Chair's Response
to the Archbishops of San Francisco and Los Angeles
Regarding the Removal of the Serra Statues
|
In late June 2020 (San Francisco Archbishop) Most Rev. Salvitore J. Cordileone and (Los Angeles Archbishop) Most Rev. Jose Gomez posted letters online regarding the toppling and defacing of Junipero Serra statues. Both letters read like political speeches comprised of familiar talking points nearly identical to the arguments made during the 2015 Serra canonization controversy. The letters provide yet another an opportunity for the public to scrutinize the Catholic Church’s defense of Junipero Serra.
In their defense of Serra, the Archbishops unfortunately make a number of false and misleading statements in spite of claiming knowledge "of the actual historical record," of calling for “a fair and rational discussion,” and of asserting that “the facts matter, distinctions need to be made, and the truth counts." In these public statements by highly positioned leaders of the Catholic Church, detractors are labeled as uncivil and uninformed, while the Church’s argument is portrayed as loving and the product of serious scholarship. In an attempt to undermine the accounts of activists, many of whom are California Indians, the Archbishops assert that activists "started 'revising' history" decades ago and that it continues today. What the Archbishops fail to recognize is that much of what Serra supporters have learned about the Mission Period, especially from literature that formed the Serra Cause, is itself biased and scientifically unsound. The Catholic Church, not the activists, had in the past re-written the historical record to craft a fantasy heritage that affirmed their racial, cultural, and religious superiority and that maintained their economic and political privileges. The Catholic Church should be ashamed for once again using false and misleading information to cover up a human atrocity. Over the past hundred years, Catholic leaders and supporters of Serra have and continue to give the impression that Serra was a heroicl figure who advanced spiritual and even progressive ideals. According to the Archbishops of Los Angeles and San Francisco, Serra was an environmentalist, a civil rights activist, a criminal justice reformer, an anti-colonialist, and an advocate for education, vocational training, and health care. Serra is credited with being the founder the California missions, the spiritual founder of Los Angeles, and a founding father of the United States. Impressive indeed! This list of accolades grossly exaggerates the documented historical facts and demonstrate the Catholic Church's desperation in defending itself from responsibility for the destruction of Native Peoples and cultures during the Mission Period. The Church puts Serra forward as a symbolic representation of a successful missionary (and mission system) who made heroic sacrifices to save the souls and advance the welfare of the California Indians. Serra's worthiness as an historical figure should be gauged by not by his intentions or words but by his deeds, which, if deemed worthy of honor, should exceed the ordinary. In other words, Serra's placement on statuary necessitates the pre-existence of extraordinary deeds. Serra's worthiness must be measured by his successes as an individual missionary and by the success of the California missions that he is credited with founding. When compared to other missionaries, however, Serra the missionary is unremarkable. Serra did not baptize more Indians than any other missionary. He did not confirm more Indians than any other missionary. He did not found more missions than any other missionary. He was not Father President longer than any other missionary who held that position. As founder of the California missions, Serra's worthiness is assessed on the basis of the success of the mission system. That assessment is equally unremarkable. The California missions failed in nearly all of their primary objectives. In regards to their evangelical goals, genuine conversion was not realized in the overwhelming majority of Native peoples. In regards to their colonizing objectives, the missionaries failed to produce self-governing Native settlements comprised of Hispanicized and industrious citizens in service of the Spanish Crown. By means of the mission system, the Spanish Empire did expand to include the land from San Diego to Sonoma. The missions, presidios, pueblos, and ranches that defined Spanish California were made possible only by the removal of Native peoples from their ancestral homelands. Personally, I have yet to hear a persuasive argument supported by reason and evidence as to exactly how California’s Indigenous peoples benefited from their incorporation into the California missions. Whatever that argument might be, it must justify or somehow overshadow the near complete destruction of Native peoples and cultures by the Franciscan missionaries and missions. |
Short List of False Statements Made by Archbishops Salvatore Cordileone and Jose Gomez
|
Here is a short list of the false statements included in the two letters. On the pages that follow, I provide more detailed yet brief response to each.
|
Statement |
Author |
Evaluation |
Brief Explanation |
Source |
Serra walked from Monterey to Mexico and back on an infirmed leg . . . |
Cordileone |
False |
Serra did not walk over 4,000 miles from Monterey to Mexico and back on an infirmed leg |
Geiger, Maynard. Franciscan Missionaries in Hispanic California, 1769–1848, San Marino, Calif.: Huntington Library. 1969, 244. |
to attain a Bill of Rights for Native peoples. |
Cordileone, Gomez |
False |
There was no Bill of Rights |
|
Serra learned the Native languages. |
Gomez |
False |
Serra did not learn a California Native language |
Hackel, Steven. Children of Coyote, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005, 136. |
Serra was an environmentalist |
Gomez |
False |
The description of nature in letters does not an environmentalist make |
common sense |
No abuse occurred during Serra's tenure as Father President |
Gomez |
False |
Serra admitted to the use of excessive corporal punishment by missionaries |
Junipero Serra to Felipe de Neve, 7 January 1780 |
Serra fought the colonial system |
Gomez |
False |
Serra and his fellows missionaries were an integral part of the colonization process |
Lasuén, Fermín and Finbar Kenneally. Writings of Fermín Francisco De Lasuén. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: AAFH, 1965, 76. |
The California missions were similar to communes |
Gomez |
False |
Forced religious participation, forced labor, routine corporal punishment, and authoritarian rule are not characteristic of communes |
common sense |
The missionaries established education for Native peoples |
Cordileone |
False |
There was no formal education system at the California missions |
Sandos, James A. Converting California,. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004, 95. |
The missionaries established health care for Native peoples |
Cordileone |
False |
There was rarely more than one trained physician available for tens of thousands of Natives spread out over 500 miles |
Fogel, D. Junípero Serra, the Vatican & Enslavement Theology. San Francisco: Ism Press, 1988, 121. |
Concluding Thoughts
Please read at least one of the responses to the Archbishops before reading these concluding thought.
I would like to end by agreeing with Archbishop Gomez on at least one point. In his letter, the Archbishop states the following:
|
The exploitation of America’s first peoples, the destruction of their ancient civilizations, is a historic tragedy. Crimes committed against their ancestors continue to shape the lives and futures of native peoples today. Generations have passed and our country still has not done enough to make things right. |
The problem with this is that the Archbishop excludes Serra, the Franciscan missionaries, and the California missions from fault. Any effort to attain justice, or to "make things rights" as the Archbishop posits, begins with the truth. Without truth there can be no justice, and without justice there can be no peace. The Archbishops' dissemination of empty talking points and the Catholic Church's unwillingness to confront the truth wreaks of a cover-up for its direct responsibility in the destruction of Native peoples and cultures in California.
Further, the Archbishop says, "[h]istorical memory is the soul of every nation." And "[w]hat we remember about our past and how we remember it defines our national identity — the kind of people we want to be, the values and principles we want to live by." If true, then the Catholic Church's re-writing of historical facts in service of its interests jaundices our historical memory, distorts our national identity, and undermines our collective values and principles, the most important of which in this instance are truth and its relation to liberty, equality, and justice for an historically oppressed minority.
From a Catholic perspective and using Catholic standards, honor Serra for his character as Francisco Palou has done in his Life of Fray Junipero Serra. Honor Serra for his zealous pursuit of Christianity’s higher calling. But, when it comes to his accomplishments as a missionary and the accomplishments of the California missions, the historical record, not Catholic perspectives an standards, should make that determination. The historical record shows that Serra’s accomplishments as a missionary were unremarkable and that most of the primary objectives of the California missions were not realized.
What's the harm in admitting this? Neither of these alters the essential tenets of Christianity. The whole point of Christianity is that fallible human beings require redemption through Christ. Taking responsibility by admitting error is a prerequisite for that redemption.
Native peoples have and will continue to contest the Catholic Church's colonial apologetic. California Indian activists and scholars in particular have intervened in the Church’s flawed narrative in order to re-right the historical record. Why? Because, as the Archbishop acknowledges, past injustices shape the current inequitable and unjust reality of Native peoples. Catholics in California today live and work on the unceded ancestral homelands of Native peoples and therefore benefit from the Church’s integral role in the destruction of Natives peoples. Only with the recognition of this truth can reconciliation between California Indians and the Catholic Church be realized. Until then, California’s Indigenous population will continue to resist the imposition of the Catholic Church’s continued settler colonial enterprise.
Further, the Archbishop says, "[h]istorical memory is the soul of every nation." And "[w]hat we remember about our past and how we remember it defines our national identity — the kind of people we want to be, the values and principles we want to live by." If true, then the Catholic Church's re-writing of historical facts in service of its interests jaundices our historical memory, distorts our national identity, and undermines our collective values and principles, the most important of which in this instance are truth and its relation to liberty, equality, and justice for an historically oppressed minority.
From a Catholic perspective and using Catholic standards, honor Serra for his character as Francisco Palou has done in his Life of Fray Junipero Serra. Honor Serra for his zealous pursuit of Christianity’s higher calling. But, when it comes to his accomplishments as a missionary and the accomplishments of the California missions, the historical record, not Catholic perspectives an standards, should make that determination. The historical record shows that Serra’s accomplishments as a missionary were unremarkable and that most of the primary objectives of the California missions were not realized.
What's the harm in admitting this? Neither of these alters the essential tenets of Christianity. The whole point of Christianity is that fallible human beings require redemption through Christ. Taking responsibility by admitting error is a prerequisite for that redemption.
Native peoples have and will continue to contest the Catholic Church's colonial apologetic. California Indian activists and scholars in particular have intervened in the Church’s flawed narrative in order to re-right the historical record. Why? Because, as the Archbishop acknowledges, past injustices shape the current inequitable and unjust reality of Native peoples. Catholics in California today live and work on the unceded ancestral homelands of Native peoples and therefore benefit from the Church’s integral role in the destruction of Natives peoples. Only with the recognition of this truth can reconciliation between California Indians and the Catholic Church be realized. Until then, California’s Indigenous population will continue to resist the imposition of the Catholic Church’s continued settler colonial enterprise.