On April 19, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto held a seminar of AIDS for its priests, with 300 or so in attendance. The original intent apparently had been to respond to the diocesan condom controversy. As it was, this theme only surfaced in the brief question-and-answer periods.
The emphasis of the Symposium was on AIDS and on compassion . Unfortunately, two of the main speakers, Dr. Stanley Read, an immunologist who specializes in AIDS, and Rev. Douglas Graydon, the Anglican Chaplain at St. Michael’s Hospital with specific care of AIDS patients, and a member of the Interfaith Committee on AIDS in Toronto, used the opportunity to push the pro-homosexual party line.
James Wingle
Father James Wingle, Catholic moral theologian, gave a sensitive analysis of the need for a true Christian response to AIDS. Towards the end of this presentation, dealing with the question of prevention, he rejected the condom as “no solution.” He described it as playing “Russian roulette,” as well as being a form on contraception and, therefore, unacceptable. The Church’s teaching on the latter was abundantly clear, he said.
Still, he added, in cases where contraception played no role, as in homosexuality, he did not think that the condom added to the malice of the act.
Inevitably, it was Father Wingle who had to field the question about Catholic social agencies handing out condoms. Could he explain how such use could be reconciled with the need to teach chastity, Fr. Tom McKillop asked )who noted that today only 15 per cent of young people go to Mass)?
It was Father Wingle’s opinion that this could only be justified in closely controlled situations, after counselors have carefully advised their clients of the consequences and unacceptability of their actions. Having failed to convince them, he thought they might try to prevent infection by handing them a condom. As far as he could see, that was not adding further malice to a bad act, but it might buy the person involved a little time. This should not be classified as “cooperating with evil,” he stated. This careful counseling in very special cases does not qualify as promoting condoms, he said. The latter he fully rejected.
Later in the afternoon, Msgr. Dennis Murphy, head of the Institute of Catholic Education (ICE) which published the much-criticized AIDS programme for the Toronto Catholic schools last fall, said he fully approved Catholic social agencies handing out condoms.
What, asked Msgr. Murphy, did Fr. Wingle think of Father Bela Somfai’s view that when the contraceptive element plays no role, condoms can be freely used by prostitutes and homosexuals, for example? (The Somfai article mentioned in The Interim in February was in the kit handed out to all the participants.)
Father Wingle demurred. All our lives we are involved to some extend in co-operating with various evils, he said, but here another degree of cooperation is at stake. He did not think Father Somfai’s general permission morally defensible.
Meanwhile, other speakers indicated that they were not willing to accept Father Wingle’s exception either, narrow and specific as it might be.
Party Line
These little skirmishes were only a small part of the symposium’s emphasis on AIDS. That part, however, was seriously marred by the pro-homosexual party line of two of the main speakers.
Stanley Read
Dr. Stanley Read is known to have described homosexuality to his students as an “alternate lifestyle.” Though his presentation was accordingly hailed by the Symposium Chairman, Father Paul Lennon, at the end of his speech as having presented true science, much of the first half – before he got to technical details about viruses – was in fact science fiction. The main themes of this party line, which is being propagated throughout the country, was as follows:
– AIDS is not a homosexual disease. Said Read, and I quote it… “will just as readily affect others.”
– It all started in Africa with a green monkey virus several hundred years ago. A bite or a scratch transferred the virus to man and then some 30 or 40 years ago the virus was transmuted into the deadly AIDS virus.
– Haitians are virus bearers.
– The virus cannot be transmitted except through blood, semen or vaginal secretions. Medical precautions, therefore, can be minimal. Studies such as the latest Masters and Johnson book are “hogwash.”
– It is important to tell people about condoms. Everything is fine with the condoms as long as they learn how to use it properly.
These declarations range from false to dubious. A mere three days before the Symposium, the AIDS statistics of Ontario showed that of the over 300 AIDS carriers currently in Toronto, 96 per cent are homosexuals. The idea that it all started in Africa with green monkeys several hundred years ago is science fiction. The virus appeared there some decades ago and has been spread through sexual promiscuity and the use of un-sterile needles in routine injections.
As a race, the Haitians are no more subject to the virus than Laplanders. What Dr. Read forgot to tell his audience is that in the sixties and early seventies, Haiti was a preferred vacation spot for North American homosexuals. The extreme poverty of the country made young boys cheap and easily sodomized.
Dr. Read might trash the Masters and Johnson study, but the fact remains that health officials are still groping in the dark about the HIR virus. It is propaganda and pressure that forces health personnel to let their guard down and omit safety measures, something which the medical profession has never permitted with any other communicable disease as long as its mode of operation remained unknown. For a more balanced view of how surgeons, for example, have to deal with AIDS patients, readers should consult the article about this in the Canadian Medical Association Journal of April 15, 1988.
As for condoms, Dr. Read gave himself away with his little escape clause, “if properly instructed,” immediately followed by his admission at being amazed at the “ignorance,” in reality, “resistance,” to it use. The Toronto Star’s evening edition of the day of the Symposium, April 19, stated it all in a single news item: in San Francisco only an estimated two to three per cent of sexually promiscuous teenagers use condoms.
Graydon
In the afternoon Anglican Minister Douglas Graydon represented the AIDS party line on the pastoral level. A few good points were buried under the mush: with illness compassion, not judgment, comes first; and help, nor argument is needed. But Graydon wanted more.
According to him, homosexuality is innate (“people have decided they were made that way”) and not choice. Therefore, there is no room for conversion, but only for acceptance. It is the newspapers that spread fear, in his opinion. One has to become comfortable with gays even to the point of finding them in bed together in the hospital, something that, he assured his audience, happens often enough with heterosexual couples.
Graydon trotted out the usual false arguments that the churches are not doing enough; that few things are black and white; that condoms should be promoted; that chaplains must not exhibit their biases such as believing homosexual activity to be immoral; that people should follow a path that suit themselves; that some homosexual love could not exist without the grace of God; (here Dr. Read backed him up:” there is something good and wholesome in homosexual love”); and that we must meet people “where they are at.” In other words, Graydon, assistant chaplain at St. Michael’s Hospital, made a bold stab at hoodwinking the Roman Catholic clergy while disingenuously allowing that “his tradition” was ever so more “broadminded.”
My first question is: what is Graydon doing at a Catholic hospital? A second question is: did he hoodwink the audience? Unfortunately, one can’t be certain he did not. At one point, one of his glib answers elicited applause from a dozen or so people in the audience.
A third question is: who selected Read and Graydon for the Symposium?
Alphonse de Valk, c.s.b., is a Catholic priest and a member of the Congregation of St. Basil.
