La Virgen Morena

1. As many know, the Lady of Guadalupe is a vision of a woman that an Aztec peasant named Cuauhtlatoatzin (Christianized name: Juan Diego) claimed appeared to him on four separate occassions. All the visions occurred in the month of December 1531. All the visions appeared to him near or on the hill of Tepeyac. This hill was outside Mexico City back then, but today it's within Mexico City.

There's a fifth vision, but Juan Diego didn't see it. Rather it was Juan Diego's uncle Juan Bernardino who claimed to have seen the Lady of Guadalupe at his bedside.

2. Triabloggers have discussed the Lady of Guadalupe:

• The Virgin of Guadalupe
• "Our Lady of Guadalupe"
• Apocalyptic Guadalupe
• 'Cause in a sky full of stars, I think I saw you

3. Who or what could the Lady of Guadalupe be? Some possibilities:

a. She could be fake. What I mean is she might have a naturalistic explanation. Perhaps Juan Diego was on drugs. For example, it's known Aztecs used entheogens.

Another explanation is maybe Juan Diego had a neurological or psychiatric illness that would've been undiagnosed at the time.

In this vein, I try to explain why I find the scientific evidence lacking or at least dubious in my post. Not that this necessarily means what Juan Diego saw can be explained in terms of naturalistic processes, but serious doubts about the scientific evidence would support such a case if it were to be made.

b. She could be a lie. Is Juan Diego a real person? If he is, could Juan Diego have fabricated the story? I don't necessarily mean he lied out of malice or the like, though I wouldn't necessarily close the door on that possibility. I mean it could have been unintentional and benign on his part. For instance, if, despite being Catholic, Juan Diego was still influenced enough by Aztec ethics, then it's possible he may have different ideas about what constitutes lying.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I assume Juan Diego is real and I assume the accounts of Juan Diego are reliable. To my knowledge, the earliest extant accounts of Juan Diego's vision of the Lady of Guadalupe are: Imagen de la Virgen María by Miguel Sánchez published in Spanish (1648) and Huei tlamahuiçoltica (English: The Great Happening) by Luis Lasso de la Vega published in Nahuatl (1649) which is an Uto-Aztecan language.

c. She could be who she claims she is. That is, an apparition of Mary. That's highly dubious with respect to what the Bible teaches. Not to mention Catholic Mariology is problematic in other respects too. Many people have covered this ground before.

d. She could be a vision caused by a person through their own preternatural abilities. Perhaps psi or related abilities. This doesn't exclude influence from evil spirits. The secularist philosopher Stephen Braude has discussed psi. Likewise so have Jason and Steve.

e. She could be a vision caused by a person immersed in the occult. Perhaps a local Aztec shaman at the time. Perhaps a Mesoamerican who wanted to trick Juan Diego. This could be in association with malevolent spirits.

f. She could be a malevolent spirit. An evil spirit. Such as a fallen angel, demon, or ghost. Perhaps one or more in collusion with one another. This could be related to someone immersed in the occult, but it could be independent inasmuch as evil spirits are their own agents.

4. It's interesting how Bishop Barron describes the Lady of Guadalupe in Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith:

[T]he symbolic power of the image is extraordinary. The Virgin on the tilma is not a European or an Indian, but a mestiza, a blend of the two races. Mexicans today refer to her affectionately as La Virgen Morena (the brown-skinned Virgin). It is as though the Blessed Mother was humbly identifying herself with the new people who were emerging in that time and place. The cincture that she wears was an Aztec sign of pregnancy, and therefore it is clear that La Virgen Morena is bringing a new life and a new birth to the people of Mexico. She stands in front of the sun, whose rays can be seen behind her, her feet are on the moon, and her mantle is bedecked with stars. The sun, moon, and stars were all deities for the ancient Aztecs, and thus the Lady is declaring herself to be more powerful than the Indian gods. At the same time, she keeps her eyes down and her hands folded in an attitude of prayer, acknowledging that there is one still greater than she. In recent years astronomers have noted that the arrangement of the stars on her cloak corresponds precisely to the position of the constellations on December 12, 1531. And perhaps most astonishingly, through microscopic investigation ophthalmologists have discovered images of human figures in the eye of La Virgen Morena that correspond to the positions such images would have in a functioning eye, and these reflections are credibly of Zumárraga and his confreres at the moment of the unfolding of the tilma. Her name, “Guadalupe,” is probably a Spanish deformation of the Nuatl term coatlaxopeuh, (pronounced coat-la-soupay), which means “the one who crushes the serpent.” This name has a double sense, for the serpent was another chief divinity of the Aztecs, and, in the Christian context, the book of Genesis speaks of the serpent (the tempter) that would “strike at the heel” of the offspring of the archetypal woman.

What no one, even the most stubborn skeptic, can dispute is that within ten years of the apparition to Juan Diego almost the entire Mexican nation—nine million people—converted to Christianity. That amounts to approximately three thousand people per day for ten years, a mini-Pentecost every day for a decade. And the image continues to beguile, fascinate, and beckon. The shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe is the most visited religious site in the Christian world, surpassing Lourdes, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and St. Peter’s itself. People still go there by the millions every year in order to commune with La Virgen Morena, many journeying to her over many miles on their knees. There is a story told about a charismatic evangelical preacher in California who was trying to draw Hispanics away from what he took to be the heresies of Catholicism. He gathered a huge crowd in central Los Angeles and proceeded to harangue them about the outrages of the papacy, the superstition of the Rosary, and the silliness of invoking the saints. After each of these sections of his speech, the people cheered lustily. Then the preacher took out a large reproduction of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and proceeded to tear it in two. There was a moment of shocked silence. Then the people rushed the stage, and the poor preacher had to be removed by the police!

The total capturing of the hearts of the Mexican people—across five hundred years—is but one dimension of La Virgen Morena’s impact. Because of her, another major cultural shift was effected, namely, the ending of human sacrifice in the New World. The Aztec divinities—the gods of the stars, the moon, and the sun, as well as the great serpent god—were regularly appeased through human sacrifice, the offering of the heads and hearts of innocent victims. The cultural anthropologist and philosopher René Girard helps us to understand the pervasiveness of this practice in the ancient world as well as the presence of it, in mitigated forms, today. When tensions arise within a society, Girard argues, a scapegoating mechanism is triggered. Following this largely unconscious impulse, we find someone or some group to blame and then, together, we discharge our anxiety onto him or them. In doing so we feel, however fleetingly, a rush of relief and a sense of common purpose. This is why we tend to feel that the gods are pleased with the scapegoating move. Human sacrifice is the extreme expression of this mechanism, and that is why it was so widely practiced, especially in societies that felt most acutely threatened by enemies or by the capricious elements of nature. The great pyramids of Teotihuacan outside Mexico City are architectural masterpieces, but they were also the setting for thousands upon thousands of human sacrifices offered to the bloodthirsty gods of the Aztecs. As I have suggested, Girard feels that to one degree or another all human groups—from the coffee klatch, to the faculty lounge, to the nation-state—tend to organize themselves around scapegoating, blaming, and recrimination.

When she appeared to Juan Diego, Mary said that she was the Mother of the Most High God, the one who had brought the God-man into the world. When her child came of age, he conquered violence through the power of nonviolent love. He became, himself, the victim of scapegoating violence and thereby unmasked the usually hidden dynamic that drives and orders most human societies. The cross of Jesus undermined any claim that the true God is pleased with human sacrifice, and it showed the way toward a culture grounded in love, what Jesus called the Kingdom of God. Therefore it is not the least surprising that the announcement of Mary’s Son to the New World was the death knell for a religion centered on human sacrifice. Mind you, I labor under no illusions about the atrocities perpetrated by the Spaniards of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I fully realize that they were no angels. But by God, the Son of Our Lady of Guadalupe was introduced to Mexico, and human sacrifice ended. In the sixteenth century, as Christianity was moving into an entirely new world, Mary was on mission. It is the conviction of the church that she will “proceed in haste” in her work until the return of her Son.

a. I've already criticized the scientific evidence in an earlier post.

b. I suppose Barron intends for the story about the evangelical preacher needing police protection from the crowds after tearing an image of the Lady of Guadalupe in half to show how much love and devotion there is from the people for her. She "captur[ed]" their "hearts". If so, that's true enough, but that doesn't mean she deserves their love and devotion! On the contrary, the entire episode reminds me of the riot in Ephesus in Acts 19. Here's an excerpt:

"[T]here is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship." When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul's companions in travel. But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him. And even some of the Asiarchs, who were friends of his, sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater. Now some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd. But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"

c. Barron argues the Lady of Guadalupe is the virgin Mary because Catholicism ousted the Aztec religions. For starters, I don't think Catholicism is necessarily significantly better than the Aztec religions...excepting (obviously) human sacrifices. Almost anything is better than that! Otherwise, folk Catholicism in Latin America and the Aztec religions seem more or less on par in a lot of ways (e.g. patron gods/saints for each town). And Catholicism has many problems in and of itself. Problems which many other people have detailed.

d. Not to mention Aztec and other Mesoamerican religions still exist today. There are deities still worshipped today. I'm sure it's nothing in comparison to how many Catholics there are. Nevertheless suppose the old religions are increasing in followers again. If they're increasing, then does that mean Catholicism is less true than it was before?

e. Did Catholicism get rid of human sacrifice? I would have thought it was the Spanish military which forbade human sacrifice. I'm sure they forbade human sacrifice due to their Catholic-influenced beliefs. However, if that's the argument, then we could argue like this. Suppose it had been the British who had conquered the Aztecs, then the Protestant-influenced British would've gotten rid of human sacrifice. Hence Protestant Christianity is true.

Indeed, this isn't a mere hypothetical. The British helped largely end the practice of sati in India. Consider Charles Napier's famous words about the Hindu practice of sati:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

As such, should Protestants argue Protestant Christianity is true because the Protestant-influenced British helped eradicate sati in many parts of India?

f. Was it Catholicism qua Catholicism that displaced the Aztec religions? Rather it seems to me it was the Spanish conquistadors who conquered the Aztec empire who wiped out the Aztec religions. The conquistadors who pillaged their temples. The conquistadors who destroyed Aztec religious idols and religious sites. The conquistadors who forbade Aztec religious customs. The conquistadors who stopped the Aztec practice of capturing other Mesoamerican prisoners in their "flower wars" to use as human sacrifices. And so on. Would Catholicism justify physically wiping out a religion like the conquistadors did to the Aztec religions? If not, then they didn’t act as Catholics when they did so.

g. Many vanquished peoples voluntarily take on the gods of their conquerors. That's been the case throughout history including biblical history. In fact, wasn't that the case in much of 16th century Europe too - cuius regio, eius religio? I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with the Aztecs.

h. Many Aztecs and other Mesoamericans were killed by disease brought to them by Spaniards and other Europeans (e.g. smallpox). If there are far fewer people, then that will impact the religion too, inasmuch as there are fewer adherents to continue the religion.

i. What Barron writes could be taken to support the idea that there's been religious syncretism between Latin and Central American Catholicism and Aztec and other Mesoamerican religions. I'm sure Barron would disagree, but I think it's quite debatable.

j. As a side note, perhaps Barron would argue Aztec religions point to Catholicism. Perhaps like how C.S. Lewis argued Christ is myth made fact, from which Lewis primarily (not exclusively) seemed to mean something like Greco-Roman myths pointed to a savior figure, of which Christ was the consummation of these myths in the flesh, not to mention that some noble pagans may have been saved (e.g. if I recall Lewis broaches this about Virgil). Perhaps like how Don Richardson argues in Eternity in Their Hearts that God has left traces of himself throughout other religions and cultures. Perhaps like how David Marshall argues that Jesus fulfills Chinese culture in his books (e.g. True Son of Heaven, Jesus and the Religions of Man). I assume Barron, Lewis, Richardson, and Marshall would partly base their arguments in the apostle Paul's talk about the unknown God on the Areopagus. It's an interesting question which involves God's common grace, general revelation, the human conscience, the noetic effects of sin, and several other things. But I'm probably getting sidetracked now.

k. In light of what Barron says, it's interesting there's debate over whether the Lady of Guadalupe might be the Aztec goddess Tonantzin. As such, Barron may take the Lady of Guadalupe to be the virgin Mary, but apparently some Latin and Native Americans take the Lady of Guadalupe to be the Aztec goddess Tonantzin. Who's correct? Isn't it a problem in and of itself when the lines can be so easily blurred?

l. Again, Barron argues evidence that the Lady of Guadalupe is the virgin Mary because Catholicism replaced Aztec religion. However, if Aztec religions syncretized with Catholicism, then Aztec religions didn't necessarily ever disappear so much as become part of something else.

m. If so, then I wouldn't have to change much of Barron's own words in this paragraph:

The symbolic power of the image is extraordinary. The Aztec goddess Tonantzin on the tilma is not a European or an Indian, but a mestiza, a blend of the two races. Mexicans today refer to her affectionately as La Virgen Morena (the brown-skinned Virgin). It is as though Our Great Mother, the Goddess of Sustenance, was humbly identifying herself with the new people who were emerging in that time and place. The cincture that she wears was an Aztec sign of pregnancy, and therefore it is clear that Tonantzin is bringing a new life and a new birth to the people of Mexico. She stands in front of the sun, whose rays can be seen behind her, her feet are on the moon, and her mantle is bedecked with stars. The sun, moon, and stars were all deities for the ancient Aztecs, and thus the Tonantzin is declaring herself to be more powerful than other gods, Mesoamerican and European. At the same time, she keeps her eyes down and her hands folded in an attitude of prayer, acknowledging that there is one still greater than she. In recent years astronomers have noted that the arrangement of the stars on her cloak corresponds precisely to the position of the constellations on December 12, 1531. And perhaps most astonishingly, through microscopic investigation ophthalmologists have discovered images of human figures in the eye of La Virgen Morena that correspond to the positions such images would have in a functioning eye, and these reflections are credibly of Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin and his uncle at the moment of the unfolding of the tilma. Her name, Coatlaxopeuh (pronounced coat-la-soupay) is probably a Nuatl deformation of the Spanish term Guadalupe, alluding to "the one who crushes the serpent." This name has a double sense, for the serpent was another chief teotl of the Europeans, and, in a Mesoamerican context, Aztec Codex Borbonicus speaks of the serpent (Quetzalcoatl) that would “strike at the heel” of the offspring of the archetypal woman.