“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?