Not this year

Today is June 29. On this date I usually change my profile picture on Facebook to a Canadian flag, or a photo of a maple leaf and leave it up until July 5 because that brackets both Canada Day, July 1 and Independence Day in the US, July 4. But not this year.

I’m still a proud Canadian, but this doesn’t seem like the year to celebrate this country. Here are three numbers to help explain why: 215 – 104 – 751. If you’re among my followers and readers from other countries you might not grasp the meaning of these numbers, but if you’re Canadian, I’m quite certain you understand at least the first and last of these.

For those who for various reasons – COVID 19 takes up much of most newscasts – aren’t aware, those three sets of numbers represent the numbers of unmarked graves recently located by various means, including ground penetrating radar, at the sites of now defunct residential schools.

215, Kamloops B C at a school run by the Roman Catholic Church.

104, southwestern Manitoba. None of the news articles I can locate mention which church ran this school. This didn’t seem to receive the same amount of national coverage as the other two.

751, southeastern Saskatchewan at a school run by the Roman Catholic Church.

Following is an abridged definition and history of the residential school system from The Canadian Encyclopaedia:

Residential schools were government-sponsored religious schools that were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Although the first residential facilities were established in New France, the term usually refers to schools established after 1880. Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to assimilate them into Canadian society. However, the schools disrupted lives and communities, causing long-term problems among Indigenous peoples.

… residential schools became part of government and church policy from the 1830s on, with the creation of Anglican, Methodist, and Roman Catholic institutions in Upper Canada (Ontario). The oldest continually operating residential school in Canada was the Mohawk Institute in what is now Brantford, Ontario. This began as a day school for Six Nations boys, but in 1831 it started to accept boarding students.

Survivors of these schools speak of harsh conditions: forbidden to speak their native languages upon threat of punishment; the boys forcibly having their hair cut, and physical and sexual abuse. A survivor from the Kamloops school, in an interview, said that if a child suddenly vanished overnight, it was assumed they had simply run away, and the schools would encourage that assumption. The overall aim of these schools, in the words of one survivor interviewed, was “to take the Indian out of the child”.

The Roman Catholic order than ran the Kamloops school has announced they will provide whatever documentation they still have to aid in the identification of these 215 poor unfortunate children. I’ve not read or heard of any such offers regarding the Manitoba and Saskatchewan sites. Both the Ontario and federal government have announced they will make funds available to help in the search for unmarked graves and identification of the remains.

I realize that now, in 2021,society’s attitudes have changed greatly since these schools were introduced, but I can think of nothing at any time in history, not just the history of Canada but the history of the world, to justify such treatment of children.

I can’t say if the news of these discoveries in Canada had any bearing on it, but Deb Haaland, the American Secretary of the Interior this past week announced an investigation into the American version of residential schools. I’d like to be optimistic, but I fear that investigation will reveal similar events in the US.

As a result of these sad and tragic announcements, many cities and towns are cancelling their planned Canada Day celebrations. They too find it hard to celebrate this nation’s birthday.

We as a nation have failed these children and I personally don’t think we have anything to celebrate this year. Maybe next year.

Cat.

Join the 21st century, please

Other than Westboro Baptist Church, I can’t think of any organisation more vehemently opposed to gay rights and equal marriage than the Roman Catholic Church.

My computer has been down and I’m still rebuilding my bookmarks. One of those bookmarks I added today is Pinknews.co.  Today I noticed an article that said on May 2, Rhode Island signed into law a bill legalising same-sex marriage, the tenth state to so do.  Good for Rhode Island.

The Roman Catholic Church has been in opposition to anything involving the LGBT community for years as evidenced by some of Benedict XVI’s pronouncements on the topic.  The Roman Catholic Bishop of Rhode Island seems to be carrying on where the pope emeritus left off.  Following the passing of this new law, the Bishop has reportedly said that Roman Catholics should carefully consider their involvement with, or attendance at, any gay marriages lest they jeopardize their relationship with God.  Let me see if I have this straight – the Roman Catholic Church preaches that their God is a God of love, yet if Roman Catholics attend a ceremony in which two people of the same sex proclaim their love for each other,  God won’t love them anymore.  Does that sound like a fair interpretation of the Bishop’s comment?

Of course, this is the same official who stated in January 2013 that equal marriage poses a threat to religious freedom.  From various pronouncements issuing from Rome on a wide range of topics, I have the impression that the Roman Catholic Church defines “religious freedom” as following the teachings of that church blindly.

We are in the second decade of the twenty-first century.  During the twentieth century, people learned to think for themselves; to question what they are told and, if necessary, reject teachings that are at odds with their own beliefs.  The last half of the last century saw the gay community make great strides in acceptance, not only socially, but legally as well.  The days are long past when the Roman Catholic Church, or any other religious institution, can expect automatic unquestioning  acceptance of their pronouncements and instructions.  Today, the church has to learn to accept and adjust to the realities of the twenty-first secular world if it is keep itself relevant.

Cat.

A very fine line

Whether the Pope realizes it or not, he is in a position most people would call untenable.  As head of the Roman Catholic Church, he is expected to, as he did in France this past week, defend the traditional definition of marriage.  To quote from the article on Pink News website, “Marriage and the family are institutions that must be promoted and defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature, since whatever is injurious to them is injurious to society itself”.  This statement is acceptable considering he is, as I wrote, head of the Roman Catholic Church and he was speaking to a conclave of bishops.  The article also mentions that in his year end speech in 2008, he made comments opposing the acceptance of transgender people.

But where the statements, and motives become questionable is that Pope Benedict XVI is also a head of state.  Vatican City, while surrounded by the city of Rome, is not part of that city.  It is an independent city-state, a nation in other words, and the Pope is the head of that nation.  Some of his pronouncements could be construed as attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.   The statement quoted above was made in France, where the newly elected president, Francois Hollande, has promised to make same-sex marriage legal.

Many nations have passed, or are in the process of passing, legislation ensuring the trans community (transgender and transsexual) are entitled to the same legal rights as other citizens.   Some nations, such as Canada, have made same-sex marriage legal.  So, the question then becomes this: When Benedict speaks on these topics, is he speaking as head of the Church, in which case the comments are acceptable or is he speaking as head of state of Vatican City, in which case he would be attempting to influence the internal affairs of other nations?  And how is one expected to tell the difference?  As I said, Benedict walks a very fine line.

And on that note, I’ll go now.

Enjoy the first weekend of autumn and remember to hug an artist – we need love too.

Cat.