I don't want to get stuck in an eye-glazing tennis match with an elusive rhetorician, so instead I will address the 3rd-party reader as a kind of instruction into the tactics & omissions at play, and how you can watch for them in the future, from Ethan or whoever else.

Then, that 3rd-party reader can see for themselves the seriousness-deficit at play, and thereby understand the approach I have chosen to take with this reply.

-=-=-

First, notice Ethan's framing about the "random woman."

My response article did not at all suggest they were "close" nor that there relationship wasn't "shallow." Ethan's reply here nevertheless insinuates that this *was* that charge at play: That they had a deep relationship and knew one another well. Nobody said that.

Ethan's framing in the original post just handwaves her as some random woman with a story & method that doesn't fit what would be required to maintain fake wounds for decades. He just straight up doubts the events by doubting her, oblivious to (or omitting) her cousin's testimony.

His original claim: "This episode tends to undermine the hypothesis that the stigmata were artificial. If St. Pio was the sort of guy that was able to get away with a series of grand conspiracies over a span of decades, isn't it a bit strange that his go-to plan for sourcing the over-the-counter medicament that he was using to artificially maintain the stigmata was to write a short note asking a woman that he barely knew to get some from a local pharmacy on his behalf? And then this woman turned around and snitched on him to a bishop?"

He repeats this false narrative in the reply here: "She did not honor Pio's request for secrecy and then turned around and ratted on him to a bishop."

The facts are that Pio met this woman, learned she had pharmaceutical connections, and Pio set about exploiting them. Though unsettled, Maria and her cousin Valentini *did* in fact deliver the acid.

*Then* Pio requested the caustic veratrine at 1000x a typical volume (!!). Here they were so alarmed that Valentini, worrying Pio was doing this to fake the stigmata, alerted Church authorities, leading to Rossi's investigation into Pio.

So, do we care about these facts, or not? Ethan says this episode *undermines* the hypothesis that the stigmata were artificial. How on Earth would it do that? I'll tell you how: By omitting the cousin, pinning the story all on the "random woman," and claiming she betrayed him immediately (vs. the truth: A successful acid delivery, then Pio's 1000-times-normal follow-up request for caustic veratrine, provoking suspicion from trustworthy outsiders).

Not a good look for Pio. But also, not a good look for Ethan, who presses the wrong version of events still.

-=-=-

I admit that I deliberately left out a detail I knew and discussed publicly (if anyone wants receipts) prior to this publication: That Gamelli actually visited twice, in both 1919 and 1920, but was sworn to secrecy about the plurality of his visits, and subsequently gave accounts that came across as inconsistent, and would look suspicious to anyone who had not done adequate research to know this fact. (Let the reader understand.)

Per Fr. Flavio Peloso of Tortona:

"As evidenced by correspondence with the Holy Office, Father Agostino Gemelli visited San Giovanni Rotondo and Padre Pio twice. The first time was 'in 1919, while passing through Foggia for military service.' 'I went to San Giovanni Rotondo,' the Franciscan writes, 'accompanied by the secretary of the then Bishop of Foggia. He expressed the desire that I examine Padre Pio and then report back to him on the results of my observations. My trip could be useful. I felt it was my duty to accept, and I went and stayed for two days in San Giovanni Rotondo, a guest of the Capuchin Convent. I had the opportunity to see Padre Pio several times and converse with him at length. I also examined Padre Pio's wounds.' He introduced himself as a doctor, and so 'I continued to the end the charade of the convinced and converted doctor in order to have the opportunity to observe, see, and verify. I reported all this to the Bishop of Foggia.'"

Benedetto and Brunatto took advantage of this to discredit Gamelli, as Ethan does; though Benedetto & Brunatto knew he'd been there twice (knowing his real identity only during the second visit), and Ethan did not.

-=-=-

A move you'll often see with this kind of thing:

"You are suspicious of Benedetto's testimony on the grounds that Gemelli accuses him of being 'in on it.' ... This is question-begging."

It isn't question-begging to say that he's suspected to be "in on it." He is! Gamelli suspected it, and our skeptical hypothesis does so as well: As I wrote, "(These 'suspicion levels' are not scientific, just expressive per our skeptical hypothesis)."

In other words, these are the provisions of a hypothesis in which Pio faked it. We aren't taking them for granted in order to prove that he faked it.

But that can superficially look like "begging the question," enough that someone motivated to defeat the skeptical hypothesis might utter this kind of thing, and it'll work on some % of unwary readers.

-=-=-

Burying the ledes:

(1) In the original post, Ethan claimed that there is "overwhelming evidence" that Pio bilocated. The above article shows that Pio himself disputed this when pressed by Rossi. Ethan leaves this unanswered.

(2) In the original post, Ethan leaned on the testimony of Emanuele Brunatto. The above article shows that Brunatto was a known Fascist propagandist and con man, who whitewashed his propaganda about Pio after the war. Gemelli was first to warn about Brunatto as a worrying figure in the Pio affair, and he was totally right. Ethan leaves this unanswered.

(3) In the original post, Ethan falsely claimed that the story of Pio smuggling acid was far-fetched. The above article shows that it did in fact occur, leading Pio to solicit even further caustic substances, absurdly claiming to Rossi they were for a sneezing prank, a tale that Rossi bought, perhaps unaware that Pio had requested 1000 times a normal quantity of it. Ethan leaves this unanswered.

It is not surprising to me that these went unanswered. I mean, what approach would you take, if you were Ethan?

Similarly, it is not surprising to me the direction Ethan *did* go in this reply (since I tactically left that opening, and only with this reply have closed the vice).

-=-=-

As a Christian seeking virtue inside & out, I am committed to taking facts about Christian misdeeds seriously even when it's embarrassing or requires backtracking. As someone who is deeply troubled by con men & fake miracles, I did feel an obligation to write the above article and this reply.

However, as a father of 3 girls, I don't have a lot of time. As such, and because I am happy with the original article and this reply, and that it will satisfy fellow critical readers, I must commit not to reply further on this subject and let others have the last words. [EDIT: I am depending on you all with, for example, Ethan’s further reply here.]

God bless.