Talk:Audrey Santo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.


Contents

[edit] bias

This article is very biased, so shouldn't it have a neutrality tag? Lunamaria 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This page claims a number of supernatural miracles to be facts. I am fairly confident that they have never been established as such.

[edit] Audrey Miracles

The bishop of Worcester has concluded that the events are supernatural, however further investigation is still ongoing.

Riiiight! Because if the bishop of Worcester says so, then it must be true. 65.92.17.149 19:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not the issue. One can report what the Bishop has concluded without making it look like that means it's objectively true. --Bluejay Young 11:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This wiki page is way too biased and quick to claim that this is miracle. First of all the oil supposededly oozing from the statues have been tested to be just vegatable oil and chicken fat, which is easily faked and manufactured, secondly never has the oil actually been observed to flow. Reports of "Stigmata" like wounds have mysteriously appeared on Audreys body, and she has been clamied to have been "mysteriously" moved. All this seems incredibly suspect. Especially when you consider that the Santos used to ship out cotton ball packets dipped in this oil to ask for donations. This whole thing seems to be a hoax, and an incredibly callous one aimed at the exploitation of a brain dead child. This wiki article neeeds to be edited to provide a more impartial view of what really could be going on by illuminating the arguments of the skeptics and the circumstances that surround the implications of a hoax.

Well, this is wikipedia. All you have to do is fix it, which you (or someone) did. --Bluejay Young 01:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] audrey santo

hi there The article says that the miracles are "alleged" and does not claim them to be proven. To mention Audrey Santo in wikipedia without mentioning the miracle claims surrounding her would be false, as this is probably the reason audrey is mentioned in here in the first place. Check the website for the worcester diocese to get the facts about the investigation. NO, they are not an absolute authority, but they have conducted an official investigation and do not confirm or deny the miracles, hence the article uses the term "alleged".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Priestessthesaurus (talk • contribs).

In case anyone is wondering, The Catholic Church only confirms miracles and apparitions, they don't deny them. in other words, if the bishop who oversees the area where the alleged apparition or miracle happens doesn't say they are "approved" you can be assured then that the Church doesn't feel they are from God. (or, hasn't had time to review the claims) The Međugorje folks have been using this to their advanatge for decades. they say "Until the Pope says they aren;t real, we can assume they are". Under Canon law, it isn't up to the Pope - It's up the the Bishop. Of course, you have to give the Bishop time to investigate. In Audrey's case, now that's she's died, there will likely be a new investigation because people will undoubtedly be reporting miracles attributed to her and pushing for her sainthood. Some Bishops and Popes will say a given allaged miracle or alleged apparition is schismatic in nature such as Međugorje and the visions of Veronica Lueken (The seer of bayside) but that's only after their followers have caused a lot of trouble by promoting messages and teachings that classh with the Church. So, If you read about an apparition or miracle and it's been around a few years and no Bishop has sanctioned it as "Approved" you can safely assume that it's NOT approved. It's not appropriate for me to write about that in this article but I will try and cover that in other article son the topic and quote appropriately reliable sources from the Church. If anyone wants confirmation of this personally, ask your local Bishop's office.LiPollis 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update to article

I tried my best to include as much factual info as I could find including direct quotes. I stuck only to what the Bishop has said and left out anything from vocal and sometimes cruel Skeptical critics in respect of the fact that this disabled young girl has only just died. i included appropriate praise from the Bishop of her family's care for her over the years which they consider laudable. However, they have not confirmed any of the alleged miracles. it's all in the article now.LiPollis 12:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Voal and sometimes cruel skeptical critics? Just because they dare to have doubts aboutn the whole issue? PLEASE. Lunamaria 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey - I don't buy these claims either but after the girl died, there was some veritable dancing on the child's grave which is hardly appropriate. It's not like Audrey herself made these claims. According to doctors, she likely wasn't even aware of her surroundings and all the bizzare claims and hucksterism going on in her name. I am the eidtor who sourced all those denials by the bishop and added in the carefully worded section on the controversy. Please don't confuse my desire to respect a recently deceased disabled young woman with belief in the claims made by people trying to profit from her tragedy. No doubt there will now be a move to have her sainted and I will cover that respectfully as well. Wikipedia isn't the place to make fun of other people's religious beliefs nor is it a place to call other editors profane names. I edited that out of your post per guidelines.LiPollis 11:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help improve the article by providing cited sources

This article has been coming along nicely and I feel we can do even more to improve it by carefully sourcing every claim that has been asserted about Audrey Santo by her supporters. Remember, it is not necessary to believe their claims to include them. By offering a verifiable source for each claim included in the article, we can ensure that this article doesn't deteriorate into a list of assertions as so often happens with articles of tbis sort. The beliefs of those who surrounded Audrey during her short life are quite typical of a certain branch of modern Catholic mysticism and as such, are notable as an example of such. Editors do not need to believe or disbelieve in such mystical viewpoints to document them. LiPollis (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)