Talk:Audrey Santo

Working on updates

Hi! I'm going to be working on updates to this article to add many more citations and improve the wording. I am doing a ton of research. Comment here if you have something to add, please. Andreac (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Improvements to the article are done! Andreac (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

12:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 alleged miracle or alleged apparition is schismatic in nature such as Međugorje and the visions of Veronica Leuken (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 articles on these topics 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)

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)

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)

Orsi book and diocese statement

I've replaced the two references that were removed earlier tonight, repairing one dead link to the diocesan statement and editing the material in the article so that it more closely matches what's stated in that source. I also reinstated the Orsi book material as well, but I've added a "quotation requested" template. The reference link at present takes you to a "Notes" page and although it contains the relevant term "victim soul", it doesn't specifically support the claim in the material it's purportedly referencing. In my opinion we have to do better than a casual mention of the term on a page in the notes section of Orsi's book; a reliable reference has to directly support what's being claimed in the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Claims about Victim Souls

Vicarious suffering is a fundamental part of Catholic theology, beginning in Judaism. There have been some attempts to claim that this is not the case. One only has to open up the Catholic Encyclopedia online and look up penance and indulgences to see that vicarious suffering is fundamental to the religion. [Guest]

Guest, I have a set of the Catholic Encyclopedia of my own, but that is irrelevant. The quotes that were once in the article came directly from the presiding Bishop in Audrey's case. Vicarious suffering and Victim Soulhood are not the same thing. Victim Soulhood is a controversial belief among Sedevacantist Traditionalist Catholics, supporters and promoters of various Marian apparitions, and many others inclinded towards signs and wonders types of beliefs and visions. It is true that it is a belief that is becoming more common but it is not one accepted by The Roman Catholic Church. Just because a given Catholic believes something doesn't make it Church Dogma. Let's say I believe in Holy & Blessed Monkeys that fly out of my cat's mouth and talk to me and I happen to be a Catholic. Let's say over time, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people believe in these Holy Talking Monkeys that fly out cat's mouths. Until it's codified as part of the faith and made a part of official dogma, it is merely a folk belief at the least and at the worst, it could be considered heresy by the Church. The fact is that currently, there has been no official acceptance of the common belief in the concept of a victim soul. In fact, many Church fathers have written against it and Audrey's own Bishop has written that it is in conflict with Church teachings.

Be that as it may, as far as what is or isn't true, we should only be concerned here with what is or isn't true with regard to Audrey Santo since the article is about HER and not about the Church and it's acceptance of certain beliefs.. I would suggest that you might find your time better used in expanding the already existing article on Victim souls. it really could use some work since it is merely a stub and doesn't really cover the history and evolution of the term very well at all. LiPollis (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Many saints have been canonized who have been 'victim souls' according to the definition of the term. This is official recognition of this type of spirituality. One example of this is Saint Lydwine of Schiedam, whose entire life was one of incredible suffering. Another saint would be Saint Margaret Mary, who tells the story of her pains in her harrowing autobiography. Your attempt to link 'victim soul's to sedevacantism is completely inaccurate, it is believed in the complete spectrum of Catholic thought, from left to right. This entry is associated with Medugorje which the traditional Catholics reject, for example. Moreover your use of ridiculous examples and loaded terminology to make your point and your personal 'authority' as a Catholic, is in fact, not a Catholic method of making a point, which is one that relies on history and Church teachings and does not easily call something heretical on one's personal authority. The local bishop's issues with this particular person refers to the term as new, but the spirituality is not, and in fact the Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary covers the term, as can be looked up online.

[Guest] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.218.187 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I remind the above user that this is an article about the life of Audrey Santo and not about whether or not the Catholic Church currently accepts the concept of victim souls as being equivalent with vicarious suffering. This issue of whether or not Audrey's Bishop accepts her supporters claims of victim soulhood has been asked and answered more than once. I again suggest that the above user try and improve the stub article on Victim souls since it is in danger of deletion as it stands now. Other help on this article would include adding references where reference tags exist. That is one constructive act that would be a better use of a user's time than trying to instruct on the lives of the saints. Talk pages are reserved for discussions on how to improve an article. Lastly, I am not making my point in any way other than a Wikipedian way and I suggest others consider doing the same. I used a metaphor I thought the user would understand and clearly he/she didn't. Now I will restrict myself to reminding that editor to stay on topic and the topic is Audrey Santo and her life.LiPollis (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audrey Santo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013184217/http://bostonphoenix.com:80/archive/features/97/12/25/AUDREY_SANTO.html to http://bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/97/12/25/AUDREY_SANTO.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Audrey Santo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)