Talk:Veronica Lueken

Untitled

Add NEW comments at the bottom of the page or in the section on that topic. Thank you.

comment

Hi. The accompanying entry is a wholly new analysis of Veronica Lueken, and as you can see from the copious references, it does not simply reproduce content from the Last Days Ministries website. I am not the author of the original deleted piece, so please, don't delete my take on this person and her worldview!

User: Calibanu, 17: 14, 16 May 2006.

To the previous person who vandalised this entry. Kindly do not do so any further. I have deleted your previous edit, as it was in violation of NPOV requirements, contained claims without independent verification, and also duplicated statements made elsewhere in the text. I have retained the St Michaels World Apostolate Mission edit, as it includes valuable information about what occurred after Mrs Lueken's death. Please note that I have striven to be as neutral as possible in recording the details of this woman's life and desist from any further excessive amendment of this entry.

User: Calibanu 10.28, 5 July 2006

Cite sources

Hi, I've noticed that this page has a very nice set of references at the bottom. However, each assertion needs to have its own reference, so that a reader does not have to search through the sources to find out where a particular line came from. You can read more at Wikipedia:Citing sources, or leave a note here if you have questions. —Mira 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mugavero & Objectivity

There are three Ad hominem attacks on the late Bishop Mugavero: one each time his investigation and denunciation is mentioned. This adds nothing to the reader's understanding of Veronica Lueken or her movement or of his investigation into her visions. Is it being suggested that he did not believe in her visions because he may have been gay? I'm sure the writer's disagreement with the Bishop's conclusions is strong enough to be stated rationally, not by simply attacking him as gay. Anyone familiar with her visions knows that they are quite powerful and that they do question the authority of church leadership. His conclusions, then, seem pretty straightforward, whether one agrees with them or not. So why question their authenticity based on his private life or unrelated performance?

Also, for the record, there is only one source for the claim that Mugavero was gay: a lawyer who is making a case against the church accused the bishop at a press conference (picked up by the Guardian and Daily News).

I ask that you remove the unnecessary repetitions of this and qualify the accusation by stating the context in which it was made.

As for objectivity, why not include information about the factional split between followers of Veronica Lueken into the Our Lady of the Roses Shrine and St. Michael's World Apostolate factions, which is the most important event in the movement since Veronica Lueken's death? The only mention of her husband, Arthur Lueken, is in passing, even though he became President of Our lady of the Roses in 1997 and presumably played an important role in her life. At least why not include the our lady of the roses website? Njsamizdat 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Njsamizdat. As the original author of this article, I would firstly like to thank you for your objection to its earlier vandalism. Secondly, I was interested to read about the schisms that have occurred within the Bayside circle since Veronica Lueken's death. Originally, I compiled this from available non-web source material, and as I noted within the text, there has been no detailed analysis of the sect since Mrs Lueken passed away.

If you could provide the article with any documented evidence about the aforementioned split from either an online source, newspaper article or any other publication, then please do not hesitate to add such a reference to it.

[User Calibanu] 11.37, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibanu (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey now! This article has made a 180 turn. Your original is terrific. Njsamizdat 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [[]]

I'm researching the movement and would love to know more about the schism. I've gone to both websites (Our Lady of the Roses and St. Michael's World Apostolate) and they seem to be for the same organization. (They have the same PO Box and hold vigils at the same place and the same time.) Can anyone explain this? Thanks.

Nikolaipdx (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Schism at Bayside

The original Shrine of Our Lady of the Roses is still very much in existence and is managed by Vivian Hanratty. The web sites associated with the original Bayside movement are http://www.ourladyoftheroses.org , http://www.tldm.org and http://www.roses.org. The "schism" that is mentioned in the above posting occurred about 1996-1997, when the then Vigil coordinator and office manager, Michael Mangan attempted what could be described as a "coup" against Arthur Lueken, at the time the president of the Our Lady of the Roses Corporation. ( I personally drove "Artie" to his lawyers and sat next to him in Queens County Civil court as he fought a brutal court battle with Mangan for ultimate control of the Shrines corporation, bank accounts and assets.) Ultimately Arthur won the court battle, but at the price of having a split occur, with Mangan and the majority of the Shrine workers and followers leave to start a "splinter group" called "Saint Michael's World Apostolate", which Mangan alleges he was "appointed" by Veronica personally to carry on the Bayside mission. (The "Warning in 1997 Rose Notes" debacle news article was crafted entirely by Mangan with no authority or approval from any of the Shrines board of directors at the time. http://www.roses.org/news/warn97ng.htm This caused a tremendous amount of embarrassment, loss of credibility to the Shrine and it's mission.) Additional insight as to the actions of Mangan's SMWA group can be found here: http://www.rosesfromheaven.com/SMWA.html. A remnant few original workers remained with Artie, Ann Ferguson, Veronica's personal secretary, Vivian Hanratty, Gary Wohlscheid of These Last Day's Ministries, (the radio station "arm" of the original shrine) and several others, and despite much adversity and persecution the original mission which Veronica started forty one years ago is still alive and well and holds it's rosary prayer vigils on the originally requested eve of the great feast days of the Roman Catholic Church. It also distributes the original un-editied messages given with no subjective interpretations added. NB: Both organizations have independent P.O. Boxes and phone numbers now for several years. — Preceding rjs comment added by 173.100.110.225 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/26/magazine/sunday-july-26-1998-you-are-there-waiting-for-the-virgin.html http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln270/Lourdes-of-America.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/nyregion/visions-of-doom-endure-in-queens-prophecy-and-a-rift-at-a-shrine.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Specifically, several passages were copied verbatim, or near-verbatim, from their respective sources. I initially found this in one paragraph but it turns out there were multiple occurrences. These passages should have been rendered as quotations, though ideally they would have been re-written. See WP:COPYPASTE. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Marian apparitions section unclear

A line in the 'Marian apparitions' section reads "Her exterior modesty and expression would take on characteristics reflecting ecstasy." It's not at all clear what that means. What is "exterior modesty" and how does it "take on characteristics reflecting ecstasy?" Sadiemonster (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

Recent edits to this page have given it a promotional tone. (e.g., " the greatest Marian apparition in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.") The only references cited are those connected to the Bayside movement.Mannanan51 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bayside.ave.maria., please explain the deletion of sourced material. Also you have recently added a good deal of material, -none of it referenced. In the discussion above, (See "The Schism at Bayside), mention is made of a group apparently operating under the name of "Our Lady of the Roses", and something called "These Last Day's Ministries", which was removed from the article without any rationale given. Perhaps TLDM should be removed, but please explain why. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Distortions

The article states: "...Unbeknownst to many, Bishop Mugavero was a gay-rights advocate and an avid supporter of the gay-lesbian New Ways Ministry that derived its name from his 1976 pastoral letter on "Human Sexuality" wherein he tells the gay community: "We pledge our willingness to help you... and to find new ways to communicate the truth." He expressed his sympathy for gay-hood, saying: "Our community must explore ways to secure the legitimate rights of all our citizens, regardless of sexual orientation."

I took the time to find the pastoral letter which supposedly forms the basis for these claims.

First, the pastoral letter is called not "Human Sexuality", but "Sexuality - God's Gift".

Second, it is not an endorsement of "gay-hood" for someone to deplore what Mugavero specifically mentioned as "unjust discrimination", and seek to "secure the legitimate rights of all our citizens".

Third, the invitation "...to find new ways to communicate the truth." was not addressed particularly to the gay community but is contained in the "Call to Healing" and addressed to our brothers and sisters of all ages ... who cannot yet see that the personal and public commitment of marriage should be the context for the gift of oneself in sexual relations; to those of homosexual orientation; to the widowed, to adolescents and the divorced.

This begs the question, did the individual who originally posted this ever bother to actually read the pastoral letter, or deliberately mis-read it. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Query

How did Mrs. Lueken receive receive a "visitation" from Pope John Paul II ("Marian Apparitions"), when she pre-deceased him by several years? Mannanan51 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Continued bias

There have been several edits on this page to either remove mention of These Last Days Ministries or make it sound like a renegade group. However, this is untrue. Veronica Lueken approved and supported TLDM's mission. It was only after the "schism" that rival organizations claimed that they alone were the "official" organization to continue Veronica's work. No one ever said that the Our Lady of the Roses Shrine was the only organization that could promote the messages. That would be like saying only St. Peter's in Rome could preach Catholicism. Copyrighting "Our Lady of the Roses" would be like copyrighting "Bible" or "Jesus". I would ask in future that all effort be made to keep this page unbiased. --JohnBlood378 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I would very strongly encourage those who have been actively involved with this article (EDIT: more specifically, those who've written about the Schism and/or the groups involved in it) to review both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:COI. Speaking for myself: (1) I have no involvement nor affiliation with the subject of this article, nor with any of the organizations mentioned in this article, nor with any individuals affiliated with these organizations, nor with the Roman Catholic Church. (2) I reverted your recent edit because it made an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim: "Gary left his job at IRS at the request of Heaven…." (link). I've removed the portion that said "at the request of Heaven" (I also made WP:MOS copyedits to the accompanying text). If the Apostolate (for example; or any other group) claimed that they were acting under a mandate from Heaven, then you would presumably object (and rightly so). As for the lengthy quotation, I had deleted that because of WP:WEIGHT concerns. It was probably sufficient to simply add the citation to the two sentences that were already there. For now, though, I've left it alone. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just tagged the "Organizations spreading the message" section with {{Self-published}}. All of the citations (except for the very last) cite the respective organizations' literature about themselves. Any information about these organizations, and their relations with one another, really should cite 3rd-party sources. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed the "Organizations spreading the message" section. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "St. Michael's World Apostolate website" a reliable source?

They say "example of doctrinal error has been produced by the diocese" But the bayside diocese declaration says: "The "messages" and other related propaganda contain statements which, among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church"Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Rag

Veronica Luken was name checked in the 1973 Steely Dan song: The Boston Rag, as Lady Bayside. Walter Becker grew up close by,in Forrest Hills, NY. When questioned by Rolling Stone Magizine about the reference he gave a non-answer. Were counterculture people aware of the pharmacuetical origins of the apparitions? Did they wish to curate thier very own visions through drug use? Please do not delete this page. The dynamic has the devout and credulous vs the devout skeptics and a 3rd party of cynical young people seeing the example of recreational drug use. Monk from Elmhurst (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)