CASES OF STIGMATA - Fact or Fiction?

I have a question that has been nagging me for quite some time now concerning people throughout history bearing the stigmatic wounds of Christ. I am a firm believer that the Shroud of Turin is indeed the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and based upon that belief, I pose the following observations for discussion and feedback.

Concerning the location of the five wounds as shown on the Shroud of Turin, with regard to the placement of the nails (through the carpal bones in each wrist at what is anatomically known as "the open mesocarpal space of Destot"), why is it that so many alleged stigmatists have "wounds" located in the center of their palms? In the case of Padre Pio, why were his wounds in the center of his palms? Were they possibly self inflicted as many sceptics have expressed throughout the years? If not, then why would they be located in the palms and not through the wrists as depicted on the Shroud? An observer would think that for someone to have the wounds of Christ, they would be exactly located on their body as they were inflicted on Christ's body. Also, I remember reading a book entitled "Padre Pio - The Stigmatist" by Fr. Charles Carty (available through TAN Books) in which a medical doctor who was to perform an operation on Padre Pio (for a medical condition which I fail to remember ... it may have been a case of hernia), the doctor placed Padre Pio under local anesthetic much to the protest of Padre Pio who wanted to undergo the operation without it. Apparently while unconscious, the doctor studied Padre Pio's wounds in his hands, feet, and side. The doctor found that Padre Pio's side wound was located on the LEFT SIDE of the chest in between the ribs below the heart in the form of an inverted cross about the size of a standard crucifix as found on a typical Rosary. As is depicted on the Shroud of Turin, the side wound of Christ is shown on the RIGHT SIDE of His chest from where the lance pierced His side. Why would Padre Pio's wound be in the form of an inverted cross and located on the left side of his chest according to the doctor's observation?

In trying to analyze this myself and determine possible scenarios and conclusions, it would seem that if Padre Pio were right handed, it would be plausible for him to either scratch with a sharp instument or heat up a small metal crucifix (perhaps on the end a Rosary) either over an open flame or dipped in some form of caustic solution with his right hand and then place it there on his left side to create a wound (as in the case of branding). The wound then could be continually reopened or reinflicted as needed with an easily obtainable source (i.e. the metal crucifix heated over an open flame such as a candle). Why then would he have this wound on his left side in the shape of an inverted cross? One of the ideas that has crossed my mind is that it would almost serve as a constant reminder to him of the cross on which Christ was crucified whereby that in looking down upon it daily from his vantage point (by nodding his head downward), it would appear as a normal depiction of an upright Roman crucifix, but to others (who were not meant to see it) it would appear inverted from the standpoint if you viewed Padre Pio chest while directly in front of him. A puzzling question indeed and as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, one that has bothered me for some time. Please do not feel that I am trying to tarnish Padre Pio's image in any way, it is just that I am trying to discern some type of plausible explination about the cause for his stigmata. Granted, this very much may be a case of Divine Intervention in which God chose Padre Pio in which to call the faithful to ponder the wounds of Christ and His Passion, but I don't understand why He would allow the wounds to be inaccurately depicted on someone with regard to comparing them to the wounds shown on the Shroud of Turin. That is to say that I am using the Shroud of Turin as a touchstone for all other possible cases of stigmatic wounds. On a side note here, I firmly believe that the wounds of St. Francis of Assisi were indeed genuine based upon, to my knowledge (in which I may be inaccurate here), no one up until the time of St. Francis had been blessed with the Stigmata other than Jesus Christ Himself. Please correct me if I am indeed wrong.

Also, what is one to make of the so-called stigmatic priest from Croatia by the name of Fr. Zlatko Sudac (pronounced "sue-dots")? It has been alleged in some circles (mainly those in favor of the apparitions in Medjugorje), that Fr. Sudac bears all five wounds of Christ in addition to a small blood-red crucifix "wound" located just above the middle of his eyebrows in the center of his forehead. Needless to say, this wound has never been heard of or seen in cases of alleged stigmata. In the few pictures that I have seen of Fr. Sudac's forehead wound, I have noticed that the length of the vertical line of the crucifix has in some depictions (most notably at the very bottom of the vertical portion of the crucifix located just about a quarter of an inch above his eyebrows), varied ever so slightly in that sometimes it is longer and at other times it is shorter. I have never heard of a wound that could modify itself in length or form unless it either were self-inflicted or manipulated into not healing correctly. With regard to Fr. Sudac's alleged hand wounds, it is said that his wounds are located in the wrist area. However, in all pictures that I have seen of him, no indication of any wound or mark is located on the wrist or hand area. Once again, is this a possible deception, and if so, what are we indeed looking at with regard to Fr. Sudac's motives? Thanks for your time everyone and I look forward to your feedback. Sincerely, Front 242

Why would Padre Pio have wounds in his palms, not in his wrists?

(I don't know how Catholic you are, so pardon me if I give some very elementary Catholic instruction.)

When Catholics pray, particularly Catholic mystics, they often focus intently on the five wounds of Christ. The stigmata are the result of profound empathy for the sufferings of Christ. If Padre Pio felt empathy for being nailed to the cross by the palms -- believing Christ was crucified in this manner -- it makes sense to me that the stigmata would appear there. Picture his befuddlement if the stigmata appeared on his wrists if he did not know that's where Christ was wounded!

Christ does often work with people where they are, rather than impose a truth they will not understand. Hence, he ASCENDED into Heaven, even though Heaven -- and this was something his disciples even knew -- isn't really "up." It was the symbolism of elevation that was significant. Likewise, he used mud and spit to heal the blind man. He didn't need to use mud and spit -- it was a little mumbo-jumbo from healers of his day -- but it made the blind man feel like he was being healed, and thus aided his faith.

Is there any hint, any place, that he "proved" anything by showing his stigmata?

Nobody hinted that he had to "prove" anything by his stigmata, if he indeed had them. If anything, the near absence of accounts of them are evidence that he regarded them as a personal thing and not as a sign of his own holiness or fitness for leadership.

Likewise, he used mud and spit to heal the blind man. He didn't need to use mud and spit -- it was a little mumbo-jumbo from healers of his day -- but it made the blind man feel like he was being healed, and thus aided his faith.

Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

>>Random lumps and bruises? What an insult to the apostle!>>

Umm, you're the one insisting that they were random lumps and bruises, though you feign shock and horror at sych a description.

Superstition? Please tell me how they are superstition.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. 1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
3. Idolatry.

So you equate empathy for Christ with idolatry? Do you accuse stigmatists of being of a "fearful or abject state of mind." Quite the opposite. Or is it that you hold that Christ is "not logically related to a course of events"? Of course you don't, but that's what you say when you call such things superstition.
Stigmata do not magically appear. These people are so in love with Christ that they joyfully share in his suffering, and by doing so enter into an unfathomably deep sense of prayer. It is not a cruelty they are inflicted with. Most describe being able to reach an ecstatic level of prayer which is truly experiencing Heaven on Earth.

>> Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

Mud and spit are sacramental? I'll give you a little of your point -- that Jesus worked through ordinary, even humble, materials, foreshadowing his use of them in sacraments... but that hardly negates my point. And I highly doubt that was why this was specifically mentioned, especially since there were much stronger foreshadowing available (e.g., miracle of the loaves and fishes).

I'm thinking of the recent stigmatic, Theresa Neumann who was from Germany. I think she died in the early 60s. I have a book on her somewhere around here and the pictures are incredible.

Also St. Rita of Cascia (sp?) - had the wound on her forehead from a thorn... it bled all the time but smelled like roses... a phenomena associated with all stigmatics, I believe.

Mud and spit are sacramental?

The use of matter to convey grace is sacramental. Contrast with a "faith alone" approach or a gnostic approach whereby the created world is evil. The sacramental economy demonstrates that the created world is a tool for God to use to repair the damage froim the Fall.

And I highly doubt that was why this was specifically mentioned, especially since there were much stronger foreshadowing available (e.g., miracle of the loaves and fishes).

Every Word from God can be used to His Glory. The loaves and fishes shows miraculous superabundance, but it only served as a routine meal, not as a conveyance of grace.

"Just from left field here, but the use of mud and spit is an example or a foreshadow of the sacramental use of common materials.

Mud and spit are sacramental?"

Puhleeese chaps - I don't want to negate either of your points, but there is much to be extrapolated from the mud and spit!

John 9,4 "I must work the works of him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6 When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay on his eyes,
7 And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing."

The verses in question are indeed sacramental for the following reasons:

1.) In doing the work of the One who sent Him, John is identifying Jesus as working the same type of work as the Father worked, i.e. CREATING. Jesus is also creator.

How did God create man?:

Gen 2,7 "And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

So as God created Adam from the slime of the earth, Jesus is now "re-creating" the blind man by using the same slime of the earth that He used in creating Adam at the beginning.

Jesus being the Light of the world also evokes the Genesis creation account.

2.) The One who is SENT by the Father now sends the blind man to the waters of the SENT ONE, i.e. BAPTISM.

The blind man is WASHED in the laver of regeneration, is made a NEW CREATION and receives the light again (in semitic understanding to be seeing is to have light in your eyes, whereas blindness is caused by losing the light from your eyes.)

He is thus ENLIGHTENED by the LIGHT OF THE WORLD through the sacrament of Baptism which has truly made him a NEW CREATION by the power of the CREATOR working through the sacrament.

This is why the patristic term for Baptism was often PHOTISMOS or enlightenment.

Paul tells us he was repeatedly beaten [2 Corinthians 11:24, Acts 16:21]. He was beaten for his preaching of Jesus. He was beaten as was Jesus. Isn't this a sufficient explanation of "the marks of the Lord Jesus."
I though at first you might be correct. In Galations 6:11-17 Paul is arguing against those who would be circumcised to " avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." But if you look in the Greek text for this verse, you find the word used for mark is stigma. Here is the definition for stigma:

1) a mark pricked in or branded upon the body. To ancient oriental usage, slaves and soldiers bore the name or the stamp of their master or commander branded or pricked (cut) into their bodies to indicate what master or general they belonged to, and there were even some devotee's who stamped themselves in this way with the token of their gods

What in the text makes you conclude these were supernaturally produced marks?

stigma:

Luow-Nida =
scar, mark (of a slave)

Liddell-Scott =
st°gma st°zw the mark of a pointed instrument, a tattoo-mark, brand, Hdt., Ntest.

Beatings were often done with chords tipped with metal which made whelps and punctures of the skin. The greek term describes well the marks of a scouraging. And Paul proclaimed himself a slave of Jesus Christ.

There is no contextual support for miraculous scars. And Paul's own account of his beatings and claim to be a slave of Jesus Christ make the term very accurate without imagining these marks to be "stigmata" in the sense the term is used in this article.

"The loaves and fishes shows miraculous superabundance, but it only served as a routine meal, not as a conveyance of grace."

The loaves and fishes certainly showed miraculous superabundance, but also it serves as a proleptic account of the Eucharist especially in John's gospel, where he does not recount the institution narrative.

John 6,11 And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks (EUCHARISTEIN), he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would.
12 And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost. (THIS IS A LITURGICAL INSTRUCTION FROM THE PRIMITIVE RUBRICS OF THE MASS)
13 They gathered up therefore, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above to them that had eaten.
14 Now those men, when they had seen what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet, that is to come into the world.

Remember that this miracle and the subsequent account of Jesus walking on the water are followed immediately by the extensive "Bread of Life" discourse, where Jesus teaches the crowd that unless they eat His flesh and drink His blood, they cannot have life within them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.