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

[BlackVeil]

I understand the suggestions which you are making, about Padre Pio, and I would add the suggestion that his wounds may have been self-inflicted, but he may not have remembered doing so.

It is well known, in many religious traditions, that people in penetential practices can go into a trance. They can be praying, and mortifying themselves in the most extreme ways (such as those Hindus who swing from hooks in their flesh) but some of them remember nothing of it later. It is like they wake up, and they say that the last twelve hours passed like a brief dream, where they were feeling that their soul was happy in heaven. Anthropologists have written about this. In some ways, mystical states of mind can be similar in effects to drug use.

If Padre Pio felt inspired to pierce himself with the wounds he was seeing on a crucifix, he might have been unable to recapture these thoughts afterwards. I am only putting this forward as a suggestion.

[drstevej]

BackVeil, I have two curiosity questions for you on this topic:

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

[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.

-- drstevej

[drstevej]

Ping to post #82. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[Antoninus]

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.

Someone once suggested to Padre Pio that perhaps he willed himself the wounds because he always stared at a crucifix. In response, the Saint replied, "Tell your friend to go stare at a cow and see if he grows horns on his head."

[BlackVeil]

I have read different explanations for this. Some Catholic writers maintain that St Paul had the stigmata, and so it was Biblical, and not new at all (according to the text cited.) Also, it may be that others did, between the time of St Paul and St Francis, and we do not know of them.

Others claim that veneration of the crucifix - rather than simply an ornate flat cross - was introduced in the medieval period, and this was blessed by the grace of stigmata appearing. The appearance of the crucifix has been controversial in Christianity, and some staunch traditionalists believe that stigmata is a divine sign of approval for this devotion. (One hardly need add the rationalist critique of this, which is that the visual aid is causing imitation.)

A recent article on americancatholic.org takes a moderate position. It says:

Q: Recently, after watching a video about the life of Padre Pio, my husband and I wondered why the wounds appeared in the hands rather than the wrists. The hand sites are found depicted in many traditional paintings, while the wrists are the accepted actual site of the piercing. Could this anomaly be proof of a less-than-miraculous reason for the stigmata?

A: Two reference books shed light on your question. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, edited by Richard P. McBrien, states, "On very rare occasions the Catholic Church has accepted an occurrence of the stigmata as authentic, but has never defined their origin or nature, thus allowing physical, psychological and preternatural explanations for these phenomena."

Ian Wilson, in Stigmata (Harper & Row, San Francisco), declares, "They [stigmata] are one of the most baffling and intriguing of medical and scientific mysteries."

Obviously, there are few sure answers we can give or find regarding the stigmata. We are not even certain how the stigmata—wounds of the Passion—looked on Christ’s body. We can only speculate. But we do know that the stigmata do not appear the same in all who are believed to have had them.

One stigmatic, for instance, had only the wounds that would have been made by the crown of thorns. Two possessed only the wound in the side. Some had the lance wound in the left side (Padre Pio), another in the right side (St. Francis of Assisi). One had the hand wounds in the wrists, others in the palms of the hands.

Is it significant that more women than men have had the stigmata? What can we conclude from the fact that most stigmatics came from the Dominican and Franciscan Orders? And what does it say that some saints were stigmatics but not all stigmatics were saints?

As I read Wilson, he searches for a natural explanation of the stigmata. Among the possibilities he suggests is some inner mechanism comparable to that which under stress produces evolutionary adaptations in species.

In his study, Wilson notes some stigmatics seem to have identified with earlier stigmatics—ultimately with Jesus. Finally, Wilson notes, "A really riveting feature is the extraordinary precision of the mechanism’s conformity to the visualization that triggered it. Stigmata have been precisely positioned to conform with the wounds of a stigmatic’s favorite crucifix. Or a wound may have taken on the exact shape, such as a cross."

That seems to imply that the stigmata may occur according to the way the subject pictures or imagines them.

For books on the stigmata besides Wilson’s, see: Voices, Visions and Apparitions and They Bore the Wounds of Christ: The Mystery of the Sacred Stigmata, both by Michael Freeze, S.F.O. (Our Sunday Visitor).

[drstevej]

Interesting read, thanks!

Do you believe Paul bore the stigmata in the sense that Assissi did? Our earlier debate on this thread still leaves me convinced that Gal. 6:17 is consistent with Paul's description of his beatings for his faith and not stigmata in the fashion later experienced.

Is there tradition that supports the contention that Paul was a stigmatic in the manner of St. Francis?

[Romulus]

The highly recognisable iconography of Paul is consistent from a very early date, yet I'm not aware of any iconographic tradition of Paul bearing the stigmata. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, the first known stigmatist is Francis of Assisi.

[Romulus]

Franciscan iconography consistently represents the wounds in the hands.

[BlackVeil]

Do you believe Paul bore the stigmata in the sense that Assissi did?

Personally - no I do not believe so - with respect for those who read the statement that way.

I do believe that St Francis, and some other stigmatists, are carrying genuine marks of an esctatic experience. I think it possible that they have taken themselves out of the ordinary realm of experience, and these marks are the consequence. They may not be a miraculous map of marks on Christ's body, (otherwise, as you say, they would be entirely the same in each case) but they are some sort of replica of their own meditations on his suffering.

Also - without being meanminded - I think that many so-called stigmatists are frauds, and that the reason why so many are women is that women are more prone to hysteria and attention seeking behaviour. But not all of them are frauds.

[BlackVeil]

Franciscan iconography consistently represents the wounds in the hands. It does indeed, but I have seen examples of some very early depictions where the marks are on the wrists. I shall try to look up a reference.

[Front 242]

Milan,

Thanks for the link regarding the Crucifixion. I sincerely appreciate it. I agree with you as well on the placement of the nails. It would seem feasible for the Romans to place the nails directly inbetween the small metacarpal bones of the wrists in order to suspend someone from the crossbeam portion of a crucifix. The small bones, ligaments, and bundle of muscles/veins would be more apt to support the heavy stress placed on them by a body suspended upright with its arms outstretched. The metacarpal bones would almost act as a tiny grouping of shims in which to prevent the nail being torn through the wrists.

However, to place the nails in the center of the palms would allow for the nails to possibly be pulled through to the webbed spaces between the fingers. (Sorry about the ghastly description folks ... just goes to show you the incredible suffering that Jesus undertook on our behalf ... something that not many people reflect on these days). The incredible physiological stress placed on the wrists or hands at the point of impalement with the nails would be very high. Imagine someone in the throes of death convulsing and trying to maintain an upright posture in which to breath and you can see why the Romans (who knew a thing or two about anatomy with all the wars, torture, and killings they committed and thus were able to examine firsthand the effects of trauma placed on the body), would place the nails through the wrists.

The one thing that lends credence though to the nail placement through the palms scenario, was just revealed to me after viewing some preview photos of Mel Gibson's new movie on the Crucifixion of Jesus, "The Passion". In them, they show Jesus being crucified with nails placed in the center of the palms of His hands. In order to support His outstretched arms, they have ropes tied around His arms (at what looks like the elbow area) to the horizontal beam of the cross. This would be extremely logical on the part of the Romans in which to create a second fulcrum or pressure point in order to alleviate the stress placed on the nails at the hand/wrist area. Not only would it support the body better, but it would prevent the nails from being torn through the hands. On the other hand (no pun intended), I think that it would not make for a quicker death in that it would prolong the agony of the crucified person by not allowing the condemned to tire himself out by trying to lift up his torso in which to breath more easily (also thwarted by the Romans breaking the legs of the crucified person in order to counteract the natural tendency one would have to use the legs to lift his body up in order to breathe). It has been medically shown that death via crucifixion was due in part to suffocation by reversing the aspiration process that we as humans need to survive. We inhale oxygen with the lungs in conjunction with the diaphragm and abdominal muscles, and reverse the process when we exhale. Crucifixion alters this process. The condemned were forced to reverse this sequence by breathing in what oxygen they could manage (where we would normally exhale) and exhale where we would normally inhale. A very painful process indeed. This process allowed for fluid and carbon dioxide to build up in the lungs thus suffocating the crucified individual. This build up of fluid in the lungs has been attributed as the reason for the presence of blood and water to have flowed forth from Jesus' side after being pierced by the lance.

Your example of crucifixion as found in the Qur'an is an eye-opener for me. I am not really familiar with the teachings of the Qur'an, but to read your comment makes me think that the Moslem form of crucifixion would be a bit more painful than the Roman form in that the condemned would have to deal with the pain of having his hands and feet amputated, but I think that due to massive bloodloss, his death would be quicker.

An excellent medical document on Jesus' Crucifixion was written and illustrated by a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic back in the mid-eighties and can be found in the March 21st, 1986 edition of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). I'm sure that with some digging around on the Internet (maybe via Google), someone out there might be able to track down a copy of this article as posted on a website. It is not an article to be passed up as the forensic drawings are very well done. If anyone is able to track this article down, please post the link on this thread. With sincere thanks, Front 242.

[milan]

With regard to Mel Gobson's movie; I have also seen the previews and wondered about the way it is portrayed there. Hollywood is not the best portrayal of reality, however, I would like to believe that Mel Gibson and his crew did sufficient research for the film. I cringe just watching the preview. The only problems I have with the portrayal is that I was originally told about the crucifixtion method by a PH.d. holder of history. Now we could easily say that they don't know it all, and they certainly don't, but he seemed quite the knowledgable history professor. That made me look at the crucifiction methods closer, which brought even more odd things to bear. During the time of Jesus' crucifiction, the standard "t" type cross was not in common use. The "T" type cross was, meaning that there would not have been any type of rest for the head, but to hang. The "King of the Jews" sign placed above Jesus would hve been done so by a smaller wooden stick placed behind the cross to suspend the name above Jesus' head. Also, the binding which you see in the movie was accurate, but it may not have been the means done at the time. I would love to find out which sources that the Gibson team used for research.

Also, I am also not familiar with the Quran, but found the link while looking for Roman crucifiction history.

[milan]

That seems to imply that the stigmata may occur according to the way the subject pictures or imagines them.

Interesting thought.

[milan]

"With regard to Mel Gobson's movie;"

Nothing personal Mel!

[drstevej]

A reasonable response IMO, thanks.

[Romulus]

Please ping me if you find anything.

[drstevej]

BV: That seems to imply that the stigmata may occur according to the way the subject pictures or imagines them.

m: Interesting thought.

drsj: That seems the best explanation for variation of location of the marks. However, it raises the question whether the marks are produced by the individual's meditation or supernaturally by God.

This is an important distinction in responding to my earlier question regarding the appearance of stigmata over a millenia after the NT era.

If they are from God the timing is very hard, IMO, to explain. However, if they are physical effects caused by meditation (psychsomatic in nature) then the experience of St. Francis, whom I believe to be a very devout man would provide incentive for others to follow his lead.

[dangus]

>>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.

>Someone once suggested to Padre Pio that perhaps he willed himself the wounds because he always stared at a crucifix. In response, the Saint replied, "Tell your friend to go stare at a cow and see if he grows horns on his head."

That person was asserting that Padre Pio was the source of the wounds. I did not intend to assert that, but that he received the wounds from Christ, as a gift given to him so that he may be closer to Christ - a desire I termed "empathy." But my understanding of the stigmata is quite basic. If you would like to elaborate on something, please do.

[SoothingDave]

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

Well, if you keep saying things sooner or later you're bound to say something profound. ;-)

SD

[SoothingDave]

If they are from God the timing is very hard, IMO, to explain. However, if they are physical effects caused by meditation (psychsomatic in nature) then the experience of St. Francis, whom I believe to be a very devout man would provide incentive for others to follow his lead.

You obvously don't think it normal that our thoughts alone could cause wounds to appear on our bodies. So there must be some supernatural cause.

God provides what is necessary for a people. It could be that such stigmata were not a part of His plan before the turn of the millennium.

Also, as was pointed out, the use of a corpus on the cross developed prior to the stigmata. If intense meditation on the wounds is required, it may be that before the use of crucifixes, there was no such impetus to such contemplation.

SD