”..the Catholic church as a body does claim divine authority to judge these matters... otherwise they could possibly be encouraging spiritism or divination, if their judgment was sometimes incorrect..”
This shows some unfamiliarity with the way such judgments are made in the Catholic Church. There is no doctrine which would forbid Catholics from petitioning intercessory prayer from any person whatsoever, saint or sinner, living or dead. I can ask my mother (d.1994) for her prayers. I can ask the Archangel Michael for his prayers. I could ask you for your prayers --- and I don’t even know if you’re a theist. That should be sufficient evidence of our promiscuity as to asking, and offering, intercessory prayer.
(I’m not speaking here about acts of formal recognition, such as their inclusion at the altar in a public liturgy which can only be done after a strict formal investigation and the approval of the bishop.)
BTW, this is not “spiritism”, i.e. the dead communicating with the living, something which we are strictly not to solicit.
”Since the process of sainthood is dependent on the process that verifies miracles, the same level of authority must be assumed to be at work there too..”
Some theologians would say that if a canonization is solemnly proclaimed by the Pope himself, it is infallible; however, this opinion itself has not been defined as doctrine, and so disagreement is possible. Asked this question, Fr. Edward McNamara, a liturgy professor at Regina Apostolorum (Link) had this to say: “ The reason is that the decisions emanating from the consistory are juridical and not theological in nature.”
And he goes on and onnnn about degrees of authority. It is well to remember that the process of canonization is not part of the Deposit of Faith and is not set in stone; it’s not standardized in the Scripture or in the Fathers; it can be revised (as it was in 1917, and again in 1983).
About the absence of any reporting of the Guadalupe apparition in the letters of Bp Juan de Zumárraga:
If you knew the appalling situation Zumárraga was in, you would not be surprised. The top civil authorities at the time were the vicious Nuno de Guzmán and his henchmen: enslavers and abusers of the indigenous people. Guzmán mistreated some missionaries, and went so far as to threaten to hang the bishop for rebellion.. They were sworn enemies of Zumárraga, who was very vulnerable because as “Protector of the Indians” he had no troops or enforcement measures whatsoever except for moral suasion.
Knowing that Zumárraga meant to report their crimes to the Spanish Court, Nuno and his men intercepted and censored all letters from New Spain. (Zumárraga finally did get one uncensored letter through in a cake of wax which he immersed in a barrel of oil!) He revealed that the first missionaries, starting with Fray Bartolomé de Olmedo, despite their zeal were ineffective in converting the Indians.
At the beginning of 1530, after Guzmán had departed, the acts of oppression of his fellow administrators against Indians and missionaries were such that Zumárraga declared an interdict against them: a suspension of Mass and the Sacraments. Guzman’s clique were for a time excommunicated. Suffice it to say that in letters before the Guadalupe Event you find Zumarraga despondent about the moral depravity of New Spain and the general lack of success of the Catholic mission.
In any case, the conquerors’ excesses resulted in a great deal of rancor and hatred by the conquered. The Aztec, Chichimec, and related people were stolidly opposed to conversion to the Christian faith; neither did the Spanish political and military leaders favor it, since they were interested in exploiting the indigenous people, not telling them that they were spiritual equals, created not for slavery, but for liberty and dignity. (The military governors were not about to expose the Indians to the Natural Law theories of Bartolome de las Casas or the School of Salamanca!)
So it stood before 1531: the Indians sullen when not in open rebellion, the Bishop depressed and beleaguered.
Then from 1532 until his death in 1548, bang! Zumarraga’s letters show a transformed man, a whirlwind of optimism: he sent for teachers and established schools in which Indian girls enrolled in droves; founded the Colegio Tlaltelolco and various hospitals (Mexico City and Veracruz); instituted technical schools in mechanics, agriculture, and industrial trades; and, just two years before he died, introduced the first printing press in the Western Hemisphere. And native people were begging for baptism, not only in Mexico City, but Tlaxcala, Texcoco, Huejotzingo, and as far away as Veracruz: during the last years of Zumarraga’s episcopate, at the very least, 5 million Indios baptized.
“[Nican Mopohua] ...an official document of who? The church, the government, the local priest?”
It is a classical Nahuatl work, written as a Tecpaneca testimonial, as is indicted by the words “Nican Mopohua,” repeated throughout the text, which manifest a formal declaration (“It is hereby declared.”) The author, Don Antonio Valeriano, was a nephew of emperor Montezuma and a witness, as he lived between 1520 and 1606. He was 11 years old in 1531, the year of the apparitions, and 28 in 1548, when Juan Diego Cuautlatoatzin died. In 1533, at 13 years of age, Don Antonio Valeriano, acquainted with Nahuatl literary and courtly tradition through the tutelage of his parents, began studies at the Holy Cross School of Tlatelolco, founded by Zumarraga. He was, therefore, one of the first Indians to speak and write Latin, Spanish and Nahuatl, and was governor of Azcapotzalco for 35 years.
There’s more documentary proof for the Nican Mopohua than for any other Nahuatl document of the 16th-17th centuries. As I see it, you either have to consider it "very probably reliable," or dismiss native testimony altogether.
And as for the Codex Escalada (Link), well, judge for yourself.
About conversions and numbers:
I would like to see reasonable guesstimates for the population of Mexico in the 1530’s. The native people of Mexico experienced epidemic diseases in the wake of European conquest, beginning with the smallpox epidemic of 1519 to 1520 when 5 million to 8 million people perished.(I got this from a CDC historical review of infectious diseases (Link) I have seen estimates that the population of Mexico City dropped as low as 100,000.
”How many people were converted to Islam in a few decades? That doesn’t require any miraculous explanation, so why does this?”
"A few decades"... are you speaking of the century after Muhammad's hegira?? And were those conversions to Islam occasioned by girls' schools, barefoot mendicant preachers, opponents of oppression, and hevenly apparitions of maternal sweetness --- or by jihad? You tell me.
“This shows some unfamiliarity with the way such judgments are made in the Catholic Church. There is no doctrine which would forbid Catholics from petitioning intercessory prayer from any person whatsoever, saint or sinner, living or dead.”
Well, that is interesting. Every Catholic apologist that I have talked to defends prayer to mortal creatures by appealing to the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints to avoid a charge of divination or spiritism. Now, if you are correct, and you are allowed to pray to anyone, saint or sinner, then that defense seems gutted to me, since communing with a dead sinner would be outside the Communion of the Saints.
“BTW, this is not “spiritism”, i.e. the dead communicating with the living, something which we are strictly not to solicit.”
How is it not the same? There is some spiritual difference between communing with the dead while seeking and answer and simply communing with the dead without seeking a reply? God forbade the act of communication, not the nature of communication.
“Asked this question, Fr. Edward McNamara, a liturgy professor at Regina Apostolorum (Link) had this to say: “ The reason is that the decisions emanating from the consistory are juridical and not theological in nature.””
Well, that opinion seems to hinge on what I talked about above: whether prayer to the dead is truly forbidden, or not. If the Catholic church is really of the opinion that it is never forbidden, then his answer is at least consistent, but I’d still think that it was foolish. However, if it’s at least consistent, then I guess the Bishop could have been afraid to report the miracle “upstairs”, for fear they would denounce it or suppress the Indians because of it.
“Knowing that Zumárraga meant to report their crimes to the Spanish Court, Nuno and his men intercepted and censored all letters from New Spain.”
Ah, but letters weren’t the only means he had available. Not too long after the supposed date of the miracle, Zumarraga returned to Spain personally. He was there for several years, so he should have had every opportunity to circumvent any Spanish interference and give his testimony directly to his superiors.
“At the beginning of 1530, after Guzmán had departed, the acts of oppression of his fellow administrators against Indians and missionaries were such that Zumárraga declared an interdict against them: a suspension of Mass and the Sacraments.”
You’re describing situation where the Indians are pretty much prey to the Spanish, and the only ones who provide any comfort or aid to them are the Catholics. I’d say that, at least in part, is itself a possible explanation for why so many decided to adopt Catholicism. Also, the Indians who converted surely enjoyed some social or material benefits as a side effect, which when seen by other desperate Indians, could cause a cascade.
“The author, Don Antonio Valeriano, was a nephew of emperor Montezuma and a witness, as he lived between 1520 and 1606. He was 11 years old in 1531, the year of the apparitions”
Are those the correct dates? Wikipedia says: Antonio Valeriano (ca. 1531–1605), but the Spanish versions says: Antonio Valeriano (Azcapotzalco, 1522? - 1605). I found one book on google books saying 1531, and another saying 1520. That’s kind of important to figure out, because if he was an infant when this happened, then he couldn’t be a firsthand witness to much of anything.
“There’s more documentary proof for the Nican Mopohua than for any other Nahuatl document of the 16th-17th centuries. As I see it, you either have to consider it “very probably reliable,” or dismiss native testimony altogether.”
No, it’s not really such a cut and dry choice. The reliability of the document and the veracity of the testimony are two separate issues. Even if we assume the document is authentic, properly dated and attributed, we should still evaluate the testimony like any other, to see how much weight to give it.
For example, if someone found Joseph Smith’s original golden plates today and could confirm they were authentic, that wouldn’t confirm the testimony of the Book of Mormon as being accurate. Likewise, if the manuscripts are reliable, then we can say the story was older than the published version, but not that the story is necessarily accurate.
“I would like to see reasonable guesstimates for the population of Mexico in the 1530’s.”
The best link I can find is this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/202984?uid=3739656&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101489859973
Which says there was a decline from 25.2 to 16.8 million between 1518 and 1532. So, at those figures, 5 million converts would probably be somewhere between 25-30% of the population, or 5-6% per year. Impressive, and considering that another 10 million or so died in the next 16 years, it’s not hard to see Mexico becoming completely Catholic in short order, but I don’t think that is necessarily miraculous.
“A few decades”... are you speaking of the century after Muhammad’s hegira??
Yes, or even just looking at a particular subset of that for a better comparison. Muhammed managed to convert the Arabian peninsula in ten years, which I think neither of us would categorize as miraculous.
“And were those conversions to Islam occasioned by girls’ schools, barefoot mendicant preachers, opponents of oppression, and hevenly apparitions of maternal sweetness -— or by jihad? You tell me.”
Of course it was by jihad, but that’s not the point. You proposed that there isn’t any other possible explanation for a mass conversion like that besides the miracle. I say, there are plenty of other possible explanations, because we see similar conversions happening from time to time in history which we know are not miraculous. It doesn’t matter what particular reason caused any of those conversions, just that they aren’t miraculous, to demonstrate that other reasons can achieve the result. So, unless we can rule out the possible natural causes, we shouldn’t take it as evidence of a supernatural cause.