Young Washington (The Movie)

 

In theaters just in time for July 4, Young Washington is a new historical drama, released by Angel Studios, about the early life and preliminary military career of our future Revolutionary War commander and then first President of the U.S., George Washington (played by William Franklyn-Miller). It focuses especially on Washington's military experiences in the French and Indian War.

The film highlights the young George Washington's ambition and his frustration at the limitations of his social status in Virginia society and his consequent lack of prospects for advancement in the British army's officer corps because of his colonial origins and lack of English education. It has often been observed that, had Washington received the commission he had originally sought in the British Army, history would likely have been very different. Instead, Washington had to settle for becoming a Colonel in the Virginia militia, in recognition of his heroism in the French and Indian War after the death of General Braddock. The film focuses on his heroism and steadfastness, but also emphasizes his resentment at the British, a resentment which only grows as he experiences repeated slights because of his provincial origin and colonial status.

The film is heavy on battle scenes, which ought to cure anyone watching of any romanticized images of 18th-century warfare! In addition to highlighting his growing military prowess, however, the film portrays young Washington's personal growth, intellectually, morally, and relationally. The important part played by his older half-brother Lawrence (who teaches him that "even a pawn can take a king") in Washington's development is emphasized, as is that of his mother who teaches him to learn from failure rather than repeat it.

The film also illustrates the complexity and moral ambiguity of rival claims in colonial America. Washington's big break becomes possible because of British colonial ambitions in the Ohio territory. His military blunders on the Ohio frontier follow from the competition between the British and the French for the same land. The two great European empires were in constant conflict over territory which, of course, had until then belonged to the native Indian tribes, whose complex relationship with the settler communities is also an important part of the history and well portrayed in the film.

That Washington wanted a commission as a British officer, was denied it, and resented that is beyond question. How long-standing and deep-seated were his other feelings and expressions of colonial identity and assertiveness may be more debatable historically. Young Washington repeatedly refers to the new situation created by America and especially by the frontier (the Ohio Valley) where anyone can become someone. Ironically, Washington's greatest social advance, which is not portrayed in the film (having come after the point at which the movie's story stops) will be his advantageous marriage to a rich widow - an instance of his advancing according to the established norms of society's set patterns.

The British and American victory in the French and Indian War would create the wider world context that would make the American Revolution possible. Alongside that, the film emphasizes Washington's internal war with the stratified structures of the British Empire and his awakening to the fact that his real country was Virginia more than Great Britain, a realization that would also transform colonial American history and help create a new country.

Independence Day

Today, the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, when (as we just prayed in the collect) “our country claimed its place among the family of nations” - an occasion for giving thanks “for what has been achieved” and asking divine help “for the work that still remains.”

On Independence Day, we honor the great legacy left for us, often at great sacrifice, by generations past - indigenous Americans, enslaved Africans, and generations of immigrants, to whom we remain linked in a great social compact, bounded to one another, both past and present, for the sake of the future. We remember our past history as a nation, we celebrate our present life together, and we commit ourselves to hope for our common future.

As Pope Leo has written in his special Letter on the 250^th Anniversary of the Founding of the United States: “This anniversary stands as an invitation not only to celebrate the nation’s remarkable journey, but also to reflect upon the responsibilities that the sons and daughters of this country bear to one another, and to the generations who will inherit the nation that is being shaped today.”

As Americans, we share in the benefits bequeathed to us by our country’s founders, whose legacy we receive with respect and celebrate with gratitude. We are – so many of us - the heirs of countless immigrants, so many of whom came to this country in response to its promises of economic opportunity and political freedom. Catholic immigrants brought our faith to this land and enriched this society with a strong network of Catholic institutions, which have served Americans of all backgrounds, contributing a distinctly Catholic sensibility to the American experiment.

Last Sunday, I told the story of Annie Moore. When 17-year old Annie Moore crossed the threshold of the New World as the first immigrant to pass through the new Ellis Island immigration Facility on January 1, 1892, she was welcomed by, among others, Father Callahan of the Mission of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, who blessed her and gave her a silver coin, an expression of the historic role of the American Catholic community  in providing hospitality and welcome  to generation after generation of new arrivals, in this land and nation of immigrants.

Earlier this week, many of us honored that tradition and celebrated our nation’s unique heritage with a Pilgrimage to the Statue of Liberty, ending with a reading of Emma Lazarus’ famous poem, which transformed that monument into a global beacon of hope welcoming generations of immigrants to America. To quote again from Pope Leo’s Letter: “In every generation, those who have arrived seeking freedom, opportunity and a place to belong have helped to shape the nation’s character. To receive them with passion and generosity is not only an act of charity, but also a recognition of the dignity that belongs to every human person.”

As we celebrate today with hot dogs, tall ships, Times Square Ball Drops, a celebrity wedding, and, of course, fireworks, we are also aware of the many difficult and divisive issues facing our country, along with the contentious arguments that command the news and dominate social media. In response to the pervasive political polarization of his own time, the founding pastor of this parish, Servant of God, Isaac Hecker hoped that Catholicism could “act like oil on troubled waters” and so “sustain our institutions and enable our young country to realize its great destiny” [Letter, December 22, 1857, The Paulist Vocation, p. 46]. Today, our faith challenges us to make Hecker’s hope a reality in response to the multiple challenges of our time, to address our disagreements in a morally serious way that transcends simplistic sloganeering, emotional appeals to narrowly defined secular or religious identities, and the vilification of political opponents.

As our American bishops reminded us over a decade ago: “Catholics may choose different ways to respond to compelling social problems, but we cannot differ on our moral obligation to help build a more just and peaceful world through morally acceptable means, so that the weak and vulnerable are protected and human rights and dignity are defended.” [USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (2015), 20].

Homily for Independence Day, Saint Paul the Apostle Church, NY, July 4, 2026 (adapted in part from my homily for last Sunday).

Suburbia Triumphant

Growing up, as I was so fortunate to have done, as a baby Boomer in the aftermath of World War II, I was lucky not only to live in the Bronx, still in its glory (although fading faster than any of us then realized) but also to grow up in the glorious sunset of the urban Catholic parish neighborhood. Physically embodied in the great Gothic parish church across the street from where we lived, the parish church was by far the biggest and most impressive structure in the neighborhood and perhaps the most influential in that it served as the spiritual center and source of stability for most of our neighbors. What a sight it was in those days, Sunday after Sunday, as thousands of people poured out of the 13 Sunday Masses celebrated in both upper and lower churches! (Sunday Masses upstairs at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 12:50 and downstairs at 9, 10:15, 11:15, 12:10, and 12:55.) The “candy store” owner on the ground floor of our building once remarked that they probably made more selling newspapers to the people coming out of church on Sunday than on anything else the rest of the week! As a child, I would attend the parish grade school and go on to the parish high school, the two other great parish institutions, which - along with the omnipresent Augustinian Fathers and Dominican Sisters who staffed them - made the parish plant the physical and psychological (and, of course, spiritual) communal anchor of our very densely populated, urban neighborhood.

Already, however, the pull of suburbanization was at work. My mother, more than the rest of us I think, hoped someday to be a suburban homeowner - a desire eventually fulfilled years later, when I was already away in grad school. By them both the Bronx and the Church were being blown about by in the fierce winds of change. Those changes, however, were themselves, in part at least, consequences of a wider cultural shift from the old urban neighborhoods where European Catholic immigrants and their children and grandchildren had made once made their communities to to new and very different kinds of communities in the suburbs. That is the story, so ably told by Holy Cros priest and historian at Notre Dame University Stephen M Koeth in his book Crabgrass Catholicism: How Suburbanization Transformed Faith and Politics in Postwar America (University of Chicago Press, 2025).

Koeth contends that "it is only through accounting for the religious lives of suburbanites that we can fully understand the processes of suburbanization and the experience of suburbia." He also argues that Catholic critiques of suburbia "were reflective of concerns over modernity, economic prosperity, consumerism, assimilation, and the decline of ethnic religiosity as much as they were a specific response to suburban living."

The author begins by recalling the urban Catholic world that the 19th- and 20th-century American Church had created up until World War II. His case-study for postwar suburbanization and Catholic institutional expansionism is Long Island, which experienced enormous suburban growth in the postwar period. It was on Long Island in 1957 that the first fully suburban diocese was created - the Diocese of Rockville Center - a situation which also left its mother diocese, Brooklyn, the only entirely urban diocese in the U.S.He surveys the Church's demographic and institutional expansion and thr attempts to transplant older models to this new ministerial setting.

An important contention of this book is that "space shapes religious practice." Because parishes often lacked adequate buildings and the nature of suburban transportation, the center of Catholic practice shifted from the parish plant to the family home, and traditional communal expressions of piety shifted to more domestic expressions. All this led to greater involvement of the laity in the Church's organizational life and mission - not so much as a result of Vatican II but actually in anticipation of it. This was the heyday of the Christian Family Movement, the Cana Conference, and Marriage Encounter.

In the process, the old ethnic divisions began to breakdown, and an ethnically amalgamated Catholic identity came to predominate. (Think of sociologist Will Herberg's famous, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, published in 1955.) At the same time, as white, once "ethnic" Catholics amalgamated, racial division and polarization predominated.

Meanwhile, despite the commendable effort to continue the commitment to parish schools, the sheer size of the population to be educated and financial and other pressures (e.g., high taxes supporting high quality public schools) led to a greater emphasis on religious education programs, often conducted in parishioners' homes. All this had a further effect on participation in post-war politics."Catholic voters ultimately prioritized tax relief and local control over obtaining state aid for parochial schools. Suburban Catholics became increasingly dissatisfied with New Deal liberalism and increasingly opne to conservative political positions.

The early expansion into suburbia coincided with an era of high churchgoing among American Catholics. (Hence, the regular erection of new parishes and constant construction of new churches and parish facilities.) U.S. Catholic Mass attendance peaked at 74% in 1958. By the early 1970s, however, the drop in Mass attendance could no longer be ignored. The author quotes Paulist John B. Sheerin, writing in 1973, regarding the alarm about the drop in Mass attendance then being sounded by Andrew Greeley, that it was "worth of far more concern than most Catholics had given it."

Boomers and their heirs "have ceased practicing their faith in ever-increasing numbers," and "many of the most plausible explanations for the declines are deeply connected to change sin American Catholicism wrought by postwar suburbanization and its attendant social transformations." In addition to the loss of the old urban identification between religion and neighborhood and the various structural and financial issues already alluded to especially in regard to Catholic education, Koeth also acknowledges untoward changes in the U.S. political climate. Many, especially millennials, "have been turned off by what they perceive to be the political agendas of religious leaders.

Thus, "one of the key ironies of this book" is "that even as the postwar move to the suburbs was marked by the optimism and excitement of proliferating parishes and schools and of classrooms, seminaries, and convents bursting at the seams, suburbanization was undermining the structures that had sustained the vibrant Catholic world of the 'immigrant Church.' In opening an entirely new era for the Church, suburbanization sowed seeds that would ultimately erode the vitality fo the Church in the early postwar period." The Church today " is still grappling with, and largely defined by, the challenges first posed by the collapse of the Catholic ghetto and the spread of crabgrass Catholicism."

An America 250 Pilgrimage In Support of Immigrants

 

Yesterday, some 60+ parishioners and others went on pilgrimage to Liberty Island to pray for America on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and to identify with and express support for immigrants, past, present, and future. 

We began with Mass at Our Lady of Victory Church on William Street and a rousing homily by Paulist Father Bruce Nieli, who was inte inspiration behind the event. We then walked to Castle Clinton and the Battery Park Terminal, praying the Rosary along the way, with stops in front of the National Museum of the American Indian and the Saint Elizabeth Seton Shrine. The first decade was prayed in thanksgiving for the immigrants of the past, whose faith and labor built the Church and country we have inherited. The second was for appreciation and justice for Native peoples, that our national celebration be marked by honest memory and deeper reconciliation.. The third decade was for all who serve immigrant families through works of mercy and for the strength of those families to endure. The fourth was for immigrants and asylum seekers presently in transit or waiting, that their dignity be upheld in the in-between. The final decade was for all the future immigrants to our country and that the nation's next 250 years be shaped by welcome rather than fear.

From the Battery, we took the ferry to Liberty Island, where we heard Emma Lazarus' famous poem New Colossus, which transformed the meaning of that monument into a beacon of hope for generations of newcomers to America, and which famously concludes:

"Give me your tired, your poor,                                                                                                  Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,                                                                           The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.                                                                                Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,                                                                            I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Americans All!

Who is an American? Who is a citizen? That question was definitively answered by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which famously begins: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Ratified in 1868, this clause was designed to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857), which had excluded African-Americans from U.S. citizenship. Subsequently, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court affirmed the plain meaning of the amendment, clarifying that this guarantee of citizenship extends to all born in the U.S., including children born to non-citizens. (The "subject to the jurisdiction" clause effectively exempts children of foreign diplomats or of enemy forces during a hostile occupation.)

In response to the most recent challenge to this clear constitutional guarantee by an Executive Order issued by the Trump Administration in 2025, a 6-3 Supreme Court decision (Trump v. Barbara) has struck down that attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporarily present parents. The Court's majority ruled that children born in the U.S. to "unlawfully or temporarily present" parents are still within the nation's jurisdiction, again guaranteeing this precious constitutional right that defines our nation as it approaches its 250th anniversary this week.

In his Majority Opinion, Chief Justice Roberts explained that under early English law, children who were born in Britain automatically became British subjects. “This view crossed the Atlantic with the colonists—and was adopted with little fanfare after the Revolution,” Roberts wrote. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted to repudiate the Supreme Court’s pre-war 1857 ruling that a Black person whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as enslaved persons was not entitled to any protection from the federal courts because he or she was not a U.S. citizen. In so doing, the Chief Justice asserted, the framers of that amendment intended to “permanently enshrine” the existing understanding of birthright citizenship. “A child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen.”

“Citizenship, then and now,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Obviously, that is good news. The sad news, however, is that at least three of the Justices were willing to set aside the plain text of the 14th amendment. A fourth also agreed with the dissenters that the 14th amendment does not automatically confer universal birthright citizenship, but voted with the majority on the grounds that the President lacked authority to act as he did by an executive order, because that violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law currently grants citizenship to those born in the U.S. and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Therefore, the President cannot use an executive order to override that congressional statute. 

Had the majority been looking for a narrower ground on which to rule, Chief Justice Roberts could have made that argument, striking down the President's order but avoiding answering the fundamental constitutional question. But that would have possibly opened the door to Congress to change the basis of citizenship by mere legislation, which would have been an insufferable outcome. Thankfully, the majority opted for the fundamental constitutional argument.

All of which highlights how tenuous, how fragile, even our most fundamental constitutional guarantees have become in the hands of this Supreme Court.