A statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe in New Mexico reportedly began to cry

Hundreds of faithful Catholics are going on pilgrimage to Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish in Hobbs, N.M., where reportedly, a bronze statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe began to shed tears prior to the noon Mass Sunday, May 20, at the sight of 200 parishioners.

“As a priest, I’ve been a bit incredulous about these types of phenomena. I don’t intend to be sensational, but God silenced me,” Father Jose Segura, pastor of the parish, told the Denver Catholic en Español. “I asked if someone had poured water on her but that wasn’t the case. After Mass, we wiped her tears off and more came out.  The statue doesn’t have any openings,” the priest assured. “We couldn’t understand. It also was emitting a strong scent of roses.”

After the incident, the priest contacted Bishop Oscar Cantú of Las Cruces, the diocese to which the parish belongs, and told him about the occurrence. The surprised prelate humorously said that he did not receive calls of this nature on a regular basis, but that it was necessary to be prudent and begin an investigation.

Since the event, the number of people going on pilgrimage to the church has only grown. News has spread through social media and there has been a significant increase of faithful turning to confession.

The diocese speaks

Deacon Jim Winder, vice-chancellor of the Diocese of Las Cruces, said that an investigation is on its way. “The Catholic Church always approaches these possibly-miraculous phenomena with a bit of healthy skepticism,” he assured. “Faith and reason go hand in hand.”

“The approach our investigators will take is to eliminate all possible human or natural causes of the phenomena,” he continued. “They will gather physical evidence as well as eye witness accounts, and only when every possible explanation is eliminated can a phenomenon such as this be considered as possibly being miraculous.”

“God doesn’t have to wait for the results of the study. If this is from God, then the blessings will come immediately, whether or not we understand their origin,” he added.

Witnesses

Judy Ronquillo, parishioner at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, was one of the spectators of the incident. He told the Denver Catholic en Español that what happened to this parish “was wonderful.”

“Since then, we have not left the Virgin alone. We alternate to look after 24 hours a day,” he said. He added that on Tuesday, May 29, “the Virgin shed two more tears.”

“I feel this is going to strengthen my faith. The Virgin wants us to pray more, that we be more united, that we ask each other for forgiveness,” he concluded.

The investigation of the alleged miracle by the Diocese of Las Cruces is expected to take up to a year.

COMING UP: Why 42 had to be impeached twenty years ago

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

Twenty years ago this month, I found myself seriously double-booked, so to speak.

The editing of the first volume of my John Paul II biography, Witness to Hope, was entering the ninth inning, and I was furiously engaged in exchanging edited and re-edited copy with my editors in New York. At the same time, the Clinton impeachment drama was cresting. And as I had long done speechwriting for Congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I spent week after week of split time, working on John Paul II from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., then switching to impeachment for a couple of hours before returning to Witness to Hope in the evening.

It was not the optimal way to work but it had to be done, even if it seemed likely that the president would be acquitted in a Senate trial. On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives voted two articles of impeachment and senior House members, including Mr. Hyde, solemnly walked the two articles across the Capitol and presented them to the Senate’s leaders. On toward midnight, Henry Hyde called me and, referring to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, “We’re not going to make it. Trent won’t fight; I saw it in his eyes.” After a long moment I replied that, if we were going to lose, we had a duty to lay down a record with which history would have to reckon.

Which is what the great Henry Hyde did during the January 1999 Senate trial, where he bent every effort to prevent the proceedings from descending into farce.

For Hyde, the impeachment of President Bill Clinton was an unavoidable piece of nasty business. It was not a matter of partisan score-settling, nor was it a matter of punishing a president for gross behavior with an intern in the White House. It was a matter of defending the rule of law. As Henry put it to me when it seemed clear that the president had perjured himself and obstructed justice, “There are over a hundred people in federal prisons for these crimes. How can the chief law enforcement officer of the United States be guilty of them and stay in office?”

Impeachment is a political process and it was clear by mid-fall of 1998 that the politics were not breaking toward removing the president from office. They had been pointed that way over the summer, though. And as the pressures built, it seemed as if the Clinton presidency might end as Richard Nixon’s had: Party elders, in this case Democrats, would go to the White House, explain that it was over, and ask the president to resign for the sake of the country. Then around Labor Day that year, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and other columnists began suggesting that, if Clinton were impeached and convicted, the sexual revolution would be over, the yahoos of reaction would have won, and we’d be back to something resembling Salem, Massachusetts, during the witchcraft insanity.

That was preposterous. It was also effective. And within days, at least in Washington, you could fill the templates shifting: This wasn’t about the rule of law, it was about sex and the yahoos couldn’t be allowed to win. (That Henry Hyde was the leader of the pro-life forces in Congress neatly fit this storyline, of course, abortion being a major plank in the platform of the sexual revolution.)

So once the game was redefined — Are you for or against the puritanical yahoos? — there was little chance to wrench the political process back to what it was really about: the rule of law. In his opening speech during the president’s trial, Henry Hyde tried valiantly to refocus the argument, insisting that high office did not absolve a man from obeying his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and his oath swearing to tell the truth to a federal grand jury. To suggest that it did was to “break the covenant of trust” between president and people, dissolving “the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice.”

It wasn’t a winning argument. But it was the right argument. And on this 20th anniversary, the nation should remember with gratitude those like Henry Hyde who, under fierce assault, stood for the rule of law.

Featured image by Gage Skidmore | Flickr