Talk:Juan Diego/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title

I don't think we should use his Nahuatl (i.e., his "pagan" name) as part of the title. He is much better-known simply as "Juan Diego", and changing one's name was a big part of conversion. As the symbolic "first convert", we should respect his self-chosen identity (assuming he existed, but that is a "whole 'nother" problem. Any objections?--Rockero 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved.--Rockero 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

July 12, 1474 as a birth date?

I hate to bother you, but someone put in "July 12, 1474" as Juan Diego's birth date. Is it true? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a ref, so it seems it is verifiable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It might have a ref/appear in some source (in this case, apparently in a book called "Mexican legends"), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. Given whether he existed at all has been questioned, hard to fathom what the original source would've been for the dob. I'm unable as yet to find a reference to a book of with that title by an author of that name; maybe it's not accurately transcribed but as it stands doesn't seem to be verifiable, in the literal sense, ATM. None of the other sympathetic sources on him seem to corroborate his exact dob.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The book "Mexican Legends" or "Leyendas Mexicanas" from author Dr. Marco A. Luna (1939) contains various tales including that of Quetzalcoatl, Emperor Moctezuma, Hernan Cortes, Juan Diego and Our Lady of Guadalupe. As taken from his book (p. 123), Juan Diego's birth date was said to be an approximation given by descendants of his family as on "the Crocodile Day with the feast of the honored departed/ancestors celebrated in the forth/fifth year of (Ruler/Lord) Axayacatl" or circa July 12, 1474. I personally have never seen any other source that corroborates this date provided by the author. I hope this helps. Isababa7 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Isababa, that additional information is most helpful, particularly concerning the manner in which that author calculated the specific birthdate.

Given that so far no other source corroborates or uses this date or date calculation, I propose that we qualify mention of the birthdate in the article (say in a footnote) explaining this. That is, the main text & infobox shld mention only the year that is generally found in the sources, but in the 'early life' section have some words around how there is no recorded dob, & note Dr Luna's calculation & method as one particular proposal (but by no means an established one). --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Balance and neutrality concerns

The present version of this article is almost completely credulous and lacking in balance. The events of Juan Diego's life, and even his very existence, have been the subject of numerous notable published works that give a much more sceptical account; unfortunately the article omits all mention of these. Other than a tokenistic reference to Schulenburg, reading this one would think that Juan Diego's existence and his supposed vision are universally taken for granted, but this is clearly not the case.

I removed a recent anon's addition that stated he was canonised "despite not having existed", on the basis that categorical assertions of unattributed opinion as fact are inappropriate. However, the anon does rather have a point, and most of the assertions already here are no better. There is an evident need for a far more rigorous and honest approach that documents, or at least mentions, the many points of contention. Hopefully will be able to make a start on it soon. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the disputed and unbalanced tags that were taken out- any cursory research conducted on the topic ought to reveal that a considerable body of academic and other works exists, seriously questioning the authenticity of the account given here, and (not least) Juan Diego's supposed existence. I have added in a few of the more notable and accessible references of this nature, and when I get an opportunity will try over the coming week(s) to work these into the article itself. The tags should remain until such time as the balance, factual and neutrality concerns are redressed.

In the meantime, if anyone doubts there are sufficient notable views that discount and dispute the details of the Juan Diego story as presently and uncritically relayed in the article, they can look up the supplied references for starters. Also, this article summarises and identifies a few of those concerns. See, for example, Cambridge Prof. D.A. Brading's quoted comment on JD's canonisation: "When the pope canonizes Juan Diego, he will have elevated to sainthood the hero of a religious work of fiction". Or Mexican theologian Jorge Erdely's "History isn't silent. There's a lot of information contrary to his existence". Quite a few more could readily be found, including not just a few from past and present Catholic hierarchy sources.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Are these tags still needed? There are a number of sources in the article, now. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO the tags are still needed, while the sources in the references section are now more varied, they and the points they make haven't really been incorporated the article's narrative, which is still largely pro-apparitionist in tone. Possibly though, it may only take the removal or qualification of some of the taken-for-granted statements to balance it out more.--cjllw ʘ TALK 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Carl wants to remove the tags and I agree with him. You can make the criticism more obvious, but there are references now. History2007 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Its references yes, but it is still not neutral nor factual.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality needs to be discussed separately from objections to being factual. There are those who claim that Jesus Christ did not exist, many of them respectable scientists. I think the article needs to say that there are some references that claim Juan Diego did not exist. But to debate his very existence and objecting to the existence of the entry as a page is like debating the existence of Christ or Moses. Other encyclopedias include him as an entry, so Wikipedia (edited by us non-experts) should nt set a new standard in disbelief on the existence of the entry. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly you misinterpret the objections to the article's text being expressed here. No-one is objecting to the presence of an entry on Juan Diego in wikipedia. Nor are we saying that the article should state Juan Diego is a fictional construct. Neither is there much interest in debating on the talk pg whether he did or did not exist.

Rather, the desire here is for the article to live up to the ideals of NPOV, WP:UNDUE, RS, V, NOR and the rest, like any wikipedia article ought to. The balance and tone concerns I'd raised initially here are still on the whole unaddressed. There are statements made by the article giving the appearance of being accepted as base facts, when it's clear that a significant number of historians and archivists specialising in Mexican history of the period dispute the point. For balance and proportionality, those dissenting voices need to be recorded and set out in the text. Because the statements made in the article are not universally accepted or even majority views, then those statements need to be assigned directly to those who make them, and not expressed as if they were without controversy. For the examples you've given, we've whole articles like Historicity of Jesus devoted to such questions, all that's being looked for here is something similar in the article to show there is a real-world debate going on, and what it's about.

The factual objections are also current. For example, when the text baldly states that the Codex Escalada was "co-authored by Valeriano and Franciscan Friar Bernardino de Sahagun, [and] contained a death certificate of Juan Diego", that entirely overlooks the fact that the codex's authenticity has been significantly questioned, and even among those who accept it as authentic the authorship is far from being agreed on.

None of us editing here are going to determine whether he existed, and if he did whether he saw or said the things attributed to him. That kind of absolute truth is beyond our abilities, let alone our remit. As folks trying to collaboratively put together an encyclopaedia, all we can do (all we should do) is see that the article fairly represents the major viewpoints expressed on the topic by those sources that are reasonably expected to have some expertise on it. ATM there are significant viewpoints missing, notwithstanding some books being listed in a bibliography section. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my real question then is: why can't this article be fixed so the tags can be removed? Your initial objection was in September 2007. That is a long time ago. Why not address the issues one by one? Make a list here please, and let them be fixed one by one until the tags can be removed. Thanks History2007 (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had it on my to-do list for awhile - I hope I can get around to do some of the basic work over the holidays.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then how about another 2-3 weeks to see how it can get fixed. Then the tags have to come off if no one wants to fix it after a year of debate. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I can be fairly criticised for not following through with the needed substantive changes, mea culpa. But with so many other articles demanding attention and not enough interested/knowledgeable editors to go around or the time to do it all in, it just hasn't happened yet. Thanks to Maunus' recent efforts that overdue activity is now taking shape.

If you go back over the article history, previous versions such as this one from a couple of years ago used to contain much more in the way of qualified statements and information about the body of dissenting views. While far from perfect themselves these earlier versions at least had the merit of alerting the reader to real-world debates and doubts on the topic. However over time anything contrary to the acceptance of the tale as unalloyed fact was eroded away, culminating in versions like this one based and couched in exclusively apparitionist terms.

I don't think an ultimatum to fix in 2-3 weeks or else remove the tags is the correct approach. If anything, wikipedia's policies tell us that where any challenged, incorrect or misleading statements persist in an article, then it is those statements themselves, not the warning/cleanup tags, needing removal. This follows the sound principle that it's better to say nothing than say something that's wrong or misleading, an approach that aligns better with wikipedia's goals of being a provider of credible information.

The only justification for removing the tags if no improvements are made would be if some consensus thought those improvements were not required in the first place. However since those tags were added there's been no real debate on these pages arguing that the article was in fact fully correct, factual and free of bias.

In any case those overdue improvements are now underway (thx Maunus), so whether it's 2-3 weeks or some other timeframe it's well underway and moving in the right direction.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In the course of undertaking the improvements outlined above, can attention please be given to the following:-

[1] The grammar in the lede needs correcting ["modern scholarship who . . they . ."]

[2] There is an empty reference to "Poole 2005" in notes 6 and 8 [possibly this should be added to the list of sources: Poole, Stafford, History versus Juan Diego The Americas - Volume 62, Number 1, July 2005, pp. 1-16 publ. The Academy of American Franciscan History]

[3] The historical discussion is presented almost exclusively from the viewpoint of Poole who synthesized the debate in his 2006 "Mexican Controversies" book. The unfortunate result is that Poole's view is taken as axiomatic. In a magazine article in June 2002 he exhibited a severe lack of balance, completely ignoring the technical evidence and saying the codex "is most probably a crude nineteenth-century forgery" http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DID+JUAN+DIEGO+EXIST%3F+Questions+on+the+eve+of+canonization-a087869035

[4] The "historical" discussion cannot ignore the technical studies conducted between 1995 (when the codex came into Fr. Xavier Escalada's attention) and 1997 (when they were published as an appendix to his 4 volume Enciclopedia Guadalupana: Temática, Histórica, Onomástica). These all confirmed the authenticity of the codex as an artifact of the mid-16th c. It is daring enough to claim that historical considerations cast doubt on the results of technical studies, but it is improper to present the "historical" view without even alluding to, let alone mentioning, the technical evidence. Nor is it clear how these extraneous factors can suffice on their own to justify historians in impugning (as they do) the conclusions reached by the technical studies as to the age of the codex and the authenticity of the signatures it bears.

[5] the key issue lies hidden in the sweeping statement in the lede that "The reality of Juan Diego's existence has been questioned by modern scholarship who argue that there is a complete lack of sources about Juan Diego's existence prior to the publication of the Nican Mopohua a century later, in 1649 (they do not accept the validity of the Codex Escalada as historical evidence)." The sources for the statement in parentheses are Brading (2001), Peralta (2003) and the erroneous "Poole 2005".

I do not know the inter-dependence (if any) of these three sources, but I have read Peralta 2003 (although it has not that date on it), and it is certain that he does not contest the technical studies (which he only partially and obliquely discusses).

In particular, Peralta (who has no profesional qualifications relevant to the topic, so far as I am aware) accepts as beyond question the authentication of the signature of Fray Bernadino Sagahún on the codex by Dr. Charles Dibble of the University of Utah (one of the co-editors of the Florentine Codex, a compilation by Sagahún) who wrote:- "I have studied the signature, and I believe it to be the signature of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún. I base my conclusions on the indications of three crosses; the form of the "Fray", the "d"and the "b". In my opinion the signature is not the same as, that is not contemporaneous with the 1548 date of the [codex]. I would assign the signature to the 50's or the 60's". Peralta 2003 commented:- "De acuerdo con el dictamen de Charles Dibble, debemos aceptar que la firma es auténtica" (we must accept the signature is authentic), and again – somewhart confusingly – "En resumen, puede decirse que la firma de Sahagún, aunque genuina, es sospechosa" (in summary, we can say that Sahagún's signature, although genuine, is suspicious). Sahagún died in 1590 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_de_Sahag%C3%BAn

Nor did Peralta dispute the technical studies carried out by a team headed by Dr. Victor Castaño Meneses at the Centro de Física Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada at the Juriquilla, Querétaro campus of UNAM: "Estudio físico-químico y técnico del códice 1548" as to which Professor Meneses has given presentations in 2002 (at the national meeting of Mexican state councils for science and technology), 2005 (at the 3rd Guadalupan Congress in México City), 2008 and 2010 (his CV is available as a pdf download).

So what does it mean to say "modern scholarship . . do[es] not accept the validity of the Codex Escalada as historical evidence"? Does it mean that the codex is an authentic 16th c. artifact but that, on historical grounds, it is not relevant to establishing the facticity of Juan Diego's existence? Such a stance is untenable. If it is intended to say that modern research has qualified, modified or disproved the technical studies conducted between 1995 and 1997 then (a) the 1995-1997 studies must be presented in some form, and (b) the grounds for disputing their results must also be presented.

In brief, I consider there is a serious problem with implicit bias in the article as it stands.Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A summary of the technical studies I have referred to is given at "Acontecimiento Guadalupano del Boletín Guadalupano", año II, núm. 35. accessible online at http://www.boletinguadalupano.org.mx/boletin/acont_gpano/codice1548.htmRidiculus mus (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and neutralize the article - just make sure that all notable points of view are included and duly weighted. I believe you are very capable of that, and have a good overview of the sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will get down to it next week. Thanks for the enccouragement. For an idea of my approach see now my re-write of the Technical analysis section Our Lady of Guadalupe Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work. In fact, it gives such undue weight to the view of a few skeptics as to be factually misleading. I think this article, Codex Escalada, and still the Our Lady of Guadalupe article needs some editing in this regard. Mamalujo (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is completely false to characterize the sceptics as a minority view - it is quite definitely the majority view in contemporary non-apologetic scholarship. We can give the apologetic viewpoint as well as the scholarly one - but we cannot privilege it.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are quite a few loose threads which bear directly on the historicity of Juan Diego, and on some of them (Codex Escalada for one, and the authorship of Nican Mopohua for another) the discussion is, at present, unreasonably skewed in favour of the sceptical viewpoint - which, in some cases is the minority one - precisely because it excludes all other points of view.Ridiculus mus (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was reacting to Mamalujo's suggestion that the sceptic viewpoint represents a small minority and should be weighed as less important than the apologetic one - it is false to represent the scholarly viewpoint as a fringe viewpoint even though it is obviously in a numerical minority. It is not wikipedia's policy to privilege the majority viewpoint in cases where there is a discrepancy between a common belief and what is the scientific consensus. I am not opposed to balancing the article so that it neutrally represents both the apologetic and the academic viewpoint - that is a core policy of course - but I can in no way endorse marginalizing the academic viewpoint as if it were fringe crackpottery. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Life and Impact sections

The "life" section suffers from a lack of attribution to its sources (Nican Mopohua) and a lack of discussion of those sources. It is written in a chatty essay like style - presenting the story of Juan Diego as a narrative of factual events rather than reporting what sources have said in an objective style.

The "impact" section repeats information that is generally rejected as counterfactual - for example the idea that the apparition should have prompted large numbers of new indian converts in the 1530'es has been rejected - there is simply no mention of mass convertions related to the shrine at tepeyac prior to 1648 (see Poole 1995 and Burkharts before Guadalupe). Also the quote from Lynch overstates the importance of the Guadalupan movement in the reconciliation between whites and indians - Burkhart and others have shown that the Guadalupan devotion was from it inception an almost entirely white criollo movement - with little or no hold among indigenous populations.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This last observation, as to the alleged criollo basis of the cult, is dismissed by Brading as "speculation" ("Mexican Phoenix",2001, p.353). The fact of mass conversions, on the other hand (granted that the extent of it was perhaps over-stated by Motolinía), cannot simply be deleted from the record for it is itself an historical event which (a) stands in need of explanation and (b) is traditionally associated with the Guadalupe event. The "speculation" as to the criollo basis of the cult directly conflicts with the tradition, but speculation does not, of itself, trump tradition.Ridiculus mus (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Motolinias well-documented mass baptisms were not related to the tepeyac site - he worked elsewhere, mostly in Puebla where he did convert as many as 14,000 people a day by sprinkling water on them - untill the pope told him to stop that. (actually he continued doing it anyway). It is ok to mention that brading disagrees, but Burkhart and poole argue quite forcefully that there is no evidence for an early indian virgin cult. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was careful not to connect the conversions to Tepeyac except according to the tradition. Zumárraga, however, reported in 1532 that 250,000 Indians had been baptized - a strong occurrence which calls for an explanation.Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Depictions section

Isn't the part about the reflection of Juan Diego in the eye of the image a bit of a fringe belief, even among the faithful? Is it widely enough held to warrant a full para or two? --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Factuality, sources and mamalujo's recent edits

We have been having this discussion lately in several articles - particularly Talk:Codex Escalada and Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe - there are plenty of arguments given there for not using the Osservatore article as a main source for these claims. Please participate in the discussion there.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Projected re-write: lede

My recent re-write of Codex Escalada has addressed (I hope) the concerns expressed here about how to present that document. If convenient, I would now like to start recasting and rebalancing this entire article starting with the lede (which is not, I think, the place for detailed discussion of the sources or of the disputes about them). Some of the existing material further down in the article overlaps Our Lady of Guadalupe where it more properly belongs and to which it should be relegated. Since the subject is a Roman Catholic saint, the article must accept the logic inherent in such a subject. Although I do not have access to much of the literature, I nevertheless tentatively propose the following structure:-

• Lede
• Debate and controversy [general overview]
• The Life
• The Guadalupe event
• Canonization process [incl. the Barragán miracle in 1990]
• Published sources for the life [the "4 evangelists" and Informaciones Jurídicas de 1666 ]
• Objections: the silence of the sources [el silencio Franciscano]
• Primary documentary materials from the 16th and 17th centuries [incl. Codex Escalada ]
• Resonance of the cult [inc. controversy over iconography, although I am unsure if this is still a live issue]

Here follows my proposal for a new lede (short notes and references incorporated within angled brackets; longer notes appended):-

St. Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin<"Biographical Note" Vatican Information Service, July 31, 2002> or Juan Diego (1474–1548) is the first Roman Catholic indigenous American saint.<Note 1> He is said to have received an apparition of the Virgin Mary on four occasions in December 1531 at the hill of Tepeyac, then outside but now well within metropolitan Mexico City. The Basilica of Guadalupe located at the foot of the hill of Tepeyac claims to possess Juan Diego's mantle or cloak (known as a tilma) on which an image of the Virgin is said to have been impressed by a miracle as a pledge of the authenticity of the apparitions. These apparitions and the imparting of the miraculous image (together known as the Guadalupe event, in Spanish "el acontecimiento Guadalupano") are the basis of the cult of Our Lady of Guadalupe which is ubiquitous in Mexico, prevalent throughout the Spanish-speaking Americas, and increasingly widespread beyond.<Note 2> As a result, the Basilica of Guadalupe is now the world's major centre of pilgrimage for Roman Catholics, receiving 22 million visitors in 2010, the vast bulk of whom were pilgrims.<Note 3> Juan Diego was beatified in 1990, and canonized in 2002 notwithstanding objections voiced in some quarters over the quality of the evidence adduced to justify the claim that he was an historical personage. In this article the convenient and well-established phrase "Guadalupe event" (Spanish: "el acontecimiento Guadalupano") is used to refer to the subject-matter of the tradition as to the apparitions and the miraculous impress of the image, without any presumption being made thereby as to whether the event occurred.

<Note 1. Rose of Lima (1586-1617) was the first American saint (beatified 1667, canonized 1671); Martin de Porres (1579-1639) was the first mestizo American saint (beatified 1837, canonized 1962); and Kateri Tekakwitha (1656-1680), a Mohawk-Algonquin woman who lived in New York State was the first indigenous American to be beatified (in 1980).> <Note 2. see, e.g., remarks of Pope John Paul II in his 1997 Apostolic Exhortation, para. 11, regarding the veneration of Our Lady of Guadalupe as "Queen of all America", "Patroness of all America", and "Mother and Evangelizer of America". "Ecclesia in America"; Sousa et al., p. 1; in May 2010, the church of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Makati, Manila, Philippines, was declared a national shrine by the bishops' conference of that country. "Archdiocesan Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe declared National Shrine"> <Note 3. "Guadalupe Shrine Hosts 6M for Feastday Weekend", Zenit news agency, December 13, 2010 For comparison, in 2000, the year of the Great Jubilee, 25 million pilgrims were reported by the Rome Jubilee Agency, "Pilgrims to Rome Break Records in Year 2000", Zenit news agency, 1 January 2001, but in 2006 the city of Rome computed altogether 18 million visitors, many of whom were there for purely cultural reasons Vatican puts a squeeze on visitors The Times online, January 6, 2007. Eight million were expected at Lourdes in 2008 (the 150th anniversary of the apparitions) "Benedict XVI to Join Celebrations at Lourdes" Zenit news agency, November 13, 2007.>

projected lede and notes ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Projected re-write: Debate and controversy [overview]

Here follows proposed text of projected section giving an over-view of the controversy:-

Debate and controversy The debate over the historicity of St. Juan Diego and, by extension, of the apparitions and the miraculous image, is largely a discussion of the reliability of the various documentary sources (many of which are second-hand), and the value, if any, to be placed on an oral tradition which – depending on the view taken of the sources – was first written down either a decade or a century after the year (1548) when St. Juan Diego is said to have died. Fundamental objections to the historicity of the Guadalupe event, grounded in the silence of the very sources which – so it is argued – are those most likely to have referred to it, were raised as long ago as 1794 by Juan Bautista Muñoz and were expounded in detail by the renowned Mexican historian Joaquín García Icazbalceta in a confidential report dated 1883 commissioned by the then Archbishop of Mexico and first published in 1896. The most prolific contemporary protagonist in the debate is Stafford Poole, an historian and Vincentian priest in the United States of America, who questioned the integrity and rigor of the historical investigation conducted by the Catholic Church in the interval between Juan Diego's beatification and his canonization.

Partly in response to these and other issues, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (the body within the Catholic Church with oversight of the process of approving candidates for sainthood) reopened the historical phase of the investigation in 1998, and in November of that year declared itself satisfied with the results.< "Disclosures from Commission Studying Historicity of Guadalupe Event", Zenit news agency, December 12, 1999> Following the canonization in 2002, the Catholic Church considers the question closed, but it is not precluded from reopening the investigation should positive evidence of falsification of sources or significant and material errors emerge. For a brief period in mid-1996 a vigorous debate was ignited in Mexico when it emerged that Guillermo Schulenburg, who at that time was 83 years of age and had been Abbot (or custodian) of the Basilica of Guadalupe since 1963, did not believe that Juan Diego was a historical person or (which follows from it) that it is his mantle which is conserved and venerated at the Basilica. That debate, however, was focussed not so much on the weight to be accorded to the historical sources which attest to Juan Diego's existence as on the propriety of Abbot Schulenburg retaining an official position which – so it was objected – his advanced age, extravagant life-style and heterodox views disqualified him from holding. Abbot Schulenburg's resignation (announced on 6 September 1996) terminated that debate.<Note 1>

<Note 1. "Dimitió Schulenburg", La Jornada, September 7, 1996; Brading, pp. 348f. The scandal, however, re-erupted in January 2002 when the Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli published in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale a confidential letter dated December 4, 2001 which Schulenburg (among others) had sent to Cardinal Sodano, the then Secretary of State at the Vatican, reprising reservations over the historicity of Juan Diego "Insiste abad: Juan Diego no existió" Notimex January 21, 2002.>

Projected section ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that Maunus, in editing this section, has justly commented that Poole is more than a priest. I had not intended to disparage him altogether - fuller information is given in the wiki-article to which I gave the link (it calls him a "research historian", drawing attention, I suppose, to the fact that he has never been on any university faculty). For my part, I consider Poole to be an historiographer rather than an historian, but we don't need to argue about that. Brading introduces Poole as "an American historian and Vincentian priest" (p.351) although, in the summary of the content of Poole's first Guadalupan book (1995), Brading does not exempt him from serious criticisms (pp. 352-353). For example, Brading refers to Poole's "self-chosen role as 'historical detective'", draws attention to "the limits of his historical sympathy", and comments that in arguing that the cult was more creole than Indian he says Poole "moved beyond his self-imposed brief into speculation" (p.353). Altogether, this is a not-so-subtle put-down. Rodrigo Martínez Baracs (to take another case) has more than once directly and indirectly criticised Poole for the bald assertion that the Nican Mopohua was written by Lasso de la Vega - for although that view is tenable, it is by no means certain. Regrettably, Poole's views have tended to dominate the discussion in wikipedia. I had merely intended to lower the temperature of Poole's approval rating, but in doing so I erred on the other side, for which I apologise, and (subject to my addition of the indefinite article) I fully accept Maunus's edit on this point. I also thank him for correcting a spelling mistake (which suggests a close reading - for which I am grateful). He might care to note that I have tried to re-balance my treatment of Tena in Codex Escalada whom I had unjustifiably put in a box marked "Nahuatl". Ridiculus mus (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To revert to the Schulenburg scandal, I think it must be necessary to mention (at least) the second out-break of linchamiento in January 2002 following Tornielli's publication of a confidential letter dated 4 December 2001 from four Mexican priests (Warnholtz, Schulenburg, Martínez de la Serna and Olimon) to Cardinal Sodano. Ridiculus mus (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC) . . Done (via extended Note 1.) Ridiculus mus (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My minor changes mean that I accept the proposal as generally sound and sensible. I don't think it is fair to call Poole a historigrapher, he was worked extensively with primary sources in several of his works and his doctoral dissertation was about previously undiscovered primary sources from the bancroft library.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we (or others) can continue this discussion in talk at Stafford Poole which is woefully thin. Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Projected re-write: The life

Here follows proposed text giving a general account of the life of Juan Diego [now amended in an attempt to address concerns raised by Maunus below]

The life The basic elements of the story (before and after the apparitions) are few and simple and they derive from five principal printed sources which, to a greater or lesser extent, appeal to accounts transmitted orally or in writings now lost. A note on these five biographical sources follows, and citations in the notes are to these sources as identified by number below. These elements, which are in broad harmony across all five sources, can be shortly stated:-

According to tradition, Juan Diego was an Indian born in 1474 in Cuauhtitlan,<note 1.> and at the time of the apparitions he lived there or in Tolpetlac.<note 2.> Although not destitute, he was neither rich nor influential.<note 3.> His religious fervor, his artlessness, his respectful but gracious demeanour towards the Virgin Mary and the initially skeptical Bishop Juan de Zumárraga, and his devotion to his sick uncle and, subsequently, to the Virgin at her shrine – all of which are central to the tradition – are among his defining characteristics and testify to the sanctity of life which is the indispensable criterion for canonization.<note 4.> He and his wife, María Lucía, were among the first to be baptized after the arrival of the main group of twelve Franciscan missionaries in Mexico in 1524.<note 5.> His wife died two years before the apparitions, although one of the sources (Luis Becerra Tanco, possibly through inadvertence) claims she died two years subsequent to them.<note 6.> There is no firm tradition as to their marital relations. It is variously reported (a) that after their baptism he and his wife were inspired by a sermon on chastity to live celibately; alternatively (b) that they lived celibately throughout their marriage; and in the further alternative (c) that both of them lived and died as virgins.<note 7.> Alternatives (a) and (b) may not necessarily conflict with other reports that Juan Diego (possibly by another wife) had a son.<note 8.> Intrinsic to the narrative is Juan Diego's uncle, Juan Bernardino; but beyond him, María Lucía, and Juan Diego's putative son, no other family members are mentioned in the tradition. At least two 18th century nuns claimed to be descended from Juan Diego.<note 9.> After the apparitions, Juan Diego was permitted to live next to the hermitage erected at the foot of the hill of Tepeyac,<note 10.> and he dedicated the rest of his life to serving the Virgin Mary at the shrine erected in accordance with her wishes.<see note 4. above> The date of death (in his 74th year) is given as 1548.<Codex Escalada and see note 1 above.>

<Note 1. sources (2) and (5) give his age as 74 at the date of his death in 1548; his place of birth is reported by (3) and (5) and by Pacheco among the witnesses at (4)> <Note 2. source (2) says he was living in Cuauhtitlán at the time of the apparitions; (3) and (5) report Tulpetlac> <Note 3. source (2) in the Nican Mopohua calls him "maçehualtzintli", or "poor ordinary person", but in the Nican Mopectana it is reported that he had a house and land which he later abandoned to his uncle so that he could take up residence at Tepeyac; (3) says "un indio plebeyo y pobre, humilde y candído" (a poor Indian commoner, humble and unaffected); (5) says he came of the lowest rank of Indians, of the servant class; but one of the witnesses in (4) - Juana de la Concepción - says his father was cacique (or headman) of Cuauhtitlán.> <Note 4. all the sources dwell in more or less detail on his humility, sanctity, self-mortification and religious devotion during his life after the apparitions.> <Note 5. "recently converted" - (1) and (3); baptized in "1524 or shortly thereafter" - (5)> <Note 6. sources (2), (4), and (5) agree she died two years before the apparitions, and all those who mention a wife (bar one of the three Indians who gave testimony in 1666 and who mentioned a wife) name her.> <Note 7. see, e.g. Huei tlamahuiçoltica, Sousa et al. pp. 113/115, where (b) and (c) are presented together and not in the alternative.> <Note 8. discussed at length by Francisco de Florencia, Estrella de el Norte de México, cap.18, n° 223, fol. 111r.> <Note 9. unpublished records of Convent of Corpus Christi in Mexico City: see Fidel González Fernández, Pulso y Corazon de un Pueblo, appendix 4> <Note 10. part of the capilla de los Indios in the Guadalupe precinct stands on what are said to be the foundations of this hermitage "Parroquia de Indios" accessed February 11, 2011>

The main sources for the life of Juan Diego The materials fall into two distinct classes. The earliest notices of an apparition of the Virgin Mary at Tepeyac to an Indian (whether or not named "Juan Diego") are to be found in various annals which are regarded by Dr. Miguel Léon-Portilla, one of the leading Mexican scholars in this field, as demonstrating "that effectively many people were already flocking to the chapel of Tepeyac long before 1556, and that the tradition of Juan Diego and the apparitions of Tonantzin (Guadalupe) had already spread."<note 1.> Others (including leading Nahuatl and Guadalupe scholars in the USA) go only as far as saying that such notices "are few, brief, ambiguous and themselves posterior by many years".<note 2.> If correctly dated to the 16th century (as the available evidence indicates, doubts and suspicions expressed by several scholars notwithstanding), the Codex Escalada - which states that Juan Diego (identified by his indigenous name) died "worthily" in 1548 - must be accounted among the earliest and clearest of such notices. The second class comprises biographical materials in the main narrative sources for what is called "the Guadalupe event" (in Spanish, el acontecimiento Guadalupano)<note 3.>, fuller details of which are given under Published historical sources below. Taking them in turn by date of first publication:- <note 4.>

• (1) Sánchez (1648) has a few scattered sentences noting Juan Diego's uneventful life at the hermitage in the sixteen years from the apparitions to his death; and (2) in the Huei tlamahuiçoltica (1649), at the start of the Nican Mopohua and at the end of the section known as the Nican Mopectana, there is some information concerning Juan Diego's life before and after the apparitions, giving many instances of his sanctity of life. <note 5.>
• The third source is (3) Becerra Tanco (1666 and 1675). His town of origin, place of residence at the date of the apparitions, and the name of his wife are given at pages 1 and 2 of the 6th (Mexican) edition. His heroic virtues are eulogized at pages 40 to 42. Other biographical information about Juan Diego (with dates of his birth and death, of his wife's death, and of their baptism) is set out on page 50. On page 49 is the remark that Juan Diego and his wife remained chaste – at the least after their baptism – having been impressed by a sermon on chastity said to have been preached by Fray Toribio de Benevente (popularly known as Motolinía).
• (4) Slight and fragmented notices appear in the hearsay testimony (1666) of seven of the indigenous witnesses (Marcos Pacheco, Gabriel Xuárez, Andrés Juan, Juana de la Concepción, Pablo Xuárez, Martín de San Luis, and Catarina Mónica) collected with other testimonies in the Informaciones Jurídicas de 1666. <note 6.>
• (5) Chapter 18 of Francisco de la Florencia's Estrella de el norte de México (1688) contains the first systematic account of Juan Diego's life, with attention given to some divergent strands in the tradition. <note 7.>

<Note 1. as quoted in "Our Lady Of Guadalupe: Historical Sources", unsigned article in L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, January 23, 2002, page 8> <Note 2. Sousa et al., p.1; cf. Poole (1995) pp.50-58 where it is conceded that the Codex Sutro, at least, "probably dates from 1530 to 1540" (ibid., p.57).> <Note 3. by this is meant the apparitions and the miraculous impress of the Virgin's image on Juan Diego's tilma as reported in the tradition, no presumption being made as to its veracity.> <Note 4. A convenient summary of the narrative biographical sources is given by Burkhart as part of her chapter "Juan Diego's World: the canonical Juan Diego" in the portmanteau volume Nahuatl Theater, vol. 2: Our Lady of Guadalupe (2006), at pages 33-39.> <Note 5. The texts of these two biographical sources can be found in English in Sousa et al. (de la Vega at pp.113/115, and Sánchez at p.141)> <Note 6. The burden of these testimonies (which focus on Juan Diego's marital status and/ or his sanctity of life) can be read in Poole (pp.130-134, critically analyzed at pp. 139-141) supplemented by Burkhart (2006), p.35> <Note 7. It occupies eight folios and three lines of a ninth (nn.213-236, foll.106r.-114r.)>

Projected section ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Revised and re-structured in an attempt to address the concerns of Maunus below. Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have problems with the separation of the sources from the hagiographic narrative. I don't think the two can be described apart from each other. In your proposed version it results in the lifestory being described as fact. I wouldn't even write it in that way for a person about who's existence there is no doubt, at least not if his life was described only in non-contemporary sources. In my view writing a narrative like that requires painstaking attention to elucidating the support for the narrative for the reader saying clearly stating the relation between the sources and the narrative. This does not necesarrily result in abominable sentences of the type "supposedly he died in xx", but rather in sentences like "according to source xx he died in xx". You take steps to do this when you juxtapose different traditions e.g. relating to his supposed virginity, but you don't give us the luxury of knowing which sources state what. I know that it is a difficult task to write up this narrative while not giving the appearance that the sources statements are either false or true, but here I feel that you erred to far on the credulous side. We can await or solicit additional comments by other editors before deciding how to proceed. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. As I read you, there is [A] a source-reference point, and [B] a risk-of-bias point (if I can put them like that). Your point [A] - about tying each element to the specific source(s) - would be more compelling if the five sources varied in quality or reliability or if there were marked disagreements among them. In fact, there is little to choose between them on either score, so I don't agree that the reader is being deprived of anything in not being given detailed references. There are really only two trivial points at which the tradition diverges and in both cases I have given the variants and an indication of the relative sources (which can always be amplified if it were thought important enough). The same argument goes for the presentation of the Guadalupe event itself (which follows immediately on the "Life" section), although there I base the account on the Nican Mopohua without entering much into the variations in the story. As it happens, I am not planning to analyse and weigh up the evidence for or against Juan Diego's historicity or the facticity of the Guadalupe event, and my presentation of the main sources (the 4 evangelists + 1) is neutral (as you will see). My provisional conclusion is that, in light of the above, detailed source references are unnecessary, and my suspicion is that if detailed source references were given throughout it would make the text unbearably dense, and (more importantly) that the welter of references would tend to provoke the very conclusion (or impression) which it is necessary to avoid provoking here, viz. that the story is certainly and undeniably true (I know you are alive to this very danger). In principle, discussion of the sources should come before the "Life" section. But read on . . .

As for your point [B], I deliberately put the "debate and controversy" section first in order to disarm just such objections of credulousness as you are now making. Also, I clearly flagged at the start of the "Life" section the limitations and deficiencies of the sources (I suppose this can always be expanded), and the reader will not easily run off with the idea that what is rehearsed here is fact (unless, maybe by jumping into the middle of it). Perhaps your concern can at least begin to be addressed if the second sentence read:- "The basic elements of the story of his life are few and simple"? Meanwhile I shall continue to post new sections of the proposed re-write and as the picture fills out you may find your reservations become less acute. Rest assured that I am not intending to move any of the proposed re-write over to the article in an arbitrary or unilateral fashion, and I am hoping there will be more contributions from more editors. Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now recast and expanded the "Life" section above, in an attempt to address Maunus's concerns. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Projected re-write: The Guadalupe event

Here follows proposed text giving the account of the Guadalupe event:-

The story of the Guadalupe event The following account is based on that given in the Nican Mopohua which was first published in Nahuatl in 1649 as part of a compendious work known as the Huei tlamahuiçoltica (see under Published historical sources below). No part of that work was available in Spanish until 1895 when there was published a translation of the Nican Mopohua dating from the 18th century but made from an incomplete copy of the original. Nor was any part of the Huei tlamahuiçoltica republished until 1929, when a facsimile of the original was published by Primo Feliciano Velásquez together with a full translation into Spanish (including the first full translation of the Nican Mopohua), since when the Nican Mopohua, in its various translations and redactions, has supplanted all other versions as the narrative of preference.<Poole (1995) pp.117f; Brading, p. 324; for various other translations into Spanish and English see Sousa et al., note 4 on p.3>

Juan Diego, as a devout neophyte, was in the habit of regularly walking from his home to the Franciscan mission station at Tlatelolco for religious instruction and to perform his religious duties. His route passed by the hill at Tepeyac. First apparition: at dawn on Saturday 9 December, 1531 while on his usual journey, he encountered the Virgin Mary who revealed herself as the ever-virgin Mother of God and instructed him to request the bishop to erect a chapel in her honour so that she might relieve the distress of all those who call on her in their need. He delivered the request, but was told by the bishop (Fray Juan Zumárraga) to come back another day after he had had time to reflect upon what Juan Diego had told him. Second apparition, later the same day: returning to Tepeyac, Juan Diego encountered the Virgin again and announced the failure of his mission, suggesting that because he was "a back-frame, a tail, a wing, a man of no importance" she would do better to recruit someone of greater standing, but she insisted that it was he whom she wanted for the task. Juan Diego agreed to return to the bishop to repeat his request. This he did on the morning of Sunday 10 December when he found the bishop more compliant. The bishop, however, asked for a sign to prove that the apparition was truly of heaven. Third apparition: Juan Diego returned immediately to Tepeyac and, encountering the Virgin Mary reported the bishop's request for a sign; she condescended to provide one on the following day (11 December).<note 1.>

By Monday 11 December, however, Juan Diego's uncle Juan Bernardino had fallen sick and Juan Diego was obliged to attend to him. In the very early hours of Tuesday 12 December, Juan Bernardino's condition having deteriorated overnight, Juan Diego set out to Tlatelolco to get a priest to hear Juan Bernadino's confession and minister to him on his death-bed. Fourth apparition: in order to avoid being delayed by the Virgin and embarrassed at having failed to meet her on the Monday as agreed, Juan Diego chose another route around the hill, but the Virgin intercepted him and asked where he was going; Juan Diego explained what had happened and the Virgin gently chided him for not having had recourse to her. In the words which have become the most famous phrase of the Guadalupe event and are inscribed over the main entrance to the Basilica of Guadalupe, she asked: "No estoy yo aqui que soy tu madre?" (Am I not here, I who am your mother?). She assured him that Juan Bernardino had now recovered and she told him to climb the hill and collect flowers growing there. Obeying her, Juan Diego found an abundance of flowers unseasonably in bloom on the rocky outcrop where only cactus and scrub normally grew. Using his open mantle as a sack (with the ends still tied around his neck) he returned to the Virgin; she re-arranged the flowers and told him to take them to the bishop. On gaining admission to the bishop, Juan Diego opened his mantle, the flowers poured to the floor, and the bishop saw they had left on the mantle an imprint of the Virgin's image which he immediately venerated.<note 2.>

Fifth apparition: the next day Juan Diego found his uncle fully recovered, as the Virgin had assured him, and Juan Bernardino recounted that he too had seen her, at his bed-side; that she had instructed him to inform the bishop of this apparition and of his miraculous cure; and that she had told him she desired to be known under the title of Guadalupe. The bishop kept Juan Diego's mantle first in his private chapel and then in the church on public display where at attracted great attention. On 26 December 1531 a procession formed for taking the miraculous image back to Tepeyac where it was installed in a small hastily erected chapel.<The date does not appear in the Nican Mopohua, but in Sanchez's Imagen> In course of this procession, the first miracle was allegedly performed when an Indian was mortally wounded in the neck by an arrow shot by accident during some stylized martial displays executed in honour of the Virgin. In great distress, the Indians carried him before the Virgin's image and pleaded for him to be saved from death. Upon the arrow being withdrawn, the victim made a full and immediate recovery.<note 3.>

<Note 1. This apparition is somewhat elided in the Nican Mopohua but is implicit in three brief passages (Sousa et al., pp. 75, 77, 83). It is fully described in the Imagen de la Virgen of Miguel Sánchez published in 1648> <Note 2. Sánchez (ibid., pp.137f.) made a point of naming numerous flowers of different hues (roses, lilies, carnations, violets, jasmine, rosemary, broom – accounting for the various pigments eventually to manifest themselves on the tilma); according to the Nican Mopohua (ibid., p.79) the Virgin told Juan Diego he would find "various kinds of flowers" at the top of the hill which Juan Diego picked and brought back to her, although there is the intervening description of them (when Juan Diego arrived at the top of the hill and surveyed the flowers) as "different kinds of precious Spanish [Caxtillan] flowers". Florencia, in the account of the fourth apparition three times (cap.5, n°33f., fol.13) repeats the phrase "(diversas) rosas y flores", and in the final interview with the bishop (cap.6, n°38, fol.15r.) says that there poured from the tilma "un vergel abreviado de flores, frescas, olorosas, y todavía húmedas y salpicadas del rocío de la noche" (a garden in miniature of flowers, fresh, perfumed and damp, splashed with nocturnal dew). In Becerra Tanco's version (p.18), the only flowers mentioned were "rosas de castilla frescas, olorosas y con rocío" (roses of Castile, fresh and perfumed, with the dew on them). It was Becerra's Tanco's version that imposed itself on the iconographic tradition.> <Note 3. The procession and miracle are not part of the Nican Mopohua proper, but introduce the Nican Mopectana which immediately follows the Nican Mopohua in the Huei tlamahuiçoltica.>

Text of proposed new section ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Text amended by changing cross-heading, altering format, adding notes, and varying some wording. Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Projected re-write: The beatification and canonization process

Here follows proposed text describing the process for Juan Diego's canonization:-

The movement for canonization

The modern movement for the canonization of Juan Diego (to be distinguished from the process for gaining official approval for the Guadalupe cult, which had begun in 1663 and was realized in 1754)<Brading, p.132> can be said to have arisen in earnest in 1974 during celebrations marking the four hundredth anniversary of the traditional date of his birth,<note 1.> but it was not until January 1984 that the then Archbishop of Mexico, Cardinal Ernesto Corripio Ahumada, named a Postulator to supervise and coordinate the inquiry, and initiated the formal process for canonization.<note 2.> The procedure for this first, or diocesan, stage of the canonization process had recently been reformed and simplified by order of Pope John Paul II.<note 3.>

The beatification

The diocesan inquiry was formally concluded in March 1986<Carta Pastoral, n.24> and the decree opening the Roman stage of the process was obtained on 7 April 1986. When the decree of validity of the diocesan inquiry was given on 9 January 1987 (permitting the cause to proceed), the candidate became officially "venerable". The documentation (known as the Positio or "position paper") was published in 1989, in which year all the bishops of Mexico petitioned the Holy See in support of the cause.<note 4.> Thereafter there was a scrutiny of the Positio by consultors expert in history (concluded in January 1990) and by consultors expert in theology (concluded in March 1990), following which the Congregation for the Causes of Saints formally approved the Positio and Pope John Paul II signed the relative decree on 9 April 1990. The process of beatification was completed in a ceremony conducted by Pope John Paul II at the Basilica of Guadalupe on 6 May 1990 when 9 December was declared as the feast day to be held annually in honour of the candidate for sainthood thereafter known as "Blessed Juan Diego Cuauthlatoatzin".<AAS 82 [1990] p.855> In accordance with the exceptional cases provided for by Urban VIII (1625, 1634) when regulating the procedures for beatification and canonization, the requirement for an authenticating miracle prior to beatification was dispensed with, on the grounds of the antiquity of the cult.<note 5.>

The miracle attributed to the intercession of Blessed Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin

Notwithstanding the fact that the beatification was "equipollent",<Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, Virtue & Co., London, 1954 s.v. "canonization"> the normal requirement is that at least one miracle must be attributable to the intercession of the candidate before the cause for canonization can be brought to completion. The events accepted as fulfilling this requirement occurred between 3 and 9 May 1990 in Querétaro, Mexico when a 20 year old drug addict named Juan José Barragán Silva fell 10 meters head first from an apartment balcony on to a cement area in an apparent suicide bid. His mother Esperanza, who witnessed the fall, had faith in Juan Diego and invoked him to save her son who had sustained severe injuries to his spinal column, neck and cranium (including intra-cranial haemorrhage). Barragán was taken to hospital where he went into coma from which he suddenly emerged on 6 May 1990. A week later he was sufficiently recovered to be discharged. <note 6.> The reputed miracle was investigated according to the usual procedure of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints:- first the facts of the case (including medical records and six eye-witness testimonies including those of Barragán and his mother) were gathered in Mexico and forwarded to Rome for approval as to sufficiency - which was granted in November 1994. Next, the unanimous report of five medical consultors (as to the gravity of the injuries, the likelihood of their proving fatal, the impracticability of any medical intervention to save the patient, his complete and lasting recovery, and their inability to ascribe it to any known process of healing) was received, and approved by the Congregation in February 1998. From there the case was passed to theological consultors who examined the nexus between (i) the fall and the injuries, (ii) the mother's faith in and invocation of Blessed Juan Diego, and (ii) the recovery, inexplicable in medical terms. Their unanimous approval was signified in May 2001.<Chávez Sánchez> Finally, in September 2001, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints voted to approve the miracle, and the relative decree formally acknowledging the events as miraculous was signed by Pope John Paul II on 20 December 2001.<AAS 94 [2002] pp.488f.>

The canonization

As not infrequently happens, the process for canonization in this case was subject to delays and obstacles of various kinds. In the instant case, certain interventions were initiated through unorthodox routes in early 1998 by a small group of ecclesiastics in Mexico (then or formerly attached to the Basilica of Guadalupe) pressing for a review of the sufficiency of the historical investigation.<note 7.> This review, which not infrequently occurs in cases of equipollent beatifications,<note 8.> was entrusted by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (acting in concert with the Archdiocese of Mexico) to a special Historical Commission headed by the Mexican ecclesiastical historians Fidel González, Eduardo Chávez Sánchez, and José Guerrero. The results of the review were presented to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints on 28 October 1998 which unanimously approved them.<note 9.> In the following year, the fruit of the Commission's work was published in book form by González, Chávez Sánchez and Guerrero under the title Encuentro de la Virgen de Guadalupe y Juan Diego. This served, however, only to intensify the protests of those who were attempting to delay or prevent the canonization, and the arguments over the quality of the scholarship displayed by the Encuentro were conducted first in private and then in public.<note 10.> The main objection against the Encuentro was that it failed to distinguish between the antiquity of the cult and the antiquity of the tradition of the apparitions; the argument on the other side was that every tradition has an initial oral stage where documentation will be lacking. The authenticity of the Codex Escalada and the question whether the Nican Mopohua is to be dated to the 16th c. or to the 17th c. have a material bearing on the duration of the oral stage. <note 11.> Final approbation of the decree of canonization was signified in a Consistory held on 26 February 2002 at which Pope John Paul II announced that the rite of canonization would take place in Mexico at the Basilica of Guadalupe on 31 July 2002, <AAS 95 [2003] pp.801-803> as indeed occurred.<note 12.>

<Note 1. The Cristero roots of the movement in the previous half century are traced in Brading, pp. 311-314 and 331-335.> <Note 2. Carta pastoral, nn. 22, 24. cf. Chávez Sánchez, where it is reported that the first Postulator, Fr. Antonio Cairoli OFM, having died, Fr. Paolo Molinari SJ succeeded him in 1989. Both of these were postulators-general of the religious Orders to which they belonged (the Franciscans and Jesuits, respectively) and were resident in Rome. In 2001 Fr. Chávez Sánchez himself was appointed Postulator for the cause of canonization, succeeding Mgr. Oscar Sánchez Barba who had been appointed in 1999.> <Note 3. The reform of the procedure was mandated by John Paul II in his Apostolic Constitution "Divinus perfectionis Magister" ("The Divine Teacher and Model of Perfection", 25 January, 1983) and was put into effect from 7 February 1983 pursuant to rules drawn up by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints: "New Laws for the Causes of Saints"> <Note 4. Chávez Sánchez, text of letter of 3 December 1989 from Archbishop Suárez Rivera of Monterrey, as president of the Mexican Episcopal Conference, to Cardinal Felici, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and footnote 30.> <Note 5. A similar case of "equipollent beatification", as it is called, occurred in the case of 11 of the 40 Martyrs of England and Wales, who were beatified (with numerous other such martyrs) in stages between 1888 and 1929, but who were canonized together in 1970 "Canonization of 40 English and Welsh Martyrs", by Paolo Molinari, SJ, L'Osservatore Romano, weekly edition in English, 29 October 1970.> <Note 6. The circumstances of the fall, the details the injuries, the mother's prayer and the medical assistance provided to her son, the prognosis and his sudden inexplicable recovery are detailed in appendix 5 to Pulso y Corazon de un Pueblo, by Fidel González Fernández.> <Note 7. The first intervention was a letter sent on 4 February 1998 by Carlos Warnholz, Guillermo Schulenburg and Esteban Martínez de la Serna to Archbishop (later Cardinal) Giovanni Battista Re then sostituto for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State which, in fact, has no competency over canonizations; this was followed by a letter dated 9 March 1998 to Cardinal Bovone, then pro-prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, signed by the same three Mexican ecclesiastics as also by the historians Fr. Stafford Poole, Rafael Tena and Xavier Noguez; a third letter, dated 5 October 1998, was sent to Archbishop Re signed by the same signatories as those who had signed the letter of 9 March 1998.> <Note 8. "Canonization of 40 English and Welsh Martyrs", by Paolo Molinari, S.J., L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 29 October 1970; it is normally handled through the Historical-Hagiographical Office of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.> <Note 9. Carta Pastoral, nn.29, 35-37; Chávez Sánchez; Baracs names the prominent Guadalupanist Fr. Xavier Escalada SJ (who had first published the Codex Escalada in 1995) and the renowned Mexican historian and Nahuatl scholar Miguel Léon-Portilla (a prominent proponent of the argument for dating the Nican Mopohua to the 16th c.) as also participating, with others, in the work of the Commission.> <Note 10. Further correspondence with Rome ensued, later leaked to the press and eventually published in full by Fr. Manuel Olimón Nolasco (2002):- letters of 27 September 1999 to Cardinal Sodano, then Secretary of State, from the original three Mexican ecclesiastics who had initiated the correspondence; of 14 May 2000 to Archbishop (now Cardinal) Tarcisio Bertone, then secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith signed by those three again, as well as by the three historians who had co-signed the letter of 9 March 1998; and, finally, another letter to Sodano of 4 December 2001 from the same three Mexican ecclesiastics as well as from Fr. Olimón Nolasco, the main purpose of which was to criticize Cardinal Rivera for "demonizing" those who were opposed to the canonization. On all this correspondence, see Baracs.> <Note 11. For a sympathetic review in Spanish of Encuentro, see Luis Martínez Ferrer, Anuario de Historia de la Iglesia, vol. 9, University of Navarre, Spain, pp.597-600> <Note 12. "Homily of John Paul II at the canonization Mass">

Primary sources:- Acta Apostolicae Sedis 82 [1990], 94 [2002], 95 [2003]. Secondary sources:- Chávez Sánchez, Eduardo, Camino a la canonizacíon (2001); Norberto Cardinal Rivera: Carta Pastoral por la canonización del Beato Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, 26 February 2002; and appendix 5 to Pulso y Corazon de un Pueblo, by Fidel González Fernández (Encuentro Ediciones, México, 2005). For the polemic, see: González Fernández, Fidel, Eduardo Chávez Sánchez, José Luis Guerrero Rosado: El encuentro de la Virgen de Guadalupe y Juan Diego (Ediciones Porrúa, México, 1999, 4th edn. 2001); Olimón Nolasco: La Búsqueda de Juan Diego (Plaza y Janés, México, 2002);; Poole, "History versus Juan Diego" [talk, printed in The Americas, 62:1, July 2005, pp.1-16]; Brading, pp. 338-341, 348-360, and Baracs, "Querella por Juan Diego", La Jornada Semanal, n° 390, August 25, 2002, offer dispassionate views of the controversy.

Text of proposed new section ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Ridiculus mus (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Juan Diego/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page needs to mark references, especially with the doubts of Juan Diego's historical existence. Where, precisely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiculus mus (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)