Vatican rewriting American Founding Father History

Canada Free Press ^ | 05/04/15 | Judi Mcleod

[ansel12]

One of the shocking things I learned here was, that some Catholics are anti-American, they see America as a nation whose only value, is the degree to which it is Catholic, they despise America’s history and it’s founding, and see that as a problem that had to be fixed.

To them, better the America of today, than the America of 1800, because at least today it is 24% Catholic, and with more flooding in, which they seem to prefer, even though it empowers the pro-abortion, gay marriage left.

America at it’s founding, is seen as a problem that had to be dealt with.

[norton]

I consider him to have been part of a military campaign aimed at expanding Spanish empire. The goals were to aggrandize the empire:
Controlling territory, not necessarily settling it,
Obtaining resources (assets)for shipment back to Spain,
and doing it with local labor, "spreading the faith" meant slavery, cultural destruction, and cheap labor.

Settlement meant huge land grants to former soldiers who then exercised the same practices.

I don't claim that tribal culture in Cal. was all nature friendly and peaceful, or that we did right by the Cherokees, but Sainthood is a stretch.

[Mrs. Don-o]

From ansel12: "He [Serra] never set foot in the United States, and had zero to do with it’s creation."

Serra had $137 to do with its creation.

That info is from the Letters of Captain Don Pedro Fages and the Reverend President Fr Junipero Serra at San Diego, California by Henry R. Wagner (LINK)

[ansel12]

That meaningless trivia doesn’t change anything.

“He never set foot in the United States, and he had zero to do with it’s creation.”

[BlueDragon]

That's close, but still not quite "cigar".

The synopsis makes mention of some monies allegedly sent to Washington, but were they

-- first --

--- actually mentioned in that volume as the synopsis claims, and then,

were the monies actually sent to Washington, instead of this being some subterfuge engaged in, in order for someone to pocket the loot?

Strange wording here;

During the American Revolutionary War, Father Serra took up a collection from his mission parishes throughout California. The total money collected amounted to roughly $137, but the money was sent to General George Washington.

Took up a collection for ....what?

...BUT...the money was [allegedly] sent to George Washington? That one word but makes the entire thing make little sense.

What's with the "but"? Was the money intended for something else when it was being taken up in collection..?

Would those few Spaniards who had much in the way of money give to those who were fighting English colonial rule?

Maybe, but those persons were under Spanish colonial rule at the time, themselves.

Being as Spain had it in mind that ALL of the New World had been given to their king by a "pope", and they saw themselves (Spaniards) as true lords over the lands, themselves serving (and paying tribute monies) to their own Spanish king(s), then donations from Spanish colonialists to the cause of the English colonialists whom were breaking their own yoke of bondage to English monarchy would be tainted, since the Spaniards were as likely as not to be contributing to an enemy of their own enemy, in hopes of eventually subjugating them (George Washington, and Co.) to their own Spanish king.

Some "founding father" of the U.S. Serra turns out to be when things are looked at in light of rational sense. Or else one can dig out the actual letters and let us have a look at them -- to see if it's not more of supporting an enemy of Spanish kings contemporaneous of that era.

God had said -- speaking through the pope (what a bad joke THAT process turned out to be) that the New World lands effectively belonged to the king of Spain. As long as that king and his agents worked to convert the natives (to the Roman Catholic Church), etc.

Must we dig out links to those documents?

The headline of this thread is correct. Vatican re-writing American Founding Father History

And ansell12 is correct also, technically,

"He [Serra] never set foot in the United States, and had zero to do with it’s creation."

for Serra never set foot in U.S. States of that era, you know, like any of the original 13 colonies which then became States right about the time Washington was fighting in order to make the creation of those (wrested from English colonial rule) stick and stay.

That Spain eventually lost its grip on New World holdings is repudiation that papal bulls have power to grant what they do not own, to others, and/or to set boundaries of nations.

So now, there are effort to re-write and slant things as if to give impression that the Vatican (back in the 16th-18th centuries) was approving of the creation of the United States of America (or something like that) when the real truth is a more complex, and tilts more the opposite (anti-United States) direction.

"Come back, come back, we are your leader!" [spit]

[Mrs. Don-o]

Bless you, BlueDragon.