The Old Franciscan Missions Of California

by George Wharton James

It was not the policy or intention of the Government of Spain to found Missions in the New World solely for the benefit of the natives. Philanthropic motives doubtless influenced the rulers to a certain degree; but to civilize barbarous peoples and convert them to the Catholic faith meant not only the rescue of savages from future perdition, but the enlargement of the borders of the Church, the preparation for future colonization, and, consequently, the extension of Spanish power and territory.

At the very inception of the Missions this was the complex end in view; but the padres who were commissioned to initiate these enterprises were, almost without exception, consecrated to one work only,--the salvation of souls.

In the course of time this inevitably led to differences of opinion between the missionaries and the secular authorities in regard to the wisest methods of procedure. In spite of the arguments of the padres, these conflicts resulted in the secularization of some of the Missions prior to the founding of those in California; but the condition of the Indians on the Pacific Coast led the padres to believe that secularization was a result possible only in a remote future. They fully understood that the Missions were not intended to become permanent institutions, yet faced the problem of converting a savage race into christianized self-supporting civilians loyal to the Spanish Crown,--a problem which presented perplexities and difficulties neither understood nor appreciated at the time by the government authorities in Spain or Mexico, nor by the mass of critics of the padres in our own day.

Whatever may have been the mental capacity, ability, and moral status of the Indians from one point of view, it is certain that the padres regarded them as ignorant, vile, incapable, and totally lost without the restraining and educating influences of the Church. As year after year opened up the complexities of the situation, the padres became more and more convinced that it would require an indefinite period of time to develop these untamed children into law-abiding citizens, according to the standard of the white aggressors upon their territory.

On the other hand, aside from envy, jealousy, and greed, there were reasons why some of the men in authority honestly believed a change in the Mission system of administration would be advantageous to the natives, the Church, and the State.

There is a good as well as an evil side to the great subject of "secularization." In England the word used is "disestablishment." In the United States, to-day, for our own government, the general sentiment of most of its inhabitants is in favor of what is meant by "secularization," though of course in many particulars the cases are quite different. In other words, it means the freedom of the Church from the control or help of the State. In such an important matter there is bound to be great diversity of opinion. Naturally, the church that is "disestablished" will be a most bitter opponent of the plan, as was the Church in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Wales. In England the "dissenters"--as all the members of the nonconformist churches are entitled--are practically unanimous for the disestablishment of the State or Episcopal Church, while the Episcopalians believe that such an act would "provoke the wrath of God upon the country wicked enough to perpetrate it." The same conflict--in a slightly different field--is that being waged in the United States to-day against giving aid to any church in its work of educating either white children or Indians in its own sectarian institutions. All the leading churches of the country have, I believe, at some time or other in their history, been willing to receive, and actually have received, government aid in the caring for and education of Indians. To-day it is a generally accepted policy that no such help shall be given. But the question at issue is: Was the secularization of the Missions by Mexico a wise, just, and humane measure at the time of its adoption? Let the following history tell.

From the founding of the San Diego Mission in 1769, until about sixty years later, the padres were practically in undisturbed possession, administering affairs in accordance with the instructions issued by the viceroys and the mother house of Mexico.

In 1787 Inspector Sola claimed that the Indians were then ready for secularization; and if there be any honor connected with the plan eventually followed, it practically belongs to him. For, though none of his recommendations were accepted, he suggested the overthrow of the old methods for others which were somewhat of the same character as those carried out many years later.

In 1793 Viceroy Gigedo referred to the secularization of certain Missions which had taken place in Mexico, and expressed his dissatisfaction with the results. Three years later, Governor Borica, writing on the same subject, expressed his opinion with force and emphasis, as to the length of time it would take to prepare the California Indians for citizenship. He said: "Those of New California, at the rate they are advancing, will not reach the goal in ten centuries; the reason God knows, and men know something about it."

In 1813 came the first direct attack upon the Mission system from the Cortes in Spain. Prior to this time a bishop had been appointed to have charge over church affairs in California, but there were too few parish churches, and he had too few clergy to send to such a far-away field to think of disturbing the present system for the Indians. But on September 13, 1813, the Cortes passed a decree that all the Missions in America that had been founded ten years should at once be given up to the bishop "without excuse or pretext whatever, in accordance with the laws." The Mission Fathers in charge might be appointed as temporary curates, but, of course, under the control of the bishop instead of the Mission president as hitherto. This decree, for some reason, was not officially published or known in California for seven or eight years; but when, on January 20, 1821, Viceroy Venadito did publish the royal confirmation of the decree, the guardian of the college in Mexico ordered the president of the California Missions to comply at once with its requirements. He was to surrender all property, but to exact a full inventoried receipt, and he was to notify the bishop that the missionaries were ready to surrender their charges to their successors. In accordance with this order, President Payeras notified Governor Sola of his readiness to give up the Missions, and rejoiced in the opportunity it afforded his co-workers to engage in new spiritual conquests among the heathen. But this was a false alarm. The bishop responded that the decree had not been enforced elsewhere, and as for him the California padres might remain at their posts. Governor Sola said he had received no official news of so important a change, but that when he did he "would act with the circumspection and prudence which so delicate a subject demands."