I just looked at "The Cult of the Virgin Mary" by Michael Carroll and on page 183 he states;
"The greatest stumbling block to anyone searching for the psychological origins of the Tepeyac apparitions is the fact that there are no accounts of these apparitions that date from the period of the apparitions themselves. There are, for instance, no references to any apparitions occurring at Tepeyac in the writings of Bishop Zumarraga, even though he was supposed to have been a central participant in the drama."
If this is accurate it would seem that the "need" for these apparitions superceeds objective analysis.
Would this satisfy as coming from the period of the apparations thenselves?
"The following account of the five apparitions in three days is based on the oldest written record of the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Nican Mopohua, written in Nahuatl about 1540 by Don Antonio Valeriano, one of the first Aztec Indians educated by the Franciscans at the Bishop's Colegio de la Santa Cruz."
source: http://www.maryourmother.net/Guadalupe.html
From the same source: "He (Juan Diego) died peacefully on May 30, 1548 and was buried at Tepeyac. Bishop Zumarrage died only three days after Juan Diego."
Appears that Don Antonio Valeriano wrote of the apparations while Juan Diego and Bishop Zumarrage were still among the living. Yet we accept the accounts of Jesus eventhough the New testament was written some 30+ years after He ascended into Heaven.
There are, for instance, no references to any apparitions occurring at Tepeyac in the writings of Bishop Zumarraga, even though he was supposed to have been a central participant in the drama."
So that proves that Guadalupe did not occur? Doesn't this college professor know that an argument from silence is useless and proves nothing. All he has is conjecture.
"The greatest stumbling block to anyone searching for the psychological origins of the Tepeyac apparitions"
No, the greatest stumbling block is searching for psychological origins rather than searching for the spiritual origins, or better yet, having faith that God deigned, through the Virgin Mary, to manifest Himself to the Indian people of Mexico.
Some may think that the major and Church confirmed apparations of the Blessed Virgin Mary are rooted in psychosis. Fine, go ahead. Just don't be suprised when we get the following scholarly study:
The Cult of the Jesus, and on page 183 it states:
The greatest stumbling block to anyone searching for the psychological origins of the life of Jesus is the fact that there are no accounts of his life that date from the period of his life. There are, for instance, no references to his life in the writings of his mother Mary, even though she was supposed to have been a central participant in the drama."
Sorry, but all that your author proves is that he is wacky.