Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:07:10.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Virgin of Guadalupe, Juan Diego, and the Revival of the Tilma Relic in Los Angeles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2018

Kirstin Noreen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Devotion to the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Los Angeles has a complex and multifaceted history. This article will discuss the initial celebrations of Our Lady of Guadalupe, beginning with a procession in 1928 and developing with increasing popularity in the 1930s. By 1941, the Virgin of Guadalupe had become an important political and religious symbol for the archbishop of Los Angeles, John J. Cantwell, who conducted a pilgrimage to Mexico City, during which he reconfirmed the significance of the Guadalupe image for the Los Angeles Catholic community. In commemoration of Archbishop Cantwell's historic visit, a fragment of the tilma, the cloak on which the Virgin of Guadalupe representation had appeared, was offered to Los Angeles. As the only known piece of the tilma currently found outside of Mexico City, this relic has great devotional significance. As this article will show, the tilma relic disappeared into relative obscurity following its arrival in Los Angeles, only to become a renewed focus of devotion over sixty years later, in 2003. This article will conclude with the reasons behind the relic's revival through a discussion of Juan Diego and his canonization.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 487 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2018 

In 1941 a one-centimeter square cutting from the miraculous representation of the Virgin of Guadalupe arrived in the city of Los Angeles. The original image, contained in Mexico City and known also as Our Lady of Guadalupe (fig. 1), was associated with divine origins as established in a legend that described its manufacture. According to that legend, a representation of the Virgin had been divinely imprinted on a cloak, known as a tilma, following a series of appearances of the Virgin to an indigenous Indian named Juan Diego in 1531. Due to its believed miraculous creation, the Virgin of Guadalupe has the status of a relic-textile, similar to other images not made by human hands, such as the Veronica.Footnote 1 By association, the small piece of cloth in Los Angeles, currently displayed in a chapel in the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, is also considered a relic and is, notably, the only known fragment of the Virgin of Guadalupe found outside of Mexico City.

Figure 1.

Our Lady of Guadalupe (tilma image), Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

As discussed by Alexandra Walsham, relics are differentiated from other types of material objects in “their capacity to operate as a locus and conduit of power.”Footnote 2 Relics are objects that have been “left behind,” can be fragments that evoke a whole, and can physically embody a divine presence; as such, relics are material signs that frequently convey great spiritual significance.Footnote 3 The meaning of a relic is encoded by the society in which it is found and reflects the priorities of that particular community.Footnote 4 Through “ritual, story, and social actors,” relics are given meaning; the legends that authenticate the holy objects, their transfer to different locations, and their preservation and display illustrate not only the position of particular relics in religious practice but also within their wider cultural matrix.Footnote 5 In this sense, the cultural biography of a relic is especially helpful for understanding more general attitudes related to faith, politics, and social institutions.

Considering the significant role that relics play, it is not surprising that the Virgin of Guadalupe has received a great deal of devotional and scholarly attention. The meaning of the Virgin of Guadalupe is multivalent—the image has been appropriated and reinterpreted as expressed in popular devotion, indigenistic and nationalistic discourses, inculturation, political struggle, and feminist theory.Footnote 6 As discussed by Jeanette Favrot Peterson, the Virgin of Guadalupe was not solely an unchanging emblem of liberty for oppressed populations, as it has sometimes been described, but could instead be “reinterpreted for different ruling parties primarily in those times when existing sociopolitical institutions were being reconstituted.”Footnote 7

This article explores the complex role of devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe in Los Angeles. After discussing the seventeenth-century origin legend for the miraculous production of the image, the article examines how the Virgin of Guadalupe became a special symbol of the Catholic community in southern California, as illustrated by the initial processional celebrations of Our Lady of Guadalupe and the decision by Archbishop John J. Cantwell of Los Angeles to lead a pilgrimage to the shrine in Mexico City in 1941. The role of the tilma relic is integrated into this discussion of the Virgin of Guadalupe, for its transfer to Los Angeles in 1941, its shift into obscurity in the second half of the twentieth century, and its revival in 2003 help to illustrate the changing influence of the Virgin of Guadalupe and the significance of Juan Diego's canonization for devotion to the tilma relic. This examination of the Virgin of Guadalupe and the reception of the tilma relic demonstrate how the divine image and its synecdochal referent in southern California reflect the interrelationship between the changing political landscape and popular devotion.Footnote 8

I. The Virgin of Guadalupe: Miraculous Origins

The Virgin of Guadalupe is an image associated with an apparition legend that describes its believed miraculous creation on December 9, 1531.Footnote 9 A series of visions, taking place on the hill of Guadalupe not far from Mexico City, instructed Juan Diego to request that the bishop, Juan de Zumárraga, build a chapel in honor of the Virgin at Tepeyac. Not believing the Indian's account, the bishop required that Juan Diego return with a sign to prove the veracity of the Virgin's apparitions. In a third appearance to Juan Diego, the Virgin requested that he fill his cloak, or tilma, with flowers; upon his return to the bishop, Juan Diego opened his cloak to reveal a miraculously imprinted representation of the Virgin on the fabric. The bishop, immediately recognizing the importance of the holy image, placed it on public display and proceeded with the construction of a chapel dedicated to the Virgin at Tepeyac.

The earliest visual and textual sources related to the apparition legend and thaumaturgic power of the Virgin of Guadalupe date to the first half of the seventeenth century and were probably based on an oral tradition grounded in popular belief.Footnote 10 An engraved “book of miracles” by Samuel Stradanus, created likely between 1613 and 1615, visualizes eight supernatural events associated with the Virgin of Guadalupe that flank a reproduction of the tilma image, accompanied by an indulgence.Footnote 11 Some of the miracles represented on the Stradanus engraving may have been influential for accounts given in a text by the preacher Miguel Sánchez in 1648 and in a compilation of miracles known as the Nican motecpana found in Luis Laso de la Vega's Huei tlamahuiçoltica written in 1649.Footnote 12 Sánchez's account, while dependent on oral sources, emphasizes the typological significance of the image and its legend through an interpretation that evoked scripture and the texts of the church fathers.Footnote 13 Writing from a Eurocentric perspective, Sánchez associates the Virgin of Guadalupe with the woman of Revelation 12 and links the apparition of the Virgin to the conquest and Christianization of Mexico. Luis Laso de la Vega's Huei tlamahuiçoltica, written in Nahuatl, avoids the scriptural allusions found in Sánchez's text in favor of a more straightforward narrative of the appearances of the Virgin and the discussions between Mary and Juan Diego that are recounted using his native language.Footnote 14 Laso de la Vega further describes fourteen miracles associated with the image and expands upon the figure of Juan Diego, presenting him as a model of Christian virtue.

Similar to the legends of other acheiropoietic images—representations “not made by human hands”—the apparition story of the Virgin of Guadalupe underscores the divine sanction for the image; the appearance of the Virgin on a cloth establishes parallels with representations found in western Europe, such as contact relics like the Veronica, the Mandylion, and the Shroud of Turin.Footnote 15 As discussed by Peterson, the representation of the Virgin on a cloth had a symbolic resonance: the physicality of the textile served as a point of mediation between the human and sacred spheres.Footnote 16 Although associated with a tradition of European legends that explained the appearance of Marian or Christological representations that were imbued with the praesentia of the holy figure through contact or miraculous production, the origin story of the Virgin of Guadalupe, as recorded by Sánchez, linked the image on the tilma to the context of colonial New Spain. According to Sánchez, the Virgin of Guadalupe derived from an “image of Heaven” whose appearance on the tilma was specifically linked to the conquest of Mexico: the territory was “won so that an image of God of such worth might appear.”Footnote 17 Sánchez and Laso de la Vega used the ethnicity of Juan Diego, as well as the native Nahuatl language, to situate the Guadalupe legend in the environment of Mexico City.Footnote 18 Sánchez's description of the coarse material of the tilma further emphasized the social status of Juan Diego as a poor and humble Indian; at the same time, the tilma had a broader symbolic significance, for Sánchez referred to the cloak as “the cape of the Indian nation.”Footnote 19 In Sánchez's text, in the direct analysis of the Virgin of Guadalupe by artists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and in subsequent recordings of the legend, such as that by Cayetano de Cabrera y Quintero in 1746, the unique physical quality of the image and the cloth on which it is found substantiated the miraculous nature of the representation. For example, in 1666, an officially sanctioned visit of painters used a technical analysis of the representation to reaffirm the extraordinary nature of the Virgin of Guadalupe and its divine authorship.Footnote 20 The commission specifically noted that the rough quality of the tilma did not allow for a normal application of paint, thus indicating the presence of supernatural intervention. Cayetano de Cabrera y Quintero further described the unique quality of the tilma image:

There can one see, and there appears that which is not, or at least should not be, naturally, and if it were, it should then disappear since it is an excessively carefully unified composition, without overlaps, a painting without colors . . . an image that seems printed without colors . . . a wash without a brush, painted without a brush, painted without a canvas, the canvas having no threads.Footnote 21

While the perceived miraculous origin of the Virgin of Guadalupe is often used to explain the current condition of the image, the cloth has undergone some alterations during the course of its history. An examination of the tilma in 1982 determined that it had been trimmed on all sides, due in part to the colonial practice of adhering canvas to a wooden stretcher; in 1766, for instance, the cloth was trimmed by fifty-one centimeters when it was placed in a new frame.Footnote 22 The process of cutting “relic” fragments from the cloth has also contributed to the current condition of the tilma, as is confirmed by Luis Becerra Tanco in a seventeenth-century source that describes how portions of the cloth's border were cut off to form relics.Footnote 23 An inventory from 1683 additionally establishes the presence of a fragment of the tilma located in a sculpted reliquary that was placed in front of the Virgin of Guadalupe to serve as a point of physical contact for visiting pilgrims, who would touch or kiss the sculpture to obtain some of the power of the image.Footnote 24 While this seventeenth-century account and the current condition of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico City suggest that there may have been substantial trimmings taken from the tilma, to my knowledge there is only one known fragment of the tilma currently on display outside of Mexico City. This one-centimeter square fragment of the tunic was sent to Los Angeles in 1941 and is now found in the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in a chapel that was dedicated to the tilma relic in September 2012.Footnote 25

II. Devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe in Los Angeles

The arrival of the tilma relic in Los Angeles in 1941 parallels an increasing devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe that characterized the city's Catholic communities in the early twentieth century. The devotion to the image in Mexico contrasts, however, with attempts to impose a more Roman focus on the developing pueblo that characterized Los Angeles immediately following the Mexican-American War. After Mexico had ceded California and other northern territories to the United States in 1848, shifting economies, a loss of political positions held by Hispanics, and the “Americanization” of the church of the Spanish-speaking residents redefined the City of Angels.Footnote 26 Since 1841, the patroness of Los Angeles had been Nuestra Señora del Refugio (Our Lady of Refuge), as established by the first bishop in California, Francisco García Diego y Moreno.Footnote 27 With the arrival of Bishop Thaddeus Amat in 1854, a Roman saint began to eclipse the popularity of the Mexican Madonna. Amat, having received the relics of a third-century saint, Vibiana, from Pope Pius IX, initiated the construction of a cathedral in her honor and requested that the Roman martyr be named as patroness of his diocese. As noted by Michael E. Engh, the shift to Vibiana “underscored the determination of ecclesial leaders to foster more standardized, ‘Roman’ forms of faith expression, at the expense of local customs on the frontier.”Footnote 28 This was further visualized in the construction of the Cathedral of Saint Vibiana in an English-speaking residential district in downtown Los Angeles; Saint Vibiana, which opened in 1876, remained the city's cathedral for over one hundred years.Footnote 29 Stylistically aligned with Baroque churches in Spain, the large cathedral was distinctly different from the Hispanic colonial church, Our Lady of the Angels, located in the old plaza at the original geographic center of the city.

It was in that smaller church of Our Lady of the Angels that a Society of Our Lady of Guadalupe was created by 1899.Footnote 30 The weekly Spanish-language devotions that took place in that church paralleled the increasing popularity of Guadalupe in the early twentieth century that was related to the general growth of the city, coupled with the Mexican Revolution of 1910. At that time, Catholic Mexican immigrants were attracted to southern California by job prospects and by the desire to escape the conflict associated with the Mexican Revolution.Footnote 31 Religious faith and a special devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe played an important role in the lives of many of these immigrants, as expressed both in the domestic sphere and publically through processions and parochial protests. Particularly vocal Mexican clerics were often forced to flee the country and frequently ended up in American parishes in the border states. Priests and bishops were especially welcomed in southern California because of the need for clergy to support the ever increasing Mexican and Mexican American Catholic population in Los Angeles.Footnote 32 Nonetheless, Spanish-speaking clergy were often insufficient. This led, as discussed by Jeffrey M. Burns, to a Mexican American spirituality that was practiced both privately and publically; such spirituality was expressed in the home at the individual or family level as well as in the wider community through processions, public events, and communal worship.Footnote 33 Within the home, faith traditions were often transmitted under the guidance of mothers and grandmothers, which has been referred to by Santos Vega as “abuelita theology.”Footnote 34 Family altars became focal points for devotional practice, and saints’ medals or statues were frequently viewed as offering potential protection. The central importance of images, like the Virgin of Guadalupe, for Mexican American piety can be summarized in the comment of one immigrant in the 1920s who declared, “I never go to Church, nor do I pray. I have an amulet which my mother gave to me before dying. This amulet has the Virgin of Guadalupe on it, and it is she who protects me.”Footnote 35

Visible displays of devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe in Los Angeles, in the form of annual processions, offered a means of promoting a “Mexican consciousness” while at the same time acted as a clear protest against the contemporary anti-clerical movement in Mexico.Footnote 36 Initiated in 1928 through the sponsorship of a women's group, the Hijas de Maria (Daughters of Mary), the annual procession associated with the Virgin of Guadalupe's feast day on December 12 quickly grew in popularity. The involvement of José David Orozco and the newly established chapters of Santo Nombre (Holy Name), an organization aimed at inspiring religious devotion among Mexicans in the Los Angeles area and supporting Catholics in Mexico, contributed to the procession's success.Footnote 37 As a Los Angeles radio announcer and nephew to the archbishop of Guadalajara, Orozco was particularly well-positioned to help promote the December procession.Footnote 38 In 1933 the Mexican Division of the Holy Name Union sponsored “one of the most brilliantly colorful religious processions seen in Los Angeles” that consisted of 20,000 participants from ninety-eight parish groups.Footnote 39

By 1934, the year of the election of Lázaro Cárdenas as president of Mexico, the procession had a clear political dimension, for it was described in the Catholic and Spanish language press as a way to protest the persecution of the church in Mexico through a “campaign of prayer for [the] restoration of religious freedom in [the] unhappy republic.”Footnote 40 Cárdenas had run on a platform that promised to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church and create modern secular schools; after his election, press reports in the United States described attacks on clergy and religious institutions, which were viewed as examples of the “vicious socialism” that characterized the Mexican government.Footnote 41 In the days prior to the Virgin of Guadalupe's feast day, Mexican consular officials Alejandro V. Martínez of Los Angeles and Hermolao Torres of San Bernardino attempted to discourage participation in processions in their cities; concerns were raised that the events were not simply religious celebrations but rather political demonstrations that risked igniting American support for a U.S. intervention against the Cárdenas government.Footnote 42 The consular representatives were unsuccessful, for the Los Angeles procession proceeded as planned in Boyle Heights on December 9, and the San Bernardino celebration followed one week later. In Los Angeles the procession attracted 40,000 multi-ethnic participants, with the core of Spanish-speaking Catholics joined by Italian, Japanese, African American, and Polish faithful; various floats as well as dancers, the Boy Scout Drum and Bugle Corps, the Loyola High School Band, the Paulist Cadets, and the Knights of Columbus Band took part in the ceremony.Footnote 43 The diverse cultural heritage of the participants, a point underscored in descriptions of the celebration, illustrated the unifying nature of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The address of Los Angeles Bishop John J. Cantwell further underscored the political quality of the procession through his mention of and prayer for the unprotected in Mexico: “Let us pray that the eyes of the present administration in Mexico may be opened and that that unhappy nation may redeem its past and become again a great Catholic country under Christian rulers.”Footnote 44

Los Angeles was additionally the site of the international Marian celebration in 1937 that culminated with the coronation of a representation of Our Lady of Guadalupe on June 6.Footnote 45 Following a four-day ceremony, a procession of 40,000 faithful—which included the Right Reverend Monsignor Augustin de la Cueva (the head of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City), other Mexican dignitaries, representatives of the Catholic organizations of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and staff officers of the 160th Infantry—accompanied Archbishop Cantwell and an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe.Footnote 46 Arriving at a platform on the steps of the Mausoleum in the Calvary Cemetery in East Los Angeles, the image received a jewel-studded crown and was proclaimed the “queen of the Americas.” The crown, serving as “a gift of friendship and religious good will,” was made from jewelry belonging to important families in Mexico City and was modeled after the crown used in the coronation of the original image in Mexico City in 1895.Footnote 47

The image of the Virgin of Guadalupe was clearly a political as well as religious symbol for Cantwell that could be used to reinforce a personal connection between the archbishop of Los Angeles and Mexico. On April 23, 1941, an oil painting copy of Our Lady of Guadalupe was sent to Cantwell from Archbishop Filipe Torres, Vicar Apostolic of Baja California; Cantwell accepted this “artistic reproduction” as “a testimony of the bond of history and culture and religion that binds us to Baja California.”Footnote 48 The picture was placed in his residence where it gave “an added stimulus to our love and devotion to the Blessed Mother of Mexico.”Footnote 49

The large Mexican population in Los Angeles as well as the undisputed significance of the Virgin of Guadalupe for Catholics in the city may have also influenced Cantwell's decision to lead a pilgrimage to the shrine of the Virgin in Mexico City from October 6 to 19, 1941. Notably, Cantwell had wished to travel to Mexico for many years, but only in 1941 did he feel that a “Catholic Bishop would be very welcome.” Cantwell further explains in a letter to Sumner Welles, the Under Secretary of State in Washington, D.C., that “the reason I did not go in the past was that I did not wish by my presence in Mexico to cause any friction between our governments.”Footnote 50 In a circular letter publicizing the archdiocesan pilgrimage of 1941, Cantwell underscored the bond between Los Angeles and Mexico:

We have been joined by the closest ties of religion, because it was from that venerable land the first missionaries came to California, and built the Missions which are our greatest historic landmarks. We have been joined to this venerable land by bonds of affection because of the large number of Mexicans who have come to California, and indeed to the Southwest, carrying the finest traditions of their own land in music, in art, in sculpture, and in painting.Footnote 51

Although there was a connection through geographic proximity and the historic tradition of the California missions, the invitation by the archbishop of Mexico City, Luis Maria Martinez, had a clear contemporary relevance.Footnote 52 As noted by Cantwell, the trip would reinforce a connection between the two territories: “A visit by our people to the City of Mexico would be a gracious compliment to the Hierarchy and Catholics of a country that has sent so many of its children to California.”Footnote 53 Los Angeles had, after all, more Mexicans than any other city in the world, with the exception of Mexico City.Footnote 54

Following Archbishop Martinez's invitation, Cantwell alerted the State Department of his intentions and received a letter of introduction to the American ambassador in Mexico City from Sumner Welles.Footnote 55 Departing from Los Angeles on October 6, Cantwell traveled to Mexico along with forty priests and fifty prominent lay people.Footnote 56 He was greeted upon his arrival in Mexico City by a crowd of dignitaries and was further welcomed by a military delegation and diplomatic corps at a pontifical Mass celebrated at the National Basilica on October 12.Footnote 57 In addition to filling the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a crowd of 50,000 gathered outside the church.Footnote 58 Cantwell, however, addressed a far wider community on October 17 via the National Broadcast System, through which he delivered a speech heard throughout the Mexican Republic and in parts of the United States.Footnote 59

During the Mass at the National Basilica, Cantwell reconfirmed the significance of the Virgin of Guadalupe for the Los Angeles religious community:

This visit which we are now paying your beautiful country is for us the realization of a long-felt desire to come among you, and to kneel before the miraculous image of Our common Mother, Holy Mary of Guadalupe, under whose kindly smile Our Beloved Archdiocese of Los Angeles was born, when a century ago, our predecessor, Francisco Garcia Diego y Moreno, received episcopal consecration before her altar.Footnote 60

The ceremony at the Guadalupe Shrine “surely furnished the key to continental solidarity,” with the Virgin of Guadalupe serving as a locus for the visualization of that unity through the juxtaposition of the flags of Mexico, the United States, and the Latin American nations below the miraculous image. Following the Mass, the flags of the American nations were blessed by Archbishop Martinez.Footnote 61

The success of Cantwell's visit to Mexico and to the Guadalupe Shrine was unmistakable. The official paper of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, The Tidings, proclaimed the “triumph of Archbishop Cantwell.”Footnote 62 The significance of Cantwell's visit was also recognized by sources in Mexico, which stressed the incalculable impact of the encounter not only for Mexico and the United States but also for other countries of the Americas.Footnote 63 As noted in The Tidings, newspapers in Mexico covered the event more extensively—in both print and photographs—than a similar encounter would have ever generated in the media in the United States.Footnote 64 In both countries, the media underscored the role of the Virgin of Guadalupe. For example, shortly after the visit, the weekly paper of Mexico City, Hoy, stated in an editorial that the publication

is bound to promote whatever strengthens our Mexicanism. And nothing can be more Mexican, nothing can be more ours than the Virgin who left her Image on the lowly cloak of Juan Diego, than the Holy Mass which Hidalgo celebrated atop the mount of the Crosses, or than the decree promulgated by Morelos constituting the Queen of Tepeyac patroness of the men who fought for our independence.Footnote 65

It is not without significance that this noteworthy encounter of church officials from the United States and Mexico took place before the Virgin of Guadalupe, a representation linked to the history of the site and to the faith of the Mexican people.

Following Cantwell's return to southern California, Archbishop Luis Maria Martinez of Mexico City decided, along with the canons of the National Basilica, to commemorate the historic visit by offering a relic of the tilma to Los Angeles.Footnote 66 This fragment, enclosed in a silver reliquary, was brought to Los Angeles by a “Father Gomez.” Once in the city, the relic was entrusted to Father Fidencio Esparza, a priest originally from Guadalajara, Mexico. While a lack of sources makes certainty impossible, it is likely that Father Esparza would have kept the relic in the parish of San Antonio de Padua in Los Angeles, where he was pastor since 1938. In the year following the arrival of the relic, Father Esparza announced plans for the fifth annual pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City.Footnote 67

III. Juan Diego and the Changing Reception of the Tilma Relic in Los Angeles

Considering the extraordinary political and social significance of the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Los Angeles, it is surprising that the tilma relic fell into relative obscurity in the decades following Cantwell's visit to Mexico City. Notably, at the time of its transfer—and still today—this relic was the only known existing fragment of the tilma outside of Mexico City. While a technical analysis of the original image suggests that it was trimmed as part of its framing process and was perhaps cut over the centuries to provide relics, these fragments do not survive or are not a part of current public record.Footnote 68 There are various reasons that might help to explain the absence of documentation related to the relic's transfer to Los Angeles and the tilma fragment's lack of prominence until 2003. Because the relic was transferred directly to southern California, it may not have been accompanied by the same type of paper trail that it would have received had it been routed through the Vatican.Footnote 69 Additionally, the entry of the United States into World War II on December 7, 1941, dramatically shifted the focus of news cycles and may have eclipsed any press related to the arrival of the tilma in Los Angeles.Footnote 70 Once in the city, the relic was overseen for the next forty years by Father—later Monsignor—Esparza and possibly the parish of San Antonio de Padua. In 1981, Timothy Cardinal Manning led a pilgrimage to the National Shrine in Mexico City; upon his return to Los Angeles, the relic was transferred to Manning, who subsequently sent it to the Historical Museum located next to the Archival Center of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles at the San Fernando Mission.Footnote 71 In the Historical Museum, the relic was contained within a locket reliquary and was placed around the neck of a seventeenth-century wooden sculpture of the Virgin of Guadalupe (fig. 2). The tilma relic remained relatively forgotten in the Historical Museum until after the canonization of Juan Diego, when the relic was removed from the museum and eventually transferred to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.

Figure 2.

Statuette of Our Lady of Guadalupe (seventeenth century) and the Relic of the Tilma. Photo by Andreas Praefcke, Wikimedia Commons.

The canonization of Juan Diego was an acknowledgment of the Indian to whom the apparition of the Virgin of Guadalupe first appeared. The path to his canonization was initiated on April 12, 1939, through a letter written by José de Jesús Manríquez y Zárate, the bishop of Huejutla, Mexico, that called for work to begin on the beatification process.Footnote 72 It was, however, only in 1979 that the process gained momentum through the support of two archbishops in Mexico, Ernesto Cardinal Corripio Ahumada and Norberto Cardinal Rivera Carrera. After a series of setbacks, the beatification was eventually approved and was presided over by Pope John Paul II on May 6, 1990, in the Basilica of Guadalupe.Footnote 73 In the winter of 1995, an interview of Guillermo Schulenburg Prado, the abbot of the collegiate church of Guadalupe, publicized doubts over the historical existence of Juan Diego that had been raised already during the beatification process.Footnote 74 This interview resulted in a flurry of articles in the mainstream press and general public outrage. The scandal that ensued led to Schulenburg's resignation in 1996 after having been abbot of the collegiate church of Guadalupe since 1963. The Congregation for the Causes of the Saints called for an investigation of Juan Diego by a historical commission; the resulting report presented indigenous, mixed Spanish-indigenous, and Spanish sources for Juan Diego's existence and was accepted by the commission in 1998. Although debate continued over the validity of the textual sources and the authenticity of a miracle in 1990 that was associated with Juan Diego's intercession, his canonization took place in Mexico City on July 31, 2002.Footnote 75 Millions of devoted followers, who were united in a public ritual broadcast over television and printed news, celebrated the three-day papal visit and the recognition of Juan Diego's sanctity in a ceremony conducted by Pope John Paul II.Footnote 76 Many local parishes in Los Angeles marked the canonization with multi-day celebrations.Footnote 77

Not surprisingly, the tilma relic received renewed attention in Los Angeles in the wake of the “Juan Diego-mania” that was associated with the canonization.Footnote 78 In February 2003, with the permission of Roger Michael Cardinal Mahony, the tilma relic was removed from the Historical Museum of the Archive in order to participate in a nationwide tour.Footnote 79 Through the facilitation of the Los Angeles-based Apostolate for Holy Relics and the co-sponsorship of the Knights of Columbus, the tilma relic toured for six months, beginning with a stop at Denver's Immaculate Conception Cathedral on May 30 and ending with a visit to New York's Saint Patrick's Cathedral on December 7. The tilma visited twenty-one cities, attracting the veneration of well over 100,000 faithful prior to returning to Los Angeles.Footnote 80 Once back in southern California, the tilma was permanently installed in a chapel in the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels on December 9 as part of the observance of the feasts of Saint Juan Diego (on December 9) and Our Lady of Guadalupe (on December 12).Footnote 81 In the chapel, the tilma was displayed as it had been in the Historical Museum: hanging in a sealed glass pendant draped over the neck of the seventeenth-century sculpture of the Virgin (fig. 2).

After its installation in the chapel, the tilma relic was removed from the cathedral only on very special occasions to partake in large-scale international celebrations of the Virgin of Guadalupe. From August 6 to 8, 2009, after remaining in the cathedral for over five years, the tilma relic was loaned for display at the first International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe in Phoenix, Arizona, which was organized by the Knights of Columbus.Footnote 82 The Knights of Columbus also sponsored, along with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, a second international event known as the Guadalupe Celebration on August 5, 2012, when speakers and performers joined at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to honor the Virgin of Guadalupe and the tilma relic.Footnote 83 With 130,000 ticket requests and an actual attendance of over 70,000, the Guadalupe Celebration was “one of the largest Catholic events in Los Angeles in a generation.”Footnote 84

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal service organization, has been particularly engaged in promoting events related to the Virgin of Guadalupe and the tilma relic. Founded by immigrants and the sons of immigrants in 1882 in New Haven, Connecticut, this group demonstrated an early devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe through the creation of a “Guadalupe Council” in Mexico City in 1905.Footnote 85 More recently, the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of the Knights of Columbus, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, dedicated his administration to Our Lady of Guadalupe; since he took over leadership in 2000, Anderson has helped to facilitate the celebrations of Guadalupe and the tilma relic. In 2009, Anderson co-authored, along with Monsignor Eduardo Chávez, Postulator of the Cause of the Canonization of Saint Juan Diego, the book Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love.Footnote 86 In 2015, the Knights of Columbus produced a film, Guadalupe: The Miracle and the Message, which, according to Anderson, underscored the multicultural significance of the Virgin of Guadalupe, who “is loved and embraced across cultural lines throughout this continent and beyond.”Footnote 87

Following the Guadalupe Celebration at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum on August 5, 2012, the tilma relic was transferred on September 2 to a new, permanent chapel in the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels (fig. 3). The irregularly shaped, trapezoidal chapel in the north aisle of the church is decorated with golden panels made of maple wood from Monterrey, Mexico. This arrangement visually evokes the framing and installation of the original image in Mexico City yet also creates an architectural dialogue with José Rafael Moneo's design for the cathedral.Footnote 88 The shimmering surface of the highly reflective golden panels is enhanced by the presence of windows opposite the chapel. The dedication of this chapel by Archbishop José Gomez, an event corresponding with the tenth anniversary of the cathedral's construction, recognized the thousands of followers who had “venerated her Image and the Relic of the Tilma of St. Juan Diego” since the opening of the cathedral.Footnote 89

Figure 3.

Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.

In conjunction with the chapel's dedication, a new reliquary was designed to contain the patterned square of the tilma fragment, along with relics of Saint Francis Borgia, Saint Teresa of Avila, Saint Francis Xavier, and Saint Ignatius Loyola (fig. 4). In contrast with the previous display of the relic in the cathedral, when it was contained within a medallion draped over a seventeenth-century sculpture of the Virgin (fig. 2), the new reliquary underscores the role and significance of Juan Diego and visually links the relic with the miraculous original in Mexico. According to a press release from the archdiocese the new reliquary,

inspired by the image of St. Juan Diego found in the Cathedral tapestries, depicts a young Juan Diego rising from the earth with roots representing the diverse cultures of our world coming together in celebration of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The sculpture of St. Juan Diego is positioned to represent the moment when he opened his Tilma, or cloak, on which the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe miraculously appeared in 1531.Footnote 90

The figure of Juan Diego, created by the Mexican sculptor Cuauhtémoc Zamudio, enshrines the relics. The holy objects, revealed through a piece of protective glass, are surrounded by a golden mandorla in the chest of Juan Diego (fig. 5); the reliquary, therefore, establishes a visual contrast with the bronze body of the saint while being situated at the very heart of the sculpture. The outer ring of the mandorla includes rose petals combined with an indigenous symbol for “Word.” As a reference to the miraculous creation of the Virgin of Guadalupe, it is through the mediation of the roses that the image, and thus the Word, is made known.Footnote 91 A ring of feathers characterizes the decoration of the inner ellipse to underscore a connection with Juan Diego's name in Nahuatl: Cuautlatoatzin, meaning “speaking eagle.” An image of a sun, referencing Jesus as the light of the world, compliments an indigenous representation of the cosmos and divinity found at the bottom of the mandorla. The intention is to underscore Mary's role as the Mother of God and her seemingly contradictory identity as a Virgin-Mother.

Figure 4.

Reliquary of the Tilma, Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.

Figure 5.

Reliquary of the Tilma (detail), Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.

The sculptural representation of Juan Diego further establishes a visual dialogue with a mosaic reproduction of the Virgin of Guadalupe created in Rome and located on the back wall of the chapel (Figs. 3, 6). Symbols in the lower corners of the mosaic of the Virgin of Guadalupe link that image with the papacy and the Vatican through the presence of the papal coat of arms (lower right) and the coat of arms of Pope John Paul II (lower left).Footnote 92 The juxtaposition of the statue of Juan Diego and the representation of the Virgin of Guadalupe perpetually reenacts the miraculous production of the original image, a miracle that is reconfirmed through the presence of the tilma relic. The mosaic image, while a copy itself, nonetheless maintains a special status through the presence of the papal insignia, which serve not only to establish the value of the reproduction but also to mediate the legend through the contemporary hierarchy of the church.Footnote 93 It is not surprising that Pope John Paul II would be referenced in the chapel, for his “ardent Marian and Guadalupan piety led him to make more theological pronouncements on Guadalupe than any other pope.”Footnote 94 John Paul II made five visits to Mexico (including his first foreign trip as pope), he beatified and canonized Juan Diego, and he was responsible for numerous homilies and public addresses that dealt with Guadalupe.Footnote 95

Figure 6.

Mosaic reproduction of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.

The nationwide tour of the tilma relic in 2003, its presence during special Marian celebrations in 2009 and 2012, and its subsequent placement in a newly designed reliquary in a chapel dedicated to the Virgin of Guadalupe in the Los Angeles cathedral clearly indicate the changing fortune of a relic that had remained in relative obscurity for over sixty years. The role of the relic has shifted from being a symbolic gesture of good will between two countries, as it was in 1941 when the offering of the tilma fragment celebrated the historic encounter between the archbishop of Los Angeles and the archbishop of Mexico City. The revived interest in the tilma relic in the twenty-first century is instead directly related to the figure of Juan Diego and his canonization. Juan Diego was, as Pope John Paul II declared during the canonization ceremony in Mexico City on July 31, 2002, a “simple, humble Indian who contemplated the sweet and serene face of Our Lady of Tepeyac, so dear to the people of Mexico.”Footnote 96 Juan Diego accepted the Christian message, as visualized in the miraculous appearance of the Virgin, and “thus he facilitated the fruitful meeting of two worlds and became the catalyst for the new Mexican identity, closely united to Our Lady of Guadalupe, whose mestizo face expresses her spiritual motherhood which embraces all Mexicans.”Footnote 97

As a part representing the whole, pars pro toto, the tilma relic is believed to carry the sanctity of the divinely created image.Footnote 98 The tilma is a clipping from the cloth on which the original image of the Virgin of Guadalupe is found in Mexico City, yet it does not itself portray the Virgin. Nonetheless, as a fragment of the whole, the tilma relic is the Virgin of Guadalupe. As described on the website of the Los Angeles cathedral, the relic provides an opportunity for the faithful who are unable to travel to Mexico City to partake in the grace associated with the representation of the Virgin of Guadalupe located there.Footnote 99 It is through the relic that the vision of the Virgin is made manifest.

The tilma fragment in Los Angeles not only serves as a testimony to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe but also reinforces the mediatory role of Juan Diego in the process of its miraculous creation. The current reliquary in the Los Angeles cathedral underscores the significance of the fragment as a point of spiritual contact between the figure of Juan Diego and the Virgin Mary. In contrast with its previous locket reliquary, which ignored the role of Juan Diego and the legend of the image's divine origin, the tilma fragment is now placed at the heart of Juan Diego—it is the cloak that covers the humble Indian. At the same time, the mandorla surrounding the tilma fragment echoes the mandorla around the Virgin of Guadalupe to reinforce the sacred nature of the tilma and the image inscribed on its surface.

The current installation of the tilma fragment and its participation in contemporary religious celebrations demonstrate the evolving significance of this relic in the context of Los Angeles's ethnic and religious population. While the representation of the Virgin of Guadalupe played an important role in the devotions of Catholic faithful in southern California throughout the twentieth century, the tilma relic was only given a prominent position in those devotions starting in 2003. The current installation of the tilma fragment reflects the changing importance of this relic in Los Angeles and in light of the increasing significance of Saint Juan Diego.

Footnotes

Research for this article was initiated with the support of a College of Communication and Fine Arts Research Grant from Loyola Marymount University. I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for Church History for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

1 Peterson, Jeanette Favrot, Visualizing Guadalupe: From Black Madonna to Queen of the Americas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014), 162–170Google Scholar. The status of both the Virgin of Guadalupe and digital replicas created from that image as relics was reconfirmed by Pope John Paul II in 1979; these replicas were “Authorized Relics that will extend the graces of evangelization, conversion, and truth to nations in which they are placed, offering the same graces as extended in 1531, equal in graces to that of the original first class relic.” See Catholic Pilgrimage Sites, “Miraculous Relic Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Tour in England,” February 13, 2016, https://catholicpilgrimagesites.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/miraculous-relic-image-of-our-lady-of-guadalupe-on-tour-in-england/. While I have been unable to find the original source for this citation, the significance of these digital replicas as authorized relics has also been reconfirmed by Monsignor Diego Monroy Ponce, Rector of the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City: “Our Lady of Guadalupe Authorized Relics of Evangelization,” Marian Center for Peace, accessed on June 29, 2017, http://www.mariancenterforpeace.org/relics.htm. I would like to thank Alexander Justice and Desirae Zingarelli-Sweet for their assistance in locating this source. In contrast with the apparition legend that describes the Virgin of Guadalupe as a miraculous imprint, a close examination of the tilma conducted in 1982 suggests that the image was of human creation. For a discussion of this examination as well as a proposal for the sixteenth-century artist responsible for the work, see Peterson, Jeanette Favrot, “Creating the Virgin of Guadalupe: The Cloth, the Artist, and Sources in Sixteenth-Century New Spain,” The Americas 61 (2005): 571–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, esp. 103–118.

2 Walsham, Alexandra, “Introduction: Relics and Remains,” Past and Present 206, suppl. 5 (2010): 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Wharton, Annabel Jane, Selling Jerusalem: Relics, Replicas, Theme Parks (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 9–10Google Scholar; Walsham, “Introduction,” 12; and Krueger, Derek, “The Religion of Relics in Late Antiquity and Byzantium,” in Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, ed. Bagnoli, Martina, Klein, Holger A., Mann, Griffith, and Robinson, James (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 5Google Scholar. The term “relic” comes from the Latin reliquiae, meaning remains or remnants. A relic can be physical remains, objects that have come into contact with a holy person, or a product of a sacred person or place. For this definition, see Hahn, Cynthia, The Reliquary Effect: Enshrining the Sacred Object (London: Reaktion, 2017), 19Google Scholar.

4 Geary, Patrick J., Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), 5–7Google Scholar.

5 As quoted from Hahn, The Reliquary Effect, 9. See also Walsham, “Introduction,” 14–15.

6 For a summary of these points, see Napolitano, Valentina, “The Virgin of Guadalupe: A Nexus of Affect,” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15, no. 1 (2009): 96–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 97–100.

7 Peterson, Jeanette Favrot, “The Virgin of Guadalupe: Symbol of Conquest or Liberation?” Art Journal 51, no. 4 (1992): 39Google Scholar. Peterson contests the proposal of Eric Wolf that the Virgin of Guadalupe acted as a “single master symbol”; see Wolf, , “The Virgin of Guadalupe: A Mexican National Symbol,” Journal of American Folklore 71, n. 279 (1958): 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Michele Bacci discusses “evocations by synecdoche” in relation to the installation of relics of the Holy Land during the Middle Ages: Bacci, , “Materiality and Liminality: Nonmimetic Evocations of Jerusalem along the Venetian Sea Routes to the Holy Land,” in Natural Materials of the Holy Land and the Visual Translation of Place, 500–1500, ed. Bartal, Renana, Bodner, Neta, and Kühnel, Bianca (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 135–137Google Scholar.

9 For secondary literature related to the Virgin of Guadalupe, see the extensive bibliographies in Brading, D. A., Mexican Phoenix. Our Lady of Guadalupe: Image and Tradition Across Five Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; and Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe.

10 Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 140.

11 Peterson, “Creating the Virgin of Guadalupe,” 571–610; and Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 137–158, and fig. 5.1 on 139.

12 Miguel Sánchez's account marks the first textual record of the legend; see Imagen de la Virgen María Madre de Dios de Guadalupe (Mexico City, 1648). For a reprint of the Spanish text, see de la Torre Villar, Ernesto and de Anda, Ramiro Navarro, Testimonios históricos Guadalupanos (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1999), 152–281Google Scholar. For Luis Laso de la Vega's text, see Huei tlamahuiçoltica, trans. and ed. Primo Feliciano Velázquez (Mexico City: Carreño e hijo, 1926).

13 For discussions of the Sánchez text, see Poole, Stafford, Our Lady of Guadalupe: The Origins and Sources of a Mexican National Symbol, 1531–1797 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1995), 101–110Google Scholar; Brading, Mexican Phoenix, 54–75; Matovina, Timothy, “Guadalupe at Calvary: Patristic Theology in Miguel Sánchez's Imagen de la Virgen María (1648),” Theological Studies 64, no. 4 (2003): 795–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matovina, Timothy, “Theologies of Guadalupe: From the Spanish Colonial Era to Pope John Paul II,” Theological Studies 70, no. 1 (2009): 61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 71–73; and Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 135–136, 171–174, esp. 171.

14 For a discussion of Luis Laso de la Vega's Huei tlamahuiçoltica, see Poole, Our Lady of Guadalupe, 110–126; Brading, Mexican Phoenix, 81–88, esp. 86–87; Matovina, “Theologies of Guadalupe,” 65, 68–71; and Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 139–140, 150–152.

15 Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 159–170, draws comparisons between two miraculously created representations on cloth: the Veronica, a “true” portrait of Christ created on a sudarium, and the Virgin of Guadalupe. There is extensive literature on acheiropoietic images such as the Veronica and the Mandylion; see, for example, the essays in Herbert L. Kessler and Gerhard Wolf, eds., The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, Papers from a Colloquium held at the Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rome and the Villa Spelman, Florence, 1996, Villa Spelman Colloquia 6 (Bologna: Nuova Alfa, 1998). Other miraculous portrayals of Christ and the Virgin in western Europe were often associated with the hand of St. Luke; see, for example, Bacci, Michele, Il pennello dell'Evangelista: storia delle immagini sacre (Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 1998)Google Scholar. This article will not deal with the veracity of the Virgin of Guadalupe or other representations that were associated with divine origins.

16 Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 160–163.

17 The Virgin of Guadalupe is “la imagen del cielo”: see Sánchez's Imagen de la Virgen as reprinted in Torre Villar and Navarro de Anda, Testimonios, 158; as cited and discussed in Serge Gruzinski, Images at War: Mexico from Columbus to Blade Runner (1492–2019), trans. Heather MacLean (London: Duke University Press, 2001), 127. Mexico was “conquistada a tan gloriosos fines, ganada para que apareciese imagen tan de Dios”: see Sánchez, Imagen de la Virgen, 164; and Gruzinski, Images at War, 125.

18 Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 171–172.

19 Ibid., 174; see also 294n56: “la capa de la nación de los indios.” Peterson further elaborates on the ritual importance of cloth and its role as a social signifier in pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica; ibid., 172–173. For the description of the tilma in Laso de la Vega's text, which may be a later addition, see Poole, Our Lady of Guadalupe, 118.

20 Bargellini, Clara, “Originality and Invention in the Painting of New Spain,” in Painting a New World: Mexican Art and Life, 1521–1821, ed. Pierce, Donna, Rogelio Ruiz Gomar, and Clara Bargellini (Denver: Denver Art Museum, 2004), 87–88Google Scholar.

21 Gruzinski, Images at War, 129: “Alli se vee, y aparece lo que no es, ó lo que al menos no debia ser naturalmente, y quando fuera debia luego desparecer, siendo un compuesto unido prolijamente sin union, una Pintura, sin colóres, al menos presupuestos, ò que en la superficie se pudiessen presuponer; una Imagen que parece estampada sin que aya que reciba las tintas, texida sin matizar en hebras los colores; al temple sin pincel, pintada sin lienzo, el lienzo sin hilos, y los hilos casi para cordeles del discurso.” See Cayetano de Cabrera y Quintero, Escudo de armas de México (Mexico City, 1746); and a facsimile with a historic study and chronology by Víctor M. Ruiz Naufal (Mexico City: Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 1981), 311. For a more recent discussion of the physical quality of the cloth, see Peterson, “Creating the Virgin of Guadalupe,” 571–610, esp. 573–577; and Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, esp. 103–118.

22 For this discussion and the measurements of the tilma, see Peterson, “Creating the Virgin of Guadalupe,” 573, 573n3; and Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 105, 287n4. See also Gruzinski, Images at War, 130.

23 Luis Becerra Tanco, Origen milagroso del Santuario de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (1666), as reproduced in Ernesto de la Torre Villar and Ramiro Navarro de Anda, Testimonios históricos Guadalupanos (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1999), 331: “Está pintada la sagrada imagen, como se ve el día de hoy, y consta de su orla, que se le ha ido cercenando para reliquias.” See also Gruzinski, Images at War, 130; and Peterson, “Creating the Virgin of Guadalupe,” 573.

24 Florencia, Francisco de, La estrella del Norte de México (Barcelona: Antonio Velázquez, 1688; reprint 1741), 193Google Scholar; and as discussed in Peterson, Visualizing Guadalupe, 108.

25 Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Office of Media Relations, “Archbishop Gomez Dedicates New Chapel at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angeles for the Only Relic in the U.S. of the Tilma of Saint Juan Diego,” press release, September 2, 2012.

26 For the following discussion related to changes in the religious customs of Los Angeles between 1848 and 1880, see Engh, Michael E., Frontier Faiths: Church, Temple, and Synagogue in Los Angeles 1846–1888 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1992), 165–186Google Scholar.

27 Nuestra Señora del Refugio was the principal patroness from San Francisco to San José del Cabo. Geiger, Maynard, “Our Lady in Franciscan California,” Franciscan Studies New Series, 2, no. 2 (1942): 107–108Google Scholar; and Engh, Frontier Faiths, 177.

28 Engh, Frontier Faiths, 178.

29 The Cathedral of Saint Vibiana was damaged during the Northridge earthquake in 1994 and was replaced by the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, which was dedicated in 2002.

30 For the early twentieth-century devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe in Los Angeles, see Engh, Michael E., “Companion of the Immigrants: Devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe among Mexicans in the Los Angeles Area, 1900–1940,” Journal of Hispanic/Latino Theology 5, no. 1 (1997): 37–47Google Scholar, esp. 39.

31 For the following discussion, see Balderrama, Francisco E., In Defense of La Raza: The Los Angeles Mexican Consulate and the Mexican Community, 1929 to 1936 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1982)Google Scholar, esp. 73–90; Sánchez, George G., Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Dolan, Jay P. and Hinojosa, Gilberto M., eds., Mexican Americans and the Catholic Church, 1900–1965 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994)Google Scholar; and Engh, “Companion,” 37–47.

32 Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza, 76.

33 Burns, Jeffrey M., “Spirituality and Clergy,” in Mexican Americans and the Catholic Church, 1900–1965, ed. Dolan, Jay P. and Hinojosa, Gilberto M. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 176–177Google Scholar.

34 As mentioned in Sandoval, Moises, ed., The Mexican American Experience in the Church: Reflections on Identity and Mission, Mexican American Cultural Center Tenth Anniversary Forum (New York: Sadlier, 1983), 34Google Scholar. See also Gilbert Ramon Cadena, “Chicanos and the Catholic Church: Liberation Theology as a Form of Empowerment” (PhD diss., University of California, Riverside, 1987), 55–64; Burns, “Spirituality and Clergy,” 178; and Sánchez, Becoming Mexican American, 165–167.

35 As cited and discussed in Sánchez, Becoming Mexican American, 165; Burns, “Spirituality and Clergy,” 179; and Engh, “Companion,” 41.

36 Sánchez, Becoming Mexican American, 168.

37 Engh, “Companion,” 43. Santo Nombre assumed sponsorship of the annual procession in 1930.

38 Orozco's uncle, Francisco Orozco y Jiménez, was archbishop of Guadalajara from 1913 until 1936, when he was exiled. Francisco Orozco additionally presided over the delayed celebration of the Virgin of Guadalupe as the patron of Latin America, which took place on December 12, 1933, in St. Peter's in Rome. See Brading, Mexican Phoenix, 317.

39 “20,000 Give Public Honor to Our Lady of Guadalupe,” The Tidings, December 15, 1933, 66.

40 “Protest Persecution of Church in Mexico by Los Angeles Demonstration,” The Tidings, December 7, 1934, 1. For the following discussion of the 1934 procession, see Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza, 77; Sánchez, Becoming Mexican American, 167–170; and Engh, “Companion,” 43.

41 “Protest Persecution,” 1.

42 For a discussion of the attempts by Consul Martínez and Vice Consul Torres to stop the respective processions, see Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza, 77–83.

43 “40,000 in Holy Name Union Demonstration to Restore Religious Freedom in Mexico,” The Tidings, December 14, 1934, 54; “Procession to Honor Our Lady of Guadalupe,” The Tidings, November 30, 1934, 1; and Balderrama, In Defense of La Raza, 79.

44 “40,000 in Holy Name Union,” 54.

45 For information on the Marian celebration of 1937, see “Catholics Plan Festival of our Lady of Guadalupe,” Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1937, A8; “Prelate Here for Crowning: Head of Mexico Shrine to See Coronation of Our Lady of Guadalupe,” Los Angeles Times, May 27, 1937, A1; “‘The Word of God is Alive and Powerful’: Catholics will March at Image Coronation,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1937, A2; “Gem-Studded Gold Crown Given to Catholic Church,” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1937, 3; “Virgin Queen of Americas Crowned Before 40,000,” Los Angeles Times, June 7, 1937, A1; and Weber, Francis J., John Joseph Cantwell, His Excellency of Los Angeles (Hong Kong: Cathay, 1971), 119Google Scholar.

46 Cantwell was elevated to the position of archbishop in 1936 when Los Angeles became an archdiocese.

47 See “Virgin Queen of Americas” and “Prelate Here for Crowning,” which mistakenly dates the original coronation of the Guadalupe image to 1737. Escalada, Xavier, Enciclopedia guadalupana: temática, histórica, onomástica (Mexico City?: s.n., 1995), 2:267Google Scholar.

48 Archival Center, Archdiocese of Los Angeles (hereafter cited as AALA): 9355, Letter from Bp. Joseph T. McGucken to Most Rev. Felipe Torres, April 23, 1941, and Letter from Arbp. Cantwell to Most Rev. Felipe Torres, May 10, 1941.

49 AALA: 9355: Letter from Arbp. Cantwell to Most Rev. Felipe Torres.

50 AALA: 9571, Letter from Arbp. John J. Cantwell to Hon. Sumner Welles, August 28, 1941.

51 Archbishop Cantwell's Circular Letter, dated August 9, 1941, was published as part of the informational brochure for the pilgrimage. AALA: Flyer for the “14 Day Personally Conducted Archdiocesan Pilgrimage to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, October 6 to 19, 1941.”

52 Notably, Cantwell first received an invitation to travel to Mexico by the Mexican Secretary of the Interior, for “the new government felt it should make a gesture of consideration for the Catholics who voted so strongly for the actual President's opponent, Almazan.” Cantwell declined that invitation “knowing that all this was a political gesture . . . and instead accepted the invitation sent from the Mexican Hierarchy.” AALA: 9168, Letter from Bp. Joseph T. McGucken to Bp. Joseph Byrne, October 29, 1941.

53 AALA: Flyer for the “14 Day Personally Conducted Archdiocesan Pilgrimage,” Cantwell, Circular Letter, August 9, 1941. See also the citation and discussion in Weber, John Joseph Cantwell, 112.

54 This point was reiterated by Joseph Scott during an address at a luncheon that followed the celebration at the Guadalupe Shrine on October 12. See “Great Celebration Gives Key to Unity of the Americas,” The Tidings, October 17, 1941, 1.

55 AALA: 9494, Letter from Arbp. John J. Cantwell to Bp. James H. Ryan, August 11, 1941; AALA: 9569, Letter from Sumner Welles to Arbp. John J. Cantwell, August 20, 1941; AALA: 9571, Letter from Arbp. John J. Cantwell to Hon. Sumner Welles, August 28, 1941; and AALA: 9575, Arbp. John J. Cantwell to Hon. Sumner Welles, October 27, 1941. See also Weber, John Joseph Cantwell, 112.

56 AALA: 9168, Letter from Bp. Joseph T. McGucken to Bp. Joseph Byrne, October 29, 1941.

57 Weber, John Joseph Cantwell, 113. The presence of the military representatives was particularly significant, for “the military had not been seen in the Basilica or at church services since the time of Maximilian.” AALA: 9168, Letter from Bp. Joseph T. McGucken to Bp. Joseph Byrne, October 29, 1941; and AALA: 9169, Letter from Arbp. John J. Cantwell to Bp. Joseph Byrne, October 30, 1941. See also “Mexico President Represented at Solemn Mass Offered by Archbishop of Los Angeles,” The Tidings, October 17, 1941, 4.

58 AALA: 9169, Letter from Arbp. John J. Cantwell to Bp. Joseph Byrne, October 30, 1941.

59 “Archbishops of Mexico City and Los Angeles Heard Over Radio from Guadalupe Shrine,” The Tidings, October 17, 1941, 1–2; and Weber, John Joseph Cantwell, 113.

60 AALA: Mimeographed statement of Cantwell, Los Angeles, 1941, as cited in Weber, John Joseph Cantwell, 113.

61 “Great Celebration Gives Key to Unity of the Americas,” The Tidings, October 17, 1941, 1; and “Mexico President Represented,” 4. It had been, perhaps, over 100 years since the Mexican flag had been brought to the altar of the Guadalupe Shrine. The Los Angeles Times described the event as a “demonstration of hemispheric solidarity”; see “Mexico Ends Church Rift: Military Participates in Pontifical Mass Conducted by Cantwell,” Los Angeles Times, October 13, 1941, 1.

62 Bishop John Mark Gannon, “Prelate Describes Developments in Mexico as ‘The Triumph of Archbishop Cantwell,’” The Tidings, October 31, 1941, 1, 4.

63 AALA: 9301, Letter from Rev. Luis Hernandez to Bp. Joseph T. McGucken, November 5, 1941: “Las consecuencias creo yo, y sobre todo así lo creen todos los Prelados de esta Nación, además de su resonancia, son no ya trasendentales sino incalculables y no sólo para nuestras dos naciones sino para todo nuestro amadísimo Continente Americano.”

64 Gannon, “Prelate Describes Developments,” 4.

65 This passage from the editorial in Hoy was translated and cited in “Mexican Press Asserts New Freedom,” The Tidings, October 31, 1941, 1, 5 (quote is from 5).

66 Very little has been published on the transfer of the tilma relic to Los Angeles. My discussion in this and the subsequent paragraph is dependent on the brief descriptions found in Francis J. Weber, “Juan Diego's Tilma: From Mexico to the Cathedral,” The Tidings, December 5, 2003, 4; as well as a similar text in Francis J. Weber, California's Catholic Treasury: A Guide to the Historical Museum attached to the Archival Center, Archdiocese of Los Angeles (Los Angeles: Archdiocese of Los Angeles Archives, 1984), 74–75.

67 “Plan Pilgrimage to Shrine in Mexico,” Berkeley Daily Gazette, August 3, 1942, 5, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1970&dat=19420803&id=zzMyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5eMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4154,2192519.

68 For the earlier trimming of the image, see nn22–24 above. I have been unable to locate any additional surviving fragments of the tilma. Today, digital reproductions of the Virgin of Guadalupe are sometimes considered third-class relics through a contact with the original representation. See Noreen, Kirstin, “Negotiating the Original: Copying the Virgin of Guadalupe,” Visual Resources 33, no. 3–4 (2017): 363–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 I would like to thank Joanne Wittenberg, the Los Angeles Cathedral archivist, for this suggestion.

70 I have, for example, been unable to find any mention of the arrival of the tilma relic in Los Angeles in the months immediately following Cantwell's trip to Mexico City in The Tidings, the weekly newspaper published by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

71 The scarce publicity that the relic received while it was at the Historical Museum may have been due, in part, to the lack of facilities to support devotional attention.

72 See Brading, Mexican Phoenix, 311 for the role of Manríquez, and, more generally, 311–341 for the promotion of the cult of Juan Diego. For the summary of the beatification and canonization process found here, see Poole, Stafford, “History versus Juan Diego,” The Americas 62, no. 1 (2005): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 For the beatification, see Acta Apostolicae Sedis 82, n. 9 (September 4, 1990), 853–855; and see “Acta Apostolicae Sedis [index],” The Holy See, accessed on June 17, 2014, http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/index_en.htm.

74 For this interview and the resulting articles, see Poole, “History versus Juan Diego,” 4–5. See also Brading, Mexican Phoenix, 348–349.

75 For the varying positions on the value of the textual sources, see Fernández, Fidel González, Sánchez, Eduardo Chávez, and Rosado, José Luis Guerrero, El encuentro de la Virgen de Guadalupe y Juan Diego (Mexico City: Porrúa, 1999)Google Scholar, subsequently translated as Chávez, Eduardo, Our Lady of Guadalupe and Saint Juan Diego: The Historical Evidence, trans. Treviño, Carmen and Montaño, Veronica (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006)Google Scholar; Poole, Our Lady of Guadalupe; and Poole, , The Guadalupan Controversies in Mexico (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar. Poole, “History versus Juan Diego,” 10–11, discusses questions related to the miraculous healing of a drug addict by Juan Diego. For the text of the homily at the canonization, see “Apostolic Visit to Toronto, to Ciudad de Guatemala and to Ciudad de México: Canonization of Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, Homily of the Holy Father John Paul II, Mexico City, Wednesday, July 31, 2002,” The Holy See, accessed on May 27, 2016, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20020731_canonization-mexico_en.html.

76 For a discussion of the canonization ceremony and its socio-political meaning, see Beatty, Andrew, “The Pope in Mexico: Syncretism in Public Ritual,” American Anthropologist, New Series, 108, no. 2 (2006): 324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Ellie Hildago, “Local Catholics Celebrate St. Juan Diego, St. Pedro,” The Tidings, August 9, 2002, 4.

78 For a description of the great enthusiasm in Mexico that accompanied the canonization, see Jo Tuckman, “Juan Diego-Mania Takes over Mexico as Canonization Ceremony Nears,” The Tidings, July 26, 2002, 13.

79 For this discussion, see Francis J. Weber, “Juan Diego's Tilma: From Mexico to the Cathedral,” The Tidings, December 5, 2003, 4; no author, “Cathedral events to Honor Virgin of Guadalupe, St. Juan Diego,” The Tidings, December 5, 2003, 4; and Larry B. Stammer, “Revered Relic Enshrined in L.A.,” Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2003, B3. Andrew Walther, Vice President of the Apostolate for Holy Relics, was the National Tour Coordinator.

80 The crowds may have been as great as 140,000, as indicated in Larry B. Stammer, “Revered Relic Enshrined in L.A.,” Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2003, B3.

81 Ibid.

82 See “About the Event,” Marian Congress, accessed on May 27, 2016, http://www.mariancongress.org/en/event/; and “Event in Phoenix to Feature Top Experts on Miraculous Image,” Marian Congress, accessed on May 27, 2016, http://www.mariancongress.org/en/news/KofCAnnouncement.html.

83 See Guadalupe Celebration, accessed on May 27, 2016, http://www.guadalupecelebration.com/en/index.html.

84 According to Andrew Walther, Vice President for Communications at the Knights of Columbus. See Caroline Tan, “Sacred Lady of Guadalupe Relic to Be Featured in Landmark Celebration,” NBC Los Angeles, accessed on May 27, 2016, http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Sacred-Lady-of-Guadalupe-Relic-to-Be-Featured-in-Landmark-Celebration-164344096.html. See also the media advisory of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, August 31, 2012: “Archbishop Gomez to Dedicate New Chapel at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels for the Only Relic in the U.S. of the Tilma of Saint Juan Diego,” accessed on May 27, 2016, http://www.la-archdiocese.org/org/media/Press%20Releases/2012-0831_Tilma_Relic_Chapel_Dedication.pdf. Estimates for the actual attendance vary: see Kate Mather, “Faith Brings them Together: A Celebration of Our Lady of Guadalupe draws Thousands to Coliseum,” Los Angeles Times, August 6, 2012, AA3.

85 For the development of the Knights of Columbus, see Christopher J. Kauffman, Faith and Fraternalism: The History of the Knights of Columbus 1882–1982 (New York: Harper and Row, 1982). For the Guadalupe Council, see Kauffman, Faith and Fraternalism, 118–120. See also “The Knights of Columbus,” Guadalupe Celebration, accessed on June 29, 2017, http://www.guadalupecelebration.com/gc/en/kc/index.html.

86 Carl A. Anderson and Eduardo Chávez, Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love (New York: Doubleday, 2009). The book appeared on the bestseller lists of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Publisher's Weekly; see “New Our Lady of Guadalupe book makes national bestseller lists,” Catholic News Agency, August 22, 2009, accessed on June 29, 2017, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_our_lady_of_guadalupe_book_makes_national_bestseller_lists/.

87 “New Documentary on Our Lady of Guadalupe to Air on ABC this Fall,” Knights of Columbus, October 8, 2015, accessed on June 29, 2017, http://www.kofc.org/en/news/releases/documentary-our-lady-guadalupe.html.

88 The Architecture Firm of Dario Bucheli, working in consultation with Father José Castaño, designed the chapel. The discussion of the chapel design is partially based on a document provided by Media Relations for the Los Angeles Archdiocese: “Capilla de la Reliquia de San Juan Diego, Catedral de Nuestra Señora de Los Ángeles.” I would like to thank Carolina Guevara, Associate Director of Media Relations, for her assistance.

89 According to the press release, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Office of Media Relations, September 2, 2012: “Archbishop Gomez Dedicates New Chapel at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels for the Only Relic in the U.S. of the Tilma of Saint Juan Diego.” See also the media advisory of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, August 31, 2012 (see n84 above).

90 Archdiocese of Los Angeles, “Archbishop Gomez Dedicates New Chapel,” press release, September 2, 2012. The reliquary (and surrounding decoration) was installed by Dorado Design and Construction.

91 The following reading of the reliquary is dependent on “Capilla de la Reliquia de San Juan Diego, Catedral de Nuestra Señora de Los Ángeles,” Media Relations for the Los Angeles Archdiocese: “Esta pieza fue diseñada para contener la reliquia del anterior sin alterarla, y fue hecha en plata y posteriormente enchapada en oro, en su diseño contemplamos una forma elíptica rodeada en su exterior de pétalos de rosas con los símbolos indígenas de ‘Palabra’ haciendo alusión a las rosas que portaba como señal para que se aceptara el mensaje del cielo. Además simbolizan flor y canto, símbolos de la divinidad.

“En el perímetro interior incluimos una línea de plumas que representan a los pájaros de hermosos cantos que se escucharon en las apariciones enmarcando la reliquia que fue colocada al centro de la pieza. Además de ser una alusión al nombre náhuatl de Juan Diego: Cuautlatoatzin (‘Águila que habla’ o ‘portador de las cosas divinas’).

“Todo el conjunto es un sol pero además está coronado por un sol, el nuevo sol, Jesucristo, verdadero Dios y verdadero hombre. En la parte inferior, el símbolo indígena del cosmos y la divinidad, indicando que María es la Madre de Dios. En los dos extremos se puede leer: Virgo-Mater (Virgen y Madre).” Carolina Guevara, Associate Director of Media Relations of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, generously shared this document.

92 I would like to thank Monsignor Weber for a discussion of the papal insignia.

93 An additional shrine dedicated to the Virgin of Guadalupe and designed by Lalo Garcia is found on the north plaza wall at the Cathedral. See “Art & Architecture: Shrine to Our Lady of Guadalupe,” Cathedral of Our lady of the Angels, Accessed on May 25, 2016, http://www.olacathedral.org/plaza/shrine_dex.html.

94 Matovina, “Theologies of Guadalupe,” 86.

95 For a greater discussion on Pope John Paul II's Guadalupan statements, see Matovina, “Theologies of Guadalupe,” 86–88; and for a list of the Pope's homilies and addresses that deal with the Virgin of Guadalupe, see Matovina, 86n52.

96 “Canonization of Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin” (see n75 above).

97 Ibid.

98 The idea of pars pro toto is typically associated with corporeal relics and expresses the idea that each fragment contains the same sacred power as the whole. See Kevin Trainor, “Pars pro toto: On Comparing Relic Practices,” Numen 57, no. 3/4 (2010): 267–283. The division of relics has a long history and extensive bibliography. See, for example, McCulloh, John M., “From Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Continuity and Change in Papal Relic Policy from the 6th to the 8th Century,” in Pietas: Festschrift für Bernhard Kötting, ed. Dassmann, Ernst and Frank, K. Suso, in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 8 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980)Google Scholar, 313–324; and Hahn, Cynthia, Strange Beauty: Issues in the Making and Meaning of Reliquaries, 400–circa 1204 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012)Google Scholar.

99 Such an idea is reflected in the comment by the Vice President of the Apostolate for Holy Relics (AHR), Andrew Walther, who described the 2003 nationwide tour of the tilma relic as providing “those people who cannot go on pilgrimage to Mexico City an opportunity to share in the graces and blessings bestowed by Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Mother of God and Empress of the Americas.” Walther's comment is included in the description of the tilma on the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels website: “The Tilma of Tepeyac at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels,” accessed on May 27, 2016, http://www.olacathedral.org/news/Guadalupe/tilma_of_tepeyac2004.html.

Figure 0

Figure 1. Our Lady of Guadalupe (tilma image), Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Statuette of Our Lady of Guadalupe (seventeenth century) and the Relic of the Tilma. Photo by Andreas Praefcke, Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Reliquary of the Tilma, Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Reliquary of the Tilma (detail), Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Mosaic reproduction of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles. Photo by the author.