Yesterday I was watching cat videos, and a "mermaid girl" got my attention...
Then I've stumbled in Little Audrey again. I've heard about her while watching a mail about Eucharistic miracles. There's a cause running for her to be canonized. But, since she has enough controversies to not be canonized, I have ask whether she is a true mystic.
Arguments for her validity:
- her tragic fate (fell into the family pool on the day of the bombardment of Nagasaki and got a medicine overdose, causing a disability);
- her "pro-life" statement;
- miraculous Communions;
- effects of repenting and converting (an abortion clinic closed because of her);
- miraculous oil which is still pouring
Arguments against her:
- the validity of NO consecrations. If she just got a cookie, then those miracles will be deemed false, as the phenomenon of false Eucharistic miracles does exist;
- association with Medjugorje, she got her invitation as a victim soul there. If the first Medjugorje apparition was false due to the encouragement of Maria Valtorta (Pius XII approved her, but Antipope John XXIII put her writings on the Index, not sure if Gregory XVII would do the same thing), then there is a chance for this mystic to be false. A false mystic named John Leary started to get apparitions after a visit to Medjugorje in 1993. (The abortion clinic was in Yugoslavia) (also, did the Gospa apparitions began already? Did she see the Medjugorje Mary?);
- idolization during her life and great media attention following the accident;
- cult-like things, such as meetings;
- false private revelation and liturgical abuse at her residence (Worcester, Massachusetts);
- there was a credible false mystic called Magdalena de la Cruz, who almost fooled the whole Spain.
She would be a stumble stone for Trads who think the NO utterly invalid, but if the NO is invalid, then this mystic would be invalid, but this raises another question: why do witches and Satanists still steal "Hosts" from NO Churches?