Devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe offers one of history’s outstanding examples of the fusion of religious devotion and national identity. It is based on the story of the appearances of the Virgin Mary to Juan Diego in 1531. The Virgin directed him to have a church built on the site, the hill of Tepeyac. This poignant story has been a source of comfort for untold generations of peoples, not just Mexicans. But the Mexican people, in particular, have forged an almost mystical relationship with the Virgen morena, the dark Virgin—”Mexico was born at Tepeyac.” A Mexican priest expressed the relationship this way, “Without Guadalupe we would cease to be Mexicans.” And a Mexico City cab driver observed that “even the Communists are guadalupanos.”
Though 1531 is the traditional date given for the apparitions, the story was first published in 1648 by Miguel Sanchez, a Mexican priest. His account came as a complete surprise to the people of Mexico City who had either never heard it before or believed that it had been forgotten in the course of time. Sanchez admitted that he had been unable to find any documentary evidence for his account. This has been a great stumbling block for Guadalupe. When the first missionary friars arrived in what was then called New Spain, they decided to evangelize the indigenous peoples in their own languages. No attempt was made to compel them to learn Spanish or to use Spanish as the medium of evangelization. One result was an outpouring of writings in the native languages, especially Nahuatl, the tongue of the people we now call Aztecs. The friars and their native assistants produced an immense number of grammars, dictionaries, catechisms, confessional manuals, sermon outlines, chronicles, and even religious dramas. Yet between 1531 and 1648, there was not one verified reference to or mention of Juan Diego, nor did he play any role in the evangelization process.
Not until 1794 was the authenticity of the apparitions challenged by Juan Bautista Munoz, a Spanish priest. In 1883, the foremost historian of Mexico, Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta, wrote a letter to the archbishop of Mexico, detailing the historical problems involved in documenting the apparitions and expressing skepticism about the traditional account. In the late twentieth century, a number of historians expressed their own doubts. In response, apologists have fallen back on four counter-arguments. First, though there is no documentary evidence, there is a long-standing oral tradition dating back to the early sixteenth century. Second, the image of the Virgin itself, in its miraculous preservation, is sufficient witness to the truth of the account. Third, Rome’s approval of the devotion, and especially the granting of a proper feast, Mass text, and office (in 1754 and 1894), are sufficient evidence of credibility. Fourth and finally, coming full circle, proponents claim that there is documentary proof. The most recent example is a document made public by the Spanish Jesuit Xavier Escalada, which purports to be a pictorial depiction of the apparitions dating from 1548.
It is only in recent times, however, that the focus has begun to turn to the figure of Juan Diego, the visionary. In standard apparition accounts, such as those found throughout Europe and the New World over centuries, the visionary was a secondary, often shadowy figure, a conduit for the message from heaven, rarely an object of cult in his or her own right. For Juan Diego, that began to change in the twentieth century. A concerted effort by two archbishops of Mexico, Ernesto Corripio Ahumada and Norberto Rivera Carrera, and other members of the hierarchy to foster a cult of Juan Diego met with success in 1990. And then, intense pressure was brought for his canonization. The motives for this are obscure, but since the Holy See canonizes not symbols, but real people, it is probably seen as a means of authenticating the apparitions and the devotion to Guadalupe. In addition, the rigorous historical investigations of the Congregation of Rites or the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints are presumed to be worthy of credence by all Catholics. This campaign has caused dismay to many Catholic historians, especially in view of the fact that the canonization of a saint may be viewed as an authoritative, if not quasi-infallible, papal act.
On February 26,2002, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints set July 30, 2002, for Juan Diego’s canonization, scheduled to take place during the papal visit to Mexico after World Youth Day. Still, the question of Juan Diego’s existence will not go away. What is known about him from the sources is scanty and inconsistent. There is no agreement about the town he came from, his age at the time of the apparitions, whether he was married or a widower, or whether he and his wife had children or lived in a celibate marriage. Today it is common to refer to him by an indigenous name, Cuauhtlahtoatzin (“the eagle speaks”), but prior to 1689 no source, whether Spanish or Nahuatl, called him anything but Juan Diego. The native name was first mentioned, almost in passing, by the Mexican scholar Carlos de Siguenza y Gongora in that year.
In the past twenty years, extravagant claims have been made about Juan Diego-that he was a nobleman related to the royal house of Tetzcoco, that he had been a general who fought against the Spanish, that he was a philosopher and poet who had multiple wives according to the custom of his people, but who on conversion embraced a simple Christian life. None of these has any basis in historical sources. Nor is there anything in the history of Guadalupe to support this. In fact, it goes contrary to the entire concept of the apparition genre; that is, that Mary or the saints appear to those who are poor and marginalized in society, not to the great and powerful. Yet today these ideas are consistently repeated and apparently accepted by a large number of persons in the Mexican church.
The beatification and canonization of Juan Diego bring into question the integrity of the process followed by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. During the process of beatification, only two authorities on Mexican religious history were called as witnesses: the late Jesuit historian Ernest J. Burrus and the Mexican scholar Miguel Leon-Por-tilla. During the canonization process, no such scholars were called to give testimony. At no time in either process was an opposing voice invited or heard. My own book on Guadalupe was severely criticized in a May 15,1998, meeting by an unnamed Vatican relator. A professor at the Pontifical University Urbaniana submitted a lengthy critique of the same book. Yet at no time was I ever informed of this or given an opportunity to reply. That, unfortunately, has been typical of the entire process which has been one-sided, slanted, and bordering on the dishonest. There has been no open forum in which each side could present its case in a sober and dispassionate manner.
The process has also depended on questionable, even false, evidence. The Codex Escalada of 1548, mentioned above, has been accepted as one of the major proofs for the existence of Juan Diego, yet it is full of anachronisms and errors and is most probably a crude nineteenth-century forgery. More than forty documents are said to attest to the reality of Juan Diego, yet not one of them can withstand serious historical criticism.
One of the most dismaying aspects of the canonization campaign has been that confidential letters on the matter were leaked to the media. Two letters written by the former abbot of the collegiate chapter of Guadalupe, Guillermo Schulenburg Prado, and associates were given to the press by an Italian journalist named Andrea Tornelli. The resulting uproar, particularly in December 2001, gave rise to what one observer called a linchiamento, a lynch-mob mentality. It is the right of any Catholic to write to the Holy See with the expectation of confidentiality. Such has not been true in this case.
Those against the canonization have been accused of racism, of opposing it simply because Juan Diego was an Indian. Jose Luis Guerrero Rosado, a vice postulator of the cause, has said that “all the anti-apparitionists’ arguments have been tinged with racism” (Los Angeles Times, December 11, 1999). This accusation has been echoed by others and has found its way into several media reports. Though false, it taints any opposing argument.
What is the church’s attitude toward history? Is it dismissive, like that of many modern theologians who say that it makes no difference if the apparitions occurred or not, or who believe in different levels of truth? Does it demand that historians bow to the “ordinary magisterium” and not pursue studies that upset traditional devotions? There are some who claim that the Guadalupe/Juan event is a “salvific act” and, as such, is not subject to judgment by historical criteria. As one Catholic historian in Mexico wrote me, “Father, in this I must ask for your opinion not only as a scholar, but also as a man of the church. What happens once Rome has officially approved canonization? Are we supposed to remain silent about our doubts? Are we expected as historians to stop searching for the truth?” This is an important question-one not restricted to this issue alone.
