What is the Stigmata? [Ecumenical]

CERC ^ | 2003 | FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

[Salvation]

What is the Stigmata?

FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

I am so happy about Padre Pio being beatified. I know that he had the stigmata, but I have had some trouble explaining it to my Protestant friends. Could you please explain what that is and if any other saints have had it.

 
The stigmata is the spontaneous appearance of the wound marks of our crucified Lord on a person's body. These marks include the nail wounds at the feet and the hands, the lance wound at the side, the head wounds from the crown of thorns, and the scourge marks over the entire body, particularly the back. A stigmatic (i.e. the person suffering from the stigmata) may have one, several, or all of these wound marks. Moreover, they may be visible or invisible, and they may be permanent, periodic, or temporary in appearance.

Some skeptics would attribute such wound marks on a person to some pathology or even to a psychological condition without considering any notion of the supernatural. Of course, the Church too strives first to ascertain that the origin is not of natural causes, and looks for supernatural evidence to prove that the stigmata is truly a sign from God. Moreover, the Church would also want to insure that the stigmata is not a sign from Satan to cause some spiritual frenzy and lead people astray. Accordingly, since the stigmata is a sign of union with our crucified Lord, the genuine stigmatic must have lived a life of heroic virtue, have endured physical and moral suffering, and have almost always achieved the level of ecstatic union with Him in prayer.

The wound marks themselves of the genuine stigmata are also distinct from any arising from some pathology: The genuine stigmata conforms to the wounds of our Lord, whereas those of a pathological nature would emerge at random on the body. The genuine stigmata bleeds especially on days when our Lord's passion is remembered (such as Fridays and Good Friday), whereas those of a pathological nature would not. The genuine stigmata emits clean and pure blood, whereas those of the pathological origin suppurate. The blood flow from a genuine stigmata can be great at times without harm to the person, whereas that of a pathological nature would seriously weaken a person and require a blood transfusion. The genuine stigmata cannot be healed through medication or other treatments, whereas one of pathological origin can. Finally, the genuine stigmata appears suddenly, whereas that of a pathological origin appears gradually over time and can be linked to underlying psychological and physical causes.

Finally, the genuine stigmatics have been surprised at the appearance of the stigmata. This sign is not something for which they had "prayed." Moreover, in humility, they have often tried to conceal it so as not to cause attention to themselves.

The first "certified" stigmatic was St. Francis of Assisi (1181 - 1226). In August, 1224, he and several Franciscans journeyed to Mount Alvernia in Umbria, near Assisi, to pray. Here Francis begged to share in the sufferings of Christ. On the Feast of the Holy Cross (September 14) in 1224, St. Francis had a vision of being embraced by our crucified Lord. The agony of the first Good Friday poured into his being, and he received the stigmata. He tried to conceal this sign of divine favor from others, covering his hands with his habit and wearing shoes and socks on his feet (which he normally did not do). Eventually, his confreres noticed the change in St. Francis' clothing and his physical suffering, and his stigmata became known. Eventually, upon the advice of his confreres, he revealed the stigmata publicly. St. Francis said, "Nothing gives me so much consolation as to think of the life and passion of our Lord. Were I to live to the end of the world, I should stand in need of no other book." Surely, St. Francis' love for our crucified Lord, witnessed in his care for the suffering poor, gained him the stigmata.

St. Catherine of Sienna (1347-1380), who had mystical experiences and visions from the time she was six years old, also received the stigmata. In February, 1375, while visiting Pisa, she attended Mass at the Church of St. Christina. After receiving Holy Communion, she fell into deep meditation, gazing upon the crucifix. Suddenly from the cross came five blood-red rays which pierced her hands, feet, and side, causing such great pain that she fainted. Here she received the stigmata, but it remained visible only to her until after her death.

Perhaps the most famous stigmatic is Padre Pio. Born in 1887, he had visions from the time he was five years old, and from an early age decided to dedicate his life to the Lord. He entered the Capuchin Franciscans in 1903, and was ordained a priest in 1910. He said, "I am devoured by the love of God and by the love of my neighbor."

On August 5, 1918, Padre Pio had a vision in which he felt himself pierced with a lance; afterwards, the lance wound remained with him. Later, on September 20, 1918, while he was making his thanksgiving after Mass, he also received the wounds of our Lord in his hands and feet. Each day, he lost about one cup of blood, but the wounds never closed or festered. Also, a sweet odor emanated from his wounds instead of the smell of blood.

During his life, Padre Pio came to know the depth of the suffering of our Savior at the hands of those within and outside of the Church, and of the Devil himself. Nevertheless, Padre Pio said, "I am an instrument in divine hands. I am useful only when manipulated by the Divine Mover." The stigmata would stay with Padre Pio to the time of his death. Pope Paul VI said, "What renown he has! What an international following! And why? Because he was a philosopher? A scholar? A person of means? No, because he said Mass in a humble manner, heard confessions from morning to night. And because he was Our Lord's representative, certified with the stigmata."

Although very few saints have been granted the stigmata, those who have, like St. Francis, St. Catherine, and Blessed Pio, have known the sufferings of our Lord. While the stigmata may intrigue us, the sign itself and those who bear it should inspire us to seek a closer union with our Lord, especially through frequent confession and reception of the Holy Eucharist.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Saunders, Rev. William. "What is the Stigmata? ." Arlington Catholic Herald.

This article is reprinted with permission from Arlington Catholic Herald.

THE AUTHOR

Father William Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Sterling, Virginia. The above article is a "Straight Answers" column he wrote for the Arlington Catholic Herald. Father Saunders is also the author of Straight Answers, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore.

Copyright © 2003 Arlington Catholic Herald

[Salvation]

I did not know that.

[Salvation]

I wondered if I used the correct verb in my post. What I copied from somewhere else is their error. LOL! Glad I got it correct — plural

[annalex]

It was hypothesized that ropes were used; also, the experiment with cadavers that tended to prove that a nail through the center of the palm would not support the weight, had this flaw, — that a living man would support himself in part by pushing against the plank to which the feet are nailed.

Another subject is what exactly the stigmata are. It is true that they, as the author writes, conform to the wounds of Christ. But do they conform to the wound as received by Christ or as the stigmatist imagines them to be? Since icons of the crucifixion show wounds through center of palms — not through the stronger cluster of bones near the wrist — a stigmatist receives them through palms also.

I am inclined to think that stigmata are there not to make an icon of Christ in the flesh of the stigmatist, but rather they are granted the stigmatist who desires to share in the suffering of Christ. Indeed, many stigmata are granted women, most that I saw depicted are through the center of palms, St. Francis’s excrecenses represent the Holy Wounds only symbolically; all true stigmatists are moved to conceal these signs. If so, there should be no expectation that the stigmata reveal to us the anatomical nature of the Holy Wounds. The stigmata are granted not for us to look at, but to the stigmatist as a special grace.

Let us say, one prays to receive martyrdom and he is indeed martyred for the Church. We would not expect him to be scourged and crucified in order to conform to Christ; a labor camp or a firing squad are the part of the individual journey of the martyr toward Christ. Likewise the stigmata are a collaboration of the particular stigmatist with grace.

[guitarplayer1953]

I was going to say the shroud shows the nails going through the wrists. Therefore in my opinion any other signs would be false.

[annalex]

They won’t show the anatomically correct position of the wounds, but as I tried to explain in my previous posts, any wound received supernaturally driven by the desire of the mystic to share in the wounds of Christ would be a real sign of grace.

[Mad Dawg]

Therefore in my opinion any other signs would be false.

I would suggest that we slow down a little. I think annalex has sketched out some good issues.

Assuming the stigmatist (or somebody else) didn't cause the wounds with a pen knife, it's at least a prodigy, a wonder. Can't we say that?

At MY most cynical, I would suggest that something like this MIGHT could happen as a result of something like self-hypnosis. But even in that case it wouldn't be a garden variety, everyday sort of thing. I don't think the average hypnotist could induce someone to somehow create such wounds in himself, but then I don't know what I'm talking about.

And the associated phenomena are also hard to explain, if we grant that they really happened. That is, the sweet, rather than bloody, odor, and the like.

I mean, I'm the kind of guy who usually ends up napping when I attempt something like lectio divina. When I pray a full rosary (all 20 mysteries) I have to do so while standing or walking.

To me the gift of being so caught up in prayer that some psychosomatic phenomenon like the stigmata happened would itself be a miracle, even if subsequent generations could explain the sort of bio-mechanics of it. ("Psychosomatic" is here intended as a descriptive, not an evaluative term.)

Am I a little clear?

[guitarplayer1953]

My point was if the wounds are in the wrong places then they would be false. They bible speaks of lying signs and wonders. From, my research it was St. Francie’s who first had these manifestations. His description of what happened brings doubt into my mind, he spoke of seeing the 6 winged seraphin who looked like Jesus.

[guitarplayer1953]

What does it profit having marks? And why would they not be anatomically correct?

[annalex]

Christianity is about loving Jesus. With this in mind, consider what will happen if you have an imprefect knowledge of the anatomy of His wounds.

Let us remember that it is our suffering that benefits the Church, when it conforms to the suffering of Christ. The Biblical example is St. Paul who had a poor vision and a "thorn in his side":

7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. 8 For which thing thrice I besought the Lord, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful.

(2 Cor. 12)

continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister. 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church: 25 Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God

(Col 1)

What do we see here? The sign of suffering is a form of grace; it is applied to the suffering of Christ; it builds up the treasure of grace in the Church. Nowhere does the sign anatomically conforms to Christ. One wracked with cancer can, God willing, apply his pain to the pain of the scourging or the Crucifixion. If cancer anatomiically unrelated to the Holy Wounds can do it, then why demand anatomical correctness in the stigmatic wounds?

[Mad Dawg]

My point was if the wounds are in the wrong places then they would be false.

Yes, I know that's your point. I was suggesting that your point needed examining.

[guitarplayer1953]

Paul's thorn was to keep him humble. Paul like all men can become puffed up in knowledge. Some have tried to say that Paul had what is called the stigmata of today from Gal. 6:17.

4742 stigma (stig'-mah); from a primary stizo (to "stick", i.e. prick); a mark incised or punched (for recognition of ownership), i.e. (figuratively) scar of service: KJV-- mark.

[annalex]

Yes, and that is the grace of stigmata in the narrow sense of marking the holy wounds as well.

[guitarplayer1953]

And still my question would be what does it profit to have such marks. On all the accounts in the bible of visitations there is no odor accompanying them. Odors were synominus to pagan encounters. There was no odor when Paul encountered Christ or when the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost.

[evets]

[guitarplayer1953]

Interesting picture where did it come from?

[maryz]

And why does it rename the Greek letter ‘sigma’ ‘stigma’?

[guitarplayer1953]

Don’t know thats why I asked where did it come from.

[Mad Dawg]

This is very peculiar.

The name of the letter is SIGMA, not STIGMA. An majuscule (upper case) Sigma looks like this: Σ and the lower case in the middle of a word looks like this: σ Generally the 's' form of the letter only appears at the end of words. So I was taught anyway.

There may be other good things about this site but I find it very hard to take seriously anybody who presents such stuff.

[Mad Dawg]

And I guess this comes down to the humongo cultural differences between us. I don't think anybody was thinking much of "profit".

We take very seriously Col 1:24 and, loving Jesus, we long (or some of us do) to share His sufferings. The marks alone aren't the whole deal. The accounts that I've read of stigmatic Dominicans always mention that the stigma were very painful, and that sometimes the stigmatist had the pain without the visible marks.

He or she did not consider them "profitable" but a gift of love. Or, I should say, of Love Himself.

I don't know, though, I keep hearing and reading about a "sweet-smelling savor," and while I think we would agree that miracles aren't the real deal, that our Lord Himself did not do many flashy miracles and often tried to get people to be quiet about them, yet when God DOES do a miracle, sometimes it's pretty spectacular. Sweet smells neither make me believe nor make me doubt.

[guitarplayer1953]

The word there profit was used in the sense that Paul used in his letter to the Corinthians when he said,
1 Cor 14:6 6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? (NKJ)

Mark 8:36-37 36 "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37 "Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (NKJ)

It appears that you have a very large chip on your shoulder. Christ never said that we were to share His sufferings, He said that we would suffer for His sake but as far as I've read God does not lay illness or suffering on His children just as a father would not put sickness or suffering on his child.