this may seem like it's shifting the blame, but i actually think it's extremely important and am in full support of not just asking him once but being vocal about the central problem being that the church was given too much autonomy to do something that should have been overseen more directly by the state.

that's going to upset people, too. but, listen..

colonialism has it's own set of interests, and they're hardly benign - sure. but, they're also actually directly opposed to raping and beating colonized groups to the point that they can't even function. i know that people want to create a kind of monolithic concept of colonialism as this force of aimless evil, and it's certainly always been disinterested in human rights, but it was not aimless: it was intended to maximize extraction. in the canadian example, the church was actually acting against both the short-term interests of colonialism (these populations were not converted into anything but dependants; they were utterly devastated) and the long-term interests of it as well (the state wanted to convert them into productive farmers that would further the colonial project, not reduce them to generationally dependent wards of the state).

this is tricky language. but, i don't think there's an answer in walking on eggshells. nor can we turn the clocks back. we need to be looking at more benevolent ways to integrate. what that means is agreeing on the barbarity of the catholic church as we try and move past their crimes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-apologize-residential-schools-1.4124212