Junipero Serra & Modern Iconoclasm

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brigh111
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brigh111

Guest
Hello all, I really want to hear what people have to say about what is going on in California right now. First of all, I can see where the protestors are coming from. They believe Serra was a genocidal racist. That’s pretty bad and, if it’s true, I understand why they would want to remove his statue. I am not from Cali and don’t know much about Serra so I am really wanting to hear an honest and factual account of his life and why he was canonized. I have seen articles that make even I, a very devout Catholic, wonder about this saint. Also, I have seen many people refer to this destruction of Serra statues as a modern Iconoclasm and I want to hear what y’all think about that. I don’t know if I would call it that because the destruction is coming from different motivations. The protestors are not destroying Serra’s statue because they think it’s a graven image, but rather because they think he was a bad man. If you believe it is Iconoclasm could you please explain your thinking to me further?

I guess what it comes down to is this, many people see what is happening in California as a direct attack on Catholicism and I’m wondering if that’s really what is going on. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks in advance for any thoughtful points you bring to the discussion.

Sincerely,
A very confused Catholic girl
 
To me, I just thought they didn’t like him because he came with the Conquistadors. I don’t know if there is anything in his personal history that makes him a so-called “genocidal racist”, if that is not true, those are quite inflammatory words. He was a Missionary, a Padre and he did something like established most of the missions in California.

Now, when I bing search “truth Juniper Serra”, I get a list of essays. I won’t post an article. I would think we can all look for ourselves.

I will go with some excerpts here:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ca-bishops-defend-historical-truth-missionary-saint-comes-attack/
“The historical truth is that Serra repeatedly pressed the Spanish authorities for better treatment of the Native American communities,” the bishops said in the statement.

“Serra was not simply a man of his times. In working with Native Americans, he was a man ahead of his times who made great sacrifices to defend and serve the indigenous population and work against an oppression that extends far beyond the mission era.”
Click to expand...
So, maybe if he did wrong, it was only in coming over with the Spanish conquerors,

OTOH, apparently, those doing human sacrifice in Mexico and those regions, were doing a bad thing…

That is up to historians, I’m sure it can go both ways in discussion. I would not feel comfortable and confident that I know… but I do know that using terms like “genocidal racist” is probably going too far.
 
I would suggest perhaps doing a forum search, as we have had quite a few recent threads on both Serra ad iconoclasm.

As for questioning Serra’s sainthood, remember that
  • news articles today do not paint a full picture and tend to be very biased, both against the Church, against Christians generally, and against anyone perceived as being “racist” by modern standards as opposed to the standards of their time
  • The Vatican investigates saints very thoroughly before they canonize someone. We can trust their judgment and certainly they have done more research than media reporters or activists have.
  • Pope Francis, who canonized Serra, is extremely sensiive to social justice issues and the needs of indigenous peoples, and has not hesitated to stop a sainthood process if he has a concern (see for example Fulton Sheen’s beatification)
  • A number of indigenous tribes and leaders actually supported Serra’s canonization
  • Historians give a much more balanced picture of Serra than the news media, so if you’re really interested you should read a scholarly book on him (Most people won’t bother to take the time to do this)
  • Sainthood aside, from a historical perspective Serra was highly important in the settlement of what is now California, whether people like that idea or not
  • Saints aren’t perfect
  • It is okay to not like or not relate well to a particular saint, but it doesn’t make him or her less holy
  • Many saints from past centuries did some things and / or held some views that our culture would not approve of today, due to social changes. (Example: St. Thomas More had a mentally challenged person beaten for repeatedly disrupting Mass, obviously we wouldn’t do that nowadays.) Again, this reflects both “saints aren’t perfect” and cultural change over time. Saints were still holy within the context of their time.
 
Last edited:
Brigh111 said:
First of all, I can see where the protestors are coming from. They believe Serra was a genocidal racist.
Click to expand...
Except he wasn’t. He was a Franciscan friar who brought Christianity to the peoples of California, and fought with the government for their protection and recognition.
 
I never said I believed what the protestors believe. I said that if what they believe is true, I can understand why it would be very disturbing to them.
 
Brigh111 said:
don’t know much about Serra so I am really wanting to hear an honest and factual account of his life and why he was canonized. I
Click to expand...
He wasn’t intentionally trying to kill indigenous people, he was trying to convert them.

Some of his methods were coercive— baptizing children and then holding them apart from the parents until they too accepted baptism. Requiring the baptized to live at the mission and forcibly returning them if they left to go back to their villages. Corporal punishment for transgressions. Using them as free labor.

He wasn’t a monster, but many of the soldiers were. And the government took their native lands, destroyed their way of life, and left them with nothing. When the US acquires California it got worse.

Junipero Serra might be a Catholic saint, but these are statues in parks and public squares erected for his perceived contributions to the settling of CA, not his sainthood. Some disagree this is something to celebrate.
Brigh111 said:
Also, I have seen many people refer to this destruction of Serra statues as a modern Iconoclasm
Click to expand...
Which isn’t accurate at all. There is no heresy regarding statues at play here. And his weren’t targeted for religious reasons.

Monuments and statues to wars, to colonization, to victories old and new always have two sides to the coin. Where there is a victor their is a vanquished. Where there is a colonizer there is a colonized, where there a war there are victims of war.

So it shouldn’t be surprising when those who were on the losing end gain a voice, people start to see those monuments differently.

Let’s remember, the “patriots” of the American Revolution (which the British would call treasonous citizens of the realm) tore down the statue of King George III and made musket balls out of it.

Was their act iconoclasm? Should that statue still be standing in NYC?
 
1ke said:
Some of his methods were coercive— baptizing children and then holding them apart from the parents until they too accepted baptism. Requiring the baptized to live at the mission and forcibly returning them if they left to go back to their villages. Corporal punishment for transgressions. Using them as free labor.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read much about St. Junipero or the specifics of California at the time, but my understanding is that life under St. Junipero’s care was much better than they had before he got there. His means may not have been perfect, but his ends were.
 
MikeInVA said:
was much better
Click to expand...
Define “much better” and who determines that. If the natives had to be forcibly returned to the missions from their villages, IDK if you can say that THEY viewed it as “much better”.

In general, whites/Europeans tend to define whatever is not to their liking or culture as inferior. They viewed the Indians as savages. The Indians didn’t view themselves that way.

So, yeah. I don’t think that’s an argument.
 
1ke said:
In general, whites/Europeans tend to define whatever is not to their liking or culture as inferior. They viewed the Indians as savages. The Indians didn’t view themselves that way.
Click to expand...
Maybe you missed it, but St. Junipero was working to protect the native Californians from the excesses of the white/European Spanish government. If they really didn’t want his help why didn’t they abandon the towns he built after he died?
 
That’s also how I read it. Without Serra, the indigenous people would have been treated much more poorly by the occupying Spanish. (This idea also doesn’t sit right with a lot of activists because they don’t like the idea of a white man “saving” indigenous peoples from some worse fate that also would have been caused by other white men. They think all the white people should have just stayed in Europe…no way historically was that gonna happen. )

Those who don’t like Serra tend to object not just to him, but to the entire Spanish occupation and to Christianization of indigenous peoples in general. If, however, we take the position that occupation and probably Christianization was going to happen regardless, then he appears much kinder and gentler than many others who would have done it.
 
Last edited:
I would like more of an explanation. We’re talking about a saint here. Why are we lowering our standards so much all of the sudden? I’m not comfortable settling for “he wasn’t as bad as the genocidal maniacs who came before him.”
 
I’m not an authority on the subject and I know that. But when I have reached out for answers, I have been met with lots of “well, he wasn’t that bad” or “times were different” and I really think a Catholic saint should be held to a higher standard. I hope there is an explanation out there, so far I have not found it.
 
Brigh111 said:
I’m not an authority on the subject and I know that. But when I have reached out for answers, I have been met with lots of “well, he wasn’t that bad” or “times were different” and I really think a Catholic saint should be held to a higher standard. I hope there is an explanation out there, so far I have not found it.
Click to expand...
I thought some answered it well above. He did nothing to be called that in post #1. He aided Native Americans.

I can not speak for the Native American tribes in California but undoubtedly in Mexico, there were some pretty vicious civilizations.
 
Last edited:
Brigh111 said:
I really think a Catholic saint should be held to a higher standard
Click to expand...
Well St Augustine had mistresses and an illegitimate child. Dorothy Day had an abortion.

Saints aren’t saints because they never sinned.
Perfection isn’t the criteria for sainthood.
 
Last edited:
Brigh111 said:
Why are we lowering our standards so much all of the sudden?
Click to expand...
We’re not “lowering our standards”. And this isn’t “all of a sudden”. Have you read the lives of many of the historic saints? As I mentioned in my post, many of them did things in the context of their culture that we would not approve of today. I also have no doubt that something we are doing right now and think it’s normal might be considered a big affront by a culture in another 300 years.

You should try to view all historic figures, including saints, in the social context of their reality. And that principle wasn’t taught to me by the Church, it was taught to me by my secular graduate school history professor.
1ke said:
Saints aren’t saints because they never sinned.
Perfection isn’t the criteria for sainthood.
Click to expand...
Also a good point. If you’re looking for the perfect saint, s/he doesn’t exist.
Brigh111 said:
I have been met with lots of “well, he wasn’t that bad” or “times were different” and I really think a Catholic saint should be held to a higher standard. I hope there is an explanation out there, so far I have not found it.
Click to expand...
There’s been several good explanations given. It seems like you’re not interested in hearing them, nor are you interested in doing a deep dive into learning on your own about Fr. Serra, saints generally, or history generally. It’s like you’ve already made up your mind and unless somebody has a magic bullet that explains it all to you in 2 minutes you’re not changing your mind. Try challenging your own intellectual approach if you truly want to learn.
 
Last edited:
That was before their conversion, there is a big difference. Saint Augustine didn’t have a mistress his whole life, Dorothy Day didn’t have abortions after she converted. I’d like you to find me a saint who converted and then had a mistress, or converted and then murdered people.
 
"I am well versed in my lives if the saints, I have been raised Catholic, gone to all Catholic grade schools and high school and finally, graduated from an extremely conservative and traditional Catholic College. I actually haven’t received a good explanation from anyone on this thread. I simply stated my concerns and now you are attacking me claiming I am willfully ignorant. You’re right, I haven’t done extensive outside research on the topic, that’s why I came here. I asked a question hoping to get an educated response and I received none. And please point out to me other saints who were so influenced by the morality of their time that they do not hold up to our current standards of morality. St. Augustine? Bad example, he did away with his mistress after his conversion. Dorothy Day? She was an anarchist and social activist UNTIL she abandoned that way of life and became Catholic. So do not for a second try to tell me that a saint might have had low moral standards but that’s ok because of the context of the time. You sound very defensive. If I were you, I would be very unsatisfied with my justification of Junipero Serra’s alleged life. I’m actually shocked you’re settling for that and not doing more research yourself. And I will reiterate, simply explaining away this question by saying, “Without Serra, the indigenous people would have been treated much more poorly by the occupying Spanish”. More?? What an unsatisfactory response. Or how about this one: “His means may not have been perfect, but his ends were.” Right, because Catholic morality is famous for saying that the means justify the end… But anyways thanks for the “several good explanations given” and telling me that clearly I’m just a sophist who has no desire to learn anything. . . .
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
In general, whites/Europeans tend to define whatever is not to their liking or culture as inferior.
Click to expand...
That’s every culture and people and race. Racism isn’t unique to white people, man.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top