The following comes from a Sept. 3 posting by Bishop-elect Robert Barron on Real Clear Religion.
The upcoming canonization of Blessed Junípero Serra in Washington, D.C. — the first ever to take place on American soil — has generated a good deal of controversy.
For his defenders, Padre Serra was an intrepid evangelist and a model of Gospel living, while for his detractors, he was a shameless advocate of an oppressive colonial system that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Indians. Even many who typically back Pope Francis see this canonization as a rare faux pas for the Argentine pontiff.
It might first be wise to rehearse some of the basic facts of Serra’s life. He was born in 1713 on the beautiful island of Mallorca off of the Spanish coast, and as a very young man, he joined a branch of the Franciscan order. He quickly became a star in the community, recognized for his impressive intellectual gifts and his profound spirituality. After many years of study, he earned his doctorate in philosophy and commenced a teaching career, which culminated in his receiving the Duns Scotus Chair of philosophy.
But when Padre Serra was thirty-six, he resolved to abandon his relatively comfortable life and promising career and become a missionary in the New World. He undertook this mission out of a sincere and deeply-felt desire to save souls, knowing full well that he would likely never return to his homeland. After spending a few years in Mexico City doing administrative work, he realized his dream to work with the native peoples of New Spain, first in Mexico and then in what was then called Baja California (Lower California). When he was around fifty years old, he was asked by his superiors to lead a missionary endeavor in Alta California, more or less the present day state of California. With the help of a small band of Franciscan brothers and under the protection of the Spanish government, he established a series of missions along the Pacific coast, from San Diego to San Francisco. He died in 1784 and was buried at the San Carlos Borromeo Mission in Carmel by the Sea.
Much of the disagreement regarding Junípero Serra hinges upon the interpretation of the mission project that he undertook. Though it is certainly true that the Imperial Spanish authorities had an interest in establishing a strong Spanish presence along the Pacific coast in order to block the intrusion of Russian settlers in the region, there is no doubt that Serra’s first intention in setting up the missions was to evangelize the native peoples. What fired his heart above all was the prospect of announcing the Good News of Jesus Christ to those who had never before heard it, and there is no question that his missions provided the institutional framework for that proclamation.
Moreover, the missions were places where the Indians were taught the principles of agriculture and animal husbandry, which enabled them to move beyond a merely nomadic lifestyle. I find it fascinating, by the way, that there was nothing even vaguely analogous to these missions on the other side of the continent. Though by our standards they treated the native people in a rather patronizing manner, the Spanish evangelized and instructed the Indians, whereas the British settlers in the American colonies more or less pushed them out of the way.
Critics of Serra’s project claim that Indians were compelled to join the missions, essentially as a slave labor force, and were baptized against their will. The consensus of responsible historians, however, is that both of these charges are false. In fact, the vast majority of the Indians recognized the advantage of living in connection with the missions, and only about 10% of those who had come to missions opted to leave. To be sure, those who left were hunted down and, upon their return, were sometimes subjected to corporal punishment.
Indeed, there is real evidence that Padre Serra countenanced such violence: in one of his letters, he speaks of the need to punish wayward Indians the way a parent would chastise a recalcitrant child, and in another document, he authorizes the purchase of shackles for the mission in San Diego. Certainly from our more enlightened perspective, we would recognize such behavior as morally wrong, and it is no good trying to whitewash the historical record so as to present Serra as blameless.
Having acknowledged this, however, it is most important to note that the lion’s share of the evidence we have strongly indicates that Serra was a steadfast friend to the native peoples, frequently defending them against the violence and prejudice of the Spanish civil authorities. Very much in the spirit of Bartolomé de Las Casas, the great sixteenth-century defender of the Indians, Serra insisted upon the rights and prerogatives of the native tribes. In one case, he spoke out against the execution of an Indian who had killed one of Serra’s own friends and colleagues, arguing that the whole point of his mission was to save life, not to take it. As Archbishop Jose Gomez has argued, this represents one of the first principled arguments against capital punishment ever to appear in Western culture.
One might ask why Pope Francis — who certainly knows all of the controversy surrounding Padre Serra — wants to push ahead with this canonization. First, he understands that declaring someone a saint is not to declare him or her morally flawless, nor is it to countenance every institution with which the saint was associated. Secondly and more importantly, he sees Junípero Serra as someone who, with extraordinary moral courage, went to the periphery of the society of his time in order to announce Jesus Christ. Serra could have pursued a very respectable career in the comfortable halls of European academy; but he opted to go, at great personal cost, to the margins — and this makes him an extraordinary model of a Pope Francis style missionary.
Was Padre Serra perfect? By no means. Was he a saint? Absolutely.
I don’t read anything from Bishop-elect Robert Barron.
His teaching video on YouTube of “Whether Hell is Crowded or Empty” speaks for itself. Bp. Barron states we can hope most get to Heaven.
This calls GOD / JESUS a liar.
Jesus said “MANY” will not be saved, and only “FEW” will be saved. Mt 7:13-14 and Lk 13:23-28.
For the official Church definition of heresy see – CCC # 2089.
Anna, I have not heard too many of Fr. Barron’s talks, but to me it all depends on what he means by “hope”. He does not really say that no one is in hell as far as I know. It seems to me that the Fatima prayer expresses something similar to what he is saying when the angel told Sr. Lucia to pray, “Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.” In others words we can hope all will accept God, but we know some will not according to what Our Lord and Our Lady has said. I do not know, it is all somewhat confusing to me too, but I say the prayer anyway.
Anne T. — The prayer of St. Lucia has nothing to do with Jesus statement that “MANY will not be saved, “FEW” will be saved. We are merely praying to save as many as possible – which will be few.
That is not Catholic.
For God all things are possible.
Are you calling GOD/JESUS a LIAR?
He has already told us the truth.
“ Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy,that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life,
and those who find it are few.” – GOD
Also see Lk 13:23-28.
No I am not calling Jesus a liar.
Rev 7:9
Luke 18:26-27
Luke 13:29
Jesus saves.
Boy, Anna, your post sure comes really close to espousing predestination—a heresy by the way.
And a small matter of courtesy: the man you criticize is now
BISHOP Barron, having received episcopal ordination the 1st week of September. And he holds a doctorate in theology (do you?) and is merely explaining the theological position of Hans Urs von Balthasar (which the Magisterium never condemned), who was an esteemed theologian honored by the Vatican.
One last thing. Catholics are taught not to snatch one sentence out of Sacred Scripture and use it as a “proof-text”, as Jehovah’s Witnesses often do.
In other words, Anna, Fr. Barron might be telling us to pray, at least privately, for everyone who dies including our enemies, in hopes that they will be saved. I do not know if that is the right interpretation or not.
Anne T., do not put words in the mouth of Barron or anyone else.
Apparently you did not watch his own teaching video.
Watch it in entirety before you post again.
Who do you believe Barron or JESUS ?
” Fr. Robert Barron on Whether Hell is Crowded or Empty ”
Anna, be courteous. He’s BISHOP Barron to you, not “Barron”.
Anna, you are not getting what I am saying about the Fatima prayer, but quite frankly I take a more conservative view than Fr. Barron because of what the Lord himself said — that few would find the way. Nevertheless, we should pray for all as the Fatima prayer says. None of us really knows who is saved nor who is not unless they were canonized. I will discuss this no further as it would be fruitless.
ANNA, I do not think you are wrong to avoid any theologian that you are uncomfortable with. I avoid them all.
I like the part where he says, “Certainly from our more enlightened perspective. . .” Always good for a laugh.
Political Correctness can spoil evangelization. Indians were grateful to have their souls saved by Christ. Catholicism beats their pagan human sacrifices.
Today ISIS is forcing Christians to “convert” to Islam or be killed. I wonder if they are grateful to have their souls saved by the Prophet?
Bishop Barron’s work has been of great value to me and many others. I returned to the Church after viewing his video series on Catholicism. I think Pope Francis asked Father Barron to serve as a Bishop because of his moral courage and skill in evangelization- similar to Father Serra.
Amen to this article!
There is a small museum of documents and artifacts pertaining to Fr Serra in his home town, Petra, Majorca. Many of them are bequests from Californians. It’s worth the easy drive or bus trip from Palma if you are fortunate enough to visit the island.
I think that very few souls, are in Heaven! Many saints, to include the children of Fatima, were shown a vision of souls suffering in Hell! We are told by good priests, to always pray for the Holy Souls! They are badly in need of our prayers! I think most souls end up in Purgatory, and are working their way to Heaven. I do not agree with the writer of this article, that a saint may be holy– yet, immoral! I believe that a true saint, is a truly pure soul, completely in union with God, and has no desire at all, for sin! A true saint, only desires God’s goodness and love!
“I think that very few souls, are in Heaven!”
Oh, Linda Maria, you have a very small God indeed.
Fortunately, I think you are in for one, big beautiful shock when YOU get to heaven and find there many people you would have not invited…
I think that Bishop Barron wants to help and encourage the millions of people he teaches, and also, he does not want to scare them, or depress them, about the possibility of going to Hell! But I think he knows the truth! I used to be terrified of Hell, like many others, as a child! But as an adult, I understand Heaven and Hell better. We end up at life’s end, as a result of the way we have lived! It is all up to us! Christ died to save our souls from Hell, and to lead us to Heaven– so, we have the chance for Heaven, if we simply follow and obey Him! And if we first have to purify our souls more, in Purgatory, that’s just fine!
God is Divine Love and Intelligence, so HUGE we cannot understand Him, or His ways! But in regards to why He would allow His beloved little human beings that He created, to choose sin, spiritual death, and Hell– I can only say, that we all must relax in His Divine Love- and TRUST!! The raging battle between Good and Evil, between God and Satan– is not over, either on Earth, or in the next realms! Perhaps God has much more, in His Divine Plan, that we do not know of— and someday, we will be pleased to see, that everything makes sense– including Hell! St. Maria Goretti forgave her murderer, as a dying child, and tried to rescue his soul, from going to Hell! Very Christ-like saint!
Applying 21 st century ethics \to 18th century situations? I thought ethically correct actions were in no way a function of the time frame. The results of a situation may change but the ethical correctness never does,
go to sicuantribe.org and hit ‘tribal timeline’ for history of euro contact and you’ll see that the period of spanish rule was several orders of magnitude more peaceful that what came later. the sicuan are a branch of the kumeyaay. even by 19th century standards of brutality, fr serra’s day under spain was a model of restraint.