Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus?
Padre Pio, whose real name was Francesco Forgione, died in 1968. He was made a saint in 2002. A recent survey in Italy showed that more people prayed to him than to Jesus or the Virgin Mary. He exhibited stigmata throughout his life, starting in 1911.
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”.
Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: “We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.
as-Salam alaykum,
Suddenly, a single historian who wrote a book on the critical issue of Mussolini’s body is more credible than many witnesses who lived with Padre Pio on a daily basis. As Muslims, we ought to have a sense of proportion and justice and realize that there are many in the West who hate all religion, not only ours but even especially their own.
Padre Pio was in no way easily recognized as a saint. When word first spread of his stigmata, the Church officially branded him a liar and accused him of using acid to create the wounds. He was forbidden from saying Mass in public, from publishing, and from receiving visitors. Indeed, he was a humble man who suffered an amazing amount of embarrasment for about 50 years during which blood flowed from his hand, sides, and feet. It was only after his fame spread wide and many eye witnesses saw his wounds, which were always fresh and smelled of perfume, and after other miracles were reported that the Church reveresed its findings.
So when the Telegraph runs a headline of journalistic hype (in a country where Catholocism has not enjoyed much respect to say the least), why do we rally to their side? But when it is against us, we cry foul. In any case, truth is not to be found in reading a newspaper article hear and there; that is intellectual laziness. We do not believe in the Christian faith whose doctrines are not ours, but we do not need to also naively join hands with those who accuse pious people of faith of every evil.
Wassalam
Walaikum assalaam,
I hardly rallied to the Telegraph’s side. In fact the quotes I chose highlight Catholic objections to the book.
What I’ve done is merely blog a news item that, as a former Catholic, I found interesting.
That said, self-inflicted acid burns make much more sense than spontaneous bleeding which almost* correlates to wounds NOT suffered by Isa alaihi salaam, when someone else was crucified.
And such a conclusion is not intellectual laziness, it’s proper use of our God-given faculty of reason.
*The actual method of crucifiction was to drive nails through the wrists, not the palms, as the latter would tear under the weight of the body.
I should also mention that while I agree generally that one should side with religious people against attacks on religion, sometimes religion needs to be criticized.
Salaam ‘Alaikum
Alhamdulillah ‘ala ni’matul Islam.