Sex and Spirituality

[SeaCat]

Hey Lass, you're being mighty quiet over there in the corner.

Cat

 

[mcopado]

Or we can talk about the laws dealing with monogamy. Hell we can even talk about the laws dealing with what sexual practices are legal. These even extend to laws dealing with such touchy subjects as abortion, homosexual marriage, prostitution and pornography.

Cat

Speaking of, NPR's "Morning Edition" did a piece on the Shi'ite Practice of Mut'ah or temporary marriage, and how it is on the rise in Iraq, and how some are saying it is a form of prostitution...I think we mighta talked about it once before...here's a piece I got from a Shi'te website...So it is scewed...

Another of the misunderstood practices of Shi'ism that has often been criticized. especially by some of the moderns, is temporary marriage or mut'ah.

It is a definitely established historical fact that at the beginning of Islam, namely between the commencement of the revelation and the migration of the Holy Prophet to Medina, temporary marriage, called mut'ah, was practiced by Muslims along with permanent marriage. As an example one can cite the case of Zubayr al Sahabi, who married Asma, the daughter of Abu Bakr, in a temporary marriage from this union were born 'Abdallah ibn Zubayr and 'Urwah ibn Zubayr. These figures were all among the most famous companions of the Holy Prophet. Obviously if this union were to have been illegitimate and categorized as adultery, which is one of the most grievous sins in Islam and entails heavy punishments, it would never have been performed by people who were among the foremost of the companions.

Temporary marriage was also practiced from the time of the migration until the death of the Holy Prophet. And even after that event duriIg the rule of the first caliph and part of the rule of the second, Muslims continued to practice it until it was banned by the second caliph, who threatened those who practiced it with stoning. According to all of the sources the second caliph made the following statement: "There are two mut'ahs which existed in the time of the Prophet of God and Abu Bakr which I have banned, and I will punish those who disobey my orders. These two mut'ahs are the mut'ah concerning the pilgrimage[1] and the mut'ah concerning women.

Although at first some of the companions and the followers were opposed to this ban by the second caliph, since that time the Sunnis have considered mut'ah marriage to be unlawful. The Shi'ites, however, following the teachings of the Lnams of the Household of the Prophet, continued to consider it legitimate as it was during the lifetime of the Prophet himself.

In the Quran, God says concerning the believers: "And who guard their modesty-Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, But whoso craveth beyond that, such are the transgresso s-" (Quran, XXIII, 5-7). Also, "And those who preserve their hastity Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy; But whoso seeketh more than that, those are they who are transgressors" (Quran, LXX, 29-31). These verses were revealed in Mecca and from the time of their revelation until the Hijrah, it is well known that mut'ah marriage was practiced by Muslims. If mut'ah marriage had not been a true marriage and women who had married according to it had not been legitimate wives. certainly according to these Quranic verses they would have been considered to be transgressors of the law and would have been forbidden to practice mut'ah. It is thus clear that since temporary marriage was not forbidden by the Prophet it was a legitimate marriage and not a form of adultery.

The legitimacy of the mut'ah marriage contin ed from the time of the hijrah until the death of the Holy Prophet as this verse, revealed after the hijrah, proves, "And those of whom ye seek content[istamta'tum. from the same root as mut'ah](by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a dut (Quran, IV, 24). Those opposed to Shi'ism contend that this verse from the "Chap ter on Women!' was later abrogated, but the Shi'ah do not accept this view. In fact. the words of the second caliph cited above are the best proof that up to the time of his ban such marriages were still practiced.
It is inconceivable that if mut'ah had been abro gated and forbidden
it would have continued to be commonly practiced by
Muslims during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and after his
death until the time of the second caliph; that ifmut'ah had been abrogated no action would,have been taken to forbid it. We cannot accept the claim that the only thing that the second caliph did was to put into action an order of prohibition and abrogation of mut'ah given by the Holy Prophet, for such a possibility is negated by the clear words of the second caliph, 'There are two mut ahs which existed in the time of the Prophet of God and Abu Bakr which I have banned, and I will punish those who disobey my orders."

From the point of view of legislation and the preservation of public interest also we must consider the legitimacy of temporary marriage, like that of divorce, one of the noteworthy features of Islam. It is obvious that laws and regulations are executed with the aim of preserving the vital interests of the people in a society and providing for their needs. The legitimization of marriage among mankind from the beginning until today is an answer to the instinctive urge for sexual union. Permanent marriage has been continuously practiced among the different peoples of the world. Yet despite this fact, and all the campaigns and efforts at public. persuasion that are carried out against it, there exist throughout the countries of the world, in large and small cities, both hidden and public places where illegitimate sexual union or fornication takes place. This in itself is the best proof that perma- nent marriage cannot fulfill the instinctive sexual desires of everyone and that a solution must be sought for the problem.

Islam is a universal religion and in its legislation takes all types of human beings into consideration. Considering the fact that permanent marriage does not satisfy the instinctive sexual urge of certain men and that adultery and fornication are according to lslam among the most deadly of poisons. destroying the order and purity of human life. Islam has legitimized temporary marriage under special conditions by virtue of which it becomes distinct from adultery and fornication and free of their evils and corrup tions. These conditions inelude the necessity for the woman to be single. to become married temporarily to only one man at one time, and after divorce to keep a period during which she cannot be
remarried ('iddah), half of the time that is required after the permanent marriage. The legitimizing of temporary marriage in Islam is done with the aim of allowing within the sacred law possibilities that minimize the evils resulting from the passions of men, which if not channeled lawfully manifest themselves in much more dangerous ways outside the structure of religious law.

 

[SeaCat]

Speaking of, NPR's "Morning Edition" did a piece on the Shi'ite Practice of Mut'ah or temporary marriage, and how it is on the rise in Iraq, and how some are saying it is a form of prostitution...I think we mighta talked about it once before...here's a piece I got from a Shi'te website...So it is scewed...

Well, it seems I'll have to look into this. Pure research of course.

Well I'm off to watch a movie. I'll tell you about it when I get back.

Cat

 

[de-valmont]

Enjoy it mate catch you around.

 

[mcopado]

God, I wish I still had this book...I had it when it was just called The Metaphysics of Sex

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/Eros_and_the_Mysteries_of_Love_Cover.jpg/210px-Eros_and_the_Mysteries_of_Love_Cover.jpg

Here's the wikipedia article on the book....(I may have quoted this before)

Julius Evola's work expanding on his ideas about sexuality described in his major work Revolt Against the Modern World. Published in 1958; English translation by Inner Traditions International, 1991.


Summary
Evola sets out in this book to investigate the metaphysics of sex. He uses the term “metaphysics” in two ways. First, metaphysics means the “first principles” of a thing. Second, metaphysics means the “science that goes beyond the physical” (from the Introduction).

Sex in the Modern Era
Evola argues that sexuality in the modern age has become depraved. His primary reference for this conclusion is the state of research on sex. He criticizes biological, sociological, psychological and sexological approaches to understanding sexuality as essentially shallow. Each discipline focuses on only one aspect, a lower aspect, of sexuality. Biologically deterministic arguments about sex -- that sexuality can be explained by the need to reproduce -- come under especially harsh criticism. Evola argues that the need to reproduce is one of the lowest aspects of and is in fact tangential to sexuality. He criticizes sexologists and investigators of sexuality from other disciplines for starting with lower, easier to understand aspects of sexuality (ie: reproduction) and deducing the higher aspects, the first principles, from them. Evola seeks instead to explain sexuality starting from first principles.

The Metaphysics of Sex
Evola sets out to deduce the first principles of sexuality. His starting point is Plato’s ‘’Symposium’’ and the myth of the hermaphrodite. A myth in which mankind, in its pure form is a “hermaphroditic” form and was only later divided into two sexes, as the result of a fall (the Fall in the Judeo-Christian tradition, for example). Sex, then, is the attempt to reunite man and woman into “one flesh” (‘’Genesis 2:23-2’’). Sexuality, however, is not a “purely” spiritual act. Instead, the sexual act brings the spirit and the body closer together in order to attain unity. Evola, therefore, criticizes theories which overemphasize love and beauty to the extent that the physical side of sexuality is excluded or even found profane. He criticizes ideal of platonic love in this way. A final myth which Evola explores is that of the birth of Eros to Poros and Penia, which, Evola argues, makes the point that Eros is the product at once of rationality and irrationality, being and emptiness. Thus sex has the ability to make one both (either) full and (or) empty. It is both the unity of man and woman and the driving force behind the never sated impulse to procreate.

Transcendental Aspects of Profane Love
Drawing on numerous literary and mythological sources, Evola describes the manifestations of the transcendental state described in Part One in what he calls “Profane” love. Profane love is love (and sex) which does not have transcendency or unity as its object. This obviously includes sex for pleasure, but also sex for love. Evola describes how the language of lovers implicitly includes references to the transcendental. In other ways too, modern manifestations of love show their roots in the divine, transcendental metaphysics of sex. Perhaps the most important of these is the way that lovers use references to death during courtship (as well as coitus). For example, saying “I would die without you” or referring to the orgasm as the “little death.” This language refers back to the contradiction in the myth of Poros and Pennia, in which sex is both life and death and therefore hints at the true nature of eros.

Man and Woman
In this section Evola describes the archetypes of absolute man and woman according to his traditional outlook. Man is represented by the sky, godliness, and form. Woman is represented by the earth and the waters, nature, and matter. Perhaps the two most important analogies are those of form and matter. The male principle is active and abstract, and (especially during copulation) gives form to the concrete and passive matter that is woman. Evola goes into considerable detail describing basic characteristics of the absolute male and absolute female that these paradigms encompass and their effects on relations between the sexes. Evola is careful to point out that all men and all women contain aspects of the absolute woman and man. Contrary to modern theory, however, Evola casts this as the failure of individual men and women to embody their divine character and as a result of the fall. Evola further argues that the “true difference between the natures of man and woman in no way implies a difference of worth” -- in other words that which is divine in woman is profane in man and vice versa, but is, in fact, divine in its proper place.

Transcendent Sexuality
The second half of the book is devoted to historical examples of the kind of transcendental sexuality Evola describes in the first half. He considers Tantric sexuality, chastity as a means of transforming the sexual drive into higher forms, and pagan orgiastic rites among others. The Table of Contents below provides a good summary of the topics he broaches.

Table of Contents
Introduction

I. Eros and Sexual Love
The Evolutionary Prejudice - Love and Sex - Eros and the Instinct for Reproduction - The Myth and Genius of the Species - Eros and the Tendencey toward Pleasure - Sensual Pleasure - The Magnetic Theory of Love - The Degrees of Sexual Development - Physical Sex and Inner Sex - Conditional Nature and Forms of Erotic Attraction

II. The Metaphysics of Sex
The Myth of the Hermaphrodite - Eros and the Various Degrees of Intoxication with It - The Biological Treatment and the Fall of Eros - Aphrodite Urania; Eros and Beauty - Lust and the Myth of Poros and Penia - Appendix - Homosexuality

III. Phenomena of Transcendency in Profane Love
Sex and Human Values- "Everlasting Love," Jealousy, and Sexual Pride - Phenomena of Transcendency in Puberty - Love, the Heart, Dreams, and Death - The Love-Pain-Death Complex - Sensual Pleasure and Suffering: The Masochist-Sadist Complex - Erotic Ecstasy and Mystic Ecstasy - The Experience of Coitus - The Metaphysics of Modesty - The Meaning of the Orgy - Appendix: Marquis de Sade and the "Way of the Left Hand" - Rasputin and the Sect of the Khlysti

IV. Gods and Goddesses, Men and Women
Mythology, Ontology, and Psychology - The Metaphysical Dyad - Demeter Archetypes and Aphrodite Archetypes, the Virgin, and Ultimate Nakedness - Typical Differentations of Manhood in Myth - Man and Female in Manifestation - On the Daemonic in the Feminine and the Symbolism of the Inverted Coitus - The Phallus and Menstruation - Male and Female Psychology - Woman as Mother and Woman as Lover - Pity, Sexuality, and Cruelty in Woman - The Fascination of Woman and Activity and Passivity in Sexual Love - The Ethics of the Sexes

V. Sacred Ceremonies and Evocations
Wedlock as "Mystery" in the World of Tradition - Christianity and Sexuality - Sacred Prostitution and Holy Marriages - Incubus and Succubus; Fetishism and Evocatory Processes - Evocation Processes in the Chivalrous Love of the Middle Ages - The Initiatory Experiences of the Worshippers of Love - Appendix; The Meaning of the Sabbat and the Black Mass - The Doctrine of the Hermaphrodite in the Christian Mysticism

VI. Sex in the Realm of Initiations and Magic
Transmutations and the Commandment of Chastity - The Techniques of Endogenous Transmutation in Kundalini-Yoga and Taoism - Sex in the Kabbala and Eleusinian Mysteries - Tantric Sexual Practices - Tantric Sexual Practices and Their Dangers - Secret Sexual Practices in Chinese Taoism - Arab Sexual Practices and Hermetic Symbology - The Myriam and the "Fire Magic" - The "Light of Sex" and the "Law of Telema" - The Presuppositions of Operative Sexual Magic

 

[de-valmont]

Looks interesting mate, you ever read a writer by the name of Georges Bataille?

 

[mcopado]

Looks interesting mate, you ever read a writer by the name of Georges Bataille?

No, illuminate me, please...

 

[RomanticLass73]

Hey Lass, you're being mighty quiet over there in the corner.

Cat

Yeah, listening and pondering while curled up in this pile of pillows here

While I do agree that there are elements of Christianity/Catholicism that believe sex is somehow shameful, there are also many elements who do not, my church among them. Even Catholicism believes that not only is sex not shameful within marriage, it is considered God's greatest gift - and enjoying it thoroughly is honoring to God. The pope did a huge series of radio talks about it, called the Theology of the Body. And I think they believe that sex outside marriage is not intrinsicly evil, just that because it is believed that sex leads to a sharing of souls, sex outside marriage leads to sharing your soul with someone you're not bonded with for the rest of your life, and is inadvisable for that reason. Are there people who have distorted those teachings and perpetuated painful things for people? YOu bet. But they are not following God's will or church teachings, soooooooooo......... can they really be considered to be fair representatives of what the religon says?

Sheesh. I disagree with Catholicism so frequently and so deeply. How is it that I end up defending or at least explaining what I understand of their teachings so often?? (Not just here, lots of places!)

*subsides back into the pile of pillows and pulls blanket back up over shoulders*

 

[de-valmont]

Interesting viewpoint there lass, which pope was this JP2?

 

[RomanticLass73]

Interesting viewpoint there lass, which pope was this JP2?

Yeah, the one who just died? It was a series of addresses over a period of a few years I think. A friend of mine, who has recently rediscovered his Catholic roots with a vengance, is part of a group that is studying the published transcripts of the talks.

 

[de-valmont]

Thought I should clarify how I understand the use of abstinence in Crowlean ritual seeing as it's the thing I have most experience of:

The idea runs thus: In order to attain a magical state of mind it is necessary to entirely distance oneself from ones own personality for the duration of the ritual. In essence the majority of crowlean rituals involve invoking a mythical entity into oneself in order to abtain some of the percieved power or a facet of the being that you are seeking to invoke.

In the order that I was involved with this would involve a period of between 2 days and a week's abstinence from pretty much anything, no alcohol, no sex, no fags, no tv, nothing at all except the ritual. This would culminate in an excess of either alcohol or a drug and normally a sexual act during which point the entity would be invoked.

It in my opinion was vital to abstain for the period ahead of this to attain the null-personae required to be able to fully realise this.

 

[de-valmont]

Yeah, the one who just died? It was a series of addresses over a period of a few years I think. A friend of mine, who has recently rediscovered his Catholic roots with a vengance, is part of a group that is studying the published transcripts of the talks.

Sounds interesting I'll pick them up and have a study, always worth reading the work of any serious theologian when I have the time, and for all my disagreements with the pontiff, he's certainly a serious theologian.

 

[de-valmont]

Ok time for this Brit to head bedwards bound I'm cream crackered.

Have fun

 

[RomanticLass73]

Ok time for this Brit to head bedwards bound I'm cream crackered.

Have fun

G'night val

 

[mcopado]

Thought I should clarify how I understand the use of abstinence in Crowlean ritual seeing as it's the thing I have most experience of:

The idea runs thus: In order to attain a magical state of mind it is necessary to entirely distance oneself from ones own personality for the duration of the ritual. In essence the majority of crowlean rituals involve invoking a mythical entity into oneself in order to abtain some of the percieved power or a facet of the being that you are seeking to invoke.

In the order that I was involved with this would involve a period of between 2 days and a week's abstinence from pretty much anything, no alcohol, no sex, no fags, no tv, nothing at all except the ritual. This would culminate in an excess of either alcohol or a drug and normally a sexual act during which point the entity would be invoked.

It in my opinion was vital to abstain for the period ahead of this to attain the null-personae required to be able to fully realise this.

That's pretty much the same thing I believe for all religions/mystical traditions...In fact Jesus did that in preparation for his ministry...it was always meant to be temporary...not a permament way of life...Even the candidates for Knighthood did that the day before they were being knighted...

hehe...you said "fags" (sorry, my adolescent Beevis and Butthead mentality is peeking through)

 

[mcopado]

Ok time for this Brit to head bedwards bound I'm cream crackered.

Have fun

"Cream Crackered"...boy you Limeys have a colorful vocabulary....'night D_V

 

[asian_princess]

shove over lass
crawls up in a ball next to RL...
how's everyone?!

don't mind me if i catch some Zzzzzzzzz's, just roll me over every now and then

 

[RomanticLass73]

shove over lass
crawls up in a ball next to RL...
how's everyone?!

don't mind me if i catch some Zzzzzzzzz's, just roll me over every now and then

*spoons with A_P* Hiya honey
How's it goin?

 

[asian_princess]

*spoons with A_P* Hiya honey
How's it goin?

hey sweets
yummy!
am sore all over! and not sure why!
how are you honey? didn't get to ask you how your weekend went!

 

[mcopado]

Entitled asked earlier about stigmata...

Here's what wikipedia says...

Stigmata (plural of stigma) are the Holy Wounds that were, according to the Bible, inflicted on Jesus during his crucifixion. Typically, the term is used to describe the intense bleeding from the palms of Jesus' hands and feet that occured after he was forcibly nailed to a wooden cross.

There have been many reports of other individuals (known as stigmatics) who inexplicably display similar wounds, the causes of which have been subject to considerable debate. Some contend that stigmata are miraculous, while others argue they are hoaxes or can be explained medically. The infliction of stigmata is called stigmatization.

History
There have been over 500 reported stigmatics who have displayed wounds similar to those inflicted upon Jesus. The first recorded case of these wounds was in the year 1222, by Archbishop Stephen Langton of England. Saint Francis of Assisi first suffered the wounds in La Verna, Italy, in 1224.

Other famous stigmatists include Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint John of God, and Saint Marie of the Incarnation. The most famous stigmatist of the twentieth century was Saint Pio of Pietrelcina (1887–1968). Stigmata was more recently experienced by Brother Roque (1968–1996); a novice in the order of Los Hijos de Los Hijos de La Madre de Dios (The Sons of the Sons of the Mother of God) in Villavicencio, Colombia; and Canadian Lilian Bernas who began claiming to exhibit stigmata in 1992.

Skepticism
There have been historical stigmatics that were known to have faked wounds, such as Magdalena de la Cruz (1487–1560), who admitted the fraud.

Similarly self-inflicted wounds can be associated with certain mental illnesses. Some people who fake stigmata suffer from Munchausen syndrome which is characterised by an intense desire for attention. People with Munchausen hurt themselves or fake an illness hoping to end up in a hospital where they can enjoy attention and care.

People also fake stigmata knowing that some who had stigmata were declared holy by the Pope. In this way they try to gain recognition.

Skeptics also point out that stigmata have appeared on hands in some cases, and wrists in others [1]. It is unknown whether crucifixion involved nails being driven through the hands or wrists.

Similarly, no case of stigmata is known to have occurred before the thirteenth century, when the crucified Jesus became a standard icon of Christianity in the west [2].

Explanation
In his paper on "Hospitality and Pain", iconoclastic Christian theologian Ivan Illich touches on the phenomenon of stigmata with characteristic terseness: "Compassion with Christ... is faith so strong and so deeply incarnate that it leads to the individual embodiment of the contemplated pain". His thesis is that stigmata result from exceptional poignancy of religious faith and desire to associate oneself with the suffering Christ.

Hmm, interesting...I think it is possible...but I think it is produced the same way that like in the movie matrix that someone being beatin while being jacked into the matrix can exibit the wounds in physical...the mind is so powerful that it can create physically something in our bodies based on our mental/emotional states.....think what extreem stress does to the bodie (ever noticed how many brides get pimples on the morning of their wedding).

 

[RomanticLass73]

hey sweets
yummy!
am sore all over! and not sure why!
how are you honey? didn't get to ask you how your weekend went!

*rubbing what sore muscles I can reach*

I'm doing well thanks - this weekend was awesome!! The kids did a fabulous job with their musical. And I had a wonderful time with the grownups You know those friends that you can just pick up with where you all left off, no matter how long it's been since you were together? That's what these people are like. We only see each other 2-3 times a year, cuz people are from 4 different states, but it's great when we get together again.

Only drawback... no sex

 

[mcopado]

ENT,

I love Cecil Adams collums called "The Straight Dope" he basically answers people's questions in a sarcastic way, yet actually does research...here's what he wrote in response to a question on stigmata...

What's the deal with stigmata?
20-Feb-1998

Dear Cecil:

Is there anything to the phenomenon known as "stigmata," i.e., when people inexplicably develop the same type of bloody wounds inflicted on Jesus on the cross? --R.T. in NYC

Cecil replies:

Maybe I shouldn't tell you this, but I have these scaly patches on my palms that have been known to bleed. At first I thought they were caused by winter dryness. But now I know. They're stigmata.

As you might guess, Cecil is pretty dubious about this stigmata thing. The first definite case (there may have been a couple of earlier ones) was Saint Francis of Assisi in 1224. As of 1894, 321 cases had been recorded, and there have been many more since. The Italian stigmatic Padre Pio died in 1968; in 1997 he was declared "venerable," a step on the road to sainthood. In 1992 a stigmatic Catholic priest turned up in, of all places, suburban Washington, D.C. Not only did Father James Bruse have wounds, but religious statues wept and changed colors in his presence, and several people he blessed were said to have been healed.

Lest you get the wrong idea, stigmata aren't some wacky variant on getting your ears pierced. The wounds supposedly just appear. And sometimes keep on appearing. One of the classic cases of the 19th century, Louise Lateau, got them every Friday for 15 years.

The question isn't whether the stigmata are self-inflicted. Of course they're self-inflicted. Even if I were disposed to believe in divine intervention, the variety in the appearance and location of the wounds on different stigmatics argues strongly that this is a matter of, how shall I say, human handiwork. In some cases the wounds have duplicated those of Jesus as depicted at the stigmatic's local church.

The real issue is whether the wounds are psychosomatic--that is, a physical manifestation of the stigmatic's tortured psyche--or else got there by more conventional (i.e., fraudulent) means. Plenty of cases have been shown to be hoaxes, but with others you can't be sure. Tantalizing evidence comes to us from the medical journals, which report numerous cases of "psychogenic purpuras." These are instances of nonreligious stigmata, in which patients with emotional disorders experience unexplained painful bruising and swelling and occasionally even bleeding through apparently intact skin. One theory blames "autoerythrocyte sensitization," in which individuals react pathologically to their own blood.

Stigmatics are often tormented souls. Many of the religious ones deny themselves to the point of masochism. The nonreligious ones are frequently on the operating table or the shrink's couch for a laundry list of ailments. Reading some of the accounts makes you think that if anybody were likely to get psychosomatic wounds, these would be the guys.

On the other hand, the fact that many stigmatics are emotionally unbalanced means you can't rule out the possibility that they're simply hurting themselves when no one's looking. It's virtually impossible to keep an eye on someone every second of the day, and observers are often naive about what they do see. One scientist thought he'd proved something when Lateau's hands bled even though he'd covered them with bandages and gloves. But he ignored the fact that the bandages were perforated with pinpricks. In 1973 doctors reported a ten-year-old girl in California who was briefly stigmatic. They thought the chances she was faking were "almost nil," but when they attempted to observe her, the bleeding appeared only when she was alone.

Whether you believe in psychosomatic wounds or not, nobody's arguing that even the most intense hysteric can make things happen from the other side of the room. That's what makes reports of multimedia miracles so suspicious, as in the case of the stigmatic Father Bruse and his weeping statues. Bruse had been something of a character in his youth, having three times gotten himself into the Guinness Book of World Records for most consecutive hours riding a roller coaster. In a time of declining church attendance, his ability to conjure up signs and wonders kept the pews packed every Sunday.

When we spoke, he told me nothing unusual had happened since he'd been made pastor of a rural Virginia parish in 1995. We had the following exchange:

Me: Father, not to be melodramatic about this, but it seems to me that if I lied about something like this and deceived the faithful, I would be trifling with my soul. On your honor as a priest, did you fake this?

Father Bruse: What?

Me: Did you fake the stigmata and the tears?

Father Bruse: No, no, no.

To which I can only say again: I'll be damned. Or he will.

NAILING THE STIGMATICS

Dear Cecil:

In your recent column regarding stigmata you failed to mention one very important fact. In most cases the stigmata displayed by "stigmatists" manifest on the palms and the feet. It's well known that the Romans discovered very early that nails through the hands and feet (especially the hands) would not support the weight of the body and would rip through the hands very quickly. Anyone with stigmata of the palms, therefore, would definitely be bogus. Seems to me that would be the quickest and easiest way to debunk these quacks. Whaddaya think? --Jeff A., Ashburn, Virginia

Cecil replies:

Jeff, you're absolutely right. I can't believe I overlooked an opportunity to describe nails ripping out of flesh. But I should tell you, the facts are more complicated than you think.

The Romans crucified people by the boatload, but exactly how they went about it is unclear, since crucifixion was not the kind of thing you wrote instruction manuals for. The gospels describe wounds in Jesus's hands, and most people (including most artists depicting the crucifixion) have assumed the nails went through the center of his palms.

But some modern researchers have disputed this. The most enterprising was the French surgeon Pierre Barbet, who nailed up freshly amputated arms through the palms and tied weights to the other ends. He found that the nail tore through when the weight was increased to 88 pounds and the arm was given a good jerk. (Be grateful you weren't this guy's lab assistant.) Since a human body would exert substantially more force, he concluded that nailing through the palm was impractical.

Barbet believed the wrist was a more likely location. After more experiments with nails and amputated arms he found that a nail could be driven readily through an anatomical area known as Destot's space, located near where the base of the hand joins the wrist. Because Destot's space is surrounded by the wrist bones, a nail there could easily support the weight of the body.

To buttress his thesis Barbet cited the Shroud of Turin, which appeared to have blood marks at the wrist. Shroud advocates were quite taken with this notion and gave it wide currency. Barbet summarized his findings in his book A Doctor at Calvary, published in 1953.

Barbet's hypothesis seemed to get a boost in 1968 when archaeologists in Jerusalem unearthed the first known skeleton of a crucifixion victim. The guy's feet had been nailed to the cross sideways, through the heel rather than the arch, as is commonly depicted. More to the point, there was a scratch on one of the bones of the right forearm (the radius), as though from a nail. In the minds of many people this cinched the wrist crucifixion hypothesis.

In the biblical archaeology game, however, nobody ever gets the last word. Among the objections raised: (1) In the Jerusalem crucifixion victim, the nail didn't go through Destot's space in the wrist bones, it went between the two bones of the forearm. (2) There might not have been a nail at all. Two later researchers claim that scratches and indentations are commonly found on ancient bones and have nothing to do with crucifixion (Zias and Sekeles, Israel Exploration Journal, 1985). They think the Jerusalem victim was tied to the cross with ropes. (3) Destot's space, and for that matter the bones of the forearm, aren't the only places you can nail a guy to make him stay up. In a 1989 issue of Bible Review, Frederick Zugibe, a medical examiner for Rockland County, New York, claims that there are at least two other possible nailing locations, one of which is on the palm. (It's in the "thenar furrow," the deep fold where the base of the thumb joins the hand--touch your thumb to the tip of your little finger to see it.)

In short, we have no idea how Jesus was crucified, other than the fact that they nailed him somewhere. Even if we did it wouldn't prove anything. Remember Father Bruse, the stigmatic Catholic priest who could make statues weep, heal the sick, etc.? His stigmata--you can see this coming--were on the wrist.

Thanks to the Biblical Archaeological Review for research assistance. Let me know when I can help you guys dig something up.

--CECIL ADAMS

 

[entitled]

i wonder why the deviations? Why some have the marks on their hands and some on their wrists.

 

[mcopado]

i wonder why the deviations? Why some have the marks on their hands and some on their wrists.

Think of the deviations in crucifixion imagry...some show the nails through the palms, some show them through the wrists...probably the stigmatist is influenced by their personal iconic imagery...and where they believe Jesus was pierced...

 

[entitled]

Think of the deviations in crucifixion imagry...some show the nails through the palms, some show them through the wrists...probably the stigmatist is influenced by their personal iconic imagery...and where they believe Jesus was pierced...

OK, point taken. So what about the other wounds? The spear wound, and from the whip and crown on thorns and everything else? Wouldn't they appear too?