Talk:Anne Catherine Emmerich

Older comments

This article is in desparate need of wikification. There are a number of glaring POV statements and claims that will need to be addressed here as well. I seem to remember a better article being up about six months ago, but there seems to be only one version in the history, so I'm unsure what happened. Please someone have a go at this, I lack the time. --FM 06:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I just (19th Jan '06) removed the following statement:

"Catholic Tradition states that she foresaw the downfall of Napoleon twelve years in advance, and that she counseled in a mysterious way the successor of St. Peter."

I have no idea to what event (or alleged event) in the life of Blessed Anne that refers but it is obviously false. There is no such thing as "Catholic tradition" in any sense that could be relevant to that statement. "Tradition" (without the adjective) is cited in Catholic theology as an authoritative source for doctrine. It has nothing to do with modern biography. To cite "Catholic tradition" as an authority in the biography of someone who was born in 1774 is to display ignorance. Pious gossip would be a more accurate term hence I removed the sentence. As for the second half I can only ask how? what? when?

I have added this comment to the talk page just in case some pious soul stumbles across this article and decides to revert. Don't. With any luck it will get subsumed in other edits soon. Lord knows this page needs it.Stroika 12:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Piety aside, it also needs some independent references, so I'm off to chase up an English language bibliographic record of her book to anchor the account. Some critical bibliographical references might also be useful for NPOV requirements. As she was one of the principal influences behind Passion of the Christ, one assumes that volumes about that film would incorporate critiques of her account of the passion. User Calibanu 15:45, 16 May 2006

Okay, bibliography complete. I've also made comments about anti-Semitism in the course of the article. Will regularly update when I obtain access to other critical scholarship about Passion of the Christ pertinent to Emmerich.

User Calibanu: 13:31, 19 May 2006

antisemitism controversies

I am shocked by the lack of sense, the free running pov almost bloglike in this article. Anne Catherine deserves better for sure. The amount of nonsense and subtly marked suggestions regarding pseudo antisemitism is just sad.--BBird 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Might I inquire how citing mainstream church documents about how orthodox Catholics (as opposed to traditionalists) perceive the work of Emmerich represents a 'free running pov,' or other such nonsense? Surely the Papacy and hierarchy represent a touchstone for formation of Catholic opinion and ethical judgement?

User Calibanu: 09:15, 26 May 2006.

Morrover, it is not 'pseudo' antisemitism to note that Emmerich herself held antisemitic views, and her own biography is cited to reflect her views. These views need to be placed in context. The previous version of this entry was a hagiography. A hagiography is not a NPOV, while other sources of documentation and discussion have been cited within the revised text. Why should we neglect contemporary scholarship about Emmerich and her contemporary reception, and culpability for her clear anti-Semitic statements?

User Calibanu 09:34. 26 May 2006

---

Sorry -- I read the book (passion). its touching, realistic. I always read the refs to Jews (along with Romans) as just showing how men with power can behave in bad ways. Anyway, she lived 150 years ago!! to insist that her wording is not politically correct by today's standards is just stupid. context please. --BBird 21:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

November 2006

I am not sure of the fine points of the Wiki POV policy; most rational people would conclude that Ms Emmerich was simply a whackjob, and that the "strict" examinations she underwent were, to put it mildly, probably not up to modern levels of "strictness" when it comes to proving supernatural powers. Joel Johnson November 27 2006

The purpose of this article is neither to extol her spiritual insights, nor to dump on her because she held views which would be unpopular today. If you have some factual and documented information relevant to this article, bring it forward. AnonMoos 02:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion by Smith2006

Can Smith justify here his action in reverting instead of responding to the requests for sources to support his (wishful thinking?) contention that there exists a work by Anne Catherine Emmerich, written down by Brentano, entitled Visions for the Church and describing the future of the Roman Catholic Church in the near-apocalyptic terms he attributes to it? Lima 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

I have removed the following material:

However, any discussion of how some paragraphs in the Dolorous Passion can be read to attribute supernatural motivation for Jewish antagonism toward Christ during the crucifixion, and allegations that this antipathy has intrinsic demonic grounds that pervade their very beings, can only relate to the words used by Brentano to write the text in German and not to the words originally spoken in the Westphalian dialect by Emmerich.

This material constitutes original research and is therefore in violation of Wikipedia policy. If History2007 wants to include a claim that Brentano's German translation is somehow unfaithful to Emmerich's "Westphalian dialect," then he needs to cite a reliable source. He may not simply assert this based on his own beliefs. There are reliable sources saying that Gibson used Emmerich as a source and that Emmerich has been criticized by many for anti-Semitism. The above section seems like a clumsy attempt to hand-wave this away, as is the parenthetical addition of "(fair or unfair)" which seems to belittle the sourced criticisms.

History2007 also persists on removing weasel word templates, despite the fact that weasel words are clearly present in this section. 76.97.163.77 05:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I found an article here which I think discusses what History2007 was getting at. I've reinserted the claim using more appropriate wording. 76.97.163.77 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

beatified

what is the definition of beatified? 98.195.185.125 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)