 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture I employed hyperbole, for effect. I apologize. I was not referring solely to canonization. But read through the Golden Legend or Butler's Lives and note how commonly the false accusation of fathering a child occurs. Saints are frequently controversial, especially the ones characterized by the more unusual "physical phenomena of mysticism" (Herbert Thurston). Quite understandably they are thought by some to be frauds. And many fraudulent purported saints have and do exist. It is quite appropriate for people to be skeptical about the more extreme claims. But with controvesry come accusations of mental imbalance or mendacity or insanity or whatever. Accusations of sexual improprieties are an obvious route to discredit someone. Think of the hagiographic topos of the woman disguised of a man, accused of fathering a child, suffering the consequences meekly, exonerated only upon death when revealed to be incapable of the act. My point was that bringing up _accusations_ in a context clearly intended to cast doubt on Padre Pio's stigmata, is a straw man argument. Allegations mean nothing unless investigated and corroborated. But in this case nothing was said of either the subsequent investigation or its results, merely the allegation. I should not have specified sexual improprieties. But every major saint has been accused or some form of impropriety. This does come with the territory because, as I emphasize to students in my course on saints, saints are nearly always controversial. Sexual improprieties were only part of the improprieties leveled against Padre Pio. But whatever became of the priniciple of innocent until proven guilty? It has always been selectively applied, which was the reason for my response. For those already predisposed or skeptical toward such a bizarre phenomenon as Padre Pio, the mere mention of allegations seems to be enough to raise serious questions. If the allegations were fresh, only made yesterday, yes, doubts would exist. But these allegations were made three-quarters ofa century ago and have been dealt with. I don't understand why they are relevant now. If new evidence exists supporting them or if one has reason to believe the investigation of them was fraudulent (swept under the rug), bring it forth. But a blanket statement that "his dubious past" has been "generally swept under the rug in the ecclesiastical press" strikes me as just a tad hyperbolic and anti-clerical. That old allegations, thoroughly investigated, are not brought up now, in the context of the canonization, has a much simpler reason: his cause was held up for years because of these controversies, but clearly they have been resolved to the satisfaction of those charged with investigating them. If the investigations had shown the allegations to have "legs" he would not be up for canonization because credible journalists would pounce on them. Surely even the most anti-clerical of us don't think the folks in the Congregation of the Causes of Saints are that unaware of the consequences of canonizing someone for whom really credible evidence of sexual improprieties is floating around out there. Of course, if one has a dark conspiratorial attitude toward all things Vatican, if one presumes that the whole process is mere politics, one might be suspicious of Padre Pio's "dubious past" merely out of that habit and disposition. But let's stipulate that the canonization process is "merely political." Surely the crafty politician bureaucrats charged with deciding who gets canonized would be smart enough not to canonize someone so controversial unless they really believed the negative evidence was not credible--that would be politically foolish. I'm aware that some people really believe that the Vatican simply smothers truth and can do so successfully because of its purported immense power. But really, is that credible anymore? With all the bad press the Church gets today, with legions of journalists eager to make a name by exposing some scandal, surely, a few bureacrats in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints could not truly suppress really credible damaging evidence. Or am I just naive? No, I think what really goes on with Padre Pio (and this _does_ apply to medieval studies) is that the fervor of his following among the great unwashed, among the Italian-American grandmothers in Rhode Island or the simple Catholics in Spain or Mexico, frightens academics and sophisticates. Padre Pio is in a category with Saint Francis in terms of widespread popular following within his lifetime. This was not true, say, for Therese of Lisieux, who was discovered by the masses only after her death. In the same way that Lourdes frightens the socks of ivory tower dwellers, the intensity of Padre Pio's folllowers' (some, but by no means all, indeed, a very small percentage, really are neurotic or fanatic) devotion fits no category experientially known to the highbrows of our culture. But that doesn't mean he himself was a fraud or has a "dubious past." One ought to decide that only after carefuly sifting the evidence. One cannot attribute everything somone's disciples do to their teacher--if that were legitimate, most of us professor types would be in big trouble, given what some of our students do! Rather than reflexive skepticism about Padre Pio, it seems to me that he offers a golden opportunity to observe in our own day what it might have been like with Saint Francis or one of the other major saints of the past. Of course there would have to be differences, but both similarities and differences in this form of popular religion could be enlightening for medievalists. And, incidentally, precisely in the ecclesiastical press is where I have seen mention of the many years' delay in the cause of Padre Pio because of controversies surrounding him. It came up in the first www.zenit.org reports announcing that the miracle needed for his canonization had been approved and in the reports announcing that the date had been set for his canonization, if memory serves me correctly. The ecclesiastical press has not ignored the controversies surrounding this Capuchin friar. I think what bothers some people is that the conclusion drawn by the church and ecclesiastical press (exonerating him) isn't the conclusion some people would like to have had drawn because then we could easily set this weirdo aside as a fraud. As for abuse of the confessional, unless this refers also to the allegations of sexual improprieties growing out of hearing confessions (which I am not aware were part of the allegations against him, but I am ready to be corrected), I would assume that this has to do with the fact that Padre Pio was known to be gruff with penitents he thought insincere. These allegations too have been thoroughly looked into. He did not suffer fools (sacrliege) lightly. Given his "celebrity" status, he would scarcely have been a saintly confessor if he had not been aware that some groupies would be tempted to abuse the sacrament: hey folks, look at me, I made my confession to Padre Pio! As a priest and confessor he had an obligation to be on guard for that (quite apart from any supernatural gift of "reading souls"--not uncommon--cf. the Cure d'Ars). Ruffin takes up both sides of this controversy. I don't see that the "abuse of the confessional" charge, if it refers to this gruffness, has any "legs" but if someone has credible evidence, I'd be glad to hear it. Hence my imprudent hyperbole, for which I apologize. Dennis Martin >>> [log in to unmask] 06/27/02 05:56PM >>> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > > Can you name any major saint who was not accused of sexual > improprieties? It goes with the territory. What major saints do you have in mind? As a student of medieval hagiography in the tenth and eleventh centuries, I have observed that issues of sexual impropriety, while not unheard of, are rare (the case of St. Emmeram comes to mind). As for such accusations coming with the territory, I presume you mean the territory of canonization, which was only systematized by the later middle ages. In how many cases do accusations of sexual impropriety play a role in the canonization procedure? I'm not familiar with the literature of canonization. In my period, sainthood was most often handled on a local level. Ray Lavoie <discussion of stigmata deleted> ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html