CASES OF STIGMATA - Fact or Fiction?

[Front 242]

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

[As you well know...]

Ha Ha Ha ..you're kidding, right?

[drstevej]

Nope.

[SoothingDave]

That's not anything official, just a thought I had.

SD

[drstevej]

I realized that.

[ventana]

Gal 4:14   And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus.  

    Gal 4:15   Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

Or could it be he had something wrong with his eyes? Something Jesus did to him at that their first "meeting" that never quite went away? Why else would these people who did not despise his infirmity offer him their eyes (if it had been possible)?

[drstevej]

GAl. 6:11 See with how large letters I write unto you with mine own hand.

Another indication of eye problems. If this is the case, it still could have been congenital.

[ventana]

Isn't he the one who said when you are old people will lead you where you don't want to go?

[drstevej]

No. That was what Jesus said to Peter in John 21 indicating his future martyrdom.

[As you well know...]

Ha Ha Ha...I was thinking of my old stomping grounds where a real ol' man Johnson lived

[ventana]

Oh yeah. Thanks.

[Domestic Church]

I recall hearing a decade ago about a stigmatic, a devout and humble housewife, up near Hazelton/Wilkes-Barre PA.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Your replies here are very edifying and informative for the rest of us. Quite the contrast to certain people here mentioning that you Permanent Deacons are iliterate slobs!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

All of Jesus' miracles also have a supernatural component to them. To be "born blind" and then be "given sight" is analogical to Baptism - being born blind of faith, hope and charity because of original sin, and then having them infused by divine grace. Mud and spittle does take us back to Genesis and the natural creation of the human race. Christ uses them here to teach about Baptism and the supernatural recreation of the human race.

The miracles also show that Christ is the divine physician, here to heal our bodies of all infirmities in the glory of the resurrection, and our souls of all infirmities by His sacramental grace.

The finest link of these things is in Mark 2, where the cripple is lowered through the roof to be healed and Christ says to him that hs sins are forgiven, rather than healing him. But when the pharisees are scandalized, Christ heals his body to proove his ability to forgive sins.

[milan]

I've done very little research on the stigmata, and please excuse me if someone has already explained this: Jesus more than likely had the nails placed through his wrists, just like in the shroud. The reason is because that putting the nails through the hand will not support the upper body for any period of time. The flesh will tear and the body will fall. However, if the nails are put between the two arm bones at the wrist, the flesh will not tear and the body will stay in place. Sorry for the gross explanation, but this was apparently the "correct" way to crucify someone. The Romans had plenty of experience to do it the right way.

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.

To further elaborate that crucifictions happened that way; this is from the Quran (used simply as a way to show how some forms of crucifiction were done):
"Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross."[Qur'ân 7:124]
This quite simply says that after their hands are cut off they will be hung on the cross. You can't put nails through hands that aren't there!

Also, here is a link to a very graphic explanation of what Jesus probably suffered. It covers the crucifixtion method of the Romans in more detail than you may want to know.
http://www.harpazo.net/crucify.html

Sorry, I may be a tad off subject, but wanted to lend some insight into the actual crucifiction method...as it is historically presented.

[PFKEY]

You insult him in order to maintain a superstition. In doing so, you also shame the Lord.

Well said doc.

[milan]

Random lumps and bruises?

Yeah, more than likely Paul's back was one giant scar. After a few of his beatings, quite honestly, they may have become easier for him...simply because his back and nerves were scarred beyond repair. The nerve damage was probably immense. Paul suffered immeasurably for his beliefs and loyalty to Christ. Of course, it wasn't just Paul. Not sure the exact numbers, but didn't most of the apostles take several beatings and weren't most crucified?

[Tantumergo]

"I was learnt it was a sign of God's love and that those He loves the most are willing to undergo suffering for others because, done with right intent, our undergoing suffering for others can be both Salvific and Redemptive."

Sounds like you was learnt by St. Paul:

Rom 8,17 "And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, IF WE SUFFER WITH HIM, that we may be also glorified with him."

[Tantumergo]

"It is curious. Perhaps the Schism, which introduced a visible wound in the Mystical Body of Christ led to the showing of the wounds of the Body of Christ on certain mystics?"

Wow! That's a very mystical thought. Probably why no modern-day theologian is ever likely to stumble upon it. ;)

[Tantumergo]

"Quite the contrast to certain people here mentioning that you Permanent Deacons are iliterate slobs!"

Shock, horror!! I must have missed that one.

Slob perhaps, and knowing some of my brothers in the order we could probably stretch that to quite a few slobs.

But I think it may be generalising a little too much to call us all illiterate slobs! ;)

[BlackVeil]

I will look up some pictures, but I believe that early frescos of St Francis of Assisi do show him with stigmata on the wrists, rather than the palms. This is unusual, and marks him out from later stigmatists.