I have always loved how, in God’s providence, the Church celebrates the memorial of St. Junípero Serra three days before our nation celebrates its independence on July 4.
It is fitting, because St. Junípero was not only the Apostle to California, he was one of America’s founding fathers, a fact that Pope Francis recognizes, even if many of our own historians do not.
I am struck at how the Catholic beginnings of this country are ignored in the telling of American history, even in otherwise excellent books. As I pointed out in my own 2013 book, Immigration and the Next America, such histories are not wrong, but they are incomplete.
History is what holds us together as one nation. How we remember our past shapes how we understand where we are at in the present, and helps define our meaning and purpose as a people.
We are in a period of deep division in our country. Not surprisingly, our anxieties about the present are playing out in fierce debates — in school boards, legislatures, and the media — over the meaning of American history and how to tell our national story.
Recovering the story of America’s “other” founding — which occurred more than a century before the Mayflower, Madison, and Jefferson — can help us see beyond our present polarization.
Beginning in the 1500s, missionaries from Spain were proclaiming the love of Jesus Christ to indigenous peoples from present-day Georgia and Florida to Texas and lower California. French missionaries were consecrating the lands from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico to the Virgin Mary.
It is true, these missionaries had no hand in developing America’s founding documents or institutions. But their mission gives witness to the authentic American spirit that runs through our history and finds expression in the “letter” of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
For the most part, America’s Catholic missionaries, like St. Junípero, were “doers,” men and women who preached through lives of self-sacrifice and service, rather than in eloquent speeches and letters.
The missionaries had profound respect for the indigenous peoples they served, learning their languages and traditions and defending them against the lusts and avarice of exploiters.
Enduring hardships and dangers, they testified to their belief that Jesus Christ is the greatest gift they could ever offer to their neighbors.
They witness to what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others have called the “American creed” — the belief expressed in those founding documents that all men and women are endowed by God with a sacred dignity and undeniable rights to life, liberty, and equality.
Recovering the spirit of America’s “other founding” gives us a more solid grounding for American individualism, which is always tempted to fall into a kind of selfish pursuit of one’s own interests without regard to others….
The above comes from a July 2 statement by Archbishop Gomez in Angelus News.
Sure, find something that has nothing at all to do with America’s founding and pretend it’s about America’s founding just because it boosts your group identity. How is this different from the 1619 Project lunacy? Because it’s Catholic? The “Fr. Serra Project”? We should believe the dubious claims because it’s Catholic? Sorry, nope.
When you learn about the history of different American states and regions of our country, you can better understand the overall development of our Nation. The early East Coast English Puritan and Protestant settlers; early Catholic Spanish and Portuguese settlers in the Southeast, Southwest, and West Coast; French, German, and Scandanavian settlers in Louisiana and the North and Midwest; Asian settlers on the West Coast, etc. etc.– and all of their cultural contributions. And tragically– the histories of Blacks and Native Americans, too, and their contributions.
Mission Dolores, the San Francisco mission of St. Junipero Serra, was founded in 1776– the same year as the American Declaration of Independence!
The Spanish territory now known as California wasn’t part of America then!
Anonymous, In 1776, America had also not yet won her freedom as a British colony. America was officially declared independent of Britain at the Treaty of Paris, in 1783, two years after winning the final battle against Britain, at Yorktown, VA, in 1781.
How can the archbishop have “always loved how, in God’s providence, the Church celebrates the memorial of St. Junípero Serra three days before our nation celebrates its independence on July 4” when Fr. Serra wasn’t beatified until 1988? And wasn’t canonized until 2015?
Does the archbishop’s memory not go back further than 1989?
The good Archbishop is correct. St. Junipero Serra has been on the track for Sainthood for a long time. And his relics and prayers to him, have wrought many favors and miracles. St. Serra has long had many admirers and religious devotees. He is a Saint, and did many great works– and founded the 21 Calif. Missions. He rightly deserves great respect and honor.
Prior to Fr. Serra’s beatification, the church would not have celebrated his memorial. So the church hasn’t “always” celebrated the memorial three days before July 4. The archbishop is wrong.
He did not say that.
Fanous heroic and saintly Catholic candidates for Sainthood, always have had enthusiastic promoters and devotees for many years– even centuries– before official recognition as Saints by the Church. Two famous examples of this are St. Thomas More (canonized in 1935) and St. Joan of Arc (canonized in 1920).
The archbishop and the Pope are right about the other founding of America and Saint Junipero Serra. The archbishop points out how tellings of American history are usually not wrong, only incomplete. Especially as Catholics, we should grasp the both/and (rather than either/or) nature of things, including history. Our story should unite, rather than divide, us. As Saint Junipero exhorts us, “Always go forward and never turn back!” Saint Junipero and all missionary Saints and martyrs, pray for us. Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
Deacon Craig Anderson: “we should grasp the both/and (rather than either/or) nature of things”
This statement is incoherent (i.e., self-refuting) as it is itself an either/or proposition.
Juan, let’s use the Protestant Reformation/Revolt as one example. Faith or works? That’s a false dichotomy. It’s both faith and works.
Justice or mercy are other prominent examples. God is both just and merciful, as we should strive to be.
Another false dichotomy (for those who study Church history): Rome (West) or Constantinople (East/Orthodox)?
(Of course, I didn’t intend the nature of all things.)
In the context of this story, much of what later became part of the U.S. was founded by Catholic missionaries. It’s not this “other”/less-told story or the settlement of the East Coast and subsequent events. It’s both. The two narratives need not be put in opposition was my main point. Saint Junipero and others did much good for the native peoples and did help establish the civilization in which we live. (Whether it remains civilized, given some current events, remains to be seen.) The city I live in existed well before “these” United States had a Constitution. Let’s teach American history honestly, the good and the bad, coast to coast. As Catholics, we should not fear the truth.
Very well explained, Deacon Anderson. The U.S. purchased Louisiana from the French, but Louisiana still has the French Cajun/Creole culture. All our states were settled by different cultures, alongside the native tribes, and every native tribe had a culture of its own, and some of the natives intermarried with the settlers. Quite a mixture!
America is a truly great nation. It is a melting pot. It can be a culture shock when people from other nations move here. Or even when you move from one part of the country to another. Or sometimes like we have seen in the last 60 years, the culture changes and your values are no longer accepted or dominant.
God bless America.
There he goes again. And on the 4th, no less.
Would Fr. Serra approve of the Religious Education Congress being held on the land he evangelized?
No, Father St. Junipero Serra (1713-1784) would have been horrifically scandalized at a cleric like Abp. Gomez and his REC. (And he would have, no doubt, also been horrified and scandalized by the Fathers of Vatican II– their ideas would have probably shocked poor Fr. Serra to pieces.)
Exactly what in Vatican II do you think Father Serra would have been so shocked by?
Why are you thumbs-downing a question?
How about the teaching that non-Christians can go to heaven. If Fr. Serra had known that, maybe he wouldn’t have bothered with his missions.
Thank you for the answer and you may be correct. A few years ago, in the comments here, someone linked to a papal document before Vatican Ii that stated that non-Christians have the possibility of heaven. It was actually a person who was a traditionalist so they were much more familiar with the old documents. But that may have been after Father Serra’s time.
I’ve looked but I cannot locate it.
Exactly what in Vatican II do you think Father Serra would have been so shocked by? Nostra Aetate and Religious Liberty
bohemond– Yes! And “Dignitatis Humanae.” And poor Serra would have been terribly shocked by Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J. (previously suspended by the Vatican, which changed its mind on Murray when the Council was begun) whose controversial “Americanism” concepts were a huge influence at the Council. Plus, the controversial New Mass and ecumenism, downgrading the role of the Blessed Mother, aligning the Catholic Church more with Protestantism, stripping it of Catholic identity… the list goes on and on…
Thank you for your answer. Maybe he would have been shocked. Since it came from an ecumenical council of the Holy Catholic Church, he probably would have accepted it with docility. He had a hard time with many people including the new Christians. Neophyte Christians were among those who burned down Mission San Diego.
He was a priest and a holy priest and conformity to God’s Will was important to him.
We may just be projecting our own issues onto him.
Anonymous, this is just hypothetical. Of course, Fr. Serra would have obeyed his Church, in all thongs. He had many problems in his day, as you mentioned. Also, he advocated on behalf of the Native Americans, and requested fair and decent treatment of them, by the Spanish rulers.
“Religious freedom… which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore, it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
Dignitatis Humanae
Anonymous, what you related is only one part of “Dignitatis Humanae.” The Council Fathers went on to say that Catholic clerics and laymen really owe responsibility to their own individual consciences, first — instead of direct responsibility to Christ and to Church teaching. They elevated the Catholic, as an independent sort of individual– and his “freedom” to decide his own personal beliefs and decisions— above responsibility to Jesus Christ. So why have a Church in the first place? Individual freedom is always under the direction of respect and responsibility owed to Alnighty God, first and foremost. That is my own personal belief. All Catholic clerics and laymen must first acknowledge their sincere faith in Christ and His Church! God is “Numero Uno,” not Man! All for Him! Or else– leave the Church! That has always been my belief.
I would say, in my own humble opinion– that Vatican II ought to be revised just a little bit– to strongly state that all Catholic clergy and laymen must sincerely believe in and uphold the Truths of Jesus Christ as stated by Church teaching. That is a big responsibility! A “must!” No priest like Fr. James Martin, S.J., for example– can individually “have the freedom to decide for himself” what he is going to believe and preach. If he does not accept the Church’s teachings, he should leave the Church. Now, that is my biggest “gripe” that I have forever had, with Vatican II. Right there, in a nutshell.
Anon.,
Spanish Rulers? There were barely enough soldiers to defend the Missions. The threat was attack by Savages not the other way round. Relief could be weeks or months away. The Presidios were mere outposts.
Hymie, St. Junipero Serra was a tireless advocate for the rights and welfare of the Native Anericans at his missions, which were all a part of the Spanish Empire, and governed by Spain. At one point, he drew up a 33-point “bill of rights” for the Native Americans, and walked all the way to Mexico City, to present it to the Viceroy! He traveled everywhere on foot.
Anon, July 8, 2021 @ 6:38 am
Dignitatis Hamanae does not say what you are interpreting it to mean. What I posted from the document is the lens through which it is to be read.
This was the era of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc.
It is not a declaration that Catholics and Catholic priests can individually decide right and wrong and what teachings of the Church they will and wont believe.
It is about religious freedom. Certainly you should read it in the proper light which is the Truth of the Catholic Faith. It is unquestioned. Your government can not force you to renounce your faith.
Annonymous, “Freedom of religion” is a big deal for the Fathers of Vatican II, and the prelates of today. Go ask your Bishop to explain all of that. I will never forget the day when our Pastor told us, “you now have to make your own decisions. I can’t tell you what to do , and the Church can’t tell you what to do anymore. You have to decide for yourselves. Don’t call me anymore and ask me to make your decisions for you. I have to make my own decisions, too. The Church has imposed her authority for far too long. Now, finally, Catholics are free to think and decide for themselves.” Oh, how he relished that. “Religious Freedom.” And all the prelates thought it was marvelous. Guess what was next? “Everyone make your own decision on Birth Control. Don’t just listen to the Pope. ” And after that, abortion, “living together,” gay partners, etc. Get more in-depth information, and you will see what I mean. All Catholic clerics and laymen, have a big responsibility to the religion which Jesus Christ established– not babyish “individual Freedom of Religion” for our Church. That is my own belief. “Totus Tuus.”
My bishops will never say that. There was a season in the 80s and 90s (maybe 70s, don’t know) which is called the doctrine-free catechesis era.
It was not from the Council. I had to read the Council documents because so many people were saying that it was.
Then came the Catechism, a runaway best seller. Then came Scott Hahn, Jeff Cavins, Steve Ray, Father Corapi. And much later Michael Voris and Bishop Barron.
You do have a huge responsibility. You have done well in naming the source of your confustion.
The new priests are not like that at all. They are firm in the faith.
I am not putting down Vatican II, only stating that I believe that Religious Freedon is a thing that must be handled very carefully and responsibly. Mankind needs freedom from oppressive governments, and freedom to practice religion. But aside from that– our country and our religion are great responsibilities! So-called “individual personal freedoms” must always be limited to, “what are my responsibilities to God,” first of all? That is the way I have always believed. Responsibility first to Christ, and to my Church’s teachings, which come from Christ, in all situations. Yes, I do not need “coercion,” and Joe Biden, for example, does not need “coercion.” But all of us in the Church do need to be held to respect, responsibility, and discipline, as followers of Jesus Christ. Christ is first, in all things!
Satan is the Father of all lies, and when you repeat a lie (even if you don’t believe it yourself) you spread it. I have just started to realize how much damage those who oppose bishops are doing, not to the Church, but to themselves.
We should always speak Truth.
I know one clergyman who is so Catholic it takes your breath away. His faith is sure. Not combative. He is solid. He was at Vatican II.
I know others who seem kind of like they have their guard up, like they expect you to argue with them.
We (the laity) strengthen them when we accept docilly all Church teachings.
Some people who accept Church teachings are so strident and they commit sins while speaking that it is cringey. If you try to admonish them on their sins of the tongue, they accuse you of not accepting the Church’s teachings.
They are young and they will learn. Well, not all are young.
Anonymous– yes, Religious Freedom is a big part of the post-Conciliar Church. A well-educated cleric can explain this to you.
Anonymous– in regard to your July 8 post at 8:34 pm. Yes, I agree!
Anon., yes religious freedom means freedom to practice what you believe free from coercion from the government or in today’s case, being excluded or punished for your beliefs.
It does not mean that a Catholic can dissent from Church teachings.
9:04 This is of the devil.
Besides these Catholic missionaries, the average Catholic settler played a part also iin America, suffering greatly for the Catholic faith in the colonial period where they also were vital in establishing the Catholic faith through their white martyrdom. https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/nothing-new-under-the-sun-lessons-from-colonial-catholics
Very true Fr. Perozich, and some of my American ancestors were probably the perpetrators, and some of my American ancestors were probably the victims. Maybe that is why I have a “split personality” or maybe even multiples ones. (Lots of laughter.)
I somehow got on a European website one time where people from England, Scotland, France, etc. were bashing each other. I told them to stop it, just stop it as I was an American who had ancestors from all those countries, and they needed to get along and not bring their fight over here.
The article Futility of Diversity by Donald Demarco on that same Crisis website proves what I wrote.
The title of his book has the word “Ingrates” spelled wrong.
As for our Protestant Founders, Catholic Gomez is not worthy to black their boots. Nor are we, come to think of it.
“. . . American individualism [Enterprise?], which is always tempted to fall into a kind of selfish pursuit of one’s own interests without regard to others.”
Were I to grade Gomez in American History, I’d have to mark him “Incomplete”. ☺