STIGMATA (STIGMATE). — From the Greek στήμα meaning “mark, sign,” in Christian ascetic and mystical usage, stigmata are the marks of the wounds of Jesus imprinted upon the body of a servant of God.
I. Concepts
Στήματα were the customary brands impressed with a red-hot iron among the Greeks and Romans upon fugitive slaves, and in the East upon all slaves, sometimes upon soldiers (and in all lands upon livestock), to indicate their owner or commander. In the New Testament the term occurs only in Gal. 6:17 (stigmata Domini Iesu in corpore meo porto): St. Paul, with evident reference to Eastern usage, calls “the stigmata of Jesus” the traces upon his body of the sufferings endured for the name of Jesus, in the sense that these make him resemble his crucified Master and mark him out as His true slave and soldier.The stigmata are mostly external and visible (sometimes they are invisible, yet their painful effect is no less perceptible; the most celebrated case of this kind is that of St. Catherine of Siena, reported by Bl. Raymond of Capua [cf. Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei beatificatione, lib. V, pars 2, cap. 8, nn. 4–8]). The phenomenon usually appears in the hands and the side; but other parts of the body may be affected (e.g., the forehead in imitation of the crown of thorns, the shoulders in analogy to the burden of the Cross, the back as a reflection of Jesus’ scourging, etc.). Visible stigmatization is ordinarily accompanied by the effusion of blood upon the surface or in the subcutaneous region, by bleeding wounds, and, when deep, by laceration of the tissues. In cases of mere superficial abrasions or other doubtful signs, these are probably not true stigmata. The phenomenon may be permanent and continuous, or intermittent, limited to certain periods. The wounds and bleeding may remain constant in form and anatomical location, or vary in shape, intensity, and extent, and shift from one part of the body to another. Stigmatization may be accompanied by preternatural or merely mysterious phenomena, which however are accessory and independent (e.g., ecstasy, clairvoyance, gift of tongues, reading of hearts, total or partial loss of appetite or sleep, etc.). Whenever stigmatization, whether genuine or apparent, is accompanied by phenomena of a psychopathic nature—as often happens, especially in female subjects—it is the psychiatrist’s office to judge the matter beforehand.
II. Historical Cases
In history about 330–350 cases of stigmatized persons are recorded (some eighty of whom have already been raised to the honors of the altar), among whom only about fifty are male (cf. A. Imbert-Gourbeyre, La stigmatisation, Clermont-Ferrand 1894, where 321 cases are listed). Some would increase this figure, others consider it exaggerated (cf. P. Debongnie, in Études carmélitaines, 20 [1936, II], pp. 22–59), since in a few cases the evidence is doubtful or of little reliability. The first and most important case of stigmatization is that of St. FRANCIS OF ASSISI, which occurred on La Verna in 1224, two years before his death. The fact of the stigmata of St. Francis is unanimously narrated and described in minute detail by the earliest and most authoritative biographers: Thomas of Celano (an eyewitness, cf. De miraculis, II, 5), Julian of Speyer (c. 1232, cf. Analecta Franciscana, X, 1, pp. 303 ff.; and he alludes to it also in the Rhymed Office, chaps. 12–30, cf. 38), St. Bonaventure. The news was published immediately after the Saint’s death by his vicar and successor, Brother Elias, in the encyclical letter to the friars: the Elian document (Analecta Franciscana, X, 1, pp. 525–28). In the so-called Prayer of Assisi the names of sixteen eyewitnesses appear who saw the stigmata on the body of St. Francis after his death (cf. Miscellanea Francescana, 15 [1913], p. 131 ff.). Brother Leo, who accompanied the Saint on La Verna, also alludes to it in the parchment of the autograph blessing of St. Francis preserved in the Sacred Convent (Thomas of Eccleston notes that this disciple liked to recount to the friars the circumstances attending the event, cf. Analecta Franciscana, I [1885], p. 245). To these may be added the authoritative testimonies of Gregory IX, a friend of the Saint (5 Apr. 1237, cf. G. G. Sbaralea, in Bullarium Franciscanum, I, Rome 1759, pp. 214 and 211), and of Alexander IV (29 Oct. 1255; ibid., II, 171, 1762, p. 86), who appeals to eyewitnesses, among whom, as St. Bonaventure informs us, was the Pope himself when still a cardinal (Legenda maior, chap. 13, 8).According to these testimonies, one morning around the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, the Saint, absorbed in prayer in contemplation of the Passion of Jesus, saw descending a Seraph with six wings, between which appeared the image of a man with hands and feet nailed in the form of a cross; when the vision vanished, there appeared in his hands and feet the marks of the nails as in the image of the Seraph, and in the right side a wide wound, from which blood often flowed, soaking his garments. In the hands and feet there were seen fleshy prominences and small round areas shaped like nails, as if driven back and clinched, on the inner part of the hands and on the upper part of the feet, while their points protruded from the opposite sides (Celano, Vita prima, pars 2, chap. 3, no. 95 and chap. 9, no. 112; De miraculis, chap. 2, nos. 4–5; St. Bonaventure, Legenda maior, XIII, 3; XV, 2). The marks of the stigmata, although jealously concealed by the Saint, were seen, while he lived, by a good number of friars and other trustworthy persons, including some cardinals, and at his death by about fifty religious, by St. Clare with her sisters, and by many lay people (Celano, De miraculis, II, 5).
The truth of the fact cannot therefore be doubted, nor can its miraculous character; the very futility of attempts to explain it by purely natural causes serves as its refutation. On account of the special circumstances attending it—such as the impressiveness of the marks, with deep laceration of the tissues, and their unaltered persistence for more than two years (a wide gash in the side with frequent emission of blood, hands and feet pierced by nail-like projections of flesh formed by twisted tendons and nerves)—it is a unique fact in hagiography.
The Church has repeatedly pronounced in favor of the truth and the supernatural character of the stigmata of Francis, as is evident from the testimonies of the popes from Gregory IX and Innocent IV to Pius XI (cf. AAS, 16 [1924], pp. 362–65) and from the feast celebrated in his honor on 17 Sept. throughout the universal Church: the Franciscan Order had celebrated it since the first half of the 14th century by indult of Benedict XII (1334–42) or even of Benedict XI (1303–04); Paul V in 1615, at the instance of St. Robert Bellarmine, extended the concession to the whole Church; the feast was later made obligatory by Clement IX and its rite elevated by Clement XIV.
The iconography of the stigmata of Francis occupies an important place in the history of art: the first representation with a certain date is the panel by B. Berlinghieri in S. Francesco at Pescia of 1235, which served as a model for painters throughout the 13th century. But the true artistic flowering on this subject began in the 14th century, both because of the growing diffusion of the miracle and because of the influence of Giotto’s perfect representation in the frescoes of the basilica at Assisi.
In the Dominican Order’s liturgy, the stigmatization of St Catherine of Siena is commemorated on 9 April, by concession of Benedict XIII (1727) (though the historical reality of this event was much debated, especially in the 15th century), just as in the Carmelite Order a similar feast is kept of the transverberation of St Teresa. For some other stigmatized saints and blesseds (e.g., St Catherine de’ Ricci and Blessed Lucia of Narni O.P.), a simple mention is made in the historical lessons approved for their respective institutes or dioceses. In most cases, however, the Church has not pronounced on the matter; indeed, as in the case of St Gemma Galgani, it has expressly stated that it expresses no judgment on her stigmatization, alleged to have occurred in 1899 (cf. AAS, 24 [1932], p. 57). In general, it is recognized that stigmata are a highly complex phenomenon and must therefore be carefully examined case by case; it is not always easy to determine whether they should be attributed to supernatural intervention. *Vedi tav. XCII.*
**
Gaetano Stano
### III. MEDICAL STUDY
Among the prodigious phenomena involving blood (blood tears, hematidrosis, blood exudation from corpses and objects, persistent fluidity of blood, etc.), the most important is stigmatization.
External or visible stigmata are genuine lesions of the soft tissues, not produced by external agents or disease, which appear unpredictably in fixed areas, suddenly and are preceded or accompanied by intense physical or moral pain. Sometimes the pain appears instead when the stigmata inexplicably disappear. They are ulcers sui generis, circumscribed, of various appearance, shape and size: rounded, oval; superficial, deep, perforating; in the latter, the diameter may be equal on the back of the hand as on the palm or sole of the foot, or—almost always—one side may be several centimetres across while the other is merely punctiform. From the stigmata there issues either a simple oozing of blood or a true hemorrhage; the blood is bright red, mixed with serum; the hemorrhage, by reaction, may be continuous, intermittent, periodic, especially at certain religious seasons and during Holy Week.
Stigmata must not be regarded as wounds or ulcers, since these tend naturally to heal through the tissue’s reparative powers; they are special ulcers, hence lacking any tendency to heal. All dressings and the most appropriate treatments fail to bring about cicatrization; they do not suppurate or decompose, do not become necrotic or emit foul odors; they remain stationary and unchanged for years and years, defying all natural laws. They are covered by reddish-brown crusts formed by the coagulation of the blood.
Stigmata are not an exact reproduction—especially as regards their location—of the wounds of Jesus, whose precise sites are now known with absolute certainty from studies of the Holy Shroud. Indeed, in some stigmatized persons a larger wound is seen on the back of the hand while on the palm there appears only a pinpoint lesion. Moreover, they do not appear (and this observation is important for refuting the theory that they are determined by suggestion) at the site of the wounds of the Crucifix before which the individual is praying; for until the 17th century, crucifixes depicted the wound in the side on the right, whereas the stigmata appeared on the left.
In these phenomena the Church is rightly very cautious and has pronounced only in a very limited number of cases that presented all six of the so-called stigmata characteristics: instantaneous appearance, significant alteration of the tissues, persistence and unalterability despite all therapy, hemorrhages, absence of suppuration, and instantaneous and perfect cicatrization. It must also be noted that true stigmata appear in healthy subjects who practice heroic virtue and who usually possess special gifts such as ecstasy, levitation, and premonition.
Numerous theories advanced by various schools attempt to remove the supernatural character from stigmata by seeking a scientific explanation, invoking hysteria, suggestion, psychopathic and metapsychic phenomena, etc. Yet none of these hypotheses stands up to rigorous, objective scientific criticism. Charcot maintained that in hysterics suggestion could provoke sufficiently important vasomotor phenomena as to lead to edema; the neuropsychiatrists of the Salpêtrière school even spoke of hemorrhagic phenomena. All this, they claimed, was more likely to occur and become more apparent during hypnosis or in the sleep state under the influence of dream imagery. Dr. Abadir reports the case of Dr. Osty, former director of the Institute of Metapsychics in Paris, who allegedly succeeded in causing graphic marks and even raised red letters to appear on a subject’s arm through suggestion. Platonoff claimed to have produced, through suggestion and a complex of conditioned reflexes, ecchymoses and even vesicles resembling those of burns. Other authors have thought stigmata could be naturally explained by autosuggestion, as a product of the strong impression made by thinking about and vividly imagining wounds in general or even by fear of trauma. But this too is untrue; as wartime experience shows, such lesions have never been seen in soldiers who had been deeply shaken by the sight of wounds in their comrades; nor in soldiers who, thrown to the ground by the blast of a shell, believed themselves to have been hit; nor in combatants who, grazed by a “dud” bullet without even daring to look at the supposed injury, threw themselves to the ground convinced they were gravely wounded; nor has there ever been seen—even—delayed healing in wounded men who, fearing immediate return to the front, wished not to recover (when, of course, such delay was not deliberately maintained by themselves).
In 1890, Babinski and later Virchow, while admitting the possibility of some hemorrhagic effusion due to suggestion, opposed this theory with serious arguments and refuted the relevant literature, which in truth has more historical than scientific value, so uncertain, poorly studied, and often implausible are the facts. Indeed, all authors who have attempted to verify the various phenomena through experiments based on concentration of thought and suggestion have been able to demonstrate only functional changes and have never observed any true tissue lesion. Some authors have written that stigmata depend on mystical neurosis, in that these patients consider as real what is instead the result of hallucinations of their diseased brain, attributing to supernatural phenomena events that are purely pathological. The differences between true stigmata and these trivial and subjective manifestations are too evident.
Other authors have tried to argue that stigmata may depend on a strong desire for martyrdom, on the craving to suffer like the Redeemer; but if this were the case, there should be numerous descriptions of such phenomena among the neophytes of Christianity and among the flagellant fanatics of the Middle Ages, which, however, is absolutely lacking. Finally, other authors have attempted to find a pathogenic relationship and some similarity between stigmata and certain manifestations that can sometimes be observed in particular diseases. In tabes dorsalis, during crises of lightning pains, one may observe, albeit very rarely, the formation of small cutaneous hemorrhages, small petechial eruptions localized to the limbs where the site of intensely painful sensations is located; in herpes zoster ("St. Anthony’s fire"), after severe neuralgic pain, groups of dark red vesicles form along the course of a nerve trunk; in disseminated neuroparalytic gangrene, there is a sudden appearance of gangrenous plaques in various parts of the body. Experimentally, Tinel obtained, by provoking violent and prolonged excitation on a sensory nerve, a marked vasodilation (more evident in the mucous membranes of the affected area, rare and barely noticeable on the skin), which could also be the site of small hemorrhages.
All these manifestations, which in truth have nothing to do with true stigmata, are now explained by pathophysiology: this vasodilatory reaction is not the consequence of a simple reflex (since it can occur even without the intervention of nerve centers, by simply exciting the peripheral segment of a sensory nerve severed above the point of excitation), but is produced by that phenomenon known as "antidromic vasodilator conduction of sensory fibers" (Bayliss) and is caused by histamine released from the pain at the level of the sensory endings.
It is well known that strongly emotional states can, for various reasons and in subjects with vascular alterations or blood dyscrasias, produce epistaxis, hemoptysis, cerebral hemorrhages, etc. The pathogenesis of vicarious menstruation is also known, and it is finally understood how certain red-colored sweats are due to chromogenic microbes or chemical processes. All this, however, is far removed from what has been said about stigmata. Professor Wunderle concludes a very thorough study by stating that one can, strictly speaking, admit that in certain morbid forms, in some psychopaths, and even in psychophysiology laboratories, blisters, joint stiffenings, vasomotor disturbances, small hemorrhages, etc., may appear; however, never and in no case have lesions been observed that could resemble true stigmata. Furthermore, if stigmata depended on natural forces, they would have appeared at all times, and descriptions of them (phenomena so apparent and wonderful cannot escape observation) should be found in medical literature; yet, until the 12th century, no mention of stigmata is ever made. Moreover, even today, under certain circumstances, they should be constantly observed, which, in truth, is not the case.
"Invisible stigmata" consist of pricking pains and pains localized where the visible manifestations would usually appear; they may precede or follow external manifestations; sometimes they become visible only after death. "False stigmata" fuel a vast literature on the subject; particularly among hysterics, there are very many pseudo-stigmatized individuals. Great caution and discernment are required here, because every hysteric is inclined to simulation, deceit, lying, fraud, and staging, and is highly skilled in these behaviors. There are many documented cases in which these neuropaths produced wounds with pieces of glass, nails, or their fingernails, which, however, presented characteristics quite different from true stigmata. Subjects have also been described who presented ecchymoses without any trauma having caused them; these are the so-called psychopathic machines, which, however, apart from other divergences from stigmata, are scattered over the entire surface of the body; only in rare cases (see the subjects studied by Du Prel and by Brown-Sequard) do they assume a symbolic arrangement.
In conclusion, it is reasonable to believe that these natural manifestations have never been observed nor experimentally reproduced; on the contrary, those that appear in mystics, in the fullness of their distinctive features, present, in their extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics, phenomena outside all the laws governing pathophysiology and must therefore be considered as preternatural phenomena. — See pl. XCII.