I didn't know Chief Sitting Bull was a Catholic. Roman Christendom says he was converted to the Catholic Church being instructed by Bishop Marty of Dakota, and, after his death, was buried in a Catholic graveyard.I am intrigued, anyone know more?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Lord’s descent into the underworld
At Matins/the Office of Readings on Holy Saturday the Church gives us this 'ancient homily', I find it incredibly moving, it is abou...
-
A French newspaper has reported Pope Francis, once Benedict dies, will abrogate Summorum Pontificum and handover Old Rite's celebrat... -
I was at the Verona Opera Festival when Summorum Pontificum was published but it wasn't until All Souls Day that I first attempted to s... -
In a conversation with our bishop recently, I thought he said that some parishes in the diocese were already using the new ICEL translations...
9 comments:
I suspect his baptismal name may have been Papal Bull.
Oh Fr! I thought that was you at the Seminary!
If I stopped by that blog before, I don't wonder why I don't read it regularly. It may be true, but the author is an anti-American jerk of the 1st water. Regards the last blog entry re: "Ramona" it was said:
"The story takes place after the American war of annexation of theft in Mexico and is set in Southern California.
Jackson's novel is set in Southern California, shortly after the Mexican-American War. It is about a part-Scottish and part-Indian orphan girl, Ramona is an orphan raised by the sister of his deceased foster mother, Señora Gonzaga Moreno. Señora Moreno detests the rapacious and uncouth Americans whom she is now bound to recognize as her new rulers who have seized most of her lands. But she prefers her own child to Ramona.
"
Oh, give me a freakin' break.
#1 "Ramona's wedding place -- literally sits within two stones throws of my own parish church. Her freakin' land wasn't STOLEN.
In fact it was negotiated by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) that San Diego (and slightly south) + all the rest of what is now California was now no longer part of Mexico, but the USA.
And a damn good thing too, because otherwise that area would be just as corrupt, mismanaged, misused as the rest of that hell-hole, Mexico is. Tijuana would effectively be north of San Francisco. I don't want to hear crap about "oh, the poor Mexicans, blah, blah, blah..." they have as many or more natural resources as the US. But they are simply corrupt and incompetent.
#2 given the anti American screed he threw in along with the blog post re: Sitting Bull -- I expect that posting is also rife with error and wouldn't trust the author further than I could throw a grand piano.
#3 the blog author likely doesn't have a clue that that evil American, Abraham Lincoln gave back the mission property (throughly destroyed by those wonderful Mexican and Spanish rape artists) back to the Catholic church.
Mexican politicians routinely steal everything not nailed down and they have contempt for their own people. They couldn't run a lemonade stand without being corrupt.
Part of the treaty (which I think it a little disingenuous to call 'negotiated') stipulated that existing Mexican landholders in the surrendered territories would be acknowledged, but this was often not the case, and their land was in fact stolen.
It is quite possible for individual Mexicans' land to have been stolen without entering into any discussion of the war, or if the Mexicans are too corrupt and incompetent to deserve their own land.
Regarding Sitting Bull: I don't know for certain (and Tribunus provided no citation) that he was ever received into the Church.
I understand there was some trouble that he couldn't decide which of his 'wives' would be his wife, but that he did believe all that the Church teaches, whether he ever managed to make his choice or not.
so, er.. is that a "no" then, Karen.
I haven't visited that blog in a long while. Have to say I have some sympathy with Karen's viewpoint here. It does undermine the posts when you are not sure what the axe grinding noise is all about.
Father, you don't have to publish this but, whatever "Genoftheocean" thinks of "Tribunus" and his understanding of Americo-Mexican relations in the 19th Century, to say: 'I don't want to hear crap about "oh, the poor Mexicans, blah, blah, blah..." they have as many or more natural resources as the US. But they are simply corrupt and incompetent' is massively OTT, probably actionable, and, frankly, deeply unpleasant.
Yeah, right, insult Americans numerous times all you want but point out that Mexico is corrupt to the core and it's "actionable." Whatever.
Yes. Sitting Bull was Catholic Here is more http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/04/photo-sitting-bull-wore-crucifix.html
Post a Comment