Father Francis J. Weber, archivist of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, has made an important contribution to the history of the Catholic Church in California. Until the appearance of his book only fragmentary material had been available on the development of the diocesan structure in American California. Happily, California’s Reluctant Prelate is a solid beginning in filling this vast historical lacuna.
Tadeo Amat, the reluctant prelate and first bishop of the Monterey-Los Angeles Diocese, was born in Barcelona and educated in Spain and France. An outstanding scholar and linguist, he “was to bring to the United States an academic background that few ecclesiastics in the young republic of that period could match.” Arriving in Louisiana in 1838, Amat successively became a seminary instructor, a master of novices, president of a college, rector of Philadelphia’s St. Charles Seminary, and bishop of Monterey in 1853—all within a period of fourteen years.
As bishop for the southern half of the state, Amat faced overwhelming problems. The diocese contained 75,984 square miles but had only sixteen priests. It did not embrace a major city and possessed only about 8 per cent of the state’s population. The missions were in ruins; the Indians were neglected. The majority of the urban population did not practice its religion. Although Amat did not totally overcome these problems, he was sufficiently successful to warrant a biographical study. Not only did he double the number of parishes and triple that of priests, he established the first educational institutions for lay persons in Southern California.
Amat’s biography portrays more than just his achievements. Valuable insights are presented of the sorry state of the Church in Southern California, of the important part that Spanish priests played in the intellectual development of American Catholicism, and, indirectly, of the neglect of the gente de razón in the pueblos.
Despite Weber’s most respectful attitude toward the clergy, this solidly researched work presents an objective view of both ecclesiastics and their squabbles. Thus the Amat-Franciscan controversy is thoroughly aired and the nonlaudable side of Amat’s personality exposed. Besides the usual typographical and punctuational errors there are other minor discrepancies that crept into the work—e.g., “Kingdom of Barcelona.” These, it must be stated, do not affect the essential value of this original contribution to history of the state and of American Catholicism.
