From exhibit 1:
Accused Residential Schools, Roman Catholic:
|1. Christie (Meares Island, BC)||2. Kuper Island|
|3. Sechelt||4. St Paul's (Vancouver)|
|5. St Mary's (Mission)||6. Kamloops|
|7. St. Eugene (Cranbrook)||8. Lejac|
|9. Ermineskin (Alberta)||10. Blue Quills (Saddle lake)|
|11. Muscowequan (Saskaychewan)||12. Norwood House (Manitoba)|
|13. Sandy Bay||14. Spanish (Fort Albany, Ontario)|
|15. Shubanacadie (Nova Scotia)|
Accused Indian Hospitals - none Roman Catholic, what I could see.
Exhibit number 2:
10-11 George V, Chapter 20, 10, 1: Every Indian child between the ages seven and fifteen years who is physically able ...
Comment: an infamous text, especially considering the previous words, in 9, 6, which gives principals a right to confiscate any earnings made by the residents.
But was George V responsible for this or was the then cabinet and the House of Commons responsible for it? I say the cabinet of 1920 with the HoC 1920. As to his person, George V did "rule but not govern". That may have been a mistake, he might have ought to have done a coup d'état like King Gustav III of Sweden to stop this and was culpable by omission of action, but those culpable by their own actions were certainly the cabinet and the House of Commons.
Exhibit number 3 failed to establish, though it may be established otherwise, that the schools operated under joint authority of the Government and the various Churches. Its form of application included the confession of the applicant, presumably in order to make an Indian child or youngster of Catholic confession attend a school of Catholic confession. But this does not establish by itself how much or little beyond the Catechism that the religious personnel was responsible for.
Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 - I did not recognise anything like a name of the 15 Catholic residential schools in the incriminating reports by Dr Peter Bryce from 1907/1909 (I actually neither saw his signature nor the year either, and one death rate was 25%, one was 33% - i e lower than claimed for the overall general deathrate). Kevin Annett gives then orally 40% for the "Pegan" Catholic school - which is not among the 15 listed.
Exhibit nr 7, P H Bryce Med Dr news article said nothing about any specifically Catholic school in excerpt visible on video.
Exhibit nr 8, A National Crime, published in 1920 by P H Bryce may have been THE reason why in 1922 a Catholic priest sent contaminated children away from the school and back to the reservations.
75% tuberculosis death File Hill or Fire Hill, Alberta - the Catholic School in Alberta was Ermineskin, as enumerated as nr 9. But maybe two names for same school? I do not know.
Exhibit nr. 9, several pages of a police report signed by Police officer Clearwater, seems to concern a school run by a Miss - not a Mrs, but not a Sister or Mother either. In all probability a Proestant school, and certainly not closely tied to the Vatican.
Exhibit nr 10. Interviewed person had been released from Sanatorium with his sister before being admitted to the school.
Sanatoria are institutions - not restricted by any means to the ethnic minorities, but general, usually - of a medical and curative type directed at curing precisely tuberculosis. If he was released from Sanatorium, his doctors there must have thought him well enough to go to the school or they should not have let him away from the Sanatorium (my grand mother was in one in Sweden, she recommended eating cream because she had been given cream in the sanatorium as part of efforts to boost her immunity system). If he was put in a residential school while still liable to infect others with TB, the fault is the Sanatorium Doctor's, not the Vatican's. He added "there was none to examine", meaning that there was no medical personnel on the school, presumably, to question the decision of Sanatorium Doctors. This kind of decision can have been well off the responsibility part of the religious institution giving the instruction. It can also have been a deliberate trust in sanatorium doctors.
Exhibit nr 11 is a bare statement from an inmate of Kuper school (Catholic, nr 2 of the listed ones) that he was forced to play with diseased children. He does not state how he knew they were diseased, nor whether they had been to sanatorium or not. Nor whether there was any written document from the Sanatorium that the school trusted without owing that trust, or whether the school simply neglected all precautions, which is somewhat less likely. Exhibits 12 and 13 (and 14?) are short enough to warrant the same observation as exhibit 11.
In case of trusting Sanatorium Doctors, there is a Catholic principle about trusting expertise when speaking on behalf of this expertise:
St. Thomas d'Aquin - dit-il qu'il faut faire confiance à l'expertise?
I have here - in that article - argued that it does not apply to cases when the expertise is a sham expertise, as with Heliocentrism or Common Descent of all animal and all plant species from just a few types of life. Or for that matter psychiatry.
But obviously it does not apply either when there is a serious doubt on whether the expertise is honest or not, like they might be deliberately lowering a standard of care for a group. So, are Catholics responsible for Kuper school or are Sanatorium Doctors to blame for this? I do not know. Nor does Kevin Annett. Still less does he know anything about a Vatican involvement in any plan to kill by exposure to disease.
Mouffetard Library of Paris