At least Mr. White had the decency to put the word "alleging" in his opening line. The Telegraph's irresponsible headline reads simply "Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'" just as if it's a settled fact.
No "book claims", "pharmacist alleges" or even "document suggests." The headline lays it out like they have a link to a YouTube video of the saint doing a "how-to."
At times like these, I'm glad I got out of journalism.
Yep, it's gettin' pretty ridiculous. Blogs are almost as bad these days.
I should note that St. Rita of Cascia, who bore a wound on her forehead that she received while meditating on the crown of thorns, may not have met the modern criteria laid down here. Specifically: "...they must not result in infections or suppuration..."
Here is the testimony from her 15th century sisters: "... the wound began to putrefy and to become verminous, and to emit such a stench that she could do little or nothing in company with the other nuns." [Ancient Documents of Saint Rita, Volume I, page 245 -- quoted by Agostino Trape, OSA, in "The Message of Saint Rita of Cascia," Augustinian Press, 1989.].
I do not cite this to cast any aspersions on my dear St. Rita. Rather, I point out that even wounds not meeting these strict criteria may still contribute to the reputation for sanctity of a Christian.
I might note that immediately upon her death, her body began to emit not stench but a perfumed fragrance, which continued from her (then) incorrupt body for years later. (Trape, p27).
I am reminded of Chesterton's observation that the believer can accept or reject a miracle based on evidence. The unbeliever must reject the miracle regardless of the evidence. White seems to have put himself in this box with Padre Pio, Fatima, Lourdes, etc.
The real problem is not what happened but rather the date of his birth. If St Francis had lived today would he be as widely accepted by protestants? I doubt it. He would get the same kind of reactions as St Pio does. There is a tendancy to see modern Catholics very differently from those that lived a few centuries ago.
White would have no problem saying that St. Francis was not even a Christian. He probably went to hell.
Interesting --
Question --
Do the RCC confirmed stigmata historically in the hand occur in the palms (like in the picture) ? Are there any instances of stigmata of the hands at the wrists or arm ? Historically speaking, it seems more clear that the nails were not driven into the palms of Jesus, but closer to the wrists, in between the two arm bones, so that the body could hang better. In the palms, seems to me, would rip too easily, even with ropes (as pictured in many of the movies). I noticed that even in the Passion of the Christ, the nails were driven into the palms. But doesn't the historical evidence (archeology and medical science) show that crucifixion was in the arm, close to the wrists, in between the two bones, and not in the palms?
That has always "bugged" me about many of the pictures and artwork of Jesus on the cross, depicting it as in the palms, when it was probably in the arms, between the two bones, close to the wrists.
Ken,
I can't comment on the stigmata, but in terms of the crucifixion, what I've seen in research is that there is a gap in the wrist bones that would alllow the nail to be secure. The artistic rendering has always bothered me as well. What's interesting is that the wounds of the figure on the Shroud of Turin (which I do think is genuine - another discussion) do have the wounds in the wrist. While I am not denying any supernatural agency with regard to the stigmata, I wonder if the artistic tradition does influence the position at all.
Speaking of Padre Pio, I remember reading a biography of his, where he had a discussion with one of his parishioners. When he asked Padre Pio why Jesus gave him the wounds in his hands, and not his wrists, where the nails had been driven in, he replied, "because it would be too painful"!
I recall reading an analysis of Ken's question in regarding acknowledged stigmatists. I don't know what the source was, so I can't send you a link.
My best recollection was that with few exceptions, the stigmata appeared on the stigmatist in the location where local artwork predominantly represented these wounds. In some cases the palm, in some cases the wrist.
To me this is an indication that there is a psychosomatic component to the stigmata. I say this in no way to denegrate any saint, but rather to see it as an indication that Christ "meets us where we are." It also provides, I think, some insight into the mechanism the Lord uses for manifesting the stigmata in his specially chosen saints.
How far back does the artwork go? It does for a tradition of sorts. It could be that early art was based on eye witness accounts and later artists just followed the earlier ones.
I know the Roman did crucify people with wood shaped like an X or a Y or a T or and I. The reason our crosses are shaped like they are is just because the early church took that shape as it's symbol. That likely came from people who saw the real cross. The palm/wrist question could be similar.
To and regarding Mr. James White:
As I know you don't allow posts on your own site, and probably will be reading this one...
I am a Catholic that does not readily agree with apparitions. This may be news to you, but the Catholic Church does not make me agree with apparitions, or believe in things like stigmatas, even if the apparition or stigmata is Church-sanctioned. The only person upon whom it is incumbent to believe, is the one whom is visited by said apparition, or one who has things like the stigmata visited upon their body. Logic: If one is really visited, then they are bound by conscience to believe.
Anyhow, I do not freak out about Padre Pio, but looking to him as a great example of a follower of Jesus is no sin. Praying to him and asking for his intercessory prayers to God (praying on our behalf) is neither unbiblical (as Patrick Madrid showed in the same debate you refer to), nor is it illogical, nor is it necessarily idolatry.
I also don't recall Madrid saying 'we used to have idolatry problems, but don't have them now'...I don't think it came off in that manner. I do believe you are stretching his statement to sound like you want it to sound. The next time I listen to the MP3, I'll be sure to take special note and perhaps email you the quote verbatim, rather than para (and re-) phrased through your filter.
Since your post is simply filled with vitriol, I must remark: Does the bur of Catholicism disrupt your saddle all day, every day?
Lastly, how dare you so snidely assume you know what is in people's hearts? James, I am starting to wonder if you perhaps have a little God complex, or in the very least, perhaps a little St. Paul complex.
I can tell you with the utmost honesty: I rarely pray to saints, but when I have, I never mistake them for God. They never usurp the role of any part of the Trinity. They simply carry my prayers to God, as the Bible (just like in the book of the apocalypse) shows us they do.
Kick all you want, it's there hombre.
Thanks for all your thoughts on the issue of wrist vs. palm vs. arm near the wrists; that is seems to be psychosomatic at least in part according to the artwork of the local area.
Ken, how about this hypothesis?:
Jesus was scourged: This implies he was lashed on his backside, more specifically on his back, with perhaps some wounds making it to the backs of his arms, buttocks, neck etc.
What if somebody rec'd similar wounds in the same manner as somebody who receives a stigmata, but substitute the back-lashes instead. Let's just say that some holy Christian person awoke up one day with lash-like wounds, but only on the backs of their arms, or only on the back of the neck, or only on the buttocks?
Would the validity of the manifestation of something given to the individual (by God) be automatically assumed as false?
Is God's message to be automatically refused (Whatever the message or point of God giving the 'gift' of stigmata, or like wound to the individual), simply because the wound may be off by a few inches?
I had known about the wrist vs. hand argument since I was a child, it also made absolute sense. However, the point can still be made just as effectively.
Lastly, perhaps the stigmata, if legitimate, were put upon the hands, to be all the easier to see, thus being more convincing, from a different angle.
Who knows. The point is, it seems as though you go to painful lengths to oppose anything distinctively Catholic, when you might actually be missing something beyond your typical sensory understanding.
Is there really anything mystical left in your version of Christianity?
As a natural doubter of the wounds of Padre Pio, I also must ask myself: Am I missing the point, and perhaps the beauty?
Is it possible, just merely possible, that this is legitimate? If so, it's not as if it is pointing to Joseph Smith, or the watchtower society, or to Baal:
It points to Jesus Christ.
If you'd take your blinders off for just a bit, you just might see this.
Ken, I thought of another hypothetical:
Of the hundreds of thousands of people who were crucified during the Roman period, over a 500+-yr. period, is it possible that the formula for crucifiction ever varied?
Or, is it possible that some may not have known about the obvious logic to going through the wrist. This can be evidenced by the many who have depicted (through paintngs etc.) over time that they thought one should be nailed through the hands.
We may be able to figure out that the vast majority of crucifictions were in the manner of through the wrist, but could some have been done through the hands?
Would you be willing to go on the record with absolute, 100% certitude that Jesus was nailed through the wrists? Not 99%, or 88%, or 99.9%, but 100% certitude? - I'd bet you would not.
So then, whatever that percentage may be, is it possible (however remote) that Jesus was not nailed through the wrists?
Is it possible that the man or men who crucified Jesus were beginners, or even just one of them a beginner, and unlearned in the 'art' of crucifiction?
Is it possible this man or men nailed Jesus through the hands instead?
Could this man or men been drunk or drinking, thus operating with haste or impaired or non-caring/sloppy judgement on where to (or maybe not really caring) nail the wrists/hands to the wood?
Back to the question: Will you state that you have 100% certitude that Jesus was nailed through the wrists, and not the hands, at all?
What does your absolute and only rule of faith - The Bible alone - have to say about this?
Nothing.
Again, as in my previous post, is it possible, just possible, that the stigmata of Padre Pio are legitimate?
Re: hand vs. wrist:
Apparently the Bible has no separate word for “wrist;” “hand” and “wrist” were interchangeable. http://www.google.com/search?q=+...dr=all&
filter=0
So in this passage for example:
“Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing” (John 20:27 KJV)
not enough information is provided to determine whether Christ was referring to his palm or to his wrist.
Hand, Cheir: http://www.biblestudytools.net/L...495&
version=kjv
BTW (should anyone have the slightest interest), the root of Enchiridion or Handbook of Augustine, is cheir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Enc...on_of_Augustine
Also, the Greek word for ‘finger’ used in John 20 above is daktulos, - used also in forming the name of a certain prehistoric creature – the Pterodactyl or “wing-finger!” http://www.merriam-webster.com/d....com/
dictionary
Ken Temple, after reading the past 3 posts, your input would be very welcome and appreciated.
Z:
I'm a little puzzled by your posts directed at Ken. It sounds like you think he rejects the stigmata as a manifestation of God's favor. He may do this, but I don't see that in any of his posts. Instead, I see honest and polite questions from Ken trying to understand the Catholic perspective on this.
I think you may have been reacting to his post: "that is seems to be psychosomatic at least in part according to the artwork of the local area." [sic] This was Ken responding to my suggestion that the stigmata may have a psychosomatic component to them. If this is the case, I think you misunderstood both Ken and me.
For me to say that there is a psychosomatic component to the stigmata does not in any way detract from the work of God. I firmly believe that there are some saints whom God has blessed to receive the stigmata. In fact, I think that St. Paul may have been among them. That the formal cause is God's grace does not prevent the proximate cause being a psychosomatic effect.
The formal cause for human beings having two sexes is: "In his own image he made them. Male and female he made them." The proximate cause may be evolutionary processes that make sex propagationally advantageous. This does not reduce the work of God.
I should note that I do not think it to be the work of God when fakers injure themselves -- and I'm sure there's been a few of them in the world. That's an entirely different issue.
Thank you very much, DelRayVA, you are exactly right; you are a gentleman, and I appreciate what you wrote; I was just trying to sincerely understand the history of the artwork with the historical phenomenon of the stigmata in RC tradition vs. the archaeological and historical evidence that I have seen that the Romans usually (if not all, according to evidence, for example Christian medical doctors have written about); that the nails were driven into the area close to the wrists in between the two bones so that the body could hang longer, thus prolonging the slow torture.
Z., I was not trying to make a judgment on the RCC history of the stigmata per say. I just don't know much about it at all. I have only read about Francis of Assisi, that he had that happen to him. Was he the first in this tradition?
Paul's stigmata in Galatians 6:17 were marks and scars from actual persecution, not from meditation or contemplation over the cross or sufferings of Jesus.
Ben M.'s post is right; the "hand" in Greek included the wrist and lower arms close to the wrists; so it does not have to limit itself to the hand or palms only; but includes the wrists and lower arms. So, for example in John 20:27 and Luke 24:39; the Greek word for "hand', would include the wrists and nearby; confirming that no mistakes are in the Bible if archeology proves the Romans always crucified at or near the wrists.
http://brainshavings.com/supplem...ts/crucifixion/
Here is an article written by several medical doctors, On the Physical Death of Jesus, from the Journal of American Medical Association, 1986. It is a great article confirming the truth of the Scriptures with the scientific evidence of crucifixion. Shows and explains how the nails would be driven through the wrists.
If frister whatever his name is had real stigmata, why would he need to steralize it? God would sterlize it for him. So the fact that he needed carbolic acid is proof that he's a lying Satan worshiper. BTW, how do I get back to the post about the debate challenge? This blog is so not navigable!
"If frister whatever his name is had real stigmata, why would he need to steralize it? God would sterlize it for him. So the fact that he needed carbolic acid is proof that he's a lying Satan worshiper".
Huh?
So the fact that he needed carbolic acid is proof that he's a lying Satan worshiper.
Assuming he is lying through his teeth, yes. The point is that we have no reason to think that. As I showed, he simply needed it for sterilization in general, as he said. That was standard practice, as I showed.
The debate challenge is off the main page. You can access it through the October archive or the Anti-Catholicism page. But I'll save you trouble and post it right here:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...allenge-
to.html
Dave:
I've got a post up on practical apologetics that I think might interest you, since I perceive that to be your particular specialty:
http://
crimsoncatholic.blogspot....pologetics.html
It's relevant to this particular subject matter as well, because I've basically described practical apologetics as an attack on the strength of supposed objections that aren't really well-founded. This strikes me as a good example. First, the reviewers for canonization knew about the allegations. Second, even if (God forbid) the stigmata had been faked, the heroic virtue of Padre Pio was well-attested, and no saint has ever been perfect. Third, this is clearly a case where the evidence is not conclusive one way or the other. This is the sort of argument that practical apologetics is particularly suited to answer.
Dave, just curious. When I read these types of stories, it seems foreign to the Bible itself. There don't seem to be miracles of this sort recorded, it seems morbid & seems to focus attention on the event or the man, not on Jesus. As a Protestant, did you ever feel this way? With regards to this specific area, what convinced you otherwise?
Don't you think Catholicism courts the danger of encouraging 'silly' claims (grilled cheese sandwich, etc.) by not denouncing this sort of thing? Which it could correct? This is not dogmatic.
It seems arrogant to expect the right to 'miracles' (don't get me started on Charismatic (ie. Protestant) 'snake handlers' bitten to death). I wouldn't condemn Catholics alone of what seems to me to be error. Please redirect me if this is covered elsewhere.
-Curious
Ken, glad to see you are serious in your inquiry. Thanks.
Also, you have provided a link about the probability of crucifiction through the wrist, as I too would contend probably happened.
But again, for reasons I listed above, this would in the end, truly be mere theory, in the probable realm.
Thanks for the notice, Jonathan. I'll read your post with interest, as all your writing is excellent and insightful.
Dave, just curious. When I read these types of stories, it seems foreign to the Bible itself.
I don't think so:
2 Corinthians 4:10 Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. {see also 2 Corinthians 1:5-7}
Philippians 2:17 Even if I am to be poured out as a libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. {see also 2 Corinthians 6:4-10}
Philippians 3:10 That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. {see also Galatians 2:20}
2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. {see also Romans 12:1}
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. {see also 2 Corinthians 11:23-30, Galatians 6:17}
I wrote in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, where I listed the above verses in the chapter on penance:
"Our sufferings become identified with those of Christ (instances of the stigmata, whereby saintly persons -- such as St. Francis of Assisi -- actually receive the wounds of Christ in their bodies, are an extremely graphic image of this scriptural teaching)."
What could be more biblical than supernatural wounds that remind folks of Jesus' suffering on the cross for us? The Holy Shroud of Turin is a similar miracle, and it is loved by many Protestants as well as Catholics (Protestant apologist Gary Habermas wrote a book about it). I loved the shroud and St. Francis as a Protestant and had no problem with either.
There don't seem to be miracles of this sort recorded, it seems morbid & seems to focus attention on the event or the man, not on Jesus.
The whole point is to focus on the passion of Jesus. You have it exactly backwards, I think. Since it is biblical to identify with Jesus' sufferings, then it seems to me that the stigmata indicate high sanctity in people who have identified with our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus so closely that these wounds supernaturally appear.
As a Protestant, did you ever feel this way?
No. I thought penitential practices of asceticism were weird and of little value, but that just shows how relatively unacquainted with the Bible I was. 
When I became a Catholic, the Bible became (to me) far more rich with meaning and spiritual profundity.
With regards to this specific area, what convinced you otherwise?
I never doubted that such miracles could occur. I've always believed in miracles, and I never denied that Catholics were Christians or that Catholic saints were very holy people.
Don't you think Catholicism courts the danger of encouraging 'silly' claims (grilled cheese sandwich, etc.) by not denouncing this sort of thing?
No. The Church is very rigorous in its examinations of purported miracles and apparitions. Even John XXIII was, from what I understand, skeptical of St. Padre Pio. This is why these things are not binding on any Catholic to believe. If individuals get ridiculous sometimes, that is hardly the Church's fault. There will always be lamebrains and renegades in any large group.
Which it could correct? This is not dogmatic.
The Church does indeed do so.
Hi everyone,
Thought I’d post this little squib about the Pelican being a symbol of Christ. It’s from an old Padre Pio publication of mine. The reference of course is to the Mass, to the Eucharist – Christ feeding his us with his own body and blood!
It’s important (primarily as an aid to our Protestant friends) to emphasize that, for Padre Pio, the Eucharist, and not the stigmata, was the very center of his life! But how could it fail not to be? For this is what the Church has always and everywhere taught!
St. Augustine:
“Don’t hold yourselves cheap, seeing that the creator of all things and of you estimates your value so high, so dear, that he pours out for you every day the most precious blood of his only begotten son.” ---- Sermon 216:3:1 TO THE COMPETENTES http://www.alibris.com/search/bo...isbn/
1565480503
Christ and him crucified – The Church and Scripture are one.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/O...fied&st=21&
sd=0
Anyway, here’s the back cover of “The Voice of Padre Pio” magazine, vol. 20, no. 7, 1990. http://thumbsnap.com/v/h7xRDPRZ.jpg
The crucifix shown here is “[t]he Crucifix from which Padre Pio received the Stigmata, located in the choir loft of the original church.”
And here’s a better look at it (scroll about 1/5 down). http://caccioppoli.com/Padre%20P...,%
20english.htm
I must admit that I, like many others,thought this business of a pelican feeding its young with its own blood was simply a legend - charming perhaps- but legend nonetheless. However, a quick search turned up an interesting piece of information regarding this. Unfortunately, the book – which came up “full view” initially – is now only in ‘snippet view.’ http://books.google.com/books?as..._maxy=&
as_isbn=
But as luck (or…??) would have it, something (maybe past experience with Google books) told me to grab this image before it disappeared! And disappear it did; and grab it I did!
So here then is a screenshot of Google books: Search terms: pelican + “young with its own blood” http://thumbsnap.com/v/ixpQQulC.png
Btw, I’m not knocking Google; on the contrary, I think they do a marvelous job. But, as they told me in response to an email I sent regarding another book viewing problem, “Please be patient; Google books is still very young. We are aware of the problem and are working hard to fix it.” And fix it they did!
As for the pelican legend, well who knows, maybe there's some truth to it after all! I report, you decide!
What bothers me as much as, if not more, than the story about the carbolic acid, which may or may not be true, is the documents showing that Pope John XXIII did not like Padro Pio and considered him to be a fraud. I liked Pope John and respect his opinion, so I have to take that seriously.
Thanks Dave,
will ponder it
-Curious
Christine,
I very much understand and appreciate your concerns; in matters such as these there is always the possibility of fraud and deception. But these sorts of things require faith at many different levels – faith in the trustworthiness of those who knew Padre Pio, faith in the doctors who examined him, faith in the Church’s ability to properly discern these matters, and so on.
Did John XX III have a rather low opinion of the Padre? Well, sadly, the answer seems to be yes, at least according to this article from this TIMES ONLINE - Oct. 25, 2007:
Mr Luzzatto told Corriere della Sera he had found a note written by John XXIII dated 25 June 1960 recording his receipt of "very serious information on PP (Padre Pio) at San Giovanni Rotondo" from a Vatican investigator, Monsignor Pietro Parente of the Holy Office, who had taken notes and made secret films.
The note says Monsignor Parente "looked, and was, broken hearted". The Pope wrote: "I am sorry for PP, who has a soul to be saved, and I pray for him intensely. What happened - that is, the discovery because of the films - si vera sunt quae referentur (if it is true what they say) - of his intimate and incorrect relations with the women who constitute his Pretorian guard, which even now stands firm around him, leads one to think of a vast disaster of souls which has been diabolically set up to discredit the Holy Church in the world, and especially in Italy."
John XXIII added: " In the calmness of my spirit I humbly persist in believing that the Lord faciat cum tentatione provandum (is doing this as a test of faith), and that from this immense deception will come a teaching of clarity and health for a great many."
Monsignor Parente named three of Padre Pio's "most faithful female followers" as Cleonilde Morcaldi, Tina Bellone, and Olga Ieci, as well as a "mysterious countess", telling the Pope he suspected their devotion to the monk was "not merely spiritual".
But note what else the article states. It seems John XXIII,
"disliked and mistrusted’ Padre Pio since he travelled in Apulia in the 1920s, regarding the friar's "almost medieval mystical faith" as at odds with his own modernist outlook. In the 1960 memorandum the Pope says he feels "privileged to be free of the contamination which for forty years has clung to hundreds of thousands of souls who have been stupefied and disturbed to an unbelievable degree."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2739751.ece
Now really!! (with all due respect to His Holiness)
So perhaps (I say 'perhaps,' and with absolutely no intention of disrespecting our dear Holy Father), perhaps John XXIII, being something of a "modernist" and thus prejudiced against the Padre, was a little too willing to accept uncritically the allegations of misbehavior.
How unlike his predecessor, Pope Benedict XV!
“When news of this special grace from God, the only time granted to a
Cont...
“When news of this special grace from God, the only time granted to a priest, hit the press, it sparked a sensation. The story somehow was leaked from the friary in 1919, and as is usual in these situations, there arose several inaccurate reports. Pope Benedict, wanting the truth, rather than rumors, sent Mgr. Benvenuto Ceretti, Titular Archbishop of Corinth and later a cardinal, to look into the matter, with a favorable report to the Holy See. The Roman pontiff sent further legates to follow the course of events on Mount Gargano and in a message to the Archbishop of Manfredonia stated that "while it was well to proceed cautiously, it was not good to be so incredulous".
Benedict said at one point that Padre Pio was
“one of those really extraordinary men whom God sends on earth from time to time for the conversion of mankind.”
But this would change in reign of Pope Pius XI, during which time,
“Rome declared that it found ‘nothing supernatural in the facts attributed to him’, while the faithful were exhorted to keep away from him.”
“In fact, various exhortations, orders and decrees deprived him of almost all his priestly faculties.”
But through it all, Padre Pio remained faithful and obedient, and “was heard to say, many times:
‘The hand of the Church is gentle even when it strikes us, for it is always our mother's hand.’
And “[w]hen a friar questioned his unquestioning submission to the authority of the Church he answered, ‘If I had not had holy Church behind me with her love and especially with her severity, perhaps I might have been drowned in a sea of doubt and uncertainty, or perhaps I might have become indifferent to the salvation of souls.’”
“Then raising his voice he said slowly:
‘For me the severity of the Church has been a refuge.’" http://www.catholictradition.org...padre-
pio6c.htm
Well anyway, one wonders why, if PJ23 truly believed the disgraceful allegations about Padre Pio, he did nothing (to my knowledge) to correct them?
Surely he realized he was duty bound, as universal pastor, to expose such a ‘diabolical’ deception or fraud in order to safeguard the souls of those entrusted to him!
All I can say is that, from what I know of Padre Pio, it is simply inconceivable any of these allegations against him are true. I believe him to have been a truly gifted, indeed, a tremendously gifted and saintly soul. But for those who still doubt, again, good Pope Benedict XV, who in 1919 said:
"while it was well to proceed cautiously, it was not good to be so incredulous"
Historically Christ was likely nailed through the wrist. Stigmatists often have wounds in the palm (like most European paintings). Why should any theologically literate orthodox Catholic care?
Stigmatists are recieving private revelation anyway & anyone fimilar with the teachings of Pope Benedict the 14th(not the current model who is the 16trh) know private revelations can have error.
Ken,
A bit late, but that was my posting a ways back which had my apologies if you were indeed being truly sincere in your inquiry.
The problem is, I accidentally signed it Ken, when I meant to direct the post to you...
Commenting by HaloScan
