Guadalupan events, January 17, 2009

By Valeretto Francesco - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Guadalupan Controversies in Mexico (Hardcover)
The Guadalupan Controversies in Mexico is a survey from an anti-Guadalupan viewpoint of such
controversies during almost five centuries of History. The actual target of Poole's work is not just
to produce a long series of disputes but to make sense of it. And the sense for him is that the
Guadalupan events - the apparitions of the Virgin together with the existence itself of the visioner
Juan Diego - have no historical ground, in other words they are a story made up by local
ecclesiastics presumably to take advantage for their position, exploited by political leaders as a
symbol of national unity and finally approved by the Vatican to please the Mexicans.
His purpose is to show the following as clear points:
- no authenticity for basic documents like Nican Mopohua or Relatiòn Primitiva, which are said of
"confused" authorship;
- no validity of the Capitular Inquiry of 1665-66, since the witnesses, natives or ecclesiastics, are
said "enthusiastic Guadalupanos", so suspect of being factious even though under oath;
- no validity for oral tradition. Only written evidence is to be accepted;
- inadequate Vatican procedures for the various stages of Guadalupan Cultus and Juan Diego
canonization, with "slanted and one-sided" commissions, under pressures of Mexican
ecclesiastics.
But these points are developed with not enough consistent proof and the author appears too
hasty to draw conclusions, as if they were already given for granted. It follows that on the whole
they are not convincing.
Also the sarcasm words against the pope authority called "papal monarchy" and the Vatican way
of carrying out procedures called "manoevres" with a final suspicion of being "dishonest" as well,
are not of a help for a fair judgement on the part of the author and do not benefit his credibility.
As to the Virgin image, which plays a very important role in Gualupan matter, Poole accepts, as
the Gospel truth, the statement made by the obstinate anti-apparitionist Schulenburg, that it is a
normal painting.The many works with opposite conclusion, like the ones by R.Kuhn or by
P.S.Callahan or by J.A.Tonsmann are completely omitted. Once more this way of proceeding
cannot avoid raising doubts about the author's judgement honesty.
To summarize my opinion, it appears undeniable that behind Poole's book there is a careful work
of research and documentation but the result is rather questionable.
This book may be appreciated by the anti-apparitionists, particularly if they are also anti-clerical or
non-believers, since they find a lot of support for their beliefs. For the apparitionists it will appear
quite unpleasant. For those, who seek the truth, at least trying to be unbiased, this Poole's book
is quite disappointing and certainly does not meet their expectations.