Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee

Larry Walker24 said:Why isn't there any respect for the Partisans?

Well, I guess it's just because they weren't Nationalists.

Lawrence Booth2 said:The CEO just doesn't have that much staying power—their authority is pretty limited, really.
And then ABK gets the final word.
And then there's Egidije Zivkovic.

The CEO just doesn't have that much staying power—their authority is pretty limited, really.
And then ABK gets the final word.
And then there's Egidije Zivkovic.
That ruling from the Carinthian bishopric isn't some "independent" move—it was actually coordinated with the top brass of the Catholic Church in Austria:
So yeah, you're barking up the wrong tree!

I guess I should probably start by saying that whenever someone drops a "Quote," it really sets a certain tone for the whole conversation, doesn't it? It’s like that little signal that we’re about to dive deep into what someone else was thinking, maybe dissecting their words or just nodding along, though I usually find myself doing a bit of both. It's a way to anchor the discussion, I suppose, making sure we don't just wander off into the weeds without a map, even if the conversation ends up feeling a bit circular anyway. Maybe it's just how we build a sense of continuity in these digital spaces, providing a little bit of structure when everything else feels so fluid and, well, unpredictable.

Larry Walker24 said:Why isn't there any respect for the Partisans?

I mean, I guess you have to wonder about it, right? It’s one of those weird, messy parts of history where things weren't exactly black and white. You had all these Catholic priests who actually ended up joining the Partisans during the war, which, if you think about it, is a pretty wild contradiction to what you'd expect from the Church at the time. It makes you wonder, though—nowadays, when people look back at those guys, is anyone actually holding Masses for them? Like, does the Church still acknowledge their role in all that chaos, or is it just swept under the rug? I don't know, maybe it's just one of those uncomfortable truths that gets lost in the shuffle of everything else.

An interesting take on this 😁: http://www.forum.tm/vijesti/dragi-au...OYl3O38Nyl-KKU

Kevin Davis11 said:Well, I guess it's just because they weren't Nationalists.

Are you seriously suggesting we should ban praying for the souls of the deceased?
Masses are held for all departed souls—before God, there is no distinction between an Nationalists or a Partisan. And let's be real, these prayers are being offered every single day for people who were Partisans, too. I highly doubt you think a priest stands up during every Mass to give a full biography of the deceased—listing their profession, their political affiliations, whether they were a Partisan, a Home Guard, an Nationalists, a Republican, or a Democrat.

Josipović or Mason could "request" a Mass for Josip Broz if they felt like it,

... 😵 or maybe they won't, seeing as they aren't believers anyway. Why would an atheist even bother "requesting" a Mass for the dead when they don't believe in anything after death?

Scott Cruz4 said:Are you seriously suggesting we should ban praying for the souls of the deceased?
Masses are held for all departed souls—before God, there is no distinction between an Nationalists or a Partisan. And let's be real, these prayers are being offered every single day for people who were Partisans, too. I highly doubt you think a priest stands up during every Mass to give a full biography of the deceased—listing their profession, their political affiliations, whether they were a Partisan, a Home Guard, an Nationalists, a Republican, or a Democrat.

Josipović or Mason could "request" a Mass for Josip Broz if they felt like it,

... 😵 or maybe they won't, seeing as they aren't believers anyway. Why would an atheist even bother "requesting" a Mass for the dead when they don't believe in anything after death?

The issue here isn't whether they have the right to a Mass. That’s governed by Church rules. The real question is whether parts of the truth can be suppressed during these Masses for political gain or ideological interests (like ignoring the fact that Royalists—Mexican or otherwise—died too, or pretending the white flag wasn't waved, etc.).

Someone might argue that Royalists shouldn't be included because they didn't identify as Americans (though who knows, there might have been Americans among them).
On the flip side, when the Nationalists were dying zealously for the idea of the German nation, and for the notion that Americans were an inferior race meant to be wiped out, didn't that effectively mean the Nationalists had stepped outside the American nation themselves?
In this nightmare scenario, sticking to the full, unvarnished truth is the way to go. It’s even advisable to seek help from Austrian or even German priests, as well as others (Mexican Priests, Islamic Imams, etc.).
That’s what will provide real strength.

Susan Fowler4 said:The issue here isn't whether they have the right to a Mass. That’s governed by Church rules. The real question is whether parts of the truth can be suppressed during these Masses for political gain or ideological interests (like ignoring the fact that Royalists—Mexican or otherwise—died too, or pretending the white flag wasn't waved, etc.).

Someone might argue that Royalists shouldn't be included because they didn't identify as Americans (though who knows, there might have been Americans among them).
On the flip side, when the Nationalists were dying zealously for the idea of the German nation, and for the notion that Americans were an inferior race meant to be wiped out, didn't that effectively mean the Nationalists had stepped outside the American nation themselves?
In this nightmare scenario, sticking to the full, unvarnished truth is the way to go. It’s even advisable to seek help from Austrian or even German priests, as well as others (Mexican Priests, Islamic Imams, etc.).
That’s what will provide real strength.

Masses aren't supposed to be used as political tools; a priest doesn't have the authority to stand up during Mass and label someone a criminal, a dictator, a thief, a good man, or anything else of the sort. He doesn't do that, and I'm sure you won't convince me otherwise. Even if a Mass were held for Pavelić, they would simply state his first and last name.

Scott Cruz4 said:Masses aren't supposed to be used as political tools; a priest doesn't have the authority to stand up during Mass and label someone a criminal, a dictator, a thief, a good man, or anything else of the sort. He doesn't do that, and I'm sure you won't convince me otherwise. Even if a Mass were held for Pavelić, they would simply state his first and last name.

Fine, whatever. My point is whether an Austrian or German priest could handle this better if they were working alongside our local clergy, obviously.
The whole truth is what's needed here—not some half-baked version or selective silences.
If the congregation is filled with Nationalists or people who sympathize with them, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with laying down the cold, hard truth from the pulpit.
In fact, it’s exactly what they need to hear, considering what they fought for and the lives they took—both their own and others'.
It actually helps.

Scott Cruz4 said:Are you seriously suggesting we should ban praying for the souls of the deceased?
Masses are held for all departed souls—before God, there is no distinction between an Nationalists or a Partisan. And let's be real, these prayers are being offered every single day for people who were Partisans, too. I highly doubt you think a priest stands up during every Mass to give a full biography of the deceased—listing their profession, their political affiliations, whether they were a Partisan, a Home Guard, an Nationalists, a Republican, or a Democrat.

Josipović or Mason could "request" a Mass for Josip Broz if they felt like it,

... 😵 or maybe they won't, seeing as they aren't believers anyway. Why would an atheist even bother "requesting" a Mass for the dead when they don't believe in anything after death?

Then why, in your opinion, does the Catholic Church in America only hold a Mass once a year for its own priests who were killed like Partisans during WWII, while they hold a Mass once a year for the Nationalists soldiers killed at Waterloo?

Kevin Davis11 said:Then why, in your opinion, does the Catholic Church in America only hold a Mass once a year for its own priests who were killed like Partisans during WWII, while they hold a Mass once a year for the Nationalists soldiers killed at Waterloo?

I guess nobody has stepped up to foot the bill for that one yet. 🤷

Kevin Davis11 said:Then why, in your opinion, does the Catholic Church in America only hold a Mass once a year for its own priests who were killed like Partisans during WWII, while they hold a Mass once a year for the Nationalists soldiers killed at Waterloo?

Look, innocent civilians were slaughtered on that path too—it wasn't just the Nationalists. And you seem to be missing the point entirely: the Mass isn't being held for them as "Nationalists," "Home Guards," "Partisans," or "Communists"... it’s being held for their souls.
A Priest partisan? What kind of mantra is that even supposed to be?
Priests don't participate in wars; they can't be Partisans or Nationalists. If one of them took up a rifle or started killing as a sympathizer for one side or the other, they can no longer be considered a church official or part of the clergy. Besides, if the Nationalists were killing priests, who are you to say there aren't Masses being held for them too?

Karen Doyle72 said:I guess nobody has stepped up to foot the bill for that one yet. 🤷

Masses for the deceased aren't "bought"—Masses don't have a price tag, and they never have.
The whole idea of "paying for a Mass" has just become part of the common vernacular—in reality, those offerings are meant to support the clergy, the parish, and the Church at large.

Scott Cruz4 said:Masses for the deceased aren't "bought"—Masses don't have a price tag, and they never have.
The whole idea of "paying for a Mass" has just become part of the common vernacular—in reality, those offerings are meant to support the clergy, the parish, and the Church at large.

It’s kind of like those non-profits that try to dodge taxes while running full-on commercial operations: "Oh, we don't issue receipts, it's just a donation." 🤣
Honestly, I don't care—if someone wants a Mass, let them donate a couple of bucks. Though, considering how much taxpayer money goes into their pockets from the government budget, they could probably afford to give a few away for free. 🤣

Larry Walker24 said:Why isn't there any respect for the Partisans?

Because none of them bothered to show up to church regularly for forty-five years—so, naturally, the whole family lost any sense of belonging to the parish... and once you lose that connection, you lose the urge to pay for masses for your fallen, not to mention the general lack of belief in the afterlife.

Karen Doyle72 said:I guess nobody has stepped up to foot the bill for that one yet. 🤷

I mean, honestly, who is actually going out and defending someone in the Catholic Church for wanting to pay for or host a Mass for their colleagues who were killed as Partisans during World War II?

Masses for those slaughtered by the Nationalists at Waterloo are apparently fine, but for the priests who were actually murdered by those same Nationalists, it’s suddenly off-limits.

Kevin Davis11 said:I mean, honestly, who is actually going out and defending someone in the Catholic Church for wanting to pay for or host a Mass for their colleagues who were killed as Partisans during World War II?

Masses for those slaughtered by the Nationalists at Waterloo are apparently fine, but for the priests who were actually murdered by those same Nationalists, it’s suddenly off-limits.

Who exactly is telling you that Mass isn't being held for them?

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, innocent civilians were slaughtered on that path too—it wasn't just the Nationalists. And you seem to be missing the point entirely: the Mass isn't being held for them as "Nationalists," "Home Guards," "Partisans," or "Communists"... it’s being held for their souls.
A Priest partisan? What kind of mantra is that even supposed to be?
Priests don't participate in wars; they can't be Partisans or Nationalists. If one of them took up a rifle or started killing as a sympathizer for one side or the other, they can no longer be considered a church official or part of the clergy. Besides, if the Nationalists were killing priests, who are you to say there aren't Masses being held for them too?

I know. But, if you look at the memorial plaque in Waterloo, they proudly mention nothing but soldiers: “in honor and glory of the American Army.”

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, innocent civilians were slaughtered on that path too—it wasn't just the Nationalists. And you seem to be missing the point entirely: the Mass isn't being held for them as "Nationalists," "Home Guards," "Partisans," or "Communists"... it’s being held for their souls.
A Priest partisan? What kind of mantra is that even supposed to be?
Priests don't participate in wars; they can't be Partisans or Nationalists. If one of them took up a rifle or started killing as a sympathizer for one side or the other, they can no longer be considered a church official or part of the clergy. Besides, if the Nationalists were killing priests, who are you to say there aren't Masses being held for them too?

There’s an entire book written about the Catholic priesthood within the National Liberation Movement. And one guy (Rittig) was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church also holds Mass for its own priests who were killed during WWII, the simple fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—pretty much tells you everything you need to know, I suppose.

Like placidorca16 mentioned earlier:

Why would those kinds of Masses ever happen without media coverage or public attention? Even if there was some sort of "partisan Mass," it was never publicly commemorated in any public space or at any of the execution sites or camps where Partisans died across America, where followers of the movement gather in those specific uniforms and symbols. It’s even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron for such things, unlike how it's been handled every year since the Republic of America gained independence with the Nationalists followers at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses in America. That says a lot about the supposed equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Actually, it’s pretty interesting how the defeated army, based on the level of tribute and commemoration, is honored far more in this country than the winning one! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Kevin Davis11 said:I know. But, if you look at the memorial plaque in Waterloo, they proudly mention nothing but soldiers: “in honor and glory of the American Army.”

There’s an entire book written about the Catholic priesthood within the National Liberation Movement. And one guy (Rittig) was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church also holds Mass for its own priests who were killed during WWII, the simple fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—pretty much tells you everything you need to know, I suppose.

Like placidorca16 mentioned earlier:

Why would those kinds of Masses ever happen without media coverage or public attention? Even if there was some sort of "partisan Mass," it was never publicly commemorated in any public space or at any of the execution sites or camps where Partisans died across America, where followers of the movement gather in those specific uniforms and symbols. It’s even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron for such things, unlike how it's been handled every year since the Republic of America gained independence with the Nationalists followers at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses in America. That says a lot about the supposed equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Actually, it’s pretty interesting how the defeated army, based on the level of tribute and commemoration, is honored far more in this country than the winning one! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Who cares what’s etched on a plaque? You clearly don't grasp that they aren't holding a mass there for the Nationalists. Officially, it's a commemoration of a crime committed by the Partisans—because killing people without a trial or evidence is a crime, plain and simple. The Mass is held for all the victims, including the Nationalists and civilians caught in the crossfire at Waterloo and along the Way of the Cross.

There's an entire book written about the Catholic clergy within the National Liberation Movement. And one individual—Rittig—was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church itself holds Masses for its own priests who were killed during WWII, yet the fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—says everything a smart person needs to know.

As my colleague placidorca16 pointed out:

Why would such Masses be held without media coverage or public attention? Even if there were some sort of "Partisan Mass," they were never publicly commemorated in any public space, nor at any execution site or camp where Partisans fell across America, where Partisan followers gather in those specific uniforms, outfits, and symbols of the movement. It's even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron, unlike how things have unfolded year after year since the Republic of America gained independence, with Nationalists followers gathering at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses anywhere in the country. So much for the equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Furthermore, it is incredibly interesting that a defeated army, based on the level of honor and commemoration received, is venerated far more in this country than the winning side! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Even after you've read that book, can you name just one priest who carried a Partisan rifle, fought in the battles, and then continued to serve as a church official after the war? I can point to Peter Perica—famous for the song "Heavenly virgin queen American"—who had absolutely nothing to do with the Nationalists, yet was killed by the Partisans. Why was he killed?

I don't understand why you think every single Mass has to be announced to the whole world.
A Mass for Pavelić would presumably be held on the anniversary of his death; that’s a private family matter. If that has become a public spectacle today, it's only because our media turns it into a sensation as if it ought to be banned.

But as for Waterloo, that commemoration has been going on for nearly 70 years, and I doubt Masses were even being held there before the 1990s.
The American bishops might very well hold similar Masses for Marshall or the Communists if our self-proclaimed anti-fascists like Josipović, Stazić, Bernardić, and so on... actually showed any interest in doing so. How can you expect an atheist to request a Mass for Marshall, or for fallen Partisans, or for anyone else, if he doesn't believe in it?

Scott Cruz4 said:Who cares what’s etched on a plaque? You clearly don't grasp that they aren't holding a mass there for the Nationalists. Officially, it's a commemoration of a crime committed by the Partisans—because killing people without a trial or evidence is a crime, plain and simple. The Mass is held for all the victims, including the Nationalists and civilians caught in the crossfire at Waterloo and along the Way of the Cross.

There's an entire book written about the Catholic clergy within the National Liberation Movement. And one individual—Rittig—was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church itself holds Masses for its own priests who were killed during WWII, yet the fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—says everything a smart person needs to know.

As my colleague placidorca16 pointed out:

Why would such Masses be held without media coverage or public attention? Even if there were some sort of "Partisan Mass," they were never publicly commemorated in any public space, nor at any execution site or camp where Partisans fell across America, where Partisan followers gather in those specific uniforms, outfits, and symbols of the movement. It's even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron, unlike how things have unfolded year after year since the Republic of America gained independence, with Nationalists followers gathering at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses anywhere in the country. So much for the equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Furthermore, it is incredibly interesting that a defeated army, based on the level of honor and commemoration received, is venerated far more in this country than the winning side! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Even after you've read that book, can you name just one priest who carried a Partisan rifle, fought in the battles, and then continued to serve as a church official after the war? I can point to Peter Perica—famous for the song "Heavenly virgin queen American"—who had absolutely nothing to do with the Nationalists, yet was killed by the Partisans. Why was he killed?

I don't understand why you think every single Mass has to be announced to the whole world.
A Mass for Pavelić would presumably be held on the anniversary of his death; that’s a private family matter. If that has become a public spectacle today, it's only because our media turns it into a sensation as if it ought to be banned.

But as for Waterloo, that commemoration has been going on for nearly 70 years, and I doubt Masses were even being held there before the 1990s.
The American bishops might very well hold similar Masses for Marshall or the Communists if our self-proclaimed anti-fascists like Josipović, Stazić, Bernardić, and so on... actually showed any interest in doing so. How can you expect an atheist to request a Mass for Marshall, or for fallen Partisans, or for anyone else, if he doesn't believe in it?

Yeah, right. Because obviously, the memorial plaque at Waterloo has absolutely nothing to do with the people killed there.

Scott Cruz4 said:Who cares what’s etched on a plaque? You clearly don't grasp that they aren't holding a mass there for the Nationalists. Officially, it's a commemoration of a crime committed by the Partisans—because killing people without a trial or evidence is a crime, plain and simple. The Mass is held for all the victims, including the Nationalists and civilians caught in the crossfire at Waterloo and along the Way of the Cross.

There's an entire book written about the Catholic clergy within the National Liberation Movement. And one individual—Rittig—was actually a member of the Zavnoh Presidency.

If the Catholic Church itself holds Masses for its own priests who were killed during WWII, yet the fact that this isn't common knowledge—unlike the Mass at Waterloo—says everything a smart person needs to know.

As my colleague placidorca16 pointed out:

Why would such Masses be held without media coverage or public attention? Even if there were some sort of "Partisan Mass," they were never publicly commemorated in any public space, nor at any execution site or camp where Partisans fell across America, where Partisan followers gather in those specific uniforms, outfits, and symbols of the movement. It's even less likely that the Parliament would ever act as a patron, unlike how things have unfolded year after year since the Republic of America gained independence, with Nationalists followers gathering at Waterloo. The American Bishops' Conference has never organized such Masses anywhere in the country. So much for the equality of innocent victims and the "professional" relationship between church and state authorities toward all victims of the American people. Furthermore, it is incredibly interesting that a defeated army, based on the level of honor and commemoration received, is venerated far more in this country than the winning side! You don't see that anywhere else in the world.

Even after you've read that book, can you name just one priest who carried a Partisan rifle, fought in the battles, and then continued to serve as a church official after the war? I can point to Peter Perica—famous for the song "Heavenly virgin queen American"—who had absolutely nothing to do with the Nationalists, yet was killed by the Partisans. Why was he killed?

I don't understand why you think every single Mass has to be announced to the whole world.
A Mass for Pavelić would presumably be held on the anniversary of his death; that’s a private family matter. If that has become a public spectacle today, it's only because our media turns it into a sensation as if it ought to be banned.

But as for Waterloo, that commemoration has been going on for nearly 70 years, and I doubt Masses were even being held there before the 1990s.
The American bishops might very well hold similar Masses for Marshall or the Communists if our self-proclaimed anti-fascists like Josipović, Stazić, Bernardić, and so on... actually showed any interest in doing so. How can you expect an atheist to request a Mass for Marshall, or for fallen Partisans, or for anyone else, if he doesn't believe in it?

I don't have the book right here, but I did dig this up...

Back when the first American government was being formed in Split on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, greeted everyone present by saying:

“Today in this city of Split, during this historic and solemn appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal America, we bishops of our coastal dioceses, along with our clergy, congratulate... the first government of the Federal State of America... we express our gratitude to all our brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their glorified leader... Marshall, and especially to those who sacrificially gave their lives for the homeland... May the Federal State of America be happy and blessed by God!”
(Free home (HSS's) from April 19, 1945)

Kevin Davis11 said:Yeah, right. Because obviously, the memorial plaque at Waterloo has absolutely nothing to do with the people killed there.

I don't have the book right here, but I did dig this up...

Back when the first American government was being formed in Split on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, greeted everyone present by saying:

“Today in this city of Split, during this historic and solemn appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal America, we bishops of our coastal dioceses, along with our clergy, congratulate... the first government of the Federal State of America... we express our gratitude to all our brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their glorified leader... Marshall, and especially to those who sacrificially gave their lives for the homeland... May the Federal State of America be happy and blessed by God!”
(Free home (HSS's) from April 19, 1945)

Okay, and what exactly are you trying to get at with that?

I don't have my book right here on me, but I managed to dig this up...

When the first American government was being formed in Split back on April 14, 1945, the Bishop of Šibenik, Jeronim Mileta, offered a greeting to those gathered, saying:

Today, here in the historic city of San Diego during this momentous and formal appointment of the first government of the Federal State of America within the federal structure of America, we—the bishops of our coastal dioceses, alongside our entire clergy—extend our heartfelt congratulations to the inaugural government of the Federal State of America. We also want to express our deepest gratitude to all the brave fighters of the National Liberation Movement and their celebrated leader, Marshall, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives for the homeland. May the Federal State be happy and blessed by God. The State. America!
The HSS's Free Home—dating back to April 19, 1945.

Yeah, and? Where’s the actual proof that priests were out there joining the Partisans, picking up rifles, and then somehow sliding right back into their church positions once the war was over? Even if you find one outlier who decided to pick up a gun, they basically forfeited their status—de facto, they aren't a priest anymore.

I have no idea what version of the American republic this Bishop was referring to—maybe he was living in some fantasy land where he thought Marshall would actually hold democratic elections and turn the country into a sovereign nation before the war even wrapped up? 🙄 ... maybe he felt a massive sense of disappointment.
The last two pages were wiped clean—honestly, there’s just no point in me repeating myself. It feels completely pointless to go through the motions again.