CASES OF STIGMATA - Fact or Fiction?

[drstevej]

***You obvously don't think it normal that our thoughts alone could cause wounds to appear on our bodies.***

I don't exclude the possibility. Nor am I concluding this is the case. The influence of the mind over the body is not an exact science.

[onedoug]

reluctant ping

[windcliff]

Thank you. I'm printing this out--I love this kind of stuff.

[Tantumergo]

"[1] How do Catholic theologians explain the absence of stigmata to the 13th century and a consistent presence of stigmatics in subsequent centuries?"

I don't know if there is any established consensus as to why this may be, but if you will indulge me a few moments, I have some theories. (But I also think SD's suggestion above could be inspired.)

If we said for the sake of argument that the stigmata that Francis received were a genuine manifestation of God's grace, then why might God want such a miracle to occur?

We know from scripture that as well as having compassion on those who fly to Him for aid, God uses miracles to elicit faith or bolster faith. This is especially so in time of crisis for His people.

What article of faith then might God be looking to reinforce by manifestations of stigmata?

One of the greatest threats to God's Kingdom on earth in the early 13th century was the advance of Islam. One of the central heresies of Islam, like the Docetists and Gnostics before them, was that Christ was not crucified and He did not die on the cross. It was principally to combat this heresy that the Catholic Church had previously promoted the use of Crucifixes incorporating the Corpus Christi rather than the simple empty cross.

St. Francis himself was driven by a desire to convert these infidel, to the extent that in June 1219 he allowed himself to be taken captive so that he might preach before Saladin and his Saracen hordes.

Although Francis was not apparently successful with the Saracens, his reception of the stigmata would have had a powerful effect upon any doubting Thomas Christians, who might have been lured by the infidel heresies. Even in modern times as many muslims are drawn to St. Francis, perhaps their discovery of his stigmata will help them to question the source of these and the veracity of the lying Quran?

St. Francis only received the stigmata 5 years after his encounter with Saladin, and his biographer certainly believed it was due to Francis' meditation on Christ's Passion. I dare say that Francis' meditation was aided by the prevalence of the Crucifix as an aid to devotion, and this of course would not have been around early in the first millenium.

The Catholic Encyclopedia recounts his reception of the stigmata as follows:

"Early in August, 1224, Francis retired with three companions to "that rugged rock 'twixt Tiber and Arno", as Dante called La Verna, there to keep a forty days fast in preparation for Michaelmas. During this retreat the sufferings of Christ became more than ever the burden of his meditations; into few souls, perhaps, had the full meaning of the Passion so deeply entered. It was on or about the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross (14 September) while praying on the mountainside, that he beheld the marvellous vision of the seraph, as a sequel of which there appeared on his body the visible marks of the five wounds of the Crucified which, says an early writer, had long since been impressed upon his heart. Brother Leo, who was with St. Francis when he received the stigmata, has left us in his note to the saint's autograph blessing, preserved at Assisi, a clear and simple account of the miracle, which for the rest is better attested than many another historical fact. The saint's right side is described as bearing on open wound which looked as if made by a lance, while through his hands and feet were black nails of flesh, the points of which were bent backward."


"[2] If St. Francis does bear marks in his wrists unlike other stigmatics, why would God (whom I presume causes the marks to appear) place them in differing locations? If they duplicate the marks on Christ there should be consistency I would think."

I am not sure that St. Francis had the nails in his wrists. I would imagine that his stigmata were similar to those found on the San Damiano cross which was one of his principal aids to meditation on Christ's passion. (But I can't remember whether this cross has the stigmata in the palms or the wrists).

If the stigmata do appear in different places in different people, I guess it probably has something to do with what their understanding of Christ's Passion would be.

God is quite aware that we are weak and fallible vessels, and in order to communicate with us effectively He has to speak to us in terms we can comprehend. If my understanding of crucifixion was that of nailing through the palm, and God sent me wounds in my wrists, then being rather dense, I might miss the point of it. Assumimg of course that one of the purposes of the stigmata is to communicate something to us and those around us.

[drstevej]

Re: [1] Very interesting and more compelling than the other suggestions, IMO (no offense SD) since it both focuses on the concerns of St. Francis and the major Churchwide concern of the time.

Re: [2] This is less convincing. I understand the point of human accomodation, but I hardly think that placing the stigmata in the anatomically correct location would have marred the recipient's faith. In fact, it would have provided a more accurate picture of the passion of Christ and the consistency would have bolstered the case for divine origin.

These are speculative questions, but we seminarians are trained to ask questions even when there may not be a clear answer.

Thanks tanto, as usual your insight is appreciated.

[Front 242]

I took a look at my small copy of the San Damiano Cross after reading your post, and it shows Christ with wounds in the center of His palms. Also shows a small lance wound on the right side of His chest. By the way, you've got some interesting points regarding the Stigmata of St. Francis. I was unaware of his quests to convert those of Islamic faith (I haven't read up on the biography of St. Francis as I well should as a member of the Catholic Faith ... could you possibly recommend a well-researched book on his life? I'd sincerely appreciate it). Thanks again for your imput on this thread. Front 242

[Front 242]

Milan ...

As per your post #92, I agree with you on the style of the crosses used at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus. In the Journal of the American Medical Association article that I mentioned in my previous post to you, they illustrate this use of the "Tau" cross (the "T" shaped cross that you spoke of). They show that the crossbeam was strapped to the condemned outstretched arms as it laid across the upper portion of his back and shoulders. It would be akin to you carrying a standard size railroad tie across your shoulders. Couple this immense weight with the open wounds of a scourging with flagrum, and the condemned would probably be in a heaping world of pain. Upon reaching the site of crucifixion, this crossbeam would then be nailed into the vertical portion of the cross while probably laying flat on the ground. The condemned would be nailed hand and foot to it and then it would be lifted upright and the base dropped into a hole dug in the ground. Soil and rocks would then be used as filler in the hole and most likely shims or small posts would be hammered into place to steady the crucifix.

I also have often wondered about the placement of the INRI placard above Jesus' head on the "T" style (Tau style) crucifix. It would seem a bit of an afterthought on the part of the Romans to use a stick to hold up the placard. I would think that something more sturdy would be used. Possibly in the case of Jesus' crucifixion, the Romans weren't in the habit of posting signs above the condemned ... they could have simply used a placard with a rope attatched to it and placed it over the victim's head to be worn around the neck (sort of like a necklace). I would think that various crimes that the condemned committed or was found guilty of would then be listed on it for all those to see well after the person had died. It would serve as a reminder to those who passed by to keep their lives as honorable as possible. To view a rotting corpse with a placard around its neck stating that this person was a thief/murderer/political agitator/etc. would REALLY serve as a visual and moral deterrent. It reminds me of the methods used in the Middle Ages to thwart crime, whereby after one who was executed via the guillotine, would then have their head mounted on a stake and placed on the ramparts of the castle (or along a well traveled road leading into town) to serve as a morbid reminder to all of those who passed by it to keep their lives morally straight.

Regarding the sources Mel Gibson used for his depiction of Jesus' crucifixion in his upcoming film, "The Passion", I am uncertain of them. I want to say that he referred to the accounts of a woman who was a mystic (and I think is now a saint ... though I am not sure), who was able to visualize Christ's Passion. (If anyone knows who this mystic/saint is, please post it on this thread). I am going to do some digging around on the Internet to see if I can locate that JAMA article. I think that it would help illustrate better the theorems that everyone on this thread has been posting.

Thanks again for you time and intelligent posts.

Sincerely, Front 242

[Tantumergo]

"could you possibly recommend a well-researched book on his life?"

I'm afraid I am no expert on st. Francis, but there is quite a lot of biographical info. at the Catholic Encyclopedia site. The link is as follows:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06221a.htm

[BethH]

Firstly, please accept my apology if I am providing info that has already been offered, but I felt moved to respond to the post about Fr Sudac.

With regard to the cross on his forehead, Fr Sudac has already been subject to investigation at the Rome Gemelli clinic. After exhaustive medical tests (including surgery to attempt to close the wound), it was concluded that the cross was 'not of human origin', i.e. that it was formed in a way that could not be explained by medical science.

Fr Sudac would be the first person to urge prudence in this matter and is wary of excessive interest in the stigmata. Indeed, the cross on his forehead is now covered, as are the wounds on his wrists.

I did recently spend a week on retreat with Fr Sudac and was most impressed by his direct teaching, his dignified demeanour and his compassion for all of those with whom he comes into contact. Ultimately, he will be judged on the measure of his love and on the fruits of his mission, not on the presence (or absence) of the stigmata.

[GirlShortstop]

Regarding the sources Mel Gibson used for his depiction of Jesus' crucifixion in his upcoming film, "The Passion", I am uncertain of them. I want to say that he referred to the accounts of a woman who was a mystic (and I think is now a saint ... though I am not sure), who was able to visualize Christ's Passion. (If anyone knows who this mystic/saint is, please post it on this thread).

One key piece to Mel pulling his movie together was "The Dolorous Passion" by ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH .  Also, regarding sainthood, "decree of beatification miracle promulgated on 7 July 2003"; she's not yet a Saint.  During Mel's EWTN interview, he mentioned another name and despite a few rewinds of the vcr that I made, I could not make out her name.  If I come across that information, I'll post it or freepmail you.  FReegards!

[GirlShortstop]

...few rewinds of the vcr TAPE that I made...

[candlelane]

i apologize for my late interuption of this discussion, but your question caught my eye and i have a theory i would like to run past everyone pertaining to it. i was born and raised roman catholic, and i carry that faith still, but there is one thing that has always made me cringe when i think about it...it is well known that the church itself will hide certain peices of information so as not to tarnish the power or the appearance of the church or the faith. a worthy cause, but knowledge i believe strengthens faith, and i don't understand why a group would hide certain things that could possible strengthen a persons faith. a friend once told me something that i believe very deeply, God has no place in politics...

but i stray. it is a possiblity that there are records of stigmata stored hidden in the vatican that we will never see or hear of.

another question that is puzzeling me is this. if a person DOES self inflict the stigmata, would that be considered a sin?

[drstevej]

Although I aspire to be pope and plan to be the first married, Calvinist pope, I better defer your question to a member of the FR Catholic Raucus. They might give a better answer (but don't let them know I said that).

- Pope Piel I -- the Pocket Fisher of Men

[P-Marlowe]

Although I aspire to be pope and plan to be the first married, Calvinist pope...

So what you are saying is that Peter was not a Calvinist.

[drstevej]

***So what you are saying is that Peter was not a Calvinist.***

Yeah, you'll make a fine canon lawyer.

[P-Marlowe]

Yeah, you'll make a fine canon lawyer.

I will await the appointment your fishiness.

[Conservative til I die]

My point: to me it seems odd that similar "Christ" wounds would be in a place that Jesus more than likely did not have them. I am not saying that it is fake. I am saying that it seems odd that the wounds would be contarry to the truth as we know it to be

But is it contrary to the truth as we know it? Not nearly everyone knows that Christ's wounds were in his wrists.

[Tantumergo]

"it is a possiblity that there are records of stigmata stored hidden in the vatican that we will never see or hear of."

It is possible, but genuine cases of the stigmata tend to be rather difficult to conceal. Your mum would probably notice quite quickly if you were oozing gallons of blood when she came to see you! Also the medical profession of one sort or another have usually been called in at some stage to see if the wounds are treatable.

"if a person DOES self inflict the stigmata, would that be considered a sin?"

They would not be stigmata - they would be the results of self-mutilation - and yes the act of inflicting them would be sinful. Although the motivation and psychological state of the self-mutilator would need to be taken into account before determining the degree of culpability which could be attached to the sin.

[candlelane]

i don't deny that it would be a hard thing to hide, but science alone would deny it. for the most part, science seeks reasonable explanations that can be proven and religion in all forms is a mystery yet to be solved. as for the church, i regret to say that anything that will cause embarassement or withdrawl can easily be covered up due to the high power base they are on. not that i think TRUE cases of stigmata would be embarassing, but there have been fictitious cases of it that if the church were to back and then later proved wrong could be tramatizing to them and the followers. mass preservation.

as for self mutilation, i would never think of doing it. it is my belief that it is a sin to do anything of the sort, but there are others who may consider it a way to become closer to christ and to fully understand what he gave up for us. that i can understand as long as there is no profit to gain, though i still don't consider the right thing to do.

thanks for writing back your opinion though. consider it noted. :-)

[candlelane]

i might be repeating information here, but have you heard that jim caviezel (i think i spelled his name wrong), the actor that is playing christ in passions, was hit by lightning? no joke. apparently some storm hit a piece of equipment and he got zapped. doesn't sound like a good thing does it.