Mexican Narcoterrorist Region May Abandon Catholicism for Islam

It would seem as if Bishop Ruiz’s brand of Liberation Theology has had the same effect on Chiapas as on Europe. Chiapas is poor, but it’s now also appearing to trend Islamic as any region under the influence of the left eventually does. When you kill the local religion and replace it with social justice, foreign religions eventually take its place.

In the mid-1990s, a leftist resistance group which calls itself The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) made Chiapas its home. Its attempts to fight the Mexican Army repeatedly failed, but the Zapatistas are still very active in the district’s rural areas. Chiapas is considered a dangerous place, where every home has an arms arsenal of its own; and like many other places in Mexico, Chiapas’ streets have become the battlefield where the government and local drug lords wrestle for dominance.

Chiapas, however, harbors an even more sinister secret: It is also a hub of radical Islamist activity.

Catholic Mexico is in the midst of a crisis of faith. According to a local businessman, who asked to remain anonymous, it is widely believed that within a decade, Chiapas will be the first federal state in Mexico to turn its back on the Church.

“The Muslim missionaries are very active there,” he said. “It’s hard to know exactly how many people have converted to Islam over the past few years.”

In December 2011, the US authorities released an indictment filed against Lebanese drug lord Ayman Juma, which exposed Hezbollah’s involvement with the Los Zetas drug cartel. According to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Los Zetas is the most technologically advanced and most dangerous cartel operating in Mexico.

Juma was indicted in absentia for smuggling 85 tons of cocaine into the US and for laundering $850 million for Los Zetas. He was also accused of serving as a go-between for the Mexican crime syndicate and the Shiite terror group.

According to US officials, for a modest 8%-14% commission, Juma’s money laundering process would take about a week. The operation involved bank accounts in dozens of countries, making it virtually impossible to track the dirty money.

US intelligence concluded that Hezbollah has established sleeper cells, intelligence infrastructure and training bases in Mexico and other South American countries. The Shiite group is also helping the drug lords build smuggling tunnels under the US-Mexico border and satellite images show that they are nearly identical to the maze of tunnels running under the Gaza-Egypt border.

Hezbollah is also training the cartels’ operatives in the dubious art of explosives, helping drug lords improve their bomb-making skills.

“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!

"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!

Of course I am not saying that everybody in the Catholic clergy claims infallibility on all matters, or anything like that. However, the Catholic church as a body does claim divine authority to judge these matters, so why should they be rejecting false miracles if that authority is factual? They are certain enough of this authority when they pronounce someone a Saint, giving their believers the go ahead to communicate with them through prayer. That’s pretty confident, I would say, otherwise they could possibly be encouraging spiritism or divination, if their judgement was sometimes incorrect.

Since the process of sainthood is dependent on the process that verifies miracles, the same level of authority must be assumed to be at work there too. Otherwise, it stands to reason, if they are sometimes wrong about the miracles, then they are sometimes wrong about the saints, and therefore dangerously presumptuous in telling people to pray to them. It’s a tricky path to say “we make mistakes”, there are more consequences than just the convenient ones.

“However, the lack of such a letter does not prove the falsity of the apparitions.”

No, it doesn’t, but it also doesn’t mean there’s no letter because the Bishop was afraid of some consequences if people found out what was happening. It’s just a bit odd that a main character in the story, who is, as you pointed out, the one most responsible for verifying these kinds of things, didn’t seem to tell anyone about it. Maybe he did and all the records have been lost, but unless we find something like that, I think it’s an oddity.

“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.”

An official document of who? The church, the government, the local priest? They have a pretty good guess as to the author, but I don’t think it’s an official document so much as a tract that someone wrote promoting their story of this apparition. On the other hand, we have a source from at least as early, that is attributable to someone with some position of authority in the church, denouncing spurious claims of a miracle by the peasants that sound just like the Guadalupe cult. Even if that’s just the one man’s opinion, it demonstrates that there wasn’t a general belief, even 25 years later, that this miracle was legitimate and leading some miraculous wave of conversions.

“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.”

Of course there are other explanations. First of all 5 million is impressive, but take things in perspective. There were over 5 million people in the capital alone, and Mexico is a large country, so if you were to look at it percentage-wise, it’s not so miraculous. Mass conversions do happen, sometimes at the point of a sword, sometimes from waves of fervor, and often during times of massive social upheaval. How many people were converted to Islam in a few decades? That doesn’t require any miraculous explanation, so why does this?

“It does no good to say this was all a 16th century Catholic proselytizing hoax, either, since it was controversial from the very beginning”

That really doesn’t do much to contradict the hypothesis, since it could have been simply one missionary, or local governor who hatched a plan that unexpectedly caught on. There’s no reason to assume that, if it were a “tall tale” concocted to win converts, that all the authorities in the region would be in on it.

“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!””

The Law of Unintended Consequences can really come back to bite you.

“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.).”

Yes, that was very convenient, that it was discovered just at the time that the very information in the Codex was needed to overcome objections. I guess you could either see that as miraculous itself, or suspicious, depending on your perspective.

“Not exactly a full-speed-ahead 16th century propaganda campaign.”

I don’t think it’s likely there was any official propaganda campaign. If it was a hoax, it was probably like every other hoax, the work of one or a few anonymous individuals who did it for their own reasons. If it’s just a folktale, then those stories just spread organically until someone bothers to write them down and set some version in stone.

”..the Catholic church as a body does claim divine authority to judge these matters... otherwise they could possibly be encouraging spiritism or divination, if their judgment was sometimes incorrect..”

This shows some unfamiliarity with the way such judgments are made in the Catholic Church. There is no doctrine which would forbid Catholics from petitioning intercessory prayer from any person whatsoever, saint or sinner, living or dead. I can ask my mother (d.1994) for her prayers. I can ask the Archangel Michael for his prayers. I could ask you for your prayers --- and I don’t even know if you’re a theist. That should be sufficient evidence of our promiscuity as to asking, and offering, intercessory prayer.

(I’m not speaking here about acts of formal recognition, such as their inclusion at the altar in a public liturgy which can only be done after a strict formal investigation and the approval of the bishop.)

BTW, this is not “spiritism”, i.e. the dead communicating with the living, something which we are strictly not to solicit.

”Since the process of sainthood is dependent on the process that verifies miracles, the same level of authority must be assumed to be at work there too..”

Some theologians would say that if a canonization is solemnly proclaimed by the Pope himself, it is infallible; however, this opinion itself has not been defined as doctrine, and so disagreement is possible. Asked this question, Fr. Edward McNamara, a liturgy professor at Regina Apostolorum (Link) had this to say: “ The reason is that the decisions emanating from the consistory are juridical and not theological in nature.”

And he goes on and onnnn about degrees of authority. It is well to remember that the process of canonization is not part of the Deposit of Faith and is not set in stone; it’s not standardized in the Scripture or in the Fathers; it can be revised (as it was in 1917, and again in 1983).

About the absence of any reporting of the Guadalupe apparition in the letters of Bp Juan de Zumárraga:

If you knew the appalling situation Zumárraga was in, you would not be surprised. The top civil authorities at the time were the vicious Nuno de Guzmán and his henchmen: enslavers and abusers of the indigenous people. Guzmán mistreated some missionaries, and went so far as to threaten to hang the bishop for rebellion.. They were sworn enemies of Zumárraga, who was very vulnerable because as “Protector of the Indians” he had no troops or enforcement measures whatsoever except for moral suasion.

Knowing that Zumárraga meant to report their crimes to the Spanish Court, Nuno and his men intercepted and censored all letters from New Spain. (Zumárraga finally did get one uncensored letter through in a cake of wax which he immersed in a barrel of oil!) He revealed that the first missionaries, starting with Fray Bartolomé de Olmedo, despite their zeal were ineffective in converting the Indians.

At the beginning of 1530, after Guzmán had departed, the acts of oppression of his fellow administrators against Indians and missionaries were such that Zumárraga declared an interdict against them: a suspension of Mass and the Sacraments. Guzman’s clique were for a time excommunicated. Suffice it to say that in letters before the Guadalupe Event you find Zumarraga despondent about the moral depravity of New Spain and the general lack of success of the Catholic mission.

In any case, the conquerors’ excesses resulted in a great deal of rancor and hatred by the conquered. The Aztec, Chichimec, and related people were stolidly opposed to conversion to the Christian faith; neither did the Spanish political and military leaders favor it, since they were interested in exploiting the indigenous people, not telling them that they were spiritual equals, created not for slavery, but for liberty and dignity. (The military governors were not about to expose the Indians to the Natural Law theories of Bartolome de las Casas or the School of Salamanca!)

So it stood before 1531: the Indians sullen when not in open rebellion, the Bishop depressed and beleaguered.

Then from 1532 until his death in 1548, bang! Zumarraga’s letters show a transformed man, a whirlwind of optimism: he sent for teachers and established schools in which Indian girls enrolled in droves; founded the Colegio Tlaltelolco and various hospitals (Mexico City and Veracruz); instituted technical schools in mechanics, agriculture, and industrial trades; and, just two years before he died, introduced the first printing press in the Western Hemisphere. And native people were begging for baptism, not only in Mexico City, but Tlaxcala, Texcoco, Huejotzingo, and as far away as Veracruz: during the last years of Zumarraga’s episcopate, at the very least, 5 million Indios baptized.

“[Nican Mopohua] ...an official document of who? The church, the government, the local priest?”

It is a classical Nahuatl work, written as a Tecpaneca testimonial, as is indicted by the words “Nican Mopohua,” repeated throughout the text, which manifest a formal declaration (“It is hereby declared.”) The author, Don Antonio Valeriano, was a nephew of emperor Montezuma and a witness, as he lived between 1520 and 1606. He was 11 years old in 1531, the year of the apparitions, and 28 in 1548, when Juan Diego Cuautlatoatzin died. In 1533, at 13 years of age, Don Antonio Valeriano, acquainted with Nahuatl literary and courtly tradition through the tutelage of his parents, began studies at the Holy Cross School of Tlatelolco, founded by Zumarraga. He was, therefore, one of the first Indians to speak and write Latin, Spanish and Nahuatl, and was governor of Azcapotzalco for 35 years.

There’s more documentary proof for the Nican Mopohua than for any other Nahuatl document of the 16th-17th centuries. As I see it, you either have to consider it "very probably reliable," or dismiss native testimony altogether.

And as for the Codex Escalada (Link), well, judge for yourself.

About conversions and numbers:

I would like to see reasonable guesstimates for the population of Mexico in the 1530’s. The native people of Mexico experienced epidemic diseases in the wake of European conquest, beginning with the smallpox epidemic of 1519 to 1520 when 5 million to 8 million people perished.(I got this from a CDC historical review of infectious diseases (Link) I have seen estimates that the population of Mexico City dropped as low as 100,000.

”How many people were converted to Islam in a few decades? That doesn’t require any miraculous explanation, so why does this?”

"A few decades"... are you speaking of the century after Muhammad's hegira?? And were those conversions to Islam occasioned by girls' schools, barefoot mendicant preachers, opponents of oppression, and hevenly apparitions of maternal sweetness --- or by jihad? You tell me.

We’ve known about Hezbollah being in Mexico for years. Freeper Calpernia, and myself to a lesser extent, did extensive research and posting on the Islamic influence in Mexico for years. Few wanted to be bothered to notice the threat.

Forget the Arab Spring, Bengazi, Iraq and Afghanistan. The failed narco state of Mexico is more dangerous than all of them put together.

And it’s not just Mexico...Latinos in the USA are embracing Islam.
[snip]Latino Arab American Advisory Committee

Civil Rights Training

February 19, 2011

9:00a.m. – 12:30p.m.

UCI-Social Sciences Plaza B Room: SSPB 1208

Latino American Dawah Organization (LADO)

Since its beginning in 1997, LADO has been an organization committed to promoting Islam among the Latino community within the United States. We focus on educating Latinos about Islam as a way of life. We also educate Latinos and others about the legacy of Islam in Spain and Latin America as well as about the growing Latino Muslim community in the United States. While adhering to our guiding principles, we accomplish our mission through an array of programs, services, and publications. For example, we provide free information about Islam to all interested parties.

Our goal is to provide the most relevant information and resources. Alhamdulillah (All praise is due to God), many Latinos are embracing Islam. Some feel that they are reclaiming their Islamic heritage. What is Islam? Who is a Muslim?

“¡Puro Latino! ¡Puro Islam! ¡A su LADO!”[snip]
TheTownCrier: Muslim Jihad the Mexican way!
towncriernews.blogspot.com/2011/.../muslim-jihad-mexican-way.html

Keyword, FreeRepublic: Hezbollah

A Deliberate act of Terrorism - Mexico
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2472183/posts

Napolitano Says People From Countries Tied to Terrorism Could ‘Potentially’ Enter USA, But DHS Reports Says Thousands Already Have (2010)
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62027

TheTownCrier: The Middle East on fire...as our media ignores ...
towncriernews.blogspot.com/.../middle-east-on-fireas-our-media-ignores.html - Cached
Jan 30, 2011 ... U.S. border guards got a surprise when they searched a Mexican BMW and
found a hardline Muslim cleric - banned from France and Canada ...

“This shows some unfamiliarity with the way such judgments are made in the Catholic Church. There is no doctrine which would forbid Catholics from petitioning intercessory prayer from any person whatsoever, saint or sinner, living or dead.”

Well, that is interesting. Every Catholic apologist that I have talked to defends prayer to mortal creatures by appealing to the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints to avoid a charge of divination or spiritism. Now, if you are correct, and you are allowed to pray to anyone, saint or sinner, then that defense seems gutted to me, since communing with a dead sinner would be outside the Communion of the Saints.

“BTW, this is not “spiritism”, i.e. the dead communicating with the living, something which we are strictly not to solicit.”

How is it not the same? There is some spiritual difference between communing with the dead while seeking and answer and simply communing with the dead without seeking a reply? God forbade the act of communication, not the nature of communication.

“Asked this question, Fr. Edward McNamara, a liturgy professor at Regina Apostolorum (Link) had this to say: “ The reason is that the decisions emanating from the consistory are juridical and not theological in nature.””

Well, that opinion seems to hinge on what I talked about above: whether prayer to the dead is truly forbidden, or not. If the Catholic church is really of the opinion that it is never forbidden, then his answer is at least consistent, but I’d still think that it was foolish. However, if it’s at least consistent, then I guess the Bishop could have been afraid to report the miracle “upstairs”, for fear they would denounce it or suppress the Indians because of it.

“Knowing that Zumárraga meant to report their crimes to the Spanish Court, Nuno and his men intercepted and censored all letters from New Spain.”

Ah, but letters weren’t the only means he had available. Not too long after the supposed date of the miracle, Zumarraga returned to Spain personally. He was there for several years, so he should have had every opportunity to circumvent any Spanish interference and give his testimony directly to his superiors.

“At the beginning of 1530, after Guzmán had departed, the acts of oppression of his fellow administrators against Indians and missionaries were such that Zumárraga declared an interdict against them: a suspension of Mass and the Sacraments.”

You’re describing situation where the Indians are pretty much prey to the Spanish, and the only ones who provide any comfort or aid to them are the Catholics. I’d say that, at least in part, is itself a possible explanation for why so many decided to adopt Catholicism. Also, the Indians who converted surely enjoyed some social or material benefits as a side effect, which when seen by other desperate Indians, could cause a cascade.

“The author, Don Antonio Valeriano, was a nephew of emperor Montezuma and a witness, as he lived between 1520 and 1606. He was 11 years old in 1531, the year of the apparitions”

Are those the correct dates? Wikipedia says: Antonio Valeriano (ca. 1531–1605), but the Spanish versions says: Antonio Valeriano (Azcapotzalco, 1522? - 1605). I found one book on google books saying 1531, and another saying 1520. That’s kind of important to figure out, because if he was an infant when this happened, then he couldn’t be a firsthand witness to much of anything.

“There’s more documentary proof for the Nican Mopohua than for any other Nahuatl document of the 16th-17th centuries. As I see it, you either have to consider it “very probably reliable,” or dismiss native testimony altogether.”

No, it’s not really such a cut and dry choice. The reliability of the document and the veracity of the testimony are two separate issues. Even if we assume the document is authentic, properly dated and attributed, we should still evaluate the testimony like any other, to see how much weight to give it.

For example, if someone found Joseph Smith’s original golden plates today and could confirm they were authentic, that wouldn’t confirm the testimony of the Book of Mormon as being accurate. Likewise, if the manuscripts are reliable, then we can say the story was older than the published version, but not that the story is necessarily accurate.

“I would like to see reasonable guesstimates for the population of Mexico in the 1530’s.”

The best link I can find is this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/202984?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101489859973

Which says there was a decline from 25.2 to 16.8 million between 1518 and 1532. So, at those figures, 5 million converts would probably be somewhere between 25-30% of the population, or 5-6% per year. Impressive, and considering that another 10 million or so died in the next 16 years, it’s not hard to see Mexico becoming completely Catholic in short order, but I don’t think that is necessarily miraculous.

“A few decades”... are you speaking of the century after Muhammad’s hegira??

Yes, or even just looking at a particular subset of that for a better comparison. Muhammed managed to convert the Arabian peninsula in ten years, which I think neither of us would categorize as miraculous.

“And were those conversions to Islam occasioned by girls’ schools, barefoot mendicant preachers, opponents of oppression, and hevenly apparitions of maternal sweetness -— or by jihad? You tell me.”

Of course it was by jihad, but that’s not the point. You proposed that there isn’t any other possible explanation for a mass conversion like that besides the miracle. I say, there are plenty of other possible explanations, because we see similar conversions happening from time to time in history which we know are not miraculous. It doesn’t matter what particular reason caused any of those conversions, just that they aren’t miraculous, to demonstrate that other reasons can achieve the result. So, unless we can rule out the possible natural causes, we shouldn’t take it as evidence of a supernatural cause.

If you are correct, and you are allowed to pray to anyone, saint or sinner, then that defense seems gutted to me, since communing with a dead sinner would be outside the Communion of the Saints.”

Oh, my goodness! I am sorry I led you astray without explaining this. Everybody in the Communion of Saints is a sinner. You know that. I’m not talking about asking a damned soul for intercessory prayer: I’m talking about my freedom to pray for/be prayed for by anybody in the “Communion-of-Saints-Which-Includes-Sinners”. For such is what we all are, sinners, and at the same time, being saved from our sins by Christ Our Lord. Only a person in a state of grace can help others, or be helped by them, via prayer. But venial sins, while injurious, do not deprive the souls of all grace. So you can still pray for me :o)

“How is it not [spiritism]? There is some spiritual difference between communing with the dead while seeking and answer and simply communing with the dead without seeking a reply? God forbade the act of communication, not the nature of communication.

Christ never forbade any members of His Body from loving and praying for each other. The very idea of such love and prayer being forbidden, negates what Jesus said about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that they are living; because God is the God of the living, not the dead. You are very much mistaken if you think that we members of the Body of Christ on earth have no living, vital, connection with the saints in heaven who are also members of that same Body with us. Or do you think Christ’s Body is three quarters dead?

The sin of spiritism consists in trying to summon or get information from the spirits of the departed. That’s what the Bible teaches (and it’s the dictionary definition as well.) It is quite the opposite of intercessory prayer, because spiritism/necromancy is an impious attempt to get power, not the sweet interchange of love which goes on constantly throughout the entire Body of Christ, through all His members.

”Well, that [the opinion of Fr, McNamara concerning canonization] seems to hinge on what I talked about above: whether prayer to the dead is truly forbidden, or not. If the Catholic church is really of the opinion that it is never forbidden, then his answer is at least consistent, but I’d still think that it was foolish. However, if it’s at least consistent, then I guess the Bishop could have been afraid to report the miracle “upstairs”, for fear they would denounce it or suppress the Indians because of it.”

I think you’ve got the gist of it as far as Bishop Z goes, but don’t see how Fr. McNamara’s opinion directly touches on that situation at all (unless I’m misunderstanding you: the connection seems a little puzzling to me.) Zumarraga’s dilemma didn’t hinge on the canonization of anybody. I suppose (I’m guessing here) he feared the apparition of the Virgin Mary could be maliciously misrepresented to people in Spain as the natives’ reversion to the veneration of Tonantzin, a goddess in the Aztec pantheon. He (Zumarraga) was surrounded by deeply corrupt, politically powerful men who would not have had any scruples about fomenting controversy about this as a means of cutting his throat. It seems to me that Bishop Z. chose a prudent path of quietly affirming an evident miracle which opened the doors of Faith to the indigenous people, while not drawing unneeded attention from Spain. Maybe he thought it good advice not to cast one’s pearls before swine...!

“Knowing that Zumárraga meant to report their crimes to the Spanish Court, Nuno and his men intercepted and censored all letters from New Spain.”
Ah, but letters weren’t the only means he had available. Not too long after the supposed date of the miracle, Zumarraga returned to Spain personally. He was there for several years, so he should have had every opportunity to circumvent any Spanish interference and give his testimony directly to his superiors.”

I have no doubt that he discussed Guzman’s crimes, the Virgin’s appearance, the huge surge of conversions, and a great deal else: that’s probably one reason why he personally went back to Spain. It looks to me (again a surmise) that he did not make formal depositions about it all, but spoke to the most reliable people under confidence. These were times when paranoia was, so to speak, justified. Lots of greedy, ambitious men surrounded him, interested in nothing but accessing Indian gold and Indian slaves unperturbed by the interfering consciences of monks. This is the kind of stuff that drove Bartolome de las Casas almost mad.

By the way, I think Zumarraga and Las Casas are very much allies. Las Casas was of a more ardent, polemical nature, Zumarraga more melancholy and perhaps prone to depression. Nevertheless they both did what they thought they could, to serve the native people and either craftily circumvent or frontally oppose worldly, venal governors. The Love of Christ impelled them.

“You’re describing situation where the Indians are pretty much prey to the Spanish, and the only ones who provide any comfort or aid to them are the Catholics. I’d say that, at least in part, is itself a possible explanation for why so many decided to adopt Catholicism. Also, the Indians who converted surely enjoyed some social or material benefits as a side effect, which when seen by other desperate Indians, could cause a cascade.”

Granted. Any historic episode --- I should say any human action--- springs from multiple motivations and intentions, factors known only partially even by ourselves. It’s not only a miracle. “Normally, God acts normally” --- and Man, too.

“The author, Don Antonio Valeriano, was a nephew of emperor Montezuma and a witness, as he lived between 1520 and 1606. He was 11 years old in 1531, the year of the apparitions”
Are those the correct dates?

I had never seen the later dates your sources list. Here’s what I was going by: Don Antonio Valeriano” 1520 (Link)

”“...you either have to consider it “very probably reliable,” or dismiss native testimony altogether.”
No, it’s not really such a cut and dry choice...If the manuscripts are reliable, then we can say the story was older than the published version, but not that the story is necessarily accurate.

OK, but historic truth is evaluated via necessarily fragmentary evidence, and reasonable inferences from evidence. There's no inductive logic.no irrefutable syllogisms, as this thread points out (Link) --- go ahead, it’s worth a look, especially the first coupla paragraphs.

All you can do is assemble the historical material you have, assess its quality, and judge not by proof but by preponderance of evidence.

Oh, and thanks for the population estimates: that’s valuable to me, and helps me put the conversion numbers in context.

I never proposed that there isn’t any other possible explanation for a mass conversion like that besides the miracle. I do say that the timing and magnitude of that particular event tracks well with the influence of Cuautlatoatzin’s tilma, the news of which was rapidly spread by Indian runners and which attracted highly impressed viewers from all parts of the former Aztec Empire.

Even that would not be nearly so interesting, if the records said that the tilma was then taken up to heaven, as Joseph Smith alleged of his golden plates with their (thoroughly discredited) “Reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphics. On the contrary, the tilma --- a coarse, burlap-like fabric made of ayate, a fiber derived from maguey cactus, -- ought to have disintegrated rapidly. Unprotected, the tilma was particularly vulnerable to deterioration caused by the humidity and saltpeter characteristic of the Tepeyac hill climate.(Saltpeter accelerates natural decomposition by supplying nitrogen for the fungi attacking wood, cellulose, cloth, and so forth.) It ought to have fallen to tatters in 20 years --- sooner, because it was handled, kissed, contaminated with perspiration, saliva, and other accelerants to decomposition.

On the contrary, 481 years later – now behind glass, to be sure --- there she is.

That impressed people even 200 years ago:

"Hymn that the Junta Guadalupana of Puebla consecrates to the most Holy Mary of Guadalupe, upon completing three hundred years since her apparition in Mexico." (1821)

Verse 10

Your heavenly Image
In fragile ayatl
Neither time consumes
Nor niter erases.
If a linen as bronze
You could keep,
Will your incorruptible faith,
Your love ever fail?

“Only a person in a state of grace can help others, or be helped by them, via prayer.”

Right, but the implication of that is, one must be able to know in someone who has died was in a state of grace, in order to know if prayer to them is acceptable by that standard. We as individuals divine that information for ourselves. However, the Catholic church contends that it has the keys of Peter, and is the dispenser of grace on Earth, so it, as a body, can officially make declarations as to such things.

That’s what declaring a Saint is, in part, is it not? The church is declaring that this person is holy, and that is, under your doctrine of the Communion of Saints, a “go ahead” to pray to them without worry. However, if you wanted to pray to someone who is not a saint, then you would, even under your own standard, have no certainty that it would be proper or effective.

“You are very much mistaken if you think that we members of the Body of Christ on earth have no living, vital, connection with the saints in heaven who are also members of that same Body with us. Or do you think Christ’s Body is three quarters dead?”

No, but firstly, as I said above, with the exception of those who have been officially declared saints, if you believe in the Catholic church’s authority on those matters, we really have no idea who is a part of that Communion for certain. I could have a great belief that someone was saved, but only Christ really knows for certain. That’s not really a problem when it comes to dealing with living people, since there is no prohibition with communicating with the living, whether they are saved or not.

Secondly, even though there’s surely a connection between all believers, that does not imply the type of connection that is proposed by the Catholic church. I can’t use prayer to communicate telepathically with a living Christian, yet you assume that those who may be in Heaven have this supernatural power, extending to the point of omniscience. So, while the Holy Spirit connects us all, I see know reason to assume this creates a mystical channel of communication to anyone besides God. We’re the body of Christ, and in the human body, the toes do not talk to the elbows, or the liver to the lungs. All communication goes from the members of the body to the nervous system, or back from the nervous system to the members of the body. In the body of Christ, Christ is the head, so I expect that communication straight to him is the natural path.

“The sin of spiritism consists in trying to summon or get information from the spirits of the departed. That’s what the Bible teaches (and it’s the dictionary definition as well.) It is quite the opposite of intercessory prayer, because spiritism/necromancy is an impious attempt to get power, not the sweet interchange of love which goes on constantly throughout the entire Body of Christ, through all His members.”

I think you’re splitting hairs here. Consulting the dead is forbidden, not just consulting them for a specific purpose. The Bible prohibits many spiritual practices specifically, but there are also generally condemnations which cover nearly ever form of occult practice, including simply communicating with the dead.

“All you can do is assemble the historical material you have, assess its quality, and judge not by proof but by preponderance of evidence.”

Sure, I don’t expect a miracle to necessarily be scientifically provable, or for a historical narrative to be verified to such a great degree. However, if the narrative is fantastic, and miracles by their very nature are so, it requires a higher standard of proof than is usual.

So, I might take General Grant’s diary pretty much at face value, if it is describing ordinary events. I’d only require that we not have more certain evidence disputing his account. However, with the Guadalupe story, it must meet that standard, but also must be accompanied by some additional evidence that could overcome the proper skepticism to a fantastic story. To accept it with a lesser standard opens us up to accepting all sorts of folklore and myths as being true.

As for the condition of the tilma, I’m not certain that is as impressive as its proponents suggest. First of all, fibers that would normally disintegrate quickly do not always do so, and some can last for thousands of years under the right conditions. We don’t know the exact conditions that it has been kept in over the years, but religious relics are normally treated with reverence, so I would expect that it would show more longevity than a cloak in everyday use. Also, there certainly doesn’t seem to have been a miraculous preservation of the painting, since it is seriously flaking, and appears to have been restored and at least partially repainted several times.

“One must be able to know if someone who has died was in a state of grace, in order to know if prayer to them is acceptable by that standard."

I’m not sure what you mean by “acceptable.” I can ask anyone for their prayers, naturally in hopes that they are in a state of grace: you, for instance. If you were not, there was no harm in my asking. In other words, if you were in fact in a state of mortal sin, you might think inwardly, “Meh, what a fool; she thinks I’ll pray! Bwa-ha-ha! Not in a million years!” --- but my asking did no harm to me or to you.

“The Catholic church contends that it has the keys of Peter, and is the dispenser of grace on Earth, so it, as a body, can officially make declarations as to such things."

It depends not on simple declaratory authority, but on the conclusions drawn from evidence, both natural and supernatural. Even before the Council of Nicaea, prudent fathers (Cyprian??) were saying that even in the case of martyrs, court records should be examined, and depositions taken, to ensure that the reputed martyr was executed for the Faith and not for criminal or political reasons.

When non-martyrs were considered for public recognition, the effort was rather to rein in the local custom of honoring the relics of the departed, rather than to multiply the practice. That is, people were censured for elevating to the level of, shall we say, spiritual celebrities, departed persons whose lives had not been properly examined. Again, the emphasis was on curbing and restricting this practice, not expanding it.

Modern Canon Law (1917, 1983) calls for a forensic procedure of examining their lives in all the detail that can be gotten, and two miracles, usually of a healing sort, both occurring after the person’s death, and attributable to the departed person’s intercession. Relics may be involved, since, as the book of Kings teaches, a dead man was brought back to life when his corpse touched the bones of Elisha; and as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, people brought cloth articles for Paul to touch, and took them back to people for healing. God thus shows His favor for His holy ones, by associating them with His healing power via physical contact.

The level of authentication required, and the amount of time required, tends to curb local enthusiasms for public honoring of “favorite sons,” since, strictly speaking, public devotions to uncanonized persons are forbidden.

This has no bearing on “private” devotion. God knows how many people have murmured, “Grandma, pray for your grandkids” at Grandma’s grave. And there you have it: they pray for her, she prays for them. Love is stronger than death.

"If you wanted to pray to someone who is not a saint, then you would, even under your own standard, have no certainty that it would be proper or effective."

It might be ineffective, yes; “improper”, no. If it were “improper” to inadvertently ask a mortal sinner to pray for you, then it would be improper to ask anyone to pray for you—since you can not know another person’s secret sins.

Does that make sense?

"If you believe in the Catholic church’s authority on those matters, we really have no idea who is a part of that Communion for certain. I could have a great belief that someone was saved, but only Christ really knows for certain."

Exactly.

"Even though there’s surely a connection between all believers, that does not imply the type of connection that is proposed by the Catholic church. I can’t use prayer to communicate telepathically with a living Christian, yet you assume that those who may be in Heaven have this supernatural power, extending to the point of omniscience."

There is no doctrine of saints being omniscient. Only God is omniscient. :o)

And I’m not sure if the word “telepathic” is right, either. I think that usually refers to paranormal brain operations; and of course, the deceased person’s brain is, typically, rotting in the ground. We are speaking of spiritual operations, not physiological ones. We aren't "communicating" in the sense of having a chat line open!

John says in his first Epistle, that the blessed ones “shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” If you see Him, the infinite and blessed God, and are like Him, you surely see those who are, just as you are, members of His Body. Not that they are “omniscient,” but it’s impossible that people in Eternal Life know less, and love less, than they did on earth!

Souls aren’t kept isolated and incommunicado, in a kind of Admin. Seg. in Maximum Security Heaven. Quite the contrary, our knowledge is expanded: the author of Hebrews says we are even now “surrounded” by a great “cloud of witnesses” --- citizens of heaven --- who are actively cheering us on as we run the race. This is wonderful! You can see that, can’t you?

"So, while the Holy Spirit connects us all, I see know reason to assume this creates a mystical channel of communication to anyone besides God."

And not only the author of Hebrews sees them surrounding us, seeing and cheering us; John, in Revelation, sees Heaven, and sees “ the smoke of the incense going with the prayers of the saints, out of the hand of the angel before God” --- incense, prayers of saints, angels offering, no distinction made between saints in heaven and saints on earth, and persons angelic and human: all brought together in this one wonderful vision. Boogieman, that’s our vision. This isn’t occult. This is Heaven.

On the Guadalupe topic: your insistence on hard evidence about purported supernatural events is entirely appropriate, even necessary. The Catholic authorities are, if I may put it this way, professional skeptics about such things. That’s why they set up so many hurdles to clear, so many “Gideon’s fleeces,” before any judgment is made.

For instance the healings at Lourdes: it’s been 150 years since those miracles began there, and there have been thousands reported; but the number authenticated have been very, very few. Only about one every two years. The rest aren’t “un-authenticated,” they were mainly ones for which evidence wasn’t available, or wasn’t conclusive.

I’ll be gone most of tomorrow. Meanwhile, I’ll pray for you, and (I don’t think this is a wasted request) you pray for me, OK?!

Tagline is for you, Brother Boogieman:

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.