio told Father Lemius who was investigating him that he used it disinfect his wounds. (Genuine stigmata will not need disinfection!). So the Church says it was to stop the bleeding.
Catholics have to resort to speculation and rationalising and making excuses to get around the suspicious elements in Pio's behaviour. If we start thinking the way they do we will never be able to tell a fraud from a genuine wonder worker.
Padre Pio Under Investigation: Were there Wounds at all?
In 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. One would hold that as Rossi investigated in 1921 when Pio was still young, he could bear full stigmata. The assertion that Pio later on in life had the full wounds of Christ is strange in that context.
For this person it seems Pio settled for putting blood on his unbroken skin. For others he made actual wounds or sores.
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.
They did not agree on what they saw in relation to the side wound and the feet wounds. Sometimes the wounds were described as stab marks. Other times they were thought to be just bleeding that somehow came out of unbroken skin. In other words, they were not wounds. One would wonder why the marks would change so much in the space of the year 1919. It sounds like he was making them himself. Why should Bignami and Festa see a cut in the shape of an upside down cross when they looked at the side wound and why should Rossi see no wound but only a red triangular mark?
The same book contains a Vatican file that says Pio had no real sores on his body. But it says Pio said the marks were very painful. That is hard to believe. The pain was probably an excuse to stop people being too curious about the marks. A Vatican report in the book says that a Dr Festa described the wounds as like burns or brandmarks. And it mentions Dr Romanelli who said they were open wounds that went right through the hands. Festa specifically said that if Romanelli had been right, Pio would not have been able to move some of his fingers. Vatican document 21 in the book from 1921 states that Pio had no skin lesions at all. It says he bled as if through the skin. A mark was found on the chest but no piercing of the skin. Fr Lorenzo did this investigation and swore to the truth of the statement.
The Church does not hide the fact that Romanelli said Pio had a cut on the side which corresponded to Jesus having being pierced with a lance and this claim has not been supported by the other investigators who merely saw a mark not a wound and the other doctors saw no wound at all. This information is verified in Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age by Sergio Luzzato (pages 89 to 94) and in pro-Pio books. The excuse that Pio's wounds were miraculously superficial one time and deep the next stinks of Catholic desperation. Romanelli was unreliable. He could lie knowing that all he had to do was say something inexplicable was going on and it would just be his word for it.
Doctor George Festa in 1919 found Pio had a mark on his breast that was not a wound but from which there were some drops of blood issuing. Professor Bignami found superficial wounds on his breast and hands and feet. Both doctors agreed that there were no deep fissures (page 100, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism). Pio’s stigmata is unsatisfactory. There is nothing remarkable about it (page 100, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism).
Bignami decided that the marks were caused by suggestion and kept from healing by iodine.
The doctors do
not agree on whether or not fingers could meet through the hand wounds. Dr Romanelli could not get his fingers
through because it caused too much pain for poor Pio but he said that feeling the fissures
suggested that there was a void between them (The Bleeding Mind, page
68). But he could not penetrate them
for there was what appeared to be a thin membrane across the fissure (The
Stigmata and Modern Science, page 14).
He only thought it was a membrane for he could not see or feel through
it so was it a blister or just the skin?
Real stigmata would not have a membrane for Jesus had open holes. If Pio had been using chemicals to make the
wounds then it is clear we are not talking about ordinary hands here and so
the chemicals might have affected the skin in such a way that the hands
seemed very soft or perhaps a blister was created thus creating the illusion
of a void for there is no sense easier to fool than touch. The doctor would have been very excited by
Pio and might have imagined things – it is very very easy to delude your
sense of touch. For example, you can
imagine a ghost touching the back of your neck if you think you are in a
haunted house and it will seem real.
In summary, the doctor described his
opinion that there was a fissure as being an impression for he
said he got the impression of a void (page 7, The Bleeding Mind). He further underlined this by saying he
could not feel properly for a complete fissure for Padre Pio found the
examination which entailed trying to insert fingers into the wounds very
painful. The doctor stated that he
could not tell if the wounds on each side of the hand were joined. All he could tell was that there was a
wound on each side of the hand he examined and each wound was deep but could
not be sure.
Romanelli’s
testimony was used in the canonisation process to prove that Pio did not
knowingly make fake stigmata. It
should not have been for Romanelli was being totally biased when he said he
was certain Pio’s wounds were not superficial but deep when he himself
admitted he could not prove it! The
attempted finger penetration would have been done very quickly for the sake
of the pain so a mistake could have been made. And that is exactly what happened!
Nobody ever said he could press on each side of the wound and get his fingers to touch one another through the wound. Romanelli tried. But with the priest crying and struggling and wincing with the alleged pain would it have been done right? Romanelli assumed that his fingers would meet if he tried harder but was afraid to for Pio was in great pain (page 14, The Stigmata and Modern Science). So Romanelli was only assuming.
There is no doubt
for miracle believers that the
testimony of Romanelli is the only one that is worth examining for it is
detailed. Though it is not great, it is the best of a bad lot. He is the only leg that the pro-Pio devotees have
to stand on to verify the alleged great depth of the wounds. We have disposed of Romanelli’s reliability.
Remember when we try to refute his testimony, that is all we really need to do
to succeed in proving that there is insufficient justification for holding
that Pio really had miracle wounds. After all, his 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.
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 their best to look particular
and that 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. And seeing through a hole encrusted with blood is
impossible. 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.
Most physicians believed Pio's wounds were superficial. The determination was made difficult by their supposed painfulness and their being covered by "thick crusts" of what was thought to be blood. A distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was a lack of "any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass." Indeed, he concluded that the side "wound" had not penetrated the skin at all. And while in life Pio perpetually kept his "wounds" concealed (wearing fingerless gloves on his hands), at death there was only unblemished skin (Ruffin 1982, 146-154, 305). 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! It 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. We are surer that there were no blemishes on Pio when he died than we are that he had deep wounds when he was alive.
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 supposedly lost a
cupful of blood every day from all the wounds and especially the side-wound (Padre
Pio, page 6). The side wound did most of
the bleeding. Yet his hand wounds
were caked in blood, which is strange considering that he cleaned them with
iodine. Also the scabs are huge. They didn’t bleed that much so
the caking in blood was just something he deliberately produced for one of
his accidentally-on-purpose exposures of the hand wounds. It had to be for the caking was avoidable. He could have used bandages to soak up the
blood. He wanted the mess.
Pio using Healing Treatments for the Stigmata
Pio even took
on healing treatments for the wounds (page 9, Who is Padre Pio? page
7, The Bleeding Mind). This
may indicate that Pio was trying to pretend the marks were miraculously
staying put despite the intervention of medicine. Or it indicates that Pio did not see them as a miracle. To look for a cure would be like defying
God who may have originated the wounds ie a sin.
His supporters suppose he just took the treatments to convince the
sceptics that the wounds were real and miraculous but that would not stop
them being sceptical for he could have kept them open with acidic
solutions. What Pio was really up to
was this: he was trying to persuade people that he did not make the wounds
himself and accordingly wanted to get them cured. Pio with his masochistic penances and the
absence of infection in the wounds could not seriously expect us to believe
that he really wanted a cure. I repeat
Pio was giving a false impression of himself and his wounds. He was being very manipulative.
Pio Lets it Slip that Wounds are not Miraculous
Pio told a
couple of young girls to listen to their father who warned them that kissing
his hand would lead to infection (Who is Padre Pio? page 37). This is
a denial of the supernatural nature of the marks. It shows that he
feared they could turn
septic. More importantly, it shows he knew far more than he let on about
the nature of the wounds. Perhaps he had overdone the wounding and did
get infections though this immunity to disease is boasted by the followers of Pio to
prove that he had miracle stigmata.
Pio was indicating then that there were times the wounds turned septic
that only he knew about. When Pio lied
to the girls and when he knew fine well that loads of people do dirty things
with no harmful effects and that the risk was nothing it shows he did not
like anybody seeing his wounds too closely at least at that particular
time. The wounds would naturally look
more convincing at some times rather than others and especially if he was
making them himself.
The Changing Wounds!
A
well-distributed photo of the friar exposing his hands in 1918 shows scabs as
large as thumbprints which makes us wonder why they were so much bigger years
later.
Here is a later
photo.
There was just
too much encrusted blood which is indicative of a hoax – especially when Pio
cleaned the wounds every day. The
photos are in the booklet, Who is Padre Pio?
Pio’s hand
wounds should correspond to a nail going in at the palm and coming out the
back and with the nail entering far below the fingers and sticking to the
centre just like you have the wounds on most crucifixes. They should be in line.
The 1918 photo shows
his wounds in the centre of the back of his hands.
But a photo
from decades later of the Stigmatised Right Hand shows that the wound in this
hand didn’t open in the palm where it should have for a man that had nail
wounds as if he were crucified.
The picture of
Pio blessing the host show that the wound did not open in the palm where you
would expect.
The wound opens very off-centre near the thumb. The circle of encrusted blood sits like a big coin in the palm in line with the first two fingers meaning that the nail would have penetrated in line with where the two fingers meet. The position is totally wrong and the wound is far too near where the fingers begin. Stigmata that must move around the hand is suspect. Doctors make mistakes but the eye does not in this case.
Pio's Fake Attempts to Hide Stigmata
Believers claim that when Pio’s health deteriorated in old age the wounds began to fade. Maybe he was less particular in making them! There was no trace of wounds when he died.
Pio did often
hide his stigmata but that could have been for fear he would be found
out. It is easier to fake if you find
an excuse for not making your handiwork visible all the time. Perhaps they were not exposed because they
had healed! And Pio complained that he
would get too much attention if he bared them but one thing is certain this
may have got him peace to live his daily life but it made the outside world
adore him more than he ever thought possible.
And there is no doubt that when God does a miracle as many people as
possible or bearable should see it.
The hiding shows that Pio knew more than he was letting on. Pio being more open about the wounds would
not mean he was an egostistic exhibitionist.
Of course he could be but there would be no reason to accuse him of
being one. His being open would mean
he was sincere.
The Physical
Phenomena of Mysticism speaks of Pio’s wounds being seen by several people on
different occasions (page 99).
If Pio was
really serious about hiding his wounds, an allegation that supporters use to
argue that he did not make them himself for if he had he would have been keen
to show them, then why did give this message to a doctor who believed that
Pio developed his wounds by contemplating the crucifix: “Tell that doctor to
stare at a cow and see if horns grow on his head” (www.rense.com/general26/padrepio.htm). Now this statement tells us three
things. One that Pio wanted his wounds
to be recognised as a miracle which belied his saying they embarrassed him
and that he wanted to hide them. When
he wanted that to happen and was afraid to put them on display too much that
indicates fraud. Two that Pio knew
fine well that the doctor meant that there must be something unique about Pio
if his wounds were not self-inflicted that enabled him to develop them by
contemplating the cross. Pio was
misrepresenting the doctor for his own benefit which again belied his claim that
he wanted no attention. Three that Pio
knew the doctor did not mean looking at something was enough. What the doctor meant was that the crucifix
was used as a focus to help Pio put himself under the skin of Christ and feel
his pain as if he was going through what Christ went through which induced
the wounds. Pio knew doctors are not
so silly as to think that looking at a cross would make wounds. Again he misrepresented the doctor for his
own ends.
Even if Pio was
faking his wounds it was in his best interest to hide the wounds most of the
time for it got him the best of both worlds.
But as you can see from this photograph Pio did reveal his wounds when
it suited him and he knew that it was enough to show them a few times and
there was no need for them to be made available to view all the time.
Pio could have
been one of these strange people who enjoy making themselves bleed and suffer
that way. Pio would not admit to that
and there is no reason to think he didn’t have a disorder like that.
Despite Pio’s
hiding his wounds he let some “accidental” exposures of the hand wounds
happen. This usually happened when he
elevated his arms during Mass and his vestments slipped back. Why would Pio wear mits that left the
fingers exposed most of the time when saying Mass and when he had to elevate
his arms and not all the time? He knew
that cranks would say that he was so humble that he wanted to hide the wounds
and that they would surmise that this proved he didn’t make them
himself. He knew how hard people were
trying to get a glimpse of the wounds and better still a photograph and he
didn’t take enough precautions. Many
of the faithful alleged that they could see light through the wounds in hands
when he lifted up the host during the
All saints-to-be have followers who cook up ridiculous miracle stories about them and there were a lot about Pio. He never condemned these stories so it would be no mystery if he faked his own stigmata.
Rome expressed scepticism about the wounds in 1923
In 1923,
People were not
allowed to interview Pio or write about him in Church decrees issued in 1926
and 1931. Yet in the early days of the
stigmata Pio once claimed that the wounds were painful for the Lord did not
give them to him for a decoration (page 9, Who is Padre Pio?). He was declaring the wounds were from God
which was something that only the Church had the right to decide. Pio was not very bright and he knew he was
not a theologian, psychologist or a doctor.
Many would say this is evidence of his arrogance and false respect for
the Church.
Pio and his Demonic Visitors
Pio claimed that he was
attacked often at night by demons in his cell and they fought. Demons would harm him more discreetly than
that. A man who declares that
unverifiable miracles happen is not to be trusted. There was nobody there to verify the
attacks and who saw them happening.
Pio was
reportedly beaten by demons at nighttime.
When demons gave him bruises why couldn’t they give him the
stigmata? Why did they make so much
noise that others near Pio’s cell heard them?
Why were they so keen to make him look like a target of evil spirits? They would only do that if he was one of
their followers. It was all just a
performance if demons were involved at all.
Or perhaps Pio was the performer!
Demons would
not come up from Hell to kick the door and shake Pio’s bed when he could do
that himself. Nobody can prove that
Pio was not doing these poltergeist stunts himself for he was alone in the
room. No God would let miracles happen
that one could create oneself for if he would do that then we should believe
in miracle-workers who accomplish feats that any magician can do easily. Pio was not the miracle man he had people
thinking he was.
It is
interesting that Pio who acted so determined to hide his stigmata did not gag
himself to stop shouting at the demons and screaming so that nobody would
know what was going on. He was
conniving and manipulative. The fact
that suspicion regarding the source of the wounds hangs over him shows that
the faithful are dallying with demons for risks like that should not be taken
for God says he comes first.
In 1964, Pio shouted out in his cell one evening at
Pio's Inedia
It is
disquieting that Pio claimed that he lived on nothing but the sacred host for
twenty-one days (page 5, Who is Padre Pio?). He reportedly put on weight which indicates
that he was lying. But of course the
believers say the weight, the evidence of eating, was a miracle and he was
telling the truth. What we must never
forget is that there were several mediums who had such incredible powers and
were regarded as superstars for years until Houdini caught them out. What I am saying is that there have been
people who did more daring and open things than Pio and who shocked sceptics
and academics into faith and who were still frauds – getting caught the once
was enough to prove it. To believe in
Pio as in any personage with alleged supernatural powers only means you
believe in a man who had the luck never to get caught if he was up to
anything. You just don’t know if he
was the real thing. You can’t and no
God would waste time doing miracles through him in that case.
Pio the Alleged Clairvoyant
The devotional
books tell us that Pio knew the thoughts of the penitents who came to him in
confession. But fortune-tellers have
been able to manage much the same thing.
There has to be people who were not impressed by the alleged
clairvoyance and their voice is ignored.
And indeed there are. People
like to believe that God went to the trouble of telling Pio something about
them so you will have plenty who only imagined that Pio did that. Pio once answered the question a Swiss
priest wrote on a letter sealed in an envelope which he gave to Pio without
opening the letter (Who is Padre Pio? page 37). This raises the question of how Pio knew
that whatever told him what was on the letter was from God? Satan masquerading as God could have told
him a lie to trip him up. Pio reported
visions from Hell that looked exactly like Heavenly ones. Did Pio care? Did Pio know as much as God so that he
could tell? There is a madness
here. He reported that during one of
his visions he asked the apparition he thought was from God but had
suspicions about to call out “Hail Jesus”, and it couldn’t say the words and
vanished in a cloud of sulphur (page 7, Who is Padre Pio?). This is totally ridiculous for loads of
saints had visions of demons that pretended to praise God. Demons can mime the words but not mean
them. Pio must have known that which
is why he cannot be considered a dependable person regarding the
supernatural.
Sex abuse by Pio?
There were
allegations of sexual abuse committed by Pio and not all of these reports can
be debunked though some of them were.
And this debunking speaks more of faith in those who conducted the
investigation and what they were told rather than in their being
correct. Anybody that knows people who
have been in trouble with the law will know how reliable that is and the law
is so easily manipulated by people withholding information! I’m being sarcastic here. He probably didn’t do anything but how do
you know? The man did slap people –
the crime of assault (page 153, The Book of Miracles). When you would do that you would sexually
grope if you were that way inclined.
And Pio’s own defence though unquestionably honest at times may not
have been all the time – for the man was definitely dodgy. Mud sticks and it should stick in this
case. Archbishop Gagliardi is blamed
by pro-Pio people as having started most of the rumours which strains
credulity because a powerful and intelligent Churchman can find better ways
to ruin somebody than that way. A
false accusation of heresy would have done the trick provided the stage was
set so that at best it could not be disproven and would not cause a rumpus
that would lead to the civil courts.
Pio's Alleged Miracles
The hypocrisy
of believing those who cleared Pio and of believing the twelve apostles who
give no evidence of telling the exact same story about the resurrection and
who were never tried in court is obvious – another of the endless bad fruits
that come from belief in miracles for Pio would have wanted people to think
that his miracles pointed to the main doctrines of Christianity which are
that Jesus died for sins and rose again.
If there was a supernatural being doing the miracles through Pio then
this being was the Devil for the miracles were never intended to create a
saint – it just happened that Pio ended up on the canonisation decree.
Miracles like
this will one day destroy the faith for reason will triumph in the end.
Miracles are
said to call you to submit to a body of doctrine supposedly revealed by
God. Many cults boast that miracles
back them up meaning that the spreading of belief in miracles is really about
trying to enslave you to other peoples’ opinions. Any religion can use miracles to get
followers so the esteem people like Pio have is desperately misplaced and
dangerous. Pretend your mother is in a
poor country where women have bad medical care. Do you want her to die rather than have an
abortion to save her life? You will if you respect the likes of Padre Pio
having who sought to bring the world under the spell of the pope. Pio often declared that his miracles and
good deeds were motivated to bringing people to obey the pope and the Church
in all their teaching for what they say is God’s will. This means that to accept Pio you can’t be
a cafeteria Catholic like most of Pio’s devotees are so he has failed to
change them and that is a bad fruit especially since Catholics vow at their
baptism and confirmation to accept without reserve the will of God as spoken
through the Church.
There is actual
and potential. As regards being a good
person, potential is more important than actual for you won’t act good unless
you have the potential to be good.
Catholics like to encourage people to believe in miracles on account
of the actual good fruits that follow the events. But it is the potential that matters the
most so miracles that have bad implications are simply evil sorceries or
frauds.
Miracles are
intended to be a cause of faith according to Church doctrine. Any character like Pio who experiences them
all the time has a substitute for the virtue of faith. The Church always said that apparitions should
be short and sweet to prevent that happening and yet people like Pio have been
canonised. The reason the Church says
that God gives us sufficient evidence but not too much is so that we will
have genuine charity and be sure that we do good because it is good. If you know the faith is true you can’t be
sure of your motives for we never know ourselves very well at the best of
times. And if you know there is a Hell
it is impossible to do good with a totally selfless attitude. We conclude then that the canonisations of
stigmatists who had constant visions and miracles, Padre Pio, Gemma Galgani,
Francis of Assisi, Maria Maddalena de Pazzi, Mary Frances of the Five Wounds,
Margaret Mary Alacoque, Veronica Guiliani, Rita of Cascia, Teresa of Avila,
Catherine of Genoa and Catherine of Siena are null and void. These saints have destroyed the faith. Faith is the main and essential good fruit
so any other good fruit cannot compensate for its disappearance. Interestingly, what we have just read means
that Jesus was from the Devil if he did such prolific miracle working for he
destroyed the faith of the apostles and gave them knowledge instead. The apostles with the knowledge that their
faith and their motives were destroyed were evil men who hid their vice as
well as some “holy” fake stigmatists did.
Pio and his Visions
Pio had so many
visions and revelations that if anybody knew that an apparition of the Virgin
was authentic it was he. In a letter
written by Manuel Pio Lopez, Archbishop of Jalapa to Fr Gustavo Morelos in
1966 it is stated that Pio believed the visions of Mary at Garabandal in
Pio Stole St Gemma's work
Padre Pio wrote
very spiritual letters to those in charge of his spiritual formation to give
the impression of being a very holy mystic.
However, it has been found that many sections of his letters were
plagiarised from the published works of the mystic St Gemma Galgani. Pio never attributed the plaigerised sections to
their true author but presented them as his own. Some sections had slight differences from
her work and others were exactly what she wrote. Pio wrote to Fr Agostino on March 21 1912 following
mass. This priest was one of his spiritual directors. "My mouth
savoured all the sweetness of the immaculate flesh of the son of God.
But I became confused and I am unable to do anything but weep and say,
'Jesus my nutrition!'. What afflicts me most is that so much love from
Jesus is met with so much ingratitude from me. I would like were it
within my power to wash with my own blood those places where I have
committed so many sins and where I gave scandal to so many souls.
Thursday evening until Saturday and then again Tuesday have been a painful
drama for me. My heart, my hands and feet seem to have been pierced
with a sword and the suffering is so great. And meanwhile the devil
never ceases to appear before me in his horrible guises and to brutally
assault me in his terrible and frightening way". The Catholics excuse
this by saying Pio didn't copy Galgani as such. He just went through
the exact same experiences as her.
The Church came up with this
incredible excuse when Pio's stealing of Galgani's work came out. The
excuse appears in the May 2003 journal of the Jesuits, La Civiltà
Cattolica. They said that Pio wanted to emulate the
holiness of Galgani and he was only human so he copied her work for it was as
true of him as it was of her. So by
only human they are implying he copied out of human weakness not out of any
sinfulness or dishonesty.
The Church wants you to imagine that plagiarism isn’t plagiarism when a saint does it. That reasoning is totally dangerous and unfair. It advocates a holiness that borders on expediency not on morality. When you write something yourself it is your work. If you copy someone else’s work nobody can be sure if you described your thoughts or not. Pio in sending such letters to his spiritual directors was definitely trying to fool them. He was presenting the spirituality in the letters as his own when it was Gemma’s. Some say there was no harm in Pio using sections from Gemma’s books if he had attributed them to her which he didn’t do. But the fact remains, he infringed the rights of the people who published these books and copyrighted them. Anybody could be a saint if excuses are made for their sins. It is Church politics that makes saints not holiness.
Pio wrote a whopping 12 letters to his spiritual directors between September 1911 and May 1913 that stole Galgani's work. He even had the nerve to write on May 2 1912, "I would very much like to read the book titled Letters and Ecstasies of God's Servant, Gemma Galgani ... along with another work by that same servant of God, The Holy Hour. Confident you will find this desire worthy and procure me these books". He was pretending he didn't have those works when he plagiarised from them.
Pio's Canonisation
The Church has
made no declaration on the authenticity of the miracles allegedly surrounding
Pio or even his supposed stigmata excepting the two healing miracles that
were required for the canonisation.
One miracle was the cure of a woman with lung disease and the other
was of a Italian boy who was in a coma with meningitis. That medicine is full of anomalies like
that and doctor’s despairing predictions are sometimes disproved is
conveniently forgotten.
The Church has canonised
many saints who reported daily miracles which does not amount to agreeing
with the saint that the miracles were true.
The Church believes many of these saints erred in their revelations
and has no problem with admitting that some of them were mentally ill. The problem I have with this is that you
would need to authenticate every miracle reported one by one to be sure that
no fraud took place before you would have the right to canonise. Dubious miracles are often the sign of
unsaintliness.
The
canonisation only means that he is a saint and that he was not wilfully
faking the miracles which is not the same as saying the miracles are approved
and that Pio might not have imagined things at times. The miracles have included visions of Pio
after his death, Pio managing to appear in visions before his death and many
others. Given that miracles are
supposedly signs for God does not make mistakes and does not do them to fix
his blunders, it follows that real miracles will be experienced by knowledgeable
reliable people and it will not be hard to authenticate them and they will be
authenticated soon for the sooner the better for things that make a
difference could be forgotten over time.
The miracles of Pio were tricks because the investigation took place
too long after their alleged occurrence.
Reason says then that Pio’s miracles which he never denied but encouraged by his silence were tricks. For the Church to make a saint and then not authenticate his miracles as it does do indicates that the canonisation is invalid and biased even fraudulent. Canonisations are done if the candidate for sainthood has been shown to have lived a holy life to a remarkable and unusual degree under intensive and thorough investigation. The Church has canonised many saints and simply dismissed many of the bad things said about them as gossip. Pio was no exception. Why investigate a life at all to make a saint if you are going to ignore the unsavoury elements? Until these are explained and debunked the person cannot proclaimed a saint.
The fruits of
Pio’s work have been a canonisation by Pope John Paul II in June 2002 in
which he became St Pio that can by no means be considered a valid or sensible
canonisation and has led the whole Church astray and made it more
unreasonable to trust the Catholic Church.
Jesus said you can tell fakes when they produce bad fruits. There is no doubt that the alleged good
fruits of inspiring prayer groups like Pio has done and getting a hospital
built means nothing compared to him becoming another of Rome’s bogus saints
thanks to a pope who will one day be one himself and a siren for a barbaric
system of doctrine that is provably false.
Jesus knew that false prophets like to seem holy and virtuous which
was why he said first that wolves come in the guise of lambs and that it is
by their fruits that you know the false prophets – there is no doubt that the
main way to tell is if their doctrine is pure and verifiable.
The hospital is
not admissible as a good fruit because it was built with other people’s
contributions. It means that the
people were good for Pio made no sacrifices for it. Pio knew the people were paying because
they believed in the stories about his miracles. Is it right to get people to donate money
for that reason when the miracles have not been properly investigated by the
Church? Pio did not tell them to curb
their devotion and wait for the Church’s verdict. His miracles are incompatible with the
Catholic doctrine that God will never do any miracle that undermines the
authority of the Church for the Church is the authority he has set up. The prayer groups are not admissible as
good fruit either because prayer is an activity that refuses to give humanity
their full dignity. Prayer treats the
God belief as more important than persons.
We are to bow before God like a superior when in fact we are just bowing
down to a belief created by people.
Also, real prayer is just submission to the will of God, saying, “Thy
will be done,” and nothing else. It is
just the passive acceptance of God’s will so how could praying people really
intend to help anybody by prayer?
Prayer is a clear instance of faith being put before people even
though the way it is done can fool you.
Curiously the Church looks for miracles after a persons death before she will canonise them but no matter how well attested the miracles they do when alive are she doesn’t care as much: “The Church never canonizes any of her children in their lifetime, and even after death she does not accept such manifestations, however well-grounded may be the belief in their supernatural origin, as the sole and principle foundation for her favourable judgement” (page 96, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism). This is bizarre. You could do a thousand miracles when alive and not get canonised and if you do one or three after you die the Church is satisfied with these few miracles and will proceed with the canonisation if it wishes.
Pio was only
made a saint because he was popular and if the Church wants to be popular in
these days of horrendous clerical sex-scandals it has to sweeten up the
people again.
A New Pio
Father Gino
Burresi is someone alive today who makes exactly the same claims as Pio. Yet it is known that this man is not a
saint. And charges of sexual abuse
have been made against him and the
Conclusion
FACT: The
founder of
FACT: Pio was
accused of insanity and using women sexually and theft by many theological
experts and doctors and even archbishops and bishops. It was only because of the popes who
decided to support Pio that these critics came to be ignored.
Now the Church
leaves it up to the local bishop to decide if a person claiming special
powers from God in his diocese is really in possession of such powers. Yet with Pio the bishops who made serious
allegations against him came to be ignored when the
Pio never
should have been canonised. His wounds might
have been self-inflicted. He was
just the kind of man that wanted to bring people back to the days when
unconditional obedience and self-degradation under the heels of bishops and
engaging in physical torture was an essential part of being a Christian. That the man hasn’t caused too much evil is
down to the fact that believers are weak in faith not down to any good
influence from him.
THE WWW
Italy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/24/wpio124.xml
By Malcolm Moore in
Last
Updated: 2:36am BST 24/10/2007
Padre Pio,
The Other Christ: Padre Pio and
19th Century Italy, by the historian Sergio Luzzatto, draws on a document
found in the
The document reveals the
testimony of a pharmacist who said that the young Padre Pio bought four grams
of carbolic acid in 1919.
"I was an admirer of Padre Pio and I met him for the first time on 31
July 1919," wrote Maria De Vito.
She claimed to have spent a month with the priest in the southern town of
"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
"He explained that the acid
was for disinfecting syringes for injections. He also asked for other things,
such as Valda pastilles."
The testimony was originally
presented to the
It was examined by the Holy See
during the beatification process of Padre Pio and apparently dismissed.
Padre Pio, whose real name was
Francesco Forgione, died in 1968. He was made a saint in 2002. A recent
survey in
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".
http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/10/padre-pio-fraud.html
Wednesday, October 24,
2007
The Padre Pio fraud.
A new book by historian
Sergio Luzzatto, The Other Christ: Padre Pio and 19th Century Italy, argues
that there is documentary evidence that the allegedly “saint” was a fraud.
Now there’s a surprise.
As far as I’m concerned
Pio, whose real name was Franceso Forgione, claimed to be a stigmatic, one
whose body exhibited the wounds of Christ. In 1911 the priest wrote a letter
claiming that he felt pain in the middle of his hands and under his feet and
that a red mark appeared. But he conveniently prayed that they be removed and
they were. He didn’t pray that the pain be removed and he insisted he still
felt it but that now God made the marks invisible so other people couldn’t
see them.
Pio claimed the marks
appeared in the center of his hand. A nail through that section of the hand
would not hold a body to the cross. The nails would have to be two to three
inches further done. Apparently God, in giving people the “wounds” of Christ
mislocated them. In reality stigmatic frauds mimic the wounds they see in
popular art.
Pio claimed that the
love of God was exhibited through suffering inflicted on the believer. What a
masochist! And the crazy priest claimed that Satan appeared before as naked
girls dancing, as the Pope, and even as the alleged Virgin herself. In
another incident the priest claimed he was hearing confession in August, 1918
where he was “suddenly terrorized by the sight of a celestial person”. The
boy in confession apparently would not see this apparition since Pio claimed
the vision was in “my mind’s eye.” The apparition supposed threw a steel
blade that emitted fire into him causing great pain and he claimed he was in
constant pain from that point on.
Pio was always claiming
to be sickly and in pain even as a young man. During the First World War he
was in the army but spent much of his time in the infirmary. It appears to me
that the priest had a psychiatric condition known as Munchausen syndrome. The
founder of
Pio then claimed that
Christ popped down for a visit and inflicted the “wounds” on his body on
October 22, 1918. This time the wounds were permanent. His followers say he
preferred to “suffer in secret” though letters telling people about his
wounds survive and the priest allowed pictures of himself to be taken where
he appears to be showing off the wounds int he most obvious way possible. He
even announced, at one point, “I do want to suffer, even to die of suffering,
but all in secret.” Somehow announcing it makes it less than secret, quite
the contrary it publicizes the suffering and creates the attention that is
being sought.
In 1923 the priest was
forbidden to teach the boys at the monastery school because the
Luzzatto reveals that
the Vatican has the signed testimony of a pharmacist, Marie de Vito, that:
“Padre Pio called me to him in complete secrecy and telling me not to tell
his fellow brothers, he gave 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.” The testimony had been secured and
given to the
Even some pro-Pio
publications have written that the priest periodically would smell of
carbolic acid. Others claimed that there was a sweet, flowery smell coming
from the wounds. Of course if the smell of carbolic acid was problem then Pio
might wish to cover it up by perfuming himself heavily.
The revelation of the
document has brought about an interesting response from the fundamentalist
Catholics. Pietro Siffi of the Catholic Anti-Defamation League argued that
Pope John Paul II declared Pio to be a saint and “canonization carries with
it papal infallibility.” Well, that settles it.
After the death of the
priest the Pope rushed through canonization for the priest. It was a kind of
drive-through window for sainthood.
Interestingly as the
priest got older his wounds seemed to fade. Now a physical explanation would
be that aging made it harder for him to fake the wounds. And when he died and
his body was examined there were no wounds apparent at all. Yet, the wounds
were alleged to have been present his entire life. This would indicate very
superficial wounds that healed unless aggrevated intentionally.
And it should be noted
that stigmatics don’t actually every exhibt marks of crucifixion as is widely
assumed. For instance there is no indication that there were actual holes in
the hands of Pio, merely wounds on the skin itself -- something that can be
caused by various irritants. In addition if you look at the photos of Padre
Pio you may notice something of interest regarding the wounds. In the photo
when he was younger the wounds appear smaller, rounder and near the center of
his palms (which is not where the nails would have gone during a
crucifixion). In the photo of the older Pio the wound not only enlarged, and
became more more dramatic, but is now closer to his thumb, which is still the
wrong place anyway.
posted by GodlessZone at
Wednesday, October 24, 2007 | 0 comments
BOOKS CONSULTED
Arthur C Clarke’s World of Strange Powers, John Fairley and Simon Welfare,
Collins, London, 1984
Chapter 7 of this book
explores evidence that willpower can make bodily changes when it is strongly
enough exercised by some people.
Breasts have been increased in size by mindpower and the research of
Dr Albert Mason and Professor Oscar Ratnoff verifying that non-religious
stigmata happens is detailed in this book.
A girl Maria K could make herself bleed from the ears and eyes and the
head just by making herself very angry according to a study undertaken by Dr
Magnus Huss. The fact that Teresa
Neumann was doing erratic things and making strange unnecessary motions under
her bedclothes before her wounds appeared is mentioned – was she making the
wounds then?
The Bleeding Mind, Ian Wilson, Paladin,
Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books,
The Stigmata and Modern Science, Rev Charles Carty, TAN, Illinois, 1974
Who is Padre Pio? Fathers Rumble
and Carty, TAN, Illinois,
1974
Padre Pio: Miracles and Politics in a Secular Age, Sergio Luzzato, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2010
Padre Pio Under Investigation, Francesco Castelli, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2008
Criteria for Discerning
Apparitions, Mons Peric, Bishop of Mostar, available from Militia Immaculatae
Trust, 35 New Bond Street, Leicester
Counterfeit Miracles, BB Warfield, The Banner of Truth Trust,
The Book of
Miracles, Stuart Gordon, Headline,
The Jesus Relics, From the Holy Grail to the Turin Shroud, Joe Nickell, The History Press, Gloucestershire, 2008
The Physical
Phenomena of Mysticism, Herbert Thurston SJ, H Regnery Co, Chicago, 1952 or
Roman Catholic Books, PO Box 2286, FortCollins, CO 80522
The
Supernatural A-Z, James Randi, Headline Books,
(Note: This
book in the entry for Stigmata observes that the claims made for people like
the alleged stigmatist Teresa Neumann with their miraculous bleeding and
living on communion wafers cannot be verified for they were never observed 24
hours a day every day. Fr Siwek, an
investigator of Neumann wrote that he had grave doubts about her
miracles. To me, no God is going to
bother doing all these miracles when the miracle worker is not going to be
watched all the time.)
http://skeptically.org/skeptics/index.html