Statues are Complicated, Especially When You're a Native Catholic

There has been a massive rash of toppling statues in the United States - followed by a rush to defend the fallen statues.

There are two separate issues for me here: destruction of churches/church property and destruction of public statues and figures. Vandalism and destruction of churches and statues on church property likely veer into hate crime territory and should be denounced with ferocity. That is not ok, ever. Catholics are not just here to be abused and no one should ever be targeted for violence.

Public statues are different. Many of those have had appeals for decades for their removal. Those appeals have been kicked down the road, ignored, or outright belittled for years upon years. Contrary to beliefs that I have heard around the Catholic internet, these public statues are not an issue purely because they are of a person who was Catholic (which would be a problem). The statues are at issue because of the actions of the individuals and systems they represent.

Let's talk about the top two controversial statues of Catholic people at the moment: Columbus and Serra. Both have many public statues. Both have a legacy that greatly concerns Native people in the Americas.

Columbus

This guy. Not a saint. Never landed in the United States. Did not land under the Italian flag. Yet somehow he became the image for Italian-American Catholics in the United States.
His supporters like to claim that Columbus never had slaves, never committed atrocities, and merely wanted to bring Catholicism to the greater world. None of that is remotely supported by the historical record. From his own diary about the native Arawaks, "with fifty men they can all be subjugated and made to do what is required of them." If that sounds like slavery, it is.
It gets worse. There are records of reports that Columbus rewarded his men with women from the local tribes. If that sounds like sanctioned rape, it is.
The following was written by Columbus to a friend in Spain in 1500, "A hundred castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand." In case you missed it, this is Columbus advertising to his friend that girls as young as 9 were being hunted to be used at will. That's child slavery, and often child sex slavery.

No matter what century you are in, this was wrong. I find it incredibly disturbing to hear Catholics defend these actions as some sort of product of his time. Rape, mass enslavement, child abuse, and other evils are not products of their time. They are symptoms of evil. This is a particularly weak argument because there were debates and movements contemporary with Columbus for humane treatment of the native peoples. Servant of God Bartolomé de las Casas, O.P. was integral in many of these debates, especially the famous Valladolid debate.

For that matter, Italian-Americans have better choices! People who really were strong practicing Catholics who lived in the United States. Mother Cabrini is a good example, and in fact has been picked up by the state of Colorado to replace Columbus Day with Cabrini Day. She was an Italian immigrant herself, a saint, and her work directly made the lives of Italian immigrants better. I can get behind that.

Serra

Serra is more complicated because he is a canonized saint. In theory, his cause has gone through a rigorous examination that should take into account any possible places where his life and works would bring controversy or concern. But Junipero Serra was not canonized under the normal system. His cause was formed centuries after his death, lacking in personal writings, reliant on descendant testimony of those who knew him, and allowed to skip typical steps in the process.

Much of the controversy is this: for Native people, and most Californians, Serra embodies and represents the mission system (see this beautifully written perspective). Serra came with the conquistadors, and the situation for decades would remain a choice of terrible option A or terrible option B.
Terrible option A: die brutally by the hands of the conquistadors or in via forced work in the mines or plantations/ranches.
Terrible option B: die in the missions where the work was also brutally hard and disease so prevalent the death rate exceeded the birth rate for most of it's existence.
Option C, stay outside of both, was hardly an option with disease continuing to spread, food scarce due to the arrival of the Spaniards, and the frequent rounding up of Native people. The terrible options weren't so much options as they were an inevitability.

Being told we shouldn't see the effects of the mission system when evaluating Serra seems near impossible. If Serra had not founded the mission system in California, his work would not have nearly the interest or support that it does for his sainthood. I don't see how to speak of one without the other.  The voices of Native people are a large and echoing void in the Church discussions of Serra. Very few perspectives of the Native descendants of the missions were included in the documentation for his cause, and the consistent protest of Native people to his canonization were ignored for the sake of image.
Pope Francis had declared he would canonize Serra, despite lacking the requirements and procedures to do so. He wanted to do it during his US visit, which was already scheduled and looming. The Curia found a way to make it happen. Native people feel silenced because they were silenced. Silenced for the sake of a political statement, and once again used as a regrettable sacrifice for the Church.
This is why many people are upset. You would be too.

The Bishop Barron thing

I take special issue with public Catholic leaders trying to claim that they shouldn't have to do anything about statues and denying their normal claim to leadership. Suddenly when it becomes iffy, complicated, something that might make the church look less than stellar - it's the laity's problem.
I can't believe I have to say this to people who should know better, but if it's a problem in the church it's a problem for us all - laity and clergy alike. No one gets to opt out. This is a moral question, and a question of the actions of the church hierarchy. Both facets deserve to be answered by our clergy with respect and attention. The laity must do work too, absolutely, but it is shameful for clergy to try and wash their hands of the issues.

Many of these statues were controversial when they were erected. They have remained controversial. Instead of caring about legitimate concerns, Native people have been brushed off and ignored - often told that these concerns were just due to our anti-Catholicism. When 25% of Native people are Catholic, that's a major problem. Native people should not have to choose between speaking truth about history and being seen as good Catholics.

If the Church has made mistakes, those mistakes must be acknowledged and rectified. Anything less is dishonest and fatal to the Body of Christ. Where corruption has leaked in, it must be repaired not ignored. These are truths we know. We have lived through years of scandal already. We have no business pretending that we don't know how serious it is to refuse to address wrongs.

************

Weeeeeelllll this was a fun one. I was REALLY hoping to do this piece later, but current events and statements meant moving it up sooner rather than later. Statues and dissent about popular figures is not my favorite subject, but this is a very common topic where people read one source that is agreeable to them and proceed to never learn about it again. It matters even more as decisions are made now for how to replace, or not, the statues that have fallen. 

So let's discuss! 

Other posts of interest on this blog:

A Story of a Mixed Race, White Passing, Woman

Indian Boarding Schools: A Forgotten Legacy