Padre Pio: a relic too far?
Nearly a million people have already paid their respects at the remains of the Italian saint better known across the world as . The body of the saint, famous for bearing the marks of the stigmata, was marking the fortieth anniversary of his death.
Often controversial in life, has proven just as . The Vatican once banned him from saying mass, but Pope John Paul became one of his greatest admirers and eventually canonised Padre Pio in 2002. Not everyone is comfortable with the surrounding the saint's body. Even some of his own family have raised concerns, and more strident critics regard the commemoration as a macabre spectacle.
Both supporters and critics voiced their views on yesterday's edition of Talk Back, which I presented. (David Dunseith, though absent in body was, I assure you, present in spirit.) A key issue for some critics is the claim, now well-documented, that Padre Pio regularly purchased carbolic acid and used the substance to re-open wounds. This allegation was brushed aside by the Vatican investigators -- though some think those investigators failed to properly consider evidence from the pharmacist making the allegations.
One caller pointed out that the remains of John Calvin, the founder of Presbyterianism, were buried in an unmarked grave (in a graveyard in Geneva) because the Reformer wished to prevent any shrine to his memory developing. (Though, curiously enough, the Find-a-Grave website has a listing for John Calvin's grave, .) But I wondered aloud if some Protestants do not in fact engage in a form of veneration when it comes to the Bible. I know some Protestants who treat bibles as holy objects -- even refusing to consider throwing out old copies of the Bible. You may have some other examples of Protestant veneration.
Comment number 1.
At 29th Apr 2008, jovialPTL wrote:There is something really quite sad about human beings venerating other human beings. It seems very like worship. I know that William went to great lengths to say on talk back that there's a difference between worship and veneration but to many of us the difference is academic.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 29th Apr 2008, John Wright wrote:But, PTL, what do you think of Will's suggestion that many Protestants do the same thing with the bible? There's a word for it actually: . (Oops, I posted a link. But relax, it doesn't lead to my site.)
It is a very, very, very odd thing that people would want to come and stare at a body and that their explanation is that they're paying "respects"; I don't get it at all (I barely get it when it happens at funerals, but this venerating makes it that much more creepy to me).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 29th Apr 2008, jovialPTL wrote:Human beings have, throughout history, engaged in this kind of worship of each other, John.
The Bible is a different matter. I would not wish to throw out a Bible even if it is past using because i respect it as a sacred text, the Word of God. That is not veneration, it's just recognising what the bible is, God's letter to the world. If you had a letter from God, would you treat it respectfully? I heard about a preacher throwing his bible form the pulpit to make some silly point about bibliolatry. This is wrong because the bible is a very sacred book. It is not just the words of men, it is the words of God. That means those who throw it from pulpits are blaspheming.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 29th Apr 2008, jovialPTL wrote:P.S., I hope the humanists were listening to talk back on their lunch break ... one of their relics got a mention on the show when William talked about Jeremy Bentham's preserved body in University College, London!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 29th Apr 2008, davidjagnew wrote:What we have when it comes to the text of the Bible are reliable copies of the autographs (the original written documents). We do not have the autographs now. The Jews buried them as they were worshipping them as they had worshipped the Golden Calf. The Bible in most languages is only a reliable translation. Before any documents were written God's word was handed down orally. The Word of God is finally revealed in the Logos of God His one and only Son.
Any view of the Bible that takes away from the Triune God as our object of worship is idolatry.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 29th Apr 2008, jovialPTL wrote:The Bible is a Divine Revelation. In the Bible we find out what God wants mankind to know about Himself and His plan.
The Bible is the only written revelation of God to man.
No one has ever successfully refuted the Bible. Many mock the Bible but avoid challenging it point by point. No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible.
History records many who set out to disprove the Bible, who instead became believers.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 30th Apr 2008, John Wright wrote:PTL says: "The Bible is a Divine Revelation."
Because it claims to be?
"In the Bible we find out what God wants mankind to know about Himself and His plan."
No, we find out what mankind has written about God. We also read history, poetry, letters, songs, and much other literature which mere men placed in this order between two pieces of leather for you to idolise thus.
"No one who has done in-depth research, honestly examining the evidence for the Bible's inspiration and truthfulness, has been able to disprove the Bible."
You're wrong. And yet the standards you would exact on other claims would include a criteria of 'proof' requiring that proof support a text before it is considered proven, not that it is considered proven until someone disproves it. With that in mind, can you prove the truthfulness of the bible?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 30th Apr 2008, OriginalPB wrote:William
if you were going to be consistent you might at least use the term "veneration" in relation to the display of his remains BEFORE you turn your guns on Protestants to accuse them of it.
Quite clear double standards IMHO...
PB
PS Protestants do venerate their "saints" to. This is of course a complete red herring because of course according to Paul every believer is a saint. This was clear when he was writing to the saints in Corint for examples about scandals in their church.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 30th Apr 2008, jovialPTL wrote:PB ... am I missing something? William HAS used the term "veneration" in relation to the saint's remains BEFORE commenting on Protestants .... Will and I have a very different worldview, but fair's fair ...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 30th Apr 2008, petermorrow wrote:PB
"Protestants do venerate their "saints" to"
The word venerate has a spectrum of synonyms from respect through to worship.
I think it would be helpful if you clarified which end of the spectrum you were thinking of.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 1st May 2008, OriginalPB wrote:Jovial PTL you are quite right - I retract!
I am just so conditioned to seeing double standards by this blog being used to set of liberal straw-bogey men to knock them down!
Entries appearing in William's name consistently warn against stereotyping categories of liberal darlings, but there is no such care in discussing the baddies.
Pete
I mean venerate in the same sense as William does....
PB
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 1st May 2008, jovialPTL wrote:PB, its best when you are responding to liberals to be specific, and no to engage in generalised muck throwing.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)