mardi 26 mars 2013

Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ...

1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case

Kevin Annett writes extensively about Catholic intents of genocide ... even when such cannot at all be proven.

He writes about Urban II, who did not write that killing and enslaving Saracens cleansed from sins, but that fighting Saracen tyranny and liberating Oriental Churches was a preparation for cleansing from sin. He writes about Adrian IV's Laudabiliter which speaks about restoring law and suppressing vice, and extending the Church (Celtic Catholicism was then in schism). He writes about Inter Caetera by Alexander VI which divided the Pagan world between Spain and Portugal but in the sense of hoping they provide the natives with good missionaries, and that they could take the resources that natives were anyway not using (the ones found by Christopher Columbus were hardly mining for precious minerals). He makes reference to Romanus Pontifex which seems to enslave all non-Christians until you read the context and find it enslaves people militarily resisting the Christian expansion. There is one item he really does cite - and I am at this point forced to rewrite hours of work because it was sabotaged at Nanterre University Library - which is apposite if one wants to know whether Catholic priests deliberately contaminated Indian children with TB. It is a letter which he shows in a scan at page 75.


Frazer Lake, B.C.
January 28th. 1938

R. H. Moore Esq.,
Indian Agent,
Vanderhoof B.C.

Dear Sir:-


Father Grant has asked me to write to you concerning the above. as she has a fair amount of sputum it endangers the infant child of Harry if she goes home.

While I am aware that the Indian Dept. will not hospitalize Indians suffering from Pulmonary tuberculosis, Bishop Coudert has offered to arrange for her hospital treatment at Smithers if the Dept. refuses to do so. In view of this I would recommend hospital care for Dorothy. It would also be nice if she could have a chest-plate to confirm my diagnosis.

Yours truly,

John C. Poole

To Kevin Annett this is Figure 8. It shows Indian Department did not usually pay for hospital treatment, but he totally forgets it also shows that on occasions or at least one, Catholic clergy did pay when the state would not do so. Figure 8(a), next page, is a newspaper clip. In it an Anglican clergyman named Trevor Jones in 1953 says the government now has the policy, which it did not previously have, to hospitalise every active case of TB. To Kevin Annett this is proof the governement did not hospitalise for TB, but he forgets that Anglican clergy were opposed to that, as is shown by Trevor Jones.

It is significant that the father of the Dr. Pitts who described the two standards of care system in the residential schools was Reverend F.W. Pitts of the United Church of Canada, who, as Principal of the Alberni residential school during the 1930’s, allegedly exposed children to tuberculosis and caused their deaths.

According to an eyewitness and survivor, Willie Sport,

“That Principal Pitts was trying to kill us. I was the only kid who survived. Pitts took eight of us and he fed us this canned meat. He didn’t give it to anybody else. Then we all got sick with the TB. Every other boy died, but my Dad broke into the infirmary and got me out, and took me to my grandfather who was a medicine man. He sucked the black poison out of each of my lungs three times, then spit it out, I seen it. But all the other kids died, thanks to Pitts.”

(March 28, 1998, Port Alberni, B.C.)

A church official infects and kills seven children, while his state-paid doctor son exonerates the crime, and many like it, by operating according to an unspoken law that has him look the other way when native children grow sick and die. The ease with which such a tag team operation occurred between church and state in Canada, and accounted for so many supposed “deaths due to natural causes”,indicates an obvious criminal conspiracy.

OK, it is Pitts Jr. who describes the double standard so we know about it. How does that make him guilty of exonerating the crime? Not one bit: he was an onlooker, powerless to other reactions than simply describing the ill-deeds.

But was even his father guilty of intentionally killing seven Indian boys? I think not.

Willie Sport saw himself and seven other boys get first fed with canned meat and then sick with TB. Was the canned meat the thing that infected them? Or were they already infected and fed canned meat precisely to boost their immunity system? I think that is likelier. Unfortunately we cannot ask him. He died, as well as Archie Frank did, in January 2002. And if he was grandson of a medicine man, his grandfather can have posed as saving him (I wonder what medical experts say about his treatment for TB: "He sucked the black poison out of each of my lungs three times, then spit it out, I seen it") while telling his grandson a tale of fear and undue suspicion of Principal Pitts. Obviously a medicine man did not want anyone in the tribe, least of all his grandson, to admire or approve of the white folks.

Now, so far the witness accounts I have been reading need not have been lies. But with Irene Favel I think that is the case: it is so close to Maria Monk type classic calumnies that I am not confident she is honest, I think she lies, unless she was extremely scared from being kept away from her family and listening to rumours without foundation and totally misunderstood everything:

I’m Irene Favel. I’m seventy five. I went to residential school in Muscowequan from 1944 to 1949, and I had a rough life. I was mistreated in every way. There was a young girl, and she was pregnant from a priest there.

And what they did, she had her baby, and they took the baby, and wrapped it up in a nice pink outfit, and they took it downstairs where I was cooking dinner with the nun. And they took the baby into the furnace room, and they threw that little baby in there and burned it alive. All you could hear was this little cry, like “Uuh!”, and that was it. You could smell that flesh cooking.

If she felt mistreated in every way - basically humiliated, I suppose, and I think she should not have been, I think the law that made these residential schools was atrocious mislegislation, as well as later and earlier laws or pseudo-laws for school compulsion - she may have considered the people around her more cruel and capable of worse cruelties than they really were.

One thing comes out: she did not watch the burning of a child. She did not see what happened to a child given birth by a resident, she did not see who made the resident pregnant. Whether what she did not see were things she reconstructed for herself or were told and if someone was trying to joke with her fears, I do not know. She may also have been obliged recently to lie.

But if all this were true, this is no indiction against the Vatican, if it went on priests abusing their position like this would not have wanted the Vatican to know. But the case of Bishop Coudert and Father Grant do not suggest they would have wanted every Canadian Catholic clergyman to know either.

Saying that Aristotle formed St Thomas Aquinas' mind is hardly correct. Saying that he formed St Augustine's mind is patently absurd.

Here is a link on Aquinas and Aristotle about Slavery and Servitude:

And here is a quote from Catholic Encyclopedia about abolitionism as a Catholic virtue:

"Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery — a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church." (from article Slavery and Christianity)

Here is one quote from an anti-Catholic site (google the quote, you will find it) quoting the Holy Office:

"Slavery itself ... is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law ... The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."

Source: Statement of the Holy Office of the Vatican, 1866

Note very well: "The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty" - in other words a slaver who specialises in chasing people and depriving them of liberties to sell them as slaves (because of skin colour or merely weakness) is a crook. One who himself deserves either slavery or - death penalty.

No, one cannot safely argue the Vatican wanted to classify Indians as "naturally slaves" and therefore dispensable.

If we look at Catholic tradition, once the fact of someone's just slavery (after a crime for instance, or by rebellion against just rule) is established, there is a further consideration: "and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."

Why were Indians less regarded than that in practise?

If one back then obeyed a sanatorium doctor who said such and such a child was well enough "for an Indian" to go back to school, one was certainly cooperating with a system spreading death, not by too much ill will against the child, but by too little good will for him and too much good will for the the expert.

In our days psychiatrists are enslaving people and these are betrayed by people who do not have too much ill will against them personally, but too much well will for the psychiatrists. Also as experts (although they are not experts as physicians can be experts on TB)*.

Hannah Arendt in "The banality of evil" studied Eichmann at the trial in Israel. He had been kidnapped to stand trial after first fleeing to some South American state. She was shocked to find Eichmann was, quite like herself, a Kantian. But Kant by the Critique of the Practical Reason had in fact prepared for too much skepsis about one's duties according to conscience and too much relying on orders. Some people after trying to pay for a patient (whom they maybe saved, by paying) and getting a no felt they had done enough. In a sense they had. God did not require of them to do more than they could. But had they done all that they could? We live in a century of defeatism, when it has become very easy to say one has done all one could. "Knowing me, knowing you, this is all that we can do," my countrymen in ABBA sang about the double divorce. Or young mothers who felt they had no choice but to abort. Or people who think that when it comes to me as a writer, they should obey those telling them I am not so (like those behind the sabotage which stopped me from publishing the original version of this essay) and ignore my writings as those of a fool. It is so much easier and so much more confortable to do what is expected of one, and if one does more, to give up after some time if it doesn't help.

In a sense Catholics have perhaps been guilty - but of passivity. Precisely as with the men agreeing to have me treated (at least previously) as a mental patient, or, if not, at least not letting me decide freely how I prove the opposite. People who sheepishly have heard "he's a drunkard, look how often he is tired" and who have seen me tired and concluded I am a drunkard. Or people who, as sheepishly have heard "he's delusional, look if he doesn't defend Geocentrism" and who have then seen me defend Geocentrism and concluded I am delusional. People with too little energy to ask if a non-drunkard but homeless could be extremely tired due to sleep deprivasions, or if a man of intelligence could defend Geocentrism - especially with too little energy to ask themselves these questions when asked by experts to ask themselves the opposite questions. They have left me in a fix and my mother in a worse one, and myself not in a position to help her.

And so far, except for the probably false testimony of Irene Favel, this is the kind of passivity I have seen in Catholic clergy when it was about Canadian Indians as well, when the lives of those Indians were not actually saved by the efforts of the clergy. Or nearly saved by too little effort. I do not know if Bishop Coudert succeeded in saving Dorothy Paul and Harry's baby.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
and Cyberespace of BB
Day after Annunciation

*Say that someone talks to persons not present in an agitated way ... is it auditory hallucinations - or emotional relevance passing before absense known as such? Many are simply adressing the mental images of other persons in situations they would like to experience, and often this is to hatred as pornographic imaginings are to lust. Without any hallucination being involved.

3 commentaires:

  1. Here is a video with Irene Favel's oral testimony. It does not seem she is lying, but simply that feeling very ill at ease at the school she misunderstood what was going on, or took some practical joke for fact:

    Again, it was criminal to force her to the school, but it is not probable that a seven year old girl gets pregnant with a priest however bad he may be at celibacy, since seven year old girls are too young to get pregnant.

    Nine to eighteen are extreme limits of earliest possibility (below nine or above eighteen is clearly paranormal, considered a malfunction), and 11th to 14th birthday the normal ones (when it comes to boys and making pregnant, the extreme limits are the same and the normal ones two years older).

    And yes, on this video she does state the girl who was pregnant with the priest was seven years old.

  2. It seems Bishop Coudert was bishop of Whitehorse Yukon from 1944. Was he auxiliary bishop there in 38 or bishop somewhere else before Whitehorse?