It’s probably worth making the point that, so far as I know, the Catholic Church does not claim that the phenomena attributed to Padre Pio are scientifically proven to be miraculous. The only role of science in the investigation is to offer a non-miraculous explanation of the phenomena. If science can offer such an explanation, then they are not regarded as miraculous. If science can offer no such explanation, then the question of whether they can be regarded as miraculous can be explored, but that is not itself a question which is addressed by science and, if the conclusion is that the phenomena can be considered miracles, that is not a scientific conclusion, and is not presented as such.
As I say, I’m open to correction on all of this, but I think that’s the position. The implication is that the only way of scientifically proving that the phenomena are not miracles, is (a) to prove that the phenomena did not occur at all, or (b) to show a scientific explanation for the phenomena. That, I think, is the book that jaimeh is looking for.
Has such a book been written about Padre Pio? I don’t know, but I somehow doubt it. It would be a difficult and tedious book to read, and not a best-seller.
Hold on a minute. Jaimeh is looking for a (critical) work on how the Vatican processes canonisation processes. The material posted above suggest that Padre Pio’s canonisation does not depend to any extent on his alleged stigmata, so works on the genuineness of stigmata are not all that relevant.
I haven’t linked to it earlier because (a) it’s not critical, and (b) it dates from 1913, and is probably vastly out of date. Presumably the huge increase in the number of canonisations over the last twenty years has been to some extent dependent on streamlining the procedures involved.
There may be some milage for Jaimeh in exploring this angle. Why so many new saints in the last twenty years? Does this suggest that standards have dropped, as it were? Are people accepted now who would previously have been rejected? Is the process less rigorous? I suspec that if Jaimeh follows this line of enquiry he may find some material written from a critical position within the Catholic Church, and it may even mention the Padre Pio case. Just a thought.
It is very interesting, as UDS has pointed out, that Padre Pio’s canonization did not depend on his allegedly miraculous stigmata. Thus, the Catholic Church is agnostic, so to speak, about the nature of Pio’s stigmata. The church’s decision not to include something as obvious as Pio’s stigmata among the two miracles associated with him implies a bit of skepticism about their origins.
Rather, it was Pio’s faith, and the miracle the church believes that he inspired by acting as an intercessor for the sick, that got him canonized.
First, although media and popular discussion of saints and canonisation tends to focus on miracles, AFAIK investigation of miracles is a relatively small part of the process. The primary requirement for being canonised is evidence of holiness to a heroic degree - a saint is one whose life is, in some respect, an example to others.
Secondly, nevertheless evidence of miracles is ordinarily required as well. But the canonisation process rarely relies on stigmatism as a miracle; even if fraud can be excluded, which is difficult, the alternative scientific explanation that they are psychosomatic can rarely if ever be ruled out.
Yes, but if one concludes that Pio was probably faking his stigmata, the genuineness of his holiness, heroic or otherwise, is surely called into question. In this case, canonisation can be taken to imply that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints have discounted the possibility of fraud.
I take your point. However it may not be necessary to disprove fraud; and absence of evidence suggesting fraud might be all that the Congregation requires.