The Virgin of Guadalupe

About Skeptoid

Topics

Store

Community

Live Shows

Books & Videos

Search

"Environmental Toxins" inFact with Brian Dunning Skeptoid is hosted and produced by Brian Dunning

The Virgin of Guadalupe

Setting the Bloop Straight Skeptoid #339, Dec 4 2012 Read | Listen (13:03) The Flat Earth Theory Skeptoid #338, Nov 27 2012 Read | Listen (12:41) The Bermuda Triangle and the Devil's Sea Skeptoid #337, Nov 20 2012 Read | Listen (13:37) How to Tell a Good Website from a Crap Website Skeptoid #336, Nov 13 2012 Read | Listen (13:33) Cleansing Diets: Why or Why Not? Skeptoid #335, Nov 6 2012 Read | Listen (14:24) Is the Virgin of Guadalupe a miraculous apparition, a dismissable religious icon, or does it have more importance? Filed under Ancient Mysteries, Religion Skeptoid #201 April 13, 2010 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Today we're going to travel back to the time of the Conquistadors, when Spanish soldiers marched through Aztec jungles and spread Catholicism to the New World. We're going to examine an object that is central to faith in Mexico: An image called the Virgin of Guadalupe. The Virgin of Guadalupe is basically Mexico's version of the Shroud of Turin. Both are pieces of fabric, hundreds of years old, on which appears an image said to be miraculous. Both are considered sacred objects. But the Virgin of Guadalupe is a much more powerful icon to many Mexicans. There's hardly anywhere you can go in Mexico and not find a reproduction of the image. Its importance as a religious and cultural symbol cannot be understated, for it came from the very hands of The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Queen of Mexico and Empress of the Americas.

#1 - The Grey Man of Ben MacDhui Read | Listen #2 - The Mystery of the Mary Celeste Read | Listen #3 - Approaching a Subject Skeptically Read | Listen #4 - Pit Bull Attack! Read | Listen #5 - The Toxic Lady Read | Listen #6 - 8 Spooky Places, and Why They're Like That Read | Listen #7 - Skinwalkers Read | Listen #8 - Student Questions: Food Woo and Iron

The Virgin of Guadalupe (Public Domain image)

A legend well known in Mexico tells how it came to be. In 1531, the Spanish had been occupying Mexico for about ten years. An indigenous peasant, Juan Diego, was walking in what's now Mexico City when he saw the glowing figure of a teenage girl on a hill called Tepeyac. She identified herself as the Virgin Mary, and asked him to build her a church on that spot. Diego recounted this to the Archbishop of Mexico, Juan de Zumrraga (1468-1548). Zumrraga was skeptical and told Diego to return and ask her to prove her identity with a miracle. Diego did return, and encountered the apparition again. She told him to climb to the top of the hill and pick some flowers to present to the Bishop. Although it was winter and no flowers should have been in bloom, Juan Diego found an abundance of flowers of a type he'd never seen before. The Virgin Mary bundled the flowers into Diego's cloak,

Join today and become a part of this.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201[08/12/2012 02:08:56 p.m.]

The Virgin of Guadalupe

Man at the Airport Read | Listen

Recent Comments...
The Mystery of the Mary Celeste by anna: "I READ THE SYORY ABOUT MARY CELESTE. I ALSO READ ABOUT THE OCEAN GARBGE PATCH. THE OCEAN GARBGE PATCH SAID THAT ALL THE GARBGE GOES" The Tehran 1976 UFO by Sceptical Steve: "Marko, what is needed is proof that cannot be dismissed so easily, in this example we have pilots who hardly flew at night in their" All About Fluoridation by god: "Swallowing fluoride o help your teeth is exactly as effective as wallowing shampoo to clean your hair. Or drinking unscreen. Funny that anyone who claims" The Siberian Hell Sounds by Frank: "I dont know if his is actually real or not, but hell definately is real. Jesus even spent three days here according to his estimony" Gluten Free Diets by Mick: "What about the book "Wheat Belly" by William Davis? Seems like he pretty much says all wheat is bad for us... http://www.amazon.ca/Wh ea t-Belly-WilliamDavis/dp/ 443412732/ref=sr_1_1?ie= UTF8&qid=1349941173&a" The Oak Island Money Pit by Mud: "extremely radioactive resonating from holes? What do you mean by radioactive. A brick can extremely radioactive if you are doing environmental measurements based on gamma"

woven from common cactus fiber and called a tilma. When Juan Diego presented the tilma to Zumrraga, the flowers fell out and he recognized them as Castilian roses, not found in Mexico; but more significantly, the tilma had been miraculously imprinted with a colorful image of the Virgin herself. This actual tilma, preserved since that date and showing the familiar image of the Virgin Mary with her head bowed and hands together in prayer, is the Virgin of Guadalupe. It remains perhaps the most sacred object in all of Mexico. The story is best known from a manuscript written in the Aztecs' native language Nahuatl by the scholar Antonio Valeriano (1531-1605), the Nican Mopohua. By the European watermark on its paper, it's known to have been written sometime after 1556. This was widely published in a larger collection in 1649 by the lawyer Luis Laso de la Vega. Zumrraga and Juan Diego were both dead by the time Valeriano wrote it, so where did he get his information? A red flag that a number of historians have put forth is that Bishop Zumrraga was a prolific writer. Yet, in not a single one of his known letters, is there any mention of Juan Diego, his miraculous apparition, the roses, or the cloak bearing the image, or any other element of the story in which Zumrraga was alleged to have played so prominent a role.
Specializing in the application of Magni, Doerken and Xylan Coatings.
www.sunbeltcoating.com

Dip Spin Fastener Coating

Not everyone agrees. In the 2000 book in Spanish, Juan Diego, una Vida de Santidad que Marc la Historia (A Life of Holiness that Made History), author Eduardo Chavez Snchez gives, at some length, various quotations from letters by Zumrraga that he believes confirms the Juan Diego narrative. I found his list to be extraordinarily unconvincing, and I would honestly describe it as really desperate scraping of the bottom of the barrel to find a quote-minable quote. In fact, the only quote from Zumrraga I found that was remotely close was: An Indian goes to Brother Toribio and all will be in praise of God. That sounds great because he mentions an Indian talking to a Catholic figure, but there's no mention of this Indian's name, no mention in the Juan Diego stories of a Brother Toribio (that I could find), and no elements of the Juan Diego story included in this single-sentence snippet. So unless some more of Zumrraga's writings come to light, I'm going to agree with the historians who say Zumrraga wrote nothing of these events, which casts doubt on his role in something that would have been of such great importance to him. The name Juan Diego itself suggests that the story was a fictional invention. It basically translates as John Doe, a generic everyman, whose identity is unimportant. This doesn't prove anything, since there certainly were real people named Juan Diego, but it is an intriguing element. It is the actual image of Mary itself that tells us the most about its true history. As every schoolchild knows, Hernn Corts (1485-1547) was the Spanish Conquistador who overthrew the Aztec empire and placed much of Mexico under Spanish control in 1521. He was born in a region of Spain called Extremadura, and grew up to revere Our Lady of Guadalupe, a statue of a black version of the Virgin Mary, at the Santa Mara de Guadalupe monastery in Extremadura. This statue is credited with miraculously helping to expel the Moors from Spain in the Reconquista. Corts brought reproductions of this European image of Mary with him when he went to the New World. Her dark skin resembled the Aztecs, and she became the perfect icon for the missionaries who followed Corts to rally the natives into Christianity.

One such missionary was Fray Pedro de Gante (1480-1572), a Franciscan monk from Belgium (born Pieter van der Moere) who learned the Aztec language and created the first European-style school in Mexico, San Jose de los Naturales. One of his promising art students was a young Aztec man with the Christian name Marcos Cipac de Aquino, one of three known prolific Aztec artists of the period. In 1555, the newly arrived Archbishop of Mexico, Alonso de Montfar (1489-1572), successor to the deceased Zumrraga, was looking to commission a portrait of the Virgin Mary, as a sort of teaching aide to help convert the Aztecs. Montfar found the young artist Marcos at de Gante's school. And so, in 1555, the Aztec artist Marcos Cipac de Aquino painted a portrait of the Virgin Mary, with dark skin, with head slightly bowed and hands together in prayer, on a common cactus-fiber canvas. The painting was named the Virgin of Guadalupe according to the tradition Corts

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201[08/12/2012 02:08:56 p.m.]

The Virgin of Guadalupe

brought from Spain. Although the Extremadura statue was not in this pose, the pose was still one of European tradition. The most often cited example of Mary in this exact pose is the painting A Lady of Mercy, attributed to Bonanat Zaortiga and on display at the National Art Museum of Catalunya, painted in the 1430's. Marcos followed more than a century of European tradition. There was a pragmatic element to Montfar's introduction of this painting and allowing it to be worshipped. Before the Conquistadors, Tepeyac was home to an Aztec temple, built to honor the Aztecs' own virgin goddess, Tonantzin. So rather than replacing the Aztec goddess, Montfar's plan was simply to introduce Mary by giving Tonantzin a name and a face (recall that Marcos had painted the Virgin with dark skin). This process of using an existing belief system to graft on a new one has been called syncretism. Understandably, this exploitation of a pagan idol caused discomfort among some of the Franciscan priests, while many of the Dominicans welcomed the way it helped baptize 8,000,000 Aztecs. The primary corroborating documentation of Marcos' painting is a report from the Church in 1556, when this growing disagreement between the Franciscans and the Dominicans prompted an investigation into the origins of the tilma. Two of the Franciscans submitted sworn statements in which they expressed their concern that worshipping the tilma was leading the Aztecs to return to their traditional pagan ways. One described the image as "a painting that the Indian painter Marcos had done" while another said it was "painted yesteryear by an Indian". Appearing on the side of the Dominicans, who favored allowing the Aztecs to worship the image, was Bishop Montfar himself. As a result, the construction of a much larger church was authorized at Tepeyac, in which the tilma was mounted and displayed. Significantly, the 1556 report is the most extensive documentation concerning the Virgin tilma of its century, and it makes no mention whatsoever of Juan Diego, the miraculous appearance of the image, or any other element from the legend. If the miracle story did exist at that time, it seems inconceivable that it could have been omitted from this report. This strongly supports the suggestion that the Juan Diego legend had not yet been conceived. It also supports that Valeriano's Nican Mopohua was written later. The legend did get its first boost of testable evidence in 1995, which (in a case of suspiciously fortuitous timing) was after Juan Diego's beatification in 1990, while there was still debate over whether he should be canonized (he ultimately was, in 2002). A Spanish Jesuit named Javier Escalada produced a deerskin which pictorially depicted the Juan Diego legend and has become known as the Codex Escalada. The Codex also mentioned several historical people, and even bore the signature of a Franciscan historian, Bernardino de Sahagn (1499-1590), dated 1548. Basically, it was the Perfect Storm of tailor-made evidence proving that the Juan Diego legend was the accepted history at the time. A little too tailor made though; no serious historians have supported its authenticity. The best analysis I've found is by Alberto Peralta of the Proyecto Guadalupe project. Based on its dubious unveiling, numerous inconsistencies, and other factors, Peralta concludes that it's impossible for the document to be authentic.

If the Virgin tilma is indeed a painting, and not a miraculously produced image, then it should be a simple matter to determine that scientifically. There are obvious signs that are hard to argue with, notably that the paint is flaking along a vertical seam in the fabric. But a truly scientific examination involving sampling of the material has not been permitted. The most notable examination was a three hour infrared photographic session by Philip Callahan in 1981, who did note multiple layers of paint covering changes to the hands and crown, but came away with more questions than answers. Callahan found, for example, that most of the entire painting seemed to have been done with a single brush stroke. He recommended a series of more tests, but the only one allowed by the Church was a spectrophotometric examination done by Donald Lynn from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The only result released of his examination was that "nothing unusual" was found. Much has been made of the claim that figures can be seen reflected in Mary's eyes, with some even identifying these figures as Zumrraga or Juan Diego or other characters from the legend. The Church even went so far in 1956 as to have two ophthalmologists examine the eyes under 2500 magnification. They reported a whole group of figures, including both Aztecs and Franciscans. Why ophthalmologists should be better qualified to identify Aztecs and Franciscans in random blobs of pigment has not been convincingly argued. Photos taken by

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201[08/12/2012 02:08:56 p.m.]

The Virgin of Guadalupe

another ophthalmologist in 1979 have been released, and it's quite obvious that it's simply random noise. I see a dozen or so speckles; if you want to make them into Aztecs, Franciscans, bananas, or Bozo the Clown, then you'll probably also be great at spotting dozens of Bigfoots hiding in any given photograph of a forest. The Virgin of Guadalupe is yet more one mythical story whose believers are missing out on true facts that are actually more respectful and confer more credit upon them than the myth. The image on the Virgin tilma was painted by a native Aztec artist; and the painting had not only an important role in Mexico's early history as a nation, but also a staggering impact upon its culture ever since. Mexicans with Aztec heritage should take pride in the fact that their original culture, specifically the goddess Tonantzin, was a key ingredient in the spread of modern Catholicism. The Juan Diego myth takes that away, and whitewashes part of Mexican history clean of any Aztec influence. That's a disservice to one of humanity's greatest ancient civilizations, and it's a disservice to history. When we see the Virgin of Guadalupe image today, most people react in one of two ways: They worship it as a miraculous apparition, or they dismiss it as someone else's religious icon. Both reactions miss the much richer true history. The Virgin of Guadalupe stands not only as an invaluable work of ancient art (possibly the most popular piece of art ever created), but also as a reminder of how the conquest of Mexico was truly accomplished: Not only its military conquest, but one of history's greatest religious conversions as well. Follow me on Twitter @BrianDunning.

Brian Dunning 2010 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Acosta, M. "Juan Diego: The Saint That Never Was." Free Inquiry. 1 Apr. 2003, Volume 23, Number 2. Nickell, J., Fischer, J. "The Image of Guadalupe: A folkloristic and iconographic investigation." Skeptical Inquirer. 1 Apr. 1985, Volume 9, Number 3: 243-255. Olimon, M. La Bsqueda de Juan Diego. Mexico City: Plaza & Janes, 2002. Peralta, A. "El Cdice 1548." Proyecto Guadalupe. ProyectoGuadalupe.com, 19 Dec. 2001. Web. 5 Apr. 2010. <http://www.proyectoguadalupe.com/apl_1548.html> Sanchez, E. Juan Diego, una vida de santidad que marc la historia. Mexico City: Editorial Porra, 2002. Smith, J. The Image of Guadalupe: Myth or Miracle? Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. Reference this article: Dunning, Brian. "The Virgin of Guadalupe." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 13 Apr 2010. Web. 8 Dec 2012. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201>

Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 71 comments wait so was she a real person or an image? jess, canada May 13, 2012 7:42am

Big fan. Anyway, I heard this podcast about an year or two ago, but decided to finally post. I'm glad you point out the great history without the Catholic white-washing it. I'm usually quiet about the history and truth since many people take it an offense.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201[08/12/2012 02:08:56 p.m.]

The Virgin of Guadalupe

One thing I would recommend you to use to show why this story isn't true is the Virgin of Ocotlan. Just googling it shows you how much the same story was used to convert the "Aztecs" enemies. Though the Nican Mophua isn't historical true. The written context is something very historical. A lot of cultural references in the written text. Tecpaocelotl, Costa Mesa, CA May 16, 2012 1:01pm

Brian and Skeptoid Readers, There is a lot in this article that makes one think about what went on in 1531. The doubts about the tilma are worth considering. A recent scientific study by a number of Spanish and Portuguese SCIENTISTS has been reported out in a power point slide show. I tried to post a link to the slide show but it will not copy. The slide show is linked at the top of this commentary on it: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/F034_OLGuadalupe.html Please consider viewing both the slide show and the commentary on it. There are links provided to additional SCIENTIFIC study reports. Thanks, Keith Keith Werner, Berlin, NJ June 13, 2012 7:21am

Yes because virgin births happen every day in the natural world to! Wake up its all made up nonsense. Rhett, Colorado June 13, 2012 1:00pm

I wish you would discuss the Shroud of Turin. I know it is so obviously a hoax that has been scientifically debunked so thoroughly and convincingly that you probably don't feel it necessary to discuss it, but I think it would be fascinating to explore it in conjunction with its historical context. The manufacture of relics in Medieval and Renaissance Europe for financial gain is not widely known among the faithful, and sadly they continue to revere objects that were cynically concocted to attract pilgrims to the local shrine (The Tourism Industry, Middle Ages Edition), or to increase a town's prestige. The miracle of the Eucharist in Orvieto is another egregious example, and of course we've all heard stories of the saints who have three heads or sixteen toes. Sadly, people still exploit the faith of others for their own financial gain, as the more recent case of the James Ossuary demonstrated. At least those who perpetrated the myth of Guadalupe had more pure intentions, though if we looked too hard at the cruelty of the conversion of Mexico's natives we might feel a bit differently about that. Unless of course, you agree that the ends justify the means. Kate, London UK July 09, 2012 4:00am

I am a practicing Catholic and, sadly, I have to admit that the Church has instigated numerous hoaxes over the centuries in order to keep membership up. This nonsense is unnecessary. The Big Guy rose from the dead and those who witnessed it exposed themselves to ridicule, torture and death, but, yet, carried the story. Fabricated hoaxes serve no purpose. The church has been and still is run by men whose faith is weak. As for the Shroud of Turin, science has not proved it to be a hoax. The idiots who performed the carbon dating tests didn't know that the sample they were given was taken from a patch sewn into the Shroud by nuns following fire damage in the 14th century. A scientist at Los Alamos Lab who is a non-believer and atheist, concluded this after he

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201[08/12/2012 02:08:56 p.m.]

The Virgin of Guadalupe

reluctantly agreed to review the work done by the three independent labs. He also concluded that the Shroud is at least 1,500 years old. Also consider - the Shroud has pollen samples on it from plants which grow only in the area of Jerusalem; the substance is blood, not paint. The scientist also explains the Maillard effect in which a dead body may leave an impression on a sheet in which it is buried, but that the sheet must be removed within no more than 4 or 5 days. I forget the scientists name, but if anyone interested googles the Shroud you will likely come across his findings. I believe his first name was Richard. He died within the past few years. leon ward, chicago, usa August 17, 2012 10:23am

I am always enlighten in reading how skepticism is made many times of a large amount of incorrect sloppy mendacious only half true claims or not good view of primary resources that if they were made by a believers would for sure crush completely any possible consideration of sanity :) maria, NYC August 27, 2012 9:35am

this site helped me learn more about my religion and why we worship her.sorry if you dont understand me imonly in 7th grade i'm embarassed! chloe d., forgan,ok. October 29, 2012 12:38pm

Your parents should be Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ, November 17, 2012 7:33pm

On despite of your research, I believe that the sources that you found are not suficient for you to jump into the conclusion that this image was paint by an Aztec Indigen. I found your research, with lack of knowledge and totally unrespectfull. Cristina, Boise, Id. November 27, 2012 2:13pm Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post: Your Name: City/Location:

Comment:

1500

characters left. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against

other commenters, posts containing advertisements or links to commercial services, nonsense, and other useless posts will be deleted. Answer 4 + 9 =
Submit

You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201[08/12/2012 02:08:56 p.m.]

The Virgin of Guadalupe

Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list. What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4201[08/12/2012 02:08:56 p.m.]