Should Pope apologize for abuse at Canadian residential schools for Indigenous children?

[CRM_Brother]

But this is the key… When a religious order committed/s sins, they are NOT under the authority of the Bishops

Actually, this is not necessarily true. This only applies to what are called Pontifical Rite Orders. Their authority to operate independently is given directly by the Pope and their ‘Bishop’ is their Superior General or a protector appointed by the Vatican if there aren’t priests within the Order. These Orders only make up a fraction of all the religious Orders out there and it is very difficult to obtain this state in the modern Church. The rest operate under varrying levels of authority of the local bishop.

 

[casslean]

In 1970 it was no more appropriate to sexual abuse people, beat them senseless, kill them, electrocute them, etc. than it is now. These are the things the victims claim to have suffered.

But an apology from the Pope wouldn’t be for those wrongs. Those apologies have to come from the perpetrators, or their immediate supervisors who knew of the wrongs being committed.

This is why I asked all of those questions.

What is the Pope apologizing for, or being asked to apologize for, on behalf of the Church?

The fact that the Residential Schools existed and that such atrocities were committed in them.

What is the Church alleged to have done or failed to do to cause this harm?

First, allowing organizations under its umbrella to create and operate the schools and removing Native children from their communities to live in the schools. Second, failing to exercise oversight over the organizations operating the schools to ensure that children were safe.

Is this something they could have known or reasonably been expected to know they should do?

NO. The standards of the day were very different than it is today. Boarding schools were commonplace and the upper-class individuals dictating education policy all would have been educated in a boarding school environment (and often subject to abuse in that environment). They did not understand the importance of cultural connections or the harm that came from severing them (see, for instance, the ill-fated Sixties Scoop). And large institutions like the Catholic Church were struggling to understand how to exercise control on an emerging international stage and were operating with what they believed to be the best structures of the day (based very much on the principles of subsidiarity).

We have improved our understand in many of these areas, but in the 1930s, or 1960s, the actions of the church were not below the reasonable standard of care.

 

[phil19034]

Also, sometimes the president does apologize for the actions of the state because ultimately, the federal government can intervene when States commit atrocities

I’m sorry, but you have your terms confused. In a legal point of view, when you “apologize” you admit guilt. You can express sorrow, but you don’t admit guilt for something you are not legally guilty for.

Canada is asking the Vatican to admit guilt. Again, they are attempting find a way to sue the Vatican. Since they don’t have a real legal channel for this, they are attempting to apply political pressure on Pope Francis to essentially sue the Vatican.

It’s wrong.

Pope Benedict has already expressed sorrow for this. And I’m sure Pope Francis most likely has too. If Canada wants to sue anyone, they should sue the local dioceses that were involved. But it looks like the Canada’s court system as ruled that the Federal Govt of Canada cannot do that.

So they are trying to go around the Canada’s court system by “suing” the Vatican.

God bless

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But this is the key… When a religious order committed/s sins, they are NOT under the authority of the Bishops

Actually, this is not necessarily true. This only applies to what are called Pontifical Rite Orders. Their authority to operate independently is given directly by the Pope and their ‘Bishop’ is their Superior General or a protector appointed by the Vatican if there aren’t priests within the Order. These Orders only make up a fraction of all the religious Orders out there and it is very difficult to obtain this state in the modern Church. The rest operate under varrying levels of authority of the local bishop.

thank you for the clarification.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I will grant that in 1970 we as human beings did not have as fully developed an understanding of cultural “violence” or appreciation of cultural differences as we do in 2018.

@casslean I did acknowledge the cultural differences. It was an edit. Perhaps you didn’t see it before you responded?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I’m sorry, but you have your terms confused. In a legal point of view, when you “apologize” you admit guilt.

You are right. I did. What I typed was not really what I meant.

I meant to say sometimes it is appropriate for the President to apologize for a slow, lax, or inadequate federal response to issues that occur in the state because the federal government ultimately has the abilities to Intervene when the state commits atrocities.

 

[casslean]

Then I’ll ask again.

In light of the language of the TRC, which was very specific, what would Pope Francis be apologizing for on behalf of the Catholic Church?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Well, here is what they said:

We call upon the Pope to issue an apology to Survivors, their families, and communities for the Roman Catholic Church’s role in the spiritual, cultural, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children in Catholic-run residential schools. We call for that apology to be similar to the 2010 apology issued to Irish victims of abuse and to occur within one year of the issuing of this Report and to be delivered by the Pope in Canada.

There is more, but it is too much to paste here. You’ll have to read it for yourself (p. 11. Para: 58-61):
http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf

He certainly could apologize for failures of oversight related to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse even if he doesn’t feel he can apologize for the spiritual and cultural abuses. He could also instruct his bishops and local superiors of the various communities to apology for their specific roles in that emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.

Such apologies would be of tremendous benefit to those who are suffering and would help to rehabilitate the image of the Church in Canada and worldwide.

Further, there have already been commitments made to financially support healing programs, but it seems implementation is spotty. I believe that commitment is 25 million. So, there is already some level of legal culpability admitted here.

I still fail to see what is lost by doing this, rather I can see how much can be gained by supporting the healing of those who are hurting and acknowledging ones shortcomings. There is a perception in the general public that the Church is more interested in saving face than in healing rifts. I don’t agree with this, but the perception is there.

Every time the Church chooses reflexive defensiveness over healing they affirm this perception and it does damage. I am sure that there are many who have left the Church over this issue. The Good Shepard leaves the 99 to go after the 1. That is hard to do if you have ceded the moral high ground to a bunch of corrupt politicians.

 

[casslean]

He certainly could apologize for failures of oversight related to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse even if he doesn’t feel he can apologize for the spiritual and cultural abuses. He could also instruct his bishops and local superiors of the various communities to apology for their specific roles in that emotional, physical, and sexual abuse.

Again, it was only a “failure” if we judge past actions by present standards!

There have been statements by individual communities and individual bishops. That wasn’t deemed good enough.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

There have been statements by individual communities and individual bishops. That wasn’t deemed good enough.

Because, my friend, the head has not apologized. So long is this Pope or any other refused to apologize for failures in oversight the apologies of the individual bishops will not be enough.

For those who were harmed, it is truly that simple. The pastoral and Christian thing to do is the heal the wound.

 

[casslean]

I still fail to see what is lost by doing this, rather I can see how much can be gained by supporting the healing of those who are hurting and acknowledging ones shortcomings. There is a perception in the general public that the Church is more interested in saving face than in healing rifts. I don’t agree with this, but the perception is there.

I’m quite fine with the leader of my church taking a principled approach to issues like this instead of bowing to what the general public thinks would make people feel better. If Justic Trudeau wants to engage in his little popularity contest, so be it. I prefer a leader who actually looks at WHY he would act, and not whether or not everyone will be happy with his decision.

 

[casslean]

Because, my friend, the head has not apologized. So long is this Pope or any other refused to apologize for failures in oversight the apologies of the individual bishops will not be enough.

It was enough until the TRC decided it wasn’t.

This is just a political maneuver. No one in Canada is losing any ground politically by attacking the Catholic Church.

 

[Augustinian]

No he shouldn’t. Pope Francis wasn’t pope when these things came down.

If the British crown wants him to apologize for Guy Fawkes’ gunpowder plot as well, he wasn’t in charge then either.

I have a real problem with leaders apologizing for things from long ago that they had nothing to do with.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

It was enough until the TRC decided it wasn’t.

You’ve said this several times. Id love to know what you base this statement on.

From what I see, the victims have been fighting for reconciliation for a very long time and the TRC was a response to their advocacy. So, it would seem that they were not satisfied.

 

[casslean]

In 2009, Pope Benedict invited several prominent leaders of the Aboriginal community and survivors of the residential schools to the Vatican for a private meeting. During that meeting, he expressed his deep sorrow for all the pain and suffering the victims had endured and stated that it should not have happened and that all steps must be taken to ensure it would never happen again. Following the meeting, several of the attendees gave statements to the media stating that while it was not a formal apology, they were satisfied that it closed the matter and that it had achieved what they were looking for to be able to move forward.

They now claim (as in within the last few days when these previous statements were brought up) that TRC uncovered new evidence regarding the scale of the abuse which means the previous statement doesn’t apply. That is unlikely based on the timelines and the civil suit claims.

What did happen in the intervening years was that in 2010 the Vatican issued an apology to abuse survivors in Ireland. TRC specifically identified this apology and stated that the language in the residential school apology should mirror this apology.

I don’t know if you are a Canadian, but I am. I’m also a lawyer. This has literally been part of my entire life’s landscape, and was thrown in my face when I made the decision to join the church. I know the history and the facts with a great deal more depth than the media.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I definitely appreciate your depth of understanding of this issue. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

My position is more to do with issues of human suffering and morality rather than legal culpability. This is why we disagree.

Now for a legal question: Why aren’t First Nations victims deserving of an apology akin to that the Irish received? Weren’t those atrocities also committed by members of individual diocese and religious institutions?

 

[casslean]

Now for a legal question: Why aren’t First Nations victims deserving of an apology akin to that the Irish received? Weren’t those atrocities also committed by members of individual diocese and religious institutions?

The structure of the Catholic Church in Ireland is different than it is in Canada. Canada had a decentralized structure, meaning each bishop was autonomous within their own diocese. Ireland did not have the same degree of decentralization.

There was also evidence that the Vatican had been made aware of the abuse taking place in Ireland and had not taken sufficient measures to investigate or stop it from occurring. Most likely due to geographical factors, there is no evidence of that same awareness regarding the activities in the residential schools. There is actually some question regarding how much diocesan bishops were aware of (though in that instance, there is a failure of oversight on their part as they were responsible for everything in their diocese).

This is what the CCCB has tried to explain. It has also tried to make clear that Pope Francis has not ruled out ANY action, simply that he has said he will not be following the very strict terms laid out in in the TRC Call to Action.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

But surely you do see how people who are suffering might consider all of this jurisdiction “stuff” unimportant. Or even as a “cop out”.

 

[casslean]

My position is more to do with issues of human suffering and morality rather than legal culpability.

People will often claim that church teaching causes suffering. That is the argument in favour of legalizing euthanasia, promoting contraception, providing gender reassignment surgeries…

That’s why I look for principles, not emotions.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

But you do see how people who are suffering might consider this “splitting hair” and hard hearted.

Would Christ retreat to hard-hearted jurisdictional claims or would he reach out to console those who are suffering?

Your examples of euthanasia, etc. do not apply here. Those are doctrinal issues. Whether or not to offer consolation to someone is not a doctrinal issue.