of Pio's stigmata, with theological arguments playing the lead role. Agostino Gemelli, psychiatric examination 1920 and medical examination 1925 In 1920, father Agostino Gemelli – a physician and psychologist – was commissioned by Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val to visit Pio and carry out a clinical examination of the wounds. "For this reason, despite having gone to Gargano Peninsula on his own initiative, without being asked by any ecclesiastical authority, Gemelli did not hesitate to make his private letter to the Holy Office a kind of unofficial report on Padre Pio." Gemelli wanted to express himself fully on the matter and wanted to meet the friar. Pio showed a closed attitude towards the new investigator: he refused the visit requesting the written authorization of the Holy Office. Father Gemelli's protests that he believed he had the right to subject the friar to a medical examination of the stigmata were in vain. The friar, supported by his superiors, conditioned the examination to a permit requested through the hierarchy, without taking into account the credentials of Father Agostino Gemelli. Therefore, Gemelli left the convent, irritated and offended for not being allowed to examine the stigmata. He came to the conclusion that Francesco Forgione was "a man of restricted field of knowledge, low psychic energy, monotonous ideas, little volition." Gemelli critically judged Pio: "The case is one of suggestion unconsciously planted by Father Benedetto in the weak mind of Padre Pio, producing those characteristic manifestations of psittacism that are intrinsic to the hysteric mind." On behalf of the Holy Office, Gemelli re-examined Pio in 1925, writing a report in April 1926. This time Pio allowed him to see the wounds. Gemelli saw as its cause the use of a corrosive substance Pio had applied himself to these wounds. The Jesuit Festa had previously tried to question Gemelli's comments on stigmata in general. Gemelli responded to this criticism in his report and resorted to responding to his knowledge of self-inflicted wounds. He therefore clarified his statements about the nature of Pio's wounds: "Anyone with experience in forensic medicine, and above all in variety by sores and wounds that self-destructive soldiers were presented during the war, can have no doubt that these were wounds of erosion caused by the use of a caustic substance. The base of the sore and its shape are in every way similar to the sores observed in soldiers who procured