Points taken.
I would first say that I think it is legitimate, though the church has since disavowed the statements of Thomas Aquinas, to include them when discussing the troubling history of subjugation associated with the church. My point was not that this belief is still strongly maintained, but that there are still definite remnants of it that remain in the church’s beliefs and structures.

And again, I understand fully the identification they make with Kateri, but I still think like in my response to Ed that it speaks at best to a collective subjugation that has occurred as a result of European dominance, exertion of influence, and outright eradication of peoples (which certainly is not the sole provision of the Catholic Church). I do thank you, though, for sharing your thoughts. They have truly given me a lot to think about.

The following is a response I received in a message that I want to share but, owing to the privacy of the individual, I will maintain as anonymous:

Hi Kevin,I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to comment about the article you wrote on your blog regarding Blessed Kateri. I don’t want to make big deal out of this because I don’t think it deserves it but there are a few things that I take exception to. First, you commented that the Catholics would not have liked her “mystic” experiences because they didn’t want her to keep those “native” traditions. This is untrue. While some of the Franciscans did treat these traditions with contempt, the Jesuits who came and evangelized the new world incorporated these traditions going so far as to learn their language, before many of them were arrested and killed by the native peoples. Also, at her beatification as her canonization I’m sure we will see several displays of Native American cultural traditions incorporated into the Mass and worship. Also, Blessed Kateri chose not to marry following the examples of early women saints such as Lucy, Agnes, and Agatha who were martyred because they had given their hearts to Jesus and refused marriage. You also claim that the Church has a dubious history regarding women and then quote Thomas Aquinas and Blessed John Paul II. The Church for centuries now has disavowed what Thomas said regarding women as he was basing it on a flawed view of the human person judging from biology and cultural mores that were around at the time. John Paul’s view of women as either mothers or virgins was a view that simply wanted to refocus on the beauty of motherhood or virginity. He did not think that they should be “barefoot and pregnant” and this is evidenced by the number of women both he and Pope Benedict appointed to high level theological positions at the Vatican. Additionally, in your own Albany diocese the Chancellor(the second in charge after the bishop) is a woman. This is true in other dioceses as well. This is not the time nor the forum to discuss the reasons for an all-male clergy, but suffice it to say that the allegation that women are seen as subhuman or non-entities in the Church is false. Nevertheless, you are correct that in Church history that are examples of women being seen as subservient and the recent comment comparing women’s ordination to rape is deplorable. However, Pope Benedict and John Paul before him went to great lengths to ask forgiveness from God and humanity for the past sins of the Church, including those against women. Finally, while you are correct that the disease the young boy had is usually not fatal, the reason why this is considered a miracle is that he was not responding to the antibiotics and the parents were told that he would die. When the people in the parish prayed for him they mentioned that the child was half Native American not to compare or somehow lump all Native Americans together but just as a personal interest that this child was a Native American like Blessed Kateri.Kevin, please don’t see this as an attack on your blog or you. Also, I’m not saying that the Catholic Church is beyond criticism, but when it is misleading I feel the need to address it. 

Thing is, you do have a point. Those American Indians now identify primarily as Catholic first and foremost, just as Kateri did. But that is now their heritage and history. If you went to a reservation, called someone a Yapipi and then said “oh well, you’re all Indians anyway” when they corrected you, you’d get at best some…interesting reactions. That others as you mentioned willingly enter and embrace subjugation under the Roman Catholic diocese (which is not inherently a bad thing; by that I mean they choose to identify asatholic first and adhere to that specific value system which is their right) does not excuse the perpetuation of ignorance by saying she helped this kid because he was something her own people would not, under any circumstances, have identified themselves as belonging to. It would be one thing to say she assisted in the miracle because he, too, is Catholic. But the ignorance of setting them into the same group with the permission of those who might otherwise identify as a different tribe does not excuse the ignorance of the action. And even barring that, if they do lump themselves into one singular ethnic group, it speaks more to the subjugation and European reassignment of heritage than it does the appropriateness of saying all Indians are Indians, so deal with and celebrate it.

….

ADDENDUM: I wrote the above on my phone and e-mailed it to myself so that I could give it further consideration, owing to the fairness and validity of your points and keeping respect for your values (which are certainly not yours alone and likely will be shared by the vast majority reading this). But after giving it all due consideration, I feel like the absolute best I can concede is that you’re right, those American Indians who have long ago converted to Catholicism identify as one large group. But that is still because, historically speaking, their ancestors were wiped out, their ethnic identities transposed with European values (in some cases by force), and their cultural heritage lost. And that to me – and I have to apologize because this is coming from a non-Catholic standpoint – I find first and foremost to be tragic and a bit heartbreaking.