Bless this carbolic to our use and us to thy person
Dang, I’m always falling behind in my saint-memorization. I don’t know who the saints are. I don’t even know who all those crazy saints all over California are! I haven’t got a clue. Saint Rose – who? Saint Clement? Saint Diego? Saint Joe? Saint fucking Barbara? I don’t know these people! I’ve heard of Saint Francis, I can deal with that all right, but all these other ones – I suspect some map-makers just took them out of the Oakland phone book one day. And I’d never heard of Padre Pio – I’m happy to say. Padre Pio, indeed; the very name makes the toes curl. Yuk.
And for good reason, it turns out; the guy flounced around the place saying he had ‘stigmata’ when he only had them because he kept dumping carbolic acid on his hands. And for that they made him a saint? Well jeez – I have this fingernail that I squashed in a car door when I was ten and it’s had a slight flaw in it ever since – can I be a saint? I’m bad-tempered and slothful and occasionally violent, but can I be a saint anyway?
Oh never mind, I wouldn’t want to dress properly for it. But Padre Pio did, and now this book has spilled the beans about the carbolic. (Maybe he didn’t really dump it on his hands. Maybe he needed it just to give his comb a really good cleaning.) The Catholic Anti-Defamation League isn’t taking it lying down though – it’s saying the writer is ‘spreading anti-Catholic libels,’ the bastard.
Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: “We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.”
Well quite! Canonisation carries with it papal infallibility, and therefore, if any evidence turns up later that the saint actually wasn’t all that saintly, well, it’s too late, because the papal infallibility works at the sub-atomic level, you see, to transform the saint retroactively into an infallibly saintly…person. So the evidence is beside the point, because the infallibility, like, trumps it. The infallibility is like an ace and the evidence is just like maybe a seven. ‘We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly’ – so that he would know stuff like that.
‘We would like to remind …’
Well, that’s fair enough. It’s an easy thing to forget.
Don: “‘We would like to remind …’
Well, that’s fair enough. It’s an easy thing to forget.”
It’s the abundant evidence of papal fallibility that makes it so hard to remember this!
Clearly he was inspired by the Lord to pour that acid on his hands. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Perhaps a closer look at the article is warranted. It indicates that Padre Pio exhibited stigmata throughout his life starting in 1911. The carbolic acid was allegedly requested in 1919. Why the rush to label Padre Pio as a fraud? Is there good reason to believe both that the pharmacist sold him the acid and that the acid was used to create fake stigmata? Perhaps the writer is ‘spreading anti-Catholic libels’.
Also from the article, this isn’t a case of ignoring evidence that turned up later. Apparently the claim that the stigmata were self inflicted with carbolic acid was judged to be not credible during the beatification process.
But Jeff, that’s what’s so bleedin’ brilliant [pun intended] about the infallibility schtick: There are always ALL sorts of reasons that come up during the beatification process to reject the miraculous claims. But when a bunch of bishops and cardinals and such sit around and think really hard about how to rationalize away all the counter-evidence, then the Pope smacks the “Truth!” stamp down on the final report – that settles it. Anyone who brings up those criticisms that the committee already rationalized away (or the thinness of the positive evidence for “miracles” that they inflated beyond all comprehension) is clearly a heretic because the Pope cannot possibly have been wrong. Problem solved!
All saints are final: No returns, refunds, or store exchanges allowed.
They discussed this on some programme on BBC Radio 4 which I happened to tune into in the car. The presenter asked the reporter what the claims against old Pio were and the story of the carbolic acid were mentioned.
‘And what proof do they have that Pedro Pio was faking his stigmata?’ asked the presenter
‘oh very little, just circumstantial really’ replied the reporter.
And I am sure I heard a sigh of relief. I may have been mistaken though because at the time I was shouting ‘what fucking proof is there for his magical nailholes?!’ at the radio.
I love the BBC.
Tim Connolly (poet) “It’s tea time. I order a diet Coke from Chris the bartender. I tell him about myself. The war and lost soul. He says I should see a holy woman who lives in town. She could lay the glove of St. Padre Pio on me and ease my pain. He gives me a holy medal of the Virgin Mary Oh, I don’t know…Etc.”
“She could lay the glove of St. Padre Pio on me”
Padre Pio’s ‘special brown finger-less glove’ recurrently travels around Catholic Churches all through Ireland, [the North, inclusive.] I have [at the behest of some people] on inestimable occasions expressly gone to a church in Kells, Co Meath [which has a distinctive devotion to the saint from from Pietrelcina.] Parishioners, during the ‘glove appearance’ period attend singular ‘rosary masses’ – then afterwards line up to kiss the Relic glove. [Germs, to boot, have a field day] The people who implored me to go with them were entirely swayed by the fact that the miraculous cure of the holy reliquiae glove would save my impure, damaged, suffering, and tortured soul. I am to this day waiting for the miracle to happen. Where art thou? Padre Pio, Cappuchin Priest, Mystic, Confessor, Stigmatic. For 50 years you allegedly suffered the five wounds of the crucifixion. I Have oftentimes recited your communion prayer…”[S]tay with me, Lord, for it is necessary to have You present so that I do not forget You. You know how easily I abandon You etc.” [Also known as, Roberta’s Favourite Padre Pio Prayer]. But, I have never had a answer.
Soggiorno con me?
Jeff,
According to Wiki, the stigmata were invisible from 1911 to 1918.
Invisible stigmata? That’s too funny.
As for the “infallibility schtick”, I find it a bit absurd. My complaint with Ophelia’s post was not that she is wrong (aside from the sarcasm she is probably right) but rather it appears that the conclusions aren’t justified by the article that was cited.
Ah but notice I left myself an escape clause – it’s that parenthesis about the comb.
In truth I don’t really feel a whole lot of need to rely on the article in order to be sarcastic about the idea of ‘stigmata’ or ‘saints’ or ‘beatification’ or ‘papal infallibility’ – as you can see from the rash of scare quotes.
Hmmmm….one problem, though. Only concentrated doses of carbolic acid would burn tissue; less concentrated doses are used as an antiseptic and/or anesthetic (for example, it is the active ingredient in Chlorasceptic spray). If one were to want to fake a stigmata, I can hardly think of a less efficient way than to repeatedly pour concentrated doses of carbolic acid on your hands and feet. Which is more likely, that Pio used small doses (a few grams mixed with a lot of water) of it for antiseptic and/or anesthetic reasons, as he claimed, or that he poured concentrated doses on his hands and feet for 50 years?
Another problem: This pharmacist’s testimony was procured and submitted to the Vatican by the Archbishop of Manfredonia, Pasquale Gagliardi. Gagliardi made many accusations against Pio, including monetary malfeasance and having sexual intercourse with female penitents. Pio’s confessional and quarters at his monastery were bugged, but no evidence was found to support the sexual charges. Nor was any evidence of financial misdoings. However, Gagliardi would soon become a center of controversy, as public accusations were made against him of sexual molestation and faulty accounting errors, in addition to pederasty as well as acts of cleric sodomy. For Gagliardi, there was enough actual evidence that he was arrested by civil authorities 3 times and removed from his diocese. It was later discovered that numerous letters submitted by Gagliardi to the Vatican in regard to Padre Pio contained falsified accounts.
Though I have no opinion on Padre Pio, it would be nice if those so quick to dismiss him actually did a little research and weighed all the evidence carefully, instead of latching on to whatever scrap of evidence they can misconstrue in order to validate their preconceived prejudice. Nice, but not likely.
I’m not dismissing ‘Padre Pio’ himself, merely the idea that he is a ‘saint’ or that he had ‘stigmata.’ That I am quick to dismiss, you’re right.
OB-
“I’m not dismissing ‘Padre Pio’ himself, merely the idea that he is a ‘saint’ or that he had ‘stigmata.’ That I am quick to dismiss, you’re right.”
Yes, you are quick to dismiss these claims, displaying exactly the kind of behavior I noted above: “latching on to whatever scrap of evidence they can misconstrue in order to validate their preconceived prejudice”.
Yippee. Another “freethinker” evidently as closed-minded and dogmatic as those they regularly ridicule…….
Of all the many possible explanations for the stigmata, the least likely is that Pio was displaying the miraculous wounds of christ. Until anyone can convincingly show that it was not a natural or manufactured effect, I think that we are entitled to treat it in the same manner as David Copperfield walking through the great wall of china. A clever, if slightly showy, conjuring trick.
Jerry Beckett, no no, I’m not latching on to whatever scrap of evidence I can misconstrue, I’m dismissing the whole idea out of hand.
Although I suspect that the stigmata were likely self-inflicted, I have to support Jerry Beckett’s comment about carbolic acid. Having been a chemist for over 35 years, I concur with his assessment that carbolic acid (phenol) is a highly inefficient and unlikely method for inflicting skin wounds. Phenol is quite a weak acid. Repeated exposure will irritate and eventually burn the skin, but there are much more efficient choices out there.
Jeez, folks, give it a rest, will you? Do you cite the Onion as a news source? The whole post was basically a joke about the very notion of sainthood and stigmata, not to mention papal infallibility – it’s really not about the carbolic acid or the book or the evidence. It’s a piece of mock-er-y; geddit?
The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this: “In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast.” (Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.) There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552). The Catholic Encyclopedia is brilliant for finding out stuff pertaining to such – as the above.
I see that Richard Dawkins’ site ran with the same Padre Pio story. yesterday.
Gosh, erm, hope I have not gone too much overboard.
Mr. Tingley –
“So how were the appearing/disappearing supposed stigmata produced then?
Naturalistic explanations, please.”
I have no idea, and neither do you.
As to your qualification that only naturalistic explanations will be considered, that is exactly how the Church investigates claims of a miracle, with many, many more claims of miracles being rejected than not. If all naturalistic explanations are eliminated, the Church declares the miracle worthy of belief, which is not quite the same thing as declaring it authentic: it merely means that believing in the miracle does not put one at odds with the Catholic faith. However, as a Catholic, I am not required to believe in the veracity of this or any other post-Apostolic miracle: such miracles are considered “personal revelation” and are not considered “infallible”, despite what Pietro Siffi says.
As to your question, there are various ways you could posit that Pio “faked” the stigmata. He could have used a more corrosive acid to burn the holes in his hands, using the carbolic acid as an anesthetic. If so, where is the evidence of him procuring this acid? Someone buying either a large amount of acid (or a small amount of acid for 50 years) then claiming stigmata would have left some trail, no? No evidence of this exists.
Perhaps he could have used a knife or nail (with the carbolic acid again as an anesthetic). However, his wounds, from the photographs I’ve seen, do not appear to be the result of such activity, and anesthetic or no, such a crude method of flesh abuse would have hurt like hell, and it strains credulity to think he did this to himself for 50 years without someone finding out (one has less privacy in a monastery than in a college freshman dorm).
It also strains credulity to think that someone capable of executing a fraud such as this for 50 years would not engage in other fraudulent activities as well. Though accusations were made (as I detailed above), no evidence of malfeasance was ever found.
As to the nature of his wounds, I cannot say for certain, and as to why the wounds disappeared so rapidly and completely upon his death, I don’t have any idea about that, either. If one is predisposed to dismiss miracles out-of-hand, they will no doubt find reasons to dismiss the claim that Pio bore the stigmata, no matter how poorly supported or unlikely they may be. As a practicing Catholic, I am free to critically evaluate the evidence and decide whether or not to believe in it. As such, I have found no convincing evidence, nor convincing explanation backed by evidence, that Pio is guilty of fakery. As to his acquisition of carbolic acid and his occasionally having the odor on him, the most reasonable explanation is that, while Pio was alive, the carbolic acid was diluted with water and applied to the bandages he often wore around his wounds as an antiseptic/anesthetic (the usual practice for the stuff), especially when saying mass or other physical activity. However, to claim that it was used to make and sustain the wounds for 50 years is highly unlikely.
I will now leave OB and others here to sneer in peace and to continue to mock things they do not understand. I would expect folks that claim to be so enlightened and “free thinking” to acquire a good working knowledge of what it is they’re ridiculing, instead of routinely relying on caricatures, strawmen, and laughable distortions of Church doctrine and practice. However, the leading voices of this crowd (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) don’t bother, so why should you, right?
What need is there of distortions?
“If all naturalistic explanations are eliminated, the Church declares the miracle worthy of belief.”
That’s fatuous enough without distortion.
(What’s with the ‘”free thinking”‘? I don’t use that phrase, so what’s with the scare quotes?)
Jerry,
You may have missed the original point of the article, which was largely that the response to the charge of fakery was a simple and final, ‘We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.’
Round here, that is the sort of remark which invites mockery.
Pietrro Sifi may well have mis-understood the nuances of infallibility and the miraculous, as understood by the more sophisticated believer. But it was his assertions which were in question.
Mr. Beckett wishes to defend faith. But faith as such is by definition indefensible, since it rejects defenses – i.e. justifications – as necessary in the first place. The whole essence of faith is believing that which is not justified – or worse, that which cannot possibly be justified or which directly contradicts claims which have already been thoroughly justified.
The pious mockery of reasoned evaluation and investigation that the Catholic Church engages in during the beatification process deserves any amount of sneering that heaped on it. The conclusion is pre-determined and unquestioned: God exists, and he works miracles through good people. (Well, good Catholic people. Non-Catholics aren’t eligible, because only the Catholic Church is recognized by the Almighty.) After these monumental assumptions are in place, the beatification committee diligently looks for signs of fraud, simply so that it won’t be embarrassed by “miracles” that are easily proven false: Failing to find clear evidence of fraud or obviously falsified reports, and seeing sufficient evidence that the named saint and their “miracles” can be useful in motivating people to embrace the One True Church(tm), the default assumption of God working miracles through this particular vessel (or is that vassal?) is “verified.” The whole process is a joke, although in the case of the rapidly-proceeding beatifications of hateful creatures like Pius XII and Mother Theresa, it is a fairly unfunny joke.
It is not my failure to understand these things that leads me to mockery, Mr. Beckett. It is understanding them all too well – better than those who engage in the willful self-delusion of faith, at any rate.
@ Jerry Beckett
You will find a fairly comprehensible account on phenol and it’s effects here :
http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/phenol/cie29.htm
As you see, skin burns is definitely one of the many physiological effects of phenol.
Why do you think concentration should be a problem? It was definitely available to him at relevant concentrations at the time.
You might also want to ponder how the knowledge of phenol as an antiseptic originally was aquired. Dont’ you think that was empirical knowledge? If so, don’t you think it was established that high concentrations of phenol caused skin burns?
Don’t you at all find it peculiar that the “saint” needed to buy his phenol “discetely”? After all he had wounds, he wore regularily bandages, and phenol was a well-known antiseptic at the time?
With regards to employing other (e.g. stronger) acids to inflict wounds. I’ve experienced some splashing of sulphuric and nitric acid myself. I suspect that it was tempting to look for some milder /slower working agents.
Finally: the point WRT his alleged dissappeard wounds when he was dead. There is at least one readily available naturalistic explanation for this: His use of bandages.
It is reasonable to assume that he inflicted wounds on himself for periodical display. When wearing bandages, he could then allow the wounds to heal for other periods.
His death then either occurred incidentally while his wound were remissed, or even more plausable, he stopped the treatment when understanding that death was approaching.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
“Bring forth the Holy Hand Grenade…”
And now, satire:
The acid is easy to explain. God told His Saint to use it in order to effect His miracle through natural means. Honestly, atheists, anything to avoid a rational explanation for anything!
And now, not satire:
“However, the leading voices of this crowd (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) don’t bother, so why should you, right?”
Rather than actually trying to prove this canard, which would require you to ignore the detailed analyses that each writer provides of the theological case for God and his cognates, why not just get the pope to declare it to be true? Then no-one will be able to disagree with it.
And now back to satire:
Ah, the “free-thinking” crowd. Sheeple bleating that God does not exist. They are not “free” because they are enslaved by lies and have not exercized their free will in order to turn to God. And they are not “thinking” because they have not used their God-given intellect to find the truth, preferring shallow lies.
Led by idiots who do not understand what they criticize, who only criticize it through fear, fear of punishment for their sins. Whose fear can only come from knowing in their hearts that a higher power truly exists. Otherwise why would they deny it?
YouTube – Padre Pio – Celebrates the Eucharist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqLxUExgZVQ
YouTube – Padre Pio # 2
Narrative in Spanish – Continuação de documentário da EWTN …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2NNtHkmSzc
YouTube – Theresa Neumann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=179OuGpjdkk
It seems to me Padre Pio made a pretty shrewd investment in 1919! Four grams of carbolic acid which apparently lasted for forty nine years (i haven’t seen any other claims that he bought more) and hey presto he gets canonised as well, all for a moderate financial outlay! Boy, those people in the Vatican sure are gullible fanatics.
I’m amazed that there aren’t lots more carbolically fuelled saints, it’s all so easy! But, hold on a minute….maybe there’s more to this saint business…maybe you need to have done something a little out of the ordinary, to be considered in the first place. Perhaps there was (and still is!) a lot more to St. Pio than a penchant for inflicting wounds on himself. I would suggest that his is one of the most extraordinary biographies of the twentieth century, he seems to have embodied all of the Charisms of the Spirit and been of enormous help both physically and spiritually to many thousands of people, both before and after his death in 1968. Many were healed through his intercession, including some who were not even aware of who he was at the time (through bilocation)and only discovered his identity subsequently. Some of these cases occurred after his death and were, as far as i know, taken into account during the process of investigation leading to his canonisation. There are many good accounts of his life available (Bernard Ruffin and Jim Gallagher, have both written excellent books) if anyone is interested in finding out more. Try it, you might be surprised!
Heard about the bilocation, Dave. That’s official now, is it? I understood one or two people harboured doubts, but if we are infallibly assured that he bilocated, that’s good enough for me.
Didn’t realise he embodied all of the Charisms of the Spirit,though. That does put a different slant on things.
Blimey, where are all these saint-huggers coming from all of a sudden? Has the Vatican added B&W to its links page or what?
Way cool about the bilocation, as well as the intercession.
“where are all these saint-huggers coming from all of a sudden?”
There is only one, but he is recursively bi-located.
Once again we are reminded that homo sapiens does a very poor job of living up to its name…. Isn’t it striking how RCs will get all stroppy trying to defend agaist ‘freethinkers’ things which even the majority of Xian denominations reject out of hand… [OK, I know, Prods are only in the majority because they keep splitting, but still…]
“he seems to have embodied all of the Charisms of the Spirit and been of enormous help both physically and spiritually to many thousands of people, both before and after his death in 1968.”
The following is a Vatican bi-located birds eye view of Charisms.
“Charism” is the biblical Greek term for the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to build up the Church. 159″
“Why is the Church called the temple of the Holy Spirit? 797-798 809-810”
“She is so called because the Holy Spirit resides in the body which is the Church, in her Head and in her members. He also builds up the Church in charity by the Word of God, the sacraments, the virtues, and charisms.”
“What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the members of Christ, that is, the body of Christ, which is the Church.” (Saint Augustine) 160.”
“What are Charisms? 799-80”
“Charisms are special gifts of the Holy Spirit which are bestowed on individuals for the good of others, the needs of the world, and in particular for the building up of the Church. The discernment of charisms is the responsibility of the Magisterium. 194.”
“What is the meaning of the “communion of saints 2946-953 960”
“This expression indicates first of all the common sharing of all the members of the Church in holy things (sancta): the faith, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, the charisms, and the other spiritual gifts. At the root of this communion is love which “does not seek its own interests” (1 Corinthians 13:5) but leads the faithful to “hold everything in common” (Acts 4:32), even to put one’s own material goods at the service of the most poor 424.”
“What other kinds of grace are there? 1999-2000 2003-2004 2023-2024”
“Besides habitual grace, there are actual graces (gifts for specific circumstances), sacramental graces (gifts proper to each sacrament), special graces or charisms (gifts that are intended for the common good of the Church) among which are the graces of state that accompany the exercise of ecclesial ministries and the responsibilities of life.”
Could Mr Beckett please enlighten me as to what exactly “clerical sodomy” is?
Don,
Official or not, i suspect one or two people would still harbour doubts. Fair enough, i realise much of this sounds ludicrous and not what one expects to hear in these enlightened times. However the fact remains that this man lived close to our own time, many whose lives he touched are alive and their testimonies are compelling.
On a similar note, i read recently that the writer Graham Greene, who described himself as a Catholic agnostic (i’m not entirely sure what he meant by that), began to doubt his unbelief,as he put it, when he had “a slight mystical experience” during a Mass celebrated by Padre Pio. The Mass appeared to last for about half an hour, but in fact it lasted for two hours.(possible reactions to this….maybe he fell asleep through boredom…maybe he was on some unusual medication…eh, i don’t think so)Whatever happened, it had a profound effect on him and he appears to have been overwhelmed by the mystery of Padre Pio. In an interview with John Cornwell some years later he said “There is a mystery. There is something inexplicable in life. And it’s important….It’s a mystery that cannot be destroyed”. I think he’s right and in my opinion Padre Pio points away from himself and brings our attention to things which don’t fit easily into the current materialist/rationalist worldview. Whatever ones view of the Church, i don’t think he should be dismissed out of hand just because it doesn’t “make sense”. He is genuinely baffling but, after many years of trying to make sense of it all, i feel he is baffingly, genuine.
I found the following article to be very informative.
Malcolm Day reviews the life of the recently canonised bleeding saint, Padre Pio (-).
“The Church, though, cannot lay claim to exclusive ownership of the phenomenon either. A number of cases of stigmatisation have been recorded among non-Catholics – for instance, a young black girl, Cloretta Robertson, of California, in 1972 – and even among Muslims, who have borne wounds that correspond to those received by Mohammed in battle.”
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/228/blood_brother_padre_pio.html –
Thanks for responding to my (mildly) sarcastic comment.
You refer to Greene, a talented writer, as saying “There is a mystery. There is something inexplicable in life. And it’s important….It’s a mystery that cannot be destroyed”.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean anything to me. What is he saying, in your opinion? That we should mark out certain areas of thought to remain mysterious, rather as we mark out areas of land as National Parks, to remain undeveloped? This bit’s really beautiful, let’s not spoil it by asking if it is true? Is a mystery destroyed by being examined?
OK, I grant that the moon as a poetic concept, could never be the same once people had walked (and played bloody golf) on it. But going was still the right thing to do. IMO.
But with Padre Pio, I have tried but I can only think of four possible explanations.
#1 self-inflicted. Motive, lots. Evidence, shaky and circumstantial. Viability, quite high. Most naturalistic explanation and not requiring suspension of the normal laws of nature.
#2 a medical condition. Motive N/A. Evidence, none as there is no known condition which produces exactly these effects. Viability, low. However, new information might be forthcoming. Psychosomatic?
#3 inflicted by others. Motive, lots. Evidence none. Viability, low. Serious conspiracy theory territory.
#4 God did it. Motive ?, Evidence, none possible. Viability, ?. Requires a belief that an infinite intelligence will signal it’s presence by grotesque and ambivilent infliction of damage on it’s most favoured agents.
So I don’t claim to know, but currently I place the possibilities in that order.
Don,
I know that this discussion originated with the stigmata, but what i was referring to in the last post had more to do with the bilocation, and other unusual phenonena, which you mentioned in your (midly) sarcastic comment. i really dont understand why “damage would be inflicted on a favoured agent” but there are other aspects of Pio which are equally inexplicable but perhaps more acceptable in that they appear to have a positive effect on others. (perhaps because of his willingness to bear such “damage”) What Greene was speaking about, i think, was the enormity of coming into contact with someone who operates outside of our usual mode of thought and is therefore “mysterious”. Rather than a fear of this being destroyed by examination, i’m suggesting by all means go into it. Look at it, tear it apart and if you still feel the same way, walk away. All i’m saying is, i feel there is something worth investigating, so why not have a closer look.