[Boogieman]

“Spain was in the middle of the Inquisition, and there were lots of zealous (not to say paranoid) people running around, red-hot and ready to zot any morisco, converso, proto-Protestant or heretic who stuck his head up and made any sort of claims about special revelations.”

So, he didn’t say anything about this miracle, because the Catholic authorities would have denounced it? If that’s true, then why wouldn’t that be evidence, to a Catholic, that it was a false miracle? Aren’t you supposed to believe that the Catholic Church is divinely guided so as to judge miracles correctly? If it was a true miracle, there should have been no fear that they would denounce it, right?

It just seems all too convenient. After all, if we find a long-lost letter from the Bishop in some archive talking about the miracle, dated 1531, then that would no doubt be cited as evidence towards its legitimacy. However, you’re basically saying the absence of such documentation should also be cited as evidence towards its legitimacy, and I suppose, by extension, even if we found a letter from him disparaging the story, that same argument could be applied.

“But he did enjoy the most amazing increase of new converts since Pentecost AD 33. According to Fray Toribio de Benavente Motolinia, the number of baptized Indians in Mexico in 1536 was five million.”

Sure, that is amazing, but as someone else upthread stated that they were trying to convert earlier, and Cortes had to turn them away, it may have had nothing to do with the cult of Guadalupe. If I were an Aztec, and I just saw my seemingly invincible empire leveled by a couple boatloads of foreigners, I think I would be disillusioned with my gods and looking for a new religion too.

If the cult was responsible, then it could be just as reasonably seen as a syncretist marketing gimmick dreamed up to make Catholicism more palatable to the natives, or some syncretism that the natives dreamed up themselves, like we see with Santeria or Santa Muerte. All of those possibilities seem more likely to me than the miracle narrative, which asks me to believe that an ordinary looking painting is neither ordinary, nor a painting.

Oh well, I suppose we’ll just dance in circles on this one. I don’t care if anyone wants to believe in the whole miracle story, even if I think it’s hogwash. I just don’t think that we should accept that there’s enough evidence to put that legend in the history books as the certain cause of the conversion of Mexico. It’s good propaganda, but I doubt it’s good history.

Happy New Year to you too, Mrs. Don-o!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So... aren’t you supposed to believe that the Catholic Church is divinely guided so as to judge miracles correctly? If it was a true miracle, there should have been no fear that they would denounce it, right?"

Thanks for a good laugh!

First of all, there is nothing in Catholic doctrine which requires me to believe in the Guadalupe apparitions or in any other apparitions, since these are classified as "private revelations" and therefore are not a matter of doctrine or dogma. The most that the relevant authority (i.e. the bishop) can do would be to (1) investigate to see whether there is a non-supernatural explanation for the apparition (is the "visionary" making an honest mistake based on some ambiguous visual or auditory phenomenon? Drunk? On drugs? Hallucinating? A charlatan, or the victim of one?)

IF those can be ruled out, then the next question is: is there anything in the purported revelation contrary to Catholic faith or morals?

Very often an investigation must simply be called inconclusive, since there is not good enough evidence to make a fair determination. Moreover the Church is usually in no hurry to endorse an alleged miracle. For instance, the purported visions which began in 1981 in Medjugorje, a village in Bosnia-Herzegovina, are still under investigation, there is hearty debate about them, and neither a ruling of "definitely supernatural" or "definitely non-supernatural" has been forthcoming.

Secondly, there is plenty of room for Church authorities to be wrong. Even the Pope may be in error in his opinions: Papal infallibility does not extend to his views on politics, iconography, sports or weather, nor (God knows!) to Vatican diplomacy.

Any reasonably well-educated Catholic high school student should know that.

Thirdly, I am not citing anything as proof-positive of the Guadalupe apparitions. I am merely offering evidence, and reasonable inferences from evidence. I can serenely note counter-evidence, weigh it, and accept it if well-founded.

Now, to the topic at hand: the existence of a letter in some long-forgotten archive, reporting on the Guadalupe apparitions in 1531, would be a valuable piece of historic evidence. However, the lack of such a letter does not prove the falsity of the apparitions. As I understand it, the Nican Mopohua, written in classical Nahautl in 1556, is--- by way of comparison --- about as authentic as a birth certificate would be: it is an official document, and an early one. So it counts, not as proof, but as significant evidence.

"Sure, that [5,000,000 conversions in 5 years] is amazing, but as someone else upthread stated that they were trying to convert earlier, and Cortes had to turn them away, it may have had nothing to do with the cult of Guadalupe. If I were an Aztec, and I just saw my seemingly invincible empire leveled by a couple boatloads of foreigners, I think I would be disillusioned with my gods and looking for a new religion too".

Granted. I’m sure there were numerous and various factors for conversions in general, syncretism being part of the mix. But there isn’t any other explanation--- other than the Guadalupe phenomenon --- for 5 million conversions between 1531 and 1536. I am open to competing hypotheses, but they'd better be good.

It does no good to say this was all a 16th century Catholic proselytizing hoax, either, since it was controversial from the very beginning, denounced by some Franciscans for being too closely associated with Tonantzin, and downplayed by the Church for many, many years. If it was a symbol of Spanish hegemony, it was not a very good one, since Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla initiated the bid for Mexican independence with his Grito de Dolores, with the cry "Death to the Spaniards and long live the Virgin of Guadalupe!"

Until the discovery of the deer-skin codex in 1995, there were serious doubts, freely voiced within the Church, about the existence of Juan Diego, the man who received the image to begin with. This recently found manuscript (called the Codex Escalada) provided the documentation needed for the canonization Saint Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, which only happened in 2002 (471 years after the apparitions.). Not exactly a full-speed-ahead 16th century propaganda campaign.

Something happened between 1531 and 1536. Any other hypotheses? Something in the chocolate?

Happy New Year and a Mexican tequila chocolate to you, Boogieman!

FYI:

1 1/2 ounces tequila
1 ounce coffee liqueur
1/8 teaspoon vanilla
1/8 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 cup coffee ice cream
Stir with a cinnamon stick!