The following comes from a Jan. 20 posting by Nick Taylor on Palo Alto Online.
As expected, last week’s announcement by Pope Francis that he intends to canonize the Franciscan missionary Junípero Serra later this year has drawn sharp reactions from supporters and detractors. Today’s Letters to the Editor in the Mercury News lay out the divide: a reader in Sunnyvale points out that Serra was “loved and revered by the Native Americans at the missions” (true enough, if you believe certain historical accounts), while a man in San Carlos contends that “making Father Serra a saint is like giving a Nobel to Custer” (hyperbole, but worth consideration). A similar debate is happening in the pages of the LA Times.
So who’s right? One of the Times’s readers (a Serra supporter) makes the helpful suggestion that everyone read Stephen W. Hackel’s recent biography of Serra, Junipero Serra: California’s Founding Father. Fiction readers might prefer my 2013 novel, Father Junípero’s Confessor, which paints a similar, albeit dramatized, portrait of Serra. Those who prefer to get their history from primary sources are welcome to read the original Serra biography, Francisco Palou’s Life and Apostolic Labors of the Venerable Father Junipero Serra, Founder of the Franciscan Missions of California. The truly hard-core can read that one in Spanish.
While researching my novel, I read all of the primary sources, and I came away with the impression that Junípero was an earnest, well-meaning missionary. His ire, when aroused, was directed mostly at his own countrymen, not the natives (he was notoriously impatient with the bureaucrats running New Spain). As his detractors point out, he did hold natives captive at the mission sites after they were baptized, but this was not because of a predilection for genocide; rather, he worried that they would fall back into Satan’s clutches if they were allowed to return to their villages. Seriously. That’s what he believed.
An LA Times article about the Serra controversy quotes Loyola Marymount professor Thomas P. Rausch, who warns against judging “an 18th century Catholic missionary by 21st century standards.” This seems like prudent advice–but far too even-handed for the opinion pages.
I’m not aware of many detractors for the canonization of Junípero Serra, however there are many that are very concerned that the Pope intends to sidestep the process of the needed two miracles.
If God wants someone venerated as a Saint, the 2 miracles along with the reported holy lifestyle of the person will happen.
Americans are not clamoring for this canonization to take place. Most Americans have never heard of him.
The Pope explained to the press corps that this method of “equipollent” canonization—that is, without the verification of a miracle and by express order of the Pope—is used when, “in practice, this person is venerated as a saint,” Francis said.
Since Junípero Serra lived in the 1700’s there is no one alive today who can attest to anything. And without the miracles, his lifestyle amounts to hearsay.
Canonization of Holy People without God’s miracles adds to skepticism, and making canonized Saints less important in the lives of the general public.
So it appears that, in addition to a president (Obama) who acts as he pleases by executive orders and executive memos (amnesty), we now have a pope who does likewise.
” As his detractors point out, he did HOLD NATIVES CAPTIVE at the mission sites AFTER THEY WERE BAPTIZED, , but this was not because of a predilection for genocide; rather, he worried that they would fall back into Satan’s clutches if they were allowed to return to their villages.
Seriously. That’s what he believed. ” – If this is true he should NOT be Canonized. He was in grave error including splitting up of families.
Al, please read the article called “His primary identify was a priest” on The Catholic World Report website for another side of the story.
There is no debate here, unless you are a Satanist, or Wiccan. Fr. Serra brought the Faith to heathens. By historical account, he and the Franciscans were gentle and instructive to Indians.
Today, almost all people lack faith in what the Catholic Church teaches. They revere Indian and all aboriginal cultures, and believe that European cultures exists to enslave people for economic gain. True debate with modern man is not possible on this subject.
Similarly, one cannot really debate population control, climate change/global warming, sexual ethics (and the parade of the horribles it brings: abortion, homosexual sex, fornication, adultery, all that), politics, and, to a growing extent, religion. There are few shared values now, of any kind. Professor Rausch is correct, but the difference is even more profound: it is not just the differences in political notions of Mankind that are different, but the entire belief systems, as well. Then, people truly believed in God, and the Church that Christ founded. Today, few have such belief, including most of the bishops involved in extorting money from their gullible parishioners.
Bringing Faith to others is good.
Forcing or making prisoners of them so they will not leave the Faith is bad.
Jesus never forced anyone. His example must be followed.
The Pope explained to the press corps that this method of “equipollent” canonization—that is, without the verification of a miracle and by express order of the Pope—is used when, “in practice, this person is venerated as a saint,” Francis said.
That is the way it used to be done even without an express order from a pope until a canonization process was installed. Pope Francis is really applying the sense of the faithful. Why is that not a good thing?
Furthermore, we should be precise. Everyone in heaven is a saint, canonized or not. We don’t make saints. Canonization is merely official recognition from earthly authorities and usually it requires highly interested parties with pull on earth.
Caroline, that is the point.
It is not the “will” of the majority of Catholics in CA or the USA.
Most Catholics have never even heard of Fr. Serra .
When it is not the will of the majority, 2 miracles are needed.
The requirement for two miracles came about because of abuses – like when powerful Clergy wanted someone to become a Saint for his own reasons.
Carolyn we do not know who is in Heaven or not, with the exception of the Canonized.
Do you know personally know if Junípero Serra led such a good “private” life that he is in Heaven?
The Pope has no special powers to know who is in Heaven, Purgatory or Hell
either.
In addition to leading a holy life, if God wants someone canonized, He will make certain that 2 miracles take place.
Why should anyone object to waiting for 2 miracles? Especially since most Amercian Catholics have no clue who this guy is.
Canonizations are considered infallible declarations by the Pope.
YFC – Only if the Church procedures are followed which includes two miracles, OR as explained by Pope Francis, himself – ” that this method of “equipollent” canonization—that is, without the verification of a miracle and by express order of the Pope—is used when, “in practice, this person is venerated as a saint”.
Since there have NOT been 2 verified miracles as of this date,
and since the majority of Catholics in CA have no clue who he was and therefore do not venerate him, the Pope can not canonize.
Otherwise It would then become merely a personal opinion of the Pope rather than an infallible declaration.
Everything the Pope says and does is not infallible.
What’s the big hurry to canonize Fr. Serra? Pope Francis should follow the usual pathway to canonize a person. He should not do it with the stroke of a pen, as Obama does when he knows a bill will not be passed by Congress.
I think our Church is very deceptive! Who is truly HOLY? What does “sainthood” truly mean? And what are we to aspire to, as Catholics? None of this is clear, any longer, in our post-Vatican II Catholic Faith! Also– are all saints truly qualified to pray for us in Heaven, or is he or she merely a Church-recognized hero, that promoted the Catholic Faith in the world, in an important public role?? HOLINESS is the key here! In the pre-Conciliar Church, everyone clearly knew what a Saint truly was, and what the basic requirements for HOLINESS and for SAINTHOOD were! And not all holy people were viewed as saints! Very few, are true saints, in Heaven! Plus– even among saints, in the pre-Vatican II Church, it was recognized, that there are distinct steps to holiness, varying stages and degrees of holiness, and true sainthood is a rare gift of Heaven, on earth! Yes, Pope Francis– how about the two miracles required? And how about the more exact, older requirements, of the pre-Vatican II Church??
Catecheizing Indians can be only a good thing. The Indians got to share in the Catholic Faith, and currently they constitute the majority of California Catholics. Fr. Serra was a wonderful evangelizer.
Keeping baptized Indians CAPTIVE against their will is not a good thing.
Jesus never held anyone CAPTIVE. Saints follow the example of Jesus.
What does Pope Francis think, I wonder, about miracles that have been verified, by candidates on their way to sainthood, like Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who has the requirements necessary for beatification, as a “Blessed” of the Church– yet, his whole process for beatification, has been unfairly stalled by Cardinal Dolan, as everyone knows! NOT FAIR!! The Vatican is DECEPTIVE!! I would LOVE to see Sheen receive his deserved honors as a “Blessed,” in a ceremony of beatification! And I would LOVE to see the mother and father with their “miracle baby,” whom Sheen apparently blessed with a verified miracle– appear with their blessed child, in Rome, at the beatification ceremony– and tell all the world, about their great miracle! Their child was a stillborn, whose heart did not start beating for over an hour (61 minutes!) after his birth! Sheen’s intercession caused a true life-giving miracle, when the baby boy’s heart began to beat! Anyway– I have been a life-long fan of Bishop Sheen! A great Catholic Role Model, for our day, for everyone in the Church! He surely deserves his honors, as a “Blessed!” He is truly there to help us, in Heaven, for sure!
Abp Fulton J. Sheen has had the 2 miracles and passed all the other stringent requirements to be canonized.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan will not send the required relics to the Vatican. (Abp Sheen is buried in the NY Diocese.)
In addition Abp Sheen is venerated by many thousands in the USA.
I, too, would like to see Blessed Archbishop Sheen canonized as his writings were one of the chief causes of my conversion. It was his writings which helped convince me that Our Lady was a perpetual virgin and of many other Catholic doctrines. Nevertheless, Fr. Serra (I think he is “Blessed Fr. Serra”) was in this land first. I do not know if that has any bearing on Pope Francis’s decision or not.
It’s got nothing to do with any “will of the majority.” In the early days of the Church a person was considered a saint if he were the object of local cult, veneration in the area in which he lived and was known by the people. In California one can claim local cult despite the ignorance of the rest of the world. Visit Mission San Carlos in Carmel, California, and pray at his gravesite. Are often far away miracles attested by medics and church officials more convincing than popular devotion? Particularly as third world Catholicism comes to dominate the faith?
Caroline, congratulations. You seem to know more than Pope Francis about what is and is not appropriate for canonization.
” The Pope explained to the press corps that this method of “equipollent” canonization—that is, without the verification of a miracle and by express order of the Pope—is used when, “in practice, this person is venerated as a saint,” Francis said.”
Some in LA venerate Angelina Jolie for her charitable work.
(Never mind that she is living in adultery with the valid spouse of another.)
Some venerate Cardinal Mahony who assisted Priests in abusing children – because of his socialist politics.
It all depends where your feet are planted.
As soon as they croak, should we vote ?
Caroline, the 2 miracles must be verified as authentic by the Vatican.
So far there have not been two verified miracles. Hearsay does not count.
And if Junípero Serra truly held baptized Indians captive against their wills, that is an evil deed.
It is a form of imprisonment of the innocent.
Clearly this potential canonization needs more scrutiny.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the ends does not justify the means.
CCC: ” 1759 An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6).
The end does not justify the means.”
Caroline, superstition has been part of history.
Code of Canon Law –
“Can. 1187 It is permitted to reverence through public veneration ONLY those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed.”
If you know of veneration of anyone who has not been pronounced a Saint or Blessed, it can be a matter of superstition or myth.
Not that this Priest did not exist, but he has not been named worthy to be venerated by the Church by anyone at this time.
I suggest everyone interested read the article on line at The Catholic World Report called “His primary identity was a priest” about Fr. Serra.
Having been born in California, I was blessed enough to have purchased a tiny first or second class relic of Fr. Serra at one of the missions many, many years ago. It is either a tiny piece of part of one of Fr. Serra’s garments or a tiny piece of cloth touched to one of his possessions. It is enclosed in a small metal picture of him which is enclosed in a small folder with a prayer for his canonization. It seems to be hard to get now.
The saleslady who sold it to me, or at least one of the mission medals I bought, was one of California’s indigenous people, from what tribe I do not know.
Thanks Ann T good comments.
Hang on to the relic if you believe that it may be authentic.
Maybe someday Junípero Serra will become recognized as a Saint, and then maybe he won’t.
Until then: ” Can. 1187 It is permitted to reverence through public veneration ONLY those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed.”
The relic says with ecclesiastical approval on it.
By the way, one biography I have of Fr. Serra says the Spanish records in Spain describe him as being black haired and of swarthy complexion. I think that is probably why Fr. Serra could walk so far in the Mexican and California sun without serious damage to his skin — skin cancer. He also kept himself well covered with a hat. The Spanish people in Spain range from blue-eyed blondes and red heads to people with black hair and darker complexions.
Two fact checks, please
Is cannonization considered an ex cathedra declaration on faith and morals and thus in the scope of the Pope’s infallible powers? This should be a y/n question. Also, it has no implication for or against Fr Serra.
A previous commentator said indians were a majority of California Catholics. That doesn’t sound correct, even if one includes those with a small percentage of indian blood in their lineage.
In answer to your second paragraph only –
As of 2005, California is the state with the largest self-identified Native American population according to the U.S. Census at 696,600. As of 2005, the population of CA was 36,132,147.
In an earlier 2003 report called “Native American Catholics at the Millennium” from the USCCB they had an ESTIMATE of CA, HI, NV numbers combined (3 States) at 77,769 for practicing Catholic Native Americans, which does not give only CA numbers.
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/cultural-diversity/native-american/resources/upload/NA-Catholics-Millennium.pdf
Even though these USCCB numbers are estimates only, clearly the person who
posted that Native Indians were the majority of California Catholics, was making something up out of their own heads.
If the idea here is to have a patron saint for the US Latino population, this is really misguided.
The Latino population in California is descended from Mesoamerican, Central, and South American origins, not the natives Fr. Serra interacted with (unless you possibly count his earlier time in Mexico).
The native California population declined by 90% to less than 20,000 between the 1770s and 1880s, and has recovered somewhat, but is proportionally tiny, and more likely to embrace tribal identity than a Catholic one.
I highly recommend this book:
The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civilization (S. Cook)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106015769422
It goes into a lot of historical detail; It’s still very Western-centric (it refers to the natives as “heathens”), but is all based on historical records and data. The picture it paints of the missionaries, Spanish presence, and life of the native people under that system illustrates well that there is nothing to venerate about it.
Some takeaways about the missions:
* They failed to impart the faith. (natives generally saw the missionaries as oppressors and captors, and were constantly attempting escape, in spite of the life-threatening consequences)
* They decimated the population. (Life expectancy at birth was 7.4 years)
* The native people were basically slave labor for a profitable system, yet often died of malnutrition and diseases related to their harsh living conditions.
* Natives were captured and coerced into participating (increasingly so as their numbers dwindled).
I am a catholic chicana from the Los Angeles area, who was Catholic Youth of the Year for the archdiocese. I had the pleasure of meeting Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II. I used to work for Catholic Charities and have worked with chicano & indigenous peoples for years. I am one of many catholics who oppose the canonization of Serra. As we look to our own commandments, thou shall not steal, kill, covet and lie. As we are called to honor our mothers & fathers, and all our relations, I can’t help but be saddened by the lack of recognition & acknowledgement for how these same commandments were ignored when it came to the indigenous people of this land. The canonization of Serra, especially without the required miracles is yet another…
Its because you lack the real understanding of what those commandments actually mean biblically. You didnt have to give Catholic credentials because its all irrelevant. But thanks for your opinion all the same.