But Jesus Hid Himself

Originally published in 2016.

Today is the Fifth Sunday of Lent, which marks the beginning of Passiontide. In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (Novus Ordo), this isn’t usually noticeable, as Passiontide, a distinct period, has been removed. In the traditional calendar, it’s known as the First Sunday of the Passion, with Palm Sunday being the Second Sunday of the Passion. This period continues the gradual removal of liturgical elements and embellishments that began back at Septuagesima.

From First Vespers last night until the Paschal Vigil, the Gloria Patri is omitted after the Asperges on Passion Sunday, as well as from the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Introit, Lavabo, and Communion Antiphonal Psalms. In the Office, it’s also left out of certain Verses and Short Responsories. This reflects Jesus’ loss of earthly glory, a theme echoed in the readings and psalm antiphons during Mass and the Office. Those who oppose Him are now many, just as they were when He walked the earth. Those seeking His death are stepping forward, as are those seeking the destruction of His Church, even from within. Lent now shifts in focus—while penance continues, attention turns toward the Passion of Our Blessed Lord and His saving work of redemption.

Abbot Gueranger writes:

"During the preceding four weeks, we have noticed how the malice of Jesus' enemies has been gradually increasing. His very presence irritates them; and it is evident that any little circumstance will suffice to bring the deep and long-nurtured hatred to a head."

His Passion has begun, and His glory, as at Mount Tabor, is now hidden. In the modern liturgy, one practice that sometimes remains, depending on a parish’s tradition, is the veiling of the Crucifix and statues—though not the Stations of the Cross or window imagery. Once mandatory, it’s now optional. But why? Where did this tradition originate?

The tradition is believed to have started around the 9th century in Germany. At the beginning of Lent (a term derived in many languages from the Latin Quadregesimae, meaning forty days), a cloth known as a hungertuch, or hunger cloth, was used to cover the altar. This cloth was removed on the Tuesday of Holy Week during the reading of the Passion from St. Mark’s Gospel, at the moment when “The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” In the three-year cycle of the New Lectionary, the Gospels for this period no longer reflect the symbolism and beauty of Passiontide and the veiling. Instead, they all come from St. John’s Gospel in sequence: “I am the Resurrection and the Life;” “If a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it bears much fruit;” and, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

The shift away from the one-year Lectionary, in place since the time of St. Gregory the Great, was a serious mistake. The goals of the Second Vatican Council could have been met without disrupting the Church’s long-standing tradition of readings. A Lesson could have been added to the Sunday liturgy, and weekdays could have had their own Mass texts while still honouring the Sanctoral cycle. The Advent readings in the new Lectionary, however, are beautiful and could one day be incorporated into the old Lectionary. The three-year cycle remains problematic, as the Mass is not intended to be a Bible study, and the loss of what was once read is significant. For the Mass on the Fifth Sunday of Lent in the ancient Roman Missal, the Gospel read for over 1600 years until 1969 explained both the veiling and the reason for His death.

GOSPEL ¤ John 8. 46-59 † A continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. John.

At that time Jesus said to the multitudes of the Jews: Which of you shall convince Me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me? He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. The Jews therefore answered and said to Him: Do not we say well, that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honor My Father, and you have dishonored Me. But I seek not My own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep My word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that Thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the Prophets: and Thou sayest: If any man keep My word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost Thou make Thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing: it is My Father that glorifieth Me, of whom you say that He is your God, and you have not known Him: but I know Him: and if I shall say that I know Him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know Him, and do keep His word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it and was glad. The Jews therefore said to Him: Thou art not yet fifty years old: and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

“But Jesus hid Himself.”

According to St. Augustine, in that moment, through His divine nature, Jesus actually became invisible.

“He hides not himself in a corner of the temple as if afraid or running into a cottage or turning aside behind a wall or column; but by His Divine Power making Himself invisible he passed through their midst.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following:

205 God calls Moses from the midst of a bush that burns without being consumed: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."9 God is the God of the fathers, the One who had called and guided the patriarchs in their wanderings. He is the faithful and compassionate God who remembers them and his promises; he comes to free their descendants from slavery. He is the God who, from beyond space and time, can do this and wills to do it, the God who will put his almighty power to work for this plan.

"I Am who Am"

Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you', and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'. . . this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations."

CCC 206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.

CCC 207 By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past ("I am the God of your father"), as for the future ("I will be with you").12 God, who reveals his name as "I AM", reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them.

CCC 208 Faced with God's fascinating and mysterious presence, man discovers his own insignificance. Before the burning bush, Moses takes off his sandals and veils his face in the presence of God's holiness.13 Before the glory of the thrice-holy God, Isaiah cries out: "Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips."14 Before the divine signs wrought by Jesus, Peter exclaims: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."15 But because God is holy, he can forgive the man who realizes that he is a sinner before him: "I will not execute my fierce anger. . . for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst."16 The apostle John says likewise: "We shall. . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

Jesus revealed His identity to the Temple authorities, the leaders of Israel, in a way that left no doubt as to who He was. He spoke of knowing Abraham and had already declared His nature in seven profound statements: 

I Am the Bread of Life (John 6), 

I Am the Light of the World (John 8), 

I Am the Gate of the Sheepfold (John 10), 

I Am the Good Shepherd (John 10), 

I Am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11), 

I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14), and 

I Am the True Vine (John 15). 

When questioned about His age in relation to Abraham, He did not say, “Before Abraham was made, I was made,” which would have seemed delusional, but rather, “Before Abraham was made, I AM,” a declaration they fully understood. 

Now, He is hidden in our churches and chapels, unveiled only during the remembrance of His Crucifixion—“Ecce lignum Crucis,” “Behold the wood of the Cross on which hung the Saviour of the world, come let us adore Him.” In hiding Him, we also conceal the glory of His saints. Christ is shamed and humiliated by those He came to save, just as He was betrayed by the Jewish authorities of His time, and so too do we continue to betray Him today. 

Declaring Himself before all Israel to be the I AM of the Burning Bush, He was condemned to death for proclaiming Himself the very Son of God, indeed God Himself come to earth. An Anglican sermon from 1846 offers a remarkable meditation on Jesus hiding Himself, surpassing much of what is preached in many Catholic pulpits today—a period that would lead Saint John-Henry Newman home. Would that such preaching could be heard again. 

 

+ + +

SERMONS FOR SUNDAYS AND OTHER LITURGICAL OCCASIONS

CONTRIBUTED BY

BISHOPS AND OTHER CLERGY OF THE CHURCH.

EDITED BY THE REV. ALEXANDER WATSON, M.A., 

CURATE OF ST. JOHN'S, CHELTENHAM.

Second Series.  VOL. I.

OXFORD: J. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE: T. GREEN.

MDCCCXLVI. (1846)

Then took they up stones to cast at Him."

Thus are we brought down from the whole Gospel for the day to that portion of it which will engage our chief attention during the brief remainder of this morning's service. "But Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

1. Jesus "hid Himself," as man, in prudence: according to the will of His Heavenly Father. As He had been born in "the fullness of time," so it was at an appointed hour that He was to die. But "His hour was not yet come ": and He therefore avoided whatever might unduly quicken the course of events, or put forward the grand horologe of time. And this He did in obedience to the Will of His Heavenly Father. This obedience was the mainspring of His conduct throughout His earthly sojourn. "Lo I come to do Thy will, O God," was His motto from first to last; and never was it more fully translated into action than in all He did with regard to His final suffering and departure.

When that hour of mingled humiliation and glory, which compressed eternal interests within the compass of a few passing minutes; when that everlasting hour arrived, the holy and obedient Jesus yielded Himself at once into the power of His enemies. Thus, when Satan had entered into Judas Iscariot, Jesus said to the traitor, "What thou doest, do quickly." When Judas came to Him in the garden with men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, "Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said unto them, I am He." And when the impetuous Peter—the first to defend, the first to deny his Master—drew his sword and cut oft" the right ear of Malchus, the High Priest's servant, "then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" When Pilate would fain have released Him, and sought for some pretext for so doing in the replies of Jesus to his interrogatories, "Jesus gave him no answer." And at the last, when He saw that all was "finished,"—prophecy fulfilled, types realised, the preparations for His sacrificial Death complete, His Father's will wrought out,—He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost."

But until the arrival of that hour, His conduct was marked throughout by unexampled prudence. While He wrought His miracles before the multitude, and taught openly in the Temple, and in secret did nothing; while He boldly confuted and reproved the Pharisee, the Sadducee, and the Herodian, regardless of the enmity He thereby incurred; He carefully shunned the precipitation of His end. He had a mission of vast pregnancy and moment to discharge; and until this was done, He would not lay down that life which the Father had put into His power. Whenever danger became imminent, He withdrew Himself from the presence of those who sought to lay hands on Him and destroy Him. Thus, on the occasion immediately before us, when the infuriated Jews took up stones to cast at Him, "Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 

On a previous occasion, when the Pharisees held a council how they might destroy Him, Jesus “withdrew Himself from thence." On a subsequent occasion, similar to that of the text, when the Jews again sought to take Him, "he escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan." When the Sanhedrim, after the official prophecy of the unconscious Caiaphas, took counsel together to put Him to death, "Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with His disciples." Thus, throughout His whole earthly career, our Blessed Lord exercised a prudence of the highest order; enforcing by His own example the precepts He gave to His first disciples: "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves ;"—" When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another ." And these precepts, supported by this supreme example, and adapted to the exigencies of Christians at the present day, apply also to us. "As men may not be too tenacious, so neither may they be too profuse and lavish of life and the comforts of it," says Dean Stanhope; "lest, besides their present hardships, they find at last an indiscreet zeal returned, with a 'Who hath required these things at your hands?' Love indeed is apt and desirous to give over-measure, where it can: but still this must not be the effect of passion alone. Prudence should temper and direct it." 

"It is an office of prudence," says Bishop Taylor, "to serve God So that we may at the same time preserve our lives and our estates, our interest and reputation, for ourselves and our relations, so far as they can consist together. For Christian religion, carrying us to heaven, does it by the ways of a man; and by the body it serves the soul, as by the soul it serves God; and therefore it endeavours to secure the body and its interest, that it may continue the opportunities of a crown, and prolong the stage in which we are to run for the mighty prize of our salvation; and this is that part of prudence which is the defensative and guard of a Christian in the time of persecution: and it hath in it much of duty."

Thus far we have endeavoured to consider the conduct of our Blessed Lord, on the occasion under review, on its human side; as an exhibition of prudence and discretion. But it has a sublimer aspect than this; to which we now with reverence will turn.

Jesus “hid Himself," as God, in majesty; the majesty of displeasure. "He did not hide Himself," says St. Augustine, "in a corner of the Temple, as if He were afraid; or take refuge in a house, or run behind a wall, or a pillar; but, by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to His enemies, He went through the midst of them." Just before, He had said, "Before Abraham was I Am"; with evident reference to the Name revealed by the Lord to Moses, as recorded in the First Lesson for this morning's service; when He appeared to him in the burning but unconsumed bush, as he was keeping the flock of Jethro, the Priest of Midian, near the base of Mount Horeb. On that occasion, when Moses would have drawn nigh to see that great sight, the Lord forbad his nearer approach, and commanded him to unsandal his feet, because they were standing on holy ground. He, who required this reverence towards an inferior manifestation of Himself, would not permit the rude hand of violence to invade His incarnate glory. He "hid Himself" in the secret depths of His invisible Godhead.

There is, doubtless, a mystery in this; and we cannot fully understand why He, who submitted on so many occasions to endure the contradiction of sinners against Himself, refused on other occasions to undergo the indignities that wicked hands would have put upon Him. But a like mystery invested the whole of His earthly career. The darkest shades of humiliation were never permitted altogether to obscure His glory; while yet, that glory was so far hidden, that men despised Him and esteemed Him not. Great, however, as was the mystery of His commingling of glory and shame, the mystery of the manifestation of His glory alone was greater. He might have flashed forth devouring lightnings from the dark and surcharged cloud. He might have kindled into supernatural and overwhelming brightness the splendours of His Divine and resistless Presence. But He did none of these things. He manifested forth His glory by hiding Himself. When the Lord, in the days of old, would preserve righteous Lot and His prophet Elisha from the hand of violence, He smote their enemies with blindness; and so He might have done on this occasion: but, as the threatened indignity was greater, so was the punishment wherewith He visited it. "He hid Himself."

Awful are the exhibitions of Divine glory, when the Lord is raised up out of His holy habitation, and comes forth from His unseen depths to punish the ungodly. But these are as nothing when compared with the hidings of His face. When the Lord would denounce the severest judgments against Israel of old, He said to Moses, "Mine anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?" And when, on the other hand, He would confer upon His repentant people the greatest possible blessing, He said by the mouth of Ezekiel, "Neither will I hide My face from them any more: for I have poured out My Spirit upon the house of Israel."

The hidings of Jesus, in the days of His flesh, were yet more majestic and awful. He came into the world for the express purpose, among others, of manifesting the glory and the grace of God: so that to hide Himself was, as it were, to revoke His mission with regard to those from whom He thus withdrew. He abandoned them to the evil of their own hardened and unbelieving hearts, and left them to be filled with their own ways.

It is impossible to conceive anything more dreadful than the condition of the man from whom Jesus has hid Himself. Such a man sinks at once into a state of moral stupidity: he sins on without aim or purpose. Until Jesus hid Himself, the unbelieving Jews had an object against which to direct their malignant attacks; but when He could be no longer seen, their malice, though as virulent as ever, became wholly impotent and senseless. And so, when Jesus hides Himself from sinners of the present day,—who insult His majesty because it is concealed to the-eye of sense or mere reason (though not to the eye of faith), beneath mean and simple accidents,—He leaves them to perish as brute beasts. The force of argument and moral suasion having been tried upon them in vain, together with all other manifestations of the true and holy Jesus, He will no longer expose Himself to the rash temerity and blinded insolence of their invasions, but hides Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passes by.

The abstract contemplation of such a subject is too awful for man to dwell upon at any length; and we will therefore now consider it, (so hastening to a conclusion,) under its practical aspects and bearings.

But is it possible, men may ask, for persons at the present day to commit acts of insult and injury towards the Divine Jesus, akin to that of the blaspheming Jews when they took up stones to cast at Him? Alas, it is but too possible. "Certainly we cannot commit such open blasphemy; but it is another matter whether we cannot commit as great. For, often sins are greater, which are less startling; insults more bitter, which are not so loud; and evils deeper, which are more subtle." Although Christ is no longer on earth in bodily presence, He is here by His Spirit: and it is quite possible for men to repeat the offence of the blaspheming Jews by casting stones, so to speak, against either the Church, which is His Body; or the Sacraments, which are His Presence; or the Poor, who are His Brethren.

The Church is the Body of Christ, "the fullness of Him That filleth all in all:" and they who resist or blaspheme or persecute Her, do in effect resist and blaspheme and persecute Him. And such are not only, nor even chiefly, the openly wicked and profane; whose offences are of a different description: but those who deny the Divine authority of the Church, rejecting her principles for the opinions of men and the maxims of the world; those who deny her Apostolicity, treating her as a merely human and secular institution; those who invade her constitution, legislating for her on grounds of political expediency, and not according to the laws of Christ. "Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward." They refuse to acknowledge the Body of Christ in His corporate members; and He hides it from them. They are no longer permitted to behold the tokens of her presence. She becomes to them what they would have her be. In their eyes she has no form nor comeliness, although she is all-glorious within. But with these hidings of her beauty and this withdrawal of her presence, there comes not only an apparent abdication of her authority; leaving men to live as they list, according to the broad measures of the world, instead of the straight and narrow lines of eternity: but also the utter loss of her intercession and benediction. She no longer stands between the living and the dead. A silent curse spreads over the land she has abandoned to itself. The rulers have forsaken Christ, and Christ has forsaken them. The people would have it so, and their house is left unto them desolate.

"Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings:

Be learned, ye that judges of the earth.

Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,

And so ye perish from the right way,

If His wrath be kindled, yea but a little.

Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him."

Again, the Sacraments are the Presence of Christ. In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, He is present by His Spirit, Who, in answer to the prayers of the congregation, is given by our Heavenly Father to infants, when baptized, that they may be born again and be made heirs of everlasting salvation. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, He is really and spiritually present, being taken and received by the faithful as their heavenly food and divine life. 

Whoever, therefore, despises the Sacraments, despises Christ. Whoever denies their saving power, denies the Presence of the Saviour in them. Whoever in effect casts stones at these, as by cavils or contumely or neglect, does in reality thus cast stones at Christ. And then does the Son of God hide Himself from them in the majesty of displeasure; and Sacraments become to these persons what, in their rationalistic unbelief, they would have them be. 

Baptism, when administered by schismatics and pretenders to Holy Orders, fails to regenerate; and their own theory, that Baptism admits only to an outward union with a nominal church, is, in their own case, verified. The Communion is reduced to a formal commemoration of an absent Saviour. In both cases, as regards their own mere outward show of Sacraments, they are right. They have taken up stones to cast at the spiritually-present Jesus; and He has hidden Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passing by.

Lastly: the Poor are the Brethren of Jesus. They are so even in respect of their mere poverty; although it must not be concealed that the poor man who is a wilful sinner is severed from this communion and fellowship. But he, who is at once poor in this world and poor in spirit, is united by the closest bonds to the lowly Son of Mary. This is strikingly shown in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, wherein the Judge declares that whatsoever is done unto the least of the Hungry, the Thirsty, the Stranger, the Naked, the Sick, the Imprisoned,—being "the poor of this world," but " rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom," —is done unto Himself. Now, we all know how apt men are to "despise the poor." "There are kinds of distress founded on the passions, which, if not applauded, are at least admired in their excess, as implying a peculiar refinement of sensibility in the mind of the sufferer. 

Embellished by taste, and wrought by the magic of genius into innumerable forms, they turn grief into a luxury, and draw from the eyes of millions delicious tears. But no muse ever ventured to adorn the distresses of poverty or the sorrows of hunger. Disgusting taste and delicacy, and presenting nothing pleasing to the imagination, they are mere misery in all its nakedness and deformity." And therefore the many "despise the Poor." But in so doing, they despise Christ; and what is their punishment in consequence? Jesus might rend aside the veil of His humanity, and reveal Himself as God. He might put off the sordid dress of poverty, and clothe Himself with light as with a garment. But He inflicts a severer punishment than this—He hides Himself. The Poor no longer visibly bear upon them "the marks of the Lord Jesus "; and secular legislation, at once blind and self-confident, sets itself to relieve their distress by increasing their degradation. It brands the Poor Man as a Pauper, and consigns him to contempt and shame. Jesus has hidden Himself in majestic displeasure: and men of the world little dream that He will reveal Himself again at the Last Day, and avenge the cause of the poor and the oppressed!

"Oh, how much are they to be pitied, in whatever sphere they move, who live to themselves, unmindful of the coming of their Lord. When He shall come, and shall not keep silence; when a fire shall devour before Him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about Him; every thing, it is true, will combine to fill them with consternation: yet, methinks, neither the voice of the Archangel, nor the trump of God, nor the dissolution of the elements, nor the face of the Judge itself, from which the heavens will flee away, will be so dismaying and terrible to these men as the sight of the poor members of Christ; whom, having spurned and neglected in the days of their humiliation, they will then behold with amazement united to their Lord, covered with His glory, and seated on His throne! How will they be astonished to see them surrounded with so much majesty! How will they cast down their eyes in their presence! How will they curse that gold, which will then eat their flesh as with fire, and that avarice, that indolence, that voluptuousness, which will entitle them to so much misery! You will then learn that the imitation of Christ is the only wisdom: you will then be convinced it is better to be endeared to the cottage than admired in the palace; when to have wiped the tears of the afflicted, and inherited the prayers of the widow and the fatherless, shall be found a richer patrimony than the favour of princes."

H. H.

 https://books.google.ca/books?id=xogEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=text

Another look back on the Archdiocese of Toronto's gay mafia

Time to repost this.  They would rather my fellow Toronto Catholics knew nothing about this. There is a link to the original on the left. 

How many of these priests are still "active?" Well, any priest in Canada, in his late 60's and on, who attended St. Augustine's Seminary from at least 1970 knows what happened and that this is all true. 

Still today, they try to intimidate into silence. They threaten in many ways. One day, I will write the story of what they have tried to do, only to fail, numerous times.

"They are lying to us, they know they are lying to us, we know that they know they are lying to us, they know that we know that they are lying to us, and still, they lie." Paraphrased from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. 

Friday, 30 August 2024

A look back at The Desolate City of the Archdiocese of Toronto and a lost "Dialogue of Trust"

 

This post has been in the works for quite a while. I have mulled over it, slowly editing, transcribing, and cleaning up what I have found for publication from an old microfiche file. The events blogged about earlier this week (the sexual assault lawsuit against Thomas Rosica and the victim's gall, through his solicitor, to seek this writer as a witness) have caused me to consider it again. Therefore, I have decided to publish what follows. 

The purpose of this publication is to document an occurrence forty years ago and provide a historical record of certain activities at St. Augustine's Seminary in the Archdiocese of Toronto and the corruption of the times, the power and influence from the 1980s, which are still being felt today. One of the priests featured below is retired, yet, as recently as a few months ago, remained on the Archdiocesan Priests Council. This is not an accusation of anything untoward on the part of the new Archbishop, now Cardinal Francis Leo, Indeed, this history may likely be news even to him and if this provides any service to him, to know the history and the rot and expose those who have worked against the faith, then that alone is worth its publication. The Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Toronto have a right to be aware of things that happened forty years ago that have long been forgotten or covered up and still affect the Church today. Many think that we have had no crisis of sexual perversion or abuse. This is not true. What we have is enough money to buy off the victims and force them into signing non-disclosure agreements.

Let me raise some points of fact about the hushed-up scandals that happened here in the Archdiocese of Toronto:

• A certain highly placed cleric, a Monsignor, in the chancery, fathered at least two children whilst in his high clerical office of Chancellor of Spiritual Affairs and Vicar General. What became of the mother? He went on to become a successful financial executive and passed away in 2022.
• A priest professor at St. Augustine's Seminary raped and sodomized a young seminarian so badly that he was taken away by ambulance to repair the anal rupture. Years before, the Cardinal at the time, Aloysius Ambrozic, was told to get rid of him, to which he responded. "I have nobody else to teach liturgy." That injured seminarian was later ordained in the United States, where he remains in a religious order. He was ordained by a Toronto Auxiliary Bishop in Washington. Odd, no? Police were not called. Charges were not laid. The crime was never reported. It was covered up. The perpetrator is now dead and judged.
• That same priest professor in a former post as a religious order prior was a pastor in a Mississauga (west of Toronto) parish and could very well be responsible for at least two other priests he may have "groomed." One of these is an openly homosexual man who left the priesthood, played the piano as a lounge singer, married a woman, divorced her and now lives in a same-sex relationship with another man. The other, whose theology and priestly formation skills were warped by the 1960s and the radical and false "spirit of Vatican II",  was, in 1976, Toronto's own James Martin of his day. He rose to rank as Rector of St. Augustine's and later Judicial Vicar. You will read about him below. Both of these men were formed as youth or young priests under the same Friar in Mississauga.
• A certain "hunk" of a Monsignor with the same Irish surname as a then Toronto Police Chief was frequently brought home to the Rosedale mansion of Cardinal Carter, "daddy," drunk and in drag from the gay district on Church Street.
• Another priest professor at the seminary was known to fondle young men and worse, and was found coming out of the St. Charles Tavern on Toronto's Yonge Street and bragging about it in secular media.
• Several deaths of priests and professors from AIDS.
• The former Dean of Studies planned a "gay" retirement home.
• FORMER DEAN OF STUDIES AT TORONTO SEMINARY BUILDING RETIREMENT HOME FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS - LifeSite
• Toronto Builder Constructs First Gay and Lesbian Condos - LifeSite

In the photo of a book page above, the late Anne Roche Muggeridge refers to a document called "A Dialogue of Trust." It was written by the then Rector referred to above, who was fired for it, sent away to the Catholic University of America in Washington to study and then returned to the Archdiocese of Toronto and served at a senior level in the chancery structure as the Judicial Vicar. All true. He kept the keys to the vault on matters such as lawsuits, assaults and abuse. As referred to earlier, as of a few months ago, he still remained on the priests' council. As a point of personal reference, I actually attended his first Mass at St. Domenic's in Mississauga. My father was the family barber. 

These crimes and abuses happened in the age before the internet and search engines. The money of the Archdiocese silenced those whom it had to and forced non-disclosure agreements upon them. Stories abound about car accidents and bicycle accident deaths, one in particular of a prominent priest, but none can be proven. All of the information above has been given to me by priests of the Archdiocese of Toronto. They know. Some know more than others. All has been covered up, and all the names are known. As for the letter referred to by Anne Roche Muggeridge, nobody had a copy of "A Dialogue of Trust."  It disappeared into history, it was never written, it didn't exist, nobody had it, and it was not published and could not be found. Until now.

The Body Politic was a "gay" newspaper published monthly and founded in 1971, until it ceased publication in 1987. It was located on Yonge Street not far from that same St. Charles Tavern where the academic priest abuser hung out. After intensive searching, "A Dialogue of Trust" was found. It had been published in The Body Politic as part of a larger article on the attempt by Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter to "hide his gay purge" of St. Augustine's Seminary. It makes one ask, if not for the intrepid reporters at The Globe and Mail back then, certainly not on the side of the Church or Seminary, what would have happened? Would we have ever known? If all of those events above occurred under the administration of Cardinals Carter and Ambrozic how much worse would it have been without the reporting. It seems that after Cardinal Carter's "purge," only two seminarians were left. What of the others? How many went on after 1983 to be ordained, and were men who had or may have continued to act out their same-sex desires and attractions ordained,d and what has it meant for the Church in Toronto? How many of their mentors are still around to influence the Church in Toronto? Again, I repeat, part of the purpose of this post is as a public service to Archbishop Leo. 

What follows was transcribed from a microfiche copy by the writer. Bear in mind that it was written for an audience sympathetic to the cause.

TORONTO'S ARCHBISHOP TRIES TO HIDE HIS  GAY PURGE, BUT THE STORY GETS OUT

Cardinal slams the closet door

Tensions over the apparent presence of gay students in a seminary in Metropolitan Toronto have escalated, with the help of Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, into an anti-homosexual witch-hunt which has led to the dismissal of three faculty members and the expulsion of two students. 

Some details of the purge at St Augustine's Seminary in Scarborough, the preeminent school for the training of Roman Catholic priests in English-speaking Canada, were made public in two reports published by The Globe and Mail on September 7 and 8. The stories said that the Rev Brian Clough, St Augustine's rector, and the Rev Thomas Dailey, dean of studies, had been dismissed the first week of June and that the Rev John Tulk, a professor of church history, had been fired early in September. 

Globe reporters Stanley Oziewicz and Peter Moon uncovered the following facts: 

• Carter, the archbishop of Toronto, ordered the dismissals after an investigation of the seminary conducted at his request by the Most Rev Marcel Gervais, auxiliary bishop of London, Ontario; 

• Carter asked Gervais to investigate after coming into possession of a document about "tensions" between gay and straight seminarians that was distributed to St Augustine's sisters, students and faculty by Clough; 

• The tensions had arisen from allegations of homosexual behaviour at a party held in Tulk's rooms at the seminary. 

Beyond these few facts, little has been revealed about the origins of the dispute. Although he had reported the June dismissals when they occurred, Oziewicz first learned some of the details several weeks later from an anonymous letter. In their September stories, Oziewicz and Moon wrote: "Sources, including members of the faculty and student body at the seminary, members of religious orders and laymen, agreed to talk for this article provided they were not identified. Many feared for their future careers if their names were used...." TBP's own investigation has encountered similar fears. Most of those interviewed said they feared retaliation by Cardinal Carter. A priest told TBP: "The diocese is actively trying to find out who gave that information to The Globe and Mail." A member of a religious order commented: "He (Carter) doesn't show any sensitivity toward people, so they're afraid to speak out." When told TOP had been able to learn much of the story and would publish it, the member added, "It will do a lot of good because it shows how they really operate." 

In addition to those quoted, TBP's account of the tensions leading to the dismissals and expulsions has been gathered from a well-placed source who wishes to remain anonymous, and from documents which have come into our possession. Brian Clough could not be reached for comment. A copy of this article was sent to Margaret Long, Assistant to the Director of Communications of the Archdiocese of Toronto, for comment, but she did not return any of TBP's calls.

Cardinal Carter: a secret operation against creeping Protestantism and homosexuality

The presence of suspected gay students in the seminary apparently first became an issue during the 1982/83 seminary year when some first-year students complained about the campy behaviour of some other students. The issue was taken up by an informal group of about a dozen conservative seminarians who were united by their dissatisfaction with the faculty's generally liberal interpretation of Catholic theology. They came to be known as "the machos." Defenders of those accused were dubbed "the effeminates," the group to which the two students who were expelled belonged. Most students belonged to neither. (According to Oziewicz and Moon, Gervais found that between six and 12 of the approximately 50 students were "homosexually oriented." Our source suggests that even Gervais's upper figure may be much too low.) 

Gossip and paranoia flourished. Dennis Hayes, a seminarian who says he belonged to neither group, explained: "When you group a number of people you have a fishbowl type of effect; when people start talking, these things spread.. an innocent comment can turn into a vicious attack." 

In March 1983 several students were criticized in their written year-end evaluation by faculty for their "feminine mannerisms." 

A month later, the authors of an annual letter from students to faculty complained that the faculty was tolerating a "vigilante group" that was harassing suspected gay students. The letter also said that criticism of some students for their mannerisms had exacerbated the situation.

By September it appeared that the letter had had some effect: at the week-long retreat which starts the school year, most of the faculty who spoke of the matter called for tolerance of differences in the seminary. 

But the complaints continued. Charles Lewis, a former RCMP employee said to be in the "macho group" — an allegation which he did not deny — told TBP he himself had lodged a complaint about sexual activity in the seminary: "guys doing things they shouldn't be doing." But he admitted he hadn't witnessed such activity himself. On the other side, rumours flew that "the machos" were searching

Toronto's gay bars for seminarians.

TBP has found no evidence to support this allegation. 

Tensions between the two factions became so acute that, in the late fall, Clough held separate meetings with members of the two groups and with unaligned students in an attempt to cool the dispute.

But after a party held in Tulk's rooms following a joint religious service with Anglican seminarians on January 26 of this year, events started to spiral out of control. Although Gervais later was to find that nothing amiss had occurred at the party, rumours circulated of drunkenness and homosexual activity. 

In a speech delivered to St Augustine's seminarians at a special house meeting six days later, Clough criticized "the rumour mill" and appealed for an end to gossip about the party. On February 8 he met again with members of the factions and other students, this time in a joint meeting. 

Then, on March 19, a three-page letter, "A Dialogue in Trust," apparently written by someone who had been at the February meeting, was distributed on Clough's authority to the seminary's students, faculty and sisters. 

Compassion and the Cardinal 

The Archbishop of Toronto knows how to pick friends, and if you're not one of them. . . . 

"CARDINAL CARTER AIDS DAVIS: No Solidarnosc for T.T.C. Workers" — that was the heading on a leaflet twitting Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, archbishop of Toronto, for backing strikes in Poland while opposing a threatened transit strike at home that would have cut into attendance at, and profits from, the recent papal tour. 

Carter, a close friend of John Paul II, was a supporter of the Second Vatican Council, which reformed the Catholic Church. Yet, his critics say, Carter is more zealous for the letter of the reforms than for their spirit. Last year, when the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops issued an economic report that blamed the profit motive for widespread poverty and unemployment, Carter disavowed the document, siding with the outraged bankers and industrialists. And early this year he authored a pastoral letter which condemned attempts to elaborate a Catholic theology that would allow birth control, abortion and the ordination of women.

Carter's record on gay issues is not completely black. He once wrote a report on police/minority relations which devoted a few lines of criticism to homophobic verbal abuse. But he has also barred the local chapter of Dignity, the gay Catholic organization, from the use of a church for their meetings and has told homophobic jokes to an audience of police officers. The fear and silence surrounding the purge at St Augustine's Seminary point not just to the man's power, but to the way he exercises it. "Insensitive" is the word which most often comes to the lips of his critics. But Carter may have inadvertently illuminated the issue when he dismissed Thomas Dailey. According to the press reports, he told the priest, "You are much too compassionate." Perhaps it is not others, who are too compassionate, but the Cardinal who is not compassionate enough. Although unsigned, the names of Clough and three students appeared at the bottom of the letter. A notable feature of this letter is its twice-stated concern that news of the tensions within the seminary might get beyond its walls. The fearful reference to "having 'outsiders' resolve those issues for us" appears to have been an allusion to Cardinal Carter.

"A Dialogue in Trust" proved to be the means of betrayal: within a few days, a copy had been conveyed to Carter. And by the second week of April, Gervais had begun his investigation into theological and sexual deviation at St Augustine's.

In the purge of St Augustine's, a harmonious constellation of authoritarianism, sectarianism and homophobia can be seen at work. Since the Second Vatican Council, part of the Catholic clergy and laity have been moving away from both the church's traditional insistence on authority as the source of truth and the concomitant paranoia about Protestant theologies. The council suggested that truth is not absolute, that a changing world can pose new questions and demand new answers.

St Augustine's Seminary has been influenced by this new current in Catholicism and has exposed its students to the interaction of social activism and feminism with traditional teachings. As one of the eight theological colleges that jointly make up the Toronto School of Theology, an ecumenical project, the seminary has encouraged an open-minded comparison of Protestant and Catholic beliefs.

But as the new Catholicism has developed, so has the conviction among some Catholics that the revolt against authority and the flirtation with Protestantism — often the same thing to their eyes — have gone too far. It is common knowledge in the Diocese of Toronto that Cardinal Carter and other conservatives are less than fond of St Augustine's, where the now thin trickle of future priests — the seminary's approximately 50 students rattle about in a building that could hold 200 — are thought to be in danger of contamination by rebellion and creeping Protestantism. Once Carter had indisputable evidence that the place of homosexuals in the priesthood was, however informally and tentatively, being explored at the seminary, he struck.

The purge was carried out in a secrecy induced by fear: everyone who knew, even the victims, was too intimidated to speak out. To this day, Carter refuses to say why the firings occurred. Gervais's report remains a secret.

According to the Globe, although Clough, Tulk and the tenured Dailey were instructors at the Toronto School of Theology, the Cardinal ordered them to resign without any explanation to the school. Carter told TST officials that any protest from them over his neglect of due process could result in the withdrawal of St Augustine's from the joint project.

Some of the homophobia was blatant. Gervais is reported to have asked students about homosexual activity, but not about heterosexual activity. And he told faculty they should not admit gay students to the seminary. When the teachers protested that there is nothing in the rules about the sexual orientation of priests, he backed off slightly but still insisted that a gay seminarian would have to have been chaste for five years before admission. Apparently, he made no such stipulation for heterosexual applicants.

But to speak of discrimination is merely to scratch the surface; the homophobia here is deeper and subtler than that.

A trust betrayed The confidential dialogue that didn’t stay confidential

What follows is the complete, unedited text of ' 'A Dialogue in Trust, ' ' the letter circulated by St . Augustine's Seminary Rector Brian Clough to students and faculty on March 19, of this year. (1983)

The following are reflections on discussions that occurred during the past year in regard to issues and tensions that were present in the house. These discussions were alluded to in Fr. Clough's address to the house in February. Initially, Fr. Clough met with three distinct groups composed of second, third, and fourth-year students. These groups represented different viewpoints on tensions that were growing within the first few months of the seminary year. The three distinct meetings allowed students to articulate their perceptions of what was occurring within and between emerging factions. These meetings were completed by the end of the first term. A collective meeting of the three groups took place a week after Fr. Clough's February address.

The purpose of the collective meeting was to provide a forum for dialogue and for the definition of issues that each group perceived. A second issue was to receive feedback on Fr. Cough's February intervention in regard to the house social with Trinity College. It was hoped that the meeting would be an initial step toward resolution of various problems. The meeting began with an attempt to identify what the problems were. The general consensus was that there was misunderstanding of viewpoints, attitudes, and behaviors. This was characteristic of all, not of a certain few. It was recognised that many of us did not know each other well enough and were unsure about positions held, which generated unease and, perhaps, a little suspicion. Within an institution there will be a broad range of personalities and attitudes. Such a situation can all too easily lead to conflict, which itself produces intolerance and insensitivity. It was felt that we were categorizing each other as to lifestyle and orientation. It should be noted that in Fr. Clough's February address there was mention made of a general nosiness of other's business and a consequent breakdown in trust. The problem, then, was one of misunderstanding and unfamiliarity that led to insensitivity and intolerance. Discussion ensued with each group expressing its feelings on the problem. It was felt that each group was given a free and equal opportunity to express their views. As the discussion progressed, it became evident that group boundaries were breaking down and that each was expressing his views as an individual, rather than as a representative of a group.

It became clear that the issue would be lost if the discussion were limited to the surface problem: that is, a tension between those perceived to be "macho" and those perceived to be "effeminate". It was agreed that such exclusive terms are damaging and denigrating. It is all too easy to categorize someone because he acts differently. The issue was then not how to limit those who act differently, but how to come to know the other with greater appreciation and understanding of his uniqueness.

 Five main points were made during the discussion:

 1: to equate homosexuality with effeminate behavior is false. A person's sexual orientation should not become a preoccupation for others. The issue is not one of homosexuality or heterosexuality within or outside the seminary, but one of sensitivity to others who may be different than ourselves.

 2: it is important to be sensitive to the effect that our behavior has on others and the possible effects or perceptions that can result from the cumulative effect of group behavior in a particular situation.

3: it should be recognized that feelings of being threatened by another's uniqueness have their source within ourselves and must be resolved within ourselves. The problem should not be 'how can I change the other', but 'how can I come to terms with myself so that I can appreciate the other more'.

4: out of an ignorance of another's pain can come a desire to avoid that individual because he is different. Thus the challenge must be recognized: to confront someone with a problem is harder than not dealing with him. 

5: the seminary community has a right to resolve its own issues without having them communicated outside the house or having "outsiders" resolve those issues for us. 

The immediate results of the meeting were generally positive. It was felt that dialogue which occurred within the context of the meeting could be transferred to a less formal setting. Much misunderstanding was identified and corrected. It may be correct to say that tolerance was learned and that out of that learning came a greater appreciation and comfort with others who were different than ourselves: that is, a tolerance that was embedded in charity and mutual respect. With the reduction of tension through the expression of difficulties came a more relaxed atmosphere in the house. An important result was that the "silent majority" spoke-up and took an active part in the discussions. It was agreed that the meeting was an initial step to the resolution of the issue. Though the issue was not totally resolved, the meeting provided an opportunity to dialogue in trust. 

The less immediate results were just as important. The meetings that occurred this year served as a first step to dialogue that can and will hopefully occur in years to come. It was recognized that there will always be problems in institutional living and that these problems should be addressed. Thus, the path was opened to future dialogue. It was suggested that the services of professionals, such as Sister Dickson, be employed in addressing issues such as sexuality, spirituality, tolerance, etc. It has been suggested that an opportunity be provided for year groups to reflect on the year with their representatives to the extended faculty meetings. It was also suggested that new students precede returning students at the start of the year by a day or two in order to better prepare them for seminary life and to ease the process of assimilation. In all, these discussions came out of an experience of grace; an experience that was felt by the whole seminary community. The meeting of the collective closed with the hope and the positive anticipation of greater interpersonal communication and friendship 

19 MARCH 1984 

M. CENERINI

FR. B. CLOUGH 

J. MURPHY

D. REILANDER 

This document has been distributed to the sisters, faculty, and students of St. Augustine's Seminary. Its purpose is specifically for the members of the house, i.e. the document is confidential to members of the house. This is why the document has not been posted on the bulletin board.

END OF A "DIALOGUE OF TRUST"

Single-sex institutions in the world. 

Homosexual activity is inevitable; that a certain fraction of its members will be gay is inevitable. Yet it remains a great unspoken concern. Mary Malone, a St Augustine's faculty member, says: "The presence of gay students among seminarians is not new. Until recently, we pretended it wasn't there." 

The St Augustine's purge was directed not so much against gay seminarians as against those, gay or straight, students or faculty, who dared to break the silence — to push or pull open the closet doors just a crack. The purge would be a warning to those still in the closet to stay there. That's perhaps why only two students were asked to leave the seminary, although Gervais estimated that there were as many as 12 "homosexually inclined" students there. That could be the meaning of Carter's explanation to reporters of Clough's dismissal: "To talk about it is one thing, but to put it in print (in "A Dialogue of Trust") is a problem." 

Malone describes Clough and Tulk as "honest, compassionate men." "Their integrity," she says, "helped something come into the open that others would have preferred to keep secret." Clough, Dailey and Tulk are gone from St Augustine's, but those responsible failed in their goal. The secret is now out in the open.

+ + + 

The Rector referred to above, Father Brian Clough, after being fired for the scandal went on to become the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto. This article is from the Globe and Mail on May 8, 1976. As of a few months ago, Clough was still on the Priest's Council.