SQLFusion - Fontaine to focus on apology from church during speech to bishops

Fontaine to focus on apology from church during speech to bishops

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

17 September 2008

Posted By MEGAN HARRISON

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine has been chosen to make this year's special address at the Plenary Assembly of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, set to take place in Cornwall next week.

Fontaine will address approximately 90 bishops during his 30- minute speech. He's likely to highlight the public apology for the controversial residential school system delivered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in June of this year.

"I believe the focus of the speech will be on the apology, and in particular the fact that the Catholic Church hasn't apologized yet, and that there needs to be an apology from the Pope," said AFN Director of Communications Joan McEwen, who spoke for Fontaine while he attended a First Nations community planning conference in Charlottetown, PEI, yesterday.

"On top of that I think there will be some forward thinking. We've had the apology, but now what? We need to look at steps for reconciliation, and what that means," said McEwen.

McEwen added this is the first time Fontaine has spoken at the CCCB, but it is not his first address to members of the Catholic clergy, some of whom attended the AFN's General Assembly Meeting, held in Quebec City in July, and that he will most like be reinforcing some of the issues that surfaced there.

CCCB communications advisor Gerald Baril said it was Fontaine who approached conference organizers to arrange the address, which will also be open to the media.

"Though he has met with members of the Catholic church before, he has never met with all of the bishops at once, and I believe he wanted to opportunity to do that," said Baril.

He added that at least six of the bishops who will be in attendance will go on to a similar conference to be held at the Vatican next month.

"He says he has a message for these men, and though we're not entirely sure what that message is yet, we are more than willing to hear what he has to say," said Baril.

Fontaine will also join the bishops for lunch, and will then participate in a media briefing with Archbishop of Winnipeg and CCCB President Reverend V. James Weisgerber.

Also set to address conferencegoers is Bishop Paul-Andre Durocher with the Alexandria- Cornwall Diocese, and Apostolic Nuncio Luigi Ventura, the Pope's representation in Canada.

Article ID# 1203124

Comments on this Article.

This isn't a bad idea....but it will all depend on the sincerity and depth of the apology to come...so far nothing of sincerity has come. Bishop Durocher's attempt to give an apology on the stand at the Cornwall Inquiry was nothing more than posturing. He needs to stand in front of ALL the victims and be sincere in an apology and take responsibility.

Most importantly...He and all Bishops have to ADMIT something happened - to date that hasn't been done!!! Tell us what happened and what these priests did. Who are they? What did they do? Take some responsibility!!! You have to name the offenders (who were they?)- you have to name the vitims? (who were they?) and admit exactly what happened to these children (victims) - you have to ADMIT to what happened and a very very shameful past...then and only then will healing begin for all...then and only then will reeconcilliation occur. Remember one thing....all David Silmser ever ever asked for was for an apology! THINK HARD ON THAT!!! He's still waiting!!! All this could have been prevented if only....

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By RealityChecker

Reality Checker

Just wait and see what happens after the inquiry. So far we all seem to think nothing will happen. Personally I think quite the opposite will occur. There will be much more then appologies at that point. As for Simser, why did he accept the money of he only wanted an appology?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By itinerant,

I'm not speaking for David Silmser....I'm sure he is quite able to defend his actions and HAS spoken for himself....why don't you check and see what he had to say in response to your question...it's well documented.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By RealityChecker

Where did he respond to my question? I would like to read it.

Sorry Reality Checker your posts are confusing,
You stated
"Remember one thing....all David Silmser ever ever asked for was for an apology! "
Yet now you state
"I'm not speaking for David Silmser....I'm sure he is quite able to defend his actions and HAS spoken for himself" Sorry to me your posts are contradictory. It makes it very difficult to discuss things when posts are unclear

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By itinerant

If you happen to know what questions oacas is talking about direct me to or have that person repost them. I see that person again is telling me i never answer their questions.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #5 By itinerant

Here have a good read.....ALL UNDER OATH!!! http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Jan-29-07/cornwall85jan2907.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Jan-30-07/cornwall86jan3007.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Jan-31-07/cornwall87jan3107.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Feb-01-07/cornwall88feb0107.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Feb-05-07/cornwall89feb0507.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Feb-06-07/cornwall90feb0607.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Feb-07-07/cornwall91feb0707.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Feb-28-07/cornwall97feb2807.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Mar-28-07/cornwall101mar2807.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Apr-17-07/cornwall103apr1707.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Apr-18-07/cornwall104apr1807.pdf
http://cornwallinquiry.irri.net/Apr-19-07/cornwall105apr1907.pdf THAT SHOULD KEEP YOU BUSY - 12 days of testimony - approximately 250 pages of transcripts per day.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #6 By RealityChecker

Here again I find a situation that is confusing. How many times have you called this inquiry a waste of time and money? How many times have you called people fakes and liars?
Now you extract points that serve your purpose and claim only them to be true. How are people supposed to respect your opinions or questions? He cried foul took money and now is crying foul again. If you base the situation on facts and not on innuendo and sworn statements, his credibility is shot and should be considered an extortionist. I am still waiting for the questions oacas has been talking about. It is not the first time he/she has asked me to answer but not once were they ever reposted. No one has been able to post them. That too does not do much for the credibility of those who are supposed to be in the know.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #7 By itinerant,

“Fontaine to focus on apology from church during speech to bishops”, is the title to the article, isn’t it? Seems to me there’s a lot of unresolved issues, suppressed anger, etc…oh sorry, “Itinerant”, I recall your argument against me using “big words”.
Well, well. After review of the posts over the past week; I see, “Itinerant” and “2sides” are continuing their attacks. If only readers had a link to all posts made over the many, many months by “Itinerant”, “2sides” and all of us, who have been around this site for many, many months. What a disclosure those postings would be.
Fight after fight after fight, day after day after day, month after month after month; “Itinerant” and “2sides” “take no prisoners”, so-to-speak. LOL!!
“Itinerant” are you not the contributor who discloses to have been an alter boy and be close friends with Father Charlie for years? Didn’t you say what a great guy he was/is and how you believed he could never have committed the sexual improprieties many people allege he did?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #8 By JAMES "SPEAK OUT",

Yes to both those questions. Being in a Catholic school at the time and having a very inquisitive mind relating to religion and evolution I often talked with the padre on those issues. I even solicited his help on school projects on a one on one basis. Nothing ever happened.

I would like to add to the above as I did in my past posts that we as altar boys knew that men and men and boys do not play together. We use to tease each other about that nonsense. Who is gay and who is a fag. We had a couple of padres who seemed light in the loafers at the time and we avoided them at all cost.... we all did! One has since moved on and married and the other is making his way up the ranks. Both respectable men as is Charlie As for take no prisoners I am sorry you feel that way. You too speak the same way for what you believe. The only difference is that you talk lots but say nothing.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #9 By itinerant,

You asked for an answer to your question regarding David Silmser. I responded by posting and giving you the transcripts of 12 days of testimony. This testimony was given under oath - sworn on a bible. It does not appear you are going to or have read it....now in your posts you scream CREDIBILITY is at issue yet you haven't even read anything. Please educate yourself. READ IT!!! Itinerant - when did you become judge and jury??? I'm certain Comissioner Glaude can use all the help he can get - maybe you should apply. James I have all the hard copies of the postings - and it does show the patterns of such wicked bigotry and prejudices from you know who. CONFUSING???? NO it's not - do some reading!!!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #10 By RealityChecker

BTW - Itinerant can you please explain the differenence between a gay and a fag.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #11 By RealityChecker

...or "light in the loafers"????

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #12 By JAMES "SPEAK OUT",

Reality CHecker I would be happy to explain the difference as soon as you explain the point to your question

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #13 By itinerant

MY point to my question - seriously!!! - is I do not know what you mean by a "gay" - a "fag" - or someone who is "light in the loafers". Can you please define...

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #14 By RealityChecker

Reality Checker
I shall answer questions in the same manner you have. It is a simple read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAG
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Light%20in%20the%20loafers

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #15 By itinerant,

OH ..what happened? Didn't you like the definition of "gay" and "fag" at URBAN DICTIONARY??? (quote - "a dictionary YOU wrote")By the link you gave us it's obvious you looked them up along with "light in the loafers" but didn't use the Urban Dictionary's definition - went to Wikipedia instead for disambigous meanings.Very credible sources I'd say!!!! VERY CREDIBLE - HA! Still doesn't tell us what YOU mean by "gay" "fag" or "light in the loafers"

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #16 By RealityChecker

Okay let me try to understand this by the definitions Itinerant gave...please correct me if I'm wrong... As an alter boy you were exposed to gay (homosexual)individuals and junior boys who acted as servants to senior boys and who were unmanly or effiminate (fags). It was difficult to make out who was who - so you teased each other about it (being gay or being a fag). However, you were also exposed to another sort but you knew enough to stay away from those who wore lighter coloured loafers (Light in the loafers) and the alter boys only hung around those who wore darker coloured loafers because those who wore the lighter ones seemed to be missing the male reproductive organs. MAKE SENSE??? Yet the gays (homosexuals) were VERY RESPECTABLE MEN (Charlie). The others were...fags and light in the loafers (not so respectable)and the alter boys knew to stay away from them. Can you please eexplain to me how young alter boys came to learn all this??? Someone had to teach them...

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #17 By RealityChecker

Accountability and Resposibility for ones statements or actions does not seem to be a strong "trait" of "Itinerant". "RealityChecker", I suggest you ask "Itinerant" to reply to your posts in an intimidating, provocative and "put-down"-argumentative fashion. Perhaps, he/she will reply.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #18 By JAMES "SPEAK OUT",

I am trying to understand HOW young alter boys KNEW about "gays" - "fags" - or "light in the loafers" within a Catholic Church setting and HOW they knew WHO was respectable and WHO was not. IS THIS WHAT WAS TAUGHT BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN PARISHES AROUND CORNWALL???

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #19 By RealityChecker

No man shall lie with another man as he lies with a woman. It is a statement similar to that. But if you JackAsses listened half as much as you complain you would probably know about it. I have to wonder if you mistook abuse for someone trying to beat some sense into you. But the again it never worked too well for the JackAsses either

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #20 By itinerant,

BUT ITINERANT....the padres who were "light in the loafers" were RESPECTABLE men - just like Charlie!!! QUOTE..."We had a couple of padres who seemed light in the loafers at the time and we avoided them at all cost.... we all did! One has since moved on and married and the other is making his way up the ranks. Both respectable men as is Charlie" Charlie is a self admitted "gay" (homosexual). He would obviously be laying with another man and cetainly wouldn't be laying with any woman!!!. Was he a JackAss too????

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #21 By RealityChecker

Nope he is more of a man then you would give him credit for. RealityChecker, are you stating that gays (homosexuals) are bad people?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #22 By itinerant

NO SIR/MAAM - it is YOU who said gays (homosexuals) are respectable people and so are those who are "light in the loafers". ..."Respectable men as is Charlie". YOU SAID IT!!! Charlie is a self admitted homosexual and I really don't think there is any place for homosexuals in the priesthood! Period! BTW...what colour loafers did Charlie wear???

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #23 By RealityChecker

Don't forget priests are committed to a life of celibacy - doesn't matter if they are fooling around with women or men - they are celibate!!! And if they can't commit to the celibacy - oust them!!!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #24 By RealityChecker

Ah Reality Checker your ignorance again shows strong. The so-called celibacy law is not a religious rule but a money issue that was instilled many years ago and never changed.It began as a law dictated by the pope because there was not enough money paid to priests to raise a family. Look at the bible the old prophets and priests had a wife and some had many women. Christ even had a love known as Mary of Magdalene

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #25 By itinerant,

As for Charlies loafers, i have no idea maybe Dave knows

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #26 By itinerant

That's not fair!!! You said you all knew who seemed to be "light in the loafers" You ALL did!! So don't brush me off - all I'm asking is what colour loafers did Charlie wear - light OR dark??? If you knew to stay away from those who were "light in the loafers" obviously by your definition you guided us to - you must have known what colour loafers everyone was wearing!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #27 By RealityChecker

Are you trying to tell me the vow of celibacy is/was a money issue and it still is today???Sorry I don't buy into that one!!! What's a vow - a religious rule or a money issue??? I know where I went to school/church. Where did you go???

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #28 By RealityChecker ,