Cardinal slams the closet door
Tensions over the apparent presence of gay students in a seminary in Metropolitan Toronto has
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 were distributed to St Augustine's sisters, students and faculty by Clough;
(NOTA BENE: This was referred to in The Desolate City by Anne Roche Muggeridge - Vox Cantoris)
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 (The Body Politic-Vox) 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." And 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 have been gathered from a well-placed source who wishes to remain anonymous, and from documents that 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.
The presence of suspected gay students in Cardinal Carter: a secret operation against creeping Protestantism and homosexuality 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 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 evalu-
ation 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 let-
ter 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 do-
ing things they shouldn't be doing." But
he admitted he hadn't witnessed such ac-
tivity 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 be-
came so acute that, in the late fall,
Clough held separate meetings with mem-
bers of the two groups and with un-
aligned 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 drunk-
ness 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. And 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 Diaglogue in Trust," apparently writ-
ten by someone who had been at the Feb-
ruary meeting, was distributed on
Clough's authority to the seminary's stu-
dents, faculty and sisters (see box next
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, arch-
bishop of Toronto, for backing strikes in
Poland while opposing a threatened transit
strike at home that would have cut into at-
tendance 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 Cana-
dian Council of Catholic Bishops issued an
economic report that blamed the profit
motive for widespread poverty and unem-
ployment, Carter disavowed the docu-
ment, siding with the outraged bankers
and industrialists. And early this year he
authored a pastoral letter which con-
demned attempts to elaborate a Catholic
theology that would allow birth control,
abortion and the ordination of women.
( arter's record on gay issues is not com-
pletely black. He once wrote a report on
police/minority relations which devoted a
few lines of criticism to homophobic ver-
bal abuse. But he has also barred the local
chapter of Dignity, the gay Catholic or-
ganization, 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 inadver-
tently 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. KP
I
IIU BODY POl ILK NOVEMBER NS4
page). Although unsigned, the names of
Clough and three students appeared at
the bottom of the letter. A notable fea-
ture of this letter is its twice-stated con-
cern 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 harmo-
nious 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 par-
anoia about Protestant theologies. The
council suggested that truth is not abso-
lute, that a changing world can pose new
questions and demand new answers.
St Augustine's Seminary has been in-
fluenced by this new current in Catholi-
cism and has exposed its students to the
interaction of social activism and femin-
ism with traditional teachings. As one of
the eight theological colleges that jointly
make up the Toronto School of Theo-
logy, an ecumenical project, the seminary
has encouraged an open-minded compar-
ison of Protestant and Catholic beliefs.
But as the new Catholicism has devel-
oped, 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 rat-
tle about in a building that could hold 200
— are thought to be in danger of contam-
ination by rebellion and creeping Protes-
tantism. 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 mere-
ly to scratch the surface; the homophobia
here is deeper and subtler than that. The
Catholic hierarchy is one of the largest
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 A ugustine 's Seminary
Rector Brian Clough to students and fac-
ulty on March 19 of this year.
The following are reflections on discus-
sions 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 percep-
tions of what was occuring within and be-
tween 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. dough's February inter-
vention 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 meet-
ing 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 genera-
ted 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 in-
sensitivity. It was felt that we were categor-
izing each other as to lifestyle and orienta-
tion. It should be noted that in Fr. Clough's
February address there was mention
made of a general nosiness of other's busi-
ness and a consequent break -down in
trust. The problem, then, was one of mis-
understanding and unfamiliarity that led
to insensitivity and intolerance.
Discussion ensued with each group ex-
pressing 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 break-
ing 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 dam-
aging and denigrating. It is all too easy to
categorize someone because he acts differ-
ently. The issue was then not how to limit
those who act differently, but how to come
to know the other with greater apprecia-
tion and understanding of his uniqueness.
Five main points were made during the
discussion:
1 : to equate homosexuality with effemin-
ate behavior is false. A person's sexual
orientation should not become a preoccu-
pation for others. The issue is not one of
homosexuality or heterosexuality within or
outside the seminary, but one of sensitiv-
ity 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 dia-
logue 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 re-
duction of tension through the expression
of difficulties came a more relaxed atmos-
phere 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 in-
itial 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 al-
ways be problems in institutional living
and that these problems should be ad-
dressed. Thus, the path was opened to fu-
ture dialogue. It was suggested that the ser-
vices of professionals, such as Sister Dick-
son, 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 ex-
tended faculty meetings. It was also sug-
gested that new students precede returning
students at the start of the year by a day or
two inorder to better prepare them for
seminary life and to ease the process of as-
similation. In all, these discussions came
out of an experience of grace; an experi-
ence that was felt by the whole seminary
community. The meeting of collective
closed with the hope and the positive anti-
cipation of greater interpersonal commun-
ication 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. Augus-
tine's Seminary. Its purpose is specifically
for the members of the house, i.e. the doc-
ument is confidential to members of the
house. This is why the document has not
been posted on the bulletin board.
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 un-
spoken concern. Mary Malone, a St Aug-
ustine's faculty member, says : "The
presence of gay students among seminar-
ians is not new. Until recently, we pre-
tended 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, al-
though Gervais estimated that there were
as many as 12 "homosexually inclined"
students there. That could be the mean-
ing 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 Augus-
tine's, but those responsible failed in their
goal. The secret is now out in the open.