Talk:Stigmata
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
A rather interesting thing Stigmata is really. Contrary to Popular belief, Stigmata is not just a movie.
Contents |
[edit] WTF?
"A real stigmatic exhibits the wounds in a five part series. Each series is separated by a length of time, only to repeat again like so: A; A,B; A,B,C; A,B,C,D; A,B,C,D,E. At the end of each sequence the stigmatic is known to smell a specific type of flower. "
Is this a NPOV violation, or just deranged? --221.249.13.34 07:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WTF? Indeed
I have no idea what youre talking about
[edit] Double WTF!?!?!
Self-inflicted stigmata wounds heal naturally.
Oh yes, because driving nails through your wrists and feet heal ohhh so naturally. wtf--Elysianfields 07:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
As with all things of a paranormal nature, it is very easy to come out with the old "There is a logical scientific explanation for this" line. Unfortunately, the sceptics very rarely enlighten us as to what the logical scientific explanation might be. Usually because there isn't one.
[edit] Movie versus Reality
Okay, so a lot of the stuff written in this entry is either 1) entirely fallacious or 2) simply the details of popular accounts of stigmata (yes, like the movie). This whole A..AB..ABC.. okay, that's non-sense. I've never heard such a thing used as a characterization of "real" stigmata versus hoaxes.
Padre Pio's wounds supposedly smelled of roses, not of jasmine; the scent of roses is generally attributed to Mary. I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that the blood coming from stigma is the Blood of Christ. anyone that would suggest such a thing is probably saying it from complete speculation; in fact, even that suggestion would be considered blasphemous by the Catholic Church, which /does/ admit to the existence of stigmata.
Anyway, I thought I would try to correct some of this stuff.. but finding something accurate to cite that isn't pro/con the "reality" of stigmata is hard to do.
[edit] What does it matter !?!?!?
does it really matter whether or not stigmata is real so much as it is nice to see that some people believe so deeply and care so much about their beliefs that they would worship the concept of the death of the "saviour"...I am not a christian and I still like the idea of being able to connect to the higher powers on such a spiritual level...even as a none christian I hold a great respect to the concept of stigmata
lol then you're a moron
[edit] Wrists
I have heard on television that "real" stigmata occurs on the wrists, not palms, and that is how they can sometimes tell which are faked. Has anyone else heard this or could verify it?
jw
- There is obviously still a lot of debate on this subject. I can't cite a specific source since this is just a vague memory, but I'm pretty sure that a study was done where some researchers used very recently deceased cadavers to show that if an average person was nailed by the hands, their body weight would likely cause the hands to tear, and the person would fall from the cross (their feet also becoming torn when the body slumps down), but nailing them up by the wrists would work. Since there's no data to accurately declare how much Jesus weighed at the supposed crucifixion, this study (if it even occurred) is not to be taken as any sort of absolute conclusion, but personally I think that it was most likely that in those times they would have nailed the wrists if they did discover that it was more reliable to do it that way.
- Now, the matter of whether or not a person, centuries after the original incident, would experience stigmata in the hands or the wrists, this is still a big question mark. For the purpose of this discussion, let's say for the moment that stigmata is indeed real, and leave the debate for other sections. If a person is taught their whole lives, based on modern artwork and references, that the crucifixion wounds were inflicted in the hands, and then that person experienced the stigmata with wounds in the wrists, there's a good chance this stigmatic would question the validity, and perhaps even think it was from Satan rather than God. As such, even if the original stigmata wounds were in the wrists, it would make sense for a stigmatic's spontaneous wounds to appear in the hands instead. You could say that God (who is apparently responsible for the occurrence) needs the stigmatic to believe that what is happening to them is real, so the detail of where the original wound occurred is irrelevant for that moment.
- For the record, I experienced the stigmata myself, about 11 years ago, only once. It occurred in the palms of both my hands, but nowhere else, and only during a period of deep meditation. The wounds left no scars, and I did not experience pain. I am no longer a Christian today, I am a pagan, but I still remember this happening to me, and I still believe it was real. Back then, one could say that it served to me as evidence that God was very real in my life. Today, it serves as evidence that deity (God) is real, and there's a lot of things in this world we don't understand (and many miracles or magickal happenings that skeptics will always dismiss).
- - Ugliness Man 10:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Church only recognizes two cases of stigmata in all their history, Francis of Asissi and Padre Pio. And Padre Pio is not confirmed, Pope Benedict has said that they were real, but that is not an official declaration. National Geographic did an experiment and if the feet are attached, then enough pressure is releived from the hands and nailing through the wrists is not necessary. As the Romans used several techniques to crucify, and no one knows which method was used on Jesus, to me the discussion is rather moot. But there is scientific evidence that it could have been done either way.
Wrists or hands? I know of a case of manifestation (as St. Catherine of Siena experienced) where the individual in question has a background in science and is of the school of thought, based on the archaeology, that very likely the nails in the crucifixion of Jesus were through the wrists - and yet this person experiences the stigmata in the hands and feet. -KN -
[edit] The article is biased.
This article is entirely based on bias in fact the author wrote "in my opinion" this is not good practice, and while I would edit it myself, I have much more work to do at this point in time and stigmata is not my level of expertise, therefore I would either like people to help me find sources to make this article much better and less innacurate or if they could edit it to atleast be unbiased.
Zimopia 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)zimopia.
- First of all, I don't see the phrase "in my opinion" anywhere in the article (I did a simple text search on the word "opinion" and turned up nil). Second, the opening section of the article states: "Some contend that stigmata are miraculous, while others argue they are hoaxes or can be explained medically." This is the very definition of NPOV, some say this, other say that, and we're not telling you what to believe. Point the specific statements that you believe are "biased", and maybe something productive can come of it, but as it stands, your run-on sentence is little more than incoherent babbling about something that doesn't even seem to be there. If, however, you're talking about the talk page that you're reading right now, then of course it's biased. It's a discussion, people are presenting their perspectives. Talk pages are always loaded with opinions and bias, which is sometimes necessary to create a consensus about what belongs in the main article.
- I do, however, agree that some editing is necessary, as the headlines of the Popular culture section and sub-sections have been shifted around with some odd results...
I'll try to fix that up ASAP.Done! - Ugliness Man 16:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Popular Culture
I just want to point out that the section at the bottom, under "performing arts" sounds enough like propaganda to be removed, IMHO. It's almost verbatim from the ellusionist website, and all claims about the effect are unsubstantiated, as there has been no release of the effect being performed, only reaction shots. I'd cut it myself, but I don't want to take too much responsibility without getting a username. As an aside, the last bit about the "venerable stigmatist" should be either moved or cut entirely; it doesn't fit at the end. ~Anonymous for now~ 12:42 AM April 19, 2006
- I removed the content referred to above. It did look like an almost exact copy from an external website. As well, it addressed an illusion called stigmata, not the actual phenomenon that is under discussion here, so it really didn't fit on the page. I also deleted the reference to Carlos Bancroft III, as I could find no evidence elsewhere that he had stigmata or, in fact, even existed. Eron 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This paragraph complete rubbish? **reverted**
This paragraph strikes me as wrong in every concievable way, from sense to fact to grammar:
"Stigmatas are more commonly known for "the bleeding of the eyes" , but these eyes are not from a human, but from a statue. statues of Mary and even Jesus himself have been known to bleed from the eyes. these bizzare and eary events has been recongized by the Catholic church and is label "stigmata", a event that has no proof of being fake or real. some call them miracles others call them a sign of the apocalyse. But most believe it is a event that happens after the father of the clergy dies. The blood runs for 7 days after each death of the Churchs latest Priest. They happen all over the world from South America to Europe, The blood runs from our lords eyes. Is it real? and what does it mean?"
Also POV seems terrible. "Our Lord" doesn't seem like an encyclopedia term for God. I have reverted this paragraph out.
--Shockeroo 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A muddle over the first female stigmatee
In the History section we say that
- The first reported cases of stigmata, in a Flemish nun and a young Englishman, occurred in the early 13th century.
And then
- The first woman reported to have received stigmata was the Blessed Christina von Stommeln
But according to our article on Christina von Stommeln she was born in 1242 and stigmatized at the age of fifteen. So one of these statements must be wonky. I’ll stick a {{fact}} template against both occurrences of ‘first’ as a request for clarification. Actually, though, the first statement is particularly in need of being sourced, in as much as it’s simultaneously assertive (the first) and vague (no names mentioned). —Ian Spackman 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
