|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 15, 2021 2:01:06 GMT
Is it just me, or does the article on St Padre Pio on the internet feel vaguely hostile?
The undertone I get, is that they are suggesting he faked the stigmata, and was not terribly intelligent.
I may be reading more into it, than is there, I'd just like to get other ideas on it.
All this said, if I were a bishop, and someone --- priest, layperson, whomever --- were reputed to have the stigmata, I'd be beyond skeptical, and would have medical experts all over the situation. IMO that would just be a bishop doing his job.
Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2021 11:05:32 GMT
When I was in school I used to solve this problem of fact checking by using schools-Wikipedia.org in other words the Wikipedia for schools charity.
Regretfully they closed down. Man I used to love that site with its school subject categories. Much better than the bite size BBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Sept 15, 2021 11:35:42 GMT
Is it just me, or does the article on St Padre Pio on the internet feel vaguely hostile?
The undertone I get, is that they are suggesting he faked the stigmata, and was not terribly intelligent.
I may be reading more into it, than is there, I'd just like to get other ideas on it.
All this said, if I were a bishop, and someone --- priest, layperson, whomever --- were reputed to have the stigmata, I'd be beyond skeptical, and would have medical experts all over the situation. IMO that would just be a bishop doing his job.
Thoughts?
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral and based on outside sources. On supernatural phenomena, it is not particularly deferential. The article on Padre Pio is well sourced and reasonably well written. I don't see it as "suggesting" anything; there are legitimate sourced opinions out there that Padre Pio may have faked his stigmata. Indeed, when Padre Pio was alive he was suspected of all kinds of rot by doctors, bishops and even Popes. The article also includes quotes from sources refuting the arguments that he faked his stigmata. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the article portrays him as "not terribly intelligent". He was a simple man who was not well educated or book-smart. Many Catholic saints and mystics fall in that category (St. Bernadette, St. Catherine Laboure, the children of Fatima, many more). Some believe that the Lord chooses these simple people on purpose to favor with mystical gifts, for reasons ranging from God wishing to exalt the humble and lowly, to the fact that people who are simple and less educated are less capable of fabrication and are more literal, so less likely to twist or embellish God's message. To a devout Catholic who is a devotee of particular saints or seers, Wikipedia at its best will always come off as slightly disrespectful because it is neutral and thus always allows for the possibility that the saint or seer was faking it or that his or her followers made stuff up. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 15, 2021 14:18:06 GMT
I have no issue whatsoever with anyone trying to disprove anything that purports to be of supernatural origin, yet may not be. I fully understand that many people, especially in our times, are desperate to find something to believe in, and it's only human nature to "latch onto" something that, after a fashion, mimics those miracles and wonders that are found in Scripture. An intellectual, logical, rational faith leaves many people cold. They seek after something tangible.
Even if it were, just for the sake of argument, possible to prove that Padre Pio's wounds were not of supernatural origin, it would not shake my faith one iota. "Reading of hearts" need not be supernatural. I find that I am generally very much able to detect "what is really bothering someone", even when they don't offer it up by speech, yet I claim no supernatural gifts. And even with Fatima, I have had to wonder whether drastic temperature inversions and the appearance of "sun dogs" --- the latter being something I saw recently on my own hillside, think of The Deer Hunter --- could have been known to be common in one particular location, that the crowd could have been gathered there on purpose, and that it was just a coincidence that it happened at that particular time. Point is, I believe in the miracle of Fatima, based upon even the secular evidence, but even if I did not --- if I were persuaded that it were of wholly natural origin --- it would not affect my faith one iota, nor would it affect the deposit of faith.
I "get it" that secular sources, if they don't have an agenda of their own, are going to be entirely neutral (or they should be), and might come across as disrespectfully skeptical to the believer. I have no issue with that either. Even if the Shroud of Turin, as compelling a story as it makes, were proven to be a forgery, it would not shake me one bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 16, 2021 13:53:48 GMT
I will open this post by saying I am not Wikipedia's biggest fan. However, that does not mean all its articles are wrong. It is certainly a resource that needs to be used with caution.
I do not believe the Wikipedia article about Saint Pio of Pietrelcina to be biased against him. Equally, you would not say it was written as any kind of promotional material about him. I believe the article tries to be factual about him.
There will always be those who doubt the miraculous and I see no harm in reporting that. Likewise, the Holy See tends to take a cautious approach to alleged visions and miracles, again something the article mentions.
|
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Sept 19, 2021 1:31:00 GMT
Wikipedia is not a scholarly website . It was not accepted as a reference for a paper in my dd's school or my son's when they were in school.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 19, 2021 12:59:33 GMT
Wikipedia is not a scholarly website . It was not accepted as a reference for a paper in my dd's school or my son's when they were in school. No, it's not scholarly and my institution will not accept it as a reference source. However, that doesn't mean it always gets things wrong. Its biggest downfall is that anyone can write or edit articles. You don't have to be an expert in the subject of the article. |
|
