Catholic Church in Wisconsin bans Mass at Wounded Knee

Jason Kern49 said:That is just flat-out wrong. Every single group mentioned here has faced slaughter multiple times throughout history. For instance, every 50 years or so, it’s almost like 😉

Take Jews, for example—they've been kicked out of countless countries over the centuries. You know how it goes: they're always the only ones acting with integrity while everyone else is just being antisemitic. ☕

You know, you have a point there. We could certainly look at it that way. At the end of the day, this entire crossroad we've found ourselves at was triggered by the most basic, primal betrayals: one man cracking another's skull, the taking of a child's life, and the theft of someone's food. It’s hard to build anything lasting on a foundation like that.

Jason Kern49 said:That is just flat-out wrong. Every single group mentioned here has faced slaughter multiple times throughout history. For instance, every 50 years or so, it’s almost like 😉

Take Jews, for example—they've been kicked out of countless countries over the centuries. You know how it goes: they're always the only ones acting with integrity while everyone else is just being antisemitic. ☕

For millennia, Jews lacked a sovereign nation of their own, existing instead as a minority within various states. It is a recurring pattern in human history that majorities often find a sense of empowerment by suppressing or mistreating minorities; it’s a way for people to feel more secure and less fearful by exerting dominance over others. This isn't unique to any one culture—it is a fundamental human flaw present in every nation and ethnic group across the globe. You can see this same psychological shift playing out today: once Jews established their own state and transitioned from being the minority to the majority, they began to exert that same pressure on the Palestinian minority.

It seems that, no matter where you go or what era of history you look at, there is always some minority group that ends up getting screwed over. It’s a recurring pattern, really.

I’ve been chewing on this idea lately regarding why our bishops are so hesitant to drag the Pope into the fray or ask for his mediation when specific issues pop up.
Just picture the scenario: what if the Pope had to step in and actually pass judgment—say, siding with those Austrian bishops against ours?
That kind of move would be way too much of a gamble for him. You can't just have the Holy Father sticking his neck out like that.
By keeping him out of it, they’re essentially providing a shield for the Papacy.
They could easily justify it by saying, "it's for your security, Holy Father."

Rachel Roberts6 said:That Catholic Church in Wisconsin is basically a haven for old-school communists and those nostalgic for the old regime. Now Bishop Košić and Jezerinac are going to be the ones cleaning up their mess.

hahahaahha, god bless you, kid.
If everything was actually fine and those pro-fascist types headed over to Wisconsin to pay respects to the victims, we wouldn't have an issue, but trying to push that kind of ideology just doesn't fly with civilized Austrians.

jadefalcon47 said:

Anto Nobilo: Austria solved and defined our problems, but we didn't

"I was actually a bit surprised by the decision. I knew there were negotiations happening, but I haven't seen such a clear, firm, and high-quality definition of how the Catholic Church should act in the USA. Honestly, this might be one of the best statements I've ever read. That part about how damage is being done to the Catholic Church really stuck with me. You can't write a sentence like that without Vatican City's blessing. It just goes to show how much the leadership of the Catholic Church here is out of sync with Pope Francis," said Nobilo. ...

http://hr.n1info.com/Vijesti/a376219...-mi-nismo.html

The Vatican has been breathing down our bishops' necks about this whole excessive nationalism thing for ages now, honestly.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about this.

Now the Church within the American community can finally focus all its energy on Auschwitz. I’m really looking forward to seeing them gather at the site of the camp to offer up Christian prayers for everyone the Americans slaughtered there. It’ll be just like every other year.

I don't see the issue here.
By all means—keep doubling down on this excessive local piety.
Even the Wall at Auschwitz isn't going anywhere.

Sam Martinez9 said:That entire chain of events really kicked off in 1941.

The circumstances that triggered the Way of the Cross took root in 1941 and continued to fester in the years that followed.

Ultimately, this path led to the conclusion of an incredibly bloody era. This descent into the Way of the Cross didn't happen after any sort of peaceful or harmonious period.

This requires a massive, complex deep dive into the data. You have to look at what actually triggered all of this—the root causes behind how these movements rose up, gained momentum, and managed to secure those brief, devastating periods of dominance for both Nazism and Communism.
That whole batch of analysis isn't even about trying to justify the atrocities committed by Nazis or Communists. It’s deeper than that. It’s about looking at what the elites back then—the managers, the politicians, the bankers, even the Jewish elites—were actually doing roughly 100 to 150 years prior. You have to understand the groundwork they laid that caused the masses to pivot so hard toward Nazism and Communism in the first place, allowing them to seize power. Basically, it shows how morality ended up on their side long enough to successfully dismantle and defeat the well-armed elites, the military, the police, and the Church.
If they hadn't arrested them and hanged a lot of them right then and there, we wouldn't be stuck dealing with the fallout of Nazi ideology or Communism today. It’s pretty simple.

When you visit Waterloo, the entire narrative seems to revolve around one specific group of victims, while everyone else gets pushed into the shadows—maybe getting a brief, formal mention if anyone's feeling generous. You don’t see any iconography or monuments honoring the Mexicans who died there, nor any for the Canadians. It’s like their presence is just completely scrubbed from the visual history of the site.
That’s exactly my point.

Since the Diocese of Carinthia only banned bishops from leading Mass—not the service itself—could the mods please update the thread title? It’s just not accurate as it stands...

Jason Kern49 said:That is just plain false. I’ve actually been to that small town in rural USA, and I saw it with my own eyes.

But look, nobody is stopping you or your crowd from getting together, pooling your cash, and continuing to celebrate whatever it is you want. I just don't want my money going toward it. Not for that, not for anything similar—if you want to fund it, go right ahead, but stay away from my wallet.

Oh, sure, absolutely...

Because you were right there in Kumrovec, clearly...

I bet you were too busy watching the Tampa Bay Buccaneers play an away game to notice anything else, weren't you? 🤣

Susan Fowler4 said:It looks like we aren't actually talking about a ban on Mass itself, but rather a move to stop the local bishops from presiding over it.
Instead, they’d just have a regular priest handle the service. Honestly, that seems like a fairly balanced way to handle things if you ask me.
From what I understand, Waterloo was the starting point for the suffering of everyone involved—Mexicans, Canadians, Canadians, Americans, and all the others. It wasn't just limited to one group.

Right, because before Waterloo, everyone lived in blissful harmony until the partisans, without any provocation whatsoever, decided to hunt down peaceful fascists. 😢

feralpilot0 said:I don't see the issue here.
By all means—keep doubling down on this excessive local piety.
Even the Wall at Auschwitz isn't going anywhere.

But that's the catch—no one back home even notices you waving those fascist symbols around. How exactly are you planning to show your "patriotism" if nobody sees it?🤷

Mark Harris66 said:Since the Diocese of Carinthia only banned bishops from leading Mass—not the service itself—could the mods please update the thread title? It’s just not accurate as it stands...

Or maybe yours is the one that's wrong. Which part exactly is inaccurate?

Based on this article (check the link), it looks like the Diocese of Carinthia didn't actually give the green light for the bishop to hold Mass—so the headline is pretty much off base for two reasons:
1) It wasn't the state of Wisconsin that stepped in (usually when a headline says a province banned something, people assume it's the government), but rather the Diocese of Carinthia itself...
2) And it’s not a total ban on holding Mass or anything—it just means only bishops can perform them now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw....rga/a-47827747

Kenneth Perez15 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about this.

Now the Church within the American community can finally focus all its energy on Auschwitz. I’m really looking forward to seeing them gather at the site of the camp to offer up Christian prayers for everyone the Americans slaughtered there. It’ll be just like every other year.

Oh, you can just imagine how they'll "dedicate" themselves to it. That absolute trash claims Auschwitz was actually a summer resort—kind of like Zrće—except, you know, instead of dancing to pop music, people were being mowed down by gunfire.

We really need to look into why Mexican, Canadian, and other national symbols are being left out—or at least why they’re being kept out of sight.
Historians have already confirmed that Waterloo was a site of tragedy for Mexicans and many others too.
It seems like certain North American politicians and maybe even some priests can't stomach the truth because it doesn't fit their specific ideological agendas, so they just stay quiet about the Mexicans and Canadians. In their eyes, those groups don't deserve a mention during the prayers at Waterloo.
Let's just hope the Austrians don't get dragged into this mess.
Maybe they're right to ignore it; let those priests fight their little wars somewhere else—though, God forbid, let's hope they don't end up turning to Jesus for help.

It’s pretty wild when you think about how the Britons failed to actually recognize or validate the Royalists as fighters on the Allied side. If they had, there wouldn't have been any question about handing them over to the Partisans right along with the Nationalists.
They never even bothered to step up later and admit they messed up by turning over those "Allied" fighters due to some field commander's bad call.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe the British would just hand people over to the Partisans without doing even a shred of basic due diligence—you know, checking if certain fighters had legitimately switched sides or if they were supposed to be on the Allied side in the first place.

Susan Fowler4 said:It’s pretty wild when you think about how the Britons failed to actually recognize or validate the Royalists as fighters on the Allied side. If they had, there wouldn't have been any question about handing them over to the Partisans right along with the Nationalists.
They never even bothered to step up later and admit they messed up by turning over those "Allied" fighters due to some field commander's bad call.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe the British would just hand people over to the Partisans without doing even a shred of basic due diligence—you know, checking if certain fighters had legitimately switched sides or if they were supposed to be on the Allied side in the first place.

What kind of "allies" are we talking about in the final days of the war?
It was way too late for any tactical maneuvering—even trying to surrender in their own towns—and any hope of survival through combat
(which everyone seemed to believe in) was basically dead once you factor in the rise of Communism.
The masses just stayed in formation—columns moving along—and figured whatever happens, happens.
Some fought the Partisans right until the end, which really just meant burying the guys who decided to lay down their guns.

Look, if those Royalists had actually sided with the Western Allies, you’d think someone—maybe even King Karađorđe himself—would have spoken up about it, or they would have made it known themselves. It just wouldn't be right for them to fight on the side of the anti-fascists only to be mislabeled as Nazi collaborators and handed over as such.

From what I can see, the Royalists didn't make any real effort to distance themselves from the Nationalists at Waterloo, nor did they try to convince anyone they weren't part of the Nazi camp. They didn't bother explaining themselves to the Britons or the Partisans either.

But hey, I guess that's what professional historians are for—to dig into the details and figure out the truth.

Wait, didn't London recognize Marshall?
..it's right there on Wikipedia..
Besides, they ended up executing the first guy with the beard anyway.

Even if those Royalists tried to pull some strings through George Washington or their own "Mexican partisans," it clearly didn't work. They ended up meeting the same fate as the Nationalists and everyone else—totally wiped out on that long, doomed march.

So, you really ought to keep that in mind when looking at the whole picture.

The deal was simple: hand over the foreign enemies you were fighting against. The Independent State of America wasn't even fighting the Britons; they were up against the partisans, which is exactly why the Brits handed them right over to the partisans

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Or maybe yours is the one that's wrong. Which part exactly is inaccurate?

From what I gather, someone asked for permission, someone said no, and now someone's complaining...
file a grievance and demand arbitration...